SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1999, AT 7:00 PM.
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, Lee Pavăo, Julie McClintock, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Police Major Gregg Jarvies, Planner J. B. Culpepper, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Planner Chris Berndt, Housing Director Tina Vaughn, Administrative Fire Chief Lewis Atwater, Transportation Planner David Bonk, Engineering Director George Small, Library Director Kathy Thompson, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Parks and Recreation Administrative Analyst Bill Webster, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1. Ceremonies (none)
Item 2. Public Hearings (none)
Item 3. Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
Mayor Waldorf suggested starting with announcements, since there were more petitions than announcements.
3c. Announcement by Council Members.
Council Member Kevin Foyreviewed the Council’s accomplishments for the two-year period of 1997-1999: The Council developed a new zoning district that specifically addressed the need for affordable housing and applied the district to the Scarlett Drive development. Mayor Waldorf appointed a committee to initiate a dialogue with Blue Cross/Blue Shield which resulted in a plan to keep the company in the community. The Council had appointed and worked with a committee to overhaul the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, and had worked cooperatively with Carrboro, Hillsborough and Orange County to form an agreement to transfer solid waste management to Orange County.
Council Member Foy noted the Council also worked with Meadowmont developers to refine the hotel and office components of the project and as a result gained overall community benefits, including a $50,000 contribution to affordable housing. They had moved forward on stormwater management initiatives, which included funding a new staff position to monitor and develop policies. And, they overhauled the Town’s staff payplan and achieved greater pay equity.
Council Member Foy noted the Council worked with the owners of University Mall to develop an environmentally and economically viable renovation of the shopping center. He said they held tax increases over the two-year period to an average of 1.25 cents per year.
Council Member Foy pointed out all of this had been achieved in conjunction with the Town staff and Manager, who, Council Member Foy said, had done an excellent job.
Council Member Wiggins noted the First Baptist Church and Reverend Manley had received a federal grant of $3.3 million to construct forty-one units of elderly housing. She said they also had received $513,000 for rent subsidy over a five-year period. Council Member Wiggins stated the Council had given the church the seed money to get the project going. She announced there would be a celebration at the church on December 2nd and all Council Members were invited.
Mayor pro tem Capowskiannounced on Wednesday, December 1 from 12:15 to 1:15 p.m., would be a walk to honor Doctor Matsukawa, who was recently killed by an automobile on Manning Drive. He explained the walk would start at the corner of South Columbia Street and Manning Drive. Mayor pro tem Capowski encouraged the University and the Town to take further steps to enhance the safety of pedestrians.
MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO MOVE AGENDA ITEM 17A TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Waldorf announced the Council had agreed to change the date for its retreat from January 15th to January 14th, 2000. Accordingly, she asked that R-23 be moved to the Consent Agenda.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO MOVE R-23 REGARDING THE COUNCIL’S RETREAT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Waldorf announced the community support for the flood-damaged community of Speed was continuing and some Chapel Hill citizens, including Josh Gurlitz and Bruce Ballentine, would be taking fifty-two pre-cooked, frozen turkeys to Speed. She said she would compile a list of all the activities the Town was doing for Speed and make a report after the holidays. Mayor Waldorf added Chapel Hill residents should feel good about the efforts citizens are making on behalf of Speed.
Town Manager Cal Horton noted volunteers from the Town would be going there again on December 4th. He added there still was time to sign up for the trip.
Mayor Waldorf stated agenda item 16 was not ready to come before the Council.
3a. By Debi Bird regarding the Police Department.
Ms. Bird described the emotional and financial stress she had suffered as a result of unfair treatment by two Chapel Hill police officers. She said her experience may explain why the Town Council had not heard from more citizens about such issues. Ms. Bird also expressed fear she would not be able to get good service if she needed to dial 911. She stated the police have been given too much power and suggested there be more checks and balances to moderate their behavior. Ms. Bird also reported the encounter with the police had affected her insurance rate, and asked for assistance from the Town.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK, TO RECEIVE THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Waldorf assured Ms. Bird she would receive the same service as anyone else in the community if she dialed 911.
3b. By Stephen Greenberg regarding telephone service in Silver Creek subdivision.
Mayor Waldorf explained Mr.Greenberg had talked to her earlier in the week and she had suggested he put his complaint in the form of a written petition. She added she had spoken to other GTE customers, who live in Chapel Hill city limits, that the same concerns as Mr. Greenberg. Mayor Waldorf said she had encouraged those citizens to send their concerns in writing to the Council.
Council Member Evans, noting Mr. Greenberg had wanted a phone book, pointed out there are phone books available at the Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce, free of charge.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND THE LOCAL LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3c. By Miles Pressler regarding EmPOWERment, Inc.
Mr. Pressler asked the Council to commit $66,000 in GAF financing for EmPOWERment’s small business incubator project. He said EmPOWERment did not get the zero interest grant they had anticipated and as a result their funding would be in jeopardy by the end of December. Mr. Pressler explained EmPOWERment would not actually need the money until the building is completed in late July 2000, but needed a funding commitment in order to keep their largest loan of $446,000. Mr. Pressler pledged EmPOWERment would continue its fund-raising efforts, including applying for Community Development funds early next year.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out this was not a petition, but a request for the Council to act tonight. She noted this was not the Town Council’s usual procedure.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Horton if the money could come out of next year’s budget. Mr. Horton replied that it could, adding it could also come out of the General Fund budget this year. Mr. Horton explained it could not come out of Community Development funding because it would violate the Council’s own process of public consideration before committing those funds.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Horton for a recommendation. Mr. Horton recommended EmPOWERment apply for Community Development funds. Noting the Community Development process would not be completed before EmPOWERment’s December 31st deadline, he explained the Council could commit General Fund money and then go through the process of considering it for Community Development funds in competition with other agencies.
Council Member Bateman asked how much was in the General Fund balance. Mr. Horton replied he did not recall the exact figure but $66,000 would not do it serious damage.
Council Member Brown asked if the funds could be considered “a loan of sorts” which would be returned to the General Fund if EmPOWERment received other funding. Mr. Pressler replied they had received a matching grant of $50,000 as part of their GAF, but this would be conditional upon them getting at least $50,000 in grant funds. For these reasons, Mr. Pressler pointed out, it would be best if EmPOWERment could get a commitment of grant funds. He noted there were three other grants pending, and EmPOWERment would do its best, if need be, to convince their lenders to accept this as a loan.
Council Member Foy asked how much money the Town had committed to the project. Mr. Pressler replied it was $150,000, of which about $142,000 had been spent.
Mayor pro tem Capowski suggested making a commitment of General Fund moneys of $66,000. He recommended adding the condition since the money would not be needed until the beginning of the next fiscal year when EmPOWERment could receive Community Development funds to buy back commitment.
Mr. Horton asked Mr. Pressler if Mayor pro tem Capowski’s suggestion would satisfy the conditions he is trying to meet. Mr. Pressler said conditional agreements were sometimes “fuzzy.” He suggested adding the condition EmPOWERment would apply for other sources of funding, including Community Development funds and grants, to replace these funds.
Mayor Waldorf pointed out this was “extremely last minute.” She told Mr. Pressler the Council does not typically make five-minute decisions about borrowing money from the fund balance.
Mr. Horton pointed out such a commitment would be an encumbrance against the General Fund from an accounting standpoint. He added the Council should think of it as a commitment rather than a loan because there would be no guarantee EmPOWERment would be able to replace it.
Mayor Waldorf asked if EmPOWERment also needed other sources of funding for the project. Mr. Pressler replied this would be the balance of what they need.
Council Member Bateman pointed out, since EmPOWERment asks for funding every year, their share of Community Development funds could be forfeited next year to pay back the loan if that had not been done.
Council Member Wiggins said if the Council decided to do this, then EmPOWERment should not apply for those funds next year.
Council Member Bateman suggested this could be the understanding if EmPOWERment is unable to pay back their “almost loan/really grant.”
Mayor pro tem Capowski noted the Town cannot reimburse the General Fund with Community Development funds.
Mayor Waldorf asked when the federal fiscal year would begin. Mr. Horton replied it begins on October 1st.
Mayor Waldorf asked if making a commitment of funds tonight would mean it would come out of Town funds “period.” Mr. Horton replied it would.
Mayor Waldorf summarized Council Members Bateman’s and Wiggins’ suggestion that making a grant to EmPOWERment now would mean they would not be at the front of the line for Community Development money next year. She pointed out, though, they could not reimburse the General Fund with Community Development funds. Mr. Horton replied there is sufficient unallocated money in the Community Development program this year for this project.
Council Member Foy asked how much notice is required for a public hearing for Community Development funds. Town Planner Chris Berndt replied it would be at least a couple of weeks, adding there would then be an approval process.
Council Member Evans pointed out EmPOWERment needed only a pledge of General Fund money. She noted they do not need the actual funds until July 2000 and there would be time for the Community Development funds process to happen in the meantime. Mr. Horton added the Council could pledge to find an unspecified funding source and then initiate the CD process. Mr. Pressler replied this would be ideal. Mr. Horton pointed out doing this would avoid the problem of trying to have HUD funds replace local government funds, which would violate the rules.
Mayor Waldorf noted the Council could continue the meeting until the next day’s scheduled meeting and take official action then.
Council Member Brown suggested calling an emergency public hearing within the next two weeks. Mr. Horton cautioned against varying from the established process for obtaining Community Development money.
Mayor pro tem Capowski suggested the staff come back with a written suggestion for the following night’s meeting.
Mr. Pressler commented he could not commit to the suggestion that EmPOWERment give up its place in the competition for future Community Development money.
Council Member Wiggins responded she had meant the Council would remember they had come up with $66,000 in the ninth hour. She added she certainly expected Mr. Pressler to ask for funding next year.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE REQUEST TO THE TOWN MANAGER FOR A REPORT ON HOW TO FUND THE PROJECT AND IF THERE IS A WAY TO SPEED UP THE HEARING PROCESS TO COME BACK AT THE CONTINUATION OF THE MEETING REGARDING THE REQUEST ON NOVEMBER 23RD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3d. By Alan Rimer regarding the Neighborhood-based forums to discuss the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rimer suggested the Council embrace and tentatively approve the Comprehensive Plan as an interim measure and then seek public comment in small forums. He petitioned the Council to ask the staff to consider the development of a neighborhood-based forum to review the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Rimer suggested these forums present targeted questions seeking specific input as well as open-ended discussions.
3e. By Alan Rimer regarding a new Development Ordinance to conform to the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rimer noted the Town’s current Development Ordinance would not be able to keep pace with the new development plan as spelled out in the Comprehensive Plan. He asked the Council to request the staff to consider making a funding request in the coming budget cycle for a consultant to help revise the Development Ordinance. Mr. Rimer added the revision process should seek input from those who would be most impacted by the new Development Ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER MR. RIMER’S PETITIONS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3f. By Dan Jewel requesting expedited review of the Special Use Permit and Zoning Compliance Permit for the Delta Kappa Epsilon House.
Mr. Rimer explained due to major health and safety issues at the house at the corner of South Columbia Street and Cameron Avenue, students will have to move out after Christmas break and will not be allowed to move back in until renovations are completed. He asked the Council to expedite the Special Use Permit process so Delta Kappa Epsilon could get a building permit and begin renovations so that and return students could return to the house next Fall.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3g. By Haven Wiley and Livy Ludington regarding two maps.
Council Member Brown noted Mr. Wiley and Ms. Ludington had requested two maps from their Triangle Land Conservancy study be incorporated in the Comprehensive Plan. She moved to receive and refer the request in order to reinforce it and put it on the record.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER.THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 4. Consent Agenda
Council Member Julie McClintock removed L and Mr. Horton removed 0.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH L AND O REMOVED AND R-23 ADDED AS ITEM q. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(99-11-22/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. |
Minutes of September 27, October 11, 18, 20 and 27, 1999. |
|
b. |
Nomination to the Greenways Commission (R-2). |
|
c. |
Resolution rejecting bids for batting cage at Homestead Park (R-3). |
|
d. |
Resolution adopting public access fee increase (R-4). |
|
e. |
Ordinance regarding traffic regulation amendments and acceptance of new streets (O-1). |
|
f. |
Resolution regarding proposed right-of-way lease agreement with Interpath, Inc. (R-5). |
|
g. |
Resolution accepting Virginia Alliance for Solar Electricity photovoltaic grant (R-6). |
|
h. |
Resolution and budget ordinance regarding hiring a consultant to study Library service needs (R-7) (O-2). |
|
i. |
Resolution authorizing contract change order for Fire training facility renovation project (R-8). |
|
j. |
Ordinance amending the classification and pay ordinance regarding career advancement for Traffic Assistants positions in Public Works (O-3). |
|
k. |
Ordinance regarding parking on Conner Drive (O-4). |
|
m. |
Resolution identifying areas as being under consideration for possible future annexation (R-9). |
|
p. |
By Council Member Capowski regarding objection to moving of cable TV channel by Time Warner Cable (R-21). |
|
q. |
Amending Council’s meeting calendar to schedule retreat to January 14, 2000 (R-23). |
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (99-11-22/R-2)
WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:
|
Greenways Commission |
|
Brenda Nielsen |
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
A RESOLUTION TO REJECT THE BIDS FOR HOMESTEAD PARK BATTING CAGES AND AUTHORIZE THE MANAGER TO REBID THE PROJECT (99-11-22/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has solicited formal bids by legal notice in The Chapel Hill News, September 9, 1999, and Challenger Newspaper in accordance with N. C. General Statute 143-128 for construction of the batting cages; and
WHEREAS, one (1) bid was received and returned to vendor because the statute requires three (3) bids on the first bid opening; and
WHEREAS, a re-advertisement of the Notice To Bidders was published in The Chapel Hill News on October 8, 1999, and on October 15, 1999, at 3:00 p.m. two (2) bids were received and opened:
VENDOR BID
KAD Construction, Inc. $338,000
Raleigh, N. C.
Patriot Building Company, Inc. $299,500
Hillsborough, N. C.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town rejects all bids and authorizes the re-bid of construction of the batting cage facility.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN INFLATION ADJUSTMENT TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS FEE BILLED TO CABLE TELEVISION CUSTOMERS IN CHAPEL HILL (99-11-22/R-4)
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1999, the Council held a public forum on whether to increase the public access fee; and
WHEREAS, comments received at the public forum from the Chair of the Public Access Advisory Committee were in favor of making an annual inflation adjustment; and
WHEREAS, the inflation adjustment would not apply to Time Warner Cable of Durham customers who reside in Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, a one cent increase in the public access fee would generate about $1,400 in additional annual funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby increases the public access fee from 67 to 68 cents per month.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 21-11(B) (2) of the Town Code of Ordinances, "Twenty-five (25) miles per hour on the following streets: " is hereby amended by inserting the following in the appropriate alphabetical order:
Section 2. Section 21-13 of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-wayand stop regulations." is hereby amended by inserting the following in the appropriate alphabetical order:
“Through Streets Stop Streets
New Parkside Drive Glenmore Road
New Parkside Drive Korrina Place
New Parkside Drive Lonebrook Drive
New Parkside Drive New Stateside Drive
Telluride Drive San Sophia Drive”
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH INTERPATH, INC. FOR USE OF TOWN RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FIBER OPTIC CABLE (99-11-22/R-5)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to execute a lease agreement with Interpath, Inc. to allow Interpath to run fiber optic cable within an existing cable conduit within Town right-of-way substantially in the form shown in Attachment 1.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ACCEPT A VIRGINIA ALLIANCE FOR SOLAR ELECTRICITY PHOTOVOLTAIC PROGRAM GRANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF INSTALLING A 3.5 KWAC PHOTOVOLTAIC SOLAR COLLECTOR SYSTEM ON A TOWN BUILDING (99-11-22/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill applied for inclusion in the North Carolina Solar Center's grant application to the Virginia Alliance For Solar Electricity, Photovoltaic Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the Virginia Alliance for Solar Electricity has approved the North Carolina Solar Center's grant application, including a 3.5 kWac project for the Town of Chapel Hill;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDby the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to accept the Virginia Alliance For Solar Electricity, Photovoltaic Grant for a 3.5 kWac photvoltaic solar collector system to be installed on one of the Town's buildings.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council recognizes that the cost to the Town will be approximately $18,800 and that such sum shall come from the Energy Efficient Projects account.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO HIRE A CONSULTANT TO PREPARE A MASTER PLAN OF LIBRARY SERVICES FOR THE CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC LIBRARY (99-11-22/R-7)
WHEREAS, the Library Needs Assessment Task Force was appointed by the Town Council to study community needs and short and long term needs for library service; and
WHEREAS, the Library Needs Assessment Task Force report submitted report to the Town Council on June 14 recommends that a consultant be hired to study library space needs; and
WHEREAS, the Library Board of Trustees has reviewed the Library Needs Assessment Task Force report and recommends that a consultant be hired to study issues associated with staff, facilities, collection and technology; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s Comprehensive Plan recommends that a Master Plan for Library Service be developed to plan for long term library needs; and
WHEREAS, the Town Code charges the Library Board with advising the Town Council on library operations and capital improvements; and
WHEREAS, library gift funds currently exist that may be used to pay for a consultant to prepare a Master Plan;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Council authorizes the Manager to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for library consulting services and to negotiate a contract with the consultant, not to exceed $20,000 paid from Library Gift funds.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDERS FOR THE FIRE TRAINING FACILITY RENOVATION PROJECT BETWEEN THE TOWN AND STRICKLAND WATERPROOFING UP TO A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $196,000 (99-11-22/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill accepted the bid of Strickland Waterproofing in the amount of $164,000 for the Renovation of the Fire Training facilities on June 28, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the Town Manager has requested additional authority to approve change orders for the Fire Training Facility Renovation project;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Manager is authorized to approve change orders for the Fire Training Facility Renovation Project contract between the Town and Strickland Waterproofing up to a total contract amount of $196,000.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN ADOPTED EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1, 1999 (99-11-22/O-3)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section I:
That the Council hereby amends the "Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan and Longevity Plans for Employees of the Town of Chapel Hill and Bonds of Officials" November 1, 1999 (9-6-14/O-9) as follows:
In Section III:
Grade 14, ADD the line Traffic Assistant II
Grade 16, DELETE the line Traffic Assistant II and ADD the line Traffic Assistant III
Grade 18, ADD the line Traffic Assistant IV
In Section IV, part C, in PUBLIC WORKS (FIELD OPERATIONS), Traffic, DELETE the line
Full-time Part-time Grade No. # hrs. # hrs.
Traffic Assistant (Levels I – II) 3 40 - - 12 - 16
and ADD the line
Traffic Assistant (Levels I – IV) 3 40 - - 12 - 18
Section II:
This ordinance is effective upon adoption.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 21-27 of the Town Code of Ordinances, “No parking as to particular street.” is hereby amended by deleting the following:
Conner Drive South Willow
Drive End
Conner Drive North A point
520 feet west End
of the centerline of
Willow Drive”
Section 2. Section 21-27 of the Town Code of Ordinances, “No parking as to particular street.” is hereby amended by inserting the following therein, in appropriate alphabetical order:
Conner Drive South Willow Drive A point 520 feet west
of the centerline of
Section 3. This ordinance shall become effective December 1, 1999.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE AREAS DESCRIBED WITHIN AS BEING UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ANNEXATION (99-11-22/R-9)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill:
SECTION 1
That pursuant to G.S. 160A-49(i), the following described areas are identified as being under consideration for annexation by the Town of Chapel Hill, under provisions of Part 3, Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes of North Carolina:
Generally, the unincorporated areas between Chapel Hill’s existing corporate limits and the Town’s Urban Services Boundary as identified on the 1986 Land Use Plan that was adopted by the Council on July 14, 1986.
The above-referenced areas are specifically shaded on the attached map (“Areas Under Consideration for Future Annexation – November 22, 1999”), which shall be incorporated into this resolution by reference, in accordance with N.C. General Statute 160A-49(i)
SECTION 2
That pursuant to G.S. 160A-49(i), persons subject to annexation by this Resolution of Consideration are hereby notified of their rights under North Carolina General Statute Subsections 160A-49(f1) and 160A-49(f2).
Subsections 160A-49(f1) and (f2) provide as follows:
f1) Property Subject to Present-Use Value Appraisal. -- If an area described in an annexation ordinance includes agricultural land, horticultural land, or forestland that on the effective date of annexation is:
(1) Land that is being taxed at present-use value pursuant to G.S. 105-277.4; or
(2) Land that:
a. Was on the date of the resolution of intent for annexation being used for actual production and is eligible for present-use value taxation under G.S. 105-277.4, but the land has not been in use for actual production for the required time under G.S. 105-277.3; and
b. The assessor for the county where the land subject to annexation is located has certified to the city that the land meets the requirements of this subdivision the annexation becomes effective as to that property pursuant to subsection (f2) of this section.
(f2) Effective Date of Annexation for Certain Property. -- Annexation of property subject to annexation under subsection (f1) of this section shall become effective:
(1) Upon the effective date of the annexation ordinance, the property is considered part of the city only (i) for the purpose of establishing city boundaries for additional annexations pursuant to this Article and (ii) for the exercise of city authority pursuant to Article 19 of this Chapter.
(2) For all other purposes, the annexation becomes effective as to each tract of such property or part thereof on the last day of the month in which that tract or part thereof becomes ineligible for classification pursuant to G.S. 105-227.4 or no longer meets the requirements of subdivision (f1)(2) of this section. Until annexation of a tract or a part of a tract becomes effective pursuant to this subdivision, the tract or part of a tract is not subject to taxation by the city under Article 12 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes nor is the tract or part of a tract entitled to services provided by the city.
SECTION 3
That a copy of this resolution shall be filed with the Town Clerk.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION 2-71, PARAGRAPH (B) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES (99-11-22/O-4.1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 2-71, Paragraph (b) of the Code of Ordinances is hereby revised to read as follows:
“(b)
Names of contributors of amounts less than $20.00 or less are
exempt from the requirements of this section.”
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
AN ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION 2-71, PARAGRAPH (B) OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES (99-11-22/O-4.1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 2-71, Paragraph (b) of the Code of Ordinances is hereby revised to read as follows:
“(b)
Names of contributors of amounts less than $20.00 or less are
exempt from the requirements of this section.”
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby amends its meeting calendar by rescheduling the Council’s Retreat from Saturday, January 15, 2000, to Friday, January 14, 2000, at 8:30 a.m. in the Chapel Hill Public Library Meeting Room.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
Council Member Wiggins commended the Housing Department for its high performance rating of 100% from HUD.
Mayor Waldorf asked for opinions about whether it made sense to have the Pay-As-You-Throw groups’ work simultaneously. Council Member Brown replied it had been decided proceeding simultaneously with implementation and advisory groups would be best due to the lack of time.
Item 6. Discussion of Issues Relating to Rental Properties
6a. Report on rental licensing proposal
6b. Response to petition regarding single-family overlay district in the Northside neighborhood (R-10)
6c. Response to petition regarding multi-family occupancy
limits (R-11)
Planning Director Roger Waldon explained these three items were grouped together because of the common theme among them. He explained item 6a. was coming back for further discussion on questions raised by the Council at the September 27, 1999 meeting. Mr. Waldon noted there were two resolutions on item 6: R-6a, which would direct the Manager to adjust allocation of resources and be more aggressive in enforcing existing occupancy regulations in the Northside neighborhood; and R-6b, which would call a public hearing in February to consider the creation of a new zoning district with a more stringent occupancy requirement. Mr. Waldon stated the staff recommended R-6a because the question of creating a new zoning district may be discussed in the context of the Comprehensive Plan.
Regarding Item 6c, Mr. Waldon pointed out the occupancy limitations do not apply in the case of multi-family apartment projects and the staff did not recommend changing. He said the Council could adopt R-11, which would call a public hearing in February to bring a proposal for applying the type of occupancy restrictions the Town has for single-family and two-family dwellings to all multi-family dwellings.
Steve Mills, representing a group of property managers and owners of rental property, said he had looked at three towns similar to Chapel Hill (Annapolis, Maryland, East Lansing, Michigan, and Boulder, Colorado) and had concluded licensing of rental units would not be effective. He said the Town already had ordinances that could help solve the problems if they were more strictly enforced. Mr. Mills asked the Council if the Town intended to crack down on all rental property owners because of complaints from a few neighborhoods. He argued a future Town plan using stricter enforcement and cooperation could achieve the same goals without creating an “administrative nightmare.”
P.H. Craig stated if the Council passed this resolution the Town would not have any more low- cost housing. He asked for more time, noting he and others are just finding out about this proposal. Mr. Craig expressed amazement the Town Council was preceding so fast. He said instituting such measures would drive up the cost of housing. He asked whom the Council was trying to keep out of Town. Mr. Craig remarked being in favor of low cost housing and said voting in favor of these resolutions would be a contradiction. He stated he would organize against the proposal and was prepared to go to court over it even if it meant holding up the Comprehensive Plan.
Miles Pressler read a letter from Vivian Fouhsee, Estel Mabry and Mary C. Jones, from the Northside Overlay Zone Committee. In the letter the three said Northside faced two related problems regarding housing: the character of the neighborhood was changing as investors convert single-family homes into student rentals; and, overcrowding and poor maintenance of these units was destroying the area. Their letter, Ms. Foushee et al argued their attempt to buy and renovate homes with the help of EmPOWERment, Inc. is presently destined to fail because they cannot compete with investors who are willing to pay a premium for real estate close to campus. They stated limiting the number of people who can live in a rental unit would cause these investors to look elsewhere.
The letter also stated rental licensing and inspections would help address the health and safety concerns because it would enforce trash collection, noise reduction, and so forth. They proposed the Council pilot this program in the Northside neighborhood through an overlay zone before implementing it Town-wide. They asked to call a public hearing for the proposed overlay zone in February to increase efforts to enforce the regulation limiting the number of unrelated people living in rental units. The letter asked for more detail on how the staff proposes to enforce this occupancy limit.
Eric Plow said he once rented a unit to a woman who was on Section 8 Housing Assistance. Shortly after she moved in, he said, her boyfriend, who was a known drug dealer, moved in as well. Mr. Plow listed the many attempts he made to have the boyfriend evicted. Belongings. He said he was told he could only evict the woman if she violated the lease. Mr. Plow noted in this case the Town’s tax dollars supported a drug dealer living in Chapel Hill for a year, until the woman’s lease expired. He argued this proposal is for another big bureaucracy, which would be ineffective and costly.
Ruby Sinreich asked the Council to support the resolution. She said R-10 was an effective way to approach the affordable housing problem and rental licensing would be a way to enforce current rooming house regulations. While supporting the goals of the Northside overlay proposal, Ms. Sinreich argued it would address a symptom rather than the cause. She said the resolution would be a more fair and consistent way to address the needs of all citizens rather than merely targeting students and others. Ms. Sinreich suggested charging a sliding fee based on the tax value of the home or the amount of rent charged.
Chris Marthinson commented only a few units were causing problems for a few neighbors and most tenants get along fine and do not need interference from the Town Council or any kind of inspection procedure. He suggested continuing to rely on leases, noting many of the problems had been between tenants and landlords who do not have leases. Mr. Marthinson predicted the landlords who comply with this will end up with the most costs and these costs would be passed on to renters. He said government was not a bad thing, but argued government should not get involved if there is no problem.
Lee Conner, president of the graduate and professional students at UNC/Chapel Hill, said there were parts of the proposal that disturbed students tremendously. Mr. Conner strongly recommended not instituting an overlay zone and not lowering the number from four to two. He said doing so would chill the climate between the Town and students because it would be perceived by students as a way to get them out of the neighborhood. Mr. Conner encouraged the Council to explore more fully what “more aggressively enforce the current law” means and how invasive it will be.
Mr. Conner noted rental licensing could be good or bad depending on how it is done. He suggested a process whereby a renter would first file a complaint and then an inspection would take place.. He added a fee of $100 or more would negatively affect students and all low-income people in the community. He said landlord licensing would be beneficial in dealing with absentee and bad landlords, but added the Town does not need a program that inspects every dwelling every year. Mr. Conner suggested looking at licensing from a landlord accountability standpoint issue. He added the student body and cabinet would like to be part of the process.
Council Member Brown asked if Mr. Conner and others from student government would come to a special work session if one were held on this issue. He replied they definitely would.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked Mr. Conner if he had any suggestions about what to do about the overwhelming number of automobiles students bring into neighborhoods. Mr. Conner replied students understood they were causing a problem, and acknowledged students who do not live at Northside compete for parking spaces there during the day. He suggested the Town require landlords to provide parking for the number of people in the apartments. He asked the Council to be more realistic about the number of people who live in those apartments, noting if a landlord charges six, seven or eight hundred dollars a bedroom it is not realistic to expect students and others not to double up.
Council Member Brown suggested the Council have a separate work session on this issue as early as possible in January. She noted the information provided by Mr. Mills was interesting, and suggested the staff provide more of such information on how these systems have worked in other communities.
Council Member Evans noted the University had once provided a booklet on the rights and responsibilities of students who live in rental units. She commented some communities do regulate the number of parking spaces, depending upon the number of bedrooms, and suggested looking at this idea and others as well.
Council Member McClintock said she thought rental licensing was a good idea and hoped the new Council would discuss it. She urged Council Members to solve the problem in the next term, and expressed interest in the pilot program.
Council Member Brown suggested combining and going ahead with R-10a and R-10b because the Council would get more information on public sentiment if they called a public hearing.
Mayor pro tem Capowski showed a slide of a pair of single-family houses located on the street where he lives. He explained they had been built about 12 years ago by former UNC football coach Bill Dooley. The slide showed 14 cars parked in front of the two houses. Mayor pro tem Capowski explained the upper part of one of the houses had caught on fire in 1997 and the second story, attic and roof had burned away. He said he had called Bill Dooley several times and requested he install fire extinguishers, but Mr. Dooley had not returned his calls.
Mayor pro tem Capowski stated he and Mayor Waldorf had sent a letter and had used other means of trying to reach Mr. Dooley, but had received no reply. He said he then talked to Orange Builders about putting fire extinguishers in the reconstructed house, and was told: Mr. Dooley does not want to spend one dime more on the reconstruction of the house than the insurance settlement will pay. Mayor pro tem Capowski concluded Mr. Dooley is a landlord who values his pocketbook more than he values the safety of tenants and firefighters. He argued the Town needed power to stop problems like this.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO CALL A WORK SESSION EARLY IN JANUARY 2000, TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE AND TO INVITE RENTAL HOUSING MANAGERS, THE UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION, AND STUDENT REPRESENTATIVES TO TAKE PART IN DISCUSSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Waldorf suggested the Council have the work session before the public hearing, so they can define the issue first.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT R-10A. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE TOWN MANAGER TO IMMEDIATELY BEGIN MORE AGGRESSIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATION LIMITING TO FOUR THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PEOPLE ALLOWED TO LIVE IN A TYPICAL SINGLE-FAMILY OR TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IN THE NORTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD (99-11-22/R-10a)
WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council has received a petition requesting the Town Council to consider providing for the creation of an overlay district which would restrict the number of unrelated people allowed to live together in a single-family or two-family dwelling to four; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council is considering a draft Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the draft Comprehensive Plan recommends that the Town initiate a Small Area Plan for the Northside neighborhood which would address issues including the number of unrelated individuals living together in a dwelling;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs the Town Manager to begin working immediately to more aggressively enforce the regulation limiting to four the number of unrelated people allowed to live in a single-family or two-family dwelling in the Northside Neighborhood.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
Mayor Waldorf thanked the speakers and assured them the Council would be thoughtful and careful about this issue.
Item 7. Response to Petition Regarding Possible Purchase of
Property Along Tanyard Branch Greenway (R-12)
Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz explained this report was in response to a Greenways Commission petition requesting the Council consider using some of the 1996 Open Space bond funds to purchase some or all of the land on the west side of Tanyard Branch. She indicated the area on a map and said adopting the resolution would give the Manager the authority to pursue negotiations to purchase the land.
Council Member McClintock asked Ms. Spatz to indicate on the map which areas would most benefit the greenway vistas. Ms. Spatz indicated plot nine, adding it is the largest and runs closest to the creek.
Jordan Smith, a Village West resident, recommended the Town purchase the land rather than allowing development to take place which would confine the trail to a narrow strip of Town-owned land and eliminate the open space and the scenic view. He said that Town purchase of this land is vital to the objectives of the Greenway Commission to provide scenic vistas and ensure community open space. Mr. Smith urged Council Members to consider the proposed acquisition is the only open space available to the Northside neighborhood.
Margaret Heath showed slides of the greenway, which she said continues to give a sense of discovery and optimism as Chapel Hill is urbanized. She stressed the importance of protecting the wilder areas in Town and, if possible, dedicating them to the public. Ms. Heath said she had taken the matter up with the Greenways Commission and they had recommended acquiring the land west of the stream. She pointed out the land serves as a pastoral backdrop and a wonderful transition between the established neighborhoods and the greenway. Ms. Heath urged the Council to secure the land for the Town.
Grace Beattie noted two of the goals for the Open Space funds were to protect environmentally sensitive areas and to protect the Resource Conservation District land. She stated the land in question lies in the hundred-year flood zone and the Resource Conservation District. She said the four sides of the land slope steeply toward the creek and this land has flooded more than once. Ms. Beattie predicted any development of this land would cause perpetual water problems at best and serious flooding problems at worst. She pointed out this would cause additional problems for flood prone areas and extra expense for the Town.
Tom Ogle spoke in favor of the acquisition because it would benefit the surrounding neighborhoods and protect the environment, the wildlife, and the Tanyard Branch itself. He said the area is an environmentally sensitive one where water flows from it into Bolin Creek and then into Jordan Lake. Mr. Ogle pointed out there was bond money available for sites such as this, the Greenway Commission had recommended it, and the purchase would benefit the entire community.
Million Heath, referring to John Kenneth Galbraith’s The Affluent Societyand Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, said society’s way of responding to the “Silent Spring dilemma” has been to develop a national consensus growth will be with regulatory restraints to protect our health, resources, and quality of life. He suggested the Council approve the Greenway Commission’s request to bring the lots into Town ownership.
Pearson Stewart strongly supported the acquisition of the property, adding the Tanyard Branch greenway deserves just as much protection and enhancement as any of the other greenways in Town.
Mark Broadwell, Chair of the Greenways Commission, re-emphasized the Commission’s view the Town could acquire this land without jeopardizing other priorities for the Greenways program. He noted this is an existing trail, which would eventually connect to a future phase of the Bolin Creek Greenway and would get more use once it is linked to the other trail. Mr. Broadwell asked the Council to move in an expedited manner to try and negotiate protection for this property.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED R-12. COUNCIL MEMBER FOY SECONDED THE MOTION.
Council Member Evans expressed support for acquiring the land adjacent to the creek as well because it is important to have a public right-of-way to the greenway. She requested more input from the staff on whether those lots are critical to preservation of the greenway.
Council Member McClintock said she strongly supported the recommendation of the Greenways Commission and this land would provide a beautiful vista for future trail users and mitigate the environmental damage that would occur if the area were not preserved.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT R-12. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO INITIATE NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE TOWN TO PURCHASE SOME OR ALL OF THE PROPERTY, OF THE JAY STREET SITE WITH 1996 OPEN SPACE BOND FUNDS (99-11-22/R-12)
WHEREAS, a petition was made to the Council encouraging the Town to pursue purchase of property on Jay Street and adjacent to the Tanyard Branch Greenway, and
WHEREAS, Town ownership of the land would allow preservation of the property along an existing greenway;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Manager is authorized to order an appraisal and initiate negotiations for the Town to purchase some or all of the land interests identified as Tax Map # 7.94.B, parcels 1,3,4,5,6,6A,7,8,and 9 with 1996 Open Space bond funds and bring a report to the Council.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
8a. Resolution regarding 2002-2008 Transportation Priority List (R-13).
Traffic engineer David Bonk reported the priority list (R-13), which had originally been proposed on October 27, 1999, would be submitted by the Town to the Durham/Chapel Hill/Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee for their use in developing a regional priority list. He noted the list of 23 projects included two new ones: #2 (the NC 54/Hamilton Road intersection improvements) and #9 (the Bolin Creek/Franklin Street stairs).
Mayor Waldorf said she and the Town Manager had recently received a “very positive” letter from the NC DOT regarding the NC 54/Hamilton Road intersection. She said it was wonderful news the DOT is prepared to share the cost with the Town and is willing to do some things, which are a little unusual for them. She said compared to how fast transportation projects usually move this one has been “a real Ferrari.”
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED MY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT R-13. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2002-2008 CHAPEL HILL TRANSPORTATION PROJECT PRIORITY LIST (99-11-22/R-13)
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee has begun the process to develop a 2002-2008 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee will develop a Regional Transportation Priority List for use in developing the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Transportation Advisory Committee has requested local governments develop transportation priority lists for use in preparing the Regional Priority List; and
WHEREAS, the Town has reviewed the previously adopted 1999-2005 Chapel Hill Priority List; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received comments from the public on transportation priorities;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, that the following list be adopted as 2002-2008 Transportation Priority List for submission to the Transportation Advisory Committee.
1. Transit Capital Projects
2. NC54/Hamiliton Intersection Improvements
3. Estes Drive Extension Improvements
4. Seawell School Road Improvements
5. East Franklin Street Improvements
6. Fordham Blvd. Improvements
7. Estes Drive Bikelanes
8. Culbreth Road Improvements
9. Bolin Creek-Franklin St. Stairs
10. Estes Drive Sidewalk
11. Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road Improvements
12. Pope Road-Ephesus Church Road Bikelanes
13. Bolin Creek Greenway
14. Piney Mountain Road Improvements
15. Mt. Carmel Church Road Improvements
16. Dry Creek Greenway
17. Morgan Creek Greenway
18. Manning Drive Sidewalks
19. Fordham Blvd. Sidewalks
20 Upper Booker Creek Greenway
21. County Club Road Sidewalk
22. Merritt Mill Road Sidewalk
23. Bolin Creek/Little Creek Greenway
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council continues to strongly support funding for projects included in the 2000-2006 Transportation Improvement Program, including improvements to South Columbia Street, Weaver Dairy Road, US 15-501 South and the US15-501/Erwin Road intersection.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Council recommends that the Transportation Advisory Committee advise the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the Regional Priority List adopted in January, 2000 may be revised upon completion of the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
8b. Resolution regarding the U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study, Phase II Scope of
Work (R-14).
Mr. Bonk reminded the Council he had brought a draft scope of work to them in July and they had endorsed it. He said several issues had arisen since then related to Duke University and to access into the UNC campus for a fixed guideway system. Mr. Bonk explained the Transportation Board was therefore presenting a revised scope of work to accommodate those concerns and was requesting the Council to again endorse it.
Mr. Bonk explained there would be additional work related to the analysis and evaluation of technologies and alignments across the Duke University campus and also from the UNC campus to UNC Hospitals. He noted the revised scope of work also included a request from the State to remove Corridor B from the analysis and focus on Corridor A only. Mr. Bonk also recommended the percentages included in the cost sharing proposal be retained rather than having fixed costs for the State and Triangle Transit Authority, which was in the original proposal from North Carolina Department of Transportation.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said he was surprised about the removal of Corridor B and about a statement that Corridor B had been only a backup corridor. Mr. Bonk replied Corridor A had been the primary corridor that the Triangle Transit Authority had identified in the original rail study. He said Corridor B had been retained because it showed some feasibility in the preliminary analysis.
Mayor pro tem Capowski questioned Mr. Bonk’s assertion that a decision had been made to drop corridor B. Mr. Bonk replied he had not said. He explained the staff had dropped Corridor B from the proposal because they had concluded there would be problems placing stations, which would make corridor B too expensive. Mayor pro tem Capowski asked who the staff was and Mr. Bonk replied it was made up of the urban area, Triangle Transit Authority, and the State.
Mayor pro tem Capowski pointed out all the stops Corridor B could serve--Eastgate Shopping Center, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, University Mall, Easttowne, and Ram’s Head--and asked if the merchants in that area knew they were no longer being considered for a mass transit line. Mr. Bonk replied they did not adding it would be very difficult to construct adequate stations in the center median.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said the Town would be ignoring a major commercial region of Chapel Hill if they eliminated Corridor B. Mr. Bonk replied it was correct that the area would not have direct fixed guideway service provided by stations. He explained the rest of the region and the State was letting Chapel Hill decide whether it wants to do that or not.
Council Member Bateman asked how much Corridor B would cost. Mr. Bonk replied the present cost of the project was about $758,000 without Corridor B. He noted the consultant had made it clear putting Corridor B back into the equation would make it about a $1 million project. Council Member Bateman said to eliminate it totally without even knowing what the cost would be seemed shortsighted.
Council Member McClintock suggested looking at Corridor A on page 12 and deciding if that is what the Town wants. Mr. Bonk showed diagrams of Corridors A and B. Council Member McClintock said she liked B.
Council Member Foy noted there was no room for stations on route. Mr. Bonk pointed out the station would have to be in the center of the median.
Mayor Waldorf commented that would be neither safe nor inviting.
Mayor pro tem Capowski asked for specifics on where the stations would be located on each route. Mr. Bonk replied they would be at Ephesus Church, Meadowmont, and Mason Farm Road on Corridor A, and at Eastgate Shopping Center and University Mall on Corridor B.
Mayor Waldorf asked if it was true that Corridor A would be more achievable if the physical obstacles and rights-of-way can be achieved. Mr. Bonk replied large portions of Corridor A rights-of-way already are in public hands. He noted the added problem in Corridor B is trying to put a fixed guideway system into an active expressway in terms of access to stations in the median.
Council Member Brown inquired about the impact on neighborhoods. Mr. Bonk replied it would be part of the phase II analysis to evaluate how great the impact would be.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, COMMENTING CORRIDOR B PROBABLY IS PREFERABLE BUT NOT REALISTIC, MOVED R-14. COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS SECONDED.
Mayor pro tem Capowski proposed an amendment to the “...be it further resolved” on page four. He suggested adding, “consider Corridor A on the same footing with corridor B.”
Mayor Waldorf noted that would contradict the purpose of R-14, which was to eliminate Corridor B and reduce the cost of the study.
Council Member Foy did not accept the amendment.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE REVISED SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE U.S. 15-501 MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY, PHASE II STUDY AND PROPOSING A COST SHARING ARRANGEMENT TO FUND THE PHASE II STUDY (99-11-22/R-14)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill supports the completion of a Phase II Study for the U.S. 15-501 Major Investment Study; and
WHEREAS, a revised scope of work for the Phase II Study, that includes a detailed evaluation of possible fixed guideway technologies and alignments, has been completed; and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has proposed a cost sharing arrangement to fund the Phase II Study;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council endorses the proposed revised scope of work for the Phase II Study.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council agrees with the decision to eliminate further consideration of Corridor B from the Phase II scope of work.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council proposes that the final cost for completing the Phase II Study be divided between the parties as follows:
North Carolina Department of Transportation 53%
Triangle Transit Authority 25%
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Urban Area-Durham-Chapel Hill 22%
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council recommends that the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee allocate Surface Transportation Program-Direct Allocation Funds for the Urban Area, Durham and Chapel Hill portion of the project, with the 20% local share to be provided by Durham and Chapel Hill.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
Council Member McClintock suggested moving item 12 up so that citizens present could leave before the remaining long agenda items. Council Members agreed.
Mayor Waldorf explained they would skip item 9, move to 10 and then skip to 12.
Item 10. Response from Advisory Boards and Consultant on proposed Revisions to the Noise Ordinance (R-15)
Mr. Horton stated the essence of the staff’s recommendation is that the Council continue to work with the consultant and wait until the consultant’s report is available before establishing a requirement for a noise impact statement.
Council Member Brown asked what sort of time frame this would mean. Police Major Gregg Jarvies replied Dr. Royster, the consultant, had suggested beginning to meet on the following Tuesday to set the agenda for the next few months of study. He added the recommendation on the original proposal was six to eight months to complete the work, which should begin before the end of December.
Bruce Runberg, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Services at UNC, expressed support for the Manager’s recommendation that the resolution not be adopted until after the consultant’s report had been looked at in the broader context of all issues related to noise. He said the attached letter from the consultant leaves many questions, adding the estimate the consultant used seems low.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO DEFER ACTION UNTIL THE RESOLUTION CAN BE STUDIED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CONSULTANT’S STUDY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 12. Follow-up Report on Traffic Diverters Installed on Rogerson Drive
and Oakwood Drive (R-17a and b) (O-5)
Engineering Director George Small explained the Council, as a temporary alternative to making the two streets one-way, had suggested the temporary semi-diverters. He said the staff believes the diverters have reduced the traffic entering onto Oakwood and Rogerson from NC 54 and speeds also seem to have been reduced. Mr. Small added some traffic had been diverted to surrounding streets, which had been expected. He said they had not seen excessive speed or volume before the diverters were placed there and do not see it now. He concluded the Town has not created a problem by having the diverters there, but probably would need police enforcement to train people not to enter onto those streets if the diverters were made permanent. Mr. Small said the Manager’s recommendation was to proceed with making the diverters permanent.
Eric Plow said the barriers had caused people to drive a mile out of their way to get to a place that should have taken one block. He suggested, rhetorically, the Town block off all the streets in Chapel Hill so there would not be any more traffic problems.
Jeremy Firestone, who lives where the diverter is proposed on Oakwood Drive, said evidence supporting diverters was thin and maybe even nonexistent. He asserted there had been no chronic problems on his street, except speed problems, which he said would not be addressed by this solution. Mr. Firestone stated he had never observed much cut-through traffic. He added this plan diverts traffic to a playground, creates an exclusive atmosphere, and puts up barriers, which are dangerous.
Madeline Jefferson read a letter from Ken MacIntyre to the Director of Traffic Engineering. The letter stated the barriers are hazardous because they obstruct the view and cause confusion and delay. She read another letter by Mr. MacIntyre supporting the petition to remove the barriers and saying the Council was ill advised to make this recommendation without advising all of the residents of Oakwood and Rogerson Drives that this obstruction to traffic was to take place.
Ms. Jefferson also read the Manager’s November 22nd memo to the Council and a July 3, 1998 letter from Robert Foley, then president of the Oakwood Homeowners Association, which supported her argument that permanent diverters should not be installed. She asked the Council to consider delaying their vote pending a better plan from the Little Creek neighborhood and the traffic plan which The Oaks residents would like to present.
Bob Rosenbacher argued closing these two connector streets would be unwise because it would direct more traffic through Glen Lennox and to 15-501, making it more dangerous for everyone. He suggested taking the barriers down permanently.
Ed Wise, a resident of Burning Tree Drive, said he had received the Manager’s report on Saturday and had not had enough time to prepare a response. He suggested Oakwood should act as a by-pass for Burning Tree, because it is just as wide, has fewer residents, and probably fewer children, pedestrians and cyclists and less traffic than Burning Tree. Mr. Wise suggested Oakwood be opened up rather than closed off with a diverter. He said the Council’s decisions had been destructive to Burning Tree and asked more traffic be put on Oakwood to help Burning Tree.
Cynthia Wise argued it was unfair to put more traffic on Burning Tree, which she said was being taken advantage of by people who use it instead of Pinehurst, Rogerson and Oakwood Drives, “not to mention Meadowmont.” She asked the Council to reconsider their decision.
John Anderson supported the Manager’s recommendation, adding he did not think there had been much change in the traffic flow on Burning Tree Drive. He acknowledged, though, that Burning Tree should be considered, and suggested a regional solution.
Dana Staats, an Oakwood Drive resident, explained he often sees children escape from their mothers’ hands and dart across the street in front of the park. He said the diverters had made a big difference and he and his wife were in full support of diverters and stop signs.
Dorothy Verkerk, speaking for several Rogerson/Oakwood residents, noted one year was sufficient time to try the traffic calming devices. She presented maps showing the two streets, and argued the semi-diverters do not cause cul-de-sacs and do not close public access. Ms. Verkerk said the streets were now safer for children, pedestrians and cyclists. She asked the Council to continue protecting her neighborhood with traffic diverters.
Council Member Bateman, noting Ms. Verkerk had mentioned that Rogerson Road was only 17 feet wide, asked how wide Oakwood Drive was. Someone in the audience replied it was 33 feet wide and Burning Tree was 32 or 33 feet wide.
Tom Eckman, who lives on Canterbury Lane, praised Ms. Verkerk for her slide presentation and suggested everyone wants “user-friendly streets.” He noted the staff’s report had not considered the impact Meadowmont would have on the area, adding traffic on Burning Tree had increased by 12% since the diverters were installed. Mr. Eckman said it was “incomprehensible” to do something permanent where no problem was known to exist. He stated a problem does now exist after the fact: a 12% increase in non-user-friendly traffic on Burning Tree Drive.
Peter Dotgieter, a Burning Tree Road resident said the decrease of 50 vehicles on the other two roads had increased those on Burning Tree by 100. He added traffic speed had increased as well. Mr. Dotgieter said there had been no assessment of pedestrians, roller-bladers and cyclists along Burning Tree Drive and no traffic calming devices installed. He suggested all three roads be assessed and treated equally before the Town Council makes a decision.
Tom Carson, an Oakwood Drive resident, described this as an issue of fairness and recommended all share the burden of traffic.
Charles Gibson, a Burning Tree Road Drive, asked the Council to take down the diverters. He said his reasons were similar to those already given, adding it would be nice if all neighborhoods could just block themselves off.
Nancy Gabriel, speaking for the Community Action Network (CAN) Charter Board of Directors, read portions of her letter to the Council stating the Board does not condone blocking off public streets because this does not serve the public interest and may prove detrimental to a sense of community. She recommended keeping public streets open for all, and said chokers, speed bumps, special pavement treatments, and any other methods of traffic claming are viable methods for slowing traffic. Ms. Gabriel said she and the CAN Charter Board urged the Council to consider such methods and to explore other means of addressing the needs of Little Creek residents, such as the model that was so successful with the NC 54/Hamilton Road intersection study. She added she was born and raised on Oakwood Drive.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED R-17A.
Council Member McClintock stated it was not against a neighborhood but in favor of one. She said in view of the traffic Meadowmont would cause the Town needed to begin implementing such traffic calming devices.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN SECONDED.
Council Member Evans said she was surprised the map presented by the residents and the figures provided by the staff did not include Hamilton Road. She said she would vote against the motion and expressed support for finding other traffic calming techniques and devices.
Council Member Bateman, noting this was a difficult decision, suggested approving the diverters for Rogerson Road and then looking at the entire region so one group does not think they have been neglected while another group thinks they have been saved.
Council Member Brown pointed out in 1997 the Council passed a resolution regarding traffic management and calming plans for areas impacted by Meadowmont. She said the boundaries of had been Highway 54, Fordham Boulevard, Ephesus Church Road, and King George Road. She noted the Council and staff had not followed up on this, as they should have. Council Member Brown stated it was now up to the Council to revisit that resolution and ask the staff for a plan to address traffic calming in the rest of this neighborhood.
Council Member Pavăo agreed, adding he would not support the resolution because it is detrimental to part of the area. He said the Council owes it to the entire area to come up with something that resolves their problems. Council Member Pavăo suggested the Council refrain from acting too quickly once again.
Council Member Wiggins expressed support for traffic calming for both of these streets, but noted the diverters seemed to be more of a tool to limit access than traffic calming techniques. She said she would support action, such as Madeline Jefferson had proposed, to approach this in a larger context with residents from all of the streets. Council Member Wiggins added the term “cut-through” traffic is pejorative and is designed to evoke feeling. She asserted all streets should provide citizens an alternative route for where they want to go. As long as people are abiding by the law, she said, they should be able to use any street in Town. Council Member Wiggins suggested the Council focus on how to control speed on these streets.
Mayor pro tem Capowski, commenting he does not like having to choose one neighborhood over another, expressed support for making the diverters permanent.
Council Member Bateman asked if Council Member McClintock would accept an amendment to omit Oakwood Drive from the first “...be it resolved” and then put it into the study with the others. Council Member McClintock replied “not for now” and called the question.
Council Member Bateman asked for clarification of the study that would be conducted if the resolution failed noting she wanted to make certain diverters would be part of the entire study.
Mayor Waldorf stated she planned to vote against the resolution because she wanted to look at the larger study.
THE MOTION FAILED (4-5), WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS, WIGGINS, PAVAO, BATEMAN AND WALDORF VOTING NAY, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS FOY, CAPOWSKI, BROWN AND MCCLINTOCK VOTING AYE.
Mr. Wise asked, from the audience, why Council Member Foy was permitted to vote even though he lives on Oakwood Road. Council Member Foy replied the diverters had caused his neighborhood to absorb all of the traffic that comes into Rogerson and Oakwood, causing more traffic to pass his house. He pointed out he had not participated in any of the discussions and he could not be recused from voting unless the issue affected him financially, which it did not. Council Member Foy said he had made his decision based on what he had heard.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED R-17A WITH THE REMOVAL OF OAKWOOD DRIVE. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK SECONDED.
Council Member Wiggins recalled the residents of Oakwood had been against the idea because having diverters only on Rogerson Drive would cause more traffic on Oakwood.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (5-4), COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, WIGGINS, PAVĂO AND WALDORF VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING
THE TOWN MANAGER TO INSTALL PERMANENT A TRAFFIC DIVERTERS ON ROGERSON
DRIVE AND OAKWOOD DRIVE AT THEIR ITS INTERSECTIONS WITH
NC 54 (99-11-22/R-17a)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has received requests to better manage and control traffic in the Little Creek neighborhood area; and
WHEREAS, the Council has had stop signs installed at several intersections to help control traffic and the Council is interested in further traffic management efforts; and
WHEREAS, the Council directed the Town Manager to have traffic diverters installed on a trial basis on Rogerson Drive and Oakwood Drive at their intersections with N.C. 54 and to report back regarding the effectiveness of the diverters and whether or not they should be made permanent; and
WHEREAS, the Council has received a follow-up traffic study regarding the temporary traffic diverters on Rogerson Drive and Oakwood Drive at their intersections with N.C. 54; and
WHEREAS, the Council
concludes that the installation of a traffic diverters on Rogerson
Drive and Oakwood Drive at its their intersections with
N.C. 54 should be made permanent;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE
IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council directs
the Town Manager to have permanent traffic diverters designed and installed
on Rogerson Drive and Oakwood Drive at its their intersections
with NC 54 and remove the temporary diverter on Oakwood Drive.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the Council approves the use of funds from the Town Capital Improvements
Program Traffic Calming Account for construction of the permanent diverters.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED
that the Manager is directed to enforce the traffic regulations associated
with the diverters to the maximum extent possible with available resources.
This the 22nd day of November, 1999.
Council Member Wiggins asked to go on record as opposing this RESOLUTION which she said would make the situation worse than having diverters on both streets.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED THE COUNCIL REVISIT THE RESOLUTION THEY HAD PASSED IN 1997 TO LOOK AT TRAFFIC CALMING FOR THE AREA. SHE ALSO MOVED THE MANAGER BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION EARLY IN JANUARY FOR A PROCESS TO BRING THE NEIGHBORHOODS TOGETHER TO WORK ON TRAFFIC CALMING FOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK SECONDED.
Council Member Wiggins said she would support the motion. She added if the larger analysis showed the Council should not have adopted R-17a then they should undo that action. Mr. Horton said he would like the staff to be able to take vacation time and a February deadline would be more feasible. Council Member Brown agreed to the change.
Mayor Waldorf suggested the staff look at the Hamilton Road/Highway 54 Work Group model in this context.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Mayor Waldorf asked if the action just taken meant the Town would take away the temporary diverter on Oakwood and make the one on Rogerson Road permanent regardless of the progress of the larger study. Mr. Horton replied he had been about to ask the Council to clarify its instructions in that regard. He added in order to adopt anything as permanent the Council would have to adopt the ordinance, with item P removed.
Council Member Evans asked if that meant the Council could keep from putting something permanent in by not adopting the ordinance.
Mr. Horton replied that was correct, adding the Council can choose to continue the experiment at one intersection at the same time it chooses to remove the experiment from the other intersection, or it could remove one and make the other permanent.
Council Member Pavăo stated it would be more cost-effective to keep a non-permanent one in place until they see what other traffic calming devices.
Mayor pro tem Capowski said he was assuming the permanent diverters would be better built and safer than the temporary ones.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED O-5 WITH ITEM P REMOVED. MAYOR PRO TEM CAPOWSKI SECONDED.
Mr. Horton said the Attorney had pointed out the item would have to pass on the first reading with six votes.
The vote Was 5-4, Council Members Bateman, Foy, Brown, Capowski and McClintock voting aye, and Council Members Wiggins, Evans, Pavăo and Waldorf voting nay. Mayor Waldorf noted the item would come back for a second reading.
Council Member McClintock asked if there was any sentiment on the Council for keeping the temporary diverter on Oakwood Drive.
Council Member Bateman said she would go along with that while the study is being conducted, but a seventeen-foot road such as Rogerson requires some sort of special action.
Mayor Waldorf noted the Council would need to take action to keep the temporary diverter on Oakwood while the study is being conducted.
Council Member Bateman noted they need to keep diverter there in order to assess the impact on Hamilton Road.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO KEEP THE TEMPORARY DIVERTER ON OAKWOOD DRIVE PENDING THE STUDY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos stated Council Member Foy was “absolutely correct that he was proper in voting on this matter.” Mr. Karpinos said it was not a matter in which a Council Member could have been excused from voting.
Mayor Waldorf added this was an important and sensitive matter for many people, and for the Council as well. She pledged they would do their best to get good traffic calming for the entire area.
Council Member Wiggins noted this would not be just a traffic study because one of the goals was to develop a process to get the neighborhood working together to solve the issues and find a solution. Mr. Horton replied he had understood this intent.
Council Member Evans asked if they would need another vote to spend the money. Mayor Waldorf replied this would be done at the next meeting.
Due to the late hour, Council Members agreed to address item nine and then recess until the following evening at 5:00 p.m.
Town Planner Chris Berndt explained this item was a follow-up to the November 8, 1999 discussion and action. She said Council Members had adopted the map, had referred the item to Hillsborough and Orange Water and Sewer Authority, and had asked the staff for a follow-up report on two specific questions. The first question concerned Hillsborough being a party to the joint agreement vs. Hillsborough and Orange Water and Sewer Authority having a separate agreement. The second question had to do with linkage and the extent of veto power.
Ms. Berndt said the staff’s report pointed out the Town would not be able to have the same terms with a separate agreement between Hillsborough that it would have in the joint agreement. She explained the Town Attorney had previously recommended additional language be added to emphasize the principles of the agreement would be paramount. Ms. Berndt added, though, the additional language would recognize the agreement can not change the action of potentially independent parties.
Regarding the veto power question, Ms. Berndt pointed out section four of the agreement would require the approval of four different entities, as would the section on non-emergency transfers.
Council Member Evans asked if the Town had heard from Orange Water and Sewer Authority regarding this agreement. Ms. Berndt replied a meeting was pending.
Mayor Waldorf added Orange Water and Sewer Authority would try and fit a discussion of this in on December 9th.
Council Member McClintock pointed out it was unusual for towns to give utilities equal footing with governments. She noted the agreement would develop a common understanding of what the utility should do, adding she did not think the utility should drive those discussions.
Council Member McClintock referred to a letter from her and Mayor pro tem Capowski to the Council in which they had outlined why the agreement was important and urged the Council move on it because it offers predictability to all the governments and reduces the potential for disagreements and future conflicts. She added if the agreement were adopted it would underpin the Land Use Plan and prevent it from breaking down. Council Member McClintock said she and Mayor pro tem Capowski had worked for four years on this agreement and think it is vital to move expeditiously to protect the rural buffer and areas south and east of the Town. She implored the Council to move ahead tonight with as much of the agreement as possible.
Mayor Waldorf proposed endorsing the document in concept, but getting comments from OWASA and the other boards. She specifically noted section 6F (regarding water and sewer service into and out of Orange County), section 7b (involving non-emergency water transfers), and the linkages section, where she suggested adding Attorney Karpinos’ language.
Mr. Karpinos explained he had recommended revising the third sentence (“where inconsistencies exit this agreement shall control”) to something like “where inconsistencies exist it is the intent of the parties this agreement shall control except as otherwise provided by law.”
Mayor pro tem Capowski expressed willingness to compromise on two out of three of Mayor Waldorf’s concerns.
Mayor Waldorf emphasized she really did want to hear from OWASA on what “non-emergency water transfers” means to them. She said Commissioner Moses Carey had told her the document explicitly prohibits linking an essential public facility, such as a school, to a sewer line which had been extended to an area in the watershed or rural buffer with failing septic systems. Council Member McClintock replied there had been at least three meetings devoted to developing the compromise language on page 35 and it does not create a prohibition. Mayor
Council Member McClintock noted non-emergency water transfer is a policy decision governments should be involved in.
Mayor Waldorf agreed, but repeated her desire to know what the document means to Orange Water and Sewer Authority. She pointed out there could be operational situations where it would make sense for Orange Water and Sewer Authority to buy water from Durham of vise versa. She stated she would not want a vaguely worded paragraph in the agreement to stand in the way of basic efficient operation.
Council Member Bateman agreed the Council would be better informed after hearing how Orange Water and Sewer Authority would be affected. Referring to the “essential public facilities” section on page 35, which gives special consideration to schools, she asked why fire stations had not been included. Mayor pro tem Capowski replied that had been an oversight.
Council Member McClintock added the paragraph had used schools as an example, but did not intend to eliminate fire stations.
Council Member Pavăo proposed endorsing the agreement in concept and then waiting for answers to specific questions before ratifying it.
Council Member McClintock suggested trying to reach accommodation on the issues Mayor Waldorf had raised. She said she and Mayor pro tem Capowski would have no problem compromising on F, and the linkage question would be covered by Mr. Karpinos’ language. Council Member McClintock pointed out the non-emergency water transfer section was the only one not agreed upon.
Council Member Evans expressed concerns about the 30-day, 60-day and 90-day review of water emergency transfers. She said she did not feel she had enough information to adopt the agreement tonight, adding if it is the right thing to do it will be the right thing next month as well.
Council Member Bateman asked if it was true most things had been passed in the committee on a 4-3 vote. Council Member McClintock replied some, but not all, of the votes were 4-3.
Mayor pro tem Capowski explained the differences between the utility and the governments had resulted in a lot of split votes. He said there had been a seat change at Orange Water and Sewer Authority in the middle of this process and there was much more consensus on the committee after.
Council Member Wiggins supported Mayor Waldorf’s proposal to adopt the concept. She added she would like to hear from the other municipalities. Acknowledging she had heard from members of the group who were dissatisfied with the voting, Council Member Wiggins said she wanted more feedback to understand the agreement better.
Mayor Waldorf again suggested endorsing the agreement in concept, including the Attorney’s language, and asking for further discussion of 6F and 7B.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED THE COUNCIL ENDORSE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ATTORNEY’S LANGUAGE REGARDING THE LINKAGES, AND WITH THE CHANGES ON PAGE 35 TO TWO OF THREE GOVERNMENTS PLUS ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY. SHE ALSO MOVED THEY HOLD OPEN THE NON-EMERGENCY WATER TRANSFERS SECTION PENDING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OTHER GOVERNMENTS AND ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY.
Mayor Waldorf asked Council Member Bateman if she was clear about the siting of essential public facilities in section E. Council Member Bateman replied it would be better if they could add “particularly schools and fire stations” to the first sentence.
Council Member Wiggins said she was not clear about the compromise language on Page 35F.
After discussion among Council Members McClintock, Waldorf and Capowski, Council Members agreed to change the next to the last sentence on page 35 to read: “Any extension of lines. Requires the approval of two of the following three governments plus Orange Water and Sewer Authority.”
Council Member Evans stated this would raise questions.
Mayor Waldorf suggested flagging that section and asking the Attorney to come up with language the next day. Mr. Karpinos there would be three governments but one would have to be the one whose jurisdiction the line is in.
Council Member Pavăo asked if Council Member McClintock had moved to endorse the agreement or the concept. Council Member McClintock replied her motion was to endorse the agreement. Several council members said they had not realized.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mayor Waldorf asked Town Clerk Joyce Smith to restate Council Member McClintock’s motion.
Ms. Smith restated the motion: “the Council endorse the agreement with the attorney’s language regarding the linkages, and with the changes on page 35 to two of three governments plus Orange Water and Sewer Authority. She also moved they hold open the non-emergency water transfers section pending discussions with the other governments and Orange Water and Sewer Authority. Council Member McClintock added she just wanted something would move the process forward.
COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ENDORSE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE ATTORNEY’S LANGUAGE REGARDING LINKAGES AND ORANGE WATER AND SEWER AUTHORITY’S COMMENTS BE OBTAINED AND MORE DISCUSSION TAKE PLACE REGARDING SECTIONS 6F AND 7B. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Pavăo moved to recess the meeting to November 23. Council Member McClintock asked to add number 15 to the next evening’s agenda. Council Member Bateman asked to add 17b. Council Members Bateman and Foy suggested recessing until January to discuss issues other than EmPOWERment, Inc.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECESS THE MEETING UNTIL THE NEXT DAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCUSSING THE EMPOWERMENT PROJECT ONLY. THE MOTION WAD ADOPTED (8-1), WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MCCLINTOCK VOTING NAY.
The meeting was recessed at 11:29 p.m.
The minutes of November 22, 1999 were adopted on January 10, 2000.
_______________________________
Joyce A. Smith, CMC Town Clerk