SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2005, AT 7:00 P.M.
Mayor pro tem Edith Wiggins called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, and Jim Ward.
Mayor Kevin Foy 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, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Planning Director Roger Waldon, Finance Director Kay Johnson, Mayoral Aide Emily Dickens, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Senior Planner Kay Pearlstein, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Item 1 – Ceremonies
1a. Recognition of Child Care Services Association.
Sue Russell noted that last year Child Care Services had celebrated its 30th year of services. She gave a brief description of their services as well as the scholarships they provide. Ms. Russell said that Child Care Services also offers information families need to find available care. She noted that because of the diverse population their counselors are bilingual and their materials are provided in both English and Spanish.
Ms. Russell said it was critical to set a positive learning path for children in their first five years of life. She said that Child Care Services provides technical assistance, training and support services to child care providers to help them provide the best early care and education experiences possible. Ms. Russell noted that Orange County ranks near the top in the State with 72 percent of its children in day care being served by either a four or five star facility.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked Ms. Russell for the safe, dependable, reliable child care, noting how important it was for our community. She noted her 14-month old granddaughter had recently been placed in day care, and knew it was an anxiety-provoking experience for a family. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she appreciated all that Child Care Services did for our youngest citizens.
1b. Proclamation: Congratulating the UNC Tar Heels on Winning the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins presented Assistant Coach Jared Haas with a Proclamation on behalf of Mayor Foy, congratulating the UNC Tar Heels on Winning the NCAA Men’s Basketball Championship. She read the proclamation for the benefit of the public. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said there had also been an academic recognition of the Tar Heels, and asked Coach Haas to comment on that.
Coach Haas noted the Tar Heels had actually received recognition for a couple of things, the first of which that over a specified period of time their graduation rate was the highest among the 65 teams in the field. He said that Coach Williams had always stressed the academic part of being a member of the team. On behalf of Coach Williams, Coach Haas thanked the Town for all of its support.
Item 2 - Public Hearings and Forums – None.
Item 3 - Petitions by Citizens and Announcements by Council Members
3a. Petitions by Citizens on Items not on the Agenda.
3a(1). George Cianciolo for the Transportation Board regarding Recruitment of Advisory Board Members.
Mr. Cianciolo noted that because the Council’s meetings were broadcast, the Board had voted to recommend by petition that the Council consider having the Mayor begin one of the Council’s upcoming meetings with a brief “recruitment pitch” to citizens for participation on Town advisory boards. He suggested that it might be accompanied, for the benefit of both those present at the meeting and those watching the broadcast, by visuals presenting information such as a list of boards, meeting schedules of boards, and the approximate number of hours required for service.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MAYOR. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
3a(2). George Cianciolo for the Transportation Board regarding Rezoning of OI-3 Properties.
Mr. Cianciolo petitioned the Council on behalf of the Transportation Board to consider changing O1-3 zoning to require Council review and approval of development projects in addition to Planning Board Review.
Laurin Easthom, a member of the Transportation Board, stated she was speaking as a citizen. She noted that the vote by the Board on the OI-3 petition was 4-3, and she had voted in the minority. Ms. Easthom noted that she was surprised by the vote, based on the outpouring of community support. She encouraged citizens to not ignore advisory board recommendations and to make their feelings known to advisory board members.
Ms. Easthom said the Town was working towards developing zoning that would be the best scenario for all, stating that the OI-2 accomplished that at this point in time. She said that unfortunately we could not just look at the question of Council versus Planning Board approval, noting that a motion was made to change just that element of the zone. Ms. Easthom said one Board member had stated, “Why stick it to the University?” She said that changing OI-3 to OI-2 would not stick it to the University.
Ms. Easthom said if OI-3 had Council approval she would still favor OI-2 because OI-3 allows just about anything, adding that the maximum density did not apply, and the “sky was the limit” for building heights. She said in OI-2 the limit was 60 feet. Ms. Easthom asked if neighboring residents would want OI-3 in that case, and answered she did not believe so.
Ms. Easthom said that OI-3 was exempt from the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, meaning that no permit was required to remove trees, shrubbery and maintain protection of trees. She noted that OI-2 had a stricter measure for the buffering of existing neighborhoods than OI-3. Ms. Easthom asked did she want OI-3 with Council approval, and said the answer was no because she did not want OI-3 at all.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO RECEIVE THE PETITION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
3a(3). Recognition of National Volunteer Week.
Mayoral Aide Emily Dickens stated that at the Council’s Planning Session in January, one of the Council’s identified goals was to improve diversity on the Town’s advisory boards by increasing the number of volunteers who serve. She said that during National Volunteer Week which was April 17 through April 23, the Council would host a recognition ceremony for the current board volunteers as well as a panel discussion. Ms. Dickens said the panel discussion was to encourage those who may be interested in serving on boards or on the Council to ask questions about the time needed to serve, the type of dedication involved, and the like.
Ms. Dickens stated the Ceremony and panel discussion would take place in the Council Chamber on Tuesday, April 19 at 5:30 p.m. with a reception to follow the discussion. She noted that two Council members, Dorothy Verkerk and Cam Hill, would serve on the panel along with former Council member Bill Thorpe, current board member and member of School Board Pam Hemminger, and Chapel Hill Downtown Economic Development Corporation member Tom Tucker.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
3a(4). Eric Plow regarding Speed Limit on Weaver Dairy Road.
Mr. Plow noted on January 10 he had asked the Council to drive Weaver Dairy Road and look at the 25 mph speed limit, and believed that some had. He read a statement that described the conditions on that stretch of roadway and the reasoning behind making it a 35 mph zone. Mr. Plow petitioned the Council that the 25 mph speed limit be re-examined, noting it was far below what the road was engineered for.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL, TO RECEIVE AND REFER THE PETITION TO THE MANAGER. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
3a(5). Breanna Peterson regarding Support of the Clean Cars Plan for North Carolina.
Ms. Peterson stated that the North Carolina Public Interest Research Group was a non-profit, public interest advocacy group that was currently working to support a piece of legislation in the General Assembly that would clean up North Carolina’s car and our air.
Ms. Peterson commented that part or all of 32 North Carolina counties, including Orange County and most of the Triangle area, were currently out of attainment with federal air quality standards, and with negligible costs to consumers the Clean Cars Plan would require new cars sold in the State to be dramatically cleaner. She noted that would reduce smog pollution and help many communities reach attainment. Ms. Peterson quoted statistics and other information which included:
· Air pollution from cars threatens health.
· Air pollution from cars hinders economic development; counties that don’t meet federal air quality standards may lose federal highway dollars, experience a lessened ability to recruit new industries and prepare for expected growth in vehicle miles traveled.
· Cleaner cars mean cleaner air.
· The estimated per vehicle cost of implementing Clean Cars standards range from $68 for passenger cards to 276 for larger trucks and SUVs; average per vehicle cost of $107.
· Clean Cars Plan would require new cars sold to meeting standards; would not affect vehicles sold prior to 2008.
Ms. Peterson asked for the Council’s support of the Clean Cars Plan for North Carolina.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that a proposed resolution had been included with the Council’s materials for consideration.
Council Member Harrison stated this was related to two pieces of legislation, one in the House and one in the Senate. He said he hoped the Council would support it, and asked the Council to allow him to express Chapel Hill’s support of the legislation to the Transportation, Communication and Public Safety Committee of the League of Municipalities on which he holds a seat.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED RESOLUTION R-13, AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE IN ITEM 3 THAT THE RESOLUTION BE REFERRED TO COUNCIL MEMBER HARRISON AND THE TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE OF THE NC LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM. THE RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL CONCERNING THE NORTH CAROLINA CLEAN CARS PROGRAM (2005-04-11/R-13)
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina strongly advocates clean air for the residents of Chapel Hill; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council believes that clean air is necessary to ensure protection of public health, environmental integrity and a strong economy; and
WHEREAS, automobiles contribute at least 37% of the state’s ozone pollution, and 40% of the state’s air toxic pollution; and
WHEREAS, the automobile contribution to ozone pollution in some urban areas is as much as 90%; and
WHEREAS, part or all of 32 counties in North Carolina, including Orange County, are currently out of attainment with federal air quality standards; and
WHEREAS, one in ten North Carolina children live with asthma; and
WHEREAS, counties that are out of attainment with federal air quality standards may lose federal highway dollars, and have less ability to recruit new industries and prepare for expected growth in vehicle miles traveled; and
WHEREAS, the estimated per vehicle cost of implementing clean car standards averages $107; and
WHEREAS more than half of all North Carolinians live in areas that are not in attainment with federal air quality standards; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and believes that adopting the Clean Cars standard would help areas reach or keep attainment with federal air quality standards, protect public health, and create opportunity for further economic development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council does hereby resolve as follows:
1. That the foregoing is true, correct and adopted.
2. That the Town Council of the Town of Chapel hill urges the North Carolina General Assembly to pass the proposed Clean Cars Program.
3. That the Town Council of the Town of Chapel hill directs the Town Clerk to distribute copies of this resolution to Governor Easley and the North Carolina General Assembly.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
By________________________________
Kevin Foy, Mayor
ATTEST:
By_________________________________
Sabrina Oliver, Town Clerk
3b. Petitions by Citizens on Items on the Agenda. None.
3c. Announcements by Council Members.
3c(1). Council Member Strom said those who had followed newspaper articles regarding land that the Council had participated and supported the acquisition of along Erwin Road, currently known as the New Hope Preserve, were aware that the purchase documents were entered into by Durham County last Friday. He said that in great part because of this Council’s support and a lot of “ninth inning footwork” by our staff and the Town Manager which he greatly appreciated, 113 acres had been placed under conservation easement with 75 of those acres fully accessible to the public. Council Member Strom said it was “real special” that Durham County, Durham City, Orange County, and Chapel Hill were successful in their efforts.
3c(2). Council Member Greene noted what a privilege it had been to know Ms. Rene Campbell, Director of the Chapel Hill Visitors Bureau, who passed away unexpectedly on Easter Sunday. She said Ms. Campbell had not been a member of our community for very long, but had touched a lot of lives, including hers.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that Ms. Campbell had been serving on a Council Committee along with herself and Council Member Greene, and her input would be missed.
3c(3). Council Member Harrison said there was a Planning Charette planned for a transportation project the Town and the City of Durham were cooperating on which was a bicycle and pedestrian plan for Old Durham Road/Old Chapel Hill Road. He said it would kick off with a Policy Committee meeting that he and Council Member Ward sit on at 11:30 a.m. on Friday, April 15, and would continue in charette form until around 4:30 p.m., then would begin again at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday, April 16, until 4:30. Council Member Harrison said the Charette would be held at Resurrection Methodist Church in Durham.
Item 4 - Consent Agenda
Council Member Ward pulled item 4d, Follow-up Report regarding Traffic Calming Measures on Lonebrook Drive.
Council Member Verkerk pulled item 4e, Resolution to Update the Town Seal.
Council Member Ward noted he did not wish to pull item 4c, Recommended 2005-2006 Capital Fund Program for Public Housing Renovations and Resident Services, but would like to make a comment. He said he wanted to make his perspective known and perhaps get a response from the Manager regarding the types of replacements that would take place. Council Member Ward said some of the things that this would provide for public housing include replacements for air conditions units, new furnaces, new refrigerators and stoves as well as repainting. He asked what the Town was doing in regard to the purchase of Energy Star equipment. Mr. Horton replied that the policy required the purchase of Energy Star equipment for all replacements.
Council Member Ward asked about the use of low VOC paint for projects such as this. Mr. Horton responded he thought that was the normal specification, but would research that and report back to the Council.
Council Member Greene commented on item 4b, Authorization to Execute Agreement with the NC Department of Transportation for the Morgan Creek Trail Project, stating that it appeared to be the beginning at long last of the construction of the Morgan Creek Trail which would provide access to Merritt’s Pasture and a lot more. She said that was “really good news.”
Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that five citizens had asked to speak regarding item 4d, Follow-up Report regarding Traffic Calming Measures on Lonebrook Drive.
Tammy Samuelson, President of the Parkside Homeowners Association, stated that the Council had set a deadline of April 1 for receipt of a new petition to stop the removal of the stop signs on Lonebrook Drive. She said they had not submitted a petition and the stops signs were removed.
Ms. Samuelson said the reason they could not submit a new petition was because the Northwood V neighborhood located next to Parkside and off of Lonebrook Drive, does not have a homeowners association. She said they had no trouble obtaining the necessary signatures from Parkside residents, but due to the lack of a homeowners association in Northwood V there was no one to approach to assist in coordinating a signature campaign.
Ms. Samuelson offered a brief overview of the events leading up to the traffic calming procedures, stating that because of the complaints of a Northwood V homeowner in June 2004, the Council adopted a formal traffic calming policy for that area. She said because of the complaints of the Northwood V homeowner who was against any type of traffic calming devices, the Council decided to require Parkside to submit a new petition in accord with that policy.
Ms. Samuelson said there were no complaints from the Parkside neighborhood. She asked the Council to allow the petition they had submitted in the fall of 2002 to stand as a valid petition, noting that was nearly two years before the Council had adopted the formal traffic calming policy. Ms. Samuelson noted that data from two traffic studies had indicated excessive speeding did occur on Lonebrook Drive, adding that more money should not be spent on additional studies.
Ms. Samuelson asked the Council to validate their original petition and install traffic calming devices in the only in the Parkside neighborhood, noting the only difference from the original installation plan would be to delete one stop sign and one speed bump at the intersection of Lonebrook Drive and Tremont Circle. She asked why the residents of Parkside should suffer when the complaints against traffic calming devices were not coming from Parkside residents.
Betsy Polk stated she was a resident of Lonebrook Drive and agreed with the statements made by Ms. Samuelson. She said there were over 20 children on her street that played nearby while cars sped by. Ms. Polk said those speeding cards used Lonebrook Drive as a convenient expressway between Weaver Dairy Road and Airport Road. She said as of April 1 those drivers no longer have a stop sign to slow them down, and asked what it would take to reinstall the stop signs. Ms. Polk asked was it worth the risk to not reinstall them.
Del Snow, a resident of Tremont Circle, distributed emails she had received in the last few days in support of installing stop signs on Lonebrook Drive from residents of Northwood V. She said she must “emphatically” ask that the Council not enact the correcting ordinance before it tonight.
Ms. Snow said had Eric Plow, who does not live on Tremont Circle any longer, never petitioned the Council then the stop signs would still be in place and the traffic calming plan would not have come into play negating the need for any further petitions. But, she said, Mr. Plow did petition the Council, and removal of the stop signs was “literally” endangering the lives of residents of Parkside and Northwood V. Ms. Snow reminded the Council that the traffic study originally done, even before the added population of Larkspur and Vineyard Square was a factor, confirmed the need for the signs.
Ms. Snow asked how a handful of people could inflict their will on the majority. She said she had been unable to find even one Northwood V homeowner who had been provided with the necessary petition documents or had received even one communication from the Town prior to the one for this meeting. Ms. Snow said they had no homeowners association and had never had the opportunity for neighborhood consensus or to submit a petition.
Ms. Snow said if paperwork was submitted to Mr. Plow because his was the only name on file then the “cards were stacked” against them from the start. She said it was unacceptable that 196 homeowners would now have to wait for an annual report on traffic calming and to be submitted to the uncertainty of financial considerations at that time in order to recover the protection that they were due.
In light of the Town’s fiscal constraints, Ms. Snow asked why would the Town waste taxpayer dollars to conduct yet another traffic study and more meetings when two previous studies had already shown the need for stop signs.
Jeff Weinstock, a resident of Tremont Circle, said he was speaking tonight to inform the Council that its decision to remove the stop signs was wrong, it was dangerous, and it could lead to serious accidents. He said he also was troubled by how the Town’s decision to remove the stop signs was made. Mr. Weinstock said he would bet that no members of the Council had come to Lonebrook Drive in the later afternoon and early evening to watch the cars speed by. He said that task had been delegated to the Town’s Traffic Engineer and Engineering Department who had already previously recommended that the stop signs and speed humps be installed.
Mr. Weinstock said if we employ traffic experts, and taxpayers like him pay for them, then why wouldn’t the Town heed their expert advice? As a resident of the area who knew all too well how many people drive down Lonebrook Drive at excessive speeds, he said, he was “really angry.” Mr. Weinstock said that the Mayor and Town Council had reduced this issue to not one of safety but one of the ability to petition the Council.
Mr. Weinstock said the Council had a responsibility to protect the citizens, and clearly not all of its decisions were popular. But, he said, the Council had a mandate to provide services and to protect the residents. Mr. Weinstock said the Council’s decision was not based on safety, but on the ability to petition, noting the Council had “gone down the wrong road.”
Mr. Weinstock said Lonebrook Drive was a major cut-through. He noted that with the advent of warm weather even more people, especially children playing and riding their bicycles, that there may well be a terrible accident along Lonebrook Drive. Mr. Weinstock said the next time someone comes before this Council, it may be to inform them about a serious accident that could have been avoided had the stop signs remained and the traffic humps installed.
Mr. Weinstock asked the Council to change its mind and do what the Town’s Engineers had recommended that it do, that is to install the stop signs and the speed humps. “Will you do that?” he asked.
Eric Plow said it was unfair to characterize him as the only person against the traffic calming measures. He said he was before the Council tonight representing the many people in his neighborhood who do not want traffic calming measures because they “simply were not necessary.” Mr. Plow noted that Mark Zimmerman was not able to attend tonight but supported his position.
Mr. Plow said the traffic study conducted two years ago was not based on any specific criteria so he believed it to be invalid. He said he had lived in the neighborhood for nearly nine years and knew of only one accident in that time. Mr. Plow commented that children should not be playing in the street, but would not deny that there was an occasional speeder although he had never seen one.
Mr. Plow said the argument that a serious accident might occur pertained to any area of the Town, but you could not put speed bumps all over Town, place stop signs at every intersection, lower the speed limit to 10 mph, or ban cars. He said you have to be reasonable, stating that if the neighborhood presented a valid petition that met the current criteria that the Council had adopted, then he would be the first to step back and allow the process to continue. But, Mr. Plow said, he believed the process had been followed and this should now be “done.”
Council Member Verkerk said she believed that sometimes things might slip by and the Council could possibly make errors. She said she also had sympathy for the parents in that area, because you could caution children not to play in the street and tell them many times, but it still happened.
Council Member Verkerk asked for direction from the Manager on how to resolve this issue. She said it seemed that we have two neighborhoods with two different opinions, and it was her inclination to favor the neighborhood experiencing the traffic problems. Mr. Horton recommended that the Council refer all of the questions and comments as petitions and allow the staff to bring back a report and have Traffic Engineer Kumar Neppalli present.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was curious about the number of signatures received, as well as why, with six weeks left before the petition was due, did the Manager decide via an email that we were “not going to make it.”
Ms. Samuelson commented that they had gotten signatures from the Parkside residents, but had been unable to locate a Northwood V resident who was willing to go door to door and obtain signatures from those residents. She added that there had been one child struck by a car while riding a bicycle on Tremont Circle.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked how many homes were designated as belonging to the Parkside neighborhood. Ms. Samuelson stated 135.
Council Member Strom asked the Manager if referring this issue to the next business meeting in April would that give him enough time to prepare a report. Mr. Horton responded it would, noting that would be April 25.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED THAT THE COUNCIL RECEIVE AND REFER THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS REGARDING TRAFFIC CALMING ON LONEBROOK DRIVE TO THE MANAGER FOR A REPORT TO COME BACK ON APRIL 25. COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, TO ADOPT R-1 WITH ITEMS D AND E REMOVED. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (2005-04-11/R-1)
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. |
Award of Bid for 2004-2005 Audit Contract (R-2). |
|
b. |
Authorization to Execute Agreement with NCDOT for the Morgan Creek Trail Project (R-3, O-1). |
|
c. |
Recommended 2005-2006 Capital Fund Program for Public Housing Renovations and Resident Services (R-4). |
|
d. |
Removed. |
|
*e. |
Removed. |
|
*f. |
Ordinance Allocating Funds for Dedication of Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard (O-2.1). |
|
*g. |
Change Order to the Town Operations Center Site Work Contract (R-4.2). |
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE SELECTION OF DIXON HUGHES, PLLC TO PERFORM THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL’S 2004-05 AUDIT (2005-04-11/R-2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby authorizes the Mayor to accept the proposal for the Town’s 2004-05 audit from Dixon Hughes, PLLC for $43,500 with the option to renew the contract for each of the following four fiscal years based upon satisfactory performance each year.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (NCDOT) FOR DESIGN FUNDS FOR THE MORGAN CREEK TRAIL (2005-04-11/R-3)
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has prepared and the Town of Chapel Hill entered into an agreement for the planning and design of a 1.2 mile long, 10-foot wide asphalt and/or concrete multi-use path from US 15-501/Culbreth Road to Smith Level Road, with additional access to the Merritt Pasture; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Transportation and the Town of Chapel Hill now wish to supplement the Agreement to increase the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization funding an additional amount of $80,000; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Chapel Hill agrees to be responsible for a 20% ($20,000) local cost participation match for the design of the project;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that Project E-4601, Orange County, is hereby formally approved by the Town Council and that the Town Manager and Town Clerk of the Town of Chapel Hill are hereby empowered to sign and execute the Agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Council that the Town Manager is authorized to use $20,000 in funds currently allocated for the Morgan Creek Trail for the required Town match.
This the 11th day of April 2005.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CAPITAL PROJECTS ORDINANCE FOR VARIOUS CAPITAL PROJECTS (2005-04-11/O-1)
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 includes 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 Town Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with implementation of these projects within terms of funds appropriated here.
SECTION III
Revenues anticipated to be available to the Town to complete the project are hereby amended as follows:
Current Budget Revised Budget
6,962,864 7,042,864
SECTION IV
Amounts appropriated for capital projects are hereby amended as follows:
Current Budget Revised Budget
Morgan Creek Trail 89,375 169,375
Other Projects 6,873,489 6,873,489
Total 6,962,864 7,042,864
SECTION V
The Town Manager is directed to report annually on the financial status of the project in an informational section to be included in the Annual Budget, and shall keep the Council informed of any unusual occurrences.
SECTION VI
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 Town Manager, Finance Director and Town Clerk.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ANNUAL STATEMENT FOR 2005-2006 CAPITAL FUND PROGRAM (2005-04-11/R-4)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby approves the Capital Fund Program Annual Statement, as described in the Town Manager’s memorandum to the Council dated April 11, 2005, and that the Town Manager is authorized to submit the Capital Fund Program Annual Statement to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), including compliance with the HUD policies, procedures and regulations required therein, for a program of $530,600 in Capital Fund Program funds.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Manager is hereby designated as the authorized representative of the Town to act in connection with submittal of an Annual Statement and to provide such additional information as may be required.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2004” (2004-04-11/O-2.1)
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:
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $147,590 TO CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALLS AS A PART OF THE EXISTING TOWN OPERATIONS CENTER SITE WORK CONTRACT (2005-04-11/R-4.2)
WHEREAS, retaining walls are necessary components of the Town Operations Center project; and
WHEREAS, the current site work contractor, Sanford Contractors Inc., has provided a price to construct these walls that is consistent with their previously estimated cost; and
WHEREAS, including retaining wall construction as a part of the site work contract will facilitate a faster start to future phases of construction;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes a $147,590 change order to Sanford Contractors, Inc. to construct retaining walls as a part of their existing Town Operations Center site work contract.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
Item 5 – Information Reports
5a. Report on Keg Registration Legislation.
Council Member Ward stated he had notified the Council that he would pull this item from the agenda to allow interested citizens to speak on keg registration. He noted that Mr. Bill Patterson was present and wanted to speak on his own behalf as well as for Ms. Dale Pratt Wilson. Council Member Ward asked that he be allowed additional time to speak, and Mayor pro tem Wiggins agreed.
Bill Patterson stated he was the Senior Program Manager for the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, located in Washington, D.C. and with a long established office in Chapel Hill. He said the Institute was a non-profit, public interest company that deals with health and public safety issues, one of which was underage drinking. Mr. Patterson presented an overview of his background in law enforcement.
Mr. Patterson commented that one of his primary duties was to travel around the country and teach law enforcement agencies and communities on the best and most promising practices to reduce underage drinking. He stated that nationally, it cost this country $61.9 billion annually just for underage drinking, and in North Carolina, it was $1.3 billion annually. Mr. Patterson commended the Council for its willingness to talk about and consider keg registration.
Mr. Patterson stated that the National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine was commissioned by Congress several years ago to produce a report that addressed underage drinking. The Institute had stated that it was endemic unless new interventions were implemented, so Congress had commissioned “this prestigious body” to give them a report that indicated what must be done on a national level, a state level, and on a local level. Mr. Peterson said one issue that had been identified was keg registration, noting it was one tool in a tool box of many strategies.
Mr. Patterson noted that several bills had been introduced in the NC General Assembly this year regarding keg registration. He said from his experience, in order to balance the interests of businesses who sell alcohol with the health and safety of communities, it appeared that the bill introduced by Representative Verla Insko had more teeth, was less intrusive, an added an additional layer of oversight. Mr. Patterson said it would allow the ABC Board of Orange County or any county in the State to piggyback to a permit that allowed the purchase and transportation of alcoholic beverages. Mr. Patterson said the issue of privacy had been raised, but these permits had been issued since 1945. He said that Representative Inscoe’s bill simply added kegs to that existing law.
Mr. Patterson distributed a document that contained statistics regarding underage drinking in North Carolina, as well as a copy of the Special Occasion Storage and Transportation Permit issued by the Orange County ABC Board. He said these permits would have to be modified somewhat to include kegs, but in general were issued at the store so that the retail purchaser of the kegs would be required to list a name, address, destination, type of purchase, and quantity purchased. Mr. Patterson said the form was one page and filled out in units of four, with one copy going to the purchaser, one copy to the ABC Office, one copy remaining at the store, and one copy to law enforcement. Mr. Patterson said this form would place responsibility on the purchaser to go to a local ABC Store and fill out the form, then take it to the retailer and purchase the keg.
Council Member Hill said he remembered years ago that a similar form was obtainable at a grocery store if you were purchasing large amounts of beer, and asked if that was still a law. Mr. Patterson replied that was correct, that the form was required if you were purchasing nine cases and nine cans of 12 oz. beer and seven cases and one can of 16 oz. beer. Council Member Hill confirmed that transaction took place in the same length of time it would take to make the purchase itself.
Council Member Hill asked if Mr. Patterson was saying that Representative Insko’s bill would require anyone purchasing a keg to go to the local ABC Board and obtain a permit, and that the form could not be obtained from the ABC store itself. Mr. Patterson responded that was correct. Council Member Hill said that someone could still go to a grocery store and purchase up to the limit of beer without a permit. Mr. Patterson said that correct, adding that currently no permits were issued at the retail level although that was done thirty or so years ago.
Council Member Hill said that Representative Insko’s bill required a criminal history check, and asked if that was being done now. Mr. Patterson responded he would have to check the criminal statute book, adding he did not remember that being part of the proposed bill. Council Member Hill asked was performing such a check difficult. Mr. Patterson replied it would require someone traveling to the county courthouse and check a person’s record, then obtaining a certified document from the Clerk of Court if such a record existed. Council Member Hill said that would mean you could not purchase a keg on a Saturday, since the Clerk of Court’s office would be closed. Mr. Patterson responded that was correct. Council Member Hill noted it meant as well that a keg could not be purchased on a Sunday since the ABC Board would be closed. Mr. Patterson said that was correct, noting there would have to be preplanning on the purchaser’s part.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that being the case, a person could still purchase a quantity of beer on Saturday or Sunday without any problem. Mr. Patterson said you would still be able to purchase the limit, reiterating that was nine cases and nine cans of 12 oz. beer and seven cases and one can of 16 oz. beer, without any problem.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said it was important to acknowledge that there were some important differences between what was proposed for a keg statute and what existed today, noting it was unfair to suggest otherwise. Mr. Patterson replied that the information required to be provided by a purchaser was the same, noting he had emphasized that because of the privacy issues that had been brought up. Council Member Kleinschmidt remarked said there was a question of privacy if a criminal background check was required, and asked would Mr. Patterson agree with that statement. Mr. Patterson replied that it was public record available to anyone.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said to require a criminal background check be performed before you purchased the keg would be an action to inquire into a person’s life in a way that was not required in similar situations with large purchases of liquor and spirits, which were much more intoxicating than equal amounts of beer. Mr. Patterson said that was not correct. Council Member Kleinschmidt said was he saying that 16 oz. of beer was just as intoxicating as 16 oz. of rum? Mr. Patterson said that obviously a bottle of rum would contain more alcohol than a can of beer, but it you compared a can of beer to a glass of rum, then the volume of alcohol would be the same. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that liquor was more intoxicating that beer. Mr. Patterson said by the bottle, yes.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said you could purchase rum and not have to worry about obtaining a permit or having your background checked to buy beer, which was the underlying part of the proposed statute. He said that was not what existed now, noting it would be a significant change from the status quo. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the proposed legislation would add another layer of inquiry that delved into someone’s personal life that did not exist now. Mr. Patterson said the purpose of the bill was to limit the access by underage persons, and to hold people accountable. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he only wanted to highlight the significant differences.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said another difference was that when you purchased a keg, you would be required to list the destination and place of consumption. He said that could mean that if he received a permit to hold a wedding reception at one place but it had to be relocated half a block away, then he would be in violation of the new statute. Mr. Patterson said that would be correct. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that would be another difference in the status quo.
Council Member Greene asked if the form that existed now that goes to the ABC Board was a public record. Mr. Patterson replied yes. Council Member Greene said then the registration of kegs would also be a public record, and what Mr. Patterson was saying was that this would be the same as the purchase of other kinds of alcohol. She said a different point of view might be that these were different types of purchases, in that they were a different volume and reaching into a different level of purchase.
Council Member Greene said what Council Member Kleinschmidt was saying was that what if she had a wedding reception and her form stated that it would be a particular location, and at the last minute she moved it due to rain, then she would not be in compliance with the law. Mr. Patterson said in that case she would not have told an “untruth” when she obtained the form. He said that law enforcement used discretion in such cases when there were extenuating circumstances.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that in that case she would still be in violation of the statute.
Council Member Greene commented it was hard for her to understand why it was necessary to know where the event was being held if you already knew who the purchaser was and could trace the kegs registration to that purchaser regardless of the location of the event. She said there appeared to be levels of information required that may not be necessary. Mr. Patterson said what Council Member Greene was saying was that there was a difference between a keg of beer, and 80 liters of wine, and 80 liters of hard liquor. Council Member Greene responded “perhaps.”
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that issue had been placed on the Council’s agenda as an information item with the question did the Council want any further comment forwarded to the Town’s legislative delegation. She asked for some response from the Council on that question.
Council Member Hill said he had no problem with requiring registration of kegs, but had a problem with the requirement that a destination be listed and with a criminal background check. He said that if the name and address of the purchaser of a keg was filed, then should something happen you could trace that person. Council Member Hill said other than that, he saw no reason for the requirement for additional information. He said it inhibited the legal purchase of alcohol and would be harmful to merchants.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he agreed with Council Member Hill that there was a problem with the designation and consumption requirement as well as the criminal background check requirement. He said it was important to note that although he disagreed with those points in Representative Insko’s proposed statute, he did not want his 14 year-old niece to have access to alcohol nor did he want any underage persons to have access. Council Member Kleinschmidt stressed that was not what it meant to criticize a particular aspect of the proposal, nor did it have anything to do with the critiques when it came up in a general way. He said that distinction needed to be made clearly and that it be clearly understood by all.
Council Member Ward said he understood the concerns that had been expressed, and hoped the Council would remain open to this issue and pay attention to the legislation as it was discussed and modified in the General Assembly. He said he also hoped that the Council would forward additional comment to our legislative delegation.
Council Member Ward said that as we critique the legislation he hoped that we put an equal amount of passion into the issue that underage drinking was not acceptable. He said we could not sit with our hands folded and say it was acceptable. Council Member Ward said if the legislation as proposed had flaws, then we should work to figure out a compromise rather than to give up and say we had done our duty, because he did not think we had. He said he appreciated the work that had been put into this issue by the Mr. Patterson and Ms. Wilson had done, and noted the Council had received endorsements from UNC Police Chief Poarch, the UNC Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, the Superintendent of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, as well as our own police chief.
Council Member Ward said let’s not say our work was done tonight by saying that the document before the Council tonight was not what they wanted, but let’s work to make it right and provide more protection for underage drinkers.
Council Member Greene agreed with Council Members Kleinschmidt and Ward, noting the Council should not stop working on this issue just because of some preliminary wording in the proposed bill. She said upon reflection, she understood what Representative Inscoe was attempting to do by piggybacking onto an existing law, but maybe that was not the right approach. Council Member Greene said that for kegs we made need a different law that had different rules.
Council Member Greene said her main concern was the balance between safety concerns and the businesses, but there was a third party to be considered. She said she had stated before that the lawful purchasers of kegs who would serve it to persons who were of age should not have their events automatically be public record.
Council Member Strom said he could not agree more with Council Member Kleinschmidt’s statement that we must take this issue very seriously, and thanked Council Member Ward for bringing it to the forefront and all those associated with this. He stated that at the Council’s meeting with its legislative delegation, he was standing with Representatives Hackney and Insko while they were talking and they mentioned it would be simpler to use an existing ABC permit and not “reinvent the wheel.”
Council Member Strom said the Council had not asked Representative Insko to carry the bill forward, but she had taken the initiative on her own. He said that hearing tonight about the extra step of having to go to the ABC Board to receive a permit may make it more likely that someone would purchase a large quantity of hard liquor rather than the keg, noting it would be an unintended consequence. Council Member Strom said that Council Member Greene had pointed out that perhaps this was the wrong vehicle. He said he shared the concerns stated regarding the privacy issue, the criminal background check issue, and that the ABC Permit form may be an incorrect tool to be used for this purpose.
Council Member Strom said that the comments tonight should be passed on to our legislative delegation.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she assumed that Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos had made notes of the Council’s concerns. Mr. Karpinos said if the Council had a consensus he would pass it on, but it would also be appropriate for Council members to pass along their individual concerns.
Council Member Harrison said his comments were directed towards Mr. Patterson and Ms. Wilson, since he hoped they would be visiting the General Assembly. He said the Town had a good friend on the House Finance Committee, that being Representative Hackney, and Mr. Patterson and Ms. Wilson should work with him in terms of getting to the Speaker’s podium.
Council Member Harrison said if they thought the potential bill had received criticism here, they could not imagine what it would get as a statewide bill in a legislative hearing. He said no one here with concerns would spend money to stop it, noting what they had heard tonight were sincere declarations of principle. Council Member Harrison said this bill would have to be State-wide to have any effect at all, and looked forward to them visiting the General Assembly and gathering support from across the State. He said it was worth doing, and thanked the Council for offering its opinions.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if the Council had a consensus of what it wanted passed along to the legislative delegation, or would they rather communicate with the delegation individually.
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED THAT THE TOWN’S LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION BE INFORMED OF THE COUNCIL’S CONCERNS REGARDING THE PROPOSED KEG REGISTRATION LEGISLATIVE, SPECIFICALLY THAT THE COUNCIL’S PREFERRED BILL WAS THE ONE SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE INSKO, THAT THE COUNCIL CONTINUED TO GENERALLY SUPPORT KEG REGISTRATION WITH PARTICULAR CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THE EXISTING ABC PERMIT WAS THE APPROPRIATE VEHICLE, CONCERNS ABOUT CRIMINAL HISTORY CHECKS, CONCERNS RELATED TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF WHERE A KEG WAS TO BE DELIVERED AND CONSUMED, AND CONCERNS ABOUT THIS INFORMATION BEING CREATED AS A PUBLIC RECORD. THE COUNCIL BELIEVES THAT THESE ARE ISSUES THAT DON’T NECESSARILY ADDRESS THE POINT OF THE LEGISLATION AND MAY LEAD TO UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Council Member Strom offered a friendly amendment to add to phrase “with particular concerns about whether the existing ABC permit was the appropriate vehicle” the additional language stating “because it added an extra step in the purchase process.” Council Member Kleinschmidt accepted that as a friendly amendment.
Council Member Ward asked what expression of understanding of the problem was expressed in the motion, and to what extent a desire was expressed to add a tool of this nature to address the problem. Council Member Kleinschmidt said as he stated in his motion, the first thing would be our continued support of the general idea of keg registration, and that of the two bills submitted that we prefer the one submitted by Representative Insko with our concerns expressed about it.
THE MOTION, AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE “BECAUSE IT ADDED AN EXTRA STEP IN THE PURCHASE PROCESS” IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PHRASE “WAS THE APPROPRIATE VEHICLE,” WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
Mayor pro tem Wiggins confirmed that staff would have that motion communicated to the legislative delegation.
Item 6 – Budget Review Presentations
Mr. Horton noted that there would be two presentations, the first from Mr. Ken Murray representing MAXIMUS, the Town’s budget review consultant who worked with the Council and the Budget Review Advisory Committee. The second presentation would be by Mr. Gene Pease, Chair of the Subcommittee.
6a. Presentation by the Consultant.
Mr. Murray noted he was Vice President of MAXIMUS and the project director, adding it had been their pleasure to have the opportunity to work with the Council, staff, citizens, and members of the Budget Review Advisory Committee who had spent so much time and effort on this project. Mr. Murray said they appreciated all of the help and cooperation, as well as the professionalism with which all of this had been approached. He stated he would summarize the scope of the project and how they had approached it, and describe the recommendations contained in the report.
Mr. Murray said they had been charged with looking at specific areas of Town operations that were believed to have some value in terms of yielding budget reductions. Specifically, he said this included issues surrounding
· Capital Planning
· Engineering
· Fire EMS first response
· Planning
· Police
· Public Housing property and grounds maintenance
· Public Works, all functions
· Transit, administrative management and fleet management, excluding fleet routing
· Non-tax revenue generation
Mr. Murray said they had applied an “industry best practices analysis” which was a proprietary set of diagnostics that represented what they expect to see in a well-performing local government. He stated that 290 different standards were applied to the Town’s performance in order to pinpoint areas of where the Town was performing well or where there were opportunities for possible improvement. Mr. Murray said at the time of the study they identified 10 areas which were then taken to Committee for discussion, and then they had conducted additional analyses of those 10 areas.
Mr. Murray said a number of steps were taken during the analyses of the 10 areas. He said they had studied the organization and supervisory levels, areas of work volume and staffing available, had considered revenue operations and options and how it was structured and carried out, and how work processes flowed from one step to another. Mr. Murray stated that as a result, they were impressed with just how well the Town was performing its responsibility to provide good public services to its citizens.
Mr. Murray commented that when such an analysis was performed, it was divided into three areas: areas where the government was performing at or above industry practices and standards, areas where there was some small gap between performance of industry practices and standards but not usually enough to warrant significant change, and those areas where they may be a significant gap between what the industry was doing and how the community was performing. Mr. Murray said that generally they would see that in about 25 percent of the standards that the community was at or above industry standards and about 25 percent below in terms of significant gaps, and 50 percent with some small gap.
Mr. Murray said in Chapel Hill’s case, out of the 290 standards they had applied to the evaluation of the Town, it was at or above standard in over 70 percent of those cases, noting that was a “phenomenal” level of performance. He said they would be remiss not to emphasis that and complimented the Town on how well it performed its services. Mr. Murray said that achievement was in large part due to the standards the Council had set, the expectations and performance of Town management, and the expectations and performance of individual department heads and staffs they had talked with throughout Town government.
Mr. Murray said there were some areas identified where changes were necessary, beginning with commercial solid waste collection. He said it was their recommendation that the Town consider eliminating its commercial solid waste function, based on an objective analysis of the numbers and discussions with Town staff regarding performance levels. Mr. Murray said they understood that there were a number of factors the Council must consider that were unknown, the greatest of which was tipping fees and how Orange County would respond to a potential loss of waste stream. He said it was possible that Orange County would adjust its tipping fee to recover that lost revenue. Mr. Murray said there were others issues to would need to be considered, such as community perceptions and expectations, how it would affect non-profits, and the like.
Mr. Murray the second area identified relative to fee distribution as compared to other communities indicated a substantial opportunity for increased fees for service. He said there was a perception that Chapel Hill’s fees were already higher that other Triangle communities, but the point was that the fee structure should recoup what it actually costs to provide the service.
Mr. Murray stated the third area was the merger of building maintenance, and somewhat linked to that was the area of fleet maintenance and consolidation of fleet savings. He said what they had discovered in both cases was some overlaps in what they termed a “one/one supervisory relationships” in those departments, that good organizational theory would suggest that you remove.
Mr. Murray said another area they had studied was business process activity and the flow of work across departments, and what they found was that there was a substantial informal flow of work that is working for the Town. He said that as time goes on and the Town grows that informal flow may need to be made more formal, but at this time that method is working and is effective.
Regarding multiple payroll cycles, Mr. Murray stated their suggestion was not one that would produce an immediate savings, but may avoid costs in the future as well as provide a management convenience factor. He noted that the Town’s payroll system was complicated, and if changes were not made it would be soon necessary to hire additional employees to help with it. Mr. Murray said their recommendation was that the Town simplify its payroll system.
Mr. Murray said there were a couple of areas where they did not have specific cost-saving recommendations, but there were things they believed the Town should be thinking about. One of those, he said, was the area of customer service. Mr. Murray said they were impressed that from the top to the bottom the orientation of the Town towards high quality responsiveness to the citizens was “awesome,” in terms that individual employees accepted and acknowledged responsibility to provide service and be as responsive as possible. However, he said, many times that type of focus leads to interruptions in the normal work flow, and to difficulty in tracking and managing that work flow. Mr. Murray suggested that the Town may want to move towards a more formalized customer service system that is based upon the customer service percepts that the Town had set but one that allowed you to manage it better, use it to gain information for better decision-making in the future, and that allowed you to track and respond to citizens.
Mr. Murray said they had not been specifically charged with looking at the Information Technology Department, but they did look at in the context of information management as an infrastructure that supported the Town’s delivery of service. What they had found, he said, was that the Town was beginning to “stretch at the seams” in terms of the ability to use good information technology to perform work. Mr. Murray said in particular, that was evident in the area of the land management system and the state of the art to drive a consistent system of land management that allowed both the citizens and the staff to track land activity such as planning zoning, and inspections. He said they believed the Town would want to examine that in the future. Mr. Murray said of all areas where they had scored the Town at less than best industry standards and practices were specifically in this area.
Mr. Murray said regarding policing, they had looked at the implications of the vacancies. He said that regretfully over time, the Town did not capture the information that would allow for the accurate projection of the impact of staffing, callbacks and activity on overtime outside of the area of special events. Mr. Murray said the dynamic of what they had seen regarding deployment, service history, and employee attitudes and moral told them that the Town would be well served to fill the current vacancies and to look specifically at the compensation pattern for police officers to stop the flow in and out of the organization and make them long-term employees.
Mr. Murray said the other area looked at was the EMS/First Responder strategy within the Fire Department, with the question being did that voluntary service have any negative impact on your fire service. He said they had found that it did not, and recommended that the service continue.
In conclusion, Mr. Murray said they had found the Town to be a well-run organization, that staffing patterns indicated it was basically at minimum staffing for the volume of work load in many areas, but the employees were getting it done. He said they offered their compliments to the Town and all of its employees. Mr. Murray said they also offered compliments to the Budget Review Advisory Committee for the time and effort they had put forth and the challenging questions put to them during the course of the project, adding believed it was beneficial in helping to develop these recommendations.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked Mr. Murray for their work with the Council, the Committee and the staff. She said she appreciated Mr. Murray confirming what the Council had already known about the employees and the standards in Chapel Hill, adding they had always believed the Town was well run and that the administration manages the Town at a high level. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she was pleased Mr. Murray had confirmed it using their analyses and techniques.
6b. Presentation by the Budget Review Advisory Committee Subcommittee.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she wanted to say, once again, how much the Council appreciated those citizens who had decided that Council members being on the Budget Review Advisory Committee did not serve the purpose well. She said the Mayor was chairing the group composed of the entire Council and the volunteer citizens, and the citizens had decided they could do a better job without Council members, noting the Council members would be making recommendations to themselves. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that was why the report tonight was coming from “a subcommittee” of the Committee, with no report coming from the Committee itself.
Mr. Gene Pease, Chair of the Budget Review Advisory Subcommittee, noted its members were Julie Brenman, Joe Capowski, Mac Clarke, Aaron Nelson, Jill Ridky-Blackburn, and Alan Rimer. He said that after working with the Council during early morning meetings and then seeing them at night during Council meetings, he had an appreciation of the long hours they put in on behalf of the Town. Mr. Pease said on behalf of the citizens, he thanked the Council for the work it did. He also thanked Town staff, noting they only had about nine weeks to understand a complicated process and budget system. Mr. Pease said they had made a lot of demands on Town staff and they were “incredibly responsive” in a short time frame. In particular, he thanked Town Manager Cal Horton and Finance Director Kay Johnson for answering a lot of “dumb” questions and for their sense of humor throughout the process.
Mr. Pease noted that their recommendations were based on the base budget presented at the March 23 public hearing, stating that he knew some of those numbers had now changed. He said their recommendations were in two groups, the first being ideas for savings and/or revenue increases which would be positive effects to the budget, and second some recommendations on what citizens feel should be investments or costs to the budget. Mr. Pease said he would give the Council Committee recommendations, noting in order to for it to be recommended it had to receive a unanimous vote from the seven members. He noted that the “vast” majority of recommendations did receive a unanimous vote, and those few that did not were added to the report.
Mr. Pease said we were facing a tough fiscal environment next year, and believe we must keep the tax increase as low as possible. He noted their goals were:
· maintain the current level of service to citizens,
· maintain the Town’s AAA bond rating,
· increase revenues,
· decrease costs,
· minimize the 2005/2006 tax increase, and
· maximize under-utilized assets.
Mr. Pease said they were asked to look at the MAXIMUS report, and made the following comparison:
Analysis of the MAXIMUS Report
Issue I Solid Waste Disagree
Issue 2 Fee Adjustments Generally Agree
Issue 3 Building Maintenance Merger Agree
Issue 4 Fleet Management Agree
Issue 2 Total Savings $240,000
Issue 3 – 4 Total Savings $251,000
Issue 5 Coordination of Activities Agree
Issue 6 Multiple Pay Cycles Agree
Issue 7 Customer Service Generally Agree
Issue 8 Information Systems Agree
Issue 9 Police Strength Generally Agree
Issue 10 Fire EMS Response No Recommendation
No Financial Impact
Mr. Pease said they generally believed that Issues 5 through 9 would have a positive impact on the budget, but neither the subcommittee nor MAXIMUS could come up with any calculations.
For recommendations in the General Fund, Mr. Pease said they disagreed with the MAXIMUS recommendation to eliminate commercial dumpster trash collection for four reasons: Town cleanliness, the landfill agreement, the Town’s commitment to recycling, and the potential tip fee increases. He added that the Subcommittee believed that all citizens should pay equally, and that the existing commercial fee schedule should be applied equally. Mr. Pease said they believe their recommendation would increase revenue from $130,000 to $190,000, but would use $160,000 for calculations.
Mr. Pease said their recommendation regarding yard waste was that the Town continue the weekly collections beginning in October through December 15, and February 15 through April when the foliage is the thickest, but cut back to bi-weekly collections for the balance of the year. He said they believe there was an opportunity to increase pick-up charges for special collections, and that collection rules should be more strictly enforced. Mr. Pease said they estimated savings in this area of up to $230,000
In the Police Department, he said the Subcommittee concurred with all of the Manager’s recommendations:
Fill open positions in base budget
Focus on retention $ 61,700
Increase base salaries 3% 200,000
Add four officers for the downtown 271,000
Additional cost: $532,700
Mr. Pease said the $532,700 had a negative impact on the budget, but the Subcommittee believed it was a necessary cost.
In the Fire Department, Mr. Pease said the Subcommittee felt strongly that a request be made to the Legislature for an increased contribution for the fire protection of State buildings. He noted they believed that false alarms should be analyzed and a fee attached to them, and supported the Fire Chief’s request for the additional positions. Mr. Pease said they estimated this would cost approximately $289,450.
Regarding salaries and benefits, Mr. Pease said the Subcommittee made the following recommendations, noting that this recommendation excluded the Police Department:
Base salaries – increase base salaries by 1.5% ($250,000)
Employee benefits – maintain medical costs at base budget level
(not increased by the 15% estimated by the Town) 440,000
Lapsed salaries – reduce salary budget by 3% lapsed salaries 700,000
Total Savings: $890,000
Mr. Pease noted that the Subcommittee recommended that the Fund Balance be reduced to 11 percent for a savings of $549,000. He noted that the information they had received from the Finance Department showed Fund Balance at 11.4 percent currently.
Mr. Pease stated they had taken a “hard look” at the following departments, separate from Police, Fire and Solid Waste, noting they had looked at services delivered, size of the department, and grants and fees generated. He said they had asked themselves when looking at the budget for these departments, could they reduce costs or increase fees by a reasonable percent and recommend that as a goal for those departments. Mr. Pease said in some cases they had used 3 percent, but for some a figure as high as 10 percent if there was real opportunity to modify their fee structure and grants. He said the recommendation was that these departments increase fees, grants and/or reduce expenses to equal a base budget savings of:
Parks and Recreation $232,000
Library 140,000
Planning 145,000
Inspections 50,000
Engineering 45,000
Public Works (less solid waste) 360,000
Total Savings: $972,000
Mr. Pease said that contributions to agencies was probably the most controversial the Subcommittee had discussed. He said that some of the members wondered “quite frankly” why the Town was in the business of contributions to these agencies when these same agencies come to citizens individually as taxpayers in the Town. Mr. Pease said they were making two recommendations, the first being that every group with the exception of the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission and the economic development agencies be placed under the umbrella of the Human Services Advisory Board. He said that these agencies would receive funding directly through that Board, so there would be no line items in the budget for individual agencies. Mr. Pease said they also recommend that the budget for the Human Services Advisory Board be reduced by $250,000 to a total of $167,700.
Mr. Pease stated they had determined that if departments were asked to cut a minimum of 3 percent from their budgets, then the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission should be asked to do the same. He said that would generate a savings in contributions to the Arts Commission of $12,500. Mr. Pease said the Subcommittee felt that if the Arts Commission had to have the $12,500 to operate, then it should come from private donations. Mr. Pease stated the Subcommittee felt strongly about economic development and those initiatives to ultimately build the tax base, so had recommended no changes in that area.
Mr. Pease said if you take all of those recommendations, the result was:
MAXIMUS report findings $ 251,000
Dumpster/yard waste collections 390,000
Police and Fire Departments (822,150)
Employee salaries/benefits/open positions 890,000
Department increased fees/reductions 972,000
Contributions to agencies 180,200
Process consultant (150,000)
Fund balance reduction to 11 percent 549,000
Total Savings $2,260,050
Mr. Pease said if you looked at the numbers the Subcommittee was given on March 23, the result was:
Estimated revenue plus fund balance $43,918,000
Base Budget $44,200,500
Plus priority options $47,153,100
Plus other options $47,949,100
Difference ($282,000) ($2,945,850 ($3,741,850)
Mr. Pease said the Subcommittee recommendations add up to a potential savings of $2,250,050, with no potential tax increase. He said their numbers were not “back of the envelope” figures, and had spent a lot of time on these recommendations. Mr. Pease said he believed that if their recommendations were followed the Council would have a minimal tax increase or no tax increase in the General Fund.
In the Transportation Fund, Mr. Pease noted they had used the same methodology, and their recommendations were as follows:
Base salaries: increase base salaries by 1.5 percent ($100,000)
Employee benefits: maintain medical costs at base budget level 140,500
Lapsed salaries: reduce salary by 3 percent lapsed salaries 195,000
Total Savings $ 235,500
Federal Fund rebate: postpone investments – rebate funds $130,000
Revenue opportunities: advertising; adopt a bus shelter (est.) 75,000
Total Increase $205,000
Estimated Revenue all sources: $12,076,880
Base Budget 12,076,880
Plus Priority Options $12,471,910
Difference ($395,030)
Mr. Pease said the Subcommittee’s recommendations resulted in a savings of up to $440,500, with the potential of no tax increase.
Regarding other recommendations, Mr. Pease said the Subcommittee believed it was important for the Council to reconsider the 1 percent for public art contribution on public buildings, noting that $420,000 for public art at the Town Operations Center was excessive for this “obscure” location. Mr. Pease said nearly half of the Subcommittee members felt strongly that this figure should be no higher than $100,000.
Mr. Pease said regarding under-utilized Town assets, the Subcommittee had two recommendations. The first was that the tenants currently occupying the Post Office, the IFC Shelter, and the Old Library should be paying market rates or close to market rate rents, so that at a minimum the buildings subsidized themselves. Secondly, Mr. Pease stated the Subcommittee recommended that the Town sell the Old Library and move the Chapel Hill Museum to the first floor of the Post office, and move the current tenants downstairs. He stated that would result in the museum being in the downtown in a “great historic building.”
Mr. Pease said the consensus was that the Old Library would be ideal office space and the Town would have a good probability of selling it as such. He commented that if you used the $2.7 million which was the market value that was “guestimated” and took the $400,000 estimated to relocate the post office and perform remodeling, you would net approximately $2.3 million. Mr. Pease said the Subcommittee recommended not using those proceeds in the General Fund, but it use it to pay down the debt and increase fund reserves for some other long term initiatives.
Mr. Pease said there were other four areas they felt were important enough to highlight, although they had run out of time to offer the Council firm recommendations on them:
· Commercial tax generation – develop a plan for increasing commercial property tax revenues and sales tax revenue as a means of offsetting the growing tax burden on residential property; develop an affirmative strategy with respect to economic development should be a high priority.
· Bond schedules – no new voter-approved bonds be sold in the remainder of this year and none be sold in the 2005-2006 fiscal year.
· Employee compensation – there should be an outside employee compensation study conducted, and such a study should be conducted every two to three years. He said that although the study conducted internally by the Town was comprehensive and well-done, it was their experience that such studies tended to be biased and made certain assumptions.
· Incentive-based management system – although this was not the current philosophy of the Council or the management, the Subcommittee believed that there should be such a system implemented. He noted this system was used by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System and worked “quite well,” and could be used as a model for the Town. Mr. Pease said they were “surprised” that the Town did not use such a system, and recommended that it be instituted sooner rather than later.
Mr. Pease said the Subcommittee recommended that an outside consultant be hired this summer and be charged with review of the following:
· Review and compare to other comparable towns in the region the Town’s employee costs, benefits, and grade level, and well as the overall employee review process.
· Analyze and recommend an incentive based compensation plan for the Town Manager and senior management, modeled after the Chapel Hill-Carrboro School System’s program.
· Review the annual budget process and recommend a methodology to streamline the process and simplify the presentation materials.
Mr. Pease said the estimated cost was $150,000. He said the work should being this June and be completed in August, so the Council could consider adoption in September for implementation in October.
Mr. Pease said there were three other areas they were interested in, but ran out of time to discuss and generate formal recommendations. We include them, he said, as issued that individual member of the Subcommittee would like to encourage the Council to consider:
· Capital improvements – at least one member would like for the Council to consider the priority and importance of scheduled capital improvements and consider which can and/or should be delayed.
· Human Services Advisory Board – at least one member would like increased public scrutiny of the criteria and review process for that Board.
· Social responsibility – at least one member would like the Council to have additional discussion and make a decision with respect to Orange County v. Chapel Hill social responsibilities. Examples include the Public Library, senior funding, the Homeless Shelter, the Community Kitchen, and non-profit funding.
In conclusion, Mr. Pease noted the Subcommittee’s total budget recommendations:
Increase revenue/decrease costs $4,022,700
Increase costs ($1,322,150)
One-time revenue $2,300,000
Council Member Verkerk thanked the Subcommittee for its service. She said they had accepted an incredibly complicated project and were able to present it to the Council in a comprehensive way. She said with the suggested reduction in the fund balance to 11%, what was the discussion surrounding that, such as why it was a good idea or a bad idea. Mr. Pease replied they had discussed that with the Town Manager and the Finance Director, and the answer that they were consistently given was 10 percent to 12 percent, so the split the difference. He said that if the Council followed their recommendation and did not sell any additional bonds this year or the next, then letting fund balance drop to 11 percent should not affect the bond rating. Mr. Pease said that was one reason they had suggested selling an asset, the Old Library, and putting those proceeds into fund balance which would raise the percentage considerably in a short period of time.
Council Member Verkerk said regarding bus shelters and bus advertising, was it their recommendation to allow advertising on the exterior of bus shelters. Mr. Pease responded that was an idea that was “floated” several years ago and continued to be suggested, although advertising was already placed on the interior.
Council Member Verkerk said she understood that during the NCAA finals, the cash registers in Town were “going crazy.” She said she assumed that would result in additional sales tax revenue for the Town, and asked if the Subcommittee considered that during their discussions. Mr. Pease responded that did not come up, noting there were a lot of “moving target” numbers. He said there was a point that if they were to complete their work on time and present the report to the Council they had to take the numbers they had, which were from the Council’s March 23 meeting.
Council Member Strom said regarding the request for firefighters, was the Subcommittee’s recommendation that the Town fill the 18 firefighter positions requested by the Fire Department. Mr. Pease said they were endorsing the Manager’s recommendation that six new positions be added, with $20,000 included for equipment.
Council Member Strom said the Subcommittee had done a comprehensive job and produced a remarkably useful tool for the Council to use. He said he was pleased that Alan Rimer had served on the Subcommittee and that charging market rents for Town buildings had received a unanimous vote. Council Member Strom said that Mr. Rimer had appeared before the Council in the past in support of the Chapel Hill Museum Board, and agreed that was the direction the Council should head in.
Council Member Strom noted he disagreed with the recommendation regarding contributions to human service agencies, adding the Town’s support of non-profits makes this a much better community to live in.
Council Member Strom said he did not want citizens to “get the wrong idea” regarding public art at the Town Operations Center. He stated we were not spending $400,000 of General Fund money on that public art. Council Member Strom said that Chapel Hill had enacted the first public arts ordinance in the State, we had look to using public art as a way to bind the community together, and also create a national reputation for the Town. He noted that Larry Kirkland was an internationally famous artist, and we were lucky to have him working on the Town Operations Center project.
Council Member Strom said to put it in perspective, because that public art is bondable and part of the federal grant process for the new facility, it will cost about $10 a year for a $300,000 house in Chapel Hill to support that public art. He said it would be bonded and paid for over a 20-year cycle. Council Member Strom said he believed that was the wrong target, and he was dedicated to continuing to focus on public art. Mr. Pease clarified that the Subcommittee understood the financing of the public art, and the Subcommittee felt it was important to at least mention it. Council Member Strom said there had been a lot of public comment recently regarding public art, and he did not want the $400,000 to be misinterpreted.
Council Member Harrison thanked the Subcommittee, noting it was “amazing” how well it had been pulled together. He also thanked them for their attention to community values, stating one example of where they had done that well was pointing out the important variables on solid waste such as community cleanliness and the Town’s commitment to recycling. Council Member Harrison said he did not have an opinion on the recommendation as yet, because it would take in some single-family homes. Council Member Harrison said all of the recommendations regarding solid waste were rational and would be considered.
Council Member Harrison asked what Ms. Brenman’s position was on the recommendation regarding fund balance, noting she was not present tonight. Mr. Pease responded that Ms. Brenman was a finance director for another town, and she “strenuously disagreed” with reducing the fund balance. He stated it went against her basic beliefs, and she supported keeping the fund balance at 12 percent.
Council Member Harrison said regarding community values the Subcommittee was recommending additional expenditures for Police and Fire, and he believed that was the way the community and the Council saw this as well. He said that citizens have expressed similar views, and again that was a rationale recommendation in line with community values. Council member Harrison asked was he correct in assuming that the $972,000 that departments were supposed to find in savings or increased fees was to be done apart from what any consultant does. Mr. Pease replied no, that they had included MAXIMUS’ numbers with their numbers. Council Member Harrison said he was referring to the future consultant that was recommended. Mr. Pease responded he believed that Town management knew better where fees could be increased and where more efficiency could be achieved. He said they had looked at the fee structure for every department and they believed that 80 percent to 100 percent of that $972,000 could be made up in fee and grant increases. Mr. Pease said that MAXIMUS’s number of $250,000 was included in their $972,000 figure, so was not double-counted.
Council Member Harrison asked if any advisory boards had weighed in on that. Mr. Pease said he had personally heard from several members of different advisory boards, and all had stated if the decision was to raise fees, then they believed it could be done. Mr. Pease said as an example, if you were a basketball coach in the Parks and Recreation Department and you had four children, your four children could play for free on four different teams. So the question was why not allow only one child to play for free and the other three pay the fee, which is what other families have to do. Mr. Pease said that was what they felt was a reasonable assumption. Council Member Harrison asked if the Subcommittee expected that that recommendation would be instituted during the coming budget cycle. Mr. Pease replied “absolutely.” He said you may not capture it for the full 12 months, but they believed it was possible.
Council Member Harrison thanked the Subcommittee for highlighting the category called “social responsibility” with respect to Orange County and Chapel Hill social responsibilities. He said he was glad the Town took on a lot of those issues, noting he did not see other towns doing the same.
Council Member Kleinschmidt echoed his thanks to the Subcommittee, and agreed with Council Member Strom’s remarks regarding the Percent for Art and the human services funding. He said that although he agreed with Council Member Harrison that the Subcommittee had make a rational distinction on the issue of solid waste collection, he wondered what consideration if any was given to multi-family homeowners. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked why encompass that entire class of homeownership. Mr. Pease said there were few single family homes in the category, there were some condominiums but not many, some apartments, and some commercial buildings and non-profits. He said multi-family homes were the largest number, but you could carve out any of those from the category and make the same argument. Mr. Pease said the Subcommittee believed the Council might ultimately carve out the single-family and condominiums, but they felt strongly that apartments should be paying for service because they were for-profit. He added that they had run out of time to study this issue and decided to make a recommendation based on what they had reviewed at the time.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said it seemed implicit in the recommendations that single-family homes should not pay for solid waste collection, and asked if they had considered the possibility that all homeowners, regardless of the type of housing, should pay. Mr. Pease said they had felt stronger about apartments and for-profits, although they recognized there were other issues related to that. He said they had discussed having everyone pay, adding if more creative ways could be found to balance the budget without charging every homeowner, then that could be considered. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that sounded like charging just some residential owners, not all.
Council Member Greene echoed her thanks to the Subcommittee for its work. She asked how the Subcommittee had come up with its number for increasing Library fees. Mr. Pease said the Library was one category where there was not as much of an opportunity to raise fees as it was, for instance, in the Parks and Recreation Department. He said they had targeted the Library at 3 percent, adding that most of it would likely come from more efficiency rather than an increase in fees. Council Member Greene said, then, it was just a rough guess and a hope. Mr. Pease responded that was not correct, that there was a strong rationale behind their recommendation. He stated that he had been involved in some well-run businesses, and when you went to the managers and asked that the budget be cut by 3 percent by delaying a hire or monitoring expenditures, they were able to do so. Mr. Pease said he did not think it was unreasonable, adding there was a lot of thought put into the rationale.
Council Member Greene said she must have misunderstood the recommendation, saying she thought the 3 percent would come from an increase in fees. Mr. Pease responded that the recommendation was that it come from fees, grants, and/or a reduction of expenditures.
Council Member Greene said she wanted to underscore what Council Member Strom had said regarding the Percent for Art, saying she believed it had strong value in this community and the Council should continue to support it. She said on the human services issues, she agreed with what both Council Member Strom and Kleinschmidt had said, adding that she believed she reflected the value that the Council should continue to support “safety net” type issues. Council Member Greene said the Subcommittee’s recommendation stated that the Human Services Advisory Board should have “greater public scrutiny.” She asked where that had come from, noting the Board members were citizens appointed by the Council to make responsible decisions. Council Member Greene asked did other boards need closer scrutiny. Mr. Pease replied there was a concern about the rationale behind the decision-making process, and how the Board determine the amount of money that each agency received.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked did that recommendation come after they had looked at what the Human Services Advisory Board does, or was it in absence of what process they go through. Mr. Pease responded it was in absence of the process they go through, noting some Subcommittee members had questioned the amounts of money being distributed and how it was determined who got what. He added that the word “scrutiny” was a negative word and it was not intended to be, but said the recommendation was prompted by a lack of understanding of the decision-making process.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if the Council felt confident about the process used, would that make the Subcommittee more confident about it. Jill Ridky-Blackburn responded that most of the Subcommittee members were not aware that the Town was supporting non-profits. She said they were aware of the Homeless Shelter and the Women’s Center, but were not aware of the others on the list, including an academic department on the UNC campus. Ms. Ridky-Blackburn said they were not against non-profits or public art, but wondered what the rationale was for all of these organizations to receive support from the Town and who determined what level. She said it was a substantial amount of money, and they had wondered what the “industry standard” might be in other communities. Ms. Ridky-Blackburn said they had also asked that when you are contributing to some many organizations, at what point do you begin to “dilute” the impact of those donations.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed it was important to ask the question, because it may be an implication that there was no process. He said there was a process that the Council was very familiar with it. Mr. Aaron Nelson stated that the Subcommittee recognized that there was a process, but their recommendation was that it undergo a more public vetting. He stated that currently there were a couple of organizations, notably Orange Community Housing and Land Trust and the Senior Center, that were not a part of that process. Mr. Nelson said their recommendation was that all agencies go through that process with the exception of the Public Arts Commission and the Downtown Economic Development Corporation.
Council Member Ward thanked the Subcommittee for its hard work, and hoped they would feel satisfied with the impact they had had on the process. He said he looked forward to hearing from the Town Manager regarding the savings from lapsed salary, noting that $600,000 was a penny on the tax rate that could be, at least superficially, painless. Council Member Ward stated he was interested in the Manager’s reaction to our ability to operate on an annual basis without that cushion, which had come in handy many times. Mr. Pease said that recommendation came out of work Ms. Brenman had performed in the past.
Council Member Ward said he would “push back” on the recommendations on funding for public art and for human services, as well as delaying the bond sales. He said it was a two-way sword since bond sales had tax implications, but those monies would provide various capital improvements that this community had overwhelmingly supported for many years at multiple times. Council Member Ward said that greater than the concern about taxes was the frustration about not having these facilities that they voted for two, five, or even seven years ago that we were not making much progress on. Mr. Pease said they would disagree with that based on the feedback they had received from citizens. He said the feeling of the Subcommittee as well as citizens they had heard from was if it was between funding significant tax increases or paying for the bond, the feeling was don’t increase taxes and delay the bonds for one or two years.
Council Member Ward said what would be different in two years, asking what would two years give us. Mr. Pease said if the Town sold one of its assets and increased fund balance, it would be in a better financial position and would have double the fund reserves it had today. Council Member Ward said that interest rates go up and it was not a static target. Mr. Pease noted that interest rates go down as well. Council Member Ward said if one projected a year from now, it was likely that interest rates and building costs would be higher. Mr. Pease noted that citizens would have to absorb any increases in taxes, and they were felt that minimizing increases this year was a strong objective.
Council Member Ward said he looked forward to the Manager’s reaction to the Subcommittee’s recommendation regarding what he called “yard compost” rather than yard waste. He said it seemed like the Subcommittee was recommending a collection pattern that remained throughout the year, on a weekly basis during the fall and bi-weekly thereafter. Council Member Ward said that would not produce much savings because you have to have the same equipment and personnel regardless if you do it once a week of bi-weekly. Alan Rimer said that the experience of other communities showed that it did result in a savings if you cross-trained the employees who were doing it bi-weekly in the summer months. He said the reality was that when we went to containerized collection, we were suppose to see a substantive decrease in the Public Works budget as a result of that, and that should be evaluated. Mr. Rimer said in the case of yard waste collection, it had been demonstrated in other communities that during peak seasons weekly collection would maintain the spirit of what we like in our community, which was clean curbs and streets. He said the remainder of the time, such as the summertime, those employees could perform other work such as mowing lawns.
Mr. Rimer said he was the lone dissenter on the fees issue, stating he strongly supported the concept of looking at how we can save money in each of the departments and there was clearly money that could be saved. He stated he believed the staff had demonstrated that in the past when called upon. Mr. Rimer said that personally, he did not think that staff was in a position to accumulate the data and recommend rationally with their advisory boards adequate fees for the services that are rendered. He commented that was something that needed to be compared with other communities who provided similar services. Mr. Rimer said that was the only part of the recommendation that he had opposed, noting he had advocated for conducting a fee analysis.
Mr. Rimer said they had been told at a Subcommittee meeting when the Council was present that there was nothing that would stop them from doing something later in the year. He said the Council needed to advocate for savings now, and could lump everything together as a savings amount and put it into the budget, then make a ball park estimate. Mr. Rimer said if MAXIMUS was estimating $280,000 in potential fee increases then take half of that, and put $140,000 as a potential income increase into the budget, get the study done, then this fall enact the fee increases. He said at that point, you’ve got the savings which you can identify now, you’ve got professional input plus the Subcommittee and advisory board input, and you’ve got a placeholder in the budget.
Council Member Ward again thanked the Subcommittee, asking that they take his comments as continuing the conversation and not as criticism of the recommendations.
Council Member Hill echoed his thanks, noting the Subcommittee had helped make the budget process a lot more understandable for him, and he felt a lot more on top of it this year. He said he hoped this process could continue, possibly making it an annual event. Mr. Pease said if it were done on a less compressed schedule, it would not be so stressful for the Subcommittee or the staff. Council Member Hill said it was helpful to have another set of eyes looking at the same set of numbers, and appreciated the recommendations regardless of whether they were embraced or not.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed the Subcommittee knew how much the Council thanked them for their hard work and how much it was appreciated the recommendations. She said the Manager and his staff would receive them and the Council looked forward to his response. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said individual Council members had noted what they agreed or disagreed with, and she would mention one she agreed with.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she was concerned after a reading some newspaper articles that the Subcommittee was moving towards recommending a freeze on salaries for employees. She said she had been anxious to read the Subcommittee’s report, and was excited and pleased to see that they recognized the importance of our Town employees and that their first recommendation was an increase in compensation for employees. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she appreciated that very much.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins commented that regarding the suggestions for an incentive-based management program for our managers and comparing the Town with the School System, she believed that Neil Pederson [Superintendent of Schools] and his high-level administrators all had some “really top-notch” employment contracts. She asked if the Subcommittee’s recommendation meant that they would like the Council to consider instituting employment contracts for our top-level administrators. Mr. Pease said they had not addressed that issue. He said their point was that whether you were hired at-will or under contract, you could have incentive-based agreements written into either a letter of agreement or a contract. Mr. Pease said an incentive-based program did not have to be tied into a contract.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said Mr. Pease was correct that an incentive-based program did not have to be tied into a contract, but they had compared it to the School System and they do have contracts for their top-level administrators. She said she had eight years of experience on the School Board, and she knew how that came into play during evaluation and compensation time. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she had evaluated superintendents, and that contract and the goals and objectives all came into play. She said she considered that a great benefit, noting our top-level administrators don’t have that. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said if the Council moved in that direction, she hoped they would consider a contract.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the Council had spent some time on this item, but it was very important to them. She again thanked Mr. Murray and the Subcommittee, noting all of the recommendations would go to the Manager and hopefully the Council will see many of their suggestions reflected in his recommendations. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said if they were not reflected, he would have an explanation that we could all understand.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said it was time to move on with the agenda. She said she had been asked if the Council would agree to delaying consideration of item #12, Proposal to Participate in Carbon Reduction Project Program from the Sustainability, Energy, and Environment Committee, because the sponsors of this item would like the Council to be fresher and more energetic in its thinking when it was discussed. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the issue was not time-sensitive, so without objection that item would be removed from tonight’s agenda.
THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO REMOVE ITEM 12 FROM THE AGENDA.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked the Manager if considering the late hour, where there any other agenda items that he believed could be moved to another meeting. Mr. Horton stated he believed item #11, Recommended 2005 Downtown Improvement Projects, could be delayed without harm.
THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO REMOVE ITEM 11 FROM THE AGENDA.
Item 7 – Consideration of Annexation Matters
7a. Plans for Extending Services to Proposed Annexation Areas.
Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland noted this was a three-part item concerning the proposed annexation of Vineyard Square and Larkspur areas. He presented a brief overview of the items. Mr. Sutherland noted the Manager’s recommendation was that the Council adopt the two resolutions amending the approved service plans for each annexation area, labeled Area 1 and Area 1.
For parts b and c of the item, Mr. Sutherland noted the Manager’s recommendation was that the Council adopt and annexation ordination for Area 1 as well as for Area 2.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-5. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE REPORT WITH PLANS FOR EXTENDING MAJOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO THE VINEYARD SQUARE ANNEXATION AREA IN ACCORD WITH G.S. 160A-49 (2005-04-11/R-5)
WHEREAS, the Town Council adopted an Annexation report with plans for extending municipal services to the Vineyard Square Annexation Area in accord with G.S. 160A-47 on January 24, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the Town Manager’s report of April 11, 2005, recommending corrections to the Annexation Report;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council amends the Annexation Report of January 24, 2005, as set out in Attachment 1 of the Town Manager’s report of April 11, 2005.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-6. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE REPORT WITH PLANS FOR EXTENDING MAJOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO THE LARKSPUR ANNEXATION AREA IN ACCORD WITH G.S. 160A-49 (2005-04-11/R-6)
WHEREAS, the Town Council adopted an Annexation report with plans for extending municipal services to the Larkspur Annexation Area in accord with G.S. 160A-47 on January 24, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has reviewed the Town Manager’s report of April 11, 2005, recommending corrections to the Annexation Report;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council amends the Annexation Report of January 24, 2005, as set out in Attachment 2 of the Town Manager’s report of April 11, 2005.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
7b. Area 1 – Vineyard Square Area Annexation Ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STORM, TO ENACT O-3 REGARDING ANNEXATION AREA 1. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
AN ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY PART 3, ARTICLE 4A, CHAPTER 160A OF THE GENERAL STATUTES OF NORTH CAROLINA (2005-04-11/O-3)
WHEREAS, all of the prerequisites to adoption of this ordinance prescribed in Part 3, Article 4A, Chapter 160A of the General Statutes of North Carolina, have been met; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has taken into full consideration the statements presented at the public hearing held on the 21st day of March, 2005, on the question of this annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has concluded and hereby declares that annexation of the area described herein is necessary to the orderly growth and development of the Town of Chapel Hill;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
SECTION I
From and after 11:59 p.m. on the 30th day of June, 2005, the effective date of this annexation, the following territory shall be annexed to and become a part of the Town of Chapel Hill, and the corporate limits of the Town of Chapel Hill shall on said 30th day of June, 2005, be extended to include said territory more particularly described as follows:
Vineyard Square Area. The Vineyard Square multi-family residential development, abutting properties with frontage on Homestead Road and the abutting right-of-way of the State University Railroad spur of the Norfolk Southern Corporation located in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. The boundaries of the area under consideration for annexation are shown on the attached Map 1, incorporated as a part of this Resolution. This area is further described as:
All that certain tract or parcel of land lying, situated and being in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the existing Chapel Hill Corporate Limit Line and on the northern right-of-way of Homestead Road, said point also being on the western right-of-way of the Southern Railroad. Thence from said point of beginning and with a new line along the western right-of-way limits of Southern Railroad in a northeasterly direction and curving to the right, said curve having a radius of 2990.69’ (See P.B. 91, Pg. 121) and an arc distance of 487.91’ a chord bearing of N 16°57’51” E 487.37’ to a point; thence continuing with the western right-of-way of the aforementioned Southern Railroad right-of-way limits N 21°38’16” E 1098.45’ to a point on the existing Chapel Hill Corporate Limit Line; thence leaving said railroad right-of-way limits and with the existing Corporate Limits Line the following calls; thence S 89°15’46” E crossing said railroad right-of-way and being the common line with Parkside II Subdivision (See P.B. 88, Pg. 95) 1,352.65’ to a point on the N/F Town of Chapel Hill property (See D.B. 1,567, Pg. 34) and labeled control corner on aforementioned plat 91, Pg. 121. Thence with the common line of the Town of Chapel Hill Property S 31°33’16” E 455.24’ to a point; thence continuing with the existing Corporate Limit Line S 27°33’03” W 659.10’ (See P.B. 91, Pg. 121) to a point, thence S 27°38’37” W 368.80’ to a point on the northeastern most corner of the N/F Linker property (See D.B. 909, Pg. 529), thence N 86°33’14” W 176.94’ to the northwestern most corner of the aforementioned Linker property, thence S 04°18’15” W with the Linker property westernmost line 275.23’ to the northern right-of-way of Homestead Road. Thence with the northern right-of-way of Homestead Road and also being the existing corporate limits line N 86°49’25” W 1,490.40’ to the point and place of the beginning and being all of Tract 1 and Tract 2 (P.B. 91, Pg. 121), inclusive of all of the right-of-way west of the centerline of the Southern Railway as depicted in aforementioned plat, and all of the property N/F owned by the Aldon Management Group as depicted on said plat.
SECTION II
The Council of the Town of Chapel Hill does hereby specifically find and declare that the above described territory meets the requirements of G.S. 160A-48, in that:
1. The area is contiguous to the Town limits.
2. Over one-eighth (12.5%) of the aggregate external boundary of the area under consideration coincides with the existing Town limits. As noted above, 75% of the annexation area boundary is contiguous with the present Town primary corporate limits.
3. None of the area is within the boundary of an incorporated municipality.
4. Recorded property lines and streets have been used in fixing the proposed municipal boundaries resulting from this annexation.
5. The annexation area is composed of one area which meets the statutory requirements for urbanization in G.S. 160A-48(c)(1) in that:
The area has a total resident population equal to at least 2.3 persons for each acre of land included within its boundaries, demonstrated as follows:
The number of dwelling units (107), multiplied by the average household size in the Chapel Hill Township according to the latest decennial census (2.3) gives the estimated total resident population (246), which, divided by the total number of acres (44.4 acres, excluding street rights-of-way), yields 5.5 persons per acre.
SECTION III
It is the purpose and intent of the Town of Chapel Hill to provide services to the area being annexed under this ordinance, as set forth in the report of plans for services revised and approved by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill on the 11th day of April, 2005, and filed in the office of the Clerk for public inspection.
Such services will include:
1. Refuse collection as described in said report.
2. Maintenance and repair of any publicly-maintained streets or streets that are built or improved to Town of Chapel Hill standards for acceptance into the Town-maintained street system, and other street maintenance services as described in the report.
3. Police protection including periodic patrols, crime prevention investigation of crimes, enforcement of ordinances and statutes and other police services as described in the report.
4. Fire protection, including suppression, preventive inspections, and code enforcement as described in the report.
5. Extension of water and sewer lines under financing policies of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and the Town of Chapel Hill, as described in the report.
6. Parks and recreation, library, housing and construction code enforcement, zoning and planning, public transportation and other services as described more fully in the report.
SECTION IV
The Council of the Town of Chapel Hill does hereby specifically find and declare that public water trunk lines and sewer outfall lines are already extended into the annexation area, and no requests for water and sewer extensions in the annexation area have been received under G.S. 160A-47, so that no additional extensions of water or sewer extensions will be necessary under G.S. 160A-47 on the effective date of annexation prescribed in Section I above. Property owners may have public water and sewer lines extended within the annexation area in accord with extension and financing policies of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and the Town of Chapel Hill.
SECTION V
From and after the effective date of this annexation, the territory annexed and its citizens and property shall be subject to all debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in the Town of Chapel Hill, and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of the Town of Chapel Hill.
SECTION VI
The newly annexed territory described hereinabove shall be subject to the Town of Chapel Hill taxes according to G.S. 160A-58.10.
SECTION VII
The Mayor of the Town of Chapel Hill shall cause an accurate map of the annexed territory described in Section I hereof, together with a duly certified copy of this ordinance, to be recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County, and in the Office of the Secretary of State in Raleigh. Such a map shall also be delivered to the Orange County Board of Elections as required by G.S. 163-288.1.
This is the 11th day of April, 2005.
7c. Area 2 – Larkspur Area Annexation Ordinance.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ENACT O-4 REGARDING ANNEXATION AREA 2. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
AN ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL, UNDER THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY PART 3, ARTICLE 4A, CHAPTER 160A OF THE GENERAL STATUTES OF NORTH CAROLINA (2005-04-11/O-4)
WHEREAS, all of the prerequisites to adoption of this ordinance prescribed in Part 3, Article 4A, Chapter 160A of the General Statutes of North Carolina, have been met; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has taken into full consideration the statements presented at the public hearing held on the 21st day of March, 2005, on the question of this annexation; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill has concluded and hereby declares that annexation of the area described herein is necessary to the orderly growth and development of the Town of Chapel Hill;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
SECTION I
From and after 11:59 p.m. on the 30th day of June, 2005, the effective date of this annexation, the following territory shall be annexed to and become a part of the Town of Chapel Hill, and the corporate limits of the Town of Chapel Hill shall on said 30th day of June, 2005, be extended to include said territory more particularly described as follows:
Larkspur Area. The Larkspur single family residential subdivision phases I and II located in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina. The boundaries of the area under consideration for annexation are shown on the attached Map 1, incorporated as a part of this Resolution. This area is further described as:
All that certain tract or parcel of land lying, situated and being in Chapel Hill Township, Orange County, North Carolina, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the existing Chapel Hill Corporate Limit Line, said point also being on the eastern right-of-way limits of the Southern Railroad and labeled Control Corner on Plat 91, Pgs. 101,131. Thence from said point of beginning and continuing with a new Chapel Hill Corporate Limit Line along the eastern right-of-way limits of the Southern Railroad and curving to the left in a northwesterly direction, said curve having a radius of 988.90’ (See P.B. 91, Pg. 131) and an arc distance of approximately 123.62’, with a chord bearing of N 03°32’53” W and distance of approximately 123.54’, to a point. Thence continuing with the eastern right-of-way of the aforementioned Southern Railroad the following calls: curving to the left in a northwesterly direction, said curve having a radius of 988.90’ and an arc distance of approximately 10.79’, with a chord bearing of N 07°26’30” W and distance of approximately 10.79’, to a point. Thence curving to the left in a northwesterly direction, said curve having a radius of 4,548.31’ and an arc distance of approximately 165.82, with a chord bearing of N 08°47’55” W and distance of approximately 165.81’, to a point. Thence curving to the left in a northwesterly direction, said curve having a radius of 4,548.31’ and an arc distance of approximately 121.32’, with a chord bearing of N 10°36’26” W and distance of approximately 121.32’, to a point. Thence N 11°22’16” W approximately 129.25’ to a point. Thence curving to the left in a northwesterly direction, said curve having a radius of 1014.70’ and an arc distance of approximately 639.74’, with a chord bearing of N 29°25’58” W and distance of approximately 629.20’, to a point. Thence N 47°29’39” W approximately 181.30’ to a point. Thence curving to the right in a northwesterly direction, said curve having a radius of 1,121.87’ and an arc distance of 548.64’, with a chord bearing of N 33°29’02” W and distance of approximately 543.19’, to a point. Thence N 19°28’26” W approximately 590.40’ to a point. Thence curving to the left in a northwesterly direction, said curve having a radius of 1,187.08’ and an arc distance of 297.18’, with a chord bearing of N 26°38’45” W and distance of approximately 296.41’, to a point. Thence leaving said railroad right-of-way limits the following calls; Thence in an easterly direction and being the common line with Gary W. Buck (See P.B. 24, Pg. 93), Gary Buck Building Company, Inc. (See P.B. 53, Pg. 112) and Walter and Annie Everette (See P.B. 53, Pg. 112) S 89°01’52” E approximately 1,345.50’ to a point (See P.B. 91, Pgs. 102-103), said point being the common corner with the aforementioned Walter and Annie Everette and Northwoods Subdivision, Phase II (See P.B. 25, Pg. 92). Thence in a southerly direction and being the common line of the aforementioned Northwoods Subdivision, Phase II S 00°24’45” W approximately 747.49’ to a point. Thence S 00°18’04” W approximately 261.28’ to a point on the Northwoods Subdivision, Phase 5 property (See P.B. 86, Pg. 63) and labeled Control Corner on Plat 91, Pg. 102, said point also being on the existing Chapel Hill City Limits line. Thence with the common line of the aforementioned Northwoods Subdivision, Phase 5 in a southerly direction S 00°26’28” W approximately 885.01’ to a point on the western right-of-way of Weaver Dairy Road (See P.B. 91, Pg.101 & 131). Thence with the western right-of-way of Weaver Dairy Road and also being the existing Chapel Hill Corporate Limit Line in a southerly direction S 00°32’41” W approximately 575.18’ to a point on the Town of Chapel Hill property (See D.B. 2298, Pg. 403). Thence with the common line with the Town of Chapel Hill property and the Chapel Hill Corporate Limit Line in an westerly direction N 89°05’10” W approximately 171.80’ to the point and place of beginning and being all of Phase I and Phase II (See P.B. 91, Pgs. 101-103,131) and all of the N/F Cazco, Inc. property as depicted on said plats.
SECTION II
The Council of the Town of Chapel Hill does hereby specifically find and declare that the above described territory meets the requirements of G.S. 160A-48, in that:
1. The area is contiguous to the Town limits.
2. Over one-eighth (12.5%) of the aggregate external boundary of the area under consideration coincides with the existing Town limits. As noted above, 25% of the annexation area boundary is contiguous with the present Town primary corporate limits.
3. None of the area is within the boundary of an incorporated municipality.
4. Recorded property lines and streets have been used in fixing the proposed municipal boundaries resulting from this annexation.
5. The annexation area is composed of one area which meets the statutory requirements for urbanization in G.S. 160A-48(c)(1) in that:
The area has a total resident population equal to at least 2.3 persons for each acre of land included within its boundaries, demonstrated as follows:
The number of dwelling units (34), multiplied by the average household size in the Chapel Hill Township according to the latest decennial census (2.3) gives the estimated total resident population (78), which, divided by the total number of acres (33.4 acres, excluding street rights-of-way), yields 2.3 persons per acre.
6. The annexation area is composed of one area which also meets the statutory requirements for urbanization in G.S. 160A-48(c)(3) in that:
60% or more of the total number of lots and tracts in the area are used for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional or governmental purposes, and 60% or more of the total of residential and undeveloped acreage consists of lots and tracts three acres or less in size, all of which is demonstrated as follows:
Total number of Lots and Tracts = 91
Number of lots and tracts used for:
Residential 86
Commercial 0
Industrial 0
Institutional 5
Governmental 0
Total 91
Lots used for specified purposes = 91 = 100 %
Total number of lots and tracts 91
Total Residential and Undeveloped acreage [total acreage, not counting acreage used for commercial, industrial, governmental and institutional purposes]
= 19 acres.
Residential and Undeveloped acreage in lots and tracts three acres or less in size
= 19 acres
Res. & Undev. Acreage in Lots/Tracts< 3 acres = 19 = 100%
Total Residential & undeveloped Acreage 19
SECTION III
It is the purpose and intent of the Town of Chapel Hill to provide services to the area being annexed under this ordinance, as set forth in the report of plans for services revised and approved by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill on the 11th day of April, 2005, and filed in the office of the Clerk for public inspection.
Such services will include:
7. Refuse collection as described in said report.
8. Maintenance and repair of any publicly-maintained streets or streets that are built or improved to Town of Chapel Hill standards for acceptance into the Town-maintained street system, and other street maintenance services as described in the report.
9. Police protection including periodic patrols, crime prevention investigation of crimes, enforcement of ordinances and statutes and other police services as described in the report.
10. Fire protection, including suppression, preventive inspections, and code enforcement as described in the report.
11. Extension of water and sewer lines under financing policies of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and the Town of Chapel Hill, as described in the report.
12. Parks and recreation, library, housing and construction code enforcement, zoning and planning, public transportation and other services as described more fully in the report.
SECTION IV
The Council of the Town of Chapel Hill does hereby specifically find and declare that public water trunk lines and sewer outfall lines are already extended into the annexation area, and no requests for water and sewer extensions in the annexation area have been received under G.S. 160A-47, so that no additional extensions of water or sewer extensions will be necessary under G.S. 160A-47 on the effective date of annexation prescribed in Section I above. Property owners may have public water and sewer lines extended within the annexation area in accord with extension and financing policies of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and the Town of Chapel Hill.
SECTION V
From and after the effective date of this annexation, the territory annexed and its citizens and property shall be subject to all debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in the Town of Chapel Hill, and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of the Town of Chapel Hill.
SECTION VI
The newly annexed territory described hereinabove shall be subject to the Town of Chapel Hill taxes according to G.S. 160A-58.10.
SECTION VII
The Mayor of the Town of Chapel Hill shall cause an accurate map of the annexed territory described in Section I hereof, together with a duly certified copy of this ordinance, to be recorded in the Office of the Register of Deeds of Orange County, and in the Office of the Secretary of State in Raleigh. Such a map shall also be delivered to the Orange County Board of Elections as required by G.S. 163-288.1.
This is the 11th day of April, 2005.
Item 8 – Proposed Rezoning of Portions of the Horace Williams Tract:
Request to Continue Public Hearing until April 25, 2005
COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STROM, TO ADOPT R-7. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION CONTINUING PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER PROPOSED REZONING OF LAND ON THE HORACE WILLIAMS PROPERTY (2005-04-11/R-7)
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2005, the Town Council held Public Hearings to consider proposed rezoning of land on the Horace Williams property; and
WHEREAS, the Council believes that additional time to consider the proposed rezonings would be desirable;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Public Hearings to consider proposed rezoning of land on the Horace Williams property shall be continued to April 25, 2005.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
Item 9 – The Condominiums Application for a Special Use Permit
Senior Development Coordinator J.B. Culpepper stated this was a continuation of the public hearing for a Special Use Permit for The Condominiums, also know as Village Apartments. She said the proposal was to add 1,077 square feet to the existing floor area, located at 213 East Franklin Street. Ms. Culpepper said the Council had requested and they had prepared an overview of affordable housing regulations and policies, and was in the materials as Attachment 2.
Ms. Culpepper said in general, the affordable housing overview in Attachment 2 comes down to what is Ordinance and what is Comprehensive Plan. She stated the Ordinance provisions generally apply to subdivisions, and special use permit applications generally fell under the Comprehensive Plan, as does this application. Ms. Culpepper said the Comprehensive Plan provided language of the goal of 15 percent of affordable housing with some room for interpretation.
For this application, Ms. Culpepper said, the developer has amended his proposed payment-in-lieu to be $78,000, and explained how the applicant had derived at that figure. She said the Manager’s recommendation was adoption of Resolution A, which included the stipulation of $78,000 as a payment-in-lieu of providing affordable housing.
Ms. Culpepper said one point regarding payments-in-lieu of subdivisions was that Council Member Greene was correct when she had stated that the ordinance provisions for payments-in-lieu for subdivisions had not changed since they had first been adopted, and those figures were not rounded.
Mr. Joe Patterson, representing the applicant, Coulter Jewell Thames, said he wanted to clear up a possible misconception from the public hearing that may have been made from statements made by the Town Manager. He said as justification for changing his position on their affordable housing proposal, the Manager cited the modification to the staff’s demand for a sidewalk along the Robertson Lane side of their property as a concession to them. Mr. Patterson said they did not see it as such, rather it was one of many concessions they had made in order to have the project move forward in a timely fashion. He noted that the Historic District Commission, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, and the Parks and Recreation Commission had all agreed with them that no sidewalk of any type was necessary for pedestrian safety.
Mr. Patterson said if the Council believed that some sort of pedestrian lane was advisable, they believed a more sensible idea would be to do as had been done in other parts of Town, which was to paint a line down the lane to separate pedestrians and bicycles from vehicles. He noted this would go the entire length of the roadway, unlike the proposed sidewalk.
Mr. Patterson said they had concerns about hazards created by the proposed sidewalk, noting the raised brick sidewalk would leave only 11 feet of roadway between the sidewalk and the stone wall. He said the sidewalk could actually push cars into the wall, would be just high enough to trip over, and would be a real hazard to bikers. Mr. Peterson said that drivers, fearing the wall, may drive on the sidewalk which would cause ongoing maintenance problems. He said they recommended deletion of stipulation #5.
Mr. Patterson said as suggested by Council Member Kleinschmidt, they had followed up with Robert Dowling of Orange Community Housing and Land Trust to see if he could come up with a specific amount for affordable housing, rather than the $60,000 to $70,000 range he had quoted at the public hearing. He said Mr. Dowling said he could not do that until he had firm bids on a specific job, but that a mid-range of $65,000 was a fair estimate. Based on that and in an effort to move forward, Mr. Patterson stated, they had informed the staff they were willing to accept that number as well as their multiplier of 1.2. He said that resulted in the $78,000 figure.
Mr. Patterson said while they have agreed to make the $78,000 payment, they do not believe it is fair. He stated they had given the staff two alternatives that were based on previously approved projects, and the staff opted for the rental unit and informed the advisory boards that the proposal complied with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Patterson said the Council had asked them to work out a deal that would be acceptable to Mr. Dowling, and if Mr. Dowling accepted it then the Council would agree to it, which they had done. He said that instead of a rental unit, Mr. Dowling requested a payment-in-lieu of $65,000 to help renovate a house. Again, Mr. Patterson said it was not fair to allow staff to increase that amount.
Mr. Patterson said their request was that the Council adopt Resolution A, with the deletion of #5 that referred to the Roberson Lane sidewalk, and modification of #16 to reduce the $78,000 to $65,000 for the amount to be paid in lieu of providing affordable housing.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said when he looked at the chart provided on page 10 and looked at Robertson Lane, was the right-of-way dedication referring to the sidewalk. Ms. Culpepper said that was correct. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was confused as to how the staff decided to recommend a sidewalk when all the advisory boards had said no. Mr. Horton replied it was a response to improving pedestrian safety, noting they believed that if pedestrians had a raised sidewalk it would more clearly delineate where they would walk, it would make it easier for motorists to avoid them, and it would modify the paved area which would cause motorists to drive more slowly.
Council Member Greene asked if the sidewalk would be immediately abutting the roadway or would there be a grassy median. Mr. Horton responded it would abut the roadway.
Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if that was really what the Transportation Board had recommended, noting he believed they were recommending deletion of stipulation #5 “if the applicant agrees to construct and staff determines that it is feasible to construct a 4-foot wide brick or comparable material, sidewalk…” Ms. Culpepper said that recommendation was related to an earlier version of stipulation #5. She said that earlier version called for the 15-foot roadway, a one foot stone wall, and then a sidewalk.
Council Member Greene said the most recent Transportation Board recommendation said yes to an 11-foot travel way and adjacent 4 foot sidewalk, and asked what exactly did that mean. Ms. Culpepper responded that recommendation was that in the existing 15-foot one-way road, that there be an 11-foot travel way and within what is now the road, there would be a 4-foot sidewalk
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked the applicant for a clarification of his suggested modification to stipulation #16. Mr. Patterson replied referred to the payment for the affordable housing component, noting they were recommending that the payment in that stipulation be reduced from $78,000 to the $65,000 amount that was agreed to with Mr. Dowling.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said on page 4 of the materials, it was noted that the applicant had agreed to provide $78,000. Mr. Patterson responded that they would put in the sidewalk if the Council required them to, and would pay the $78,000 if the Council required them to. He said they were simply saying they did not believe it was fair that they be asked to pay more than the $65,000 that they had agreed upon with Mr. Dowling. Mr. Patterson said they wanted to get the SUP approved, and if it meant agreeing to those two stipulations, then they would do so.
Mr. Horton said that the applicant and Mr. Dowling had agreed on $65,000 as a price per unit, and the staff had applied a multiplier. He noted that 15 percent of eight units equaled 1.2 units, multiplied by $65,000 totaled $78,000. Mr. Horton said they stand behind that recommendation.
COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED RESOLUTION E, NOTING IT WAS IDENTICAL TO RESOLUTION A BUT WITHOUT A STIPULATION FOR A SIDEWALK. THERE WAS NO SECOND.
Mr. Horton suggested moving Resolution A with deleting stipulation #5 regarding the sidewalk. Council Member Hill agreed.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED RESOLUTION F TO DENY THE APPLICATION, FOR THE REASONS STATED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. THERE WAS NO SECOND.
Council Member Strom said he failed to see a public purpose finding that the Council was required to make for this project. He said he believed that this project would work in opposition to the Council’s goal of having more people live in the downtown.
Council Member Ward said he thought he was the only Council member who had not supported expedited review for this project, and asked Council Member Strom had he supported it.
Council Member Kleinschmidt reminded the Council that the vote to grant expedited review was five to four.
Council Member Strom said that voting for or against expedited review for a project was a “far cry” from supporting or not supporting the project itself. He said that right now he did not see the public purpose in this project, and did not support it.
COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION A.
Council Member Hill asked Council Member Greene if she had visited this site. He said the road was a narrow one-way lane and he did believed adding a sidewalk was redundant, expensive, and something that people would trip over. Council Member Hill said this was not a high traffic area for cars or pedestrians, and three advisory boards had suggested not adding a sidewalk. He said it was a chance to leave something alone that worked well, and he saw no reason to do otherwise.
Council Member Greene said she had no strong feelings regarding the sidewalk either way. Council Member Hill said the road had been paved for years and had worked well, noting there was a preschool located there that generated traffic twice a day. He said that actually, people walking in the road way slowed traffic down, and he believed a sidewalk would be “overkill.”
COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE AMENDED HER MOTION TO MOVE ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION A WITH STIPULATION #5 DELETED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HILL. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 6-2, WITH MAYOR PRO TEM WIGGINS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS GREENE, HARRISON, HILL, KLEINSCHMIDT, AND VERKERK VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WARD AND STROM VOTING NAY.
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONDOMINIUMS (AKA UNIVERSITY CONDOMINIUMS, MCCORKLE PLACE, VILLAGE APARTMENTS) (2005-04-11/R-8a)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council finds that the Special Use Permit application proposed by 213 E. Franklin Street LLC, by: DSM Asset Management, Inc., on property identified as Chapel Hill Township Tax Map 80, Block E, Lot 11 (PIN# 9788474898), if developed according to the site plan dated September 10, 2004 (revised November 28, 2004) and conditions listed below:
1. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or promote the public health, safety, and general welfare;
2. Would comply with all required regulations and standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance;
3. Would be located, designed, and proposed to be operated so as to maintain or enhance the value of contiguous property; and
4. Would conform with the general plans for the physical development of the Town as embodied in the Land Use Management Ordinance and in the Comprehensive Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council finds, in this particular case, that the following modifications satisfy public purposes to an equivalent or greater degree:
1. Modification of the Dimension Matrix Table 3.8-1 to allow a maximum of 23,935 square feet of floor area.
2. Modification of the Dimension Matrix Table 3.8-1 to allow a maximum density of 18 units per acre (eight units per .44 acres).
3. Modification of the Dimensional Matrix Table 3.8-1 to allow a maximum of 12,908 square feet of impervious surface.
4. Modification of the Dimension Matrix Table 3.8-1 to allow minimum setbacks: South (East Franklin Street) 19 feet; West (Robertson Lane) 9 feet; and East (property line with Kappa Delta) varies from 1 ½ to 11 feet.
5. Modification of the Dimensional Matrix Table 3.8-1 to allow a maximum Primary Height of 48 feet.
6. Modification of Section 5.9.7 to allow a minimum of 15 parking spaces on the site.
7. Modification of Section 5.6.6-1 Schedule of Required Buffers to allow minimum landscape buffers on the following property lines: minimum of nine feet on the West; minimum 1.5 feet on the North; and minimum 1 foot on the East.
8. Modification of Section 5.9.6 Parking Landscaping Standards for no five-foot landscaped strip between portions of the buildings and adjacent parking areas.
Said public purposes being (1) the provision of residential units in the downtown area, (2) the provision of less traffic impacts, (3) a provision for less stormwater runoff, (4) the provision of less impervious surface area, (5) installation of a new hydrant, sprinkler system, and new electrical and gas systems, (6) the promotion of safer pedestrian mobility, (7) the provision of increased landscaping in the parking lot and around the property, (8) preservation and enhancement of historic properties, (9) installation of Downtown Streetscape improvements, and (10) the provision of improved water quality with Best Management Practices.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Condominiums (aka the Village Apartments, University Condominiums, McCorkle Place Condominiums) in accordance with the plans listed above and with the conditions listed below:
Stipulations Specific to the Development
1. That construction begin by April 11, 2007 (two years from approval date) and be completed by April 11, 2008 (three years from approval date).
2. Land Use Intensity: This Special Use Permit authorizes multi-family use and the construction of 1,077 additional square feet of floor for eight dwelling units and land use intensity requirements as specified below:
|
Net Land Area |
19,040 sq ft |
|
Total # of Buildings |
2 (existing) |
|
Maximum Floor Area |
23,929 sq ft |
|
Maximum Impervious surface |
12,908 sq ft |
|
Maximum Primary Height |
48 ft. |
|
Minimum Setbacks |
South-19 ft.; West-9 ft.; East-1.5 ft. |
|
Minimum # of Parking Spaces |
15 |
|
Minimum # of Bicycle Spaces |
10 |
|
Parking Aisle Width |
23 feet |
|
Landscape Buffers |
West-10 ft; North-1.5 ft (wall/vines); East-1 ft. |
*Parking spaces may be decreased by one (14) in order to accommodate a 5-foot planting strip in lieu of parking space.
Stipulations Related to Transportation Issues
3. Robertson Lane Driveway Turning Radius: That the south side of the Robertson Lane driveway be “flattened” to create a wider turning radius and that the stone wall at the Robertson Lane at the driveway entrance be reconstructed. The driveway turning radius and stone wall relocation plans shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit and shall include access to the new sidewalk.
4. Turning Radius at the Robertson Lane and East Franklin Street Intersection: That both sides of Robertson Lane be modestly improved with an increased diameter of the turning radius within the “amenity strip” on East Franklin Street. The plans with these improvements shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of Zoning Compliance Permit.
5. Removed.
6. Truncated Sidewalk Domes: That the applicant provide truncated domes on both sides of the East Franklin Streetsidewalk to comply with ADA requirements prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
7. 20-Foot Unobstructed Fire Apparatus Access: That the applicant provide a 20-foot unobstructed fire apparatus access along the entire Robertson Lane frontage to include 11-foot paved Robertson Lane, 4-foot sidewalk (within the right-of-way adjacent to the east stone wall), the stone wall, and an additional 4 feet of landscaped area.
8. Robertson Lane Fence: All fencing along Robertson Lane must be outside the 20-foot fire apparatus access. Any gates must open into the property. The fence proposed along the east edge of the property must include a gate to access the front yard.
9. Fire Lane/No Parking Signage: That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy access to the garage must be signed with “Fire Lane/No Parking” signs. Additional Fire Lane/No Parking signs must be placed along the south side of the driveway and along the west wall of the building. A signage plan must be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
10. Alternative Vehicular Access: If an alternative northern access from the parking lot to the University Presbyterian Church parking lot is proposed, the applicant must provide a Shared Access Agreement, signed by both property owners and notarized, to be approved by the Town Manager and recorded in the Orange County Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of Zoning Compliance Permits for the changes to this property and the Church property.
11. Security Lift Gate: The driveway security gate shall be located at least one car length from Robertson Lane.
12. Compact Spaces Designation: That three parking spaces (the first one on the driveway, #1; the space next to the south side of the garage, #14; and the parallel space adjacent to the building, #15 be designated as compact spaces and labeled on the plans along with the standard spaces being identified.
13. Alternative to Parking Space #15: If 14 parking spaces are proposed, space #15 will be replaced with a 5-foot wide planting strip.
14. Bicycle Parking: That 10 bicycle parking spaces be provided inside the main building and an outdoor stationary rack be located in a convenient location for at least two bicycles.
15. Repaving of Robertson Lane: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall contact the Town Engineering Inspector to determine if Robertson Lane requires repaving, as a result of damage caused by the applicant or its contractors.
Stipulation Related to Affordable Housing
16. Provision of Affordable Housing: That the applicant shall provide a payment-in-lieu for $78,000 to the Town’s Revolving Acquisition Fund prior to issuance of the Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Landscaping and Architectural Issues
17. Landscape and Maintenance Plans: That a detailed Landscape Plan, including size, type, and location of all proposed plantings, trees, and vegetation and buffer modifications, and a Maintenance Plan be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
18. Landscape Protection Plan: That a detailed Landscape Protection Plan, clearly indicating which trees are proposed to be removed, a detail of the construction fencing, construction parking and materials staging/storage areas and location of tree protection fencing including Town standard landscaping protection notes, shall be approvedby the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
19. Parking Lot Shading Plan: That a Shading Plan shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
20. 5-Foot Landscape Buffer Strip: That a 5-foot planting strip be provided between the parking lot and the building north of the entrance to the building.
21. Streetscape Improvements: Streetscape improvements shall be provided along the East Franklin Street frontage to include brick paved cross paths and groundcover plantings similar to the adjacent University Presbyterian Church property. If any site furnishings are proposed in this area, they must be consistent with the Town’s Downtown Streetscape Master Plan. The plans must be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
22. Building Elevations: That detailed building elevations shall be approved by the Historic District Commission prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
23. Lighting Plan: That the Historic District Commission approve a lighting plan for this project prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
24. State Historic Preservation Office Approvals: That any required State permits for building or site alterations be approved by the appropriate agencies and copies of the approved permits be submitted to the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Recreational Issues
25. Recreation Payment-in-Lieu: That a payment-in-lieu for recreation space of $11,580 be received by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Environmental Issues
26. Stormwater BMP Facility: That a stormwater filtration insert (such as an“Aqua-Guard”) be included with the installation of a new catch basin for stormwater quality control within the northern portion of the parking lot, subject to Town Manager approval.
27. Replacement of Existing Storm Drains: That any existing damaged storm drains proposed to be used for this development be replaced or new lines rerouted and the damaged lines closed off to be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit
28. Storm Drainageway Easement: That all stormwater management improvements, outside public right-of-way, shall be located inside reserved storm drainageway easements, per Town guidelines, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
29. Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan: That the applicant shall provide a Stormwater Operations and Maintenance Plan for all engineered stormwater facilities. The plan shall include the owner's financial responsibility and include the maintenance schedule of the facilities to ensure that it continues to function as originally intended and shall be approved by the Town Manager, prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
30. Erosion Control: That erosion control inlet protection must be provided on all existing and proposed storm drain inlets on the site.
Stipulations Related to Utility and Service Issues
31. Solid Waste Refuse Collection: A Shared Dumpster Agreement with the University Presbyterian Church must be reviewed and approved by the Town Manager and recorded at the Register of Deeds Office prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
If a shared Dumpster Agreement is not obtained, it will be necessary for the applicant to arrange private refuse collection for the development. Prior to issuance of a Zoning
Compliance Permit, an agreement with a private refuse collection company must be submitted.
32. Solid Waste Management Plan: That a Solid Waste Management Plan, including provisions for recycling, and for managing and minimizing construction debris, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
33. Recycled Materials: It will be necessary to recycle all clean wood waste, scrap metal, and corrugated cardboard during building renovations.
34. Orange County Solid Waste Pre-Demolition and Pre-Construction Conference: It will be necessary to hold a pre-demolition and pre-construction conference with the Orange County Solid Waste staff.
35. Utility/Lighting Plan Approval: That the final Utility/Lighting Plan be approved by Duke Power Company, Orange Water and Sewer Authority, BellSouth, Public Service Company, Time Warner Cable, and the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
36. Utility Line Placement: That all new utility lines shall be placed underground. The applicant shall indicate proposed off-site utility line routing and upgrades required to service the site on Final Plans, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
37. Work in the East Franklin Street Right-of-Way: It will be necessary to obtain all Town permits necessary for installation of the new fire hydrant, Fire Department connection, and water lines in the East Franklin Street right-of-way.
38. New East Franklin Street Water Line: The water line indicated passing through a newly planted tree must be relocated or a new tree must be planted and plans approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
39. Gas Line: That the existing and proposed gas line be shown on the plans and approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
40. Garage Fire Rated Ceiling: A 1-hour fire rated ceiling shall be constructed in the parking garage during renovations.
41. Eastern 5-foot Fire Access: A 5-foot unobstructed fire access path shall be provided from East Franklin Street to the rear of the building. No landscaping, other than ground cover, may be located within this 5-foot access. Landscape Plans for this area must be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
42. Sprinkler System: The new sprinkler system must comply with the Town Code requirements.
43. Fire Flow: That a fire flow report, shall be prepared and sealed by a registered professional engineer, and showing that flows meet the minimum requirements of the Town Design Manual, to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
Stipulations Related to Miscellaneous Issues
44. Project Name/Address: That the name of the development and the addresses of the units shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
45. Signage Plan: That the applicant submit a signage plan to be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit. The signs shall be installed by the applicant prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
46. Construction Management Plan: That a Construction Management Plan, indicating how construction vehicle traffic will be managed, shall be approved by the Town Manager prior to the issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit.
47. Open Burning: That the open burning of construction debris association with this development is prohibited.
48. Detailed Plans: That final detailed site plans, grading plans, utility/lighting plans, stormwater management plans (with hydrologic calculations), and landscape plans and landscape maintenance plans be approved by the Town Manager prior to issuance of a Zoning Compliance Permit, and that such plans conform to the plans approved by this application and demonstrate compliance with all applicable conditions and the design standards of the Land Use Management Ordinance and the Design Manual.
49. As-Built Plans: That as-built plans in DXF binary format using State plane coordinates, shall be provided for street improvements and all other existing or proposed impervious surfaces prior to issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy.
50. Certificates of Occupancy: That no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued until all required public improvements are completed; and that a note to this effect shall be placed on the final plat and final plans.
51. Construction Sign: That the applicant shall post a construction sign that lists the property owner’s representative and telephone number, the contractor’s representative and telephone number, and a telephone number for regulatory information at the time of issuance of a Building Permit, prior to the commencement of any land disturbing activities. The construction sign may have a maximum of 16 square feet of display area and may not exceed 6 feet in height. The sign shall be non-illuminated, and shall consist of light letters on a dark background.
52. Continued Validity: That continued validity and effectiveness of this approval is expressly conditioned on the continued compliance with the plans and conditions listed above.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council hereby approves the application for a Special Use Permit for The Condominiums.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
Item 10 – Continuation of a Public Hearing for the
Southern Community Park Special Use Permit
Mr. Horton stated they were recommending a proposed phasing plan for the Southern Community Park, and that adoption of Resolution A would designate a first phase of development.
Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster stated that the Council had held a public hearing on February 21 in its role as regulators. He noted that the issues for tonight’s public hearing were strictly for the Council’s role as owners.
Mr. Webster said the Town had on hand about $2.5 million to build the first phase of the Park, which was about $900,000 less than what it would take to build the entire facility. He said they had looked at the infrastructure needs and those of most interest to the Park, and had put together a recommended program that was before the Council for consideration this evening.
Mr. Webster said the second item was related to parking, one of the issues the Council had continuously expressed concern about. He said as you look at the phasing plan, you realize that we simply do not have enough money to build both parking lots in the first phase unless we make a very deep cut in the recreational facilities to be provided.
Mr. Webster said the plan recommended the construction of a 60-space parking lot on Dogwood Acres Drive, not the 120-space parking lot near the southern park and ride lot near US 15-501. He said the concern was that during certain hours of the day, primarily between 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. when the park and ride lot still had significant parking, there would not be enough parking available for soccer activities during the spring and fall.
Mr. Webster said they were now trying to find a way to provide as much parking
as possible for the least expense so that funds are not taken away from
recreation facilities. He commented
that one possible scenario would be to expand the Dogwood Acres parking lot by
another 60 spaces for a total of 125.
Mr. Webster said they would need to modify the SUP application, notify
neighbors, and provide some additional information to the Planning and
Engineering Departments so they could evaluate the proposal.
Council Member Verkerk said she believed this was a good proposal, noting that she was assuming that we expected people to take public transportation to the Park. Mr. Webster said that was correct, saying that for many uses of the Park people would be coming from Southern Village who would either ride a bicycle or walk. He said they knew for some uses that public transportation would be used extensively, but the one activity that we know we could not rely on public transportation was for soccer. Mr. Webster stated that teams were composed of people for all parts of Town, and knew from experience with Rainbow Soccer that many will travel to the Park in cars and they expect that to happen here.
Council Member Verkerk asked which bus traveled to Southern Village. Mr. Horton responded the “B” route goes through Southern Village, but there were others that used Southern Village as an express route. Council Member Verkerk said since they knew that parking would be limited and that by limiting parking it encouraged the use of public transit, she believed the Council should refer this to the Public Transit Committee to look at such things as how late the bus route runs and what time soccer games start and finish. Mr. Webster responded that the trouble that time frame was that these were younger children that would not get on the bus from school, but would be picked up and driven to the games from all other Town. He said that was the reality of that one sport, that it had the most impact on the Park.
Mr. Webster said there was parking at Scroggs Elementary School, but one of the big concerns they had was based on their experience at Homestead Park was that even though it was not that long a walk from Scroggs, parents simply would not do it. He said there would be parking along Dogwood Acres Drive or US 15-501, noting that illegal parking takes place at Homestead Park along Airport Road on the bike paths to avoid a three or four minute walk from the parking lot.
Coleman Day stated he had worked on the design for the Southern Community Park, and he was proud to see it come to fruition. He said some of the overlying thrusts of the park planning was to force as much of the land clearing and development as possible up north and east towards the park and ride lot. Mr. Day said there was a proposal for a right in-right out connection to the park and ride lot initially with 165 spaces to be expanded, but apparently there were not funds for that right now.
Mr. Day said that Orange County was concerned about the park and ride lot being full in the afternoons when soccer games were occurring. He noted that Scroggs Elementary School emptied at 2:30 and had over 200 parking spaces approximately 150 yards from where this parking lot was suppose to be. Mr. Day said he had personally clocked vehicles traveling at over 100 mph on Dogwood Acres Drive, and he was concerned that even with traffic calming devices we would have children “sprinting” across the street and not looking. He said if our goal was to protect the children that was not the way to do it.
Mr. Day said encouraging park users to park at Scroggs and walk to the fields was a much better idea. He added that if park users did park on Dogwood Acres Drive, he would be on the phone to the Police every 15 minutes. Mr. Day encouraged not expanding the parking lot any further that already proposed, noting it was 40 spaces and not it was 65, and now it was proposed to make it three times larger than the original proposal.
Mr. Day asked what the proposed use was for the south side of the park. He said there was a dog park, a recreational softball field, and passive recreation for walking. He said you do not need 125 parking spaces for those activities, noting 65 was more than adequate. Mr. Day said that users of the park should be encouraged to park in the Scroggs lot when the other lot was full, and efforts should be made to scrape together the necessary funds to “finish this thing.” He said he believed the right in-right out would be a huge benefit for both the Town and the University park and ride lots, noting that parking would be available on weekends for visitors to the park.
In conclusion, Mr. Day suggested that the Council look for some other alternative to doubling the parking lot, and that the Scroggs parking lot be strongly considered. He added that if funds were tight, there was a proposal to put a 5-foot wide sidewalk down the length of Dogwood Acres Drive, and suggested that could be put on hold, noting the number of trees that would have to be cut to make way for it. Mr. Day said there were two arterials across the road running north to south, which would be the primary direction of park users.
Council Member Strom asked for an explanation of the rationale for that sidewalk. Mr. Webster stated that based on comments from citizens on Dogwood Acres Drive, people speed on that road. He said their idea was to provide a safe walking connection from the park to the paths so pedestrians would not have to walk on the roadway, which he terms a “bad idea.” Mr. Horton noted that they had applied the same standards to our own project as we would to any private development.
Council Member Strom said he had had several discussions regarding this at the Project Planning Committee meetings, and their concern was to get as much of the recreation facilities built with the money that they have. He said the proposal to eliminate the parking lot, which was a redundant parking lot from the park and ride and the in and out road from US 15-501, and build the park amenities seemed like a smart phasing plan. Council Member Strom added he believed that the additional parking spaces are exactly where people would park, and the reality is that people would park on the street to get to the soccer fields. He said to him this was putting parking where it was needed, and allows the park to be constructed sooner rather than later.
Council Member Strom noted that a path existed from the Scroggs School into the Park that would create a strong pedestrian connection, and open up access to those additional parking spaces to the north. He said that what Mr. Day had just said about “squeezing” down on Dogwood Acres and insisting that drivers go slowly would be essential to the success of the Park. Council Member Strom said the residents’ concerns were “loud and well stated.” He commented he was supportive of the proposed resolutions and that we should proceed that way.
Council Member Ward noted he was disappointed that Patrick Sullivan was unable to stay late to speak on the feelings of the soccer community regarding the nighttime use of the fields. He asked Mr. Webster to share any information he had regarding the implication on the soccer community of cutting out any evening use of the soccer fields. Mr. Webster said they had “great sympathy” for those who wanted lighting installed on the fields for nighttime use. He said it was basically a dollars issue for the Town. Council Member Ward asked what the cost was of installing lights. Mr. Webster responded it was estimated at $300,000 to light the fields, and with the budget as it is now it would essentially mean eliminating every other recreational aspect of the Park with the exception of the soccer fields. He said that would leave us with a park with three soccer fields and a lot of infrastructure. Mr. Webster said that was what prompted the recommendation to delay installation of the lights, although they certainly had not wanted to make that recommendation.
Council Member Ward asked how long before Phase II would begin. Mr. Webster replied that they had submitted a grant application to the Parks and Recreation Trust Fund of which the first round would be announced in May, and it was their hope that it would result in some funding for this project. He noted there would be another round announced something this summer. Mr. Webster said if no funds were forthcoming from that application, they did not know when a new source of funds might be available to begin Phase II.
Council Member Ward asked what the dollar figures were on creation of the meadow and the Frisbee golf. Mr. Webster answered that the Frisbee golf was only about $2,000 to $3,000. He said regarding the meadow, once we have detailed grading plans it could either be an expense or have a positive impact. Mr. Webster said if they did have an excess in soil from grading it could be used to “sculpt” something creative from the grading, but if not it was something that could be eliminated and some dollars saved.
Council Member Harrison asked how not receiving the grant funds would affect the phasing plan. Mr. Webster said the phasing plan did not include any funds from the grant. He added that the maximum funding that could be received was $500,000, so if we received the full amount we would have that much more to work with. Mr. Webster said any grant received could be much less, or we could receive none at all. He said were we to receive a grant, they would come back to the Council with recommendations.
Council Member Harrison asked if the phasing plan before the Council this evening was funded solely by the Town, or were there some Orange County funds involved. Mr. Webster replied that the project was all Orange County dollars, noting the Town had purchased the land. Council Member Harrison asked if the Town was paying the permitting fees. Mr. Webster replied that all of the funds were Orange County funds.
Council Member Greene thanked Mr. Day for his comments, noting this was a choice between policy goals and a reality check. She stated she reluctantly agreed with Council Member Strom that people with their children were going to want to park closer even though we might wish that they would walk from Scroggs Elementary. Council Member Greene stated she thought Mr. Day had made an interesting point regarding the sidewalk and the tradeoffs of cutting trees down to make way for it, and wondered if the sidewalk should be removed from Phase I. She said it may turn out to be necessary, or it may turn out to be something that could be done at a later time.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER VERKERK, TO ADOPT R-9a. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK (2005-04-11/R-9a)
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2005, the Council opened a public hearing to gather comments related to a Special Use Permit application for the Southern Community Park; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of the entire proposed park development is at least $900,000 more than budget;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the first phase of development of the Southern Community Park shall consist of:
- Parking lot on Dogwood Acres Drive
- All sewer and water extensions
- Restrooms
- All sidewalks
- Extension of Fan Branch Greenway Trail to the dog park
- Traffic calming on Dogwood Acres Drive
- Extensive landscape buffers along US 15-501, except at the recycling center
- Dry detention basins where needed for phase one
- Constructed wetland basins where needed for phase one
- Public art
- Athletic/soccer fields (3) (not including athletic lights)
- Children’s play area (1)
- Picnic Shelters (1 large, 1 small)
- Dog park
- Meadow/grass play area
- Disk golf course
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-9b. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO AMEND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF DOGWOOD ACRES DRIVE (2005-04-11/R-9b)
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2005, the Council opened a public hearing to gather comments related to a Special Use Permit application for the Southern Community Park; and
WHEREAS, during the public hearing the number of parking spaces was identified as a concern; and
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2005, the Council/County Commission Project Planning Committee met and recommended that the Town’s Special Use Permit be amended to show 60 additional parking spaces on the south side of Dogwood Acres Drive; and
WHEREAS, there are insufficient funds to build the proposed northern parking lot along US 15-501; and
WHEREAS, insufficient parking would likely result in park users parking along Dogwood Acres Drive and US 15-501;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council authorizes the Town Manager to amend the Town’s Special Use Permit application to propose the construction of 60 additional parking spaces along the south side of Dogwood Acres Drive.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
COUNCIL MEMBER STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO ADOPT R-9c. THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (8-0).
A RESOLUTION CONTINUING THE SOUTHERN COMMUNITY PARK SPECIAL USE PERMIT HEARING (2005-04-11/R-9c)
WHEREAS, on February 21, 2005, the Council opened a public hearing to gather comments related to a Special Use Permit application for the Southern Community Park; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2005, the Council considered a phasing plan for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Manager has not yet had an opportunity to respond to all of the issues addressed at the February 21, 2005 public hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Southern Community Park Special Use Permit Public Hearing shall be recessed to May 9, 2005.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
Item 11 – Recommended 2005 Downtown Improvement Projects
By consensus, the Council deferred this item to an upcoming meeting.
Item 12 – Proposal to Participate in Carbon Reduction Project Program
from the Sustainability, Energy, and Environment Committee
By consensus, the Council deferred this item to an upcoming meeting.
Item 13 – Appointment of a Council Liaison to the
Orange County Solid Waste Advisory Board
By consensus, the Council deferred the appointment to the April 25 meeting.
Item 14 – Petitions
14a. Council Member Ward.
Council Member Ward stated he had attended a meeting this afternoon of the Homestead and High School Roads Safety Task Force with representatives from Orange County, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, NCDOT, and citizens in the area of Homestead Road, High School Road and Rogers Road. He said this Task Force had been meeting for approximately two years, and a year ago everyone at the meeting was assured that NCDOT had funding in place for this project, with the only issue in doubt being who would maintain the sidewalks. Council Member Ward said that issue had now been resolved by mutual agreement between Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill.
Council Member Ward said that new information had recently come to light that this project was never put on the “Moving Ahead” project list for funding by NCDOT, noting the only explanation offered was there were some “internal snafu’s” by NCDOT. He said it was his understanding that some internal communications within NCDOT were not followed through on. Council Member Ward said that was not a satisfactory explanation for the Council and was not for him as well, so today’s meeting had been spent attempting to find a way to get the project back on track and identify some funding.
Council Member Ward noted that Carrboro Alderman Alex Zaffron was a representative on the Task Force. He said that Carrboro had planned to use Moving Ahead funds for the Smith Level Road project, which required Carrboro to put up approximately $300,000 or more for right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. Council Member Ward stated that Mr. Zaffron had told the Task Force that this NCDOT requirement made the Moving Ahead funding “unattractive” to Carrboro and they would prefer to find some other funding source.
Council Member Ward stated Mr. Zaffron had indicated he was confident that when the Carrboro Alderman took up this issue, they would be supportive of moving the $1.3 million earmarked for the Smith Level Road project to the Homestead Road/Rogers Road sidewalk project that included a traffic signal at High School Road and Homestead Road.
Council Member Ward noted that Orange County Commissioner Alice Gordon was present at today’s meeting and was generally supportive of this idea. He said she had agreed to take this back to the County, as he had agreed to bring it before the Council.
Council Member Verkerk said that was the second time this had happened, noting that when the Task Force was first formed they were assured by NCDOT that funding was available and the project was “a go.” She said a year later, the Task Force was informed that NCDOT needed permission from all of the local governments, which was “astounding” to her. Council Member Verkerk wondered what was going on with NCDOT, noting she was surprised by this.
Council Member Ward said the project as it stands would be $750,000, with $100,000 of that for the traffic signal. He said that NCDOT would be marking the right-of-way in the next 10 days to inform people of what might be required for the project.
Council Member Ward asked the Council to request that the Mayor communicate via letter with NCDOT representatives including Mike Mills, David Cain in the sidewalk/pedestrian end of NCDOT, and Doug Galyon who was the Division VII representative, that Chapel Hill was supportive of the transfer of these funds from the Smith Level Road project pending Carrboro’s support. He said that once Carrboro formally offered its support, the Mayor would send a letter requesting the transfer of funds to the Homestead Road/Rogers Road project. Council Member Ward stated we would need to wait until Carrboro had formally made its decision before acting.
Council Member Strom said he was completely supportive of this project, but wanted to take a moment to evaluate it. He said we think we would be shifting Carrboro’s funding, but we may be shifting our own without realizing it. Council Member Strom said he wanted to make sure that our staff had a chance to completely evaluate the Moving Ahead scenario and well as where we are within the division so that we don’t inadvertently delay another project by this action. He asked would there be a problem created by waiting until the April 25 meeting to make a decision. Council Member Ward said that would not be a problem.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said her understanding was that tonight Council Member Ward was offering information and would formally petition the Council at its April 25 meeting. Council Member Ward said that was correct.
Mr. Horton stated that if the Council desired they would conduct the necessary research and report back to the Council on April 25.
Council Member Harrison asked if anyone from our staff had been present at the meeting. Council Member Ward responded that Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland had attended. Council Member Harrison said the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) generally gets a presentation from Mike Mills of NCDOT, and he and Council Member Strom would attend the meeting on Wednesday as well as Mr. Zaffron.
Council Member Strom said that Mike Mills should update the TAC on this project in real time, noting the situation was “unbelievable.” Council Member Ward said they had minutes from previous meetings where NCDOT assured the Task Force that funding was in place. Council Member Strom noted that was “amazing.”
Item 15 – Reserved for Discussion of Consent Agenda Items
Council Member Verkerk said she had pulled item #4e, Resolution to Update the Town Seal, noting that the Council Communications Committee had met to discuss an update. She said she never knew that the symbol of Chapel Hill was the Greek Goddess Athena, and it was clear in that Committee meeting that the current seal had nothing on it to identify the female figure as Athena. Council Member Verkerk said it was her understanding that the Council members present agreed to place a Greek helmet on the figure to make her identifiable.
Council Member Verkerk said what we now have is “Betty Crocker holding a turkey platter and beckoning to the kids.” She said the instructions were not to just reuse the figure in the current seal, but to somehow make it identifiable as Athena. Council Member Verkerk said she would like to reject the proposed resolution and send it back for revisions so that it was made clear that that a helmet was to be added to identify the figure.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted this was somewhat time-sensitive. Mr. Horton said they could have the helmet added and distributed to the Council electronically for their review if that was acceptable to the Council.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said her memory of the Committee’s discussion was different from that. She said she thought the decision was to remove the dates, lines and clouds, the name North Carolina, and go with what was left, with the idea being to make it “less busy.” Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the idea was to do that now, and conduct a longer process in the future to re-evaluate the seal.
Council Member Greene said she would like it to be sent around as a draft before we say, “yes, that’s a good helmet.”
Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko stated that the graphic designer did attempt to place a helmet on this version, but expressed a great deal of difficulty. She said the designer had indicated it was difficult to make it look like a helmet rather than a bonnet because of the small size necessary.
Council Member Verkerk stated it was “not hard” to do this, and did not understand what the problem was. Mr. Horton suggested that they use this to keep things moving along. He said they would have to have another contract with the artist for graphics work and could build into the contract some reconsideration of the addition of the helmet.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said they were attempting to respond to the staff’s need to have a seal that was not so complicated and was more easily reproducible, and then work on updating at another time. She said she did not remember that very much more that what was now before the Council was to be done.
Council Member Verkerk asked if any other Council members remembered the discussion regarding the helmet.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stated he remembered the discussion, but not any conclusion being made one way or the other.
Council Member Strom said he remembered the discussion as well, noting he believed that what was before the Council was a reflection of the Committee’s decisions.
THE COUNCIL ADOPTED RESOLUTION R-4.1 BY CONSENSUS.
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE TO UPDATE THE TOWN SEAL (2005-04-11/R-4.1)
WHEREAS, the Town seal serves as a graphic identifier for the Town; and
WHEREAS, the current seal has become difficult to adapt to a wide variety of communications with the public, from newspaper advertisements to street signs and web pages, because of its weak graphic representation; and
WHEREAS, the updated seal design enhances design flexibility, simplification and clarity; and
WHEREAS, the seal will serve as the Town logo, a graphic identifier that distinguishes the Town from other entities; and
WHEREAS, the seal appears on printed materials (including stationery, business cards, fliers, brochures and banners), specialty items, uniforms, vehicles equipment and facility signage;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council accepts the recommendation of the Council Communications Committee to update the Town seal.
This the 11th day of April, 2005.
The meeting adjourned at 10:47 p.m.