I am sure you have heard of the attempted bank robbery and hostage situation that occurred at the Wachovia Bank on Green Level Church Road in Cary this past Thursday. After a three hour standoff with law enforcement officers, 19 year old Devon Mitchell of Cary was fatally shot when he exited the building holding what appeared to be a gun pointed at one of the hostages.
We now know that was not the case. Devon Mitchell was not armed.
“Despite what the 911 call reported, despite what he said to the hostages, despite what he told our hostage negotiator, despite what we all thought we saw when he came out of the bank with something pointed at one of the hostages’ head, we know now that there was no gun,” said Town of Cary Police Chief Pat Bazemore.
It doesn't matter - he made everyone believe he was armed and a threat.
Devon Mitchell played – and lost - a sick game with law enforcement. He claimed to have a gun and threatened to use it. For three hours Devon Mitchell instilled fear and terror in the lives of his hostages and their families. He had plenty of time to realize the error of his judgment and give himself up to authorities. He didn’t. He continued his charade until the very end, and now four outstanding law enforcement officers have to live the rest of their lives knowing they killed an unarmed 19 year old.
While the loss of this young man’s life is unfortunate and the outcome was not what we had hoped for, I could not be prouder of the Cary Police Department and supporting law enforcement agencies for the manner in which they handled this situation given the information available to them at the time, and my prayers go out to everyone involved and their families.
A number of citizens in the Cary Park area have contacted the town about their concerns regarding increased crime in their community. Some of the actions the town is working on include:
• Increased police patrols.
• The District 2 Commander for that area has begun implementation of a new effort called DDACTS (Data Drive Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety). This is a national based model that uses high visibility patrols and law enforcement presence to reduce social harm and improve quality of life.
• Cary is following up with the Grove apartment complex to encourage them to be a part of next month’s launch of Project Phoenix. This is a new crime prevention program that is being designed especially for multi-family communities.
• The town manager will meet with the police chief and the command team today to evaluate additional steps. They will brief council immediately after the meeting.
• The police chief, town manager, Mayor, I, and others will meet with the homeowners of Cary Park at their homeowners meeting on February 23rd at Panther Creek High School at 6:30. I look forward to hearing from area residents and any ideas that we as a town can do to improve folk’s quality of life in this area.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Week in Review 2/7/11 - 2/13/11
Our council meeting agenda this past Thursday was relatively light, with the notable discussion item being Cary’s state legislative Agenda.
Cary’s legislative agenda is a list of goals or legislation that we as a town want to see our state leaders address while in session.
Recommended items on this year’s state legislative agenda include:
1) A request by Cary and the Wake County Mayor’s Association to grant Cary and other Wake County Municipalities the authority to enter into long-term leases (up to 20 years) without treating those leases as sales. This will enable municipalities to enter into public-private partnerships for the generation of renewable energy on municipal property.
2) Support of the Wake County Mayor’s Association Legislative Agenda.
3) Support of the North Carolina League of Municipalities Core Municipal Principles and Advocacy Goals.
The council unanimously supported agenda items 1 and 2 minus one item on the Wake County Mayor’s Association agenda that council requested more information on before making a final decision.
After a lengthy discussion the council did NOT vote to support the NCLM Advocacy Goals or Core Municipal Principles. Needless to say, I am thrilled!
Why? Because the NCLM’s Advocacy Goals included the following:
· Seek legislation to revise the local land transfer tax so that it can be adopted without a referendum.
The land transfer tax has already appeared on the ballot 23 times in 21 counties in North Carolina since 2007. Each and every time voters rejected the proposed tax hike. That apparently doesn’t matter to the NCLM who believes that local governments should have the authority to implement this tax regardless of what the voters say. Ridiculous.
· Support legislation providing municipalities with the authority to impose a fee to recover the costs of vehicle accident and fire response from at-fault drivers and parties responsible for fires, up to a statutory maximum amount.
Yes, you read that correctly. The NCLM wants to give local governments the authority to charge you a fee for fire and accident response – on top of the tax dollars you already pay for this service. Never mind that you may have just lost your home and all your worldly possessions to a fire, now they want to send you a bill for fire response…assuming there is still a mailbox left to put it in. Absurd.
· Seek legislation reforming annexation laws that ensures the ability of a city to grow in a reasonable manner, while providing quality municipal services on a timely basis.
This statement is too vague. If you are going to request annexation reform I believe we should say what kind of reform we hope to achieve. Examples could include requiring a vote of county commissioners, or more importantly, those targeted for annexation. It could better define meaningful services or perhaps even require that the annexing municipality cover the cost of water and sewer hook-up. The above statement says nothing to that effect.
The reality is that the NCLM has consistently opposed any real annexation reform and have opposed any efforts to give those most greatly impacted a voice in the process. The above statement from the League is political pandering and rings hollow to those of us who have experience with the League’s position on annexation.
· Seek legislation to allow municipal creation or extension of extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) without county approval.
I find this request problematic as it could result in a land grab competition between municipalities. While obtaining county approval for ETJ extension can be difficult at times, it also ensures that municipalities grow in a reasonable and fair manner.
· Support legislation to expand the sales tax base to include services.
Here a tax, there a tax, everywhere a tax tax. The NCLM has never met a tax they didn’t like. While I understand there is an effort to reform North Carolina’s tax code – to possibly include a reduced sales tax rate combined with a tax on services (this COULD reduce the overall cost to taxpayers IF done correctly) – the above statement says nothing to that effect. It simply states a request to tax services. North Carolina already has the highest combined tax rate in the Southeast and the NCLM wants us to pay more???
· Seek legislation to increase the existing municipal vehicle fee for public transportation from $5 to a maximum of $20, and allow it to also be used for pedestrian and bicycle projects.
Here we go again – we need more money!!! A 300% increase in vehicle fees is outrageous – especially in this economy – and to pay for non-vehicle related expenditures???
Now in all fairness to the NCLM, some of their agenda requests were reasonable. That being the case the council first attempted to approve those items which we could support, and deny those which we did not. Halfway through our debate however, the council ultimately decided not to support any of the League’s agenda, and directed town staff to acknowledge receipt of their agenda, but not endorse it.
I opposed this proposal as I believe we need to send a message to the NCLM and make clear our concerns regarding these specific agenda items.
Afterwards council held a lengthy closed session to discuss a number of legal matters ….that I cannot discuss. Sorry. ;-)
That's all for this week's blog. As always, thanks for reading!
Cary’s legislative agenda is a list of goals or legislation that we as a town want to see our state leaders address while in session.
Recommended items on this year’s state legislative agenda include:
1) A request by Cary and the Wake County Mayor’s Association to grant Cary and other Wake County Municipalities the authority to enter into long-term leases (up to 20 years) without treating those leases as sales. This will enable municipalities to enter into public-private partnerships for the generation of renewable energy on municipal property.
2) Support of the Wake County Mayor’s Association Legislative Agenda.
3) Support of the North Carolina League of Municipalities Core Municipal Principles and Advocacy Goals.
The council unanimously supported agenda items 1 and 2 minus one item on the Wake County Mayor’s Association agenda that council requested more information on before making a final decision.
After a lengthy discussion the council did NOT vote to support the NCLM Advocacy Goals or Core Municipal Principles. Needless to say, I am thrilled!
Why? Because the NCLM’s Advocacy Goals included the following:
· Seek legislation to revise the local land transfer tax so that it can be adopted without a referendum.
The land transfer tax has already appeared on the ballot 23 times in 21 counties in North Carolina since 2007. Each and every time voters rejected the proposed tax hike. That apparently doesn’t matter to the NCLM who believes that local governments should have the authority to implement this tax regardless of what the voters say. Ridiculous.
· Support legislation providing municipalities with the authority to impose a fee to recover the costs of vehicle accident and fire response from at-fault drivers and parties responsible for fires, up to a statutory maximum amount.
Yes, you read that correctly. The NCLM wants to give local governments the authority to charge you a fee for fire and accident response – on top of the tax dollars you already pay for this service. Never mind that you may have just lost your home and all your worldly possessions to a fire, now they want to send you a bill for fire response…assuming there is still a mailbox left to put it in. Absurd.
· Seek legislation reforming annexation laws that ensures the ability of a city to grow in a reasonable manner, while providing quality municipal services on a timely basis.
This statement is too vague. If you are going to request annexation reform I believe we should say what kind of reform we hope to achieve. Examples could include requiring a vote of county commissioners, or more importantly, those targeted for annexation. It could better define meaningful services or perhaps even require that the annexing municipality cover the cost of water and sewer hook-up. The above statement says nothing to that effect.
The reality is that the NCLM has consistently opposed any real annexation reform and have opposed any efforts to give those most greatly impacted a voice in the process. The above statement from the League is political pandering and rings hollow to those of us who have experience with the League’s position on annexation.
· Seek legislation to allow municipal creation or extension of extra territorial jurisdiction (ETJ) without county approval.
I find this request problematic as it could result in a land grab competition between municipalities. While obtaining county approval for ETJ extension can be difficult at times, it also ensures that municipalities grow in a reasonable and fair manner.
· Support legislation to expand the sales tax base to include services.
Here a tax, there a tax, everywhere a tax tax. The NCLM has never met a tax they didn’t like. While I understand there is an effort to reform North Carolina’s tax code – to possibly include a reduced sales tax rate combined with a tax on services (this COULD reduce the overall cost to taxpayers IF done correctly) – the above statement says nothing to that effect. It simply states a request to tax services. North Carolina already has the highest combined tax rate in the Southeast and the NCLM wants us to pay more???
· Seek legislation to increase the existing municipal vehicle fee for public transportation from $5 to a maximum of $20, and allow it to also be used for pedestrian and bicycle projects.
Here we go again – we need more money!!! A 300% increase in vehicle fees is outrageous – especially in this economy – and to pay for non-vehicle related expenditures???
Now in all fairness to the NCLM, some of their agenda requests were reasonable. That being the case the council first attempted to approve those items which we could support, and deny those which we did not. Halfway through our debate however, the council ultimately decided not to support any of the League’s agenda, and directed town staff to acknowledge receipt of their agenda, but not endorse it.
I opposed this proposal as I believe we need to send a message to the NCLM and make clear our concerns regarding these specific agenda items.
Afterwards council held a lengthy closed session to discuss a number of legal matters ….that I cannot discuss. Sorry. ;-)
That's all for this week's blog. As always, thanks for reading!
Monday, January 24, 2011
Week in Review 1/17/11 - 1/21/11
Council held a worksession Tuesday to discuss redistricting. If this sounds familiar that’s because it is. The council considered redistricting in 2008, but voted 4-3 against it.
Municipalities are required by law to evaluate their districts following each decennial census. If population imbalances exist among the districts, the municipality is required to adjust the districts to correct the imbalance. Although municipalities are only required to redistrict after a Federal census, they can voluntarily redistrict more often to keep districts balanced. Cary has voluntarily redistricted numerous times in the past. Redistricting occurred in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, and 2001. Only 1981, 1991, and 2001 were census years.
A combination of explosive growth and a failure to redistrict during the last ten years have resulted in a significant imbalance in Cary’s Council districts. Cary’s district A, for example has nearly 54,000 of Cary’s 140,000 residents, while Cary’s district B and district D have 28,000 and 26,000 respectively. District A has roughly double the population of the other council districts and stretches from Downtown Cary into Chatham County.
Cary should have redistricted years ago, but better late than never I guess.
I recommended and the council agreed to direct staff to begin work on the redistricting process; specifically that they develop a couple of different proposals to bring back for council consideration. It is my hope that by having our town staff perform the majority of work will help to keep this as non-political a process as possible. Ya, I know, wishful thinking huh? ;-)
Our Planning and Development Committee meeting had two notable discussion items; whether or not to rename the Cary Community Arts Center and consideration of a four party agreement to modify and close rail crossings pertaining to the Parkside development in west Cary.
The four party agreement is somewhat complicated, so instead of me trying to explain it I suggest you read the staff report here. The bottom line is the agreement would extend the timeline of construction and closing of rail crossings at Carpenter Fire Station Road and O’Kelly Chapel Road and would also waive a $500,000 developer contribution towards the bridge construction.
We unanimously supported the agreement EXCEPT for the $500,000 developer fee waiver.
The Town’s Cultural Arts Committee along with town staff have discussed potential name options for the Cary Community Arts Center (Old Cary Elementary) and offered the following three possibilities.
· Arts on Academy
· Cary Arts and Cultural Exchange
· Kaleidoscope, Cary’s Arts Center
After a brief discussion, we selected none of the above and unanimously recommended that the Cary Community Arts Center be named the Cary Community Arts Center.
I also met with the applicants of two projects in Cary this week to discuss their progress towards addressing area resident’s concerns and to review proposed changes to their plans.
Well that’s about it for now. As always, thanks for reading.
Municipalities are required by law to evaluate their districts following each decennial census. If population imbalances exist among the districts, the municipality is required to adjust the districts to correct the imbalance. Although municipalities are only required to redistrict after a Federal census, they can voluntarily redistrict more often to keep districts balanced. Cary has voluntarily redistricted numerous times in the past. Redistricting occurred in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1987, 1989, 1991, and 2001. Only 1981, 1991, and 2001 were census years.
A combination of explosive growth and a failure to redistrict during the last ten years have resulted in a significant imbalance in Cary’s Council districts. Cary’s district A, for example has nearly 54,000 of Cary’s 140,000 residents, while Cary’s district B and district D have 28,000 and 26,000 respectively. District A has roughly double the population of the other council districts and stretches from Downtown Cary into Chatham County.
Cary should have redistricted years ago, but better late than never I guess.
I recommended and the council agreed to direct staff to begin work on the redistricting process; specifically that they develop a couple of different proposals to bring back for council consideration. It is my hope that by having our town staff perform the majority of work will help to keep this as non-political a process as possible. Ya, I know, wishful thinking huh? ;-)
Our Planning and Development Committee meeting had two notable discussion items; whether or not to rename the Cary Community Arts Center and consideration of a four party agreement to modify and close rail crossings pertaining to the Parkside development in west Cary.
The four party agreement is somewhat complicated, so instead of me trying to explain it I suggest you read the staff report here. The bottom line is the agreement would extend the timeline of construction and closing of rail crossings at Carpenter Fire Station Road and O’Kelly Chapel Road and would also waive a $500,000 developer contribution towards the bridge construction.
We unanimously supported the agreement EXCEPT for the $500,000 developer fee waiver.
The Town’s Cultural Arts Committee along with town staff have discussed potential name options for the Cary Community Arts Center (Old Cary Elementary) and offered the following three possibilities.
· Arts on Academy
· Cary Arts and Cultural Exchange
· Kaleidoscope, Cary’s Arts Center
After a brief discussion, we selected none of the above and unanimously recommended that the Cary Community Arts Center be named the Cary Community Arts Center.
I also met with the applicants of two projects in Cary this week to discuss their progress towards addressing area resident’s concerns and to review proposed changes to their plans.
Well that’s about it for now. As always, thanks for reading.
Monday, January 17, 2011
2011 Retreat
This past week was dominated by meetings – the most notable being our council and staff retreat.
This year’s retreat was again held at the Embassy Suites Hotel on Harrison Avenue. Day one began with a session on remarkability. Each council member was tasked with defining what remarkable means to them, and to identify examples of what we consider remarkable on note cards. The cards were then placed on the wall and categorized. I am pleased to report that no one picked “beige”.
There was a wide-range of opinions on what remarkable means to each council member. Some of the items listed by council members, like the craftsmanship of the Library of Congress for example, were very detail oriented, while others, like a healthy economy or sense of community were more broad. The goal of this exercise was to identify the characteristics of a remarkable municipal environment, identify actions to achieve that environment, and then prioritize those actions.
After a healthy discussion about what is both remarkable and unremarkable in Cary, the council identified a number of action items for the following year. These include but are not limited to the following:
· Evaluate ways to incorporate features and amenities for our growing senior population into existing parks.
· Access the needs of our aging community to provide future services.
· Encourage and create gathering places and spaces for public events.
· Increase the use of technology to improve customer service interface.
· Expand Cary’s SPRUCE program.
· Encourage a vibrant and dynamic downtown.
· Identify needs and improve roads to meet desired standard.
The afternoon session focused on the transportation system improvement process and funding. This included a presentation and review of Cary’s current APF/TDF/CTP structure, a look at what other municipalities are doing, and North Carolina’s legal framework.
The goal of this session was to determine a future direction for transportation requirements and improvements regarding new developments. The council has expressed the following concerns with our existing ordinances:
· Gaps - Developers are required to widen the roadway in front of their property. This often results in roads going from narrow to wide, then back to narrow.
· Fairness – oftentimes the last one in bears the burden of fixing everyone’s problem. While previous development surely impacted area traffic, if it did not degrade the level of service beyond a level of “D”, it is not required to mitigate their impact. Yet the last guy in whose project takes the intersection’s level of service below a “D” is now required to mitigate their traffic. Every project contributed to the area traffic but not every project was required to address it. That’s not right.
· Small Business Impact – Small businesses looking to open up shop in existing buildings may also find themselves responsible for traffic mitigation if their use is more intense than the previous. Often times the costs of traffic mitigation are a deal killer and the business locates in another city.
I believe we did a good job of articulating our goals to staff and they have an idea of what we are looking to accomplish with any ordinance amendments.
Day two focused primarily on our downtown area and on low to no cost initiatives – what do we want to do versus what CAN we do now given the economy? Discussion focus primarily on potential incentives (fee waivers, tax abatements, public/private partnerships etc..) to incent new development, as well as increased opportunities for events and festivals downtown.
I was VERY pleased to see council now open to fee reductions downtown as this is something I have been pushing for since I joined the council. The cost of developing downtown is far greater than that of developing a greenfield site for a number of reasons, most notably land assemblage, escalated property values, demolition, etc.. You aren’t just buying land. You also have to purchase the building sitting on it…before you tear it down. Parking is also a concern.
Council directed staff to communicate with potential downtown prospects that we will consider incentives for worthy projects. However, before others would commit to fee waivers/reductions downtown, they requested that staff mock up potential downtown projects and associated costs and fees so they can better understand how much of an incentive reduced/eliminated fees would provide.
I understand the concern that reduced fees mean reduced revenue. I get it. But right now we are seeing NO redevelopment downtown. 100% of nothing is nothing. A fee waiver or reduction just might be enough help to get a project going, and create a few jobs in the process – not to mention increased sales tax and property tax revenue – and bring something desirable downtown.
The final session was to develop an updated list of initiatives to provide staff with a foundation to prepare specific work plans and adjust resource requests accordingly. We also discussed how best to report these initiatives and their progress to the public and in the town’s budget document.
The most frustrating part of the retreat was one council member’s push for a “mobility fee” and a “transit tax”. Thankfully the rest of council did not agree.
Increasing fees and taxes are the LAST thing our economy needs.
I found this year’s retreat better than previous years as there was more discussion and action, and less presentation. I look forward to the months ahead as we turn words into action, and work to make Cary even more remarkable than it is today.
This year’s retreat was again held at the Embassy Suites Hotel on Harrison Avenue. Day one began with a session on remarkability. Each council member was tasked with defining what remarkable means to them, and to identify examples of what we consider remarkable on note cards. The cards were then placed on the wall and categorized. I am pleased to report that no one picked “beige”.
There was a wide-range of opinions on what remarkable means to each council member. Some of the items listed by council members, like the craftsmanship of the Library of Congress for example, were very detail oriented, while others, like a healthy economy or sense of community were more broad. The goal of this exercise was to identify the characteristics of a remarkable municipal environment, identify actions to achieve that environment, and then prioritize those actions.
After a healthy discussion about what is both remarkable and unremarkable in Cary, the council identified a number of action items for the following year. These include but are not limited to the following:
· Evaluate ways to incorporate features and amenities for our growing senior population into existing parks.
· Access the needs of our aging community to provide future services.
· Encourage and create gathering places and spaces for public events.
· Increase the use of technology to improve customer service interface.
· Expand Cary’s SPRUCE program.
· Encourage a vibrant and dynamic downtown.
· Identify needs and improve roads to meet desired standard.
The afternoon session focused on the transportation system improvement process and funding. This included a presentation and review of Cary’s current APF/TDF/CTP structure, a look at what other municipalities are doing, and North Carolina’s legal framework.
The goal of this session was to determine a future direction for transportation requirements and improvements regarding new developments. The council has expressed the following concerns with our existing ordinances:
· Gaps - Developers are required to widen the roadway in front of their property. This often results in roads going from narrow to wide, then back to narrow.
· Fairness – oftentimes the last one in bears the burden of fixing everyone’s problem. While previous development surely impacted area traffic, if it did not degrade the level of service beyond a level of “D”, it is not required to mitigate their impact. Yet the last guy in whose project takes the intersection’s level of service below a “D” is now required to mitigate their traffic. Every project contributed to the area traffic but not every project was required to address it. That’s not right.
· Small Business Impact – Small businesses looking to open up shop in existing buildings may also find themselves responsible for traffic mitigation if their use is more intense than the previous. Often times the costs of traffic mitigation are a deal killer and the business locates in another city.
I believe we did a good job of articulating our goals to staff and they have an idea of what we are looking to accomplish with any ordinance amendments.
Day two focused primarily on our downtown area and on low to no cost initiatives – what do we want to do versus what CAN we do now given the economy? Discussion focus primarily on potential incentives (fee waivers, tax abatements, public/private partnerships etc..) to incent new development, as well as increased opportunities for events and festivals downtown.
I was VERY pleased to see council now open to fee reductions downtown as this is something I have been pushing for since I joined the council. The cost of developing downtown is far greater than that of developing a greenfield site for a number of reasons, most notably land assemblage, escalated property values, demolition, etc.. You aren’t just buying land. You also have to purchase the building sitting on it…before you tear it down. Parking is also a concern.
Council directed staff to communicate with potential downtown prospects that we will consider incentives for worthy projects. However, before others would commit to fee waivers/reductions downtown, they requested that staff mock up potential downtown projects and associated costs and fees so they can better understand how much of an incentive reduced/eliminated fees would provide.
I understand the concern that reduced fees mean reduced revenue. I get it. But right now we are seeing NO redevelopment downtown. 100% of nothing is nothing. A fee waiver or reduction just might be enough help to get a project going, and create a few jobs in the process – not to mention increased sales tax and property tax revenue – and bring something desirable downtown.
The final session was to develop an updated list of initiatives to provide staff with a foundation to prepare specific work plans and adjust resource requests accordingly. We also discussed how best to report these initiatives and their progress to the public and in the town’s budget document.
The most frustrating part of the retreat was one council member’s push for a “mobility fee” and a “transit tax”. Thankfully the rest of council did not agree.
Increasing fees and taxes are the LAST thing our economy needs.
I found this year’s retreat better than previous years as there was more discussion and action, and less presentation. I look forward to the months ahead as we turn words into action, and work to make Cary even more remarkable than it is today.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Week in Review 12/11/10 - 12/18/10
Last Saturday I had the honor of participating in the Cary Jaycees Annual Christmas Parade in Downtown Cary. Unfortunately Mother Nature didn’t cooperate and it rained all day, but a great crowd still braved the cold to come out and watch. This was a lot of fun and congratulations to the Cary Jaycees, volunteers, sponsors and businesses for another job well done!
Tuesday evening the council held a worksession to discuss two items; Tax Increment Financing and Land Dedication requirements.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a public financing method typically used as a subsidy for redevelopment and community improvement projects and relies on projected increases in tax revenue from new development to fund current projects. When public amenities such as an arts center, a town park or other public amenity are developed, there is often an increase in surrounding property values and increased private investment. Increased values lead to increased tax revenue. The “incremental” increase in revenue is committed to finance the debt of the public amenity, which – in theory – incented the new development and associated revenue increase.
Yes it’s complicated – and risky. We’ve all heard the phrase, “if you build it, they will come”. Well, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes things work out as planned and a $30 million public investment nets $400 million in new development. And then sometimes projections are wrong or the private sector doesn’t respond as anticipated – or the economy goes south or financing falls through or… well, you get the idea.
Obtaining the necessary approvals from the state, the Local Government Commission and Wake County is time consuming and costly, and TIF interest rates are higher than that which we can obtain through traditional debt financing thanks to Cary’s excellent credit ratings and fiscal health.
The bottom line is that while TIF might work in some instances for some communities, it doesn’t work for Cary.
Council also reviewed new legislative authority granted to Cary that would require land dedication as a component of multi-family housing development. Our current ordinance and practice has only applied to single family housing. The council saw this as an equity issue – one type of residential development is paying for their “impact” while the other is not. The council directed staff to begin drafting an ordinance requiring land dedication of all residential development.
Our Council meeting on Thursday lasted six hours – four of which was spent on a special use public hearing for a cell tower at the intersection of Cary Parkway and Old Apex Road. This was a quasi-judicial hearing so the council acts as judge and jury and can only receive factual information. Both sides – for and against – are allowed to make their arguments, rebut and cross-examine witnesses. There are no time limits on presentations or length of comment like regular public hearings.
After all was said and done a motion to deny the tower passed 5-2. I voted against the motion as I could not support one of the motion’s findings of fact. I could have voted to deny the tower based on their request for set-back reductions. We have set-back and buffer requirements in this town for a reason, and this proposal was asking for a significant waiver of that requirement.
I have a whole new respect for Judges after this hearing.
Other notable items on our council agenda included the adoption of our new ethics ordinance, Land Development Ordinance amendments, a Comprehensive Transportation Plan amendment, and whether or not to opt out of the 2009 Permit Extension Act.
The North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation requiring municipal governments adopt a code of ethics. Cary already had a code of ethics, but it did not meet the criteria set forth in the NCGA’s legislation. While I agree that governing bodies should have a code of ethics, I find it just a wee bit odd that the elected body in North Carolina whose had more members in prison than we have on the council is legislating ethics…but I digress…
After revisiting the decision of whether or not to opt out of the 2009 Permit Extension Act, the council supported a modified plan that would honor the approval of development plans except site and subdivision plan approvals, and that buildings must meet current building code.
Lisa, Elizabeth and I left for Florida early Friday morning to attend our son, Jordan’s graduation from the University of Central Florida. We heard ya’ll got some snow? It was 70 in Florida…but it rained. CONGRATULATIONS JORDAN!!! We are so proud!
Tuesday evening the council held a worksession to discuss two items; Tax Increment Financing and Land Dedication requirements.
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a public financing method typically used as a subsidy for redevelopment and community improvement projects and relies on projected increases in tax revenue from new development to fund current projects. When public amenities such as an arts center, a town park or other public amenity are developed, there is often an increase in surrounding property values and increased private investment. Increased values lead to increased tax revenue. The “incremental” increase in revenue is committed to finance the debt of the public amenity, which – in theory – incented the new development and associated revenue increase.
Yes it’s complicated – and risky. We’ve all heard the phrase, “if you build it, they will come”. Well, sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t. Sometimes things work out as planned and a $30 million public investment nets $400 million in new development. And then sometimes projections are wrong or the private sector doesn’t respond as anticipated – or the economy goes south or financing falls through or… well, you get the idea.
Obtaining the necessary approvals from the state, the Local Government Commission and Wake County is time consuming and costly, and TIF interest rates are higher than that which we can obtain through traditional debt financing thanks to Cary’s excellent credit ratings and fiscal health.
The bottom line is that while TIF might work in some instances for some communities, it doesn’t work for Cary.
Council also reviewed new legislative authority granted to Cary that would require land dedication as a component of multi-family housing development. Our current ordinance and practice has only applied to single family housing. The council saw this as an equity issue – one type of residential development is paying for their “impact” while the other is not. The council directed staff to begin drafting an ordinance requiring land dedication of all residential development.
Our Council meeting on Thursday lasted six hours – four of which was spent on a special use public hearing for a cell tower at the intersection of Cary Parkway and Old Apex Road. This was a quasi-judicial hearing so the council acts as judge and jury and can only receive factual information. Both sides – for and against – are allowed to make their arguments, rebut and cross-examine witnesses. There are no time limits on presentations or length of comment like regular public hearings.
After all was said and done a motion to deny the tower passed 5-2. I voted against the motion as I could not support one of the motion’s findings of fact. I could have voted to deny the tower based on their request for set-back reductions. We have set-back and buffer requirements in this town for a reason, and this proposal was asking for a significant waiver of that requirement.
I have a whole new respect for Judges after this hearing.
Other notable items on our council agenda included the adoption of our new ethics ordinance, Land Development Ordinance amendments, a Comprehensive Transportation Plan amendment, and whether or not to opt out of the 2009 Permit Extension Act.
The North Carolina General Assembly passed legislation requiring municipal governments adopt a code of ethics. Cary already had a code of ethics, but it did not meet the criteria set forth in the NCGA’s legislation. While I agree that governing bodies should have a code of ethics, I find it just a wee bit odd that the elected body in North Carolina whose had more members in prison than we have on the council is legislating ethics…but I digress…
After revisiting the decision of whether or not to opt out of the 2009 Permit Extension Act, the council supported a modified plan that would honor the approval of development plans except site and subdivision plan approvals, and that buildings must meet current building code.
Lisa, Elizabeth and I left for Florida early Friday morning to attend our son, Jordan’s graduation from the University of Central Florida. We heard ya’ll got some snow? It was 70 in Florida…but it rained. CONGRATULATIONS JORDAN!!! We are so proud!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Cary Matters
I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving! Ours was great – family, food and football! (not necessarily in that order) But can you believe Boise State lost to Nevada? - and I thought we were in for a BCS shake-up until Auburn came back from 24 down to beat Alabama.
My council responsibilities were light this past week due to the holiday. The highlight of my week was taping the December Cary Matters television show with Mayor Weinbrecht. Maybe I shouldn’t say highlight – I haven’t seen the show yet. It’s supposed to be HERE, but it hasn’t been posted at the time of this blogging. Maybe that says something? ;-)
A lot of you have inquired about the show at one time or another, so I figured this post would be a good opportunity to give you a behind the scenes look at the cinematic masterpiece we like to call, Cary Matters.
Cary Matters was created over two years ago in an effort to keep you, our citizens better informed and involved in the issues that we, the members of your town council, are working on as your elected representatives.
The show’s content focuses on initiatives and activities supported by the council as a whole. The program cannot be used to advocate for a particular individual, minority opinion, idea or position.
The key phrase there is “supported by the council as a whole”. Majority rules. What does or doesn’t get done in our town happens by a vote of council. Not every decision is unanimous, but once a decision is made, the decision is made.
Those decisions often become discussion topics for Cary Matters.
Council members rotate as “guest hosts” with the Mayor on Cary Matters. The show is scripted and is written by the Mayor with input from council and our public information office. Prior to taping the script is sent to participants for review and comment.
Most of the time there are no issues regarding program content – it’s usually the, “I would rather say it this way” kinda stuff. However, once in a while a guest host finds themselves scripted to speak positively about an initiative they did not support. Majority rules remember?
So what do you do if you are that council member? Well, you first lobby for changes to the script and or discussion topic, and if that fails you change the names on the script so the Mayor says that part. ;-)
The show costs about $5000 a year to produce and utilizes existing town resources and outside contractors. It requires four people (excluding hosts) to tape and produce the show. Taping time can last anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour and a half and yes, we use a teleprompter.
Some totally useless Cary Matters trivia for you: I am the only council member besides the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem to host Cary Matters. Why? I wrote the script.
There is no make-up or wardrobe department and the beverage in the coffee mugs is water. I promise. ;-)
My council responsibilities were light this past week due to the holiday. The highlight of my week was taping the December Cary Matters television show with Mayor Weinbrecht. Maybe I shouldn’t say highlight – I haven’t seen the show yet. It’s supposed to be HERE, but it hasn’t been posted at the time of this blogging. Maybe that says something? ;-)
A lot of you have inquired about the show at one time or another, so I figured this post would be a good opportunity to give you a behind the scenes look at the cinematic masterpiece we like to call, Cary Matters.
Cary Matters was created over two years ago in an effort to keep you, our citizens better informed and involved in the issues that we, the members of your town council, are working on as your elected representatives.
The show’s content focuses on initiatives and activities supported by the council as a whole. The program cannot be used to advocate for a particular individual, minority opinion, idea or position.
The key phrase there is “supported by the council as a whole”. Majority rules. What does or doesn’t get done in our town happens by a vote of council. Not every decision is unanimous, but once a decision is made, the decision is made.
Those decisions often become discussion topics for Cary Matters.
Council members rotate as “guest hosts” with the Mayor on Cary Matters. The show is scripted and is written by the Mayor with input from council and our public information office. Prior to taping the script is sent to participants for review and comment.
Most of the time there are no issues regarding program content – it’s usually the, “I would rather say it this way” kinda stuff. However, once in a while a guest host finds themselves scripted to speak positively about an initiative they did not support. Majority rules remember?
So what do you do if you are that council member? Well, you first lobby for changes to the script and or discussion topic, and if that fails you change the names on the script so the Mayor says that part. ;-)
The show costs about $5000 a year to produce and utilizes existing town resources and outside contractors. It requires four people (excluding hosts) to tape and produce the show. Taping time can last anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour and a half and yes, we use a teleprompter.
Some totally useless Cary Matters trivia for you: I am the only council member besides the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem to host Cary Matters. Why? I wrote the script.
There is no make-up or wardrobe department and the beverage in the coffee mugs is water. I promise. ;-)
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Week in Review 11/15/10 - 11/20/10
Council held a worksession on Tuesday to discuss two items; potential changes to the town’s sign ordinance as recommended by the town’s Sign Ordinance Review Task Force, and transit oriented development. The transit oriented development portion was a joint session with our town’s Planning and Zoning Board.
The council accepted a number of recommended amendments to the town’s sign ordinance, rejected others and asked for more information and discussion on few others. The council will meet again on this topic once more before we present the final version for public hearing.
The transit oriented development worksession was more presentation than discussion. As a result the council agreed to hold another session on this topic so that we may discuss in greater detail. The council has been holding these worksessions to better understand how the proposed light rail, regional rail, and high speed rail projects will impact and shape how our town grows.
I haven’t been shy with my concerns about the rail projects. The high speed rail project is a $5 billion boondoggle that has the potential to devastate our existing highway and road network should a number of at-grade crossings be closed. Yet at the same time I believe that planning for a light rail/regional rail system in our region makes sense, I just don’t believe it is needed now, or anytime soon for that matter. We simply don’t have the population densities to support it.
That’s the real question that needs to be answered, and the discussion that we as a council haven’t had. Do we want that density? Do we want to see Cary grow from a predominantly suburban community to something more urban? Do we want to encourage higher densities along and around the rail corridor? How much of a factor do we want rail to play in our future land use decisions?
Whether or not rail comes to Cary is really out of our hands. This is a regional project. We do however have a voice in how much of a stakeholder we want to be. The majority of council has indicated its support for regional and light rail, and has asked TTA for four rail stations between Cary and Morrisville.
Rail will encourage a significant amount of dense development. Consultants and industry professionals agree that in order for rail to be successful (as successful as it can be I guess) it needs density to generate ridership. They have also made it clear that if we as elected officials support rail, we must also support land use decisions and zoning that encourages dense development along the rail corridor.
This is where I see conflict. The biggest supporters of rail on the council are often the same who consistently vote against the type of projects which would support rail. The argument most often used to vote against them? Density.
This conflict needs resolution before we can adequately and honestly plan for the future of our town. It is disingenuous to send the message that we support rail when the majority of council’s actions – up to this point – says otherwise.
My thoughts: While density has its place in Cary, I don’t believe that place is along every inch of railroad track from Raleigh to Morrisville. Cary didn’t become one of the greatest places to live in America by trying to be something it isn’t. We are a safe, family oriented suburban community. Heck, we’re even Martha Stewart approved, and that’s a good thing. ;-)
Yet should the rail projects materialize, we must work to ensure that they are a benefit to our community, not a burden. This will not be easy, but I believe it can be done in a manner which protects and preserves the character and charm of our community, and in the spirit of that which makes Cary such a great place to live, work and retire.
What I really struggle to understand however, is that the proponents of rail claim it will alleviate traffic congestion by removing up to 5% of vehicles off the road. Yet in order for rail to succeed we must increase population? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Increasing our population will in turn increase the number of vehicles on the road as the majority of all those new residents will have a car; not to mention the increased impact on our area schools, water supply, environment and overall quality of life. What good is removing 5% of the cars when you’re adding 20%? You would think that if we were going to invest billions in a transportation initiative, we might look for one that will actually reduce traffic. But I digress…
Thursday evening was our council meeting. Notable items included:
A reception honoring Cary’s Hometown Spirit Award nominees and announcement of this year’s winner who is, drum roll please……Kay Struffolino! Kay is an amazing woman who gives so much of herself to help make Cary one of the greatest places to live. Kay currently serves on our town’s Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Advisory Board and volunteers countless hours of her time at Cary’s Senior Center, Koka Booth Amphitheater and town events and festivals. Thank you and congratulations to all the nominees. Cary is a better place because of you.
Also on our agenda was consideration of whether or not to move forward with Cary’s Comprehensive Annexation Program. Ten areas previously identified were recommended for Town initiated annexation by our staff. After a lengthy discussion I made the motion not to proceed with annexation. My motion passed 4-3.
The council also discussed whether or not to opt out of the 2009 Permit Extension Act. This legislation, passed by the NC General Assembly, extends the period of validity for previously approved development projects. The act was amended this past year to add an additional year to the previous extension period, but local governments have the option to “opt out” of the additional extension. The council voted 4-3 to not opt out. However, after our closed session meeting, council members Adcock and Robinson made a motion to reconsider. That motion passed 4-3. A follow-up motion was then made to consider another alternative at our December meeting. This alternative would support the extension for previously approved development plans and site plans, but that buildings would have to be constructed to today’s standards. We will consider that request in December.
I opposed the request to reconsider for two reasons; first, these are trying economic times and this legislation provides a little more economic opportunity to projects that were already approved at Cary’s high standards, and secondly, for the council to reconsider something we already publicly debated and voted on – after coming out of a closed session on a different topic – is bad governance and lacks transparency. The Mayor had already announced prior to going into closed session that there was no further business, and that at the conclusion of our closed session we would adjourn the meeting. That did not happen. How then could anyone watching not come to the conclusion that the permit extension act was discussed behind closed doors?
Friday evening I had the honor and privilege of speaking at the Graduation Ceremonies for 16 of Cary’s newest Firefighters. Being a firefighter is not just a job, it’s a calling. A job is something that folks do from 9-5 to earn a living. A calling is a career with purpose – it goes beyond a monetary pursuit. It takes a very special person to respond to a calling. Over 850 people applied for these 16 positions, and after meeting and speaking with the new cadets and learning more about their backgrounds I am confident that we hired the best of the best. Thank you for answering the call.
That’s all for now - as always, thanks for reading!
The council accepted a number of recommended amendments to the town’s sign ordinance, rejected others and asked for more information and discussion on few others. The council will meet again on this topic once more before we present the final version for public hearing.
The transit oriented development worksession was more presentation than discussion. As a result the council agreed to hold another session on this topic so that we may discuss in greater detail. The council has been holding these worksessions to better understand how the proposed light rail, regional rail, and high speed rail projects will impact and shape how our town grows.
I haven’t been shy with my concerns about the rail projects. The high speed rail project is a $5 billion boondoggle that has the potential to devastate our existing highway and road network should a number of at-grade crossings be closed. Yet at the same time I believe that planning for a light rail/regional rail system in our region makes sense, I just don’t believe it is needed now, or anytime soon for that matter. We simply don’t have the population densities to support it.
That’s the real question that needs to be answered, and the discussion that we as a council haven’t had. Do we want that density? Do we want to see Cary grow from a predominantly suburban community to something more urban? Do we want to encourage higher densities along and around the rail corridor? How much of a factor do we want rail to play in our future land use decisions?
Whether or not rail comes to Cary is really out of our hands. This is a regional project. We do however have a voice in how much of a stakeholder we want to be. The majority of council has indicated its support for regional and light rail, and has asked TTA for four rail stations between Cary and Morrisville.
Rail will encourage a significant amount of dense development. Consultants and industry professionals agree that in order for rail to be successful (as successful as it can be I guess) it needs density to generate ridership. They have also made it clear that if we as elected officials support rail, we must also support land use decisions and zoning that encourages dense development along the rail corridor.
This is where I see conflict. The biggest supporters of rail on the council are often the same who consistently vote against the type of projects which would support rail. The argument most often used to vote against them? Density.
This conflict needs resolution before we can adequately and honestly plan for the future of our town. It is disingenuous to send the message that we support rail when the majority of council’s actions – up to this point – says otherwise.
My thoughts: While density has its place in Cary, I don’t believe that place is along every inch of railroad track from Raleigh to Morrisville. Cary didn’t become one of the greatest places to live in America by trying to be something it isn’t. We are a safe, family oriented suburban community. Heck, we’re even Martha Stewart approved, and that’s a good thing. ;-)
Yet should the rail projects materialize, we must work to ensure that they are a benefit to our community, not a burden. This will not be easy, but I believe it can be done in a manner which protects and preserves the character and charm of our community, and in the spirit of that which makes Cary such a great place to live, work and retire.
What I really struggle to understand however, is that the proponents of rail claim it will alleviate traffic congestion by removing up to 5% of vehicles off the road. Yet in order for rail to succeed we must increase population? That makes absolutely no sense to me. Increasing our population will in turn increase the number of vehicles on the road as the majority of all those new residents will have a car; not to mention the increased impact on our area schools, water supply, environment and overall quality of life. What good is removing 5% of the cars when you’re adding 20%? You would think that if we were going to invest billions in a transportation initiative, we might look for one that will actually reduce traffic. But I digress…
Thursday evening was our council meeting. Notable items included:
A reception honoring Cary’s Hometown Spirit Award nominees and announcement of this year’s winner who is, drum roll please……Kay Struffolino! Kay is an amazing woman who gives so much of herself to help make Cary one of the greatest places to live. Kay currently serves on our town’s Parks, Recreation and Cultural Resources Advisory Board and volunteers countless hours of her time at Cary’s Senior Center, Koka Booth Amphitheater and town events and festivals. Thank you and congratulations to all the nominees. Cary is a better place because of you.
Also on our agenda was consideration of whether or not to move forward with Cary’s Comprehensive Annexation Program. Ten areas previously identified were recommended for Town initiated annexation by our staff. After a lengthy discussion I made the motion not to proceed with annexation. My motion passed 4-3.
The council also discussed whether or not to opt out of the 2009 Permit Extension Act. This legislation, passed by the NC General Assembly, extends the period of validity for previously approved development projects. The act was amended this past year to add an additional year to the previous extension period, but local governments have the option to “opt out” of the additional extension. The council voted 4-3 to not opt out. However, after our closed session meeting, council members Adcock and Robinson made a motion to reconsider. That motion passed 4-3. A follow-up motion was then made to consider another alternative at our December meeting. This alternative would support the extension for previously approved development plans and site plans, but that buildings would have to be constructed to today’s standards. We will consider that request in December.
I opposed the request to reconsider for two reasons; first, these are trying economic times and this legislation provides a little more economic opportunity to projects that were already approved at Cary’s high standards, and secondly, for the council to reconsider something we already publicly debated and voted on – after coming out of a closed session on a different topic – is bad governance and lacks transparency. The Mayor had already announced prior to going into closed session that there was no further business, and that at the conclusion of our closed session we would adjourn the meeting. That did not happen. How then could anyone watching not come to the conclusion that the permit extension act was discussed behind closed doors?
Friday evening I had the honor and privilege of speaking at the Graduation Ceremonies for 16 of Cary’s newest Firefighters. Being a firefighter is not just a job, it’s a calling. A job is something that folks do from 9-5 to earn a living. A calling is a career with purpose – it goes beyond a monetary pursuit. It takes a very special person to respond to a calling. Over 850 people applied for these 16 positions, and after meeting and speaking with the new cadets and learning more about their backgrounds I am confident that we hired the best of the best. Thank you for answering the call.
That’s all for now - as always, thanks for reading!
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Who's Got Spirit?
Cary Announces Hometown Spirit Finalists Winner to be Announced During November Council Meeting
CARY, NC – After reviewing numerous nominations, the Town of Cary is proud to announce the finalists for this year’s Hometown Spirit Award. The Hometown Spirit Award is bestowed annually on one Cary resident who enhances the quality of life in Cary by preserving, promoting and carrying out positive and quantifiable traditional small-town community values and traits. The 2010 Hometown Spirit Award finalists are: Michael Carlton, George Dohanich, Jason Harloff, Rosalind Heiko, Ruth Merkle, Gay Purvis, Cynthia Sinkez and Kay Struffolino.
“All eight nominees actively demonstrate the core principles of the award program. They are all dedicated to enhancing Cary’s quality of life and preserving the small town atmosphere that makes our community such a great place,” said Cary Town Clerk Sue Rowland.
The Cary Town Council will host a reception in honor of all of the finalists on November 18 at 5:30 p.m. Immediately after, the 2009 award recipient, Alisa Wright Colopy, will join Mayor Harold Weinbrecht in announcing this year’s winner during the regular Town Council Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
To learn more about each finalist, visit Hometown Spirit Award at www.townofcary.org or call (919) 460-4941.
Congratulations to all the nominees! Cary is a better place thanks to you.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Council Meeting - 10/14/10
I apologize for going so long between posts, but my campaign for NC House has required so much of my “free time” as of late – and given my work, family and council responsibilities, I didn’t have much free time to begin with! ;-)
My council responsibilities this week consisted mainly of reviewing staff reports in preparation for Thursday evening’s council meeting.
Highlights from our meeting included a discussion on staff recommended sidewalk construction projects and changes to the sound level limit at Koka Booth Amphitheater.
Bottom line regarding sidewalk construction projects; there are more desired projects than money. Staff did a good job in ranking these projects based on need and cost resulting in 8 projects able to move forward within budget. You can see a list of the approved projects here.
Regarding the sound levels at Koka Booth; council voted to increase the sound level limit from 92 decibels to 95. We did this for two reasons.
1) SMG (our management company) has had a difficult time recruiting some big name bands to play at Koka Booth given current noise restrictions. (a couple of bands who did play even complained while on stage that the levels were too low)
2) In surveying concert patrons, the overwhelming complaint has been the low sound level.
Hopefully this change will not only provide a better concert experience for our patrons, but also improve our chances of booking big-name artists; resulting in increased concert ticket sales and revenue to Cary. Koka Booth Amphitheater, while doing much better than years past, continues to be subsidized through tax revenue. I would love to see this facility not just break even, but turn a profit.
Regardless, you would be hard pressed to find a more beautiful and fan-friendly concert venue in North Carolina. Many thanks to our staff and the hundreds of volunteers who work so hard to make Koka Booth such a huge success.
My council responsibilities this week consisted mainly of reviewing staff reports in preparation for Thursday evening’s council meeting.
Highlights from our meeting included a discussion on staff recommended sidewalk construction projects and changes to the sound level limit at Koka Booth Amphitheater.
Bottom line regarding sidewalk construction projects; there are more desired projects than money. Staff did a good job in ranking these projects based on need and cost resulting in 8 projects able to move forward within budget. You can see a list of the approved projects here.
Regarding the sound levels at Koka Booth; council voted to increase the sound level limit from 92 decibels to 95. We did this for two reasons.
1) SMG (our management company) has had a difficult time recruiting some big name bands to play at Koka Booth given current noise restrictions. (a couple of bands who did play even complained while on stage that the levels were too low)
2) In surveying concert patrons, the overwhelming complaint has been the low sound level.
Hopefully this change will not only provide a better concert experience for our patrons, but also improve our chances of booking big-name artists; resulting in increased concert ticket sales and revenue to Cary. Koka Booth Amphitheater, while doing much better than years past, continues to be subsidized through tax revenue. I would love to see this facility not just break even, but turn a profit.
Regardless, you would be hard pressed to find a more beautiful and fan-friendly concert venue in North Carolina. Many thanks to our staff and the hundreds of volunteers who work so hard to make Koka Booth such a huge success.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Saving Money
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE September 16, 2010
Bond Refinancing Saves Town of Cary Over $700K
CARY, NC – Thanks to current market conditions and a competitive bid process, the Town of Cary has successfully refinanced a portion of the 2003 voter-approved Public Improvement general obligation bonds, saving the Town and its taxpayers $728,000 in debt service, $217,000 of which will be realized in the current fiscal year. The action has a present value savings of almost $645,000 or 4.3 percent.
This transaction is the second bond refinancing opportunity the Town has taken advantage of this year. In June, Cary refinanced a portion of the 1999 voter-approved Cary Community general obligation bonds as well as a portion of the 2002 Certificates of Participation valued at $25.4 million, saving Cary taxpayers $1.5 million, with $795,000 of that also being realized this fiscal year. To take advantage of a refinancing opportunity, staff constantly monitors the market to ensure debt savings of at least three per cent.
“The Cary Town Council is always challenging staff to remain financially smart, and we are constantly monitoring the market for opportunities to save our taxpayers money,” said Karen Mills, Town of Cary Finance Director. “In this situation, bids were competitive, resulting in a great rate and emphasizing the importance of the Town’s AAA bond rating and sound financial practices.” Mills added that while only five to seven bids were expected, 12 bids were received and Citigroup presented the best refinancing option.
In May, Moody’s Financial Service, one of the three major bond rating agencies in the U.S., upgraded the Town of Cary revenue bonds to a Triple A rating, the highest possible. As a result, Cary now boasts the AAA rating from all three agencies—Moody’s, Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor’s—on all revenue bonds. Cary has been rated Triple A by all three rating agencies for its general obligation bonds since 2001. In North Carolina, Cary and Charlotte are the only municipalities to share the prestigious ranking of Tripe A for both general obligation and revenue bonds. Cary’s AAA ratings help its taxpayers save hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest over the years.
To learn more, visit Municipal Bond Sales and the Finance Department at www.townofcary.org or call (919) 469-4380.
PRIMARY CONTACTS: Karen Mills, Finance Director, (919) 469-4110 Carrie Roman, Public Information Specialist, (919) 481-5091 Susan Moran, Public Information Director, (919) 460-4951
Bond Refinancing Saves Town of Cary Over $700K
CARY, NC – Thanks to current market conditions and a competitive bid process, the Town of Cary has successfully refinanced a portion of the 2003 voter-approved Public Improvement general obligation bonds, saving the Town and its taxpayers $728,000 in debt service, $217,000 of which will be realized in the current fiscal year. The action has a present value savings of almost $645,000 or 4.3 percent.
This transaction is the second bond refinancing opportunity the Town has taken advantage of this year. In June, Cary refinanced a portion of the 1999 voter-approved Cary Community general obligation bonds as well as a portion of the 2002 Certificates of Participation valued at $25.4 million, saving Cary taxpayers $1.5 million, with $795,000 of that also being realized this fiscal year. To take advantage of a refinancing opportunity, staff constantly monitors the market to ensure debt savings of at least three per cent.
“The Cary Town Council is always challenging staff to remain financially smart, and we are constantly monitoring the market for opportunities to save our taxpayers money,” said Karen Mills, Town of Cary Finance Director. “In this situation, bids were competitive, resulting in a great rate and emphasizing the importance of the Town’s AAA bond rating and sound financial practices.” Mills added that while only five to seven bids were expected, 12 bids were received and Citigroup presented the best refinancing option.
In May, Moody’s Financial Service, one of the three major bond rating agencies in the U.S., upgraded the Town of Cary revenue bonds to a Triple A rating, the highest possible. As a result, Cary now boasts the AAA rating from all three agencies—Moody’s, Fitch Ratings and Standard & Poor’s—on all revenue bonds. Cary has been rated Triple A by all three rating agencies for its general obligation bonds since 2001. In North Carolina, Cary and Charlotte are the only municipalities to share the prestigious ranking of Tripe A for both general obligation and revenue bonds. Cary’s AAA ratings help its taxpayers save hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest over the years.
To learn more, visit Municipal Bond Sales and the Finance Department at www.townofcary.org or call (919) 469-4380.
PRIMARY CONTACTS: Karen Mills, Finance Director, (919) 469-4110 Carrie Roman, Public Information Specialist, (919) 481-5091 Susan Moran, Public Information Director, (919) 460-4951
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Week(s) in Review: 8/22/10 - 9/3/10
To say the last couple of weeks have been busy would be an understatement! But I’m not complaining - it sure beats the heck out of the alternative.
Council held a worksession last Thursday prior to our council meeting to discuss recommended board and commission appointments. All appointments were unanimously approved, however I did express dissatisfaction regarding appointments to the Environmental Advisory Board – NOT because of the appointments themselves, but because the council wasn’t given time to review them as the liaison submitted them less than 24 hours before the worksession. Every other council member had their recommended slates in a week prior, giving council members ample time to review and voice any concerns they may or may not have. Believe it or not, the same thing happened last year also.
The main discussion item at our council meeting last week was the consideration of a plan that would resume issuing building permits in the Peninsula at Amberly development. The town had placed a hold on the issuance of building permits as the developer has not completed the required infrastructure improvements, and fails to respond to the town’s requests to do so.
Realizing that developers can and sometimes do go out of business, the town requires that they (developers) submit financial guarantees to the town to ensure these improvements are completed. This developer did submit a financial guarantee in the form of a letter of credit from a bank. So no problem right?
Wrong. The town was notified through FDIC that this bank has been placed in receivership and closed.
A number of builders – local custom home builders I might add – and private citizens purchased lots from the developer and have been trying to get building permits for months. But the town’s land development ordinance will not allow issuance of building permits without financial guarantee for the required infrastructure improvements.
The town has worked to create a temporary ordinance amendment to address this unprecedented issue. This temporary ordinance amendment would charge lot owners a per lot fee to cover their cost of the infrastructure improvements. It would also allow them to pay half of the fee when the building permit is issued, and the remaining half before issuance of certificate of occupancy to help with cash-flow concerns.
While all of council supported this proposal, the majority of our discussion centered on at what amount to set the fee level. The council ultimately decided by a vote of 6-1 to set the fee amounts based on the original letters of credit since this is the amount the town would have received from the bank had they not gone under. The town will also continue to aggressively pursue collection from the developer to include legal action.
I feel sorry for the builders and lot owners who have been put in the position of having to bear someone else’s financial responsibility. They already paid their “fee” when they purchased the lots from the developer as we all know that that amount was factored into the lot price. This isn’t the builder’s fault. It’s not the town’s fault. It’s not the citizen’s fault. Yet someone has to cover the costs of the infrastructure or else it falls on the backs of Cary taxpayers – and that’s not acceptable.
It is my hope that through legal action we can get the developer to comply and/or that maybe another developer will purchase the project and complete these improvements; allowing us to refund those fees back to the builders and lot owners. In the meantime, builders can start building again and those folks who were trying to build their dream home will realize that dream sooner than later.
I had the honor of attending the annual neighborhood picnic at Meadowmont this past week. This was a blast as over 100 people gathered for food, fellowship and fun. I spoke to those in attendance about a number of initiatives in the old Cary area and answered questions from area residents.
I also had the pleasure of attending a baby shower for soon to be Grandma Sue Rowland (our Town Clerk). Sue is an amazing woman who works very hard to keep Cary organized and legal. She dots every i and crosses every t. For those of you who may not know what the town clerk does, they are the custodian of all permanent town records, responsible for noticing and recording all of our meetings, manages our boards and commissions, and provides support services for the council and staff… and a bazillion other things that aren’t in their job description. ;-) I have learned a great deal working with Sue and I will forever be in her debt. Congratulations Sue!
Council held a special meeting on Thursday to consider actions needed to refinance some of the town’s existing debt obligation. We approved refinancing about $15 Million in general debt obligation saving Cary taxpayers about $875,000. Great meeting! Council also held a brief closed session afterwards to discuss a legal matter.
That’s all for now – as always, thanks for reading!
Council held a worksession last Thursday prior to our council meeting to discuss recommended board and commission appointments. All appointments were unanimously approved, however I did express dissatisfaction regarding appointments to the Environmental Advisory Board – NOT because of the appointments themselves, but because the council wasn’t given time to review them as the liaison submitted them less than 24 hours before the worksession. Every other council member had their recommended slates in a week prior, giving council members ample time to review and voice any concerns they may or may not have. Believe it or not, the same thing happened last year also.
The main discussion item at our council meeting last week was the consideration of a plan that would resume issuing building permits in the Peninsula at Amberly development. The town had placed a hold on the issuance of building permits as the developer has not completed the required infrastructure improvements, and fails to respond to the town’s requests to do so.
Realizing that developers can and sometimes do go out of business, the town requires that they (developers) submit financial guarantees to the town to ensure these improvements are completed. This developer did submit a financial guarantee in the form of a letter of credit from a bank. So no problem right?
Wrong. The town was notified through FDIC that this bank has been placed in receivership and closed.
A number of builders – local custom home builders I might add – and private citizens purchased lots from the developer and have been trying to get building permits for months. But the town’s land development ordinance will not allow issuance of building permits without financial guarantee for the required infrastructure improvements.
The town has worked to create a temporary ordinance amendment to address this unprecedented issue. This temporary ordinance amendment would charge lot owners a per lot fee to cover their cost of the infrastructure improvements. It would also allow them to pay half of the fee when the building permit is issued, and the remaining half before issuance of certificate of occupancy to help with cash-flow concerns.
While all of council supported this proposal, the majority of our discussion centered on at what amount to set the fee level. The council ultimately decided by a vote of 6-1 to set the fee amounts based on the original letters of credit since this is the amount the town would have received from the bank had they not gone under. The town will also continue to aggressively pursue collection from the developer to include legal action.
I feel sorry for the builders and lot owners who have been put in the position of having to bear someone else’s financial responsibility. They already paid their “fee” when they purchased the lots from the developer as we all know that that amount was factored into the lot price. This isn’t the builder’s fault. It’s not the town’s fault. It’s not the citizen’s fault. Yet someone has to cover the costs of the infrastructure or else it falls on the backs of Cary taxpayers – and that’s not acceptable.
It is my hope that through legal action we can get the developer to comply and/or that maybe another developer will purchase the project and complete these improvements; allowing us to refund those fees back to the builders and lot owners. In the meantime, builders can start building again and those folks who were trying to build their dream home will realize that dream sooner than later.
I had the honor of attending the annual neighborhood picnic at Meadowmont this past week. This was a blast as over 100 people gathered for food, fellowship and fun. I spoke to those in attendance about a number of initiatives in the old Cary area and answered questions from area residents.
I also had the pleasure of attending a baby shower for soon to be Grandma Sue Rowland (our Town Clerk). Sue is an amazing woman who works very hard to keep Cary organized and legal. She dots every i and crosses every t. For those of you who may not know what the town clerk does, they are the custodian of all permanent town records, responsible for noticing and recording all of our meetings, manages our boards and commissions, and provides support services for the council and staff… and a bazillion other things that aren’t in their job description. ;-) I have learned a great deal working with Sue and I will forever be in her debt. Congratulations Sue!
Council held a special meeting on Thursday to consider actions needed to refinance some of the town’s existing debt obligation. We approved refinancing about $15 Million in general debt obligation saving Cary taxpayers about $875,000. Great meeting! Council also held a brief closed session afterwards to discuss a legal matter.
That’s all for now – as always, thanks for reading!
Sunday, August 22, 2010
8/11/10 Council Meeting
I apologize for not posting my week in reviews as frequently as I would like, but with work, my council responsibilities, a campaign and trying to find some time for my family… well, there just haven’t been enough hours in the day.
This post will focus on our council meeting which was held on 8/11/10.
Our meeting had 2 notable discussion items: Consideration of a traffic light at the intersection of Kildaire Farm Road and Loch Highlands Drive, and whether or not to apply for a federal grant to assist with funding a section of the White Oak Greenway.
After NCDOT completed a road widening project and installed a new bridge on Kildaire Farm Road, citizens have been contacting the town regarding their concerns for pedestrian safety. The project resulted in an asphalt trail being removed that residents had used for safe pedestrian access. A new sidewalk was instead installed along the roadway and bridge. This section of road curves slightly, and residents feared that if a motorist took their eyes off the road for a second, or if a traffic accident occurred, vehicles could end up on the sidewalk – seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian. They asked the town to look into a guardrail or some other form of barrier.
Numerous attempts to work with NCDOT in an attempt to get a barrier installed failed. NCDOT was unwilling to modify the bridge, and informed Cary that any modifications would be the town’s responsibility as the bridge met state standards.
After further review, town staff recommended that a traffic signal with crosswalks be installed at the intersection of Kildaire Farm Road and Loch Highlands Drive. This would allow residents a safe manner in which to cross the street and use the multi-use path on the other side of the street…which has a concrete barrier between it and the road. Yes you read that correctly.
You see, NCDOT “cheaped out” on the bridge. The southbound side of the bridge was constructed with a multi-use path. However, in an effort to reduce costs that section of the bridge was not engineered to hold the weight of vehicles, so NCDOT installed a concrete barrier to prevent maintenance or emergency vehicles from parking on it. Nice huh?
After investigating numerous options, our town staff determined that installing the traffic signal would cost less than installing a parapet wall or barrier on the bridge, and once installed the signal becomes NCDOT’s responsibility. Staff’s traffic data also indicated that this intersection meets warrants for a traffic signal.
The traffic signal was approved by a vote of 6-1. I voted against it. While I do support the signal installation, I have grave concerns regarding next year’s budget and economic outlook. If this is truly a “need to have”, which I believe it is, then we should be willing to give up a “nice to have” to fund it. I also believe, as does our town staff, that we have numerous pedestrian safety issues throughout town (the bridge on Walnut Street at Crossroads and the lack of a crosswalk and sidewalks on Cary Parkway near North Cary Park are two that come to mind) that might be of higher priority. Without conducting a study there is no way to know.
I made a motion to table this for 2 weeks to give staff time to determine which already funded project(s) we could postpone to cover costs. No one supported my request.
Prior to this decision the council considered whether or not to apply for a $2.7 million federal grant to fund a section of the White Oak Greenway….in Apex’s jurisdiction. Yes Apex. If Cary receives the grant we are on the hook for $675,000 to cover our portion of the project. The decision to apply for the grant passed by a vote of 5-2. Councilman Smith and I voted no.
$850,000 spent in about 20 minutes.
I like greenways as much as anyone, but these are difficult times we’re living in folks, and I don’t see it getting better any time soon. Sure, $2.7 million in “free money” might sound hard to pass up. But I fear, as Councilman Smith so eloquently stated, “that we could go broke trying to save money”. Hopefully we are wrong.
That’s it for now – as always, thanks for reading!
This post will focus on our council meeting which was held on 8/11/10.
Our meeting had 2 notable discussion items: Consideration of a traffic light at the intersection of Kildaire Farm Road and Loch Highlands Drive, and whether or not to apply for a federal grant to assist with funding a section of the White Oak Greenway.
After NCDOT completed a road widening project and installed a new bridge on Kildaire Farm Road, citizens have been contacting the town regarding their concerns for pedestrian safety. The project resulted in an asphalt trail being removed that residents had used for safe pedestrian access. A new sidewalk was instead installed along the roadway and bridge. This section of road curves slightly, and residents feared that if a motorist took their eyes off the road for a second, or if a traffic accident occurred, vehicles could end up on the sidewalk – seriously injuring or killing a pedestrian. They asked the town to look into a guardrail or some other form of barrier.
Numerous attempts to work with NCDOT in an attempt to get a barrier installed failed. NCDOT was unwilling to modify the bridge, and informed Cary that any modifications would be the town’s responsibility as the bridge met state standards.
After further review, town staff recommended that a traffic signal with crosswalks be installed at the intersection of Kildaire Farm Road and Loch Highlands Drive. This would allow residents a safe manner in which to cross the street and use the multi-use path on the other side of the street…which has a concrete barrier between it and the road. Yes you read that correctly.
You see, NCDOT “cheaped out” on the bridge. The southbound side of the bridge was constructed with a multi-use path. However, in an effort to reduce costs that section of the bridge was not engineered to hold the weight of vehicles, so NCDOT installed a concrete barrier to prevent maintenance or emergency vehicles from parking on it. Nice huh?
After investigating numerous options, our town staff determined that installing the traffic signal would cost less than installing a parapet wall or barrier on the bridge, and once installed the signal becomes NCDOT’s responsibility. Staff’s traffic data also indicated that this intersection meets warrants for a traffic signal.
The traffic signal was approved by a vote of 6-1. I voted against it. While I do support the signal installation, I have grave concerns regarding next year’s budget and economic outlook. If this is truly a “need to have”, which I believe it is, then we should be willing to give up a “nice to have” to fund it. I also believe, as does our town staff, that we have numerous pedestrian safety issues throughout town (the bridge on Walnut Street at Crossroads and the lack of a crosswalk and sidewalks on Cary Parkway near North Cary Park are two that come to mind) that might be of higher priority. Without conducting a study there is no way to know.
I made a motion to table this for 2 weeks to give staff time to determine which already funded project(s) we could postpone to cover costs. No one supported my request.
Prior to this decision the council considered whether or not to apply for a $2.7 million federal grant to fund a section of the White Oak Greenway….in Apex’s jurisdiction. Yes Apex. If Cary receives the grant we are on the hook for $675,000 to cover our portion of the project. The decision to apply for the grant passed by a vote of 5-2. Councilman Smith and I voted no.
$850,000 spent in about 20 minutes.
I like greenways as much as anyone, but these are difficult times we’re living in folks, and I don’t see it getting better any time soon. Sure, $2.7 million in “free money” might sound hard to pass up. But I fear, as Councilman Smith so eloquently stated, “that we could go broke trying to save money”. Hopefully we are wrong.
That’s it for now – as always, thanks for reading!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)