SUMMARY MINUTES OF A WORK SESSION
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
Wednesday, April 2, 2003 at 4:00 p.m.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Council members present were Flicka Bateman (arrived at 4:12 p.m.), Pat Evans, Ed Harrison, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, and Edith Wiggins.
Council Member Jim Ward was absent, excused.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Assistant Town Managers Sonna Loewenthal and Florentine Miller, Assistant to the Manager Bill Stockard, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Urban Forester Curtis Brooks, Internal Services Superintendent Bill Terry, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Information Technology Director Bob Avery, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Human Resources Director Pam Eastwood, Assistant to the Mayor Emily Dickens, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Principal Community Development Planner Loryn Barnes, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Mayor Foy suggested that the Council go through the list of agenda items and identify those the Council wished to discuss. The General Fund Preliminary Base Budget and Potential Additions for 2003-04 were distributed to Council members. Mayor Foy pointed out that the Capital Improvements Program (CIP) section was similar to the rest in that it had a base budget covering the Town's contractual obligations plus two scenarios adding various items. He recommended that Council members leave the work session with a general overall spending target and suggestions for what it should include.
Council members asked to discuss topics 1b (Increase in Commercial Refuse Collection Fees), 1f (Bi-weekly Collection of Vegetative Debris), and 1g (Commercial Refuse Collection). With regard to 1e (Report on Alternative Fuel Vehicles), Council Member Strom suggested looking at the applicable use of hybrids in the Town’s fleet of vehicles.
Council Member Harrison commented that 2a (Report on Economics of Using Small Buses) had answered his questions, and he did not need further discussion.
Council members noted the following additional reports for discussion:
2b. Report on Off-Street Parking Rates.
4e. Report on Square Footage Needs for Pottery Studio and other Arts and Crafts Programs.
4f. Report on Possible Use of Mobile Unit for Pottery Classes.
4i. Report on Terms of Lease of Chapel Hill Museum Basement as Potential Location of Parks and Recreation Activities.
4k. Schedule for Funding Greenways Projects.
5b. Report on Employee Turnover at Police Department, Including Salaries and New Employer Information.
5c. Comparison of Crime Data for Northside and Pine Knolls to Rest of Town.
7b. Follow-up on Petition regarding Ability of Small Contractors to Bid in Rehabilitation Work for Housing and Urban Development Funds.
7c. Proposed Schedule regarding Council Work Session on Housing Issues.
7e. Consideration of Additional Staff Member in Planning to Work on Transportation and Sidewalk/Pedestrian Issues.
7f. Report on Search for Grant Programs to Pay for IFC Shelter Renovations.
7g. Budget Proposal for Emissions Study.
10d. Resolution Requesting Additional Powell Bill Funds.
11a. Report on Development Review and Revenue from Development Fees.
Mayor Foy pointed out that part of the reason the Council does not need to talk about more items is that their questions had been answered in the efficient and useful format used by the staff to prepare the reports.
Item 1 - Public Works Department
With regard to Item 1b, Increase in Commercial Refuse Collection Fees, Mr. Heflin explained a preliminary analysis had shown that the Department could raise commercial fees and still remain competitive with the private sector. They would estimate additional revenue of about $21,000, he said. Mr. Heflin noted, however, that one private company was being extremely aggressive in trying to obtain additional customers.
With regard to Item 1g, Commercial Refuse Collection, Mr. Heflin noted two options for terminating the business altogether:
a. To retain and reassign personnel, which would save $650,000 the first year and then 387,000 annually; and
b. To eliminate personnel, which would save $708,000 the first year and then $521,000 annually.
Mr. Heflin explained that the primary advantage would be cost savings, which would include reductions in associated costs. He recommended reassigning people rather than eliminating positions, adding that employees could provide backup to existing tasks and processes. Mr. Heflin noted the impact on businesses that use the Town's commercial collection service. He said private service is available, but at a higher cost than the Town provides for multiple collections and for non-residential commercial customers.
With regard to the 1999 agreement with Orange County, Mr. Horton explained that the County had proposed some conditional statements to the Council at the time that the Council was considering changing landfill ownership. One of those conditions, he said, was that Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough would bear a proportional share of the cost and remain committed to making the enterprise economically viable. On February 22, 1999, Mr. Horton said, the Council had adopted a resolution acknowledging that statement and making a good faith commitment to work with the County to keep that enterprise fund viable.
Mr. Horton stated that if the Town wanted to get out of the business then the County might see that as contrary to the previous agreement. That is, unless the Council could assure them that the cost of the landfill and recycling would be supported, he said. Mr. Horton pointed out that one way to give that assurance would be to continue sending the same amount of material to the landfill, but doing that in a manner that is lawful could be challenging. He noted that the Town had not been able to figure out a lawful way of doing that in the past.
Mayor Foy asked why the Town was operating at a cost of $500,000 more than commercial firms. Mr. Heflin replied that commercial firms have different disposal costs than the Town and that they no longer serve their customers at the Town's more expensive landfill. Mr. Horton added that the cost of the recycling program was a key part of the tipping fee charged at the Orange County Landfill. The tipping fee has reached a level where it is driving customers away, Mr. Horton explained, noting that it is much higher than anywhere else in the surrounding area.
Mayor Foy pointed out that even if the Landfill's tipping fees were higher than commercial recycling firms, commercial firms must still pay some fee. Mr. Heflin explained that it is very difficult to make collection by collection comparisons to the private sector. They load costs on some parts of their business and losses on other parts, he said, and they use a different pay structure.
Mayor pro tem Evans pointed out that the Town would have no oversight authority with private collection, except through the Town’s Noise Ordinance. She remarked that private firms could collect at any time of the night or day. Mayor pro tem Evans asked how this would fit with the County's need for revenue for a transfer station. Mr. Horton acknowledged that the Town does not know all of the County's plans. He explained that the County was attempting to come up with a fee that would at least partially pay the cost of the recycling program. Mr. Horton said the goal is to continue bringing a high level of recycling service and to obtain the 61% reduction/diversion goal that was established some years ago.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted that the Town would have to pay for private collection if it stopped providing the service. She verified that this was reflected in the itemized net cost. Noting that the Town did not anticipate lowering taxes to compensate for removing a service, Mayor pro tem Evans argued that it was better to have oversight of the service than to remove it. She said, otherwise, the cost would be passed on to tenants of multi-family housing, and this was not the place for the Town to find money.
Council Member Strom pointed out that the Town was looking at a $1,325,000 shortfall for next year, which would mean an approximate three cent tax increase. In his view, the Town was subsidizing commercial trash collection to the tune of about $800,000, he said. Council Member Strom pointed out that this is two cents on everyone's property tax rate and that only three other towns in the State provide this service. He acknowledged there are some difficult contractual obligations, but argued that the Town was hurting its citizens by subsidizing the commercial sector and making it more expensive to live in Chapel Hill. Council Member Strom recommended dropping this model and perhaps charging a user fee. He wondered about maintaining the contract with Orange County but getting some direct charge for the disposal side. Council Member Strom noted this was the most expensive of all the options before the Council, and urged the staff and Council members to figure out a way to get some significant savings by making adjustments.
Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed with the suggestion to look more closely at this issue. He inquired about residential trash pick-up that occurs in the commercial context of multi-family housing and asked about the cost of the Town continuing to collect from multi-family housing. Mr. Horton agreed to prepare a response to those questions. Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that the time of pick-up would matter, agreeing that residents would not want trash picked up at 5:00 a.m., but concerns about that were "kind of red herring arguments". Mr. Heflin pointed out that the Town was not charging multi-families anything on the revenue side. If that were added in, he said, the difference in disposal costs would be much closer.
Council Member Wiggins asked Council Member Strom why he thought Downtown businesses, which pay taxes, were not entitled to one day pick-up just as others are who pay taxes. She did not see this as subsidizing businesses, she said, any more than it subsidizes individual homeowners who have their trash picked up and disposed of. Council Member Wiggins asked him to explain the philosophical difference as he sees it. Council Member Strom replied that the Town has very few powers as a legislative body and one of its powers is zoning. He said this delineation seemed very clear to him: the Town does not have an obligation to provide the same services to the different categories that the Town has the authority to create. Council Member Strom pointed out that some property has a much higher value because the Town has designated it as commercial.
Council Member Wiggins asked Council Member Strom to explain this in more detail, commenting that she knows people who bought their home for $80,000 and say they will sell it for $600,000. Council Member Strom replied that when someone has a commercial designation they have the ability to generate revenue from their property. That is a distinction in class, he said, which creates a different set of obligations. Council Member Wiggins stated that she could not follow this logic and asked why businesses would be entitled to a lower class of service from the Town. She added that the Town receives benefits from businesses, such as housing, goods and services.
Council Member Wiggins wondered if the Town would suggest saving even more money by having businesses pay for their own fire protection. Some services should be basic, she said. Council Member Strom pointed out that fire protection benefits the entire community. Council Member Wiggins said a business does as well. Council Member Strom said the Town's ability to classify a property as non-residential allows that property owner to have a higher appraised value and to generate revenue from that. He said that is very different from a residential classification. Council Member Strom stressed that it looked to him as though taxpayers were paying two cents on the tax rate to provide trash pick-up to non-residential customers in Chapel Hill. Council Member Wiggins remarked that this was just one way of looking at it, and the Town could save a lot more if it discontinued residential pick-up as well.
Council Member Verkerk thanked Council Members Strom and Wiggins for the discussion, adding that she had learned a lot from it. She then asked Mr. Heflin how much higher than 10% the Town could go before pricing itself out of the competition. Mr. Heflin explained the difficulty in determining those figures, but estimated that the Town probably could comfortably increase it by 15%. He noted that some companies were being extremely aggressive in undercutting competition, but most are 20%, or more, higher than the Town.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that the Town of Carrboro had begun charging for commercial pick-up, and asked if Carrboro's businesses where switching to private haulers as a result. Mr. Heflin replied that the unofficial report was that Carrboro had lost 40 of their 90 commercial customers.
Mayor pro tem Evans said one Carrboro restaurant had stopped serving lunch after the commercial fee was instituted. She advised Council members to balance all factors rather than just looking at dollars when considering this issue.
Council Member Wiggins recommended that local businesses and the Chamber of Commerce be involved if the Council decides to discontinue this service. She noted that this was the Manager's recommendation. Mr. Horton agreed that there should be a period during which the Town would provide information and allow people a chance to make plans.
Mayor Foy suggested that the Council give the Manager some direction in the preparation of the budget. He said he was not in favor of Option 2 under any circumstances, and recommended letting employees know that their jobs were not on the line.
Council Member Wiggins said “that is where we would save the most money."
Council members agreed by consensus that they were not in favor of Option 2.
Mayor Foy suggested taking a straw vote on Option 1.
Council Member Kleinschmidt expressed support for Option 1, but said he would like to factor in the cost of continuing to provide for multi-family housing.
Mr. Horton noted that the staff would provide four reports in response to issues the Council had raised. He said these reports, which would be ready by the budget work session on April 28, would address the following:
IN A STRAW VOTE ON OPTION ONE, AN INCREASE OF 10% OR MORE IN COMMERCIAL REFUSE COLLECTION FEES FOR THIS YEAR IF THE TOWN DOES NOT ELIMINATE COMMERCIAL PICK-UP, PASSED (5-3) WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS BATEMAN, FOY, STROM, KLEINSCHMIDT, AND VERKERK VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EVANS, HARRISON, AND WIGGINS VOTING NAY.
With regard to the first report, Council Member Strom verified that Mr. Horton would discuss the issue of direct recovery of the disposal fees.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Heflin to provide a brief description of item 1g, Commercial Refuse Collection.
Mr. Heflin spoke about changing from a weekly to a bi-weekly schedule. If the goal is to continue to provide a predictable, regular level of service, he said, the Town can do that with some caveats, such as the problems associated with storms. He would give a "qualified probably" on maintaining the level of service, Mr. Heflin said. He added, though, that the Town probably would not save money, since achieving savings would mean eliminating an entire crew. Mr. Heflin stated that he did not know a way to change the Town's basic system of collection to eliminate an entire collection crew. He noted that the Town had added nearly 1,200 homes in the last few years and was at a critical mass in solid waste collection. The Town is barely finishing collections now, Mr. Heflin explained, adding that they will have to consider a different system of collection or adding a crew. He said to add additional uncertainty to the collection method would throw the Department beyond the point where they could, with certainty, complete the tasks that they have every week.
Council Member Bateman described debris collections as one of the best services the Town provides. She would not support changing it, she said. Council Member Bateman pointed out that due to recent storms people have a lot more vegetative debris than in the past. She recommended keeping once-a-week service for at least a couple of years because there is a lot more debris out there to collect and dispose of.
Item 2 - Transportation Department
With regard to Item 2b, Report on Off-Street Parking Rates, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka noted that the revenue from Parking Lot 2 had increased 8% over last year, but the parking rate had decreased by 30%, so an 8% increase in revenue indicates an 83% rate increase over last year's parking. If one projects 83% for next year then the revenue impact would be more than the 8% difference between last year's and this year's revenue, she said. Ms. Kuschatka noted that much of the decrease was probably due to fare free busing, but noted that it was difficult to quantify how much was due to other factors.
Mayor pro tem Evans said the Town's goal should be to have its lots full. She suggested going back to a $1.30/hr. to see what happens. Doing this would not hurt the budget, she said, and it might help Downtown businesses.
Council Member Verkerk expressed enthusiasm for having fewer cars downtown, adding that businesses no longer can complain that there is not enough parking. She recommended leaving the rates as they are.
Council Member Kleinschmidt clarified that revenue had increased and that the Town had gotten more money with fewer cars. He thanked the staff for its report and praised the Department's accomplishment of increasing available parking as well as revenue.
Council Member Strom asked Ms. Kuschatka if the Town had changed its sale of passes for long-term parking. Ms. Kuschatka replied that the Town had raised the cost of the leased rental spaces, which is reported in a different area. She pointed out that the change in the hourly rate was included in this report as well as the $2.00 fee for parking during the period between before 10:00 a.m. and after 2:00 p.m. Council Member Strom determined from Ms. Kuschatka and Mr. Horton that this fee had eliminated the problem of people waiting in line at the parking deck during that peak time. He praised the approach, stating that it was what the Council had hoped for. Council Member Strom also applauded the accomplishment of increasing both revenues and fees.
Council Member Wiggins argued against changing the rate again. She said even if the Town Council did so, they would not know what factors had contributed to revenues.
A STRAW VOTE ON DECREASING THE PARKING FEES FAILED (1-7) WITH MAYOR PRO TEM EVANS VOTING AYE.
Item 3 - Engineering Department
No discussion.
Item 4 - Parks and Recreation Department
With regard to Item 4f, Report on Possible Use of Mobile Unit for Pottery Classes, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz explained that the Department's contract with the School System for use of the Lincoln Center would expire in 2007. The Parks and Recreation Commission wanted to make it known that they need to look for a new location for the pottery studio, she said.
Mayor pro tem Evans noted that the ArtsCenter had a pottery program and space to expand it. She wondered if the Town might contract with the ArtsCenter for that program. Mayor pro tem Evans suggested comparing that to what the private sector and/or the new Pottery Collective might contribute. The Council might also want to evaluate this program, she said, when looking at costs and programs to eliminate.
Council Member Bateman requested information on the number, and racial origins, of pottery program participants and figures on the Town's arts and crafts program in general. She remarked that she would not want the Town to do away with its entire arts and crafts program, but pottery might be one area that they could resource out. Council Member Bateman asked if the School Board had stated in writing that they need that space. She expressed interest in a former suggestion to reclaim the lower level of the Chapel Hill Museum for the pottery program.
Council Member Verkerk determined that the Town had not talked with the University about using its facilities.
With regard to use of the Chapel Hill Museum, Mayor Foy noted that the lease would be up in three years. This would not be a bad time to start talking about what will happen with the basement at the end of that lease, he said. Mayor Foy verified with Mr. Horton that the Town could modify the lease so that the Museum could remain but the basement could be used for something else.
Council Member Bateman pointed out that the Museum was in a nice, walkable area with neighborhoods all around it.
Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton what his recommendation would be if Council members were considering that space for Town functions. Mr. Horton replied that the Council should instruct him to raise the issue with the director of the Museum, with the understanding that the Council had not yet taken a direction one way or the other.
Council Member Strom agreed that the Town should explore this idea with the Museum, but he asked not to rule out other options. Mayor Foy said he thought Council Member Bateman was interested in finding out what the Town might use the lower level of the Museum for.
With regard to Item 4d, Report on Status of the Hargraves Center Basketball Court, Council Member Bateman determined that the Town would resurface the Hargraves basketball court with asphalt rather than resilient material. She asked if cost was the reason why some courts were being resurfaced with resilient material while this one would be asphalt. Ms. Spatz explained the goal of having a mixture of materials on courts. She pointed out that the resilient material at the Homestead basketball court had not been successful. Ms. Spatz explained that the Department would like to have more experience and references from people who have used the resilient material for basketball courts before trying that again.
With regard to Item 4k, Schedule for Funding Greenways Projects, Council Member Harrison expressed hope that the Greenways program could be part of the direct allocation funding. He determined that the General Fund was the source for the 20% match. Council Member Harrison suggested keeping a close watch on how to get some progress on that.
Item 5 - Police Department
With regard to Item 5b, Report on Employee Turnover at Police Department, Including Salaries and New Employer Information, Police Chief Jarvies presented a table with information on the 16 people who had left the Department since March 6, 2001. He noted that 14 of them had left within the last 14 months.
Council Member Wiggins ascertained that the Manager would bring a list of salaries offered by other area departments to the April 28 meeting. She verified that the list would include information on the Fire Department and other positions as well as the Police Department. Council Member Wiggins asked if hazardous duty pay exists for those whose jobs are riskier. Mr. Horton replied that the Town had never made that kind of risk assessment.
Council Member Wiggins determined that police officers' salaries varied depending on whether their work demands a higher price in the marketplace than other jobs do. Pay is pegged to the market, Mr. Horton said, adding that it was lower in some respects right now and needed to be adjusted. Mr. Horton explained that risk exposure was taken into consideration in the general marketplace. He pointed out that career progression possibilities exist in the Police Department and the Fire Department, with levels reflecting varying degrees of experience, skills, knowledge and availability. Recognition is given in the Fire Department as people are able to perform higher services, Mr. Horton explained.
Council Member Wiggins inquired about whether the pay schedule acknowledges being on call 24 hours a day. Mr. Horton replied that people in a specific on-call status do receive compensation. Council Member Wiggins ascertained that many Town employees were subject to being called back for duty, but there were rules determining what they get paid when that occurs. Mr. Horton pointed out the distinction between being "called back" and being "on call", and would present details on this on April 28.
Council Member Wiggins noted that only four people on the Police Department list had left for more money. She acknowledged, however, that rank and status were important. Chief Jarvies replied that one cannot compare incentives in law enforcement. He said an officer might take a pay cut for nine to five, white-collar jobs, or because they receive their own cars or get promoted.
Council Member Kleinschmidt remarked that he, too, expected to see more people leaving for higher salaries. He pointed out that 11 of the 16 who left the Department had actually taken cuts in pay or had moved for reasons beyond the Town's control. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked for more information on other forms of compensation. He said he would not want the community to continue thinking that police officers have left for higher pay, when many have left despite moving to lower salaries.
Chief Jarvies said the compensation issue relates more to the Town's inability to fill vacancies. Other police departments in the area do not have the vacancy issues that Chapel Hill has, he said, because they can attract officers with their entry-level salaries.
Council Member Verkerk wondered how Chapel Hill's statistics compare to other communities in the nation. Chief Jarvies noted that Seattle and Portland had come to Raleigh to recruit and the West Coast had been advertising in East Coast publications. The Town can always find people to be cops, he said, but finding quality applicants was a difficult problem being faced nationwide.
Council Member Bateman verified that the Council would receive entry-level comparisons as part of the pay report for all Town operations departments. Mr. Horton reminded Council members that the Town would not know what condition it is in across the board until it sees those data. The information being discussed tonight was anecdotal, he said, and does not tell anything about the condition at the entry level, such as what the comparative pay rates are that are being offered by other communities. Once the Council has those data, they will be able to make better judgments about what is reasonable, Mr. Horton said.
Council Member Bateman and Mr. Horton discussed Triangle area police departments and talked about how it was not possible to quickly and accurately assess and compare recruiting and retention difficulties.
Council Member Wiggins commented that some recruiting difficulty results from Chapel Hill screening out those who "like to carry a big stick and use it."
With regard to Item 5c, the Comparison of Crime Data for Northside and Pine Knolls to Rest of Town, Council Member Wiggins determined that drug activity did not fit into any of the crime categories but that the Police Department could provide statistics on drug-related arrests. She pointed out that the Northside neighborhood was very concerned about drug-related crimes. Council Member Wiggins asked if the Department could provide the Council with a report such as this, with drug-related statistics, each quarter or twice a year. She commented that Northside residents had praised the Police Department's efforts and she would like to keep those relating to the budget going.
Council Member Wiggins stated that since a population count was missing from the statistics it was not clear what the percentages meant and how crime statistics compare relative to population. Mr. Horton offered to convert the figure to one of crime rate per 10,000 population, or 100,000 population, so that the comparison would be easier to see.
Mayor Foy agreed with Council Member Wiggins that absolute numbers did not tell much. He said it would be more helpful to know what the relative rate was in Northside and Pine Knolls.
Item 6 - Fire Department
No discussion.
Item 7 - Planning Department
Mr. Horton explained that Planning Director Roger Waldon was attending a national planning conference and that Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt was filling in for him.
Mayor Foy asked if the Council would like to defer Item 7c, the Proposed Schedule Regarding Council Work Session on Housing Issues, to May 14, prior to the public hearing.
Council Member Wiggins said it would take more time than that.
Mr. Horton wondered if the Council would prefer to hold the meeting in late August or September.
Council Member Bateman suggested May 5, adding that she was opposed to holding anything prior to a Council meeting.
Council Member Strom said planning it for June would allow more time to prepare.
Mayor Foy suggested that the Manager try to find a date that does not join with another meeting.
COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO SCHEDULE A WORK SESSION ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN JUNE, DATE TO BE DETERMINED.
With regard to Item 7e, Consideration of Additional Staff Member in Planning to Work on Transportation and Sidewalk/Pedestrian Issues, Council Member Harrison asked if the intent was to fill the position of the planner who was recently transferred to Current Development. Ms. Berndt replied that the memo describes the position as it currently exists and the staff anticipates it continuing. Council Member Harrison pointed out that Chapel Hill's grant was the only Active Living by Design grant in the State chosen to proceed. He asked if that would overload the person taking the planner position. Ms. Berndt replied that the task was to submit a detailed application by mid-May and that receiving the grant would affect the staffing situation.
Mayor Foy determined that Mr. Horton was not proposing any additional staff but was merely posing the question of whether there should be additional staff.
Ms. Berndt explained the format of the staff report. She said the Department could use additional resources, if the Council made them available, to do this enhanced level of work as well as more education and promotion.
With regard to Item 7f, Report on Search for Grant Programs to Pay for IFC Shelter Renovations, Council Member Strom noted that there was HOME money and other funds that had been allocated but not spent. He asked to eventually see a recommendation for a program under which the Town could apply some of this federal money to other projects, such as the homeless shelter. Mr. Horton verified that using HOME money would mean having to continue using the building for low-income housing, and recommended not tying up that asset. He offered to investigate the issue of using and/or refunding unspent funds if the Council wished, and pointed out that there would be similar limitations with CD funding for at least 10 years. Council Member Strom requested more information on using any of these funds without the Town "stepping on its own feet."
Mayor Foy determined that the IFC shelter was on a two-year lease subject to renewal as the Council sees fit. Mr. Horton pointed out that the Council would have the opportunity to look at Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding on April 28, adding that the Town had already spent most of those funds. The HOME fund is somewhat different, he said, but it would take considerable work with the HOME consortium members to change the current allocations. Mr. Horton stated that it was unlikely the Town could change that funding in time for this year.
Council Member Wiggins, a Consortium member, explained that an organization has several years in which to spend HOME funding. She said money remaining at the end of that time comes back to the Consortium, which may allocate it to another agency, and it usually does get reallocated.
Council Member Strom asked for information on the total amount of HOME money that has been allocated but not spent, for which time was running out. Mr. Horton said the HOME administrator would have to do considerable work with each of the grantees to determine that, and agreed to make the request.
With regard to Item 7g, Budget Proposal for Emissions Study, Council Member Verkerk explained that the Council Committee on Sustainability, Energy and Environment (consisting of herself, Council Member Strom and Council Member Ward), had suggested banking the money. That way, it will be available as the Town's portion of the budget if Chapel Hill is able to create partnerships with Durham and/or Orange County, she said.
Mayor pro tem Evans recommended finding out if there would be a partnership before putting this in as a budget item. Ms. Berndt noted that a meeting had been scheduled for the following Tuesday, so there should be more information to report regarding both the regional and county aspects.
Council Member Harrison pointed out that the issue would come back to the Transportation Advisory Committee the next day. Based on commuting patterns, he said, it made sense to study at least two counties.
Mayor Foy determined from Ms. Berndt that the Sustainability Committee had revived the idea of doing this on a county-wide basis and then expanding it to Durham, if possible. Ms. Berndt explained that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) had been discussing putting money into the budget for transportation-related aspects of the study, but there would need to be a local match for funds not related to transportation.
Council Member Strom noted that a Triangle J Council of Governments item, which addresses a broader regional study, would soon be coming before the Council. He mentioned money in agenda item 1a from March 26, and described that as an option for funding.
Mayor Foy noted there would be a need for funds no matter how this is done. Ms. Berndt pointed out that the staff was also requesting that this be on the Assembly of Governments meeting agenda in Orange County on April 29, as the Committee had requested.
Item 8 - Information Technology Department
No discussion.
Item 9 - Housing Department
No discussion.
Item 10 - Finance Department
With regard to Item 10d, Resolution Requesting Additional Powell Bill Funds, Council Member Strom thanked Finance Director Jim Baker for preparing the information. He said he had pulled the item for discussion so the Council could take action on the resolution.
Mayor Foy noted that the Town's Powell Bill revenues were down by about $60,000 this year, and falling.
Council Member Harrison said this had come up at several meetings last month, including at the League of Municipalities and Transportation Committee meetings. He said it would help if municipalities in addition to Chapel Hill sent it to the League as well as the General Assembly.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, TO ADOPT R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THAT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY INCREASE POWELL BILL FUNDING BY INCREASING THE PORTION OF THE STATE GASOLINE TAX ALLOCATED FOR LOCAL STREET MAINTENANCE (2003-04-02/R-1)
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill and other local municipalities have received reduced Powell Bill funds; and
WHEREAS, the funds are inadequate for maintaining Town of Chapel Hill and other North Carolina municipal streets; and
WHEREAS, the gasoline tax is a major revenue source for Powell Bill funds and is intended to cover a major portion of street construction, maintenance and related costs; and
WHEREAS, the General Assembly has the authority to approve changes in the gasoline tax;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby requests that the General Assembly increase the portion of the gasoline tax allocated for municipal street maintenance and construction from 1 ¾ cents to 3 ½ cents and remit the increase to municipalities in the form of additional Powell Bill funds according to the current distribution formula.
This the 2nd day of April, 2003.
Mayor Foy stated that the Town would send this to the League of Municipalities as well as to the General Assembly.
Item 11 - Other Reports
Mayor Foy said the County planned to have a joint planning session on Wednesday, April 9, but they were going to propose changing that to a less formal work session to address several topics. Council members were invited to attend, he said, and were free to come if they wish. Mayor Foy explained that this was preliminary information and that Council members would also receive an email containing the facts.
Mayor Foy described tonight's materials as the gut of the budget. He recommended giving clear guidance to the Manager on options to be included in the recommended budget. Mayor Foy noted that the base budget shows an excess revenue availability of $2.6 million. He described Option 1 as a “break even” budget with no increase. Option 2, he pointed out, contains add-ons and requires a three-cent tax increase, so these are just some ranges of possibilities. Mayor Foy inquired about the general market and the merit adjustment on the spreadsheet. Finance Director Jim Baker said that it was between 4% and 5%.
Council Member Strom noted that Option 1 suggests $1,230,000 for adjustments, range changes, and general merit adjustments for Town employees. He pointed out that he had supported employee compensation since he first came on the Council, but he was also attempting to hold to the principle of not having a tax increase. Council Member Strom encouraged the Manager to look at what the existing core package of range increases had been and to try and trim it in some way. He noted that the one-time adjustment for employees below the market level is a $200,000 item that is virtually unexplained.
Mr. Horton replied that these were general estimates that he felt obligated to put forward. The numbers will change, he said, adding that he would soon be in a position to explain the figures and state the rationale behind them.
Council Member Strom said he was getting nervous about a tax increase. He challenged the Manager to delay adding a sanitation crew for a year and to try and curb the costs and recommendations for Engineering and Planning.
Mayor Foy agreed that there was a strong sentiment among Council members against a tax increase. He remarked that some of the priorities for Option 2 need to fit into a budget that has a zero increase.
Council Member Verkerk noted that the University, the largest employer in Town, had not given a 4 to 5% increase since she began working there in 1994. She asked that the CIP budget reflect priorities from the Council's retreat, with improvements to sidewalk infrastructure ranking higher than everything else.
Mayor pro tem Evans suggested that the CIP be up for discussion and that the $2 million in Option 2 not be “a given”.
Council Member Bateman agreed that the Council needed to look at that, and a lot of other things, as well.
Council Member Wiggins said employee compensation was her highest priority, and that she had no problem with Option 1. Her other priority was to continue any resources funded for the Northside community, she said.
The work session adjourned at 6:13 p.m.