SUMMARY MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL PLANNING SESSION
FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2000 AT 8:30 A.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the session to order at 8:30 a.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavão, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Finance Director Jim Baker, Personnel Director Pat Thomas, Planning Director Roger Waldon, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Also present was Ms. Jess Fisher, facilitator for the session.
Ms. Fisher gave an overview of ground rules for the session, which would be informal. She noted that the primary ground rule is that each Council member would have an opportunity to speak before others speak for a second time.
Ms. Fisher said that most of day would be spent establishing priorities for the coming year. She said the morning would concentrate on financial issues, and the afternoon on administrative items.
Mr. Horton gave overview of the projected budget for next fiscal year. He said expectations were that a 5-cent increase over the current year budget may be necessary, but the forecast is expected to change as more information is gathered. Mr. Horton noted that some program changes will require additional funds, and issuance of bonds will affect budget.
Finance Director Jim Baker gave a brief overview of the budget forecast. He noted that 1 cent on the tax rate on the estimated tax base is equivalent to $300,000. Mr. Baker stated that projections do not include any commitment costs related to annexation, and do not include any potential additional personnel costs other than the normal pay increases.
Regarding the current year budget, Mr. Baker noted the following:
· revenues for the current year are expected to come in as estimated, with no excess.
· property tax revenues will be slightly higher, with a collection rate of 98.5 percent.
· We expect a small increase in sales tax revenue, about 50,000, due to a larger increase in final sales tax collections last year.
· Estimated franchise tax revenues are about $65,000 less than original budget estimates due to a shortfall last year that resulted in a lower base for the current year.
· Other revenues in the General Fund are about as estimated.
Mr. Baker stated there are no other significant changes in projections for next year, and he does not anticipate any significant revenue increases.
Regarding expenditures, Mr. Baker noted the revised forecast includes the cost of current services and programs with basic assumptions as followings:
· Additional debt service on new bonds is equivalent to 1.5 cents, or $450,000.
· Compensation adjustments during the current fiscal year were for 8 months. Additional funding is needed to provide for the full year cost of compensation adjustments funded for only 8 months in the current year, about $300,000, or 1 cent on the tax rate.
· Six additional firefighter positions, budgeted for 3 months of the new fiscal year, are estimated at $70,000.
· New operating costs related to bond projects is estimated at $64,000.
· Additional General Fund costs for the projected increase in landfill charges are estimated at $25,000.
Mr. Horton noted that the detail from the pay consultant study has not been included at this time. He said we have budgeted a nominal sum for this study. Mr. Horton stated that department heads have been told to present budgets with no increase in operating costs, except for personnel costs.
Mr. Horton reminded the Council that the landfill budget would not be reviewed by the Council but by the County. He noted the transfer of landfill operations to the County is scheduled for late March.
Mr. Baker noted that these increases add up to 6.5 cents, but revenues are expected to bring this increase to 5 cents.
Council Member Evans asked why franchise tax revenues would be less. Mr. Baker answered they are taxes collected by the State on public utilities, and the State keeps about 3 percent of these funds. He said that even though we are receiving more funds this year, we underestimated last year's projection so the projected increase this year still does not meet our forecast.
Mr. Horton added this revenue is from gross sale of utilities, and the warm winter last year had a direct effect on gross sales.
Council Member Strom noted Mr. Baker had estimated a 5 percent increase in sales tax. He said it appears that sales tax revenue County-wide has increased by 10 percent. Mr. Baker responded that at this point he did not believe our revenues would increase 10 percent. He said it is too earlier to make such a projection.
Mr. Horton said we were not yet in a position to tell what effect the floods in the eastern part of the State will have on sales tax revenues. He added the State economy is strong and we may be surprised, but once we receive our second quarter revenue, we may have a stronger projection to report.
Council Member Wiggins asked if finance officers of Orange County had a forecast of what effect Internet commerce would have on sales tax. Mr. Horton answered there was no way to forecast the consequences. He added that the NC City-County Managers Association had discussed this issue.
Council Member Brown said the National League of Cites was studying this issue and had called a moratorium. Mr. Horton said that staff would be glad to research this issue.
Mayor pro tem Pavão said this was a high priority for the National League of Cities, and noted the moratorium may be extended while research is conducted. He said this issue would be discussed at the National League of Cities meeting in March. Mayor pro tem Pavão noted the Council should add this to the list that will be presented to our legislative delegation.
Council Member Foy asked about the $800,000 projection on appropriated revenues. Mr. Baker said this is the estimated rollover of funds into the New Year, and is only a projection. He said this has been the case in past years. Mr. Baker added that if we have a year in which revenues are much less than expenditures, we would have to rely on fund balance to balance the budget.
Mr. Horton said this year we estimated $850,000 in appropriated fund balance, but we hope that during the course of the year we will have revenue increases of as much as $350,000. He noted we would also have expenditure reductions, some of which would come from salary from vacant positions, plus no snow removal, and hope that projections would come in at $500,000 less than projected. Mr. Horton said when we begin having flatter revenues that tells us we must be careful not to use saved money during the course of the year so that the $850,000 figure can be met.
Council Member Bateman asked if annexing Southern Village would help offset some expenses. Mr. Horton said the additional costs should balance out with estimated revenues. Council Member Bateman asked if there were full build out, would we stand to make a profit? Mr. Horton answered it may, but it would generate expenses for the school system, which means that taxpayers may see an increase.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Baker to comment on the transit funds. Mr. Baker said that based on our best estimates to date, we expect to receive about $650,000 in federal assistance, $550,000 in normal State assistance and additional State assistance of $515,000 from a special State appropriation in the current year. Mr. Baker noted it appears now that this appropriation will not be available in future years.
Mr. Horton commented that some expenditures were made related to Hurricane Floyd assistance.
Council Member Evans asked about the $5 vehicle tax increase. Mr. Baker said we have authorization to levy an additional $5 in vehicle tax, and the projections reflect this increase.
Mr. Horton noted this was discussed last year, but our situation did not require it. He added that this year these extra funds would be necessary.
Mayor Waldorf asked if this meant the vehicle license fee would increase to $20. Mr. Horton answered yes, adding the funds could only be used for transportation.
Council Member Evans said many out-of-state vehicles, such as those belonging to students, do not pay this fee.
Council Member Strom asked if this had to be a flat fee. Mr. Horton said yes, under current State statute.
Council Member Evans asked if trucks were taxed at the same rate. Mr. Horton said there is no provision for type of vehicle or age of vehicle under the current rate structure.
Mr. Baker concluded his remarks by stating that the projection for landfill fund is that a $1 increase in tipping fees would be necessary. He noted the forecast is a conservative one at this time, but he does not expect it to change significantly.
Mayor Waldorf stated that this means it will be very difficult to cut the budget. Mr. Baker agreed, but noted the figures are preliminary.
Mr. Horton said we do not expect changes in Housing fund, adding the upcoming census would affect the Housing fund and Community Development fund. He said if the new census figures show we have become a smaller portion of the population total, we may have to compete for discretionary funds, which would affect the Housing funds and Entitlement funds. Mr. Horton said we have no way of predicting what population totals will be, but there may be some consequences the Council should be aware of.
Council Member Foy asked when these potential affects would show up. Mr. Horton answered most likely in the 2001-2002 budget.
Mr. Baker said he had not adjusted sales tax revenue projections based on this potential population change, because the figures would not be available in time to have any affect on next year's budget. He agreed with Mr. Horton that it would potentially affect the 2001-2002 budget.
Council Member Ward said that the maintenance costs for the parking deck are addressed through the Parking fund, but an increase is expected to maintain this fund. He asked if we have considered raising parking fees to begin generating these projected increases. Mr. Horton noted the Council could begin building this fund at any time. He said we could make a projection if the Council was interested. Council Member Ward said he believed we should.
Mayor Waldorf said she would support the staff proposing a fee increase in parking fees.
Council Member Evans warned that other towns were doing things to generate interest in their downtown, and we should be very careful because many other towns do not charge for parking downtown. Mr. Horton said we are experiencing an increase in complaints over the cost of tickets for parking violations. He said we would have a better idea if an increase is needed after the transit budget is completed.
Council Member Strom asked when was the last increase. Mr. Horton said he believed it was four years ago. He said suggested we should look at what it would take to increase the revenue to a penny on the tax rate. Mr. Horton reminded the Council that street meters are General Fund revenues, but other revenues must be used for transit-related items only. Council Member Strom noted that four years at a flat rate is significant.
Council Member Evans said that compared to parking in other towns, we are high.
Council Member Foy asked if the meters were replaced, would it be economical for the meters to accept dollar bills? He said that some types of meters could accept ATM cards. Mr. Horton said this would be a practical consideration.
Council Member Brown asked if we owned Town parking lots outright without any debt. Mr. Horton answered that we owned all of them, but Lots #1, #3, and #5 have debt, but some of the smaller lots are debt free.
Council Member Evans said if we were to raise the monthly cost for leasing spaces, that would not necessarily mean we would have to raise meter rates. Mr. Horton said that is correct.
Mayor Waldorf asked if at least five of the Council were interested in pursuing this issue. The Council agreed by consensus.
Mayor Waldorf asked if any Council members had ideas or suggestions on ways to reduce the 5-cent projected increase. She suggested we consider putting out word to various agencies that this was not a good year to ask for increases in funding from the Town, and that advisory boards meet with the Council during budget deliberations to discuss their needs.
Council Member Brown said there was a report in the NCLM newsletter that said most North Carolina communities did not expect tax increases this year. She asked how they were able to do that, adding that we should look into have they achieved that and if they are projecting the same for this year. Mr. Horton said other communities are so different from ours, that we may not learn anything new from them. He said North Carolina League of Municipalities' studies are published if the Council wished further information on this.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council agreed that budgets for outside agencies should be kept at the same level with no increase.
Council Member Foy asked how we would communicate that? Mr. Horton said we could send a letter to each agency that normally receives funds, stating that the Council would not consider increases over current levels.
Council Member Ward asked if we could go further, and say we were looking at ways to achieve reductions, and could not guarantee the same level as last year.
Council Member Bateman suggested we wait until we get a better idea of projected sales tax revenue.
Council Member Ward said he was uncomfortable with leaving the levels the same, that we should not promise the same levels as last year.
Council Member Brown asked if that was the Mayor's intent when she made the suggestion. Mayor Waldorf said her intent was to relay to the agencies that this was not a year that the Council would entertain increases.
Council Member Wiggins said some agencies come directly to the Council, but others go through the Human Services Advisory Board's process.
Mayor pro tem Pavão said he was comfortable with holding the level, but the Council should consider cutting the level if it becomes necessary.
Council Member Ward said he was suggesting that we not guarantee the same level as last year, and that we warn agencies they may experience a decrease.
Council Member Brown asked if she was hearing a concern about raising taxes, that we maintain the same level. Mayor Waldorf responded that she did not believe that would be possible, since last year some programs were delayed in order to cut the budget, and now those issues had to be dealt with in the coming year.
The Council agreed by consensus that agencies who receive funds from the Town would be told that no increases would be grant, and that some reduction in the level of funding may be necessary.
Mr. Horton reminded the Council that department heads have been told not to increase their operating budgets, although some increases will be experienced such as the six additional firefighters.
Council Member Evans said we could reduce landfill expenses by reducing the amount landfilled, and suggested we encourage more recycling.
Council Member Ward said he was interested in investigating cost savings though different methods of garbage collection, such as curbside collection or "pay as you throw." Council Member Brown said a committee is working on this issue.
Mr. Horton said he did not plan to make a proposal regarding curbside collection unless the Council requested it, as it had been discussed many times in the past.
Council Member Brown the committee was charged with looking at pay as you throw, not curbside collection.
Mayor Waldorf said she would like for curbside collection to be included in the committee's work.
Council Member Wiggins said she would like to have some information on cost savings regarding garbage collections.
Council Member Brown said there was an indication that pay as you throw would be considered, not curbside collections.
Mayor Waldorf suggested amending the charge of the committee to include a study of curbside collections as opposed to backyard collections. She asked if the Council wished to consider curbside collections?
Council Member Brown said she believed we should be looking at pay as you throw instead, and the committee expected to make a report this spring on this issue.
Mayor pro tem Pavão said we should consider curbside collection in light of the projected budget increase.
Mr. Horton said staff would re-issue the most recent report on curbside collection to refresh the Council's memory. He noted it would take about six months to institute such a change in collections, and if the Council adopted this change it would be January before it could begin, and would take about two years to fully implement.
The Council agreed by consensus to have staff re-issue the curbside collection reports.
Starting Time of Work Sessions
Mr. Horton noted that updated Council meeting schedules had been distributed. He called attention to work session scheduled with department heads, and asked if the Council wished to schedule a longer, afternoon session in order to hear department presentations. He also noted the Council had expressed interest in changing the starting time of work sessions.
Mayor Waldorf said last year the Council did schedule one long afternoon session to hear department presentations, and asked if the Council wished to compress the March 1, 8 and 22 meetings into one long afternoon session.
Mr. Horton said it may take about eight to ten hours to do this, and suggested one long meeting and one short meeting.
The Council agreed by consensus to one long meeting and one shorter meeting. Mr. Horton noted staff would propose dates and times for these two meetings.
Council Member Ward noted that the March 22 meeting was to include advisory board presentations. Mr. Horton noted they were now scheduled for February 16.
Mayor Waldorf asked for consensus from the Council on work sessions being moved from a starting time of 6 p.m. to a starting time of 4 p.m., with snacks being provided rather than a meal.
Council Member Bateman said she would agree to Mondays and Wednesdays, but not Tuesdays and Thursdays because of other commitments. The Council agreed by consensus to schedule work sessions on Mondays and Wednesdays beginning at 4 p.m.
Mr. Horton asked the Council to consider a work session in August for planning prior to the budget season.
Mayor pro tem Pavão suggested scheduling such a session, adding that the Council could decide at a later time if it was necessary. Mr. Horton noted staff would propose a date and time for the Council's consideration. The Council agreed by consensus.
Consideration of Procedures Changed in the Last Year
· Moving petitions from beginning to end of Council meetings: Council agreed to continue this process.
· Council members calling in by 3:00 on the day of a business meeting to request items be removed from the consent agenda. Council agreed by consensus to continue this process.
· Placing advisory board nominations on the consent agenda. The Council agreed by consensus to continue this process.
· Moving advisory board appointments to the end of meeting. The Council agreed by consensus to continue this process.
Regarding department head budget presentations, Mr. Horton noted that March 17 was a possible date for the long session, to begin at noon. Mayor Waldorf pointed out that was the week of spring break for the public schools.
Mr. Horton said Representative Hackney had proposed that the annual legislative breakfast be held on April 18.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE SCHEDULE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS (2000-01-14/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby amends the schedule for development of legislative proposals as follows:
|
January 14, Friday |
Discussion by the Council at Retreat |
|
January 25, Tuesday |
Public forum to receive suggestions from citizens |
|
March 6, Monday |
Council considers tentative list of legislative objectives |
|
March 29, Wednesday |
Public forum on potential legislative objectives |
|
April 14, Friday |
Discussion with Legislative Delegation |
|
April 24, Monday |
Council consideration of legislative objectives |
|
May 8, Monday |
Legislative Session begins |
This the 14th day of January, 2000.
Council Member Brown said the General Assembly had a committee to look at growth issues, and asked if the Council wanted to send a delegation to meet with them to discuss these issues. The Council agreed by consensus. Council Members Brown, Ward, and Evans agreed to participate.
Ms. Fisher proposed the as a process that each Council member would present their key objectives by stating what their top priorities would be, have a discussion, then vote on those priorities. Ms. Fisher noted that a progress report on goals and objectives from 1998-99 had been distributed to the Council for their review.
Council Member Brown asked if any issues could be proposed, whether previously considered or not. Ms. Fisher said each Council Member would have an opportunity to present any issue as a priority, then after the discussion the Council would vote on what its top priorities would be for the coming year.
Ms. Fisher noted she would go around the table and recognize each Council Member until no other issues were proposed.
Council Member Foy: future structure of Town staff in general; how the Council can plan for the impact of the Internet, with business and commerce being conducted over the Internet. He said he believed there would be a significant impact over the next ten years, and wanted the Town to be a leader in the restructuring of our economy.
Council Member Strom: Council efficiency and how they do business. He said we should use committees as a tool, especially with development and budget proposals, and regional planning.
Mayor Waldorf: Employee/Employer housing.
Mayor pro tem Pavão: Streetscape - put it on a fast track.
Council Member Brown: wants to analyze issues that continue to come back each year and develop a process to discover what has been done to resolve them and what can be done to deal with them in the future.
Council Member Bateman: flexibility in the Development Ordinance.
Council Member Ward: creating a way to facilitate a more proactive approach by the Town in terms of making neighborhoods aware of development within their neighborhoods, such as neighborhood liaisons.
Council Member Wiggins: development of a range of housing prices.
Council Member Evans: adoption of the Downtown Small Area Plan.
Council Member Foy: County recreation and parks master plan and related issues and the possibility of a bond to support it.
Council Member Strom: look at the way the Town finds opportunities for open space acquisition.
Mayor Waldorf: the number of goals considered this year be decreased substantially as compared to prior years.
Mayor pro tem Pavão: establish formal process on how staff could improve efficiency.
Council Member Brown: development proposals - determine who it would benefit, how it would impact the Town, etc.
Council Member Bateman: develop a process so that development proposals were less adversarial for all - the applicant, neighbors, Town staff.
Council Member Ward: fast track revenue update changes to the Development Ordinance, reflecting the new Comprehensive Plan.
Council member Wiggins passed.
Council Member Evans: continue attention to the visual aspects of our community.
Council Member Foy: develop long-range plan for use of the Post Office building.
Council Member Strom: consider switching to a 15-year capital budget process.
Mayor Waldorf passed.
Mayor pro tem Pavão passed.
Council Member Brown: incorporate sustainability into short-term plans and eventually into all plans.
Council Member Bateman passed.
Council Member Ward: develop a traffic study related to development proposals.
Council Member Wiggins passed.
Council Member Evans passed.
No other Council members had issues to add to the list.
Ms. Fisher began discussion on the issues proposed by the Council.
Council Member Ward asked how these goals would impact the Council. Mayor Waldorf said the implementation of these goals would become a priority for staff and the Council.
Council Member Ward asked if this meant energies would be focused on these issues? Council Member Wiggins said primary focus would be placed on these goals.
Mayor Waldorf suggested the Council discuss Council Member Ward's question in more detail.
Goal 1: Structure of Town Staff.
Council Member Foy said it was important that we take advantage of the new economy, specifically envisioning the future and how it affects the Town. He said we need to give the Manager the tools and support necessary to be able to restructure our staff based on the new economy. Council Member Foy said he does not think we are necessarily giving that support now, adding we needed to develop ways to maximize efficiency of local government.
Mr. Horton said a good example would be when the Planning staff had their annual retreat, they noted they needed to be moving in a direction that emphasized the internet and its interaction in the way we conduct business.
Council Member Foy said we needed to view how we are organized, and see have to reorganize and structure ourselves to take advantage of new opportunities.
Council Member Brown said she wondered if we would need more people, less people, or different people.
Mayor Waldorf asked it if would be worthwhile to research if other local governments in the United States were currently dealing with this issue and how they did it.
Council Member Evans asked if this would include incorporating other technology into the way we conduct business?
Goal #11: Open Space and Land Acquisition.
Council Member Strom said he believed the Council was in a reactive mode regarding this, adding that a certain amount of expertise and focus is necessary when acquiring land and projecting future land needs. He said he believed we should be more aggressive and focused on determine what assets are needed in the future. Council Member Strom remarked he would like a more formal, independent group, such as consultants, to address these issues before the Council reviews proposals.
Council Member Evans asked if this would include future land acquisition for future municipal activity, such as new facilities, rather than just parks or open space. Council Member Strom said yes, that it is never a mistake to own land inside Chapel Hill.
Council Member Ward agreed, noting this would support a 15-year CIP, so that land could be acquired long before it is needed.
Council Member Strom added that he believed it was the Council's responsibility to identify land purchase opportunities.
Goal #3: Employee/Employer Housing
Mayor Waldorf stated she had sent the Council a report on this issue, and asked the Council to agree to have the consultant make a presentation at the Council's February 7 work session regarding this issue.
Goal #4: Streetscape on fast track.
Mayor pro tem Pavão said the physical aspects of streetscape had started, and he would like to see it completed. He remarked he believes it would encourage more visitors to downtown. Mayor pro tem Pavão asked the Council to look beyond streetscape, and how other communities have enhanced their downtowns.
Council Member Foy asked what did Mayor pro tem Pavão mean by fast track? Mayor pro tem Pavão said to move up the schedule, and continue looking for funds to close the gaping holes in the process and move ahead.
Goal #5: Issues from Past Retreats.
Council Member Brown distributed a memo regarding progress on goals and objectives from 1998-99. She noted that these issues continue to come back to the Council, adding she would like to develop a process so that these issues could be looked at, discover how they were addressed in past years, what we have done, what we haven't done, and what is yet to do. Council Member Brown said these issues seem to keep repeating themselves as priorities.
Goal #6: Flexibility in the Development Ordinance.
Council Member Bateman said she would like to identify ways that flexibility could be built into the Development Ordinance, such as reducing impervious surfaces and looking at recreation requirements.
Council Member Ward noted that last year's number one priority was a complete analysis of pros and cons of development proposals. He said when the Council recently considered a Special Use Permit for the BP Gas Station, the Planning staff had provided significant text on the positive aspects of this development, but offered no negative comments. Council Member Ward stated he believed when issues reached the public hearing stage, more effort should be made to have someone who would actively inform neighborhoods of a particular development they may have an interest in, so that there would be time for the developer/applicant to react proactively.
Council Member Brown asked if Council Member Ward was talking about notification rather than the information provided to the Council. Council Member Ward said he believed this process could allow the Council to receive an equally full perspective of a community's perception on the proposal than it is receiving now.
Mr. Horton stated that since the neighborhoods are not organized, their perceptions may not be getting into the record for Council's consideration. Council Member Ward agreed.
Goal #8: Range of Housing prices.
Council Member Wiggins remarked that a way to meet our concerns about housing was to consider a range of housing opportunities as a way of looking at not just affordable housing but also what is available. She said the incentives could be addressed in a variety of ways.
Goal #16: Continue Attention to Visual Aspects of the Community.
Council Member Evans said we should continue street tree planting, continue our cleanup in the community, continue all visual improvements, and any other things that would enhance the community.
Goal #10: Recreation and Parks Master Plan; Bond Issue to Support It.
Council Member Foy said this is a joint effort of Carrboro, Orange County and Chapel Hill, UNC and OWASA, and he came to the conclusion that the County as a whole needs to start land banking for future parks and open space needs. He noted we need to begin by supporting a bond to pay for this, and be proactive. Council Member Foy said a bond will not pass until Chapel Hill is firmly behind it, and there may be direct benefits to us other than just recreational benefits, noting Merritt Pasture as an example.
Council Member Evans said we have money for land acquisition, but what we don't have is money for development. She asked if any of the bond money would be used for development of, for instance, the Southern Community Park or a community center? Council Member Foy answered that these questions are why we should put focus on a County-wide bond referendum. He said the Recreation and Parks Master Plan report should tell us how much we need to spend to purchase land for future needs. But, Council Member Foy noted, we need other funds as well to develop the Southern Community Park and others. He said that if we have bond, we must be sure it addresses our needs as well as future County needs.
Mayor Waldorf asked if Council Member Foy was saying we needed to develop a negotiating position, to assure that Chapel Hill gets adequate funds through a bond issue. Council member Foy said yes, and that it would be a two-step process: first, to consider the Recreation and Parks Master Plan; and second, discover how to acquire the funds, probably through a bond. He said he believed we needed to take control of the situation and decide if supporting a bond was a good financial choice.
Council Member Strom said the fundamental question is should there be a Chapel Hill bond or an Orange County bond?
Goal #18: 15-year Capital Improvements Program.
Council Member Strom said we have a tremendous amount of excellent ideas in the community, and a 15-year CIP creates a financial plan to obtain our goals, and is an excellent planning tool from an environmental, visionary and financial standpoint. He added he believes it is a responsible approach to planning for the future.
Goal #12: Staff Brainstorming.
Mayor pro tem Pavão said he believes the staff appreciated the opportunity to participate in this, and the Council received some excellent ideas through this process, adding that we should continue it.
Council Member Brown asked if this would be a way to look for ways to cut costs? Mayor pro tem Pavão said it would primarily be to ask staff how they could better perform their jobs, which could equate to cost savings.
Council Member Bateman asked if this process was built into the budget process. Mr. Horton said no. He said that many of the suggestions made by staff were ways to improve communications, and some were how to improve service to customers. Mr. Horton added that many of the ideas were implemented right away.
Mayor pro tem Pavão said it gives employees a direct way to participate in how their jobs are performed, and believed staff viewed this as a positive process. Mr. Horton said he believed brainstorming was more focused on what could be achieved now, rather than long-term achievements.
Goal #13: Development Proposals.
Council Member Brown stated that development proposals should be looked at in such a way that we determine the purpose of the proposal, who will benefit, what it will cost to the Chapel Hill taxpayers, whether it can be accommodated by our available resources and waste receptacles (whether land, air or water), and who will be impacted.
Council Member Bateman said she would like to be more proactive when reviewing development proposals so that developers and applicants were fully informed. Mr. Horton said he would like to see if we could modify our Development Ordinance in some way so that a preliminary hearing could be held and have some opportunity for an interchange of information among the developers, the neighbors and other stakeholders. He suggested an informal feedback process would address these issues.
Council Member Evans asked that instead of this being discussed during the Special Use Permit process, could there be some other process that would allow dialogue to take place earlier in the process? Mr. Horton said the greatest degree of flexibility is through the SUP process.
Mr. Waldon said the SUP process involves both the highest amount of flexibility and discretion for the Council. He said some type of process for dialogue before the SUP is filed may be more advantageous, but he is concerned how this might be done in light of the quasi-judicial SUP process.
Mayor Waldorf said one possibility would be that if that type of informal public session could be held, then that process not be made available to every request, but only to modifications to Special Use Permits.
Council Member Strom said the system had failed in the BP Gas Station SUP modification process.
Goal #2: Council Efficiency.
Council Member Strom said that when the committee structure is used, it has been effective, and that maybe a more formalized process should be implemented for these types of committees. He added this should include Mayor's committees as well as standing committees, so that a policy could be discussed earlier in the process.
Council Member Bateman said that when the Council chooses its priorities today, ad hoc committees could be formed to work on the goals.
Council Member Strom said he believed use of such committees would lead to more Council affiance and better decisions.
The planning session was adjourned for the lunch break at 12 noon.
The planning session resumed at 12:45 p.m.
Ms. Fisher noted the Council still needed to discussion goals 15, 17, 19, and 20.
Goal #15: Fast-tracking New Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Ward said we should follow an expedited process to address the Development Ordinance in light of the soon to be completed update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Goal #17: Long Range Plan for Post Office Building.
Council Member Foy said this building serves more of a role than just a place to pick up mail. He remarked that we have a space that we are not paying attention to, and wants to Council to begin looking at it for different uses before it deteriorates beyond public use.
Goal #19: Sustainability Considered in the Development Process.
Council Member Ward said a large component of Shaping Orange County's Future pertains to this idea. He said that the University is very active in this area and is working hard at not just talking about it, but acting on it, from design of large buidings to disposal of waste. Council Member Ward said he would like the University and Town to have a strong link in this regard, and believes the University is now ahead of the Town on this issue.
Council Member Brown said she would like to look at what the Town has actually achieved.
Goal #20: Traffic Study.
Council Member Ward stated we should require development requests to address specific traffic impacts better than now. He stated he felt uncomfortable with the information provided regarding traffic impacts that were presented at the public hearing on the BP Gas Station Special Use Permit application. Council Member Ward added to say you were adding 300 to 700 cars to a residential street and stating that it made no traffic impact was unbelievable. He said he would like to require a more specific, unbiased traffic impact statement be provided.
Ms. Fisher pointed out that added to the list were numbers circled in red that identified items that were part of the proposed implementation schedule of the Comprehensive Plan. She said that there were two things that should be accomplished. First, some of these issues could be consolidated into one larger issue. Then, there needed to be discussion as to why some issues are more important that others. Ms. Fisher said she would like to see these proposals made more explicit before they are forwarded to the staff. She suggested that the Council come to some agreement on these issues.
Council Member Foy said once the Council voted on the priorities, then those priorities could be discussed in more detail.
Mayor Waldorf suggested the issues that relate be merged before discussion.
Mayor pro tem Pavão said goals 3, 4 and 9 should be combined. He said fast tracking streetscape would include how to purchase land to further development in the downtown, which could encompass employee/employer housing issues.
Council Member Brown said we already have a streetscape plan, but the other issues are part of the new Comprehensive Plan that have already had full public discussion. She said there was a significant difference between 3 and 9 and 4. Mayor pro tem Pavão disagreed, stating that streetscape was established and was being added to, and was a part of the Downtown Small Area Plan which had been through extensive public discussion.
Council Member Foy said goal 17 regarding the post office building may also fit in because it is part of the downtown. He proposed putting 17 with 3, 4 and 9. Mr. Horton said he believed the post office may not receive the emphasis it deserved if it was included in the larger issue. Ms. Fisher agreed that it may make this issue too large to deal with effectively.
Council Member Evans said that once the Downtown Small Area Plan is adopted, then implementation of it could include how to use buildings that already exist in the downtown.
Mayor Waldorf suggested adopting the Downtown Small Area Plan, with early implementation steps being listed as employee/employer housing, streetscape, and the post office.
Council Member Brown said she thought that when these issues were looked at during the Comprehensive Plan discussions, Council would receive additional information before moving ahead. She said that by incorporating these issues together, they are being placed on a different track than previously agreed on.
Mayor pro tem Pavão said the question is whether to do this as a priority of this Council.
Mayor Waldorf restated that her specific request was to approve the Downtown Small Area Plan and to consider employer/employee housing first by hearing from the consultant and conducting a feasibility study, then fast track streetscape issues, then conduct a post office building study.
Council Member Strom said the streetscape issue was to think of it in regards of how to implement it in downtown development. Mr. Horton suggested listing that priority as streetscape/downtown development.
Ms. Fisher asked if it was agreed that goals 3, 4, 9 and 17 would be considered together. The Council agreed by consensus.
Mayor Waldorf suggested goals 11 and 18 be combined. Council Member Storm agreed. Mr. Horton said he did see the connection, in that a 15-year CIP plan would cover open space and land acquisition.
Council Member Bateman suggested that goals 10 and 11 should be grouped together, with goal 18 standing alone.
Council Member Wiggins said she did not want the Council to overlook the need for municipal operation facilities. She said that we could add to goal 18, a 15-year CIP process, that it have a short-term goal, a mid-term goal, and a long-term goal, with emphasis on open space and land acquisition.
Council Member Brown said she thought goals 10 and 18 had more budget and tax implications than goal 11.
Council Member Strom said he would like to see a group of staff, Council, and real estate professionals identify possible open space and land acquisitions.
Ms. Fisher reiterated the proposal is to have goal 18 as the banner, with goals 10 and 11 as the subtopics under that category.
Council Member Ward stated that goals 6, 7, 13, 15, and 20 had some commonality.
Mayor Waldorf asked why goal 13 should be included.
Council Member Bateman suggested that goal 14 could be included. Mr. Horton noted that all of these issues were large in themselves, and would be cumbersome. He suggested grouping two or three together to make them more manageable.
Ms. Fisher said that the banner issue could be rewriting the Development Ordinance, with other issues listed as subtopics.
Council Member Foy said it was not realistic to set a goal of rewriting the Development Ordinance while in the process of considering the draft Comprehensive Plan. He said we should not start that process until the Comprehensive Plan is completed.
Council Member Evans said she believed rewriting the Development Ordinance should be a goal for the coming year.
Council Member Foy said it was fine to begin it, but not to set such an aggressive schedule as getting is completed within a year. Mr. Horton noted the schedule for rewriting the Development Ordinance should be very specific.
Mayor pro tem Pavão noted goal 14 should be included in this grouping.
Goals 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, and 20 were grouped together by consensus of the Council.
Mr. Waldon noted he did not believe goal 7 should be grouped with the Comprehensive Plan issues. Goal 7 was removed from the grouping by consensus of the Council.
Ms. Fisher noted that goals 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, 16, and 19 remained.
Council Member Bateman suggested that goals 2 and 5 could be grouped together. Council Member Brown agreed. The Council agreed by consensus to group goals 2 and 5.
Council Member Strom said that a discussion of Council efficiency may be more effective if we were discussing specific issues.
Council Member Foy said that we as a Council should look at trying to pass on to new Council members information on what had been done in the past as a way to address Council efficiency.
Ms. Fisher suggested Council efficiency as a banner issue, with committee structure and previous issues as subtopics.
Council Member Wiggins commented that, regarding Council efficiency, when the Council had used the committee structure it was very effective. She said it had been a general agreement among the Council that the committee approach was a good one.
Ms. Fisher asked if the Council wished to group goals 2 and 5.
Council Member Strom asked Ms. Horton about scenarios that could trigger the committee approach. Mr. Horton responded that when the Council has a complex development issue before them and would benefit by direct contact with the developer, then a committee may prove beneficial. He added that theoretically, if permanent membership assignments were made to standing Council committees, some Council members could become more powerful in particular areas than others, and this issue should be considered. Mr. Horton noted that some committees could have rotating membership, but the issue is complicated and the Council should be careful when considering it.
Council Member Strom said he believed it would be feasible to identify areas that would trigger formation of committees, so that all would know what to expect.
Council Member Foy agreed, stating then applicants would know if their development application would trigger such a process.
Council Member Wiggins said that she would like for Council efficiency to stand alone as a priority.
Council Member Brown noted that goal 19 regarding Sustainability should have been placed with the rewrite of the Development Ordinance. The Council agreed by consensus.
Ms. Fisher asked the Council if they accepted the three major headings as the priority work of the Council for the year. There was a consensus of the Council.
Ms. Fisher noted there are six items remaining for voting: goals 1, 2, 5, 7, 12, and 16. Ms. Fisher noted that the goals were posted on flip charts and each Council member would receive two votes and should pick their two top priorities. The Council members voted on the goals listed above by placing stick-on dots next to their priority items.
Goal #1 received five votes.
Goal #2 received five votes.
Goal #5 received two votes
Goal #7 received four votes.
Goal #12 received one vote.
Goal #16 received one vote.
Mr. Horton noted that goals 1 and 2 would have high priority, goal 7 would be considered if time allowed, and goals 5, 12 and 16 would be given low priority.
The Council then moved to voting on the larger, grouped issues: adopt Downtown Small Area Plan, with subtopics; 15-Year CIP with subtopics, and rewriting the Development Ordinance, with subtopics.
Mayor pro tem Pavão suggested taking each of the three larger groupings and discuss them individually, rather than prioritizing the subtopics within each grouping by voting. The Council agreed by consensus.
Ms. Fisher noted that this would mean that these two groupings, along with the study of Council efficiency and the study of structure of Town staff would be the top five priorities of the Council for the coming year.
Mr. Waldon asked for more definition of the subtopic on impact and effects of proposals. He also asked for further guidance on fast tracking the Development Ordinance, and the sustainability issues.
Council Member Ward noted that fast tracking the Development Ordinance would be removed, since it is under the heading of rewriting the Development Ordinance.
Council Member Ward said regarding traffic study, that the developer would pay for such a study and then it would be reviewed for accuracy by the Town.
Mayor pro tem Pavão asked if the Town could hire the consultant, with the developer paying the consultant's fee? Mr. Waldon noted that Cary has such as process in place, that the traffic analysis is part of the application fee and Cary contracts the study out. Mr. Waldon said that such a process does add a measure of neutrality to the traffic impact study, but there are not many firms that provide such a service.
Mr. Horton noted that the quality of work would not be substantially different, since such traffic impact statements are reviewed for accuracy. But, he added, that such a process would add credibility to the proposal. Mr. Horton noted that it would require a different level of involvement by Planning staff.
Council Member Strom asked Council Member Brown how sustainability would fit into the Development Ordinance process. Council Member Brown answered it could take a number of different forms, such as developing indicators.
Council Member Ward said it is important that we have screening processes for developments to help the Council to assess sustainability indicators.
Mr. Horton suggested that some of the subtopics may be placed in competition with another, depending on how the ideas are presented. He said it was important that the issues be prioritized so that the staff would know how to place emphasis.
Ms. Fisher suggested that the Council prioritize the subtopics listed under "Rewrite of Development Ordinance":
Flexibility in the Ordinance - four votes
Range of housing prices - seven votes
Impact/effects of proposals - one vote
Less adversarial process - no votes
Traffic stud y - one vote
Sustainability considered in plans - five votes
Ms. Fisher noted the priorities are as follows:
range of housing prices (7)
sustainability considered in plans (5)
flexibility in ordinance (4)
impact/effects of proposals (1)
traffic study (1)
less adversarial process (no votes)
Council Member Foy suggested that the Council form a committee to look at the post office building, and report back to the Council. Council Members Evans, Brown, Foy and Mayor pro tem Pavão agreed to serve on this committee.
Mr. Horton asked if the Council agreed that these issues be discussed during the February 7 Comprehensive Plan work session. There was a consensus of the Council.
Mayor Waldorf asked if the Council was stating that it is its intent to adopt the Downtown Small Area Plan.
Council Member Brown said she believed this could not be done until the Comprehensive Plan was completed.
Mayor Waldorf indicated a public hearing had already been held on the Downtown Small Area Plan, and the recommendation was to move forward with the plan, which the Council chooses to delay.
Mr. Waldon said that several forums on the Comprehensive Plan had been held, plus two public hearings. He added that two additional work sessions are scheduled in the next few weeks.
Council Member Foy said his concern was there did not seem to be an integration of retail along West Rosemary Street in the Downtown Small Area Plan. He said it seems to be top heavy with residential and office in that corridor. Council Member Foy asked if that had been discussed. Mayor Waldorf said she believed the appropriate place to discuss it was during the work sessions on the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Brown said that while there had been public hearings and public input, she did not believe that the neighborhoods that would be affected are aware of what is taking place.
Ms. Fisher clarified that the heading "Adopt the Downtown Small Area Plan" actually means that the Council would put into place a process to adopt the Downtown Small Area Plan, not adopt it at this time. Mayor Waldorf commented that the process should contain a schedule for adoption.
Mr. Horton noted he would not recommend a rewrite of the Development Ordinance if the Council had not adopted the revised Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Waldorf stated that she would like to schedule adoption of the Downtown Small Area Plan by April 1st. There was no dissenting discussion.
Council Member Foy suggested removing the parks and recreation bond issues from the priority list and considering it in the context of a regular Council business meeting. Mr. Horton noted the County's report would be submitted to the Council on February 14. He added that our staff report was completed and could be distributed to the Council.
Council Member Strom asked if creating a 15-year CIP would require a phasing plan. Mr. Horton said parts of it would be relatively easy, but other parts may require some public or advisory board input.
Regarding the "Study of Council Efficiency," Council Member Evans said she and Mayor pro tem Pavão had looked at this issue six years ago, and even though that information was now six years old, it was prepared by a Council committee. She said a starting point might be to look at that report.
Council Member Strom asked if that report included a series of recommendations. Mayor pro tem Pavão said the report cited examples of how other communities addressed these same issues.
Mr. Horton said one issue regarding Council efficiency is the effort to communicate electronically. He stated staff would reissue that report, and prepare a report of other issues at a later date.
Mayor Waldorf asked if Council Members Strom, Evans, and Mayor pro tem Pavão would make a list of issues that might be discussed by the full Council. They agreed.
Ms. Fisher asked for additional comment on the "Study of Structure of Town Staff" issue. Council Member Foy said he had nothing more to add.
Mr. Horton said he understood what was necessary to address this issue, which was a key priority for Managers. He said this would be the most challenging issue on this list of priorities.
Council Member Wiggins said we must all start moving in directions we never expected in order to stay abreast of current trends, and it was important that we envision what Chapel Hill might be like in 50 years, that project possibilities, and act accordingly.
Council Member Ward said he would like for the Council to set a definite date of May 1 for adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Brown said she did not believe the Council could do that until after the work sessions were held and all the ramifications discussed.
Council Member Bateman and Mayor pro tem Pavão agreed a definite date should be set after the work sessions were held.
Mr. Horton thanked the Council for their guidance and noted that the priority lists would be prepared and distributed to the Council.
Council Member Foy noted staying on schedule was a positive aspect.
Council Member Wiggins noted having the session on a Friday rather than a Saturday was preferable.
Council Member Strom liked the flexible schedule.
Mayor pro tem Pavão noted that everyone retained their sense of humor.
Mayor Waldorf noted that the content of the sessions produced good results.
Council Member Ward noted his disappointment that no recycling was observed during the retreat. He asked that in future, we hold the sessions in facilities that practiced recycling.
Council Member Evans noted she would prefer a smoke free facility, also that no fried foods offered with meal.
Mr. Horton noted that the Council had allowed good staff participation. He added that a planning class taught by Alan Rimer had produced some models and would like to present them to the Council. The Council agreed.
The Planning Session was adjourned at 3:22 p.m.