Bull City Rising

East End Connector passes NCDOT prioritization hurdle, on track for fall 2013 start

We've talked here before about how the NCDOT's reshuffling of Urban Loop program priorities has had Durham and other communities in NC waiting with bated breath to find out how their beltway, bypass and connector projects would do.

Durham, as you'll recall, struggled for more than a decade with the legacy of Eno Drive, a project killed in the early 2000s and replaced with the East End Connector and Northern Durham Parkway efforts, among others. 

That toe-scuffing cost the Bull City time as communities like Charlotte, Greensboro and Raleigh were able to move ahead with their costly (and much-needed) beltways.

NCDOT's just released its long-anticipated revised prioritization schedule for the Urban Loop program -- and in what's a big sigh of relief for local officials, transportation planners and residents, our fifty-years-in-the-making loop came in fourth statewide among construction-ready projects (sixth overall), keeping a fall 2013 construction start for the roadway.

City, County see Aug. votes on hotly debated billboard industry proposal

 The debate over digital billboards in Durham has been ongoing for over two years now.  

All things in life must end, however -- the billboard debate included.  

Durham's City Council and the Board of County Commissioners will be voting independently on Fairway’s proposed changes to Durham’s sign ordinances at their next meetings, Aug. 2 and Aug. 9 respectively. 

Fairway seeks to allow replacement of all billboards in Durham, with up to one-fourth of these signs being replaced with digital displays that change message every eight seconds.

Next week marks the beginning of the end of that long debate, which has seen warring web sites, opposing results from opinion polls, email campaigns and non-profit lobbying, plus the recently-debated appearance of a little-known City-Wide PAC group in the voting mix.

Will the industry's lobbying effort pay off? Or will a group of residents fighting the mix -- including some of the citizens who first lobbied themselves for a Durham anti-billboard measure in the 80s -- prevail?

City debuts new, leaner Capital Improvements Program

The city has debuted its new, leaner, Capital Improvements Program (CIP), successfully trimming $270 million from its wish-list of infrastructure and development projects.  The move is the first of many new initiatives outlined in the city’s new strategic plan, which we discussed in some detail here a few weeks back.  

The trimming of the city’s previous, plus-sized CIP is seen as a crucial one for city administration, which has been busy re-financing prior debt and preparing to float a $20m bond referendum on November's ballot, which would pay to re-pave the last of the city’s streets still rated as being in poor condition.

...while quarter-cent tax debate perks below public view

It's almost heretical, perhaps, to say that there might be a bigger story coming out of last night's BOCC meeting than the 751 South hearing and non-vote.

And, OK, a late agenda item added at a BOCCer's request may not ordinarily qualify as such momentous news. But on the other hand, I've been amazed at the lack of news coverage on this particular story. (Pro-jo's: if there was a story on this that came out while I was on one of my recent exoduses to the Deep South, my apologies.)

The item in question? A quarter-cent sales tax proposal, which if the BOCC gives its okay could make its way to the ballot this November for a referendum.

If the idea of a local-option sales tax sounds familiar, it's because it's heretofore been floated with respect to a half-cent levy dedicated to transit.

But this wouldn't be the transit tax -- a measure which elected officials nervous about passage have said wouldn't appear before November 2011 at the soonest.

Instead, it would be a general levy to the County coffers, to the tune of almost $8 million per year in the full FY2012.

And to one Commissioner Joe Bowser at least, it's a tax that could provide bridge funding for the schools -- and just might set up an unexpected debate between transit and teachers.

BOCC takes pass on 751 South vote while pondering protest petition fate...

For it or agin' it, there's bound to be a show. But no matter what words are said there and then, you can bet they won't be the last. -- Jim Wise, on last night's Board of County Commissioners meeting

Durham's senior statesman among pro-jo pundits penned these words in The Durham News last week, writing about the seemingly endless debate taking place over the 751 South development.

Sure enough, his words were prophetic, though perhaps not shockingly so. As midnight drew near, the BOCC voted to fend off a decision on the 751 South rezoning case until their August 9 meeting -- setting up an interesting night for debate, given the presence of a pro-billboards text amendment on the docket that evening, too.

The vote came after hours of public hearing commentary, largely repeating the same pro-and-con arguments that we've seen in the discourse in recent weeks. (Supporters point to the positive tax base impact, the opportunity to add population in Durham, and the creation of local jobs; opponents point to the proximity to a sensitive watershed, the refusal of the developer to voluntarily adhere to not-yet-final stormwater standards, and questions of whether the site's location is too rural and too distal from downtown and transit for dense mixed-use.)

On the one hand, the hours of public commentary seemed superfluous. After all this debate, it seems unlikely for any proponents to become opponents, or for opponents to transform into supporters all of a sudden. And that's among the segment of the public interested enough to attend or tune into last night's confab.

Among the five people on the BOCC whose opinions really count -- well, make that six and change; more on that in a moment -- it seems even less likely that anyone will be swayed to change their minds at this point.

And the added tension that the debate has brought on already-strained relations on the BOCC was evident from last night's bickering, particularly between former chair Ellen Reckhow and 751 supporter Joe Bowser. (More on that in a follow-up.)

But to not have had the debate would have cheapened the participation, the energy, the engagement of so many in favor of and opposed to the project. 

H-S: Deed easement could nullify protest petition against 751 South development

In his story on the presence a deed of easement giving 751 South developers a possible way past a valid protest petition on the controversial 165 acre mixed-use development proposed south of Southpoint, BCR correspondent Rob Gillespie noted that it was unclear whether or not the move -- an easement to NCDOT that could effectively take the Chancellor's Ridge neighborhood side out of play for signing on to a protest petition -- would serve to invalidate the petition.

The H-S' Ray Gronberg is on the story in this morning's Herald-Sun, and brings us the sense of Planning director Steve Medlin, who opines that the petition would be invalidated if the easement is counted, though county attorney Lowell Siler is taking the temperature of UNC's Institute of Government on this one.

Updated: 751 South deed of easement may endanger protest petition

Southern Durham Development, the Raleigh-based developers behind the 751 South project, may have found a way to invalidate the protest petition filed against their property's rezoning.  The petition, ruled valid earlier this month, would require a super-majority for rezoning of their parcel to allow higher residential density.

A July 13 deed of easement, a copy of which recently posted to the register of deeds website, shows that Southern Durham Development requested and received a 41 foot extension to the state’s road easement that surrounds some of the property.  The easement previously stood at 60 feet, yielding a new easement of 101 feet.

For those familiar with the county’s protest petition process, 101 feet is a unique number.  For a signature on the protest petition to be valid, the signatory must own property within 100 feet of the parcel considered for rezoning.  SDD's easement strategy may invalidate the signatures of all property owners in the Chancellor’s Ridge development, which sits across NC-751 from SDD’s site.

Quite interesting is the date of Southern Durham Development’s deed of easement.  The deed carries a July 13 filing date, the same day in which Planning Director Steve Medlin ruled the protest petition valid.

Even if all Chancellor's Ridge signatories are removed from the petition, it may still remain valid. A valid petition would necessitate that four of the five county commissioners approve the proposed rezoning at Monday’s meeting.  A new law, passed in this year’s session of the NC General Assembly, expanded criteria for approving a protest petition.

Under the new law, protest petitions are valid if property owners controlling 5 percent of the land that directly borders the site in question are signatories.  Previous Durham County rules stipulated that 20% of property owners, either inside the rezoned area or within 100 feet, must sign the protest petition.

If signatures from Chancellor's Ridge are declared invalid, only two names, representing a single parcel, will remain.  As noted by Ray Gronberg at the Herald-Sun 10 days ago, this property sums to 5.52 percent of the land directly bordering Southern Durham Development’s parcel.  These two property owners may still remove their name before Monday's meeting, and one can assume that they are being intensely lobbied by lawyers from K&L Gates, SDD’s law firm.

Also, to be clear, the City/County Planning Department has not yet altered the status of the protest petition.  Although the deed of easement is definitive, its effect on the protest petition is not entirely clear.

Update #1: Ray Gronberg at the HS did some follow-up on both the status of the protest petition and the campaign contributions made to Gov. Bev Perdue by the developers.  In the article, City/County Planning Director Steve Medlin states that the new easement will, in fact, nullify the protest petition.

Breaking: 751 South protest petition ruled valid

Jim Wise at the N&O notes that the 751 South protest petition has been ruled valid, meaning that four of the five county commissioners must give approval to the project's proposed rezoning at their July 26 meeting.

One caveat, however, is that signatories may choose to remove their name from the protest petition before the July 26 meeting; if enough names are removed, the petition will be ruled invalid.  No names may be added to the petition, however.

Read the full story at the News & Observer.  You can read more about the protest petition in this earlier BCR story.

Update #1: The H-S' Ray Gronberg does the new math thing in this morning's paper, looking at the impact of recently-passed standards aligning Durham County protest petition requirements with the standards for municipalities.

McKissick: Durham's towing bill removal was temporary to await City feedback late in arriving

We wrote here yesterday about the curious case of Sen. Bob Rucho's (R-Mecklenburg) bill in the General Assembly that proposed improved consumer protections and notifications for those whose cars are snapped up from private lots by towing services.

In yesterday's story, we reflected on why state Sen. Floyd McKissick, Jr. (D-Durham) requested for Durham to be pulled from the bill in June during its hearing in the state Senate.

The bill moved on to the House, where Paul Luebke (according to the Herald-Sun) added-back the City of Durham after consulting with City staff on the matter. And the N&O now notes that the bill has been passed in the House and looks to be on a smooth course to becoming law.

So why the pull in the first place?

In a conversation late Wednesday, McKissick clarified his position to BCR -- and says that he actually reached out to City Hall back in June when the whole thing started for the municipality's opinion, but didn't hear back.

Towing rules to help NC residents -- including, again, Durhamites

Update: BCR reached Sen. McKissick after the story went to press; we've added his view to a second post on the matter.

Folks, a lot of interesting stuff seems to happen in the General Assembly. And all too often, the behind-the-scenes machinations don't make their way into general view. (An exception: Laura Leslie's outstanding blog Isaac Hunter's Tavern; the WUNC-FM statehouse reporter's site is a must-add to your RSS reader if it's not there already.)

But kudos to the N&O for picking up on one very interesting, and possibly worrisome, element happening in the General Assembly.

The good news: the legislature is contemplating taking steps to crack down on towing practices, which got scrutiny in Durham at least after the owner of a parking lot adjacent to a scooter-and-gun shop (I am not making this up) enforced its asphalt rights strictly, impacting particularly the patrons of a neighboring Indian restaurant.

The bad news: although the rules would help most of the Triangle and Mecklenburg Co. (Charlotte), it would have specifically exempted Durham from the standards -- by the request of Durham's own Floyd McKissick, Jr.

That's been changed, as the Herald-Sun notes in a follow-up story today, after state Rep. Paul Luebke and the City intervened.

But the bizarre part in all this is, it doesn't look like that request to exempt Durham came from City Hall in the first place.

So what, exactly, did state Sen. McKissick have in mind?