[UPDATE:] Comments on candidate responses are mostly paraphrases. Comments in quotes are verbatim from candidates. Comments in parentheses or brackets are mine. I didn’t capture all comments or questions. The People’s Channel video taped the forum and should have it posted sometime soon.

Someone recently remarked to me “What strange bedfellows!” when we were talking about tonight’s forum sponsors. Ten years ago that might’ve been true but not today.

The Sierra Club leadership, as distinct from its membership, has been AWOL on many of the most pressing environmental issues of the last decade. Most troubling for an organization founded on justice, the element of social justice has been missing as they have fully endorsed projects like Greenbridge and West140 irrespective of those projects broader consequences.

The Chamber’s Director Aaron Nelson has worked hard to position the Chamber as the gatekeeper on sustainability. The “triple bottom line” that Aaron lauds continues to be heavily weighted towards development and developers irrespective of broader considerations. Teaming up with the Sierra Club helps create an additional appearance of green even if the facts belie it.

All the candidates sans mayoral Wolff in attendance. About 32 folks in the seats though only a hand full are not involved in the sponsoring organizations, the press or candidate groups.

Mark Shultz, Chapel Hill News editor, is running the show.

Opening 1 minute statements, a good chance to see if candidates can hit their marks. Jim Ward, who gave me hell a couple years ago about going 19 seconds long, dragged 28 seconds over. OK by me, I well understand how hard it is to compress a dozen years of service into 60 seconds.

A few themes so far – transparency raised by DeHart, experience and fiscal responsibility by Matt Cz., continuing the Town’s sustainability initiatives by Storrow and Schuler, Baker on balancing economic development and environmental progress.

Some “usual suspects” – Fred Black, Nancy Oates, Mark Peters, Lynne Kane, Bernadette Pelissier.

How do you balance economic development and the environment? What is the priority?

Tim Sookram, Mayoral candidate – focus on environment, not concentrate on LEEDs certification.

Moses Carey, former OC BOCC member just came in.

Jason Baker – Council candidate and committed “smart growth” supporter. Doesn’t think that environmental and economic issues are at odd – both values are important.

Donna Bell – Council candidate and incumbent (appointed) – thinks that posing the question misses the point – shouldn’t be in conflict.

Augustus Cho – Council candidate (CC) – also agrees that the two aren’t in conflict – he believes if “we cut a tree down, we can plant one somewhere else…”

Matt Czajkowski – CC – observes that over the last 4 years there’s been an evolution from either supporting the environment or supporting economic development to one which they are seen by the candidates as complementary…

Laney Dale – CC – “doesn’t want to see any trees cut down” though he does understand development must occur

Jon DeHart – CC – also doesn’t see the two as mutually exclusive – realized that when he was labeled “pro-business” last round and he had done a poor job of responding to that critique – that he has a more nuanced approach – thinks that rehabilitating the Planning process is key to making the two work well together…

Lee Storrow – CC – brings up the urban boundary – gives a quick definition – wants to build dense in Chapel Hill – transit key – thinks C.H. is headed towards Atlanta style density and we need to have transit to support that…

Jim Ward – CC and incumbent – “the question is so last century” , “it isn’t an either or” proposition – 10 years ago the team sponsoring this forum would’ve been shocking

Mark Kleinschmidt – Mayoral candidate and incumbent – thinks that every project needs to take both in consideration – need to measure results of development decisions [Why has he drug his feet and resisted every attempt to make measurabilty part of the process? Will he support making metrics a key aspect on the Comprehensive Plan rework?]

How to increase jobs?

Jon DeHart – supports 1/4 cent sales tax – will help bring in more business via economic development – attitude – be more welcoming – make C. H. more hospitable to business…

Lee Storrow – Carolina North as a driver of innovation

Jim Ward – also points out that the part of the 1/4 cent sales tax dedicated to economic development will directly benefit Chapel Hill/Carrboro [Not accurate - if you look at OC BOCC spending priority list very little money flows South and what does won't come to late in the process].

Jason Baker – thinks we should adopt a revolving loan fund like Carrboro [No mention of political cronyism problem]

Matt C. – thinks we should recruit companies into CH that have existing work forces living in CH – we need to push the qualities of CH which are attractive to a work force [I worked Downtown over 8 years and when my company threatened to move there was a peasant insurrection - we all wanted to stay Downtown because of all the great amenities].

Donna Bell – economic development office under her tenure has done a great job targeting green companies for CH [can't think of any that actually have moved here...maybe she will list them?]

What can you do as a Council member to reduce environmental foot print? Greenhouse gases?

Laney Dale – better transit options – if you are a little late to pickup your kid then you’re out of luck…

Matt C. – biggest local contributor to greenhouse problem is lack of transit opportunities – need to get folks out of their cars…believes in the “greenhouse effect”…

Augustus Cho – also believes in greenhouse warming – only candidate not using yard signs – working to make his campaign the smallest environmental foot print

Donna Bell – doesn’t think there’s a direct role for Council rather we need to support larger initiatives [CRED - carbon reduction - is a key priority of Council - not sure what her answer means...]

Jason Baker – supports 3/4 cent transit sales tax – calls on BOCC member/chair Bernadette P. to get that on the ballot right away….

Jon DeHart – need to support electrical recharge stations – need to continue to encourage UNC – which is the largest local producer of greenhouse gases – to meet their goals – include of moving the Cameron Ave. power station off of coal to a more amenable source of fuel…

Lee Storrow – as an under-grad was part of moving UNC forward – would work with Chancellor Thorp to make good on that pledge – enthusiastically supports 3/4 cent transit tax next year.

What would you do on Council to make small business more effective in CH?

Jason Baker (JB) – more local purchasing especially by Town – endorses Chambers “think local” efforts – make business permitting easier including consolidating depts. that manage that work

Donna Baker (DB) – already discussed with Town Manager Stancill how to stream line permitting process for small business – need to work with UNC to continue to spawn off innovative companies that stay in CH

Augustus Cho (AC) – work with UNC, reduce regulation

Fred Black notes that crowd has grown – roughly 50/50 citizens and supporters/staff – another dozen or so including Gregg Gerdau, WCHL’s Barry Leffler

Matt C. – two biggest problems – access and access – transit and affordable business space – when we look at new developments need to encourage more affordable office space and ask developers to provide free parking

Show of hands – who supports 1/4 cent sales tax? All Council candidates, Kleinschmidt

With expected expansion of Carrboro/Chapel Hill over next 20 years what can you do to ensure the water supply is clean and adequate? What changes do you support to the Lake Jordan allocation? What alternatives exist?

Lee Storrow – challenging issue to talk about – need to tap Lake Jordan – thinks the Council’s vote jeopardized allocation [Not true].

Jim Ward – supports emergency allocation and looks to regional solution – voted against modification because we started tapping Lake Jordan for less than emergency reasons…

Mark K. – two reasons we use less water now than a decade ago – incredible conservation efforts by citizens/Town/businesses – and water reuse by UNC – need to expand reuse and conservation – gets 3 bell notice…

Jon D. – pauses – says he was having a flashback to two years ago – remembering how Mark goes on and on…but “we love ya…” Believes we should maintain access to emergency Lake Jordan use [WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE without a change]

Carl S. – agrees we need it for emergency use…

Donna B. – “emergency backup” only – needs to make sure OWASA keeps the Council informed of limits to growth as constrained by water supplies – need to make that part of the development discussion…

Matt C. – incorrectly says the OWASA agreement has to change to retain emergency access – not true – says that it sounds like all the incumbents supported that though he was the only one not to vote for it…

Jason B. – “wants true emergencies” before tapping into Lake Jordan – need to keep eyes on water use – improve conservation – not penalize conservation…

August C. – echoes Jason….

What needs to change with urban services boundary [rural buffer]?

Jon D. – “short and sweet” – not change a thing…

Lee S. – “NO” – no changes to rural buffer agreement

Jim W. – key aspect of reducing sprawl to date – would entertain modifications – like at Star Point – that would allow it be built [this is south of Southern Village on the edge of Chatham County].

Mark K. – no agreement with Chatham County to manage sprawl – want to influence the “awful sprawl” in northern Chatham – going to suck a lot of economic development into Chatham that should be here…

Mark Schultz interjects – not everyone knows what rural buffer is …Rural buffer dictates where water/sewer goes…Chamber report says high housing because of the rural buffer that’s why he asked the question…

Matt C. – high housing costs directly related to rural buffer constraint…

Jason B. – does think Chatham County is part of the problem – might need to modify rural buffer to reduce impact of Chatham County development on southern edge of Town…rejects assertion that rural buffer is responsible for higher housing prices…

First time SAPFO (school adequate facilities ordinance) will be invoked in next couple years and a CAPs will not be issued for development – in other words – there will not be enough space for students if we build more housing – what to do?

Jason B. – talk to OC about speeding up money for Elementary #11 (Northside) – it’s up to them

Donna B. – we need to live within SAPFO and use it as intended – to constrain growth until the schools catch up

Augustus C. – agrees that OWASA and Schools need to be consulted on limits to development but does not agree that growth should be stymied by outside boards like the school board

Matt C. – “this is a wake up call” – will help us focus on commercial development over residential housing

Laney D. – why are we building more homes? there is 11-12% homes already on market – why do we need more – thinks developers – like Meadowmont – should build new schools [Meadowmont did assist in building Rashkis].

Mark K. – doesn’t think we should undermine SAFPO – doesn’t make sense to crowd in more students and diminish quality – points out Southern Village and Meadowmont did contribute schools – doesn’t support modification but thinks we need to work around it to continue to develop…

Lee S. – thinks we need to have honest discussion with developers – when a developer builds apartments and says no family will live there need to challenge them – to measure additional impact on schools…

Jon D. – moved here because of schools – needs to make sure we keep quality up…

Should lawn fertilizers be regulated? Show of hands – Carl S. Lee S. Jim W. Mark K. (maybe more – too quick to follow)…

How to improve regional and local transit?

Transit tax and transit improvements via 3/4 sales tax seem to be the focus – not specifics so far…

Mark K. – endorses 3/4 cent transit tax – will increase 40,000 hours of bus service – will strongly advocate for it…

Jim W. – chairs local transit group endorsing the transit tax… need to improve transit…

Lee S. – says transit tax will increase number of routes on major thoroughfares covered by bus [not quite accurate] but will strongly support transit tax…

Carl S. – supports the concept but wants to make sure the discussion is transparent and open – that options are reviewed but definitely need to move forward

Jon D. – is on Transit Board for CH – congratulates sitting incumbents on their efforts – supports new revenues for services…

August C. – chair Transit Board – points out that there are route improvements we can make – first not to rely on sales tax as overall answer – brings up some practical improvements not requiring new revenues…

Jason B. – “important that people making decisions on system and the people using the system”…has worked hard to make system improvements…points out the Matt C. and other incumbents have reduced his service by eliminating a stop – went from 1/4 mile walk to 1 mile to nearest stop

What could be done to improve development approval process so that a yes or no can be arrived at quicker? That maintains environmental quality? Mark Sch. – “the Ed Harrison crap shoot question”…

LD – doesn’t know much about approval process but has heard that the process is broken and slow

MC – quotes Ed again – the SUP process arrives at a better result – disagrees totally – “look at recent projects” – indicates with shrug that they were less than quality – believes we should zone areas more appropriately – if a project doesn’t meet a zones spec. then we should reject sooner than later…

DB – of course supports as the Council has already instructed Town Manager and staff to streamline/improve process

JB – doesn’t want to remove rigor in process – points out practical improvements like having a joint design review meeting with all interested advisory boards which greatly reduced the review time while not reducing the quality of the review [my understanding is that this joint meeting was sparsely attended so....]

LS – points out that not many people showed up for that joint meeting – open to improvements but wants to maintain quality end product…

CS – should be like educational degree process – when you do your dissertation you know the expectations – development process should be similar

JD – process is broken – should look to Asheville which has similar values as Chapel Hill but is able to process applications much more effectively…

JW – “clarifying words” to process to make sure developers understand expectations – reduce surprises in the process

MK – shouldn’t cobble process together – should have a process for areas like Downtown which expedites development in these areas with specific expectations and streamlined approvals…

Public questions…

JW – Parking downtown – how will you facilitate discussion of providing 400 to 800 additional spaces? Would challenge that number – the current report from Town says that there is adequate parking…

Open – Support community dev. block grants to build a standalone mens emergency homeless shelter?

CS – Working with IFC on good neighbor plan for Homestead Rd. site…

LD – Would support using those funds to support housing – his father was homeless starting when he was 10 (?) – came back into his life late – worked to get him stabilized – very personal perspective…

Open – What do you expect from the Chapel Hill 2020 Comprehensive Plan rework process?

MC – goes back to comment by MK who said MC did not say he wanted throw out SUP process – thanks for clarification…

MK – 2020 process is most exciting done in decade – wants 10,000 people to turn out…the broadest community support [If that's the case why did he handpick leadership and why is Town handpicking leadership for sub-groups? Why have various folks been already excluded from process?]

Is Chapel Hill addressing affordable housing needs?

JW – “NO NO NO” – “we can pat ourselves on the back” for the 200 units we already have but we haven’t met the price points for necessary for need – CH shouldn’t be a new Disneyland where folks come to visit and leave – where we import our labor who leaves each night because they can’t live here…

JD – Knows something about this – taxes make it difficult for older folks to stay here – that as one long term resident leaves 2 high wage earners move in – tough problem – need to work on it…

Who defines “emergency” for Lake Jordan allocation?

DB – OWASA defines it and Council approves that definition.

JW – Says he doesn’t think we can get emergency supplies under current language [WRONG - we already can get emergency allocation using inter-local agreements]

What 3 issues will mandate tax increases over the next 3 years?

LS – Maintaining staff – fireman and police – realistically need given current economic conditions that we need to raise taxes – a broad response…

Will you protect public employees and ask for comparable benefits for out-sourced jobs?

CS – As a State employee understands question – would be willing to explore options…

DB – Would be willing to look at encouraging vendor support for benefits…

Should trees be trimmed and lights added in town for safety?

LD – as an over 6 foot male not afraid of the homeless but thinks Downtown needs more lighting so his 14 year old daughter has a greater sense of safety…

Other attendees – Elizabeth Friend WCHL has been here all night…

Would you support a ban on further social services being sited along Homestead?

AC – Serves on IFC good neighbor initiative – need to make sure there’s equitable distribution – needs to work with OC to address issue…

JB – “obligation to help” – lives in area – there is a huge concentration of services there – need to make sure we continue to provide services but also address the concentration issue…

Event over…

Chamber’s Aaron Nelson thanks folks – says been a real joy to work with Sierra Club leadership…

Final wrap – other folks Ed Harrison Council member and Katelyn Ferral Chapel Hill News…

And in the role of “Fairy Good Sales Tax” Council member Penny Rich handing out pro-tax propaganda to the assembled folks (who knows that I don’t think the ends justify the means no matter how good the cause…).

Local heavyweights US Rep. David Price, former State House Speaker Joe Hackney and House colleague Verla Insko along with State Senator Ellie Kinnaird (who changed a tire on the way to the meeting) attended.

Price, just returned from the budget breakdown nonsense in Washington, gave a rousing call to arms pointing out that the Tea Party express was bearing down on the nation – and last night’s buffoonery was just the first in many salvos aimed squarely at middle America. Verla and Joe sketched out the dire legislative morass they face in the State house and related how the turnover in control of the House has actually brought the Democratic caucus closer.

There were 44 prepared petitions put before the convention – a long list to dispense with in less than the budgeted 4 hours. Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, who was running the proceedings, was able to work through a good chunk by getting collective assent upfront.

Though it has been a long time since I participated in a convention, I came prepared to offer an amendment to the petition calling for support of the Board of Commissioner’s [BOCC] recent plan to hold a Nov. 2011 referendum increasing our local sales tax 0.25%.

The BOCC has proposed splitting the anticipated $2.5M per year evenly between economic development and education. I asked the gathered folks to support a change in that allocation from 50/50 to 33% for economic development, which would adequately support the economic initiatives the BOCC has already laid out, and 66% to restore and support the many human service programs curtailed by the County these last 5 years.

My neighbor Tom Henkel seconded the call and an interesting discussion followed. Unfortunately, my suggested changes were completely shot down. It was great to get a strong dose of participatory democracy even if my effort was for naught. I appreciate the kind and thoughtful consideration the convention offered.

Afterwards, BOCC member Steve Yuhasz came over and graciously encouraged me to keep on pressing the BOCC to find money for human service programs. I told him I wasn’t going to give up.

The referendum is shelved with a margin of over 1,000 votes. Next up, the transit tax referendum.

[UPDATE 3]

Just listened to a really inept analysis of the sales tax referendum problems on WCHL. WCHL is usually ridiculously deferential to Aaron Nelson of the local Chamber of Commerce – rarely calls him out on his BS – and tonight was no exception. They left unchallenged his contention that many local folks are too stupid to understand the consequences of voting against the tax or that it was a knee-jerk reaction (disregarding the likelihood that people knew that the BOCC DID NOT promise to keep property taxes down if the referendum passed).

Further, no one, including OrangePolitic’s Ruby S. questioned the difficulty of selling the necessity of increasing the local tax bite when the BOCC was able to find $610,000 to buy a new Library site in Carrboro last week or the BOCC’s lack of political will to redirect a one-time $4.6M windfall to projects outside those outlined in the referendum.

I like the crew at WCHL but tonight’s review of the referendum – their inability to probe the supporters contentions, not entertaining any contrary viewpoints – was a FAIL.

[UPDATE 4]

10:15pm and the crew at WCHL continues to suggest that the failure of the referendum was a knee-jerk reaction “my daddy voted against taxes and so will I”. OUCH!

Elizabeth Friend, thankfully, did make a great point about needs vs. wants – we want more technology in the schools, we need to improve EMS. That the next round of discussions should center on what absolutely needs to be addressed vs. what is a nice to have that can be postponed for better times.

Finally, Fred Black made the point that the school boards haven’t set aside sufficient funds for maintenance, that the lottery contributions can’t cover the expected costs and that money will have to be found. Unfortunately, he still suggests that we need to raise additional monies instead of finding it within the current budget.

[ORIGINAL]

As of 8:25pm, 36 of 44 Orange County precincts reporting, the sales tax referendum looks to be in trouble.

Of 38,980 votes, 48.18% (18,780) are for the incremental increase and 51.82% (20,200) are against it.

I’ve been discussing the issue with folks the last few weeks and had a sense that in spite of a concerted effort by the Chamber sponsored PAC (which was running interference for the NC Realtor association), the referendum could be defeated.

I thought this version of the referendum was flawed for a variety of reasons: not using the revenue in a focused manner for economic development, not dedicating the lions share of the allocation to human services (which includes EMS), sugar-coating the measure by sending a chunk to the schools, etc. (read more here, here [ChapelHillWatch], here [CHW] and here [CHW]).

What happens if it goes down?

If the County plans to reintroduce the measure it should reassess the purposes it will be put towards – folks are looking for maximum impact not a diffuse flow of new monies.

The Board of Commissioners (BOCC) should also calibrate their rhetoric more carefully – avoiding claims like those by Barry Jacobs this evening that passing the tax would keep property taxes down – an unsupported contention.

If the Chamber or some other local entity sponsors a new PAC to sell the measure, I hope that the local media will probe the reasons why a group like the NC Realtor association threw so much money behind this year’s PAC – was it a cheap way to keep the land transfer tax off the table?

Finally, the BOCC should understand that if you plan to ask folks for more money to address critical needs because the budget cupboard is bare, they can’t turn around and plunk down $610,000 on a new piece of property or funnel $4.6M in debt savings to other purposes.

[UPDATE]

As of 8:43pm, 40 of 44 precincts reporting, 48.27% (19,576) FOR and 51.73% (20,977) AGAINST – 40,553 votes total.

As of 6:35pm the Library weighed in at 647 voters, lagging Caldwell. Considering that Estes Hills precinct had a large early voting contingent, the numbers on the ground there are not necessarily indicative of voter disinterest. I expect a very robust final number.

I handed out Democratic party voter guides from 9:30am until 4:00pm to a steady and heavy stream of voters. With over 680 voters clocking in by 4pm, the precinct was trending towards a very healthy showing – a possible total for today of over 900+ folks. Add in the nearly 30% of early voters and the totals will be approaching 2008′s general election.

Well done Caldwell!

I’m headed to Lincoln Center in Chapel Hill for the 5-6pm shift After that it is a quick stop at the Library to vote.

If you haven’t voted yet there is still plenty of time Get out and make a difference.

I’ll be helping the Orange County Democratic Party over at the Caldwell precinct in northern Orange County from 9:30am to 4:00pm. Drop by if you’re in the area.

Over the last week I’ve received emails asking my recommendations for the judicial races. Here’s who I’m voting for:

US Senate – Elaine Marshall

I know, Elaine isn’t running for the bench but since I have your attention….

A lot has been made of the apparent Democratic electorate malaise this year. We are still involved in the longest war of our country’s history. We still haven’t punished the use of torture or kidnapping as tools of war. Affronts to our Constitution, to basic human rights continue to be promulgated. Backroom deals derail chances of improving our populaces health and welfare. Billions are bilked and the public coffers milked. Spying and lying are now commonplace insults to our country’s democratic well-being. So much of the same old, same old with nary a peep from so many Democratic “yes we can change” Congress folks.

I understand that immense lethargic unease the folks that turned out in 2008 must feel. Does that mean we need to suffer with a Burr under our saddles another 4 years? Hell no.

Elaine is more than the anti-Burr choice. She wasn’t supported by the torpor inducing national Democratic apparatchik, a real win in my book. She will work to bring real change on behalf of all North Carolinians if elected. Do your part today to make that happen.

Supreme Court – Bob Hunter

Both candidates have a strong record on governmental transparency, solid experience and track records of reasonable judicial advocacy. While Jackson served as counsel under Labor Secretary Cherrie Berry during a period of time when that office was less than proactive on a slate of labor related issues, it’s not clear to me if her role allowed her to advocate for better outcomes. Hunter has the edge in experience, great endorsements and, as a Democrat, the background to work towards an equitable decision on Congressional redistricting should it land in the Court’s hands.

Court of Appeals – Gray,Elmore,Geer.

Gray and Geer, Democrats, have solid reputations, been unequivocal that politics will play no role in their courts. Elmore is a solid choice.

Court of Appeals – Instant Runoff version: Thigpen – 1st. Hammer – 2nd. Payne or Middleton or Vesper -3rd.

In other races:

Board of Commissioners – Earl McKee.

I’ve been watching Earl as he has taken on a few County issues these last 18 months. He spent 6 months attending BOCC meetings to get a feel of the office before ever standing up and speaking his piece. His first issue, challenging the expensive remodeling of an office space to serve as a Commissioners chamber, demonstrated the type of leadership he plans to bring to the Commission: he did his research, spoke sincerely and directly to the issue, stood firm on his principles while pursuing the best policy for both his rural district (District 2) and the County as a whole.

Sales Tax Referendum – AGAINST

This is a lousy year to raise any taxes – no matter how small the bite – but that is not the main reason I stand so firmly opposed to this referendum.

Poverty is on a steep uptick in Orange County. Demand for health and welfare services is at an all time high. Long needed structural shifts – from fully staffing our community health system to shifting the emergency homeless shelter burden off the IFC – are not occurring supposedly due to fiscal difficulties at the County level. Yet, when presented with $2.3M from a sales tax or $4.6M windfall from refinancing the County’s debt, the BOCC chose areas outside those vital needs.

I lobbied them to put the lions share towards addressing the needs of those struggling the most – for the 1 in 5 Orange County residents in poverty and other residents who are just treading water. $2+ M new revenue targeted effectively represents more than a life jacket – it would lift folks out of the deep end of the pool and move them on to firm ground.

Again, I appreciate the BOCC making a somewhat firm commitment to spending priorities – I just don’t support the same set of priorities.

The BOCC has been clear, as they should be, that this revenue sharing plan is a firm commitment over the next 5 years and will not change – period. The BOCC has also reaffirmed their stance that this new revenue will not replace existing revenue or cover existing expenses – it is new money for a new purpose )funds will not be freed up elsewhere that could be redirected to human services).

Given that, tomorrow, I’m voting NO for the sales tax in hopes that we will get another chance to set the priorities for that spending, that the new priority will be waited heavily towards addressing human service needs and that core needs – like improved emergency medical services(EMS) and required school facility repairs – be paid out of core budget.

More of my reasoning on voting against the sales tax below:

The suggestion that passing the sales tax will keep our property taxes down aren’t justified. Comparing Orange County to other counties where the passage appears to have kept property taxes down is like comparing a blueberry to a pineapple: economically and socially those counties are quite different than Orange.

The sales tax sales job has been quite disappointing – the rhetoric at times quite cynical given the reality. While the Chamber led the way by sponsoring the effort (“Schools and Jobs”), their PAC funding highlights who stands most to gain: $5000 from the NC Realtors.

I suspect the NC Realtors sponsored the 1/4 cent sales tax to take the land transfer tax off the table. It’s a heck of a lot cheaper than the $610,000 they spent running a campaign against the land transfer tax (and much easier to wrap up in feel good propaganda that it’s “for the kids”). An additional $1000 came from the Chamber with the remaining $250 coming from County Manager Frank Clifton [credit to him for putting his money where his mouth is] according to the Oct. 23rd disclosure report.

The effectiveness of the expenditures is a key problem with the revenue sharing formula.

We all like libraries but the proposed revenue share is not quite the windfall it appears to be. The $172,000 raised by the new sales tax for libraries will be reduced by at least $100,000 just to restore County spending to 2009 levels. The remaining $72,000 will be split using a protocol that could lead to further inequities between the heavily populated southern side of Orange and the rural areas. Of course, Chapel Hill, due to its Library expansion, is facing an additional $1.3M in operating costs and has demanded a substantial increase – as much as $900,000 to start – from the County. As recently revealed, the County has purchased property in Carrboro for a new branch at around $600,000 or more. There isn’t enough money, by far, to restore the previous budget, handle Chapel Hill’s demands, manage the new debt from the land purchase and increase the County’s library capability.

Improving emergency medical response times has been on the agenda for years. EMS is a core service of the County and must be serviced out of the general fund. There is absolutely no doubt that these improvements are required. Implying that this County obligation will only be satisfied by passing the sales tax feels like fear-based arm twisting. For shame that this key need has lingered so long and that there is no political will to find the monies to address it.

Promising “jobs” is equally a cynical sales pitch. Instead of committing the bulk funds to projects with measurable goals and fixed funding needs – like building supportive infrastructure – the money is to be split between the “same old, same old” and some new proposals. That old methodology hasn’t done much to decrease the ratio of commercial vs. residential tax revenues let alone foster real jobs growth (if it wasn’t for UNC and UNC healthcare our jobs picture, even before the downturn, was absolutely miserable). I do like the revolving local business loan idea but, so far, I haven’t seen enough details to see if the limited monies allocated to it will actually spur economic activity.

Unfortunately, Orange Justice United was suckered into supporting the economic development provision under the mistaken assumption the folks in Efland, who really do need a way out of their neighborhood’s sewer nightmares, would get assistance in the form of a sewer extension to Mebane. As Commissioner Bernadette Pelissier clearly said Saturday:

“none of the money from the tax, if passed, would directly go to the sewer system in Efland.” She said if the sales tax is passed, the Board of Orange County Commissioners might install a commercial sewage system along the Interstates 40 and 85 corridor, which would connect businesses as well as the Efland community to Mebane’s sewer system.

DTH, Oct. 23, 2010

To sum up, the proposed economic development spending is generally for vague purposes with uncertain return or for purposes that haven’t generated the outcomes we desire. I did find some of the planned infrastructure improvements attractive – supported them on economic and social justice grounds – but that, as Bernadette highlighted, isn’t a given.

The aggregate school system budgets weigh in over $85+ M ($25M for the county/$60+ million CHCS). $1.1M more is a fractional improvement. The money allocated for schools is targeted to some of the same areas that the lottery was supposed to address – capital related expenditures to repair, renovate or expand existing facilities. Where did the lottery funds go then? Is the $1.3M to $1.7M of those funds previously ear-marked going to some other purpose?

An interesting nuance to the school spending is an added level of oversight by the BOCC is dispensing the funds. The BOCC will determine if a project qualifies. After that, the disbursement is based on the BOCC’s discretion and won’t necessarily align with per capita enrollment or even by district (the county schools could get all %42.5, etc.). Once the $1M is divvied up it will be hard to draw a direct correlation between the expenditure and the quality of our students education.

The additional $1M, while I’m sure will eventually be helpful, will not have the dramatic impact it would have if spent on those services that are “shovel ready” – additional staff at the health department, additional outreach workers, space for the existing southern dental clinic elsewhere in Town.

Finally, beyond the recent funding priority surprises – dropping the dental program without finding another southern home, purchasing land for a new library instead of looking at using existing resources – like the Jobs Link center on Franklin – we only have to look at how the County uses unanticipated funds in this economic climate to get a sense of the true priorities. The County recently started to refinance some of its debt freeing up $4.6M (WCHL).

Will any of that money go to the incredible backlog of human services requests or to finding a southern home for the dental program/guardian program/etc.? No. Instead it appears that the funds are earmarked for the new property tracking system for the tax assessors office, a project I was told was to be completed by Nov. 1st.

The only mechanism to rebalance the spending priorities, then, is not to pass the sales tax request and rework the allocations next round. The risk is if the sales tax referendum fails this round then it will fail next time.

I imagine that most folks aren’t as sensitive as I am to the spending priorities and will probably fall for the cursory and incorrect assertion that the sales tax will really do something for jobs and education. From what I can tell, most don’t realize that the BOCC could reflect on the growing, looming demand on services and come back with a better solution.

That said, if it should fail the BOCC still needs to address the needs that they highlighted in the sales tax sales brochure.

Of course, this is a lousy year to raise any kind of tax – no matter how small the bite. Maybe it will fail for that reason alone.

When I left this evening at 6:30, the Library sat at around 350 or a combined early voting and election voting total of 422. A few more folks were trickling in as I left so it looks fairly certain we’ll break %19.

Great news for my home precinct, especially given the slow uptick during the early morning hours.

Continued to run into a number of neighbors, Exchange Pool folks and other friends and acquaintances.

As I was driving back to the Library from Binkley I heard Ben Gellman’s interview with Barry Jacobs about the apparently low turnout. Barry walked the fine line between chastising folks for not exercising their right to select their leadership and congratulating those that had.

Within minutes Barry and I were talking about possible outcomes based on a number of turnout scenarios. It’s always nice to talk with folks about the local process – Barry has a great perspective borne of experience.

Not much later ran into Joe Phelps who was upbeat as always. By this time I’d heard that turnout in the northern realms was running very strong – maybe as high as 2 to 1 compared to Chapel Hill/Carrboro so his confidence seemed well supported.

Joe and I had the pleasure of being lectured by a young man on the land transfer tax, the value of the Indy’s endorsements and other miscellanea. It was a bit exasperating since he contested the facts of the matter by repeatedly saying “that’s your opinion.” This was the only rough spot in overall pleasant day.

Today’s standout campaigner had to be 16 year-old Evan Lewis who shook off her early timidity and pitched right into stumping. By late afternoon she was putting us more experienced campaigners to shame. Holly, her mother, was a strong second.

My son showed up mid-afternoon to help – a fairly polished campaigner, he definitely gave Evan a run for her money.

Verla Insko finished the day snagging voters for Cal Cunningham. I had a great time talking policy and politics with her.

Jon DeHart, who is the newest member of the transportation advisory board, showed back up to fill in for Joe during the evening shift. We got a chance to talk about Community House, the emergency shelter, Chapel Hill’s Citizen Police Academy and other assorted Chapel Hill issues.

All in all a good day. Weather held. Turnout increased. Clarence’s support in Chapel Hill strengthening.

It’s 7:19pm, minutes before the polls close.

Right now, the outcome of the Sheriff and Commissioner races will turn on voter turnout. If north Orange did turnout 2 to 1 compared to Chapel Hill/Carrboro (presumably because the school and District 2 races), Joe Phelps should present a strong challenge to Barry. Barry’s prior support in Chapel Hill/Carrboro was expected to be weakened by Joal Broun’s run, how much is hard to tell. More interestingly, will it mean a run-off and is it Phelps/Jacobs, which seems likely given the reported turnout pattern or Jacobs/Broun?

Clarence’s support in Chapel Hill – based on the 5 precincts I went to – seemed good – good enough to make the difference especially if he carry’s Hillsborough and does well in the County with its reported high turnout.

Within minutes the results will flow in and we can start to see how it will play out.

Thank you voters, thank you campaigners, thank you candidates.

See you on the flip-side.

Got to meet Senate candidate Ken Lewis and his family. His wife’s energy was contagious – lots of positive vibes coming from her and Ken. Their teen daughter stayed to work the polls and I had an opportunity to discuss her involvement, what she thought of her father’s race, elections in general. She was quite invested and had a good command of the issues – quite encouraging given the level of local involvement in politics.

Besides Ken, I got to see and speak with a number of my neighbors and local political wonks. Jon DeHart, who ran for Council in 2009, was stumping for Joe Phelps. WCHL’s Ben Gellman was there early to get a sense of how the day might go (he was stoked to cover his second local election!). Former Mayoral candidate Lee Pavao and his wife showed up bright and early. Chief Curran and Asst. Chief Blue came by just before 9am. Representative David Price swung by around 9:45am.

What does small-d democracy look like today? As of 9:45am, David was voter 80 – so only 59 voters in 2 hours. Of the other 4 precincts I know of, Binkley looks strongest at over 90 voters by 10am. The Community Center had 61, Ephesus School 34. From what I hear, there was a pretty good morning influx at Fire Station #4 but I have no numbers as of now.

I’ve also heard that turnout in Hillsborough and parts north is running fairly high. I hope the low turnout at the Library is not indicative of the turnout overall.

Next up? Community Center 11:30am until 1pm and then either Binkley or the Library for me. I’ll end the day at the Library.

Please strongly encourage your friends, co-workers, etc. to turnout – we need to reverse the sad downward trend of diminishing participation by Chapel Hill voters.

Visited all 29 precincts, placed 45 new signs for Sheriff Candidate Clarence Birkhead, repositioned another 40+ so that most folks will have to pass at least 3 signs before voting. Started about 5pm in a light drizzle punctuated with a few down burst, ended around 9:30pm under beautiful clearing skies.

Most years the precincts are ready to roll late afternoon but this year I found visible signs of preparation only at Aldersgate, Friday Center and Scroggs.

Most confusing moment? Carrboro High School. Haven’t been there during an election so I was a bit at a loss figuring out where to put signs (what a industrial size behemoth!).

I’ll be staffing the Library poll early and late, Community Center round noon and floating around between Binkley and ?? mid-afternoon.

Drop by and get a Clarence button if you get a chance.

In the Sheriff’s race, though, there’s only two candidates, one of which, former Hillsborough/Duke University Police Chief Clarence Birkhead, that deserves your wholehearted support.

I met Clarence several months ago and have had the pleasure of getting to know and support his efforts to lead our County forward. I’m convinced he will work for progressive and cost effective policy changes in the Sheriff’s department to overcome the many existing and new challenges before us.

It is certainly a time for change but not just for change sake. Here are some of the key differences I’ve noted between Clarence and the 28 year incumbent Lindy Pendergrass:

Clarence will effectively collaborate with Chapel Hill/Carrboro/Hillsborough and Durham law enforcement and coordinate response to a variety of common issues, including: outreach to immigrant populations, creating a county-wide task force to deal with the growth of criminal gangs (which are spilling over the County’s border from Durham and elsewhere), using timely intelligence collected by other departments (including UNC) on cross-jurisdictional problems.

His service not just in Hillsborough but as Duke University’s Chief underlined for him the importance of working together over going it alone.

As far as communication, Lindy has resisted deploying a radio system that allows the current Sheriff’s department to call upon Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough’s police and fire departments in an emergency. While Hillsborough police can call upon Chapel Hill police directly, Sheriff deputies commonly route communications through the department slowing coordination.

We can no longer take the rather pedestrian view that law enforcement issues are segregated by region – the County and each of its municipalities must work together, eliminate traditional barriers to collaboration. This starts with doing something as simple as equipping our County force appropriately.

Speaking of equipment, it’s time to update our Deputies bulletproof vests – something Lindy has put off year after year though his department has run a net surplus. Clarence will make sure that our Deputies don’t have to worry if the most basic protection will fail because it’s certified lifetime has expired.

Clarence, as chief of Hillsborough’s police department the last 5 years, is well aware of how difficult it can be to communicate with a department a few blocks from his own and has pledged to make dealing with this communications gap a top priority.

Clarence sought out troubled neighborhoods in Hillsborough, found residents who would work with his force to curtail criminal activity. While Clarence fostered double digit decreases in the crime rate using the power of community, Lindy saw a near double digit increase in the County. Yes, Lindy initiated and grew the County’s neighborhood watch program but hasn’t taken it to the next level.

Lindy, unlike Clarence’s proactive approach, has taken a much more passive approach – his “open door” policy reflects an attitude that he’s the mountain we must all come to for service (Lindy even remarked at a recent forum that he’d be happy to have the police chiefs of each jurisdiction come visit him rather than taking Clarence’s approach of seeking them out – which he did as Chief of Hillsborough’s force).

Neighborhood’s are currently not actively recruited into the program, communications are fairly one-way and problem “hot spots” don’t get due attention. Clarence has successfully dealt with problem spots in Hillsborough by taking a cooperative, proactive approach to not just working with neighborhoods but actively soliciting neighborhood support.

The current department doesn’t reflect the diversity of this county.

Clarence will work to put folks on the front lines that are representative of the community we live in. Not only that, at the recent Orange County Democratic Women’s forum, Clarence declared that his policy is not to let a person’s immigration status be an impediment to helping residents. This includes making sure that ICE (immigration enforcement) is applied only when required by statute. He will not replicate the abuses seem elsewhere in North Carolina.

Lindy, unfortunately, continues to tap-dance around the immigrant issue and has not owned up to fingerprinting misdemeanor suspects – which is generally not required – which can trigger ICE action.

Crowding at the County jail, the only jail for all jurisdictions, continues to be a problem. This is not only a human rights issue but an issue affecting law enforcement in each of our local communities. Reserving appropriate capacity to deal with Chapel Hill’s needs, for instance, has taken a back-seat to using the jail as a profit-center, generating Federal dollars housing Federal prisoners. Citizens pay for the jail, our local law enforcement needs should come first.

I’ve liked what Clarence has said about re-balancing the ratio of Federal prisoners currently housed at the County’s jail to prioritize our local obligations, to maintain a facility that is manageable and doesn’t run the risk of civil rights abuses.

Finally, in these dispiriting economic times, Clarence has shown he can live within his community’s fiscal means to support law enforcement.

What about Lindy Pendergrass?

Lindy has been a steady, professional and competent manager for the department – his campaign reflects that steadiness in emphasizing “staying the course”. As Orange County continues to shrink, his current approach hasn’t evolved to meet the growing challenges facing ALL of our residents.

The primary is May 4th and there is a high likelihood that the Democratic candidate coming out of the primary will be the eventual winner – now is the time to get to know your candidates.

More on Clarence here: http://www.clarencebirkhead.com/

As far as that at-large Commissioner’s race? The field is interesting: Barry, the incumbent, who has worked hard on some progressive issues dear to me; Joal, who has a very professional sensibility and has shown she can be as adept at managing County issues as she was a Carrboro BOA member; and Joe, who has taken the lead on budget matters, including making a clear case for structural changes in outlays, to get us from today’s fiscal mess to a more solid foundation.

They all have attributes I prize and I expect that there is a good chance for a run-off depending on turnout.

As far as Senate, my heart says Ken Lewis though I know he is the longest of shots. Elaine Marshall is a product of the political machine, has routinely avoided taking stances on controversial issues in her many years of service to the State, has missed several opportunities to make substantial, progressive changes our State needs.

The Appeals Courts are two seats I’m still researching. As folks might recall from my posts in 2006, elections for Judges rarely get the attention they deserve and answers, by necessity, sometimes require a level of circumspection that makes it difficult to tease out differences.

I’ll be working the Library poll May 2nd, hope to see you there….

A few general observations/comments before my notes.

First, an apology to my loyal readers. I have spent much more time accumulating content than presenting it.

For instance, I went on the recent Town sponsored walk through Northside, led by Empowerment’s Delores Bailey (whose mother lived along the route), to review various NCD (neighborhood conservation district) violations and missteps (which generated these Council concerns the following Monday). Took lots of pictures, made lots of notes, hope to turn it into a post “sometime soon”. Given the huge backlog of content, I’ll try to pick up the pace over the next month.

As far as the Library funding issue, it’s clear that Chapel Hill has been subsidizing access to the %41 of County residents who hold library cards for too long.

The portion of that expense, calculated simplistically as a straight ratio, totes up to almost $7 million over the last decade. Given that there is a huge gap between the level of service our community has demanded and paid for those last 10 years – at a yearly cost now of $3 million dollars – and the level of service offered county residents – funded to the tune of $1 million – one could argue – as Orange County’s Manager Frank Clifton did – that the putative subsidy’s scope is distorted by Chapel Hill’s historical level of extraordinary support. While I agree with Council member Gene Pease, that the whole of the county deserves to have a library system more akin to that of Chapel Hill’s, I also agree with Frank’s analysis – comparing Chapel Hill’s caviar diet to the more modest appetite of County residents is an apples to oranges comparison.

As I’ve noted before (Library or Lot #5?), even though Chapel Hill has been unfairly subsidizing service for years, the demand for more operational funds NOW is being driven by the majority of this Council’s stated desire to imprudently issue $20.1M worth of bonds in June rather than addressing a fundamentally inequitable situation.

Given that the Council will not shed the ridiculous Lot #5/West 140 financial liability in order to deal more effectively with the fiscal strain a Library expansion will place on the budget, their demand to the Board of Commissioners, especially given the deep hole ($6M+) Orange County finds itself in, rings hollow.

Why the emphasis on increasing operational funds then?

To make the case for doing the expansion now irrespective of foreseeable economic conditions arguing otherwise.

Yes, when the new Library goes online we’ll the subsidy will swell and put residents even deeper in the hole, starting, conservatively estimated, at $30/year per “typical” homeowner. That’s nothing compared to the bond payments – starting around $2.3M/year – required to service that new debt load. And as Council member’s Laurin Easthom (who has ‘blogged on this issue) and Matt Czajkowski recently effectively argued, the true cost of that new debt extends well beyond those payments, including freezing the Town’s ability to borrow to meet more critical needs at least through 2014 (unless we have a steep tax increase!).

Reminder: Chapel Hill decided many year’s ago to fund the construction, expansion, provisioning and staffing of an independent Library to meet the needs of this community – unlike most other NC jurisdictions. Like the schools, the difference between funding one facility at $3M per annum vs. the $1M the County allocates for its entire library services ($250k which goes to subsidize Chapel Hill) has created a stark contrast between levels of service.

Today’s meeting, though, didn’t touch on the capital costs but rather on righting the historical Library funding inequity.

Rather than wait with a hope of producing a more polished piece, I present my notes in a raw, live ‘blog format (with a few asides thrown in ) in an effort to document a critical stage in this year’s budget negotiations.

The meeting was held at 5:15pm, April 29th, Chapel Hill Town Hall. In attendance were County Commissioners Barry Jacobs and Mike Nelson, Council members Sally Greene and Gene Pease, County Manager Frank Clifton, Town Manager Roger Stancil and Assistant Town Manager Bruce Heflin, News Observer reporter Jesse DeConto and CitizenWill.

Council member Sally Greene started out – “here’s our simple agenda” – Where are we going to find funding for the Library?

Sally – Council already had a robust discussion on Library – the sub-committee was instructed to focus on library funding equity – supposed to bring back a working agreement on funding soon -in 3 WEEKS (CitizenWill[cw] wonder if this is when they will push forward the bond funding?).

Sally – “we know there’s an inequity” – general agreement by both parties – how best to deal with it?

Commissioner Barry Jacobs – consistent level of services is desire – resolution referenced ([cw] turns out it was a motion made 3/19/2010 here pg. 27/28 – I happened to be there that evening ).

Barry – intention to raise funding to state median not just for Chapel Hill but everywhere else – better integration between systems – define a unit of library service per county resident and make sure adequate services for all o.c. residents – open new facilities in north and south – referenced Cedar Grove and Carrboro Cybary

Barry then had to reference his Indy election questionnaire to find the broad outline sketched by the BOCC ([cw] as I noted above) – he said one condition included membership by county on Chapel Hill Library board

Sally notes that the County already has one ([cw] my old Tech Board colleague and all around great person Evelyn Daniels) – Barry corrected himself noting that subsequently the BOCC realized they had a representative but maybe the problem was that not all board members – in general – report back to the BOCC… that this was a common problem ([cw] this was one of the arguments recently made on behalf of shrinking the 70+ County advisory boards down to a more manageable number).

Commissioner Mike Nelson – 1st the %48 of the County’s current library service budget that the BOCC suggested be allocated would increase the $250K subsidy to $500,000 over the next 4 years with a phased in approach….

Council member Gene Pease – the crux of the problem is “What’s fair” – points out that %48 number is based on operating budget for all library services – no predictability as the County could turn up or down the budgetary faucet based on the prevalent conditions

Gene – “the county has a poor record” when it comes to funding the libraries – he presents the 2 formulas Council has batted around – basing funding on either a per capita or tax revenue generation model – minimum subsidy is $700K up to $1.1M using conservative estimates – which still doesn’t meet the fiscal obligation – %41 county usage has been pretty consistent over the last 10 years

Gene – County approach “not factoring in the contribution Chapel Hill” makes to the County in terms “of what the county gives back” ([cw] in other words reflecting the % taxes the town pays on an assessed value basis and getting an equivalent amount of support back)

Barry – if the %40 number decreases because other facilities are built/developed reducing demand then any proposed funding formula must accommodate that reality

Barry – why not create new library at Orange County Skills Development Building? [MAP] which could service both Carrboro and Chapel Hill ([cw] located in West End Franklin St. Downtown Chapel Hill) – 11K sq/ft – could move McDougle Middle School collection immediately – could staff immediately with 2 staff 36hr/26hr

Barry – wants to make sure that the formula reflects reductions in usage over time…. ([cw] HOW DO YOU CALCULATE GIVEN THAT FOLKS HOLD THEIR CARDS FOR SOME TIME? USAGE RATES HARD TO TEASE OUT ESPECIALLY FOR FOLKS WHO DON’T CHECKOUT MATERIALS BUT USE IN-FACILITY SERVICES?)

Gene – “We agree…makes sense”, Sally – that would be “fine if it reflects actual usage…”

Mike – “I feel sandbagged” – thought the meeting was to deal with funding inequity – just heard about this idea of moving McDougle an hour before – might be nice to speculate on but it adds complication to already difficult matter of funding existing Chapel Hill Library adequately

Barry – re-emphasizes his discussion reflects the necessity for having a formula that takes in to account the reduction of service – moving McDougle is an example of how the dynamic of serving County and Carrboro residents at Chapel Hill’s main library could dramatically change

County Manager Frank Clifton – as the man dealing with $ and cents – points out that county doesn’t control the level of service Chapel Hill offers – contrasts the $3M Chapel Hill spends against the $1M total the County spends ([cw] which includes the existing $250K subsidy to Chapel Hill for County residents)

Frank – using the %40 County resident usage number with the $3M Chapel Hill exceeds the total current County outlay of $1M – ([cw] hard to justify doubling or more County library services budget to just meet the $1.2M+ additional operational expenditure that the new expansion will place on Chapel Hill) – How will formula reflect that Chapel Hill wants “cadillac services” on a “Volkswagon budget”? ([cw] comparison is my words but captures Frank’s comment).

Gene – points out that the town has funded $6+ M of usage County residents over the last 10 years – references the many historical problems getting County help – it isn’t fair that Chapel Hill has supported this level of service for County residents – brings up the widespread anger ([cw] a bit debatable) and politics of the issue – including how it might play out – looking at Barry – in this years Commissioner race. Says “the votes are there” on Council to require upping usage fees on County residents ([cw] $65/year to start with).

Mike – “very concerned” about the gap between $500K the BOCC (Board of Commissioners) proposed and the $1.2M Chapel Hill is requesting – dedicated to resolving funding inequity issue by Dec. 2010 ([cw] when he leaves office)

Mike – any contribution “must reflect that this year’s” terrible County budget problems, next year’s anticipated problems ([cw] which look pretty dire for the County) – any increase starts low and increases over the next 3-4-5 years to a capped $500K.

Frank – the problem is that Chapel Hill’s current request is now and will always be way higher than the County’s total outlay for library services for everyone else – the formula has to take in account the needs of the rest of the county and that while Chapel Hill might want high levels of service/pay for high levels of service the Town can’t expect County residents to foot the bill….

Barry – using the %40 County usage number as a baseline, roughly %1 per usage reflects $25K if County is to meet Chapel Hill’s basic request for $1M – the problem is “that we need to consolidate the systems” to insure a basic level of service for everyone

Gene – sounds good but is way too complicated to do in the next 3 weeks – consolidation and interoperability could benefit all of our residents but too many moving parts to get done in next three weeks ([cw] This emphasis on May 24th indicates to me that some on this Council are planning to push for the expansion irrespective of the Town’s ability to handle the debt and they will use any agreement hammered out by the County and Town as a smokescreen to deflect attention from the concerns Laurin and Matt so succinctly underlined two weeks ago).

Sally asks about interoperability – “What do you mean by interoperability?”

Frank – seamless access to all facilities. comparable levels of service

Gene – interoperability will effectively mean a one-way transfer given given the high level of service in Chapel Hill and the low level service in the County….

Mike – giving the $500K request by Chapel Hill ([cw] 1/2 the current County library services budget) will restrict our ability to improve and expand services elsewhere – “this isn’t the year to do it…[especially]…with a $5M [County] deficit…”

Gene – passionately “no more bullshit…this is the year” – “we have to show [movement] in the next 3 weeks…”

Mike – “What about $500K over 3 years? Will you walk away?”

Gene – gut feel is that Council will walk away

Sally – Council hasn’t set a drop dead number – they need to take phased in offer to increase to $500 3-4 years out back to Council

Gene – feels that 2/3rds of existing County users could be converted to usage fees

([cw] HOW BEST TO DECIDE BEFOREHAND IF THAT’S REASONABLE? 2/3rd RATE SEEMS DRIVEN BY NEED TO GET $500K RATHER THAN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WHETHER PEOPLE WILL PAY $65+ PER YEAR) ( [cw] what is the figure need to charge those 2/3rds to get to the starting $1.2M increase in the operational budget the expansion will necessitate? Where’s the analysis showing the uptake rate as the yearly charge goes from $65 to $100 to $135 or more needed to hit that $1.2M number?)

Gene – points out that 1/3rd conversion at $65 gives 250$K which breaks even with current County subsidy (if Chapel Hill opts for a usage fee then the BOCC has already said they will drop the current $250K subsidy) – 2/3rds of the current %40 of County residents using the Chapel Hill Library need to sign on to get $500K

Frank laughs when Gene says that 2/3 will pay $65 – points out that even %100 conversion wouldn’t meet $1.1M required increase…

Barry – What the formulas shown by Chapel Hill demonstrate is that the County’s commitment should be $2m

Gene – “hopefully economic conditions will improve” and the ability to pickup the slack will come soon – Frank shakes his head ([cw] he’s in the endgame of preparing this year’s County budget and is well aware of the dire funding crunch the County faces next year).

Barry/Frank – we hear next year will be worse for the county – much worse

Gene – we feel that $2m is right but asking for $1.2M now – “it’s not like we’re asking for the $6M we already spent back”

Frank – observes it isn’t $2m, it’s $4m because people will expect any concomitant increase in library services will spawn citizens demands for a concurrent increase in school budget – doesn’t make logical sense but “experience shows” that is the way these things play out

Mike – What about a 4 year plan – up to $700K – token amount 2011 of $10K – $220K next 2 years after that – no more than $700K ([cw] $250K existing subsidy+$10K bump 2011+two $220K bumps after that) but make that increase contingent on interoperability agreement

Sally – concerned about the cost of interoperability – doesn’t think we can approve this without understanding the cost better – what share the Chapel Hill Library will pickup

Mike – references 2 librarians discussions on significant costs – mainly to County – to integrate the systems – starting with “our computer systems” which “don’t talk to each other now”

Sally -” $10K isn’t going to fly with our Council”

Gene – “this isn’t a good faith commitment Mike especially given the history”

Mike – hard sell given the huge cuts in social services, etc. How do we justify “giving money to affluent Chapel Hill when we’re cutting money to foster care?” and needy school children

Gene – “the shit storm will fall on all sides if we go to usage” fee – reiterating the high need this year ([cw] only as a consequence of doing an expansion this year)

Gene – “$10K is insulting” – has seen this developing for years ([cw] WHY IS IT SO NECESSARY THIS YEAR – ONLY BECAUSE THEY WANT THE EXPANSION!)

Barry – “We don’t have the money at least as it looks now” – “we haven’t seen the budget” – comes out mid-may – if Fed economic stimulus assistance money for teachers is cut next year (ARRA) “we’re going to bleed teachers out of each system”

Sally – We have colleagues who want to see a good faith agreement by the county – “$10K increase doesn’t come close”

Gene – “we don’t expect $250K frankly” this year but do expect something higher than $500K or $700K

Frank – this week we’re in the middle of asking all departments to make another round of cuts to meet the budget

Mike – we set aside money last year for school renovations and building library services in southwest County – “politically untenable” if we raid that fund – as it looks like the County might borrow from that fund – would not support any increase in library funding if that fund is raided

Gene – “You’re spending $180M this year” how long can we wait? – we’re constantly told to wait – “we already paid $7M” over the last 10 years – we are “not asking for it back” but “the County has to move” on this….

Frank – current base budget will go down $4M plus increase costs of $4M – “still trying to find $500K here, $50K there” – next year we’re going to ask for continued decreases in the library budget

Barry – long-term is all we can do – “if you can believe in our [BOCC] good faith” then maybe we can work something out…

###

That’s it! About hour or so of notes.

Next steps: County Manager will take comments and proposal made by Chapel Hill into consideration, bang it against the budget realities he and the County face, prepare a presentation for the BOCC and craft a possible response to Chapel Hill. Expectation is something will be back on the table prior to May 24th deadline set by Chapel Hill’s Town Council.

It will be interesting to see if Council implements the usage fee and has the fortitude to weather what Gene appropriately noted as a “shit storm”.

While Julie did a great job of moving the event along unfortunately the “skip to” feature of this version of the Flash Player doesn’t allow one to move to a later point in the video. The video will start playing and as material is buffered you will be able to move forward.

Also thanks to my fellow colleague on the Sustainability Task Force Matthew Scheer for moderating the event and James Carnahan for keeping time.

Quick technical note: the current video doesn’t support “quick search” but will start streaming right away.

Also thanks to my neighbor (and former Chapel Hill Mayor) Jonathon Howes for moderating the event.

Quick technical note: the current video doesn’t support “quick search” but will start streaming right away.