SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2001, 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 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, Finance Director Jim Baker, Information Technology Manager Bob Avery, Engineering Director George Small, Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal, Planning Director Roger Waldon, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
1 - Ceremonies: None
2 - Public hearings: None
3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3a. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.
3a (1) - Caroline Sherman and James Jollis, opposing parking area on Markham Drive at mid-point in the Lower Booker Creek Trail.
Chapel Hill resident James Jollis read a list of safety concerns regarding the parking area at the Lower Booker Creek Trail. He predicted that the combination of pedestrians and vehicles would lead to a grave accident, as would the large number of illegal automobiles in the area. Mr. Jollis presented a petition, which had been signed by everyone in the neighborhood.
Caroline Sherman read a statement asking the Town Council to consider two proposals:
· Eliminate the planned parking places at the entrance of the greenway at the Markam/Tadley Drive intersection.
· Place barriers that cannot be defeated at the entrance to the walkway.
Ms. Sherman, who lives at the corner of the Tadley/Markham intersection, described the pedestrian traffic that occurs where the proposed parking area would be. She explained that cars would be backing out at the foot of two very steep hills and that this would be dangerous for pedestrians. Ms. Sherman suggested that “no parking” signs be posted at about five car lengths from the entryway on Markham Drive so that people would park along the street. She also proposed that such signs be placed along Tadley Road because it is so steep and dangerous. Ms. Sherman agreed that vehicles should be prevented from going up and down the hill, noting that she had been calling the Town for nearly three years regarding this issue.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3a(2) - Ann Hill, Rick Courtwright, Rick Anderson, Marsha Krzyzewski, and Eve Klein, requesting re-evaluation of a portion of land west of Erwin Road and South of I-40 (Phase 8 and 9 in Springcrest) for use as an elementary school site.
Ann Hill read a request that the Town clean up and conduct a chemical analysis of the 34.572-acre tract located west of Erwin Road and south of Interstate 40. She expressed concern about possible contamination of this property, which previously had been a dumpsite that included automotive parts and 55-gallon drums. Ms. Hill asked that the soil be tested and that a copy of the results be sent to area residents.
Council Member Wiggins pointed out that the petition that Ms. Hill had verbally presented differed from the one the Council had received prior to the meeting.
Mayor Waldorf noted that the part of the petition referring to school siting was the part the Council had received. She explained that school officials had already rejected that location as a school site. Ms. Hill replied that the neighborhood was asking the Town to test the land before any uses, even open space, were made of it. She said that many homes back up to this land which had previously been a dumpsite.
Council Member Ward asked if Mr. Horton had any information regarding the status of the site. Mr. Horton replied that the Town’s preliminary investigations did not show any problems. He said that the Town would investigate further, however.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PAT EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER.
Council Member Joyce Brown asked if the signatures attached to the original petition were applicable to this one. Petitioner Eve Klein replied that the original petition had also requested in-depth environmental testing adequate to exclude the presence of toxic waste.
Mayor pro tem Pavão inquired about the section of the petition requesting actions by the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Board of Education. Ms. Klein replied that the issue of toxic waste and the concern about contamination of property would need to be clarified before the land could be used for anything. Mayor pro tem Pavão suggested that the Council remove the reference to the Board of Education.
Council Member Ward pointed out that his motion was to refer the concerns about the status of the site to the Manager and then decide where to go from there.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER TONIGHT’S ORAL PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3b. Petitions by citizens on items on the agenda.
3b(1) - Bob Gilgor, Morgan Kenney, and Edwin Caldwell Jr., requesting hotel/motel tax funds to support “Lincoln High School: Glory in Tragedy” program.
Bob Gilgor requested funding for a documentary project that would be presented at the Chapel Hill Museum in June to coincide with the 50th reunion of Lincoln High School. The project would run for three months, he said, and would travel after that. Mr. Gilgor explained that the project’s goals were to foster understanding and tolerance through education. He said that it would point out the characteristics that had made Lincoln High School so successful in spite of the bad facilities, poor supplies, and the low economic conditions in the African/American community at the time.
Chapel Hill Museum Director Morgan Kenney spoke in behalf of the project, which he described as “a rich and powerful story, albeit difficult to tell.” Mr. Kenney said that the Museum’s goal was to present the story so that all who experience it will feel something between delight and enlightenment. He explained that the exhibit would be for the casual observer as well as those who want to delve further into the subject. Mr. Kenney said that the goal was to place visitors as close to being in the environment as possible in a professional and appropriate manner.
Mr. Kenney stated Smith, Glaxo and Klein had approved a $5,000 grant to the project and that the Paul Green Foundation would contribute as well. He said that they had applied to the Humanities Council, the Orange County Arts Commission, various corporations, and to the general public. Mr. Kenney pointed out that the more money they have the better they would be able to tell the story, which was something that the community would be proud of.
Edwin Caldwell, Jr. requested Hotel/Motel Occupancy Funds and any other sources of funding the Town might have to support this project. He asked the Town to be as generous as possible to this project, which he said is “crucial to the community.” Mr. Caldwell noted that this would begin the process of reviving Chapel Hill/Carrboro’s black history, which he said had been left out of history books. He stated that the exhibit contains more than 40 recorded oral histories.
Mr. Caldwell said that the project would benefit at-risk black students in Chapel Hill/Carrboro because it will show them that they have a rich history. He explained that Museum tours would be part of the Lincoln High reunion activities for the 300-400 alumni and teachers who would come back in June. Mr. Caldwell pointed out that the project would benefit other Chapel Hill citizens as well because they would become aware of the contributions that black citizens have made to the Town and the University. He added that this would be a fitting tribute to Ms. Ida Friday, who he said had been “appalled” by the lack of black history recorded in Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
COUNCIL MEMBER EDITH WIGGINS MOVED TO RECEIVE THE PETITION AND TO PULL ITEM 4e OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA, AND REQUESTED THAT IT BE DISCUSSED IMMEDIATELY.
Council Member Kevin Foy noted that the petition had not asked for a specific amount. Mr. Kenney pointed out that the budget was included in the written presentation. He said that they had been advised to ask the Council to help to the extent possible. Mr. Kenney added that $26,000 was the amount needed.
3b(2) - J. R. Manley, Pastor of First Baptist Church, requesting closing of Franklin Street from Columbia to Roberson Street for the purpose of a parade.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
3c. Announcements by Council members.
Item 4 - Consent Agenda
Council Member Wiggins had previously pulled 4e, to be discussed immediately.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT R-1 WITH 4E DELETED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED TO DONATE $10,000 OF THE HOTEL/MOTEL TAX FUNDS TO THE “LINCOLN HIGH SCHOOL TRAGEDY AND GLORY” PROJECT. COUNCIL MEMBER PAT EVANS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2001-
02-26/R-1)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:
|
a. |
Adoption of Minutes: 1. Summary Minutes of January 8, 16, 19, 22 (two sets), 23, and 29. 2. Closed Session Minutes for: May 18, 1998; January 31, 2000; February 14, 2000; March 6, 2000; October 11, 2000; and, November 27, 2000. |
|
b. |
Nominations to Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board and Technology Committee (R-2). |
|
c. |
Position Title Change in Engineering Department (O-1). |
|
d. |
Request for Expedited Processing of Special Use Permit Modification Application for Meadowmont School Park (R-3). |
|
f. |
Dedication of a Water Line Easement in Pritchard Park (R-5). |
|
g. |
Revisions to Sanitation Ordinance Related to Curbside Collection (O-2). |
This the 26th day of February, 2001.
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2001-02-26/R-2)
WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:
Bobby Biles
Calvin Mellott
Evelyn Daniel
Frank Holt
Jeremy Mullis
Joe R. Ragland
Jane Sharp-Macrae
Tamea M. Stewart
This the 26th day of February, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE POSITION CLASSIFICATION AND PAY PLAN DATED OCTOBER 20, 2000 (2001-02-26/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Ordinance Establishing a Position Classification and Pay Plan (2000-6-26/O-10) is amended as follows:
In Section III:
In grade 29 delete the line Engineering Drafting Specialist
In grade 31 delete the line Senior Engineering Drafting Specialist
In Section IV, part C, in the Engineering Department, DELETE the lines
Full-time Part-time
Position: No. Hrs. No. Hrs. Grade
Engineering Drafting Specialist 1 37.5 - - 29-31
Engineering Technician 1 37.5 - - 29-31
and ADD the lines
Engineering Technician 2 37.5 - - 29-31
This the 26th day of February, 2001.
A RESOLUTION DIRECTING EXPEDITED PROCESSING IN THE REVIEW OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT MODIFICATION APPLICATION FOR MEADOWMONT SCHOOL/PARK (2001-02-26/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Town Council has received a petition from William Mullin, with the Chapel Hill – Carrboro City Schools, for expedited processing of a Special Use Permit Modification application seeking approval of a new elementary school; and
WHEREAS, the proposal would satisfy a public purpose objective;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to expedite processing of a Special Use Permit Modification application for the Meadowmont School/Park in a manner that will speed review without sacrificing breadth or depth of analysis.
This the 26th day of February, 2001.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING DEDICATION TO OWASA OF A UTILITY EASEMENT LOCATED IN THE TOWN’S PRITCHARD PARK, WHICH IS DESCRIBED IN ORANGE COUNTY DEED BOOK 724, PAGE 231 (2001-02-26/R- 5)
WHEREAS, OWASA’S water line in Franklin Street has experienced several breaks; and
WHEREAS, the proposed easement would allow OWASA to install a permanent water line that would serve as a alternative water line in the event of a break in the main line; and
WHEREAS, the property is also the proposed location of future park improvements; and
WHEREAS, OWASA has agreed to include language in the easement regarding OWASA’s repairs and replacement of any park improvement built without foundations in the easement that OWASA may disturb while building or maintaining the water line;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is authorized to transfer to OWASA a sewer easement approximately 330 feet in length by 20 feet wide located on Town land described in Orange County Deed Book 724, Page 231.
This the 26th day of February, 2001.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON GARBAGE, TRASH AND REFUSE (2001-02-26/O-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Sec. 8.5 is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 8-5. Garbage and household waste cans; construction; location.
Any person or association referred to in section 8-3, and receiving twice weekly service, shall provide suitable standard metal or plastic receptacles, generally known as garbage cans, for deposit of garbage, household refuse, and other refuse. Said receptacles shall be of thirty-two gallon capacity or less and shall be watertight, of fly-proof construction and with a tight-fitting lid when used for wet garbage or other decomposable material. Such receptacles shall weigh sixteen (16) pounds or less when empty and may not be loaded with more than forty-five (45) pounds of refuse at a time. Such receptacles shall be located conveniently for the collector, but shall in no case be placed on the street or sidewalk unless done under the regulations prescribed by the town manager under authority of the council.” Any person or association referred to in section 8-3, and receiving once weekly curbside service, shall provide suitable standard metal or plastic receptacles, generally known as garbage cans, for deposit of garbage, household refuse, and other refuse. Said receptacles shall be of thirty-two gallon capacity or less and shall be watertight, of fly-proof construction and with a tight-fitting lid when used for wet garbage or other decomposable material. Such receptacles shall weigh sixteen (16) pounds or less when empty and may not be loaded with more than forty-five (45) pounds of refuse at a time. Residents may choose to utilize a mobile refuse cart provided by the town. Unless granted and exemption by the town due to age or health, once weekly service collections will be curbside. Receptacles shall be conveniently located at the curb, but shall in no case be placed on the street or sidewalk as to create a hazard or interfere with traffic. Trash is to be placed at the curb before 6:00 a.m. on collection days, with containers removed before 7:00 p.m. on the same day.”
Section 2. Sec. 8.21 of the Town Code is hereby revised by amending definitions (i) and (m) as follows:
“ (i) Household refuse. The term “household refuse” shall mean all refuse (other than ashes, or dead animals, yard waste, hazardous refuse and animal litter) incident to the ordinary conduct of the household which can be placed in thirty-two (32) gallon containers, or town-provided mobile refuse carts. This shall include garbage, rubber, paper, rags, cans, boxes, cartons, glass, crockery, dust, etc.
(m) Refuse receptacles. The term “refuse receptacles” shall mean a mobile refuse cart or a can or container of metal or plastic and of substantial construction, watertight with tight fitting lid, provided with handles sufficient for safe and convenient handling, which shall be kept in serviceable condition and covered at all times. Such receptacles shall have a capacity of not less than ten (10) gallons nor more than thirty-two (32) gallons. Receptacles must be approved by the solid waste services division. Mobile refuse carts will be available from the Town.”
Section 3. Sec. 8-22 of the Town Code is hereby revised to read as follows:
Sec. 8-22. Reserved,
Section 4. Sec. 8-28 of the Town Code is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 8-28. Location, accessibility of refuse receptacles and bulk containers.
Bulk containers and containers utilized for once weekly residential curbside collections shall be kept in a place easily accessible to the town equipment and no service shall be given to those establishments or residences permitting objects, obstructions, or vehicles to hinder in any way whatsoever the servicing of said bulk containers or containers utilized for once weekly residential curbside collections. No refuse receptacles will be picked up from enclosed areas which are used to store anything besides refuse, or from locations or storage areas which create an unreasonable risk of injury to town personnel. When town personnel must pass through gates or other barriers to pick up refuse the town will not be responsible for damage caused to the barrier or by leaving it open.”
Section 5. Sec. 8-32 of the Town Code is hereby revised by adding (a) to read as follows:
“Sec. 8-32. Deposits in public right-of-way.
It shall be unlawful for any person to place, deposit or leave or cause to be placed, deposited or left temporarily or permanently, to throw or cause to be thrown any trash, refuse, litter, garbage or waste material of any kind upon the right-of-way of any public street, sidewalk, highway or alley within the Town of Chapel Hill, except as hereafter authorized and approved:
(a). Once weekly residential curbside collection. Refuse receptacles as identified in Section 8-21 (m) may be placed on the said right-of-way subject to the pre-collection practices set forth herein. Such refuse receptacles will be set at the existing curb line or street or, where no such curb line exists, the materials shall be placed off of the street pavement and between the roadside ditch and the front property line, off the traveled portion of the street. No container shall be placed so as to block the sidewalk.
(b). Yard waste placed for collection. Yard waste may be placed on said right-of-way subject to the pre-collection practices set forth herein. Such rubbish shall be placed behind the existing curbline or the street, or where no such curblines exist, the bundled yard waste material shall be placed off the street pavement and between the roadside ditch and the front property line, off the traveled portion of the street. No yard waste shall be placed so as to block the sidewalk.”
Section 6. Sec. 8-36 of the Town Code is hereby revised to read as follows:
Sec.
8-36. Reserved.
Section 7. Sec. 8-37 of the Town Code is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 8-37. Same-Household refuse and garbage.
Household refuse and garbage in refuse receptacles will be picked up in the rear yard twice each week, or at the curb once each week in those areas of town designated for weekly curbside residential collections.”
Section 8. Sec. 8-42 of the Town Code is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 8-42. Vehicles hauling garbage, rubbish or yard waste.
No vehicle hauling garbage, rubbish, yard waste or refuse shall be allowed to travel upon town streets or to deposit same at the Orange County regional landfill unless said garbage, rubbish, yard waste or refuse is enclosed in said vehicle or otherwise covered by same effective means to prevent spillage while traveling to the landfill.”
Section 9. This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
This the 26th day of February, 2001.
Item 5 - Information items
5a. Follow-up Report on Town Bank’s CRA Rating.
The Report was accepted as presented. No discussion.
Item 6 - Triangle Transit Authority Annual Report
Jim Ritchey, representing the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) outlined the three legislative issues that TTA had been working on:
· FY 2001 State budget
Maintain state contribution to public transit maintenance
State contribution to TTA’s regional trail project
· Quick take condemnation authority
· Authorization for up to $4 regional vehicle registration fee increase effective January 2004.
Mr. Ritchey noted that situations might occur before 2004 that could change how much money will be needed. For example:
· During 2003, TTA will request implementation only if necessary.
· Actual collections of rental vehicle tax in FY 2002-2003 may reduce or eliminate need for additional registration fee.
· Wake, Durham and Orange counties must approve fee increase.
· Special Tax Board must approve the increase.
Next, Mr. Ritchey outlined Phase I implementation issues:
· Conclude environmental studies
· Finalize railroad agreements
· Procure rail vehicles
· Finalize financial plan
· Obtain State match
He then presented the Phase I implementation schedule:
· Complete DEIS, Spring 2001
· Final EIS and ROD, Winter 2002
· Final Design and ROW, 2002/2003
· Federal Commitment, 2003
· Construction, 2004
· Open Durham to DTN Raleigh, 2008
· Open North Raleigh, 2009
· Open Duke Extension, 2009
Mr. Ritchey exhibited slides various types of vehicles. He noted that the add-trans vehicles had thus far seemed most likely for Chapel Hill. Mr. Ritchey explained that the cost would be about $750 million, with $391 million likely from the federal government, $175 million from the State, $100 million from TTA cash, and $9-million in debt. Debt would be paid with future Federal Formula grant funds once the rail service is up and running, he said.
The reason for the vehicle registration increase, Mr. Ritchey explained, is the regional bus service increase, which will grow from 25 peak hour vehicles in 2000 to 77 vehicles in 2005. He stated that there had been about 2,700 riders per day this year, a 17.8% increase over last year. Mr. Ritchey projected that this will increase to almost 4,600 riders a day in 2005.
Mr. Ritchey showed a slide of the small buses that the region will use. He gave a breakdown of the administrative, capital, and operational expenses. Mr. Ritchey explained that the $4 million/year generated by the vehicle registration tax would not cover these expenses in 2002. He added that the fund balance would then diminish to zero by 2006, and would go into a growing deficit by 2007. Mr. Ritchey explained that a $4 registration tax could support the increase in bus service.
Mr. Ritchey asked for the Council’s advice on this legislative agenda. He explained that the Board planed to consider such advice on the following Wednesday when it would decide whether or not to take these issues forward to the General Assembly.
Council Member Wiggins requested more information about the Quick Take Condemnation Authority proposal. She asked if it would shorten property owners’ right to due process. Mr. Ritchey explained that Quick Take allows a public body to condemn property and take it for the public use and then establish the fair value through the courts. He said that the condemning authority would relocate the property owner and pay moving and/or business expenses. Mr. Ritchey noted that this would prevent individual property owners from delaying the project once it has begun moving forward.
In response to a question by Council Member Wiggins, Mr. Ritchey explained that, at present, a property owner could delay the taking by a year or two. He added that TTA was especially concerned about 80 acres in the North Raleigh section, 30 of which are spread among property owners over 12 miles of railroad right-of-way. TTA would have to plan for a two-year delay unless they get Quick Take authority, Mr. Ritchey explained.
Council Member Wiggins asked what those Raleigh property owners’ general response had been. Mr. Ritchey replied that it had been positive and that none had raised grave concerns. He expressed the belief, though, that some probably would try to gain monetarily by delaying easements.
Council Member Wiggins asked if approving this would enable others to use the Quick Take authority. Mr. Ritchey replied that others already had it. He said that this legislation would add TTA to the list of those who do.
Council Member Evans suggested approaching the federal government for more help with transportation needs. She commented that Chapel Hill desperately needs transit service to the Airport, and asked why the area does not have it. She also asked if the area would get transit service to RDU if the registration fee were increased.
Mr. Ritchey explained that service to RDU already exists with a timed transfer at RTP. He said that it was operating every day of the week except Sunday. He pointed out that people must assume 45 minutes from downtown Chapel Hill to RDU and probably 1-1/2 hrs. from Chapel Hill to the airport. Mr. Ritchey mentioned that the Mayor of Carrboro uses the service regularly. He said that the frequency of service would be doubled next year to every 15 minutes at the peak hour and every half-hour during the day from Chapel Hill to the airport.
Mr. Ritchey noted that some find the timed transfer unsatisfactory and want direct service to the airport. But, he explained, that would require an individual subsidy of $5-6-million a year and could mean giving up the bus service to RTP. Mr. Ritchey asked Council Member Evans to help get the message out that service to RDU is good and will be even better next year.
Council Member Evans commented that moving luggage several times is difficult for the growing retirement community. She explained that she had heard more about that than about satisfaction with the service. Council Member Evans suggested that TTA keep an open mind on this issue.
Council Member Brown verified that the Quick Take power would apply anywhere. She expressed concern about this because the Council would have no idea what the ramifications would be. Council Member Brown suggested that Council members discuss this more among themselves before supporting it. Regarding transit to RDU, Council Member Brown remarked that TTA’s response had been the same every year. She stressed the need for some direct public transportation to the Airport, noting that it was extremely expensive to take any other kind of transportation.
Regarding the use of condemnation powers, Mr. Ritchey explained that this can come only after the federal record of decision has been reached on a project. He pointed out that the first phase had taken 4-5 years of study before TTA could get the final record of decision. Mr. Ritchey noted that TTA would not put a rail system in Chapel Hill if the Town does not want one, and stressed that this extension of power would make the project move faster.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Horton if the Town would be competing against its own transit dollars if it agreed with the $4 registration fee increase. Mr. Horton said that he did not have that concern but would be glad to investigate it if the Council wishes.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Ritchey if these bills would be submitted to the General Assembly this year. When he replied that they would be, Mayor Waldorf pointed out that Council members would need to express their comments and ideas soon.
Council Member Bateman, stating that she “absolutely agreed” with Council Member Evans, encouraged Mr. Ritchey to look at alternative ways of getting to RDU. She also expressed concerns about the Quick Take proposal and asked if any of the houses looked at so far would be condemned under this authority. Mr. Ritchey replied that there would be four homes and about 20 businesses that would be taken in Phase I. He said that he did not yet know what Phase II would be like.
Council Member Bateman stated that short-cutting citizens’ safeguards sometimes gave her pause and she had reservations on this one. Rachel Willis of TTA remarked that the federal decision-making process probably is the slowest in the world. She said that TTA was not suggesting a Quick Take where someone can come in and just instantly take someone else’s land. Ms. Willis also said that the Airport transit issue is one of trading off different kinds of ridership.
Council Member Foy noted that the Quick Take authority that the TTA was requesting was the same as cities have under the statutes. He asked Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos to help the Council understand what the Town has that might be similar. Noting that he did not have the statute in front of him, Mr. Karpinos replied that when an eminent domain proceeding is filed in a non-Quick Take situation there is a 120-day period to file an answer to that lawsuit under Chapter 40A. When it is a Quick Take case, he explained, the landowner does not have that opportunity unless the property owner immediately goes in and gets an injunction preventing the title from vesting, which is a very difficult thing to do.
Mr. Karpinos explained that the statute on public enterprises, written 18 years ago, lists several situations in which the Town has Quick Take authority (i.e., electric power generation systems, water supplies, wastewater systems, gas production, solid waste systems and facilities, and cable television systems) but public transportation systems, off street parking and airports are not among them. In one case, Mr. Karpinos explained, title vests immediately, and the right to seek additional compensation is there, and the only way to prevent title from vesting is for the property owner to step in and get an injunction. In the other case, he continued, the condemning authority would have to wait at least 120 days during which the property owner could challenge, which could delay it and allow the property owner to get more money for the land.
Council Member Foy commented that Quick Take would remove the leverage of delay but the property owner could still negotiate price. Mayor Waldorf expressed support for the TTA having the power of condemnation. She noted that every utility—including cable television—has access to that power and to deny it through fair processes to a regional transit authority is to say that public transit infrastructure is not important.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Karpinos if it was correct that Quick Take was different from eminent domain. Mr. Karpinos explained that the difference was the point at which the title transfers to the condemning authority. With non-Quick Take, he said, money is paid to the court and if the owner withdraws that money he is conceding the right to take his property. The owner can still try to get more money, however, and he has 120 days to challenge the right of the condemning authority to take the property. Under Quick Take, Mr. Karpinos explained, only an injunction would prevent the authority from getting the property. Council Member Brown said that she wanted to make it clear that TTA already had the power of eminent domain.
Council Member Strom suggested that the legislative issues be brought to the Town Council earlier next year so that the Council would have more opportunity to discuss them in advance. He noted that eminent domain is a serious topic in Chapel Hill, and one that has been used sparingly at most. Council Member Strom expressed discomfort with the idea of Quick Take, given the nature of Chapel Hill and the challenges involved with getting a corridor into where is needs to be.
Council Member Jim Ward asked at what point the property owner would have the opportunity to discuss the value of his property. Mr. Ritchey explained that TTA must follow the Uniform Real Property Assistance and Relocation Act when acquiring property. Under those procedures, he said, they must first notify the property owner of their interest in the property. The property owner has the opportunity to be present when the appraiser examines the property, Mr. Ritchey explained, and TTA then has a second appraiser set the price. He noted that the Board is required to offer the appraised price in full, plus relocation costs of the home and/or business. He pointed out that the property owner can raise issues that the appraiser may have missed and can make a counter offer or reject the offer entirely. Mr. Ritchey explained that TTA could offer a bit more than the appraised value, but not much more.
Council Member Ward questioned the objectivity of the appraisers. Mr. Ritchey replied that the appraisers were required through the Uniform Act to give a fair market value appraisal. Council Member Ward inquired about how much more money a property owner is likely to get if he holds out. Mr. Ritchey explained that the law requires that the TTA offer no more than 10% over the appraised amount, or $50,000. He said that the difference in the process is 120 days in the time to gain title to the property plus any additional time that the property owner may seek to delay the project through raising issues. Ms. Willis reemphasized that there was “nothing quick about the process.”
Council Member Ward remarked that 120 days did not seem so long. Mr. Ritchey replied that the property owner has 120 days to answer the complaint but the discovery process and trial could take a year or two of delay. Mr. Karpinos agreed that it could take a year or more until a decision is made.
Council Member Brown suggested deferring any decision on this matter until the Council had more information. Council Member Foy asked Mr. Ritchey for his reaction to that suggestion. Mr. Ritchey replied that he appreciated the Council’s comments, but explained that the Board would decide whether or not to ask the legislature for this help.
Bill Bell, Chair of the TTA Board, explained that they had brought this information so that no one would feel blind-sided by it when they hear about it. He said that he had hoped the Council would support it but would suggest to his Board that they move forward since things do not move very fast at the General Assembly.
Council Member Brown expressed some discomfort over being told that this is going forward without the Council’s approval.
Mayor Waldorf agreed with Council Member Brown. She agreed to the motion to defer, but repeated her view that quick take for TTA is important because without it the project would never get done.
COUNCIL MEMBER FOY MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BROWN, TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF ENDORSEMENT OF TTA’S LEGISLATIVE ISSUES. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 7 - Response to January 18, 2001 Federal Realty Petition Requesting Town
Assistance with Drainage Improvement to Mitigate the Potential
for Flooding at Eastgate Shopping Center
Engineering Director George Small responded to the petition from Federal Realty, the owner of the Eastgate Shopping Center property. He explained that Booker Creek had once run beside Eastgate but that continuing construction had covered it up so that it now runs beneath that shopping center. Mr. Small pointed out that a shopping center would not be constructed this way under current regulations. He noted that it had lead to periodic problems, such at the flooding that occurred there in July 2000. Mr. Small explained that the petition from Federal Realty asked the Town to assist in four areas:
· Drainage improvements to accommodate the runoff from Franklin Street. More specifically, approximately 60 acres of offsite drainage enters the Eastgate property at the northwest corner. Approximately 350 linear feet of new 54” and 60” reinforced concrete pipe, junction boxes, and associated appurtenances are needed.
Mr. Small agreed that there are problems with the older facility that is in place there and that some improvements could be made. He added that it was one of many similar facilities in Town and that it was not the Town’s responsibility to make repairs to facilities that protect private property.
· Drainage improvements to accommodate the runoff from the Staples property. A 30” reinforced concrete pipe drains 3.5 acres of offsite drainage onto Eastgate. The pipe was inappropriately constructed on Eastgate property perpendicular to natural drainage.
Mr. Small agreed that this was an awkward positioning of the pipe. He noted, though, that a new building may take its drainage off a different way. Acknowledging that the Staples property drainage could be improved upon, Mr. Small said that the Town does not have a direct place in the middle of an argument between two property owners as to how runoff leaves one property and is conveyed downstream.
· The hydraulic capacity of Elliott Road needs to be improved through relocation of the road or increasing the size of Booker Creek crossing.
Mr. Small explained that the primary cause of backwater is the Fordham Boulevard crossing. He argued that Elliott Road is reasonably sized to convey storms of a fairly high magnitude, and pointed out that the Town had not often had problems with backup off Elliott Road. Mr. Small stated that the main problem was with Fordham Boulevard crossing, which is a State-maintained facility. He added that the Town is taking steps to make Elliott Road crossing more hydraulically efficient.
· Drainage improvements to accommodate the runoff from the Ram’s Head Plaza watershed. More specifically, approximately 30 acres of paved offsite drainage enter the Eastgate property at the northwest corner.
Mr. Small said that this too is an ongoing problem between two property owners. He noted that there are many similar incidents all over Town, adding that the Town cannot get involved in such conflicts. Mr. Small said that the Town does agree to makes drainage improvements to help reduce some of the water.
In summary, Mr. Small reported that the Town did not see a direct responsibility on its part to become financially involved in making renovations to existing systems that protect Eastgate. He pointed out that Eastgate would flood again no matter what is done, just because of where it is. Mr. Small recommended asking Federal Realty to acknowledge this and suggested that they look at flood-proofing measures to protect those properties in anything but the greatest floods. He concluded that since Eastgate Shopping Center is directly in the flood area it is not possible to completely preclude future flooding. Mr. Small added that the Town is not responsible for implementing or financially contributing to drainage improvements that are on and protect private property.
Jeanne Connor, representing the petitioner, said that Federal Realty was very disappointed that the Town Manager had dismissed each request by noting that it is not the Town’s responsibility to correct drainage problems on private property. She explained that 40 years ago the developer had put a culvert and a drainage system into the parking lot and that the Town had since permitted commercial and residential development, which had resulted in increased stormwater run-off that drains into Eastgate’s property. She argued that it is the responsibility of the local government to manage stormwater run-off because stormwater travels through many private properties. Ms. Connor noted that Federal Realty had taken action to repair the old drainage system and culvert at a cost of several hundred thousand dollars. She said that this would correct only 5-6 inches of flooding, however. Ms. Connor requested that the Town Council table the matter until it has had more time to study it.
Everett Knight, a consulting engineer who works for a private firm, explained that he spends most of his time working for NC State and local governments and that his recommendation to the Town was the same as he would have given if the Town had asked for his expertise. He noted that drainage starts out on private property nearly all the time and becomes a public matter as areas grow. He said that Elliott Road falls under the same rules as Eastgate since it too was constructed before the 1973 FEMA policy. Mr. Knight stated that flood proofing should be thought of as an absolute last resort to protect property.
Mr. Knight said that Chapel Hill, a Phase II city, is required by EPA rules to map its drainage system in order to locate illicit discharges. He suggested that the implied message there is that the Town is supposed to take care of its drainage system. Mr. Knight said that the Town had approved drawings that were in conflict with Town rules in that the 30” pipe does not follow the natural drainage pattern.
Mr. Knight noted that his report had not mentioned the brush and debris that is transported downstream. He said his report also had not mentioned that the sharp end in Elliott Road, combined with the 30-inch sewer crossing and the effects of the NCDOT road crossing, would be a constant maintenance challenge for the Town and for NCDOT. He said that the same was true for drainage coming from Rams Head Plaza, adding that owners had been connecting drainage pipes on their own.
Mr. Knight listed the four things that can be done with a flood: reduce it (detention), pass it through (channelization and piping), get out of it, or live with it. He said that their proposal was to live with it and pass it through as quickly as possible. Mr. Knight stressed that this would have no detrimental effect on downstream property owners.
Council Member Bateman recommended that the Town and Federal Realty take a collaborative approach since the Town has the responsibility to make sure that its stormwater management program works properly. She suggested that the Town had direct responsibility regarding Staples, since the Town had approved something that had not been done correctly.
Council Member Foy asked Stormwater Engineer Fred Royal if there would be any advantage to day-lighting the portion of the creek that runs under Eastgate. Mr. Royal replied that there still would be a flooding situation because of the bridges downstream. Council Member Foy said that he was not suggesting this as the solution, but as one component of a solution. He added that the Council may be within its rights to say undo what was done in exchange for work that the Town may be able to do to help. Mr. Royal explained that not only does the culvert under the parking lot not function well, the buildings surrounding the lot create a dam once the culvert overtops and the parking lot begins to flood.
Mr. Knight stated that the plan was to put a bottom in the culvert but the focus was now more on downstream conditions. Mr. Royal pointed out that one of the key issues was deciding what storm event they want to protect to. He noted that Mr. Knight’s model was for the 50-year storm, not for the 100-year storm. Mr. Royal said that opening up the creek would create some level of storm reduction, perhaps for the 25-year storm, but would have other negative effects for Eastgate’s floor space and parking issues. He noted that there were pluses and minuses to every mitigation alternative looked at.
Council Member Brown, noting that man-made solutions had created the problem, asked the engineers if they could guarantee that more man-made solutions would be effective. Mr. Royal replied that there is no guarantee. He added that frequent storms gradually deteriorate obsolete systems and that there was much infrastructure in Chapel Hill (and all over the country) that was operationally obsolete.
Council Member Bill Strom commented that Eastgate is important to the Town and that the Town should not stay with the approach that private property and stormwater are not its concerns. He said that the Town is in a unique position to bring together all of the interested parties on this issue.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO REFER THE ITEM BACK TO THE MANAGER FOR A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO ADDRESSING THE ISSUESIN THE REPORT.
Council Member Evans suggested perhaps renewing the pond that had once been there for water retention purposes. She agreed that the Town had an obligation to address the Staples property problem. Council Member Evans predicted that the low lands would always flood unless Jordan Lake was made much deeper and water was channeled faster, an idea that she said she opposes.
Council Member Brown asked Council Member Strom to include in his motion that the collaborative effort include innovative solutions in addition to what had been suggested in the report. Council Member Strom replied that his motion was to take a holistic approach to the stormwater situation in the Eastgate area.
Mayor Waldorf said that she wanted to make sure that the motion included the suggestions the staff had made about weatherproofing at Eastgate.
Council Member Ward asked that the issue also be forwarded to the Stormwater Utility Committee for their information. He noted that the Committee might also participate in the collaborative Town effort. Mr. Horton commented that this was the kind of issue that might be addressed if the Town had a stormwater utility and a revenue stream that was set aside for these purposes.
Council Member Strom agreed with Council Member Ward’s suggestion to include the Stormwater Utility Committee, adding that this might drive home the need for revenues. Council Member Ward noted that it also would give the Task Force an example of how two engineers can differ on issues. Council Member Strom reiterated his motion.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS, TO REFER THE ITEM BACK TO THE MANAGER FOR A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO SOLUTIONS. THE MOTION WAS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 8 - Response to Citizens’ Technology Committee Technology Plan Proposal
Mr. Horton said that the staff embraced the proposals that the Technology Committee had put forward, but noted that this would be a difficult budget year. He then introduced Technology Manager Bob Avery to present the Committee’s report.
Mr. Avery introduced Committee members Bill Groves, Doug Noell, Roscoe Reeve and Al Rimer and then reviewed the history of Chapel Hill’s technology system. He explained that five years ago the Town network had connected all of the departments and the Town Hall. This had worked well for a while, he said, but then the Town added a connection for the NC Division of Criminal Information and connections to mobile data terminals, library patrons, and parking services. Mr. Avery pointed out that the Town is planning to connect the fire and police stations and to provide mobile access for field inspectors and engineers. There are now 275 computers, 475 users, 19 major databases, and 31 servers, he said, adding that only three people manage all the departments and users.
Mr. Avery said that the staff had looked at seven major topics when reviewing the Technology Committee Report: Network infrastructure, Web site Improvement, Library Services, Geographic Information Systems, Records Management, Radio Communications, and Information Technology Group. He stated that the staff had concluded that they could begin to take action on all but two Records Management and Radio Communications) during the current year and into next year.
Mr. Avery noted that the Committee’s report included 22 key recommendations. He said that the Town plans to incorporate all of those recommendations into their technology plan, with implementation spread over several years. For FY 2001-2002, Mr. Avery said, the Town hopes to make some improvements on web site enhancement, user support, and infrastructure support. He listed eight goals through which the Town would implement the recommendations:
· Streamline the process for planning and implementing new technologies
· Improve the overall system and user support
· Enhance web site services
· Enhance library services with better access to data services available on the web and other new technologies.
· Enhance geographic information system (OIS) services
· Improve document workflow and record storage systems
· Enhance database services
· Enhance access to information through mobile access and other technologies
Mr. Avery stated that it was appropriate to review these goals in the spring and again in the fall. He noted that the staff had developed 26 initiatives under those eight goals, nine of which would focus on future planning. Seven initiatives would be accomplished with existing funding, Mr. Avery said, and ten (such as additional IT support position, Town web improvements, Network server funding, Library, and GIS improvements) would require additional funding.
In summary, Mr. Avery said, the Technology Committee had identified key needs, which the Town should incorporate in its long-range plan. He noted that the staff had also defined long-term goals and that initiatives for FY 2001-2002 would be incorporated in budget recommendations.
Mayor Waldorf asked Mr. Horton if he was going to address these goals in his recommended budget. Mr. Horton replied that he would, adding that he would appreciate feedback from the Council and continued feedback from the Technology Committee.
Council Member Foy noted that the total cost for FY 2001-2002 was about $650,000, the major portion of which would be for additional positions. He asked whether it was difficult to keep technical employees as the technology changes. Council Member Foy also asked if the Committee had considered using long-term contractors so that the Town would not have to maintain employee proficiency. Mr. Avery replied that the staff had looked at using contract services. He noted, though, that Chapel Hill had 19 disparate systems. Over time, Mr. Avery said, the Town might be able to contract out a portion of the system. Council Member Foy explained that he had merely been suggesting how the Town might position itself in the future. Mr. Horton replied that the Town would likely have to use contractors to solve some of its problems.
Council Member Ward suggested that the projects go through a “very fine mesh cost effective analysis,” noting that financing would be difficult. He suggested that the Town work with its neighbors (UNC, Carrboro, and Orange County) to purchase items in bulk to reduce costs. Council Member Ward asked to what extent the Committee had looked at Town Council business being done more electronically. Mr. Avery replied that part of Town Council business would be rolled into the Document Management/Records Management process. Mr. Horton added that much of the material that comes to the Council would require staff time to scan it into the system. He said that Town Clerk Joyce Smith had been investigating ways that the Council might do more electronically. Mr. Horton said that Ms. Smith had made progress in that regard, but the Town is still a couple of steps away from being able to do so.
Council Member Brown thanked the Committee for the work they had done and for coming to the meeting and presenting it. Other Council Members also expressed gratitude to the Committee. Mayor Waldorf expressed her appreciation, but noted that money was a problem.
Council Member Wiggins inquired about the staff’s choice of $138,000 worth of initiatives for next year. Mr. Horton explained that those were the ones that had received the strongest recommendation from the staff. Therefore, he said, they were the ones he was willing to put forward as the initial list of things that the Town would seek.
Council Member Evans and Mayor Waldorf noted that the Town Council had tonight appointed the people that the Committee had asked them to appoint. Mr. Horton noted that Mr. Avery had worked “doggedly” to put this report together at the same time that he was trying to ensure that equipment was running and that the Public Works server got back up.
Item 9 - Update on Durham’s NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study
Planning Director Roger Waldon explained that the Council had inquired about the implications for Chapel Hill of this corridor study being conducted in Durham. He introduced Ed Harrison to make the report.
Mr. Harrison, referring to the Future Land Use map (C-9) on the next to the last page in the agenda item, pointed out that the entire west side of the planning area has about a four-mile boundary with Chapel Hill. Mr. Harrison explained that planning for this had come out of Southpoint. He added that it is not really one but three small area plans that had been adopted, extending from RTP to the Town boundary. Mr. Harrison pointed out that the Southwest Durham Plan, written in the 1980s, had not been well publicized. He said that the lead issue in that area was traffic even though it has not even been built out yet.
Mr. Harrison stressed that planning should be coordinated with Chapel Hill. He said that the Durham County Commissioners (with whom the Town shares about 3,000 constituents) would not be surprised if the Town took positions on this plan. Mr. Harrison commented that he did not know how the Durham City Council would react, but recommended raising the idea of joint planning at the Durham/Chapel Hill Work Group. He concluded that the County Commissioners of Durham would likely welcome Council members taking a position on this.
Council Member Brown asked Mr. Waldon to bring back a clearer map. Mr. Waldon, explaining that the original is clearer because it is in color, clarified some areas on the map. Council Member Brown stated that the report does not show how the roads would come into Town. Mr. Waldon showed on the map where a new Southwest Durham Drive would connect to Meadowmont Lane, Lancaster Drive, and Ephesus Church Road in Chapel Hill.
Council Member Strom agreed that the four-mile boarder, which includes much undeveloped land, creates the potential for joint planning with Durham. He asked if this item could come back at the next meeting with a request from the Council to the Durham County Commissioners to explore joint planning in this vicinity. Mayor Waldorf suggested to go ahead and make the request rather than waiting for it to come back.
Council Member Evans inquired about including the Town Transportation Board, but Mayor Waldorf noted that it would be preliminary to bring the boards in at this point. Mr. Horton suggested authorizing Mayor Waldorf to send a letter to the Durham County Commissioners asking them to consider engaging in conversation with Chapel Hill about the possibility of a joint planning process.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THAT THE MAYOR BE AUTHORIZED TO WRITE A LETTER TO DURHAM COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABOUT POSSIBLE JOINT PLANNING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 10 - Resolution Calling a Hearing on Proposed Legislative Matters
Mr. Karpinos said that in addition to the list of items the staff had identified, there was one other proposal for a legislative annexation. He said that if the Council adopted R-7 the staff would notify all property owners of land west of I-40 on Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road of the proposed public hearing. Mr. Karpinos explained that the other possible annexation was next to Carrboro at the end of Broad Street. He suggested adding the reference to these properties and said that the Town would notify the owners as well.
Mr. Karpinos explained that the staff had not been able to figure out how to annex these two properties within the current statutes, so they are taking it to the legislature. Mr. Horton added that these are areas that the Town is supposed to annex, so it would be better to go ahead and figure out how to do so.
Council Member Brown asked for clarification on the “recycling bottles and cans” section. Mr. Horton replied that it should be stated, “returning for deposit,” as Council Member Evans had suggested. He agreed to reword it.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 5, 2001, TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON PROPOSALS FOR CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL’S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM FOR THE UPCOMING SESSION OF THE NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY (2001-02-26/R-7)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council calls a public hearing for March 5, 2001, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers on the following proposed items for consideration as part of its Legislative Program for the upcoming session of the General Assembly:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council, in order to meet deadlines for proposing local legislation to the General Assembly, states its intent to consider adoption of a Legislative Program following the conclusion of the public hearing.
This the 26th day of February, 2001.
Item 11 - Follow-up Report on Council Goals for 2001
Council Member Ward asked to amend page 12 (#4 & #8) of the motion. He asked to change “pedestrian safety” to “bicycle and pedestrian safety.”
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-8 AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING TOWN COUNCIL GOALS FOR 2001 (2001-02-26/
R-8)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following goals for 2001:
A. Goals reaffirmed and continued from 2000:
B. Additional goals established for 2001
1. Enact a Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
2. Begin the process of developing a general adequate public facilities ordinance.
3. Identify and track sustainability indicators, including environmental, economic and social indicators.
4. Enforce speeding laws in neighborhoods to increase bicycle and pedestrian safety.
5. Seek feedback from employees on work environment. Create an impartial citizens group for this purpose, and ensure confidentiality for employees.
6. Study timing of signals at intersections at peak hours. Assess feasibility and utility of putting transponders on busses so that they could receive priority at intersections.
7. Monitor and report on the Town of Cary’s work on development of a local fiber optic network for high-speed Internet communications.
8. Establish better design criteria for parking lots, to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety.
9. Review minimum parking requirements specified in the Development Ordinance for reasonableness and consistency with Council goals.
10. Expedite renovations at the Hargraves Community Center and A. D. Clark Bath House and Swimming Pool.
11. Improve the effectiveness of the Police Department through enhanced use of security monitors and auxiliary personnel.
12. Examine ways to increase diversity on the Council. Create study committee for this purpose.
13. Establish a dog park(s) to meet community needs.
This the 26th day of February, 2001.
Item 12 - Appointments
12a. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board |
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Applicants |
Waldorf |
Bateman |
Brown |
Evans |
Foy |
Pavão |
Strom |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Nancy C. Baker |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
Bobby Biles |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
||
|
Calvin Mellott |
X |
1 |
||||||||||
|
Doug Venema |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
|||
Mayor Waldorf announced the appointment of Nancy Baker, Bobby Biles and Doug Venema to the Bicycle and Pedestiran Advisory Board
12b. Technology Committee.
Technology Committee |
Council Members |
|||||||||||
Applicants |
Waldorf |
Bateman |
Brown |
Evans |
Foy |
Pavão |
Strom |
Ward |
Wiggins |
TOTAL |
||
|
Evelyn Daniel |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
|||
|
Frank Holt |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
|||
|
Jeremy Mullis |
X |
1 |
||||||||||
|
Joe Ragland |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
8 |
|||
|
Jane Sharp-Macrae |
0 |
|||||||||||
|
Tamea Stewart |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
7 |
||||
Mayor Waldorf announced the appointment of Evelyn Daniel, Frank Holt, Joe Ragland and Tamea Stewart to the Technology Committee.
Item 13 - Petitions
13a. By the Mayor and Council members.
Council Member Bateman reported that the Town Council had received a letter from Orange Community Housing Corporation (OCHC) and the Land Trust board saying that they were moving toward a merger and asking for the Council’s endorsement. She moved that the Council support the merger.
COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THAT THE TOWN COUNCIL SUPPORT THE ENDEAVORS OF OCHC AND THE LAND TRUST TO MERGE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Strom asked that the Council schedule a discussion regarding the Horace Williams presentation so that there is a record of the Town’s response. Mr. Horton suggested March 7th for this discussion. Council members agreed to put it on the March 26th agenda.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, THAT ON MARCH 26th THE COUNCIL WOULD DISCUSS A RESPONSE TO THE PRESENTATION THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED ON THE HORACE WILLIAMS PROPERTY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 14 - Request for Closed Session to Discuss Property Acquisition,
Personnel, and Litigation Matters
MAYOR PRO TEM PAVÃO MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER FOY, TO ENTER INTO A CLOSED SESSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.