Bull City Rising

Southwest branch library set for expansion

Durham's Southwest branch library is set for an expansion over the coming two years, enlarging the 16 year-old 10,000 sq. ft. structure to meet the same 25,000 sq. ft. footprint and functions as the county's new East and North branch libraries and the planned South branch library that will replace the Parkwood location.

According the H-S' reporting today on last week's public meeting, the Southwest branch library will close in December for 15 months' worth of construction. The library will be completely offline throughout the construction period, though the bookmobile will make regular visits to the district during the interim.

The existing brick structure will receive a tripartite set of additions, including a new entry that will house public services and the enhancement of natural lighting showing off the woods in the library's rear, a design feature used well in the new branch libraries to date.

Renovations will also triple the number of computers in the library to 30, mirroring again the level of resources in other branches.

During their project reviews, the County Commission has reportedly been favorable towards the renovation plans, raising primarily the concern of timing, as the Southwest branch library will close before the South branch near RTP comes online, a date that according to the architect is Dec. 31, 2009.

Interestingly, though construction was funded, monies to build the collections at both South and Southwest weren't alloted in the year's budget. Michael Page, the liaison from the County Commission to Library board of trustees, noted June 10 board session that the County hoped it could find funds during the year to help pay for collection acquisition.

DATA looks for input on service directions

Durham's local bus system, DATA, is asking citizens to submit feedback on its services and programs to guide service directions in its next short-range transit plan:

Durham Area Transit Authority (DATA) is seeking public input on its short-range transit plan to guide its service improvements over the next five years.

“With the increase in ridership, it is a great time to start looking at the future of transit and how we can best serve the residents of Durham over the next five years,” said Cha’ssem Anderson, transportation planner for the City of Durham.  “Receiving public input has always been a large part of how we plan for improvements to our system.  This request for public input is the first of a series of public input requests over the next six months.”

Want to give input? Complete DATA's online survey form before August 1. (We trust the DATA team has also made surveys available in paper format to be convenient to riders, or folks without Internet access?)

Among the possible improvement priorities include 15-minute headways, increased night service, more bus shelters, fare-free service (a concept rejected to date by City Council), and more park and ride lots.

Personally, I'm hoping to see more information in the short-range transit plan about the level of capital investment in the DATA service, particularly after encountering the numbers we looked at here a few weeks ago that showed Durham's fleet carries twice as many passenger miles per bus as the Chapel Hill or Raleigh systems, raising questions in my mind as to whether the City is investing enough in bus services (or alternatively, whether it's just running an efficient, popular system.)

Updates: McPherson Townhouses, West Point Park in the Herald-Sun

The local press has updates in today's paper on two stories we've looked at here at BCR recently:

First, Monica Chen provides an update from Monday's design design review team looking at the McPherson Townhouses. As noted here last week, the response from neighbors to date was well described by the H-S as cautious optimism, with a representative of the Neighbors for Sustainable Development in Trinity Park citing positive elements of the design and the Trinity Park Neighborhood Association noting that a committee is reviewing the plans.

The townhouse proposal will next make its way to the Development Review Board. (Jim Wise from the N&O also has an update in today's edition.)

Also up: Ray Gronberg has the Herald-Sun's take on the debate over the 60-acre tract of land just south of West Point Park on the Eno, a site that's been at the center of a minor tempest over the dual possibilities of the city in partnership with other groups buying and preserving the open area -- or of the state doing so in exchange for control over the City-managed West Point Park.

New items from the story: City Councilman Mike Woodard notes the landowner's threat to sue local government if the land is downzoned (which would otherwise be one very, very low cost way of keeping dense development off the sensitive land.) Also, it looks like the landowner and her development partner have optioned land from a local church that would provide access to the land from Roxboro -- a development that makes it easier for the long-time property holder to develop the tract.

Most parties we've talked to, including City Councilwoman Diane Catotti, have signalled an openness to looking at the possibility of state control for the park, but given it seems the ongoing nature of the dialogue, most of the stakeholders involved aren't interested in giving too many specifics just yet on the idea. Expect significant caution from city staff and possibly officials over the prospect of giving up what local officials see as a jewel of the park system.

More on these as we learn about 'em.

Moody's retains AAA rating, but may get "moodier" later this year...

We've made much of the question of Durham's preservation of its AAA bond rating, a matter that's attracted arguably outsized attention due to the contentious nature of this year's budget debates.

For those playing catch up: In a nutshell, a 4-3 coalition led by Mayor Bill Bell held the line on a 54-cent City property tax valuation, despite warnings from the opposition that doing so would keep Durham's budgeted unrestricted fund balance at 11.1% for the year, instead of the 12% floor that rating agencies have expected as a firm policy. That firm policy, in turn, helps make Durham one of just 20 cities nationwide with AAA bond ratings from all three major agencies.

The proponents of the lower property tax rate, on the other hand, argued that Durham had absorbed just about all the tax increase it could stand this year, given the revaluation's impact on collections, and that Durham has usually outpaced its projected tax collections, anyway -- meaning that an 11.1% budgeted fund balance level would probably translate into 12% or more at year's end.

Besides, the proponents argued, this was just another reason to keep the City Council and not the city manager in the position of making decisions on fairly small contract amounts. That way, according to one elected official who spoke to BCR on the matter, the City Council could keep a close eye on expenses and nip them in the bud mid-year if spending was so high as to imperil the 12% level.

Well, Durham's chance at bat on the AAA bond rating came soon, given the issuance in almost $60 million in general obligation bonds this month. We looked at Fitch's AAA rating advice last week; S&P also weighed in, as has Moody's now.

The City wasted no time in putting out a press release heralding the AAA maintenance, noting as an example Moody's decision to re-rate Durham at the top borrowing level:

Finally, Moody’s Investors Service re-affirmed their ‘AAA’ rating the city's healthy economic position, including a sizeable tax base and diverse local economy supported in part by a stable institutional presence.

Well, we had a chance to read through Moody's research opinion last week, and indeed, the outcomes does at the most general level support the 54-cent proponents' claim that the AAA rating could be maintained even with a lower tax rate.

Yet our reading of the Moody's opinion underscores a more worrisome note: that the agency sees the recent use of unrestricted funds as a "deviat[ion] from the city's recent practice" that "may introduce negative rating pressure" down the road.

Morreene's revenge? CN zoning looks to take a more intensive review route

One of the more unfortunate legacies of Frank Duke's reign over the City/County Planning department was a moment that might best be described as "reign of error" -- the approval of a large warehouse for a wholesale business on the site of a former Morreene Rd. restaurant.

The presence of such a business (or its large industrial structure) wasn't exactly in keeping, neighbors argued, with the intent of the parcel's Commercial Neighborhood zoning, which supports allowing "limited commercial uses to satisfy the needs of the surrounding neighborhood." The Turnage Heights neighborhood appealed the city's approval of the warehouse development, losing before the Board of Adjustment in April.

Jim Wise's coverage of that hearing in the N&O raised the broader issue about Commercial Neighborhood (CN) zoning could lead to such a structure's erection, however:

"[The case] demonstrates some real problems and concerns that need to be addressed," said interim City Attorney Karen Sindelar....

"This case highlights the need for a more neighborhood-friendly commercial zone next to a residential area," [activist John[ Schelp said, "[and] clearly shows how important a neighborhood advocate, not a liaison, an advocate, can be....

"At the very least," [resident Will Robinson] wrote in an e-mail response to a reporter's question, "we may have played a large part in sparing other neighborhoods the same injustice we've experienced, and that is no small consolation."

Looks like the experience may indeed help out other neighborhoods struggling with this sort of conflict. City/County Planning staff have proposed another in the ongoing series of text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance, this time focused on -- you guessed it -- CN zoning.

And the proposed changes, set for discussion at August 4's City Council meeting, give the sense that the Morreene Rd. debacle was front-and-center in staff's mind in proposing these changes.

Costly Jordan Lake clean-up rules hit an interesting speed bump

North Carolina's Rules Review Commission met Thursday to look over the state Environmental Management Commission's proposed rules for cleaning up Jordan Lake -- a key part of state government's initiative to force clean-up of the manmade lake, an effort that's drawn criticism from local governments for shifting the cost (hundreds of millions of dollars in Durham's case) back to cities and counties as an unfunded mandate.

According to the Burlington Times-News, which has the story as its lead article in today's paper (the H-S and N&O, oddly, don't appear to have covered this)--

The state Rules Review Commission Thursday sent the Jordan Lake proposals back to the Environmental Management Commission for revision. The panel questioned the authority of the proposed rules to require local governments to adopt certain ordinances. It also cited ambiguity in the environmental proposals.

The Environmental Management Commission will have the opportunity in coming weeks to tighten up the rules and bring them back for further review. That would likely come at the Rules Review Commission's September meeting.

Most of the speakers, including representatives from the City of Durham and other local governments, opposed the proposed rules. (One speaker in favor was Elaine Chiosso, of the Haw River Association, an organization that's been a strong advocate for Haw River and Jordan Lake clean-up.)

Two other interesting pieces of data in the Times-News article:

• Because over 10 letters of protest have been received on this administrative rule, the issue must be reviewed by the General Assembly in their 2009 session; the legislature could choose to disapprove the rules or work out alternative regulations, something the body did with coastal stormwater issues last year.
• According to the Durham representative, 50% of the stormwater systems in Durham are not owned by the municipality. That includes, we presume, many neighborhoods whose stormwater management systems are under the aegis of homeowners' associations, and whose dues are intended in part to be used for system maintenance and improvement. Should these rules come to pass, with the City fund improvements -- or will residents of many neighborhoods face surprising assessments to complete the work? Pure speculation on our part, but an issue to watch as this one moves through the legislative grinder.

Voters -- and the Durham Committee -- the next stop for the civic/cultural prepared foods tax

After a long week of legislative machinations and parliamentary procedures led by state Sen. Floyd "Here on Geer" McKissick Jr., the General Assembly completed the passage of the proposed 1% prepared foods tax yesterday by a 22-19 vote.

This sets the stage for a November referendum in which Durham voters will have the chance to approve or turn back the sales tax, the proceeds of which are largely earmarked to fund civic and cultural amenities such as the Civic Center, Carolina Theatre -- and the proposed Durham history museum and Minor League Baseball fan experience/museum center.

So where does this issue go from here? Barry hit the nail on the head in terms of the key issue at stake for its passage:

Here's where it gets interesting. By all accounts, Sen. Floyd McKissick did the heavy lifting getting this bill through the Senate. What happens next when the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People opposes it in the fall?

The referendum, after all, comes at a point where the Committee is enjoying a timely bit of political power, driven largely by the tremendous voter turnout in the black community for Sen. Barack Obama's historic presidential bid. That turnout appeared to make a key difference in leading Joe Bowser to a seat on the Durham County Commission and in forcing a run-off between usual also-ran Jonathan Alston and Leigh Bordley for the open school board seat.

And the Committee has certainly been willing to use that power. (A persistent and well-sourced rumor holds that the Committee held court with at least one elected official four days between the contentious budget vote, presenting data that suggested Durham's AAA bond rating would not be at risk even if the City Council backed Mayor Bill Bell's 54-cent property tax rate line in the sand.)

Which is where things get interesting for Bell, who's been one of the leading champions of this tax initiative.

West Point Park: City dodges state takeover and preservation overtures?

A debate over development plans near the Eno River has taken a strange turn in recent weeks, bringing to bear a debate over one of the City's most treasured parks -- and whether a horse-trade opportunity with the state would help preserve, or impair, the public's use of Durham's aquatic treasure.

As Jim Wise has reported over at the N&O, one of the last vestiges of the much-despised Eno Drive roadway proposal has reared its ugly head in recent months, as a local development team's floated proposals to develop Mildred Lee Ray's 60-acre parcel near the Eno River in North Durham.

That parcel received permission for high-density development a few decades back, when Eno Drive was expected to create a Northern Durham beltline connecting the two ends of I-85. Despite the road's demise, as Wise noted in his May 31 article, a Chapel Hill developer proposed the creation of almost 250 homes and townhouses on the parcel, which sits to the south side of the Eno River and the City's park on the river, West Point Park on the Eno.

(The Ray parcel appears in light purple along the southern boundary of West Point Park in the image at left.)

Although other suburban subdivisions flank the Ray parcel (and the Eno in general), this 60-acre tract has attracted intensive attention from the non-profits active in the preservation of the Eno corridor due to its sloping towards the river, rather than away from it as most developed parcels along the Eno do.

"We're not even open to talking about any other ideas than preservation," says Dave Owen, treasurer of the Friends of West Point on the Eno Park, a local association dedicated to protecting and enhancing the city park. "This is one piece that's got to be saved."

A sentiment that raises what could be a very pricey proposition for government: can the parcel be bought out, and if so, by whom -- and at what cost?

Rating agencies re-affirm AAA financial rating

We've spent a significant amount of time here discussing the City Council's controversial and divided decision to reduce the fund balance level to 11.1% of the budget in the coming fiscal year, down from the 12% floor that the City has set as a policy.

At the time, the debate in elected officialdom revolved around whether a change in this critical benchmark would cause Durham's much-vaunted AAA bond rating to fall to a lower level, thus costing the city more in interest costs.

As Ray Gronberg wrote in Saturday's H-S, all three bond rating agencies have in fact re-affirmed Durham's AAA rating status -- Fitch via a press release on Friday, S&P and Moody's via verbal statements to the city in advance of a written release.

The news is for now a vindication of the strategy proposed by Mayor Bell, and supported by Councilman Farad Ali in a crucial swing vote: namely, that experience shows that Durham departments typically don't spend all their allocated funds, and that the fund balance at fiscal year's end will typically meet or exceed the floor level set.

Meaning for this year that, even with an 11.1% fund balance budgeted, the Council majority expects that the fund balance level will still meet the 12% floor.

DATA ridership up slightly; is choice ridership or service quality to blame?

Monica Chen's article in today's H-S repeats the wisdom being received from many media outlets, that buses and trains are getting busier throughout much of the Triangle, with the Triangle Transit intracity system getting a 30.2% boost in ridership year-over-year in June. Amtrak services have had an 11.7% increase to boot.

Yet DATA, Durham's city-run bus system, has seen ridership increase only a measly 5.4% in the first half of '08 vs. '07.

There are, of course, many possible reasons this could be so. For one thing, using a bus for, say, a 5-7 mile commute within the city of Durham is so much less convenient than driving a car the same distance. Such that for so-called "riders of choice" -- those who are able to afford to own and operate a car -- it's often just not compelling to use transit for short trips.

For the longer inter-city trips, like the Durham-to-Raleigh express route, the fastest-growing one in Triangle Transit's system, the much larger savings in pricey gasoline costs and the reduction in I-40 commuting stress are much greater, and more likely to draw riders of choice.

Which would explain the faster growth. If you can't afford to own a car and use the bus service daily anyway, you're already using the bus system and energy price-sensitive growth wouldn't be likely to occur.

But is it strictly Durham's geographic size that governs the impracticality of broad use and adoption of bus service? Chen suggests otherwise in her reporting:

And according to the hot and frustrated passengers waiting for DATA buses in the sweltering heat downtown Thursday afternoon, service has gotten worse.

Many commuters at the terminal in front of West Village said the wait is often 30-40 minutes, sometimes an hour. Buses don't come on time and drivers are often impatient, pulling away before everyone can get on.

"A lot of people with good jobs are now riding the bus. The gas prices are making them think of this now," said Willie Jackson, a disabled man who waited in the heat in a crisp white shirt and gray dress pants.

We haven't looked closely at DATA since last summer's daily-commuting series on the subject. But since then, I've come across the following intriguing data point, which dates back to 2005 service numbers from each of the major local bus systems: