The Daily Tar Heel’s online editor Sara Gregory has created this excellent tool for visualizing crime in Chapel Hill. This is an example of effectively using low or no cost Internet technologies to serve our community. Some of us on the Town’s now defunct Technology Board wanted to leverage technology like Google Maps to better inform our public.

For all the whizzy appearance of our Town’s new website, we still have a long way to go including tools to track crime, to report on the status of development projects and to allow citizens to log work requests for neighborhood issues (filling potholes, fixing streetlights, etc.) the Town needs to address.

I’m contacting both Sara and Chapel Hill Police Chief Brian Curran to see if the Town can expand on what Sara has started. I’ll report back soon….

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

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

Even after 40 years the Moon landing remains one of the touchstones of my life.

I am fascinated by science. Growing up I, like many other kids of the ’60′s, dreamed of traveling to space. I wanted to join NASA and help make those dreams reality. It seemed a given that rational investigation and thoughtful scientific debate would lead this country forward to greater horizons.

My enthusiasm led me along a course of science fairs, contests, advanced physics/chemistry/biology/math classes and, eventually, degrees in math and computer science. From that a career in engineering and technology.

That “can do” optimism our country showed, even when mired in the midst of the Vietnam war – on the heels of other national tragedies, is something we should recall today as we face numerous adversities.

“Ad astra per aspera — “to the stars through difficulties” – has never been truer.

On the cusp of the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11′s Moon landing, I remain optimistic that this country, our citizens, can surmount any challenge – from closest to home to furthest in space – with equal fortitude.

Walter Cronkite, a solid and trusted presence in my youth (for example), was as excited about space as I was – and he wasn’t afraid to show it either (he also wasn’t afraid to put his reputation on the line and call it like it is).

Cronkite, 92, died July 18th. In this day of media dominated by shouting heads, gotcha, personality over perspective, his passing marks more than the end of one admired journalist life.

Neil Armstrong Statement on the Death of Walter Cronkite

The following is a statement issued by Apollo 11 Commander Neil Armstrong on the death of Walter Cronkite.

“For a news analyst and reporter of the happenings of the day to be successful, he or she needs three things: accuracy, timeliness, and the trust of the audience. Many are fortunate to have the first two. The trust of the audience must be earned.

“Walter Cronkite seemed to enjoy the highest of ratings. He had a passion for human space exploration, an enthusiasm that was contagious, and the trust of his audience. He will be missed.”

This is an error on Google’s part and they have been notified. It appears an old version of a WordPress (the blogging software I use) plugin triggered the alert. Strangely enough, the code StopBadware.org flagged was actually there to remove possibly malicious comments submitted by others causing problems.

In short, CitizenWill is safe and, hopefully, Google will lift their ban ASAP.

I’m going to continue to post correspondence which might be of public interest.

The Town’s Technology Board (now defunct) was the first advisory board I regularly interacted with. The first meeting I attended was about six years ago (I was a lowly citizen then, not a member). I presented the group what I called a “technology manifesto” of proposed technology enhancements for the Town.

The “manifesto” outlined five major areas for improvement including cost saving initiatives, use of open source software, adoption of open standards, broadening community outreach via the Internet, tracking both the planning process and other relevant Town business processes, publishing Council and Town Manager emails, what is now called social networking sites for direct interaction between citizens and Town, WIFI to bridge the digital divide, public fiber infrastructure as an economic development differentiator, website accessibility, etc.

It was quite a list. The Technology Board seemed a bit stunned (or maybe bored) but, even so, they did me the courtesy of listening as I outlined my plan of action.

I continued working on those items when I became an official member of that board. Some of the initiatives have moved forward. Others languish. None have been completed.

One issue I brought forward was on-line video of Council and other important advisory board proceedings. Because of the sketchy minutes many advisory groups kept, I also wanted audio of all board proceedings.

When the Town lagged in their effort to put Council meetings on-line, I took it upon myself to upload (here) as many as possible. Finally the Town contracted with Granicus (which uses Microsoft’s proprietary technology) to do the same.

Now we have video (here) which is easily accessible for those folks running Winblows. Mac and Linux users are kind of cut out (see the problem with not using open standards?).

Anyway, long windup to another in a long line of re-requests. In this case, online video documenting the proceedings of our Planning Board (pretty common elsewhere, important when minutes lag Council approvals or don’t adequately capture debate).

Last week the cable-customer supported People’s Channel presented their annual report. As part of that report, they expressed an interest in doing more coverage of governmental events.

I sent this to the PC’s Director Chad Johnston Nov. 11th:

Hey Chad,

I’d like to follow up on Kevin’s comments last night.

I’m not sure if you are aware of my several year effort to get Council to broadcast advisory meetings, but I believe this is what Kevin was referring to.

In terms of priority, I have asked that the Planning Board be the first in line. As you know, the Planning Board’s decisions have significant impact on the community. Many other communities already broadcast their deliberations.

Do you think TPC could assist the Town in that effort?

Thanks

Here’s what I asked Mayor Foy the same day:

Kevin,

Since you brought the issue up last night. As you know, I’ve been calling for more extensive coverage of advisory board proceedings for years. Priority one, I believe, is broadcasting and posting video of all the Planning Board sessions. This is quite common elsewhere. Planning Board’s decisions have significant impact on the community. Beyond their process, which we could do a much better job explaining, zoning issues as a whole seem somewhat opaque to the wider community.

Televising their proceedings would go a long way towards involving our community at a point where their concerns can have the most impact.

I hope you will put this on a fast-track with Chad and company.

Thank you

To date I’ve had no response from either Chad or Kevin. I’ll update folks should I hear from them on what I think would be an excellent improvement to our governance process.

As I said before (Filling Bill’s Seat, Not His Shoes), serving the community as a Council member is a responsibility I take quite seriously. It is an awesome privilege, an incredible honor, a humbling trust that promises personal satisfaction if one serves to improve the lot of all our residents.

There are many ways to serve ones community: hands-on volunteering, member of an advisory board, working within or creating a community organization, direct advocacy, issues analysis, drumming up support via the local media, etc. Some folks enjoy and are quite effective working behind the scenes. Others pursue solutions to their own neighborhood’s problems. Others work to achieve specific goals – better bicycle access, open space preservation, Bolin Creek’s restoration – that impact the wider community. Some press our government to be better, set an example whether as proponents of equal rights for all or in the conduct of our law enforcement.

Though lately my efforts have mostly fallen more to analysis, outreach, organization and advocacy – I’ve worked with a variety of folks in a variety of ways to address a broad spectrum of community issues these last seven years. And though I haven’t always been successful, I have, I hope, helped move our community forward to some measurable degree.

Council has incorporated my contributions on a variety of issues – preserving the Lincoln Arts Center, Downtown WIFI, environmental metrics for Carolina North, online video of Council meetings, cost reductions, character of affordable housing, economic development, budgeting for hazardous waste removal, etc. – why, then, not continue working issues from the “outside”?

One advantage of having “a seat at the table” is staff support.

As you might expect, with a steady flow of information and thoughtful assistance from our Town’s staff those 30 or more hours a week I currently spend researching and analyzing issues can be utilized more efficiently. On some issues, like Dr. Owens on the Carolina North development agreement process or Amy’s on the application process (see below), I’ve had no difficulty in getting rapid, detailed responses.

On others, like my quest for detailed public records documenting our Town’s fuel, water and electricity consumption, almost four years have passed with no progress. I expect that backlog, and others, to be resolved as a sitting member of Council.

Another advantage is being able to contribute directly at the policy meetings I frequently attend.

For instance, at yesterday’s (Oct. 22nd) Carolina North development agreement meeting, UNC’s proposed landfill gas recovery project (LFG) came up as an issue. There was some confusion concerning the impact of this particular project on the Carolina North plan.

I attended UNC’s presentation last week (more on that soon), and knew what the specific proposal included: gas lines from the existing landfill on Eubanks supplying methane to a 1 mega-watt (Mw) generator at the old Duke Energy site whose output was going to be used to supply UNC’s Airport Drive facility (which currently consumes 1.2Mw daily). As a Council member, I could have quickly brought my colleagues up-to-speed. Instead of meandering through misconceptions, the Council could have focused on what I think is a core issue in developing the Carolina North development agreement: how will out-parcels that will support Carolina North’s development, like the old Duke Energy facility, be incorporated under the provisions of the agreement?

Council’s workload over the next seven months is daunting. Juggling Carolina North and what promises to be the most critical budget process of the last couple decades is work enough, but those are just a few of many issues hurtling forward. Economic development, Downtown’s revitalization, a slew of moderate to large-scale developments, facility expansions, housing ordinances – a whole panoply of public business mundane to game-changing faces the next Council member.

Even with a seat at the table, to effectively discharge the duties of Council member at a level our community deserves over these next six or seven months will take a concentrated effort that I think most citizens would be surprised by.

Laurin Easthom isn’t kidding about 11lb. meeting agendas. Matt Czajkowski wasn’t joking about meeting until 1am.

I did a quick check of the scheduled official Council meetings from Nov. 11th (the date the Council set to select a new member) until June 22nd (the date the Town and UNC set to finish the Carolina North agreement): 30 or more. As Matt and Lauren both recently noted, the workload has increased to the point that meetings go 5 or more hours.

With the additional Carolina North related informational/community outreach meetings scheduled by either the Town or UNC’s administration (including UNC-BOT/Orange County BOCC meetings), there is another 8 (as of Oct. 23rd).

I am one applicant that will come prepared to be, as Council member Laurin Easthom says, “proactive…on the council” and “have areas that they really want to work on making changes and spend extra time on those issues that are important to them”.

I have the advantage in that the Council should have a fairly good grasp of the portfolio of issues I wish to work on (more on that portfolio in my formal application). Common themes – improving our Town’s budget and budgeting process, extending our Town’s community outreach efforts, using technology more effectively to drive cost out of and improving delivery of Town services, working along-side UNC to make Carolina North a “win-win” proposition for both our community and the University – have been well-established over the last six years.

If I add in all the advisory boards and staff groups (like the internal technology steering committee) I would like to be appointed to as Council liaison, the number of meetings jumps to 76. All together, considering both time spent preparing and meeting, in order to diligently perform my civic duties at a level I believe this community requires, I will spend more than 280 hours over the next 7 months, or more than an hour a day on Town business.

Of course, that is my commitment to the community. Other possible applicants might not want to invest that much time , wish to involve themselves so broadly or obligate themselves as deeply.

Finally, the most significant reason to seek a seat is the possibility of directly influencing and deciding the direction our Town moves.

There is a ton of work to be done over the next seven months. As a Council member, someone with a “seat at the table”, I will focus on the many tasks at hand. I don’t expect to create major new initiatives over those seven months. I do expect to pitch in, fill in the gaps,work hard to shape and refine effective policy,keep our citizens aware and involved as issues progress and apply my expertise as a former corporate technical and information officer to make sure we continue to deliver quality service at a price our community can afford.

I also fully know that I will be one among nine other committed colleagues. Their viewpoints don’t always mesh with mine – and that, I believe, is the strength I will bring to this Council. Delay is not our friend but neither is the lack of informed deliberation.

Sometimes, in the pursuit of “cohesiveness”, our citizens are left behind. I am frequently asked how a particular policy was adopted, how a particular decision arrived at – questions that arise because the give-and-take necessary for shaking a policy out – making sure it is viable – is not always readily apparent. Not all issues demand debate but our citizens must be confident that, when necessary, debate – even public debate – will be embraced.

So, little time, if any, to start new major initiatives. Plenty of work without revisiting the past. Prepared, experienced and ready-to-roll on Carolina North, the budget and a passel of other key issues. Incredible opportunity to contribute effectively and directly to the major game-changing projects. Exciting times to be part of Chapel Hill’s leadership.

Plenty of reasons to apply.

Amy Harvey, from the Clerk’s office, sent me this further explanation of the selection process. Five to ten minutes sounds like a long time but I’m sure I’ll have no problem filling them up !

The Council will receive brief remarks from applicants at a Special Meeting on Monday, November 3, 2008 at 7 p.m. in the Council Chamber at Town Hall.

Applicants should be present at 7 p.m. and will have a 5-10-minute time limit to make their presentation. Time for presentations will be limited based on the number of candidates; it is anticipated that the time for each presentation will be not less than five minutes per candidate and not more than ten minutes per candidate.

Applicants should submit electronic presentations (e.g. powerpoint) by 10 a.m. on Monday, November 3rd. Powerpoint presentations can be emailed to the Town Clerk’s office at clerk@townofchapelhill.org

This meeting will air live on cable television on Chapel Hill Government Channel 18 and by streaming video on the Town website at www.townofchapelhill.org.

Applications are due by 5 p.m. on Friday, October 31 and will then be forwarded to the Council.

Sabrina M. Oliver, CMC
Communications and Public Affairs Director/Town Clerk

Will,

Roger Stancil passed your queries along to me.

You asked if the Council is in some way bound to follow this approach should they determine to start on this path. They are not. The Council can at any time decide that the process is not working and needs to be modified or abandoned. All existing options remain open until the Council actually adopts a development agreement (with that accompanying LUMO text and zoning map amendment).

The issue of how to set measurable performance goals — what they are and how they are monitored — is essentially the same for all of the tools available to the town. For each approach the Town has the difficult task of addressing the substantive question of what those goals and standards are and how they are monitored. While I will discuss the enforcement question in more detail with the Council tonight, the short answer is that the Town retains all of its existing enforcement tools and a development agreement, to the extent it changes things at all, enhances enforcement options.

The scope of provisions in a development agreement is subject to negotiation and can be as broad or narrow as the parties agree to make it. One significant advantage to a development agreement is that it allows a broader range of issues to be addressed in binding approval requirements than most any other regulatory approach. As one would expect, the scope of the provisions is frequently a significant point of negotiation between local governments and applicants. The question of how long an agreement runs and how much development is approved is often related to the range and scope of mitigation measures applicants are willing to commit to. But the ultimate answer to this query is that it is for the most part whatever there is mutual agreement on.

I hope this helps.

It certainly does.

Since a development agreement provides a legal framework for requiring adherence to standards above and beyond existing zoning requirements, I am exploring how the Town can negotiate “best in class” environmental expectations somewhat along the lines of the work proposed by the Horace-Williams Citizens Committee sub-committee on environment.

Those requirements, which I set the stage for (May 26th, 2006′s The Last Horace Williams Citizen’s Committee. Hurrah?), would set the “greeness” bar moderately high for UNC. Of course, if you don’t ask, you don’t get. I wouldn’t ask, though, if I didn’t know that our world-class University has the capability, if not the will, to meet environmental standards typically applied in other jurisdictions.

Thank you Dr. Owens for the quick reply.

I will be attending this evening’s meeting I’m glad to hear your going to explore some of these issues in greater depth. Before the Horace-Williams Citizens Committee was decommissioned, the environmental sub-group had started to create a framework for establishing specific “best in class” environmental benchmarks for Carolina North. We also discussed how to monitor compliance – so many candlepower per square foot for light pollution, so many gallons of runoff, so much particulate pollution, etc. – and possible enforcement procedures. This is the context behind some of my questions.

Since your Sept. 25th meeting I’ve had an opportunity to research several other states adoption of this process. While the basic theme is the same, it’s interesting to see how different jurisdictions bind community needs to developer requirements. One issue, though, that I haven’t found much material on is the public hearing process. You might recall from the Sept. 25th meeting my concern about evidentiary procedure. It appears many communities dispense with a quasi-judicial framework and defer to an informal process.

I’m going to lobby Council for the greatest transparency in adopting the development agreement: no ex parte discussions, minutes of all meetings, some formal evidentiary proceedings and informal – though open, documented – discussion. I know Council has indicated they want the community to have a full opportunity to weigh in but given the tight timetable, I’m afraid that the public might be shortchanged as the process concludes. This is not an abstract concern, as this has happened several times recently. Any suggestion on how to build in this transparency from day one?

Thank you again for work on behalf of Chapel Hill.

I appreciate Dr. Owens rapid response.

I’m not afraid to ask questions – dumb or not – in order to zero in on the relevant issues. I have a number of updates from recent requests on everything from the County’s e-waste management to the Police department’s “eyes on the community” plan in the pipeline. I hope to share soon – keep an eye out.

I’m a proactive guy, work in an industry that rewards innovation and leading not trailing the pack, so it just makes sense to me to work an issue before it rises to a level requiring crisis management. Trying to raise folks concerns about %10-20 tax increases two or more years before they are implemented is a tough task – doubly so when tricks are used by our elected officials to postpone the inevitable. Trying to prepare folks for the impact of $4/gallon gasoline on the Town’s budget when gas in $2/gallon is a tough sell – doubly so when Council members publicly discount prudent measures in spite of obvious trends.

In any case, I’m just dumb enough to keep trying to work issues prior to a crisis point – it just makes good financial and social sense.

A case in point. I asked former Town Manager Cal Horton 4 years ago for public records documenting fuel use by Chapel Hill’s staff. About the same time, I asked for information on electricity use at each of the Town’s facilities. My idea was to identify specific problem areas, measure policy changes to see how effective our Town’s “green” goals were being met, to look at rewarding staff for impressive reductions in their energy use and basically get prepared for the anticipated increase in energy costs.

This was four years ago when gas was under $2 a gallon.

Four years later, after numerous requests, a new Town Manager, I still haven’t received any of those records. I’m going to make another run at doing that analysis – now in retrospect – to see not only see how we can pare down the cost of operating our Town but to understand if the policies so far adopted have had any direct effect.

Here’s what I asked for Sept. 26, 2005:

3a(10). Will Raymond, regarding Agenda Item #5b, Fuel Supply, Cost and Budget Issues for the Town’s General Municipal Fleet and Transit Bus Fleet.

Mr. Raymond petitioned the Council regarding Agenda Item #5b, Fuel Supply, Cost and Budget Issues for the Town’s General Municipal Fleet and Transit Bus Fleet. He noted he had sent the Council an email regarding the purchase of bio-diesel fuel, and was pleased that shortly after that the Town had purchased 1,000 gallons. Mr. Raymond said that was a “fantastic” first step and hoped the Town would follow up on that, noting that at the present time bio-diesel fuel was 20 to 30 cents a gallon cheaper than diesel or kerosene.

Mr. Raymond said there appeared to be some confusion in the agenda item, noting there had been some discussion that they could burn bio-diesel fuel in their buses, and now they were saying that maybe they could not. So, he said, he had called Detroit Engine that made the engines for the buses, and they were recommending to their customers that a 20 percent blend was “perfectly suitable” for those engines. Mr. Raymond said that Detroit Engine had indicated they would be happy to work with the Town and could possibly get that blend higher. He encouraged the Town to contact them and take that action.

Mr. Raymond also suggested that since they were running at a deficit within the fuel budget that they today start with targeted reductions in the amount of fuel they were using. He said they still have vehicles that idle wastefully, and that yesterday he had observed a Town vehicle left idling for two hours. Mr. Raymond said with the price of gasoline that was unacceptable behavior. He asked that the Council take immediate action to conserve fuel.

THE COUNCIL AGREED BY CONSENSUS TO REFER MR. RAYMOND’S COMMENTS TO AGENDA ITEM #5b.

UNC’s original reason for creating a new airport was to support the NC-AHEC ( North Carolina Area Health Education Centers Program).

UNC’s director for Carolina North Jack Evans reaffirmed during last Thursday’s joint meeting between UNC and Chapel Hill’s Town Council (discussing a framework for approving Carolina North’s development), NC-AHEC’s current base at Horace-Williams airport (HWA) will be closed when the new Innovation Center is complete (2 years or so). Last week, Bruce Runberg, UNC’s Associate Vice Chancellor for Facilities Planning and Construction, said that a $2 million contract has been let to build hangars at RDU to “temporarily” house the program. Execution of that contract is contingent on a few factors, money, it appears, isn’t one.

Supporting AHEC, as folks and local media drilled down to the nitty-gritty, seems to have been just a smokescreen as, now, it appears that a much more extensive project – supporting well-heeled alumni, UNC corporate clients, AOPA members, local pilots and some vague mix of commercial interests – with a bigger facility is in the offing. To justify this vast extension, UNC has suggested great public benefit – to the tune of millions. No downside – environmental, community or other – has been mentioned (it’s all roses).

As CitizenWill readers might remember from previous comments, I found UNC’s consultants Talbert & Bright’s 2008 report of an economic impact of $40 million to $53 million a year ridiculous and near insulting to our community’s intelligence.

I’ve asked (letter here) the Orange County Board of Commissioners to appoint me as one of their three community representatives to UNC’s new Airport Authority to help bring objective standards to any decision on building and siting – if necessary – an appropriately sized facility for the originally constrained purpose.

I have a number of reasons, one of which, as the Chapel Hill News recently reported, was the terrible precedent of granting open-ended power of eminent domain to a University:

Will Raymond, a former candidate for Town Council, says the decision to form an airport authority was “a terrible mistake by our legislature.”

“Setting this precedent, for reasons good or bad, will probably make policy interactions with UNC-CH more difficult in days to come,” he said in a letter to the Orange County commissioners. “Essentially, the legislature has issued UNC a huge hammer, with the power of eminent domain, that I believe should be reserved exclusively to elective government.”

Are we to think that this power will be reserved only for UNC-Chapel Hill?

Beyond maintaining due vigilance, as a member of the Authority, in the exercise or threatened exercise of the awesome power of “public taking”, I will do my best to document the Authority’s deliberations, publish as much of the supporting documentation as possible and provide an analysis, of course from my own viewpoint, of the progress being made. More importantly, I will work to be a conduit for the wider community’s concerns about the process, the suitability of sites and other relevant issues. I’m sure that both the appointed elective officials and UNC officials will do the same, but I know I can provide community perspectives that I know will be distinct from theirs.

Here are some notes from this evening’s meeting.

Deonna Angelillo made initial introductions and a few comments, noting “no curtains in our neighborhood” and she wants it to stay that way. Her house is on the end of the site H runway.

Clifford Leath, whose 40 acre horse farm is on that runway, led off with a quick summary of recent history. While discussing strategy he said “we’re really fighting the state of North Carolina”, not local governments. Expressing incredulity, he outlined the 2005 estimated cost of $35M to develop site ‘H’ – a figure he and others felt underestimated both today’s costs and the required build-out of infrastructure – road-widening, electric, etc. Suggesting that the second Talbert/Bright study was commissioned “by a misguided planning person”, he emphasized that an objective analysis needed to be done.

A sentiment that was shared by others throughout the evening was “there’s certainly a hidden agenda here and it is not AHEC”. He said he had contacted a number of officials with little response though the UNC System’s Erskine Bowles did tell him that “no site was preferred”. He ended up his presentation expressing a lack of confidence in the proposed Authority’s decision-making process as the community will be represented by only 5 of the 15 members (the rest being UNC related).

Tony Blake, a volunteer fireman with an impressive command of both the history and breadth of the airport drama, went over some of the political dimension of the issue. “This all started as a bill introduced by Verla Insko and Bill Faison”. Later in the evening, it was suggested someone run as a write-in against Faison to “get his attention”. Tony got to the crux of his community’s problem – “they have eminent domain – they can set the price and take the land”. Echoing Clifford’s concern, he said “they’ve stacked the board, they have 2/3rd majority”. He went on to show that by creating this Authority our local legislators – Insko, Faison and Hackney, have bypassed the county’s.

“This is not politics, this piracy!” was his call to arms. “They are going to take land here and we have to let them know that it is” not acceptable.

Tony went on to say he thinks there is a window of opportunity to shutdown creation of Authority. Failing that, that the legislature directed the Authority to “find that the airport is critical to the operation” of AHEC. One avenue of defense was to challenge the necessity of building a $35-50 million general aviation airport when a $2 million hangar at RDU would suffice. They “don’t need to reinvent the wheel with a county airport”.

Tactically, he said, “each site needs to tackle its own specifics.” Building on the strength of community, he challenged his gathered neighbors to work with all the affected communities. “If site 9 has a petition, then site H needs to sign it.” Yes, he said, each site needs to build a case – environmental, social, just a bad idea – in order to “convince the university that this [building vs. using RDU] is a bad idea”.

His final strategy? Attack the granting of eminent domain powers. It was a bad idea – “that it is a sword poised above our heads” – “ultimately we need to get this law repealed…..”

Finishing he said “we need to get our message out there” – “not the lipstick on the pig that is their spin on the airport”.

The next speaker, Laura Streitfeld said “the idea that our land would be taken for the benefit of the few” was disturbing but that the fight can’t be just about NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard). “It’s pretty clear that nobody wants it in their backyards, but that isn’t too different than anyone else”, she said but went on to argue that the issues – the grant of eminent domain, multi-county environmental consequences, waste of tax dollars, etc. – went well beyond the local scope of site H. She also said she would “stand in front of the bulldozer” to stop that site from being developed.

Bonnie Hauser, representing a group called “Orange County Voice” (more here) said “our goal is to repeal this eminent domain law.” “We are fighting this as an overarching act” of abuse of eminent domain. And that “We don’t understand why UNC is doing economic development plans for Orange County”.

Neither do I, except as a strategy to get Federal dollars. The utility of this general aviation airport has to be justified with benefit to the wider community in order for Federal grants to be approved.

Judith Wegner, former UNC Law Dean and current member of the Orange County Planning Board, called on the assembled citizenry to ‘write Bill Faison” ( Billf@ncleg.net [ 919-715-3019 ] ) noting “he is running unopposed.” “We should run a write-in candidate” to oppose Faison because “everyone should ask ‘Why are we doing this?””.

She also asked folks to send on specific impacts to the Orange County Planning Board (CONTACT HERE) because “we need to document it…for planning board.”

There were a number of comments and questions from the crowd. A woman stood up waving a copy of a UNC publication (didn’t quite catch the name) pointing out how commercialized Dr. Roper’s UNC Healthcare has become these last few years (here’s what I said about that on the appointment of Rev. Seymour as UNC Healthcare’s ombudsman in 2006).

“UNC has turned into a corporate entity”, she said, reeling off the corporate influence on UNC Healthcare, “How many of the corporate execs have jets?” “How many AHEC doctors”? I don’t know how many are used by corporate execs, but as a neighbor of HWA, I can assure you that jets are not uncommon.

One resident asked about UNC’s research property, which abuts one of the proposed sites. He said that he had heard a “secret lab” with hermetically sealed doors had been buried 80 feet below the surface. He wanted to know if that had anything to do with the proposed airport site.

Fred, a pilot, said he had worked with the former HWA flying club for four years and, in his experience, AHEC “are fools.” He suggested that “there is a lot of undeveloped land that the county could use that doesn’t involve stealing it from people who have lived here for generations.”

A great question concerned the spread of UNC’s airport into the surrounding community.

It had been noted ealier that the language of the bill authorizing the creation of the Authority could be interpreted broadly enough to justify, at least in the Authority’s eyes (and maybe with the rah-rah approval of Orange County’s economic officer), the taking of surrounding property to support commercial activity at the new airport. In that citizen’s words, the powers conferred “to expand as they saw fit.”

This prompted Tony Blake to observe that instead of the hotels and restaurants the Talbert/Bright study envisioned, the outcome would be more akin to Burlington’s experience – “a wasteland”. Trucking companies and other undesirable commercial uses not very complimentary to the rural way of life.

The airport wasn’t the only topic discussed. At the end of the evening, a resident living off Hwy 54 brought up the siting of the new solid waste transfer station. I hope to ‘blog more on my conversations with Hillsborough’s widening opposition – whom are having a meeting Oct. 2nd, 7pm at the Hillsborough United Church of Christ, corner of Old 86/Davis Rd. In his case, he was concerned about the 4 sites west along Hwy 54.

The gentleman next to me, a former manager in Chapel Hill’s public works, pointed out that Chapel Hill’s garbage trucks were geared in such a fashion that long-distance hauls will burn fuel outrageously, thus be prohibitively expensive (I sent an email to Howard Harvey, Chapel Hill’s Solid Waste Superintendent asking about this – I’ll post his response).

There were many other great comments, questions and observations and some very encouraged folks. It was heartening to see a community pull together to challenge UNC, our local legislators and the State of North Carolina to justify, objectively and with clarity, the reasons for moving forward.

More here: House Approves Unconstitutional Surveillance Legislation .

Yesterday I couldn’t get an inking of how my local “progressive” Democrat US Rep. David Price would vote on the latest attempt to defend the indefensible. Would he vote to absolve ATT from its culpability? Would he further extend the reach of the US government into our private affairs?

US Sen. Russ Feingold, one heck of a leader, had no such problem:

June 19, 2008

“The proposed FISA deal is not a compromise; it is a capitulation. The House and Senate should not be taking up this bill, which effectively guarantees immunity for telecom companies alleged to have participated in the President’s illegal program, and which fails to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans at home. Allowing courts to review the question of immunity is meaningless when the same legislation essentially requires the court to grant immunity. And under this bill, the government can still sweep up and keep the international communications of innocent Americans in the U.S. with no connection to suspected terrorists, with very few safeguards to protect against abuse of this power. Instead of cutting bad deals on both FISA and funding for the war in Iraq, Democrats should be standing up to the flawed and dangerous policies of this administration.”

Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) is a member of the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees.

Capitulation.

Damn, David is a nice enough guy. He brings home the goodies more often than not but his inability to take a lead on any of the key issues – the Iraq/Afghanistan wars, illegal domestic surveillance, torture – perverting our nation’s foundations is disheartening.

He can be led to the water, tortuously, but getting him to drink is a hell of a proposition.

His current stance: no opinion.

In fact, his office said he won’t be expressing an opinion until after his vote!

Sounds like he’s preparing to defend the indefensible – issuing what the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) calls the ” Congressional seal of approval on illegal surveillance” but maybe we’ll be pleasantly surprised.

What’s the big deal? The millions of folks that are represented by the EFF in a class-action suit against AT&T because their “private domestic communications and communications records were illegally handed over to the National Security Agency (NSA)” won’t get their day in court (more here).

Not all telcos, notably QWEST (here) went along with this incredibly intrusive and illegal operation. Will Price put ATT and Verizon ahead of our citizenry and strip them of their fundamental Constitutional protections?

Contact David and let him know that warrantless searches are not acceptable.

About a year ago, I began to experiment with using video posted to youTube and googleVideo to cover local issues that were getting short shrift.

One of my first experiments involved covering the local Superior Court race. While I supported two solid candidates – Chuck Anderson and Allen Baddour – for the office, I felt it important to give the wider community the option to see all the folks – Carl, Adam, Allen and Chuck – explain their positions in their own words.

I think my passion for civic engagement and drawing the community into policy discussions explains why no one has asked me “Why do you do it?” Over the year, though, I’ve had a few folks ask me “How do you do that?”

Here’s a quick overview of how I currently convert the DVD’s produced by Chapel Hill and Carrboro into a format suitable for youTube or googleVideo. The same process should apply to most other video formats.

First, a quick comparison of youTube and GoogleVideo (both owned by Google):

youTube

• superior tools
• superior interface
• superior online documentation and assistance
• posts your content more quickly than googleVideo
• limited to 100 megabytes or 10 minutes
• simple URL addressability: http://www.youtube.com/citizenwill

googleVideo

• terrible interface
• terrible upload speed
• multi-phase review process, can take a week to get a video approved
• loses videos, no service response
• one redeeming feature – supports long format videos – hours of free video storage

In both cases, you’re leveraging those services disk space, bandwidth and indexing to get the message out.

Both support meta-tagging (“forum”, “chapel hill”, “league of women voters”) to aid in searchability. Both have commenting, embedding, linking and rating.

Both require an account (for instance,CitizenWill).

• googleVideo account signup.
• youTube account signup.

I use youTube for short format video that I sometimes prep and push within an hour of producing. I reserve googleVideo, because of the hassle factor, for long form videos.

googleVideo technical specifications.

- The video must contain recognizable video content (video container files that do not contain video will not be accepted).
- The frame rate should be above 12 frames per second.
- The bitrate should be above 260 Kbps.
- MPEG4 (mp3 or mp4 audio) at 2 mbps
- MPEG2 (mp3 or mp4 audio) at 5 mbps
- 30 frames per second
- 640×480 resolution
- 4:3 frame
- de-interlace

youTube technical specifications

- recommend encoding directly to MPEG4 (DivX, Xvid, SQV3) at 320×240, MP3 Audio, 30 frames per second

In either case, I currently prepare video using the same process.

Tools:

• googleVideo Uploader – Multi-platform tool for uploading large videos to Google Video. Recommended over Web interface.
• youTube – Upload using the Web interface.
• aviDemux – “is a free video editor designed for simple cutting, filtering and encoding tasks”. Multiplatform. Free and open sourced.
• VLC – Free, open source, multi-platform video player used to validate conversion of your video.

I prefer using the XVID video codec and the LAME MP3 audio codec for the output conversion. Don’t worry, all the tools I listed already have these formats built-in.

If you have a reasonably fast machine, a Pentium 4 or above, running at least 800mhz, with one (1) gigabyte of RAM and about 1 1/2 times the size of the DVD VOB files you’re converting of free space on your hard drive, you should be set.

Don’t panic if you don’t know what a VOB (video object) file is!

When Chapel Hill or Carrboro’s staff create a DVD of an event, like a Council meeting, they split the combined audio and video stream into discrete chunks 1 gigabyte or less in size (there’s a really old reason for this). Each “chunk” is a VOB file.

Don’t worry, aviDemux knows how to assemble each VOB into one seamless whole – you only have to pick the first piece which is usually named XXX_VOB_1 (as opposed to XXX_VOB_2, the second piece).

Reference this “Howto” from the aviDemux site for full details but if you’re impatient, here’s a quick walk-through:

Crank up aviDemux and open the first VOB file.

- Open->

If aviDemux says it found other VOBs and would you like them to be appended, answer YES. If it asks to index the MPEG stream, answer YES.

Set the video parameters and audio parameters:

- Video->MPEG-4 ASP (Xvid4)
- Video->Configure->Main->Encoding Type->Two Pass, final size
- Video->Configure->Main->Target Size->100 (or less for youTube), 800M (or less for googleVideo)
- Video->Configure->Motion->Motion Search->6-Ultra High

- Audio->MP3 (LAME)
- Audio->Configure->Channel Mode->Stereo
- Audio->Configure->Bitrate mode->ABR
- Audio->Configure->Quality->3
- Audio->Configure->Bitrate->224

Format->AVI

Leave the rest of the options alone.

You can use the slider in aviDemux to select a start and end point for the video clip you wish to produce.

The “A/” mark sets the start. The “B/” mark sets the end.

After setting the length of the clip, all that remains is to “Save” to start the conversion.

Depending on how much horsepower your computer has, how long the video is, etc. the “Save” process will take from 5 to 30 minutes.

Once the “Save” is finished, open the resulting AVI file in your favorite video viewer. I prefer VLC from VideoLan.org.

If the video looks and sounds fine, you are ready to upload your creation to the ‘net.

Even though the Chamber made it clear that extended replies where not welcomed in the 2007 questionnaire ( Election 2007: The Chamber’s Yes, No, Unsure – Again!), I took the opportunity to answer each of their questions beyond the constraints of “yes, no, unsure”.

The questions are broad, open to interpretation and, on occasion, leading. How would you answer the Chamber’s questions?

In case the Director omits my business background, as he did in 2005, I worked for Northern Telecom for many years, winning a couple President’s Awards and a Chairman’s Award for Innovation (the first IT person to do so). I have been a CIO/CTO of a couple successful startups, including Reged.com which sold to FiServ for millions. As an entrepreneur I was part of the crew that guided those companies to multi-million dollar revenues. I currently work for Tibco, an enterprise application integration company, specializing in XML technology and distributed Java application architectures.

Here is the questionnaire and my extended answers. You’ll note I wasn’t unsure at all:

4. Is increasing the commercial tax base in Chapel Hill an important priority for you?

YES

Even before my run for office in 2005 I was agitating for a Economic Development Officer to help develop strategic and tactical approaches to increasing our commercial tax base. Council finally hired an officer, now we need leadership with business acumen to make the best use of his services.

First, we need to make sure we look for economic development opportunities within the whole of Chapel Hill.

Downtown is important but some of the most exciting areas for growth continue to exist within the Eastgate/Conner Dr./University Mall/Chapel Hill North commercial centers.

Second, we need policies that embrace and plan for the future.

Carolina North is going to spur development along Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd. Our Town has suggested various zones for higher density development with that corridor. But the game plan the Town is using doesn’t adequately anticipate a world with $4 gallon gasoline, higher use of communications technology, the proliferation of cottage industry or micro-manufacturing.

In addition, we’re not positioned to leverage the incredibly attractive amenity the Town’s municipal network will offer within that corridor or the other %85 of Town within its easy reach.

We need to rework our vision of Chapel Hill ten, twenty, thirty years out.

Third, economic development cannot be limited to commercial development but needs to incorporate improvements in our job opportunities and mix.

We need an employment ladder within Chapel Hill. Current policy is fueling the stratification of our workforce – service workers, governmental staff separated by tens of rungs from the professional class. A healthy community is one that promotes variegated opportunities and a “way up”.

Fourth, we have to be prepared to seize opportunities as they become available and facilitate appropriate commercial growth with policies that protect Chapel Hill’s values without sacrificing the charm that makes Chapel Hill unique and attractive.

Some specifics?

Advertising the unique strengths – the striking demographics – of Chapel Hill would be a good start.

Working within those strengths, we need to make starting, maintaining and growing a business easier. That could start with a clear guide to doing business in Chapel Hill.

Some folks like to say doing business in Chapel Hill is Hell. Statistically, business in Chapel Hill continues to grow – look at the excitement over Trader Joes – yet the perception is that Chapel Hill doesn’t care if a Mom-n-Pop can’t get their foot in the door.

I understand. Over the years I’ve observed some very miserable outcomes that would explain a poor perception.

“Feel good” ordinances, like the recent call to force landlords to rent their Downtown properties within some time period, will not only fail but exacerbate the perception that Chapel Hill is unfriendly.

Instead, impediments, like the privilege tax, need to be removed.

Fifth, we need to model our economic environment, create policy to improve opportunities, set goals and regularly measure progress. The market, to a great extent, needs to guide our hand in setting our strategies.

Finally, our policy must be “ evergreen”. Measurable goals and timely monitoring must be built into whatever new policies we adopt. We should retrofit existing policy so that our approach remains flexible and adaptable.

5. Do you support shortening the time it takes to have a project approved or denied in Chapel Hill if the quality of the development and level of citizen input remained high?

NO

Again, the Chamber is asking a rather broad question that demands a nuanced answer. Do I think we could improve our current planning process? Absolutely.

But reducing the regulatory time limits gives me pause.

Recent history informs my concern. Buried in the Greenbridge zoning hearings was the approval for a new Downtown commercial zone – TC-3 – which doubled the allowable density and increased heights %33 from 90’ to 120’. The bulk of the TC-3 approval process occurred late Fall and I’m not confident that our citizenry was well-informed.

After the fact, a number of citizens have contacted me because I was one of the lone dissenting voices. “How did this happen? Where was the public discussion?” A rapid process was no friend to our wider community.

Worse, accelerating the current arguably broken and over-taxed planning process will serve neither the developers nor our community well.

The best course of action is to correct our current process and put PREDICTABILITY back into it. The most common complaint I’ve heard about our current process is that the outcome is not PREDICTABLE.

If a project can’t be approved because it cannot be reworked to satisfy our community’s standards we should quickly and decisively tell a developer so.

6. Would you support creating a set of criteria for desirable development projects and then expediting the approval process for projects that meet those established objectives?

YES

It will take some time to create a predictable process that incorporates enough specifics that the Council can be confident that a developer has met the community’s expectations.

We are way behind in creating this predictable process. Once implemented, we need to continue Town Manager Roger Stancil’s work on improving the reporting process so that folks dealing with our Town’s approval procedures can easily track their progress end-to-end.

7. Will you vote to set a lease expiration date or a deadline for the Homeless Shelter to vacate the old municipal building downtown?

NO

Forcing the issue by pulling the lease is not an appropriate solution. Moving the homeless shelter has illuminated problems with high level communications and cooperation between our County and our Town. We need to meet often and more effectively so that issues like the homeless shelter can be equitably resolved.

8. Do you support land use regulations and regulatory practices that promote the construction of office, retail and workforce housing along transportation corridors?

YES

I’m not averse to development within our transit corridors but I am concerned that the corridors will become over-saturated, especially as transit policy and funding struggle to keep up.

Further, there is a limit to growth, no matter what corridors we develop along. The measure of our community’s “carrying capacity” is an issue that should dominate our near term discussions on sustainability.

9. Do you generally support the concept of developing the Horace Williams Tract into a mixed use research park (Carolina North)?

YES

If by mixed-use the Chamber is describing development along the lines of that discussed with UNC’s Leadership Advisory Council – guided by the principles set for by the Horace-Williams Citizens Committee (of which I’m a former member) – and built to a master concept plan within a zoning and development agreement process that allows our Town and the University to chart a winning course? Then yes.

An incremental build-out will not serve our University, our community or our State well.

I believe Carolina North could be the spur for incredible improvement within our community.

10. Do you think a healthy growing economy is an equally important component of community sustainability as environmental protection and social equity?

NO

What is more important, your left hand or your right foot? A healthy economy, which I don’t think is necessarily a rapidly growing economy, impacts our ability to work effectively on social equity and environmental issues.

What is a “healthy” economy though? Is it a local economy based on local businesses supporting the local community or is it a simple game of escalating sums?

Of course, the Chamber is trying to measure apples to oranges.

Would policies that ignore racist or sexist conditions – create or exacerbate societal iniquities – be acceptable as long as they promote a “healthy” economy?

Do we shave well-crafted regulations governing resource conservation and creek protection to encourage a big bucks out-of-Town retailer to relocate?

Is it acceptable to radically grow the mound of trash we plop down in the backyards of the Rogers Road community because a businesses profit profile will benefit highly?

I want to modify policy that acts as to dissuade business growth but I’m not willing to sacrifice the charm (soul?) of Chapel Hill to reap a whirlwind of a supposed economic windfall.

One last comment on “healthy”.

Chapel Hill is NOT an oasis. No matter how rich our community grows (current Council policy is definitely growing that demographic), macro-economic events are catching up with us.

The current Council’s spending is predicated on a growing property tax base. Forward projections are based on churn in the market that has rapidly diminished. Revenue inflows will not meet our Town’s inflating expenditures and the Council cannot continue to borrow from the reserves to keep our tax rate down.

We’ve waited way to long making structural changes in the way our Town spends it our money. Our Town has to learn to live within its means.

So, back to a healthy economy, we need policy to promote a sustainable local economy built and maintained by local folks that produce and buy within the community.

The modest, but sustained, healthy growth encouraged by those policies will keep Chapel Hill afloat, our community diverse and creative, during these already evolving nationally troubling economic times.

11. Will you vote to implement the additional recommendations made by the Chapel Hill Parking Committee within the first six months of your term?

YES

As a member of the Parking Task Force I will invert the Council’s current approach and work to implement the low/no cost practical and pragmatic recommendations made in their report.

Beyond that, I will continue to work to make parking cheap and attractive to both our citizens and visitors.

Increasing the cost – even by “two units” as one current Council member suggested – makes no sense especially when dozens of other recommendations languish.

I’m quite disappointed in the way this Task Force’s efforts were used by Council. The Task Force was quite clear on the suggested order of tasks – the consensus was that increasing costs was to be avoided yet that is not what one of our Task Force’s Council member liaisons advertised.

Finally, though it was not incorporated in the Task Force recommendations, I will be bringing forward – as I did within the Task Force – the issue of predatory towing practices.

From what I’ve seen and heard, the windfall from towing folks – whether they’re visiting or not – has become so attractive that towing has become a booming business. I imagine not many folks will want to return to a community that tacitly supports $150 shakedowns.

12. Will you make economic development and redevelopment efforts a priority for you during your term in office?

YES

In 2005, on a similar Chamber survey, I said

As Chapel Hill transitions from Town to City we need to cultivate economic activity throughout Town. That starts with a creating a new EDC, doing a real survey of all business activity and creating a strategic plan for economic development that looks 5,10,20 years out.

We need to get creative and realize we can support innovative economic activity by supporting a municipally-sponsored broadband service. Besides advertising Chapel Hill as a Town on the (technology) rise, it attracts low impact businesses that employ our next generation of consumers.

Finally, we need to revisit some traditional amenities that have all but disappeared in Chapel Hill. Drinking fountains and attractive public restrooms are a good start. And to make Downtown family friendlier, I’m calling for a state-of-the-art, world-class, “mom, do we have to leave” play structure in a prominent Downtown location.

We have hired an Economic Development Officer who is busy creating an economic profile for our Town. He has suggested we invest in a true survey, conducted by specialists in local and regional economies, to get a better read on our Town’s prospects. I will support that effort and ask our staff to co-ordinate with University on both the assay and policy proposals.
The Town has ear-marked some monies to tag-along with the NC-DOT fiber networking project. This was the culmination of nearly 5 years of banging the drum to secure this investment in our Town’s future. I will press to create a community-based effort to plan for the economic, educational and social utilization of what has become a competitive asset for local municipalities.

Unfortunately, my proposal for “pocket parks” Downtown and throughout our community has languished. I will once again take up this issue and press to make our commercial sectors, whether Downtown or elsewhere, more family friendly.
13. Do you believe the town should provide incentives for its employees not to drive to work?

YES

More than incentives, the Town should continue its efforts to help employees car pool or take public transit.

Beyond that, we need to set measurable goals for Town-related trip miles and fuel usage. For the last few years, including making it a plank of my 2005 run for Council platform, I have asked our Council to set targets for miles and fuel usage. I’ve suggested using various incentives to promote staff innovation to wring the most from our fleet use. Instead the Town is still stuck at the platitude stage – CRED (carbon reduction) is good – not, let’s reduce fuel usage this year by %5.

Finally, we need to think strategically when approaching environmental sustainability issues like transit. The day of $4 a gallon gasoline is on the horizon, why have we not planned for this anticipated event?

14. Do you support modifying the Town’s panhandling ordinance to be more restrictive of the locations where people may panhandle in the downtown?

NO

Punitory measures alone will not solve either the panhandling or the abusive loitering problems Downtown. Community-based policing, outreach and other practical measures should help reduce the problem.

This question, I imagine, is another Madison-like approach to a Chapel Hill issue. Madison’s “Reach Out” approach is attractive, helping to focus directly on the problem, using an appropriate tool-set to address the multi-dimensional problems of a diverse Downtown population.

Adopting a 50’ limit around ATMs, though, is not appropriate. As others have noted, enforcing “aggressive panhandling” ordinances involves a subjective analysis. Blocking off hundreds of feet of Downtown’s sidewalks to activity that might or might not be actionable, even trying to determine the radius of actionable offenses, is problematic.

We need to police specific behaviors. The unruliness that goes on in-front of Ben & Jerry’s, for instance, rises to the level where policing seems appropriate.

Moving the bench, though, would better serve the end goal, reducing nuisance, than creating another ordinance which would be difficult to enforce equitably and, even if adequately enforceable, would just send folks through the County jail’s revolving door to end up back on our doorstep.

15. Do you think the Town needs to do more to make sure its committees and taskforces include more representation from the business community where there is currently very little?

YES

Both the Town and the Council need to make serving attractive. I have met citizens who wish to contribute to shaping policy and practice within our community who are dissuaded by the steep learning curve, the family unfriendly meeting times, difficulty in determining the charter and scope of our advisory boards. And then there is the reasonable concern, given recent history, that contributing dissenting opinions is a waste of time.

We need to mediate or remove some of the practical impediments to service. We need to use modern tools – email, web services, etc. – to broaden participation.

As I called for 5 years ago – worked for on the now defunct Technology Advisory Board – eventually approved of but not implemented by this current Council, the use of these tools can facilitate participation, increase transparency, capture the historical debate and welcome broader interaction with very little cost or effort on behalf of the Town.

And, as a Council member I will encourage dissent. We must know when our policy is creating problems.

16. List up to three specific things you would do to make Chapel Hill a better place to do business? (Please limit your response to 50 words or less. Responses over 50 words will not be published.)

• Remove structural impediments – like the privilege tax – while improving the process, especially leveraging the Internet, for starting and maintaining a business within our community.
• Make licensing and developing commercial opportunities predictable, manageable and appropriate.
• Use a market-based approach in developing a new, measurable, goal-based strategy for economic development.

There are several unresolved issues involving Shearon-Harris that makes siting further reactors more than problematic. Until waste disposal, security, adequate fire protection, safe storage and a slew of other issues are dealt with, furthering a development proposal for Shearon-Harris makes no sense.

The NRC, the industry’s partners in the nuclear mess, is holding an initial public hearing Sept. 18th in Apex.

In preparation for the Progress Energy license application for Harris, the NRC has scheduled a public information meeting on Tuesday, September 18, at the New Horizons Fellowship at 820 E. Williams Street in Apex, NC. An open house will be held from 6 to 7 p.m., followed by a NRC presentation at 7:00 p.m., after which the public will have an opportunity to ask questions. (A copy of the meeting notice is attached.)

Earlier posts on Progress Energy’s Shearon-Harris

The complete notice follows

As you know, Progress Energy announced in January 2006 that the existing Harris Nuclear Plant site is the preferred location for construction of two new reactors if our projection for future energy demand warrants the need for new power plants. Because the regulatory review process can take several years, we are required to submit the application now even though a final decision on whether to build is still more than a year away. Beginning the licensing process now gives us maximum flexibility in meeting the future demand in our growing communities.

As is standard practice, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) conducts a public information meeting prior to new plant licensing requests. The purpose of this informational meeting is for the NRC to discuss the license review process with interested members of the public, to identify opportunities for public involvement and to answer questions.

In preparation for the Progress Energy license application for Harris, the NRC has scheduled a public information meeting on Tuesday, September 18, at the New Horizons Fellowship at 820 E. Williams Street in Apex, NC. An open house will be held from 6 to 7 p.m., followed by a NRC presentation at 7:00 p.m., after which the public will have an opportunity to ask questions. (A copy of the meeting notice is attached.)

The NRC will send press releases to local media outlets and place advertising in local papers to publicize the meeting. Everyone is welcome to attend. This is the first of several opportunities for public involvement throughout the NRC’s multi-year review of the application, which the company expects to submit in early 2008.

The September 18 public meeting is separate from the Harris Plant’s current filing under NRC review to renew the existing plant’s operating license. In November 2006, Progress Energy filed to extend the current license – which expires in 2026 – through 2046. Additional public involvement opportunities still exist in this process as well, and the
NRC is expected to complete its review and issue a decision on license renewal by the end of 2008.

As a community leader, we want to keep you informed and updated on our efforts to continue providing safe, reliable and affordable power to our customers and community. Public meetings are an important part of this
process and will give you an opportunity to learn more about the filing of the application and also provide an opportunity to ask questions should you decide to attend. Please contact me if you have any additional questions.

Marty Clayton
Progress Energy
Manager – Community Relations
919 878-5300
www.progress-energy.com
www.savethewatts.com