2007 Council/Staff Retreat

March 16-18, 2007

Hilton Wilmington Riverside

301 N. Water Street

Wilmington, NC

Council Members Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Ervin Portman, Jennifer Robinson, Julie Robison and Nels Roseland

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

The agenda follows:

Facilitator: Town Manager Bill Coleman

March 16, 2007

Opening Comments/Review Agenda

Mayor McAlister started the retreat at 1:04 p.m. and welcomed the group.

School Board session

School Board attendees: Patti Head, Wake County Board of Education Chairperson; Eleanor Goettee, Wake County Board of Education member; and Superintendent Del Burns

This session began at 1:07 p.m. After opening comments by Patti Head and Eleanor Goettee, Superintendent Burns presented a power point presentation, which is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.

Discussion

School board members were complimentary of their relationship with the Town’s inspections and permits department.

Mayor McAlister stated the issues of today tend to overshadow the fact that all children get a great and free education in the school system. He stated it is important for everyone to work together to build more school seats. Cary needs to look forward at what Cary can do to assist the school system with more capacity.

Mrs. Robinson wants to understand the capacity needs in Cary so the Town can help meet these needs. She thinks it would be good for children to be educated closer to their homes. She doesn’t often hear parents complain about the quality of education; instead, they are upset about the movement of children.

Dr. Burns stated the task of coming up with projections was removed as a school system function and became a county function. The methodology has been very accurate until recent years, and this is due to population increases. They have added the model from the state that works with transportation patterns. He stated this model is better because it gets into neighborhoods and home levels instead of node levels. He stated Betty Parker is in the real estate services department, and she has several firms helping her purchase property. They use the data to determine where the students will be to determine where to build the schools. He suggested that the Town bring to their attention sites for review. He stated large parcels of land are difficult to find.

Ms. Goettee stated western Cary needs a middle school right away.

Dr. Burns stated that the failed 1999 bond referendum and the county’s growth have made it difficult for the school board to create adequate capacity.

Mr. Portman wants to know what successes are occurring in other communities that may be helpful to the school board as they plan, manage and fund the construction capacity. Dr. Burns stated the school system cannot control growth and cannot control the financial resources. He stated the council may want to address growth issues.

Ms. Head stated the Cary Park school was a great help to the school system because the large tract was easy for them to build on, and it was provided at a reduced rate to them from the Town.

Mr. Roseland stated Cary has collected $13 million from school impact fees, and Cary should be able to assist in this way.

Mayor McAlister stated the Hawes tract is a total of 53 acres for the elementary and middle schools. He asked the amount of school fees Cary has collected based on developer agreements at this time and what’s anticipated in the future. Mr. Fogleman stated Cary has $2.5 million today, and future projections are based on the number of bedrooms per unit. He stated depending on build-out there could be about $8.5 million after complete build-out.

Mr. Portman stated developer agreements didn’t happen by accident; rather, Cary took a leadership role to help address the issue. He stated there were some unintended consequences, and going forward it is important for Cary to be a responsible leader. He asked how to encourage others in the county to seek responsible solutions so it’s not just Cary looking to be a problem-solver. He spoke about the importance of land-banking large parcels, but he stated it takes cooperation from other communities.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated it’s important to determine why it’s taking so long to open the Cary Park schools. He stated on a different subject, years ago there was land identified in Lochmere for a school, but the school system chose to build at a site on Penny Road and pay to extend utilities to serve the site. He stated there was a large group that voted against the recent bond referendum and probably included a lot of parents with school-aged children. It’s hard for him to understand the school board’s rationale of not adding one more student to the classroom as the school board has agreed on when he sees the compelling arguments of what it solves. He thinks parents are frustrated, and they sometimes turn to the town council to express their frustration.

Ms. Head stated the school system will be happy to have a work session with the council to explain the issue of not increasing class sizes. She stated it is more important to analyze what’s occurring now and move forward instead of focusing on the past. She understands Cary’s dilemma in making the right decisions when other surrounding communities may not be making similar decisions. She stated it would be good for all municipalities to come to the table. Ms. Goettee added that even if Cary is the only community engaging in land-banking, it is still good, and Cary is setting a good example.

Mr. Portman stated land-banking is an example of good leadership. He stated the land-banking resulted from a threat of an adequate public facilities ordinance; without that threat, he believes the Town loses the ability for the developer agreements. He agreed that Cary needs to lead, and the council should agree on how to lead. He stated as the Town grows, we should ensure adequate seats.

Mr. Coleman stated Cary has engaged in land-banking in the past but moved away from it because of lack of response from the school board.

Mr. Ulma stated NC general statutes give towns the ability in the subdivision regulations to reserve future school sites as development occurs up to 18 months to give the school system the opportunity to purchase the site. He stated this must be based on a plan, so a master plan for future schools would be necessary. He stated the negative consequence of this is that once a plan is in place, the land value increases. Ms. Head stated any time they put circles on the map the land becomes very valuable.

Mr. Roseland hopes the Cary and school board staffs can work together, revisit the issue in 120 days, look at what went well and what didn’t work so well and come up with a plan. He wants a tangible follow-up to this discussion.

Mrs. Robinson stated it is most effective if all municipalities in the county work together with a unified plan. She added that this will require cooperation.

Mrs. Robison thinks the county commissioners and county staff need to be on board, because Cary doesn’t operate in a vacuum. She stated Cary knows where future development will occur. She’d like to know which schools will be converted to mandatory year round. She also wants to know the location of land in Cary where the school board needs to site schools

Dr. Burns stated all new schools in their capital improvement plan are scheduled for multi-track year round (Amberly, Laurel Park, Cary Park). He stated they have analyzed and determine it would cost $285 million to provide options other than multi-track year round in this current capital improvement plan, which would require nine additional schools.  

Mrs. Robison asked about plans to convert existing schools to year round. Ms. Head stated there is no plan to do this, but there is no guarantee that it won’t happen. If they have a huge growth in a particular area and a school becomes 115%+ above capacity, then they may have to consider mandatory year round. She stated they are now doing base assignments to year round schools to respond to capacity issues. Mrs. Robison stated it would be great if the school system had a policy on this issue. Ms. Head stated they are working on a policy.

Ms. Dorrel stated Cary citizens are not happy with the town council because of current school issues. They know that each development the town council approves will impact the school system. She wants to engage in meaningful ways with others in the county, because Cary is part of the problem, and citizens expect Cary to be part of solution. She would like Cary to take the lead with other municipalities in the county to have meaningful dialog about real solutions.

Mr. Coleman asked if Mrs. Robison’s comments above were meant to be criteria that council would use to determine approval or denial of subdivision plans. Mrs. Robison stated it could be used as criteria based on the fit with the character of the community and not necessarily a legal question.

Mr. Coleman stated this discussion is moving towards an adequate public facilities ordinance.

Mr. Portman stated any solution should be county-wide. He stated we’ve learned from the past and we want to move forward. He asked if the school board is open to recognizing that for it to work well in the private sector, developers may want some commitment that a percentage of seats in a school would go to that neighborhood. He stated it works best if the private sector does this. Ms. Head thinks it is agreeable going forward, keeping in mind the health of the entire school system. She cannot make promises on behalf of the school board. She added that developers are not coming to them offering land.

Mr. Portman proposed that staff study best cases of what has occurred recently, what worked well and what didn’t, as potential models for a county-wide discussion. Mr. Coleman asked if the study should be focused on land-banking. Mrs. Robison stated the study should also look at developer reserved land for schools and private partnerships.

Mayor McAlister stressed the need for a county-wide effort. He stated fixation on capacity will be detrimental to the school system’s focus on education, and education should be their primary focus.

Mr. Coleman stated the Cary Park agreement had a lot of trading back and forth with infrastructure, and he does not think it is a good model because of that. Instead, he proposed to create a model based on best practice and discount Cary Park as a model.

Mayor McAlister would like to provide a carrot to the development community by setting aside a percentage of school seats to the development.

Mr. Coleman stated this is potential solution and a positive step to affect positive change.

Mr. Roseland stated it is important to think outside the box (special property tax districts, impact fees, etc.) and to have a viable financial plan.

Ms. Dorrel stated Cary does not have all the answers and should ask other municipalities about their good experiences, which may lead to multiple good ideas.

Mr. Coleman stated whatever model is developed may be more applicable to other municipalities, because Cary’s developable land area is rapidly shrinking.

Mr. Portman stated it’s important to share the tough issues with the community and help them understand the consequences (i.e., if we don’t address these issues, then these are the consequences.) Ms. Head stated they have done a lot of these conversations in the past, and people accused them of being threatening. She stated it would help if the town council would share this information.

Mrs. Robison stated there is ambiguity about the reality of the numbers that Cary gets from the school system. She stated more accurate numbers would help the council make better decisions about development.

Mr. Roseland asked staff to provide a reasonable timeframe for follow-up and an outline. Mr. Coleman stated he and Mr. Ulma will work with school staff and county planning staff and put together a timeline. He wants to involve county planning staff since it’s a county-wide issue.

Mrs. Robison suggested to follow-up with this in the next quarter possibly by having a joint work session. Mayor McAlister concurred and stated the timing of the report will be good target for a future meeting.

Ms. Goettee stated the school board has accurate numbers and will share them with council.

The school board participants thanked the town council for including them in the retreat.

The session with the school board ended at 3:21 p.m.

Economic Development session

The economic development session began at 3:36 p.m.

Mr. Sandy Jordan of the Cary Chamber of Commerce led this session.

The powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.

Discussion

Mrs. Robinson asked how to bolster downtown development. Mr. Sandy Jordan stated it is important to continue to encourage people that downtown is a viable option. He thinks the streetscape project will bolster the downtown plan. He stated it will be beneficial to facilitate meetings, identify impediments and determine how to ease and/or eliminate them. He stated there is some hesitancy for groups to decide to be the first one in.

Mr. Roseland is glad to see the economic development program with an organized plan and the accomplishments to-date. He asked how the Town can encourage sustainability and asked for feedback on incentives. Mr. Jordan stated the Town made investments and it is an ongoing program. He stated the conversations need to take place now rather in the future about sustaining efforts (i.e., what funds are necessary, where do funds come from, how do we raise funds, etc.). He stated it is valuable to him and the advancement of program to have a clearly defined incentives policy.

Mr. Coleman stated the first question to ask is if incentives are something we want to get involved in, primarily due to equity issues. If so, we need to establish goals and determine if equity is a goal, and then determine where to go from there.

Mayor McAlister stated the Town has been fortunate to-date with incentives being minor. He would like to have a game plan for incentives in place before we’re confronted with a major request so everyone will know how to deal with it.

Mr. Roseland stated the economic development commitment was a public/private partnership, and the Town put aside $750,000 for 2.5 years with private partnership sustaining the program after that. He asked the status of the second position. Mr. Jordan stated he needs to learn the existing businesses and speak with them about opportunities. He will determine if he can service this community. If he can’t address the need, then they would look at moving forward with the second position. He stated by the end of this year he will report on what’s going on and suggest moving forward recommendations.

Mr. Portman asked for information on Mr. Jordan’s thoughts on when he’ll be able to provide some metrics. Mr. Jordan stated the powerpoint presentation contains some metrics (i.e., 50 calls this year on existing companies, etc.). He stated they have not yet established a baseline because the program is new (i.e., hits on web site, etc.).

Mrs. Robison asked the vision of outcomes of investments. Mr. Jordan stated they will increase capital investment and jobs, and this should be the expectation. He thinks the program is successful if they put Cary in a position to be considered for projects.

Mr. Roseland asked the need for incentives. Mr. Jordan stated incentives are part of the economic development program and can eliminate a community if they are not willing to talk about it.

Ms. Dorrel thinks it is important to have a process to examine the issue of incentives, because in the past the council has not had the political will to define it. Mr. Jordan suggested that he work with staff to develop a proposal for council consideration.

Mr. Portman instead suggested that Mr. Jordan is the best person to look at incentives across the country to see what other’s offer, and then he should come back to council and report results.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated he likes the current vague incentives policy. He’d rather spend money recruiting than on incentives.

The session on economic development ended at 4:40 p.m.

Budget and Finance session

The budget and finance session began at 4:41 p.m.

The powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.

Mrs. Robison questioned the percentage of fund balance in the utility fund. Mrs. Mills stated council set a 75% target at a work session in October 2005. She stated it has been good for bond ratings and generates investment revenue.

Mrs. Robison referred to the slide titled “status of general fund fund balance”. She is surprised by the 2007 estimates. Mr. Fogleman stated it includes mid-year appropriations and has the $10 million aquatics funding removed from it.

The budget and finance session ended at 5:31 p.m.

Mr. Coleman recapped council direction provided at today’s retreat sessions:

School session:

• work with school system staff and Wake County planning staff to develop countywide land banking system for Wake County and its municipalities
• identify land for school sites (especially middle schools)
• continue approach to facilitate school construction through permits and inspections
• review development approval criteria to include school capacity

Economic Development session:

• report to council on incentive policy
• plan for sustainable funding for economic development program (public/private partnership
• metrics on capital investment and jobs

March 17, 2007

Transportation and thoroughfare plan

The transportation and thoroughfare session began at 8:40 a.m.

The powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit. Mr. Bailey discussed the long-term state-wide issues, including the equity formula.

Discussion

Mayor McAlister stated even with a change in the equity formula, it does not return enough money to be significant. He stated toll roads are getting a lot of attention at this time, and we’ll probably see more of this across the state.

Mr. Roseland stated Charlotte has a unified system to support their transportation needs. He thinks front-ending the $15 million and getting legislation to help that was helpful. He’d like to focus on things that have worked in the past.

Ms. Dorrel stated the Wake delegation is a strong supporter of the Triangle J Council of Government’s (TJCOG) legislative agenda, and the delegation has stated that the urban areas need to get together on this issue. She wants to continue to pursue this and realizes it will not be a short term issue.

Mrs. Robison asked if more local authority in decision making would be valuable (i.e., to determine what secondary roads get funded). She stated changes in the equity formula could result in decentralization of decision making, and we’d have more opportunity to influence resource choices.

Mr. Bailey stated CAMPO is our planning organization and they prepare the transportation improvement requests. He stated there’s no money for local spending, and they tend to focus on inter/intrastate goals first with little money left over.

Mr. Bailey suggested that the TJCOG get in touch with other urban COGs and request a single request and get members to support resolutions.

Ms. Dorrel stated the Wake County delegation is prepared to move forward on this and they have asked us to join with others to build momentum.

Mr. Roseland stated the TJCOG legislative agenda is referenced in Cary’s legislative agenda as items the Town supports. He suggested considering this issue as a Cary legislative agenda item instead of just referencing it.

Mrs. Robinson stated another approach should be to talk to other municipalities in Wake County to determine if we need to float a sales tax for transportation.

Mr. Roseland understands the state gas tax was capped last year, so even if the equity formula changes, there will be more demands and less money.

Mr. Coleman summarized that there’s consensus to look for ways to advance the issue locally in Wake County and in the legislature by using the TJCOG, Metropolitan Coalition and other entities that might assist with this.

Mrs. Robison asked if the NCLM has anything pertaining to this issue on their agenda. Mr. Coleman replied negatively. Mrs. Robison stated she wants to actively pursue this issue.  

Todd Delk of Kimley Horne outlined the transportation plan portion of the powerpoint presentation.

Discussion

Mrs. Robison suggested pursuing more scientific surveying vs. the self-selected method that was used to further define the needs of the community.

Mr. Roseland asked how the survey results compare to the biennial survey results. Ms. Moran stated information gained about transportation is limited on the biennial survey, but she stated responses to the question asking the main concern has already been in the top three. She stated the main two answers to this question are traffic congestion and potholes. She stated they have probed more about the congestion question, and it appears the frustration seems to center around the interstates. She stated another survey is coming up in January 2008, and staff and the consultant will develop the survey instrument in the fall and council has this opportunity to explore this issue in more detail.

Ms. Dorrel stated the survey is anecdotal and we don’t know what it means, and she asked why we didn’t do something more scientific. Ms. Moran stated when staff brings plans to council, we include public input. This will provide more public comment, although not at the level of the biennial survey.

Ms. Dorrel stated transportation is a big capital spending issue, and she thinks it merits a more scientific survey. Ms. Moran stated it would cost about $20,000 to do a more scientific survey on this issue. Mr. Coleman stated staff will look at the timing and the cost of following up with a more scientific survey.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated he does not need a scientific survey to know we have congestion. He stated the Town has invested millions in the automated signal system, but he thinks it still needs tweaking. He complained about too many traffic signals in close proximity to each other, and he thinks this slows traffic.

Mr. Coleman stated the signal system is tweaked daily and sometimes more often. Mr. Bailey added that it is very difficult to remove traffic signals once they are installed, and he noted that we don’t put them up unless absolutely necessary. Mr. Bailey stated travel times have improved tremendously as a result of the signal system.

Ms. Dorrel wants feedback from teens and seniors to learn if their needs are being met.

Mr. Bailey stated the proposal for a toll road is a big change to the transportation plan, and now is the time for council to make decisions on how to deal with toll roads in the plan. He stated the toll will be 15 cents per mile or $1.50 for the entire distance.

Mrs. Robinson stated Cary has limited road capacity and with toll roads we’ll have major congestion on interior roads.

Ms. Dorrel asked if a citizen committee will be involved in the transportation plan update. Mr. Delk replied negatively because it’s just an update. He stated they did the Web survey to solicit public input. Mr. Bailey stated the process took 21 months last time, and we probably want to take less time with this update. He thinks the scientific survey will be a good addition.

Mr. Portman asked if it’s unique that Cary funds so much for roads. Mr. Bailey thinks Cary spends as much or more than any community in the state on roads. He stated we also have ordinances that require developers to build portions of roads.

Mr. Coleman stated urban areas usually expend a lot of money on roads.

Mrs. Robinson asked how much money per capita is generated from Charlotte’s one cent sales tax. Mr. Bailey stated it all goes to transit and generates in the $20 million range for all of Mecklenburg County, which equates to about $20 per person.

Ms. Dorrel wants to reach out to participants of the original plan and make them aware of input efforts. She stated a focus group would be ideal, but at minimum we should make them aware that we want them to participate in the public process. She suggested that staff contact teens and seniors through the parks, recreation and cultural resources department.

Mr. Coleman stated capacity and how to deal with it is a big issue. He stated the priority in the past has been to add more road capacity, which has come at a cost, because we can never build enough road capacity. Additionally, he stated increasing road capacity requires a lot of land. He suggested that council discuss this and determine where in the transportation plan we should require a certain level of service (LOS) at intersections.

Mrs. Robison wants to think more multi-dimensional. She thinks we should move away from peak hours.

Mr. Roseland asked the percentage of peak hour trips that are non-Cary residents. Mr. Bailey estimated that about 80% are non-Cary. Mr. Roseland stated we should not have more pavement to accommodate non-Cary residents.

Mrs. Robinson stated we have the potential for bike movement but it’s imperative to have grade separated crossings. She stated we need at least one east-west and one north-south line to cross the Town without dealing with traffic.

Mr. Roseland stated this should be part of engineering’s capital budget because it is a transportation issue.

Mrs. Robinson stated developers need to work on providing grade separated crossings. Mr. Coleman stated it would also increase throughput on main thoroughfares.

Mrs. Robison asked how metrics would change if we go to multi-modal LOS. Mr. Bailey stated the current percent of trips by transit is less than 1%. Mrs. Robison asked how to transition to this. Mr. Bailey stated it’s possible to define LOS by node, but this may not be good criteria to measure. Mr. Delk stated sometimes it’s possible to look at LOS that considers environmental features.

Mr. Portman stated APFs and LOS have been used to guide development and push to developer responsibility for improvements. He stated it’s been a decision not to put freeways in the middle of town. He stated the council either needs to modify the APF to say that in key areas LOS F is okay or the council needs to develop alternatives.

Mrs. Robinson stated roads should match the neighborhood feel. She believes that people expect peak hour traffic. She suggested instead considering the non-peak hour traffic as a baseline.

Mrs. Robison asked about quality of life factor associated with the LOS.

Mr. Portman likes the idea to put a percentage of weight on peak and non-peak and come up with a new score that might admit that peak time may be F. He believes this addresses the overall quality of life model. He suggested finding new terminology, because citizens don’t understand LOS F.

Mr. Roseland wants a LOS with four-lane cross sections; he does not want rural roads in urban settings.

Mrs. Robinson stated landscaping is important. She stated we need right-of-way for roads and land preserved for buffers that will not be used for future extra lanes. She stated we need to landscape medians and she would like us to do it quicker than we’re currently doing it.

Mayor McAlister stated there seems to be consensus towards not running urban roads through suburban areas. He stated past LOS based on peak hours may be unrealistic. He stated it seems reasonable that we would expand the peak hour window. Mr. Bailey stated staff will look at this as part of the transportation plan and will bring something back to council. He stated regarding APF, coming up with an equation may have unintended consequences. He suggested having a goal to widen to a certain point; he stated there is a provision now where these come to council, and it’s a council decision. He stated this may need to be eliminated and let the plan stand on its own. He stated staff will formulate something to bring back to council. He stated a mathematical formula will not meet all of council’s goals, but the general guidance will help with the plan.

Mr. Coleman stated the general consensus is four-lane sections with grade separated pedestrian crossings with landscaping and corridor protection with an average LOS over a certain period of time (i.e., examples may include a four hour peak, weekdays vs. weekends, etc). He stated staff understands that the council direction is to change the LOS to relate to a bigger LOS picture and not just peak time.

Ms. Dorrel stated people will not be satisfied sitting in traffic; however, making the roads attractive may help. She stated people may tolerate more congestion if the overall quality of life is good.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked the decision on the toll on I-540. Mayor McAlister stated if we don’t support tolls and the road isn’t built, then the burden on Cary roads is worse. Mr. Bailey stated the earlier LOS discussion answered that question. He stated it matters what we do with our system knowing what’s happening with the toll roads. He stated if we cap to four-lanes, then people will go back to I-540 and will pay the toll.

The transportation session ended at 10:37 a.m.

Downtown session

The downtown session began at 10:38 a.m.

The powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.

Discussion

Mrs. Robinson stated it’s appropriate to expand the design guidelines to cover the entire town center, and she thinks we need to increase architectural standards in the town center. She wants standards that use urban and more sustainable materials.

Mr. Ulma stated staff will ensure the appearance manual and the town center area plan work in harmony.

Mr. Portman stated the issue is how to accomplish the plan with minimal public and maximum private investment. He stated it seems that the performing arts center may need to be one of the first issues addressed, because it seems the challenge is creating the destination and demand.

Mrs. Robinson stated successful downtowns have several anchors, and every project needs to have its own anchor. She thinks it’s important to first encourage office development in downtown.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith asked if we should look at incentives for downtown (i.e., façade enhancement). He suggested a downtown zone to make it more attractive to the private sector. Mr. Roseland gave as an example that the Town might consider front-ending infrastructure investments. Mayor Pro Tem Smith stated the Town may consider deferring or waiving fees.

Mr. Roseland wants to see timeless architecture in the downtown area. He added that we currently have a lot of low end housing and trailer parks in this area. He thinks we need a residential base in this area, and he thinks it will be difficult to accomplish. He stated Charlotte has efforts to encourage homeownership and to convert rental property to ownership, and they use low interest loans to encourage redevelopment.

Mrs. Robinson stated the market may take care of this situation. She stated the chamber is meeting next week to debrief after the recent trip to Charlotte, and attendees will discuss what they learned about redevelopment opportunities that might apply to Cary. She thinks it’s important that the council receives this information. She noted on the trip that Cary’s rail corridor looks bad, and she thinks it’s worthwhile to consider making it a redevelopment parcel for office. She stated the Town owns the land where the downtown library is located (about two acres); she stated it may be good to consider working with the county to expand this library and consider going vertical with office and residential above it.

Mayor McAlister wants to understand the cost factors of the downtown plan. He stated it seems we’d get the most benefit immediately from the cultural arts center, and the council needs to prioritize what needs to be done and move forward. He thinks it would draw a lot of the private development. He does not think that the streetscape will draw the private development.

Mr. Fogleman stated the project will cost about $150 million, and there’s currently about $12 million appropriated.

Ms. Dorrel stated council has already prioritized the downtown project, and staff is implementing this former council direction.

Mrs. Robinson thinks that private developers will see that we have a plan and are moving forward and will think it’s worthwhile to invest in downtown. She doesn’t think it’s good to reprioritize. Mayor McAlister stated this may work in theory but maybe not in practice. He stated a restaurant won’t lease building space until people are there to make the business worthwhile.

Ms. Dorrel suggested revisiting the timeline and how we came up with phases and priorities.

Mrs. Robison stated the financing mechanism will drive the sequencing. She recalls that council was not willing to consider a major financing mechanism to include local option financing. She thinks this new financing option would provide the Town more flexibility and would generate private investment.

Mayor McAlister stated the possibility of a tax increment financing district was floated and might have merit. He stated the council may also want to consider a bond referendum for downtown and let the community vote on the financing mechanism.

Mrs. Robinson stated people are ready to begin private fundraising for the cultural arts center, and she thinks we need to give them clear direction and adequate time to be successful.

Mr. Roseland wants to focus on tangible issues that we can control today (Cary Elementary, library). He thinks a huge impediment is getting enough land for the cultural arts center.

Mr. Fogleman stated the budget powerpoint presentation showed the cumulative impacts to the tax rate.

Mrs. Robinson reiterated that the private sector is waiting to hear how much money they need to raise. She wants to assign trigger points; for example, if they raise ½ of their private money, then the Town will go to design; if they raise 100% of their money, then the Town will go to construction, etc.

Mr. Portman thinks Mrs. Robinson’s proposal (above paragraph) is healthy and reinforces the overall plan. He asked if it’s better to put $33 million into creating a good environment or instead put the money into a facility to attract people. He thinks our downtown is our weakness; he prefers to put money into things that will bring people to downtown. He agreed that we need anchors with offices.

Mrs. Robinson stated most of the streetscape is done in FY 2009 with performing arts center completed in FY 2012.

Mayor McAlister stated the performing arts center is estimated to cost $60 million. He stated we might ask the private sector to come up with 1/3 of that amount ($20 million), and if they meet this target, then the Town will accelerate this on the plan and move it up a year from where we are now. He stated it does not have the same effect as being a lure to downtown, but at least it shows the Town’s commitment to this facility.

Mrs. Robison stated there’s a lot of work to be done on the plan between now and 2012. She wants to stick to the plan and maintain the commitment to absorb tax rate implications.

Mr. Portman asked if the council has the will to move forward on the $150 million commitment. Mrs. Robison stated the plan is in place and it’s now a question of the financing mechanism.

Mr. Coleman stated looking back at Cary’s history there have been certain pivotal decisions that moved Cary into the future (i.e., focus on the planning and development concept, Cary Parkway and Maynard Road loops, focus on being independent with our utilities, Bond Park, etc.). He thinks the downtown issue is another pivotal decision that will impact the future of Cary. He believes it will create a model of how redevelopment will be done in the future. He added that there’s not a lot of vacant land remaining for development. He stated we’re moving into a period where investment will be more redevelopment than development. He noted that we’ve incurred debt to improve Cary with roads and parks and we’ve not yet raised taxes for this. If the development of downtown occurs as planned, then he believes the investment will be made and returned. He does not think the impact on the tax rate will be anywhere near what is projected now, because the return on investments will cover some of the debt.

Mr. Roseland stated we have a lot of debt financing authority. He stated past discussion occurred about phasing the $33 million for the streetscape improvement. He stated we have $97 million in road bond authority today that we could dedicate to help fund the streetscape improvements, and the voters have already approved this. Mr. Coleman concurred. Mr. Roseland stated the Town has $27 million in authority on parks and recreation projects, and he stated this could be applied to Cary Elementary. He stated he understands that parking decks are critical to the downtown plan. He stated there’s a special subset of debt financing that can be used for parking decks. He thinks $150 million results in sticker shock, but when whittled down to manageable pieces and compared to the funding options available to us today and with the understanding that the entire project can be phased in a logical way, then the project becomes more palatable. He thinks if the council pursues the project in a logical fashion, then it won’t result in doubling the tax rate over the next four years.

Mayor Pro Tem Smith wants urban standards that make sense.

Mr. Coleman stated staff will revisit the design guidelines to accomplish what council has mentioned, including expanding the area of coverage of the design guidelines. Mr. Ulma stated staff will share this information with council.

Mr. Coleman stated staff is looking for council’s reaction to the phasing plan that staff has put together based on some of the realities of what it takes to do these major projects. As an example, he stated even if council directed today to move forward immediately with the performing arts center, he stated it would probably take four years to build it, because the process takes time for design, public input, would require a parking deck, etc. He estimates that it will require about $5 million to purchase the remaining land for the performing arts center, and staff is currently developing a cost proposal for this land acquisition. He stated staff can bring a new phasing plan to council based on the actual land we can acquire, and staff can review alternatives to move up construction of the performing arts facility if council chooses to do this. He stated the private group will need time to raise money.

Mayor McAlister wants to let the private group know how much money to raise and in what timeframe. He stated $66 million is today’s cost of the performing arts center, and 1/3 of this amount for the private fundraising group would be $22 million. He would like for council to agree that this is a fair amount of participation from the private sector for that facility. Mr. Coleman questioned if council wants to use a specific dollar amount ($22 million) that will be raised by the private fundraising, or whether council prefers that they raise a percentage of the cost, which may be a moving target.

Mrs. Robinson concurred with the amount and suggested trigger points. Mayor McAlister stated once they get commitments for ½ of the $22 million, then the Town could move to design. He would love for the Town to be pressured by the success of the private fundraising group.

Ms. Dorrel doesn’t want to hamstring private fundraising. She agrees with the $22 million, but she thinks the Town needs to accept responsibility for the things the Town needs to do. She thinks the Town should work with the private group as we’ve done in the past (Hemlock Bluffs, Kids Together, etc.). If the private money comes in sooner, the Town can accelerate the project. She believes this discussion will make a difference in their fundraising. She does not want to penalize the project based on the rate of the private fundraising. She stated the Town’s timeline will provide checkpoints for everyone. She thinks the trigger points work well if the fundraising efforts are doing well, but she stated she does not want trigger points to be detrimental to the project. She stated the Town should use the established timeline with checkpoints along the way.

The council concurred with providing the private fundraisers with the target of $22 million. They agreed to offer the incentive to the private fundraisers to accelerate the time schedule if they have tremendous success with fundraising efforts. The council reaffirmed their commitment to building the facility, regardless of the success of the private fundraising group.

Mr. Portman asked if we have a clear understanding of the incremental tax base, the incremental revenue and a model of the impact on the tax base. He stated this information should be shared with council, because council’s future conversation is how we’ll pay for it. He is concerned with a referendum because all the work to-date could die or momentum could be lost if the referendum didn’t pass.

Ms. Moran clarified that council has committed to the project and the question on a referendum would be the method of financing (i.e., GO Bonds), and not whether to do the project.

Mr. Roseland stated an established funding mechanism is important to him.

Mr. Portman stated if a bond fails, then it creates political pressure about going forward, and he recognizes the importance of timing and sequencing. Mayor McAlister stated the downtown project is much different than the wastewater facility, school construction and other critical functions.

Mr. Coleman stated if we do the streetscape project and don’t do the performing arts center, then we have environment to create investment; however, he stated the opposite is not true. Mr. Ulma added that the development community knows the Town is interested in downtown based on council’s streetscape commitment.

Mr. Roseland would like to endorse a complete financial plan and a fall referendum.

Mrs. Robison wants to use existing authority and convert some of it to the project. She stated staff can develop a rational financing plan. She commented that the streetscape improvements will provide an immediate benefit. Mr. Portman concurred and stated he’s now focused on how to pay for it.

Mrs. Robison suggested to direct staff to come back to council with options on a financing plan to implement the recommended phasing. She stated in a work session in the near future the council can discuss pros and cons to better understand the tradeoffs and then make decisions on financing mechanisms.

Mr. Portman requested that the information from staff include information about impacts on the tax base.

The council suggested that staff contact the private fundraising organization about the $22 million amount and request that they send a letter to the council formally accepting it.

The downtown session ended at 12:24 p.m.

Land Use session

The land use session began at 1:35 p.m.

The powerpoint presentation is attached to and incorporated in these minutes as Exhibit.

Discussion

Council raised the following issues for discussion.

Mixed Use Development Concerns

1. Location/distribution of densities in different quadrants and timing sequence (equity among parcels); effect on overall vision
2. Generic term; actual “mix” depends on context/location; some projects don’t provide all uses as expected (use term as cover but seek to provide only one use)
3. How uses relate to one another not always meaningful/well-integrated
4. Way that uses are allocated among quadrants is not fair/equitable (but good concept) depending on timing of development (“last one in” may suffer)
5. Hard to create true destinations for activity: squares, plazas, open areas, etc. instead of “regular” development
6. See apartments/multifamily (without open space/common spaces) instead of true mixed use development (if apartments, need to be more urban)
7. Good concept but citizens opposed to creating urban environment instead of maintaining suburban/small-town feel (conflict); relationship with existing, adjacent residents

Housing Density Concerns

See many proposals for high density development (some that convert other uses to residential); establish direction regarding same so we can tell development community and avoid rezoning conflicts

Concerns Regarding Converting Office Land to Residential

Need appropriate balance; need office locations for employment; hold out to ensure office land develops as zoned/planned for that use, especially if highly suitable for office development

Based on the discussion on the above concerns, the council provided the following direction to staff:

Mixed Use Direction

1. Stick with mixed use approach
2. “Raise the bar”: Look at other communities for good examples/models
3. Study mixed use requirements and review guidelines to achieve our intent: evaluate “mechanics” of approach to address identified concerns (e.g., mixture of uses, amount/square footage of uses, distribution of uses among quadrants, market reality); Considering land supply, we can be “more selective”

Housing Density Direction

1. Strengthen multifamily/apartment requirements to ensure high-quality, “urban” development
2. Provide additional data/details to Council regarding crime statistics for multifamily developments

Direction to Maintain Office Property

1. Protect land that is zoned/planned for that use, especially if highly suitable for employment use