The Downtown Development Initiative is a steamroller (in more ways then one). Check out this summary of comments from Nov. 20th’s public hearing. A little light and less nuanced than the opposition comments I recall. Good thing there’s a video record on-line.

So why introduce the following bias?

Potential Advantages of the Project

-Mixed use adds life to downtown
-Residents downtown year-round desirable
-Will stimulate other private development
-Residential development is the key to revitalization
-Will visit cultural facilities, businesses, increase tourist dollars
-Need diversity of pubic spaces and flexibility for uses
-Proposal could be a model for other developers
-Project embodies sustainability principles: economic, environmental, social
-Improves quality of life
-Reduces dependence on automobile
-Improves ability to work where live
-Helps prevent sprawl and retain rural buffer
-Removes surface parking
-Provides significant public open space
-Improves tax base
-Commend LEED certification and energy efficiency
-Improves public safety downtown
-Provides affordable housing
-Consistent with Downtown Small Area Plan
-Is right place for a taller building
-Downtown needs a multiple use center to attract people
-Quality of the design is high
-Public art will be center stage
-Supports vibrant, walkable, liveable community
-Economically a good deal for the Town
-Indirect public benefits make deal even better
-It is the right place for the project; keeps out of neighborhoods
-Will provide more people downtown to sustain retail downtown uses
-If we want to retain the rural buffer, we need more density in Town of Chapel Hill
-Thanks for keeping the affordable housing in the proposal

Concerns Noted Regarding the Project

-Make design fit in with Chapel Hill
-Financial risk too great for the Town
-Wrong place for this development; put in neighborhoods?
-Ruins spirit of Chapel Hill
-Principle of revenue neutral investment not being met
-Take more time to consider project
-Latest “magic bullet” that will not improve quality of life
-Will units be quiet and have firewall construction?
-Will it be family housing?
-Incorporate solar technology and be a model for energy conservation
-Is commitment to local businesses being met?
-What happens if the developer goes bankrupt?
-99-year lease is too long
-Buyout of rights in 50 years could be a concern for Town down the road
-Make sure underground parking is well-lit
-Make sure condominium association dues are reasonable for the affordable units

I believed the Town’s web site covering the Downtown Development Initiative would be updated after Nov. 20th’s public forum. After ten days, I finally sent in a formal request.

Here is Town Manager Stancil’s response:

Dear Mr. Raymond:

Thank you for our email message at 10:49 am on Dec. 1 to the Manager, Mayor and Town Council in which you requested that we “publish the remaining reports, discussions notes, comments, etc. that went into forming the “new deal” over the Summer”.

To the extent that there are documents related to the negotiations that took place this past summer which are public records under North Carolina law, we will be pleased to make them available for copying.

We are in the process of reviewing the staff files to determine what materials are public records and can now be released. However, it will not be possible to complete this work and determine what documents can be provided until next week.

Your message also states that “the final deal is set and the public still doesn’t have those details.” As the Agenda materials for the Council’s Dec. 4 meeting indicate, the Council is being asked to consider whether to authorize the completion of a Development Agreement to be brought back for the Council’s consideration in early 2007.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

Roger Stancil

Town Manager

Thank you Roger for getting back before close of business.

CitizenWill readers, I apologize for not moving more quickly on my request for further information.

This Monday (Dec. 4th), Council will take up the composition the Roger Road Area Task Force, I posted on earlier, and the possible future annexation of the eastern side of Rogers Rd.

If you’re interested in working with the Rogers Road community to correct these longstanding problems, Monday would be a great time to turn out and let your views be heard.

Click images to expand.

This is still very raw, but I thought I’d put out this demo to stir some thought within the community. Visualization tools like GoogleEarth (GE) can help remove some of the difficulty in assessing the visual impact of new development.

Our town’s planning department has the raw data needed to create a GoogleEarth representation of our town which I plan to massage and then release into the public domain for other citizens to elaborate on.

Why GoogleEarth?

While GE is a proprietary tool, the datasets it uses are exportable. So, Google owns the tool, not the data.

Our planning department should be creating GE or NASA Wind World representations of Chapel Hill as a matter of course - it would help both them and the community create a common visual-based framework for development discussions.

The free and OSS tools used:

• GoogleEarth
• Google Sketchpad (to create the 3D models)
• Cam Studio (to produce the low quality movie)

GE has a movie making module but that requires an upgrade to GE Pro at $400 per year (not quite ready for that…)

The Rogers Road community has taken it in the chin for way too long. The promises extended these residents when the landfill expanded into their backyards have never really been fulfilled. Decades old problems with sewage and other infrastructure continue to persist.

Finally, a structured process is being developed to deal with some of Chapel Hillian’s closest neighbors:

11/30/2006 — The public is invited to an open house from 6 to 9 p.m. Thursday, Dec. 7, at the Faith Tabernacle Oasis of Love located at 8005 Rogers Road to discuss planning for the Rogers Road area.

In the coming months, the Town of Chapel Hill will launch the discussion to begin the process of drafting the Rogers Road Small Area Plan, which is expected to involve intensive community participation. The plan would provide a vision and guidelines for the future development of the area, including the Greene Tract, and take a detailed look at the impacts of providing public services, especially sewer, and of developing an affordable housing site.

The Greene Tract is jointly owned by Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County. In 2002 the Chapel Hill Town Council adopted a concept plan for the Greene Tract which stipulated that about 18 acres of the 170 acres in the Greene Tract would be set aside for affordable housing and about 86 acres would be set aside for open space.

The Chapel Hill Town Council is soliciting residents to serve on the Rogers Road Small Area Plan Task Force. The composition of the task force, to be approved by the Chapel Hill Town Council, will include residents from the Rogers Road area, elected officials from Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County, non-profit housing representatives, and other citizens of the greater community.

Planners anticipate that the Town Council will appoint members to the task force in January 2007, with the first meeting to be held shortly thereafter. The process to develop the Rogers Road Small Area Plan may take approximately 17 months to two years. Residents interested in serving on the task force are encouraged to call the Chapel Hill Planning Department.

Anyone unable to attend the open house may contact the Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department to express their views, to gather more information, or to apply to serve on the task force.

Contact Frost Rollins at (919) 968-2728 or e-mail frollins@townofchapelhill.org.

[UPDATE]

How could the negotiations team done a better job informing the public throughout the process?

Here’s two examples from Greensboro’s District 5 Council member Sandy Carmany covering their coliseum issues, this one from a year ago and this one from November.

Sure, she wasn’t hampered by reporting on material potentially shielded under NC’s open meetings laws, but, then again, not every decision or thought process going into RAM’s “new” deal was by necessity shielded.

The only Council member directly involved in the negotiations, Sally Greene, has done the best informing the public of her thinking process on Lot 5 though nothing I read prepared me for such a right turn.

Original post:

Council had an excellent opportunity over the last week to answer the critics of the new Downtown Development Initiative Lot #5 deal.

Over the Summer, the public’s investment in the deal ballooned 15-fold, from $500K to north of $7.2M (with additional revenue hits, etc.). The Wallace Deck portion excised. Public space diminished. Boutique shops up, affordable commercial space missing. $385-$415 per square foot property, slated, as one critic pointed out, probably for affluent student housing.

What, over the Summer, caused the deal to change so radically for what I, other downtown business folks, two Kenan-Flager business school professors and many other concerned citizens consider the worse?

Council could’ve released more information - to provide a solid foundation for the public’s understanding of “the deal”. I’ve followed this deal quite closely. I agreed to “bite my tongue”. to not criticize the problematic elements of the original deal, to wait on the “new deal” which would correct the more egregious of the public’s concerns.

I’ve spent hours trying to pull together all the whispers, hints, etc. that incidentally wafted the public’s direction over the course of the Summer. But what I have is not enough.

The Council has the responsibility and obligation to fully disclose the details, to the fullest extent
allowed by law, of this deal.

Mr. Manager, Mayor and Town Council,

Thank you for being more timely this week and publishing the RAM development agenda item before close of business. Unfortunately, the agenda item is fairly light on the background of the “new deal”.

Would you please publish the remaining reports, discussions notes, comments, etc. that went into forming the “new deal” over the Summer?

I know that there’s some legal issues involved in releasing all of the notes - legal issues that will become moot after you sign the deal - so I’m not asking for ALL the information now (though I will be exercising a citizen’s FOIA prerogative ASAP).

I’m asking that you release everything you can prior to the meeting, including information not protected under the confidentially agreement but also not,to date, publicly disseminated.

For instance, would you please provide details of your consultations with the Local Government Commission (LGC) on financing?

This would include notes, reports, detailed analysis, etc. Please be thorough in your disclosures.

I’m interested in the LGC’s take on leveraging the secured debt, effect on our town’s debt ratings, thoughts on the quoted interest rate, etc. Essentially, I imagine, the same kind of financial analysis that a private business uses in evaluating the risk-rewards of taking on debt.

Finally, the main conduit for publishing this data has been the DDI website which hasn’t been updated since Spring. I’ve asked the Council to update the information on the RAM deal in a timely fashion. Several folks told me to “hold my horses”, that I needed to wait until the “final” deal was set.

Well, the final deal is set and the public still doesn’t have those details. I was hoping that this issue would be addressed over the last 9 days but it hasn’t.

The public has one weekend to review these critical additional details.

Please, if you can’t update the website, then submit them to the citizenry directly. If emailing or providing paper copies is easier, that’s fine.

I’ll make sure they get into the public domain over the weekend.

Thank you for your prompt attention,

Will Raymond

WCHL1360 covered yesterday’s Downtown Partnership update.

Listen [MP3] to what Director Liz Parham and local “top flight” business guy Scott Maitland had to say.

And Dan S., if you’re reading this, thanks for the sly hat tip.

From the Chapel Hill Fire Department website:

The primary mission of the Chapel Hill Fire Department is to protect life, property and the community environment from the destructive effects of fire, disasters or other life hazards by providing public education, incident prevention and emergency response services.

Thank you folks for all the long hours and hard work.

If for some reason you missed the official announcement , our Town graduated its first class of firefighters Aug.11th.

Lucky for us, youTube’s RyanJef recently posted this movie to celebrate

7/28/2006 – The Chapel Hill Fire Department will graduate its first Fire Academy in 13 years at 7 p.m. Friday, Aug. 11, in the Council Chambers at Town Hall, 405 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. The graduation will include a badge pinning ceremony and presentation of awards.

To attract more candidates and improve workforce diversity, the Fire Department has begun to provide training; previously, new hires were already-certified firefighters. Candidates are selected through a multi-step process of testing, including physical exams, agility tests, interviews, background checks, and application reviews. The academy, which began April 18, included 16 weeks of training in areas including basic firefighting, hazardous materials, emergency medical response, basic rescue, child safety seat installation and physical fitness. Graduates will be North Carolina-certified Level II Firefighters.

The graduating class includes 10 Chapel Hill firefighters, one Efland firefighter and one Parkwood firefighter. Four of the new firefighters will replace current vacancies, and six will fill new positions that were authorized by the Town Council in 2005. Three will be assigned to Fire Station 2, and three will be assigned to Station 3.

The Town Council has authorized an additional six new firefighters in the coming year, and the next academy will take place in April 2007. Applications will be accepted beginning in November 2006. To find out more, visit the Town website at www.townofchapelhill.org/fire,or contact the Chapel Hill Fire Department at (919) 968-2781 or fire@townofchapelhill.org.

Thanks RyanJef.

Early in the evening, downtown resident Don Stanford spoke of “magic bullets”, the promises of NCNB Plaza (”remains one of the eyesores of Franklin Street…”) and the progression from it to Rosemary Square to Granville Towers (”…high rises in a sea of asphalt…”) to Wallace Deck.

During his presentation I noticed some eye-rolling but it’s hard to dispute his observation about Lot 5’s character:

This design doesn’t have anything to do with Chapel Hill. It doesn’t have anything to do with North Carolina. It doesn’t have anything to do with the South. I defy you to find anything [about the external design to] determine in any manner anything about it that says Chapel Hill or college town.

Chris Culbreth, a second term member of the Town’s Community Design Commission (CDC), stayed late Monday, Nov. 20th, to comment to Council on the proposed revisions for the Process for Revision of the Comprehensive Plan

Interestingly enough, he spent more of his limited time counseling Council on the Downtown Development Initiative (DDI) juggernaut than the process revisions - including this digression on how developers are already factoring in Council’s temperament:

[Lot #5] is going to be a key building because the people who see that are going to come and build things following - and some of those people were here tonight - all the guys who bring us their plans of what their going to develop were sitting in the audience tonight to see what Lot 5 went over - so they can figure out “what we can get approved next”…

He then held up another RAM Development proposal, 425 Hillsborough St., of which I’ve been somewhat critical of for a few reasons, as an example of a kind of urban density at odds with our Town’s stated goals of walkability, livability and sustainability before turning back to the Lot #5 precedent:

…this building, Lot 5, and how it’s going to be built, and how it looks, will be a precedent for these others that will be developed. And I don’t want it to turn out to be like Rosemary Village, for example, it was built and it’s all students and sold in less than a year. No professional is going to want to live there. And the way it was built - it doesn;t even communicate to the neighborhood [Northside] behind it..that’s a transitional neighborhood…we want those neighborhoods to come into Town…

The other developments that come into place, they’re going to use that [Lot #5 density and design] as an example and our concern is the massing of these buildings and how it’s going to function…

As Chris pointed out, the CDC reviews development projects and provides feedback to developers prior to Council. Chris has long familiarity with many of the projects coming before this Council - projects the Council has generally been satisfied with, at least as far as general design goals.

Council should weigh this members counsel in light of that experience.

The Community Design Commission is charged with the following:

To initiate, promote and assist in the implementation of programs of general community beautification in Chapel Hill and its environs;

To seek to coordinate the activities of individuals, agencies, organizations and groups, public and private, whose plans, activities and programs bear upon the appearance of Chapel Hill and its environs;

To provide leadership and guidance in matters of design and appearance to individuals, organizations and groups, public and private;

To make studies of the visual assets and liabilities of the community, including surveys and inventories of an appropriate nature, and to suggest standards and policies of design for the entire community, or any individual project to be undertaken therein;

To prepare both general and specific plans for the improved appearance of the Town of Chapel Hill and its environs…

An update on the muni-networking task force prepared by UNC’s Shannon Howle Schelin, PhD, one of our stronger advocates for 21st century infrastructure.

On November 13, 2006, an exploratory meeting was held at the Town of Chapel Hill to discuss the Town’s interest in pursuing a wireless strategy. The goal of the meeting was to determine a strategy for investigating the broad issues related to a wireless initiative in the Town, as well as to seek the in-kind support and expert guidance of the University of North Carolina (UNC), the UNC School of Government (UNC SOG), and the NC League of Municipalities (NCLM). External participants participating in the meeting included John Streck, UNC, Shannon Schelin, UNC SOG, and Lee Mandell, NCLM. Internal staff members participating in the meeting included Roger Stancil, Flo Miller, Bob Avery and Arek Kempinski.

The preliminary minutes and associated outcomes of the meeting are offered for your review and comment.
The external participants were briefed on the interest of Town Council and citizen advocates in pursuing a wireless strategy for Chapel Hill. The majority of the conversation centered on the “why” question—as in “why is Chapel Hill interested in undertaking such an effort?” The drivers for the wireless strategy were articulated as follows:

• 1. Addressing the digital divide;
• 2. Increasing citizen access (in-home service)
• 3. Increasing mobility (ubiquitous access in public areas—i.e. downtown);
• 4. Improving governmental operations (public safety and public service); and,
• 5. Economic development.

Based on the conversation, the following suggestions and commitments were made by UNC, UNC SOG, and NCLM

• 1. The interest of the Town Council and citizen advocates does not specifically presume a “wireless” solution, but rather, a “connectivity” solution of which wireless is one component.
• 2. The “why” question is multi-faceted and each component needs to be studied individually in order to create a comprehensive connectivity plan.
• • a. For example, licensed radio frequency (4.9 GHz, etc) is a robust, 802.16 alternative that is specifically designed for public safety and public service but is unavailable for citizen use. However, the lack of interference that is provided by the licensed spectrum creates significant advantages in data speed, accuracy, reliability, and security—all of which are vital to the development of any mobile government applications.
  • b. Another example is the extension of a wireless network into low-wealth communities without the provision of equipment used to access the network will not have the desired impact upon the community.
• 3. The external participants, UNC, UNC SOG, and NCLM, agreed to work as a team, with the involvement of the Town staff, to examine the components and drivers of the “connectivity” request that has been generated by Town Council and citizen advocates. The outcome of this work will be a comprehensive listing of the drivers and requisite solution alternatives for each issue.
• 4. The request to identify additional drivers associated with the connectivity request was made at the close of the meeting and will be gathered by Town staff through conversations with Council Members.
• 5. The team will convene to begin its work after the Thanksgiving break.
• 6. In addition, upon completion of the plan, the team will advise the Town Council and staff on the technological, financial, and legal issues surrounding the various solutions that will compose the Connectivity Plan.

Additional feedback or comments on this meeting or the steps outlined for proceeding are appreciated.

Originally tonight’s Council agenda seemed to indicate a discussion on forming a broader task force was on the docket. Now the item is “informational”.

A shame, as I was planning to make a few comments about the lack of citizen advocates within the current discussion and trumpet the continuing successes of other locales, like St. Cloud Florida’s comprehensive effort or Minnesota’s St. Louis Park educational outreach.

A quick reminder of this evening’s public forum [Mon., Nov. 20th] on the failing Downtown Initiative.

Tonight’s agenda starts with this gem

The 2000 Comprehensive Plan’s goal for downtown is to “enhance the downtown’s role as the center of the community, with a pedestrian orientation and a human scale.”

I consider the 104′ multi-building development on lot #5 to be a stake through downtown’s heart. I’m not alone. Many residents find the scale of this development anything but “human”.

Former Council member David R. Godschalk, the Stephen Baxter Professor Emeritus in UNC’s City and Regional Planning department, waved the redflag in 2005 claiming

The developer has put too much building on these two small parcels. The nine-story building on lot 5 is out of scale with the existing downtown streetscape and soars above the 90-foot height allowed in the town center 2 district of the Chapel Hill zoning ordinance.

Scale aside, why else is the Downtown Initiative failing?

• Redevelopment of the blighted Wallace Deck and adjacent lot - off the table
  • “As a result of these material economic changes, the Town Negotiating Committee and the Developer have reevaluated the proposed Lot 5 and Wallace Deck projects.
  • Reevaluated? The Wallace Deck improvements, the real honey for this bee, are GONE.
• Lease amount dropping from $7.9 million TO $1 (ONE) DOLLAR per year
• Taxpayer contribution increasing 14.6 times, %1360 - from $500,000 to $7.3 million
• Moving from a manageable $500K out of “on-hand” funds to $7.3 million
  • supposedly borrowed at %5
  • sum added to our Town’s current debt
  • impacts our debt ratio, bond rating and forward ability to borrow
  • “the Town would incur an estimated annual debt service cost of $725,000 in the first year, decreasing annually by about $18,000″
• RAM’s original equity investment of $23 million has dropped to $12.5 million - nearly %50 drop in equity investment, though, on the plus-side, it’s upfront money.
• Borrowed monies using COPs financing mechanism - a secured debt normally reserved for essential building
  • COPS (”certificates of participation” [PDF]) are usually used to finance essential buildings and projects (sewer, water, schools, etc.)
  • My research to-date indicates the dominant private-public partnership using or proposing COPs in NC are prisons, coliseums. convention centers, etc.
  • Town income directly affected - “Revenues to pay the debt service on the proposed borrowing would be property taxes, sales taxes, and parking revenues above those we are currently receiving.”
• Shrinking PUBLIC SPACE - from 31,000′ in the original proposal, to 27,215′ (no published usage patterns - Are we accepting RAM’s restrictive idea of “public”?).
• Missed opportunity for internal space for public use - arts facilities, museum, etc.
• Commitment to provide affordable commercial space for local economic development is missing.
• No commercial space for an integrative tenant, like a grocery store, that reduces off-site travel by the condo-residents and draws folks in from surrounding neighborhoods.
• After 50 years, the developer gets a “sweetheart” deal to acquire the land and air rights for $2 million (imagine the value of that property 50 years hence).
• Developer is supposed to find 10-15 additional on-street parking spaces (the incredible difficulty of doing the Downtown Parking Task force, of which I’m a member, just discussed).
• “Owners” of affordable housing units HAVE TO LEASE OFFSITE PARKING, 21 spaces rented at below market rates.

The deal with RAM Development was never very good, at least for the Town. RAM’s payment of $7.9 million ($4,750,000 to lease Lot 5, a one time lease payment of $3,150,000 for the air rights over the Wallace Deck and the Rosemary/Henderson street lot) was a steal of a deal.

$7.9 million for 99 years of use of citizen-owned, prime downtown real-estate? Incredible.

$99 for 99 years? Impossible!

Several folks pointed out that RAM’s original projected rate of return, less than %3, was financially infeasible and would have to be “re-traded”. Last year I publicly stated that RAM had over-promised and would under-deliver - that dramatic renegotiation upwards, more inline with Grubb’s competing bid, was an inevitable result.

For instance, I work on the corner across Church St. and remember well the Devil’s own time the construction crew had digging my building’s basement. I never bought into the idea the Town would only pony up $500,000 to build underground parking structures in the granite ladened Lot #5 - and I sure as heck found it difficult to believe that RAM, our Council members or any other longtime residents would buy this malarkey.

When I brought this and similar issues up with our leadership, both then and since, I was told “not to worry” and “the deal is the deal”.

Why should the citizens of Chapel Hill pay the piper? Remember how “thrilled” RAM was to get a piece of Chapel Hill’s action?

In the most stark example, Grubb’s financing model would produce a 21.77 percent return on its $10.5 million investment in condominiums on the Wallace Deck site. Ram sees only a 2.98 percent return on its $23 million investment there.

“If they’re willing to do it for that,” Harris said, “God bless ‘em.”

Even if the company wanted to, Grubb couldn’t make a counteroffer, Stainback said, explaining that the proposals are considered “best and final offers.”

Two council members asked Cummings whether Ram’s financial model was too good to be true.

He said no projection ever is exactly right but that his company hopes to ride the growing trend of people returning to downtown.

After the meeting, Ivy Greaner, Ram’s managing partner, said the profit margins are healthy enough to sustain the project.

But Ram also is seeking a foothold in North Carolina. The company is willing to make less money in Chapel Hill to get a centerpiece project in the Triangle.

“This is a special town,” Greaner said, in a suitor’s tone. “We love Chapel Hill.”

N&O

Guess the Chapel Thrill has worn off for RAM. We’re special, just not $7.3 million special.

The Town and Ram claim costs have unforeseeably skyrocketed in the last year

In the time that has elapsed since the Developer formulated the development plan for Lot 5 and the Wallace Deck sites and the Town negotiated the October 24, 2005 MOU with the Developer, construction costs have increased by as much as 30 percent and interest rates have increased significantly.

yet we’re supposed to accept that the other rosy projections, like a %5 borrowing rate and an above average return on parking fees, retail and property taxes will pan out?

Since the original deal was inked, the national average cost of building materials hasn’t exceeded %11, with a recent flattening (due to lower energy, aggregate and raw material costs) of an annualized increase between %5 and %7.

Worse, last October, after closing the deal (N&O), Keith Cummings, president of Ram,

…personally guaranteed with his own money that the project will be completed as planned, according to the document signed Monday. Any increased costs — because of issues such as the rising price of construction materials — are to be borne by Ram.

Personally guaranteed.

Come on, I feel like the Town’s citizens are being taken to the cleaners on this deal.

Until I see the specifics of the %30 increase, I must assume it was part of the “shell game” of under-bidding to win the contract.

If this turns out to be the case, what must we expect of RAM’s projections (”guarantees”) concerning their luxury, mega-condo development - the largest in Town’s history - at 425 Hillsborough Street?

And once we’re hip deep into this development, what restricts RAM from coming back to the well? Quite frankly, while I’d hate to “throw away” any taxpayer investment, it certainly would be easier to back out of a $500K losing proposition than a $7.3 million boondoggle. The modest protections of paying on delivery don’t seem sufficient.

The return of the public’s investment better be phenomenal to justify this private-public partnership. With this project’s current fiscal track record, financial prudence, above all, should steer our leader’s decision, especially when we go against our Town’s tradition of letting the voters decide to take on such massive financial obligations.

Speaking of prudence, beyond the $7.3 million demanded by RAM, the Council is supposed to approve a major chunk of debt tonight for the Homestead Park Aquatic Center. As today’s HeraldSun reports

The next key step comes tonight, when the Town Council will consider approving a contract with the Resolute Building Co. to build the Homestead Park Aquatic Center. The contract on the table is for $5,238,000, although the town manager would be authorized to approve up to $530,000 in change orders if necessary, as the work proceeded.
…
In the town’s 2006-07 budget, the council authorized borrowing another $750,000 for the Homestead project. That’s in addition to the bond funds the town and Orange County both are allocating for it.

Orange County is putting about $4.3 million into the project in bond funds approved by voters across the county, and Chapel Hill is contributing about $1.2 million in bond funds.

That’s nearly $2 million of debt we’re taking on - with a possible upward tick already projected. Strange that the citizenry had a voice in taking on that $2 million obligation, but we’re left out of directly approving an amount 4 times as large.

I’m going this evening with my concerns, fully expecting Council to answer each issue fully before moving forward. Hopefully the missing issues of public access, accommodations and facilities will be covered.

Here’s the “new deal” being proposed this evening.

• Town leases building pad to Developer under Ground Lease for a term of 99 years (the “Ground Lease”). Rent under the Ground Lease will be $1 per year plus the various benefits the Town will realize from the development of the Lot 5 Project, including but not limited to public space to be developed by the Developer at its cost but owned and operated by the Town, public art corresponding to 1% of the total cost of the project, affordable housing that will be required to be subsidized by the Developer, LEEDs certification of the project, the additional cost of placing the Condominium Parking underground, the enhanced tax base, and the general economic developments that will be generated for the entire downtown area.
• The Developer shall have the right, which shall be assigned to the condominium association upon turn-over, to terminate the ground lease and acquire fee simple title to the land and/or air rights on the date that is 50 years after the commencement of the ground lease. The termination fee shall be $2 million.
• The Developer will construct approximately 137 for sale condominium units (15% of which shall be affordable for a total of 21 affordable units) and approximately 28,540 square feet of retail.
• The Developer will construct, pursuant to plans and specifications approved by the Town, the public plaza/public space aggregating approximately 27,215 square feet. All of such public space will be owned and operated by the Town.
• The improvements on Lot 5 will be LEEDs certified.
• Developer will construct an underground parking garage below the condominium/retail building containing approximately 161 parking spaces (the “Town Parking”) that will be available to the general public including retail patrons (i.e. no monthly rentals). The remaining parking spaces aggregating approximately 169 will be allocated to the owners of the condominium units (the “Condominium Parking”).
• Developer and the Town will seek to secure appropriate permission for an additional ten (10) to fifteen (15) on-street parking spaces that will be allocated to the Town.
• The Town Parking would be located on the first level of the underground parking garage and the Condominium Parking would be located on the level below the Town Parking.
• Upon completion of the parking garage, the Developer will convey to the Town, fee simple unencumbered title to the Town Parking at a purchase price equal to $7,245,000, which represents Developer’s current estimate of the cost to design, permit, finance, plan, supervise, and construct the Town Parking (“Town Parking Costs”). Developer agrees to provide documentation as may reasonably be required by the Town and the Local Government Commission to assist with the financing of the purchase of the Town Parking. The Town may, at its option, elect to audit the Town Parking Costs and in the event said costs are less than $7,245,000, the Developer shall refund the excess amount within 30 days of demand thereof. In the event the audit indicates that a refund is due, the Developer shall also reimburse the Town for the cost of the audit not to exceed $20,000
• Parking for the affordable housing units will be provided by the Town at the Wallace Deck or other Town-owned property. A below market rental rate would be charged for such parking.

[UPDATE] As of November 20 2006 4:45 pm, we’ve had two questions and two comments by “site admin”.

Questions:

Hi, I haven’t seen anything lately that lays out the architectural vision of Carolina North. Could you point me towards any current plans? Thank you.
November 20 2006 9:46 am by Robert Peterson

Is UNC still planning to realign Estes Drive as part of Carolina North development? Shouldn’t changes so potentially disruptive be discussed with the community that depends on that road as a major arterial connection?
November 20 2006 9:28 am by Ruby Sinreich

The comments referred to the “Attendee Comments Received at the Ecological Assessment Listening Group Meeting With Biohabitats Inc., Nov. 6, 2006″ and “two maps created by Biohabitats of Raleigh. The maps were marked up in the Ecology Listening Session on November 6.”

Good notes that haven’t been previously published on UNC’s Carolina North site or on the UNC-LAC mailing list (at least the one I’m a member of).

Not exactly answers to either of the questions or to my earlier third question on forum rules but a response all the same.

[ORIGINAL]

Did you know that UNC has created an online discussion forum?

Hey, I wouldn’t have known but for this email:

Hello all,

I’m writing to let you know that the public discussion forum for Carolina North is now accessible online at http://research.unc.edu/cn/view_comments.php. If you would like to post a comment, click the “leave a comment” link at the bottom of the page, and you’ll be asked to register your name and e-mail address. Once registered, you’ll receive a confirmation e-mail, after which you can post comments.

Thanks,
Colie Hoffman
Office of Information and Communications
962-6137

which didn’t appear on the normal UNC Carolina North LAC (Leadership Advisory group) email list - a list, by the way, which you can get on ONLY by contacting UNC here (no “self-subscribing”).

UNC’s Carolina North group has done a fairly decent job on their, admittedly biased, main website, including posting timely videos and minutes of the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Committee (UNC-LAC) meetings.

Creating a discussion forum is a bold step for the development folks in Moeser’s administration, so points for trying, but 8am to 5pm EST moderation kind of misses the mark.

Please be aware that we only add new comments to the discussion forum during regular business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST).

Given that, I still wanted to heap credit on UNC for this apparent e-democracy effort but the lousy advertising and the the lack of forum rules (possibly undercutting open debate) really make that difficult.

Disappointing. Mustn’t let Moeser’s “freelance dissenters” engage in free form discussion ;-)!

Hey, I registered,

Your registration was submitted successfully. You will receive an email from “HTTPD Daemon” containing a URL that will allow you to view and participate in the Carolina North public discussion forum.

and added this question, “What rules of moderation will you be applying to this forum?”

Wonder how long after 8am, Monday, Nov. 20th, 2006 I’ll find out…

Say what you will of “Chapel Hill values”, but it can be quite nice when you’re on the receiving end.

This morning I watched the driver of Bus 734 pull over for a moment to let a young man, already wheezing from running up MLK to the Kron Building stop, jog the next 20 yards to clamber on. Sure, the driver could’ve kept on going - answering to the demands of the clock - like many drivers do in other jurisdictions. But, hey, this is Chapel Hill.

Thank you Bus 734, for your act of kindness.

It’s RSVVP day and I didn’t realize it! I managed to eat out at one of the few local restaurants, the Lime & Basil, that isn’t participating.

Drat! Guess I’ll have to eat out again for dinner ;-)! This time I’ll choose from this list of participants.

Hat tip to Paul.

On Tuesday, November 14, 2006, area restaurants will donate 10% of their breakfast, lunch and dinner proceeds to help alleviate hunger in the Triangle. It’s simple. We advertise. The public eats out (or gets take-out). The restaurant makes a donation. Everyone gets a meal. Restaurants sharing V(5) + V(5) percent (5+5=10%), or RSVVP, has raised more than $425,000 to fight hunger since its inception in 1989. The fundraiser will be advertised extensively on TV, radio, newspapers, direct mail, and posters. Our major sponsors include SunTrust Bank, ABC 11, The Herald-Sun and The Chapel Hill Herald, Money Mailer Durham-Orange, Curtis Media and 1360 WCHL. Posters will be displayed throughout the Triangle asking the public to “eat locally, feed locally” on our designated RSVVP day.

List of Carrboro/Chapel Hill participants below the fold Continue reading ‘Yum, Yum, it’s RSVVP Day. Eat out and kick %10 into local hunger relief efforts…’