|
Town of Cary Council/Staff Retreat March 17-19, 2006 Mid-Pines Resort Southern Pines, NC
Council Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Mike Joyce, Jennifer Robinson, Julie Robison and Nels Roseland
Staff Present: Bill Coleman, Town Manager; Lana Hygh, Assistant to the Manager; Susan Moran, Public Information Officer; Scott Fogelman, 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; Scott Cunningham, Police Chief; Mike Bajorek, Public Works Director; Rob Bonne, Utilities Director; Bill Stice, Technology Services Director; Chris Simpson, Town Attorney; and Sue Rowland, Town Clerk. Assistant Town Manager Ben Shivar attended the Saturday afternoon and Sunday sessions.
Facilitator: Steve Straus
The materials provided to council in preparation of the retreat are attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit A, and include copies of power point presentations and handouts for the various portions of the retreat.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Mr. Coleman began the Friday session at 1:08 p.m. He noted that the purpose of the retreat this year is to facilitate decision-making on budget issues, short- and long-term development issues, and to focus on working collaboratively to develop priorities.
Mr. Straus asked council to respond to the following two statements: 1) expectations for the retreat and 2) overall hopes and concerns for the Town.
Expectations:
Concerns:
Hopes:
Mr. Straus suggested there’s a lot of commonality with council’s hopes and concerns.
The following quality of life discussion ensued.
Mr. Joyce: He feels that quality of life is different for everyone. It’s important to ask specific questions to determine the meaning of quality of life. The council has different values. He may not personally be opposed to high density development, but he senses that citizens are opposed to it. Cluster development is misrepresented, and it leads to more traffic problems.
Mrs. Robinson: She hears the following concerns from citizens: loss of trees, inadequate buffers, lots are too small, too many grocery stores and pharmacies, loss of land, overcrowded schools, and overcrowded roads. She’d like to address the issue of postage stamp size lots.
Mr. Roseland: He is concerned with “garden variety” apartments that are mass produced. He wants to look at design standards and ensure the quality of growth and development is special and unique. We need to ensure appropriate infrastructure and create special public spaces.
Mayor McAlister: He hopes the council will attempt to validate concerns to learn what people are really concerned about. He stated quality of life is subjective. It’s important to balance the concerns of newcomers with the concerns of long-term residents. He doesn’t want every decision to be swayed by a minority of people who have been in Cary for a short time. We need to understand where concerns are coming from.
Mrs. Robison thinks a definition of quality of life would be beneficial. She hears in Weston that there are compromises in their particular situations (i.e., no sidewalks with a transition to residential, etc.). The community center in this area was taken off the table because the council doesn’t want to use the bond money. There have been too many compromises that don’t apply the same standards, and the commitment to investments isn’t significant enough.
Ms. Dorrel: She hears the most negative comments about schools, and citizens don’t want to hear that it’s not the council’s job to address capacity and certainty about school assignment. She wants to be more proactive to show that the council is concerned about the schools. The council was highly progressive at one time regarding schools, but the council is no longer doing this. Some of the past initiatives didn’t work, others were too risky, there were constitutional issues, etc.; however, the citizens felt Cary was out in front to affect change in this area.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith: He stated the issue is expectations and not right vs. wrong. The council seems to bureaucratize citizen participation. Instead the council needs to learn how to reach out and get a cross section of citizenry. The current processes don’t give the desired results.
Ms. Dorrel: She thinks it’s important to define council’s expectations. She stated the council needs to learn how to engage citizens more and work to exceed expectations. She is proud of the Town’s culture of customer service. She questions if the Town is moving away from this culture or whether the survey results are not true.
Mayor McAlister: He stated it’s critical to understand what people are saying when they say quality of life is deteriorating.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith: He stated a lot of little things add up to dissatisfaction and frustration. He doesn’t think the Town is living up to past expectations.
Mrs. Robinson: She stated Cary is losing some of its “specialness.” She stated that she took a couple around western Cary a few weeks ago, and their general conclusion was nothing makes it more special than where they are currently living. She doesn’t think people want small lots; she thinks the movement towards smaller lots has created a new character for Cary, which is not consistent with the past or where we want to be.
Mr. Joyce: He agreed with Mrs. Robinson. He stated staff does a good job with treating citizens as customers and recognizing citizens as customers to be served. He stated quality of life issues fluctuate with individual personal lifestyles (i.e., school aged children).
Mr. Roseland: He stated he’s heard that problems are traffic, school reassignment, and paying more for services. He stated these are tangible things that are growth centered that the council can address.
Mr. Joyce: He stated Cary is predominantly still a bedroom community, and the Town will continually change.
Mr. Straus stated it seems that the council wants to undertake a quality of life initiative, which isn’t necessarily on the retreat agenda.
Mayor McAlister: He stated the public expects a continuous investment in high standards, and the council needs to be able to say we lived up to this. He suggested the council search for ways to accomplish this.
Mr. Coleman: He stated all items fit well with the retreat topics that will be discussed. He expects that these issues will be crystallized by the end of the retreat and everyone will be clear.
Mr. Straus stated if not, then the council can address it on Sunday morning.
Ms. Dorrel: She reiterated that council member’s may individually define quality of life differently. She stated the council should articulate, understand and agree prior to undertaking a quality of life initiative.
Citizen Survey session:
Dr. Kevin Baker outlined the power point presentation that’s included in Exhibit A.
Dr. Baker stated the follow-up focus group didn’t like voice mail and expressed a desire for one person to contact to get concerns addressed. He stated apartment dwellers were the only group that gave lower scores for police. Mrs. Robison is interested in looking at this in more detail.
Dr. Baker stated the focus groups think townhomes and businesses should be included in recycling. In addition, he stated the condition of the road leading to the convenience center (potholes) may have decreased the scores for the convenience center.
Dr. Baker considers grades a concern if they’re in the “C” level, and he added that the grading scale is tough. Ms. Moran stated the Town has done this survey for years so we now have a trend. She stated the means is important. She stated the Town can put fixes in place to keep grades from going down.
Dr. Baker stated the over 65 age group gave the lowest grades for quality of life. He stated the over 65 and over 10 year residents age groups gave the lowest grades on overall management.
Dr. Baker stated the focus groups think Cary’s doing a good job with growth and they want managed growth. They prefer commercial growth, and they stressed the need for regional cooperation.
Dr. Baker stated the focus group believes there’s information overload. They don’t think the media covers Cary very well. They don’t want global Town e-mails but would like target e-mails with description lines and links. They stated that BUD is good. They want quarterly abridged budget information. They stated the Town should publicize participation opportunities more. They like the idea of town hall meetings, and they like call in/e-mail discussions at set times.
Mrs. Robison wants to learn more about the score on the question that is tied to the Town’s mission statement (best local government of its size in NC). Dr. Baker added that the over 65 group gave a D+ in this category.
Mr. Scott Fogleman, budget director, and Mrs. Karen Mills, finance director, outlined the budget/finance presentations (included in Exhibit A).
Mrs. Robinson asked if it’s time for a new fiscal impact analysis. Mr. Fogleman stated if we see more multi-family units in the next year, then it may be time to revisit it to better understand the long-term service implications.
The council direction given in the finance/budget session follows:
Mrs. Robison stated the presentation shows a spike in FY 2009 in debt service, and she asked if the Town can absorb the spike without a tax increase. Mrs. Mills stated this assumption is not made and it will be a FY 2009 budget decision and will take into account all the details at that time.
Mrs. Mary Henderson, director of parks, recreation and cultural resources, outlined a presentation on the parks capital improvement project selection process (see Exhibit A). The comments made during this presentation follow:
Mrs. Henderson: She stated the Town is searching for land in the northeast area for potential parkland. She also stated that most greenways are in stream corridors, and as a result the Town is gaining more open space due to buffer rules, which results in a bigger corridor.
Mr. Joyce: He asked how much of the parks, recreation and cultural resources (PRCR) master plan is now purchased. Mrs. Henderson stated acquisition is the Town’s number one priority. She stated to meet the master plan by 2009, we need the following: two mini parks, six neighborhood parks and two community parks. She stated the community parks typically house the community centers. She stated the Town has done a great job with acquisition in the west, because we’ve had a chance to get out in front of development in this area.
Mr. Roseland: He stated the level of service standard is 7.5 acres for 1,000 people. He asked if there’s been a match up of projecting the number of additional population over the next 10 years vs. dedicated or acquired park acreage to determine if we’re meeting the level of service standard. Mrs. Henderson stated the numbers can be viewed differently depending on the category. She stated the calculations were redone based on the northwest and southwest area plans, and staff is constantly reviewing the population numbers to make the necessary adjustments. She stated we are not yet meeting the level of service standards, and she thinks we’re under 6 acres for 1,000 people for park types (only considering developed acres); however, if we look at the entire park system, we’re a little over 7.5 acres for 1,000 people. She suggested to spend more time looking at the open space plan and restructuring the level of service numbers.
Mayor McAlister: He asked for figures on developed space vs. undeveloped space. Mrs. Henderson stated there’s about 1800 acres of which about 860 acres is developed. She stated benchmarking is difficult in this field, because people count things differently. She stated the most important thing is to understand how we count it, and to even revise this method so that it’s as clear as possible.
Mrs. Robison: She stated the council needs to know citizens’ willingness to pay and what they value most.
Mr. Roseland: He stated the council needs to review targets and agree upon them.
Mrs. Henderson: She stated we should use the open space and greenway plans to locate future areas.
Mayor McAlister: He asked about national standards. Mrs. Henderson replied that there used to be national standards, but they now recognize that each community is different. Mr. Coleman stated often these types of standards don’t relate to anything. He suggested the council should determine the types of parks and activities that are important to Cary citizens as well as the type of access and programs, and then base a plan on this instead of an arbitrary standard.
Mrs. Henderson: She suggested to have a signature feature at each park.
Mr. Straus summarized that arbitrary benchmarking is not suitable for the Town; the key question is whether should parks should be established to meet the needs and expectations of citizens.
Mrs. Robinson stated she believes the purpose of this session was to share the process with council to help them make implementation decisions. Mr. Fogleman stated this is another piece of the budget/finance discussion. He stated if we leave debt capacity at its current level and allow it to grow with the budget, it would generate about $8 million of new appopriateable debt each year. He stated the ultimate question – especially after Mr. Bailey’s presentation on transportation and stormwater – is deciding the right direction. For example, are we satisfied with the $8 million per year, and if not, what do we give up to have more parks or more roads, etc. He stated it’s important to know what it will take to meet the needs and expectations that the citizens have expressed.
Mayor Pro Tem Smith. He sees two issues: 1) being aggressive on the front end of development and 2) older Cary. He wants a future economy of scale and the “look” of Cary. He’d like to see sidewalks more integrated, and he also wants to see common sense applied.
Mr. Roseland: He stated it would be helpful to see three scenarios during the next capital budget process: strong implementation of the master parks plan, moderate implementation and slow implementation, with a list of projects and dollar amounts with each scenario. He thinks this information would help the council make important decisions.
Mayor McAlister: He stated the master plan is a 20-year plan, and the council implements this plan in the fiscal year budget process. He stated the council needs a longer term budget projection to see how things may shape up with the prcr master plan. He knows there are a lot of variables with this, but he doesn’t think the current process is good for the prcr master plan implementation. He stated the council needs something more stable and predictable for prcr planning as well as other needed capital improvements. He suggested it may be beneficial to project for five years for this purpose.
Mr. Joyce: He suggested that the prcr plan implementation could be done more like the sidewalk project, in that a certain amount of money is allocated for plan implementation.
Mrs. Robison: She asked if the trend line includes use of bonding powers. Mr. Coleman stated we’ve generally approached prcr capital spending with a minor contribution from debt funding and most funded by cash. He stated one possibility would be to cost out the master plan (already done) and have a bond referendum and parcel it out over the 20 year plan period. Mayor McAlister liked this idea, but looking at the prcr capital needs with the budget each year doesn’t accomplish this.
Ms. Dorrel: She stated this is a huge part of the quality of life discussion.
Mr. Coleman: He stated staff makes budget recommendations each year, but these recommendations don’t include a lot of information about what happens if we do or don’t undertake certain projects. He stated staff can look at the priority list that’s developed, make determinations, look at funding options, and bring council a list of priorities with analyses of the impacts on the overall budget. He stated this would allow the council to discuss projects and priorities on that basis.
Mr. Joyce: He asked if the discussion would still start on a no tax increase basis. Mr. Coleman stated yes.
Mr. Straus led the wrap-up of the prcr discussion:
He asked if council concurred with the prioritization process. The council concurred.
He asked about Mr. Roseland’s suggestion about the three scenarios. Mr. Coleman prefers to provide information about the projects that council can pursue with existing funds and provided the impacts; he stated it would be difficult to define the categories.
He asked about the long-term budget projections and how it fits with the master plans. Mr. Coleman stated staff can do this, but there are many uncontrollable variables so the data would be questionable. Mr. Fogleman stated models are already in place. He stated Mrs. Mills’ presentation was about theoretical debt capacity, without any delineation about specific uses. Mayor McAlister stated the Town has always been good about planning for the capital needs and wants. He looks for staff to determine how to provide this information to council so that council can understand how the funding might occur for these projects.
He asked about Mayor Pro Tem Smith’s comment about being aggressive in new development areas. Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated this shouldn’t take away from the older areas of Cary, but perhaps the process could be managed differently. Mrs. Robinson stated the council may need to rethink the criteria for neighborhood parks through proper advanced planning (out west). The council agreed that land acquisition needs to be the highest priority.
Mrs. Robison: She asked how to tackle special projects (aquatics, town center art initiatives, etc.). She believes that the town center cultural arts plan provides an opportunity to continue to set ourselves apart as a community. She thinks the council needs to make commitments. Mr. Coleman sees these special projects as being separate issues from the prcr master plan. He stated for these two specific items the council will need to look at cost and decide how to proceed. There will be significant financial impacts and it merits separate discussion. Ms. Dorrel stated the town center cultural arts discussion is ongoing. She stated the council has postponed discussion on the aquatics center, and she thinks it’s time for a work session. Mayor McAlister stated the town center discussion is occurring, and the aquatics center issue can be a work session. He stated most work sessions between now and budget adoption will be tied to the budget. He stated at the last aquatics work session the council agreed to seek interlocal funds and has since received $10 million to be dispersed no earlier than January 2007, but only if the Raleigh convention center hasn’t used all the interlocal funds. He suggested to delay a work session until we know if and when we’ll get the money. Mr. Roseland thinks the council should have a work session between April and June to discuss funds that might be provided in January 2007. Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated a work session could allow the council to determine what we want. Ms. Dorrel thinks the council should be clear on the commitment in order to get the $10 million. Mayor McAlister stated a work session to focus on what we can build may be productive. All concurred.
Recap of council direction given during the PRCR discussion:
The Friday session of the retreat ended 6:27 p.m.
The Saturday session started 8:40 a.m.
Mr. Tim Bailey presented the session on the capital improvement project selection process for transportation (see Exhibit A). He led an exercise whereby the council listed their transportation goals as follows:
Reduce congestion Multi-modal Vehicles over alternate mode (cars first) Lots of alternatives routes – well connected thoroughfare system Addressing worst level of service intersections Safety Smooth flow of traffic progression Adequate access for neighborhoods Highest cost benefit ratio and result – which traffic improvements help most people at least cost Pedestrian routes Fixing the locations where we don’t currently have pedestrian access Aesthetics Dedicated bus corridors to RTP Eliminate bottleneck Bike lanes/routes Waiting at railroad tracks Planning for rail stops Potholes Street lighting Equitable road funding (state/federal legislation) Mixed use development to reduce traffic Free flow right turn lanes General road maintenance Queue jump lanes Landscaping (i.e., medians) Aesthetics of street lights (i.e., type of poles, etc.) Medians Alternate materials (i.e., bridges) Transportation planning to use alternate materials Public art Maintain markings Public participation Timing of raising manhole covers Parking ratios Transportation vs. quality of life Public education regarding air quality Regional coordination
The council then ranked their priorities as follows:
|