Regular Business Meeting

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, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Interim Police Chief Greg Jarvies, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Deputy Fire Chief Robert Bosworth, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Finance Director Jim Baker, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Recreation Planner/Program Administrator Bill Webster, Library Director Kathy Thompson, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

1a. Presentation of Check from Jim Earnhardt and D.R. Bryan for Southern Village Greenway Bridge across Morgan Creek

Mr. Earnhardt, general manager for Bryan Properties, reported on the progress of pedestrian and bike improvements on Highway 15/501 from Culbreth Road to Purefoy Road. He said that improvements should be in place by the early part of 2001. Mr. Earnhardt noted that Bryan Properties had proposed a payment-in-lieu based on the cost of constructing a bridge across Morgan Creek. He said they had recently presented the Town with a check for $113,000. Town Council Members accepted the payment in lieu.

Mayor Rosemary Waldorf explained that Marti Pryor-Cook had been an extremely valued member of the Orange County community. The Mayor recognized Council Member Edith Wiggins to introduce the resolution.

Council Member Wiggins read the resolution in appreciation of the late Ms. Pryor-Cook, Orange County Services Director, who passed away on November 9, 2000 at the age of 54.

Mayor Waldorf added that Ms. Pryor-Cook had been a “great person,” who had always responded with warmth, energy, and professionalism when the Town called on her.

In response to a question by Council Member Wiggins, Mayor Waldorf said that the Town would frame the resolution and present it to Ms. Pryor-Cook’s husband. Mr. Horton pointed out that it would be appropriate for a Council member to transmit that award, but added that he would be pleased to take it to the family.

COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVAO, TO ADOPT R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF THE LATE MARTI PRYOR-COOK, ORANGE COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES DIRECTOR (2000-11-27/R-1)

WHEREAS, Marti Pryor-Cook, Orange County Social Services Director, passed away on November 9 at the age of 54; and,

WHEREAS, Ms. Pryor-Cook served as Social Services Director and oversaw the development of the Friends of DSS support group, the opening of the Skills Development Center, and the beginning of the Work First program; and,

WHEREAS, Ms. Pryor-Cook created the Heusner Endowment for Education and Training for foster children and the DeGrange scholarship fund; and,

WHEREAS, Ms. Pryor-Cook devoted her entire career to the highest standards in the practice of social work and, in doing so, inspired all who worked with her to perform at the highest levels in the practice of their profession; and

WHEREAS, Ms. Pryor-Cook has worked indefatigably to protect children and seniors and the disadvantaged members of society; and

WHEREAS, Ms. Pryor-Cook was a tireless and dedicated servant of all the citizens of our community;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council acknowledges the contributions of Marti Pryor-Cook and expresses sincere appreciation for her work and heartfelt sympathy to her family.

Mr. Horton stated that a key part of the Town’s arrangements with the cable company was that the Town establish the public access fee. He stated that Bill Stockard would review the rules of that arrangement.

Mr. Stockard said the issue in question is the fee adjustment. He explained the choices are to raise it to sixty-nine cents per month for inflation, continue at the present rate of sixty-eight cents per month, reduce it, or eliminate it. Mr. Stockard noted that the People’s Channel had been providing public access services since July 1998 and that the purpose of the fee is to help cover that channel’s wages, rent, equipment and other costs for management and operation of public access cable television. He said that the Manager’s recommendation was to refer comments from tonight’s public forum to the staff and requesting a report back on December 11, 2000.

Robert Gwyn, president of the People’s Channel, reported that the total amount of local production for the previous month had been 37 hours. He explained that included children’s programs, an election forum, a weekly news program, a weekly Senior Center program, and a wide variety of other programming. Mr. Gwyn said that the People’s Channel is fully staffed, would increase the number of classes it offers, and intends to reach out to the community. He noted that it was difficult to keep good people on staff without being able to offer medical insurance. He added that the People’s Channel wants to expand equipment so that they can present news on a regular basis between programs. Mr. Gwyn also pointed out that the Channel needs a better computer and software. He asked the Town Council to collect the additional one-cent from subscribers to help fund some of these needs.

Bob Joesting, a volunteer with the People’s Channel, stated that the channel definitely could use the added access fees. He said he felt encouraged because every year the Channel improved despite having limited resources.

Council Member Evans noted that some residents had commented on the poor audio quality. She asked if there was a regional consortium that the Channel could join for a group healthcare policy. Mr. Gwyn replied that the People’s Channel had been looking into that and also into an association of non-profit organizations. Regarding the audio quality, he explained that they are increasing the training in audio for people who produce programs.

Council Member Foy asked how much the increased one cent in fees would generate. Mr. Stockard replied that he did not know off hand, but pointed out that the current sixty-eight cents generated $92,000 at the end of the fiscal year. Council Member Foy commented that the increase would be minimal, about $1,300, and certainly was something that the Council should support.

Council Member Ward inquired about viewership figures. Mr. Gwyn replied that it was difficult with limited funds to do a survey, adding that they would be able to look at a sample if they could get a list of subscribers from Time Warner, which does not release that information. Mr. Gwyn pointed out that an unscientific survey had found that one in ten people had heard of the People’s Channel. He said that most of their viewers seemed to be people who are channel surfing. Mr. Gwyn also noted that some of their programs (particularly the religious programs) have very loyal audiences who express concern when one of their programs is cancelled.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ADOPT R-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION REFERRING COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC FORUM ON CABLE PUBLIC ACCESS FEES TO THE TOWN MANAGER (2000-11-27/R-2)

WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill Town Council heard comments from citizens on November 27, 2000, regarding possible changes in cablevision public access fees;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council refers these comments to the Manager for a follow-up report on December 11, 2000.

Joan Page, representing the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission for Arts in Public Places, explained that the Commission was studying public ordinances from other towns comparable to Chapel Hill and had been working with Council Member Foy to recommend a “percent for art” implementation plan early in 2001. Ms. Page said that the Commission wanted to become more involved in capital projects from the ground up.

Council Member Foy expressed gratitude to Ms. Page for coming before the Council and raising this issue. He suggested that the Council give a little direction on how the Public Arts Commission should be involved in the new fire station and the Pritchard Park improvements. Council Member Foy also recommended that the Council ask the Manager how the Commission might be involved with ideas regarding those two projects. He added that the Council will have a better idea of how to put something permanent into place when the Commission comes back to Council in January with suggestions.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO ASK THE STAFF FOR ADVICE REGARDING HOW TO USE FUNDS GENERATED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Foy announced that there would be a reception for a new Town-commissioned tapestry at Town Hall during the following Sunday. He said that everyone in Town was invited to the reception.

Council Member Ward noted that he had distributed material regarding invasive exotic plants to Council members.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT R-3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

b. Establishment of Project Ordinance for the 2000-2001 Housing Capital Fund Program (formerly known as Comprehensive Grant Program) (O-1).

d. Village West Neighborhood: Parking Restrictions on Both Sides of Jay Street and Establishment of a Fire Lane on Bluff Trail (O-3a, b).

f. Transfer of State Economic Development Funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments (R-6).

A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2000-11-27/R-4)

WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and

WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:

Parks and Recreation Commission

Tamea Steward

AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH A HOUSING CAPITAL FUND PROGRAM (HCFP) PROJECT ORDINANCE (2000-11-27-/O-1)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of The Town of Chapel Hill that pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following project ordinance is hereby established:

The projects authorized are the Housing Capital Fund Program (HCFP) activities as approved by the Council on April 24, 2000: funds are as contained in the Amendment to Consolidated Annual Contributions Contract between the Town and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development dated October 24, 2000.

The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the project within the terms of the Contract document(s), the rules and regulations of the U.S. Department of Housing and Development, and budget contained herein.

The Finance Director is hereby directed to maintain within the Project Fund sufficient specific detailed accounting records to provide the accounting to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as required by the Annual Contributions Contract and federal regulations.

Copies of this project ordinance shall be entered into the minutes of the Council and copies shall be filed within five days of adoption with the Manager, Finance Director and the Town Clerk.

Funds may be advanced from general funds for the purpose of making payments as due. Reimbursement request should be made to HUD in a timely manner. The Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of each project in Section IV and on the total revenues received.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING STOP REGULATIONS (2000-11-27/0-2)

Section 1. Section 21-13(a) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by deleting the following:

Section 2. Section 21-13(c) of the Town Code of Ordinances, “Right-of-way and stop regulations.” is hereby amended by inserting the following, in appropriate alphabetical order:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-27 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING NO PARKING AS TO PARTICULAR STREETS (2000-11-27/O-3a)

Section 1. Section 21-27 of the Town Code “No parking as to particular streets.” is hereby amended by inserting the following therein, in appropriate alphabetical order:

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 21-20.2 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING FIRE LANES (2000-11-27/O-3b)

Section 1. Section 21-20.2 of the Town Code “Fire lanes.” is hereby amended by inserting the following therein, in appropriate alphabetical order:

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO ACCEPT THE GATES FOUNDATION GRANT FOR $18,358 AND TO CONTRACT FOR SERVICES RELATED TO INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIPMENT (2000-11-27 R-5)

WHEREAS, interim State Library guidelines recommend that a library serving a population the size of Chapel Hill provide seventeen public Internet stations; and

WHEREAS, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has approved the Town’s application for a U.S. Library Program grant totaling $18,358 to purchase equipment including four public Internet stations, as well as services; and

WHEREAS, costs associated with maintaining, supporting and upgrading the equipment and software are covered by the grant for the first three years;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager be authorized to accept the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation U.S. Library Program grant and to purchase equipment and to contract for installation services.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2000 2000-11-27/O-4)

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:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL REQUESTING RELEASE OF STATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO THE TRIANGLE J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (2000-11-27/R-6)

WHEREAS, in North Carolina the Lead Regional Organizations, as voluntary organizations serving municipal and county governments, have established productive working relationships with the cities and counties across the State; and

WHEREAS, the General Assembly continued to recognize this need through the appropriation of $990,000 to help the Lead Regional Organizations assist local governments with grant applications, economic development, community development, and to support local industrial development activities and other activities as deemed by the member governments; and

WHEREAS, these funds are not intended to be used for payment of members’ dues or assessments to Lead Regional Organization or to supplant funds appropriated by the member governments; and

WHEREAS, in the event that a request is not made by a unit of government for release of these funds to our Regional Council, the available funds will revert to the State’s General Fund; and

WHEREAS, in Region J funds in the amount of $55,000 will be used to carry out the economic development plan approved by the COG Board of Delegates and especially to improve the economy of the counties and towns of the Region by strengthening ties to, and consequently, the benefits of the Research Triangle Park;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council requests the release of its $3,071.20 share of these funds to the Triangle J Council of Governments at the earliest possible time in accordance with the provisions of Section 16.27 of House Bill 168, the 1999 ratified budget bill.

A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CONTRACT FOR THE CARRBORO PLAZA PARK AND RIDE REPLACEMENT LOT (2000-11-27/R-7)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has awarded a contract to Ruston Paving Company, Incorporated in the amount of $293,893 for the construction of the Carrboro Plaza Park and Ride Replacement Lot; and

WHEREAS, change orders for the construction project bring the total over the $50,000 threshold that can be approved administratively;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is hereby authorized to execute a change order for the construction of the Carrboro Plaza Park and Ride Replacement Lot in the amount of $52,180.

Item 5 - Information Reports

5a. Request to Remove Stop Signs Installed at the Intersection of Kenmore Road/Saddle Ridge/Bridle Run

Elizabeth Thompson, of 712 Shady Lawn Road, requested the removal of a stop sign at the Kenmore Road/Saddle Ridge/Bridle Run intersection. She pointed out that in the past the Manager has seen no reason to have a stop sign there, but that the Town Council had apparently dismissed this suggestion. Ms. Thompson read her written petition, and pointed out that Town policy states that stop sign installation will normally not be recommended solely for the purpose of controlling vehicular speeds. Ms. Thompson remarked that people merely glide through the stop sign and that it does not serve any safety issue whatever.

Council Member Wiggins stated that because other citizens in that neighborhood had requested that stop sign she was inclined to go with the staff recommendation. Mayor Waldorf noted that a motion would be required to make that change.

Council Member Evans stated that this was why the Town establishes guidelines. She noted that the staff had not seen a need, according to guidelines, to put a stop sign there. Council Member Evans remarked that the Council was seeing the result of its actions. She advised going with the staff’s recommendation because it is an endorsement of policy. She suggested that the Council address the issue of speed enforcement throughout the community rather than addressing it on different roads by putting in more and more stop signs.

Council Member Brown noted that the Council was receiving increasing numbers of requests from citizens asking them to do something about speeding all over Town. She asked the Manager to comment on how the Town had limited resources to do anything about it. Mr. Horton replied that Council Member Brown had represented the facts well. He added that Town staff observes patterns of speeding in some areas, keeps a list of where there have been periodic speeding problems, and enforces speed limits in those areas when they can. Mr. Horton said that stop signs do serve as a deterrent to speed in some cases but noted that people do tend to ignore them. He pointed out that the Council has to make individual judgments about these instances within a policy framework and that that there are times when they can justify exceptions to the normal policy based on their own assessment.

Council Member Brown asked if an individual or a group had originally petitioned the Council. Mr. Horton replied that he did not recall, adding that one could go back and look at the minutes of that meeting.

Council Member Ward asked how well the Town is able to address these concerns with the staff that it has. Mr. Horton replied that the Town had added a traffic squad to be responsive to these concerns. This special squad, he said, gives the Town a better ability to respond, even though it is a limited resource which cannot serve every neighborhood as well as the Town would like.

Council Member Brown asked if people in the neighborhood had been informed of the meeting tonight. Mr. Horton replied that the Town had sent a letter to Mr. Ewell, who was the only person who had previously indicated an interest in it.

Council Member Wiggins asked Ms. Thompson if she had had any discussion with Mr. Ewell about this. Ms. Thompson replied that she had not contacted Mr. Ewell directly.

Mayor Waldorf spoke in favor of the motion and suggested that the Council vote and move on.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO ADOPT O-5. THE MOTION FAILED (3-6) WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, EVANS, AND WALDORF VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS STROM, PAVÃO, BROWN, BATEMAN, WARD, AND FOY VOTING NAY.

Council Member Strom said that he did not believe this proposal agrees with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan’s goals and that it works against the Council’s stated goal of having affordable housing in Town. He also suggested that the Council have a discussion in the near future about what “development opportunity districts” mean in the Comprehensive Plan.

Council Member Wiggins said that the comprehensive plan is like the bible in that you can find a part that will support almost any point of view. She explained that she would vote against the motion to deny because of diverse housing and the affordable units that the Town would get with this development. Council Member Wiggins added that there was sufficient buffer between the residential neighborhood and this project. She noted that it would be on a transportation route, which is a plus for the Town. Council Member Wiggins stated that she was comfortable with the parts that she had picked out to help her think this through and would support the project even though she could understand Council Member Strom’s interpretation of other parts. She also pointed out that the consultant had alerted them to the contradictory goals and strategies in the Comprehensive Plan.

Council Member Ward said that he had voted against this application last time because of safety concerns which had consequently been cleared up during the Special Use Permit process. He said he supported Council Member Strom’s motion, adding the Town could do better than this development and the Town would not lose the affordability component by denying this application because whatever is built there will have that component.

Council Member Brown said that she still had safety concerns. She added that there could be something much more appropriate in this area and that she would vote for the motion to deny and would continue to oppose the project as it is.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO ADOPT R-8, TO DENY. THE MOTION FAILED (3-6) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS STROM, BROWN AND WARD VOTING AYE AND WIGGINS, PAVÃO, FOY, WALDORF AND BATEMAN VOTING NAY.

Mayor Waldorf said that she would support a motion to approve O-6 on the grounds that Council Member Wiggins had given, and also because she was pleased with the number of Section 8 units that the Council had been able to negotiate. Mayor Waldorf commented that in a university community it is okay to have some student housing.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, TO ADOPT O-6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (6-3) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS WIGGINS, EVANS, FOY, WALDORF, PAVÃO, AND BATEMAN VOTING AYE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS STROM, BROWN AND WARD VOTING NAY.

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CHAPEL HILL ZONING ATLAS FOR THE CHAPEL RIDGE DEVELOPMENT (Chapel Hill Tax Map Number 24, Lots 38A and 41G)(2000-11-27/O-6)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has considered the application of Ponikvar & Associates, Inc. Architects to amend the Zoning Atlas to rezone property described below from Residential-2 and Residential-4 to Residential-5-Conditional zoning, and finds that the amendment is warranted due to changing conditions in the area, and in order to achieve the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Chapel Hill Zoning Atlas be amended as follows:

SECTION I

That the portion of the site identified as now or formerly Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 41G, that is currently zoned Residential-4, located south of Brookstone Drive, shall be rezoned to Residential-5-Conditional zoning.

That for the portion of the site identified as now or formerly Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 24, Lot 38A, that is currently zoned Residential-2, located west of Northfield Drive, the northern 8.3 acres shall be rezoned to Residential-5-Conditional zoning.

The description of the portions of this site to be rezoned are indicated on the map presented at the November 27, 2000 Council meeting.

That all ordinances and portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed.

Mayor Waldorf asked Council Member Strom if he wanted to make a motion regarding his suggestion that the Council look at the “development opportunity” zones.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO, THAT “DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES” BE DISCUSSED AT THE COUNCIL'S JANUARY 2001 RETREAT. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Brown suggested addressing the Comprehensive Plan as well. She said that if the Plan was going to be used as justification for a particular point of view then the Town Council should discuss that at the Council’s retreat.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED THAT A REVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSION AT THE COUNCIL’S JANUARY 2001 RETREAT.

Council Member Wiggins said that she would second the motion if it could be more specific and focused, such as that the Council would look at the areas in the Comprehensive Plan where there are obvious contradictions. Council Member Brown said that she thought that had been implied and agreed to include that in her motion.

Council Member Strom also seconded the motion and noted that focusing on the “little Ds” on the map would cause the ambiguities to float to the surface. Mayor Waldorf stated that she was still not clear what Council Member Brown’s motion had been.

Council Member Brown restated her motion, that the Council look at the Comprehensive Plan as part of the discussion on development opportunity areas and the contradictions within the Comprehensive Plan,” as related to that or other issues that might arise.” Mayor Waldorf said that she would vote against that because it seemed like redoing the Comprehensive Plan.

Council Member Evans agreed. She added that when the Council does look at development areas and at what its goals are in the Comprehensive Plan they may find areas in which there are contradictions, then it would be up to the Council to decide which are its priorities, which might in itself remove some contradictions.

Council Member Brown replied that she was not suggesting starting over, but merely looking at the Comprehensive Plan in relation to “development opportunities” and also to how the Comprehensive Plan can be used to justify differing points of view.

Council Member Evans noted that Council Member Brown had said “and other things” at the end of her motion. Council Member Brown replied that it should be looked at in light of the statement that Council Member Wiggins had made regarding possible conflicting interpretations. She then called the question.

Council Member Wiggins asked the Manager to comment on what the staff would do with this motion. Mr. Horton said that he hoped the staff would be asked to do nothing and that the Council would identify the inconsistencies or contradictions.

Council Member Bateman agreed that there were inconsistencies and competing goals in the Comprehensive Plan. She said that it would not hurt for the Council to address those and to point them out. For example, Council Member Bateman said the Council could point out the priority to put density along major traffic corridors at the same time that it has a priority for safety and to protect the existing neighborhoods. She noted that those goals might be in competition with each other when in a development that is along Airport Road and next to an existing neighborhood. Council Member Bateman suggested that Council Members Brown and Wiggins pull out a group of competing goals for the Council to look at.

COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN’S USES BE LOOKED AT AS WELL DURING THE COUNCIL’S JANUARY 2001 RETREAT, SPECIFICALLY CONTRADICTIONS OR INCONSISTENCIES IN GOALS AS RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY ZONES. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (8-1), WITH COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO VOTING NAY.

1. A resolution asking the Council to identify all of the areas that it might be considered for annexation at a future time.

2. An overview of areas that the staff thinks are ripe for annexation, where the statutory requirements appear to have been met, and where it appears to be financially feasible to conduct an annexation.

Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt explained that this issue was taken up annually to meet the requirements of State law. Regarding the first report, Ms. Berndt explained areas in question include all of the land outside the Town limits but within the current Urban Services Area that the Council had adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan.

Regarding the second report, Ms. Berndt explained that it includes all areas within that proposed area which might have potential for annexation this year.

Ms. Berndt said that the staff had identified two areas for the Council’s consideration:

1. Notting Hill, which is behind Eastown and runs over to Irwin Road and up to I-40. This annexation, said Ms Berndt, would fill in that last piece of the Northeast Urban Services Area.

2. Southern Village, which would include the 15/501 right-of-way as well as the Southern Community Park.

Ms. Berndt noted that the staff would come back on January 8, 2001, with a resolution of intent and would ask the Council to approve these areas for annexation as well as the staff’s proposed schedule. She said that the staff was asking the Council to adopt the annual resolution of consideration for all the areas.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT R-9. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION IDENTIFYING THE AREAS DESCRIBED WITHIN AS BEING UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ANNEXATION (2000-11-27/R-9)

That pursuant to G.S. 160A-49(i), the following described areas are identified as being under consideration for annexation by the Town of Chapel Hill, under provisions of Part 3, Article 4A of Chapter 160A of the General Statutes of North Carolina:

Generally, the unincorporated areas between Chapel Hill’s existing corporate limits and the Town’s Urban Services Boundary as identified on the 2000 Land Use Plan that was adopted by the Council on May 8, 2000.

The above-referenced areas are specifically shaded on the attached map (“Areas Under Consideration for Future Annexation – November 27, 2000”), which shall be incorporated into this resolution by reference, in accordance with N.C. General Statute 160A-49(i).

SECTION 2

That pursuant to G.S. 160A-49(i), persons subject to annexation by this Resolution of Consideration are hereby notified of their rights under North Carolina General Statute Subsections 160A-49(f1) and 160A-49(f2).

(f1) Property Subject to Present-Use Value Appraisal. -- If an area described in an annexation ordinance includes agricultural land, horticultural land, or forestland that on the effective date of annexation is:

(1) Land that is being taxed at present-use value pursuant to G.S. 105-277.4; or

a. Was on the date of the resolution of intent for annexation being used for actual production and is eligible for present-use value taxation under G.S. 105-277.4, but the land has not been in use for actual production for the required time under G.S. 105-277.3; and

b. The assessor for the county where the land subject to annexation is located has certified to the city that the land meets the requirements of this subdivision

the annexation becomes effective as to that property pursuant to subsection (f2) of this section.

(f2) Effective Date of Annexation for Certain Property. -- Annexation of property subject to annexation under subsection (f1) of this section shall become effective:

(1) Upon the effective date of the annexation ordinance, the property is considered part of the city only (i) for the purpose of establishing city boundaries for additional annexations pursuant to this Article and (ii) for the exercise of city authority pursuant to Article 19 of this Chapter.

(2) For all other purposes, the annexation becomes effective as to each tract of such property or part thereof on the last day of the month in which that tract or part thereof becomes ineligible for classification pursuant to G.S. 105-227.4 or no longer meets the requirements of subdivision (f1)(2) of this section. Until annexation of a tract or a part of a tract becomes effective pursuant to this subdivision, the tract or part of a tract is not subject to taxation by the city under Article 12 of Chapter 105 of the General Statutes nor is the tract or part of a tract entitled to services provided by the city.

Item 8 - Request to Extend Completion Time Limit for Beechridge Development

Special Use Permit Application

Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that the request had first come to the Council in September and the staff had recommended that the Council grant an extension of the time limit. He noted that neighbors had raised some issues and that Council members had asked the staff to look at those issues. Mr. Waldon explained that the staff was offering the developer’s comments and response to some of the issues raised by the neighbors. He said that the staff continued to recommend approval of the extension of the completion time limit (Resolution A).

Council Member Brown asked if the citizens had agreed to sign the release relieving the developer from further responsibility for each individual action. Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal replied that those who had been reached (the Smith’s and the Francisco’s) had been pleased by the developer’s proposal. She added that those neighbors wanted to look at the release form but did not expect a problem. Ms. Loewenthal added that she had been unable to reach the Trouts, Dr. Henry, and Dr. Harp.

Council Member Ward asked if there could be a guarantee that the work would get done prior to the extension. Ms. Loewenthal replied that the neighbors understand the extent to which the Town can be involved. She added that they were pleased with what has happened to this point, but understand that the legal relationship is between them and the developer, not with the Town.

Council Member Ward asked if there was a way to make sure that the staging of the operation takes place within the perimeter of the development and not off site. Ms. Loewenthal explained arrangements for staging are made with each development and that it is possible, in most cases, to stage on site. But, Ms. Loewenthal explained, sometimes, as in this case, it is not possible and staging has to take place in the public right-of-way.

Council Member Bateman asked if the Town could hold off on issuing the extensions until the corrections occur. Ms. Loewenthal replied, “not according to our Town Attorney.” Mr. Horton explained that there was no connection between the Town’s ordinances and these private property issues. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos concurred.

Council Member Bateman asked if this meant that the Town could legally deny the extension but not on the basis of neighborhood concerns. Mr. Karpinos replied that under the ordinance the terms under which the Council can consider whether or not to extend the time limit are not related to the questions that the neighbors have raised.

Council Member Strom remarked that the issue had come to the Council because of the issue of the good faith of the developer. He argued that there was not yet enough information, particularly on whether the parties feel that good faith has been performed, for the Council to take action. Council Member Strom suggested waiting until the Council could be more confident of the good faith finding.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO DEFER THE ITEM TO DECEMBER 11, 2000.

Mayor Waldorf asked Council Member Strom to repeat the reason. He stated that there was not enough information to determine one of the things the Council needs to determine, which is whether the permit holder has proceeded with due diligence and good faith.

Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Karpinos how the Council would measure good faith. Mr. Karpinos replied that the good faith standard in the ordinance relates to whether the developer proceeded to complete his project with due diligence and good faith. He said that the position that he and the staff have taken in the past is that issues raised by neighbors are issues that are between the neighbors and the developers and not issues related to whether or not an extension could be granted.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 6-3, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS WARD, FOY, BROWN, BATEMAN AND STROM VOTING AYE, AND WALDORF, EVANS AND PAVÃO VOTING NAY. COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS ABSTAINED, AND WAS COUNTED AS AN “AYE “ VOTE.

Item 9 - Bid for Construction of Southern Fire Station #5

Fire Chief Dan Jones presented the construction bid for Southern Fire Station. He said that 1996 public safety bonds had included a project for the construction and equipping of the station, and the Council had set aside $1.3 million for the station and a fire truck. In 1998, Chief Jones explained, the Town had purchased 8.72 acres at the corner of Bennet Road and 15-501 for the fire station, and that 1.1 acres had subsequently been subdivided for the fire station. He said that Michael Hining Architects was then selected and that the Council had approved the preliminary design a year ago. He noted that a Zoning Compliance Permit was recently given for the project.

The lowest of several construction bids, Chief Jones explained, was a multi-prime bid consisting of Resolute Building Contractor, Triangle Electrical Contractor, Cooper Mechanical Contractor and Vicars and Ruth Plumbing Contractor. He noted that the Manager recommended R-8, which authorizes the Manager to reduce the scope of the building in order to reduce the overall cost of the project.

· Page one, after “lowest responsive bids,” it should say “with project changes” of the agenda item.

Council Member Brown asked for clarification of the cost differences between shingle and metal roofing. Mr. Hining, of Michael Hining Architects, explained that the three changes on page seven were things that had been considered but were not recommended.

Council Member Brown asked about the longevity and energy efficiency of metal vs. shingle roofing. Mr. Hining explained that the metal roof had been an integral part of the curved roof over the bay design. With a shingle roof, he pointed out, they had to change to a flat roof with a higher pitch. When the Manager’s office asked them to look at potential cost reductions, Mr. Hining explained, they considered changing the roof because of the fairly substantial cost reduction.

Mr. Hining stated that they had looked at changes that would not effect energy efficiency in a substantial way. He said that there would be nominal, if any, difference between a metal roof and shingles because there is three inches of insulation on top of the roof which maintains its R-value. Mr. Hining added that the shingle roof would have the same energy performance as the roof previously designed.

Council Member Evans pointed out that she had served on the committee which had struggled mightily with cost reduction for this project. She explained that her goal was to have a unique but not flashy building. She thanked the staff for their hard work on reducing the budget. But, she said, the Council should not look at the bare bones when deciding about a structure that will be located at the Town’s entryway.

Council Member Pavão said that the only disadvantage of this option was that the Town would have to seek additional funds to construct the building and that the long-term maintenance costs would increase with option B.

Council Member Strom, who is the Council’s liaison to the Community Design Commission, explained that he had been present when this building was analyzed and examined. He noted that much attention had been given to how it would be seen from the road. Council Member Strom agreed that the building will make a statement about the community. He added that it is a long-term investment and suggested sticking with the original plan.

Council Member Strom offered a friendly amendment (regarding the first bullet on page five) to replace the poured concrete retaining wall with interlocking blocks, which would save $10,000. Council Member Evans accepted that as a friendly amendment, as did the seconder, Mayor pro tem Pavão.

Council Member Foy expressed support for the motion and suggested thanking the staff for providing options. He asked how the Percentage for the Arts was calculated, noting that it was the same amount in options A & B on page four. Mr. Horton replied that it was calculated as one percent of the construction bid.

Council Member Ward offered a friendly amendment to substitute low maintenance ground cover, which he said would save $4,000. The mover and seconder both accepted the amendment.

Council Member Ward asked how the design of the building would allow for some of the items that had to be taken out to be included at a later date. Mr. Hining replied that they had been taken out of areas where they could easily be added back in if funds became available. Council Member Ward said he supported going with lower maintenance and longer lasting materials for the building.

Chief Jones indicated on the map that virtually all sides of the building had been designed so that they could be expanded at a later date if needed.

Council Member Bateman said that she would not support the motion because she did not see the need for a “signature fire station.” She added that she was concerned about tax dollars being spent this way.

Council Member Brown said that she would vote for the resolution because she believes there will be a cost savings over time that will justify the proposal.

Mr. Horton pointed out that the allocation being discussed would reduce the fund balance to slightly below $4 million. He noted that there were excellent arguments on both sides of the issue, adding that he can see it either way. It would, he noted, be “a big hit” on the fund balance.

Mayor Waldorf asked how much extra in revenues the Town ended up with last year. Mr. Horton replied that it had ended up at $4,064,000, more than the Town had anticipated but low enough to warrant a conservative comment. Spending this money on this project would not subject the Council to criticism, he said, since the Town is in sound financial condition. In response to Mayor Waldorf’s inquiry, Mr. Horton explained that the Town had spent very little money out of fund balance this year.

Mayor Waldorf expressed regret that the police substation had to be cut out of the project. She asked if there was any strategic advantage, from a police point of view, to having the substation where the fire station will be. Mayor Waldorf asked if it could it be equally effective in Southern Village, for example. Police Chief Greg Jarvies replied that there were other options, some of which were being tested now, such as in the Meadowmont area. Mayor Waldorf suggested that the Council go on record encouraging the Chief to pursue those options. She commented that the Fire Department should not assume that the Town has given up the goal of having a substation in that part of the community.

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING THE CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SOUTHERN FIRE STATION (#5) (2000-11-27/R-11b)

WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill has solicited formal bids by advertisement in The Chapel Hill News on October 4, 2000, The Chapel Hill Herald on October 4, 2000, and the Challenger Newspaper on October 5, 2000, and in accordance with G.S. 143-128 for the construction work; and

SINGLE PRIME CONTRACT FOR ENTIRE PROJECT

Contractor	Base Bid	Generator	Wallbeds	Foodlockers
McKenna Construction	$1,048,500	$34,500	$42,000	$1,952
Poythress Construction	$1,015,000	$26,500	$18,000	$2,500

General Contractor	Base Bid	Generator	Wallbeds	Foodlockers
C. T. Wilson	$907,643	$560	$19,435	$3,371
Engineered Construction Company	$802,250	$1,200		$2,750
Force Construction	$845,605	$890	$12,960	$2,385
Keck Company	$809,500		$17,136	$924
McKenna Construction	$804,125		$42,000	$1,952
Poythress Construction	$776,875		$18,000	$2,500
Resolute Building Company	$750,925		$17,100	$2,000
Shalimar Construction	$599,250		$3,300	$4,500
Van Thomas Contractor	$968,875		$18,500	$2,300


Electrical Contractor	Base Bid	Generator	Wallbeds	Foodlockers
Norina Construction	$79,900	$27,500
Pendergraph Electric	$80,750	$21,990
Triangle Electrical Services	$72,500	$22,500
Watson Electric	$78,550	$21,000
Wood Electric	$76,200	$22,300

Mechanical Contractor	Base Bid	Generator	Wallbeds	Foodlockers
Carolina Air Conditioning	$37,724
Cooper Mechanical	$34,000

Plumbing Contractor	Base Bid	Generator	Wallbeds	Foodlockers
Acme Plumbing	$115,000
Brown Brothers Plumbing	$163,625
Eakins Plumbing	$114,000
Progressive Plumbing and Piping	$98,277
Sparrow Plumbing	$76,633
Vickers & Ruth	$79,069

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Manager to further evaluate all potential cost savings, to reduce the scope of the project where appropriate, and to substitute materials in order to reduce the overall costs for construction of the Southern Fire Station (#5), such changes to substantially follow the list below:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that the Town accepts the bids and awards contracts to Resolute Builders, General Contract ($750,925); and Triangle Electrical Services, Electric Contract ($72,500); Vickers & Ruth Plumbing, Plumbing Contract ($79,069); and Cooper Mechanical, Mechanical Contract ($34,000) for a total amount of $950,494 for the construction of Southern Fire Station (#5).

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD TO ADOPT O-7b. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE FOR POLICE AND FIRE FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT FROM 1996 BONDS (2000-11-27/O-7b)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, that the following capital project established for construction of a Fire Station and purchase of firefighting equipment and for renovations of the Police Headquarters funded from bonds approved by the voters in November, 1996 is hereby amended as follows:

SECTION I

The capital projects as authorized by bond referenda approved in November 1996 includes the capital costs of constructing a fire station and purchase of a fire pumper and for renovations and capital improvements to the Police Headquarters.

SECTION II

The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with implementation of these projects within terms of funds appropriated here.

SECTION III

Revenues anticipated to be available to the Town to complete the project are as follows:

Bond Proceeds 2,000,000 2,000,000

Interest on Bond Proceeds 0 120,000

SECTION IV

The Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of the project in an informational section to be included in the Annual Budget, and shall keep the Council informed of any unusual occurrences.

SECTION V

Copies of this ordinance shall be entered into the Minutes of the Council and copies shall be filed within 5 days of adoption with the Manager, Finance Director and Clerk.

COUNCIL MEMBER PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT O-7a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2000 (2000-11-27O-7a)

Ken Redfoot, representing the architectural firm Corley Redfoot Zack, explained that the report before the Council focuses on how to protect the headquarters building from further deterioration due to water damage. He noted that measures need to be taken to stop the leakage and to repair and/or replace the water damaged components. Mr. Redfoot presented slides showing the four phases of the proposed project, the scope of work for each phase, the associated staging areas, and a cost estimate based on the multiple phased project.

Mr. Redfoot explained that the first phase of the project would entail replacement of the roof as well as the rooftop heating and cooling units. He showed a slide indicating the particular water damaged areas that had caused leakage into the building. He also showed slides of broken downspouts and gutters, and the rooftop units that will be replaced. Mr. Redfoot noted that the building could remain open at all times despite the renovation work.

In phase two, Mr. Redfoot pointed out, there would be excavation work done to repair water damage and prevent water from coming in along the rear and west walls. He explained that a foundation drain and waterproofing would be added at this phase, and then the excavated dirt would be filled back in. In phase three, Mr. Redfoot stated, the firm would complete work of the north side wall and then open up the east wall and do the same procedure as on the other side.

Mr. Redfoot stated that phase four, the final phase, would utilize remaining funds to repair finishes in the first floor that had been damaged by water, such as floor tile, ceiling tile, and ceiling grid. He noted that these renovations would include the locker rooms, would go back through the archives area, and would extend down to the offices.

Mr. Redfoot presented the Summary Construction Estimate and said that these “best guess estimates” had been arrived at in combination with some local contractors, and were not a bid. He said that the total estimated cost was $673,435, which brings the project to a $73,435 overage based on the $600,000 budget limit. Mr. Redfoot recommended doing the work. He argued that this was a reasonable plan and estimate and that it should be implemented to protect one of the Town’s assets.

Mr. Horton pointed out that Mr. Redfoot had correctly stated that the budget is $600,000. He added that the staff was recommending that the Council plan for the sale of the additional $100,000 in public safety bonds that have been reserved for this purpose. Mr. Horton reiterated Mr. Redfoot’s comment that this was an estimate, adding that the final cost might be higher or lower than that. Mr. Horton remarked that Mr. Redfoot’s firm might not be able to bid on this work, adding that the staff hoped they would.

Council Member Evans asked how this proposal differed from what had previously been done to remedy the problem. Mr. Redfoot replied that he was not clear on what had been done. He repeated that his proposal is to excavate around the three walls all the way down to the footing and then clean it out and repair cracks in the wall, put in a waterproofing system that will go all the way down, add a foundation drain, and then fill it back in with granular fill and the excavated materials. He said that he was not sure that the excavating that had been done before had gone all the way down to the footings.

Council Member Brown asked if anyone had looked at more innovative heating and cooling methods. Mr. Redfoot replied that they had looked at replacing the units that are there with a similar capacity, which would be more efficient because they would not be 20 year-old models. Due to budgetary constraints, he explained, they had not looked at putting a better and more efficient unit on that roof.

Council Member Brown inquired about the feasibility of looking at more innovative methods. Mr. Horton replied that the first phase would include all the work on the roof, which would include removing and quickly replacing roof units.

Council Member Strom asked how the Town can know that it would not be back in the same place ten years from now, given the inherent flaws in the design and the bare bones approach to repairing them. He asked Mr. Redfoot about design concepts that might cost more but would do a better job. Mr. Redfoot replied that he had learned over time that there are no guarantees. What they were proposing, he said, was to stop deterioration in the building. Mr. Redfoot pointed out that the cost of trying to salvage the building would increase if it were not salvaged now.

Council Member Strom rephrased his question and Mr. Redfoot replied that answering that would require a different study than the one his firm had done, which was to find a way to stop the damage under the budgetary constraints. He said that they had looked at other ways to do the HVAC system, but had found them cost prohibitive under the budgetary constraints.

Council Member Brown asked Mr. Redfoot to be more specific. He replied that there are always discussions in buildings of this nature about whether to go with more of a centralized boiler and chiller plant in lieu of rooftop units. But that would require actually going somewhere on the site, dedicating a large area to the building that would house the boiler and chiller, bringing the piping or duct work over from that into the building, and substantially changing the inner working of the building. So the change in cost, Mr. Redfoot pointed out, would be quite dramatic.

Council Member Ward asked if there were staff members who monitor these buildings and notify the Public Works Department when damage is beginning to occur. Mr. Horton replied that there was someone at each building that does so. He explained that the Town generally can get to the smaller items quickly. Mr. Horton emphasized that this probably is the most challenging of all the buildings the Town maintains. He said that it also is one of the most heavily used buildings.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO SOLICIT CONSTRUCTION BIDS FOR THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS RENOVATION AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE REMAINING 1996 PUBLIC SAFETY BOND FUNDS (2000-11-27/R-12)

WHEREAS, funds for the renovation of the police department headquarters building were approved in the 1996 Public Safety Bond issue; and

WHEREAS, the architect firm of Corley Redfoot Zack has presented to the Council a renovation plan that would protect the Town’s asset from further deterioration; and

WHEREAS, the renovation work on the headquarters facility will cost approximately $654,935;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to solicit construction bids for the renovation work.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council allocates up to all of the remaining $100,000 in 1996 Public Safety bond funds as necessary to complete the renovation project.

Item 11 - Manager’s follow-up Report on Merritt Pasture Access Committee Report

Parks and Recreation Department Director Kathryn Spatz reported that the staff had agreed with the majority of the Committee’s recommendations. She said they agreed that option one (access off Highway 54) is the best option because that is where the need for parking will be. Ms. Spatz noted a few other Committee recommendations, which she described as “process issues.” She noted that the staff had recommended holding off on the leash free area until the Dog Park Committee comes back with its report.

Ms. Spatz recommend referring the recognition of the Merritt family to the Naming Committee and deferring the issue of what part of the adopted Greenway Master Plan has access from the eastern side of the pasture. She reported that the only part the staff actually disagreed with was the Committee’s recommendation to prohibit bicycle use on the perimeter of the pasture.

Joe Herzenberg, representing the Committee, explained that he could not speak for everyone because the Committee had not met in a while. He said that he liked what the staff had done and expressed hope that the Council would vote for Resolution 13a, the staff’s recommendation.

Sally Greeve, Committee Vice Chair, said that the Committee had worked with consensus and that all of the boards that had reviewed the plan had endorsed it. She expressed hope that the Council would endorse the proposal as well, with the possible addition of a temporary spur trail for Southern Village until a bridge is built. Ms. Greeve commented that this trail was her personal goal, and one which she had not yet discussed with the Committee. She noted how fortunate the Town is to have this pasture on the edge of Town. Ms. Greeve expressed the Committee’s hope that another location would be found for the dog park because a chain link fence would mar the area. She spoke in favor of the Highway 54 access, and asked the Council to agree with the Committee and the staff and implement this plan even though it is the most expensive.

Council Member Bateman, noting that she is on the Dog Park Committee, pointed out that Merritt Pasture had not been one of the recommended sites. Ms. Greeve replied that she had not known what the current plans were and was glad to hear that.

Heidi Chapman, president of the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood Association, asked the Council to look at the environmental impact of allowing bicycles on the meadow. The meadow is not like the Battle Creek Park, she said, but is an open area that mountain bikes would erode and turn into bare ground. Ms. Chapman noted that the Botanical Garden had banned bicycles from all its wilderness areas. She asked the staff to look further at that aspect of the recommendation.

Arnold Tein, who recently moved into the Morgan Creek area, advised against having unleashed dogs and bicycles in the meadow.

Joseph Lowman, a former Chapel Hill resident who is president of Southern Village Homeowners Association, expressed concern about pedestrian access to the meadow. He complained that one cannot safely get there from the west without crossing 15-501 at the light and then having no sidewalk to cross the bridge. Mr. Lowman noted that several of the proposals would allow pedestrian access, adding that Resolution 13a would do that “very nicely.” He asked Council members to think about finishing the eastern side of Plan A, noting that this could be done right now with the money the Town has in hand, rather than waiting until there is enough money to do the full project.

Council Member Evans said that she was not opposed to the parking lot but did not think it should be built now. She argued that it is safer, easier, and shorter to walk to the pasture from Southern Village than to walk from the parking lot. Council Member Evans stated that this would not be a wise use of funds now, agreeing with Mr. Lowman that the Council should address pedestrian access. She noted that it would be fair to use the payment-in-lieu to enhance access for the residents of Southern Village.

Council Member Evans stated that she preferred option two because it would keep pedestrians off the bridge. She wondered if the Council should ask the staff to come back with a report on what it would cost to provide just the pedestrian access from the south side of Morgan Creek. She also wondered why the cost of option three was so high—and why on page 25 (option one) there was the suggestion to widen Highway 15-501. Council Member Evans suggested referring the item to a future meeting because there will be more questions asked and more information that the Council should have.

Council Member Foy said that option one addresses the long-term problem of not having enough facilities in the southern part of Town. He recommended staying with the initial plan, noting that this was a way to solve problems in a logical, step-by-step process.

Council Member Brown asked Council Member Foy if he would also consider removing bullet #3. He agreed, if there was no Council opposition.

Council Member Bateman asked Council Member Foy if he agreed with Mr. Lowman’s suggestion to use the money given in lieu and go ahead with the pedestrian access. Mr. Horton said that the Council could direct the staff regarding phasing of the project.

Council Member Strom asked Ms. Spatz to explain the Parks and Recreation Department’s reasoning for wanting to include bicycles. Ms. Spatz replied that they had envisioned was a trail around the perimeter.

Mr. Horton added that the Town had had limited success in regulating mountain bike activity on other trails. He said that there are arguments on both sides of this issue, noting that the Council could permit it and then shut it down if it did not work out.

Council Member Evans asked for clarification that if R-13a is adopted the staff would come back with a phasing plan as to which parts the Town might implement and when, so that they could postpone the parking lot off Highway 54. She said that she had safety concerns about putting a parking lot in that secluded area, and asked if that could be put off as a long-term improvement. Mr. Horton replied that with as few dollars as the Council has he sees no practical way that this could be advanced as a full-blown project unless the Council were willing to sacrifice something else or make substantial additional resources available. He said that he had always expected to come to the Council with a phasing program in the Capital Improvements Program.

Council Member Evans again asked why option one has recommended the widening of 15-501. Ms Spatz replied that it was an error, it should be Highway 54.

Council Member Ward spoke against the parking lot and suggested that one off Culbreth Road would be better and safer. He said that he would support option one but was not convinced that it was the right way to go. Mr. Horton replied that the Council would, of necessity, have to come back to consider this item.

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE “REPORT OF THE MERRITT PASTURE ACCESS COMMITTEE TO THE TOWN COUNCIL” WITH MODIFICATIONS (2000-11-27/R-13a)

WHEREAS, on April 26, 1999, the Council charged the Greenways and Parks and Recreation Commissions with certain tasks related to investigating access to the Town’s Merritt Pasture; and

WHEREAS, the Merritt Pasture Access Committee has completed and presented its Report;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council adopts the “Report of the Merritt Pasture Access Committee to the Town Council” with the following modifications:

· The Manager is authorized to add a spur trail that would connect the sidewalk at the north end of the 15-501 highway bridge over Morgan Creek to the proposed access trail.

· The Manager is authorized to develop a Vegetation Management Plan and evaluate the condition of the existing pond and report back to the Council with a proposed action plan by the spring of 2001.

· The recommendation to honor Eben and Ruby Merritt is referred to the Council’s Naming Committee.

· The Manager is authorized to postpone consideration of any access options from the eastern edge of the pasture until such time as a western access has been established and evaluated.

· The Manager is authorized to consider potential methods of funding this project through grants and the Capital Improvements Program.

COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, THAT THE STAFF LOOK AT HOW TO CREATE A MORE IMMEDIATE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM THE SOUTHERN END BY USING PAYMENTS-IN-LIEU FROM SOUTHERN VILLAGE AND CULBRETH PARK. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 12 - Manager’s Follow-up Report on Pritchard

Ms. Spatz reported that staff had agreed with most of what the Committee said, except the suggestion that staff should handle as much of the construction as possible. She said that the staff was busy with other projects and recommended hiring a contractor.

Andy Krichman, Chair of the Pritchard Park Citizens Planning Committee, gave an overview of the Committee’s history and explained that its main concern was to protect the trees and environment. He said that there was overwhelming support for the resolution and asked the Council to adopt Resolutions 14a and 14c.

Fred Black, speaking on behalf of the Library Board of Trustees, asked that the issue of the parking lot be studied in more detail because adding another road where cars would come out and make a left turn onto Estes Drive between Franklin Street and the Town Library would make a bad situation even worse. He added that it might be shortsighted to allocate land before the Library knows how it wants to develop or expand.

Mr. Black remarked that he had not been able to explain to the Board why Town land was being used without compensation. He suggested that the Town ought to find out the land’s value before selling or leasing it. Mr. Black added that the Board hopes the playground would be located away from the Library entrance so that people would not leave children there while visiting the Library. He also objected to removal of the bike trail.

Council Member Foy asked why the Siena Hotel parking lot was a good idea. Mr. Horton explained that this issue had been left over from an agreement with the prior owners for limited use of that area for parking. It had continued informally during the Sienna construction period, Mr. Horton said, and then the Siena owner had petitioned the Council for a longer term use. Mr. Horton recalled that the Town Council had asked the staff to undertake a planning process. The process was then delayed, he explained, so the issue has been in a suspended state without resolution for quite a while.

Mr. Horton stated that the Siena Hotel owner believes that having this parking available is critical to the hotel’s success. He said that the Council could decide to prohibit any use of that space by the Siena or anyone else. It could also decide to stop that use immediately, Mr. Horton explained, or it could decide to reserve that space solely for park uses, etc. Mr. Horton pointed out that this was a judgement call for the Council to make.

Mayor Waldorf said that whether or not it is in the interest of the Town to have a continuing arrangement with the Siena that might depend on the outcome of the Manager’s continuing negotiation with the Siena. And the Council won’t know the answer to that, she said, unless it allows the Manager to negotiate. Mr. Horton added that a couple of years ago the Council had decided that it would be reasonable to consider a use by the Siena that might generate funds to pay for other improvements on the site.

Council Member Strom stated that he was uncomfortable looking at the Siena in isolation. He added that if it was looked at as a way to raise funds then the Council would need to think about all the possible uses of that land. Council Member Strom noted that other people might be interested in a purchase or a long-term lease. The Town should determine its highest and best use, he said, adding that he was extremely uncomfortable with having the Manager enter into lease negotiations merely because one person expressed interest in using the land.

Council Member Strom noted Mr. Black’s comments regarding the Library’s long-term plans and other possible uses. He argued that these possibilities make it dangerous to discuss or enter into a long-term lease while they still need to know what the options are. Council Member Strom expressed willingness to enter into a short-term lease and supported the suggestion to move the playground away from the Library.

Council Member Evans pointed out that R-14c includes terms for a short-term lease, which would give the flexibility that Mr. Black had requested. She recommended supporting the Siena with a short-term lease, if possible, because local governments should support local businesses. Council Member Evans questioned whether the Town should spend money on a gazebo.

Council Member Brown suggested the Council discuss the Library Board’s recommendation against removing the bicycle path. She also asked for a definition of “short term.” Mr. Horton explained that short term would mean anywhere from month-to-month to year.

Council Member Brown requested more information on why the staff had recommended removing the bike path. Ms. Spatz said that it had come up in the context of removing impervious surface. She added that there had been no strong feelings expressed about it. They had merely felt that since it was not being used it might be nicer to have that area more natural, Ms. Spatz explained.

Mr. Horton added that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board had recently said that bikes belong on roads rather than paths. And since the Council has been concerned with reducing impervious surface, he said, removing the path did not seem like a bad idea. Council Member Ward supported the suggestion to remove the bike path.

Council Member Bateman said that she was not opposed to discussions with the Siena, but added that 20-30 years seemed a bit excessive. She also argued against outdoor bathrooms, noting that they tend to be places for potential mischief.

Mayor Waldorf suggested a friendly amendment that would indicate the Council’s desire to have the staff work with the Library Board on the placement of the playground location. She also asked to include that Council members do not want outdoor bathrooms.

Council Member Ward suggested taking up the bike path and planting trees. Mr. Horton agreed that this would be the cheapest solution. He also agreed with Council Member Ward that the adopt-a-garden idea could be undependable.

Council Member Evans sated that it is not safe for a child to bicycle along that road, adding that it would be short-sighted to remove the bike lane, which really is not much impervious surface. She asked if deleting removal of the bike lane would be a friendly amendment.

Council Member Ward pointed out that it was legal to ride bikes on the sidewalk.

Council Member Foy said that he would prefer that the Council make that decision because it did not strike him as a big issue. He then said that he would accept it as a friendly amendment.

Council Member Bateman suggested leaving the bike path alone. Council Member Strom said that he considered it a friendly amendment to let it stay. Mayor pro tem Pavão supported Mr. Black’s wish to have the bike path remain.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-14A, AS AMENDED THAT THE LIBRARY BOARD AND COMMITTEE WILL DISCUSS PLACEMENT OF THE PLAYGROUND, THAT THERE BE NO OUTSIDE BATHROOMS, AND THAT THE BIKE PATH REMAIN. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE “REPORT OF THE PRITCHARD PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN COMMITTEE” WITH MODIFICTIONS (2000-11-27/R-14a)

WHEREAS, the Pritchard Park Conceptual Plan Committee has completed and presented its Report; and

WHEREAS, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, Community Design Commission, Greenways Commission, Library Board, Parks & Recreation Commission, Planning Board, and the Manager have submitted comments and recommendations;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council adopts the “Report of the Pritchard Park Conceptual Plan Committee” with the following modifications:

· The Manager is authorized to begin the Special Use permit process for Pritchard Park after completion of negotiations with the Siena Hotel (if authorized by adoption of Resolution C).

· Construction of Pritchard Park will be accomplished with contracted rather than in-house labor.

· A gathering area will be added near the Library for library and park patrons.

· The Adopt-a-Garden concept will be limited to reduce the need for involvement by Town forces to construct and maintain any such facility. The concept will be implemented incrementally and treated as an experiment. In the event that a volunteer group abandons a garden area the garden area will be allowed to revert to a natural state.

Council Member Strom suggested either removing the second bullet (to negotiate the long-term lease) or trying to determine what the highest and best use is and the most rewarding financial arrangement for the Town. Mr. Horton replied that under State law the Town could not enter into any agreement that would tie up the land for more than ten years without determining its value. Mr. Karpinos added that once a “potential” long-term lease was developed and brought to the Council there would have to be a process that would involve allowing the Council to consider that and to notify the public and see if there were other options where people might want to present alternatives that would be attractive to the Town.

Council Member Brown offered an amendment to the motion to remove the second bullet and define short-term to “not to exceed six months,” for example. Council Member Evans declined to accept that as a friendly amendment because, she said, keeping it open would allow the Town to negotiate the best terms.

Council Member Wiggins said that issues of security and maintenance should be part of the first bullet anyway since the Manager would not negotiate a short-term lease without addressing some of those issues. She also asked if the information that Council Member Strom deemed necessary would be part of the information the Manager would have as he goes into the negotiations of the short-term lease. Mr. Horton replied that it would not necessarily be with a short-term lease, adding that getting the best price would require learning something of the value. He also said that if the Council directed the staff to enter into negotiations for the long term they would have to know more about the value and the other opportunities they might be giving up. Mr. Horton further said that the Council would, under the law, have to make sure that other parties knew about it and had an opportunity to make proposals on it.

Council Member Wiggins asked if the Council could consider five to ten years a short-term lease. Mr. Horton replied that they could. Council Member Foy said that he had not wanted to support the resolution with the second bullet, but would do so if the Town were going to negotiate a medium-term lease. Mr. Horton asked about doing something similar to the arrangement the Town had entered into on parking lot #5 with FGI, which is two years with options to renew with provisions for the Council to terminate the lease on reasonable notice.

Council Member Foy agreed with that idea and Council Member Evans suggested changing “long-term lease” to “short-term lease” and leaving all the other issues in. Council Member Foy accepted that.

Mayor Pro Tem Pavão suggested folding the second bullet into the first, and Council Member Evans accepted that.

Council Member Brown said she hoped the lease would not be longer than two years, with an option to renew, and asked to define short-term lease as two years or less. Council Member Evans replied that she did not think it would be productive for the Council to preempt the Manager’s negotiation.

COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO, TO ADOPT R-14c, AS AMENDED, TO INCLUDE ISSUES IN THE SECOND BULLET INTO THE FIRST BULLET. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO ENTER INTO DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SIENA HOTEL FOR A POSSIBLE AGREEMENT TO LEASE TOWN PROPERTY (2000-11-27/R-14c)

WHEREAS, the Pritchard Park Conceptual Plan Committee has recommended that the Council consider leasing or selling a portion of the Pritchard Park site to the Siena Hotel; and

WHEREAS, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, Community Design Commission, Greenways Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and Planning Board have indicated support for this recommendation;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Manager to enter into negotiations with representatives of the Siena Hotel for the following purposes:

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that the Manager is authorized to consider stormwater management issues in the design of the proposed parking area, including a bio-retention feature.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that prior to submittal of any plan to the Council that the Manager should seek input from the Parks and Recreation Commission, Library Board, and Public Arts Commission.

Betty Smith and Tamea Stewart each received four votes for the Parks and Recreation Commission, and Joyce Robson Trout received one. No appointment was made. At Mayor Waldorf’s suggestion, the item was deferred to December 11, 2000.

COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, THAT THE COUNCIL MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

Parks and Recreation Commission

Tamea Steward

Item 5 - Information Reports

SECTION I

SECTION 2

Item 8 - Request to Extend Completion Time Limit for Beechridge Development

Special Use Permit Application

Item 9 - Bid for Construction of Southern Fire Station #5

SINGLE PRIME CONTRACT FOR ENTIRE PROJECT

Contractor

Base Bid

McKenna Construction

Poythress Construction

General Contractor

Base Bid

Generator

Wallbeds

Foodlockers

C. T. Wilson

Engineered Construction Company

Force Construction

Keck Company

McKenna Construction

Poythress Construction

Resolute Building Company

Shalimar Construction

Van Thomas Contractor

Electrical Contractor

Norina Construction

Pendergraph Electric

Triangle Electrical Services

Watson Electric

Wood Electric

Mechanical Contractor

Carolina Air Conditioning

Cooper Mechanical

Plumbing Contractor

Acme Plumbing

Brown Brothers Plumbing

Eakins Plumbing

Progressive Plumbing and Piping

Sparrow Plumbing

Vickers & Ruth

SECTION I

SECTION II

SECTION III

Bond Proceeds 2,000,000 2,000,000

Interest on Bond Proceeds 0 120,000

SECTION IV

SECTION V

Item 11 - Manager’s follow-up Report on Merritt Pasture Access Committee Report

Item 12 - Manager’s Follow-up Report on Pritchard