Davidson launches new video system at Town Hall

If you've become a regular watcher of Davidson Town Hall meetings this one is for you.

Starting earlier this month recordings of these meetings were integrated with the Novus Agenda software that hosts the meeting agendas.  Desktop url here.  Smartphone url here.

The new system is an upgrade from the previous ustream channel for these meetings at Town Hall for a few reasons.

• The sound quality is much better.
• The agenda and video are integrated so after live recording you can go directly to the portion of the video that matches the agenda rather than hunting for it.
• The minutes are integrated once approved, so everything is in one place.

If there is a downside it is that the camera is fixed in the upper back right of the auditorium which removes flexibility in the camera angles.  Think how less powerful this video of Ralph Clontz explaining the history of the Beaty Street sale if the camera had been behind him.

aShortChronicle was an early proponent of video for these meetings.  It is nice to see the Town investing in this.  It is a great way to let people get more involved.

New MI-Connection Numbers

Update May 11th:  The town public information officer reached out to aShortChronicle today to let us know the delay in posting this information was due to a lost email.  Approval for distribution had been granted, but the information just had not gone out.

Begin original post...

aShortChronicle does not like making mistakes.

In fact, for a blog a significant amount of effort goes into ensuring mistakes don't occur.  Town staff can attest to that based on the flurry of questions they regularly receive.  However, every now and then they do happen, and when they do corrections need to be made.

A couple weeks ago we reported that Mi-Connection subsidies would total $3.5 million in FY2017.  That was incorrect.  The correct number is only $3.05 million.

The error occurred due to how a question asked to town staff was phrased.  The question was answered, but should have been asked slightly differently.

The error was discovered when we came across the below figures in a stack of handouts on the information table in the entrance to Town Hall.

Notice the date.  APRIL 8TH.

After looking back in the town press releases, Facebook postings, budget materials, and the most recent town newsletter since April 8th, it appeared this information has not been widely distributed.  As far as we can tell, no media has reported on it.

When asked why this had not been distributed, the town Public Information Officer said she was waiting to hear back from MI-Connection CEO David Auger before distributing.

Yet, there it was in a stack of printouts for public consumption in the Town Hall lobby.

Overall, the new numbers don't impact the current budget discussions as Mi-Connection related expenses won't change for FY2017 from what was previously reported here.  Davidson still pays $1 million this year, and very likely will  in FY2018 as well.  However, it does show that with the current rate of improvement Davidson could see a significant drop in that $1 million per year expense as soon as FY2019.

That would be important particularly if Davidson embarks on a large capital spending program for new facilities using millions in debt financing.  The freed up cash could be used to prevent the town from having to raise taxes even higher than they already are.

Overall $3.05 million is still a lot of red ink, but things are moving in the right direction and moving a bit faster than previously reported.  That's  welcome news.

It should be noted that the numbers on the sheet say "proposed budget".  Things of course could change again.

Update:  At 3:28pm Monday within hours of this post going up, the Town put out the above numbers in a press release.  Again, the same numbers dated April 8th - a full month ago. 

More on West Branch rezoning weirdness....about those maps...

In addition to the hard to watch and confusing discussion about recusing Commissioner Brian Jenest from voting on a rezoning impacting his project, a second weird thing occurred on the West Branch rezoning request.

During the presentation about the request to reduce the size of the  project's commercial area, the Town tried to convince the audience that the request didn't even come from the project.  No, the town now wants residents to believe the request actually came from the town Planning Department.  On multiple occasions, Mayor John Woods and the town Planning Director made reference to such.

The problem?  That doesn't jive with recent facts or the history of how this project has unfolded on the Westmoreland Farm property.

Here's a the language from the zoning request public hearing on the town website when this came up in March.

"The Westmoreland family has requested a map amendment to the Planning Areas Map to reduce the size of the Neighborhood Services designation. The proposed amendment would designate +/-7.1 acres as Neighborhood General (previously designated as Neighborhood Services)."

As can be clearly seen, the Westmorelands requested this.  That was put on the town site just one month ago.  Now, the town wants the public to believe this originated with the town.

But that's not the most interesting thing that conflicts with this storyline.

Below are two maps.  The first is the West Branch plan submitted by Commissioner Jenest's firm.  The second is the map for the zoning change approved Tuesday night.

Notice that the size of the West Branch commercial area in the first map matches the smaller dark brown area on the second map.  The developer plan assumes this rezonig will go forward.  The larger light brown area on the second rezoning request map shows the commercial area prior to the request.

Now take a look at this map.  This is what's called a "bubble diagram".  It depicts what could be built on the Westmoreland Farm property.  It was sent to the town by ColeJenest&Stone way back in January 2015 - a full year before the West Branch project was submitted. This was before last year's planning ordinance rewrite passed in April.  Commissiner Jenest voted for the rewrite.

Notice the size of the Commercial area in this picture - 6.5 acres - much closer to the amount in the rezoning request than the 12 acres included in the April 2015 planning ordinance rewrite passed months after the bubble diagram was received.  In fact the entire West Branch project submitted in January 2016 looks similar to this "bubble diagram" - right down to the amount of open space.

If town staff wanted the commercial area to be smaller, if it was their idea, why did it not make it into the April 2015 rewrite?  Why did it not get recommended by staff for 9 months after the rewrite while other map amendments went through last fall?  Why did this not come up until the West Branch project - a project that involves a sitting Commissioner - submitted a rezoning request - a request that looks very much like the bubble diagram that Commissioner's firm put together a year earlier?

Incidentally, per a public records request made last year, just one week after the Planning Ordinance rewrite passed on April 15th, 2015 a representative of ColeJenest&Stone contacted the town with a number of questions about the property, saying...."We are working towards a schematic site plan for the Westmoreland property along Davidson-Concord Road and have a few questions/requests" .  The firm was already master planning the property - one week after the planning ordinance rewrite - a rewrite that impacted this property - passed.

It is unclear why the town felt the need to suddenly indicate this rezoning was all their idea.  What is clear is that having elected officials so heavily involved in the development business is messy.

Deja Vu in Davidson on Conflicts of Interest

Close watchers of activities at Davidson Town Hall may experience a strange feeling of déjà vu at the upcoming town hall meeting where the new West Branch neighborhood on Davidson-Concord Rd  may be discussed. For the second time,  when the project does come up, Davidson Commissioner Brian Jenest is expected to seek recusal from voting on actions impacting the development where his firm ColeJenest&Stone serves as project designer.

As of this writing the agenda for the April 12th Board meeting has not been published, but it is expected to include a vote on a zoning map amendment significantly reducing the size of the proposed commercial area for the project.

One would certainly think Davidson’s Board would allow Jenest to recuse himself from a decision that directly benefits his project, but after what happened back in February when another decision related to the project came before the Board, one cannot be too sure.

In that previous decision, by a vote of 3-1, the remaining Davidson Board members forced Jenest to vote on changing the historic designation of a significant portion of the projects’ land.  Using rather convoluted reasoning Board members Graham, Fuller, and Anderson concluded that even though Jenest’s firm was working on the project, and that there could be consequences to the project if the historic designation change didn’t go through, they somehow decided it did not have financial impact to Jenest.

Only Commissioner Beth Cashion took the more common sense approach and voted to allow Jenest to be recused.  (To be fair, Jenest ultimately abstained, but abstaining without permission counts as a "yes" vote.)

In the interest of public faith in local government transparency, hopefully things will be different this second time around.

Unfortunately however, it’s not uncommon for the town to find itself in discussions about conflicts of interest.  Just last year, Commissioner Graham who is a developer and builder asked to be recused from a vote involving the town’s affordable housing ordinance.  As has been written about in previous columns, the outgoing town attorney, Rick Kline, has done a lot of work for developers in town over many years.  In 2015, he was asked by the Board to contact the state bar in relation to his activities particularly those involving the Bradford neighborhood.

In fact, after the February vote regarding the change in the historic designation on the Westmoreland Farm property, one town insider contacted me saying if Jenest was recused “for every project he has in Davidson, he would never vote on anything.”  While that’s a wee bit of an exaggeration, a quick look at the current projects on the town planning department website shows Jenest’s firm involved in no less than three current projects including West Branch.

It would be nice if local officials never put themselves in these situations, but sadly, that’s not always the case.

Now to be very, very clear, none of this in any way means any laws or rules have been broken on any projects.  The folks involved are all smart people who understand the rules and what exactly needs to be done to stay within the letter of the law.

At the same time, just strictly following the letter of the law can often leave the spirit of the law bruised and battered.  Board members shouldn’t have to go through the same kabuki theater every time there is a potential for conflict of interest.  It’s theater where Board members ask the town attorney to explain the rules. (They already know them.) The Board then finely parses the meaning of those rules. (Again, they already know them.) Finally, the Board attempts to read the mind of the member asking to be recused to see if they believe their fellow member who is stating he/she have a justifiable conflict. (The Amazing  Kreskin they are not.)

How about this?  If a member asks to be excused for what sounds like a reasonable reason surrounding a member’s financial interest, the Board should recuse that member.  If the voters think a member has been recused too many times, they’ll sort that out.

It would be great to see that approach implemented in Davidson starting with this pending West Branch vote.

This post originally appeared today in the Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com 

Will Town of Davidson officially oppose HB2?

With the debate about Charlotte's "Bathroom ordonance" and the NCGA invalidation of it continuing to rage across the nation, municiputies in the state have begun passing resolutions opposing HB2 which invalidated the Charlotte's action.

Will the Town of Davodson follow suit?

That question was posed to Davidson's Board on Friday with Mayor John Woods responding immediately with this.

"The Town Board has not met since the passage of HB2.  It is possible we will discuss this in due time and engage a conversation.

We will certainly keep all citizens informed."

Responses from a majority of Commissioners indicate if such an ordinance does come up for discussion, it likely will be well received.

Commissioner Rodney Graham chimed in with this lengthy statement.

"I'm happy to give you my personal opinion, but it only represents my opinion.  I can't speak for anyone else.

I think it's a terrible piece of legislation.  It has been mischaracterized as dealing with bathrooms, but if you look at the Charlotte ordinance the bathroom issue was a very minor part of that legislation.  Charlotte was simply wanting to join hundreds of other municipalities across the country (including some in North Carolina and several in South Carolina) and extend protections against discrimination to the LGBT community, which is a sizable community which suffers from discrimination.

The NCGA took away those protections, and even made it more difficult for people in existing protected classes to take action if they feel they have been discriminated against.  They have made it legal in NC for businesses to refuse to provide services to the LGBT community.  Fortunately, most businesses realize that it is bad for business to discriminate against anyone, but it is shameful that it is the law of our state that they can do so.

You have undoubtedly observed the reaction of the business community to this legislation.  While facebook is not a scientific gauge of public opinion, both Tarte and Bradford are getting criticized roundly on their facebook pages for their support of this legislation, and not just by the usual suspects.

Ultimately the legislation will be overturned either through the political or judicial process.  It is unfortunate that the NCGA put the state through this embarrassment.

And yes, it is one more example of a Raleigh knows best attitude.  I'd love for people to contact their local legislators about this issue."

Commissioner Jim Fuller followed that with a simple "I agree with Rodney."  Commissioner Stacey Anderson then said "I agree with Rodney and Jim."

That gives the town a Board majority supporting opposition to HB2.  The only quesion is will they act on it.

Update 4/4:  All five Davidson Commissioners have now expressed support for Rodney Graham's comments.

Update 4/12: Davidson adds request to repeal HB2 to its legislative agenda for the upcoming NCGA session .

New details on new Exit 30 hotel

After last week's post here at aShortChronicle regarding the possible new hotel at Davidson's Exit 30, the property owners have apparently been fielding a few questions.

Today they put out the below press release providing a few more details.

Press Release:

Preliminary plans are under development for a new hotel at the corner of Griffith Street and Davidson Gateway Drive in Davidson, reports Martin Kerr of Martin Kerr & Associates.

The location would be next to Woodie’s Auto Service and Repair. Site investigation and due diligence are in the final stages. The owner and hotel developer will submit plans to the Town of Davidson within the next few weeks.

The proposed hotel would be built and managed by a local hotel developer with existing properties in the Lake Norman and Charlotte area. The hotel is an upscale, recognized international brand, with approximately 120 rooms. Initial plans include meeting space with an enhanced technology package, a pool and full service restaurant with possible lake views.

“A hotel is a great complementary use for this site instead of the multi-family project approved and originally envisioned here,” says Kerr. “It is expected to generate less traffic in the immediate area as well as throughout town. Additionally, it will produce more revenue for the town from food and lodging taxes. From a market and potential customer perspective, it is close to I-77 and amenities in the Harris Teeter area, yet still within walking distance of Davidson College and Main Street.”

“Preliminary research supports capacity for an additional hotel in Davidson,” Kerr adds. “We are excited about the potential our location presents. We look forward to sharing more information as details become available and to working with the town, community and developers on this excellent opportunity.”

As mentioned in the previous post the Town of Davidson responded last week when asked about the project that...

"The Davidson Commons East conditional master plan (last amended in 2013 to allow for Woodie’s) depicts two storefront and/or workplace buildings up to three stories and not to exceed 50 feet for the parcels in question. Any deviation from this approved master plan would require a conditional rezoning and approval from the Board of Commissioners."

When asked if Kerr expected the project to go through the conditional zoning process, he responded the answer to that question would have to wait until the project application was submitted.

If the answer to that question turns out to be "yes", expect that process to be an interesting one.

There have already been some concerns expressed about having a hotel next to a school.  (CSD is right next door.)  However, as Kerr points out, a multi-family apartment complex could go on the site as well.  That may not be a better situation for those with any safety concerns.

As with almost all new projects that impact the small town character of Davidson, traffic and safety concerns are likely to top the list with this one.

Good Turnout for West Branch Public Information Session...Planning Board Map Amendment up next.

Sketchy weather didn't keep people away from the public information session Monday evening at Town Hall.  The topic was  West Branch - Davidson's newest major neighborhood proposal consisting of 306 new homes off of Davidson-Concord Rd on the 169 acre Westmoreland farm.

The project promises to bring a lot more traffic to the east side of town.

The increase in traffic will greatly impact the intersection of Robert-Walker and Davidson-Concord roads which has ling been a dangerous spot.  According to a project representative at the meeting, the required traffic study should be available in a few weeks.  Whether or not that study recommends a traffic light, roundabout, or some other additional safety measure at D-C Rd will be critical for residents in Bailey Springs, River Run, and Bradford.  If 300 new homes in the immediate area doesn't convince NCDOT to make it safer, it would seem nothing will.

West Branch traffic will also impact the Hudson Place, Pine Rd, and Kimberly corridors leading to downtown due to the new connection from the back of the neighborhood to Hudson Place.  These neighborhoods have long been effectively dead end with minimal through traffic.  Now they are going to be the alternate way to get to/from Downtown Davidson as well as people going to/from Bailey Middle and Hough High schools.

Traffic was just one of the concerns mentioned.  Other concerns included impacts to the existing greenway through the area, additional students for crowded area schools, and a perceived lack of transparency in the process.

As reported earlier, Commissioner Brian Jenest's firm, ColeJenest&Stone is doing the land planning work on the project - a situation which, naturally, raises eyebrows.  Multiple people approached yours truly asking about that and if it was a conflict of interest.

The next stop for this project is the Planning Board on January 29th.  The project apparently needs a Map Amendment around the neighborhood services area.  It appears the developers desire to reduce the "neighborhood services" portion of the project to include 3 single family homes and allow townhomes without storefront appearance - 57 units are impacted, more than 20% of the total project. (UPDATED: Original post said 71 units impacted.)

The red line in the below picture shows the current zoning for neighborhood services.  The blue line shows where it will be moved if the zoning amendment is approved.

The below picture shows the impacted home sites.  The blue dashed line matches the current neighborhood services zoning.

If this map change comes before the Town Board it will be interesting to see if the Board allows Commissioner Jenest to recuse himself.

They should, but after what happened last week, who knows what this board will do when it comes to conflicts of interest?!?!

More on why Davidson's Board got conflict of interest vote WRONG!

As written earlier this week, a three vote majority of Davidson's Board forced fellow commissioner Brian Jenest to vote on a change involving the historical designation on part of the Westmoreland Farm property while Jenest is also working on a project on that same property.

This gets a bit technical and a bit long, but this post on the UNCSOG website explains why they got the decision wrong.

Conflict of Interest: How do the voting statutes relate to the criminal statute?

The subject of conflicts of interest for city and county elected officials has both legal and ethical dimensions. In the legal realm, there are two main statutory provisions: 1) the contracting statute, which creates criminal liability when a public official or employee who is involved in making or administering a contract derives a direct benefit from the contract; and 2) the voting statutes for city and county governing boards, which provide that a member shall be excused from voting only upon “matters involving the member’s own financial interest or official conduct.” This post identifies some important differences between the two statutory provisions, and discusses to issues about how they relate to each other. Next week’s post will discuss the process of excusing members from voting.

How the statutes are different:

The contracting statute, G.S. 14-234, creates criminal liability, making it a Class 1 misdemeanor for an individual to derive a direct benefit from a contract with his or her unit of government. The resulting contract is void and unenforceable.  The contracting statute defines key terms, such as “direct benefit,” and “making or administering a contract.” The definition of direct benefit in the contracting statute specifically includes an interest by the spouse of the public official or employee. The contracting statute applies to all public agencies, and any public employee or officer within those agencies, but only with regard to the making or administering of contracts.

The voting statutes, G.S. 160A-75 (cities), 153A-44 (counties), are silent as to any liability or consequence for failing to be excused from voting on a matter involving one’s own financial interest. The statutes do not define terms and give no specifics about what constitutes financial interest, except to state that the question of compensation and allowances for the board does not involve a member’s own financial interest.  They apply to any matter that might come before the board – not just contracts.

How the statutes relate:

Should the definition of “direct benefit” in the contracting statute be used as a guide in interpreting what constitutes a member’s own “financial interest” in the voting statutes? No. Both statutes probably have a common purpose: to ensure objective decision-making in the public’s (rather than a private individual’s) best interest. But the scope and applicability of the statutes are different. The contracting statute seeks to prevent financial gain from contracts, and it defines “direct benefit” in ways that are specific to interests that arise in contracting. The broader language in the voting statutes reflects their broader applicability across all matters coming before the board. The voting statutes address “financial interest,” which could be either beneficial or detrimental. So, for example, a person might be excused from voting on a matter involving her employer, since she could stand to gain or lose, depending upon how she votes.  As such, the definition of direct benefit in the contracting statute is too narrow to encompass all of the financial interests that might affect voting.

On the other hand, in cases where there is a direct benefit under the contracting statute, it is safe to assume that the benefit is considered a financial interest under the voting statute. This is reflected in the voting statutes themselves, which cross-reference both the contracting statute and several provisions in the land use regulations statutes, to make clear that a conflict under those provisions is a basis for being excused from voting.

If you go back and listen to the video of the hearing and fhe discussion about Jenest's requested recusal, you hear Town Attorney Rick Kline and Commissioner Graham use the word "direct" a number of times.  Clearly, they are incorrectly applying the standard from the criminal statute to the voting statute.

Even the example sited of recusing someone from voting because their "employer" is involved applies.  One can reasonably say Jenest is "employed" by the Westmoreland's through his efforts planning the develoment of the West Branch neigjborhood on their property.  His firm's name is on the application submitted along with Lennar Homes.

Jenest clearly had an interest in the outcome of this vote whether it positively or negatively impacted his very closely related project.  At the very minimum if the change did not go through, his firm would have had to deal with those implications possibly even redesigning a larger portion of the West Branch project that would have remained in the historic designation.

Town Hall sales pitch for Catalyst Project in full force. Sign up to have your voice heard!

This week, the Town of Davidson relaunched its sales pitch for the so-called Downtown Catalyst Feasibility Study. That’s the effort to study/plan/propose redevelopment of 3.5 acres of town-owned land surrounding and including Davidson Town Hall.

The renewed effort to sell this to the public has so far included a four page color insert in the most recent edition of The Town Message quarterly newsletter.  That landed in mailboxes this past weekend.  The pitch also includes the announcement of four small group “roundtable” discussions to be held later this month.  There was even been a dry-run of these roundtables held this Monday with a  group of hand-picked residents to help the Town work on its messaging for these later meetings.

All of this is in response to the less than favorable reception this project received when it was rolled out last fall.  The reason for all this effort is described in the four page color insert like this.
“After the last public input session on October 20, 2015 we realized that there was a need to provide more information and seek more feedback on the Downtown Catalyst Feasibility Study.”

There is one word to best describe that reason, and that word is “understatement”.  There is another word that can best describe that meeting last October 20th, and that word is “debacle”.  It was a debacle, that is, if the goal was to sell the public on the project’s merits.

During that October 20th meeting dozens and dozens of town residents packed Town Hall to an overflow, standing room only crowd including a couple dozen additional seeds added to accommodate the gathering.  The crowd was so large that one of the consultants from the UNC School of Government’s Development Finance Initiative who was there to present the proposed plan joked that the crowd was evidence of the town needing more space.
It was a joke met with groans rather than laughs.

You see, the people who gathered that night last fall were overwhelmingly against the project as it was being proposed at that time.  Dozens of people spoke, and only a handful (and that’s being generous) spoke favorably of the idea.

Though in fairness, one of the few who spoke in support of the project did provide one of the evening’s more memorable comments.  That’s the speaker who will forever be remembered by those in the room as “The Lamborghini Guy”.

That speaker asked the crowd if they’d noticed all the Bentleys and Lamborghinis in town to dine at the fine establishments on Main Street.  He somewhat lamented where the drivers of those fine automobiles might go if they couldn’t find parking.  Didn’t the town owe it to the restaurants to solve this problem he asked?

The crowd that night was not sympathetic to the plight of Lamborghini drivers.  The crowd was not amused at cheap jokes.

No, the crowd that night was concerned about protecting the character of Davidson.  They were concerned about ensuring the town does not lose that something different it possesses – that something special centered around the town core on Main Street.

So, here we are nearly four months later, and the Town is ready to try again.  To their credit, they are at least making the effort.  But honestly, it’s probably going to be a steep uphill climb.  The kinds of heartfelt positions seen last fall do not change easily.

If done right though, Town Hall should at least get the answers to the many questions they still have about the study – questions that probably should have been answered before the study even started.

Questions such as:
• Do you want residential housing downtown?
• Do you want a hotel downtown?
• Should the town-owned land downtown be developed?
• What is an acceptable level of development?

The real trick for citizen will be making sure Town Hall listens once they have the answers  But the first step is to make sure Town Hall has them.  To ensure that, sign up for one of the roundtable discussions planned for February 18th and 25th.

Sign up at www.townofdavidson.org/catalyst
.
This post first appeared in the Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com

Three Davidson Commissioners drop ball on clear recusal vote.

Like Elvis, common sense has left the building at Davidson Town Hall!!!

Or maybe to be more accurate, it left the seats of Commissioners Jim Fuller, Rodney Graham, and Stacey Anderson on Tuesday night.

When the Davidson Board faced a question of allowing fellow commissioner, Brian Jenest, to recuse himself from voting on an issue directly related to a project his design firm is doing, these three Commissioners actually forced Jenest to vote after he said he had a financial interest in the vote.

Yes, you read that correctly.

These three commissioners forced a fellow commissioner to vote when he clearly said that if the issue did not pass, he could suffer a financial consequence.

aShortChronicle previously reported that Jenest planned to ask for a recusal on the redesignation of the historical area on the Westmoreland Farm property related to the Beaver Dam viewshed.  Jenest's firm ColeJenest&Stone is doing the design work for the West Branch development on the same property.  To his credit, Jenest followed through with that commitment.

Unfortunately, these three commissioners thought they knew more about Jenest's interests than he did and decided that he should vote against his own wishes.

Ultimately, only Commisioner Cashion showed common sense and voted to allow Jenest to recuse himself.

Start watching the tape of Tuesday's meeting at the 40 minute mark.  This is minutes after the public hearing.   If you want to watch the hearing, start at minute 19.

During the hearing and in the questions afterward it was clear that a significant portion of the proposed West Branch neighborhood, including the commercial neighborhood services portion, would no longer be in the historic designation if the change in historic designation was approved.  The impact would be that the Historic Landmarks Commission would no longer have design approval authority over more of the proposed West Branch development.  Getting that approval could have been a particularly tricky thing for the commercial area and removing that requirement has a definite benefit to Jenest's project with the Westmoreland family.

After Jenest was forced to vote, he abstained. That actually counts as a "yes" since he was not excused.  The historic designation change was actually unanimously approved.

So what does all this mean???

It means to have a "conflict of interest" in Davidson, you apparently have to have wads of cash being directly stuffed into your pockets a la Pat Cannon for a majority of the Board to recognize it.  Anything other than that is apparently some sort of gray area.

With all the potentially controversial development projects on the docket including the Catalyst Project  and potentially a new hotel at Exit 30, that's not a place where citizens want their government to be!

Davidson Catalyst Project - Take 2

When details about the so called "Downtown Catalyst Project" first hit the general public last fall, it is safe to say its opening reception and initial reviews were less than blockbuster. (Read this if you need a synopsis of that early part of this story.)

In fact, the reception was so bad, the presentation had to go back to editing.  Town economic development director, Kim Fleming put it another way.

“After the last public input session on October 20, 2015, we realized that there was a need to provide more information and seek more feedback on the Downtown Catalyst Feasibility Study,” said Economic Development Manager Kim Fleming. “We have outlined multiple ways to answer your questions about the study and receive additional input from citizens to help guide the future of the downtown area – we hope you’ll attend one of these sessions later this month.”

The sessions Fleming is referring to are a series of "roundtable" discussions designed for small groups to talk about the project.  They are planned for later this month.

Here are the details from the Town's press release.

"Citizens are invited to attend one of four identical roundtable discussions on the Downtown Catalyst Feasibility Study at the Davidson College Presbyterian Church Congregation House (218 Concord Road) on:

·         Thursday, February 18 from 9:00 to 10:30 a.m.

·         Thursday, February 18 from 6:00 to 7:30 p.m.

·         Thursday, February 25 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

·         Thursday, February 25 from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m.

These roundtable discussions are open to the public and we encourage your participation. Citizens will sit at tables and a discussion will be facilitated by town staff, members of the Davidson Board of Commissioners, and the Development Finance Initiative team. Space is limited, so we encourage you to save your space by registering for a session on our website at www.townofdavidson.org/catalyst. Those who are not registered will be accommodated on a first-come, first-served basis."

This all sounds good and Davidson residents should definitely pack these sessions.  If they are not a series of full houses, then town residents won't have anyone to blame but themselves for the decisions that are ultimately made.

However like any good "show" , there is a "pilot" before the series kicks off.  This show in Davidson is no different.

On February 8th, this coming Monday, there will be a dress rehersal for these open discussions.  How that goes could be telling.

Twenty two town residents have been invited to participate in this pilot.  Most would be called "insiders" to the goings on at Town Hall.  The vast majority of the invitees serve on the town's various appointed auxiliary boards.

When asked about the purpose of the "pilot", Fleming responded that "the purpose of the pilot session is to make sure that the proposed roundtable format addresses citizens questions about the study and provides enough time for citizens to provide feedback about the study. We will spend some time at the end of the session discussing what worked and what didn’t work with the roundtable to see if any changes need to be made for the additional 4 public input sessions."

While it's not necessarily a bad thing to have knowledgable insiders participating in the pilot, the participants also likely aren't representative of town residents at large.  So, it will be interesting to see how this goes.

Rusty Knox has been a leading voice opposing the Catalyst Project.  He's also one of the invitees to this initial pilot session.  Knox had this to say about the makeup of the "pilot" group after seeing the list.

Knox said he feels personally "the list is weighted very heavily towards town hall."  Knox goes on to say the list doesn't seem to represent the sentiment seen from the public at the raucous October 20th meeting where nearly every speaker opposed the project.

Davidson has one last chance to do this right.  If people feel these meetings are being manipulated or coordinated to achieve a desired outcome, when the curtain finally comes down on this show it won't be pretty.

Let's hope that doesn't happen.

CORRECTION - East side developments on the docket this week in Davidson

In the original post this story incorrectly mentioned this Tuesday's Board Meeting the next Board Meeting is on 2/9, not 2/2.

Mark your calendars the next 2 weeks for development discussions in Davidson.

At next Tuesday night's (2/9) February Board meeting, commissioners will consider the proposed changes to the Historic Landmark designation for a larger portion of the Westmoreland Farm property on Davidson Concord Rd.   This is in preparation the new 306 home West Branch neighborhood.

Read earlier coverage on this development here and here.

The meeting starts at 6pm.

This Wednesday (2/3) evening sees a change to the Summers Walk neighborhood discussed at Town Hall.

The neighborhood's developers are seeking a change to the master plan to remove commercial uses and make way for more townhouses.

The public information session will be between 4:00 and 7:00 p.m. in the Davidson Town Hall board room. It will be an open house format with no formal presentation. The Summers Walk developers and members of the Davidson Planning Department will be present to discuss the master plan and answer any questions. 

Combine these two devwlopments with the giant Davidson East development and more than 800 new dwellings are in the works for the east side of town.

Davidson growth set to explode...no catalyst needed.

As staff and elected officials in the Town of Davidson continue to ponder the proposed Downtown Catalyst Project, there is a looming wave of explosive growth just on the horizon.  This is growth that will happen whether or not the town's own project "catalyzes" anything.  Frankly, knowing this is going to happen it is hard to believe the Town itself is looking to promote even more growth through its own efforts.  Maybe the town should change the Catalyst's name to something like Accelerant.

The first project if it materializes could have the most direct impact on the supposed need for something like the Catalyst project in the town center.  In the past we've told you about potential development at the old Davidson Clinic site on South Main.  That previous development plan fell through this past summer, but that property - as well as the adjacent two parcels - are now showing as "active contingent" on real-estate sites - meaning a sale and new development could be imminent.

At almost six acres this site is nearly double the size of the Town-owned land proposed for the Catalyst Project. Whatever this site on South Main eventually becomes, it will certainly be big (and controversial), but it will also achieve the town's goals of 'connecting' South Main in ways the Catalyst never would by creating a center of gravity at that end of Main Street.  Also, there will almost certainly be a significant retail/commercial component of any development that size which meets another stated town goal for the Catalyst.

As of last week, a proposed development plan had not been submitted according to Planning Director, Jason Burdett.  There is also nothing on the town website as of this writing.  However, this is definitely something to keep a close eye on.  Things appear to be in the works and could move fast.

The second major development is closer to coming to fruition.  That regards what is going on out at Westmoreland Farm.  We originally told you about surveying activity at the site almost three months ago.

A records request to the town turned up some additional information.

The below picture called a "bubble diagram" was put together by staff at Commissioner Brian Jenest's firm during the discussions leading up to passage of the planning ordinance rewrite earlier this year.  The purpose of the diagram was to provide a conceptual picture of what could be built under the new ordinance.  To be very clear it is not a proposal.  However, it does give a sense of the scale of any development that could be on the way.

 

A week after the Town Board passed the planning ordinance rewrite back in April, a planner from ColeJenest & Stone contacted Town staff saying "we are working towards a schematic site plan for the Westmoreland property along Davidson-Concord Road and have a few questions/requests".

That combined with the work seen recently and the counts on that bubble diagram would indicate another development with potentially hundreds of units is on the way.

While again, like the South Main project no site plan has been submitted, it is clear something is in the works.

Finally, this coming Monday, November 30th, the Davidson Planning Board will hear a request from the developers of Summerswalk regarding removal of the planned neighborhood retail at the front of the neighborhood along 73 to be replaced with more townhomes.

The proposal, also submitted by ColeJenest & Stone, appears to have the approval of the Town Planning Department.  The staff recommendation says "this master plan amendment is appropriate and in line with the town’s current development policies".

One of the stated reasons for the Catalyst Project is to increase the commercial tax base for the town.  Removing a planned commercial area - even if it may not be built out for some time would seem to run counter to that goal.

If the recent pushback from town residents was not enough to convince Town Hall that the Catalyst Project is not needed or should be drastically scaled down, maybe this looming wave of growth will do it.

Davidson election by the numbers

Update: The original version of this post incorrectly stated Davidson Pct 206 only had turnout of 8.8%.  The correct turnout was 15.1%.  Double counting of data on the MeckBOE caused the error.  Apologies for the error on my part.

Well, numbers have finally rolled in this past week that give a little more color on the recent election in Davidson.

One might think with so little choice on the ballot there wouldn't be much to gleen from the election.

Not true.  You just have to look closely.

Based on preliminary turnout numbers provided by MeckBOE, turnout was down this cycle with only 1267 voters heading to the polls this year versus 2139 voters who turned out in 2013.  That's a 40% drop.  Not good.  Not good at all.

In this piece written before the election, we covered the topic of how to "supercharge" your vote through selective voting, or withholding a vote that might otherwise be cast.

Here is a look at those numbers.  In the uncontested Mayor's race the impact of this certainly tempers Mayor John Woods "victory".

Woods "won" the race with 87.89% of the vote while there were 127 write-in votes, or 12.11%.  Compared to 2013 the write-ins were up significantly in terms of both raw numbers and percentage of the vote.  In 2013, there were only 86 write-ins for just 4.89% of the total vote.

Things get even more interesting when looking at the "undervote", or those who cast a ballot but left the Mayor's race blank.  When the undervote is included only 72.6% of voters pulled the lever for Woods.  Again the totals were different when looking at the precinct level.  69.6% in 127 versus 73.5% in 206.

As a frame of reference, the hotly contested mayoral race in Huntersville had tiny numbers of these "protest" votes.  There, only 7 write-in ballots were cast and even fewer left the race blank.  Well over 99% of voters made a selection from the two listed candidates.

Davidon's high rate of protest votes in the Mayor's race certainly says more about the need for candidates than anything else, but if over 1/4 of voters won't vote for a sitting incumbent even when that incumbent is the only option, that is certainly not a good thing.

In the race for the Board of Commissioners, again there were not any real surprises with who won.  All of the incumbents were reelected.  However, it is worth noting that the top 3 vote getters were all people on record as opposing the I77 HOT lanes project.

Some readers may be surprised to see that political newcomer Michael Angell received as many votes as he did.  Angell ran what can best be described as a "stealth" campaign.  Or more directly, he did not do a lot of traditional campaigning.  One could likely attribute this to the fact to the was the only candidate openly opposed to the controversial Catalyst Project.  That may have been the only thing many voters knew about him, but for well over 500 voters that was enough.

A couple of positive things can also be seen in the data.

First, none of the candidates were terribly skewed in where they got their votes relative to the other candidates.  Meaning all of their percentage vote totals between precincts were fairly close - between 35-45% from precinct 127 with the remainder from precinct 206.  Since 206 has a much larger share of registered voters, that seems about right.

Also, there was a decent amount of "strategic" voting - meaning voters did not always fill out a full slate of votes.  The overall undervote in this race was also about 1/4 of the votes that could have been cast.  However, in this type of plurality election some under voting is common, and it appears voters still voted for 3-4 candidates on average.

There is always something interesting in the numbers even in races where there is not much competition.

How much for your soul, Davidson?

There's a great line in the the movie,”The Usual Suspects”, where the con man Verbal tells the interrogator interviewing him, “the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.”

As the Town of Davidson works its way through the planning process of the controversial Downtown Catalyst Project, the true costs for its consulting services falls in the same category as the line from that movie.

Consultants from the Development Finance Initiative at the UNC School of Government have been working with the Town since the middle of 2014 to come up with a plan to develop 3.5 acres of land around the current town hall site.  One of the early selling points of the study has been the relatively modest cost of the consulting work.  In multiple presentations and news articles the cost of these services has been stated as being only $50,000.

In the grand scheme of things the “cost” for this work “doesn't exist.”  However, that also is not entirely true.

The “Letter of Agreement” between the town and DFI lays out the services DFI will provide including the work already completed, any revisions certain to come after the recent round of negative public feedback, and the bidding process with developers.

There is also a section about how DFI is paid.

The first portion of the payment is the $50,000 paid when the contract started.  However, there is a second portion.  This portion could be considerably more lucrative.

From the contract...

“The second portion of the fee (the ‘Contingent Fee’) shall be contingent on the execution of an agreement (the ‘Development Services Agreement’) between the town and a third party (the ‘Developer’) regarding the responsibilities of either the Town or the Developer regarding any aspect of the development of the Project or any portion thereof.  The Contingent Fee shall be an amount equal to 1% of the total costs of the development of the Project, as further described below.  The 1% fee shall be paid from the Developer to DFI.”

The contract goes on to provide language that must be included in any agreement between the Town and developers to ensure the DFI gets paid “no later than 30 days following execution of the Development Services Agreement” – well before the actual project is completed.

According to the town’s Economic Development manger, Kim Fleming, this 1% fee is paid on the private development portion of any project.  Any public funding is not subject to the fee.

For a project like the Catalyst Project, that 1% fee could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Look at examples at both extremes of what has been discussed to date to see what that could mean to DFI’s payday.

The project idea recently floated including the Hotel and a full buildout to the property’s “highest and best use” was presented as up to a $60 million effort – almost entirely private investment.  Compare that to the roughly $7.6 million it would cost to build a parking deck and expand the existing town hall which would likely be entirely public funding.

1% of $60 million is $600,000.  0% of $7.6 million is $0.00.

Regardless what the actual numbers turn out to be, DFI clearly has real incentive to propose and push for the biggest project possible while at the same time looking to build at least something with the private sector to cover their costs.

One can also see any consulting fees paid by a future developer being passed through to the Town in various ways.  The simplest way would be for the developer to offer that much less for the property if the Town sells it for any project.  They could also offer the Town less space or ask for higher rents for the Town portion of the project.  Regardless how it happens, Davidson taxpayers will likely be the ones who “pay”.

Davidson has been down this road before listening to consultants on big decisions.  It was possibly the biggest mistake on the road to forming Mi-Connection.

The town can not afford to let that kind of mistake happen again.

This post first appeared in the Herald Weekly at HuntersvilleHerald.com

Leamon Brice Farewell Message: Citizens should listen to town hall and start "taking their medicine"

So, the latest "Town Message" has come down from Davidson Town Hall...

Soon-to-be-former Town Manager, Leamon Brice, rightfully had a lengthy farewell in his final quarterly Manager's Report column.  Unfortunately, he used a good bit of it to take a swipe at citizens who don't listen and those who have disagreed with him over the years. 

Brice describes those who have opposed town hall as little more than whiny children.

"Davidson is different because elected officials have been willing to look at new and innovative ideas and try them, sometimes in light of tremendous opposition from citizens. This opposition reminds me of sick children who bitterly fight to avoid taking their medicine, not understanding that once they do, they will feel better."

Did he really say that?  Yes.  Yes he did.

Brice sites examples like the CVS downtown and other developments that have been successful.  However, his comment was clearly a swipe at those who opposed to the Downtown Catalyst Project as if that project was the same type and scale of anything else ever proposed by town hall.  He conveniently makes no mention of Mi-Connection a decision he supported, a decision opposed by many of those same "sick children", a decision that has been the a disaster for the town.

Brice also laments citizens who don't listen to how well town hall communicates while taking a good swipe at the media in general and "social media" specifically.

"Don’t look to the rumor mill or social media for the truth. While the other media outlets portray themselves as your savior whose sole aim is to make sure you have all the information you need to stay 'in the know,' I am certain exaggerated headlines are for selling ads and not conveying accurate information."

"Other media outlets"?

Brice is clearly equating the town run "media" with your more traditional media outlets.

In most places, government run media goes by another name.  That name is "propaganda". 

A few years ago, the town board was considering making a change to 4 year staggered terms for elected officials.  That's a setup which makes it impossible for a majority of elected officials to be voted out in a single cycle.  If it had gone forward as originally planned the change would have been made unilaterally by the Board without even putting it to the voters.

That misguided and cynical power grab was only derailed by the efforts of "social media" and those citizens who would not just accept what was being "communicated" from town hall.

Can you imagine facing a challenge like the Catalyst Project with only half of elected officials up this cycle and the other half not up until 2017 - after any project would likely have been started?

Yes, this election cycle has a shortage of candidates, but at least the public has it's say.

Outside media also played a role in the town's recent approval of the Narrow Passage project.  Some may not like the outcome, but the Board eventually voted unanimously to support the project.  That unanimity was a surprise to many who were following that decision closely.

Do you think that would have happened if only the information from town hall staff had been made available to the public?  Town staff vehemently opposed the project along ideological lines while a majority of commenters at the public hearings showed opinion was much more evenly divided among citizens.

Has Leamon Brice done a lot of good for the Town of Davidson over the course of 25 years?  Yes, of course he has.  However, his final message to the citizens of Davidson shows clearly why it is now time for a change.

Davidson's national search ends in local choice for new Town Manager.

A week after the Town of Davidson announced its choice for its new town manager, a few more details have started to trickle out.

It has been previously reported that 71 applicants were received from over 25 states.  From speaking with multiple people familiar with the overall process, here's what occurred after the net was cast wide.

The Waters and Company Executive Recruitment firm cut the list to 10-12 resumes for detailed review.  Eventually a short list of 3 was chosen for the in-depth interview process.  Interestingly, 2 of the final 3 ended up being local candidates.  The town would not confirm these numbers or if there was any sort of weighting that favored local candidates - saying that was not public information. Regardless, the end result of a national search was a decidedly local flavor.

Those final three were engaged for interviews with staff, a citizens panel, as well as lengthy interviews with the elected officials.

The background information provided to candidates included these high-priority areas of focus for the town:

• Building upon strong working relationships with Davidson College, Mecklenburg County, and other regional partners.
• Continuing to monitor Mi-Connection as it moves toward financial independence.
• Working with the Board, advisory bodies, and the community to maintain to maintain Davidson's small town character while enhancing its connectivity and economic development opportunities.
• The Town is also challenged by increasing development pressure.  To maintain Davidson's character and small town feel, the new Manager will be charged to work on issues such as preservation of open space, transportation and traffic issues as well as affordability and diversity of housing.

Ultimately, that months-long process resulted in the selection of Jamie Justice, Assistant Town Manager in Matthews and resident of Mooresville.

The Matthews press release had the following kind words for Justice.

“The Town has been fortunate to have Jamie on staff, with his years of experience and passion to see the Town succeed”, says Town Manager Hazen Blodgett. “While we are saddened by this news, we are happy for Jamie and his family at this new opportunity. We wish him the best for the future.”

Matthews Mayor Jim Taylor agrees. “I’m exceptionally proud of Jamie and his accomplishments over the last seven years. Matthews is a better place because of him and his work. I’ve spoken with Mayor Woods and share his excitement for the Town of Davidson. Jamie will do an excellent job there. It’s a loss for Matthews but I’m happy for both Jamie and the Town of Davidson."

Additionally, in speaking with one person familiar with Matthews town hall operations, this source had nothing but favorable things to say about how the town runs and town manager Blodgett.  After working under Blodgett for years, Justice's experience should be very valuable in knowing how a well run town should operate.

But Justice's road to Davidson has not been all roses.  Prior to his work at Matthews, Justice spent a rocky few years as town manager in Mooresville.

When justice came on board in 2005, Mooresville town hall was embroiled in a controversy over the handling a contract to expand the town's water system.  Reports indicate significant conflict between staff and the Board.  A year after arriving, Justice let go two town staffers.  Two years after that in 2008, he himself was asked to resign by the newly elected Mooresville Board.  Along the way he was also the town manager as Mooresville and Davidson inked the deal to form Mi-Connection in 2007.

It may be Justices's involvement in the formation of a Mi-Connection that could raise a few eyebrows in Davidson.  Considering how that decision went locally, that's an understandable concern.

Based on input from multiple people, it appears Justice played more the role of the unbiased arbiter of information to the Board in Mooresville.  That's the role one would actually expect from a Town Manager rather than being an advocate.   One possible validation of that would be to look at the votes in both towns when Mi-Connection was formed.  Mooresville voted 4-3 with Mayor Bill Thunberg casting the tie-breaker.  Davidson voted unanimously to form the company.

However, Justice's experience with controversial situations could come in handy in his new position.  He arrives in Davidson amid rising citizen concern with the Downtown Catalyst Project.  The I77 HOT lanes is always a potential flash point.  Justice will also be only the second town manager in the town's history - a situation that certainly will bring its own challenges.

Plus, Davidson is...well, Davidson.

Here's to wishing Mr Justice good luck.  He is likely to need more than a little of it.

Davidson Board to discuss New Manager Contract and Catalyst next Tuesday

With two big events happening this week - the announcement of the new town manager and the raucous meeting on the Catalyst Project - the conversation should be interesting when Commissioners get together on Tuesday.

Note: There is no regular 6pm work session this time, so all the action will be at the 4pm "pre-meeting".

These meetings are open to the public.

TOWN OF DAVIDSON
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
216 South Main Street

October 27, 2015
• PRE-MEETING - 4:00 P.M.
(Held in the Town Hall Meeting Room)
• OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS
•     Consider Town Manager Employment Agreement
•     Salary and Staffing Study - Susan Manning, Human Resources Consultant 
•     Town Manager Transition Planning
•     Next Steps for Downtown Catalyst Project

Catalyst Project brings out pitchforks and torches in Davidson

Well, that may be a bit of an exageration, but let's just say the people were not happy.

The long awaited public meeting on the proposed Catalyst Project, a project which could transform downtown Davidson, took place Tuesday evening with an overflow crowd in attendance.




In fact it was one of the biggest crowds possible at Town Hall with people actually standing on the outside breezeway for a full hour listening to the various UNC SOG consultants give their presentations.  One of the lead consultants even said that in all his years of doing these events he had never seen a crowd like the one in town tonight.

The crowd was not there because they enjoyed the consultants pretty pictures though.  They were there because they were concerned, very concerned, about the possibility of the town pursuing changes that would likely alter the fabric of the town.

The crowd was polite, just as one would expect in genteel Davidson, but things started to turn when the below picture was posted as a depiction of how the project could be made to fit in with the "feel" of the town.

The gasps and chuckles were clearly audible.

When the Q&A portion of the presentation started it was clear that many more people were there in opposition than support.  A couple of questions in, Rusty Knox garnered the evening's first applause when he said he was more "infuriated" after seeing the presentation than he was before.

As the Q&A went on there were questions and concerns about increased traffic and potential safety issues.  When pressed on specifics the answers were often some version of "that's to be determined". 

There was a bit of comic, dark - very, very, dark - comic relief when one resident finally spoke in favor of the project.  He asked if people had noticed the Lamborghini's and Bentleys parked in front of Kindred.

Where would those people go if they couldn't find some place to park?!?! 

As if that was a good enough reason to build a project that could change what the town means and what it feels like - just so someone in an expensive car could find a place to park!

Unfortunately, that person was not joking.  Fortunately, many more people appeared to strongly disagree that reasoning.

Davidson officials got a bit of an earful Tuesday night.  Will they listen?

This blogger had to head home before it was over live and in color. I have not had the chance to watch the last bit of the video in detail, so maybe the tide turned in the fourth quarter.  Somehow I think not. 

You can watch the whole video here.

Davidson Town Attorney, Rick Kline, to "Resign"...

The big bombshell this week at Davidson Town Hall was the Wednesday announcement of the pending resignation of long, long, loooooong time Town Attorney, Rick Kline.  Kline has served in that capacity for nearly 40 years, but suddenly and with not much fanfare the town put out notice of his pending resignation.

From the press release:

"Rick Kline has announced to the Davidson Mayor and Board of Commissioners that he intends to resign his position as Davidson Town Attorney.  The Davidson Mayor and Board of Commissioners have asked Rick to continue to serve as their legal counsel until they can find a suitable successor.  The search process could take several months and the mayor and commissioners want to include the new town manager, a position that has not yet been filled, in the process. Rick has agreed to help in the transition to the new Town Attorney."

According to the town's Public Information Officer, Christina Shaul, there was no resignation letter and Mr Kline came to this decision on his own.

HOWEVER, readers should be reminded that just a little over two months ago approval of a new engagement letter for Mr Kline's services appeared on the consent agenda of Davidson's July Town Board Meeting.

Per emails from town hall, prior to the meeting Commissioner Cashion asked to have the engagement letter pulled from the agenda for further discussion amongst the board and no one disagreed with her request.  This is interesting because it raises questions about how it got on the consent agenda in the first place.  Items on this part of the agenda are supposed  to be completely non-controversial.  That's what it's called the "consent" agenda.

The town had been operating without a net for a long time with this situation.  Per another earlier request, no formal contract or even an engagement letter letter had been in place for the town attorney position.  Yet, the job paid roughly $50,000 per year and sometimes more.  For example Kline received a 50% bump last year for his work in reviewing the updated planning ordinance.  (You know, the one that passed with a number of holes in it.). We do know that Kline's expenses did not cover litigation efforts however - meaning when the town got itself into legal trouble, presumably after following his advise, Kline did not have to cover the costs of getting the town out of those situations.

$50,000 per year with no written contract and no real accountability when things went sideways - a pretty sweet gig if you can get it.

So, why would Mr Kline "resign"?  That's the question.

Could it be that the Board finally wanted those things and that was just too much to bear?