SUMMARY MINUTES OF A PLANNING SESSION
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 2004 AT 8:30 A.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Mayoral Assistant Emily Dickens, Interim Finance Director Kay Johnson, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Public Works Director Bruce Heflin, Human Resources Director Pam Eastwood, Assistant Human Resources Director Anissa Graham-Davis, Director of Technology Bob Avery, and Town Clerk Joyce Smith.
Mayor Foy gave a brief overview of the agenda, and called the Council’s attention to supplemental materials that were provided. He reminded the Council that the agenda was meant to provide a guideline, and Council members could broach any subject of their choosing.
Mayor Foy explained that there were three main topics to be discussed: the 2004-2005 Budget, implementation of the Comprehensive Plan, and Other Issues. In looking over the Other Issues category, he said it might be beneficial to divide the topics into manageable categories. Mayor Foy suggested listing each topic under the following headings:
Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated that when Council goals are discussed, it would be helpful to discuss Council Member Ward’s proposed Community Advocate position and how that might tie in with the soon-to-be-hired Public Information Officer.
Council Member Strom agreed, noting he had some ideas about that.
Council Member Greene noted that Agenda items 3b and 3e were the same.
Mayor Foy stated that 3b, e, and j could fall under Review of Goals and Status of Work.
Council Member Strom agreed issues should be organized into groups, adding each item could generate two hours of discussion. He said he did not want to leave today feeling like the Council did not have the time necessary for these items. Council Member Storm suggested scheduling another planning session, maybe for an afternoon. He said this session looks as if half of the time will need to be spent on budget issues.
Mayor Foy stated the Council should attempt to touch on each category, and perhaps have an additional meeting, refer some of them to committees, or some other process.
Council Member Strom said he believed it would be difficult to understand everyone’s thinking in the time allotted today.
Mayor suggested working through as much as possible, then decide how to proceed. The Council agreed by consensus.
Item 1: Review of 2003-04 Budget and Preliminary Review
of Budget Issues for 2004-2005
Mr. Horton gave a brief introduction, noting that the materials provided an overview and a starting point in considering a base budget.
Regarding the current year budget, Mr. Horton stated that revenues will come in as generally predicted. As always, he said, there are some changes in revenue, but fortunately property tax revenues are expected to be up just enough to offset some of these differences.
Mr. Horton presented an update of the current year budget:
Mr. Horton then commented that the key issues for the upcoming budget for 2004-05 include:
Regarding assumptions and preliminary estimates of major revenues in the General Fund for 2004-05, Mr. Horton noted the following points:
In summary, he stated, we estimate total General Fund revenue of about $41.3 million, including normal use of $800,000 in fund balance and $491,000 in additional fund balance accumulated from prior year savings that the Council set aside to offset any potential tax rate increase in 2004-05.
Regarding General Fund cost issues and preliminary estimates for 2004-05, Mr. Horton highlighted the following:
Mr. Horton briefly explained the General Fund charts provided as Attachment 2. He noted that the bottom line is that there will be a base cost of $40,776,180, and noted potential additions of $1,881,000 with estimated total revenue available of $40,021,600.
Mr. Horton noted that Attachment 3 on page 8 shows a summary of revenues in the Transportation Fund, and page 9 provides a preliminary cost estimate for 2004-05. He called the Council’s attention to the negative shortfall in the charts.
In summary, Mr. Horton stated that these were the key elements, and the staff will do its best to limit the costs. He added that he had not met with any department heads at this time nor considered any additions they might recommend, and that he would in turn recommend to the Council. Mr. Horton said the General Fund conclusions are as follows:
Mr. Horton noted that the Transportation Fund is the second most significant fund. He stated that revenue in the current year is on target with budgeted amounts except:
Regarding preliminary revenues estimates in the Transportation Fund for 2004-05, Mr. Horton noted the following:
Mr. Horton noted that our transit partners, the University and Carrboro, may request some changes in service, but such requests will be dealt with in the normal manner.
Regarding preliminary cost estimates for 2004-05 in the Transportation Fund, Mr. Horton offered the following comments:
Regarding the Parking Fund, Mr. Horton stated that initial review of parking revenues and parking activity for the Town’s off-street parking lots this year indicates that parking revenues would be adequate to cover parking expenses and debt service.
For the Town’s public housing program, Mr. Horton said we anticipate a continuing level of federal support sufficient to ensure that revenues cover costs.
Mayor Foy asked about the $700,000 noted on the top of page 2. Mr. Horton answered that the $700,000 is the amount from the 2003 bonds that we borrowed from ourselves, and needs to be paid back.
Council Member Strom noted he had read in the News and Observer that the State revenue on sales taxes was looking good. He asked how that would affect Chapel Hill. Interim Finance Director Kay Johnson said we need to know how that affects us based on the State-wide trend. She said it looked like we might receive some modest increase.
Council Member Strom said that regarding the General Fund discussed on page 1, he believed we were ahead by about $230,000. Mr. Horton noted that we don’t yet have the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) money in hand. Council Member Strom said his intent would be to take the excess rollover above the $800,000 noted and add it to the excess from last year. Mr. Horton said that we don’t expect that excess this year, adding he believed there would not be any significant difference in revenues and expenditures. Mr. Horton stated we are challenged to come up with the $800,000 used for rollover, and anything over that is iffy. He noted that FEMA money is not guaranteed. Mr. Horton said our challenge is to come up with the $800,000, and we will try to find a way to do that.
Council Member Strom asked if that $800,000 was a placeholder in the draft budget. Mr. Horton said that was correct. Strom said if the $108,000 in FEMA reimbursements were received, why couldn’t it be added with the $491,000 excess from last year? He asked what has changed that caused the $800,000 not to be there. Mr. Horton said vacant programs produce some savings, as do projects not carried out for various reasons. He said we take every opportunity to raise the revenue estimated and reduce the expenditures estimated. Council Member Strom said it would be helpful the next time this is discussed to have a chart that shows how we acquire that $800,000. Horton said we won’t know that until the end of the fiscal year.
Mayor Foy said every year our goal is to roll over $800,000 of fund balance, so it would be helpful to at least show how we have acquired it in the past.
Council Member Strom said he was attempting to identify those types of funds in an effort to reduce an expected tax increase of 4 or 5 cents, which was not acceptable. Mr. Horton noted that the figures in the report are estimates only, and he is trying to be realistic on what we can promise or not promise. Council Member Strom said he just wanted a clearer picture of what we are dealing with. Ms. Johnson said historically we have been able to identify the $800,000 in fund balance each year without dipping into savings, but we don’t know from year to year if that will be the case.
Council Member Greene said it would be helpful for her to have such a chart as the Mayor suggested. Mr. Horton said the majority of the funds accumulated as savings come from salary savings. He said we would estimate that, but with limited accuracy. He said if the Council wanted to set a goal of accumulating a figure over that $800,000, then we need to know that soon.
Mayor Foy said we are looking at about a 5 cent tax increase. Mr. Horton said we could cut operations if directed by the Council. For instance, he said, if we are told to identify a significant fund over that $800,000, it will affect services and positions. Mr. Horton added he would rather bring forward a proposal to show what the effect would be.
Council Member Strom said he would rather see a snapshot of where Mr. Horton thinks the $800,000 will come from, and go from there. Mr. Horton responded that would be done.
Mayor Foy asked about transportation costs. Ms. Johnson explained that at least a third of the cost would be Chapel Hill’s responsibility.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the increase in sales tax or property revenues and salary savings would be the kind of thing the Manager is talking about, when talking about identifying where the $800,000 comes from.
Council Member Ward said he sees that $800,000 as something that helps us, but he believes that other professionals don’t believe that type of rollover is necessarily a good thing. Mr. Horton responded that we are in the position of always having to have that $800,000 at the end of each year, which becomes more and more challenging. For instance, he noted, revenues and expenditures change frequently and it is increasing difficult to predict. Mr. Horton said that for example, if we have another significant storm FEMA may or may not reimburse the expenses. He said such an occurrence could wipe out that $800,000. He said his preference would be not to have that rollover, but that it be used each year for priority uses.
Mayor Foy asked the Manager to sketch out a way that we might eliminate that $800,000 rollover necessity. Mr. Horton said you would begin to wean yourself away from it by reducing the rollover each year until it was eliminated.
Debt Issuance and Repayment of Bonds
Mr. Horton referred the Council to Attachment 5 on page 10 of the materials, noting that the chart shows the debt seven years out. In response to a question from Council Member Strom, Mr. Horton said the next property tax revaluation is scheduled for next year.
In response to question from Council Member Harrison, Ms. Johnson said 1 cent on the tax rate equals $442,000. Mr. Horton said the upcoming revaluation would make the biggest difference in the tax base.
Mr. Horton said that regarding the Public Works Town Operations Center (TOC) debt, we have been unable to identify any grant moneys that might assist us. For the Transportation portion of the TOC we will need about $19 million in funding, he said, and our objective is to get 90% of that funding from other sources. Mr. Horton said the Town has been recommended to receive about $7 million in “Moving Ahead” funds, or about 10% of the total. That recommendation now goes to the Oversight Committee of the State Legislature, he noted, and we don’t anticipate any difficulties.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how it would work legislatively after that. Mr. Horton said that once the Oversight Committee approves it, we should not have any difficulties in being granted the funds.
In response to a question from Council Member Hill, Mr. Horton called attention to page 15, which contained a chart listing the potential funding for the TOC. He said this did not include the $7 million just discussed, adding that receipt of this $7 million will not affect our ability to receive other funding.
Council Member Strom asked about Homestead Road project costs. Mr. Horton responded that it included 3 lanes with sidewalks, at a cost of $6.9 million, noting that the Council could delay those expenditures.
Mayor Foy pointed out that our highest priority right now is the signal system.
Council Member Strom stated that in 2006 the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) was scheduled to fund a turn lane and increased shoulders, but the other improvements would be the responsibility of the Town.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that this time next year, we will be working on the 2005-06 budget, and noted that additional demands for the TOC will have to be dealt with then. She said we don’t have a choice, since we are already committed to build the facility. Mr. Horton responded that was correct, that the question is how that would affect the tax rate. One factor, he said, is there will be a revaluation in property tax, so presumably the revenues would grow. Mr. Horton noted the Council will have to judge how those types of factors will affect the tax rate.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that in years when there have been revaluations, we have traditionally reduced the tax rate. Mr. Horton said that was correct. He noted, however, that one of the things we also don’t know is what the rate is we will be paying for Certificates of Participation, so this is an estimate that we hope is conservative. If the economy in our area changes, Mr. Horton said, estimates will change again. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if these figures were based on the current tax rate, and Mr. Horton answered they were.
Mayor Foy suggested that this is a complicated picture and we are going to have demands from the public on what to do with the 2003 bonds and we need to make a plan for that. He said we should consider forming a committee to bring a recommendation to the Council on how to move forward with the bonds.
Council Member Strom said he did not see the materials for today’s meeting until early this morning, and had no opportunity to digest it. He said he believed the entire Council should look at it closely. Mayor Foy said he was suggesting that a committee might recommend a clear path. Council Member Strom responded that he did not believe sending it to a committee was the right way to proceed.
Council Member Ward said he would prefer a work session rather than a committee, so that the entire Council could be involved.
Mayor Foy asked the Manager to give an overview of four illustrations starting in the middle of page 11 and continuing on page 12. Mr. Horton, noting that the Library expansion is the largest chunk, gave brief descriptions of the four illustrations.
Report on Compensation Recommendations for FY 2004-05
Human Resources Director Pam Eastwood offered a brief overview. She noted that the purpose of compensation programs, meaning pay and benefits, is to effectively recruit and retain the level of employees necessary for the Town to carry out its functions.
Ms. Eastwood stated that the Human Resources Department conducted both a pay survey and a benefits survey in December 2003 to compare the Town’s pay and benefits programs with those area organizations with which the Town competes for employees. She referred the Council to Attachment 1, page 8 of the materials for the list showing the number of employees in each of the organizations surveyed.
Regarding the Pay Survey, Ms. Eastwood stated that the organizations included in the pay survey were:
· City of Burlington
· Town of Carrboro
· City of Cary
· City of Durham
· Town of Hillsborough
· City of Raleigh
· Durham County
· Orange County
· Wake County
· Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
· UNC Chapel Hill
· UNC Health Care System
· OWASA
Ms. Eastwood said the survey requested information on a selected group of Town jobs (called benchmark positions) which represent substantial numbers of positions (such as Fire and Police jobs) or which represent a variety of jobs with skill sets which the Town seeks in filling positions. She noted that respondents were asked to provide information on:
· job titles
· hours worked
· minimum, midpoint and maximum of the pay range for each job
· the number of employees in each class title
· the average actual salary paid to each class of employees
Ms. Eastwood said that once the data was obtained, Town Human Resources staff conducted a detailed study and analysis and follow-up calls were made to respondents to assure accuracy and completion of data.
Ms. Eastwood noted that other area organizations surveyed took differing actions in adjusting their ranges and employee pay during Fiscal Year 2003-2004, and referred the Council to Attachment 3, page 22 for details, adding that the pay survey data show the impact of these differing approaches.
Ms. Eastwood said we believe no overall range movement is needed for the 2004-05 budget year and recommend that resources be directed toward increasing employee pay within the ranges by authorizing merit increases for both the below-job-rate group and the above-job-rate group. She said the following actions effective October 1, 2004, were recommended:
Ms. Eastwood said that actions taken by the Council each year have kept the Town at the 50th percentile in the area of pay. She said that when you look at the charts you see that we compare our pay ranges to their pay ranges, and then compare actual employee pay to their employee pay.
Ms. Eastwood said the data in the chart is actual data, with no projections. She stated that on page 22 is a comparison of the organizations surveyed, which shows the five organizations that increased their pay ranges in the current year, and those that increased employee pay.
Ms. Eastwood said when taking the data into account, the Town remains at about the 50th percentile. She then described her recommendations, as follows:
a. Adjust all steps in the pay plan to 4% apart rather than the current 3.78% by adding .22% to each step. This action would simplify the pay plan, improve employee understanding and ease of administration, and make the Town’s steps more like those of other employers using pay steps. Authorize for all eligible employees below the job rate (355 employees, 55% of the employee group) a .22% increase to place them on the new steps.
b. Authorize a one-step increase of 4% for all eligible employees below the job rate (355 employees, 55% of the group) to move them through the pay range of the job.
c. Authorize a 4% merit increase for all eligible employees above the job rate (295 employees, 45% of the group) to reduce pay compression between the two groups.
Council Member Hill asked why so many of our employees are at the bottom part of the pay ranges. Ms. Eastwood responded that there are many reasons. For example, she said, if you have a bus driver that has been employed for 8 years and one 3 years, the 8-year employee should be in the upper part of the pay range. But, she continued, when we looked at the pay ranges for employees as compared to our market area our employees are not keeping up in their ranges.
Mr. Horton noted that in the past the Council had a number of years when it was necessary to hold longer term employees at their range, and progress the lower paid employees which resulted in some compression.
Council Member Strom asked about turnover rates, and Ms. Eastwood responded that the level of turnover has notably fallen and is remaining fairly stable. She said employees are being careful and not changing jobs are frequently as in the past.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if that was a general statement, noting that Public Works employees traditionally have a higher rate of turnover. Ms. Eastwood responded that one problem we are experiencing is that vacancies are harder to fill with qualified employees. She said that over the last several years it has become increasing difficult to acquire qualified employees, and noted that turnover is higher than we like to see in the Police Department.
Mr. Horton said from a management point of view, employees need to believe that this is a fair place to work and they are compensated fairly. He said the Council’s policy has allowed a culture to develop that the Town treats employees fairly and he believes that is why some many employees come here and stay for long periods.
Ms. Eastwood stated that the three recommendations just noted are necessary to allow those employees already here to move away from those new employees coming into their pay range.
Responding to a question from Council Member Ward regarding the cost, Ms. Eastwood referred to the chart on the top of page 4.
Assistant Human Resources Director Anissa Graham-Davis gave a brief overview of the two recommendations for pay goals and pay plan structure changes:
1. Historically the hiring step (step 0) was 6% below the next step in each pay range and employees received a 6% pay increase after six months of employment. The purpose of the pay increase, she said, was to offset a 6% deduction for retirement system contribution that began after 6 months of employment. The practice of delaying participation in the retirement system for six months ended in 1998 but the 6% pay increase after six months of employment continues.
Those new employees who come in at the hiring step (step 0) move to the next step after successful completion of the six month probationary period. Those employees who come in above step 0 move to the next step of the pay plan after successful completion of the six-month probationary period. Those employees who come in at or above the job rate receive a one-time payment of 3.78% at successful completion of probation.
2. We propose deleting the hiring step from the Pay Plan and using the next step (now called the probationary step) as the new minimum for each range. No cost is associated with this action because departments calculate and budget the full amount needed for the year. This change would assist the goal of moving the Town’s ranges toward the 60th percentile range by improving the Town’s pay minimums at no additional cost. (This especially would be beneficial in the Fire and Police Departments where most new employees, those with no prior job experience, begin at the hiring step.)
If the above action is approved, it would be appropriate to cease the current policy of providing a one-step pay adjustment at the completion of six months probation. No cost is associated with this action because departments calculate and budget the full amount needed for the year. This change would improve the Town’s ability to make the most attractive initial offer when hiring.
No current employees would be affected by these proposed changes. The new policies would apply only to persons employed after October 21, 2004.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins commented that she was glad to see that the last two recommendations don’t cost of anything, which should make them acceptable.
Council Member Strom, referring to the results of the Town pay survey, asked are those the actual weight salaries in those communications. Ms. Eastwood answered yes.
Council Member Greene asked why the recommendation is that we move from the 75th percentile to the 60th percentile. Mr. Horton responded it was too ambitious and the Town just could not afford it. He said the reality is that it is not practical, and believes it is a reasonable objective to be at the 60th percentile and it is a leadership position we would feel good about.
Council Member Ward said the 75th percentile was a lofty goal, and he feels good at having the Town at the 60th percentile.
Council Member Strom said it appears that we have held our ground from last year, noting this is not a precise target. Mr. Horton said the figures this year are much more firm, and the estimates are being based on what is being paid and is not speculative. Council Member Strom said that he believes that next year when we look back, our decisions this year will be evaluated, and we don’t know what those other communities surveyed will do.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed it was a question of where we put our values, and she is always supportive of the salary recommendations. She said the employees are our most important asset, and they are the ones performing the day-to-day services and they are the ones that make others want to come to Chapel Hill. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she was not uncomfortable with being near the top of the group. She said that the idea of not granting our employees a pay raise because the State did not manage their money as well as Chapel Hill did was unfair.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that when looking at the survey results on page 10, he believes that we compare favorably in many areas. Ms. Eastwood said when we compare our current lowest pay rate to that of the University we are 20% above their lowest paid employee group.
Mr. Horton said that part of the reason he believes employees come to work here is because of the pay levels established by the Council. He said that although we have not been able to achieve the 75th percentile, it was good to have such goals as a target, but be willing to accept the 60th percentile which is still a leadership role.
Ms. Eastwood said that regarding the benefits survey, what we found when we
looked at those 14 surveyed was that we are 11th, or 3rd from the
bottom. She said we will be making recommendations to improve the benefits
plan and will bring that forward during the budget process.
The Council reached consensus on three main areas for further discussion at a work session:
2. Issue of liquidating the $800,000 rollover from fund balance over time.
3. Setting goals for retirement of debt, allocation of sidewalk moneys, etc.
Item 2: Review and Status of the Comprehensive Plan Implementation
Mayor Foy called the Council’s attention to the goals displayed on charts posted on the wall, noting that these were the goals the Council had previously identified. Mr. Horton said he recommended that the Council use the same process as last year. He then stated that Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt would make the presentation.
Ms. Berndt noted that Attachment 2, page 27 of the materials is a duplicate of the enlarged charts that are posted on the wall. Noting that these goals were the result of the planning retreat last year, she said that what has happened since that time is noted in Attachment 1, page 4. Ms. Berndt said that Attachment 1 noted the progress of each of the goals on a quarterly basis, adding they are divided into highest, second, and additional goals.
Ms. Berndt said this process resulted in 10 categories included in the Comprehensive Plan., as noted in Attachment 4:
1. Community Character
2. University Relations
3. Regional Cooperation
4. Economy and Employment
5. Housing
6. Land Use and Development
7. Environment
8. Transportation
9. Community Facilities
10. Fiscal Conditions
Mayor Foy asked the Council how they wanted to proceed. He said he wanted to add to the list the Public Information Officer and Neighborhood Advocate issue, as well as the environmental issues noted in Agenda Item 3e. Specifically, he said, were issues such as inclusionary zoning, which is part of the LUMO and the Comprehensive Plan, and stormwater utility. Mayor Foy asked if the Council was in agreement to incorporate those issues into this discussion.
Council Member Verkerk said if they are brought up then we should talk about them.
Mayor Foy suggested talking about Agenda items 3b, 3c, 3e, 3j, and 3q as part of the Comprehensive Plan discussion. He stated that items 3l, 3r, and 3s relate to Transportation in the Comprehensive Plan, and that 3f, 3k, and 3m have to do with the Downtown as part of Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked where would item 3a fit. Mayor said 3a, 3n, and 3p relate to the University. He said he believed that what we need to do was to see if we are on target for the goals already established and note any additional goals. Then, he said, try to link those goals directly to the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Foy said some of the goals identified are making progress, some are of a lower priority, and some have been completed. He said he believed all of the goals identified should be linked to the Comprehensive Plan.
Council Member Strom said we need to look at our list of issues noted on the Agenda, and see where they fit on the chart. The Council agreed by consensus.
The Council went through the list on the Agenda and placed them into categories on the wall charts:
|
Item # |
Issue |
Category |
|
a. |
University |
Separate category; not part of Comprehensive Plan |
|
b. |
Tree Ordinance |
#7 Environment |
|
c. |
Inclusionary Zoning |
#5 Housing |
|
d. |
Public Dialogue on Homelessness |
Save for afternoon discussion |
|
e. |
Environmental Issues |
#7 Environment |
|
f. |
NC Rehabilitation Code |
#1 Community Character |
|
g. |
Historic Resources |
#1 Community Character |
|
h. |
Public Arts Master Plan |
#1 Community Character |
|
i. |
Public Arts Commission |
Save for afternoon discussion |
|
j. |
Stormwater Utility |
#7 Environment |
|
k. |
Street Vendors |
#1 Community Character |
|
l. |
Chapel Hill Transit’s Future (develop a transit master plan with transit partners/Fixed Guideway for the future |
#8 Transportation #4 Economy and Employment |
|
m. |
Rosemary Street (how to reduce the percentage of surface parking downtown and redevelop |
#1 Community Character |
|
n. |
Fiscal Equity |
University issue; include with a. above |
|
o. |
Town Fleet Efficiency (set goals for fuel efficiency and fleet reduction) |
#8 Transportation |
|
p. |
Carolina North |
University issue; include with a. above |
|
q. |
Neighborhood Advocate |
#1 Community Character |
|
r. |
US 15-501 Congestion Solutions |
#8 Transportation |
|
s. |
Status of US 15-501/NC 54 Fixed Guideway Corridor |
#8 Transportation |
|
t. |
Report on Town Advisory Boards’ Pro- cesses for Citizen comments |
Referred to Council Committee to bring back recommendations to the Council (Strom and Hill agreed to serve) |
|
u. |
Energy Bond (Verkerk) |
#7 Environment |
|
v. |
Campaign Finance (Hill) |
To be discussed with budget |
|
w. |
Chatham/Chapel Hill Relations (Hill) |
#3 Regional Cooperation |
|
x. |
Impact of Property Taxes re Affordable Housing (Hill) |
#5 Housing |
|
y. |
Affordable Housing Units on Town Property (Ward) |
#5 Housing |
|
z. |
Stormwater Detention/Retention Ponds, Swales as it relates to health issues (Ward) |
#7 Environment |
|
aa. |
OWASA/Council Relationship (Ward) |
#3 Regional Cooperation |
|
bb. |
Town-wide Automated External Defib- rillator (Ward) |
To be discussed with budget |
|
cc. |
Revolving Acquisitions Fund and Operating Support (Strom) |
#5 Housing |
|
dd. |
Coalition of Neighbors Near Campus (petition received January 12) |
Save for afternoon discussion |
Regarding the category titled Environment in the Comprehensive Plan (#7), Council Member Strom noted this was an enormous policy change and would have a major impact on Chapel Hill.
The Council took at break of approximately 30 minutes for lunch. The session resumed at 12:30 p.m.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted there is a need to rethink how the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission (CHPAC) relates to the Town. He proposed that the CHPAC be folded into the Town as a department. He noted that Janet Kagan and Kate Billings of the CHPAC were present to answer questions.
Council Member Verkerk asked exactly what this would mean. Council Member Kleinschmidt answered it would become a new department within the Town government.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if the staffing proposed in the memo could be reduced. Ms. Billings said that there were big budget issues coming up, and it would take staffing to oversee them. Ms. Kagan said as the Percent for Art program grows, the number of projects will grow as well, and some of the projects are quite large and complex. She said there was a need for those projects to be appropriately overseen by a management staff. She said the staffing estimates were very rough estimates.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said the materials provided to the Council simply suggest a starting point for the Council’s consideration. He said he believed that creating of department of public art within the Town was the best way to proceed to oversee current and future projects.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she was interested in following up on this. She said the Town Operations Center would be a huge project, as will future capital investments, and this may be the way to proceed.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said this was an opportunity to create a new relationship.
Mayor Foy asked if the Council wanted to ask the Manager to develop a proposal on how to proceed.
Council Member Verkerk asked if we needed to move on this quickly. Mr. Horton said the CHPAC should have a tax deferred designation, but do not. They are currently using the Town’s tax exempt number.
Mr. Horton said if established as a unit of Town government, the staff would report to Manager, the budget would be under the control of the Manager, and so forth. He said it would change the relationship of the CHPAC to the Town. He said he sees the CHPAC as possibly a unit of the Parks and Recreation Department rather than a stand-alone department. He said this could be more complicated that it appears.
Council Member Verkerk said she would prefer that it not be slotted with Parks and Recreation because our commitment to public art might appear to be recreational. She said she preferred that it be folded into the Town as a separate unit.
Council Member Strom said he was supportive of proceeding by asking the Manager to come back with a recommendation on how to proceed. He said that creating such a department makes sense to him.
Mayor Foy said he believed the Council had reached consensus to ask the Manager to bring back a proposed structure with options.
Council Member Harrison asked if this would be discussed at the budget work session when the CHPAC makes its presentation to the Council. Mr. Horton noted he could not promise a schedule until he can study the issue more closely and explore options.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked how much the Town contributed to the CHPAC. Ms. Kagan said $70,000 this fiscal year. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said with that kind of money, she was even more in favor of it becoming a Town department.
Council Member Greene said she had never heard of an Arts Master Plan until Ms. Kagan approached her a year ago. Now, she said, she understands that many communities have such plans.
Ms. Kagan said on Tuesday, January 27, the CHPAC would sponsor an open house to try to identify areas and the kind of public art works that the community would like to see. She said there are two components to explore: first, the intellectual framework of thinking about art; and second, the physical locations of art in Chapel Hill, in other words where are the appropriate places. Ms. Kagan said she would like to see public art as an entranceway into the Town. For example, she asked, would citizens like to see public art on bikeways. Ms. Kagan said she hopes this first step in the process will lead to a Master Plan for Public Art.
Mayor Foy asked what role the Council is expected to play. Ms. Kagan said she would like to see the Council review the plan, adopted it, and eventually incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Foy turned the Council’s attention back to the Comprehensive Plan goals. He suggested prioritizing the new issues, and looking at the existing ones to see if some need rearranging. Mayor Foy said he believes most of the new items would be of a low priority. For instance, Mayor Foy said, will we look at the Tree Ordinance this year, or in a future year?
Mayor Foy reviewed the current highest priorities, then moved to the second priorities. He asked if any could be dropped, or if any needed to be moved into another category. Mr. Horton said #11 (Joint Planning with Durham) is now a process, and probably does not need to be listed here any longer.
By consensus of the Council, #10 (Development of Parking Lots 2 and 5) was moved to the last item under First Priority.
By consensus of the Council, #12 (Downtown Small Area Plan Implementation) was moved to the first item under Second Priority.
Mr. Waldon noted that there is an obvious need to tie together what we are doing regarding affordable housing on a broad range of fronts. He said this might be a good time to pull all of those together and produced a report for the Council.
Council Member Greene agreed, noting that such a report on Inclusionary Zoning would be most helpful. She said she understood the legal caution in enacting an Inclusionary Zoning ordinance, but said if we were careful in drafting it we could include affordable housing as a component.
Council Member Strom asked what was the quantitative difference between our current approach and an inclusionary zoning approach? He said his understanding of the meaning is that Chapel Hill was doing well as compared to Davidson and other communities. Council Member Strom stated he prefers the inclusionary approach, but deferred to the Attorney’s opinion that the Council continue its current approach. Council Member Greene responded that under inclusionary zoning you would also get the housing, and there would be no buyout or payment-in-lieu that would keep the affordable housing from being included. She said such an ordinance also gives you more flexibility in how such an ordinance would work. Council Member Strom stated that our existing system gives us more flexibility to negotiate percentages.
Mayor Foy said that we have so much leverage at such a low level that we are using our process to get the kind of flexibility and housing stock that we want without resulting in an Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. He said that there was a chance that such an ordinance would be challenged in the courts, and the Council did not want to jeopardize the current system.
Council Member Ward noted that in Maryland the affordable housing component was in effect for twenty years, and since that twenty-year time frame is about up they are now losing that housing stock.
Council Member Greene said she believed what would benefit Chapel Hill is a model similar to that used in Davidson. Council Member Strom asked what such an ordinance would do to the Land Trust. In order words, he asked, could we still support a Land Trust with such an ordinance? Council Member Greene answered yes.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the concept of Inclusionary Zoning has been discussed her entire term on the Council. She said the Council had worked hard to find an alternative to such zoning that would achieve the same results. She asked how Inclusionary Zoning would give us more that what we have? Mr. Horton said the staff could review the Davidson report, talk with their staff, and possibly arrange a site visit if there was interest.
Council Member Strom said there was a former staff member of the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) with expertise in this area, and might be willing to read the Davidson report and offer an opinion to the Council.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed it would be a good idea to conduct some public education so that the public would understand the Town’s commitment to affordable housing. Mr. Horton said he believed this would be a separate issue from the evaluation of the report.
Mayor Foy asked how the Council wanted to proceed. The Council agreed by consensus to proceed as suggested by the Manager.
Mayor Foy noted he was interested in finding out if there was a way to get some of the County’s bond money to purchase land before it is not longer available.
Mayor Foy moved on to the new items listed under #1, Community Character, on the charts, beginning with street vendors.
Council Member Strom said that many towns have locations set aside for street vendors, and believed it was a viable idea. He asked if there was any interest for a designated vendor space in Chapel Hill.
Council Member Hill said he felt in the past it had been problematic, the issue being that it made particular areas appear cluttered. Council Member Strom said he felt street vendors could be used as a tool to promote the downtown.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he thought some of our Town regulations prevented merchants from using the areas in front of their stores, for instance a restaurant. Mr. Karpinos noted that State laws prevented the sale or consumption of alcohol by restaurants on the sidewalks.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins suggested one idea would be to create an outside market area, possibly at the Rosemary Deck Plaza. Council Member Strom responded he did not want to eliminate street vendors by pooling them away from the streets.
Mayor Foy asked if the Manager saw the topics of street vendors, outside markets, and others as suitable to consider within the development of the Downtown Small Area Plan. The Manager agreed to do so.
Council Member Ward said he would not like to see street vendors limited to just the downtown area. Mayor Foy said he was suggesting that discussions begin within that context.
Mayor Foy asked for Council consensus to have the staff include the items noted in the Goals for the Comprehensive Plan, and have a report brought back for Council consideration. The Council agreed by consensus.
Mr. Horton asked for some guidance on the remaining items.
Regarding item 3f, Adoption of the N.C. Rehabilitation Code, Council Member Greene said this code would make it easier to rehabilitate older buildings.
Regarding item 3g, Updating Inventory of Historic Resources, Council Member Greene said she was interested in pursuing the preservation of post-World War II architecture, of which Chapel Hill has an abundance. She said it was a style of architecture that needs to be preserved, and suggested a medium or low priority category to keep it in our minds.
Regarding item 3q, Neighborhood Advocate, Council Member Ward said he wanted this to be a high first priority. He envisions this being someone who can help inform and educate citizens in a way that would diffuse misinformation he said, and help citizens be more effective in communicating with the Council. Council Member Ward noted the need to move on it sooner than later so it can help the Council interact with the community. Mr. Horton indicated he had discussed this with Council Member Ward earlier, including the system in place which provides a Planner-on-Call, so that anyone coming into the Planning Office would be assured that someone is available to talk with them. Mr. Horton noted the Town Information Officer could focus on a part of a Neighborhood Advocate issue.
Mr. Horton told the Council about
another idea, that of focusing on what he called Local Government 101. He said
his vision is we would create a Neighborhood Advocate education program that
would certify citizens as advocates who could be tied to the communications
system of the Town and be effective advocates for their neighborhoods. He said
there would be a need for follow-up training, but he believes such a system
would be beneficial to the Town and the entire community. Mr. Horton said he
had asked his intern to begin gathering data for such a program.
Mr. Horton explained that we have just begun the second recruitment for a Town Information Officer, and have identified five finalists. He indicated he hoped to be finished with this process in the next couple of months. He asked the Council’s permission to continue with this program.
Council Member Ward said this was a different approach from what he was suggesting, but believed it would serve the same purpose.
Council Member Verkerk asked if he would work with the School of Government in setting up this program. Mr. Horton replied there were many resources to draw from, and staff, Council members, and others would teach the course.
Council Member Hill said such a program might help to promote service on Town advisory boards. Mr. Horton agreed that would be likely.
Regarding item 3aa, OWASA/Council Relationship, Ms. Johnson noted we were required to include OWASA in the Town’s financial reports because the Council appoints five of the nine members, so in effect the Council has control of the Board.
Council Member Strom said the Council does not have the OWASA Board report to them often enough. Mayor Foy suggested OWASA be placed on the Council’s calendar for a quarterly report, allotting them 30 minutes to make a report.
Council Member Ward, who had added this goal to the list, said this was a good first step.
Mayor Foy noted there were several topics to be included under #5, Housing. Mr. Karpinos said there were some legislative issues regarding this, and he would report back to the Council very soon.
Council Member Verkerk suggested referring item #3u, Energy Bond, to the Sustainability, Environment, and Energy Committee (SEEC). The Council agreed by consensus.
Regarding Items 3b and 3e relating to the Tree Ordinance, Mayor Foy noted he would like to proceed with this goal as it has been in place for some time, even though it is controversial. He asked that this be discussed at a later time, but not to loose site of it. Mr. Horton indicated this could be included with other issues regarding LUMO. The Council agreed by consensus.
Regarding item 3L, Chapel Hill Transit’s Future (Transit Master Plan with Partners), Council Member Strom requested that this issue be a top priority, adding it may be a project that requires a consultant.
Council Member Harrison agreed, adding that there was already community interest in this. The Council agreed by consensus to make it a top priority.
Council Member Ward noted he had included the issue of transfer and purchase of development rights in today’s discussion. He noted his belief that we needed to plan discussions with the County to address this within the next two years. Council Member Ward remarked that we don’t have this companion piece to address density when necessary, adding we should be able to allocate increased density when the infrastructure permits.
Mayor Foy commented that it looks like this should be moved to a higher priority. Mr. Horton said a priority status would be suggested when the staff report comes back.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the County had received a report on the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, and pressure was brought to stay on the schedule as proposed. She said the County is attempting to implement it with the Schools. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that many times we believe we have it under control, then the State changes the mandates, which throws our estimates out of kilter. For instance, she noted, the State mandate is for no more than 18 children in a kindergarten class, so if we need to make it 20 we have to provide the additional funding.
Mayor Foy then moved to the topics noted on the flip chart.
Mayor Foy stated the University wanted to make a presentation to the Council on Carolina North and a work session was previously scheduled in February. But, he explained, it appears that the presentation cannot take place until March. Mayor Foy noted the concern was that the plan would be presented to the University’s Board of Trustees before the Council had an opportunity to comment. Jonathan Howes, speaking for the University, said the plan now is that it will go to the Board of Trustees in March for information, then back to them in May or June for approval. Mr. Howes said it was unlikely that the Trustees will take any action on the plan until June.
Council Member Strom said that schedule would give the Horace Williams Committee an opportunity to complete its work and schedule a public hearing. He said he would like to have that in place before holding a work session with the Council and the University.
Council Member Hill agreed, noting that the Committee was close to completing
its work and should be ready in a few weeks to present a report to the Council
for a public hearing.
Mayor Foy noted that as soon as the public hearing is held, the Council needed to take action. He asked if the Council wanted to have a presentation from the University of the revised plan before the Council adopts its plan in March, asking what would be most helpful?
Council Member Ward voiced his opinion that the Council should proceed with
completing the work with the Horace Williams Committee and adopting that, then
meet with the University after that has taken place. Mr. Horton said there was
a qualitative difference in the University presenting information in the
Council Chamber and following the public process of allowing comment on the
plan. Council Member Ward agreed, noting then that everyone would know what
the goals and principles of the Town were, and the University would have the
opportunity to hear from the Council and the public.
Mayor Foy asked if we should set a time to meet with the University for sometime in April, and decide the format of that at a latter time.
Council Member Verkerk agreed.
Council Member Ward said it appeared we would be ready before April, and March would be better time.
Council Member Hill said he did not see the need to hurry this along.
Mayor Foy said options were: we finish the Horace Williams work, then wait to see what the University does; or, we send the report to the University with the expectation that there will be a response, which would be “here is the plan as shown to the Trustees, and what do you want to ask us.”
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like to see how the University’s plan was or was not being responsive. Mr. Horton said one way of approaching this would be to send the Council-endorsed Horace Williams plan to the University, and ask them to consider including each principle into its plan before sending it to the Board of Trustees for adoption. Then, he stated, ask the University to participate in a public hearing in the Council Chamber and be prepared to discuss how each of the principles in the Council’s endorsed plan is addressed in the University’s plan.
Council Member Strom said it was possible that the Council may need to refer the Horace Williams Committee report back to the Committee for further work, and he did not want to limit the time that citizens might need to offer comments.
Mayor Foy said it was possible that if we wait too long, the Board of Trustees would adopt a plan without the opportunity for the Town to participate. Mr. Horton said he believed that before the year was out the University would be filing an application for development of the Horace Williams property. Mr. Howes confirmed that was correct, but the planned presentation to the Trustees in March was for information only, with no action scheduled until at least June. Mr. Howes added it was unlikely that the Trustees would adopt a plan before the Town has an opportunity to comment.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed the University had every intention of showing in their plan how they have responded to the Town’s concerns. She said she believed that the Town’s values would be reflected in whatever is proposed by the University.
Mayor Foy stated he believed there was consensus that as soon as the Council endorses the plan from the Horace Williams Committee, it would be forwarded to the University. And, he added, we would leave the next steps open on how to proceed.
Mayor Foy called attention to a letter from Chancellor Moeser regarding a request that Town staff work collaboratively with the University on technical aspects of Carolina North as well as work with the University’s consultants. He noted the staff was hesitant to proceed without direction from the Council. Mr. Horton said he believed that such a collaborative effort would put the staff moving ahead of the Council, since it would require the staff to make assumptions of what the Council may want. He said many issues were unresolved, and did not want to proceed in a way that may work against the Council’s purposes.
Council Member Hill said he agreed with the Manager, especially in regard to zoning issues that remain unresolved.
Council Member Harrison said the Carolina North project is in effect a Concept Plan, admittedly a huge one. But, he added, the Council does not offer an initial staff response on concept plans.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said Council Member Harrison was right on one level, but she did not believe that University staff was waiting for the Town before they began specific work. She said Mr. Howes’ acknowledgement that an application would be coming before the end of the year speaks to the amount of work ongoing by University staff.
Council Member Strom said he believed that the University had access to our technical staff now through the normal public process, noting that our documents were public records and staff was available to answer questions or explain policies.
Mayor Foy asked if the University was being treated differently than any other developer. Mr. Horton said this is a case where the Town has set out a process of how it wanted to proceed, and added he was uncomfortable proceeding without specific direction from the Council.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that we should take any opportunity the Council can avail itself of so that Carolina North does not become another development in our Town that is a point of contention among the Council. She said what was important was to keep an open and honest dialogue with the University in a positive way. Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated the Town has evaluated the impact of Carolina North and should continue to forward the Council’s principles to the University.
Mr. Howes said the Chancellor’s primary purpose in the letter was to make the Town’s technical staff available to the University’s consultants for specific data, for instance, traffic issues. He said if it would be helpful, he could provide a list of specific issues that the University might need assistance with. The Council agreed to request more specificity from the University in what types of assistance they need.
Mr. Horton stated that when reading the Chancellor’s letter, the issues noted are too vague and the Council has not yet set policies in many of the areas. He said that the staff has always been available to the University, but the staff cannot make policy decisions.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she was interested in working with the University through a spirit of cooperation, and with a positive attitude. She said she understood that the staff could not comment on issues not yet decided.
Council Member Hill noted he believed the Council was in agreement.
Council Member Ward said he would like to receive the list from the University of specific issues they would like to work on with Town staff.
Regarding the Coalition of Neighbors Near Campus Petition from Elaine Barney, received and referred to today’s discussion on January 12, Mayor Foy said this petition asked the Council to stop all meetings with members of the University staff and to institute some sort of system of registering lobbyists.
Council Member Hill said he had looked at the website, and the system of registering as a lobbyist was fairly straightforward.
Council Member Greene said that under current law, a lobbyist is a paid position, and does not include citizens working on neighborhood issues.
Mayor Foy asked what would be accomplished by such a process? Council Member Strom responded it accomplishes more disclosure. He suggested the creation of a Mayor’s Committee to bring a proposal back to the Council for consideration. Council Member Strom proposed that Council Member Greene chair that committee.
Council Member Verkerk said that meetings with University officials were meant to be conduits, not an attempt at lobbying. She said we are trying to advocate conversation, and she did not want to have to register as a lobbyist if she has a conversation or shares a meal with a University official. She said she did not want her ethics or morals regulated.
Mayor Foy said he did not know what is gained if Council Member Verkerk has a
meeting with the Chancellor and has to register that meeting. She worked for
the University and is concerned with University issues. Why, he asked, should
she have to register that? Council Member Strom responded that he believes the
additional disclosure is helpful, and that a lot more is being discussed at
these types of meetings than is known.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that regular citizens do not have the training to perform as a paid, trained lobbyist, but are just as committed to working toward their goal. He said such a process allows citizens to have an open door on what is taking place, and it was not outrageous to suggest such a process.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said this discussion was about full disclosure, focused on full disclosure in regards to the University. She said that full disclosure should run the entire gambit of Council activity. For instance, Mayor pro tem Wiggins suggested, if she is meeting with a neighborhood group during a public hearing, she should fully disclosure all exchanges of information during that meeting. She said if we don’t do it across the board, it becomes a negative process.
Council Member Strom again suggested creation of a Mayor’s Committee to bring a proposal forward for the Council’s consideration.
Council Member Greene suggested looking at what other cities are doing.
Council Member Verkerk commented her belief that this petition targets the University.
Council Member Kleinschmidt commented that we don’t have a policy that requires lobbyists to disclose their activities. Mr. Karpinos noted he had cautioned the Council in the past that if they learn of something outside the public process, they are required to disclose that during the public process so that it becomes part of the public record. He said anything that influences a decision must be disclosed through due process.
Council Member Ward said that in the past the Council had expressed interest in developing a relationship with the Board of Trustees, in addition to the Chancellor and others. He said we are saying on one hand that is a good thing, but this petition seems to cast that relationship in a very negative light. He said he did not know what was to be gained. Council Member Ward said if the Council wanted to proceed with a Mayor’s Committee to study this proposal, he would like to include the Attorney’s comprehensive perspective and experience.
Council Member Hill said one thing lost here is that regulating lobbyists has not reduced their influence or effectiveness. He said this type of regulation instills more confidence in the public.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said this is coming up in the context of being directed at the University, noting the petition asked that meetings with University officials stop. She said this assumes Council dishonesty or misbehavior. Mayor pro tem Wiggins reminded the Council that the petition specifically requested that all meetings “cease” which is a strong request and not to be taken lightly.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said until a policy is set, he will not meet with any University officials, but did not feel that others should have to follow that policy.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the Mayor’s Committee should focus on disclosure of activities, and not be limited to just meetings with University officials. There are other settings when we meet with other groups or persons and it is not disclosed, she explained, so why not deal with full disclosure? Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that even if we set guidelines, many of us will continue to do as we wish. She stated that setting up a committee is just a show, in terms of our own ethical behavior.
Council Member Strom agreed that whatever policy we decided on should not be limited to just the University, and suggested that Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos serve as the staff liaison.
Council Member Verkerk said one-on-one meetings is a University academic standard. She said when she first came to the University she was paired with a faculty member who could help her when needed and met often with that member. She said she believed this is how the University operates and it is not an effort to lobby.
Mayor Foy wondered if the Council set such a policy, what happens when he receives a phone call requesting help with regard to, for instance, affordable housing. Does he have to first ask the person to register as a lobbyist, he asked? Mayor Foy said he did not want this issue to prohibit the Council from doing its job, but that such a scenario is his fear.
Mayor Foy formed a Mayor’s Committee to report back to the Council on this petition. Committee members were Mayor pro tem Wiggins and Council Members Greene, Hill, and Verkerk, with Council Member Greene as Chair. Mr. Karpinos is to serve as the Committee’s staff liaison.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed disclosure was important, and felt uncomfortable when Council members met with neighborhood groups and she was not invited. She said she felt excluded from the process.
The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.