Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout06-25-2007 Workshop Meeting June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 1 of 18 MINUTES Board of Commissioners Monthly Workshop Monday, June 25, 2007 – 7:00 p.m. Town Barn PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens, Commissioners Frances Dancy, Mike Gering, L. Eric Hallman, Evelyn Lloyd, and Brian Lowen. STAFF: Town Manager Eric Peterson, Planning Director Margaret Hauth, Finance Director Greg Siler, Budget and Management Analyst Emily Hovis, and Town Attorney T. C. Morphis. GUESTS: Dan Barker, Joe Phelps, Sarah Bruce, and Eric Oliver. 1.Open the Workshop 7: 04:23 PM Mayor Stevens called the meeting to order. 2.Agenda Changes & Agenda Approval 7:04:50 PM Commissioner Hallman asked the Board to discuss endorsing Joe Buckner’s proposal to add another level to the sentencing guidelines, adding he did not know how pressing that issue might be. Mayor Stevens suggested adding it to the July agenda, noting he believed it would be a quick item to cover. 7:06:14 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Lowen, seconded by Commissioner Dancy, the Board moved to approve the agenda as submitted by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 3.Committee Updates and Reports 7:06:28 PM Mayor Stevens reminded the Board of its decision to move full Committee reports from its regular meeting agenda to its workshop agendas, with only urgent reports presented at regular meetings. 1 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 2 of 18 7:06:53 PM Commissioner Gering reported that he had attended the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting, where allocation of Direct Allocation funding was discussed. He said there was some dissention among the members regarding how projects had come in and then were morphed into some other form. Commissioner Gering said after discussion what emerged was that the TAC would call for new projects that would come up through the TCC. He said that created the opportunity for Hillsborough to introduce projects such as bikeways or sidewalks, which would require matching funds. 7:08:29 PM Commissioner Gering noted that the Town Board had recently approved a contract for branding assessment with a local marketing firm, and the Tourism Board would shortly begin that branding process. 7:09:14 PM Commissioner Hallman reported that the Economic Development Commission was in transition with Dianne Reid’s leaving. He stated that Willie Best, the Assistant Orange County Manager, was acting EDC Director 7:09:53 PM Commissioner Hallman stated that the Arts Council was talking to the County about arts space as an economic development tool. 7:10:37 PM Mayor Stevens reported that an archeological area had been discovered near the justice facility. He said a pottery kiln was found, and that may trigger changes to the site plan. Mayor Stevens stated that the County had been very responsive, and the site would be left in place and protected for future study. He said some odd-shaped bricks to a well had also been discovered, although more modern, that likely were associated with the old courthouse. 7:13:16 PM Mayor Stevens reported that the Climate Change Committee had completed its study and created a baseline from 2005, and were now establishing targets for 2030. He said the next step was community involvement and exploring how those targets would be reached. 4. End-of-Year Encumbrances and Budget Amendments 7:14:08 PM Town Manager Eric Peterson introduced Emily Hovis, the Town’s new Budget and Management Analysis, who would soon become Emily Bradford in another month. 7:14:51 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved to approve the End-of-Year Encumbrances and Budget Amendments by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 5. Upper Neuse River Basin Association – Implementation Planning 7:15:35 PM Sarah Bruce, a Water Resources Planner with the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA), provided comments regarding the Upper Neuse Watershed Management Plan, the upcoming Falls Lake Nutrient Management Strategy, and how those two efforts fit together. 2 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 3 of 18 Ms. Bruce offered background information on the UNRBA, noting it was a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation. She explained that their efforts concentrated on improving watershed management in the Upper Neuse Basin to protect drinking water quality and aquatic habitats. Ms. Bruce stated that UNRBA was governed by a Board of Directors with a staff technical coordinating committee. Ms. Bruce noted that 600,000 people get their drinking water from this Basin, including the Town of Hillsborough. She said the Triangle area was experiencing growth pressure, which affected water quality primarily through the effects of impervious surfaces that came from development. Ms. Bruce said the Management Plan analyzed impervious cover in the watershed, and using maps and photos she explained the analyses and results. Ms. Bruce stated that scenarios for the future were studied. She said the low build out and high build out options included in the Management Plan showed what was allowed under zoning in place at the time the Plan was created. Commissioner Gering asked if they assuming that future development would eventually connect Hillsborough and Durham. Ms. Bruce said according to the analysis, it appeared that much development between the two jurisdictions would take place in the future. Ms. Bruce stated that Hillsborough’s water supply exceeded the EPA guideline of 15 micrograms per liter, although there was some debate about the science of that. Ms. Bruce said the State had a regulatory standard of 40 micrograms per liter. And the upper arm of Falls Lake exceeded that State standard. Commissioner Gering asked if there be future impacts on what Hillsborough would be required to do based on those assumptions. Ms. Bruce said not based on UNRBA’s assumptions, but based on what the data showed. 7:27:14 PM Ms. Bruce explained that Falls Lake was under study by the Division of Water Quality to determine the extent of the impairment, and it was likely Falls Lake would be placed on the impaired stream list for chlorophyll A, meaning that all local governments in the Basin would be required to better protect the Lake from nutrients. She said that would mean protecting runoff from nitrogen and phosphorus. Ms. Bruce stated it was likely the upper arm of the Lake would get listed for turbidity, which was excessive sedimentation of the water. She said if listed, a strategy for control would have to be developed and put in place for management. Ms. Bruce said that was all part of the Clean Water Act. She said the General Assembly had passed Senate Bill 981, which required a nutrient management strategy on all reservoirs meeting certain criteria by July 2009, which included the Upper Neuse River. 7:30:46 PM Ms. Bruce stated that in the meantime, UNRBA still had its Management Plan that was much broader than SB 981, and provided a range of tools to protect the local water supply. She said this fall they would be surveying area local governments to determine how strategies were being met, and once that was done they would determine what needed to be done 3 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 4 of 18 and where. Ms. Bruce said they would then come back to the local governments to report the results of their analyses and what was still needed to be done. 7:32:11 PM Ms. Bruce stated a timeline had been included in the materials for that planning process. She said they believed that the targets and regulations for a nutrient management strategy for Falls Lake were likely to be more stringent that the ones in their Plan, but their Plan’s strategy would be more stringent for the reservoirs upstream of Falls Lake. Ms. Bruce said one thing to keep in mind about the nutrient management strategy being prepared for the State was that any new development that went in before it became effective would be existing development and grandfathered in. She said it was important to remember you could not reduce loads just be looking at new development, since that new development would be increasing the existing loads. Ms. Bruce said in order to reduce the loads you would have to retrofit existing development, which was difficult and expensive. She said to that end, it was important to require that it be paid for as a part of the development process rather than paying for it with taxpayer dollars after the fact at a greater expense. 7:35:02 PM Commissioner Gering asked how municipalities could get others to pay for the reduced nitrogen loads. Ms. Bruce said it could be accomplished by requiring tighter standards from the outset rather than waiting for the new ordinance. Mayor Stevens said it would be much like the requirement for sidewalks as part of the infrastructure for new development. Ms. Bruce said that was correct, noting it may require an ordinance change. 7:36:20 PM Commissioner Gering stated that would not allow them to decrease the load, only to control new development. Ms. Bruce said there were two ways to achieve reductions, with one being a requirement that every municipality had to reduce its load by 30% or some other amount, or you could say that every municipality had to meet a performance standard of how many pounds per acre per year on average. She said there were pros and cons with both methods. 7:37:50 PM Planning Director Margaret Hauth reminded the Board that funds had been budgeted to have that Plan studied to determine the impact to the Town. 7:38:58 PM Mr. Peterson stated that the Division of Water Quality study of Falls Lake also impacted waste water plants, and that was one of the reasons the Town was looking at $40 million for a wastewater treatment plant. 7:39:50 PM Commissioner Hallman asked what other things the Town should be doing. Ms. Bruce responded that stormwater was the next step for Hillsborough through the implementation of more stormwater management, and thinking about not only controlling the quantity of stormwater but also the quality. 4 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 5 of 18 6. Annexation Request Adjacent to Waterstone 7:41:15 PM Ms. Hauth noted the Board had received a letter and a map from Stratford Land regarding difficulties they were experiencing with the Cates Creek Parkway permitting through the County with regard to flood regulations. She said basically anytime something was built that created an impact upstream, then a Letter of Map Amendment had to be done to amend the flood maps. She said a process had to be gone through with FEMA, and the County staff was stating that under their ordinance you also had to successfully receive a variance from their Board of Adjustment to even seek that Letter of Map Amendment. Ms. Hauth said a question had been asked about what would happen if the Town annexed the area within the floodway, or the area that would be impacted by the construction of the bridge for Cates Creek Parkway. She said annexation would bring the land into the Town’s jurisdiction, noting the Town’s ordinance did not have that variance provision. Ms. Hauth said Stratford was now looking at the potential for having only those properties in the floodplain annexed into the Town to get past that regulatory hurdle and stay compliant with the SUP to get that road under construction. 7:44:52 PM T. C. Morphis stated he had talked with Town Attorney Bob Hornik this morning, but no new information was available. Mr. Peterson stated that today, Mr. Hornik had indicated there were four parcels with three property owners, and Stratford was not sure one of those property owners would agree. He said it was up to Stratford to get all the property owners to agree to voluntary annexation. 7:44:44 PM Ms. Hauth said in order to follow the Town’s annexation process, the Town Board would need to call a public hearing if petitions for voluntary annexation were received. She said this issue could appear on the July agenda, and asked for direction assuming a petition was received. Mr. Peterson said Mr. Hornik had indicated that Stratford was working with the County and its staff to get this taken care of, but were not successful. He said that had prompted the request for Mr. Hornik’s help, and the County’s attorney, Jeff Gledhill, was actually the one who had suggested to Stratford that they request the Town to annex that property. Mayor Stevens said then it appeared annexation would not be against the County’s wishes. Mr. Peterson said he did not know the opinion of the County Commissioners, but Mr. Gledhill had made the suggestion as a way to deal with the issue. 7:45:54 PM Mr. Morphis added there was some disagreement among County staff about how to review the ordinance, and the Planning staff had taken a different approach than the legal staff. He said he believed the County attorney’s office had recognized that. 7:46:20 PM Commissioner Lloyd reported she had been visited by a group of 12 visitors from the Stratford group today, who had stated that one of the property owners, the Morens, were very 5 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 6 of 18 supportive of the annexation, but the Browns were not. Ms. Hauth said there were two families of Browns listed as property owners who were not related. 7:48:04 PM Commissioner Hallman asked was the suggestion for a voluntary annexation. Ms. Hauth replied yes, noting that otherwise an involuntary process would take 18 months or longer. Commissioner Hallman said he would not be opposed to a voluntary annexation, noting it would solve a problem. 7:48:31 PM Commissioner Gering asked what it would obligate the Town to. Ms. Hauth said it would annex the floodplain only, and the Board had recently adopted a floodplain ordinance that allowed no development in the floodplain, so she did not believe it would commit the Town to anything since it would be annexing undevelopable land. She said no services would have to be provided since the land could not be developed, but it would commit the landowners to some tax burden. Commissioner Gering asked if annexation would enhance any of the landowners’ demands to receive future water service. Ms. Hauth said the Town Attorney may need to answer that question, but she did not believe service could be provided to land that was undevelopable. Mr. Morphis said he believed that Ms. Hauth was correct. 7:49:49 PM Mayor Stevens said if that was the slightest bit questionable, could there be a contract or a covenant attached to that land. Mr. Morphis said that through the voluntary annexation process something of that sort could be negotiated. Mayor Stevens asked if there was a regulatory concern with the bridge that the County might have that was pertinent to some standard, such as a structural concern. Ms. Hauth responded that the reason Stratford was required to receive a Letter of Map Amendment was because they would be creating an impact in the flood zone, that is they would be placing an obstruction in the waterway that would require that the upstream flooded more. She said there was also the confusion of annexing only a portion of a property. 7:52:10 PM Commissioner Gering asked if the Town would have more liability due to the increased risk of upstream flooding. Ms. Hauth said there was a notification process so that property owners were aware of the impact and they would then have the opportunity to speak at a public hearing. She added that eventually the bridge would belong to the Town since it would be constructed on a Town road. Commissioner Gering said the Board needed to think about whether that obstruction was something they wanted to live with and maintain. Ms. Hauth stated the Town had repeatedly stated it wanted the road connection in that location, and it would require that some kind of structure be built. Commissioner Gering said what they had not discussed was what kind of structure and what the impact of that structure would be. Ms. Hauth said no SUP would be required, the Town had said 6 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 7 of 18 the road needed to be there, and no conditions had been placed on whether it was done with or without a floodplain impact. She said it would be an issue of whether or not it was accepted by the Town when offered by the applicant for dedication. Commissioner Gering stated it was also a matter of whether the Town made it easier or more difficult for that kind of structure to be built. Ms. Hauth said Stratford would tell you that there was a $1 million or more difference between this kind of structure and some other design that would create little or no impact. 7:53:00 PM Commissioner Lloyd said it had been said that Stratford had said it would not start building the roadway until this issue was settled. Ms. Hauth noted that to this point, all of the discussions had been with County staff, and she did not know if the County’s Board of Adjustment even knew the issue was pending. 7:55:34 PM Commissioner Gering said he would feel better about this if the issue of the Letter of Map Amendment was the Town’s to decide, rather than the County’s Board of Adjustment. He said they would hear from residents during the public hearing process, and in essence the Town was causing the roadway and bridge to be built so they should deal with the problems that caused. Mayor Stevens agreed, noting that was particularly true if there was a voluntary annexation of that floodplain property. He said he did not want to get into a battle with the County, but did want to entertain the idea of a voluntary annexation. Ms. Hauth added that the timeline Stratford was up against was imposed by the Town Board as performance deadlines on the SUP. She said the Board did have the opportunity to amend that timeline in the SUP to allow that process to move forward. Ms. Hauth said Stratford’s concern was that if the timeline could not be met it meant they had to go through the variance procedure with the County. 7:55:57 PM Ms. Hauth stated it was a matter of trying to make this annexation process follow the same process as they did with any other annexation process, which was the Letter of Interest, exploring the need for a financial analysis, receiving the petition, and calling the public hearing. She said if staff was to be directed to place this on a public hearing agenda assuming a petition was received in a timely manner, she would prefer to have a formal motion form the Board. 7:58:29 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Hallman, seconded by Commissioner Gering, the Board moved to place on the public hearing calendar the annexation request for properties listed in Stratford’s request for consideration of voluntary annexation, assuming staff received a petition for annexation prior to the public hearing notice by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 7. Transportation Priority List Review 7:59:20 PM Ms. Hauth said at the Town Board’s June meeting it had endorsed the list, and had asked that it be looked at with Orange County’s list for possible alignment. She said the 7 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 8 of 18 County’s list had been provided to the Board, with projects starred that were in common with the Town’s list. Ms. Hauth said the Direct Allocation funding was exactly what she had intended to apply for regarding the Nash Street sidewalk. She said it would be a tremendous help if they were able to get $100,000 from the MPO for that project. Ms. Hauth said other DOT funding could be applied for, which meant the project needed to be included on the priority list. She asked the Board to consider placing the Nash Street sidewalk project on the priority list. 8:00:47 PM Commissioner Hallman asked was it not entirely necessary that the Town’s bike/pedestrian projects aligned with the County’s projects. Ms. Hauth said that was a fair statement. Commissioner Hallman said they were more concerned with aligning major roads. Ms. Hauth said that was where the real competition was for funding. Commissioner Hallman said he believed the Town should ask Orange County to reprioritize its projects in the Town’s area to help the Town out, since their priority list was not aligned with the Town’s interests. He said for instance, the US 70 Bypass was on the Town’s priority list as number three, but the County had it listed as number seven. Ms. Hauth said this was a two-year process, so there was time to do that. Mayor Stevens said perhaps they should bring that up with the County and see where it went. He said they should think about aligning the list together with the County as opposed to simply aligning the Town’s list to match theirs. 8:04:03 PM Commissioner Gering said Ms. Hauth had mentioned adding the Nash Street sidewalk project, and asked was there another that needed to be added. Ms. Hauth responded no. Commissioner Gering asked was there another candidate the Board should think about adding. Ms. Hauth said that was the only project they were focused on at this time. A short discussion took place regarding other projects, including some undertaken in the past and others that funds had been requested for. 8:09:32 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Gering, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved to include the Nash Street sidewalk project to the TIP priority list as priority number eight. Commissioner Lloyd offered a friendly amendment to have the project listed as priority number six. Commissioner Gering and Commissioner Hallman accepted the friendly amendment. The motion as amended was adopted by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. 8. Other 8:11:44 PM Mr. Peterson stated that Waterstone’s first payment under the conditions for th annexation was due by the 30 of this month, in the amount of $100,000 for the first of five 8 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 9 of 18 payments for the water tank contribution, as well as the first of three $35,000 payments for police capital facilities due next June. He said those funds would be placed in the Capital Reserve Fund when received. Mr. Peterson said next June the first of six payments of $100,000 for fire capital facilities was due as well. 9. Adjourn 8:12:49 PM Upon a motion by Commissioner Dancy, seconded by Commissioner Hallman, the Board moved to adjourn the meeting at 8:12 PM by a vote of 5-0. The motion was declared passed. Respectfully submitted, Donna F. Armbrister, MMC Town Clerk 9 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 10 of 18 10 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 11 of 18 11 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 12 of 18 12 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 13 of 18 13 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 14 of 18 14 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 15 of 18 15 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 16 of 18 16 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 17 of 18 17 June 25, 2007 Monthly Workshop Approved: September 10, 2009 Page 18 of 18 18