SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 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, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward, and Edith Wiggins.

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, Finance Director Kay Johnson, Assistant Finance Director Jeannie Erwin, Accountant Lisa Taylor, Accountant Jeanne Tate, Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Principal Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Item 1 – Ceremonies

Mayor Foy called for a moment of silence to show solidarity with fellow Americans on the Gulf Coast who had suffered the terrible tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. Mayor Foy said this was a transforming event and it was important for everyone to consider how to respond.

Mayor Foy said in addition to the individual response that many in the community had made, the Town of Chapel Hill had also sent firefighters to help participate in the rescue efforts and in the rebuilding efforts. He said they would continue to do what they could as individuals and as a community.

1a. Recognition of Boards and Commissions.

Mayor Foy noted the hard work that the volunteer members on the Town’s advisory boards and commissions perform. He said that tonight the Council would recognize those efforts. Mayor Foy said that each fall the Council recognized the service of outgoing members of those boards and commissions:

Board of Adjustment – Valerie Bateman

Public Arts Commission – Colleen Black-Senelka, Susan Lieb, Anita Wolfenden

Historic District Commission – Branson Hobbs

Housing and Community Development Advisory Board – Tracy Dudley

1b. Presentation of Government Finance Officers Association Excellence in Financial Reporting Award.

Mayor Foy said one of the Council’s primary responsibilities was how they spend taxpayer’s money, and they were grateful for the excellence staff and in the Finance Department. He said for 20 consecutive years, the Government Finance Officers Association, an independent third party, had awarded the Town the Excellence in Financial Reporting Award. Mayor Foy presented Finance Director Kay Johnson with the certificate.

Ms. Johnson thanked the Council for their support, and recognized members of her staff who played an important role in the Town receiving the award again this year: Assistant Finance Director Jeannie Erwin, Accountant Lisa Taylor, and Accountant Jeanne Tate. Ms. Johnson said much effort had gone into this achievement, and thanked her staff for their hard work.

1c. Announcement of International Car Free Day.

Mayor Foy said it was his honor to proclaim September 22 as International Car Free Day, noting that the Town had participated in this for the last several years. He said it did not believe there was an easier community to go car free than in Chapel Hill, because the buses were fare free and you could travel around town absent change in your pocket.

Mayor Foy said Car Free Day was a day when the entire world acknowledged that they did not have to get in their cars in order to conduct their daily lives, and in order to demonstrate that they would make an effort not to.

Item 2 – Public Hearings: None.

Item 3 – Petitions

3a. Petitions by Citizens

3a(1). Planning Board regarding a Recommendation to Include Downtown Residential Representation on the Streetscape Master Plan Review Committee.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(2). Mary Rowse regarding a Request to Reduce the Speed Limit from 25 mph to 20 mph on Kenan Street and Mallette Street.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(3). Steve Salmony regarding Consideration of a Resolution on Global Warming.

Mr. Salmony said there were some people, and a great number of scientists, who believe that there was something going on with global warming. He said no one would make the assumption that hurricanes were directly related to the effects of fossil fuel emissions world-wide. Nevertheless, Mr. Salmony stated, it could not be ruled out.

Mr. Salmony urged the members of the scientific community to look carefully at what was happening on the planet, and try and make sure that the environment was protected. He said it was good environmental polity to protect the environment. He requested that the Council provide aid and support to a lawsuit now being pursued requiring National Environmental Policy Act compliance in international dealings by United States Companies.

Council Member Verkerk commented that Mr. Salmony may want to stay and hear the discussion regarding Agenda Item #7, Proposal to Participate in Carbon Reduction Project Program.

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 (9-0).

3a(4). David Hill regarding Additional Stop Signs and Pavement Markings in Meadowmont.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(5). Kim Hanlon regarding Installation of a Stop Sign at the Corner of Aberdeen and Market Streets in Southern Village.

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 (9-0).

3a(6). Michael Collins regarding Traffic Calming in Colonial Heights.

Mr. Collins, a resident of 723 Williams Circle, exhibited photographs that depicted the current conditions in his neighborhood. He noted the following conditions:

· Multiple non-resident vehicles parked on the easement at the sharp curve at Severin Street Bradley Road.

· Multiple non-resident vehicles parked on Branch Street, Airport Drive, and Bradley Road.

· Speeding on Barclay Road, Bradley Road, and elsewhere.

· Running stop signs at various locations, including at Umstead Drive and Bradley Road, Severin Street and Bradley Road, and Bradley Road and Williams Circle.

· Cut-through traffic from Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard to Umstead Drive, and vice-versa.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(7). Daniel Siler, Representing WCHL Radio, regarding Request to Hold a Candidates Forum in the Council Chambers on October 12, 20, and 25, 2005.

Mr. Siler, News Director at WCHL Radio, requested permission to use the Council Chambers on October 12, 20, and 25 for candidate forums. He stated that they hoped to include the 2005 races for the Chapel Hill Town Council, the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools.

Mr. Siler said they were aware of the policy that reserves the Council Chambers for community events and non-commercial use. He said that even though they were a commercial radio station, they would provide the broadcast as a service without business sponsorship or commercial interruptions. Mr. Siler stated that the only corporate affiliation with these forums would be the coordinating efforts of The Chapel Hill Herald and the radio station.

Mr. Siler stated that they had tentatively reserved these three dates with the Town Clerk’s Office, but because of the policy they needed the Council’s permission to use the Council Chamber.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Horton if he had any concerns about the request. Mr. Horton said as long as there were no commercials in any form, the use would be consistent to previous uses of the Council Chamber for similar events.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO GRANT THE REQUEST BY WCHL TO CONDUCT A CANDIDATES’ FORUM IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON OCTOBER 12, 20, AND 25, SO LONG AS THE USE ADHERED TO THE TOWN’S POLICY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

3a(8). Valerie Bateman regarding a request for a Crosswalk at Elliott Road and Estes Drive.

Ms. Bateman requested that the Council support the study of the need for a crosswalk at Elliott Road and Estes Drive. She said she understood that it was a State roadway and would need the NC Department of Transportation’s agreement, but if they were truly a pedestrian-friendly town then it should be possible to safety cross Franklin Street between Elliott Road and Estes Drive.

Council Member Verkerk said they had not had a lot of success in the past when requesting such things from NCDOT. She asked if it was possible to request a pedestrian island in that area, since it was five lanes with a left turn lane, and pedestrians frequently stand in that left turn lane waiting to cross the remainder of the roadway. Mr. Horton responded they would do so.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Announcements by Council Members. None.

Item 4 – Consent Agenda

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Mayor pro tem Wiggins, referring to Item #4k, Resolution Authorizing Electronic Advertising Bids, asked what was the staff’s plan for this switch. She asked would there be efforts to alert people of the change who had in the past looked to the newspaper for this information. Ms. Johnson said currently they were advertising both on the Town’s web site and in the newspapers, as well as sending information to individuals. She said they would make the switch in a gradual fashion.

Item 5 – Information Reports

Council Member Harrison said regarding #5g, the Annual Report from the Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board, on page 3 Randy Kabrick and Jan Sassaman lay out what they call Short Term Issues and Concerns. He said one of them dealt with a request for comments from the Town on the County’s plans to request water and sewer service for the new Solid Waste Operations Center as an essential public facility. Council Member Harrison said the second was a request that the Council adopt the Regulated Recyclable Materials Ordinance adopted by the County in November, 2001. He said he did not recall ever having received that. Mr. Horton responded that this issue was on the Council’s agenda for the September 26 meeting.

Information Reports were accepted as presented by consensus of the Council.

Item 6 – Revised Privilege License Fees

Ms. Johnson said that privilege licenses were taxes, and they had two kinds in place. One, she said, was a State law which set the maximum charge, and the second was set by the Council based on gross receipts. Ms. Johnson said the fee on gross receipts was the one in question.

Ms. Johnson stated that last spring, based on recommendations from the Subcommittee of the Citizens Budget Review Committee, they had all departments look at their fees and other charges to make sure that they were charging appropriately so that people would not be overtaxed. She said at that time they had examined the charges for privilege licenses, and at that time discovered that they were charging below the amounts that their neighboring governments charged. Ms. Johnson said at that time, they attempted to estimate where their neighbors would be in their fees and recommended to the Council taxes that would appropriate and in line with their nearby communities and reasonable for the business community in Chapel Hill.

Ms. Johnson said at that time, they had set the rates for the smallest businesses at rates that were appropriate at the time and they believe remain appropriate. However, she said when they set the initial rates for businesses of about $500,000 and more, the rates proved to the high when compared to nearby communities.

As a result, Ms. Johnson said they are recommending that the Council reconsider those rates. She said the Council’s memorandum offers five alternatives, with Alternative I recommended for adoption by the Council. She said Alternative I would leave the rate as is for the smaller businesses, but would provide increments with a cap of the fees at $750 for businesses with gross receipts on excess of $3 million. Ms. Johnson said Alternative II was very similar, but would place the cap at $400 for businesses with gross receipts over $1 million.

Ms. Johnson said that Alternative III was the one proposed by the Chamber of Commerce, which proposed a flatter schedule but one that continued to be graduated with gross receipts up to $3 million with a maximum fee of $300. She said this alternative had smaller increments for businesses of $100,000 and higher to that maximum cap. Ms. Johnson noted that Alternative IV would retain the current schedule, and Alternative V would return the charge schedule to the level for 2004-2005.

Ms. Johnson noted that page 5 of the memorandum contained a schedule for reductions in the budget, and it contained an error. She said that Alternative V would cause a reduction of $40,000, with Alternative II causing a reduction of $45,000. Ms. Johnson said the remainder of the chart is accurate.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked for clarification of the error contained in the chart on page 5. Ms. Johnson reiterated that the reduction in Alternative V amounted to $40,000, and the reduction in Alternative II would be $45,000. She explained that the caps were different, resulting in the higher amount for Alternative II.

Mayor Foy explained to those who may not understand the terminology that fund balance was the term used for the Town’s savings account, and the fee reductions mentioned by Ms. Johnson would reduce the fund balance. He noted that would mean that for whatever alternative the Council adopted, the fund balance would be reduced by the appropriate amount according to the estimates provided in the chart on page 5, as corrected by Ms. Johnson.

Robin Cutson urged the Council to repeal the privilege licenses fee and return it to the level of 2004-2005. She said that business owners had already invested time and energy in refiguring the fee increase, and returning to the former schedule would not require any additional effort. Ms. Cutson the Town had frequently said it wanted to promote businesses, and lowering the privilege license fee to a level below what neighboring communities charge could be used as an economic incentive.

Ms. Cutson said it did not make sense to her to increase the fees for businesses in order to generate additional revenue, when the Town had actually increased its spending this year on amenities, such as the Public Arts Commission. She urged the Council to support the alternative suggested by the Chamber of Commerce, and to solicit comments from the business community before actions such as this were taken.

Anita Badrock said her company, Smither and Associates Personnel Services, was exempt from the Town’s fee because its fee was set by the State. However, she said, her firm had placed more than 400 people into jobs in 100 businesses in this community. Ms. Badrock said although many may think there was not much difference between a fee of $75 and a fee of $750, but for a small business it was huge.

Ms. Badrock stated her support for Alternative III, noting it had been thoroughly research by the Chamber of Commerce and had the input of many area businesses. She asked the Council to think philosophically about what the privilege license fee really was, noting she was not sure that they necessarily had to charge such a fee to their businesses. Ms. Badrock noted that the State allows local governments to charge this fee, but does not mandate it. She added that 85 percent of the businesses her firm serves are not required to pay this fee.

Bob Krueger, owner of the Great Harvest Bread Company, noted his support of Alternative III, which he said had been thoroughly research by Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce.

Berkeley Grimball, owner of Grimball Jewelers, noted that the privilege license fee structure was inequitable. He noted if he sold washing machines of vacuum cleaners, he would be totally exempt, and if he sold wine, pool tales, tobacco, or guns he would be totally exempt. Mr. Grimball noted that chain stores were also exempt, yet they were the ones that made the most money. Mr. Grimball noted the use of the word “sundry” in the ordinance, noting its definition was a small item. He contended that jewelry was certainly a sundry item using that definition.

Mr. Grimball explained the profit margins typically used by different types of businesses, and compared them to that of a typical jewelry store. He stated that using that calculation $750 was too large a fee based on his net income. Mr. Grimball said $75 felt like a fee, but $750 felt like a serious tax. Mr. Grimbell used the Council to adopt Alternative III.

Aaron Nelson, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, stated they represented about 950 local businesses and non-profit organizations. He said that a tax was something that was equitably applied to all, but a fee was oftentimes a set dollar amount that was intended to recoup the expense for a particular service being provided. Mr. Nelson said they did believe it was appropriate to compare fee structures with other communities, but that it was bad policy to set tax rates based on what other communities’ tax rates were.

Mr. Nelson noted that the Citizens Budget Review Committee understood the distinction, and their recommendation was to review service fees and that the Town should legitimately try to recoup in fees for services that were directly provided. He said that recommendation was made to avoid tax increases, which was important.

Mr. Nelson stated that $500,000 in gross receipts was not a large business, and that such businesses could have as few as one or two employees. He said it was important to note that this was a tax on gross, rather than net, and it was the only one he had heard of based in that way. Mr. Nelson said an example of this disparity would be in the travel industry, where an agent sells a cruise for $2,000, yet their net profit was very small. So, he said, a travel agency could have gross receipts in the millions but with a very small net profit, and your expenses could exceed your income.

Mr. Nelson said the purpose for studying the privilege license fees that resulted in the new fee schedule was to reduce taxes. He said they took some sample businesses and applied the new schedule, and it was resulting in a much higher tax for those sample businesses. Mr. Nelson urged the Council to adopt Alternative III.

Jason Jolley, Director of Government Relations and Community Development with the Chamber of Commerce, commented that strong local businesses promoted strong quality of life in the community. He said that between the property taxes and the sales tax receipts that the Town receives as a result of the presence of those businesses, that many of them feel they had already paid for the privilege of operating a business in Chapel Hill.

Mr. Jolley said if the Council was going to increase the fees, it was important to understand the types of businesses that would be subject to that increase. He quoted language from the current privilege license ordinance and the types of businesses to which each applied, noting that Schedule D was the schedule in question tonight. Mr. Jolley said Schedule D was a “catch all” category that did not include many of the “mom and pop” businesses or many of the businesses in the new economy that they seek to locate in Chapel Hill.

Mr. Jolley said as an example, if a wine dealer sold $10 million in gross receipts and had a profit of 10 percent, his net would be $1 million. Under the schedule, he said, that wine dealer would pay only $15 dollars in privilege license. But, Mr. Jolley said, if they took a travel agency that had $500,000 in gross receipts and was operating at a loss with no profit, under the Town’s ordinance that travel agency would pay $750.

Mr. Jolley reiterated that the Chamber’s proposal, Alternative III, was developed through research and input from the business community, both by members and non-members, and urged the Council to approve it.

Steve Minta, owner of A Better Image printing company, said he had five employees with sales in the $500,000 to $1 million range, so they were at the Town’s peak fee. He said that was a significant increase that could not be passed on to customers, because he had to remain competitive with businesses outside of Orange County. Mr. Minta said the Chamber’s proposal was more equitable, because it was broken down into smaller categories.

Rosemary Hargrove said the perception was that if you operated a small business you make a lot of money, and if there were increased costs you could just pass them on to your customers. She said it did not work that way, noting she had been in business for 20 years and this had been her toughest year. Ms. Hargrove said all of her expenses had risen, and that in the last four years her insurance had doubled.

Ms. Hargrove said she did not mind paying her fair share, but that the current schedule was disproportionate. She stated she supported the Chamber’s proposal.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ENACT ORDINANCE O-8, WITH ALTERNATE III AS DETAILED IN THE COUNCIL’S MEMORANDUM. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 7 – Proposal to Participate in Carbon Reduction Project Program

Professor Douglas Crawford-Brown, Director of the Carolina Environmental Program at the University of North Carolina, gave a PowerPoint presentation that described the Carbon Reduction Project, known as CRed, founded by the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia in the town of Norwich, England.

Professor Crawford-Brown noted that by summer, CRed encompassed the City of Norwich, with more than a thousand pledges to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He said that number was now in excess of 1,800. In that summer, Professor Crawford-Brown said, eight students from UNC attended the Carolina Environmental Program’s field site in International Energy Policy and Environmental Assessment located at Cambridge University. He said for their semester, team-based project the students approached the City of Cambridge for ideas on projects that would benefit that community. Professor Crawford-Brown said the City proposed that the students help them develop plans to become a CRed partner, the first outside Norwich, and suggested working with the City and the University of Cambridge on a proposed Northwest development similar to the designs for Carolina North. He said the student team began that project, which will continue in the summers of 2005 and 2006.

Professor Crawford-Brown stated that the Cambridge City Council then proposed that their city partner or twin with the Town of Chapel Hill to create the first international CRed partnership, and that Cambridge University partner with UNC-Chapel Hill. He noted that the staff of the CRed program at the University of East Anglia was enthusiastic. Professor Crawford-Brown said that that brings us to the proposal at hand: to have the Town of Chapel Hill volunteer to become the first U.S.-based CRed partner, eventually twinning with the City of Cambridge to exchange ideas, information and incentives to carbon dioxide reduction.

Professor Crawford-Brown said the initial proposal was that the Carolina Environmental Program (CEP) and the Town of Chapel Hill form an official CRed “partner,” the term used in the CRed program for an entity that agrees to carbon reduction planning and implementation. He said such a partnership required the filing of a non-binding “pledge” through the CRed web site, stating the carbon dioxide reduction goal and the timeline for reaching that goal. Professor Crawford-Brown said it then required development of a formal plan for reaching that goal. Having developed that plan, he said, it was understood that the partnership would move forward, using the plan to guide not only future development in the geographic area under the jurisdiction of the Town but to alter existing development as needed.

Professor Crawford-Brown said that the plan was a formal pledge and not legally binding in any way, but an assessment would be performed every two years to determine how well a CRed partner was moving towards the goal. He said they would focus on pledges that were short-term strategies with no initial cost, pledges that were medium-term strategies with a payback period of three to five years, and pledges that were long-term strategies that would perhaps have no payback or may require partnerships.

Professor Crawford-Brown said basically he was suggesting a long-term approach where their students in the Carolina Environmental Program were working with the Town to identify carbon dioxide reduction strategies that would move the Town forward in reducing carbon dioxide emissions, and then have the Council take a leadership role in working with other members of the community.

Council Member Strom said it would be helpful if the Council and the community heard some information about the model that would be developed in conjunction with this program. Professor Crawford-Brown said moving forward with carbon dioxide reduction did not require fancy scientific models, noting it involved does one get in the car or ride the bus, or does one turn the lights off or not. However, he said, you have to ask what it would take to really get us to move forward to get the largest reduction in carbon dioxide. Professor Crawford-Brown said the only way to discover if reductions were taking place was to begin by taken a carbon dioxide emissions inventory and then creating a model that would allow the simulation of different changes within the community on the carbon dioxide emissions of the Town.

Professor Crawford-Brown stated that their students had built such a model for the City of Cambridge. He suggested the Council could access their website for the City of Cambridge’s program, you would find a model that you could put in different policies, such as changing the city’s fleet to 30 percent bio-diesel, or switching to energy-efficient light bulbs, or requiring that there be infill in Town so that the average commuting distance is shortened. Professor Crawford-Brown said you can put into the model the different policy parameters, and find out if you got a 1 percent reduction or a 30 percent reduction. He said the model would then allow you to calculate the cost, so you could discover if the 1 percent reduction cost you a million dollars, or if you got a 30 percent reduction for your million dollars. Professor Crawford-Brown said obviously you wanted to identify the policies that would give you the most reduction for the cost. Professor Crawford-Brown stated that his students would build such a model for the Town at no cost.

Council Member Ward said he was excited about this, and he knew that the Sustainability, Energy and Environment Committee (SEE) had expressed its desire that Chapel Hill take a leadership role in this regard. He said while this agreement was not legally binding, he believed it was seriously emotionally, socially and morally binding. Council Member Ward said that before they “signed on the dotted line” he wanted Professor Crawford-Brown to reassure the Council that they could be successful in reducing carbon dioxide.

Professor Crawford-Brown said what they were asking the Council to agree on tonight was not a particular set of policies, rather it was an agreement to begin the process with the Carolina Environmental Program and our students to go into a partnership to work out the kinds of short-term, medium-term, and long-term strategies that they had developed for the City of Cambridge, but on Chapel Hill’s terms. He said those strategies would be based on Chapel Hill’s terms of balancing economic vitality, social justice, and environmental quality. Professor Crawford-Brown said he would not presume to tell Chapel Hill how to do that, rather that they could show Chapel Hill the ways to do that and on what time schedule.

Council Member Verkerk said she believed that the Town had already shown a tremendous buy-in to this concept. She said they had passed an energy bank ordinance with a 73 percent success rate, and just last week were considering a mass transit plan with the University and Carrboro which had been well received. Council Member Verkerk noted that Chapel Hill’s buses had been changed over to kerosene, and we often use bio-diesel with the fleet when they could afford it. She said what she liked about this proposal was that it would ratchet all of the very good efforts that this Council had done, and it would give this a strong educational and consistency component. Council Member Verkerk said this would give it a cohesiveness that would be positive.

Professor Crawford-Brown said in 20 years these same students may be sitting on the Council, and it would be to their advantage to work with the Council now to learn how to bring about these sustainable communities.

Robin Cutson said she had written articles about this, had spoken to the Council, and had a web site that contained an extensive amount of research, and still this had not been publicized enough. She urged the Council not to vote in favor of this project. Ms. Cutson said that Douglas Crawford-Brown had stated in the past that the environmental movement consisted of hitting industry over the head to try to end pollution, and that environmentalists knew how well that worked because it could not stop industry from polluting.

Ms. Cutson said that research had shown that in the Southeast that coal-burning power plants and municipal and medical waste incinerators were the major cause of air pollution. She said this environmental program was not about protecting air quality or the environment, rather it was a thinly-disguised push for more public transit and for cutting parking which would hurt businesses and the tax base. Ms. Cutson said it was also a push for genetically-modified crops and trees. She said these carbon reduction programs clearly state that they support that and universities were saying you could genetically modify crops and trees to absorb more carbon dioxide. Therefore, Ms. Cutson said, it was a thinly-disguised push for the bio-tech industry.

Ms. Cutson said the logging industry was all for such a program, because it would mean removing mature trees which could not be left to decay because that would produce even more carbon dioxide, so they should of course be turned into timber and lumber products. She said that was not even thinly-disguised, it was absolutely blatant.

Ms. Cutson said that Professor Crawford-Brown had said in the past that only industry was being hit and he was going to change that, and he certainly had. She stated he had now taken away any control for trying to reduce pollution in industry, and under the guise of environmentalism and with an appeal to students and education he was now promoting programs that were catering blatantly to the polluting industries.

Ms. Cutson urged the Council not to vote for this, and to consider the research. She said if they had not read it, to please do so. Ms. Cutson said if the Council felt that it must cater to the developers and to industry at the expense of the environment, then at least consider her fall-back position. She said that this program would exempt UNC from any emissions studies, meaning only the Town would be studied and not the University. Ms. Cutson said that would mean that the University’s coal-burning plant would not be part of the pollution that occurred in the Town nor would UNC Hospital’s medical waste incinerator be included in the emissions formula. She said that was ridiculous because as a bedroom community Chapel Hill did not have any polluting industry. Ms. Cutson said that would mean that the two major sources of pollution in our area, a coal-burning power plant and a medical waste incinerator, would simply not be included, which again would make higher emissions for us and in turn would be another push for more public transit and cutting parking.

Ms. Cutson said if the Council voted for this, and they would not be working for the environment if they did it, at least include a provision that UNC and UNC Hospitals would be a part of the emissions study. She pointed out that although UNC’s power plant had received awards for efficiency in 2000, just the year before that the Environmental Protection Agency had listed the plant as producing so much pollution that it was contributing to the pollution of three other states.

Ms. Cutson said they should also recognize that this program in measuring the emissions by sector that they were gearing up to do the controversial carbon credit buying, selling and trading, which was a money grab. She said they were positioning themselves for this by saying that they wanted to measure by sectors, and they had already said they wanted to look at carbon sinks, and they were going to take into account the “free market” in order to reduce pollution. Ms. Cutson said that was nothing more than industry buying and selling their pollution credits. She repeated that it was a money grab. She said Professor Crawford-Brown was catering to industry under the guise of environmentalism.

Ms. Cutson repeated her plea that the Council not vote for this, and if they did to include UNC and UNC Hospitals in the study, and to adopt a resolution that the Town would not engage in carbon credit buying, selling, or trading. She said that would undo at least some of the harm. Ms. Cutson asked that the Council reconsider this and postpone the vote until there was more publicity, more research, and more input.

Dennis Markatos-Soriano said he supported Professor Crawford-Brown and the project he had brought forward for the Council’s consideration. He said he was a citizen of Chapel Hill and Executive Director of SURGE, the Students United for Responsible Global Environment. Mr. Markatos-Soriano said they wanted to be a part of this project and were ready as a community non-profit to participate and be strong partners. He agreed with Council Member Verkerk that this project would provide cohesion, and that all of the things they were doing could be put together to eventually come up with an equation that would be a solution and help stabilize the climate.

Mr. Markatos-Soriano said if you try to take industry and put it in a vacuum you can see that it does commit serious emissions. He said we also commit emissions every time they switch on a light bulb. Mr. Markatos-Soriano said his point was they were all part of those emissions and that process as individuals, and if they come together they can achieve a lot on the local level.

Council Member Harrison said when he was in an environmental program 30 years ago this kind of thing was a “total pipe dream.” He said what we are seeing now is the State making progress that we never thought we would see with the Clean Smoke Stacks Act of 2003. Council Member Harrison said that represented so much clean-up of the smoke stacks in the State that they were now at the point where the State was suing other states to make them clean up the way they did, and it was also highlighting the fact that the real pollution they were having to deal with in this lifetime was from motor vehicles. He said that was where the Town and its citizens had such a strong role. Council Member Harrison said he could not figure out anything that supported “pollution trading,” noting he did not know where Ms. Cutson got that from.

Council Member Harrison said this was encouraging action on the local part and the fact that they had the precedent in the way of a town in England to show them how it could be done, noting that was significant to him. He said what was important to him was that progress be made at any level they could make it, whether it be at the State level or the Town level, and he intended to be a part of it on his bicycle and working with this.

Mayor Foy thanked Professor Crawford-Brown for bring this forward, and appreciated the opportunity to work with him on this. He said he was looking forward to it and was eager to adopt the proposed resolution.

COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-14. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 8 – Draft Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro 2007-2013

Regional Transportation Priority List

Principal Transportation Planner David Bonk said they were now at a point in the process for the development of the 2007-2013 Transportation Improvement Program where local Priority Lists that were submitted to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) had now been turned into a composite Transportation Project Priority List. He said the Council’s memorandum summarized the key issues related to that draft priority list.

Mr. Bonk said the priority list was voluminous, and in order to focus on the issues pertaining to Chapel Hill they had included in their analysis a focus on Division 7, which was a sub-component of the larger list, and began on page 78 of the memorandum. He said they had focused on Division 7 because even though this urban area was made up of Orange and Durham and northern Chatham Counties, they were divided into three separate highway funding divisions for purposes of the State Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). Mr. Bonk said that Orange County was in Division 7, and as they prioritize projects for funding, the consideration for funding of those projects was within Division 7 which included Greensboro and counties to the west.

Mr. Bonk said there were two mains points they wanted to make, the first of which was the way the urban area had applied the project ranking criteria that they believe was a “step backward” from the progress they had made in previous years. He noted that in fact the way it had been applied had resulted in a skewing of priorities that the Council had adopted with its local priorities list, which was Attachment 1. Mr. Bonk pointed out a few of the inconsistencies that resulted in the way that the priority ranking criteria was applied.

Mr. Bonk said that the net effect of all of this was that the Chapel Hill priorities were not consistent with the local list adopted by the Council, and they believe that the Transportation Advisory Committee should be asked to revise the priority list so that the Chapel Hill projects are shown in their relative ranking.

Mr. Bonk noted that many projects received the same number of points because of the way the points were allocated. He said they believe in that case that when a project had the same number of points as a project in the same jurisdiction that at a minimum those projects should be ranked at the relative priority that they appeared in the local list. Mr. Bonk said that was not the way that this list was developed.

Mr. Bonk said they proposed that the Council adopt the resolution that would ask the Transportation Advisory Committee to revise the list to make it more consistent with the Chapel Hill list and to also deal with the way projects with the same number of points are ranked in the list. He said in a broader issue, they believe that the project ranking criteria needed to be revisited, particularly the way it was applied to projects.

Council Member Strom commented that the Town was very well served by Mr. Bonk’s representation on the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) and his diligence on these projects. He said this seemed like an ongoing dance that they did, and it was unfortunate how vigilant they needed to be in advocating for their interests in the region and in the State.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-15.

Mayor Foy said they had just considered the 2006-2012 Priority List and now they were doing the 2006-2013, and it was a little tight this year because the Department of Transportation had changed how often they needed to do this because they were moving to a new two-year schedule. Mr. Bonk commented that in the past they were on an annual schedule for the TIP, and in order to get off that “race track” the State had adopted a two-year schedule that was on even years. He said they had decided to modify that schedule to keep it at two years but change it to odd years. Mr. Bonk said they had prepared the list in 2006, and now they had to do another one for 2007 in order to get on the odd year schedule.

Mayor Foy said that was why is was important to get this right, because 2006 was wrong and 2007 needed to be correct since they would not be able to change it for two years.

Council Member Ward asked what were the ramifications of what he would characterize as a “totally screwed up project evaluation criteria”. He said that our Town Operations Center did not fit the mold in a way that recognized its importance to this community and to the transportation needs of Division 7 for that matter, and the fact that they didn’t feel qualified to evaluate the air quality issues was an honest appraisal although it may have hurt them in terms of not getting the points for projects.

Mr. Bonk responded that unless the list was changed, then some of their projects would be at a disadvantage in terms of funding. He said the net effect of what had happened was that by the action of the Council tonight in asking the TAC to revise the list, you were basically going to commit the TAC to performing more work than they had anticipated in revising the list. Mr. Bonk said ideally the criteria were put in place to assist the TAC so that they would not have to make wholesale changes in the list when it came to them. He said that because of the failures in the way that the criteria were applied, they would have to make those changes.

Council Member Ward asked if as a result of what happened this last year, did all of these projects get delayed. Mr. Bonk said no, that this was a list for future funding. He said if the TAC revised the list before it was adopted and sent to the State for consideration as it did the 2007 TIP, then there would be no harm to the Town.

Mr. Horton said they expected that the Town’s neighbors would understand that these are reasonable concerns and they may have similar concerns, but he believed they would be able to solve them as they had others.

Council Member Harrison said on the resolution, the third point stated that we asked that whenever projects from the same jurisdiction received the same number of points the projects should be listed consistent with the order of the local priority list. He asked what the best example was where that went wrong. Mr. Bonk said on the Division 7 list there was a cluster of projects with 35 points on page 79. He said that the Bolin Creek/Little Creek Greenway which was Chapel Hill priority #20 was actually listed ahead of Estes Drive, the Community Center, and the Franklin Street/Bolin Creek Greenway, which were priorities 7, 9 and 10 respectively. Mr. Bonk said the intent of that third bullet in the resolution was to reorder that list so that the number 7 priority would be followed by 9, and so on.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 9 – Triangle Seamless Public Service Proposal

Mr. Horton said when the Council participated in this original study, it had concluded that it did not wish to be party to the group that was going to merge services, but that it would be reasonable to keep an eye on this process and that there were some functions that it would make sense for us to participate in. He said they had been invited to move ahead and participate.

Mr. Bonk said there were a total of eight separate activities proposed for collaboration by the City of Durham, the City of Raleigh, and the Triangle Transit Authority. He said those parties had concluded an agreement in terms of individual approvals to proceed with the eight activity areas that were listed on page 2 of the memorandum. Mr. Bonk said they believed the Council’s action in November, 2004 authorized the staff to participate in the majority of those activities, but there were three that were not specifically addressed in that Council action.

Mr. Bonk said the first was Activity Two, which was to prepare a Triangle seamless bus plan, Activity Three which was to develop a regional customer service program, and Activity Eight which was to implement a regional information technology plan. He said as they view the description of those projects, they believe that participation by the Town in those areas would be beneficial to Chapel Hill Transit and the Town to coordinate to the degree possible with the other transit entities in the region to ensure that they would not only increase and improve service but that they would also have access to additional funding that may be available to any of these programs.

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-16

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the agreement would limit the Town’s participation in Activities Two, Three, and Eight only. Mr. Bonk replied that the agreement would allow the Town to participate in all eight activities, adding they had highlighted the three that they believed had not been specifically addressed by the Council in November.

Council Member Kleinschmidt confirmed that nothing would actually happen until a recommendation was brought back to the Council. He said this would include things like potentially changing the names of some of our route, which might make it confusing.

Mayor Foy said it could be confusing in the short term, but long term it would be beneficial to riders regionally. He said we did make a commitment to do what we could do with the rest of the region.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the concept of making it seamless would address the concern of having people deal with different labels.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that clearly there would be one large barrier for us in making it seamless with the rest of the region, and that was that you did not have to have money in your pocket to ride their buses. Suddenly, he said, you would have to have money in your pocket to ride one of the buses that connects to other places.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she was assuming that when they say make it seamless, that all of those types of issues that would be stumbling blocks for riders would be addressed.

Council Member Greene said that it would be clear through markers that now you were on Chapel Hill Transit, and now you were on something else.

Council Member Harrison said regarding Activity Eight, which was the Regional Information Technology Plan, that it was understood that this would be used to develop a region-wide transit intelligent transportation system, or ITS, which he had heard some lectures on. He asked if this was yet another argument they could use to finally get their signal system built, or are there other technologies beyond that. Mr. Bonk said that was certainly a connection to the signal system, and that was that as envision we would want to incorporate technologies within that that would allow the buses to have signal pre-emption along certain corridors to improve transit efficiency.

Council Member Harrison noted that was critical to making high capacity routes work. He asked if this was funded. Mr. Bonk said what Activity Eight laid out a process to develop programs that would then apply to the State for funding.

Council Member Harrison asked if any of the activities were funded as yet. Mr. Bonk responded that the individual elements would be dependent upon funding from the local agencies or from the State once the plan was developed.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked that this be put on the agenda for one of the meetings with our transit partners so that they could be brought up to date, assuming that the resolution was adopted. Mr. Bonk said he would do so.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said when it came to assessing the system’s services, identifying service changes and route numbering or any of these other kinds of tasks, are they going to have another point between now and when such things are developed that they can ensure that the flexibility that they enjoy now as far as being responsive to different transit needs of people. He asked would we be able to put a bus shelter on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard because they realized the need without having to wait for some greater authority to okay it. Mr. Bonk replied that to the degree to which they participate in this is that the test would be how it benefited the Town and how it benefited their riders. He said to the degree that they could do some regional coordination that would be good, but ultimately it had to pass that test.

Mr. Horton said the key was that the Council had chosen not to merge its service with Durham and Raleigh, so it had maintained its independence and therefore the ability to make independent decisions and not be subject to a greater authority.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 10 – Southwest Durham Transit Corridor Realignment Recommendation

Mr. Bonk said the memorandum summarized the recommendations that came out of a process from 2004 by the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC), to respond to a request from the County and City of Durham to review possible modifications to the southwest Durham transit corridor alignment. He said that was an alignment that was effectively bounded by Ephesus Church Road on the north, I-40 on the east, the Chapel Hill Town limits on the west, and an area just to the north of NC 54.

Mr. Bonk said a map had been included on page 10 that illustrated the different options reviewed by the Technical Coordinating Committee and the public during public hearings. He said the various alternatives on that map were all alternatives that were considered for approval or recommendation as part of the study. Mr. Bonk pointed out that the blue dots on the map indicated the location of the original transit station that was adopted as part of the Major Investment Study. He said all of the other possible station locations indicated on the map were those that were considered as possible realignments.

Mr. Bonk said the recommendation from the Committee and forwarded to the TAC by the Technical Coordination Committee was for Alternative C-3, which was the alignment that would start at Farrington Road and cross I-40, and would continue to follow the I-40 right-of-way overlay zone as identified by the County of Durham until it came to a point and then transition from a east-west orientation to a north-south orientation with a new station,. Mr. Bonk said it would then continue on and connect to the corridor, which was a corridor that was consistent with the US 15-501 MIS and was consistent with the corridor as approved by the Meadowmont Master Plan.

Mr. Bonk said in the memorandum they had reviewed the key issues related to this proposal, which involved two simple issues. He said the first was cost and the second was ridership potential, and they were not unrelated to one another. Mr. Bonk said page two of the memorandum contained a table that compared the relative difference in cost between the different alternatives being considered, and how that equated to a cost per person or cost per job based on the differences in potential land use development at the new station. He pointed out that these were comparisons from the original alignment that was adopted and noted as “A” on the map.

Mr. Bonk said that as you look at that comparison of cost, obviously Alternative C-3 and C-4 which were those recommended for consideration resulted in a higher cost overall and a higher cost per job and per person. He said they were aware of the struggle TTA had regarding Phase I to get their cost per rider down to a level that would allow the federal government to fund the project and any proposal to move forward with Phase II of that corridor would be held to the same standard. Mr. Bonk said anything that added to the cost of the project without a commensurate increase in potential ridership would put the project at a disadvantage.

Mr. Bonk said they had proposed a series of actions that might assure that they would get the kind of land use development in the Durham portion of the corridor that would help to offset in part the increased costs proposed as part of adopting corridor C-3.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Bonk to point out roads on the map so that people could be oriented as to particular locations. Mr. Bonk did so.

Council Member Strom said regarding the original alignment that was agreed upon by the same governments who are now looking at this Memorandum of Agreement, please give them an explanation of why that alignment is not available at this point. Mr. Bonk responded that the alignment was in question because of actions that were taken by Durham County to approve a school site adjacent to the corridor and the station location. He said Durham County acquired a large piece of property that included both the station area and the corridor, and they have objected at several TAC meetings to either the continued delineation of the corridor and the station on that property because of their construction of an elementary school to be followed by construction of a junior high school.

Mayor Foy read aloud the bulleted items from the proposed resolution. He said he thought that the fundamental objective that the Council wished to see was that the corridor work, and their concern was that it will not. Mayor Foy said if it did not work, that this was a partnership between Durham and Chapel Hill, and it had to work on both ends, and the Council was concerned that it would not have the ridership to justify the cost. He said if that happened it would be a real detriment to this area.

Council Member Harrison said he would be carrying whatever resolution was adopted into the TAC meeting scheduled for Wednesday. He said he had look hard at the resolution and contacted other TAC members, and after those conversations was more comfortable because it set out what we wanted, which was a corridor that worked.

Council Member Harrison said he lived in that area and knew it well by car, bike and foot. He said he had watched the developments over the last three years, and knew many of the landowners. Council Member Harrison said that Durham County wanted to move the corridor to get away from the school site and the landowners, because they had not found one yet that was anything but an opponent to transit. He stated he believed it was a great relief and a great help to future success if the corridor was moved and therefore the station was removed and another one added to the south end of the map.

Council Member Harrison said circumstances were that the landowners at the southern end of the map were putting together an assemblage of at least 200 acres and were approaching some of the same designers the Town uses for our downtown development work to do an appropriate station area with an appropriate design. He said he was comfortable with moving the corridor and letting Durham city and county move the corridor. Council Member Harrison said he was somewhat concerned that they seemed to be telling the other governments what to do, but there was a good basis that they wanted the corridor to work, and they needed to be advised that they should be pursuing that.

Council Member Harrison said the Durham County Commissioners took action two weeks ago to start the second bullet in the resolution which was the development of small area plans, and apparently are reviewing the major elements of their Major Transportation Corridor Overlay, which was the third bullet. He said he believed the fourth bullet, which emphasized the Memorandum of Agreement, was important because it was the one document that told all the players that there had to be transit-supported development and design to make this work.

Council Member Strom said regarding the station on the southern portion of the new alignment, asked if they talking about one station in this alignment in this area, or two. He said he could not garner that information. Mr. Bonk said unfortunately it was a “moving target.” He said that the TCC recommendation did include the provision for a station at two locations, and subsequent to the development of that Durham County adopted provisions that would eliminate the northern station from consideration. Mr. Bonk said at this point all of the analyses, particularly the land use analyses, assumed development in both areas. He said if the northern station was eliminated then a portion of those jobs and residents that are assumed under scenario C-3 would be eliminated.

Council Member Strom said then scenario C-3 could be much worse if the second station were eliminated. He said we had done a good job here in having this alignment dedicated, but Durham had not been acquiring dedication along this corridor. Council Member Strom said in effect TTA might have to come in after the fact and buy these corridors from the developers, which would raise the cost significantly. He said that Mr. Bonk had understated the difficulty TTA had been having with cost-effectiveness on the Phase I project, and this was coming at us light a freight train.

Council Member Strom said this would be a fiscally constrained project. He asked if language could be added to the resolution to address the fact that this was basically “a smear job” without two stations, and secondly that they needed dedication along the corridor. Council Member Strom said they went through the cost and expense of creating the first alignment and it was basically ignored.

Council Member Strom said this had incredibly significant implications for Chapel Hill. He stated he understood Council Member Harrison’s concern about us “sticking our nose” into a Durham County issue, but the implications for Phase II of the TTA project are right here, right now, adding the right thing was not done the last ten years and it had to be done now.

Council Member Strom said he would like to suggest that those two specific changes be made to the resolution.

Mayor Foy said that the memorandum on page 3 said that the TCC proposed that Durham, Durham County, and Chapel Hill protect the full transit corridor and that local governments to the extent possible seek right-of-way dedication, rather than reservation, for the transit corridor through the development review process. He asked Mr. Bonk where that language was. Mr. Bonk responded that it was on page 14 of the memorandum, which was a part of the TCC’s staff recommendation to the TAC. Mr. Bonk said it was on the bottom of that page under “Requested TAC Action, item #3 and #4.

Mayor Foy said that Council Member Strom had suggested that language be put in the resolution that they would send to the TAC, and asked if that would serve to reinforce what was already in the Memorandum of Agreement. Mr. Bonk replied that it would, and in fact it was similar in some ways to the recommendation they were making to the Council in that the TCC memorandum was much clearer on the issue of land use and the relationship between the support of land use policies and transit, than the Memorandum of Agreement. He said they might want suggest that the same language on right-of-way dedication versus reservation be included in the Memorandum of Agreement.

Mayor Foy asked if that would be acceptable. Council Member Strom said yes, he believed we should clarify that. Mayor Foy said then they should modify the resolution to include that language. Mr. Bonk suggested the easiest way to do that would be to add a bullet to the resolution that would repeat the language of #4 on page 14.

Mayor Foy agreed, and asked Council members to add a bullet to their copy of the resolution that repeated that language.

Council Member Strom said regarding the first bullet, he wanted to add some language regarding the revised alignment in Southwest Durham County but needed a few minutes to compose it.

Mr. Bonk reminded the Council that at this point they were being asked to provide comments to the TTA on how they would like to see the Memorandum of Agreement modified. He said the Council was not, based on this resolution, actually recommending that the corridor be modified, although they could certainly add that.

Council Member Strom said he did not want to recommend that the corridor be modified, and that could be a clear point as well.

Council Member Verkerk asked if it was correct that the proposed corridor went through Glenwood Elementary School. Mr. Bonk said the original alignment would go through the parking lot of the school. Council Member Verkerk said that essentially meant we were losing a school site. Mr. Bonk responded that the consultant had suggested when they did the original study that a structure could be built that avoided the taking of the school site, but in retrospect they did not believe that would be feasible.

Council Member Verkerk said then they were losing a school site, they wanted to move the corridor which meant more expense to them, and they would gain a school site. Mr. Bonk displayed a photograph of the corridor and pointed out the path of the original corridor. He said the suggested revision to the corridor would have it come around the school and through the abandoned portion of Finley Golf Course and then over the bypass to avoid the school itself.

Council Member Verkerk said then they would keep their school site. Mr. Bonk responded yes. Council Member Verkerk said she was struck by the irony of them giving up a school site, and they wanted the corridor moved in order to gain two school sites.

Council Member Hill said it appeared to him that switching to C-3 or C-4 was a recipe for sabotaging the entire project. He noted that with one less station, less ridership, and higher cost it was more likely that this would not happen. Council Member Hill said he did not see why the presence of a school would require that the corridor be moved as much as shown on the map.

Mayor Foy said that was why it was important that they were not endorsing changing the alignment. Council Member Hill said he certainly did not endorse it. Mayor Foy said on the other hand the reality was that they were in an advisory capacity here and had no authority. Mr. Bonk stated that the Town was a signatory of the agreement and it did take the approval of this body to change the alignment. He said that might become a legal issue but as a practical issue, Durham just as they did at South Square Mall could adopt a local development proposal that would either move or eliminate the corridor, in which case it would have to be addressed at some future date.

Mayor Foy said it was a land use issue, and local governments had land use control.

Council Member Hill said he thought they should just tell them no, they do not agree to the realignment. Mayor Foy said they don’t have any authority, but they were still partners in the project. Council Member Hill that they had already gone ahead and done what they wanted to do, and they should not pretend it was okay. Mayor Foy replied they were not pretending it was okay, they were asking that they look at this seriously and they were not saying they think it should be moved. He said they were attempting to be diplomatic.

Council Member Harrison said both bodies had already voted to move the corridor. He said one, he thought erroneously, had voted to move the upper station, and should have given it more thought because there could be a way to make that work. Council Member Harrison stated that he knew that area well and had been around the process for years, and believed that dropping the station in at Ephesus Road was a guess and not necessarily a fully evaluated process. He said it was not just the school that was playing a role in Durham County wanting to move the station, but also the landowners around that area who simply did not want transit.

Council Member Strom said they were spending $20 million extra dollars on that alignment because the elected officials did not defend the corridor, which was “absolutely ridiculous.”

Council Member Harrison said he did not know that they would have gotten it in any case. He said that was a major commuting corridor for Chapel Hill citizens to get to I-40, and right now what they were facing was 15 years without the transit there and development coming in. Council Member Harrison said as planners say, this was a chicken and the egg process, so they have all that pain for 15 years before the transit happened.

Council Member Harrison said there were a couple of hundred acres with a stationery shaping up now, with people who were willing to do transit-supported development and design and that was the big different here. He said he strongly supported the suggested language be added to the resolution, adding for some reason the city attorneys in Durham don’t seem to understand you can dedicate for a transit line as well as you can for a road.

Council Member Harrison stated that he would like to emphasis transit-supported design as well, and that would certainly send the message. He said he had said that repeatedly to the TAC, that you were reserving land, not dedicating it. Council Member Harrison said he did not believe this was sabotaging the process, but now that the process was coming together it was something that was very real that they were trying to salvage, and he believed they could do it successfully.

Council Member Greene stated it was disappointing and frustrating to think about the loss of corridor “A.” She said she had seen the Ottawa plan recently, noting they were a well-established city but managed to get some transit corridors dedicated. Council Member Greene what was Durham’s specific objection to the second stop at the top of the map, which had now gone away. Mr. Bonk replied that he was not completely knowledgeable about why the County Commissioners removed it. He said that staff had raised some concerns that in its ideal state a station would have 360 degree access to it and enjoy the benefits of development around the station in a complete circle. Mr. Bonk said by putting it up against I-40 you cut off at least half of that circle in terms of its ability to feed into the station through walking or biking or whatever. He said he did not think that the staff had necessarily recommended removing that one.

Council Member Ward noted the possibility of adding a bullet to the resolution that referred to page 14, #4 and the dedication of a transit corridor, in an effort not feel like they were adding their own requirements to a Durham issue, that it might be helpful to identify that it was not so much our recommendation, but a repeat of something that had came in part from Durham County as part of the MPO lead planning agency. He suggested we add to that additional bullet that made it clear that the author of this wording was not Chapel Hill but the MPO speaking.

Council Member Ward said he agreed with Council Member Hill about the financial woes of Phase I. He said he could not image how adding the kind of additional cost that C-3 was suggesting with a meager increase in ridership was in touch with reality. Council Member Ward said it did effectively throw Phase II away. He said the funding was already tenuous, and Phase II was an even more difficult funding issue. Council Member Ward said for that reason and to the extent they can say it constructively, he believed they needed to make it clear that some solution to the existing route was the way to solve the problem.

Mayor Foy said that was a good point, and asked Mr. Bonk to advise the Council on how to incorporate the information he had given the Council that the numbers were no good, given that the station on the north does not exist anymore, and that the numbers in ridership were based on two stations, not one. He said it was likely to cost even more.

Council Member Strom said maybe their position should be that they supported a change as long as it had the same ridership and cost effectiveness ratio as alignment “A.”

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that was not a good compromise, because that was the limit of our interest, and it forced them to actually come up with one that was better.

Council Member Hill said he believed that the “way this game is played” was to add a couple of more stations and then add the ridership, so the cost per rider goes down.

Mayor Foy said that depended on if you had development nearby that actually supported that.

Council Member Hill said then any guideway that went alongside I-40 would lose 50 percent of its potential development.

Mayor Foy said that was correct, noting that the map showed that it already went along I-40.

Council Member Harrison said the development was only at the stations, and it didn’t matter that it was next to I-40 which was probably a smoother route to run a fixed guideway that anywhere else.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said but then you were in the middle of the I-40 right-of-way.

Council Member Harrison said the problem was Durham County removing that top station.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that was not all you did at a station, that you were walking to it or biking to it.

Council Member Harrison said you were getting a stationery around a station, putting an alignment by the school site down to where it was, which was the only station that would be on that map under alignment “A.” He said that was an area where the development was not shaping up as transit supportive, and the design wasn’t there although it was not their fault. Council Member Harrison said he did think there could be two stations on the map, although one would not be as effective as the southern one which could be very effective. He said the other one had access problems, but our position was that there should be two stations. Council Member Harrison said the Durham City Council did not remove that top station, rather it was the County due to the local pressure brought to bear by the landowners.

Council Member Strom suggested adding a new first bullet that said that the Chapel Hill Town Council supports a revised alignment in Southwest Durham County that does not reduce transit ridership or alter the cost effectiveness from the adopted alignment.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-17 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS ADDED TO THE BULLETED SECTION:

· Request that local governments, to the extent possible, seek right-of-way (ROW) dedication, rather than reservation, for this transit corridor through the development review process.

· The Chapel Hill Town Council supports a revised alignment in Southwest Durham County that does not reduce transit ridership or alter the cost effectiveness from the adopted alignment.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Town Manager Cal Horton left the meeting at this point, leaving Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller as Acting Manager.

Item 11 – Recommended Charge for the Inclusionary Zoning Task Force

Acting Planning Director J.B. Culpepper stated that the Council was being asked to adopt a recommended charge for an Inclusionary Zoning Task Force. She said that the proposed resolution would provide a charge to this new advisory group. Ms. Culpepper said that last June the Council adopted a schedule to develop an inclusionary zoning ordinance, adding that the Council Committee on Inclusionary Zoning had recommended a general charge for a new Inclusionary Zoning Task Force.

Ms. Culpepper said they were currently advertising for Task Force members, and recommended that the Council adopt the proposed resolution that would establish a charge for the new Task Force as recommended by the Council Committee.

Mayor Foy said it was important to note that we had received two applications so far, and when they set this up it would be a 15 to 18 member task force with specific slots reserved for people with particular expertise. He said the Council should make an effort to identify people who would do a good job on this, because this would be a big step and we need good advice.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-18. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 12 – Proposal to Provide Water and Sewer Service at

Orange County Solid Waste Operations Center on Eubanks Road

Ms. Culpepper said this item forwarded a request from the Orange County Board of Commissioners asking for comments from the Council regarding a plan by Orange Water and Sewer Authority to request public water and sewer service connections to the proposed Orange County Solid Waste Operations Center that was proposed to be located on Eubanks Road next to the landfill.

Ms. Culpepper said the new Solid Waste Operations Center was proposed to be located in Orange County’s jurisdiction in the Joint Planning Rural Buffer and outside our Urban Services Boundary. She said that the Joint Planning Agreement and other existing policies that the local governments had adopted included provisions that would allow for the extension of public water and sewer service to an essential public facility in the Rural Buffer.

Ms. Culpepper said the recommendation was that the Council adopt Resolution A which would request that the County Commissioners present additional information about the proposed development at the Assembly of Governments meeting scheduled for later this month. She said they believe the Council would benefit from having additional information about the proposal.

Mayor Foy said he believed that was accurate. He said we had “bent over backwards” not to put water and sewer in the Rural Buffer and he did not think they had changed their position. Mayor Foy said there may be some options where they could work something out, but they needed more information.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-19a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 13 – Proposed Calendar of Council Meetings through December, 2006,

Including the 2006-2007 Budget Process

Council Member Hill said under item B, the Budget Development schedule, as an informal poll he asked who on the Council enjoyed the schedule this past year as opposed to the schedule from two years ago. He said last year they had early morning meetings with the Citizens Budget Advisory Committee, and this proposed schedule took them back to the old schedule.

Mayor Foy said he liked the early morning schedule.

Council Member Hill said he would like to find some way to return to the way it was done last year.

Mayor Foy said he had discussed this with the Manager, and it was the staff’s thought that they needed to put these dates in as place holders. He said the Council had not settled on a process, and they needed to do that. Ms. Miller said that was correct, that they did not want to assume that they knew what the Council would want to do, although they could amend their calendar at any time. She said she was assuming that when the Council held its planning session, this would be discussed at that time.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-20. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 14 – Appointments

14a. Chapel Hill Active Living by Design Partnership.

The Council appointed Erik Landfried and Diana Straughan to the Chapel Hill Active Living by Design Partnership.

Council Members

Chapel Hill Active Living by Design Partnership Advisory Committee

Foy

Greene

Harrison

Hill

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Erik Landfried

Diana Straughan

Other; please list

14b. Horace Williams Citizens Committee.

The Council appointed Alex Ashton and Ruby Sinreich to the Horace Williams Citizens Committee.

Council Members

Horace Williams Citizens’ Committee

Foy

Greene

Harrison

Hill

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Alex Ashton

Ruby Sinreich

Other; please list

14c. Million Solar Roofs Initiative.

The Council appointed Alex Ashton, Lauren Brenner, Alice Neebe, Daniel C. Park, Karen Rasmussen, and Michele Rund to the Million Solar Roofs Initiative.

Council Members

Million Solar Roofs Initiative

Foy

Greene

Harrison

Hill

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Alex Ashton

Lauren Brenner

Alice Neebe

Daniel C. Parker

Karen Rasmussen

Michele Rund

Other; please list:

Item 15 – Petitions

15a. Mayor Foy, regarding the Triangle United Way Harvest Fest.

Mayor Foy asked that the Council agree to purchase space in the Triangle United Way Harvest Fest that was at the end of October, noting it was a regional effort and the Council had been asked to participate. The Council agreed by consensus to participate.

15b. Council Member Greene, regarding the Homeless Forum on September 14.

Council Member Greene announced that on Wednesday there would be a forum sponsored by the County on Homelessness, which would take place at the United Church from 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. and invited all to attend.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.