SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 24, 2003 AT 5:00 P.M.

Mayor Foy called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m.

Council members present were Pat Evans, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Council Member Mark Kleinschmidt was absent, excused.

Council Member Ed Harrison arrived at 5:10 p.m.

Council Member Flicka Bateman arrived at 5:14 p.m. 

Also present were Council Members-elect Sally Greene and Cam Hill.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Engineering Director George Small, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Senior Planner Phil Hervey, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.

Item 1 - Work Session on Suggested Policy and Procedures

for Traffic Calming Measures

Mr. Horton explained that the Council had traditionally considered traffic calming proposals on an ad hoc basis. There was a fairly long list of current requests, he said, so the Council might want to consider a more formal way of evaluating them and establishing priorities. Mr. Horton said that Engineering Director George Small and Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli had developed options for the Council's consideration.  Mr. Small summarized the following three options:

· Continue with the existing process.  This would mean continuing to consider requests on a first come/first served basis.

· Establish a formal policy and procedure for traffic calming. This would mean accepting requests over the year and bringing them forward as part of the Council's budgeting process. It would not include assessing costs to property owners.

· Assess traffic calming project costs to property owners. This would be similar to the second option, except that costs would be assessed to properties that benefit.

Council Member Verkerk asked how much more time option two would take than option one.  Mr. Small replied that it would take a little longer because the applications would be addressed only once a year. Under the current process, he said, the staff brings requests to the Council when they receive them. If someone were to come in right after the assessments then it could take almost a year, Mr. Small explained. 

Council Member Ward inquired about the current timeframe between when a request comes in and when something actually gets changed on the ground.  Mr. Small replied that the staff usually does about six weeks worth of front-end work, and then they bring the request to the Council.  If the Council chooses to proceed, he continued, there is about more six weeks before construction starts.  Council Member Ward asked if there was an option that falls between the current three-to-six month process and the 12-month process recommended in option two.  He wondered about cutting the time in half so the process would be more responsive.  Mr. Small replied that the Town could collect requests for less than a year.  He noted, however, that this would create difficulties with regard to funding allocations.  But it might be possible to allocate funds and spend some at the halfway point and the rest at the end of the year, he said.

Mr. Horton commented that the Council could consider projects twice a year, using the funds that were available.  But the funds could be exhausted after the first pass through leaving none to assign after that, he pointed out.

Council Member-elect Sally Greene noted that neighborhoods that had been through the process before could have advantages over others who might feel quite daunted by it.  She asked which cities the staff had looked at and whether those were using a two-thirds majority standard.  Mr. Small replied that the staff had looked at Greensboro, Charlotte and Cary, which had ranged from a simple 51% majority to 75%.  He explained that the staff had recommended more than a simple majority because that would make it less likely that objections would arise later on. 

Mayor Foy noted that, under the current system, one citizen may bring in a request, which the Council receives and then initiates the process. Mr. Small pointed out, however, that the staff would not normally proceed on the basis of a request from only one person.  Determining whether or not more neighbors agreed would be part of the initial work, he said.

Mayor Foy verified that there was only $4,000 in the Town budget for traffic calming.   He noted that bond money would not immediately be used for this purpose.  Funds would have to be appropriated over the next several years out of general revenues, Mayor Foy explained. 

Mayor pro tem Evans remarked that some traffic calming measures cost little or nothing.    For example, allowing parking on the street slows cars down, she said.  Mayor pro tem Evans also pointed out that better traffic signals could help prevent people from taking shortcuts.  And adding bike lanes gives the impression of narrower roads, which tends to lower speed limits, she said.

Mayor pro tem Evans expressed an aversion to speed bumps, which force drivers to slow down to 15 mph.  They are not sending the right message, which is to drive at the speed limit, she said.  Mayor pro tem Evans said that posted speed limits were not realistic.  She hoped that there would not be speed bumps in every neighborhood, she said, and she suggested that neighbors talk among themselves about reducing speed in their neighborhoods.

Council Member Verkerk expressed reluctance to putting the Council in the position of choosing among a prioritized list of neighborhoods.  Mayor Foy asked if she had an alternative approach, and Council Member Verkerk replied that she merely wanted to point out that the Council might find itself in the uncomfortable position of mediating between neighborhoods.

Council Member Strom inquired about the ramifications of option two for the Town Engineering Department.  Mr. Small replied that it would depend on how many requests come in.  There was a glut currently, he said, but added that the Department should be able to handle requests with existing staff if requests come in on a regular basis.  Mr. Horton commented, though, that the Town was not handling all of the traffic engineering issues as well as it should be.  He noted that Town Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli had to do technician work on occasion even though he was a highly skilled engineer.

Council Member Harrison suggested that the Council consider hiring a consultant.  He noted that there were neighborhoods where traffic calming measures could not be installed and others where traffic was controlled through multi-way stop signs.  Council Member Harrison asked about the possibility of having a staged approach, whereby the Town would systematically look at having stop signs on cross streets "and such."  Mr. Small replied that the Town probably would continue receiving requests for stop signs, and for adding or removing on-street parking, separately from these traffic-calming measures.  If a request came in from a neighborhood that would be satisfied with a set of stop signs, then the staff probably would not run it through the process but would just try it, he said.

Council Member Harrison verified that such requests were handled on the Council's Consent Agenda or Information Reports.  He asked for Mr. Horton's opinion on hiring a consulting firm.  Mr. Horton replied that the answer would depend somewhat on how much work the Council wanted the staff to get done all at once.  If the Council wanted a lot of work done quickly then that would take resources which the staff does not have, Mr. Horton explained.

Council Member Ward expressed support for the second option.  He stated that the Council's decisions had tended to be arbitrary and lacking in a broad understanding of budgetary implications.  Council Member Ward recommended using 51% of the service area rather than 66%.  The level of neighborhood support would be one way of ranking neighborhoods, he said, but suggested that 51% would be adequate for a neighborhood to be considered. 

Mayor Foy ascertained that the Council could initiate traffic claming for any Town-maintained road regardless of the policy it adopts.  Mr. Horton pointed out that the Council could amend its policy any way it saw fit, either systematically or on a case-by-case basis.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Small to comment on Key Point 2 under Service Area, in Option 2, which Mr. Small had referred to as "challenging" for the staff.  He asked Mr. Small to encapsulate the challenges and explain how it would differ from the current situation.  Mr. Small explained that traffic calming could sometimes dramatically affect other streets in the area, such as cul de sacs that must use the main street to get in and out.  He noted that the extent of the "service area" would be highly subjective and that reasonable people could disagree about it.

Council Member Strom commented that such things could be polarizing.  He was comfortable with the way the Town was doing it now, he said, but was willing to discuss it further.  Council Member Strom emphasized his view that the Town should require two-thirds on the petition process.  The Council needs an indication of strong desire in the neighborhood before jumping into the process, he said.  Council Member Strom asked that this be left open as a policy issue for the Council to discuss further.  Mr. Small remarked that one problem is that it raises the question, "two-thirds of what?"   Council Member Strom agreed, adding that the current system works in spite of its flaws.

Council Member Wiggins stated that some policy probably was necessary given the increased number of requests for traffic-calming structures.  She suggested that the Council treat traffic calming requests in the same way they treat sidewalk requests.  Collecting requests seemed fair, said Council Member Wiggins, noting that adding stop signs and controlling parking could be done as it has been, since that requires hardly any money.  Council Member Wiggins suggested establishing a financial limit over which a traffic-calming request would go on a waiting list.

Council Member Bateman agreed with requiring a two-thirds majority because that would not polarize neighborhoods.

Mayor pro tem Evans added that many people sign petitions in order to be neighborly, but she agreed that requiring a larger percentage on petitions was important.  Mayor pro tem Evans suggested that the police determine through surveillance whether or not there is a speeding problem.  That might serve as a deterrent to speeding, she said.

Council Member Verkerk determined from Mr. Small that a neighborhood could languish on the priority list while others surpass it each year.

Council Member Ward pointed out the difficulty of establishing a service area.  He wondered about capturing requests on a yearly basis and having the staff and Transportation Board evaluate the cost and number of people it would support and affect, and develop criteria for a priority list. 

Council Member Wiggins suggested perhaps assigning points for how long a neighborhood has been on the priority list.  That might keep the neighborhood from being bumped by others, she said. 

BY A SHOW OF HANDS, COUNCIL MEMBERS STATED A PREFERENCE FOR OPTION #2 RATHER THAN OPTION #1.  THE VOTE WAS 7-1, WITH COUNCIL MEMBER STROM OPPOSED. THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR PURSUING OPTION #3.

In response to Council Member-elect Greene's earlier comment about the task of contacting neighbors, Mr. Horton suggested that the staff might send out a survey so that all would have an opportunity to express their opinions without intimidation.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO REFER COUNCIL COMMENTS TO THE MANAGER AND TRANSPORTATION BOARD.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 2 - Continuation of Work Session on

Horace Williams Citizens Committee Report

Mayor Foy asked if Council members wanted to continue discussing page 22, particularly with regard to the Transportation Board's comment on Strategy H, which he favored incorporating.

Council Member Ward remarked that some had wanted special attention given to Airport Road.  He recommended that safety on Seawell School Road, Homestead Road and Estes Drive be addressed as well.

Mayor Foy noted that the Council already had included those roads. Mayor Foy ascertained that there were no comments on Goal 2B, Strategies A through G, on page 24-25.

FISCAL EQUITY PRINCIPLE.

Principle 1.

Mayor Foy proposed that the staff comment reiterated what they already had said to the University.  

Goal 1.

With regard to Strategy B, Mayor Foy commented that the Town should encourage UNC to explain its financial model so that the Town would have a much better idea of what to expect. He noted that Strategy C recommends that UNC provide a fiscal impact statement.  This probably relates to a projection for what costs to the Town would be, he said.

Council Member-elect Cam Hill explained that the Committee had assumed the Town would have a good idea of what each project would cost and what kind of contribution it would make to the Town, through taxes or a payment in lieu of taxes.

Mayor Foy said that he was trying to understand whether that would be better than assessing the development at the property tax rate based on its value. Council Member-elect Hill replied that it would amount to the same thing since the impact statement would be limited to size, worth and property taxes paid by a building.  Mayor Foy noted that UNC might not pay property taxes but would need to pay some equivalent.  He anticipated that the property would be revalued every four years and the payment-in-lieu would then be equivalent to the tax rate, he said.

Council Member-elect Hill explained that the Committee had thought this would be discussed prior to zoning approval in order to know the value of the property in advance.   Mr. Horton interjected that one advantage of using a payment-in-lieu was that some buildings would be used solely for University purposes and, consistent with NC law, the University might not be able to pay taxes or an equivalent amount on those.  So, collecting a payment in lieu of taxes on every opportunity that it can helps the Town offset costs generated by buildings used solely for University purposes, Mr. Horton said.

Council Member Verkerk wondered who would define "non-academic purposes." Mayor Foy agreed that there had been a problem with the definition with regard to Elkin Hills.

Council Member Bateman said that the 1999 report on fiscal equity contained wording that might be appropriate.

Mayor Foy asked how comments from the Council would be transmitted to the Committee, and Mr. Horton replied that a transcript of the Council's discussions would be transmitted to the Committee, with summary comments.  He pointed out that tapes would also be available.

Mayor Foy suggested that the calculation be relatively simple.  He could imagine the University objecting to a fiscal impact statement on the grounds that it costs a lot of money, goes into details, and so forth, he said.  Mayor Foy added that he did not object to assessing UNC at the same rate as everyone else.  Council Member-elect Hill explained that the Committee had thought it would be possible to generate a table based on square footage and usage and then come up with a rough figure.  It was not meant to be something that would require a great deal of study and expense, he said.

Council Member-elect Hill asked Mr. Horton if payment in lieu-of-taxes seemed preferable to him because the Town would not be limited in how much it received.  Mr. Horton replied that getting a payment-in-lieu of taxes or of something that was the equivalent of taxes, on every building possible could generate a number in excess of what the fiscal impact might be of a particular building.  There would be other occasions in which a building might generate costs but the Town would not receive anything because it would be a tax-exempt University operation, he said.  Mr. Horton pointed out that any excess payment that the Town receives on one building would offset costs on another for which UNC would not pay anything.

Mayor pro tem Evans suggested that the Committee come up with a term other than "fiscal impact," since determining that is an arduous process.  She recommended stating that the Town wants the equivalent to the property taxes that would be assessed for private property.

Mayor Foy noted the difficulty of identifying the fair market value of some properties.  Mr. Horton suggested looking at the value established for insurance purposes in the State system.  That had been a reasonably good indictor in the past for other purposes, he said.

Council Member Strom noted that Town services, such as fire protection, must be considered along with the site-by-site valuation.  And there were other services that the Manager could list, which were part of the equation and should be specifically referenced, he pointed out.

Council Member Bateman explained that she had been referring earlier to a J J & R report.  She recommended that the Citizens Committee look at that report to see if they could draw some suggestions from it.

WATER AND SEWER/STORMWATER MANAGEMENT/AIR QUALITY

PRINCIPLES.

Principle 1.

Mayor Foy said that this Principle specifically addresses working with OWASA, funding for OWASA, and the capacity of OWASA to serve eight million square feet.  This is a serious issue that the Town Council will have to address, he said.

Principle 2.

Mayor Foy noted that the staff's main comment addressed the stormwater master plan for the site.  He described the staff's recommendation as a good idea and suggested incorporating it.

Council Member Harrison expressed appreciation for the staff's references to "all existing intermittent and perennial streams…" when commenting on Goal 2.  This is land where, by State law, the Town cannot explicitly apply the RCD, he said. 

With regard to the staff comment on Goal 2, Strategy D, Council Member Ward suggested installing monitoring instruments on Bolin Creek as well as on Crow Branch.

Council Member Verkerk verified that the staff had walked all of that property at one time or another.  It had been "pretty thoroughly mapped," Mr. Horton said.

Mayor Foy asked when the staff would know where all the intermittent streams were, according to the Town's new stormwater management guidelines.  Mr. Horton replied that it would depend on what rules the Council decides on with regard to developing that property. 

With regard to Council Member Harrison's earlier comment about the RCD, Mr. Horton pointed out that the Council had previously determined that they could establish a district that had the same basic requirements as the RCD.  It would not be an overlay in that case, he said, so it would apply. 

Council Member Strom asked if the language in the Staff Comment on Goal 2 could be expanded to discus watersheds rather than the site.  Mr. Horton replied that a stormwater master plan for this site that would achieve the Council's objectives would necessarily have to consider offsite impacts.  Council Member Strom ascertained that Mr. Horton believed the Staff Comment adequately addressed offsite impacts.

Council Member-elect Greene asked why the Town could not apply an overlay zone to University property.  Mr. Karpinos answered that it was State law.

Council Member Ward noted that capturing stormwater for reuse was different from capturing the cleanest wastewater.  Referring back to the Staff Comment on Goal 2, Strategy C for Principle 1, on page 29, he suggested saying, "re-use wastewater and stormwater."   Also, under Goal 1, Strategy E, on page 28, Council Member Ward recommended including "water" as well.  Those strategies should also include harvesting of stormwater for reuse, he said.

With regard to Goal 2, Strategy E, on page 29, Mayor Foy recalled that the Council had previously discussed an inspection position.  Ms. Berndt agreed that this was the same position that the Council had addressed earlier. 

Council Member Ward asked to return to the Fiscal Equity Principle, Goal 1, Strategy E, on page 27.  He wondered if Council members thought this was important and inquired about the Committee's discussion regarding it. Council Member-elect Hill replied that a 1999 report had discussed UNC's contributions to the Town.  Committee members felt it was time to do another report on the same topic with a different Committee makeup, he said.  Council Member-elect Hill stated that many items had not been questioned or seemed excessively weighted in the first report.  So the Citizens Committee thought the topic should be looked at more critically, he said.

Mayor Foy ascertained that Council Member-elect Hill was not referring to Carolina North alone but to "the whole picture."

Mayor pro tem Evans stated that a Strategy here should focus only on Carolina North because that's what the Citizens Committee had been asked to address. It would be inappropriate to ask for a rewrite, she said, but added that a new Committee, if one is necessary, should have broad representation and include people from the Town and University.

Mayor Foy had no objection to keeping this in the report, since it seemed like something the University and Town could agree to and which might be useful, he said.       

Principle 3.

With regard to the Transportation Board and Staff Comments on Goal 3, Council Member Harrison suggested that the University explore evaluation of particulate pollutants in the evaluation of air pollution.

With regard to Goal 3, Strategy H, Council Member Ward pointed out that only two buildings in the country had platinum certification.  Platinum certification was so rare that it was not reasonable to ask that every Carolina North building achieve it, he said.  Council Member Ward stressed that the Town should be prepared to abide by everything it asks UNC to do.  Is the Town prepared to build all of its buildings to platinum certification, he asked.   

Mayor Foy noted that Strategy H says, "in the long term."  Council Member Ward remarked that that the Town was planning a new Operations Center and was not planning to run that through the Leadership in Energy and Design (LEED) process, let alone trying to achieve silver, gold or platinum. He recommended that Council Members read the LEED book before asking UNC to do reach that standard.

Council Member-elect Greene stated that she thought it seemed unrealistic when she first read Strategy H.  But the Town should not give up on having some idealistic standard in there, she said.  Ms. Greene suggested saying, "in the long term, insure that buildings are as environmentally sustainable as possible."  Also, she pointed out, the Town had not pursued some of the energy efficiency suggestions that a consultant had made earlier in the year.  Ms. Greene emphasized making sure that the Town does not lose track of those goals in the long run. 

Mr. Kabrick said that the Committee had seen Strategy H as a definable goal and a move by builders to a sustainable building program, whether it is silver, gold or platinum.  The Committee was in favor of starting with that standard, he said, and he agreed that the Town should think about the way it conducts business as well.  Mr. Kabrick explained that the Committee had seen this as an opportunity to set the tone for how the development would go forward.

Council Member Ward suggested leaving the first sentence, which asks that all buildings be LEED certified.  He pointed out that UNC already does that.  But it would be a significant challenge to make the University reach silver certification on all of its buildings, he explained.  Council Member Ward added that UNC buildings, though less than platinum, probably outstrip the performance in terms of energy efficiency of every other building in Chapel Hill. 

Mayor Foy suggested referring these remarks along with everything else and seeing what the Committee comes back with.

NATURAL AREAS/PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES PRINCIPLES.

Principle 1.

Mayor Foy described this as a key principle.  He stated that the Town needed to know what its options were and what the legal basis could be for some kind of long-term commitment. Council Member Wiggins added that the Town also needed to know the process for getting this done.  Since this is State property, the decision will be made somewhere other than this campus, she said.  Council Member Ward commented that it was within the legal realm for UNC to protect property in perpetuity.  He noted that NC State had done that with some of its land.

Principle 2.  No discussion.

Principle 3.  No discussion.

Principle 4.  No discussion.

TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE PRINCIPLES.

Principle 1.

With regard to Goal 1A, Strategy D, Mayor Foy suggested that the Council consider a strong statement of support for the public transit system that the Town has in place.  He described it as a work in progress that the Town had been building for 25 years, with significant success over the last two years. Mayor Foy noted that Carolina North, and all developments in Chapel Hill, present opportunities to continue building the Town's bus system.  He stressed that this development should support that bus system and not develop a private corridor between Main Campus and Carolina North.  Mayor Foy urged the Council to take a firm position on this issue. 

Council Member Harrison asked if that meant Chapel Hill Transit could convert to mass rapid transit for short stretches if a corridor were available.  Mayor Foy replied that the Town has a public transit system and is encouraging more and more passengers to use it.  The Town is building a network, he said, and Carolina North should be part of that network.  Is the Town going to develop that corridor along the current rail system, or is it going to bring people into the current infrastructure of the transit system, Mayor Foy asked.  He spoke against allowing a private corridor that serves only the two campuses and "turns its back on the Town."  Council Member Harrison agreed.

Council Member Strom described this issue as "clearly the bone of contention on the Committee."  He expressed agreement with Mayor Foy's comments, noting that Carolina North would present an opportunity to vigorously enhance and expand Chapel Hill Transit.  The transit component of the plan should serve the most citizens and have the broadest benefit across the entire community, said Council Member Strom.

Council Member Verkerk pointed out that people generally stay at their workplaces on campus.  The notion of thousands of people moving back and forth between campuses seemed unrealistic to her, she said.  Mayor Foy relied that if what Council Member Verkerk was saying was true then that would mean even less reason to have a transit corridor between the two campuses.  The corridor would be deserted, he said.

Mayor pro tem Evans remarked that the Town had not envisioned five million people using the bus system 20-25 years after it was started.  She pointed out that UNC's plan is for 50 years and recommended keeping all options open.  Mayor pro tem Evans added that, in the short term, the Town bus system would serve development there.  She pointed out that both Chapel Hill and Carrboro had approved developments with the understanding that those neighborhoods would be connected to transit.  Since the Town Council could not know what technologies might be in the future, she cautioned against closing off any options, including the rail corridor.

Council Member Ward described ignoring a transit corridor that the Town could have access to now as shortsighted.  It could be used for a footpath, bike path, or for rubber-tire trains or buses, he said.  Council Member Ward pointed out that the railway could be one loop of Chapel Hill Transit and agreed that the Town should keep that option open.

Council Member Wiggins stated her agreement with Council Members Ward and Evans.

Council Member Harrison pointed out that Mayor Foy had not suggested eliminating use of the corridor, but only that it be part of Chapel Hill Transit.  Council Member Harrison described Ottawa's sophisticated bus system and proposed that a similar approach would be right for Chapel Hill.  Carolina North should fit into the fabric of the community, he said.

Mayor Foy pointed out that even though Carolina North might be a 50-70 year plan the Town Council would have to address the first 10 or 20 years with specificity.  The Town needed to make sure that this connection, whatever it becomes, supports the Town's bus system, he said. Maybe there will be a rail system in the future, but the principle should be that Town wants this to be an opportunity to increase its public transit infrastructure, said Mayor Foy.  He urged Council members to focus on this during initial development. 

Council Member Wiggins agreed, and suggested referring Mayor Foy's recommendation back to the Committee as a Town principle.  The Council seemed to agree with the idea of using Chapel Hill Transit in the short run, she said, adding that Chapel Hill Transit should be able to incorporate options other than buses and should be the leader in providing transportation, whatever it is.

Council Member-elect Greene noted that the theme of the Committee's report was that UNC should be part of the community.  She recommended that the Town further educate citizens about the types of buses it is proposing.  These buses are smaller, more nimble, and "just as cool as trains," she said.

Council Member Strom pointed out that the capital investment for rail infrastructure is dramatically higher than for a bus rapid transit system.  He suggested that a point be added under Transportation Strategies that recommends some type of corridor and station location for a bus rapid transit stop on the Airport Road side of the Carolina North property.  Council Members Harrison and Strom debated whether there were adequate signals to achieve that, but they agreed that the idea should be assessed.  Council Member Harrison noted that the type of system needed on Airport Road was called "bus mixed transit."  He urged the Town to study the signal prioritization soon.

The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.