SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 2002, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman, Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, 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, Principal Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Housing Director Tina Vaughn, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Transportation Planner David Bonk and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Item 1 - Ceremonies: None
Item 2 - Public Hearing to Consider Refunding Bonds
Finance Director Jim Baker explained that the purpose of the public hearing was to receive citizens' comments on a proposed bond order and a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $3.8 million in General Obligation bonds to refinance outstanding General Obligations issued in 1992. Mr. Baker noted that the bond order essentially declares that the Town Council finds it necessary and expedient to refinance outstanding 1992 bonds to achieve lower debt service costs. He said that the attached resolution would do the following: authorize the issuance of the bonds; set forth the various terms, conditions and maturities of the bonds; and, authorize the Manager, Town Attorney, Town Clerk and Finance Director to take all actions necessary to complete the bond sale.
Mr. Baker pointed out that the latest report from the Town's financial advisor had indicated that the savings, net of issuance costs, of these bonds would be about $160,000 over the next eight years or about $20,000 annually. The Local Government Commission would conduct the sale, he said, which is scheduled for March 12th. Mr. Baker explained that the Town had the right to reject any of the bids that are received for the bonds. He added, though, that the Town does not anticipate that circumstance. Mr. Baker stated that the Town expects to receive an interest rate of about 3.7%.
Mayor Foy explained that the key matter here was that the Town would be getting a lower interest rate and would save about $20,000 a year in debt financing.
Council Member Strom asked Mr. Baker what it would look like financially if the Town held off on refinancing until the next budget cycle with the new bonds. Mr. Baker explained that in the report he had presented to the Council in January he had included about $300,000 in interest costs on those new bonds. Not issuing them until next year would mean that the $300,000 would not be in next year's budget, he said. Council Member Storm asked if Mr. Baker had decided that it was worth going through the administrative expense of reissuing these bonds rather than waiting until next year and issuing them together. Mr. Baker replied that at the time they decided not to issue the new bonds they already had done all of the administrative work.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS, TO ADOPT R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
BOND ORDER AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $3,800,000 REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2002 OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA (2002-03-04/R-1)
WHEREAS, in August of 1992 the Town issued its Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1992 (the “Series 1992 Bonds”) in an aggregate principal amount of $5,000,000, of which approximately $3,200,000 in aggregate principal amount is outstanding on the date hereof; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina deems it advisable to refund the Series 1992 Bonds by issuing its refunding bonds in an aggregate principal amount of up to $3,800,000; and
WHEREAS, an application has been filed with the Secretary of the Local Government Commission of North Carolina requesting Local Government Commission approval of the bonds hereinafter described as required by The Local Government Bond Act, and the Secretary of the Local Government Commission has acknowledged that the application has been filed and accepted for submission to the Local Government Commission;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina as follows:
Section 1. The Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina has ascertained and hereby determines that it is in the best interests of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina to refund the Series 1992 Bonds.
Section 2. In order to raise the money required to refund the Series 1992 Bonds, in addition to any funds which may be made available for such purpose from any other source, general obligation refunding bonds of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina are hereby authorized and shall be issued pursuant to The Local Government Bond Act. The maximum aggregate principal amount of the bonds authorized by this bond order shall be $3,800,000.
Section 3. A tax sufficient to pay the principal of and interest on said bonds when due will be annually levied and collected.
Section 4. A sworn statement of the debt of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina has been filed with the Clerk to the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina and is open to public inspection.
Section 5. This bond order shall take effect upon its adoption.
This the 4th day of March, 2002.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF UP TO $3,800,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BONDS, SERIES 2002 OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA (2002-03-04/R-2)
WHEREAS, the Bond Order described in Section 1 below has taken effect; and
WHEREAS, in August of 1992, the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (the “Town”) issued $5,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of its General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1992 (the “Series 1992 Bonds”); and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (the “Town Council”) has determined pursuant to a resolution adopted by the Town Council on February 25, 2002 that it is in the best interests of the Town to refund the Series 1992 Bonds by issuing up to $3,800,000 in aggregate principal amount of its general obligation refunding bonds authorized by said Bond Order;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (the “Town”), as follows:
Section 1. Bond Order. The Town shall issue its General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2002 in the aggregate principal amount of up to $3,800,000 (collectively the “Bonds”) pursuant to and in accordance with the Bond Order described below, which was adopted by the Town Council on March 4, 2002:
The Bond Order described above is hereinafter referred to as the “Bond Order”.
Section 2. Designation; Period of Usefulness; Maturity. The Bonds to be issued pursuant to the Bond Order shall be designated “General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2002. The Town Council of the Town has ascertained and hereby determines that the average period of usefulness of the capital projects to be refinanced by the issuance of the Bonds does not end prior to the final maturity date of the Bonds. The Bonds shall be stated to mature annually, on February 1 of each of the years 2003 to 2010, inclusive, as follows:
Year of Principal
Maturity Amount
2003 $260,000
2004 235,000
2005 230,000
2006 250,000
2007 245,000
2008 815,000
2009 805,000
2010 540,000
Section 3. Date of Bonds; Interest Payment Dates. The Bonds shall be dated April 1, 2002 and shall bear interest from their date at a rate or rates which shall be hereafter determined upon the public sale thereof. Interest on the Bonds shall be payable semiannually on each February 1 and August 1, beginning August 1, 2002.
Section 4. Registered Bonds; Execution. The Bonds shall be registered as to principal and interest and shall bear the original or facsimile signatures of the Mayor or Town Manager and the Clerk of the Town. An original or facsimile of the corporate seal of the Town shall be imprinted upon each of the Bonds.
Section 5. Book-Entry System. The Bonds will be issued in fully registered form by means of a book-entry system with no physical distribution of bond certificates made to the public. One fully-registered bond certificate for each stated maturity of the Bonds will be issued to The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York (“DTC”), and immobilized in its custody. A book-entry system will be employed, evidencing ownership of the Bonds in principal amounts of $5,000 or any multiple thereof, with transfers of ownership effected on the records of DTC and its participants pursuant to rules and procedures established by DTC and its participants. Interest on the Bonds will be payable in clearinghouse funds to DTC or its nominee or any other person appearing as registered owner of the Bonds. The principal of and interest on the Bonds will be payable to owners of Bonds shown on the records of DTC at the close of business on the day preceding an interest payment date or a bond payment date. The Town will not be responsible or liable for such transfers of payments or for maintaining, supervising or reviewing the records maintained by DTC, its participants or persons acting through such participants.
In the event that (a) DTC determines not to continue to act as securities depository for the Bonds or (b) the Town determines that the continuation of the book-entry system of evidence and transfer of ownership of the Bonds would adversely affect the interests of the beneficial owners of the Bonds, the Town will discontinue the book-entry system with DTC. If the Town fails to identify another qualified securities depository to replace DTC, the Town will deliver replacement bonds in the form of fully-registered certificates.
Section 6. Redemption. The Bonds will not be subject to redemption prior to maturity.
Section 7. Form of Bonds. The Bonds and the provisions for the registration of Bonds and for the approval of the Bonds by the Secretary of the Local Government Commission shall be in substantially the following form:
(Form of Bond)
NO. R-__________ $____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA
GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING
BOND, SERIES 2002
ORIGINAL
INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE ISSUE DATE CUSIP
_______________ February 1, ____ April 1, 2002 ____________
REGISTERED OWNER: CEDE & CO.
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: Dollars
The Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (hereinafter referred to as the “Town”), a municipal corporation of the State of North Carolina, is justly indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay in the manner hereinafter provided, to the registered owner named above or registered assigns or legal representative on the Maturity Date specified above, the principal amount shown above and to pay to the registered owner hereof interest thereon from the date of this Bond until this Bond is paid in full at the interest rate per annum specified above, payable on August 1, 2002 and semi-annually thereafter on February 1 and August 1 of each year. Principal of and interest on this Bond are payable in clearinghouse funds to The Depository Trust Company (“DTC”) or its nominee as registered owner of the Bonds and are payable to the owner of the Bonds shown on the records of DTC at the close of business on the day preceding an interest payment date or a principal payment date. The Town is not responsible or liable for maintaining, supervising or reviewing the records maintained by DTC, its participants or persons acting through such participants.
This Bond is issued in accordance with the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 159E of the North Carolina General Statutes, as amended, and pursuant to The Local Government Finance Act, the bond order adopted by the Town Council of the Town on March 4, 2002 and a bond resolution adopted by the Town Council on March 4, 2002. This Bond is one of a series of Bonds designated as “Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2002” initially issued in the aggregate principal amount of $_________ (the “Bonds”). The Bonds are being issued to refund the Town’s outstanding General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1992 originally issued in the aggregate principal amount of $5,000,000.
The Bonds will not be subject to redemption prior to maturity.
It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required by the Constitution or laws of the State of North Carolina to exist, be performed or happen precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond, exist, have been performed and have happened, and that the amount of this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the Town, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by said Constitution or statutes. The faith and credit of the Town are hereby pledged to the punctual payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond in accordance with its terms.
This Bond shall not be valid or become obligatory for any purpose until this Bond has been authenticated by the Director of Finance of the Town and the certifications hereon shall have been signed by authorized representatives of the Local Government Commission of North Carolina.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina has caused this Bond to be manually signed by its Mayor and its Clerk and its official seal to be imprinted hereon, all as of the 1st day of April, 2002.
(SEAL)
_____________________________ ____________________________________
Town Clerk Mayor
Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina
CERTIFICATE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION
The issuance of the within Bond has been approved under the provisions of The Local Government Bond Act, of North Carolina as amended.
( signature )
ROBERT M. HIGH
Secretary of the Local Government Commission
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is one of the Series of Bonds designated herein and issued under the provisions of the Bond Resolution referenced herein.
By:______________________________________
James M. Baker
Director of Finance
Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina
ASSIGNMENT
FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned hereby sells, assigns and transfers unto __________________________, the within Bond and irrevocably appoints _______________________________, attorney-in-fact, to transfer the within Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated:________________________ ______________________________
NOTICE: The signature to this
assignment must correspond with
the name as it appears upon the
face of the within Bond in every particular, without any
alteration whatsoever.
Signature Guaranteed:
______________________________
(Bank, Trust Company or Firm)
______________________________
(Authorized Officer)
Section 8. Covenants. The Town covenants to comply with the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) to the extent required to preserve the exclusion from gross income of interest on the Bonds for federal income tax purposes. The Town also covenants to take such action as may be required in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel to cause the Bonds and all actions of the Town with respect to the proceeds thereof to comply with the Code. In particular, the Town covenants as follows:
(a) At least one of the following two conditions will be satisfied: (i) less than 10% of the proceeds of the Bonds reduced by costs of issuance will be used directly or indirectly in the business of a person other than a state or local governmental unit or (ii) less than 10% of the principal or interest on the Bonds is (under the terms of such issue or any underlying arrangement) directly or indirectly (A) secured by an interest in property used or to be used in a private business or any interest in payments made with respect to such property or (B) to be derived from payments made with respect to property, or borrowed money, used or to be used in a private business;
(b) Less than 5% of the proceeds of the Bonds reduced by costs of issuance will be used by nongovernmental persons for a use unrelated to the purposes for which the Bonds are issued;
(c) It will not loan directly or indirectly more than 5% or $5 million (whichever is less) of the Bond proceeds to nongovernmental persons;
(d) It will not enter into any management contract with respect to the project financed with the proceeds of the Bonds unless it obtains an opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel that such management contract will not impair the exclusion from a recipient’s gross income for federal income tax purposes of the interest on the Bonds;
(e) The Town acknowledges that the continued exclusion of interest on the Bonds from a recipient’s gross income for federal income tax purposes depends, in part, upon compliance with the arbitrage limitations imposed by Section 148 of the Code. The Town covenants to comply with all the requirements of Section 148 of the Code, including the rebate requirements, and it shall not permit at any time any of the proceeds of the Bonds or other funds of the Town to be used, directly or indirectly, to acquire any asset or obligation, the acquisition of which would cause the Bonds to be “arbitrage bonds” for purposes of Section 148 of the Code;
(f) The Bonds are not and shall not be “federally guaranteed” as defined in Section 149(b) of the Code; and
(g) The Town covenants to file or cause to be filed Form 8038G in accordance with Section 149(e) of the Code.
Section 9. Continuing Disclosure Requirement. The Town hereby undertakes, for the benefit of the beneficial owners of the Bonds, to provide:
(a) by not later than seven months from the end of each fiscal year of the Town, to each nationally recognized municipal securities information repository (“NRMSIR”) and to the state information depository for the State of North Carolina (“SID”), if any, audited financial statements of the Town for such fiscal year, if available, prepared in accordance with Section 159-34 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, as it may be amended from time to time, or any successor statute, or, if such audited financial statements of the Town are not available by seven months from the end of such fiscal year, unaudited financial statements of the Town for such fiscal year to be replaced subsequently by audited financial statements of the Town to be delivered within 15 days after such audited financial statements become available for distribution;
(b) by not later than seven months from the end of each fiscal year of the Town, to each NRMSIR, and to the SID, if any, (i) the financial and statistical data as of a date not earlier than the end of the preceding fiscal year for the type of information included under heading “The Town - Debt Information and - Tax Information” in the Official Statement relating to the Bonds and (ii) the combined budget of the Town for the current fiscal year, to the extent such items are not included in the audited financial statements referred to in (a) above;
(c) in a timely manner, to each NRMSIR or to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”), and to the SID, if any, notice of any of the following events with respect to the Bonds, if material:
(1) principal and interest payment delinquencies;
(2) non-payment related defaults;
(3) unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties;
(4) unscheduled draws on any credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties;
(5) substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform;
(6) adverse tax opinions or events affecting the tax-exempt status of the Bonds;
(7) modification to the rights of the beneficial owners of the Bonds;
(8) bond calls;
(9) defeasances;
(10) release, substitution or sale of any property securing repayment of the Bonds;
(11) rating changes; and
(d) in a timely manner, to each NRMSIR or to the MSRB, and to the SID, if any, notice of a failure of the Town to provide required annual financial information described in (a) or (b) above on or before the date specified.
If the Town fails to comply with the undertaking described above, any beneficial owner of the Bonds may take action to protect and enforce the rights of all beneficial owners with respect to such undertaking, including an action for specific performance; provided, however, that failure to comply with such undertaking shall not be an event of default under the Bonds and shall not result in any acceleration of payment of the Bonds. All actions shall be instituted, had and maintained in the manner provided in this paragraph for the benefit of all beneficial owners of the Bonds.
The Town reserves the right to modify from time to time the information to be provided to the extent necessary or appropriate in the judgment of the Town, provided that any such modification will be done in a manner consistent with Rule 15c2-12 issued under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as it may be amended from time to time (“Rule 15c2-12), and provided further that:
(a) any such modification may only be made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in legal requirements, change in law, or change in the identity, nature or status of the Town;
(b) the information to be provided, as modified, would have complied with the requirements of Rule 15c2-12 as of the date of the Official Statement relating to the Bonds, after taking into account any amendments or interpretations of Rule 15c2-12, as well as any changes in circumstances; and
(c) any such modification does not materially impair the interests of the beneficial owners, as determined either by parties unaffiliated with the Town (such as bond counsel), or by the approving vote of the registered owners of a majority in principal amount of the Bonds pursuant to the terms of this bond resolution, as it may be amended from time to time, at the time of the amendment.
Any annual financial information containing modified operating data or financial information shall explain, in narrative form, the reasons for the modification and the impact of the change in the type of operating data or financial information being provided.
The provisions of this Section shall terminate upon payment, or provision having been made for payment in a manner consistent with Rule 15c2-12, in full of the principal of and interest on all of the Bonds.
Section 10. Escrow Fund. The Director of Finance is hereby directed to create and establish with the Escrow Agent (as hereinafter defined) a special fund to be designated “Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina General Obligation Refunding Bonds, Series 2002 Escrow Fund” (the “Escrow Fund”) in accordance with the terms of an Escrow Agreement to be dated as of April 1, 2002 between the Town and First-Citizens Bank & Trust Company, as escrow agent (the “Escrow Agent”). The proceeds from the sale of the Bonds shall be deposited in the Escrow Fund. Any moneys held in the Escrow Fund shall be invested and reinvested by the Director of Finance as permitted by the law of the State of North Carolina, and the income therefrom to the extent permitted by the Code shall be retained in the Escrow Fund and used to refund the Series 1992 Bonds. The Director of Finance and the Escrow Agent shall keep and maintain adequate records pertaining to the Escrow Fund and all disbursements therefrom.
Section 11. Other Agents. Actions taken by officials of the Town to select paying and transfer agents, and a bond registrar, or alternate or successor agents and registrars pursuant to Section 159E-8 of the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 159E of the General Statutes of North Carolina, are hereby authorized and approved.
Section 12. Purchase of Bonds. The Local Government Commission of North Carolina is hereby requested to (1) sell the Bonds, and (2) state in the Notice of Sale for the Bonds that bidders may name one rate of interest for part of the Bonds and another rate or rates for the balance of the Bonds. The Bonds shall bear interest at such rates as may be named in the proposal to purchase the Bonds that shall be accepted by said Local Government Commission.
Section 13. Qualified Tax-Exempt Obligation. The Town hereby represents that it reasonably expects that the Town, together with all subordinate entities thereof and any other entities which issue obligations on behalf of the Town, will not issue more than $10,000,000 of tax-exempt obligations (other than private activity bonds, except for qualified 501(c)(3) bonds) during calendar year 2002. The Town hereby designates the Bonds as “qualified tax-exempt obligations” with the meaning of Section 265(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. The Town further represents that it will take no action which will directly or indirectly adversely affect the tax-exempt character of the Bonds, including, but not limited to, the issuance of more than $10 million of tax-exempt obligations during calendar year 2002.
Section 14. Execution and Delivery of Bonds. The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Director of Finance and the Clerk of the Town are hereby authorized and directed to cause the Bonds to be prepared and, when they shall have been duly sold by said Local Government Commission, to execute the Bonds and to turn the Bonds over to the registrar and transfer agent of the Town for delivery to the purchaser or purchasers to whom they may be sold by said Local Government Commission.
Section 15. Actions Ratified; Official Statement Approved. The actions of the Mayor, the Town Manager and the Director of Finance of the Town in applying to the Local Government Commission (the “Commission”) to advertise and sell the Bonds and the action of the Commission in asking for sealed bids for such Bonds by publishing notices and printing and distributing an Official Statement and a Supplement to such Official Statement relating to the sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and approved. Such Official Statement, to be dated March ____, 2002 and substantially in the form presented at this meeting, is hereby approved, and the Mayor, the Town Manager, and the Director of Finance of the Town are each hereby authorized to approve changes in such Official Statement, to approve such Supplement thereto, and to execute such Official Statement and such Supplement for and on behalf of the Town.
Section 16. Other Actions Authorized. The Mayor, the Town Manager, the Director of Finance, the Town Clerk and the Town Attorney of the Town and such other officers or employees of the Town as are designed by any of them are hereby authorized to do all acts and things required of them by or in connection with this Resolution and all other agreements or documents entered into or executed by the Town in connection with the issuance of the Bonds for the full, punctual and complete performance of all of the terms, covenants and agreements contained in the Bonds and the documents.
Section 17. Amendments and Supplements. This Resolution may be amended or supplemented, from time to time, if in the opinion of nationally recognized bond counsel, such amendment or supplement would not adversely affect the interests of the Bondholders or would not cause the interest on the Bonds to be included in the gross income of a recipient thereof for federal tax purposes.
Section 18. Governing Law. This Resolution shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State. Jurisdiction for the resolution of any conflict arising from this Resolution shall lie with the General Court of Justice of the State of North Carolina with venue in Orange County, North Carolina.
Section 19. Severability of Invalid Provisions. In case any one or more of the provisions contained in this Resolution or in the Bonds shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect and for any reason, then such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not effect any other provision of this Resolution, and this Resolution shall be construed as if such invalid or illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained herein.
Section 20. Resolution Effective Immediately. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
This the 4th day of March, 2002.
Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
a. Petitions by citizens on items not on the agenda.
1. Steven C. Broscious, representing Culbreth Ridge Homeowners Association, regarding closure of Highgrove Road.
Mr. Broscious introduced Henry Vickers to speak first on the topic. Mr. Vickers, a Culbreth Ridge Homeowners Association board member, summarized the petition asking to have Highgrove Road closed. He noted that 77% of the area homeowners had voted in favor of instituting traffic-calming measures in the neighborhood. Mr. Vickers asked the Association members who were in the audience to stand, and then gave his remaining time to Mr. Broscious.
Mr. Broscious proposed closing the interface of Culbreth Ridge and Southern Village to automobiles, trucks and buses. He explained that the neighborhood was not interested in isolating itself but that residents were facing extreme danger due to excessive speeding and high volumes of traffic coming through their neighborhood on a road that is only 26 feet wide, short-sighted, and not designed for this type of traffic. He explained that the Association favors connectivity by means of bicycles and pedestrian paths, and that they respect the need for access for strollers, skaters, scooters and emergency vehicles. He noted that the closure should be aesthetically pleasing, simple and cost-effective.
Mr. Broscious argued that members of the neighborhood and their children, as well as a large number of children walking to Grey Culbreth Middle School, were at risk due to the traffic situation. He explained that an average of at least 200 cars drive through that area each day, and that more than 700 cars drove though on September 13, 2001. Mr. Broscious stated that drivers exceed the 25 mph speed limit, and that police have been citing those who fail to stop at stop signs. He pointed out that the Gardner Circle and Cobble Ridge Road had never been connected, and that this forces all volume thorough an area that was not designed to handle it.
Mr. Broscious explained that the Association had petitioned the Town Council in the past, but said that he resulting additional stop signs and police surveillance had not solved the problem. He noted that traffic volumes would increase as Southern Village builds out. Mr. Broscious said that the Highgrove Road closure proposal would not impede connectivity, and asked Council members to treat his neighborhood as they have treated those in Cobble Ridge, who successfully argued for street closure. He argued that policy, cost and inconvenience should not outweigh rights to safety and quality of life.
Mayor Foy explained that the Council would take the petition under advisement and ask the Manager and Attorney to provide more information and a recommendation as to how to proceed. He added that this item would come back to the Council as a formal action at a later date. Mr. Broscious asked if the Homeowners Association could be involved in a dialogue with the staff. Mr. Horton replied that there would be elements that the staff would want to discuss with those who brought the petition. Mayor Foy ascertained from Mr. Horton that the staff would have contact with the petitioners prior to making any response to the Council.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
2. Greg Michelotti revising Preliminary P lat amending surface restriction for Culbreth Ridge.
The petition was withdrawn prior to the start of tonight’s meeting.
3. Hunter Edwards regarding additional charges to permits for Mechanical Systems and Services.
Mr. Edwards, a heating and air conditioning contractor with Charlotte-based Mechanical Systems and Services, said that a Town employee at the Building Standards Office had told a member of his company that the fee for their contracting job at Glen Lennox would be $25 per unit, rather than the usual $50 fee. But, he explained, he received a bill for $50 per unit for two projects, and argued that it was not his firm's fault that the Town employee who quoted them the lower rate did not have the authority to do so. Mr. Edwards said that they had attempted to settle the issue with the staff, but that his offer had been rejected. He asked for consideration from the Town Council in this matter, since his firm had acted in good faith and should not be held liable for the additional fees.
Council Member Bateman inquired about the sequence of events. Mr. Edwards suggested that Council members read the material he had provided just prior to the start of tonight’s meeting, which he said documents all of the conversations.
Mayor Foy asked if the company had anything in writing from the Town regarding the permit fees. Mr. Edwards replied that they have their request for a permit where the fee is marked $25.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
4. Angie Smith regarding OWASA and the IFC program, Taste of Hope.
Ms. Smith, of OWASA's Customer Service Department, asked for public participation in the "Taste of Hope" customer assistance program, a joint venture of OWASA and the IFC. The program would give temporary help to families that are unable to pay their water bills, she said. Ms. Smith explained that the monthly bills of customers who choose to participate in Taste of Hope would be rounded up to the nearest dollar, and that the resulting extra money would go to a fund to help those who cannot afford to pay. Anyone who would like to participate may contact OWASA, she said.
Chris Moran, Director of The Interfaith Council, described the IFC's community-wide effort to increase consumer participation in the Taste of Hope program. He pointed out that 35.5 million Americans live in poverty and that 4.2 million American households are experiencing hunger. Mr. Moran said that 6.6 million North Carolinians live in poverty and that 13% of those live below the poverty level. He noted that two out of three North Carolinian children are living in poverty and are hungry. Mr. Moran quoted statistics that document the growing level of poverty in North Carolina and asked the Town Council to encourage participation in the Taste of Hope program, as well as the Share the Warmth program, which helps low-income consumers with their housing costs.
Mr. Moran also asked the Council to help educate taxpayers regarding economic issues that affect low-income citizens. He asked Council members to recommend that the Orange County Commissioners not support the County Manager's recommendation to postpone the County's $250,000 contribution to its Affordable Housing Fund. Mr. Moran also asked the Town Council to support a living wage policy for all Town employees, subcontractors, and business agents and providers, and to support proposals to increase Medicaid reimbursements to all states. And, he asked Council members to advocate for immigration reform so that Hispanic workers can keep their jobs, and to continue pursuing inclusionary zoning opportunities.
Mayor Foy encouraged people to contact OWASA to sign up for the Taste of Hope program.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Verkerk asked if some of Mr. Moran's suggestions could be separated out as things that the Council could actually do. Mr. Horton noted that the Council had received the petition but had not referred it, and Mayor Foy explained that this meant they had not asked the Manager to take any specific action on their part.
Council Member Strom suggested referring to the Manager the question of what the Town could do to promote participation in the Taste of Hope program. He pointed out that the program is simple and painless and that the money goes to a very just and needed purpose.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO REFER THE QUESTION OF HOW THE TOWN CAN ENCOURAGE CITIZENS AND TOWN EMPLOYEES TO PARTICIPATE IN TASTE OF HOPE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Council Member Ward said he would like to move to have Mayor Foy send a letter to the County Commissioners in support of affordable housing and emergency assistance allocations. Council Member Verkerk said she would second that motion.
Mayor pro tem Pat Evans explained that she did not support this at this time because of the difficult budget constraints and the fact that the Council does not know about the County's other interests.
Council Member Harrison inquired as to whether Mr. Horton knew what had motivated the County Manager's recommendation that the County Commissioners postpone the County's $250,000 contribution to its Affordable Housing Fund. Mr. Horton replied that he did not, and Mayor Foy suggested deferring action until the Manager could bring back more information. He added that the Council might be more unanimous if they had more information. Mr. Horton replied that the affordable housing issue was complex and the Town has no staff that would be capable of reporting on it in a reasonable manner.
Mr. Horton said that the County Manager might have submitted some written material to the Board of Commissioners, which the staff could obtain and provide to the Council. He added, though, that this information might not explain things to the degree that the Council would wish. Mr. Horton suggested that both of these topics might properly be subjects of discussion with the Board of County Commissioners because the issues are more about community priorities than about factual disputes.
Council Member Bateman wondered if this topic could be brought up at the Assembly of Governments meeting with the Commissioners in Carrboro.
Council Member Ward expressed willingness to change his motion from "increase its emergency allocation" to "at least maintain its emergency allocation." He pointed out that the Council was not insisting that the County Commissioners do anything but was merely expressing the Town's view that times of economic downturn are times of greatest need for this portion of the population.
Mayor pro tem Evans said that she still had questions, such as about how much the County has in its housing fund and what is motivating the County Manager. She said that she did not have enough information to support the motion.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO HAVE THE MAYOR SEND A LETTER TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASKING THEM NOT TO SUPPORT THE COUNTY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION TO POSTPONE THE COUNTY'S CONTRIBUTION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND TO AT LEAST MAINTAIN ITS EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE ALLOCATIONS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED (8-1), WITH MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS VOTING NAY.
Item 4 - Consent Agenda
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-3. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2002-03-04/R-3)
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. |
Designation of Kings Mill/Morgan Creek Neighborhood as a Residential Conservation Area (R-4). |
|
b. |
Authorization for Manager to Approve Change Order for Carrboro Plaza Park/Ride Lot Electrical Contract (R-5). |
This the 4th day of March, 2002.
Item 5 - Information Items
a. Changes to Apple Chill Street Fair 2002. The report was accepted without discussion.
b. Response to Petition for Sewer in the Emily/Partin Area.
Craig Land, a property owner on Partin Street, said that his area had been annexed by the Town in 1979. He explained that he had talked with the Town Manager about getting water and sewer, but with no results. Mr. Land stated that he could not do anything with his property because the dollar figure that OWASA had quoted him was more than $100,000, which was twice the cost of the house he wants to build there.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Land if he had received a copy of the Manager's response, which asked that the majority of property owners submit a petition to OWASA so that the Town Council could consider an allocation from the fund for sewer assistance. Mr. Land explained that he had been unable to rally support from the other property owners. He asked if he could try again to get a response from them and then come back at another time. Mayor Foy replied that this would be acceptable, noting that the Council would not take any action that would stop him from doing anything.
Mayor Foy explained that the landowners would need to initiate the action with OWASA before the Town Council could release funds. He recommended that Mr. Land get assistance from the Town staff regarding what the procedures are. Mr. Land explained that he already had encountered resistance form OWASA.
Council Member Bateman said that she had received a call from Greg Feller, Assistant to the Director of OWASA, and Mr. Feller told her to ask any citizen who came to speak on this issue to contact him.
c. Response to Request from First Baptist and Manley Estates.
Ann Hanson, of Excel Property Management, Inc, asked that some consideration be given to providing funding for furnishings for the low-income senior adults who would be living at First Baptist and Manley Estates.
d. Response to Petition from Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC).
Catherine Shields noted that the SEAC had asked the Council to consider funding a design contest for Parking Lot #5. She made that request again, noting that such a contest would bring a larger number and variety of people and ideas to the design of this integral part of Town. Ms. Shields remarked that the benefits of a design contest would far outweigh the one-time cost.
Council Member Strom removed 5d for later discussion.
e. Europa Applications: Modification of Existing Special Use Permit and Application for New Special Use Permit. The report was accepted without discussion.
Item 6 - Implementation of Recommendation for Improvements in the Sykes Street Area
Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes explained that the staff was responding to recommendations made by students from UNC's Department of City and Regional Planning on January 14, 2002. Ms. Barnes reported that those recommendations had been in three areas: crime and safety, property management/housing conditions, and public improvements. She said that various Town departments already had been working to implement activities and programs in these three areas and would continue to do so. Ms. Barnes asked Council members to note the "summary of recommendations, action to date" (Attachment 2 of the materials). She pointed out that a second charette had been held for the Sykes Street residents and that the Town had received suggestions from residents there in three areas: improving crime and safety conditions, the need to work with other agencies that already are working in Northside, and the need for additional youth programming in the community. Ms. Barnes added that many of the suggestions and recommendations made on that day already had been underway.
Council Member Bateman, referring to the statement about police coverage six days of the week (under safety issues on page two of the materials), asked what happened on the seventh day. Mr. Horton replied that there was less difficulty and therefore less coverage on that day.
Council Member Ward asked the Manager to forward the agenda item, specifically attachment #1, to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board to make them aware of the focus that sidewalks in this area had been given.
Council Member Verkerk commented that crime prevention had never been part of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board's considerations, adding that if it had been then Sykes Street would have jumped to the top of the list.
Council Member Wiggins and Mayor Foy noted that the Council can reprioritize based on their own considerations. Mr. Horton agreed that the Council had done that on occasion in the past.
Council Member Verkerk suggested that the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board would support re-ranking if they were aware of the issue.
Council Member Harrison agreed that any Town advisory board ought to include crime prevention with its other priorities.
Council Member Strom asked for more information about the realignment of the Sykes/Whitaker/Graham intersection, including the purpose and timing needed to get it into the budget this year. Ms. Barnes replied that the point of realignment and the intended goals are still being discussed in the Sykes Street Steering Committee. She said they are looking at traffic calming measures rather than going through a full realignment. Ms. Barnes added that the Committee was scheduled to come back to the Town Council with a proposal for the program on March 25 with adoption scheduled April. She noted that there would be plenty of time to consider this and to put realignment into the program at that point if the Council so chooses.
Mayor Foy, pointing out that there was private property there, asked how the realignment would work. Ms. Barnes replied that it had not been thought out that clearly but that 229 North Graham Street was under contract and could be purchased if the Council decided to go with realignment. Mr. Horton noted that this was a good opportunity to thank EmPOWERment and the Orange Community Land Trust, which had been working with the Town on this issue. He also thanked the neighbors for their leadership, noting that their participation is absolutely critical, not only now but for the long haul as well.
Item 7 - Proposed 2002-03 Budget for the Public Housing Program
Mr. Horton pointed out that the budget for the federal housing program is required to be presented 90 days prior to the beginning of the Town's fiscal year. This means that it must be presented to HUD by April 1st, he said, and must therefore be brought to the Council earlier than the other budgets.
Housing Director Tina Vaughn stated that she was not proposing any changes to the Public Housing Program, which would continue at the current levels of service. Ms. Vaughn reported that proposed expenditures for 2002-2003 were $1,614,000, about a $143,000 increase over the current budget. She stated that the Program expects to receive about $330,000 next year in rental income and about $1,081,000 from the federal government in operating subsidy.
Ms. Vaughn estimated that the Program will need to use about $163,000 of its fund balance to cover the total estimated expenditures. This will leave a fund balance of about $380,000, she said, which is within the federal guidelines. She pointed out that the budget must be submitted to HUD before April 1st, and asked the Council to approve R-7.
Mayor Foy verified that this was the same budget that the Council had seen the previous Friday during the budget work session. He pointed out that Council members already had a chance to discuss it.
COUNCIL MEMBER EVANS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
Item 8 - Percent for Art Program
Assistant Town Manager Sonna Loewenthal explained that the Town's Comprehensive Plan includes a public art program that would help define the community's identity and sense of place, promote social interaction and discourse, bring the arts into everyday life, and memorialize the past while expressing shared values for the future. She noted that the Council had decided to put this in the short-term implementation phase. Ms Loewenthal said that the staff was ready to bring forward a very simple proposal that it had developed jointly with a committee from the Public Arts Commission.
Ms. Loewenthal proposed a yearly process that would be tied to the CIP process. She explained that the Public Arts Commission would review and decide which projects should include one percent of their budget for art. In some cases, she said, this percentage for art would go toward a specific project and in other cases it would go toward a pool fund. Ms. Loewenthal said the Council would have the opportunity each year to make recommendations on the budget, the locations of the artwork, and how the money would be spent. This series of decision would be called the Annual Public Arts Plan, she said, and the Public Arts Commission would work with the Town staff to implement the program that the Council decides upon.
Renee Piechocki, Co-Chair of the Public Arts Commission, thanked the Town Council for its support and stated that the Commission was "completely thrilled" to present this jointly with the Town staff.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked for clarification of the term “deaccessioning” in the materials. Ms. Piechocki explained that "deaccessioning" is a policy that would enable the Town to not own artworks. She said that it deals with issues surrounding the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 and copyright laws. Ms. Piechocki explained that deaccessioning sets out the policy that the Town will follow to not own a piece that is no longer desirable for the Town's collection. She added that she was getting models from around the country for Chapel Hill to look at.
Council Member Ward commented that a reference to deaccessioning was included in the resolution but not in the ordinance. Ms. Piechocki explained that the way they had legally been allowed to set up the program was to say that by ordinance the program exists. By resolution, she said, they could outline how the program would operate. Therefore, they felt that specific items such as deaccessioning would not be applicable in the ordinance, she said. Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that the language in Section 4 covers it adequately and that no more needed to be said about deaccessioning in the ordinance.
Council Member Ward inquired about how the determination would be made early on that money would be set aside for maintaining and conserving existing art. Ms. Piechocki replied that this is addressed with the structure of the annual Public Art Program, where the funds are flexible, can be used for maintenance and conservation, and will be overseen by the Council.
Council Member Verkerk asked if it could happen that a future Town Council might not want to allocate any funds to public art. Ms. Piechocki replied that this could happen but that the program itself would still exist. Mr. Horton added that it could happen under the theory of law that one Town Council can not bind another. Council Member Verkerk inquired about the word "accept" under number 7. Mr. Horton said that it means take title to possession of delivery.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT O-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A PERCENT FOR PUBLIC ART PROGRAM FOR TOWN FUNDED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (2002-03-04/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town Of Chapel Hill that the Council does hereby establish a program for supporting art in public places as follows:
Section 1. Findings and purposes.
The Town Council does hereby find that:
(a) Expanding the opportunity for the citizens to experience public art will promote the general welfare of the community; and,
(b) Providing for art in public places will enhance the aesthetic quality of public buildings and spaces; and,
(c) Supporting public art will further the objectives of the Town established in the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
(d) Enhancing the appearance of buildings and spaces provides benefits to the community by expanding the historical, cultural and creative knowledge of citizens.
(e) Providing art accessible to the public and to the users of Town buildings and parks will improve of the quality of life in Chapel Hill, and more specifically will
-help define the community’s identity and sense of place,
-promote social interaction and discourse,
-bring the arts into everyday life and
-memorialize the past while expressing shared values for the future.
Section 2. Percent for Public Art Program Established.
A Percent for Public Art Program is hereby established to help define the community’s identity and sense of place, promote social interaction and discourse, bring the arts into everyday life and memorialize the past while expressing shared values for the future.
Section 3. Selection of Sites for Public Art Annually.
The Council shall decide annually which capital budgets shall include 1% or another amount for public art, and on which sites the artwork should be located.
Section 4. Authorization to Commission, Acquire, Maintain and Conserve Art
The Town Council’s authorization to commission, acquire, maintain and conserve art shall be consistent with Council adopted policy and shall include input from the public as well as from the Chapel Hill Public Art Commission.
Section 5. Policies for Implementation of Percent for Public Art Program by Council.
The Council’s Policies for implementation of the Percent for Public Art Program shall be established by the Council in writing and shall be available upon request.
This the 4th day of March, 2002.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-8. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION DEFINING A PERCENT FOR PUBLIC ART PROGRAM AND THE GENERAL POLICIES OF THE PROGRAM (2002-03-04/R-8)
WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan of the Town of Chapel Hill includes public art as part of the section on Community Character; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has included a Percent for Public Art Program in the short-term implementation measures adopted on July 5, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Public Arts Commission and its subgroups have been working with the Town staff to develop policies and procedures for a Percent for Public Art Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby establishes a Percent for Public Art Program:
to help define the community’s identity and sense of place,
to promote social interaction and discourse,
to bring the arts into everyday life and
to memorialize the past while expressing shared values for the future.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the program shall be guided by the following policies:
1. Program Objective: To provide art accessible to the public and to the users of Town buildings and parks, for the improvement of the quality of life in Chapel Hill, and more specifically to:
help define the community’s identity and sense of place,
promote social interaction and discourse,
bring the arts into everyday life and
memorialize the past while expressing shared values for the future.
2. Annual Public Art Plan: The Town Council shall meet at least annually to consider a Public Art Plan recommended by the Public Arts Commission. The recommended Public Art Plan shall include:
a. Those capital projects which should include 1% of their project budgets for public art
b. The distinction between those capital projects which should include public art on-site and which should contribute 1% of their budget to a pool of funds reserved for public art commission, acquisition, maintenance and conservation
c. General location(s) for the art not recommended for the site of a capital project.
d. The Town Council shall decide on which capital budgets shall include 1% for art and the general site(s) of the art, and shall appropriate funds. This set of decisions shall be known as the Public Art Plan for the given year.
3. Budget: 1% of the annual Capital Improvements Program shall be considered by the Council for reservation for public art. However, the base from which the 1% is calculated shall exclude grant funds for which the Town provides a local match, bond funds which do not allow such a use, and any other funds whose source would prevent their use for public art.
a. The project budget shall include all costs funded by the Town for designing, building and equipping the facility, including site work but excluding the acquisition of land.
b. The public art budget shall include all costs of artist selection; artist fee; fabrication; installation, including special plumbing, wiring or lighting; publicity; celebration; and any other cost related to the public art project.
4. Location:
5. Selection of Artists and Art:
a. The Public Arts Commission shall establish a process with written guidelines, available to the public, for the selection of artists and the review of the art proposed for acquisition. The process shall be open to the public and shall encourage participation by as wide a variety of citizens as possible.
b. The Public Arts Commission shall appoint a committee to be chaired by a Commission member and to include at least one representative each of the Public Art Commission, Town Council, the designer of the capital project (if relevant), the host department, the public at large; and two art professionals.
6. Execution of Artist’s Commission:
a. The artist’s contract shall define a process for his/her design development.
b. The artist’s contract shall define the review points during the design development
c. The artist shall be involved with the design development of the capital project if relevant and if the artist is chosen in time.
d. The process shall include a means of involving the public, including a public forum to consider the design concept.
e. It is possible that, after the Public Art Commission or its committee, Town staff and the public review the artist’s design concept, the artist will be asked to modify the design concept before being authorized to begin fabrication.
7. Acceptance of Art: The Town Manager shall accept the artwork before the final payment is made to the artist.
8. Accounting: Funds appropriated for public art shall be placed in a project budget or multi-year account(s) specified for this purpose. Grants, gifts and other revenue the Town may receive for the selection, establishment, maintenance and deaccessioning of public art shall also be placed in this multi-year fund.
Item 9 - Response to the Orange County Request for Town Recreation Project Priorities for Bond Sales Planned by the County
Finance Director Jim Baker explained that R-9 would set priorities for County bond sales for projects to be carried out in Chapel Hill. He noted that Orange County had discussed postponing the start of its four-year bonds sales from July 2002 to January 2003. Mr. Baker explained that the County proposes to sell the portion of bonds for Parks and Recreation/Open Space, beginning with $2,050,000 in the first year, $5,850,000 the second year, $5,000,000 the third, and $7,100,000 the fourth year. He suggested that the County include about $200,000 for Greenways projects in Town in the first sale, and then $100,000, $350,000, and $350,000 the next three years, respectively. Mr. Baker proposed including $3,500,000 for the Aquatic Center the second year, and $1,000,000 for Southern Community Park in years three and four. He proposed that the Town Council recommend this to Orange County.
COUNCIL MEMBER WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS, TO ADOPT R-9. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE COUNTY’S CONSIDERATION OF TOWN PRIORITIES FOR SCHEDULING BOND SALES OVER A PROPOSED FOUR-YEAR PERIOD (2002-03-04/R-9)
WHEREAS, the Orange Commissioners have tentatively proposed the sale of bonds approved by the voters in November, 2001 in phases over a four-year period; and
WHEREAS, $6.5 million of these bonds are allocated for Town Parks and Recreation projects and greenways; and
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners have requested that the Town prioritize its funding request for the issuance of bonds for these projects over the next four years based on a preliminary schedule proposed by the County;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby requests consideration by the County of the Town’s preliminary priorities for the sale of bonds in accord with the schedule below:
Bond Sales 1st year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year
Total County Parks &
Recreation/Open Space 2,050,000 5,850,000 5,000,000 7,100,000
Greenways 200,000 100,000 350,000 350,000
Aquatic Center - 3,500,000
Southern Community Park - - 1,000,000 1,000,000
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the County give consideration to potential changes to this schedule based on changing priorities by the Council that could be mutually negotiated with the County over the proposed four-year period.
This the 4th day of March, 2002.
Item 9.1 - Review of the 2025 Tier 2 Alternative Transportation Scenarios
Transportation Planner David Bonk discussed the 14 alternatives being reviewed by the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), and others, in a process mandated by the federal government. He displayed a map showing conditions that planners believe would exist in the region on major roadways with improvements in place that are currently programmed in the State's CIP and currently underway or anticipated within the next fiscal year. Mr. Bonk explained that traffic volumes along major roadways and the congestion levels for those roadways were both represented on the map. He pointed out that all of the major corridors in Chapel Hill would experience significant levels of congestion under this scenario. Therefore, all of the other scenarios are being tested against this one, he said.
Mr. Bonk stated that the packet included the 14 alternatives (grouped into those that focus on highway improvements, those that focus on transit improvements, and one that is a catchall of all the improvements envisioned) as well as comments on how each has performed. He indicated the attached table and noted the cost of each scenario, pointing out that #14 was more expensive than the region can afford. Mr. Bonk said that the alternatives will be reviewed by the TAC, which will select three to be tested again with more details. The hope is that one preferred alternative will result, Mr. Bonk explained, adding that planners did not believe that any of the alternatives should be carried forward without changes. He noted that the three to be tested probably should be composites that include elements of the different alternatives.
Mr. Bonk, pointing out that the other issue is cost, noted the summary attached to the packet that addressed some of the money issues. He explained that all of the funding models project a different amount of future funding needed over the 25-year period, adding that the TAC will be asked to decide which of those financial models the region feels comfortable pursuing. This will in large part dictate what alternatives can be included, Mr. Bonk said, even though most of them exceed the amount of spending that can be expected under the models being presented.
Mayor Foy pointed out that alternative #14 costs about $7 billion, and remarked that this was why that one was not an option. Mr. Bonk noted that alternative #14 also includes some roadway improvements that local governments might not pursue. Mayor Foy pointed out that the attached R-9.1 was being proposed to be transmitted to the TAC as the Council's comments.
Council Member Strom asked about the potential revenue sources on page 11. He wondered if there was a larger menu that the TAC would consider. Mr. Bonk replied that the only funding sources that were being carried were those listed, adding that it would be appropriate for the Council to add funding sources if it has them. Council Member Strom asked if the fuel tax could be higher, and Mr. Bonk replied that the Council should comment on that if it feels that the fuel tax could be raised to fund these improvements and if there is a certain level of tax that they feel is appropriate.
Mayor Foy stated that the appropriate way to proceed would be for someone to move the resolution and then the Council could modify it if they wish. Mr. Horton noted that traditionally the comments that the Council adopts become their principle comments. But, the representatives have always had some flexibility to try and accomplish the Council's objectives, he said, and they have not been bound precisely except when the Council has so instructed.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED R-9.1, AND COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON SECONDED.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted that most people have a pretty good idea of how Chapel Hill will look over the next 25 years but do not know what will occur south and west of Town. She said that transportation committees have always stressed the importance of improving bicycle/pedestrian transit and automobile usage even though Chapel Hill's demographics indicate that a lot of people will depend on cars.
Mayor pro tem Evans suggested looking more broadly at issues such as traffic congestion. She asked if "fixed guideways" means that an additional lane would be added so that buses will not be caught in congested traffic. Otherwise, she said, people will choose to use alternatives. Mr. Bonk replied that a large part of northern Chatham County was included in the land use projections that went into the model. He said that planners had notified Chatham County that some of its proposed development would exceed projections and could cause problems. Mr. Bonk said that the model network also would include land west of Carrboro, as well as Hillsborough and Durham and Wake Counties. Mr. Bonk added that planners are confident that they have considered, as much as they can, all the growth that is occurring in the region. He said that the have projected University growth as well.
Mr. Bonk stated that they also had considered regional demographics, but that he was not certain if the aging population had been included. Council Member Verkerk suggested that he contact the Highway Safety Research Commission for information on senior citizens and driving.
Regarding highway improvement, Mr. Bonk referred to a list of different alternatives that were being evaluated and the roadway improvements associated with them. He pointed out that there were a number of roadway improvements assumed in the various alternatives. Mayor Foy commented that these alternatives were like modules that could be arranged anyway you want. Mr. Horton added that almost all of them assume at least moderate highway improvements.
Council Member Strom said that he "wholeheartedly agreed" with the eight points in the Manager's recommendation, adding that it would be very important to pull out the Hillsboro to Chapel Hill rail corridor on page 16 and examine that carefully. Council Member Strom remarked that the railways seemed redundant and had caused concern in some Chapel Hill neighborhoods. Mr. Bonk agreed that the effects of these regional alternatives on Chapel Hill must be discussed, adding that planners cannot tell how any of these alternatives would affect Airport Road or 15/501, for example, because they do not yet have that data. Council Member Strom said that was why he had praised the eight points. They make it very clear that the Town needs more local analysis to understand this, he said.
Mayor Foy pointed out that the process is winnowing down the analysis, and Council Member Strom agreed.
Council Member Harrison asked if the Town would study this again. Mr. Bonk replied that the TAC meeting had been postponed to the second Wednesday of April. The deadline assumes approval in May, he said.
Council Member Strom asked to add the following language at the end of #8 in R-9.1: "including up to a 10-cent per gallon motor fuel tax, tobacco tax revenue, including real estate transfer tax revenues, and additional alternatives."
Council Members Ward and Harrison accepted that as a friendly amendment.
Mayor Foy asked how exactly the local government would consider the options. Mr. Bonk replied that he could bring something back to the Council if they wanted to discuss this again before the April TAC meeting.
Council Member Ward spoke in favor of that idea, adding that he was leaning toward alternatives 11, 12, and 13 and would like get a response to that from the TAC.
Mayor Foy suggested that the Council try to eliminate some of the alternatives. Mr. Horton said it would be useful to know if the Council finds any of the alternatives not workable for any reason.
Mayor Foy noted that alternative 14 obviously was not an option and that alternative #1 probably is not an option either. He said that since the Town had traditionally been more interested in intensive transit and fixed guideway options, alternatives 1-7 might not be of interest.
Council Member Strom agreed.
Council Member Ward said that he was not in favor of high occupancy toll lanes because it is not socially acceptable to allow the rich to get places faster.
Mayor Foy asked to modify item #5 to include "and description" after "evaluation." The mover and seconder both accepted that change.
Mayor Foy noted that the item would come back at another meeting before April for further analysis on some of the options and funding sources. Mr. Horton asked if the Council wished to eliminate the high occupancy toll alternative in #5. The Council agreed by consensus to leave it in for now.
Council Member Strom asked if he needed to add the Hillsborough/Chapel Hill rail corridor to the resolution. Mr. Bonk said that they will segment out the fixed guideway corridors when they bring it back.
RESOLUTION R-9.1, AS MODIFIED BY TWO AMENDMENTS, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE WITH COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO 2025 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2002-03-04/R-9.1)
WHEREAS, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee is preparing a 2025 Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, as part of the development of the 2025 Plan the Transportation Advisory Committee is analyzing alternative transportation scenarios; and
WHEREAS, 14 alternative transportation scenarios have been identified and analyzed; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the analysis of the 14 alternatives;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council submits the following comments and recommendations to the Transportation Advisory Committee.
1. Include expanded local bus systems, fixed guideway corridors and high occupancy vehicle/toll lanes in the alternatives to be developed for further evaluation. Extensive roadway improvements should be minimized.
2. Provide more detailed information on the specific impacts of each of the 14 alternatives on the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area should be provided and evaluated prior to the development of the next set of alternatives.
3. Provide specific ridership information for each fixed guideway corridor evaluated in the 14 alternatives.
4. Refine the Moderate and Intensive Local Bus networks to produce greater differences. Include Chapel Hill fare free policy in all alternatives.
5. Include a more refined evaluation and description of the high occupancy vehicle and high occupancy toll alternatives.
6. Incorporate the Council’s request to evaluate following fixed guideway corridors in the Tier 3 alternatives:
-Between the proposed fixed guideway station at the Gateway area and the Horace Williams property.
-Along NC 86, between I-40 and Southern Village.
-Along U.S. 15-501/Franklin Street, between I-40 and Carrboro.
7. Coordinate the development of a financial plan for the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan with the Capital Area Transportation Advisory Committee.
8. Allow more time for local governments to consider the options for additional funding sources prior to endorsement by the Transportation Advisory Committee including up to a 10 cent per gallon motor fuel tax, tobacco tax revenue, real estate transfer tax revenue and additional alternatives.
This the 4th day of March, 2002.
Council Member Ward asked what "network congestion percentage" means. Mr. Bonk explained that it means how much of the roadway network in the region is experiencing congestion that is 120% of its capacity. This would be equivalent to exceeding level of service D, Mr. Bonk said.
Item 10 - Resolution Considering Appointment to More Than One Advisory Board
Attorney Ralph Karpinos explained that this item was in response to a petition from Steve Manton asking the Council to consider allowing citizens to serve on more than one advisory board, since dual membership on standing boards is not permitted under the Council's current policies. He stated that he and the Manager were recommending that the Council consider a modification which would allow a citizen to serve on the Board of Adjustment and on one other standing board other than the Planning Board and the Historic District Commission. Mr. Karpinos said that if the Council was interested in making the modification then he would suggest modifying the resolution to read as follows: "Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, service of an individual on a standing board, with the exception of the Planning Board and Historic District Commission, shall not prohibit service of that individual on the Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment."
Council Member Ward clarified that this new wording would still prohibit any conflict of interest resulting from people serving on dual committees. Mr. Karpinos replied that it would because the only boards whose decisions can be appealed to the Board of Adjustment are the Historic District Commission and the Planning Board.
Council Member Verkerk said that from a pragmatic point of view allowing citizens to be on two or three boards might mean that attendance will be lower on boards in general. She noted that getting a quorum on some boards already was a problem.
Mr. Horton said that Mr. Manton had felt disappointed that he had not had an opportunity to be of greater service to the community. Mr. Manton felt that serving on both the Board of Adjustment and some other board that met more regularly and had more activity would have allowed him to more fully meet his civic obligations, Mr. Horton said.
Council Member Evans noted that there usually is a lot of community interest in serving on Town boards. She suggested that someone who feels s/he is not providing enough service to the community might switch to another more active board.
Council Member Strom suggested that the Council take no action. He added that he had been inquiring about how other communities were filling boards and would bring that information in later in the year. Several Council members suggested that this item be incorporated into that report when it comes back.
Item 11 - Appointments
a. Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Board of Directors.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED R-11, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, APPOINTING COUNCIL MEMBER BATEMAN BE THE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD FOR A THREE-YEAR TERM. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A TOWN REPRESENTATIVE TO THE ORANGE COMMUNITY HOUSING AND LAND TRUST BOARD OF DIRECTORS (2002-03-04/R-11)
WHEREAS, Orange Community Housing and Land Trust has requested that the Town appoint a Town representative to the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Board of Directors;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby appoints Council Member Flicka Bateman as its Town representative to the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Board of Directors for a three year term to begin this spring.
This the 4th day of March, 2002.
Item 12 - Petitions
1. Mayor Foy regarding Employer/Employee Housing.
Mayor Foy asked whether the Council would be interested in working with representatives from Orange County and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School Board to explore their potential interest in the development of employer/employee housing for school teachers and local and County government employees. He noted that the Town and County jointly own the Greene Tract and that teachers and employees are among those who have difficulty living within city limits. Mayor Foy said that the Town does not have sufficient demand to do this alone and that it needs a partner. The County is a potential partner in this, he explained, because the Town and County own land together and have a common interest in affordable housing in Chapel Hill.
Council Member Bateman supported the idea, but expressed concern about whittling away the Greene Tract. Mayor Foy said that he was not suggesting whittling the Greene Tract but was pointing out that the Town has the financial model with the University, owns land in common with the County, and has a common interest in affordable housing. He said that it seemed as though the University, and maybe the County, might like to go along with the Town on such a project. Mayor Foy added that there might be other locations and pointed out that location is not specified in his petition.
Council Member Ward agreed with the idea of exploring other partnerships besides the University.
Mayor Foy suggested providing Orange County with the information that the Town has to see whether they want to participate.
Council Member Bateman supported exploring the idea of making formal contact with the County.
Council Member Verkerk also supported the idea, but suggested pinning the University down as well as to whether they intend to participate.
Council Member Strom agreed that the Town should look for other partners.
Mayor pro tem Evans asked why there seemed to be reluctance to share this with the private sector, which would be the Town's best hope for providing housing. Mayor Foy said that he would take the Council's discussion as authorization to go forward.
Item 13 - Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items
5d. Response to Petition from Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC), pulled by Council Member Strom.
Council Member Strom remarked that the report seemed to present the process that was underway as an alternative to a design competition. He pointed out that the Town had gotten a tremendous amount of information when it had done a competition at Gateway, and argued that they should seriously consider the proposal from SEAC. Council Member Strom said that a competition would sharpen the Town's focus and bring some excellent information. He wondered if other Council members agreed with the idea of keeping options open and making this decision later on.
Council Member Verkerk agreed that having a design competition would benefit all.
Council Member Ward expressed support for keeping the option open and reevaluating it at the conclusion of the workshop process that the Town just started.
Mayor Foy noted that the Town would need to have more specificity before requesting proposals.
Council Member Wiggins recalled that when the Town held a design contest before it had presented guidelines. She agreed that a contest would be useful at the end of the process when the Town is more focused on what it wants.
Item 14 - Request for Closed Session to Discuss Property Acquisition,
Personnel, and Litigation Matters
COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO MOVE INTO CLOSED SESSION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).
The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m.