SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2000, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Rosemary Waldorf called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Joyce Brown, Pat Evans, Kevin Foy, Lee Pavăo, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal, Parks and Recreation Administrative Analyst Bill Webster, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Public Works Field Operations Superintendent Richard Terrell, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 - Ceremonies (none)
Item 2 - Public Hearings (none)
Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3a. Petitions by citizens on items on the agenda (none).
3b. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.
1. Robyn Schryer, Planned Parenthood of Orange and Durham Counties, requesting endorsement of Teen Voices Peer Education Program
Robyn Schryer, Peer Education Coordinator for Planned Parenthood, described Teen Voices, a pilot adolescent pregnancy prevention and youth development program begun in March 2000. She explained that Teen Voices had applied for funding for continued programming in Durham County, as well as funding to serve 14-18 year-olds in Orange County. Ms. Schryer asked the Town Council to endorse the Teen Voices grant proposal to the North Carolina Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program.
Council Member Bateman thanked Ms. Schryer for her efforts in this area.
Council Member Wiggins asked Ms. Schryer if she had heard of a program called Teens Climb High, sponsored by The Chapel Hill Women’s Center. Ms. Schryer said that the Women’s Center’s program was for middle school children. She added that there were plans to coordinate Teen Voices with the Teens Climb High program.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ACCEPT THE PETITION AND TO ADOPT R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE TEEN VOICES PEER EDUCATION PROGRAM (2000-09-25/R-1)
WHEREAS, TEEN VOICES empowers teenagers to make responsible choices based on their own ethics and values, by providing them with medically accurate, factual information; and
WHEREAS, TEEN VOICES Peer Educators receive 40 hours of training on a variety of teen health and social concerns, and then share this information with friends, family, and community members; and
WHEREAS, TEEN VOICES began as a pilot program in Durham County, training 45 Peer Educators who in turn educated over 1,350 members of the community between March 2000 and March 2001; and
WHEREAS, Planned Parenthood of Orange and Durham Counties is now applying for funding from the North Carolina Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program to expand peer education programming to Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the United States still leads the industrialized world in teen pregnancy and birth rates, despite recently declining rates; and
WHEREAS, adolescent pregnancy in North Carolina cost North Carolina taxpayers$807,800,000 in Fiscal Year 1997; and
WHEREAS, Orange County’s 1999 rate of adolescent pregnancy per 1,000 15-19 year old girls was 35.9, according to the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Coalition of North Carolina;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chapel Hill Town Council endorses Planned Parenthood of Orange and Durham Counties’ proposal to the North Carolina Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Program, because the TEEN VOICES Peer Education Program will serve our high school students and partner with area human services organizations in an effort to continue reducing the rate of adolescent pregnancy in Chapel Hill and Orange County.
This the 25th day of September 2000.
2. Poonam Pande, regarding aquatic facility at Homestead Park.
Ms. Pande asked that the pool at Homestead Park be heated and maintained at therapeutic temperatures and that it be winter accessible. She noted that a heated pool would serve a variety of Chapel Hill citizens from children with disabilities to the elderly with arthritis and back pain. Ms. Pande pointed out that a heated pool would enable those with various abilities and disabilities to participate in community recreational activities together.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND TO THE AQUATICS FACILITY PLANNING PANEL. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3c. Announcements by Council Members.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo spoke about his attendance at the recent International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) workshop in New Orleans. He reported that Chapel Hill’s initiatives in support of ICLEI had received an award and a challenge. Mayor pro tem Pavăo displayed a plaque awarded to the Town and indicated five slots on the plaque where the Town would place a gold star if it accomplished certain goals. He noted that the goals were conducting emissions inventory and forecast, setting emissions reduction targets, developing local action plans, implementing local action plans, and monitoring and verifying emissions reduction.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo noted that ICLEI was doing many innovative things to encourage less traffic and the use of alternate fuels. He asked the Town Council to strongly consider becoming a full participating member. Mayor pro tem Pavăo thanked Council Member Brown for giving him the opportunity to attend the workshop.
Council Member Brown removed 4f for later discussion.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-2 WITH 4F REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
(2000-09-25/R-2)
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. |
Adoption of Minutes of August 28 Business Meeting and September 1 Council Retreat. |
|
b. |
Annual Budget Amendment to Reappropriate Funds for Prior Year Encumbrances and Obligations (O-1). |
|
c. |
Recommended Revision to Position Classification and Pay Plan Ordinance Authorizing Change to Positions in the Construction Section of the Field Operations Division in the Public Works Department (O-2). |
|
d. |
Lake Forest Association Petition Requesting Assistance to Dispose of Silt from Eastwood Lake (R-3). |
|
e. |
Performance and Evaluation Report for the Comprehensive Grant Program (R-4). |
|
g. |
Craige Property: Acceptance of Gift of Property (R-5.1). |
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND "THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2000” (2000-09-25/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2000" as duly adopted on June 26, 2000 be and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Mayor/Council 184,339 8,263 192,602
Town Manager 858,907 52,101 911,008
Personnel 508,154 5,228 513,382
Finance 1,115,972 122,584 1,238,556
Legal 202,629 16,385 219,014
Planning 910,873 126,949 1,037,822
Inspections 547,412 - 547,412
Engineering 894,021 24,288 918,309
Public Works 9,094,384 346,505 9,440,889
Police 7,781,188 407,291 8,188,479
Fire 3,830,854 54,566 3,885,420
Parks & Rec. 1,894,349 84,344 1,978,693
Library 1,736,241 38,586 1,774,827
Non-Dept. 3,675,677 188,066 3,863,763
TOTAL GENERAL FUND 33,235,000 1,475,156 34,710,156
PUBLIC HOUSING FUND 1,403,385 38,164 1,441,549
ON-STREET PARKING
FUND 611,000 2,646 613,646
OFF-STREET
PARKING FUND 1,048,000 11,384 1,059,384
TRANSPORTATION FUND 7,213,962 26,894 7,240,856
Current Revised
APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
VEHICLE REPLACEMENT
FUND 2,529,590 738,368 3,267,958
CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS FUND 1,216,500 620,490 1,836,990
HOUSING LOAN
TRUST FUND 305,406 150,384 455,790
DOWNTOWN SERVICES
DISTRICT FUND 46,000 14,557 60,557
ARTICLE II
Current Revised
REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget
GENERAL FUND
Fund Balance 800,000 1,475,156 2,275,156
PUBLIC HOUSING FUND
Fund Balance 19,328 38,164 57,492
ON-STREET PARKING FUND
Fund Balance 0 2,646 2,646
OFF-STREET PARKING FUND
Fund Balance 0 11,384 11,384
TRANSPORTATION FUND
Fund Balance 217,078 26,894 243,972
VEHCILE REPLACEMENT
FUND
Fund Balance 157,145 738,368 895,513
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
FUND
Fund Balance 371,000 428,624 799,624
Grants 0 191,866 191,866
HOUSING LOAN TRUST FUND
Fund Balance 180,406 150,384 330,790
DOWNTOWN SERVICES
DISTRICT FUND
Fund Balance 0 14,557 14,557
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN DATED OCTOBER 20, 2000 (2000-09-25/O-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
That the Council hereby amends the “Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan and Longevity Plan for Employees of the Town of Chapel Hill and Bonds of Officials” dated October 20, 2000 as follows:
In Section IV, part C, in the Public Works Department DELETE the lines
Full-time Part-time
# hrs. # hrs. Grade No.
Construction Crew Supervisor 1 40 - - 33
Construction Worker* 10 40 - - 25 – 30
*Career Advancement series: Construction Workers in various specialties such as Truck Driver, Streets Maintenance, Heavy Equipment Operator, Senior Heavy Equipment Operator, Drainage Maintenance, Crew Leader, and Lead Construction Worker are authorized
and ADD the lines
Construction Crew Supervisor 2 40 - - 33
Construction Worker* 9 40 - - 25 – 30
*Career Advancement series: Construction Workers in various specialties such as Truck Driver, Streets Maintenance, Heavy Equipment Operator, Senior Heavy Equipment Operator, Drainage Maintenance, Crew Leader, and Lead Construction Worker are authorized
This ordinance is effective upon adoption.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER AND THE TOWN ATTORNEY TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LAKE FOREST ASSOCIATION REGARDING ITS REQUEST FOR TOWN ASSISTANCE WITH THE DISPOSAL OF SILT FROM EASTWOOD LAKE (2000-09-25/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Council has received a petition from the Lake Forest Association requesting Town assistance with disposal of silt from Eastwood Lake; and
WHEREAS, Eastwood Lake is a private facility available only for use by Association members and guests; and
WHEREAS, further consideration and evaluation must be given to all implications of this petition request before recommendations can be prepared;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager and the Town Attorney are authorized to enter into discussions with the Lake Forest Association regarding its request for Town assistance with the disposal of silt from Eastwood Lake.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to report back to the Council with his recommendations regarding this petition by the end of the current calendar year.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING PERFORMANCE AND EVALUATION REPORTS FOR GRANT YEARS 1997, 1998 AND 1999 (2000-09-25/R-4)
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires the submission of a Performance and Evaluation Report for Comprehensive Grant Program annual statements where funds are being expended; and
WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill approve the Performance and Evaluation Reports;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the attached Performance and Evaluation Reports and authorizes the Manager to submit them to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE GIFT OF 8.48 ACRES OF PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF MT. CARMEL CHURCH ROAD AND BENNETT ROAD (2000-09-25/R-5.1)
WHEREAS, Ernest and Hazel Craige have offered to donate 8.48 acres of property to the Town; and
WHEREAS, the offered property contains significant value as entranceway corridor and open space; and
WHEREAS, the offered property would expand the Town’s open space properties; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s existing 1996 Open Space bond funds could be used to pay the costs related to transfer of the property upon eventual annexation of the property;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby accepts the gift of 8.48 acres of property, identified as Chapel Hill Tax Map 7.26.B, Lots 9 and 11 from Ernest and Hazel Craige.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council expresses its gratitude to Ernest and Hazel Craige for their generous donation of important open space and entranceway property for the enjoyment of current and future citizens of Chapel Hill.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that the Manager is authorized to pay all closing costs, including year 2000 property taxes owed for the donated property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that the Manager is authorized to use 1996 Open Space bond funds to pay the closing costs of the donation after eventual annexation of the property.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
No discussion.
Committee Chair Joe Herzenberg thanked Committee members, citizens, and the Parks and Recreation staff for their participation. He pointed out that the Committee was recommending the most expensive option, explaining that they had tried to reconsider that preference, because of its cost, but had decided that it was the best choice. Mr. Herzenberg noted that Duke Power might donate an easement between two pieces of Town-owned land. He asked the Council to extend the life of the Committee so that it could monitor progress in the pasture. Mr. Herzenberg urged the Council to seek annexation of this Town-owned property and suggested that the Town make the area more accessible.
Council Member Evans noted that about two years ago Chapel Hill had hosted an NCDOT meeting, at which time those who were interested visited Southern Village to view what a transit-oriented community looked like. She stated that during that visit she had lobbied heavily to obtain access off of the access road bordering Merritt Pasture, and had written a letter to that effect to the Committee and to the Manager. Council Member Evans said she knew the Town did not support this. She said that she had walked the site that the Committee is supporting as the preferred option, and it is a long walk. Council Member Evans said it seemed to her that access to the property is kind of like access to a neighborhood, that having several different options would lessen the burden on any one option. She asked Mr. Herzenberg if the Committee had a copy of her letter. Mr. Herzenberg replied that he knew of her suggestion but did not recall seeing the letter, adding that he thought the access would not be safe. Council Member Evans stated that it would be safer if traffic in the area were slowed down.
Council Member Foy referred to the Committee’s suggestion to not pursue pedestrian access from Morgan Creek Road, and noted that the master plan for greenways had suggested using that access. Mr. Herzenberg replied that the Committee’s report recommends that the master plan be changed in this respect because people should not be parking on Morgan Creek Road.
Council Member Strom noted that he and Council Members Wiggins and Bateman had served on a committee to site a dog park and were familiar with some of the recommended options. He noted that there were advantages to the Culbreth Road entrance, for example, it runs off a smaller road and has easier access from the south. Council Member Strom asked Mr. Herzenberg to explain why the Committee had changed its recommendation from number two to number one. Mr. Herzenberg replied that the Committee had chosen option two because they were shocked at the cost of option one. He said that they then reconsidered individually and returned to the next meeting wanting to recommend option one because it was the best option.
Council Member Bateman noted that since they were not going to fence Merritt Pasture in then a dog park should not be sited on property so close to the highway. She asked, though, why there would be problem holding dog obedience classes on the pasture. Mr. Herzenberg replied that the Greenways Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission had concluded that something as organized as obedience training for dogs was not “passive” recreation.
Council Member Jim Ward asked if there would be problems with neighbors mowing around the area. Mr. Herzenberg replied that the Town Attorney had stated that this issue was not extraordinary, but was like other liability issues that the Town addresses. Mr. Karpinos agreed, adding that if the facility were to become active and well used, and if there is going to be a path there, then the Town probably should maintain it properly. Council Member Jim Ward noted that the report stated that neighbors had been mowing a path around the perimeter. Mr. Karpinos replied that there was no reason for the Council to take any action regarding that.
Council Member Evans asked if the Committee would be willing to lead a tour so that the Council could better understand what they were talking about. Mr. Herzenberg agreed to arrange that.
Mayor Waldorf asked if Council Member Evans’ suggestion about alternate access could be included in the motion. Town Manager Cal Horton stated that the staff probably would come to the same conclusion they had before on this issue, which is that the NCDOT right-of-way is a difficult and unsafe place.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO RESOLUTION R-6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND REFERRING THE “REPORT OF THE MERRITT PASTURE ACCESS COMMITTEE TO THE TOWN COUNCIL” AND THANKING THE COMMITTEE (2000-09-25/R-6)
WHEREAS, on April 26, 1999, the Council charged the Greenways and Parks & Recreation Commissions with certain tasks related to investigating access to the Town’s Merritt Pasture; and
WHEREAS, the Commissions created the Merritt Pasture Access Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Merritt Pasture Access Committee has completed and presented its Report; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council expresses its gratitude to the members of this committee for their hard work and valuable service to our community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council accepts the “Report of the Merritt Pasture Access Committee to the Town Council” and refers the Report to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Community Design Commission, Greenways Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, Planning Board, and the Manager for comments and recommendations.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
7a. Presentation by the Committee.
Andy Krichman, Chair of the Pritchard Park Conceptual Plan Committee, submitted a plan for the area surrounding the Chapel Hill Public Library. He explained that the Committee’s main concern had been to protect the natural beauty and trees in this area. Mr. Krichman reported that the Committee had developed a plan, held a public forum, and incorporated information gathered at the public forum into their detailed concept plan for Pritchard Park.
Mayor Waldorf noted a reference in the report to the Siena Hotel. She suggested that there might be a mutually advantageous arrangement that could be made between Pritchard Park and the Siena. Mayor Waldorf asked if the Committee had recommended having further conversations with the hotel. Mr. Krichman replied that the Committee had recommended that the Council have such discussions with the Siena Hotel and had agreed about that potential.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT R-7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND REFERRING THE “REPORT OF THE PRITCHARD PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN COMMITTEE” AND EXPRESSING THANKS TO THE COMMITTEE (2000-09-25/R-7))
WHEREAS, the Council created the Pritchard Park Conceptual Plan Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Pritchard Park Conceptual Plan Committee has completed and presented its Report; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council expresses its gratitude to the members of the Pritchard Park Conceptual Committee for their hard work and service to our community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council accepts the “Report of the Pritchard Park Conceptual Plan Committee” and refers the Report to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, the Community Design Commission, the Greenways Commission, the Library Board of Trustees, the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Planning Board, and the Manager for comments and recommendations.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal displayed a map showing all of the areas that were owned by the Town, Orange County, OWASA, the School System, and the University. She explained that the staff had investigated parcels of land that were three acres or more which were either vacant or had only one house situated on them. Ms. Loewenthal pointed out the stormwater conservation areas that had been identified in the July 5th report. She also noted easements or land where easements were needed to complete greenways.
Ms. Loewenthal stated that the staff had tried to identify parcels that would meet more than one of the guidelines given by the Council over the years and/or which had the most potential for attracting grant funding. She explained that the areas marked in yellow were parcels or groups of parcels that the staff believed meet one or more of the Town’s objectives. These areas were:
· Dickerson Court. Four buildings (five units) which would meet flood mitigation objectives and provide open space to connect the majority of the Bolin Creek Greenway with the Community Center Park. This area would be eligible for 75% funding from FEMA. Ms. Loewenthal commented that Dickerson Court was being listed first because the grant applications were due in two days. She proposed taking the remaining 25% from Open Space bond funds.
· Little Creek. A 10-acre parcel of flood prone land at the junction of Bolin, Booker and Little Creeks, east of Fordham Boulevard. Ms. Loewenthal pointed out that the Town has $112,000 for acquisition of such land in a grant from its HUD Disaster Recovery Assistance Initiative. This would cover about 98% of the cost, she said, and the remaining 2% could come from the Open Space bond funds.
· Wilson Creek Watershed. Ms. Loewenthal noted that a significant portion of the remaining open space along Wilson Creek east of Highway 15-501 could be preserved.
· Morgan Creek. Ms. Loewenthal said that there would be State grant money available for this from the Cleanwater Management Trust Fund. She added that the Town would need to talk with landowners in the area to see if they would sell their land.
Ms. Loewenthal noted that most of the disaster relief grant money would go to the eastern part of North Carolina. She recommended, though, that the Town apply for it now. If the money is not funded, she said, the Town could submit the request for the next cycle of funding. Ms. Loewenthal noted that the Cleanwater Management Trust Fund looks carefully at the local match, and proposed that the Town put up $2 million. Ms. Loewenthal said that the staff was not aware of any other funding possibilities but would keep looking for such possibilities.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO, TO ADOPT R-8A.
Council Member Foy, noting that the Manager was recommending adoption of Resolutions A, B and D, asked why not Option C. Ms. Loewenthal replied that there would not be enough money for the Town to do A, B and D and also put up matching funds for Option C.
Council Member Bateman inquired about the process for acquiring the land with five housing units under Option One. Ms. Loewenthal replied that there is a single owner for those four lots. She stated that the owner is interested in selling because of flood damage he suffered in July.
Council Member Brown asked if any of the structures were salvageable or movable. Ms. Loewenthal replied that it was too early to say whether or not they were salvageable but they were all on cinderblocks and were not moveable. Mr. Horton added that they had all been flood damaged.
Mayor Waldorf asked what local funds would be left if the Council approved A, B and D, and committed local funds. Ms. Loewenthal replied that there would be less than $500,000 remaining in bond money.
Council Member Foy stated that Resolution C, which targets some large acreage, seemed like a good use of funds. Pointing out that the land will become more expensive as time goes by, he asked if there was any way to expedite acquisition while it was still possible to do so. Ms. Loewenthal replied that it might be possible to purchase an option to buy with next year’s funds. Mr. Horton added that the staff wanted to know how much of the Town’s money the Council was willing to invest for this purpose. He made it clear that the staff was not yet certain how much the land would cost.
Council Member Strom said that he would vote for Options A, B and D, adding that leveraging Town funds with grants whenever possible is a good approach. He also inquired about Resolution E, which would ask that parcels that are suitable for use of open space bond funds continue to be investigated.
Council Member Strom suggested continuing to focus on small pieces of land, which could have real benefits to neighborhoods and enhance the quality of life in the Town. He noted that some of the “non-complying” lots on the map made interesting clusters. He suggested adding to Option E that the Council look at all of the non-complying lots that are in the next agenda item and see if they could be brought back to the Council as potential acquisition sites.
Mr. Horton commented that this was precisely the kind of advice the staff needs from the Council on how it wishes the staff to proceed.
Council Member Evans noted that Wilson Creek area property owners might not want to sell the entire tract. She encouraged the staff to pursue buying even part of it.
Council Member Ward asked what the maximum opportunity for development was in some of the properties that the staff had described as having little potential. Ms. Loewenthal replied that the Eastgate and Dry Creek area is a large tract where there might be a small area outside the floodway and Resource Conservation District that could support development. But “it’s a very small area,” she said. Ms. Loewenthal added that the 10-acre tract in the Little Creek area had some very small potential for development, maybe 10-20%. She commented that the staff could not be certain of the exact potential without doing a full site analysis.
Council Member Ward asked if the $2 million from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund would be a 50/50 match. Mr. Horton replied that the staff thought the Trust Fund might be willing to put up an equal amount if the Council were willing to invest $2 million. He repeated, though, that the staff was not yet sure of the cost involved.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Horton if reducing the percentage that the Town was willing to invest would reduce the chances of receiving funding. Mr. Horton explained that it would be looked on less favorably. Council Member Ward said that the Council should put up as much as is needed, but no more.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO APPLY FOR A FLOOD MITIGATION ASSISTANCE GRANT FOR THE PURCHASE OF LOTS AND STRUCTURES ON DICKERSON COURT (2000-09-25/R-8a)
WHEREAS, Chapel Hill voters authorized the expenditure of $3,000,000 in Open Space bonds in 1996; and
WHEREAS, the FEMA provides Flood Mitigation Assistance grants to communities for the purpose of purchasing flood prone structures; and
WHEREAS, land purchased using Flood Mitigation Assistance funds must be reverted to open space; and
WHEREAS, 4 structures on Dickerson Court have been repeatedly flooded; and
WHEREAS, the area would benefit the Town as open space and trail corridor;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Manager is authorized to submit a Flood Mitigation Assistance grant for the purchase of the lots and structures at 105, 106, 107, and 108/109 Dickerson Court, using up to $150,000 in Open Space bond funds for the required 25% local match.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager is authorized to begin work on a formal Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan for the Town of Chapel Hill.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manager, or his designee, is authorized to be the Town's Official Agent, to execute for and in behalf of the Town of Chapel Hill, for this Flood Mitigation Assistance grant application.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT R-8B. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO SURVEY LANDOWNERS ALONG MORGAN CREEK AND WILSON CREEKS, AND IF APPROPRIATE, APPLY FOR A CLEAN WATER MANAGEMENT TRUST FUND GRANT WITH A $2,000,000 LOCAL MATCH (2000-09-25/R-8b)
WHEREAS, Chapel Hill voters authorized the expenditure of $3,000,000 in Open Space bonds in 1996; and
WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina provides Clean Water Management Trust Fund grants to communities for the purpose of preserving the waters of the State; and
WHEREAS, there are large tracts of undeveloped open space adjacent to both Wilson Creek and Morgan Creek; and
WHEREAS, preservation of these tracts would help preserve water quality, provide open space for the citizens of Chapel Hill, preserve scenic entranceways, and provide greenway corridors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Manager is authorized to contact landowners who own property adjacent to Wilson and Morgan Creeks to determine if there is sufficient interest to apply for a Clean Water Management Trust Fund grant.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that if the survey of landowners indicates that there is sufficient interest in selling open space to the Town, the Town Manager is authorized to submit a Clean Water Management Trust Fund application requesting $2,000,000, with a $2,000,000 local match utilizing Open Space bond funds.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
Council Member Ward asked about the difference between Resolutions D and E. Ms. Loewenthal explained that in R-D the staff would go forward and talk with landowners to see if there was any interest in selling to the Town. If there was interest, she explained, the staff would bring a report back to the Council in these specific areas. She said that R-E was more general than that.
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVĂO MOVED R-8D, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY.
Mayor Waldorf inquired about the Horace Williams Airport Hazard Zone listed on R-8D. She said that her understanding was that only two houses could be built on those 25 or so acres under current zoning. Mayor Waldorf questioned whether the Town needed to spend any money on that de facto open space. Mr. Horton explained that the staff had initially had the same thought, but then realized that as soon as the University yields to the Council’s request to move the Airport then that property will become a great place to build single-family houses or apartment buildings. He reasoned that it might be wise to have the property under the Town’s control at a reasonable price since the Town might not be able to purchase it later on. Mayor Waldorf expressed respect for that point of view, but commented that she would not want to spend money on it until the University had yielded to the Council’s request to move the airport.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO INVESTIGATE THE POTENTIAL OF USING OPEN SPACE BOND FUNDS TO PURCHASE VARIOUS OPEN SPACE TRACTS THROUGHOUT THE TOWN (2000-09-25/R-8d)
WHEREAS, Chapel Hill voters authorized the expenditure of $3,000,000 in Open Space bonds in 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Council has authorized the Manager to provide a plan to expedite purchase of open space; and
WHEREAS, the Greenways Commission and the Town staff have identified potential properties;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Manager is authorized to contact landowners of properties in the following areas to determine their interest in selling property for the purpose of preserving open space:
· Bolin Creek
· Horace Williams Airport Hazard Zone
· Dry Creek
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVAO, TO ADOPT R-8E AS AMENDED TO CHANGE THE WORD “REVISED” TO “ADDITIONAL” IN THE LAST SENTENCE AND TO ADD “INCLUDING NON-COMPLYING HISTORIC LOTS AND OTHER UNDEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD LOTS WITH POCKET PARK POTENTIAL” TO THE END OF THE LAST SENTENCE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO REPORT TO THE COUNCIL IN OCTOBER 2000 WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS (2000-09-25/R-8e)
WHEREAS, Chapel Hill voters authorized the expenditure of $3,000,000 in Open Space bonds in 1996; and
WHEREAS, the Council has authorized the Manager to provide a plan to expedite purchase of open space; and
WHEREAS, the Council requires additional information related to options for expenditure of Open Space bond funds;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Manager is authorized to investigate additional properties suitable for use of Open Space bond funds and report to the Council in October 2000 with recommendations including non-complying historic lots and other undeveloped neighborhood lots with pocket park potential.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
Town Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that the Council had asked the staff to present options on how the Town might call a public hearing to change regulations for a set of lots. He explained that these had been created as residential lots in areas where public infrastructure (water or roads) is not available but where someone might want to build a single-family house before the Development Ordinance revision has been completed. Mr. Waldon suggested that the Town has three options:
1) Do nothing.
2) Direct that this matter be given specific attention as the Development
Ordinance moves forward.
3) Separate this issue out and call a public hearing on it now.
Council Member Ward inquired about the potential for change over the next six months. Mr. Waldon replied that there was no way to know whether or not someone would come in for a building permit for a single-family house. Council Member Ward asked if having public discussion would speed the process along. Mr. Waldon said that he did not know. Council Member Ward asked if a moratorium would be an option. Mr. Karpinos replied that a moratorium is an interim ordinance, which would have to go through the same process as a development ordinance.
Council Member Foy ascertained from Mr. Horton and Mr. Karpinos that revisions to the Development Ordinance would apply not only to previously platted lots but also to all single-family residential lots. Mr. Karpinos noted that this would depend on how the Town crafted the ordinance revisions. He noted that it would be challenging to revise the ordinance without creating a large number of non-conformities. Mr. Karpinos added that the Town could create an ordinance that would apply to undeveloped lots, but it would also have an effect on developed lots and make them non-conforming. This, he explained, would have consequences for those lots if there were to be a transfer or refinancing.
Council Member Strom said that he had been concerned about the Development Ordinance consultants having to spend a lot of time and energy on a relatively small situation. He stated that he was leaning toward Option One and would like the Town Council to focus on these few lots and try to solve it themselves rather than having it lumped in with the Development Ordinance rewrite.
Council Member Evans asked if the Manager agreed that having the consultant look at this would slow the process. She commented that Council members sometimes take actions without fully understanding the ramifications, which is why they have a consultant. Council Member Evans argued that it was not sensible to write a development ordinance for 36 lots. She stated that incorporating it into the rewrite of the Development Ordinance was appropriate.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Karpinos if he had said that the already platted lots could not be addressed in the rewrite of the Development Ordinance. Mr. Karpinos explained that it would be difficult to write an ordinance that would address these lots without applying it to all the other lots as well. He pointed out that zoning is based on the principle of uniformity within classes and neighborhoods and that zoning looks at what the standards are for development. If you change the standards for one lot, Mr. Karpinos explained, then it could have an effect in that zoning district on other lots. He noted that this is spot zoning and is a difficulty that either the staff or the consultant would have to address, if they were assigned to do this.
Council Member Brown requested that the staff “flesh out” Option One a little more. Mr. Waldon said that the Town could forestall development by changing the ordinance such that access to public water and sewer and/or frontage on a street that meets Town standards would be required for a building permit. Mr. Waldon pointed out that this would create hundreds of non-conforming lots around Town.
Council Member Strom asked what the remedy would be for an owner of a non-conforming lot who wanted a building permit. Mr. Waldon replied that if there were nothing on the lot the property owner would need to make street frontage or water and sewer available. The developed lots that people have been living on would then become non-conforming as well, he said, pointing out that that is the concern. Council Member Wiggins noted that if a tragedy, such as the house burning down, occurred the owner would not be able to rebuild. Mr. Horton added that owners might also have difficulty getting financing or selling their house in certain circumstances.
Council Member Strom asked if someone with a non-conforming lot could agree to honor the Town’s Resource Conservation District rules in exchange for being granted a permit. Mr. Karpinos said that they would have to comply with the ordinance anyway. Council Member Foy asked if it was the staff’s understanding that the Council had asked them to look at the lots for possible purchase. Mr. Horton replied that the staff intended to move aggressively to acquire those lots. Council Member Foy suggested leaving it at that for now, and asked how long it would take to do that. Mr. Horton replied that it would take 30 to 45 days to do anything, adding that he would get the answers one by one.
Council Member Foy moved to look at the possible purchase of lots. Council Member Bateman urged putting this on the consultant’s list. Mr. Horton predicted that the consultant would either say that the Town could do this and suggest how to make it work under North Carolina law or would say that the Town cannot do it without creating a lot of problems. Mr. Horton said that it should not be burdensome if the Council added this to the consultant’s list. Council Member Foy agreed to incorporate that into his motion.
Council Member Ward asked the staff to also provide information on what the issues were with each lot because that would help the Council to prioritize. Mayor Waldorf noted that some might not be buildable lots. But others may be, she said, and she too would like to have that information. Mr. Horton agreed to provide it, noting that the lots the staff would recommend buying would be those that create environmental and/or neighborhood problems.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REQUEST THAT THE STAFF LOOK INTO POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF LOTS AND ALSO TO ASK THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE CONSULTANTS TO LOOK AT THE PROBLEM AND SUGGEST SOLUTIONS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Commission Signs Committee
Public Works Director Bruce Heflin explained that the Commission had petitioned the Council in July for additional neighborhood street signs that would designate historic districts. He said that the petition and subsequent discussion had focused on two points: putting signs around entrances and/or boundaries of historic districts, and replacing current street name signs with signs that designate the street as lying within a historic district.
Mr. Heflin recommended adding the entranceway or boundary signs, but recommended against converting the street name signs. He said that the proposed street name sign does not meet some of the Town’s instituted standards. Mr. Heflin added that the staff was concerned about setting a precedent whereby other groups might want to use non-standard signs.
Mr. Heflin explained that if the Council decides to go ahead with the sign change then Resolution B would allow the staff to work with the Commission to try and resolve some of the design issues. He showed examples of proposed signs, which illustrate the size, visibility, and standard identification issues that the staff felt were important.
Betsy Pringle, representing the Historic District Commission, asked the Council to approve the staff’s recommendation for boundary signs. She noted that many areas in and outside North Carolina have special signage for historic districts because it makes people aware of the special characteristics of these areas. Ms. Pringle further stated that boundary signs are helpful to visitors who are looking for historic districts. She said that they encourage pride among residents and property owners in these districts.
Ms. Pringle expressed gratitude to the staff for helping to redirect the Commission’s sense of scale. She asked for permission to continue working with the staff to develop a sign that meets regulations but is distinctive and congruous with the historic districts. Ms. Pringle asked the Council to adopt Resolution B.
Kimberly Kyser described the work that the Commission does in the historic neighborhoods and downtown area. She commented that the large blue signs that had been placed around Chapel Hill were inappropriate for many of the historic neighborhoods. Ms. Kyser asked the Council to approve Resolution B and to work with the Commission on developing appropriate signage.
COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED RESOLUTION 10B, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY.
Council Member Foy noted that the new boundary signs would be a good education and marketing strategy. Commenting that the Town relied on the Historic District Commission for very important decisions, Council Member Foy praised the argument the Commission had made with regard to their role in protecting Historic Districts.
Council Member Evans stated that she had received complaints that visitors had been unable to find street signs when trying to find their way around Town. She said that she had heard many compliments about the new, larger signs, including the blue ones. Council Member Evans recommended approving Resolution A, in which the Commission would continue working with the staff.
Council Member Bateman expressed support for Resolution B, adding one cannot know whether one has entered an historic district or not if there is no designation on the sign.
Council Member Ward noted that the Historic District Commission had been reasonable in allowing the cost to be spread out over years. He pointed out that Resolution B expressed the Commission’s willingness to work with the staff toward meeting Town regulations.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo said that he would support Resolution B primarily because of the “be it further resolved” statement, which indicated that there would be further work between the Commission and the staff toward reaching a mutually agreeable decision.
Council Member Strom expressed support for the Commission’s recommendations because the signs would define the character of Chapel Hill as distinct from the University. He described the new signs as part of a logical process and a positive first step in defining the Town.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO INSTALL BOUNDARY AND STREET NAME SIGNS WITHIN THE TOWN’S THREE HISTORIC DISTRICTS (2000-09-25/R-10b)
WHEREAS, the Historic District Commission Signs Committee (Committee) petitioned the Town Council on July 5, 2000, to have installed boundary and street name signs identifying the Town’s three historic districts; and
WHEREAS, Town staff met with members of the Committee to formulate design options and possible sign locations; and
WHEREAS, the staff believes that boundary signs could be installed within the current fiscal year using existing appropriations; and
WHEREAS, street name signs within the three historic districts could be replaced over the next several years as staff resources permit; and
WHEREAS, the proposed street name signs do not conform to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to install boundary signs at major entrances to the Town’s three historic districts in the current fiscal year using current appropriations and to proceed to replace street name signs within these districts, except those white on blue overhead signs installed in conjunction with the University of North Carolina, over the next several years as Town resources allow.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the staff shall work with the Historic District Commission Signs Committee to redesign street name signs so that the signs are more compatible with recommendations made in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
Item 11 - Curbside Implementation Schedule
Mr. Heflin submitted the proposed implementation schedule for phase one of a two-year conversion of trash collection from rear/side yard to curbside collection. He noted the list of neighborhoods that should be in the first phase, and explained that the next step would be to finalize routing.
Mr. Heflin said that the staff would develop information for citizens through flyers and exchanges on the Town’s website. He added that the staff would be gathering information regarding exemptions and those who do not want carts. Mr. Heflin said the staff would begin a neighborhood outreach effort and prepare ordinance revisions for the Council’s consideration, noting that neighborhood meetings will begin in January. He stated that the carts will be delivered and the staff will fine-tune the route scheduling, and will be ready to begin service the first week in February.
Mr. Heflin explained that the staff will collect additional information throughout the first quarter of the service change and should be able to report to the Council late in the fiscal year. He noted that future steps would be based on the results of the first year’s implementation.
Council Member Foy asked if the primary goal of the plan for curbside collection had been waste reduction. Mr. Heflin replied that the primary goal had been to achieve more efficient garbage collection.
Council Member Foy argued that providing citizens with 68-gallon containers sends the wrong message about waste reduction, which he said is what the Town should be focusing on. He asserted that a plan that requires the Council to spend up to $500,000 on carts is not appropriate, and suggested that the Town ask citizens to devise their own way of transporting garbage to the curb. Council Member Foy recommended that citizens buy their own 68-gallon containers if the Town decides to use those. He advised the Council to spend Town money on getting people to reduce the volume of solid waste rather than on containers.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED TO REVOKE AUTHORITY TO PURCHASE THE 68-GALLON, ROLLOUT CONTAINERS. COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN SECONDED.
Council Member Brown asked Council members to consider having waste reduction as the focus of any change in the Town’s waste collection system.
Council Member Bateman noted that there were two issues: curbside collection, and waste reduction. She recalled that Dr. Miranda, an expert who had spoken before the Council in the past, had said that the size of the container did not affect waste reduction but that curbside collection made people more aware of the amount of garbage they generate.
Council Member Foy suggested that the Council revisit whether it was being consistent in its waste reduction goals and the messages it was giving. He argued that the primary goal should be to encourage citizens to reduce waste, which is inconsistent with providing everyone in Town with a large, paid for container.
Council Member Brown agreed.
Council Member Evans stated that it was not efficient to spend $500,000 on containers that probably would not be needed in the future and which send the wrong message. She suggested implementing curbside collection without the containers.
Council Member Wiggins said that she has a 60-gallon container which she rolls out for collection only when it is full, which is every three or four weeks. She argued that moving to curbside collection would lead to waste reduction, and asked if the $500,000 was for the 9,000 or so carts. Mr. Heflin replied that it was. Council Member Wiggins noted that the Town would be spending only half of that. Whether or not they spend the rest, she pointed out, would depend on community response. Mr. Heflin agreed, adding that the number of containers they buy in the second year will depend on the first year’s response.
Council Member Wiggins asked if the staff had explored bidding with any other community that buys containers. Mr. Heflin replied that he knew of no other communities that buy carts this small. Most North Carolina communities were buying 95-gallon carts, he said. Council Member Wiggins asked Mr. Heflin if he had discussed reduction efforts with those communities. He replied that they had not done so in those terms but that he was familiar with communities with pay-as-you-throw programs, waste reduction systems, and rollout carts. Mr. Heflin explained that there are variable container systems out there, but pointed out that Chapel Hill does not have a variable billing system in place to accommodate one. He added that one of the Town’s goals was to minimize administrative overhead.
Council Member Wiggins recommended staying with the plan since the staff would bring a report on pay-as-you-throw, which everyone on the Council is predisposed to for further waste reduction. She suggested letting the staff continue to work on that and bring back a full report.
Council Member Strom agreed that linking pay-as-you-throw to curbside collection would delay what was a progressive and positive step for the Town. He argued that it would not be fair to ask people to bring trash to the curb without providing them with a receptacle. Council Member Strom described the 68-gallon roll out cart as a compromise size that would serve the most people. He suggested taking a straw vote on who was interested in moving toward a pay-as-you-throw system later this year. Council members all raised their hands.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo argued against purchasing large carts now since citizens next year may only request half of the carts provided during the trial period. He cautioned against ordering carts that will eventually not be necessary when the Town goes to a pay-as-you-throw with a tag system
.
Council Member Ward said that he felt comfortable proceeding with the plan as it stands. He noted that the carts were smaller than those in most other communities, and said that the Council had been discussing this issue long enough.
Mayor Waldorf agreed that the Town should move ahead on what they decided during the budget meetings. She asked whether or not citizens still had to pay $8.00 for a second recycling bin. Mr. Heflin replied that they did. Mayor Waldorf urged the Council to make a motion that citizens not pay for those bins. She also argued that ordering 4,500 68-gallon cans would be a prudent move, predicting that at least half of Chapel Hill’s citizens probably would be happy to use a 68-gallon can. Mayor Waldorf commented that she had some doubts about pay-as-you-throw but was willing to accept the will of the majority on that issue.
Council Member Brown pointed out that recycling bins were no longer the Town Council’s responsibility. She also noted that curbside collection and the 68-gallon containers were separate issues, which were being discussed as though they were one. Council Member Brown pointed out that buying smaller cans later in the program would be expensive. Noting that bags would not be compatible with the new equipment, she advised against locking the Town into a rigid system.
Council Member Wiggins stated that the collection system would look much worse with different cans and trash bags than it would with a uniform system. She said that the cans are hardly noticeable and that they are put out and taken back from the street on the same day.
Council Member Evans said that the Council seemed committed to buying the carts so that they can be tipped into trucks rather than handled. She remarked, though, that going to a tag system would mean going back to trash handling because each bag would have to be inspected. Council Member Evans then suggested using smaller containers and having people who need a second one purchase it as they do for recycling. She agreed that the Town should not invest in large cans, which would send the wrong message to the community.
Mayor pro tem Pavăo asked what color the cans were. Mr. Heflin replied that they were leaning toward forest green.
Council Member Strom repeated that Professor Miranda had said that receptacle size is the least important element of a tag system. And this, he said, probably is what the Town will end up having. He then called the question.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO REVOKE AUTHORITY FOR PURCHASING 68-GALLON ROLLOUT CONTAINERS. THE MOTION FAILED (4-5) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS, FOY, BROWN, AND PAVĂO VOTING AYE, AND WIGGINS, WARD, WALDORF, BATEMAN AND STROM VOTING NAY.
Council Member Ward asked Mr. Heflin to respond to Council Member Evans’s comment about the compatibility of a pay-as-you-throw system and the 68-gallon carts. Mr. Heflin replied that a collector would have to lift the lid of the carts anyway, and would be able to see that a tag is attached. The tags could be florescent pink, Mr. Heflin suggested, for easier visibility.
Item 12 - Quarterly Status on Council Goals and Objectives -
Resubmitted from September 1 Retreat
Mayor Waldorf explained that this had been on the retreat agenda and had not been discussed. She said that she put it on this agenda in case anyone wanted to discuss it. Mr. Horton commented that the committee working on assignment and use of the old post office and courthouse had assigned him some work, which he had just completed. He said that the committee would report to the Council soon.
Mr. Horton explained that the postmaster had expressed interest in remaining in that site and would be willing to accept space modification that would allow the Welcome Center to use a portion of it. Mr. Horton added that the District Attorney had agreed that the basement space could be used for other Town purposes. He said that the judge is interested in continuing to have court conducted in the building as well.
13a. Designation of Delegate and Alternate Delegate to N.C. League of Municipalities’ Annual Meeting in October and National League of Cities’ Congress of Cities Meeting in December
Mayor Waldorf suggested that she be made the delegate to the League of Municipalities Annual Meeting, since no other Council Members were going. That motion would also designate Mayor pro tem Pavăo to be the delegate and Council Member Evans to be the alternate at the National League of Cities meeting, she said.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-11. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REGARDING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATE DELEGATES TO THE NC LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES’ AND NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES’ ANNUAL MEETINGS (2000-09-25/R-11)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby designates Rosemary Waldorf to serve as the Council’s voting delegate to the NC League of Municipalities’ annual meeting October 15 – 17, 2000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby designates Lee Pavăo to serve as the Council’s voting delegate to the National League of Cities’ 2000 Congress of Cities annual meeting December 5 – 9, 2000, and Pat Evans to serve as the alternate delegate.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
Item 14 - Petitions
14a. By the Mayor and Council Members.
Mayor Waldorf summarized a memo that she and Council Member Wiggins had sent to other Council members regarding an employer/employee housing study. She said that the UNC Chancellor was very interested in this but had extended Mr. Kurzan’s contract to gather more information. Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council also ask Mr. Kurzan to analyze the potential/demand for office space in the downtown area. She recommended that the Town pay for Mr. Kurzan’s time and ask him to analyze the data from the assumption that the Town will undertake something on its own, not in partnership with the University. Mayor Waldorf asked Council members to get back to her and Council Member Wiggins with ideas to be summarized and put on the agenda.
Council Member Evans asked for an estimate of cost. Mayor Waldorf agreed to get that. She said that if the Council would give their ideas then she would get the cost estimates as fast as possible.
Regarding the 15-501 MIS study, Mayor Waldorf explained that a number of people in the Westwood and Westside neighborhoods were concerned that someone was planning to run a fixed guideway transit arrangement from the hospital to the cogeneration plant. She explained that it is clear from the scope of the study that that is not being contemplated but that there is something called “bus on street use” from the hospital to the Horace Williams tract, which may be misleading. Mayor Waldorf said that it would be reasonable and prudent to remove all mention of that. She explained that she and Carolyn Efland had proposed doing so at the Policy Committee meeting and the Committee had unanimously agreed to remove it.
Item 15 - Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items if Necessary
Regarding item 4f pulled by Council Member Brown, she stated that Mr. Horton did not feel that any funds were in jeopardy by the adoption of Resolution 5.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVĂO, TO ADOPT R-5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE U.S. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO AMEND ITS PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING “PRINCIPAL CITIES” (2000-09-25/R-5)
WHEREAS, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget is considering a proposal that splits the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area into two separate metropolitan areas and;
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill’s name is not included in the proposed Durham Metropolitan Area because the proposal requires Chapel Hill to have at least one-third the population of the largest city in the metro area and;
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill is an integral community in the area known as the Triangle and;
WHEREAS, designation as a “principal city” would help assure that the Town continues to receive Community Development Block Grant funds as an entitlement community and;
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill wishes to keep the Town’s name in the title of the metropolitan area and;
WHEREAS, the Town has until October 6, 2000, to submit written comments to the OMB for the final decision-making process;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Council requests the U.S. Office of Management and Budget adopt a standard requiring that principal cities be at least one-fourth the size of the largest place in a metropolitan area, not one-third as proposed.
This the 25th day of September, 2000.
The meeting adjourned at 9:28 p.m.