The concerns raised by those committee members (Sustainability Task Force: The Whole or The Sum of the Parts? ) are unlikely to be addressed by the currently constituted group.

Without those dissenting voices, the Comprehensive Plan Initiating Committee will most likely craft a process that is targeted towards a particular outcome rather than one that will illuminate and resolve the discrepancies and omissions in our current Comprehensive Plan discovered by that task force.

Those gaps have led to development outcomes which our community has found troubling.

December, 2008 the Neighborhoods for Responsible Growth held a forum on development density which highlighted some of the issues which have to be addressed in the new plan to meet the future needs of this community. It’s a long forum but worth reviewing to get a sense of the rising tide of negative community reaction to the current “rah rah growth at any cost” approach which has failed to yield the advertised results.

Carrboro Commons’ Megan Gassaway published this article which reviews the history of the Northside community through long time resident Ms. Keith Edwards eyes.

Too often local media focuses narrowly on the business of carving up the community rather than providing a broader context – injecting the human dimension into the story – which better informs the wider community on why folks living in Northside mourn its passing.

Reese News,UNC School of Journalism & Mass Communication’s Digital Newsroom, leverages the power of the multimedia ‘net to give voice to 10 community members’ concerns in their story The struggle for a neighborhood.

It’s no secret that Northside isn’t the neighborhood it used to be.

The change is visible in the increased diversity of its residents and the ten-story high-end condominiums that tower across from the traditionally working class neighborhood, where massive duplexes are replacing single-family homes. Change is also evident in  the growing tension and frustration of residents in a neighborhood plagued by the effects of gentrification.

The pressure for development is taking its toll on the historically black neighborhood, and the town is struggling to balance the need to grow with the needs of neighborhoods like Northside.

Since 2010, the town has been working with the Raleigh-based consultant KlingStubbins to develop a Downtown Framework and Action Plan, which could revise and redevelop parts of downtown Chapel Hill and the surrounding areas.

The downtown proposal could have significant effects on Northside. In its current draft, the framework suggests building new road connections and parking decks in areas where homes currently stand. It also underscores certain areas of Northside as prime for redevelopment.

Well done folks!

Want a bit of additional perspective on the development pressures facing Northside?

IndyWeek reporter (and former Daily Tar Heel editor) Joe Schwartz put together another excellent overview last June (2010): Greenbridge: A new chapter in a tense history .

Greenbridge, as reported by the Chapel Hill News, faces its first foreclosure hearing next Tuesday. This Sunday they promise a further exploration of not only Greenbridge’s problems but other Downtown developments putting pressure on Northside, Cameron Ave. and Pine Knolls neighborhoods.

Change is going to happen. The question is how the whole of our community can benefit from that change. Articles like these help create a broader perspective, one that has been missing so far, in the discussions over development policy Downtown.

It is critical that the nearby neighborhoods play a vital role in determining their own fates. Until their voices are heard and their neighborhoods are treated like living, breathing communities rather than convenient parcels of land for future development, our development policy is as broken as Greenbridge’s financing.

Tomorrow night Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt will petition his colleagues to appoint a representative to participate in discussions with the County’s Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) on the future of the Interlocal Agreement on Solid Waste Management.

That agreement, coordinating waste management between each municipality and the County, needs to either evolve to meet the changes in our collective waste management plans or face dissolution.

For the good of our wider community, evolution is the better alternative.

Folks might recall that I asked Council several times over the last 6 years to fill the seat set aside on the SWAB for an elected representative from Chapel Hill – even offering to fill that position myself if appointed or elected to Council. Mayor Pro Tem Jim Ward took up that task, finally, less than a year ago.

Last year the Board of Commissioners (BOCC) agreed to ship our waste to Durham’s trash transfer station (which will subsequently ship it elsewhere). Even though this decision laid the groundwork for what I hope is a temporary solution to our garbage disposal needs, the time that decision bought hasn’t been used effectively by the SWAB to plan for the longer term.

There has been no real effort, to date, to find a local or regional solution that aligns more closely to our community’s fiscal and environmental policy objectives. Instead, the County contracted a new waste management consultancy that “discovered” three increased capacity options. Last week the County proposed extending the landfills life, again, irrespective of the commitments made to the Rogers Road community.

Commissioner Valerie Foushee, reviewing her inaction in tasking County staff to work the issue over the last 6 years, said she was “appalled” by the lack of progress – a sentiment echoed by all her colleagues.

Resisting expediency, taking that deceptively easy path of delaying the inevitable yet again, the BOCC finally took the bull by the horns and agreed to forge a solution themselves (Trash Talk: The Neverending Story…Ends?).

As the BOCC and County Manager noted, their partners in the Interlocal agreement have been MIA during the last few years, and though the County preferred a collaborative accommodation, they could no longer delay.

Tomorrow night, Mark moves Chapel Hill one-step closer to being part of the solution rather than the source of the problem:

This petition responds to a request from the Orange County Board of Commissioners for Towns to consider establishing a working group to address and resolve solid waste management issues. The Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) recommends that this working group be comprised of elected officials and senior staff, and that the process should begin as soon as possible.

I wholeheartedly agree and expect the Council to expeditiously move the process forward.

My first suggested action – take advantage of the provision built into the 1997 landfill extension agreement, as County Manager Frank Clifton highlighted last Tuesday, and start setting aside part of the tipping fees for eventual mitigation of landfill related problems.

Unlike last week, I’ll be posting more abbreviated comments about testimony, tenor and process as the hearing progresses.

Anita Badrock has once again been chosen as the Chair. She reminds the audience that the committee is “not to replace the judgement of management” as per the Town’s ordinance (here).

(a) Conduct grievance and appeal hearings and render advisory opinions to the manager.
(b) Develop and maintain adequate records of all its proceedings, findings, and recommendations.
(c) Inform the employee(s) and the manager in writing of its findings and recommendations in all cases referred to it.

Clyde Clark is here tonight to ask to be reinstated, to get the safety and racism problems in Public Works fixed.

Mr. Norris, head of Public Works, starts off by being questioned by the Town’s lawyer Ms. Sneed. He says that he became aware of “several” citizen complaints – Clark was harassing folks on his route. It started out as 1 or 2 complaints about handling to debris and evolved into 5 complaints in total.

The nature of the complaints changed – residents were afraid of retaliation, they were fearful of the workers – at this point Norris contacted head of HR and Town Manager Stancil as these latter 3 complaints had risen to the point of being “serious incidents”.

The “serious incidents” documented in these emails (where are the emails, will they be public records?) under the procedures of the Town required that the two workers be immediately suspended and a pre-disciplinary process be started.

Sneed asks Norris if he was aware of “any grievances” filed by Mr. Clark or others (once again the two workers are lumped together). He says, “No.” This is the second time he has affirmed that he had no knowledge of the EEOC complaint or the filing of the safety grievances.

Sneed continues – “there have been allegations” that the firing was motivated by retaliation – she is making the case that there can be no foundation for those allegations given that Norris was unaware of grievances.

New mystery witness testimony from “Miss/Mrs. Johnson”.

Clark’s counsel Al McSurely once again objects to receiving testimony from an anonymous source.

“Mrs. Johnson” says she doesn’t have much to add to her statement of last week. Sneed asks about the combined bad behavior of Clark/Bigelow. Johnson says she doesn’t have much to add but when reminded that there is a new committee member this evening decided to comment on one new piece of information…

Johnson says that a comment made by Al McSurely in the Sunday newspaper wasn’t accurate – she didn’t hide behind blinds but had direct interactions with the workers.

She has lived in Chapel Hill for awhile and is familiar with trash pickup procedures. Clark/Bigelow were not picking up yard waste for weeks. When she asked them to do a better job their performance worsened – after the truck left her street she would have to go out and clean up debris spread across the road. She continued to ask the two for better service but as time went on the two workers attitude became more harassing and belligerent. Finally, fed up with trying to deal with the problems directly, she called the Town.

Like last week, she reaffirms that she didn’t call the Town to get the men fired – she just wanted a new crew that would do their job effectively. She continues to be boggled by the press and community reaction as per racism – this was not a matter of race but of poor performance (CW: I don’t recall anyone suggesting the witnesses were racist rather that the Town had endemic racism in PW management).

Al McSurely asks Johnson if she recalls what Mr. Clark looks like – she stumbles around finding words but eventually says “I know what he looks like”. When McSurely asks if she remembers the “Biden incident” 7/22 she says she doesn’t know how McSurely knows where she lives or who she is – she doesn’t want to add anything more to her previous comments.

One Board member asks if there were any additional witnesses to these events, including the “Biden event”. She responds that she usually ran out when she saw the trash haulers – the interactions were quick – not witnessed.

When asked by Board member Delores Bailey if she knew when her trash collectors made the rounds – “Mrs. Johnson” hung up.

New phone witness – “Mrs. Jones”. Didn’t want to come forward because of all the racial allegations – she didn’t want to be labeled a racist. Responding also to McSurely’s comments in the Chapel Hill News Sunday article – she reiterates that this was a simple case of very poor performance by the collectors. She contacted the Town to complain about the escalating poor performance and requested a new crew – a crew like her old crew who performed their jobs well.

McSurely asks “Jones” how many times she contacted the Town about the poor performance, the mess being made. “Five or six?” when Jones can’t come up with a number. She stumbles about a few moments – “One time?” Jones – “More, maybe two.” McSurely, “Who did you talk to?”. Jones, “A young woman.” She doesn’t recall. She also said no PW management came down to talk to her.

McSurely asks Jones if she realized that Bigelow was on the former crew she liked so much – she didn’t know – wasn’t relevant to her.

Couple committee questions – Bailey, when did the collectors come? Jones – sometime in the morning, unsure…

Boardmember (BM) question reiterated by Anita (the phone testimony was plagued with sound problems) – Did Jones know anything about the Biden incident? Jones doesn’t want to talk about it – she refuses to comment on other complaints but would rather stick to her statement – the crew was doing a terrible job, when she asked for better service they adopted an aggressive, confrontational attitude – she contacted the Town and the current series of events started…

Notably, Jones did not confirm statements made by CAI and the Town that the two were frightening presences or that there was any particular incident which scared her..

Moving on to Larry Stroud, PW sanitation manager – 11 years on the job. Did he have any problems with Clark before – “It’s been a rocky road” – relates an incident several years ago where Clark refused to clean up some broken bikes and other “white goods” in Northside – like other times – Clark blew him off.

Stroud continues to paint a picture of an employee with a long history of inter-personal issues, with complaints akin to those on Greenwood. Stroud said he intervened numerous times – had counseled Clark – but that Clark was just one of those folks “who wouldn’t listen”.

Sneed has him walk through the latest personnel review where he gave Clark a good report. In working through the document it becomes clear that additional comments do demonstrate concerns – including Clark’s need to improve his job performance, to improve his attitude, to improve his interactions with customers.

Why didn’t Sneed take this to his management – the superintendent. He did but stopped because upper management wasn’t attending to the issues. Sneed – “Why?”
Stroud, he seemed intimidated. Sneed – “Intimidated? By who?” Superintendent was afraid that the two workers would go to “Fred”. Sneed – “Fred?” Stroud – “Fred Battle.” (Fred was the leader of the local NAACP).

The superintendent was concerned that Fred would stir up trouble and he just didn’t want to deal with the repercussions. Stroud continued to try to help the two – Clark moreso – but that his assistance didn’t help. Stroud tells about how Clark was on the verge of losing his job and his mother came to Public Works – she was crying – she begged the Town to keep her son on – they did and Clark straightened up – “for 3 weeks”. Back to old bad habits after that…

McSurely cross-examines. Turns out Stroud worked on a truck servicing Greenwood for years. Stroud had several side jobs in the neighborhood. He cut grass for a particular woman that, if I read McSurely right, was one of the two we have heard about. McSurely asks about the “Biden event” – did Stroud know about it? Not particularly.

Now Al (McSurely – Al is shorter) delves into why these couple reports made on Clark’s problems in 2009, 2010 didn’t end up in disciplinary proceedings. Why didn’t the superintendent take initiative?

Stroud says there was a lot of turmoil in the department, especially earlier this year. The person “who shall not be named” is Harv Howard. The Town claimed in the documents submitted to the NC Employment Security Commission (ESC) that “Harv dropped the ball”. Al asks Stroud if Harv dropped the ball – does he agree? Stroud can’t really say…he said that by the time the chain of events started which Kerry down the road to losing his job Harv was on the way out….

The Town and Anita asks that further discussion on the Harv Howard matter stop. Al asks the Town’s attorney Ralph Karpinos if the Board can review Harv’s personnel record to see why Harv was discharged. Ralph says yes. Al asks that the Board review Harv’s record – to see why he was let go – and to determine if there is any evidence within which bears upon the Clark and Bigelow case.

NOTE: Just after Mrs. Jones refused to answer Al’s questions – echoing Mrs. Johnson’s hanging up on the Board – Anita comments that while this is not a court proceeding that a witness’ willingness to submit to cross-examination DOES influence how the Board assess the evidence they do provide.

Al questions Stroud on handling of yard waste – is there a particular process? There are guidelines and expectations but it doesn’t appear that the Town holds folks to a hard and fast rule.

Earlier Stroud commented that he took a camera out to Northside to document Clark’s problem cleaning up “white goods” (bikes, etc.). Al – Why did you do that? Stroud – I knew it would be a heated situation – wanted evidence to support his conclusions.

Al – Did you see the pictures Bigelow took of the debris problems on Greenwood? Stroud – No.

Pretty clear that taking photos was a common procedure for the PW department (CW: good idea, I used to do that regularly as a commercial construction inspector).

CAI’s von Der Lippe (VDL), dressed more casually this evening and seemingly more relaxed, on the stand for the Town. 14 years of experience – several investigations – “bunches” – over 100 – investigations have come out for and against employees.

Sneed probes VDL’s knowledge of CAI’s prior contract with Town – reaffirms he knew nothing prior to hearings. Sneed shows his bill – $5860 – acknowledges (as Al mentioned last week) that he is being paid $150/hr. to attend this evening.

Sneed – were you told these two were trouble-makers to start with, were you told to build a case to get them out? VDL – No.

VDL describes process he uses as a “true/false matrix” – that he investigates the allegations, looks at supporting evidence, corroborating testimony – to determine if allegations stand or not… Pause as he reviews a stack of statements – he was criticized by the Board last week for submitting a report with glaring problems – problems that change the meaning – which he explained away as typos (embarrassing typos to say the least).

VDL affirms the accuracy of the reports.

Sneed prompts VDL to explain why the two are lumped together… VDL – many of the incidents they participated together – investigation reveals that Clark was the more belligerent, aggressive, rude and confrontational of the pair – VDL – a theme throughout the investigation is that Clark was rude, indignant – Stroud said Clark was out of control…

VDL: Stroud was pretty emotional talking about Clark – especially how Stroud went to the mat for Clark when Clark was on the verge of being fired… Stroud “like working with nails” “it was their way or no way” – disappointed on inappropriate comments Clark made about termination of PW worker (Harv Howard?) which had made his co-workers upset…

Sneed – other than a few typos, is there anything in this report which substantively changes the sense of the report…

Al cross-examines – Could you explain what constitutes a typo? Considering that a typo discussed last week changed the sense of the report – Stroud’s comment on the radio/water request event…explain it further… VDL: Other than that no…

Al asks VDL how much he knows about CAI’s anti-union work…VDL: “I’m not the right person to ask about that…” “I don’t think I’m the right person to ask about that…”

Al’s team hands out a binder full of CAI’s anti-union work to the Board and von Der Lippe to review (CW: I posted on it here [Chapel Hill Council: Union Busters?]). It’s established that VDL’s employer is a wholly owned company of CAI and that, in turn, Bruce Clarke – CEO of CAI – no relation to Mr. Clark – was a leading figure nationally in fighting unionization.

VDL: “This isn’t what I do” “This isn’t something I know about…” He might get email notifications, etc. from CAI on these issues but he gets a ton of junk that he ignores as not being pertinent to his job…

Al – $50 Background check – VDL: What he does for any investigation of hostile employees – he runs a check to make sure his personal safety is assured…

Sneed – recrosses VDL – Did Bruce Clarke assist in investigation, write report, review report, comment on it, etc. ? VDL: No.

VDL is the licensed investigator for CAI’s investigation arm. CAI is a 50 year-old non-profit employee association and the investigation arm is a company charged with conducting that work…

Sneed asking VDL about interview with Clark – Did Clark cooperate, participate? No – Clark didn’t want to participate – he wanted other folks to attend – wasn’t interested in going forward VDL: Couldn’t get much information….

Al asks if Clark was given notice under due process of the charges – not really – VDL had been told Clark was “belligerent, aggressive, intimidating”, “rude to co-workers” but instead of asking about those alleged behaviors VDL asked specific questions on specific incidents…

Sneed recalls Mr. Norris, head of Public Works.

Norris – kind of neat that we visit every home in Chapel Hill once a week

Norris explains process of dealing with yard waste – trucks equipped with rakes and brooms so the crew can leave the area tidy – they don’t make a big deal if waste exceeds 3 cubic yards…

Sneed asks about pre-disciplinary hearing process. Sneed – Had Norris decided by Oct. 12th, the day of the hearing, what disciplinary action would be taken? Norris: No. Norris: Every time he tried to engage with Clark and McSurely to determine what the facts were, what substance there was, they refused.

Norris and Town attorney did offer to have the two come back once they were better informed but Clark refused (CW: this is a strong point of contention – Clark/Bigelow maintain they left these hearings expecting a detailed list of allegations and specific evidence supporting those allegations so that they could respond accordingly).

Sneed – “we believe in progressive” employment practices – why not suspension? why not move them? why immediate termination? Norris – As soon as an incident rises to “personal detrimental conduct” then he must move quickly to protect citizens… Norris manages 8 divisions, every one deals with the public, he can’t simply move an employee who has engaged in “detrimental personal conduct” (the mantra we hear over and over) into a position that is forward-facing with the public…

Al explores the “Biden event”. Spoke with two people directly – one within neighborhood and one at an outside location…

Al – What about third complaint? Norris – Complaint about poor performance, missed pickup – was concerned because customer said that the two workers behaved in a rude way

Town – no other witnesses.

Clark begins….

Born and raised in Chapel Hill. Lived in public housing over on Gomains. Came up through school district before and after desegregation. Mother worked at Granville. Father worked for UNC in mental wing. Got to know Mr. Fred Battle.

As he grew up he noticed Chapel Hill was changing for black men. Mr. Battle suggested he look for a job with the Town after he held a series of meaningless jobs prior – at Taco Bell, Marriott, etc. At 30 years old he got his first sold job with Public Works.

Clark says a lot of the write ups, including ones from Harv Howard, don’t tell the whole story – for instance, that there was ice on the ground early Spring and couldn’t clean up

Al – Why a union? Clark – “White men run this Town” “Terrell should be sitting there….” pointing over to Mr. Norris. He wanted to start a union to “lift men up” who were doing a dangerous, dirty job…

Al begins to show a series of photos documenting dangerous work conditions – like scrambling across multiple lanes of traffic on MLK, Jr.

Al asks about a pamphlet Clark distributed – Clark – did it because they wanted the public to know how the Town was treating them – that they were fired without being able to see evidence – that due process wasn’t followed in any way…

Clark “Richard Terrell and Dennis Schoch [HR] should be sitting over there…” He only dealt with these two managers – not Norris – Norris was not the point man on this as has been presented – until this hearing didn’t even know Sneed worked for Town…

Al highlights the vagueness of the allegations in the pre-disciplinary letter – Al – Did you have a chance to review the evidence, to talk to the people down on Greenwood – Clark: No.

Like Bigelow, Clark said that he expected when he left the meeting that there would be a follow-up meeting. McSurely and him were waiting on clarification and information they requested from Town when Clark received termination letter.

Clark – “Public works is running wild down there…” “White worker threatened to kill someone” – He’s back on his job, is he going to get fired?

Clark – Addressing interactions with woman on Greenwood – growing up in Chapel Hill he learned how to behave around older white women – that he wouldn’t initiate a conversation – that he would only respond to a query – he certainly wouldn’t behave as described…

Clark – On waving hands and aggressive behavior – “If I did that I wouldn’t be here I’d have been arrested…”

Clark says he didn’t recognize voices on phone – not sure who they were…

Al walks through a small list of specific allegations – did Clark call a co-worker saying he was talking too much about his [Clark's] business – did Clark act belligerent on Greenwood – no, no.

Clark admits was counseled about his problems with attendance. Said he responded to problem brought up 4 years ago, been better since. Points out the PW/Solid Works have lots of people with under time problems…

Sneed – crosses – Did Mr. Marsh lie when he said Clark called and complained about Marsh being up in his business – yes… Are white men running PW putting citizens up to complaining? – no… Was it a lie when VDL said you refused to be interviewed? Clark – been so long ago, I don’t remember it it was so long time ago…

During this back and forth Clark keeps saying “this isn’t a court”, “I don’t know these witnesses” “that is what you say” (to Sneed) – asks where all the concern and energy was from HR/PW when dealing with health care issues, other personnel issues…

Clark, like Bigelow, characterizes the Town’s case as: lies, lies, lies.

I find this protestation to be the weakest part of both defenses.

Jim Ward showed up sometime in the last hour. It will be interesting to see if Council thinks they have appropriate oversight over the Town Manager’s management activities after these cases are discharged. From public reports, it doesn’t appear they discussed it during the recent Council retreat.

Board (BM) steps up to asks witnesses further questions.

Larry Stroud, the second tier manager of Clark/Bigelow up first.

BM: How are teams put together? Stroud – Teams are set. When someone leaves the next person in line steps up. Appears Bigelow/Clark were paired due to some incident which moved their partners on…

BM: Heard last week issues about taking pictures…has any other crew had complaints about taking pictures?

BM: Told last week that someone called you on the radio, do you remember that? BM: Did you recognize the voice? Stroud – It was Kerry. Stroud – Do you want more detail? Explains how trucks are equipped with water.

Other BM: Did you see Kerry take photos? Stroud hadn’t but had seen photos – included trucks, private property…

Other BM: Asks about written documentation – Stroud said that written record maintained by his superintendent – should be in his files (supposedly Harv’s?)

Delores Bailey – asks about truck #210 incident – citizen complaining that guys weren’t doing job appropriately – superintendent asked Stroud to go investigate – it was Northside incident – Stroud took photos expecting a heated incident and need of evidence – took pics to superintendent – superintendent talked to Clark – didn’t work out and Clark moved from truck #210 to #209.

DB goes into the Northside incident more deeply – turns out small appliances are tossed into truck but there is a 3 small appliance limit which isn’t generally observed – larger appliances are picked up by another crew…

DB how did Kerry get on #209? Kerry wasn’t moved there as a punishment? Stroud – No. DB – Any problems with Kerry and his partner? Stroud – maybe one small one…

DB Given all the problems you describe – 2004 to now – you think he wasn’t let go because of his relationship to Mr. Battle? “I’m not saying that…” (CW: but he is saying that…).

DB asks if Stroud feels intimidated by Clark – Stroud – Yes – DB How long have you been a supervisor – Stroud – 11 years …

DB asks if Stroud saw any improvement in Clark over the years – Stroud says he did after counseling Clark but after a couple weeks Clark would be back to bad behaviors…

DB asks if Stroud thought Clark would get up in a residents face – Stroud says absolutely – no doubt…

Anita Badrock – asks Stroud about staff meeting – Clark stood up and said former superintendent wasn’t going to be the last to go – Clark said Stroud would be gone by December – AB – testimony says “Clark stood up and said former superintendent would be next to go” – what was that meeting about? Stroud says Harv’s meetings were generally about state of Town…

At this point it’s suggested Norris a better person to ask about meeting as it involves discussion about another personnel matter (Harv’s dismissal?).

AB asks how many complaints Stroud gets from folks about sanitation workers – Stroud – every day – lots of them – AB asks if people ever call with compliments – Stroud – yes – AB, this particular truck? Stroud – ummmmm…

AB asks Stroud about stress of dealing with this mess – he testified last week that he thought about early retirement because of the stress – Stroud – yes, I thought about it — he talked to people outside of Town to help deal with pressure – didn’t seek help from his management

Stroud discusses how hurt he felt about Clark’s behavior – he kept reaching out trying to help him – he gave him rides – he counseled him – thought they were on friendly terms but Clark would turn on him…

DB asks, again, how long he had been a manager Stroud – 11 years – DB – formal training? Stroud – yes DB – why didn’t you write him up? Stroud – did but stopped doing it… DB – Stopped writing up incidents, why? Stroud – told by superintendent to stop writing them up a year ago – DB – Why was that? Stroud – not sure…

DB – Of all the incidents involving Clark over the years, why this event? Stroud – When it involves citizens like this it was time to do something finally….

Board calls CAI’s von Der Lippe (VDL).

BM asks how many employees at CAI. VDL: 45. BM: In investigations department? VDL: 3

DB: When you started this investigation you were being asked to establish negative nature of conditions? VDL: No, his process is to evaluate particular complaints and establish veracity – he looks for facts in support of complaint – true or false allegation – not trying to build a case that his already been established….

DB: What about “flailing of arms”? VDL: More than one person verified that…

BM: In the case where there are only two witnesses and they both offered distinctly different testimony, how would you handle this in your report? VDL: I would report it was unsubstantiated, unverified.

VDL: When you have an incident where people are arguing so loud that someone on another block drives over to see what was happening, that substantiates a citizen’s complaint.

DB: How is that possible? Aren’t the trucks loud? DB says this part of the report was hard to understand – how could someone hear an argument a block away given how loud a garbage truck is – VDL: Explains that other employee who overheard argument was in a pickup truck doing special collections in the area – VDL found it a reasonable scenario…

DB asks about Rodney Courteland diary. VDL relates that Rodney is a co-worker who was keeping a diary of Clark/Bigelow’s time (!!!) and had turned it over to the Town. Rodney kept the diary partially because he was intimidated by Bigelow taking pictures of him doing his job and felt he needed to document their behavior…

Norris up.

BM asks Norris how many grievances he was aware of being filed over last decade – Norris aware of maybe 15 – possibly some by the same workers – BM/Norris establish that Clark/Bigelow were the only two Norris was aware of who were fired (CW: trying to establish the likelihood of the retaliation scenario I presume).

BM asks why it took 50 days to follow up on the “Biden event” complaint. Norris points out Terrell was new to job, that former superintendent of waste management was no longer there…

BM if this was a “serious incident”, as stated, wouldn’t there be a sense of urgency? Norris – initially it was an allegation, took awhile to establish facts, verify incident particulars – at that point “Biden event” moved to level of “serious incident” and the pace quickened…

BM: If you had this information, what is the intent behind scheduling a pre-disciplinary meeting? Norris: The only reason for the meeting was to gather information – to get the two workers side of the story…the meeting was just like this hearing – an attempt to get at the facts – Norris said the two decided not to engage and that he had to move forward without any additional employee input…

Norris decided that the “serious incident” amounted to “detrimental personal conduct” based on corroborated evidence presented in CAI report. He considered other options but couldn’t find a position for workers that wouldn’t expose the Town to liability – given that the only option was termination…

BM: Did you know Mr. Stroud was told not to write up these incidents? Norris – no I discovered it only through this process – turns out incident reports were, at least as Stroud and the Town claims, being stopped at Harv Howard’s level…

DB: If these reports had been submitted do you think they would have a chance to change their behavior? Norris – very speculative – possibly…

DB to Norris, do you think two days was enough time to respond to these charges? Norris offered to go through this information then and there – after that schedule an additional meeting – Clark and Bigelow refused to review information and so he was forced to move forward…

DB asks how linked these two are – Norris agrees that incident reports say “they” but that he considered them as two different cases…

DB: Are we terminating them as a couple? Norris: Treated individually, terminated individually for a joint behavior (the Biden event on 7/22).

Delores Bailey continues to probe Norris on how much of a role the two workers leaving the pre-disciplinary hearing without reviewing the information the Town had accumulated played in their dismissal – asks if the two had a chance to re-engage – not quite clear if the opportunity existed though Norris did give himself 48 hours to think about next steps…

At this point it is clear that leaving the pre-disciplinary hearing pretty much sealed the fate of the two workers. As I said last week, the two’s jobs could very well hang more on whether the Board thinks adequate “due process” was afforded rather than the substance of the allegations.

Now Anita Badrock, Chair of the Board, starts asking about the pre-disciplinary process.

AB – How is an employee supposed to bring information to this meeting? (CW: Both parties agree that the pre-disciplinary letter sent to the workers was vague on specifics). AB – The investigator had two weeks to gather this information….how is an employee supposed to respond “on the spot” to the allegations – why isn’t there a process for giving an employee an opportunity to further research the allegations and respond accordingly…

Norris continues to say that the pre-disciplinary meeting is for “providing the information”, that providing written materials ahead of time was not part of the process and “if only” the two workers had engaged he could’ve of POSSIBLY scheduled a followup.

AB explores the difficulty workers must have in responding to allegations and evidence presented “on the spot”.

AB asks why Norris didn’t use the CAI report to corroborate the information he independently verified. Wow!!! Norris couldn’t see the report due to attorney-client privilege?

AB: Attorney-client privilege? Who was the attorney? Norris: The Town attorney.

Norris says Town Attorney verbally confirmed aspects of the case Norris had developed with the help of CAI’s VDL and internal research.

Now DB takes up the questioning. Norris agrees that two workers and counsel had asked to get information and comeback. He continues to say that he offered to go through information and then let them comeback.

DB: Why wasn’t it fair to give the workers the information and let them come back? Norris – that wasn’t the process…

DB turns back to turmoil caused by Harv Howard’s leaving. Norris had told 140+ workers that he wanted to move forward as normal – DB: Couldn’t feelings been running high? Norris: It was a large organization and it was important to control rumors..

Earlier Norris mentioned how disruptive it was to have a worker claiming that “the superintendent wasn’t the last to leave”…he outlined how not diffusing such talk early could lead to further intimidation – that he couldn’t let his department think that some workers had the power to force people out…

AB asks why workers weren’t disciplined under established policy on discourteous behavior towards residents. Norris – this was beyond discourteous – belligerent inappropriate interactions.

DB brings up Clark’s feelings of intimidation. Clark alleges that because he filed a safety grievance Harv Howard and the rest of the crew came down on him. Norris felt that the issue had been resolved satisfactorily.

Now Board turns to Clark.

BM question to McSurely about expectations of what would happen after pre-disciplinary hearing. Al – We expected what the law requires – a specific list of allegations – the letter the workers received was very general. We had no idea what the charges are – no good lawyer would go in and try to defend their client with no specific charges…

Sneed, Town lawyer – in listening to discussion about pre-disciplinary hearing struck by how the Town followed the letter of the policy – if Al didn’t agree with policy, thought it wasn’t following State law – that’s a different problem…

BM interjects – to Al – you should have set a date in that meeting, you shouldn’t have left the meeting without a date…

BM (Derek) – Explores Sneed’s timeline – points out that documents came in about 3-4 days prior to termination – asks Al if further action taken – Al says they started a review but within a short time the two were terminated…

Sneed explains that there was no meeting of minds, no agreement to continue the process.

DB back to Clark asks about reported loud argument. Clark can’t respond to allegation “because it is made up work” “sensationalized” . Points out the Town employee on the pickup who corroborated the story – who heard the argument from down the block – wears hearing aids in both ears – no way he could’ve of heard an argument if one had ever happened – but no such thing happened…

Clark responding to Northside incident – lived in the neighborhood – how come Town can’t find one person from Northside to buttress complaint?

Clark -Stroud is a lousy manager – nothing personal – the department for years was run by Harv Howard – Stroud was a figurehead…

Clark on Davis Circle not being picked up for a month – they were told not to pick it up unless the bins were pulled to the curb – “do you think a man with 26 years would allow us to miss…for over a month?” Instructed by Terrell, et. al. to skip that part of route.

Closing arguments.

Sneed – it is understandable why Al McSurely said this was a complicated case given all the unsubstantiated innuendo, conspiracy theories, rumors, etc. but when you pull away all that it becomes a clear case…Clark was close to being fired before, Town counseled him and he held on to his job…how did he repay the Town, management, his coworkers? He was insubordinate, belligerent,…

“Intimidating, threatening conduct..” “Detrimental conduct”

Even though this is Clark’s case, she continues on about Bigelow and Clark…

Town followed their procedure…offered an opportunity for workers to respond during pre-disciplinary process…they rejected that reasonable and required offer…Mr. Norris was left with only one course of action…he took it…

Al McSurely, counsel for Clark, starts…

Outlines Clark family history – parents formed unions on Campus…

Goes into initial retaliation over series of 14 OSHA complaints – including backing up in blind alleys – said Harv Howard called a 7am meeting early March and told crew that Clark/Bigelow was “messing things up” and that they would end up “working 10 hour days” (CW: recall the Town allocates 40 hours for the job but lets the crew get the job done at their own pace – sometimes in little as 4 hours)…Stroud was at that meeting…

First heard of a series complaints…based on unsworn testimony of CAI’s VDL and Town documents that series of complaints has boiled down to 2 complaints by 2 woman living across from each other…the same 2 woman we heard from this evening Al thinks…if the behavior was as bad as described then it constituted criminal conduct – assault – but it wasn’t handled as such…tonight both women agreed they didn’t want the men fired, they didn’t mention intimidating physical behavior, Al would like to talk them about it…

…this wasn’t about the citizen complaints, it was only after the filing of Bigelow’s EEOC complaint that events started moving forward…this was about their union activities…the union was very vital during this time…no doubt that bothered people, made people anxious…worried Stroud…some evidence of that is the Town banned both men from Town property, prohibited them from conducting union efforts…

…Al hasn’t filed a grievance where the other side is happy about it…surely management was worried what would happen if a union was formed … Town would have to start treating their workers as humans…

…this is a matter of due process…

Al ends and so does the meeting.

Well…

As one municipal bond specialist noted, today’s ratings aren’t quite the same as a decade ago:

Since early last year [2009], the number of “AAA”-rated localities has more than doubled, according to a newly released Standard & Poor’s report. Over the last 1 ½ years, despite the withering economic downturn, changes in rating criteria combined with a number of first-time rated “gilt edge” communities served to produce an increase of 86 communities now rated in the top “AAA” category.
…
Of the newly rated “AAAs,” S&P raised 65 from the “AA” category, with the remaining 21 representing communities never previously rated.
…
Traditionally, rating agencies have been tightfisted in their willingness to assign “AAA” ratings to municipal debt. Now, 169 local governments carry S&P’s top rating, up from 70 in late 2006.

Jay H. Abrams, FMS Bonds, Inc.

Standard & Poor’s (S&P) isn’t the only rating agency to review and relax the conditions for awarding a AAA rating:

In early April 2010, Fitch Ratings overhauled the way it assigns grades to the credit quality of state and local governments, recalibrating ratings on 40 states, the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico. The move affects some 38,000 municipal bond issues. The rating agency’s wholesale recalibration is in part recognition that municipalities were being held to a higher standard than corporate and sovereign debt. Moody’s Investors Service also started to recalibrate its universe of municipal bond ratings in mid-April 2010, beginning with changes for 34 states and Puerto Rico.

Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association,2010

So, yes, the Town has managed to hold onto its AAA rating another year but the quality, so to speak, of today’s rating is not necessarily equivalent to that of the ratings awarded 2 or more years ago.

As far as municipal bond ratings, recall that there are three dominant rating agencies (CRAs) who manage the market for ratings (little competition), they routinely make huge mistakes (all 3 rated Enron investment grade right up to the collapse, all 3 rated many of the bundled mortgage securities highly right up to their failures), they are slow to adapt and have a poor record of understanding how to value new trading instruments (like the ARRA Build America Bonds [BABs] our Town just issued).

As I noted previously (most recently here) Chapel Hill’s Town Council has maxed out the credit card. The debt ceiling they have adopted is a reflection of previous borrowing decisions – not a prudent fiscal analysis of what is reasonably sustainable with our current tax-base.

One tool a concerned citizen can use is the Municipal Securities Rule-making Board’s (MSRB) relatively new
Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) system – an analogue to the SEC’s EDGAR – to track filings.

Chapel Hill’s recent $20.1 million filing, which includes the $16+ million for the Library expansion, is here.

Last night Mike Collins and George Cianciolo (current and former heads of the Planning Board) laid out an interesting plan of action to move the Town’s planning process forward.

Most importantly, they underlined the need for a more measurable, nuanced plan that works as an adjunct to the current Comprehensive Plan. Their plan also emphasized “consensus from all stakeholders” – a bit difficult if the members of the task force (if there is one) can’t compromise.

Achieving compromise was one of the more difficult things the Sustainable Community Visioning Task Force faced given the wide diversity of interests and motivations expressed by the group. An unfortunate downside of a “consensus only” approach – key issues were not addressed because of vested interest in a particular outcome. Most notably, when a significant portion of the group pushed to make measurable goals and an acknowledgement of constraints to growth a key tenet, a couple of folks were able to derail that effort.

With such a diverse membership and a widely divergent set of agendas, I expected the group to have difficulty coming to some kind of consensus which is why I proposed we first create a framework for discussing development trade-offs. I thought that we should create a decision-matrix that would factor out those things we could objectively measure, those things we could effectively estimate and those subjective things – like the value of natural beauty – which will probably forever be in the eye of the beholder.

How do we measure those impacts (if they are measurable)? Are the consequences localized or not? Given limited local resources, what upper limit exists if we want to live within our own footprint? How much brown-field is available for redevelopment? Are there restrictions on redevelopment is an area based on the Town’s resource conservation or neighborhood conservation districts? If we overlay all the restrictions imposed by conservation and watershed protection ordinances, by the LUMO (land-use management ordinance) and the underlying development zones, what does Chapel Hill look like?

A very select minority of members, along with staff, did not want to create a decision-matrix to help the group find their way. There was some argument, for instance, whether measuring impacts mattered or if resources, like water, were a limiting factor when the community could purchase it from neighboring municipalities or draw if from Jordan Lake.

Matt Czajkowski made the same argument last night when he said that the new effort would succeed if the membership had a way to discuss, evaluate, measure various trade-offs – to decide what course best to chart.

For that, as he pointed out, consensus would be great but not required. Compromise, though, should fully be expected.

Having gone through one recent iteration of this effort with the SCVTF, it is clear we must start from first principles – establish those elements which are measurable, those which aren’t – and create a clear process for working towards a consensus without requiring a consensus.

This concerted effort sends a clear message – the underlying tensions still exist because the reasons still exist and they won’t go away without a clear and open review. That could start by supporting the two workers request to have a public review hearing of their case.

Tom Monk steps up to the podium. “The Town generally does a good job with sanitation – things smell good – this doesn’t smell good.” Asks for the men to receive unemployment benefits.

Samuel Monk chimes in – “this is a case where the workers have been discriminated against” because of labor organization efforts.

John Heuer concerned about reports of dismissal calls for unemployment benefits.

Wes Hare steps up – came here when Howard Lee was Mayor – he’s been part of the problem for forty years. It just doesn’t make sense, from what he hears from the folks he trusts this is a mess. Agrees with Monk that “this does stink”.

Michelle Laws – reflects on what Mayor Kleinschmidt said in State of the Town and the reality of town. Believes we are following national trend of two nations – one white, one black. We are moving towards two towns – one minority, one white. One rich, one poor. Heard nothing about the poor, the low wage worker, the two towns. Back to Bigelow/Clark – can’t believe that they were fired during the worst recession since the Depression – left with little financial support. Calls out Town on unemployment benefits – says that inspite of protestations of not intervening the lawyer representing the two has received a pile of documents from the unemployment commission that clearly was aimed at dissuading the commission from granting aid.

Robert Campbell – “I come tonight to call for justice…” I come tonight seeking justice for the two workers – it is about human rights and doing the right thing. “I thought scrooge was dead” but in the middle of the holidays we fire these two because of the outcry of one citizen. Since when do we allow one citizen to start a process that deprives the two of their due process. “I don’t need to remind of what happen yesterday….” in the ’70′s when a black student was killed and Chapel Hill was fire bombed….

Kerry Bigelow – Holds sign up that says “I am a Man”. Thanks for support of the folks that turned out. Disappointed on citizens who aren’t paying attention. They ["the Council"] count on citizens “on the sideline” being asleep. It is time for folks to get off the side-lines. His daughter gets up and asks Council to “get on the right side of history”.

Steve Bader – Emphasizes there is no legal requirement for the Town to send the ESC a pile of documents. Many employers don’t send any documentation. Also asks that the Town doesn’t send any managers or staff to the ESC hearing being held in two days. Says someone in Town has violated rules by signing a contract they shouldn’t of – including 10′s of complaints – no movement on that – but on one citizen’s complaint these two were discharged. “These two brothers were stewards” – they were trying to be good stewards of the Town. If the Town doesn’t show up Thursday then they will get their benefits. Why are we just hearing today about an ombudsman – that’s a crime.

MiriamThompson – “We elected you” – we didn’t hire the Town Manager, you did. A Town Manager that hires a notorious union busting group like CAI – who created a bias report. We didn’t hire a Town Manager that hasn’t let the employees confront their accuser. You were elected to support all of us…let’s not enter the year with a stain on our hearts…..

Clyde Clark – The same discrimination is going on. To him it seems one man is running the Town and the Council is “dropping the ball” and following his lead. [CW:presumably the Town Manager?]

The Raging Grannies file out singing “…we are all in this together….”

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.

To quote, the impact fee “could provide a new funding source for Parks and Recreation capital improvements in situations where payments are made in lieu of providing recreation space on site.”

Unlike other development fees, the Planning Board, Parks Commission and Town staff worked to hammer out an assessment that roughly tracked the number of new users of parks and recreation services these new developments add to the overall system. Given that, you would think that a high density development adding 5 times as many folks as a R5 zone development would pay more.

Crazily enough, that isn’t the case.

If you develop a high impact, high density development you can look forward to paying 1/2 what other developers pay and, as a bonus, get the rest of Chapel Hill’s residents to underwrite new recreation services on your behalf. Inequitable – but then again Chapel Hill’s residents have taken on burdens – including subsidizing the West140 development at $10+ million in cash and $15-25+ million in property – for other recent projects.

Since much of Town is built out and the number of low density residential opportunities shrink, the only strong near term revenue source will come from new high density developments. With a number of such new developments/redevelopments in the pipeline you would think staff and the advisory boards would urge Council to move fast – to strike while the iron is hot so to speak. The reality? A provision to delay while all these projects work themselves out of the pipeline.

Just doesn’t seem fair to either Chapel Hill’s existing taxpayers or folks developing less dense options.

From tonight’s staff memo [PDF]:

The following chart illustrates the effect of the proposed change for high density residential projects. The first column shows the required Recreation Space for a residential development using the current system. The second column shows the Recreation Space that would be required if the applicant develops the maximum allowable floor area under the proposed floor area based system, but without a reduction. The following columns show various reductions by percentage. The highlighted column is the recommended 50% reduction.

Proposed Reduction High Density Development Recreation Impact Fee

Here’s the remarks I made this evening (as usual – I edit on the fly so they reflect what I meant to say):

A few of you might recall that I have asked Council to provide a family friendly park, pocket parks along with other amenities Downtown these last 6 years. With that in mind, I’ve been following and commenting on the evolution of the proposed ordinance since it was first suggested. While the overall framework looks solid, tonight I’d like to highlight a glaring problem with that ordinance.

Higher density development Downtown has been promoted by calls for the need for more residents Downtown. More residents means more demand for high quality recreational opportunities.

The higher cost of development also applies to creating suitable recreational opportunities for these folks within or near their high density residences Downtown and elsewhere.

The proposed ratio of residential recreation space for TC1-3, RSSC, MUV and OI districts has been reduced – as the Parks Commission memo states – because “this provision may be necessary in order to encourage high density development in appropriate areas and to address the higher costs related to building high density development.” Note, no supporting material for that contention is given.

This ordinance has been in the pipeline since 2008 and the parameters for calculating much higher in lieu payments discussed since early this year. That hasn’t stopped proposals – like tonight’s Courtyard redevelopment project – from coming forward.

The proposed %50 reduction in the required ratio means that the burden of providing these facilities is shifted off the shoulders of the developers who are profiting from this type development squarely onto the rest of us residents in Chapel Hill.

As we’ve seen from the new crop of high density developments – East54 and Greenbridge, for instance – the community has invested significantly in infrastructure upgrades . These projects were granted substantial and beneficial variances above and beyond those allowed by the underlying zones. In one case a new zone – TC3 – was created to make the project work. In other words, we – the Chapel Hill community – have already supported this type of development with greater height limits, floor area ratios, reduced setbacks, reduced buffer, etc.

At least Greenbridge stepped up and accepted, as a condition of their SUP, a required payment to support the Hargraves Center.

Now the community is being asked to subsidize recreational opportunities for these high density developers who have already received the community’s largesse.

What do we know then? We know that there has been no evidence provided that supports the contention that having high density developers pay their fair share will impede the submission or approval of these type projects.

We know that reducing the required ratio will shift the cost of providing quality recreational opportunities onto the shoulders of the folks living outside these projects. This includes folks that have been waiting years, sometimes decades, for key unmet improvements they have already paid for with their taxes.

With projects like the University Square redevelopment, Courtyard and Obeys Creek, we know that delaying the implementation of this ordinance means with there is a good chance the best opportunities for developers to share the cost of providing public recreational facilities for the residents of their projects and nearby neighborhoods will be missed.

Please rethink the reductions in the high density requirements in light of the costs, the opportunities on the horizon and a common matter of fairness to the rest of Chapel Hill’s taxpaying public.

Summer, though, is not always a time for sluggish vigilance. For instance, I learned many years ago UNC’s favored tactic of launching potentially controversial development initiatives or making, quietly, substantial changes to existing development plans, during the summer doldrums. While UNC’s transparency has improved since the Moeser era, the record is sometimes spotty. For instance, as summer began the sharp contrast between UNC’s commitment to transparency during the Carolina North development agreement process and the quiet introduction of site proposals made June 21st to the Corps of Engineers.

While the cat is away….

UNC, of course, isn’t the only local institution to strategically start or stop potentially unpleasant, at least to the public, initiatives while most residents are off-line. The County, Town and other local groups have counted on a somewhat soporific citizenry ignoring substantial shifts in direction in the heat of the summer. While counter to the many pledges of greater transparency, the trick often works.

Mid-summer policy shifts, though, also happen as staff, freed from pesky community and elected folks intervention, make strides on the pile of work before them.

One good example, the local Municipal Planning Organization’s Hwy. 54-I40 corridor study, has moved forward at an accelerating pace. The MPO, a joint effort by Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Durham to manage regional growth, is formulating a set of development policies which will have wide ranging impacts on Chapel Hill’s eastern entrance (somewhat marred already by ugly East54, et. al.).

Public comment was to be cultivated during three outreach sessions but that input, at least based on my reading of the current draft, owes more to fitting public commentary to an established agenda than changing course based on valid public concerns. The clock is ticking on this initiative, which simmered during Spring and is reaching full boil now. Council will be asked to review the plan mid-September, and, as of now, hasn’t really set a schedule for Chapel Hill residents to weigh in (in other words, what is before us now might substantially be what is adopted).

While, at first glance, the Hwy 54/I-40 corridor study might seem a bit abstract, of little consequence now, its tenets will come into play quite soon when developer Carol-Ann Zinn pushes Ayden Court v2.0 this Fall. Ayden Court was a proposed development which ran afoul of fowl. Concerns about maintaining a local waterfowl conservation area played a role in v1.0′s demise.

There are many other pots simmering, some of which are beginning to emit steam.

Two meetings, the Glenn Lennox Neighborhood Conservation District which shifted from information gathering to its next phase and the presentation of the latest Campus-to-Campus Connector draft proposal, have already occurred (don’t worry, I made copious notes which I plan to turn into posts …. soon … ).

Here’s is a short list of coming events and meetings which you might want to consider attending as August speeds to an end:

• Saturday, Aug. 14th, 11:30am-6:30pm. Rogers Road Back to School Bash. More here.
• Saturday, Aug. 14th, 5:30pm-7:30pm. The People’s Channel Live from Carrboro’s Orange County Social Club. More here and WCHL1360 report here.
• Monday, Aug. 16th, 5:15pm at Town Hall Council Chambers. Public Information Meeting: IFC Community House Men’s Shelter.
• Tuesday, Aug. 17th, 5:30pm. 1st floor conference room. Civilian Review Board Council Committee. Controversial citizen review board to monitor Chapel Hill Police Department.
• Tuesday, Aug. 17th.
  

  ORANGE COUNTY, NC – The Orange County Board of Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, August 17, 2010 during its regularly scheduled meeting. The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m. at the Department of Social Services Office, 113 Mayo Street in Hillsborough.

  The Public Hearing during the meeting will provide an opportunity for the public to comment on the potential uses for funds from a possible one-quarter cent (1/4¢) additional sales tax in Orange County, NC.

  During the 2007 legislative session, the North Carolina General Assembly granted county boards of commissioners the authority to levy, subject to voter approval, an additional one-quarter cent county sales and use tax.

  On June 15, 2010, the Board of Commissioners approved a resolution calling for a special advisory referendum on November 2, 2010 on a potential one-quarter cent (1/4¢) additional sales tax in Orange County. The November 2, 2010 ballot question will ask Orange County voters to vote either for or against a local sales and use tax at the rate of one-quarter cent in addition to all other state and local sales and use tax.

  It is projected the one-quarter cent county sales and use tax would generate approximately $2,300,000 for Orange County on an annual basis. If the voters approve the referendum on November 2, 2010, implementation would not start until April 1, 2011 and generate approximately $575,000 during the remainder of current fiscal year (FY 2010-11) that ends on June 30, 2011.

• Thursday, Aug. 19th, 5:30pm. HR conference room Town Hall.Planning Board Shelter Committee.
• Monday, Aug. 23rd, 5:15pm. Chapel Hill Town Hall Council Chambers.Ayden Court Development review.

Let me know if I’ve missed anything!

Is that the case?

The IFC and UNC’s School of Social Work put together this map highlighting many of the social services throughout Chapel Hill/Carrboro.

This contrasts with a more local snapshot of services prepared by the folks at A Better Site – an advocacy group asking for a more transparent siting process.

The Community House facility, as currently proposed, will serve two purposes.

The primary goal is to house men as they transition from a state of dependency to independence within a highly structured program. Entrance into this program is selective, adherence to its strictures mandatory, monitoring compliance integral.

The secondary function of the facility is to serve as an emergency men’s shelter. It is this secondary function which has caused, at least from what I can tell, concern within the wider community.

While Orange County is responsible for housing folks in emergencies, that responsibility has been IFC’s to shoulder the last few decades. The IFC currently operates a shelter along with a soup kitchen (and other similar immediate services) in the old Chapel Hill Town Hall on the corner of Rosemary and Columbia streets. The long term plan was to move the soup kitchen down to Carrboro and move the emergency shelter out of the old Town Hall.

As I’ve commented before, while I support the mission of the IFC, find the goals of Community House more than laudable, it is the emergency shelter component of the IFC proposal I find most difficult to accept. The logistical issues surrounding moving folks back and forth from the shelter, managing the access to the shelter, etc. seem to make this site unsustainable. I’d like to see IFC rethink this part of the plan and possibly consider combining, as it is now, the new food service facility in Carrboro with an emergency shelter component. If not that, at least split the emergency shelter out of the current plan.

Of course, meeting the needs of those struggling the most is not and never was the obligation of the IFC. It’s incredible that Chapel Hill has such a caring, committed organization that stepped into the vacuum created by a dearth of governmental attention.

In fact, both Carrboro’s and the County’s elected folks continue to sit on the sidelines, quietly keeping out of these discussions, showing little or no political leadership in meeting this joint community obligation.

We are poised to hear more of folks concerns as the Community House initiative starts to move forward.

Monday, Aug. 16th, 5:15pm at Town Hall, the Town will host a Public Information Meeting: IFC Community House Men’s Shelter followed by a meeting by the Planning Board Shelter Committee Aug. 19th, 5:30pm, HR conference room Town Hall.

The first meeting will provide a current overview of where the Community House proposal is within the Town’s development review process.

The second meeting, which on the face of it, appears tangential to the approval of various stipulations influencing the construction of Community House, might actually be the more important of the two.

The Council, loathe to adopt specific siting criteria prior to the IFC’s request for a special use permit (SUP) asked the Planning Board to create general criteria for siting shelters within Chapel Hill. This bit of maneuvering created a bit of smokescreen which lent nothing to greater transparency (given the rocky start of this project, it’s troubling, even to supporters, that Council missed an opportunity to provide clarity). The Planning Board initially kicked the request back to Council citing the “vagueness” of what they were being asked to do. Tossing the shelter hot potato back, Council suggested a few exploratory paths of consideration.

The sub-text of the discussions between this Planning Board sub-committee and the public, and quite possibly their work product, will influence further the direction the Community House project takes, which makes Aug. 19th the more interesting of the two public meetings to me.

I left prior to Council’s revisiting Laurin Easthom’s reasonable request for further fiscal analysis of Library funding, I’ll report back on that soon…

The first big bang of the evening, Council approved the %15 affordable housing inclusionary zoning ordinance.

Before voting for the zone, Jim Ward brought up the same fiscal equity issue I raised about this ordinance months ago. Downtown developments are only required to provide %10 affordable housing under the logic that it is more expensive to develop Downtown and that development will be driven into other parts of Town to avoid a %15 requirement.

Sally Greene reiterated that the existing density and height bonuses were not sufficient to overcome developers reluctance in meeting a standard %15 requirement. Of course, while property Downtown is more expensive to develop it also demands far greater premiums – something the analysis downplays. Her argument also doesn’t account for the radically increased density/height allowances in TC-3 – the self-serving zone Council created for their Lot $5 disaster.

Mark Kleinschmidt acknowledged that the inclusionary zone wasn’t fully baked and suggested that it be reviewed one year out. The zone, whose goals are laudable, could’ve used a bit more polish before setting in motion. We’ll see if the gaps are filled in 2012 (if the Council is entangled in litigation over the provisions by then).

While I semi-live ‘blogged the discussion of creating guidelines, standards or zones for human service facilities there are a few more observations to add.

First, there was a strange juxtaposition between the discussion of siting human service facilities, including “white flag” emergency shelters, and the approval of the inclusionary zone.

In initial discussions of the inclusionary zone, several of us argued that space should be allocated not just for affordable housing but community-oriented uses like human services facilities. Using a zoning process would be one way the Town could find needed space for these type facilities. We got the same response as when we asked Council to include space for feeding/housing the homeless at East54 or Lot #5 – not interested.

Council continues to reject calls to make this part of our development approval process (if Roger Perry’s Obeys Creek proceeds I’ll be asking Council to set aside some of that mandated square footage or in lieu monies for community-oriented services outside of affordable housing).

Second, the IFC has tried very hard to work within the rules informally suggested for siting the new Community House facility.

One primary requirement was that the property didn’t need rezoning.

I’ve watched Council twist zones, like the RSSC zone meant to encourage %100 affordable housing into a spot zone for hundreds of luxury condos for their business partner RAM Development, to meet their political agenda. Ed Harrison observed the current SUP process is a “crap shoot”. I’ve seen similar Council machinations use the SUP process to meet various goals (many I agree with) so why can’t we roll the dice favorably?

The point being that while the IFC struggled to find a site that doesn’t need rezoning, there are many examples of where a particular zone was little or no impediment to Council approval of a project (look at the creation of TC-3 for Greenbridge, West140 and which will apply to Short Bridge development and University Square redevelopment, look at how East54′s developer Roger Perry got a range of allowances to maximize his profit, etc.).

Of course, this is a main concern of Homestead’s neighborhood activists.

Without binding zoning requirements (well, as binding as Chapel Hill makes them) or standards mandated by ordinance, the Council can twist the current rules to meet their own agenda and reject public concerns.

The IFC continues to jump through what must seem like an endless series of hoops in an effort to provide two services, one – an emergency shelter – of which is squarely the County’s responsibility, the other – a transitional program to move folks from homelessness to established residents – which is commendable on every measurable axes.

After years of marching through the desert, th group submitted their special-use permit (SUP) request this morning – moving the project forward to an eventual yea or nay vote early Fall.

Neighborhood activists have already helped IFC sharpen their proposal. The move to address some of their concerns is what is fueling the drive to create a transparent, somewhat objective, process for evaluating siting services.

As the Community House discussion lurches into the next phase, I anticipate arguments over what guidelines or standards should apply and what decision-making framework – the Planning Board’s findings, SUP process or some kind of intermediate hybrid – will dictate the eventual result.

The residents of Chapel Hill deserve an open discussion on not just siting human services but providing future space for anticipated human service requirements. Not only should the current process yield a set of somewhat binding standards for evaluating particular sites but also provide a framework for measuring the cumulative impact and operational advantages of siting services compactly within the community.

Finally, my hope is that the current process opens up a real discussion on this Town’s obligation to support IFC and other incredible human service groups within this community.

That discussion should be frank and honest.

Council must explain why human services aren’t sited at developments like East54 as part of the SUP process, why it is so easy to twist a zone like RSSC or create a TC-3 zone for their own agenda while making the IFC jump through hoops to find an existing zone and why the newly minted inclusionary zone doesn’t include a mandate to set aside square footage for both affordable housing and human services.

Quick note from this evening’s Council meeting. Council member Laurin Easthom renewed her reasonable request (reviewed here [THE LIBRARY AND THE FREE LUNCH]) for additional fiscal analysis of the recently approved Library expansion.

Her original April 2009 request to the staff and Town Manager for a range of specific funding scenarios to manage both the transitional and additional operational cost of the Library expansion has been rebuffed successfully over the last year.

Why the delay?

Possible political embarrassment to some of the Council folks who pressed for expansion in-spite of foreseeable negative consequences. A real analysis would reveal the weakness of the current estimates for these costs.

Tonight’s problem, though, is that Laurin is well within her rights as a sitting member of the Council to request staff input and that foot-dragging is not acceptable. Rather than strengthening her call for informed decision making, some of her colleagues have tacitly participated in this delay.

Tonight her re-request for this information spawned a half-hour of meandering Council commentary.

Instead of a clear directive to staff to produce the report, Mayor Kleinschmidt punted the issue to later this evening. Mark, rather than reaffirming his colleagues simple, reasonable request, dispatching it quickly, instead, muttering several times that “folks are waiting” and “we’ll discuss this after 12:30″, pushed it to the Council meeting dead zone.

Anyone that still buys the myth former Mayor Foy touted of a Council grounded in collegiality should take heed how the tactics of the imperial mayoral-ship he fostered impedes respectful dissent even within the Council itself and harms a transparent, reality-based approach to decision-making.

The tax, if approved, will bump our local sales tax to %8 with all the additional proceeds going directly to the county (it seems like it was mentioned several hundred times that the municipalities would get NADA from the increase). Best estimates, and only if a pending state bill is passed, has the county reaping in $500K in 2011 rising to $2.4M in 2012.

I spoke before the BOCC on the issue – raising a few concerns, suggesting a possible course of action.

I acknowledged the Commishes quandary in filling the current $9.4M hole in the County’s budget and the near certainty of dealing with an even deeper one in 2011. I recognized the appeal in making a seemingly small increase in a tax that is spread across a wider arc than property taxpayers. I understood it probably seemed an easier sell especially given the recent turmoil over our hefty property revaluations and the failed attempt to create a land transfer tax.

I also pointed out even though it doesn’t apply to food or medicines that the increase represented an additional burden on those folks living here who can least afford it (the characterization in the press that “what the heck, it’s only a few more bucks week!” really bothers me).

By its nature, it is a regressive tax.

Given that increased burden, I asked the BOCC to commit in as legally a binding way as possible, to dedicating the new revenue to funding the rapidly growing demand on social services. That revenue should bolster the existing commitment and go well beyond this year’s baseline (not to rely on it, as many counties have with the NC lottery and education).

Steve Yuhaz and a few other commissioners suggested throwing this modest amount of money – $2.5M at best – at the schools or pouring it down the current economic development rat-hole.

Spending $2.5M on needed social services would have a much more profound effect than adding to the considerable school system overhead or to funding economic incentives during this downturn. And it’s the right thing to do given the rather dire outlook for next year.

Other than clearly dedicating the use of the funds, I also asked for two additional provisions:

• that the tax increase be time limited – maybe 3-4 years at most – in order to emphasize that this wasn’t a case of avoiding fiscal discipline but a response to some very difficult circumstances
• that the public be given plenty of opportunity to weigh in.

At the conclusion of the topic it was clear that public input beforehand will have to come quick – June 15th to be exact.

Some quick observations/comments.

Several counties, like New Hanover, were used as success stories for the referendum. New Hanover, of course, has much lower property taxes and with its tourist draws has much greater outside revenue flows. Orange County’s increase will be borne mostly by Orange County residents.

Comments by several commissioners that this broad 1/4 percent sales tax would bring revenues in from residents not currently “paying their fair share” made very little sense given that a pretty good chunk of the existing %7.75 sales tax paid by all residents ends up in the county coffers.

It was also strange how quickly the discussion settled on two options – raise sales taxes or property taxes. The obvious third option – raise no taxes – didn’t make it onto the table.

My suggestion to time limit the measure didn’t get traction. Long time NC residents probably recall that a fair portion of the existing %7.75 sales tax was supposed to be “temporary”. Like many of the current “usage fees” and other tax burdens, government claims on our income tend to take on a life of their own and rarely get rolled-back (at least on middle and lower income folks). The rates might get adjusted but the real outlays stay the same or increase.

It’s hard to dodge the appearance that raising the sales tax rate has more to do with an inability to prioritize spending than fiscal discipline when the increase has an open-ended expiration date.

Sales tax revenue is sensitive to prevailing economic conditions. Without a dramatic upturn in the economy or a steep expansion in the County’s commercial tax base – both unlikely in the near future – the dependability of this revenue stream is not sufficient to fund core services.

Finally, the oddest arguments of the evening circulated around the reason for raising and the commitment to restrict the expenditure of the funds. Many commissioners argued (and then voted for) a course of action that essentially boiled down to this: put the referendum on the ballot with little public discussion and then invite the community to speculate on what the funds are to be used for and how firm the obligation to spend them accordingly will be.

Strange inversion.

I pushed for public participation first, a clear statement on the use of the new revenues (I lobbied for human services first, debt reduction – as County Manager Clifton pointed out – a good second) and a legally binding obligation to use the funds for that specified reason.

That way the community would have a clear idea early on as to what they would be asked to vote into being.

Feels like, at least at this point (with June 15th weeks away), public participation is an afterthought.

Before we got started there were a few issues to address involving recruitment of a diverse membership to reflect both the concerns of the business community and the community as a whole. After settling on over 20 members, we began to work on a fairly ambitious task – to create a framework for making reasonable decisions on beneficial growth over the next 10 years.

The last few months the SCVTF worked diligently to create a set of principles that will inform our final work product. In the last few weeks, though, concerns about how to address issues raised as long ago as last Spring, once again surfaced.

Four members, Amy Ryan, Del Snow, Madeline Jefferson and myself, submitted the following letter to the committee as a whole this evening outlining not only our concerns but some proposals to more effectively, efficiently and energetically move forward with the task at hand.

Kudos to Amy for doing a fantastic job of word-smithing:

March 8, 2010

Members of the Sustainable Community Visioning Task Force,

When the task force was convened last summer, we were united in one thing: our willingness to commit a significant amount of time and energy to the task of ensuring that the future development of Chapel Hill would proceed in a positive and equitable manner. We all see the importance of providing citizen guidance to town staff, review boards, and local developers for managing the successful growth of our town.

As was made evident at the last meeting, there is a group of task force members who are concerned with the direction our work has taken and feel that our mission is being compromised. We would therefore like to take this opportunity to state our concerns in detail and propose an alternative to the process currently under way.

Our concerns with the current process fall into four specific areas:

1. No opportunity to look at the big picture

By focusing first on individual key areas in town that are likely to develop, we will not be looking at the town as a whole, as we were charged to do, and will not be able to see the cumulative impacts of our recommendations.

Unless we spend many meetings looking at every key area (which the task force seems disinclined to do) and then assessing the cumulative impact of all of them together, under the current plan we will have no way of determining whether our recommendations are reasonable, equitable, or practical for the town as a whole.

2.No specificity

The current Comprehensive Plan does an admirable job of providing general guidance for the development of Chapel Hill, but many of its provisions and recommendations are vague enough that they can be used to justify a broad range of development options, some less desirable than others. The task force’s set of guiding principles, while useful as a general statement of our vision, do not make any progress toward offering more specific, concrete guidelines for the town and local developers.

We agree that it is not the SCVTF’s job to create detailed small area plans, nor do we feel that such exercises are a particularly effective way of guiding real world development. Rather, beginning with the principles’ general vision for the town’s development, it should be the task force’s goal to provide leadership in guiding the town to begin developing specific, context-based guidelines for future development.

3.No acknowledgment of constraints

As the process is currently constituted, there is no mechanism for the task force to acknowledge and plan for factors that will limit the town’s development. The school district has confirmed that we are running out of sites in town for building new schools; the resources of our local watershed are finite; we can add only so many more cars to current roads before quality of life deteriorates; like all communities we have a responsibility to work toward sustainable resource use.

Phil’s “Where Do We Go from Here” memo of 3/9/10 (PDF) states that our charge is “recommending what kinds of growth and where growth can occur if it does occur, not whether growth should occur, or how much or how little.” While none of us are in a position to predict the future, we also can offer no meaningful guidance to growth without accepting and working with at least some general parameters of how much growth is expected, responsible, and desirable. We were charged by Mayor Foy to “challenge all assumptions,” not to work without any assumptions whatsoever.

4. No plan for iterative community input

In our discussions at the beginning of our tenure, the group was strongly in favor of obtaining community input that would provide feedback on our work along the way.

Until Phil’s 3/9 memo, the task force had not been informed of any plans for eliciting community opinion on our recommendations before our report goes to council. If the goal of a May report to council still holds, we question whether there is time for steps 3 and 4 of Phil’s plan to be implemented and incorporated into our report.

For our work to succeed, it must be “owned” not just by us, but by the community as a whole. Adequate time for public input on the guiding principles, hierarchy of trade-offs, and vision for all key development areas is crucial to making this happen.

Given these concerns, we would like to propose modifications to the plan of the task force’s work as we carry forward:

1. Spend one or two meetings on a Reality Check exercise

Given high and low estimates of population changes anticipated in Chapel Hill, along with accepted formulas for calculating expected demand for schools, commercial space, water, etc., it should be possible to form rough estimates of how many square feet of new residential, commercial, and civic space the town will require and can support. The task force could then spend one meeting in small groups deciding how this growth could be logically allocated throughout town; another meeting would allow reconciliation of the groups’ visions into a single task force plan, which town staff could review for conflicts or other problems.

This step would allow us to address big picture issues while avoiding hours of extra meting time looking at each small area in detail in order to build a picture of the cumulative development effects. It would also allow us to work within our development “budget,” accommodating constraints and planning for the town’s future needs. The resulting map would also provide a clear object for testing against the task force’s guiding principles.

2.Conduct character-based small-area development studies of one or two key neighborhoods

Using the information obtained from the Reality Check exercise, the task force could take the development allocated to one or two specific areas and take a close look at how best it could be accommodated.

The product of such a study would be a clear statement of the current neighborhood character, identification of opportunities for development and important elements to preserve, guidance for reconciling expected conflicts and making trade-offs, and specific examples for developers and town staff and boards on what kind of development would be appropriate.

Ideally, this exercise would be a quick example of a more in-depth process that the town would ultimately conduct in each neighborhood in town where significant development is likely to occur.

3.Plan for community input

It is vital to provide enough time for citizens to review and comment on the task force’s work as it progresses. Key elements for review would include (1) our refined list of guiding principles (after we have tested them in one or two small areas); (2) our map showing general allocation of development across the town from the Reality Check exercise; and (3) our recommendations for the select key areas we study.

When the town moved forward to develop in-depth neighborhood plans, it would obviously be crucial to get citizen input about how they see the neighborhood, what is lacking, what development works, and what doesn’t. This information would be the basis for the work of whatever group was charged with carrying this work forward.

While all members of the SCVTF may not have the exact same vision for Chapel Hill, we are united in our concern for the town and its future. It is time for us to be united in framing and agreeing to the process that will carry us forward. At the end of our tenure, we should all agree that we have produced a product that will identify the principles we hold in common, help us preserve what we value and improve what is falling short, and provide useful guidance for the town as it grows and develops. The process we have outlined above can be accomplished efficiently, will produce more useful guidance for the town, and will provide the basis for developing the specific development vision and guidelines the town so urgently needs.

Signed,

Amy Ryan
Del Snow
Madeline Jefferson
Will Raymond

cc: Garrett Davis
Phil Boyle
Mayor Kleinschmidt
SCVTF mailing list