RCAC

rcac@eastraleigh.org

337 discussions

FW: Comprehensive Plan 2030 Update Proposed Revisions

by paulbrant＠mindspring.com

Sorry. Forgot the agenda attachment. Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com ----- Original Message ----- From: paulbrant(a)mindspring.com To: rcac(a)eastraleigh.org Cc: Candy Fuller; Christopher Allen; Ed Rosenberger; Harold Coleman; Heather Santiago Sent: 4/20/2009 9:05:30 AM Subject: Comprehensive Plan 2030 Update Proposed Revisions FYI and action. You may wish to notify others on your e-mail lists. Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com

16 years, 7 months

Comprehensive Plan 2030 Update Proposed Revisions

by paulbrant＠mindspring.com

FYI and action. You may wish to notify others on your e-mail lists. Paul paulbrant(a)mindspring.com

16 years, 7 months

Time Warner seeks to block municipal Internet

by Mark Turner

Hello fellow CAC leaders. I mentioned this to a few CAC chairs at last night's meeting and thought others might also be interested. A bill is pending in the North Carolina Legislature to effectively prohibit municipalities from providing Internet service the way they do water, sewer, police and fire protection, etc. The bill, House Bill 1252 ironically called the "Level Playing Field Act," would impose onerous restrictions on cities attempting to provide communications to their citizens. It could jeopardize Raleigh's new downtown wireless Internet project, among others. As CAC leaders, you all know how vital communication is for our neighborhoods. You are also aware of our "digital divide" - that many of our citizens cannot afford the high cost of broadband Internet. Some healthy competition would do wonders for this, but this bill would strip the ability for cities to provide their own, affordable Internet service to their citizens. Wilson, NC built its own, state-of-the-art fiber-optic network providing voice, video, and Internet service to its residents. By all accounts it is a smashing success! Wilson subscribers pay $35/month for a system that puts anything Time Warner Cable or AT&T offers to shame. It's twice as fast! Not only that, Wilson's system has been an economic stimulus for the city, keeping jobs in Wilson and attracting new jobs. Now, I'm not saying Raleigh necessarily *should* go out and build its own network - that would have to be decided by the folks in the Big Chairs. But why remove the right for us to even consider it? President Obama's stimulus authorized over $4 billion dollars to improve our nation's broadband infrastructure. That's money Raleigh could be using to connect its neighborhoods for the 21st century - and more importantly, provide JOBS for our citizens. The restrictions House Bill 1252 would prohibit this stimulus money from being spent. No new networks, no new jobs. If you think Raleigh should be allowed to decide its digital future for itself, or if you don't believe billion-dollar companies like Time Warner Cable and AT&T need protection from tiny towns like Wilson, please contact your representatives and let them know how you feel. I sure would like some of that stimulus money ... Here's a link to HB1252: http://is.gd/sNUZ The bill will be in the Science and Technology Committee Wednesday morning. Please contact the committee members ASAP: http://is.gd/sKJ1 Here's a website that follows this issue: http://savencbb.wordpress.com/ Here's the system Wilson built, called Greenlight: http://www.greenlightnc.com Here's what a municipal system could do for Raleigh: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/columns/story/1152083.html Regards, Mark

16 years, 7 months

COW meeting April 21st agenda background

by paulbrant＠mindspring.com

Ken, Is it possible for you or a member of your staff to send the list of Comp Plan 2030 items to be discussed at the above meeting to me and the other CAC Chairs? I understand there are at least 20 or more items concerning the Land Use Map that were not covered at the last meeting and followup items from the previous meeting. It may be just as easy to provide us with copies of the info provided to the PC COW members if it is available in electronic form. You can use the "all reply" to respond as I have copied my fellow RCAC members on this request. Regards, Paul Brant NECAC Chairman paulbrant(a)mindspring.com

16 years, 7 months

Re: [RCAC] FW: April 14, Evite

by Mark Turner

For those of us who have apparently been under a rock, what's this all about? Seems quite mysterious! Regards, Mark Patterson, Dwayne wrote: > FYI >

16 years, 8 months

Comments re grant program

by paulbrant＠mindspring.com

Dwayne, I have several comments which I will try to frame in a logical and understandable way regarding the Grant Program 1.Because the CAC territory includes ETJ areas beyond city limits I would like to see the grant program extend to these areas as well. My rationale is based on the fact that permit and development fees are paid to the city by the ETJ based citizens. All city regulations apply to the ETJ so why not engage these residents in a program sponsored by the city and federal government? 2. The requirement to have a tax ID and bank account is an impediment to the program and should be eliminated. 3. There should be a requirement for before and after pictures rather than just after pictures for physical improvements since there is no way to be certain projects selected were not already completed in an earlier time frame than the request for grant. I don't see anything that would prevent that from happening. 4. Page 3 Item 2 bullet: "At least (4) neighborhood organizational meetings must be held annually." Comment: We can hardly get people to attend the CAC meetings let alone additional neighborhood organizational meetings. Perhaps it would be sufficient to ensure that their group is represented and report at our CAC meetings once a quarter as their project proceeds. I think 2 people every month is burden and will be difficult for us to monitor. People don't always sign in at our meetings despite our best efforts and it will lead to conflict. So having them have an actual reason to attend once a quarter to give a report would be more practical to track and ensure they are attending. 5. Page 3 Item 3 states "Food may not be purchased...." I think that this should be allowed but no more than 10% of the funds used for that purpose. 6. Page 3 Item 4 : Rental of yard equipment should be allowed as long as receipts are provided as an alternative to purchasing and storing. 7. Page 3 Item 6 : There should be the ability to employ individuals and neighborhood businesses even if the city can provide the required service. Most activity for grants will likely take place on weekends and holidays so making it mandatory to use city staff is impractical. Hiring unemployed people is a good opportunity to help the community. City staff already have enough work to do. 8. Page 3 Item 7&8 seem at odds. Why would someone go to the trouble of giving an easement which has to be recorded and filed with the register of deeds without receiving compensation at least for the expenses associated with that process. I think if there are reasonable and justifiable expenses to obtain easements that grant money should be used for that purpose. It is a good means to an even better end. 9.Page 3 Item 10 line 3 typo for the word approved (approved ) 10. Page 4 Item 15 : If a project is to take a bunch of disadvantaged kids to Pullen Park why would it be wrong to provide money to purchase ride tickets? There are many public facilities and events that charge admission and fees that should be waived for a grant program activity or funds from the grant should be available. 11. Page 4 " Match Requirements": I would still like to see Community Services publish a grant application format that would satisfy the grant program request elements. Leaving it to each group to come up with their own letter and format seems inefficient for both parties. 12.Page 4: " Match Requirements 4th bullet, line 2 typo: from the vendor to substantiate (or substantiate). 13. Page 5: Item 3: Mailing address for EIN application is incorrect. Current address is Internal Revenue Service, Att: EIN Operation, Cincinnati, OH 45999 and according to the IRS takes 4 weeks to process. 14. Page 5 Item 4: Fax # is incorrect. Current # is 1-(859)-669-5760 and it takes 4 business days to acknowledge by return fax not 10 days Thanks for the opportunity to comment. Sorry for the delay. Paul Brant NECAC Chairman paulbrant(a)mindspring.com

16 years, 8 months

Re: [RCAC] Reminder: Neighborhood Improvement Grant Program Review

by Justin Fisher

Trying to administer grants to unorganized groups sound difficult. How about allowing CACs to get money for the sole purpose of organizing whichever groups are willing? Then the newly organized groups can apply for grants on their own. Justin Fisher 3026 Lion Ridge Court Raleigh, NC 27612-4235 colfisher(a)yahoo.com 256-656-5162 --- On Thu, 4/2/09, Ana Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com> wrote: From: Ana Pardo <acpardo(a)gmail.com> Subject: [RCAC] Reminder: Neighborhood Improvement Grant Program Review To: "RCAC" <rcac(a)eastraleigh.org> Date: Thursday, April 2, 2009, 2:23 PM 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, 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 -----Inline Attachment Follows----- _______________________________________________ RCAC mailing list RCAC(a)eastraleigh.org http://www.eastraleigh.org/mailman/listinfo/rcac

16 years, 8 months

Water Rate Agenda Item Council Apr 7th meeting

by paulbrant＠mindspring.com

Russ and Rodger, I have had a chance to look at the background material provided by Dale Crisp for the Council Agenda on Tuesday and am sending you my thoughts now that I have a better picture of what is being proposed. Everywhere you look there are significant increases in usage and connection fees but no mention or evidence of cost cutting proposals. The 17% increase for all water users seems to be split 7.5% to cover increased operating costs, 6% to cover lost revenue due to fewer new connections, water conservation and imposed water restrictions due to drought conditions; 3.5% to pay back developers an increase of $3.9M in reimbursement fees for previous over sizing of lines to benefit future development. It looks like the Director of PU is also recommending the city wait until the new updated billing system is in place before implementing the tiered rate billing the Council wants to have in place sooner rather than later. Looking at the justification it appears a reasonable recommendation given the current system has some capacity and stability issues. There is no specific recommendation on how that tiered billing will be implemented so until a proposal is on the table there is not much to address. The Water Conservation Incentive initiative has merit (transferring $500,000 from the reuse water project surplus)but it is really a drop in the bucket, so to speak, covering only 3500 toilet replacements on a base of 167,000+ residential dwellings. Also, I see the Sewer Nutrient Fee will increase by $200 to help fund this initiative which is really asking new customers to pay for existing customers to upgrade there home plumbing. Anyway, there are probably double that number of toilets (300,000) out there that are not up to current conservation standards so 3500 is a small number but it is a start. Of course, extra conservation measures are what caused the budget shortfall so presumably being overly aggressive on an incentive plan would add to that issue if significant cost cutting measures are not likewise addressed. It seems to me customers could be rewarded with a 1 or 2 % billing reduction if their previous year's monthly usage was used as a baseline so that if the current matching month was less they could receive the reduction. This would help keep water conservation on everyone's mind and encourage all consumers to conserve to get the bonus on billing. Perhaps that should be worked into the new billing system as a capability similar to the type of bill we get from Progress Energy (although they do not offer a similar bonus but it is worth pursuing there as well). There are a number of charts and summaries dealing with the relationship of Raleigh's water and sewer rates and connection fees compared to other municipalities. Water rates for Raleigh are in line with Charlotte, Fayetteville, Greensboro and Durham all of which are at the lower end of the scale and are larger towns like Raleigh. There are others that charge more but are smaller towns, many of which are dependent on Raleigh water. One thing you realize when looking at this comparison there are many different ways to justify the charges. You may recall in a recent N&O article on tiered water rates there was much confusion over what was the typical water usage per SF residential dwelling. The consultant stated 6000 gallons, the city said 6 ccf which is 4488 gallons and my own view was closer to 7000 gallons. The N&O had 6000 gallons in their Feb article on the subject. In any case, I notice that in the details of the comparison the base for SFR use is 250 GPD which equates to 7500 gallons per 30 day month. The city claims the average family unit is 2.5 people so that would translate to 100 GPD per person. Given most families are 3-4, and some larger, the family of 4 would use 400 GPD and 12,000 gallons per month. A far cry from the 4488 that the city said was the average family usage and they would see no increase (in fact some decrease) in rates over the current billing approach. Setting that aside for the moment and looking back at the various billing bases by municipality in the report you find billing for new connections based on pipe/meter size, or square feet of the building, or number of bedrooms in the dwelling, or per lot, or in the city versus outside the city, and water used at a variety of rates. Raleigh has an acreage ( explain that to an average citizen)fees for water and sewer separately, plus a meter connection fee and usage fees. Now they want to add something they call a "W/S Capacity Replacement Fee". The new "impact" fee would be based on the $10 per gallon ( no details justifying this number)and the 250 gallon per day average per dwelling(so on one hand Public Utilities acknowledges that 250 gallons per day or 7500 gallons per month is average for new connection capacity planning and yet in their proposal for tiered rates they say it is really 4488 gallons per month or 6ccf; go figure!). That that would be a total of $2500 per new connection; a 154% increase in connection fees over Y09 fees. Even without this new fee, the fees are being increased another 42% (on top of this year's 53%) due to the special $500 Water Nutrient fee and $200 Sewer Nutrient fee increases proposed for Y10. The comparison of water rates based on Y09 numbers places Raleigh in the lower 3rd of rates along with Charlotte, Durham, Fayetteville and Greensboro. In looking at that picture it appears that initial connection fees based on higher fees for the larger users is allowing lower rates for the average SF users in other cities. This is similar to the telephone network principal that business customers with higher usage subsidized residential rates to keep service affordable for the average user. Given the complexity and variety of billing methods I think it is time for Raleigh to select a method that is easy to understand and easily defended. I would clearly state that there is a need to replace and plan for additional capacity when new connections are made to the system. This is capacity replacement costs that need to be borne primarily by new users. They need to combine all the various fees into one fee for water and one for sewer and come up with a method to distribute costs based on the type of connection. For residential it should be the size of the connection/ meter (3/4" being typical of Residential)and so much per bathroom (or "sink" room). In truth bedrooms and square feet do not relate very well to water usage but bathrooms, kitchens and laundry rooms sure do. Then as the size of the connection is increased and the number of "sink" rooms increases the cost of the connection goes up. Wake Forest and Charlotte have done a good job of pipe size related fees and that makes sense to me. This would then be the new "impact" fees. Then the rates can be set with a sold base point say of 6000 gallons per SF dwelling as tier one and an incentive plan implemented with a bonus % for reducing water usage from last year to this year based on a monthly comparison. I think most people would understand the fees and be encouraged to conserve to reduce their costs. Beyond that the City needs to find ways to cut operating expenses (at least 10% in my opinion)and I have not seen any ideas put forward up to this point. Finally, there is a need to educate the public on what the 17% increase will do, ie break it down in pieces help them understand why this level of increase is essential for the sound and stable management of this vital City service whiling maintaining our excellent bond rating. With that explanation we need the cost management initiatives that go along with sharing the grief of higher bills. Paul Brant NECAC Chairman paulbrant(a)mindspring.com

16 years, 8 months

Reminder: Neighborhood Improvement Grant Program Review

by Ana Pardo

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

16 years, 8 months

Neighborhood Improvement Matching Grants

by Patterson, Dwayne

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.”

16 years, 8 months

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

RCAC