SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 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, Planning Director J.B. Culpepper, Principal Transportation Planner David Bonk, Finance Director Kay Johnson, Assistant Finance Director Jeanne Erwin, Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli, Principal Planner Phil Mason, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Item 1 – Ceremonies:  None.

Item 2 – Public Forum:  Consideration of a Potential Change in

Cablevision Public Access Fees

Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko noted that tonight’s Public Forum was for the purpose of receiving comments on the potential adjustment of the public access fee charged to cable television customers.  She noted that public access fees collected by Time Warner go to The Peoples Channel to provide public access television services.  Ms. Lazorko said the current 74-cent public access fee generated about $115,000 the last fiscal year.

Ms. Lazorko remarked that each year the Council considered whether the increase, maintain, or reduce that fee, noting an increase would be based on inflation. She stated that the current inflation factor was 2.29 percent, which would result in an increase to 76 cents per customer per month beginning in January 2006.  Ms. Lazorko said that increase would amount to an additional $2,233 for The Peoples Channel.

Ms. Lazorko stated that once public comment was heard, the Manager recommended referring all comments from the Public Forum to the Manager and Attorney.  She said a final recommendation was scheduled to come back to the Council on November 21.

Bob Gwyn, a member of the Board of Directors of The Peoples Channel, said that much of the community was served by the diverse types of programming offered by The Peoples Channel, from political discussions to cultural events.  He noted that they have an active teaching program that provided instruction in television operation and techniques which was expanding continually.  Mr. Gwyn said the funds that come from the subscribers via the public access fee made it possible for them to serve the community in those ways.  He said they deeply appreciated the Council’s concern and attention, and asked that they approve the increase.

Jennifer Weaver, a member of the Board of Directors of The Peoples Channel, said as they move to a new technological era with digital convergence, The Peoples Channel would have to evolve to become more of a community tech center.  Ms. Weaver said they not only would have to provide media education related to television but also computer literacy, Internet access, and other tools to navigate the digital world.  She stated they could not provide those services without the public access fees, and the proposed increase would assist them in continuing their mission.

Roland Giduz, a member of the Board of Directors of The Peoples Channel, said the programming of The Peoples Channel was steadily and significantly improving and rendering a real service to the Town.  He commented that they not only teach people to produce their own programs as well as the editing process, but also start them on careers in this fast growing industry.  Mr. Giduz asked that the Council help them to continue providing quality services to the community by adopting the proposed increase in public access fees.

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

Item 3 – Petitions

3a.       Petitions by Citizens.

3a(1).   Dan and Leigh Copeland requesting an Update to the Existing Method Currently Utilized to Block Briarbridge Lane to Through Traffic.

Leigh Copeland stated that they had recently purchased the home at No. 2 Briarbridge. She said that nearly two decades ago Briarbridge Lane had been designated as a “No Thru Traffic” street, and a gate and concrete divider were installed that would continue to allow members of the Chapel Hill Church of Christ to use that street.  Ms. Copeland said the gate was now in disrepair, that cars were plowing it down and chains were being used to keep it together.

Ms. Copeland said they had talked with the Town’s Public Works Department to find a solution to the problem.  She said their recommendation, supported by the property owners on Briarbridge Lane, included placing removable round concrete or steel poles across Briarbridge Lane closer to the intersection of Briarbridge and South Columbia Street.  Ms. Copeland said the poles would be similar to those used around campus to block automobile traffic, while still encouraging pedestrian and bicycle traffic.  She said that would stop traffic before it could turn onto Briarbridge Lane

Ms. Copeland requested that the Council consider their petition to upgrade the existing method of blocking through traffic on Briarbridge Lane.

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

3a(2).   Carolyn Sturgess regarding Consideration of Dawes and Coolidge Street as a Four-Way Stop Intersection.

Joe Capowski, a resident of 404 Coolidge Street, said he supported Ms. Sturgess’ petition and strongly urged to Council to make that intersection a four-way stop.  He said the traffic situation had been exacerbated by several new large student housing units built on the western end of Coolidge Street which was generating a substantial speeding problem.

Mr. Capowski said the problem was not subtle, noting he had never witnessed such speeding on an 18-foot gravel road.  He remarked the stop signs were necessary, and if there was any thing else the Town could do to improve the situation he would strongly request that they do so.

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(3).   Amy Chute regarding Larkspur Neighborhood Transit Service and a Crosswalk on Weaver Dairy Road Extension.

Amy Chute said her purpose in submitting the petition was to request public transit service for the Larkspur neighborhood to be routed onto Weaver Dairy Road Extension, and a crosswalk on Weaver Dairy Road Extension to provide a connection from Larkspur to the Northwoods neighborhood.

Mayor Foy said that Ms. Chute’s requests should be treated as two petitions.

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

Announcements by Council Members.  None.

Item 4 – Consent Agenda

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

Item 5 – Information Reports

Mayor Foy commented on Item 5d, Response to a Petition Requesting a Mid-Block Crosswalk on East Franklin Street between Estes Drive and Elliott Road.  He said he believed this was a good sign that the NCDOT would be willing to work with the Town in providing a crosswalk there, which was recognition of how successful the public transit system had become.  Mayor Foy said that significant pedestrian traffic was generated in that area, primarily because of the transit system.

Mayor Foy said it was potentially a good harbinger for what might happen on Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard and on West Franklin Street, where the Town had been asking for crosswalks because of the pedestrian traffic.  He noted that progress was being made.

Council Member Ward asked that the staff forward this item to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board and the Transportation Board to make sure they were aware of this.  He said as plans were made for that crosswalk he wanted to make sure that it was compatible with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and possibly the Greenways Master Plan.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON, THAT AGENDA ITEM 5d BE FORWARDED TO THE BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY BOARD, THE GREENWAYS COMMISSION, AND THE TRANSPORTATION BOARD FOR THEIR INFORMATION.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

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

Item 6 – Presentation of the 2004-2005 Audit Report

Finance Director Kay Johnson noted that each year the Town presented a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, and that report was audited by an external firm.  She thanked members of the Finance Department who assisted in preparing the report, led quite ably by Assistant Finance Director Jeanne Erwin.

Ms. Johnson noted that the Town’s audit firm was Dixon and Hughes PLLC, a large regional firm.  She said they were represented tonight by John Frank, one of its partners, and Wayne Martin, the manager, who would present the report.

Mr. Martin provided a brief overview of the 2004-2005 Comprehensive Annual Finance Report, noting that they had issued the Town a “clean” audit, meaning that no reportable conditions or weaknesses in the Town’s system of internal controls and related procedures were found.

Mr. Martin noted that total net assets of the Town had increased by approximately $9 million, and the General Fund available Fund Balance increased by approximately $2.6 million, or 37 percent, over 2003-2004.  He commented that the Town’s available Fund Balance was approximately 26 percent of general budgetary basis expenditures, which was significantly higher than the 8 percent recommended by the Local Government Commission (LGC).  Mr. Martin said additional financial highlights were contained in their report, and provided a brief overview of those.

Mr. Martin thanked the Town for allowing Dixon and Hughes to perform the Town’s audit, adding it had been a pleasure to work with the Finance Department.

Mayor Foy congratulating Ms. Johnson for another stellar performance.

Item 7 – UNC Cogeneration Facility – Special Use Permit Modification

Principal Planner Phil Mason stated that tonight the Council would continue the Public Hearing from September 19 for the UNC Facility.  He said a number of issues had been raised at that hearing, and the agenda materials provided to the Council included responses to those issues.

Mr. Mason said the Manager’s Revised Recommendation included the following changes:

· Stipulation 18 had been revised in Resolution A to require that the lighting plan pertain to proposed lighting only.

· Stipulation 19 had been added to require a comparative analysis of acoustics at the Cogeneration Facility before and after the proposed plant upgrade.

· Stipulation 20 had been added to require the applicant to publish the Annual Cogeneration Facility Air Emissions Inventory on the University of North Carolina Energy Services web site, as well as providing that data to the Town.

Mr. Mason said the Manager’s Revised Recommendation was for adoption of Resolution A.

Bruce Runberg, Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Construction at UNC, said that the Town’s advisory boards had reviewed this request during August and September and had recommended approval. He commented that three members of the public had requested additional information at the September 19 public hearing, and written responses to those questions were provide with the Council’s materials.

Mr. Runberg noted that because this was a complex issue, they had elaborated on the information already provided to the Council.  He said that Carolyn Elfland, Associate Vice Chancellor for Campus Services, would focus specifically on the issues raised at the September 19 meeting.  Mr. Runberg said that Kim Crossman, a Program Manager with the U.S. EPA Combined Heat and Power Partnership in Washington, D.C. would speak on recognition EPA had given to UNC’s Cogeneration technology and leadership.  At that point, he stated, Dr. Doug Crawford-Brown, a professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering in the School of Public Health and Director of the Carolina Environmental Program, and a professor in the Department of Public Policy in the College of Arts and Sciences, would present information about the environmental effects of the Cogeneration Facility. Mr. Runberg said after those presentations, he would make a few closing remarks.

Carolyn Elfland gave a PowerPoint presentation, beginning with a slide that was a simplified depiction of cogeneration, which was sometimes referred to as combined heat and power.  She explained the cogeneration process and how it produced energy.  Ms. Elfland emphasized that they were not requesting an increase in the capacity of the plant to produce energy; in other words, they were not requesting that the plant have the capacity to burn more coal.

Ms. Elfland said when they had negotiated with the neighbors at the time they needed to replace the coal silos, they had agreed to adhere to their Steam Master Plan that existed at that time, and they had done so.  She noted that when their current capital construction program was completed, their steam needs would exceed the capacity of the facility.  Ms. Elfland said they had not requested that the current facility be expanded; rather they had sought permission to construct a second plant on Manning Drive which had been approved and was under construction.

Ms. Elfland said when the Cogeneration Facility was constructed it was sized for what they had at that time thought would be the build out of the campus.  She said the campus had grown significantly since that plant began operation in 1991 and the facility has continued to meet the growing steam needs.  However, she said, their electrical generating capacity remained at the original 28 megawatts.  Ms. Elfland said that meant that much of the increased steam production could not be used for cogeneration.  She said the efficiency of the plant was halved when they could produce steam but not electricity.  Thus, Ms. Elfland stated, their requests with this modification were all related to increasing the electrical generation at the plant.

Ms. Elfland stated that the improvements requested in the modification, in addition to restoring the efficiency of the plant through increasing electrical generation, addressed three needs:

1. Insufficient capacity to serve critical facilities with self-generated electricity;

2. Reduce risk of major long-duration power outages; and

3. Obsolescence of current equipment.

Ms. Elfland then exhibited slides that addressed each of the three improvements. She noted that in the first full year of operation of the plant, their peak electrical demand was about 55 megawatts, and this year they had peaked at approximately 75 megawatts.  Ms. Elfland said in the year 2010, they expected to need over 120 megawatts.  She said their ability to produce electricity for the growing campus had grown unacceptably low.

Ms. Elfland provided information regarding new facilities that had been constructed on the campus, including at UNC Hospitals, and that they had insufficient capacity to serve these critical facilities with self-generated electricity. She said the solution was to increase the electrical power generation capacity, and were thus requesting improvements that would allow them to increase their electrical generating capacity to 55 megawatts.

Ms. Elfland noted that the increase in electrical generation capacity would allow for more capture of the steam of produce additional electricity.  She stated that no additional boilers were required, and the steam capacity of the plan would not be increased.  Ms. Elfland said the efficiency of the plant was increased because more of the steam could be used to generate more electricity.

Ms. Elfland said the second need that would be addressed was to reduce the risk of long duration power outages, and there were two ways they planned to address that.  Currently, she said, they were unable to restart the plant without electricity from Duke Power Company.  Ms. Elfland said when adverse weather occurred they disconnected from Duke Power and operated independently.  But, she stated, if they then experienced a plant trip while Duke Power was down, they were unable to restart the plant and could not generate power to keep their critical facilities in operation.  Ms. Elfland said to correct this weakness they were proposing to install two back-up generators that would allow them to restart the plant independent of Duke Power.

Ms. Elfland said the other way to address the risk of long duration power outages was that their most critical substation, the Manning Drive substation which fed UNC Hospitals and UNC’s major research facilities, was fed by a single feed from the substation located across US 15-501.  She said if that substation were disrupted or if that single feed line was damaged, they would not be able to provide a sufficient amount of power to the Manning Drive substation.  Ms. Elfland said to address that, they were proposing to install a small gas-insulated switchgear substation next to the current substation on Cameron Avenue, and run a connection from that substation to Manning Drive, allowing it to be fed from two directions.

Ms. Elfland said the third need they were addressing was the obsolescence of the cooling tower.  She said the existing cooling towers had reached the end of their useful lives and needed replacement.  She said as well, cooling capacity needed to be added to accommodate the new turbine.  Ms. Elfland said they were proposing to construct the new cooling towers on the site of some old storage buildings that date back to World War II, which would also require that they construct a new storage facility.

Ms. Elfland said the new cooling towers would decrease noise by 10-15 decibels (dB) along the western property line, noting they would also build an acoustical screen wall.  She said all of the new equipment would meet the Town’s Noise Ordinance requirements, and would continue to honor their commitment to the neighbors to reduce noise.

Ms. Elfland said there would be no net change in light levels at any property line. She said that 15 exterior light fixtures would be installed as well as 15 additional task lights that would normally be turned off.  Ms. Elfland said these lights would not produce any change in light levels at the property line.

Ms. Elfland said that Dr. Crawford-Brown would address in detail the environmental effects of the plant, but wanted to comment that the emissions rates were limited by the State and the actual emissions were well below the permitted levels.  She said for example, their sulfur dioxide emission rate was 50 percent that of a home heating oil furnace, and their particulate emission rate was 20 percent that of a home heating oil furnace.  Ms. Elfland said their environmental controls reduced their mercury emissions by 90 percent, reiterating that their improvements would not increase the coal burning capacity of the plant.

Ms. Elfland remarked that UNC’s Cogeneration Facility is one of the nation’s cleanest coal burning facilities, noting that since this plant went online it had remained at the forefront of technology and continued to be nationally recognized.

Kim Crossman, with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, DC, spoke about the awards that the EPA had awarded to UNC over the years.  She stated that combined heat and power (CHP), also known as cogen or cogeneration, was the simultaneous production and utilization of electrical or mechanical energy and heat from the combustion of fuel.  Ms. Crossman stated it was a more efficient and environmentally superior way to produce energy close to the load being served.

Ms. Crossman displayed a chart which demonstrated the efficiency benefits of CHP. She said as a comparison, a typical boiler was about 80 percent efficient and a typical power plant was about 31 percent efficient.  Ms. Crossman said when a CHP did its work, you would see at least a 50 percent increase in efficiency on the plant.

Ms. Crossman noted that in March of 2000, UNC was awarded the Combined Heat and Power Certificate of Recognition for the project built there in 1991.  She said that through exposure to projects like that at UNC, the EPA became aware of the potential fuel savings and resulting environmental benefits of CHP, and had then founded the CHP Partnership within the EPA in 2001.  Ms. Crossman stated that the EPA was technology, fuel and vendor neutral, in that they concentrated on projects that produced and increased high efficiency of fuel generation.

Ms. Crossman said because of UNC’s work, they had been asked to become a Founding Partner of the Combined Heat and Power Partnership.  She said EPA had recruited UNC to become a Founding Partner because they demonstrated environmental leadership by its willingness to share information and its best practices with peers, and its active involvement with the International District Energy Association (DEA).  Ms. Crossman said that after receiving the Certificate of Recognition in 2000, UNC had committed to data collection for submission of the Energy Star CHP Award application.

Ms. Crossman said the Energy Star CHP Award that UNC had applied for recognized the best CHP projects that were at least five percent more efficient than state of the art separate heat and power production, adding that the CHP system efficiency was calculated by EPA and verified for one year of operating data. Ms. Crossman noted that there were less than 10 facilities in the country who win these awards each year.  She stated that in fact, UNC won this award in 2003.

Ms. Crossman noted that each year that UNC’s plant operated, CO2 emissions were reduced in comparison to separate heat and power plants.  She said since UNC’s plant began operating in 1991, the annual CO2 emissions reductions were equivalent to planting approximately 16,500 acres of trees or removing the missions of approximately 11,000 cars.  Ms. Crossman said that each year those numbers would continue to grow.

Ms. Crossman noted that in October 2005, UNC had received recognition for maintaining a highly efficient plant in EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Report.

Professor Doug Crawford-Brown said he wanted to provide the Council with an environmental view of the UNC Cogeneration Facility, as well as calculations he had performed on some of the health risks associated with pollutant released.  He noted there were two main issues that had been raised and from an environmental perspective they were totally legitimate issues: the global issue of carbon dioxide emissions, and the local issue of emissions of toxics, with mercury as the “driver” and where it was released.

Dr. Crawford-Brown described the cogeneration facility in Salzburg, and said he and his students had taken the model developed for Saltzburg and converted it to UNC-Chapel Hill.  He said the model contained various pollutants, but he would focus on mercury because it dominated the health risks for a cogeneration facility.  Dr. Crawford-Brown noted that if a plant effectively controlled its mercury emissions, then other pollutants would be controlled as well.

Dr. Crawford-Brown described the workings of the model.  He provided a series of calculations of a hypothetical individual living in Chapel Hill doing the worst possible thing that he or she could do.  Dr. Crawford-Brown said this individual grew his own vegetables and ate fish from University Lake only, and drank water from that lake which was not treated for mercury.

Dr. Crawford-Brown said in order to run that model they needed information about where the wind blew in Chapel Hill.  He exhibited a slide that depicted the concentration of mercury that surrounded the power plant predicted for Chapel Hill, and a slide of the geographic area it represented.  Dr. Crawford-Brown said the model used the following exposure pathways for a person living in Chapel Hill:

· inhalation of air;

· ingestion of vegetables from a back-yard garden;

· ingestion of soil from vegetables;

· ingestion of fish from University Lake; and

· ingestion of water from University Lake.

Dr. Crawford-Brown said he would use precautionary assumptions within the model, meaning that whenever there was an option of what assumption to put into the model he would use the assumption that would lead to the higher estimate of the risk.  He said the parameter values were taken from the EPA’s Mercury Report to Congress, the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), and the EPA’s Exposure Factor Handbook.

Dr. Crawford-Brown described the steps for model:

· estimate the mercury emission rate;

· calculate concentrations in air, water, soil, vegetables, and fish;

· calculate the rate at which people inhale or ingest mercury from these;

· add them all up;

· multiply by the cancer slope factor in order to get the probability of cancer; and

· divide by the reference dose to get the hazard quotient for non-cancer effects.

Dr. Crawford-Brown said the next question was what to compare these against.  He said in the case of cancer the results, the EPA notes that if the probability of cancer was above one in ten thousand, then something must be done to reduce that risk.  Dr. Crawford-Brown said if the risk was below one in a million, then nothing needed to be done.  He said if the result was between one in a million and one in ten thousand, you needed to take a look at what the alternatives were and what the risks and costs of those alternatives might be.

Dr. Crawford-Brown said for the non-cancer effects, what they were looking for was a hazard quotient of one, which was the amount of mercury taken in from the power plant divided by the amount established by the EPA as safe with a reasonable margin of safety.  So, he said, what you would look for was a hazard quotient that was below one.

Dr. Crawford-Brown said now you ask where the Cogeneration Facility stood in its current daily operations.  He remarked that the current amounts of mercury produced by the facility, that the maximum lifetime probability of cancer from mercury for the highest individual in Chapel Hill, that is, the person taking in the largest amount of exposure as previously described, was three chances in a million or a factor of 33 below the EPA level of one in ten thousand.  Dr. Crawford-Brown stated that the hazard quotient for non-cancer effects for this individual was .015 or a factor of 67 below the value of one.

Dr. Crawford-Brown said that scenario assumed the current operating conditions of the Cogeneration Facility.  He stated that if the plant operated at the capacity allowed by the EPA, the maximum lifetime probability of cancer from mercury would increase to 5.6 chances in a million or a factor of 18 below the EPA level of one in ten thousand rather than 33, and a maximum hazard quotient of 0.028 or a factor of 36 below a value of one rather than 67.

Dr. Crawford-Brown remarked that the next question was what was better with respect to carbon dioxide emissions, getting your power from the Cogeneration Facility or from Duke Power.  He stated that to determine that, the total carbon dioxide emissions from electricity and steam generation from the Cogeneration Facility were compared to the total carbon dioxide emissions from having Duke Power supply that same energy as electricity, with some converted back to heat for the buildings.  Dr. Crawford-Brown said the results were as follows:

· The Cogeneration Facility released 345,335 tones of carbon dioxide last year, if we assume all carbon was converted.

· The Cogeneration Facility had 81 percent efficiency.

· Overall, Duke Power efficiency was 33 percent.

· So, Duke Power would have produced 847,640 tones of carbon dioxide to provide the same energy if they used coal.

Dr. Crawford-Brown said that result was based on if Duke Power were to use coal to produce its electricity.  He remarked that if you assumed that they were using their current mix of 50 percent nuclear, then Duke Power would have produced 423,820 tones of carbon dioxide to provide the same energy, or, 472,989 tons of carbon dioxide given current efficiencies of converting electricity to heat on campus.

Dr. Crawford-Brown concluded that from an environmental perspective, the Cogeneration Facility does not produce local health risks from mercury that approach regulatory limits.  Additionally, he remarked, generating energy from the current Cogeneration Facility to supply the campus produced a lower global risk from carbon dioxide emissions than did purchasing the equivalent energy from Duke Power.

Dr. Crawford-Brown provided the Council with a copy of a disc that contained his report and tonight’s presentation, and the details of the models used for Chapel Hill.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked Dr. Crawford-Brown to go back to the slide regarding mercury and the risks of cancer and non-cancer effects.  He asked him to explain the graph.  Dr. Crawford-Brown said on that slide, he had asked what the cancer risk was from the Cogeneration Facility compared to the standard normally used by the EPA.  He said he had normalized that standard to one, meaning that if you were producing all of the risk elements possible that the EPA said you should not exceed then that would be a one on the chart.  Dr. Crawford-Brown said the chart indicated how close the Cogeneration Facility’s emissions were relative to the overall risk, which was significantly below the standard for cancer and non-cancer effects.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had no experience with mercury exposure, but did have some experience with lead exposure and its effects on childhood development. He said when you looked at what was allowable as far as exposure health care workers would say that there would still be measurable effects even at very low levels.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said that with mercury, a level at one could be tolerated but there would still be effects.  Dr. Crawford-Brown responded that what he was comparing here was health risk from this facility against the health risk that the current EPA regulatory structure had said was acceptable.  He noted that you had to make the assumption that the EPA was setting these levels at levels that were safe.

Dr. Crawford-Brown remarked we hear that lead was not exceeding regulatory limits, but health care workers said that lead could produce effects even at the regulatory limit.  He said they had used that argument when they looked at the mercury levels, noting that over the last 10 years the mercury standard had come down precisely because of those types of arguments.  Dr. Crawford-Brown said those were legitimate arguments and he was one that had supported those arguments.  He said in his opinion, the EPA regulation for mercury was not stringent enough, and it needed to be lowered.  Dr. Crawford-Brown said the chart in question assumed a more stringent standard and used the results of that more stringent standard in his calculations.

Dr. Crawford-Brown said that in 10 years, they could learn that the mercury standard should have been much more stringent, or, in 10 years they could discover that the standard was much too stringent.  He said based on what the public health community now knows and the margin of safety built into the EPA standard, they believe that the chart presented what the health risks were from mercury.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if Dr. Crawford-Brown had an opinion as to which way that trend might move, stating there was a trend in the health care community to lower the standards for lead exposure.  Dr. Crawford-Brown replied that lead standards had been moving down, and mercury standards were dropping and leveling out, then dropping again and leveling out.  He said he did not treat this lightly, adding he agreed that mercury was a big public health issue that needed to be addressed.

Mayor Foy asked Dr. Crawford-Brown to elaborate on his contention that mercury was the driver and therefore measuring mercury would be the right way to proceed. Dr. Crawford-Brown said he had participated in looking at about 17,000 emissions sources throughout the United States, including all sorts of combustion facilities.  He said of the health risks in the United States from 188 pollutants that come out of power facilities, mercury was producing about 90 to 95 percent of the risks from these facilities.   Dr. Crawford-Brown said in Saltzburg the level was about 96 percent of the total risk, and their facility was very similar to UNC’s facility.  He noted the residents of Saltzburg consumed a much higher amount of fish that the residents of Chapel Hill.

Dr. Crawford-Brown said for those reasons he had looked only at mercury levels.  He remarked that if he looked at the other 187 risk factors these numbers may go up slightly, but not enough to cause any visual difference in the levels depicted on the chart.

Council Member Strom asked Dr. Crawford-Brown how much focus would he put into looking for energy efficiency on the user side, and how would that fit into the Carbon Reduction Project (CRed) planned for Chapel Hill.  Dr. Crawford-Brown replied that he had not finished his calculations, and did not want to predict how those numbers would come out.  He said he was always interested in energy efficiency in buildings, and always thought it was important.  Dr. Crawford-Brown said he was glad to see the University seeking LEED Silver Certification in its buildings.

Council Member Strom asked Dr. Crawford-Brown to imagine he had his field hat on.  He asked, if someone were to ask him if they should invest in retrofitting a building for energy efficiency, how would he arrive at that decision.  Council Member Strom said he knew the new buildings being constructed on campus were paying attention to these issues, and that the need for additional electricity was a result of these new buildings.  But, he noted, when he had his field hat on, he would imagine that he was looking at both sides of that equation.  Dr. Crawford-Brown responded that he had not yet looked at that, but it was a vitally important issue that would be part of the discourse on campus.  He said he had focused on what would be the carbon dioxide emissions from the facility if energy was produced in-house or was received from Duke Power.

Ms. Elfland said there had been a lot of confusion on this issue, reiterating that they were not requesting that the fuel burning capacity be increased at the plant, only that the electrical capacity be expanded.  She said Dr. Crawford-Brown’s chart depicted the Cogeneration Facility’s current capacity, and what would happen if they burned at its existing maximum capacity.  Ms. Elfland said they wanted to be able to use the steam they produced to generate additional electricity.

Mayor Foy asked if the University would be willing to agree, as a stipulation of approval of the modification to the Special Use Permit, not to increase certain emissions, for example mercury or CO2 emissions.  Ms. Elfland replied no, because they did not have total control of that.  She said there were too many unknowns to agree to that.  Ms. Elfland said when that plant was built, it was built and permitted for a certain capacity.  She stated that there were times when it was operating at its maximum and others times when it was not.  Ms. Elfland said that Dr. Crawford-Brown’s chart showed what the result would be if they operated the plant at its maximum 100 percent of the time.

Ms. Elfland said the new plant on Manning Drive, fueled with gas, had some capacity to expand in the future and was sized to meet the steam needs of the Master Plan build out, not just the Current Development plan already approved by the Council.  She asked what was the likelihood that they would ever have to expand the capacity of that plant to burn fuel, which was what caused the emissions. Ms. Elfland reminded the Council that generating electricity did not cause the emissions.  She said the chances were slim that scenario would ever happen, and they had no plans to do that.  Ms. Elfland concluded that it was not responsible to pick an emissions number and then say that they would not exceed it.

Council Member Hill remarked that Ms. Elfland had displayed a graph that indicated the University’s power needs.  He said the last year on that chart was 2010, with a need of 120+ megawatts.  Council Member Hill said the graph also listed 140+ as the University’s ultimate campus needs.  Ms. Elfland said that was noted because it matched up with the ultimate build out of their campus Master Plan. She said that 2010 was the end of the currently approved development plan.

Council Member Hill asked if the 140+ megawatts could be generated with the proposed additions to the Cogeneration Facility as well as the Manning Drive plant.  Ms. Elfland said they were asking that they increase their output from 28 to 55, which would meet about 70 percent of their critical facility needs.  She said during times of power outages that would allow them to keep UNC Hospitals and other critical facilities operating.  Ms. Elfland said there was not enough steam capacity at the Cameron Avenue plant to be able to add enough turbines to get them up to 140 megawatts.  She said they could not produce enough steam to generate that much electricity.

Council Member Hill said, then, that the 120 and 140 megawatts represented the total needs including what was purchased and what was produced.  He asked if she anticipated increasing their capacity over what they were currently requesting.  Ms. Elfland said in other words did they anticipate increasing their steam capacity, and the answer was no.  She said they had no plans to increase their steam capacity and did not need to in order to meet the requirements of their Master Plan.  Ms. Elfland said the steam capacity to do that was located at the Manning substation.

Ms. Elfland said since the plant went online in 1992, the campus had grown considerably and the steam production had increased over those 13 years of operation.  But, she said, the generation of electricity had not increased during that time.

Council Member Hill said what he wanted to know was would that mean that the Cameron Avenue plant would never burn more coal than it was burning now, and that the electrical capacity of the plant would catch up with the coal burning capacity. Then, he said, would that plant be at its maximum and have no further need to grow.  Ms. Elfland said they had no plans to increase the steam capacity or the electrical capacity beyond what it was today.  She said that the Manning Drive plant was built to carrying them through to the end of their Master Plan.

Council Member Hill said that according to the 1997 Steam Use Master Plan that Plan limited the amount of steam that would be produced at the Cameron Avenue facility.  Ms. Elfland said that Plan was prepared before the current higher education bond program and others were passed that created the development plan.  So, she said, that 1997 Steam Use Master Plan did not provide enough steam for what would now be constructed on campus.  Ms. Elfland said when they realized that the 1997 Plan did not provide sufficient steam capacity at the Cameron plant, they had sought approval for the Manning Drive plant so that they could honor their commitment to the neighbors and the Town contained in the 1997 plan for the Cameron Avenue plant.

Council Member Hill said it sounded as if they did not anticipate nor could they accommodate an increased capacity at the Cameron Avenue plant based on the 1997 Steam Use Master Plan, and that the electrical generating capacity that was increasing with this SUP modification would make the steam generation and the electrical generation balance out.  Ms. Elfland said that was correct.  Council Member Hill said then the facility at Cameron Avenue would be completed.  Ms. Elfland said she could not predict what might happen 50 years from now.

Council Member Hill remarked that if the capacity had been reached as noted in the 1997 Master Plan then there was no way that additional capacity could be considered at that plant.  Ms. Elfland said they had an Energy Master Plan for the campus that matched the Campus Master Plan build out, and that contained no expansion of the Cameron Avenue plant.

Mayor Foy asked what was the timeline for the Master Plan build out.  Ms. Elfland said the Development Plan went through 2010, and the Master Plan envisioned a 30 to 40 year plan.  Mayor Foy said that now that time was a lot shorter.  Mr. Runberg said with all of the activity they had planned through 2008, they would reach about 55 percent of that Master Plan in the Development Plan.  He said if the Plan was originally a 40 year plan and they had done half of it in eight years, the worst case would be another eight years.  However, Mr. Runberg said, they did not expect a level of funding that would provide for that.  He said they did not expect as high a level of capital projects on the campus as they had experienced over the past several years.  Mr. Runberg said he believed it would most likely be another 20 years.

Ms. Elfland said the Master Plan defined the reasonable capacity of the main campus.  She said they did not anticipate having another Master Plan that would add x-million more square feet to the campus.

Mr. Runberg said the summary of the Master Plan noted that they had limitations in terms of space, and that there were only about 10 locations where it was viable to place or site additional buildings.

Mayor Foy asked if Carolina North would have its own power generating facility.  Ms. Elfland responded yes, that Carolina North would not tap into the campus.

Mr. Runberg noted they wanted to use Carolina North to exemplify sustainable practices, and a part of that would be looking at how to provide energy to it. He said they would look at a wide range of options to achieve that.

Council Member Hill said he may have oversimplified his remarks.  He said it seemed as if the limit at the Cameron Avenue Cogeneration Plant had been established by the 1997 Steam Use Master Plan.  Council Member Hill remarked they had reached the steam generating capacity and now would be catching up the electrical generating capacity, so as long as the 1997 agreement remained in place, that would be the limit of what could be produced at that facility regarding of the Master Plan, Carolina North, or anything else.  Mr. Runberg  replied that he would simplify it even more by saying the 1997 Plan was the plan at that time, and planning was iterative.  He said the point was that they were asking for a modification to the SUP, which allowed for a particular capacity of steam capacity and electrical capacity.  Mr. Runberg said they were simply asking that they been allowed to increase their generation of electricity.

Council Member Hill said he was only attempting to determine what the future was of this plant after completion of the project.  He said what had been explained was that this would be the end of the modifications that they could expect at this plant.  Mr. Runberg said that was correct.  He said they could not say in the next 25 to 50 years that something might change at that plant, but at this time and with all that they knew there were no plans to increase the boiler capacity nor the electric generating capacity of the Cameron Avenue plant.

Mr. Runberg said this was a complex issue and they had tried hard to simplify it as much as possible.  He said that based on their application for the modification, the written responses and the information shared with the Council, they were confident that the University had presented  substantial, competent and material evidence that the proposed modifications to the plant meet the findings of fact as required by the Land Use Management Ordinance for a SUP Modification.

Mr. Runberg said the modifications would maintain the general health, safety and welfare of the community, and the improvements would support continued operations of a plant that was one of the nation’s cleanest coal-burning energy plants and had been since first permitted in 1991.  He remarked that the proposed changes increased the efficiency of the plant but did not change the fuel capacity of the plant.  Mr. Runberg said the emissions levels generated by the plant would continue to remain well below those required by the State, and noise levels were projected to actually decrease at the western property line. He said there would be no change in lighting levels at the property line.  Mr. Runberg said they were striving to remain a good neighbor.

Mr. Runberg said the proposed modifications for floor area ratio, setback, buffer requirements and building heights would comply with all regulations and standards.  He said the proposed modifications would maintain the value of contiguous property, and distributed a chart from Orange County Tax Office records that indicated the continued increase in property values of the surrounding property.  Mr. Runberg said the facility was a public necessity as previously determined by the Council, adding that the Cogeneration Plant served as the sole source of steam and as a back-up source of electrical power to critical facilities on campus and at UNC Hospitals.

Mr. Runberg said the facility existed as a distinct, vital and indispensable supporting function for campus and hospital operations.  He stated the proposed modifications comply with the Comprehensive Plan, which identified the Cogeneration site as a University Land Use within the residential conservation area.  Mr. Runberg said the proposed modifications did not alter the University character of the site, and mitigation measures for noise and light were in keeping with the goals of the residential conservation area identified in the Comprehensive Plan.

In summary, Mr. Runberg stated that along with this presentation and information on record from the previous hearing, they believe that the University had submitted substantial, competent and material evidence to enable the Council to approve their request for a Modification to the SUP in accordance with the requirements of the Land Use Management Ordinance.  He said they were in agreement with the Manager’s recommendations and stipulations that were before the Council.

Diana Steele dedicated her speaking time to Joyce Brown.

Former Council Member Joyce Brown said that this complex issue was confusing to her and difficult for the average citizen to understand.  She read a statement, written by Baird Grimson, president of the Westside Neighborhood Association. Mr. Grimson had written that one of the stipulations of the Special Use Permit (SUP), under which UNC’s Cogenerational Facility currently operated, states that the development must comply with the Town Noise Control Ordinance as constituted in Sec 11-37 et. seq. of the code of ordinances and as amended in the future.

Ms. Brown continued reading Mr. Grimson’s statement, in which he quoted an October 21, 2005 letter from Anna Wu, Director of Facilities Planning at UNC.  Ms Wu’s letter, written to Town Planning Director J. B. Culpepper, stated: “Any non-compliant noises are the result of the provision of government services necessary to maintain the public infrastructure, as allowed in the current Noise Code.”  Mr. Grimson pointed out that Sec 11-37 had been extensively discussed by the committee that had evaluated changes to the previous Noise Ordinance.  He had been a member of that committee, he pointed out, as had Milton Heath, of the UNC School of Government, who had argued that the exemption should not apply to the routine running of a government service facility.

Ms. Brown read Mr. Grimson’s conclusion, which argued that the Cogenerational Facility was a state of the art plant that should be able to comply with the current Noise Ordinance during normal everyday operations.  Exemptions should only include such items as repair of the infrastructure, release of steam, start up of a boiler, or other unusual events, Mr. Grimson wrote.  He requested that the Town Council include such a stipulation in the new SUP.

Ms. Brown distributed a list of questions that she wanted to have answered.  She noted, however, that some of those questions might not be relevant after tonight’s meeting.  Ms. Brown then read her own statement, in which she reviewed the 20-year history of UNC’s Cogenerational Facility and its relationship with its neighbors.  She referred to a neighborhood request that UNC use natural gas and that it incorporate renewable energy technologies into its plan.  But neighbors had learned that coal, rather than natural gas, would be the main fuel for the expansion, she said.  “How can you have an expansion without an increase in the amount of coal used?” said Ms. Brown.

Ms. Brown expressed disappointment that UNC had no apparent plans to publish an annual Emissions Inventory in all local newspapers.  She also pointed out that there had been no response to her September 19, 2005 request for information on greenhouse gas emissions or her September 19, 2005 request that the Cameron Avenue power plant be prohibited from further expansion.  Ms. Brown asked Council members not to vote on the proposed SUP modification until they and the public had been fully informed and every question had been raised and discussed.

Ms. Brown also reported that surveyor’s flags had been placed on the McCauley Street side of her property.  She had learned that UNC had been surveying a length of McCauley Street and a considerable amount of private property from the power plant to the chillers on campus, she said.  Ms. Brown requested that the Town Council determine if it was legal for UNC to come onto private property and survey without that property owner’s consent or even knowledge.  Moreover, she asked Council members to find out why the University was surveying the McCauley Street area.

Jim Warren, executive director of NC WARN, an environmental non-profit based in Durham, concurred with what others had said regarding the serious problems of global warming, climate change, and the need to cut emissions in the short term.  He described UNC’s presentation as a very conventional supply-side approach to energy questions.  Mr. Warren recommended that UNC strive for LEED certification, or beyond, and that they attempt to reduce demand through changing behavior.

Mr. Warren noted that climate change, air pollution and mercury were serious problems.  The US should be phasing out coal-burning power rather than adding capacity, he said.  He urged UNC to do everything possible to reduce its waste stream before asking the community to bear the burden.  UNC and Town leaders should do all they can to phase out coal-burning fuel, Mr. Warren said.  He asked for clarification of UNC’s assertion that 90 percent of the mercury was, or is, being removed under a new configuration at the power facility.  If that is so, said Mr. Warren, then UNC needs to share some of that information with the power industry because they are way ahead of others.

McCauley Street resident Kurt Ribisl agreed with Joyce Brown’s concerns regarding the amount of surveying that had occurred in his McCauley Street neighborhood.  He also mentioned recent drilling and sampling near the Cogenerational Facility.  Mr. Ribisl asked if UNC was considering building more steam tunnels.  Why was so much drilling activity going on in the neighborhood, and why had so much heavy machinery been brought in to dig, he asked.

McCauley Street resident Adrian Halpern held up a small purple flag that was one of many that had recently appeared on his and his neighbors’ lawns.  He shared the concerns that Ms. Brown and Mr. Ingersol had expressed, he said.  Mr. Halpern asked Council members to ascertain that the University would be able to move the increased power production from the power plant over the existing right-of-way between McCauley and Patterson Streets and that McCauley Street would not be turned into a new right-of-way for power to UNC.

Mr. Halpern displayed photos of his neighborhood and noted the impact that such a disruption would have.  He asked if the increased output of the expanded power plant could unequivocally be accommodated by the University’s current steam tunnel right-of-way between McCauley and Patterson Streets.  Is there any possibility that the University will need to put a new steam tunnel or any power lines down, he asked.  Mr. Halpern also asked the Council to defer approval of UNC’s power plant expansion proposal until there were definite answers to these questions.

Mayor Foy asked if anyone from UNC could speak to the question of whether the survey was related to the power plant.  And, whether it is related or not, how will UNC deliver the electricity to the campus, asked Mayor Foy.

Mr. Runberg replied that UNC did have a project that would replace the steam piping system from the Cogenerational Facility to the campus.  That runs on property to which UNC has a right-of-way, he said.  Mr. Runberg did not know what the surveyor was doing on McCauley, but the steam piping project was the closest possibility he could think of, he said.  He offered to meet with all of the neighbors and update them on the project.  Mr. Runberg said that he did not believe there would be any work done on property that did not belong to UNC.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Runberg if he was referring to easements on private property or to property that was owned outright by UNC.  Mr. Runberg replied that he was being “hit cold” with this information.  He offered to immediately find out tomorrow and meet with the neighbors.  He also said that he differed with those who had stated there was no sustainability or support from above for the Cogeneration Facility.  Mr. Runberg distributed copies of UNC’s Fifth Sustainability Report, adding that the University had been a leader in sustainability and other accomplishments on the demand side.  He noted that they were aiming for a platinum LEEDS design with a building at the Botanical Garden.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Mr. Runberg to let the Town Manager know when he had an answer to tonight’s questions from the neighbors.  She was curious as well, she said.

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO REFER TONIGHT’S QUESTIONS FROM CITIZENS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS TO THE MANAGER AND ATTORNEY FOR A REPORT BACK ON NOVEMBER 21, 2005, AND TO DEFER ACTION UNTIL THOSE ANSWERS HAVE COME BACK TO COUNCIL.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0)

Item 8 – Land Use Management Ordinance Text Amendment –

Modification to the Definition of a Residential Support Facility

and

Item 9 – Family House at UNC Hospitals – Application

for a Special Use Permit

Mr. Horton recommended that the Council consider Items 8 and 9 simultaneously.  The Council had no objection.

Mr. Mason stated this was a continuation of the public hearings on these two items from October 19, noting the two items were related.  He said the applicant was requesting a modification to the definition of a Residential Support Facility in order to allow Family House to accommodate 40 families rather than the 30 currently allowed by the Land Use Management Ordinance (LUMO).

Mr. Mason stated that the Manager’s recommendation was that the Council enact Ordinance    O-5a, and reminded the Council that this ordinance required approval before approval could be granted to the Special Use Permit (SUP) application.

Mr. Mason said the next item for discussion was the SUP application for the Family House at UNC Hospitals to provide a Residential Support Facility for 40 families, to be located next to the Ronald McDonald House on Old Mason Farm Road.  He said the Manager’s recommendation included the following changes:

· Stipulation #6 had been revised to require widening of the service driveway from 12 to 20 feet to accommodate two-way traffic.

· Stipulation #10 had been added to improve the pedestrian circulation patterns in the parking lot by moving a sidewalk segment.

· Stipulation #18 had been added which expanded the northern buffer width between the property line and the former golf cart path.

· A stipulation was removed requiring a left turn on Mason Farm Road because of new traffic information received from the applicant.

Mr. Mason noted the Manager’s recommendation was for adoption of Resolution R-5a revised as noted.

Council Member Ward said that regarding the application for 40 families at the Family House, would the Manager’s house be included in that total, bringing it to 41 and more than that allowed by LUMO?  Mr. Mason replied there accommodations for 40 families and then a separate caretaker unit, and the accommodations for the 40 families were not classified as units.  He said it was their belief that the text amendment would be sufficient for that facility.

David Clinton with MHA Works, representing the applicant, recommended that Ordinance O-5a be enacted by the Council, and that Resolution R-5a be adopted with the Manager’s revisions.  He thanked the Council and staff for their efforts and advice during this process.

Peg Parker, a resident of Highland Woods, said she was pleased that a stipulation had been added to enlarge the buffer between the golf cart path and her neighborhood.  She stated she had one question, and that was the meaning of an “open meadow.”   She quoted from page four of the Council’s memorandum, where it stated, “The operators will coordinate development of the extensive open meadow and walking path with the Botanical Garden and the Ronald McDonald House, for the benefit of the neighborhood.”  Ms. Parker said her concern was that when the Ronald McDonald House was first built, the old golf course had been left to return to its natural state.  She said not long ago it had been mowed down, and now there was a meadow.  Ms. Parker said it was not now used to her knowledge, and hoped that the same thing did not happen with the Family House. She commented that she and her neighbors had once enjoyed looking at the trees and growth that were no longer there.

Ms. Parker said she hoped that the section she had just quoted did not mean that the same thing would not happen here, noting that the golf course had grown up and was attractive to her and her neighbors.  She said she would not like to see to mowed down.

Ms. Parker pointed out that this project was but one of six special use development projects planned for Mason Farm Road, which was not a large road.  She hoped that the Town kept those in mind and that at some point the neighbors would be provided with a timeline so that they would know what to expect.  Ms. Parker noted that these projects would affect many others, including the Ronald McDonald House, the Family House, the Botanical Garden, the hundreds of students who use the UNC playing fields, and the users of Finley Golf Course. She noted that Mason Farm Road had become the cut-through for traffic to avoid the US 15-501/NC 54 bottleneck at certain times of the day.

Ms. Parker requested that all of these projects be coordinated in such a way that the Highland Woods residents would not be endangered in any way.  She stated that the intersection of Old Mason Farm Road and Highland Woods road was becoming more and more dangerous, pointing out that people ignore the “Do Not Block Intersection” sign.  Ms. Parker stated that OWASA trucks typically parked near the intersection of Highland Woods, making it difficult to make a left turn safely because of sight limitations.

Council Member Greene left the meeting at 9:03 p.m.

Mayor Foy asked for an update on the Highland Woods realignment project.  Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli stated that in the last three weeks they had been notified that approval had been received for the realignment.  He stated that they planned to bring that issue before the Council on November 21 to set a date for a public hearing.  Mr. Neppalli said he believed that process would be completed within the next three months, and in the meantime they had started the design process for the relocation.

Mr. Neppalli said they expected that plans would be completed by the end of February 2006, and pending Council approval would begin construction sometime in April or May of 2006.  He remarked that the funding had been secured from the State for this project.

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

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

COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-5a.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY  (8-0).

Item 10 – Homestead Park – Application for a

Special Use Permit Modification

Planning Director J.B. Culpepper said this was a continuation of the public hearing to add a proposed 27,400 square-foot Aquatic Center at Homestead Community Park.  She said that several issues had been raised at the public hearing, and their recommended resolution had been revised to incorporate two new stipulations related to handicapped access and sidewalks in the parking lot area leading to the entrance to the building.

Ms. Culpepper said the Manager was recommending adoption of Resolution R-6a which included the two new stipulations just noted.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD 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 WARD, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-6a.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY  (8-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-7.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 11 – Response to Petition by the Horace Williams Citizens Committee

Ms. Culpepper stated that the Horace Williams Citizens Committee had requested direction for its upcoming work.  She said that Resolution R-8 would request that the Committee continue the work items originally included in its charge and directed the Manager to take into consideration the Committee’s recommendation regarding a process for the Town to consider regarding the future development of the Horace Williams Property, also known as Carolina North.

Mayor Foy commented that it would be useful to the Town to have the University weigh in on a proposed process.

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

Item 12 – Appointments

12a.     Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission.

The Council appointed Juan Logan and Andi Sobbe to the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission.

	Council Members
Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission		Foy	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Verkerk	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Vote for 2 Applicants
Deb Baldwin
Kathryn James
Haig Khachatoorian			X		X	X			X		4
Juan Logan		X		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	8
Mark McGrath			X								1
Claire Reeder
Andi Sobbe		X		X			X	X		X	5
André Wesson
Other; please list:

12b.     Inclusionary Zoning Task Force

The Council appointed D. R. Bryan, Susan Levy, Gordon Merklein, and Rosemary Waldorf to the Inclusionary Zoning Task Force.

	Council Members
Inclusionary Zoning Task Force		Foy	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Verkerk	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Vote for 4 applicants
D. R. Bryan (Residential Real Estate/Chamber of Commerce)		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Susan Levy (Affordable Housing Development/Chamber of Commerce)		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Gordon Merklein (Commercial Real Estate)		X	X	X	X	X	X	X		X	8
Rosemary Waldorf (Chamber of Commerce/Residential Real Estate)		X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	9
Other; please list

12c.     Planning Board

The Council appointed Tom Jensen to the Planning Board.

	Council Members
Planning Board		Foy	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Verkerk	Ward	Wiggins	TOTAL
Vote for 1 Applicant
Jessica Bell
Jennifer Bennett
Lukas Brun
Bobby Clapp								X			1
Ann Holtzman
Tom Jensen		X	X		X	X	X		X		6
Winkie LaForce				X							1
Gordon Merklein
Charles Rankin
Walker Rutherfurd
Shireen Smith										X	1
Other; please list:

Item 13 – Petitions

13a.     By the Mayor and Members of the Council.

13a(1).  Council Member Strom regarding the Appointment of Council Member Hill as Liaison to the Streetscape Review Committee.

Council Member Strom said he had talked with members of the Streetscape Review Committee who believed it would be helpful to have a Council liaison assigned to the Committee.  He said he had discussed that briefly with the Mayor, and he had suggested Council Member Hill to serve as the liaison.  Council Member Strom said that Council Member Hill had expressed an interest to serve in that capacity to the Committee.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBER HILL AS THE LIAISON TO THE STREETSCAPE COMMITTEE.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

13a(2). Council Member Verkerk regarding Impact Fees for New Buses.

Council Member Verkerk stated that the public transit partners had met this week.  Chapel Hill had informed both Carrboro and UNC that the Town had requested that the Attorney General look into impact fees to purchase new buses to help alleviate the strain caused by new development on the public transit system.  She said that Carrboro and UNC were both interested in that.

13a(3).  Mayor Pro Tem Wiggins regarding the Policy Concerning Clean Fuels and the Budget.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said at that same transit meeting, there was much interest expressed that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen and the Council have discussions about the possibility of developing a policy that would provide guidance to the transportation staff when it came to balancing the budget and purchasing fuel. She said currently they had switched to a more polluting fuel because of budget limitations, and that the governing boards should discuss if they wanted to remain with the least polluting fuel even if it cost more because of its impact on the environment.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins said they would put our money behind what our value was, and would give guidance to the staff when attempting to balance their budgets.

Council Member Verkerk said for those riding or walking near the buses, you could smell the difference immediately.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated that the staff was doing the right thing by attempting to stay within their budgets.  She suggested the policy might require a report every three months so that the partners could weight in on whether to provide additional funds to the transit budgets for cleaner fuel.

Mayor Foy asked how would Mayor pro tem Wiggins envision that the three partners would come to an agreement on that.  Mayor pro tem Wiggins replied that perhaps the Mayor could speak with the Mayor of Carrboro and a UNC representative, and they could set a forum or a joint meeting where this could be discussed, and then the partners would ultimately give guidance to their staffs.

Mayor Foy said he believed the Manager had provided such reports in the past, but there was no mechanism to work with the transit partners to make a different decision.  He said that since it was a budget issue such a decision could not be made unilaterally.  Mr. Horton responded that they probably could do it unilaterally since the Town was the agency responsible for the budget.  He said they could develop a proposal for how the Council might want to consider this approach.

Mayor Foy agreed that would be helpful.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that the meeting she and Council Member Verkerk had attended was their last meeting, so there were two Council seats open.  She said it was an excellent committee that had grown in importance and its ability to have input into the transit system.

Council Member Strom asked if there was an update to the transit Master Plan process. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked Principal Transportation Planner David Bonk to comment on what had been discussed at the meeting.

Mr. Bonk commented that the Committee had met yesterday, and they had reviewed with them an approach to that plan that was consistent with the outline that had been presented by John Bonsall to the Council and the public.  He said there was general agreement by the Committee that the approach laid out was consistent with the Bonsall recommendation and they were in agreement with that approach.  Mr. Bonk said the Committee asked that they come back with a scope of work at the next meeting for pursuing the plan itself either through a Request for Proposals or a Request for Qualifications.

Mayor Foy asked when the next meeting was scheduled.  Mr. Bonk replied he did not believe that meeting had been scheduled as yet.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated the next meeting would not happen until January.  She said what Mr. Bonk would be presenting at that meeting were drafts of the approach and the scope, and those drafts would be provided to the Town, Carrboro, and the University for comment.

Council Member Ward said with regard to the earlier comment regarding developing a policy to deal with the extra price of cleaner fuel, he would like that issue to be placed on an expedited process so that it could be responded to the situation at hand quickly.  He said he believed the Town had made a commitment to use cleaner burning fuels and it would have to be an extraordinary circumstance before he would want to change that position.  Council Member Ward said he would want to do everything possible before such a shift was made, and he would not want to hear about it after the fact.  He stated he wanted to be proactive if they saw fuel prices changing, and although it might be legal for the Council to make a unilateral decision he would hope they would have a discussion with Carrboro and the University to get their buy-in to a similar perspective on the importance for the Town’s fleet to burn clean fuels.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.