Hey everyone,
This is a friendly reminder: tomorrow is the deadline to get our comments
to Dwayne regarding changes to the Neighborhood Improvement Grants Program!
Does everyone have a copy of the most current program description? If not,
let Dwayne know by e-mailing him at Dwayne.Patterson(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us.
Please post your comments to RCAC(a)eastraleigh.org <rcac(a)eastraleigh.org>, so
that they may be seen by everyone and perhaps spark more comments from
others.
To get the ball rolling, a couple questions:
At the March workshop we discussed whether or not CACs should be eligible to
apply for funds through the Neighborhood Improvement Grants Program. There
was a lot of debate regarding this. Some people felt that CACs should NOT
be eligible because they aren't technically "neighborhood organizations" and
that the money should go directly to neighborhoods. Many of those same
folks also felt that CACs shouldn't be eligible for grant funds because they
don't have a structure in place for dealing with money.
Others thought that unorganized neighborhoods, which would otherwise be
ineligible for city funding, could benefit from grant funds secured by a
CAC. A CAC could use the funds to help the neighborhood organize and
thereby directly help the neighborhood establish its own organization while
also solidifying that neighborhood's connection with the CAC to which it
belongs.
What do y'all think about this issue?
If CACs were allowed to apply for city grant funding, how do you think the
money should be administered?
If CACs are not eligible for these grants, what are some other routes by
which grant funding can be made available to help unorganized neighborhoods
get organized?
What about the requirements for checking accounts and tax ID numbers? Is
that too much of a burden for unorganized, low-income and/or aging
neighborhoods, or will the grant funds be impetus enough for those
neighborhoods to self-organize?
I look forward to hearing folks' responses!
Ana Duncan Pardo
Chair, Hillsborough CAC
Chair, RCAC
(919) 818-5933
Thus far, this is the only comment I have received concerning the NIMG. As previously agreed upon, the deadline is April 3 to allow me a week to compile a draft incorporating all the comments and suggestions. Please e-mail your ideas. Thanks.
Serving with Excellence,
Dwayne C. Patterson
Neighborhood Services Supervisor
Community Services Department
919.996.5710
Website: Community Services Homepage<http://www.raleigh-nc.org/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_306_204_0_43/…>
________________________________
From: Justin Fisher [mailto:colfisher@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2009 4:26 PM
To: Patterson, Dwayne
Subject: Re: Neighborhood Improvement Matching Grants
Dwayne,
I tried to send my comments a couple of days ago, but had trouble with the new portal. Anyway, I thinks the new version is generally OK. You've probably already discussed the fact that requiring four meetings a year is going to cut out many neighborhood associations, HOAs, etc. Ours here in Laurel Woods meets officially once a year. However, committees, subcommittees and ad hoc groups are working all the time. The number of volunteer hours is amazing for such a small neighborhood. Soon, we'll be cooperating with two other neighborhood associations adjoining us -- sharing information, discussing reinvigorating a moribund neighborhood watch, perhaps having a social affair in the summer, and so on. Yet we won't be able to apply for even the 50% matching money.
I think that if an organization is a legal entity, has a bank account, is registered with the city and otherwise qualifies, the "four meetings a year" requirement should be waivable.
That's my two cents' worth. Thanks for the opportunity.
Justin Fisher
3026 Lion Ridge Court
Raleigh, NC 27612-4235
colfisher(a)yahoo.com
256-656-5162
--- On Tue, 3/24/09, Patterson, Dwayne <Dwayne.Patterson(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us> wrote:
From: Patterson, Dwayne <Dwayne.Patterson(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us>
Subject: Neighborhood Improvement Matching Grants
To: "Alan Wiggs" <awiggs(a)norcaeng.com>, "Alice J. Garret" <Nashett1(a)aol.com>, "Ana Pardo" <acpardo(a)gmail.com>, "Andrew LeLiever" <cac-vice-chair(a)eastraleigh.org>, "Bill Lynn" <lynnewilliam(a)aol.com>, "Bill Padgett" <Bill(a)BillPadgett.com>, "Candy Fuller" <candyfuller(a)earthlink.net>, "Charles Putterman" <cputterman(a)puttermanlaw.com>, "Chris Moutos" <chrran1(a)hotmail.com>, "Christopher Allen" <allenlaw(a)nc.rr.com>, "Craig Smith" <csmith9899(a)aol.com>, "Danny Coleman" <buildcon(a)bellsouth.net>, "Erika Rosenberger" <theeahr(a)bellsouth.net>, "Eugene Weeks" <eweeks1(a)bellsouth.net>, "F.Lonnette Williams" <flonnettewms(a)bellsouth.net>, "Jay Gudeman" <jay(a)kilpatrickgudeman.com>, "Jeannine Grisson" <edithg50(a)aol.com>, "John Dombalis" <dombalis(a)hotmail.com>, "Justin Fisher" <colfisher(a)yahoo.com>, "Louise Griffin" <Louise(a)BreezeWithLouise.com>, "Margo White" <ldybggrlblue5(a)aol.com>, "Margret Link" <Margaret_Link(a)ncsu.edu>, "Mark Turner" <cac-chair(a)eastraleigh.org>, "Mark Vander Borgh" <mvdborgh(a)yahoo.com>, "Mark Vander Borgh" <raleighwcac(a)yahoo.com>, "Mary Belle Pate" <southralcap(a)aol.com>, "Nancy Murray" <nancy(a)digitalmurray.com>, "Norman Camp" <normancamp(a)bellsouth.net>, "Octavia Rainey" <Octavia_Rainey(a)yahoo.com>, "Patrick Martin" <acemar(a)aol.com>, "Paul Brant" <paulbrant(a)mindspring.com>, "Philip Poe" <pwpoe(a)att.net>, "Richard Bostic" <richardb(a)ncleg.net>, "Richard Stearn" <stearnsrh(a)earthlink.net>, "Sandra Cassidy" <sandracassidy(a)bellsouth.net>, "Scott Maher" <scottbmaher(a)yahoo.com>, "Sue Sturgis" <cac-secretary(a)eastraleigh.org>, "Tony Bethea" <tcbethea(a)earthlink.net>
Date: Tuesday, March 24, 2009, 3:01 PM
RCAC Members,
It was decided at the March 18 meeting that each member would review and offer suggestions for enhancement of the Neighborhood Improvement Matching Grant process and criteria. Members have until April 3 to submit your suggestions. I will then compile the recommendation into a draft version for further review and comments at the April 15 meeting. Thanks.
Serving with Excellence,
Dwayne C. Patterson
Neighborhood Services Supervisor
Community Services Department
919.996.5710
Website: Community Services Homepage<http://www.raleigh-nc.org/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_0_306_204_0_43/…>
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
"E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized City or Law Enforcement official."
“E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties by an authorized City or Law Enforcement official.”
Hi all,
FYI and attention. Hopefully we will get a better picture of the discussion items for the next few meetings based on this response from Mitchell.
Paul
paulbrant(a)mindspring.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Silver, Mitchell
To: paulbrant(a)mindspring.com
Cc: Bowers, Kenneth; Thomas A.Bartholomew Jr.; Rodger Koopman; Stephenson, Russ; Nancy McFarlane
Sent: 4/1/2009 4:50:30 PM
Subject: RE: COW Review of the 2030 Comp Plan
Paul,
I believe the agenda was clear. We made a special note, which we underlined, of the subject matter of the COW meeting.
CP-1-09 The 2030 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Raleigh. The proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan update existing System Plans as Plan Elements; add new Elements addressing Land Use, Environmental Protection, Urban Design, Arts and Culture, and Regional and Inter-jurisdictional Coordination; replace the Urban Form Map and related guidelines with a Future Land Use Map; and reduce the number of Area Plans from 67 to 21. (NOTE: Land Use and the Future Land Use Map will be the focus of discussion at this meeting.)
I will take your issues one at a time.
1) The list was not �staff recommended� changes to the Land Use map, but staff offered a recommendation to changes recommended by someone else (citizen, community group, land use attorney, developer, etc). The changes to the land use map came from two sources: comments submitted as part of the public review process where staff recommended �no change� and changes recommended during the March 19th public hearing. I don�t know about the specific knowledge from land use attorneys you are referring to, but staff was contacted by a variety of people to find out what part of the comp plan would be discussed on the COW agenda. Once the agenda topic was posted, staff received calls from land use attorneys, planners, developers and citizens.
2) Staff sent a draft list of recommendations to the PC late Friday upon their request, but the final draft list of recommendations was not completed until Monday afternoon (3/30). As you know, staff generally brings COW material to the meeting the day of the meeting.
3) Staff or the PC could not predict how many items would be addressed at the 3/31 COW, so the �Land Use and Future Land Use Map� was listed as the agenda item. We were aware that all items staff reviewed may not have been discussed at the COW due the number of items. Someone who came to the COW meeting may have been upset if an item was listed on the agenda, but not discussed due to time constraints. I will defer to the COW Chair on how he would like the agenda to be listed in the future.
4) The City does not require property owners to be contacted on comp plan amendments. Since the land use maps and policies affect every citizen, the City would have to contact every property in the City, which is not practical.
5) The list of land use changes with staff recommendations presented at the COW meeting on 3/31 will be posted to the Planningraleigh2030.com website along with the minutes after the full PC approves the minutes at their next meeting.
6) As you know, the City has been committed to transparency throughout the process and that commitment continues.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The COW chair has been copied on this e-mail and I will discuss how we should list items on future COW agendas. There are likely 3-4 remaining meetings the PC will hold on the Comp Plan. Each one is important and therefore, I would encourage attendance at each one.
Mitchell Silver, PP, AICP
Director,
Department of City Planning
One Exchange Plaza, PO Box 590
Raleigh, NC 27602-0590
919.516.2625 phone
919.516.2684 fax
e-mail: mitchell.silver(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us
Department: www.raleighnc.gov/planning
Comprehensive Plan: www.planningraleigh2030.com
From: paulbrant(a)mindspring.com [mailto:paulbrant@mindspring.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:16 PM
To: Silver, Mitchell
Cc: Bowers, Kenneth; Thomas A. Bartholomew Jr.; Rodger Koopman; Stephenson, Russ; Nancy McFarlane
Subject: COW Review of the 2030 Comp Plan
Mitchell,
I was very surprised to find out when I attended the PC COW meeting yesterday that there was such specificity in the items being discussed concerning the staff recommended changes to the Land Use Map. While the agenda notification of the meeting indicated a discussion on the Land Use Map would take place there was no indication that I could find on the web site of the specific areas of the map under review and recommendation. Since I did see a number of lawyers at the meeting with seemingly specific knowledge of the items under discussion as they affected their clients I am concerned that the general public and those property owners nearby and directly affected are not likewise aware of these staff recommendations prior to these meetings.
As you know I have spent considerable time in this update process, reviewing documents, making comments and following up with staff and others in my CAC to ensure they are aware of the opportunities to input to the process. However, I do not believe that any member of the general public was made aware of the agenda details that were behind the CP-1-09 agenda item as published on the city's web site. If such detail is available I have not been able to locate it.
Since each of these items are important to all concerned I would appreciate having a copy of the specific items to be discussed published on the web site. I know it is a monumental task to have you advise all affected property owners of these recommendations and yet I think it is important that there be a completely open and transparent process in which at least those who have provided comment concerning the affected area as well as the CAC Chair be notified when their item of interest is to be addressed within a Planning Commission or Council Committee. At least the agenda and the detailed list of items to be discussed need to be available in e-mail notifications or on the city's web site.
It was more by accident than good planning that I happened to attend the PC COW meeting yesterday. I thought it was merely to map out the work program and discuss how the various recommendations would be discussed and the process approved. It was obvious that other people at the meeting knew that there was a long list of specific recommendations that were to be discussed and decisions made. I can find no reference in any information available to the general public informing us of that process or the items addressed.
Please keep all interested parties informed of the details so we can be certain every opportunity for feedback on these recommendations is provided to the general public.
Sincerely,
Paul
paulbrant(a)mindspring.com
Bah. Nevermind. I see that it went out (I was looking at March's
archives and not April's. Duh).
Cheers,
Mark
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: COW Review of the 2030 Comp Plan
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:16:21 -0400
From: paulbrant(a)mindspring.com <paulbrant(a)mindspring.com>
Paul Brant (who bcc'd RCAC) just sent this email. I approved it to be
sent to the list but I don't think Mailman knows how to handle email
sent to it as bcc. I'll look into bcc's, but for now you might try
simply cc'ing it to RCAC. It's an open list so all messages are public
anyway.
Regards,
Mark
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: COW Review of the 2030 Comp Plan
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 14:16:21 -0400
From: paulbrant(a)mindspring.com <paulbrant(a)mindspring.com>
Reply-To: paulbrant(a)mindspring.com
To: Mitchell Silver <mitchell.silver(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us>
CC: Kenneth Bowers <Kenneth.Bowers(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us>, Thomas A.
Bartholomew Jr. <tbartholomew(a)bellsouth.net>, Rodger Koopman
<rodger(a)rodgerkoopman.com>, Russ Stephenson
<Russ.Stephenson(a)ci.raleigh.nc.us>, Nancy McFarlane
<nancy(a)nancymcfarlane.com>
Mitchell,
I was very surprised to find out when I attended the PC COW meeting
yesterday that there was such specificity in the items being discussed
concerning the staff recommended changes to the Land Use Map. While the
agenda notification of the meeting indicated a discussion on the Land
Use Map would take place there was no indication that I could find on
the web site of the specific areas of the map under review and
recommendation. Since I did see a number of lawyers at the meeting with
seemingly specific knowledge of the items under discussion as they
affected their clients I am concerned that the general public and those
property owners nearby and directly affected are not likewise aware of
these staff recommendations prior to these meetings.
As you know I have spent considerable time in this update process,
reviewing documents, making comments and following up with staff and
others in my CAC to ensure they are aware of the opportunities to input
to the process. However, I do not believe that any member of the general
public was made aware of the agenda details that were behind the CP-1-09
agenda item as published on the city's web site. If such detail is
available I have not been able to locate it.
Since each of these items are important to all concerned I would
appreciate having a copy of the specific items to be discussed published
on the web site. I know it is a monumental task to have you advise all
affected property owners of these recommendations and yet I think it is
important that there be a completely open and transparent process in
which at least those who have provided comment concerning the affected
area as well as the CAC Chair be notified when their item of interest is
to be addressed within a Planning Commission or Council Committee. At
least the agenda and the detailed list of items to be discussed need to
be available in e-mail notifications or on the city's web site.
It was more by accident than good planning that I happened to attend the
PC COW meeting yesterday. I thought it was merely to map out the work
program and discuss how the various recommendations would be discussed
and the process approved. It was obvious that other people at the
meeting knew that there was a long list of specific recommendations that
were to be discussed and decisions made. I can find no reference in any
information available to the general public informing us of that process
or the items addressed.
Please keep all interested parties informed of the details so we can be
certain every opportunity for feedback on these recommendations is
provided to the general public.
Sincerely,
Paul
paulbrant(a)mindspring.com <mailto:paulbrant@mindspring.com>
Mitchell,
I was very surprised to find out when I attended the PC COW meeting yesterday that there was such specificity in the items being discussed concerning the staff recommended changes to the Land Use Map. While the agenda notification of the meeting indicated a discussion on the Land Use Map would take place there was no indication that I could find on the web site of the specific areas of the map under review and recommendation. Since I did see a number of lawyers at the meeting with seemingly specific knowledge of the items under discussion as they affected their clients I am concerned that the general public and those property owners nearby and directly affected are not likewise aware of these staff recommendations prior to these meetings.
As you know I have spent considerable time in this update process, reviewing documents, making comments and following up with staff and others in my CAC to ensure they are aware of the opportunities to input to the process. However, I do not believe that any member of the general public was made aware of the agenda details that were behind the CP-1-09 agenda item as published on the city's web site. If such detail is available I have not been able to locate it.
Since each of these items are important to all concerned I would appreciate having a copy of the specific items to be discussed published on the web site. I know it is a monumental task to have you advise all affected property owners of these recommendations and yet I think it is important that there be a completely open and transparent process in which at least those who have provided comment concerning the affected area as well as the CAC Chair be notified when their item of interest is to be addressed within a Planning Commission or Council Committee. At least the agenda and the detailed list of items to be discussed need to be available in e-mail notifications or on the city's web site.
It was more by accident than good planning that I happened to attend the PC COW meeting yesterday. I thought it was merely to map out the work program and discuss how the various recommendations would be discussed and the process approved. It was obvious that other people at the meeting knew that there was a long list of specific recommendations that were to be discussed and decisions made. I can find no reference in any information available to the general public informing us of that process or the items addressed.
Please keep all interested parties informed of the details so we can be certain every opportunity for feedback on these recommendations is provided to the general public.
Sincerely,
Paul
paulbrant(a)mindspring.com
