Managing growth in Wake County

[StanN]

Excerpts from todays lead story in the N&O.."Schools' solid rep drives growth"

This year, more than 20 percent of Wake students are being taught in trailers, storage closets or other makeshift classrooms.

In part, the crunch has been caused by a population boom in the Triangle that is particularly strong in Wake County. Since 2000, people have moved to the county at the rate of 23,000 per year -- an annual influx of roughly the population of Apex.

But the county is particularly attractive to the parents of school-age children. (The article goes on to cite the combination of high SAT scores, low housing prices and lower taxes than elsewhere in the Triangle as the drivers of that growth.)

In the past decade, Wake's population has grown by 41 percent, but public school enrollment has increased even faster -- by 48 percent. If charter schools, private schools and home schools were taken into account, student growth would be even higher.

To ease school crowding, administrators have proposed moving 11,495 students -- a record number -- to different schools next year. Earlier this month, they projected a need of $4.25 billion to $5.6 billion for construction and renovations over the next decade.

A bond issue next fall for school construction will likely be tied to a property-tax increase -- the first for Wake County since 2003.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

How would you deal with the growing problem?

Options: (Options requiring NCGA approval have been excluded.)

*Raise property taxes to approach other in the Triangle Region? (over time 30%-50% increase required.)

*Put the burden of financing growth onto the shoulders of developers, e.g. an APF for schools ? (impact fees and property transfer taxes must get through the NCGA)

* Let the schools become even more overloaded and rundown...sooner or later this will discourage newcomers.

*Find creative means to build schools at a lower cost (see proposals by developers' spokesman Chris Sinclair).

* Remove County imposed barriers to annexation so that low taxes in unincorporated areas are not an incentive to growth.

* Other, e.g. muni's should supply land and sports and rec. facilities.

stann

[Wuptdo]

Stan wrote:
* Let the schools become even more overloaded and rundown...sooner or later this will discourage newcomers.

Let's include roads and water & sewer too! How do we discourage people from moving here? Why don't they go somewhere else. Why are they leaving their socialist paradise's up North with high taxes and many, many social welfare programs? On top of all that, they bring their sick political ideals with them, and expect us to adopt to their political norms. The only people that benefit from these "Carpetbaggers" is developers & builders. They are destroying our State. Maybe it is time to turn off the "Welcome" sign and replace with either "No Vacancy" or "Thanks for passing thru - Florida is XXX miles away!"
or maybe we really advertise how we do "busing in Wake County, that will scare them away! :wink: :wink:

Stan wrote:
*Raise property taxes to approach other in the Triangle Region? (over time 30%-50% increase required.)
No, No, No, No, not an option. 32% of Wake County's Budget goes to debt service, and Lord know how much of Cary's budget is now debt service, plus whatever the States' debt service is per taxpayer. We are floating in a sea of debt. Wait a minute, I thought growth payed for itself? :roll: :roll:

Stan wrote:In the past decade, Wake's population has grown by 41 percent, but public school enrollment has increased even faster -- by 48 percent.
I wonder many are illegal aliens, sucking up all the welfare & medicare money, plus putting an unfair strain on the schools. Maybe NCGA should pass a law that no one is entitled to any type of state funded "social welfare" until they have lived here for let's say 5 years. Maybe this would also discourage the "welfare gypsies." Also, we need to press Federal officials to do something about illegal aliens -- see other threads.

Stan wrote:*Put the burden of financing growth onto the shoulders of developers, e.g. an APF for schools ? (impact fees and property transfer taxes must get through the NCGA)
Yes, this works for me. These people will make billions and billions of dollars in profit. But I guess it is cheaper to keep paying off politicians, than it is to build schools. Well it is one way that growth can pay for itself!

Though a little T-i-C, thanks Stan for bringing this up.

Wuptdo B-)

[StanN]

All,

Your taxes are on the brink of doubling or more over the next ten years. The burden of paying for growth is being put largely on "your" back. The quality of our schools, the inventory of quality jobs, the local road system, the water quality of our rivers and lakes, localized flooding , etc. are all on the cusp of serious deteroration due to development centered regulations and inadequate funding of infrastructure. Who's to blame? "You" are in part. You are resigned and apathetic. You are not engaged in civic affairs. You don't understand how government really wirks in NC. You feel little sense of community with others less fortunate than you.

The developers are well organized to feather their nest. The Wake Taxpayers Assoc. is organized to fight for its causes, right or wrong. The Cary Chamber effectively maneuvers to protect its interests. What do yo do? Rant and whine. But if "it" doesn't impact your home, your lawn, your kids...you just don't give a ****. You leave it to someone else to fight your battles. There must be a better way.

I apologize in advance to the relatively few of "you" that don't meet the above description - and I surely hope I am wrong about the rest of "you".

stan

[Cathy]

Just in case any Cary taxpayers are interested:

Figures taken from Town Feasibility Reports

Annex Medfield:
Feb 2001 figures

Cost to Cary taxpayers: $8,153,754.00

Projected revenue: $683,606.00
If the Town of Cary had annexed all of the areas being considered in 2001,
Total Cost to Annex: $29,149,992.00
Think about the debt service that the Town would be now carrying if all of the 2001 areas had been annexed.
Four or five areas were annexed and 5 million had to be set aside to cover the cost of providing water, and 9 million for sewer.

Annex Dutchman Downs:
Dec 2003 figures

Cost to Cary taxpayers: $7,652,298.00

Projected revenue: $597,514.00


How many years would it take before the Town would see a positive return on the costs incurred from these annexations? 15 yrs? 20 yrs?


And these are all existing taxpayers who have been contributing to the schools for many years, so it wouldn't be bringing any additional money to the schools.

Cathy

[StanN]

Cathy,

Your figures are outdated. In a year or two their will be a revaluation, at which time the revenues from annexation will take a sharp spike up. Was that considered in the figures you cited? In fact if theree have been any sales since the dates you cite, the revenues will be larger than shown. How about the additional distribution of the sales tax from the county as the number of people in the town goes up?

stan

[DarylB]

But if "it" doesn't impact your home, your lawn, your kids...you just don't give a ****. You leave it to someone else to fight your battles. There must be a better way.

We're agreed on one thing, there must be a better way. Sounds like you're advocating giving the vote to those in the ETJ's, where the annexed and annexees could have some real clout and a real say in these matters, not to mention a seat at the table when it comes to council meetings, committee positions, and something more substantial than "whining". Is this the case, Stan?

[StanN]

DarylB said,

Sounds like you're advocating giving the vote to those in the ETJ's, where the annexed and annexees could have some real clout and a real say in these matters, not to mention a seat at the table when it comes to council meetings, committee positions, and something more substantial than "whining". Is this the case, Stan?

There is an element of unfairness in disenfranchising those in the ETJ. There is also gross unfairness when the taxpayers in the muni's pay much more than those in the UA for the network of roads they all use. And the muni's subsidize the sheriff's patrol as well.

If there was a middle ground (as elsewhere) where folks in the UA paid their fair share of the cost of roads and the subsidies were eliminated, I would support greater powers for the ETJ'ers. Certainly a vote on annexation. But under those conditions you would likely see scores of folks voluntarily asking the muni's to annex them as much of the their tax differential would have dissappeared.

stan

[DarylB]

Taxes are only one half the issue. You're right about many not wanting to see their taxes go up astronomically to support someone's dog park, or artwork, or council megaplex comlete with popcorn stand. But as huge an issue as taxes are, you miss the biggest issue (the largest stake in your eye, so to speak), and that is the total disregard for a quality of life that many of us seek and are willing to fight for passionately. Having a bunch of little "Ed Link's" scurrying about to push their eminent domain obtained, pukey beige, built forward and dense mess down our throats while telling us where and when to plant a bush or chop a fence is simply something we find abhorrant to human life. We are not crackers in a box, sardines in a can, or Caryites in the usually bland and subservient sense. We take our desire for a lifestyle every bit as seriously as we take the attack on our finances to support it. Something else for you to consider, I guess....

[StanN]

Why bother?...I won't do that again.

stan

[Cathy]

Cathy,

Your figures are outdated. In a year or two their will be a revaluation, at which time the revenues from annexation will take a sharp spike up. Was that considered in the figures you cited? In fact if theree have been any sales since the dates you cite, the revenues will be larger than shown. How about the additional distribution of the sales tax from the county as the number of people in the town goes up?

stan

Uuuhhh.. Stan... no kidding.

This is exactly the response that I expected from you.
I included the dates when the figures were compiled on purpose, because it's relevant.
No... the figures don't include any future revaluations. If that would have been legal or possible to get away with, I'm sure they would have included them.
All additional tax revenue sources were included in the revenue figure. Increased sales tax share was in there.
Real and personal
Sales and Use
Beer and wine
Powell bill funds
Garbage and recycle fees
vehicle liscense fees

You can ask any plumber about the numbers for the W/S installation pricing from 2001, or even 2003, ALSO being outdated and in need of revision upward. Given that the original numbers for any construction project are always much lower than actual cost anyway, the real costs would be MUCH higher if they were being done today.

Costs for additional equipment and personel aren't going down either.

So.... Just call it a wash; even though I doubt that the revaluation would raise the revenues at the same rate as the increase in cost to annex.

But call it a wash anyway, and just take the numbers for what they had to say when they were saying it.

Annexing existing development does not help the schools and it costs the city taxpayers quite a bit to upfront finance that "one of these days" revenue.

If the Town had INVOLUNTARILY annexed more of what was in their sights in 2001 or 2003, the budget would have been a lot more difficult to "manage" than the post-2004 Council has had to deal with.

Cathy