What's going on in Carrboro

The Senate approved it last summer during the long session, and the bill has been considered by the House this week.  I understand the bill may be modified slightly from the Senate version.

Passage of this bill would establish enabling legislation, which would then allow the Board to have a hearing, receive public input, and then consider whether or how to adopt any campaign regulation ordinance.  Having this bill passed is the first step toward ultimately crafting an ordinance. 

The bill will give Carrboro the authority to limit campaign contributions. Our bill is modeled after a Chapel Hill bill that has been successfully implemented over the past few election cycles. Chapel Hill limits individual contributions to a maximum of $250. This has proved to be a workable number for their elections. Note that the candidate and his/her family members are exempt from such regulations.  Public input at the hearing would help us determine what we would do in Carrboro.

I have received inquiries regarding any minimum amount we would consider setting for disclosure.  State law now requires the disclosure of all donors over $50 or more, and we think that is adequate.  I have also been asked why the bill only applies to in-state donors (as it currently reads, it does not apply to out-of-state donors).  The answer is that we did want to include out-of-state donors, and we had it as part of our original bill.  Someone at the General Assembly took it out; I was told that it was believed to be in conflict with federal election law.  Representative Verla Insko is working to see if this can be resolved definitively so that we can have the bill apply to all donors.

As many of you know, I voluntarily limited my contributions to $100 during my race, and did not accept any PAC money.  Several other area candidates did or do so as well.  Carrboro races to date have all been fairly low-cost affairs, and this act is a way to memorialize what the practice has been.  This is a progressive campaign finance policy, much like the public financing programs at the state level for the appellate judicial races, and much like reform that is needed at the national level.

Our town property tax rate increased by 3.26 cents, and our tax rate is now 68.63% of $100 assessed value.  Town Manager Steve Stewart informed us that (at the current tax rate) town property tax revenue for the next year was projected to only rise 2%, and sales tax revenue was expected to increase just 1%.  Inflation is now at 4.1%, and so these figures make for a challenging budget year.

Our tax rate reflects our need to continue to work to increase our commercial tax base.  It also reflects our need to continue to be conservative about any decisions we make that result in an increase in the budget.  We were presented with a budget this year that not only handled increases that we cannot control (health insurance and gasoline costs, for
example) but one that that also cut or saved in enough areas that we were able to fund through an expansion of the budget two additional police officers, six flushless urinals at the Century Center (the financial payback of which will be realized in six years, and then savings will result), and additional money for the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust. Our CIP initiatives (sidewalks, greenways, street resurfacing, Weaver Street reconstruction, etc.) are also progressing. Otherwise, our budget remained the same as the previous year.

I should note with regard to the additional money for the OCHLT that I voted for an increase of $4,000, not $8,000 (the $8,000 increase was approved 4-3 by the board).  I voted this way because the town manager’s recommendation of $4,000 was in line percentage-wise with what neighboring jurisdictions were budgeting, and additionally, although I wholeheartedly support the work of the OCHLT, it is hard for me to justify almost any increase to the budget during these tough financial times.

It looks as though our citizens will be hit heavily in the pocket this upcoming year with Orange County (which includes the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school system) raising its tax rate, and the Orange Water and Sewer Authority raising its fees.  The reality is that these financial decisions affect the overall tax and financial burden on our citizens more than decisions that we on the BOA make, because they are a much greater piece of the pie.

As such, just as we carefully review and consider ways to be smart with our budget, we must renew our effort to collaborate and brainstorm and work with Orange County, the school board and OWASA, with the goal of making our area a place where we can all continue to afford to live.

Sometimes the factors that prohibit equal rights are with local policies, and sometimes the problems are policies established at the national level.

Locally, we (the BOA) have asked our legislative delegation to submit legislation during this summer session to amend section10-1 of the Carrboro Town Charter, which addresses “Housing Discrimination.” We asked that “sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression” be added to the list included in the following wording: “The board of aldermen may adopt ordinances designed to ensure that all housing opportunities in the Town of Carrboro shall be equally available to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” I am pleased that the Board unanimously agreed to seek this, although Senator Ellie Kinnaird advises us that this bill will not be filed until the long session next year.  

However, there are problems at the federal level that continue to impact our effort toward equal rights.  There is one in particular that impacts the Town’s domestic partner insurance coverage.  If an employee signs up for health benefits for his or her partner, or the partner’s children, the cost borne by the town is treated as “imputed income” (basically, income) to the employee, and thus subject to taxation.  This is not the case with an employee who is married to a spouse that has children.  In other words, a gay or lesbian employee who takes advantage of the health care benefits offered to family members pays taxes on the value of those benefits while a heterosexual employee does not have to do so. This can result in an inequality of several thousand dollars. This is a federal taxation problem, and various bills have been introduced in Congress to try to remedy this disparity.

As an aside to the domestic partner insurance coverage issue, there is also a complicated taxation issue with regard to same-sex families that break up. To be more specific, an employee who intentionally creates a family with his or her partner can only continue to provide insurance coverage for their children after a break-up if they are the biological parent, or if they claim the child as a dependent on their taxes. This is in contrast to employees who are married that can continue to cover their children after divorce, even if they do not have primary physical custody of them or claim them as a dependant (oddly, this is true even if the once-married employee is not the biological parent – for instance, if donor egg or sperm was used due to a fertility problem!)   I have been researching this issue from a legal perspective to see if this is being addressed anywhere, and will continue to do so.

There are several properties on Center Street of an historic nature, and the hearing prompted discussion about this.

The applicant’s request was to rezone the property to B-2 from R-7.5, so that they could operate certain businesses not currently allowed in the R-7.5 zone.  The consensus of all of the neighbors who spoke was that while the current owner of the property planned to use the land for non-intrusive businesses, they feared that rezoning it to B-2 would allow future owners to have more intense uses, and might subject the entire block (and perhaps even the west side of Center Street) to eventual total B-2 zoning.

The board’s discussion also clearly leaned in favor of wanting to allow the applicant to operate the businesses it was proposing, but with hesitation about re-zoning the property to B-2.  Several members felt that we should review this type of “fringe” zoning (properties on the fringe of commercial and residential);  in other words, is there a type of zoning that would fall somewhere between B-2 and R-7.5 that might need to be explored and adopted?  Or, should we explore a type of zoning that deals more specifically with properties of an historic nature?    (Click HERE for details about this matter, and to read about the historic properties on Center Street). 

Ultimately, the Board approved a recommendation from the Town Attorney to establish conditional zoning in the Town, thus providing a mechanism through which both the applicant and the Town can get what they want with this re-zoning.  It also will give us time to take a prudent look at a new zoning scheme that we might want to consider, so that we assure conservation of our historic past. 

I have found that one of my priorities these days on the BOA is to carefully look at every decision we make through a financial lens.
 
At our February 19, 2008 meeting, we discussed a request from the Orange County Board of County Commissioners to consider waiving soccer field rental fees for groups that might contribute to the cost of artificial turf to be installed on one or two of the Smith Middle School soccer fields. Note that although these fields are not owned by the Town, Carrboro is responsible for reserving and collecting rental fees for the community soccer field at Smith, pursuant to an inter-local agreement.
 
After we received an initial staff report, I asked several follow-up questions in an effort to find a way to justify contributing in some fashion to this request, but in the end, it simply did not make financial sense.  For one, we were not certain of the total amount of rental fees that were to be waived, because of the uncertainty of the amount of money groups might contribute, and the uncertainty of the cost of the turf on the field or fields.   Second, if we waived the fees until these groups were totally paid back for their contributions, these groups might use the fields for many years, quite possibly well beyond the life of the fields.  Finally, in an effort to look at the installation of artificial turf in a way that could end up generating more revenue for the Town because the fields would be more marketable, past rental records showed that the groups that would be contributing to the cost of the fields currently use most of the prime time on the fields, and that the time periods left to rent to make extra money would be minimal.  Given this information, it would not have been a financially responsible decision to waive these soccer field rental fees.
 
As for road races … we have had an increasing number of road race requests come before the BOA. We have asked staff to prepare a report on how frequent these races are and how much they impact staff.  These road races are usually held early Saturday mornings.

The benefits of having road races are many.  Carrboro has a large running population, and many groups start their runs at the Town's perennial store for runners, Fleet Feet, located in Carr Mill Mall. A visual demonstration to fitness and health is one we want to continue and promote.  At the same time, we are aware that these road races have an impact on residents, neighborhoods and traffic flow in our community, as well as the workload of Town staff.
 
The time may be approaching when we might need to put a cap on the number of races we authorize in the Town.  In addition, to date we have only charged what is ascertainable as direct costs to these road race organizers.  We may need to consider a modification of what we charge, particularly with regard to any for-profit road races.   In any event, whatever we do, we need to give due consideration to our runners as well as our community. 

In response, staff  provided the board with an informative memo about the situation, which showed that the trucks were in violation of a zoning ordinance (see the memo HERE, or on the DOCUMENTS page).  It is my understanding that the trucks are not in violation of any county-regulated health laws. This issue has generated lots of discussion around town!
 
At the board meeting on Tuesday, February 5, the BOA agreed unanimously to ask staff to investigate ways to revise our land use ordinance to allow taco trucks to keep operating in Carrboro.  Prior to the meeting, I researched the matter and was not surprised to find that many communities across the United States are dealing with this same issue. I found a few jurisdictions with laws that I believe can serve as a starting point for our revised or newly crafted ordinance.  Personally, I believe it is entirely possible and desirable to keep these entrepreneurs operating. Our town has the largest growing Hispanic population in the state, and this form of eating establishment helps build our community and adds to our culinary and cultural diversity.

I learned a lot, and some of it was surprising.   Many of my classmates were from towns much smaller than Carrboro and the majority of these small towns do not have a town manager or any public administrator! Officials in these towns do it all, which is no easy task.  I am happy I dodged that bullet.
 
Another distinction was that in many towns, the mayor does not vote like our mayor does, except in cases of a tie.  Of course, in the towns where the mayor functions somewhat in the role of the town manager, this makes more sense than it would in Carrboro. 
 
During the training, we covered topics such as financing, open meeting laws, and running efficient board meetings. We discussed relationships between elected officials and other public officials and employees, and we considered environmental issues. I was pleased to see how much we do right in Carrboro. We are years into wrestling with hard topics, especially regarding energy issues, where, unfortunately, many other local governments have yet to undertake these concerns.
 
At the training, participants received several helpful resources and we made connections with new officials in other towns.  I know I will be consulting both the resources and my colleagues as I continue to grow in my new position. 
 
Two days after returning from the training, I participated in my first board retreat, attended also by several members of town staff. We came up with a list of our values and priorities (as they pertained to commercial development) for the upcoming year.  The values we identified were the following (in no particular order):
 
New development should …
 1. Not harm existing businesses;
 2. Provide entrepreneurial opportunities for diverse Carrboro residents;
 3. Provide job opportunities for diverse Carrboro residents;
 4. Engage and build community;
 5. Be consistent with our environmental ethic;
 6. Provide long-term tax revenue ;
 7. Respect the character and history of our town;
 8. Support a multi-modal system of transportation and parking;
 9. Help develop/promote a local living economy;
10. Sustain and protect existing neighborhoods.
 
Our priorities all related to these values, such as increasing commercial zoning, and exploring ways to encourage commercial businesses and offices to locate in village mixed-use developments.  We also discussed creating a “Local Living Economy Task Force,” and assessing and improving entrepreneurship.  Finally, of utmost importance to the board was the need to review our ordinances in an effort to regulate land uses and activities based on water usage. 

I consider it essential to have a good working knowledge of all of our departments; this will aid me greatly in the coming years as I work on my priorities and initiatives. I was impressed with the level of expertise and professionalism I encountered at every meeting.  I feel confident telling Carrboro citizens that our “shop” is in very good hands, and I told our employees how much they were appreciated at the annual holiday employee luncheon on December 14.

I have also been reviewing the documents that are the basis for much of what goes on in Carrboro, for example, the Town Code (including the Land Use Ordinance), Vision 2020, the Northern Small Area Plan, and the RTS Economic Plan.  In the past, I have had occasion to review various North Carolina General Statutes as they applied to issues in Carrboro, and will continue to do so as necessary during my term.  These documents are the starting point for many of the discussions our board will be having.  

I will be attending a program sponsored by UNC-CH's School of Government and the N.C. League of Municipalities for newly elected public officials near the end of the month.  It looks like we will be covering several interesting relevant issues as they pertain to elected officials.

Finally, we will hold our annual BOA retreat near the end of January at OWASA.  We will discuss the myriad of issues that face our town and set our  board priorities for the year.