Here's a look at tomorrow's headlines:
TAXING TIMES: Orange Tax Revolt is calling on the county commissioners to rescind the 2009 tax revaluation. At least three North Carolina counties have done it. We spoke to one of them, and to two local legal experts who tell us why Orange County should not follow suit.
DENSITY REDUX: The Chapel Hill Town Council will talk again Monday about whether to extend high density zoning outside downtown. Then they'll talk about Ayden Court, where Carol Ann Zinn says she can either build a lot of (relatively) affordable, environmentally friendly townhouses (if she gets the density) or a lot fewer high-end luxury homes. Read Jesse James DeConto's preview of how the meeting is shaping up.
PEDERSEN'S PREDICAMENT: Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools Superintendent Neil Pedersen wrote a budget assuming no local funding increase. It included $900,000 in cuts just to keep pace with rising costs and student enrollment. Now, Colin Campbell reports, the superintendent and school board must cut deeper as county and state governments grappled with the recession.
A UNC expert tells us how the university is fighting global warming, Jesse reports on the latest news in high school athlete Atlas Fraley's death, and reader Jim Postma says it's time for a Proposition 13-like movement in Orange County.
Great day, enjoy the sunshine ... and thanks for reading,
Mark
Comments
Mark, I disagree
Mon, 03/23/2009 - 16:09 — TBlake....with the conclusion to your editorial. There *are* solutions to solid waste and the time pressure of the landfill closing is an artificial deadline.
I am waiting to see just what the county comes up with when they talk to the vendors, but there are definitely opportunities to use existing capacity and spare the expense of this ill conceived waste transfer station.
As a taxpayer, what *really* bothers me is the decision making process. The county never revisited cost or other options such as vendors *after* the change from Eubanks. They went ahead with the assumption that the only solution was a waste transfer station.
Furthermore, the criteria they used all but assured the site selection would be rural (only sites greater than 25 acres were considered and Highway 54 was given the same status as I-40 and I-85, while NC-70, NC-86 and NC15-501 were not, The BOCC made sure it could not go north of Hillsboro etc.).
The municipalities were allowed to veto sites that scored higher that the sites out here, even though the municipalities produce most of the solid waste!
The location is 180 degrees out of sync with the comprehensive land use plan. If a private company or individual wanted to build a transfer station in the Howell location, it would not pass the laugh test at the planning and zoning board. In point of fact the wetlands present on the Howell site *is* and exclusionary criteria in the counties selection metrics, but they have chosen to ignore that fact. The only reason this facility can be built here is because the county government has exempted themselves from their own ordinances. This is "do as I say not as I do" government at its worst.
To do their study, the county hired a consultant (Olver) that is in the business of building waste transfer stations , and guess what? They came up with a site.
The County has still not provided any cost figures, but simple math shows a huge increase in cost. The cost to buy land and build the transfer station out in White cross with the needed improvements (highway improvements, wastewater storage, hauling and boring new wells to provide water to wash down the facility and fight potential fires), plus the added cost to haul the trash from the municipalities and to the landfill will increase tipping fees to well over $55 per ton.
The county is *required* by the interlocal agreement to notify the municipalities when tipping fees go up more than 10%. Chapel-hill, Carrboro and Hillsboro; you are complaining about the re-valuation? I've got some bad news………..
At the same time, the cost quotes we have gotten from the vendors are somewhere around $40 per ton, and depends on the distance from the end of the route to the existing spare transfer station capacity in Durham or RTP. This means that we could for the most part not spend the capital and incur loan costs to build the redundant capacity and keep our tipping fees very close to what they are today……….if we simply go with private cartage. UNC already hauls there trash to RTP (I think it is RTP) for the same amount and is not charged any additional mileage because they are within a 15 mile radius.
I just hope the decision making process used thus far for solid waste is not reflective of all of the county decision making.
Associate editor Dave Hart writes our editorials
Mon, 03/23/2009 - 19:32 — mschultz (author)Tony, good points all of them. We will try to look at these issues as we continue to report the story. But I need to clarify here that I do not write the editorials or determine the editorial position of The Chapel Hill News. Dave Hart writes the edits. I may talk with him, but ultimately it's his call (and he does a pretty great job.) I encourage you to write a letter or guest column to put some of these comments out to a broader audience. We distribute 26,200 copies each Wednesday and Sunday and welcome your comments.
This was written by
Tue, 03/24/2009 - 11:33 — TBlakeDave Hart?
http://www.chapelhillnews.com/opinion/story/46850.html
My apologies to you then Mark. My comments stand and are redirected to Mr. Hart.
I will take you up on that offer of a broader audience what is the proper procedure?
Three different stories - one common theme
Sun, 03/22/2009 - 10:08 — ActLocalAt first blush, a story on the school funding predicament, a zoning request for a density increase and the tax revolt seem unrelated, but the failure to address these issues holistically is pushing Chapel Hill over the tipping point.
The pressure to provide services for an increasing population is what has driven taxes up over previous years. No place more than in education, where every new student comes with a price tag for $50,000 in new construction and $120,000 for their cost of education (K - 12).
A developer now proposes to either build scores of energy efficient, "green" townhomes, or a handful of luxury, high-pollution McMansions.
I would opt for the fewer and demand that they contain their storm runoff and be just as energy efficient as the high density option. At least it won't overwhelm our traffic grid, require a new school. or demand that the general public make up the incremental difference between the low taxes generated by the low valuations and the high cost of providing services.
Sustainability means more that just carbon footprint. It demands development which is revenue neutral.
I disagree
Sun, 03/22/2009 - 11:20 — elvisboy77Increases in population have not gone up nearly as fast as County government spending.
I am not arguing that more people require more services, but it appears the Orange County has gone way beyond the basic needs of the county and created a bloated bureaucracy with lots of social programs.
In one period of 4.6% population growth, the government spending increased 27%. Over the top irresponsible spending.
More info on this is available at:
http://squeezethepulp.com/w/ho:march_2009#john_locke_foundation_releases_report_confirming_orange_county_government_appetite_for_spending
Actually, you agree -
Sun, 03/22/2009 - 21:12 — ActLocalYou just have not thought your comment through to its logical conclusion.
The cost of ADDING CAPACITY is not a straight line graph, based on the cost of the existing capacity.
Every time we build a school, the cost doubles. The size is the same, but Rashkis cost $13 million, and Morris Grove cost $25 million.
In fact, the most expensive school that we ever built, was... THE NEXT ONE!
Adding a new school increases the cost, per capita, across the board.
The idea that a 5% increase in population should equate to a 5% increase in spending is a fairy tale.
Have you thought logically?
Mon, 03/23/2009 - 17:17 — wjohnsonwNor does each child need a new school. Is there some law from God or Physics that demands the cost of each additional school must double? Why can't temp buildings be used or more charter schools in empty office buildings, etc. We make conscious decisions about how much the school will cost. By the way, the previous poster commenting about the 27 (?)% increase in budget, I bet was talking about the increase in operating expense. The cost of a new school would show up gradually in the operating expense as payback of the bonds floated to build the capital expenditure of a new school. Finally, that 5% increase in population, maybe it was skewed heavily adult or possibly not? A 5% increase in population is a good rule of thumb to understand an increase in govt spending. That a 5% increase in population means that a 27% increase in govt spending (and therefore tax increases) should be a fairy tale, but unfortunately is the reality when people spend other people's money.
Very well said, you beat me to it
Mon, 03/23/2009 - 20:56 — elvisboy77And, I did review the design of Morris Grove, and there was quite a bit of very unneccessary stuff in it. I brought some of the outright glaring errors to the attention of the school system and they never did anything about it as far as I know, which will of course show up in a couple of years as an IAQ issue or some such. Don't worry, the taxpayers will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix it when it happens.
So, there really was no logical reason for the "same" school to cost twice as much, and no, you cannot draw a straight line as far as predicting the cost of the next one, as some commenters seem to want to do.
Unnecessary Items List:
Mon, 03/23/2009 - 23:25 — ActLocal1. Cafeteria
2. Restrooms
3. Handicap Accessibility
4. Windows
5. Air Conditioning
6. Paved Sidewalks (after all, they never had them at Lincoln School).
Yeah
Tue, 03/24/2009 - 05:31 — elvisboy77Right. Clearly you are not knowledgeable in the construction trade, one who is could drive by the place and see the gold plating.
The waste at that place is APPALLING and your silly oversimplification of the issue does nothing to actually speak to it.
The schools are identical
Tue, 03/24/2009 - 15:44 — ActLocalThe schools were built from the same set of plans. The only difference is that the one that cost about half the price has a community gymnasium. Plus the fact that it was built five years earlier.
Surely, I don't need to tell someone so knowledgeable about construction, that the cost of materials and labor has soared over that period of time. Other than that, the "gold plating" you see in one, is not different than the "gold plating" you see at the other.
LOL
Tue, 03/24/2009 - 20:05 — elvisboy77Thanks for proving my point by grossly oversimplifying the issue.
Game over.
Actlocal must be an employee of CHCCS and kool aid drinker, nothing else would explain the uneducated responses.
Elvis is DEAD
Tue, 03/24/2009 - 21:40 — ActLocalThe only game Elvisboy plays is in maintaining his reputation as the guy-who-posts-more-than-anyone-else.
Confronted with defeat, he declares victory and walks away... to post again another day.
After announcing that one school is more expensive because of the wasteful design, he dismisses the fact that both schools were built according to the same plans as a "simplification."
"Game over" is right. You are a legend in your own mind, Elvisboy!
Time for a new moniker.
Hmmm
Wed, 03/25/2009 - 19:11 — elvisboy77How about ActLiberal?
ONLY...
Sun, 03/29/2009 - 01:35 — ActLocalOnly if you add your 1977 birthdate, to establish yourself as part of Generation Nebish!
i enjoy these 'Coming tomorrow' posts
Sat, 03/21/2009 - 16:49 — tobrieni enjoy these 'Coming tomorrow' posts. They remind to look forward to the paper tomorrow.