It’s only a slice

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “It’s only a slice”.

by on April 22, 2013  •  Permalink
Posted in Business, Economic development, Lifestyle, Taxes
Posted by Nancy Oates on April 22, 2013

http://chapelhillwatch.com/2013/04/22/its-only-a-slice/

Previous Post
Next Post
Leave a comment

133 Comments

1 2 3

  1. Terri Buckner

     /  April 28, 2013

    “We can help by clarifying who we are and what we want to look like.”

    Seems to me like we’ve done quite a bit of that lately. In the last election, we decided we want transit as illustrated by the majority vote to impose a new tax upon ourselves.

    This past Tuesday night, we decided we want to support curbside recycling and all the other associated waste reduction efforts through a 2-to-1 (at least) representation in turnout and letter writing to the commissioners (along with letters of support from the managers of Carrboro and Hillsborough).

  2. Bonnie Hauser

     /  April 28, 2013

    Yes that’s part of the problem – a few people speak out on a vague topic without facts – and somehow that’s perceived as a mandate. LOL.

    Thank goodness the commissioners are not proceeding with the district tax. Instead they opted to first talk to town leaders and get more information about the tax rate and costs.

    Very impressive to watch Mark Dorosin ask the right questions – and insist on transparency.

    .

  3. Terri Buckner

     /  April 28, 2013

    Interesting take on democracy, Bonnie.

  4. Mark Marcoplos

     /  April 28, 2013

    Bonnie,
    Professor Jacobs wrote: “The exorbitant cost of living is toxic for…racial diversity.” Yet the percentage of whites has declined in the last 15 years. For me, that’s a credibility hit for the professor. Even if (and where did you get this?), we are not gaining Hispanics as fast as other counties. And I’ve got to admit that this new measuring of minority gains is bordering on weird. (I’ll take your Asians & raise it by some Indians and Mexicans…)

    The professor also lost credibility on OWASA finances, despite an entire long paragraph spent relating the heartbreaking story of the “underprivileged” African-American, a story about a “favorite local” passed on to him by one of his grad students, who had to leave town solely because of OWASA’s water bill. Give me a break.

    So why in the world would I believe him when he tosses out other scant, unsupported information like the 1 in 128 businesses locating in Orange County?

    I’m totally open to credible data and am willing to change my mind based on new knowledge, but this guy’s credibility falls far short. He might be the international finance consultant suddenly most concerned about social justice for African-Americans in Chapel Hill, but he needs to tailor his data toward critical thinkers. I must admit, he had a willing ally in the N&O who provided him the big, provocative headline and some fancy graphics.

    We need to have the discussion, but it needs to be joined in good faith with presentations of honest information and no other axes to grind.

  5. Mark Marcoplos

     /  April 28, 2013

    Many,

    Let’s have lunch. I think we agree on as much as we disagree. Especially on education expenditures.

    Quick thought on the EPA – it is OK with fracking. Again – credibility is important. OWASA data shows that a family of four can live comfortably on 4000 gal./month. (I should have said that 15,000 was 3.75 times more than 4000.)

    Also, development policies emanate from the local governments who own OWASA. OWASA is not responsible for promoting or restricting growth. You’ve got the wrong bogeyman.

    Again, contact me privately and let’s have lunch.

  6. Bonnie Hauser

     /  April 29, 2013

    Mark – Lets see – you believe Barry but not Michael?

    Here’s a link to the NC financial stewardship index – for $300,000 home using 15000 gallons of water. http://www.wilmingtonnc.gov/Portals/0/documents/City%20Manager/Budget/NC%20Stewardship%20Index.pdf

    There’s another table for 5000 gallons but its not online. I’ll send it to you. Chapel Hill still ranks at the bottom (total and water costs). Of course in Chapel Hill, there are a lot fewer homes in the $300,000 and lower category.

    Michael taught a combined a UNC Law School and graduate business school class. They benchmarked Orange County vs about 50 others in the state. When they pulled the census, it showed minorities are growing everywhere (the premise of Michael’s article), but OC’s minority populations are growing more slowly than other counties (maybe not Asians). Focusing on the shrinking African American population got people to pay attention.

    What assumption do you make about a growing Asian population? .

    The big deal to me is that NC is one of the fastest growing states in the country – but there’s evidence that its not happening here. Barry discussed the investment we are making in the EDDs – but we’ve yet to prove that we have a formula that works.

    I love that Barry focused on $250,000 in sales taxes -and said nothing about the $300 million that the combined county/towns/schools spend every year. Its a lot of money. Isn’t it prudent to occassionally look and see if are places to improve? And broadly benchmarking sevices AND costs to others is always a good idea.

    We don’t have to be Cary or Mebane – but we all win if our leaders start to look at the financial consequences of their combined policies. Michael suggests that some people are being priced out. Is it possible that he’s right?

  7. Terri Buckner

     /  April 29, 2013

    Jacobs’ article presented a comparison against 15,000 gallons of water usage per month. It was supposed to use the data for 5,000 gallons. Mr. Jacobs’ asked the editors to print a correction, but last time I looked (late last week), they had not done so.

    Even if he had used 15,000 gallons as his benchmark, the monthly dollar figure quoted was off by a factor of 4. OWASA fully acknowledges that if a household uses such an exorbitant amount of water, they will be charged an equally exorbitant fee. Why? Because the only consistent way a household could use that much water is through irrigation. Local residents shouldn’t have to subsidize expansive green lawns.

    Over the weekend, I was in Duplin and Sampson counties. The Hispanic populations there are probably larger than what we have in Orange. However, those are also production farming communities. They have need for large numbers of low wage, low skill workers, and many of those are migrants. I don’t believe we have many corporate farms in Orange. Our farmers serve the local need, not the world need.

    My point is that it is simplistic to say we aren’t diverse because other counties have higher Hispanic populations. There have been sociological studies over the past few decades addressing the competition for low-wage jobs between African Americans and Hispanics. Personally, I’m happy that Orange County does not have an economy based on low-wage jobs, even if that means we aren’t as diverse as some.

    The sociological literature has been addressing the issue of integrated housing communities since the 1970s. Regardless of what policies are place, communities seem to segregate by race. Using that research, it would make sense that gentrification of Northside and Pine Knolls would cause those historically black neighborhoods to become more white. And for the black residents to move to Durham where they can live in neighborhoods that are predominantly black.

    Numbers alone don’t explain much. And they don’t add anything to efforts to reverse trends that all of our locally elected councils have been focusing on for years. I’d really like to hear suggestions for how to start fixing the problem rather than more claims that there is a problem.

  8. Many

     /  April 29, 2013

    “I’d really like to hear suggestions for how to start fixing the problem rather than more claims that there is a problem.”

    So Terri in you mind is there a problem or isn’t there, and if there is, what in your mind is the description of said problem?

    In my mind, Professor Jacobs describes a real condition and it is up to us to decide is its a problem or not. Reading between the lines, you seem unsure there is a problem and you are focused on different elements than I am.

    Just to clarity; I am looking at the spending side of the condition and subsequent allocations as a problem, along with Owasas’ artificial limitations on water use while at the same time refusing to interconnect with Durham water supplies and utilize the huge capacity OWASA has allocated from Jordan lake.

  9. Terri Buckner

     /  April 29, 2013

    Many,

    Before you make any further public statements about OWASA you might want to check them. You’ve made two major errors of fact in your last two posts.

    First, OWASA didn’t establish the rural services boundary. That was done by the local governments and OWASA signed on to abide by it.

    Second, the OWASA BOD is appointed by the local governments. If you had been paying attention, you would have noticed that Carrboro replaced both of its representatives last year because they voted with the majority to acquire a Jordan Lake allocation. OWASA has had an interconnect with Durham (and by default Cary), along with a mutual aid agreement, for decades. The issue I think you may be referencing is the new condition Cary put on OWASA (as a result of the 2008 drought) that in order to sell us water (processed), we have to have our own raw water allocation to Jordan. Carrboro was opposed to that agreement, but the OWASA BOD went ahead and we now have the allocation.

    I have no idea what you mean by “artificial limitations on water use.” Do you mean conservation pricing, or making water use subject to price points? If that is artificial, so are most commercial ventures, including every electric utility. They just don’t call it conservation pricing.

  10. Many

     /  April 29, 2013

    Terri,

    OWASA is not transparent and the whole treatise you just posted adds to the confusion (at least on my part) rather than clarifying things.

    By “artificial limitations on water use” I mean that
    OWASA is not doing everything it can to provide water it has the rights to for the citizens and business demand and instead chooses an “planned economy” attempt at behavioral modification through rates as an alternative.

    OWASA did not “squire” that allocation they have had it from the beginning.

    OWASA is a subdivision of the state just like a town or county government and is not elected but appointed. Carrboros arbitrary replacement of representative is a great example of my point.

  11. Terri Buckner

     /  April 29, 2013

    Many,

    Again, I say you need to look further before you start making such broad criticisms. Every action that OWASA takes is reported through public meeting notes. The meetings are broadcast; the reports are available online. Let’s not substitute “I haven’t made the effort to find out this detail” for not being transparent.

    As far as the obligation of the utility to protect the natural resource over which it has management rights, you and I will simply have to disagree. If the two major droughts of the past 12 years have taught us anything, it should be that water is a limited resource and we need to protect it through conservation.

  12. Geoff Green

     /  April 29, 2013

    small data point — family of five here, have used an average of 4,000 gallons/month. This includes months when we’ve been gone, but the highest we’ve used is 5,000 gallons in a month. And we’ve never felt deprived — I take showers that are longer than they should be, and we do an awful lot of laundry.

    How do you use 15,000 gallons per month, and for what purpose? Teenagers taking hour-long showers? Frequent baths? Running the dishwasher 6x day? Keeping the water running while you brush your teeth for 10 minutes? Is it just that we don’t irrigate our lawn, or are there people who use > 10,000 gallons without irrigating?

  13. Many

     /  April 29, 2013

    In the post above “squire” should read “acquire” (damn spell checker……:)

  14. Many

     /  April 29, 2013

    Geoff no idea. Our water usage is similar to yours, but the EPA says 400GPD is “average”

  15. Many

     /  April 29, 2013

    Terri we do disagree. Throwing something up on the internet without context and background does not qualify as transparency. OWASA in my opinion is still way too opaque.

    Droughts were/are a problem for OWASA customers and they could have alleviated a great deal of the problem if they (and the county) had not been blocking interconnection so WE could get at the water WE have rights to. I do not disagree with conservation but creating artificial shortages is just plain wrong.

  16. Terri Buckner

     /  April 29, 2013

    Let me say this one more time. OWASA has had an interconnect with Durham for many years. And since Durhsm is connected to Cary, OWASA has a de facto connection with Cary also. So I’m not sure shay Many is talking about.

    Maybe it’s TTA’s fault….

  17. Many

     /  April 29, 2013

    Terri please.

    My memory is still fresh from the drought and OWASA’s 3 year battle to use a 5 MGD allocation from Jordan Lake, even at the risk of losing that allocation it has had and not used since 1988……using the drought in 2010 as an excuse to raise rates……..despite pleas from the business community and university……despite the are being in severe drought since 2008………..really? REALLY?

    http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2011/04/28/council-flips-on-owasa%E2%80%99s-jordan-lake-plan/

    While Sally Green argued how many gallons could dance in the head of a pin….and OWASA was restricting water and charging more…..and more….and now comes Carrboro’s punitive reaction; replacing their OWASA board members with “good solders” that are less likely to listen to reason.

    Terri, be honest. This was not about providing water. It was about restricting development. Chapel Hill and Carrboro control OWASA and use it as a buffer to stop development penalizing residents while charging a regressive (yes usury) water rates to the citizens for a basic necessity.

    OWASA is truly a low point in government.

  18. Terri Buckner

     /  April 29, 2013

    Many,

    You really aren’t getting anything about this situation right. OWASA had (before last month) a “reservation” at Jordan Lake. There was no water involved–just dibs for the future. An interconnect is pipe that connects one system to another. As I’ve said, we’ve had that pipe–the interconnect—with Durham for years. The interconnect and the Jordan Lake allocation are two separate, and not always related, issues.

    Through our mutual aid agreement with Durham, we sell each other water when the other needs it–but only if the other one has water to sell. In the last drought, Durham didn’t have any extra water to sell us. That’s why they, and Cary, have pushed us to convert our reservation into a real allocation of water.

    You’re welcome to make sweeping statements like your last one, but you should really make sure you have your facts straight first.

    BTW, I had a really funny thought about your criticism of OWASA’s transparency. You, someone who is afraid to be known, are complaining about transparency….that’s really kind of hilarious, don’t you think?

  19. Fred Black

     /  April 29, 2013

    Terri, remember we went through this on another Blog some years back, DAISNAID (Do As I Say, Not As I Do!).

  20. Bonnie Hauser

     /  April 29, 2013

    Here’s Michael Jacobs published water rates for 5000 gallons per month – Chapel Hill’s costs are still the highest cost.

    Water/
    City Sewer (3)

    Wilmington $600
    Raleigh $539
    Apex $688
    Cary $712
    Hickory $573
    Asheville $384
    Burlington $385
    Winston Salem $369
    Concord $711
    Huntersville $526
    Kannapolis $743
    Fayetteville $549
    Greenville $617
    Jacksonville $821
    Monroe $569
    Charlotte $526
    Wilson $736
    Durham $594
    Goldsboro $479
    Salisbury $918
    Greensboro $459
    Gastonia $680
    High Point $755
    Rocky Mount $554
    Chapel Hill $982

  21. Many

     /  April 29, 2013

    Terri

    Sounds like I hit a nerve. Sorry.

    Hilarity is not something I am experiencing because OWASA has had this 5MGD allocation since 1988 and refused to use it. That is gross mismanagement of resources and a disservice to the rate payers and citizen taxpayers who suffer due to the OWASA anti-growth agenda thinly disguised as “conservation”.

    I am not a public entity. I do not collecting taxes, nor do I have control over resources. The snide canards you keep floating are really nothing more than an attempt to divert attention.

    Shame on you, you are better than that.

  22. Many

     /  April 29, 2013

    Great advice Fred!

  23. Terri Buckner

     /  April 30, 2013

    Bonnie–as I said before and as Mr. Jacobs will acknowledge if you ask him, that data is WRONG! Anyone can go to the UNC Environmental Finance Center and see the correct data on their interactive dashboard: http://efc.unc.edu/projects/NCWaterRates.htm

    Many–you did hit a nerve. After all your claims for using data and being accurate, you persist in ignoring basic facts. OWASA did not have an allocation for WATER in Jordan Lake until last month. Before last month, they had dibs on a future allocation. Why are you persisting in perpetuating falsehoods?

  24. Many

     /  April 30, 2013

    Terry,

    “dibs”? Really?

    “dibs” since 1988″? Really?

    “dibs” through droughts and restrictions and rate increases? Really?

    Five-Million-Gallons-Per-Day “dibs” and it took OWASA Twenty-Five-Years?

    Oh please. Your argument does not hold water 🙂

  25. Many

     /  April 30, 2013

    I had a brain drizzle.

    Could the difference in water consumption between the EPA “normal” consumption of 400GPD (about 12000GPM) and the “normal” experience of people posting here to be about half that be the difference between just water usage and water & sewer usage combined?

  26. Deborah Fulghieri

     /  April 30, 2013

    Thank you for that link, Terri. Here is a paragraph from the survey:

    “High rates do not necessarily reflect poor or inefficient management; in fact, some utilities with low rates do not generate sufficient revenue to
    properly maintain their system’s assets, thereby reducing short-term investments that are likely to have long-term adverse cost and service impacts.
    Other utilities may have low rates because they have not re-examined their rate structures in many years. Even when a utility customer base does not grow, operating costs rise every year and rates should be examined and readjusted on a yearly basis.”

    OWASA’s customers are the first users of water from OWASA’s reservoirs. Treated waste-water and storm drain water empties into Morgan Creek, which flows into Jordan Lake. Jordan Lake’s water is drawn by water companies downstream which re-treat their waste-water. This process repeats itself several times as water flows toward the Atlantic. The OWASA rate structure gives incentives to conserve. The rates are high, but the water quality is higher.

    Thanks to all for the laughs about arguments not holding water and canards a-swim in Jordan Lake.

  27. Mark Marcoplos

     /  April 30, 2013

    My favorite quote of the thread comes from Many: “Throwing something up on the internet without context and background does not qualify as transparency.”

    I assume that Professor Jacobs is not held to these same standards.

  28. Bonnie Hauser

     /  April 30, 2013

    Terri – I’m sorry I don’t have the time to sort thru 185 page report to find and pull together the data behind Michael’s annualized water/sewer numbers for 5000 and 15000 gallons. Can you explain where he’s wrong or point me to the comparable numbers?

    Oh – forget it – it doesn’t really matter – Hopefully you are not arguing that the composite costs of property plus taxes plus water/sewer in OrangeCounty/Chapel Hill are competitive to other North Carolina Communities. Of course in comparison to the Northeast or other places, we’re a bargain.

    I think we can and should do better, but its unclear how many believe that costs are a priority.

  29. Many

     /  April 30, 2013

    Mark,

    Sure he is. I’ll say it again the issue of transparency is much less important in his case because he is not making decisions that affect the broad electorate or controlling resources large numbers of people depend on. Exactly what transparency do you feel is missing?

    That point aside, don’t you think any of the points professor Jacobs makes are valid? Worth further discussion and examination maybe? Do any resonate with you at all?

    One thing that bothers me is the knee jerk reaction defending and excuse the thinking and actions of the local sacred cow institutions (e.g. Recycling, OWASA, Transit). The questions being asked and points being made are reasonable and plans and actions of the status quo institutions are clearly questionable.

    What is even more disturbing is how seriously a small number of people take themselves and their sacred institutions and how quickly the questions asked are dismissed out of hand or dodged for spurious reasons (like the horrible crime of posting anonymously).

    No one is suggesting that these cows be slaughtered, only that perhaps they might be slimmed down a bit and resources be allocated elsewhere? Only asking why things are the way they are and perhaps if there is a better way?

    Coming from a long tradition of “question authority”. I have observed that many of the assumptions and budgets the local sacred cows operate under have made them embedded bureaucratic barriers to new thinking and superior solutions, proven and deployed elsewhere. That’s not to say all questions and suggestions have merit in this context, but how can you tell? No one will address them head on.

    Take the UNC water dashboard Terri provided. That’s all very nice, but it does not show the figures behind the dials and I get that “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” feeling. With the UNC dashboard there is no way to judge the GiGo factor. Professor Jacobs numbers have more transparency because the assumptions are right there and can be examined, discussed and proven right or wrong.

    “Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.” — Aristotle

  30. Terri Buckner

     /  April 30, 2013

    “With the UNC dashboard there is no way to judge the GiGo factor. Professor Jacobs numbers have more transparency because the assumptions are right there and can be examined, discussed and proven right or wrong.”

    So Mr. Jacobs uses the data from the EFC, which EFC uses to populate the dashboard, but his numbers are more transparent that theirs. With all due sarcasm, makes perfect sense to me.

    Bonnie–it was not Mr. Jacobs who messed up the numbers. It was someone on the N&O art staff who made the graphic to go with the article. They used the 15,000 gallon columns of data when Mr. Jacobs was referencing the 5,000 gallon data.

  31. Bonnie Hauser

     /  May 1, 2013

    Terri – you are really confusing me – when I provided the numbers from MIchael’s original spreadsheets for 5000 gallons, you blasted me with – “MICHAEL”s data is wrong” and provided a link to the dashboard and 185 pages. Now are you saying “never mind”. I guess we’re talking past each other.

    I’m with Many all the way on this. And we have to ask ourselves – how is the high cost of living impacting the kinds of development we attract, the kinds of businesses that survive, and if/where/how affordable housing fits.

    My biggest fear is that we are fixated on yesterday’s problems. Plus we’re so busy creating the illusion of being business friendly, we haven’t noticed that businesses (and our workforce and minorities) are going elsewhere.

    Our potential is extraordinary – but we never hold a mirror up to ourselves. This is the gift Michael offered, and given the outrage, he must be on to something.

  32. Terri Buckner

     /  May 1, 2013

    There are two variables Bonnie–price and quantity. The data you presented don’t match the correct price to the quantity. The data was from the dashboard but was incorrectly reported.

    I don’t believe anyone in this discussion has claimed there isn’t a problem with affordability. But how we address the problem without unintended consequences requires more than surface level analysis and claims like Many has made.

    I realize that not everyone thinks conserving water and reducing waste production is important, but the fact is, the majority of the voters in this county do. That’s why we have the elected officials we have who make the policies they make. So the values of the voting population are reflected in our public policy.

    What I am not willing to say is that undoing all those environmental protections, like the current administration in Raleigh is trying to do, will change anything in terms of long-term affordability. I have no interest in finding short-term fixes that create other long-term problems.

  33. Mark Marcoplos

     /  May 1, 2013

    Many – The professor’s piece had enough inaccuracies and misrepresentations that I cannot trust any of the points he made. Some are undoubtedly generally true. A lot of it is based on various research projects that his students did. That’s fine, but – for example – the statement that only 1 of 128 companies that planned to locate in RTP planned to locate in Orange County. I need way more information than that. This is complicated stuff and his general statements barely scratch the surface. Add in his use of meaningless words like “bourgeois” and calling OWASA’s rates “usurious” and I just don’t have a good feeling about his credibility.

  34. Many

     /  May 1, 2013

    Terri,

    I am not the enemy.

    “I realize that not everyone thinks conserving water and reducing waste production is important, but the fact is, the majority of the voters in this county do.”

    Count me as one of those who thinks these issues are important. However, I think the cost/benefit ratio is completely out of control. The net effect of that is turning (has turned?) Chapel Hill into a place where no one but the very wealthy or firmly embedded can afford to live. The result is a place where new ideas and pluralism are squashed. If that is what Chapel Hill wants to be then fine, but I think the jury is still out.

    It is my opinion (any I think many others) that people are not aware of the costs and what is being sacrificed. Like frogs in a slow cooker, they are not paying attention.

    If you are saying a 1.4 Billion dollar LRT line that raises property values, increases commuting and cuts a new path through a critical watershed is somehow “environmental protection” then I disagree.

    If you are saying that artificially raising water rates, denying availableresources and at the same time constraining business and peoples affordability is somehow “conservation”. I disagree.

    If you are saying that bloated Solid Waste departments (plural) and illegal fees somehow justify some recycling award then I disagree.

    I disagree mostly because other parts of the government (such as public safety) are being starved. I also disagree because it is pricing people especially the entrepreneurial young with new ideas, solutions, and energy out of the market.

    My sense is the we need to stop navel gazing, and patting our selves on the back for past accomplishments. We need to decide what it is that we want to be – assuming that staying the same is a recipe for disaster, and plan for that future.

    I can tell you that future is more dense, with less personal ownership of vehicles, while at the same time being more mobile. That future is more open, much less private and change will come even faster than it does now. That future has a lot more elders (at least for a while). That future has a generation larger than the baby boomers just coming into their prime years. That future has many more sources of energy and is orders of magnitude less dependent of external sources. That future has histories largest transfer of wealth between generation ever. That future has more cultural and racial diversity.

    LRT as proposed ain’t it. OWASA needs to become more than a water Politburo and we collectively need to understand what the closing of the landfill means for Chapel Hill, who together with UNC produces ~75% of the trash in this county.

    We need to decide what types of business and industry we want to champion and enable those. We need to prepare for less from Raleigh and Washington and figure out how to do more ourselves.

  35. Many

     /  May 1, 2013

    Mark,

    “….I just don’t have a good feeling about his credibility”

    And I have exactly the same feeling about TTA, OWASA and the Solid Waste departments.

    How do we get to the truth?

  36. Terri Buckner

     /  May 1, 2013

    If you want to get to the truth (whose truth matters?), you could start by focusing on what we know and stop making claims about what you think but no one knows for sure (like the impact of LRT). There are legitimate differences of opinion, opinions that are all based on someone’s truth, that should be discussed. But claims of knowledge that no one can verify/confirm just leads to more entrenchment.

    And while you don’t think your anonymity matters, when you start claiming to have knowledge that no one else has (impact of LRT, data to back up “bloated” SW programs claim), your anonymity counters any sense of credibility.

  37. Scott

     /  May 1, 2013

    Several interesting and important issues in this thread of conversation. One observation is that there is more protein (previously called meat) in this set of 80+ comments than in a years worth of elected body public meetings. Another observation is that depending upon ones desire to be exclusive or contribute to sprawl the rural buffer and urban/utility service boundaries have been either (1) a colossal failure or (2) a magnificent success. My own view of the rural buffer and its supporting policies and regulations (both county and town) is that it was and continues to be a promoter of sprawl for the benefit of the wealthier households on single-family homes within Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well as those on lots of 2-5-10+ acres in the rural buffer zone. As to its consequences for the present and future of housing, population, and commerce another set of issues for serious discussion would be: (1) Expansion of the water supply of OWASA or Orange Alamance Water Company and modifying the urban services boundary, (2) Housing for households making 80-140% of median income, and (3) Expanded retail sales/services within Orange County. OWASA and water supply – Without commenting on the politics of the formation of OWASA in the late 70’s and the OWASA policies that made the orderly extension of utilities at a reasonable cost difficult, the current situation is that residents within the OWASA service area as well as UNC have dramatically reduced per capita consumption of water during the last decade. Will that trend continue or are we near the low end of per capita consumption. Regardless, it seems that we do have the current and future water supply for at least the next 50 years – assuming that the build-out rate within the service area that OWASA is using for its projections holds solid. Maybe we will have enough water to continue a population increase beyond the 50 year mark, but to assume that is the case at this time would not be wise in my opinion. But, what does that tell us about where the water should be delivered and allocated? Not much. If we really want housing for the 80-140% median income households – AND if we want that to include single-family and town home housing, “we” will need to permit OWASA to provide water services outside the current boundaries and south of Hillsborough. Based upon some of the institutional, governmental, political, and watershed policies of today it does not seem to me that “we” will make any fundamental changes to our rural character / sprawl policies. That does leave us with the option of increasing residential density within the towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill – at best a proposition that excludes for the most part families with children. That of course says little about the difficulty in getting anything approved in Chapel Hill. For retail goods/services this outcome also provides a very slow growth in customers and again great difficulty in finding new space for new/expanded businesses. I do not see a future for Chapel Hill – or for that matter Carrboro or Orange County that will include the opportunity for providing significant new housing options to achieve the diversity “we” say is a goal without elected officials willing to be deeply engaged in the economic and social justice planning activities needed to determine what current and historic policies need to be altered to truly become diverse in the 21st century. LASTLY, the amount of our property tax dollars that go to education is incredibly high. New development that attracts additional young families with children (a diversity goal) conflict directly with the desire of many to limit the expansion of the schools for cost and other reasons. For both current and future residents and taxpayers of Orange County, these are the big deal items. Our continual focus in development review on whether buffers are 50 or 75 feet in width or whether we add 200 trips or 245 trips are of virtually no importance if we can not figure out how to pay for the schools and other public services we currently enjoy and want for the next 3 generations of Orange County residents. This is not a campaign speech but a request for all of us to get some of the big issues really put on the table for serious discussion.

  38. Bonnie Hauser

     /  May 1, 2013

    In support of Many – I have the numbers – and Michael is right – our solid waste costs are roughly double other counties and without going into all the distortions in the waste reduction numbers, there is a very high cost – that is not disclosed.

    On transit – yes – when 3/4 of the money (1/2 of local funds) goes to 4 miles of high value real estate, you have to wonder who’s winning.

    My biggest outrage is how the guise of public service is really lip service to our values, Much of our money goes to office space and excess staff and resources. And unfortunately – since our rhetoric hasn’t changed in 20 years, many vocal advocates are advocating for solutions that made sense in the 90s.

    Many is exactly right – and our greatest enemy is our own self-congratulatory manner. Its time to tell the emperor to get dressed and get to work

  39. Many

     /  May 1, 2013

    What Scott said.

    BTW Scott, where did you get the 50 year water assertion from?

    I know the American Stone Quarry is coming on line in the next decade, but does the project assume no growth in OWASA footprint? Does it include the 5MGD allocation from Jordan lake? If so who will treat that water? (i.e. what comes in must go out as well, and where will OWASA dump their sludge?)

  40. Mark Marcoplos

     /  May 1, 2013

    OWASA plans 50 years out.

    Interesting concept that needs further discussion: Is it really important or necessary or wise to plan to continue increasing population without limit? Is carrying capacity a notion that we should pay attention to?

  41. Many

     /  May 1, 2013

    Mark I agree to the importance of discussion about “how” but not “if”.

    From my point of view planning is wise and planning is important. So, two out of three are an attempt to predict the probable future and that is necessary 🙂

    “Without limit” is a bit leading because there is always a limit. That limit is one of the parameters planning tries to determine. “Carrying capacity” is one way to describe that.

    Of course 50 years is a L O N G time, and planning accuracy decreases with time.

  42. Terri Buckner

     /  May 1, 2013

    I know the American Stone Quarry is coming on line in the next decade, but does the project assume no growth in OWASA footprint?

    OWASA plans around new meters rather than population. 562 new MEs (meter equivalents) each year through 2028 (UNC Central Campus buildout); 520 new MEs per year from 2029 through 2060.

    Does it include the 5MGD allocation from Jordan lake? No

    If so who will treat that water? OWASA has the treatment capacity for the next couple of decades. If/when we use Jordan water, Cary will treat it.

    OWASA planners validated all of this in January 2013 with municipal planners. More detail can be found in the staff report:
    http://owasa.org/client_resources/about/agendas/2013/01%2024%202013%20agenda%20for%20web.pdf (starts on page 52 of 61)

  43. Many

     /  May 1, 2013

    Terri,

    Thank you. This kind of report is what makes me crazy about OWASA and other bureaucratic entities. Its too technical and obtuse. It reinforces silo thinking and seems oblivious to vision or consideration of other efforts going on in the towns or county. In short it may or may not be working at counter purposes with key planning, or economic development and no one would know. Yes. I see the reference in the Winters memo, but “where’s the beef”?

    The table on page 5 of appendix II shows UNC comprising ~40% of new demand, but less than 20% of “MEs” per year. So, planing around MEs misrepresents the demand projections unless the meter size is factored in somewhere which does not seem to be. Furthermore the “expected” demand projections assume “no droughts” and “additional conservation” (note 4 on “key assumptions”). How realistic is that?

    Now perhaps the droughts or lack of increased conservation scenarios are built into the “high demand” assumptions, but it does not say anything like that.

    If demand is going down (page 7 of appendix II), expenses are down (pg 4 of financial report) and revenues are up (pg 5 of financial report) why is the price not down as well?

    The rate study discussion misses half the equation. I agree the costs for tier one could be reduced but how about a tiered structure for business? How can OWASA encourage rational economic development….?

  44. Mark Marcoplos

     /  May 1, 2013

    OWASA is tasked with providing the water necessary to meet the growth planning of the local governments. OWASA is not supposed to be involved in growth issues, but rather provides the services that are required by decisions made by the elected officials. There is really no other sane way to proceed.

  45. Terri Buckner

     /  May 1, 2013

    “How can OWASA encourage rational economic development….?”

    That isn’t any part of our responsibility.

    “The rate study discussion misses half the equation.”
    What part of the rate study discussion that has been underway for over 6 months now are you referring to? Have you attended our meetings to really understand the depth of our discussions?

  46. .

     /  May 1, 2013

    I love that we aren’t drinking our own treated sewage, and hope we never do.

  47. Many

     /  May 1, 2013

    Terri, read what I wrote. There is no discussion of reducing rates for business customers. You choose not to respond to the other questions, eh? I think I understand the discussion unless there are things not in the report that should be.

    Mark, OWASA has been restricting growth for many years. They are indeed “involved in growth issues” like it or not.

    . Hate to burst your bubble, but you are drinking your own treated sewage. OWASA and other municipalities dump tons of “sludge” on the watersheds and farm fields and has for years.

  48. Mark Marcoplos

     /  May 1, 2013

    Okay, time for some specifics, folks. This has been a rousing record-setting thread, complete with getting in a few kicks at Bill Strom (lest we forget one of the recurring themes of this august blog).

    We’ve been regaled with the general wisdom of various critics of over-spending, economic elitism, and the obvious (to them) willful, conspiratorial disregard for the needs of the working class that is undermining our way of life and contributing to the lack of diversity that brings profound despondency to the otherwise satisfying lives of these critics and the latest folk hero, our own Professor Jacobs, consultant to world banking interests (when he is not bemoaning the plight of the disenfranchised) .

    So what would be some specific policy changes and/or budget cuts that you would make? Then we can get beyond the generalities and consider the effects of the suggestion. Only then will we really begin to understand the value or lack of it for the policies that the folks we’ve elected have pursued.

  49. Many

     /  May 1, 2013

    Mark,

    For starters

    Cut the solid waste budget and consolidate staff, collection & disposal between the towns & county. I would increase the convenience for recycling in the towns and very possibly contract out trash pickup & disposal entirely

    Cut the school budgets for fancy buildings and use that money to maintain or decrease class size. I would also consider the sin of combining the school districts.

    Disband OWASA and integrate it into the planning departments (county planning too, because that’s where the water is). Embark on a project to rationalize property lines, land use and zoning so they are consistent and Encourage commercial development in designated areas by providing water & sewer, This would broaden the tax base. Stop the politicians from using OWASA as a front.

    Rescind the 1/2 cent transit sales tax or at a minimum insist that a greater portion go toward current needs, like ParknRide. Insist that TTA go back to the drawing board on LRT and bring in outside help (they need it). Leave the vehicle tax, but give the money directly to CHT and OCT. Consider the sin of a farebox on the CHT buses that goes directly to transit concerns. Define “Transit Oriented Development”

    Define “Workforce Housing” and “Affordable Housing” and make developers stick to their promises by requiring a bond or some insurance.

    Engage the entrepreneurial community and University in the above discussions.

  50. Bonnie Hauser

     /  May 1, 2013

    here here! and maybe consolidate parks n rec and all those offices.

    After that warm up… schools

1 2 3