Council/Staff Retreat Minutes
February 18-20, 2005
Mid Pines Inn
Southern Pines, NC

Council Present: Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, and Council Members Marla Dorrel, Mike Joyce, Jennifer Robinson, Julie Robison and Nels Roseland; Mayor McAlister arrived late, and his arrival time is noted in the minutes.

Staff Present: Bill Coleman, Town Manager; Ben Shivar, Assistant Town Manager; Lana Hygh, Assistant to the Manager; Susan Moran, Public Information Officer; Scott Fogleman, Budget Director; Tim Bailey, Engineering Director; Karen Mills, Finance Director; Allan Cain, Fire Chief; Vee Willis, Human Resources Director; Bob Strowbridge, Inspections and Permits Director; Mary Henderson, Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Director; Jeff Ulma, Planning Director; Ricky Barker; Associate Planning Director; Windy Hunter, Police Chief; Kim Fisher, Public Works/Utilities Director; Mike Bajorek, Public Works Director; Rob Bonne, Utilities Director; Bill Stice, Technology Services Director; Chris Simpson, Town Attorney; and Sue Rowland, Town Clerk

The retreat agenda follows:

Day 1: Friday, February 18, 2005 :

• 10 a.m. - noon : Travel to Mid Pines Inn
• noon-1:30 p.m.: Lunch at hotel
• 1:30-2:45 p.m. : Session 1, Opening Session, “Who Are These People?”, Stephanie Davidson
• 2:45-3 p.m. : Break
• 3-5:30 p.m. : Session 2, Council Operations: 2a: council meetings; 2b: committee meetings; 2c: planning and development process: “What can we as a group do to work more efficiently, effectively and equitably?”, Sue Rowland, Lana Hygh, and Ricky Barker
• 5:30-6:30 p.m. : Check-in
• 6:30-7:15 p.m. : Social
• 7:30 p.m. : Dinner at the Pine Crest Inn

Day 2: Saturday, February 19, 2005

• 7-8:30 a.m. : Breakfast at hotel
• 8:30-10:30 a.m. : Session 3, Budget/Financial Overview, “FY04 Results, FY05 Status, Trends,” Scott Fogleman and Karen Mills
• 10:30-10:45 a.m. : Break
• 10:45 a.m.-12:15 p.m. : Session 4: APFO/Fees/Thoroughfare Plan, “What is APFO and what impact does it have?”, Tim Bailey
• 12:15-1:15 p.m. : Lunch at hotel
• 1:15 p.m.-3:45 p.m. : Session 5: Economic Development Strategy, “Goals, Process, Results,” Consultants: Bob Leak, Bob Goforth, Ken Creveling
• 4-5 p.m. : Session 6: Activity Center Concept Policy, “What is it? How is it working?”, Jeff Ulma
• 6-7 p.m. : Social Hour
• 7:15 p.m. : Dinner at the Ironwood Grill

Day 3: Sunday, February 20, 2005

• 7-8:30 a.m. : Breakfast at hotel
• 8:30-11 a.m. : Wrap Up/Work Program/Issues
• 11 a.m. - noon : Directions for the future

Friday, February 18, 2005

Town Manager Coleman welcomed the council and staff.

Session 1: Opening Session: Who Are These People? Discussion of MBTI

Stephanie Davidson, the Town’s Training and Development Program Administrator, led the session about the MBTI. The power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit A.

Mayor McAlister arrived at 1:47 p.m.

Mr. Joyce left at 3 p.m. and was absent for the remainder of the day on February 18. He returned for the first session on Saturday, February 19.

Session 2: Council Operations

Mrs. Davidson described the “3 E” triangle and explained that staff has been using a model taught by Steve Strauss, which focuses on being efficient, effective and equitable. The power point presentation for this session is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit B.

Mrs. Rowland, Town Clerk, presented a session on council operations. The power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit C. Exhibit C also includes the following handout materials:

• Attachment A: Questions to answer during this session
• Attachment B: Agenda template
• Attachment C: Policy Statement 121, Town Council Agenda
• Attachment D: Example of how a council member may initiate an agenda item
• Attachment E: Examples of formally adopting the agenda
• Attachment F: Example of debate guidelines
• Attachment G: Debate pointers
• Attachment H: Presider information
• Attachment I: Example of summary minutes
• Attachment J: Motion information

Once the allotted time for the session expired, the council decided to continue this discussion on Sunday morning. Decisions made on Friday afternoon included:

• Council wants a policy to address how items are added to the agenda.
• The council agreed with planning and development related board/commission recommendations (including minority opinion) being part of the staff report/data sheet instead of being verbally reported by the commission chair at the council meeting.
• Council agreed with allowing the presider to always start the meeting on time (with a quorum present).
• Council agreed with formally adopting the agenda at the beginning of the meeting (this is the time to add staff emergency items, delete items no longer necessary, or postpone items to a future meeting). The consent agenda will continue to be handled as it is now in that any one council member may pull at item off the consent agenda for discussion.
• Council agreed that staff should continue to prepare the “he/she said” type of minutes instead of the summary style minutes.

Mrs. Hygh, Assistant to the Manager, presented the session on committee operations. Refer to Exhibit D attached to and incorporated in these minutes for the power point presentation. Exhibit D also includes a handout of the history of committees in the Town.

The council concurred that the purpose of council committees is to facilitate the efficiency and effectiveness of the Town council meetings by researching, studying, and deliberating issues on behalf of, and at the direction of, the full council.  For maximum effectiveness in developing recommendations that are most likely to be accepted by the full council, committee chairs should consider input from other council members, as well as staff and the public.  The committee should make a recommendation to the council, either on consent or discussion, and if unable to do so because of a lack of information or other reasons, will table the item until a future committee meeting. Committee items will be placed on a council consent agenda if the committee unanimously recommends approval of staff’s recommendation. Otherwise, the items will be discussed by the full council. Public input at committee meetings is at the discretion of the chair.

The Friday session ended at 5:34 p.m. There was not adequate time for the presentation on council’s role in the development process, and council agreed to have this presentation at 8 a.m. on Saturday morning.

Saturday, February 19, 2005

Session 2 (continued): Council’s Role in the Development Process

Mr. Barker, Associate Planning Director, presented the session on council’s role in the development process. Refer to Exhibit E for the power point presentation. Exhibit E includes the following handouts:

• Excerpts from David Owen’s book, Introduction to Zoning
• Excerpts from the Land Development Ordinance pertaining to the zoning process in Cary

Staff’s suggestion to council was to refocus the rezoning process on land use related items. The following discussion occurred:

Mrs. Robison suggested that staff review alternate approaches to the rezoning process (i.e., form based) so that site plan issues are included in the rezoning process. 

Mr. Roseland suggested that site plan and rezoning occur simultaneously.

Mrs. Robinson suggested a formal mechanism to allow people to speak to concerns in the site/subdivision plan process.

Town Manager Coleman stated staff will report back to council with suggestions to revise the process based on council feedback. 

Session 3: Budget/Financial Overview

Mr. Fogleman, Budget Director, and Mrs. Karen Mills, Finance director, gave a power point presentation, which is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit F. Exhibit F contained a handout regarding a proposed modification of the solid waste service. This issue was not discussed at the retreat.

Council discussion follows:

The council agreed to have an early budget work session on April 21, 2005 .

Mrs. Robison suggested a citizen group appointed as a task force to be a part of the budget process. She stated an alternative to a council appointed group would be for council to call for volunteers, who would then work with staff as a staff advisory task force (not appointed by council).

Mayor McAlister suggested an open call for anyone who wants to participate in budget public hearings instead of a task force.

Ms. Dorrel feels it is important for staff to lead the process.

Mrs. Robinson disagreed with the task force idea; she stated the budget process is a very technical process that takes even council members a long time to understand. She stated the council is elected to represent the people in this regard.

Mr. Roseland suggested that a set amount of time be set aside for public comment on the budget earlier in the budget process (not just the public hearing conducted two weeks before the budget is adopted). He stated this could happen on the same day as the council work session. He suggested that all materials be put on the Web for the public.

Ms. Dorrel would appreciate alternatives from which to choose.

Mr. Joyce commented that the group last year did not feel their recommendations were considered.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith disagreed with a task force but supported public input earlier in the process.

Mr. Coleman stated staff will put together alternatives to achieve council’s goals and will bring this recommendation to the council in the very near future.

Session 4: APFO/Fees/Thoroughfare Plan

Mr. Bailey, Engineering Director, gave a power point presentation. This presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit G. Exhibit G contains the following handouts:

• 2004 Town of Cary Travel Trends
• Copy of Staff Report EN05-040, Transportation Development Fee Ordinance Changes

Mr. Coleman stated in 1998 Cary changed ordinances regarding the impact fee system and adequate public facilities for schools and roads. Many development approvals were in the pipeline at that time, and when the water plant was built, everyone wanted to build these pipeline projects. This resulted in spikes in 2000. After this spike, both residential and non-residential plummeted because the pipeline development was built out. He noted there is typically a two-year time lag between when development is approved and when it is actually built.

Below are council responses to the staff questions:

Do we want to continue on path to reconsider the fee structure (credits, rates of fees and simplifying the ordinance), which is already in process? (It’s already had a public hearing, but staff has not yet taken it to the Planning and Zoning Board.)

(Refer to the staff report included with Exhibit G.)

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated a communication piece may be missing, because there is a perception that changes are viewed as regression. He suggested that staff look at this moving forward with the explanation that we are enhancing and improving the system and the process. Mayor McAlister stated it is changing the process in which we levy fees to have the potential to be revenue neutral. Council concurred to move forward with this.

Do we want to change the adequate public facilities system for roads?

Mr. Roseland sees two level of service issues: capacity and friendliness for pedestrians. He would support a transportation plan update that reflects a 10-year capital plan for roads. He likes four-lane roads.

Ms. Dorrel stated the assumption in the adequate public facilities ordinance is that we can build our way out of congestion. She wants to look at fine tuning (i.e., lane cap, more but smaller roads, etc.).

Mrs. Robison wants to maintain the roads adequate public facilities ordinance. She suggested to change how we define criteria upon which we determine we are meeting the ordinance. She does not want to continue to widen intersections.

Mayor McAlister stated level of service definitions are misleading. He disagreed with the practice of measuring peak hour. Mr. Bailey suggested an ordinance change so that the level of service rating is based on a three to four hour period instead of just the peak time.

Mrs. Robison wants more parallel roads and more routes but smaller lane widths. Mr. Bailey stated the ability to do this is limited, but staff will pursue it when appropriate.

Mrs. Robinson suggested looking at the thoroughfare plan prior to 2007. She stated it is important to review major intersections and decide how to cap them. She stated this thoroughfare plan review needs to occur first, and the results may help the council determine what to do with the adequate public facilities ordinance. 

Ms. Dorrel stated the adequate public facilities ordinance is not for multimodal transportation or alternate forms of moving people. She asked if we can somehow take these into account (light rail, buses, greenway, bike routes, etc.). Mr. Bailey stated multimodal transportation provides choice but it will not offset the road network capacity needs for a long time, and it may not eliminate congestion in the future. He noted that the current adequate public facilities ordinance allows for anything that the applicant can prove to have trip reductions.

Mr. Joyce asked if the proposed six lanes in the southeast gateway area include the impacts of Interstate 540. Mr. Bailey stated most Walnut Street traffic is not a.m. and p.m. peak. He stated if I-540 is extended south of US 1, it may take some of the Holly Springs traffic from Walnut Street , but not the normal a.m. and p.m. traffic. He noted that as other shopping areas develop in other areas of town, the traffic may reduce in the Crossroads area.

Mr. Joyce wants assurance that future elected officials cannot dip into the restricted fees that are collected. He thinks the funds need to stay within the geographic area. Mr. Bailey stated staff prefers to have flexibility with the funding, but this is up to council. He added if the money is in a separate fund, then it would be easier to target how the money is being spent.

Mr. Joyce asked if we are working closely with surrounding areas on the bottleneck issues. Mr. Bailey stated Cary works with adjacent communities to develop thoroughfare plans, but most other communities spend very little money for transportation projects. They rely instead on the state for road improvements.

Mrs. Robison asked if we will be able to use capacity to a greater extent with the traffic signal project. Mr. Bailey responded negatively. He stated the system improves travel times along corridors but cannot increase capacity along corridors. He added it will result in emission benefits. He stated it would help if we had capacity on alternate parallel road corridors. He pointed to the power point presentation (Exhibit G), specifically to the map with the red circles. He stated there are no alternate routes for these areas. Mrs. Robison asked if it will direct and redistribute traffic in a better way. Mr. Bailey stated it will have very little impact except during emergencies. He added that side streets will pay a price with this system.

Mrs. Robison asked about reconfiguring roadways so there is more right on red free flow. Mr. Bailey stated the staff uses this option when it is appropriate. He stated right turn volumes must be high for this to be effective and then there must be a way to merge the traffic.

Mr. Roseland suggested reviewing non-car options to allow choices.

Should we make changes to the thoroughfare plan prior to 2007?

Mrs. Robison agreed with Mrs. Robinson’s earlier comment to do the update to the thoroughfare plan sooner than 2007. Mr. Bailey stated it will cost about $250,000 to do this, and now is a good time since a lot of the area plans have been developed and the thoroughfare plan will look at traffic comprehensively. He stated it is important to define goals well before we start the update process (i.e., level of service expectations, etc.).

Mr. Roseland likes a four-lane cap.

Mr. Bailey recapped staff’s next steps: (1) staff will release the fees issue to the Planning and Zoning Board for their review; (2) staff will come to council with a staff report to define adequate public facilities ordinance changes noted herein; and (3) staff will consider moving ahead with the thoroughfare amendment and this discussion will be part of the budget process.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated staff should include the term “revenue neutral” in the staff report and should refer to this as a process change instead of a fee change.

Session 5: Economic Development Strategy

Some members of the Town’s Economic Development Commission attended this session.

Refer to Exhibit H attached to and incorporated in these minutes for handouts distributed by the representatives of Leak Goforth Company.

Mayor McAlister wants to know how many people come into Cary to work, since 2/3 of Cary residents go outside Cary to go to work.

Mrs. Robison wants to see the quality of jobs we import and export. She asked if the goal is to keep the high caliber jobs in Cary instead of Cary residents leaving town to work.

Mayor McAlister stated the key is to recruit jobs.

The Leak Goforth representative stated the attraction and retention of higher quality, higher paying jobs is the principle goal of the economic development effort. Mayor McAlister stated that attracting capital investment is also important.

Mrs. Robison stated an Economic Development Commission goal has been to attract corporate headquarters.

The consultants noted that they need to review area plans. They will also review the possibility of reorienting the Town’s commission, and they will look at how an economic development organization should be staffed and the cost.

Mr. Goforth stated economic development is about marketing and selling. He stated any plan should be developer friendly and should ensure infrastructure is adequate and available. He stated one thing to consider is the possibility of reducing the price of the land as an incentive to the company buying the land.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith suggested that the Town’s image be reshaped (i.e., technology town).

Ms. Dorrel wants a strategy to identify targets. She wants to hear how the consultants would guide Cary through the process. She stated that implementation occurs after a strategy is identified.

Mr. Goforth stated they will first do a complete analysis of the work force; then, they will go to a national database and search for growing companies, which gives the targets. Next, the council can pick the ones that best fit Cary ’s image.

Mr. Roseland stated the council should be strategic in picking preferred locations and preferred companies. He added that land is scarce. The council all concurred.

Ms. Dorrel noted the importance of looking 15 to 20 years into the future.

Mrs. Robison wants to know how to make the most of investments already made and what will net the most potential in the future (i.e., USA baseball, SAS soccer park, amphitheatre, etc.). She wants to emphasize the town center.

Mr. Coleman stated an important factor is whether facilities are a tool for economic development or just facilities to enhance quality of life.

Mrs. Robison hopes the study will review Cary ’s location and proximity to RTP. She wants an analysis on what infrastructure Cary could make in the area to capitalize on opportunities to grow high technology jobs. Mayor McAlister concurred and stated the infrastructure should be specific to attract these types of companies.

Mrs. Robison stated Cary must know the market in order to determine the opportunity. The consultants will look at the technologies that will remain for a long time.

Mr. Joyce wants to know the possibility of strengthening Wake Technical Community College . He’s interested in keeping students in Cary as workforce.

The consultant stated land use regulations can be an incentive (i.e., height limitations).

Ms. Dorrel hopes the process will look at regulations (permitting process, obstacles, etc.). Mayor McAlister suggested that the consultants talk to business leaders who have recently come to Cary about their experiences.

Mrs. Robison wants the consultant’s thoughts on what Cary can and should do to promote small business creation, and she stated it is important to diversify.

Mr. Wayne Loots of the Economic Development Commission spoke about the grant money available for economic development purposes.

Session 6: Activity Center Concept Policy

Mr. Jeff Ulma, Planning Director, presented this issue. The power point presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit I. Exhibit I includes the following handouts:

• Excerpt from the Land Development Ordinance on the activity center plan process
• Handout on mixed use development

Council’s responses to staff’s questions follow:

Is council committed to the activity center concept plan process?

Yes

Should staff do more to explain the process and/or change the name?

Council agreed there is a poor understanding of this process, and staff should seek to increase understanding via the Web, other materials, and workshops. Council directed staff to come up with possible alternate names, including a name change for the “community center” terminology.

Does council support the idea of Town-sponsored activity center plans?

Council directed staff to work with a focus group to evaluate.

Council agreed that it may be unreasonable to require a single applicant to plan for the entire quadrant, and it may be a good idea to shift this responsibility to the Town. The cost could be charged back to future development within the activity center.

Mrs. Robison wants to know the cost of doing the entire quadrant all at once.

Ms. Dorrel is concerned about staffing. She wants a clear understanding of the problems we are trying to solve.

Staff will continue to pursue.

Does council support a change in the protest petition process?

No

Are there other process changes or improvements needed?

Mr. Roseland commented that it seems that activity center concept plans are in conflict with the transportation plan (pedestrian-friendly vs. wide intersections).  

Mrs. Robison suggested that staff look at potential activity center areas and begin a Town-initiated planning process to plan up front with citizens.

The Saturday session concluded at 4:50 p.m.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Session 2 (continued): Council Operations

Mrs. Rowland, Town Clerk, and other staff conducted a mock council meeting to illustrate all of staff’s recommendations regarding council operations (refer to Exhibit C). In addition to the decisions made on Friday (see that portion of the minutes for those decisions), the council also made the following decisions on Sunday:

• Concurred with staff’s recommendation of how to get council member generated items on a council meeting agenda (requested by two council members to the clerk, clerk and manager decide what agenda the item will be referred to, entire council notified of this information, no staff report at initial meeting, requesting council member will give a verbal report, and the group’s action can be either to (1) refer to future committee meeting with full staff report/recommendation, (2) refer to future council meeting with full staff report/recommendation, or (3) do not proceed with the request.
• Concurred that presentations from outside groups will be handled as follows: the representative will submit a report with an executive summary electronically to the clerk, the report will be linked to the Web agenda, the council members have the responsibility of reviewing the information prior to the meeting, the representative will attend the meeting and will have the opportunity to present any new information not in the report, the council members will have the opportunity to ask questions of the representative, and no action will be taken to accept, receive, or approve the report; the presider will simply thank the representative for the information.
• Concurred with allowing the clerk to work with all council liaisons to boards/commissions and outside organizations to compile one annual report outlining activities of all groups. This report will go to the operations committee each December as an “fyi” item.
• Concurred that if a council member thinks it is important to provide a more timely report of any activity in which they are involved in (i.e., chamber inter-city visit, NLC activities, etc.), then that council member will request that the clerk add this item to the agenda. The council member making the request will submit a concise report electronically to the clerk, the report will be linked to the Web agenda, the council members have the responsibility of reviewing the information prior to the meeting, the presider will recognize the council member at the meeting and ask if there is new information to add that is not included in the report, the council members will have the opportunity to ask questions, and no action will be taken to accept, receive, or approve the report; the presider will simply thank the council member for the information.
• Council decided not to follow debate guidelines as suggested in the various rules of procedures; instead, they recognized the importance of council debate/discussion throughout all the various stages of the process (they did not like the idea of requiring a motion/second prior to debate). The council did agree that discussion/debate should following debate guidelines to the extent possible to ensure the discussion time is efficient and equitable.
• Concurred that items may be referred (i.e., to the Planning and Zoning Board) by unanimous consensus; if there’s not unanimous consensus, then a vote will be taken to refer the item. Council clarified that if an applicant pays money to utilize a Town process (i.e., the rezoning process), then that applicant is entitled to the full process, although the council may delay referral to the next step in the process but must meet the timetable in the Land Development Ordinance.
• Council concurred with allowing the presider to always ensure that any request of staff by a single council member during a meeting has majority support of the entire council.

The council expressed an interest in staff educating them on the timetables and deadlines that are provided in the Land Development Ordinance.

The clerk will follow up at the next operations committee meeting with a staff report with an updated policy that will include the current procedures of the council and any additional procedures approved by the council during the retreat.

Town Manager Coleman provided the following wrap-up:

Mrs. Rowland will follow up with a staff report to the operations committee regarding council operations.

The council confirmed the committee process.

Mr. Roseland asked that we pay more attention to our staff reports and that we include alternatives and options and provide a full discussion of these options.

Staff will prepare information to take to the planning and development committee to outline timing of processes that are in the Land Development Ordinance.

With regard to the development process:

• Refocus on conditions to ensure they are legal, reasonable and enforceable.
• Look at recurring issues that come through the development process to see if we can develop a way to deal with them earlier in the process.
• Review form based planning; staff will research and review how these principles might apply to our development process and will share findings with council in a staff report.

Staff will suggest methods of developing public input earlier in the budget process and will define purpose, results and methods.

The council is committed to an earlier budget work session (April 21, 2005) to involve council in priority setting and reviewing basic information trends prior to the decision making process.

Staff will bring a proposal to council regarding an update to the thoroughfare plan.

Staff will bring ideas through the committee system on revising the adequate public facilities for roads system (i.e., capping improvements, establishing different thresholds for meeting adequate public facilities standards, etc.) to provide a more consistent method and one that is easy to understand and is based on community values.. The staff report will address all issues and concerns that we raised at the retreat.

With regard to economic development:

• The consultants and staff will focus the process and will provide the purpose and issues for council to address.
• Staff will work with the consultants to identify a process and decision points (i.e., targeted industries, strategies, land use decisions, infrastructure, organization issues, issues about how we will conduct economic development [i.e., incentives]).
• The consultants and staff will consider processes to provide an overall review of strategies and ways to incorporate public comment (i.e., community meetings, etc.).

With regard to the activity center plan process:

• Council confirmed their commitment to the process and concept.
• Staff will prepare a report with recommendations to possibly rename the process.
• Staff will include more information on the Web to help people understand the process.
• Council does not want to change the protest petition process.
• Staff will provide more information to council through the committee process about the Town’s being involved in planning all quadrants of activity centers.

Mr. Coleman stated in a few weeks he will provide the council with a recap of the retreat, including issues and decisions under each topic. Staff will work to implement ideas and changes.

Mr. Coleman stated the “3 Es” is a concept that has become an integral part of the staff’s decision making process. He stated these concepts and theories are similar to the decision making quadrant that Phil Boyle of the Institute of Government talked about at a past retreat. He stated all these concepts work together. The Town of Cary focuses and operates on these principles on a daily basis. Our mission statement and statement of values guides the staff every day. The Town’s goals are to provide high quality service and a high quality living environment to its citizens, and to constantly work to improve this.

Mr. Coleman stated staff always tries to operate with the understanding that the council and staff is one team. He proposed to the council to have Steve Strauss work with the council and department directors as a group to work through the “3 Es” to help all of us see how we might apply that concept operationally and in a policy making environment. He suggested that this might give the council a better idea of how staff does their work each day and might generate more understanding for staff on how to integrate council duties and responsibilities with what staff does. The council acknowledged their interest in Mr. Coleman’s idea.

Mr. Coleman thanked the council and staff for their hard work during the retreat.

The retreat ended at 10:58 a.m.