Docstoc
EXCLUSIVE OFFER FOR DOCSTOC USERS
Try the all-new QuickBooks Online for FREE.  No credit card required.

June 26_ 2008 Page 1 Cary Town Council Minutes Thursday_ June 26

Document Sample
June 26_ 2008 Page 1 Cary Town Council Minutes Thursday_ June 26 Powered By Docstoc
					                                Cary Town Council Minutes
                                 Thursday, June 26, 2008
                                         6:30 PM
                                     Council Chambers
                             316 N. Academy Street, Cary, N.C.

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

A. COMMENCEMENT

   1.   Call to Order (Mayor Weinbrecht)

Mayor Weinbrecht called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.

_________________________

   2.   Ceremonial Opening (Mayor Pro Tem Robison)

Mrs. Robison provided the ceremonial opening.

_________________________

   3. Adoption of agenda (Town Council)

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

________________________

B. CONSENT AGENDA

The council pulled consent agenda items B.3.d., request for road improvement waiver – Progress
Energy Piney Plains Subdivision, and B.3.e., implementation of annexation program: Phase 1, for
discussion.

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

        a. Consideration of approval of the minutes of the regular town council meeting
           held on June 12, 2008, and approval of the June 3, 2008 work session minutes.
           (Town Council)

ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to approve the consent agenda, except for items B.3.d., request
for road improvement waiver – Progress Energy Piney Plains Subdivision, and B.3.e.,
implementation of annexation program: Phase 1. Mrs. Adcock provided the second, and
council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________


        b. Consideration of appointment of Harry Baulch to fill an unexpired term on the
           planning and zoning board. (Mr. Portman)




                                                                                 June 26, 2008
                                                                                       Page 1
ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to approve the consent agenda, except for items B.3.d., request
for road improvement waiver – Progress Energy Piney Plains Subdivision, and B.3.e.,
implementation of annexation program: Phase 1. Mrs. Adcock provided the second, and
council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________


        c. Consideration of providing funding for a new Cary directional sign on I-40 that
           will be installed by NCDOT. (Mr. Tim Bailey)

STAFF REPORT
Town council, June 26, 2008

Request for Payment of New Cary Directional Sign on Interstate 40 (EN09-006)
Consideration for providing funding for a new sign on I-40 that will be installed by NCDOT under
TIP I-4902
Speaker: Mr. Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, PE, Engineering Director
Prepared by: David Spencer, PE, Traffic Engineer
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Currently, NCDOT is in the final design stages of the TIP project I-4902. The goal of the project
is to upgrade, modify, or remove existing signage on I-40 from exit 301 in southeast Raleigh to
exit 289 at Wade Avenue, remove the I-440 designation on I-40 across the southern portion of
the “Beltline”, and replace the “Inner Beltline” and “Outer Beltline” name with East and West
designations. To incorporate the needs for signage for the surrounding municipalities, NCDOT
held a sign audit to review the proposed plan and include any changes or modifications that were
suggested by the attendees. Staff provided recommendations that included modifying some
existing and proposed signs to include ‘Cary’ and ‘Cary Downtown’ on multiple signs. All
together, Town staff requested ‘Cary’ be added to two ground-mounted signs at the I-40/US1/I-
440 interchange and ‘Cary Downtown’ be added to four overhead signs and one ground-mounted
sign at the I-40/Cary Towne Blvd interchange. NCDOT is currently reviewing these requests and
will submit final sealed plans on June 24, 2008.

Additionally, NCDOT is willing to include with the I-4902 project the inclusion on one new ground-
mounted sign located on westbound I-40 near the Jones Franklin Road overpass that will provide
directional assistance to motorists that are destined for Cary. This sign would direct motorist to
stay on I-40 for north and east Cary while directing motorists to use Exit 293A for south and west
Cary. This sign would be similar to the diagrammatic sign on northbound US 1/64 just north of the
Walnut Street overpass.

Given the final plans will be sealed prior to this Town Council meeting, NCDOT has agreed to
reserve the space for the sign on their plans and will address its incorporation through a
construction revision. This project is federally funded and is scheduled to be let in September
2008.

Fiscal Impact: NCDOT signing engineers have estimated the cost of this sign at $15,000. This
total would include installation costs as this sign would be added concurrent with the remainder of
I-4902.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Town Council approve the use of $15,000 from
the Engineering Department Operating Budget to pay for the ground-mounted sign and its


                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 2
installation. Staff would also recommend Council approve any necessary agreements with
NCDOT needed to facilitate the installation of the sign.

ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to approve the consent agenda, except for items B.3.d., request
for road improvement waiver – Progress Energy Piney Plains Subdivision, and B.3.e.,
implementation of annexation program: Phase 1. Mrs. Adcock provided the second, and
council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

       d. Consideration of adoption of a certificate of sufficiency and a resolution calling
          for a public hearing on the following annexation:

           ANNEXATION PETITION 08-A-06
           Property owners: Hwy 55 Self Storage LLC
           Location: 3719 NC 55 Highway
           Acreage: 6.65 plus 0.00 adjacent right of way = 6.65 total deeded acres
           Zoning: Office, Research & Development (ORD) in a Mixed Use Overlay District
           Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: Yes
           Existing Use: Vacant
           Proposed use: Self Storage Facility
           Speaker: Mr. Wayne Nicholas

Annexation Petition Number: 08-A-06
Property Address: 3719 NC 55 Highway
Wake County Parcel Number: 0735702552
Real ID Number: 0117124
Petition Date: 5/12/2008
Proposed Effective Date: 7/24/2008

OWNERS:
Hwy 55 Self Storage LLC
4601 Six Forks Road, Suite #500
Raleigh, NC 27609

LOCATION: 2,810 feet southwest of Morrisville Carpenter Road, Indian Wells Road, and NC 55
Highway intersection

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning: Office, Research & Development (ORD) in a Mixed Use Overlay District
Acreage: 6.65 plus 0.00 adjacent right of way = 6.65 total deeded acres
Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: Yes
% Contiguity (excluding satellite town limits): 47.96%
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Self Storage Facility
Associated Rezoning Case: None
Associated Development Plan: 08-SP-035 (Hwy 55 Self Storage)
UTILITIES:
Water: On Site
Sewer: 680 feet southeast

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District: Morrisville
Voting District: A
Tax Value: $737,036


                                                                               June 26, 2008
                                                                                     Page 3
MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency and Resolution Ordering Public Hearing: 6/26/2008
Staff Recommendation:       Forward to public hearing on 7/24/2008


The documents that Council will consider for adoption at this meeting follow:


                  CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF ANNEXATION PETITION

I, the undersigned Town Clerk of the Town of Cary, do hereby certify that I have investigated the
sufficiency of Annexation Petition of
        Hwy 55 Self Storage LLC;
        Wake County Parcel Identification #0735702552;
        6.65 acres plus 0.00 acres of adjacent right-of-way;
as directed by the Town Council by resolution, and that my investigation reveals the following:

1.      The signers of the Petition are the owners of the real property within the area proposed
for annexation.

2.     The area is contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the Town of Cary as defined by
G.S. 160A-31, or is appropriate for annexation as a noncontiguous area as defined by 160A-58.

This 6/26/2008.


   RESOLUTION ORDERING PUBLICATION OF A NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
             QUESTION OF ANNEXATION PURSUANT TO G.S. 160A-31

WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Cary has received an annexation petition of
Hwy 55 Self Storage LLC;
Wake County Parcel Identification #0735702552;
6.65 acres plus 0.00 acres of adjacent right-of-way;

requesting the annexation of certain lands contiguous to the municipal boundaries of the Town of
Cary ; and

         WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has certified to the Town Council the sufficiency of said
Petition as required by law; and

        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary, North
Carolina that:

         Section I. A public hearing on the question of annexation of the area described herein
will be held in the Council Chamber of the Town of Cary, 316 N. Academy Street, Cary, N.C. at
6:30 p.m. on 7/24/2008 at which time all residents and area owners in said territory and all
residents of the Town of Cary will be given an opportunity to be heard.

        Section 2. The area proposed for annexation is described as follows:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Wake County Parcel Identification #0735702552

        Section 3. Notice of public hearing shall be published in the Cary News, a newspaper
having general circulation in the Town of Cary, at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public
hearing.

                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 4
ADOPTED 6/26/2008

ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to approve the consent agenda, except for items B.3.d., request
for road improvement waiver – Progress Energy Piney Plains Subdivision, and B.3.e.,
implementation of annexation program: Phase 1. Mrs. Adcock provided the second, and
council granted unanimous approval.

(Resolution 2008-36 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________


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

        N/A

_________________________


    3. Planning and Development Committee, June 19, 2008 (any committee consent
       agenda item pulled for discussion will be discussed at the end of the committee
       discussion portion of the agenda, which is item G on this agenda) (Mr. Portman)

        a. Donation of Artworks (PR08-032)
           Committee unanimously recommended accepting a donation four paintings
           from Cary Visual Art and one painting from artist Lily Karmatz, and directing
           staff to secure placements for these artworks at Town facilities.

STAFF REPORT
Planning and Development Committee, June 19, 2008

Donation of Artworks (PR08-32)
Consideration of accepting donation of artworks from Cary Visual Art and from artist Lily Karmatz
Speaker: Ms. Denise Dickens

From: Mary G. Henderson, Director, PRCR
Prepared by: Denise Dickens, Public Art Coordinator
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Cary Visual Art is offering four mixed media paintings and artist Lily Karmatz is offering a painting
to the Town of Cary’s Public Art Collection. Cary Visual Art purchased the artworks from the Fine
Arts League of Cary annual juried exhibition. The artist Lily Karmatz offered her painting to the
Town at the completion of her week-long residency working with Cary youth to create temporary
site-specific outdoor sculptures at Bond Park. If council chooses to accept the donation artworks,
they would go on display in public spaces within Town facilities.

In keeping with Cary Visual Art’s purchase award program in conjunction with the Fine Arts
League of Cary’s Annual Spring Show, Cary Visual Art has purchased four selected works of art
and proposes to donate them to the Town of Cary. The selected paintings are:
       “Up the River Bank” by Wendy Musser, pastel on paper
       “Tabourets” by Lynn Troy, oil on canvas


                                                                                      June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 5
       “Colorplay II” by Sharron Parker, handmade felt
       “Dancing Trees” by Wynn Easton, oil on canvas

This is the seventh year Cary Visual Art has donated artwork to the Town from the Fine Arts
League of Cary Annual Spring Show. Past works donated are on display at Town Hall, Bond
Park Community Center, Jordan Hall Arts Center, Middle Creek Community Center, Stevens
Nature Center, Herb Young Community Center and the Cary Tennis Park.

Lily Karmatz is a Japanese born artist, now living in Australia and she has offered to donate her
acrylic/collage painting “Nature is My Paint Brush”, 2008, to the Town of Cary. The artist recently
was a visiting artist to the Town of Cary conducting workshops for adults and a week-long Track-
Out program for children in Bond Park. Her residency culminated in the creation of large outdoor
temporary art installations at Bond Park in conjunction with Spring Daze Arts Festival. The artist
would like to donate this painting to continue to build the Town’s permanent art collection, to
broaden the geographic representation of artists in the collection and to encourage other artists to
contribute artwork.

This opportunity of these gifts was brought to the Town’s Public Art Advisory Board at its May 21,
2008 board meeting. The Public Art Policy provided the following criteria in reviewing acceptance
of a gift:
    1. Quality, aesthetic and design standards.
    2. Long-term durability and maintenance.
    3. Installation costs, site preparation costs, and insurance considerations.
    4. Local community standards, social factors and public response.
    5. Diversity in artwork types, styles and distribution.

The Public Art Advisory Board reviewed the proposed donations and unanimously recommended
that Council accept the donation of these works of art. Staff will assess Town facilities to find the
most appropriate place for displaying the artwork.

Fiscal Impact: The five paintings are valued at $2,275. The artwork would be added to the
Town’s Fine Arts Insurance listing with a financial impact of $50 annually at the current rate of
coverage.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Council accept the Public Art Advisory Board’s
recommendation to accept the donation of five paintings from Cary Visual Art and artist Lily
Karmatz and direct staff to secure placements at Town facilities.

ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to approve the consent agenda, except for items B.3.d., request
for road improvement waiver – Progress Energy Piney Plains Subdivision, and B.3.e.,
implementation of annexation program: Phase 1. Mrs. Adcock provided the second, and
council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        b. Extension of Koka Booth Amphitheatre Management Contract (PR08-033)
           Committee unanimously recommended approval of exercising the extension
           provision in the amended SMG contract to extend SMG’s management of the
           Koka Booth Amphitheatre for two more years, through the 2010 season.

STAFF REPORT
Planning and Development Committee, June 19, 2008


                                                                                      June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 6
Extension of Koka Booth Amphitheatre Management Contract (PR08-33)
Consideration of two-year extension of SMG’s management contract for the Koka Booth
Amphitheatre
Speaker: Mr. Lyman Collins

From: Mary G. Henderson, Director, PRCR
Prepared by: Lyman Collins, Cultural Arts Manager
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Background
In 2000, as construction of the new Amphitheatre was nearing completion, the Town reviewed
various management options for the facility and elected to prepare an RFP to solicit private
management companies to operate it. In 2001 the Town contracted with SMG to carry out the
day-to-day management of what became the Koka Booth Amphitheatre. The initial contract was
for three years with the option for a two-year extension, which has been exercised in 2004 and
2006. In 2004, as part of the agreement for an extension, the contract was amended to provide
greater inducement for SMG to meet the annual approved budget. This amendment called for a
reduction in the management fee if the approved budget was not met. Since the 2005 season,
when the contract amendment came into force, the Amphitheatre has performed better than the
approved budget.

Because the summer performance season falls on either side of the Town’s regular fiscal year,
the Amphitheatre operates on a separate November 1 to October 31 fiscal year. Each year in
October, SMG presents an annual Budget and Management Plan for council’s consideration and
approval. This plan outlines proposals for the facility to meet the goals established by council.
Current progress on those goals are outlined in SMG’s Management Report which is the
company’s assessment of its performance in achieving these goals and includes its request to
extend the management contract for an additional two years as provided for in the amended
contract. Under this proposed extension the penalty amendment would remain in force.

This table illustrates the approved budget subsidy for the Amphitheatre compared to actual
results for the last four years for which we have final numbers:

                           2004                  2005                 2006                  2007
  Budget                ($181,154)            ($226,333)           ($209,797)            ($201,148)
  Actual                ($360,338)            ($224,658)           ($189,879)            ($178,247)
  Difference            ($179,184)              $1,675               $19,918               $22,901

2004 represented a fiscal low point for the facility. That was a particularly trying summer with
significant rain (which affected attendance and caused the cancellation of two shows) and, as
reported by SMG, a downturn in the touring market (resulting in the promoter being unable to
deliver five of the projected concerts). However, if the two cancelled shows had been factored in
and the five additional concerts had been presented, the deficit would have been reduced by
approximately $133,000. SMG recognized that it needed to develop contingencies to prevent
promoters from failing to deliver shows, so SMG staff proposed including penalties if the preferred
promoter did not deliver the number of shows agreed upon. It was against this backdrop that staff
negotiated the amendment to provide greater incentive for SMG to meet its approved budget.

It appears that the amendment had its desired result. In the 2008 council-approved management
plan SMG is projecting an operating deficit of $198,830. Given the trend of the last two years,
there is reason to be optimistic that the deficit will be significantly lower than is budgeted. It must
be noted, however, that a number of factors beyond the direct control of Amphitheatre staff play
into higher than budgeted income: weather, availability of touring acts appropriate for the venue



                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                              Page 7
and the general economy. So it is appropriate that the Amphitheatre take a conservative
approach to its budget projects.

Since 2003 all maintenance for the facility has been conducted by the Town Public Works staff. In
addition, there have been capital outlays each year. Those costs for the past four years are
outlined below:

                                 2004              2005               2006               2007
  Public Works                 $199,660          $200,440           $204,729           $192,571
  Capital Equipment            $61,608           $27,208            $22,967            $21,296

For 2008, Public Works is budgeted at $221,862, and $55,900 is budgeted for capital equipment
outlays. In addition, there is a capital improvement project to upgrade the Crescent kitchen and
service area. That project is currently budgeted at $400,000.

Current Status
Below is staff’s assessment of SMG’s progress on the facility goals:

1. Provide performances by nationally acclaimed artists.
   Clearly SMG has produced significant results in this area. By partnering with promoter House
   of Blues (HOB), each year there has been an array of touring artists. In addition, SMG has
   included in its contract with HOB incentives to encourage the promoter to bring such acts to
   the Amphitheatre. Since HOB has been acquired by Live Nation (which also books and
   manages Raleigh’s Time Warner Cable Pavilion) the promotion scene has become more
   uncertain. But as mentioned in SMG's report, staff is studying that development and planning
   contingencies as necessary.
2. Continue to offer, develop and expand opportunities with the North Carolina Symphony.
   As the Town’s long-time partner in the Summerfest Series, the Symphony relationship is a
   cornerstone of programming at the Booth Amphitheatre. SMG has continued to recognize the
   importance of this partnership and has developed positive working relationships. The
   Amphitheatre currently provides artist fee support to at least two concerts each season which
   allows for higher profile concerts. In addition, the Symphony has expanded its presence by
   adding the popular Labor Day Pops in the Park program. This current season has brought
   even greater collaboration as the Amphitheatre and the Symphony have produced joint
   marketing materials designed to boost general awareness of Summerfest.
3. Develop a Summer Theatre program specifically designed for the Amphitheatre.
   Although various theatrical experiences have been presented at the Amphitheatre, progress
   on this goal has not been as comprehensive as others, and success has been limited. Last
   season and again this season, specialty touring performances with a theatrical nature have
   been included in the Amphitheatre season, but a specific summer theatre program has not
   been developed. But Amphitheatre staff is working with Cultural Arts Division staff to hire a
   consultant to study the viability of a true summer theatre program. In addition, Cultural Arts
   Division staff have begun meeting with the North Carolina Theatre on summer theatre
   possibilities. There is interest on both sides of creating some kind of program that might
   operate under some of the guidelines we have developed with the Symphony.
4. Develop partnerships for performances with quality local, regional and statewide performing
   arts organizations.
   This area continues to grow for the Amphitheatre. In addition to the three-year partnership with
   the Carolina Arts Festival, other groups ranging from the Raleigh Boy Choir to the Concert
   Singers of Cary have presented concerts at the Amphitheatre. This continues to be an area of
   new opportunities for the facility. Recent other groups to have performed there include the
   Triangle Philharmonic, the Triangle Wind Ensemble and the Triangle Jazz Society. There
   continue to be additional opportunities in this area for organizations such as the American
   Dance Festival and the Carolina Ballet.

                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                           Page 8
5. Develop festivals that provide community participation and help establish a community
   identity.
   SMG has both built on established events such as the July 4 celebration and Diwali and
   established a wide array of new festivals such as the Great Grapes Wine Festival and Triangle
   Uncorked. A Halloween Celtic Festival also has been at the Amphitheatre for the past three
   years. In addition, the off-season Tinsel Town event has the potential to extend the use of the
   facility beyond the traditional summer months.
6. Develop a rental program for the use of the Amphitheatre that does not compete with
   performance times.
   This goal is also one in which SMG has made significant progress. Because of the nature of
   touring performances, it can be difficult to balance rentals with public events. Yet SMG has
   worked to make the facility available to both non-profit fund-raisers as well as corporate
   events. The number of rentals has increased each year and revenue from rentals has gone
   from $2,024 in 2002 to $45,489 in 2007, while not conflicting with public programs.
7. Provide cooperative opportunities with the Amphitheatre neighbors.
   Neighborhood relations have continued to evolve and SMG has worked to improve these
   relationships. Through the Amphitheatre Advisory Committee, SMG established a
   communication network to provide information to both business and residential neighbors.
   Noise levels remain the most obvious area of neighbor concern, but the sound monitoring
   system has provided an important tool to ensure compliance with approved sound levels.
   SMG has included financial penalties in its contracts with promoters as part of its efforts to
   ensure compliance. Ensuring compliance with noise level restrictions remains an area that
   staff continues to emphasize while recognizing that this is an area in which it is impossible to
   please everyone. Neighbor Day and the Neighbor Card have also been positive programs.
8. Provide revenue that more than offsets the operating costs.
   SMG has developed a variety of new revenue streams and have increased others. New
   programs include a lawn chair rental program, preferred parking and a VIP Club. Significant
   increases have been achieved in the areas of season ticket revenue (from $6,000 to $64,000
   projected for 2008), sponsorships (from $71,000 to $141,500 projected for 2008) and
   concessions dollars per capita (from $2.47 to $8 projected for 2008). These revenue increases
   helped make 2007 the best budget year to date, with the facility improving upon its projected
   loss by over $22,000. 2008 is poised to be a good year also. The first two concerts—Duran,
   Duran and Ben Folds—far exceeded their projected income. To provide additional revenue
   options, in 2006 SMG’s Management Report provided options for additional revenue growth:
   charging for general admission parking, relaxed signage restrictions and higher allowable
   noise levels. At that time, council supported staff’s recommendation not to pursue those
   options. Those options are again presented in this year’s attached report and again staff does
   not recommend pursuing those options.

Staff is bringing this contract extension to council now because the Town is required to give SMG
100 days notice if it is our intent not to renew. If council elected not to renew the contract
extension, SMG staff would operate the facility through the current season which ends on
October 31, after which time the management of the facility would come directly under Town
management. Staff would need this time to begin the process of directly hiring staff and putting
into place new program plans for the facility’s 2009 season.

Fiscal Impact: The management fee was initially established at $50,000. The table below
illustrates the management fee through the current season. The contract calls for the
management fee to be adjusted annually based on the percentage change in the Consumer Price
Index. Staff anticipates modest increases will continue through the two-year extension.

                     2004             2005             2006              2007             2008
  Fee               $52,020          $53,685          $55,993           $56,271          $60,912



                                                                                      June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 9
If Council approves this extension, SMG will present its 2009 Management Plan in October. This
Management Plan will include next season’s budget which will be presented to council for action
at that time.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Town exercise the extension provision in the
amended SMG contract to extend SMG’s management of the Koka Booth Amphitheatre for two
more years, through the 2010 season.

                         SMG - Private Management for Public Facilities

                           Koka Booth Amphitheatre at Regency Park
                                     Management Report
                                      Years 2001 - 2008

In July of 2001, SMG was awarded the management contract for the Town of Cary’s newly
constructed Koka Booth Amphitheatre at Regency Park. This agreement between the Town of
Cary and SMG, the world’s leading private management organization for public assembly
facilities, charged SMG with enhancing the quality of life for residents of the Town of Cary, Wake
County, and the Triangle area of North Carolina by providing a location for a wide variety of
performing arts-related entertainment events.


We are nearing the conclusion of the seventh year of managing the Amphitheatre for the Town of
Cary so it is appropriate to evaluate the progress SMG has made in managing it. Upon review of
this document, we trust that the Town of Cary will see the progress the Amphitheatre has made in
becoming the premier venue in the region.

In 2004, SMG agreed to amend the management contract to include a financial penalty if budget
figures were not met. Since that amendment has been in affect SMG has exceeded budget by an
average of 8% each year.

As provided for in the amended contract and due to SMG’s success in managing Koka Booth
Amphitheatre since 2001, SMG would like to formally request the contract extension for years
2009 and 2010. With the support of the Town of Cary, SMG will continue to improve in all areas
of the facility. Great opportunities exist for Koka Booth Amphitheatre in the future and SMG is
committed to being a part of this exciting journey.

SMG’s Analysis of the Koka Booth Amphitheatre at Regency Park Fiscal years 2001 – 2008:


In the management contract with the Town of Cary, SMG was asked to address specific goals
that had been adopted by Town Council. The following is a recap of SMG’s progress in
accomplishing said goals:



   Provide performances by nationally acclaimed artists.

    SMG secured a booking contract with promoter, House of Blues Concerts (now known as
    Live Nation), to bring national acts to the Amphitheatre at Regency Park. These acts are of
    no financial risk to the Town of Cary. Since 2002 the following performers have graced and/or
    will grace the Amphitheatre’s stage;
         The Fray, Blackeyed Peas, Duran Duran, Chicago, Clay Aiken, Earth-Wind-Fire, John
         Mayer, Tracy Chapman, Guster, Train, Celtic Woman, OAR, Fiona Apple, Bela Fleck,
         String Cheese Incident, Jack Johnson, G. Love & Special Sauce, Live, Collective Soul,


                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                         Page 10
        Blues Traveler, Human League, Belinda Carlisle, Yonder Mt. String Band, Willie Nelson,
        Lyle Lovett, Nickel Creek, The Indigo Girls, Chris Isaak, Nanci Griffith, Ben Harper, Lisa
        Marie Presley, Bob Dylan, Norah Jones, Joe Cocker, BB King, Sheryl Crow, B52’s, John
        Prine, Tiff Merritt, Gillian Welsch, David Rawlings, Alison Kraus & Union Station, Harry
        Connick Jr., Emmylou Harris, Nashville Star and Bruce Hornsby.

    SMG has also purchased talent on behalf of the Town of Cary to further enhance the
    entertainment provided to its citizens. Artists include:
        Ben Folds, Avett Brothers, Wilco, Mary Chapin Carpenter, The Irish Tenors, Boys from
        Beaumont, The Beach Boys and the Monkeys.

    Over the past seven years the concert industry has changed significantly, especially in the
    role promoter’s play in providing touring acts. If the management contract extension is
    approved, SMG will develop a plan on how to approach our outside promoter agreement for
    the 2009-2010. It is our goal to ensure that Koka Booth Amphitheatre’s booking needs are
    met and that the Town of Cary’s interests are protected. SMG is evaluating a variety of
    options for booking services to accomplish these goals. Additional information will be outlined
    in the 2009 management plan and of course the Town of Cary will be directly involved with
    this process.

   Continue to offer, develop and expand opportunities with the North Carolina
    Symphony Orchestra.

    SMG has worked closely with the North Carolina Symphony to increase attendance and
    ticket revenue for the Summerfest Series. During SMG’s contract, the Summerfest program
    has been enhanced as a cornerstone of the Amphitheatre season. With the help of SMG, the
    series has featured special guest artists such as Tony Bennett, Bobby McFerrin, k.d. lang,
    Terrance Mann, Wynonna and Kenny Rogers. SMG and the Town of Cary’s goal is to
    increase Symphony awareness to a broader audience and with guest artists, we believe that
    an audience normally unfamiliar to the Summerfest series will become new supporters of
    both the North Carolina Symphony and Amphitheatre.


    The contract between the North Carolina Symphony and the Amphitheatre has developed
    into a structure that allows both entities to cover expenses through ticket sales. During SMG’s
    management of the Amphitheatre, the Town of Cary covered Summerfest expenses in 2002;
    the Symphony covered expenses in 2003 and since 2004 expenses have been covered
    through the non-profit facility maintenance fee associated with ticket sales. This is a mutually
    beneficial scenario for the Amphitheatre and the Symphony.


    A partnership between SMG and WRAL-TV developed during the 2003 event season and
    resulted in “Pops in the Park” moving from Meredith College to the Amphitheatre. This event
    has become an annual event at Koka Booth Amphitheatre.


   Develop a Summer Theatre program specifically designed for the Amphitheatre.

    During the SMG contract, performances such as The Tempest, Julius Caesar and Romeo
    Juliet have been held at the Amphitheatre through a partnership with Applause! Cary Youth
    Theatre. On a larger scale, SMG has purchased touring theatrical productions such as White
    – A Cirque USA show and the Peking Acrobats to perform at the Amphitheatre. SMG is using
    the 2008 fiscal year to evaluate the possibility of producing an annual theatrical production at
    the Amphitheatre through the assistance of a theatrical consultant.



                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 11
   Develop partnerships for performances with quality local, regional and statewide
    performing arts organizations.

    SMG has worked with the Carolina Arts Festival to produce performing arts events at the
    Amphitheatre. Events such as Broadway Rocks starring Debbie Gibson, Broadway Rocks II
    starring Terrance Mann and “Hair to Hairspray” again staring Terrance Mann have been held
    at the Amphitheatre. Through this relationship, New York Broadway singers, dancers and
    musicians have brought their talents to Cary and Koka Booth. SMG has also worked with the
    Raleigh Boychoir and the Raleigh Youth orchestra for a special benefit performance for Cary-
    based Life Experiences. A Partnership with the Cary Concert Singers has also been in affect
    for the past three years with the annual “American Celebration” concert. Another group, The
    Triangle Youth Philharmonic, hosted their 20th Anniversary concert at Booth Amphitheatre in
    the summer of 2008. SMG continues to look for opportunities to partner with a wide-range of
    performing arts organizations and works closely with the Town of Cary’s Cultural Arts Divsion
    in fostering relationships with said groups.

   Develop festivals that provide community participation and help establish a
    community identity.

    SMG has developed and promoted several community festivals during our tenure with Koka
    Booth Amphitheatre. Featured festivals have included the Celtic Fest featuring music, dance,
    Celtic ware/fare and the annual Diwali Festival celebrating traditional Indian heritage, singing
    and dancing. In fact, the Diwali Festival has grown to be so successful it is now the second
    largest event in attendance (behind the 4th of July) that the Amphitheatre hosts. The 4th of
    July celebration has also been a longstanding traditional event held at the Amphitheatre.
    SMG created the holiday event, Tinsel Town, in 2006 which featured an outdoor ice skating
    rink during the months of November and December. This event provided activity for the
    Amphitheatre during otherwise dormant months.

    SMG continues to solicit business from local and regional promoters to secure other festivals
    for the Amphitheatre such as the Great Grapes! Wine and Music Festival, Carolina Music
    Festival, Celtic Harvest, Triangle Uncorked, Carolina Hope Festival and new to 2008 the
    Beer, Bourbon & BBQ Festival.

   Develop a rental program for the use of the Amphitheatre space that does not compete
    with performance times.

    SMG has worked diligently with local community citizens, non-profit and for-profit
    organizations to provide meeting space for events. SMG recognized the plan for the
    Amphitheatre to be a community resource and therefore assisted in ensuring that both private
    citizens and public groups would have access to the Amphitheatre through a reasonable
    rental rate program. A few of SMG’s rental contracts include The American Lung Association
    – Walk for Hope, The Triangle Race for the Cure – Pink Fest, Dialog Corporation Family Day,
    Communities in Schools – Celebrate Communities, Neighbor Day Block Party for
    residential/business partners, Wedding ceremonies, rehearsal dinners and receptions,
    Special Olympics North Carolina - Bluegrass Festival, Pony Softball – Opening Ceremonies
    and the Great American Cross Country Festival, WakeMed Employee/Physician Appreciation
    Day, Pepsi Day and more. These events bring revenue to the venue on days not utilized by
    concerts, movies or festivals. The revenue from private rentals has grown considerably
    garnering over $45,000 in 2007.

    In addition SMG has been committed to other appropriate community and Town use events
    including the annual Town of Cary Road Race, Celebration of Cycling, Cary Chamber of
    Commerce - Honor a Teacher Reception and Town of Cary - School of Government
    Graduation.


                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 12
   Provide cooperative opportunities with the Amphitheatre “neighbors.”

    Several residential communities and business complexes surround Koka Booth
    Amphitheatre. In an effort to involve the Amphitheatre with its community, SMG created an
    Amphitheatre Advisory Committee to demonstrate to neighbors that the venue is aware of
    both the positive and negative impact it may have on the community. The Advisory
    Committee meets monthly to discuss opportunities for Town of Cary residents and
    businesses to capitalize on the Amphitheatre.

    A neighbor day was also created for residents and business partners to gather together at the
    beginning of the event season to network, tour the facility and register for season event ticket
    discounts.

    SMG’s weekly movie series has proved to be a favorite for the neighbors along with the entire
    community. This movie series has been able cover expenses through ticket sales and
    operational trade agreements. Since 2004 SMG has managed to secure a movie series
    sponsor to further ensure that this series will provide revenue for the Amphitheatre.

    SMG demonstrated sensitivity to the neighbors living in close proximity of the venue by
    conducting a sound study, implementing a sound measuring device and creating a formal
    sound level policy to help monitor the noise level impact on our neighbors during events. A
    community hotline was also established for citizens to access during scheduled
    performances for questions and concerns.

   Provide revenues that more than offset the operating costs.

    During the past seven years, SMG has created several revenue generating and expense
    reduction efforts to improve bottom line results. Revenue generating ideas include the
    creation of a season ticket program and sales of venue sponsorships. Both of these efforts
    have resulted in annual revenue of $150,000+.

    SMG also contracted with the well-respected concessions company from Atlanta’s Chastain
    Park Amphitheatre, Premier Events Management, to provide concession service at the
    Amphitheatre. Premier Events revamped the concessions program at the Amphitheatre from
    2002 –2007 to include 3rd party vendors such as Pepsi, Long Beverage, Pizza Hut, Whole
    Foods, The Food Factory and Lumpy’s Ice Cream.


    At the end of the 2007 event season SMG created an RFP for concession operations in an
    effort to generate new plans to improve facility food/beverage operations. A new
    concessionaire was selected for the 2008 event season, Classic Sports Catering. SMG
    selected this new concessionaire based on their ability to provide more variety in
    food/beverage options and ultimately increase revenue for the venue. Classic Sports
    Catering has only had two events to facilitate in the 2008 season thus far but concession
    revenue appears to already be on an upward trend.


    The venue received a building upgrade on one concession building in 2003 and is planning
    on another upgrade in the fall/winter of 2008. The upgrades will allow the concessionaire to
    provide additional food/beverage items and increase the speed of customer service which will
    ultimately increase venue revenue.




                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 13
All revenue generated by the Amphitheatre is dependent on event ticket sales. In order to
attract ticket buyers SMG developed comprehensive branding and marketing efforts to
increase awareness and exposure for the venue. To accomplish this goal, SMG sets out
each year to establish relationships with media partners who can help in branding Koka
Booth Amphitheatre. Partners include Curtis Media Group, Capital Broadcasting, The News &
Observer, Clear Channel Radio, WUNC, The Cary News and Cary Magazine. Relationships
have also been cultivated with the Cary Chamber of Commerce, Raleigh Chamber of
Commerce and The Greater Raleigh Convention and Visitor’s Bureau.

The Amphitheatre has received several awards under SMG’s management as a result of our
branding efforts:
     Best Place for Live Music 2002 – 2007 by the Cary News
     Best Place for Out of Towner’s in 2003 – 2006 by the Cary News
     Voted by Independent Magazine readers – Honorable Mention for Best Outdoor
       Venue in 2004 - 2008.
     Voted #2 out of 10 Best Small Outdoor Amphitheatre by the Fine Living Network.
     The #1 Concert Industry Publication, Pollstar Magazine, nominated the Amphitheatre
       at Regency Park for Best Small Outdoor Amphitheatre in 2003 thus signifying the
       Amphitheatre as one of the top five small outdoor venues in the country. This
       nomination garnered the attention from artists, agents and promoters in the music
       business establishing the Amphitheatre at Regency Park as a “must play” venue.
       Other notable venues nominated included Wolftrap in Vienna VA, Chastain Park in
       Atlanta, GA, Santa Barbara Bowl in Santa Barbara, CA and the Hollywood Bowl in
       Hollywood, CA.

In addition to raising revenue, each year expenses have been reduced by an average of
18%, under SMG’s management, by the implementation of many trade deals which have
saved the Amphitheatre as much as $100,000 a year (this annual operational savings for the
Amphitheatre negotiated by SMG is nearly double the amount of SMG’s annual management
fee). Trade contracts include printing services, radio/tv/newspaper marketing services, hotel
services, signage production, dressing room furniture, office furniture, copiers and movie
night projectors.

To date, SMG has made efforts and progress toward eliminating the deficit and we are
committed to increasing revenue year over year. The chart below is an indication of the
positive trends the Koka Booth Amphitheatre has seen over the past five years.




                                                                               June 26, 2008
                                                                                    Page 14
                                                                                      2008
SMG's Contractual           2004           2005          2006           2007
                                                                                    Proposed
Summary                    Actual         Actual        Actual         Actual
                                                                                     Budget
Attendance                 97,118        107,556       138,364        142,962          135,400
                                            65                       59 events
                                        (including                   PLUS 40       68 events PLUS
# of total events             52       13 nights of       63          days of      38 days of Tinsel
                                          Tinsel                       Tinsel           Town
                                          Town)                        Town
Sponsorship Revenue        $89,850       $94,000       $113,500      $113,750          $141,500
Season Ticket
                           $44,488       $32,680       $52,680        $34,780          $64,000
Revenue
Lawn Chair Rentals         $3,336         $4,605        $4,684         $6,850          $7,200
Preferred Parking           N/A           $9,915       $15,125        $24,260          $25,470
NCS Concession Per
                            $1.51         $1.58          $1.44         $1.36             $1.41
Cap (gross)
Outside Promoter
Concession Per Cap          $9.31         $8.92          $9.50         $8.00             $8.00
(gross)
Trade Services Value      $150,000.     $175,000       $175,000      $105,000          $100,000
Ticket Rebates             $17,808      $44,744        $34,205       $60,192            $63,202
# of rentals                 10            15             22            20                25
# of community events         7             8              8             8                 8
# of National Acts
(includes HOB/Live
                              10            11            15             16               18
Nation, Symphony and
TOC events
Facility Fee Revenue       $55,208       $69,451       $54,036        $89,000          $92,800
Other ancillary income
                           $3,517        $16,348        $8,590        $13,200          $14,000
(atm, merchandise)
                         ($360,338)     ($224,654)    ($189,879)    ($178,247)
                                                                                      ($198,830)
Profit/(Loss)            ($181,154)     ($226,334)    ($209,797)    ($201,148)
                                                                                       budgeted
                         - budgeted     - budgeted     - budgeted   - budgeted

 Presently, SMG is evaluating and exploring other opportunities that may assist the Amphitheatre
 in reaching a more positive bottom line in 2009 and 2010. The Amphitheatre’s profitability
 potential can be influenced by factors such as inclement weather, national economic trends and
 artist touring schedules. With that in mind the following revenue ideas are contingent on the
 season line-up, cooperative weather, a healthy economic situation and Town Council approval.

     Revenue Growth Ideas:
     SMG recognizes that there are existing policies in place that maintain the integrity and
     uniqueness of the venue and we are not necessarily recommending that these policies
     change. The list below are just ideas that may be considered when discussing ways in which
     to increase revenue.
               Evaluate all concession options to determine potential cost saving opportunities,
                  maximize profits and improve service.
               Charge for General Admission Parking in addition to the $5 facility maintenance
                  fee already imposed on each ticket sold. $3 per car at 1500 cars per event for 20
                  events = $90,000 gross revenue.
               If Signage restrictions were relaxed, SMG would find sponsors for sections of the
                  Amphitheatre – i.e. Crescent Deck, Box Office, Lawn, Gates and pathways. -
                  Crescent Deck will be valued at $30,000, Box Office will be valued at $25,000
                  and the Lawn Sponsor would be valued at $30,000. Additional sponsorships
                  could total $85,000 in revenue.

                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 15
               Noise Level Restrictions – in an effort to remain conscientious neighbors to the
                residents surrounding the Amphitheatre, SMG and our promoters have made
                efforts to not book acts that would breach the noise levels set by the
                Amphitheatre sound study conducted in 2003. By lifting this noise level policy for
                even a select number of events, the Amphitheatre would have the ability to bring
                additional acts to Cary.

    Additional Community Enhancement Ideas:
        Monthly “after-hours” business events to further enhance the relationship between
            the Amphitheatre and its business neighbors.
        Bring the Town of Cary’s public and private high school graduation ceremonies to the
            Amphitheatre.

SMG’s mission is to remain the most cost efficient management group at our agreed upon
management fee of $56,721 (plus annual CPI adjustments) per year. For this fee SMG provides
the Town of Cary with corporate support including but not limited to SMG’s sports and
entertainment, human resources, risk management, accounting, regional building support
(Richmond, VA and Florence, SC), regional arena and theatre booking calls, the most qualified
and professional local staff, sponsorship revenue and relationships, booking commitments that
are at no financial risk to the Town of Cary, season ticket program and media partnerships that
maintain Koka Booth Amphitheatre as an elite Triangle venue.

Under SMG’s guidance, the current Koka Booth Amphitheatre staff has over 70 years of touring
entertainment industry experience.
         o The Amphitheatre’s Box Office Manager has over 15 years of event box office
            experience,
         o The Amphitheatre’s Production Manager has over 20 years of production experience
         o The Amphitheatre’s Operations Manager has over 10 years of operational/facility
            experience
         o The Amphitheatre Accounting Manager has over 15 years of recreational and facility
            experience.
         o The Amphitheatre’s General Manager, a North Carolina native, has over 10 years of
            venue sales, marketing and management experience.
After thorough review of this document, we hope you can see that SMG is focusing all our
energies and enthusiasm toward the common goal of producing high quality events while
reducing year-end event losses.

As your partner we share your commitment, value your opinion and welcome your involvement. It
is our hope that together this partnership will continue to grow and prosper for the common goals
of all parties. There is NO OTHER MANAGEMENT COMPANY that can provide this level of
service, keep the Town of Cary’s interest as the top priority AND allow the Town of Cary to
maintain total control of all Amphitheatre operations for such a nominal management fee.

Becky Schmidt
General Manager – Koka Booth Amphitheatre
An SMG Managed Facility

ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to approve the consent agenda, except for items B.3.d., request
for road improvement waiver – Progress Energy Piney Plains Subdivision, and B.3.e.,
implementation of annexation program: Phase 1. Mrs. Adcock provided the second, and
council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________




                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                         Page 16
        c. Community Visioning (AD08-018)
           Committee unanimously recommended authorizing staff to proceed with an
           extensive community visioning project, beginning with the development and
           issuance of an RFP for specialized consulting services to assist with the effort.

STAFF REPORT
Planning and Development Committee, June 19, 2008

Community Visioning (AD08-018)
Consideration of authorization to proceed with a “Community Visioning” process
Speaker: Mr. Bill Coleman

From: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Prepared by: Jeffery G. Ulma, AICP, Planning Director
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Background

Following up on discussion at the 2008 Council/Staff Retreat, the town manager requested
additional guidance on whether or not the Town should sponsor a “community visioning” project.
On April 7, 2008, Town Council directed “… staff to come back to council with an outline for a
long-term strategic planning/visioning process for the Town that keeps citizens engaged and
maintains meaningful communication with the community” (see AD08-015).

STAFF REPORT
Operations Committee Meeting, April 3, 2008

Council Staff Retreat Priorities and Action Items (AD08-015)
Consideration of priorities and action items identified at the council/staff retreat
Speaker: Mr. Coleman


From: William B. Coleman, Jr.
Prepared by: William B. Coleman, Jr.
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

At the 2008 Council/Staff Retreat, the council identified a list of tasks and projects related to its
priorities for the community. The priority areas identified were: economic development,
downtown development, environment, planning and development, citizen involvement,
transportation and transit, safety, recreation, schools and town council effectiveness. The action
items identified in these priority areas were to serve as part of the work program and work plan
for the staff and council for the coming year.

In order to give the council an idea of how these items fit into the organization’s current model for
developing and implementing its annual work plan, the action items are organized into the four
major focus areas for the organization and the current status and the means for moving forward
on each item is identified. There is also a fifth focus area entitled “legislative goals.” This
category includes those items which may be accomplished by the council working with other
elected officials or other elected bodies and only assisted by the staff.

It should be noted that council did not note in their priorities any action items related to the Town’s
financial position. These issues will be addressed in the FY 2009 budget process.




                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 17
If one looks at the priorities and resulting tasks, it supports the idea that the Town of Cary would
benefit from undertaking a community strategic planning/visioning process. Even though the
Town is close to build-out, major questions exist regarding how that build-out will occur and, after
build-out, where and how the community wants to redevelop. In addition, as job growth and
urbanization of the triangle region continues, what will be the vision of the community for how and
where urban development will be accommodated, its relation to improving or worsening traffic
congestion, and its affect on other infrastructure and services (i.e., water, wastewater, parks,
schools, etc.). The seminal question is this: Given continued urban growth in the area, how will
this future affect Cary and how does the community of Cary prefer all of the elements and
demands of urban growth, population expansion and economic growth be managed in order to
maintain the quality of life that exists now.

Fiscal Impact: Some of the fiscal impacts are noted in the attached chart, while others will be
identified in the FY 2009 budget.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that council review this report, clarify any action items
that require additional information, set priorities as needed and consider requesting staff to come
back to council with an outline for a strategic planning/visioning process for the Town of Cary.


Since that time, a technical team composed of staff members from several departments (Town
Manager’s Office; Public Information Office; Police Department; Budget Office; Finance
Department; Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources Department; and Planning) has investigated
what it would take to pursue such an initiative. We are pleased to offer this summary information
to council for review and further consideration, and recommend that we proceed with this
extremely important effort.

Does Cary Need a New Vision?

In staff’s opinion, yes, for a variety of reasons.

First, the community has been served well by the vision for Cary’s future set by civic and
business leaders several decades ago. Many decisions have since been made to implement that
vision. These include development of a separate utility system, extensive use of planned
developments, attraction of office and retail land uses to achieve a better balance between
residential and nonresidential development, creation of an extensive parks and greenway system,
sustainability, and public safety. But, the world around us continues to change. Rapidly. Our
region, like most growing regions in the country, is becoming more urban. Our citizens arrive from
other urban locations, all walks of life, and from all parts of the world. They speak different
languages and have different values. The shared vision Cary may have had 10, 20 or 30 years
ago has not been updated in light of such changes. Hence, we must make sure we position
ourselves to be able to respond to external pressures to maintain our status as the premiere
community in North Carolina.

Second, the physical appearance of Cary is changing. Land resources are dwindling, with the
cost of land increasing dramatically as the supply of vacant, developable land shrinks, while
strong demand to be in our “top-notch” location continues. No longer is new development
primarily in “greenfield” areas on the fringes of Town. Indeed, we are now using terms like “infill”
and “redevelopment” on a regular basis.

Third, we have not undertaken a broad, community-wide public involvement campaign in years.
The last time that an extensive citizen participation process was conducted was in 1994-1995
when the town-wide land use plan was developed. Since that time, although we have conducted
dozens of separate community meetings, hearings, and open houses that focused on different
topics, projects or geographic areas, we have not worked together as a community to discuss a
common future.

                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 18
Finally, we hear citizens express concern about the direction of the community as they participate
in various meetings, surveys, and conversations. They question the long-term future of the Town.
It is time to involve them in defining a new, shared, common future for Cary. Additionally, it is time
to enlist the business community, major corporations, civic groups, special interest groups and
other organizations in not only determining, but implementing, the future of Cary.

What is Visioning and What is its Purpose?

Visioning is a structured public process used to guide a community as it looks at itself and
decides what it wants to be at some point in the future. From Appleton, Wisconsin to
Chattanooga, Tennessee to the Wasatch region of Utah, hundreds of cities, towns and regions
have engaged their business leaders, nonprofit agencies and citizens in a community dialogue to
set an overall direction for the future. Examples of such visioning efforts include Champaign
County, Illinois’ “big.small.all”; Portland, Oregon’s visionPDX; Blueprint Houston; and Envision
Utah. Out of these processes, communities then determine "what needs to be done" and "how to
do it" to secure a successful future.

It is important to note that this is not just a land use plan update. Visioning efforts do not simply
address land use or growth and development (although these are components), but instead cover
a much wider spectrum of community issues and concerns. These often include topics like the
natural environment, transportation, downtown, community services, recreation, economic
development, education, workforce development, housing and human and fiscal health.

Who Manages the Visioning Effort?

In some places, the impetus for developing a new community vision is a “grassroots” project
sparked by a private, nonprofit group or the business community. For example, Chattanooga
Venture conducted Vision 2000 in the city of Chattanooga. Chattanooga Venture was a not-for-
profit organization that facilitated citizen participation in establishing the agenda for the City's
future. This organization also helped address strategic issues for the community's vitality, and
served as a change catalyst. Formed in 1984, Chattanooga Venture was founded on the premise
that community success benefits from a process that incorporates ideas from the community, and
it is supported by citizens who form coalitions to implement decisive changes. In other cases,
local government units spearhead the program.

Additionally, different places also structure their project “leadership team” in a variety of fashions,
with some efforts relying upon an appointed steering committee and others using a consortium of
partners to work together. The latter is being done in Bend, Oregon as that community proceeds
with its “Bend 2030” program.

What is the Typical Visioning Process?
Fairly standard models for conducting a visioning process exist. Essentially, they all boil down to
leading community discussions about these four components: (1) Analyze the Existing Situation
and Forces of Change; (2) Determine Where the Community Is, (3) Decide Where the
Community Wants to Go, and (4) Lay Out an Action Plan for Implementation.

Penn State University’s Cooperative Extension Service assists its Pennsylvania jurisdictions with
a program designed exactly along these lines:
    •   Setting Our Course
    •   Where We Are
    •   Where We Want to Be
    •   Making the Trip


                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 19
Similar approaches can be found in other states like Oregon, whose process is represented by
the following flowchart:




Desired Outcomes/Results

Some of the outcomes of a visioning project include the following results:

1.   First and foremost, visioning facilitates a community dialogue.
2.   Visioning enables the establishment of a shared, common future to achieve.
3.   A community-developed, comprehensive vision provides a basis and rationale for making
     future decisions.
4.   A vision plan provides policy and operation direction to staff.
5.   A visioning effort should involve and/or develop new community leaders and groups who
     become more “owners” of the process and take on subsequent actions to make the vision
     happen.

What Will Visioning Cost and How Long Will it Take?

Costs and timeframes for visioning exercises vary from place to place. Some of these initiatives
take several months while others take years to conduct. Such efforts depend upon the size of the
place, the community’s commitment to the project, the level of citizen involvement, the methods
used to gather public input, the amount of publicity and information provided to the community,
and the topics (and level of detail) to be addressed.

Additionally, the use of consultants (or multi-firm consulting teams) to assist and facilitate the
process will affect time and cost considerations. For quick comparison purposes, Columbia,
Missouri’s Imagine Columbia’s Future took 14 months with a cost of $158,000 for a consultant to
facilitate the process. The Champaign County, Illinois effort is slated to take two years at a cost of
$320,000.

What Features Should Cary’s Visioning Effort Incorporate?

In keeping with our reputation, the staff team firmly believes that any effort should be “done right.”
Setting a community vision for Cary cannot be taken lightly and should include a wide and varied


                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 20
public information, education and involvement campaign. For the ultimate vision to belong to, and
be part of, the community, it must be developed by the community.

We think that a well-qualified consultant with considerable experience in managing, coordinating
and facilitating visioning exercises for communities our size or larger should be hired to assist
with this process.

We should also do all we can to involve as many stakeholders as possible in this effort. And while
many citizens may participate “electronically,” we also want our residents to get out and meet
their neighbors face-to-face by attending public workshops, forums, community meetings and
other similar venues to talk about the future of Cary.

Fiscal Impact: Due to the many variables mentioned above, it is difficult to predict the costs
associated with development of a community vision. However, staff estimates that a funding
commitment of $350,000 to $500,000 would be required. If authorized to proceed, the staff team
will develop a specific budget request for Council’s consideration before any work begins.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that council approve work on an extensive community
visioning project, including development and issuance of an RFP for specialized consulting
services to assist with the effort.

ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to approve the consent agenda, except for items B.3.d., request
for road improvement waiver – Progress Energy Piney Plains Subdivision, and B.3.e.,
implementation of annexation program: Phase 1. Mrs. Adcock provided the second, and
council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

        d. Request for Road Improvement Waiver – Progress Energy Piney Plains
           Substation (EN08-103)
           Committee unanimously recommended denying a request by Progress Energy
           for waiver of thoroughfare improvement requirements associated with the
           proposed Piney Plains Substation addition and that the thoroughfare road
           improvements, 10’ concrete multi-use trail, and right-of-way dedication for
           Piney Plains Road be required.

Removed from consent for discussion. See item G of these minutes.
_________________________

        e. Implementation of Annexation Program: Phase I (PL08-039)
           Committee unanimously recommended that staff be directed to begin
           implementation of Phase I of the Town’s adopted Annexation Program and to
           perform the required annexation report and plan of service for possible Town-
           initiated annexation of all nine areas included in Phase I of the adopted
           Annexation Program.

Removed from consent to discussion. See item G of these minutes.

_________________________

C. RECOGNITIONS, REPORTS, AND PRESENTATIONS

    1. Presentation of a proclamation from the Wake County PTA thanking the Town of
       Cary for implementing school zone safety measures. (Wake County PTA
       Representatives)



                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                         Page 21
Representatives of the Wake County PTA presented Police Chief Pat Bazemore with a
proclamation in appreciation of the school safety zone decisions that have been implemented.

_________________________

D. PUBLIC SPEAKS OUT (one hour time limit)

No one spoke.

_________________________

E. PUBLIC HEARINGS

   1. Raftery Tract Park Development:

       a. ANNEXATION PETITION 08-A-01
          Property owners: Town of Cary; Wake County
          Location: 1,600 feet southeast of the Green Level Church Road and White Oak
          Church Road intersection
          Acreage: 114.92 plus 5.29 acres of right-of-way
          Zoning: Residential 40 Wake (R-40W)
          Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: Yes
          Existing Use: Vacant
          Proposed use: Future park and greenway trail
          Associated Rezoning Case: 08-REZ-02 (Raftery Property)
          Speaker: Mrs. Debra Grannan
          Proposed council action: defer action to a future council meeting to allow final
          vote on the annexation to coincide with final vote on the associated rezoning
          (08-REZ-02)

Annexation Petition Number: 08-A-01
Property Addresses: 1305 White Oak Church Road and other unaddressed properties
Wake County Parcel Numbers: 0724219914, 0724316995, 0724303403, 0724416848
Real ID Numbers: 0183073, 0297306, 0297307, 0047493
Petition Date: 4/20/2008
Proposed Effective Date: To be determined

OWNERS:
Town of Cary
316 N. Academy Street
Cary, NC 27512-8005
Wake County
P. O. Box 550
Raleigh, NC 27602-0550
LOCATION: 1,600 feet southeast of Green Level Church Road and White Oak Church Road
intersection

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning: Residential 40 Wake (R-40W)
Acreage: 114.92 plus 5.29 adjacent right of way = 120.21 total deeded acres
Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: Yes
% Contiguity (excluding satellite town limits): 22.38%
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Future park and greenway trail
Associated Rezoning Case: 08-REZ-02 (Raftery Property)
Associated Development Plan: None

                                                                                 June 26, 2008
                                                                                      Page 22
UTILITIES:
Water: 6,210 feet northeast
Sewer: 6,760 feet northeast

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District: Morrisville
Voting District: A
Tax Value: $10,910,068

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency and Resolution Ordering Public Hearing: 5/29/2008
Staff Recommendation: Forward to public hearing on 6/26/2008
Action: Forwarded to public hearing on 6/26/2008

Town Council – Public Hearing: 6/26/2008

The document that Council will consider for adoption at this meeting follows:

08-A-01
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING LANDS CONTIGUOUS TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF
THE TOWN OF CARY
WHEREAS, on 4/20/2008, the Town of Cary and Wake County have made their intentions known
to the Town Council and are requesting consideration to annex the following described areas
owned jointly by the Town of Cary, under G.S. 160A-53, and Wake County, under G.S. 160A-51:

Town of Cary; Wake County; Wake County Parcel Identification #’s: 0724219914,
0724316995, 0724303403, 0724416848; including 114.92 acres, plus 5.29 acres of
adjacent right-of-way; which are Contiguous to the existing municipal limits of the Town of
Cary; and

WHEREAS, on 5/29/2008, the Town Clerk of the Town of Cary certified the sufficiency of said
request, the same being duly made after investigation; and

WHEREAS, on 5/29/2008, the Town Council of the Town of Cary ordered a public hearing on the
question of said annexation and Notice of a Public Hearing was published in the newspaper of
general circulation as required by law; and

WHEREAS, the matter came for public hearing before the Town Council of the Town of Cary on
6/26/2008, at which time all persons opposed and all persons in favor of said annexation were
allowed to be heard; and

WHEREAS, the Petition above mentioned meets all the requirements of G.S. 160A-53 and 160A-
51.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary, North Carolina
that:

Section 1. The area described herein that is jointly owned by the Town of Cary and Wake County
and depicted on the map, is hereby annexed to and made a part of the Town of Cary, effective on
(to be determined) with a condition that the property owner connect to the Town of Cary
sewer/water line based upon the Town’s policy(ies) in place on the effective date of this
ordinance. A map and description of the annexed area are on file in the Planning Department,
Cary Town Hall.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Wake County Parcel Identification #’s: 0724219914, 0724316995, 0724303403, 0724416848


                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                         Page 23
Section 2. That from and after the effective date of this ordinance, the territory and its citizens
and property shall be subject to all debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in the Town of
Cary, and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of the municipality.
Said annexed territory shall be subjected to municipal taxes according to G.S. 160A-58.10.

Section 3. The Mayor of the Town of Cary shall cause an accurate map of the newly annexed
territory together with a copy of this ordinance, duly certified, to be recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Wake County and in the Office of the Secretary of State of North Carolina.

Section 4. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-22, the Town Clerk is directed to update the Official Town Map
by drawing in the territory annexed, or setting out the boundaries in a written description, or
showing the current Town boundaries by a combination of these techniques. Such a map shall
also be delivered to the Wake County Board of Elections as required by G.S. 163-288.1

Section 5. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-23, the boundaries of Electoral District A are hereby revised to
account for and include the territory annexed, and the Official Town Map of Electoral Wards is
hereby amended to include the annexed territory in the said Electoral District.

        b. REZONING 08-REZ-02, Raftery Tract Park
           Location: 1,600 feet southeast of Green Level Church Road and White Oak
           Church Road intersection
           Current Zoning: Residential 40 Wake (R-40W)
           Proposed Zoning: Resource/Recreation (RR)
           Acreage: 115.5 ±
           Speaker: Mrs. Debra Grannan
           Proposed council action: refer to the July 21, 2008 planning and zoning board
           meeting

Background

Wake County and the Town of Cary jointly purchased approximately 115 acres from Raftery
Ventures for open space and recreational purposes. It was agreed that Wake County and the
Town of Cary would jointly plan for the future use of this property. The Town of Cary is required
to apply base zoning to all property annexed into the Town’s corporate limits. This land is
currently located outside Cary’s ETJ and there is currently an annexation petition (08-A-01)
associated with this case.

This application is a request for Town Council to approve an Ordinance to amend the official
zoning map of the Town of Cary for approximately 115.5 acres, located 1,600 feet southeast of
the Green Level Church Road and White Oak Church Road intersection, from 40 Wake County
(R-40W) to Resource/Recreation (RR).

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

Background Information

 Applicant/Agent         Town of Cary
                         316 N. Academy Street
                         Cary, NC 27513
 Acreage                  115.5 ±

                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 24
 General Location         1,600 feet southeast of the Green Level Church Road and White Oak
                          Church Road Intersection
 Hearings / Meetings         Public Hearing           Planning & Zoning        Town Council
                             June 26, 2008              July 21, 2008         August 28, 2008
 Land Use                 Parks
 Designation

 Town Limits              The land is located outside Cary’s ETJ; annexation is required prior to
                          zoning being applied.
 Annexation               There is an annexation petition associated with this case
 Valid Protest            Protest petitions are not applicable to a map amendment (rezoning) that
                          initially zones property that is being added to the Town’s jurisdiction by
                          annexation.
 P&Z                      To be provided after the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting
 Recommendation
 Existing Use
                          Vacant
 Proposed Use             Uses permitted under RR zoning such as greenways, playgrounds and
                          athletic fields.
 Final Council Action     To be provided after the Town Council Meeting
 Staff Contact            Debra Grannan, Senior Planner
                          316 N. Academy Street
                          Cary , NC 27513
                          (919) 460-4980
                          Debra.Grannan@townofcary.org

Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

A.        Land Use Plan: This rezoning request conforms to the adopted Land Use Plan which
          designates the area for Parks, Open Space and Greenways.

B.        Growth Management Plan:
          The Growth Management Plan includes the following five Guiding Principles which are
          relevant to this case:
     1.   R1 Guiding Principle: Ensure that adequate infrastructure and services are available
          concurrently with new development.
     2.   L2 Guiding Principle: Ensure that future growth protects sensitive natural resources and
          protects open space.
     3.   A2 Guiding Principle: Ensure that the overall amount of development in Cary is consistent
          with the Town’s growth management goals.
     4.   C2 Guiding Principle: Ensure public investment decisions are consistent with the Town’s
          growth management goals.
     5.   Q1 Guiding Principle: Continue Cary ’s leadership role in quality growth and development

C. Affordable Housing Plan:
   Based on the proposal, the Affordable Housing Plan is not applicable.

D. Comprehensive Transportation Plan:
   *East/West collector extension shown on thoroughfare plan has been re-routed north to
   Green Level Church Road, so is no longer required.
   * This rezoning is in the vicinity of the County Line Road extension and will require further
   study of the alignment. The dimensional requirements are as follows:
   Existing Section: N/A
   Future Section: SW Area Plan rural thoroughfare requirements

                                                                                      June 26, 2008
                                                                                           Page 25
     Road Improvements: None scheduled
     Sidewalks Requirements: N/A
     Bicycle Requirements: N/A
     Transit Requirements: None

E. Parks & Greenways Master Plan:
According to the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Facilities Master Plan this
property was purchased for open space and park purposes. Per the approved Master Plan, this
has been designated as a Community Park . The American Tobacco Trail (ATT) passes through
the property, and a Town of Cary greenway is proposed along the riparian buffer on site
connecting to the ATT. According to the Open Space and Historical Resources Plan (OSHRP)
portions of this property are proposed for open space conservation due to the mixed hardwood
and conifer forests on site.

Consistency with the Land Development Ordinance

F. Environmental:
According to the Town of Cary GIS maps, there are stream buffers located on the subject
property. The project will be required to comply with all buffer requirements of the Land
Development Ordinance during the site plan approval process.

G. Buffers:
The type and width of perimeter buffers required on the subject property will depend on future
development plans. If park land or open space is proposed, then according to Chapter 7 of the
Land Development Ordinance, a 20-foot Type B (semi-opaque) buffer shall be required adjacent
to the single-family homes adjacent to the property. If future development plans include an
athletic field or public recreation center, then a 40-foot type A (opaque) Buffer shall be required.

H. Streetscape:
According to Chapter 7 of the Land Development Ordinance, the width of the streetscape for non-
residential uses shall be a minimum of 30 feet along thoroughfares and major collectors
designated on the Cary Comprehensive Plan, measured from the ultimate right-of-way line.

I. Traffic Analysis:
Currently, under Wake County zoning, R-40W, this parcel could generate 117 peak hour trips.
While preliminary engineering of the site has not been done, with the proposed zoning to
resource/recreation, the site was reviewed for trip generation purposes as a regional park (Land
Use Code 417). This use generates 0.20 trips/acre (assume 115.5 acres) for the PM or 23 trips.
Therefore, this proposal would be considered a down zoning from a traffic standpoint. However,
a traffic study might be needed at site plan. If other amenities are identified to be included in the
park, the traffic impacts will be identified at that time.

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

Town Council Criteria for Consideration in Reviewing Rezonings:

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

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


                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 26
2.    The proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan set forth in Section 1.3
      (LDO);
3.    The Town and other service providers will be able to provide sufficient public safety,
      educational, recreational, transportation and utility facilities and services to the subject
      property while maintaining sufficient levels of service to existing development;
4.    The proposed rezoning is unlikely to have significant adverse impacts on the natural
      environment, including air, water, noise, stormwater management, wildlife and vegetation;
5.    The proposed rezoning will not have significant adverse impacts on property in the vicinity
      of the subject tract;
6.    The proposed zoning classification is suitable for the subject property.

                                   Ordinance for Consideration
                                  08-REZ-02 Raftery Tract Park

AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO
CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 115.5 ACRES LOCATED AT WHITE OAK
CHURCH ROAD OWNED BY TOWN OF CARY AND WAKE COUNTY BY REZONING FROM
RESIDENTIAL 40 WAKE (R40W) TO RESOURCE/RECREATIONAL (RR).

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CARY:

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

 PARCEL & OWNER INFORMATION
 Property Owner(s)                        County Parcel          Real Estate ID(s)      Area ±
                                        Number(s) (10 digit)                            (Acres)
 Wake County and Town of Cary              0724416848                   0047493         35.02 ±
 Wake County
 P. O. Box 550
 Raleigh , NC 27602-0550
 Wake County and Town of Cary               0724219914                  0180373          19.55
 Wake County
 P. O. Box 550
 Raleigh , NC 27602-0550
 Wake County and Town of Cary               0724316995                  0297306          60.86
 Wake County
 P. O. Box 550
 Raleigh , NC 27602-0550
 Wake County and Town of Cary               0724303403                  0297307          0.01
 Wake County
 P. O. Box 550
 Raleigh , NC 27602-0550

 Total Acres                                                                            115.5 ±

Section 2: That this Property is rezoned from Wake County 40 (R-40W) to Resource/Recreation
(RR) subject to all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance (LDO) and other
applicable laws, standards, polices and guidelines.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption.
Adopted and effective: August 28, 2008 (approximate date)

Staff’s PowerPoint presentation on the rezoning is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit
A.


                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 27
No one spoke; the mayor closed the public hearing.

Mr. Portman clarified that the property is not in Cary’s ETJ. Mrs. Grannan of the planning staff
stated the property is jointly owned by the Town of Cary and Wake County, and an annexation is
required.

Mr. Portman asked if it is time to seek an expansion of Cary’s ETJ in this area. Mr. Ulma stated
staff looked at this area (southwest) and the area to the southeast a couple of years ago and
identified the area to the southeast where Cary has annexed through its ETJ. Subsequently, the
Town went to the county a couple of years ago with an ETJ request in this area, but the county
put the request on hold until the annexation program (later on this agenda) was developed. He
stated the staff deferred any request to the county in the southwest area to wait and see how the
Chatham County planning process proceeded. The stated the Wake and Chatham Boards of
Commissioners would be responsible for approving ETJ in the respective counties.

Mr. Ulma stated staff can review the ETJ issue again. Mr. Coleman suggested that staff do the
preliminary ETJ work and bring it to the planning and development committee. Council concurred.

Mrs. Robison asked that the planning and development committee also review the number of ETJ
representatives on the planning and zoning board as part of the ETJ issue.

ACTION: Referred the rezoning to the July 21, 2008 planning and zoning board meeting

No action is required on the annexation at this meeting.

_________________________

    2. Consideration of adoption of the following annexation ordinances:

        a. ANNEXATION PETITION 08-A-04
           Property owners: SAS Institute, Inc.; Reedy Creek Investments, LLC
           Location: 2301 and 2401 Trenton Road
           Acreage: 11.79
           Zoning: Residential 40 (R-40)
           Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: No
           Existing Use: Vacant
           Proposed use: Solar Array Panel Installation Site
           Associated Development Plan: 08-SP-037 (SAS Solar Array)
           Speaker: Mr. Wayne Nicholas
           Proposed council action: council may take action

Annexation Petition Number: 08-A-04
Property Address: 2301, 2401 Trenton Road Intersection
Wake County Parcel Number: 0775413221 (portion), 0775402653 (portion)
Real ID Number: 0277290 (portion), 0148869 (portion)
Petition Date: 4/15/2008
Proposed Effective Date: 6/26/2008

OWNERS:
SAS Institute, Inc.
P. O. Box 610
Cary, NC 27512-0610

Reedy Creek Investments, LLC
P. O. Box 3557
Cary, NC 27519-3557

                                                                                   June 26, 2008
                                                                                        Page 28
LOCATION: 2,720 feet southwest of I-40 and Trenton Road intersection

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning: Residential 40 (R-40)
Acreage: 11.79 plus 0.00 adjacent right of way = 11.79 total deeded acres
Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: No
% Contiguity (excluding satellite town limits): 0.00%
Existing Use: Vacant
Proposed Use: Solar Array Panel Installation Site
Associated Rezoning Case: None
Associated Development Plan: 08-SP-037 (SAS Solar Array)
UTILITIES:
Water: 1,840 feet north
Sewer: 2,140 feet northwest

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District: Western Wake
Voting District: B
Tax Value: $1,414,609

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency and Resolution Ordering Public Hearing: 5/29/2008
Staff Recommendation: Forward to public hearing on 6/26/2008
Action:   Forwarded to public hearing on 6/26/2008
Town Council – Public Hearing: 6/26/2008
Staff Recommendation:      Adoption with an effective date of 6/26/2008

The document that Council will consider for adoption at this meeting follows:

08-A-04
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING LANDS NOT CONTIGUOUS TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
OF THE TOWN OF CARY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, on 4/15/2008, the Town Council has been petitioned under G.S. 160A-58.1 to annex
the area described below:

SAS Institute, Inc.; Reedy Creek Investments, LLC; Wake County Parcel Identification
#’s: 0775413221 (portion), 0775402653 (portion); including 11.79 acres, plus 0.00 acres
of adjacent right-of-way; which are No to the existing municipal limits of the Town of Cary;
and

WHEREAS, on 5/29/2008, the Town Clerk of the Town of Cary certified the sufficiency of said
Petition, the same being duly made after investigation; and

WHEREAS, on 5/29/2008, the Town Council of the Town of Cary ordered a public hearing on the
question of said annexation and Notice of a Public Hearing was published in the newspaper of
general circulation as required by law; and

WHEREAS, the matter came for public hearing before the Town Council of the Town of Cary on
6/26/2008, at which time all persons opposed and all persons in favor of said annexation were
allowed to be heard; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council hereby finds that the area described herein meets the standards of
G.S. 160A-58.1(b), described as follows:




                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 29
a. The nearest point on the proposed satellite corporate limits is not more than three miles from
   the corporate limits of the Town.

b. No point on the proposed satellite corporate limits is closer to another municipality than to the
   Town.

c. The area described is so situated that the Town will be able to provide the same services
   within the proposed satellite corporate limits that it provides within the primary corporate limits.

d. No subdivision, as defined in G.S. 160A-376, will be split up by this proposed annexation.

e. The area within the proposed satellite corporate limits, when added to the area within all other
   satellite corporate limits, does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the area within the primary
   corporate limits of the Town.

f. The public health, safety, and welfare of the Town and of the area proposed for annexation
   will be best served by annexing the area described herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary, North Carolina
that:

Section 1. By virtue of the authority granted by 160A-58.1, the area described in the petition and
depicted on the map (filed in the planning department), is hereby annexed to and made a part of
the Town of Cary, effective on 6/26/2008 with a condition that the property owner connect to the
Town of Cary sewer/water line based upon the Town’s policy(ies) in place on the effective date of
this ordinance. A map and description of the annexed area are on file in the Planning
Department, Cary Town Hall.

METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
Commencing at a point in the south east corner of Lot 15 and the west side
Trenton Road right of way; Thence with a bearing N 00° 49' 34" W and a distance of
28.02 feet to a iron pipe, Thence S 01° 13' 19" W a distance of 212.38 feet
to an iron pipe, the place of beginning:
Thence, N 69° 34' 05" W a distance of 526.01 feet to a point,
Thence, N 71° 35' 34" W a distance of 927.26 feet to a point,
Thence, N 90° 00' 00" W for a distance of 559.36 feet to a point,
Thence, N 00° 00' 00" E for a distance of 367.83 feet to a point,
Thence, N 90° 00' 00" E for a distance of 983.58 feet to a point,
Thence, S 00° 00' 00" W for a distance of 367.83 feet to a point,
Thence, N 90° 00' 00" W for a distance of 28.36 feet to a point,
Thence, S 71° 35' 34" E for a distance of 553.87 feet to a point,
Thence, S 69° 34' 05" E for a distance of 484.67 feet to a point,
thence S 01° 13' 19" W a distance of 132.37 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
containing 11.8808 acres.

Section 2. That from and after the effective date of this ordinance, the territory and its citizens
and property shall be subject to all debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in the Town of
Cary, and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of the municipality.
Said territory shall be subjected to municipal taxes according to G.S. 160A-58.10.

Section 3. The Mayor of the Town of Cary shall cause an accurate map of the newly annexed
territory together with a copy of this ordinance, duly certified, to be recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Wake County and in the Office of the Secretary of State of North Carolina.

Section 4. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-22, the Town Clerk is directed to update the Official Town Map
by drawing in the territory annexed, or setting out the boundaries in a written description, or



                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 30
showing the current Town boundaries by a combination of these techniques. Such a map shall
also be delivered to the Wake County Board of Elections as required by G.S. 163-288.1.

Section 5. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-23, the boundaries of Electoral District B are hereby revised to
account for and include the territory annexed, and the Official Town Map of Electoral Wards is
hereby amended to include the annexed territory in the said Electoral District.

Adopted on 6/26/2008.

        b. ANNEXATION PETITION 08-A-05
           Property owner: Sears Farm LLC
           Location: intersection of High House Road and Davis Drive
           Acreage: 46.34 plus 5.73 acres of right-of-way
           Zoning: Residential and General Commercial in a Planned Development District
           (GCP) in a Mixed Use Overlay District
           Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: Yes
           Existing Use: Residential Single-Family and Vacant
           Proposed use: Commercial Development
           Associated Development Plan: 08-SP-023 (Searstone Development)
           Speaker: Mr. Wayne Nicholas
           Proposed council action: council may take action

Annexation Petition Number: 08-A-05
Property Address: 1601, 1651 High House Road; and other unaddressed property
Wake County Parcel Number: 0744638111, 0744525030, 0744623662
Real ID Number: 0110707, 0342712, 0068092
Petition Date: 5/2/2008
Proposed Effective Date: 6/26/2008

OWNERS:
Sears Farm LLC
1142 Executive Circle , Suite D
Cary, NC 27511-4570

LOCATION: At the intersection of High House Road and Davis Drive

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning: Residential and General Commercial in a Planned Development District (GCP)
in a Mixed Use Overlay District
Acreage: 46.34 plus 5.73 adjacent right of way = 52.07 total deeded acres
Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: Yes
% Contiguity (excluding satellite town limits): 93.15%
Existing Use: Residential Single-Family and Vacant
Proposed Use: Commercial Development
Associated Rezoning Case: None
Associated Development Plan: 08-SP-023 (Searstone Development)
UTILITIES:
Water: On Site
Sewer: On Site

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District: Morrisville
Voting District: D
Tax Value: $9,693,394



                                                                                   June 26, 2008
                                                                                        Page 31
MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency and Resolution Ordering Public Hearing: 5/29/2008
Staff Recommendation: Forward to public hearing on 6/26/2008
Action: Forwarded with an effective date of 6/26/2008

Town Council – Public Hearing: 6/26/2008
Staff Recommendation: adoption with an effective date of 6/26/2008

The document that Council will consider for adoption at this meeting follows:

08-A-05
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING LANDS CONTIGUOUS TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES OF
THE TOWN OF CARY
WHEREAS, on 5/2/2008 , the Town Council has been petitioned under G.S. 160A-31 to annex
the area described below:

Sears Farm LLC; Wake County Parcel Identification #’s: 0744638111, 0744525030,
0744623662; including 46.34 acres, plus 5.73 acres of adjacent right-of-way; which are
Contiguous to the existing municipal limits of the Town of Cary; and

WHEREAS, on 5/29/2008, the Town Clerk of the Town of Cary certified the sufficiency of said
Petition, the same being duly made after investigation; and

WHEREAS, on 5/29/2008, the Town Council of the Town of Cary ordered a public hearing on the
question of said annexation and Notice of a Public Hearing was published in the newspaper of
general circulation as required by law; and

WHEREAS, the matter came for public hearing before the Town Council of the Town of Cary on
6/26/2008, at which time all persons opposed and all persons in favor of said annexation were
allowed to be heard; and

WHEREAS, the Petition above mentioned meets all the requirements of G.S. 160A-31.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary, North Carolina
that:

Section 1. The area described in the petition and depicted on the map (filed in the planning
department), is hereby annexed to and made a part of the Town of Cary, effective on 6/26/2008
with a condition that the property owner connect to the Town of Cary sewer/water line based
upon the Town’s policy(ies) in place on the effective date of this ordinance. A map and
description of the annexed area are on file in the Planning Department, Cary Town Hall.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

Wake County Parcel Identification #’s: 0744638111, 0744525030, 0744623662

Section 2. That from and after the effective date of this ordinance, the territory and its citizens
and property shall be subject to all debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in the Town of
Cary, and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of the municipality.
Said annexed territory shall be subjected to municipal taxes according to G.S. 160A-58.10.

Section 3. The Mayor of the Town of Cary shall cause an accurate map of the newly annexed
territory together with a copy of this ordinance, duly certified, to be recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Wake County and in the Office of the Secretary of State of North Carolina.

Section 4. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-22, the Town Clerk is directed to update the Official Town Map
by drawing in the territory annexed, or setting out the boundaries in a written description, or

                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 32
showing the current Town boundaries by a combination of these techniques. Such a map shall
also be delivered to the Wake County Board of Elections as required by G.S. 163-288.1.

Section 5. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-23, the boundaries of Electoral District D are hereby revised to
account for and include the territory annexed, and the Official Town Map of Electoral Wards is
hereby amended to include the annexed territory in the said Electoral District.

Adopted on 6/26/2008.

No one spoke; the mayor closed the public hearing.

ACTION: Mr. Portman moved to approve both 08-A-04 and 08-A-05. Mr. Frantz provided the
second.

Mrs. Robison asked if the land development ordinance addresses solar panel installations. Mr.
Nicholas stated they are considered a private, minor utility, which is permitted in all zoning
districts.

Mr. Weinbrecht pointed out that he and Mrs. Adcock are employed is SAS Institute but have no
direct financial interest in this matter. He read a portion of the general statutes, which indicates
they must vote. The town attorney concurred.

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

(Ordinances O-2008-29 and O-2008-30 are also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

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

    1. KODAVANTI DEVELOPMENT

        a. ANNEXATION 07-A-30
           Property owner: Prasada R. & Urmila P. Kodavanti and P&P Balaji Investments,
           Inc.
           Location: 6905 Jenks Road; 711 Trelawney Lane
           Acreage: 2.51 plus 0 adjacent right of way = 2.51 total deeded acres
           Zoning: Residential 40 Wake (R-40W)
           Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: No
           Existing Use: Residential Single Family
           Proposed use: Residential Single Family
           Associated Rezoning Case: 08-REZ-01 (Kodavanti Property)
           Speaker: Mrs. Debra Grannan
           Proposed council action: council may take action

Annexation Petition Number: 07-A-30
Property Addresses: 6905 Jenks Road; 711 Trelawney Lane
Wake County Parcel Numbers: 0733625063, 0733624001
Real ID Numbers: 0062882, 0035989
Petition Date: 1/18/2008
Proposed Effective Date: 6/26/2008

OWNERS:
Prasada R. & Urmila P. Kodavanti

                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 33
162 Mockingbird Court
Apex, NC 27523-6367
P&P Balaji Investments, Inc.
162 Mockingbird Court
Apex, NC 27523-6367
LOCATION: 6905 Jenks Road; 711 Trelawney Lane

ZONING & PROPOSED USE:
Current Zoning: Residential 40 Wake (R-40W)
Acreage: 2.51 plus 0 adjacent right of way = 2.51 total deeded acres
Contiguous to Primary Corporate Limits: No
% Contiguity (excluding satellite town limits): 0%
Proposed Use: Residential Single Family
Existing Use: Residential Single Family
Associated Rezoning Case: 08-REZ-01 (Kodavanti Property)
Associated Development Plan: None
UTILITIES:
Water: On Site
Sewer: 3,620 feet northeast

DISTRICTS & TAX VALUE:
Fire District: Hipex
Voting District: A
Tax Value: $482,766

MEETINGS:
Town Council – Certificate of Sufficiency and Resolution Ordering Public Hearing: 3/27/2008
Staff Recommendation: Forward to public hearing on 4/24/2008
Action: Forwarded to public hearing on 4/24/2008
Town Council – Public Hearing: 4/24/2008
Staff Recommendation: Adoption with an effective date concurrent with associated rezoning
case
Action: Public hearing opened and closed; Staff directed to add case to 6/26/2008 agenda for
ordinance adoption
Town Council – Ordinance Adoption: 6/26/2008
Staff Recommendation: Adoption with an effective date of 6/26/2008

The document that Council will consider for adoption at this meeting follows:
07-A-30
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING LANDS NOT CONTIGUOUS TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
OF THE TOWN OF CARY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, on 1/18/2008, the Town Council has been petitioned under G.S. 160A-58.1 to annex
the area described below:

Prasada R. & Urmila P. Kodavanti; P&P Balaji Investments, Inc.; Wake County Parcel
Identification #’s: 0733625063, 0733624001; including 2.51 acres, plus 0 acres of
adjacent right-of-way; which are Non Contiguous to the existing municipal limits of the
Town of Cary; and

WHEREAS, on 3/27/2008, the Town Clerk of the Town of Cary certified the sufficiency of said
Petition, the same being duly made after investigation; and




                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                         Page 34
WHEREAS, on 3/27/2008, the Town Council of the Town of Cary ordered a public hearing on the
question of said annexation and Notice of a Public Hearing was published in the newspaper of
general circulation as required by law; and

WHEREAS, the matter came for public hearing before the Town Council of the Town of Cary on
4/24/2008, at which time all persons opposed and all persons in favor of said annexation were
allowed to be heard; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council hereby finds that the area described herein meets the standards of
G.S. 160A-58.1(b), described as follows:

a. The nearest point on the proposed satellite corporate limits is not more than three miles from
   the corporate limits of the Town.

b. No point on the proposed satellite corporate limits is closer to another municipality than to the
   Town.

c. The area described is so situated that the Town will be able to provide the same services
   within the proposed satellite corporate limits that it provides within the primary corporate limits.

d. No subdivision, as defined in G.S. 160A-376, will be split up by this proposed annexation.

e. The area within the proposed satellite corporate limits, when added to the area within all other
   satellite corporate limits, does not exceed ten percent (10%) of the area within the primary
   corporate limits of the Town.

f. The public health, safety, and welfare of the Town and of the area proposed for annexation
   will be best served by annexing the area described herein.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Town Council of the Town of Cary, North Carolina
that:

Section 1. By virtue of the authority granted by 160A-58.1, the area described in the petition and
depicted on the map (filed in the planning department), is hereby annexed to and made a part of
the Town of Cary, effective on 6/26/2008 with a condition that the property owner connect to the
Town of Cary sewer/water line based upon the Town’s policy(ies) in place on the effective date of
this ordinance. A map and description of the annexed area are on file in the Planning
Department, Cary Town Hall.

METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION
6905 Jenks Road – Metes and Bounds
BEGINNING at a point in H. B. Mann’s line and being N. C. Howell’s corner, said point being
located 4.5 feet north of the center line of Jenks Road (paved), and runs thence with said Mann’s
line North 86 degrees West 130 feet to a point in the North side ditch of said road, Barbara Scott
Johnson’s new corner; thence a new line with said Johnson North 4 degrees 30 minutes East 225
feet to a stake, said Johnson’s new corner in Glender Council Scott’s Estate line; thence South
86 degrees East with said Estate line 130 feet to an iron stake in N. C. Howell’s line; thence with
said Howell’s line South 4 degrees 30 minutes West 225 feet to the point of beginning, containing
67/100 of an acre, more or less, according to survey of E. C. Smith, R. L. S., November 25, 1958,
This being the eastern part of that land described in a certain deed from J. C. Scott, Sr., and
others to Barbara Scott Johnson and husband, dated April 16, 1958, recorded Book 1320, page
309, Wake County Registry.

AND,

711 Trelawney Lane – Metes and Bounds



                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 35
BEGINNING AT A STAKE SET IN THE EASTERN RIGHT OF WAY OF TRELANNEY, SAID
POINT MARKING THE NORTH WESTERN CORNER OF LOT 1A, SECTION 1, SCOTT FARM
S/D, BOOK OF MAPS 1978, PAGE 797, WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY; THENCE S. 74
DEGREES 37’58” E. 194.12’ TO A STAKE; THENCE, S. 05 DEGREES 31’29” W. 110.84’, N. 84
DEGREES 13’28” W. 129.67’ AND S. 05 DEGREES 44’48” W. 139.16’ AND S. 04 DEGREES 20’
45” TO A STAKE SET IN THE JENKS ROAD; THENCE N. 84 DEGREES 05’05”W. 170.00’ AND
S. 66 DEGREES 11’50” W. 27.49’ TO A STAKE SET IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OF TRELANNEY
LANE; THENCE, WITH SAID RIGHT OF WAY N. 05 DEGREES 55’ 10” E. 153.70’ TO A STAKE;
THENCE, WITH THE CURVE OF SAID RIGHT OF WAY MEASURED AS FOLLOWS: RADIUS
OF 195.59’ ARC OF 87.92’, DELTA OF 25 DEGREES 45’ 21”, CHORD OF 87.18’ AND CHORD
BEARING OF N. 19 DEGREES 03’57” E; RADUIS OF 195.59’ ARC OF 60.36’ DELTA OF 17
DEGREES 40’53: CHORD OF 60.12’ AND CHORD BEARING OF N. 40 DEGREES 29’48” E.;
RADIUS OF 218.58’, ARC OF 70.27’, DELTA OF 18 DEGREES 25’15”, CHORD OF 69.97’ AND
CHORD BEARING OF N. 40 DEGREES 56’57” E. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING
1.718 ACRES, ACCORDING TO A SURVEY OF M.M. WEEKS, FOR LAWRENCE S. WILL ET
UX, DATED 8/28/95.

Section 2. That from and after the effective date of this ordinance, the territory and its citizens
and property shall be subject to all debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in the Town of
Cary, and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of the municipality.
Said territory shall be subjected to municipal taxes according to G.S. 160A-58.10.

Section 3. The Mayor of the Town of Cary shall cause an accurate map of the newly annexed
territory together with a copy of this ordinance, duly certified, to be recorded in the Office of the
Register of Deeds of Wake County and in the Office of the Secretary of State of North Carolina.

Section 4. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-22, the Town Clerk is directed to update the Official Town Map
by drawing in the territory annexed, or setting out the boundaries in a written description, or
showing the current Town boundaries by a combination of these techniques. Such a map shall
also be delivered to the Wake County Board of Elections as required by G.S. 163-288.1

Section 5. Pursuant of G.S. 160A-23, the boundaries of Electoral District A are hereby revised to
account for and include the territory annexed, and the Official Town Map of Electoral Wards is
hereby amended to include the annexed territory in the said Electoral District.

Adopted on 6/26/2008.

        b. REZONING 08-REZ-01, Kodavanti Property
           Location: 6905 Jenks Road and 711 Trelawney Lane
           Current Zoning: Residential 40 Wake (R-40 W)
           Proposed Zoning: Residential 40 (R-40)
           Acreage: 2.51 ±
           Speaker: Mrs. Debra Grannan and Ms. Kelly Commiskey
           Comprehensive Plan Consistency: In accordance with N.C.G.S. 160A-383, and
           based upon the recommendations and detailed information developed by staff
           and/or the Planning & Zoning Board contained in the case report, approval of
           this case by the Cary Town Council will officially adopt the individual rezoning
           report as evidence that consistency with the Comprehensive Plan has been
           thoroughly evaluated and that this is a reasonable action to further the
           community’s public interest in carrying out the Comprehensive Plan.
           Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: Voted 8-1 to recommend
           approval
           Proposed council action: council may take action (and must first take action on
           the associated annexation – 07-A-30)




                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 36
Request

This request is for the Cary Town Council to amend the official zoning map for the Town of Cary
by establishing initial base zoning of approximately 2.51 acres, located at 6905 Jenks Road and
711 Trelawney Lane, from Residential 40 Wake County (R-40W) to Residential 40 (R-40).

The Town of Cary is required to apply base zoning to all property annexed into the Town’s
corporate limits and located outside Cary’s ETJ. This subject property is currently located outside
Cary’s ETJ, but within Cary’s Urban Service Area. There is a citizen-initiated annexation petition
(07-A-30) associated with this case.

The Proposed R-40 zoning district is the most compatible to the existing Wake County zoning
designation.

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

Background Information
                          Town of Cary
Applicant

Agent                     Town of Cary
                          P.O. Box 8005
                          Cary, NC 27512

Acreage                   2.51 ±

General Location          6905 Jenks Road and 711 Trelawney Lane


Hearings / Meetings       Public Hearing          Planning & Zoning             Town Council

                          April 24, 2008          May 19, 2008                  June 26, 2008

Land Use Plan             Very Low Density Residential and Commercial within part of a proposed
Designation               Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC)


Town Limits               The subject parcels are located outside of the ETJ.

Annexation                A citizen-initiated annexation petition, 07-A-30, has been submitted by
                          the property owner in conjunction with this rezoning request

Valid Protest             Protest petitions are not applicable to a map amendment (rezoning) that
                          initially zones property that is being added to the Town’s jurisdiction by
                          annexation

P&Z Recommendation        Recommended for approval 8-1

Existing Use
                          Single-family Residential



                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 37
Proposed Use
                           Single-family Residential

Final Council Action       To be provided after the Town Council Meeting

Staff Contact              Debra Grannan, Senior Planner
                           E-mail: debra.grannan@townofcary.org
                           Phone: (919) 460-4980
                           Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8005, Cary, NC 27512



Public Notification: On April 8, 2008, notices were mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the
subject property. In addition, notification consistent with General Statutes was present in the
Cary News on April 9 and 16, 2008.

Feedback at the Town Council Public Hearing: Two citizens spoke at the public hearing voicing
concerns that the parcels might be developed commercially. Council asked if the wells on these
parcels were failing. The citizens who spoke stated that the property owners were having issues
with the wells on site for these 2 parcels. Council members inquired if these parcels could be
developed commercially. Staff stated that the parcels are only having initial zoning established,
(R-40) which would prohibit commercial development. A rezoning and Comprehensive Plan
Amendment would be necessary for a portion of the property to allow for commercial
development.

The applicant has submitted the following proposed zoning conditions: None

Feedback at the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting

Much of the discussion at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting focused on debating the
appropriateness of annexation of the subject property. Concern was expressed by several board
members regarding the Town’s ability to provide emergency services and related to the cost of
extending sewer services to the subject property. Staff was directed to evaluate these concerns.
There was no debate regarding the proposed zoning designation or land use.

Staff Response to Planning and Zoning Board Comments/Concerns

The Fire and Police Departments advised staff that they did not anticipate any problems in
providing emergency services to the subject property. The Solid Waste Management Division of
Public Works and Utilities also did not anticipate any issues with recycling or trash removal.

In regard to questions related to fire safety and hydrant location, there is an existing fire hydrant
at the intersection of NC 55 HWY and Old Jenks Road approximately 300 feet from the subject
property. Town of Cary standards and specifications require a minimum of 700 feet between
hydrants in residential settings.

The Planning and Zoning Board asked if the Town of Cary would be responsible to “rescue” the
property in question if the existing septic system failed. Even with property that has been annexed
into the Town of Cary corporate limits, the Town is not obligated to rescue a failed septic system.
When such situations occur, the owner is responsible for finding a solution should a problem
arise. As with all Cary residents, staff support their efforts to find a solution, but evaluates each
situation on a case by case basis.

Policy statement 104, Annexation Policy, states;

A.       All requests for contiguous or satellite annexations may be deemed appropriate provided
the following standards are used in review:


                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 38
    1. The site has access to Town of Cary utilities, or

    2. A development plan has been approved which will extend utilities to the site.

    3. If a site has access to only one utility, then the Town will have the option of adopting an
    ordinance of annexation with conditions requiring the property owner to pay all applicable
    fees and connect to the other utility within ninety (90) days of the date when it becomes
    adjacent to the site.

Item 3 clearly notes that property owners will pay fees and connect within ninety (90) days of the
date when the utility becomes adjacent to the site.

The Town of Cary is responsible to ensure that we have a plan to extend services to areas
proposed to be annexed and we provide this plan with our overall Master Utility Plan.

Policy Statement 23, Water and Wastewater System Extension and Connection Policy, allows
eligible property owners to request utility extension by submitting a petition to the Town Manger.
If the petition is deemed to be complete, with all required supporting documentation, The Town
Manager shall have the option of ordering the utilities installed, requesting additions or
modifications to the service area, rejecting the request, or submitting the request to Council for
further deliberation. The Town is not obligated to extend these services just because the property
has been annexed.

Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation

As required by G.S. 160A-328, a P&Z recommendation addressing plan consistency and other
matters as deemed appropriate by the Board follows: The Planning and Zoning Board met on
May 19, 2008 and voted 8 to 1 to forward this case to the Town Council with a recommendation
for approval because the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is
reasonable and in the public interest as indicated on the staff report. The reason for the
dissenting vote was to ensure the concerns raised by the Planning and Zoning Board, as
described in this report, were acknowledged and that an opportunity for discussion was provided.

Changes since the Planning and Zoning Board Meeting

Staff had further discussion with the property owner to confirm their understanding that, based on
the zoning being established, only the uses permitted within R-40 districts, such as single-family
residential, would be permitted on the subject property. It was further confirmed with the
applicant that any uses not allowed in R-40 zoning would require the property owner to apply for
a rezoning and possibly a comprehensive plan amendment depending on the property involved.

Summary

As described below in the Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and Consistency with the
Land Development Ordinance sections, staff has reviewed the application and information
provided prior to this meeting, and the analysis by staff is that it is consistent with the Goals and
Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the Land Development Ordinance, and is reasonable and
in the public interest.

Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

A. Land Use Plan: The governing element of the Comprehensive Plan for the subject site is the
Southwest Area Plan. The long-range land use recommendations differ for each of the two
parcels. The larger parcel of 1.84 acres (711 Trelawney Lane) is recommended for Very Low
Density Residential uses (single-family housing on lots of 1 acre or more), and thus the proposed
zoning for this property is consistent with the Land Use Plan.



                                                                                      June 26, 2008
                                                                                           Page 39
The smaller parcel of 0.67 acre (6905 Jenks Road ) is identified as being part of a proposed
mixed-use Neighborhood Activity Center (NAC). The majority and core of the proposed NAC is
located on the south side of Jenks Road, in the Town of Apex. Within the proposed NAC, the
0.67-acre parcel is specifically recommended for either Commercial or Office/ Institutional uses,
and Map 1 of the Southwest Area Plan also advises that future development on the site should
“...be well-buffered from existing residences” – i.e., from the homes located west of the site on
Trelawney Lane. However, these plan recommendations aren’t applicable to this case, since the
case simply involves maintaining two large-lot home sites at very low densities, but under Town
zoning instead of County zoning. Hence, this case can be considered consistent with the Land
Use Plan.

B.      Growth Management Plan: The Growth Management Plan is not applicable to this case.

C.      Affordable Housing Plan: The Affordable Housing Plan is not applicable to this case.

D.      Comprehensive Transportation Plan: Jenks Rd.

Existing Section: Approx. 64 feet right-of-way, 2-3 lanes
Future Section: 2-lane with paved median
Road Improvements: None scheduled
Sidewalks Requirements: Sidewalk required on both sides
Bicycle Requirements: 14-foot wide outside lanes required
Transit Requirements: None

E. Parks & Greenways Master Plan: According to the approved Parks, Recreation and Cultural
Resources Facilities Master Plan there are no issues related to this site. A recreation payment-
in-lieu will be required for residential development in accordance with the Land Development
Ordinance.

F. Open Space and Historic Resources Plan: Neither of the subject parcels includes any
identified open space or historic resources.

Consistency with the Land Development Ordinance

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

G. Environmental: According to the Town of Cary GIS maps, there is a stream buffer impacting
a small portion of the western boundary of the parcels. The project will be required to comply
with all buffer requirements of the Land Development Ordinance during the site plan review
process.

H. Buffers: The proposed R-40 zoning district is the most compatible to the existing Wake
County zoning designation. At this time, since a use consistent with the current Wake County
zoning designation is proposed, no buffers are required. If the property owners were to submit a
subsequent rezoning application, or a development plan that would change or intensify the use,
the buffer requirements would be evaluated at that time in accordance with the LDO.

I. Streetscape: At this time, since a use consistent with the current Wake County zoning
designation is being proposed, no streetscapes are required. If the property owners were to
submit a subsequent rezoning application, or a development plan to change or intensify the use,
the streetscape requirements would be evaluated at that time in accordance with the LDO.

J. Traffic Analysis:


                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                         Page 40
The existing R-40 Wake zoning would generate three peak hour trips and the proposed R-40
zoning would generate three peak hour trips. Currently, our threshold is 50 peak hour trips to
require a traffic study. Therefore, no traffic study is required.

Existing and Requested Zoning District Comparison:

                                                     Existing Zoning           Requested Zoning
             District Regulations
                                                         (R-40W)                      (R-40)

 Maximum Gross Density (du/ac)                             1.08                        1.08

 Minimum Lot Size                                     40,000 sq. ft.              40,000 sq. ft.

 Minimum Width at Building Line                            110’               With septic tank/well:
                                                                              150’ (160’ for corner
                                                                                      lot)

                                                                             With public sewer: 125’
                                                                              (135’ for corner lot)

 Side Yard Setback                                          15’               With septic tank/well:
                                                                                      20’

                                                                              With public sewer: 15’

 Roadway Setback                                  Front and corner: 30’      From thoroughfare: 50’

                                                                               From collector: 30’

                                                                             From other streets: 20’

 Rear Yard Setback                                          30’                         30’

 Maximum Building Height                                    35’                         35’



Town Council Criteria for Consideration in Reviewing Rezonings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 41
6.      The proposed zoning classification is suitable for the subject property.

                                   Ordinance for Consideration
                                  08-REZ-01 Kodavanti Property
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE TOWN OF CARY TO
CHANGE THE ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.51 ACRES LOCATED AT 6905 JENKS ROAD
AND 711 TRELAWNEY LANE OWNED BY PRASADA R. & URMILA P. KODAVANTI AND P&P
BALAJI INVESTMENTS, INC. BY REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL 40 WAKE COUNTY (R-
40W) TO RESIDENTIAL 40 (R-40).
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF CARY:

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

 PARCEL & OWNER INFORMATION

         Property Owner(s)                 County Parcel            Real Estate ID(s)      Area ±
                                         Number(s) (10 digit)                             (Acres)
 Prasada R. & Urmila P. Kodavanti            0733625063                 0062882            0.67 ±
 162 Mockingbird Court
 Apex, NC 27523-6367
 P&P Balaji Investments, Inc.
                                             0733624001                 0035989            1.84 ±
 162 Mockingbird Court
 Apex, NC 27523-6367
 Total Acres                                                                               2.51 ±

Section 2: That this Property is rezoned from Residential 40 Wake County (R-40W) to
Residential 40 (R-40) subject to all the requirements of the Cary Land Development Ordinance
(LDO) and other applicable laws, standards, polices and guidelines.

Section 3: This ordinance shall be effective on the date of adoption.

Adopted and effective: June 26, 2008

Staff’s PowerPoint presentation on the rezoning is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit
B. Ms. Commiskey outlined the planning and zoning board’s concerns, which are contained in the
staff report (herein).

ACTION: Mr. Smith moved to approve the annexation. Mrs. Robison provided the second,
and council granted unanimous approval.

(Ordinance O-2008-31 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to approve the rezoning. Mrs. Adcock provided the
second, and council granted unanimous approval.

(Ordinance O-2008-32 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

G. COMMITTEE REPORTS (discussion items)




                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 42
    Planning and Development Committee, June 19, 2008 (any item pulled from the
    committee consent agenda for discussion [agenda item B.3.] will be discussed during
    this portion of the agenda) (Mr. Portman)

    1. Request for Road Improvement Waiver – Progress Energy Piney Plains Substation
       (EN08-103)
       Committee unanimously recommended denying a request by Progress Energy for
       waiver of thoroughfare improvement requirements associated with the proposed
       Piney Plains Substation addition and that the thoroughfare road improvements, 10’
       concrete multi-use trail, and right-of-way dedication for Piney Plains Road be
       required.

STAFF REPORT
Planning and Development Committee, June 19, 2008

Request for Road Improvement Waiver – Progress Energy Piney Plains Substation (EN08-
103)
Consideration of waiving thoroughfare improvement requirements associated with the proposed
Progress Energy Piney Plains Substation addition
Speaker: Mr. Tim Bailey

From: Tim Bailey, PE, Engineering Director
Prepared by: Sandra Stepney, PE, Transportation Engineer
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Progress Energy is requesting a waiver from thoroughfare improvements associated with the site
plan submitted for the Cary Piney Plains 230kV Substation addition project. Per Town
Ordinance, when any development plan is submitted for review and approval by the Town, the
developer must dedicate right-of-way and construct any road improvements necessary to meet
the Town’s current Thoroughfare Plan. The developer is responsible for half-street improvements
and right-of-way dedication along the entire property frontage.

Piney Plains Road is designated to have an ultimate 45’ back-to-back section (3 lane undivided
roadway) centered within a 67’ right-of-way. A 10’ multi-use trail is also required which replaces
the proposed 5’ sidewalk. The existing cross section of Piney Plains Road is a 2 lane roadway
(20’ wide). To meet Comprehensive Transportation Plan requirements, approximately 11.5’ of
additional pavement widening, 10’ concrete multi-use trail, and additional right-of-way are
required along the 880’ of frontage on Piney Plains Road.

Progress Energy has submitted a letter requesting a waiver from the thoroughfare widening
improvements. The thoroughfare waiver request is based on the following provided by Progress
Energy:

●   This work (road widening and trail addition) will require us to relocate several underground
    utilities and remove all trees currently providing screening along Piney Plains Road.
●   The expansion of the existing Cary Piney Plains 230kV Substation is a result of continued
    growth and development in the Cary and Western Wake area.
●   As the need for additional load occurs, electrical infrastructure must be expanded to provide a
    reliable source of power for the citizens of Cary and adjoining areas.
●   The expansion of the existing Cary Piney Plains 230kV Distribution Substation will enable
    continued quality electrical service to this area.




                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 43
●   As a regulated utility, Progress Energy is required by G.S. 62-32(b), 62-42, and 62-131(b) to
    construct facilities necessary to provide all customers in its service territory who apply for
    service with adequate, efficient and reasonable electric service.
●   Progress Energy considers the magnitude of the required traffic improvements to be an
    undue burden and seeks relief.

Fiscal Impact: If the road improvements become the Town’s responsibility due to a waiver being
granted, the Piney Plains Road improvements would cost the Town approximately $370,000.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that Town Council require the thoroughfare road
improvements, 10’ concrete multi-use trail, and right-of-way dedication for Piney Plains Road.

Mr. Bailey of the engineering staff stated since the committee meeting, staff has continued to
review the request. Staff believes there will be no new trips generated, and the ordinance is
linked to the generation of new trips. Staff has revised its reommendation and now recommends
to grant the waiver as requested.

ACTION: Mrs. Robinson moved to approve the waiver. Mr. Frantz provided the second, and
council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

    2. Implementation of Annexation Program: Phase I (PL08-039)
       Committee unanimously recommended that staff be directed to begin
       implementation of Phase I of the Town’s adopted Annexation Program and to
       perform the required annexation report and plan of service for possible Town-
       initiated annexation of all nine areas included in Phase I of the adopted Annexation
       Program.

STAFF REPORT
Planning and Development Committee, June 19, 2008

Implementation of Annexation Program: Phase I (PL08-039)
Consideration of beginning the implementation of Phase I of the Town’s adopted Annexation
Program
Speaker: Mr. Ricky Barker

From: Jeff Ulma, AICP, Director, Planning Department
Prepared by: Ricky Barker, Associate Planning Director
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Background:
In 2006, the Town Council adopted an Annexation Program to guide future annexation decisions
and provide for an orderly and predictable extension of the Town’s municipal boundaries. This
program identified areas that qualified for Town-initiated annexation and placed them in different
phases or time periods for possible annexation by the Town. After its adoption in 2006, all
owners whose property was identified in the program received a letter informing them of possible
Town-initiated annexation and the associated time-frame when it could occur.

The program calls for staff to evaluate the areas covered in the program during even- numbered
years to provide recommendations to Council on areas to annex. Staff has performed a
preliminary evaluation of the Phase I areas which are included in the 2007-2011 time-frame.
(Refer to Exhibit C, attached to and incorporated herein, for maps showing the Phase 1 areas.)
Based on this evaluation, staff recommends that all nine areas included in Phase I be pursued for

                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                         Page 44
possible Town-initiated annexation. One of the first steps in this process is for the Town to initiate
the required Annexation Report and Plan of Service. The purpose of this document is to provide
information about how each area qualifies for annexation, identify the major municipal services
the Town will extend to the areas upon annexation, and describe the way the Town will finance
expenditures related to annexation.

If Council directs staff to move forward on the process for possible Town-initiated annexation of
these areas, staff will present a resolution of intent to annex in September/October of this year. If
adopted, this resolution only begins the process to annex these areas; the earliest date for official
action by Council to annex these properties is January/February 2009. Based on the results of
the study and/or public feedback received through the required public hearing and informational
session, Council may choose whether or not to annex all of the areas or only certain ones.

Fiscal Impact: The Town will hire an annexation consultant to assist in the preparation of the
required annexation report and plan of services. This projected expenditure of $70,000 was
included in the FY08 Budget.

Staff Recommendation: Direct staff to perform the required report and plan of service for
possible Town-initiated annexation of all nine areas included in Phase I of the adopted
Annexation Program.

Mayor Weinbrecht stated in 2006 the council approved a program outlining how they would
proceed with annexations in the future, and it gave a window of when the involuntary annexations
would occur. Mr. Barker concurred and stated the program requires staff to come to council to
implement Phase 1, and this request is to move forward with implementing the plan. He stated
staff would report back to council later in the fall with the proposed resolution of intent to annex,
and then staff would notify property owners, conduct informational meetings and public hearings.
He stated council would consider a vote on the annexations in the winter with an effective date of
June 30, 2009. He stated this request tonight is more aligned with procedures and not state
requirements.

Mrs. Robison asked if the timeframe implies that by 2011 any infrastructure to deliver services to
the annexation areas would be in place. Mr. Barker stated lines are already in place, so no state-
mandated water/sewer lines would be required. He stated residents could petition the Town for
water/sewer through the Town’s policy.

Mrs. Robison asked if the annexation will result in a lower cost for communities to connect to
Town services. Mr. Barker stated it would be less expensive than future phase projects. Mrs.
Robison asked about Town expenses. Mr. Barker stated if more than 50% of people in a
community in the annexation area got together and requested Town services, then there would
be expenses to theTown. He state the Town subsidizes those extensions.

Mrs. Robison asked if there will be road improvement responsibilities with regard to the property
at Aviation and I-40. Mr. Bailey stated all the roads in this area are maintained by the state, so
Cary would not have additional cost associated with road maintenance. He stated it would give
the Town flexibility to respond to emergencies.

Mrs. Robison wants more information earlier in the process on financial implications to the Town.

Mr. Weinbrecht is philosophically opposed to forced annexation unless there is a compelling
reason, and he does not see a compelling reason for these particular annexations.

Mrs. Adcock clarified for the public that council is not voting to annex these properties at this
meeting; rather, this action is to start the process. She stated it will be council’s decision in the
future to annex any, all or none of these properties. She considers these annexations to be Town-


                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 45
initiated, and they are not considered involuntary until people express that they do not want to be
annexed.

Mr. Frantz wants to see each property voted on independently at the appropriate time. Mr. Barker
stated David Lawrence of the UNC-CH School of Government stated the Town can do separate
resolutions of intent for each area (not each individual lot).

ACTION: Mr. Portman moved to accept the committee recommendation and move forward
with the process. Mr. Smith provided the second.

Mr. Portman understands the concern against involuntary annexation, and he also sees the other
side. He thinks the tradeoff is whether to grow in a planned, thoughtful way that allows for efficient
investment of infastructure and providing of services or whether to accept that growth will occur
haphazardly and react to utility failures. He stated it has been proven historically that the
haphazard method costs more in the long term. He stated there is also an equity issue, because
people inside and outide of Cary enjoy Cary’s amenities and quality of life. He stated Cary
citizens pay the property taxes for these benefits. Additionally, he stated it is not good public
policy for county fire and sheriff to travel through the Town of Cary to respond to areas to provide
services. He has heard from property owners in some of these areas that their lots do not perk for
utility purposes, but it is cost prohibitive to voluntarily annex.

Mr. Smith stated it is an issue of values and priorities.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion. Mayor Weinbrecht voted “no”. All others voted
“aye”. The motion carried by majority vote.

_________________________

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

    1. Consideration of extending the pending expiration date of June 30, 2008 for the
       Town of Cary’s moratorium on the annexation of property within Chatham County.
       Council may take action. (Mr. Scott Ramage)

STAFF REPORT
Town Council, June 26, 2007

Extension of Moratorium on Annexation of Properties in Chatham County (PL08-040)
Consideration of extending the pending expiration date of June 30, 2008, for the Town’s
moratorium on the annexation of property within Chatham County.
Speaker: Mr. Scott Ramage

From: Jeffery G. Ulma, Planning Director
Prepared by: Scott Ramage, Principal Planner
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

A. Summary
In December, 2005, the Town Council and the Chatham Board of Commissioners adopted joint
resolutions to develop a Joint Land Use Plan for a portion of Chatham County, generally located
west of the Wake County Line and north of White Oak Creek. During the joint planning process,
the Town of Cary has maintained a stay on the consideration of annexations within Chatham
County. The stay on annexations has been extended twice, and is currently set to expire on
June 30, 2008. This report summarizes the history and current status of the annexation


                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 46
moratorium and joint planning effort, and provides a recommended action for extension of the
stay on annexations.

B. Background
In December 2005, the Cary Town Council and the Chatham County Board of Commissioners
adopted a Joint Resolution to develop a joint Land Use Plan. The two elected bodies directed
that the Joint Plan be developed independently by a joint project team consisting of staff from
both jurisdictions, and that a draft Plan be ready for public hearing by June 2006.
In conjunction with the joint planning resolution – and in response to a resolution by the Chatham
Board of Commissioners – on December 15, 2005, Town Council unanimously adopted a
Resolution stating that Cary would not voluntarily annex lands in Chatham County “that are the
result of future annexation requests occurring after this date (December 15, 2005), until the
earlier of adoption of a joint planning document or September 2006.”
In July 2006 the Council and the Chatham Board extended the project schedule by nine months.
After the annexation resolution’s moratorium expired in September 2006, Town Council
maintained the moratorium informally as a matter of policy until April 2007.
By February 2007, two community meetings had been held, and the Joint Project Team had
developed a proposed draft Land Use Plan. The Cary Town Council and the Chatham Board of
Commissioners held a joint work session on February 20, 2007, to discuss the proposed Land
Use Plan, however, no agreements were reached.
On April 12, 2007, Town Council adopted a second Resolution that officially extended the stay on
annexations for a further year, until “the earlier of (a) adoption of a joint plan or (b) September 28,
2007.” On that same date, Council extended the schedule by a further nine months, targeting
the second joint work session with the Board of Commissioners for May 2007, and the initial
public hearings for December 2007.
In May 2007, the Chatham Board of Commissioners proposed an alternate Land Use Plan,
independent of the Joint Project Team. Town Council held a work session on July 10, 2007, to
discuss the differences between the February 2007 Joint Project Team’s proposed Land Use
Plan, and the May 2007 Board of Commissioners’ proposed Land Use Plan, and to formulate
their position for a second joint work session with the Board of Commissioners.
The second joint work session between Council and the Chatham Board of Commissioners took
place on September 18, 2007, however no consensus was achieved on a preferred Land Use
Plan. At their September 27, 2007, regular meeting, Town Council adopted a Resolution
extending the Town’s moratorium on consideration of annexations within Chatham County for the
second time, this time out to June 30, 2008. Town Council also directed that a watershed impact
model be developed during this period to study the relative pollutant impacts on Jordan Lake that
might occur under the February 2007 Land Use Plan developed by the Joint Project Team, as
compared to the May 2007 Land Use Plan proposed independently by the Chatham Board of
Commissioners.
In November 2007, staff engaged Tetra Tech, Inc., to develop the requested watershed impact
models and associated study and analysis. Work on the modeling and analysis effort has been
proceeding steadily through the first two quarters of 2008. A draft report is expected by the end
of June and a final report by the end of summer 2008.
On June 2, 2008, the Chatham Board of Commissioners voted to extend their moratorium on
county subdivisions of more than 25 lots until December 2, 2008, in order to allow additional time
for the development of revisions to their subdivision ordinances and environmental review
standards. The moratorium was originally adopted on June 4, 2007, with an expiration date of
June 3, 2008.




                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                             Page 47
C. Annexation Cases at Time of December 15, 2005, Annexation Resolution
There were three pending annexation cases which had been submitted prior to the effective date
of December 15, 2005, for the first stay of annexations resolution:
     05-A-23, Roscoe Seagroves et al., O’Kelley Chapel Road. Withdrawn by applicant on
      January 5, 2006.
     05-A-33, Galaxy Investments, West Ferrell Road and Lewter Shop Road. On January 26,
      2006, Council voted 4-3 to table this case indefinitely “until it is tied to either a long range
      plan, a subdivision plan or a rezoning to allow the council to see the whole package
      together.” Rather than move forward and bring in an associated rezoning or subdivision case
      at this time, the applicant has voluntarily tabled his application until the joint plan is
      developed. In the interim, the applicant did seek and obtain approval for a Chatham County
      well and septic subdivision, in the event that the annexation petition is denied or the joint
      planning project extends too long.
     06-A-04, Todd Hodge et al., 2002 New Hope Church Road. On February 23, 2006, Council
      voted 7-2 to deny the application, in consideration of the joint land use plan under
      development, and because Council wanted more information about the specific development
      proposal. Mr. Hodge has maintained regular contact with Town of Cary and Chatham County
      staff and elected officials throughout the joint planning process, and continues to press for an
      end to the stay on annexations, and for adoption of the February 2007 Joint Plan proposed
      by the Joint Staff Team.

D. Fiscal Impact: None. Work on the project is being done by Town and County staff.

E. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council continue the stay on annexations until December 31, 2008. This
will provide additional time to:
      1. Enable Chatham County to proceed with the various planning and regulatory initiatives
         set to be completed by December 2, 2008; and
      2. Complete and finalize the watershed impact analyses of the two alternate Land use Plan
         proposals; and
      3. Schedule and conduct a Town Council work session to review the results of the
         watershed study, all other issues surrounding the joint planning effort, and formulate a
         final Town position regarding the plan.

                                            Attachment 1

    RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE CARY TOWN COUNCIL’S STAY ON CONSIDERATION OF
    VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION PETITIONS FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN CHATHAM COUNTY

WHEREAS, on December 15, 2005, the Cary Town Council adopted a joint Resolution
Supporting Joint Planning Between Chatham County and the Town of Cary for the area in
eastern Chatham County located east of Jordan Lake, west of the Wake County/Chatham County
line, south of the Durham County Line, and north of White Oak Creek; and,

WHEREAS, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners adopted said joint Resolution on
December 12, 2005; and,

WHEREAS, the 2005 Resolution Supporting Joint Planning Between Chatham County and the
Town of Cary included a preliminary timeline for the joint planning effort which called for final
adoption of the Joint Plan by September 2006; and,

                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 48
WHEREAS, on December 12, 2005, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners also adopted
a Resolution Regarding Annexation By The Town Of Cary Within Chatham County, requesting
that the Town of Cary not consider requests for annexation of lands within Chatham County until
such time as the joint plan could be formulated; and,

WHEREAS, in response to Chatham County’s annexation resolution, the Cary Town Council did,
on December 15, 2005, agree that the Town of Cary would not voluntarily annex lands in
Chatham County until the earlier of (a) adoption of a joint plan or (b) September 2006; and,

WHEREAS, project delays led to adoption of a revised, extended schedule by the Cary Town
Council on July 27, 2006, with concurrence by the Chatham County Board of Commissioners on
August 7, 2006, calling for final adoption of a joint plan by the second quarter of 2007; and,

WHEREAS, the first joint work session of the Cary Town Council and the Chatham Board of
Commissioners, held on February 20, 2007, occurred approximately three months behind
schedule; and,

WHEREAS, project delays led to adoption of a second revised schedule and project extension by
the Cary Town Council on April 12, 2007, calling for final adoption of a joint plan by March-April
2008; and,

WHEREAS, the aforementioned project delays led to adoption of a second annexation Resolution
by the Cary Town Council on April 12, 2007, extending the stay on consideration of annexations
within Chatham County to the earlier of (a) adoption of a joint plan or (b) September 2007; and,

WHEREAS, the second joint work session of the Cary Town Council and the Chatham Board of
Commissioners, held on September 18, 2007, occurred approximately four months behind the
second revised schedule and resulted in the need for additional time to conduct further studies
and independent actions prior to completion of the joint plan; and,

WHEREAS, subsequent to the September 18, 2007, joint work session, at their September 27,
2007, meeting the Cary Town Council directed staff to commission a study of potential watershed
impacts within the joint study area, and, in order to allow time for completion and evaluation of the
study, extended the Town’s stay on the consideration of annexations within Chatham County to
the earlier of (a) adoption of a joint plan or (b) June 30, 2008; and,

WHEREAS, the results of the watershed study are not expected to be finalized until July or
August 2008; and,

WHEREAS, additional time will be required for staff and Town Council to evaluate and discuss
the watershed study results; and,

WHEREAS, the Chatham County Board of Commissioners extended their moratorium on
subdivisions of more than 25 lots until December 2, 2008; and,

WHEREAS, the Town seeks to establish a fair, transparent, reasonable, and dependable climate
in which landowners can reasonably plan for their property; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Cary remains committed to the joint planning process with Chatham
County.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, to the extent it can lawfully comply, the Cary Town
Council extends its stay on consideration of annexation requests for lands within Chatham
County until the earlier of (a) adoption of a joint plan or (b) December 31, 2008.



                                                                                      June 26, 2008
                                                                                           Page 49
ADOPTED by the Cary Town Council this 26th day of June, 2008.

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

Mr. Portman asked if the December 31 date coincides with Chaham County’s date. Mr. Ramage
of the planning staff stated Chatham County’s resolution expires the first part of December, and
Cary’s will expire, if approved, on December 30, 2008. Mr. Portman hopes progress with
Chatham County will occur before the end of the year. He thinks the water study is key in
understanding the two land use plans, one of which was developed by staffs and the other by the
Chatham County commissioners.

Mr. Smith asked if landowners in this area are waiting for the moratorium to end so they can
develop their land. Mr. Ramage stated property owners in the impacted area have been in regular
communication with staff about this, and they have expressed an interest to see the process
move forward. Mr. Smith stated property owners want to see the process move forward, and the
residents in this area who don’t own property in the impact area do not want to see the plan
proceed. He stated after the study results are received, the Town and Chatham County need to
actively pursue the issue.

ACTION: Mr. Portman moved to approve this item. Mrs. Robison provided the second, and
council granted unanimous approval.

(Resolution 2008-37 is also on file in the town clerk’s office.)

_________________________

    2. Consideration of adoption of the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget and the proposed
       changes to the budget. Council may take action. (Mr. Bill Coleman)

The list of changes to the proposed budget follows:

                                          TOWN OF CARY

    The FY 2009 proposed operating and capital budgets, as modified by the changes identified
    below, are hereby submitted for final Cary Town Council adoption at its regularly scheduled
    meeting on June 26, 2008

    Operating Budget – General Fund

    1. The Recycling division recommended budget within Public Works and Utilities department
    in the general fund has been decreased by ($622,471) and (4.0) FTE’s due to approval of the
    Recycling PWUT-0828 staff report at the May 8, 2008 Council meeting. This reduction in
    personnel, operating and purchase of additional trucks was noted in the staff report as one of
    the benefits of moving to automated recycling collection.

    In addition, a reduction of ($18,000) in the Technology Services department was made for the
    purchase of radios for the four position reductions mentioned above.

    2. The Solid Waste division recommended budget within the Public Works and Utilities
    department in the general fund has been increased by $25,000 due to a recent price increase
    related to the planned purchase of automated trucks in FY 2009.

    3. The Operations division recommended budget within the Public Works and Utilities
    department in the general fund has been increased by $20,000 due to a recent price increase
    related to the planned purchase of jet trucks in FY 2009. The cost transfer to the utility fund


                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                         Page 50
will be also increased by $20,000 to move the costs to the utility fund, so the net impact on
the general fund budget will be zero.

4. The Facilities Management division recommended budget within the Public Works and
Utilities department in the general fund has been decreased by ($26,000) due to a change in
the scope of work for the Cary Tennis Park. The original scope called for replacing court
fences, but after further review, it was decided that only repair and maintenance was
necessary. The funding for this project was $50,000, but staff is recommending that the Town
use $24,000 in funds to perform facility enhancements and maintenance at Cary Tennis Park
by adding wind screens to courts that currently do not have them to enhance the functional
use of the tennis facility.

5. The Police Department recommended budget has been increased by $12,600 for
wireless connection charges.

6. The general fund transfer to Transit has been increased by $15,313 as a result of staff
report PL08-025a approved by council on June 12, 2008, which adjusted fares and provided
$5,000 worth of tickets to the Center of Volunteer Caregiving to distribute based on need.

7. The Public Information Office recommended budget has been increased by $10,000 for
an expert review of a request from Time Warner Cable to approve changes in its corporate
structure. Such approval is required under the Town’s Cable Ordinance and includes specific
legal analysis of the Federal Communications Commission and other regulatory agencies’
rules relative to Time Warner’s existing Franchise Agreement with the Town and the Town’s
umbrella Cable Ordinance.

8. An additional $2,000 has been added to the Town Council travel and training account to
cover the influx of Sister City dignitaries scheduled to visit the Town of Cary.

9. Funding for implementation of the annual classification and pay study has been
decreased by $38,530 for FY 2009 in the general fund. $43,530 was included in the
proposed budget as an early estimate as results of the study presented to Council via staff
report HR08-05 on May 8, 2008 were not yet available. Per staff report HR08-05, the class
and pay study determined that only $5,000 is necessary to implement recommended
classification and pay adjustments.

10. Add $1,750 to Council budget in Dues and Memberships to join ICLEI per Council
approval on June 12, 2008. (originally presented on Staff Report AD08-016 as $8,000 for
Climate Communities).

11. Funding of $23,038 has been added for the combined annual total of salary and benefit
adjustments for the Town Council appointed positions of Town Clerk, Town Attorney, and
Town manager. Funding totaling $9,043 has been added to the travel account of the Town
Council to accommodate increased fuel costs.

12. The recommended general fund operating budget for FY 2009 reflected an increase of
7.8% compared to the FY 2008 adopted budget. At Council’s direction to review the budget
for reduction possibilities, this percentage increase has been reduced from 7.8% to 4.5%.
This will result in a reduction to the general fund recommended operating budget of
$3,506,378. For budget ordinance purposes and Council adoption, the net impact including
all other changes noted herein, will be reflected as an adjustment to the “Department
Allocation Accounts” line item in the general fund budget. This will result in an FY 2009
adopted general fund operating budget that is 4.5% higher than the FY 2008 adopted general
fund operating budget. Specific areas resulting in budget reductions are being examined by
staff for those areas that will least impact direct service provision to citizens in FY 2009. The


                                                                                  June 26, 2008
                                                                                       Page 51
specific list of changes and resulting specific budget ordinance amendments will be
presented to the Town Council for approval at a later date.

Operating Budget – Utility Fund

13. Additional revenue in the amount of $1,645,251 has been estimated to be collected
based on an increase in the sewer volume charge from $5.36 to $5.77 for Town of Cary
customers and from $6.83 to $7.34 for Morrisville customers, as reflected in the Utility fee
schedule. These rates are being recommended as a way to smooth future anticipated rate
increases necessary in order to pay debt service related to the Western Wake Water
Reclamation Facility and normal operating cost increases.

14. The Water Treatment Plant division recommended budget within the Public Works and
Utilities department in the utility fund has been increased by $244,655 due mainly to an
increase in pricing for chemicals and an increase in the anticipated consumption of utilities
used in the water treatment processes at the plant.

15. The Water Treatment Plant division recommended budget within the Public Works and
Utilities department in the utility fund has been increased by $9,594 based on a revised cost
sharing estimate for the Cape Fear River Study.

16. The Operations division recommended budget within the Public Works and Utilities
department in the general fund has been increased by $20,000 due to a recent price increase
related to the planned purchase of jet trucks in FY 2009. The cost transfer to the utility fund
will be also increased by $20,000 to move the costs to the utility fund, so the net impact on
the general fund budget will be zero and the impact on the utility fund will be $20,000.

17. An amount of $858,738 in utility fund balance will be transferred to the utility capital
reserve fund for future appropriation. These funds are restricted to water capital expansion
projects which is why the funds are recommended for transfer to utility capital reserve fund
balance for future appropriation to related capital projects.

Operating Budget – Other Funds

18. The Health and Dental Self-Insurance Fund was increased by $77,000 for program
activities related to the Town of Cary’s C-PHIT initiative which encourages healthy lifestyles
and voluntary prevention activities. This will be funded by an appropriation from the Health
and Dental Self-Insurance fund fund balance.

Capital Budget – General

19. The South Harrison Avenue Extension project has been removed from the FY 2009
CIB/P. During Budget Worksession #3, held on June 3, 2008, Council decided to delay this
project. The capital improvements budget has been reduced by $1,000,000 in FY 2009 and
by a total of $2,800,000 during the FYs 2010 – 2019 planning period.

20. The TCAP – Chapel Hill Road Widening – NE Maynard to NW Maynard project has been
removed from the FY 2009 CIB/P. During Budget Worksession #3, held on June 3, 2008,
Council decided to delay this project. The capital improvements budget has been reduced by
$9,450,000 in FY 2009 and by a total of $18,000,000 during the FYs 2010 – 2019 planning
period.

21. The FY 2009 Transportation capital improvements budget has been decreased by
$2,000,000 as the Intersection of Jenks-Carpenter/High House Road project has been
delayed until FYs 2010 and 2011.


                                                                                June 26, 2008
                                                                                     Page 52
22. The FY 2009 Transportation capital improvements budget has been decreased by
$4,000,000 as the TCAP – Walker Street Extension project has been delayed until FYs 2014
and 2015.

23. The FY 2009 Transportation capital improvements budget has been increased by
$4,600,000 in order to fund the entire Cary Parkway Pavement Rehabilitation project in FY
2009. The FY 2009 total appropriation for this project is now $8,100,000. The Cary
Parkway Pavement Rehabilitation project focuses on repaving Town-maintained portions of
Cary Parkway.

24. Design funds for the Reedy Creek Road Widening (NE Maynard Road to N Harrison
Avenue) project have been moved to FY2012 of the FY 2009 capital improvements plan.

25. Design funds for the O’Kelly Chapel Road Widening (NC 55-Green Level to Durham)
project have been moved to FY 2013 of the FY 2009 capital improvements plan.

26. Design funds for the Green Level to Durham Road (McCrimmon Parkway) project have
been moved to FY 2013 of the FY 2009 capital improvements plan.

27. The FY 2009 General Government capital improvements budget has been decreased by
$700,000 as the Aerial Topographic Mapping project has been delayed until FY 2014.

28. No dollar adjustment. The general capital fee schedule has been updated to include text
describing the street light payment-in-lieu fee. This is not a new fee. It is an existing fee
authorized via the Town’s Land Development Ordinance and Policy Statement #13 regarding
street lights. Staff believes that as it is a fee charged by the Town, it should be
quantified/documented within the appropriate fee schedule.

29. The funding source for the $15,800,000 requested in FY 2009 for the TCAP – Cary
Elementary project has been changed from 2003 Parks General Obligation bonds to an
appropriation from unrestricted general capital reserve fund balance. This adjustment was
agreed upon by Town Council during Budget Worksession #3 held on June 3, 2008. This
transaction represents the reallocation of cash resources originally budgeted for the Aquatics
Center project to the TCAP – Cary Elementary project. The Aquatics Center project remains
fully funded; however the funding source supporting it has been changed to 2003 PRCR
General Obligation debt.

Capital Budget - Utility

30. $200,000 for the WT1150 MM – Large Water Meter Replacement project has been
added to the FY 2009 Water capital improvements budget. A total of $51,000 has been
appropriated to date to WT1150. FY 2009 requested funds would bring the total project
appropriation to $251,000. WT 1150 is a Morrisville merger project focused on replacing all
large water meters in Morrisville. The project was identified as necessary in the utility system
merger analysis as Morrisville's meters are quite old. Old meters register less water than is
actually used. As such, staff expects that replacing these large meters will lessen the amount
of unaccounted for water in Morrisville and increase revenue. This project will also facilitate
a smoother transition for the advanced meter infrastructure (AMI) project. Staff recommends
funding this $200,000 via funds generated in FY 2007 by the Morrisville utility rate differential.

31. The utility capital fee schedule has been adjusted to include the irrigation meter
development fee adjustment from $374 to $1,161 as approved by Council at its June 12,
2008 regular meeting per staff report AD08-017.

32. The utility capital fee schedule has been adjusted to include the reclaimed irrigation
meter development fee approved by Council at its June 12, 2008 regular meeting per staff

                                                                                  June 26, 2008
                                                                                       Page 53
    report AD08-017. The rate for this fee has been set at 50% of the potable irrigation meter
    development fee, or $581, for a residential reclaimed irrigation meter.

Mr. Coleman stated the proposed budget was first presented at the first May council meeting. He
stated council made some signifiant changes to budget and at the last work session asked staff to
look at potential reductions to the operating budget to bring the increase down to a 4 to 5%
increase from last year. He stated staff proposes that the general fund operating budget be
reduced by to a 4.5% increase to equate to $111,036,673. He stated the utility fund operating
budget will remain as proposed. He stated the total operating budget would be $163,169,844. He
stated with the changes made to the caital budget, the total operating and capital budgets are
reduced from $305,728,687 to $290,223,558. He stated with these changes and the list of
changes to the proposed budget, the council may adopt the budget tonight.

ACTION: Mr. Frantz moved to approve the proposed budget with the recommended
changes. Mrs. Adcock provided the second.

Mrs. Robinson stated the proposed budget maintains level of service and allows the council to
pursue projects that are important to citizens. Additionally, she stated it maintains a revenue
neutral tax rate and the 15% debt ceiling threshold.

Mayor Weinbrecht stated there was little operating margin and debt capacity at the same time
many road improvements were needed. He stated council cut or deferred many projects (about
$25 million in capital projects), and council increased spending on transportation from $28 million
last year to more than $49 million this year. He stated this budget recommends $50 million for
downtown renovation, infrastructure and improvements, which will kick off the downtown
revitalization. He stated $8.1 million is for repaving sections of Cary Parkway. He thinks these are
major achievements, and he supports the proposed budget with the list of changes.

Mr. Smith stated the council put a 15% cap on debt, and it forced everyone to make difficult
decisions. He would have preferred the old model of revenue neutral, which would have set the
tax rate at 31.6 cents, but the council has worked hard to find compromise and get back to the
state approved revenue neutral model. He will support the budget. He stated all the critical needs
are covered. He stated Cary’s quality of life initiatives make Cary a special place, and he is proud
of what is achieved in this budget, including the downtown improvements.

Mrs. Adcock thinks the budget is realistic and continues the quality services that citizens want.

Mr. Frantz thinks the budget is very good, and he stated it resulted from compromises among
council members. He thinks the investment in downtown will be beneficial and will result in private
investments. He is proud that the budget fully funds the Cary Parkway improvements. He stated
he is most proud to maintain a revenue neutral tax rate of 33 cents. He stated only two towns in
Wake County are not raising taxes this year, with one being Cary. He stated Cary will have the
lowest tax rate in Wake County.

Mr. Portman stated the budget sets forth priorities, values and vision of a community. He stated it
was critical to be straightforward with the tax rate this year in a revaluation year, and this council
maintained the revenue neutral tax rate of 33 cents. He wants a healthy downtown, but he is
concerned with the amount and size of the downtown streetscape project. He has communicated
with people who are successful in doing redevelopment, and they have informed him that Cary
needs to do something with its downtown, but they also said that economics is the major driver,
because it is expensive to buy buildings and tear them down, acquire land, parking, stormwater
management, etc. He would would have preferred a lesser streetscape scope to allow more
funding to deal with some of the economic issues. He will vote against the budget for this reason.

Mr. Frantz rebutted some of Mr. Portman’s comments about the streetscape project. He stated
during the impact fee discussion he recommended lowering downtown impact fees to encourage

                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 54
revitalization. He suggested that “streetscape” is an inaccurate name for the downtown project,
because it implies it is a beautification effort; rather, he stated this project includes millions of
dollars of roadway and transportation improvements, millions for drainage systems and
stormwater improvements, it will help relocate and update utilities, it will provide traffic control
measures, and it will provide increased lighting for public safety. He stated currently he sees
businesses and homeowners leave the downtown area, and it has resulted in an increase in
rental housing. He stated the Town must do something to remedy this situation. He believes that
a healthy downtown means a healthy Cary. He stated the Town has already spent over $2 million
on this project, with about $7 million appropriated. He stated the plan is 90% complete and ready
to move forward, and it was started in 2001 when the town center area plan was adopted and had
even been a vision since about 1997. He stated none of the downtown businesses have any
concerns about the project, and most agree that it is time to stop planning and start doing the
project.

Mr. Portman and Mr. Frantz continued debating the merits of the streetscape project as currently
proposed in the budget.

Mr. Portman asked if any projects were added to the budget as a result of delaying Walker Street.
Mr. Coleman stated that the money to fund Cary Parkway came from cancellation of numerous
other projects and using related cash funding. He stated the delay of Walker Street freed up debt
capacity. Mr. Portman stated the debt capacity is 15%. He asked if Cary has the ability to borrow
in fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 without exceeding the debt capacity. Mr. Fogleman
stated Cary will have borrowing capacity towards the later years (2013 and 2014).

Mrs. Robison suggested a more meaningful budgeting decision process in the future (i.e.,
performance based budgeting, budgeting by outcomes, etc.). She favors linking outcomes to
actual dollars spent. She wants the council to be more visionary. She suggested that everyone
consider how the visioning process might be used to enhance the budget process.

Mr. Coleman stated every year all departments review performance measures, goals, objectives,
initiatives and key indicators. He stated Mrs. Robison suggests to bring these to council to tie
requested budgets to performance on those indicators and work measures and relate them more
to perormance and programmatic accomplishments. He stated staff can make this review a part
of the budget process with council.

Mrs. Robison is pleased to maintain the pay for performance plan for staff.

ACTION: Vote was called for on the motion to approve the budget and proposed changes.
Mr. Portman voted “no”; all others voted “aye”, and the motion carried by majority vote.

_________________________

   3. Consideration of approval of contracts that extend animal sheltering services with
      the SPCA of Wake County until September 30, 2008 and provide for reimbursement
      from Wake County for associated costs for the same time period. (Mr. Barry
      Nickalson)

STAFF REPORT
Town Council Meeting June 26, 2008

Animal Sheltering Services (PD08-020)
Consideration of signing contracts that extend animal sheltering services with the SPCA of Wake
County until September 30, 2008 and provide for reimbursement from Wake County for
associated costs for the same time period.
Speaker: Deputy Chief Barry Nickalson


                                                                                      June 26, 2008
                                                                                           Page 55
From: Chief Pat Bazemore
Prepared by: Deputy Chief Barry Nickalson
Approved by: William B. Coleman, Jr., Town Manager
Approved by: Benjamin T. Shivar, Assistant Town Manager

Pursuant to Council direction, staff has worked with the SPCA of Wake County and the Wake
County Environmental Services Division to craft 90 day contracts that effectively extends the
current operating practices for animal sheltering services. The contracts specify that the SPCA
will continue to be the service provider, and that the County will reimburse the Town for
expenses.

The County contract further specifies that should the three (3) animal care and welfare programs
agreed upon in prior discussions be implemented, and the Town elect not to transition to the
County for sheltering services, the County would no longer reimburse the Town for the sheltering
costs. If, however, the County is unable to implement the three (3) animal care and welfare
programs and the Town elects to stay with the SPCA for sheltering services, the County will
continue the reimbursement.

Fiscal Impact: The SPCA’s price per animal for sheltering services has increased from $64.64
to $67.29 (a difference of $2.65). This increase is based on the Consumer Price Index. As the
SPCA has historically done, they add the consumer price index (CPI) to the current
reimbursement rate to achieve the new rate. The CPI for the 12-month period ending December
2007 is 4.1%. Using 2007 animal counts, the reimbursement amount for the 418 animals
serviced by the SPCA totaled $27,020. The same number of animals at the new rate would be
$28,127 (a difference of $1,107). Wake County has agreed to continue reimbursement, and will
match the SPCA’s new rate. As a result there will be no additional financial cost to the Town by
signing these contracts.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the contract for animal sheltering services with
the SPCA of Wake County that covers a period from July 1, 2008 to September 30, 2008 be
approved, and the contract for reimbursement for this service with Wake County covering the
same timeframe be approved.

                                            CONTRACT

        THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into this the _____ day of ___________, 2008, by
and between the Town of Cary, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter called “Cary”), and the
SPCA of Wake County, Inc. (hereinafter called the “SPCA”), both of Wake County, North
Carolina;

                                        W I T N E S S E T H:

           That subject to the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Cary employs the SPCA as
follows:

1. Except as set forth in paragraph 3(b) below, Cary shall be responsible for having animals
   which are picked up by Cary Humane Officers delivered to the SPCA Adoption Center at 327
   U.S. Hwy 70 East, Garner, North Carolina.
2. The SPCA shall be responsible for handling and disposition of all animals delivered to the
   Adoption Center either by Cary Humane Officers or by individuals residing within Cary’s
   corporate limits. The SPCA shall adhere to policies providing for the humane treatment of
   animals and to applicable State of North Carolina laws, Wake County laws and Cary
   ordinances, the terms and conditions of which are incorporated herein by reference.
   Authorized Cary officials shall have the right to inspect the Adoption Center at any
   reasonable time during the duration of this contract for the purpose of determining whether
   the terms of this agreement are being carried out. Specifically, the following conditions and

                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 56
   standards shall apply to the SPCA Adoption Center. This list is not exclusive, and failure to
   observe and fully implement these conditions may be grounds for termination of this Contract:
         a) There shall be available hot water at a minimum temperature of 140 for washing and
            disinfecting cages, and cool water shall be easily accessible to all parts of the
            Adoption Center. Fresh water will be available to all animals at all times. All water
            and food containers shall be designed so that the animal cannot turn them over, and
            shall be removable for cleaning. Water and food containers are to be cleaned and
            disinfected each day.
         b) The room temperature at the Adoption Center shall be maintained at a level that is
            healthful for every species of animal kept in the Adoption Center.
         c) All cages and enclosures are to be of nonporous material for easy cleaning and
            disinfecting. Each cage shall be of a sufficient size so that the occupant(s) will have
            room to stand, turn, and stretch out to full length without touching any side or top of
            the enclosure. Enclosures must be provided which allow protection against weather
            extremes. Cage floors of concrete, unless radiantly heated, shall have resting board
            or some type of bedding. Runs shall contain an adequate exercise area and include
            protection from the weather. All animal quarters, runs, cages or enclosures of any
            sort are to be kept clean, dry, and in a sanitary condition.
         d) All animals under three months old are to be fed at least two times per 24 hours, or
            as directed by a veterinarian. The foods shall be free from contamination,
            wholesome, palatable, and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to meet the
            normal daily requirements for the condition and size of the animal.
         e) All cages must be cleaned, and all animals must be fed and watered every day,
            including Sundays and holidays.
         f) The SPCA shall examine each animal it receives and shall see that all treatable
            diseased or injured animals are afforded medical treatment under the direction of a
            veterinarian (including treatment and eradication of worms, fleas, and ticks). Such
            examinations shall be done periodically so as to maintain the health of all animals.
         g) Euthanasia. Any animal which must be killed shall be euthanized by medical
            injection.
3. In return for the services it will provide, the SPCA shall receive the following:
         a) Sixty seven dollars and twenty nine cents ($67.29) per animal impounded. The fee
            shall be due for all animals delivered to the SPCA by either a Cary Humane Officer or
            an individual residing within Cary’s corporate limits.
         b) Cary Humane officers will from time to time investigate animal cruelty/neglect or
            similar crimes. If an animal is picked up as a result of such investigation by Cary,
            then on a case-by-case basis, a decision will be made by Cary, whether to take the
            animal to the SPCA, the Wake County Animal Control Shelter or to some other
            facility. In the event the animal is brought to the SPCA by Cary or if the SPCA is
            requested to pick up such an animal by Cary, then the SPCA will be reimbursed by
            Cary for the reasonable costs of maintaining the animal. These costs shall be paid
            by the Town of Cary on a monthly basis as they accrue. Any funds actually
            recovered by the SPCA as a result of a court-imposed fine, or restitution following
            prosecution and conviction, shall be applied to the final costs. Any of the remaining
            costs not so reimbursed shall then be paid by the Town.
4. The SPCA shall be entitled to charge a reclamation fee from any owner living within Cary’s
   corporate limits whose animal is delivered to the SPCA and reclaimed by the owner. The
   SPCA will retain Fifty percent (50%) of the reclamation fee with the remainder returned to
   Cary. In addition, the owner may be charged the reasonable cost of medical expenses, food
   and care for the period the animal was held at the Adoption Center.
5. It is understood and agreed by the parties that Cary Humane Officers may from time to time
   pick up animals which require immediate veterinary attention. On such occasions, the SPCA
   shall arrange for veterinary attention to be rendered. It is further understood and agreed that
   the veterinarian bills for such services shall be advanced by the SPCA and Cary, on a
   monthly basis, will reimburse the SPCA dollar for dollar for all such bills paid, with deductions
   for those bills paid by the owner of the animals so treated. Veterinary services may be

                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 57
   requested by the Cary Humane Officer at the time the SPCA takes possession of the animal
   or when, in the SPCA’s discretion, it is necessary for the health and well being of the animal
   to be examined by a veterinarian.
6. The SPCA shall keep accurate detailed records for the handling and disposition of all animals
   accepted pursuant to this contract and also shall keep accurate detailed records of all money
   collected, received, and expended in the handling and disposition of said animals. A monthly
   report concerning the above-mentioned matters will be prepared and forwarded to
   appropriate Cary officials by the SPCA by the 15th day of the following month, and such
   records may be inspected by Cary at a reasonable time and day.
7. The duration of this agreement shall be from July 1, 2008, until September 30, 2008. Failure
   to comply with any of the terms of this agreement, or violation of any law or ordinance
   regarding the treatment of animals, shall be grounds for termination by either party following
   thirty (30) days’ notice. This agreement may be extended on a month-to-month basis until
   June 30, 2009 at the rate stated in section 3(a) on page 2. The Town of Cary will have 2
   weeks to notify the SPCA of Wake County of its intent to terminate this contract at any time
   between October 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009.
8. This agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties with reference
   to the subject matter of this contract.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be signed and their
seals affixed the day and year first written above.

     INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR ANIMAL SHELTERING
                               SERVICES
                  BETWEEN WAKE COUNTY AND CARY, N.C.

This Interlocal Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this ___ day of ___________, 2008, by
and between CARY, NORTH CAROLINA (“Town”) a municipal corporation and public body politic
of the State of North Carolina; and WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (“County”), a public
body politic and corporate of the State of North Carolina.

WHEREAS, animal control is an important governmental function, and one which can be the
subject of an interlocal agreement between units of government under G.S 160A-460 et seq., and

WHEREAS, the Town employs animal control officers to enforce the Town’s animal control
ordinance in the Town’s jurisdiction, and

WHEREAS, Town has been taking captured animals to the Lost and Found Center operated by
the SPCA of Wake County, and the County has been reimbursing Town approximately $64 per
animal upon presentation of SPCA invoices for services provided; and

WHEREAS, the Town has directed a task force of Town citizens to consider and recommend,
among other items, a source for animal sheltering services beginning October 1, 2008 and
desires to continue to bring animals to the Lost and Found Center for at least the next three
months, until September 30, 2008; and

WHEREAS, Wake County desires Town to commence bring animals to the Wake County Animal
Center (‘Center’) once it implements three animal care and welfare programs, but is willing to
continue reimbursing Town for animals Town takes to the Lost and Found Center until September
30.

NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained in
this Agreement, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Town and County agree as
follows:

                                           ARTICLE I

                                                                                  June 26, 2008
                                                                                       Page 58
Purpose
The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions pursuant to which the
Town will continue to deliver animals to the Lost and Found Center operated by the SPCA of
Wake County and Wake County will reimburse the Town $67.29 per animal until September 30,
2008.

                                           ARTICLE II

Roles and Responsibilities
1. Beginning July 1, 2008 and until September 30, 2008, the Town’s animal control officers will
continue to deliver animals taken into custody to the Lost and Found Center owned and operated
by the SPCA of Wake County, Incorporated (“SPCA”).

The Town will pay sheltering fees to the SPCA for animal sheltering services provided by SPCA.
The Town and the SPCA will contract directly with each other for this service and the County shall
not be a part of such contract.

Wake County shall reimburse the Town for a portion of the sheltering fees the Town pays to the
SPCA for sheltering services based on invoices issued by the SPCA to the Town. The County’s
reimbursement to the Town will be limited to $67.29 per animal, and the County’s total
reimbursement liability shall not exceed $15,000 for this period.

2. During this period of time, the County will implement the following three animal care and
welfare programs (‘Programs’) at the Center:

1. 100% animal euthanasia by injection, and decommissioning of the carbon monoxide
   chamber.

2. 100% pre-adoption sterilization using a foster-to-adopt program. The foster-to-adopt program
   will be used for animals that are too young or too ill (as determined by a licensed
   veterinarian) to undergo the sterilization procedure at the time of adoption.

3. Development of new animal foster homes in Wake County. A portion of the newly created
   animal foster homes will be managed by Wake County and the remainder of the newly
   created foster homes will be managed by 501(c)3 animal rescue organizations approved by
   Wake County.

Wake County will use best efforts to have the three programs implemented by September 30,
2008.

3. Town has charged a task force with developing a recommendation for sheltering of animals.
Upon receipt of the Task Force’s recommendation, Council will make a determination as to
whether to contract with the SPCA or Wake County for sheltering services commencing
October 1, 2008. Town understands that, if the County has implemented the three desired
programs by October 1, 2008 and the Town elects to not deliver animals to the Center beginning
October 1, 2008, then the County will no longer be required to make reimbursement payments to
the Town for sheltering fees paid to the SPCA.

If, for any reason, the County does not implement the three desired programs at the Center by
September 30th, then the County will continue reimbursing the Town for sheltering fees paid to
the SPCA in accordance with Article I until this agreement is modified or superseded by written
agreement of the parties.
                                          ARTICLE III




                                                                                   June 26, 2008
                                                                                        Page 59
Term
This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2008 and shall conclude on September 30, 2008,
unless earlier terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice to the other party.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town Council of Cary and the Wake County Board of
Commissioners have approved this agreement and have caused it to be signed by the Mayor and
the Chairman of the County Board and attested to by the Clerk of Board in accordance with
resolutions of each governing Board spread upon its respective minutes, the year and day first
written above.

Deputy Chief Barry Nickalson outlined the staff report (herein).

ACTION: Mrs. Adcock moved to accept staff’s recommendation. Mrs. Robinson provided
the second.

Mayor Weinbrecht stated the delay will allow the task force to complete their tasks.

Mr. Portman stated he has challenged the task force not to get hung up on Wake County vs.
SPCA, but to instead come up with recommendations to reduce the number of animals that go to
the shelter who are eventually euthanized.

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

_________________________

   4. Consideration of appointments to the new Environmental Advisory Board. (Mayor
      Pro Tem Robison)




                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                            Page 60
                                 Recommended Appointments to the Town of Cary Environmental Advisory Board

                                                            Submitted by Council Liaison Julie Robison

Bill Coleman, Town Manager, Staff Liaison, 460-4002, bill.coleman@townofcary.org

Teri Peralta, Town Manager's office, Staff Support, 319-4506, teri.peralta@townofcary.org

Steve Smutko, Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Resources Advisory Board Member serving as liaison to the Environmental Advisory Board, steve-
smutko@nc.rr.com

Julie Aberg Robison, Council Liaison, julie.robison@townofcary.org


            Term Ends Occupation /          General Notes    Technical          At-Large (5           Partner           Applicant             Potential Role     Basis for
                                                              Experts Area of   suggested             Representatives   Strengths             on                 nomination
Name                    Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2         appointments)         (2 suggested                            Environmental
                                         application review, suggested                                appointments)                           Board
                                         research,           appointments)
                                         recommendations,                                             (per Table B of
                                         and interviews      (per Table A of                          application)
                                                             application)




Adams,
            2/11/2011   Computer            Good all around                     1)     Community                            Current HOA       Assist with        Relevant fit
Elizabeth
                        Applications        person-highly                            leader                                board              management of
                        Analyst for UNC     regarded in                                                                    experience         board technical    Availability
                        Institute for the   community /                         2)     Part-time                                              editing and        confirmed for
                        Environment,        collaborator/                            computing                              Community         documentation      intense launch
                        Center for          Silverton HOA                            analyst at                            engagement         needs,             phase from Sept
                        Environmental       board/neighborhood                       UNC-Chapel                                               computer           to Dec. and
                        Modeling and        activist.                                Hill Institute                         Networking with   modeling           thereafter
                        Policy                                                       for the                               other HOA’s        advising, and
                        Development         At UNC: Assist with                      Environment                                              data driven        Evening meetings
                                            the development and                                                             Potential to      policy analysis,   are best
                                            documentation of air                3)     Focus on                            draw in            website
                                            quality models and                       air quality                           expertise and      maintenance        Majority support
                        District B          model visualization                      forecasting                           resources of




                                                                                                                                                           June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                                Page 61
           Term Ends Occupation /     General Notes        Technical          At-Large (5         Partner           Applicant           Potential Role   Basis for
                                                            Experts Area of   suggested           Representatives   Strengths           on               nomination
Name                  Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2         appointments)       (2 suggested                          Environmental
                                       application review, suggested                              appointments)                         Board
                                       research,           appointments)
                                       recommendations,                                           (per Table B of
                                       and interviews      (per Table A of                        application)
                                                           application)




                                      tools. The UNC                               and modeling                        UNC Institute                     of council
                                                                                                                                        Subgroup work
                                      institute's four                                                                 mission for
                                      initiatives include:                                                             Environmental
                                      adding to existing                                                               Public Service
                                      sustainable energy,                                                              and
                                      environment and                                                                  Engagement
                                      economic                                                                         Programs
                                      development
                                      programs; creating a
                                      center examining
                                      landscape change
                                      and human health;
                                      establishing a center
                                      for sustainable
                                      community design;
                                      and broadening
                                      UNC-CH's
                                      environmental public
                                      service and
                                      engagement
                                      programs, offering
                                      aid to public schools,
                                      local and state
                                      governments and
                                      environmental and
                                      community groups
                                      throughout North
                                      Carolina.



Bullock,   2/1/2011   Adjunct         Retired NC Deputy                       1)                                        Attorney        Committee        Relevant fit




                                                                                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                         Page 62
         Term Ends Occupation /     General Notes       Technical          At-Large (5          Partner           Applicant               Potential Role    Basis for
                                                         Experts Area of   suggested            Representatives   Strengths               on                nomination
Name               Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2         appointments)        (2 suggested                              Environmental
                                    application review, suggested                               appointments)                             Board
                                    research,           appointments)
                                    recommendations,                                            (per Table B of
                                    and interviews      (per Table A of                         application)
                                                        application)




Judith             Professor of     Attorney General,                           Government                           General’s Office,    leader
                                                                                                                                                            Availability
                   Justice          Heavy on                                    Regulations,                         Environmental
                                                                                                                                                            confirmed for
                   Studies/Business Environment,                                compliance,                          Division (retired)   Education
                                                                                                                                                            intense launch
                   Management NC Compliance.                                    grants and                                                campaigns
                                                                                                                                                            phase from Sept
                   Wesleyan         Expertise in                                incentives                            Certified
                                                                                                                                                            to Dec.
                   college          collaborative                                                                    Mediator             Knowledge of      Recommended
                                    problem solving,                       2)    Collaborativ                        (retired)            NC DENR,          due to bring legal
                                    mediation,                                  e problem                                                 EPA, other        expertise to board
                                    environmental                               solving                               Communication       government        in government
                   District D       justice. Strong                                                                                       agencies          regulations,
                                    professional                           3)    Social                               NC regulatory                         compliance in
                                    credentials as                              Change and                           environment,                           environmental
                                    attorney, strength in                       Environment                          Attorney                               arena
                                    communications,                             al Awareness
                                    extra activities in                                                               Drafting
                                    workplace recycling                    4)    Water                               legislation and
                                    programs,                                   Quality                              ordinances,
                                    environmental                               (surface &                           compliance
                                    awareness                                   groundwater)                         enforcement
                                    campaigns.                                                                       regulations
                                                                           5)    Solid waste
                                                                                and recycling                         Currently legal
                                                                                                                     instructor
                                                                                                                     (adjunct) aw
                                                                                                                     instructor

                                                                                                                      Certified public
                                                                                                                     manager
                                                                                                                     Certified
                                                                                                                     management
                                                                                                                     trainer




                                                                                                                                                         June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                              Page 63
           Term Ends Occupation /     General Notes        Technical          At-Large (5     Partner             Applicant             Potential Role   Basis for
                                                            Experts Area of   suggested       Representatives     Strengths             on               nomination
Name                  Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2         appointments)   (2 suggested                              Environmental
                                       application review, suggested                          appointments)                             Board
                                       research,           appointments)
                                       recommendations,                                       (per Table B of
                                       and interviews      (per Table A of                    application)
                                                           application)




Clayton,
           2/1/2010   Retired         Environmental                                            1)    Sierra           Regulatory        Work Group       Relevant fit
V. Ed
                                      programs                                                      Club             environment,       Leader
Chairman
                                      knowledge, cool                                               Executive        familiarity with                    Availability
                      District C      cities, reprioritize at                                       Committee        Sierra Club                         confirmed for
                                      local level to see                                                             programs (cool                      intense launch
                                      what we push, i.e.,                                      2)    Wake            cities)                             phase from Sept
                                      Jordan watershed to                                           Capital                                              to Dec. and
                                      meet new                                                      Chair of          Link to                            thereafter
                                      regulations,                                                  Political        resources of                         (retired)
                                      regulatory radar:                                             Committee        Club
                                      what role Cary                                                                                                     Majority support
                                      should play; through                                     3)    Exec             Balanced                           of council
                                      Sierra Club                                                   comm.,           perspective
                                      affiliation,                                                  gives
                                      awareness,                                                    strategic         Prior service
                                      passionate, link to                                           direction        (min. two terms)
                                      resources, advocacy                                           to club          on P&Z Board,
                                      group                                                                          and service as
                                                                                               4)     Engaged        Chair
                                      Feels that new                                                in
                                      orientation toward                                            legislative
                                      working with local                                            lobby day
                                      governments could
                                      be productive, i.e.,                                     5)     Capital
                                      go to elected official                                        group staff
                                      to say “what can we                                           lobbyist:
                                      do for you?” Align                                            review
                                      interests, create                                             major
                                      more partnerships.                                            environme




                                                                                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                          Page 64
           Term Ends Occupation /     General Notes        Technical          At-Large (5         Partner            Applicant              Potential Role   Basis for
                                                            Experts Area of   suggested           Representatives    Strengths              on               nomination
Name                  Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2         appointments)       (2 suggested                              Environmental
                                       application review, suggested                              appointments)                             Board
                                       research,           appointments)
                                       recommendations,                                           (per Table B of
                                       and interviews      (per Table A of                        application)
                                                           application)




                                                                                                        ntal bills
                                      How I see my role?
                                                                                                        with board
                                      My role is to be there
                                      representing a
                                      partner organization,
                                      yet I would
                                      participate as an
                                      individual, as me, I
                                      see my role as
                                      bringing passion, a
                                      person who is also a
                                      Sierra club member.
                                      If there is a resource,
                                      draw on it, but do not
                                      speak for club or
                                      push, be a resource,
                                      be balanced
                                      individual respecting
                                      diversity of group



Hadsell,
           2/1/2009   Stormwater      High level of ethics                    1)    Water                               Town of Cary                         Majority support
Andrew
                      Group Leader    and integrity in how I                       quality                              School of                            of council
                      for Chas. H.    impact the built and                                                              Government
                      Sells, Inc.     natural environment.                    2)                                        Graduate
                                      I believe in achieving                       Conservation
                      District D      responsible                                  and natural                           Prior service on
                                      solutions, and not                           resource                             Town Center
                                      being too quick to                           management                           Review
                                      join the bandwagon                                                                Commission
                                      and invest in “flavor                   3)    government
                                      of the week” ideas                                                                 Professional




                                                                                                                                                        June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                             Page 65
            Term Ends Occupation /     General Notes        Technical             At-Large (5          Partner           Applicant              Potential Role   Basis for
                                                             Experts Area of      suggested            Representatives   Strengths              on               nomination
Name                   Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2            appointments)        (2 suggested                             Environmental
                                        application review, suggested                                  appointments)                            Board
                                        research,           appointments)
                                        recommendations,                                               (per Table B of
                                        and interviews      (per Table A of                            application)
                                                            application)




                                       that in some cases                              regulations                           Engineer
                                       are proving to have a
                                       negative impact                            4)    Transit-                              Certified
                                       versus the expected                             oriented                              Floodplain
                                       result. In this sense                           development                           Manager
                                       I can provide a
                                       valuable service to                        5)   sustainable
                                       this Board as a                                 design
                                       “devil’s advocate’ of                           conditions
                                       sorts, encouraging
                                       all involved to                            6)    Creative
                                       maintain a collected                            and
                                       approach in moving                              collaborative
                                       forward with                                    problem
                                       recommendations.                                solving
                                       In my current
                                       professional position                      7)    Action
                                       I am providing                                  planning for
                                       consulting services                             stainable
                                       meeting a wide                                  results
                                       variety of sustainable
                                       design conditions
                                       through a holistic
                                       approach to the
                                       service offering as
                                       well as the product



Johnston,   2/1/2009   Retired, RTI, 32 Very Strong             1)    Energy:                                            V-Chair, BOD of NC     Extensive peer   Highly relevant fit
Stephen                years            candidate,                   Electrical                                          GreenPower, non-       and partner
                                        Expertise: Energy                                                                profit collaborative   network, state   Support of




                                                                                                                                                            June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                                 Page 66
             Term Ends Occupation /        General Notes     Technical                At-Large (5     Partner           Applicant               Potential Role    Basis for
                                                              Experts Area of         suggested       Representatives   Strengths               on                nomination
Name                    Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2               appointments)   (2 suggested                              Environmental
                                         application review, suggested                                appointments)                             Board
                                         research,           appointments)
                                         recommendations,                                             (per Table B of
                                         and interviews      (per Table A of                          application)
                                                             application)




                                          and Environmental                                                             effort to improve the   and federal       Council Majority
                        Career scientist,                      2)      Energy:
                                          Economics,                                                                    environment by          level
                        PH D                                          Renewable,
                                          Extensive peer and                                                            using "green power,"
                        Energy/Env.                                   Alternative
                                          partner network                                                               electricity generated
                                                                      Technologies
                                          knowledge, NC                                                                 from renewable
                        Teaches           GREEN POWER:                                                                  resources such as
                        sustainability,   Vice Chair, Board of 3)                                                       solar, wind, biomass
                        NCSU              Directors, Chair of         Environmental                                     and water;
                                          Resource Committee          Economics                                         collaboration among
                        District B        and of new Carbon                                                             electric utilities,
                                          Credit Committee                                                              environmentalists,
                                          (big topic) to get                                                            state regulators and
                                          investment $ from                                                             energy
                                          open space set
                                          asides
McFarland,
             2/1/2011   Director of        Collaboration/work 1)        Sustainable                                     Lived in Cary 15        Keen on group     Relevant fit
Dan
                        Builder Services   with Homebuilders'         design and                                        years                   process, eager
                        for Southern       Association, At SEM        standards in                                                              to see high       Highly
                        Energy             focus on                   building                                          SEM : US EPA -          productivity on   recommended by:
                        Management         assisting residential      industry                                          National Energy Star    board and
                                           builders and                                                                 Partner of the Year     strong            Steve Smutko,
                                           developers in         2)    Sustainable                                      for both 2007 and       methods, will     PRCR Chair,
                        District D         implementing               Results                                           2008                    bring expertise   Board liaison
                                           sustainable building       Strategies                                                                on best
                                           strategies. EPA                                                              PAST CHAIR, NC          practices for     Dianne
                                           Energy Star           3)    Social                                           Sustainable             assessment,       Rupprecht, KB
                                           certification (over        change                                            EnergyAssoc. 2          benchmarking,     Homes
                                           1,100 homes in             environmental                                     years at the North      setting action
                                           2007), green building      awareness                                         Carolina Solar          plan, focus to
                                           consulting and                                                               Center- serves as a     group structure
                                           verification services 4)    Energy:                                          clearinghouse for       and




                                                                                                                                                              June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                                   Page 67
           Term Ends Occupation /        General Notes     Technical            At-Large (5         Partner           Applicant             Potential Role      Basis for
                                                            Experts Area of     suggested           Representatives   Strengths             on                  nomination
Name                  Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2           appointments)       (2 suggested                            Environmental
                                       application review, suggested                                appointments)                           Board
                                       research,           appointments)
                                       recommendations,                                             (per Table B of
                                       and interviews      (per Table A of                          application)
                                                           application)




                                         for four national       Alternative                                          solar and other       deliverables.
                                         (LEED-H, NAHB)          Fuels and                                            renewable energy
                                         and regional (NC        Technology:                                          programs,
                                         HBH & Earthcraft)       Solar Energy                                         information,
                                         programs, training                                                           research, technical
                                         and technical                                                                assistance, and
                                         assistance-housing                                                           training for the
                                         market in building                                                           citizens of North
                                         science, energy                                                              Carolina and beyond
                                         efficiency and green
                                         building
                                         construction. Skills,
                                         trainer, community
                                         education
                                         campaigns,
                                         marketing,
                                         knowledge in
                                         energy/power sector,
                                         building industry
                                         (residential)



Morrell,   2/1/2009
                      Research           Demonstrated                           1.     Social                         B.S. in               Assist with         Relevant fit,
Heather
                      Specialist for     commitment as                               change and                       Environmental         mission             brings hands on
                      North Carolina     NCSU exp: cutting                           environmenta                     Science with          statement           community
                      State University   edge departmental                           l awareness                      concentration in      development,        environmental
                      Environmental      projects: stream                                                             Ecology, NCSU         baseline            organizing and
                      Analysis Lab       restoration to green                   2.                                                          surveys, goal       education
                                         roof rainwater to                           Conservation                     Cary’s                mapping,            experience
                                         biofuels to animal                          & Natural                        Environmental Block   initiative design
                      District D         waste. Sustainability                       Resources                        Leader program, a                         Broad views




                                                                                                                                                            June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                                 Page 68
         Term Ends Occupation /     General Notes        Technical          At-Large (5         Partner           Applicant               Potential Role    Basis for
                                                          Experts Area of   suggested           Representatives   Strengths               on                nomination
Name                Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2         appointments)       (2 suggested                              Environmental
                                     application review, suggested                              appointments)                             Board
                                     research,           appointments)
                                     recommendations,                                           (per Table B of
                                     and interviews      (per Table A of                        application)
                                                         application)




                                    Coalition for several                        Management                       grassroots effort to
                                                                                                                                          Understanding     Focused
                                    years –“highly                                                                educate the
                                                                                                                                          of long term      experience with
                                    collaborative group                     3.    Action                          community on water
                                                                                                                                          response of       NCSU
                                    of faculty, staff and                        Planning for                     conservation
                                                                                                                                          public            Sustainability
                                    students that came                           Sustainable
                                                                                                                                          institutions to   Coalition –
                                    together to assess                           Results                          Neuse River
                                                                                                                                          sustainability    mapping goals,
                                    our baseline campus                                                           Foundation's Muddy
                                                                                                                                          options and       and applying
                                    sustainability,                                                               Water Watch
                                                                                                                                          challenges        innovative project
                                    develop our mission
                                    statement, map                                                                Stream restoration,
                                    goals for the future                                                                                  Bring in NCSU     Highly
                                                                                                                  green roof rainwater,
                                    and develop                                                                                           linkage           recommended by
                                                                                                                  biofuels project
                                    initiatives to achieve                                                                                                  Steve Smutko
                                                                                                                  experience with
                                    those goals”., When                                                           NCSU position
                                    saw the opportunity
                                    for Cary-based
                                    community
                                    sustainability work
                                    on Env. Board, “I
                                    jumped at the
                                    chance.”



Myer,    2/1/2010
                    Vice President 17 years experience                                           Sustainable      LEED certification,                       Relevant Fit
Robert
                    for Skanska USA in design,                                                   design and       Fall ‘08
                    Building        development,                                                 standards in                                               Recommended
                                    construction with one                                        building         Registered                                Council Support
                                    of most respected                                            industry Water   landscape architect
                    District A      green contractors in                                         Conservation
                                    the world, Skanska,                                                           Partnering liaison
                                    and I can bring a                                            Urban            with Skanska USA




                                                                                                                                                       June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                            Page 69
         Term Ends Occupation /       General Notes      Technical          At-Large (5       Partner           Applicant             Potential Role    Basis for
                                                          Experts Area of   suggested         Representatives   Strengths             on                nomination
Name                Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2         appointments)     (2 suggested                            Environmental
                                     application review, suggested                            appointments)                           Board
                                     research,           appointments)
                                     recommendations,                                         (per Table B of
                                     and interviews      (per Table A of                      application)
                                                         application)




                                      wealth of knowledge                                      Vegetation
                                      on current trends in                                     (tree
                                      green facilities and                                     preservation,
                                      policies governing                                       landscape)
                                      facilities. Knowledge
                                      areas I bring include                                    Waste and
                                      water conservation,                                      recycling
                                      energy efficiency,
                                      vegetation                                               Policy trends
                                      standards, and tree                                      and cost
                                      preservation,                                            implications
                                      recycling and waste
                                      reduction, green
                                      building ordinances,
                                      sustainability
                                      education. Policy
                                      cost implications and
                                      tradeoffs. Costs and
                                      long term cost
                                      savings



Pau,     2/1/2010
                    Regional          Has background in                     1) Brings broad                     Founder of            Willing to host   Availability
Oliver
                    Program           business                                 perspective                      Sustainable NC,       meeting in        confirmed for
                    Manager,          management,                              and balanced                     Business Council,     silver LEED       intense launch
                    Engineering and   sustainability                           view                             Currently serves as   certified         phase from Sept
                    Environmental     education /                                                               Cherokee rep to                         to Dec. and
                    Management for    communication                                                             Business Council                        thereafter
                    Cherokee
                                      Broad set of opinions                 2) Dedicated to
                                      on sustainability,                       Cary as home




                                                                                                                                                    June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                         Page 70
       Term Ends Occupation /    General Notes        Technical          At-Large (5            Partner           Applicant               Potential Role   Basis for
                                                       Experts Area of   suggested              Representatives   Strengths               on               nomination
Name             Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2         appointments)          (2 suggested                              Environmental
                                  application review, suggested                                 appointments)                             Board
                                  research,           appointments)
                                  recommendations,                                              (per Table B of
                                  and interviews      (per Table A of                           application)
                                                      application)




                 District A      seeing convergence                         and eager to
                                                                                                                  Bring clarity and                        Cutting edge
                                 of vision across                           give of self and
                                                                                                                  desire to assist with                    applications
                                 sustainability                             be involved in
                                                                                                                  Board start up,                          experience
                                 spectrum:                                  “the right thing”
                                                                                                                  visioning, setting
                                 environment,
                                                                                                                  tone and strategy
                                 economic, and social
                                 implications, time is
                                 right to dedicate                                                                                                         Employer:
                                                                         3) Business
                                 effort that have                                                                                                          Cherokee
                                                                            background,
                                 potential to be                                                                  Will serve as liaison                    investments also
                                                                            which adds
                                 transformative.                                                                  with Cherokee                            strategic as
                                                                            unique value to
                                                                                                                                                           partner & eager
                                                                            board as whole
                                 Eager to participate                                                                                                      collaborator with
                                                                                                                                                           Town of Cary and
                                                                                                                  MBA, UNC-CH                              community
                                 Timeline and
                                 commitment OK                           4) Has
                                                                            experience
                                 Bring in Cherokee                          starting up 3
                                 resources                                                                                                                 Highly
                                                                            separate
                                                                                                                                                           recommended by
                                                                            boards, similar
                                                                                                                                                           Steve Smutko
                                                                            organizationally
                                                                            to start up of
                                                                            Env. Board



                                                                         5) (two boards
                                                                            Asian-
                                                                            American
                                                                            focus, one
                                                                            sustainability
                                                                            and business




                                                                                                                                                      June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                                           Page 71
       Term Ends Occupation /    General Notes        Technical          At-Large (5       Partner           Applicant   Potential Role   Basis for
                                                       Experts Area of   suggested         Representatives   Strengths   on               nomination
Name             Council District Sources: detailed Expertise (2         appointments)     (2 suggested                  Environmental
                                  application review, suggested                            appointments)                 Board
                                  research,           appointments)
                                  recommendations,                                         (per Table B of
                                  and interviews      (per Table A of                      application)
                                                      application)




                                                                           sector in NC)




                                                                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                                                                          Page 72
The process used to develop this slate of appointments is outlined below.

- Council Members individually reviewed the applications and appointment criteria and informed
the town clerk's staff of their individual suggested appointments.

- The clerk's office compiled all of the individual council suggested appointments and shared the
list with the full council.

- The council liaison, in conjunction with a parks, recreation and cultural resources advisory board
member, who will serve as a liaison to the environmental board, used the council's suggested list
of appointments and the entire applicant pool to conduct interviews.

- The council liaison and the parks, recreation and cultural resources advisory board member,
who will serve as a liaison to the environmental board, compiled a final list of suggested
appointments based on extensive application review, consideration of the appointment criteria
categories, and interviews with candidates.

- The slate of recommended appointments from the council liaison is before the council at the
June 26, 2008 council meeting for discussion and vote.

For comparison purposes, the originally submitted suggested appointments from individual
council members follows.

Original suggested appointments with a majority of individual council recommendation:
Elizabeth Adams (suggested by: Frantz, Adcock, Robinson, Portman)
Ed Clayton (suggested by: Smith, Weinbrecht, Adcock, Portman)
Andrew Hadsell (suggested by: Frantz, Adcock, Robinson, Robison)
Stephen Johnston (suggested by: Weinbrecht, Frantz, Adcock, Robinson, Robison)
William Lyke (suggested by: Smith, Frantz, Robinson, Portman)
John Shaw (suggested by: Weinbrecht, Frantz, Robinson, Portman)

The following candidates received at two individual council recommendations for
appointment and were recommended to be interviewed for remaining vacancies:
Tyler Bennett (suggested by: Frantz, Robinson)
Cindy Carr (suggested by: Adcock, Portman)
Tom Cupitt (suggested by: Smith, Adcock)
George Dohanich (suggested by: Frantz, Robinson)
Julie Flesch-Pate (suggested by: Portman, Robison)
Nike Lewis (suggested by: Smith, Portman)
Chrissy Morgan (suggested by: Weinbrecht, Adcock)
Robert Myer (suggested by: Frantz, Robinson)
Oliver Pau (suggested by: Weinbrecht, Robison)
Alison Pockat (suggested by: Smith, Weinbrecht)
Abby Rokosch (suggested by: Adcock, Robison)
Matthew Strobl (suggested by: Weinbrecht, Adcock)
Karl Thor (suggested by: Weinbrecht, Robison)

There were 57 applicants for this new board.

ACTION: Mrs. Robison moved to accept the recommended slate of appointments. Mr.
Smith provided the second.

The council commended Mrs. Robison for her hard work.

Mr. Portman commented to the applicants not selected that there will be future opportunities to
serve on this board.


                                                                                     June 26, 2008
                                                                                          Page 73
ACTION: Vote was called for, and council granted unanimous approval.

_________________________

I.   CLOSED SESSION

Closed session was not called.

_________________________

J. ADJOURNMENT

ACTION: At 8:34 p.m. Mrs. Adcock moved to adjourn; Mr. Frantz provided the second, and
council granted unanimous approval.




                                                                          June 26, 2008
                                                                               Page 74

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:2/16/2012
language:
pages:74