SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUDGET WORK SESSION
OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2005 AT 5:30 P.M.
Mayor Kevin Foy called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.
Council members present were Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Dorothy Verkerk, Jim Ward and Edith Wiggins.
Staff members present were Town Manager Cal Horton, Deputy Town Manager Florentine Miller, Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos, Town Information Officer Catherine Lazorko, Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz, Police Chief Gregg Jarvies, Finance Director Kay Johnson, Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka, Housing Director Tina Vaughn, Library Director Kathy Thompson, Information Technology Director Bob Avery, Engineering Director George Small, Public Works Director Bill Letteri, Fire Chief Dan Jones, Inspections Director Lance Norris, Human Resources Director Pam Eastwood, Planning Director Roger Waldon, , and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.
Support staff present were Assistant Director of Parks and Recreation Bill Webster, Accountant Jeannie Tate, Network/Telecommunications Analyst Arek Kempinski, Internal Services Superintendent Bill Terry, Field Operations Superintendent Richard Terrell, Administrative Analyst Randy Ballard, Fire Administrative Officer Susanna Williams, Assistant Human Resources Director Anissa Graham-Davis, Senior Planner Phil Hervey, Principal Long Range Planner Gordon Sutherland, Senior Long Range Planning Coordinator Chris Berndt, Transportation Planner David Bonk, and Mayoral Assistant Emily Dickens.
Mayor Foy said there were 18 items on the agenda, and under each item there were many working papers provided by the staff in response to issues discussed over the last few months during development of the budget. He said there were 60 or more of those working papers and asked that the Manager provide a brief overview, at which time the Council could break them down into a management schedule. He proposed that the primary items the Council needed to discuss were the proposed fee increases, specific issues that came from the Citizens Budget Review Subcommittee especially the proposed sale of the old library, information technology issues, and the reorganization of Public Works as proposed by MAXIMUS.
Mr. Horton recommended that the Council take a few moments to review the Capital Improvements Program because of the sum of money involved. He said if the Council would be willing to discuss the other issues mentioned by Mayor Foy, it would be helpful in our understanding of what the Council’s wishes were as the staff went forward with preparing the budget.
Mr. Horton said they had done their best to respond to the recommendations made not only by the Budget Review Advisory Subcommittee and the consultant, but also out of respect for the work done by the various advisory boards, out of respect for the work they had done.
Mr. Horton said a number of the reports on the agenda were information items, but Council’s comments on those having a monetary effect on the budget would be helpful. He said if the Council agreed, they would begin by having Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin provide a brief overview of the priorities of the Capital Improvements Program (CIP).
Council Member Strom said he appreciated the job done by staff to prioritize the CIP budget, and was not sure discussing it first would be productive because he did not yet have a sense of the overall budget. He said he would very much like to fund the entire CIP budget, but he would prefer to see the Manager’s recommendations in a more developed form before making any decisions regarding the CIP.
Mayor Foy noted the fees that the staff was proposing were in excess of $600,000, which was over a penny on the tax rate. He asked that the Council provide some reaction to those fees. Mayor Foy suggested they hear about those fees from staff first, noting that on the list were commercial garbage collection fees, privilege license fees, parking fees and fines, and Public Works, Planning, Inspections, Engineering, and Parks and Recreation Department fees. He asked if a brief synopsis could be provided for each of those. Mr. Horton said that could be done, and suggested beginning with the commercial garbage collection fees since that was the most substantial. He said at the same time, Public Works Director Bill Letteri could speak about other fee increases and cost avoidances that they propose.
Commercial Garbage Collection and User Fees and Solid Waste Services Collection (Items #12j, and #12k)
Mayor Foy noted that the item was #12j on the agenda. Mr. Horton replied that was correct. He commented that Mr. Letteri was proposing a fee schedule that would require the same fees to be paid by all receivers of commercial garbage collection.
Mr. Letteri said the fee schedule was not applied to all parties served, which included fraternity groups, multi-family groups, apartment groups, and non-profit organizations. He stated that they had looked at what additional fees would be generated by applying the same fees to all commercial collections, and if that was done and the same level of service was maintained, then an additional $145,000 in revenues would be generated.
Mr. Letteri noted the agenda item contained schedules that showed details of those calculations, and once again if they applied those fee adjustments to the service levels now provided as much as $200,000 additional revenue. Mr. Letteri cautioned against that figure, because they do expect some request would be for service changes. He said citizens may decide not to have pick-up as often, or may decide to use a private service.
Mayor Foy noted that the issues Mr. Letteri just outlined were contained on page 3 of the agenda item under Option 2. Mr. Letteri said that was correct. Mayor Foy asked Mr. Letteri to provide information regarding Option 3, Other Cost Recovery/Saving Measures. He noted that it appeared that Option 3 built upon Option 2, so the Council could consider adopting both options. Mr. Horton responded that was correct and they were recommending that the Council do just that. Mr. Letteri noted that Administrative Analyst Randy Ballard would provide detail regarding Option 3.
Mr. Ballard said the other fee proposals were relatively inconsequential compared to what was just discussed. He said they studied all of the fees charged, and if they went with a 25 percent increase in charges for compactors, that would net an additional $7,000, noting fees were paid based on the quantity of usage for the compactors, in high, medium, and low ranges. Mr. Ballard said the fee charged for rental of yard waste containers could be raised from the current $15 currently to $20 for a weekday and $25 for a weekend, netting an increase of $4,000.
Mr. Letteri stated they had studied the overall fees charged for commercial refuse pickup, and had looked at the private sector to see what the competition was doing. He commented that a 10 percent overall increase in fees would be appropriate given the market, netting an additional $50,000. As an example, Mr. Letteri said, for a single weekly pickup the current fee was $800, and with this increase the fee would go to $880. He again cautioned against further increases beyond that, due to possible decreases in service demand.
Mr. Letteri said they had studied side-loader service as well, noting it was costly and required special equipment and operators. He proposed eliminating that service, which would require that the areas serviced by side-loader equipment be moved to front-loader equipment, or to acquire service from another provider. Mr. Letteri noted those savings could result in as much as $67,000, of which $50,000 was in cost reductions and $17,000 was from one-time sale of assets.
Mr. Letteri said their last proposal was to consider the elimination of payment of tipping fees that are associated with certain downtown business for which service is not provided, noting the Town pays the landfill tipping fees for those locations. He said eliminating those fees would result in a savings of as much as $32,000.
Mayor Foy noted that the way to proceed was to have the Council give the Manager feedback on these various options so that he would know how to proceed in developing the recommended budget. He noted that he did not object to either Option 2 or Option 3, and both should be included.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that under Option 2, of the $145,000 that would be recovered by charging non-profits and multi-family housing, $130,000 would actually be coming from where people live. He stated that zero dollars would come from charging other places where people live, such as single family homes. Mr. Horton noted that it was all commercial garbage collection.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said when they referred to multi-family housing they were not talking about just apartment complexes, but also included condominium developments where people owned their homes. Mr. Horton replied yes, if they had commercial garbage collection.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he did not support that in any way, and had not since the discussion had started years ago. He said it was not proper to have two tiers of residential trash pick-up, especially when one of those tiers paid zero dollars and the other tier contributed $130,000. Council Member Kleinschmidt said that was not fair, noting there were differences between schools, governments and churches where people choose to gather and create waste. He said to create these two different classes of residents and then charge the class that we know would grow was bad public policy.
Council Member Harrison agreed with Council Member Kleinschmidt’s remarks. He said that single-family homeowners who had objected to this in the past had noted it was discriminatory, and he believed that was a fair assessment.
Council Member Ward agreed as well, noting he would like to see the multi-family complexes sorted out of that $130,000. He said it was inappropriate and unfair to penalize with this new revenue the people that the Town was able to collect refuse from the most efficiently. Council Member Ward said that was the wrong message.
Council Member Strom asked if there was a way to break out or create a new subset of the Shadow Woods or Timber Hollow complexes which were for-profit corporations, versus Colony Woods homeowners who happened to live in housing that was configured in a way that they were unable to use roll carts and had to rely on dumpsters. Mr. Letteri stated that could be provided. Council Member Strom said he would support receiving Option 2 that way, along with Option 3.
Mayor Foy said the question was not do we know who they are, but rather can we charge fees for those groups and not the others. Mr. Horton responded he would want to consult with the Town Attorney to discover what the reasonable distinction would be.
Mayor Foy asked the Council if there was any objection to Option 3.
Council Member Ward said he wanted to voice concern about adding a 10 percent increase on top of the bills that people would be receiving for the first time, suggesting that they be exempted for the first year. He asked how that would change the figures.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he objected to Option 3 if it included those people he had noted regarding Option 2, adding that if they were included in Option 2 then he would certainly object to increasing the fee in Option 3.
Mayor Foy said he did not believe the Council supported owner-occupied fees associated with the disposal of solid waste, and asked that they segregate the for-profit corporations and charge them but not charge the homeowners. He said if that was not possible then don’t do it at all, but go to Option 3 for the remainder.
Council Member Ward said to remove the non-profits also.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she wanted the Council to consider excluding schools, churches and government as well, noting it would only make a $15,000 difference and the goodwill with those organizations was worth more than that.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had no problem taxing people who went places and produced trash.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she believed schools and governments were different.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed they would be more closely aligned with businesses than their relationships to residences.
Mayor Foy asked the Council if there was support for exempting schools, churches, and government. Council Member Ward and Mayor pro tem Wiggins raised their hand.
Council Member Verkerk said she would support excluding schools and government since they were mandatory, but churches were voluntary and she would feel comfortable charging them a fee.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said churches provide great community service in terms of opening their facilities, which adds tremendous wear and tear to them, to various community groups. She said they were talking about only $15,000, not $200,000, adding the gesture was misplaced. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said that schools, government, and churches were all feeling the same “pinch” and to pass along $15,000 to those groups who perform such community service voluntarily did not seem in keeping with Chapel Hill’s character.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted those groups had not been exempted from stormwater fees.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins agreed, adding that the amount of money being received from them is tremendous and she had never advocated for that. She reiterated they were talking about $15,000 which she did not think would have any significant effect on the budget.
Mayor Foy said he believed that the Manager had a sense of what the Council wanted. Mr. Horton agreed, noting his sense was that the Council disagreed on that issue.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked, in light of that, what would he bring back to the Council for consideration? Mr. Horton replied he would recommend that the Council proceed with it, and then the Council would formally vote as to what its preference was. Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked if he would recommend proceeding with the $15,000 in fees from schools, churches, and government. Mr. Horton responded that would be his recommendation because it was not clear what the Council’s desire was at this point.
Mayor Foy asked if he would come back with a recommendation on Option 3. Mr. Horton replied that on Option 3 he would need to find out if they could make a reasonable distinction that would stand up under law so that the Town would be able to apply the fee to for-profit corporations and not to individual ownership arrangements. Mayor Foy said in any case, Option 3 would increase the fee by 10 percent, and if the Council supported that then they would sell the side-loaders and do away with the tipping fee. Mr. Horton responded that was correct.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins reiterated her strong feelings about exempting churches. She said churches were not the only ones who put garbage in their dumpsters, noting that every outside community group who used those facilities contributed to the waste. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said churches perform more community service than any other agency, and wanted the community to know that the Council was aware that it was choosing to charge churches for emptying their dumpsters in spite of its community service. She added that the amount of funds received was minimal.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he wanted to make it clear that he supported the non-tax status of all churches in the community, noting that they were not charged property tax and they were not charged tax from any government entity in the country. He added that they had chosen to apply a fee in other circumstances then he thought it was appropriate to charge one here. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had used facilities in churches before, and had paid a fee for that use.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked about the schools, noting if the fee was passed along to them they would pass that additional cost on to another taxed agency.
Council Member Hill said there were churches in the community that would rejoice in paying this fee because they had “lots of money,” noting that for many churches it would not even be an issue. He said if you divided the churches, schools, and government into the $15,000, that on a unit basis it would result in a minimal amount. Council Member Hill said as an example, he had cut a hole in a church at a price of $60,000 for placement of a new organ which had cost $800,000, so he believed that the churches could afford such a minimal fee.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said it was likely that the organ was played for events such as weddings for people who did not belong to that church.
Mayor Foy noted that the next item for discussion was item #12k. Mr. Horton noted those issues had been reviewed by Mr. Ballard earlier, noting they were all minor adjustments. Mayor Foy noted they were minor adjustments on compacter services, rental of yard waste containers, sale of yard waste containers, removal of bulky waste, and citation and fine fees. He asked the Council if there was any objection to including these items. There was no objection from the Council.
Proposed Privilege License Fee and Parking Fee Increases (Items #3g and #3h)
Finance Director Kay Johnson stated that they had compared fees charged by the Town to the same fees charged by other agencies, noting they had concluded that the Council could raise the privilege license fees charged on gross receipts. She said the Town charges two types of privilege license fees, those that are based on gross receipts and those that are based on the category of business, which carried a specific fee established by State law.
Ms. Johnson said that gross receipts fees were lower than those of many neighboring governments. She said the proposed fee schedule was broken down into more units than the methodology currently used, thus raising the fees for the businesses with the highest gross receipts.
Mayor Foy asked if there was any objection from the Council regarding this fee increase. There was no objection from the Council. Mayor Foy said they would move on to item #3h.
Council Member Strom asked when the pay station would be operational in Parking Lot 3. Ms. Johnson responded that the pay station was on order, but did not know when to expect it. She said she did expect it would be operational by the end of this fiscal year. Council Member Strom commented he hoped that would be the case as well.
Regarding parking fees, Ms. Johnson said she had looked at University fees as a means of judging what was already being reasonably charged within the community and where fees were perhaps not in line with those fees being charged by the University. In light of that, she stated, there were a few areas that were determined to be somewhat out of line.
Ms. Johnson said the first area was fees for expired meters, noting the University and the Town charged the same $15 fee, but the University charged an additional $5 for every hour beyond the expired time that the vehicle occupied the space. She said they were recommending a similar fine be added to the Town’s policy. Ms. Johnson said the estimated revenue was $18,000.
Ms. Johnson said they had looked at fines for handicapped violations, noting they felt strongly that this was a serious violation. She said the University currently charged $250 for parking in a handicapped space without the appropriate sticker, while the Town’s fee was $100. Ms. Johnson said they recommended raising the fine to $250, which would generate only about $2,000 but was more a matter of principle than revenue.
Ms. Johnson said they had looked at the booting fee, and again would like to match the Town’s fee to that of the University. She said the current Town fee was $30, and recommended it be raised to $55 to match the University’s fee. Ms. Johnson stated the estimated revenue would be $2,000.
Ms. Johnson said they recommended that in all other cases fines be increased from $40 to $50, bringing them in line with University fines. She stated that such an increase would generate about $15,000 in additional fees.
Regarding the monthly parking rate for leased spaces, Ms. Johnson said they believed the Town’s rate should be raised from $80 to $85 monthly, based on the survey of other local facilities. She said they believed that increase would generate an additional $15,700 in revenue.
Ms. Johnson said for residential permit, the Town did not currently charge a fee. She said if the Town instituted a fee of $10 for residential permits and $5 for guest permits, an additional $9,600 would be generated each year to cover the costs associated with the maintenance of this program.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked under what circumstances did residents request parking permits and guest permits. Ms. Johnson replied that permits were required on certain streets where parking by the general public was not allowed. She added that the permits were mainly to prohibit students from parking in residential neighborhoods. She said that vehicles belonging to residents were identified by a sticker. Ms. Johnson said that if guests of those residents had to park on the street, then guest permits were issued to them.
Council Member Ward asked how closely the fee matched the cost of the program. Ms. Johnson responded that when a resident applied for a permit, the vehicle registration was checked and a permit issued, both of which carried a price tag for the Town. She said the $5 and $10 fee suggested was rounded, but it was reasonably the cost of conducting the program. Council Member Ward asked if these fees would cover the cost of the program and no more. Ms. Johnson said that was correct, plus or minus a small amount.
For special event parking, Ms. Johnson said on average the Town provides monitoring of approximately 12 special events each year, with an attendant on duty five hours per event. She noted that the Town historically had not charged for this service. Mr. Johnson said they were recommending establishing a fee of $20 per hour for monitoring services for small events, with a three-hour minimum charge for each monitor assigned. She said such a fee would generate an additional $1,200 each year. Mr. Horton commented that there was a fee charged for the actual parking, but not for the monitor on duty.
Mayor Foy noted he supported all of the suggested fees with the exception of the residential permit fee. Mayor pro tem Wiggins and Council Members Kleinschmidt and Strom agreed.
Council Member Strom asked how the $20 fee for special event monitoring had been determined, asking if that was based on actual cost? Ms. Johnson said the service was performed by current employees who were reassigned to an event. Mr. Horton added that the $20 was an overtime rate.
Council Member Strom asked who employed with the Town received $20 an hour overtime? Ms. Johnson replied some were temporary employees and others were permanent employees reassigned to the event. Council Member Strom asked if she felt that this fee would cover the costs of arranging coverage for the event, cutting the check, and all other expenses associated with that. He said clearly, $20 was a “giveaway.” Ms. Johnson replied that it would cost more than that. Council Member Strom said he believed the fee should recover the cost.
Mayor Foy noted the Town provided this service voluntarily, so could charge whatever they believed was reasonable based on the cost of providing the service. Mr. Horton agreed. Ms. Johnson said based on that information, a reasonable cost would be $30 per hour.
Mayor Foy asked if the Council was in support of these general increases, with residential permit fees excluded. The Council was in general agreement.
Planning Department - Development Application Fees (Item #10c)
Planning Director Roger Waldon stated they had discussed development fees with the consultant, and concluded that the Town’s were the highest around but they could be higher. He said the question was how much higher could they go based on the information in hand and the staff time involved. Mr. Waldon said he proposed an adjustment to the application fees that could be justified, noting these ideas for increases in fees were easily justified without additional study. Mr. Waldon said another component of the proposal was changing some of the exemptions. There are provisions in the current fee schedule that exempts some groups from payment of these types of fees, he said. He said he was suggesting that it was reasonable to recover some of those costs and eliminate those exemptions for certain groups.
Council Member Strom said he supported the changes, but stated when looking at the schedule, some of the charges per acre seemed out of alignment from where Chapel Hill was in its maturity, and shifting some of those charges to square footage or per unit would make more sense. Mr. Waldon said he could take at look at that.
Mayor Foy agreed it looked odd. He asked if there were any objections from the Council.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated she opposed the elimination of the exemption for places of worship and non-profits.
Council Member Harrison asked where on the fee sheet was the potential change to the Zoning Compliance Permit fee for single-family and two-family homes. Mr. Waldon replied it was noted under the heading Zoning Compliance Permit about three-quarters down the chart, with a subheading of Staff Review/Administrative Approval, adding the fee was $125 and the recommended increase was $200.
Mayor Foy asked if there were any objections. None were noted except for that mentioned by Mayor pro tem Wiggins.
Inspections Department – Recommended Fee Increases (Item #7b)
Inspections Director Lance Norris stated they had looked at fees in surrounding local governments and identified areas where they charged a fee for particular services routinely performed, and where they were not charging for those services. He called the Council’s attention to page 2 of the memo, where those services were listed in chart form.
Mr. Norris said in looking at the fee schedule and the revenue it generates, they were about $91,000 behind the comparison group. In order to recover 100 percent of the estimated expenditures for building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical inspection permits, they recommended an 11 percent increase in fees that would generate $61,000. Mr. Norris said they also recommended that the new fees listed in the chart on page 2 be implemented, for an additional $31,000 in revenue.
Council Member Hill asked what the change in contractor fee referred to. Mr. Norris said people buy a permit, but the contractor may change or some other problem may exist that would require that the permit be modified and reissued, and the increase would cover the staff time involved. Council Member Hill said that would be for general contractors, not subcontractors. Mr. Norris replied that was correct.
Mayor Foy asked if there were any objections from the Council. There were none.
Engineering Department – Alternatives for Increasing Revenues and/or Decreasing Costs (Item #2d)
Engineering Director George Small stated they had reviewed their fees in comparison to eight public and private cemetery providers, and although the Town’s were high they were not the highest. He stated that cemetery fees are usually in about the 75th percentile for the comparison group, and the recommended increase would place Chapel Hill near the top. Mr. Small noted that Greensboro’s fees would still exceed the Town’s, but the Town’s would exceed the other seven communities. He said that the fee increase would be in line with what funeral homes charge for those services, and it was a reasonable cost that the Town should recover.
Mr. Small said they recommended several new fees, two of which were directly related to the traffic engineering work, noting that since implementing the traffic impact analysis review process more staff time had to be devoted to that issue. He said for that reason, it was reasonable to charge a fee for traffic impact analysis exemption requests. Mr. Small said with that traffic impact analysis review, it many times would involve a street or lane closure, and it is reasonable that a fee be implemented for that inspection and approval process.
Mr. Small said a small fee was charged for driveway inspections, but that many times the inspector had to make multiple trips for re-inspections. For that reason, he noted they were recommending a fee be charged for re-inspections. Mr. Small said that compared to other local governments, the Town was not charging appropriately for GIS services, and recommended a small increase in the current charges for the sale of GIS data and products.
Mr. Small said in total, implementing the recommended new fees and increasing the existing fees would generate an estimated $65,000, all of which they deemed reasonable.
Council Member Verkerk said if someone wanted a block party, she did not want them charged $150 for a street closure. Mr. Small noted the fee was for construction street closures.
Council Member Harrison asked if the street closures were on Town streets or State streets. Mr. Small replied both. Council Member Harrison said that meant the applicant was charged. Mr. Small said that was correct, but usually the contractor paid the fee. Council Member Harrison said when Mr. Small mentioned driveway inspections, was he referring to residential driveways. Mr. Small responded that was correct, noting it was necessary to inspect the forms and excavation for proper thickness and dimensions. Council Member Harrison said then the Engineering Department did that, and not the Inspections Department. Mr. Small replied that was correct.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked after Engineering did the plot and staked a grave, who would actually open the grave for a burial. Mr. Small replied the funeral homes did that.
Council Member Ward asked about the new fee proposed for processing address change requests. Mr. Small replied that Deborah Squires, the GIS Technician, was receiving an increasing number of requests to change addresses which were usually in a subdivision. Council Member Ward asked if these were homeowners requesting changes. Mr. Small said typically, yes. Council Member Ward said then it might be a change in the way the numbers were assigned. Mr. Small said that was correct. Council Member Ward asked why they would do that. Mr. Small said sometimes it was to make the numbering more understandable for the residents within the neighborhood. He noted there was a protocol for numbering and such requests did not happen often. Council Member Ward said he would shy away from implementing that new fee, noting if the changes were being made for clarity it would assist emergency services in finding an address. He said he would support the recommendations, but with that new fee eliminated.
Council Member Hill said regarding the cemetery plot and staking fee, he believed they could be tripled and still be reasonable. He said regarding selling the Legion Road cemetery, were they proposing that the entire cemetery be sold. Mr. Horton responded that he had asked Mr. Small to research the potential effects of selling the cemetery and the adjacent property, and whether there was a market for that. He said it was determined there was a market for it and it could be sold.
Council Member Hill said if someone bought it they would recover their money by raising the price of the plots. Mr. Horton said he would expect they would find ways to increase the fees for service, regulate who would use it, and the like. He noted that many times funeral homes buy such property so that they could regulate its use.
Council Member Hill asked if the cemeteries they were comparing this one to were municipally owned. Mr. Small said there were eight municipal and six private. Council Member Hill said it was remarkable that the only area in which Chapel Hill was a real estate bargain was in a cemetery. Mr. Horton said if these fees were established, they would not be such a bargain.
Mayor Foy said that brought up the question of once someone buys a plot, is there a private market or does one have to re-sell it to the Town. Mr. Small said in the memorial cemetery the Town sells the right to be buried there, not the actual piece of ground. So he said that would be an issue with this cemetery. He said that if the Town sells the cemetery, then the people who own the right to be buried there could not sell their right.
Regarding the Traffic Impact Analysis exemption permits, Council Member Strom asked Mr. Small to consider where we were recovering 100 percent of our service costs, noting it seemed too low. He said some of the commercial permits could be complex and require a great amount of staff time, and that the fees should recover the cost. Mr. Small said they had attempted to do that, but noted they would take another look at it. Council Member Strom said the fees seemed too low to him, and did not appear to capture full recover costs.
Mayor Foy said the two things they had heard was that Council Member Ward did not support the new fee proposed for processing address change requests, and Council Member Strom supported increasing some of the fees to recapture full costs of providing the service.
Regarding the address change requests, Council Member Greene asked if it was correct to say that if someone lived at 7 Battle Lane, and the house next door was 11, they may want to change it to 9 just to be consistent. Mr. Small said that was correct. Council Member Greene said then they would be changing it voluntarily and would have to notify the Post Office, EMS, the Town, the phone company, and everyone else. She said if they were changing it for more reasons than just EMS, then she would consider charging a fee. Mr. Horton said these requests do require staff time for checking and notification, and continued to recommend charging a fee.
Mayor Foy asked how many Council members supported implementing the fee. Mayor Foy and Council Members Greene, Verkerk, Hill, Harrison and Strom supported the fee. Council Members Kleinschmidt and Ward and Mayor pro tem Wiggins did not support implementing the fee [straw vote – 6 to 3].
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she was against all fees that “nitpicked” taxpayers.
Recreation Department (Item #9c)
Parks and Recreation Director Kathryn Spatz reviewed all of their fees, noting that the Parks and Recreation Commission had asked them to look at fees charged for rentals of athletic fields and gymnasium space. She said they were already among the highest in terms of fees charged for adult sports, but were in line for youth sports.
Ms. Spatz stated that they were recommending increasing fees charged for field space, used exclusively by athletic groups, house leagues, travel leagues, club sports, and the like. She said regarding gym space, 95 percent of the rentals were by the same type of users, with only a small portion attributed to personal rentals for parties or similar activities. Ms. Spatz said the bulk of the increases they were suggesting came from their attempt to recoup 100 percent of direct costs for youth sports. She said with these changes their revenue estimates would increase by $26,000. Mr. Horton noted with all the suggested changes, the total would be $33,500.
Mayor Foy said there were some potential decreases in expenditures identified in the staff memo. Mr. Horton responded that a number of departments had responded to the Budget Review Advisory Subcommittee’s challenge to identify potential cuts to reduce the budget, and had prepared material to show what the potential effect would be if such cuts were to be implemented. He said that type of information had been provided from each of the departments on the Subcommittee’s list. Mr. Horton said they did not recommend the kinds of changes that would be involved, noting they could make the changes but it would result in a deterioration of services, in his opinion. He said they had no hesitation in recommending the fee increases put forth by the departments and which were substantial in total.
Council Member Strom said one thing that struck him was the consideration of raising the fees charged for booths at street fairs. Ms. Spatz said they had been raised significantly over the past five years particularly for food vendors, and they had compared the Town’s fees to those of street fairs in nearby communities, which was difficult since most of those fairs were two-day affairs. Ms. Spatz said she believed the fees were in line with them.
Council Member Strom asked what did a booth cost, noting he thought they were reasonable. Ms. Spatz responded that for non-profits, the fee was $85, for crafters it was around $120, and for food vendors it was significantly more, in the $220 range. She said she would provide the Council with the exact figures. Council Member Strom said it seemed likely that this was something to consider.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins thanked Ms. Spatz for the list of things she was not recommending adjustments in, noting they were important services to the community.
Mayor Foy asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission attempted to demonstrate to the County Commissioners the cost of services to Orange County residents. Ms. Spatz said no, because of the reciprocal relationship they have with the County and Carrboro, they were all considered residents. Mr. Horton said he believed the Mayor was asking did the Parks and Recreation Commission make presentations to the County Commissioners to request a higher level of funding. Ms. Spatz responded they had in the past.
Mayor Foy said when they make that presentation, do they have data available that shows services provided to County residents. Ms. Spatz replied yes. Mayor Foy asked could she correlate the cost of services to the revenue that Orange County contributes. Ms. Spatz replied they had not gone that far. She noted that they believed the heaviest usage by non-Town residents was of the parks and greenways, which they do not track. She said they do track participation in classes, sport leagues, and other fee-type activities, and that had been presented to the County Commissioners in the past.
Mayor Foy asked how often the County contribution went up. Mr. Horton replied it had not gone up in several years, but noted that the Library contribution had been increased. He said the Council authorized performance agreements to support the Senior Center with a direct contribution of about $48,000 and also to Friends of the Senior Center at $32,000, so it was nearly a even swap of money.
Mayor Foy said the Council was discussing increasing fees, and Orange County paid a fee for use of our facilities on behalf of Orange County residents who did not pay taxes in Chapel Hill. He said he believed if the Town were to provide Commissioners with evidence that a number of possible uses had increased over the last five years and our costs had increased, and the usage by Orange County residents had increased, that a fee increase was warranted. Ms. Spatz responded she was not sure numbers would reflect that, noting that they had seen a decrease in the number of out-of-town users, particularly in the summer camp programs where priority was given to Chapel Hill residents, noting they fill up quickly. Ms. Spatz said historically that program was heavily subsidized by fee reductions, and five years ago it was a significant contribution that the Town was making to cover fee reductions for non-Town residents, but that was no longer the case.
Mr. Horton said one of the biggest, most noticeable and easiest to measure gaps has been support in the Special Olympics program, and the Council earlier this year had authorized the Mayor to send a letter requesting funding of $16,000 for that. He stated the response received from the County to date was that instead they believed it would be feasible to get hours of service from Carrboro’s Recreation staff and the County’s Recreation staff. Mr. Horton said they had immediately written to the County’s Recreation staff and to Carrboro’s Recreation staff inquiring as to how many hours they would be willing to contribute each week. There has been no response, he said.
Mayor Foy asked if there were any objections to the suggested fee increases for Parks and Recreation. There were no objections from the Council.
Library (Item #8a, #8b)
Library Director Kathy Thompson said they were proposing an out-of-County increase of $10 to its current $50 charge, which would result in $5,150 in additional income. She said they proposed adding a pay phone in the lobby, with revenues estimated at $3,000. Ms. Thompson said they currently prohibit UNC and for-profit groups from using meeting room space, and they were proposing to allow that and charge a $20 fee, with revenue estimated at $1,000. She said they suspect with the demand for meeting space that amount would rise. Ms. Thompson said they were suggesting an increase in out-of-County card fees by $10, from $50 to $60 annually, with revenue expected at $5,140.
Mr. Horton noted that he was not recommending the addition of the pay phone, because it was his experience that it would cost money rather than make money, but if they found that to be different based on experience, then he would recommend it. He said he did not recommend allowing UNC and for-profit groups to use Library meeting facilities because he did not believe there was adequate meeting space for citizens and non-profits in Town. Mr. Horton said that left only the out-of-County card fee to which Ms. Thompson was recommending an increase of $10. He asked what would happen if the objective of the Council was to reduce the market demand for out-of-County check-out of materials so that those materials could be reserved for in-County, principally Chapel Hill residents. The answer was that if the Town established a fee of $100 that would make a significant reduction in demand. Mr. Horton said whether that was accurate or not, they did not know.
Council Member Strom asked if Ms. Thompson could respond to a question that the Mayor had asked at an earlier Council meeting about what it cost to provide service to a Library user. Ms. Thompson replied that Chapel Hill pays $34.93 per resident. For the County, she said, it depended on how it was calculated. Ms. Thompson said if you take the southern Orange County population minus Chapel Hill and figure out what the per capita support was for that population of Orange County, it comes out to a support of around $20. If you take the entire south Orange population, she said, it comes out to $7.41. Ms. Thompson said if you take the south Orange population minus Chapel Hill residents (the actual citizens who are using the Library and have a card is about 12,000 people), that comes out to support of about $20 per capita.
Council Member Strom said he believed the Mayor’s question was when you look at operating the library and the debt and the salaries and the maintenance and utilities, what was it costing per patron. For example, he said if a Chatham County resident visited the Library and checked out four books, how much did it cost for that transaction. And, how many times a year is that Chatham County resident visiting the Library and making those transactions, Council Member Strom asked. Ms. Thompson said she did not think it was possible to track how many times a patron visited the library. Council Member Strom asked was it possible to track how many times they checked out books. Ms. Thompson said when those books were returned, the record was cleared.
Council Member Strom said he believed that would be a fairer way to access how much an out-of-County library card should cost. Ms. Thompson said if you try to do it by transaction or service the costs would vary. She said in library loan transactions, for example, it would be far more expensive than would a regular check-out. Council Member Strom said he was sure they could come up with some figure that would be a best estimate of transaction use and then the average user. He said just raising the fee $10 seemed irrelevant.
Mayor Foy said if it costs $2 million to operate the Library, and you have 500 cards, that would be a simple calculation. He said that would be useful to the Council to help them justify a fee of $100, which he did not believe was out of line. Mr. Horton said the reason he had requested that the Library staff take a look at what fee they thought would significantly reduce participation by out-of-County residents was because that was a way of testing the market. He said their conclusion was if the fee was set at $100 it would significantly reduce the number of participants. Mr. Horton said he suspected that if you were able to look at it on a transaction basis and figured the average number of transactions over the course of a year, and wanted to allocate a specific charge to an out-of-County resident, it would exceed $100. If the objective is to eliminate out-of-County participation, then they could go through a process and set a fee high enough to virtually eliminate it. Mr. Horton said the staff believed that setting the fee at $100 would significantly reduce participation.
Council Member Verkerk commented that with the huge developments planned for Chatham County just south of our border, and the fact that many of them were “high-end” homes, she was worried that $100 would still not be enough. She said that parents with children in Chatham County had no choice but to go elsewhere for library services, since none similar were available there. Mr. Horton said one approach might be to experiment, and check the renewals from that County. Ms. Thompson said that cards were renewed based on their anniversary date. Mr. Horton said then the fee could be raised to $100 and see what sort of refusal rate was obtained and report back to the Council each quarter.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had similar concerns, noting that it might be cheaper for Chatham County to pay to Chapel Hill $50 a head for every person who moved into northern Chatham County and not build a library. He said he had a problem with thinking about this as a cost recovery, because he saw library services as different from things like trash pick-up. Council Member Kleinschmidt said the best way to deal with this would be to limit the number of out-of-County cardholders. He said it was a special service that we could not provide to an entire region. Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would be willing to take the “revenue hit” and preserve the service for our residents, adding it would be less stress on our materials. He said it should be priced to the point that it would deter out-of-County users, noting the report stated it could deter 70 to 80 percent and that would be a good target.
Council Member Verkerk departed at 7:05 p.m.
Council Member Kleinschmidt reiterated that the Town would take a hit on revenues because participation would go down, but it would gain in other ways by reserving the services for its citizens. He said it was a special kind of service that should be maximized for Chapel Hill residents, and not wind up providing our Library services as a substitute for services not provided elsewhere.
Council Member Hill said by the same token, the idea of not charging for out-of-County Internet access should be looked at in the same way. He said he understood the concept behind the American Library Association’s (ALA) policy that Internet services remain free, but noted that our Internet access was a drawing card to people outside of Chapel Hill. Council Member Hill said his point was that a number of people come into the Library just for the Internet access, and he did not understand the logic between charging to check out books, and allowing the use of the Internet and reference books for free, adding it cost the Town more to provide that access than the cost of the books.
Council Member Kleinschmidt said that the marginal cost per Internet user was so small, that the Town paid the same price for anyone who used it. But, he stated, the books that were checked out, carted across the County line, subjected to dirt and wear then returned to the Library suffered damage.
Council Member Hill said that was true, but if you could reduce the number of computers by 10 because there were a reduced number of out-of-County users, then that resulted in a direct cost savings. Again, he said it was nice to provide the service to everyone but he did not see the distinction.
Mr. Horton commented that there were about 718 out-of-County users of the Internet, and 500 out-of-County cards, noting that was a relatively small number. If the Council established a policy that prohibited anyone from out of Orange County from using the Internet access, that would result in visitors to Chapel Hill being prohibited from that use as well.
Council Member Hill agreed, but said if they were going to raise the fees it should be considered, noting that there were more out-of-County people who use the Internet that those who actually buy a card.
Council Member Kleinschmidt stated that if you travel across the State and see a library, it was a place where you could stop and use the Internet service, then you leave and you have caused no harm.
Council Member Hill said what he was saying was that the Town’s cost to provide such a service to out-of-County users, particularly Chatham County, were real and should be addressed. He asked Ms. Thompson how many cards were issued to residents of Chapel Hill. Ms. Thompson replied approximately 18,000.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said the discussion to deter use of the Library by out-of-County users by raising the fee seemed to be aimed at Chatham County residents. So, she commented, why not just eliminate their use of the Library. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said if that was what the Council wanted to do, then they should step up and plainly say that.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said if the fee was raised to deter 70 to 80 percent of those out-of-County users, then we were left with wealthy Chatham County residents who consider $100 a small fee to pay for access to the library. She said she had a problem with pricing it out of reach of people in Chatham County that could not afford it. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said they either close the door to Chatham County, or they live with a fee that would allow a broader use.
Council Member Greene suggested using a sliding scale.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that Parks and Recreation used a sliding scale based on income. Mr. Horton commented it would seem intrusive to some Library users and would have some administrative costs associated with it.
Council Member Greene noted she supported the ALA’s policy of providing free Internet service as well. She said that whatever the Council decided regarding book user fees for out-of-County users, it would impact people moving into Chatham County. But, Council Member Greene stated, she did not believe that people would drive to Chapel Hill from Chatham County just to use the Internet. She said that given the numbers of people currently holding out-of-County cards, it was not worth addressing at this time.
Council Member Strom stated that many people who live outside the Town have Chapel Hill addresses. He asked how it was determined who were actual residents and taxpayers? Ms. Thompson replied the automation system allowed them to plot and track the cards, so that when people applied for the cards they were designated by zone and their residences pinpointed.
Mayor Foy suggested raising the rate to $100 and see how it went. He said he agreed with what Mayor pro tem Wiggins had said, but on the other hand it was people like the woman mentioned who could not afford the taxes on her home that were subsidizing Chatham County residents’ use of the Library. Mayor Foy said it was a balancing act, and hated the idea of saying no just because someone who wanted a card did not live in Chapel Hill.
Mayor Foy said if you live in Chapel Hill then you contributed to paying for the Library, if you don’t then do you part and pay a fee, noting that $100 “barely helped.” He said they should just do it.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins asked why were they backing away from just saying “no Chatham County residents.” Mayor Foy said it just seemed “mean” to him. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said raising it to $100 to deter use could be deemed as “mean.” Mayor Foy responded he was not suggesting raising it to $100 to deter the use, rather to recover some of the costs of providing the service. He said it probably cost closer to $500, and he did not think out-of-County users were paying their share.
Mayor Foy asked if there was objection to that as a course of action.
Council Member Ward said the Manager had commented there were some administrative difficulties in instituting a sliding scale or a low-income fee waiver, but he would prefer that we do that. He said we had found a way to do that with Parks and Recreation services and there were convincing reasons to do it for library services. Council Member Ward said he did not like to put up financial barriers, especially for services such as the library. He wanted to know what it would cost to provide a system similar to that used by Parks and Recreation to create an opportunity to those who wanted to have access to the service if the $100 fee was out of their reach.
Mayor Foy said he would not support that, noting he did not see why Chapel Hill taxpayers who were struggling to pay their taxes should support anyone else’s use of Town services. He said that was something that Chatham County should deal with, noting it was part of the cost of growth.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins noted that was why she had said close the door to Chatham County.
Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that he believed Ms. Spatz had said that the sliding scale for out-of-County users of Parks and Recreation programs had been eliminated. Mr. Horton said that first priority had been given to Orange County residents.
Council Member Kleinschmidt departed at 7:15 p.m.
Transportation (Item #17c and #17g)
Transportation Director Mary Lou Kuschatka said item #17c concerning interior placard advertising on buses had begun in July of 2004 and there was a waiting list, with no movement on the list. She said currently they had 30 advertisers waiting for an opportunity to buy advertising space on buses, and may turn over one advertiser each quarter. Ms. Kuschatka said rates could be raised just on the supply and demand.
Ms. Kuschatka noted they had also looked at the dimensions of signs used, noting that if the size was restricted to 20” in length, two additional signs could be placed on each bus. She said they also recommended reserving one space for public service announcements, which was in great demand as well. Ms. Kuschatka stated that if both the rate and size proposals were enacted, the total revenue increase would be approximately $11,460.
Mayor Foy asked if there was any objection from the Council to these recommendations. There were none noted.
Regarding item #17g concerning exterior placard advertising, Ms. Kuschatka noted that the placards for this type of advertising would be mounted to the outside of buses on frames, similar to those used in Durham. She said if such an advertising program were considered, their recommendation was that it be handled through an advertising agency, noting it was labor intensive to operate and maintain. Ms. Kuschatka said that the Town would receive 55 percent of the revenue from the sale of the advertising.
Ms. Kuschatka said the other type of exterior advertising was known as wrapping, which consisted of a vinyl material that was applied to the outside of the bus, but appeared opaque from the outside and does not obstruct a passenger’s view from the inside. She said this program would be managed with the marketing staff person and they would recoup 100 percent of the revenue. Ms. Kuschatka noted there was a smaller market for this type of advertising, and the most common types of advertisers were car dealerships, cell phone companies, banks, or others that would be attractive to the market in Chapel Hill. She stated that they estimated revenue at about $15,000 per bus per year, and would sell the advertising in six-month and one-year increments, and limit the number of buses in the program.
Council Member Harrison said that two advisory boards had supported this, both the Transportation Board and Community Design Commission, which was a striking message. He said he grew up where advertising on buses was common, but he could not see Chapel Hill advertising, as had New York City, alcoholic beverages on its buses. Council Member Harrison said that the list of advertisers would have to be restricted somewhat, but believed it could work.
Council Member Harrison said there was a recent article in the News and Observer about public art on a wrapped bus on Duke Campus, noting it contained an image of Duke Chapel and the Quad. He said it was possible to have public art on wrapped buses, but it would be hard to make advertising artful. Council Member Harrison said that some residents might find it objectionable, but believed it was workable.
Council Member Strom said he was in favor of the interior bus advertising, but was completely opposed to the exterior placard and wrapped advertising. He said he thought the next stop would be billboards in parks. Council Member Strom said they talked about what makes this community different, and found these wraps and exterior ads distracting and a potential safety hazard for drivers. He added he believed it was in opposition to the community character they had invested so heavily in.
Council Member Greene said she was not completely opposed to exterior advertising, but asked what sort of policies would be put in place to regulate it. She noted one of the examples included in the materials of exterior advertising contained four pictures of a child who appears older in each placard, noting that in the last one she appears to have her shirt pulled up. Council Member Greene said she did not want to see anything like that on Chapel Hill buses, and asked how they would regulate that and what sort of standards would apply. Mr. Horton replied they would develop a set of standards for the Council’s consideration, adding he believed such a program would be problematic. He noted that when he had viewed the images mentioned by Council Member Greene, it had struck him as inconsistent with the values of the community that they would want to portray.
Mr. Horton said he was not sure they would be able to set standards that would clearly communicate in advance what they would be willing to allow. He said that would put Chapel Hill in the censorship business, and being a government agency that would raise challenges that he would like to avoid. Mr. Horton added that in addition, he thought they were unattractive and just didn’t like them.
Council Member Ward stated that Mr. Horton had taken the words right out of his month, noting he did not support bus wraps at all. He said this community had worked hard to reduce business signs to a minimum but attractive size and to have a 40 by 10 foot sign moving throughout the community was not appropriate in his opinion.
Council Member Ward said increasing the cost of adverting on the interior of buses made sense especially with the list of advertisers waiting in line to do so. He said he did not support either of the exterior advertising options.
Mayor Foy agreed, stating he did not like them, did not support them, and was not interested in talking about it any longer. There was no objection from the Council.
Recommendation of the Citizen’s Budget Advisory Subcommittee to Consider the Sale of the Old Library Building, and Charging Market Rate Rent for the Use of the Post Office/Court Building and the Old Town Hall (Item #18b)
Mayor Foy said it was important that the Council express its sense on these issues so that people that might be affected would have some certainty about where they might be headed. He said the Manager’s memo was self-explanatory and they were aware of what his recommendation was.
Mr. Horton said the Subcommittee was doing its job as best it could and identified this potential option for the Council’s consideration in an effort to fulfill its charge. He said he did not think that the Subcommittee had ample time to fully develop all the information that was required to understand the details of the effects of this recommendation. Mr. Horton said as he personally researched this issue, it became more and more complicated and there was a domino effect involved in testing their recommendations.
Mr. Horton said he recommended retaining ownership of all three of these buildings, the Old Library Building, the Post Office/Court Building, and the Old Town Hall. In the short term, he said, the uses that are now in them are sensible uses for this community and consistent with the Council’s goals and objectives. Mr. Horton said there may come a time when the Old Library Building would be needed for Town offices, services, and public meeting space. He said the future of the Post Office/Court Building might see some change, but he hoped that the courts would continue to make use of it and possibly increase its use since it was convenient for Chapel Hill citizens.
Mr. Horton said that the U.S. Post Office had been an anchor tenant for many years, and noted that the building was a meeting place in the community. He observed that meeting places were hard to establish and once lost were very difficult to replicate. Mr. Horton said the Teen Center was located there, and provided a community service that reached a group of young people that was not reached by other programs. He noted that at least for the time being the Old Town Hall was being put to good use to serve a population in desperate need.
Mr. Horton said he believed the Town would eventually need to recover that building, he hoped within the next few years, and that the IFC would be in new quarters more appropriately designed for their needs. He said he believed the Town would soon need that building for office space for Town operations, services and meeting space, and did not think that day was very far way. Mr. Horton stated that the Town had already had to rent a small amount of space, and if services and employees were added then rental of space would become a significant budget concern.
Mayor Foy said the Subcommittee’s recommendations deserved careful consideration by the Council. He said he believed the Council and the staff had given careful consideration to the Subcommittee’s recommendations and this extensive list of fees was one example of the good recommendations that had been taken seriously.
Mayor Foy said he did not support selling any of these buildings, but did support a facilities study. He stated that the Council needed to know where they were headed over the next few years with regard to demand for the buildings, so that the current occupants would have time to make alternate plans.
Council Member Greene said she did not support selling any Town buildings as well.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she did not support selling them, either. She asked the Manager to comment on the ongoing maintenance, utilities, and other expenses the Town had for those buildings. Mr. Horton replied that at the Old Library, the primary expense was major maintenance items, adding that the occupants provided for minor repairs and custodial services. He said the major maintenance items were expensive, noting they had agreed to pay over a period of time to reimburse the Town for some air conditioning work, but were unable to pay for all of the kinds of costs that a normal tenant would pay. Mr. Horton said they did pay for their own utilities but there was room for increasing the charge, noting right now it was zero and would extend to 2006 under the terms of their lease.
At the Post Office/Court Building, Mr. Horton noted the Council had earlier instructed him to arrange to keep the Post Office as a service in the building, so when they renegotiated with them several years ago the Town attempted to recover a larger share of the utility and custodial costs that we provided for that building. Mr. Horton said the court was not charged, but the court did transmit to the Town a certain portion of the court fees associated with cases that were tried there. He said last year it was about $35,000 and it could be more this year. Mr. Horton said he believed it could be as much as $50,000 next year because of increased usage.
Mr. Horton noted the Teen Center was a community service and the Council had not charged anything for that service.
For the IFC community program, the homeless shelter and the community kitchen, Mr. Horton noted that the Council had treated that as a community service and had made the building available without charge, had paid all utilities, provided major and minor maintenance, and provided custodial and landscape services. All of those were quite substantial, he stated, but the Council’s view was that it was a valuable community service that met a need that the Council would otherwise have to meet.
Council Member Greene departed at 7:23 p.m.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated that the provision of major maintenance was something she thought was important in order to protect their investment. Mr. Horton noted that was correct, and he would continue to recommend that. He commented that the Town would soon be performing some work on the Post Office/Court Building, principally roof repair, which he believed was essential to protect that asset. Mr. Horton said the buildings were good buildings that could be preserved for quite a while and they were in good locations, and that it is very difficult to find space for public services in the community at this time.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she had asked the question for the benefit of those citizens who were watching the broadcast, adding she believed they would want the Council to have a good rationale for wanting to continue to operate in this manner.
Mayor Foy noted that they had only a short time left for discussion, and asked if the Council would prefer to discuss Item #6, Information Technology Issues, or Item #12c, Public Works Department Reorganization. He said that both of these were topics that they had already had some discussion on, and believed the Manager would need some direction from the Council. Mr. Horton noted he would appreciate an opportunity make a presentation on technology issues, as they were in substantial disagreement with the recommendations of the Technology Committee.
Mayor Foy asked if he would like to make a presentation in the few minutes they had left this evening. Mr. Horton responded that he believed it would take longer than that, and if the Council wanted to adjourn on time he would suggest that issue be discussed at the next budget work session. Mayor Foy said the Council had been clear that they wanted to adjourn on time, noting that three Council members had already departed. He suggested that they spend the time discussing the Public Works reorganization.
Public Works Reorganization (Item #12c)
Mr. Horton said with the Council’s permission, he would like to work with them to schedule another budget work session very soon to discuss technology issues. Mayor Foy agreed that another work session was necessary.
Mr. Horton said there were several key issues, one of which was that he did not believe it was feasible to consolidate fleet maintenance operations under the supervision of an assistant transportation director as recommended by MAXIMUS and as endorsed by the Subcommittee. He said we had discussed that proposal with representatives of the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and they challenged the Town to provide an example of where it had worked. Mr. Horton said the consultant was able to identify only one place where that had been done, which meant it was not usual and in fact was rare.
Mr. Horton said they believe it would be a problem because the FTA would always be suspicious that the Town was subverting the use of its money to the Town’s benefit. He said he believed that the Town’s partners, Carrboro and the University, would also have some of those same concerns. Mr. Horton added that the kind of equipment that was maintained and the knowledge that was required, and the kind of people who wanted to maintain buses and wanted to manage bus fleets, were substantially different than the talents and skills of people who had an interest in managing and maintaining a fleet of garbage trucks, fire trucks, passengers cars, small motors, and things of that nature.
Mr. Horton said another concern was that the Town has separate facilities, that it has them now and would have them in the future. And, he noted, the FTA rules require separate facilities. It was their conclusion that it would not work, Mr. Horton added.
Mr. Horton said he did think it was feasible to consolidate the Housing Maintenance operation as part of the other Buildings and Maintenance program and strongly recommended that. He said he believed it was small enough and could work, and had been designed into the facility so that it would work.
Mr. Horton said their primary recommendation was that the Town rearrange the resources so that it gave greater attention and a clearer community-wide and organization-wide focus on sustainability and environmental issues that the Council had put in the forefront. He said that had started a number of years ago, but it had become quite clear that sustainability issues and environmental issues were intended to guide everything that the Town does, particularly the protection, conservation, and use of physical resources.
Mr. Horton said Chapel Hill had been working on alternative fuel programs for several years, and it was becoming more prominent and would become even more prominent as fuel prices increased. He said the Town would have to have hybrid vehicles and would be a leader in that regard. Mr. Horton said he was also concerned about a Green Fleet program, and the Council had recently received a Green Fleet policy that outlined key objectives and had referred that policy to the Council Committee on Sustainability, Energy, and Environment.
Mr. Horton said they were strong supporters of the N.C. League of Municipalities’ program, Energy and Environmental Design, and the Council was putting together polices that would require that new buildings meet those standards. He said the Town has a staff person who had become League certified, and he believed that would help the Town.
Mayor Foy asked where that person was located. Mr. Horton responded he was in the Public Works Department and would be in the division that would be managing sustainability and environmental issues.
Mr. Horton said he believed there were things that the Town needed to do in design that would contribute to sustainability and that the ordinance enforcement, particularly the tree ordinance enforcement, was becoming increasingly important. He said he recommended a rearrangement of all of the resources. Mr. Horton said they were putting together a different kind of structure in response to the challenges they have as well as making the best use of the resources that they have. He said they were not asking for any additional employees and were not asking for any additional money, but were asking for an opportunity to rearrange the resources in order to do a better job.
Mayor Foy noted that the rearrangement the Manager had addressed was outlined in the agenda materials in chart form, and noted as Exhibit 1. Mayor Foy asked if there were any objections from the Council.
Council Member Ward said he had no objection, but wanted to thank the Manager for being proactive in this regard and taking the efforts of the Council, particularly over the last several years, as a sign of continued commitment and awareness. He said that to effectively administer that Council guidance required having a person or part of a department focused on that.
Mayor Foy thanked the Manager as well, saying he believed Mr. Horton and his staff had done an excellent job of providing the Council with a lot of information, and had taken seriously the requests of the Council and the Citizens Subcommittee to look critically at this budget. Mr. Horton replied that the Department Heads had worked hard on this, as well as a number of their staff members.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins stated that she did not want to discuss the Human Services Advisory Board Funding, but wanted to comment on it. She noted that there were six organizations that we funded directly, and that the recommendation was that all the funding come through the Human Services Advisory Board. She said in order to do that, she believed that the history of those six agencies, that were not a part of the competition process, was needed to be able to discuss it intelligently. Mayor pro tem Wiggins said there were some that would lend themselves to be put under that Board’s process to compete with others, and there were others that the Council may want to prevent having to go that route. She said to achieve that, the history of all six of these agencies was important.
Mr. Horton said he wanted to make it clear they were not recommending any change, but felt an obligation to offer a vehicle for that change if the Council desired to do so.
Mayor pro tem Wiggins said she appreciated that, adding she did not know how other Council members felt about it. She said if it ever emerged to a higher level of discussion, then it was a decision they could not make without the history of the six agencies. Mr. Horton said they would be pleased to provide that information if the Council wished. However, he added, if the Council did not wish it the staff would be relieved not to have to prepare another working paper.
Mayor Foy noted that another budget work session would be scheduled, so the Council could hold on to the pertinent items or the Town Clerk could redistributed them. He asked the Council to notify him by email of the issues they wanted to discuss at the next work session so that they could be prioritized and placed on the agenda.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.