Item 1 - Ceremony: Recognition of Alternative Sentencing Program

SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.

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

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

Council Member Dorothy Verkerk was absent, excused.

Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Public Works Director Bill Letteri, Internal Services Superintendent Bill Terry, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Transportation Planner David Bonk, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster, Deputy Town Clerk Sandy Cook, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Item 1 – Ceremony: Adult Day Care Services

Brad Fox, Board President and Paul Klever, Executive Director, of Charles House made the presentation.

Mr. Fox stated that Charles House was an adult day care facility located at the end of Hillcrest Avenue in a renovated and expanded mill house just off Estes Drive Extension in Carrboro. He said Charles House had been in operation since 1990, and served older adults and assisted people with mild to moderate impairments. Mr. Fox said they offer programs that allow stimulation and enrichment and provides respite for the people who care for them.

Mr. Fox said a fee is charged for this assistance, but they also offer fee assistance to those in need. He noted that the Town had been generous over the years in supporting Charles House, and he thanked the Council for that. Mr. Fox then introduced Paul Klever.

Mr. Klever said that Charles House had started in 1990 with four participants and four staff. He said they had grown over the last 15 years to the point that they are serving between 50 and 60 families each year. Mr. Klever noted they have clients from Orange, Durham, and Chatham Counties, with about half of them Chapel Hill residents.

Mr. Klever said that Charles House prides itself on serving those families who want to keep their elderly family members at home and in the community. Of our annual budget, he said, we depend on about 25% of it coming from grants and donations, and do receive funds from Chapel Hill through its Human Services allocation.

Mayor Foy asked the Council’s permission to move agenda item #13a(2), regarding the renaming of the Municipal Building, forward on the agenda. He said that R. D. Smith, the Town’s longest serving Council member, as well as Reverend Robert Seymour, had asked to speak on this topic.

The Council agreed by consensus to move this item forward and consider it at this time.

13a(2). Recommendations for Naming of Town Municipal Building (Mayor Foy and Mayor pro tem Wiggins).

Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that the petition before the Council has the last sentence deleted from the petition that was previously provided in the packet, meaning that the petition is making no recommendation of when this recognition would occur. She said that putting the two celebrations together may detract one from the other and the Council had no intention of doing that. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said there also seems to be some sentiment in the community that this is a “ploy” to rehash the renaming of Airport Road and that this action was going to give the Council a reason to revisit that issue and undo its action. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that anyone who is perpetuating that type of sentiment is “off base.”

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she had been unaware that this “paranoia” existed in the community about her actions, or the actions of the Mayor and Town Council. She said they are excited about moving forward with planning and working with the NAACP and citizens in planning a memorable recognition of that renaming. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that in order to prevent this from traveling down a contentious, suspicious-laden road, that recommendation was removed from the petition.

Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that as Chair of the Council Naming Committee, she had asked Mayor Foy to allow her to remain on the Committee but to name someone else as Chair during the time that the Committee considers the petition regarding the naming of Town Hall.

Reverend Robert Seymour said he was pleased that this petition had been brought forward to honor Howard and Lillian Lee. He said their influence had bettered Chapel Hill, and it was appropriate to recognize their contribution. Reverend Seymour said that Howard Lee’s election as Mayor of Chapel Hill was significant in the fact that he was the first African-American elected as Mayor of a town in the South where the majority of voters were White.

Reverend Seymour stated that when Howard Lee became Mayor, he understood that it was time to move away from some of our established beliefs, and he was instrumental in creating a bus system in Chapel Hill. He said Mr. Lee was also a very good friend to the UNC campus, and had acted as a mediator and reconciler during the dark days of threatened strikes by food service workers.

Reverend Seymour continued his comments, listing some of Mr. Lee’s accomplishments during his time as Mayor. He also noted the accomplishments of Mrs. Lee during her tenure as a school counselor at Chapel Hill High School, noting she had become a role model for many of those students.

Reverend Seymour noted he had only one concern regarding the renaming, which is in the South when you see the name “Lee,” it is assumed it is Robert E. Lee, a General of the Confederacy. He said is was important to make it clear that the proposal is that the Municipal Building be named the Howard and Lillian Lee Municipal Building, not just as the Lee Municipal Building.

R. D. Smith, a former Council member, said that during his 21-year tenure he was privileged to serve while Howard Lee was Mayor. He said that Mr. Lee was the “father” of the transportation system in Chapel Hill. Mr. Smith said Mr. Lee, while Mayor, had appointed him to the Triangle J Council of Governments, and he attributes its success to the early work done by Mr. Lee to “get Triangle J off the ground.”

Mr. Smith said he had also had the privilege to work with Lillian Lee while teaching at Chapel Hill High School. He noted that she had believed in the students and was a great motivator. Mr. Smith said that Mrs. Lee had made the students she came in contact with better students and better people. Mr. Smith continued his remarks, noting the many accomplishments of Howard and Lillian Lee.

Mr. Smith said he supported the renaming of the Municipal Building for Howard and Lillian Lee.

Rebecca Clark said she agreed with all of the comments made by Mr. Smith. She said she agreed that Howard Lee was the “father” of transportation in Chapel Hill, noting that he had withstood heavy criticism for having those “monsters” on the streets.

Ms. Clark said she was proud that the Municipal Building would be renamed the Howard and Lillian Lee Municipal Building, with its address on Martin Luther King, Jr., Boulevard. She said she believed that with the good leadership of this Council, Chapel Hill would remain the “southern part of Heaven.”

Ms. Edward Caldwell related her experiences with Howard and Lillian Lee, noting this honor was well deserved.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE COUNCIL NAMING COMMITTEE. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Mayor Foy stated that the Council at its last meeting had agreed to set up a Planning Committee for implementing the Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard name change, and asked the Council to appoint Council Member Greene and Mayor pro tem Wiggins as co-conveners of the Planning Committee.

THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE AND MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS AS CO-CONVENERS OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE.

Item 2 - Public Forum: Consideration of Regulation of Leaf Blowers

and Other Powered Yard Equipment

Mayor Foy stated that anyone who wanted to comment on this issue should do so with the understanding that the Council was not considering banning leaf blowers, adding that was not on the Council’s agenda now nor would it be in the future. However, Mayor Foy said, what they would discuss this evening was any regulations that might be considered for leaf blowers or other powered yard equipment, such as the hours of operation or other issues.

Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos stated that the Council had received a report on this topic in November 2004, and at that time three issues were identified:

noise,
emissions from the equipment, and
dust and pollutants churned up into the air by leaf blowers and similar equipment.

Mr. Karpinos said those three issues were the topic of the public forum this evening.

Sarah McIntee noted her family was a “pedestrian” family, and lived in the Estes Hills neighborhood. She distributed written material that described what she referred to as “auditory assaults” on her family while participating in outdoor activities. Ms. McIntee said that many of the noise instances she and her family had encountered were from leaf blowers, but had come in contact with noise from power clippers and other lawn equipment as well.

Ms. McIntee said the Town’s noise ordinance regulates “whistling, singing, or loud partying” if it disturbs the neighbors, but she can operate an 80 decibel leaf blower next to someone’s home at 7:00 a.m. She said under the Town’s ordinances, she could not have a 65 decibel rooster as a pet, but she could use 80-decibel, 2-cycle power clippers from 5:00 to 9:00 p.m. Ms. McIntee said that time of the evening was “precious family time,” when they might like to eat out on their deck, but it is ruined if the neighbors are doing their “chores.” She said that, to her, is an assault. Ms. McIntee asked the Council to consider regulating the period of time that such equipment is used, and that a decibel level be set so that certain equipment could not be used early in the morning or during family time in the evening.

Ms. McIntee suggested that a permitting process be used if decibel levels would be exceeded, with the process including gaining permission from neighbors before the work took place.

Don Stanford, a practicing attorney and a life-long resident of Chapel Hill, lives on Mallette Street in one of the Town’s historic districts. He said he sees many pressures on the quality of life in Chapel Hill, and this is yet another one of those ways that we are assaulted. Mr. Stanford said leaf blowers are noisy, they bother neighbors, and create pollution. He said that typically, landscapers who use such equipment employ persons at a low wage and don’t always provide hearing protection for those employees.

Mr. Stanford suggested that if people would revert to raking their leaves, that possibly obesity would not be so rampant in our society because it would promote an active lifestyle. He said we should revisit the questions associated with the time, place, and the amount of noise that we permit in our community. Mr. Stanford said the noise ordinance was too broad and should be looked at closely.

Jane Meads, a resident of Lakeshore Drive, said that under the Town’s noise ordinance that if you wanted to have a party, you had to obtain a permit and notify neighbors within 250 feet of your residence. But, she continued, a “leaf blowing event” can last for as long as the operator chooses and for free, often at ten times the decibel level allowed for any other piece of equipment.

Ms. Meads said that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) directly linked the drop in State air quality to this type of equipment. She said that their 200 mph gas and lead-filled winds emit more toxic fumes in one hour that an idling car does in eight hours. Ms. Meads said that the EPA had certified that these winds suspend photosynthesis, creating the need for more maintenance, not less.

Ms. Meads stated that “leaf blowers do not manage turf and they do not landscape; they build and create nothing but havoc.” She went on to describe the effects of this type of equipment on those who use it and how it contributes to the “destruction of community values.” She noted that she believed this type of equipment contributed to the exploitation of employees. Ms. Means suggested it was appropriate to deduct an amount from her property tax bill because at times she is unable to hear sounds at a normal volume inside her home when such equipment is being used by her neighbors.

Aldo Rustioni, a resident of the Westwood neighborhood, said he represented the hundreds of friends and neighbors who were not able to attend tonight’s meeting to express their displeasure at the use of “gasoline powered leaf blowers.” He said leaf blowers in particular are a nuisance, and since there are alternatives, for instance electric leaf blowers, then maybe that is what the Council should be considering. Mr. Rustioni said he would suggest that gasoline-powered leaf blowers for use by individuals be banned, that the Town not use such equipment for municipal use, and that possibly such equipment should be restricted for use only at certain times of the year. He said he did not want to see the equipment banned by those who use it to make a living, but it should be restricted.

Ken Robinson, representing Williams Landscape Services, stated he wanted to respond to some of the comments made this evening. He said that they require all employees to use hearing protection when using any equipment, whether gasoline-powered or electric, and said he “resents terribly” the insinuation made earlier that his or anyone’s employees are “exploited” by the use of this type of equipment. Mr. Robinson invited the public to come and visit his business and see for themselves how protected his employees are, and to speak to the employees if they wished.

Mr. Robinson said they blow leaves because people hire them to, and it is cheaper for the customer. He said if they had a choice they wouldn’t blow, rake, or deal with leaves at all, because “you don’t make money moving leaves.” But, Mr. Robinson said, if you are hired to care for someone’s property then you have to remove the leaves. He noted that if it became too expensive, then people would not hire them. Mr. Robinson asked that the Council, in whatever action they eventually decide on, take into consideration the “dreaded consequences” for those people who cannot gather their own leaves. He said that many people pay others to care for their yards, and mentioned the elderly and single mothers as examples. Mr. Robinson said if you force those who cannot gather their own leaves to hire others to do it for them, then that is essentially an additional “tax” on those persons. He noted that the cost to a homeowner to hire someone to rake leaves is five times the cost of hiring someone to blow leaves.

Mr. Robinson said landscapers have no problem complying with a noise ordinance or with the regulation of hours of operation, noting that many times at the request of citizens they rearrange their work schedule around events that might be taking place in neighborhoods. He noted that limiting the noise of such equipment at 80 decibels was appropriate, adding that the newer model machines are now rated at 75 decibels, with some brands approaching 65 decibels. Mr. Robinson said that the statements made earlier about emissions of such equipment were erroneous, and asked the Council to “look it up for themselves.”

Mr. Robinson asked the Council to remember that blowers are used for many things other than just gathering leaves. He asked them to try to rake or sweep leaves, grass clippings, and debris from a gravel driveway, adding it just does not work. Mr. Robinson said a blower does a good job in a very short period of time.

Mr. Robinson applauded the Council’s decision not to ban leaf blowers, but asked that they not “throw the baby out with the bath water.” He asked them to regulate them if they must, but to be reasonable, so that reasonable people could deal with it. Mr. Robinson noted that Pasadena, California had recently rescinded their ordinance banning leaf blowers because it was, in their words, unenforceable.

Sue-Anne Solem noted that the sound of leaf blowers is the “new sound of autumn.” She said she could not be outside in October through January without being subjected to the noise of such equipment. Ms. Solem said if she stood outside her home and screamed at the same decibel level and with the same intensity and duration, no one would put up with it. She cited the Town’s noise regulations, stating that lawn equipment was allowed to operate on weekdays from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m., and on weekends from 8 a.m. until 9 p.m., adding there had been days when she has been subjected to such noise for an entire day.

Ms. Solem compared the permitting process for parties with the lack of such a process for the use of lawn equipment. She said this does not make sense to her. Ms. Solem suggested that there was no need to rake or blow leaves at all, and did not understand others’ “obsession” with removing leaves.

Jane Hudson, speaking for the Student Environmental Action Coalition and other concerned students at UNC, said she wanted to ask the Council to regulate the emissions of such equipment. She said they view such equipment as a serious public health threat, noting that such equipment must be regulated in order to ensure the safety of citizens and workers. Ms. Hudson said that properly regulating noise and emissions of leaf blowers would improve the quality of life for our citizens and the livelihoods of those in the landscape business would not be compromised.

Barbara Chaiken said she was disappointed in and wanted to challenge the Town’s decision to take no action on banning leaf blowers. She said that other cities had had the same concerns, but had persevered and were able to ban such equipment.

Ms. Chaiken read a list of ailments that could be attributed to exposure to noise. She said her specific concern was that the people who use this equipment don’t always use the proper protective gear, such as masks, safety glasses and earphones. Ms. Chaiken said that those people who attempt to enjoy the outdoors while such equipment is being operated don’t have such protection. She cited a publication that suggested what appropriate noise levels should be during daytime hours, and also the type of damage that emissions can cause to the environment.

Ms. Chaiken asked the Council to regulate as much as possible the use of such equipment, suggesting the hours of 10 a.m., to 3 p.m., and used only during the months of October and November. She added that any equipment that exceeded 65 decibels should be banned and those who use equipment that exceed that level be fined. Ms. Chaiken said the Town should not use such leaf blowers, nor do business with any companies that use leaf blowers.

Virginia Knapp, Associate Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, noted that the Chamber endorsed the triple bottom line of sustainability, which is social, environmental, and economic. She said these three priorities must be weighed and balanced in all decisions, and when this doesn’t happen then we can have unintentional consequences that sometimes outweigh the good. Ms. Knapp said the Council could play a leadership role by bringing together the diverse groups who have a stake in this decision to bring about a deeper understanding of the best balance for our community. She said the Chamber is prepared to work with the Council to include all those interested in such a dialogue.

Linda Convissor, Director of Local Relations at UNC, gave a brief overview of how leaf blowers are used on campus and their importance to the safety of their campus community. She said their primary use is to move leaves and debris to areas where they will not be a safety hazard and where they can be swept to a central collection point.

Ms. Convissor said if you were on campus this afternoon just prior to 1 p.m. during class change, you would have appreciated the necessity of keeping walkways clear. She said with literally thousands of student packing the walkways virtually once an hour every hour between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., keeping the paths clear is a safety issue. Ms. Convissor said the University uses many types of blowers to perform this work, such as handheld, walk-behind, backpack, mower-mounted and tractor-mounted blowers. She noted the reasons that battery or electric blowers were not feasible for use on the campus, such as the short battery life, the unavailability of outside electrical outlets, and the tripping hazard caused by electrical cords.

Ms. Convissor stated that as the University replaces its blowers, they are purchasing equipment with reduced emissions technology and with a 65 decibel rating, which is the best available for a commercial-sized backpack blower.

Ms. Convissor said the most important point she wanted to make tonight was that the University’s use of leaf blowers is markedly different from what residential areas require. She said that controls that would make sense in residential areas would create serious disruption and safety issues on campus. Ms. Convissor said limiting the use to daytime hours would be extremely disruptive, because “quiet” is most necessary during class time. She said where normally leaf blowers are used during daytime hours in residential areas, on campus their primary use is between 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. to avoid noise during class times. Ms. Convissor said in the fall during leaf season, these hours are extended somewhat to complete the tasks, and it is always a “balancing act” to get the job done while keeping the noise levels down during class time.

Ms. Convissor said besides the use of leaf blowers by the Grounds Department, the Athletics Department also uses blowers extensively. She said after home games in Kenan Stadium, Fetzer Gym, Boshamer Stadium, Henry Stadium and other venues, blowers are used to remove the debris. Ms. Convissor said blowers are also used at Finley Golf Course and at all the fields and grounds around the athletic facilities to prepare the venues for events.

In summary, Ms. Convissor said limiting the use of leaf blowers on campus would result in facilities that are unkempt and unsightly, but most importantly unsafe for the thousands of faculty, staff, students and visitors that walk across their grounds daily. She mentioned that during the most recent snow event, leaf blowers were used effectively to clear the snow and ice from walkways.

Frank Loda said his wife had health problems which were exacerbated by the use of leaf blowers and other types of lawn equipment. He noted he had had to discontinue the use of such equipment at his home. Mr. Loda said he believed that limiting the use of such equipment was worth considering, particularly limiting them to seasonal use. He said that for many people this is a serious health issue, stating he may have to one day leave Chapel Hill because of its pollution levels.

Council Member Hill said he wondered what the accident rates on campus were prior to 1975 when leaf blowers were introduced. He said he would like to compare accident rates prior to 1975 with today’s rates to see if there really is a marked difference. Council Member Hill said leaf blowers were a modern invention, and to think that our lives would change with the absence of leaf blowers was to some degree “extreme.”

Council Member Hill said he runs early in the morning, usually around 6:15 a.m., starting from his home of Rosemary Street and through campus. He said that on his last run he could hear leaf blowers on campus during his entire run. Council Member Hill said that they were not disturbing classes, but they must have been disturbing those students who were sleeping in their rooms. He noted that students pay rent just as others do, and did not deserve to be awakened that early in the morning by leaf blowers.

Council Member Hill said it was clear to him that there was a problem with our noise ordinance. He said if you sing loudly or have a party you have to get a permit, but you can disturb a lot of people with lawn equipment without their permission. Council Member Hill said that is something he believes the Council can do something about.

Council Member Hill said that “the Town is not OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration],” noting that earlier comments about requiring the use of hearing protection devices was outside the Town’s purview.

Council Member Hill said that Barbara Chaiken had offered a number of good ideas tonight and believed they should be considered. He said that he believed tonight’s comments should be referred to the staff, and noted that other communities had put restrictions in place that were successful.

Mayor Foy agreed, and said all the comments made tonight should be taken into consideration as the Council thinks about what kinds of reasonable limitations that might be taken and how they might affect the community.

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION REFERRING COMMENTS MADE AT THE PUBLIC FORUM ON LEAF BLOWERS AND AIR QUALITY ISSUES TO MANAGER AND ATTORNEY FOR FOLLOW-UP REPORT (2005-01-24/R-1)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council refers to the Town Manager and Town Attorney public comments made at the January 24, 2005, Public Forum on leaf blowers and air quality issues for a follow-up report and further consideration by the Town Council.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members

3a. Petitions by Citizens on Items not on the Agenda.

3a(1). Mr. Tom Biek, regarding Cameron Avenue Parking Meters.

Mr. Biek, a resident of Cameron Avenue and of the Cameron-McCauley Historic District, said that he and one of his neighbors had not been aware that decisions regarding the restriping and parking meters had already been made. He said he would like to know how that had happened.

Mr. Biek said that as far as he knew, his neighborhood would be the only neighborhood in Town that would be “penalized” with parking meters in their front yards. He distributed an excerpt from the Town’s historic district guidelines pertaining to the public right-of-way, noting that they should not have to pay to park in front of their homes, and in his case he will have one double meter and one single meter in front of his home. Mr. Biek said he believed the Council should revisit this decision, adding that he believes the historic district guidelines were not followed.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Biek if he objected to the appearance of the parking meters or did he object to having to pay to park in front of his house. Or, he added, did he object equally to both. Mr. Biek said he does not often park in front of his home, adding he lives on the corner of Cameron Avenue and Cameron Court. He said his biggest concern is the appearance. Mayor Foy said if they could come up with different type of meter that was less objectionable, would Mr. Biek be satisfied with that. Mr. Biek stated he would.

Council Member Harrison asked Mr. Biek if he lived on the north side of the street. He responded he did. Council Member Harrison asked if he wanted his petition referred to the Historic District Commission. Mr. Biek responded that he believed the Town had violated the guidelines for historic districts, stating that he had had to go through a lengthy process to add a garage onto his home. He said the Town should have had to go through the same process to add parking meters. Mr. Biek stated that he believed there were about 40 parking meters being added on the north side of Cameron Avenue, and only eight homes are being affected. He said a small group was being affected, but it still did not make it fair.

Council Member Harrison asked if excising the parking meters from in front of residential homes would satisfy their concerns.

Mayor Foy said he believed the staff should be asked to consider Mr. Biek’s concerns and look at alternatives to see if modifications were in order.

THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER AND TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION.

3a(2). Ms. Jennifer Bowish, regarding Evaluation of the Rental Licensing Program.

Elizabeth Martin, an attorney speaking on behalf of the Triangle Apartment Association, asked that they be given the opportunity to participate in any decisions made regarding the Rental Licensing Program.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE RENTAL LICENSING COMMITTEE [TO BE ESTABLISHED BY ADOPTION OF ITEM #4G]. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

3a(3). John Wilner, for the Carrboro Arts Center.

Mr. Wilner stated he wanted to take a few moments and give the Council an update on the Arts Center. He said that they were almost at the end of their seventh month of their fiscal year, and for the first time ever they are operating “in the black.” Mr. Wilner said that would not have been possible without the help of the Town. He thanked the Council for its contribution to the Arts Center.

3b. Petitions by Citizens on Items on the Agenda. None.

3c. Announcements by Council Members.

Council Member Strom presented a report on activities of the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA). He said it was important to understand that the federal authorities that release funds to the TTA are questioning one of the aspects of the model that TTA had used that is producing some long “ride times” from one end of the system to the other. Council Member Strom said the TTA had been made aware last week that there was a “bug” in the transit plan software that TTA had used to come up with ridership times. In response to that, he said, TTA was in the process of planning how to revise the model. Council Member Strom said it was important for the Town to understand that the software used by TTA is the same software and the same model that we share locally with our partners in the DCHC MPO, CAMPO, and the DOT. He said that some of our 2030 Transportation Plan values could change due to this software bug, and it remains TTA’s intention to fix the model and get back in line by August for a full-funding grant agreement.

Council Member Strom said he would report back to the Council when additional information was available.

Council Member Harrison said that the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) had to be able to send each one of these big projects to congressional committees, adding that the FTA was not trying to harass the TTA, but it was trying to make this a defensible case. Council Member Harrison said he believed this was workable and thanked Council Member Strom for his update.

Council Member Strom said there were $22 billion in requests to the federal New Start program now, with only $1.7 billion available to fund these New Start programs. He said that the level of scrutiny these highway programs undergo is high, and unfortunately there is a bias towards highway construction. Council Member Strom said TTA was not alone, noting that Charlotte is currently not rated because of budget issues. He said that several other projects that were at the top of the list last year now have to go through additional levels of proof so that they can be defended before Congress. Council Member Strom said the process is very competitive.

Mayor Foy said we do face a difficult challenge, but believed it could be resolved.

Council Member Ward asked if this could be resolved in time to get us “back in line.” Council Member Strom responded that TTA would do everything possible to make sure all funds were received. He said that TTA had hired a consultant to work the model and would do whatever was necessary to address the issue. Council Member Strom said that TTA was forced now to show the benefits of the rail system compared to a hypothetical bus system that was “vesting improved.” He said that Congress wanted to be sure that their investment in the technology was really buying a benefit to the citizens. Council Member Strom said there is a “magic” twenty-five dollar threshold, and no one knows what these changes in travel times will do to that number. He said we have to go through the process step by step, which is what TTA is doing.

Item 4 - Consent Agenda

Council Member Hill pulled item #4e, Budget Amendment for Consultant to Review Town Service Levels, Efficiency and Costs.

Council Members Strom and Hill pulled item #4h, Revision of Open Space Acquisition, with Council Member Hill indicating he would like to discuss this item in concert with item #10, Comments to Durham and Orange County Boards of Commissioners Regarding Proposed Erwin Trace Subdivision.

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-2 WITH ITEMS 4e AND 4h REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOULSY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2005-01-24/R-2)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following resolutions and ordinances as submitted by the Town Manager in regard to the following:

a.	Minutes of November 8, 15 (two sets), and 22, 2004, and Closed Session Minutes of June 25, October 27, 2003, and April 24, 2004.
b.	Nominations to various advisory boards and commissions (R-3).
c.	Notification of Board and Commission Term Vacancies (R-4).
d.	Budget Amendments for Pooled Projects for the Percent for Art Plan (O-1a, O-1b).
e.	Removed.
f.	Rescheduling Public Hearings for Duplex Changes to Land Use Management Ordinance and Design Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan (R-5).
g.	Update on Rental Licensing (R-6).
h.	Removed.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMITTEES (2005-01-24/R-3)

WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and

WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:

Budget Review Advisory Committee

Neal Bench

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

A RESOLUTION REGARDING PROCESS FOR CONSIDERING APPOINTMENTS TO TOWN ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (2005-01-24/R-4)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts the following schedule for appointments to Town advisory boards and commissions:

May 9 Transportation Board

Planning Board

Technology Committee

May 23 Board of Adjustment

Personnel Appeals Committee

Library Board of Trustees

Chapel Hill Public Arts Committee

June 13 Human Services Advisory Board

Greenways Commission

Parks and Recreation Commission

June 27 Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors

Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board

Housing and Community Development Advisory Board

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2005-01-24/O-1a)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2004” as duly adopted on June 14, 2004 and the same is hereby amended as follows:

ARTICLE I

APPROPRIATIONS	Current Budget	Increase	Decrease	Revised Budget

Capital Improvements Fund	1,891,779
Expenditure Reduction			(1,710)
Transfer to Multi-Year Capital
Improvements Fund		(1,710)
Capital Improvements Fund				1.891,779

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS (2005-01-24/O-1b)

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the capital projects ordinance for various capital projects funded from a variety of sources is hereby amended as follows:

SECTION I

The capital projects as authorized by the Town Council include various capital projects funded from grants, the Capital improvements Program funds, and other miscellaneous sources of revenue for a variety of projects extending beyond one fiscal year.

SECTION II

The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the implementation of the project within the terms of grant agreements executed with the Federal Transit Administration and the funds appropriated herein.

SECTION III

	Current Budget	Revised Budget

Transfer from Capital Improvements Fund	$1,250	$2,960

Amounts appropriated for the project are amended as follows:

	Current Budget	Revised Budget

Percent for Art	$1,250	$2,960

SECTION IV

The Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of the project in an information section to be included in the Annual Budget, and shall keep the Council informed of any unusual circumstances.

Copies of this project ordinance shall be entered into the Minutes of the Council and copies shall be filed within five days of adoption with the Manager, Finance Director and Town Clerk.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

A RESOLUTION ADJUSTING THE PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULE FOR MARCH 21 AND APRIL 18, 2005 (2005-01-24/R-5)

WHEREAS, the Town Council considered the upcoming public hearing schedule for March 21, 2005, and April 18, 2005, and finds that it would be desirable to adjust the Public Hearing schedule;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to adjust the Public Hearing agendas in the following manner:

March 21 Public Hearing: April 18 Public Hearing:

Horace Williams Rezoning Duplex Text Amendments

Annexation: Larkspur Subdivision Duplex Design Guidelines Revisions

Annexation: Vineyard Square Holy Trinity Special Use Permit

Village Apartments Special Use Permit Dobbins Hill II Special Use Permit

Comp. Plan: School Site Designation

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

A RESOLUTION INITIATING A COMMITTEE TO REPORT ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE RENTAL LICENSING PROGRAM (2005-01-24/R-6)

WHEREAS, on April 8, 2002, the Town Council enacted an ordinance revising Chapter 9 of the Code of Ordinances of the Town of Chapel Hill to establish a program for the licensing of residential rental properties; and

WHEREAS, the above ordinance includes that the program will expire June 30, 2005, barring further action by said Council; and

WHEREAS, at the time the Town Council enacted the rental licensing program, the Council determined that it would appoint a committee to evaluate the effectiveness of the program;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Town Manager is directed to solicit applications for appointment to a Rental Licensing Committee, including inviting members of the original Committee that developed the program to participate again.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is directed to bring a proposed charge and timetable for this Committee to the Town Council on February 14, 2005, so that the charge can be adopted and appointments can be made in a timely manner.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the proposed timetable for discussions by and recommendations from this new Committee is as follows:

Committee begins meeting in March 2005, and is requested to report to the Council in May, 2005.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

Item 5 – Information Items

All information reports were received by consensus of the Council.

Item 6 – Recommended Sidewalk and Bicycle Facilities

Construction Plan for 2005-2006

Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland said that since the November 8, 2004 public hearing, they had addressed the following issues:

Spending bond funds on State-maintained streets;
Direct allocation funds;
Projects located in a historic district
Sidewalk on Curtis Road (#6); and
Other additions.

Mr. Sutherland said they recommend that Town funds be used for the following:

32 sidewalks (24-Town-maintained and 8 State-maintained);
2 crossing improvements; and
3 signed bicycle routes.

Mr. Sutherland said that they also recommend that the State be asked for:

Direct allocation funds for improvements to State-maintained streets;
Feasibility studies of:

- crossings on State-maintained streets,

- proposed off-road paths, and

- named intersection improvements identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan.

Mr. Sutherland continued, stating they recommend that the Council adopt Resolutions A and B, noting that Resolution A would adopt the 2004-2005 Sidewalks and Bicycle Facilities Construction Plan, and Resolution B would authorize an application for Director Allocation funds.

In summary, Mr. Sutherland noted that since the memorandum was first issued the Technical Coordinating Committee of the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO has agreed to support the Town’s application for Direct Allocation funds.

Council Member Ward asked with the funding that we have, is it realistic to assume that all of these projects would be completed, or will we have to do some cost estimates and pick and choose. He said he believed we may be able to do only the top four or five projects. Mr. Sutherland said the costs of the projects do exceed the funds available, and the projects were all included to give them the maximum flexibility when deciding which projects to undertake. He added that funding should be available for much more than four or five projects.

Referring to the Bicycle Routes listed on page 4 of the memorandum, Council Member Ward asked what the Council would be putting in place with the adoption of the resolutions in terms of bicycle advisory routes. Mr. Sutherland responded that staff would examine these routes, then place signs to notify the public that this route was an alternative to a more highly used route.

Council Member Ward suggested that the resolution be amended to indicate that the bicycle advisory route for Finley Golf Course Road and Mason Farm Road be listed as a third priority or delayed. He said that he is aware of ongoing work to implement a bike route that would run from Mason Farm Road to the Glenwood area across University property that would serve bicyclists and pedestrians in the same general area as the route along Finley Golf Course Road. Council Member Ward said he would not want to see dollars spent on a route that would be “less used” than an alternative route that may be completed in a shorter period of time.

Council Member Ward said that depending on the funding, if we believe that only one or two of these might be done then put it as the third priority. Mr. Horton said we have to take into account actual conditions and our knowledge of things that are going to change, and that would be considered in the same manner as the difficulties in obtaining access to building sidewalks and the like. Mr. Horton said the resolution could stay as is, and they would take into consideration the possibility of this more desirable route and would plan accordingly. Council Member Ward said that would be fine as long as that kind of communication could take place.

Council Member Harrison agreed that if these projects are listed in priority order, then he would like to see the Burning Tree/Pinehurst project listed as the first priority. He said that the Pinehurst area had the most safety concerns, noting that the traffic islands were supposed to contribute to bicycle safety but they do not. Council Member Harrison said that motorists need to be reminded that this is a highly used bicycle route. He asked that the priority order be revised to put the Pinehurst project first.

Council Member Greene asked how far along we are in planning for these projects. Council Member Ward said it is still uncertain, but it had enough potential to become reality that he would not like to see the Town use limited funds for something that might not serve us as well in the long term. He added that because we will only be able to get some of these projects funded, he wanted to be sure we completed projects with the longest shelf life. Council Member Greene said she would not like to see one project not get done because we were waiting on a project that might not get done in a reasonable time either.

Council Member Kleinschmidt stated there was some certainty that the Mason Farm Road route would be created, reminding the Council that was one of the reasons they had agreed to close Laurel Hill Road. Council Member Ward said that was not correct, that the closing of Laurel Hill Road was not connected to this project. He said that there was a lot of community and Botanical Garden interest in doing this and discussions were taking place with the University, but it was not a requirement.

Mayor Foy commented that the former road was kept open as a bicycle and pedestrian path but not the connection through the University’s property. Council Member Ward agreed, stating that the bicycle and pedestrian route that is now Laurel Hill Road was going to be replaced by the Botanical Garden before Laurel Hill Road is closed, by another alternate route that would connect Old Mason Farm Road to the Kings Mill/Morgan Creek neighborhoods.

Council Member Greene said that in the meantime, all three of the routes listed are “treacherous” to ride, and did not want to see this fall off the radar.

Mayor Foy said he believed the Council should trust the staff to make the appropriate judgment at the time that funding was available. Mr. Horton said one good thing about the program is that signs are easily moved and maps have to be updated periodically in any case, so if it appeared that other projects were experiencing an excessively long wait, we might go ahead with the signs and maps, then resign and remap as appropriate.

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

A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 2004-2005 SIDEWALK AND BICYCLE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION PLAN (2005-01-24/R-8a)

WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has available approximately $730,000 in Bond funds, and an estimated $20,000 in Community Development program funds, for sidewalk and bicycle facility projects in the 2004-2005 fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, the Council may pursue other sources of funding for sidewalk projects, including Direct Allocation funds from the State of North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed projects for possible use of these funds;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that 2004-2005 Bond funds and Community Development program funds be used to construct the following sidewalk projects, crossing improvements and bicycle advisory routes as indicated:

Sidewalks:

Town-Maintained Streets

Legion Road (west side) north of Clover Drive
Legion Road (east side) south from Europa Drive
West Rosemary Street (south side) at Roberson Street (eligible for Community Development funds)
East Rosemary Street (north side) 157 East Rosemary Street to Henderson Street (located in a Historic District)
Legion Road intersection with Ephesus Church Road
Curtis Road west side from Clayton Road to Elliott Road
West Rosemary Street, south side at South Graham Street (eligible for Community Development funds)
West Rosemary Street, north side, west of Church Street (eligible for Community Development funds)
West Rosemary Street, north side, east of Church Street (eligible for Community Development funds)
West Rosemary Street, north side, east of intersection with Mitchell Lane (eligible for Community Development funds)
Westminster Drive, north side, east of Banks Road
Ransom Street, east side from McCauley Street to University Drive (located in a Historic District)
Prestwick Road, north side at rear of shopping center
Cameron Avenue, north side, northeast corner at Merritt Mill Road
Vance Street, south side Ransom Street to Pittsboro Street (located in a Historic District)
Kenan Street, east side, Cameron Avenue to Franklin Street (located in a Historic District)
Kingston Drive, east side, south from Weaver Dairy Road
West University Drive, south side from Ransom Street to Westwood Drive (located in a Historic District)
Hamilton Road, east side from Cleland Drive to Flemington Road
Flemington Road, Hamilton Road to Hayes Road
North Street, north or south side, Airport Road to Henderson Street
Piney Mountain Road, north side, Forest Creek Drive to Priestly Circle Drive
Umstead Drive, south side, Village Drive to Estes Drive Extension.

State-Maintained Streets

Airport Road west side north and south of Northfields Drive
Fordham Boulevard, west side from Ephesus Church Road to Elliott Road
Estes Drive, south side from Franklin Street to Willow Drive
Homestead Road, south side from Southern Orange Human Services to Shelter
Culbreth Road, south side, US 15-501 to Culbreth Park Drive
Fordham Boulevard, east side, at northeast corner intersection with Estes Drive.
NC 54, south side west of intersection with Finley Golf Course Road
Culbreth Road, south side, between Cobble Ridge Drive and Rossburn Way.

Crossing Improvements:

East Rosemary Street and Henderson Street; and
West Rosemary Street and Church Street .

Bicycle Advisory Routes:

Finley Golf Course Road/Old Mason Farm Road (from NC Highway 54 to South Fordham Boulevard).
Cleland Drive/Cleland Road (from Pinehurst Drive to existing off-road path at Fordham Boulevard).
Burning Tree Drive/Pinehurst Drive (from NC Highway 54 to Ephesus Church Road).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council requests the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to undertake feasibility studies to identify improved facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians at:

Ø the crossing locations identified in Attachment 3 of the Manager’s Memorandum to Council December 6, 2004.

Ø the following proposed off-road paths:

§ 15- 501 S. Fordham Boulevard from Manning Drive to Kings Mill Road.

§ 15- 501 S. Fordham Boulevard bypass from Old Mason Farm Road to Prestwick Road.

§ Fordham Boulevard (north) from rear of Binkley Baptist Church to Estes Drive.

§ Christopher Road, extend a path from the northern end or road to South Estes Drive.

§ US 15-501 S. Fordham Boulevard from Meadow Lane to Morgan Creek Greenway.

§ NC54 Finley Golf Course Road to Hamilton Road (south side).

Ø the following intersections:

§ NC Highway 54 and US 15-501

§ NC Highway 54 bypass and Merritt Mill Road

§ US 15-501 South and Culbreth Road and Mount Carmel Church Road

§ US 15-501 North and Ephesus Church Road

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council requests the University of North Carolina to work with Town staff to investigate the feasibility of the providing shared bicycle and pedestrian off-road paths at:

§ 15- 501 S Fordham Boulevard bypass from Old Mason Farm Rd to Prestwick Road

§ Merritt Mill Road to west end of McCauley Street.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

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

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO APPLY FOR DIRECT ALLOCATION FUNDS TO THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (2005-01-24/R-8b)

WHEREAS, the Council desires to pursue other sources of funding for sidewalk projects, including Direct Allocation funds from the Metropolitan Planning Organization; and

WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed projects for possible use of these funds;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that Town Manager is directed to apply for Direct Allocation funds with a local match of not more than $50,000 for the following projects:

Airport Road west side north and south of Northfields Drive (cost estimate $21,000), and other pedestrian crossings on Airport Road (cost undetermined).
Culbreth Road, south side, between Cobble Ridge Drive and Rossburn Way (cost estimate $45,000).

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

Item 7 – Consideration of Mobility Report Card

Transportation Planner David Bonk said that the Council had held a public forum on November 22, 2004, to receive comments on the 2003 Mobility Report Card. He noted that they had incorporated some of the suggestions into the resolution proposed for adoption tonight, adding that adoption of the resolution would endorse the 2003 Mobility Report Card, approve modifications to the structure of the Chapel Hill Mobility Report Card, and request funding from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee for funding to complete the 2005 Chapel Hill Mobility Report Card. Mr. Bonk said funding would come from the Metropolitan Planning Organization from Surface Transportation Program Direct Allocation Program.

Council Member Harrison noted he wanted to add an initial element in the form of a bullet to the resolution. He said he was interested in looking at comparing the “person trips” across the different modes in a corridor, or how many people are counted as driving, riding, walking and bicycling in the same corridor. Council Member Harrison said his basis in doing this was to improve the case statistically that we make to NCDOT for putting improvements in place.

Council Member Harrison said the Bicycle Facilities Map had special corridors noted on it that could use improvement for bicycle use. He said he sees on many State roads where you have a lot of car trips but not other uses because of lack of sidewalks or bike lanes. Council Member Harrison said we are the only place that he knows of that counts people trips so carefully. He said he wanted a comparison of trips on these roads, to demonstrate to the public and to NCDOT where these roads are lacking, therefore the use of them is lacking. For example, Council Member Harrison said on Erwin Road there is a little bit of bike lane and a little bit of sidewalk, but when you move away from that area where the counts are being made, there is almost no bicycle or pedestrian use, but a lot of cars and a few bus trips. He said he wanted to make a strong case to NCDOT that these are the routes that deserve more attention than they are getting.

Council Member Harrison said he believed the 2003 Report took such counts. Mr. Bonk responded that in the 2003 Report there were some combined levels of service data for all modes, and he apologized for not including it in the resolution for the Council’s consideration.

Council Member Harrison said a main concern for him was secondary roads that need more improvements. He asked the Manager if we needed to amend the resolution to get this done. Mr. Horton said there was no reason why the resolution could not be amended. Mr. Bonk suggested language as a fourth bullet to read “A multi-modal evaluation of all person trips in major corridors.” Council Member Harrison reiterated that his purpose was to highlight bicycle improvements in those corridors.

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

A RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE FINDINGS OF THE 2003 CHAPEL HILL MOBILITY REPORT CARD AND REQUESTING FUNDING FROM THE DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR THE 2005 MOBILITY REPORT CARD (2005-01-24/R-9)

WHEREAS, the Mobility Report Card is an important element of the Town’s Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the 2003 Chapel Hill Mobility Report Card presented information on the Chapel Hill transportation network; and

WHEREAS, the 2003 Report Card provided the community with important information on the changes in travel behavior within Chapel Hill; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the findings of the 2003 Mobility Report Card;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council endorses the findings of the 2003 Chapel Hill Mobility Report Card.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs that the 2005 Report include the following elements:

Safety and accident data
Separation of wide outside lanes from other bicycle facilities
A non color version of the Report
A multi-modal evaluation of all person trips in major corridors

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests funding from the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization to complete the 2005 Chapel Hill Mobility Report Card.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

Item 8 – Annexation Service Reports:

Vineyard Square and Larkspur

Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland said that the Manager recommends adoption of the two resolutions approving service plans for the Vineyard Square and Larkspur developments. He said that the first step in the process, as required by State law, is the adoption of resolutions of intent to annex, which the Council did on January 10. Mr. Sutherland said the next step is the adoption of service plans, which is what is before the Council this evening.

Mr. Sutherland displayed a map indicating the Vineyard Square and Larkspur areas under consideration for annexation. He gave the Council information regarding the acreage of each development, as well as the number of lots, the current population, and the density (persons per acre), noting that each of these areas meets statutory requirements for Town-initiated annexation.

Mr. Sutherland said the service reports for each area indicate the following:

municipal services can be provided on substantially the same basis and in the same manner as the rest of the Town;
services can be provided with existing personnel and equipment;
estimated costs for 2005-06 were $98,685; and
Estimated revenues for 2005-06 were $305,242.

Mr. Sutherland said if the Council adopted the resolutions as recommended, the following schedules would be used:

March 3, 2005: Public Information Meeting at the library;
March 21, 2005: Public Hearing;
April 11, 2005: Consideration of adoption of annexation ordinances; and
June 30, 2005: Annexation would be effective.

Mr. Sutherland noted the Manager is recommending adoption of Resolutions A and B.

Council Member Ward said that this annexation may not require additional personnel or equipment, but perhaps the next annexation would and then that annexation would incur the entire cost for any additional personnel or equipment. He said he would like to know what the cost would be at or beyond year five, and how do you justify that there is no additional cost for service to this area for police, transit, fire, or other services. Council Member Ward acknowledged that there were some costs noted in the materials for public works services.

Council Member Ward asked if the agreement with the rural fire department for service was a two-year agreement. Mr. Sutherland responded that figures were gathered for the first two years only, but he expected that, as in the past, these numbers would continue for the foreseeable future. Council Member Ward asked does that mean that annexing these two communities would never cost the Town for additional services. Mr. Horton said that the reality is that we would not recommend adding more police officers or firefighters to serve this small number of homes. He reminded the Council that when we annexed Southern Village the Council was asked to consider the addition of a variety of personnel and equipment, including a new fire station, due to the size and population of the area being annexed. Mr. Horton said this is such a small area that it would mean only a marginal increase in services, and therefore they did not need to recommend that any additional personnel or equipment be added. It is true that police and fire calls will need to be responded to in these areas, he said, and after some time we will be able to determine the costs. But, Mr. Horton said, it would not be true that we would need to add personnel to make those responses.

Council Member Ward asked how that was different from the itemized Public Works services. He asked why it was not possible to list out the costs of particular services, based on past experience. Mr. Horton said we could do that, but the result would be that we still would not recommend adding additional personnel or equipment for this possible annexation. Council Member Ward said he did not disagree, but believed if that information was made available it would give a more realistic view of what the annexations would cost the Town. Mr. Horton said he was not suggesting that the annexations would not have costs, rather they were attempting to create an annexation package that complied with State law. He said the law required that the Council be informed of the actual cost of annexation to the Town’s budget. Mr. Horton said if the Council wishes, he could estimate how much of the present cost to the Police and Fire Departments would be shared in this area.

Council Member Ward said he believed that would be helpful, especially during the coming budget discussions. He said we must recognize that while we may not be adding police or fire personnel during this annexation, we have incurred a cost that may be equal to, for example, one-third of a position. Council Member Ward said that as future annexations are proposed, the Council would be aware of how much cost had been incurred and would be prepared to add the additional personnel required.

Mr. Horton noted that if the proposed annexations do not take place, we will still incur costs in these areas due to mutual aid agreements for fire services, and citizens of these areas will still be using our parks, the library, and other services.

Council Member Ward said his comments were not an attempt to “derail” the annexations, rather they were an attempt to “flesh out” the real costs of annexations. He said that it was important to understand that although personnel or equipment would not need to be added at this time, that as annexations take place there is a cumulative total that must be realized. Mr. Horton said he would provide the Council estimates of service calls. Council Member Ward said that would be helpful.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO ADOPT RESOLTUION R-10a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REPORT WITH PLANS FOR EXTENDING MAJOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO AN ANNEXATION AREA IN ACCORD WITH G.S. 160A-47 (2005-01-24/R-10a)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the annexation report for extending and financing services to that certain proposed annexation area (Vineyard Square Area) as described in the Council’s Resolution (2005-01-10/R-3); which report was submitted to the Council by the Manager on January 24, 2005, and a copy of which report shall be retained with the records of this meeting.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to make the report available for public inspection at least 30 days before the public information meeting in accordance with State law.

This the 24^thday of January, 2005.

MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-10b. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOULSY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REPORT WITH PLANS FOR EXTENDING MAJOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO AN ANNEXATION AREA IN ACCORD WITH G.S. 160A-47 (2005-01-24/R-10b)

BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council approves the annexation report for extending and financing services to that certain proposed annexation area (Larkspur Area) as described in the Council’s Resolution (2005-01-10/R-4); which report was submitted to the Council by the Manager on January 24, 2005, and a copy of which report shall be retained with the records of this meeting.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council directs the Manager to make the report available for public inspection at least 30 days before the public information meeting in accordance with State law.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED THAT THE MANAGER PROVIDE INFORMATION AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED DURING THIS DISCUSSION, AND THAT THIS INFORMATION BE PROVIDED EACH TIME AN ANNEXATION PROCESS IS IMPLEMENTED. COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON SECONDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

Item 9 – Dobbins Hill Concept Plan

Planning Director Roger Waldon said the application before the Council tonight is unusual in several regards, the first of which is that the Council is considering this Concept Plan at a regular business meeting when they are normally heard at a public hearing.

Mr. Waldon said that the Wilson Assemblage Special Use Permit (SUP) application had been considered previously by the Council, and at that time concerns were raised regarding affordable housing. He said the applicant then came back to the Council on January 10 with the suggestion that in addition to pursuing the Wilson Assemblage SUP they would also consider pursuing a Modification to the adjacent Dobbins Hill SUP. Mr. Waldon said the applicant would apply to the State for tax credit commitments, and thereby produce affordable housing that would address the Council’s concerns.

Mr. Waldon said that one of the issues the applicant raised on January 10 was that in order to achieve those tax credit commitments from the State, which we believe are desirable for our community, then a “fast track” process would be necessary. He said the Council at that time established a schedule for continued discussions of the Wilson Assemblage SUP application as well as for the Dobbins Hill proposal.

Mr. Waldon said what the Council had before it now is the Dobbins Hill Concept Plan. He displayed a map which highlighted the location of the proposed Dobbins Hill development, and noted that this development had been a valuable and desirable affordable housing resource for the Town. Mr. Waldon said the proposal was to add residential units to the Dobbins Hill apartment complex located on the north side of Dobbins Drive, and includes two buildings with a total of 32 multi-family units and 54 parking spaces, adding that the Concept Plan is being proposed in conjunction with the proposed Wilson Assemblage. He noted that this is a 6.8-acre site located in the Residential-4 zoning district, and implementation of changes proposed in this application would require modification of the Dobbins Hill SUP.

Jack Smyre, representing the applicant, Crosland, Inc., stated that this Concept Plan for Phase II of Dobbins Hill is being proposed in response to the Council’s strong encouragement that Crosland find a way to add an affordable housing component to the neighboring Wilson Assemblage proposal. He displayed a map of the Dobbins Hill and Wilson Assemblage tracts, and noted that they understood that there would be linkage between the two applications by conditions as well as by infrastructure.

Mr. Smyre said that at the November 15 public hearing, the Council identified four key issues: the Sage Road connection; pedestrian circulation; location and mix of uses; and affordable housing. He said that action is being taken on all four issues, which would be reported on at the Council’s February 14 meeting. Mr. Smyre displayed graphic drawings on how they are addressing these four issues.

Mr. Smyre said that the affordable housing issue was of the most concern, and that is what he would be focusing on tonight. He gave a brief history, noting that the original tax credit affordable housing project was approved by the Council in 1993, and made housing permanently affordable to families earning 60% or less of the area’s median income.

Mr. Smyre said in response to the Council’s encouragement to provide affordable housing with regard to the neighboring Wilson Assemblage, Crosland proposes to add 32 units to the existing 55 affordable housing units to Dobbins Hill. He said that these 32 additional affordable housing units would target families earning 50% or less of the area’s median income.

Mr. Smyre stated again that there would be linkage between the two developments, noting that Phase II for the Dobbins Hill development is dependent on the approval of the Wilson Assemblage SUP. He said the two projects would be constructed together, adding that they share a northern access and stormwater. He said that the existing conditions include 55 units, 100 parking spaces, a tot lot and picnic areas, a clubhouse, access from Dobbins Drive, and that a dedicated right-of-way exists along Dobbins Hill’s northern border. Mr. Smyre then displayed a series of slides of the existing development.

Mr. Symre said their development program consisted of the following:

Construct two new buildings with a total 32 new permanently affordable housing units.
Affordable units would be targeted to families earning 50% of the area’s median income.
Add a second point of access to the north.

Mr. Smyre said the final result of Dobbins Hill Phases I and II were:

87 permanently affordable housing units
150 parking spaces, the minimum requirement
two recreation areas
two clubhouse areas
part-time manager would become a full-time manager
second point of ingress and egress, enhancing public safety.

Mr. Smyre said they would be requesting two modifications of the regulations when they come back before the Council, which the Council is empowered to do under the Land Use Management Ordinance regulations:

floor area: maximum allowed is 75,152 square feet; the proposal is for 95,500 square feet (roughly equivalent to what Residential-5 allows); and
density: maximum is 10 units per acre; the proposal is for 11.8 units per acre.

Mr. Smyre reminded the Council that this project had been granted expedited review and they would be back before the Council on February 14, and would appear before advisory boards in March and April.

Mayor Foy asked Mr. Smyre if there was a physical connection between the two projects, such as a walkway or a road. Mr. Smyre said there is a vehicular connection proposed off the entry drive to the south. He added there was a sidewalk that runs along the public road that comes down Dobbins Drive, and connects with another sidewalk there. Similarly, Mr. Smyre said, on the northern road there is a sidewalk all along the southern edge, with three sidewalks coming out of the development connecting to that sidewalk.

Mayor Foy asked to what extent are these neighborhoods going to be “welcoming” to each other. Mr. Smyre said as much as two high-voltage lines running between the two would allow, noting the location of those lines on a map. He indicated on the map a possible pedestrian connection that could be considered. Mayor Foy suggested that some thought be given to that.

Mayor Foy said in regard to the tot lot on the northern end, there is a new road on both sides. He asked how children would be protected from the traffic. Mr. Smyre responded that the existing tot lot backs into the unimproved corridor of the right-of-way and there is no traffic, but when it is moved to its new location consideration of fencing might be appropriate in this area. Mayor Foy asked if this area is wooded. Mr. Smyre said there was a small area of pines in the corner, and it was not clear at this time if these would have to be removed. He said no detailed designs had been created at this time, and that would be included when the SUP comes forward.

Council Member Ward said he believed that pedestrian connectivity should be enriched, so that those residents who want to traverse east and west within the developments can do so. He asked Mr. Smyre about the minimum parking mentioned earlier, and asked if that was the Town’s minimum parking that was referred to. Mr. Smyre responded that 96 are required, and 100 are present today. As we move forward with the project, he said, 150 would be required and that is what we are proposing. Mr. Smyre added 150 is the minimum required by the Town.

Council Member Ward asked what was the experience at that location now in terms of the parking spaces and their use. Mr. Smyre stated that the apartment manager had reported that the demand is “just about right,” adding that there does not appear to be overcrowding, and there are some visitor spaces.

Council Member Strom thanked Mr. Smyre for his “strong” response to the issue of affordable housing. He said he believed this was an excellent way to achieve the standards the Council had set and targeting housing at 50% of the area’s median income was a strong contribution. Council Member Strom said he believed there would be more discussion on this on February 14 when the Council had an opportunity to look at this more closely and how the whole project had come together.

Council Member Harrison stated that the request for proposed modification is for more square footage, and this is equivalent to a rezoning from R-4 to R-5 in the Town’s view. He asked Mr. Smyre to explain why he was not requesting a rezoning instead of a modification to the SUP. Mr. Smyre responded that as they proceed with the concept plan proposal, they are “at a fork in the road.” He said they could file an application for rezoning if after looking at more details the Council decides that is a better way to proceed.

Mr. Smyre said there are two ways to achieve this. He said the Council has the power to modify to this level of floor area and density for public purpose, and this is certainly a public purpose project. Or, Mr. Smyre said, a rezoning could occur, but in the interest of time they had not proposed that route. He said that in fact, the modification process gives absolute certainty since you modify to a certain density level and a certain amount of floor area that a rezoning would not offer. Mr. Smyre said they would accept the Council’s guidance on this, adding if it became apparent that filing for a rezoning would be the better way to proceed, they would do so. Council Member Harrison he did not have an opinion on this one way or the other at this time.

Council Member Harrison asked if it was Mr. Smyre’s contention that the Council’s ability to modify these regulations was strong. Mr. Smyre responded it was strong, and would give the Council a target, meaning it would tell them to modify to this density exactly, and to this square footage exactly. He said that a rezoning does not offer that degree of specificity. Mr. Smyre said they were content to do it either way.

Council Member Ward said he wanted to make sure that as this project evolves that it incorporates the Town’s transit system. Mr. Smyre said that currently, residents walk down the sidewalk to catch the bus on Dobbins Drive. He said that it may be that they learn, as the Wilson Assemblage is built, that the corridor through that area could be used for buses, and if so the northern access would provide access to those routes. Mr. Smyre said we don’t have much frontage on Dobbins Drive now, but bus stops could be provided if they were located in the right-of-way.

Dr. Harvey Krasny stated he was not opposed to the addition of affordable housing at this site and to this community, adding that Crosland’s approach seems to be a viable one. However, he said, originally these 32 units were supposed to be in the Wilson Assemblage, but when the developer moved those units to the Dobbins Hill development, he apparently “forgot” to reduce the Wilson Assemblage’s 149 dwelling units by 32 units. Dr. Krasny said this means the addition of another 54 vehicles, or 14% more, to the overall property, on top of the 402 vehicles originally proposed for the Wilson Assemblage. Dr. Krasny asked the Council to require the developer to reduce the Wilson Assemblage units by 32 if those 32 units would be built in the Dobbins Hill complex, adding this would help reduce the number of vehicles at this site.

Dr. Krasny noted that Mayor Foy had been an advocate of avoiding the widening of thoroughfares, which he said the Mayor believed would result in more traffic and congestion in Town. He said in the last three years the Council had approved nearly 800 new vehicular parking spaces that would affect these immediate neighborhoods. Now, Dr. Krasny said, another 456 spaces are being proposed, and that would mean over 1200 new vehicles parking in the area, an area that is already heavily congested and is targeted for a $3 million superstreet project.

Dr. Krasny asked the Mayor directly how would the Town avoid widening Erwin and Sage Roads in the future if the Town continues to allow high density building that would bring more vehicles directly into their neighborhoods? He said in the end the taxpayers wwould suffer because they would have to pay for these widenings and roadway acquisitions. Dr. Krasny said the result would be that the traffic conditions would produce more pollution and hazardous driving conditions, and the neighbors would be forced to sell their homes and move elsewhere. He asked if this was rational growth.

Dr. Krasny referred to an article that quoted Council Member Verkerk, at the time of a proposed new subdivision off of Erwin Road near Inglewood. He quoted her as saying, “Erwin Road is being nickled and dimed to death.” Dr. Krasny said he could not have said it better himself.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO REFER THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE STAFF, AND THAT STAFF RESPOND DIRECTLY TO DR. KRASNY’S CONCERNS. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION TRANSMITTING COUNCIL COMMENTS ON A CONCEPT PLAN FOR DOBBINS HILL (2005-01-24/R-11)

WHEREAS, a Concept Plan has been submitted for review by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, for Dobbins Hill; and

WHEREAS, the Council has heard presentations for the applicant, and citizens; and

WHEREAS, the Council has discussed the proposal, with Council members offering reactions and suggestions;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council transmits comments to the applicant regarding this proposal, as expressed by Council members during discussions on January 24, 2005, and reflected in the minutes of that meeting.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

Item 10 – Comments to Durham and Orange County Boards of

Commissioners Regarding the Proposed Erwin Trace Subdivision

Planning Director Roger Waldon said this responds to concerns brought forward by Council Members Harrison and Strom on January 10^th regarding the status of the proposed subdivision of property that straddles the Orange-Durham County line. He said the property is located on the County border, at the point where Erwin Road crosses from Orange into Durham County, and displayed a map to indicate the location.

Mr. Waldon said that to summarize, this is a 32-acre tract of land straddling the Orange-Durham County line that was the subject of a subdivision application in Durham County. He said approximately 20 acres of the parcel is in Durham County, with 12 acres in Orange County. Mr. Waldon said the application proposed to subdivide the Durham County portion into residential building lots; the 12 Orange County acres would be set aside as permanent open space, to be given to Orange County. He said this had received a Preliminary Plat approval from Durham County. Mr. Waldon noted that under Orange County’s procedural rules, this development, as proposed, would need to have a preliminary plan approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners.

Mr. Waldon said the Durham County Commissioners had suggested that this entire tract be purchased for use as public open space, with an idea being developed that this 32-acre parcel could become a regional park, owned and operated cooperatively by Durham County and Orange County. He said it had been suggested that the purchase price would be approximately $1.5 million, and that Durham County, Orange County, and Chapel Hill might consider participating in the purchase.

Mr. Waldon said the property is located near New Hope Creek, and there have been a number of initiatives to preserve land within the New Hope Creek Corridor. He said that preserving this land would fit with those objectives, although this parcel is not identified on any of Chapel Hill’s plans for acquisition. Mr. Waldon said they believe it would be reasonable for Orange County to participate with Durham County in the purchase of this property to preserve it as open space, but they do not recommend that the Council authorize the use of Open Space Bond funds to participate in the purchase.

Mr. Waldon said as reviewed in a separate report to the Council tonight (Agenda #4h, Revision of Open Space Acquisition), the Town has limited funds available for such purchases and they believe that there are other parcels of greater utility to the Town. He said that the property under consideration would serve Town goals only in a limited way, adding a park in this location would likely not become a component of the Town’s recreational facilities.

Mr. Waldon noted that a key issue is the proposed extension of a water line down Erwin Road, within Orange County, which would occur in an area designated as “Rural Buffer” on Orange County and Chapel Hill Land Use Plans. He noted that Orange County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill had communicated to Durham County that as this line is constructed, that no connections could be made within Orange County.

Mr. Waldon said their recommendation is that the Council adopt Resolution R-13 that would formally forward comments to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Durham County Board of Commissioners, and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority Board of Directors. He said their recommended comments were:

Water Extensions: That no approvals be given that would result in water or sewer lines extended into Orange County that would provide public water service to properties within the Rural Buffer, as designated in the Orange-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Joint Planning Agreement.

Open Space: That efforts to secure some or all of this parcel as permanent open space should be encouraged.

Acquisition: That the Town of Chapel Hill will not likely participate financially in an effort to acquire the parcel.

Mr. Waldon said one additional idea had come forward since this memorandum was distributed, provided by a staff person from the Orange Water and Sewer Authority. He said the staff person had indicated that if the Council moved forward with the resolution tonight to forward comments to the Orange and Durham County Boards of Commissioners that the Council may want to consider including OWASA on that list.

Council Member Strom said this originally came forward at the Durham-Chapel Hill Work Group and he understood that it was time sensitive. He asked exactly what the time sensitivity was, and for some information on additional staff meetings and how information was shared with interested parties. Mr. Waldon said part of the time sensitivity was that Durham’s rules state that if there is a circumstance where public acquisition might be warranted or advisable, and there is a development proposal that shows up on a plan, then consummation of approval can be delayed for 45 days.

In this case, Mr. Waldon said, Durham staff had approved the preliminary plat for Erwin Trace, but the final approval that would be necessary to allow this to go forward had been delayed for 45 days, and that time expires the beginning of April. So, he stated, the Durham County Commissioners were interested in hearing some comments on this, and it would be before the Durham-Chapel Hill Work Group at its meeting in February. Mr. Waldon commented that at the last meeting of this group, members were hoping that the elected boards would have an opportunity to consider this and offer instruction and direction to their representatives that they could bring back to that February meeting for further discussion.

Mr. Horton added that there is a staff meeting scheduled on Wednesday of this week between Orange and Durham County, Durham City, and Chapel Hill. He said he and Assistant Manager Bruce Heflin would attend that meeting. Mr. Horton said he believed the purpose of the meeting was to discuss this issue, find out the interest of the governing bodies, and coordinate whatever efforts can be made to resolve the issue about this property.

Council Member Strom said that given that the staffs are going to be meeting and it would be unwise to take a position on the financial aspects, he proposed that the language that Chapel Hill will not participate financially to acquire this parcel be eliminated from the resolution.

Council Member Strom, referring to the language in the resolution regarding the water line extension, said he believed that we should be clear about our resolve to keep both water lines and sewer lines out of the Rural Buffer. He said he had read the letters written by Orange County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill and knew that we could regulate the tap-on’s in theory, but once those water lines or sewer lines are out there, there would be more of a temptation that we want for access to be sought.

COUNCIL MEMBER STROM SAID HE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ADOPTION OF R-13 WITH THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS:

The first bullet in the resolution should be amended to read: “That no approvals be given that would result in water lines or sewer lines extended into the Rural Buffer.”
In the second bullet, that the words “some or” be eliminated after the word “secure,” so that the bullet would read: “That efforts to secure all of this parcel as permanent open space should be encouraged.
That the third bullet regarding acquisition should be eliminated.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD SECONDED THE MOTION.

Council Member Harrison noted that he had pulled Consent Agenda Item #4h, Revision of Open Space Acquisition, in order to provide background information on his comments. He said that the Council had taken ten actions over the past nine years, six of which were taken while he was on the Council, and it reminds us of our priorities and how the maps were put together.

Council Member Harrison said the map is expanded to show Orange County up to this property, which is shown as Duke Forest because that is what it is. He said that this land was not in the study area for New Hope Creek preservation efforts when he was involved in it in the late 1980’s, particularly in 1989. Council Member Harrison said this land did end up in the Open Space Master Plan for the New Hope Creek Corridor, which was adopted by four governments including Chapel Hill.

Council Member Harrison said that one of the things that item #4h shows, on page 6, is all the properties we had bought, including three Dry Creek properties. He said those three Dry Creek properties, totaling 83 acres at a cost of about $2 million or about $24,000 per acre, shows the type of progress Chapel Hill had made for the part of the New Hope Creek Corridor which it had assumed responsibility for. Council Member Harrison said we have made more progress by far that any other jurisdiction, noting that the City of Durham had made none at all, Durham County had made some progress against incredible odds, namely land prices, and Orange County had made some progress as well through the Lands Legacy program. But percentage wise, he said, Chapel Hill has done what it had committed to do for about $24,000 an acre.

Council Member Harrison said this was an incredible achievement, and he credits the Council for that as well as Bill Webster, the Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation, Mr. Horton who supported Mr. Webster’s efforts, and advisory boards who supported the Council’s efforts. He said his conclusion was that he agrees with the Manager that this is not land where he would prefer to spend money until we see the other jurisdictions doing so. Council Member Harrison noted that the Durham County part of that land, if developed, is in the City of Durham, and that is the government that should be doing something. He said Durham County at the least passes open space bonds and they are about out of money, but to his knowledge the City of Durham had not passed an open space bond in his lifetime.

Council Member Harrison stated that Orange County had an agreement that if the development goes through that they get the land for free, if it does not go through then Orange County taxpayers get stuck with a bill for $350,000 for that part of the property, and well over $1 million for the Durham County taxpayers. He said that means that every taxpayer in Chapel Hill is already paying for this through their County taxes.

Council Member Harrison said he would like to leave it open that we would not participate, but he would “have a hard time” supporting this until we see what the other jurisdictions are willing to do. He said that if Orange County can make a “very strong case to us” that we should participate, then we should consider it but he was not sure that was coming. Council Member Harrison said based on a conversation he had with Orange County Commissioner Barry Jacobs last evening, any comments now were premature.

Council Member Harrison said that we really need to know what will come out of this meeting with the staff on Wednesday, and the Council owes the Manager some direction. Regarding the resolution, he said he agreed that the amendment to the first bullet to add sewer lines is justifiable, and certainly we should encourage acquisition of the parcel as permanent open space as noted in the second bullet. He said that in the third bullet, we do want to leave ourselves open to participate financially, but he believes there needs to be a stronger case made than what we have right now. Council Member Harrison said the two Durham jurisdictions need to “step up” more than they have.

Mayor Foy confirmed that the Manager would attend the Wednesday meeting, gather information and at some point impart that information to the Council. He said that the Manager would benefit from some direction.

Council Member Harrison suggested that the resolution should be forwarding comments to the Manager rather than to the Orange and Durham Boards of Commissioners.

Council Member Strom said he strongly disagreed with that suggestion, adding he believes it is appropriate for the Council to make these comments to the Commissioners about the water and sewer extensions and the resolution as amended should be adopted. Council Member Strom stated that we cannot predict when parcels will become available, and if this parcel becomes available he wants it clear that we may participate, although we would not be the lead agency. He said for a modest amount of money we could make 44 acres available to our citizens. Council Member Strom stated that it seems as if this is 2,000 feet away from our Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) point and we have a newly found authority to do this. The fact that other governments have not been as proactive and the fact that we are interested, he said, may “light a fire under them.” Council Member Strom said this could serve as an example of proactive intergovernmental cooperation.

Council Member Harrison replied that he believed the Manager’s meeting on Wednesday would tell the Council that the City of Durham did not want to spend money here. He commented that it is 2,000 feet from the ETJ but a 2-mile drive from Chapel Hill. Council Member Harrison said there is land that citizens can walk to within Chapel Hill that we could be buying and if we come up with empty pockets when that land becomes available for purchase, he will be very sorry that we spent our money on land outside of Chapel Hill.

Mayor Foy said we were not deciding tonight whether or not to spend any money.

Council Member Kleinschmidt agreed, stating he believed we were getting ahead of ourselves. He said we should wait and see what the results are from the meeting on Wednesday. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed the next step of the process would address Council Member Harrison’s concerns which he found to be valuable, but it is premature to address that now. He said there was a potential that we may want to contribute to the purchase if it was determined that we were an appropriate partner, but we are not there yet.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said here we have Duke willing to sell off some of its property in Duke Forest, which he finds problematic. He said when we had Open Space Bond discussions prior to the last election, it was commented on that this and other areas of Duke Forest would remain preserved in perpetuity, and now here we have them offering this parcel for sale and “they’re jacking up the price.” Council Member Kleinschmidt said we should “go to the table and see what happens.”

Council Member Greene agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt, but stated she does not see a conflict between what Council Members Strom and Harrison were saying. She said we don’t know what will develop from the meetings, we don’t know what our ultimate interest will be in helping to purchase the land, and she wanted to see it unfold. Council Member Greene said she wanted to delete the third bullet from the resolution because she did not believe that we wanted to say that we would not likely participate financially in an effort to acquire the land.

Council Member Harrison said he wanted to apologize to the Council, stating that having dealt with Duke Forest for thirty years, he had always known than they would sell off land. He said that as early as the last 1980’s they were talking about doing that, stating that parcels that were not being used were prone to be sold. Council Member Harrison said this land is an asset for Duke, not a playground. He said he understood why other Council members were not aware of this, but it was no surprise to him that Duke put this land up for sale. It was a surprise, Council Member Harrison said, that a company as large as Crosland, Inc. came in first saying this is $1 million worth of land, and saying to Durham County to put in another half million because we are loosing money to get it developed.

Mayor Foy said apart from the resolution itself, he believed the Council should be prepared to be a participant, even if we have to participate financially at some level. Mayor Foy said he specifically wanted to exclude the thought that we have no interest in participating if that is what it comes down to in order to make something work on this land. He said Orange County and Durham County would be the leaders, adding that no mention of money should be in this resolution.

Council Member Harrison agreed, stating that satisfies his concerns.

Mr. Horton noted his understanding of what the Council’s wishes are:

· the Council believes that it is highly desirable that this land might be developed,

· that the other parties, Durham County, City of Durham, and Orange County, have a need to exercise leadership on this,

· that the Council could be convinced perhaps under some circumstances to have a financial participation, but only if the Council believes the other parties are doing all that can be done to make this happen,

· that the Council does not believe it should be the leader in doing this, but could be a participant, and that others need to step forward and put more at stake that they have thus far, and

· that no decision has been made, and he was participating in the meeting as the Council’s emissary, asking that the parties do the best they can to present their case and convince the Council of their sincerity, and put forward the best position they can to convince the Council that the Council should make some offer of participation.

Council Member Harrison said that very clearly reflects he beliefs.

Council Member Strom agreed, stating that was exactly what he wanted to be conveyed, along with the specific wording as amended in the resolution. Mr. Horton agreed.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION FORWARDING COMMENTS TO THE ORANGE AND DURHAM COUNTY BOARDS OF COMMISSIONERS AND OWASA REGARDING THE PROPOSED ERWIN TRACE SUBDIVISION (2005-01-24/R-13)

WHEREAS a 32-acre tract of land straddling the Orange-Durham County line was the subject of a recent subdivision application in Durham County (approximately 20 acres of the parcel in Durham County, 12 acres in Orange County) referred to as Erwin Trace; and

WHEREAS an accompanying subdivision application for a portion of this tract is under review in Orange County; and

WHEREAS this proposed subdivision involves issues related to the Joint Planning Agreement that has been executed by Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, and issues related to land management in the corridor of New Hope Creek; and

WHEREAS the Chapel Hill Town Council seeks to offer comments and recommendations to Orange County and Durham County as considerations of this proposed subdivision proceed;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council offers the following comments on the issues raised by this proposed subdivision:

Water Extensions: That no approvals be given that would result in water lines or sewer lines extended into the Rural Buffer.

Open Space: That efforts to secure all of this parcel as permanent open space should be encouraged.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council requests that the Mayor forward these comments, along with a copy of the Town Manager’s January 24, 2005 memorandum on this topic, to the Orange County Board of Commissioners, the Durham County Board of Commissioners, and the Board of Directors of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

Regarding Agenda Item #4h, Mayor Foy stated his area of concern was on page 2 of the item, noting that the draft 2005 Map, Context for Potential Open Space Land Acquisition, differs in a number of ways. He said the second bullet reads, “Tracts suitable for acquisition are those three acres or more in size with no buildings and tracts ten acres with no more than one building.” Mayor Foy said that contrasts with the first bullet of the original 2002 draft Map which reads, “Tracts that were three acres or more that were undeveloped or had at most one building.” He said he understood the idea of buildings and how that creates problems, but given the reality of Chapel Hill, if we had a 3-acre parcel with one building that building may be a house. And, Mayor Foy said, that house could possibly be carved out to create an affordable housing opportunity, leaving a 2 ½ acre tract. Why, he asked, would we not want to do that?

Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster said they had attempted to display on the map as many properties as possible to show the Council a pattern. He said if they located a parcel of three or four acres that had a house on it that was affordable that we could purchase to be used as affordable housing, or any other scenario such as demolition, we would certainly take advantage of that. Mr. Webster said it would be almost impossible to evaluate every parcel in Town, most of which do have a single-family home on it, and note them on the map. Mr. Webster said if they ever ran into such a situation, it would certainly be brought to the Council’s attention.

Mayor Foy said he did not understand why the 2002 map said tracts of three acres or more that had a building, and that was changed in the draft 2005 map to say tracts of three acres or more without a building. Mr. Webster responded that in the vast majority of cases, they have found that there were no smaller tracts with a single building except for a very few cases, that being the Dickerson Court/Plant Road area. He said tracts of three or four acres usually have a very expensive home on them and they are not suitable for affordable housing. Mr. Webster said if they know about lots that would meet criteria the Mayor had described, they identify that as property of interest that they would target. He added that if the Council was aware of any parcels, they would certainly add them to the map.

Council Member Ward said that the 2005 map indicates just one property that falls into the 10-acre category. He said the lots noted on the bottom left of the map are six- and seven-figure properties located in The Reserve development. Council Member Ward said they do not seem to fit the profile for purchase. Mr. Webster responded that may be, but they do meet the criteria of being undeveloped or containing only one building. He said without the benefit of visiting every one of the parcels to evaluate them, they had relied on GIS mapping to identify them. Mr. Webster said the parcels they know about that are going through the subdivision process, even though they had been identified through GIS, had been removed from the map.

Council Member Ward said that just as those parcels that they learn about on the small end are removed, that lots that they know are not affordable should also be removed so that the Council does not spend its time looking at them. Mr. Horton responded that future acquisitions are the key guideline here. He said they have used the GIS mapping technology as a way to produce a lot of information in a standardized manner, and Mr. Webster would not waste time contacting owners of land in The Reserve. However, Mr. Horton said, if those owners were to contact Mr. Webster to offer the land for sale in a manner that was affordable to the Town and gave us a tax break, we would discuss it with them. But, he said, we would not initiate that. Mr. Horton said the contacts we would initiate are those that meet the kinds of tests that are described in the memo under Future Acquisition Efforts.

Referring to the draft 2005 Map, Council Member Harrison said he wanted to flag a new category that had been added to the map, which is Property of Special Interest, colored in purple. He said the Dry Creek property just north of Town, the American Legion property, and the Loy property are all theoretical but are of strategic importance since they are in areas where there is not a lot of preserved open space.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE MANAGER TO USE THE UPDATED 2005 MAP ENTITLED CONTEXT FOR POTENTIAL OPEN SPACE LAND ACQUISITION AND ALREADY ESTABLISHED GOALS AS A BASE FOR OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION EFFORTS WITHIN THE TOWN’S JURISDICTION AND NEARBY AREAS OF ORANGE COUNTY (2005-01-24/R-7)

WHEREAS, Chapel Hill voters authorized the expenditure of $2,000,000 in Open Space bonds in 2003; and

WHEREAS, approximately $1,339,000 in bond authorization remains for purchase of open space; and

WHEREAS, on November 11, 2002, the Council authorized the Manager to search for any potential open space parcels within the Town limits or extraterritorial jurisdiction as long as the properties addressed one of the primary goals identified by the Council; and

WHEREAS, on December 6, 2004, the Council directed the Manager to update the open space map adopted on November 11, 2002, showing undeveloped parcels suitable for acquisition; and

WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of North Carolina has enacted local enabling legislation which allows the Town of Chapel Hill to purchase open space outside of its jurisdiction;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Manager is directed to use the updated 2005 Map entitled Context for Potential Open Space Land Acquisition and the following already established goals as a base for open space acquisition efforts within the Town’s jurisdiction and nearby areas of Orange County:

Non-automobile community connectivity

Entranceway corridor preservation

Scenic vista preservation

Protection of environmentally sensitive areas

Protection of Resource Conservation District land

Preservation of community open space and neighborhood open space

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

Item 11 – Appointment of a Council Liaison to the Stormwater

Management Utility Advisory Board

Mayor Foy noted that Council Members Strom and Harrison had agreed to serve on the Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTON 14, AS AMENDED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A COUNCIL MEMBER AS LIAISON TO THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE (2005-01-24/R-14)

WHEREAS, the Council at its June 14, 2004 meeting created the Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council designates Council Members Strom and Harrison as the Council’s liaisons to the Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

Item 12 – Appointments

12a. Budget Review Advisory Committee.

The Council appointed Jill Ridky-Blackburn to the Budget Review Advisory Committee.

Council Members

Budget Review Advisory Committee

Foy

Greene

Harrison

Hill

Kleinschmidt

Strom

Verkerk

Ward

Wiggins

TOTAL

Roger Badrock

Gary Barnes

Barry Beggs

Neal Bench

Ken Brooks

Harlan Cornell							A
Robin D. Cutson
Gregg D. Gerdau							B
James Easthom
Jeanette Gay Eddy							S
George David Hughes
Beverly C. Kawalec							E
Jill Ridky-Blackburn	X	X	X	X	X	X		X	X	8
Austin Rose							N
Donald Tiedman
Judy Weseman							T
Charlie Zimmerli

Item 13 – Petitions

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

13a(1). Recommendations for a Process to Develop a Ten-Year Plan to End Homelessness in Orange County (Mayor Foy and Council Member Greene).

Mayor Foy noted that two citizens had signed up to speak on this issue.

Michael McGee thanked the Council for bringing this issue forward, and for allowing the Interfaith Council (IFC) the opportunity to address it. He also thanked Mayor Foy and Council Member Greene for their work on this initiative.

Mr. McGee said he wanted to bring up another aspect of homelessness that had not been addressed, and that was homelessness among veterans. He stated that his estimates are that approximately one-fourth to one-half of IFC clients are veterans. Mr. McGee said these veterans had served in World War II, Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, drug-related activities in South America, and even the current conflict in Iraq. He quoted some data regarding the nationwide homelessness problem among veterans.

Mr. McGee asked if it was really our values as a society to allow persons who had put on a uniform to serve this country to be compared to garbage, sewage and criminals and then forced to sleep in doorways. He said he sees a lot of bumper stickers around Town supporting our troops, but what happens when the troops come home?

Mr. McGee encouraged to Council and the community to come together and explore ways to address this and all issues surrounding homelessness. He urged the Council to pass the resolution before them tonight.

Lynne Kane agreed with Mr. McGee’s comments, and supported the initiatives to end homelessness. She said she was here tonight speaking as a citizen, saying she had heard from many neighbors and others since the Council meeting in January who said in their opinion that the IFC did not operate a well-run shelter. Ms. Kane said that word gets out when a shelter is not run well, and this attracts people from all over the State as well as out of State to come here to this shelter. She said this results in the homeless population in Chapel Hill being made up of people who are not from Chapel Hill or have any attachment to the area, but were attracted here because of the “not so well-run shelter.”

Ms. Kane said the second reason she was here tonight was because she had received a newsletter from the Urban Ministries of Durham that stated their goals and programs. She said in simple terms their goal was to rebuild lives, and she then listed some of the programs offered by the Urban Ministries. Ms. Kane said these programs seem to work very well, stating that we should be looking into those types of programs.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION R-15.

Council Member Greene said that everyone should realize that this initiative involves a lot more than just the IFC. She said this is a holistic kind of program, a way to approach homelessness that had been tried in other cities and been successful.

Responding to Ms. Kane’s comment that many of the homeless persons in Chapel Hill are not from here, Council Member Greene said that many residents of Chapel Hill are not from here, but came here from some place else. She said the only difference is that some of us can afford to live here.

Council Member Greene said she recently attended a program sponsored by the Triangle United Way, and at that meeting some bar graphs were provided that reminded her just how expensive it is to live, and particularly to rent, here in Orange County as compared to Durham and Wake Counties. She said all of these are connected, and that is what this initiative is addressing.

Council Member Greene said that tonight a contingent of Chapel Hill staff members had attended a Board of Commissioners meeting in Hillsborough to request that they sign on to this initiative. She said they have plans to attend a Carrboro Board of Aldermen meeting next week to ask them to officially sign on to the plan, and she is encouraged that it will happen.

Council Member Greene said she hoped she could count on the Council’s support for this really worthwhile plan.

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

A RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A PARTNERSHIP TO END HOMELESS IN ORANGE COUNTY WITH ORANGE COUNTY, CARRBORO AND HILLSBOROUGH (2005-01-24/R-15)

WHEREAS, in October 2003, Triangle-area elected officials were briefed on the 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness Initiative sponsored by the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness; and

WHEREAS, on November 18, 2004, Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the United Way hosted a Roundtable Discussion on Homelessness in Orange County attended by more than 150 community members; and

WHEREAS, the Roundtable Planning Committee has continued to meet to review feedback from the November 18^th event and recommends the establishment of the Partnership to End Homelessness in Orange County to continue to pursue this Initiative in the County; and

WHEREAS, the County’s success in this Initiative will rest on the strength of the partnership of its local governments and community leaders; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Committee requests the founding members of the Partnership to End Homelessness in Orange County to include the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Orange County; and

WHEREAS, each founding member is asked to appoint a representative to the Planning Committee for the Partnership; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Committee will be charged with developing a process for the creation of a 10-Year Plan to End Homelessness;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council supports the establishment of the “Partnership to End Homelessness in Orange County”.

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

13a(2). Mayor Foy, regarding the Recent Snow Event.

Mayor Foy said there was a snow event this past Wednesday that had caused serious traffic difficulties in the eastern part of the Triangle. He noted that Mayor Meeker of Raleigh had requested a report from his staff on what went wrong that caused the gridlock, and he wanted the Council’s permission to ask the Manager to obtain a copy of that report. Mayor Foy said he wanted to take whatever lessons can be learned from the report to make sure that such an event does not happen here.

THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO ASK THE MANAGER AND STAFF TO RESPOND TO MAYOR FOY’S PETITION.

13(b). By the Manager and Town Attorney. None.

14 – Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items

Council Member Hill noted he had removed Consent Agenda Item 4e, Budget Amendment for Consultant to Review Town Service Levels, Efficiency, and Costs. He said his understanding is that the Town has negotiated a contract with a consultant for $80,000, and he wanted to ask the Council to publicly say exactly what our expectations are from the consultant.

Council Member Hill said we are facing a serious tax increase and we are attempting to avoid that. He said tax increases were caused by spending money, and we are going to spend $80,000 on a consultant. Council Member Hill asked are we going to get $80,000 in value from this consultant, and what can we expect, exactly. He apologized for not notifying the Manager that he intended to pull this item, so the Manager did not have the contract in front of him for reference. Council Member Hill asked the Manager for information on what we gave up to get the reductions and what we can expect from the consultant.

Mr. Horton responded that he had quickly pulled together some information earlier this evening when the item was pulled, but he does not have a prepared reported. He said there were three key elements that have been used to make substantial reductions in the work:

to reduce or eliminate project tasks that do not directly result in operational analysis and preparation of recommendations;

to limit the scope of the inquiry to those departments or functions of Town government where there is the greatest likelihood of a possible return on investment; and

change their staffing assignments to reduce the average hourly rate so that we could accomplish the work at a lower cost.

Mr. Horton stated that they had worked with the consultant on an element by element basis, and he believes it is worth touching on some of those:

Instead of having bi-weekly written reports they would instead provide monthly reports to save some consultant time.

They would retain the preliminary interviews and retain the work on best management practices.

They would eliminate the comparative jurisdiction survey.

They would eliminate the community outreach work they had proposed and instead rely on the Council’s normal process.

They would retain the diagnostic report but would do it in a bullet format rather than extensive narrative.

They would retain the data collection process but reduce the number of hours because of the limitation on tasks.

They would retain the staffing and operations analysis but would reduce the amount of hours required.

They would retain the portion necessary to draft a report and present the final report.

They would eliminate the management work session and instead of conducting a formal review they would provide information as they move forward.

Mr. Horton noted that the consultant would focus its work on the following:

Capital planning
Fire and emergency responder services
Inspections
Planning
Police
Public housing property and grounds maintenance
Public works, all functions
Transit administration and fleet management, excluding fleet routing
Non-tax revenue generation, specifically overhead rate recovery, permits, fees, and charges for service.

Mr. Horton said he believed the changes that have been negotiated with the consultant would still produce the key elements that the Council is interested in. He said it would not include review of every single operation, for example it would not include a review of the Town Clerk’s Office, or any review of the smaller operations of the Town government. Mr. Horton said they would focus on the big operations, which is where the money is, and they would focus on revenue generation from non-tax sources as well.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO ENACT ORDINANCE O-2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2005-01-24/O-2)

This the 24^th day of January, 2005.

The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.