Vacancy: Board of Aldermen Seeks Appointee

Road resurfacing in the annexed area was discussed at the BOA meeting where they petitioned not to have street lights.

Like Mary, I'm still waiting for a factual description about
what happened here, rather than an opinion, valid
or not, about land grabs.

That said, here is my opinion, based on painful experience
in the 1990s. Mark Chilton can correct any details that I
get wrong.

In about 1980, the CH council approved a subdivision called
Colony Lake, out near the BCBS building in northeastern
Chapel Hill. The approval was confusing for several reasons,
but the salient point here was that it was approved with
road that were privately owned by the homeowners' association,
and constructed to less-than-town standards. For a while, this
benefitted the homewoners, because infrastructure costs
were lower, thus house prices were lower, and residents
enjoyed lower monthly mortgage payments for a dozen years.
However, there is no free lunch. In the next dozen years, the roads deteriorated and houses turned over so that
most of the original residents no longer lived there and
institutional memory was depleted.
Homeowners' assciations are generally not good keepers of
infrastructure; they have no engineering staff
and no way to raise big bucks short of expensive assessments
to their homeowners.

In the early 1990s, the roads needed maintenance badly.
Neighborhood residents petitioned the council for the town
to fix the roads at town expense, arguing in part that since
the town drove its vehicles (garbage trucks, firetrucks, etc)
the town bore responsibility for the deterioration.
The council said "no", arguing that the homeowners had
enjoyed lower housing prices as a consequence of the
private ownership of the roads, and that it was illegal for
the town to improve private property with public money.
This of course fell on deaf ears to almost all of the
homeowners who were not present at the original founding
of the neighborhood.

The council passed a resolution to the effect that never
again would it approve a subdivision with roads
built to lower standards, regardless of ownership,
because such action always comes back to haunt them.

An interesting application here is Carolina North. According
to Bruce Runberg, UNC's plan is that CN roads will be
deeded to CH and Carrboro for ownership and perpetual maintenance. Consider now the abysmal state of
the state-owned roads on the UNC Campus. The location
of the damage (curb and gutter sections crumbling and
sinking, large bowls forming that can only be repaired by
a total reconstruction of the road from the base up, etc.)
indicates that it is caused by construction vehicles and
town buses. Since CN will have a 50-year buildout,
it will be a continual construction site, and since buses
will form a major part of its transportation system, it is
paramount that the roads be built to heavy-duty standards
that can handle such vehicles and it is incumbent on the
towns who will maintain CN roads to require heavy-duty
construction up front, even if it costs more. UNC
has a major advantage here over homeowners'
assocations since it does employee engineers and has
deeper pockets and the ability to borrow money cheaply.

I don't understand what additional facts you want Joe. The town annexed the houses but not the roads. The roads remain under county maintenance for now. Maybe Catherine remembers the details of the discussion with public works.

I would like to loudly and enthusiastically endorse one of the statements you wrote above: "Homeowners' assciations are generally not good keepers of infrastructure; they have no engineering staff and no way to raise big bucks short of expensive assessments to their homeowners."

All stormwater management within new developments in Carrboro is being turned over to HOAs after the developer signs off. This has the potential to become a disaster for the entire community since stormwater is mobile and a problem at one site can easily become a bigger problem at a neighboring site. While this isn't relevant to the annexation, I hope that eventually Will Raymond's efforts to initiate a discussion on stormwater are successful sometime soon. It's a discussion that needs to take place, but the issues between Chapel Hill and Carrboro are very different.

Joe,

I don't know why Colony Lake would have benefitted from lower house prices at the start. Maybe the seller was giving away discounts. However, economic theory, and my anecdotal observations, state that sellers charge as much as they can get under market conditions. (If lots were smaller, as in my division, that's a different cause for lower prices.) As a buyer, I certainly didn't get a lower price based on narrower infrastructure when I bought my house, and I doubt the original owner paid less for any such reason, either. The seller's market set the prices.

Analogy: Around here we have a healthy market in for-sale-by-owner real estate transactions. If the seller is well informed, s/he will charge exactly the same without a broker as comparable houses with one. The seller saves the 6% commission and the buyer pays the same price. (We actually bought our house in such a transaction; the house was showing many times a day, and it was going to sell near the list price, whether to us or someone else.)... In situations like Colony Lake, the seller=builder saves the infrastructure cost, the buyer pays the same price, BUT the buyer or a successor buyer will one day have to pay for the seller's original increased profit margin because of infrastructure maintenance.

It is typical in an annexation for the town and DOT to negotiate over the timing and conditions of the transfer of responsibility for roads. The town is in negotiation with DOT about the condition of the roads in that annexation area at the present time. The town wants DOT to make some improvements before accepting these streets. In the meantime, DOT retains responsibility for these streets, just as they have had responsibility for them since they were built. Carrboro Public Works hopes to have this matter resolved shortly.

Thanks, Mark.

Mary- yes, I have looked over the 5 year plan, and noticed they did not have any trucks budgeted that
I could see. And 15 positions sounds a little stout, too. When I was at New Hope, we never delivered water by hand, we always did it with a motorized vehicle- much easier that way. With that much staff, perhaps they are figuring bucket brigades, just like the good old days?? Based on the cock and bull story I got about fire hydrants versus drop tanks, there is really no telling what the deal is.

Would that this was the only thing that bothered me about the plan. How they can estimate $7m to move public works when Chapel Hill just blew $40m on theirs is indeed something that must need further investigation. I am also concerned about the fact that our per capita debt, at almost $1000 for every man woman and child by the end of the plan will be 5 times the average for a town of our size.

There is a lot of stuff in the report that does not make sense to me, but I must make it clear that I know nothing of the basis of the report- I did not care about it til I got annexed.

Take it to the bank, though, I will be asking about the report once I am a citizen.

"How they can estimate $7m to move public works when Chapel Hill just blew $40m on theirs is indeed something that must need further investigation." There are two big reasons why Carrboro's facility will be much less expensive. First, the Carrboro site is close to existing water and sewer connections. Chapel Hill site is having to lay pipe all the way down Eubanks from 86. Second, Carrboro doesn't have the huge transit facility to house, less paving and fewer buildings, less electrical infrastructure. Not sure if they are planning to run fiber.

I'm not saying the $7m estimate is accurate since I haven't seen the plan, just saying that the Chapel Hill site has complications Carrboro won't have.

Okay, I buy that. Thanks. As I said by way of disclaimer, I have not in the past been a part of the process.

$7M sounds more palatable to me. $40M is a joke, for what they are doing- $500k for art?? Man oh man I am glad I am not in the Chapel Hill town limits and paying that.

Of course, the report is very vague about the need to move. Something about they "may" have to move, but it sure did not sound from the report like a mandate. So I wonder if they really need to.

Film at 11.

Yep they have to move--current facility is in a flood plain. But they've planned ahead unlike Chapel Hill. The quick move was another contributing factor to the high price of the CH Town Op Center. However, I assume that the constantly increasing cost of supplies will also bump Carrboro's budget up quite a bit.

Earlier you wrote: "I am also concerned about the fact that our per capita debt, at almost $1000 for every man woman and child by the end of the plan will be 5 times the average for a town of our size." Do you know what Carrboro's bond rating is? I don't have a point of reference for understanding what an acceptable level of debt is other than through the bond rating.

Terri- Being in a flood plain does not in itself, to my knowledge, require you to move. It has impacts on insurance rates, and also limits how much you can improve the property. I have run into the property improvement limit before myself (not on property I own but rather those I was consulting for). So I still do not see a mandate to move, but as I said I have not dug into it.

According to the 5 year plan report, there is some sort of statutory limit on debt a town can assume. The average for towns the size of Carrboro, going from memory was about $200 per capita. The current plan is showing a per capita debt of $900 plus after five years.

I think the issue, at least to me, runs deeper than bond rating, which I see as a line of credit. One can have a big line of credit, but being financially conservative, can save it for emergencies or critical investments. I did not see anything in the plan that came out as a "critical investment" thus I question the need to go so far into debt for the items listed as needs. So an "acceptable level of debt" is really a matter of where you stand and not a hard number.

BTW, some of what I saw on the list of the new CH facility's features have I am sure boosted the cost. As I recall they have "green" things such as ground source heat pumps (wonder who is going to work on them??) and a rain collection system (hope it works better than the one at Smith Middle, which to my knowledge never has worked!).

I have not reviewed their plans, but can guess that in the pursuit of green and LEED and all that type of marketing hype they have spent money on "points" that would be better spent making the facility actually energy efficient.

JMK

John,

I'm pretty sure someone with the state (DWQ maybe?) gave the move order; it's not being done by choice.

There is a state agency (League of Municipalities?) that sets the debt:savings ratio for local governments. Last year when Chapel Hill was going through their budget review, I hear about it but didn't pay enough attention to give you any details.

I'm not sure how to interpret your comments on the green building. Are you opposed to the idea or just skeptical that it is cost-efficient? I can tell you from work I've done elsewhere that green building does cost more upfront, but when done well, pays for itself in relatively short order. Long-term debt worries me more than short-term.

I would very much like to hear why you think the Smith Middle school rain collection system is not working. According to data I have from the school system (biased I know), there are metering problems that have prevented any good data collection/reporting. I've been assured the new high school will have better metering.

Terri

Terri, let me do some checking about the rain collection system. Facts at this point would be useful.

Efficient building should be a given, you shouldn't need a points based list. I am intimately familiar with LEED and green building- it is a sad example of "design by committee" I am afraid.

We already have a State Energy code that sets envelope insulation, and efficiencies for lighting and HVAC, which is the bulk of energy consumption in a building, for example.

If you want more concrete examples then contact me off this forum, I think you will be surprised at some of the BS that is going on in the name of "green building".

JMK

The NC Local Government Commission reviews bond issues and debt capacities for municipalities and counties. There are limits, but Carrboro is currently well below the limits - in range for a town our size. John raises good questions about where to draw the line in the future.

I am not certain, but I believe that the public works facility is not under external pressure to move. The present site is not ideal, but you will notice that the development of the new site is far down the list in the Capitol Improvements Program - reflecting its relatively low priority in comparison with the Northern Fire Station, MLK Park, etc.

I imagine that the water and sewer extensions required for the development of a new public works facility (which as Terri points out is bound to be lower than that of Chapel Hill's TOC) will be even lower in the future as private developers continue to build more developments between the end of current sewer service and the edge of the proposed Carrboro Public Works site. So in this respect the project might actually be cheaper in the future than it is now. Plus, right now the cost of building materials is being driven through the roof by White House adventurism - a situation that I hope will resolve itself in the next few years (Edwards '08?).

Facts on the Smith Middle School rain collection system:
78,000 gallon capacity; used for toilets and irrigation of PE fields; metering system did not work accurately until 2004-2005 school year. Expected 15-20 year pay back based on 2001 OWASA water rates (includes only the cost of construction & equipment; no environmental cost savings calculated)

2002-2003: 320,398 gallons collected
2003-2004: 363,150 gallons collected, $2,336.23 saved
2004-2005: 548,650 gallons collected, $3,568.54 saved

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/01/10/43c3d9dc8a151
"Katrina Ryan, the fourth-place finisher in November's election, again will throw her name in the hat for a seat on the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, she said Monday."

N&O reports John Marold and Catherine Devine have applied. (No online link to story.)

Report says Marold is 35. He has lived in Carrboro for 5 1/2 years and has served 4 years on the Town's Human Services Committee. He's a lawyer just starting a practice in CH.

Well, I am happy to hear that Katrina is going to go the distance on this one. I could not really understand why she would give up at the very end, given her initial fire and enthusiasm for the campaign and the apparent convictions she had for running. I don't have an opinion on her candidacy one way or the other, but I do think she is making the right decision to stay involved with the process to the end.

I am also pleased to see Catherine file. Anyone who has the energy, the stamina, and enough interest in serving to stay the course through the campaigning process deserves serious consideration by the BOA in the selection process.

More information about Marold is available on his firm's Web site:
http://maroldlaw.com/John_Marold_Bio.htm

John Marold is a former student of mine here at UNC Law, and a great guy. Bright, humble, hardworking. I'm glad to see he's in the running.

The field is getting interesting! Dan Coleman (a long time community activist), Catherine DeVine (a dedicated volunteer to Carrboro town committees and a recent candidate), Katrina Ryan (recent candidate and endorsed by a former Governor of Texas), John Marold (a Republican lawyer).

Who's next? Will there be more surprises? John Marold caught most people off guard. It's hard to imagine the board appointing a registered Republican to this vacancy, but stranger things have happened. I imagine we'll all be on the edge of our seats until a selection is made.

I hear Lydia Lavelle, Kevin Foy's former law partner, is going to submit an application. She lives in the annexation area.

The Town Clerk received an application from Lydia Lavelle today.

David Marshall and James Carnahan also both confirmed today that they will be turning in applications for the seat.

Several others including Catherine DeVine and two residents from the annexation areas, Alena Callimanis and Lydia Lavelle, turned in their applications to Town Hall.

http://www.dailytarheel.com/vnews/display.v/ART/43c426f4c5c68'

It will be interesting to see if any others submit applications before tomorrow's deadline.

BTW, Tomorrow's DTH will have a more comprehensive report on the applications received thus far.

From the DTH, morning of Jan 10:

Katrina Ryan, the fourth-place finisher in November's election, again will throw her name in the hat for a seat on the Carrboro Board of Aldermen, she said Monday.

“Discussions with other potential applicants in the annexation area were fruitless,” she said. “They all have children and would rather spend time with them than with the aldermen.

From the DTH, evening of Jan 10:

Alena Callimanis, an IBM employee, and Lydia Lavelle, assistant dean of student services at the N.C. Central University School of Law, recently turned in their applications to the town. Both list addresses that also are in the annexation areas.

This raises two interesting questions:

1. If the concern about representation of the annexed neighborhoods on the board is the biggest issue in the annexation area, will annexation area residents feel that the BOA has responded appropriately if one of Ms. Callimanis or Ms. Lavelle is appointed?

2. Are there multiple constituencies of significant size in the annexation area?

Patrick,
I live in the NTA. Though it would be nice to bump into an alderman once in awhile up here, I have no preference for someone who lives in the NTA just because they live in the NTA. I really want the appointee to be bright, informed, committed, hard-working, honest, fair, responsive, and to have exceptional personal integrity. Of course, I want the appointee to be responsive to the challenges facing the NTA, but I also want the person to be able to prioritize community needs fairly. By the same token, I want newly annexed citizens to be reasonable and to recognize that while their needs are very real their needs may not always be the most pressing.

And, yes, there really is a unique constituency in the NTA… homeowners who feel little affiliation with Carrboro (and in my opinion this feeling is more a product of geographic location than essential loathing). It's easy to live up here and never go into Carrboro (at least for a few more days). I think it is important that all aldermen work on creating a sense of community with new residents.

One problem with ‘reaching out' up here and getting to know one another is that there is no physical place to do it. Perhaps someday there will be some venue for gathering in the NTA, but for now, we'll have to get creative about how to create a sense of community in a cut off part of Town.

It is very encouraging to see the interest in ensuring the right representation for Carrboro.