Asheville City Council Agenda 3.9.10
ByAfter the jump you’ll find a rundown of what’s on tap for Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Click here to go to the City’s website and see the agenda with supporting documentation.
Pledge of Allegiance
Invocation to be given by Councilwoman Manheimer.
I. PROCLAMATIONS:
II. CONSENT AGENDA:
A. Approval of the minutes of the formal meeting held on February 23, 2010.
B. Resolution authorizing the Mayor to convey sanitary sewer easements at the West Asheville Park to the Metropolitan Sewerage District for the Morris Street and Talmadge Court Sewer Rehabilitation Project.
C. Resolution authorizing the Mayor to convey sanitary sewer easements at the Murphy Oakley Park to the Metropolitan Sewerage District for the Liberty Street Sewer Rehabilitation Project.
D. Resolution authorizing the City Clerk to advertise an offer to purchase property off Short Street.
E. Resolution authorizing primary and secondary agents representing the City of Asheville to apply for assistance and obtain financial assistance for the severe winter storm during the period of December 18-25, 2009.
F. Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute, on behalf of the City of Asheville, a Federal Aviation Administration Grant Agreement for Fiscal Year 2010 Part A.
G. Budget amendments:
1. In the amount of $60,000, from Community Development Block Grant Funds, for the Transit Street Furniture Improvement Project.
2. In the amount of $125,000, from Federal Grant Section 5307 Funds and Transit Capital Reserve Funds, for needed repairs to the transit operations garage roof.
III. PRESENTATIONS AND REPORTS:
A. Board of Adjustment Update
B. Recreation Board Update
C. Economic Stimulus Package Update
– Resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Matrix Systems for a card access and camera security system for the City of Asheville.
D. Report on Asheville area broadband stimulus request.
E. Mayor Update from N.C. Metro Mayor’s Coalition Board Meeting.
CITY COUNCIL HAS ESTABLISHED THE FOLLOWING TIME LIMITS FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS:
· APPLICANTS HAVE UP TO TEN MINUTES TO COMPLETE A PRESENTATION.
· ELECTRONIC PRESENTATIONS ARE LIMITED TO AGENDA ITEMS WITH PRESENTATION MATERIALS PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE MEETING BY CITY STAFF, APPLICANTS, OR ORGANIZED OPPOSITION.
· INDIVIDUALS HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK TO CITY COUNCIL.
· A PERSON REPRESENTING A GROUP OF THREE OR MORE PERSONS
(NOT INCLUDING THE SPEAKER) PRESENT IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER
HAS UP TO 10 MINUTES TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL.
· PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD FOR ANY ITEM MAY NOT EXCEED ONE HOUR.
· ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE PROVIDED IN HARD COPY AND/OR WRITTEN FORM.
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Public hearing to rezone 65 Long Shoals Road from Office Business District to Community Business II District.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A. Resolution to apply for the National Endowment for the Arts Mayors’ Institute on City Design Program grant.
B. Update on 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness.
C. Short-term action plan for the Transit Master Plan implementation.
1. Resolution authorizing City staff to implement certain operational changes and a new fare structure to the transit system, based on recommendations included in the Transit Master Plan.
2. Resolution authorizing City staff to move forward with developing a marketing strategy to promote the operational changes and creating a new “brand” for the transit system.
D. Resolutions approving the Report setting forth the plans to provide services to the area proposed for annexation as follows:
1. 301 Long Shoals Road (Ingles)
2. Behind 380 Long Shoals Road (Schenck Parkway)
3. 1 Volvo Drive, 42 Schenck Parkway (Farleigh Street)
4. Dorset Drive (Deerfield)
5. 67 Mountainbrook Road
6. 73 and 75 Waters Road
7. 26 Rocking Porch Road
8. 40 Keasler Road and 23 Sunnycrest Drive
9. 617 Upper Sondley Drive
10. 1445 Tunnel Road
11. Willow Winds Lane
12. Airport Road (portions of shopping center; developed property on edge of municipal service area, including Airport Road right-of-way to Brian Boulevard and County line as well as part of Rockwood Road)
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
A. French Broad Water Resources Study Committee. ]
B. Resolution approving Housing Trust Fund loans to Mountain Housing Opportunities (Larchmont) and Beaucatcher Properties, LLC (Tunnel Road).
C. Resolution approving the Housing Trust Fund underwriting and Risk
Management policies.
D. City Hall Water Infiltration Report
1. Resolution authorizing City staff to develop a Request for Qualifications for engineering design, preparation of construction documents and to conduct special inspections for the repairs to the City Building
2. Budget amendment, in the amount of $19,842, from the General Fund Fund Balance, for a project manager position for the City Hall Building project
E. Discussion on proposed Asheville Energy Independence Initiative Forum on Monday, April 19, 2010, at a location and time to be determined.
F. Discussion and consideration of the State legislative agenda for 2010.
G. Boards & Commissions: (Council to determine who, if any, to interview)
Public Art Board
VII. INFORMAL DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT:
VIII. ADJOURNMENT.
10 Comments
March 8th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Where is the staff report on same sex domestic partner benefits? Wasn’t that due at this meeting??? Was it postponed? Did Bellamy keep it off the agenda again???
Rate this comment:
3 
1
March 8th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
Annexation is a serious threat to urban values policies like same sex domestic partner benefits because new suburban voters in city election will probably oppose ssdpb. So a vote for annexation is a vote against SSDPB.
Rate this comment:
3 
1
March 9th, 2010 at 8:44 am
Cecil will raise the issue of the recent appointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight, during the Boards & Commissions part of the agenda:
Upon reflection I am very uncomfortable with our recent appointments to Planning & Zoning for four reasons. I stress that my concern is not primarily about the particular people chosen for P&Z, but about failures in the process. Given the increased importance of P&Z deliberations under the pending implementation of the Downtown Master Plan, I feel that it is particularly important that our appointments be made with full public scrutiny.
1. In 2009 the North Carolina General Assembly and Governor Perdue called for explicit adherence to state ethics and open meetings rules by every government body in the state, including boards and commissions.
2. The process through which we approved board appointments on February 23 seemed inconsistent with other appointments made during the same meeting. Whereas in earlier votes we nominated, seconded, discussed and voted, for P&Z we were abruptly polled with no nominations and no discussion. I feel like we failed to provide the public with any level of transparency about the reasons for our votes.
3. One person thus appointed to P&Z failed to mention a significant potential conflict of interest, either in her application or during her interview. I have learned from four other members of Council that they were unaware of this matter. While it is true that any Commission member must seek recusal from consideration of projects in which the member has an interest, and while such a conflict doesn’t proscribe appointment to the Commission, the failure of disclosure doesn’t square with our interest in accountability to citizens.
4. It has come to my attention that one member of the Boards and Commissions Committee was unaware of the timely application for P&Z of a highly qualified woman with a long history of civic participation in our community. How can we tell our constituents that every applicant was given consideration when at least one member of the committee which screened applicants was not made aware of a serious applicant? Failure to interview a highly qualified applicant constitutes a failure of accountability to the people of this community and disrespect for the people who are willing to volunteer their time in public service.
City Attorney Bob Oast has indicated to me that the only way to rescind our votes on Feb. 23 of which he is aware is to dissolve the Planning & Zoning Commission and then re-form the Commission and make new appointments.
Therefore I move that Council dissolve Asheville’s Planning & Zoning Commission; create a new Planning & Zoning Commission as required by North Carolina state law; reappoint all Planning & Zoning Commission members in good standing as of February 22, 2010; and reevaluate all timely applications as of that date.
Rate this comment:
1 
1
March 9th, 2010 at 9:08 am
No, Alan, it wasn’t due at this meeting. An implementation timeline will be presented at the worksession, and the final plan will come before Council sometime after summer.
Rate this comment:
1 
0
March 9th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Barry, you’re saying the committee meeting was required to be properly announced and open to the public and was not? If so, does a class action need to be done?
About a year ago, County had a zoning decision thrown out due to improper notice.
Rate this comment:
0 
1
March 9th, 2010 at 11:05 am
Davyne:
No. First, I’m not saying anything – that statement is from Cecil, not from me. Second, no, he’s not saying anything about improper notice. This is about whether one candidate for P&Z properly disclosed a serious conflict of interest, whether another was given full consideration for the seat, and whether the manner these appointments were voted on constituted a fair and open process.
Rate this comment:
2 
3
March 9th, 2010 at 3:23 pm
At the very least, one would hope that the council will develop some sort of standardized questionnaire.
And that the schedule for nomination and selection, the means by which interviews are granted, and the method by which the council makes its decisions will get set in stone and publicized widely.
This “polling” nonsense has got to go. And people need to be asked explicit questions about conflicts of interest.
Rate this comment:
2 
0
March 9th, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Doug, for me, the very least is that these Council members who voted for Holly Shriner should have to do so again, now that this conflict of interest has been made public.
I understand that during the interview, Brownie asked point-blank if she had any thoughts on Merrimon Ave. re-zoning. Apparently, she gave a vague, brief, and generic answer. What she should have said was:
“Yes, my husband and I hired an attorney (from Councilwoman Manheimer’s own firm, as it happens) to fight that re-zoning when it came up two years ago, because it would have impacted our massive development plans on Merrimon. And now, I’d like to have a seat on the very Commission that will hear that re-zoning request should it come up again, please.â€
She didn’t say that. This goes beyond failing to disclose, and crosses well into withholding information under direct questioning, or even outright willful deception.
For Council to merely say, “oops, we’ll do better next time,” is unacceptable to me, when the fix is so easy and appropriate. This is one of those deals where if you’re not fixing it, one has to ask if you’re instead helping them get away with it.
Rate this comment:
2 
0
March 9th, 2010 at 6:52 pm
Barry,
I didn’t know that the interview questions had come so close to the issue. I can’t believe she didn’t disclose more. Is there a transcript of the interview anywhere?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
March 10th, 2010 at 12:22 am
Doug – I don’t believe so. The interviews, like most everything else Council does, is open to the public, but who has time to attend everything? Video records of all the important meetings can’t be too hard to manage…
Yes, this looks like another of those ‘oops’ moments. Oops, we screwed up on Greenlife, oops Staples, oops we sold parkland for condos, oops we moved the sightline 60 feet south on the Pack Square survey, so the Grove Park Inn can put up a bigger building, oops oops oops. The ‘oops’ always seem to break the way of developers trying to get around some rules, and the ‘oops’ are never righted in any significant way.
As the daughter of a former grand old hoary Council member said to me once, “This is how we do business in Asheville. You’d better get used to it.”
Rate this comment:
2 
0