Wastewater Bond. Who Will Pay In The End? [Archive]

View Full Version : Wastewater Bond. Who Will Pay In The End?

Rono

01-19-2005, 05:47 PM

Below is the In My Opinion article in today’s Cary News. It was reviewed by a number of StopCary.com participants prior to submission. (For those who are interested, it was submitted last Thursday afternoon, before the CTC meeting)

It is our intention to inform the voters of Cary of the high cost of "growth" and to raise the serious question of how this growth will, we believe, affect the tax liability and bills of Cary residents. There were many alternatives that Cary could have chosen to remedy water shortages in the late 90"s. The town leadership unfortunately chose what we believe was the most expensive. We believe these choice's were based on greedy growth first, and the needs and wallets of Cary citizens second. Now unfortunately, Cary voters will go to the polls on May 3 to vote on an "obligation" to repay a debt that they are already committed to!.

This is reckless government at it worst and it is out of control. Cary taxpayers need to be informed of this in straight talk. Labeling this bond vote a “Clean Water” bond is height of deceptions and deceit

Please think about this very seriously and then try explain how a referendum question on something the Town obligated itself to 5 years ago is a choice by the taxpaying voters of Cary, let alone has anything to do with the theme of “Clean Water”.

A previous governmental entity (Town Council and Staff) obligated what appears to be a “future” affirmative “vote” because they agreed 5 years ago that they would build! (If the voters don’t approve, and Cary is obligated to build this Wastewater Treatment plant, what happens then??) YOU TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE???

…and annexation pays for itself???? BULL!

Growth Costs Cary Residents Big Bucks For Wastewater

In our opinion, growth and annexation (voluntary and involuntary) is costing the current Cary residents big bucks.

To verify this, one needs only to point to this spring when the citizens who actually live, vote and pay taxes in Cary, will again get to understand first hand our (www.StopCary.com) concerns of the cost of municipal annexation and “growth”. This understanding will come in the form of a vote for a $110 million dollar General Obligation Bond referendum question (the Cary News, January 13, 2005) to fund and build another Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF).

This WWTF must be built by January 2011. The reason it must be built is to return the water that is being now taken from Jordan Lake. This is not an option. This WWTF, if not built and operational by the 2011 deadline, will cost Cary taxpayers fines of $10,000 per day until it is.

So why is this now a required current Cary taxpayer expense? Remember the water shortages of the late 90’s? Drought, coupled with rapid, uncontrolled “growth” by high density voluntary annexation, forced water conservation, alternate day watering and a whole host of regulations to conserve water.

A $66.5 million dollar water bond referendum question was put before the Cary voters in February, 1999 to solve these problems. It passed easily…76% voter approval. Unfortunately, what we believe the voters didn’t realize was this.

Not only did they vote to spend money to fix their water problems, they were also voting, unbeknownst to them, to allow town leadership to spend much of that bond money on a water future “growth” infrastructure. For proof of this, one needs only to just check out where the two water towers were built from this bond. One is on Highway 55, the northwest new “growth” area, and one on Ten-Ten road, the southeast new “growth” area
.
Taking out, putting back

To see the current problem, you need to understand the following. Water that is “taken out” of a watershed, by environmental regulations, must be “put back” in the same watershed.

An example of this is that you use the clean water (taken from Jordan Lake) to wash your clothes and put the dirty water out the wastewater (sewer) line where it is eventually treated by a WWTF and supposed to be discharged back into the Cape Fear Watershed, of which Jordan Lake is a part.
Cary, up until the 90s, got most of its water from Raleigh through the Neuse River Watershed. The Neuse River Watershed is where Cary’s two current WWTF’s discharge their treated wastewater.
When Cary built its new Jordan Lake water plant in the early 90’s, Cary, in a partnership with a few other municipalities created the ability to get water from another source other than Raleigh.

It should be noted that Cary has since reneged on a water agreement it had with Raleigh and ended up paying Raleigh a $1.35 million dollar lawsuit settlement because of it.

Herein lie’s the problem. Today, after the upgrade and expansion of the Jordan Lake water plant and addition of the two water towers following the 1999 bond referendum, Cary now discharges too much wastewater from the Cape Fear Watershed into the Neuse River Watershed. (Basically, HWY 55 divides the Cape Fear and the Neuse watersheds near Cary) Because environmental agencies knew this would happen, (since most of Cary is east of HWY 55) as a provision for granting the permit to allow Cary to take this greater amount of water from Jordan Lake, Cary had to sign an agreement saying it would build a new WWTF in the Cape Fear Watershed. Do you remember Cary officials telling you this when you were voting in 1999 for a bond to resolve your water problems?

In hindsight, this is what is so ironic now. The water that Cary used to get came from the Neuse River Watershed. Therefore, a new WWTF would not be needed now if Cary would have simply increased its supply from Raleigh. In other words, help Raleigh back then to add greater capacity which then would have resolved Cary’s shortages. There were several other options as well.

In the late 90’s, there was talk about creating an all Wake County water and sewer system. This also would have avoided the continued spending spiral Cary now finds itself in. Such a system would have combined these costs with all (not just a few like Apex and Morrisville) the county. Then even the unincorporated areas could have hooked up and shared in the cost!

Development ploy?

Unfortunately, that idea was treated the following way by former Mayor Glen Lang. "The countywide water and sewer system is a development ploy to encourage sprawl and avoid municipal impact fees," Lang said. "We need those fees to build all the infrastructure for the newcomers who would live in those homes."

For someone who claimed to have wanted to slow the “growth” you certainly can see that he advocated just the opposite. This new required WWTF is entirely about “growth”. Now again, Cary residents are faced with another $110 million dollar bill to build for that “growth.” This does not even take into account what it will cost to operate the WWTF after it is built! (hello higher sewer bills!... and weren’t the water bills just raised due to not enough usage?)

Add all of this to the costs Cary residents have already invested in and are paying for, such as expanded sewer and water, roads and infrastructure, additional police, fire protection, garbage and debris service, parks, greenways, street lights, traffic signals, and so on. Remember, all of this additional cost is to service a higher density “growth” which is not even desired by most Cary citizens in their vision of a good “quality of life!” And all this is being done on the presumption that such “growth” collects enough tax revenue to, in the future, pay and repay it all!

So will impact fees and future taxes received from newly annexed and “growth” properties cover all these expansion infrastructure costs to the Cary taxpayers today? We certainly doubt it.

This spring’s bonding vote will show the Cary taxpayers that they collectively have to authorize and obligate themselves to be liable for more additional “growth” debts. That is the meaning of a General Obligation Bond. Yes Cary citizens, it is your obligation. If additional “growth” revenue (taxes) do not meet these costs, you, the current Cary tax payer, will see your wallets “shrink” to foot the rest of this ”growing” expense. And that expense now is turning into very big bucks!

Ron Thoreson Chairman, www.StopCary.com,
PO Box 252
Cary, North Carolina 27512

Rono

01-20-2005, 08:17 AM

Supporting Documentation for the above In My Opinion

The News & Observer
February 15, 2000
Towns testing the waters for a joint plant
Author: JAY PRICE; STAFF WRITER
Edition: Final
Section: News
Page: B3
Index Terms:
water
waste
Cary
Morrisville
Holly Springs
Apex
Estimated printed pages: 3
Article Text:
No one is calling it the Western Wake Water and Sewer Authority yet, but a regional water and sewer cooperative appears to be emerging from informal discussions among Apex, Cary, Holly Springs and Morrisville.
The towns have just begun to talk, but the idea of joining forces has powerful appeal because all of them will need more sewage capacity in the next few years, and all but Morrisville will need more water. Experts on regionalism say the move could hold down property taxes and water bills for citizens in all four towns, plus reduce the chances of spills and other environmental problems.
And there's already a foundation to build on, because Cary and Apex jointly own a water plant - which they are expanding at a cost of $64 million - and Morrisville has pipes attached to their system.
Cary has taken the lead, approaching the other towns about building a sewer plant together.
Cary had been planning to build its own by 2008. But it recently became clear that its smaller neighbors need more sewage capacity, too. Apex and Morrisville both are limiting development because of dwindling sewage capacity.
It makes sense to build one big plant, Mayor Glen Lang of Cary said.
So far, members of Cary's town staff have talked to their counterparts in Apex and Holly Springs, and a meeting is planned with Morrisville next week.
"Nobody has said no, and in fact everybody I've heard from has been enthusiastic," Lang said.
Apex had been planning to open a new plant in 2003, but cost estimates have soared as high as $45 million. Mayor Keith Weatherly said that a jointly owned sewage plant could save Apex so much money that it wouldn't have to ask voters to approve sewer bonds. One estimate says each town would save $7 million to
$10 million by building with Cary.
Weatherly said that his board would be cautious about any strings that Cary's new slow-growth council may attach to an agreement, but that at the very least an agreement between Apex and Cary appears likely.
"Clearly we would be looking out for the best interests of Apex citizens, and Cary will be looking out for its best interests, but I feel like we'll be able to reach a deal," Weatherly said.
One large plant is cheaper to build and operate than several small ones, and so it can help hold down property taxes and utility bills, said Chick Krautler, executive director of the Triangle J Council of Governments.
A large plant also can provide better service, which helps keep rivers cleaner downstream, he said.
Weatherly said that land Apex had been eyeing south of U.S. 64 within the town's planning jurisdiction is probably an early front-runner for a regional wastewater treatment plant.
Lang said that there probably won't be talk of how to administer a regional system until it's clear which towns want in.
"Cary is very interested in the idea of an agreement with willing partners to create a water and sewer system, but of course we are taking baby steps on this before we walk," he said.
The idea of a Western Wake system echoes a 1998 recommendation from a county task force. It advocated a single countywide water and sewer system rather than the current collection of small ones.
Under the task force's plan, all the municipal systems would first be consolidated in two systems, one in Raleigh and another in Cary. Then, eventually, those two systems would be merged.
But Lang, among Wake's most vocal advocates of growth restrictions, is wary of any system that would provide utilities to unincorporated areas. He noted that the task force had included members like developer Tim Smith and Jim Wahlbrink, executive director of the Home Builders Association of Raleigh-Wake County.
"The countywide water and sewer system is a development ploy to encourage sprawl and avoid municipal impact fees," Lang said. "We need those fees to build all the infrastructure for the newcomers who would live in those homes."
Several pro-growth politicians called for a countywide water system during last fall's campaign, and continued to talk it up after the election. Also, CARE, the Cary-based political group, ran an ad about the benefits of a regional water system - the only ad that didn't attack Lang and his slow-growth allies.
The state Elections Board ruled last month that CARE is a political action committee that must identify its donors. The group is appealing and has kept most of its donors and members secret, but last year a spokesman said that it would be reasonable to assume that many are developers.
Caption:
Glen Lang, left, of Cary and Keith Weatherly of Apex agree that cooperating on building a sewer plant could benefit both towns.
2 photos
file
Copyright 2000 by The News & Observer Pub. Co.
Record Number: fpzcpz89

Work Session Minutes of the Town of Cary , North Carolina
Subject: Western Wake Regional Wastewater Management Facilities
Town Council Chambers
101 Wilkinson Avenue

December 16, 2004

Web Site: http://www.townofcary.org
Mayor McAlister called the work session to order at 4:34 p.m.
Present: Mayor Ernie McAlister, Council Members Marla Dorrel, Michael Joyce, Jennifer Robinson and Julie Robison
Council Member Nels Roseland arrived at 4:39 p.m.
Absent: Mayor Pro Tem Jack Smith
Copies of staff’s PowerPoint presentation is attached to and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
Town Manager Bill Coleman stated that over the past several years the Town has worked with other municipalities and with Wake County looking at future waste water needs for the region. He stated that the Town’s Interbasin transfer certificate requires that the Town have a discharge into the Cape Fear River basin by January 2011. The planning phase for the project is finished and staff wanted to review the process with the Council to bring them up to speed on the project before moving into the implementation phase.
Director Kim Fisher of the Public Works and Utilities Department stated that the Western Wake regional wastewater management facilities project encompasses the Towns of Morrisville, Cary, Apex and Holly Springs, as well as Wake County.
Mr. Roseland asked if the build out is for the plant or the developmental use of capacity. Water Resources Manager Leila Goodwin responded that it is both.She said that there aren’t any projects beyond the existing planning area, but in 2030 the capacity for the planning area would be met.
Mr. Robison asked about the formula used for the amount of return. Ms. Goodwin responded that the formula is calculated by the amount of water the Town uses in the Neuse River basin and is based on the amount of water usage tracked for customers. The Town has to return part of that usage to the Neuse River basin. She added that the North Cary plant discharges into Crabtree Creek and the South Cary plant discharges into Middle Creek, both of which eventually pour into the Neuse River basin.
Mr. Roseland asked about the net regional impact of the plant. Ms. Goodwin said that there would be a net transfer into the Cape Fear River basin regardless of whether anything is transferred by the Town.
Ms. Dorrel asked what happens if the Town does not meet the 2011 transfer certificate deadline. Ms. Goodwin responded that state agencies would make that determination. Mr. Fisher added that if the Town did not make a wholehearted effort to meet the requirement and the state agencies determined that the Town was being slothful in meeting the deadline the fine would be $10,000 per day; however, if a series of events occurred beyond the Town’s control prohibiting the Town from meeting the deadline a penalty probably would not be assessed. He said that staff is making every good faith effort to meet that deadline. Ms. Goodwin stated that staff has made it very clear to the state that the Town is planning to meet the deadline.
Mrs. Robison asked about events that could potentially derail or delay the project. Ms. Goodwin stated that the biggest potential for a delay is in the permitting process because it is unpredictable. She said that design and construction would also have some affect, but those are more predictable than a regulatory issue. Also, the permitting process allows for a third party to comment on environmental issues and that has the potential to cause delays. Mr. Fisher added that staff is working closely with the state regulatory agencies to involve and inform environmental groups in order to help move the process along.
Mr. Roseland asked about costs attributed to additional capacity and meeting permitting requirements. Ms. Goodwin responded that the Town is avoiding the extra cost of piping across the basin boundary by having a facility in the Cape Fear River basin.
Mrs. Robinson asked about the cost of building a new facility in the Cape Fear River basin. Mrs. Goodwin replied that staff is looking at that long term and it will have to be monitored as 2020 drawers nearer.
Mrs. Robinson asked about costs, build out requirements, and caps for municipalities. Ms. Goodwin stated that there is a mechanism in the service agreement to maneuver the caps if a municipality is not using their capacity. Mr. Fisher added that there will also be mechanisms in the joint agreement to unilaterally expand build out. He said that the Town’s consultants have worked closely with other municipalities on their numbers for capacities and there has been a lot of benchmarking with current and future growth rates. Ms. Goodwin said that as part of the permitting process each municipality has to justify their projected need.
Ms. Dorrel asked about the basis for proportional costs. Ms. Goodwin said they are based on combined weighted average for each of the facilities.
Director Karen Mills from the Finance Department discussed capital needs and the budget implications for the project.
Mr. Roseland asked about the contributions of residential and non-residential customers. Ms. Mills said that the rate model includes projections and costs are spread equally across demand.
Ms. Dorrel asked if the projected increases presented were only for this particular project. Ms. Mills responded that there are routine increases for inflation, continued population growth, and growth demand for business as usual.
Mayor McAlister asked about the cost to run the system. Ms. Mill said that by 2012 payments to Durham for their waste water treatment will finish and the Town will have rolled in operational costs for the treatment facility. Cary’s share of operating the facility will be similar in scope to what will have been paid to Durham for interim service.
Ms. Dorrel asked if water treatment costs were included in the projections and about the possibility of costs by 2012 having more than a $22 per month increase. Ms. Mills said that treatment costs were included and that there would be other costs attributable to the rate structure.
Mr. Roseland asked about the total cost. Mr. Fisher said that phase 1 takes the Town up to 2020 and phase 2 to 2030. Ms. Goodwin said the projected cumulative cost is $175 million through 2030. Mr. Fisher added that of the $175 million approximately $60 million is what it will cost to get from 2020 to 2030. He said that the first phase costs allows for 10.5 million gallons per day total capacity. He said that the plant is being designed to get the Town to the end of phase one.
Mr. Roseland asked about the possibility of zones for future payment structures, stating that those who benefit the most should pay the most.
Mr. Coleman responded that there are regulations prohibiting differential rates throughout the Town. Mr. Henderson added that you can in general have different classes of customer, i.e., residential and commercial.
Mr. Fisher stated that staff is requesting direction from council to move forward with the preparation of the necessary documents to hold a general obligation bond referendum in May 2005 for the purposing of funding the project.
Mr. Joyce asked about Cary’s share of costs for the bond referendum. Ms. Mills responded that the referendum would cost $60 million and Cary’s share would be $38 million.
Mr. Joyce asked if the Town could save money by holding the referendum in November. Public Information Officer Susan Moran responded that November is the most expensive time to buy media coverage. She said that staff provides information for a comprehensive voting program so that people will understand the purpose of the referendum and it will be more difficult and costly to get media exposure in November. Also, Apex will present a referendum with Cary if it done in the spring.
Mayor McAlister asked about the revolving fund construction money. Ms. Mills said that with the state revolving loan the Town will not have to repay principal until the project is completed. However with the utility project the Town will be able to structure debt with the general obligation bonds and postpone payment.
Mrs. Robison asked about the likelihood of receiving the state revolving fund loan. Ms. Mills said it is a couple of years away and if the money is available it will be received over a period of several years.
Mayor McAlister asked about savings to the Town. Ms. Mills said she did not have the exact figure, but it is 50 percent of an interest number significantly cheaper than what the Town normally pays.
Ms. Dorrel asked about the implications on not moving forward with the project. Mr. Coleman responded that the state could put limitations on the Town drawing water out of Jordan Lake for violating the interbasin transfer certificate. If the Town continued to violate the permit, the plant could not be expanded and it would create problems with water capacity. He said that most of the Town’s growth area is in the west and northwest which flows to the Cape Fear River basin, after 2011 Town would not be able to serve growth with capacity because it wouldn’t be served by any plant, capacity to serve development in the western growth area would run out. He said that it would be tremendously expensive and the Town would still not be meeting the interbasin certificate requirements. Mr. Coleman stated that what Cary decides to do with the plant is critical to the future operation of Research Triangle Park, Morrisville, Apex and Holly Springs .
Mayor McAlister stated that meeting the interbasin requirement by 2011 is required to support growth that has already occurred.
Mr. Roseland asked about the Town meeting the permit regulations with what is currently being transferred between the basins. Mr. Coleman responded that staff has made that point to the state, and included it in the environmental documentation submitted. He said that even if the discharge to the cape fear entitlement is removed, there is a possibility that the Town would be unable to create the amount of capacity needed for future discharging somewhere else. Also, there is the question of whether the Town would be able to obtain a discharge permit and the cost of treating to the level of discharge might overwhelm the savings. He said that having the interbasin transfer requirements lifted would not necessarily benefit the Town because of the regulatory requirements for discharges into the Neuse River.
Mrs. Robinson asked if lifting the time line would have any value or costs savings to the Town. Ms. Goodwin replied that staff would have to look at the interim requirements with Durham County and at other interim capital improvements because the Town’s agreement to use the Durham facilities expires in 2011. She added that it would be very expensive to pursue.
Mrs. Robison asked whether staff has looked at the capacity for Cary and about the percentage allocated for the Research Triangle Park region. Ms. Goodwin said the capacity for Cary is about 3 million gallons out of the 16 million, and that RTP’s flows are currently just under 1 million gallons but they are projecting tripling that number. Mr. Coleman said it gives the Wake County portion of RTP the ability to grow to capacity because otherwise they would be limited in north Cary and would eventually have to be cut off.
Mayor McAlister said it is important to have a solid press release when informing citizens about the bond referendum. Ms. Moran said that state law prohibits Town resources being used to advocate the passage of the bonds. She stated that the Town will put out the facts about the issue on all sides.
Action: Mrs. Robinson made a motion to direct staff to prepare the necessary documents for a staff report to be presented at for January Council meeting for a general obligation bond referendum. Mrs. Robison provided the seconded.
Mr. Roseland stated that he does not agree the Town should be able to use cash for the capital project.
Action: Vote was called for on the motion Mr. Roseland voted “no.” All others voted “aye.” The motion carried by majority vote.
The work session ended at 6:29 p.m.

The News & Observer
February 3, 1999
Cary OKs 3 bond issues
Author: KYLE YORK SPENCER; STAFF WRITER
Edition: Final
Section: News
Page: A1
Index Terms:
Cary
bond
vote
result
water
park
Estimated printed pages: 4
Article Text:
CARY -- Dismissing last-minute attempts to defeat parts of Cary's $149 million bond package, town voters told officials Tuesday that they want more roads, parks and an upgraded water treatment plant - and that they're willing to pay for them.
The one item on the four-part ballot that voters rejected was a $10 million aquatic center, which was also defeated during a 1994 referendum.
Town officials - many of whom gathered at the Chamber of Commerce to celebrate Tuesday night - were elated with the results.
"I think people spoke out and that was what this referendum was for," Mayor Koka Booth said.
Town Councilman Glen Lang said the results did not surprise him. "The ones we expected to pass, passed, and now we've got to go with what the people say."
Of Cary's 57,590 registered voters, close to 13,000 - about 22 percent - came to the polls, exceeding town hall expectations. An estimated 15 percent of voters turned out for the last municipal election. About 14 percent turned out for Wake County's 1996 school bond referendum.
Voters approved the water bonds by a margin of 76 percent to 24 percent. The street bonds won by 59 percent to 41 percent, and the parks bonds passed by 69 percent to 31 percent. The aquatics center was rejected 47 percent to 53 percent.
With the results in, officials said they would move forward with the projects on the town's wish list. At the top of that list is road improvements, the first of which officials have said should begin next year.
Town officials had said that if all four bond issues passed, property taxes could rise 5 cents on $100 valuation by 2007 and utility rates could go up 14 percent by 2004.
Those figures did not bother voters such as Cindy Burns, a 31-year-old mortgage associate, interviewed outside the Cary community center. She said she had come to the polls to support projects that would make her life easier in a fast-growing town.
"I've got three kids and a big Lab, and we really don't have enough parks to play in," said Burns, who voted in favor of all four items.
Other voters, such as Olene Ogles, a retired administrative specialist, said they supported the package, despite worries that road improvements and upgrades to the water-treatment plant could spur more growth.
"There are roads we need so desperately," Ogles said. "But I did give a great deal of thought to the council and what they will do with the road money."
Those who voted down the aquatic center seemed to share the same sentiment. They said it was too pricey and simply not necessary.
The vote caps a bond referendum season that started slowly, then heated up when bond opponents began to question whether the municipal improvements were about catching up in an overcrowded town or really about making room for more growth.
In particular, strong opposition arose over the extension of Cary Parkway from North Harrison Avenue to Trinity Road. First, the Umstead Coalition came out against the extension, one of the 14 projects on the road bond plan. Then billionaire SAS Institute President Jim Goodnight, the town's biggest employer and the largest land owner in Wake County, announced that he was against the road bonds because he opposed the parkway extension.
In an e-mail to employees and in conversations with The News & Observer, Goodnight, who lives on 51 acres near the potential path of the extension, launched a campaign against the road bonds. He cited concern about the road's clipping the entrance of Cary Academy, the private school he founded.
He also contended, among other things, that the $9.3 million extension would worsen traffic - not make it better - and benefit primarily residents outside of Cary looking to access the State Fairgrounds or the Raleigh sports arena.
Goodnight declined to comment Tuesday on the results. On Monday, he sent an e-mail to SAS employees and to The N&O saying that if the extension went through, SAS could win big by developing 300 to 400 wooded acres around the proposed extension.
Other opponents of the road bonds -and of the parkway extension in particular - said Tuesday that they were disheartened by the news but that they will continue to fight the extension.
"I'm sorry the road has been funded," said Brian Hill, a former Raleigh finance director. "But I suppose there will be quite a bit of discussion before it goes into the final stages."
As for the folks who had worked to get the bonds approved, they spent Tuesday night celebrating at the Cary Chamber of Commerce.
"I'm very pleased. I'm very happy," said Steve Glass, who headed the pro-bond group Citizens For Cary.
Glass' group, a branch of the Cary Chamber of Commerce, raised more than $50,000 during a spirited pro-bond campaign that included a blitz of full-page newspaper ads and 1,000 signs along roads in town.
Now that the voters have spoken, Mayor Booth said he would begin today to look for the most cost-effective ways to spend the bond money.
"I hope we can maximize our dollars so we can give the people double what we promised," Booth said.
### WHAT THEY'RE SAYING: "I think people spoke out, and that was what this referendum was for."
Cary Mayor Koka Booth "I'm sorry (the Cary Parkway extension) has been funded. But I suppose there will be quite a bit of discussion before it goes into the final stages."
Brian Hill, a former Raleigh finance director ### water bonds YES 76% No 24% street and sidewalk bonds YES 59% No 41% park and recreation bonds YES 69% No 31% aquatic center bonds YES 47% No
Caption:
Goodnight Cary Mayor Koka Booth, left, cheers and Chamber of
Commerce employee C.C. Hipps watches as Steve Glass collects
early results from the polls. Bond supporters convened at the
Chamber of Commerce building Tuesday to await the outcome of the
vote.
Staff Photo By Chuck Liddy
c photo; file; c photo; c graphic; Bond vote; Grey Blackwell/Staff; graphic; Cary bond issues; Staff
Copyright 1999 by The News & Observer Pub. Co.
Record Number: 1999033098

01-20-2005, 11:47 AM

Some info on Lang, the wastewater plant of the future etc...

I don't remember Lang wanting to be "slow growth". He always said "I don't care how fast we grow as long as the infrastructure is in place." But when he ran for mayor there was such a difficiency in infrastructure that slow growth would have to be maintained in the near future.

On a mutual plant and water with neighbors... Two or three years ago Apex was in need of water and water treatment. It made sense for them to connect to Cary's. Jack Smith and myself met with two Apex Commissioners and basically said "if you want our water/sewer you will have to abide by our growth and environmental standards." That is, we weren't going to let them use up our capacity.

So, in summary... Lang really didn't care about the rate of growth but did care about the infrastructure. His actions reflected that. At the time we tried to use our existing infrastructure capacity to influence growth of neighboring munis. They refused (can't blame them). But if you look at what happened as a result (Apex will double in population in 5 to 10 years, Holly Springs is growing out of control) you will see the beginnings of the stress on the infrastructure that is present today (referring to the desperate need for the treatment plant). On the other hand, they are planning on building a treatment plant much larger than is need. As a matter of fact, Cary's Wastewater Master Plan has Cary's population more than doubling in the next 20 years. They note that a significant portion of that growth will be in the south. Get ready for the next boom Ron.

Anyway, just thought you might like a little history of behind the scenes.

BTW, I will be glad to share the documents that I have been trying to collect on the proposed bonds. The population projections are interesting and conflicting.

HW

Cathy

01-20-2005, 12:02 PM

Thanks Harold,

I always appreciate your perspective on these things.

The population projections are interesting and conflicting.

And probably grossly inaccurate no matter which number you choose.

Cathy

johnb

01-20-2005, 12:05 PM

Rono

01-20-2005, 12:46 PM

Thanks Harold for the feed back

I do understand the different “spins” on “slow growth” ”no growth” “ infrastructure growth” etc. Unfortunately, like it or not, Glen was labeled the “slow the growth” leader. As deceptive as the term “clean water bond” is to the referendum, so, was and is the history of Glen Lang. Glen was the king of growth…and some people got very rich because of it.

This of course had led to the current situations of massive infrastructure investment which is only necessary due to a political tax appetite (and dollar return to those who have profited) for high density growth (and the tax dollars they use as a credit card from it). If this growth mentality continues, within ten years there will be no more area to “grow” to and then the credit card limit will be to the max and super high taxes will be left to our children and grand children to pay for this massive debt that is piling up faster than a manure factory. Most people are not aware that by gaining revenue by annexation coupled with extreme over spending and increasing debt to do so will eventually result in much higher taxes and reduced services. Even now these chickens are beginning to come home to roost. Higher water fees, reduced capital improvement budgets, reduced road improvements. Next comes the reduced police and fire protection excuse to raise taxes…just watch…I will not be surprised if that is not used even this year as the noose gets tighter around the fiscal neck of Cary’ financial body. Government never goes on a diet Harold, and this hog is getting as fat as they come.

That is why I raise the point of the scoff at joint cooperation and a county wide water and sewer system. It would have made much more economical sense because it would be like the electric transmission system. When there is shortage in one place, there is supply in another…A steady system keeps steady prices and provides steady results. That is good long term planning…but unfortunately by Cary’s independence, it has ALREADY decided its residents must foot the bill. (REFERENDUM VOTE…NOT!) My letter was simply to inform these residents of that fact in a way that people should be able to understand. Why buy a palace when you only need a home and the voters are already committed to foot the bill so what is the purpose of the vote…The is no choice to do or not to do!

As to the past low density developments of wells and septic systems, when properly maintained, they can and do last a life time. It is often times the pressure of high density development surrounding the unsuspecting property owner and large lot developments that alters the eco system and helps induce failure of these systems. This too, is the fault of Cary in its king attitude of aggression. To tell people that systems fail without admitting this real fact is not truthful and only adds to the lack of trust people outside of Cary have. Please find this admission anywhere in the promotion of annexation and I will give you an extra star on your report. I personally don’t believe such admission of this truth exists in the urbanize rural America play books

Bottom line here is still greed and government which forces conformity to the pig farm mentality of herding the masses in high density locations. Unfortunately this is not just a local issue…but for more on that, talk to Cathy Heath! On the flip side, it is on the local level where this mentality must be and will be changed! When the taxes get too much to pay for, rest assured, people will have there say. And that time is coming more quickly they you may think!

Rono

StanN

01-20-2005, 01:17 PM

Stop Cary’s Champion Appeals to Cary Voters

Just what are Ron Thorenson’s gripes? (Growth costs Cary residents big bucks for wastewater, 1/20/05). Let’s review his grab-bag. He acknowledges the need to fund the new wastewater plant – so that’s not it. Clearly he doesn’t like growth – particularly high-density growth.

If there is one thing Cary has proven over the past few years it’s that a single municipality can do little to control regional growth. Growth is driven by the availability of jobs and regional demographic factors. Certainly his gripe would fall on deaf ears among the areas high-tech workers who are still struggling for well-paying, permanent jobs. Ditto for the small business owners in the community.

Clearly he doesn’t like the infra-structure costs associated with growth. But part of the answer to that are the mixed use sub-divisions in the Cary’s NW area that will account for much of Cary’s future growth and that minimize infrastructure costs. That’s part of the reason for increased wastewater capacity. Another approach is attracting high-valued residential growth at which Cary excels. Thorenson casually tosses aside studies showing such growth more than pays for itself in the long-run.

Thorensn doesn’t like high-density residential growth. Well if he really wants to see high infrastructure costs he should look at the costs associated with large lot, single use sprawl such as associated with the unincorporated area (UA) he champions. The costs are much higher per capita than the costs of well-planned, high-density development.

He readily points the finger at Cary, who at least has impact fees, while ignoring the unmanaged growth in the UA where Wake County government shuns any effort to pay for growth with impact fees and other growth management approaches. Could it be this is because his political maneuverings are supported by the pro-development Wake County Commissioners?

He bemoans the fact that Cary did not join the call for a countywide water and sewer system. Well Mr. Thorenson was living in Wisconsin at the time I was part of the discussion of this concept on the Wake County planning board. The concept never called for a centralized water supply from Raleigh’s Falls Lake plants. It always assumed the use of Jordan as well as Falls Lake. Returning the water we use to the Fear Basin was always a given.

Further, the countywide utility scheme was in fact promoted by developers who wanted to bring sewer lines into every nook and cranny of Wake County. If Wake ever ducked a disaster it was avoiding the uncontrolled, sprawled, high-density development throughout the county (sewers and high-density follow as day does from night) with minimal or non-existent impact fees.

Clearly Mr. Thorenson doesn’t like municipal annexation. That at least makes sense. If I was on the dole for years of municipality supported services in the UA the sudden shock of paying my fair share of services would get my goat too. But this is the least of his gripes.

Let me speculate a bit. As the reality of annexation draws closer, Mr. Thorenson is setting the stage for his emergence in Cary politics. What better voter base than the newly annexed citizens in the former UA. Mr. Thorenson’s appeal to a large swath of Cary’s voters may just be the opening barrage of a campaign for the Town Council this fall. Jack Smith versus Ron Thorenson would indeed be very interesting.

Stan Norwalk

Rono

01-20-2005, 01:36 PM

Stan NO-Walk wrote

Let me speculate a bit. As the reality of annexation draws closer, Mr. Thorenson is setting the stage for his emergence in Cary politics. What better voter base than the newly annexed citizens in the former UA. Mr. Thorenson’s appeal to a large swath of Cary’s voters may just be the opening barrage of a campaign for the Town Council this fall. Jack Smith versus Ron Thorenson would indeed be very interesting.

so Stan, as a fellow democrat, are you interested in being my campaign manager or would you be supporting Jack?

Just a simple question

Ron THORESON (no "N")

Rono

01-20-2005, 01:39 PM

and just for the record Stan...it takes 18 months for involuntary annexation to make me a involuntary candidate for office....but since you always proclaim to know the law and what is it's intent, I am surprised you formed such a speculative last paragraph for public consideration.

Rono

Rono

01-20-2005, 02:16 PM

So to be clear, it takes about 6 months to go through the notification, public hearing, and finalization of a vote for involuntary annexation. Then there is 60 days, according to current state statutes ,for court challanges to such action. (which will, I predict, be ruled not a valid states right and in violation of the Federal protection by way of the Soldiers and Sailors Civil Relief Act) Then, 10 months later, (1 year from the councils final vote to involuntary annex) the area becomes a part of the aggressive, against the will of the people community (in Stans speculative case Cary)

The NC league of Muni's playbook for involuntary annexation advises against involunarily annexing where it would cause areas to enter the community in the middle of a fiscal year. (ya...it's hell trying to pro rate them there taxes and would cost a heap to fight off all them there challanges ) so the involuntary annexation threat is therefore (in Cary's case) the greatest between November and December I believe Carys fiscal year ends June 30 so they are already too late to get us into Cary by 7/1 2006. (Not to mention that the annexation "plan" is not even completed) So Stan, if they really want us they will have to go against all the play book rules to get us real soon. (Of course that is nothing new to Cary...going against the rules, so in theory it could happen)

Bottom line is your continued guessing game as to Dutchman Downs involuntary annexation only falls on deaf ears to those of us who have had to study the law and history in order to know and understand somewhat to expect and how we might be taken against our will. Trust me Stan, if we are ever taken in, you will be the first to know of any political intentions I might have. For now, I just continue to try to protect and fight for my and my fellow StopCary citizens rights

As for now...it is our goal to educated your fellow citizens to the cost you socialists continue to want to ignore and have everyone in your town pay for.

Rono

Cathy

01-20-2005, 02:56 PM

Oh here we go.....the world according to Stan.

Smart Growth_ (high density) GOOOOD!
Sprawl (low density) BAAAD!!

Does anyone besides me see the blatant contradiction in these two paragraphs??

Well if he really wants to see high infrastructure costs he should look at the costs associated with large lot, single use sprawl such as associated with the unincorporated area (UA) he champions. The costs are much higher per capita than the costs of well-planned, high-density development.
And

Further, the countywide utility scheme was in fact promoted by developers who wanted to bring sewer lines into every nook and cranny of Wake County. If Wake ever ducked a disaster it was avoiding the uncontrolled, sprawled, high-density development throughout the county (sewers and high-density follow as day does from night)

The argument of your Smart Growth compadres, Stan, is that extending infrastructure (water/sewer, curb and guttered streets) out to new areas is more expensive than infill/redevelopment of existing urban areas.
I guess developers are insane because they seem to think 'greenfield' development is more profitable.
You can't honestly claim that "all development" outside urban areas is more expensive.
(Oh yeah, I forgot,_ you can say anything)

I guess consistency takes a back seat to defense of ideology.

And if those low density homes in the County have fewer children per acre, don't ask for subsidized trash and yard debris pick up, streetlights, water and sewer, duplication of police and fire by another governmental entity within an entity, city parks, art and art venues, events, dog parks, aquatic palaces, tennis courts, skateboard facilities, other "freebies" and on and on..., how can they be more costly to the taxpayer than the residents of cities who expect their tax dollars to buy these things and more?

And

Thorenson casually tosses aside studies showing such growth more than pays for itself in the long-run.
The "studies" showed that detached single family homes that cost $300,000 or more is what "pays for itself". High density multi-family Smart Growth housing does not pay for itself and along with limits on "sprawl" at the same time, it raises the cost of housing for everyone, effectively shutting many first time home buyers out of participating in the American Dream.

Rono

01-20-2005, 02:59 PM

HW wrote

BTW, I will be glad to share the documents that I have been trying to collect on the proposed bonds. The population projections are interesting and conflicting.

Sounds good....lets do coffee soon and review them.

Ron

dhyatt

01-20-2005, 03:13 PM

Mr. Roseland asked about the possibility of zones for future payment structures, stating that those who benefit the most should pay the most.

The above question from Mr? Roseland is one the more incredulous things I've heard over the years. In case you missed it, what he was trying to advocate was that because District A & D residents live closer to the proposed new plant, they somehow benefit more and should therefore pay more. New development in District 'B' would of course be off limits to any higher fees because they are well east of Hwy 55 and therefor wouldn't be using the 'new' plant. I can't believe no one else picked up on this. I would have expected Jennifer to go ballistic! I think District 'B' residents should be charged a special 'global warming' tax for all the hot air their representative spits out.

Cathy

01-20-2005, 03:19 PM

I did pick up on that Don, but it was one of those statements that are so incredible that you want to reserve judgement until you get further clarification of what the person was trying to say.

And I think the others were so caught up in the tension of the long agenda and controversial subjects that they just let it slide.

If Jennifer hadn't been smack dab in the middle of trying to get some pork for her district, she may have reacted as you say.

dhyatt

01-20-2005, 03:21 PM

[snip]

If Jennifer hadn't been smack dab in the middle of trying to get some pork for her district, she may have reacted as you say.

Good point!

01-20-2005, 03:22 PM

Harold,

What are the basic assumptions on population growth in Cary over the next 10-20 years? You said "in the south"...is that primarily taking us towards Holly Springs where it seems we'd have annexation race with them or more towards the west past Apex?

I have been receiving information from the town staff regarding the wastewater bond and how it relates to population. One study was completed February 2003 by consultants Hazen and Sawyer. In the characteristics discussion about Cary it says "The town staff anticipates that future growth and development in the Cary service area will be predominantly to the west and south. Cary has stated they plan to expand farther south than indicated by their USA."

In that same document there are population estimates from the Planning Department and the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan. The planning department show Cary's population at 167,214 in 2018 while the WCSMP show it at 198,560. The staff's explanation for that is: "they use equivalents for non-residential". Which means a particular office building might equate to 20 homes. But that doesn't make sense because both show the exact population for 2003. When questioned about the equivalent population in 2003 but the large differences in the future the response was "I am afraid that I can't help you with this question." This is disturbing especially since the WCSMP shows a population of 246,150 in 2025. That would mean Cary would more than double in 20 years. IMHO, the comments in the discussion section along with the projections mean there would be extensive growth in the south since the west has already been planned and approved to some extent.

HW

johnb

01-20-2005, 03:47 PM

If Jennifer hadn't been smack dab in the middle of trying to get some pork for her district, she may have reacted as you say.

Then again, it might be that she just isn't bright enough to have understood what Shoeboy said.

dhyatt

01-20-2005, 04:04 PM

Wuptdo

01-20-2005, 04:05 PM

dhyatt

01-20-2005, 04:40 PM

johnb

01-20-2005, 04:56 PM

But Don, it'll "pay for itself".

Brent

01-20-2005, 08:50 PM

I think all district residents should be assessed special fees based on the silly ideas, dumb statements, pork projects and wasteful spending of their own district representatives, to wit:

District A: Special Jennifer's Library and Jennifer's Bridge assessment
District B: Smoking Ban tax and Sewer Stink Privilege Fee
District C: Public Hearing Speaking tax, Neon Sign special use fee
District D: Kids Together assessment, Twinkle Lights tax

We're already all paying for the at-large special assessments, such as the mayor's aquatics palace, town hall palace and lighted-pipe art.

Wait, never mind, I withdraw the suggestion...we could NEVER afford this!

StanN

01-20-2005, 09:16 PM

Ron,

When it comes to annexation law I would never doubt your expertise. Jack has probably done his homework, otherwise he's just made a huge sigh of relief. Of course you could move into an apartment in Cary...it's been done before by at tleast two county commissioners.

As to whom I will support...who knows...I don't even know who's running.
One test will be there position on annexation.

stan

johnb

01-21-2005, 09:54 AM

You're doing this wrong Stan.

To matter you have to be a one issue voter who has garnered a large group of other one issue voters who agree with you. You then go, pitchforks in hand, to the city council demanding money. Wait, that's just if you want to loot the public treasury.

Never mind.

StanN

01-21-2005, 12:10 PM

Don Hyatt says:

Which raises the question that has been raised before - "Exactly how big do we want Cary to be?"

I suggest there is no "right" answer because its the wrong question.

Does it really matter if the growth is in Cary, Apex, Morrissville, etc. ? If we limit growth in Cary just to accelerate it in Apex, what have we accomplished? The schools are going to have just as many students. The roads are going to have the same number of vehicles regardless of where it is located.

Doubling population in 20 years inplies an annual growth of 3% - a tolerable rate. I suggest the question is more the quality of growth than its quantity. Is infrastructure going to keep up with growth. Is the growth going to be located in areas that minimize vehicle miles travelled (infill and mixed use developments) in order to minimize pollution and energy consumption as well as investment in infrastruture? Will it be quality growth, i.e. with open space, parks, greenways? Will well paying jobs be nearby in order to minimize commuting time and infrastructure costs while providing the means for a high QOL? Will there be a committment to quality education rather than endless expenditures for corporate welfare (e.g. the Raleigh Convention Center)? Will the rate of growth be managed so that it isn't 10%-15% in one year and close to zero two years later? Will the tax structure be equitable so that those who benefit from growth help pay for it and so that those who use and benefit from added infrastructure (e.g. local roads) help bear the cost? Will growth consist of one strip mall after another or will we develop communities with character and and a sense of place? Will growth be accomplished while protecting our natural resources including clean air and clean water? What are the natural limits to regional growth, e.g. potable water supply, and are their steps to be taken now to preserve the most limited resources?

Those are among the questions on which we need to be focused rather than setting goals for the population 20 years out.

Stan

johnb

01-21-2005, 12:18 PM

I suggest there is no "right" answer because its the wrong question.

Does it really matter if the growth is in Cary, Apex, Morrissville, etc. ? If we limit growth in Cary just to accelerate it in Apex, what have we accomplished? The schools are going to have just as many students. The roads are going to have the same number of vehicles regardless of where it is located.

Doubling population in 20 years inplies an annual growth of 3% - a tolerable rate. I suggest the question is more the quality of growth than its quantity.

It's amazing how you can be so right on this point yet remain so very wrong on almost everything else.

As a side bar, there is something I just don't understand about this.

Why does Morrisville even exist as a standalone entity at this late date? Has anyone seriously brought up the topic of munincipal consolidation between Cary and Morrisville? It makes so little sense for two independent, yet intertwined munincipalities with the political geography/borders we have.

Wuptdo

01-21-2005, 01:13 PM

JohnB - both Brent and I have brought up the idea of combining with Morrisville. It would be a win-win for all, especially given Morrisville's tax base. I would have no problem with combining with Morrisville. We offer their retailors a "grandfathered" clause to keep their twinkle lights. :D

The Town of Mary?
The Town of Caryville?
or a completely new name?

However, I think the M/I and Pulte homes would probably have a problem with this.

Celebrate Mary ?

Wuptdo B-)

dhyatt

01-21-2005, 01:48 PM

Don Hyatt says:

Which raises the question that has been raised before - "Exactly how big do we want Cary to be?"

[snip]

Those are among the questions on which we need to be focused rather than setting goals for the population 20 years out.

Stan

Stan,
I respectfully disagree. Although Cary's size in and of itself is of limited relevance, every municipality should be asking themselves that question. In fact, they probably all do. That's why planners exist. Even the WCPSS has long range projections. Like it or not, sooner or later Cary won't be able to grow 'out' anymore (or sprawl as some like to say). Neither will Morrisville, Apex, Holly Springs or Raleigh. You seem to think that whether Cary grows to 200,000 or Apex does, there's no real difference. I say there is because I live in Cary, not Apex. Not to pick on Apex but you get my point.

There is only so much land to build on and I'm very interested in seeing that it all not be stuffed with town homes, condos, & apts. We do have some control over density. That control translates into a population threshold, like it or not. How high we allow that threshold to be has a direct bearing on quality of life. All of which leads us back to the Western Wake Wastewater treament plant. Will it be built to provide capacity and emergency reserve - or will it be built strictly to provide capacity? The same holds true for roads, water, parks - and schools...

Rono

01-21-2005, 02:53 PM

Donh wrote

All of which leads us back to the Western Wake Wastewater treament plant. Will it be built to provide capacity and emergency reserve - or will it be built strictly to provide capacity? The same holds true for roads, water, parks - and schools...

Excellent point Don…and there is another factor that no one seems to be addressing. It is a four letter word that say’s it all. J-O-B-S! The explosion of growth in the 90’s information age deflated very quickly when there was not much tangible goods to support highly over inflated value. Growth is directly proportional jobs, not the other way around. While the medical and pharmaceutical industries are certainly a stronghold here…what other jobs are going to pay for growth, if it is invested in before it arrives.

The money crazed planners and politicians here have not lived through 38% unemployment like I have and are spending like it is a field of dreams. The global economy has taken what was one the south’s stronghold in cheap labor, and tech support for more the advanced educated middle class is being done in India and around the globe.

The big question should be….where are the jobs that justify the growth expenditures? With only 70% occupancy of commercial space around the triangle and less than 80% occupancy of apartment complexes, I have been around investment arenas long enough to see these issues as red flags.

The big question therefore is…what magic wand in the Dell Computer like governmental subsidies is going to pay this carrot investment in the North Carolina job attraction game. This is tax dollars just like the property tax rise I predict in Cary. Who’s going to foot this additional cost? The taxpayers, of course

Growth people don’t want to examine this question so when I say it going to cost big bucks, I challenge others to answer the field of dreams questions and the cost surrounding them as well.

Rono

Laurie

01-21-2005, 05:07 PM

Wastewater bond. Who will pay "in the end"? I get it.

Cathy

01-21-2005, 06:00 PM

="johnb
As a side bar, there is something I just don't understand about this.

Why does Morrisville even exist as a standalone entity at this late date? Has anyone seriously brought up the topic of munincipal consolidation between Cary and Morrisville? It makes so little sense for two independent, yet intertwined munincipalities with the political geography/borders we have.
I can't believe that you af all people would think that this is a good idea!

If you think that it is difficult for citizens to have any effective influence on a smaller local governmental unit like Cary was/is today, what do you think it's going to be like when there is one regional entity for many, many more citizens to try and appeal to????? 8-O

And DonH_ Your imminently reasonable assessment of reality is right on.
It makes too much sense though, and therefore will be near impossible for anyone that could impact the situation to accept.

All the "little people" would be much better off if we keep the fragmented situation of having many smaller units of government that WILL NOT ceed power and control to another layer of over-arching governance.

What has always made the market better for consumer??

CHOICES

johnb

01-21-2005, 06:37 PM

Looking at the map of Wake County our borders are twisted and turned back on themselves. I'd hate to see what a map of the two cities water/sewer lines look like.

Morrisville isn't going to grow much because it'll be surrounded by Cary soon. As for smaller units of governmnet. I think we have to much govenrmnet as it is. On election day who the hell knows what the people running for Soil and Water Conservation Board stand for? Clean water? Maybe.

I'm actually not against eliminating elected positions to some degree. Like the Council of State offices. Make them appointed and let the governor select the maggots to fill them. We know nothing of what these people really stand for and believe and all that clutter encourages people to not bother.

Combining Morrisville and Cary wouldn't change anything with respect to our city council. They'd still be the same scoundrels they are now. Jack could bamboozle the rubes in Morrisville the same way he bamboozles the rubes in Cary. :wink:

StanN

01-21-2005, 09:19 PM

Don,

I don't believe we disagree all that much. If you take the quality factors I noted in my previous post and convert them into a comprehensive land use plan the result will be a population estimate for the urban service area defined. The only thing lacking would be some guidelines on rate of growth.

It is true that Cary could redifine its USA and thus the population could excede that in the first estimate. Of course conflicts with other USA's would limit that. But if the same guiding factors were used...so what?

The debate should be around the specifics of the guiding factors or principals rather than setting growth targets or using standard extrapolations of the existing population that are likely to be wrong.

As long as the process of growth is managed and we recognize our limitations in changing the entire regional market I'm OK with whatever number results.

stan

StanN

01-21-2005, 09:46 PM

Ron,

I agreee with your post on jobs. Now that I have been "black-balled" off the EDC I feel a lot more freedom about expressing my thoughts on the issue. I have spent a lot of time and a lot of effort over the last two years researching what Cary should do. Almost 10 years in SCORE and decades in business add to those thoughts.

Basically, Cary is not competitive in its efforts with other muni's in the Triangle or the state. Ego's, self-interest and conflicts withing the CTC have blocked action over the past four years and its time for the public to hear the story in more detail. I will do so shortly once I have organized my thoughts.

All I will say now is that Cary has more potential to create quality jobs than I thought at the start of my efforts and that most people realize. Its time that the policy makers get over their differences and hang-ups and get to work.

As in other areas, I am opinionated and biased as hell but if the CTC member who black-balled me thinks that will tune me out - he is wrong. I have sweated the details on this topic and can back-up my opinions with facts. There is plenty of room for differences of opinion but there is little room for the ineptness and foot-dragging of the last four years.

More later.

Stan

Anonymous

01-21-2005, 11:04 PM

Looks like the local policy wonks have been mudslinging, again. :D

However, I do like Nels idea of taxing districts for "special" projects that benefit that district. I think I read something on CP to the same effect. :wink:

Wuptdo B-)

Who the hell will benefit from this $110M boondoggle? Not current residents, there is more than adequate capacity to keep their tiolets flushing. Yet current residents can open their wallets and pass along another $22 a month to subsidize the appetite of the sprawl beast. those who do not benefit are the ones who pay.. Frickin morons.

StanN

01-22-2005, 10:43 AM

from the 1/19 Independent:

The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to allow municipal wastewater treatment plants to bypass a key phase in the treatment process that rids wastewater of parasites, viruses and other disease pathogens. Known as "sewage blending," such bypasses are currently banned by state law, as well as the federal Clean Water Act, except in extreme circumstances. Supporters say the change is needed because many treatment plants can't handle current wastewater volumes in wet weather and must therefore dump raw sewage directly into rivers and streams. They also argue that many plants are already blending, the law be damned. They're probably right--a Greensboro water and sewer official, for example, recently told The News & Observer that "we've been doing this for years."

Critics say that blending poses a public health hazard, and that the solution is to repair and upgrade plants, not weaken the regulations. Raleigh, which is spending about $35 million to upgrade its plant and has the capacity to avoid blending, has joined the state in opposing the EPA change. Perhaps not surprisingly, Greensboro favors it, as does Durham, which has an aging sewage infrastructure in need of repair. So, alas, does the town of Cary, whose utilities director, Robert Bonne, wrote a letter to the EPA to that effect.

Cary Mayor Ernie McAlister says Bonne was simply expressing his professional views on the technical merits, and that the town is absolutely committed to preserving and protecting water quality in Wake County. The EPA, he says, would not likely confuse the opinion of the plant operator with the town's official imprimatur. Bonne's letter, however, makes no such distinctions: "The Town of Cary, North Carolina, generally supports the EPA Blending Policy," he wrote.

Butner and blending are but two of the unresolved issues that could affect Falls Lake. The Home Builders Association of Raleigh-Wake County has been furiously lobbying the county to relax its limit of 15 percent impervious surfaces for residential construction; to appease them, the county has formed a work group to study stormwater policy. Last year, the state Commerce Department exempted Merck from an environmental study requirement before starting construction of a vaccine plant in Treyburn even though the company had no firm plan for the 150,000 gallons of wastewater the plant would produce each day. We trust Merck to build a nice, clean plant, commerce officials said. And who wouldn't trust Merck, makers of Vioxx, with its history of environmental problems at other plants?

At least the Wake County Commissioners had the presence of mind last November to heed citizen input and reject a new ABC store in the Falls Lake watershed--against the recommendation of the shortsighted county planning board.

Each effort to weaken the rules that protect the watershed is treated by its boosters as though it exists in a vacuum. DHHS Secretary Odom pushes the Butner plant expansion without considering the blending rule change, which is disconnected to the Home Builders' plans, which has nothing to do with Merck. But Falls Lake absorbs every incremental degradation, and the cumulative effects are far more troublesome than the hazards of one proposal or another. Wake County residents understand this every time they turn on the tap, even if politicians don't.
__________________________________________________ ____

Ernie's comment is of the "trust me" genre. Far better would be a statement of policy by the CTC as to under what conditions blending will be allowed. I doubt that the right answer is "under no conditions". (A comparable mandate would be that Cary should have zero incidents of crime. Think of the cost and consequences.) I futher doubt Indy's allegation that Raleigh has the capacity to avoid blending under any circumstances. Bonnie's letter ought to be made public with a full explanation.

More serious than this tempest in a teapot would be the relaxation of the 15% impervious surface ruling. Those of you concerned about density and the environment should track this one and oppose any change. The WHMBA has tremendous clout with the WCC's. Wide stream buffers, open space and retention ponds for run-off are important to controlling non-point source pollution as well as avoiding the wall-to-wall development that concerns Admiral Don. The WCC's, despite the ABC store ruling, have a lousy environmental record when the public isn't watching or doesn't understand the issues.

Also note that Cary's requirements for wide stream buffers preserve a lot of open space. A map of all the streams in our area would suprise many of you as to their pervasiveness. There have been rumblings from inside the planning dept to relax these ordinances. BEWARE. This would have greater ramifications than blending in a 20 year storm. You should also understand that the eprhemeral streams, those that don't run in dry weather, are more serious contributors to pollution than the larger, more obvious streams.

The fact that the EPA is backsliding under the Bush administration is not an automatic license for Cary to do the same.

stan

Wuptdo

01-22-2005, 11:25 AM

Guest (Who is so brave & wise):

My idea was for the smaller, "specialized" pet/pork projects the CTC likes to put forth. Before you get your panties all up in a wad, why don't we talk about the $230-300 million that was all are going to shell out for Raleigh's Convention Center/Hotel Complex -- that will fail (FYI - not corporate welfare - only individual land owners in dowtown benefit). Or how about $300-500 million that we will get to pay for the TTA Choo-choo train that doesn't even go to the right places. No this whole area is nothing but pork projects designed to rape the taxpayers and make a few people very rich.

In my view, we (the serfs) will never know who is really running things. Some policitians are truly elected by the serfs, but that is only allowed to happen for apleasement of the masses. Can't have the serfs revolting can we! However, most other politicians are much like condoms, the are sent to office for a protection of the ruling class (serving their masters) or a special project (something expensive and specialized). Currently the biggest condom in Wake County is Raleigh's Mayor Meeker. He exist for one purpose only - to get the convention/hotel complex built. Everything else he does is window dressing. Twenty years from now, Meeker and other Wake County condoms we be hanging out at million dollars homes on Figure Eight Isle laughing about how much the taxpayers have to paying every year to maintain the Convenion Center, TTA Train, and a billion dollar waterworks that doesn't work. You can macro or micro Wup's theory of government, but I believe the model works and has been working since reconstruciton.

The Ruling Class always thinks long (into the future). Follow the money is the key to any government project.

Wuptdo B-)

Brent

01-23-2005, 10:04 AM

I futher doubt Indy's allegation that Raleigh has the capacity to avoid blending under any circumstances.

Why? If Raleigh is claiming to be able to avoid "blending" (what a HORRIBLE term, by the way!), why wouldn't we investigate what they've done and see if we want to copy it? Don't you find it at all odd that those municipalities that have built appropropriate capacity to avoid "blending" are blowing the whistle on what a bad environmental policy it would be, whereas those that don't want to spend the money on sewer capacity are saying that "blending" promotes strong bodies and healthy bones and will improve your mileage by 10% or your money back. :roll:

Bonnie's letter ought to be made public with a full explanation.

If the letter truly states "Town of Cary" position, then it must be a public document that should be free for the asking.

StanN

01-23-2005, 11:26 AM

Brent,

At the staff level I doubt there is a need for research. Staff knows whats going on at Raleigh.

I believe blending ought to be a rare occurance, avoided under all but rare circumstances. I am assuming, that like virtually all absolutes, zero blending implies a cost that I doubt we want to bear. Does IBM achieve zero defects in its computer programs? The impression that the Indy got from Raleigh likely was to an imprecisely worded question. As an (ancient) Chemical engineer who has toured Cary's wastewater plant, I doubt that zero blending is an achievable goal within rational economic limits. All technology advances offer some degree of risk. It just seems to me that before anyone starts deemanding zero defects in any town service, they ought to understand the costs and trade-offs.

There are any number of ways of avoiding nutrient overload in our rivers and streams. They all entail a public or private cost. (As noted above the development community is constantly looking to minimize their share of the cost.) And I doubt, as another example, that a mandated retrofitting of all commodes above a certain age to low flow designs, would be well accepted by the public.

I don't believe there is infinite political tolerance to increases in utility costs or taxes. Public pressure for risk reduction in one area, carried to irrational extremes, (asbestos removal is a good example), simply uses public funds in relatively ineffective ways.

Here is a reference that you can read in under 10 minutes that gives both sides of the blending issue. http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/04may/RL32384.pdf

Your opinion after reading it would be interesting. One of the things I would like to know is if blending, as applied to Cary's plants, avoids the disinfection step. That would be a big influence as to where i would finally come dwn on the issue.

stan

Cathy

01-23-2005, 12:43 PM

http://www.riverlaw.us/images/435_sign_aminal_waste.jpg
One of many different kinds of signs posted throughout the Neuse estuary warning people of the consequences of coming in contact with the water.

Bridgeton moves ahead with project$116,000 grant on way for wastewater plans
January 14,2004
Sandy Wall
Sun Journal Staff

BRIDGETON -- With grant money on the way, town leaders here are moving forward with plans to develop a land-application wastewater treatment system.

At a planning workshop Monday, a consultant told Bridgeton commissioners that a $116,000 state grant approved for the town by the N.C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund in November would pay for engineering work and initial land acquisition for the project.

Once that begins, Bridgeton will be in a position to reapply for additional state grants from the trust fund and the N.C. Rural Center to finance construction of the system, the consultant said.

"That's good news," said Commissioner Charles Freeman.

The proposed wastewater treatment system was one of several issues commissioners discussed at Monday's two-hour planning session. The board took no action at the meeting, which was designed to give members a chance to casually discuss issues facing the riverside town.

The pending upgrade to Bridgeton's wastewater treatment system took up much of the session. The town plans to develop a system where treated wastewater would be used to irrigate a yet-to-be-purchased tract adjacent to the town sewer plant, rather than being piped into the Neuse River.

The system would not spray the odorless wastewater on the tract. Instead, it would be "dribbled" onto the acreage by a system of pipes. Fast-growing grasses or trees would be planted on the property to feed off the water.

The town already has an option on the 443.2-acre tract, but would only need about 25 to 30 acres for its system, officials say. The town's existing discharge pipe in the river would be removed.

Angie Mettlen, a consultant with the engineering firm Hobbs Upchurch and Associates, told commissioners Monday that the soils at the site will accommodate the system.

She also told the board it could expect to receive documents relating to the $116,000 state grant soon, and she said her company would be drawing up a contract for its design services.

Planning work and engineering then could begin, as could the process of buying the acreage necessary for the project, Mettlen told commissioners. After that, Bridgeton could then apply for the additional grant funds to pay for construction of the system.

Cathy

01-23-2005, 01:37 PM

Here is a reference that you can read in under 10 minutes that gives both sides of the blending issue. http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/04may/RL32384.pdf

Your opinion after reading it would be interesting.
stan
I find this quote from the document 'interesting' to say the least;

"Proponents of blending argue that, if blending is restricted, municipalities are forced to spend public resources to build structures with limited public benefit, because of their infrequent use during occasional storm events."

It would be nice if the politico's would apply this frugal attitude to the right things.
Apply it to the 'need' to build pretty bridge facades, freaky modern art for Town Hall, an Aquatic Palace money pit, Convention Centers, Commuter Rail, etc., instead of to the need to do the utmost possible to keep the rivers protected from human waste pollution.

We could even dedicate the facility to a political hero!

"The (insert politician's name here) Emergency Backup Wastewater Treatment Facility"
Hmmmm...I guess that doesn't quite have the right 'sex appeal'...

Cathy

Wuptdo

01-23-2005, 03:16 PM

dhyatt

01-23-2005, 04:25 PM

Ok, lots of good info on this thread. However, the question is that are you (individual CP members) going to support the bond issue or be against it.

I'm on the fence myself, due to being focused on "other" projects at the moment.

###

Special Note: Please everyone, keep an eye out or nose to the ground about the "pool palace." I think it is going to re-appear again very soon! Of course, if they can figure a way for the parents & kids of the Cary Swim Club to swim in the new wastewater treatment plant then.......:roll:

Wuptdo B-)

No indecisiveness here. I'll vote against it unless Cary makes it clear that blending is not an option. They (we) must legislate that the plant will be built with sufficient capacity to handle a 10 year storm and that future building permits will not allowed if they exceed the plant's capacity + reserve. IMO - not too much to ask...

StanN

01-23-2005, 08:40 PM

Don,

As you well know, the only pertinent question on the ballot re wastewater is how we want to pay for the plant. Since I believe a long term bond backed by the full faith and credit of Cary (or the revenues from the utility) are the lowest cosr and best way to pay for that plant, I am inclined to l vote "yes".

Having said that, I believe the way the publicity regarding the wastewater utility has been handled, is poor - at least so far. The CTC's approach to handling poor publicity like this is generally to ignore it. Thats a reflection on the CTC, particularly the governing majority. That wont be my make or break issue as to whom I will vote for in the next election - but it is a factor.

Cary has a lot to be proud of regarding its environmental stewardship, particularly its efforts to keep nutrient contamination of our watersheds low. Over the years, my understanding is that Cary has contributed far less to such contamination than any muni in the area. If that case can be supported it should be made. Whatever design parameters are chosen for the next plant they should be made clear to the publifc and the rationale justified.

I have a great deal of confidence in our staff, including Kim Fisher and Rob Bonnie. Whatever case they would make I am inclined to support as I believe their track record is unparalleled and their expertise in this area far excedes mine or, for that matter, that of anyone on this board. If they are allowed to make the case I very likely would support it.

On the other hand, if they do not make the case, my assumption would be that our political leaders have had too much influence on this issue and would vote accordingly.

Since we are the lead agency for a partnership we should notify and involve our partners in the decision so that they are in a position to support it.

stan

Brent

01-24-2005, 08:08 AM

Stan, I'm not suggesting that the treatment plant be built with capacity to ensure no release of untreated/partially treated sewage in all imaginable cases; I agree that that would be unrealistic.

However, if Raleigh is saying that they're in pretty good shape, and everyone else is saying that they welcome new rules that are more lax (meaning that they're not in good shape), then why wouldn't we (Cary) have a look at what Raleigh has done? Especially before coming out and saying that we support the new, more lax rules?

StanN

01-24-2005, 06:19 PM

Brent,

I have a deep suspicion of the presses ability to get technology stories right. In my former life in marketing, I can recall several instances where we distributed detailed press releases re our technology - and they still got it wrong.

I don't "know" what Raleigh is doing vis-a-vis Cary. When I hear the story direct from Cary staff I will believe I'll know more.

Stan

Brent

01-24-2005, 09:08 PM

Brent,

I have a deep suspicion of the presses ability to get technology stories right. In my former life in marketing, I can recall several instances where we distributed detailed press releases re our technology - and they still got it wrong.

I completely agree. The media has a knack for getting technical information all wrong.

I don't "know" what Raleigh is doing vis-a-vis Cary. When I hear the story direct from Cary staff I will believe I'll know more.

Stan

O.K., but even though the media has a poor track record, I would want independent confirmation of the information I get from Cary Staff.

dhyatt

01-24-2005, 11:02 PM

Does anyone know if the inter-basin transfer agreement was awarded to Cary and Apex or just to Cary?

StanN

01-25-2005, 09:23 AM

Don,

Syd Miller of TJCOG knows the answer.

Sydney Miller, Water Resources Program Manager
smiller@tjcog.org
Phone: 919.558.9392 FAX: 919.549.9390

stan

StanN

01-25-2005, 09:29 AM

ftp://ftp.tjcog.org/pub/webftp/w&sr04.pdf

Note combined, in-city water/sewer rates.

stan

washere

02-08-2005, 02:33 PM

Did anybody notice this???

http://townofcary.org/bonds05/

To continue preserving and protecting our natural resources and to ensure that infrastructure to serve our future is in place when it’s needed, the Town Council is preparing for a May 3, 2005 bond referendum. Cary citizens will be asked whether they support using general obligation bonds as the funding option for new, regional wastewater facilities and open space preservation.

Clean Water Bonds for Wastewater Facilities - $110 million

Purpose: To fund Cary’s share of costs for a regional wastewater treatment facilities that must be built by 2011 to meet a state regulatory requirement and to meet Cary’s wastewater capacity needs through 2020.

Cary draws drinking water from Jordan Lake and discharges treated wastewater into creeks that feed the Neuse River. Cary, along with jurisdictions in Western Wake County, must begin returning wastewater to the Cape Fear River basin by 2011. By this time, many of the partners in the regional wastewater project will also have capacity needs that will be met by the new facilities.

The Town of Apex is also considering a Clean Water Bonds referendum on May 3, 2005 for its portion of the costs for the regional wastewater facilities.

Clean Water Bonds for Open Space - $10 million

Purpose: To continue Cary’s commitment to preservation as outlined in the Town’s Open Space and Historic Resources Plan

Preservation of finite natural resources is a top priority for the Town of Cary. In particular, open space protects our water supply, lessens flood hazards, promotes diversity of plants and wildlife, and preserves an interconnected system of natural resources.

In fiscal year 2002, the Town Council approved spending $11.2 million for open space preservation within Cary's planning jurisdiction - an unprecedented proposal for a local government in North Carolina. Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the council approved setting aside $1 million annually
from utility rate revenues to support open space acquisition.

Advantages of Funding Projects with General Obligation Bonds

General obligation bonds are the fastest, cheapest available option to pay for projects such as wastewater treatment facilities.

Bonds for the wastewater facilities would be repaid through utility rates – an estimated $22 per month for an average household by 2012 for 25 years and about $3 per month per 1,000 gallons of water used by 2012 for non-residential customers. Open space bonds would be repaid over 20 years, either with up to 1 additional cent on the property tax rate or by using the existing $1 million annual appropriation from utility rates.

If voters say no to the wastewater bonds, the Town will be forced to pay higher interest rates to borrow the money using a different financing option. That could cause utility rates to rise even more than they would if general obligation bond funding is approved.

Read more about financing projects with general obligation bonds.

Laurie

02-10-2005, 03:58 PM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 10, 2005

COMMENT ON THE RECORD ABOUT
CLEAN WATER BOND REFERENDUM

Cary citizens are invited to share their thoughts about the Town of Cary’s May 3rd bond referendum
at a formal public hearing before the Town Council at its regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday,
March 10th. The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and is being held in the temporary Council Chambers in
the Herb Young Community Center on the corner of North Academy Street and Wilkinson Avenue in
downtown Cary. Call (919) 469-4007 or see Bond Referendum 2005 at www.townofcary.org for more
information.

PRIMARY CONTACTS: Susan Moran, Public Information Officer, (919) 460-4951

StanN

02-11-2005, 11:03 AM

Who will pay? It depends. If Cary creates an effective economic development program that helps grow the number of high-paying jobs and the tax base there will be no need for additional taxes or fees. In fact the new wastewater plant could be an asset in attracting new employers to Cary's northwest area.

This part of Cary is relatively close to the Duke and UNC medical centers, the hot bed for research in the fast growing biotech/pharma industry. Many of the start-up companies in biotech/pharma are staffed with university personnel who shuttle between their university labs and their start-up labs. The NWA is also close to RTP and the 150 IT companies already located in Cary. This is another plus as computer technology is playing an increasingly important role in biotech and pharma. These start-up companies will require a modern wastewater plant with sufficient capacity to deal with their needs.

The tax base would be further increased by new employees buying homes in the NWA, much as many of SAS's 4,000+ employees have settled in Cary. Further benefits would come from the expenditures of these employees at local retailers. Also note that Cary's share of sales tax revenues is based on population. If Cary grows more slowly than surrounding Wake County towns it gets a smaller piece of the pie.

The above is just one of a number of creative, forward looking strategies that could emerge from the CTC if it was fully and freely considering an economic development program.

In contrast, consider Cary's Chamber of Commerce proposals for economic development: downtown redevelopment, a new arts and entertainment center, new sports venues. Such expenditures would help the Chamber's members but would they help Cary's highly trained and under-employed workforce? Would such proposals attract high paying jobs? Create a demand for upscale homes? Increase the tax base? Obtain a return on the tens of millions of $'s WE have already invested in the NWA?

Ask yourself why Chamber members and staff are lobbying so hard behind the scenes to control the economic development proposals that are being considered by the CTC. Ask your contacts on the CTC if they are having their arms twisted to vote in favor of proposals the Chamber supports. Ask yourself why the Chamber is so alarmed at the thought of a economic development director on Cary's staff - beyond their direct control (who would focus on strategies such as proposed above).

Who will pay for the new wastewater plant (and new road improvements)? IT DEPENDS!
The critical decisions are being made today behind the scenes without your input.

stan

washere

02-11-2005, 11:11 AM

You know what really pisses me off about this?

The TOC answers the question of what will happen if the bond is voted down. They state that it will simply cost the TOC more as they will have to borrow money at a higher rate of interest than the bonds would yield.

Never once do they mention curbing other spending to compensate for this larger expenditure. :evil:

Don

02-11-2005, 02:48 PM