Work Session Minutes of the Town of Cary , North Carolina
Subject: Proposed Operating and Capital Budget
Location: 120 Wilkinson Avenue , 2nd Floor Conference Room
Date:  June 6, 2006

Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Michael Joyce, Jennifer Robinson and Nels Roseland.

Council member Julie Robison arrived late and her arrival time is noted in the minutes.

Mayor McAlister called the work session to order at 5:03 p.m.

Town Manager Bill Coleman stated that one of the topics not covered in previous work sessions is the proposed operations budget for the utility fund. He provided documents summarizing the utility fund proposed budget, revenue changes, proposed utility rate increase, major expenditure and transfers, and the utility fund discussions on fund balance (attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit A.)

Mr. Coleman stated that the recommended budget for the utility fund proposes a 12.1 percent increase in the total budget; of that total 6.1 percent is related to debt service for major infrastructure to be added to the utility system this year and for the Town’s waste water capacity contract with Durham—serving the north and west development areas—until we get the Western Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant constructed. The remaining 6 percent of the utility fund is related to additional personnel—two utility system maintenance mechanics positions are proposed for performing maintenance and repair to the existing and newly constructed infrastructure. Mr. Coleman stated that major pump stations will be added in Cary and current pump stations expanded to allow for greater flow and pump capacity. Adding new elevated storage tanks and metering vaults to handle the flow between Durham and Cary and establishing new pressure zones will require a great deal of maintenance. The Town is also adding new odor control equipment at the Camp Branch interceptor. Mr. Coleman stated that all of those facilities create additional workload to be addressed with the addition of the two positions.

Mr. Coleman said that there is also a proposal to increase the 30-hour administrative secretary position at the north Cary plant to 40 hours. He stated that expanding the plant will increase the administrative duties for reporting requirements and additional activities for other personnel. In addition, there is a proposal to increase the laboratory technician position at the water treatment plant by upgrading the 30 hour temporary position to a permanent position in order to meet the workload over next year and to be consistent with new regulations regarding water quality and system changes. Another proposal is to hire position someone to help manage the new western wake regional water reclamation facility project. The budget proposes January 1, 2006 to hire this new person, but this date is flexible. The position will not be hired until there is an absolute need—the budget contains one-half year funding for this position.

Mrs. Robison arrived at 5:08 p.m.

Mr. Coleman stated that the merit plan increase is $174,000 in the utility system and the other operations cost increases are marginal. He said that the impact on the utility rates for this coming year is also identified. Staff proposes a 9.1 percent increase in utility rates, 2 percent in wastewater charges and 5.3 percent in water.

Budget Committee Recommendations

Ms. Dorrel stated that the committee worked by consensus and covered a lot of ground in five meetings, with an impressive level of detail. She hopes the council will see that the committee attempted to address every issue raised by a council member. If issues are not covered in the summary then they are in the minutes. The committee focused on the operations budget and did not discuss the capital budget except where the two meet. (An executive summary of the budget committee’s work and the minutes from their May 25 and 26, 2006, June 1, 2, 3, and 6, 2005 meetings are attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibits B and C, respectively.)

Budget Director Scott Fogleman stated that the vast majority time was spent discussing the solid waste service delivery and fee. He stated that the ultimate recommendation to the full council is to go to a fully automated service with same day yard waste pickup. The fee would increase from $7.67 to $11.75 resulting in 75 percent cost recovery. The committee reached consensus that at some point the system should reach 100 percent direct cost recovery, which will be achieved gradually with the fee considered each year as part of the budget process. The committee also discussed purchasing trucks and equipment with available cash.

Mr. Fogleman stated another recommendation of the committee focused on the current business license fee which has been in place since 1990. The committee felt that a $5,000 maximum was a good middle ground. They discussed detail changes such as creating a minimum late fee, raising the minimum tax from $25 to $50, increasing gross receipts to 60 cents, etc. These changes would generates about $650,000 in revenue for the FY06 budget.

Mr. Fogleman stated that the committee also looked at the merit pay plan to identify a potential reduction, but did not reach consensus. Therefore, they agreed brining this topic to the full council for discuss discussion.

Ms. Dorrel stated that there was a $2.1 million operating deficit when the committee began. The staff made adjustments typical to end of year activities to reduce the gap to $1.2 million. She stated that the committee reached consensus on all of the changes on the revenue side. Ms. Dorrel referred to page 2 on Exhibit B for all cost related items reviewed by the committee. The committee decided that council should discuss reducing the merit pay plan by $319,000, reducing the average raise from 4.88 percent to 4 percent. She stated that the take home message was that the council looks at this once a year but staff looks at cost reductions every day of the year. Not too much can be done without impacting services and the committee considered different areas for cost reduction. Ms. Dorrel referred to Exhibit B for the list of things considered but not approved by the committee with regard to reductions, which would have resulted in reductions in service. She stated that staff will take a good look at the janitorial service to reduce the number of times a week that office areas are cleaned, but will ensure that all public areas continue to get daily service. Some savings will be realized in this area.

Mrs. Robinson stated that cutting back on some expenditures would undermine a deliberate process, such as bringing medians up to a certain quality, and cutting back on existing service would cut back to a maintenance mode. The committee was reluctant to make those types of reductions.

Mr. Roseland stated that the committee looked to revenues to reach a balanced and fair recommendation for businesses and residents. He would have liked the committee to have delved into more expense reduction items. The biggest operating item in the budget is the employee salary package, including the 401K match. He said that the Town is required to provide 5 percent to the 401k for all sworn police officers but it is optional for non-sworn police officers. The committee did not get a consensus recommendation on this issue but it is the most significant cost increase in next year’s budget.

Ms. Dorrel suggested looking at the recommendations and then discussing each item.

Mr. Roseland stated that the committee would have preferred to look deeper into expenses, but with the change in solid waste service the Public Works Department will lay off 31 employees over the course of the year. He said that Town staff has tightened their belt and gone through difficult decisions.

Mayor McAlister thanked the committee. He stated that the $3.3 million swing is commendable and that the process was good.

Discussion on Solid Waste Service Changes

Ms. Dorrel stated that the committee looked at remaining with backyard semi-automated and fully automated services.

Mrs. Robison asked for a description of semi versus fully automated. Public Works Director Mike Bajorek responded that the current backyard system has rear loading trucks, a driver, and three to four collectors who manually collect solid waste. The semi-automated system provides rollout carts that citizens bring to the curb. It uses the same trucks currently being used but with a driver and two collectors and truck has flipper on the back. He said that automated service is peformed with a different truck. Citizens roll their container to curbside and the truck has an arm that picks it up. Only one person, a drive, is involved with this process. Mr. Bajorek stated that discussions were between semi-automated and fully automated with fully automated being more cost effective because it uses one versus three people. He said that the route productivity is about the same. The advantage of semi-automated is that potentially yard waste pickup is on Monday; however, costs rise because there still has be a temporary workforce to collect all yard waste on Mondays. Mr. Bajorek said that automated service is Tuesday through Friday collection with residents putting their yard waste out on the same day as garbage collection.

Mr. Roseland stated that Mr. Bajorek performed a five year forecast and long term automation is the most cost effective way to manage solid waste. Ms. Dorrel added that a key difference was with yard waste, stating that most people do yard work on weekends and with the automated system there is no Monday yard waste pickup. Mrs. Robinson stated that cost is slightly less with automated versus semi-automated. She said that the committee discussed the opportunity for special Monday pickups for yard waste and staff is looking into this option. She said that the committee felt with this provision the automated service was the best option.

Mayor McAlister stated that he liked that the cost increase is less than originally considered but still getting the same thing done.

Mrs. Robison asked about making adjustments in the fee structure this year and not transitioning to automation for another year or using private concessions for services. Mrs. Robinson stated that one reason to move forward is that trucks need to be replaced now and to delay impacts replacement of the fleet. The cost of automated is significantly cheaper than the current system and the committee felt there was merit in moving to curbside pickup now. Mr. Bajorek stated that five trucks are scheduled to be replaced this year. He said that waiting to move the purchase of those trucks into FY07 budget would increase the cost.

Mr. Bajorek stated that one difference with the semi-automated and automated is the issue of overflow trash. He said that semi-automated would allow the additional staff on the truck to pick up overflow trash; however with the automated system people with more trash will have to call public works to schedule a special collection with a rear loaded pickup for the overflow. Mrs. Robinson added that there would be a charge for that extra pickup.

Mrs. Robison asked if the committee looked at a private contractor for garbage collection. Mr. Roseland replied that the committee had a brief discussion but did not reach consensus. Mr. Bajorek stated that some Wake County communities have bid out their solid waste collection services and when you look at those bids and the services—i.e., what is done in terms of yard waste, recycling, etc.—and compare the FY04 full year figures, there’s no difference. The Town has had had experience with contracted recycling and the recycling is done in house the Town can control quality and service.

Mrs. Robison asked if the committee discussed the path forward if the strategy is to go to full cost recovery. She stated that it is a policy decision and asked if the committee discussed a rollout strategy for fee increases in future years. Ms. Dorrel responded that the ability to fund vehicle and equipment up front with cash gave leeway for the committee to look at the $11.75 proposal instead of the $15.50 proposal. Ms. Dorrel stated this is movement in the direction of full cost recovery and the committee’s intent is to ultimately get to full cost recovery. Mrs. Robinson added that staff recommended that this issue be revisited as necessary with staff looking at the numbers to determine a good time to propose another increase.

Mr. Roseland stated that the committee had good discussions on cost recovery. He said that they are restoring the level paid in 2001 when that council reduced the solid waste fee to the current level and this seemed to be a reasonable half-way measure.

Mr. Roseland stated that he is interested in pursuing the issue in the Town charter with the next state legislative agenda to allow people to itemize and deduct a portion of this fee on income taxes. He said that they did not have full committee agreement on this issue. 

Ms. Dorrel stated that the committee recognized that using cash to fund vehicles and equipment but may not be best way to go in future. She said that they may want to adjust the rate in a few years to build in additional funds for future vehicle replacement. This points the council in a better direction long term without making a final policy decision.

Mr. Coleman stated that the committee talked about the history of solid waste and the collection fees in Cary . He said that originally there was a split in what the fee paid for and what was supported by the tax rate, recognizing that the fee was paid for by users and the tax rate paid by all. He said that initially council thought that one-quarter benefit of the entire solid waste system accrued to the public at large and that they tried to maintain the fee for years according to this policy decision. However, in looking at the Town’s priorities, there’s a lot of emphasis on making sure that the Town has adequate infrastructure to serve the entire tax base. This budget proposal shows that 100 percent cost recovery for solid waste and recycling system places the burden of that system on the users and freeing up the other amount of funding to be used on roads, parks, and other infrastructure items that serve the entire public. The recommendation in the budget is that the general fund contribution as existed in the past be freed up to benefit the entire public.

Mr. Joyce asked about the $4 difference if not raising the $11.60 to $15.50, stating it is striking that it was carried for debt service. He said that this proposal reduced the cost from 86 to 75 percent. Mr. Fogleman stated that the portion not due to debt service only reflects 75 percent of debt service recovery–no debt financing in those numbers. Mr. Roseland stated that they did talk about debt financing the garbage trucks but it would end up costing one-half million dollars more in interest with debt funding and it would have a higher interest rate.

Mr. Joyce asked where the money is coming from for the vehicle and equipment purchases. Mayor McAlister stated that $1.2 million is being added to the fund balance in FY 06. Mrs. Robinson asked about the total cost of equipment. Mr. Fogleman stated that it is $900,000 for each truck, which is $35,000 more for each over the cost of the current type of truck. He stated that the carts are $1.5 million.

Mr. Joyce asked if the committee talked about bagging leaves. The response was no.

Mr. Joyce asked about the recycling program. Mr. Bajorek stated that budget includes replacement of current recycling trucks and going to a two-stream system. He said it would require a driver and one to two people on each truck, would eventually allow for the elimination of the Dixon Avenue processing site, and reduce several employee positions. The solid waste fee includes yard waste and recycling. Mrs. Robinson stated that two stream can collect more and save more.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if staff looked at more regional efforts for savings with the recycling collection. Mr. Bajorek stated that staff has been watching for opportunities; markets are secure enough for dual steam collection and to standardize to some extent what is collected.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that he has no other alternatives for solid waste collection, that the automated service is a safer approach, and that he respects the work of the committee. Mayor McAlister concurred. He said with the changes they are going to a higher cost recovery and changing the method. He said that it looks like citizens will get less service but pay more for it; however going to higher cost recovery means having to pay more. He thinks the committee did good job in helping the council to move in the right direction.

Mayor McAlister asked about laying off permanent town employees. Mr. Bajorek stated that staff has been planning for this since the last retreat and when a position becomes vacant regular employees have not been hired—they have used temporary employees. He said that in all likelihood there will be some regular staff who will not keep their solid waste positions and they will do their best to fit them into other positions for which they are qualified. He said they will do their best but that positions will not be created. There is also a plan in place for job training.

Mr. Roseland stated that transition in the program and financing is short term and will be tough, but long term it is the most effective and efficient way to provide service. Ms. Dorrel stated that it has become difficult to find employees to take the solid waste jobs. Mayor McAlister stated that it is important to take care of the existing staff.

Mrs. Robison stated that she understands the transition in services and asked about plans in place for getting the word out to citizens. Public Information Officer Susan Moran stated that noting overtly is doing to be done to tell people why council is changing service, but there is a detailed plan to explain what council decided to do for a cost of $49,000. She stated that staff has not been directed to get public input on the method of collection. Their direction has been to develop a communications plan, which has been done, that will articulate the necessary information to implement this program effectively. Ms. Dorrel said public input has been received on this issue.

Ms. Moran stated that questions were included in the biennial survey about the solid waste collection but staff has not been directed to take the pulse of the public about the change. Mrs. Robison asked if the way that citizens will learn about budget considerations is from the press. Ms. Moran replied yes. Ms. Dorrel stated that recommended budget includes the changes and is posted on the Town’s Web site. Ms. Moran stated it has been a headline on the splash page for weeks and staff did a multi-point session to get public input.

Mrs. Robison said it is good to do multi-point after the budget is clearer and hot.

Discussion on Business License Fee Structure Changes

Ms. Dorrel provided an overview of the committee’s discussions stating that they looked at three different scenarios for a proposed maximum fee, each yielding a different amount of revenue and it affects everyone who is already at the maximum. (See Exhibit C for a copy of the PowerPoint Presentation attached to and incorporated in the May 25, 2005 budget committee meeting minutes.) Mr. Roseland said that the committee asked staff which business sectors would be most affected and they were told that it would be the retail businesses. He said that the biggest commercial retail centers in Cary are crossroads, Cary Towne Center and the Walnut Street corridor. The town is investing significantly in road improvements to relieve congestion for that area and that it is important to keep this in mind. Mrs. Robinson stated that people have to look at the threshold numbers and that there are fewer than 150 companies falling into that window.

Mayor McAlister has reservations about anything that could be perceived as hurting small business. He thinks there will be lot of input at the public hearing. He said council is asking for a lot of things and everyone has to participate in solutions. It is important that people know about this and have chance to comment at the public hearing. He said that nothing should be done to hurt downtown merchant struggling to survive. The increase seems well justified when comparing the current fee to other municipalities.

Ms. Dorrel asked about getting information to people on the fee increase. Finance Director Karen Mills stated that people can call the Finance Department. Mr. Roseland stated that the fee is progressive and the committee worked hard to find a middle ground.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked about the amount of companies paying the minimum. Ms. Mills stated that about 1500 pay the minimum tax on gross receipts and another 3500 pay tax under schedules B and C that are set by state. She said that quite a number of Cary businesses are not impacted because the state specifically sets their fees.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked what is gained by raising the minimum. Mr. Roseland stated that the recommendation is to change the $25 minimum to $50 and it has not changed in 15 years. Mayor McAlister stated that in real dollars doubling the minimum generates very little. He said that by leaving the minimum at $25 the bulk of the gain comes from raising the higher end, and he asked the committee had discussed that option. Mrs. Robinson said they spent very little time on that because they focused on the bigger issues.

Mayor McAlister liked the idea of not raising the $25 minimum and moving forward with other committee recommendations. He suggested that council leave the minimum at $25. All concurred. Mrs. Robison stated people should be made aware of the low fee structure for startup businesses. Ms. Dorrel stated that the solid waste fee increase does not hit these people.

Discussion on the Merit Pay Plan and 401K

Ms. Dorrel provided an overview of the budget committee’s discussion. She stated that it is difficult to compare Cary to other municipalities because Cary ’s system is not cost of living based. She stated that sworn officers are required to get 5 percent contributed to the 401K which caused the committee to move away from that discussion. The committee discussed reducing $319,000 from the merit plan which would reduce an average raise of 4.88 percent to 4 percent. One committee member was strongly opposed. Ms. Dorrel said that there is another piece of the equation to be considered. She said that they are asking more from people every day.

Mayor McAlister asked if staff was talking about average salaries overall and stated that Cary ’s is performance based which still affords department directors the opportunity to give more than four percent for exemplary performance. He said that it does not limit anyone from getting more but that the pot of dollars to disperse is smaller. He asked about the average in industry increases for this year. Human Resources Director Valiria Willis stated that the committee received for information for other municipalities and that information varied. (See Exhibit C for a copy of the compensation attached to and incorporated in the May 26, 2005 budget committee meeting minutes.) She said that reports also varied nationally.

Mr. Roseland stated that cash bonuses are already a mechanism in the pay plan and suggested considering $319,000 as a cash bonus instead of a reduction so that it does not have the recurring budget impact of a salary on a year-to-year basis. He said that they looked at the perspective of mixing recurring salary increases with cash bonus but did not come to an agreement.

Mr. Coleman stated that the Town’s pay plan allows supervisors to give base pay increases, lump sum increases or a combination of the two. In the past year 23 percent of pay increases were lump sum rather than base pay and it comes out of same pot of money.

Mr. Joyce asked about the maximum bonus. Ms. Willis stated that there are two aspects: lump sum cannot exceed 10 percent of salary; Base pay increases vary depending on where a person falls in their range of 7-10 percent in maximum of gross pay. Mr. Joyce asked if someone making $100,000 could receive a $10,000 check. Ms. Willis replied that council has set criteria regarding the pay plan. Mr. Coleman stated that has never happened.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that labor is critical to a service industry and that four percent is not bad. He said that the Town has a good system and reviews a quarter of the jobs every year to ensure they are keeping pace with the market. Council does not need to manage the pay plan; it should be done by the manager within the guidelines of the existing policy. Mayor Pro Tem Smith said that the recommendation is not onerous and he would support it for this year.

Mayor McAlister stated it is important to look at how this is being considered by council, which is providing four percent as an average pool for bonuses to employees. He said that there is a limit to what can be done and no one is being punished; department directors can still reward high performers with more than four percent.

Mr. Roseland stated that the pay plan is continually the biggest cost driver in the budget and he is okay with four percent.

Mayor McAlister asked about the average merit last year. Ms. Willis responded that it has been stable at five percent.

Mrs. Robinson stated that she was the dissenter on the committee because she doesn’t think this is the best way to look to save money. She said that the average is currently at 4.88 percent because that is what is needed to maintain quality staff and still run efficiently. She feels that council is tinkering with numbers that have been proven over time and that the level should be maintained. She does not think council should get involved and stated that bringing numbers down out of symbolism will have long term implications, such as underpaid staff and seeing attrition. She understands that merits are recurring expenses, but would rather take the $320,000 from somewhere else, such as public art for a bridge, even though that is only a one-time cash expense.

Mr. Joyce sees merit on both sides of the issue. He said when you are part of an employment team you do have a role in how a company makes money. He thinks that staff shares ownership in the problem, but also sees it as more of a town manager issue.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated that the reality is that Cary is already competitive with the classification study and he does not think that four percent will impact long term attrition. He said that it may encourage managers to make good decisions to invest money wisely into labor. He said that the question is whether the Town can be fair and competitive and protect its investment with a four percent merit budget.

Ms. Dorrel hopes not to continue cutting the merit every year but council needs to determine how to set it for this year. She is hopeful that by doing it this year the council will not have to touch the pay plan again next year.

Mr. Roseland said that this is the first time that council has ever discussed the pay plan since he has been on council. He stated that 75 to 80 percent of the operating budget is employees and that council can’t delegate, or put on the back burner, the biggest driver in the Town’s budget.

Mayor McAlister stated that even if they limit it to four percent $1.4 million is still provided for merit increases; there’s still the ability for strong performers to earn some of that money. He said it is a way to share the burden in this difficult year and he doesn’t consider it as having employees baring the brunt.

Mrs. Robinson stated that with the change in health insurance coverage, employees will see an increase of about $15 month. She said that employees are being asked to pay more for insurance and at the same time take a potential cut in salary increase.

Mr. Coleman stated the Town is a service organization with all employees, including management, providing a direct service daily. He said that it is much different from state government or private businesses and that salaries and benefits are a big driver. Every year staff provides information to council about the pay plan outlining general and specific goals derived from council direction in 1994 to change the pay plan. The Town moved into a purely performance based system that has a strong concept and is managed well. He said that a lot of time and effort has been spent training people on how to administer the plan, which keeps the Town competitive and helps retain good people to provide good services. Staff’s goal is to manage this Town efficiently and a great effort is made to control cost. Mr. Coleman said that with the pay plan the goal is to use moderate salary increases and administer them effectively to select and retain good people. He stated that he does not know if moving from 4.88 percent to 4 percent would affect this goal but staff will do a good job using funds budgeted to accomplish the goals for citizens within the budget council approves.

Mrs. Robison asked where the proposed money would go if the average is reduced from 4.88 percent to 4 percent. Mr. Coleman stated it would become part of the margin raising it from $1.2 million to $1.5 million. Mrs.

Robison stated that she wants to understand the benefit in the big picture and that it seems to provide more cushion making it available for intermittent things that come up. Mr. Roseland stated that next years tax increase will be shaved. Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated it gives the council flexibility.

Mrs. Robison stated that she has always been proud of the competitive average increase that the Town provides to employees and she supports the reduction to four percent this year.

Mr. Coleman stated that if staff tries to maintain the average to four percent he would assume that problems arise with retention and competitiveness, then the council could make a decision.

Mrs. Robinson stated that it is not the practice of the Town to make counter offers. Mr. Coleman stated she was correct.

All but Mrs. Robinson supported the four percent merit average for FY06. Mr. Coleman added that it is with the caveat that if management is having difficulty managing and accomplishing Town goals the issue can be addressed again with council. All council members concurred.

Mr. Joyce thanked the budget committee for their work. He said that he needed to leave but that he wanted it stated for the record that he does not want to build Bartley Park .

ACTION: At 6:53 p.m. Mr. Roseland moved to excuse Mr. Joyce; Mrs. Robinson provided the second and council granted unanimous approval.

Parkland Development Discussion

Mr. Coleman stated that staff performed an analysis on funding available in the capital improvement plan that is not connected with ongoing projects. Ms. Henderson provided council with information on the list of projects that have not been initiated or moved forward, details on projects in the capital project list and their status, and information regarding population around Bartley Park in comparison with Cary Park and the Walnut Street Park—this information is broken down into miles, residents and non-residents (attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit D.)

Mrs. Henderson stated that capital project funds list over $3 million in projects not initiated or moved forward and includes Bartley Park with the funding sources from Middle Creek and East Cary . There are other projects that have been designed, out to bid, or in the process of bidding that can be stopped. She said that the Walnut Street Park , project at Walnut and Lawrence , is in design and staff has met with neighbors to develop the design—the construction amount would be around $1.5 million and could be stopped.

Ms. Henderson said that since 1998 $21 million has been spent, 1000 acres acquired, and 200 acres received through dedication. The amount of money available for land development is $3.2 million, and $7 million committed but not spent in other projects.

Mrs. Robison asked if that pot of money could be reallocated. Ms. Henderson stated that it would be difficult because it is tied to grants.

Mrs. Robinson asked about the 200 acres received by the town since 1998 through dedication. Ms. Henderson stated this it was acquired. She said that there are four areas for high priority park land acquisition to be married with open space which would total $6 million if added up: Weycroft, Carpenter, North East Park and Arthur Pierce. She said that they have been aggressive in trying to get dedications and some payments have been successful..

Ms. Henderson stated that the Town currently owns Bartley Park which is 50 acres. The funding request is for the first phase of the park. Mr. Coleman stated that Bartley and Lawrence Parks are neighborhood parks with $50,000 per year of operational costs. He said that if the projects go forward the operational impacts would not impact budget until 2008.

Mrs. Robinson asked about the standards for the population information. Ms. Henderson responded that the standards are that neighborhood parks serve populations within a two mile radius and community parks within a mile radius. She said that the North Cary Park would serve as a community park and Bartley Park as a neighborhood park; Lawrence Park is a result of the Walnut Street corridor.

Mrs. Robison reminded council about the previous rigorous decision to fund Lawrence Park .

Mrs. Robinson stated that it begs a question of pace for developing the parks. She said that it is important to acquire land for Bartley Park and hold off on development. Mr. Roseland concurred, stating that there needs to be a greater concentration of usage. He sees walnut street as having higher demand and said that the first priority should be more acquisition.

Mrs. Henderson stated that the Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Board has done a lot of work on Bartley Park but has heard little from residents in that area about needing a park. Mr. Roseland suggested developing Lawrence Park and using Bartley funds for something else. Ms. Henderson stated it can be done. She said that the Bartley Park money is currently funded through Middle Creek and East Cary parks. The Lawrence property will serve the area.

Mrs. Robison asked about design work relevance. Ms. Henderson stated that it is usually three years out from funding to actually opening park.

Mayor McAlister suggested limiting dollars spent on development for new park for now. He does not want to risk losing the opportunity for buying land for future parks due to lack of funding.

Mr. Roseland stated that there have been three proposals for Bartley Park . He wants to hold off until there is more population in the area and redirect that money to Walnut Street or land acquisition. Ms. Henderson stated money already exists for land acquisition.

Mrs. Robison stated she will support delaying Bartley Park because of the tough budget year but does not want the money used elsewhere.

Ms. Dorrel stated Lawrence Park was funded last year and was information for the park was provided the Exhibit D for comparison purposes. She is concerned about council’s view of annexation activity in that area and the ability to serve future residents. She is willing to delay development of Bartley Park but will not agree to assign the money elsewhere.

Council agreed by consensus to delay Bartley Park .

Mr. Fogleman asked for clarification. He said that previously staff was directed to reprogram funds from Middle Creek Park and East Cary Park to Bartley Park and questioned whether staff is to move ahead or leave the funds until a decision is made on any of the three parks.

Mrs. Robison stated she understood that the shift proposed was to delay or eliminate the need for more bond issues associated with Bartley Park —if nothing is done there won’t be any impact. Mr. Fogleman said it was a large portion of the bond funding form Middle Creek Park and East Cary Park but in projections for following years it is not changing the total but reducing having more. He said it is now a question of priorities. Mrs. Henderson stated that staff has been moving on Middle Creek and she suggested moving toward Bartley Park . She said the question is whether to also halt work on Middle Creek.

Council agreed that all three will stay where they are now for the next year and all funding will remain as is in those projects.

Mrs. Robinson left 7:14 p.m.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked about a spray ground. Ms. Henderson replied that it is something the town has never done before. It is a playground addition adding some surface area and sprayers for summer playground use. She said that the Town now has money and staff is moving forward with playground renovations at Ritter Park . Ms. Dorrel stated that the spray ground concept was brought to council by citizens and the parks advisory board as an amenity.

Mayor McAlister stated that the budget public hearing is June 9^th and asked if an additional work session was necessary. Mr. Coleman suggested scheduling another work session in order to give council an overall recap of where they are with the capital and operating budgets and in order to consider anything that may arise in the public hearing.

Mayor McAlister directed the clerk to find a time during week for council to get together. Ms. Dorrel stated that the budget committee can be reconvened to discuss issues that arise. Mr. Roseland suggested meeting before the council meeting.  

Meeting adjourned at 7:18 p.m.