Everybody you talk to these days wants to talk about growth. It is, I believe, the number one issue for the 2008 election cycle. School requirements, road needs, and tax issues are all directly related to how we handle growth. First, I want to explain some of the facts surrounding our current growth environment in the county, followed by my 5 point plan for how we continue to manage growth in Cabarrus County.
Current Growth in Cabarrus County.
1. As the county continues to grow, more and more of the county planning process is controlled by the 5 cities. The county actually only has zoning control over the NW Area of the county, the central areas between Harrisburg and Midland, and the eastern 1/3d of the county surrounding Mt. Pleasant and including the communities of Rimer, Barrier’s Crossroads, Georgeville, and Mt. Mitchell.
2. In spite of what you hear, see, or are told by Coy Privette and his bunch, the consent agreements approved by the county commission since mid 2005 isn’t causing the current growth you see. This current crop of homes are provided courtesy of Mr. Privette and his gang that controlled the county commission from 1999-2004, when over 11,000 homes were approved for construction. These are the homes being built today.
3. Only 11% of the lots approved in the county since mid 2005 have been in the unincorporated, rural parts of the county. The rest have been approved by one of the 5 cities (6 if you count Locust), where they are better able to provide the needed infrastructure for higher density development.
4. The passage of the Agricultural District Preservation Program by the county in late 2005/early 2006 has been a rousing success. Over 10,000 acres of farmland has been preserved for up to 10 years. Do a little math, and you will realize that by doing this, we have saved anywhere from $85 to $220 MILLION dollars over the next ten years, by homes NOT being built on this farmland. Best thing about it? These farmers did this by their own choice.
5. The passage of new zoning laws and subdivision standards by the board of commissioners in mid 2005 made it mandatory to set aside open space in certain types of subdivisions, as well as prohibiting hook-ups to public utilities in most of the unincorporated parts of the county. The only way this can be changed is through a public process to rezone the land. The effect of this was a 75-80% reduction in the number of homes that can be built in the unincorporated parts of the county. In spite of these measures, growth continues within our cities, which much be addressed. Schools have to built to accommodate new students, regardless of where their homes are located. For this reason, more needs to be done to address growth in the county.
Here are my five strategies we need to utilize to address our Future Growth Issues:
1. Start with the Water. Yes, we have the IBT approved, and yes, we have several reservoirs that provide our drinking water. Instead of letting the future population dictate how much water is needed, we should go the opposite direction, and set growth ceilings based upon the water capacity we have now, plus the IBT. There also needs to be a workable water sharing arrangement of our water resources that will ensure Mt. Pleasant, Harrisburg, and Midland get their fair share of the currently existing water capacity.
2. Collaboration. As growth pressures increase around the fringe areas of our cities, rather than letting things sprawl out of control, we need to work on micro-plans that are completed in consultation with the specific city, as well as the residents in the area being studied to ensure that development is consistent, well thought out, and reflects the desires of the people in that area that are affected.
3. We must intentionally rezone, designate, and even purchase development rights and options on land that will be designated for future use as industrial, commercial and or school property. This is sound planning and fiscal policy, as if we do not take this action, then we will not have the land available for business and industry to diversify our tax base, and we will not have land left to build schools on.
4. We must continue to walk the tight-rope related to our adequacy advancement contributions. Several folks are maintaining that we should increase this amount to cover 100% of the cost of new school construction. Although I believe their heart is in the right place, doing so will lose the very delicate balance that has been reached between our board and the development community, and most likely result in a costly and bitter court battle, which the county could lose. A loss of this type would return 100% of the burden of paying for new schools on the property tax payer, including those least able to pay.
5. We must develop a preservationist mindset in regards to growth in the unincorporated parts of the county. This means we as a board have to protect our local food supply by promoting agriculture and agribusiness as a valid part of our economy in Cabarrus County; we must avoid the temptation to rezone, unless there is a significant need to do so; and, we must develop development standards that support a sustainable community, where water is recycled, walking is encouraged, and neighborhoods are born.
There you have it. What do you think? Any other ideas?
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe via E-mail
19 responses so far ↓
1 Aaron // Apr 3, 2008 at 6:39 am
OK so where does the money for the adeqecy fees go to when the developer pays it? Please say it’s in a special fund to build schools and not to the general fund. Please oh please tell me that.
Also, I’d say that in the areas where it really matters, i.e. public safety and schools that the cities are not better off than the county as far as providing services to these new developments. They don’t control the schools and they don’t seem to care too much about the public safety…
2 Bob Carruth // Apr 3, 2008 at 7:44 am
Aaron, great question & comment. The money is used for school construction, although it is not set aside in a special “fund”. It is accounted for separately by our finance department. What is interesting is this - For the vast majority of homes approved from 1999-2004, only $500 was collected, and $0 for homes approved by Concord & Kannapolis. As a result, only about $3 million was available from these homes. That’s the major cause for this huge need for schools to be built the next 5 years. Since the fees were raised in late 2004, and again in 2007, few subdivisions have yet to pay these fees; however, as they pay them, we will see a significant increase in the amount of funds being received by the county.
As for the services - debate over city vs. county public safety is a debate for another time. The primary thing to take away is that water and sewer service is available in our cities, not in the county. Want to know what caused the mess around Rocky River School? There was no water line there, but when the school was built, a water & sewer line was run out to the school, and since the zoning was already there, houses popped up like popcorn.
The bid secret to controlling growth - where sewer lines are at, there will be growth. Where they are not, there won’t be.
3 Bob Carruth // Apr 3, 2008 at 8:32 am
Aaron, I did followup with Pam Dubois, our finance director. The adequacy fees are accounted for in a separate fund. She will be providing me with an updated spreadsheet, and I will share the totals once I get it.
4 Justin Thibault // Apr 3, 2008 at 9:31 am
People - Really, you’re asking questions that are causing are candidates to actually have to look things up!
Try lobbing some softballs. Why don’t you do what the Observer did and ask circa 2002 questions. Maybe you’d like to know what book they’ve read lately.
Keep asking tough questions and we’re not going to get any other candidates or officials to answer anything around here
5 Aaron // Apr 3, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Hey, it was an honest question. I wasn’t sure if we were more transparant than the state and it’s lottery money for “the children” flowing through the general fund.
It’s nice to know our local folks have figured out the need for a checking and savings account. I was beginning to wonder if any of our state or federal representatives had ever had to balance a checkbook before they got elected. Either that or they missed the Negative versus positive numbers class in 7th grade pre-algebra.
I noticed you talking about city and county fees differences. The next question is: Have we sorted out a way to collect fees for ALL new homes regardless of where they happen to be located? Is it tied to new housing building permits?
AND: Here’s another good’un:
Do we collect a fee per unit on new apartment complexes, duplex and townhouses?
It goes back to the schools issue: What’s the point of collecting some from some and none from others when the local folks (kannapolis city schools exempted) don’t have to pay an extra dime other than their property taxes.
I know this is listed on some website somewhere but I like asking the go to folks up front!
6 Bob Carruth // Apr 3, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Aaron,
1. Up until 2004, Concord and Kannapolis did not collect the fees, as they felt they were treading on thin ice legally. This changed in 2004 when Fletcher Hartsell introduced language in a bill in the NC Senate that specifically authorized it. That’s what really opened the floodgates for the APFO. Since then, every subdivision approved in the county, whether in or out of the city, has to be reviewed for school adequacy, and the fee assessed in a consent agreement. These are the things you see coming up before the BOC just about every month.
2. In addition to this, we modified the ordinance to require the builders to commit to a build out schedule, that is tied to the number of seats available for that particular year. This is usually where the negotiation takes place. For instance, for a 100 home subdivision, the developer may agree to build 20 homes per year for 5 years. This helps tremendously with our planning process.
2. As far as townhouses and apartments are concerned, they pay a fee, although not as large, as they generate less students per unit (0.2) than single family homes (0.6).
7 Dennis OConnor // Apr 4, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Just discovered this blog, good stuff,wish the local papers had this type of info. Speaking of info, where are we at on the proposed sales tax increase? I was/am opposed to being blackmailed by the Speedway, and now I have to fund the 80 million incentive to further line Brutons pockets. Can we as taxpayers,DEMAND transparency in this massive welfare exercise? By that, I would expect to be able to know dollar for dolar where MY money is being spent and where dollar for dollar the “200 million” investment from the speedway is going. Lets be real, I just don’t trust them when they claim 200,000 race fans or 200 million in investment. If we are coughing up 80 million, we should have the right to know exactly what the speedway is investing in, to the penny.My belief is that it will be a fraction of that amount
8 Justin Thibault // Apr 5, 2008 at 7:07 am
Dennis - The proposed money from the state and local governments to be spent around the Speedway. The money will not be spent by Bruton Smith. This was a misconception that was leaked to the press by Coy Privette to take the attention off of the public call for his resignation for check fraud and whoremongering.
Most of the the money will be going towards road improvements. The proposed projects include:
- Extending G.W. Liles Parkway all the way to 29.
- Fixing the bridge on Hwy 29 (one of the most unsafe in the state)
- Reconfiguring Morehead Road so that it connects directly to Speedway (now Bruton Smith) Blvd.
- Make fixes around a nearby exit (Poplar Tent) by fixing the weirdness around there (the intersection at Pitts School Road)
As I’ve written before the old majority couldn’t have pulled off a deal where we keep the speedway here and commuters and homeowners in the Western part of the County - like me - will benefit.
Under the old majority, they would have blamed just John Cox.
9 Bob Carruth // Apr 5, 2008 at 10:17 am
On the speedway - no final agreement has been signed on what we will do. These negotiations will continue. I can tell you that outside of public road improvements, which will not only benefit the commuters, as Justin pointed out, but will help to increase the value of the Philip Morris property by providing direct access to the interstate, we are being absolutely diligent that the moneys the county provide will only go to public infrastructure improvements. That was our position from the very beginning. These public improvements are what any local government would be obligated to when you have a large venue, private or public, that is located in your jurisdiction. Prior to any agreement being signed, however, I support having public comments taken, and the agreement being explained in detail so our citizens understand what is going on.
Our local property tax revenue grew by 5% last year. We expect the sales tax being paid by visitors alone to double in the next 3 years due to new hotel construction.
Although the sales tax can raise $10,ooo,ooo a year, which would be used for badly needed road improvements in the county, we need to wait and see if it is needed in the future. One critical thing we need to understand - if the state of NC is true to form, they will drop another unfunded mandate on the county by making us maintain our own secondary roads. IF this happens, then we would be foolish to ask the property tax to bear this burden, when we are arguably the #1 tourist destination in the state outside the Outer Banks. A sales tax would take advantage of this large number of visitors by having them pay their fair share.
If this sales tax does come to fruition, however, it should only be enacted with a vote of our citizens.
10 Dennis OConnor // Apr 5, 2008 at 11:35 am
Justin/Bob, great points and I do agree with most of what you say.. However my point was that we were held hostage by the ,[in my humble opinion] empty threat of moving the speedway-no way was that going to happen. As a result, the speedway got their butts kissed,the taxpayers were commited to 80 million in improvements/ needed or not. The speedway had pledged 200 million in improvements to their facility,needed or not. From where I sit, which is 4 miles from the noise, I want to know how the speedway will be held accountable for their pledge.The speedway is a valuable resource to this county. But we must be realistic in our dealings with them.To me its all been a carny game and we the taxpayers are the suckers.I still say show me the improvements that they say they are going to do.
11 Bob Carruth // Apr 5, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Dennis, I think all of us can agree this thing started with the dragstrip issue - it’s one of those situations where as a commissioner, you get handed a lemon, and the best you can do is make lemonade out of it. Believe me, I can think of better things I would like to have done during the weeks leading up to Thanksgiving than to try and make Bruton Smith happy -
As the old saying goes, the “devil is in the details”. I think you have the right group of commissioners to ensure that we don’t give the county away, but do something that will benefit us all. This will come in the final agreement.
12 MarkMartin // Apr 8, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Bob - I think you are correct in your identification and resolution of growth issues in Cabarrus County. While I served on Council in Harrisburg, we made sure we did our part to be ‘team players’ and incorporate policies which were inline with many of your points.
#1 Water - Harrisburg has actively researched ways to reduce the Town’s dependency on water from reservoirs which must also provide water to other growth areas. By drilling wells and constructing a water storage tank (Rocky River Road), the Town can provide water to residential growth without adding demand on the reservoirs. Wells can not meet 100% of the water requirements for Harrisburg, but they can certainly aid in conservation efforts.
#2 Collaboration - I Chaired the Committee which worked in collaboration with the County to convert the Harrisburg Fire Department from a ‘volunteer county’ status to a ‘municipal’ status. It required more than 2 years of research and analysis to finally receive approval. While the end result was success, I believe the process would have benefited by having district representation on the BOC.
#3 Land Use - With what little land is left available in Harrisburg for development, the Town has remained true to the Land Use Plan. Developers can easily see the ‘vision’ for Harrisburg by looking at the area Land Use Plan. Harrisburg has successfully denied rezoning request which did not meet the defined Land Use Plan for a given area. By not folding to the wishes of developers, Harrisburg is providing assistance to growth management.
#4 Adequacy Advancement Contributions - Harrisburg has supported the assessment and collection from the beginning.
#5 Think Green - Actually, this idea came about after I left office; but I continue to encourage the Town to search for opportunities. While serving on Council, I tried to introduce the Town to the concept of using ‘electric cars’ instead of ‘gas trucks’ to drive around and read water meters. No action has been taken to date to my knowledge. My latest suggestion to the Town involves collaborating with the City of Concord to expand the ‘Rider’ public transit system to include a bus stop in Harrisburg at Town Center. Harrisburg conducted a study to create a pedestrian friendly environment with the vision to connect surrounding residential areas to Town Center. If Town Center is the destination of pedestrian traffic, then we need to provide public transportation for people to reach destinations outside of Harrisburg. The ‘Red Line’ already runs to Concord Mills Mall, why not extend it to Town Center?
13 Steve Smith // Apr 8, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Mark
Converting the Harrisburg Fire Department from volunteer county’ status to a ‘municipal’ status was one of your Crowning Achievements after getting rid of some of the “Cronies” that ran the Volunteer Department. Harrisburg is now the proud owner of an outstanding Fire Department that I will put up against anyone any where. But I still dont think we need district representation on the BOC, sorry….
Now that Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize, everyone and his brother is “Thinking Green”, Whats up with that?????
14 Aaron // Apr 8, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Well Steve, to his point about electric cars reading water meter’s I’d say he’s got a good idea.
If that’s all their doing is reading meters and checking connections and what not it’d be a great idea to drive a Prius that gets 50 mpg versus an F150 that gets 12 MPG.
I’ve always loved the construction culture that says building inspectors and municipal workers need pickup trucks to do the job of riding around and doing electrical inspections and reading water meters…
15 Steve Smith // Apr 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Aaron
I though that they were going to start installing radio controlled water meters that could be read my computer over the internet.
16 Aaron // Apr 9, 2008 at 5:56 pm
I can’t say if that is in the near future anywhere in Cabarrus County. There may be some plans for it but I haven’t heard.
PSNC and Duke energy have already completed these installations and have reduced costs for meter employees and fuel drastically. It’s a great idea though. It would be nice to see a niche company develop contracts with PSNC, Duke and the local Water purveyors to develop a single point of meter reading. With these radio systems in place a van could be up-fitted to read all three signals at the same time…
17 Larry M. Burrage // Apr 20, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Bob Carruth,
It appears The Current BOC has a good pulse count on cabarrus county.Why can the information not be disseminated more clearly and on a more continuos basis?you have really presented some great and much needed facts and /or plans.
The ever present task of dumping all of the past mistakes, poor judgements and ever present tax ,water ,roads .schools,and housing burden ,according to your past 8 years has allowed you to present us with all of the lack of leadership we deserved and expected.How can we possibly move forward with such a cloud of distrust in our system?
I respect your coming forth with all of the above ,but Maybe it is too little,too late?
18 Justin Thibault // Apr 20, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Larry - What of Bob’s past decisions related to growth or his current plans do you disagree with? Please be specific.
19 Larry M. Burrage // Apr 21, 2008 at 11:31 am
Larry M. Burrage
Justin,The Comments were broad and included all past commissioners and officials,they were not solely for Bob.Sorry For The Misunderstanding,The comments were in fact meant to indicate that according to his plans and foresight along with the mistakes in hindsight ,Bob could be a great asset as a Commissioner in the future.Allowing for the composition of the entire board.
I have Great concern about all of the switching of school board members and commissioners ie,Carolyn Carpenter,Grace Mynatt.
Bob has Indeed had to follow a 3 ring circus act .Now It Is Up To His Seniority and capabilities to lead us out of the wilderness into the current status .Where are we headed?
Leave a Comment