Moving money

Town manager Roger Stancil has the $62,000 tipping fees expenditure covered. It’s just a matter of moving some numbers around, he said. Turns out the town had planned to pay the county $90,000 this year as part of its share for purchasing greenway land. The town will pay the unexpected tipping fee expenditure from the money set aside for the land purchase, then put whatever remains of the $90,000 toward the land purchase.

And Jim Ward saw through my concern over our over-paved neighborhood. Streets in our part of town have been resurfaced so many times that they are about the same height as the curb, creating a sharp drop-off where the street meets the gutter. We have a similar height discrepancy between the street surface and manhole covers, which are as deep as potholes. When I mentioned to some neighbors that our streets are once again slated for another inch of resurfacing, the ad hoc response was that we should pull a Tiananmen Square protest, laying our bodies down when the asphalt trucks arrive. Ward made Public Works director Lance Norris promise to mill the edges of the streets to reduce the sharp angle of the drop-off. But nothing can be done about our manhole potholes.

Ward found no support for giving the Orange County Visitors Bureau an extra $20,000. Already the town gives the bureau $150,000 annually to promote tourism in Orange County. Laurin Easthom said that, given the tight economy, now was not the time to gift more money to the Visitors Bureau while cutting funds to nonprofits. Ward said the tight economy is precisely the time when the town should be supporting the Visitors Bureau. He pointed out that Durham is building ever more hotels along our county border, and Chapel Hill needs to be able to compete. Hotel tax contributes to town revenue, some of which is used to support nonprofits. Sally Greene sided with Easthom, and when Ward made his motion, no one seconded it, rendering it dead before it even came to vote.

Perhaps that was for the best. Ward’s seat is up for re-election this year. Had his motion come to a vote, he would have run the risk of being labeled “pro-business” and accused of being part of the Matt Czajkowski/Gene Pease pro-business cabal.

Pease was absent from Monday’s meeting. Donna Bell left shortly before the end of the meeting with the council’s blessing as she felt ill.
– Nancy Oates

by on June 14, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Budget
Posted by Nancy Oates on June 14, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/06/14/moving-money/

Scrap and save

Most of the time, municipal processes work just fine. But once in a while, something comes up that gives “government workers” a bad name. The street resurfacing recommendation that is part of tonight’s consent agenda is one of them.

Because of the increase in tipping fees at the landfill that the county did not determine until after town manager Roger Stancil had already formulated a budget, Stancil is now scrambling to come up with an extra $62,000. Rather than find someone on staff to lay off, he could delay some nonessential improvement. Road resurfacing tops my list. It seems a nicety to do regularly when coffers are flush, but low enough on the priority list to do without when money is tight. Kind of akin to skipping a haircut to pay the light bill.

So when I saw the recommendation for road resurfacing, I checked the list of roads that the town said had not been resurfaced for 18.5 years, on average. I was surprised to see streets in my neighborhood and streets I drive regularly that have been resurfaced in the past few years.

I can’t vouch for every street on the list. Perhaps there are a half dozen streets that haven’t been resurfaced in 34 years that balance out the half dozen streets I know were resurfaced in the past three years. But given that the entire list of 39 streets constitutes 6.4 miles of roadway total, it would be worth having someone from Public Works drive over to the 39 streets and take a second look. Delaying the resurfacing on at least some of the roads on the list would not affect quality of life in town or cause harm to the streets. And it could instantly come up with the extra $62,000 for tipping fees.
– Nancy Oates

by on June 13, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by Nancy Oates on June 13, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/06/13/scrap-and-save/

Lawsuit filed

Commercial and residential property owners filed suit against the Town of Chapel Hill today to obtain information that may show whether some Town Council members should be disqualified to vote on the IFC shelter special use permit application. Dogwood Asset Management, the owners of Homestead Station, the shopping center on the corner of Homestead Road and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, and John and Leslie Walker, who live across the street from where the homeless shelter is to be moved, filed suit to vacate the council’s approval of the SUP and acquire access to relevant documents, such as minutes to some of council’s closed sessions, and to ask questions of council members under oath to determine whether some council members had already made up their minds about how they would vote on the shelter SUP application before the public hearing earlier this year.

At the May 9 council meeting, lawyer David Rooks asked Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and council members Matt Czajkowski, Ed Harrison and Penny Rich to recuse themselves from voting on the shelter SUP application. After a quick consult with town attorney Ralph Karpinos, no council members recused themselves. Once the matter goes to court, a judge will decide whether any council members will be disqualified from voting.

Those council members, in responding to a survey sent out by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce prior to the 2009 election, indicated they would vote for relocating the IFC homeless shelter to “its new location” on Homestead Road. Gene Pease responded similarly to the survey, but he was absent from the May 9 meeting.

Few parties, with the exception of John Edwards, perhaps, have the resources to go up against the government and expect to win. The plaintiffs are realistic in their expectations, probably wanting the lawsuit to give them a little leverage to negotiate the emergency beds component and have their concerns be heard. A discovery process may quantify what the rest of us “know in our hearts” (to borrow a phrase from witnesses in the recent murder trial of Brad Cooper): Whether or not council members had made up their minds early on about moving the men’s homeless shelter to Homestead Road, IFC apparently had the emergency beds in its plan all along.

Despite its claims that the facility would be only “transitional housing,” IFC treated the emergency beds as a deal-breaker when Matt Czajkowski proposed approving the SUP without the 17 emergency beds. The IFC would have been able to build the exact facility it wanted, though the emergency shelter portion would not be guaranteed, giving the town and IFC greater power in negotiating with the county and other organizations to do their fair share in caring for the homeless. But except for Czajkowski and Easthom, the rest of the council caved, thus ensuring that Chapel Hill — a small corner of Chapel Hill, at that — would take full responsibility for the homeless.

If nothing else, the lawsuit may serve notice in these months before the November election that voters want council members who will listen to and seriously consider the concerns of all taxpayers.
– Nancy Oates

by on June 8, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Homeless Shelter
Posted by Nancy Oates on June 8, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/06/08/lawsuit-filed/

Now how much?

You know that music in some movies that, no matter how pleasant the scene, you get an anxious feeling the pit of your stomach? Like in Jaws, vacationers may be frolicking in the gentle waves on a sunny day, but when you hear that music, you know: No good can come of this.

I heard that music while filling out the Parks & Rec preference survey. Question 14 asked me to indicate my level of comfort for funding sources for park areas or facilities needing improvement, and the first funding source on the list was “User Fees.” There was a tightening in my gut that got stronger as I got to third on the list, the “temporarily increased taxes” of a bond referendum.

As a member of the ever-shrinking demographic not wealthy enough to take advantage of loopholes and tax cuts, yet too wealthy to qualify for subsidies, my heart sags at the notion of once again picking up the slack from groups at both ends of the spectrum.

User fees make sense, if you have the money or qualify for a sliding scale. But society is becoming ever more polarized in terms of wealth. Taxes are high in Chapel Hill, but many of us are willing to pay them because of the amenities and services they cover that make our town a nice place to live. But when we’re asked to pay user fees on top of high taxes, then we inch a little farther along the haves vs. have-nots continuum. Having beautiful pools and gyms and athletics fields makes for a nicer place to live. But if they’re only available to those who have a discretionary $5 per use, then for those without the discretionary money to spend, what good are those facilities?

Members of a community take care of one another, paying taxes to cover schools and other venues and services, even if we, personally, don’t use them. But we need to find the proper balance so that our high taxes don’t push out all but the wealthy, and piling user fees on top of high taxes doesn’t create a parallel level of amenities open only to the wealthy. We would lose diversity, and if we want a community only of country-club wannabees, we might as well move to Cary.
– Nancy Oates

by on June 6, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Taxes
Posted by Nancy Oates on June 6, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/06/06/now-how-much/

Wacko taxes

Penurious by necessity, I have never had a latte. Yet soon I may be dunned the equivalent of two lattes a week. First the library expansion and the proposed quarter-cent county tax hike on the November ballot to go toward education and business development, and now an additional half-cent tax increase waiting in the wings to go toward our 25-year transit plan.

While I firmly believe that we could avoid a tax increase if our county commissioners were better stewards of our money, I can’t quibble with the investment in our future by spending on education, encouraging commercial development and increasing public transportation options. But I’m far from quibble-free.

At last Wednesday’s Town Council meeting, council members had the option of voting to support the transit plan with or without pushing for the additional half-cent tax increase to be on the ballot in November. Because county commissioners are elected in even-numbered years, the only reason to go to the polls this year would be to vote for or against the tax increase. Citizen Will Raymond spoke out against rushing the half-cent increase, and Matt Czajkowski and Gene Pease agreed.

Raymond used the word “disenfranchised” in referring to voters in rural northern Orange County, and that struck a nerve with Mark Kleinschmidt. Our usually politically correct mayor railed that if voters really don’t want the tax increase, they will go to the polls and vote it down, and that the presence of some “wacko Tea Party candidate” on the ballot shouldn’t make any difference as to whether people go out to vote.

Kleinschmidt, given his work fighting death penalty cases, should have a better understanding of the disenfranchised in our society. Psychologists define “locus of control” as the belief each of us has about the extent to which we can make a difference in the way our life plays out. Go to the courthouse in Durham and watch who repeatedly pushes the button while waiting for the elevator (as if that will make it arrive faster). Generally, lawyers and people used to dressing professionally every day display that internal locus of control behavior. Those who look down-and-out often have an external locus of control; they believe they are unable to influence the people, events and things that affect their lives. High wealth correlates to internal locus of control; low wealth to external locus of control.

Demographics show that people in rural areas have less money than people in urban areas. Thus, there are likely to be more people in northern Orange County who, on the first Tuesday in November, will consider the cost of gas to drive the long distance to the polls and the anxiety of asking to come into work late or leave early to vote and think, “Why bother? The tax increase will pass anyway.”

The council – including Kleinschmidt – voted 7-1 for the option that did not include rushing the tax increase to the November ballot. Jim Ward was the only one to vote no, stating that he wants the tax increase at the earliest occasion.
– Nancy Oates

by on June 1, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Taxes
Posted by Nancy Oates on June 1, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/06/01/wacko-taxes/

Charge for the card

Town Council reached the end of its rope last Wednesday night when it came to the county’s unwillingness to make a larger contribution toward the town’s library budget. Laurin Easthom and Matt Czajkowski led the call to begin charging non-town residents a fee for a library card to check out books. (Everyone could still use the computers and reading materials free onsite.)

Despite the still sluggish economy, now is the time to charge out-of-town users, Easthom and Czajkowski said. With the library moving to much smaller temporary quarters in a matter of months, library capacity will be strained. Reducing the demand would ease some of the stress, and presumably by charging out-of-towners for a library card, the library would lose some patrons. Because the library already charges out-of-county users $60 a year for a card, a system is in place to extend the charge to people who live in Orange County but outside of Chapel Hill.

Council members unanimously agreed that, as long as a sliding fee scale or other arrangements could be made to ensure that low-income out-of-towners could still check out books, the town would turn down the county’s offer of $250,000 and try to make up the loss through library card fees.

Town manager Roger Stancil estimated that the card fees would bring in only $100,000 to $150,000 a year, and that the library budget would have to be reduced to handle the shortfall (his budget counted on the full $250,000). Czajkowski proposed raising the fee (which has been the same for years) to $100 and begin marketing the library to retain out-of-town users. After all, as one library supporter pointed out, town residents are paying only “the cost of a weekly latte” for the library expansion. Surely some out-of-town library patrons would consider library use worth that amount. Retaining 2,500 out-of-town users would make up the shortfall.

In marketing the library to out-of-towners, the library might look at San Francisco’s system of putting book vending machines at high-traffic transit stops. Select a book, swipe your library card, and you’ve got a good read for your commute.

Considering aid to low-income out-of-towners is compassionate on the part of the council; it is not the town’s responsibility. Bear in mind that Chapel Hill has just gifted back to the county an extra $250,000 at least. The county could use some of that money – already designated for library funding for Orange County residents – to subsidize library card fees for low-income residents. If the county balks, it would not be the town denying access to low-income users; it would be the county making that draconian decision.
– Nancy Oates

by on May 30, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Library
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 30, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/05/30/charge-for-the-card/

Aydan Court encore

Through a happy confluence of timing, some lucky TV viewers were able to watch Scotty McCreery win American Idol and still tune into the continuation of the public hearing for Aydan Court. And just as some season finales stretch a one-hour show into two (or, if you’re Oprah, an entire week and cause the NBA playoffs to be rescheduled), the Aydan Court drama will come back June 20 for an encore. Minutes before midnight last night, council approved a recess to the public hearing in order to get more information.

Early on in last night’s public hearing, it looked like the big battle would be over which worthy agency would receive the payment in lieu. Town ordinance requires the developer to set aside about 15 percent of new housing as affordable, but sometimes allows the developer to make a payment equivalent to the cost of constructing that housing, with the money going to the Community Home Trust. But in this application for a special use permit, the developer proposed building half of the affordable housing units and making a payment in lieu for the other half, and designating the money to Habitat for Humanity, not the Community Home Trust. Habitat provides housing for households making between 30 and 65 percent of the area median income, whereas Community Home Trust targets those making 80 percent of the AMI.

But the fireworks began after the public comments ended. Council members were sharply, vehemently divided on whether to approve the rezoning request. Ed Harrison, Jim Ward, Penny Rich and Donna Bell stood fast for denying approval, some because they didn’t think the land should be developed at all. Gene Pease, Matt Czajkowski, Laurin Easthom and Mark Kleinschmidt favored approval, understanding that if the rezoning were denied, the developer could build a 17 single-family-home subdivision instead of the multifamily dwellings proposed. No one on the dais wanted the 17 single-family houses to be built.

Years ago, when the developer first requested a rezoning, an environmental impact comparison of a major subdivision vs. a multifamily project was developed. But a town council made up of different members would not allow the information to be presented for consideration. The current council members thought the comparison might help them make an informed decision.

So the town will resurrect the information, and the public hearing will resume June 20. You won’t want to miss it.
– Nancy Oates

by on May 26, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Uncategorized
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 26, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/05/26/aydan-court-encor/

Library lotto

Finally, the county has put pen to paper about its contribution to the Chapel Hill Public Library. Unfortunately, the paper was not from a checkbook. Instead, the Orange County manager penned, with flourish and a year’s supply of “Whereas-es,” a document that spells out what it might contribute, under the right circumstances.

The signature lines on the Interlocal Agreement by and Between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill Regarding Funding of the Chapel Hill Municipal Library and Improved Interoperability of Library Systems does not include any names, just titles, which implies that the document might not get signed before the next election. So, this seems like the county manager recognizes that this is not a final draft.

And given the lack of teeth and the layers of conditions, let’s hope that the Chapel Hill town attorney and the two lawyers who serve on council can come up with a few clauses that hold the county responsible for its financial contribution to the Chapel Hill Public Library.

Basically, the agreement proposes raising the county’s current contribution of 18 percent of the county library system’s operational costs ($250,000, which translates into 10 percent of the Chapel Hill library’s $2,397,235 operating budget for 2010-11) 3 percent a year through 2015, at which time the contribution of $472,500 would be 30 percent of the county’s library system costs (14 percent of the Chapel Hill library’s $3,429,924 expected operating budget).

However, the county’s contribution is only a “goal” and an “intent.” If the county increases its library system budget by less than 3 percent any given year, it reduces its contribution to the town accordingly, and if the county reduces its operating budget in any year, the county won’t give any increase to the town that year. The document is clear that the county contribution won’t fall below $250,000, the same amount it has contributed for how many years now?

But at least everyone came to the table, and we have points committed in writing from which to begin discussion. The Town Council will weigh in at tonight’s council meeting.

On a completely unrelated note, does anyone else hear the high-pitched mechanical sound that has reverberated around the clock for the past week or so? Having lived in New York for so many years, I automatically tune out extraneous background noise, except in places where I expect it to be quiet. So I first heard it on my screened porch, and thought it was something related to construction in our neighborhood. But then I noticed it continues day and night and Sundays. Today I heard it at the library but wasn’t aware of it on campus. (Then again, see aforementioned reference to “quiet.”)

I’ve come to the conclusion that it is some enterprising property owner’s solution to drive deer away. Anyone else have any insight?
– Nancy Oates

by on May 25, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Library
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 25, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/05/25/library-lotto/

Northside moratorium

In 2004, the Northside neighborhood won Neighborhood Conservation District status. But developers soon learned how to work around the rules. By calling a bedroom a “den” or a “game room,” they could fool the town Inspections Department into allowing a six- to eight-bedroom house to be built in a neighborhood where town ordinance limits house size to five bedrooms. In short order, developers bought up properties, tore down the existing houses or applied for building permits to construct additions that doubled the size of the homes and turned them into lucrative student rentals.

Some of the owner-occupied property owners in Northside organized and asked the town for a moratorium on all new construction until a solution could be found to enforce the ordinance.

Last night, town staff presented a balanced view of the problem, complete with photos that argued in favor of a moratorium. Houses along the edge of campus have become sought-after housing because students can live there more affordably in apartment complexes that charge by the person, not the room. Students who rent a house and ignore the town ordinance of no more than four unrelated people per house can double or triple the number of tenants and divide the rent so it is much less expensive. At a panel discussion on campus over graduation weekend, a student talked openly about living in a house off-campus with seven roommates. Town research showed that some of the houses in Northside hold eight to 12 students per house.

Town staff recommended against a moratorium, promising to be more diligent about enforcing the existing ordinance but also admitted that the enforcement process is so slow as to be useless.

Town council agreed with residents and approved the commencement of a moratorium process. Development of all property that did not have an application for a building permit submitted by yesterday would be put on hold until further notice. The matter comes back for a public hearing on June 20, and the council could act by June 27.

Perhaps because some council members were still smarting from pushback over the relocation of the homeless shelter, Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt lifted his ban on applause and allowed the audience to clap and cheer for each council member who spoke out in favor of the moratorium.
– Nancy Oates

by on May 24, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Northside
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 24, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/05/24/northside-moratorium/

Better with beer?

Penny Rich’s proposed ordinance change offers insight to the problem of underage drinking and binge drinking on campus and the ubiquity of alcohol-related offenses in the daily police blotter. Rich’s proposal, an item on the consent agenda for tonight’s Town Council meeting, recommends an ordinance to permit alcohol to be served at private events at the former Chapel Hill Museum building owned by the town. Her goal in allowing alcohol at the 523 E. Franklin St. building is “to maintain and improve community facilities and services.” You can’t have fun without a buzz.

The “improvement” seems marginal and weighted toward the users, not the town: Parties wanting to rent the facility for an event and serve alcohol would avoid the inconvenience of applying for a fixed-term permit as they do now, which presumably involves filling out a form and probably paying a modest fee. The move would be marginally detrimental to the town, which would lose the revenue from the permit fee and lose the ability to deny permission for an alcohol-related event it deems inappropriate.

Rich’s proposal is not without precedent. UNC made a similar move recently. Alcohol is allowed nowhere in Kenan Stadium, except the luxury suites now under construction. The rationale was that the luxury boxes would be used to woo donors, and evidently that can be done more easily if the potential donors are mildly inebriated. UNC’s policy exception is hypocritical, not to mention mildly insulting to the football team, insinuating it can’t provide excitement if fans are sober. Even if that were true, development officers could take the donors to the Carolina Club next door to the stadium to pre-load, as some students do at nearby fraternities and tailgaters do in the parking lots, getting their buzz on before they go to the game.

Fundraisers at the 523 E. Franklin building could do the same by taking potential donors to any restaurant along Franklin Street, pre-load at the bar, and walk – not drive – to the former museum building for the pitch. That would be a crumb to throw to restaurant owners riled over the threat of food trucks coming to town.

Rich offers no supporting argument as to why the former museum spot should be exempt from regulations imposed on other town property. The town has not decided how it will use the building, and until it does, it seems best to wait until its function has been agreed upon before deciding that whatever happens there would be better with beer.
– Nancy Oates

by on May 23, 2011  •  Permalink
Posted in Ethics
Posted by Nancy Oates on May 23, 2011

https://chapelhillwatch.com/2011/05/23/better-with-beer/

« Older Posts
Newer Posts »