SUMMARY MINUTES OF A CONTINUATION
OF THE APRIL 5, 2005 MEETING OF THE
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2005 AT 4:00 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Finance Director Kay Johnson, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka, Housing Director Tina Vaughn, Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Bill Webster, Library Director Kathy Thompson, Information Technology Director Bob Avery, Engineering Director George Small, Public Works Director Bill Letteri, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Inspections Director Lance Norris, Human Resources Director Pam Eastwood, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Assistant Finance Director Jeannie Erwin, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Item 1 – Continuation of Discussion regarding Erwin Trace
Mayor Foy said the Council was continuing yesterday’s meeting that had been recessed until today for the purpose of allowing the Council to continuing its discussion regarding Erwin Trace. He noted that upon completion of that item, the continuation of the April 5 meeting would be adjourned and the Council would then move into its scheduled budget work session.
Mr. Horton stated that they were concentrating today, as the Council had requested, on gathering facts about the present situation in regard to the potential purchase of the land. He said materials had been gathered and provided to the Council, and he had held several phone conversations today both with Orange County Manager John Link and Durham County Manager Mike Ruffin.
Mr. Horton said based on the written material and the conversations with the two managers mentioned, his conclusions were outlined in the second group of bulleted points in the materials:
· The Orange County Commissioners would meet tomorrow to consider raising the amount of their contribution toward the proposed joint acquisition of the Duke land from $125,000 to $200,000; if the County proceeds with such action it likely would be with the understanding that other parties would replace $75,000 of the funding through contributions to the County.
· The Durham County Commissioners previously stated that a $200,000 contribution from Orange County would be sufficient. It seemed likely that the Durham Commissioners would not have an interest in whether some portion of the Orange County contribution, the $75,000, was replaced by contributions from others.
· Wade H. Penny had previously pledged $25,000 to the Triangle Land Conservancy as a contribution towards the $75,000 needed by Orange County.
· The Erwin Area Neighborhood Group had requested that the Council provide $50,000 in additional funding, but had stated that it will, if necessary, raise the additional $50,000 in conjunction with the Triangle Land Conservancy.
· Orange County and Durham County had not reached agreement regarding provisions for trail development and maintenance could be worked out in the coming months, but through his conversations with the two managers and review of the written material that lack of a present agreement would not be a fatal defect that would prevent agreement to purchase the property.
· If the parties agreed to proceed, Durham County would enter into a purchase agreement with Duke University on Friday, April 8, 2005, with a small amount of earnest money to bind the contract. The agreement would provide for a closing transaction three years from now, in 2008, on a date specific.
· Any amount pledged by the Council could be assembled over that three-year period.
· The Council could reasonably conclude that its previous commitment of $100,000 was a sufficient amount, or could reasonably decide to increase the level of its commitment given the interest of the Town of Chapel Hill in preserving open space for enjoyment of all people.
Mr. Horton said that if the Council did wish to increase its contribution to the joint purchase, his recommendation was that they limit it to no more than $25,000 in order to preserve the bulk of the Town’s presently available open space funding for purchase of land in previously targeted areas. He said the Town presently had about $534,000 remaining in the Open Space Bond fund. Mr. Horton noted that allocating $100,000 plus the additional $25,000 to the joint purchase would leave a remainder of $409,000, adding that the next sale of Open Space bonds in the amount of $800,000 was scheduled for 2006.
Mr. Horton said a resolution had been prepared for the Council’s consideration should they decide to increase its commitment, and if they do not wish to make an additional contribution then no further action was necessary.
Mr. Horton said he had faithfully reported all key information he had obtained, and there was not much more that would have any bearing on the Council’s discussion. He said both John Link and Mike Ruffin were helpful today and he was appreciative of that, but we do not know what action will be taken by the County Commissioners at its meeting tomorrow. Mr. Horton stated the County Commissioners were interested in what the Council’s views were, and he had promised Mr. Link that he would provide him with any actions or views expressed or taken by the Council.
Mayor Foy thanked Mr. Horton for his quick turnaround in providing the information, and noted that there was a motion on the floor for consideration.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM WITHDREW HIS MOTION FROM THE APRIL 5 MEETING, AND SUBSTITUTED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1 WITH A LIMIT OF $25,000. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked the Manager for the work he had done, and commented that she could “certainly live with” an additional $25,000 much easier than an additional $50,000. However, she said she was not as comfortable with that as she would like.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if over the last few days, any request had been made to the City of Durham for an increase in their contribution from $75,000 to at least $100,000 to match their contribution to what Chapel Hill was considering. Mr. Horton responded he had no information about that. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if anyone from the citizen’s group had any information.
Wendy Jacobs, Chair of the Erwin Area Neighborhood Group, stated it had been difficult for them to get the $75,000 commitment from the City of Durham. She noted that the original request to Durham was for $100,000, and they had agreed to $75,000 only because the Triangle Land Conservancy had offered to pay $25,000 of that amount. Ms. Jacobs said that the City of Durham had different challenges and different priorities, and to be honest she did not believe that open space and environmental concerns were a high priority for many of the Durham board members. She said she thought it would be “virtually impossible” to convince the City of Durham to increase its commitment.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that answer was even more troubling to her, because she questioned Chapel Hill’s responsibility to preserve open space around us in other jurisdictions. She said it was of course very important to do that, and the Town had already pledged $100,000 and had done so enthusiastically. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said they had made the pledge because it was important to the Council and they wanted to set an example, and had done so by making their pledge first. But, she said, it appeared that they were being asked to make an additional contribution because the Council “was easy.”
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said they had heard Council members express that this could be done without additional tax burden this year, but she was questioning whether the citizens of Chapel Hill bear any more responsibility for preserving this space beyond the $100,000 already pledged. She said she feared they were setting a precedent, and that other jurisdictions would see Chapel Hill as an easy target for open space money. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed they have not set a strong criterion for when our open space funds would be spent outside our jurisdiction. She stated that if we planned to do this on a case-by-case basis, then “God help us.”
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she had come across an open space map that the staff had provided in January, and she had asked that a copy be displayed today so that the Council could see the potential open space areas that the Council was interested in acquiring in our jurisdiction. She noted that there were several areas that were quite large and would require a considerable amount of money if we were able to purchase them. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said in that regard, the Council was being irresponsible to the Chapel Hill taxpayers if these parcels become available land we do not have sufficient funds to make the purchases.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins commented that many statements had been made that this parcel was “only two miles” from the Chapel Hill city limits. She asked what our limits were, was it two miles, four miles, or three miles? Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she could envision a future request for a purchase because it was “only three miles” outside the Chapel Hill city limits, noting you could always minimize how far that distance sounded from Chapel Hill. She said that if the resolution was adopted, she would live with it and be prepared to support the majority vote. But personally, Mayor pro tem Wiggins said, she was not comfortable with voting for any additional amount beyond the $100,000 already pledged to be spent outside of our jurisdiction.
Council Member Hill said he agreed with Mayor pro tem Wiggins’ comments, and in addition he believed it was “terribly troubling” that Duke University was tax exempt but could not come forward with a little money. He said that Crosland, Inc. was making a large profit and the City of Durham, who was far closer to the parcel than Chapel Hill, really did not want to participate at all, adding it was surprising they had pledged any funds at all.
Council Member Hills stated with all that being said, if Chapel Hill was to be a leader to preserving open space then they were “a soft touch.” He said that was why they had been approached in the first place. Council Member Hill said if that was what they believed in then that was what they had to do. He commented there was nothing about purchasing property outside the limits of Chapel Hill that felt good; however, as he had stated before “his Chapel Hill” extended from Durham all the way to Siler City. Council Member Hill said municipal boundaries meant nothing to the way he lived his life.
Council Member Hill said the parcel was an important piece of property and he believed the Council should contribute the necessary funds. He said there were many things about it that bothered him, but he would support the resolution.
Council Member Strom said there were several reasons why the purchase was important. He stated it had first come to light at a meeting of the Durham-Chapel Hill Work Group, which was an important intergovernmental coordinating body. Council Member Strom said the Durham Commissioners had presented the item at about the same time that Chapel Hill had received legislative authority to make such acquisitions.
Council Member Strom said he and Council Member Harrison had brought it before the Council because of their ongoing interest in intergovernmental coordination and in open space acquisition. He said when he had first become a member of the Council they had not been able to purchase open space, noting that many parcels had been identified but waiting for them to become available was not an effective strategy. Council Member Strom said when he had brought this issue before the Council he had suggested that they participate, adding that many times during such a process different opportunities evolve.
Council Member Strom stated that when the Council approved the $100,000 for that parcel, it was only for the 45-acre tract, but because we got involved the opportunity had grown. He said that other people had come to the table and that the Penny family had offered the additional 25-acre conservation easement. Council Member Strom said the deal had evolved, and he believed it was appropriate for the Council to make the additional contribution to what was a much broader deal that was first presented.
Council Member Strom pointed out in the Manager’s recommendation that while there would be a balance of $409,000 in their Open Space Bond funds should the Council make the additional pledge of $25,000, there would be an additional $800,000 available next year when the new bonds were sold. He said he did not believe that the additional $25,000 would significantly alter their position in open space opportunities that may become available.
Council Member Strom said he believed this was a responsible way for the Town to participate, and it would “open the front door” of this corridor up to our citizens. He said the Council should keep in mind that $5 million had been expended to create the New Hope Corridor and create the connection to Jordan Lake, which he said was a remarkable amenity and consistent with Chapel Hill’s goals and principles.
Council Member Greene reminded the Council that they were only able to consider this because of the legislation they themselves had requested. She said when we did that it was because we recognized that our interests do extend beyond our jurisdictions, and that setting an example of regional cooperation was important and valuable. Council Member Greene said she supported pledging the additional $25,000 and thanked the Manager for negotiating that reasonable amount.
Council Member Verkerk commented that Mayor pro tem Wiggins had stated some very good and interesting things, but she would support adoption of the resolution. She said that when Central Park land was set aside in New York City considerable money was spent, but she would be willing to bet there was not a citizen there who was not glad that the land had been preserved. Council Member Verkerk said 150 years from now $125,000 would not seem like very much, and we would never be able to get that land back.
Council Member Verkerk said regarding the City of Durham, she believed it was a real coup that any funds were obtained from them. She said that city had a low income neighborhood that had been crying for a park for 30 years that had remained unmet, so for them to contribute fund to this purchase was a real shift in their priorities and they should be commended for that. Council Member Verkerk said Durham had very different challenges than Chapel Hill.
Mayor Foy said he would support the motion, and hoped that it would be adopted. He added that he hoped that this would move forward on Friday and that we would end up with a significant purchase of open space.
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 8-1, WITH MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION INDICATING THE COUNCIL’S INTENT TO PROVIDE INCREASED FUNDING TO BE USED FOR A MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY ADJACENT ERWIN ROAD AND LOCATED WITHIN BOTH ORANGE AND DURHAM COUNTIES (2005-04-06/R-1)
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has previously indicated its intention to provide up to $100,000 to be used for purchase of a certain property adjacent Erwin Road and located within both Orange and Durham Counties and as further identified in materials presented to the Council at a meeting on March 21, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Council has determined after due consideration that it is in the interests of the Town of Chapel Hill to increase its contribution to facilitate the final actions necessary to purchase the property;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council indicates its intention to provide up to $25,000 in addition to the $100,000 that it originally pledged, if an agreement for purchase can be reached with the other interested local governments.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is authorized to negotiate the details of agreements necessary for carrying out the wishes of the Council in regard to this matter, provided that any resultant contracts or performance agreements be presented to the Council for approval before execution.
This the 6th day of April, 2005.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25 p.m.