Our Library Dilemma

At our Assembly of Governments meeting on November 30, 2009, we (the BOA) gathered with elected officials from Chapel Hill and Orange County to discuss the future of the library systems in Orange County.  

Here is a very basic overview:  Chapel Hill built their library in 1958.  In North Carolina, library service is traditionally a county function, but there are a few municipalities that have their own library.  See http://www.publiclibraries.com/northcarolina.htm.

The library in Chapel Hill is one of the best, if not the best, in the state by various neutral accounts.  At some point (the late 1980s or early 1990s), the County started allocating money in its annual budget to Chapel Hill to go toward the operating costs of the library, recognizing this benefit the taxpayers of Chapel Hill were providing.  By statute, the library must remain free to county residents if the town accepts county money for the library.  This annual allotment of money (now 10.50% of the Chapel Hill library budget) has not increased since 2001.  Chapel Hill has cried foul about this, and rightly so.  45% of the patrons who use Chapel Hill’s library are not Chapel Hill residents.  Operating costs for the Chapel Hill library have increased yearly, and as a result, Chapel Hill has considered charging a fee for non-Chapel Hill residents.

Enter Carrboro at some point during this time period.  The largest town in North Carolina without a free-standing library, Carrboro has lobbied the County for one for many years.  As a result, within the past decade, the County allocated money for a Carrboro branch library (located at McDougle Elementary School) and a Carrboro Cybrary (located in the Town of Carrboro’s Century Center).  While these two locations are well-used (in fact, the largest percentage of users of the Carrboro branch are Chapel Hill citizens), they are limited in the services they can provide to the public.  For example, the Carrboro branch at McDougle is only open during non-school hours.  It also has limited week-end hours.  Likewise, the Cybrary is located in a very small space, and is not open in the evenings.

Orange County recognizes that they need to increase the amount of money they are providing annually to Chapel Hill.  Likewise, they recognize that they need to provide more service for southwest Orange County, and have plans for a southwest library in their CIP.  Once the southwest library opens, the Carrboro branch library and the Cybrary will close, folding into this new library.  Chapel Hill, in the meanwhile, wants to expand their current library with bond money approved by Chapel Hill residents a few years ago.  Chapel Hill would like to see the County help with this expansion.

Here are possible scenerios that could come out of this dilemma: 

1.  Chapel Hill goes forward with their expansion without any expansion money from the County.

2.  Chapel Hill goes forward with their expansion with expansion money from the County.

3.  Chapel Hill does not go forward with their expansion, and does not charge non-Chapel Hill residents a fee, opting instead to continue to accept the annual allocation from Orange County.

4.  Chapel Hill does not go forward with their expansion, and begins to charge non-Chapel Hill residents a fee, and so are not eligible for an annual allocation from Orange County.

5.  Orange County allocates money in the CIP toward a southwest library, does not give any expansion money to Chapel Hill, and continues to give Chapel Hill an annual operating allocation.

6.  Orange County does not allocate money in the CIP toward a southwest library, gives expansion money to Chapel Hill, and continues to give Chapel Hill an annual operating allocation.

 And so on!  Here are a few points I want to make.  First, notice that Carrboro, while heavily impacted by decisions that Chapel Hill and the County are going to make, really has no say in this matter, other than to offer an opinion.  Second, the County has said that it does not have any money to go toward a Chapel Hill expansion at this time.  Third, the reason that Chapel Hill needs to expand is basically because of the service it provides for the County.  Fourth, the services provided at the Chapel Hill Library are more wide-ranging and more heavily used than at any current county library.  This makes sense, because not only has Chapel Hill has put a significant amount of money into their library, their citizen base is located practically on top of their library.  The County, meanwhile, is trying to figure out how to serve residents who live across the entire county.  To me, comparing circulation figures is like comparing apples and oranges.  And fifth, the average Chapel Hill, Carrboro or county citizen really does not care who is paying for or operating the library they use, but they do expect it to be something they get with their tax dollars.

We all are at a critical junction in this situation, as Chapel Hill contemplates this expansion.  The logical long-term solution would be to merge the two systems into one library system, a process that would take time and a commitment of money by the County.  The Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County and the Asheville-Buncombe Library System are examples of this.  This option truly makes the most sense, because the overall library system needs to serve the county, and it is hard to work toward that goal when one entity is exercising independent decisions about the future of library services that affect all of the residents of the county. 

The accomplishment of this would require some type of joint library board, certainly in the short run, and perhaps permanently.  Chapel Hill would need to feel comfortable that the level of service currently being provided to its patrons stayed consistent.  The joint board would also need to figure out how best to serve the growing needs of southwest Orange County.   Whether this is by expanding the Chapel Hill Library, or building a new free-standing library in southwest Orange County, or by closing the current Chapel Hill Library and building a new Chapel Hill-Carrboro Library, would be part of the dialogue and planning that would need to take place over the next several years.

Promoting our area

I had the pleasure of being on the Planning Committee for a symposium that was held for the International Gay & Lesbian Travel Association (IGLTA) in Chapel Hill from September 24-27, 2009.  The symposium was brought to our area by Laurie Paolicelli, the executive director of the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau.  Part of the program included a visit to the Carrboro Farmer’s Market, and a stroll through our town using our fabulous “Walk Carrboro” maps!   Several participants also spent some time in the evenings in Carrboro. Additionally, I was a participant on a panel discussing various issues facing our LGBT community; I talked about ways we have addressed LGBT issues in Carrboro through policy and law.  You can read more about the panel at Pam’s House Blend:  http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/13198/gaycities-qa-out-on-the-town-pam-spauldings-durham.    This travel market is a great one for us to cultivate, and I give kudos to Laurie for landing this gig.  The participants at the conference went home with a new understanding of how progressive we are in Chapel Hill/Carrboro.

State and Local Governmental Law

We have only had two short board meetings since the summer break, and so I thought I would use this post to describe a course I am teaching for the first time at NCCU School of Law entitled “State and Local Governmental Law.”  I have thirteen students in this seminar style class; thus far our legal topics have included federalism, incorporation and annexation.  To make the course more relevant, I have tried to make the course real-life, and so we discuss actual issues in North Carolina and Carrboro.  For example, we are studying the North Carolina annexation laws and proposed changes, and we have discussed farmers, goats and chickens.  It is always refreshing to hear their points of view – and they have many!  For the first writing assignment, I had my students write a reflection paper about running for local office.  They had to focus on why they should be elected and what local issues they felt were important.  In short, this class has helped me learn a little more about issues we have in Carrboro, and has helped my students learn more about what they may need to consider if they become public servants.

Farmer talk

On Tuesday, June 16, 2009, our last BOA meeting before our summer break, we invited area farmers to our board meeting to discuss their concerns.  The reason we held this meeting was because misinformation was going out to the farmers.  They were in a general state of chaos, and many of them were getting riled up.  We wanted to hear from them. 

It should be noted that much of the recent farm publicity has centered around a lawsuit that was filed against Marilyn Kille by the town of Carrboro for a violation of the town’s prohibition against accessory apartments in the University Lake watershed (a judge ruled in favor of the town in this lawsuit). 

But putting aside the Kille matter for now in this posting, what the farmers have gotten very upset about is hard to articulate.  For example, they expressed concerns that Carrboro is trying to regulate fertilizer that farmers can use.  But, as noted in The Chapel Hill News (click here for article:  http://www.chapelhillnews.com/front/story/50609.html),   “the only recent change the town has made in its regulations requires a permit and notification for fertilizer applications over 2 acres or more.   … [Town Manager Steve] Stewart said the new rules affect only four or five properties and are part of the town’s federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit.”  Nearly all, if not all, of the farmers present, had farms located in the ETJ, not the town.

Additionally, the farmers were upset that the town wanted to investigate creating a “Farm Code,” a set of regulations for farming, when in fact, the town has proposed no such thing.  I noted at the meeting that I believe that the term “Farm Code” can be a semantic one, and that any regulations we have regarding farms are simply found in our Land Use Ordinance, and not in a separate “Farm Code” as is perhaps done elsewhere.

Several audience members also got very upset that while Carrboro had planning jurisdiction over the ETJ, the persons in the ETJ did not have the right to vote, and they found this unfair.  They were of the impression that Carrboro was responsible for this inability to vote.  Mayor Chilton pointed out that persons living in the ETJ did not pay town property taxes, and that it was state law that they could not vote.  The town attorney confirmed that persons living in the ETJ did not have the right to vote for Carrboro elected officials.

Karen McAdams, an agricultural agent from the Orange County Cooperative Extension office, discussed a farm protection plan that Orange County has been working on, one in which municipalities might have an interest, and I asked that staff look into this for us. 

On a personal note, I want to say how interesting and entertaining several of the farmers were, a few telling stories that had the entire room chuckling.  It should be clear to everyone what a treasured part of our community these farmers are, and we should do whatever we can to help these farmers and preserve these farms so that this way of life can be sustained and continue for future generations. 

Finally, returning to the specific issue raised by the Kille matter, I think it is important to separate the personal matter of Ms. Kille from a reasoned, articulated discussion of the policy that was being advanced many years ago when the BOA decided to not allow accessory apartments in the watershed.  I could support some revision of this ordinance, but not at the expense of ultimately increasing the amount of building that could take place at the current time in the watershed.  Likewise, I would like to investigate whether it is possible to allow families to keep their family members living on their farms within a re-writing of the rules that would not be detrimental to the watershed.  I look forward to receiving a report from our staff about this in the fall.

Smith Level Road – Part II

After we voted to reject the NCDOT proposal on April 21, 2009, and passed a resolution in favor of doing only the bike lane and sidewalk improvements, DOT came back to us with three scenarios, and told us we had to pick one.  One was their original plan, which we had rejected.  The second was to pursue our plan of only adding bike lanes and sidewalks, which meant, according to DOT, that our funding that was in the DOT “road” budget would disappear and we would have to apply through the meagerly funded “bike-ped” fund, which meant our preferred project would have to start all over in the budget process and would most likely be many years away.  The third option was to have DOT build the project with the two lanes, three lanes (appropriate turn lanes), and roundabout, but with a catch:  under this option, after completion, Carrboro would have to take over ownership, maintenance and further improvements of  the nearly one mile section of Smith Level Road where the four-lanes would not be constructed.  In other words, this state road would be turned over to the Town, an unprecedented move by the DOT.   

 At our BOA meeting on June 2, 2009, we discussed these options, and rejected all three.  Instead, we adopted a fourth option, to ask DOT to keep our funding in place while we talked with persons in upper level administration and policy levels at DOT about our concerns with the proporsed DOT project, one which we feel encourages increased use of automobiles instead of encouraging other means of transportation.  We do not feel that we should be penalized for encouraging alternative transportation behavior, and we believe this is what our citizens prefer, and what will be best for our region (indeed, for most municipalities) in the coming years as we try to reduce our carbon footprint.  Here is a story from The Carrboro Citizen recapping our conversation that evening:

http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2009/06/04/aldermen-send-smith-level-road-plan-back-to-dot/#more-6085

 One point I made during the meeting was that rather than call it a fourth option, we could simply say we prefer the third option, minus the attempt by DOT to push the financial burden of this road onto us.  I find it disingenuous that DOT would even present this option; it obviously is a reflection of the current economic condition of the state.  When I asked under what rationale they proposed passing this continuing cost on to us, the answer I received was in part that a new environmental study would have to be done.

I also find it interesting that supposedly, the type of project we are asking for cannot be built with “road” funds, but that DOT is offering to build that very project with ”road” funds, with the financial caveat.  Well, we want it without the caveat.

Not in this House

Here is a link to an editorial I wrote that appeared in The Carrboro Citizen on May 7, 2009. It sums up the sad state of our housing anti-discrimination bill this session:

http://www.carrborocitizen.com/main/2009/05/07/not-in-this-house/#more-5752

I will continue to bring this issue up in the years to come. As I stated in the editorial, someday we will not be allowed to discriminate in Carrboro.

Smith Level Road

The saga about proposed improvements to Smith Level Road goes back over twenty years.  During the April 21, 2009 BOA meeting when we discussed Smith Level Road, a timeline of the back and forth with NCDOT was presented to educate those of us who have not been in Carrboro for this entire time.  To sum, the current status of the road is this:  DOT is ready to spend money on improvements to Smith Level Road, and has presented a plan to Carrboro which has been met with much disagreement.   Although the plan does include bike lanes and sidewalks (in the early years, DOT did not include these, so some advancement has been made), the plan starts with a four lane connection from 15-501 onto Smith Level Road for almost a mile.  It then crests on a hill where the road turns into a combination of three lanes and two lanes.  It then continues with a roundabout in front of Carrboro High School, past Ray Road, where the proposed improvements end.   Here is a story from The Daily Tar Heel about the evening that the BOA discussed the proposal by DOT on April 21, 2009:

 http://www.dailytarheel.com/news/city/aldermen-vote-to-widen-road-for-sidewalks-bikes-1.1726955

 In my view, the worst part about the proposal is the four lane section off of 15-501.  Admittedly, that area is not the most attractive now, but this would set the stage to encourage massive automobile use down this road.  The rest of the road improvements, which vary from two lanes to three lanes where turn lanes are suggested, are acceptable to me.  I have not heard enough about the roundabout to decide how I feel about this, although I will say that I drive through the roundabout at the end of Old Erwin Road in Durham every day and can tell how it has improved traffic safety at that intersection.  I know our citizens have concerns about the proposed roundabout on Smith Level Road because they are worried that it might actually be more unsafe for children walking to the high school.

 After discussion, the BOA voted 6-1 to reject the plan, and to instead ask DOT to improve Smith Level Road with bike lanes and sidewalks.  Mayor Mark Chilton voted in favor of the plan, acknowledging that while it was not the total preferred plan, being able to get the bike lanes and sidewalks would be a marked improvement over the current unsafe conditions.  Speaking for myself, I understood and agreed somewhat with the rationale of Mark’s argument, but decided ultimately to vote with the rest of the BOA to try to get what we wanted.

Claremont and safety concerns

 We voted at our meeting on March 17, 2009 to approve a special use permit for phases IV and V of Claremont on Homestead Road.  Safety concerns about the project were the major focus of discussion at the public hearings for this project. 

The first safety concern dealt with the crossing of Homestead Road.  When these phases of Claremont are complete, these residents will need to go back and forth across Homestead Road to use the community swimming pool (already built in one of the earlier phases).  To alleviate these concerns, the project includes a greenway that will run under a nearby bridge on Homestead Road providing access from one side to the other, although it is a short distance down from the swimming pool.  The most obvious place where people will want to cross the street looks to be near the entrance roads for the Claremont communities off of Homestead Road.  After petitioning for a light of some sort in this area, DOT is allowing a marked pedestrian crossing with a pedestrian refuge island for persons walking across Homestead Road at Claremont Drive.  It seems obvious that at some future point we will petition again for a blinking light, stoplight or pedestrian light as we observe and can better quantify how traffic patterns in this area develop.

A second safety concern was from residents who live near this project.  These residents believe that phase V should not have a connector road leading south through Colfax Road, because this would result in dangerous, high speed traffic in that area and neighboring streets.  These residents preferred only a pedestrian walkway at this connection.  Because of the overwhelming concerns of these citizens, in lieu of a connector road, the Board voted to have the developer instead construct an asphalt path wide enough for fire emergency access south to Colfax Drive, where bollards must be installed.  The Board noted that in the future, when other road connections are built out on this side of Homestead Road, this could become a full-street connection.  Joal Hall Brown was the only Board member voting against the permit, citing overall safety concerns.

This vote drew criticism from at least one member of the Planning Board, and probably confused those in town who are in strong support of the connector road policy.  These persons argue that if a connector road could not be built here (where there is a sidewalk on one side and a neighboring collector street), how is the connector road policy ever justified?  Won’t residents often, if not always, make the argument that more traffic means less safety?  These are good questions.  The Board will be reviewing the connector road policy at some point in the near future, and I am hopeful that the intention and effect of the policy will be discussed and reviewed again at that time.

Retreat focused on financial picture

We had our BOA retreat on Monday, February 2, 2009.  The half-day session was all about money – the financial picture of the town, and how the economy was (or would be) affecting our citizens.  The members of the board brainstormed about ways to tackle our financial challenge.  We ended up paring down a list of some 40-plus ideas, and staff is going to follow up on those for us.

Potential action items included the following:

1. Considering increasing aid to agencies
2. Involve BOA members in combined giving campaign
3. Explore with legislators options for local preferential purchasing
4. Move assets to locally owned banks and/or credit unions
5. Refer “What can we do to help businesses” question from local business survey to the Local Living Economy Task Force
6. Discuss BOA interest in green building industry and set objectives

The Daily Tar Heel followed up with a story about the survey, and our effort to reach out to local businesses and non-profits, which you can read here.

Housing anti-discrimination clause

We are talking to our legislative delegation about an amendment that we want to make to the Carrboro Town Charter this year. Here is the pertinent part of our current housing anti-discrimination clause with the changes we are reqeusting in italics:
 
Section 10-1.  Housing Discrimination.   The board of aldermen may adopt ordinances designed to ensure that all housing opportunities in the Town of Carrboro shall be equally available to all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identification, or gender expression.    Such ordinances may regulate or prohibit any act, practice, activity or procedure related directly or indirectly to the sale or rental of public or private housing that affects or may tend to affect the availability or desirability of housing on an equal basis to all persons, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identification, or gender expression.  
 
Sam Wardle called to interview me about the proposed bill, and the ensuing article can be found in The Independent here:
 
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A274828
 
I find it interesting that John Rustin from the North Carolina Family Policy Council states that only “immutable” characteristics are covered under existing anti-discrimination policy.  Is he suggesting that religion is “immutable” and sexual orientation (where valid argument exists) is not?