1
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL Town Council Business Meeting Town Hall Council Chamber 7:00 P.M., FEBRUARY 13, 2012
Participate! Transform your ideas into action – and make Chapel Hill even better.
Please visit www.townofchapelhill.org/agendas for Council Meeting Public Participation Guidelines and Information Related to Council Meetings. Did you know you can receive Council Agendas by email? Sign up at www.townofchapelhill.org/signup Let us know how we can improve our efforts to serve you. Contact us at [email protected] or 919-968-2743.
OPENING
1. State of the Town Address.
PRESENTER: Mark Kleinschmidt, Mayor
2. Presentation of Checks from the Library Foundation.
PUBLIC FORUMS AND HEARINGS
3. Public Forum: 2012 -2013 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs.
PRESENTER: Loryn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager
4. Public Forum: NC54/I40 Corridor Study Transportation -Land Use Master Plan.
PRESENTER: David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Planning Manager
PETITIONS FROM THE PUBLIC Petitions will not be acted upon at the time they are presented. It shall take a unanimous vote of the Council members present for a petition to be acted upon immediately upon its presentation. After receiving a petition, the Council shall, by simple motion, dispose of it as follows: consideration at a future regular meeting of the Council; or referral to another board or committee for study and report; or referral to the Town Manager for investigation and report; or receive for information. (Receiving does not imply approval, agreement, or consent.)
5. Petitions from the Public.
a. Country Club Road Residents Regarding Proposed Sidewalk on Country Club Road. b. Arc of Orange Apts. in Meadowmont Request for Expedited Review. c. Trent Ball Regarding the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (No Attachment)
2
ANNOUNCEMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CONSENT Items of a routine nature will be placed on the Consent Agenda to be voted on in a block. Any item may be removed from the Consent Agenda by request of the Mayor or any Council Member.
6. Approve all Consent Agenda Items. (R -1)
7. Amend the Transit Fund, Transit Grant Fund and Transit Capital Reserve Fund. (O -1, O -2, O-3, O -4, O -5)
8. Amend the 2011 -2012 Police Department User Fee Schedule to Add Fees to Recover Cost of Vehicle Use for Off Duty Work. (R -2)
9. Approve Parking Restrictions on Granville Road in Response to Petition. (O -6)
10. Modify the Town ’s Affordable Housing Policy. (R -3) (R -4)
11. Nominate Applicants to Various Boards and Commissions. (R -5)
DISCUSSION
12. Consider Proposed Interim Ordinance on Use of Peace and Justice Plaza. (O -7)
PRESENTER: Ralph Karpinos, Town Attorney Matt Sullivan, Police Legal Advisor
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Council make such adjustments as it deems reasonable to this draft ordinance and enact it as an interim measure to supersede the current administrative regulations and other ordinances applicable to Peace and Justice Plaza and the area near the entrance to the Bank of America building.
Once a plan has been developed for the broader discussion of these issues, this ordinance and related matters can be revisited and a more permanent set of regulations, for these locations and other public property, reflecting the community's interests, can be considered for enactment and codification in the Town Code.
13. Consider Proposed Modifications to the Towing Ordinance. (R -6) (O -8)
PRESENTER: Chris Blue, Chief of Police
a. Comments from the public. b. Comments and questions from the Mayor and Council. c. Motion to enact the ordinance and adopt the resolution.
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Council enact the ordinance to amend the regulations that govern towing from private lots, and adopt the attached resolution amending the fee schedule, effective on May 1, 2012, as noted.
APPOINTMENTS
3
14. Appointment to the Greenways Commission.
PETITIONS BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
15. Proposed Participation in Amicus Brief Opposing Arizona Immigration Law in Arizona v. United States.
RESERVED FOR DISCUSSION OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS IF NECESSARY
REQUEST FOR CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS PROPERTY ACQUISITION, PERSONNEL, AND LITIGATION MATTERS
4
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Public Forum: 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs.
Background: The purpose of tonight's Public Forums is to receive comments from the public about how to spend 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Program funds.
Fiscal Note: Tonight's Forums represents the first step in allocating grant funds for eligible activities.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development informed us that the Town’s 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant will be $410,687. This represents a 22% decrease from the Town’s 2011-2012 grant. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has not official informed us of the Consortium’s 2012-2013 HOME Program grant amount. Preliminary estimates suggest that the allocation could be approximately $397,000, a 48% decrease in funding from last year's grant.
Recommendations: That the Council refer comments received to the Manager.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Staff Memorandum Summary of Eligible Community Development Activities Eligible HOME Program Activites
5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Loryn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager
SUBJECT Public Forums: 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs
DATE: February 13, 2012
PURPOSE
The purpose of tonight’s Public Forums is to receive public comment on how to use 2012-2013 Community Development Block Grant Program and HOME Investment Partnership Program funds.
DISCUSSION
Community Development Block Grant Program
The Town of Chapel Hill has received Community Development grants since 1975 under the federal Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. This legislation provides funds to cities and counties to carry out activities that benefit low- and moderate-income families including: housing repair, public improvements, acquiring land for affordable housing and public service programs.
The primary objective of the Community Development program is to develop viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income households earning up to 80% of the area median income. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 80% of the current median income for a family of four in the Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (Durham, Orange, and Chatham counties) is $54,950.
A summary of eligible Community Development Block Grant Program activities is attached.
Funding
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development informed us that the Town’s 2012- 2013 grant will be $410,687. In addition, we anticipate that approximately $42,000 of program income will also be available for eligible activities. The Town’s 2012-2013 grant represents a 22% decrease of the Town’s 2011-2012 grant.
6
HOME Investment Partnership Program
The HOME Program was established to provide funding for various types of housing programs to benefit low-income families. This funding is in addition to the existing federal Community Development grants, rental assistance through the Section 8 Program, and public housing operating and improvement funding currently received by the Town and the County.
In 1992, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and Orange County formed the Orange County HOME Consortium, with Orange County acting as the lead entity, to develop affordable housing.
There is a 25% local match requirement for the HOME Program. According to an Agreement signed by the participating jurisdictions, each jurisdiction’s match contribution is determined according to the population determined by the Census. The match is calculated as follows: Chapel Hill - 41%; Orange County - 40%; Carrboro – 14% and Hillsborough – 5%.
A summary of eligible HOME Program activities is attached.
Funding
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has not official informed us of the Consortium’s actual grant amount. Preliminary estimates suggest a 48% decrease in funding from last year. Therefore, the 2012-2013 HOME allocation could be approximately $397,000.
PROCESS
Public Participation Process
Tonight, the Council holds the first Public Forums to receive ideas from the public about how funds for both programs could be spent. The Forums represents the first step in the Community Development and HOME Program planning process for 2012 – 2013. Orange County will also hold public forums on the HOME Program.
Application Process
Agencies requesting Community Development and/or HOME Program funding must submit a standardized application. The application requests detailed information about agencies requesting funds and the proposed projects or programs, including goals, timetables, budgets, and funding. Applications are available on the Town and County’s websites and are due to the appropriate entities by February 29, 2012.
7
NEXT STEPS
We will return to the Council on March 26, 2012 for a second Public Forum to receive comments from the Council and the public on preliminary 2012-2013 Community Development and HOME Program Plans. We will present final recommended Plans to the Council for discussion on April 25, 2012. The Community Development Plan would be reviewed by the Council, and the HOME Program Plan would be reviewed by the Council and the governing bodies of Orange County, Carrboro and Hillsborough.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Council refer comments received at tonight’s Forums to the Manager. 8
National Objectives of Community Development Legislation
Congress established the Community Development program in 1974 by consolidating a number of grant programs into one “block grant”. The primary objective is:
“development of viable urban communities, including decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunity, principally for persons of low and moderate-income.” (Housing and Community Development Act of 1974)
To receive future Community Development Block Grant funds, Chapel Hill must certify that its overall program carries out this primary objective. In addition, each Community Development Block Grant activity must:
1. Benefit low- and moderate-income persons (80% of median income and below); or 2. Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums and blight; or 3. Treat urgent needs posing an immediate threat to public health and welfare.
Eligible activities for Community Development Block Grant funding (from Federal Regulations)
Community Development Block Grant funds may be used for the following types of activities (provided national objectives are also met):
• acquisition of property • disposition of property • public facilities and improvements • clearance, demolition and removal of buildings • site improvements • some public services (subject to some limits in regulations) • relocation • housing rehabilitation, preservation and code enforcement • economic development activities • planning and administrative costs (subject to a cap of total funds spent on these activities)
Alternatives that are generally not eligible include:
• buildings used for the general conduct of government • new housing construction (allowed in special circumstances) • general government expense • political activities • purchase of equipment and personal property • operating and maintenance expenses
9
The HOME Program
In 1990, Congress enacted the HOME Investment Partnerships Act, better known as the HOME Program, in an effort to provide a new approach to housing assistance at the federal level. This federal housing block grant would afford state and local governments the flexibility to find a wide range of housing activities through creative and unique housing partnerships among states and localities, private industry, and nonprofit organizations.
In order to receive future HOME Program funds, each housing activity must fall in line with the following goals of the HOME Program:
1. To expand the supply of decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing, with emphasis on rental housing, for very low- and low-income citizens;
2. To strengthen the abilities of state and local governments to design and implement strategies for achieving adequate supplies of decent affordable housing; and
3. To encourage public, private and nonprofit partnerships in addressing housing needs.
Eligible activities for HOME Program funding include (from the Federal Regulations):
• Acquisition of property (including assistance to homebuyers); • New construction; • Reconstruction; • Conversions; • Moderate rehabilitation of non-luxury housing with suitable amenities; • Tenant-based rental assistance; • Relocation of displaced persons, families, businesses, or organizations; • Site improvements, acquisition of vacant land and demolition (under special conditions); • Project soft costs; • Administration / planning (for qualified Community Housing Development Organizations); and • Operating expenses for community housing development organizations.
10
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Public Forum: NC54/I40 Corridor Study Transportation-Land Use Master Plan.
Council Goal: Focus on Economic Development, Land Use, and Transportation for a Balanced and Sustainable Future Define Town role in transportation
Background: The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, in conjunction with the City of Durham and Town of Chapel Hill, has completed a NC54/I-40 Corridor Study, which evaluates the impacts of future growth on the NC54/I-40 transportation system between Fordham Blvd. in Chapel Hill and I-40 in Durham. The Study, completed in December, 2011, has been released by the Metropolitan Planning Organization for review by local governments and the public.
Fiscal Note: Implementation of the recommendations of the NC54/I40 Corridor Transportation Study may require the allocation of federal, State and local funds.
Recommendations: That the Council hold this public forum. Following tonight’s public forum, we will return on March 12, 2012 to respond to comments from the public and Town advisory boards.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . NC54/I40 Staff Memorandum NC 54/I40 Corridor Study Executive Summary Attachment to the Study Executive Summary NC54 Map 1 NC54 Map 2 NC54 Map 3 NC54 Map 4 NC54 Map 5 NC54 Review Schedule
11
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: David Bonk, Long Range and Transportation Planning Manager Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Services Manager Brian Litchfield, Assistant Transit Director
SUBJECT: Public Forum: NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study, Transportation-Land Use Master Plan
DATE: February 13, 2012
PURPOSE
The purpose of the NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study, Transportation-Land Use Master Plan is to analyze short-term and long-term land use issues and multi-modal transportation problems, evaluate opportunities and challenges, and recommend short and long-range land use and transportation solutions and strategies along the corridor.
Tonight the Council will receive a summary presentation on the findings and recommendations of the Study and receive comment from the public and Town Advisory Boards.
BACKGROUND
Study design and coordination of the NC54 Study began in 2009, which included a $250,000 allocation of federal, state, and local funds. The study has been conducted by Renaissance Planning Group. In August 2010, the Initial Draft Master Plan (Phase I Study) was completed. During the public review of the Phase I Master Plan several issues were identified for further analysis: land use projections; supply and location of park and ride facilities; and refinement of the roadway recommendations including the proposed super street concept and improvements to the Fordham Blvd/NC54 interchange. A Phase II Study, intended to address these issues, was initiated in November 2010 and was completed in November, 2011. The NC54/I-40 Corridor Study Executive Summary 1 is attached. The full Study, with appendixes, is available at the project website 2. We have provided the Council with a CD containing all documents.
DISCUSSION
The NC 54 corridor, extending three miles between Fordham Blvd. in Chapel Hill and I-40 in Durham, serves as a major gateway into Chapel Hill. The attached corridor map, taken from the Study, illustrates several elements that are anticipated to have a significant impact on the NC54 transportation corridor. The proposed Chapel Hill to Durham light rail corridor and associated stations are included. The light rail alignment included in this maps reflects the corridor in the adopted 2035 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Long Range Transportation Plan, referred to as the C1 alignment. The Study notes that an alternative corridor, C2, has also been proposed. The
1 http://www.nc54-i40corridorstudy.com/pdffiles/E_ExecSumm_FINAL.pdf 2 http://www.nc54-i40corridorstudy.com/ 12
attached corridor map also shows the location of major existing and proposed activity centers along the NC54 corridor including Glen Lennox, East 54 and the Woodmont development (renamed Hillmont). If the C2 light rail alignment is selected rather than C1, a new light rail station would be located at Hillmont. The map also shows the location of the proposed Leigh Village development in Durham.
The NC54 Corridor Study was completed at the same time as the Triangle Regional Transit Program Local Preferred Alternative, which analyzed the proposed Chapel Hill to Durham light rail alignment and, was developed and reviewed by the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, Chapel Hill and Durham. The NC54 Study has incorporated several elements that are consistent with the LPA and has attempted to address those issues that affect the NC54 corridor such as the number and location of park and ride facilities and the impacts of the C1 and C2 alignments.
The NC 54 interchange with I-40 has consistently ranked as one of the top congested facilities in the region. Development pressures within the corridor, coupled with mobility and capacity issues, have suggested that the existing and planned transportation infrastructure in this area is insufficient to accommodate future growth and transportation demand. In 2009, the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Transportation Advisory Committee (DCHCTAC) directed staff to identify short and long-range solutions to maintain mobility within this corridor. Staff prepared a scope of work to undertake a comprehensive corridor analysis, which was reviewed and approved by the DCHCTAC.
The NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study includes a series of recommended transportation improvements, summarized in Table 1-1 of the Executive Summary. The recommendations include transit, pedestrian, bicycle and roadway improvements. The implementation of the overall program of transportation improvements are intended to be phased thereby allowing for modifications if anticipated conditions within the corridor, such as projected development or increased traffic volumes change.
Below, we summarize key assumptions, findings and recommendations affecting Chapel Hill. We have inserted detailed maps from the Study of the roadway recommendations and their associated bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
Land-Use Blueprint 1. Scaled back assumed future development at Friday Center and Leigh Village 2. Projects an increase of approximately 25,000 residents in the corridor, 5,900 in Orange County, by 2035. 3. Projects an increase of approximately 17,000 jobs in the corridor, 5,700 in Orange County, by 2035
Park and Ride Recommendations 1. Disperse park-and-ride opportunities to capture markets. 2. Reduce future park-and-ride capacity at Leigh Village to 500 spaces. 3. Gateway Center, future Light Rail station 500 surface spaces 4. Gateway Center, future Light Rail station (1,000 spaces, structured facility) 13
5. Options to serve Woodcroft neighborhood and areas southeast 6. Other options (Leigh Village, Governors Village Retail Center, Oak Creek Village) 7. A phased implementation should be pursued.
Transit Recommendations 1. Express bus along NC 54 from NC 751 park and ride facilities 2. Express bus service along US 15-501 or Franklin St. from Gateway Center park-and- ride 3. Durham to Chapel Hill Light Rail Transit preliminary engineering and design (short term); Durham to Chapel Hill LRT final design and construction (long term) 4. Bus Rapid Transit, Phase I (Meadowmont to downtown Chapel Hill) 5. Flex Route Service (north and south of study area; Durham area feeder/shuttle service) 6. Bus Rapid Transit, Phase II (NC751 to Chapel Hill).
Bicycle and Pedestrian Recommendations 1. Install crosswalks and pedestrian signals at signalized intersections with pedestrian refuge islands and street lighting for crossing NC 54 • Burning Tree Dr/ Finley Golf Course Rd & NC 54 Short Term (2012-2020) • W Barbee Chapel Rd & NC 54 Short Term (2012-2020) • Meadowmont Ln/ Friday Center Dr & NC 54 Short Term (2012-2020) • E Barbee Chapel Rd & NC 54 Short Term (2012-2020)
2. Install crosswalks with pedestrian-activated flashers and expand refuge islands. ($40,000) • US 15-501 on/off ramps Short Term (2012-2020)
3. Extend the solid marking designating the westbound exclusive right turn lane for US 15-501 on–ramps to minimize weaving movements at interchange and increase safety for on-road bicyclists from SB US 15-501 on ramp to 500 feet to the east. Short Term (2012-2020)
4. Provide a minimum 5-foot wide on-road bicycle lane by restriping travel lanes to be 11 feet wide and making minor median modifications. • NC 54 from Burning Tree Dr/ Finley Golf Course Rd to the west Short Term (2012-2020)
5. Modify sloped abutment wall to provide 8-foot wide sidewalk behind overpass structural piers. • NC 54 underneath US 15-501 overpass. Short Term (2012-2020)
6. Ensure adequate facilities for pedestrians and cyclists are available. Provide a 5-foot wide bicycle lane where possible, or provide “share the road” signage and a paved shoulder or sharrow markings for on-road bicycle travel. Many of the collector streets are designed for low vehicular speeds with the intent for bicycles to share the travel lane. Fill in sidewalk gaps throughout the study area.
7. Construct Little Creek Trail to connect Meadowmont Trail to Lancaster Drive • Meadowmont Trail at Rashkis Elementary School, Chapel Hill, Short Term 14
(2012-2020)
8. Widen the existing bicycle path to a 15-foot wide shared use path • Along the east side of US 15-501 from Cleland Rd to S Estes Dr, Chapel Hill, Short Term, (2012-2020)
9. Construct the Bolin Creek Greenway connection to Pinehurst Dr • Bolin Creek Greenway, Chapel Hill, Short Term (2012-2020)
10. Construct an off-road shared-use path, with a boardwalk bridge as an alternative solution in environmentally sensitive areas. Path should have minimum 10-foot width; ideally 15 feet if possible • Along NC 54 from E Barbee Chapel Rd to I-40 overpass, Durham & Chapel Hill, Mid- Term (2020-2025) • Along the NC 54 frontage to connect to the existing multi-use path at Burning Tree Dr, Chapel Hill, Mid-Term (2020-2025)
15. Implement crosswalks and landscaped median refuges at superstreet intersections • Huntingridge Rd & NC 54, Chapel Hill, Mid-Term (2020-2025) • Meadowmont Ln/ Friday Center Dr & NC 54, Durham, Mid-Term (2020-2025) The cost for these improvements is included in the roadway projects list under the item “Construct EB NC 54 to EB I-40 flyover from Farrington Road to I-40 EB on-ramp.”
16. Design and construct light rail bridge over NC 54 to serve as an elevated pedestrian crossing • Across NC 54 connecting Meadowmont and Friday Center Chapel Hill Long Term (2025-2035)
17. Construct Southwest Rail Trail along light rail alignment during light rail construction • Along future light rail corridor, Durham & Chapel Hill, Long Term (2025-2035)
18. Construct US 15-501 underpass to connect Bolin Creek Greenway • S Estes Dr & US 15-501, Chapel Hill, Long Term (2025-2035)
19. Continue to make regional connections with greenways where possible (variable cost) • Durham & Chapel Hill, Long Term (2025-2035), variable cost
Roadway Recommendations 1. Complete collector street connections 2. Widen NC 54 to six lanes between Barbee Chapel Road and I-40 3. Close Glenwood Square shopping center driveways along NC54 4. Modify US 15-501/NC54 Interchange, partial cloverleaf design modification 5. Obtain Marriott Way, then upgrade to NCDOT standards and extend to Barbee Chapel Rd 6. Implement superstreet configuration at Meadowmont Ln/Friday Center Dr 7. Provide grade separation at Barbee Chapel Rd/NC54 intersection 15
8. Implement superstreet configurations at W. Barbee Chapel Rd and Burning Tree Dr/Finely Gold Course Rd
ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Board: The Planning Board is scheduled to continue discussion and provide comments on February 21, 2012.
Greenways Commission: The Greenways Commission reviewed the Study on February 1, 2012. We will provide the Commission’s recommendation when it is available.
Transportation Board: The Transportation Board reviewed the Study on January 26, 2012. We will provide the Board’s recommendations when it is available.
NEXT STEPS
Following tonight’s public forum, we will return on March 12, 2012 to respond to comments from the public and Town advisory boards.
We have included a copy of the NC54-I40 Corridor Study Review and Approval Schedule 3 which outlines the process for review and approval of the NC54/I-40 Study recommendations. The Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Technical Advisory Committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the findings and recommendations for the Corridor Study at their March 14, 2012 meeting.
3 http://www.nc54-i40corridorstudy.com/pdffiles/NC54BlueprintPhaseIIReviewandApprovalProcess_121911.pdf 16
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DECEMBER 2011
Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP 17
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
Executive Summary Overview A primary route connecting much of southern Orange, However, rising congestion levels threaten property Durham and Wake Counties, as well as new growth values and economic growth for both jurisdictions, as occurring in Chatham County, with the academic and well as the ability for UNC to compete for jobs and medical destinations at the University of North Carolina patients. There are policies in place in Chapel Hill and at Chapel Hill (UNC) and other destinations in Research on the UNC campus that restrict the amount of available Triangle Park, the NC 54/I-40 corridor is facing pressures parking, and encourage the use of transit in reaching unlike many others in the region. In destinations served by this corridor. addition to the regional access that NC Yet the heavy traffic, high speeds and 54 provides for UNC and its medical “NC 54 is an extremely lack of multimodal facilities along the facilities for commuters, patients and complex corridor, corridor create barriers that limit the visitors from across the state and involving multiple travel usefulness and safety of walking and region, the corridor is experiencing markets with each having bicycling for transportation. This also adjacent land development changes unique characteristics and influences transit usage, where heavy that require careful planning with needs.” demand exists due to the parking transportation improvements to serve constraints, but better pedestrian the long-term vitality of the corridor access is needed to make transit more and its surrounding neighborhoods. With environmental, effective as a travel option. As a result of those existing physical and policy constraints limiting expansion and anticipated future demands, NC 54 is an extremely of portions of the roadway and the development of complex corridor, serving multiple travel markets and a parallel roadway connections, the corridor requires diverse array of stakeholder and community interests a multimodal solution to meet future demand while focused on the success of different transportation modes, improving safety for all users and traffic operations. protection of neighborhoods and the economic viability of their land. The NC 54/I-40 corridor is extremely important to the communities in both Durham and Chapel Hill, where it serves residential, commercial and institutional land uses, creating an eclectic mix of local and regional traffic competing for limited space. The corridor is fast becoming the most congested in the region, and has begun a transition from low-density suburban development with a semi-rural feel to a more urban pattern, with approved and pending development proposals expected to accelerate that transition as the economy rebounds. With more than 600 acres of vacant developable land surrounding it and likely development and infill of the future light rail station areas, NC 54 is poised for dramatic changes. As a result, the corridor is rising in statewide importance and regional prominence.
DECEMBER 2011 E-1 18
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
Study Objectives In that context, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro and future transportation needs. They address the Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) functional design for specific geometric improvements at initiated the NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study to develop a intersections along NC 54 and at the interchanges with land use – transportation blueprint for this regionally I-40 and US 15-501, the expansion and integration of significant corridor. With its development potential and various types of transit services to help more people the plan to construct a regional light rail system that reach their destinations as an alternative to driving, would serve this corridor, the goal of the study is to define an interconnected network of bicycle and pedestrian complementary land use and transportation strategies facilities to provide a more comfortable environment that will guide public and private actions, investments with safe access along the corridor for walking and and capital project priorities to improve mobility, safety cycling, and a phased implementation plan for capital and access for all modes. The dynamic nature of this projects and service improvements. critical corridor requires a bold vision supported by practical, achievable strategies in the near term and These transportation recommendations support a land set the right foundation for longer term improvements use strategy designed to create more opportunities through the 2035 horizon year. for location-efficient housing and transportation in the corridor to improve livability and regional mobility. The Through a planning process that examined future land corridor is becoming increasingly employment-oriented, use-transportation scenarios, the NC 54/I-40 Corridor and more proximate housing choices – particularly for a Study seeks to build upon various transportation and range of income levels – will create shorter trip distances land use plans and engage corridor stakeholders and and help make the use of non-auto travel options more the public in finding solutions that are effective and find viable. The report includes design guidelines to provide the right balance between mobility and accessibility further support for implementing the recommended land for all users. Study recommendations in the final report use and transportation strategies. offer a multimodal approach to meeting existing
Study Partners and Process The DCHC MPO led the study, serving as the project While the NC 54 corridor study limits are from I-40 to US manager in partnership with the consultant team hired for 15-501, the study did not just focus on the linear right- the project, Renaissance Planning Group, in association of-way along NC 54. It captured a regional context, with ICF International and Michael Baker Corporation. including growth patterns, transportation plans and the The MPO coordinated the active involvement of a broad planned regional light rail system anticipated to connect group of study partners that include the North Carolina this corridor to other points in the Triangle Region. The study Department of Transportation (NCDOT), Triangle Transit area boundaries encompass surrounding neighborhoods Authority (TTA), the City of Durham, Durham County, the and the existing and planned street networks, including Town of Chapel Hill, the University of North Carolina Ephesus Church Road, Barbee Chapel Road, Farrington at Chapel Hill (UNC), Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) and the Road, NC 751 and others providing parallel routes or Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA). The MPO, the City interconnecting with NC 54. of Durham, Durham County, and the Town of Chapel Hill funded the study. The study partners formed a steering Public engagement is critically important to the study. committee that met monthly to guide the process, provide A part of the corridor’s complexity is the multitude input at key milestones, and review study work products. of interested stakeholders with diverse expectations about the future of the NC 54 corridor. These include landowners, institutions, businesses, neighborhood
DECEMBER 2011 E-2 19
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN residents, students and, of course, the commuting public. transportation vision is to promote community livability A vigorous public participation process was employed to by guiding future development into targeted mixed-use guide the development of study recommendations. This areas to reduce trip lengths, enable greater use of non- entailed a series of in-depth focus group discussions with auto travel options and provide location-efficient choices each of the key stakeholder groups (residents and non- for housing and transportation. These areas are within residents alike) early in the project and again once initial ¼ to ½ mile of the four planned light rail stations in the recommendations were nearing completion. In addition, corridor. This will effectively support the investment in rail a series of three public workshops at key milestones passenger service that will strengthen regional and local defined priority issues and opportunities, provided the travel options between the UNC campus, Orange County, basis for creation and evaluation of scenarios, and Durham County and elsewhere in the Triangle Region. enabled participants to react and suggest refinements Over time, the centers help transform the corridor from to draft land use and transportation master plan a drive-by strip into highly accessible, well-connected recommendations. places that function as vibrant focal points serving local and regional needs. These outreach activities were augmented through use of a project web site (http://www.nc54-i40corridorstudy. Land Use Strategy com/) to share information and provide additional opportunities for the community to review materials Figure ES-1 presents the recommended nodal and weigh in with ideas or issues of concern. The DCHC development vision for the corridor. This land use- MPO staff and consultant team also met informally with transportation blueprint embraces livability principles various individuals and groups throughout the study. The that provide more transportation choices, promote recommendations contained in this report are a direct equitable, affordable housing through location and reflection of the input provided over the entire public energy-efficiency, enhance economic competitiveness engagement process. through reliable and timely access to employment, educational opportunities and services, and by Vision for the Corridor supporting existing communities through transit-oriented, mixed-use development that will help safeguard existing Through the study process, analysis and broad-based neighborhoods and preserve rural landscapes. feedback, a vision emerged for a regionally significant multimodal corridor that serves both regional and Table ES-1 shows the proposed height and density local travel through an expanded and more efficient targets for the nodal development plan, which provides network of streets, bus routes, bicycle facilities and the compact, mixed-use framework necessary to create pedestrian enhancements. The integrated land use and a series of vibrant walking districts that enables reliance primarily on non-auto travel modes as they approach build-out of the development program. The NC 54 Corridor Master Plan promotes The creation of highly developed mixed-use centers can location-efficient decisions to help lower help mitigate automobile travel demand by creating combined housing and transportation costs an environment where walking and access to transit per household. It puts people together, served are priorities. It also provides a mechanism to advance by a more efficient transportation system that transportation funding opportunities that are unlikely to enables more trips to be made by walking, be available with the status quo or trend development bicycling and transit. The plan defines target pattern. For instance, more intense development at the growth areas that help reduce sprawl in planned Leigh Village station and other “nodes” along outlying areas. the corridor can provide incentive to obtain mitigation funding from future development to offset transportation costs for the roadway improvements that eventually will
DECEMBER 2011 E-3 20
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
Recommended Corridor Land Use Concept Ephesus Church Road
L E G E N D
Mixed-Use 1 Leigh Mixed-Use 2 Farm Park Residential 1
Residential 2 Quadrangle Office Parks
Employment Glen Unchanged from Existing Lennox Meadowmont Future Light Rail Alignment & Stations Falconbridge with 1/4 and 1/2 mile station buffer Shopping Center Proposed I-40 Alternative Light Rail Alignment C2 Light Rail NC 54 Falconbridge
Friday Center
Downing Creek
Figure ES-1: Recommended Corridor Land Use Concept
Table ES-1: Concept Land Uses
Mixed Use 1 Mixed Use 2 Residential 1 Residential 2 Employment No. of Stories 3 - 8 2 - 4 2 - 4 1 - 3 4 - 12 Floor-to-area ratios (non- 1.25 - 2.25 1.0 - 1.5 - - 0.5 - 1.0 residential) Dwelling Units per Acre 35 - 60 20 - 35 12 - 35 6 - 12 - Employees per Acre 45 - 90 25 - 50 9 - 15 6 - 12 35 - 175
DECEMBER 2011 E-4 21
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN be needed in the corridor even without the development. 54/Farrington Road intersection, where development The traffic projections for the MPO’s adopted 2035 depends on highway visibility. Conversely, rail transit is Long Range Transportation Plan – without the nodal likely to result in more compact development clustered development plan in the NC 54 corridor – show that within walking distance of the station, and opens up new major capacity improvements to NC 54 and I-40 will opportunities for how people choose to live and travel. be needed. Higher densities also enable developers to incorporate a greater percentage of workforce housing The response is also strongly influenced by the land into the development program, helping to shorten trip use policy and planning context – for example, when lengths and creating more purchasing power for those the predominant mode of travel is the automobile, rail residents who can effectively lower both housing and transit needs to be accompanied by strong land use transportation costs. policies in order to concentrate development in station areas. This type of strategy in the NC 54 corridor is Transportation has a profound influence to shape growth necessary to avoid a future scenario where rising levels in a region and along a corridor. The parking constraints of congestion will occur due to regional growth forecasts, on the UNC campus and elsewhere in the Town of Chapel and the demands placed on the NC 54 corridor and Hill have certainly influenced the use of transit, and, its interchange with I-40 will lack any financial support at least to a certain extent, where people choose to from planned development. live. Developers and their clients (businesses, residents) respond to transportation conditions when they decide The timing of the nodal development plan is dependent where to build, live, or locate their business. A new or on the schedule for light rail in the corridor. If the funding improved roadway or transit project can make access to mechanism is approved and the light rail plan moves a location easier – making it more attractive to develop. forward, detailed station area plans would guide the A transportation improvement can also improve visibility development for the areas around each station in the – an important consideration for commercial developers. corridor. Due to the roadway capacity constraints of this Many businesses rely on being seen by “pass-by” traffic corridor, only relatively modest increases in development and want to locate where there is a lot of vehicle and/ intensity can be supported until the light rail system is or pedestrian traffic. This has been the case at the NC operational. Transportation Strategy
Table ES-2 presents the phased multimodal transportation and unconventional intersection designs commonly recommendations associated with the recommended referred to as “superstreets.” Together these strategies nodal development plan. The recommendations are will reduce delay and support anticipated traffic growth divided into short-term, mid-term and long-term in the corridor. strategies. These are described in detail in the full report, with supporting data in a series of appendices. Longer term, with the recommended nodal development, In general, the short-term roadway strategies consist of a redesign of the US 15-501 interchange at NC 54 will a series of local street connections including the collector be needed, and can enhance bicycle and pedestrian streets to provide alternate routes for local trips and safety in the future Hamilton Road light rail station area. improve traffic flow and operational efficiency. Transit is an integral part of this overall strategy. In The interim components include reconstruction of the I-40 addition to the planned light rail system, a network interchange, where the critical intersection of Farrington of premium Bus Rapid Transit lines, expanded local Road and NC 54 causes significant congestion due to its bus service, and additional park-and-ride lots are proximity to the I-40 interchange, grade separation to recommended for the corridor. The key park-and-ride eliminate traffic signals at the most critical intersections, strategy is the implementation of multiple facilities north and east of the NC 54/I-40 interchange to capture trips
DECEMBER 2011 E-5 22
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN before they enter the corridor. The package of facilities crossing will likely not result in significant traffic impacts will together serve regional commuters, latent demand beyond the congestion that already exists or will exist for satellite parking, and future parking for light rail in the future without substantial intersection capacity transit, and could provide an alternative to the Friday improvements. Constructing a grade-separated Center lot should it redevelop in the future. interchange at Barbee Chapel Road will ease congestion and lessen delays as traffic grows in the future. A From a bicycle and pedestrian network standpoint, the grade-separated interchange at Barbee Chapel Road recommended plan fills in gaps and improves safety and could likely be designed to accommodate the C-2 light access along NC 54 through geometric modifications rail alignment, but may entail significantly higher costs and the creation of a 15’ shared use path adjacent to for extending the elevated segment of the light rail and the roadway between Barbee Chapel Road and the a potential tri-level structure. Another option for the C2 I-40 interchange. This is a critical gap in the corridor, alignment would be to move the alignment further to the and high speed traffic precludes an on-road solution south to avoid conflicts with the proposed ramp. These for the section east of the Friday Center. Additional additional costs will need to be considered in the next non-motorized transportation recommendations are phase of the Light Rail development process. identified throughout the corridor, including along Barbee Chapel Road and at US 15-501. The potential construction of the C2 alignment and the potential development of the Lloyd property on the north The roadway improvements, especially the superstreet side of NC 54 would likely generate high pedestrian intersection design and partial cloverleaf interchange demand across NC 54. This would be located just design at US 15-501, take advantage of existing slightly east of the future elevated crossing that would infrastructure and will provide maximum capacity for the be constructed at Barbee Chapel Road. While crossing cost of construction. The transportation recommendations at Barbee Chapel Road would still provide access to for other modes will help to manage demand in the the Hillmont light rail station within a half-mile walk of corridor, further extending the life of the roadway the Lloyd property, a more substantial direct pedestrian improvements. The recommendations for each mode are crossing may be needed. This is another cost implication linked to others, to support a well-balanced and inter- that should be considered in the EIS process. connected mobility network. Each improvement is an investment in another, and together will build a stronger system for mobility than optimizing the network for one particular mode. The Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis (AA) was conducted concurrently with the NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study. The AA recommends two light rail alignments be carried forward to the PE/NEPA phase within the NC 54/I-40 study area. Both alignments, shown in Figure ES-1, recommend elevated crossings over NC 54. Alignment C1 will have no adverse impacts along the NC 54 corridor. Alignment C2 may cause complications at the Barbee Chapel Road intersection with NC 54, where the proposed C2 alignment crosses Barbee Chapel Road just south of NC 54. With the current intersection configuration, an at-grade light rail
DECEMBER 2011 E-6 23
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
Conclusion
The analysis of growth and transportation indicates express routes are planned to meet the corridor’s growing that substantial capacity improvements will be needed needs in the interim to light rail, and these services will by 2035 with or without new development anticipated complement the rail system when it is built. to occur in the corridor. The I-40 interchange at NC 54 A network of non-motorized transportation facilities, is fast approaching its capacity, and the proximity of along with signage/markings for shared on-road use the Farrington Road intersection creates operational where appropriate, is needed to create a more accessible challenges that affect much of the corridor. Heavy corridor and study area. This addresses travel along the through traffic volumes projected along the corridor NC 54 corridor by bicyclists and pedestrians, as well require intersection modifications that will help reduce as crossing the corridor safely and efficiently. Elsewhere delay. While the planned light rail transit system will in the study area, the network provides additional help when it becomes operational sometime around connections between residential areas, commercial 2025, it will not eliminate congestion. Rather, the light destinations and regional facilities, such as the American rail network provides a sound basis to guide future Tobacco Trail. growth into the planned station areas as part of a nodal development strategy that will help reduce trip lengths, Establishing benchmarks and targets is an effective way lower vehicle miles traveled per capita, and provide for to measure progress toward plan implementation. The more location-efficient housing choices to increase the NC 54/I-40 Corridor Study is a multi-year, multi-phase financial flexibility of those residents. master plan aimed at improving overall mobility and accessibility, consistent with plans to create development While the recommended land use plan increases growth focal points as places that become multipurpose in the corridor beyond the levels assumed for the destinations. Given the concerns of some residents and adopted Long Range Transportation Plan, most of that many stakeholders about traffic conditions and future additional growth is expected to occur in Orange County development plans, it makes sense to take an approach because the LRTP assumptions appear low relative to in partnership with NCDOT and the local governments development potential and future plans. that addresses various aspects of this report to track progress toward achieving outcomes of this planning The recommended phasing plan for the transportation effort, not merely the programming and construction of network creates better mobility for the next 25 years capital projects. through a series of improvements to enhance local street connectivity for alternate routes, relieve bottlenecks The recommended approach is for the MPO to prepare at key interchanges and intersections through grade a biannual monitoring report every two years to separation, and increase operational efficiency through document progress toward achieving the mobility goals “superstreet” intersection treatments. outlined in this study. This monitoring report would document transportation system conditions over time As indicated, due to traffic impacts, much of the potential using the performance measures defined through this future growth will need to wait until the light rail system study and expanded to address specific implementation is operational and can help moderate auto travel activities and accomplishments on the part of each study demand. However, the plan calls for expanded park- partner or jurisdiction. The report would fit within the and-ride opportunities north and east of the NC 54/ MPO’s established Congestion Management Process, I-40 interchange to serve regional commuters, satellite and should document actions from a land development, parking for nearby employment centers, and future light transportation and urban design framework to implement rail transit station by capturing a reasonable share of the recommendations for improved livability, mobility, single occupancy vehicles before they enter the corridor. safety and access. Expanded local bus, Bus Rapid Transit, and commuter
DECEMBER 2011 E-7 24
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
Table ES-2: List of Transportation Recommendations PARK-AND-RIDE Description Location Jurisdiction Phase O&M Capital Coordinate with retailers to Retail Center at Durham Short Term $565,0002 n/a designate 50 shared park-and- NC 751/ NC 54 (2012-2020) ride spaces. Enhance TTA 805 Intersection1 service through Woodcroft. Construct surface lot with 500 Gateway Center Chapel Hill Short Term $565,0002 $3,555,000 3,4 spaces. Implement a new CHT Future Light Rail (2012-2020) express route (or modify CHT Station Routes D and DX to serve facility. Extend Danziger Drive over I-40 for additional access. Coordinate with retailers to Patterson Place Durham Short Term $565,0002 n/a designate 300 shared park-and- (2012-2020) ride spaces. Extend existing CHT DX route to serve facility. Coordinate with retailers to Retail Center at Durham Short Term n/a n/a designate 100 park-and-ride Governors Village (2012-2020) spaces for carpool and vanpool. Coordinate with retailers to Oak Creek Village Durham Mid Term $565,0002 n/a designate 160 park-and-ride (2020-2025) spaces. Add a stop along TTA Route 405 to serve facility. Coordinate with retailer to Renaissance Durham Mid Term $565,0002 n/a replace or expand existing Parkway Target (2020-2025) facilities in Southpoint Mall. Store Modify TTA and DATA routes as necessary. Construct small facility with up to Leigh Village Durham Long Term $565,0002 $10,000,0005 500 spaces after construction of Future Light Rail (2025-2035) I-40 interchange improvements. Station Provide express bus service if constructed before light rail. Convert surface lot into structured Gateway Center Chapel Hill Long Term n/a $20,000,0005 facility with 1,000 spaces. Future Light Rail (2025-2035) Station Construct structured parking Patterson Place Durham Long Term n/a $20,000,0005 facility with 1,000 spaces to (2025-2035) service light rail station. Implement CHT express route Retail Center at Durham Long Term $565,0002 n/a Governors Village (2025-2035)
1 The pursuit of several locations for a park-and-ride facility along NC 751 is recommended, including Southpoint Auto Park Boulevard and the Renaissance Parkway Target Store. The retail center at the NC 751/NC 54 intersection represents an ideal location, but all three locations should be pursued. 2 Operating costs based on additional total annual hours multiplied by $86, with 15 minute frequency during peak hours and 30 minute frequency during off-peak hours 3 Assumes $5,000 per space, the average surface parking construction cost from the National Parking Association’s 2009 study Parking in America: Annual Review of Parking Rates in the United States and Canada 4 Includes cost of two new buses based on a 50/50 split of $400,000 non-hybrid buses and $655,000 hybrid buses for an average of $527,500 per bus 5 Includes cost of multi-level parking structure at $20,000 per space.
DECEMBER 2011 E-8 25
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
TRANSIT Description Location Jurisdiction Phase O&M Capital Expanded Local Bus service Southeast along Barbee Durham Short Term $1,355,4001 $700,000 with 30 minute frequency Chapel Rd and returning (2012-2020) (2 buses at north back to NC 54 along $350,000 Farrington Rd with transfer each)2 to regional service
Express Bus service along From NC 751 park-and- Durham & Short Term $1,355,4003 $700,000 NC 54 from the NC 751 ride facilities to downtown Chapel Hill (2012-2020) (2 buses at park-and-ride facilities Chapel Hill along NC 751 $350,000 and NC 54 each)2 Express bus service us From Gateway Center Chapel Hill Short Term $1,355,4003 $700,000 service along US 15-501 at the I-40/US 15-501 (2012-2020) (2 buses at or Franklin St from the interchange to downtown $350,000 Gateway Center park-and- Chapel Hill along US 15- each)2 ride. 501 or Franklin St Light Rail Transit Durham to Chapel Hill Durham & Mid-Term n/a n/a Preliminary Engineering Chapel Hill (2020-2025) and Design
Expanded Local Bus service North of NC 54 along Durham Mid-Term $1,355,4001 $700,000 with 30 minute frequency Farrington Rd & SW (2020-2025) (2 buses at Durham Dr to US 15-501 $350,000 (Durham- Chapel Hill Blvd) each)2 Bus Rapid Transit - Phase 1. From Meadowmont along Chapel Hill Mid-Term $11,566,0804 $3,400,000 Five minute frequency with NC 54 to downtown (2020-2025) daily peak vehicle need of Chapel Hill six buses Bus Rapid Transit - Phase 2. From NC 751 park-and- Durham Mid-Term $11,566,0804 $3,400,000 Five minute frequency with ride facilities along NC (2020-2025) daily peak vehicle need of 54 towards Chapel Hill, six buses. aligning with Bus Rapid Transit - Phase 1 Flex Route service General service north Chapel Hill Mid-Term $4,066,2005 $307,200 and south of study area (2020-2025) (4 buses at along Barbee Chapel Rd, $76,800 Pinehurst Dr, Farrington each)2 Rd, Ephesus Church Rd, serving the Falconbridge Community, Downing Creek community, and Glen Lennox Light Rail Transit (Final Durham to Chapel Hill Durham & Long Term TBD6 $2,750,0002 Design and Construction) Chapel Hill (2025-2035)
1 Operating cost for normal fixed route service with 30 minute frequency is based on Long Range Transportation Plan. 2 Source of vehicle cost is 2011 Transportation Improvement Program. 3 Operating cost for express bus service is based on the operation of a fixed route service, but at a higher frequency. 4 Bus Rapid Transit costs are based on the 2009 Long Range Transit Plan study conducted by the Town of Chapel Hill. They include the cost of roadway improvements. 5 Flex Route costs are based on the normal operations of a fixed route service. Flex service is essentially the same type of service, only different in the method of delivery. 6 Operating cost estimates for the light rail project cannot be provided. The project has a more complete analysis and cost estimated being conducted by Triangle Transit. The current cost for this project is limited to an estimate of preliminary engineering and design.
DECEMBER 2011 E-9 26
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost1 Install crosswalks and Burning Tree Dr/ Finley Golf Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- $80,000 pedestrian signals at Course Rd & NC 54 2020) signalized intersections with pedestrian refuge islands and W Barbee Chapel Rd & NC Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- street lighting for crossing NC 54 2020) 54.2 Meadowmont Ln/ Friday Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- Center Dr & NC 54 2020) E Barbee Chapel Rd & NC 54 Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- 2020) Huntingridge Rd & NC 54 Durham Short Term (2012- 2020) Farrington Road (northern, Durham Short Term (2012- southern and eastern 2020) approaches) & NC 54
Leigh Farm Rd/ Quadrangle Durham Short Term (2012- Dr & NC 54 2020)
Install crosswalks with US 15-501 on/off ramps Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- $40,000 pedestrian-activated flashers 2020) and expand refuge islands. Extend the solid marking From SB US 15-501 on ramp Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- $2,700,000 designating the westbound to 500 feet to the east 2020) exclusive right turn lane for US 15-501 on–ramps to minimize weaving movements at interchange and increase safety for on-road bicyclists. Provide a minimum 5-foot NC 54 from Burning Tree Dr/ Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- wide on-road bicycle lane Finley Golf Course Rd to the 2020) by restriping travel lanes to west be 11 feet wide and making minor median modifications. Modify sloped abutment NC 54 underneath US 15-501 Chapel Hill Short Term (2012- wall to provide 8-foot wide overpass 2020) sidewalk behind overpass structural piers. Pave road shoulders to From NC 54 to the American Durham Short Term (2012- $4,000,000 accommodate bicyclists Tobacco Trail via Barbee 2020) on select roads to provide Chapel Rd, Farrington Rd, connections to the American Stagecoach Rd, NC 751, and Tobacco Trail. Massey Chapel Rd
DECEMBER 2011 E-10 27
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost1 Ensure adequate facilities for Farrington Road through Durham Short Term Variable cost. pedestrians and cyclists are available. the study area (Old Chapel (2012-2020) Paving five-foot Provide a 5-foot wide bicycle lane Hill Rd to Stagecoach Rd) wide bike lanes where possible, or provide “share the Ephesus Church Rd from Durham & Short Term on both sides road” signage and a paved shoulder or Farrington Rd to E Franklin Chapel Hill (2012-2020) of the roadway sharrow markings for on-road bicycle St would cost travel. Many of the collector streets are approximately designed with for low vehicular speeds George King Rd & Durham Short Term $1,200,000 per with the intent for bicycles to share the Crossland Dr (proposed (2012-2020) lane assuming travel lane. Fill in sidewalk gaps. 3 collector street) from medium duty Ephesus Church Rd to NC pavement. 54 Striping a bike lane without SW Durham Dr from Durham & Short Term paving would cost Ephesus Church Rd to NC Chapel Hill (2012-2020) approximately 54 $5,000 per mile. Installing signage Lancaster Dr and E/W Durham & Short Term would cost about collector street from Chapel Hill (2012-2020) $1,500 per Farrington Rd to Pinehurst sign. Installing Dr sidewalks would Pinehurst Dr from Ephesus Chapel Hill Short Term cost about Church Rd to Burning Tree (2012-2020) $265,000 per Dr mile. Burning Tree Dr from Chapel Hill Short Term Pinehurst Dr to NC 54 (2012-2020)
Hamilton Rd from NC 54 to Chapel Hill Short Term Cleland Dr (2012-2020)
Cleland Dr from Burning Chapel Hill Short Term Tree Dr to US 15-501 (2012-2020)
Construct Little Creek Trail to connect Meadowmont Trail at Chapel Hill Short Term TBD Meadowmont Trail to Lancaster Drive. Rashkis Elementary School (2012-2020) Widen the existing bicycle path to a 15- Along the east side of US Chapel Hill Short Term TBD foot wide shared use path. 15-501 from Cleland Rd to (2012-2020) S Estes Dr Construct the Bolin Creek Greenway Bolin Creek Greenway Chapel Hill Short Term TBD connection to Pinehurst Dr. (2012-2020)
DECEMBER 2011 E-11 28
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost1 Construct an off-road Along NC 54 from E Barbee Durham & Mid-Term The cost for these shared-use path, with Chapel Rd to I-40 overpass Chapel Hill (2020-2025) improvements is included a boardwalk bridge as in the roadway projects an alternative solution in Along the NC 54 frontage to Chapel Hill Mid-Term list under the item “Widen environmentally sensitive connect to the existing multi- (2020-2025) NC 54 to six lanes in the areas. Path should have use path at Burning Tree Dr Durham section. Construct minimum 10-foot width; the multi-use path ideally 15 feet if possible. concurrent with the road project.” Construct pedestrian Falconbridge Rd & Farrington Durham Mid-Term facilities with ramps at Rd (2020-2025) Falconbridge Rd and Farrington Rd bridges over NC 54 Construct sidewalk on south South side of NC 54 from Durham Mid-Term side of NC 54 to connect to Huntingridge Rd east to I-40 (2020-2025) I-40 overpass. overpass Construct a 10-foot wide NC 54 bridge over I-40 Durham Mid-Term shared use path on south (2020-2025) side of overpass. Implement crosswalks and Huntingridge Rd & NC 54 Chapel Hill Mid-Term The cost for these landscaped median refuges (2020-2025) improvements is included at superstreet intersections. in the roadway projects list under the item Meadowmont Ln/ Friday Durham Mid-Term “Construct EB NC 54 Center Dr & NC 54 (2020-2025) to EB I-40 flyover from Farrington Road to I-40 EB on-ramp.” Design and construct light Across NC 54 connecting Chapel Hill Long Term TBD rail bridge over NC 54 Meadowmont and Friday (2025-2035) to serve as an elevated Center pedestrian crossing. Construct Southwest Rail Trail Along future light rail corridor Durham & Long Term TBD along light rail alignment Chapel Hill (2025-2035) during light rail construction. Construct US 15-501 S Estes Dr & US 15-501 Chapel Hill Long Term TBD underpass to connect Bolin (2025-2035) Creek Greenway. Continue to make regional where possible Durham & Long Term variable cost connections with greenways Chapel Hill (2025-2035)
1 Cost estimates do not include right-of-way, utilities or escalation. 2 Crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian signals and street lighting can be installed with developer mitigation funds. They may also be implemented concurrently with road maintenance projects such as resurfacing, or as part of more substantial road improvements (i.e., construction of the superstreet intersections) 3 Although it may not be feasible to provide bike lanes or paved shoulders and construct sidewalks on all of these roads within the next five years, these recommendations should remain a priority and should be constructed as soon as funds are available.
DECEMBER 2011 E-12 29
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
ROADWAY Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost1 Construct Farrington Rd slip ramp for Farrington Rd Durham Short Term $3,400,000 northbound traffic on Farrington Rd to (2012-2020) access eastbound I-40 directly. Modify on-ramp to allow for transition. Construct collector street system including As specified in the adopted Durham Short Term $31,400,000 turn lanes on NC 54. Southwest Durham (2012-2020) – Southeast Chapel Hill Collector Street Plan Construct access road behind the Between Farrington Rd and Durham Short Term $400,000 Farrington Road shopping center for Falconbridge Rd (2012-2020) connection between Farrington Rd and Falconbridge Rd. Obtain Marriot Way, then upgrade to Between Friday Center Dr Chapel Hill Short Term $800,000 NCDOT standards and extend to Barbee and E Barbee Chapel Rd (2012-2020) Chapel Rd. Construct other connections as Through study area Durham & Short to Long Variable cost opportunities arise through development Chapel Hill Term proposals. Close Glenwood Square shopping center Glenwood Square Shopping Chapel Hill Short Term $100,0003 driveways along NC 54 and provide Center at US 15-501 access via Hamilton Rd interchange (2012-2020) Construct dual exit lanes for I-40 WB I-40 Interchange with NC 54 Durham Mid-Term $6,100,0004 to NC 54 WB loop ramp plus two thru (2020-2025) lanes on NC 54 WB. Widen bridge for four EB lanes, three WB lanes, and 10- foot sidewalk on south side. Add new partial cloverleaf ramp for I-40 Interchange with NC 54 Durham Mid-Term $2,100,000 I-40 EB to NC 54 EB, remove existing (2020-2025) signal and install yield sign at the I-40 EB to NC 54 WB ramp. Reconfigure EB approach at I-40 EB on-ramps for two free-flow lanes to EB I-40. Widen NC 54 to six lanes east of Barbee Chapel Rd to I-40 Durham Mid-Term $22,700,000 Barbee Chapel Rd to match six lane Interchange (2020-2025) section to the west. Construct the multiuse path concurrent with the road project. Implement superstreet configuration at Future western collector Durham Mid-Term $3,900,000 Crossland Drive. street5 & NC 54 (2020-2025)
Convert Farrington Rd intersection to an Farrington Rd at NC 54 Durham Mid-Term $6,500,000 overpass over NC 54 with pedestrian (2020-2025) facilities. Convert Falconbridge Rd intersection Falconbridge Rd at NC 54 Durham Mid-Term $9,800,000 to a grade separated interchange with (2020-2025) pedestrian facilities.
DECEMBER 2011 E-13 30
NC 54 / I-40 CORRIDOR STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TRANSPORTATION-LAND USE MASTER PLAN
ROADWAY Description Location Jurisdiction Phase Cost1 Implement superstreet configuration at Meadowmont Ln/ Friday Chapel Hill Mid-Term $4,300,000 Meadowmont Ln/ Friday Center Dr. Center Dr & NC 54 (2020-2025) Construct Barbee Chapel RdgGrade Barbee Chapel Rd & NC Chapel Hill Mid-Term $9,200,000 separation. 54 (2020-2025) Construct partial cloverleaf redesign of US US 15-501& NC 54 Chapel Hill Long Term $17,300,000 15-501 interchange. interchange (2025-2035) Implement superstreet configurations at W NC 54 intersections with Chapel Hill Long Term $4,900,000 Barbee Chapel Rd and Burning Tree Dr/ W Barbee Chapel Rd and (2025-2035) Finley Golf Course Rd. Burning Tree Dr/ Finley Golf Course Rd
1 Cost estimates do not include right-of-way, utilities or escalation. 2 Cost estimates include fourth travel lane on eastbound I-40 to bridge across creek prior to NC 751 interchange. Recommended to extend travel lane to NC 751 interchange. 3 Cost estimates do not include right-of-way damages. 4 Cost estimate extends from I-40 ramps to Leigh Farm Rd/Quadrangle Dr. 5 Crossland Drive refers to the future western collector street. Throughout the study process, public citizens raised concerns over the Crossland Drive alignment and proposed George King as a future collector street. The superstreet configuration is recommended for whichever road alignment becomes the collector street.
DECEMBER 2011 E-14 31
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
NC 54 Phase II Blueprint Review and Approval Process – Draft January 12, 2012 Date Activity Dec 14 TAC receives final report and releases for public review pending minor revisions
Dec 14 Presentation to Durham-Chapel Hill-Orange work group
Dec 21 TCC Meeting – questions and discussion from TCC members
Dec – Feb Chapel Hill Advisory Board Review
Jan 4 NC 54 status report to JCCPC [2nd Floor Committee Room]
Jan 12 NC 54 Open House 4:00 – 7:00 pm 2nd Floor Committee Room, Durham City Hall
Jan 17 BPAC
Feb 6 Report to Durham County Board of Commissioners at a work session for review and comment
Feb 13 NC 54 Open House 3:00 – 6:00 pm 1st Floor Conference Room, Chapel Hill Town Hall
Feb 13 Comment on the report received at the Chapel Hill Public Forum
Feb 14 Report presented to Durham Planning Commission for review and comment. [Council Chambers]
Feb 21 Presentation to Orange County Commissioners
Mar 8 Durham City Council receives the report at a work session for review and comment
Mar 12 Chapel Hill Council approves comments on report
Mar 14 TAC Public Hearing
Mar 16 Deadline for public comment
Mar 28 TCC recommends NC 54 recommendations for approval by TAC
Apr 11 Approval by TAC
39
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Petitions from the Public.
a. Country Club Road Residents Regarding Proposed Sidewalk on Country Club Road. b. Arc of Orange Apts. in Meadowmont Request for Expedited Review. c. Trent Ball Regarding the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. (No Attachment)
Background: Under the Council's normal procedures, requests will be treated as a petition for action by the Council. The Council hears petitions, either written or oral, at the beginning of each regular meeting. Except in the case of urgency, petitions normally are not acted upon at the time they are presented. After hearing a petition, the Council usually receives and refers the petition to the Town Manager and Town Attorney for review and a follow-up report with recommendations for action.
Fiscal Note: Fiscal impact not determined.
Recommendations: That the Council consider the attached petitions.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Country Club Road Sidewalk Citizen Petition Arc of Orange Co. Request for Expedited Review
40
TO: Mayor and Members of the Chapel Hill Town Council FROM: Residents of Country Club Road RE: Protest to Proposed Sidewalk on Country Club Road DATE: January 30, 2012
We understand that this project was presented to the Town Council at a recent meeting with the recommendation to make it a "Top 10" priority project and the Council approved that recommendation. This occurred without prior notice being given to the residents of Country Club Road. We are concerned that the decision which set the planning and planned building process in motion was made without transparency or consultation.
A briefhistory of the process is as follows: On November 11, 2011 a letter was sent from the Transportation Department to residents of Country Club Road. Not all residents received the letter. A further letter was sent on December 9, 2011 stating that the town staff had completed their assessment of identifying public right of way and had developed design plans for a sidewalk. The letter set a meeting date of January 11, 2012. This was the first opportunity residents had to discuss the project. It was at this meeting that the residents were informed that the project had been studied, a recommendation had been presented to the Council to make it a Top 10 priority project, and the Council had indeed approved that recommendation.
The residents of Country Club Road have discussed and considered the proposed sidewalk carefully. They are unanimously opposed to its construction and wish to file this petition as a formal protest against its construction in this residential area. We ask the Council to suspend plans to construct the sidewalk and re-evaluate the decision to approve it.
We suggest for the Council's consideration the following points against the construction of a sidewalk along Country Club Road.
1. Both the pedestrian and car traffic on this section of Country Club Road are low. There is inadequate pedestrian traffic to warrant a sidewalk. No traffic count has been done to the best of our knowledge in this section of Country Club showing the necessity of a sidewalk. A copy of a needs assessment was not provided at the January 11th meeting, nor have the residents received the assessment of the list of criteria establishing the building priorities for sidewalks which the transportation staff promised to e-mail to them at the January 11th meeting.
2. There have not been any reports of pedestrian or vehicular accidents to the best of the transportation department's knowledge; nor do residents have any recollection of any pedestrian or vehicular accidents. 41
3. The cost of constructing the sidewalk is disproportionate to the number of people who would use it. In addition, demand on the town's budget at this time of priority budgeting is out of proportion to the perceived need.
4. Country Club Road and Laurel Hill Road were established in the 1930's, in a development led by Dr. William Chambers Coker, the University's first Professor of Botany and the first chair ofthe University Buildings and Grounds Committee. (One of his earlier projects was the university's arboretum, now known as Coker Arboretum.) This stretch of Country Club Road, beginning at Ridge Road, is the entrance to the Rocky Ridge residential area listed on the National Historic Register. It is characterized by winding roads and stone retaining walls, purposely meant to evoke the Blue Ridge Parkway, as both were designed by the same architect. The 5 foot wide, white concrete sidewalk proposed would be unsightly and a blight on the entrance to this historic area.
Thank you for considering this petition. We ask that the Town accept it and work with us to resolve the matter. Mr. Bob Wendell, president of our neighborhood association, is our representative on the matter and he can be reached at 919-933-0788.
Signed: 42
Electronic responses to Petition
Consent Ann and Frank Wilson - 603 Laurel Hill Road
JEAN ANDERSON, 11 BUTTONS ROAD I've signed the "no-sidewalk-for-country-club road" petition and have attached here. What a horrific idea this is, esepcially when money could be put elsewhere where it's NEEDED! Good luck with this fight. I'm with you. All best, ja
I agree!
Kaluzny, Arnold D [email protected] 1 :S4 PM (1 hour ago)
to barbara, BARBARA
The sidewalk is equivalent to the"Bridge to No Where"
Phill and Susan Lyons 400 Laurel Hill Road, are in support of the petition. Please use our names in support of NO sidewalk.
Susan Lyons
Yes, I'm in. I want to know what idiot came up with this idea.
-----"Kennedy, Shannon" wrote: -----306 Laurel Hill Road
We agree,. Joe Pagano- 114 Laurel Hill Road
Please feel free to include our names on the petition. Thanks.
Amy F. Roseman Mark J. Roseman 321 Country Club Road 43
6:30PM (5 minutes ago) 204 Laurel Hill Road to barbara
I consent!
6:09 PM (26 minutes ago) A F 1 nne og eman 5 St . J ames Pl ace to barbara
While I can see both sides of this, y'all are the ones most impacted and I'll defer to your judgement. Count me in. Anne Dickson Fogleman
We consent to your adding our names to the petition against the sidewalk on Country Club Road.
Thanks for putting the petition together.
Mitchell and Elizabeth Luck 304 Laurel Hill Road
. 8:05PM (26 minutes ago) Barbara Gordon [email protected] 403 Laurel Hill Road to barbara
Barbara & Bob,
I am opposed to the construction of the sidewalk on Country Club Road, and fully support the formal protest against its construction in this residential area. I as a resident, ask the Council to suspend plans to construct the sidewalk and re-evaluate the decision to approve it.
. 9:29PM (12 hours ago) Tom Kenan [email protected] L l H"ll l aure 1 c·1rc e to barbara
Barbara I agree with YOUR PARTITION ,No side walks on Country Club. Tom Kenan 106 Laurel Hill Circle, Chapel Hill, N.C. 44
K C 11:26 AM (43 minutes ago) ay ox 601 Laurel Hill Rd. to barbara
Hi Barbara,
Steve Mills and I are against the sidewalk proposal by the city. Please let me know what we can do.
. . B d 5:40PM (40 minutes ago) BenJamm ro ey to Barbara
My wife and I own 303 country club. We both strongly oppose construction of a sidewalk and we both strongly support the attached petition. I have been in Norway and sweden the past two weeks and although i have read the full petition, i have been unable to provide an original signature.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Brodey
Sent from my iPhone 45
. 11:21 AM (1 hour ago) Hope Thornton-Koonce [email protected] 100 Laurel Hill Circle to Barbara
We want to express our strong opposition to the installation of a sidewalk on Country Club Road anywhere between Ridge Road and Ledge Lane for the following reasons:
1. There are too few pedestrians using Country Club Road to provide a sidewalk costing over $75,000. We consider this proposed expenditure during this time of budget deficits to be ill conceived.
2. Installing a sidewalk would necessitate tree, shrub and plant removal which would have a substantial negative impact on a historic area of Chapel Hill.
Please reconsider such an ill conceived project.
Respectfully,
Mack Koonce and Hope Thornton-Koonce
4:41PM (2 minutes ago) K ath y Leu t ze to barbara
I am opposed to adding a sidewalk to any portion of Country Club Rd.
Kathleen E. Leutze 4 St. James Place Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Gmail - Petition letter 46https://mail.google.comlmail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=d8a64055bf&view=pt&sea ..
Barbara Wendell
Petition letter 1 message
Mary Lou Quinto
Dear Barbara,
Attached is a signed (via email) petition letter regarding the planned sidewalk construction. Please include me to the list of residents who are opposed to this, although I am not physically there in the US.
Mary-Lou Quinto Owner, 309 Country Club Road
current address: 2 Cairnhill Circle 02-02 Cairnhill Crest Singapore 229811
I ofl 1/28/2012 8:47AM 47
343 E. Six Forks Rd., Suite 320 Raleigh, NC 27609
919 782-4632 800 662-8706 The Arc". 919 782-4634 www.arcnc.org North Carolina
January 27, 2012
Chapel Hill Town Council 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Chapel Hill, NC 27514
Dear Council Members, a Orange County are partnering to develop The Arc of North Carolina and The Arc of in Chapel Hill for adults with intellectual much-needed supportive housing development received a funding award from the U.S. and developmental disabilities. We have (HUD) for construction funds in the Department ofHousing and Urban Development for on-going rental assistance. This amount of $940,000, as well as a commitment from the Meadowmont Development funding, along with a generous land donation County, will allow us to use high quality Company and HOME funds from Orange surrounding landscaping. design and materials for the building and an expedited review of the Special Use By way of this letter, we would like to request of the Meadowmont Master Plan. Our HUD Permit (SUP) process and the modification an application for Firm Commitment within funding award stipulates that we must submit have the SUP in hand or be able to show six months, at which time we need to either cannot close on the transaction with HUD substantial progress toward this end. We without the SUP and the building permit. and presented a Concept Plan to both Arc has already met with town planning staff The Council. We have also met Development Commission and the Town the Community overall, have received in Meadowmont on several occasions, and with the neighbors is donating The Meadowmont Development Company positive support for our project. is a interest, and we feel that our proposed use the land for the project to promote a public at large. perfect fit for the site and the community January 18, 2012, the proposed development As we presented to the Town Council on there are many group homes in Chapel Hill, will be unique for Orange County. While with intellectual and developmental there are very few opportunities for people living that meets their needs. Many people disabilities to access affordable, independent do not need this group home level of care, with intellectual and developmental disabilities in substandard housing, rest homes or other but have no other choice. Still others live to meet their needs. inappropriate residential options not designed 48
The expedited review process will not only secure our HUD funding but also will allow people with disabilities access to appropriate supportive housing that is currently unavailable in Chapel Hill and urgently needed.
We look forward to working with the Town of Chapel Hill and our Meadowmont neighbors to make this a one-of-a-kind, first-rate property that is an asset to the community.
Thank you for your consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
avid rucht((/!!:: The Arc ofNorth Carolina, Inc.
Robin Baker, Executive Director The Arc of Orange County, Inc. 49
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Approve all Consent Agenda Items. (R-1)
Background: Items of a routine nature to be voted on in a block. Any item may be removed from the Consent Agenda by the request of the Mayor or any Council Member.
Fiscal Note: Please refer to each agenda item for specific fiscal notes.
Recommendations: That the Council adopt the various resolutions and ordinances.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Resolution
50
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING VARIOUS RESOLUTIONS AND ENACTING VARIOUS ORDINANCES (2012-02-13/R-1)
7. Amend the Transit Fund, Transit Grant Fund and Transit Capital Reserve Fund. (O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, O-5)
8. Amend the 2011-2012 Police Department User Fee Schedule to Add Fees to Recover Cost of Vehicle Use for Off Duty Work. (R-2)
9. Approve Parking Restrictions on Granville Road in Response to Petition. (O-6)
10. Modify the Town’s Affordable Housing Policy. (R-3) (R-4)
11. Nominate Applicants to Various Boards and Commissions. (R-5)
This the 13th day of February, 2012. 51
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Amend the Transit Fund, Transit Grant Fund and Transit Capital Reserve Fund. (O-1, O-2, O-3, O-4, O-5)
Council Goal: Set Course for a Sustainable Fiscal Future
Background: The attached staff memorandum includes background information on various Transit funds to reflect changes and budget adjustments. Amendments to the Transit Fund, the Capital Reserve Fund and the Transit Grant Fund are needed to recognize new federal funds for operating and capital grants.
Fiscal Note: Total funds awarded for operating grants is $441,791. The Federal Transit Administration will provide $220,895 (50%) for the HS Route/Rogers Road continuation, Year-Round Evening Service, the Crosstown Senior Shuttle and the Regional Call Center. Local match of $220,896 (50%) for the operating grants has been identified within the existing FY2012 Transit Operating Fund.
An amendment is needed to appropriate the balance of matching funds from the Transit Capital Reserve Fund ($55,720) to adjust the local partner's contributions towards the express bus service to the Town of Pittsboro.
The Federal Transit Administration will provide $363,166 (80%) and $338,580 (80%) for the engineering and design of the park and ride lot. Matching funds will be requested from the State of North Carolina for both grants totaling $87,719 (10%). Local matching funds of $87,719 (10%) are available in the Transit Capital Reserve Fund.
Recommendations: That the Council enact the attached budget ordinance amendments to the Transit Fund, Transit Grant Fund and Transit Capital Reserve Fund.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Staff Memorandum Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance
52
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: K. Stephen Spade, Transit Director Kenneth C. Pennoyer, Business Management Director
SUBJECT: Transit Budget Amendment for Grants
DATE: February 13, 2012
PURPOSE
The attached budget amendments reflect changes in conditions and budget adjustments for the Transit Fund, the Transit Grant Fund and the Transit Capital Reserve Fund.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
Transit Fund
The Town has applied for and received awards for four operating grants to offset the costs of new or expanded services.
HS Route/Rogers Rd – Grant to continue providing service to the Rogers Road community and mid-day service on the HS Route. Total grant award is $84,817.
Year-Round Evening Service – Grant to provide evening service throughout the year on select routes. Total grant award is $127,374.
Cross Town Shuttle – Grant to provide a new feeder route system that provides transportation to senior citizens throughout the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area, connecting areas of high concentrations of senior citizens in high demand locations. This grant was originally funded in FY2010. CHT implemented service in January 2012 after extensive planning and public input. Total grant award is $97,600.
Regional Call Center – Grant to continue CHT’s membership in the GoTriangle Regional Call Center for two additional years. Total grant award is $132,000.
Project Grant Budget Grant Type Federal Award Local Match HS Route/Rogers Rd $ 84,817 JARC $ 42,408 $ 42,409 Year-Round Evening Service $ 127,374 JARC $ 63,687 $ 63,687 Cross Town Shuttle $ 97,600 New Freedom $ 48,800 $ 48,800 Regional Call Center $ 132,000 New Freedom $ 66,000 $ 66,000 Total $ 441,791 $ 220,895 $ 220,896
53
Total funds awarded for operating grants is $441,791. The Federal Transit Administration will provide $220,895 (50%) for the HS Route/Rogers Road continuation, Year-Round Evening Service, the Crosstown Senior Shuttle and the Regional Call Center. Local match of $220,896 (50%) for the operating grants has been identified within the existing FY2012 Transit Operating Fund.
Transit Capital Reserve Fund
The Town has received two additional earmarks for the Eubanks Road park and ride lot. Funds are currently being used for a feasibility study and preliminary engineering and design work. The attached project ordinance amendments will budget the earmark funds to continue the design work for the Eubanks Road Park and Ride Lot. The Federal Transit Administration will provide $363,166 (80%) and $338,580 (80%) for the engineering and design of the park and ride lot. Matching funds will be requested from the State of North Carolina for both grants totaling $87,719 (10%). Local matching funds of $87,719 (10%) are available in the Transit Capital Reserve Fund
In FY2010 the State of North Carolina awarded the Town federal funds from the Job Access and Reverse Commute program to provide express bus service to the Town of Pittsboro. The attached project ordinance amendment will adjust the budget to accurately reflect the grant total, to adjust the local partner’s contributions toward matching requirements, to recognize farebox revenues received and increase the project budget to allow for the farebox revenues to be spent. An amendment is needed to appropriate the balance of matching funds from the Transit Capital Reserve Fund ($55,720).
In June, 2011 the Town received a federal award to purchase tires and to upgrade its radio system. CHT has since been notified that the State’s participation would be limited to the capital portion of the radio upgrade. The attached ordinance will adjust the budget to reduce the State share by $24,375 and increase the local match by $24,375 for this grant.
Matching funds of $24,375 and $55,720 are available in the Transit Capital Reserve Fund to adjust the radio grant and the Pittsboro route grant, respectively.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council enact the attached budget ordinance amendments to make adjustments to the Transit Fund, Transit Grant Fund and Transit Capital Reserve Fund.
54
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND “THE ORDINANCE CONCERNING APPROPRIATIONS AND THE RAISING OF REVENUE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING JULY 1, 2011 (2012-02-13/O-1)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Budget Ordinance entitled “An Ordinance Concerning Appropriations and the Raising of Revenue for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2011” as duly adopted on June 13, 2011, and the same is hereby amended as follows:
ARTICLE I
Current Revised APPROPRIATIONS Budget Increase Decrease Budget
TRANSIT FUND
New Freedom Crosstown Shuttle Grant Expenses $ 0 $ 97,600 $ - $ 97,600 Demand Response 1,984,082 - (32,933) 1,951,149 Administration 967,381 - (3,120) 964,261 Maintenance 3,593,865 - (12,747) 3,581,118
New Freedom Regional Call Center Grant Expenses - 132,000 - 132,000 Fixed Route 10,157,635 - (66,000) 10,091,635
JARQ Year-Round Evening Service Grant Expenses - 127,374 - 127,374 Fixed Route 10,091,635 - (37,407) 10,054,228 Maintenance 3,581,118 - (26,280) 3,554,838
JARQ H/S Route Continuation Grant Expenses - 84,817 - 84,817 Fixed Route 10,054,228 - (22,799) 10,031,429 Maintenance 3,554,838 - (19,610) 3,535,228
55
ARTICLE II
Current Revised REVENUES Budget Increase Decrease Budget
TRANSIT FUND Other Revenues $ 19,230,709 $ - $ - $ 19,230,709 New Freedom Grant 0 48,800 - 48,800 New Freedom Grant 0 66,000 - 66,000 JARQ Grant 0 63,687 - 63,687 JARQ Grant 0 42,408 - 63,687
This the 13th day of February, 2012. 56
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND A PROJECT BUDGET FOR A TRANSIT GRANT (2012-02-13/O-2)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant projects are hereby established:
SECTION I
The Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities Discretionary Grant are federal funds awarded in FY2011 by the Federal Transit Administration.
SECTION II
The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill or his designee is hereby directed to proceed with the implementation of the project within the terms of the grant agreement executed with the Federal Transit Administration within the funds appropriated herein.
SECTION III
The revenue anticipated to be available to the Town to complete activities as outlined in the project application is amended as follows:
Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities Discretionary Grant
Current Revised Budget Budget
Federal Transit Administration $586,496 $949,662 North Carolina Department of Transportation 73,312 118,707 Transfer from Transit Capital Reserve 73,312 118,708 Total $733,120 $1,187,077
57
SECTION IV
The following amounts are hereby appropriated for the Section 5309 project:
Current Revised Budget Budget
Professional Services $ 731,612 $ 1,185,569 Postage 181 181 Printing 600 600 Advertising 547 547 Space Rental 180 180 Total $ 733,120 $ 1,187,077
This the 13th day of February, 2012.
58
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND A PROJECT BUDGET FOR A TRANSIT GRANT (2012- 02-13/O-3)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant projects are hereby established:
SECTION I
The Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities Discretionary Grant funds are federal funds awarded in FY2012 by the Federal Transit Administration.
SECTION II
The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill or his designee is hereby directed to proceed with the implementation of the project within the terms of the grant agreement executed with the Federal Transit Administration within the funds appropriated herein.
SECTION III
The revenue anticipated to be available to the Town to complete activities as outlined in the project application is amended as follows:
Section 5309 Bus and Bus-Related Facilities Discretionary Grant Current Revised Budget Budget
Federal Transit Administration $740,769 $1,079,349 North Carolina Department of Transportation - 42,322 Transfer from Transit Capital Reserve 185,193 227,516 Total $925,962 $1,349,187
SECTION IV
The following amounts are hereby appropriated for the Section 5309 project:
Current Revised Budget Budget
Professional Services $ - $ 423,225 Capital Equipment 925,962 925,962 Total $ 925,962 $ 1,349,187
This the 13th day of February, 2012. 59
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A PROJECT BUDGET FOR A TRANSIT CAPITAL GRANT (2012-02-13/O-4)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant project is hereby amended:
SECTION I
The Job Access and Reverse Commute funds are from FY2009 federal funds from an agreement between the Federal Transit Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation.
SECTION II
The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the implementation of the project within the terms of the grant agreements executed with the North Carolina Department of Transportation within the funds appropriated herein.
SECTION III
The revenue anticipated to be available to the Town to complete activities as outlined in the project application is amended as follows:
Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grant
Current Revised Budget Change Budget
Federal Transit Administration $176,356 $ (4) $176,352 Chatham Contribution 140,356 (51,356) 89,000 Pittsboro Contribution 36,000 (4,368) 31,632 Farebox Revenues 0 24,042 24,042 Transfer from Transit Capital Reserve 0 55,720 55,720
Total $352,712 $ 24,034 $376,746
60
SECTION IV
The following amounts are hereby appropriated for the FY2009 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grant project:
Current Revised Budget Change Budget
Salaries and benefits $118,606 $ 0 $118,606 Fuel 203,209 24,034 227,243 Other costs 30,897 0 30,897
Total $352,712 $ 24,034 $376,746
SECTION V
The Manager is hereby directed to report annually on the financial status of the project in an informational section to be included in the Annual Report. He shall also keep the Council informed of any unusual occurrences.
This the 13th day of February, 2012. 61
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING A PROJECT BUDGET FOR A TRANSIT CAPITAL GRANT (2012-02-13/O-5)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that, pursuant to Section 13.2 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, the following grant project is hereby amended:
SECTION I
The Urbanized Area Formula Program funds are from 2011 federal funds from an agreement with the Federal Transit Administration.
SECTION II
The Manager of the Town of Chapel Hill is hereby directed to proceed with the implementation of the project within the terms of the grant agreements executed with the Federal Transit Administration and the North Carolina Department of Transportation within the funds appropriated herein.
SECTION III
The revenue anticipated to be available to the Town to complete activities as outlined in the project application is amended as follows:
Urbanized Area Formula Program – Section 5307 (Capital)
Current Revised Budget Change Budget
Federal Transit Administration $ 1,204,000 $ - $ 1,204,000 N.C. Department of Transportation 125,000 (24,375) 100,625 Transfer from Transit Capital Reserve 176,000 24,375 200,375 Total $ 1,505,000 $ - $ 1,505,000
This the 13th day of February, 2012.
62
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Amend the 2011-2012 Police Department User Fee Schedule to Add Fees to Recover Cost of Vehicle Use for Off Duty Work. (R-2)
Background: It is the practice of the Police Department to allow citizens or businesses to hire off- duty officers for security services. Periodically, this requires the use of a police vehicle for safety purposes such as traffic direction while signals are replaced. Each use is approved by the Chief of Police. Such uses are becoming more frequent due to the number of road projects that are underway. Currently, there is no charge to the business for the use of the vehicle. As a result of the increase in fuel and maintenance costs, we can no longer sustain this service in our budget.
Fiscal Note: It is estimated that the annual fees collected for providing this service will be in the amount of $4,000.
Recommendations: That the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the revised 2011-2012 user fee schedule for the Police Department.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Fee Schedule Change Memorandum Fee Schedule Change Resolution Revised Fee Schedule Change
63
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: Chris Blue, Chief of Police
Kenneth C. Pennoyer, Business Management Dire ctor
SUBJECT: Approval of Changes to 2011-2012 Police Department User Fee Schedule
DATE: February 13, 2012
PURPOSE
The attached resolution would accept the changes to the Police Department’s User Fee Schedule to recover the costs associated with the usage of the town vehicle when requested from a third party. BACKGROUND
It is the practice of the Police Department to allow citizens or businesses to hire off-duty officers for security services. Periodically, this requires the use of a police vehicle for safety purposes such as traffic direction while signals are replaced. Each use is approved by the Chief of Police. Such uses are becoming more frequent due to the number of road projects that are underway. Currently, there is no charge to the business for the use of the vehicle. As a result of the increase in fuel and maintenance costs, we can no longer sustain this service in our budget. DISCUSSION
It is the practice of other Town departments to charge for the use of a vehicle to a third party. The Police Department is proposing to charge for this service to recover the cost of the Town services. We propose to charge a fee of $125 per vehicle per day that is requested and approved for any such assignment.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopt the attached resolution authorizing the revised 2011-2012 user fee schedule for the Police Department.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Revised User Fee Schedule for the Police Department. 64
A RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE FEE SCHEDULE ADOPTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 (2012-02-13/R-2)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts, effective February 13, 2012, the amendment to the user fee policies and schedules as adopted on June 13, 2011, as follows:
Use of Police Vehicle for Off Duty Work $125 per Day
This the 13 th day of February, 2012.
65
POLICE DEPARTMENT
FEE SCHEDULE
Fee Police Incident Reports $.10 per page Fingerprints $15.00 for 3 cards, Local Criminal History Checks $15.00 per person Mailing/Fax Fees $1.00 per document Noise Permits $50.00 each Solicitation Permits Application Fee $10.00 per person Solicitation Permits $5.00 each Permit Renewals $2.00 each Taxi Permits $20.00 each/4-yr renewal Taxi Inspection Fees $10.00 per veh. Towed Vehicle Storage (0 - 24 hours) $3.00 for the first 24 hours, Police Patch $5.00 per patch Returned Check Charge $25.00 per check
Vehicle Usage in Secondary Employment $125 per vehicle per day Available to Court Officials Only NC Driving History Checks $5.00 per subject NC Criminal History Checks $15.00 per subject
Highlight = Proposed Change 66
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Approve Parking Restrictions on Granville Road in Response to Petition. (O- 6)
Background: Several residents requested the prohibition of on-street parking on the north side of Granville Road between Cherokee Circle and Halifax Road due to safety reasons.
Fiscal Note: If the attached ordinance is enacted by the Council, Town staff will install and maintain the no parking signs. The estimated cost of the signs is $600, which would be funded from the operating budget of the Public Works Department's Traffic Engineering Division. Enforcement in this area is by complaint only unless it is of a public safety concern. The impact on Police Department is minimum.
Recommendations: That the Council enact the attached ordinance, which would prohibit parking on north sides of Granville Road for approximately 460 feet between Cherokee Place and Halifax Road.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Staff Memorandum Ordinance Area Map
67
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: Lance Norris, Public Works Director Chris Blue, Chief of Police Kumar Neppalli, Engineering Services Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Parking Restrictions on Granville Road
DATE: February 13, 2012
PURPOSE
This report was prepared in response to a request from several residents prohibiting on-street parking on the north side of Granville Road between Cherokee Circle and Halifax Road due to safety reasons.
We recommend that Council enact the attached ordinance.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The Town staff received a request from several Granville Road residents for the prohibition of on-street parking on the north side of Granville Road between Cherokee Circle and Halifax Road. The residents state that on-street parking on both sides of the road creates a safety hazard for two-way traffic due to the curvy nature of the road.
Town staff conducted field observations and noted constricted travel lanes and traffic congestion when cars parked on both sides of street. An Area map is provided in Attachment #2. Town staff then informed residents on Granville Road about their recommendation for parking restrictions on the road by way of a written letter. Only one resident opposed the recommended parking restrictions. We believe that restricting on-street parking on the north side of the road for 460 feet would improve the traffic flow and improve traffic safety conditions in the area.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council enact the attached ordinance, which would prohibit parking on the north side of Granville Road for about 460 feet between Cherokee Place and Halifax Road.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance 2. Area Map
68
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING ON-STREET PARKING (2012-02-13/O-6)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Section 21-27 of the Town Code of Ordinances, “No parking as to particular streets" is hereby amended by adding the following:
“Street Side From To
Granville Road North A point 178 feet east of A point 638 feet east of eastern curb of eastern curb of Cherokee Cherokee Circle Circle”
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective February 27, 2012.
This is the 13th day of February, 2012.
69
LYO NS RD
D
R
N
O
B
U
D
U
A
N ELLIOTT RD
D
R
S
I
T
R
U
C
N ESTES D R C CLAYTON RD
U
M
B
E
R
L
A
N
D
SURR R Y RD D
D R X A N F L I L M A A H H CHE T ROKEE CIR A H C
LL RD CASWE
GRANVILLE RD
ST R DA CE BURLAGE CIR
M
E
A
D
O
W
B
R
O
O
K
D
R
M N T L B O L L U W S O R D T LegO end O H Proposed No Parking g:/arcgis/newhome/eng/ernie stuff/traffic calming 11-12/Granville_rd Granville Road Proposed No Parking . 70
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Modify the Town’s Affordable Housing Policy. (R-3) (R-4)
Background: This report responds to a petition from the Community Home Trust submitted to the Council on January 9, 2012 requesting a change to the Town’s policy on residency requirements for affordable housing programs.
Fiscal Note: No fiscal impact identified with this request. We note that funds allocated for homeownership assistance to affordable housing agencies are provided as a grant to contribute to the long-term affordability of homes.
Recommendations: That the Council adopt the attached resolutions to:
l Modify the guidelines of the Town’s affordable housing programs to waive the residency requirement for affordable homes that have been on the market for ninety days or longer (Resolution A); and l Amend the guidelines of the Town’s Affordable Housing Fund to reflect this change (Resolution B).
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Staff Memorandum Resolution A Resolution B
71
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: J.B. Culpepper, Planning Director Loryn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Services Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Petition Regarding Modification to the Town’s Affordable Housing Policy
DATE: February 13, 2012 PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to respond to a petition from the Community Home Trust requesting a change to the Town’s policy on residency requirements for affordable housing programs.
We recommend that the Council adopt the attached resolutions to:
1. Amend the Town’s affordable housing policy to eliminate the residency requirement when a house is on the market for ninety days or more (Resolution A);
2. Amend the guidelines of the Town’s Affordable Housing Fund to reflect this policy change (Resolution B). BACKGROUND
For many years, it has been the Council’s policy to require homebuyers that receive assistance from the Town to:
1. Be first-time homebuyers; and 2. Live or work in Orange County for one year prior to receiving assistance.
This policy was developed in response to concerns that there were not sufficient affordable housing opportunities for people currently living or working in the community.
In response to a petition from the Community Home Trust to eliminate the residency requirement, in 2007 the Council amended the guidelines of the Affordable Housing Fund to include a provision that if a home is not sold after being actively marketed for ninety days, the home could be sold to a household that has lived or worked in Orange County for six months.
Also in response to a petition from the Community Home Trust, in April 2008 the Council modified its affordable housing policy for senior citizens (age sixty or older) who wish to purchase Land Trust condominiums. The first time homebuyer requirement for seniors is now waived, and in situations where a unit is not sold by the time the Town issues a Certificate of Occupancy, the residency requirement can be waived for senior citizen buyers. To date, the 72
Home Trust has utilized this provision for a senior citizen living in one condominium to purchase and move to another condominium within the development.
On January 9, 2012, the Community Home Trust submitted a petition to the Council requesting that the Council eliminate the requirement that buyers live or work in Orange County for one year prior to purchasing property when a home has been on the market for ninety days or more. DISCUSSION
The Community Home Trust is asking the Council to change its existing policy to eliminate the residency requirement after a home has been on the market for ninety days to broaden the pool of potential buyers. Specifically, there is a homeowner in the Legion Road townhome development who has not been able to sell her home for over eight months. If the requirement was eliminated, there are income-eligible buyers who have contacted the Home Trust that could qualify to purchase this home but they do not currently live or work in Orange County.
The Home Trust also states in the request that if the Council changes its policy, although the individuals currently do not live in Orange County, once they become homeowners, they would have the “opportunity to become a part of the economic, social and cultural landscape of our community.”
We support this amendment to the Town’s policy. We understand from our affordable housing partners that due to the current economy, it is more challenging to identify buyers who are able to qualify for mortgage loans. In addition, we believe that requiring a home to be on the market for ninety days prior to waiving the residency requirement continues to support the Council’s interest of giving preference to households currently living or working in Orange County.
If the Council supports this request, we recommend that the modification apply to all affordable housing units developed with funding assistance from the Town. We further recommend that the Council amend the guidelines of the Affordable Housing Fund to reflect this change. RECOMMENDATION
We recommend that the Council adopt the attached resolutions to:
1. Modify the guidelines of the Town’s affordable housing programs to waive the residency requirement for affordable homes that have been on the market for ninety days or longer (Resolution A); and
2. Amend the guidelines of the Town’s Affordable Housing Fund to reflect this change (Resolution B).
73
RESOLUTION A
A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE GUIDELINES OF THE TOWN’S AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS (2012-02-13/R-3)
WHEREAS, the Community Home Trust has requested that the Council modify its affordable housing policy;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council modifies the policy of the Town’s affordable housing programs to waive the requirement to live or work in Orange County for one year prior to receiving assistance for affordable homes that have been on the market for ninety days or more.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this policy applies to all of the Town’s affordable housing funding sources including the Community Development Block Grant Program, the Housing Loan Trust Fund, and the Affordable Housing Fund.
This the 13 th day of February, 2012.
74
RESOLUTION B
A RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE GUIDELINES OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND (2012-02-13/R-4)
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2002, the Town Council established an Affordable Housing Fund to preserve owner-occupied housing in Chapel Hill for affordable housing purposes; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill modifies the guidelines of the Affordable Housing Fund to read as follows:
“Eligible Uses
The Affordable Housing Fund may be used to:
1. Provide loans to non-profit organizations to be used to purchase existing properties. Funds may be used in the following manner: a. To exercise the Town’s right of first refusal on existing properties; b. To provide funds to non-profit organizations to purchase properties within the Chapel Hill city limits, especially in the Northside and Pine Knolls neighborhoods and in situations where the Town has a right of first refusal. Funds may be used for acquisition costs, first options, or earnest money. Funds used for first options shall be structured as a loan to the non-profit agency and must be repaid to the Town upon sale of the property to a qualified buyer. If the non-profit agency does not purchase the property, the funds must be repaid to the Town by the non-profit agency. 2. To provide funds to non-profit organizations to be used to renovate properties and prepare them for sale or rent to qualified households earning less than 80 percent of the area median income; 3. For homeownership assistance to reduce the sales price of new and existing homes so that they will become more permanently affordable; and 4. To pay the Town’s local match contribution for federal affordable housing grants; and 5. For the construction of new affordable housing for sale or rent.
Eligibility
Properties must be sold or rented to qualified households earning less than 80 percent of the median income by household size as determined by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Eligible households must live or work in Orange County for one year prior to using the Fund. If a home is not sold after being actively marketed for 90 days, the residency requirement shall be waived. homebuyers who have lived or worked in the Town of Chapel Hill or Orange County for at least six months would be eligible for assistance .
For senior citizens (age sixty or older) who wish to purchase Community Home Trust condominiums: (1) the first time homebuyer requirement would be waived; and (2) with new construction condominium projects, once the Town issues a Certificate of Occupancy for a unit, 75
the requirement that a senior citizen buyer live or work in Orange County for one year prior to purchasing the property would be waived.
Terms and Security Of Town Funds
Acquisition: Funds provided for acquisition of property shall be used to provide interest-free financing to qualified non-profit organizations. Funds shall be repaid to the Town upon sale of the property to a qualified homebuyer within 180 days of purchase.
Organizations using the Affordable Housing Fund for acquisition of property shall execute a Promissory Note and Deed of Trust to the Town for the amount of the loan. Organizations shall also execute a Performance Agreement with the Town for the use of funds. Upon sale of the property to a buyer, the Town’s funds shall be repaid and the Promissory Note and Deed of Trust will be cancelled.
Homeownership Renovation: Funds provided for renovation expenses or to reduce the sales price of homes for homeownership will be provided as a grant as long as the property is owned by an eligible household, earning less than 80 percent of the area median income. If the future resale price of the home, as determined by a resale formula, is unaffordable to a household earning less than 80 percent of the area median income, then before taking any action, the non- profit will consult with the Town Council.
Upon sale of the property to a qualified buyer, Buyers are required to execute documents that: (1) require that the property be used as the Buyers primary residence; and (2) provide a right of first refusal to the Town or a designated non-profit agency.
Rental Renovation and New Construction : Funds provided for the renovation of affordable rental property or the construction of new housing will be provided as a grant as long as the property is rented by an eligible household earning less than 80 percent of the area median income. Organizations shall also execute a Performance Agreement with the Town for the use of funds.
Permanent Affordability : Restrictive covenants and /or other related instruments must be provided which will provide, to the extent legally possible, that the properties remain affordable permanently.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that any program income from the sale of homes acquired shall be returned to the Affordable Housing Fund to finance future eligible projects.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council authorizes the Town Manager or his designee to approve specific requests for acquisition of property in accordance with the Affordable Housing Fund guidelines.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Council approval is required for requests for housing renovation or homeownership assistance in excess of $40,000.”
This the 13 th day of February, 2012. 76
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Nominate Applicants to Various Boards and Commissions. (R-5)
Council Goal: Govern with Quality, Responsiveness, Efficiency
Background: Attached are the applications that have been received for service on an advisory board, commission, or other committee. These applicants are eligible to serve. Refer to http://www.townofchapelhill.org/boards for further information regarding board composition.
Tonight, the Council may make nominations to fill vacancies on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Board of Adjustment, Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership, Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, Community Policing Advisory Committee, Greenways Commission, Human Services Advisory Board, Justice in Action Committee, Library Board of Trustees, Parks and Recreation Commission, Public Housing Program Advisory Board, Sustainability Committee, and Transportation Board. Adoption of the attached resolution would nominate the current applicants.
Following is the schedule for future appointments: l Tonight - Greenways Commission l Unscheduled - Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board, Board of Adjustment, Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership, Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission, Community Policing Advisory Committee, Human Services Advisory Board, Justice in Action Committee, Library Board of Trustees, Parks and Recreation Commission, Public Housing Program Advisory Board, Sustainability Committee, and Transportation Board
Fiscal Note: Fiscal impact not determined.
Recommendations: That the Council nominate applicants to various boards and commissions by adopting a resolution.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Resolution Applications
77
A RESOLUTION NOMINATING APPLICANTS TO VARIOUS BOARDS AND COMMITTEES (2012-02-13/R-5)
WHEREAS, the applications for service on an advisory board or commission or other committees listed below have been received; and
WHEREAS, the applicants have been determined by the Town Clerk to be eligible to serve;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the following names are placed in nomination to serve on an advisory board or commission:
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board Justice in Action Committee Lindsey Hoffer Caithrin Fenhagen Paul Ransford, Jr. Arthur Finn Tomas E. White Library Board of Trustees Board of Adjustment Kimberly Call Gary Kahn Donald Tiedeman Martha Schutz Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership Anita Badrock Parks & Recreation Commission Daniel Cefalo Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission Daniel Cefalo Planning Board Brandon James Maynard Daniel Cefalo Donald Tiedeman Community Policing Advisory Committee Anita Badrock Public Housing Program Advisory Board Caithrin Fenhagan Roger Badrock
Sustainability Committee Greenways Commission Roger Badrock Roger Badrock Lindsey Hoffer Transportation Board Paul Ransford, Jr. Gary Kahn Mirta Mihovilovic Human Services Advisory Board Gary Kahn
This the 13th day of February, 2012. 78
APPLICATIONS TO THE
ADVISORY BOARD(S)
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP ON TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL ADVISORY BOARDS
This application requests some general information based on your interest in applying for a position on a Chapel Hill Town Advisory Board, Commission, Committee or Task Force. Please type or use dark ink.
Applicant Name: Mirta Mihovilovic Date of Application: _1_/_4_/_12
Home Address: 106 Saint Andrews Lane/ Chapel Hill, NC 27517 Street Address, City, Zip Code Home Phone: 919-968-1237 Business/Other Phone: 919-684-0063
FAX Number 919-968-1237 Email Address:[email protected] In order to consider this application and provide some balance to the various boards, this personal information is required: Male: □ Female: x Race: Multi-ethnic (African American, Asian, Caucasian, Hispanic, Native American) Date of Birth: 09//09/1946 Occupation: Senior Scientist (Biochemistry/Neurosciences)
Residency within the Town limits is required for membership on most Council advisory boards and commissions. Memberships of committees and task forces may be composed of up to forty percent of non-Town residents. Do you reside within the Town Limits of Chapel Hill: Yes x No □ Length of residence in Chapel Hill: 27 years 4 months Years Months
How did you find out about this Board? (please circle or underline one) Newspaper, Email, Friend, TV, Internet, Other
The Council encourages you to visit a meeting of the board or commission that you are interested in serving on. Please indicate your preferences by number (first choice being “1”) and choose no more than three, along with category, if applicable. _____ Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board. _____ Library Board of Trustees _____ Board of Adjustment _____ Orange Water & Sewer Authority (OWASA) _____ Cemetery Advisory Board _____ Parks & Recreation Commission _____ Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership _____ Personnel Appeals Committee _____ Chapel Hill Public Arts Commission _____ Planning Board _____ Community Design Commission _____ Public Housing Program Advisory Board _____ Greenways Commission _____ Stormwater Management Utility Advisory Board _____ Historic District Commission _____ Sustainability Committee _____ Human Services Advisory Board __1__ Transportation Board
COUNCIL ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
OTHER COUNCIL COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES
___ (Please Specify): ______Category(s) if applicable: ______98 ETHICS GUIDELINES FOR TOWN ADVISORY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS (Please check if you agree.)
X Yes, if appointed, I pledge to comply with the following ethics guidelines for advisory boards and commissions as adopted by the Chapel Hill Town Council. (Other Council committees and OWASA are excluded.)
Members of advisory boards and commissions shall not discuss, advocate, or vote on any matter in which they have a conflict of interest or an interest which reasonably might appear to be in conflict with the concept of fairness in dealing with public business. A conflict of interest or a potential conflict occurs if a member has a separate, private, or monetary interest, either direct or indirect, in any issue or transaction under consideration. Any member who violates this provision may be subject to removal from the board or commission. If the advisory board or commission member believes he/she has a conflict of interest then that member should ask the advisory board or commission to be recused from voting. The advisory board or commission should then vote on the question on whether or not to excuse the member making the request. In cases where the individual member or the advisory board or commission establishes a conflict of interest, then the advisory board or commission member shall remove themselves from the voting area. Any advisory board or commission member may seek the counsel of the Town Attorney on questions regarding the interpretation of these ethics guidelines or other conflict of interest matters. The interpretation may include a recommendation on whether or not the advisory board or commission member should excuse himself/herself from voting. The advisory board or commission member may request the Town Attorney respond in writing.
Please provide a brief statement outlining why you wish to serve on the Advisory Boards, Commissions, or Committees you have indicated. I have just become aware that I am eligible to apply for one more term as member of the Board of Transportation for the Town of Chapel Hill. Because I do not drive, work full time and have become a senior citizen I represent an important and growing sector of Chapel Hillians who rely exclusively on public transit to continue living active and productive lives within our community. I care deeply about transit issues and I firmly believe that public transit should offer a good reliable service, while keeping its operating costs as low as possible. In this respect, I applaud the positive changes that are occurring within the EZ rider program. As our population ages, we should expect higher demands for public transit and I strongly feel that, for the most part, these needs should be met by a grid of fixed routes; ideally public transit should be able to serve all, providing transport to workplaces, schools, medical centers/offices, shopping centers/ malls and places of worship. A good transit grid should ultimately decrease the use of personal cars, thereby diminishing dependence on fossil fuels, cost of road maintenance and air pollution. I also believe that we need to make a serious attempt at finding the mechanisms necessary to incorporate as many students as possible (grades 6th through 12th) into the public transit system, thus cutting cost of maintaining a large fleet of school buses that are used only for a few hours each school day. In closing I would like to mention that it has been a rewarding experience to serve for more than five years as a transportation board member for the Town of Chapel Hill.
_ 1/5/2012 Applicant's Signature Required Date
Applications will be purged after two spring appointment cycles (approximately two years). Please reapply at that time if you are still interested in serving on a Board and have not yet been appointed. Please return form to: Communications and Public Affairs Department, 405 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Email [email protected] or FAX 919-967-8406 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #12 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Consider Proposed Interim Ordinance on Use of Peace and Justice Plaza. (O- 7)
Council Goal: Govern with Quality, Responsiveness, Efficiency
Background: The attached draft ordinance would codify interim regulations for use of Peace and Justice Plaza and a small area in front of the Bank of America building. The proposed regulations have been developed based on current administrative regulations that exist for Peace and Justice Plaza, but have not been applied in recent weeks.
Modifications of the administrative regulations are included in the draft ordinance to reflect concerns raised by recent events and guidance provided by recent Court decisions.
Attached is a report from the Town Attorney and Town Manager providing background and rationale for the recommended interim ordinance and acknowledging the interests in having a more general community conversation on the broader issue of civil disobedience and use of public property for the expression of political views.
Also attached is a memorandum prepared by the Police Legal Advisor providing legal analysis in support of the draft regulations.
Fiscal Note: Fiscal impact not determined.
Recommendations: That the Council make such adjustments as it deems reasonable to this draft ordinance and enact it as an interim measure to supersede the current administrative regulations and other ordinances applicable to Peace and Justice Plaza and the area near the entrance to the Bank of America building.
Once a plan has been developed for the broader discussion of these issues, this ordinance and related matters can be revisited and a more permanent set of regulations, for these locations and other public property, reflecting the community's interests, can be considered for enactment and codification in the Town Code.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Peace and Justice Report Draft Ordinance for Peace and Justice Plaza Staff Memorandum Manager's January 23 Memorandum
109
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Ralph D. Karpinos, Town Attorney
Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Use of Peace and Justice Plaza
DATE: February 13, 2012 INTRODUCTION
On January 23, the Council received by email a report from the Town Manager regarding enforcement of ordinances and policies regulating the use of public spaces, focusing on Peace and Justice Plaza. (See attachment.) The report was referred for consideration at tonight’s Council meeting.
Tonight we are providing the Council information regarding the current rules and regulations that relate to use the Town-owned Peace and Justice Plaza, the public area in front of the Post Office at the northwest corner of Franklin and Henderson Street, to facilitate the Council’s and the community’s consideration of the management of this space. We are recommending the enactment of an interim ordinance codifying a set of modified standards for this location to provide clarity for enforcement, while the Council and community begin a more extensive conversation over civil disobedience and appropriate management of such activities at this Plaza and elsewhere in Town.
The attached report from Matthew J. Sullivan, Staff Legal Advisor, provides further details on the current rules, proposed regulations and legal basis for the recommended interim ordinance. BACKGROUND
In 1979, the Town of Chapel Hill acquired this property, including the Post Office Building. Portions of the building have served as a post office, public meeting space, court room, court offices, teen center and town document storage facility over the years.
In June of 2006, the Town Council passed a resolution renaming this area the “Peace and Justice Plaza” in recognition of its historical use as a site of gatherings for citizens active in civil justice issues, for the collection of signatures on political petitions and for other events for political expression and the exchange of ideas. http://townhall.townofchapelhill.org/agendas/2006/06/12/16/naming_old_post_office_plaza.htm DISCUSSION
Peace and Justice Plaza
Peace and Justice Plaza is size-limited resource and a prime and historic location for public demonstrations. It has also been used for other non-political community activities and fund raising events such as the sale of Girl Scout cookies. The site can be in demand for competing uses for the same times and dates. In addition, it serves as the front door for a public facility used by citizens. Access to these buildings for the public needs to be maintained and on some days the area serves as a waiting area for many persons in line to enter the Orange County District Court room.
For several weeks in late 2011 and early 2012, tents were in place at Peace and Justice Plaza. Persons stayed on the site overnight and signs were posted on sign boards and on the Post Office Building itself. 110
Sanitation facilities and utility connections were not available to persons occupying the Plaza. Most of the tents were taken down in mid-January. Some remain. No effort has been made to enforce existing regulations, with which many of these activities have conflicted.
In light of recent events and the designation in 2006 of this site as Peace and Justice Plaza, the expressions of various interests from the community, and the dis-encampment of most of the occupants of this site, we believe it is appropriate at this time to revisit the current rules and regulations that are in place in regard to the use of this traditional public forum. Recent court cases from other jurisdictions and events in other communities highlight for us the importance of establishing clear rules and can inform the Council and the community of what would be reasonable regulations. Substantive Standards
As noted in Mr. Sullivan’s attached report and the recent Court decisions, there is a recognizable and reasonable governmental interest in regulating the use of public property in order to maintain and protect public safety, health and welfare.
The court decisions are clear in their pointing out that any such regulations of a traditional public forum must not be based on the content of any message being conveyed by any attendee’s or demonstrator’s exercise of their first amendment right to free speech, (within some narrow limitations, for example, a determination that the expression presents a danger to public health or safety.). Thus, whether the group seeking the space for a demonstration is advocating a view unpopular with the view held by a majority (or minority) of the community must not play a role in determining their right to use the space. In addition, we believe the Court decisions also teach us that no one should have a right to claim exclusive use of a public space thereby limiting the opportunities of others, whether seeking to express similar or directly contrary views. 1
As explained in Mr. Sullivan’s report, reasonable regulations as to the time of day, the manner (such as limits on use of amplification equipment, size of signs, size of gathering or materials brought in and allowed to be placed on site, for example) are the types of regulations found to be valid by the Courts based on the presentation of important and substantial governmental interests unrelated to the content of the expression.
Procedural Concerns
In addition to the substantive standards, as Mr. Sullivan’s report notes, the Courts have raised issues with the process by which such regulations are established and enforced. Guidance from these Court decisions shows that leaving the establishment and specificity of standards to the discretion of administrators is problematic if not unconstitutional.
1 We want to be clear regarding the need to have content-neutral regulations. This means, for example, that if the American Nazi Party asks to reserve the space on Holocaust Remembrance Day and the local Jewish community seeks the space on the same date; or if the KKK asks to reserve the space on the date of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination and the NAACP wants to reserve the space on the same date; or if the Anarchists ask to reserve the space on National Peace Officers Memorial Day; or if the “Global Warming is a Myth” Club and the Sierra Club both want the space on Earth Day, the decisions whether and how any and all of these events could be held would be solely based on the time, place and manner standards of the Town’s ordinance. These rules and decisions can not consider the content of any message being conveyed in parceling out the time and opportunity for any of the requested uses.
111
Our current policies regulating the use of this site, whether for the sale of Girl Scout cookies, a Bill of Rights Ceremony, or a public event on Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday, are located in the Town’s Administrative Procedures Manual.
We believe the rules for managing this site should be established by ordinance of the Town Council, and should be updated in light of the Council’s formal recognition of this location as the Peace and Justice Plaza, its historic use, recent events and the lessons in the recent Court decisions.
We recognize that there is considerable community interest and that an extended public conversation is desired with respect to the overall issue of how the community and police respond to civil disobedience and use of this public space as well as other public property.
However, in the meantime, based on our review of recent court decisions, we believe that because of the conflicting interests and desires for use of Peace and Justice Plaza, some interim measures should be established by the Council, rather than administrative policies, to give clear direction to the Manager for the management and regulation of the use of this special public space. We recommend, as an interim measure, the attached ordinance to establish reasonable time place and manner regulations. This ordinance would supersede, for the Peace and Justice Plaza, the administrative policies, and any conflicting provisions of the Town Code. (Because it is also presently covered by the same administrative policies and has been the site of activities smaller in scope but sometimes similar to those at Peace and Justice Plaza, we are including the small area at the entrance to Bank of America in the proposed ordinance.)
This draft has been developed based on the current standards contained in the administrative policies which up until a few weeks ago were the basis for the management and regulation of the use of this space. The policies have been modified and updated in light of what we have learned from recent Court decisions and have been reconstituted as an ordinance for the Council to consider. RECOMMENDATION
We offer this draft with the acknowledgement that the specific limitations contained therein are within the discretion of the Council to change within the legal standards established by the Courts, based on the Council’s determination of what is needed to maintain important governmental interests such as public health and safety; access to and operation of the public services within the post office building; and, the need to be able to allow use of the plaza by all persons on a content-neutral basis. 112
DRAFT ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF FRANKLIN STREET PUBLIC SPACES (2012-02-13/O-7)
Whereas, the Town of Chapel Hill has a long tradition of being a community that supports open, public discourse and the exchange of ideas, and
Whereas, the Peace and justice Plaza has for many years been a gathering place for citizens active in civil justice. Citizens have used the space to collect signatures, hold demonstrations and conduct vigils, and
Whereas, the area near the entry way to the Bank of America Plaza is also used by a number of groups and organizations for charitable fundraising and information dissemination, and
Whereas, the Peace and Justice Plaza and the entry way to the Bank of America Plaza represent limited public spaces, and
Whereas, the Town of Chapel Hill has an interest in maintaining safe and sanitary conditions and the physical appearance of these public spaces for all citizens to use and enjoy them, and
Whereas, it is in the interest of the Town of Chapel Hill to provide a system to allow for multiple groups to use these limited public spaces, and
Whereas, North Carolina General Statute § 160A,174 provides that a city may by ordinance define, prohibit, regulate, or abate acts, omissions, or conditions, detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of its citizens and the peace and dignity of the city, and may define and abate nuisances.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. This Ordinance Shall be Titled “Use of Franklin Street Public Spaces”
Section 2. Identification of Franklin Street Public Spaces
The public spaces covered by this ordinance are the area near Bank of America entry way and the Peace and Justice Plaza.
The Peace and Justice Plaza is the area in front of the Court House/Post Office Building. The area is bordered by a sidewalk to the south, a sidewalk to the east, an alley to the west and abuts the stairs and entry way to the Court House/Post Office Building. The Peace and Justice Plaza shall be separated into two sections divided by a line north to south from the front of the Post Office Court House Building through the flag pole to the sidewalk. Area 1 is the western section. Area 2 is the eastern section. See attached map. 113
Section 3. Permits Required
A permit from the Town must be issued prior to the use of a public space governed by this ordinance.
Applications for a permit are made through the Office of the Town Manager.
The original signed permit must be available at the activity site at all times.
Section 4. Regulations for the Use of Franklin Street Public Spaces
The following regulations apply to the use Franklin Street public spaces:
• Use must be by a non-profit, charitable organization. • Charitable organizations soliciting funds must remain 20 feet away from entrances to banks or automated teller machines. • Permits must be applied for 48 hours in advance of an event. • Permits will be approved for use between the hours of 10am and midnight only. • Permits will not be granted for days when special events have been scheduled, including but not limited to street fairs, parades or other special events planned for Franklin Street. • Permits will not be issued for more than six consecutive days at a time without a one- week break to the same person or organization for the same or different locations regulated by this ordinance. • Any materials brought onto the public space must be removed during non-permitted hours. • Reservations to use both the Peace and Justice Plaza and the Bank of America entry way at the same time by the same organization shall not be allowed. • Reservations to use both Area 1 and Area 2 at the Peace and Justice Plaza at the same time by the same organization shall not be allowed. • No signs or other objects may be attached to any Town-owned building or other Town structure. • Adequate ingress and egress to the Post Office Building and Bank of America Building must be maintained at all times when any permitted activities occur. The Town Manager, Building Inspector and Fire Marshall shall have the authority to direct the relocation or removal of any persons or materials determined necessary to assure this.
Section 5. Enforcement Procedures
The Town Manager may designate town employees to enforce this ordinance. These designated employees will ensuring that persons using the public spaces covered by this ordinance have the Town issued permit and comply with the regulations set forth in the previous section.
Persons who are found to be in violation of any provision of this ordinance on two or more occasions, are subject to being trespassed from the property. 114
Section 6. Penalty for Violation
Any person who violates a provision contained in section 3 or section 4 of this ordinance shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00).
Section 7. This Ordinance will become effective immediately upon enactment and supersedes, for these locations, any provisions of the Town of Chapel Hill Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual and Article IX, Chapter 11 of the Town of Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances.
This the 13 th day of February, 2012.
115
MAP OF FRANKLIN STREET PUBLIC SPACES
116
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ralph D. Karpinos, Town Attorney
FROM: Matthew J. Sullivan, Staff Legal Advisor
SUBJECT: Town Regulations Related to the Use of the Peace and Justice Plaza
DATE: February 5, 2012
PURPOSE
On January 23, 2012, the Town Manager received an e-mail on behalf of Occupy Chapel Hill/Carrboro affirming the group’s First Amendment Constitutional Rights. The e-mail indicated that the group intended to exercise these rights and demanded that the Town of Chapel Hill adhere to the Constitutional parameters when enforcing laws, codes or regulations. Our Town staff has received a number of questions concerning the use of the Peace and Justice Plaza which is located in front of the Post Office/Court Building at 179 East Franklin Street.
The Town has also received a petition to immediately repeal the ordinances contained in Chapter 11, Article IX of our Town Code. These ordinances regulate temporary outdoor activities in or near parking lots and public streets. The petitioners assert that these ordinances are unconstitutional.
The purpose of this memorandum is to outline our current regulations related to use of this Plaza, provide an overview of the current state of the law related to Constitutional First Amendment protections and to recommend options for regulatory policy that respects the First Amendment rights of any group using the public space.
OVERVIEW OF THE PEACE AND JUSTICE PLAZA
The Town of Chapel Hill has a long tradition of being a community that supports open, public discourse and the exchange of ideas. The Plaza located in front of the Downtown Post Office, located at 179 East Franklin Street, has for many years been a gathering place for citizens active in civil justice. Citizens have used the space to collect signatures, hold demonstrations and conduct vigils. In June of 2006, the Town Council passed a resolution renaming the “Old Post Office Plaza” the “Peace and Justice Plaza”.
The Peace and Justice Plaza space is utilized by a number of community groups including Girl Scout Troops, Elders for Peace, The Orange County Literacy Coalition, The NAACP and Veterans’ groups. During 2011, the Town Clerk’s Office recorded 31 days where the space was reserved through our current permit process. The Plaza is also adjacent to the main access points for both the Downtown Post Office and the Chapel Hill Courthouse.
117
CONSTITUTIONAL FIRST AMENDEMENT PROTECTIONS
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects rights fundamental to individual freedom and democratic participation. A core tenet of the First Amendment is the freedom of expression which includes the written and spoken word as well as conduct or activities that are undertaken to convey a message. In addition to its free expression protections, the First Amendment also guarantees individuals the right to associate and gather for lawful purposes, to petition and bring grievances to the government, and to seek redress for the grievances. While First Amendment protections are an integral component to our free society, these freedoms are not absolute. When Government takes any action that abridges a First Amendment right, the action is subject to judicial review according to standards set forth by the United States Supreme Court. The nature and type of review is dependent upon the type of regulation or restriction. Regarding First Amendment protected activity, Town of Chapel Hill regulations related to the use of the Peace and Justice Plaza are not related to the suppression of a particular message or viewpoint. Therefore, they are “content neutral.” These regulations do, however, have the impact of limiting free speech activity so they are subject to additional scrutiny by the court.
The United States Supreme Court has held that the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions satisfy the following criteria: “justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information”. Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence , 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984). Later Court decisions have provided additional guidance about the reasonableness of time, place and manner restrictions as related to content neutral governmental regulation. Additionally, courts have found that there is a substantial governmental interest in regulating the use of public property for First Amendment expression as well as other uses in order to maintain and protect public safety, health and welfare. (See Clark cited above.)
Examples of reasonable restrictions include: (1) designating locations for persons to engage in First Amendment activity that do not impede traffic, (2) prohibiting structures from being erected on the site, (3) limiting the use of amplification equipment and regulating the placement, and (4) size of signs.
In recent months, litigation related to government regulation of public space has been initiated by several Occupy groups across the Country. This litigation has resulted in several initial rulings by Federal District Courts. Since the cases have not been filed within North Carolina or in courts that have binding authority over this state, the rulings only provide persuasive guidance on how to proceed with Town regulations. A summary of several of these cases is included as an attachment to this memorandum.
RECENT USE OF THE PEACE AND JUSTICE PLAZA
While other groups continue to use the Plaza, the most visible and sustained use within recent months has been by the Occupy Chapel Hill group. From October 15, 2011 to January 10, 2012, 118
Occupy Chapel Hill maintained constant occupancy of the Peace and Justice Plaza public space. The occupancy consisted of multiple tents, a food preparation area and library/literature distribution area. Members of the Occupy group maintained a 24 hour presence at the plaza demonstrating, displaying signs, holding meetings and using the tents for both shelter and sleeping. Individuals also slept outside of the tents on the plaza and on the front steps of the Post Office/Court Building. This type of use of the Peace and Justice Plaza represented a new phenomenon for the Town of Chapel Hill and presented a number of unique and unanticipated challenges that Town staff had not previously encountered. This experience has been common to a number of municipalities across the Country.
The Occupy Chapel Hill website states that group is part of the larger Occupy movement that includes the Occupy Wall Street and over 1000 other Occupy groups across the country. The movement has several goals which include redressing social and economic injustices and the creation of an economic and political system that recognizes shared humanity. (http://occupychapelhill.org/ )
When the Occupy Chapel Hill movement began occupying the public space at the Peace and Justice Plaza in October 2011, the Town opted to observe and monitor the area without actively enforcing some of the Town regulations (both administrative rules and Town Code), including requiring permits for use of the space, limiting the length of time the space could be used by the same organization, banning camping or otherwise remaining on the property overnight. The Town also did not actively enforce regulations related to smoking in front of the Post Office/Court Building and affixing signs to public buildings. The Town maintained an open and constructive dialog with the Occupy Group at the Peace and Justice Plaza. This tolerant approach provided staff with the time to evaluate the situation and to engage in informed decision making related to how to manage the space moving forward.
Even though, the Occupy Chapel Hill movement formally discontinued their use of the Plaza, a small group of individuals continues to sleep and maintain tents on the Plaza. It is unclear if these individuals are part of the formal Occupy Chapel Hill group, are members of another Occupy group, represent an interest different from the Occupy group, or have simply set up a camp site at the Plaza. Occupy Chapel Hill continues to hold regular “general assemblies” at the Peace and Justice Plaza three days a week.
Continuous occupancy at the Peace and Justice Plaza and these regular assemblies have had multiple impacts upon the community and space. These impacts include impeded access to the Court House and Post Office Facility, limiting the opportunity for other groups to utilize the site, concerns about health and sanitation, as well as several public safety concerns. In addition, we have recently received concerns that, while occupying the Plaza, the Occupy Movement welcomed members of the homeless population and individuals with mental illness into their group and allowed them to stay with them at the Plaza. This support system disappeared, however, when the Occupy Chapel Hill group departed the Plaza on January 10, 2012, leaving these individuals behind without any support.
Based on these recent events and the need to have a shared understanding of how the Plaza will be used in the future, the Town Manager, in a January 18, 2012 e-mail to Council members, expressed an interest in ensuring that Town Ordinances, policies and procedures regulating the 119
use of Town spaces and facilities are enforced by Town Staff to the extent possible. Without clear direction from the Council as to their interest in such enforcement, staff, undoubtedly, will continue to be confronted with enforcement dilemmas.
REGULATIONS RELATED TO PEACE AND JUSTICE PLAZA USE
Regulations and procedures related to the use of the Peace and Justice Plaza are located in Section 5.6(f) of the Town of Chapel Hill Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual. These regulations were developed and implemented during the tenure of former Town Manager W. Calvin Horton and prior to the designation by the Town Council of the site as Peace and Justice Plaza. They have not been revised since Roger Stancil became Town Manager.
Chapel Hill has historically been a place where streets and sidewalks are available for general public use for a number of activities, including parades, fairs, charitable fundraising, peaceful protest and temporary outdoor activities under these administrative regulations. The area that encompasses the Peace and Justice Plaza may be reserved by applying for a permit from the Town. The Peace and Justice Plaza area, which many groups desire to utilize, has been divided into two sections in an effort to accommodate requests from multiple groups for the same time periods. Permits are issued subject to the following criteria:
• Use must be by a non-profit, charitable organization. • Charitable organizations soliciting funds must remain 20 feet away from entrances to banks or automated teller machines.
• Permits must be applied for 48 hours in advance of an event. • Permits will be approved for use between the hours of 10am and 6pm only. • Permits for nighttime use will not be issued. • Permits for Sundays will not be issued. • Permits will not be granted for days when special events have been scheduled, including but not limited to street fairs, parades or other special events planned for Franklin Street.
• Permits will not be issued for more than six consecutive days at a time (excluding Sundays) without a one-week break to the same person or organization, in order to allow spaces to be used by various groups.
• The requirement for submittal of a permit application 48 hours in advance of an event shall not apply when in the judgment of the Mayor or Town Manager the space is needed to hold a community observance in response to events of Town-wide concern or importance; such events were either not expected or were of such a nature that the timing of the events could not be predicted 48 hours in advance.
• Where such an observance is proposed under circumstance set forth in the preceding paragraph, if space is available at one of the locations regulated by this policy, 120
it may be used by the displaced permit holder. If spaces regulated under the policy are already reserved for other activities, the Manager shall work with the group proposing to hold an event to identify alternative temporary space in the downtown area that will allow the event to be held. If the event attracts attendance larger than the alternative space can properly accommodate, the Manager shall work with the group to relocate the event to a larger space better suited for the event. • In order to provide greater opportunity for groups to use the limited spaces available, reservations to use more than one location at the same time by the same organization shall not be permitted.
• As a general rule, once space is reserved through the procedure established by the policy, the Town will not take the space away from the group making the reservation for the use by another non-profit organization. However in the discretion of the Mayor or Town Manager, a space reservation under this policy by a private non-profit organization may be revoked without notice if needed to accommodate an unscheduled and unanticipated Town-sponsored event.
To apply for a permit, applicants must complete a single page “Franklin Street Use Form” and submit the form to the Manager’s Office. Once approved, the “Franklin Street Use Form” serves as the permit. The original permit must be maintained at the activity site at all times. The Town Manager is not afforded any discretion in issuing permits, provided that the group seeking authorization complies with the criteria listed above.
It is important to distinguish the “Franklin Street Use Permit” from a Town of Chapel Hill “Outdoor Special Event Permit”. Outdoor Special Events are held for recreational, cultural, entertainment or community life purposes. Outdoor Special Event applications are coordinated through the Parks and Recreation Department and involve approvals through multiple Town departments. Non-commercial free speech activities do not require the issuance of “Outdoor Special Event Permits”, however, reservation of Town facilities is required to avoid any conflicts with other events.
RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE TOWN CODE OF ORDINACES
In addition to the regulations related to use of the Peace and Justice Plaza, several sections from the Town of Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances also govern use of public spaces.
Chapter 11, Article IX, is designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens participating in, attracted to or in the vicinity of a temporary outdoor activity in or near parking lots or public streets. These outdoor activities are likely to involve persons standing in areas normally used for traffic areas or where fifteen (15) or more persons, at one time are attracted to, walking near or standing at one time near vehicular traffic or parking. The ordinance requires that a permit be issued for any temporary activity. These permits are issued upon approval after being reviewed for compliance with established health, safety and public welfare standards. For 121
activities that are conducted on the Peace and Justice Plaza, the Franklin Street Use Permit meets the requirements of the Ordinance.
Chapter 17, Article I, Section 3, sets a twelve (12) hour daylight limit for the amount of time cases, bags, containers, or goods going in and/or out of any building can remain on the sidewalk.
Chapter 11, Article IV, allows for peaceful picketing on sidewalks and other public property. The ordinance defines picketing as a demonstration or vigil on sidewalks or other public property reserved for pedestrian use.
DISCUSSION OF CHAPEL HILL’S SPECIFIC REGULATION
As mentioned previously, Chapter 11, Article IX of the Town of Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances, regarding Temporary outdoor activities and the related permitting process related to the use of Franklin Street public spaces, are not related to the suppression of a particular message or viewpoint. Therefore, they are “content neutral.” These regulations do, however, have the impact of limiting free speech activity so they are subject to additional scrutiny by the court. Based on the nature of complaints the Town has received regarding the use of the Plaza, there appear to be two primary issues regarding the constitutionality of the regulations: the requirement that users of Franklin Street public space obtain a permit that lasts for six consecutive days, and the time and day limitations. Each will be addressed separately below.
The requirement that users of Franklin Street public space obtain a permit and limiting the permit to six consecutive days.
The Peace and Justice Plaza space is a limited public resource. The requirement that a permit be issued prior to use serves a significant interest in affording multiple groups the opportunity to utilize this limited public resource. Issuing permits for only six consecutive days ensures that other groups have access to the space to express another or different message. Currently a one week break is required between usages by the same group. The requirement could be narrowed to allow the group an opportunity to renew its permit in the event that the Plaza space has not been reserved by another organization. Allowing continued use by a single entity without providing an opportunity for other groups to utilize the space could have the impact of actually limiting speech as other groups could be deprived of the traditional public forum to express other messages.
In addition, the permit identifies a contact person for the group. Having this contact person is important for the Town to be able to coordinate use or make contact with the group in the event that something occurs that might impact the group’s use of the public space. Examples might include threats made toward the group by an unknown entity or a community observance or vigil called by Mayor or Manager. In the event of displacement, our policy requires that the Manager work with the group to identify alternate space to meet their needs.
122
Moreover, the permit process is not unduly burdensome and is designed to ensure that the Town only obtains the essential information it needs to coordinate use of the space. As mentioned in an earlier section of this Memorandum, the permit application is a single page document that only requires contact information, the date of use and the type of activity.
Therefore, the requirement to obtain a permit is narrowly tailored to meet the above mentioned governmental interest and regulation leaves open multiple alternate means for communicating messages.
Time and day limitations within our current permit regulations.
The current permit regulations limit activity at the Peace and Justice Plaza to the hours of 10am to 6pm, Monday through Saturday. Under the current regulatory scheme, permits are not issued for nighttime use or for Sunday. I am of the opinion that as currently defined, these day and hour regulations may not be narrowly tailored enough to meet a substantial governmental interest.
The Town of Chapel Hill has a significant interest in maintaining the cleanliness and sanitary conditions, on and around, the Peace and Justice Plaza. To meet this interest, the Town’s Public Works Department needs access to the area to inspect the condition and to perform routine cleaning and maintenance work, such as sweeping and pressure washing. It is in the interest of the Town of Chapel Hill to maintain this important landmark to the highest standards possible for use and enjoyment of the entire community.
To comply with Constitutional standards, I recommend that the prohibition on Sunday events be temporarily suspended until we have an opportunity to engage our community in further discussion related to the use of public spaces. In addition, I recommend that the permitted ending time be extended from 6 pm to midnight daily allowing for groups to express their message during a larger portion of the day while reserving time for our Public Works Department to maintain the area. These temporary standards leave open ample alternative mechanisms for groups to express their messages.
The Manager or Mayor Override
While no group has complained about the constitutionality of the ability of the Manager or Mayor to reject an applicant, based on my review of the case law, by allowing the Mayor or Manager to substitute one group for another would create the opportunity for arbitrary and capricious decisions, that would possibly fail to meet constitutional muster. Under the current regulations, the requirement for submittal of a permit application 48 hours in advance of an event does not apply “when in the judgment of the Mayor or Town Manager the space is needed to hold a community observance in response to events of Town-wide concern or importance when such events were either not expected or were of such a nature that the timing of the events could not be predicted 48 hours in advance.” The regulations also allow for displacement of a group which has previously reserved the space to an alternate space in the downtown area. A concern 123
with this regulation is that it places either the Town Manager or the Mayor in the position of making the decision that could support one message over another. While this is not “unbridled discretion” which would be clearly unconstitutional, this policy is one that should be further discussed with our community. I recommend that this component of the regulation be temporarily suspended until we can conduct additional research and find an alternative method that meets this interest.
RECOMMENDATIONS
I believe that it is important to engage our community in a discussion concerning these regulations in an effort to develop a policy and set of regulations that satisfy constitutional standards and reflect community interests. I am attaching a draft ordinance that would serve as a temporary set of regulations governing the use of Franklin Street public space. This ordinance codifies what I think are the constitutional elements of our current regulations, eliminates those questionable rules, and would allow us to ensure that all persons have an opportunity to utilize this limited public resource while a larger discussion is conducted to determine a more long term strategy and set of ordinances.
124
Synopsis of Recent Cases
Occupy Fort Myers, et al. v. City of Fort Meyers. United States District Court M.D. Florida, Fort Meyers Division (Nov. 15, 2011)
United States District Court Judge, John E. Steele, issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the City of Fort Myers from enforcement of City Ordinance that requires permits for any parade or procession conducted upon city streets and for any open-air public meeting held on public property. The Court also enjoined enforcement of a portion of a park hour ordinance that gave the Parks and Recreation Director the authority to extend hours for specific activities. In addition the Court enjoined enforcement of sections of an ordinance that made it unlawful to “protractedly lounge” on seats, benches or other areas and prohibited “behavior tending to a breach of the public peace”
Occupy Minneapolis, et al. v. County of Hennepin, et al.. United States District Court, D. Minnesota (Nov. 23, 2011)
This case involved the occupation of two public plazas adjacent to the Hennepin County Government Center. The occupation began on October 7, 2011 and involved activities similar to those conducted during the occupation of our Peace and Justice Plaza. Prior to the occupation the County did not have any written procedures in place relating to assembly on the plaza space for indefinite time periods. It did however have unwritten policies precluding persons from sleeping on the plaza, storing personal items there, affixing signs there and from chalking buildings or other structures. Despite being told not to erect tents on the site and that the use of cooking equipment was prohibited the occupiers violated the restrictions. The County initially did not enforce some of the policies to avoid confrontation with the occupiers.
On November 8, 2011 the County cut off power to the site that had been used by the occupiers to stream their activities and the occupation over the internet. On the same day the County passed a resolution prohibiting certain activities at the Plazas including posting signs and posters not related to County business, leaving unattended items and sleeping.
The Court concluded that the electricity cut-off did not violate the First Amendment as the First Amendment does not guarantee access to property for speech activities because it is government owned. In addition the Court concluded that the County had a significant interest in “controlling the aesthetic appearance of” the Plazas. The Court further ruled that while erecting tents and 125
sleeping on public property could constitute protected expression, the resolutions ban on sleeping and on erecting tents and similar structures was a valid time place and manner restriction.
The Court enjoined the County from enforcing the sign ban as the plain meaning of the resolution suggested that sign content approved by the County was permissible while other content was not.
E. Davidovich, D. Lynch and J. Kenny v. City of San Diego. United States District Court, S.D. California (Dec. 1, 2011)
The Plaintiffs, members of the San Diego Occupy group, engaged in an occupation at the Civic Center Plaza in downtown San Diego. On November 17, 2011 they filed an action seeking a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction, Permanent Injunction and Declaratory Relief alleging that a San Diego Municipal Code section that prohibited “Unauthorized Encroachments” was unconstitutional. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the City selectively enforced the regulation. The Code section in question provides that it is unlawful for any person to erect, place, allow to remain, construct, establish, plant or maintain any vegetation or object on any public street, alley, sidewalk, highway or other public property or public right of way.
The Court evaluated the time, place and manner reasonableness of the regulation. The Court also considered arguments that the regulation was overbroad and vague. The Court determined that the Plaintiff’s failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their action and denied the application.
James Freeman, Diane Messer and Occupy Augusta v. John E. Morris, Maine Comm’r of Public Safety. United States District Court, District of Maine (Dec. 9, 2011)
Occupy Augusta began occupation of the Capitol Park in Augusta Maine on October 15, 2011. Occupy’s acts included many different acts including camping, holding general assemblies and eating and drinking on site. The Court evaluated three particular facets of the occupancy; the tent city, overnight camping and the use of fire and other heating equipment on site. The Court found that twenty four occupation including overnight camping was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. However the Court also found that the State’s permit requirement, closing hours regulation and no camping rule were narrowly tailored to further the significant government interests of public safety and therefore reasonable time place and manner restrictions. The Court expressed the State had an interest coordinating multiple uses of the space and in ensuring the park was preserved and available for all people.
Occupy Columbia; Walid Hakim; Et al. v. Nikki Haley, Governor of South Carolina; State of South Carolina; et al. US District Court D. South Carolina, Columbia Division (Dec. 16, 2011) 126
Occupy Columbia began staging its protests on the South Carolina State House grounds in October 2011. During its first week of occupation, a member of the group approached the appropriate agency to determine whether the protesters required a permit. The agency’s employee informed the liaison that they would need a permit, especially if they intended to use electrical outlets. The employee also provided the liaison with a document that outlined the conditions for using the State House grounds, which included the following statement: “Activities will not be scheduled beyond […] 6:00 p.m. on the grounds unless special provisions in writing have been made to extend the time.” The liaison asked the employee if the protesters would be able to remain on the grounds after 6 p.m., to which the employee responded, “probably not.” Additionally, no application for a permit was publicly available as the State had not created a licensing or permit process for use of the State House Grounds. The South Carolina Code contains a provision that allows for the State Budget and Control Board to pass regulations that impose restrictions on use of the State House Grounds to ensure the protection of public health, safety and welfare but the Board had not passed any regulations prior to this point. Occupy Columbia did not receive any special provisions in writing, but alleged that they had been given permission to sleep under a portico during inclement weather.
On November 16, 2011, the Governor of South Carolina announced in a press conference that the Occupy group was required to leave the grounds by 6 p.m. every night and could return at 6 a.m. every morning. The Governor then requested assistance from the Department of Public Safety and Chief of Police “in removing any individual associated with the Occupy Columbia group, as well as his or her belongings, who remains on the Statehouse grounds after 6 p.m. without written authorization from the Budget and Control Board”. Nineteen protestors were arrested however all charges were dismissed on December 1, 2011.
Occupy Columbia initially filed an action in State Court seeking temporary relief to enjoin the State from interfering with the 24 hour occupation, including sleeping, of the State House grounds. The Court granted the preliminary injunction stating that the Plaintiff’s made a clear showing that they were likely to succeed on the merits in challenging the unwritten policy prohibiting camping and sleeping on the State House grounds. The Court noted in this decision that by the injunction it was not “allowing the State House to become a campground” but was “merely enjoining Defendants from making up rules that do not comport with the First Amendment as a knee-jerk response to Plaintiffs’ occupation”. 127
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Enforcement of Ordinances and Policies Regulating Use of Public Spaces
DATE: January 23, 2012
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to explain the various ordinances, policies and procedures in place that regulate the use of public spaces and our plans for enforcement of these regulations.
BACKGROUND
Ordinances: The Town of Chapel Hill Code of Ordinances includes two Articles directly related to temporary outdoor activities in or near parking lots, public streets and sidewalks. Chapter 11, Article IX, attached in its entirety, defines a temporary outdoor activity as any activity:
including outdoor displays, exhibitions, carnivals, fairs, sales, neighborhood block parties, and similar activities which involve, or are likely at some time to involve, persons standing in an areas normally used for a vehicular traffic lane or lanes, or fifteen (15) or more persons attracted to or walking or standing at one time near vehicular traffic or parking; but excluding street fairs and similar events for which the council approves closing the streets to vehicular traffic.
The Article further states that any outdoor activity meeting this definition shall be prohibited unless a permit for said activity is approved by the Town Manager or his designee upon determination of compliance with a certain set of standards and conditions.
Chapter 17, Article I establishes a time limit for leaving goods, etc., on Town streets and sidewalks. The Article states that no cases, bags, or other containers or goods in any shape going in and/or out of any building shall remain on any sidewalk or public street longer than twelve (12) hours daylight.
Town of Chapel Hill Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual: In addition to these ordinances, the Town further regulates the use of Town streets and sidewalks through its adopted Administrative Policies and Procedures. Specifically, Section 5.6f, “Use of Town Streets and Sidewalks,” attached in its entirety, states that some streets and sidewalks are available for general public use for temporary outdoor activities. The policy states that arrangements for such use must be made through the Manager’s Office or Police Department. Several areas on East Franklin Street, including the area directly in front of the Post Office/Court Building, may be 128
reserved for use by non-profit, charitable organizations through a permit application subject to approval by the Town Manager or his designee.
Request for such use must meet a number of criteria, including:
• Use must be by a non-profit, charitable organization. • Permits must be applied for 48 hours in advance of an event. • Permits will be approved for use between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. only. • Permits for nighttime use will not be issued. • Permits for Sundays will not be issued. • Permits will not be granted for days when special events have been scheduled, including but not limited to street fairs, parades, or other special events planned for Franklin Street. • Permits will not be issued for more than six consecutive days at a time (excluding Sundays) without a one-week break to the same person or organization, in order to allow spaces to be used by various groups.
Other Policies and Procedures : In addition to streets, sidewalks and areas in the vicinity of parking lots, there are a number of public spaces and Town facilities available for use by the general public. These include but are not limited to the Chapel Hill Community Center, Wallace Parking Deck, Community Rose Garden, athletic playing fields, and various picnic shelters located throughout the Town. In order for the public to rent or otherwise use these spaces, they must adhere to specific facility rental policies and procedures, and pay any applicable rental fees. Such policies require that rental applications be received at least two weeks in advance of the intended date of use unless otherwise approved by the facility specialist (see Attachment 3 for an example). Guidelines for availability and restrictions vary based on the particular venue, but all have an established set of hours during which the spaces can be used. The latest any of these public spaces can be used by the public is 11:00pm, and camping or staying overnight at any park is prohibited except with written permission from the Parks and Recreation Director.
DISCUSSION
When the Occupy Chapel Hill/Carrboro Movement began occupying the public space at the Peace and Justice Plaza in October 2011, we opted to observe and monitor the area without actively enforcing some of the aforementioned regulations, including requiring permits for use of the space, limiting the length of time the space could be used by the same organization, and banning camping and staying on public property overnight. We also did not actively enforce regulations related to smoking in front of the Post Office/Court Building and affixing signs to public buildings.
The Occupy Movement vacated the Peace and Justice Plaza on January 10, 2012. The group’s decision to vacate the Plaza presents a timely opportunity for us to consider enforcement of adopted ordinances and established policies and procedures regulating the use of the Peace and Justice Plaza and all other public spaces and facilities. 129
CONCLUSION
The Town’s relationship with the Occupy Chapel Hill/Carrboro Movement has been positive and a constructive dialogue has been established with the group that we expect will continue into the future despite their lack of long-term presence at the Peace and Justice Plaza. Moving forward, I plan to ensure that all adopted ordinances and established policies and procedures regulating the use of public spaces and facilities, including but not limited to those mentioned in this report, are enforced by Town staff to the extent possible. If the Town Council needs additional information, has a different view or desires to review and possibly amend any of the existing regulations, we will add an item to a future agenda so that you can provide further guidance. 130
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Consider Proposed Modifications to the Towing Ordinance. (R-6) (O-8)
Background: During a November 14, 2011 public hearing, the Town Council received input from a number of citizens regarding proposed changes to the Town's Towing Ordinance. The public hearing was called after Town staff received a series of citizen complaints about towing in the central business district. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council discussed key interests and posed additional questions. Since the public hearing, staff have conducted additional research responsive to the questions asked by Council and have engaged stakeholders in additional discussion about the issue.
Fiscal Note: No fiscal impact identified at this time.
Recommendations: That the Council enact the ordinance to amend the regulations that govern towing from private lots, and adopt the attached resolution amending the fee schedule, effective on May 1, 2012, as noted.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Towing Response Memorandum Towing Ordinance Proposed Police Towing Fee Resolution 6-2 Maps Public Hearing Towing Nov. 2011 May 2011 Towing Report 2011 Towing Memorandum
131
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: Christopher C. Blue, Chief of Police
Matthew Sullivan, Police Legal Advisor
SUBJECT: Proposed Modifications to the Towing Ordinance
DATE: February 13, 2012
PURPOSE
Enacting the attached ordinance would modify the tow ordinance to include the following changes/provisions:
• Expands the application of the towing ordinance to apply to any private property used for non-residential purposes. • Allows towing fees to be modified as part of the annual fee schedule adoption. • Requires tow companies to accept multiple forms of payment including credit cards. • Requires that the storage lot be located no further than 15 miles from the Chapel Hill town limits. • Incorporates a system of graduated fines for repeated violations of the ordinance. • Requires tow operators to provide an informational handout to individuals towed or hooked when their vehicles are released. • Requires that one sign be placed at every third parking space in addition to the signage in the current ordinance. Explicit language is required on the signs if the property owner adopts a policy where the vehicles are subject to immediate towing when the vehicle operator steps off the property.
BACKGROUND
The Town of Chapel Hill began regulating towing from private lots located in zoning districts TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 in March of 2002 and, in 2008, the ordinance was amended to include additional regulations.
During a November 14, 2011 Public Hearing, the Town Council received input from a number of citizens regarding proposed changes to the Town's Towing Ordinance. The public hearing was called after Town staff received a number of citizen complaints about towing in the central business district. At the conclusion of the public hearing, Council discussed key interests and posed additional questions. Since the public hearing, staff has conducted additional research responsive to the questions asked by Council Members and has engaged stakeholders in additional discussion about the issue. 132
This report contains responses to those questions and makes recommendations regarding changes to the Town of Chapel Hill Towing Ordinance that meet the multiple interests and problems that have been identified.
OVERVIEW OF OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS
Our current ordinances regulate non-residential, private property towing in zoning districts TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3. These zoning districts encompass our Central Business District Downtown Chapel Hill. The current ordinance can be found in Chapter 11, Article XIX of the Town Code. Key components of the ordinance are as follows.
1. Required Signage Property owners must post appropriate signage on their property that notifies individuals that vehicles are subject to being towed. These signs must be no less than twenty-four inches by twenty-four inches in size and no larger than four square feet. Signs must contain specific language and be located prominently at each entrance to the property. The signs must also contain the name and 24-hour telephone number of the tow company.
2. Release of Vehicles Calls made to the tow company’s posted telephone number must be answered by a person and a person with the authority and ability to release the vehicle must respond to the location of the vehicle within thirty minutes of a call. If a vehicle owner gets to the vehicle prior to it being towed from the private property, the tow operator is required to release the vehicle and may charge a fifty dollar fee.
3. Notification to the Police Department Within thirty minutes after a vehicle has been placed at a storage site, the tow truck operator who removed the vehicle is required to report by telephone to the Chapel Hill Police Department that the vehicle has been removed, a license tag number and description of the vehicle, and its present location.
4. Towing Fees The towing fee for a vehicle towed under the ordinance is limited to one hundred dollars. The tow company is also allowed to charge twenty dollars per day as a storage fee. However, no storage fee may be charged for the first twenty four hours. Tow operators are required to provide a receipt at the time payment is made.
5. Penalties for Violation Tow operators face both civil and criminal penalties for violations of this ordinance. Civil penalties are fifty dollars for the first offense; one hundred dollars for the second offense 133
within a twelve-month period; and two hundred fifty dollars for each offense when the offense is the third or subsequent offense within a twelve-month period.
COUNCIL INPUT AND QUESTIONS
At the conclusion of the November 14, 2011 public hearing, Council members discussed a number of key issues related to the towing regulations. Several Council members also posed additional questions for staff to address in this response.
Council Question regarding specific numbers and locations of tows within the Central Business District
Tables A and B of this report contain a listing of private property tows in TC 1, 2 and 3 for the years 2010 and 2011. Over the two years, six companies towed from 26 parking lots within the area covered by our tow ordinance. It is important to note that this may not be a complete data set as it was compiled from the tow log which is maintained at the Police Department. Under the current ordinance, tow operators must notify the Police Department within thirty minutes after a vehicle has been placed at a storage site. As discussed during the November 14, 2011 hearing, tows on the tow log do not represent all the towing from our central business district as vehicle owners sometimes pick up their vehicles before the vehicle is placed in storage for 30 minutes. In 2010, there were 550 tows recorded on the log. In 2011, 673 tows were reported. While this is an incomplete data set, we do believe that it demonstrates that a substantial amount of towing is being done in our central business district with complaints originating from primarily two locations.
Council Question regarding the perspective of business owners about this issue
Several Council members expressed interest in hearing from business owners regarding their perspectives related to towing and unlawful parking. Council members inquired as to the underlying business relationships between the tow companies and property owners. Staff has met with representatives from the Downtown Partnership and the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce to discuss the issues that were raised during the public hearing. Both organizations have solicited feedback from their constituents and are prepared to make comments regarding the feedback they have received. We were unable to locate information concerning the underlying business relationships between tow companies and property owners. We have received anecdotal information that the only underlying agreement in most cases is that a property owner gives a tow company authority to tow from the parking lot and that the property owner is responsible for determining the tow policy for the property.
Council Question regarding the use of Wheel Clamps or “Boots” rather than towing from private property 134
We do not believe that requiring the use of wheel clamps or “boots” meets the interest of the private property owners in maintaining open parking spaces for customers. These devices have application when enforcing violations in larger parking lots and by municipalities when seeking to collect overdue parking fines. In both of these cases, there are additional parking options available for other vehicles to use while the immobilized vehicle remains in place. An individual property owner could decide to use boots rather than towing from the lot when determining their tow policy for a specific location.
Council Question regarding the use of technology to manage the towing system
We do not believe that there is a need for a third-party technology management solution at this time. While there are companies that will allow residents to register and subsequently track their vehicle if towed, our current ordinance requires signs at the site of the tow which provide contact information for the tow company. One proposed change to the ordinance will require the tow company to immediately notify the Police Department upon the initial hook-up of the vehicle being towed. Therefore, a resident who returns to find their vehicle gone need only make a call to the Police Department or the tow company contracted for that lot to determine the whereabouts of their vehicle.
Council Interests identified during the public hearing
The following interests were identified by Council members during the November 14 th , 2011 public hearing. These interests have been incorporated into the revised draft ordinance.
• Requiring tow companies to accept multiple forms of payment including credit cards. This is included in the draft ordinance. • Not increasing tow or storage fees. However several Council members were open to reviewing the fee schedule at a later date and on a regular basis to consider fee adjustments related to increased business costs. The fee increase is not included in the revised draft ordinance. • Limiting the distance between the Chapel Hill city limits and tow storage lots and enhancing safety at the tow storage lots. The initial draft ordinance incorporated minimum public safety requirements for tow storage lots. The revised draft includes a provision that requires the storage lot be located no further than 15 miles from the Chapel Hill town limits. • Increasing fines and incorporating a system of graduated fines for violations. A system of graduated fines is incorporated into the revised draft ordinance. • Incorporating a mechanism for revoking the business licenses of repeat violators. The Chapel Hill Town Code contains a provision in Chapter 10 (Section 10-18) that allows for the revocation of any license issued by the revenue collector upon a finding by the Council that the licensee has willfully or persistently violated any ordinance of the Town, or any laws of the State, or that such licensee is conducting his business in a fraudulent or 135
unlawful manner or is abusing his license. We believe that the use of this existing mechanism will meet the interest of addressing repeat violators. • Ensuring that individuals towed receive information about the tow ordinance. The revised draft ordinance requires tow operators to provide an information handout to individuals towed or hooked when their vehicles are released. This handout, which will be created by Town staff, will outline the tow regulations and provide citizens with information on the process to follow in the event they believe the ordinance has not been violated. • Ensuring that there is adequate signage to put individuals on notice as to any parking restrictions. The revised draft ordinance requires that one sign be placed at every third parking space in addition to the signage in the current ordinance.
The attached proposed ordinance includes all of the elements proposed in our November 14 th , 2011 memo while incorporating the interests identified in this section.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council enact the attached proposed ordinance and adopt the attached resolution to take effect on May 1, 2012.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution to revise the Fee Schedule to include towed vehicle fees
2. May 31, 2011 Staff Report
3. October 10, 2011 Staff Report
4. November 14, 2011 Staff Report
5. Map of zoning districts TC-1, TC-2, TC-3
6. Draft Ordinance Reflecting Changes
136
TABLES DEPICTING TOW ACTIVITY IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Table A
2011 PRIVATE PROPERTY TOWING INFORMATION
LOCATIONS COMPANIES
ADAMS BARNES BOB'S GEORGE'S TALBERT'S T-ROY'S T0TAL 173 E Franklin Street 2 2 306 W Franklin Street 1 84 85 308 W Rosemary Street 15 15 416 W Rosemary Street 6 6 431 W Franklin Street 8 8 511 E Rosemary Street 1 1 Henderson/Rosemary 1 38 35 74 Franklin Street Hotel 13 13 Holy Trinity Luth Church 11 11 Investor's Title 5 5 McDonald's W Franklin 86 1 87 Panera's 73 1 46 120 Pantana Bobs 57 57 Inst of Pharmacy(Church 8 8 Univ Presby Church 15 15 RBC Bank 14 14 Rosemary Village 10 10 Tate's Realty 4 4 Key's Food Mart 2 2 University Square 28 28 Warehouse Apts 89 89 307 N Columbia St 8 8 Roberson Street 4 4 Durham Herald Lot 7 7
Total by Companies 2 301 81 199 21 69 673
137
Table B
2010 PRIVATE PROPERTY TOWING INFORMATION
LOCATIONS COMPANIES
ADAMS BARNES BOB'S GEORGE'S TALBERT'S T-ROY'S T0TAL 173 E Franklin Street 1 1 306 W Franklin Street 5 5 308 W Rosemary Street 7 1 8 416 W Rosemary Street 1 1 431 W Franklin Street 20 20 511 E Rosemary Street 1 1 Henderson/Rosemary 25 29 54 Franklin Street Hotel 2 2 Granville Towers 62 62 Investor's Title 1 1 McDonald's W Franklin 84 1 85 Panera's 97 97 Pantana Bobs 17 17 Inst of Pharmacy(Church 6 6 Univ Presby Church 24 24 RBC Bank 7 7 Rosemary Village 3 10 13 Tate's Realty 8 8 Univ Methodist Church 1 1 1 3 University Square 32 32 Warehouse Apts 89 89 Frat Court 4 4 Yates Bldgs 2 2 Turtle Lot 1 1 Carolina Brewery 3 3 Merritt Mill Rd 4 4 Total by Companies 335 38 26 90 61 550 138
DRAFT ORDINANCE
AN ORDINANCE REVISING ARTICLE XIX OF CHAPTER 11 OF THE CHAPEL HILL TOWN CODE MAKING MODIFICATIONS TO THE REGULATIONS THAT GOVERN TOWING FROM PRIVATE LOTS (2012-02-13/O-8)
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill as follows:
Section 1. Article XIX, Section 11-301 is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 11-301. - Notice required.
(a) It shall be unlawful to tow or remove a vehicle which is parked on private property without the permission of the owner or lessee of that private property unless notice in accordance with the provisions of this section is posted on the private property from which the towing or removal is made. Such notice shall fulfill the following requirements:
(1) A notice, in the form of a sign structure, not less than twenty-four (24) inches by twenty-four (24) inches in size, shall be prominently placed on the private property at each access or curb cut allowing vehicular access to the property, within five (5) feet of the street right-of-way line. If there are no curb or access barriers, signs shall be posted not less than one (1) sign each fifty (50) feet of the frontage to the public street. The maximum size for any sign shall be four (4) square feet. Signs shall also be placed in an interval of one at every third parking space within the lot.
(2) The notice shall clearly display the following:
a. In not less than one-and one-half (1½) inch high letters on a contrasting background, the words "tow-away" or "tow-away zone" or "towing enforced ," or a similar phrase. b. In not less than one (1) inch high letters on a contrasting background, a statement indicating that parking by unauthorized vehicles is prohibited by the use of a phrase such as "private property", "leased parking", "no parking", "parking for customers only", "parking for residents only", or a similar phrase. If parking by unauthorized vehicles is not prohibited on a twenty-four (24) hour continuous basis, the days of the week and hours of the day during which unauthorized parking is prohibited shall be posted. c. If the property owner adopts a policy where the vehicles are subject to immediate towing when the vehicle operator steps off the property, the signage shall also depict the phrase “If you walk-off this property, you are subject to being towed. This includes patrons who are frequenting business on this property” in (1) inch high letters on a contrasting background. d. If parking on the private property is monitored or enforced through the use video surveillance, an additional sign not less than twenty-four (24) 139
inches by twenty four (24) inches in size shall be placed in proximity to any sign required in Sec. 11-301 (a)(1). This sign, in not less than one-and one-half (1½) inch high letters on a contrasting background shall clearly display the words "towing enforced through the use of video monitoring” or “towing enforced through video surveillance”.
(3) In not less than one-half (½) inch high letters on a contrasting background, the telephone number at which a person available to release the vehicle that has been towed, removed, or immobilized may be contacted at any time. Calls to the telephone number must be answered by a person and a person with the authority and ability to release the vehicle must respond to the location of the vehicle within thirty (30) minutes of a call.
(b) The sign structure displaying the required notices shall be permanently installed with the bottom of the sign not less than six (6) feet above ground level and not more than eight (8) feet above ground level. Pedestrian safety should be taken into consideration when locating freestanding signs.”
Section 2. Article XIX, Section 11-302 is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 11-302. - Applicability.
The provisions of this article shall apply to any private property used for non-residential purposes . in all areas of the town zoned TC -1, TC -2 and TC -3 under the Chapel Hill Land Use Management Ordinance .”
Section 3. Article XIX, Section 11-304 is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 11-304. - Towing fees.
(a) Any towing or storage firm which tows or removes a vehicle pursuant to this article shall not charge the owner or operator of the vehicle in excess of the fees established in the fee schedule adopted annually by the Town Council. one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the towing or removal or in excess of twenty dollars ($20.00) per day for storage fees. No storage fees shall be charged for the first twenty-four (24) hour time period from the time the vehicle is initially removed from the private property. The fees referred to herein shall be all inclusive; no additional fees may be charged for the use of particular equipment or services. The towing or storage firm shall provide a receipt for each payment at the time the payment is made.
(b) The towing or storage firm shall provide a receipt for each payment at the time the payment is made. Each receipt shall be legible and shall contain the following information: a. The name address and telephone number of the tow company 140
b. The name of the person who towed the vehicle c. A total fee with a breakdown of towing and storage fees d. A clear and accurate reason for the for the towing and the date and time of the towing. Receipts shall not use descriptions that might cause individuals to associate private property towing with municipal action.
(c) At the time of payment or vehicle release, the towing or storage firm shall also provide the person making payment with a copy of the “Town of Chapel Hill Towing Information Handout”.
(d) The fees established by the Town Council shall be all inclusive. The fees referred to in this section shall be payable by cash, debit card and at least two (2) major national credit cards at no extra cost. Failure to accept credit or debit cards for payment is a violation of this section and is punishable as a misdemeanor. No additional fees may be charged for using dollies, trailers, lifts, slim jims or any other equipment or service.
(e) The maximum fees in this section shall not apply to the non-consensual towing of vehicles weighing in excess of two (2) tons.”
Section 4. Article XIX, Section 11-305 is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 11-305. - Report to police department.
Within thirty (30) minutes after a vehicle has been placed at a storage site When towing a vehicle pursuant to this article, the tow truck operator who is removed ing the vehicle shall report by telephone to the Chapel Hill Police Department that the vehicle has been removed , a license tag number , and description of the vehicle, the location that the vehicle is being towed from and its intended storage location present location . This report to the police department shall be made before the tow truck towing the vehicle leaves the private property from which the vehicle is towed. ”
Section 5. Article XIX, Section 11-306 is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 11-306. - Release prior to tow. Reserved
If, prior to the tow truck and vehicle having left the private property at which the vehicle was parked, the owner or operator or other person able to move the vehicle returns to the property, the tow truck operator shall release the vehicle to that perso n. No fee may be charged unless the vehicle has been attached to the tow truck prior to the arrival of the person, in which case a fee not in excess of fifty dollars ($50.00) may be charged.”
Section 6. Article XIX, Section 11-307 is hereby revised to read as follows:
“Sec. 11-307- Penalties Regulations for Tow Storage Lots 141
(a)Any violation of the provisions of this article or a failure to comply with any of its requirements shall subject the offender to a civil penalty as follows:
(1) In the amount o f fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense; (2) In the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second offense within a twelve month period; and (3) In the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for each offense when the offense is the th ird or subsequent offense with a twelve -month period.
(b) This article may also be enforced by an appropriate equitable action.
(c) Any violation of the provisions of this article shall be a misdemeanor punishable as provided by North Carolina General S tatute 14 -4.
(d) Any one, all, or any combination of the foregoing penalties and remedies may be used to enforce this article.
(a) Tow operators are required to provide the location of their tow storage lots to the Chapel Hill Police Department on an annual basis.
(b) The tow storage lot must be located within 15 miles of the town of Chapel Hill Town Limits.
(c) Tow storage lots must be clearly signed. The lot shall be secured and lighted in such a manner as to keep the vehicle safe from break-ins or damage while in storage. A fenced storage yard with average surface level lighting sufficient for transacting nighttime business shall be deemed complaint with this section. Tow storage lots will be inspected, by the Police Department, on an annual basis.”
Section 7. A New Section 11-308 is added to Article XIX, and shall read as follows:
“Sec. 11-308. - Penalties.
(a) Any violation of the provisions of this article or a failure to comply with any of its requirements shall subject the offender to a civil penalty as follows: (1) In the amount of fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense; (2) In the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second offense within a twelve month period; and (3) In the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00) for each offense when the offense is the third or subsequent offense with a twelve-month period.
(b) This article may also be enforced by an appropriate equitable action.
142
(c) Any violation of the provisions of this article shall be a misdemeanor punishable as provided by North Carolina General Statute 14-4.
(d) Any one, all, or any combination of the foregoing penalties and remedies may be used to enforce this article. ”
Section 8. Section 1 and Section 3 of this ordinance shall become effective May 1, 2012. All other sections of this ordinance become effective upon enactment.
This the 13th day of February, 2012.
143
A RESOLUTIONTO AMEND THE FEE SCHEDULE ADOPTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 (2012-02-13/R-6)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council hereby adopts, effective May 1, 2012, the amendment to the user fee policies and schedules as adopted on June 13, 2011, as follows:
Towing vehicles from private lots $100 per vehicle
Vehicles released to owner after hook-up $50 per vehicle but before tow
Towed vehicle maximum storage fee $20 per day after the first 24 hours
This the 13th day of February, 2012.
144
CBD - Current Towing Ordinance Area
Y
A L J L S E R DW S TE AL N AS C E . M H E R Mc L P C B J O O E B N T B S G
N S C C E E K D H KI O FR Y U S W T S R S T K R I A O E E A Y O C S R R H N G K B H P E T D D D R E E A U L S C D H I S c N Y P H M L E H G I C A T N C N R I O K O P K N D E R T R A GOMAINS T LA E T L C R R O R O R A S B D B R A O N C M E Y Y N R N PR AR T U EM S M S O I O IG T R N CRA C T H Y OR A DSA SH R LIN D WHITAKER P O R T UNN N N H U O N L N A E S M U I C N T M M Y O
S A I L
T
E U H
C
T R M A D
H O B
R A E I B W
G A L
E S L
R O S N ITY O N LIN R N E K AT N AN R RO FR F E AM M C A L F Legend . L E CO E T R K T Z O E T E T E O N R TC-1 P R M S A I E T O AT N B Y T S G E TC-2; TC-2-C B R R W O A S B I R H O L A O TC-3-C A N S S M O N N I G A B SOU R ch_parcels_clipped H TH MI E M Y T E LU L W E UL CO R A O R C R c T A M I T N L T S L
E M O M Y B I LE L AU L cC M M E Map Date: 2/20/08 DICAL By CA L. Meyer 145
CBD - Current Towing Ordinance Area
Y
A L J L S E R DW S TE AL N AS C E . M H E R Mc L P C B J O O E B N T B S G
N S C C E E K D H KI O FR Y U S W T S R S T K R I A O E E A Y O C S R R H N G K B H P E T D D D R E E A U L S C D H I S c N Y P H M L E H G I C A T N C N R I O K O P K N D E R T R A GOMAINS T LA E T L C R R O R O R A S B D B R A O N C M E Y Y N R N PR AR T U EM S M S O I O IG T R N CRA C T H Y OR A DSA SH R LIN D WHITAKER P O R T UNN N N H U O N L N A E S M U I C N T M M Y O
S A I L
T
E U H
C
T R M A D
H O B
R A E I B W
G A L
E S L
R O S N ITY O N LIN R N E K AT N AN R RO FR F E AM M C A L F . L E CO E T R K T Z O E T E T E Legend O N R P R M S A I E T O AT N B Y T S G E TC-1 B R R W O A S B I R H O L A O TC-2; TC-2-C A N S S M O N N I G A B SOU R TC-3-C H TH MI E M Y T E LU L W E UL CO R A O R C R c T A M I T N L T S L
E M O M Y B I LE L AU L cC M M E Map Date: 2/20/08 DICAL By CA L. Meyer 146
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: Christopher C. Blue, Chief of Police
Matthew Sullivan, Police Legal Advisor
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the Towing Ordinance
DATE: November 14, 2011
INTRODUCTION
Tonight’s public hearing has been called to consider proposed changes to the Town’s towing ordinance. We recommend that the Council consider this information and open the public hearing to receive comment regarding proposed changes to the Town’s Towing Ordinance.
CURRENT REGULATIONS
Our current ordinances regulate non-residential, private property towing in zoning districts TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3. These zoning districts encompass our Central Business District Downtown Chapel Hill. Key components of the ordinance are as follows:
1. Required Signage Property owners must post appropriate signage on their property that notifies individuals that vehicles are subject to being towed. These signs must be no less than twenty-four inches by twenty-four inches in size and no larger than four square feet. Signs must contain specific language and be located prominently at each entrance to the property. The signs must also contain the name and 24-hour telephone number of the tow company.
2. Release of Vehicles Calls made to the tow company’s posted telephone number must be answered by a person and a person with the authority and ability to release the vehicle must respond to the location of the vehicle within thirty minutes of a call. If a vehicle owner gets to the vehicle prior to it being towed from the private property, the tow operator is required to release the vehicle and may charge a fifty dollar fee.
3. Notification to the Police Department Within thirty minutes after a vehicle has been placed at a storage site, the tow truck operator who removed the vehicle is required to report by telephone to the Chapel Hill Police Department that the vehicle has been removed, a license tag number and description of the vehicle, and its present location. 147
4. Towing Fees The towing fee for a vehicle towed under the ordinance is limited to one hundred dollars. The tow company is also allowed to charge twenty dollars per day as a storage fee. However, no storage fee may be charged for the first twenty four hours. Tow operators are required to provide a receipt at the time payment is made.
5. Penalties for Violation Tow operators face both civil and criminal penalties for violations of this ordinance. Civil penalties are fifty dollars for the first offense; one hundred dollars for the second offense within a twelve-month period; and two hundred fifty dollars for each offense when the offense is the third or subsequent offense within a twelve-month period.
STAKEHOLDER INPUT
The Department has sought the input of multiple stakeholders regarding this issue. On August 17, 2011, the Parking Task Force of the Downtown Partnership met to discuss the recent concerns raised about towing downtown. This group recommended that the ordinance be changed to require tow operators to accept all major credit cards as payment for towing from private lots. The Parking Task Force agreed to monitor complaints and make additional recommendations as needed.
On Friday September 9, 2011, Police Department staff met with tow operators to discuss the issues that have been raised. Most of the local tow companies were represented at this meeting, during which we discussed the ideas that have been generated about modifying the current ordinance.
Police Department staff has received 20 written complaints about towing in the central business district since April 2011. Citizen concerns have generally focused on safety when they have retrieved their towed vehicles from storage locations in remote areas and their frustration with being subject to a “walk-off” tow. Staff has investigated those complaints and has pursued charges for violation of the Town ordinance where possible.
We have received multiple ideas about ordinance modifications from community members. These ideas include:
• Require specific language on tow receipt to include company name, time, date, and reason for the tow. • That the tow operator accepts multiple forms of payment. • Require businesses that enforce a “walk-off” tow policy to notice this practice at every vehicular entrance to their parking lot. 148
• Require businesses that enforce after-hours towing in their lots to restrict access through the use of chains or other means that would prohibit a vehicle entering the lot. • Require businesses that employ video surveillance systems to notice this practice at every vehicular entrance to their parking lot. • Annual inspection of the tow trucks and of the lighting, signage, and security at storage lots. • Patrons who do business and park at one lot have the option of doing additional business, for a period not to exceed 30 minutes, at another business. • Expand the coverage of the Tow Ordinance from TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 to town wide coverage. • Eliminate the tow fee if the vehicle owner arrives back at the business prior to the vehicle leaving the property, even if already attached to the tow truck. • Vehicle owner has the option of requesting that their car be brought back to them, within 30 minutes, for an extra fee of $25. The tow truck operator has the option of allowing this particular fee service, or they MUST have their car storage lot within 5 miles of the site of tow. • Consider a sign in front of every two parking spaces subject to towing to enhance the visibility and notice of the practices in place. • A change in tow and storage fees.
COUNCIL QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS
On October 10, 2011 staff provided information to the Council related to concerns about towing in the Central Business District. A summary of these questions and our staff response follows.
Question
A council member inquired about the distances to the storage lots for tow companies.
Staff Response: We researched the distances to tow storage lots from the intersection of Franklin Street and Columbia Street. These distances ranged from 5.1 miles to 9.9 miles. A table of tow companies and storage lot distances has been included as an attachment to this report.
Question
A Council member inquired about the use of video surveillance to enforce walk-off tow policies.
Staff Response: We did not find any communities where the use of video surveillance to enforce towing policies has been prohibited. The use of the cameras could be beneficial when investigating complaints related to tows.
Question 149
A Council member inquired about the relationships between tow operators and the businesses that use them to tow.
Staff Response: We do not have access to the contracts between the tow companies and the related businesses.
Question
A Council member inquired about how many complaints the Town has received about towing outside the central business district.
Staff Response: We have received fewer than 8 complaints about tows outside TC-1, TC-2, and TC-3. They are not concentrated in any particular part of town.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES AND DISCUSSION POINTS
The attached proposed ordinance contains staff’s recommended changes to our current ordinance. The recommended changes are as follows.
1. Expansion of the ordinance to cover all towing from any non-residential private property in Chapel Hill. 2. Additional signage requirements when lots are subject to a walk off policy or video surveillance. 3. A requirement that tow operators accept debit or credit cards in addition to cash payments and that these payment forms be accepted with no additional fees. 4. An increase in the tow fee from $100 to $125 and an increase in the storage fee from $20 to $25. 5. Additional requirements regarding receipts that are provided upon payment of tow fees. 6. Mandatory notification to the police department by the tow truck operator prior to removing the vehicle from the private lot. 7. Minimum security standards for the tow storage lots. 8. An additional penalty that allows the Town Manager to revoke the business license of any tow company who if found to have violated any provision of the tow ordinance three times within 365 days.
Tonight is an opportunity for members of the public, including vehicle owners wishing to park in the downtown area, parking lot property owners, and tow truck operators, to express their views on the Town’s regulations on towing from non-residential lots in downtown areas zoned TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council receive comments from the public at this hearing on November 14, 2011, and provide guidance to Town staff. 150
ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Ordinance Reflecting Changes
2. Map of zoning districts TC-1, TC-2, TC-3
3. May 31, 2011 Staff Report
4. October 10, 2011 Staff Report
5. Distances to Tow Company Storage Lots
151
Memorandum
To: Christopher C. Blue, Chief of Police
From: Flora Parrish, Records Supervisor Matthew Sullivan. Staff Legal Advisor
Date: May 31, 2011
Re: Response to recent towing complaints
The purpose of this correspondence is to document to you our departmental response to a series of recent citizen complaints involving George’s Towing and Recovery.
Background
Between March 21, 2011 and May 24, 2011, Mrs. Parrish received 5 written complaints from citizens related to towing from private property in the Central Business District. In addition to these five written complaints, on February 23, 2011, our downtown unit wrote an incident report after a citizen complained about another towing incident from the property of 306 West Franklin Street. In each of these complaints, the complaining citizens expressed concerns related to the tow practices of George’s Towing and Recovery. George’s Towing and Recovery has a business address of 210 Highway 54 West Old Greensboro Rd. Chapel Hill, NC 27516. The company has a valid Chapel Hill Business license. The owner of this business is Mr. George King. It appears that Mr. King operates his business as a sole proprietorship. The business is not a registered entity with the North Carolina Secretary of State.
As you know, one of Mrs. Parrish’s job responsibilities involves her serving as the appeals officer for the Town’s Parking Services Division. In this capacity she reviews appeals from citizens who have been issued parking citations issued by police officers and parking services enforcement officers. Mrs. Parish is also responsible for oversight of town initiated towing and any towing conducted pursuant to Chapel Hill City Ordinance Chapter 11 Article 19, “Towing From Private Lots”. It is also important to note that, between March 21, 2011and May 24, 2011, Mrs. Parish received verbal complaints about the tow practices of several businesses, including George’s Towing and Recovery, when towing occurred from private property covered by the ordinance. When receiving complaints, Mrs. Parrish requests that the complainant send written documentation that can be used as a basis for her investigation. None of the additional verbal complainants documented their concerns in written form.
152
The Chapel Hill City Ordinance applies only to towing from any private property used for non- residential purpose in Land Use Management Zones TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 which encompass much of our Central Business District. The ordinance sets specific standards for tow truck operators, such as the maximum fees that can be charged, notice requirements, release procedures and post towing police department notification. Violators of the ordinance face both civil and criminal penalties.
Discussion
We reviewed each of the written complaints. A summary of the complaints follows:
Date of Location of Tow Summary of Complaint Tow Complaint Complied with Ordinance? 2/23/2011 306 West Franklin Street Vehicle owner walked off Yes properly noticed business property and was towed. 3/21/2011 306 West Franklin Street Vehicle owner walked off Yes properly noticed business property and was towed. 4/6/2011 Phi Mu Sorority Lot, 214 Vehicle towed from private N/A Henderson Street property and owner was charged $200 tow fee. This property is not located in TC-1, TC-2 or TC-3 and therefore is not covered by our ordinance. 5/2/2011 306 West Franklin Street Vehicle owner walked off If, tow properly noticed business company property, tow company did not initiated tow and would not provide a release when owner receipt this returned. Tow company has is a cash only policy and owner violation of did not have cash on hand at City point of encounter. Tow Ordinance. company also did not Otherwise, provide receipt as required the towing 153
under CO 11-304. was in compliance. 5/5/2011 213 West Franklin Vehicle owner walked off Yes, Possibly 306 West properly noticed business however the Franklin property and his vehicle was company’s towed. Tow company initial initially attempted to collect attempt to $20 storage fee in the initial collect a 24 hours after the tow in storage fee violation of 11-304. When and the confronted with a copy of employee’s the ordinance, tow company demeanor did not charge for storage. toward the Employee of tow company citizen are “Zach” was rude and of concern. aggressive to vehicle owner. 5/17/2011 306 West Franklin Street Vehicle owner walked off Yes properly noticed business property and was towed.
In reviewing the complaints, it became immediately apparent that the tows from the parking lot at 306 West Franklin Street are generating the recent series of complaints. 306 West Franklin Street (Orange County parcel # 9788261802) is owned by Westside Limited Partners and Triangle V Limited Partners. This parcel is located in zoning district TC-2. The property owner entered into an agreement with George’s Towing and Recovery to conduct private property towing. Because the property is non-residential and is located in the TC-2 zoning district, any towing from the parking lot must be in compliance with our towing ordinance. A review of the incidents revealed one possible violation of the ordinance. We were unable to substantiate this violation.
Due to significant parking by persons not doing business on the property located at 306 West Franklin, the property owner has instituted a “walk off tow policy”. Parking in the lot is only allowed when doing business with one of the businesses on the property. Any person who parks in the parking lot and walks off the property is subject to being towed. This policy includes the towing of patrons who do business on site and then walk off the property to do business elsewhere downtown. The restricted parking signs at the entrance to the property explicitly state this policy. The signs also list which businesses are served by the parking lot. George’s Towing and Recovery has also set up a video surveillance system that can be monitored from off-site and recorded. The “walk off tow policy” coupled with video surveillance has led to aggressive 154
enforcement of unauthorized parking on the property. This appears to be the interest of the property owner and was evidenced in an e-mail correspondence between one of the property owners and a citizen complaining about the tow practices.
On Wednesday May 25, 2011, we requested that Mr. King come to the police department to discuss the series of complaints noted above. Mr. King met with us for about 30 minutes. In this meeting we discussed the Town Towing Ordinance and our expectation that he comply with all the regulations. He informed us that he was in compliance and that he intended to remain in compliance. We also discussed concerns surrounding the May 5, 2011 incident where a citizen reported that the employee was aggressive and hostile. The employee is no longer working for Mr. King. Mr. King reported that it is his company policy that all customers receive a receipt.
Mr. King also indicated that the aggressive tow strategy with video surveillance represented a “New Era of Towing”. He anticipates that other property owners will soon be using similar enforcement strategies on their properties in our central business district.
Summary/Next Steps
The aggressive tow strategy being used by George’s Towing and Recovery and the property owners at 306 West Franklin Street has resulted in multiple complaints. The location of this parking lot in an area of the Central Business District that has very little parking undoubtedly increases this tension. We anticipate that the town will continue to receive complaints about towing from this location and possibly others if additional properties and tow companies begin to utilize video surveillance and aggressive towing policies. While such a practice is not necessarily customer or citizen friendly, it is a lawful exercise of property rights by the property owners so long as they remain in compliance with our tow ordinance.
We will continue to investigate any complaint made regarding violation of provisions of our city ordinance. Should violations be detected we will take enforcement action as authorized in C.O. 11-307. It is anticipated that with video evidence, Mr. King will be able to document the violations and the subsequent tows.
155
MEMORANDUM
TO: Roger L. Stancil, Town Manager
FROM: Christopher C. Blue, Chief of Police
Matthew Sullivan, Police Legal Advisor
SUBJECT: Towing Concerns in the Central Business District
DATE: October 10, 2011
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to provide information related to concerns about towing in the central business district. This report also includes a recommendation that a public hearing be called to solicit input regarding potential changes to the Town Ordinances that regulate towing from private property.
DISCUSSION
The Town of Chapel Hill began regulating towing from private lots located in zoning districts TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 in March of 2002 and, in 2008, the ordinance was amended to include additional regulations. The current towing ordinance is located in Chapter 11, Article XIX of the Town Code of Ordinances and is entitled “Pre-Towing Notice on Private Lots.” The current ordinance applies only to towing from any private property used for non-residential purposes in Land Use Management Zones TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3, which encompass most of our central business district. The ordinance sets specific standards for tow truck operators, such as the maximum fees that can be charged, notice requirements, release procedures and post towing police department notification. It also requires posting of signs on the private lot to provide notice that a vehicle is subject to being towed. Penalties for violation of the ordinance include both civil and criminal sanctions.
Over the past several months, towing from private property in the central business district has generated significant public discussion. Town staff has received a number of complaints regarding the tow practices in two private parking lots, in particular. At these properties, the property owners have instituted a “walk-off tow” policy. Under this type of policy, individuals who park their vehicles in the privately-owned lot and then walk off the property are immediately subject to being towed. This policy is further enforced through the use of video cameras, which monitor the lots and enable tow companies contracted to these businesses to identify “walk-offs” and tow the vehicles almost immediately. In several instances, citizens complained that the tow operator had violated our ordinance. These complaints were investigated and the tow company was charged, when appropriate.
The community discussion about this issue has revealed some divergent interests. For example, property owners/managers have expressed an interest in controlling the limited parking resources 156
necessary to support the businesses that occupy their properties. Citizens have expressed concerns about their safety when they have retrieved their towed vehicles from storage locations in remote areas, generally outside the Chapel Hill corporate limits. It has also been suggested that aggressive towing practices have negatively impacted the business climate in the central business district.
The Police Department has taken steps to address the concerns. Staff has met with the tow operators who do business in Chapel Hill and with the property owners/managers of the lots that are generating complaints. The purpose of this outreach has been to review the Town’s tow ordinance with them and to answer any questions they have about compliance. We have monitored and investigated complaints, bringing charges when appropriate.
On August 17, 2011, the Parking Task Force, made up of central business district merchants, Downtown Partnership staff, and Town officials, met to discuss the recent concerns raised about towing downtown. The group recommended that the ordinance be changed to require tow operators to accept all major credit cards as payment for towing from private lots. The Parking Task Force agreed to monitor complaints and make additional recommendations as needed.
On Friday September 9, 2011, Police Department staff met with tow operators to discuss the issues that have been raised. Most of the local tow companies were represented at this meeting, during which we discussed the ideas that have been generated about modifying the current ordinance. The table below shows the discussion points and the response to each.
Possible Regulation Response
That the tow operator accepts multiple forms Concerns were expressed about accepting non- of payment. cash payments. Tow operators are concerned that the person towed can cancel a check or reverse the credit card charges, both of which hurt the tow operators. Such a requirement might increase business costs which might be offset by a higher tow fee.
Tow operators felt that the addition of a criminal charge for canceling a check or reversing credit card charges after a lawful tow would be a way to reduce business risk.
Requirements related to lighting, signage and No opposition or concerns were expressed. security at storage lots.
Annual inspection of storage lots and tow No opposition or concerns were expressed. trucks.
Expand the coverage of the Tow Ordinance No opposition or concerns expressed except from TC-1, TC-2 and TC-3 to town wide that if jurisdiction is expanded, the tow fee coverage. should also be adjusted. 157
A change in tow fees. Operators observed that the tow fee had not been adjusted in several years while business costs have increased.
Staff has also spoken with a number of citizens who have had negative experiences related to the tow practices. Many of these citizens have suggested changes in the ordinance to require businesses to erect signs explicitly stating that they have a “walk-off tow policy” and/or they use video surveillance. Another suggestion from citizens is that property owners restrict access to their lots after-hours through the use of chains or other barricades.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council consider holding a public hearing on November 14, 2011 to obtain input on possible amendments to the current Tow Ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
1. May 31, 2011 Staff Report 2. Map of zoning districts TC-1, TC-2, TC-3 158
A RESOLUTION TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING POSSIBLE CHANGES AND ADDITIONS TO THE TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL ORDINANCES RELATED TO TOWING FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY [( year-month-day/R- (or O-) ) ]
WHEREAS, A number of citizens have expressed concerns about towing from private property in the town’s central business district; and
WHEREAS, These concerns have generated significant community discussion surrounding the issue of towing practices, our city ordinances and associated community impacts, and
WHEREAS, Part of the community discussion has involved possible changes to the current tow ordinance that would address some of the concerns expressed about towing from private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council call a public hearing to take input regarding possible changes and additions to the Town of Chapel Hill Ordinances related to towing from private property.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this hearing will occur on Monday November 14, 2011.
This the 10 th day of October, 2011. 159
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #14 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Appointment to the Greenways Commission.
Council Goal: Govern with Quality, Responsiveness, Efficiency
Background: The Council may make one appointment to the Greenways Commission.
Fiscal Note: Fiscal impact not determined.
Recommendations: That the Council make an appointment to the Greenways Commission.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Recommendation Ballot Applications
160
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Christine S. Berndt, Chair
SUBJECT: Recommendation for the Greenways Commission vacancy(s)
DATE: February 1, 2012
RECOMMENDATION: The Greenways Commission met on Wednesday, February 1, 2012 and by a Unanimous (4-0) vote made the following recommendation to the Town Council for consideration:
• Robert Myers, Appointment
SPECIAL REQUEST(S): No Comment
BACKGROUND: No Comment
161
BALLOT
GREENWAYS COMMISSION
FEB 13, 2012
Total Membership: 7 (7 Town)
Current Membership: 6 (2 Females, 4 Males; 6 Caucasians)
Number of Vacancies: 1 Town
Number of Applicants: 2
You may vote for 1 applicant. Please sign your ballot.
APPLICANTS
______Robert Beecher Meyers
______Alice Neebe
______Other; please list: ______
______Council Member Signature
162
APPLICATIONS TO THE
ADVISORY BOARD(S)
163 164 165 166 167
TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL NORTH CAROLINA Meeting Date: 2/13/2012 AGENDA #15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title of Agenda Item: Proposed Participation in Amicus Brief Opposing Arizona Immigration Law in Arizona v. United States.
Background: Attached is an email asking if the Town would be willing to sign on to an amicus brief in this case. The brief, filed on behalf of cities and counties, would, as noted below, “argue that requiring local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal civil immigration enforcement prevents effective protection of public safety by diverting resources away from investigation and prosecution of crimes and undermining the trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.”
Fiscal Note: Prior to sending this email to you, I did ask and have been advised that no financial contribution is required from those signing on to the brief. In response to my inquiry, Ms. Yelin forwarded to me the attached memorandum explaining the case and the proposed brief in more detail.
Recommendations: That the Council consider this petition and provide direction.
ATTACHMENTS: Viewing attachments may require Adobe Acrobat . Request to Sign Amicus Brief - Arizona v. US
168
From: Ralph Karpinos To: Donna Bell; Ed Harrison; Gene Pease; Jim Ward; Laurin Easthom; Lee Storrow; Mark Kleinschmidt; Matt Czajkowski; Penny Rich Cc: Roger Stancil; CHRIS BLUE; Sabrina Oliver; Amy Harvey Subject: FW: U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Arizona v. United States Date: Friday, February 03, 2012 2:58:14 PM Attachments: Memo to City and County Attorneys re Amicus Participation doc - USSC.PDF Importance: High
Mayor and Council:
Below is an email asking if the Town would be willing to sign on to an amicus brief in this case. The brief, filed on behalf of cities and counties, would, as noted below, “argue that requiring local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal civil immigration enforcement prevents effective protection of public safety by diverting resources away from investigation and prosecution of crimes and undermining the trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.”
Prior to sending this email to you, I did ask and have been advised that no financial contribution is required from those signing on to the brief. In response to my inquiry, Ms. Yelin forwarded to me the attached memorandum explaining the case and the proposed brief in more detail.
I believe the appropriate procedural step is for me to present this as a petition at the end of the next meeting for the Council’s consideration and direction. I will ask that the agenda for Feb. 13 include, under petitions at the end, a petition from me : “Proposed participation in amicus brief in Arizona v. United States.”
Ralph
From: Jenny Yelin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 2:10 PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Town Attorney Cc: Greta Hansen Subject: FW: U.S. Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Arizona v. United States Importance: High
Dear Colleagues,
We are writing to follow up on the e-mail below seeking your participation in the amicus brief the County of Santa Clara will be filing on behalf of cities and counties in Arizona v. United States, the 169
challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070, in the United States Supreme Court.
The brief will argue that requiring local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal civil immigration enforcement prevents effective protection of public safety by diverting resources away from investigation and prosecution of crimes and undermining the trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.
A significant coalition of cities and counties from across the country has already agreed to join the brief, and we hope that your jurisdiction will consider participating. We are happy to provide sample materials, on request, for use in discussing the case with the decision makers in your county, city, or agency.
The deadline for filing the amicus brief has been extended to March 26. Therefore, please provide an indication of your interest by March 2. If you have any questions about the brief or the case, please contact me at [email protected] or 408-299-5913 or Lead Deputy County Counsel Greta Hansen at [email protected] or 408-299-5930.
We look forward to hearing from you soon. Jenny Yelin
Jenny Yelin, Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, Santa Clara County 70 W. Hedding St., 9th Floor, East Wing San Jose, CA 95110 Phone: (408) 299-5913 Fax: (408) 292-7240 Email: [email protected]
170
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL Miguel Márquez COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY COUNSEL
70 West Hedding Street, 9th Floor Winifred Botha San Jose, California 95110-1770 Orry P. Korb (408) 299-5900 Lori E. Pegg (408) 292-7240 (FAX) ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Attorneys for Cities, Counties, and Law Enforcement Agencies
FROM: Miguel Márquez, County Counsel Lori E. Pegg, Assistant County Counsel Greta Hansen, Lead Deputy County Counsel Jenny S. Yelin, Deputy County Counsel
RE: Amicus Brief in United States Supreme Court Opposing Arizona’s Immigration Law
DATE: January 10, 2012
I. Introduction
Arizona Senate Bill 1070 (SB 1070), the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” was passed by the Arizona State Legislature and signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in April 2010. Called the nation’s toughest state immigration law at the time it was enacted, it has been met with tremendous criticism and opposition. Many cities, counties, and law enforcement agencies have taken a stand against the law by passing ordinances or resolutions condemning it, holding meetings with federal officials about its impacts, or initiating boycotts of the State of Arizona. Since the passage of SB 1070, several other states, including Utah, Alabama, and Georgia, have passed similar laws, and many more state legislatures have considered copycat legislation.
Shortly after SB 1070 was enacted, the United States government filed suit in federal district court to challenge its constitutionality and to seek an injunction to prevent implementation of the law. The district court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining four provisions of the law, and in April 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s injunction. The State of Arizona filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the United States Supreme Court to review that decision, and on December 12, 2011, the Court agreed to hear the case.
The County of Santa Clara, California will be filing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of counties, cities, and local law enforcement agencies in support of the United States. Santa Clara 171
To: Attorneys for Cities, Counties, and Law Enforcement Agencies Re: Amicus Brief Opposing Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law Date: January 10, 2012 Page 2 of 6
County also authored an amicus brief on behalf of local governments in the Ninth Circuit. Santa Clara County was joined on that brief by the following entities: The City of Baltimore, Maryland; The City of Berkeley, California; The City of Minneapolis, Minnesota; The County of Monterey, California; The City of New Haven, Connecticut; The Council of the City of New York, New York; The City of Palo Alto, California; The City of Portland, Oregon; The City of Saint Paul, Minnesota; Salt Lake City, Utah; The City and County of San Francisco, California; The City of San Jose, California; The County of San Mateo, California; The City of Seattle, Washington; and the United States Conference of Mayors. Many of those jurisdictions have already agreed to sign on to the brief that will be filed in the Supreme Court.
Signing on to this amicus brief provides localities with an opportunity to inform the Supreme Court about the negative effects of SB 1070 and other similar laws. The filing deadline for this brief is March 5, 2012. Because of the deleterious impact laws such as Arizona’s will have on the ability of local governments and local law enforcement agencies to protect and serve their communities, we hope to present united support for the federal government’s challenge from cities, counties, and law enforcement agencies. In light of the short timeline, we hope to provide as much support as possible to representatives of cities, counties, and law enforcement agencies who wish to present the opportunity to sign on to the amicus brief to local decision makers. Please feel free to draw from or to copy all or part of this memorandum and attachments for use in your internal discussions.
II. Recommended Action for Consideration by Local Decision Makers: Participate as amicus curiae in Arizona v. United States.
Arizona’s SB 1070, enacted in 2010, is effectively an anti-immigrant measure cloaked as one intended to encourage the attrition of undocumented immigrants from Arizona by deputizing all local law enforcement officers as enforcers of federal immigration law. The law thereby limits localities’ ability to protect public safety and forces local governments to divert resources to duties that are the responsibility of the federal government. SB 1070 also creates criminal penalties for civil immigration violations, forces lawful immigrants to carry documents that substantiate their legal status, and criminalizes the activities of day laborers.
Before the law was scheduled to go into effect, the federal government filed a lawsuit challenging its constitutionality. In April 2011, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that four key provisions of the law are impliedly preempted by federal immigration law, and upheld an injunction preventing them from going into effect. In 2012, the United States Supreme Court will review that decision. The County of Santa Clara, California, is preparing an amicus curiae brief on behalf of counties, cities, and local law enforcement agencies that will support the U.S. government’s position and urge the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s holding. An amicus curiae is a “friend of the court” that is not technically adverse to any party in the litigation, but that provides the court with additional information that could affect the court’s ruling. The amicus brief will argue that the involvement of local law enforcement agencies in enforcing federal immigration law harms public safety by undermining trust between local law enforcement agencies and immigrant communities, and by making it more difficult for local agencies both in and outside of Arizona to investigate and prosecute crimes. Joining the 172
To: Attorneys for Cities, Counties, and Law Enforcement Agencies Re: Amicus Brief Opposing Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law Date: January 10, 2012 Page 3 of 6 brief is a meaningful way to help prevent the implementation of SB 1070 and copycat laws across the country, and to show support for immigrant communities locally and nationwide.
III. Participation Will Require De Minimis Expenditure of Resources
Signing on to the amicus brief will not require extensive attorney time or resources. The Office of the County Counsel in Santa Clara County has volunteered to draft the brief and coordinate participation by cities, counties, and law enforcement agencies. Some staff time may be expended in reviewing Santa Clara County’s draft brief or issuing a press statement, if decision makers in your locality wish to do so.
IV. The Content of Arizona Senate Bill 1070
Arizona’s SB 1070, known as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” was signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010, and amended a week later by Arizona House Bill 2162. The Act makes “attrition [of undocumented immigrants] through enforcement” the official policy of the State of Arizona and all local government agencies within the state. The Act’s provisions “are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” The Supreme Court will be reviewing the four provisions of SB 1070 that were enjoined by the lower courts. Those provisions do the following:
Section 2(B): Requires local law enforcement officers and agencies to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person who has been lawfully stopped, detained, or arrested, whenever the officer or agency has “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present in the U.S. Although the Act provides that law enforcement “may not consider race, color or national origin” beyond constitutional limits, it provides no guidelines for determining when “reasonable suspicion” exists, nor does it provide any guidelines for preventing the use of racial profiling as a means for identifying persons who may be unlawfully present in the U.S. The section also requires local law enforcement officers and agencies to detain an arrestee until the arrestee’s immigration status has been determined.
Section 3: Imposes criminal penalties for violations of federal immigration laws, such as failure to complete or carry alien registration documents.
Section 5(C): Makes it a state crime for an undocumented immigrant to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work in Arizona. The maximum sentence for violation of this provision is a six month term of imprisonment.
Section 6: Peace Officers are authorized to arrest a person without a warrant based on probable cause that the person committed a public offense that makes them deportable, a significant expansion of those officers’ arrest authority. 173
To: Attorneys for Cities, Counties, and Law Enforcement Agencies Re: Amicus Brief Opposing Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law Date: January 10, 2012 Page 4 of 6
When it was passed, the bill was widely condemned by federal, state, and local officials across the nation. The provisions now before the Court have been described as infringing on the authority of federal immigration enforcement and encouraging, or even requiring, racial profiling. Authorities from around the country have raised concerns about the fact that implementation of the law will erode the relationships of trust between immigrant communities and police that allow local law enforcement to ensure public safety.
V. Procedural History of Arizona v. United States
On July 6, 2010, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The federal government’s complaint challenged the constitutionality of SB 1070, and was accompanied by a motion requesting that the court issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin Arizona from enforcing or implementing SB 1070, which was set to go into effect on July 29, 2010. The lawsuit asserted that the federal government has the exclusive authority to regulate immigration, and that therefore Arizona’s law is preempted by federal law.
The day before SB 1070 was to become effective, the district court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the State of Arizona from implementing four provisions of the law— Section 2(B), Section 3, Section 5(C), and Section 6. United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 1008 (D. Ariz. 2010). The court concluded that the United States was likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that those provisions are preempted by federal law, that the federal government’s interests were likely to be irreparably harmed if the law went into effect, and that preventing enforcement of provisions that are likely unconstitutional outweighed Arizona’s interest in enforcing SB 1070. Id. at 1006-08.
On April 11, 2011, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s order enjoining Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6 of SB 1070. United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 344 (9th Cir. 2011). The appellate court agreed that there was “likely no set of circumstances under which [the four provisions] would be valid,” because they are all likely preempted by federal immigration law. Id. at 354, 357, 360, 366. Additionally, it held that the district court “did not abuse its discretion in finding that the United States demonstrated that it faced irreparable harm and that granting the preliminary injunction properly balanced the equities and was in the public interest.” Id. at 366.
Arizona sought review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision through a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in August 2011. The Court granted the petition on December 12, 2011, and it will decide the case in 2012.
VI. The Content of the Proposed Amicus Brief
The proposed amicus brief will underscore the federal government’s argument that immigration enforcement is the role of the federal government, not local law enforcement agencies, and that therefore the Court should uphold the lower courts’ injunction. Based on their experience, cities, counties, and local law enforcement agencies are in a position to provide the 174
To: Attorneys for Cities, Counties, and Law Enforcement Agencies Re: Amicus Brief Opposing Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law Date: January 10, 2012 Page 5 of 6
Court with additional information regarding the following important points:
The enjoined provisions of SB 1070 require local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law, which diverts scarce local resources away from local law enforcement’s primary goal of maintaining public safety. Enforcement of federal immigration law is the province and the responsibility of federal authorities.
The requirement in Section 2(B) that local law enforcement officers attempt to determine the immigration status of any individual stopped, arrested, or detained if a reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an unlawfully present immigrant will create potential liability for localities. The provision does not provide any standard for officials to use to determine if an individually is unlawfully present, and therefore the only practicable way to implement the provisions would require officials to use factors such as race, ethnicity, level of English proficiency, or national origin, in violation of the United States Constitution.
Implementation of this law will irreparably damage the trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement agencies in Arizona, creating a lasting barrier to maintaining public safety. Local law enforcement agencies depend on relationships with members of the public, including immigrants, to prevent, investigate, and prosecute crimes—including crimes such as domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse, where maintaining the trust of victims is often particularly crucial. The provisions of SB 1070 that require local officers to question individuals about immigration status, demand and determine the validity of identification papers, and deliver individuals into federal custody, create fear of local law enforcement among immigrant communities, including among lawful residents and citizens who fear for their immigrant family members or who worry that their status as lawful residents will be challenged.
Finally, implementation of this law will send a message to immigrant communities across the nation that local governments are in the business of immigration enforcement. This message undermines the ability of local law enforcement agencies and other local government entities outside of Arizona to protect public safety, and to work with victims, witnesses, and other residents living in our own immigrant communities.
The amicus brief must be filed on March 5, 2012. Accordingly, localities wishing to join the brief should notify Greta Hansen, Lead Deputy County Counsel in the Santa Clara County Counsel’s Office ([email protected] / 408-299-5930), of their interest in signing on by February 5, 2012, although localities may provide a final decision of their intent to participate after reviewing a draft of the brief.
VII. Why County, City, and Law Enforcement Agencies Should Participate
Cities, counties, and law enforcement agencies are in a position to provide an important perspective on why a division is needed between federal immigration enforcement and the local 175
To: Attorneys for Cities, Counties, and Law Enforcement Agencies Re: Amicus Brief Opposing Arizona’s Anti-Immigration Law Date: January 10, 2012 Page 6 of 6 responsibility to maintain public safety. This perspective is particularly important at this crucial stage of the case, because if the Supreme Court rules in Arizona’s favor, the enjoined provisions of the law will go into effect. The implementation of Arizona’s law, even for a limited time period, will have lasting effects on the trust between immigrant communities and local governments and local law enforcement agencies. Having a long list of cities, counties, and law enforcement agencies sign on to this amicus brief is especially important because it demonstrates that this perspective is shared by local governments and law enforcement agencies across the nation.
Attachments: Amicus Curiae brief filed in Ninth Circuit in United States v. Arizona