Mike Cross -- Chatham County Commissioner

Come visit my booth at the Chatham County Fair!

2011-09-28T10:48:00.001-04:00

Our county fair opens today (Wednesday the 28th) and runs through Saturday October 1st. Come and have a great time with your Chatham neighbors and while you are there stop by my campaign booth and say hello. We're right next to the main entrance to the hall so you can't miss us!

As our campaign has started we are also fundraising, and your contribution is appreciated.

We can accept contributions at the fair booth, or by mail at:

Re-Elect Mike Cross
388 Cross Point Rd
New Hill, NC 27562

See you at the fair!

June 20,2011: Proposed Watershed Protection Fund – Part 1

2011-07-28T12:13:00.000-04:00

I presented a proposal for a Watershed Protection Fund that was developed by the seven participating land trust in the Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative with Raleigh, Garner, Wake Forrest, Rolesville, Knightdale, Wendell, Zebulon and Durham. This could easily be expanded into the Upper Cape Fear River Basin with Chatham, Pittsboro, Siler City and Goldston. Each individual local government would determine whether and how they may participate and how their revenue would be used.

The proposal calls for a one-cent per 100 gallon fee to water customers. That would equate to 30 to 50 cents on the average monthly water bill on the Chatham water supply system totaling approximately $70,000 per year. That may not sound like a lot, but Tandy Jones, of the Triangle Land Conservancy, reports that

they have been able to leverage these funds by $10 - $13 per $1 through grants and State matching funds. This proposal could generate $700,000 - $910,000 per year!

These funds could be very useful in protecting / restoring our stream buffers and wetlands and maintaining lands next to waterways in a natural state. Land would be preserved through the voluntary

cooperation of landowners through conservation easements or land acquisitions.

Preventing pollution of our water resources is 27 times more cost effective than cleaning it back up.

Chatham BOC will wait for the decisions of Pittsboro, Siler City and Goldston and have further discussions before we make our decision. I believe there will be enough support to establish this fund.

Our future will obviously be greatly influenced by the amount of clean /potable water we can provide.

BOC Discussion – http://www.chathamnc.org - 6/20/’11 Work Minutes

June 6, 2011: 2011-2012 Budget Ordinance Approved

2011-07-28T12:10:00.000-04:00

Yes, I voted No the first time. Recorded below at 6/4/’11 Budget Approved – Reckoning Day!

Obviously, I was surprised and not at all pleased with the unexpected change of our budget process. That vote was more about letting off steam than it was about budget! …and I try hard not to do that!

The facts are that the Board majority can change the process anytime they choose to and they did…and I don’t have to like it.

The Manager and his staff did an excellent job of preparing and presenting the budget as the Board majority had directed. We still have the Budget Amendment process and any Commissioner can bring any budget item back to the table for discussion.

Approved 4-1(Kost)

BOC Discussion – http://www.chathamnc.org - 6/6/’11 Regular Minutes

June 1, 2011: Watershed Review Board

2011-07-28T12:08:00.000-04:00

There was much discussion about moving the Watershed Review Board (WRB) from the Environmental Review Board (ERB), back to the Planning Board (PB).

We had it as a joint service of the PB before, but most members did not consider themselves highly qualified to serve in this capacity. That’s why it was moved to the ERB in the first place. All members are highly qualified.

I motioned to leave the WRB with the ERB and Sally seconded. Approved 5-0

Chairman Bock also reiterated “ the Board was in no way saying the job of the ERB or the WRB was going to be eliminated.”

BOC Discussion – http://www.chathamnc.org - 6/6/’11 Regular Minutes

June 6, 2011 Rescinding ICE Resolution…a Compromise!

2011-07-28T12:05:00.002-04:00

I did not want to rescind the 2009 Resolution and I certainly did not desire to replace it with the 2011 Proposed Resolution!

Here is what we were actually faced with…

2009 Resolution…strong opposition to any local government agencies contracting with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for the purpose of enforcing Federal Immigration laws.

Versus:

2011 Proposed Resolution (BOC Regular Minutes 5/2/’11) …supports and encourages local law enforcement to continue using all legal means within their authority to enforce the laws of the United States

of America, the State of North Carolina and Chatham County. …that Chatham County supports the cooperation of local law enforcement with all Federal and State agencies as is necessary and feasible to enforce these laws.

Chairman Bock also stated “the new resolution is their opinion that that they feel they should be doing all that they can that is feasible”.

These Resolutions are about as far apart as they could get!

Now we all know the new Board majority had the votes to replace the 2009 Resolution with their 2011 Resolution. We should also know that neither resolution has any legal effect on law enforcement agencies. They are already sworn to uphold the law and Chatham is already part of the Secure Communities Program as are all other counties in NC.

I discussed the issues with Commissioners Bock and Petty and we came to a compromise…No ICE Resolution…period!

I appreciate their compromise and our immigrant population should also.

Rescind 2009 Resolution with no replacement resolution

…approved 4-1(Kost)

BOC Discussion – http://www.chathamnc.org - 6/6/’11 Regular Minutes

March 7, 2011: LEED Certification Policy

2011-07-28T12:01:00.001-04:00

Our previous policy has been to require LEED Silver Certification as minimum requirements on all public buildings over 20,000 square feet. The new Board majority made a motion to allow some flexibility in this requirement. Everyone seemed to agree that LEED Silver standards – design and equipment -are really the basic building that one builds in these times.We all want our buildings to be energy efficient, but what isthat Certification costing? A plaque/certificate doesn’t add energy efficiency.

No one is suggesting that we stop building to LEED Silver standards, but looking at each new building as it comes up certainly has merit. Does it need a Certification Plaque?…and what price will we have to pay for that? We don’t know!

Is it like the Hotel/Restaurant 5-Star Certification program? I’m told those stars cost $100K per star! It lends prestige and provides bragging rights, but you can build the same facility with LEED design elements, install the same equipment and provide the same service for a whole lot less…without the 5-Star Certification.

I believe looking at each project and determining the added cost of certification is a wise direction to take.

Is it worth it? Maybe…maybe not!

Flexibility Approved 4-1(Kost)

BOC Discussion – http://www.chathamnc.org - 3/7/’11 Regular Minutes

June 4, 2011: Budget Approved – Reckoning Day ?

2011-06-05T13:47:00.000-04:00

…for me, it was a reckoning day. I thought I had seen and heard everything during my service on the BOC, but now, I reckon I had not!

I do have a real distaste for being blind-sided by my peers! No reason for it. As the Board majority planned to cut the budget review process, I would have thought it appropriate to advise the minority members in advance of such action… but that is apparently the nature of Chatham politics.

When scheduled events, in this case our budget process, are unexpectedly and abruptly changed, it does affect peoples lives and plans. There’s no wonder public emotions are all over the board… from elated to disgusted. We are rarely all elated or all disgusted at the same time!

Did I know this vote would be called early? Obviously not. What did I feel when the vote was called? Surprised and Betrayed.

Deep Breath…remain calm

Will the World stop rotating? Unlikely.

Will Chatham disappear into a black hole? Also unlikely.

Did the Manager and Executive Staff present a budget proposal as directed by the BOC Majority? Absolutely.

Do I think the budget is basically sound? Yes.

Having attended the UNC School of Government – Essentials of County Government Course - several times and hearing their staff consistently praise Chatham’s budget process as the best in the state and a process which all NC counties should employ, I have to wonder if their respect will go away. It has been a source of Chatham Pride for me and others for a long time.

The bottom line…our budget - is what it is, at least for now, but we still have a proposed budget amendment process. I am sure there will be some proposals forthcoming. As a matter of fact, I sent a request in today concerning watershed protection and requested an agenda spot in the near future. Chairman Bock has already responded with an agenda slot on June 20^th.

Life can certainly be unsettling when you’re not in charge!

…but we will work through this together. A little compromise is good for the soul!

…and would be great for Chatham County.

LEADERSHIP:

“ the greatest problem with communication is the illusion it has been accomplished”

George Bernard Shaw

February 22, 2011: WWP Wastewater Discharge

2011-02-22T15:37:00.000-05:00

I voted NO, but it passed 3-2.
This has been a long and contentious process and I have heard from so many citizens who actually live in East and Southeast Chatham, I doubt I could count them. Only 2 of these citizens thought this discharge line was a good thing to add to SE Chatham.
My vote doesn’t mean I’m hard-headed and I actually do understand the benefits and requirements of working regionally. I also know my roots and who my neighbors are. I am the sixth generation on my family farm in the Corinth community. My home is approximately half way down the discharge route. I am related to 4 families that will be affected and neighbor to all 12. I really don’t have any plans to leave. I think you have the picture.
The project has now been approved and we can only hope the process, construction and results won’t be as disturbing as some fear. There are still concerns to be pondered…
Set-backs:
A 30 ft. easement with set-backs could result in the lost of property use totaling 35 ft. Building set-backs are measured from original property line, but can not be ON the easement. Wells, Septic Fields and Septic Repair Areas have an additional 5 ft. set-back from the easement line.… this combined amount of lost property use could negate the owner’s ability to install or repair necessary infrastructure to support their home. We can only hope the WWP representatives will work with the property owners to see that this doesn’t happen.
Property Owners:
Only one resident property owner has stated that he is OK with this easement. His statement was very misleading and he will in fact gain improvement to his property. He stated the easement would pass right in front of his home, when it actually passes on the other side of the road from his home. That property is clear-cut; scrub trees and stumps will be removed in the process. That should ease his concerns.
All other property owners who live on these properties have NO desire for this easement. Several have even told the WWP representatives to stay off of their land - Period. Pre-Imminent Domain legal procedures will now take over allowing property surveys to determine exactly what will be negotiated.
Voluntary Annexation:
There has never been an Involuntary Annexation by Cary into Chatham County. If future voluntary annexations into Chatham are not connected with this project as stated by the WWP, why the reluctance to enter into an agreement for a local Voluntary Annexation Bill requiring approval by the Chatham BOC following a Public Hearing?…as was proposed by the previous BOC.
The voluntary annexations that have occurred, IMO, have taken advantage of the statutes. Voluntary annexations should be at the request of resident property owners who request to be annexed to gain services they desire and need. In fact, Developers have purchased land – become a non resident Chatham property owner and proceeded with a voluntary annexation request so they can build high density housing regardless of the desires of the Chatham citizen property owners in the same area. Chatham will be responsible for providing schools, libraries, etc. Without this wastewater discharge line, this type of massive growth would not be sustainable. Now it will be… for a long, long time. Times are a changing!
Leadership: The most pathetic person in the world is someone who has sight but no vision. (Helen Keller)

January 3, 2011: BOC Decisions & VOTES !

2011-01-11T21:43:00.004-05:00

This was certainly one of the most contentious meetings and one of the longest meetings (approximately 8 hours) that I have seen in my 6 plus years on the BOC. I really enjoyed the citizen turnout; I just wish we had enough space to get everyone inside the meeting room. Maybe one day!

Public Input Session: We had 34 citizens who wanted to speak and after considerable discussion, we voted to allow all who were signed up their 3 minutes. Vote 4-1 (Bock). The normal session length of 20 minutes expanded to approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes, but the important point is that everyone who signed up was allowed to state their position on the subject that brought them to the meeting.

Contract for County Jail: We all agreed that staff could go forward with contract negotiations for the architects, but would bring it back to the BOC for approval. We will be looking at our Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) over the next few weeks and have to decide what may have to be delayed. The jail could fall in this category.

Construction Management Services Contract for Chatham Schools: We all agreed to hold off on this decision until we get into our CIP discussions.

2009-2010 Audit Report: Martin Starnes & Associates, CPAs, PA presented their audit results and Chatham is fiscally well and all aspects of the audit met the highest standards. Vicki and our staff have always done a great job with our budget. Our budgeting process is considered among the best in the state by the UNC School of Government and the Local Government Commission.

Judicial Center: We also agreed to hold off on borrowing funds for the construction of the judicial center until we get into our CIP/Budget discussions.

Budget Cost Containment / Streamlining: I would have preferred that these discussions and actions be taken up during our budget process, but I’m not in charge. The new board majority felt an urgency to proceed and that we did.

1. Resource Management Position: Salary/Benefits/Operating total $86,149.09 per year. Deleted Position. Vote 4-1 (Kost). We already know we will have to make budget cuts in the upcoming budget and this position has not been filled. The recession negated this need at least for now, so I had no problem with deleting this position. If the need arises, we can put it back!

2. Obesity Prevention Coordinator: Salary/Benefits/Operating total $62,929.50 per year. Deleted Position. Vote 4-1 (Kost). This position has also never been filled even though obesity is a national problem. The Health Department Director stated that the Health Department and Chatham Schools Obesity Prevention coordinators are covering this area. Again, if justified, it can be reinstated.

3. Human Relations Director: Salary/Benefits/Operating total $99,578.20 per year. Deleted Position. Vote 3-2 (Kost & Cross). This was obviously one of our more contentious items as the position was filled and this was an emotional subject for many citizens. I voted against deleting this position now because this position was filled and deserved more consideration during the budget process.

4. Sustainable Communities Director: Salary/Benefits/Operating total $151,523.00 per year. Deleted Position. Vote 3-2 (Kost & Cross). This too was a contentious and emotional item as this position was also filled. Again, I voted against deleting this position now because it was filled and deserved more consideration during our budget process.

Note: Any or all of these 4 deleted positions may have fallen in the delete category even after going through our normal budget process, but I would still have liked to have considered these options within the overall budget picture.

5. Land Use Plan Consultant: $300,000 over 2 years. Delay for Review Vote 5-0

6. Pittsboro Express: $39,000 max contribution per year. Not cancelled yet! Plan to check Chatham Transit capability to replace service / not renew. Vote 3-2 (Kost & Cross). Our $39K contribution to this service will be met in late March, so we will continue to have this service through June at no additional cost. Commissioner Petty said he had spoken with Chatham Transit and they may be able to provide this service. Even if they can, I would assume it would come with some additional expense to the citizens. We’ll be looking at this during the budget process. There are many facets to consider when discussing the pros and cons of public transportation. It’s not just a ride!

Leadership: “If you’re doing all the talking, you can’t be learning anything!”

…my momma!

December 28, 2011: Goldston Sewer Project

2010-12-31T14:38:00.001-05:00

What a big day for the citizens of Goldston! I attended Congressman Etheridge’s announcement ceremony for funding this much needed sewerage project for Goldston.

$6,374,000 TOTAL….$2,947,000 in a USDA Rural Development loan at 3% financed over 40 years, $2,400,500 as a Rural Development grant, $1,000,000 as a NC Rural Center grant and $26,500 from the town.

Goldston has long suffered from failing septic systems with land that simply won’t perk.

We, Chatham County, have not issued a septic permit in Goldston for 5 years and it doesn’t take a soils scientist to know this is causing or will cause health issues. This project will serve approximately 160 – 180 homes and allow for some commercial development in the Goldston area.

This funding is the result of years of work by many….Goldston Mayor Tim Cunnup and his Town Board, Congressman Bob Etheridge, House Speaker Joe Hackney, Senator Bob Atwater, the USDA Rural Development staff, the NC Rural Center staff, the current and past BOCs, Chatham Manager Charlie Horne and many others.

The City of Sanford will act as our regional sewerage partner. They will treat the Goldston sewage and discharge the cleaned effluent into the Deep River near Comnock.

I know it will be well cleaned, because Sanford’s water intake is downstream on the Cape Fear at NC-42!

December 13, 2010: BOC to meet at night

2010-12-26T20:48:00.001-05:00

The new BOC majority decided to hold both monthly meetings at night based on input they received during their campaigning. That would mean a work session in the afternoon and a regular meeting at 6 pm on the 1^st Monday and the 3^rd Monday.

There was some discussion as to whether that might preclude some citizens who don’t drive at night from having the opportunity for public input. I suggested we might add a Public Input Session to our afternoon Work Sessions to accommodate that need and it was accepted.

Now we will have Public Input at the afternoon Work Session and again at the evening Regular Session. This process is scheduled to start with our 2^nd meeting in January.

This may actually work better as our economy picks up and applications increase. We normally did not make major or contested decisions at our day meetings anyway. Now we can spread this work over 2 meetings and there should be less waiting time for applicants.

I guess we’ll fine out how well this actually works out as we proceed with our new schedule.

Leadership: “Confusion is the word we have invented to refer to an order that we have not yet understood.” …Henry Miller

December 15, 2010: NCACC Legislative Goals

2010-12-18T21:08:00.006-05:00

I serve as Co-Chair, with Commissioner Kitty Barnes of Catawba County, of the NC Association of County Commissioners Legislative Goals Committee.

After a 4 month work period with 7 Subcommittees, we presented the 2011-2012 proposed goals to the Board of Directors today. At the conclusion, we ended up with 53 legislative proposals, selected and ranked our proposed top 5 priority goals.

Oppose the shift of Transportation responsibilities to counties.
Ensure adequate Mental Health funding.
Reinstate ADM/Lottery funds for school construction.
Preserve existing revenue/tax base.
Authorize local revenue options.

Each of the 53 goals will be presented, discussed and voted on including the proposed top 5 and their ranking of importance.

All proposed goals will now go to the January 20-21 NCACC Legislative Goals Conference where each county will have a voting delegate representing their BOC’s.

This process includes all counties with many Republicans and Democrats and is viewed as a fair manner to select our goals for the good of all NC counties.

Leadership: “The important problems we face cannot be solved with the same level of thinking that we had when we created them.”…Albert Einstein

December 13, 2010: BOC Assignments

2010-12-18T21:05:00.002-05:00

We made commissioner assignments and reassignments tonight. I will be working with the following:

NC Association of County Commissioners

Board of Directors
Co-Chair Legislative Goals Committee
Tax and Finance Committee

Triangle J – Council of Governments

Chairman
Executive Committee
Board of Delegates
Chair, Legislative Goals Committee
Chair, Regional Development & Infrastructure Parnership

Research Triangle Regional Partnership

Chatham Board of Adjustments

Southeast Water Board

Southwest Water Board

Commissioner Liaison to:

Court Operations & Security, Judicial District 18
Solid Waste Advisory Committee
Home & Community Block Grant Committee

Leadership: “I know God will not give me anything I can’t handle.

I just wish He didn’t trust me so much.”…Mother Teresa

December 13, 2010: My Pay for Performance Votes

2010-12-18T21:00:00.003-05:00

The PFP by Bonus vote that this BOC made tonight was an entirely different animal from the vote the past BOC made.

When I voted not to pay the PFP the first time, it was a salary increase proposal and the funds were simply not there for an extended expenditure. We were trying to keep from laying people off and we did manage to do that. The PFP was promised. I’m sure most employees earned it and I certainly know how one feels when hard work results in broken promises.

The new BOC majority decided a one time PFP by Bonus could help heal the wounds and the funds were available to do this. We approved it by bonus and I’m sure our hard working staff appreciates this consideration. It’s certainly has to be better than nothing!

Leadership: “When you’re through changing, you’re through”…Will Rogers

December 13, 2010: My Permit Extension Act Votes

2010-12-18T20:59:00.003-05:00

Yes, I changed my mind! I voted along with the past BOC opting out of the permit extensions allowed by the Fourth Year NCGA Permit Extension Act of 2009 because that was going to happen with or without my vote.

I voted with the new BOC to opt back in. It was also apparent that opting back in was going to occur with or without my vote. I offered a softer approach by opting in only for those extensions that might lapse December 31, 2010…ensuring all had at least 1 year extension remaining on their permits. Investors/builders are enduring the same hard times we all are. Any applicant can come in and request extensions when they are needed and I think they would likely receive approval…others certainly have. They all met the criteria in place when their applications were approved and many agreed to additional stipulations that where not required at the time.

The new BOC majority wanted to opt in totally and I went with them. The extension was a Senate proposal and the House only agreed to pass it with the opt out provision. That occurred. Now the Senate and House are controlled by the Republicans and if the extensions are not allowed, I would expect our new legislature to make it mandatory anyway!

Note: Working as a BOC requires a little give and take from all members. You can’t just sit up there and vote against everyone and expect any support for your own proposals. I don’t vote political statements unless it’s a matter I feel very strongly about and we all know that I do occasionally have those strong feelings.

Leadership: The key to being a good commissioner is keeping the citizens who hate you away from those who are undecided! …paraphrase…Casey Stengel (1890-1975)

December 12, 2010: Christmas Parades!

2010-12-18T20:45:00.006-05:00

This has been a most interesting and fun Christmas Parade season. Friends of Bock, Petty and Stewart had plans to put together a parade float and they invited Sally and me to ride with them. Sally had some scheduling conflicts, so I decided to meet them at the parade. From participating in Chatham parades over the past 6 years, I think our citizens like and expect their commissioner to be in their parades…and I enjoy them!

Our first parade was in Siler City at 7 pm on Friday, Dec 2^nd. Commissioners are usually lined up just behind the Town Board, but I didn’t see any sign of them. I walked around looking for them and finally found them about 5 blocks from the Police Department. The float was the fine effort of the Chatham Republican Women and I thought OMG – if I get on this thing, the rumors will fly!

Well there wasn’t a Democratic Women’s float…this was it and I climbed onboard. Everyone was very nice to me and all enjoyed some ribbing at my expense. I did say I wasn’t super comfortable being the only ass on the float! The parade was quite enjoyable. Citizens were friendly, the night was cold and the Christmas decorations were very festive. Thank you, Siler City!

Our second parade was the next day, Saturday, in Goldston at 11 am. To my great surprise, my hosts had managed to bring a live miniature donkey named Radar and physically lifted him up on the flo at. The comment I most remember in the excitement was “here you are, this float is about Unity!”. Now I was comfortable. Radar and I were representing the Democrats on the Republican Unity float and I was no longer the only ass up there! Goldston also had a very good parade with lots of friendly citizens enjoying the festivities. Thank you, Goldston!

Our third parade was again the next day, Sunday, in Pittsboro at 3 pm. It was quite cold and breezy, but lots of people showed up anyway. To my pleasure, Radar also returned to keep me company on the float and the Republican Women had added a sign on top of the chimney that read “+ Commissioner Mike Cross”. I very much appreciated that touch.

PBO has a rather long parade and there were folks everywhere. Candy was flying, everyone looked like they were enjoying themselves and the truth is…once they saw Radar…the rest of us didn’t seem to matter. He clearly stole the show!

PBO once again held a great parade. Thank you, Pittsboro!

Our fourth and last parade was held in Bennett on Saturday, Dec.11 at 4 pm. That day was cold, breezy and it rained lightly all day. We thought the parade was in question. The citizens of Bennett are a hardy bunch and a little rain wasn’t about to stop their Christmas Parade. Everyone decided the float decorations wouldn’t do well in the rain, so I pulled out my old magnetic signs and we rode in my car.

It wasn’t the same, but it surely was more comfortable. I wanted to put Radar in the back seat, but he seemed to need a bathroom every time the parade started moving, so better judgement prevailed. Although many sat in their cars and trucks to view the parade, some stood out in the drizzle and were apparently enjoying themselves anyway.

The parade went on and a fine parade it was. Thank you, Bennett!

My sincere thanks and appreciation go out to all who make Chatham a county of Christmas Parades and a special thanks to my UNITY hosts!

March 8-11, 2009: National Associationof Counties Legislative Conference

2009-03-22T10:46:00.002-04:00

The conference agenda in Washington, DC, was certainly filled. We received briefings by HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Workshops included the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Stimulus Package), Weathering the Financial Storm, Housing Stimulus, Climate Change, Future of Energy Issues, Impact of Mental Health Parity Legislation and What's Going On With The Immigration System.

The conference ended with a NC Congressional Breakfast at the Capital Hill Club where all but 2 NC members participated. Congressmen Etheridge and Price and Senator Hagan addressed the attendees.

Federal Immigration Reform was one of the more intense topics, both in and out of the workshop. The following is not based on facts, but here is what I think I got out of these discussions.
* President Obama will have a proposal on the table by the end of this year.
* ICE enforcement with some local assistance will continue.
* A responsible cost program (time period and process) for citizenship will be developed.
* ID verification system will become national.
* Employees who hire illegals will be prosecuted/fined.
* Illegals seeking employment will be prosecuted/deported.
* Our Agricultural Work Visa program will be refined to accommodate needed migrant farm workers.

I received several positive comments on the position we have taken on the 287g program from other NC commissioners.

If you would like more details, visit the NACo Legislative Conference Report at www.naco.org. There was so much information dispensed, it will probably take me a few days for it to sink in. I do feel like it was a very worthwhile event.

Considering I started my trip with what turned out to be an abscessed tooth and very swollen left side of my face, I guess I was lucky to complete the week!

January 17th 2009: response to criticisms of the ICE resolution

2009-01-17T21:31:00.003-05:00

ON CHATHAM COUNTY BECOMING A SANCTUARY/SAFE HAVEN

Since just eight local governments in the state have entered into ICE agreements, we are with the vast majority of local communities not participating in ICE, which makes it unlikely that Chatham would be targeted as a ”sanctuary” when Orange County and Durham (who have also adopted resolutions) have not experienced this. And no single area is likely to be a “sanctuary” due to ICE. The availability of jobs has been the most critical factor for the location of immigrants, which is why there are still higher concentrations of illegal immigrants in metro areas.

Neither the City of Durham (resolution passed four years ago), nor Orange County (resolution passed two years ago), have seen any evidence of an influx of undocumented workers. Further, the resolution does not tie the hands of law enforcement officers. Law enforcement can still cooperate with the federal government. Most certainly, law enforcement officers will continue to seek out and arrest criminals of all types, as they have always done.

ON IMMIGRANTS AND FELONIES

The 287(g) provision was enacted to remove habitual immigrant offenders. However, aggravated felonious acts are less than 1% of the total.

While some have cited a November 2008 report by the North Carolina Sheriffs' Association (NCSA), which stated that, “Forty-four percent of the illegal immigrants identified during an eight-month period last year had been charged with crimes including murder, assault, and domestic violence.” This statement is misleading. In looking at what is covered in this 44%, the NCSA is including minor offenses like jaywalking, shoplifting, and trespassing, which are not in the same league as murder and assault. Another 23% involved driving while impaired offenses, and 33% involved violations of the motor vehicle law.

In 2007, Alamance County reported to ICE that approximately 80% of the state charges filed under its 287(g) program were for misdemeanors. According to the documents received from Gaston County in 2007, they reported that approximately 95% of their ICE-related charges filed were for misdemeanors.

In 2007, Alamance reported that approximately 45% of its ICE-related state charges under the 287(g) program were for traffic violations other than DWIs. DWIs appear to be reported separately from other traffic violations. In 2007, Gaston County reported that 60% of its charges were for traffic violations that were not DWIs.

This resolution does not mean that ICE cannot arrest people in Chatham County. It is saying that enforcement of immigration laws is the responsibility of the federal government. State law already requires local officers to check immigration status in the case of felonies and DWI. So, not having a 287(g) agreement does not provide any additional protections for undocumented immigrants who commit crimes. Chatham County’s Board of Commissioners, through the resolution, stated that we clearly support local officers’ enforcement of state laws.

ON THE COSTS OF 287(g) ICE PROGRAM

In November of 2007, Wake County estimated the county’s cost of a 287(g) program to be approximately $629,000. According to The Washington Post, in March 2008, Prince William County in Virginia started an ICE local enforcement program that was estimated to cost $6.4 million, double the original estimates of the county. Due to these cost estimates, the county altered its local enforcement plan; but according to news reports, the county spent nearly $800,000 (of its own money), just to cover start-up costs of its immigration crackdown. Without clear evidence that these programs will be successful in addressing the legitimate concerns related to current immigration policy, it does not seem like a wise investment for local taxpayer dollars

Christmas is coming!

2008-12-01T12:08:00.000-05:00

The Fat Man and his Elves are gearing up, Rudolph and his crew are rested and it's almost time for their visit! Nothing will get you in the Christmas Holiday Spirit like a good 'ole small town Christmas Parade with all your family, friends and neighbors.

Siler City Christmas Parade, Thursday, Dec. 4 at 7 PM.
Goldston Christmas Parade, Saturday, Dec. 6 at 11 AM.
Pittsboro Christmas Parade, Sunday, Dec. 7 at 3 PM.
Bennett Christmas Parade, Saturday, Dec. 13 at 4 PM.

Hope to see you all there!

Water for extreme SE Water District Customers

2008-12-01T12:04:00.003-05:00

When the BOC was deciding how best to use the USDA-RD loan
to install water for the SE Water District, we were limited to a
maximum loan amount and restricted by number of paid sign-ups.

This made it impossible for us to install lines East of Prince Chapel
Road on NC-42 to the Harnett County line and Truth Road at this time. The estimate for those two sections (approximately 4 miles) was over $600K and would have included boring under a railroad, boring under Buckhorn Creek and building a pump station to get the pressure required on the customer end of the line. We had to use that money to maximize our efficiency and reach the highest number of paid customers in the overall district.

We have 37 customers in this area, including B&B Poultry, which would use the water equivalent of 24 homes…and needs water badly. Our Staff Engineer has discussed with Harnett County staff the possibility of extending their water line to the Chatham County line and selling Chatham metered water for these customers. This would require only 2.2 miles of water line on the Chatham side with no borings and no pump station …estimated cost $225K.

There is some interest as Harnett is a Regional Water Supplier, but they are currently at or very near maximum capacity. Their plant should be up-graded by early 2010 and we will revisit this possible solution at that time.

We must remember that these customers would already have water if the 2005 Harnett Water Contract had not been cancelled by the 2006 BOC. That contract included up to 10MGD and our allocation was purchased by Holly Springs as soon we cancelled; i.e., no longer available to us.

I have not given up! We will continue our discussions with Harnett and hopefully will be able to supply water to the citizens of this area in 2010.

November 2008 -- Thank you!

2008-11-28T15:14:00.001-05:00

A 54% vote is a big win in a 3-way race and any win is a great win! You did it!!

Thank You for your votes and your financial support of my Reelection Campaign.

As you can imagine, there are days in my service that are long, hard and difficult and then there are days that don't seem long enough and are very rewarding. Either way, I will continue giving 110% in my service as Commissioner from District 2 and I will do my very best to serve all citizens of Chatham.

Again, I thank you for your support and look forward to continuing my service to the county.

Campaign Contributions Appreciated

2008-09-07T12:33:00.001-04:00

Your modest contribution to my ReElection Campaign would be very much appreciated!
Campaign to ReElect Mike Cross
PO Box 173
Moncure, NC 27559

Thanks,
Mike

Some Areas of Southeast Chatham May Lose Chance for County Water

2008-08-14T16:32:00.002-04:00

Press release from Chatham County:

PITTSBORO—Unless more southeastern Chatham residents living on certain roads sign up and pay the reduced rate tap fee for county water service by Sept. 10, 2008, they run the risk of not having county water service in their area. “This means that even if they don’t want to be Southeast Water District customers now, they may well be shutting the door on that option for the future,” said Roy Lowder, director of Water Utilities.

The water system is required to have at least 10 customers per mile of road, but this is prorated for shorter roads. For example, a half-mile of road requires five customers. When this minimum is not met, “it means that we cannot afford to put waterlines on those roads or along some sections of roads,” Lowder said. (NOTE: See list of affected roads at the end of the article).

To those residents who have already paid up, “we need you to contact your neighbors and urge them to apply for county water. You may end up without county water if they don’t sign on in time,” Lowder said.

“I recognize that this is a hard decision for some people to make. Your well system may be working just fine today, but that situation can change very quickly for many reasons,” Lowder said. “The big risk is that down the road, you may need public water and it won’t be there. Your options for the future are very limited.”

It also may mean that some homes or businesses in critical need of county water may be left out. “It’s also important to note that not having public water throughout the area could impact the ability of existing businesses to expand or to recruit new businesses to the area,” Lowder added.

The 90% discount on the tap fee is a major incentive that residents should consider. “It won’t get any cheaper than $500 to tap on to the system,” Lowder said. “However, the $500 fee must be paid by Sept. 10th and we also must receive a completed water service application by then as well.”

The tap fee automatically jumps from $500 to $4,500 once the waterlines have been installed beyond your address. “A $500 fee to connect to county water is a good deal to ensure future access to a safe, adequate water supply,” Lowder said.

Lowder said that he is concerned that many residents don’t know about the availability of county water coming to southeastern Chatham or may have misconceptions about what it means to have county water.

He said that residents have reported rumors that signing up for county water means that their wells will be condemned and they won’t be able to use their well water. “This is not true. In fact, people can continue to use their well water for farming, landscaping, washing cars or any other outdoor purposes, but not for indoor household use.”

Lowder added that the county also has an ample water supply, another common misconception. “Even at the worst of last year’s drought, Jordan Lake was in better shape than just about any public water reservoir in the state. It is a well-designed reservoir with a large watershed area. Our customers also did a great job of conserving water when they were asked to do so.”

The county has negotiated additional water capacity for the future through the City of Durham and is looking at other options as well.

Lowder said that it is important for potential customers to know that the county’s water meets very stringent federal quality standards, whereas well water quality can vary widely. Water for the Southwest District will come from both the county’s treatment plant on Jordan Lake and the City of Sanford.

“Both sources meet quality standards on a consistent basis,” Lowder said. ““We have made several successful adjustments to our water treatment process in the past year so that water from our treatment plant consistently meets federal standards,” Lowder said.

The Southeast Water District roads that are in need of additional paid customers are:

· Asbury Church

· Center Grove Church Rd

· Chatham Church

· E. Gargus

· Gade Bryant

· Gum Springs Church

· Gynnis Creek Rd

· Henley Mill Subdivision

· Lower Thrift

· L W Burns

· Lydia Perry

· Mays Chapel

· Meadowview Drive

· Moncure School

· Moncure Flatwood

· Moncure Loop

· Nassau Trail

· NC Hwy 42 (from Christian Chapel Rd to Harnett County)

· New Elam Church

· Old Chestnut Crossing

· Old Sanford

· Partain

· Red Hill Lane

· River Forks

· River Point Rd

· Rosser

· Rufus Jordan

· Shaddox

· Taylors Chapel

· Truth

· Weaver Crossing (Trail)

To request a Southeast District Water Service Application or to ask questions, call 919-542-8270. Those with internet access also can apply online at: http://www.chathamnc.org/Index.aspx?page=530.

General Election Campaign Contributions Needed

2008-07-02T12:17:00.000-04:00

General Election Campaign Contributions Needed

My thanks to all that helped my campaign during the Primary. Now we must move forward to compete in the general election against the Republican and possible Independent candidates.

While the historic Presidential campaign has everyone’s interest, please remember that our local government affects our live today and every day. I need your help to support an effective campaign to win re-election. Now it’s time to start “Fund Raising” for the November General Election. Please forward your campaign contribution to:

Campaign to ReElect Mike Cross
P.O. Box 173
Moncure, NC 27559

I thank you for your support and your vote in November!

Thank you

2008-05-09T09:31:00.000-04:00

Now that the Democratic primary is over I want to extend my sincere thanks to all who supported, worked for, and voted for me. I also would like to thank my opponents who have offered their congratulations.

I am honored and gratified by your support and will continue working hard to live up to the trust you've put in me. Watch this space for updates on helping with the November election!

Thank you,
Mike

My environmental accomplishments

2008-03-10T16:24:00.007-04:00

I recently interviewed representatives from the Sierra Club regarding my environmental records. Here are my notes for that meeting, I think you can see that I have an excellent record of protecting our environment and natural resources. This is listed in reverse chronological order.

2008

Human Sewage Sludge / Poultry Waste Application – Our BOC is currently looking at farm land application of these waste products and their possible harmful effects on humans and live stock grazing.

Drought Definitions and Criteria - As Second Vice Chair of Triangle J - Council of Governments, I want you to know that we voted 2/27/08 to set up a forum and initiate criteria that would bring Triangle area governing bodies to the same page. Currently we have quite different criteria which makes it very difficult for citizens to understand when two areas are in the same stage and one can water lawns and wash cars while the other can’t.

Regional Water Plant and Water Intake – George Lucier as BOC Chair and I as BOC Vice, have had two meetings and correspondence with Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, UNC, OWASA, Durham City, Durham County and DENER in an effort to form a partnership to bring this to a reality. These facilities would be located on the West side of Jordan Lake and would serve the area for years to come and facilitate sharing when one area is experiencing water shortages while others may not be.

Regional Treated Waste Water Discharge Allocation – Lucier, Barnes and I have been working to gain a discharge allocation for Chatham County. With no additional allocations available in the Haw River, Jordan Lake or Robison Creek, we have been looking at the upper Cape Fear River below the Buckhorn Dam for our discharge location. Chatham has received a letter from DWQ stating that we can apply for a 19 million gallons per day Discharge Permit when we have our plan in place. This can evolve into a partnership with Pittsboro, 7,500 acres of Goodnight (Preston Development) property south of Pittsboro and Chatham County.

Energy Efficiency – Voted for and contracted with an engineering firm to perform an Energy Efficiency test of all Chatham government building, including schools. Ongoing.

Green Building – Voted for and approved Green Building Standards in all future Chatham County tax payer funded building construction.

Watershed Protection Ordinance – Voted for and expanded buffer setbacks for Seeps and Springs, Wet Lands, Ephemeral, Perennial and Intermediate Streams Reservoirs and Rivers.

Land Conservancy – Continuing to work with Triangle Land Conservancy to help create wildlife corridors while including parcels for future schools and parks.

Jordan Lake Nutrient Levels – Voted with resolution asking NC to enact the new lower nutrient level criteria for any and all discharge that will end up in Jordan Lake.

NE Park – Voted and approved expenditures of recreation fees to build the NE Park which will be located on 400 acres, south of 64 East at Bells Landing.

Staff Engineer – Voted to fund and hired staff engineer to monitor/direct county construction.

Staff Environmental Resources Director – Voted to fund and hired an ERD to oversee/ensure appropriate environmental measures are included in all applications for developments and to ensure environmental concerns are met.

Staff Erosion Control Enforcement Officer – Voted to fund and hired ECEO to visit construction sites to ensure proper erosion control measures are adequately implemented and to impose fines where appropriate. We previously relied on overloaded state inspectors.

Staff Land Use Ordinance Enforcement Officer – Voted to fund and hired OEO to ensure land uses are consistent with applications and zoning.

2007

Green Building Taskforce – Voted to establish GBT to research green building criteria and make recommendations to the BOC as to how we could include these energy efficient methods in our future construction.

Commercial Corridors Taskforce – Voted to establish CCT to research and advise the BOC as to how best to protect our major corridors and to establish commercial nodes for future commercial construction. This process will ensure we maintain some rural aspects/open space/scenic views along our major corridors.

Agricultural Districts – Voted to establish ADs to promote/support our farmers while ensuring we maintain our rural heritage/open space for all to enjoy.

2006
Fly Ash – Successful in deterring a proposal for a golf course and park in the Moncure area using the Fly Ash from the coal fired Cape Fear power plant. My research revealed the fact that Fly Ash (by-product of burning coal) contains 13 pollutants/hazardous components which exceed all standards for human drinking water, taste and odor, acute standards for Aquatic life and chronic standards for Aquatic life. This could have been very problematic for a community where soils don’t perk well and the Haw River and Deep River converge to form the Cape Fear River.

2005

McGills Mulch Facility – This plant, located in the Moncure Industrial Area, makes Garden Mulch using saw dust, partially treated human waste water and the flushing water from cleaning the butchering rooms of poultry plants. The odors were unbearable to the community and where there’s odor, there is likely harmful bacteria in the air. I was successful in getting DENR Air Quality, Chatham Land Use Enforcement involved. The building was enclosed as it was supposed to be when it opened. The heat treatment equipment to kill the bacteria is now operable and inspected by DENR and the community has a much better neighbor.

Prior to being elected to the BOC

Woodall Family Farm – This “Farm” injects and plows partially treated human waste water into the ground from area Waste Water Treatment Facilities. Again with the odors, bacteria and possible ground water contamination. I was successful in getting DENR and Chatham Land Use involved. Proper chemical application (primarily Lime) is now being enforced and monitoring wells are installed.

Moncure Air Quality Summit – As president of Southeast Chatham Citizens Advisory Council, I arranged a summit with representatives from all 9 Moncure Industries, local Ministers (12 Churches within 5 miles) and interested citizens. We had become aware of the many toxic chemicals being released into the air and made our case for moving forward with DENR’s Maximum Attainable Air Quality rules requiring new equipment. The Industries in the Moncure Area now meet these standards.

Multi-State Solid Waste Dump - Waste Industries had a proposal on the table to make Chatham County, specifically the Moncure Industrial Area, home to a multi-state solid waste dump. I founded the Southeast Chatham Citizens Advisory Council. With research and public involvement, we managed to get the applicants to withdraw their proposal.

Repsonses to 2004 questions from the Chatham Coalition

2008-02-17T13:42:00.002-05:00

The Chatham Coalition leadership has made it clear in recent emails and postings that they do not intend to support me. That is certainly their perogative as it is their organization and if they want to go a different way in 2008, I welcome them to the race and I hope we can keep it issue oriented and positive like we did when we worked together in 2004.

I am posting here, unaltered, my answers to their candidate questionaire in 2004. On the basis of this they endorsed me in 2004. Rather than going back and forth on supposed report cards, I would invite everyone to examine my answers to their 2004 questionaire and decide for yourself whether or not I was the commissioner I promised them I would be.

Mike Cross, BOC Candidate, District 2
Responses to Questions from
The Chatham Coalition

Planning, Development and Environmental Protection

1. Would you make a top priority of passing the remaining implementing regulations of the 2001 land use Conservation and Development Plan?

Answer: Yes.

2. If you had been serving on the Board of Commissioners at the time of the final decision on the Compact Communities Ordinance, would you have voted to limit the maximum number of units to 1500?

Answer: Yes.

3. If you had been serving on the Board of Commissioners at the time of the final decision on the Compact Communities Ordinance, would you have voted to reject the waiver provision?

Answer: Yes.

4. If you had been serving on the Board of Commissioners at the time of the Homestead vote, how would you have voted on the application and why?

Answer: Disapprove. The land was zoned RA-5 for reasons obvious to a casual observer. Our county’s major water source (Jordan Lake) is already in trouble. The up coming Environmental Impact Study could have been required prior to the rezoning vote and if it had been, I don’t believe the rezoning would have occurred. The application would have become a mute point.

5. The proposed extension of water lines throughout the county potentially opens up the entire county, particularly un-zoned sections of the county, to additional high-density development that will further limit the water available for current citizens, while driving taxes and the county’s obligation to provide services up. What policies and procedures would you propose to preserve farmland and agriculture, preserve the county’s rural character and prevent sprawl in the areas where water lines are extended?

Answer: There seems to be a misunderstanding with the “proposed extension of water lines”. The 12” “Trunk lines” are a done deal. I expect to see digging and pipe laying within the next 6-8 months. The BOC has committed to this, hence the increase in county water rates to help pay for it.

The three Water Districts (Northwest, Southwest and Southeast) to be voted on 20 July are to supply water to people in this county who desperately need it. The humanitarian needs of our own citizens must come first. If you have not experienced the hardship of not having adequate potable water, you may not get it. I have and I do.

We will have to deal thoughtfully with the development that follows. The water lines will help draw development to areas other than the Northeast section and can improve the quality of life for many citizens who desire it.

The BOC is charged with guiding development to the good of the whole. The number one priority of all these concerns is that the citizens want and/or need water. As to policies and procedures-the Land Use Conservation and Development Plan-fully implemented-should provide adequate guidance for preserving and preventing sprawl.

6. If elected to the Board of Commissioners, would you oppose the use of spray-field effluent systems in the sensitive watersheds or rural areas, as called for in the Land Use Plan?

Answer: Yes. In sensitive watersheds.

Spray Irrigation (onsite wastewater treatment systems) is controlled by DENR, DWQ (soil test, permits, approval, buffers, inspection and plant operation reviews).

These systems are designed to be used where conventional onsite wastewater systems are unsuitable due to low soil permeability, shallow water depth table, impermeable layer or complex site topography. Chatham County has many such areas and this system may be the only choice available. These systems are also used in Pennsylvania and Virginia. The EPA claims they work as well as any other system and there have been no documented cases of health problems due to the spray irrigation of properly treated wastewater. The state requires a management contract and multiple inspections (monthly, quarterly, biannual and annual).

There are a number of questions I haven’t gotten the answers for pertaining to what is recommended by the EPA and what has been allowed (buffer, distances, fencing to prevent human exposure, etc.) by NCDENR. I will oppose the use of this system until I get satisfactory answers. I am long awaiting a return call from DWQ.

7. The solid Waste Advisory Committee has twice recommended against the placement of a regional solid waste landfill in Chatham County, yet the current Board of Commissioners continues to pursue this option in hopes of easy money from the developers of such a facility. A county-owned, county-only landfill, centrally located, would pay for itself after less than a decade of operation. Would you support a county-owned, county-only facility as opposed to a private regional landfill?

Answer: Yes. I have studied this issue, presented to the Solid Waste Committee, the Planning Board and the BOC. I strongly oppose a regional landfill in Chatham County. I don’t want Chatham County in the garbage business. There are too many unknowns with a regional landfill and the risks are too great. A regional landfill of any description would not be a responsible economic opportunity for our county.

8. Our primary drinking water source, Jordan Lake, is already identified by the State as “impaired,” meaning its water is not safe for drinking without expensive treatment. How would you apply the county’s existing local authority to safeguard Jordan Lake from further degradation?

Answer: The Environmental Management Commission, DENR-Division of Water Quality, the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project Partners (a coalition of local counties and municipal bodies to whom Chatham County contributes a share of approximately $8,000.00 annually) are looking at ways-limits-restrictions to reduce the nitrogen and phosphorus getting into Jordan Lake. Orange and Durham Counties expect a crackdown! I believe this is imminent.

Stop changing RA-5 zoning to accommodate high density housing so close to the lake.

A. What would you do to work with regional governments and state agencies to improve Jordan Lake’s water quality?

Answer: Maintain close liaison with the group doing the studies and contribute where we can. Demand sedimentation/erosion enforcement. Wake, Durham and Orange counties have sedimentation/erosion control coordinators and Chatham probably will have very soon. (See answer to question #10).

The collective effort of these coordinators can and should help us reach the results we must reach-clean water!

9. Chatham County currently imposes a $1,500.00 impact fee, earmarked for school capital, on each new home built, yet the cost in school capital to the county of each new home is over $3,700.00. And revenue from impact fees has fallen from over $1 million in 2002, to and estimated $866,000.00 in 2005, and 11.8 percent decrease. Other counties in the region are much more willing to impose impact mitigation measures at developer’s expense, and have seen no slow down in their residential growth. If elected to the Board of Commissioners, what impact-mitigation measures will you seek to ensure the burden of covering the service demands of new homes is placed on those who profit from building those homes?

Answer: We are actually very fortunate! Authority to impose impact fees is a function of the general assembly and the Home Builders Association has a very capable lobby.

Yet, Chatham County is 1 of only 3-4 counties (100 counties in NC) authorized to impose an impact fee. While we can set the rate-new homes and mobile homes must be at the same rate (currently $1,500.00) and apartments can be lower (currently $500.00 per unit). These fees are based on the number of students estimated to live in each type home. These numbers have not met expectations, hence the 11.8 percent decrease in revenue. We must be careful with this one. Higher fees may hold small house construction in abeyance as the larger homes will generate more profit for the fee invested and our Affordable Housing availability will suffer.

I believe these fees are passed to the consumer as opposed to being absorbed by the builder. We must protect our lower income citizens’ ability to become a homeowner. $3,700.00, added to a 20-30 year mortgage on a lower end home can virtually make home ownership an impossible dream for many of our citizens. I don’t want to do that! We need updated research and a new plan. I would pursue a reasonable sliding scale fee based on number of bedrooms, square footage or price and I would expect more participation from our developers/builders.

The final recommendation we come up with will have to be the subject of conversation at the state level.

10. Chatham’s lakes and streams are among its most desirable features, and feed into much of our surface drinking water supplies. To protect these waters, will you:

Support the extension of the stream buffer regulations in the Compact Community Ordinance countywide?

Answer: Currently buffer requirements are 50’ for intermittent and running streams-100’ within ½ mile of rivers and reservoirs. Totally in line with the Planning Board’s unanimous recommendations. I think the buffer requirements should be a factor driven by the property use and scientific review of the specific area in question. Adequate buffers can be determined to fit the project.

Support hiring local sedimentation and erosion control staff to monitor the impact of development activities on those waters and enforce stream buffer regulations?

Answer: Yes. The Public Works Department has a request in its 2005 Budget for a Sedimentation/Erosion Control Coordinator. The County has applied for a grant to pay 60% of the first year cost. The position will be fee based. Fees will depend on land disturbance, number of acres and borne by the builder/developer.

Although the state will reserve final say in disputed matters the Coordinator Office will be self-permitting and will have authority to stop a project if deemed necessary.

The budget is under review now-so we should know soon.

11. If elected to the Board of Commissioners, will you reaffirm the resolution to resist Cary annexation?

Answer: No. Reaffirming the resolution after our BOC just withdrew it wouldn’t get us anywhere. We-Chatham County-need to create a cooperative group committee with Cary and discuss common interest.

I don’t like the idea of being annexed and it’s not OK with me.

I don’t believe the state will authorize annexation without the consent of the citizens involved.

Will you seek to influence state legislators to pass a statute limiting the authority of municipalities to annex land across county lines against the will of the majority of the affected residents?

Answer: Yes, but it is my understanding that no one has been annexed without consent or against their will. I attended the Chatham/Cary meeting and understand these particular citizens requested annexation. They are accustomed to all the services, wealthy enough to pay for them and their “high taxes” will still be lower than they are used to paying.

Like it or not, we are now in competition with Cary to provide services or we may see more Chatham County citizens request annexation by Cary.

12. The US Environmental Protection Agency recently determined that air quality in Chatham County is below healthy standards due to high levels of ozone. Growth in ozone levels over the last decade correlates with increased numbers of highway miles traveled in the county. Traffic congestion in densely populated areas of the county is on the rise. Both these impacts of increased automobile traffic decrease the quality of life in Chatham County. What legislation or regulations would you propose to prevent these deleterious traffic impacts?

Answer: Traffic is certainly not the only problem contributing to our air quality problems. I have been working pro actively on these problems for three years with some actual success.

I would, however, use peak traffic loads to determine true impact of traffic when considering these applications. The newly required Peer Review for a Compact Community Application will give a good picture of traffic as well as environmental and economic impact.

NCDENR has adequate regulations to deal with this problem and I also think we will see some action in the near future.

Dr. George Lucier, Chair of our Planning Board, has recently accepted the chairmanship of the NCDENR Science Advisory Board on Toxic Air Pollutants and I don’t know a more capable person in this field.

13. Maintaining affordable housing in areas close to new and existing job centers is crucial to preserving the economic well-being of Chatham’s workers. If elected to the Board of Commissioners, will you require developers of high-density residential and mixed-use developments to set aside a significant percentage of the total residential units within the project boundaries for affordable housing?

Answer: Yes. Part of the base concept of a high-density residential and mixed-use development is to keep traffic to a minimum. Not including affordable housing on site would mean putting the work force on the streets. I would be looking for 10-20% on site affordable housing. With the CCO limit of 2500 homes we are providing a greater opportunity for developers to include affordable housing.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

1. …many Chatham workers lack the skills necessary to compete for higher wage jobs, putting the county at a disadvantage in recruiting small and medium size businesses. If elected to the Board of Commissioners, would you actively work with Central Carolina Community College and provide funding to enhance the Pittsboro campus Small Business Center’s programs for worker training?

Answer: Yes.

2. Will you encourage and promote collaboration with existing and potential employers to identify the skills training necessary to meet the needs of those businesses?

Answer: Yes. I would expect the EDC to identify the needs. The EDC Board of Directors are Chatham County businesspersons and this should be an easy task.

3. Businesses that would like to compete for state and private contracts require high-speed internet access to even place bids, yet the current membership of the Board of Commissioners has failed to even show up at meetings with service providers to discuss the possibility of extending reliable, low-cost high-speed Internet services throughout the County. If elected to the Board, what would you do to ensure the extension of high-speed Internet services throughout the county?

Answer: As is the case with all businesses, providing this service is driven by density of customers desiring the service and the companies’ bottom line.

I would push forward to explore ways to bring high speed Internet service to the county. This technology is changing rapidly and we need to understand all the options.

4. Lee County’s successful business park outside Sanford is reaching capacity, with new businesses still seeking to set up operations there. Meanwhile, the Chatham County Economic Development Corporation is not even advertising the sizeable county-owned property near the intersection of US highways 64 and 421 in Siler City, which is ideally located for a business park similar to Lee County’s. If elected to the board, would you seek to establish one or more business parks near existing communities to minimize the additional services needed to serve new businesses and make the accessible to citizens in need of employment?

Answer: Yes. Implement and follow our land development plan.

5. Would you work to enact a start-up funding program to encourage small business and entrepreneurs to locate in economic development centers and existing communities?

Answer: The Economic Development Corporation should seek and make available information for small business grants and low interest loans. We should look into an incentive plan such as was passed in January by the BOC for industry and include a livable wage factor.

6. The Chatham County Economic Development Corporation has advanced no comprehensive plan for economic development in the county: It has advocated for greater residential development, which increases taxes and drives farmers off the land; it has pushed for a program of tax incentives that does not require industries to provide high-wage jobs and good benefits; and it has not been active in community efforts to clean up pollution-generating industries in the county. The Chatham Coalition proposes a long-term economic development plan that emphasizes clean industry, quality jobs, educational and quality-of-life investments, and small- and medium-sized business located near existing communities. Which program would you support and why?

Answer: I am early in my process of understanding the role of the EDC and I need to do more research before I can decide my position.

7. There is a lack of transparency in the Economic Development Corporation’s activities to promote Chatham County, which has contributed to the lack of progress in bringing good jobs to the County. If elected to the Board would you push to revive the public Economic Development Commission and put the Economic Development Director back in county government?

Answer: I will push to revive the EDC; however, I think we would make a mistake putting it back under the county government umbrella. Detaching the EDC gave us non-profit status that provides greater flexibility to raise funds outside normal channels. We do invest considerable monies into the EDC each year, and we should receive quarterly progress reports.

8. Would you agree that when sites for economic development are considered, they should be discussed in the open so that people that would work in and live near the site would have the opportunity to provide on input?

Answer: Yes.

9. Would you agree that economic development sites should be in close proximity to existing population centers to minimize employees’ cost of travel and traffic congestion, and preserve agricultural land uses?

Answer: Yes.

10. Many of our existing industries provide low wages or environmental damage. If new businesses provide better wages and benefits, it reduces the human service demands placed on the county. Likewise, environmentally responsible industry doesn’t increase the strain on our infrastructure or public health. Would you insist that any business tax incentives be tied to providing high wages, good benefits and minimal negative environmental impacts?

Answer: I would insist on a responsible “living wage” and industry that does not further contaminate our air/water and does not create offensive odors.

11. Attracting and retaining high-skill workers requires the County to invest in high-performing schools and quality of life enhancements. If elected to the Board of Commissioners, will you support additional funding for: (Please explain)
Answer: A comprehensive review of all these items would certainly be in order. We do have to keep in mind balancing the budget and balancing our needs.

higher teacher pay?

Answer: Yes-where warranted. We have one of the largest school budgets of any county in the state. Retaining quality teachers is a must to ensure a quality education. They should be paid appropriately.

expanded recreational facilities and programs?

Answer: Yes. We have an approved recreation development plan with a map and I would favorably endorse funding to proceed with the plan.

expanded libraries and cultural activities?

Answer: Yes. On 3 May, 2004, the BOC voted 5-0 to approve raising one 36-hour staff person to 40 hours and the hiring of one additional staff person beginning 1 July, 2004.

Reliable, low-cost high-speed Interned services throughout the county?

Answer: No. This is a commercial market with rapidly changing technology. It would be difficult to ensure we are investing in a service that would not be obsolete by the time we complete. I would pursue making the regulatory environment friendly to providers.

12. Agriculture is the most tax-efficient form of economic activity, consuming less county services than any other land use. Chatham is the only county in the state where the number of farms is actually increasing, and the new farms are effectively taking advantage of the growing regional markets for locally produced and organic foods. Agriculture accounts for 39% of our economic output and 33% of our employment. Continued uncontrolled residential development will drive up taxes and reduce the ability of local agriculture to be competitive, slowly eroding this pillar of our economy and replacing it with service-intensive residential land uses. If elected to the Board of Commissioners, what steps would you take to promote and preserve our farm economy?

Answer: Agriculture is our heritage-the very establishment of our identity. I will do everything I possibly can to preserve our Family Farmer.
Open Government

The tremendous amount of money spent on the 2002 Board of Commissioners campaign, including money spent by unregulated special interest organizations and out-of-county businesses, and the fact that parties that made large contributions to victorious candidates have had their projects approved by the Board of Commissioners, has created a perception of corruption in our government among Chatham citizens. If elected to the Board of (Commissioners/Education), would you support adopting a county code of ethics which mandates that all elected and appointed officials declare their business and financial holdings and pledge to abstain from votes that affect their financial interests?

Answer: Yes.

2. Will you refuse to accept political contributions from out of county developers of large scale residential and commercial developments and screen your contributions for any developer or party with a relationship to a developer (e.g. attorneys, engineering firms, etc.) that is likely to be presenting a large scale development in the county?

Answer: No. I am well acquainted with some fine people who happen to be developers. I am married to a retired developer-one of our sons is in this profession.
If a developer agrees with my campaign positions and vision of citizen input and citizen oriented government, I welcome their support.
I can assure you-I am a man of honesty and integrity-every citizen of Chatham County will get the same commissioner. Financial support doesn’t buy any special consideration other than a sincere “Thank You” and a lapel sticker.

3. The County website shows a diagram of county government with Chatham citizens at the top, yet citizens frequently encounter resistance and lack of interest from top level elected officials and administrators when requesting information or action on a particular issue. If elected to the Board of (Commissioners/Education) would you actively promote an open, citizen-friendly culture within county administrative offices and mandate that all staff not conduct public policy negotiations on behalf of the county in private?

Answer: I certainly promote an open, citizen-friendly administrative staff but there are circumstances, as you are well aware, where public policy negotiations on behalf of the county are necessary.
I have been assured that the current policy is to conduct private negotiations only when directed to do so by the BOC. Somewhere in this equation-there has to be an element of Public TRUST. On the rare occasions when private negotiations are necessary, you can trust me to conduct this business with your interest foremost in my mind.

4. The County is served by a number of advisory boards staffed by dedicated and knowledgeable volunteers who wish to help improve the county. Yet a majority of the membership of the current Board of Commissioners frequently rejects the recommendations of these expert boards and fails to even acknowledge their expertise or opinions by explaining their reasoning for rejecting those recommendations. If elected to the Board of Commissioners, will you be guided in your decision-making by the recommendations of county advisory boards, and publicly explain on the record why you vote against those recommendations when and if you do so?

Answer: Yes. Déjà vu

5. If a significant number of citizens affected by a proposed decision of the County Commissioners express an consistent opinion regarding that decision, will you be guided in your decision-making by those citizens’ recommendations, and publicly explain on the record why you vote against those recommendations when and if you do so?

Answer: Yes. I will always be guided by the opinions and recommendations of the Chatham Citizenry.

6. Do you believe the county should hire on staff a full-time county attorney with expertise in local government, land use, economic development, employment and environmental law?

Answer: Yes. I believe we should hire two!
Today-we need a full time County Attorney to provide the services you suggest and I would add oversight of grant executions and contracts. There already exists adequate work to keep him or her very busy.

A second attorney could be kept equally busy with Health and Social Services Problems such as child neglect, abuse, and delinquent support.

Our requirements for legal guidance and assistance is far higher that many of us realize and as the county grows and develops we must be strong in this area.

7. The current public hearing process for conditional use permitting and rezoning applications is flawed, with public hearing typically coming before the relevant advisory boards review applications and conduct fact-finding. This inhibits the ability of citizens and interested parties to understand and meaningfully comment on the issues raised in such applications. Legally, in the case of conditional use permitting the Board of Commissioners may only consider sworn testimony provided in public hearing as the basis of its decision, yet clearly under the current schedule the Board reviews significant unsworn testimony in making its determinations. If elected to the Board of Commissioners, will you support altering the public hearing process to give citizens more time to become informed and allow them to participate in a more meaningful way?

Answer: Citizen participation is at the top of my list. Notification for public hearings is set forth in state statute 153A-343. method of procedure. Notice must be given no less than 10 days but not more than 25 days prior to the date set for public hearings.

I will encourage the 25-day notice. The planning Department can post a short synopsis of all applications on the County website-interested parties can get additional information as desired at the Planning Office.

The citizens can request their own meeting with parties involved and take their concerns to the initial meetings of appropriate committees and Planning Board. There may be a better way, and I will look into it.

8. The County Manager currently indicates that it is his goal to distribute Board of Commissioners meeting agendas to citizens who request advance notice of agendas 3 days in advance of meetings, and to distribute information packets to Board members including all materials relevant to the issues to be considered at the meeting 4 days prior to the meeting. Would you support posting on the County website all non-privileged documents in the information packet at the same time they are distributed to the Board?

Answer: Yes. This is driven by discussions with the BOC. There is normally a large amount of background information and planning documents.

Our current staffing level may prevent this from being possible at this time.

Jan 28, 2008: Campaign "Jump Start" funding appeal

2008-01-28T10:10:00.001-05:00

I would appreciate your financial help with getting my campaign rolling. Please forward your contribution today!

Campaign to Re-elect Mike Cross
PO Box 173
Moncure, NC 27559

I report ALL contributions.

January 9, 2008: Campaign 2008 -- kickoff letter

2008-01-16T10:29:00.000-05:00

Dear Friend and Supporter,

I am writing to share with you my plan to seek a second term on the Chatham County Board of County Commissioners. I appreciate the help and support you gave me in 2004, and I would like to begin my 2008 campaign by reviewing what I have accomplished for you and our other citizens of Chatham County these past three years. I hope that you will agree that I have kept the promises I made as a candidate, and I hope you will help me win a second term to build on these accomplishments.

Planning for our future was an important message of my 2004 campaign. Chatham was poorly prepared for the development challenges we faced. As your commissioner, we established a moratorium on residential development to allow us time to review and update our ordinances and procedures. We have added staff to the planning department, hired Chatham’s first erosion control officer, restructured the Planning Board, and passed key ordnance updates to lighting design and stream buffers. New and improved policies for commercial development are almost complete. We have included all interested parties in this work. We are implementing the Land Development Plan as promised.

Economic development and job education was another important need for Chatham I saw as a candidate. We had accomplished little in comparison to our neighboring counties. Working closely with Commissioner Patrick Barnes, we restructured the Economic Development Corporation, and hired a new director. We established the Chatham County Industrial Park in Siler City with plans for a new regional hospital and community college branch at this location.

Providing affordable housing is very important to me. I established the Affordable Housing Task Force and worked with the development community to take the Affordable Housing Fund from zero dollars to 3.7 million. Now Chatham Habitat for Humanity builds 21 homes a year (up from 4-5 per year). I received the Chatham County Habitat for Humanity Advocacy Award in 2006.

A full time county attorney was hired as promised.

Fiscally responsible planning for new schools and services has been implemented in our capital improvement plan. We opened a new elementary school this year and have plans for a new middle and high school in NE Chatham. We have made improvements to county buildings, established plans for a new judicial building and plans for an expanded library at the Community College site in Pittsboro. Because new growth requires expensive services, and to have that new growth pay its way, I worked with our state legislature to provide the option of the land transfer fee as an alternative to property taxes and impact fees.

I have worked very hard in service to Chatham County and I have kept my campaign pledges. Chatham County is in a better position now than it was three years ago to face our challenges. I want to build on our successes from the last three years. Your help is critical and I ask for your financial support, help on my campaign and your vote in 2008.

Campaign Contacts:

Campaign to Re-elect Mike Cross

PO Box 173

Moncure, NC 27559

Phone: 774-3309 Email: duckdogcross@aol.com

David LeGrys 542-5117 bkeeper41@embarqmail.com

October 31, 2007: – It’s Time We Get Serious…about OUR TAXES…and OUR VOTES!

2007-10-27T16:53:00.000-04:00

(this is the text of a full page ad I took out in the Chatham Record in support of the Land Transfer Tax).

It will soon be time for us to vote “For” or “Against” the 0.4% Land Transfer Tax and I want you to understand what we will be voting for or against, BEFORE you cast your vote! The National Planners Association has identified 10 Mega Regions in the US where massive growth is expected to occur. Of the10 Mega Regions, Chatham County will be part of the Number 1 high growth region (Triangle, Triad into Charlotte-Mecklenburg ). The NCDOT has already designated US64 as a future “Super Connect” between Raleigh and Charlotte. The Association of County Commissioners and the Triangle J-Council of Governments (Orange, Wake, Johnston, Lee, Moore and Chatham) agree that massive growth is coming.

Wake, Durham, Orange, Johnston, Harnett, Lee and Moore are growing “gang busters”. Maybe there’s something to these projections! Whether this turns out to be true or how long it will take to occur are questions I can’t answer. We certainly do have all indications that growth is coming to Chatham with approximately 15,000 homes approved for construction and more proposals coming every week.. With growth, comes requirements for schools, services, other public facilities and the infrastructure to support these requirements.

Based on a .4 students average per household, we may be looking at up to 6 thousand new students over the next 10-12 years. That equates to 6 to 8 new schools; approximately 1 new school every 2 years, plus an average of $1Million in operating cost, per year, per school!
Many have been very outspoken about growth “pays for itself”. Well, it doesn’t pay upfront and it certainly doesn’t appear to have paid it’s way in Wake, Raleigh or Cary, at all – roof tops, commercial, retail, hi and low tech industry - what else does it take to make it “pay for itself”? Last November,’06, Wake County voters approved $1.056 BILLION for Capital Improvements with $970 MILLION going to school construction. This month, October, they approved $276 MILLION in additional Bonds. All this debt will go on their property taxes…increases! Is this the example of how “growth pays for itself”? This is Halloween “Scary” to me!

With an average cost of $375,000 on new homes, these new homes are obviously not being built for current Chatham residents. Our new citizens are going to expect their schools and services to be in place when they arrive. Waiting until their first property tax payments come in to start planning and construction, simply isn’t going to work. Maybe a little up-front revenue generated by our newcomers would be appropriate.

No one wants higher Property Taxes or higher School Impact Fees! In fact, I don’t know anyone who wants higher taxes, period and no tax appears completely fair to everyone. But the requirements of growth have to be paid for and here is the opportunity for us to decide just how we prefer to pay for at least some of it.

There will have to be significant tax increases in our future, so we are really voting on which tax we prefer to start with. Our BOC is requesting your support with the 0.4% Land Transfer Tax , because we believe this is the most fair option. It’s based on sales price, whereas SIF is a flat fee regardless of sales price or square footage. Seems more fair to me. Without the LTT, we will have to, once again , go to Property Taxes, School Impact Fees and/or take another look at imposing Adequate Public Facility Fees.

The 0.4% LTT is not a “Do All/Fix All” tax, but it would allow us another option to pay Debt Service on at least one new school. It takes $1 Million/year for debt service for every $10 Million borrowed and schools are very expensive: Elementary,$18-$22 Million - Middle, $24-$28 Million – High School $38-$43 Million!

The 0.4% LTT would be negotiated in the transfer/sale/purchase of property. It does not apply to wills or gifts and it does not arrive in the mail every year. For most of us, that means we don’t need to be concerned, unless we decide to sell or buy. It’s a relatively small tax, only1/15th as much as the normal Realtor’s Fee.

You have no doubt read or heard some of the following quotes from those who oppose LTT:

“Growth has and will pay for itself”…and the LTT “will only encourage wasteful and inefficient spending.” Growth hasn’t paid for itself here and the Chatham County budget process is used by the UNC School of Government as the example of how the budget process should work…wasteful, inefficient, I don’t think so!
“Pending Home Sales Fall to Record Low”, “New Home Sales at Seven Year Low”,
Foreclosure Rates Hit Record High”, “Mortgage Mess is Big, Murky”. Not in Chatham!
I believe the “whatever it takes attitude” of some folks in this industry ; i.e. “creative financing” arrangements and “qualifying” unqualified buyers (those citizens whom they know can’t afford what they are selling) is largely responsible for these problems and they must know these deals are risky…and yes, they do reap their profits and only the mislead buyer and his or her families are devastated.

“Who’s paying for the Anti- LTT effort?” The North Carolina Realtors Association is the primary contributor. They have blocked all LTT efforts since 1990 – millions in political contributions, TV/Radio ads, Mailers, Telephone Call Banks, Emails and Paid Lobbyist to put the heat on us and our Legislators. Why do they do this? 6 NC Counties and 38 of our 50 States have LTT. It has proven to be beneficial to this industry and the citizen communities where it is applied. Schools, Services, Public Facilities and Infrastructure help to “SELL” their products! Thankfully, many of our Chatham Developers, Builders and Realtor realize these benefits and actually support our LTT Referendum.

“Politicians Should Listen to the Voters”. I certainly agree!…and apparently, so do the majority of our NC Legislators. Perhaps now would be a good time for Voters to listen to their elected officials; the citizens to whom they have bestowed their “Public Trust”.

I have now served on 2, very different, Boards of Commissioners and 8 consecutive County Commissioners have agreed on our Capital Improvements Plan and all agreed to seek LTT to help pay the bills.

Most of us are really tired of higher property taxes. Many simply cannot afford more. For some, it’s already a matter of food, medicine or heat for the winter. And remember, if I vote to raise Your property taxes, I would also be voting to raise My property taxes and I really don’t care to do that! LTT would soften that action.

Property values in Chatham have increased tremendously and large profits are being enjoyed. Those who are profiting – Investors, Developers, Builders, Mortgage Bankers, Attorneys, Sellers and Realtors shouldn’t expect the current/average Chatham citizen to foot all of the bills for the new schools, services, facilities and infrastructure required to support and sell their future products.

Without massive and rapid growth, we probably don’t need anything! But since it is quite apparent that this influx of growth is coming, whether you or I like it or not, help your BOC pay the bills.

Please VOTE “FOR” the 0.4% Land Transfer Tax.

I thank you for your support,

Mike

August 24, 2007: Voter information for the LTT

2007-08-28T16:51:00.000-04:00

Voter information for the LTT referendum is available on the county website

August 1, 2007: Land Transfer Tax

2007-08-02T14:34:00.000-04:00

Well, I must say, even victories that fall short of hopes and expectations are sweet! I want to thank everyone for your help and support in this very important legislation for Chatham County and many other counties across the state. Your emails meant an awful lot in getting the interest we needed. Joe Hackney and Bob Atwater remain at the top of my Hero List and I hope you will pass along your appreciation for their work. The manykind words I've received are most enjoyable and I thank you!

Now the local work begins. The BOC will hopefully be looking at numbers by Monday and start developing our path to Voter Referendum Approval.

Savoring the moment!!!

May 31, 2007: Land Transfer Tax Update

2007-05-31T14:45:00.000-04:00

Much discussion continues in the House and Senate Finance Committees concerning where and how to generate the additional revenues required by State, County and Municipal governments to address our requirements of growth. Medicaid Relief, schools and inrastructure needs continue to lead the list.

There is talk of LTT being raised via the .2% Deed Stamp Tax with variations on distribution for State, County and Municipalities. If it does go this route, local voter referendums will probably not apply as all counties would have to be a player from the start. The only thing for sure at this point is that all options remain on the table.

I personally believe 1% LTT will be approved - how it will be distributed, I haven't a clue at this point!

Our legislature will no doubt be going over the Finance Committee's recommendations in July with a decision likely in August.

If we have to pay/collect this tax, I obviously would like it as a local voter referendum approval with the revenue to remain in Chatham to address the needs for which we seek this authority.

It's certainly not too late to call, visit, email or write a letter stating your concerns and desires. The contact information is posted on our Chatham County website.

We need your help with this!

May 10, 2007: Another Land Transfer Tax bill

2007-05-10T11:04:00.000-04:00

Representative Weiss filed House Bill 1982 (a companion Bill for Senator Atwater's SB1516) yesterday for all counties to receive referendum authority for 1%LTT. It includes a cut by formula for municipalities with over 5,000 residents.

While we look pretty good in the House, we need help with the Senate Finance Committee. Contact info is listed on the county website. Please contact these Senators and ask your friends to do likewise. This effort needs to start immediately, as decisions are being made now.

Thank you for your help!

(note 5/15/07: I removed the sentence that was in here about the May 17th crossover deadline, because I learned it does not apply to this bill)

April 20, 2007: 1% Land Transfer Tax Information on the county website

2007-04-19T17:15:00.000-04:00

The Chatham County website now contains the latest editions of my 1% LTT information. To see it, click here. Our efforts are going quite well and I hope you will contact our Legislators. Their contact info is also included on the county website reference above. Your active participation is indeed needed and very much appreciated.

Have a great day!

April 6, 2007: Chatham Growth, Options and 1% Land Transfer Tax

2007-04-09T11:33:00.000-04:00

I don’t think any of us need to be told that we are growing, but… the Triangle J-Council of Governments estimates the current population in eastern Chatham alone to be 34,000 and considering geographic location and expected growth, this population will increase to 117,000 by the year 2035!

The National Association of Planners has identified 10 Mega-Regions within the U.S. We are part of the Piedmont-Atlantic Mega-Region which is predicted to be #1 of 10 in growth. 70% of residential growth and 80% of economic growth is expected to occur in these Mega-Regions. They predict our population to increase by 150% by the year 2050. That pretty much matches the Triangle J Council of Government estimates.

Now, if these estimates were all Fairy Tales, we wouldn’t need anything!…but with approximately 15,000 homes currently approved and another estimated 8,000 in the pipeline, it’s pretty hard to not believe what these organizations are telling us. We are ill prepared to facilitate this kind of massive growth.

Our current Capital Improvements Plan will exhaust our $155M credit line in 5 years. We (BOC and Staff) have identified $500M in additional capital improvements we will have to address over the next 10 years. A list of these additional needs is available on the county website.

Hear ye, hear ye. I don’t like taxes any more than you do, I don’t know anyone who likes taxes and I’ve never seen a tax that is completely fair to everyone! I frankly liked Chatham, at least my neighborhood, much better the way she was 20 years ago! Unfortunately, taxes are a necessary part of the solution to address what’s coming and we must find a tax solution that will generate this revenue as fairly as possible.

Options:

1. Sales Tax. Chatham is a Rural-High Growth County – with minimal retail sales, 60% of our citizens are working/shopping outside of the county and many others are shopping outside because they are closer to other county retail centers. A 1 Cent Sales Tax increase simply will not do it in Chatham. This is not even close to being a workable solution.

2. Property Tax. If we were to borrow $500 Million today, debt service would be approximately $50 Million per year. Based on current property tax value of $625,000 per 1 cent, we would have to raise our property tax by 79 cents. Our current rate is 59.9 cents. Our new tax rate would be $1 dollar and 38.9 cents! This is workable Only as a revenue solution and is obviously not acceptable!

3. School Impact Tax. SIT is currently set by the BOC at $2,900 with a cap of $3,500. This ceiling was determined by a professional study in 1999. If this study were updated, I would estimate a qualified cap of $8-$10K per new home and by NC statute would have to be, as it is now, applied as a fixed tax regardless of square footage or sales price. SIT can only be used for school construction and debt incurred for the same; what do we do about our other capital improvement requirements? This up-front cost puts most of the burden on the Developer-Builder Industry and severely limits the ability of our middle and lower income home buyer. This is workable ONLY as a revenue solution and is hardly a fair distribution.

4. Adequate Public Facilities Tax. Our APFO Committee is looking at this option and I would also estimate this at $8-10K per new home. Again, this up-front cost would put most of the burden on the Developer-Builder Industry with the same negative effects on our middle and lower income home buyers. This is workable ONLY as a revenue solution and is hardly a fair distribution

5. Moratorium. Our BOC is currently reviewing/discussing a draft proposal prepared by our Moratorium Committee. A moratorium is generally a short term delay (approximately 1 year, without further justification), it must be legally justified, have a plan with a deadline to correct the cause for delay and if revenue is involved, must show the revenue source. A moratorium seems to have BOC consensus, if we can work out a proper justification…we may have to put it in place while we amend our ordinances This is not a solution at all, but could slow things down for a while.

6. 1% Land Transfer Tax. Review of Deed Transfers in Chatham over the past 7 months, indicates 71% were executed by current citizens on property and existing homes. This review applied to Moore County indicates the same, at 70%. 1% LTT clearly does NOT put the bulk of the burden on the Developer-Builder Industry and MOST property owners will share this expense – eventually! The up-front cost/tax would be paid at the time of sale, with the property sale generating the revenue with which to pay the tax. 1% Land Transfer Tax is a solution and has the most equitable distribution!

Growth is coming and unfortunately, taxes are coming with it! 1% Land Transfer Tax certainly appears to be our only responsible option.

If you have a better solution, I would be delighted to hear it!

March 22, 2007: Land Transfer as a State Revenue!? Now, a real possibility!

2007-03-23T11:33:00.000-04:00

(Note: This blog entry has been corrected. Some of the percentages I had used were incorrect, based on incorrect information from the NC Association of County Commissioners. Sorry for any confusion.)

Senator Clodfelter, Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Co-Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, has filed Senate Bill 1201. This Bill would increase the current deed stamp tax from 0.2 percent to 0.5 percent and would institute a 0.1 percent excise tax on mortgages.

There would be No Voter Referendum!

The proceeds (80% of the total) would go to the state to create the Capital and Infrastructure Fund (75%), Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (18.75%) and Natural Heritage Trust Fund (6.25%).The latter two trust funds already receive the state revenues from the existing county 0.1 percent deed stamp tax. Counties would continue to receive the revenues from the existing 0.1 percent deed stamp tax and would receive only 20% of the revenues generated by the 0.1% excise tax on mortgages.

This may well be a great proposal for solving many of the problems with our
state budget, but our share will not pay for what Chatham County is facing!

March 9, 2007: Northeast Chatham Development Briefing and 1% Land Transfer Tax

2007-03-15T11:24:00.000-04:00

I attended a breakfast meeting at the Governors Club this morning, sponsored by the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber, the Chatham United Chamber, the Chapel Hill Association of Realtors and the Home Builders Association of Durham, Orange and Chatham.

Participation was cut off at 200, a full house! Keith Megginson, Chatham Planning Director, presented an overview of past, present and future Commercial and Residential Development in NE Chatham. Paul Black, Planner with TJ-COG, presented the Regional Factors of the NE Chatham area.

I was asked to respond to Land Transfer Tax questions and one item seemed to get a lot of attention! Senator Clodfelter of Charlotte-Mecklenburg, participated in a panel discussion in a Fiscal Modernization Workshop at the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Conference last fall in Winston-Salem. He got a lot of attention there too!

I know Senator Clodfelter to be among the finest of our legislators, but I simply can’t agree with this particular proposal.

He proposed to rename the LTT as the 1% Real Estate Transfer Tax and claim the taxes as State revenue. Of course, SOME of the funds would be filtered back to the counties. The “rumor” is that he is about to file such a Bill! I have no idea if that’s true, but can you imagine, if it is? The Education Lottery percentages come to my mind. Distribution by population or Capital Improvement Plan needs would funnel the bulk of the revenue to the Metro areas. Of course, that would help Charlotte-Mecklenburg!

For the past 18 years, the NCRA and NCHBA have had a full time lobbyist at work and have prevented local governments from gaining referendum authority for Land Transfer Taxes. It certainly appears that this approach may be difficult to sustain!

If you were in the Developer/Builder/Realtor Industry or a Buyer and take pride in providing/owning quality development with all the amenities and it looks like 1% Tax is inevitable, State or Local, which option would you support:

1% Real Estate Transfer Tax as a State revenue, to be “dispersed” and leave your local BOC short of the means to provide the Schools, Libraries, Government Facilities and increased services required for your community development …or…

1% Land Transfer Tax as your County revenue, to help provide the funds your local BOC will require to provide the Schools, Libraries,Government Facilities and services that your new buyers will demand?

Another interesting rumor/question floating around is, if we do allow 1% LTT on a local option tax basis, can we put a 5 year Sunset on it? As long as that applies to All counties including the seven counties who have either BOC Enactment or Voter Referendum authority, I personally wouldn’t have a problem with that! Part of my job is to find the funds to cover our needs. I’m not trying to collect more taxes than we require! If it turns out that we eventually end up collecting more than is required, we can lower the tax to ½ percent just as Dare County has done. I would gladly accept a 5 year trial period to see how a tax with a 22 year history of success would work out for the rest of us.

I believe these may well be our choices/options and we should join forces to support 1% LTT as a Local Option Tax and keep 100% of this Tax Revenue at home!

If we don’t join forces, we could all lose!

March 8, 2007: Rezoning Request for Pea Ridge Rd. between US1 and Old US1, SE Chatham

2007-03-08T11:11:00.000-05:00

I have requested our BOC to look at the zoning on Pea Ridge Rd. between US1 and Old US1. This area is current zoned for Heavy Industrial, and I am asking to have to rezoned to RA-40 (residential/agricultural) for the following reasons:

We don’t currently have Conditional Use control over what might come, based on what is allowed in Heavy Industry Zoning without BOC review or approval. We have had serious air quality issues in that area and water remains an unknown factor. Southeastern Chatham citizens would like some pre-decision voice in our community, also.

The Heavy Industrial Zoning was put in place in 1990 and there have been NO requests for heavy industrial uses within the HI Zoned area since.

We have had industrial use requests that were Conditional Use approved outside our designated Heavy Industrial area - McGill's Mulch Facility (makes mulch with treated wastewater, pumpings from the chicken plants butchering rooms and wood by-products) and the infamous Woodall “Family Farm” (treated wastewater plowed and pumped into the ground with cover crops. My understanding of DENR regs. is that this land cannot be used for basically anything for 30 years after Woodall uses it for this purpose for approximately 20 years and closes!)
These two uses alone bring Air Quality, Ground Water and Foul Odor problems and concerns. I spoke heavily against both as Southeast Chatham Citizens Advisory Council President with a previous Board of Commissioners and obviously lost.

My area or any other, wouldn't desire this process. Both of these plants are located on Christian Chapel Road, South of the US1 and Old US1 interchange and have had many odor reports filed against their operations over the past few years.
Back to the Pea Ridge zoning request. We have had a church inquire about building a parsonage on land they own beside our new fire department. We would like that. They have not pursued this due to expenses of getting a residential use in the Heavy Industrial zone: application/requirements, lawyer fees and time consumption of Planning Department, Planning Board, and Board of Commissioners. We have had a couple of families who have endured our process in order to allow their children a parcel to build their homes. I find that a little backassward.

Now, all of this land was RA40 prior to Heavy Industrial Zoning. All remaining land on Pea Ridge, other than HI, remains zoned RA40 and much is still farmed.
This short stretch of road frontage we are talking about here (about 1 mile) already has 22 houses "grandfathered" and are "within" the HI zoned area.

Citizens here can't use their land as desired with HI zoning without investing time and money, and they can't even sell it - no one is looking for HI zoned land and there is no indication they will be.

Citizens here want residential development, because we will never have another school (some of our students are still riding school buses 5 hours a day), never have a shopping Center (we all shop in Sanford, Fuquay and Apex - PBO is a 40 mile round trip, the others are 24 miles). We are living a low quality of life and the county is losing a ton in sales tax!

I have flood water maps and plenty of this land appears useable without causing a problem. If siting Heavy Industrial between the Haw River and Shaddox Creek (which feeds into the Cape Fear) isn't a problem, RA40 certainly shouldn't be. RA5 has its place where necessary, but should not be unnecessarily imposed. The local residents support a change to RA40, but they would not support a change to RA5.
We'll have to wait and see how that works out at the Planning board. I obviously support my proposal (coming up shortly) at this point and will have to be convinced otherwise with facts. I believe I am still reasonable! Proposal:

1. Maintain Heavy Industry Zoning for our existing plant sites and any adjoining property currently owned by the parent company.

2. Revert the remaining HI zoned property on Pea Ridge Rd.back to RA40. ( if there has to be hoop-jumping, it should not be directed to our citizens who already live there).

Notes: Requests by Industry can still be facilitated on a "Conditional Use" basis and our citizens don't have to continue to jump through our hoops to use their homes as residential. Our citizens will have a voice in deciding what they desire or don't desire in their community and make it clear before a decision is made.
If this goes well, I will also be looking at a similar proposal for Moncure - Corinth Road, to and possibly through the intersection of NC 42.

February 25, 2007: School Impact Tax and 1% Land Transfer Tax?

2007-02-27T11:55:00.000-05:00

NO! The BOC voted 5-0 on February 5,'07 that we will retire the School Impact Tax if/when we gain authority and actually enact the 1% Land Transfer Tax.
We all agree that we do not need or desire both!

February 19, 2007: Board of Commissioners Work Session – Water woes

2007-02-21T10:20:00.000-05:00

Apparently the eleven BOC meetings, over a twenty-one month  period by our previous board, developing a water plan that will carry us through 2027 isn’t good enough.

Patrick and I were part of that process and  frankly don’t exactly know what to think about the latest results.

“Discussion of value engineering review for water systems”  was item 9 on the work session agenda. The new proposal was to  hire an additional engineering firm to do a peer review of the Harnett Water Plan / Contract which was developed by Hobbs-Upchurch Engineers along  with our staff and BOC…and unanimously approved on 18 September ’06.  There was no scope of work,  estimated time line or cost presented for this proposal, but this action was approved by a vote of  3-2 with Barnes and Cross opposing.  The work of the Harnett Water Contract is already underway on  both sides of the Chatham / Harnett Line. The SE Water District is now on hold.

“Request to award bid for Western Transmission Lines” was item 28  of the evening agenda. That’s the line to service the voter approved  SW Water District and follow US 64 to Siler City. The bid award was pulled  from the evening agenda for the work session and tabled, pending  the results of the peer review by a vote of 3-2, again with Barnes and Cross opposing.

So what does all this mean to many of our citizens?

It means the citizen customers of the voter approved SE Water District, specifically those on New Elam Church Road South, Christian Chapel Church Road South, NC Hwy 42 North to the Harnett Line, Mt. View Church Rd. West and Old Sanford Road North plus the Bel Meade Subdivision in the PBO ETJ-US 64 West for which the county has assumed water service responsibility are for now in limbo.

It means the citizen customers of the voter approved SW Water District are at least temporarily off the map. We can’t provide service without a transmission line.

Based on the phone calls, face-to- face conversations and emails I’ve already endured -- many citizens are just as displeased with this decision as I am!

February 7, 2007: NC Association of County Commissioners Board of Delegates

2007-02-08T12:13:00.000-05:00

This meeting was held at the Albert Coates Government Center, Raleigh

House speaker, Joe Hackney, addressed the delegates concerning the heavy and important work load ahead for our General Assembly.

Secretary Bill Ross of DENR also addressed the group concerning Air/Water Quality and Land for Tomorrow.

We had a lengthy discussion as to how best to approach our Legislators in our efforts for Revenue Options. This is an ongoing concern of many counties. I am working hard getting our 1% Land Transfer Tax information packet to all concerned. On January 24, I transmitted the packet electronically to all 100 individual BOC’s and County Managers. On February 7, I mailed packets to all 170 Legislators at their homes. It will be citizen letter writing time as soon.

February 5, 2007: Board of Commissioner meetings

2007-02-08T12:11:00.000-05:00

BOC Regular Session

We made assignments to several county boards/committees. Hopefully, we will have all this straightened out soon.

We amended the Planning Board Ordinance such that Commissioners can make appointments congruent with our terms of office.

BOC Work Session

We established Certification Criteria for Non-Profit Agencies requesting county funding. They must prove themselves financially sound (audit/letter) before funds are released and there will also be an evaluation form to consider.

We gave the Chatham ABC Board approval to discuss possible consolidation with PBO ABC Board. We have a total of 5 ABC stores in Chatham and 3 ABC Boards!? – Chatham, PBO and Siler.

We voted 5-0 to retire the School Impact Fee if/when we are authorized and enact the 1% Land Transfer Tax. We don’t believe it fair or necessary to impose both either.

February 2, 2007: Chatham County Leadership Academy Graduation

2007-02-08T12:08:00.000-05:00

This event was held at the Western Chatham Senior Center, Siler City

I enjoyed attending lunch and the Graduation Ceremony for 14 of our county staff members completing our Leadership Academy. This is a one year course covering all aspects of county government which is taught by our Department Heads and Staff. Graduates also become our Chatham County Ambassadors. I think this was the first time that the entire Board of Commissioners attended.

January 31, 2007: NC Regional Council of Governments Legislative Reception

2007-02-08T12:06:00.000-05:00

This was held at the Cardinal Club, Wachovia Bank, Raleigh.

Approximately 125 Legislators and COG Delegates from around the state attended this event. Lots of smiling, hand shaking and “oh, by the way”, let’s take a good look at the 1% Land Transfer Tax !

January 24, 2007: Triangle J Council of Governmnts Legislative Breakfast

2007-02-08T12:04:00.000-05:00

This was held at the Sheraton Imperial, in Durham.

Many of the Legislators representing the TJ-COG counties (Orange, Durham, Chatham, Wake, Lee, Johnston and Moore) attended. House Speaker, Joe Hackney, addressed the group and we enjoyed some one-on-one conversation with the various Representatives and Senators. Of course, I spent my time pushing for the 1% Land Transfer Tax.. I hope the day will come when I can talk about something else!

Success speaks for itself! – 1% Land Transfer Tax

2007-01-23T13:43:00.000-05:00

Our Legislature authorized (7) seven counties-Dare, Currituck, Chowan, Camden, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Washington the authority, with voter approval, to implement the 1% Land Transfer Tax. All were successful except Washington County. Their referendum has been defeated two times.

I sent the following request to the Managers of the six counties who have implemented the 1% Land Transfer Tax…

“ Will you please provide a short “statement of effect” as to how the 1% L.T.T. is benefiting your county as a revenue source for capital improvements and the status of your local real estate industry.”

Perquimans County

" We rely heavily on our Land Transfer funds for our school projects. Our county ranks 95th out of 100 in sales tax receipts, and part of those funds as you may know are earmarked for school capital funding. The Land Transfer Tax makes up for that and also for ADM funds that may be withheld from the counties. We are able to make necessary capital improvements that would otherwise have to come from increased property tax or financed over a period of time.We've averaged almost 30% annual growth the last 4 years. We are issuing about double the amount of dwelling permits now than we were just a few years ago. Due to our proximity to the Tidewater, Va. metropolitan area and the amount of waterfront property, we are seeing more residential development activity than Perquimans County has ever experienced. Land Transfer revenues has been and will continue to be integral to our school capital improvements." Bobby Darden, Perquimans County Manager

Currituck County

"In a word: Schools. Currituck County is recognized as the 17th fastest growing county in the Country and like most other communities, this growth challenges our ability to provide public education. If not for the Land Transfer Tax, we would fall further behind in our school capital needs and would have had to raise our property tax. We have been able to build a middle school and renovate two elementary schools without incurring any debt thanks in large part by a good working relationship between our Commissioner's and the Board of Education, good planning and effective budgeting of the Land Transfer Tax. As an aside, we have just completed our revaluation and our County tripled in valuation so I am hard pressed to see where the Transfer Tax has had any negative impacts on the building practices here."Dan Scanlon, Currituck County Manager

Pasquotank County

"We are one of the fortunate counties that have the land transfer tax. I will be glad to provide any information about the success of the tax in our county if you need it. It has worked very well here and it has not hurt the real estate industry at all.In fact, our land transfer tax receipts have increased by 50% per year for the last two years. All of the counties in the Northeast that have the land transfer tax are having problems with too much growth instead of the reverse."
Randy Keaton, Pasquotank County Manager

Dare County

"Dare County enacted the tax in 1986. That first year we collected $1.2M. We are now collecting that amount every month. This past year (2004) we collected $12.5M. Building permits are a good barometer of whether or not the industry (Realtors, Home Builders) are affected by the implementation of the Land Transfer Tax. In 1995 we issued 1,713 building permits valued at $96M. In 2004 we issued 3,464 building permits valued at $295M. That's $24M per month.There is no statistical data anywhere in Dare County that the land transfer tax has hurt the industry (Realtors, Home Builders) in Dare County."
Terry Wheeler, Dare County Manager
Note: In 2005 Dare collected 15 million and has lowered it’s L.T.T. to 0.5 %
and lowered property taxes to $0.25, the lowest in NC.

Chowan County

"Chowan County was the second county in the state to adopt the transfer tax. The monies are dedicated for capital outlay purposes. Transfers within the Town of Edenton are divided 50%-50%. I believe all the real estate agents in the County will confirm that the transfer tax has not impacted real estate sales in a negative manner but in fact has facilitated sales through improved infrastructure, schools, etc."Cliff Copeland, Chowan County Manager

Camden County

"The land transfer tax has been a tremendous resource for Camden County. Currently the tax is generating in excess of $500,000 per year that the county uses for capital needs. This is a major revenue producer considering this county's budget is less than $10 million. Even with the subdivision moratorium in place for the past 18 months the amount collected has been increasing. We are using a portion of it to cover debt service payments on land the county purchased. If it were not for the land transfer tax Camden would be in a severely financially strapped position. We use these funds for all sorts of capital needs that otherwise we would not have the ability to provide."

Randall Woodruff, Camden County Manager

January 20, 2007: 1% Land Transfer Tax?

2007-01-19T12:22:00.000-05:00

We do not have legislative authority to implement a Land Transfer Tax. The BOC is seeking this authority from our General Assembly, just like we did in their '05-'06 sessions. We have far more support this time as many counties are facing the same residential onslaught that we are experiencing.

We must have a new source of revenue and the LTT is the only revenue option (tax) that will fit Chatham County needs other than a substantial Personal Property Tax increase which many citizens simply can not afford, or an Adequate Public Facilities Ordinace which would put the total burden on our builders/developers-buyers.

We're trying to do this fairly, but I believe we are going to have to do one of them.

In case you don't have a clear understanding of exactly which land transfers would be affected or how the revenues can be utilized, here it is.

1% Land Transfer Tax Application
The General Assembly authorizes seven Northeastern counties to use the 1% Land Transfer Tax. This is a summation of what transfers apply and what transfers do not apply.

The tax would apply to:

All REAL property sales (regardless of profit or loss).

Exchange of property (whether exchange is for money, real estate, personal property or any other consideration).

Deeds from non-profit or religious organizations.

Leases (or a memorandum of lease) that are for a term of more than 10 years or have an option to renew the lease beyond 10 years.

Leases (or a memorandum of lease) that are for substantially the same property and parties of a previous lease(s), and when the term of the new lease added to the term of the old lease(s) exceeds 10 years.

Timber Deeds.

The tax would not apply to:

Deeds of gift.

Foreclosure deeds or deeds in lieu of foreclosure to the mortgage holder.

Deeds from Local, State, or Federal Government.

Certain leases with a term of less than 10 years (see above).

Transfer in which no consideration is paid or due (consideration is an inducement, something of value given in return for a performance or a promise of performance by another).

Transfers by operation of law, by will, by intestacy, merger or consolidation.

This tax revenue is restricted to capital expenditures such as sewage systems, solid waste disposal, beach replacement, schools, county-operated buildings and related equipment as well as retiring debt incurred for these purposes.

January 16, 2007: Board of Commissioners Regular Session

2007-01-19T12:15:00.000-05:00

Parkers Springs Subdivision – Sketch Design, 50 lots on 87 acres located off SR 1700, MT. Gilead Church Rd., New Hope and Williams townships was approved with an Environmental Assessment and Peer Review prior to Preliminary Plat. 4-1, Commissioner Barnes opposing.

Lystra Road Subdivision – Sketch Design, 90 lots on 144 acres – located off SR 1721, Lystra Road, Williams Townships, was disapproved. 5-0.

Moratorium Ordinance Revision – an amendment to section 7, Exemptions of Ordinance, to remove Sketch Design from the list of exemptions under Moratorium. 4-1, Commissioner Cross opposing.

January 16, 2007: Board of Commissioners Work Session

2007-01-19T12:14:00.000-05:00

Harnett Water Contract - Mr. Fred Hobbs of Hobbs-Upchurch Engineers presented an update on our Harnett Water Contract. We will hold a public information forum January 29 at 6 PM in the Superior Courtroom for those who are interested in having some input or simply learning more about the project.

BOE and BOC – There will be a joint meeting of the BOE and the BOC on February 12 at 6:30 in the PBO Elementary School. The Lystra Road school property will be discussed.

January 15, 2007: Dr. Martin Luther King Celebrations

2007-01-19T12:12:00.000-05:00

Once again, I had the pleasure to join the congregation of the Union Grove A.M.E. Zion Church in Bear Creek and participate in their MLK Celebration. The Rev. Otis McMillian of Spring Lake was the keynote speaker and WOW…he was good. I also returned to the Council of Churches of Siler City Celebration Service at Jordan Matthews in Siler City. Their keynote speaker was Dr. Clifford Jones, Sr. of the Friendship Missionary Baptist in Charlotte. He also gave a very inspiring speech. There were many celebrations around the county and I hope you were able to make it to one.

January 11-12, 2007: NC Association of County Commissioners Legislative Conference, Pinehurst, NC

2007-01-16T12:38:00.000-05:00

I participated in the conference as your voting delegate along with 300 other county officials from 84 counties. We approved a total of 37 goals, but we settled on 3 Priority Goals:

Medicaid Relief - Seek permanent Medicaid relief for all counties. Medicaid currently cost Chatham about 1.2M per year and that is growing at approximately 11% per year. North Carolina is the only state that goes to its counties for Medicaid revenues.

School Construction - Support legislation to provide state assistance to meet school construction needs caused by increased enrollment and mandated reduction in class size, through a statewide referendum on a bond issue and/or through authority for counties to raise additional revenues to meet school facility needs.

Revenue Options - Seek legislation to allow all counties to enact any or all of several revenue options from among those that have already been authorized for any other county, including local option sales taxes, impact taxes and real estate transfer taxes.

The General Assembly convenes on January 24!

January 8-9, 2007: Board of Commissioners Annual Summit

2007-01-16T12:34:00.000-05:00

We reconvened our summit from January 2nd.

Affordable Housing - Amy Powell, Chair of CCAHTF and Executive Director of Chatham Habitat for Humanity, Delores Bailey, Vice Chair of CCAHTF and Executive Director of Empowerment,Inc., Bob Eby, Recorder for CCAHTF and Jason Sullivan, Planner for CCAHTF and Chatham County presented an update on affordable housing issues and progress made over the past year. Inclusionary Zoning and updating our needs study are among the items of immediate interest.

Multicultural Museum - Former Commissioner, Margaret Pollard, Margie Ellison and PBO Mayor, Randy Voller presented their idea of creating a museum to save the multicultural history and artifacts of Chatham County. The Museum would start with the Slave Cabin at the Fair Grounds. They request $75K for a Director and planning for the first year.

Human Relations Commission - Gabriel Soltren, Chair of our HRC, Gene Troy of NCHRC and the Director of Orange County HRC presented a request for establishing an HRC Department of County Government. Funding for a Director, Staff, office space and operating expenses will be required. Manager Charlie Horne will research salaries and start up expenses.

BOC Mentoring Program - Mrs. Delcenia Turner presented a proposal for a BOC Mentoring Program.This would involve Commissioners working with 15 - 19 year old students interested in county government. Many details have to be worked out before this will be looked at for implementation.

The BOC will begin a review of our long range water and sewer planning including possibly modeling the Deep Riverfor a wastewater discharge allocation request to DENR.

January 3-5 2007: Essentials of County Government, Raleigh, NC

2007-01-12T16:30:00.000-05:00

Tom Vanderbeck and I attended this 3 day course presented by the UNC School of Government and the NC Association of County Commissioners. Patrick Barnes and George Lucier also attended most of it.

While it is primarily designed for new commissioners, the course materials were somewhat different from the class I attended in 2004. I assisted Gordon Whitaker of the UNC School of Government in presenting “You Can’t Govern Alone: Working Together as a Board and with Others in County Government”. Judging from the comments, that went well!

January 2, 2007: Board of Commissioners Summit

2007-01-12T16:27:00.000-05:00

Cary-Chatham Land Use Plan for NE/E Jordan Lake will be presented for comments on 20 February, 7PM, N. Chatham School, Multipurpose Room.

Hobbs Architects presented the bids for renovating the Dunlap Building. Law Enforcement Center and Siler City Health Clinic. Contract was awarded to Crest Construction. 5-0 Vote.

Dr. Steve Strauss of NC State facilitated a workshop for the BOC and Management to discuss expectations and work relations.

January 2, 2007 -- Board of Commissioners Regular Meeting

2007-01-12T16:25:00.000-05:00

At the request of Chairman Thompson, the County Mowing Services Contract for 2006-2007 was tabled for unspecified reasons. 3-2 Vote with Barnes and Cross opposing. This issue will be revisited on January 16.

Commissioner Lucier’s request to amend the Harnett Chatham Water Ordinance was tabled indefinitely. 5-0 Vote.

The Economic Competitiveness Plan was opened for RFP’s and a public forum will be held at the evening BOC meeting on 19 February. 5-0 Vote.

Major Corridor Ordinance member appointments were tabled until 16 January. 5-0 Vote.

Green Building Taskforce member appointments were tabled until 16 January. 5-0 Vote.

Dec. 20, 2006: BOC Legislative Agenda Dinner Meeting – Flamingo Restaurant

2006-12-21T14:39:00.000-05:00

We met with Representative Hackney and Senator Atwater and presented our goals for the ‘07-‘08 Legislative Session of our General Assembly.

We requested their support in resubmitting the Orange Chatham 1% Land Transfer Tax Bill and the Revenue Options Bill previously filed by Representative Michaux of Durham.

Also requested was their help with an amendment to General Statute authorizing recreation exaction fees in lieu of land dedication. Currently, Municipalities can spend their fees to purchase land and develop the land for recreation. Chatham County can only use our fees for land acquisition.

That pretty much finished the dinner meeting and we continued our BOC meeting from Monday night.

The newly drafted Engagement for Legal Services proposal was put up for a vote. It passed 3-2. Patrick and I opposed. We didn’t agree that hiring an interim attorney in lieu of continuing with Gunn-Messick for a few months while we hire a full time county attorney was necessary and we surely don’t agree that we should pay more than we’ve been paying…and we will.

We also voted 5-0 to allow Chatham Trades to draw up to $20K from their next budget, if needed, to get them through a rough spot. This will allow insurance coverage to continue while we drum up more business. Chatham Trades provides a real life for our physically and mentally challenged – work, job training, pay, friends who don’t view each other as different, a social atmosphere that otherwise would not exist in their world and a break for their care providers. This is a most important opportunity for some of our Chatham families.

Dec. 18, 2006: Board of Commissioners Regular Session

2006-12-21T14:33:00.000-05:00

We adopted a resolution honoring our county attorney, Mr. Bob Gunn, for his 33 plus years of service to Chatham County. Bob, I appreciate all the advice you have provided and we will miss you. Fair winds and following seas!

Tabled (5-0) – Parker Springs Subdivision request for sketch design approval was tabled in reference to environmental concerns.

Tabled (5-0) – The Moratorium Ordinance Revision was tabled following the Public Hearing. Some confusion exist as to just how does the proposed change affect anything.

Tabled (5-0) – Interim Attorney Contract was tabled because Poyner-Spruill had not seen the proposed revisions. The proposed revisions arrived on my computer at 10:30 AM on this same day and after I had left home for Pittsboro. I was a bit surprised myself.

Tabled (3-2) The Project Ordinance for the Harnett County Interconnect Project, recently approved by the former BOC, gave our manager authority to proceed with the project with the authority to sign all contracts and change orders within the terms of the project budget. Commissioner Lucier produced a typed proposed amendment – on the spot – which would rescind that authority and place each expenditure back before the BOC for approval. The proposal was tabled for legal opinion and due to unhappy campers. 3-2 with Lucier and Vanderbeck opposing.

Question:

Is it me or is there a pattern of bringing cold proposals to the table for a vote before they have received the appropriate review?…or even been seen? Maybe we should just slow down a bit!

Dec. 18, 2006: Board of Commissioners Work Session

2006-12-21T14:25:00.000-05:00

Agriculture Advisory – We increased the funding for Voluntary Agricultural District Signs to a total of $8,607. This will procure 300 double-sided signs for our volunteer farms.

Social Services – We approved a contract for $5.8M for the renovations of the existing building and for construction of a second building. The plans are quite impressive and include many Green Building components.

BOE and BOC – Both boards will meet at 7 PM on January 29 to discuss the NE High School property. Place is to be determined.

Dec. 17, 2006: Chatham Habitat for Humanity Home Dedications

2006-12-21T14:21:00.000-05:00

I participated in the dedication of three Habitat homes in our Siler City subdivision. Erica and Kyonti Rone, Tamara and C’Majae Johnson, Wendy and Robin Gomez are the proud new owners. Amy Powell, Director of Chatham Habitat, surprised me with a plaque honoring my affordable housing advocacy. While I am personally very honored, I accepted the award on behalf of all of our volunteers and the plaque will hang in the foyer of the habitat office in Pittsboro in case others who support Habitat desire to see “our” recognition plaque.

Dec. 15, 2006: Chatham Hospital Ground Breaking

2006-12-21T14:18:00.000-05:00

I attended the ground breaking ceremony held inside the Western Chatham Senior Center in Siler City. The “ceremonial soil” appeared poultry enhanced; the best dirt I ever saw in Chatham! We had a very good turnout…around 100. Congressman Etheridge, Representative Hackney and Senator Atwater addressed the importance of this achievement. It’s been a long time coming and many folks should be feeling mighty proud to see the results of their devotion and hard work. This new facility
with increased capabilities will be a wonderful asset for many years to come

Dec. 13, 2006: DENR/Chatham Wastewater Discharge Allocation

2006-12-21T14:17:00.000-05:00

We finally put a meeting together to discuss a possible discharge location and allocation for Chatham. We have received some grant money from the NC Rural Center for a sewerage study and the first step is to determine what we will do with the treated wastewater. Results are not that promising!

DENR Allocations:

Pittsboro allocation has been or will be increased to 4 MGD. Current use is 450,000 GD. Approved residential development in PBO estimated at 2 MGD. Preston Development is estimated at 1 MGD. This totals 3.45 MGD; i.e. little left for future Economic Development. Pittsboro has to be off of Robeson Creek by 2011, which will require a new plant. This 4 MGD completes discharge allocations for Haw River/Jordan Lake!

Western Wake Partnership (Cary, Morrisville, Apex and Holly Springs) has been or will be allocated 38 MGD for the new plant to be built in New Hill and piped through Chatham County for discharge into the Cape Fear River below the Buck Horn Dam. This 38 MGD completes discharge allocations for the Cape Fear River below Moncure!

Problem:

With the Haw River/Jordan Lake discharge allocations complete and the Cape Fear River discharge allocations below Moncure complete, we have only a relatively short stretch of the Deep River below the Rocky River to consider. In the absence of a model, the DENR best guess allocation is “..about 750,000 GD …certainly less than 1 MGD”.

Proposals/Actions:

1. Chatham BOC request Hobbs Upchurch prepare a county regional study proposal,   starting with a model for the Deep River to determine available allocation, for BOC approval.  Chatham has $50K in grant funds from NC Rural Center for this and according to Fred Hobbs, Preston Development has offered to add funds. Of course, one should assume Preston will expect a piece of the allocation.

2. Research the possibility of Shearon Harris Plant using wastewater from Western Wake Partnership as reuse water for their cooling tower. This would free up some of the Cape Fear allocation for Chatham County.  I contacted Mr. Marty Clayton of Progress Energy (on 12 December) and discussed this possibility. He agreed to take this discussion to the Progress E Management Team and to provide the Chatham County BOC with a written response to this request.

Of the scenarios we discussed, the only one that leaves us short was what happens with the water when the plant has to shut down for maintenance or emergency? Hopefully the Progress engineers can figure that one out. I’m not very optimistic. The DENR meeting group voiced no problem with this “steam-it-off “proposal as this research has been done for the 3M plant reuse program South of PBO.

Conclusion:

If we can’t work something out for a significant discharge allocation,   our hopes for a county regional sewerage system appears to be a pipe dream and our  economic development will surely continue to suffer.

I realize that the first dog to the bowl usually gets the most, but he doesn’t usually get it all! …and anyone could certainly criticize Chatham for lagging behind the reality of growth, but I strongly resent the fact that the total Cape Fear River discharge allocation has been earmarked for Western Wake Partnership without any discussion with or consideration for Chatham County.

Dec.12, 2006: Board of Commissioners – Economic Development

2006-12-21T14:08:00.000-05:00

George, Tom, and I, plus about 25 interested citizens attended an Economic Development briefing by the UNC Center for Competitive Economics. This is the first piece of an information gathering exercise to help guide us in future economic development decisions. We have others that we should hear from soon, before any decisions are made. I hope everyone can agree to do just that! After all, listening, homework and analyzing are what we really get paid for. Decisions come last; it would be a shame to confuse the two and probably very unacceptable!

Dec. 7, 2006: North Carolina Association of County Commissioners.

2006-12-21T14:06:00.000-05:00

This was a long and full day with a very busy agenda. Here are a couple of items that might interest you.

State and Local Fiscal Modernization Study Commission. This commission has recently been put into action to look at just what are the state responsibilities, what are the county responsibilities and how are we going to pay for all this? Our state has changed from a production economy to a service economy and we all seem to have problems generating revenue for what we have to provide. There are 10 Governor appointments, 10 House appointments, 10 Senate appointments, 5 NCACC appointments and 2 county managers. They expect to have some Bills ready to introduce during the ’07-’08 General Assembly. Representative Becky Carney is one of the co-chairs and she is a former 3 term Mecklenburg Commissioner and seems very in tune with our local problems. I certainly wish this group well; what they come up with will affect us all, for a long time.

NCACC Legislative Goals Committee presented their goals for the January 11-12 Legislative Goals Conference. We hacked on a few of them, but their work looked quite impressive. There are a total of 40 goals in all – 3 Primary - Medicaid Relief, School Construction and REVENUE OPTIONS.

I expect these goals will carry at the January Legislative Conference.

Dec. 4, 2006: Board of Commissioners - Regular Session

2006-12-21T14:03:00.000-05:00

This was a big night for Carl, George and Tom. We started right off with a 3-2 vote! You see, I kinda had my eye on the Chair position, as did Carl. It’s like any other election; he who has the most votes wins!  Hey, I only lost by one vote; it was a very tight race! Wonder if I should request a recount (?

My Congratulations to Carl, Chair – George, Vice and Tom, Commissioner!

We adopted a Code of Ethics, our Board and Liaison assignments, a Resolution for Revenue Options/1% LTT and announced a whole list of  things to come in the near future. We did agree on much of the agenda!

Oh yeah, we apparently hired an INTERIM attorney, Joyner-Spruill of  Raleigh. Our interim partner attorney is Jep Rose. He is a very pleasant  individual and I‘m sure he is highly qualified, but his office is in Rocky Mount and his firm also represents Cary. This decision was also a 3-2 vote. Patrick and I preferred extending Gunn-Messick and going directly to hiring a FULL TIME county attorney…dang, lost again, by just one vote! Still seems like an unnecessary and bad business decision with a possible  conflict of interest to me. We’ll be going through turnovers for a year and   …and yes, that expense will be closely monitored!

Dec. 3,2006: Pittsboro Christmas Parade

2006-12-21T14:00:00.000-05:00

PBO always has the biggest and longest – wonder why that is? From Town Hall, all the way to AL’s Diner, the candy was flying. Santa’s Elf (Senator Bob) joined us in our sleigh again – I think he must really miss being a commissioner! I better quit lying, I could end up with coal for Christmas.

Thank you, Pittsboro!

Dec. 2, 2006: Goldston Christmas Parade

2006-12-21T13:59:00.000-05:00

I always have enjoyed the Goldston parade; beautiful day, little cool, but always lots of friendly folks. One of Santa’s Elves (Senator Bob Atwater) jumped into our sleigh and joined us for a candy throwing good time. We even went to Rufus’ for a burger and good conversation afterwards.

Thank you, Goldston!…and Bob.

Nov. 27, 2006: Siler City Christmas Parade

2006-12-21T13:57:00.000-05:00

Ho, Ho, Ho…mama! I forgot my ear plugs! The parade was great; cool night, lots of folks to enjoy and a nicely lighted Christmas drive. I was there last year and should have remembered – the county commissioners go right in front of the big red fire truck – horn, sirens and all! It was a hoot, but I may be asking Santa for hearing aids!!

Thank you, Siler City!

November 20, 2006: BOC - Regular Session

2006-11-28T14:08:00.000-05:00

Habitat for Humanity received a Challenge Grant for  $750,000 to help us proceed with our affordable housing plans. We approved the match. The funds will be available on a reimbursable basis, 50-50, as the draw down occurs  with the foundation grant funds. This will allow us to  spread our matching funds over several years. These funds will provide support and allow for the purchase of  land and infrastructure development.

Mr. Gunn, our county attorney for some 33 years, announced his retirement as county attorney, although he agrees to continue working with us through our transition period. Mr. Gunn has served us well and I am very saddened to see him retire.  I sincerely wish you fair winds and following seas, Bob!  Mr. Gunn will be formally recognized at our December 18 meeting.  I hope you will attend and wish him farewell.

Our departing board members, Commissioner Bunkey Morgan, Commissioner Tommy Emerson and Commissioner Carl Outz,  were recognized with individual resolutions and service plaques.  As I mentioned at the ceremony, the view from this side of the  table is very different, some disagree with every vote we make  and that seems to be a healthy norm. Although we didn’t  always agree on votes, I respect the fact that we all voted as we  saw it, while respecting each others duty to do just that.  Never, in the history of Chatham County, has so much positive focus been placed on capital improvements necessary for our growth, education of our children and the safety and welfare of our citizens. You have a lot to be proud of. Thank you for your service to Chatham County.   I enjoyed working with each of you and wish you my best!

November 20, 2006: BOC – Work Session

2006-11-28T14:05:00.000-05:00

Agricultural Advisory Committee request for funding of “Voluntary Agricultural District” signs was approved. We now have over 230 farms and 25,600 acres enrolled in this program.

Briar Chapel request to allow revenue from communications equipment, attached to the water tower that Newland is building, to revert to the Homeowners Association will receive further review.

CCCC request for funding for a commercial grade lawnmower at $7,713.96 was approved. The college maintenance crew has had to haul a mower from Harnett County each time we needed to mow our Campuses.

Christmas Parades are coming!

Siler City - Monday, November 27 at 7 PM.

Goldston - Saturday, December 2 at 11 AM.

Pittsboro - Sunday, December 3 at 3 PM.

Bennett - Saturday, December 9 at 4 PM.

Hope to see you there!

November 15, 2006: Triangle J-Council of Governments

2006-11-28T14:01:00.000-05:00

The Legislative Goals Committee of the TJ-COG presented their recommendations which were unanimously approved.

Revenue Options for all counties, including the 1% Land Transfer Tax, is our #1 Goal. The BOC will be voting on our resolution at our December 4 meeting and we plan to meet with Representative Hackney and Senator Atwater in December. The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners will meet for our Legislative Goals Conference on January 11-12. Our General Assembly convenes on the 24th of January. Support for Revenue Options has grown tremendously statewide since we started this campaign in 2005.

This is a most important session for all counties…especially us.

November 6, 2006: Board of Commissioners Regular Session

2006-11-16T14:20:00.000-05:00

Audit Presentation

The 2006 Audit was presented by Martin Starnes and Associates, our new auditing firm. There were no findings or questioned costs, no material internal control weakness identified and our staff was well prepared and very cooperative. I think this may be the first time our audit has been ready before we have started on the next budget! This is a real tangible acknowledgment of great Management and Staff work. Well Done!

Southeast Water District Board

We approved the project ordinance to go forward with the 6" and 8" water mains (approximately 23 miles at $3.9M) for the SE Water District. This funding will come from USDA-Rural Development in the form of a low interest loan and repayment funds are already budgeted.

ATC Plywood and Chatham Economic Development Incentives

We approved the EDC recommendation to allow ATC Panels (Plywood Plant in Moncure) to participate in our incentive program. ATC plans to invest $13M in a new production line and add 25 new employees. They indicated that they would emphasize hiring Chatham residents. The estimated incentive will be the return of approximately $46,000 per year for five years of the taxes paid by ATC. Of course, they have to meet the requirements first!

Board of Adjustments

We heard an appeal registered by Robert and Beverly Murdock challenging the determination by our Planning Department on the 63 acre parcel owned by Lee-Moore Oil. The big question was how does property described as 20 acres designated B-1, as stated in the property description, suddenly turn into 30 acres of B-1? This is not the first time and unlikely the last that some of these old deeds and surveys don't turn out to be congruent.
I tried to make a case for going with the description and plotting the eastern boundary to match the 20 acres as stated. According to our attorney, Mr. Messick, the NC Courts have set an order of factual precedence for plotting disputed plats. Here's the order of precedence:

Natural and Man Made boundaries such as rivers, streams, roads, etc.
Corner Monuments from surveys.
Corner Angles and Distances.
...and last, Written Property Descriptions.

The property in question is bounded on the North by Orange-Chatham County Line and on the West by US 15-501. The South side apparently has a monument, an angle and a distance. The short fall in the survey was that although the East boundary had an angle, the recorded distance didn't reach the North boundry...so using "precedence", this line was extended tothe North boundry and it plotted out at 30 acres.

We denied the appeal by a vote of 4 to 1, Barnes opposing.

November 4, 2006: A "Taste of Chatham" - with a western flair.

2006-11-16T14:18:00.000-05:00

Nancy and I attended this event held in the new Western Chatham Senior Center, a facility of the CC Council on Aging, in Siler City. Siler City! Now that just sounds western!

The theme, of course, was western - as in hay bales, saddles, jeans, boots, some cowboy hats and many colorful bandanas. And yes, numerous folks from Eastern Chatham also participated. There was lots of music, cloggers and more music. Dinner included pork BBQ, grilled chicken, boiled potatoes, baked beans, slaw, rolls and iced tea. It even seemed fashionable to spill your tea - at least at our table! It's OK, we cleaned it up!

This event is the primary fund raiser for the Council on Aging and it appeared to be very successful. The place was packed and many who were not in attendance participated in the raffles anyway.

The center plans all sorts of programs and not just for us elderly. One slogan read, "Remember, Life after 60 is more than Bingo! Who knows, one of these days, maybe I'll have time to think about that!

Thanks for a FUN evening!!!

November 3, 2006: Groundbreaking for Chatham Youth Development Center

2006-11-16T14:15:00.000-05:00

Despite a very chilly Friday morning (wore my long-johns), I and about 80 of my closest friends participated in the ceremony at our Central Carolina Business Park in Siler City. This facility will house up to 32 young women, 16 years of age and younger.

A chance for a new start is something everyone doesn't get and all too often young folks find themselves in need of this opportunity at no fault of their own. Usually, it means some of us adults have failed in our responsibilities. Hopefully, the blessings this facility can provide will help put some lives back together and send these young people on to lead productive and enjoyable lives.

Secretary George Sweat, NC Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention served as guest speaker and thanked Siler City, CC EDC, CC BOC and everyone who helped make this a reality.And of course, this facility brings 60 plus quality jobs, very good pay and benefits - a great start in reviving our local economy and promises to seek Chatham citizens as employees. A very bright, sun shiny day!

October 2, 2006: Board of Commissioners

2006-10-04T20:18:00.000-04:00

Regular Session

DOT District Engineer, Ruben Blakely, presented the DOT Annual Report for the 2007 Secondary Roads Program for Chatham. Unpaved roads have been prioritized and work will begin bringing them to DOT standards and paving as funds permit. Can you believe it now costs $450K per mile to upgrade and pave? Resolution app 5-0.

Acting as the Board of Adjustment we heard an appeal by Mr. Hal Winters in reference to Planning Department interpretation of the County Zoning Ordinance, Section 10, Item 10.3. This pertained to offsite property transferred from Governor's Club to Aqua NC for future expansion of their sewerage system. The BOA ruled 5-0 in favor of the County Planning Department’s interpretation and work will continue.

BOC Work Session

The Sheriff's fleet purchase of 14 new patrol cars was approved 5-0. We have been playing catch-up while our needs have expanded. With the Sheriff's rotation plan, this should be the last of such extensive annual purchases for patrol cars.

The Judicial Facility contract for $192K in preliminary Planning and Design was awarded to Corley Redfoot Zack, Architects, Engineers, Planners of Chapel Hill. Approved 5-0.

Chatham Harnett Water Partnership Engineering Contract for design of the interconnect was awarded to Hobbs Upchurch. Approved 5-0.

Design and Construction Management Contract for the SE Water District was awarded to Hobbs Upchurch, Approved 5-0.

Silk Hope School should actually get county water by next month. State approval to hang the transmission line on the Rocky River Bridge has finally been received. I understand our fine legislators, Joe Hackney and Bob Atwater were able to help us with this and we certainly need to thank them!

Harnett-Chatham Water Partnership Decision

2006-09-22T17:10:00.000-04:00

Chronology of Harnett/Chatham County Water Partnership Decision

This was not done hastily. Here is the history.

January 2,’05 – BOC Summit

Discussion of Water Districts / short term needs / possible need for moratorium.
Passed to Water Advisory Committee for recommendation.

March 21,’05 - BOC Work Session

Water Advisory Committee / Tim Carpenter gave update / discussion of short and long term (20 year) needs. 20 year needs estimated at 12 mgd.

April 4,’05 - BOC Work Session

Discussion of new plant and intake. Permitting, allocation and construction estimated at 6 years. Plant cost estimated at 50M. Intake cost estimated at 20M.

April 18,’05 - BOC Work Session

Water Advisory Committee recommended looking at intakes on both sides of Jordan Lake and for possible partners. Permitting and allocations would require an estimated 4 years due to multiple approval authorities.

NC DENR, Division of Water Quality – for multi jurisdictional partners.

NC Division of Water Resources – for intake location, approval and oversight.

Corp of Engineers – for allocations.

Manager was asked to seek interested partners.

July 18,’05 – BOC Work Session

Water Update / Partners

Pittsboro – Previous discussions revolved around their having a system in place and what would happen to water rates in town. No firm response.

Siler City – Trouble serving their short term needs. Already involved with enlarging their reservoir to serve their own long term needs.

Durham - Recently dedicated their new water plant.

OWASA – Has enough water for fifty years; no interest in financial partnership.

Sanford – interested.

Harnett County – interested.

Manager was asked to continue talks with Sanford and Harnett County.

September 6,’05 – BOC Work Session

Reviewed cost comparisons for Sanford and Harnett County. Harnett partnership
cost, water cost to Chatham, availability and the fact that they are already a regional water provider ( Harnett County, Moore County partnership, a Fort Bragg proposal, a Chatham County proposal ) with a 40 mgd allocation were considered. Amount of available allocation and how long this will be available to Chatham are unknown quantities. Harnett needs financial partners.
Manager asked to continue negotiations.

November 21,’05 – BOC Work Session

Second Options discussion – Sanford / Harnett. Addressed upgrading the SE District transmission line from 16” to 24” to accommodate 6 mgd from Sanford or Harnett.

December 12,’05 – BOC Work Session

Review of cost and routing possibilities.

Manager directed to proceed with Harnett County proposal. BOC Approved 5-0.

Upgrade 16” transmission line to 24” from plant to Moncure. BOC Approved 5-0.

January 3,’06 – BOC Work Session

Water System update, another review of cost. Manager to continue negotiations with Harnett.

March 20,’06 – BOC Work Session

Water System update / cost discussion. Manager to continue negotiations with Harnett.

May 15,’06 – BOC Work Session

Discussion of capital required vs. debt service. $82 M in total water utility capital required for Water Districts, Transmission Lines and Harnett partnership. 32 M of this would go to our Harnett partnership.

Debt Service:

5M - from Fund Balance.

2 cents – from ’05 revaluation tax increase.

$4,700 - 7/1/’06 increase in water availability and hook-up fees.

No Tax Increase

Overview and conclusion:
New Plant and Intake –

est. time for permitting / allocation…4 yrs.

est. time for construction…………….2 yrs.

Conservative Total 6 yrs.

est. cost of new water plant…………$50 M.

est. cost of intake…………………….$20 M.

Conservative Total: $70 M.

A new water plant and intake located at NW Jordan Lake would mean we would have to come up with all funding – no financial partners in that area. This choice leaves 38+ M in uncovered debt service and does not include the cost associated with additional personnel, specialized equipment, chemicals or other annual operational cost.

Sanford and Harnett are our only interested financial partners. Sanford would have to upgrade their plant and seek regional allocation. Our partnership cost would certainly not be expected to be any less. Harnett is already upgrading, has 40 mgd allocation and is an established regional water provider.

We have Capital Improvement Plans for $133M which we understand is all we can borrow without a new revenue source to cover the debt service.

There are only two options to raise additional water utility funds.

Increase water availability and tap fees. Effective 7/1/’06, we increased these fees from $2,000 to $4,700.

Increase property taxes - 6.3 cents?

There is another potential problem. The Local Government Commission uses per capita debt as a major part of their formula in determining how much we can borrow. Raising taxes also raises per capita debt and there is no guarantee that we could borrow additional funds even if we did raise taxes.

Harnett Partnership will provide 6 mgd.

Upgrade of our plant and Cary’s intake will provide 6 mgd.

12 mgd is the long range estimate to carry us beyond the year 2027.

Our debt service is covered. No tax increase is required.

Our role in this proposal is no different than what we have asked Durham and OWASA to do, as our financial partners.

We still have the possibility of the NW Jordan Lake option, when we can afford it, to take us even further into the future.

We approved the Harnett Partnership on September 18th with a unanimous vote, 5-0.

September 20, 2006: Chatham County Business Campus Ground Breaking

2006-09-21T17:26:00.002-04:00

I enjoyed being in Siler for the Ground Breaking Ceremony - beautiful day and lots of excited folks. The main road has been roughed in and we should see a lot of action shortly.

September 18-19, 2006: Board of Commissioners Regular Session

2006-09-21T17:26:00.001-04:00

Haw River Township will have a zoning change to allow 10 acres vice 20 acres minimum for Public and Private Recreation Camps and Grounds. Approved 3-2. Barnes and Cross opposing.

Chatham Coounty Noise Ordinance was approved 5-0. Effective date is October 1.

8 Public Hearing were conducted with very few speakers. All passed to the Planning Board.

RECESSED...
September 19 RECONVENED....

Public Hearing to rezone for Lee Moore Oil proposal of County Line Plaza. 2 spoke for - 12 opposed.

Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit, B-1, for the same property. 9 spoke for - 19 opposed.

Both passed to the Planning Board. Another LONG EVENING!

September 18, 2006: BOC Work Session

2006-09-21T17:26:00.000-04:00

Harnett/Chatham Water Partnership approved. Water Supply Contract - approved 5-0. Water Purchase Contract - approved 5-0.

Our BOEd presented the idea of "Private Builder and Chatham Lease" as another possibility to acquire schools. We could get that desperate, but my initial take on this is - if we can make payments to cover their debt service and provide them with a profit, we should be able to borrow the money and build the schools ourselves - cheaper! I'm sure we will hear more on this.

ISP Quarry application for our Incentive Program was discussed at length and a Public Hearing date is set for 16 October. Setting the public hearing Approved 5-0.

Chatham/Cary Planning Departments are about ready for a second "Public Information Forum" concerning development east of Jordan Lake. It will probably be held in October - date will be announced as soon as possible.

September 15, 2006: Affordable Housing Task Force

2006-09-21T17:25:00.000-04:00

The AHTF has prepared a slate of officers for the coming year and a rotation plan for voting members. This will be presented to the BOC for approval on October 2nd.

Redistricting and Voting by District

2006-09-15T22:22:00.000-04:00

I voted against the redistricting and against the referendum to elect by district. Both passed on 3-2 votes, with Patrick Barnes and I voting no.

The redistricting timing and using 2000 numbers made no sense to me. There are roughly 7,000 new residents missing from the numbers. I still don't know a reasonable answer to the question - Why now? It also puts Patrick and George in the same district meaning Patrick can't run again in 2008. This new district 1 is where most of the 7,000 new residents live. I feel relatively sure the incoming BOC will revisit this redistricting and tweak District 1 and District 3 to prevent this from occurring.

Election by district does not appeal to me primarily because an incoming commissioner won't really have to meet other citizens or know anything outside their own district and our business affects everyone. It could promote "deal making" as no one commissioner can make anything happen without at least two additional votes. It will also destroy any chance for a minority candidate as I see it. I can, however, understand that friends in the West might be drawn to the idea as many simply feel they no longer have a voice with the tremendous voter turnout in the East and Northeast. I still think we are better off with county wide elections and hope the referendum will be defeated.

September 5, 2006: Board of Commissioners Work session

2006-09-08T13:00:00.000-04:00

Our BOEd saved $224,000 on their computer contract and we authorized them to use the savings on much needed improvements at Northwoods, Bennett, Bonelee and Moncure. 4-1, Morgan opposed.
We set Oct. 2nd work session for a Board of Adjustments Appeal, Quasi Judicial Hearing. 5-0.
Chatham County Business Campus: Approved covenants. 5-0. Approved Owner's Association Articles of Incorporation. 5-0. Approved By-laws and Board of Directors to include BOC Chair, Co. Mgr. and Co. Finance Officer. 5-0.

September 5, 2006: Board of Commissioners Regular meeting

2006-09-08T12:58:00.000-04:00

Consent Agenda approved 5-0.
Public Input - Mr. Bob Knight addressed hiring practices.
Legislative voting authority was passed to me in preparation for this week's North Carolina Association of County Commissioners Annual Conference. 5-0
We approved a resolution to facilitate loans for our upcoming Capital Improvements. 5-0.
We approved a cover letter to North Carolina Association of County commissioners continuing our support for Revenue Options legislation. 5-0.
We will have a Ribbon Cutting ceremony for our Chatham County Business Campus in the Walmart parking lot at 10 AM on Sept.20. Everyone is certainly invited!

August 24, 2006: United Way of Chatham County

2006-09-04T22:19:00.000-04:00

Nancy and I attended the Campaign Kick-Off Dinner Program at the Council on Aging Senior Center in Pittsboro. Lots of good company, good food and door prizes. Have you ever won a "bag of socks"?... or a fresh baked pie? Me either!

The highlight of the evening was the entertainment provided by the 82nd Airborne All-American Chorus. Patriotic and DooWhop tunes were blended into a great performance. Very impressive!

When you make your contribution, don't forget to specify Chatham County. We need your support right here!

Because of YOU, there is a WAY

August 23, 2006: Triangle J - Council of Governments

2006-09-04T22:17:00.000-04:00

The details of the Video Service Competition Act, H.R. 2047 (S.L. 006-151), were presented by Mr. Bob Sepe and Ms. Cynthia Pols of Action Audits, Raleigh.The State has removed local government authority/control over cable service franchises. The Secretary of State will become the exclusive franchising authority effective on January 1, 2007.

One major detail of interest is that right-of-ways can become cluttered with large metal utility cabinets (43.5"Wx 21"D x 5'3"H). Two or more utility cabinets plus a generator cabinet every 3,000 feet will surely create quite an eye sore. Municipalities should get a Right-of-Way Ordinance in place before the effective date, if they wish to have any say in this.

August 22, 2006: Board of Commissioners Regular Session, continued

2006-09-04T22:10:00.000-04:00

Changing to district elections: 24 spoke against. 18 spoke in favor. Resolution to put it on the November ballot approved 3-2, with Barnes and Cross opposed.

August 21, 2006: Board of Commissioners Regular Session

2006-09-04T22:09:00.001-04:00

Consent Agenda – Approved 5-0

Public Input

Mr. Larry Bells stated his concern for more economic development other than houses.

Ms. Cynthia Crossen addressed the problems with our P.A. system and visual displays. We are researching improvements.

Presentation

Ms. Kristen Sinclair and Ms. Allison Weakley presented the Inventory of Natural Areas and Wildlfe Habitats in Chatham, natural resource planning and conservation options that could protect some areas in Chatham. A very informative presentation.

Public Hearings

Noise Ordinance: A dozen speakers made their opinion known. For some reason, many thought we were trying to shut down Shakori Hills festivals. The ordinance is designed to cover all facets of noise problems with careful attention to fairness. Tabled until September.

Redistricting: 29 spoke against. 11 spoke in favor. Resolution to redistrict passed 3-2 with Barnes and Cross opposed.

Augist 21, 2006: Board of Commissioners Work Session

2006-09-04T22:09:00.000-04:00

BOEd School Bond / Technology Funds: The Northestern High School, $44.5 million, will go to a bond vote, likely to be added to the 2007 municipal ballot. $1 million in technology funding was approved for laptop purchases that will bring our availability to high school students to 85%. Approved 5-0.

Affordable Housing Taskforce: Mrs. Amy Powell, chair of the CCAHTF, presented a review of the taskforce work and goals for the coming year.

CDBG funds were approved at $26,335 for home repair and $5,475 for HVAC. Approved 5-0.

Bel Meade Subdivision proposal sits partly in Pittsboro ETJ and partly in Chatham County jurisdiction. Pittsboro requested the county to handle the application process and provide water to the subdivision. Approved 5-0.

Heavy Industrial zoning change: 25 acres were rezoned RA-40 as requested by G. Gordon and R. Brown families off Moncure-Corinth Road. Approved 5-0

Revision of existing Conditional Use Permit for a mini-storage facility to include a detached office/apartment and a commercial driveway entrance at the intersection of US 15-501 and Vickers Road (SR1719), Williams Township. Approved 5-0

Resolution to transfer BOEd property to county to afford redemption of sales taxes during construction of capital improvements. Approved 5-0

August 14, 2006: BOC and BOEd

2006-08-29T11:42:00.000-04:00

We met to discuss releasing $1M+ in technology funds for computers and to discuss using Certificates of Participation (COPs) for financing the new NE High School. No decision was reached and the BOC will look at this again on Monday, 21st, at our work session.

August 17, 2006: Regional Planning Organization

2006-08-29T11:14:00.000-04:00

Dr. Robert Holman of DOT's Roadside Environmental Unit explained how DOT is creating erosion control areas along our roadways. Low lying areas where heavy run off would occur are being partially blocked and planted in vegetation. This slows the runoff and allows sedimentation to occur. Eventually the cleaner water makes its way back to normal flow.

Ms. Terry Canales of NC Governmental Affairs and Budget Coordination reviewed the DOT's Safe Routes to School Program. This program encourages walking and biking in an effort to cut down on school vehicular traffic.

August 14: Board of Commissioners and Board of Education

2006-08-15T20:10:00.000-04:00

We met to discuss releasing 1+M in technology funds for computers and to discuss using COP's for financing the new NE High School.

No decision was reached and the BOC will look at this again on Monday, 21st, at our work session.

August 11, 2006: Affordable Housing Task Force

2006-08-15T20:07:00.000-04:00

Mr. Sherwin Rodin reported on the Inclusionary Zoning work shop he attended in July

The AHTF will present a review of our process and goals at the 21 August BOC work session.

August 7, 2006: Board of Commissioners Work Session

2006-08-15T20:02:00.000-04:00

Redistricting Committee

Dr. Tom Wagner presented the committee recommendation. It will go to Public Hearing on 21 August. Setting the hearing date approved 5-0.

Board of Education

Requested delay of school board referendum. Approved 5-0

Requested use of COPS funding. Tabled 5-0

BOC and BOE will meet on Monday, 14 August at the Administration Building on West Street, at 6:00 pm

Chatham Hospital business campus covenants

Worked out additional covenant solutions. Approved 5-0

Council on Aging

$300,000 Chatham County grant. Approved 5-0

Sheriff’s Department

Capt. Allen presented the proposed noise ordinance. It will go to public hearing on 21 August. Public hearing approved 5-0.

Request to convey officer weapon to retiring deputy. Approved 5-0.

Water Department

Chapel Ridge water resolution. Approved 5-0.

Old Sanford Road water customers may sign up for taps at $500. Initial deadline is 31 December. Approved 5-0

Harnett water contract discussion will take place on 21 August in the work session.

August 7, 2006: Board of Commissioners Regular Session

2006-08-15T19:55:00.000-04:00

Consent Agenda – approved 5-0

Private road name – Big Horn Drive

Tax collector’s annual settlement and order of collection

Tax releases and refunds

Workforce success committee

Public Input

Mr. Len Clegg addressed water for Chapel Church Road and Old Sanford Road This will be included in the SE water contract

Commissioner-elect George Lucier addressed the Harnett water plan

Public Hearing

Resolution to convey property to the Board of Trustees of Central Carolina Community College. Approved 5-0.

Resolution to convey property to the state of NC. Approved 5-0.

Boards and Committees

All sitting members were reappointed. Approved 5-0.

Records Retention

All board of commissioners records and recordings will be maintained for four years. Approved 5-0.

July 18 2006: BOC Regular Meeting – continuation of 7/17 meeting

2006-08-04T22:43:00.000-04:00

Public Hearings:

Items previously requested for Fitch Creations for Fearrington Village were pulled by the applicant.

B-1 Conditional Use District with a Conditional Use permit for a Bank on 1.351 acres located off US 15-501 North, Baldwin Township. Mr. Mark Barroso stated concerns on allowable uses/ not desiring check cashing or pawn shops. Mrs. Allison Weakley expressed concerns with water water and impervious surfaces. Passed to planning board.

B-1 Conditional Use District with a conditional use permit for “Polk’s Center” on 40 acres, located at intersection of US 15-501 North and Polks Landing Road (SR 1530) in Baldwin Township. For: Mr. Travis Blake, developer. Against: Mrs. Ann Edwards, Mrs. Allison Weakley, Mrs. Jamie Nunnelly and Mr. Jeffrey Starkweather.

Public comments concerning redistricting, voting by district and adding 2 at-large commissioners. Here is the very short version of what we heard: Redistrict: Yes, 23, No 0. Vote by district: Yes 16, no 7. Add 2 at-large: Yes 3, No 0. A public hearing was scheduled for August 21. The vote to schedule the public hearing was 4-1, with Barnes voting no. Tonight was a very interesting session – you don’t want to miss the public hearings.

Commissioner Outz nominated Ms. Linda Elliot to the Health Board, over the Board of Health’s nomination. Approved 3-2, Barnes and Cross voting no.

County manager’s 4 year contract, approved 5-0.

July 18, 2006: Board of Commissioners Work Session, continued from 7/17

2006-08-04T22:42:00.001-04:00

Request to set August 7, at 9:00 am, for CCCC and Juvenile detention land transfers. Approved 5-0

Attorney Paul Messick went over UNC/ Chatham Hospital covenants for the Business Campus. Some further review will be necessary.

July 17, 2006: Board of Commissioners Regular Session

2006-08-04T22:42:00.000-04:00

Consent Agenda – Approved 5-0

Department of Social Services contracts for FY 2006-07

Re-appointment of Deputy Tax Collectors, Carolyn Clark and Kimberly Horton

Appoint Mr. Dan McMasters to server as alternate member to the of Siler City planning board / board of adjustment.

Award contract for the judicial facility project to the architectural firm of Corley/Redfoot/Zack.

Preliminary approval of “Hickory Downs” consisting of 41 lots on 167 acres located off Bowers Store Road (SR 1506) in Hickory Mountain Township

Preliminary approval of “Woodlands” consisting of 173 lots on 242 acres located off Old Graham Rd (SR1520) in Hadley Township

Final approval of “Cattail Creek” consisting of 16 lots on 32 acres located off White Smith Road (SR1506) in Hadley Township

Final approval of “Legend Oaks, Phase One” consisting of 31 lots on 64 acres, located off 15-501 North in Williams Township

Final approval of “Windfall Creek, Phase II” consisting of 8 lots on 43 acres, located off Big Woods Road (SR 1716) in New Hope Township.

Sketch, preliminary, and final approval of Pittsboro Fire Department on 1 non-residential lot on 5 acres located off Old Graham Road (SR 1520).

Realignment of the county’s public participation goal – set a public hearing for 21 August.

Refund of tax bills paid in error

Approval to set 21 August for a public hearing on the request to purchase a new pumper truck using tax exempt funds in the amount of $213,938 by the Goldston Volunteer Fire Department.

Public Input Session

Ms. Rita Spina, Fearrington, expressed her concerns in reference to a lack of due diligence and the selling out of Chatham by our BOC.

Mr. Bill Somers, Fearrington, addressed the Western Wake Waster Water Treatment plant to be built in New Hill and wants “regional planning” to include Chatham.

Mr. Elliot Cramer voiced concerns about future water for Chatham

Mr. Rich Hayes expressed the importance of moving forward with the hiring of two sedimentation control inspectors

Mr. Peter Theye reiterated his desire for the BOE and the BOC to work more closely in resolving issues.

Mr. Hal Winters expressed concerns that a soil borrow pit south of Governor’s Club is violating zoning and depositing dirt on the road.

Mrs. Kathlene Hundley addressed the issues of why people want to move to Chatham and protest the massive number of subdivisions being approved

Mrs. Allison Weakley shared her environmental concerns and will be making a presentation on Heritage areas at our 7 August BOC meeting

Mr. Randy Voller (as citizen), Mayor of Pittsboro, denounced the use of spray fields

Mr. Gregg Solomon stated his concerns about the BOE general obligation bond / fall ballot and suggested the BOC show some character.

Mrs. Elaine Chioso, Haw River Asssembly, expressed need to continue to clean and protect the Haw River.

Planning

Preliminary approval of “The Sanctuary at Haw River” (a/k/a Williams Pond) consisting of 121 lots on 376 acres located off Bynum Ridge Rd (SR 1711) in Baldwin Township. Approved 4-1, Barnes voting no

Sketch design approval of “Cedar Mountain” consisting of 65 lots on 162 acres located off Jones Ferry Road (SR 1540) in Baldwin township. Approved 4-1, Barnes voting no.

Sketch design approval of “McBane” consisting of 109 lots on 162 acres, located off Jones Ferry Road (SR 1602) in Hadley Township. Approved 4-1, Barnes voting no.

Sketch Design approval of “Monterrane, Phase IV” consisting of 6 lots on 31 acres, located off Mt. Gilead Church Rd (SR 1700), Williams Township. Approved 4-1, Barnes voting no.

Sketch design approval of “Valley View” consisting of 22 lots on 44 acres, located off Andrews Store Rd (Sr 1526). Approved 5-0.

Zoning and Ordinance Amendments

Moratorium Ordinance to comply with 2005 General Assembly requirements. Approved 5-0.

Conditional use B-1 Business request for John Blair on 10.613 acres located at SE intersection of Mt. Gilead Rd (Sr 1700) and Hatley Road (Sr 1714), New Hope Township. Approved 3-2, Cross and Barnes voting no.

Conditional use permit for boat storage facility on John Blair’s 10.613 acres. Approved 3-2, Barnes and Cross voting no.

Conditional use B-1 Business request for Jesse Fearrington on 60 acres located at the intersection of US 15-501 and Morris Road (SR 1527) in Baldwin Township. Cross motion to table defeated 2-3 with Morgan, Emerson, and Outz voting no. Approved 3-2, Barnes and Cross voting no.

Conditional user permit for Jesse Fearrington’s 60 acres for “Fearrington Place” shopping center. Aprroved 3-2, Barnes and Cross voting no.

Public Hearings:

Amendment to change the “Public and Private Recreation Camps and Grounds” requirements from 20 acres minimum to 10 acres minimum. For amendment – Ms. Cindy Perry, attorney for the applicant. Against the amendment – Ms. Loyse Hurley, President of Chatham Citizens for Effective Communities. Pass to planning board.

Zoning District Change for Heavy Industrial to RA40 on 25 acres off Corinth Rd (SR1916) in Cape Fear Township to accommodate family land to children for home site. For zoning change: Nick Robinson, attorney for applicant and Gordon Parker, applicant. Against: none. Pass to planning board.

Zoning District Change from RA-5 to RA-90 on property consisting of 130 acres off Hatley Road (SR 1714) in New Hope Township. For zoning change: Mr. Grey Stiers, attorney for applicant and Mrs. Joan Bircher, Contentia Development. Against: Ms Loyse Hurley , CCEC, and Mrs. Allison Weakley. Pass to planning board.

Revision to an existing conditional use permit for a mini-warehouse storage facility on 5.43 acres at Vickers Rd. (SR 1719) and 15-501 in Williams Township. For revision: Mr. Warren Mitchell, Owner. Against: no sign-ups. Pass to planning board.

B-1 Conditional Use District for a camper and recreational vehicle storage on 4 acres, located off Martha’s Chapel Rd, New Hope Township. For approval: Mrs. Cindy Perry, attorney for applicant, and Mr. Dale Horton. Against: Mr. Ross Bush, Mrs. Phoebe Smith, Mr. Kevin Durhaml, Mrs. Pat La Sala, Mrs. Denise Ward, Mrs. Jennifer Harding, Mr. Patrick O’Neill, Mrs Brandon O’Neill, Mrs. Marie Lockwood, Mrs. Connie Riddell, Mr. Joe La Sala, Mrs. Theresa Kelly, and Mr. George Terrone. Pass to planning board.

July 17, 2006: Board of Commissioners Work Session

2006-08-04T20:05:00.001-04:00

Dr. Hart, Superintendent of Schools and Mr. Norman Clark, chair of the BOE, indicated concerns in reference to the general obligation bond for the Northeastern High School being placed on the ballot in November. The BOE will take official action on the 24th of July and come back to the BOC in August.

Noise Ordinance was discussed, with Capt. Roy Allen providing a working ordinance. The ordinance will include “fines” which will go to our school system. Support our schools – turn it up ( We will have a public hearing on 21 August.

Chapel Ridge water line requirements are not within our legal authority. Mr. Gunn will provide a resolution for our 7 August meeting.

Old Sanford Road water customers (42) are still waiting for help. They are within the Pittsboro ETJ and the town board has asked the county to provide the service More discussion at the 7 August work session.

Pay scale – approved a higher than mid point pay increase for our social worker—program administrator for DSS. 5-0

Library project ordinance approved, 5-0

E-911 vendor approved for equipment followup, 5-0

Recreation Dept. lease of Cane Creek Video for Office space, approved 5-0

Declared and authorized the sale and disposal of surplus electronics. Approved 5-0.

Purchase of radio equipment for telecommunications equipment – two console positions. Approved 5-0.

Purchase of E-911 phone system “Lifeline Viper” from Positron Public Safety Systems Corp, approved 5-0

June 28, 2006: Triangle-J Council of Governments

2006-08-04T20:05:00.000-04:00

Joint regional forum legislative issues

2005-06 budget amendments

John Hodges-Copple presented a plan on fiscal strategies that we will be looking into over the next few weeks.

Legislative Report

June 27, 2006: Orange-Person-Chatham Mental Health

2006-08-04T20:04:00.000-04:00

Revenue problems have leveled out as NCDMH has been very helpful in providing guidance in rebilling and infusion of additional funds

OPC is changing to a new a new business system called “Pro-filer.” Ms. Kathy Griffin presented the basic operational capabilities and it appears to be an excellent choice for protecting and directing our clients’ needs.