SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.

Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

Council Member Dorothy Verkerk was absent, excused.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster, Human Resources Director Pam Eastwood, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka, Assistant Transportation Director Kurt Neufang, Assistant Human Resources Director Anissa Graham-Davis, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Principal Planner Gene Poveromo, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Item 1 – Ceremonies

1a.       Greenways Commission Open Space Awards

Peter Calingaert, Chair of the Greenways Commission, noted that in order to honor contributions made by individuals and others to preserve open space, build trails and maintain public areas, the Greenways Commission had created the Chapel Hill Greenways and Open Space Awards.  He announced the recipients of the Citizens Award:  Chris Bukawski and Matt Lisch.  Mr. Calingaert noted the recipient of the Honor Award was the Orange/Chatham Group of the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club.

Item 2 – Public Hearings:  None.

Item 3 – Petitions

3a.       Petitions by Citizens

Orange County State of the Environment Report for 2004

Mayor Foy noted that Orange County Commissioner Alice Gordon was present to present the Orange County State of the Environment Report for 2004.

Commissioner Gordon distributed an Executive Summary of the State of the Environment Report to the Council.  She said the notable thing about the report, which was prepared every two years, was that comprehensively studied air quality, biological resources, and water quality.  Commissioner Gordon also gave the Council a copy of the County’s Lands Legacy Program, stating there were a number of items noted there.

3a(1).   Chapel Hill Bible Church, regarding Relief from Stormwater Management Fees.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton if this issue had already been sent to the Stormwater Advisory Board.  Mr. Horton said he believed they were aware of it.  Mayor Foy suggested that this petition be referred to the Manager and to the Advisory Board.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND THE STORMWATER ADVISORY BOARD.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3a(2).   Catherine Frank, regarding an Historic Preservation Easement at the Old Library.

Catherine Frank, Director of the Chapel Hill Preservation Society, spoke in favor of the petition to consider an historic preservation easement for the Old Chapel Hill Public Library.  She noted that this petition was agenda item #15a.1.

Ms. Frank stated that the Old Library was sensitive to its site and used materials, particularly the stone, that echoes the stone walls in Town.  She encouraged the Council to continue to use all Town-owned buildings, including the Town Hall, for public uses.

3a(3).   Andrea Rohrbacher, regarding the Chapel Hill Downtown Economic Development Corporation’s Summer Events Planned for August 2.

Ms. Rohrbacher, representing the Chapel Hill Downtown Economic Development Corporation, petitioned the Council to waive the fee for rental of the Hargraves Center for the Corporation’s concert event planned for August 2, which coincided with the national “Neighborhood Night Out.”  In addition, she noted that Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz had been approached with ways the Town could further contribute to the event.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3a(4).   Mac Clarke, regarding Certain Buildings Owned by the Town.

Mr. Clarke, speaking on behalf of the several members of the Citizens Budget Review Committee, indicated that the Committee had recommended that the Council consider selling one of the three buildings that the Town owned but did not use for its own purposes, as well as consideration of other actions to mitigate the expense to the taxpayers of these facilities.  He said a key element in the Manager’s response was that any or all of these buildings may be required in the near future to accommodate Town employees and other Town functions, although no analysis was offered to support that assertion.

Mr. Clark petitioned the Council to request that the Manager prepare, for each year beginning with 1999 and through 2005, a tabulation of those Town employees who have needed office space, by department and location.  He also requested that the Manager prepare, for the next 10 years, estimates of the increased office staff on the same basis and the changing functional needs of the Town, and how each of the three buildings might be needed to accommodate these identified space needs.

Mr. Horton said he normally did not comment on a petition, but he believed that Mr. Clarke had misunderstood what he had said.  He said he had not indicated that we would need any or all of those buildings in the near future, he had said in the next 25 years.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that needs may arise that had nothing to do with new staffing, but we may need to move staff around since we did not need some facilities that were substandard.  He said when the Manager responds to the petition, he would like him to articulate that for the petitioner as well as for the Council.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said the issue was more complicated than     having more employees.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3a(5).   Robin Cutson, regarding Public Comment on the Budget at the June 20^th Council Meeting.

Ms. Cutson petitioned the Council to allow public comments by citizens on the budget at the June 20^th meeting, prior to the Council’s scheduled adoption on June 27^th.  She said the public had been allowed to comment on previous presentations by the Manager and the Citizens Budget Review Committee, but if the final draft was not presented until June 27^th, the public had no time to read it and form comments prior to adoption.

Ms. Cutson said citizens should have an opportunity to make final comments on the budget.  She also recommended that in the future, the Council complete its budget deliberations prior to scheduled adoption in order to allow citizens to make final comments prior to adoption of a budget.  Ms. Cutson said this would allow the public to look at and comment on the actual budget with all its inclusions and amendments before adoption took place.

Mayor Foy confirmed with the Manager that the June 20^th meeting was a public hearing.  Mr. Horton responded that was correct, noting that the June 27^th meeting would have the budget scheduled for adoption, and any citizen could comment at that time.

Mayor Foy asked Ms. Cutson if she was requesting that the Council hold an additional public comment period.  Ms. Cutson responded that she was requesting that citizens be allowed to speak on the budget that evening.

Mr. Horton noted that the agenda for June 20^th did not have discussion of the budget scheduled for that time.  Mayor Foy asked if the Council objected to allowing citizens the opportunity to speak on June 20^th.  There was no objection.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ALLOW PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE BUDGET AT THE JUNE 20^TH PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3a(6).   David Hill, regarding a Meadowmont Traffic Study

Mr. Hill complimented Town staff for their excellent and competent help over the past several weeks, particularly Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli and several Police Officers regarding safety issues.  He petitioned the Council to make the resources available to the Traffic Engineer and the Police Department to conduct a comprehensive study of traffic and safety issues in Meadowmont.  Mr. Hill said there were perceptions of problem areas regarding speeding, parking and other issues, and now was the time to put together a comprehensive safety program to avoid individual neighborhoods from approaching the Council for solutions to their particular problems.

Mr. Hill said they hoped to get the study conducted during the summer and the first few weeks of fall, and then put together a comprehensive plan and come back to the Council with recommendations and perhaps additional petitions to help solve some of those problems.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3a(7).   Terry Blalock for Active Living by Design, regarding a Committee Restructure Request

Mr. Blalock, Chair of the Active Living by Design Committee, noted that the Committee was established in May of 2004 with a 20-member partnership.  He noted that six of the original partnership members had resigned or had asked to be removed from the Committee.  Mr. Blalock said as a result, quorums had not always been met at meetings, which delayed progress on initiatives.  He said the Committee believed that the Town’s objectives were better served by using the resources of these organizations on an as-needed basis when initiatives under action could benefit from their capabilities.

Mr. Blalock petitioned the Council to consider reducing the Committee size to the 14 members actively involved in creating active living awareness within the Town and allowing the Committee to request support from other groups, as well as invite members of the public with an interest in the objectives of the Committee, to attend on an as-needed basis.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Announcements by Council Members.  None.

Item 4 – Consent Agenda

Mayor Foy indicated that citizens had signed up to speak on Item #4e, #4g, and #4L, so those items would be pulled from the Consent Agenda.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1 WITH ITEMS E, G, AND L REMOVED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item #4e:    Memorandum of Agreement: Joint Chapel Hill-Carrboro-Orange County Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Reduction Plan.

Robin Cutson urged the Council not to authorize the Agreement for the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Reduction Plan.  She stated that this Agreement authorized $13,000 to pay for a consultant, affiliated with the International Council for Local and Environmental Initiatives.  Ms. Cutson said that environmentalists agreed that the major cause of air pollution in the Southeast was coal-burning power plants.  She said that environmentalists also agreed that industry and power plants had been granted exemptions, loopholes, and time extensions on installing adequate pollution control devices time and time again.

Ms. Cutson provided a description of how industry and power plants work within the national system, which included consultants who measure pollution.  She commented on how other actions were used to cloud the issue, such as blaming the pollution on yard equipment or car use rather the coal-burning plants such as that operated by the University.

Ms. Cutson said the consultant the Town was considering hiring catered to the interests of corporations and developers who were recommending curtailing individual freedoms.  She provided additional information regarding “Agenda 21” which was a national initiative.  Ms. Cutson said the Council needed to decide if it wanted to cater to the interests of corporations and developers under the guise of concern for the environment, or whether it wanted to stand up for individuals and small businesses.  She said that hiring this consultant was not protecting the environment.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item #4g:    Consideration of “No Parking Anytime Except by Residential Permit” Regulations on Parkridge Avenue in the Meadowmont Development.

Mary Margaret Carroll stated she was speaking for the 12 households with 26 children located on Parkridge Avenue situated closest to the Meadowmont soccer field. She noted that Parkridge Avenue was a small street with two blind curves and a sidewalk on one side only.  Ms. Carroll said that patrons of the soccer field often park on Parkridge Avenue, creating a dangerous situation for children crossing the street between their homes and the cars parked or driving through.

Ms. Carroll said that users of the soccer field had been directed to use the parking at Rashkis Elementary School, but because their street had no signage the users of the field generally ignored that directive.  She petitioned the Council to consider allowing parking on Parkridge Avenue by residents only, and that signage to that effect be erected.

David Hill clarified that his earlier comments did not include this very unique situation, and the Meadowmont Board was in support of this petition.  He said this neighborhood was the only one that bordered the soccer fields.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE O-1a.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE O-1b.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item #4L:   Regulation of the Use of Landscape Equipment.

Sam Jordan, with Stihl, Inc., said he believed the proposed hours of operation for leaf blowers and other lawn equipment was reasonable and should meet the interest of all parties, and thanked the staff for that recommendation.

Mr. Jordan asked the Council to revisit item (d) as listed in the proposed ordinance, which referred to a decibel rating standard that the Town would measure 20 feet from the operation of a lawn mower or leaf blower or other motorized equipment.  He said the American National Standards Institute developed standards that all leaf blower manufacturers used to test machinery, and that 65 dBa was the level for low-noise blower, but the measurement for that level was at 50 feet, not 20 feet.  Mr. Jordan said if the ordinance was adopted as it currently read, it would preclude anyone from purchasing a leaf blower that would meet the Town’s standard.

Mr. Jordan encouraged the Council to take a look at how they would regulate other motorized equipment, specifically lawn mowers, noting he was not sure how that would be enforced.  He said he assumed if the Town received a complaint then someone could measure the decibel level.  Mr. Jordan said the reality was that most homeowners had no idea as to what the decibel level of their equipment was.

Mayor Foy asked the Manager or the Attorney to comment on item (d) that Mr. Jordan referred to, specifically the 20 feet versus the 50 feet.  Mr. Karpinos said the intent behind this section was that when people were nearby it was more of a courtesy that the operator of the equipment would reduce the intensity which would lower the volume.  He said as long as there was no one in the vicinity, it would not matter if it was 50 feet or 20 feet.  Mr. Karpinos said the intent behind this provision was for the operator to be aware if someone was close to them when they were operating the equipment

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED ORDINANCE O-4, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted she had received a call today from a citizen who has multiple sclerosis, a physical illness that did not tolerate hot weather very well, and also an illness that encouraged physical activity such as walking. She stated the citizen had indicated he would like to continue to mow his own lawn, and usually did so this time of year beginning around 7:30 p.m. and finishing around 9:00.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that because he had such a short window when the temperature was lower, it took him a couple of days to complete the mowing.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said he had not asked that the Council change the ordinance, rather he had asked that a sentence be included so that under special circumstances like physical condition a citizen could obtain a permit to use whatever piece of equipment they needed to use outside of the hours noted in the ordinance.

Mayor Foy said then the question would be could a citizen obtain a waiver from an ordinance.  Mr. Karpinos replied that he had spoken to Mayor pro tem Wiggins about this issue earlier today, and he had drafted some language that would address that issue by inserting a new section (f).

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED TO AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO MODIFY SECTION (D) FROM 20 FEET TO THE 50 FEET.

Council Member Harrison stated that he knew more about noise measurement than he did about lawn equipment, but he had never seen a noise study that measured noise from 20 feet, because that was so close you could not get a realistic measurement.  He said that would mean that a reasonably well-maintained residential lawn mower with the basic muffler would meet the standard.

COUNCIL MEMBERS HILL AND STROM ACCEPTED COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON’S AMENDMENT.

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated he did not agree that the time frame for cutting grass on Saturdays and Sundays should be 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.  He said not being able to cut your grass at 5 p.m. on a Saturday was not reasonable to him. Council Member Kleinschmidt suggested that the times for weekdays and weekends should be the same, which was 8 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Council Member Hill noted that this was a “complaint driven” ordinance, meaning that if you were not bothering anyone there would be no problem.  He said that 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends was “prime barbeque” time and many people would be using their backyards at that time.

Council Member Kleinschmidt reiterated that it seemed unreasonable to have to stop mowing grass at 5 p.m. on a Saturday, and that 7 p.m. was more reasonable.

COUNCIL MEMBERS HILL AND STROM ACCEPTED THE ATTORNEY’S NEW SECTION (f) WHICH PROVIDED FOR EXCEPTIONS TO THE ORDINANCE UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED TO AMEND THE END TIME FOR SATURDAY TO 7 P.M.  THE MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.

THE MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE O-4, AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE NEW SECTION (f) AND TO MODIFY SECTION (d) FROM 20 FEET TO 50 FEET, WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-9.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 5 – Information Reports

Mayor Foy noted that a citizen had signed up to speak on item #5d, Response to Petition Requesting a Crosswalk and a Sidewalk on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard at Weaver Dairy Road.

Donny Lofland stated that he supported the petition, noting that his home was located at the corner in question.  He said putting in a sidewalk was a good idea for safety reasons, adding he was also in favor of any other improvements such as crosswalks across Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-15.1 REQUESTING THE ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TO PURSUE AN APPLICATION TO THE NCDOT FOR FUTURE ALLOCATIONS OF MOVING AHEAD FUNDS FOR THIS PROJECT.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Strom pulled Agenda Item #5f, Response to Petition to Allow Continued Use of the Greenways Program Logo.  He said he would like to refer that item to the Council’s Communication Committee for further review.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO REFER THIS ITEM TO THE COUNCIL’S COMMUNICATION COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER REVIEW.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Agenda Item #10, Citizen Comments

Mayor Foy noted that before the Council continued its agenda, there were three citizens who had requested to speak early on Agenda Item #10, a Report on Proposed Process and Schedule for Proceeding with Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD).  The Council agreed by consensus.

Delores Bailey, speaking on behalf of the Pine Knolls Association, stated that they agreed with the Manager’s recommendation for Option A, Alternative 2.  She said they were strong and ready to work, and offered their services to expedite that process.  Ms. Bailey described how they would do so.

Laura Moore, speaking on behalf of the Morgan Creek/Kings Mill Homeowners Association, presented a formal request that their neighborhood become a Neighborhood Conservation District.  She stated they had a lot of energy available in their neighborhood to move forward with this process.  Ms. Moore presented the Council with their signed petition.

Tim Dempsey, Chair of the Planning Board, stated that they had taken the process of creating NCD’s very seriously and had discussed it at length on many occasions.  He said they realized that the process would create a heavy work load and they would not be able to handle it all.  Mr. Dempsey said the Planning Board was fully committed to getting four NCD’s considered within the one-year timeframe, noting they believed it was important to do that.

Mr. Dempsey said whatever process was used, it must have strong commitment, involvement and cooperation from staff, the Planning Board, the communities, and the consultant.  He noted the Planning Board was concerned to what extent the consultant would take ownership of the outcome of the process, and whether or not there should be committees from each neighborhood.  Mr. Dempsey stated they were concerned about whether the consultant would have the capabilities to facilitate the meetings and to design the process and execute it, in addition to doing the “knowledge” work.  He said after discussions with the Planning Director, they wanted to make sure that the process continued to be defined and resolved, and was not all approved tonight.

Mr. Dempsey said the Planning Board was committed to having its Long Range Planning Committee that met each month devote their time to this topic.  He said they would like to have the Planning Board work with the consultant, rather than the two having separate defining roles.  Mr. Dempsey noted one line in the materials that said the staff would take care of the Planning Board’s needs.  He said he did not believe that was the staff’s intention nor was it the Planning Board’s intention.

Mr. Dempsey said the last concern they had was about neighborhood committees.  He said he understood that recruitment and selection of such committees took some time, and starting this process in mid-June was a hard time to start such a process.  Mr. Dempsey said those committee members who had participated in the Northside process had helped build consistency in thought and consistency in ideas and knowledge.  He said they had looked to them as authority figures on what was happening in the neighborhood.  Mr. Dempsey said that to the extent that the committee members helped transition to the rest of the neighborhood information regarding the NCD process, they believed the committee played a large role in smoothing that transition and had legitimacy, so it was important that as a NCD goes forward, that it felt legitimate to all concerned.  Mr. Dempsey said for those reasons, the committees played an important role and were important to the process, and asked the Council to give it serious consideration.

Mr. Dempsey said if the Council chose not to create formal committees, he would ask that those people within the neighborhoods that were committed to the process attend the meetings and participate informally and take a leadership role, which would bring the Planning Board that continuity of thought and in turn help transition within the neighborhoods.

Council Member Greene said all four of the specific neighborhoods being considered tonight for the NCD process had active neighborhood associations.  She asked if the Planning Board had considered having the Associations designate a committee from their members rather than having the Council form a committee.  Mr. Dempsey responded that they had discussed that, but did not come to a consensus.  He said he believed it was a good idea since those neighborhoods did have strong associations.  Mr. Dempsey said he had been swayed through his talks with the Planning Director that this was a good idea, given the amount of time available to form such committees.  He said clearly having the neighborhoods use their association members to form these committees was a welcomed idea, and their participation would be welcomed.

Council Member Greene said she was pleased the Planning Board wanted to help refine the process with the help of a consultant, but wondered if there was a place in their minds for the Council to have input into that final process.  Mr. Dempsey replied that the idea of getting the process through certain steps with occasional “sanity checks” by the Council was the way to go.  He added he believed it was useful to have members of the Council attend the meetings as well.

Delores Bailey reminded the Council that when the Northside committee was formed, it did not include persons outside of their neighborhood such as developers.  She said she wanted the Council to be sure when such committees were formed that they were diverse and included those individuals who had the appropriate expertise.

Rudy Juliano, speaking on behalf of the Coker Hills neighborhood, stated they supported the Manager’s recommendation, and that they supported Option A.  He said in their community people were interested and excited and there was momentum present.  Mr. Juliano said having to wait a year or some other period of time would allow that momentum to decrease.

Mr. Juliano said negative impacts on their community were continuing, noting residents were concerned about inappropriate high density rental, inappropriate commercial use of residences, and the potential for expansion construction.  He said none of these things would wait on a process, so he hoped the Council would consider a fast track approach to letting the neighborhoods move forward with the NCD process.

Mayor Foy said he expected that the Council would take some action this evening when this issue was formally considered.

Item 6 – Orange County Economic Development

Five-Year Strategic Plan: 2004-2009

Dianne Reed, Director of Economic Development Commission for Orange County, noted that many of the Council had participated in the Economic Development Summit held in January of 2004.  She stated that the Summit had built on previous studies and plans conducted in municipalities at the county level, and had provided them with direction on where they wanted to go with their plans.  Ms. Reed said four issues emerged as having critical importance, and they had concluded that investing in innovation would be important to their plans to prosper as a community.

Ms. Reed presented their Draft Five Year Strategic Plan: 2004 – 2009.  She noted that a new mission statement had emerged from this plan: “Our purpose is to make Orange County a smart, innovative place – a great place in which to live and work.  We encourage public-private investments to provide jobs for county residents and to increase the non-residential tax base.  Through these investments, we enhance the financial well-being and quality of life of county residents, and the ability of their local government to provide high quality services.”

Ms. Reed stated that the overall goal of the Plan was to create 5,000 new private sector jobs and increase the assessed value of non-residential property by $125 million in Orange County, by June 2009.  She said they would seek to accomplish those goals by pursuing four strategies: two business-focused strategies – business climate and infrastructure; and, two worker-focused strategies – workforce development and quality of place.  Ms. Reed provided a brief description of the four strategies:

Business Climate: By June 2009, public-private partnerships will have formed to create a stronger business climate and Orange County will have a clear set of guidelines and regulatory standards designed to sustain and nurture existing businesses, encourage entrepreneurship, and attract targeted employers.

Infrastructure: By June 2009, infrastructure will be in place to support the county’s economic development goals of increasing the commercial tax base and retaining and attracting targeted businesses.

Workforce Development: By June 2009, effective systems will be in place to train and support residents and those who work in Orange County. At least 75 percent of all new jobs in the county (for both new and expanding businesses) will be filled by county residents.

Quality of Place: By June 2009, Orange County will have thriving partnerships ensuring that the county is a great place in which to live and work, attracting and retaining the creative community of innovators, artists and civic leaders that will drive the desired economy.

Ms. Reed said that the Economic Development Commission has over 120 county residents involved in this process who contributed over 1,400 hours to help craft this strategic vision for economic development in Orange County.  She said they had presented the draft plan to the County Commissioners in November, and the Commissioners had endorsed it and had asked the Commission to get input from the municipalities.  Ms. Reed said the Town of Carrboro had officially endorsed the plan, and the Town of Hillsborough was expected to endorse it in the near future.  She said she would appreciate any comments the Council would wish to make, and hoped that the Council would officially endorse the plan.

Council Member Strom suggested that the draft plan be referred to staff and that a resolution of support come back to the Council for action, if not at the next meeting then in September.

Council Member Harrison said he had attended some of the work group meetings on infrastructure.  He asked who could answer questions about some of the details in the draft plan.  She said if he had a specific question at this time she would be happy to take it.

Council Member Harrison said he had a question about page 10 where the key elements and action sub-steps were noted, particularly Section C which stated, “Encourage participating and input as appropriate in area plans and projects (i.e. stormwater plans, plans for the physical infrastructure of Carolina North, including transportation elements for Phase I).”  He said that subsection 3) under Section C stated, “As appropriate, provide input into Carolina North infrastructure, such as transportation (including rail and parking) and synergy with surrounding areas.”  Council Member Harrison asked had that been “fleshed out” or was it just something someone came up with.  Ms. Reed replied that it was an important need that was identified, but it had not been assigned to anyone as yet.

Council Member Harrison asked what would be the action step on something like that, which he believed that was important to the Council, particularly synergy with surrounding areas.  Ms. Reed said they were meeting tomorrow, and she would take that to the group and get an answer.  Council Member Harrison asked if tomorrow’s meeting was in Hillsborough.  Ms. Reed replied it was, and would be held at their offices.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if there were any people who were working on a Workforce Development Committee.  He said his point was that this was the kind of thing that would benefit working people, and could include people such as representatives of workers’ groups which would be a nice place to start. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he sees them as conspicuously absent.  He said he sees people who support working people through services, but not actual working people, and believed that was a “huge hole.”

Council Member Kleinschmidt quoted language from the Workgroup on Workforce Development: “In coordination with the Business Climate workgroup, help communicate to potential workers the types of jobs the county wants and expects to create so that workers can develop realistic career goals.”  Council Member Kleinschmidt said that statement bordered on offensive.  He said that was the type of thing that people who work for an hourly wage could have helped with. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he hoped they would continue to look for ways to expand opportunities for more diverse participation of working people.  Ms. Reed stressed that the report was a work in progress and was by no means complete, and they would address that issue.

Council Member Ward quoted language from the Workgroup on Quality of Place: “Enhance rural character by supporting local agriculture through efforts such as making farming more profitable by encouraging local markets and supporting complementary conservation and management tools.”  He said he read that to mean that organic farming was a value-added type of farming that might make it in the high real estate market that Orange County found itself in.  Ms. Reed responded not necessarily mean organic, but would include niche markets and value-added types.

Council Member Ward said there was a bill in Raleigh that would prohibit any municipality or county from prohibiting any plant species, and that would be the sole proprietorship of the Department of Agriculture.  He said his limited knowledge indicated that would be a concern to him if they were trying to protect organic farming that ran counter to the presence of genetically modified crops in mixed farms.  Council Member Ward said he would not like to lose that ability at the municipal or county level.  He said that bill was actively moving ahead at this time and he would encourage this committee and the County to get involved to get their voices heard on this issue as soon as possible.

Council Member Harrison said the bill would be discussed again on Tuesday by the State Senate on Agriculture, and so far the only vote against it in the House was Representative Verla Insko.  He said he believed no one really understood it, that it was a one-sentence bill that said all powers for controlling plants in the State would be by the Department of Agriculture.  Council Member Harrison said it was an amazing piece of legislation, and he did not know how it could be stopped.  He said we were one of about 20 states where this same initiative was being brought forth in a bill.  Council Member Harrison said he believed Senator Eleanor Kinnaird was concerned about the bill as well.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 7 – Downtown Economic Development Initiative: Selection of Developer

and Authorization to Negotiate Development Agreement

Mr. Horton noted there were three things that he wanted to bring to the Council’s attention this evening.  First, he said, they wanted to give Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt an opportunity to bring the Council up to date on the stage of work.  Secondly, Mr. Horton said, they wanted to give John Stainback, the Town’s consultant, an opportunity to review his work, and lastly wanted to give Susan Tjarksen-Russos the opportunity to briefly address the Council as leader of the Ram Development team.

Mayor Foy that the Council had noted they did not want to spend a lot of time on this since there had already been many hours spent on this issue and Ram Development had been chosen for the project.  Mr. Horton replied then he would suggest skipping Ms. Berndt’s presentation, asking Mr. Stainback to shorten his to three or four minutes, and give Ms. Tjarksen-Russos the opportunity to address the Council.  Mayor Foy agreed.

Mr. Stainback presented a PowerPoint presentation, briefly describing the recommended ranking of developers, a summary of developer proposal evaluations, and next steps.  He displayed a slide that exhibited the 10 categories used to rank and score developers, noting that Ram Development scored higher in seven of the 10 categories for a total score of 85.  Mr. Stainback noted that Grubb Development had scored a total of 62.

Mr. Stainback noted the next steps as follows:

· Prepare an Exclusive Right to Negotiate (ERN) between the Town and Ram Development.

· Complete a design review with Ram on June 20, 2005.

· Structure and negotiate a Land Lease and Development Agreement.

· Ram completes traditional Design review and Special Use Permit processes.

Ms. Tjarksen-Russos said they were “thrilled” with the Council’s confidence, faith and support in Ram Development, noting they thought highly of the Town and were excited to get started on the project.  She assured the Council that Ram Development and the development team would not disappoint them.

Mayor Foy provided the Council with an overview of Resolution A, which upon adoption would:

· select Ram Development as the developer of Parking Lots 2 and 5,

· authorize the Manager to proceed with negotiation of an Exclusive Right to Negotiate with Ram Development,

· authorize the Manager to initiate negotiations with Ram Development,

· provide the Council the option to initiate negotiations with Grubb Properties and Leyland Alliance if future negotiations with Ram Development did not result in a Development Agreement,

· designate Council members to serve with staff on a team for negotiating the Development Agreement, and

· reserve the Council’s right to award Ram Development Phase 2 of the Downtown Economic Development Initiative – development of Lot 2 – dependent on the performance of the development in developing Lot 5 and the Wallace Deck sites.

Mayor Foy noted that Council Members Strom and Hill had indicated they wished to serve as the Council’s delegates on the negotiating team.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-16a, WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS STROM, HILL AND GREENE TO SERVE ON THE NEGOTIATING TEAM.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Mayor Foy noted that resolution B would schedule a work session on June 20^th at 3 p.m. so that the Council could meet with the Ram Development to discuss design and building program issues.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-16B.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Harrison determined that the full Council would be kept informed of all meetings by the Council members on the negotiating team.

Council Member Ward asked what record would be kept of those meetings, for instance would they be videotaped or would written minutes be prepared.  He also asked would those records be available to the public and in what time frame.  Mr. Horton said the meetings would be properly noticed in accordance with State law, would begin in open session then move into closed session, and there would be a record of the discussion prepared as required by law, with that record becoming public when the need that created the need for a closed session no longer existed.  He said it would be appropriate that the Council have access to those records, which would be prepared on about the same schedule as Council meeting minutes.

Council Member Ward said he would appreciate having those records available to the Council when prepared.

Council Member Kleinschmidt clarified that the Council should treat those minutes in the same manner as closed session minutes.  Mr. Horton responded that was correct.

Item 8 – Response to Petition from Transportation Employees

Mr. Horton noted that a staff report had been prepared in response to the petition brought forth by Transportation Department employees, which included materials that provided information about relevant State law, and that provide information in a preliminary form in regard to some of the key issues raised by employees.  He said they had also proposed a process they believe would be useful in meeting and conferring with employees about the issues raised.

Mr. Horton stated that Deputy Manager Flo Miller would be the primary management representative involved in the discussions, and would report to the Council on the process that we recommend for the Council’s consideration.

Ms. Miller pointed out that they had included with the Council’s materials some information provided by the employees, and had attempted to address statements made by employees during the May 18 public hearing.  She noted that Attachment 3 was a staff report that began to address some of the concerns and issues that were raised.  Ms. Miller noted that it was preliminary, and they fully intended to continue working with the employees’ group if the Council deemed it appropriate.

Ms. Miller stated that the following process was suggested:

· Meet with Transportation employees and discuss issues they had presented.

· Management team would include the Deputy Town Manager, the Human Resources Director, the Town Attorney, the Transportation Director and other individuals as appropriate to address particular issues.

· After review, listening and discussing issues, make sure information was submitted to the Transportation Department employee forum, an existing group working to address issues.

Ms. Miller said one thing they wanted to do was make sure that information was given to all employees.  She said that would be difficult to do, but they would coordinate with the employee group to make sure that happened.  She said they would also report to the Council in the form of quick reports whatever information was appropriate.

Ms. Miller said the guidelines they were suggesting was an initial schedule of meetings to take place every other week, with the key being to keep the dialogue going and addressing the issues until they reach a point of understanding.  She said they were suggesting that the committee include about five or six employees elected by the employees, and that meetings would be held during the day and considered work time for the committee members.  Ms. Miller stated that the management team would present and review issues with the existing employee forum, as well as bring those issues forward for discussion with the Town-wide Employee Forum as appropriate.

Ms. Miller noted that in accordance with State law, they would not be able to enter into a contract or similar agreement with employees.  She stated they had followed and would continue to follow this process with other employee groups in the future.

Ms. Miller proposed that the first meeting be scheduled in July and continue as necessary.  She said they would aim to complete the discussions by November, so that if there were any budgetary impacts then they could be considered as the budget was prepared.

Stanley Norwood, a Transportation Department employee, thanked the Council for beginning a process and for meeting with members of UE Local 150.  He indicated that it was a “good thing” to meet and confer, and he and members of UE Local 150 wanted to make sure that things were done other than just talking.  Mr. Norwood said the issues brought forth were serious issues, and they wanted to see them resolved.

Regarding the process outlined by Ms. Miller, Mr. Norwood said they believed it was a “good faith” effort and a fair starting point.  He outlined the following proposal:

· That the process begin on Wednesday, July 13, and Wednesday July 27, and every two weeks from that point.

· That it be made clear that the “meet and confer” process associated with UE Local 150 members was open to all non-salaried, non-supervisory workers throughout the Town, and would not be limited to only one department as the process developed.

Mr. Norwood noted the following:

· UE Local 150 would provide to the Manager a list of its members who would participate in the meetings and represent their issues prior to the first meeting.

· In order for them to participate effectively in the process, they needed a place to meet and confer that would be accessible to all employees of the Town.  Therefore, that the Town assign a meeting space for their use on Town property, specifically the Public Works-Sanitation Division meeting room, to be made available on weekends and during the week.

· That employees attend these meetings only during their non-scheduled work hours.

· That it be made clear that the responses to their issues provided by the Manager were incorrect and did not accurately reflect the conditions they work under each day.

· That they have a list of specific proposals that addressed each issue, which they believed would help resolve some of the problems.  These proposals would be presented during the meetings and would seek to keep the Council informed on their progress in resolving the outstanding problems.

Mr. Norwood reiterated the issues of concern that had been presented to the Council previously, noting safety and health-related issues such as dirty buses and buses that lack air conditioning.

Mr. Norwood asked the Council to allow them the use of the meeting space requested as well as allowing its use on the weekends, so that they could “get the ball rolling” and so that all employees could participate in the meetings if they chose.  He asked that the Council give them an answer at this time if possible.

Mayor Foy said it seemed there were two issues that needed to be addressed, noting Mr. Norwood’s statement that the “meet and confer” process associated with UE Local 150 members was open to all non-salaried, non-supervisory workers throughout the Town.  He said he was not sure how Mr. Norwood envisioned that would actually work.  Mr. Horton said he would like the opportunity to make that a discussion issue so that they could understand it better.  He said in regard to the use of the building, he would like an opportunity to talk with the Public Works Director to make sure they understood what the issues would be there.  For instance, he said, if the building was accessible during non-work hours then security would have to be provided.  Mr. Horton said he would prefer not making a decision on these matters tonight without sufficient information.

Council Member Greene said she would like the Council to state that they were committed to asking the Manager to make sure we did find a space, whether it was the space requested and the times requested or some other solution.  Mr. Horton replied that they had no objection to that, but wanted an opportunity to study the issue and find a solution that created the least cost.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked the Council to identify a process and make it happen.

Mayor Foy determined that no specific action was necessary at this time, since this was just a update to the Council.  Mr. Horton responded that was correct. Mayor Foy asked when the Council would receive an update.  Mr. Horton replied he believed they would have an update by June 27 regarding meeting times and places.

Mr. Norwood asked if any of the Council members used public transportation.  Mayor Foy responded that he often road the bus, and had recently told the Manager that he was impressed every time he road the bus that the drivers were nice and helpful.  Mr. Norwood said every now and then it would be helpful if Council members actually inspected the buses, as far as cleanliness and upkeep.  He invited them to visit the Transit yard and take a look at the buses.

Mr. Norwood said he had recently been assigned a bus that appeared not to have been cleaned for some time.  He asked passengers to sign a petition to get the bus cleaned, and received 25 signatures.  Mr. Norwood said he had repeatedly asked that the bus be cleaned, to no avail.  He noted that he had witnessed drivers cleaning seats and sweeping buses before their shift, because they wanted to work in a cleaner environment.  Mr. Norwood said the reason he had been given that the maintenance staff left buses dirty was that they were understaffed.

Nancy Haze, a Transportation employee, asked if she was reading materials correctly where it said that 13 Town employees made their maximum salary.  Mayor Foy said yes, within their pay range.  Mr. Horton responded that no one was at the maximum in Transportation.  He stated there were only 13 employees Town-wide who were at the maximum salary in their pay range, but none of them were Transit Operator 2’s.  Ms. Haze said that meant that they had no employees within the department who were “maxed out” even with 21 or more years of service.  Mr. Horton said that was correct, with only 13 Town-wide.  Ms. Haze said that was a big question in everyone’s mind.

Item 9 – Changes to Office/Institutional Zoning District Provisions of the

Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO)

Principal Planner Gene Poveromo touched on the key issues, noting that this process had first started in 2003.  He noted that the University was in general agreement with the Manager’s recommendation.  Mr. Poveromo provided a brief description of the ordinance and each of the resolutions before the Council for consideration:

· Ordinance A would amend LUMO as recommended in the Manager’s report.

· Resolution A would ask the University to participate in semi-annual meetings between the Town and University representatives to provide updates on University development activity.

· Resolution B would amend the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines from 2001 to include a provision for submittal of an Executive Summary Report on a biennial basis beginning in December 2005.

· Resolution C would request that University representatives present a Development Plan or Modification to specific advisory boards prior to Council review.

· Resolution D would establish a policy to allow the Council to grant expedited processing of a Development Plan Modification, at the conclusion of a Concept Plan review, should the Council determine that the particular proposal involved minimal or no impact to the surrounding areas.

Robin Cutson stated she agreed with the Manager’s recommendation regarding changes to the OI-4 zoning provisions in the LUMO.  She said that regarding the LUMO revisions, there was a provision that there would be “a general demonstration that water, sewer, and other needed utilities can be made available….”  Ms. Cutson said as citizens we would want that detail.

Ms. Culpepper said with a development plan they were looking at generally where buildings were being proposed and would not as yet have specific details.  She said one of the key components of the OI-4 zoning district was that following Council approval of a Development Plan then they would require the specific approval letters from utility companies, such as from OWASA, stating that they had reviewed the detailed plans for that specific building.

Ms. Cutson clarified that her concern was that the public would still have an opportunity to comment and to ask that details be provided as plans progressed.  Ms. Culpepper assured her that there would be multiple opportunities for public participation.

Joyce Brown, representing the Westside Neighborhood Association, asked that the Council not adopt Resolution B as written, noting that the language was not only not specific in its recommendations, it was ambiguous in other respects. She noted that much of the language was unclear as to what was being changed from what is presently being done.  Ms. Brown noted that the language in the only transportation analysis to date still did not give them the information that would let them know what the University had learned about transportation problems and what was to be done to address them.

Ms. Brown noted that these transportation problems were a result of development not just on the periphery of the campus, but internal to the campus as well.  She asked that the Council think of their own neighborhoods in relation to these transportation problems, where the streets had traffic increasing at a rapid rate.  Ms. Brown asked the Council to think not only about the number of vehicles, but the speed at which they were traveling.  She said to think about bicyclists who use those streets but do not obey traffic signs and dealing with a rapidly worsening traffic situation.  Ms. Brown asked that they think about the elderly, parents with small children, and the real potential for tragedy as result of the conditions she had just described.  She asked that they now think of having to wait more years to have a proposal to solve the problems, then having to wait more years to see if it was working.

Ms. Brown said that scenario was what the Council was relegating to the neighborhoods near campus, and she was afraid that would happen to the neighborhoods near the Horace Williams tract as well.  She distributed a copy of a proposed substitute resolution.  Ms. Brown noted it included some of the language from Resolution B, but had significant changes.  She said it asked that the Council include language in the revised OI-4 to require an annual Executive Summary Report, that would identify transportation impacts, proposed mitigation measures to offset those transportation impacts and an analysis of whether any mitigation measures in place were working.  Ms. Brown said the Executive Summary should be sort and use “lay” language.

Ms. Brown said it had already been four years since the passage of OI-4, and that neighborhoods near campus were experiencing increasingly serious transportation problems.  She asked that the Council include in their resolution language that had the potential to help the neighbors before things became much worse.

Michael Collins, representing the Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth (NRG), said that they generally supported the recommendations before the Council this evening. In particular, he said, NRG applauded the recommendation to include compliance with the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, which should have been a part of OI-4 all along.  Mr. Collins said they also agree with the recommendation that included a provision that wherever possible the Town would accommodate UNC’s requests for expedited handling.

Mr. Collins said NRG’s one significant reservation was in Resolution B.  He said they wanted to add their support to Ms. Brown’s suggested amendment to Resolution B regarding traffic and its impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Specifically, Mr. Collins stated, they were concerned that Resolution B as worded could be interpreted to mean exactly what they were receiving now, which was an Executive Summary that had information contained in it that was something short of accessible.

Mr. Collins said it was important that this issue be revisited more often than every few years, as traffic situations could deteriorate rapidly.  He said it was NRG’s hope that the Council would adopt Ms. Brown’s suggested language by amending Resolution B.

Anna Wu, speaking on behalf of UNC Chancellor Moeser, noted they were in agreement with both the Planning Board and the Manager’s recommendations, adding they believed the four resolutions and the ordinance addressed the concerns brought forward by both the Council and the community.

Ms. Wu noted that Resolution B would amend the TIA Guidelines, and included an Executive Summary that the University would provide on a biennial basis.  She stated they support Resolution B and think it would be an effective tool for communicating the most important information in a clear and concise manner. Ms. Wu said that the Executive Summary would not replace the TIA, but would make its findings more understandable to citizens and campus neighbors.

Ms. Wu said some had suggested that the Executive Summary be provided on an annual basis rather than the two-year cycle.  She stated that Resolution B would require that report be provided concurrently with the TIA, adding that the two-year cycle was standard for most cities and towns.

Ms. Wu noted that in addition to the overall analysis, they also address local traffic impacts for each project, and since many projects exceed 24 months in planning and design updated traffic information was usually available and incorporated during the planning process.

Ms. Wu said that in order to maintain up-to-date information for the Development Plan process, they developed the TIA on a two-year schedule, noting that two years was the time it took to collect and analyze the relevant data, develop appropriate mitigation measures and have the report approved by the Town.  She noted that producing annual TIA would be an enormous undertaking and would not produce accurate results.

Ms. Wu stated that they believed that Resolution B, as written, would provide the Council and the community with a useful tool for understanding the TIA and evaluating the University’s mitigation efforts.

Elaine Barney, speaking for the Neighbors Near Campus (NNC), stated they were pleased to see that many of the concerns expressed by neighbors and others during this process had been addressed in the OI-4 changes.  She noted they support Ms. Brown’s statements regarding Resolution B, and support the changes she had suggested.

Mayor Foy confirmed that the Council had received a copy of UNC Vice Chancellor Suttenfield’s letter that concurred with the Manager’s recommendation and withdrawing the Protest Petition that the University had previously filed, on the condition that Ordinance A was not amended from its present state.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE O-5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-17a.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Hill stated he believed Ms. Brown’s concerns were valid and he would support her suggested amendments which maintained the two-year report but added an annual report.

Council Member Strom agreed that what Ms. Wu had stated regarding the TIA process was not what Ms. Brown was suggesting.  He asked Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli if there was a particular type of information the Council might request that would be useful, to enable the Council to be more specific in its request.  Mr. Neppalli said the Council received the Mobility Report Card every two years. He said that most of the traffic cone data that the Town collects depends on the University data, as does most data.  Mr. Neppalli said that most data collected was on a two-year cycle.

Mayor Foy said that would mean that annual reports would not be helpful because the Mobility Report Card and the Traffic Impact Analysis data were collected every two years, so annual reports would be based on the same two-year data.  Mr. Neppalli replied that was correct.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the Traffic Impact Analysis was done every two years by choice, or was there some other reason.  Mr. Neppalli stated that the Council had chosen to do it every two years and to require the University to provide the data every two years, mainly because that was the generally accepted practice throughout communities in this country.  He said that a one-year report did not provide enough time to truly reflect changing conditions.

Council Member Harrison said that the staff’s proposal would give the Council what they hoped would be a layman’s translation of a TIA.  He said these analyses were detailed, and he would take it for granted that a TIA should have an Executive Summary with them.  Council Member Harrison said what Ms. Brown and others wanted was more and frequent insights that citizens could understand, and that we get an annual picture of the University and its development not just linked so rigidly to the way OI-4 was practiced now.

Mayor Foy said the issue was what data the information would be based on.  Council Member Harrison said he was aware of the biennial schedule for the Mobility Report Card, but the key language in Ms. Brown’s alternative resolution language was “…giving special attention to nearby neighborhoods, proposed mitigation measures and implementation plans.”  Council Member Harrison stated that he believed she was asking that the University look at the mitigation more than every two years, since a lot could happen in a community in that time.  He said he understood that need, and while the TIA and the Mobility Report Card were done on a two-year cycle many other things in the community were looked at annually.

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that it seemed that Ms. Brown’s proposal was asking for a third document.  He noted that since the TIA and the Mobility Report Card were on a two-year cycle, Ms. Brown was suggesting that a TIA be done every year along with an Executive Summary, and that it be prepared in addition to the biennial report.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said it appeared that Ms. Brown and others were asking for the biennial report along with an annual Executive Summary, which in essence was an annual “snapshot.”

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed that was what the citizens wanted, that it would be helpful to citizens and neighbors, and he believed that was what the Council’s resolution should reflect.

Council Member Ward said there were significant changes within the two-year cycle, noting that things were changing quickly enough in the community that impacts were felt regarding how well or how poorly our roads were performing.  He said we did not have to wait 24 months to see a change, and he agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt’s assessment that what we were looking for was the benefit of having an assessment of how the quality of our transportation system and all mobilities that that entailed on a yearly basis.  Council Member Ward said he would like for Town staff and University transportation staff to “put their heads together” and have the attitude of how do we make that happen rather than saying it can’t happen because the reports are on a two-year cycle.

Council Member Ward said we needed to find a way to give the community a picture every year, adding it would help him and would be a way to gauge our health.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said as she read Ms. Brown’s suggested language, it appeared to her that what was being asked was that once a year someone report on what had been done and how well it was working.  She said she agreed with Council Member Ward, noting it should be less complicated that preparing a new study.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said Ms. Brown had suggested that the report be short and easy to understand and she believed that was possible.

Ms. Wu responded that the University would appreciate the opportunity to work with Mr. Neppalli to make sure that they understand what was being requested in an annual report, and to develop some guidelines.  She asked that the Council grant them that time, adding she believed everyone would benefit from that.

Council Member Hill said he envisioned a scenario where, for instance, the Cobb Deck opened immediately after the Council had received a TIA, and it would be two years before another study was conducted.  He said that would be too long a time if there was a problem detected.  Council Member Hill said he agreed that our staff and the University should take some time and look at how to make this happen.

Mr. Horton noted he believed a report could be prepared for the June 27^th meeting for the Council’s consideration.

THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION R-17b, AND TO HAVE TOWN STAFF AND UNIVERSITY STAFF WORK TOGETHER TO CONSIDER HOW AN ANNUAL REPORT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE. 

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-17c.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-17d.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 10 – Report on Proposed Process and Schedule for Proceeding

with Neighborhood Conservation Districts

Ms. Berndt said that on May 9, the Council had referred the April 25 and the May 9 reports to the Planning Board for comments and suggestions in developing a potential process for proceeding with Neighborhood Conservation Districts (NCD).  She noted that Mr. Dempsey had addressed this issue earlier this evening, and that the Planning Board’s recommendation was Attachment 4 in the materials.

Ms. Berndt said they were presenting two options for the Council’s consideration to help streamline the process.  She said Option A was from Clarion Associates and was Attachment 1.  She stated that Option A provided two alternatives, one was a proposed $35,000 budget alternative and one was a proposed $50,000 budget alternative.  Ms. Berndt said that they believe that the $50,000 alternative would make better use of our limited Planning staff resources and would specifically achieve the Council’s direction of creating four NCDs within the next year.

Ms. Berndt said that Option B was the other alternative where they had looked at what they could do with existing staff resources.  She said they had determined that they would create two NCDs a year, meaning it would take two years to achieve the goal of four NCDs.

Ms. Berndt said they were recommending Option A, and that the Council adopt Resolution A which would provide $50,000 for the study.  She added that approval of the $50,000 would have no budgetary impact, as the funds would come from a lapsed salary in the Planning Department.  Ms. Berndt said they had included a clause in Resolution A that the consultant work would include review of the process specified in the proposal with the Planning Board over the summer months, as requested by Mr. Dempsey.

Mayor Foy noted that Resolution R-17.1a would authorize the Manager to contract with Clarion Associates to prepare NCDs for the Greenwood, Pine Knolls, Coker Hills, and the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhoods at a cost of $50,000.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if this process would contemplate no citizen committees.  Mr. Horton responded that the proposal they had put forward was based on the assumption that these communities were self-identified and already organized with existing strong associations, and that the communities themselves would put forth the membership that would serve as the committee.

Mayor Foy said one thing that Mr. Dempsey had pointed out was that the alternative was to defer completion because of the time it would take to put a committee together.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would prefer to defer completion, noting that one of the great things about the Northside Neighborhood Conservation committee that often went unnoticed was the way that committee was constructed.  He said it included people who mostly lived or had a direct stake in the Northside neighborhood but also included people outside of the neighborhood representing the larger community interest in preserving the neighborhood.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said there were large Town-wide considerations in preservation of the neighborhoods under consideration, and he believed the changes in those neighborhoods rippled out and affected neighborhood communities and the Town as a whole.  He stated that “outside” membership should not be the majority but that membership should exist on these committees. Council Member Kleinschmidt said in order to achieve that, the Council would have to appoint those committees rather than allowing the existing homeowner associations to be the sole source of membership.

Council Member Greene said she had served on the Northside committee, and she did not remember any “at-large” members of the community serving on the committee.  She said that there were Planning Board members and investors.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was referring to the investors.  Council Member Greene said that those investors owned property in the Northside neighborhood, so were not “at-large” community members.

Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that Linda Convissor, the University’s Local Relations Officer, had served on the Northside committee.  Council Member Greene said Ms. Convissor had served as the University’s representative, and there may well have been others who served in similar capacities.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said his point was that there were other members who had other interests, and that the Council had taken the time to contemplate what other interests were at stake.  He said one of the things that the Council had noted as important was that those interests extended beyond the neighborhoods themselves.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said what was being said here was that we would not engage in that more open process.  He said it may not be necessary for every neighborhood, because the NCD process recognized that not every neighborhood was the same and it may be that not every neighborhood needed that indirect representation.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed the Council would be making a mistake to rely solely on the homeowner associations for committee membership.

Council Member Greene offered a compromise, stating that the Planning Board could nominate one of its members to serve on each committee to represent the community’s interests.  She said on the Northside committee they had held one committee public hearing that was open to the public, so these new committees could do the same so that the community could attend and offer comments. Council Member Greene said in addition, the Council could require that on each of the committees that at least one investor be identified to serve.

Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed that all of those would be important steps.

Council Member Ward said he would be willing to serve as a Council representative on one of the committees, with the idea being that he would represent and be the voice of the greater community.  He said perhaps there were other Council members who would be willing to attend these meetings and bring a broader perspective to the process.  Council Member Greene noted that had not been the case with the Northside committee.  Council Member Ward responded that he believed they were discussing a process that was somewhat different from the Northside process.

Mark LaBranche, speaking on behalf of the Coker Hills Neighborhood Association, stated that their association was active and welcomed the opportunity to participate in the process.  He said he was pleased that the Town had identified a consultant who would move the process along, and trusted the staff’s judgment on that issue.  Mr. LaBranche said he hoped that the cost would not be an issue since lapsed salary would be available.  He said his association supported moving forward with Option A as recommended by the Manager.

Janet Kagan, a resident of Coker Hills, thanked the Council for finding a way to create four NCDs within one year.  She said there were organized efforts in each of the four neighborhoods to help facilitate the NCD process.  Ms. Kagan said she was troubled by one point, and that was the earlier discussion regarding the membership on the committee, which would include Planning Board representation.  She said she would like to see the Council look at these four neighborhoods and any future neighborhoods that might petition to become an NCD, in relevance to its geography in the community as a whole.  Ms. Kagan said she also believed that should be a focus of any consultant that the Town may hire.

Ms. Kagan said she believed there was an elevated role that was designated under the rules and responsibility of the Planning board that troubled her, noting she believed it should be approached at the grass roots level.  She said she hoped whatever participation that would come from Town-wide or at-large membership would come either as an individual representative from the Planning Board or the Town Council or in fact the consultant and staff.

Tom Tucker stated he had a vested interest in the NCD process, noting his mother lived in the Northside neighborhood and he owned property in the Kings Mill neighborhood, and he lived and owned property in the Greenwood neighborhood. He said he participated in the Northwood process, and the most important part of that process was the committee.  Mr. Tucker said they had started the process with dissention and diversity of opinions between investors, developers, and homeowners.  He said they had spent a year getting everyone “on the same page” and moving through the process, and at the end of the process groups that had been at opposite ends of the issue were able to agree and were happy with the outcome.

Mr. Tucker said his concern was that if committees were not used for the four NCD processes being proposed, that we would disenfranchise the community from the process and outsource it to the Planning Board and a consultant.  He said these people, although well-qualified, were not necessarily “plugged in” to the leadership of the neighborhoods, or plugged in to the staff’s perspective or what its interests were.

Mr. Tucker commented that the process disenfranchised individuals that were not part of the groups that ran the neighborhoods, and did not provide an opportunity for consensus in the community among the various groups, be it investors, developers, or homeowners.  In summary, he said the Northside committee was very helpful in getting the process completed in a year, and not having committees would mean no legitimacy for these neighborhoods.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the reason the Council was considering hiring a consultant was because there was not sufficient staff time available in the Planning Department.  She added that former Planning Director Roger Waldon, now employed by Clarion Associates and who would be the key professional involved in the project, was as close as we would get to having a staff person.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if it were possible that in our contract with a consultant that we speak to some of the issues that Mr. LaBranche and Mr. Tucker had raised in terms of the fullness of the process.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed we could have it both ways.  Mr. Horton said we had negotiated a contract with Clarion Associates at a cost of $50,000 based on the process outlined in the memorandum and in Mr. Waldon’s letter of proposal.  He stated that because of Mr. Waldon’s knowledge of the community, he could spot issues that someone else might not see, and he could identify if a group of people were being left out of the process.  Mr. Horton said he would also be able to recognize if there was a significant disagreement among neighbors in a community and then come back to the staff or the Council and identify that as a concern and make recommendations for additional work that could be done to address it.  Mr. Horton said he believed that might mean additional cost as well.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if we could go back to Clarion Associates and renegotiate.  Mr. Horton said he would be happy to try, but could not promise what the results might be.

Mayor Foy said this process was suppose to start at the end of the summer, and he asked if that meant the end of August.  Ms. Berndt said the consultant’s proposal was to start the beginning of September.  Mayor Foy asked if it were possible to begin advertising now for committee members and make appointments the first Council meeting in September.  Mr. Horton responded that would be possible.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said it was assumed that most of the committee members would be people already working with their neighborhood associations, which was fine.  But, he said, he did not live in any of those neighborhoods and he had an interest in the preservation of each one of them because this was his town. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he also had an interest that they be developed to the extent possible, because he had an interest in our rural buffers and in the land within the extraterritorial jurisdictions.  So, he said, he had all of these competing interests even though he did not live in the neighborhoods.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said even though only one or two members of the committee may be from outside the neighborhood, it was important to have the “eyes of the Town” watching the process.  He said we needed community representation.

Mayor Foy said he suggested beginning a recruitment process now, and as part of our dissemination of information make clear that citizens from any part of Town were welcome, but would notify the homeowners associations so they could nominate people if those chose.

Council Member Greene asked if the Council would designate how many members who be appointed to each committee.  She reiterated that there were no “at-large” members on the Northside committee, even though a University representative and possibly others served on it.  Council Member Greene said she wanted a decision made on that balance prior to time to make appointments.

Mr. Dempsey asked if the Council would have to approve the entire committee structure.  He said he was concerned because he had spoken to Mr. Waldon who had agreed to attend the next Planning Board meeting on June 21, and they could begin then to work together to detail what the committees should look like. Mr. Dempsey asked if the process could move forward if committees would not be appointed until September.  He added that not every neighborhood would have the same issues as Northside had experienced, and some of the committees may be able to articulate their vision for their neighborhood fairly quickly.  Mr. Dempsey said if a neighborhood or neighborhoods had a broader spectrum of issues, then the manpower could be focused there.

Mr. Dempsey said the Planning Board felt strongly about the value of the transition of acceptance within the neighborhoods.  He said his specific request was could the Planning Board with the consultant begin its work over the summer rather than waiting for appointments in September.

Mayor Foy said he was suggesting moving forward with Option A, and that the Council accept the Manager’s recommended process.  He said he did not believe we should delay, but that some structure needed to be in place before committee appointments were made in September.

Council Member Strom said if we decided to form committees, then that structure needed to be in place well before we advertised for members.  He said that given the strong structure in these neighborhoods and the fact that the result of the process comes for a public hearing and must come before the Council for full discussion, that the committee structure was redundant.  Council Member Strom said he believed that the Planning Board and Council involvement set a significant and sufficient amount of community input into the process.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said in the last three months we had seen problems in Greenwood, and in the last few days we had seen problems in Morgan Creek.  He said if the committees were run by the homeowners association, then as we have already seen there were people who were not part of “the club.”  Council Member Kleinschmidt said it was likely that some people would self-segregate themselves away from the process because they felt marginalized, which meant their voices would not be heard in the NCD process.  He said if those people were to attend a public hearing, they would be lost because we all knew that the real work was done in those committees.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said that during a public hearing it would be a rare instance that a thing that was done by an NCD committee was reversed because of a comment made at the hearing.

Council Member Strom said he did not agree with that, noting he believed the Council had shown that it was not willing to support something that was not a consensus position.  Secondly, he said, it was just as likely that there would be a lack of consensus or a difference in vision among the committee members as there would be in a neighborhood-appointed committee.  Council Member Strom said it was the Council’s role and the Planning Board’s role to understand the level of consensus to a particular plan, and he believed we were trying to make this more complex than it needed to be.

Council Member Strom said that the issues in Morgan Creek, Greenwood, and Coker Hills were well-defined.  He said he did not believe people would attempt to push an overly restrictive preservation ordinance forward that would not maximize the use of the land for the good of the community.  Council Member Strom said we should allow those neighborhoods to self-select understanding that this would come to public hearing.

Council Member Greene said she believed we were selling our citizens short in either scenario, and she was saying that having served on the Northside committee. She stated that presently the Kings Mill neighborhood was dealing with many issues concerning this process and whether it was a good idea, and there was more than one investor in that neighborhood.  Council Member Greene assured the Council that the neighborhood association would not ignore those voices, and believed that would be true for the other neighborhoods as well.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed Mr. Waldon had worked with the Town long enough that when this issue came back before the Council, that he knew we would be looking at the process because of its importance.  She said to the extent that Mr. Waldon would be shepherding this process, she believed that the Council could tell him that their expectation was that what they received from the committee would be a consensus.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said Mr. Waldon understood this Council well enough to know that they would be highly critical of anything other than that.

Mr. Horton noted that if there was not a consensus, he was sure Mr. Waldon would make that known as would Town staff that would be working with him.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-17.1a.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 11 – Franklin Grove Townhomes –Special Use Permit Modification

Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper noted this was a continuation of the May 16 public hearing for an SUP Modification for Franklin Grove Townhomes.  She stated that the applicant was requesting an increase in total allowable floor area of 35,000 square feet in order to finish off attic space.  Ms. Culpepper said that Orange Community Housing and Land Trust had requested that the Milton Avenue portion of the project be granted an increase of 6,000 square feet.  She said that the total square footage increase they were recommending Resolution A was 41,000 square feet.  Ms. Culpepper said they believe it would be reasonable to allow the affordable housing component on Milton Avenue to expand along with the rest of the project.

Eric Chupp, of Capkov Ventures, Inc., said this application was the result of a misunderstanding they had about the definition of floor area.  He said they had stopped construction and sales over the last three or four months, and were not in a position to disagree with any of the first three resolutions.  Mr. Chupp said they would support any of those, but preferred Resolution C which would involve a reconstruction of the foundation of a house on Milton Avenue as opposed to the 6,000 additional square feet for Orange Community Housing and Land Trust.

Mr. Chupp said adoption of Resolution C would allow them to avoid the possibility of legal ramifications from clients who purchased those units.  He noted that the Community Design Commission had spent some time rewriting the draft resolution which was now Resolution C, and the Commission has unanimously supported Resolution C.  Mr. Chupp reiterated that their preference was for Resolution C, and added that there had been no opposition to that.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-18a.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 12 – OWASA I-40 Pump Station – Application for a

Special Use Permit

Ms. Culpepper said this was a continuation of the public hearing of May 16 on an application for an SUP to allow an expansion of an OWASA pump station located on the Old Durham-Chapel Hill Road near I-40.  She said the proposal was for a water supply pump station.

Ms. Culpepper said on May 16 OWASA had offered to provide a gravel walkway along the project’s frontage, and we have revised Resolution A to include that stipulation.  She noted their recommendation was for adoption of Resolution A.

Phil Post, speaking for the applicant, said they fully supported Resolution A.  He added they appreciated the help and constructive work of the staff.  Mr. Post said they believe they meet all four findings necessary for an SUP, and hoped that the Council would agree.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY  (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-19a.

Council Member Ward asked what was in the resolution that would protect the opportunity that the Council was working on to create bike and pedestrian facilities in that corridor, and what would jive with the thinking to date and how that might evolve.  Ms. Culpepper responded that with this particular request which was on leased land for that small portion of this property, there was a fairly wide right-of-way.  She stated that OWASA had agreed to provide the temporary walkway until a more permanent solution could be done.  Ms. Culpepper said this would be a gravel sidewalk and there would be an opportunity to build a permanent sidewalk at a later date, or have other improvements.

Council Member Ward asked if there was an opportunity for OWASA to provide that sidewalk.  Ms. Culpepper replied that OWASA had agreed to provide a gravel sidewalk similar to what was present on Blue Cross/Blue Shield frontage.  She said what OWASA was providing would be a well-defined walkway along the frontage of the site.

Council Member Ward asked if a paved surface was possible.  Ms. Culpepper replied that given the uncertainty of what might be present on the site in the future their recommendation was that the temporary gravel walkway be provided at this time.

Council Member Ward asked about money that was in escrow that could be applied once the details were finalized.  Ms. Culpepper responded she believed that would be getting us into the question of a rational nexus, noting that this was an expansion of an existing facility.  Council Member Ward said he would hope that the walkway was constructed in a way that would be useful for walkers, people with strollers, and others.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 13 – Planning Department Workload

Ms. Culpepper said they were before the Council this evening to ask for guidance and direction on work items that are of the highest priority for this fall. She said they were working on options to fill vacant positions as promptly as possible, but in the meantime wanted to focus on the highest priority items and defer several others as detailed in the Council’s materials.

The Rev. Robert Campbell, speaking for some residents of Rogers Road, stated that Planning-related issues should be given the highest attention.  He said there should be more affordable homes in that neighborhood, and in order to do that it needed to be given a higher priority.  Rev. Campbell said if the Town did not have the personnel to look at the issue and resolve it, then the Council should allow the Town of Carrboro to take over that area.

Rev. Campbell noted the residents were experiencing stormwater runoff issues as well as land that remained saturated.  He said the neighborhood was old and should be preserved, but at the same time development should take place to provide children who were living there with homes in the future.  Rev. Campbell said there were many homes in that area that were beyond help, and new homes would allow those families to move into newer homes.  Then, he said, those old homes could be torn down and new ones constructed.

Rev. Campbell said a solution needed to be found, and if the Planning Department was allowed to give the issue a higher priority then possibly Community Development funds could be used to resolve some of the neighborhood’s issues.

Rev. Campbell noted that the children in the neighborhood needed services as well. He said he had recently read that federal dollars were granted to the Town for new buses, so even though they were not in the Town limits they should still be able to benefit from federal dollars.  Rev. Campbell said bus service would allow the children access to services in the Town, and allow residents to ride public transportation to work.

Tom Tucker said he had been involved with the Rogers Road neighborhood for seven years, and there were many elderly people who had lived there for 50 or more years.  He said this was a neighborhood that wanted to be annexed, and it would expand Chapel Hill’s tax base and provide needed services to the community. Mr. Tucker said Chapel Hill was a wonderful place, but it was unfortunate that this community was being disenfranchised.  He said water and sewer was being withheld, yet it was a community desperately in need.  Mr. Tucker said none of this could happen without a Small Area Plan, which would require staff time from the Planning Department.

Mr. Tucker said it was unfortunate and disappointing that this work had not been considered for outsourcing to a consultant.  He said he believed it would have been appropriate to hire a consultant to conduct a Small Area Plan for Rogers Road in the same way that the Council was considering outsourcing the work on NCD’s.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said now that the west side of Rogers Road was being annexed by Carrboro, would that mean that we may now see buses traveling on Rogers Road.  Mr. Horton said it would depend on what the Town of Carrboro requested. Council Member Kleinschmidt said it would be a possibility, where before it was not a possibility.  Mr. Horton replied that was correct.

Mayor Foy said that would still require Carrboro to fund the route.  He said he believed this issue was important.

Mayor Foy stated that what the Council was up against was the limits of staff time, and Council and citizen priorities.  He said he did not believe the Council should try to deal with it now due to the lateness of the hour, but suggested it be deferred until June 27.  Mayor Foy said in the meantime, he would hope the Council would discuss it with one another and think about how to proceed. He said then, we may be in a better position to give some guidance to the staff.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she did not need more time to wonder if our staff could bring the Council back a report on what it would cost to get a consultant to proceed with the development of a Small Area Plan for the Rogers Road area. She suggested such a consultant could be paid for in the same way as the consultant for the NCD process.

Council Member Ward said he wanted to have more conversation tonight, because he wanted to have the Manager find a way for the Council to include Rogers Road in the scope of the Planning Department’s efforts over the next year.  He said there may be funding issues, and he did not want that to come up at a late hour on June 27.  Council Member Ward said he wanted to find a way to make that happen, and if it meant using more lapsed salary then so be it.

Council Member Ward said that while the Council ranked its priorities 1, 2, 3 or 4, there was not always a significant difference between 3 and 4.  He stated it was important that on June 27 the Council have options to consider in order that this work be done during the next fiscal year.

Council Member Strom said he “wholeheartedly” agreed with Mayor pro tem Wiggins and Council Member Ward about the importance of doing a Small Area Plan for the Rogers Road area.  He said this raised the issue of long range strategic planning, which he believed was done very well.  Council Member Strom said this raised questions about the general direction we were headed in, and what an important investment it was in the community to continue to do that.  He said he did not want to lose that, and he was glad that the Mayor had suggested that we take a little extra time to consider where we want to be heading on Planning issues.  Council Member Strom said this was an opportunity to talk about that, in addition to moving ahead with the Rogers Road/Greene Tract area immediately.

Mayor Foy noted he had served on the Greene Tract committee, and he knew how necessary a Small Area Plan was.  He said that Habitat had brought this forward and wanted to try to dovetail onto whatever the Town was going to do.  Mayor Foy noted he was also concerned about the Tree Ordinance, which just keeps getting kicked back.  He said we were up against some issues that we needed to give some thought to and decide how we would manage things.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if the Mayor was suggesting that we do both, that is conduct a Small Area Plan via a consultant and talk more on June 27 about other Planning issues.  She said she did not believe these were either/or choices.

Mayor Foy said the Manager was going to come back to the Council and say that something else would have to be kicked down, or you could give them more money.  Mr. Horton responded that was exactly what he would be forced to say.

Council Member Greene noted that the hour was late, and she would like more time to think about the issues.  She said she agreed fully with the assessments made by the Council regarding the Rogers Road area, but wanted to talk about it another time.

Mayor Foy said that it would be helpful if the Manager would give the Council some idea of the cost of a consultant to conduct a Small Area Plan for the Rogers Road neighborhood, and to do so as quickly as possible.  Mr. Horton said they would do their best, and would try to offer options not only on Rogers Road but for other issues as well.  He said it may well be time to add another member to the Planning staff so that we could catch up on some items that the Council had interest in but had to be deferred.

THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO DEFER FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE UNTIL JUNE 27.

Item 14 – Appointments

14a.     Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission.

The Council appointed

	Council Members
Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission		Foy	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Verkerk	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Kathryn James				X				ABSENT			1
Mark McGrath
Laura Noyes		X	X		X	X	X		X	X	7
Claire Reeder
Bonnie Schaefer
Matthew Scheer
Wilhelmina Steen
Amy White
Other; please list:
:

14b.     Greenways Commission.

The Council appointed Mary Blake and Jim Earnhardt to the Greenways Commission.

	Council Members
Greenways Commission		Foy	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Verkerk	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Mary Blake		X	X	X	X	X	X	ABSENT	X	X	8
Bobby Clapp
June Dunnick
Jim Earnhardt		X	X	X	X	X	X		X	X	8
Gary Galloway
*Tony Smith (also Parks and Recreation Commission)
*Stuart Solomon (also Parks and Recreation Commission)
Karen Whichard
Other; please list:
:

14c.     Human Services Advisory Board.

The Council appointed Larry Daquioag

14d.     Orange County Animal Services Advisory Board.

THE COUNCIL APPOINTED JEAN TAYLOR TO SERVE ON THE ORANGE COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY BOARD, WITH FIVE VOTES (COUNCIL MEMBERS HARRISON, HILL, KLEINSCHMIDT, WARD AND WIGGINS).

14e.     Parks and Recreation Commission.

The Council appointed Neil Bench, Terry Blalock, and Diane VandenBroek to the Parks and Recreation Commission.

	Council Members
Parks and Recreation Commission		Foy	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Verkerk	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Neal Bench		X	X	X	X	X	X	ABSENT	X	X	8
Terry Blalock		X	X	X	X	X	X		X	X	8
*Tony Smith (also Greenways Commission)
*Stuart Solomon (also Greenways Commission)
Diane VandenBroek		X	X	X	X	X	X		X	X	8
Other; please list

Item 15 – Petitions

15a.    Council Member Sally Greene, regarding a Request to Consider Historic Preservation Easement for Old Chapel Hill Library Building

Council Member Greene stated that putting a preservation easement in place would mean that Preservation North Carolina would be the guardian of this building, but with no ownership, and would keep the building protected from change that was not consistent with the character of the building.  She said the way the draft contract was set up was that the outside of the building would have to remain the same unless there were changes proposed that Preservation North Carolina agreed were consistent with the character of the building.  Council Member Greene said there were no restrictions on changes inside the building, unless that was negotiated in the contract.

Council Member Greene said she was a member of the Board of Preservation North Carolina and knew how these contracts worked, and added that they worked very well.  She said we were not accustomed to thinking about buildings that were built in the mid-20^th century as being important or historic, but they were and the Old Library Building was a special building in Chapel Hill.

Council Member Greene thanked the Citizens Budget Review Committee for calling the Council’s attention to this building.  She said although she did not favor selling the building as the Committee had suggested, she knew that future Council’s may decide to do that and this would be an important step in preserving that building.  Council Member Greene said a representative of Preservation North Carolina would be happy to come and speak to the Council at the appropriate time.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THAT THIS ISSUE BE REFERRED TO THE MANAGER FOR A REPORT.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

15b.   Mayor pro tem Wiggins and Council Member Sally Greene, regarding a Petition to Consider Establishing Wireless Internet Access to the Northside and Pine Knolls Neighborhoods and Program for Use of Old Computers.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said this petition grew out of an email, which was in the Council’s materials, that the Council had received in May from a young man who had recently graduated from UNC and had spent some time volunteering in the Northside community.  She said the petition was asking that the Council refer the proposal to the Manager for a follow-up report and options for consideration by the Council on how to provide wireless internet service to these two neighborhoods as well as how to provide used computers to the young people in those areas.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO THE MANAGER AND THE TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE FOR A FOLLOW-UP REPORT WITH OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Council Member Strom noted that the Council had just appointed an individual to serve on the Orange County Animal Services Advisory Board, and he had the pleasure of representing the Council on some animal protection issues.  He said we contracted with the County for animal control services within the Town, and wanted to make sure that Town staff contacted the individual appointed and made clear to her what the Town’s interest was on this topic and that she understood exactly what the Town’s relationship was with the County on animal control issues.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was concerned about the Orange County volunteer applications that we were receiving from the County’s web site.  He said they were obviously different from the Town’s, noting the County application did not ask how long an individual had lived in the Town, and did not require an affirmation of a pledge to comply with ethics guidelines, and other similar items.  He said he would prefer that we not use those forms if possible, or that we ask Orange County to include those things that were different from their forms.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said possibly we could have volunteers for such positions to be directed to our web site so that our forms could be utilized.  He said he was not satisfied with the use of Orange County’s forms.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED THAT COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT’S CONCERNS BE CONVEYED TO THE STAFF FOR A RESPONSE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.