Agenda & Minutes

PRESENT: Mayor Harold Weinbrecht, Mayor Pro Tem Julie Robison, Council Members Gale Adcock, Don Frantz, Ervin Portman, Jennifer Robinson and Jack Smith

ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to adopt the agenda; Mrs. Adcock provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.

B. CONSENT AGENDA (click on this link for the full text minutes of the consent agenda)

1. Regular Consent Agenda (any regular consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the old/new business portion of the agenda, which is item H on this agenda)

a. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting held on March 27, 2008; and the minutes of the financial policy work session held on March 25, 2008.

b. Consideration of the following appointments to the Zoning Board of Adjustment: move current alternate Robert Evans into regular member seat for the remainder of the term; appoint Madrica Lowery as regular member; appoint Barry Shuster to fill the alternate position vacated by Mr. Evans; and appoint Charles McDarris as Chair.

c. Consideration of correction and ratification of annexation ordinance 07-A-28 to correct typographical errors in the property owners’ names.

2. Land Development Consent Agenda (any land development consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the land development discussion portion of the agenda, which is item F on this agenda)

a. REZONING 07-REZ-34, Evans Estate Phase II
Location: 160 feet north of the intersection of Anita Way and Evans Estates Drive
Current zoning: Residential 40 (R-40)
Requested zoning: Residential 12 Conditional Use (R-12-CU) to allow a maximum of 40 lots and specify minimum lot size
Acreage: 14.90 ±
Comprehensive Plan Consistency: In accordance with N.C.G.S. 160A-383, and based upon the recommendations and detailed information developed by staff and/or the Planning & Zoning Board contained in the case report, approval of this case by the Cary Town Council will officially adopt the individual rezoning report as evidence that consistency with the Comprehensive Plan has been thoroughly evaluated and that this is a reasonable action to further the community’s public interest in carrying out the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: unanimously recommended approval
Speaker: Mrs. Debra Grannan
Suggested council action: council may take action

b. REZONING 07-REZ-37, Cary Park Planned Development Amendment
Location: 3800 Cary Glen Boulevard
Request: PDD Amendment to replace residential use with park, recreation and open space uses
Acreage: 19.69 ±
Comprehensive Plan Consistency: In accordance with N.C.G.S. 160A-383, and based upon the recommendations and detailed information developed by staff and/or the Planning & Zoning Board contained in the case report, approval of this case by the Cary Town Council will officially adopt the individual rezoning report as evidence that consistency with the Comprehensive Plan has been thoroughly evaluated and that this is a reasonable action to further the community’s public interest in carrying out the Comprehensive Plan.
Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: unanimously recommended approval
Speaker: Mrs. Debra Grannan
Proposed council action: council may take action

3. Operations Committee, April 3, 2008 (any committee consent agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the committee discussion portion of the agenda, which is item G on this agenda)

a. Land Project Adjustments (FN08-06)
Committee unanimously recommended combining balances and resources remaining in the Open Space Utility Fund project and Land Acquisition Parks Project into a newly created general governmental project as follows:

(1) Appropriation of $261,569 from the Water Projects Fund Fund Balance to be transferred to the Parks Project Fund to cover previous land purchases in the land acquisition account.

(2) Recognition of $217,760 in PARTF grant funds and appropriating to the open space project within the Water Project Fund to cover previous land purchases in that project.

(3) Recognition of $62,510 in funds received from the sale of property and appropriating to the Parks Land Acquisition project within the Parks Project Fund to cover previous land purchases in that project.

(4) Appropriation of $16,985,117 from the Open Space Project in the Water Project Fund and $359,348 from the land acquisition project in the Parks Project Fund (based on the unspent sources listed above.

b. Additional Appropriation to Self-Insurance Fund (FN08-07)
Committee unanimously recommended recognizing $26,650 in small claims revenues and the appropriation of $100,000 from the small claims fund balance for a total appropriation of $126,650 to small claims fund expenditures.

c. Town Center Park PARTF Grant Conversion (PR08-23)
Committee unanimously recommended that staff pursue the conversion of a PARTF grant awarded for the purchase of 1.43 acres in the Town Center Park area to a replacement property in the future neighborhood park site at the corner of Louis Stephens Road and Morrisville Carpenter Road.

d. Budget Adjustment for Skate Cary Park (PR08-25)
Committee unanimously recommended the appropriation of $12,000 in Items for Resale for the Sk8-Cary Park and a corresponding increase in Retail Revenue of $18,000.

e. Chatham County Water Intake Agreement (PWUT08-25)
Committee unanimously recommended approval of Amendment No. 3 of the Water Intake Service Agreement with the Town of Apex and Chatham County.

f. Sale of Rain Barrels (PWUT08-26)
Committee unanimously recommended approval of an appropriation of $61,070 to the Water Conservation Division – Items for Resale for the purchase of rain barrels, with the recognition of offsetting revenues of $60,000 in Miscellaneous Revenue.

g. Litter Enforcement Pilot Program (PD08-016)
Committee unanimously recommended that the Town of Cary Police Department partner with Wake County for their pilot program for litter enforcement. Committee further recommended that funding of up to $3,000 offered by Wake County be recognized upon submission and placed in the Miscellaneous Revenue account and that $3,000 be added to the police overtime account budget.

h. Sponsorship Policy for Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources (PR08-24)
Committee unanimously recommended the adoption of the Sponsorship Policy as the basis for a PRCR Sponsorship Program and directed staff to study more fully the consultant’s models to determine the most cost-effective method of implementation and to bring their recommendation back to Town Council.

i. Bid Award and Budget Adjustment Request for a Sprayground at Bartley Park (PR08-26)
Committee unanimously recommended awarding the bid for construction of a sprayground at Bartley Park to Carolina Recreation in the amount of $219,997.18. This award by Council represents a preliminary determination as to the qualification of the bidder. No legally binding acceptance of the bid or offer will occur until the Town has executed a written agreement. Committee further recommended the appropriation of $270,000 from Ritter Park Improvements (PR1060) to the Bartley Park Project (PR1074).

j. Council Staff Retreat Priorities and Action Items (AD08-015)
Committee unanimously recommended accepting this report and the priorities as set out at the retreat and outlined by the manager. Committee further unanimously recommended to direct staff to come back to council with an outline for a long-term strategic planning/visioning process for the Town that keeps citizens engaged and maintains meaningful communication with the community.

1. Presentation of a proclamation designating April 16, 2008 as Healthcare Decisions Day in the Town of Cary.

WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions; and

WHEREAS, it is estimated that less than 50 percent of severely or terminally ill patients have an advance directive. It is likely that a significant reason for this low percentage is that there is both a lack of knowledge and considerable confusion in the public about advance directives; and

WHEREAS, one of the principle goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, hospices, businesses, organizations, and spiritual communities to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage citizens to enhance their knowledge related to advance directives; and

WHEREAS, the Life Decisions Coalition and other organizations throughout North Carolina have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives; and

WHEREAS, as a result of April 16, 2008, being recognized as Healthcare Decisions Day in North Carolina, more citizens will have conversations about their healthcare decisions and execute advance directives to make their wishes known. Fewer families and healthcare providers will have to struggle with making difficult healthcare decisions in the absence of guidance from their loved ones and patients.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Harold Weinbrecht, Jr., Mayor of the Town of Cary, North Carolina, on behalf of the Cary Town Council, do hereby recognize April 16, 2008, as “HEALTHCARE DECISIONS DAY” in Cary, North Carolina, and I call this observance to the attention of all our citizens.

2. Presentation of a proclamation designating April 2008 as Donate Life Month in the Town of Cary.

WHEREAS, April has been designated as National Donate Life Month, in honor of the generosity of the American people who have donated organs, tissue, marrow and blood; and

WHEREAS, more than 95,000 people in the United States are currently awaiting organ transplant surgery, and approximately 16 people die each day because organs do not become available; and

WHEREAS, organ and tissue donors truly bestow the “gift of life”, as one donor can save or enhance the lives of as many as 50 people; and

WHEREAS, greater awareness and education about the need for organ and tissue donations is crucial in order to increase the number of names on the organ donor registry.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Harold Weinbrecht, Jr., Mayor of the Town of Cary, North Carolina, on behalf of the Cary Town Council and in support of National Donate Life Month, do hereby proclaim April 2008 as Donate Life Month in the Town of Cary, North Carolina.

FURTHERMORE, I encourage Cary citizens to consider registering with the State's donor registry and to share this decision with family and friends.

Prepared by: Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, and Dr. Kevin Baker, Research Consultant

As part of the Town of Cary’s comprehensive communications program, consultants with BKL Research of Salem, Virginia collected data for Biennial 2008 – the sixth Town-sponsored citizen satisfaction survey focusing on the operations and services handled each day by the Town. Since its inception in 1998, the Town of Cary has been using its biennial survey to help provide guidance or where it can make improvements in its service to and services for citizens.

A total of 405 Cary households were randomly selected for the survey and interviewed by telephone from February 1-23, 2008. Just like Gallop, Nielsen, and other national and international pollsters, BKL utilized scientifically developed sampling techniques and statistical analysis that allow the survey results to be generalized over the entire population even though not everyone in Cary is called. The margin of error for the 2008 survey was +/- 5 percent.

At Council’s April 7^th meeting, Dr. Kevin Baker of BKL Research will make a short presentation on the survey’s key findings. The full report is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit.

As a follow-up to the survey, BKL will conduct several focus groups in April. These focus groups will probe specific issues from the survey in greater detail using citizen volunteers from the pool of the 2008 survey respondents. The Council will be provided with a Focus Group Report that includes the sessions’ findings as well as transcripts of the sessions.

Dr. Baker’s PowerPoint presentation is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit. He noted that this survey contains Cary’s highest marks in the 10-year history of this survey.

Mrs. Adcock asked about C-Tran improvement specificity. Dr. Baker stated there was no feedback. Public Information Officer Susan Moran stated she will add a question for the focus group.

1. REZONING 08-REZ-04, HATLEY REZONING
Location: 805 Rochelle Road and 1139 Evans Road
Current Zoning: Residential 40 (R-40)
Proposed Zoning: Transitional Residential Conditional Use (TR-CU)
Acreage: 10.00 ±
Speaker: Mrs. Debra Grannan
Proposed council action: council may refer to the June 16, 2008 planning and zoning board meeting

The applicant is requesting Town Council approve an Ordinance to amend the official zoning map of the Town of Cary for approximately 10 acres, located at 805 Rochelle Road and 1139 Evans Road, from Residential 40 (R40) to Transitional Residential-Conditional Use (TR-CU).

The purpose of a rezoning is to evaluate the appropriateness of a proposed land use for the subject parcel(s) of land. Specific development requirements related to the technical aspects of land development, such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road connectivity and landscape plantings, are not considered during the rezoning process. However, all of these development issues must be addressed for compliance with existing requirements specified in the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) when the site or subdivision plan is submitted.

Applicant	Jerry Turner and Associates 905 Jones Franklin Road Raleigh, NC 27606 (919) 851-7150
Agent	Glenda Toppe
Acreage	10.00 ±
General Location	Portions of 805 Rochelle Road and 1139 Evans Road
Hearings / Meetings	*Public Hearing* April 7, 2008	*Planning & Zoning* June 16, 2008	*Town Council* July 24, 2008
Land Use Designation	Low Density Residential (LDR)
Town Limits	Both properties are located inside Cary’s ETJ; however, 9.31 acres belonging to Lucy Rochelle and Ludell Rochelle Hatley is not currently within the Town limits.
Annexation	Will be required at the time of site plan approval
Valid Protest	To be determined by the time of public hearing
P&Z Recommendation	To be provided after the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
Existing Use	Vacant & Single Family Residential
Proposed Use	Single Family Residential
Final Council Action	To be provided after the Town Council Meeting
Staff Contact	Debra Grannan, Senior Planner Mailing Address: PO Box 8005 Cary, NC 27512 (919) 460-4980 Debra.grannan@townofcary.org

A. Land Use Plan: This rezoning request conforms to the adopted Land Use Plan. As per the Town’s Comprehensive Plan, the land use designation for the subject parcels is Low Density Residential (LDR). Low Density Residential (LDR) development typically describes single family detached housing at 1 to 3 units per acre.

The Growth Management Plan includes the following Guiding Principles which are relevant to this case:

1. R1 Guiding Principle: Ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available concurrently with new development.

2. L1 Guiding Principle: Concentrate growth near existing and planned employment centers and available and planned infrastructure to minimize costly service-area extensions.

3. L2 Guiding Principle: Ensure that future growth protects sensitive natural resources and protects open space.

Provide for a full range of housing choices for all income groups, families of various sizes, seniors, and persons with special challenges.

1. Facilitate the creation of a reasonable proportion of the Town of Cary’s housing as affordable units through additional homeownership opportunities for individuals and families earning between 60% and 80% of area median income and affordable apartments for individuals and families earning up to 60% of the area median income.

2. Assure a quality living environment and access to public amenities for all residents, present and future, of the Town of Cary, regardless of income.

Traffic Analysis: The current R-40 zoning would generate 11 PM trips. The proposed CU zoning of 3 du/acre would generate would generate 31 PM trips, a 20 trips increase. Under our current LDO of 50 peak hour trips, no traffic study would be required for rezoning or site plan.

According to the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan, there are no issues related to this site. A recreation payment-in-lieu will be required for residential development in accordance with the Land Development Ordinance. According to the Open Space and Historic Resources Plan (OSHRP), this site has mixed hardwood and conifer forests on site, and was proposed for conservation as open space.

The proposed project is in the rezoning stage and therefore preliminary engineering of the site has not been provided to staff for review. Prior to Site Plan or Subdivision Plan approval, the application will be required to demonstrate consistency with the Land Development Ordinance with respect to specific development requirements, such as access, stormwater management, road improvements, utility line placement, road connectivity and landscape plantings.

According to the Town of Cary GIS maps, the subject property is impacted by an urban transition buffer. Field determination of the exact buffer location will be required at the time of site plan review. The project will be required to comply with all buffer requirements of the Land Development Ordinance during the site plan review process.

According to Chapter 7 of the Land Development Ordinance, the applicant will be required to provide a 30’ Type “B” Buffer along the adjacent properties to the south and west of the subject property. This is based on the proposed Class 3 land use for single-family detached dwellings on lots less than 8,000 square feet proposed adjacent to existing Class two land Uses (single family detached lots on lots 8,000 square feet or larger.)

According to Chapter 7 of the Land Development Ordinance, the applicant will be required to provide a 50’ Streetscape along Evans Road. Rochelle Road is a minor collector road, and will not require a Streetscape.

*Density Limit based on proposed zoning condition. Density limit for TR zoning per the Land Development Ordinance is 6 dwelling units per acre.

Section 3.4.1(E) of the Land Development Ordinance sets forth the following criteria that Council should consider in reviewing rezonings:

1. The proposed rezoning corrects an error or meets the challenge of some changing condition, trend or fact;

2. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan set forth in Section 1.3 (LDO);

3. The Town and other service providers will be able to provide sufficient public safety, educational, recreational, transportation and utility facilities and services to the subject property while maintaining sufficient levels of service to existing development;

4. The proposed rezoning is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on the natural environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife and vegetation;

5. The proposed rezoning will not have significant adverse impacts on property in the vicinity of the subject tract;

The school information is being provided for your review; however, the Wake County

School Information
Assigned Schools	20^th Day Enrollment*	Permanent Seat Capacity	Average Percent Occupied	Projected Range of Additional Students**
Northwoods Elementary	607	591	103%	9 - 13
West Cary Middle	1362	1380	99%	2 to 5
Panther Creek High School	1496	1663	90%	3 to 6
Cary High School	1890	2217	85%
Total Projected range of additional students				14 - 24

* Current Enrollment and Building Capacity is based on the 20^th day of the school year for 2007-2008 as supplied by the Wake County Public School System. School assignment will be determined at the time of development.

** The Projected Number of Additional Students is a rough approximation. The actual number of students will vary depending on several variables, such as dwelling unit type, number of bedrooms, dwelling size, and other factors. For example: A site with 30 three-bedroom homes could yield 14 additional students, while 30 homes with greater than three bedroom units could yield 24. The basis for making this calculation is based on multipliers provide from Wake County Schools Office of Student Assignment. At rezoning, student yield can not be accurately determined due to unknown variables.

Applicant’s Justification Statement Submitted (February 28, 2008) Part 6A:

The following statements are provided by the applicant (shown below in italics) in response to the criteria established in the application (shown below in bold) and does not necessarily represent the views or opinions of the Town of Cary. Any statements as to the type, quality or physical features are at the direction of the applicant and may be formulated into a condition:

1. Any issues with the size of the tract? The size of the tract is conducive to the use being proposed

2. How is the request compatible with the comprehensive plan (i.e. Land Use, Transportation, Open Space and Historic Resources)? The Comprehensive Plan designates this tract for low density residential. The proposed rezoning is for low density residential. The conditions of the rezoning ensures low density residential development.

3. What are the benefits and detriments to the owner, neighbors and the community? The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The proposed development will be similar to the surrounding development. The infrastructure is in place to support the proposed development.

4. How are the allowable uses with the proposed rezoning compatible with, or how do they relate to, the uses currently present on adjacent tracts? The allowable uses are compatible with the uses on adjacent tracts.

5. What reductions/amendments and/or modifications to the development standards of the LDO are being requested and how are they justified? (PDD, new or amended) Applicants must list these items and/or clearly highlight them within the Planned Development document.

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES LOCATED AT 805 ROCHELLE ROAD AND 1139 EVANS ROAD OWNED BY LUCY A. ROCHELLE & LUDELLE ROCHELLE HATLEY, FROM RESIDENTIAL 40 (R40) TO TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONAL USE (TR-CU).

Section 1: The Official Zoning Map is hereby amended by rezoning the area described as follows:

PARCEL & OWNER INFORMATION
Property Owner(s)	County Parcel Number(s) (10 digit)	Real Estate ID(s)	Area (Acres)
Hatley, Ludelle Rochelle PO Box 492 Cary, NC 27512-0492	0764097829 (portion of)	0099237 (portion of)	0.69 ±
Rochelle, Lucy A Hatley, Ludelle Rochelle 315 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Raleigh, NC 27601-2361	0765003280 (portion of)	0060752 (portion of)	9.31 ±
Total Acres			10.00 ±

Section 2: That this Property is rezoned from Residential 40 (R40) to Transitional Residential Conditional Use (TR-CU) subject to the individualized development conditions set forth herein, and all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, polices and guidelines.

Section 3: The conditions mutually approved by the Town and the applicant for promoting public health, safety and the general welfare are: 1) Maximum density shall be limited to three (3) dwelling units per acre and 2) use shall be limited to single-family detached dwelling units.

These conditions address conformance of the development and use of the Property to ordinances and officially adopted plans and address impacts reasonably expected to be generated by the development and use of the Property.

Staff’s PowerPoint presentation is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit.

Mrs. Glenda Toppe, the applicant on behalf of the property owner, stated the conditions ensure the use will be single family, which is compatible with the comprehensive plan. She stated they met with surrounding property owners, and the request was well received. She stated information was also posted on the Silverton Web Site. She believes this is in keeping with vision of the area.

Mr. Tom Hemrick, a Silverton resident, stated Jerry Turner and Associates has historically done a great job with development, and they listen to and act on the concerns of the adjacent residents. He stated they have ensured compatibility with this well thought out plan. He supports this proposal.

Mr. Jeff Cox, a Silverton resident, stated he supports this proposal. He asked that the 30-foot Type B buffer remain. He stated stormwater retention is an issue along New Rail Drive near the Silverton Lake, and he wants to ensure that this development does not adversely impact these homeowners. He stated the developer intends to clear-cut the areas for roads, stormwater management, etc., and they have indicated they will not clear-cut the entire parcel. He asked that the developer improve Rochelle Drive with sidewalk instead of doing this in two different phases, which will minimize the impact to homeowners.

Ms. Liz Adams, a Silverton resident, stated she supports the plan and wants to ensure the buffers are preserved as much as possible. She stated a watershed study was commissioned by the Town for this area, and she asked the Town and the developer to come up with stormwater measures so downstream properties are not impacted by this development.

F. LAND DEVELOPMENT DISCUSSION ITEMS (any item pulled from the land development consent agenda for discussion [item B.2. on this agenda] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda)

Operations Committee, April 3, 2008 (any item pulled from the committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.3.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda)

1. U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (AD08-012)
Committee was divided on whether or not Cary should become a signatory to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Ms. Robison was in favor stating that it shows that the U.S. holds itself accountable on a global level, adding that it could be employed by the Town selectively to change the way energy is used. Mr. Frantz observed that many of the measures are already in place, and added that he supported making changes but does not support the Kyoto Protocol, which the Mayor’s Climate Protection Agreement fully supports. Mr. Smith agreed that the Town is already taking the initiative in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but did not think it necessary that the Town pursue legislation regarding the agreement.

Consideration of becoming a signatory to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement

At its March 3 meeting, the Operations Committee requested that staff provide additional information about the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

Under the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, participating cities commit to take the following actions:

2. Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in the Kyoto Protocol -- 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and

3. Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions such as:

Across the country, over 800 local governments have signed onto this agreement, including 32 in North Carolina.

It should be noted that the Town is already active in a number of these areas, particularly land use regulations, open space, transportation options, pump efficiency, recycling and tree planting. Signing the agreement does not require any specific actions but commits the Town to striving toward the goal of greenhouse gas emission reductions.

Fiscal Impact: There is no direct cost to signing the agreement. There will be costs associated with specific action items that take place as a result of the agreement. Those costs will be assessed as proposed actions are brought forward for Council approval.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Cary become a signatory to the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement.

Mr. Smith stated Cary is already involved in many aspects of the agreement, and the question is what additional value is realized by signing the agreement. He stated committee members did not agree on the added value.

Mr. Frantz concurred with Mr. Smith. He personally objects to the support of the Kyoto Protocol (greenhouse gas reduction legislation) because it does not hold developing countries to the same standards (i.e., China and India, which are two of the biggest polluters in the world). He has seen information that this could result in billions of dollars to the economy, including job losses. He is opposed to the socialism aspect of the proposal. He stated the US Congress did not support this and have since drafted documents to help the US be better environmental stewards. He stated the biennial survey indicates that 80% of residents are happy with how Cary is doing with environmental issues. He added that the council will discuss the addition of an environmental board later in this meeting.

Mrs. Robison stated Cary needs to do whatever is possible with regard to energy conservation, and she would like to look at this from a local perspective. She stated there are benefits of strategic alliances and partnerships, and Cary would become part of this network by signing the agreement. She suggested this may be an issue for the environmental board if this board is approved, and they could weigh in with their recommendation.

ACTION: Mr. Portman moved to approve this item; Mrs. Adcock provided the second.

Mr. Portman respects concerns raised, but he does not see council endorsing the Kyoto Protocol by adopting this item. He read the proposal by the US Mayors’ Conference, and it does not address those issues or call for its adoption; rather, it says the Town will strive to reduce greenhouse gases by 7%.

Mrs. Robinson suggested an amendment to the motion to specify that the motion does not support the Kyoto Protocol.

ACTION: Mr. Portman amended his motion as suggested above. Mrs. Adcock amended her second.

Mrs. Robinson stated the council may rescind participation if it is used as a way to support the Kyoto Protocol.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion. Mr. Frantz voted “no”; all others voted “aye”. The motion carried by majority vote.

H. OLD/NEW BUSINESS (any item pulled from the regular consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.1.] will be discussed during this portion of the agenda)

1. Issue: The Town of Cary is working to develop, enhance and revitalize the downtown area and has appropriated more than $11 million to date on planning, design and acquisition of park property in support of the downtown vision. To complement these efforts, it is important that surrounding properties also be maintained to minimum standards. Vacant, unfit properties are a negative influence on any neighborhood. Under current statutes, the owner of an unfit dwelling unit may secure the building by boarding it up and allow it to sit for one year before the Town may take further action to require repair or demolition. While it is important to provide owners with sufficient time to develop a plan for the ultimate disposition of their properties, over lengthy periods of time, vacant, boarded buildings continue to deteriorate, create a fire and safety hazard, become a threat to children and vagrants, attract persons intent on criminal activities, and contribute to neighborhood decline and the deterioration of property values in the area. By reducing the period of inactivity to six months, these negative consequences are mitigated while still providing property owners time in which to investigate alternatives and begin implementation of mitigation activities.

Request: Add Cary to S.L. 2004-98 which provides local authority to the Cities of Winston-Salem and Reidsville to order dwellings determined unfit for human habitation repaired or demolished after a period of six months.

2. Issue: When a property owner does not maintain the vegetation to minimum community standards, the Town must note the violation, send a notice and give the property owner a period of time in which to come into compliance. If the property owner does not mitigate the violation, the Town may do so and charges for the service and an administrative fee. Unfortunately, there are some property owners who, in effect, use the Town as a landscaping service. Each time the Town provides the “service” however, staff must go through the notification, waiting period, and abatement process. During this period, the property remains out of compliance.

Request: Add Town of Cary to G.S. 160A-200 to authorize an annual notice to chronic violators of overgrown vegetation ordinances. This requested authority would allow the Town to put on notice all property owners who have been habitual violators (three or more remedial actions required in the previous year) that if violations are noted, remedial action will be taken immediately. This would save staff time and prevent violations from continuing throughout the waiting period.

3. Issue: According to the Town’s most recent, statistically-valid, biennial survey, 96 percent of Cary residents have access to the Internet at home, work or both. This is significantly more citizens than read The Cary News which makes providing information electronically not only a cost-effective approach, but potentially a more effective method of notifying citizens of upcoming public hearings. In addition to the substantial expense of newspaper advertising, the weekly publication schedule sometimes requires that Town business be delayed. While providing advertising electronically would be a cost savings to the Town, it would not be a reduction in service because of residents’ access to electronic media and because mailing of notices to surrounding property owners would continue as required both by state statute and Town policy.

Request: Provide local authority to the Town of Cary to advertise public hearings on the Town’s Web site in lieu of newspaper advertising. Raleigh and Lake Waccamaw (S.L. 2003-161) and Apex, Garner and Knightdale (S.L. 2007-86) already have this authority. This authority would not affect other requirements for mailed notices or signage.

4. Issue: While the Town of Cary has a commendable record in water conservation, recycling, water quality protection and other environmental initiatives, our ability to promote energy efficiency and affect energy consumption is limited.

Request: Add Cary to An Act to Authorize Various Municipalities to Provide Development Incentives in Exchange for Reductions in Energy Consumption (S.L. 2007-241). This act allows Asheville, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Charlotte and Wilmington to adopt ordinances to grant a density bonus, make adjustments to development requirements or provide other incentives if the developer agrees to build in such a way to significantly reduce energy consumption.

5. Issue: Traffic concerns are very important not only to Cary citizens but also to commuters across the region, many of whom must drive through the municipality due to the Town’s proximity to important North Carolina employment centers.

Request: Support legislative and executive efforts to provide increased funding for transportation projects in urban areas, especially “gap” funding for the Triangle Expressway.

6. Issue: Town of Cary residents are frustrated by continual school reassignments they incur and the resultant lack of stability and disruption of the educational process. Because the citizens and the schools are often located in different school board districts, they feel that they do not have a voice in the process and their children are suffering the consequences. Changing the method of electing school board members would help ensure that the composition of the Board reflects the priorities of, and is accountable to, all county citizens.

Request: Establish an electoral process for the Wake County Board of Education that provides at-large representation.

7. Issue: Continued economic growth in Wake County has resulted in ever-increasing demand on the school system to provide school seats.

Request: Legislative consideration of revenue sources and a funding stream for the school system for schools that must be built to accommodate new residential growth.

8. Issue: While the Wake Public County School System is accountable for the academic progress of all school-aged children in North Carolina, it has no corresponding responsibility for providing the funds necessary to accomplish this important task. School boards are elected to be the educational leaders and decision-makers in their communities, but rely on others who are not accountable for the same results. Providing the school board with taxing authority will align revenue and responsibilities within one body and create clear lines of accountability.

Request: Provide taxing authority for the Wake County School Board and relieve Wake County of the responsibility of providing funding to the Wake County Public School System.

9. Support advocacy agenda of the NC League of Municipalities (NCLM) and the Triangle J Council of Governments and the legislative agenda of Wake County as it pertains to Transportation and Education.

10. Monitor General Assembly for action related to issues that could impact Cary including, but not limited to, interbasin transfer, drought-related legislation (e.g. Jordan Lake operating rules, use of non-utility system water such as ponds and wells, water allocation, etc.), conservation and energy efficiency, collective bargaining, annexation, and distribution of state gas tax revenues.

ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to approve the state legislative agenda, and Mrs. Adcock provided the second.

The council discussed the school issues on the agenda, and everyone concurred with moving forward with them.

a. Consideration of a proposal to adjust impact fees to 75% of their maximum levels with future small annual increases. Council may take action.

Refer to the March 27, 2008 council meeting minutes for the staff report and Exhibits.

Mrs. Robison asked to treat the water and sewer fees separately from the other fee decisions. She is in favor of moving ahead with the increase to 75% of the maximum for water and sewer effective July 1, 2008 as well as the increase for potable water for irrigation purposes. She thinks this approach relieves some of the burden on existing Cary citizens and allows Cary to remain competitive in the region. She stated the data indicates this fee increase will generate approximately $1.5 to $2 million in revenue. She further stated that she is in favor of the 75% increase with a 3% increase thereafter as staff has recommended, which reduces the burden on citizens.

ACTION: Mrs. Robison moved to adjust water, sewer and potable water fees to 75% of the maximum; Mrs. Adcock provided the second.

Mrs. Robinson stated during the last week there have been discussions about phasing the fee increase over a two year period, with half the first year and the other half the second year to give the business community lead time for planning for the increase. Mr. Frantz concurred that this is his preference. Mr. Smith concurred, and he wants to see quarterly reports to see if negative consequences have resulted in this action.

Mayor Weinbrecht stated some of the data from this past week indicates that a delay will cost taxpayers $1.6 million. He stated additional information showed that Cary grew over the last 12 months at 6.3%, so right now the growth is healthy. He stated he then looked at how Cary compares to surrounding municipalities, because his goal is to remove as much of the burden as possible from existing citizens and to be as balanced as possible so this action does not hurt the development community. He thinks raising the fees to 75% of the maximum accomplishes this goal. He stated delaying the increase over 14 months adds an additional burden to taxpayers, and he does not think this is fair.

Mr. Portman clarified that Cary last adjusted impact fees in March 2004. He stated the 60% increase in the water and sewer rate is not from today going forward but rather from March 2004. He stated the fee increase is an equity question of who will pay for the infrastructure required to accommodate growth. He thinks it is a good compromise to raise water and sewer fees and not raise transportation development (TDF) fees; he stated Cary’s TDF fees are already higher than surrounding areas. He stated after this change it will still cost more to build a residential home in Apex and Holly Springs than in Cary. He thinks a work session on TDFs will be helpful for council understand the system. He is in favor of the water and sewer fee increase being effective on July 1, 2008.

Mayor Weinbrecht recapped that the motion is just to increase water and sewer fees at 75% of what we are allowed to charge, and it does not address TDF fees.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion, and council granted unanimous approval.

She stated with the water and sewer increases approved tonight the Town of Cary is well above neighbors for commercial development, and even if Raleigh doubles its impact fees, Cary is significantly higher for non-residential development.

Mayor Weinbrecht stated Cary is the only municipality in the area that offers TDF credits, and there is no accurate comparison of TDF fees that can be made.

Mr. Portman wants a work session so that staff can explain the TDF process to council, but he agrees with staying at existing level.

Mayor Weinbrecht stated staff recommended a 3% increase annually with TDFs, and he asked if this is included in the motion. Mrs. Robinson stated her motion does not include a 3% annual increase; she stated the motion is to hold the line on the TDF fee at the current level. Mrs. Robinson stated the current TDF level is 51% of the maximum allowable level. She stated the council made a proposal to increase these fees 25% at a prior work session, but the motion does not support that work session proposal, and instead maintains the fee at the current level.

Mrs. Robison asked if the motion implies that the council will hold the TDF fees at the current level until a work session is conducted, after which time the fees may change. Mrs. Robinson stated the motion implies that the TDF fees will hold steady until such time staff reviews them as they do on a periodic basis and recommends anything different to council.

Mr. Frantz gave examples of how Cary is more expensive with TDF fees than other neighboring towns and cities. The council concurred and also pointed out that the methodology Cary uses is different than what other towns and cities use, and it is difficult to make an accurate comparison.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to hold TDFs at the current level, and council granted unanimous approval.

Mrs. Robinson thinks the council should focus on the penalty tier rate instead of raising the irrigation meter fee. She does not want to price an irrigation system so that only wealthy citizens can have them.

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to table this issue (irrigation meter fees) indefinitely. Mr. Portman provided the second.

Mrs. Robison suggested considering this with budget discussions. She would like council to determine what is being achieved, and she thinks council needs to develop a policy statement on the goal for reclaimed water and irrigation meter fees. She thinks council needs to consider if new developments should be required to connect to reclaimed water for irrigation.

Mr. Portman stated peak demand is driven by irrigation. He concurs with Mrs. Robison on a need for policies for irrigation. He stated he has heard statements from the green industry that some automated irrigation systems may be the most water efficient method of irrigating a lawn. He thinks it is important not to penalize what could actually be the most efficient method of irrigating without having more information.

Mr. Coleman understands that council wants to review policies and purposes and how they relate to what we are trying to accomplish with water conservation.

Mrs. Adcock stated there is currently no fee for reclaimed irrigation. She suggested that council establish a reclaimed fee that is 50% of the existing potable water meter fee.

Mr. Coleman stated irrigation is the largest demand on the system, and if the overall argument is that impact fees should offset capital costs of capacity expansion to reduce the rates of average customers, then not increasing the fee for irrigation meters is contrary to that purpose.

Mrs. Robison stated she recalls referencing potable water irrigation in her earlier motion to increase fees to 75% of their maximum allowed level. Mayor Weinbrecht clarified with the town attorney that if Mrs. Robison’s motion did include potable water irrigation fees, then this motion only changes what was previously approved. Town Attorney Simpson concurred. Mayor Weinbrecht stated even if there was a misunderstanding with Mrs. Robison’s motion, then this action should clarify everything.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to table the potable water irrigation fee issue indefinitely. Council granted unanimous approval.

ACTION: Mrs. Adcock moved to accept staff’s recommendation to initiate a fee for reclaimed water meters to be 50% of the current fee for potable water irrigation meters. Mr. Frantz provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

Mr. Fogleman clarified that there is no change for the potable irrigation meter fee. The council concurred.

b. Consideration of forwarding amendments to the Land Development Ordinance pertaining to the transportation development fee section to the April 28, 2008 planning and zoning board.

Purpose: Consideration of several changes to the Transportation Development Fee Ordinance as recommended by the November 2007 Duncan Associates report.

Town Council authorized a study to update transportation development fees (TDF) primarily considering level of fees. Considerable change occurred since the last consultant study and some changes in the Town’s ordinance were also recommended. A slightly different process is required for ordinance changes; therefore this item is being submitted in a separate staff report. Ordinance changes must receive a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Board prior to adoption.

The consultant recommended deletion of the Southeast Zone. The fees were nearly the same in this zone. Many of the concerns with this area have been addressed since the last study. Traffic growth has stabilized in this area as new retail facilities have opened in Apex, Durham and other locations in Cary. Several road improvements have been completed and a few more are planned. Concerns about traffic congestion in this area have decreased and are now similar to other areas of Town.

An increase in the amount of fee collected which go toward annual cash reimbursements are proposed to change from 25% to 30%. The sum of the cash reimbursement requests has been increasing in recent years. Increasing the percentage available for cash reimbursements coupled with other recommendations will be an effort to address this concern. The Town will continue to monitor this issue over time.

The formula changes slightly with this study. The ordinance should reflect the most recent methodology used to calculate the fees.

Fiscal Impact: A 5% reduction in revenue will occur with a change to 30% of fees collected being allocated to cash reimbursement, based on prior typical revenue of $3 million annually. This will reduce revenue approximately $150,000.00. This is an estimate based on past experience.

Recommendation: Staff recommends that this item be referred to the Planning and Zoning Board following the Public Hearing.

ACTION: Mrs. Adcock moved to forward this to the April 28, 2008 planning and zoning board meeting. Mr. Portman provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

3. Proposal from Mayor Weinbrecht and Mayor Pro Tem Robison for a Town of Cary environmental board.

On March 3, 2008, the Operations Committee unanimously recommended approval for the “creation of an environmental advisory board” as part of Staff Report Environmental Issues and Opportunities (AD08-011) recommendations. The full Council provided unanimous approval at its regular meeting consent agenda on March 13, 2008.

The creation of this advisory board stems from the January 2008 Council Staff Planning retreat discussions and widely expressed concern that we must do more to ensure the protection of our environment and finite resources. The Council affirmed a longstanding commitment to lead innovative policy and program development as a core principle for environmental stewardship. A top priority and focus area for 2008 is environmental protection and “going green” initiatives. The Environmental Advisory Board (the Board) will advise the Council in this undertaking.

The Board will operate under the framework of the Town of Cary Code, and as authorized by the Town Council on March 13, 2008.

The Environmental Advisory Board shall be established “to provide feedback and advice to council on policies, ordinances and administrative procedures regarding environmental protection and the conservation of energy and natural resources,” (as stated in Staff Report AD08-011 dated March 3, 2008).

The Board will support the Town of Cary’s Statement of Values, one of which states: “We will protect and preserve our environment. We will be good stewards of our finite natural resources.”

The guiding principle for the work of the advisory board is to demonstrate outstanding environmental stewardship and leadership in all we do.

The Board’s general scope of work is to identify and assess policy alternatives for the Council to consider as part of the Town’s strategy to expand leadership and implement cutting edge applications and standards of environmental stewardship.

The Board’s initial step will be to develop a mission statement and strategic objectives, which will be grounded in the values statement and guiding principles as noted above. Members will draw on the collective expertise and experiences of one another and Town of Cary staff. Hands on work will be required to research and assess the past to think creatively about the future.

The board will be expected to become informed on and then provide advice on Cary’s:

 Methods to track progress, set performance baselines and targets, measure impacts, and quantify results of sustainable practices in:

o public education on lifestyle choices and responsibilities (tracking personal contribution to greenhouse gas emissions, and choosing energy efficient, clean and green practices),

o community dialogue and engagement to address environmental sustainability for our next generation.

 aspire to use this initial phase of work to think big and broad, across disciplines and dimensions to fast track on the most critical environmental matters of our time;

 operate as a think tank-like laboratory to assess the driving forces within our organization and community and consider how to best align interests of public and private sectors and envision policy frameworks and practices;

 coordinate efforts with the Manager’s “interdepartmental environmental work team” to develop and prioritize energy-saving and other environmentally-friendly initiatives within the organization, its facilities and operations;

 become informed and keep global, comprehensive costs, benefits and other related tradeoffs as a priority in advising on policy considerations; and

 take care to consider the perspectives of: town government, collective community, regional partnerships, economic sectors, natural resource types, and individual households.

Upon approval of the Board’s mission statement, the board will prepare a Local Action Plan for Cary’s Going Green Initiative as well as broader scale actions conducted in partnerships regionally or with state and national programs. In addition to the stated plans of action, the Board will establish a set of recommendations that chart near-medium, and long-term policy goals for considerations by the Town Council.

Topics to consider will be examining our carbon footprint, energy consumption (and adoption of sustainable renewable energy solutions), and water use, and enhance our tree cover, air quality, and ultimately our quality of life.

The Board shall consist of nine (9) members appointed by the Town Council to serve staggered terms of one to three years in length.

· Five of the nine members shall be appointed to serve as “At-Large Citizens”

· Four of remaining nine members shall be appointed to serve as “Technical Experts” or “Partners”

Qualifying member categories provide a basic organizing framework. The Board will aim to tap into the brain trust of locally-based technical experts, in combination with a diverse set of community leaders and stakeholders.

· Partners affiliated with university, government, non-profit organizations, community-group, corporate, or private sector (Table B)

NOTE: If representation as described above cannot be achieved through applications received, the town council may make other appropriate appointments in keeping with the intent of this board.

The Town Council shall appoint one of the members to serve as the chairperson of the Environmental Advisory Board. The Board shall appoint a vice chair to assist specifically with board activities that could be convened to fulfill the scope of work as deemed necessary and appropriate (i.e. ad hoc work groups, meetings with cooperating external agencies, coordination efforts with the Manager’s “interdepartmental environmental work team in town inter-departmental meetings, information gathering subcommittee work groups that could be convened as deemed necessary and appropriate.

A council liaison will be assigned by the mayor; a staff liaison will be assigned by the town manager.

For the first three months, the board will meet bi-weekly. For the next three months, the board will meet monthly as a whole and meet as needed in smaller working groups with schedules to be determined. This schedule will facilitate concentrated period dedicated to design and preparation of an Action Plan to guide the Board thereafter. After this initial six month period, the Board will meet monthly as a whole. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public and will adhere to the Open Meetings Law and Public Records Law.

All members of the Commission shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for expenses from funds allocated by the town council.

The Commission shall formulate and adopt the rules of procedure under which it will operate. The Commission shall keep minutes of its proceedings showing the vote of each member upon every question, or his or her absence or failure to vote, and shall keep records of its resolutions, findings, recommendations, and other official actions.

The Commission shall cooperate in all respects with the appropriate Town boards, commissions, officers, and employees, including, but not limited to, the town council, the town manager, staff departments, and other agencies of the Town. Further, the Commission will engage with area university specialists, government or non-governmental organizations, or non-profit sector specialists.

Mr. Frantz asked the fiscal impact of the proposal. Town Manager Coleman stated there will be staff impact, but it is difficult to project the impact at this time. He stated staff will develop the impact as the proposal moves forward.

Mrs. Adcock asked if staff time is broken out for other boards/commissions. Mr. Coleman replied negatively, but he added that other boards/commissions are attached to particular departments, and this board doesn’t have a natural fit and may require new or different staff.

Mr. Frantz asked if the board will meet in the council chambers. Mayor Weinbrecht stated no; he says it will be a think-tank setting around a conference table.

Mrs. Robison stated the staggered terms allow for some of the terms to expire with the next boards/commissions appointment schedule, and she sees this as an opportunity for individuals who prefer to lend expertise on a short-term basis. She stated the board will be composed of Cary citizens; and there is a need for an array of technical specialists. She stated one of the appointment categories is “affiliated organizations”, and this could potentially result in partnerships.

ACTION: Mrs. Robison moved to adopt the scope and guidelines for the new board; Mrs. Adcock provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.

ACTION: At 8:36 p.m. Mrs. Adcock moved to go into closed session for the following purpose pursuant to G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3). Mrs. Robison provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

TO CONSULT WITH ATTORNEYS EMPLOYED BY AND/OR RETAINED BY THE TOWN IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS AND THE TOWN.

The council returned from closed session at 8:42 p.m. Engineering Director Tim Bailey stated staff recommends approval of a condemnation resolution to condemn approximately a three-acre piece of property located in the Stonewater planned development for a fire station site.

WHEREAS, the governing body of the Town of Cary hereby determines that it is necessary and in the public interest to acquire certain property owned Stonewater Retail Investors, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company, for the following public purpose:

To protect the public, to provide the public with adequate and sound public safety, and to improve such system to meet the need for expanded or upgraded services, the Town of Cary is condemning the herein described property for the construction of a fire station with or without other public safety facilities including but not limited to emergency medical services facilities and/or police facilities.

WHEREAS, the proper officials or representatives of the Town of Cary have been unable to acquire the needed interest in this property by negotiated conveyance.

1. The Town of Cary shall acquire by condemnation, for the purposes stated above, the property interest in a portion of a certain tract described in Deed Book 12891 pages 2396 - 2399, Wake County Registry.

Being a portion of that property with Wake County PIN 0726.04-92-3000, Beginning at the northwest corner of said tract proceeding along with the southern right of way of Stonewater Glen Ln N 83º54’ 51.00” E 78.97 feet; thence continuing along said right of way along a curve to the right with a radius of 747.81 feet and a chord bearing and distance of N 87º 56’ 19” E 133.56 feet and a length of 133.74 feet; thence S 88º 02’ 12.00” E 176.12 feet; thence leaving said right of way S 01º58’ 06.54” W 340.67 feet; thence S 90º 00’ 00.00” W 357.87 feet to the eastern right of way of Stonecroft Ln.; thence along said right of way N 06º 05’ 09.00” W 314.40 feet; thence N 35º 44’ 03.00” E 25.50 feet to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING and containing 130,764.04 square feet (3.00 acre), more or less, according to a map entitled, “Property Plat of Proposed Cary Fire Station Site, Stonewater Glen Ln”, prepared by Town of Cary Engineering Department, and dated 1/31/08.

2. The attorneys representing the Town of Cary are directed to institute the necessary proceedings under NCGS § 40A-3(b)(6), et. seq. and/or other appropriate statutory provisions and local acts to acquire the property herein described.

ACTION: Mr. Portman moved to adopt the resolution. Mrs. Robison provided the second, and council granted unanimous approval.

ACTION: At 8:43 p.m. Mrs. Adcock moved to adjourn; Mrs. Robison provided the second; council granted unanimous approval.