A fair number of people popped by Burlington’s city hall Tuesday in order to weigh in on a pair of proposed bond packages that the city’s leaders intend to put before the local electorate in this fall’s general election.
Burlington’s city council ultimately agreed to issue a formal bond order that evening – setting the stage for referendums on both bond packages when voters go to the polls on November 5. These packages will ultimately appear as two separate ballot questions – one regarding $47 million in bonds to subsidize various recreation-related endeavors and another that would bring in $21.5 million for the city’s sidewalks and streets.
Before the councilmembers gave their unanimous nod to the aforementioned bond order, they convened a state mandated-public hearing about the proposed bond issue. This hearing drew feedback from seven individuals, who shared concerns about the bond issues themselves, the projects they’d subsidize, and the manner in which the city has informed the general public about the two packages.
Many of the comments that the council received Tuesday concerned the proposed street-related bond package, which would raise $15 million for street paving and repair, $1.5 million for sidewalks, and $5 million for streetscaping in Burlington’s downtown business district.
There wasn’t nearly as much interest in the recreation-related package, which would provide $6 million to enclose the Maynard Aquatic Center, $11 million to renovate and expand the Paramount Theater, and $30 million to construct a new “sportsplex” on Burlington’s west side. Yet, nearly all of the speakers had something to say about the potential cost of the two packages – which could add 5.7 cents to the city’s property tax rate if both of them prevail with voters.
A letter from the editor
Among those who bent the council’s collective ear during the public hearing was Tom Boney, Jr., the editor and publisher of The Alamance News. Boney reminded the city’s leaders that, under state law, they are strictly forbidden to advocate for the bond issues as they try to raise public awareness about them.
“I’m very concerned that the city needs to be very careful not to be advocating for the bond,” he added. “Last night, during your meeting, most city employees were very careful to use the words ‘educational’ or ;informational’ [to describe the city’s outreach campaign]. That’s the way it’s supposed to be. But I have to question whether the actual content of the city’s website is neutral.”
Boney observed that, in its response to some “frequently asked questions” about the bonds, the city’s website asserts that the proposed bond projects “will be delayed or canceled” if the bond issues tank with the local electorate. The website also contends that the city’s administrators might “look for alternative, more expensive ways” to bankroll these items.
“Entirely missing from the [city’s] recitation of potential consequences is the possibility that projects could be revised or scaled back,” he explained. “It’s a strawman. It’s also inflammatory and inaccurate to say that there are only more expensive ways to finance projects.”
Boney pointed out that courts in North Carolina and elsewhere have frowned on educational campaigns that warned of “dire consequence” should a ballot item not get the desired response from the public. The newspaper’s publisher also sought more context for the potential property tax impact of the bond issues, noting that the 5.7-cent tax hike amounted to 11.79 percent and was in addition to an 18 percent hike from last year when the council raised taxes above the “revenue neutral” rate after countywide revaluation.
A tough sell
The council heard a different perspective on the city’s outreach efforts from Erin Nettles, a Burlington resident who formerly served as Burlington’s downtown director. Nettles encouraged the city to be more “aggressive” in its dissemination of information in order to overcome the forces that may prejudice voters against the bond packages.
While she portrayed herself as uncommitted about the bond issues themselves, Nettles acknowledged that she supports the underlying projects and hopes that the city can “communicate” their value to the public as well.
“These are huge numbers and they’re kind of shocking to people who don’t deal with budgets on a regular basis,” she added. “And we’re coming off of a year of revaluation on property, when our [assessed] property [values] went up significantly…It just feels like the timing is going to be difficult to sell that to the public…I want the city to be as aggressive as possible in making sure we communicate these important things to the public.”
Nettles suggested that the city should craft a digital “tool kit” that individual residents can use to make their own presentations about the bond packages.
“Can we do everything we can,” she went on to inquire rhetorically, “to educate the public because, if they’re not understanding what this is, they’re not going to be on board.”
Diverging streets
The “transparency” of the bond packages raised some added concerns for Richmond Avenue resident Teresa Wiley, who urged the council to be more upfront about the proposed allocation of the proceeds from the street-related bond package.
“Is it an equitable plan for both the east side and west side?” Wiley inquired. “I think it is fair that city residents see that before it is put on the ballot…Transparency is key.”
Wiley was one of several residents who admonished the council about the equitable allocation of funds from the street-related bond package.
DeVonn Allison, a resident of Burlington’s east side, told the council that she’s personally disinclined to support this bond package because of her sense that the city has never been serious about infrastructure in her part of town.
Allison observed that the sidewalks along Rauhut and Apple streets now run in fits and starts, while wide, well-maintained sidewalks are very much the norm in west Burlington. She voiced her skepticism that this state of affairs will change if the city gets another $21.5 million to upgrade its sidewalks and streets.
“Is that coming to east Burlington?” she went on to inquire. “Our taxes just went up, and I don’t see myself paying for someone else if I’m not going to be able to benefit.
“Don’t leave us out,” Allison pleaded. “That’s not fair.”
The street-related bond package also fell short of the expectations of Philip Keller, a teacher at Williams High School and Turrentine Middle School, who described himself as an avid cyclist and regular pedestrian.
“I’m glad to see the $21.5 million bond proposal is for street and sidewalk improvements,” he added. “But I was disappointed that only $1.5 million out of that is actually going to sidewalks. I would personally like to see much more given to the pedestrian infrastructure.”
He urged the council to prioritize investments that will link up the truncated bike lanes and the sidewalks to nowhere that currently pepper parts of the city.
A playground for flame throwers
The council heard a particularly harsh take on the proposed referendums from Burlington’s former mayor Ian Baltutis, who emptied a grab bag of mixed metaphors in his critique of the current council’s ambitions.
“What this council is proposing is the equivalent of blindfolded darts with your hard-earned tax dollars,” Baltutis declared in the course of his comments. “I’m no financial wizard, but even I can see that throwing this kind of money around without a proper plan is like giving a toddler a flamethrower and hoping for the best.”
Baltutis went on to decry the city’s lack of a capital plan, which he insisted is “like trying to bake a cake without a recipe.” He suggested that the proposed bond projects could spell the fiscal equivalent of indigestion without such a plan in place.
“Do we really want to be a city that goes bankrupt because we spent all of our money on shiny new things without thinking about the long-term consequences?” he asked. “This bond will increase our taxes a gosh-darn lot, and adding insult to injury, we’ll be paying for these projects long after some of them have crumbled. Plus, it will prevent us from using this bond tool for future, more pressing needs. It’s like using your emergency parachute to jump off a swing set.
“This bond is a short-term solution to a long-term problem – a Band-Aid on a bullet wound,” the former mayor concluded. “Let’s hit the brakes on this bond; take a deep breath; and start working on a CIP that will truly benefit all of us.”
Reply from the dais
The public’s remarks, including the former mayor’s playground taunts, drew a decidedly measured response from the city’s elected leaders.
Once he had closed Tuesday’s hearing, Burlington’s mayor Jim Butler tried to address some of the assorted concerns which were raised about the city’s outreach, which he characterized as a work in progress.
“I think that from an educational standpoint, the city is still working on toolkits,” he went on to acknowledge. “[Staff members] are working with our city attorney to be sure everything we’re doing is in compliance with the law – but at the same time, educational, because education in this case can mean lots of things.”
Butler went on to tout the copious planning that he insists has gone into all of the bond-related projects.
“Whether those plans come to fruition depends on the voters,” he said, “and how much more transparent can we be than that?…As to Mr. Boney’s comments, I could not agree more: we want to forthright and let the public decide this.”
Butler also offered some reassurance to residents who are concerned about the geographic distribution of the city’s infrastructure improvements. He pointed out that the city uses a scoring system to determine the order in which city streets will be resurfaced.
“Here, east Burlington and west Burlington are no different,” he added, “and I can assure you there are potholes in west Burlington.”
The mayor added that the city has a formal plan to prioritize sidewalk improvements, although he noted that private developers often build sections of sidewalk outside of high priority areas.
The challenges inherent in sidewalk construction were further expounded by the city’s mayor pro tem Harold Owen, who had formerly served as Burlington’s city manager. Owen observed that the purchase of right of way can complicate the expansion of sidewalks as can the older neighborhoods that aren’t well suited for modern infrastructure.
Owen also argued that the city’s apparent focus on its western extremity is, in large part, the byproduct of long-standing growth patterns.
“I’m often told that there’s not an indoor recreation center west of City Park,” he added. “But how far does the city limits go to the west?…It’s a big picture thing that we have to look at in providing opportunities for all our citizens.”
Dejuana Bigelow, the newest member of the city council, insisted that better information could help more residents come to grips with the proposed infrastructure improvements. Bigelow conceded that she has adjusted her own views on the geographic distribution of these projects as she has become better informed about the particulars of the bond packages.
“I had the same concerns that most of the residents are speaking of tonight,” she added. “So, I understand where you’re coming from…and I also believe that it needs more clarity.”
Meanwhile, councilman Bob Ward emphasized the primacy of street maintenance, which he recalled had inspired another bond referendum in 2006 after the city fell woefully behind in its repaving schedule.
“At that time, I made up my mind that I was going to advocate for keeping up the streets,” added Ward, who had served as Burlington’s city attorney when the city’s voters approved the previous referendum. “I think our job here is to identify what’s needed, try to provide for it, and in the instances where there’s a need for a bond issue, you let the citizens decide.”
Ward emphasized the fact that the city’s voters will be the ultimate arbiters of the proposed bond packages. This point was further underscored by councilman Ronnie Wall.
“I think that what the community here tonight is asking is just to be transparent,” he said. “Show us what you’re asking, and at that point, we’ll either vote for it or against it.
“What I’ve also heard tonight is ‘don’t forget about us,’” Wall added.
The council went on to formally adopt the resolution to put the two bond referendum questions on the ballot unanimously, 5-0.