SUMMARY MINUTES OF A BUSINESS MEETING

OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL

MONDAY, MARCH 27, 2006, AT 7:00 P.M.

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

Council members present were Laurin Easthom, Sally Greene, Ed Harrison, Cam Hill, Mark Kleinschmidt, Bill Strom, Bill Thorpe, and Jim Ward.

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, Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster, Information Technology Director Bob Avery, Housing Director Tina Vaughn, Housing and Neighborhood Services Coordinator Loryn Clark, Development Coordinator Gene Poveromo, and Town Clerk Sabrina Oliver.

Item 1 – Ceremonies:  None.

Item 2 – Public Hearings:  None.

Item 3 – Petitions

3a(1).   Judy Roberts regarding a Four-Way Stop at Banks Drive and Westminster Drive.

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

3a(2).   Joe Capowski regarding More Creative Street Lighting in the Downtown.

Mr. Capowski provided a PowerPoint presentation on streetlighting, and requested that the Council expand its streetlighting thinking beyond purely utilitarian lighting and install streetlights that will become a Town symbol of pride.  He exhibited photos of the streetlights in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, noting that streetlights were a major part of the beauty not only of the downtown but of the neighborhoods as well.

Mayor Foy asked the Town Manager for the status of the Streetscape Committee’s recommendations regarding developing a plan that included streetlighting.  Mr. Horton responded that they would be following up on those recommendations in just a few weeks.

Mayor Foy said when the Council had received the report from the Streetscape Committee regarding the lighting, they had asked the Manager to consult with a professional regarding that.

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

3a(3).   Family House at UNC Hospitals regarding Funding Request.

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

Announcements by Council Members.

Council Member Thorpe noted that the Town Manager had been out of town the previous week, and everything had operated seamlessly due to the well-trained staff he had left behind.

Item 4 – Consent Agenda

Mayor Foy requested that Item #4h, Budget Amendment – Manager Recruitment, be removed for discussion to allow the public to receive an update on the Council’s process for hiring a new Town Manager.  There was no objection from the Council.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-1, AMENDED TO REMOVE ITEM #4h.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item #4h, Budget Amendment – Manager Recruitment

Tim Dempsey and Anita Badrock, the Town’s consultants for the hiring of a new town manager, outlined the process.

Mr. Dempsey stated there were several ways to go about recruitment of an individual, the most likely being that you determine a list of desirable characteristics and skills and then recruit that type of person.  He said rather than starting out by looking at the characteristics, they had said why not start by understanding exactly what the need was.

Mr. Dempsey said they had approached that in three steps, the first of which was to see what really worked well today and why.  He said as the second step, you begin to look at what changes might take place in the future, and what were the most important issues the Town would be facing.  Mr. Dempsey said then, as a third step, they would dream about what they want from this position, and ask how to make the Town the best it could be.

Mr. Dempsey said they proposed beginning the process by interviewing people involved with these types of processes, starting with the Town Council, the Manager and department heads, and from that they would collate the data about what is best about today and what the future needs were.  He said out of that data, he and Ms. Badrock would start to draw up a position profile and begin the process of advertising and recruiting.  Mr. Dempsey said he wanted to involve all of the stakeholders in the interview process.

Ms. Badrock said she believed they were sitting at a unique period in time, and this was a good opportunity to do some in-depth work to make sure the next town manager could move forward and build on current situations to bring the Town into the next phase of its existence.

Mayor Foy noted that page three of the attachment to this item outlined the process that was planned.  He quoted, “This proposal differs from and expands upon a traditional executive search proposal in key ways:

1. The level of background work involved to assess needs and develop an ideal candidate profile and search principles. 
2. The amount of work involved to assure that key stakeholders’ needs and concerns are carefully and clearly identified.  
3. The amount of time required to assure communication with all decision makers and to assure a fair and due diligence review of all potential candidates.
4. The need to screen a larger finalist group to a more detailed standard.

Mayor Foy said those were the ways that this search would differ from a typical search, and you could see from the amount of time devoted to this that there would be a lot of time spent on the candidate profile by interviewing the Council, Manager, Department Heads and other stakeholders.

Mayor Foy noted that they had just begun the advertising process and had just that day received 20 resumes.  He said they did expect a large volume of applicants as well as a high quality of applicants.  Mayor Foy said they would rely on their in-house Human Resources personnel as well as on Mr. Dempsey and Ms. Badrock to help them come to an objective conclusion about what was best for the Town.

Mayor Foy said he wanted to comment on the decision to hire Mr. Dempsey and Ms. Badrock, and his rationale for seeking their help rather than someone else.  He said both of them had strong credentials in Human Resources, but what was more important was their involvement and familiarity with Chapel Hill.  Mayor Foy said both of them had served on Town advisory boards, and he believed they would be able to assist in finding the right person with the right background for this Town.

Council Member Easthom asked why they needed to spend $35,000 for this work versus what other towns in the area had spent or are spending.  She noted that Carrboro had spent only $21,000 to recruit its Town Manager, and Durham had spent about $24,750.  Council Member Easthom asked what they would do for Chapel Hill that sets this price.  Ms. Badrock responded that a traditional search process would not involve the level of communication individually with as many people as this process had, adding that they would be interviewing over 30 people before they even got started on the process of building a candidate profile.  She said the level of participation among the stakeholders was much higher than in a traditional process, and certainly much higher than what she had conducted for private executive searches.

Ms. Badrock said, in keeping with the spirit of Chapel Hill they would personally review every resume.  She said that made a difference in terms of the quality of information that the search committee would receive for evaluation.

Mr. Dempsey said that Chapel Hill had the opportunity to continue to be the best possible community.  He said he did not know if Durham or Carrboro had approached their search that way, but to add $10,000 to the cost of Chapel Hill’s process was a bargain for that type of process.  Mr. Dempsey said the current Town Manager had been here for 16 years.  He said the type of process set out was a good idea, noting this was an opportunity to stop and ask what really worked well about the Town.  Mr. Dempsey said that was not easy to do.  He said he was not trying to sell this process to the Council, noting it was up to them to decide what they wanted to do.

Mayor Foy said that was a good point, adding the Town had approached them and asked for the services that were being offered.  He said the time being spent on the up-front interviews alone, estimated at about 80 hours, was worth the additional $10,000.

Council Member Easthom said that other search committees did spend the time to interview elected officials, department heads and employees, noting she had witnessed that.  She asked why they needed to see thousands of dollars more for the detail.  Council Member Easthom asked why Chapel Hill was different, other than that it wanted to adhere to a different standard than others had gone through.  Ms. Badrock stated that the process was what was requested of them, that they did not propose it.  She said they had responded to the level of detail that was wanted, and in her opinion as a taxpayer in this town this process was what was needed.  Ms. Badrock said she would be happier with the final selection if this due diligence assessment were used, remarking that she wanted to see the next town manager stay for 15 years or more.

Mr. Dempsey reiterated that he was not trying to sell the Council on the process, but wanted to relate the value he believed the Town would get by doing it.  He stated he would begin by asking if the Council believed the Town was perfect, and if it believed it was the very best at everything it did.  Mr. Dempsey said most towns were not, but this Town was very effective and was run well.  He said for that reason finding out how to improve it might be a difficult chore. Mr. Dempsey said the type of value you might get was more than just a list of qualifications, but really was finding a person that would help Chapel Hill be the best it could be.

Council Member Easthom said she certainly wanted what was best for Chapel Hill, but since around $21,000 was the market rate she wanted to know exactly what they would receive if they were going to have the same end result.  She said the detail mentioned was not that clear to her as far as how other firms do it and how the Town would approach it.  Council Member Easthom said she was pleased to have Mr. Dempsey and Ms. Badrock working with them.

Council Member Easthom remarked that Orange County was conducting a search for a new county manager, and they had requested bids for help with that.  She asked Ms. Badrock if she had interviewed for that process.  Ms. Badrock said she had participated in the information session with the County regarding their search.  Council Member Easthom asked if Ms. Badrock had decided not to pursue an estimate for them.  Ms. Badrock said she was not sure what process the County would be using, but she knew they had received two estimates.  She said she had reviewed those estimates and they were in the $20,000 to $21,000 range.  Ms. Badrock said the County’s process did not include the level of work upfront that Chapel Hill’s process called for.

Ms. Badrock said that it was possible that the organizational development work could have been conducted at another time and then folded into an executive search, noting that many organizations do that.  But, she said, this process called for that organizational development work to be performed at the same time.

Mr. Dempsey stated that the organization development profession was sometimes mysterious, noting they did things like interventions and used fancy techniques like appreciative inquiry.  He said he believed it was their job to make the invisible visible, although he did not know yet what that might be.  Mr. Dempsey said he pledged to the Council that they would receive value for the work performed, but could not say exactly what that was because they had not begun the interviews.

Mr. Dempsey said he believed it was forward thinking of the Council to spend the extra dollars and have such a process, and assuming they understand what the Town Manager’s role was now and what it would be in the future.

Council Member Easthom asked members of the Search Committee exactly what they thought the detail would be and why they needed to have that amount of detail.

Mayor Foy said he had consulted with the School of Government and asked about the best process to use.  He said the professor he had talked with had recommended this type of process, which used an upfront involvement with all the stakeholders, not just the Council.  Mayor Foy said one of their options was to engage in a typical search, which would be to identify a person and then go after him or her.  He said another option would be to think about the Town’s organization and what it needed over the next five to ten years, and then decide who the leader of the organization might be.

Mayor Foy said the Town had a great manager and should take this opportunity to identify what the organization needed in the future.  He said the way to identify what was needed was to talk to a broad group of people and ask questions that go beyond simplistic ones.  Mayor Foy said the reason they had these two consultants was so there could be confidentially and trust and a real sharing of information when interviews were conducted.  He said they could bring a person in with a lot of groundwork having been laid, with regard to what the Town needs and where they expect to go as an organization, not just as a town.  Mayor Foy said that was what he expected to get from the level of work that they would be engaging in.

Council Member Easthom stated that it appeared the Mayor was comfortable that no other group would be able to do just that.  Mayor Foy said they could conduct a generic search, but that was not what they were looking for.  He said the consultants would be spending a great deal of time, and if you wanted to delete 80 hours then you could bring the price down to around $23,000.  Mayor Foy said that was not what the Town had asked for.  He said it was possible that others could conduct the work, but he was satisfied with these two and had no interest in looking elsewhere.  He noted that two of the benefits of using Mr. Dempsey and Ms. Badrock were that the Town would be “buying local,” and that they each had a vested interest in this community.

Council Member Easthom said she agreed with that, but since they were just entertaining one group and not going through any bidding process, then they as a Council should do due diligence by bringing up these questions.  She said she would not have questioned the lack of a bidding process had the price tag not been so high.  Council Member Easthom said the price tag is significantly higher than what others had paid, and she wondered why Chapel Hill needed to pay such a high price tag to get a town manager.  She said she believed it was important to ask these questions.

Council Member Easthom said not to misunderstand her, that she wanted Mr. Dempsey and Ms. Badrock to do the work.  She said she only wanted to better understand why the cost was so high.

Council Member Ward said they would be doing more than just an executive search.  He said he saw this as an opportunity to do a strategic plan for Town government, to look critically at where they were and where they wanted to go, and then identify the person to lead them.  Council Member Ward said that this, in addition to the executive search, justified the additional cost.

Council Member Ward said in the section titled “Assess Need,” it was indicated they wanted to conduct one focus group and they identified one well-known group in Town.  He said he would prefer looking for a broader mix of key stakeholders rather than just that one group.  Mr. Dempsey replied that the group was mentioned as an example only.  He said the Search Committee had not discussed this yet, and it was not intended to limit that focus group.  Council Member Ward said he wanted to include a broad mix of key leadership people from a wide variety of groups.

Council Member Ward said the search process noted that at the point where they were down to eight candidates, then the four Search Committee members would each call and interview two finalists, then the list would be reduced to three to five finalists.  He said it seemed to him that the Council member on the Search Committee would know two of the candidates very well, certainly much better than the others.  Council Member Ward said he did not see how one could go into the decision-making process with that uneven understanding of all of the candidates.  Ms. Badrock said the recommendation was that each candidate be contacted by two different Council members, being mindful of the fact that the Council members had many other duties and mindful that it was better to have a least two different perspectives on each candidates.  She said that would give some balance to the process.  Ms. Badrock said that was a model that had worked well in other searches she had conducted.

Mayor Foy noted that the Search Committee was also working with Human Resources Director Pam Eastwood on this, and part of what they had done was followed her advice.  He said the way this worked with Town searches for department heads was similar, in that Ms. Eastwood might call and interview two candidates, the Deputy Manager might call two, and so on.  Mayor Foy said that process acknowledged that all involved could not interview everyone due to time constraints of the candidates as well as others.

Council Member Ward asked if this was a tested method for recruitment that had resulted in reliable results then he was comfortable with it, at least on the surface.

Mayor Foy said another point to remember was that the candidates would be asked scripted questions, so each of them would be responding to the same questions asked of the others.  He said there was a possibility that other questions could be asked as follow-up.

Council Member Ward asked if those interviews could be taped so that others could listen to them at their convenience.  Ms. Badrock said absolutely.  Council Member Ward said that would be a way to broaden exposure to the candidates.

Council Member Ward asked for an honest assessment of the schedule.  He said it seemed optimistic in terms of finishing by June 30.  Council Member Ward asked if the schedule was doable only if everything worked exactly as planned.  Mr. Dempsey said the schedule was aggressive, but he believed they would meet it.  He said they were dependent on the role of the Human Resources Department, as well as the role of the Council in meeting the July 15 offer date.  Mr. Dempsey said working backwards from that date, they want to have a candidate chosen by July 1, and want to be able to give the Council a schedule of exactly what dates and times their participation would be necessary.  He said the schedule was aggressive, which was one of the reasons this had not been put out to bid.  Mr. Dempsey said he believed the schedule could be met, but if they saw signs that the schedule was faltering the Council would be notified immediately.  He said it was important to remember that the finalist chosen may need to provide a sixty- or ninety-day notice to his or her current employer.

Council Member Ward asked what was so important about the July 15 date.  Ms. Badrock said they wanted to give the Council an opportunity to take a vacation.  She said they were mindful of the fact that the Council had limited meetings in the summer, and also to provide the new manager time to give notice and relocate to the area by September 1st.  Ms. Badrock said there was also the issue of filling the position without creating a vacancy, noting that continuity of leadership was very important.

Council Member Ward said the fact that the Council did not normally meet during July and August should not be the determining factor as to how they conduct their work and how they conduct it with the Council.  He suggested looking at what needed to be done rather than forcing it into the July 15 date.  Ms. Badrock said that was certainly a decision that the Search Committee and the Council would make.  She said if they were very clear about when they needed the Council and what they needed the Council for, she was sure she and Mr. Dempsey could do their part of this work and make the deadline happen.  Ms. Badrock said it was important to remember that the final portion of the process was heavily dependent upon the Council’s time.

Mr. Dempsey said if the present Manager were leaving in October or November, they would not be pushing the Council to meet a July 15 date.  He said it would be good for the Town to have an overlap with managers, but it would also be good not to have an Acting Manager for too long a period.  Mr. Dempsey said if they found they did not have the quality of candidates necessary, then the schedule would have to be delayed.  He said they would not make those decisions for the schedule’s sake.

Council Member Kleinschmidt echoed his high confidence in Mr. Dempsey and Ms. Badrock. He said he believed that Council Member Easthom had made a good point about the need to be critical and question some things in order to have a good understanding.  He said he had argued earlier in the process that the Council needed to carry this burden for the Town.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said those Council members not on the Search Committee were not relieved of this duty.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said they needed to ask questions that allow them to have a full understanding.  He said he shared Council Member Easthom’s concerns about the cost, noting it seemed high to him.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed that if they had hired a firm to facilitate the hiring that the same type of preliminary work would have been done in some form at a lower cost.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he was also concerned about the comparison made in terms of cost to an executive search, noting he did not believe that was a fair comparison.  He said he did not believe the Town could take an “off the shelf” executive search and apply it to this situation.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said if they were to hire a firm to conduct this search, it would be a “town manager-like search.”  He said even though the Town Manager had served for 15 years, the process of identifying town managers during a search was a dynamic thing in this country because managers consistently moved and there were firms who made their living by recruiting those people.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said there were established processes to identify a new leader that necessitated interviewing people like senior staff, elected officials, and citizens.

Council Member Kleinschmidt asked the consultants if they could elaborate on their earlier comments and on what he had just said, and then tie it into the cost aspect.  Mr. Dempsey said they would most likely do double the interviews that would normally be done in such a process as Council Member Kleinschmidt had described.  He said in many cases relatively junior level staff were sent to conduct those early interviews who knew how to conduct those interviews in 45 minutes, and knew how to ask for what the other characteristics were and put a list together in 15 minutes.

Mr. Dempsey said with the current Town Manager, those that directly reported to him and the heads of the larger departments, they would be conducting two-hour interviews.  He said he had done hundreds, possibly a thousand of these types of interviews, and it could take 15 to 30 minutes to build enough trust to get people to open up and share.

Mr. Dempsey said the two points to remember were that they would be conducting double the interviews, and they would do much more in-depth interviews in order to achieve a better analysis.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said that was a highly defensible argument for the efforts they were proposing.  He said that was a good explanation, and he believed they would achieve a better value from this process.

Council Member Kleinschmidt encouraged the Search Committee to tape the phone interviews and make them available to the Council.  He said if they had eight candidates and were going to whittle it down to three to five, it was important for him to feel involved with those final eight people.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said it would be helpful as well if an executive summary of the interviews could be prepared.

Mayor Foy asked if there was any reason why that could not be done.  Ms. Badrock said the only issue she could identify was at what point the candidates became public.  She said it sounded as if it was being suggested that at the point when they were down to eight they would remain confidential.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said that was correct.

Ms. Badrock said that each of those candidates would provide a three- to five-page executive summary.  She said it was possible that Council members would need to visit her office to hear the interviews, but it was also possible an alternate location could be identified.

Mayor Foy said they would certainly consider that.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would appreciate that.  He said he also wanted to see who the final eight candidates were and to personally reflect on the diversity of those candidates, and to be comfortable with that.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he appreciated the level of attention given to the process.  He said he was concern about the criteria and needs assessment of the candidates.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said the value he sees that a firm would offer was experience with the candidate pool, so much so that he could imagine a scenario where a firm who was engaged in high level searches, which had seen scores of these types of candidates, might have a candidate who did not fit in a particular community but would be a good fit for Chapel Hill.    He said a firm would be able to present that kind of experience to the Town. Council Member Kleinschmidt said for instance, a candidate from Spokane applied for the Manager’s position in Peoria but for some reason did not apply to Chapel Hill.  But, he said, the firm knew about this candidate and knew s/he was a good fit for Chapel Hill and would encourage them to apply.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said what he saw missing in this process was that knowledge of the pool of candidates, and asked how that was accommodated for, if at all. Ms. Badrock responded that Council Member Kleinschmidt was right in one respect, in that her firm was not a specialist in Town Manager searches.  She said from her own personal experience when she had participated in executive level searches, there were advantages and disadvantages to knowing your candidate well.  Ms. Badrock said if you had a situation where the candidates did not perform as well as expected that gave you some bias regarding that candidate and limited the ability to look at that candidate with a fresh eye. She stated she believed they would be able to attract “great” candidates, adding that providing a fresh look at a candidate could be a valuable thing.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he assumed that part of that would be the diligence with which the person’s background would be checked and evaluated.

COUNCIL MEMBER HILL MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-8.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY    (9-0).

COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE O-1.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY  (9-0).

Mayor Foy recognized Josephine Stevens, who asked to speak regarding Item #4k, Request for Expedited Processing of a Special Use Permit Modification Application for the Chapel Hill Bible Church for a Park/Ride Terminal.

Josephine Stevens, President of the Presque Isle Village Homeowners Association, stated that the Homeowners Association objected to the expedited processing of the Chapel Hill Bible Church’s Special Use Permit (SUP) Modification application for a park and ride lot.  She said in order for them to fully understand the request they needed time to obtain more information.  Ms. Stevens said she had provided the Town Clerk with a series of questions for which they would appreciate a response.

Mayor Foy noted that granting of the expedited review did not mean that the SUP Modification was being granted.  He said the Council would follow the same process with the Bible Church as it did with all other applications.

Item 5 – Information Reports

Council Member Harrison pulled Item #5d, Response to a Petition Requesting Directional Signs for Farmers’ Market in Southern Village.

Shelia Neil, manager of the Carrboro Farmers’ Market, stated they understood that their request for directional signs had to be approved by the NCDOT.  She said what they were now requesting from the Council was permission to place two or three informational signs, which announced the dates and times of operation, along US 15-501 across from Southern Village.  Ms. Neil said they currently have similar signs posted in Southern Village.

Ms. Neil said she had discovered that such signs were considered “off premise” signs and were prohibited by Town ordinance.  She asked the Town to amend those regulations to permit the Farmers’ Market signs to be posted.  Ms. Neil said the signs would only be posted the day of operation for about 13 hours, and they would be removed at the end of the day.  She reminded the Council that the market provides economic benefit to the community, and asked then to consider her request.

Council Member Harrison said he had recently learned quite a lot about sign regulations, noting that Chapel Hill and other municipalities in the Triangle strongly regulate off-premise signs.  He said he would like to see some way to allow these signs to be posted, noting that the Farmer’s Market was not a “normal” commercial enterprise.  Council Member Harrison stated that it was a type of community event that had been around for thousands of years, adding that the Town of Carrboro had found a way to accommodate these signs and wanted to achieve the fairly minor goal that Ms. Neil was requesting.

Council Member Harrison said the Council had put a lot of effort into preserving the rural buffer where much of the produce originated, and had spent public money to purchasing open space.  He said he wanted to find some way to accommodate this request, and reiterated that he did not see farmers’ markets as conventional commercial enterprises.

Mr. Horton reminded the Council that the State was in control of the right-of-way along US 15-501 and would not allow these types of signs to be placed there.

Mayor Foy said NCDOT had indicated that in order to qualify for a sign the business had to generate 250,000 trips per day.  He noted that the new Visitor Center signs had been placed along US 15-501.  Mr. Horton said the difference was that the Farmers’ Market was a commercial enterprise.

Council Member Easthom asked how many signs were placed in Southern Village, and where were they placed.  Ms. Neil responded they had posted about seven signs, with two of them at the Village Green, a banner at the entrance to Southern Village, and one near the pool.

Council Member Easthom said she had experienced difficulty with her campaign signs prior to the election, noting she had placed a few in the public right-of-way in Southern Village but had received repeated emails from Southern Village Homeowners Association asking her to remove her signs or they would remove them for her.  She said because of that experience, she was surprised that Ms. Neil’s signs had faired well.

Council Member Hill asked exactly what kinds of signs would be posted.  Ms. Neil displayed a sample sign, noting the signs would indicate the hours and day of operation.  She said she would normally post the signs around 7 a.m. and remove them as soon as the market closed for the day.

Council Member Hill said there were signs for the Governor’s Club along NC 54, and he did not believe they received 250,000 trips each day.  Mr. Horton said there were rules that allowed directional signs for developments.  He said they would be happy to study the sign ordinance and identify changes that might be made to allow these types of signs.

Mayor pro tem Strom suggested referring this to the Town Manager to get more information.  He said the Farmers’ Market was exactly the type of enterprise the Town wanted to foster, and perhaps there was a way to adjust the sign ordinance to allow signs for particular classes of businesses for limited time periods.

Mayor Foy noted that many real estate signs were posted on the weekends.  Mr. Horton replied that they were illegal.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE MANAGER.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

All information reports were accepted as presented by a consensus of the Council.

Item 6 – Continuation of a Concept Plan Review: Shortbread
Lofts Affordable Housing Program Proposal

Mr. Horton said the Council on January 18 conducted a public hearing on this Concept Plan, and tonight the applicant wanted the Council to consider a specific proposal regarding affordable housing.

Josh Gurlitz, the architect, asked that the Council consider the Concept Plan as presented on January 18, with the affordable housing component proposed in the materials submitted to the Council for tonight’s hearing included in that Plan.  He said they had realized that this project was dependent upon creating the size and distribution of units as described in the Concept Plan, and that they were serving a particular part of the market.  Mr. Gurlitz said these units were also expensive to create, since every 650 square feet had its own kitchen, bathroom, entry door and HVAC system.  He said the economic part of the plan was pushing them to make larger units, but what they really wanted to do was create smaller units.  Mr. Gurlitz said combined with the smaller units was the notion of affordability developed by Larry Short and Delores Bailey.

Mr. Gurlitz said he had met with Mr. Short and Ms. Bailey and asked them to develop their plan more specifically so they could better understand how to move forward.  He said the plan developed was innovative, made use of market forces, and would provide a specific type of housing which was now in short supply but in large demand.

Larry Short characterized this project in its entirety as an affordable housing project.  He said the units were small, ranging between 550 square feet to 850 square feet for 30 percent of the units, totaling 50 units at minimum.  Mr. Short said the project include one- and two-bedroom units with slightly larger square footage.

Mr. Short said they wanted to attract University staff and faculty, graduate students, downtown business employees, and others.  He said what was being created in the downtown now was either a small number of affordable units or $350,000 high-end condominiums, which left a huge gap to be filled.  Mr. Short said another condominium project being built on Franklin Street, McCorkle Place, did have 35 affordable units, but the rest were $750,000 units.  He said there was nothing in between and nothing that would meet the 15 percent quota as desired by the Council.

Mr. Short briefly described the statistics he had provided the Council with, which were derived from information contained in the September 2005 Orange County Comprehensive Housing Strategy.  He noted small home rental projections, small home cost projections, and median family incomes for one-, two- and three-person households.  Mr. Short said their overall concept was to create small units to attract the type of market they wanted, and to use this strategy to satisfy the affordable housing requirement.

Mayor Foy said in the proposal it said that they would fee restrict 10 units, but would offer 50 size-restricted units.  He asked why they could not restrict a full 15 percent.  Mr. Short said the cost of building the smaller units to attract adult populations was significant, and to incur the additional cost of subsidizing affordable rentals resulted in other economic considerations such as additional administrative costs, turnover frequency, cleaning and repairs, all of which were additional costs to having deed restricted affordable rental units.

Mayor Foy said he still did not understand, noting that the income of the individuals as shown on the charts provided to the Council support the size restricted units, adding they would get the income to amortize the cost of all of these units whether they were deed restricted or not.  Mr. Short explained that the administrative costs associated with marketing to individuals referred to them through the Land Trust, EmPOWERment or Habitat was somewhat higher than to market tenants.

Mayor Foy asked why they could not place the burden on those public agencies.  Mr. Short replied that the agencies provided vetting as far as income and job status, but they had to vet in regards to credit, background, and criminal history.  He said the tenant pool was not always as desirable, and the cost involved to deed restrict 25 units was a cost he could not bear.  Mr. Short said there were special needs and concerns related to that population of tenants.

Scott Radway stated he had been chair of the Community Design Commission at the time this Concept Plan was reviewed as well as a member of the Inclusionary Task Force Committee.  He noted that this housing was for a market that was drastically needed in the downtown, which was something other than the student housing market and also different from the market of the Downtown Initiative project.  Mr. Radway said this was the first proposal he had seen in the last 15 years that brought some intensity to the downtown by this different market of people that he believed would broaden the activity in the downtown.  He said he strongly supported it for that reason.

Mr. Radway said it was incredibly difficult within rental housing to get a successful inclusionary housing process started due to rental rates, square footages and other causes.  He encouraged the Council to think carefully about whether this project would work, adding he thought it would, and to think broadly and innovatively about the component of affordable housing within this project.  Mr. Radway said he would hate to see this property revert back to more expensive condominiums or more student housing.  He said we needed something in the downtown that would be successful for this market.

Council Member Hill said he had thought about this for a while, noting he agreed with Mr. Radway.  He said if the Council accepted this affordable housing proposal, then Mr. Short would build a project with small units and the Town would have a project not for undergraduate students and not for condominium buyers.  Council Member Hill said if they did not accept the proposal, then they would end up with a project of expensive two-, three-, and four-bedroom condominiums.  He said it seemed that if the projections were real, then all of this project would be affordable.

Council Member Hill said the project complied with the small house stipulations, but Mr. Short was offering a lower than expected number of affordable units.  He said he was okay with that because these were all small rental units.  Council Member Hill said he was in support of the affordable housing proposal and in support of the smaller units.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he believed this was a creative approach to looking at affordable housing.  He said it did not serve the Town to have a “ham-fisted” approach to how it provided affordable housing.  Council Member Kleinschmidt said he had some concerns about the Small House ordinance, but this was a good example of how to apply those regulations.  He said he was convinced that this affordable housing proposal would work.

Mr. Short noted they were building these units as condominium rentals, and if there came a time when people wanted to purchase them, then they would have the flexibility to do so.

Mayor Foy asked, if that came to pass, what the affordable component would be?  Mr. Short responded it would be the same as now proposed.  Mayor Foy asked if that meant that only 10 units would remain affordable, and the other 155 would be sold. Mr. Short replied the 10 would remain as affordable rentals, and the 155 would be sold at market rate.  He said the 10 units could be sold as affordable units as well.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said these were not expanded units, and this was an application of the Small House Ordinance that would actually function.  He said if the units were eventually sold they could be more expensive, but noted this was a project that required a different approach to affordable housing.

Council Member Ward agreed, adding that he saw a critical need for this type of housing.  He said there was a huge gap that many fell into, and he wanted to have quality housing in interesting places throughout the community.  Council Member Ward said he could not be as supportive of one aspect of the proposal, noting his concern about long-term affordability of the affordable units.  He said he needed to better understand what happened to the affordability upon conversion to condominiums.

Council Member Ward asked what the total number of units was in the project.  Mr. Short responded 165.  Council Member Ward asked what 30 percent of the units would be.  Mr. Short replied 50 units, which would all be within 550 to 850 square feet.  Council Member Ward asked if 10 units would remain affordable.  Mr. Short responded 10 units would remain affordable to EmPOWERment forever.

Council Member Ward said he needed to understand how that remained permanently affordable ownership.  Mr. Short said that 10 units would be deed restricted and would remain affordable for persons earning 80 percent or less of the median income.  Council Member Ward asked if that would be by ownership.  Mr. Short replied there was no ownership provision for the 10 deed-restricted units, noting they would remain rental units.  Council Member Ward expressed concern about what would happen to these units when the other units were converted to condominium ownership.  Mr. Short said these units would remain affordable rental units and would not be converted.

Council Member Easthom remarked that 10 units amounted to 6 percent of the proposed 165-unit project.

Council Member Ward said he was concerned that Shortbread was the entity that would qualify applicants with regard to eligibility for rental.  He said that ran counter to their financial best interest, noting they could not work very hard to identify eligible renters and could then rent to anyone they wanted. Council Member Ward said that concerned him.  Mr. Short responded that he had discussed this with Ms. Bailey and they would advertise these units together as affordable units and they would remain permanent affordable housing.  He said that Ms. Bailey would identify qualified applicants and would then refer them to him.  Council Member Ward said he did not understand that well enough to feel like they had permanency of availability to that income level.

Council Member Ward said he was concerned about the ability of deed restrictions to serve the long-term affordability goals of the Council.  He said such deed restrictions were sometimes ignored or overlooked, and there was no one to enforce them.  Mr. Short said that deed restrictions require competent administration every 30 years, and he would place that responsibility onto whatever affordable housing entity was providing the housing, such as the Land Trust or EmPOWERment.  He said such deed restrictions can be an effective way of maintaining affordability, with periodic administration.

Council Member Greene said the Inclusionary Task Force had discussed this, and in order for deed restrictions to be effective they did have to be periodically monitored and not forgotten.  She endorsed the approach to affordable housing as suggested by the applicant, noting it did hit a market that needed to be addressed.

Council Member Greene said she had not understood before tonight that the applicant was talking about deed restrictions on the 10 rental units as long as they remained rental units.  She said she did not understand how he could say they would remain affordable in perpetuity when someone someday might decide to sell all of those units as condominiums.  Council Member Greene said she did not understand the hesitation to make the units permanently affordable so that if the units were eventually put up for sale, then these 10 units would be sold to the entity that the Town approved, such as the Land Trust, so that the Town could assure continued affordability.  She said she did not see how we could assure that they would be rental units forever.  Mr. Short said it was their intent for these units to forever remain in the affordable inventory.  He said if Ms. Bailey or the Land Trust wanted to purchase them, then the deed restriction to keep them affordable could remain in place.

Mayor Foy said he would support the concept as it stood with the enhancement that 15 percent of the units would remain affordable if and when any of the units were sold.  He said if the units were converted to condominiums, then 15 percent would remain affordable.  Mr. Short said they were not prepared to do that.

Mayor Foy said 15 percent was what was expected from all developers.  He said Mr. Short was saying they had no intention of putting the affordable units on the market, and he was saying that the structure for the rental market was fine. But, Mayor Foy said, there was no restriction to keep the units from going on the market the day they opened, except for the 10 affordable units.  He said he did not see why the Council would allow that, even if the units were put on the market as affordable units.  Mr. Short said the 10 units would be priced considerably lower than the market price, even though the market price was affordable.  He said the discount of providing another 20 or so units as affordable, in addition to the cost of creating the small units, was a combined cost that he could not absorb.

Mayor Foy said the numbers provided for an 800 square-foot house, that the median cost was $128,000, and it would cost someone $992 per month to pay the mortgage, taxes, and insurance.  He said the numbers provided showed that a three-person family of median income could afford $1,500, and a one-person family $1,200.  Mayor Foy said presumably that would be marketable to someone at 65 percent of the median income.  Mr. Short said that was correct, noting he had discussed this regarding a 600 square-foot unit, and he was informed that the Land Trust would pay $80,000, which is what they would sell it for, and then there would be a commission he would have to pay.  He said that amounted to a loss of $21,000 for each of the units.  Mayor Foy asked if he was saying that the Land Trust would pay $80,000 but they were priced at $96,000.  Mr. Short said that was correct, noting that if the Land Trust or EmPOWERment, or any other affordable entity, wanted to come in and pay that, which was affordable, he would have no objection.

Mayor Foy said the Town required everyone to dedicate 15 percent of units sold to affordable housing, which was good policy and only fair.  He said he expected it from this development as well, and in his opinion that had to be worked out.  Mayor Foy said he was okay with the rental aspect, noting they had found a creative and manageable way to deal with what the Council had had a hard time dealing with.  He said they needed to decide what exactly would happen upon sale, but the number of affordable units still needed to be 15 percent.  Mr. Short replied that the total cost of selling the units at a discount to an affordable housing provider, plus the cost incurred up-front to create the small units in the first place to meet a need of the community and to attract an adult market, was too great.  He said he could create the small units and incur that cost, but to he was not prepared to do that and then also incur the cost of a discounted sale price for 15 percent of units later on.

Council Member Hill asked if the alternative to small units was how many and what size units.  Mr. Short said they could combine them into 65 to 67 units with two, three, and four bedroom units, but they would attract a totally different market.  Council Member Hill said 15 percent of that total would be 10 units, and if given the same potential scenario they would be rented with the option to be sold at a later time.  He asked, if that happened would he be willing to put the 10 units in the Land trust.  Mr. Short replied that he would.

Council Member Kleinschmidt commented that the Town would get the same number of affordable units as originally proposed, but a less diverse community.

Mayor pro tem Strom said Mr. Short was saying he wanted to keep the units as rental units for a period of time.  Mr. Short said he was confident that at this time he had a rental market.  He said if the downtown market experienced a boom and there was a strong demand for ownership, he would consider selling them at that time.

Mayor pro tem Strom said he was attempting to address the median level sale price, asking if there was a period of time he would be willing to commit to leaving the units as rental.  Mr. Short said he did not want to further restrict the units, noting the up-front costs, but said he would consider further restricting the 10 affordable units.

Mayor pro tem Strom said he wanted to echo what others had said, noting he believed this to be a reasonable approach.  He said the permanent affordability of 10 units was a reasonable trade-off for the Council to make to get this type of housing stock in the downtown.

Mayor Foy pointed out that it was only 10 units, and once they were sold there was no guarantee they would remain affordable.  He said it was easy to knock down a wall between two small units to create a larger one.  Mr. Short said that would not be possible, noting the 50 units were not expandable.  Mayor Foy asked if they were deed restricted.  Mr. Short said they were size restricted by the language, noting the language in their Commitment to Affordable Housing specifically stated, “They may not later be expanded or combined.”  He said it was their intention to always keep those 50 units that size.

Council Member Easthom remarked that she did support what the applicant was doing, but understood the other points made as well.  She said she was unsure what would happen when the units were sold as condominiums, which she said would happen immediately.  Council Member Easthom said there was no way to know if a $100,000 unit would still be affordable in 10 or 15 years.

Mayor pro tem Strom said that was a good point, but this was a unique product in that the small units would be desirable to people wanting to live downtown.  He said this proposal was a trade off, but was a sincere attempt to meet Council goals for the downtown.

Mr. Short asked if there was some consensus that he could move forward with his plans.  Mayor Foy said he did not believe much would change, but Mr. Snort would still have to go through the process.  Mr. Short said he would move in whatever direction he needed to go, but did not want to go through additional expense to go through the development process of 165 units if that was not what the Council would eventually approve.

Mayor Foy said Mr. Short had more of a sense of what the Council wanted, but at this point there was no guarantee.  He said the Council had not made up its mind because no concrete proposal was before them.  Mr. Short said this was a concrete proposal.

Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos said this was a Concept Plan and not a concrete proposal, and the Council could not indicate approval or disapproval until that point in the process was reached.

Council Member Kleinschmidt noted that this proposal still had to go through the Special Use Permit process, noting the Manager and staff would review it as well as various advisory boards, plus the public hearing process.  He said it was impossible to give assurances at this stage.  Mr. Short said he could not continue to incur expenses and take a risk at the end of the process.

Mayor Foy said the risk was the same no matter what was brought to the Council.  He said this was not an either/or situation, so much had to be sorted out to move forward to the SUP application.  He said Mr. Short should not proceed with the assumption that one permit was a given and the other was not.  Mr. Short asked, if he came forward with a proposal of 15 percent affordable housing, would that be acceptable?  Mayor Foy said they were in the Concept Plan stage and could not offer that type of assurance. 

COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-12.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 7 – Ordinance Amendment Regarding a Change in the Name and Charge

of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board

Housing Director Tina Vaughn stated the Council had an ordinance amendment before them for consideration that would change the name, duties, and powers of the Housing and Community Development Advisory Board.  She said that proposal was in response to a petition received by the Council on February 13 from the Board that its name be changed to reflect the actual duties and responsibilities of the Board.  Ms. Vaughn said the amendment would change the name of the Board to the Public Housing Program Advisory Board.  She said the staff recommendation was that the Council enact Ordinance O-3 to change the name of the Board to the Public Housing Program Advisory Board.

Ms. Vaughn said also on February 13 the Board had suggested there be two boards, one that focused on the public housing program and one that focused on community development and the larger community-wide affordable housing issues. At this time, she said, the Board asked that only a Public Housing Program Advisory Board be created, noting that there were no federal rules that required an advisory board for community development issues.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ENACTMENT OF ORDINANCE O-3.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Council Member Greene thanked the Board for having the initiative to bring this forward.  She said the second part of their request was something they may want to consider as they get further down the road with other affordable housing issues.

Item 8 – Technology Committee Presentation Regarding

Municipal Networking

Greg Gerdau, Chair of the Technology Committee, provided a PowerPoint presentation of options for creating a municipal network in Chapel Hill.  He stated that a municipal network would provide connectivity to the public Internet and selected private networks by both wireless and wired methods.  Mr. Gerdau said this was a product that was being demanded as a utility from municipalities.  He said that the Yankee Group estimated there were approximately 320 United States municipalities that have or are planning to cover themselves with broadband wireless networks.

Mr. Gerdau said that the best wireless networks were mesh networks and were open.  He said a wired network was 1940s’ technology, was expensive, disruptive and entrenched.  Mr. Gerdau stated that to upgrade such a network would take about four years.  He stated that wireless networks were relatively inexpensive, were non-invasive, were mobile/portable, and could be made ubiquitous through an entire community.

Mr. Gerdau remarked that hub and spoke networks were centralized and relatively expensive, were line of site, were bandwidth-intensive, were high-power, and had single points of failure.  He said this referred to cable and DSL lines.  In contrast, Mr. Gerdau said, mesh networks were decentralized, they by-passed obstacles, were relatively inexpensive, and were low power.

Mr. Gerdau said the ultimate goal was to provide open access in all neighborhoods, including the business areas, public schools, churches, and UNC.  He said that all citizens would benefit, including schools and students, public safety, visitors, telecommuters and businesses, Town staff, and churches.

Mr. Gerdau said one question was, why should the Town take the lead?  He said that in the 21^st century access to the Internet was required to work, learn, play, and be civically involved.  Mr. Gerdau said it would provide advantages in bridging the digital divide, economic development, educational opportunities, civic involvement, global communications, employment, and news.  He said that 25 percent of the students attending school in Chapel Hill did not have access to the tools they needed to effectively complete their homework.

Mr. Gerdau said there were a number of funding options to provide a municipal wireless network, such as grants, corporate partnerships, bonds, rural utilities service funds from the federal government, deferring other costs, and subscription.  He said the factors affecting the cost of such service included the range of coverage, build-out rate, partner participating, quality of service, and the extent of user support.   Mr. Gerdau noted that most municipalities did not spend any funds to provide a network to its citizens.

Mr. Gerdau said in order to understand the business models, it was important to understand what other communities were doing.  He provided the Council with a handout, noting that in Raleigh, public buses were wirelessly tracked so it was possible to go on the Internet and actually see when a bus would be arriving at a particular destination.  Mr. Gerdau said some possible business models for the network were a utility, a public/private partnership, non-profit management, and a blend of several models.   He said there were three major approaches to deployment models:

• Negotiate for deployment and services in exchange for access to municipal rights-of-way.
• Purchase services, thereby enhancing private-sector market availability.
• Provide services, alone or in partnership with the private sector.

Mr. Gerdau distributed an additional handout, noting that the service provider model was the most interesting one.  He said providing wireless service, either alone or in partnership, had numerous models, including:

• Independent communications utility – e.g. Memphis network.
• Non-profit entity – e.g. Georgia Public Web, NOANet.
• Strategic partnership with private-sector – e.g. LaGrange, Ga.
• Lease municipal facilities to private-sector provider – e.g. Anaheim, Ca.
• Sell municipal facilities to private sector provider – e.g. Lynchburg, Va.
• Regional entities – e.g. Oregon Central Coast Economic Development Alliance, UTOPIA in Utah, Tri-Cities in Illinois, Berkshire Connect in Massachusetts.

Mr. Gerdau noted that key partners included citizens, Technology Committee members, Town Council members, the Mayor, UNC, the Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership, EmPOWERment, Inc., the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools, the Peoples’ Channel, community organizations, and all other interested parties.  He noted that UNC was a fabulous resource and with it came their technology capability.  Mr. Gerdau said, if they tapped into that resource they might have no need to hire consultants, because they were all at the University and all we had to do was ask.

Mr. Gerdau said they recommend that the next steps should be to seek further citizen input through public forums and surveys, to consider options for short-term projects particularly, meet with key partners, and establish a community-based plan that included the development of a three tier model.  He said that model would include the network itself, how to get the equipment to people who did not have it, and how to train and support those people and equipment.  Mr. Gerdau said that would give everyone in the Town full access to all the facilities talked about tonight, and the richest information store ever known.

Council Member Thorpe said the Council would also benefit.  Mr. Gerdau said there were probably many other benefits, noting the opportunities to connect the community in a collaborative way would have huge benefits.  He noted such things as providing resources to do homework, and providing retired persons with assistance to find good health care.  Mr. Gerdau said the Internet would also allow one to find a good doctor.

Council Member Easthom thanked the Technology Committee for its work and for this presentation.  She said there would be a Town-sponsored municipal wireless public forum on May 18 from 7 to 9 p.m., noting that someone from the UNC School of Government would be assisting.  Council Member Easthom said the public forum would be exciting and informative, and she encouraged everyone interested to attend.

Council Member Kleinschmidt thanked Mr. Gerdau for the information and the presentation.  He asked if there had been any thought given to the form, such as whether it would be an integrated function of the Town or operate as a utility like OWASA. Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if they had considered contracting out oversight of the network to some entity like Google.  He said the Town needed to think about the pros and cons of the different models, or if that was the next step.  Mr. Gerdau said he believed the next step would be to survey the constituents, noting that if one did not understand their requirements then one could not possibly give them what they needed.  He said that surveys were very revealing, and would provide the information about what the right model might be.

Mayor Foy said he was most interested in what the range of cost would be to provide such a wireless mesh network.  Mr. Gerdau said there were several costs that would affect the rate, noting there were 21 square miles, less the eight miles of UNC.  He said that the remaining 13 square miles might cost between $100,000 to $200,000 per square mile to cover the entire Town.

Mayor Foy asked, if the Town had a $2- to $3-million investment, what would the expected support costs be?  He said this would either be a hobby that one used while having coffee downtown, or would be one’s only Internet provider.  Mayor Foy said if the network was down one could not receive email, so that affected business.  Mr. Gerdau said the hard dollar costs of support would be about 20 percent of the entire cost of the network each year, so over a five year period it might amount to $2- to $3-million.

Mr. Gerdau said that figure was only if the Town was actually spending that money.  He repeated that many communities have public/private partnerships to build out the networks, and they become the anchor tenant.  Mr. Gerdau said there were many opportunities to use funds currently being spent on fiber optics for a wireless network.  He said there were other Town services, such as the 800 MHz radios, that could be converted to wireless.  Mr. Gerdau said his point was to emphasize the many costs that could be traded off to help provide wireless networking.

Mr. Gerdau said another way this wireless technology could assist the Town was with security for the downtown.  He said while more police officers was always good, surveillance could be conducted using cameras downtown that were monitored by the police, all using the wireless Internet.

Council Member Easthom said she had seen lower numbers for more advanced technology, adding she did not want anyone to assume that the figure quoted would be the cost per square mile.  Mr. Gerdau said they had surveyed towns that were similar to Chapel Hill to develop those estimates, and he believed they were good numbers.  Council Member Easthom said there were ways to reduce the costs, and the Town needed to look at this in a number of ways.  She agreed that a survey was a good idea, but it was important to educate the public about the survey, she said.  Council Member Easthom said if someone got a survey in the mail without any advanced notice, they may not know if they needed wireless Internet or not.  She said the public forum scheduled on May 18 was part of the attempt to educate the public.

Council Member Ward said it was mentioned that the Town was already spending funds on other types of infrastructure of various sorts.  He asked which of those examples would be useful in a municipal system, such as that described, and which could simply be updated.  Mr. Gerdau said he believed that Information Technology Director Bob Avery could answer that.  Council Member Ward asked if the fiber optic cable, which was run to the Town Operations Center, would enhance the Town’s ability to go wireless, or did it end up being something that did not add to the functionality of wireless.

Mr. Avery said, regarding the fiber connection for the Town Operations Center, there were a number of Town facilities connected on a data network with a fiber backbone, so the connection to the Town Operations Center would add to that.  He said that service was contracted for from a vendor, but was not something that the Town paid to build itself.

Mr. Avery said, when looking to the future and a municipal wireless system, there were tradeoffs that could be made.  For example, he said, having a wireless network might serve the Town’s purposes and they would not have to acquire commercial services.

Council Member Ward said one of the critical community input elements was what the Town needed to get out of this to do its day-to-day business and no longer use a commercial vendor.  He said he assumed they would want to develop a system so that funds being spent on contracts now would be used for the municipal wireless system. Council Member Ward stressed that this should be clearly articulated.

Mr. Gerdau added that what Mr. Avery had described was exactly what the public/private partnership was all about, that is, allowing the Town to become the anchor tenant.  He said that Washington, D.C. had just done that exact thing, and he offered to send the Council the article that described what that city had accomplished.

Item 9 – Pritchard Park: Sale of Property to Siena Hotel

Assistant Parks and Recreation Director Bill Webster said that when the Pritchard Park idea first surfaced, we knew that the Library expansion would eventually take place.  He said at that time it appeared the Town would be ready to develop the Park long before the Library was expanded.  Mr. Webster said there was a desire to do part of the project, namely the Art Garden project, but now things had changed.  He said they now find that the Library expansion project was much further along.

Mr. Webster said they had brought the Art Garden Committee back together, and now that the Library expansion was so close they had decided to take a different look at the detailed design of Pritchard Park and in a more holistic manner. He said they wanted to look at the design of the park, the Art Garden, and the Library expansion as a unit rather than as three separate design functions.

Mr. Webster said that a recommendation was sent to the Public Arts Commission, the Library Board of Trustees, the Library Building Committee, and the Parks and Recreation Commission, all of which endorsed this concept.  He said the end result would be a better designed park, the Art Garden could be closer to the Library, and they could have one design team do the entire project.  Mr. Webster said the Library Board had expressed the concern that Library funds not be used for park design or park features, noting there were funds that could be used for the park already allocated by the Council.

Janet Kagan, chair of the Public Arts Commission, said the Commission fully endorsed the concept of integrating the three projects, noting that the projects would be unified and approached by the selected artist or team holistically.  She said she was concerned that the resolution before the Council did not say that.

Ms. Kagan suggested some alternative language to modify the resolution and to address specifically the opportunity that the artist or team would be able to approach the three projects as a unit.  She said under the next to final “Be It Further Resolved” paragraph, add just after the word “artist” a slash and the words “artist team.”  Then, she said, insert the word “both” just before “library expansion,” then add the word “and” just after that.  Ms. Kagan said, then delete the phrase “who would also be qualified to advise the Town on design elements of…” and leave in Pritchard Park.  Ms. Kagan said she believed that amendment would reflect that intent.

Ms. Kagan said what the resolution still did not address and still left somewhat ambiguous was the relationship between that resolution and the Pritchard Park plan, which isolated discrete park elements.  She said it was not clear if those elements were still being considered, or if the funds that were allocated for the park would leave those particular elements, which were the playgrounds and benches, drinking fountains, gazebo, game boards, and others.  Ms. Kagan said it was not clear if those were now opportunities for an artist or team to begin thinking through the experience of the park.  She encouraged the Council to give some thought to that, but to embrace the resolution as an opportunity for a new Artist Selection Committee that would include representatives from the Parks and Recreation Commission, Library Board of Trustees, the Library Building Committee, and the Public Arts Commission, which had its own implementation guidelines.

Mayor Foy asked that the suggested amendment be read to the Council.  Mr. Horton noted the changes suggested by Ms. Kagan, and read the amended paragraph:  “Be it further resolved that the Council directs the Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission to recommend an artist/artist team for both the Library expansion and Pritchard Park.  Mr. Horton noted that the staff had no issue with the amended language.

MAYOR PRO TEM STROM MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-13, AMENDED TO INCLUDE “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE COUNCIL DIRECTS THE CHAPEL HILL PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND AN ARTIST/ARTIST TEAM FOR THE LIBRARY EXPANSION AND PRITCHARD PARK.” THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 10 – Naming Committee Report

Council Member Greene, convener of the Naming Committee, said they were happy to entertain the idea of renaming the Post Office Plaza in honor of Joe and Lucy Straley and Charlotte Adams.  She said they thought it would be an interesting idea to propose to the Council, considering that over time there most likely would be others who should be so honored.  Council Member Greene said the name “Freedom Plaza” had been discussed, but she felt that at this time that name was too politically complicated.

Joe Herzenberg asked why it was that this little piece of land in front of the Post Office had become a gathering place for political protests and other reasons. Mr. Horton responded that it was a public forum by federal law.  Mr. Herzenberg said that the area was declared federal property so Chapel Hill police would not arrest people there.  Although hardly anyone thought of it that way, that was how the tradition started, he said.

Mr. Herzenberg said he had been a member of the Continuing Concerns Committee, and at some point in the future there ought to be some kind of official Town notice of the three most prominent leaders of the civil rights movement in Chapel Hill – Quinton Baker, John Don, and Pat Kusick.  He said that Don and Kusick were deceased, and Baker lived outside of Hillsborough.  Mr. Herzenberg said those three individuals had done what many others would not stand up and do, which was to speak out for what was right.  He said they deserve some acknowledgement.

Mayor Foy asked Council Member Greene how the Naming Committee had suggested proceeding. Council Member Greene said they were considering calling a public hearing to get input from the public on whether or not this was a good idea, and to suggest names.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO GATHER INPUT ON THE NAMING OF THE OLD POST OFFICE PLAZA.

Council Member Thorpe said there would be other occasions where they might want to honor other citizens.  He asked why they had to wait to decide this issue and hold a public hearing.  Council Member Thorpe said the Council was made up of elected officials and if a good idea was brought forth, then the people had elected them to make those decisions.

Council Member Thorpe said they did not need a public hearing to determine whether or not to name that Plaza.  He said he did not believe a public hearing should be called whenever a fresh idea was proposed.  Council Member Thorpe noted that the citizens had given input when they elected the Council, and that was why he had voted no.  He said his mind was made up, and he wanted to echo that loudly.

Council Member Greene said they agreed that they could resolve to rename the Plaza and to put something appropriate there in response to the request they had received.  She said she did not think they had resolved specifically what to name the Plaza, and she would like to hear from the community.

Council Member Thorpe thanked the Naming Committee for acting so quickly on this request. He said at some point they would have to look at whether they wanted to formalize some Council committees to work on particular issues, such as this. Council Member Thorpe repeated his objection to scheduling a public hearing for what he thought should be a decision of the Council.

Council Member Ward said that he had read the guidelines of naming or renaming public facilities, and that process did require a public hearing in order to gain broad public input.  He said for that reason it was important to go through the process, noting it did not diminish his support for the general plan under discussion tonight.  He believed we owed it to the citizens to allow them to comment on the matter, he said.

Mayor Foy asked Council Member Greene if, based on the discussion, she wanted to modify her motion.  Council Member Greene responded that she did.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREENE MOVED, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM STROM, TO MODIFY HER MOTION TO INDICATE THE COUNCIL’S AGREEMENT TO THE CONCEPT OF NAMING THE POST OFFICE PLAZA FOR AN IDEAL AND HONORING INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE IN THE COMMUNITY, WITH JOE AND LUCY STRALEY AND CHARLOTTE ADAMS AS THE FIRST TO BE CONSIDERED, AND TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING TO GATHER COMMUNITY INPUT.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED 8-1, WITH MAYOR FOY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EASTHOM, GREENE, HARRISON, HILL, KLEINSCHMIDT, STROM, AND WARD VOTING AYE, AND COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE VOTING NAY.

Item 11 – Identification of Legislative Issues for

Consideration at a Public Hearing

Town Attorney Ralph Karpinos noted this was a sort session of the Legislature and that typically only non-controversial bills are considered.  He said that the memo for tonight’s meeting listed seven potential issues for local legislation, several of which had a chance to be somewhat controversial.  Mr. Karpinos said if there were other matters that the Council wished to add or seek public input on, then there was time to do that before the General Assembly reconvened on May 9.

Mr. Karpinos mentioned that the information received from the General Assembly indicated they would not accept any blank bills this session.  So the Council needed to have specific ideas ready fairly soon, he said.

Mayor Foy said last year there was a bill that would increase the minimum wage in North Caroli na.  He asked if it was appropriate to comment in this forum on that, since it was not a local bill.  Mayor Foy said he personally did not support the bill because it was weak, but he did support raising the minimum wage.  Mr. Karpinos said historically the Council had included positions on State-wide issues and included them in their legislative agenda, either proposing a bill for State-wide introduction or taking a position on an issue being discussed on a State-wide level.  He said it was certainly appropriate in this instance, and he would also like to find out the status of the bill already introduced.

Mayor Foy said he would like to do that as well, noting it was his understanding that the current bill proposed did not raise the minimum wage by much.  He said he would like this issue to be added to the list of legislative issues.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he supported all of the items from the 2005 agenda and wanted them to be moved forward.  He said the March Legislative Bulletin had listed several key issues, one of which was franchising rights by telephone companies of video programming services traditionally provided by cable companies.  Council Member Kleinschmidt asked if that was already on the legislative agenda, and, if not, could it be added to the list.  He said the Town’s ability to control local franchising rights for cable might be in jeopardy.  Mr. Karpinos said those rights were in jeopardy at the federal level, and the Town had communicated its concern about that to its representatives.

Mr. Horton said he believed there would be a very strong effort for the State to pre-empt authority and to regulate the rates that could be charged as a franchise fee.  He said the concern about would be if the Council could successfully require that the cable franchise provide a public access fee, noting that was an unusual accomplishment and it might be in jeopardy.

Council Member Kleinschmidt said he would like to have that issue included at the public hearing.  Mayor Foy asked why #5 (a bill to permit the use the “Rehabilitation Code” to renovate older structures in Town) needed to be included on the list.  Mr. Karpinos said at the time this was discussed the law had not been changed to allow the Town to do that, but it had since been amended.  He agreed that this item no longer needed to be included on the list.

Mayor Foy asked when the public hearing was scheduled for.  Mr. Karpinos replied April 10, and apologized for not including that date in the resolution.

Council Member Easthom asked what was considered non-controversial.  Mr. Horton said it was their experience that one never knew, noting it was up to the Legislature to decide if an issue was controversial or not.  He said a member of another district could decide that something that Chapel Hill put forth was desired by someone in their district but was something that they did not want.  They could attempt to make it controversial, he said.  Mr. Horton said the normal rule was that the delegation from Orange County would have to unanimously decide that it was not controversial in their districts in order for it to move forward.

Mayor Foy said the answer was basically we would not know until we tried.  Mr. Horton said an issue would likely be considered controversial if it involved money, and it would not have much of a chance.

Council Member Easthom asked if that would be true even if the delegation did not find it controversial.  Mr. Horton said that was correct.

COUNCIL MEMBER WARD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KLEINSCHMIDT, ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION R-14, AMENDED TO INCLUDE “ON APRIL 10, 2006,” AFTER THE PHRASE “PUBLIC HEARING” AND AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE PHRASE “AND SUCH OTHERS AS MAY BE RAISED” IN THE “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED” PARAGRAPH, AND AMENDED TO INCLUDE RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE AND FRANCHISING RIGHTS BY TELEPHONE COMPANIES OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING SERVICES, AS WELL AS THE ITEMS NOTED IN THE MEMORANDUM ON THIS ISSUE DATED MARCH 27, 2006, WITH ITEM #5 DELETED.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

Item 12 – Appointments

a. Technology Committee

Mayor Foy said that the appointments to the Technology Committee would be deferred to allow the Committee time to consider potential applicants and make a recommendation for appointments to the Council.  There was no objection from the Council.

b. Transportation Board.

The Council appointed Antonio Baxter to the Transportation Board.

		Council Members
Transportation Board	Foy		Easthom	Greene	Harrison	Hill	Kleinschmidt	Strom	Thorpe	Ward	TOTAL
Vote for 1 Applicant
*Antonio Baxter	X			X		X	X	X		X	6
*Augustus Cho
Bharathwajan Iyengar
Matthew Scheer			X		X				X		3
Marc ter Horst
Other; please list:

Item 13 – Petitions

13a(1). Mayor Foy regarding Appointment to the OWASA Board of Directors.

Mayor Foy said he had talked with Milton Heath about extending his term on the OWASA Board of Directors to December 31, 2006.  He noted that the Council’s OWASA Committee had discussed this and supported it.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORPE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WARD, TO EXTEND THE TERM OF MILTON HEATH ON THE OWASA BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO DECEMBER 31, 2006.  THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED UNANIMOUSLY (9-0).

13a(2).  Mayor Foy regarding Preparations for the Apple Chill Street Fair.

Mayor Foy said he wanted the Council to have an opportunity to hear from the Police Department prior to the Apple Chill Street Fair about preparations for the Fair.  Mr. Horton said that report would be made on April 10^th.

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

13a(3).   Council Member Greene regarding a Report on Fordham Boule vard Safety Issues.

Council Member Greene said had understood that the Council would be receiving a report on the status of safety issues at the intersection of Manning Drive and Fordham Boulevard.  Mr. Horton responded that report was scheduled for April 10, noting that he had discussed this with various staff but wanted to get input from Engineering Director George Small, who had been on vacation.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m.