April 4, 2006
Meeting Summary – April 4, 2006
RBC Center, 8-11:30 a.m.
Goals/Objectives
1. Summarize infrastructure inventory, plans, and costs presented to the committee.
2. Provide responses to questions and requests for additional information requested by committee members during the informational briefings on county infrastructure.
3. Provide opportunities for work groups to meet with presenters and technical staff to explore infrastructure and financing issues in more depth and detail.
4. Review process for formulating committee recommendations.
Process Overview
Frank Holding Jr., Committee Co-Chairman, welcomed the committee and discussed how the group had been divided into work groups based on stated areas of interest. The work groups are focusing on these areas:
- Criminal Justice Facilities (courts, jails)
- Finance
- Parks and Open Space
- Public Schools
- Transportation (Mobility Choices)
- Wake Tech
- Water and Sewer
Summary of Capital Plans Presented to Blue Ribbon Committee (view entire presentation)
County Manager David Cooke summarized the capital plans presented to the Blue Ribbon Committee so far. He gave an overview of each presentation, including the ones on growth/population trends and economic development/jobs, summarized the long-term spending requirements for each issue and concluded whether there was a funding gap between projected revenues and capital needs. In all cases, the answer is “yes,” with the exception being in the area of water and sewer, which is funded through customer user fees.
Summary of Work Group Discussions
The work groups met with presenters and technical staff to explore infrastructure and financing issues in more depth and detail. These were not intended to be decision-making sessions, but opportunities to clarify issues and raise the level of knowledge within each work group.
Following are the reports from each work group:
Education Work Group Report
Attendees: Superintendent Bill McNeal, Don Haydon, Mike Burris, Drew Moretz, Frank Daniels, Van Eure, John Hood, Bob Luddy, Jim Oblinger, Bill Owens, Tom Oxholm, Virginia Parker, Dale Whitworth
What would you like to know? What additional information would you like in order to start exploring options? Students entering/leaving WCPSS: The Education discussion began with a question regarding data detailing students entering/leaving the WCPSS. What is causing this trend and can it be prevented?
The trend is that parents have been sending their High School-aged children to the WCPSS, removing them from private/parochial/charter or home schools. 75% of new students are coming from new school districts, with 25% coming from the ranks of private/parochial/charter/home schools or foreign countries.
One of the X-factors of growth projections for WCPSS is they are seeing more students return to their classrooms. Another X-factor is the state’s class-size reduction efforts. For the 3rd Grade reduction alone, the initiative required 90 new classrooms to accommodate.
Differing building costs between counties: The group then moved to the differences in school building costs from county to county. While there has been a lot of public comment on the variation from one county to the next, the group discussed what comprises some of these differentials. Counties have differing requirements for programs and teaching space requirements variations. WCPSS provides additional resource rooms, cafeteria, and mobiles. We have differing expectations for life cycles of buildings. We build roofs with the expectation of a 40-year replacement, while in other districts, that number is half of that. While the initial cost of construction is higher here, the life cycles of interiors, exteriors, HVAC and other equipment is longer, due to these decisions. (Example: HVACs on roof shorten the life cycle by half, because the system isn’t protected from the elements.) In addition, Johnston County has used one-design prototypes throughout the district. WCPSS is working with the architect in Johnston County as a possibility to lower costs. It was mentioned that we shouldn’t shoot for low initial costs if it shortens the life cycle, if replacement costs make it more costly. Also, other counties have opened schools w/o air conditioning, which lowers their costs. The committee asked for a comparison between the costs of the two types of schools. The school system will try to find a valid comparison. Additionally, we are making efforts to build well upfront, because we are over 100% utilization, which adds wear and tear to the facility. Another variation in the costs is that maintenance is not equal between districts.
Currently, WCPSS staff recommends retaining full-sized auditorium, separate from the gymnasium. We have more resource classrooms than surrounding counties, because we have more ESL and Gifted Students. In Wake County, 14% of the student population is considered special programs. One question the group had was how does this compare with other districts? This was one reason given for justifying our higher costs. Using the numbers provided by WCPSS, we discussed the schools with the largest price comparison gap to other counties – middle school – and specifically, a discussion on the rationale to have a separate auditorium and gym. The WCPSS is looking at all options, including a review of science lab facilities and the athletic facility requirements. In addition, other Counties are building smaller classrooms. This decision would make Center-based Education more difficult. Decisions have been made, due to teacher requests to retain sinks in the classroom, costing $60,000 per school to equip each school. They have a group of experts from the community to give advice. In addition, the County is hiring a consultant to review current guidelines.
Site costs are another factor increasing the costs of the school construction process. In recent years, site costs have tripled, due to the lack of relatively flat land. Additional grading is being paid for, as is making the additional improvements to roads and interchanges required to getting a permit to build. Typically, we’ve had “just-in-time” purchasing for schools. Other factors also increase the cost to build a school. (East Garner is an example of this issue. At this site, WCPSS has to pay to widen a three-lane road to five lanes, and pave a dirt road in order to get a permit.)
Additional issues related to cost: After the break, we returned to discuss the facility issue in greater detail. Currently, every new high school is getting a stadium. This is a community driven decision. The cost of a stadium is $2.5 million (this pays for bleachers, concession stands, ticket window, and press box). This is roughly 4% of the cost to build a High School. WCPSS is looking at consolidating sports facilities.
We also returned to middle schools having a full auditorium and cafeteria. The question was raised about what the cost of having separate gym/auditoriums vs. having a shared space. The school system will review and return with an answer.
Other districts: The group then talked about other markets and how others were addressing similar issues. We discussed efforts of Clark County, NV, and mentioned Greenville, SC. The WCPSS is a member of the APQC, which is an association of school districts trying to benchmark various efforts. The WCPSS has been benchmarking the system for the last 6-7 years. One member asked what tools we had in Wake County to fund our efforts, compared to other markets. Funding options will be addressed in future presentations, so the conversation was tabled until after the presentation.
We then began discussing teacher turnover in the WCPSS. Statewide, teacher turnover is 14-15%, while locally, we experience around 10%. We must replace roughly 1,200 teachers/year in Wake County. The group discussed principals and accountability efforts. Salaries came up as an issue. Wake County is competitive in the state, ranking 1,2, or 3 in teacher pay, but administrators feel as though we are not competitive nationally. Seven studies have been done about the level of administration spending. According to WCPSS, each study resulted in a conclusion that Administration is lean, and may need more. The most recent figures state that 5% of the school funds are spent on administrative overhead (not counting social workers or bus drivers).
Year-round schools: The discussion then moved to year-round schools. Currently, 17% of Wake County students are in year-round schools. WCPSS will be opening five new year-round elementary schools. Last year, 2,800-3,000 students were turned away from year-round schools. Of these, some may have been offered a different year-round option, but didn’t get their requested assignment and rejected this offer.
How to get started honing in?
One member stated that it’s obvious there is more demand than money, so how do we lower costs while maintaining a higher quality school system? While not everyone agreed with the premise, the committee members were asked to educate themselves, not only to numbers, but also to complexities of the issues facing the school system. As we move toward discussing cost-effectiveness of issues, think 10-20 years out and does it meet the needs to meet our goal, which is strong academic performance of students.
Is baseline of current spending appropriate? We must review current plan. It was said, “Public schools are the vast majority of why we’re here.” The full Committee has so far been looking at what we need, not how much we have and prioritize from there. Additionally, we are basing assumptions on rapid growth, which many municipalities will dictate. Does support for this level of growth exist across the county? We’re hearing that support for this may not exist.
Open Space and Parks Work Group Report
Attendees: Sig Hutchinson, Linda Folger, Sonya McKay, Assad Meymandi, Lou Mitchell, Al Ragland, Phil Zachary; Kurt Smith, Wake County Open Space staff
Everything we are talking about today is designed to take more open space.
We can always build more, but if we don’t get the land now, we can’t get it later.
From this perspective we are the contrarians. Everyone else is for developing land, not saving it; we have to figure out how to reel that in.
There is so much more at stake here that needs to be taken into account.
? - How can we set real goals for acquisition?
? - How can we ensure that the land we are protecting will not be sold off at some point in the future?
? – How much water surface from our lakes are including in open space numbers?
- Our greatest ambition is limited by our scarcest resource.
We have been thinking our scarce resource is money. To us, our scarcest resource is land and how we use it.
? - Where are we going to put everybody?
- Dix is a great opportunity to make a statement about how we feel about open space.
- We are not about 2% of the budget; we are talking about 100% of our assets.
- We’re trying to protect us from ourselves.
Dix Property:
- People are very interested is seeing the Dix Property stay as Open Space.
- What a tremendous opportunity to make a statement about protecting open space.
- Regarding Wake County’s interest in making sure the mental health needs are met: Dr. Meymandi had developed a white paper, “How to Have our Cake and Eat It Too.” He will share.
- Arts, Open Space and Mental Health & Well Being; an integrated trilogy that is beneficial to humankind.
- Richard Florida talks about Arts and Open Space as critical components for attracting the creative class.
? - How can we mobilize interested people, organizations and stakeholders in a rally or march to save Dix?
We need a countywide land use plan.
We need to have the political will to say this is what you are going to do.
Parks and open space needs to be integrated and accessible (such as, integrated into development. Need to start with the developers.)
? - How do we engage all 12 municipalities to make sure everyone is doing their part?
? - How do you work towards building a “total community?”
We also need to consider the impact on the environment
- Air Quality
- Water Quality
- Creating a Healthy Quality of Life
- Water Conservation
- Obesity, Health of Citizens
Next Steps
- Self-attach our premise
- Don’t want to be seen as tree huggers or anti-growth
- Concentrate on water quality
- It’s going to be too little too late if we don’t do this right now
- Open space is well accepted by the public and can stand on its own
- To make Wake County an attractive place to locate your families and your companies
- To maintain and improve what was appealing about Wake County that brought us all here in the first place
? - What are the current obstacles – Not buying land fast enough
? - What kind of objections are we going to get
? - What are we really selling – San Diego
Open Space Addendum:
Dr. Assad Meymandi, a member of the Parks & Open Space Work Group, submitted a synopsis of a position paper he’d written. It is included here at the wishes of the Work Group.
Funding Mental Health Program and Developing a City Park
Have your cake and eat it too!
By Assad Meymandi, MD, PhD, DLAPA*
Your lead editorial, THE DIX DEADLINE, Sunday December 26, served the purpose of bringing to public attention NC's devastated mental health program needs. Since the 1960s, in relative value, the funding of mental health programs in NC has declined drastically. With the closing of Dorothea Dix Hospital (DDH), our fellow citizens who need mental health care and in-patient treatment are left in the cold.
On the other hand, your editorial made a good case for transforming DDH land into a city park. Being an advocate of both, I agree with Raleigh Planning Director George Chapman that the task is complex. But I submit that the summit is surmountable.
Here are some reflections: funding programs for mentally ill is NC's covenant with its citizens enshrined in its constitution. Shirking that sacred duty and promise as we have done for the past 30 years is ethically bothersome and morally bankrupt. In the meantime, passing up the opportunity to turn DDH land into a world class park, like New York City's Central Park, would be another unforgivable travesty that North Carolinians should not accept. We need the park to turn Raleigh into a destination where children can play, visitors bring their families and yes, developers can enjoy building attractive buildings around the park, just as the developers did in 1870 after New York's Central Park was completed. This city park would give Raleigh the soul it so badly needs. It will give Raleigh an identity as an attractive city. Cities are like people. They can be caring, altruistic and beneficent to their citizens, or ugly and narcissistic and self serving. With the construction of this city park, Raleigh has an opportunity to become an altruistic city for all its citizens, young and old.
Earlier this year, I studied the feasibility of planning and constructing a city park. My thoughts are to develop a comprehensive plan for the space between DDH and WakeMed to involve development of southeast Raleigh. This would include Shaw and Saint Augustine Universities and housing and commercial establishments in that region. Since 1961, I have heard about developing South East Raleigh. Yet there has been very little done. This is a good opportunity to advance that goal and offer the citizens of South East Raleigh the break they have needed and asked for in the past 43 years. For this purpose, I made a substantial commitment to the city. I am happy to report that there are many friends and citizens who see the benefit of this proposal and are willing to contribute to that fund. While working on those plans, I also have thought about the plight of the mentally ill, and the need for our state to develop a comprehensive, sustainable source of revenue dedicated to the mentally ill.
Going against the eleventh commandment of the Republican party, "Thou shall not raise taxes", I am proposing that the State tax the rich to support its mental health program. California has succeeded in passing proposition 63, which will impose a tax surcharge of one percent on taxable personal income above one million dollars to pay for services offered through the state's existing mental health system. To pass such a law much leg work needs to be done, an infra-structure laid down, and coalitions developed. I have been closely watching and following the development of proposition 63 in California since August 2004. A huge mixture of powerful alphabet soup lobby, consisting of the National Association for Mental Illness (NAMI), California Psychiatric Association District Branch (CPA), California's six major unions, AARP-California, The California Teachers' Association (CTA), along with American Medical Association, and American Psychiatric Association, just to name a few, participated in forming the Campaign for Mental Health (CMA). The initial initiative will raise $700 million dollars this year. I submit that we start such a campaign today.
* The author is a Raleigh psychiatrist and art advocate
Transportation Work Group
Attendees: Mayor Jan Faulkner, Tom Anhut, Joe Freddoso, Ed Johnson, John Odom, Joe Milazzo, Marcy Pack, Perry Safran, Ben Taylor, John Whitson, and Carter Worthy
Observations by or questions from individual attendees (not consensus)
Transportation patterns and land-use observations
- Our region is constructed differently than most regions in the country. There are positives and negatives to this.
- We are a polycentric region—there are much more VMT; however, we have less congestion for a similarly populated area.
- In comparison to other cities, we are in good shape transportation-wise—we need to figure out how to stay that way.
- 1 out of 4 trips on the highway system are work travel, 3 of 4 trips are not work trips
- Work trips occur at peak hours. I hope that our system is designed for peak travel.
- The most travelled commuting pattern in the state is between Raleigh and RTP.
- The current 30-year plan for transportation contributes to sprawl.
- What is the pattern of development that will be more efficient & less expensive?
- Congestion will increase the more compact the area is (the way the polycentric Triangle is set up, there is less traffic in any one area).
- We can control land-use plan.
- Cary is moving its center of town to the northwest corner (next to RTP). It will be the densest part of Wake County.
- People do not want to be packed in; they will live how they want to live. The market drives this pattern, not the planners.
Observations on growth challenges and infrastructure
- How do we pay for growth?
- Sustainable growth vs. rampant growth
- Need to manage demand in a “smart” way.
- Do we have a coordinated plan that combines water & sewer planning and transportation planning? No.
- RTP collaborates w/different municipalities (water comes from Cary, law enforcement from Wake County, etc.).
- Money has to be used more efficiently—there may be a better way to deliver services.
County level funding
- The county is not in the transportation business.
- Wake County has not kept up with inflation on the tax rate. Taxes need to be raised, and the County Commissioners need the go-ahead to do this.
- Wake County needs to become competitive with its tax rate. People should have to pay for equity on their homes.
- There needs to be a guarantee that the tax revenue will be spent on infrastructure tied to specific programs.
State-level funding and state policy
- Wake is a donor county—this transfer will resonate with the public ($100 million a year that should be ours). We won’t get people to pay more if they’re not going to get their fair share with what they are already paying.
- Has funding been looked at by population or VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled)?
- GPS tax is being studied in Oregon—you get taxed every time you drive your car.
- Legislative agenda that the Chambers in the region produced has transportation issues addressed:
- Try to reduce transfer of funds that are being used for things other than transportation.
- More locally authorized revenue services.
- Modernize the funding formula for transportation resources.
- If tolls are implemented here, keep the resources on the roads here.
- Will there be a practical impact of anything this group does?
- This group needs to come up with a picture of transportation needs.
- Need to focus on what can be accomplished by the recommendations from this group—demand for transportation, capacity for transportation; we can’t provide funding, but we can provide leadership.
- Key issues discussed at this meeting:
Examine land use and transportation coordination policies and strategies
Spending public infrastructure money wisely
Statewide funding structures—roads and transit funded based on vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) or other growth-related indices
Review county tax structure for competitiveness with other areas and in regard to infrastructure needs
Wake Tech Work Group Report
Attendees: Ken Atkins, John Brandt, Jim Herbst, David Lazzo, Sheila Hale Ogle, Dr. Steve Scott, Keith Sutton
The spread out nature of the facilities along with the large number of part-time and night students makes the needs for capital improvements harder for people to see. With the growth of full-time student enrollment, the pressure on facilities, equipment, and faculty is getting worse.
Expenditures for equipment and facilities should increasingly be focused on training workers in the 8 targeted industry clusters identified by RTRP and recruited by WCED. The BTEC facility under construction at NCSU is a good example of that happening.
The growing population and recruitment of high paying jobs drives the demand for “practical jobs” in trades such as electrical, plumbing, HVAC, welding, auto repair, etc. Future demands for facilities and equipment to service this part of the student population will continue to increase. Currently, no part of fees charged to students goes to pay for any facilities and this is a possible option to generate a new revenue source to replace or purchase equipment in the future. A computer use & technology fee of $32 per full-time equivalent (FTE) student was introduced last year.
Today Wake Tech’s documented equipment needs exceed $25 million. The state currently provides only $30 million per year statewide for equipment at 58 community colleges; Wake Tech received $1.3 million of that. This falls far short of needs. One option would be to lobby the general assembly to provide more funding for equipment, especially for training in clusters targeted by both the state and region. Also, equipment can be purchased with bond funds and could be included in a future bond referendum.
Of the 53,000 students currently enrolled, 43,000 live in Wake County, and almost all work in the county. Some Wake residents use surrounding community colleges because of specific programming or because they are closer to where they live or work. Looking outside the county for additional funding is an unlikely source.
Wake Tech currently operates seven campuses and centers; 72 offsite locations are being used and of these, only four charge rent. Wake Tech students pay approximately $218,000 in user fees to the WCPSS for the use of public school facilities. To date, 568 additional potential institutional instruction sites have been identified; increased use of these existing facilities could help offset future capital expenditure needs.
In the new facilities built by Wake Tech, only 64% is available as “assignable space” or space that can actually be used for classrooms and instructional space. The percentage of assignable space in facilities leased from the private sector is much greater, and common areas and parking maintenance are normally paid by the landlord. One option in the future is to apply more funds toward leasing space geographically distributed around the county rather than building new college-owned facilities. College-owned buildings could be focused more toward lab space and instructional areas that have special requirements. Regular classroom space could be leased in more standard private sector buildings at a cost savings.
Buying existing space (such as closed retail space and warehouse space with significant parking) gutting the interior and upfitting it for college use is significantly cheaper and quicker to market than building new facilities. Space at the Millpond (Leased) and Chapanoke Road (Purchased) facilities are good examples of this. However, some savings are offset by administrative costs at these facilities due to additional needs for operational, maintenance and security staff. One option to reduce costs could be to apply a larger percentage of capital improvement dollars to buying and upfitting existing space. An additional advantage to this strategy would be to place instructional space closer to students, this saving them time and commuting costs.
The use of online education is growing rapidly and is an increasing preference of students, especially those currently employed and engaged in continuing education. Wake Tech is taking advantage of this trend to add staffing for these courses using stay at home moms, former public school instructors, graduate students, and career changers. Investing additional funds to grow this method of instruction could have a significant impact on lowering the need for bricks and mortar in the future and could tap into an underutilized resource of instructors that don’t require full benefit packages.
When new facilities are opened, enrollment growth spikes upward and quickly uses up any surplus capacity. One reason for this is between 8,000 and 11,000 students that are accepted each year do not enroll because of lack of space, inconvenient times or locations, or some chose another educational option.
Preparation for the April 24th work session should be focused on identifying creative new sources of revenue, creative use of traditional sources, and a critical look at barriers that currently prevent the college from implementing them.
New
- Student fees to create a revenue source to issue COP’s (certificates of participation) for parking, equipment purchase, or building renovation
- Private sector construction of new facilities on Wake Tech campus or elsewhere to be leased back long term
- Expanding the use of leased or free instructional facilities
- Charging customers market rate fees for services such as auto repair, dental hygiene, cosmetology, and food service. Currently only material costs can be recouped.
- Tax credits to private industry for the donation of equipment used in worker training
Barriers
- Public policy
- Current legislation such as the Umstead Act
- Restrictions on the current use of operational and/or capital improvement funds
Water/Sewer Planning Work Group Report
Attendees: Ann-Cabell Baum Anderson, Denise Bennett, Tim Minton, Amos Mitchell, Smedes York; and staff, Tommy Esqueda, CDM, and John Roberson, Wake County Facilities Design & Construction.
Listed below are issues that were discussed that are directly related/associated with Water and Sewer Infrastructure issues and concerns within Wake County through 2030 (and in some cases beyond 2030):
Recent Water Quality Articles in newspaper
- Will it have impact on infrastructure costs? Yes - if these articles and follow up lead to new and more stringent health standards being added to the treatment of water or wastewater
- Could bring about well testing within the County – which would have a direct impact on Wake County
Big “ah-ha’s” from presentation
- Demand management (use of water reclamation and water conservation) can control cost
- This primarily extends the life of existing facilities and delays the need for new facilities
Infrastructure Funding
- Mostly paid by debt service
- Debt service is typically largest item paid for by water/sewer billing – but it varies from town to town due to current projects individual town is working on
- Costs are fully covered by water/sewer billing. Billing rates can be raised on annual basis to cover new costs/debt service due to direct water/sewer usage.
Biggest Hurdle
- Getting permits for projects
- State attaching other issues to projects for permit approval - stormwater
- At the core of the issue of permitting is the conflict between a desire to grow (by the county and municipalities) and a desire to slow/reduce development in order to protect the environment (by the regulatory agencies)
Long Term Issues
- Establishment of a regional utility. Due to use of water from Harnett County, Johnson County and Durham County, regional will most likely need to go beyond just Wake County – potentially an after 2030 issue)
- Water use efficiency (water reclamation and conservation)
- Stormwater issues
Plans for Bringing Non-Municipal Customers onto System??
- Annexation plans addresses long-term transfer from wells to municipal systems – either by development or forced annexation
- There are no emergency plans (i.e. someone’s well runs dry)
- Water supply watershed residents will stay on well/septic and recent studies indicate that over the long haul those users will be OK as long as density of development remains as currently planned
Are there different ways to deal with debt service? Can you hit them upfront and carry a flat rate over time?
- Not feasible for political reasons in most cases
Are there regions with water issues that we can model ourselves after?
What are the water/sewer rates in these other areas? (ACTION ITEM – see attached paper on rates from across North Carolina)
Should we consider a regional (Wake County) system?
- Yes, current Wake County Water/Sewer plan calls for merger of all the utility systems in Wake County into one utility
- However, interbasin transfer rules will be a big hurdle. Basically there are two basins in Wake County – Nuese and Cape Fear. Current regulations set limits on how much water can be taken from one basin (for water treatment) and returned to the other basin (after wastewater treatment)
- Further, Fuquay Varina and Holly Springs get much of their water from Harnett County – which evidently has an abundance of water – so just having a single Wake County only system seems less appropriate than an even more regional system that may include counties outside of Wake County. This is most likely a beyond 2030 issue.
Water is the gold mine
- Can bring anything you want to the area, but can’t build a house if you don’t have water.
What’s the situation with Commercial/Industrial Businesses?
- Municipalities usually focus on residential use since it’s the most predictable and the largest source of revenue for the systems
- Towns encouraging reclaimed water use for large industrial/pharmaceutical companies (irrigation and cooling tower – potential other uses also)
Use of Kerr Lake as water supply. Will it happen?
- Yes, plans already under way – but probably toward the end of planning period (2030).
What about drawing water from the Cape Fear?
- Yes, but through Harnett County as they already have an intake.
Can we get maps and/or tables of the time it takes to permit a reservoir, water plant and sewer plant? (ACTION ITEM)
Need for Education of the general public regarding water conservation and water/sewer in general
- Use Falls Lake as example – took many years to gain support for using water, but where would we be today if Falls Lake wasn’t available for water supply
- Focus on water conservation and repairing of leaks
- Multiple outlets – radio, newspaper, TV, news
- Should be a consistent and constant message
Are fees the same regardless of use?
- Yes and No
- Raleigh has a level rate regardless of total use (same per gallon rate)
- Cary has inclining rate (the more you use, the more you pay per gallon)
Incentives for Saving Water?
- Sometimes as promotion (i.e. giving out low flow fixtures, etc)
- Separate meters for irrigation
- Rain barrels for irrigation use
- Realization that due to water/sewer billing being based upon usage, that one hurdle to municipalities heavily promoting conservation is the potential for declining billing due to less water use
Do municipalities encourage or discourage private utilities?
Maintain Commitment of Funds to W/S
Issues raised that are outside of Water/Sewer Infrastructure issues and concerns that may need consideration by larger group:
- Education on taxes rates/fees in other growing communities on a national level
- Examples given of tax rates elsewhere being significantly greater than current Wake County or municipal tax rates
- Many of the people moving to Wake County comment on how low the tax rates are
- Long-term maintenance issue associated with stormwater ponds
Criminal Justice Work Group Report
Attendees: George Jones, Mary Nash Rusher, Neil Rudolph, David Strong, and Dianne Boardley Suber; Dave Goodwin, Wake County General Services Administration.
The committee was concerned to know the amount of funding dedicated to:
- Schools
- Mental Health
- Other Human Services
- Criminal Justice
The committee was interested in suggesting court process reviews including:
- Move traffic court out of the central business district
- Move to credit card payment to reduce traffic, review potential gains in e-citation, and move credit card payment to police car
- Explore Night Court as an alternative to building more courtrooms
- Buy the land adjoining the Hammond Road facility for jail growth beyond 2030
- Business process analysis to determine other gains through better workflow or technology
- Alternative facilities should be explored, such as Step Down facilities.
- Tie Criminal Justice to Alternative programs
The committee was interested in understanding how the criminal justice system fit into the overall community and asked:
Follow Up:
The committee is concerned to develop clear goals to agree on at the next meeting.