I. Approve the FY2014 Out-of-School Time Partners Contracts

advertisement
I. Approve the FY2014 Out-of-School Time Partners Contracts
§ The Community Development Block Grant and Innovative Housing Funds contracts
provide educational enrichment activities for elementary, middle, and high school
students of families with low incomes who reside in the Housing and Neighborhood
Development boundaries.
§ On May 9, 2011 Charlotte City Council approved the development and issuance of
a Request for Proposal for Out-of-School Time Programs based on evidence-based
standards for school age care. FY2014 is the second year of the formal Request
for Proposals process.
§ During the April 15, 2013 Council Budget Workshop, staff recommended continued
use of the Housing Trust Fund model (funding top scored proposals at 100% until
funding is exhausted)
§ The following five organizations are funded:
Above and Beyond Students $124,158
YWCA Central Carolinas After School $307,000
Greater Charlotte Enrichment Program $400,000
Police Activities League $287,410
First Baptist Church West $81,432
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 37
The City Council of the City of Charlotte, NC, convened on Monday, May 9, 2011, at 4:04 p.m.
in the Meeting Chamber of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Government Center to receive the City
Manager’s Recommended FY2012-2013 Budget with Mayor Anthony Foxx presiding. Council
members present were: Councilmembers Michael Barnes, Jason Burgess, Patrick Cannon,
Warren Cooksey, Andy Dulin, Patsy Kinsey
ABSENT UNTIL NOTED: Councilmembers Nancy Carter, James Mitchell, Edwin Peacock
III
ABSENT: Councilmembers David Howard, Warren Turner
********
MANAGER’S RECOMMENDED BUDGET PRESENTATION
Mayor Foxx said welcome to our Manager’s Recommended Budget Presentation. This
afternoon the City Council will be receiving a presentation on the City Manager’s recommended
operating budgets for the fiscal years 2012 and 2013 and the recommended five-year capital
investment plan for FY2012-FY2016. Over the last several months, the City Council has been
receiving information and discussing budget issues in preparation for this recommendation over
the past several months including the City Council Retreat in February. We have held three
Budget Retreats since then, and the Council will now have an opportunity to review the City
Manager’s recommendation and make adjustments. We will continue this process over the next
two months prior to the scheduled budget adoption date of June 13 th.
During the next two months, the City Council will hold additional meetings on the budget
including May 18th when we will have budget adjustments at 3:00 in Room 267. May 23 rd there
will be a budget public hearing at 5:00 in the Council Chambers where we are tonight. June 1 st
will be straw votes at 12:00 p.m. in Room 267, and on June 13th, it is expected that City Council
will adopt the budget at 7:00 in the Council Chambers.
I want to add a couple of parenthetical thoughts to this process before the City Manager makes
his presentation. The first is that many of us have been stating publicly our preference for a
revenue neutral budget. I still think that is very important in this economic environment. One of
the challenges with doing that this year is that we do not have the kind of capacity for a capital
program that we have had in the most recent years, so even as we have a conversation about
where to set the rate, I think it is important for us to have adult conversation about what that
means long term in terms of our capital program.
Secondly, last year the City Council made a decision to phase out funding for school resource
officers, and that decision was made last year, but the impact will be felt in the next budget year
under the current plan. I am tonight encouraging the Council to begin the process of
reconsidering that decision because as we know our school system will be facing significant
budget cuts at the state level and potentially challenges at the local level as well. I think we have
got to have that conversation as well as we go through this cycle. There are still a lot of moving
parts on our own budget, I understand, and as we get closer in to the decision making time,
maybe this conversation will take a more specific direction in terms of where money would
come from and so forth, but at this point, that is not what we are here for today. We are here to
hear the City Manager’s recommendation, and with that, City Manager Curt Walton, I leave the
floor to you.
Curt Walton, City Manager, said we are here today for me to present recommended budget for
the next two years of our operating plan and the five-year capital budget, and that is good news
in a way because we have had to depart from our two-year budget cycle for the past several years
because of the difficulty of accurately projecting revenues. We do feel that there is enough
predictability now with the revenues to return to the two-year budgeting process, so what I will
be presenting to you today is a two-year cycle for the year beginning July 1 st of this year and also
July 1st of 2012. The capital budget is a five-year budget and will be very limited changes in that
because we don’t have a referendum this November, so we’ll talk about that.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 38
Councilmember Carter arrived at 4:08 p.m.
I will share the presentation with Ruffin Hall, the Budget Director, and with Barry Gullet, our
Utilities Director. I will do the overview, key messages, and challenges, and Ruffin will do the
budget summary, our discussion of the revaluation process, general fund summary, the CIP, and
the enterprise funds. Then Barry will talk to you about the rates. We presented the Utilities
budget to you in March at one of our Budget Retreats, and we are scheduled to present our
recommended rate adjustment to you in April, but we were not ready yet. We were still looking
at consumption and some of the other factors, so that piece is going to be new to you today. I
think that is one of the few pieces that you don’t already know about.
The overview – I think we are in a good position. I think our collective thought is that we have
weathered the worst of it, and we may have turned the corner a bit. The first year of the two-year
budget is still going to be a very minimalist budget, but it is starting to trend in the right
direction. So the problems that we all started to encounter in the fall of 2008 I think we are now
emerging from with our budgets we will be recommending to you today.
Councilmember Mitchell arrived at 4:10 p.m.
I do want to commend you and others on making the decisions along the way to keep us in this
position ranging from in 2008 slowing down our capital program to make sure that our spending
matched our cash flow; to the employees – our employees have done a tremendous job over the
last three years of recalibrating service delivery and bringing new ideas to the table, and in most
cases, customer service has not suffered. A couple of places it has, and we have addressed a
couple of those for you in this budget.
Last year we had, as you recall, 52 reductions that went throughout the city and were significant
enough that we didn’t have to make any further reductions this year. So what we started late
calendar of 2008, which was FY09, and then the next subsequent two years have really put us in
a position to now start growing again and start to better meet the needs of the community.
We have maintained our policies, and credit to those who have sat in your chairs and my chair
for a lot of years before us. These policies go back for the most part 40 years, and we have
maintained our AAA credit rating. AAA has always been important because it’s a general Good
Housekeeping Seal of Approval on your financials and also it was cheaper to borrow money
under a AAA rate than it is under any other, but because the rating agencies in 2008 received
some of the blame for the financial meltdown and some of the ratings that they had not done as
diligently as they should they got much, much tighter with those ratings in that process. So it
became a process of not only having the rating and it being good for you in a number of ways it
also meant whether you could place debt or not. We are not as tightly in that market now as we
were two or three years ago, but it still is a very important point as you go to the markets to place
debt. The revenue growth that we are seeing in this year is primarily dedicated to operating
expenses, and we will talk to you about that, and as I mentioned earlier, there are very few
changes from last year’s budget that you will see.
I have identified several challenges, and as I looked at it, the weight of the challenges
outweighed the first couple of slides, and I don’t mean it to. I think we are in a good position,
and we should feel very good about where we are. I guess the good about having challenges is
we have ways to address them, so I will identify several of these and some of the strategies we
have for addressing them as I go through.
As you know, the State of North Carolina has been challenged from a budget perspective starting
with the between $3.5 to $4 billion deficit depending on who you ask, and we thought six
months ago that we would be greatly at threat financially. As we talked last Monday in Dana’s
update to you, financially we are not seeing a great deal of impact. Most of the impact for us has
been loss of authority, and that is significant, but it’s not necessarily in the financial side. It’s
annexation, it’s billboards, it’s residential design standards, and things like that. But I would say
until the Governor signs a budget – the House has presented a budget, the Senate now has it.
Their goal is to have a budget to the Governor by June 1 st, and what she does then we would
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 39
need to wait and see. I think the chances of their being a state budget adopted before our budget
on June 13th I still think is limited, but there is a possibility.
We have, above our 16% threshold, $18.4 million from what we closed last year with, and we
are recommending, as we talked before, holding that until we see what the impact of the state
budget is. So while we know of no immediate financial impact right now, we need to make sure
we make it all the way through the signing of a budget before we divert from that plan. We also
have $445,000 left from the criminal justice technology reserve that we established several years
ago at a $3 million level, and then our general fund reserves, the 16%, equals $82 million. So
between the 18 and the 82, we have about $100 million in reserve. Sixteen percent is your
policy, which is $82 million, and then $18 million is above your policy.
Councilmember Peacock arrived at 4:15 p.m.
Once the state budget is adopted, if money is not necessary, I do have recommendations for you
on the use of that 18.4. The Mayor’s Budget Taskforce that Cindy Patterson chaired identified
one of their recommendations of $18.4 million for severe risk technology projects, something
that we strongly agree with but have to get past that state issue, so if we do get past the state
issue, we would recommend appropriating the $8.4 million to technology. There are additional
technology investments beyond the severe risk particularly customer service enhancements that
we would like to do, and $4.6 million won’t do it. It just keeps us on that continuum towards the
funding we will need over the next several years.
I’ll talk a later a little bit more about the insurance and risk fund, but it’s an area that we are
really challenged right now, and we would recommend $5.4 million of that 18.4 go to insurance
and risk if we don’t need it. I would recommend liquidating the $445,000 in FY13 to police
because we don’t have much of that $3 million left, and to be honest, we never found a way to
spend it that was agreeable to the state. So we might as well close that chapter. Retaining our
reserves at 16% would be the $82 million.
Annexation is another challenge for the state, for us. We have spent $5 million preparing for the
June 30th annexation in the general fund. Utilities has spent much, much more, but as you
remember, we bought those private systems in the eastern part of the county earlier this spring,
but not all of that was solely for annexation, so I’m not suggesting we did that only for
annexation, but that was a big part of it.
In the first year of the two-year budget beginning July 1 st, revenue exceeds expenses for
annexation by $1 million. So, if you look only at FY12, it’s a good snapshot. You have to
consider the first two bullets that it’s going to take us a while to recover our costs. As you know,
there is an annexation process working through the General Assembly. If the bill that appears to
be in the lead right now is approved, long term it’s bad for annexation, but short term it allows
the annexation on June 30th to go forward. So if that bill is indeed approved, we would have $1
million in the budget that you have available for use for something else. However, if it gets
approved in another form or they change the date and we don’t get to do that annexation, we
have a $1 million hole in our budget, so that’s why there is a $1 million reserve built in just in
case the worst happens.
The second challenge is the federal budget, and the immediate impact is on the CDBG and home
funds, and I think we accurately forecasted 20% reduction, and we have made the adjustments
that we’ll talk to you about. I think longer term the implications are more in the transportation
transit realm. They are not cuts that impact us right now, but I think going forward the
reauthorization and the funding for transit is a little more suspect. So there is limited dollar
impact for the federal budget and this following year, but long term I think it’s an area of
concern.
Employee compensation – there is no recommended compensation adjustment in this budget. As
I mentioned, the employees have helped put us in this position of financial strength over the last
several years, so I want to make sure that their efforts are acknowledged. The 3% group
insurance – it’s still 3%, so there will be a net loss on take home for people, but 3% is very good.
It is well below medical inflation, so I want to give credit to our HR folks for managing that
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 40
process very, very well. We hate that it’s any increase, but 3% is considerably better than where
we would have expected to be.
The budget does restore the 401k contribution. We had been at 3% for a number of years. In the
current year, we dropped back to 2% with the intention of 3%, and the budget does that. Also we
have restored a portion of training budgets that have been significantly reduced over the last
three or four years. Doesn’t get us back to where we were three or four years ago, but it’s a way
to invest in employees without having to do the compensation adjustment.
Continuing with employees, I am requesting the authority to do up to a 1% lump sum adjustment
from this current year budget. Let me explain where we are. The current year ends June 30.
Midyear at the Retreat we had projected about $5 million of savings by June 30th. If we did a 1%
adjustment in the general fund, it would be about $3.5 million. What I would like to do is to
challenge the organization to save an additional $2 million from where we projected, and if the
savings are at least equal to the City as they are to the cost to the employees, do it from the
savings in this fiscal year. So it wouldn’t be paid out until we close the books – that’s July or
August – so it would happen this summer and next fiscal year, but it would be from this year’s
dollars, so it wouldn’t impact anything long term. That is my request for the employees to be
able to work towards the 1% lump sum or up to 1% if the savings are not significant enough. As
long as there is a 2:1 ratio of savings to cost to move forward with that amount in August.
Number four, the capital program, and the Mayor mentioned this. I think this is probably the
largest challenge for us and the most significant because the others will all come and go, and this
is something that we will always be in the infrastructure and reinvestment business. As you
know, the November 2010 referendum was the last referendum for which we had funding, so
that means we don’t have funding in place for November ’12 or ’14.
Go back to the rating agencies – when we didn’t have a referendum in 2004, we didn’t stay on
our normal two-year cycle. We had to do a lot of explaining as to how we were going to meet the
infrastructure needs of the community long term, and keep in mind we do a lot of investment for
CATS, we do a lot for Airport, we do a lot for Water Sewer, Storm Water, but the keystone of
the AAA bond rating is the general CIP – Transportation, Neighborhood Improvements, and
Affordable Housing. So that is the area we have got to figure out how to address. In 2006, you
infused $20 million annually into the program. Over the next three referendums, that put $551
million of investment into the community. That also, I should have mentioned, fire stations and
police stations, so it’s not only voter approved GO bonds; it’s certificates of participation for
City facilities particularly those two – Fire and Police and things like the Emergency
Communication Center.
So, I think we have no more than a three-year window. I don’t think we can skip the November
of 2014 referendum without seriously putting the AAA at risk. If we skip the November of
2012, I think we can perhaps explain that away, but we would just have to see when we got
there. So I’m not recommending anything to you now that is different from where we have
been, but over the next three budget years, we are going to need to address the AAA bond rating
and specifically how we move forward with referendums.
Councilmember Barnes said I wanted to ask you a question regarding something the Mayor
alluded to and discussions you and I have had over the last several months regarding our inability
to issue bonds in the future. Is it your anticipation that we could realize sufficient revenue under
the current revaluation to allow us to finance bond debt over the next couple of years or will we
have to seek a combination of gains realized under revaluation and new revenue?
City Manager Walton said I think it depends on the size of the program, but we will talk to you
about the rate. The revenue neutral rate is about two cents less than where we currently are. A
penny is about $8 million, so that would infuse $16 million. Sixteen is relatively comparable to
the twenty that you did in 2006 and yielded the $551 million. Sixteen would certainly be less
relative to the 551, but it also depends on over what time we plan to spend it, so that would
certainly be one way to address the issue or you could put that off for future years. It would be a
policy decision for Council.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 41
Councilmember Carter said thank you very much for this, but Mr. Cooksey and I have had a
discussion about the number of challenges to the appraisal of property, and it appears to be quite
significant, and I’m wondering if we have enough static data to base our decisions on. Mr.
Cooksey has proposed something that I think of great interest, but subsidiary to that I would like
to ask if our investment in technology could be considered as soft capital and could be a
mitigating statement for the AAA rating?
City Manager Walton said I’ll take that one first. Technology – some places do put it their
capital program, but it doesn’t last 20 or 30 years, so in my opinion it belongs in the operating
budget rather than the capital except in PAYGO funds. In fact, we do put it in PAYGO. But if
you were going to bond it and, therefore, leverage it, I don’t think it’s a good way to do it. I’m
not familiar with what Mr. Cooksey had proposed.
Councilmember Cooksey said later.
City Manager Walton said later, okay. We had factored in the appeals. The Tax Office and the
City and the County are using the same assumptions – they came from the Tax Office – on the
number of appeals, and it’s significant. We have never been in a situation like this, so the only
thing we know is it will be wrong, but we have tried to be very conservative as to how we think
those appeals will come out because we can’t afford to be too aggressive.
The last area is miscellaneous catch-all, several things. Every two or three years we seem to
find ourselves in this position of fuel going up and down. Last year City vehicles traveled 46
million miles in the distribution of City services. Ten cents up or down is about a $500,000
swing throughout the City budget, so there is volatility there. We have increased the funds, and I
mentioned the revenue growth going to operating costs. A lot of it is going there. We have not
increased it to where the price is now, so we are trying to find a middle ground that is higher than
where we are in the current year but lower than the current prices, so fuel is something to be
aware of, but we have always managed this when it happens, when fuel prices spike, and we’ll
continue to manage it in the future.
The stimulus police officers – as you know, in 2013, the second year of the two-year budget, we
start inheriting the cost of those police officers, those 50 officers we added several years ago.
That increase is on for the next several years, and we need to be very mindful that shouldn’t
sneak up on us, so we need to prepare for the second year of the two-year budget and on down
the road for assimilating those costs into our budget. The same for the streetcar, although that is
not in the two-year budget, and it’s only in the last half of the last year of the next two-year
budget, but that is estimated at $1.5 million in 2015.
Insurance and risk I mentioned earlier. We are self-insured, and we are workforce that in the
general fund is 64% public safety, and over the entire city population 50% public safety, so there
is significant risk that goes along with that, and then we also have buses and trains and garbage
trucks, etc. There are significant risk exposures for us. We have also had a number of issues,
particularly employees over the last 18 months or so. Actuarially speaking those haven’t hit us
yet, but they will in the next year, two years, three years, so we need to anticipate where that
curve is going and try to mitigate the impact of that as best we can.
Finally, technology again, just continuing to keep current with our technology investments. We
have made a lot of progress in the last four or five years. As we have talked, that is something
that over the ten, 15 years prior to that we did not do a good job within this area. We have not
been very risk adverse. Technology projects often fail, so it’s something we are coming to terms
with inside our organization and need to just figure out what the priority order of moving
forward is and how we are going to address that, and you have been very helpful over the last
several years with significant dollars. The financial system is underway, and that process will
lead us to a new procurement system and cost accounting in a couple of years. As I mentioned
earlier, there are a number of customer service systems that we need to invest in and make it
easier for the customer to deal with us and any number of others, so technology investments will
be on there probably every year for infinity because that is the way technology appears to be
going, but it’s something we have not been good at; we are doing better at, and we are looking to
really moving forward with it more quickly.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 42
Councilmember Howard said are those type of investments, the technology investments, are
those geared toward 311 at all?
City Manager Walton said, yes, sir.
Councilmember Howard said I went out and saw that. That is a great place, and I think they
have a number of systems they maintain.
City Manager Walton said, yes, sir. Remember, they have 13 disparate customer service systems
that they have to maneuver through. They would not be the end, but they are certainly going to
be the means through how our customer service systems are improved because that is something
that makes it very, very difficult, so that reflects then on the customer having to know which of
those systems to access.
Councilmember Howard said a one-stop shop just seems to be the way to go with customers.
City Manager Walton said, yes, sir, we agree. I will turn it over to Ruffin unless there are
questions for me. I will be glad to answer questions at the end.
Councilmember Barnes said, Mr. Manager, I wanted to go back to this issue of fuel costs, and I
believe you indicated that the ten cents equaling half million dollars was exclusive of CATS.
City Manager Walton said it includes CATS.
Councilmember Barnes said we heard information from Ms. Flowers a few months ago about the
increased costs in their budget where fuel is concerned, and I believe we purchase fuel as a part
of some large group of bulk buyers; is that true?
City Manager Walton said uh-huh.
Councilmember Barnes said are we undertaking any initiatives to change the types of vehicles
some of our employees drive, and I’ll give you an example. I frequently see City vehicles. They
look like Tahoe’s and sometimes pick-up trucks that has nothing in the back of them, but there
are people driving around, and I imagine they at some point put equipment or tools in the back. I
don’t know, but I’m wondering whether there may be an opportunity to save money by
purchasing either hybrid vehicles or small engine gas-powered vehicles. Have we given any
thought to how we deploy our vehicular assets?
City Manager Walton said, yes, sir, we spend a lot of time on that. Some of those could have
been hybrids. I don’t know which ones you might have seen. Before we buy anything, say a
Tahoe, we do an assessment of what the need is. I think there is a needs-based process that
would have yielded that result, but we are always looking at the fleet and looking at our fuel
practices and how we can increase the efficiency in both. Relative to CATS, CATS does a great
job on fuel of managing in the private markets. Where we really need to concentrate is more on
the just regular gasoline for police cars, small vehicles, code enforcement cars, that sort of thing
and how we can do that on a more consolidated basis.
Councilmember Barnes said speaking of the police vehicles do we know whether the new Dodge
Chargers are more fuel efficient than the Crown Vics?
City Manager Walton said I don’t know off-hand, Mr. Barnes. I know Crown Vics are going out
of the market, and we have two choices: Dodge Chargers and Chevy Luminas or Chevy
something, which are front-wheel drive and don’t really work well for police, so we’re down to
having one choice going forward. We will get back to you on the fuel efficiency. Probably they
are not very good because they are eight cylinders, rear drive vehicles.
Councilmember Carter said I have two sets of questions, if that’s appropriate. Dealing with
annexation, I assume that the assumption is the motion for the moratorium will not take place
until July 1st or after that.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 43
City Manager Walton said in the leading contender bill there is no moratorium. It allows things
to move ahead, and ours is June 30th, so it would be under the current rules. If it were going to
be July 30th, that’s the one that we would have to do free water and sewer hookups for residents,
allow them a vote, and I have forgotten the percentage that would have to approve it, number of
restrictions, so it’s going to make it very difficult going forward, but the current bill allows us to
move forward under our current plan.
Councilmember Carter said the expense noted at the bottom is $1 million cash reserve budgeted
for FY12 and FY13 – that’s $1 million per year.
City Manager Walton said it’s a million both because there is a million of revenue built into
both.
Councilmember Carter said will there be income from servicing the other county as we were
doing with our water service?
City Manager Walton said I think Cabarrus bought that system from us, but if we go out of
county, they do pay us a higher rate.
Councilmember Carter said the other question I had was about the lump sum adjustment, and I
applaud that consideration. Is it based on merit that the distribution of the lump sum will be
based?
City Manager Walton said as long as you are at a certain level of performance it would just be a
1% lump sum. With 1% it’s hard to do merit based.
Councilmember Carter said the other question that I had about that is the 80% performance of
some of our less salaried employees. There was one year where we did extra compensation to
bring that segment of our employees up to an 80% of pay in the market. Has that 80% held, or
do we need to do extra adjustment?
City Manager Walton said in the interim between when we did that last and when we had
reliable pay plans we made an effort at the bottom to make sure that the bottom stayed above
that. Over the last several years, since this would be three years with one pay plan in three years,
probably the number drifting below 80% citywide is going to be much greater than it has been
before. Generally I think we need to handle those things through the performance based system.
It’s going to take us a while because of missing pay plans and the market to catch back up, but I
think when we do catch back up, we need to stay caught up through the performance based rather
than through an adjustment to a percentage.
Councilmember Carter said I do want to mark my concern about that area.
Councilmember Cannon said, Manager Walton, this would be under the employee compensation.
Relative to the restoration of the 401k contribution from two going back to three, what is that
number?
City Manager Walton said $1.8 million.
Councilmember Cannon said the restoration of a portion of the reduced training budget what is
that portion?
City Manager Walton said $450,000.
Councilmember Peacock said, Mr. Walton, on challenge number three, employee compensation,
my question is about your last point -- important to get back on track with next year’s public
safety and broadbanding pay plans. Can you explain a little bit further that slide where you were
answering Ms. Carter’s questions about the lump sum and how that interacts with the Mayor’s
Taskforce you have put in place now to start addressing the public safety pay plan?
City Manager Walton said I think as we go – we would go into a fourth year, Mr. Peacock. I
think it’s important to try to get back into schedule with whatever is appropriate at that time
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 44
based on the market. I think there is increasing stress on the workforce and within the
workforce. I think morale is starting to be more of an issue than it has before. The markets are
starting to open up again. There is more hiring, so I think for all of those reasons it’s important
plus we will have hopefully a new public safety pay plan that will come out the end of this year,
beginning of next year, and I would like to make sure we can demonstrate good faith that we
went through that effort to generate something that we could fund and make good on that. It is
certainly not a given. It is never a given, but it would be a goal of mine to be able to reinstate
that.
Councilmember Peacock said one follow-up question. Could you re-explain that slide again
about the 1% lump sum and if this was done then that will occur. I didn’t fully understand that.
City Manager Walton said if we can pay – if we did a full 1% in the general fund, it’s $3.5
million. If we can leave $3.5 million with the taxpayers in the general fund reserve so that next
year we would have a conversation about how to use that $3.5 million, basically the payout
would be no more than the money left with the city. That’s my goal. So, with our budgets, as
they have tightened, the amount over 16% has gotten smaller and smaller, so it may not be
possible to achieve $7 million of savings, so in that case, it would be prorated down. If it was
only six, we would only pay out three; if it was five, we would pay out 2.5.
Ruffin Hall, Budget Director, said in the interest of time I’m going to modify my presentation a
little bit and kind of skip through some slides, particularly some where I was going to give some
more detail and the question and answer period with the Manager, you stole some of my thunder,
so that’s a good thing, but no need to go ahead and do it again. I’m the City’s Budget Director,
and the purpose today is to give you a little more background in some of the details of the
Manager’s recommended budget, and then when I get to enterprise funds, I’m going to hand it
off to Barry Gullet, so he can talk to you about the recommendations associated with Utilities.
Just a quick reminder, the overall City budget both capital and operating including enterprise
funds this year is about $1.67 billion. There is a lot of attention often focused on the general
fund, which is the piece that includes Police, Fire, Solid Waste, and Transportation. This is
about 3.5% lower overall from last year’s budget mostly due to the lapsing of the federal
stimulus dollars that was approved as a part of the midyear adjustments during FY11.
The general fund, as a reminder again -- we have talked about this quite a bit – the general fund,
which contains Police, Fire, and Solid Waste as your core services, single largest revenue source
is the property tax and sales tax is your second largest source, so those two are critical when you
start talking about looking at the City’s budget. Expenditures, Police and Fire are the largest
pieces of the expenditure side. Police, Fire, and Solid Waste together represent almost 80% of
your general fund budget.
Sales tax – I’m doing this a little different order because I wanted to spend a little bit more time
on property tax. Sales tax revenue, as you can see, is a little bit more volatile, it’s correlated with
the impacts of the economy, and you can clearly see going from ’09 to ’10 the impact of the
crash in September of 2008. We went through two, perhaps three rounds of budget cutting since
then, and it’s now stabilizing a bit. This matches the conversation that Greg Gaskins, the
Finance Director, has spoken with you about already that it doesn’t look like we are going down
any more, and it’s moved into a period of somewhat slow growth.
Property tax revenue – again some slowing, but it remains one of our most important revenue
sources as a slow and steady revenue source over terms as well as the importance of annexation.
FY12 does include the annexation revenue in the estimate, and, again, we are looking at a stable
revenue stream going forward.
Property revaluation – last property revaluation that was conducted by the Mecklenburg County
Tax Assessors Office was 2003. State law requires that you have a revaluation at least every
eight years, so this year was required. For the City’s calculation, in 2004 the State law changed
to better define how to do the specific methodology, so this year we are using that particular
defined methodology. It’s the same as the County is using, and it is also a methodology that was
outlined by the UNC School of Government. This describes the process of determining the rate,
using prior rate of increase, and then adjusting it to account for annexations, de-annexations,
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 45
mergers, etc. The detail of that calculation is in your book, and I can show you that if you ever
had any questions about how that calculation was done.
So we are recommending a revenue neutral tax rate for FY2012. The current rate right now is
45.86 cents. We are recommending 43.7 cents, which is about a 2.1 cent tax rate decrease from
the current year. The last thing on property taxes to mention before I go –
Councilmember Howard said if we left the rate where it was how much of an increase would that
be?
Mr. Hall said, as the Manager mentioned, one cent is approximately $8 million, so 17 roughly.
Property tax revaluation also impacts your municipal service districts, and with the exception of
one district, we are recommending the revenue neutral tax rate, the same as we have done for the
city side funding, general fund, debt service, etc. I will mention that in just a second.
Councilmember Barnes said I believe you are about to answer my question regarding the South
End tax rate, Mr. Hall, so I will wait and see if you answer it. If you do not, I will ask.
Mr. Hall said four out of the five districts the amount of the property value went up from the last
revaluation, therefore, the revenue neutral tax rate would go down. For South End, the property
valuation since the last valuation went down slightly, so revenue neutral tax rate can be positive
or negative. Often in the context of our conversations, it’s always going one way because the
value goes up from year to year. If you do have an area where the value in an area or in this case
a municipal service district goes down, in order to keep the revenue neutral rate, you would
actually have to raise the tax rate from 6.68 cents slightly up 7.05 cents.
Because of the economic conditions and economic development interests, the City Manager is
recommending that we keep the recommended tax rate at the 6.68 cents; in other words, keep the
tax rate flat. The revenue is not dramatically different for that particular area, but we thought it
was important to keep the tax rate flat instead of revenue neutral. Did I answer your question,
Mr. Barnes?
Councilmember Barnes said I believe you did.
Councilmember Howard said it translates into the fact that there will be less money for what
happens in South End this coming year; right?
Mr. Hall said less money associated with Charlotte Center City Partners, but it’s some number
around $15,000, $20,000. General fund summary – much of this has been mentioned by the
Manager, so I will skip through the sections that are repeated. You may remember from your
Budget Retreat in February we projected a $5.4 million gap and the assumptions we had as a part
of that projection are listed in front of you including the restoration of the 401k, the contribution
to retirement, and a 25% rate increase internally for the risk fund because of some of the issues
we were having. There were several changes associated with what happened from the February
Retreat to now. Property tax revenue estimates got better than what we had originally had
anticipated. We went through our normal budget review process and examining carefully
salaries and salary projections, and we were able to generate some savings in salaries associated
with normal turnover, and, as the Manager mentioned, HR did a great job in looking at our health
insurance rates and made some recommendations, which Cheryl shared with you at your March
Retreat as well as some rebidding that occurred on the prescription side and the wellness side
that generated some savings, so we were able to save money from the Retreat.
As a reminder, I just wanted to mention several items that may be on your mind that were a part
of last year’s budget process going into 2012 that are items that either had an impact in the ’12
and ’13 budget or was a part of your deliberations and discussions that impact the 2012 and 2013
budgets. First of all, we recommended a reduction to the general fund contribution to Storm
Water with a three-year phase-in, so that amount is increasing in 2012 by $151,000. We are
continuing the three-year moratorium or suspension of the neighborhood streetlight request, new
neighborhood streetlights, to avoid additional cost associated with that. ImagiNon we had
recommended a three-year phase-out of the maintenance funding. The total amount is about
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 46
$283,000. Council voted to defer the implementation of that three years beginning this fiscal
year that we are recommending, 2012, and then going into ’13 and ’14.
Councilmember Howard said on that streetlight situation, what happens when we lift that
moratorium? Are we going to take over all the lights or are we going to phase that in or we just
won’t accept the ones that were put on line while we were off line?
Mr. Hall said we are talking about the petition process for neighborhoods to get new streetlights,
and there has always been a backlog, so the question really just becomes a matter of resources –
how much money can you choose to put into the program to go farther down the list and pick up
those installations and utility costs.
Councilmember Howard said I thought it was also on new construction and the lights put in by
new construction as well.
Mr. Hall said it depends on whether or not there is an existing developer agreement that was in
place prior to the initiation of the suspension of the program. I can get you some more details
about that. I’m not immediately remembering the rules about which piece it is. There will be a
backlog though when it comes off – to answer your question.
School resource officers – this was a recommendation we made last year for beginning
implementation in 2012. I think some of the confusion we had last year was there was a concern
that we were talking about implementing it in FY11 budget, which we are currently in. The
recommendation was to begin the implementation in 2012 to allow some time. I will take a
moment to remind you of how this works because it is a little bit complicated for the purposes of
refreshing everybody’s memory about the City’s proposal. Right now the CharlotteMecklenburg School System pays the City for school resource officers, and the current
methodology for that is that FY11 current level. The methodology is 50% of 80% of the cost.
The logic behind that that was invoked at the beginning of the program was that a police officer
spends about 80% of their time in the school. They are out during the summer and vacations,
etc., and that we would split that 80% cost 50-50. So you can see right now, CMS pays the City,
about $2.4 million to offset the costs for SROs.
Our proposal was to transition that to 80% of 100%, a full actual service allocation methodology
so the schools were paying for 100% of the time when the officer was in the school. In order to
mitigate the cost impact, the proposal was to do that over a three-year process. So for FY2012,
this particular formula would say that the Schools would pay the City $958,000 more than they
did in ’11. Then you can see the associated impacts in ’13 and ’14. If you add up the impact of
that over three years, it comes to about $2.7 million of additional payment to the City over that
particular period of time. This is an actual cost based contract relationship, so these are estimates
about what future costs might be. In other words, if you add SROs or if you increase salaries and
benefits for whatever reason, then these numbers would change, but this is based on a projection
of the current behavior.
The other impacted item I wanted to mention was school crossing guards.
recommending elimination –
We are
Mayor Foxx said, I’m sorry, Ruffin.
Councilmember Mitchell said I apologize. Let me go back to that discussion – SROs. How
many are we actually talking about? Is that elementary, middle school, and high school? What’s
the total number?
Mr. Hall said it’s middle school and high school. It’s 48 police officers and one sergeant. There
were 49 plus one sergeant, but they reduced by one when they had one of the schools close.
Mayor Foxx said do we know whether the school system has the capacity to replace that funding
– to ramp that funding up?
Mr. Hall said my understanding is the schools as part of their budget request have requested to
the County that first $958,000 payment as part of their request to the County. Now then the
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 47
question becomes what does the County budget do in terms of their response of how much
funding do they give the schools. The County makes their recommended budget on May 17 th,
which is a week from tomorrow, and then we would know whether or not they intended to fund
it as a part of their additional allocation.
Mayor Foxx said given how fluid things are let’s suppose that the additional funding doesn’t
come through the County. Do we know what CMS will trade off to either provide this function,
or will they replace it with some independent security force? Do you have a sense of what will
happen?
Mr. Hall said I do not have a sense of that yet. My understanding is CMPD has had meetings
and has met with the policing staff over at CMS and put these precise numbers in front of them
associated with the contract proposal and they have had some dialogue. They have not
responded beyond receiving the proposed formula change we put forward.
Mayor Foxx said this is going to be something we have to continue watching as we go through
because there are a lot of fingers in the soup right now. It will settle out as we get further along.
Mr. Hall said I mentioned the elimination of City money for crossing guards for this particular
budget year 2012. Again, this was another item we put forth for implementation this year. Then
another item going forward that is worth mentioning is the loss of stimulus funding, as the
Manager mentioned, $3.1 million lost grant revenue by 2014. So part of the concept here is you
have a three-year phase-out of federal funding for stimulus funded police officers and then we
have a three-year phase of some additional savings and additional payments from CMS
associated with those programs.
A couple of other position changes that I would just like to mention. We are recommending
adding 13 response area commanders in CMPD to finish out the 39 response area commanders
proposal that the chief had put forward as a part of his reorganization. We are recommending 15
officers to increase law enforcement allocations at the Airport. That is 100% funded by
Aviation. That’s not paid for by the general fund. We have an airport battalion chief also funded
by Aviation, two positions for annexation and Fire, two positions in Solid Waste for annexation,
and then five positions for Sanitation associated with minimizing safety risks. You are going to
see some additional positions over here in this slide as well associated with risk management –
another tort attorney paid for by the risk fund, and the five positions I just mentioned in Solid
Waste, again, these are trying to address some of the problems we have had in our risk and
liability funding from the prevention side, and on the legal side driving towards trying to get a
handle on some of our risk management costs.
Business Support Services – one contract administrator. That’s fully funded 100% by additional
commission fees it’s able to put forward by a proposal from Charlotte Cooperative Purchasing
Alliance and two additional positions in procurement to address workload and compliance needs.
You may recall that Internal Audit, Greg McDowell, came up with a report a couple of years ago
about some vulnerabilities we had in our procurement function, and we believe these positions
are necessary to address some of those deficiencies, and going forward the Enterprise Resource
Planning, ERP, will also be creating some benefit associated with procurement, but that’s a
couple of years away, and we think there are some issues we need to work on right now.
The last is Neighborhood and Business Services – there is a deletion of eight unfunded positions
due to the reorganization. There is no money attached to those positions, but it’s cleaning up
some frozen positions that are no longer going to be necessary.
Councilmember Mitchell said, Ruffin, go back to the Business Support Services procurement,
particularly the comment funded by commission fees. Can you explain?
Mr. Hall said my understanding of this particular proposal is there is an alliance you can join and
participate and consolidate purchasing practices, and as a part of that participation, you are able
to get commission fees paid back to the participating units. It was one of the 54 cut items last
year that we were looking at to try and increase our efficiency, so BSS went out and said how
can we better address procurement without just having to add money directly from the general
fund, and they discovered this particular commission option. Another way to look at it is if you
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 48
go out and you are able to get discounts with vendors, you can generate some savings that can
pay for the cost of that particular person.
Councilmember Barnes said, Mr. Hall, back to the first slide on position changes. Regarding the
13 response area commanders, the comment says create lieutenant rank. Does that mean they
otherwise would have some other rank?
Mr. Hall said the response area commander right now is a special assignment, and what this is
doing is that we are going to be creating a new rank based on some legal situations that have
been occurring on the HR side. If we go much further, I’m going to have to ask Cheryl Brown to
help me out. Basically by creating the lieutenant rank, they will be able to clarify the specific
role that the response area commander currently provides.
Councilmember Barnes said will it create increased costs for us?
Mr. Hall said, no, sir, because the response area commanders right now already receive special
assignment pay. A couple of other general fund highlights – Solid Waste Services, $300,000 for
additional carts. This is not additional carts associated with the second recycling cart that is
being currently piloted and considered. This is basic operating costs. We made some reductions
last year in Solid Waste Services to their base operating and probably took some costs in some
areas that went a little too much, and this is something as an ongoing expense they need to have
budgeted.
Two hundred thousand for youth engagement initiatives. That’s really Police Activities League
and Right Moves for Youth, and we are recommending additional financing for capital
equipment replacement for some Fire and Solid Waste trucks, and that will actually create some
savings on the maintenance because some of our maintenance is much higher when the trucks
get older, and this is another area that we cut pretty heavily the last couple of years, and we are
starting to see the cost benefit not work so well.
The Manager already mentioned the compensation and benefits pieces, so I’m not going to
repeat that. On the group insurance increase, we are recommending 3% overall. That was down
from 8% at your February Retreat, and these are the same recommendations that Cheryl provided
to you in March. We are increasing deductibles for PPO-A, increase out-of-pocket maximum
PPO-A, and continuing our policy of retiree cost sharing, employee cost sharing depending on
the market.
Transition to a buy-up. Cheryl Brown mentioned this again as a part of your presentation to
create more of a distinction between those two plans. One thing I would emphasize is that if an
employee selects a PPO-B based plan they will have no increase to their health insurance in
2012. Right now less than 10% of our workforce picks PPO-B, but if they do, they will have no
increase in their health insurance. Significant savings due to the rebidding of prescription drug
and life insurance and other cost savings that HR was able to achieve.
Capital investment plan – this is a CIP that has very few changes. We are leaving the $6 million
in debt capacity unprogrammed. We currently do not have funding for a bond referendum, as the
Manager mentioned, and you do have some time to make that decision. Two hundred three point
six million was the last bond referendum approved in November 2012. This is simply a chart
that shows you the trend in the past of what our bond referendums look like, and right now we
are not looking at a 2012 or 14 depending on future conversations.
Joint communications center – this is a project that is coming forward and being developed for a
proposal next year. Right now it’s in the program development stages, and it has got a lot of the
occupants that are listed on the slide, and we are recommending doing the project scope and
budget for a more specific proposal next year because at this point we don’t have a hard number
that we can give you because it is such a complicated building. We are doing a fire
investigations building. It’s a renovation of an existing building already on the site of the new
fire headquarters, and we did recommend increasing the project budget for Freedom Drive due to
some scope changes required by NCDOT.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 49
Enterprise funds – no changes in rates associated with Aviation and CATS. Storm Water has a
proposed 6.5% impervious surface fee, and Mr. Barry Gullet is here to provide you information
about Utilities, and I believe there is a handout coming around that will give you more
information about that particular proposal.
Councilmember Mitchell said, Ruffin, on CATS, I thought MTC did approve a bus rate increase
for this FY11.
Mr. Hall said for 2012?
Councilmember Mitchell said yes.
Mr. Hall said I’m not certain. I thought they did not, but I -- for ’13 or ’12? Carolyn Flowers
says ’13, so I think it’s FY13.
Councilmember Mitchell said so it’s ’13 for the bus fare increase?
Mr. Hall said yes.
Carolyn Flowers, CATS, (inaudible – not near a microphone)
Mr. Hall said I was just putting up the slide here for 2012.
Barry Gullet, Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities, said you just received a copy of the
Customer’s Guide to Understanding Rates in your bill, and I just want to point out that my
presentation is really going to pull material from that, so that’s what you will be seeing. I want
to start out by a little reminder that we are in a transition year. I keep saying that over and over,
but it’s really true. First, we are still transitioning from a high growth to a low growth
environment, and Utilities’ budget will increase in 2012 to pay for projects that were started and
underway when the recession started and before.
The map that we are showing you here and is included in the brochure shows some of the
projects that have been built in the last decade that we are still paying for. We are still seeing
increases in our debt service for bonds that were sold in 2009. Since we presented our budget
information to you in March, we have been working really hard on how we structured that
financing and the impact it’s having on rates. With the help of our Finance folks and our
financial advisors outside, we have been able to generate some reductions there that have helped
us hold the rates down a little more than they would have otherwise.
The second transition that we are going through is transitioning over a several year period to be
less dependent on borrowing to build capital projects and using more PAYGO funding. This
graphic illustrates how 62% of our Utilities budget is going to pay for capital today. Less than
ten years ago, about 55% went for capital. That’s how quickly it has increased that much. That
capital cost I’m showing here is a combination of debt service and PAYGO, so that’s a combined
number.
The last three years we have held the operating budget pretty flat, and we have absorbed
operating cost increases by using money we saved through hiring freezes. We have fewer
positions today than we did ten years ago even though our system has grown significantly in
terms of the number of customers served and the number of miles of pipe we have. So the
proposal for 2012 is to restore funding for 37 positions and eliminate about 50 other positions,
unfunded positions, that we have been carrying in our budget. This will put additional crews in
the field and help us keep up with maintenance at the plants.
The response time for repairing leaks has grown significantly this year, and this chart shows the
average response time it took, but unfortunately many repairs took a lot longer than these.
Restoring the crews that we propose still does not get us back to where we were even in 2009. It
should reduce our maximum response time from about 12 weeks down to about eight weeks.
That’s still too long, but it’s definitely a move in the right direction.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 50
Finally we are transitioning to the new rate methodology that the Council approved at the end of
February. This chart shows the current water and sewer rates and the proposed water and sewer
rates for next year, and I want to be sure to point out here that the new methodology encourages
water conservation in that customers who use the most water will still pay the highest rates for
that water. Also, as we mentioned earlier, we have worked hard to keep rates as low as possible
while addressing the service level issues and our financial goals. The revenue requirement that
we are trying to meet is lower than the one that we have presented to you in March.
Councilmember Barnes said I wanted to ask a question. You may be about to address it, Mr.
Gullet, but in case you are not, I wanted you to explain – I believe you and I may have talked
about this – explain why there is no increase for Tier 4.
Mr. Gullet said Tier 4 is staying flat. Tier 4 is staying the same, and the reason is that in the new
rate methodology the costs are assigned to the various tiers, so we are charging people for the
costs that we are incurring to provide that level of service. Keeping Tier 4 at the same level
continues to encourage conservation and it recovers the costs that we are incurring to provide
water to those people who use the highest amounts.
Councilmember Barnes said it would strike a lot of people that folks who are using over 16 ccfs
will pay the same thing they paid last year and will continue to use 16+ ccfs, whereas if that rate
went up that might provide some incentive not to do so or a disincentive to do so. How would
you respond to that?
Mr. Gullet said I would respond by saying again the rate methodology is based on charging
people for the costs that we are incurring to provide the service, and this Tier 4 rate does that. It
also encourages conservation. It’s still the highest rate, and it’s still more than five times the rate
that people are paying for using a lot less water. So it still does encourage conservation, and it’s
not a punitive rate. It’s based on recovering our cost of providing service at that level. We really
do need people to conserve water, and that does that.
Councilmember Barnes said we talked a few weeks about providing an incentive to people who
have outdoor sprinkler systems or irrigation systems to use a meter that is specifically assigned
to the irrigation system, and I believe under that paradigm the rates would go down or up?
Mr. Gullet said remember the purpose of the higher cost for using more water is to encourage
people to save water, so there are incentives in the new rate methodology that will kick in a year
from now that will provide incentives for people to put in a separate irrigation meter, a back flow
preventer, and a smart irrigation controller. The studies have shown that using that smart
irrigation controller saves between 15 and 30% in water usage.
Councilmember Barnes said what is the incentive?
Mr. Gullet said the incentive is that if you have those things you would pay all of your irrigation
water at Tier 3 rates instead of Tier 4 rates. Right now you begin paying irrigation water at a
separate meter at Tier 3, and then after you pass 16 ccf at Tier 3 you pay Tier 4 rates. The
incentive for installing that smart controller to save 15 to 30% of the water use is that you pay at
the Tier 3 rates. We are also making it easier for folks to install a separate meter by spreading
out those connection costs and by eliminating the capacity fee costs for those separate irrigation
meters.
Councilmember Barnes said right now if someone doesn’t have an irrigation system that is
separately metered they begin paying at Tier 1, 2, 3, and so on at those rates; is that correct?
Mr. Gullet said that’s correct.
Councilmember Barnes said from a marketing perspective I think a lot of people view an
incentive as either a discount or money that goes to them, and in crafting this proposed policy I
think it’s important to make sure the incentive actually appears to be an incentive; if that makes
any sense, because it would strike a lot of folks as a disincentive to say we are going to put you
at Tier 3 when they may be at Tier 2 now depending upon the size of their lawn.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 51
Mr. Gullet said if they are doing the irrigation through their domestic meter now they are
probably hitting Tier 2 before they use any irrigation water. In other words, just their regular
domestic use is probably going to put them somewhere between Tier 2 and Tier 3. They are also
paying sewer charges on all of their irrigation water up to 16 ccf.
Councilmember Barnes said one more thing, and we are tight on time, so we will continue this
piece later, but it is clear to you and I think many people who are following it that we have a very
limited supply of water. It is getting dry already I noticed, and I think at some point we are
going to have to face a situation where we actually implement rates that discourage excessive
water use, and that’s why I keep asking you about Tier 4. If people are using over 16 ccfs of
water a month, there should be some incentive for them not to do so, and leaving the rates the
same won’t do that.
Mr. Gullet said I understand.
Mayor Foxx said we have three more. I will remind Council we are at 5:17, two and a half
minutes past the time for starting our Dinner Meeting.
Councilmember Carter said two points of clarification. As customers use water, they move
through the tiers in payment or do they pay at the final tier where they end up?
Mr. Gullet said they move through the tiers. The first 4 ccfs used are at Tier 1, and then 5
through 8 are at Tier 2, and 9 through 16 are at Tier 3, and everything above 16 is at Tier 4.
Councilmember Carter said the next question is are we looking at providing for the changes that
the State Legislature is proposing for our service provisions for those who are annexed, the
connections between the main pipeline and the houses?
Mr. Gullet said that is an area that is in such a state of flux at this point that it’s hard to predict
where it’s going. If we are required to provide free connections to annexed households then that
will have a ripple effect throughout our system, and we have not completely assessed the full
impact of that at this point.
Councilmember Turner said can you tell us what tier the majority of our citizens fall in
currently?
Mr. Gullet said 75% of our customers use 8 ccf or less, so 75% are in the first two tiers. That’s
on average throughout the year.
Councilmember Turner said can you explain to us have we changed our policy to allow citizens
who are not connected yet to City water that have access to it but have not chosen to connect due
to our costs of their connection? Have we changed our policy yet to allow them to pay in a
monthly water bill installment?
Mr. Gullet said that will begin on July 1. That was part of the rate methodology change that
Council approved.
Councilmember Turner said that’s for everyone?
residential or business?
I’m talking about residential.
Is that
Mr. Gullet said residential, yes.
Councilmember Cooksey said by way of note about conservation rates and the impact of Tier 4
consumers as raised earlier the last chart I saw indicated that roughly about 8% of our customer
base ever makes it into Tier 4, and the Tier 4 customers account for about 24% of Utilities’
revenue. That is including what they use on Tiers 1, 2, 3, and the like, but an impact of creating
a rate structure in which very few or no one reaches Tier 4 is that we have to recover the revenue
out of Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Just wanted to add that for consideration.
Councilmember Dulin said I also want to point out that those 8% of our customers that do make
it to Tier 4 are paying us full price for that water. They are using it, but they are paying us for it,
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 52
and in most cases, we are not having to spend anything reclaiming it or recycling it back into
service. That water, if it’s used in a swimming pool, evaporates, and they fill it back up, and it’s
not costing us. Once we sell it to them, we don’t see it again in most cases, so it’s not costing us
anything to reclaim it. In most cases from Tier 1 and Tier 2 and the stuff, we are selling that
water twice.
Mr. Gullet said the chart I have on the screen now shows the impact of the rate change various
customers. Depending on how much they use, the impact will be different. Most customers are
going to see between $3.99 and $4.59 per month increase in their combined water and sewer bill.
The highest increase that any residential customer will see with be $8.99, and even though the
water rates are going up for all customers, because of the lowering of the sewer cap there are
some customers that will pay less in their total sewer bill, so that nets out the largest decrease
will be $25.49, and, again, that’s because they are not paying for sewer service that they aren’t
receiving.
I wanted to show you a comparison of Charlotte’s rates to other cities. This compares
Charlotte’s rates to the 2011 – to this year’s rates for these other cities, and we stuck both
Charlotte’s this year and next year rates in here. The message is that our rates are still very much
in line, very competitive with cities all across the country. We have seen a report in the last
couple of weeks that would suggest that the average rate of increase across the country is about
9.4% for water and sewer utilities, so we would expect that most of the other cities on this cart
will have increases next year as well.
Finally, I want to talk about communication, and communication and transparency are critical to
the well-being of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities, so this year we are publishing a customer’s
guide to understanding rates in your bill. This should be on the cmutilities.com Web site right
now and will be widely distributed over the next few weeks. It’s going to be inserted in some
weekly newspapers. It will be emailed out to HOAs. We are going to have a water bill insert
that captures some of this information, and we will be also distributing it through the other cities,
the other Towns, and the County’s distribution means as well. A lot of effort into
communicating the change, the need for the change, and the impacts it will have. With that, I
will turn it back to Ruffin.
Councilmember Turner said before you leave could you answer this question. In regards to those
tiers, let’s say Tier 3, the customer base that use and generally fall in Tier 3, let’s say they fall
back into Tier 1 and 2. Are we prepared under your new proposed rate chart here, will it capture
the loss?
Mr. Gullet said forecasting sales is one of the hardest parts about setting rates, and that’s one of
the reasons we weren’t ready in April. We were watching the weather. The weather has a big
impact on that and people’s usage patterns. We have seen consumption decrease. After the
drought, people did change their behaviors, so we have made what I think is a very conservative
projection for sales. We have increased the consumption in Tiers 1 and 2 by 1% based on the
number of houses that we are going to be acquiring in the annexation area. Otherwise, we are
leaving the consumption forecast pretty much the same as it is this year, so we think that’s a
conservative way to approach it. The uncertainties of weather and economy certainly play a role
in there, but that’s what this is based off of.
Councilmember Turner said based on what you just said is it for me to assume that you have
indicated no because if that’s the fact I’m going to give us the best solution. I’m going to say the
weather is going to be good and we are going to get decent rain, and folks because of the cost are
going to become more conservative in Tier 3. They are going to fall back into 1 and 2. We are
going to come up with a shortfall like we did when we had the drought. Will we be back here
next year saying we need another increase because we had a good year – good meaning that
people didn’t use. It’s a pay as you go, so if they don’t use it, they don’t pay for it. That’s your
whole concept here; right?
Mr. Gullet said there is never any guarantee about how much water people are going to use. We
believe that the assumptions we have made are reasonable. We don’t believe the changes in the
rate are going to substantially how many people are in Tier 3, so the biggest variable will
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 53
continue to be the weather, and, again, we have made assumptions based on what we have seen
in the past and what we believe are pretty conservative in terms of the customer growth.
Councilmember Turner said did we do an account for how many citizens filed for permits to drill
for wells at all? Did we get that information at all?
Mr. Gullet said no.
Mr. Hall said next steps – budget adjustments meeting on May 18 th. I would like to emphasize to
the public the budget public hearing will be in the Council Chamber at 5:00. In the past, that
time for the budget public hearing has been 7:00, but this year the time is a little bit different due
to some scheduling impacts, so budget public hearing is in this room at 5:00, straw votes, and
your budget adoption.
Contact information, if anybody has any question, it’s on our Web site as well as they can give
us a call. Thank you’s. I’d like to thank the Mayor and City Council particularly members of
the Budget Committee. The Budget Committee worked really hard this year on several items and
produced a lot of information and really did a great job, and it was a pleasure working with
everyone. The key business executives, Corporate Communications, and Marketing, Finance,
and Human Resources staff, all those folks really help a lot. We have contacts in every one of
our key business units, and I must say perhaps most importantly the budget evaluation staff
members in our office, they are the ones that really do all the heavy work, and we get to come
and present the present with pretty bow on top.
Mayor Foxx said thank you, Mr. Hall, and thank you, Mr. City Manager. I think one of the
unsung groups of people in this community are the City staff, who have not only worked hard to
build a budget that really shows why we are a AAA bond rated city but also the hard work that
goes on behind the numbers. We have done an awful lot in the last year, year and a half, on
different policies and other things, and I just want to say on behalf of the Council – I think all of
us agree – that we have a great staff and we are very proud of what you all are doing.
Let’s go upstairs for our dinner meeting, and we’ll be back down in a few minutes.
The meeting was recessed at 5:11 p.m. for the Council to go to Room 267 for the regularly
scheduled Dinner Briefing.
********
DINNER BRIEFING
The City Council of the City of Charlotte, NC, convened for a Dinner Briefing on Monday, May
9, 2011, at 5:43 p.m. in Room 267 of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center with
Mayor Pro Tem Patrick Cannon presiding. Present were Councilmembers Michael Barnes,
Nancy Carter, Warren Cooksey, Andy Dulin, David Howard, Patsy Kinsey, James Mitchell,
Edwin Peacock III
ABSENT UNTIL NOTED: Mayor Anthony Foxx and Councilmembers Jason Burgess and
Warren Turner
*********
ITEM NO. 1: MAYOR AND COUNCIL CONSENT ITEM QUESTIONS
Mayor Pro Tem Cannon asked if there were any Consent items.
********
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 54
ITEM NO. 2: SIDEWALK RETROFIT POLICY UPDATE
Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager, said we have a presentation tonight. Danny Pleasant will
lead off and give a few brief remarks on the sidewalk retrofit policy update. It’s something that
has been in committee. Then he will call on Vivian Coleman of CDOT staff to give you more
details about that policy.
Danny Pleasant, Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT), said in 2005 the Council
adopted a sidewalk retrofit policy as part of its efforts to build a more walkable community in
Charlotte. He began a PowerPoint presentation entitled, “City of Charlotte Sidewalk Retrofit
Policy Update,” a copy of which is on file in the City Clerks’ Office. Vivian is going to give you
some responses to those lessons that we have learned over the past few years and ask for your
concurrence in a future Council meeting to the policy changes that we are about to make, and we
are making a rather wholesale in the way we pick projects and apply those projects and use a
petition process.
Vivian Coleman, Charlotte Department of Transportation, said I echo many of the
comments that Danny has presented in the past few minutes. The sidewalk program has gone
through a pretty huge evolution over the past few years – six years roughly – that we have been
using the policy that was adopted in 2005. Tonight we wanted to talk a little about updates to
that policy and let you in on how we are going to make those a little more simple for everyone in
the room. That includes residents, the Council members, and the staff by adopting a new or
amended policy. So, we’ll talk through a few of these items this evening.
The Transportation Planning Committee has spent the past few months reviewing the policy
amendments, and we have spent some considerable time talking with staff as well to work
through how we wanted to make the changes to the policy. Our goal is to build a more walkable
community. I have to thank the Mayor and the Council for empowering staff over the past few
years for working to become a more walkable community and allowing our staff to do that
because if you haven’t heard yet the City of Charlotte was designated a walk-friendly
community, a national designation, at the bronze level by the Federal Highway Administration,
so we have won a pretty big award and that’s because of the work we have done over the past
few years and the work we’ll continue to do. We are doing many great things for our walkers
now, but we still have more work to do, and to continue to build sidewalks through the bond
programs or other programs are important in making Charlotte more walkable.
Who constructs sidewalks? It’s really a number of partners that help us out. Part of that are
private land developers who are building new developments and subdivisions. Many of this are
capital programs and projects that we play a key role. About 100 miles of sidewalks have been
built through the City’s funded programs, and that’s quite a few miles over the past five years.
The policy will focus on gaps in the sidewalk program that focus on these three City programs:
CDOT Sidewalk Program, the Neighborhood and Business Services Neighborhood Improvement
Program, and the Planning Department’s Area Plan Program. Those are the programs that we
hear from the public the most on, and we wanted to incorporate those three programs into one
under this policy umbrella.
We learned a lot of lessons, and I know I talked with a number of the Council members over the
past few years and worked through the design decisions, worked with the public, and within that
we really have listened to and heard from the public and our residents. We have been to a huge
number of public meetings to understand how we could craft this policy and make it better, make
it more flexible, and include more public involvement. So we are working to be more consistent
in the program so that it becomes seamless. Any time someone calls about a sidewalk, they call
CDOT and they expect that the sidewalk is the City’s, so we don’t see the different programs that
are building these, so the idea is to get us under one umbrella.
There are three primary policy recommendations that are included in the recommended policy,
and these will simplify the process. They will increase public input early in the game; not late in
the game, so at the start of the project and shortly after design, the residents will have the ability
to provide it to us so we can make some design modifications and provide that flexibility that
some of you have asked us about. It will also get property owners on local and collector streets
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 55
the ability to decide for themselves whether they support a sidewalk on their street or not as we
move to a more petition-based approach.
With the increasing public involvement, as I have said, we have learned a lot from residents that
getting input late in the game isn’t helpful to us, and we spend a lot of staff time, resources, time
of the management and time of the Council members, so we want to get that public involvement
up front. We have been doing this for roughly two years now. We hold two meetings at a
minimum. The initial public meeting gives a concept overview of what the project could look
like. We talk about why we want sidewalks in the city, why we are trying to be more walkable,
and then we conduct a second meeting at 30% design. At both of these levels, the public has the
opportunity to provide design input and let us know what they think about planting strip widths,
trees they would like to try and preserve, slopes, driveway concerns, building setback issues, so
we really get indepth with the public now.
Councilmember Cannon said as you are involved in the general public how much of their
feedback is being incorporated into what it is that they would like to see in their particular
neighborhood?
Ms. Coleman said I would say we moved to a really listen to the public type of approach. There
are desires to have planting strips for buffers and things like that to have a safe walking
environment. But also, too, I would say we have really taken a different approach in letting the
public determine what kinds of planting strips they are looking for, what type of street trees they
might want, whether they do have issues with the driveways with slopes, and each is individual.
Some have more input than others, but that input is all taken into consideration in the design. At
this 30% design, we would bring those concepts back to the public.
Councilmember Cannon said let me tell you what I’m finding. I’m finding that in some cases,
although at least in one particular area of the city, the people that are engaged in the community
meetings are being asked in some cases, well, would you like to have a planting strip. Well, it
sounds nice, but conceptually they don’t really know and/or understand what that design might
look like, and, secondly, how wide that sidewalk now will become, and as a result the road, in
one case where I went by to drop someone off yesterday at home – this older lady – the driveway
or the carport is literally right up on the street now. This person at this residence will actually
have to pay for getting rid of their carport.
The other piece of that is that there seems to be – I want to know about the level of
communication so that people are clear, the residents are clear, about the information they are
receiving. If it’s being suggested that no cutting of trees, mature trees, 40 years, 50 years old,
will not be touched on one side of the street, why is the City in turn moving forward or have
Duke be involved, or whoever it might be, going in and plowing those trees down. That’s
number three. Number four, there being mounds of dirt being dropped in a person’s yard
without them okaying it or anything else, and it’s being utilized for a place where the workers
will go two to three weeks later to start on their project. It seems to me there is a real breakdown
in communication. I have spoken to on one street as of yesterday, on Mother’s Day, about ten
mothers who were not happy as they could have been on Mother’s Day when they started talking
about that issue, and I want it to be known that in some areas I really hope that we will raise up
and pull up from what it is that we are doing. The pipes or concrete pieces are in their yard, and
I’m concerned that they don’t know the extent of what this design will ultimately look like until
to what I heard you say a moment ago or a statement you made – until it’s too late, and they
don’t know what it means when you say a planting strip. So I put that out there for whatever it
is. I have touched base with the district representative. I know they are engaged, and I’m just
real concerned, and I hope we will put the brakes on in some of these areas to make sure people
really, really know what they are going to get and what they have asked for.
Ms. Coleman said a couple of points to that, and I’m not familiar with the exact street that you
speak of, but with the new process we will do an initial meeting and second meeting – what’s
called photo-shopped images. We will show the public what their lots could look like, and a
picture is worth a thousand words, so it’s really going to help us in the long run. A few years
ago we weren’t doing that type of thing. The 30% design, the residents will have the opportunity
to see where the sidewalk would lie within any of their property or in an easement, and then the
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 56
staff will offer to go out and meet with residents and show them where the sidewalk is proposed
to lie. We want to get the residents engaged early and show them what is going on.
Now, the instances you brought up about the piles of dirt and concrete and things of that nature
we would have to talk to that project manager directly and see how the inspector is dealing with
the actual implementation of the project. There may be – I don’t know if there is a breakdown in
that particular part of the system, but overall with the public involvement, the images show, the
plats show so the residents can see what is happening on their lots and site visits.
Councilmember Cannon said make sure they get a clear picture because I’m certain that if this
guy that has this carport that is now going to have to remove it. You saw that picture. I doubt
that picture would be worth 1,000 words to him. So the streets have already been identified. I
will just leave it at that. I think it will be circling back around, and I’ll be happy to share the
streets if I need to.
Ms. Coleman said we need that. Thank you for your comments on that. With the new policy,
literally two meetings will be held to move through the process. Recommendation number two
deals with the use of petitions. We have been relying on them much more heavily than we have
before. Under the existing policy, we included a tier system, and the tier system got a bit
confusing for some of our residents. They thought the tier system applied to other programs, and
it was really just solely the sidewalk program. Again, another reason to bring the consistency of
three programs into this, so it became challenging.
Sidewalks gaps, as Danny alluded to, on thoroughfares are critical, and they are the highest
priority out there due to the high speeds, volumes, transit needs, land uses. Safety and comfort
of pedestrians on thoroughfares are very important, so we want to continue to move forward with
thoroughfares without a petition as is in the current policy but include those public meetings so
we can get feedback on that. So we need to continue on those gaps.
The current policy also requires petitions on local streets that aren’t near a school or a park, and
we found that process is working very well because it gives the neighborhood, the street,
ownership of whether or not they support the sidewalk or not, so that process is solid and we
would like to continue using that process, and at least 60% of the property owners on both sides
of the street have the opportunity to sign or not sign to validate the support for the petition.
Now, for locals and collectors, we are changing our thinking, and the thought process is that we
would like to move more to a petition based approach so we can build the sidewalks on
thoroughfares more so in those critical areas and then allow residents more of the opportunity to
sign or not sign a petition with locals and collectors. So for those streets, we have tremendous
public input, and I think that is what has led us to believe that the petition based approach is the
most approvable approach for our residents. I think I worked with some of the Council members
on this. They essentially want to vote on their local streets and their collectors where they are
single family type streets, so this is important, and we listened and we did agree that those types
of streets should be able to petition. But, and there is a "but" to that, there may be a need for a
sidewalk on a street that is a local, and we would like to use what we call “reserved authority”
for that.
The Transportation director already has the ability to implement sidewalks projects under the
City Charter to move them forward. This authority within the policy reemphasizes the director’s
ability to exempt a proposed sidewalk from a typical procedure, and staff feels the authority is
very important to include in the policy and to include in general, and it would provide that extra
level of flexibility where a project is critical for reasons listed here. You can see high traffic
volume, perhaps there are pedestrian safety issues if crashes occurred on a local street or
collector street, and other unforeseen circumstances that may just come up that we need to
discuss, so we want this reserved authority to be included in the policy for that just in case type
of approach. This provides us with a system of checks and balances so critical projects are
constructed. The decisions will not be made in a vacuum, and our department will check with
the other departments, if that is applicable, and we will check with the City Manager’s Office as
we decide which ones are petition based or are not. We want you to know that reserved
authority will be used on a limited basis, just occasionally used, but it might be needed on
occasion.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 57
The next not so much a recommendation but a consistency is to incorporate those three programs
that I spoke about, and that is really when residents are notified of a sidewalk project or when
they see them being built on the ground they think of the City. They are not thinking about
different programs, and that’s important because they contact the pedestrian program manager in
many cases, and that would be me, and I have to talk to the Neighborhood Improvement Program
or the Area Plan Program and get together with them. So, staff got together a few months ago
and decided that these three programs were the programs that the public spoke to the most about
sidewalks, and we should have a seamless approach to provide a common ground on which
streets would require a petition or not and then follow that same process, so there is that seamless
petition process. So this would fall under the sidewalk policy umbrella, and our staff and our
Council members and our residents, it will help all of us to ensure consistency.
With the next steps, June 13 th, we are planning to come back to the full Council at a Business
Meeting and take action on the full policy, and the full policy will be in packets. Then we plan
to implement this policy on our future sidewalk projects.
Councilmember Cannon said I just wanted to add this piece. Thank you for your presentation. I
think there are some good recommendations in here for consideration for us to move forward.
The areas that I have been referring to, several streets. The good thing there is, one, the project
hasn’t gotten so far along where reconsideration could not be given, in my opinion.
Ms. Coleman said that sounds perfect.
Councilmember Cannon said it may be – I guess this would be the ask that we kind of double
check after speaking with the district rep with those folks again to ensure that they are okay or
not okay with that planting strip, and, again, if the design of it has changed – sometimes the
design can put it a little bit closer to one’s home than what they would like, so the feedback I
have been getting is we love sidewalks. We want to have a sidewalk, but we can really do
without the planting strip largely in part because the homes that are there – you will see some of
the loveliest homes have flowers and other levels of vegetation. You heard me mention the
mature trees and so forth and so on, but when a tree has been there for decades and then someone
comes and cuts it down that can cause concern for some folks and especially for us as much as
we, the City, will go out here and cut trees down and charge them a few thousand bucks to pay
us back for the error they made. I would love to be able to catch you before you leave with the
district rep and give you some of those streets.
Ms. Coleman said absolutely. I would be glad to talk through those. We have done this kind of
thing where we have checked in later in the day just because of the way the process has gone,
and we hope to clarify that and change that with the new policy.
Councilmember Carter said, Ms. Coleman, thank you. You have a really tough job, and I’m very
grateful for what you do. We had a discussion about this in Transportation Committee meeting
today, and this has been something I have been mulling over for some years. We establish
streets in priority lists, and there are reasons why we establish them, but they are usually in a
close bunch. What I would recommend to the City is that we go ahead with those areas where
the sidewalks are wanted so we are not using rare resources, fighting with citizens who really
don’t want the sidewalk, and if there are some that want the sidewalk who have the similar
priority, let’s go ahead with them, and that way you establish the value of the sidewalk
throughout the city. That, to me, is something that we can have that flexibility that you speak
about.
I truly appreciate the priorities listed on page 5 – that reserved authority. I am concerned about
two points. I agree with you wholeheartedly in your priorities listed here, but you say factors
including, and that implies to me there are other factors that are not mentioned, and I would very
much like to see what those other factors are because that concern me. Also, if we have the
capacity for doing sidewalks on one side particularly where there is an objection, and the other
factors are made.
Mr. Pleasant said the answer to your first question is the policy guidance that we are asking you
for is to make sure the projects are done on local streets and collector streets are ones that are
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 58
wanted. On the thoroughfares, to me, that seems a bit more obvious because you do have traffic
and speeds and land uses where people are more likely to want to walk. Whether we have
sidewalks there or not, if there is a bus stop there, people are going to walk to it, or if there are
stores there. So we want to accommodate those. I think we have achieved the objective of
having more permission from residences.
Now, for the reserved authority piece of it, we did not want to withdraw completely from our
ability to build a sidewalk to a school or a park or any other destination where there may be a
safety problem even though it may be on a collector street or local street. So we left that ability
to have that flexibility. You have been a part of this for a long time. You know that none of
these decisions are ever made in a vacuum. They are always made collaboratively with
residents, with other departments, with City Council members, district representatives, and it
tends to be a long process, and none of these things are made exclusively by me or any of our
staff without full consultation and a lot of input from a whole lot of people.
Councilmember Burgess arrived at 6:08 p.m.
Councilmember Dulin said I’m sure we all are involved with Vivian, but I really have spent a lot
of time with Vivian, and I appreciate the work she does for us, the follow-up work behind her
and these project teams, and a lot of these things you folks know. Everybody is for a sidewalk
until they find out it’s on their side of the street. Oh, man, I thought it was on Jim’s side. Wait a
minute. That changes the deal a little bit. The planting strips, Mr. Cannon, are always a tough
situation, a tough part of the equation. This Murrayhill one that we have been working through,
and we just passed the last of the condemnations last week, five-foot planting strip is – y’all
voted the Urban Street Design Guidelines in, and they say big planting strips.
I think it’s sort of funny that this presentation says eight-feet planting strips on major
thoroughfares, and all of these first couple of pictures they have on here are two- and four-foot
planting strips in their own pictures. There’s one major road here that has got a two- or threefoot planting strip on it. Urban Street Design Guidelines say eight feet. We have got Murrayhill
Road, which is very residential, it’s five feet. We got it down from – we got one reduced on
Fairview Road from eight to six, I believe. Well, six-foot planting strip and six-foot sidewalk,
something like that – five-foot sidewalk, but we are fighting – those of us that are on the ground
are fighting for inches in these folks front yards. Then again, the USDG says big planting strips.
I thought when I voted against the USDG that this kind of thing would be intrusive into people’s
homes, and sure enough it is.
Let me add one more thing, Mayor. Danny and Vivian and his crowd, they have been flexible in
some cases. They have bent as much as I think they thought they could. I wish they could have
done some more in some places, but there is some flexibility built in there. It’s not as rigid as it
might have been once.
Councilmember Barnes said I wanted to begin by saying that – and this should be obvious – but
there is a lot more to the USDG than sidewalk and planting strip widths. One of the things you
may recall, as you voted against it, Mr. Dulin, is that we asked staff, directed staff, to make sure
that they respected flexibility in implementing the policy in the ordinance. Unfortunately you
guys weren’t there for my two-hour meeting one night, and people from his staff were there, but
somehow CDOT wasn’t involved, and it’s a situation where we are retrofitting a neighborhood,
and we are trying to link the neighborhood to the greenway and link it to a future north corridor
light rail stop because it’s within the SKIP area. So people are saying you are going to be taking
up 14 feet of my property – eight-foot planting strip and six-foot sidewalk. I don’t want it.
A lot of the people – I’m going to get to an issue in a second – a lot of the people who are saying
it don’t live on the streets that are affected. They live in the neighborhood. With regard to
including the voices of the minority – because what I have discovered because of the emails I
have gotten – is there is a silent probably majority in the neighborhood that actually wants the
improvements because I have gotten the, “I don’t want to walk my baby in the street. I don’t
want my children running in the street. I want sidewalks.” Then I get folks who have been
around for a while, some of whom are on the affected streets to say, look, you are taking 14 feet
of my property – leave – and it will bring crime and all these other things. By the way, it’s not
neighborhoods that Mr. Cannon referred to.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 59
Mr. Blackwell and the folks who report to him and the County folks who were there as well are
aware of the need to work with this neighborhood because they are of the impression that they
can get three-foot sidewalks and two-foot planting strips, and that’s not the current policy. It
looks like we are about to amend the policy. If we approve these amendments in a few weeks,
will it apply retroactively or for projects that are initiated after the approval date?
Mr. Pleasant said you are not adopting standards. You are not adopting planting strips or
sidewalks. We have done that. As far as that is concerned, we have to start somewhere. The
USDG give us a good framework to start with, but we have to recognize that after doing this that
when you are doing retrofit projects trying to fit in a project in an existing context, we need to
honor that context as much as we can. We always champion a planting strip. It may be narrow
or it may be wider. We advocate for that planting strip. We are building some behind the curb
where we have no other choice. Park Road is going to be by the curb, but it is going to be a little
bit wider sidewalk to make people happier.
Councilmember Barnes said for the sake of time, though, you are not answering my question.
Will it apply retroactively or not?
Mr. Pleasant said we have been using these principles administratively all along. We have been
having more public meetings, we have been using the flexibility all along, so what we are asking
you to do is affirm the policy framework, the practices we have evolved to over the last few
years. The work we have been doing, the projects you see now, are benefitting from more
flexibility, more public meetings. Some of them that are locals and collectors if they were
selected under those criteria may not have gone through a petition process, so we are probably
not going to back up and do petitions once the project is to a certain level of development.
Councilmember Barnes said let me say this to you, too. A lot of us have been catching heck over
the 14-foot issue. I heard Patsy talk about it, Andy has talked about it, I have been talking about
it now, and Councilmember Carter, I believe, has talked about it, and you have got some issues,
too. So we have all discovered the issues around the city, I believe, and with my area, it is the
older parts of my district that are having some issues. I don’t know if Mr. Cooksey is seeing any
because a lot of his district is reasonably new, but in the more established parts where we are
retrofitting that seems to be where a lot of the conflict is arising.
I remember one of the streets in your neighborhood, Patsy, where we were going to be pushing
the sidewalk right up to the front steps, and we talked about how to avoid that, so there does need
to be, in fact, and what Mr. Cannon has talked about – I wish you could talk about the detail of it.
It is actually offensive in terms of what we are doing to these homeowners, and we shouldn’t be
doing it. We just need to make sure that you all are hearing us. By the way, during that two
hours last week, I explained to people that we adopted that policy, the USDG, and I said this is
why it’s six and eight, and we can try to go down perhaps to eight and seven or eight and six or
whatever the number may be, but the people who elect us don’t get that or don’t want to hear it,
and, hell, I don’t blame them. If you came to my house and said I am going to eat up 14 feet of
your front yard, I would be a little hot, too. So, I’m not too sure that I blame them for being
essentially angry. You were there, Jim. We were in a church, thank goodness. I understood
what they were saying, and what I ask our staff folks to do is let’s find a way to meet the needs
of connectivity for the sake of the northeast corridor and the greenway system yet respect these
people’s property rights and interests.
Mr. Pleasant said sometimes it’s difficult to unpack, but the USDG are intended for new
development and projects we are working on through a capital program that is an entire new
roadway project. We use the guidelines as guidelines – not as hard and fast rules. Retrofit
projects we are going to do our best to fit that retrofit and honor the context of the neighborhood
or the area. I think you will agree – I can’t think of any case where if the need has been
expressed to us and the concerns have been expressed we haven’t found a way to work that
sidewalk in. We are not going to please everyone, but to please enough people so it looks like a
worthwhile project. We have walked away from a few projects that people just did not want, and
we move on to the next project, and I think that makes a lot of sense. We have scarce resources
to not get hung up on forcing a project through that is very unpopular in the area.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 60
Councilmember Kinsey said I have a lot of old neighborhoods in District 1, so this is probably a
big issue for District 1 and me. I have to say after the first time – well, one of the first issues I
had after being elected was a sidewalk on – it’s in Plaza-Midwood – Tamwood, I think.
Anyway, and it was what you described – 15 feet, and it literally was at their front door. I have
to tell you ever since that time, and I don’t know who I dealt with then. That was before Vivian
came, but they backed down. They wanted the sidewalk. They just didn’t want it at their front
door. But, y’all have been great to work with, and I really appreciate that. You have been very
flexible as far as the projects in District 1 are concerned. It’s been a pleasure to work
particularly with you, Vivian.
Councilmember Cooksey said I actually have worked with Vivian some but nowhere near as
much as others have due to a variety of factors. One thing worth noting on this and worth
remembering. The policy is just about our retrofit. We are not talking about changing the
requirements for developers to build on both sides when they build a new subdivision; right?
Ms. Coleman said yes.
Councilmember Cooksey said that has been in place for 13 years now, and that’s one of the
factors that affects south Charlotte with the growth that has occurred in the new developments,
and I suspect Councilmember Barnes is seeing at the northeastern portion of District 4 is we
require sidewalks on both sides for anything built new, so we have a good clump of citizens who
get a) no choice in the matter because it’s being built before they buy in, and, 2) they get
sidewalks on both sides. I don’t know if anyone wants to take that as a concern, but our policy
just talks about sidewalks on one side of the street for collectors and local streets; not two. But
what I have sensed from some of the discussion is why double the headache by going in that
direction, but our standard development direction now keep in mind the sidewalks on both sides.
Mayor Foxx said great presentation. I feel compelled to say this because I think, Vivian, you
were just promoted, so you will no longer be our pedestrian coordinator; correct?
Ms. Coleman said that’s correct.
Mayor Foxx said we are sad to see you go, glad that you have moved up and out, but I know we
will be finding ourselves with a great, new pedestrian coordinator, but you have done an
exceptional job, and you have always been very pleasant to work with, so thank you for your
service.
Ms. Coleman said you are in good hands with the new pedestrian program manager. She has
been on board for about two weeks now, you will have the opportunity to meet her shortly.
Councilmember Dulin said, Vivian, what is your new job?
Ms. Coleman said I’m a Center City transportation program manager, so I’m inside the loop
now.
********
ITEM NO. 3: QUEEN CITY FORWARD FUNDING REQUEST
Mayor Foxx said one of the things that I know all of us are focused on is on job creation, and one
aspect of that, one sliver of it, has to do with entrepreneurship. We have done a lot over the last
year and a half to promote better access by entrepreneurs including the access to the capital
conference that will be happening in another week or so that we are supporting and supported
last year including revisions to our loan programs and so forth. Another initiative that has come
forward as a possibility for us to get involved in is this Queen City Forward initiative. In the
interest of full disclosure, I have agreed to be part of the leadership of this effort, so I want to
disclose that at the outset, but I think as you hear more about this it is going to hopefully be
pretty exciting to you.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 61
Brad Richardson, Neighborhood and Business Services, said before I start, I will make two
quick points. At your table is a copy of a funding request that we have received from this
organization – Queen City Forward – and attached to that is a color copy provided of a similar
strategy and information about the process and strategy for Durham called Bull City Forward, so
you will hear that referenced throughout the presentation. The second thing I would like to say
before I begin is that we are joined tonight by Sharon Blumberg, who is working closely with
Queen City Forward to enact the plan. Sharon can join me for questions that I am not able to
answer about the initiative.
What is Queen City Forward? I defined it the best I could here today, and Ms. Blumberg can
give you more detail than that, but it’s a community initiative. It’s really about social
entrepreneurism, increasing the population in our community. A social entrepreneur is a little
different than a traditional high growth entrepreneur or a small business lifestyle entrepreneur.
They focus on three things often called a triple bottom line. It’s not only financial growth, which
is common to all entrepreneurs. They also focus on environmental sustainability and social
impact. Sharon can talk about that and maybe give you a couple of examples.
Here’s the request. They have asked for our support to the tune of about $50,000 to help the
development of a six-month strategy. I will amend the second bullet a little after talking to
Sharon. Sharon says that the original request of 50 was to support a $200,000 plan. She tells me
tonight that the number has dropped a little bit because they have gotten some in-kind donation
from Packard Place for some space, so we can talk more about that, and they are also looking for
other support for that plan as well.
Councilmember Cannon said how far along the line are they with these grants they are seeking
from Duke Energy and Advantage Carolina and the Foundation for the Carolinas?
Mr. Richardson said I’ll defer to Sharon on that one.
Sharon Blumberg said we have put an ask that is currently on the table at Duke Energy
Foundation, the Foundation for the Carolinas. What we are waiting for is someone to be the first
one in to make a commitment to support this initiative. So, for example, we would be delighted
if the City supports us, and Duke Energy Foundation will fall in line and so will Foundation for
the Carolinas. We are also pursuing grant requests at Fifth Third Bank. We have gone out to
Wells Fargo as well as Bank of America. Those two entities are very interested in our initiative,
but they don’t fall within their funding focus areas right now but maybe later on down the road.
Advantage Carolina declined our request because they seem to have been inundated with asks
from the community, and they just could not satisfy them.
Councilmember Cannon said can you enlighten us on when you made the ask of those that are
listed?
Ms. Blumberg said yes. We asked Duke Energy Foundation, Advantage Carolina, and the
Foundation about two months ago.
Councilmember Cannon said is there a timetable as to when you can expect to hear back from
them with regard to your request?
Ms. Blumberg said they are waiting to hear back on how the City plans on supporting this
initiative. I’m being honest.
Mr. Richardson said this slide entitled “Use of Funds”. It’s a six-month strategy. It includes
three things: Mapping of the entrepreneurial ecosystem with a focus on that social entrepreneur
that we talked about a minute ago, some best practices, and some community input. A very
robust 130 or so community involvement process. They will have working groups focus on
these four things. We thought this was important to share with you. They are outlined in the
proposal, but recruitment, development, retention of talent from universities, from the school
system, into our community from outside; developing enterprises, making sure they have
networking opportunities, make sure they have access to the capital they need to spin businesses
off and the profitability. Measurements around outcomes – what will you get for this initiative.
That will be part of the study as well, and the general advocacy and marketing of social
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 62
entrepreneurism both locally, state, and federal government level. So those are some ideas of the
four working groups.
Councilmember Barnes said I’m going to speak, if I might, as chair of the Budget Committee
now. We typically as a committee have an opportunity to review new funding requests of this
nature, and obviously the full Council does as well, so I want to ask the Manager why this was
not in the budget.
Curt Walton, City Manager, said a couple of reasons, Mr. Barnes. The first and largest reason
is I just found out about this request in the last week or so, so the budget was done, so there was
a timing issue. For most financial partners, whether it’s for months or continuing, it would
become a financial partner with performance standards and contract provisions, etc. The others
were due in January, so there is a significant time difference here. That’s one reason.
The second is I would do exactly as you said during the budget process bring new requests
through the budget process, the Budget Retreats. That’s why it’s handled in this way, outside of
the budget, and because if there is going to be something new for you to consider, I want you to
know about that as it is relative to the budget as far ahead of time as possible. Then the third, as
the Mayor said at the beginning that he is part of this, I am also on this board, and generally I
won’t make a recommendation to you on something that I’m on the board. I will bring it to you
for your consideration much like the Community Catalyst Fund request last year. Unless it’s an
established board like Center City Partners that Councilmember Kinsey and I both serve on that
we are used to going through the process, but if it’s something new and I’m on the board, I will
bring that out through a different process.
Councilmember Barnes said did you say you recently became aware of the request?
City Manager Walton said I knew the discussion of the strategic plan was going on. I assumed
there would be some cost to it, but as far as the actual $50,000 request, I just found out in the last
week or two.
Councilmember Barnes said would the $50,000 be a multi-year contract?
City Manager Walton said, no, I think this would be for the strategic plan – one time.
Councilmember Barnes said ordinarily you have the authority to sign contracts for under
$100,000; right?
City Manager Walton said once you give me that authority. Basically you would have to
approve the funding depending on the funding source. If it’s the discretionary fund, only you
can appropriate from that source. Since it’s a new initiative and not in the budget, I can sign for
things that are in the budget up to $100,000. I couldn’t put things in like this without your
approval or not put things in without your approval and consent.
Councilmember Barnes said this morning I sent a few questions to Mike Whitehead, and Ms.
Blumberg responded and someone else I believe from the organization responded. I went and
reviewed the Web site, and I never heard of this before, so I had questions, and whenever I see
new requests for cash, I’m always wondering what is going on. So I asked a series of questions
after reviewing the Web site, the Bull City Forward Web site, and the information that Mr.
Whitehead included and Ms. Blumberg responded with some information which I found helpful
and I appreciate that. So, I think I have asked the questions I have at the moment, so thank you.
Councilmember Cannon said, Mayor, I do want to add something in the wake of a lot of what
Mr. Barnes said and kind of piggybacking off of something I made a comment about earlier. I
asked a question what the timeline would be in terms of when they might hear something back
from some of the other people they have asked for grants from, and it was stated that they are
waiting to see what we do, what the City does. I think that’s kind of the reversal of the way
government works and functions. We are here to be in a position of closing the gap if that butfor question is answered, and it would seem to me that we should hear something back from
them and not the other way around than from us because what if the gap is much larger; what if
it’s much smaller; what if it’s not anything at all?
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 63
That’s why we are here to safeguard the interests of the taxpayers to make a determination, so it
would seem to me that I will be better served getting some information back from them on the
likelihood of what they are going to be able to do before just throwing their nets out there and we
haven’t gotten any information back in terms of their level of ability to give. I think that’s only
fair. It’s what we always do. We are going to have something come before the Economic
Development Committee meeting soon of another request of several million dollars. I’m going
to ask the same question. But-for what are you asking this? Where have you gone to source for
these dollars that you now need public dollars to close this gap. I think that’s only fair. It’s
what we have done in the past. I think that’s what we should do in the future.
Mayor Foxx said I hear you, and I appreciate the perspective you are sharing because I’m sure
that perspective is probably shared by others around the table. My only observation would be
that I know that with the bank, for example, we made a contingent offer of resources contingent
upon their ability to raise a certain amount of money externally, and I don’t know whether that
target has been met yet or not, but there is a model for us to be an early mover, if not a first
mover, but to make the move contingent upon the raising of these other funds. I understand Ms.
Blumberg’s point. We know almost for certain what the number will be if the City doesn’t move
first, but there is a possibility that there will be significant buy-in externally if we indicate an
interest in moving forward.
Councilmember Cooksey said I’m torn on this one because I have been hanging around a bunch
of technology folks here over the past year or so going to bar camps at Area 15 and the like, and
there is a great hunger for greater opportunity for entrepreneurship and small business in this
community, and it’s been encouraging to meet up with programmers and things of that sort –
folks who have a lot of ideas. In fact at the last bar camp, there were three separate sessions on
getting small businesses started, so I know there is that pent-up demand.
My concern, however, is I share some of the concerns that Mr. Barnes and Mr. Cannon raised
about where we get into it, and I think one of the things we should step back and be careful of is
how does the precedent look? This major citation of the Gramene issue I think is well taken in
that we have an opportunity now to say was that an actual precedent or did we kind of veer off
further than we should have on that one? My concern with this ask is if we aren’t very clear
from a policy perspective how are we going to support this sort of activity, if we are going to do
so, than how do we turn down the next person, and there will be a next entity.
I mean Area 15 has been out – it’s a small business incubator – for several years now, and they
have never come and asked us for a dime. We grant $50,000 to an initiative that began out of the
City, and how do you turn them down? How do you turn down another group that comes and
says we want to help small businesses? If you look at the Triangle area, there are easily six,
eight, ten – how many overall business incubators are there that have popped up in the Triangle
to encourage folks there, and we have in terms of the official map I have seen from the Small
Business Technology Development Center, if you call that official, just the Ben Craig Center.
Who else is going to come before us saying we are trying to incubate small business. Give us 50
grand, too; give us 100 grand, too. I think overall we need to tread cautiously on this to make
sure from a policy perspective if we are going to do it we have these check lists to go off on.
Perhaps contingent, yeah, we may be the first to jump in the pool, but you don’t get the check
until you raise everything else you said you are going to raise; that kind of thing. But let’s do a
policy first and then talk about who is asking for what would be my suggestion.
Councilmember Turner arrived at 6:38 p.m.
Mayor Foxx said I think that is a very, very, very good point, and I have actually on a completely
unrelated conversations, and, Brad, you may be willing to share some of this. I know you all
have been doing a lot of thinking about how to help out in that entrepreneurial space some, and it
may be worth sharing that, if not today, at some point in the future about what the scope looks
like there.
Mr. Richardson said be happy to, but I see questions.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 64
Councilmember Carter said about four years ago I brought Climate Prosperity back to the
Council. It was thoroughly vetted by the Environmental Committee. We talked about it some in
the Economic Development Committee, and it didn’t fly. Unfortunately it went international,
and it’s really an impact right now. What I would like to know is how is this proposal different
from what we are doing now or what we have considered before, what new results do we
anticipate from such activity, and the Democratic National Convention is mentioned? What
impact do we expect before the convention if we are doing this, or is it simply flying a flag? Of
most of the Council members I will be supportive of sustainable things, but I need to know the
construct and where we are going with it.
Mayor Foxx said as I understand it, and Brad and Sharon jump in, but as I understand it, there is
a lot of desegregated parts of our entrepreneurial ecosystem, and we have done a lot actually in
the last year or so with the Small Business Web Portal to kind of build on that, and there have
been some other efforts that are ongoing. This could be a part of that ecosystem and part of what
the year of study will be doing is figure out how not to reinvent the wheel by leveraging
resources that are already there. Let me sort of explain what I understand the vision of this is
that you will have a physical space where social entrepreneurs will be able to come and there
will be classes that will be sponsored by already existing entities that provide instruction
There will be space for businesses that are starting out. There will be networks that they are able
to tap into in terms of access to capital and so forth, but this is for people who are interested in
sort of this triple bottom line concept of doing well, doing good, and also doing good things for
the planet and for the community, and I think you will find that there are younger and actually
older workers out there on both ends who are looking to reposition themselves but they don’t
know how to connect and they don’t know where to go, so this is another piece. I don’t mean to
suggest that this is the only entrepreneurship strategy that could ever exist in the city, but I think
this is an opportunity to create another piece of the puzzle.
I will also add that I think part of the challenge here is that you are building something that will
take on an identity that we can’t define right now. I mean it’s literally building something from
the ground up, so what is being asked for are the funds to build the model, and then the theory is
that model will then be scaled so that it can actually have an impact on the community. We have
an example in Durham.
City Manager Walton said, Brad, will you go to the next slide. A suggestion that we hadn’t
actually planned on, but the economic development focus area for next year starting July has an
initiative on how to partner better with entrepreneurs and grow entrepreneurship, and that’s the
overall strategy. From listening to your conversations, it sounds like the strategy and the policy
is missing, and how does this or does this fit within it. One suggestion could be to move that up
a month and not wait until July, but as Economic Development can handle it from an agenda
perspective, go ahead and take the entrepreneurship strategy to the committee and fold this in
and maybe the committee can bring back a recommendation on this request.
Mayor Foxx said very good idea.
Councilmember Peacock said I’m not one to want to squash innovation and good ideas. It’s not
intended to do that. I know we have two members of your board. We also got very early tip-off
on this with David Gergins presentation at the fall Council Retreat – very thoughtful, very
enthusiastic, very energetic presentation to this, but for me, I like Mr. Cooksey’s comment
regarding precedent, but I think as I read your plan and I read it and read through it, and I heard
several members mention this already, and Mayor Foxx and City Manager Walton, you all could
be a big part of helping them to shape this because obviously I concur with Mr. Cooksey that
there is a pent-up demand, there is a desire to do this, but right now for me what I’m reading here
this really lacks definition on a couple of different fronts.
I have circled some words here that jump out at me that are on your plan – social impact
entrepreneur. What is that? What is it not? On the appendix section, “Charlotte community
needs analysis. Local ecosystem map.” What’s an ecosystem map of Charlotte. Just a couple of
terms here that are used that really stretch the term “entrepreneur”, and, again, I’m having a hard
time trying to make the connection between that term. It sounds young, it sounds fresh, it sounds
current, but at the end of the day, the second concern I have, Mayor, is some of the results I’m
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 65
reading about in 2010 and the types of businesses that you are talking about – farmhand foods, a
bond, reader. These are really essentially very small businesses that do not have a long track
record. One is simply a supplier to restaurants. Our community and our chamber can adequately
tell you the success and failure rate of most restaurants and what it takes to do that. How that is
going to be different because someone driven by a triple bottom line. I think there needs to be a
little more – you need to have a lot more history to be able to convince an entity especially of
this size or more importantly even from the private entity that you have some results behind you.
I think they are clearly just starting as it relates to that.
Mayor, my last comment really goes to the contrast tonight of what we are talking about here and
what we will be talking about in front of the full Council tonight on TV, which is about $100,000
being directed from the Workforce Development Board for them to be able to create youth
employment, real employment opportunities that could be the future tax base in helping children
who are in high poverty situations to get into a good job and hopefully have a good first start to
that. So I look at that allocation, that reallocation resource that we will be debating and
discussing, and I have talked to Mr. Richardson about that before. I just look at that and I say
how in the world can you all possibly tell me that you are any different than any other struggling
brand new business that’s out there. That’s my final point is you all have really got to be able to
show me what you are doing differentiates you from what the Chamber already does in order to
try to facilitate and fill up our entrepreneurial zones and spaces, and I really like this create an
incubator building space that’s coming up – the Packard space. I think that’s through the folks at
Red F. That’s a private venture that is stepping out. They came to us, Brad, is that correct, for
City funds, and they asked us – they applied through that process to be a part of that.
Mr. Richardson said it was a business investment grant with the County on that building, yes, sir.
Councilmember Peacock said, right, that was on the building side. Mayor, again, I commend the
idea and the good intentions behind this. I don’t think it’s fully ready for the support of what we
traditionally will see, and as Mr. Barnes pointed out from the onset, we normally would have
seen this in the Budget Committee a lot earlier. I think the timing of this may not be as ideal
and the track record that you all have and Mayor and Manager Walton, I’m sure you all will help
them to shape this to see what we would be looking for and be a little bit stronger, so thank you.
Councilmember Howard said the way I see this conversation is the first of several conversations.
I think they came to get input tonight on what we are looking for. So, for me, it’s just three
things – how this fits into the bigger entrepreneurial conversation in the city, in the region. I’m
not sure I know what a social entrepreneur is. I’m not sure how that is different from a regular
entrepreneur, so I would like to know that. Then the Mayor has challenged us when we start
talking about the DNC to make sure that we did things that were sustainable and had a bigger
impact, so whatever Queen City Forward’s connection is to DNC, how do we now take that and
make it into something even bigger – not just to lead up to it, have a week or whatever, and then
it fade away?
Mayor Foxx said I want to add on to this point about entrepreneurism, which is part of the reason
why it’s really hard for us to focus on because it’s not big. By definition, it’s not 100 jobs, 500
jobs, or whatever. It’s one or two here, five or ten there, and that’s the nature of it. But, I remind
you that 90% of the jobs in our county are small business jobs, so the more we create a climate in
which people know the city is intentionally focused on growing more entrepreneurs, the more we
become known for that and the more we become attractive for that, so in some ways how many
jobs this kind of concept creates is one way to measure its impact. The other way to measure it
is how it creates the strong impression that this community entrepreneur-friendly community.
This, again, is just one part.
The second point I want to make is that what we have recognized early is that you can’t just take
a turn-key approach to this. You can’t use the same format that Durham uses. Durham sits in
the middle of four or five huge universities, and they can draw on young people who are coming
out of college who have these bold ideas and want to start a company, and that’s what they are
doing. That’s their motto. We have a different makeup in this community, and part of the idea is
to try to figure out how that makeup can apply to something like this. I think this is due
diligence money that is being requested. It is not action money. I think some of the questions
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 66
aren’t going to be answered until the funding is in place to figure out the answers to the
questions.
Councilmember Kinsey said I want to warn everybody that I did not take my ladylike pill today.
I really do think this is coming at a bad time particularly after coming off the budget
presentation, and I am sitting here thinking because I’m looking over at the Arts and Science
Council. I’m talking about all of our funding partners and how much they would like to have
that additional $50,000, and I’m really not looking at taking on another funding partner right
now particularly when this is the first time I have seen it. I haven’t had a chance to read it, and I
cannot support it if it comes back from Economic Development Committee in a month. That’s
not time enough for me. To be really frank, I feel very pressured knowing now that our Mayor
and our City Manager are involved with this. I feel very pressured, and I don’t like to feel
pressured, and I don’t like to make a decision without knowing a lot about it, and not only have I
not had a chance to study this, this is the first time I have heard about it. To come and ask for
$50,000 particularly after we have gone through the budget, we are not giving our employees a
pay raise this year, we have got all – and I know $50,000 isn’t much, but there are other
organizations that have been involved with us, funding partners, for years that could use that
$50,000.
Councilmember Dulin said I think you are getting some pretty good feedback that Council, at
least I, this group doesn’t like to be rushed, and I think a lot of us are feeling rushed. I certainly
am feeling rushed, Ms. Kinsey. I’m right with you. We have spent a lot of hours going over
funding partners and folks and in some cases they are trying to figure out how they can ask for
less money to save money, and I don’t want to add, we don’t want to add another $50,000
partner this year. One way you might work around that is do an add and delete. If you want to
add $50,000 of nonprofit money then take $50,000 off of some other nonprofit so we keep that
level, but I don’t – shoot, I’m awfully pro-business but I’m also pro not spending an additional
$50,000.
Councilmember Cooksey said since Mr. Peacock mentioned it and since the address is listed
twice in this write-up, what exactly is the connection between Queen City Forward and Packard
Place?
Ms. Blumberg said thank you for the question. We have been offered an in-kind contribution at
Packard Place to house the Queen City Forward initiative for six months. Packard Place is
developed on their ground floor sort of a co-working space, and they have asked Queen City
Forward to sort of manage that co-working space in what they are calling the garage. Our
intention is to be physically housed there as soon as we are able to raise some funds and operate
out of the Packard Place physical space.
Councilmember Dulin said where are you working out of now, Ms. Blumberg?
Ms. Blumberg said my own private office.
Councilmember Dulin said what will be the overhead? You want 50 from us, you want 200 from
a couple of others, so what is your nut you are trying to raise?
Ms. Blumberg said we are trying to raise a total currently of about $130,000. Our initial budget
was for $200,000, but we have been able to reduce that because of two primary factors. One was
we had an initial cost of $50,000 for start-up in terms of rent, office space, furniture, utilities,
etc., but since Packard Place has graciously made an in-kind contribution, we were able to take
that $50,000 off as a line item. We have also reduced our consulting expenses by a couple of
thousand dollars, so instead of 200 our total ask initially is about 130.
Councilmember Dulin said after you raise the 130 who will be paid staff?
Ms. Blumberg said I will be paid staff as well as representative from Bull City Forward, John
Paul Smith, who has been working there. He is going to be our liaison. We are also (inaudible)
and Paul Whittenhall has given us one of his Vista volunteers to work on this half time.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 67
Councilmember Dulin said is Queen City going to be connected with Bull City because you have
a paid staffer in Durham?
Ms. Blumberg said, yes, there is a strong alliance. We recognized here the value of leveraging
an existing model that resides in Durham but customizing it to the Charlotte community.
Councilmember Dulin said so the guy who is working for college kids coming out of college in
Durham what is he going to know about young professional entrepreneurs here in Charlotte?
Ms. Blumberg said there is going to be a tight communication strategy between Bull City
Forward and Queen City Forward with the intention of creating sort of a statewide network.
Councilmember Dulin said out of the 130 then how much of it is going to be salaries, and
$50,000 of that 130 is your request from City money; is that correct?
Ms. Blumberg said pardon.
Councilmember Dulin said $50,000 of the 130 would be the City’s –
Ms. Blumberg said the City’s request. So our current budget is staffing is around $100,000,
development is about $8,200, marketing and PR is about $3,200. We still had some overhead
and start-up costs because we have the need to retain the services of an attorney, financial
planner, etc. of $12,000, and travel and business development for about $4,000.
Councilmember Dulin said that takes your payroll – what is that – 78% of your raised dollars.
Ms. Blumberg said it’s the staff time that is going to put together the strategic plan over the sixmonth period; you are correct. We also hope to establish some early wins for this initiative in
addition to creating a strategic plan, and we say early wins – it’s establishing a Web site, it’s
creating some marketing. I have been asked next week to present at the Small Business Week
about social innovation and social entrepreneurship.
Councilmember Dulin said one more question. So your $50,000 that you want from the City is
supposed to go for six months of planning, and at that point, possibly you burn through the 50
and the 80 will come into play? There are a lot of questions, Miss. I hate to be hard on you, but
it’s awfully high overhead.
Councilmember Howard said one of the things that I think is clear is that anything dealing with
doing something new and innovative, as we talked about at the Retreat, has some amount of risk.
At the expense of just not creativity on this one because we want to encourage creativity when it
comes to growing small businesses in this community I would like to recommend this to the
Economic Development Committee understanding that if for some reason we do want to support
this it may not make it into this budget year. We may be talking about some type of
discretionary spending after the budget is done, but at least if it goes to Economic Development
Committee it can be vetted because what I don’t want to do is stop other people who have
innovative ideas, too, because that is what we need to be encouraging.
Councilmember Cooksey said I will second that if Councilmember Howard likes my
amendment. When you said this, did you mean this ask or the larger question of what it means
in the plan to develop partnerships to support high growth entrepreneurs because I would be
interested in the general policy development side of it as well; not simply this ask.
Councilmember Howard said are we agreeing that it would be both?
Councilmember Cooksey said, yeah, but policy and this particular ask.
Councilmember Howard said I would be very happy to accept that.
Councilmember Cooksey said then I’ll second your motion.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 68
[
[
[
[
Motion was made by Councilmember Howard and seconded by Councilmember Cooksey
to refer to the Economic Development Committee the policy question of what it means to
develop partnerships to support high growth entrepreneurs as well as the funding request
from Queen City Forward for $50,000.
]
]
]
]
Mayor Foxx said a moment of peace.
The vote was taken on the motion and recorded as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers Burgess, Carter, Cooksey, Howard, Mitchell
NAYS: Councilmembers Barnes, Cannon, Dulin, Kinsey, Peacock, Turner
Mayor Foxx said six nays.
Councilmember Barnes said it’s more of a question, and that is, if I might, Mr. Mayor. The
question is that the ask is being made on May 9, 2011. What is the drop dead date for the entity
because I don’t believe this is coming back from ED until sometime -Mayor Foxx said as I understood the motion that was inherent in the motion that the timing
would be the Economic Development Committee’s timing.
Councilmember Barnes said let’s say though that they say if we don’t get a decision by June 1
we can’t use it, so that way we put the committee through work that is not necessary. I’m trying
to figure out what the deadline is for the group, if there is one?
Ms. Blumberg said we don’t have a deadline.
Councilmember Barnes said there were so many “no’s” that if people would like to speak to it I
would like to hear some discussion because –
Councilmember Mitchell said I have been quiet listening to all of the discussion. I will say I
think Councilmember Howard kind of put it in perspective that I don’t want to send the wrong
message that innovative ideas come to the Council and we say no. I do think the bigger
discussion would be as we talk about entrepreneur support how we are going to develop the
entrepreneur concept in the City of Charlotte. We need to vet out things like this and other
proposals. I will be the first one to tell you I was talking to Councilmember Carter that we
already have an entrepreneur institute at CPCC, so there are a lot of things I think in place than
this proposal, but colleagues always say it will not come back on 30 because I don’t want Ron
Kimble to kill me, but Patsy and Andy, you are ED with us, and if we could, let’s have an overall
policy discussion about entrepreneur, how do we create, how do we build a synergy in the City
of Charlotte, and if you all will allow this to happen, at least we get a firm understanding of what
direction we are going in because if we don’t we will continue to have the one’s and two’s that
come before this Council and make us feel like we are pressured. So, if you all can let it come to
ED, we’ll be glad to talk about it from a policy perspective.
Councilmember Cannon said, well, as an entrepreneur, I don’t mind having that discussion about
entrepreneurs. I’m against what is being asked for because of the but-for question not being
answered right now. From that perspective, I’ll be happy to do all of what you just said, but for
the piece that has been added to that because I don’t find any grounds for it right now because I
don’t know enough about it. We don’t know what level of commitment is out there on the other
side, and, again, we don’t know if that number will intensify. We don’t know if it will increase.
We don’t know if there is a number that will be there at all. The private sector may decide they
want to take on the whole caboodle. We don’t know that, and we shouldn’t put the cart before
the horse. So, I’m okay with all that you said. We can still do that, but it’s just the other half of it
that I have some concern about.
Councilmember Mitchell said, Mayor Pro Tem, I agree with you because I think what spoiled me
was Gramene. Gramene came to us and they clearly said we are going to go out and raise 1.3.
We won’t take your $200,000 until we raise.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 69
Mr. Kimble said 2.3.
Councilmember Mitchell said thank you, Ron. I do think the Gramene model has spoiled us
because we realize we are in the third or fourth position after a concerted effort to raise other
money. My discussion is overall how do we create the entrepreneur spirit in the City of
Charlotte?
Councilmember Cannon said if that’s a substitute motion I’ll second it.
Mayor Foxx said there actually is no motion on the table. Is there any more motion, or should
we prepare ourselves to go downstairs.
Councilmember Mitchell said I would like to make a substitute motion to send the Queen City
model as part of an overall entrepreneur discussion at the ED Committee.
[ Motion was made by Councilmember Mitchell and seconded by Councilmember Kinsey to
[ send the Queen City model as part of an overall entrepreneur discussion to the Economic
[ Development Committee.
]
]
]
Councilmember Cannon said without the ask on the table of the $50,000?
Councilmember Mitchell said, yes, without the ask on the table of $50,000.
Councilmember Peacock said you take Queen City is what you are saying.
Councilmember Mitchell said I’m taking the ask out. The discussion is this a great model to get
us to have an entrepreneur policy in the City of Charlotte.
Mayor Foxx said I’m going to speak to that one because I think the answer is by itself no. I think
there is a much larger set of pieces that have to be part of what they are talking about as the
ecosystem. The question is whether this is part of it. I think the question is is this going to be
the end-all/be-all solution for entrepreneurship in the City of Charlotte? I don’t think that’s the
goal. I think the goal is to be a niche piece of the overall infrastructure for entrepreneurs.
Councilmember Mitchell said I agree, Mayor.
Councilmember Howard said I guess I’m asking a question. What’s the problem of if we take
our budget cycle out of the process. What’s the problem with the committee evaluating their
proposal?
Councilmember Mitchell said that was my motion. Taking this model –
Councilmember Howard said I’m talking about even the ask. While we are vetting out is this the
proper ratio –
Councilmember Cooksey said I suggest we postpone further discussion of this topic to the Mayor
and Council topics at the meeting and go on downstairs. Did Councilmember Mitchell’s motion
get a second?
Councilmember Kinsey said yes.
Councilmember Cooksey said could you restate exactly what you are aiming for here because I
want to make sure the charge is broad enough.
Councilmember Mitchell said we take the Queen City Forward proposal as a model of the
overall entrepreneur support policy for the City of Charlotte. Guys, there is a bigger picture.
This might be a slot out of five slots.
Mayor Foxx said can I restate what I think I’m hearing you say? I think I’m hearing you say to
take an overall policy discussion to the Economic Development Committee, and as part of that
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 70
discussion, to consider whether this concept of Queen City Forward is potentially a piece of the
overall strategy.
Councilmember Mitchell said exactly. That’s a Davidson interpretation. I like it, Mayor.
Councilmember Cannon said without the consideration of the $50,000.
Councilmember Cooksey said I think I could go along with that. What I was aiming for with my
amendment earlier is – could you put the last slide up, please. The question I’m curious about is
we have an Economic Development Focus Area plan that says as an objective helps bring small
businesses in Charlotte in part through the development of partnerships to support high growth
entrepreneurs. Clearly we need more policy direction around that focus area plan. Can we get
that from ED is what I’m asking – is what I’m hoping this motion will do. If this had never
come before us, I think it would be a great exercise, a needed exercise, to explain, here, take the
focus area plan objective and translate it into some policy direction for Council to adopt and for
people out in the community who are interested in this to understand what our framework is, and
they make an ask, and then we can talk about it. I agree that the ask first before we know what
we are trying to do is not the way to do it. I saw a nod from the chairman on this, so I’m going
to go with the hope that what we are going to get out of this is –
Mayor Foxx said everyone understands what the motion and the second is now at this point.
Councilmember Howard said I still want to make sure we don’t send the wrong message about
the creation of small business and innovative businesses, so at the end of your review, does that
mean that we can hear from them again?
Councilmember Mitchell said right.
Mayor Foxx said the request can actually be pending. It can just sit until the Council decides to
do something with it. It’s not an up or down decision.
Councilmember Barnes said I just have to say this. Presumably because that objective is in the
focus area plan the committee has already studied it.
Councilmember Mitchell said actually we have not. We have not taken on the entrepreneur –
Councilmember Cooksey said it’s for next year.
The vote was taken on the motion and recorded as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers Barnes, Burgess, Cannon, Carter, Cooksey, Howard, Kinsey, Mitchell,
Peacock
NAYS: Councilmembers Dulin, Turner
*********
The Dinner Meeting was recessed at 7:09 p.m. for the Council to move to the Council Meeting
Chamber.
********
BUSINESS MEETING
The Council reconvened for the regularly scheduled Business Meeting at 7:18 p.m. in the
Council Meeting Chamber of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center with Mayor
Anthony Foxx presiding and all Council members present.
********
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 71
INVOCATION AND PLEDGE
Councilmember Howard gave the Invocation and led the Council in the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
*********
Mayor Foxx welcomed a Boy Scout Troop that was seated in the audience.
*********
AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
2010 EMPLOYEE OF THE YEAR
Mayor Foxx recognized Don Gariepy as the City’s Employee of the Year. This 48-year-old City
tradition acknowledges an employee whose efforts, ideas, suggestions, and courtesy in job
performance entitle special recognition.
Mayor Foxx said this year the City received almost 30 nominations for Employee of the Year.
All were exceptional candidates, however, Don stood out. Don is a treatment plant mechanic for
the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Utilities Department.
*********
CMPD’S HAGLER COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP POLICING AWARD
Mayor Foxx recognized Officer Danny Hernandez of the Independence Division as the Hagler
Community Policing Leadership Award recipient. The annual award acknowledges an employee
whose community policing leadership efforts entitle special recognition.
*********
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG SENIOR GAMES
Mayor Foxx recognized representatives of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Senior Games Inc. and
Councilmember Barnes read a proclamation recognizing the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Senior
Games.
*********
PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL
Amy Vance and her leadership team presented an update about Presbyterian Hospital, their
charity care program, and their commitment to the City of Charlotte. Ms. Vance said
Presbyterian Hospital has been named one of America’s 50 Best Hospital and now joins the elite
company of healthcare organizations across the country such as the Mayor Clinic, the Cleveland
Clinic, Columbia, and Cornell University Medical Centers.
*********
CONSENT AGENDA
[ Motion was made by Councilmember Howard, seconded by Councilmember Cannon , and
bvj
]
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 72
[ carried unanimously to approve the Consent Agenda as presented with the exception of Item ]
[ Nos. 21, 29, 31, and 32 were pulled for discussion; Item Nos. 40-F and 40-G have been
]
[ settled, and Item No. 39-F was pulled for speakers.
]
The following items were approved:
20.
Contract to the lowest bidder, Blythe Development Company, in the amount of
$572,796.00 for the Freedom Drive Intersection Project for Engineering and Property
Management.
Summary of Bids
Blythe Development Company
Burney & Burney Construction
Carolina Cajun Concrete
Sealand Contractors
Rea Contracting
Siteworks, LLC
Ferebee Corporation
Triangle Grading and Paving
22.
$572,796.00
$619,692.83
$636,877.50
$741,007.47
$752,065.55
$764,581.99
$830,387.46
$887,687.59
Low bid unit price contract with Thermo King Central Carolinas, LLC for the purchase
of parts for Gilig Bus A/C systems in an amount estimated at $197,000, low bid unit price
contract with Carolina Thomas LLC for the purchase of parts for MCI and Nova Bus A/C
systems in an amount estimated at $106,000, and authorize the City Manager to execute
up to two, one-year renewals with each supplier in amounts estimated at $197,000
annually with Thermo King and $106,000 annually with Carolina Thomas.
Summary of Bids
Thermo King
Carolina Thomas
Thermo King
$196,134.27
$105,281.34
$158,294.37
23.
Authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year lease with the Charlotte Transit Center
Inc. in the amount of $443,759 for Pavilion A Administration space used by CATS at the
Charlotte Transportation Center, and authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year
lease with the Charlotte Transit Center Inc. in the amount of $205,500 for space used by
Solid Waste Services at the Charlotte Transportation Center.
24.
Accept a $339,000 Community Development Block Grant from Mecklenburg County for
the design and construction of the Walkers Ferry Road water line, adopt Budget
Ordinance No. 4647-X appropriating $339,000, and authorize the Utilities KBE to
execute an agreement with Mecklenburg County for acceptance of grant funds for the
design and construction of the water main.
The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 57 at Page 48.
25.
Service contracts for glass replacement and related services for an initial term of three
years with a combined estimated annual expenditure of $120,000 for the two following
service providers: Nantz Auto Glass, Inc. and United Glass Service, Inc.; and authorize
the City Manager to approve up to two additional one-year renewal options with price
adjustments as stipulated in the contract.
26.
Three-year renewal of the Enterprise License Agreement to Esri totaling $914,100 for
computer software licenses and maintenance for the City’s Geographic Information
System (GIS), and three-year subscription to the Esri Enterprise Advantage Program to
be exercised as an annual option to acquire GIS software training and technical services
for $366,000.
27.
Contracts for grounds maintenance services: 1) Diamond Athletic Landscaping for
Utilities’ Sewage Lift Stations in the combined estimated amount of $75,000 for an initial
term of one year and authorize the City Manager to renew Diamond Athletic
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 73
Landscaping contract for two additional one-year terms; 2) Taylor’s Landscaping
Service, Inc. for Central District in the amount of $185,124.68 for three years; and 3) The
Byrd’s Group, Inc. for South Corridor Infrastructure Program (SCIP) in the amount of
$196,341.08 for three years.
28.
Three-year contract for fountain maintenance services with Charlotte Specialty Services
in the amount of $163,416.
30.
Contract with Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc. (DRMP) in the amount of $300,000
for traffic calming engineering services.
33.
Purchase of Polara pedestrian traffic signal equipment and parts as authorized by the sole
source exemption of G.S. 143-129(e)(6), contract with Temple, Inc. for the purchase of
Polara Pedestrian traffic signal equipment and parts in the annual amount of $75,000 for
the term of three years, and authorize the City Manager to extend the contract for Polara
pedestrian traffic signal equipment and parts for two additional years with possible price
adjustments as stipulated in the contract.
34.
Resolution authorizing the Key Business Executive for Transportation to execute a
Municipal Agreement with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
for the Charlotte Region Fast Lanes Study – Phase 3.
The resolution is recorded in Resolution Book 42 at Page 963.
35.
Change order to the Sunshine Cleaning Systems contract in the amount of $532,166.62
for additional Janitorial supplies and office cleaning.
36.
Purchase of two John Deere tractors as authorized by the state exception of GS 143129(e)(9a) in the amount of $110,811.37 from John Deere Company.
37.
Payment of $120,050 in full and final settlement of a Workers’ Compensation claim for
Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department employee, Henry Cybulski.
38.
Resolution authorizing the refund of business privilege license payments made in the
amount of $1,287.39.
The resolution is recorded in Resolution Book 42 at Pages 964-965.
39-A. Ordinance No. 4648-X authorizing the use of In Rem Remedy to demolish and remove
the structure at 1615 Beatties Ford Road (Neighborhood Statistical Area 23 – Washington
Heights Neighborhood).
The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 57 at Page 49.
39-B. Ordinance No. 4649-X authorizing the use of In Rem Remedy to demolish and remove
the structure at 4029 Bearwood Avenue (Neighborhood Statistical Area 44 – North
Charlotte Neighborhood).
The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 57 at Page 50.
39-C. Ordinance No. 4650-X authorizing the use of In Rem Remedy to demolish and remove
the structure at 2708 Celia Avenue (Neighborhood Statistical Area 23 – Washington
Heights Neighborhood).
The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 57 at Page 51.
39-D. Ordinance No. 4651-X authorizing the use of In Rem Remedy to demolish and remove
the structure at 2956 Ross Avenue (Neighborhood Statistical Area 7 – Reid Park
Neighborhood).
The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 57 at Page 52.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 74
39-E. Ordinance No. 4652-X authorizing the use of In Rem Remedy to demolish and remove
the structure at 2209 Hart Road (Neighborhood Statistical Area 116 – Harwood Lane
Neighborhood).
The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 57 at Page 53.
39-G. Ordinance No. 4654-X authorizing the use of In Rem Remedy to demolish and remove
the structure at 518 Melynda Road (Neighborhood Statistical Area 17 – Todd Park
Neighborhood).
The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 57 at Page 55.
39-H. Ordinance No. 4655-X authorizing the use of In Rem Remedy to demolish and remove
the structure at 3024 Seymour Drive (Neighborhood Statistical Area 4 – Capital Drive
Neighborhood).
The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 57 at Page 56.
39-I.
Ordinance No. 4656-X authorizing the use of In Rem Remedy to demolish and remove
the structure at 2224 Tate Street (Neighborhood Statistical Area 23 – Washington Heights
Neighborhood).
The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 57 at Page 57.
40-A. Acquisition of 147,535 square feet in fee simple on Camp Stewart Road from N.C.
Department of Transportation for $54,200 for McKee Creek Interceptor – Mecklenburg
County, Parcel #14.
40-B. Acquisition of 857.81 square in sanitary sewer easement plus 1449.25 square feet in
temporary construction easement at 2412 Kenmore Avenue from Seana McCallister
Smith and spouse, Robert Jr. Smith, for $12,825 for North Dotger Avenue Proposed 10”
Sanitary Sewer Relocation, Parcel #2.
40-C. Acquisition of 3,208 square feet in storm drainage easement plus 69 square feet in
sidewalk and utility easement plus 12,414 square feet in temporary construction easement
at 2661 Barringer Drive from Mecklenburg County for $27,000 for Revolution Park
Neighborhood Improvement Project, Parcel #1.
40-D. Acquisition of 5,577 square feet in fee simple plus 680 square feet in storm drainage
easement plus 12,553 square feet in sidewalk and utility easement plus 14,872 square feet
in temporary construction easement at 3932 Sofley Road from Sugar Creek Church of
Christ, Inc. for $25,850 for Sugaw Creek/Ritch Avenue Neighborhood Improvement
Project, Parcel #11 and #21.
40-E. Acquisition of 9,462 square feet in fee simple plus 8.151 square feet in existing right-ofway plus 594 square feet in storm drainage easement plus 8,413 square feet in temporary
construction easement at 215 West Sugar Creek Road from Sugaw Creek Presbyterian
Church, Inc. for $18,650 for Sugaw Creek/Ritch Avenue Neighborhood Improvement
Project, Parcel #40.
41.
Titles, motions, and votes reflected in the Clerk’s record as the Minutes of the February
28, 2011, Business Meeting.
********
ITEM NO. 21: DOGWOOD PLACE POND
Councilmember Dulin said it is a dam and pond restoration project that I think is more the
responsibility of the property owners and not the citizens of Charlotte. I plan to vote against it.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 75
Councilmember Carter said I also pulled it, Mr. Mayor. This is located in District 5. It is to
improve the quality of the water that is put back into our system, and I think done naturally it is
something that will enhance both the water quality and the appearance of the neighborhood. I’m
wondering what the procedure is to activate this improvement of the water quality.
Jim Schumacher, Assistant City Manager, said this will involve a reconstruction of the
portion of the dam and the area of the pond itself. It’s a little under two acres in surface area, so
it will be drained, a portion of the dam will be removed, and a new outlet structure, a pipe
through the dam with a multi-stage outlet structure will be put in place, and then the dam put
back in place. What that does is it really turns the pond into a more effective detention basin, so
it provides flood control downstream as well as water quality improvements by detaining and
slowing down the water while it’s there in the pond.
Councilmember Carter said it is not extending that area of the pond; is it?
Mr. Schumacher said, no, the surface area of the pond won’t change any significant amount.
Councilmember Carter said I had asked for a crash course on Storm Water 101. Is that anywhere
in the offing, Mr. Manager?
Curt Walton, City Manager, said I don’t know, Ms. Carter. We’ll follow up with you on that.
[ Motion was made by Councilmember Carter and seconded by Councilmember Cannon to
[ award the low bid contract of $233,408.13 to OnSite Development, LLC for the Dogwood
[ Place pond.
]
]
]
The vote was taken on the motion and recorded as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers Barnes, Burgess, Canon, Carter, Cooksey, Howard, Kinsey, Mitchell,
Peacock, Turner
NAYS: Councilmember Dulin
Summary of Bids
OnSite Development, LLC
Eagle Wood, Inc.
Blythe Construction
JD Goodrum
Blythe Dev
Hall Contracting
$233,408.13
$285,694.70
$298,875.00
$331,216.25
$355,418.75
$533,032.50
********
ITEM NO. 29: TRAFFIC CALMING ENGINEERING SERVICES
Councilmember Carter said my question was are there any new practices in traffic calming, and
if there are not any known, I’m hoping that our staff goes out into the educational practices
across the nation to find out new ones.
Jim Schumacher, Assistant City Manager¸ said there are traffic calming practices from around
the country and from around the world that we are aware of and have been familiar with for
some time. Traditionally we have primarily used the humps in the road and stop signs in the
neighborhoods, but you will note this contract with this consultant involves them considering
some of those other measures that we have not been using to develop some traffic calming plans
for neighborhoods that would try to incorporate some of those other ideas, so it is basically
beginning to do what you are asking about.
Councilmember Carter said just encouraging looking at new.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 76
[ Motion was made by Councilmember Carter and seconded by Councilmember Kinsey to
[ approve a contract with Dyer, Riddle, Mills & Precourt, Inc. (DRMP) in the amount of
[ $300,000 for traffic calming engineering services.
]
]
]
Councilmember Mitchell said one question. I happen to do the reading on the SBO opportunity,
Jim. It says the City is going to negotiate after the proposed selection process. What do we
negotiate as the final goal for SBO participation?
Mr. Schumacher said I don’t know that number.
Jeb Blackwell, City Engineer, said typically on unspecified service type contracts like this they
don’t know exactly what it will be. They have certain subs who would be SBEs, and depending
on the types of work we do you would figure out the utilization by how much we needed their
services is what typically happens.
Councilmember Mitchell said, Jeb, help me out. So what percentage of this contract is going to
be our goal, or are we going to leave it up to the awardee to determine the goal because I see the
firms listed here they are going to use, but what is the overall goal?
Mr. Blackwell said on these consulting contracts we don’t know how much of those services that
those subs do that we will end up using, so we have to determine it as we actually assign the
work, and they will need to utilize those subs when we have work in that area.
Councilmember Barnes said a question I have is whether any of this expertise is in-house.
Mr. Blackwell said in CDOT we have some folks who have a fair amount of expertise in this
area, but we do rely on consultants to do most of our design work, so we do a small amount of
in-house design, but the majority of our work is done through consultants. We have some inhouse design expertise in Engineering and some in CDOT, but, again, we staff low and have a lot
higher work program than we can do with house staff.
The vote was taken on the motion and recorded as unanimous.
ITEM NO. 31:
PROJECTS
********
VARIOUS STORM WATER REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE
ITEM NO. 32:
VARIOUS
ENGINEERING SERVICES
STORM WATER
IMPROVEMENT
PROJECTS
Councilmember Carter said I pulled 31 and 32. If we could lump those? Is that a possibility,
Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Foxx said fine.
Councilmember Carter said what I was asking of our staff is that the least impact possible on
these storm water engineering projects could be observed. We have had some incidents where
we have had some difficulty, and I pushed for smaller vehicles to enact these services. I asked
for the tree canopy to be preserved as much as possible. We have a problem on the east side in
one project, and some more trees are dying there than even anticipated, so I am trying to
encourage our folks to observe least impact, and that’s one of the reasons why I was asking for
that education for City Council, but I do move approval and hope we will observe that practice.
Mayor Foxx said this is approval of 31 and 32?
Councilmember Carter said, yes, sir.
[ Motion was made by Councilmember Carter, seconded by Councilmember Kinsey, and
[ carried unanimously to approve Item No. 31: A) approve a contract with Kimley-Horn
[ and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $500,000 for engineering services for various storm
bvj
]
]
]
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 77
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
water repair and maintenance projects, B) approve a contract with Merrick & Company
(formerly Turnbull Metzler Design, P.A.) in the amount of $500,000 for engineering
services for various storm water repair and maintenance projects; and C) authorize the
City Manager to renew each contract once for the original contract amount; and approve
Item No. 32: A) approve a contract with US Infrastructure of Carolina, Inc. (USI) in the
amount of $2,000,000 for engineering services for various storm drainage improvement
projects, B) approve a contract with Armstrong Glen, P.C. in the amount of $1,000,000
for engineering services for various storm drainage improvement projects; C) authorize
the City Manager to renew the contract with US Infrastructure of Carolinas, Inc. (USI)
for the original contract amount, and D) authorize the City Manager to renew the contract
with Armstrong Glen, P.C. twice for the original contract amount.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
********
ITEM NO. 39-F: IN REM REMEDY AT 1306/08 KENNON STREET
Francis Proctor, Jr., 1616 Biltmore Dr., said I have dealt with hundreds, if not thousands, of
code violations in my 30 years of property management experience. This is my first demolition
order, and I did not realize it is handled differently. This is 1306 Kennon Street. I asked for
extensions, as I always had, but was denied time to work last fall on the corrections. You see the
pictures that I handed up there. I have spent about $14,000 on the property since last year, and I
have spent a lot of money to try and make a quick, new impression of the property with fresh
paint and extra money for white trim paint. I thank you for the extension you gave me earlier.
Since City Council meeting about 1306 Kennon Street, I and others have worked hard on the
property. I had three things to accomplish in the extension you graciously gave me. I did not
accomplish the first, which was to get financing for the property to do the work. I have spoken
with several contractors about the repair. I spoke with numerous banks and lending institutions
to lend me money to do the rehab. I have exhausted all of my contacts. As an alternative effort,
I could not find money and put the property on the market for a $20,000 quick sale. I had a
contract for $22,000, but when the survey and title work was completed, we found that the house
sits over the property line towards the Hawthorne Lane side of the house making it
unmarketable. After much discussions and debate for a solution, I solved the survey issue but
not enough time to close to a new buyer with money to remodel with. This house would be
worth money if allowed to remain. I’m sure you looked at the new tax value and see that the tax
office thinks it is worth $96,700. The best answer to this property would be to wait until the
economy recovers and Belmont community resumes its upward momentum and recovery. I
could have sold this house three years ago for $100,000. Diane with Historic Charlotte gave a
real estate broker and contractor that I have shown this house to thinks it’s a great house and
worth saving. Please allow this house to remain as it is until the economy recovers. Your
current policy is wrong about historic, affordable housing. Thank you for your time on this issue
and your service to Charlotte.
Jesse Leadbetter said I wanted to give a different perspective from someone who actually lives
on the street. I bought the house two houses down from Mr. Proctor in 2009, and I bought it
because I have a vision of what it will someday be. For those of you who have not been on the
street, it is a transition neighborhood. At one end of this half-mile street, a house sold for
$500,000 the same week I bought mine. At the other end of the street, last month there was a
drug raid on a crack house, so it’s definitely the epitome of an area in transition. When I bought
the house, 1308 was abandoned, and that was two years ago. I would later find out that the
house has been abandoned and no one has lived in it for at least six-plus years. The kudzu in the
backyard was four feet tall two years ago. By last summer, it was six feet tall. That’s when I
learned about the Charlotte tax system, and I could look up the property owner, so I gave Mr.
Proctor a call and left him a message. He had an assistant return my call, and I told her the
situation, and she called me back one more time and said we’ll put together a plan to fix it, to
maintain – clean up our property, and then come back to me. That seemed a little irresponsible,
and at that point, I really dropped the issue – 1308 has become a place for squatters, drug dealers,
crack addicts. Last month I saw 20 rats in the backyard. As I told you, the property itself is in
really bad repair, and those pictures were from yesterday. They weren’t from several months
ago. The kudzu is back up to three feet tall. To his point, once the code violations were
reported, he did do some work. He did paint it or had people paint it. If you guys have seen any
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 78
close-ups of the paint work that was done, they painted fresh paint over rotten boards. They put
trim over rotten trim. There are holes underneath the house. The back of the house actually sits
at an angle because water has leaked into the house for several months. In December, I heard
water rushing and went to inspect it because there is nobody ever at the property, and it actually
turned out the pipes had burst and water had been running for at least one day, probably multiple
days given the amount of water that was back there. If this was the first meeting on the issue, I
definitely wouldn’t be here because I believe everybody deserves a fair chance to make an
honest effort to fix a situation like this; however, since that initial order, like I said, the initial
demolition order was sent only a little bit of effort has been done. He talked it up that several
thousands in paint, but like I said, it’s poor work, and as much work I think that was put into the
property and getting up to par as has been put in to getting extensions and wasting taxpayer
money with appeals I think none of us would be here right now talking about this issue. Despite
the economy, other homes on the street have been renovated and progress has been seen
throughout the street. The house directly across the street has been completely renovated – 1309.
They landscaped it and several other houses on the street have been improved.
Councilmember Howard said I would like to get Walter’s perspective on it.
Walter Abernethy, Neighborhood and Business Services, said these are new photos. The
property is not secure. The door opens. It is not lockable. It doesn’t work. This is the inside of
the house. There is no flooring system, so basically you can crawl through the sides of the house
and get into the house.
Councilmember Howard said as of when, Walter? When were these pictures taken?
Mr. Abernethy said these were taken last week. As I mentioned, the side spacings are all open.
The house is totally accessible. The back of the house is rotted.
Councilmember Dulin said I can save you some time, Walter.
[
[
[
[
Motion was made by Councilmember Dulin, seconded by Councilmember Cannon, and
]
carried unanimously to adopt Ordinance No. 4653-X authorizing the use of In Rem Remedy ]
to demolish and remove the structure at 1306/08 Kennon Street (Neighborhood Statistical
]
Area 51 – Belmont Neighborhood).
]
The ordinance is recorded in Ordinance Book 57 at Page 54.
********
ITEM NO. 11: PUBLIC HEARING ON RESOLUTION TO CLOSE A RESIDUAL
PORTION OF BADGER COURT
[ Motion was made by Councilmember Carter, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell, and
[ carried unanimously to recuse Councilmember Howard from this item.
]
]
[ Motion was made by Councilmember Barnes, seconded by Councilmember Cannon, and
[ carried unanimously to adopt a resolution to close a residual portion of Badger Court.
]
]
The resolution is recorded in Resolution Book 42 at Pages 966-968.
********
ITEM NO. 13: REVIEW OF CITY YOUTH PROGRAMS
Mayor Foxx said I’m going to turn this over to the Economic Development and Planning
Committee chair, James Mitchell, but at the outset, I want to thank the committee for taking the
time to look at these youth programs and to come back with what I think are some very
encouraging recommendations to expand the footprint of our youth strategies within existing
resources, which is what you were asked to do.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 79
Councilmember Mitchell said, Mayor, from the outset, let me thank you for your leadership and
your passion to make sure we increase youth opportunities with our youth this summer and in the
future. I need to thank my committee: Mayor Pro Tem Patrick Cannon, Andy Dulin, Patsy
Kinsey, and Jason Burgess, because we were charged with a tremendous task at the outset. We
heard loud and clear what we wanted to accomplish, but there were some initial struggles on how
to get there. I must thank staff – Brad Richardson – for being very creative and making sure we
were going to reach our goals.
Actions A, B, and C before you, Council – Action A is to approve a redirect from the Workforce
Development Board $400,000 to support more jobs programs for eligible youth, and we are
talking about youth in our community that needs an opportunity to develop their skills. Action
B directs staff to work with the Workforce Development to refine a new community framework
and to address youth employment through education, healthcare, and through reconstituted
Advisory Council for Youth. I would like to say, Mayor, part of our action is to have you, if you
wouldn’t mind in your already tight schedule, but to serve as what we call a champion elected
official and working with the Workforce Development Board.
Last, but not least, Action C is direct staff to work with the community resource partners to
develop a performance criteria for after-school programs. We heard loud and clear that our
partners as well as the community are looking at after-school as a way of how do we measure the
quality of our programs and how do we select those that will yield the best results for our kids
for after-school programming. Foundation of the Carolinas is spearheading a charge right now, a
community made of some elected officials and community leaders, to really address after-school
and performance criteria. With that, I ask for a motion to adopt A, B, and C.
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
[
Motion was made by Councilmember Cannon and seconded by Councilmember Kinsey to: ]
A) approve the Economic Development Committee recommendation to request the Charlotte- ]
Mecklenburg Workforce Development Board (WDB) redirect $100,000 of federal Workforce ]
Investment Act (WIA) funds to support a jobs program for eligible youth; B) direct staff to
]
work with the WDB to develop and refine a new community framework to address youth
]
employment within a broader context of youth development that includes education, health ]
and safety and housing through a reconstituted Advisory Council for Youth; and, C) direct
]
staff to work with community resource partners to develop performance criteria for after]
school programs and to develop a process to solicit proposals from potential providers by
]
January 2012.
]
Councilmember Peacock said I have had a chance to chat with Chairman Mitchell prior to this,
and the only thing I was going to make a suggestion on was I had some questions related to how
many times we were going to redirect $100,000, and my understanding it was a one-time
direction of that, so I want to insert that language in the motion, if possible. My larger and
broader question speaks to what the Mayor’s letter was speaking to, which was trying to
strengthen the overall performance, and that’s what you are seeking in Action B, and I am for
that. It’s not very clear, and I talked with Brad about this as well, too, is where we were going to
be redirecting the $100,000 and how we were going to be spending the money, and I asked him.
I didn’t pull the Minutes, so Chairman Mitchell I will let you clarify for me as well, too. Mr.
Richardson said there was really not a whole lot of discussion on what types of jobs you all were
seeking and how much $100,000 would likely in an ideal scenario be.
Those were some things I was hoping to get back from either the committee, obviously back
from the Mayor, if he is the chief elected official that is going to be in charge of this, but some
element of direction to be much more specific. The Mayor spells out on page 2 of his letter here
that we should be broader among our employers by embracing unpaid internships, flexible
employment in internships, perhaps a range of weeks, year-round recruiting efforts. It just didn’t
really speak to me as to what the specific target might be to help raise the bar on youth
employment as well, too.
Also, Council, and I don’t know if the committee talked about this. I learned a lot in talking to
Brad today about the Mayor’s Youth Employment Program as opposed to what the folks at
Goodwill are doing and the two different types of criteria that are involved in that. I think the
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 80
overall spirit of what the Mayor has put together here is ambitious and it’s going to need a lot
more specific goals in my opinion going forward on this. It’s a move in the right direction.
Councilmember Mitchell said let me have Brad to come up because the first thing you said I
don’t remember us discussing in committee about the $100,000 being a one-time request from
the Workforce Development Board. I don’t remember that.
Brad Richardson, Economic Development Manager, Neighborhood and Business Services,
said good question. Before I start, I will acknowledge Deb Gibson is in the room tonight. She is
our executive director of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Workforce Development Board. She is
seated here to my right. I have the pleasure of serving on the board with Deb in my role in the
City. To your question, Mr. Peacock, we envision our recommendation tonight being a one-time
request from the Council to the Workforce Development Board to redirect the funds, so we
envision this being a one-time request. I will also though tie this to the second part of that action
is that we do envision this time next year a new system would be in place, and the money may
still be available, but it may be directed by that youth council and the Workforce Board itself, so
we may not have that need.
Your second question, if I recall, is how it would be structured or something to that effect. We
will request the Workforce Board to redirect from their federal dollars $100,000. We will not be
requesting them to send that money to us. That’s important. We have a fiscal responsibility of
oversight. We don’t think it would make sense to be asking them to give us back money. We do
envision, however, and I talked to Debra about this. The Workforce Development Board staff
itself retaining $100,000 rather than doing what they currently do – subcontracting 100% of it
out to different community organizations to carry out the work. Retaining $100,000 that would
be available for City youth programs when we have eligible youth. We could call Debra’s office
and say we have a young person here that meets the eligibility criteria and have that money come
into play rather than general fund dollars. Did I answer all of your questions?
Councilmember Peacock said you did, and I was really trying to speak to the chairman of the
committee – just some questions I had that were largely around how are they spending the
money. As we talked about on the phone, they are used to spending this largely on helping these
folks and this particular audience at the Workforce Development Board and using this money
largely to help the GED program, so this is a shift for them as well, too. I’m just wanting to make
sure that if we are approving this action or making this direction to them that we have some type
of performance scorecard that we are working from and we have some type of goal that we are
shooting for, otherwise, I don’t think we are really accomplishing the objectives that the Mayor
had spelled out, which is to be more specific, to be broader, and, again, how are we going to be
spending the $100,000 in money.
One figure that he shared with me, Council, was you can take the figure of $100,000 and divide
it by an ideal week for a youth experience, which would be eight weeks over the summer at 20
hours roughly equates to $1,200. Well, one of the comments that the Mayor made in his letter
was why don’t we cut it in half and make it $500 a summer so we can help more people out. I
just would like to know and hear from you all how many more jobs are we going to be able to
create with that money, what types of jobs are we trying to create? Are we trying to create jobs
that are simply retail? Are we trying to create jobs that are intern-like jobs that are more larger
career pointing efforts for our youth to be looking towards? I just think that the more specific we
get with what we expect the better results we are going to receive.
Mr. Richardson said I’ll take a stab at answering it. You are right. If we did a full eight-week
internship for $100,000, you would burn through that with about 100 young people assuming
that all of the employers needed 100% subsidies. Our current practice is a small percentage of
employers actually receive a general fund subsidy for a portion of the wage, so it’s not an easy
number to get. We also have heard you loud and clear, Mayor and Council and the committee,
that year-around is important, shorter term work experiences are important, and we believe that
as well, so you could expect 100 young people full internships or some number greater than that
depending on how it works out to hours and wages and work experiences versus full or not.
To the types of jobs – I will clarify the point or reiterate your point that the Mayor’s Youth
Program works with employers, and I brought a list so I could be accurate tonight. Corporate
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 81
partners in the private sector, largely names that you will recognize like Duke Energy, Piedmont
Natural Gas, Husqvarna, Siemens – that is indicative of the Mayor’s Youth Work Experience
Program. The Youth Job Connection at Goodwill – they are major suppliers of jobs – Bi-Lo,
Harris-Teeter, Carowinds, Food Lion, more entry level, typical teenage jobs, so you see the nice
balance, and I say that to say that we support both programs with general fund dollars. We don’t
duplicate the services when we can help it. We are talking about two different types of
programs.
Councilmember Mitchell said let me just add because one thing that is not in the write-up is an
initiative that we talked about in the ED Committee meeting about the Mayor getting more
engaged and making calls, and now we have Dawn Hill with her assistance to sit with our Mayor
and it has been received very well from the corporate community, and I don’t want to put you on
the spot, Mayor, because I think Dawn knows actually how many companies have actually
signed up so far. Dawn, do you have the number to date.
Councilmember Mitchell said while she comes I think this is an example of the Mayor kind of
championing unemployment opportunities for the youth. He said I will do the heavy lifting and
pick up the phone and call, and it has been very successful. Dawn, can you report today of how
many corporations have said yes?
Ms. Hill said, yes, sir, Councilmember Mitchell. We have had about 46 employers in the
Charlotte community to step up and say, yes, we’ll hire one or more youth. Since sitting with the
Mayor, we, along with Mayor Foxx, generated over 50 positions for the Youth Employment
Program for summer 2011, and we are well on our way to increasing that for 2012.
Councilmember Mitchell said, Mayor, once again. Thank you for your work, and one thing I
think we need to make sure there is a difference. To your point about Goodwill, Edwin, we want
Goodwill to continue to focus on training, but the committee really wanted to hire youth this
summer, so we saw this was the best option, and, Debbie, thank you for being a good partner,
and allowing us $100,000 to employ youth. Once again, thanks staff and especially ED for
taking on this tough issue.
Councilmember Cooksey said I’m torn on this for a variety of reasons, one of which of course as
we just went through our budget presentation. This is no way near a core function of what we do
as City government. I know there are programs that exist and that we work on from time to time,
but when you look at the large things that the 721,000 citizens of Charlotte expect us to do, this
isn’t really one of them. I’m also concerned about the redirection of the $100,000. Mr. Peacock
references in the write-up about that money is currently used for GED programs. How many
dropouts will not be able to get a GED because we are redirecting this $100,000? Does anyone
know that number?
Mr. Richardson said I don’t know the answer. I will invite Deb, if she has an answer. The
budget for current youth service is 1.2. We are recommending they preserve 1.1, and I will ask
Deb is she has a direct response to that or it’s something we should follow up with you later.
Councilmember Cooksey said I would be interested in knowing.
Ms. Gibson said right now we are currently with 370 youth. I cannot give you a number on who
would not because what we do is we work with groups of youth. We recruit constantly, so I
can’t say that any youth would not get their GED by us redirecting this money. I would also like
to mention that we have done work experience programs in the past especially with the stimulus
funds, so we had experience with that.
Councilmember Cooksey said I want to remind everyone there is an opportunity to cost
whenever you shift money from one thing to another. I’m not in the mood to be a Grinch, so I’m
going to go along with this just to see where it goes, but I think it’s interesting the trend in which
I think it’s worth considering to put this in context is over and over around this dais and upstairs
and in past business meetings I have heard the mantra of it’s wasteful to spend the money on
policing when it’s much better and a better investment to spend tax dollars instead of on police
and arresting youth to give them a chance. It dawns on me considering this particular item that
the direction we are heading in, if that’s our logic, eventually there may come a day because we
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 82
are not here now, but eventually there may come a day when we outright get to say as
government parents aren’t doing their jobs so we should do them absolutely for them because
that’s the direction we are heading in.
We operate under the assumption that – Originally we operate under the assumption that parents
should raise their kids, teach them the way to act in society, and if people go astray, we arrest
them and put them away. That’s not the direction we are heading with here. We have the
assertion that is a wasteful use of resources, so we should instead do what we can as government
to avoid having juveniles be put in the situation of being arrested because they are doing wrong.
In other words, because their parents aren’t doing what they need to do to raise their children. So
as a step towards this notion that the way to have a better, safer, sounder community is for
government to do what parents are not I think is actually what this is a step towards, and it may
be an experiment worth considering.
Councilmember Mitchell said let’s be very clear why we are doing this. Nowhere in our
discussion we are talking about is taking the place of a parent. Nowhere in our discussion was
talking about preventing crime. This was truly about what we believe that in order for Charlotte
to be a better community we think we need to employ our youth and give our youth job
experience so they can become productive citizens. I just want to be careful that the discussion
doesn’t go from a positive thing that we are trying to do here tonight to another agenda, so,
Debbie, once again, thank you. To the youth out there, we believe in you. We want to give you
an opportunity to get job skills in the City of Charlotte, and thank you Mayor and Council for
letting me have a rebuttal to my colleague.
Councilmember Barnes said I will pass. I appreciate Mr. Mitchell’s comments.
Mayor Foxx said I’m just going to say a couple of things. I’m actually a little surprised at the
numbers. What is the overall number in the Youth Employment Program this summer?
Ms. Gibson said it’s a year-round program.
Mayor Foxx said Dawn Hill, I’m sorry.
Ms. Hill said currently, Mr. Mayor, we have commitments for 207 internships.
Mayor Foxx said prior to that what was the high number for us in a year?
Ms. Hill said the highest – last year 153. We did reach 179 several years back, but that was also
skewed a little bit because of some stimulus and other dollars that were involved. Just straight
numbers about 153 was the highest we have ever achieved, so certainly sitting with you and
getting over 50 internships in one day was quite a feat for us.
Mayor Foxx said I think we have a lot of work to do, and I want to thank all of the corporate
partners who stepped up this year. We have some new ones that have stepped up this year in a
tough economy to help us with an eight-week program for young people. In my opinion, I think
we have got a couple of challenges happening in this community right now, and one of them is
you are seeing a massive demographic shift in our country – not only the country but in the
community – and yet we are also seeing graduation rates in a very challenging place in some
parts of our community and kids literally rotating out of schools without job skills
Frankly I think it’s not so much that public safety is a wasteful expense. I would never argue
that, but it’s expensive to deal with it on the back end than dealing with it on the front end, and I
think part of the idea here is we arrest 4,000 kids a year. I cite that often. We are putting
through our Youth Employment Program fewer than 10% of the number of kids that we arrest,
and I actually think a goal for the City ought to be getting to parody with the number of kids we
arrest because just like kids can be bad influences on each other they can be good influences, too,
and the more we are able to create a climate in which kids feel like there is a success out there
for them the better off our community will be. So, this is not getting to that level, but it is an
incremental shift that I think is positive and moving us in the right direction.
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 83
Councilmember Cooksey said I just want to reinforce that when we talk about, as you do in your
letter and just now, 4,000 juveniles arrest a year. That’s 4,000 kids whose parents are not raising
them right because if they are being raised right they are not going to get arrested. We have well
over – what is it – 130 some thousand kids in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School System, so
when you include private schools and home schooling a six figure number of children in this
community, 4,000 of whom we have identified, have issues at home that are leading them to be
arrested. So the step moves from arresting them to providing government provided assistance
and educating them and employment when the school system actually should have educated
them, but apparently the school system can’t do that either, so we are going to step up and try to
fix that. At one point if helping becomes the norm instead of arresting, do we then turn and say
we have got to do something about the parents because we cannot have this conversation about
4,000 juveniles being arrested a year without acknowledging that there are some parents out
there somewhere who aren’t doing what they should be doing.
Councilmember Barnes said I’m going to be brief, but speaking as a parent it’s very challenging
to raise children. My kids are young. Some of my colleagues have older children. Doing the
job of parenting is one heck of a job especially if you are doing it on your own without a spouse.
I’m blessed. I have a wonderful wife who is doing her part; I’m doing my part. So much of
what you said, Mr. Cooksey, is offensive to me, but I am not going to engage in responding to
everything you said. I just want to let you know how difficult it is for a lot of people who are
trying to raise their children right, and sometimes it is the influences of the streets, it’s the
influences of school that steer these children in the wrong way. I would agree with you that
there are people who are not doing their job when it comes to parenting. I agree with that, but
behind what you are saying is a level of evil intent that surprises me.
Councilmember Cooksey said point of order. Is intent a motivation and a suitable topic for
debate around this dais?
Councilmember Barnes said I have had this discussion with Mr. Peacock. You are not going to
tell me what to say or how to say it. I’m just trying to express to you a concern I have about
what you are saying. We serve a lot of people or at least I do – I serve a lot of people who are
struggling to keep their kids in school, to keep them out of trouble, and they deserve better than
to have one of us sit here and criticize what they do without knowing the specifics of it. The
intent of the Mayor and those of us who support this initiative is to give these young people a
chance at success even if their parents have screwed up, and a lot of them do. We get that. We
are trying to help these young people. If you don’t want to do that, that’s fine. I think you said
you would, but if you don’t want to, that’s fine, but to take those sorts of shots is in my opinion
unnecessary.
Councilmember Cooksey said I’ll close it out by simply saying that I appreciate the agreement
Mr. Barnes had with some of what I said, agreeing that there are parents who aren’t doing the
job, agreeing that there are parents that – I agree with him that there are parents who are
struggling mightily. It is a difficult job, and I have seen plenty succeed. Our concern and what
we seem to be focusing on with these programs are those that are not, so I heard agreement
actually from Mr. Barnes that there are parents out there that aren’t doing their jobs right; that are
screwing up in raising their kids, and that’s where we are stepping in to make a change.
Councilmember Barnes said, Mr. Mayor, what you heard from me, Mr. Cooksey, is an
acknowledgement that there are people who are not necessarily doing their job the way they
should be doing it. What I heard you talk about seemed to be some emphasis on the fact that
some unmeasured percentage of people aren’t doing their job right, so while there is some truth
to what you said, it was almost an unnecessary comment to make. That’s my point.
Councilmember Howard said I will use another word. You said surprise. I think I’m going to
say I’m offended. I’m surprised. I will go a step further than you did, Councilmember Barnes,
and say there very well could have been a number of us around this dais. There are a lot of
programs that reached out to me as a young man that if I didn’t have – I mean with all the hard
work my mother has done, and most of you guys know the hard work she does in this
community, it could have very easily been me just from the associations in my family and my
friends, and my mother had nothing to do with that, so I’m going to take offense and be surprised
because we really need to be careful about those 4,000 kids. We don’t know what the story of
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 84
their parents is. For those parents out there tonight, if your kids is one of the ones arrested this
year, I’m going to apologize for this Council because we in no way say you are not doing
everything you could because sometimes it is just the circumstances you find yourself in, and
what you need is anything that can pull you out of it, and I can tell you personally that if it
weren’t for a number of programs I wouldn’t be sitting here, and my mother is a darn hard
working mother.
Councilmember Cannon said this is almost a liking to trying to suggest that we are about social
engineering when all we are trying to do in this situation is create opportunity, trying to help set
a good stage, and I have to say that I’m disappointed in the comments that I heard largely in part
because it either comes from a lack of experience or lack of exposure to make comments like
that when the fact of the matter is you have kids coming from two-parent homes, well
established, got everything they wanted to have in life, and those parents did all they could to
rear that child or those children accordingly, and somehow one day that child gets hooked on
some type of illegal substance, and all of a sudden did the parent fail? They did all they knew
they could do, but there was a slip.
What happens if that child later on grows up and again comes from a stable household and he or
she loses their job? Are we blaming the parent for that? It’s ludicrous. Hopefully not. I think
what we are doing is trying to determine what we can do to create an opportunity for our youth.
It’s almost like the after-school enrichment program that we support around this table. We
certainly know and we understand that if we don’t give these youth an outlet or try to create
some level of foundation for them that they could turn to a life of crime; they could become a
victim of their own circumstance or just go down any road towards mischief. It’s my hope that
what we’ll do is to go ahead and move this agenda forward – you know what I mean – and just
let this be what we all hope it will be, and that is an opportunity that has been created for our
youth that the Mayor supports, that this Council supports, that this community can get behind,
and we support our youth the best way we know how in all facets. It’s a part of economic
development. We can argue whether or not it’s core or not, but at the end of the day, we have
every good intention of trying to make sure we are improving the quality of life of our youth as
they development. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and call the question.
Councilmember Carter said we are talking about partnerships here. Deb Gibson is a dear friend
and such a good partner with us. Don has created a wonderful program. The City reaches out in
many different ways. The neighborhood grants – if you will come to Winterfield Elementary
School, you will see a community garden where children are learning about nature, how you can
produce food to serve yourself and your community. They are doing after-school programs, as
has been mentioned. Our children, with the exposure that we can afford to give them, it’s just
absolutely crucial. It’s not stepping in and intervening in a family life. It’s giving them
exposure to things they can use the rest of their lives, ways they can deal with others working as
teams, how to learn when they have not been challenged in the correct way – an appealing way
in school. It’s each of us pulling together, and we all do around this dais in different ways, and
that’s what we need to acknowledge that the School does, the County does, and we can do our
share, and that’s an important to recognize this is one of the ways we can accomplish it together
as a Council reaching out to our community.
Councilmember Barnes said call the question.
Mayor Foxx said there is a motion and a second on A, B, and C.
The vote was taken on the motion and recorded as unanimous.
Mayor Foxx said that carried unanimously but with some very interesting conversation.
********
ITEM NO. 14: FY2011 HOUSING TRUST FUND ALLOCATION
Councilmember Kinsey said I have just a few comments, but I also call your attention to the
three pages of information you have in your agenda, which is very good information. We heard
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 85
last week at the Workshop that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Coalition for Housing is making great
progress on affordable housing and homeless issues in our community. We charged the
Coalition with recommending a strategy for the implementation of the ten-year plan to end and
prevent homelessness. The Coalition also recommends the priorities and funding allocation for
the City’s Housing Trust, which is the action that is before us tonight.
The Coalition is recommending we prioritize our funding into three areas, and you see them
outlined with the numbers in front of you. Tax credit set-aside, 29% of the funds, serving those
earning 60% or less of AMI to fund projects that receive tax credits from the North Carolina
Housing Finance Agency. This allocation helps us to leverage local funds with State funds.
Rapid acquisition, 20% of the funds, serving those earning 30% or less AMI and allows for
development partners to act quickly on land acquisition for affordable housing. And, the third is
supportive housing, 51% of the funds, serving those earning 30% or less AMI to fund projects
that include supportive services, and that, as I said, is outlined and defined in the material in front
of you.
These recommendations help fulfill the strategy and work of the coalition and reflect the needs in
the community. With that, Mr. Mayor, I know there are probably some questions, but let me go
ahead and move the approval of the Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee’s
recommendation to allocate $16,200,000 in Housing Trust Fund dollars to multifamily rental
housing developments that support North Carolina Housing Finance Agency tax credit awards,
rapid acquisition, and supportive housing with supportive services.
[
[
[
[
[
Motion was made by Councilmember Kinsey and seconded by Councilmember Mitchell
to approve the Housing and Neighborhood Development Committee’s recommendation to
allocate $16,200,000 in Housing Trust Fund dollars to multifamily rental housing developments that support North Carolina Housing Finance Agency tax credit awards, rapid
acquisition, and supportive housing with supportive services.
]
]
]
]
]
Councilmember Turner said I looked at this and I was having some discussion with my
colleague, and one of the issues still for me, and I appreciate the objective here and the goal. I
don’t want anyone to think that I don’t believe in affordable housing and we shouldn’t find a
means to end homeless. The concern that I have still is we passed our relocation policy recently,
and I was very concerned about that policy. I did not agree with all the wording of it and thought
it left some loopholes that I still think will have some negative impact on areas that are currently
overwhelmed with this very thing we are supporting, and I still believe that it is still not in the
best interests of certain part of our city where this type of housing would exist and where
predominantly most of it would go.
In saying that, I’m not going to support it because I didn’t support the policy then, and I don’t
support us funding it because I don’t believe we have really set a policy that I can really support,
but I think it’s fair and will be fair across the board. Under no circumstances do I want to send
the message that I don’t support us helping people that need help and trying to resolve our
homeless situation and affordable housing, but I still don’t think the policy is a fair policy across
the board, and I think it would have negative impact as we go forward with this, so my vote is
going to be a “no”.
The vote was taken on the motion and recorded as unanimous.
********
ITEM NO. 15:
FY2012 ACTION PLAN FOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
[ Motion was made by Councilmember Mitchell, seconded by Councilmember Barnes, and
]
[ carried unanimously to approve the FY2012 Annual Action Plan for Housing and Commun- ]
[ ity Development.
]
********
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 86
ITEM NO. 16: REFINANCING OF SECTION 108 LOAN FOR VILLAGES OF HOPE
HAVEN PROJECT
[ Motion was made by Councilmember Barnes, seconded by Councilmember Mitchell to
[ approve the refinancing of the remaining balance of $1,810,000 of the Section 108 loan
[ associated with the Villages of Hope Haven project.
]
]
]
********
ITEM NO. 17: NOMINATIONS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Development Review Board – The following nominations were made for two appointments:
Transportation or Urban Planner Representative
1.
Nicole Storey, nominated by Councilmembers Barnes, Burgess, Cannon, Carter,
Cooksey, Dulin, Kinsey, Peacock, Turner
2.
Kevin Vogel, nominated by Councilmember Howard
Landscape Architect Representative (as an alternate)
1.
Bradley Sikes, nominated by Councilmembers Barnes, Burgess, Cannon, Carter,
Cooksey, Dulin, Kinsey, Peacock, Turner
Mayor Foxx said we’ll hold those over.
********
ITEM NO. 18: APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Development Review Board – The following nominees were considered for one appointment:
Real Estate Development Industry Representative
1.
Thomas Brasse, nominated by Councilmembers Carter, Cooksey, Kinsey
2.
Sheraine Spivey, nominated by Councilmembers Barnes, Burgess, Cannon, Dulin,
Howard, Mitchell, Peacock, Turner
Results of the first ballot were recorded as follows:
1.
Thomas Brasse, 3 votes – Councilmembers Cooksey, Dulin, Kinsey,
2.
Sheraine Spivey, 8 votes – Councilmembers Barnes, Burgess, Cannon, Carter, Howard,
Mitchell, Peacock, Turner
Sheraine Spivey was appointed.
Civil Engineer Representative (as an alternate)
1.
Robert Latta, nominated by Councilmembers Barnes, Burgess, Carter, Cooksey, Kinsey,
Turner
2.
Kevin Vogel, nominated by Councilmembers Howard, Peacock
Results of the first ballot were recorded as follows:
1.
2.
Robert Latta, 8 votes – Councilmembers Barnes, Burgess, Cannon, Carter, Cooksey,
Dulin, Mitchell, Turner
Kevin Vogel, 3 votes – Councilmembers Howard, Kinsey, Peacock
Mr. Latta was appointed.
********
bvj
May 9, 2011
Business Meeting
Minute Book 132, Page 87
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:33 p.m.
_______________________________________
Ashleigh Martin, Deputy City Clerk
Length of Meeting: Hours, Minutes
Minutes Completed:
bvj
City Council Agenda
POLICY
12. City Manager’s Report
13. Review of City Youth Programs
Action:
A. Approve the Economic Development Committee
recommendation to request the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Workforce Development Board (WDB) redirect $100,000 of
federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds to support
a jobs program for eligible youth,
B. Direct staff to work with the WDB to develop and refine a
new community framework to address youth employment,
within a broader context of youth development, that
includes education, health and safety, and housing, through
a reconstituted Advisory Council for Youth, and
C. Direct staff to work with community resource partners to
develop performance criteria for afterschool programs, and
to develop a process to solicit proposals from potential
providers by January 2012.
Committee Chair: James Mitchell
Staff Resource:
Brad Richardson, Neighborhood & Business Services
Explanation
 On March 7, 2011, Council received a letter from Mayor Foxx requesting a
review of City youth programs to look for opportunities to improve their
effectiveness.
 City Council referred the Mayor’s letter to the Economic Development
Committee and requested that the Committee review City youth programs
and report back at the end of April.
 The review was to focus on delivering services more efficiently to achieve
greater results with no increase in City funding.
 After reviewing youth programs over the course of three meetings, the
Committee recommended action in several areas.
Youth Employment
 The City currently operates the Mayor’s Youth Employment Program and
contracts with Goodwill Industries to operate the Youth Job Connection. In
FY10, these programs combined to provide job training to 1,600 youth
and job placements and short-term work experiences to 391 youth.
 During Committee review, staff identified two potential opportunities to
partner with the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Workforce Development Board
(WDB) to improve outcomes for youth employment.
 The WDB is responsible for implementing the federally funded Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) that provides job training and assistance to
unemployed and underemployed workers in Mecklenburg County.
 The WDB receives approximately $1.2 million annually in funding for
youth programs; however, WIA funds can only be used to support eligible
youth.
___________________________________________________________________________
May 9, 2011
6
City Council Agenda




Eligible youth must be ages 16-21, economically disadvantaged (i.e.,
below federal poverty standards or family on government assistance) and
have one or more of the following barriers to employment:
 High school dropout
 Pregnant or parenting
 In or aging out of foster care
 Homeless or runaway
 Youth offender
 Deficient in basic math or literacy skills
The City serves as the fiscal agent for the federal WIA program and
contracts with the WDB on an annual basis to implement WIA services.
Local WIA funds have been traditionally used to run GED completion
programs for drop outs.
The following two recommendations were made by the Economic
Development Committee to improve the City’s youth employment
programs:
Request the WDB to redirect $100,000 to be used as wage stipends
 Staff recommends that Council request the WDB to redirect $100,000
in WIA funds to be used to support a jobs program for eligible youth.
 These funds would be controlled by the WDB, but be available to
support additional job placements in City youth programs.
 If approved by the WDB, the funds would be available in FY2012 to
support the City’s youth employment programs.
 Initial response by WDB staff has been supportive.
New community framework for youth employment
 The WIA legislation requires the WDB to have an Advisory Council for
Youth Services (Advisory Council) to provide coordination and
oversight to the activities eligible under the legislation.
 WIA legislation allows the community’s “chief elected official” to work
with the WDB Chair to appoint members of the Advisory Council.
 In 2011, the WDB plans to reconstitute its Advisory Council as part of
a broad approach to address youth employment, within a broader
context of youth development, including partnerships with local
agencies that provide education, health and safety, and housing
services.
 The WDB seeks to engage Mayor Foxx as the community champion for
youth employment in order to increase the effectiveness of the
Advisory Council, and provide leadership to the community on issues
surrounding youth training, career education, work experience and
employment.
 Staff recommends that the City engage the WDB and community
resource partners to develop and refine this new framework for youth
employment.
 Given its relationship to education and employment, staff believes that
enhancements to the current Mayor’s Mentoring Alliance, also
referenced in Mayor Foxx’s letter to Council, should be considered
under this new community framework.
Afterschool Programs
 In FY2011, the City contributed $1,242,918 to six organizations operating
community afterschool programs, serving approximately 862 children.
 In FY11, the City also contributed $443,211 through Police for out of
school time programs.
___________________________________________________________________________
May 9, 2011
7
City Council Agenda



During its review of afterschool programs, the Committee received a
presentation from the Out-of-School Time Task Force, a citizen committee
sponsored by the Foundation for the Carolinas to assess and deliver
recommendations to the community that improves the out of school time
system in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
The Task Force recommendations will be finalized in early June and
generally support the development of quality standards, training and
assessments for the afterschool programs in Charlotte-Mecklenburg.
Staff recommends that the City engage community resource partners,
following the release of the Task Force recommendations, to develop
performance criteria for afterschool programs and to develop an RFP
process to be completed by January 2012 to assist Council in determining
where to allocate City funds in FY2013.
Committee Action
 Council’s Economic Development Committee discussed youth programs on
March 24, April 11 and April 26, 2011.
 The Committee voted unanimously to recommend these actions to Council
(Mitchell, Cannon, Burgess, Dulin, and Kinsey).
Attachment 3
Letter from Mayor Foxx
FY06-FY10 Youth Employment Program Performance
FY05-FY11 Budget for Afterschool Programs
___________________________________________________________________________
May 9, 2011
8
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 878
The City Council of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina convened for a Budget Workshop on
Monday, April 15, 2013 at 4:04 p.m. in Room CH-14 of the Charlotte Mecklenburg Government
Center with Mayor Anthony Foxx presiding. This is a continuation of the Budget Workshop held
on April 10, 2013. Councilmembers present were John Autry, Michael Barnes, Patrick Cannon,
Warren Cooksey Andy Dulin, Claire Fallon, Patsy Kinsey, LaWana Mayfield, and Beth
Pickering.
ABSENT UNTIL NOTED: Councilmembers David Howard and James Mitchell
I.
Introduction
Mayor Foxx thanked the Council for agreeing to get together following their meeting last week.
In order to keep ourselves on schedule we through we would just add an hour to today’s meeting
and finishing up the piece that did not get done last week. I will turn it over to the City Manager
for any comments he wants to make and then we have quite an agenda to get through in the next
hour.
City Manager, Ron Carlee said we certainly do so I will pass it over to Randy. We have been
through a lot of stuff since we were together with the Council and hopefully we will push it on
and get through this afternoon.
Budget Director, Randy Harrington said just a couple of quick logistical items to start out. At
your place setting you do have a revised agenda and we did put on 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. but I know
the Dinner Briefing starts at 5:00. You are welcome to go to 6:00 but you are welcome to break
at 5:00 to go do dinner as well. The attachment relates to the Rental Assistance Program
proposal which the Manager and I will touch on briefly. For any of you who do not happen to
have your Budget Workshop Binder Packet, if you do need material that covers these two topics,
Pam Smith can certainly get you a copy if you need it.
II.
Financial Partner Recommendation
Budget Director, Randy Harrington said we go right into our first item related to the
Financial Partner Recommendations. Just a brief overview, there are no new financial partners
that are recommended as part of the recommendation. In the general fund our financial partners
are kept flat except for those that are formula based such as CRVA and the MSDs. Of course
with those as we progress through the spring those numbers were trued up and based on what we
except the actual property tax received and other property tax to be considered. I just wanted to
make a quick note on that.
Councilmember Dulin said I’ve got notes in my car in the parking deck on financial partners. If
you are going to move past that I would like to go get them just so I can refresh myself. I will
excuse myself for a few minutes.
Mr. Harrington said as you will recall from the conversation last Wednesday when we were
talking about the general fund we are recommending that the Charlotte International Cabinet
(CIC) be transitioned from a financial partner to an office within the Neighborhood and Business
Services Department. There is no increase no funding, but just a transfer of that existing funding
and then the management of that operation within Neighborhood and Business Services.
Councilmember Barnes said just to clarify an issue on the CIC, are those two employees
currently City employees?
Mr. Harrington said they are not.
Mr. Barnes said they are not, but will they become City employees in Neighborhood and
Business Services?
Mr. Harrington said they would.
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 879
Mr. Barnes said I recognize that the budget impact from a tax and benefits perspective would be
not necessarily noteworthy, but it is hiring two new people and adding to our staff. I would like
for someone to speak to why we would add people to our staff.
Mr. Harrington said the transition was a study by the Lee Institute and that was one of the
recommendations for it to become a component of the City and some of the synergies that would
result from that, so we have included it. As it related to the two positions there would be benefits
that would be added to them but we are proposing that we would take that off of the existing
allocation so it wouldn’t be any additional funding or personnel funding to that. We would just
take that existing level and build that budget within that current funding level.
Mr. Barnes said are we their sole source of funding now?
Mayor Foxx said I think they raise money through sponsorships. They do have an International
Cabinet Luncheon or dinner or something like that, but we are definitely the dominant source of
the resources they use.
Mr. Barnes said would those activities stop when we bring them inside?
Mayor Foxx said no I don’t believe so.
Mr. Harrington said there are some questions around the 501-3 C status and what that means. I
don’t know if Pat Mumford can help with that.
Pat Mumford, Neighborhood and Business Services said there is some mix between the
International Cabinet component and the Sister Cities. Sister Cities is a 501-3 C organization
and it gives them the ability to raise money. We are working through the dynamics of that. They
still would probably like to keep that 501-3 C status so they could continue to raise those funds,
but as Mr. Harrington mentioned there is no request for additional money, it is moved the budget
as is to accommodate the necessary staff to get those synergies that was mentioned and as
outlined in the report.
Mr. Barnes said if their budget last year was $156,000 and the request for 2014 is $167,000 and
you are suggesting that we could bring those two people into Mr. Mumford’s Department and
accomplish all of the work they are doing now with or without the outside funding for the
$167,000 or $156,000?
Mr. Harrington said it would be the $156,121. That is what would be rolled over into FY14.
Mr. Barnes said would the extra money that they raise be used for programs? Am I making any
sense? It doesn’t seem like you would be bringing people into the government, hiring them and
putting them on the payroll and keeping our cost at the same level it was before they came
inside.
Mayor Foxx said I think what Mr. Barnes is asking is for assurance that it truly is a wash. Is
there going to be some costs that comes with having these positions rolled into the City? That is
another way of phrasing the question as I understand it.
Mr. Harrington said and that is how I was going to respond. Over the course of future years any
raises would apply for those positions but outside of that I don’t foresee anything at this
particular point.
Mayor Foxx said are in effect paying benefits today?
Mr. Harrington said no.
Mayor Foxx so who is doing the benefits portion for employees?
Mr. Harrington said I believe those employees do not have benefits.
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 880
Mayor Foxx said how could that be a wash?
Mr. Harrington said we will reduce the operation expense to balance out and keep within that
$156,000 level. I think as I understand it, we would gain some operational efficiencies that
would help us to be able to do and still be able to provide the programming. We would manage
it within that existing level of $156,121 and keep it within that existing level.
Mr. Carlee said so they are personnel and not personnel costs to the budget so the non-personnel
costs could be reduced to absorb the increased personnel costs. As over time there would be
incremental increases in personnel consistent with overseeing things.
Mr. Barnes what are the salaries?
Mr. Harrington said I think around $50,000 and $46,000.
Councilmember Kinsey does that mean they are full-time now or not?
Mr. Harrington said they currently are full-time employees and they will remain so.
Councilmember Fallon said is that you wash their benefits because they are full-time employees
now or would you have to give them benefits in the future?
Mr. Harrington said we would have to give them benefits in the future consistent with all the
other City employees.
Ms. Fallon said what does the package of benefits costs?
Mr. Harrington said health insurance is roughly a little over $6,000 per employee. There is
401-K at 3% that is the City’s practice and then the standard retirement, North Carolina
Retirement System contribution.
Ms. Fallon said so what is that?
Mr. Harrington said probably in the 15% to 20% range.
Mr. Harrington said in the Neighborhood and Business Services Financial Partners which are
funded from CDBG grants, HOME and then your innovative housing component and Pay-AsYou-Go, there is one recommendation adjustment and that is with the Charlotte Family Housing,
an increase of $130,000. That comes from a regional pool of CDBG funding and that is the only
recommended increase on that particular component.
Mr. Dulin said am I looking at the wrong page?
Mr. Harrington said Page 27 and 29 under Crisis Assistance.
Mr. Dulin said run that back by me one more time because frantically looking for my line.
Mr. Harrington said it would increase their funding from $200,000 to $330,000 and the purpose
of that is for monthly rental subsidies for families in the permanent housing program. That is
funded by CDBG funds.
Mr. Dulin said the CDBG is on life expectance cutback in Washington so what happens when
Washington say I’m sorry there is no more money and we end up having to eat $130,000
increase?
Mr. Harrington said this would all be contingent upon that CDBG funding so if we didn’t receive
he CDBG funding we wouldn’t be providing that.
Mr. Dulin said does that need to be in writing?
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 881
Mr. Harrington said I think it is part of the contract that it is contingent upon receipt of those
grants.
Mr. Dulin said I would like to back up one more back to the International Cabinet. Those
increases and the rolling them into Neighborhood and Business Services is fine and I have no
problem as I trust the leadership over there, but I was a little bit confused in that I thought it
would be whatever their costs is where they are doing business now, when they roll over those
costs would be about the same. Apparently there are some additional costs as we are picking up
additional. You lost me when we had the additional medical insurance benefits, etc.
Mr. Mumford said right now there is no Executive Director for that organization. There is a
funded spot for that. There is a full-time person there that is essentially carrying out the duties of
the Executive Director. There is a contract person currently for the International Cabinet. That
is all the $156,000 and the idea is not to include any of that, move the two individuals plus that
vacant funded position over and we would cover all of those costs with this current budget
allocation. Then we would absorb a lot of the overhead piece for marketing, planning and those
kinds of things within our departmental resources to gain some efficiency in that regard.
Mr. Dulin said thank you, I’m glad I brought it up.
Ms. Kinsey said I am too because I notice when we are talking about FY13 budget that is the one
we are in now. The next is FY14 and that allocation does to go up to $167,046. Is that correct?
Mr. Harrington said Ms. Kinsey you were referring to the Charlotte International Cabinet?
Ms. Kinsey said yes.
Mr. Harrington said if you look across at the third row at the top under general fund, their current
funding is $156,000 and then if you go all the way across to the right, the recommended financial
partner funding is zero.
Ms. Kinsey said so it is going to hold at $156,000?
Mr. Harrington said correct, and that will be transferred over into the Neighborhood and
Business Services.
Councilmember Mitchell arrived at 4:19 p.m.
Ms. Kinsey said okay I understand. Let me get down to the funding for Crisis Assistance. I
know I should know this, but I don’t. What is Carolina’s Care Partnership?
Pam Widemann, Neighborhood and Business Services said that is our partnership that
manages our federal funding that we get for housing for people with AIDS and HIV.
Mr. Barnes said just to make the final point of my issues regarding the International Cabinet, I
have always had a question as to whether the work of that group was not being done by the
Chamber or shouldn’t be done by the Chamber. I would not say that I’m going to be able to
support the change, but if someone can clarify, not necessarily right now, but just clarify how
that work is not inflicted in the work that the Chamber does or should do, or even the Charlotte
Regional Partnership, that would help me.
Ms. Fallon said how long is current going to be? How long will that last before we have these
big raises?
Mr. Mumford said our department operates on the philosophy that we do not ask for additional
money except for the SBO Program this year. We’ve held true to that for four years so I would
like to think we continue to the efficiencies gained by working through the whole department
and not have to come back.
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 882
Ms. Fallon said so you are going to wash this contract person with these two people and
hopefully keep it within that?
Mr. Mumford said that is our intent, however it is also our intent to speak to exactly what Mr.
Barnes raised, which is what is the appropriate role for the City in this national arena and we
don’t want to duplicate efforts, but we do think that there is a role that this City can and should
play and we are working through that.
Mayor Foxx said is the intent to hire and Executive Director for this or just to keep that position
open and use those unused proceeds for this other costs?
Mr. Mumford said right now we don’t know, but it doesn’t look as if an Executive Director
would be required, meaning I don’t think we need to go from two to three people. We may need
to adjust that contract before it is time, to increase that or bring that person on full-time, but
probably would stick with two folks and adjust the residual amount of money.
Ms. Kinsey said I understood that they were both full-time now, but you said bring the second
one on to full time, so she is not full-time now?
Mr. Mumford said correct.
Ms. Kinsey said but she will work for what department and you could still go with $156,000?
Ms. Fallon said I’m trying to get this straight. You don’t have an Executive Director now. That
position is empty, but you might fill it in the future, which means two employees at that money
and then the Executive Director an addition?
Mr. Mumford said our thought process today is that that Executive Director position would not
have to be filled with an additional person. There is a small caveat and we are working through
the CIC Board and it is going to take us a little while to see how to best utilize these resources
but we don’t think we need three full-time people to be able to care of it and the support of the
rest of the Neighborhood and Business Services.
Councilmember Howard arrived at 4:23 p.m.
Ms. Fallon said can you maintain that without a vacant person or is that the future?
Mr. Mumford said I would look to Brad Richardson as the Executive Director of that. It rolls
into our whole economic development effort so I still contend that we do not need to hire a
separate Executive Director for something that is moved within our department.
Mayor Foxx said these are some good questions on this topic. Very understandable questions
and it sounds like staff is still working through some of the precaution on this so as we go
through the process we should continue to ask these questions.
Mr. Harrington said the last item is related to the Out of School Time Partners and there were 11
applicants that met the eligibility requirements and those went through the review process based
on the set of criteria that Council has reviewed and adopted. There are five who are
recommended for funding. Again the funding amount is $1.2 million. This is slightly less than
the prior year. The prior year was $1.24 and we are anticipating some reduction in CDBG
funding coming down the pipeline from the federal government. Neighborhood and Business
Services backed off a little bit from that funding component, but that is what we present to you
for your consideration and the recommendation.
Councilmember Mayfield said if we adjust a reduction based on the potential of the CDBG fund
but we looked at an increase for Charlotte Family Housing, looking at those same funds. I have
a concern there but also when we are looking at the Housing Trust Fund model of full funding
and going down, last year when we were having a conversation between Budget and Economic
Development and I made the motion that would support it for us to look at no organization
receiving more than 1/3 of their funding. I was under the impression that what we were looking
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 883
at was trying to create a model where we had an opportunity to bring more organizations into the
fold as opposed to reducing the number. When I’m looking at the YWCA which does amazing
work, but historically has had a very low percentage point that they have asked for in funding
and that going from $158,000 to $307,000 and then looking at least two of the organizations that
could have potentially received funding, and maybe I wasn’t clear enough when we were having
the conversation in Committee, when I was saying no more than 1/3 of your budget should come
from the City being your main source, because we have some groups that receive more than 80%
of their budget from the City. I wasn’t saying that means that you hit that 1/3 and you get full
funding for that because this seems like we are doing the opposite impact of trying to identify
more programs that are addressing the needs and concerns of our youth if our main role is to help
bring in more services for the youth. I’m a little confused how we go to this kind of proposal of
five organizations receiving full funding as opposed to really looking at how do we expand our
funding to assist with the programs that are doing really great work. I’m not saying and I never
want to see what we saw last year where an organization didn’t receive full funding and they
came back and we made an executive order to give that money. I thought we were trying to
expand access to the funding to get more services on the ground.
Mr. Harrington said I think part of that relates to the Housing Trust Fund Model in terms of the
allocation of funding. One of the other staff members from Neighborhood and Business Services
who manages this program might be able to help with that question.
Tom Warshauer, Neighborhood and Business Services said we talked with you all quite
some time about it and you all voted to place a maximum number of $590,000 of your money
into this program with the balance coming from CDBG. We don’t know exactly what that
balance is, but we know that we will put in the $590,000 of local funds plus whatever CDBG is,
which we estimate will be … so the funding allocation you all agreed would be a Housing Trust
Fund Model with the maximum being $400,000 that any one agency could get and that
maximum amount could not exceed 1/3 of their budget if they were new or 66% of their budget
if they were an existing … Our funding allocation follows the prescription that you all gave us
in all funding so we haven’t deviated at all from what we were told to do from Council.
Ms. Mayfield said that is why I said I didn’t have enough clarity when we were in Committee
because I was under the impression with us moving to a model of saying no more than 1/3 of
your funding, the idea was to be able to expand access to services. I am looking at some of the
organizations and just based off the very minimal experience that I have, the YMCA Model has a
model that nationally recognizes its use around the country. The BELL Program has not
received funding from the City before but it has been active on the ground in the community for
a number of years now and has done really good work. I’m just concerned that we haven’t truly
distributed the funds in an equitable way as opposed to looking at as your application comes in
receiving full funding, especially when we have organizations that historically have requested
less than 20% of their funding from the City. Of course if you have access to it you should ask
for more but that doesn’t mean that you really get up to that full 1/3 if it is up to $400,000.
Mr. Warshauer said we try to be very explicit with you all about some of the risk of going up to
$400,000. This is sort of where you all ended up in that discussion so that is what we went out
with. There was an opportunity for people to ask for additional funds and they could have asked
for more than they asked for. This was one of the risk that we knew was going to be quite
challenging when it came down to the end because there are many very qualified programs and
we would have loved to have funded more of them. There are great programs out there and they
can all use more money.
Mr. Harrington said the transition that Council adopted was going from 66% to 50% to 33%. I
can’t predict the future, but as we move toward that 33% I would think that creates the
environment where they will likely see additional number of partners as we wean down that
percentage.
Mr. Warshauer said it’s possible because some of the older programs that are at 66% could come
in at 50% and the following year would be at 33%. That may free up some additional funds that
could go to others. If you would like in the future, this is a one-year program, you could decide
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 884
that you want your maximum to be $300,000 next year instead of $400,000. There are changes
that you could make in how the allocation is done.
Ms. Mayfield said one thing that I want us to consider especially in Committee is looking at the
Housing Trust Fund model of funding and going from there, trying to identify some of these
other models that are being successful across the nation so that we can have a better opportunity
of identifying those great programs but not being limited to the top five.
Warshauer: That is certainly a option.
Ms. Kinsey: It seems like maybe the plan worked this year. Maybe some didn’t get as much
money as they would have liked, but the model worked and I thank you for that because we
don’t seem to have quite the mess this year we had last year. There is only one new funding
partner that I have never heard of and that is Above and Beyond the Students. Can you tell us a
little bit about that program?
Aisha Alexander, Neighborhood and Business Services: Above and Beyond works in
Southside Homes. They work with 180 students and provide a very comprehensive program on
that and engages both the students and their family. We will start expanding engagement
support, it requires parent commitment and it is a very holistic community support, not just the
support of a child. They are going to support the whole family. Strong support from the
Charlotte Housing Authority as well so they were definitely the … favorite partner.
Mr. Barnes said I think Ms. Mayfield actually raised some issues that we were trying to deal with
last year in the Budget Committee and a member of the ED Committee attempting to address
these issues as well. I have a question, not necessarily about the division of money because I
understand you guys are trying to follow the rules we set out. There was some conflict you and I
talked about between the two committees, but regarding the performance of the entities, the CMS
After School Enrichment Program has historically had very high success numbers in terms of
their ability to serve young people and I think almost all those schools are in Mr. Mitchell’s
District of Ms. Mayfield’s District so they are not in my district. I have always liked that
program because we essentially pay them for the kids they serve on behalf of the City. Why did
that program not get any funding and why is it that the program that apparently according to
historical data has performed the poorest got a third of all the money?
Mr. Dulin said name that program please, Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Barnes said Greater Enrichment got 1/3 of the money, but it has historically had some of the
worst performance numbers.
Ms. Alexander said I wouldn’t say that it has historically performed the poorest, because we
haven’t really evaluated the program.
Mr. Barnes said you have been providing us with the data it has always been towards the bottom,
if the data was accurate.
Ms. Alexander said last year we didn’t have a funding platform. We didn’t have a direction to
say these are the City’s funding priorities so we went through the process with Committee and
what the Out of School Time Stakeholders could tell us what our funding priorities are. They
found out that family engagement was very important, connections to the community are very
important and CMS really didn’t have those components. They do a great job academically, but
when it comes to those components of supporting the family, and the connections to the
community, and they only serve 25 children during the summer time. Summer months are very
important so that lack of serving kids during the summer …
Mr. Barnes said that sounds like the exact opposite of what we’ve been in the years past.
Councilmember Cannon said can you speak to the YMCA in terms of the work. Is there a civic
outreach component that they must comply with?
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 885
Ms. Alexander said yes, in the criteria we looked at how are we are staffing programming,
family engagement and support … by means of sustainability, academic and non-academic
activities, new and engaging experiences, social interaction and community engagement.
Mr. Cannon said the YMCA would service about six schools or so, came up empty as we; and
that was because they didn’t meet the civic …
Ms. Alexander said their program is strictly … so they actually don’t even look at any of the
other core subjects beyond literacy. Outside of that they don’t really have those components.
They propose adding some of those components in the future to be able to align better with our
funding priorities. CMS is in that same boat, they also propose adding some additional so they
can engage in opportunities that meet the connections around better funding priorities but at this
time those programs do not exist.
Mr. Cannon said and that was explained to voters pretty thoroughly?
Alexander: Yes. You all had those discussions with the Out of School Time Stakeholders. You
had several sessions prior to the issuance … and actually developed the funding model.
Councilmember Howard said I’m so happy we are having this conversation. Staff did exactly
what we asked them to do. I’ve learned more about this than I probably ever wanted to know
about it. We went category by category for this very reason so it would be the criteria that we
decided on funding. I am with you. Some of these make me uncomfortable and politically
having to deal with that. I haven’t heard but one person say they didn’t know what the process
was. We went through a long drawn out conversation making sure that everyone knew what the
process was and I believe that happened. One of the things that nobody agreed upon the time
before and we are essentially saying this is what the criteria gave us and if we still don’t like the
criteria we need to figure it out, but staff did exactly what we told them to do. I actually want to
say thank you for what you guys did. What I think I just heard from Mr. Barnes’ question was
the fact that it may be nice to get a write-up about what the scores were, kind of what the
background on all of this is so we know exactly what we need to say to people when they call us.
Last year we found out there were some weaknesses in applications. It would have been nice to
know that before we got the phone calls. In this situation it would be nice to see the back-up
information, kind of what Ms. Alexander, you shared with Mr. Barnes about what the strengths
and weaknesses are so we understand what went into the decisions. There are some on here that
make us uncomfortable, but I do remember us talking about the importance of the summer
programs.
Mr. Dulin said last year we all scrambled with Greater Enrichment. We did a funding Bishop
Battle and Greater Enrichment fully last year, but it shows $605,854 this year and down to
$400,000 next year.
Mayor Foxx said that is the most anybody got.
Mr. Dulin said we came through for them last year with $387,000 and this year they get that and
they will continue, so they are back on line. Let me go down to YMCA – why zero this year and
back up to $400,000 next year?
Councilmember Mitchell said that was they request Andy.
Ms. Mayfield said that was their request, they didn’t recommend funding.
Mr. Dulin said the Kennedy Foundation – zero this year
Ms. Mayfield said they requested $243,000.
Mr. Dulin said okay buys, I wasted a lot of time this week-end.
Ms. Mayfield said actually if we can get the background so we can end up just start being a part
of the process moving forward so that we have the application and when we have a question to
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 886
come up, of course I’m going to look at Bethlehem Center according to last year and previous
applications that already done well, that is not the case this time so I’m trying to figure out as we
move forward and as we tweak it to try to create a more equitable. Some of this is the first set
after the initial rules so I definitely want to echo everyone else and thank you for all the work
you’ve done. It just lets me know that I need to be a little clearer with what my expectations are
when asking the questions so I have a clear understanding of when it is time for it to actually roll
out. How is that going to look? For me it would have been helpful to have seen this information
prior to us going into the budget discussions along with that backup information to try to figure
out an organization that was previously funded, why would they lose funding and compare to
another organization that is still funded. As Mr. Barnes mentioned, according to our records has
not been historically been as successful as some of the other.
Mr. Cannon said part of the task was to help as many children as we could across the board
based upon knowing and understanding that the level of funding that was coming in has not and
or would not be all that we’ve been receiving in years past. I just remember that discussion in
terms of trying to help as many children as we could across the board, based upon the limited
amount of capital that we would have before us. Then the other piece of that is the criteria that
has spoken about and obviously we have some entities that got funded and wanted more, but we
just couldn’t do as much and just tried to spread out as much as we could to try to help the most
that we could. If I could fund them all I would and I think we all know we did the best we could
with what we had and hopefully will be able to do more in the future, but right now this is what it
is.
Mayor Foxx said I do think that some thought needs to be given in future years on how we
measure results with these dollars. When you are going in annual cycles and making
adjustments in funding different organizations and talking about kids, I think you make it very
difficult to create a track record that you can measure, but that measurement needs to be part of
the criteria that is used for funding in the next year. I don’t know what you do about it, whether
you create a two-year funding cycle or give yourself a little more leeway to see those results but
that is an issue. An organization for instance YWCA got $158,000 last years and under this they
are going to jump to $307,000 and you want to know when you make that jump what you are
getting in return for it and you want to able to measure that. I hope we have a way to do that.
There are some organizations that got funded last year that aren’t being recommended for
funding and then there are still other categories of organizations that didn’t get funded last year,
but are getting funded by us for the first time this year according to the recommendations. I
think measuring the results is going to be the really critical piece of it. I’m not confident you can
do that in the space of a year. This is very important and I mentioned this last year, I do have a
concern with an organization, and by the way I’m a big fan of the Police Activity group, but one
question I have about the Police Activity Group, is there some place else in our budget where we
are funding them and if there is, given that this money is competitive and we’re funding different
programs across the City, we may create a perception that PAL has an inside on getting these
funds versus somebody who is not inside the City and should we really allow City affiliated
organizations to compete for any money. I think that is a question and something that probably
needs to be thought about in the future. I would like to know how much we are funding PAL
outside of this process. It is not a knock on PAL, they do great work and it is not at all saying
they are doing a bad job, it is just a question as to whether we ought to be having our own City
affiliated agencies competing for the same dollars. That is a question I would like to pose.
Mr. Barnes said could you give us the number of kids who were being served last year under all
the programs and the number of kids who are proposed to be served this year under the
recommended programs?
III.
Council Referrals to Budget Committee
Councilmember Barnes said under the referrals to the Budget Committee, there were three. One
regarding the Budget Process Calendar, the School Resource Officers (SROs) and the funding
issues there and the Rental Assistance Program. As you all recall last week we essentially
touched on … to a superficial extent, each of the topics that the Committee handled and I don’t
mind leading the issue because it was fairly straight forward I think. Regarding the calendar, we
struggled to figure out a way to adjust the calendar. If you look at Page 35 you will see the
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 887
current schedule under proposed options A and B. The concern we had was that by moving
ourselves close to the end of the fiscal year we might encounter problems if in fact we have any
budget hiccups this year. Also that are some issues regarding Storm Water Services and their
ability to establish a budget because that budget has to be approved by the County as well and
the closer you get to the end of June the more pressure it puts on the County to essentially
approve Storm Water Services budget which they would only be able to do at the beginning of
July which would create a $20,000 cost to government to make that happen. We felt comfortable
recommending staying at the same schedule but we will be happy to discuss it.
Mayor Foxx said the reason this came up was because of concerns that we may get a June
surprise from Raleigh on a source of revenue or a combination of sources of revenue and then we
may be in a position where we have adopted a budget and set a tax rate, which I understand by
law that we can only do once a year. Then we would end up having to scramble at the end of
June so that was the nature of the concern. Has that been given some thought?
Mr. Barnes said I think it was. Would any tax rate adjustments be for the calendar year or the
fiscal year? In other words if we set a rate in June and something strange happens in Raleigh,
could we then set, if need be, set a new rate in July?
Mr. Harrington said no, the General Statutes do allow for resetting a tax rate, but under an
emergency purposes. Those would probably have to be unique and administratively it is
extremely difficult to do that.
Mr. Barnes said I’m not suggesting that we do that but in the event something bazar happened I
think it would create what may statutorily be an emergency.
Carolyn said I think we could look at whether that is something that constitute an emergency.
There’s been very little evidence of ever reestablishing a budget along the property tax rate for
emergency purposes. We would look into and I will talk to Bobby Little and provide some more
guidance on it.
Mr. Dulin said I have never been a part of something like this, but could we adopt a budget and a
tax rate contingent upon Raleigh finishing their work, but then somewhere before July 1 rotate
out of the bata position into the outer. It slides into the accepted spot after we find out the gap
between the Lepo and it actually slides into the spot.
Mayor Foxx said I was actually thinking the same thing. I wonder whether there is an action that
can be taken by the Council that in effect creates an active date at a later point in time unless the
Council intervenes. We’ve sort of set a provisional tax rate that would become effective July 1.
That may be in effect what we do, but I think there is some language that we would probably
have to think about because once we say the rate for next year shall be X, you can only do that
one time. We ran into that last year and maybe there is a way to say that unless we come back to
this conversation before June 30th the rate shall be X. Maybe there is a way to fudge our way
around that so that we give ourselves some flexibility in the event the unthinkable happens.
Councilmember Fallon said could we do an interim rate to take effect when we know what our
budget is?
Mayor Foxx said I think we are kind of talking about the same thing.
City Manager, Ron Carlee said I understand what you are saying. Let us get with the City
Attorney and look at what the options may be as you get closer to that timeframe, giving him a
chance to dot the I’s and cross the T’s.
Mayor Foxx said I will throw another thought out there. I’m not selling this, I’m just throwing it
out there. Because of the capital budget issues there is a school of thought that says let’s go
ahead and figure that out and get that out of the way and when we’re dealing with the operating
side of the budget in the later part of the process we can continue our conversation to that so
there is a possible way to make it two-track.
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 888
Councilmember Cooksey said summarize this conversation with a direct question to the
Attorney’s Office to get back to us on and that is do the statutory restrictions and changes to the
property tax rate take effect from the date of adoption of the budget or on July 1?
Carolyn said the rate takes effect on July 1.
Mr. Cooksey said but does the restrictions on changing the rate?
Carolyn said the restrictions, as I understand it, once you adopt your budget then you are
restricted from changing the rate.
Mr. Cooksey said we got into that last year so just a little history lesson. Last year when the rate
was set at a level, we found that we could not come back to changing that decision once it was
made and that was before July 1, so once you set it, it is set. I didn’t know if the set becomes
effective July 1 or if becomes effective the date the Council adopts the budget.
Mr. Dulin said with that said, we need the float between June 10 and July 1 and I’m for the
earlier adoption date, but I’m also for less tax than more tax, but I’m also for Council having
time to do our work. I don’t know whether we need to really re-think the later date than to give
us float if we can’t do something where we adopt with an asterisk on the 10th and then wait late
June or July 1 for it go hard. Then I think we need to start looking at a later date to give the
Legislature, that is 2 weeks between the 10th and the 24th. They might come in with something
after that. They could and I think we found out they will not do their work around what is in our
best interest.
Mr. Barnes said to the point Mr. Dulin just made my sense is that what we do with our budget
might in fact create some changes in Raleigh. We will adopt a budget and they will do something
to counter our budget so I almost have this perspective that we should do our job, stick to our
schedule and deal with whatever they do. By the way in terms of things that we know they may
do, two of the biggies that come to mind are repeal of the Business Privilege License Tax which
would be $17 million gift and also a broadening of the sales tax and elimination of the State
Income or Corporate taxes. There could be some impact in terms of broadening the sales tax and
the Business Privilege License Tax and I don’t know the value of the sales tax hit. We know the
value of the other and perhaps it would behoove us to essentially ask staff to identify a $17
million plug for that Privilege Tax money and otherwise move on.
Mr. Harrington said one clarification to that, the legislation that we understand now proposes
those changes effective for FY15. So at least at this current point it is not an FY14 impact. It
would be FY15 so that does give us a year but of course that is based on what we currently
know.
Mr. Dulin said I think the Chair of the Budget Committee had a nice point there that maybe we
ought to take care of our business and see where the stones fall, but we need to concentrate on
catching the ball. We don’t need to be worried about what is going on around us.
Councilmember Autry said what would be wrong with approving a budget and set a rate with a
vote later on. In other words if we approve the budget on the 12th, but not set a rate, then the 24th
we set the rate. Is there any precedent that would restrict us from that?
Mr. Harrington said the adoption of the tax rate has to co-inside with the adoption of the budget.
It is considered one in the same under the general statutes.
Mr. Cooksey said the question I should have asked before, I finally tracked down GS 159-15 and
so I now know the question I should have asked. The question I have is what does substantially
mean in GS 159-15 which reads: if after July 1 the local government receives revenues that are
substantially more or less than the amount anticipated, the governing body may before January 1
following the adoption of the budget, amend the budget ordinance to reduce or increase the
property tax levy to account for the unanticipated increase or reduction of revenues. How much
is substantially is my question to the Attorney’s Office and I don’t expect an answer right now.
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 889
Carolyn said I will make note of that and respond back to you with options and ranges of how to
handle it.
Mr. Cooksey said that to me looks like the only loophole that exists – if revenues are
substantially after July 1. Mr. Harrington may have something on that point.
Mr. Harrington said the one thing I understand correctly, the property tax bills go out in July so
essentially under that scenario if there is an emergency declared there has to be a second set of
bills that would go out in terms of that process.
Mr. Barnes said the next item is Item B which is the School Resource Officers and I believe the
Manager and Mr. Harrington have some suggestions regarding next steps there.
Mr. Carlee said we’ve been looking at the program and the policy adopted by the City Council
and the 80% funding and looking at some of the underlying methodology and the way we do our
charge tax and cost allocation. Part of a little bit broader review that … while I think the
methodology review is sound it is probably … and actually put us at some risk. We are looking
at possibly recalculating our aggregate cost allocation which would bring costs down to the
schools and I think we can get to our 80% funding level on SROs. It will probably be an
additional increase to the schools of about a quarter of a million dollars. I talked to the
Superintendent about that over the week-end and he said that is something he can work with in
his budget. His budget staff and ours are going to get together and work out the details of that. I
think that will resolve the SRO policy level in terms of proportionality and not be a one-time
program, basically establish the level going forward.
Mayor Foxx said instead of the $700,000 hit they would take a $250,000 hit?
Mr. Carlee said somewhere in that neighborhood.
Mr. Howard said any thought given on the policy question?
Mr. Carlee said the 80%?
Mr. Howard said yes, whether we should just get back in this and stay. Like I said last time,
either we do it or we get out of it. If it is a policy question I would like to have some feedback
from you and from the Police Chief to be honest about the value. You need to be of value to the
City in one of our areas.
Mr. Cannon said I think you got an answer to your policy question about an ongoing opportunity.
Mr. Carlee said this would get us actually to a policy so the future costs to the school would only
be the larger incremental costs related to inflation so we would be at 80/20 policy split. This was
the policy you were trying to get to that was phased in. This gets to the phase and I think
establishes a very fair ratio and is reflective of the SRO Program both to the schools and to the
City itself.
Mr. Howard said so essentially what you are recommending is the idea of phasing out would
stop. We don’t complete the phase out.
Mr. Carless said we would actually be at the80/20 but the way the costs are actually calculated
the methodology would be adjusted somewhat so that the overall cost to get to the 80% is about a
third of what it would otherwise would have been. I think he is prepared to include that in his
budget.
Mr. Dulin said that is a win/win.
Mayor Foxx said you have predictability going forward which is one of the things we were
talking about before, the lack of predictability given where we were.
Mr. Carlee said it gets us to a stable stage and move forward with it.
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 890
Mayor Foxx said they are still paying more, but it is not as much and we keep our ratios the same
over time.
Mr. Mitchell said with the same staff?
Mayor Foxx said same staff.
Ms. Kinsey said I want to make sure that the efficiencies are coming from the Police
Department. The additional money is coming from the Policy if they are looking at their costs?
It is not coming from the general budget?
Mr. Carlee said yes.
Mr. Mitchell said just to follow up on how many officers we are identifying in the 80/20? Is that
elementary, middle and high school or just elementary and middle school?
Mr. Carlee said I think we are at middle and high school. That would be the typical pattern of
School Resource Officers.
Mr. Mitchell said 49 officers in middle school and high school?
Ms. Fallon said how did you get from $800,000 to $250,000?
Mr. Carlee said we are looking at trying to get some consistency on our charge backs so I’m
actually looking at different ones and doing different things with different agencies. And to try
to keep the charges that we applied to people who essentially contract to us for services, to our
direct costs and overhead cost that are directly attributed to the delivery of those services and not
other indirect costs that have a more theoretical relationship to the service. If the service would
go away those costs would not go away so we would charge people to what our out of pocket
costs are for the services, with the overhead necessary to support it.
Mayor Foxx said that is a better resolution than where we thought we were headed.
Mr. Dulin said that situation has me more comfortable than we were.
Mr. Carlee said when people look at what we are charging them it is more obvious to them why
they are being charged what they are charged.
Mr. Dulin said I think that is a win/win for both groups so I’m comfortable with supporting that.
Mayor Foxx said I will take a pause here because I just saw some news that I wanted to share
with you. Two people have been killed when two bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon
today. Dozens of people have lost limbs as a result of this explosion. They don’t know the
cause of it but our prayers are with the folks in Boston and the families that have been affected
by that.
Mr. Harrington said I might add to that Mayor, we have a Budget Analyst in our office who ran
in the Marathon today and we are very proud of her and her efforts and she finished just a little
bit before that occurred. She is safe and that is important to the situation in Boston.
Mr. Barnes said the final item that the Committee reviewed was the Rental Assistance Program
and the funding proposal for that program we ask staff to provide us with some further options
and Mr. Harrington has one to discuss. It is at your place and was handed out to us today, the
second page of that handout.
Mr. Harrington said I will provide a summary and then answer any questions. As you recall the
funding consideration was $10 million to support and endowment for rental assistance support
and we would like to offer to you a proposal for consideration. I’ll walk you through those brief
elements. The first being, as you recall we allocate $2 million per year to the Business Corridor
Revitalization Fund. We would propose redirecting that $2 million per year for five years to
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 891
fund the $10 million. Related to that in the current Business Corridor Revitalization Fund you
have about $13.4 million in the account balance and we are proposing that that stays as is, not
touched.
Mr. Carlee said that was the proposal that was in front you before, and here is the Part B to it.
The Part B would be to backfill that Business Corridor Revitalization money, that $10 million by
reallocating $10 million from the Comprehensive Neighborhood Improvement Program, the
CNIP Neighborhood Improvement component, of the proposed general CIP. With that it would
take the CNIP program from $120 million to $110 million and you would plug in $5 million in
the first cycle and the $5 million in the second cycle under a category called Reserve for
Business Corridor Revitalization. It could be used for similar types of uses. How you have
currently used Business Corridor Revitalization money, it could be used for infrastructure type
improvements. You could use that in the corridors or as a compliment to what is envisioned in
the five community areas that are envisioned for the CNIP. That $10 million could compliment
business corridor type investments there or in other areas, but it gave Council that flexibility and
it did not add to the total of the general CIP.
Mr. Mitchell said I just feel awkward. I think most of us around here support the Rental
Assistance Program. I know I had a presentation when I was on board, but I think choosing
Business Corridor versus rental substance just doesn’t sit well. Randy, you say you would take
revitalize funding by allocating $10 million from the Comprehensive Neighborhood, why can’t
we just do that now? Why do we have to backfill the corridor, why can’t you just take $10
million out from the Comprehensive Neighborhood Program?
Mr. Carlee said because it is bond money. What we are trying to do is find a substantive for
PAYGO money with bond money. We need PAYGO money for Rental Assistance Program.
We can’t use bond money or else we would have brought to you a proposal to take housing bond
money, but we can’t actually use bond money for the rental assistance.
Mr. Mitchell said how much to we allocate in the Housing Trust Fund each year?
Mr. Carlee said the last bond was $15 million.
Mr. Mitchell said for the Housing Trust Fund?
Mr. Carlee said correct.
Mr. Mitchell said how much is left in the Housing Trust Fund?
Mr. Carlee said $10 million.
Mr. Mitchell said so we’ve got $10 million in the Housing Trust Fund. Don’t you think it is a
better fit that the Housing Trust Fund should go toward housing, putting people in housing?
Mayor Foxx said I think the plan, the housing strategy that is being through about does put that
money to work for housing. They are looking for another $10 million to help build a gap on this
rental substitutes. Mr. Mitchell, I share your concern and I wonder why if we are looking for
PAYGO money why don’t we just put PAYGO money in the budget for this purpose?
Mr. Mitchell said I think we are sending the wrong message that the corridor is not that
important and that is the message we don’t want to send. Even if you are talking about future,
we would hope that we would do other development in corridors. I know that wasn’t the intent
but that is the reality of how some people are going to perceive this and I don’t want it to lose
merit because it is a worthy program. I think it will fall because you all are tightening us in a
corner through the corridor fund and rental assistance. I don’t think any of us feel comfortable
being in that spot. We’ve got $2 million sitting aside already for the Housing Trust Fund. To
me that is more of a clean and natural way to use for housing rental assistance. Mr. Manager I
hear you say PAYGO but be careful. I’ve got to agree with Mr. Cannon, we were in ED
Committee and he leaned over to me said you know the Business Corridor is slush fund. It
seems like every time we get a proposal it is a recommendation to take it out of the Business
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 892
Corridor Fund. I would rather you challenge us and say we don’t have enough projects in the
business corridor and go out there and get some projects to use those dollars as opposed to
allowing that money to continue to sit there and then we always want to take some of it away for
other programs. It is very uncomfortable for me and I’m just speaking for myself.
Mr. Carlee said the position I was articulating is what I was hearing back from the Council. I
really understand that so we actually don’t want to reduce resources available for the corridors.
What we were looking to try to do was actually substitute money for the corridors from PAYGO
to bonds so you would still have $10 million earmarked for the corridors, but they would come in
two increments of $5 million in each bond issue. Thinking as we go into the corridors and try to
find those projects you are talking about and being more aggressive about spending the money
that we would likely have projects of a magnitude that would qualify for bond funding.
Mr. Mitchell said to the Mayor’s point, why can’t we just put the rental assistance budget
allocation in the budget?
Mr. Harrington said there is simply not capacity in PAYGO funds to fund $10 million. The only
way to do it would be to reallocate, take away from existing maintenance programs in the
PAYGO.
Ms. Kinsey said the Housing Trust Fund is bond money so we can’t use it anyway.
Mr. Mitchell said for this purpose.
Ms. Kinsey said we don’t have to do $10 million right off the bat. We don’t even have to do $5
million, we could do $2 million if you can locate the funds to allow us to do it.
Mayor Foxx said if this is a priority, and I think it is a worthy investment to get the substantive
program done but why could we not create a PAYGO account for this particular purpose and
have a sunset once we’ve gotten up to …?
Mr. Harrington said in that 5-year stream of revenue there is not $10 million of revenue growth
that will cover that. The only way to cover it is to reallocate from existing programs.
Mayor Foxx said let me ask the question again. Why couldn’t there be sufficient growth?
Mr. Carlee said the two ways to do it within PAYGO would be to reprioritize existing projects or
change the PAYGO tax rate.
Mayor Foxx said what kind of impact would we be talking about regarding the PAYGO tax rate?
Mr. Harrington said for $2 million a year on the tax rate would probably be somewhere in the
neighborhood of .2 cents roughly. That would then reduce the capacity either in the general fund
or reduce the debt capacity on the proposed general CIP.
Mayor Foxx said I personally feel like this is something we should figure out a way to do. I’m
not asking myself should we do this or shouldn’t we do this. I think it is a question of how and
to Mr. Mitchell’s point I think what is striking people is that the corridor fund is there to jump on
opportunities to help revitalize our corridors. If you make a commitment today to say we are
going to repurpose that money for this subsidy program and then you make replenishing that
money contingent on future actions of this Council and perhaps even the community, you are
trying up putting that a little bit at risk. From the Council’s standpoint I think one policy
question is, is this enough of a priority for us to consider creating a PAYGO account specifically
for this purpose. The staff is trying to help us work within what we’ve put on the board so to
speak last week. I appreciate and understand where you are coming from and frankly if there is a
way to do it I want to see us do it. I think the choice that Mr. Mitchell pointed out is the one that
is feeling a lot of heartbreak.
Mr. Carlee said so I can be clear it is that risk piece that is bothersome to you, taking the
neighborhood corridor money and moving it from PAYGO to bond.
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 893
Mayor Foxx said the headache with getting those funds in the budget in the first place is very
similar to the headache we are going through trying to figure this rental subsidy so there is not a
large appetite to play around and we mitigate an issue that we dealt with previously.
Mr. Carlee said that is simple to understand. It sounds like we need to go back to the drawing
board if the Council is interested in our trying to find a way do a rental assistance program.
Mr. Mitchell said let me follow up on Ms. Kinsey’s point so I can be clear when I speak to the
community. Because the Housing Trust Fund is bond money, that is why we can’t use that pool
of money, it has to be a PAYGO.
Mayor Foxx said if we were to create a specific account for this purpose without taking from
something else that is in the budget cycle, what I just heard is that we probably are looking at .2
cent impact to the tax rate.
Mr. Harrington said we will need to conform that. We will calculate it.
Mr. Carlee said we did look at other PAYGO items to find out if there was enough money to get
the $2 million per year. Where we could substantive PAYGO for bond we were trying to keep it
whole and we were finding problems with the other PAYGO lines, but I understand the
sensitivity of the importance of keeping the neighborhood corridors as a PAYGO line.
Mayor Foxx said I think going forward we need to differentiate between – there is bond money
for business corridors which is the $13 million and then there is this PAYGO account that comes
in every other year. I think we might need to figure out a way to differentiate that
Mr. Carlee said let me clarify that. They are actually one in the same so there actually is $13
million in PAYGO money now for neighborhood corridors. I wouldn’t touch that because I
would still like to have money in PAYGO to do something opportunistically in the corridor if we
are able to do it. The idea was that the future PAYGO money coming into it we would shift to
bond and so we would have $13 million in PAYGO where we need cash ready available and
then back up the next $10 million with $5 million in 2014 and $5 million in 2016. The idea was
not to take any of that $13 million PAYGO that is currently on the table because for all of the
reasons you’ve said in the other meeting.
Mr. Howard said I want to understand a little more about what you are saying that the
neighborhood improvement program is the money that the Planning Commission and
Neighborhood Development spent to implement area plans. Is that what money is? What is
CNIT and where is that normally in the budget, where is that spent?
Mayor Foxx said this is the new neighborhood improvement program and this is the one where
instead of spreading money around the city like peanut butter we are going to concentrate
significant spends within concentrated areas. It is a revision of our practice. Typically this fund
has been used for curb, sidewalks, gutters, streetlights or whatever to help the neighborhood, but
the vision for this is to actually do some different things, involving the neighborhoods, involving
the county and the schools to try to imagine what cannot happen in five neighborhoods around
the city. That is actually another problem I have with this proposal is that not solve a bit of our
capacity on that end and there is a lot of blood spilt trying to keep that intact and I’m just worried
that we are losing a little capacity there.
Mr. Howard said I actually support that we shouldn’t take it out of the corridor fund but we
should still leave the $2 million additional to add to it. I don’t think we spend enough money on
the corridors. I actually would argue that issue be a part of every bond cycle anyway, not
replacing it to do something else. That is the problem. We have these two priorities that we are
talking about and they both deserve some attention and I would argue that we probably should
put more in there but not less. If you drive these corridors, some we have been talking about for
the last year, has been the lack of attention to at least two of these corridors we are talking about
trying to do something to jump start it. We know that just paving the sidewalks is not always it
so find some ways to do more Mosaic Villages or perhaps some other things, we need to figure
that out.
mpl
April 15, 2013
Budget Workshop
Minute Book 134, Page 894
Mayor Foxx said is there a general feeling to ask the staff to continue working to try to get this
rental subsidy piece figured out?
Mr. Mitchell said just for clarification, note #2 said use of federal HOME and CDBG grant
funding is not permitted by the Federal Government. Just for clarification, why?
Mr. Harrington said the Federal Government doesn’t allow the use of … money for endowment
type purposes. It is a federal regulation requirement.
Mr. Mitchell said let me play on words. They would change that if it wasn’t considered an
endowment program. Then could we use CDBG funding for this program?
Mr. Harrington said that is probably a legal question, but I think the spirit of it is still an
endowment so that would still raise the eye brow of the federal government if it were used that
way.
Mr. Carlee said that is really the core of the rental assistance program, and that is why the
Foundation is going out and seeking private donations so we are essentially matching those to be
able to get one-time gifts that would then spin off interest to support the rental assistance
program.
Mayor Foxx said this is good conversation on this. Mr. Barnes anything else on this?
Mr. Barnes said that is it.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:29 p.m.
______________________________
Stephanie C. Kelly, City Clerk
Length of Meeting: 1 Hour, 25 Minutes
Minutes Completed: May 31, 2013
mpl
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 1
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
Small Business Week
Receive an update on activities related to the Small Business Week.
II.
Subject:
Action:
Youth Initiatives
Receive a presentation on the Foundation for the Carolinas “Out of School Time
Report” and receive an update from staff on the new community framework for youth
services. Committee will be asked, if it is ready, to make a recommendation to City
Council to meet the requested April 30th timeframe for reporting back to Council.
III.
Subject:
Action:
Independence Boulevard Area Plan
Further discuss citizen and Council feedback on the Plan, and if ready, consider
recommending the adoption of the draft Independence Boulevard Area Plan, Volume I:
The Concept Plan with recommended changes, and receive Volume II: The
Implementation Plan as information. (Deferred to Next Meeting)
IV.
Subject:
CRVA April Barometer Report – Information Only
V.
Subject:
Next Meeting: Thursday, May 12, 2011 at 3:30pm, Room 280
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Others:
James Mitchell, Patrick Cannon, Jason Burgess, Andy Dulin and Patsy Kinsey
Nancy Carter
Time:
4:00pm – 5:50pm
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Driving Charlotte’s Economy – Charlotte Small Business Week
After School Activities Funding
Youth Involvement Council
Youth Council Membership Listing
Out of School Time Task Force Presentation
ED Committee Draft Recommendation to City Council on Youth Development
Independence Boulevard Area Plan Proposed Changes to April 2010 Draft
CRVA Barometer Report
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 2
Mitchell:
Chairman Mitchell opened the meeting with introductions. I have asked staff to add one item to the
agenda to talk about Small Business Week that is approaching us on May 16th. Dennis is going to talk
about activities and have a discussion about promoting small business.
I.
Subject:
Marstall:
I will go through this quickly. We have a list of activities that are scheduled for May 16th through May
20th. The quick backdrop is that the President has proclaimed a week in May as National Small
Business Week to recognize the contributions of small businesses to America. National events are
coordinated by the U.S. Small Business Administration. Last year, City Council asked us to do
something for Small Business Week. We had an event here in the Government Center, mostly for our
SBEs (Small Business Enterprises) and Small Business Opportunity Program. The City’s past efforts
included Mayoral proclamations, networking events and receptions for small businesses and awards
program with the Charlotte Chamber. We have incorporated into our Small Business Strategic Plan,
Small Business Week activities. We will coordinate planning with community partners, conduct broad
outreach to business associations, international chambers, the Business Advisory Committee and
SBEs. We are following our Strategic Plan and we are also trying to feature a helping hand for the
business climate in Charlotte in support of small businesses. Small businesses are doing things
differently; they have to re-think their business model so we are doing the same thing in the City and
that includes lining up lots of resources for them during Small Business Week. One of the things that
I wanted to highlight is something we are doing called Extreme Makeover Small Business Edition. We
have lined up five companies in a group to do a small business makeover for a local small business,
strategic planning/business plan optimization by the MLC Group. Branding and advertising will be
done by Wray Ward. Accounting and tax advisory services are provided by the Reznick Group. Sales
enhancement services by KRS Consulting and human resources audit by the Employers Association.
What that means is that these five groups have offered one lucky business a makeover in their
specialty area. So any small business can go into our Neighborhood & Business Services website; we
have a separate web address for Small Business Week. The one lucky business that is chosen for the
small business makeover will have a five week process of all of those services for free. This will
optimize their business plan and plan for growth; that is one component. My goal is to have 25
separate events scheduled during the course of the week that serve as resources for our small
businesses. So far, we are at 20 on this handout. I have two more to add today so I think we will be
able to make the 25 by the end of the week. You will see all the events we have on here as well as our
partners. The City is doing some things where you will see going down the list. On Monday May 16th,
we have the kick-off with Mayor and City Council with a little breakfast that is free and open to all
small businesses. The two things that we are going to highlight besides the kick-off and the
proclamation is the web portal; again this is part of our Strategic Plan. Part of our Strategic Plan has
been to enhance resources for our small businesses in Charlotte. We have worked with our partners
from the Chamber, CPCC, SCORE, CTDC, The Employers Association and others. Charlotte Business
Resources.com which is not live yet, but will be unveiled with a virtual quick unveiling of some virtual
ribbon cutting that Mayor Foxx will introduce.
Then we will also announce the Extreme Makeover
winner; then they will start the process. I really want to highlight the diversity of information and
seminars that are being presented. Tuesday will highlight Federal government contracting hosted by
City and General Services Administration. Wednesday will be the Entrepreneurial Success Conference
hosted by CPCC. Thursday will feature the Access to Capital Conference hosted by the Chamber and
Charlotte Small Business Week
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 3
Kinsey:
Marstall:
Dulin:
Marstall:
Cannon:
Marstall:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Cannon:
Marstall:
Kimble:
Mitchell:
the City; this is the second conference we have presented on capital funding. Friday will headline
Networking and Growing Your Business hosted by The Employers Association. That brings us to
Saturday with the final programs featuring Charlotte Small Business Week Expo of small businesses
hosted by the Charlotte League of Businesses. These are just a few examples of the events planned
throughout the week. The marketing strategy for Small Business Week will be showcased by the City
and its partners on the website which is http://smallbizweek.charlottenc.gov. There will also be a
Government Channel special. Charlotte Small Business Spotlight will be on WJZY and WTVI and there
will also be a News Channel 14 interview. We are getting the word out and hope that people will take
this up with us; most events you see on here are free or have a reduced cost. There are nominal fees
for about five of those 20 events listed, otherwise they are free.
What is the overall budget for this for the City?
Because we are doing an Access to Capital Conference, which is with the Chamber, it could end up
being around $15,000, for the course of the week. That would be for City efforts such as marketing
and promotions, Access to Capital and the breakfast that we are going to do.
That includes all the food we are going to buy?
Yes, that includes the kick-off breakfast, Access to Capital and other publications and the media.
Do you have a number or projection of the number of people that may attend to go along with what
you have budgeted?
The breakfast, my understanding is that we have 75 rsvps; we are planning for at least 300 people
attending breakfast. Over the course of the week, we anticipate over 500 attending. Access to
Capital alone we had 390. I think we are going to hit a broad spectrum but in different areas,
meaning if you are interesting in lending, you are going to go to Access to Capital. If you are
interested in social media then you will turn to the media portion. The breakfast is open to everyone
so we are hoping to get a cross section of about 300 attendees; there is no set or firm number at this
time. People do their own recruiting like this one that will be done in Ballantyne on Innovation and
Creativity in Strategic Planning and Marketing. We are definitely promoting this through our SBE
network and through all of our resource partners; we have the media interest already.
The reason that I wanted to bring this to our attention now is because the staff has put so much work
into this. I would like for us to have a great turn out among our SBEs and other small businesses. I
will put this on my calendar. We only have two City Council Meetings on the 2nd and the 9th, so the
more times we can get the word out I think it will help the turn out.
This Extreme Makeover Small Business Edition, really I hope we can get the media involved. That is a
great community, neighborhood, feel good story that this community needs now. I think this is really
good work; you make it look easy but I know it’s really hard work putting this together.
On the Access to Capital Conference who will be participating in that?
Mostly lenders from BB&T, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Charlotte Metro Credit Union. We have
Angel Investors, some capital equity firms and any type of financing that someone may be looking for
should be represented there.
I just would like to say that Dennis and the Neighborhood & Business Services staff have taken to
heart, very seriously, your comments from last year from this Committee. Mr. Mitchell wanted to pick
up the pace we and we figured out a way to do it. I think with the National League of Cities goals,
North Carolina League of Municipalities goals, and your own goals, I think this is a good thing. They
really have put some effort into this and I think we are going to enjoy some of the fruits of those
efforts.
Thank you staff. I want to say one thing before we get into the next agenda item. Pamela Lopez has
spent a lot of time as part of this committee. I just want to applaud her. I was on a conference call
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 4
and she was in the meeting so I want to thank her for lending her time to this effort. Ron, would you
introduce this next item?
Subject:
Youth Initiatives
Kimble:
Thank you Mr. Mitchell. Today, you have requested and the Committee agreed that we should hear a
report from the Foundation for the Carolinas and their Out of School Time Report and get an update.
Also remember on Youth Initiatives that one of the charges for this Committee was to see if you could
study the issues. You have done great work in two meetings working up to this and we are going to
present some more ideas to you. The goal was to get this out of Committee to City Council by April
30th and today is April 26th. You are meeting that deadline if you are ready to take some action on
what you want to send to Council regarding Youth Initiatives. First we need to hear the report and
presentation and ask questions and then Brad will take it from there in terms of what ideas you might
have and he has some suggestions on what you might bring back to Council on Youth Initiatives.
Thank you all for coming; this is an important issue for us. Andrew Belton and Maria Orozco with The
Bridgespan Group will be in our conversation via phone conference. Maria, can you hear us?
Yes, we can hear all of you but if you can repeat questions for us it would be helpful.
I am Alisa McDonald, I am the Out of School contact and I work with the Duke Energy Foundation. I
wanted to make certain that everybody knew Brian Collier with Foundation of the Carolinas is a part of
our core team; he regrettably could not be here. He has been very active in this work but he had a
board meeting in Winston-Salem so he was not able to make it. We will be brief; it will probably take
less than 30 minutes. We are seeking feedback and input and wanted to give you an update of just
where we are. We will be giving you and overview and data and background of The Bridgespan Group
and The Lee Institute and partners in Out of School Time. The charge as far as background related to
the taskforce; we were commissioned by the Foundation for the Carolinas as a result of the catalyst
work done about 18 months ago. One of the real realities that came from that work was that there
were real opportunities to prove and maybe transform the Out of School Time within the system of the
Charlotte Mecklenburg area, so our task was to deliver a set of recommendations that would hopefully
improve what we have today. We took a look as part of the process the current state and really
focused on the parents and the kids with interviews and focus groups. We tried to understand what
would strengthen our Out of School Time Program, afterschool, and summer programs. From that
work, we wanted to prioritize what our next steps and activities are so we put those in some buckets
that we will talk about later. Finally, we wanted to make sure that everybody is fully participating and
that we would move forward with some plan and more of a sustainable model. The next slide gives us
at a glance who is on the taskforce. Rusty Bryson, Co-Chair and partner in crime and them we have a
lot from A to Z folks who are involved in the community; key leaders, grass roots kind of advocates
for youth. We have a rich discussion just from having such a diverse prospective of ideas around the
table. We started our work in late January getting together as a taskforce. We have had a couple of
meetings since then; Councilman Mitchell is also on taskforce. We are real proud to have him
involved. This is going to be a tag team effort, so I am going to have Cyndee Patterson to dive into
the details and the nuts and bolts of the data. You may ask the question, “Why do we need to do
something now”? We have talked about this as a community for quite some time and we know this
Out of School Time Program has a direct correlation on the success of youth in our community.
Evidence shows time and time again that this is important that a child can develop through the
academic, social, emotional and physical opportunities through the After School Programs out of the
normal school day and this is a way to achieve that. We also feel that there is a renewed urgency
Mitchell:
Orozco:
McDonald:
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 5
Patterson:
around education. Everyone knows from a Charlotte perspective that we have project lists underway
and we hope to be able to connect in a way that is meaningful and integrate our efforts with that. We
also know it’s a priority from the Mayor’s perspective as well. Then finally as a funder and I personally
know this, it’s been a challenge to know exactly how to make an impact in a strategic and significant
way that is not disjointed. Knowing just how to fund out of school programs; there are so many they
are very challenging in terms of their quality. Challenging even in terms of access in the neighborhood
so if we can get a grounding, establish the basics of how we will move forward with a more systematic
way to approach, we will fuel dollars into that space. Cyndee is going to give us an overview of the
data and then walk us through the gaps that we have discovered. We welcome questions and your
input.
I am Cyndee Patterson. My partners with The Bridgespan Group are on the phone. They did a lot of
the national research and a lot of the local data research. We did focus groups with providers, focus
groups and interviews with parents all across the community as well as with youth. We got a broad
assessment of what was needed in Out School Time, what their experiences were etcetera that drives
what you see on this PowerPoint slide. The national research was really a centrally-focused on
committees that had a successful project. Who were the committees and why were they successful in
communities that were doing a community wide effort, where all the funders were playing together on
how to raise the bar. Some of those communities were Louisville, which has some of the best data
collection. They have done a really good job of collecting data; D.C., Chicago, New York, Denver and
Providence, Rhode Island which is just some of them. Across all of these categories in these buckets,
let me say that safety is the most critical component to this issue and it is raised everywhere by
parents and providers. A safe place because there are some things out there for after school that
may not be safe and I think we are all aware of that. But some of the findings were both from the
national work and the local work is that these programs can really help youth succeed. In the
academic arena they actually do the bullet points that you see there. Children that are in a quality
after school program will have mentoring and academic help. They will also have a lot of ways to
learn the social skills of interaction and how they interact with other kids. How they interact with
adults all those things that enhance that sense of self becomes a critical part that happens after
school. These programs, and I focus again on high quality ones which is what we looked at nationally,
really promote safe and healthy behavior. That ranges from how to deal with drugs to how they deal
with safe sex and discussions around that. Part of it is having their time well used after school; there
is less opportunity for being somewhere they should not be or by happenstance ending up in a jam.
Part of it is also the kinds of conversations that happen around these issues particularly as kids get
closer to middle school years. Increased health and fitness, wellness, everything from simple things
like brushing your teeth; you actually see better body mass index because of the better after school
programming. The taskforce talked about what was the vision for Out of School Time in the
community. Some of the points raised were: increased awareness that high-quality, full-time
afterschool and summer programs can contribute to the academic, social and emotional and physical
development of youth. All unsupervised youth have the opportunity to enroll in and attend ageappropriate afterschool and summer programs that are offered four to five days per week throughout
the year. Parents, youth and funders have the information needed to make informed choices and
advocate for Out of School Time services based on a common and clear set of standards. Clear
leadership is responsible for supporting, promoting, and advocating for the Out of School Time sector
in Charlotte. Each of the cities I mentioned earlier is not just a champion, which in many cases is the
Mayor, but there is also a piece of an organization where there is government or an independent as a
non-profit that is actually in the business of being responsible for supporting Out of School Time.
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 6
Cannon:
Patterson:
Cannon:
Patterson:
Cannon:
Patterson:
Promoting it being the advocate for it and in most cases being where the feedback would come so that
you can find information and also provide information for feedback. Parents and youth drive funding
for Out of School Time, but cost and information are still challenges. $40,000,000 is spent in this
community annually on Out of School Time. Parent driven fees are $18,000,000 and subsidies in the
amount of $12,600,000 provide the most funding for programs. Among parents participating in focus
groups, cost is still the top priority; safety and convenience are also among the top priorities, quality
caring staff was also noted.
With regard to the safety and convenience, can you go over that again with the areas of concerns for
parents in these focus groups? Is it the safety of the child with other children or the safety of the
child in other areas?
The safety of the child in being well supervised, being sure that quality caring staff are trained and
people that should be caring for children afterschool.
That is the piece that I want to make sure that we highlight. Because over the last couple of weeks,
and even some in the past, I have had to entertain calls with regard to whether or not a child or
children were safe under the supervision of one who happened to be doing some things that they
should not have been doing. Now these kids in this afterschool programs are having to take notes per
sea about any level of interaction or questionable behavior that should not be going on. That raises
some real concerns for me and one that I hope you will not take lightly. I know we have been hit
upon with that is our role and not to get too deep into that, but I will simply say that our money goes
a long way in terms of putting children in places where we hope that they will be safe. Away from
some of the other elements outside of the afterschool program, but on the inside there remains some
questions and concerns that I have in regard to that. I would hope that we as Committee and me as
Council will be looking out where they are and the issues that are out there. Because all these places
do not deserve, in my opinion, public funding if we are going to have those kinds of things happening
within the walls of some of these programs. I am really concerned about that.
Yes, thank you. You will notice when we get to another slide is that we do not count in our afterschool
count is people that keep a couple of kids in their home. There is no way to monitor that. There is no
way to guarantee appropriate training, supervision, all those things, much less the requirements that
the State would have if it were a daycare center or an afterschool program. There is a fair amount of
that going on in Mecklenburg County because of the two first factors that the parents talked about.
Cost and convenience, if you can find a lady in your neighborhood that keeps a couple of kids, there is
not a way at any level to monitor that. Most of the time no one knows what is going on.
Anyway of driving that and making sure that there is an extended background check if nothing else on
that safety side?
Yes and that is part of the whole quality proposition that we have been working on. Parents cited
several challenges to enrolling their children in programs. Some of those included free or subsidized
programs which are scarce and fill quickly. They also found difficulty in finding out about programs
that there was no centralized place for information on the programs. There was also a difficulty in
finding programs that matched their schedules. There were language barriers especially for Latino
parents as well as week by week summer schedules. Focus groups with students identified youth
priorities for Out of School Time. The youth ranked experiential learning and sports or recreation as
their preferred features. Youth also value a variety in programming, the ability to choose as well as
social interactions. There are 500 or more programs and sites identified in the community. Again
these are not Mom & Pop little things, they are full-fledged programs. Inventory focused on programs
that offered regular structured activities during afterschool and summer; unstructured programs such
as home-based childcare, sports leagues and programs occurring during school hours such as
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 7
Dulin:
Patterson:
Communities in Schools were not included. Enrollment and quality data collected from 96 providers
across more than 500 distinct sites and programs. There were 113 Out of School Time providers
indentified in the total. One was CMS, but 17 providers were unresponsive in the survey. The 15
largest providers which in Mecklenburg County make up 80% of county-wide enrollment; CharlotteMecklenburg is the largest provider of afterschool services with an enrollment of 6,197 students
enrolled. The other large providers include Boys & Girls Club, Boy and Girl Scouts and the Children’s
Theater of Charlotte. What we found in gaps, this is really the crux of where the committee has spent
a lot of their time getting to their recommendations, there are gaps in coverage especially for
minorities, several neighborhoods and the older youth. Across Mecklenburg County approximately
18% of youth are in programs during afterschool and approximately 10% of youth are in summer
programs. We identified that as a major issue; we felt like there were more children that should
belong in afterschool programs than that. It is the minority children that appear to be underrepresented. There are approximately 40% of children in afterschool programs are enrolled in
programs offered only one day per week. So 18% of youth in afterschool programs, 40% of those are
only doing something one day per week. This does not make for quality programming or safe
programming. The geographic distribution of programs is uneven; neighborhoods in the east and the
southwest which is out Independence Boulevard and South Boulevard were the most under-covered
versus county-wide OST. Programs for older youth, middle school, and high school are very limited
county-wide. The system had the ability to serve more youth, however cost and information gaps are
the most predominant barriers. There is room in the system to serve an additional 20,000 children in
the existing programs; however, free programs are in high demand. Fee-based programs could serve
an additional 20,000 children with 14,000 in afterschool and the remaining 6,000 in summer school.
However, providers cite that the families’ instability to pay fees as the major obstacle towards
increasing enrollment. A vast majority of open slots are in five-day programs; 50% are at CMS ASEP.
Free programs have excess demand of 4,000 slots. Of those in free or reduced subsidy slots, 85% are
at higher-quality programs. Parents try to figure out the high quality programs and try to put their
children there if they can afford it. Providers cite several causes for extra capacity among fee-based
programs such as the parent’s inability to afford the fees charged. It is also known that parents are
not fully aware of what is available and where. Parents don’t necessarily know about the benefits of
OST programs. The economy and the rising cost of transportation such as the rise in gas prices.
Those providers with waiting lists believe they could serve even more youth if several challenges are
addressed. There is limited funding for enrollment, financial aid and high quality staff as well as
restrictions on capacity and functionality of the facilities. There are gaps in quality and in leadership
that also exist. In the issue of system quality, the majority of youth are in programs of unproven
quality; meaning that 60% of our youth are enrolled in programs that meet one or fewer researchbased indicators of quality. Currently there is no clear point of view on quality to help make decisions
about funding, which is hard for you and hard for us or anyone contributing funding dollars. No
coordinated data systems to capture information enrollment and best practices. When it comes to
leadership, other communities have established strong coordination and collaboration with a clear
leader, standards and aligned funding sources. There is no clear leader in the Charlotte system.
Support, advocacy and partnerships are uncoordinated. Do you have any questions? Rusty has data
information for you.
I don’t know whether to agree with those last bullets or not, “No clear leader or support advocacy and
partnerships are uncoordinated”. Isn’t that what we are doing?
That is what the Task Force is about getting to; you will see in the recommendations that the Task
Force believes that there needs to be a lead agency that is given the resources to develop a database
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 8
Dulin:
Patterson:
Dulin:
Patterson:
Dulin:
Bryson:
Mitchell:
Patterson:
Cannon:
Patterson:
Mitchell:
Bryson:
Jefferies:
Dulin:
Jefferies:
Patterson:
Jefferies:
Mitchell:
Jefferies:
that parents can interface for afterschool and summer programs. That actually implements quality
standards and keeps a ranking on how people are doing on that and makes subsidized quality
programming rather than just the low end of the spectrum.
We are spending $40,000,000 a year on it?
Most of that is parent money; $13,000,000 is subsidized.
This is $13,000,000 of public money that according to you all is largely unorganized?
There is room for improvement and we tested this question and asked, “Who is the clear leader in the
Charlotte-Mecklenburg area around afterschool and Out of School Time”? There is no one clear
answer or organization.
Not even with 6,100 kids in CMS? CMS is not the leader, YMCA is not the leader, United Way is not the
leader, nobody out there?
The percentage is there. As we indicated, minority students seem to be underrepresented. That
counts all students; that count includes the student that goes to sports camp over the summer. What
we found and what we have uncovered is the gaps and where we see the lack of coordination. What
we have attempted to which is what we will go over in a minute is try to create the priorities for the
funding. We know there is a finite number of dollars out there; that is what we have been told. The
problem is solved very easy with money in some cases. We have a finite number of dollars available
and those dollars are getting fewer and fewer every year. We have attempted to put some guidelines
or priorities around dealing with age groups, dealing with in-school and dealing with summer
programs. We are dealing with programs that last one day versus one week. We are trying to create
some organization around that and some of the committees that I have been on have a lot of
initiatives in the community but they are very community specific.
Over a year ago, I told the providers that we were supporting a committee on the 15th floor and I was
told Councilman this is the first time that we have actually sat in the room as your providers
1,400,000. I think everybody is operating in a silo very successfully, but when you talk about
coordinating the efforts, that’s when it becomes a challenge.
It would really do a lot for someone or group that was responsible and could work the collaboration
and raise the quality level. CMS has the most kids but they are not one of the top authorities over it.
There is a lot of work that goes into this job and there are a lot of people on the ground doing pieces
of it, but at this point, that is fragments.
I hear finding the appropriate leader or entity that can establish a better reach where there are gaps
such as Independence Boulevard and other related areas. Bethlehem Centers of the world that have
been around for eons and others like them. I can appreciate as a youth and I can appreciate today,
but we need find a way to come up with a better system.
Let Rusty talk about where the Task Force is going with all of this.
Rusty, Cyndee brought out in the presentation CMS operates different sites, Bethlehem Center. How
many sites do you operate?
Currently just one.
Part of the funding is through grant funding, Twenty-First Century. Part of it is through the City and
the rest comes through parents.
And your name is?
Collette Jefferies. I am the Director of the CMS Afterschool Enrichment Program.
Collette, what percent is parent versus subsidies?
Probably about 80% parent paid.
So when I have my daughter at afterschool at David Cox, I was part of the parent catalyst?
Right.
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 9
Patterson:
Belton:
Patterson:
Mitchell:
Bryson:
Patterson:
Mitchell:
Patterson:
Belton:
So one of the things that we recognize is that the quickest way to more capacity is to figure out how
to fund more slots at CMS and work with CMS to raise the quality. CMS is not bad, but they are in the
middle of the pack. Those two things; increase the quality level of a lot of slots. Am I saying that
right Andrew?
No one asked me about the quality of our program, so I don’t know and can’t vouch for what you are
saying. I don’t know where you got the information. I know where you got the national information
came from, but I don’t know about CMS.
That is a place that could move quickly to scale.
Thank you.
Given the vision of the Task Force, we have prioritized several action points to fill the gaps. We
focused on engagement, coverage, quality and leadership. When it comes to parent and youth
empowerment there is a need to help parents and youth learn about and provide feedback on existing
afterschool and summer programs. There needs to be a better use of existing channels such as
Parent U and social media as well as creation of a program locator. Our focus was the Pre-K to the
senior in high school and they are less than six then your engagement as a parent may be from six
grade on. You should shift your thinking to who you engage. Although transportation was not listed as
an issue convenience was. In system coverage, an increase of high quality afterschool programs
should be offered four or five days per five-week or multi-week summer programs. The data shows
more time in out of school programs results in higher level of benefits. In terms of summer programs,
it is whether the children keep pace or go backwards. These programs should start in areas and
neighborhoods in the greatest need. An effort should be made to connect the Task Force to other
reform efforts such as LIFT and advocate for greater funding to increase the number available open
slots. In system quality, there is a need to develop quality standards, training and assessments as
well as to develop a grant process for awarding funding based on quality; making sure the children are
safe in the environment that we have created. In the leadership area, create leadership not a leader,
create small “champions circle”. Identify clear lead to advocate, support afterschool and summer
programs. Moving forward from here is how do we take the prioritized items and move forward with
them? The next steps for the Task Force to begin with finalizing recommendation to funders on which
gaps in the program coverage to address first, such as elimination of waiting lists versus programs for
middle school and high school youth.
Also recommend a series of investments to funders,
communicate the plan to key stakeholders and develop and share an RFP for a lead organization that
is identified through this process. Those are our next steps and those are what we are finalizing at
this time. I would like to say personally that I have been honored to be a part of this; Bridgespan have
done a tremendous job on the committee and have made it a very easy committee to be a part of.
The timeline is probably, I would say late May or early June for final recommendations.
Cyndee, can we open this up to those on the phone to see if they want to make any comments?
Andrew and Maria would you like to comment?
Yes. Thank you very much for the opportunity to present to you. There are two things that I would
like to highlight that I find interesting and hopeful about these recommendations. The first is that this
is truly a market where parents direct what happens where the individual learns; so different from
other services which are very much larger. Here three quarters of the money is directed by the
parents, so they really can be an instrument for changing the nature or the quality of providers in the
city. They frankly are uninformed about the choices that they can make. There is a tremendous
opportunity here to use the small investment made by the parents as a way to put pressure on the
system for improvement. The second is we are talking about 18% of children are in programs; that
says that 82% more should be in programs. There are about 60% of those kids who go home to a
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 10
Mitchell:
Orazco:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Patterson:
Dulin:
Patterson:
Belton:
Mitchell:
Patterson:
Belton:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Belton:
Dulin:
Patterson:
Dulin:
Patterson:
Dulin:
Belton:
Dulin:
Patterson:
Dulin:
caring adult, that can be a relative or a parent. The most important thing here I think is to focus on
unsupervised children. There are at least 30% of these children who are not going home to a
supervised environment; there are obvious challenges associated with that. I would ask how we reach
these at-risk children and how we can help parents make informed choices.
Thank you Andrew. Maria any comment?
Thank you everyone for the opportunity to speak to this. I agree with Andrew that this is a consumerdriven market where parent and youth can make informed choices.
Thank you everyone. Committee do you have any comments, questions or feedback?
Where is the County in all of this?
Michelle Lancaster sits on our Committee and they are engaged as far as wanting to know, just like
you do what they should do resource wise.
What is their current spending?
Andrew do you know?
About $1,600,000 spent by the City direct; spending by the County is about $500,000.
Andrew, can you say that again? The County is spending $1,600,000?
No you do. The City spends $1,600,000 and the County is at half a million.
As you have been talking, I have been searching the most recent. The County approved spending
$500,000 and take into account that the County is providing the facilities; that would be included as
their contribution.
O.k. They are providing in-kind services.
My other feedback to the group is that you all need to button up your communications with these
provider ships. I don’t know the CMS lady over here but she is not on the same page as you are;
some of these others may not be as well. If we want to be done by June; I hate to put some kind of
accelerator on you all. I hate to tell you to button that lady up but I think you need to get with her.
We are planning to meet with providers and we will be sharing that plan with you. We have had
several interactions and I do know that we may not have that much conflict.
Thank you Andrew. If someone else will go I have made some notes on just about every page. Let
me see if there is something else I wanted to speak up on. It’s not a surprise but it’s good to see it in
writing that safety is the most critical component; safety and a healthy behavior.
Cost.
Yes cost, safety and a healthy behavior, pardon me. Something that I remember that Ms. Carter
brought up at one point is transportation. Did I miss that part?
The way it has laid itself out is that is mentioned in the top five or six, but because they put
convenience at about the third slot down, that to us says a lot about the issue of transportation.
Safety and convenience is on the next page; $40,000,000 spent on afterschool annually. That is
staggering. I am into business here and I have never seen that number before.
I think of that in two ways; the first money in your pocket is the parent. The second pile of money is
the State and Federal and the main source of money comes from City and County. The second thing I
would say is; think about that $40,000,000 as the number of kids served by that $40,000,000.
Compare that to the $1,000,000,000 spent on the school system. Obviously there are more kids in
the school system but that $1,000,000,000 dwarfs the $40,000,000 spent in out of school.
I have a note here too about the rising cost of transportation; so we did mention that somewhere.
CMS charges for their afterschool which I agree with.
We have a lot of parents that are capable of paying.
Even the low income folks should have a little bit of skin in the game if they can. Now for instance a
pretty good example of that is pay to play on sports this year. Just the JV football team at Myers
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 11
Bryson:
Dulin:
Cannon:
Mitchell:
Cannon:
Kimble:
Cannon:
Kimble:
Cannon:
Kimble:
Cannon:
Kimble:
Cannon:
Bryson:
Cannon:
Kinsey:
Cannon:
Kimble:
Park, for instance, only about 30 of the parents paid the $100.00 of the 60 or so kids involved. I think
other schools could do the same; other parents came together and made sure that those other
children could participate. If they have a nominal amount in the program it helps on the parents buyin too. If they paid $25.00, they are more apt to get their child into that program. Particularly in the
summer time when the parents are sleepy too in the mornings; in my house at least. One other thing,
Rusty you made the remark that you are looking for leadership not a leader; that is pretty interesting.
We did not need a leader but it can be broader than it is.
That is more global.
Thank you for your ideas. I understand with affordability that can be tough; $2.00 makes a difference
in someone’s life and you just keep balancing that and understanding that. We can’t give anymore
than what we have with the core responsibilities that we have. I do have a request that I hope we
can get back around safety; you heard my concerns earlier. I would like to ask if we could get a
report from the Afterschool Enrichment providers that receive public dollars on any actual and or
alleged misbehavior or inappropriate/questionable conduct that have occurred by a worker or
supervisor within the last year. Mr. Chairman, this has a timeframe of April 30th for reporting back to
Council? Are we still trying to move within that timeframe?
You are correct on your request. I think that is very appropriate.
If we are still going by that same timeframe by way of recommendation that we receive that by April
30th?
That would make it Friday or Saturday.
Then we have a misprint here. This says to make a recommendation back to City Council to meet the
April 30th timeframe.
They asked for this Committee to bring back a recommendation to City Council by April 30th.
When is this going back to full Council?
Before you arrived today, after this presentation today, we are going to right into where we think you
are in your analysis of the Mayor’s Mentoring Alliance, Afterschool Program and Mayor’s Youth
Employment initiative so we are not done with this issue yet.
That is good because I get the sense that there is information that you all will be bringing back to us,
so you can bring this back then. What I don’t want to do well let me say that I want it back before the
budget discussion.
We can work on your request for that information but they are working on their timeframe with the
recommendations in their report ready to go.
What I want to do is make sure is that I am not asking the providers to do something that they can’t
do. So let me ask would 30 days be a decent time line?
Friday is fine.
With that comment, I would like to make it two weeks.
I am going to have to leave, but my comment is that we are really talking about two different things.
We are talking about what we are going to recommend; that is what is due by the 30th. It doesn’t
have anything to do with they are doing; they have their own deadline. And one more quick thing,
being hopefully a good steward of the public money, the best help I can get from what you are doing
right now is to make sure that the money that we are spending is going to quality programs. I have
never been 100% sure of that; that’s what I think can be the best use for us right now.
Yes, the State might have that information but there are some things that probably have not made it
to public record per sea. They could be out there so I want to know about anything that has been
alleged.
All we can do is ask.
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 12
Cannon:
Mitchell:
Kimble:
Richardson:
Cannon:
Richardson:
Kimble:
Mitchell:
Burgess:
Mitchell:
Burgess:
Mitchell:
Burgess:
Mitchell:
Yes, I get that. I want to know where and when, exactly as it occurred. We need to know that
information.
To all on the Task Force, thank you for coming; Marie and Andrew thank you so much for your
comments. Ron, I yield to you to make sure that we stay on time.
We put additional information in your packet that you asked to be presented at this meeting. There
are three pieces; the chart that shows how much money we as a City organization are spending on
afterschool programs right now. You also asked for a history of the Youth Council; we have included
that information and we also included the names of the people in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Workforce Development Consortium and indicating the number of WDB members are authorized by
current bylaws.
Let me clarify that is the Youth Involvement Council; peer to peer young people sitting on a council
that’s different than the Youth Council of the Work Force Consortium.
I understand that one is adult and one is youth?
We have a Youth Council of youth history which no longer exists under the current Workforce Board
Youth Council. The Youth Involvement Council (YIC) was a program of the National Conference for
Community and Justice (NCCJ) which operated in Charlotte-Mecklenburg from 1927–2005.
The YIC was a multicultural leadership program of students (grades 9-12) who met to learn about one
another and respond actively to social, educational and political issues. Membership in the YIC was
open to all youth in Mecklenburg County; this program no longer exists.
We tried to honor all those requests that you made and put them in the advance packets.
Ron and Brad, the Mayor’s letter is one issue. He touched on quality; how do we make sure that we
are providing money towards quality service. Secondly, the model of how we use the Housing Trust
Fund putting true afterschool experts in place to make decisions on where we put our money as
opposed to the 12 people at Dyers where it becomes very political for us.
Some of us, including
myself, don’t know the true meaning of afterschool service/afterschool care. I have tried to learn, but
until you have actually been to the site and you experience what they go through day after day, it is
an enormous task that our providers do. Our hats are off to you; it’s not an easy job. It’s not
profitable, no, not by any means. So let me ask the Committee on the issues that the Mayor raised;
one was a new model from the standpoint of taking elected officials out of it and having some entity
like the Housing Trust Fund that will look at who is making the request. They would then make a
decision like the Housing Trust Fund did then they would send a recommendation to the full Council.
Then we would vote on the recommendation from the Housing Trust Fund. There was some
discussion that the PCAC has talked about taking on that role themselves. Committee, how do you
feel about a new model taking it away from elected officials making decisions on where the money
goes to? Give me your initial thought; those are the two issues that the Mayor had better quality and
a new model.
What did you say that the new model would be?
A similar model like we have in the Housing Trust Fund; we would appoint citizens to serve. Their
main responsibility would be to look at the RFP’s that are submitted and determine who would get the
project.
They would have decision making powers and would not have to come back to Council for anything?
They would make recommendations.
So it would be coming back to Council anyway?
Right, like the Housing Trust Fund. They make recommendations score it and then they would bring it
to us. We would still have to vote on it. I think if I can remember the discussion the Mayor had was
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 13
Burgess:
Kimble:
Mitchell:
Richardson:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Mitchell:
Carter:
Mitchell:
Carter:
Richardson:
Mitchell:
Burgess:
Kimble:
Burgess:
Mitchell:
Kimble:
Dulin:
Mitchell:
putting true afterschool experts on a committee that would make decisions instead of us twelve sitting
around becoming political; who calls us the most, who e-mails us the most.
I like what you said about the Housing Trust Fund scores things; might be nice that they scored these
programs for us. As far as our thinking goes, this is a ten out of ten. If you are going to approve
anything approve this one, it’s a slam dunk.
You charged staff a lot of times with trying to anticipate what you might want to do. So what we did
in anticipation of this meeting was try and frame what we thought we heard from you the two
previous meetings about where you want to go on this. Then added some language about the
community resource panel that you would like to set up and so Brad has a draft for you to look at.
It’s not intended to be anything other than a draft to get some talk going here on where you would
like to go in your recommendation on the Mayor’s Youth Employment Program, Mentoring Alliance &
mentoring issues and then where you would like to go on afterschool. Brad will walk you through this;
and its here for discussion now so that we can get feedback from you on where your comfort zone is.
Brad, if you will, let’s jump down to number two.
It doesn’t tail off much from what Cyndee and Rusty presented earlier. We heard you say and we have
seen the Mayor’s letter and this conversation reinforces that a potential recommendation that you may
make before full Council at your earliest opportunity will be this one. Work with community resource
partners to develop performance criteria for afterschool programs and develop a process to solicit
proposals from potential providers by February, 2012 for next year’s budget process. You know where
you are in this year’s budget process; there is not time for that this year. So what we are talking
about is receiving the recommendations from the Task Force at the end of May. Using the time from
that point forward to do the work that they will likely recommend; setting us up for that discussion a
year from now.
Good work staff. Committee do you have any feedback?
Ms. Carter brings to our attention that financial partners report in January; so with that report we can
go.
Ms. Carter, why don’t you join us?
The financial partners report out in January, and I think this is something of a report out for financial
partners consequently, I would say that you would need to get this to them in January.
Rather than in February?
Yes.
From the sense that you have developed this criteria over the next nine months or so the balance of
the 2011 calendar year. That’ so the providers know in advance what the process will be in evaluating
their proposals how we are grading success. The community is not just the Council, but how the
community at large will.
I like the model. We have all heard quality, quality, quality and I will be the first one to tell you that I
don’t know how that looks.
Can we up the scoring system? Taking subjective things and making them objective?
That would be the work of this group; to be able to feed that toward a conclusion.
This is assuming that we are still going to have our $1,400,000 in the budget?
In the budget, right?
We are hanging on for dear life and we are o.k. at this point. But next year’s budget when the Federal
government takes back another stack of money, you will have to be the one.
This is non-profit work. I am always the one that tries to get more back into the private sector
anyway. I am just one voice on the Committee.
How do you feel about a recommendation working with a community resource partner to develop?
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 14
Dulin:
Kimble:
Dulin:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Richardson:
Dulin:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Mitchell:
Kimble:
Mitchell:
Richardson:
Cannon:
Mitchell:
Burgess:
Cannon:
VOTE:
That is fine as long as it’s not just busy work. Does staff have time to do it along with everything
else?
I think we believe there is value in setting quality standards and developing a process that when you
allocate the money there is performance criteria. We think there is value there. If you think that
there is value there too then that is the recommendation that we will make back to Council. We
define the process and get to that end result with the recommendation.
To the providers in the room, just by raising your hand. The CMS lady, Ms. Jefferies, she was not on
the same page as the report. Are there any other providers in the room that are a little bit off the
page on the report that was just given? O.k., so you all get together. Part of this is that I would like
to keep it as simple as possible.
I guess to me it’s about who develops the performance criteria. Do you feel comfortable doing it as
twelve officials or do you feel more confident having community resource partners develop that
criteria?
The question is how do we get to those partners?
I think what I heard in the presentation was that one of the recommendations would be to form a
group of citizens who are able to bring you and others who are asking for good measure of quality in
afterschool. What does that look like; so that would be a resource that you would be able to rely on.
This group, whoever they are, it’s their determination of what quality is.
I have not had a conversation with PD yet; we rotated posts to them last year. I was hoping to get
with Jeff to find out; maybe you can help us with that. I have gone to visit them. I was pleased with
getting them more money last year.
CMPD?
Yes.
Gang of One, o.k., I am with you now.
Sorry.
We cut out post funding for two middle schools and we gave more money to the Police Athletic.
Yes, and I was pleased with that. They are rocking over there in Greenville.
I guess you are saying you would like for Jeff Hood to……….
That is a different subject, Chair. If you want to move forward with this that is alright. We haven’t
gotten a report or a request from CMPD about what they need either.
Brad, let me do a follow-up if you don’t mind. I like the draft, but I want to make sure I am set. Use
the Housing Trust Fund model; use the community resource partners that Task Force will recommend.
I think that the results that come out from the recommendations from that report will probably lead to
very good conclusions.
Each year going forward will we use the community resource to make the recommendations to the
City Council? I am just making sure that the Task Force realizes that we need something very stable;
this is not a onetime thing. We would like their continued expertise to help us.
That is a good point.
I think that these folks are professionals; I am comfortable with it.
Could I get a motion then on the item number two to develop a process and take it to City Council?
I will make that motion.
Seconded.
Recommend to Council to work with community resource partners to develop performance criteria for
afterschool programs and develop a process to solicit proposals from potential providers by February
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 15
2012. Motion made by Burgess; seconded by Cannon. The vote was unanimous with Kinsey absent
for the vote.
Mitchell:
Carter:
Mitchell:
Dulin:
Mitchell:
Richardson:
Mitchell:
Cannon:
Burgess:
VOTE:
I made a mistake, Mayor Pro Tem told me to mention that Council member Carter has important
information about funding. Ms. Carter, could you just share that for the record so that we are clear?
There is a parallel situation for zero to five children; CPCC is the state body that evaluates childcare
and educational quality. It is a well established program, but it’s a parallel situation, it’s not funded.
They have a community board that governs the local issues but a State board that adjudicates there.
CPCC also does evaluations for them in this program so there might be in the Department of
Education some folks that could help.
Thank you. To the providers in the room thank you for doing this work without a lot of recognition. It
would be nice if we can schedule a tour of afterschool sites and facilities. Ron and Brad, can you talk
to Bethlehem Center, Roswell Avenue, Belmont Center, Beatties Ford Road, and Ashley Park? We can
choose one of these. It could be an hour and a half on the bus, but it would be afterschool touring or
if you think it’s better to chose one. I will leave it up to providers and staff to decide.
I think just one.
Visit one site? O.k., thanks everyone.
We have one more part, go back to youth employment. It was an important part of our last two
meetings. This is what we heard you say; we anticipated the meeting to move quickly to get your
deadline in to Council by April 30th. We took the liberty of drafting something that we thought you
might approve.
The first one sub-bullet is to request the Charlotte–Mecklenburg Workforce
Development Board (WDB) to redirect $100,000 of Federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds to
support a jobs program for eligible youth. If approved, funds would be available in July FY2012 and
assist in a summer jobs program for 2012. The Workforce Board would issue an RFP for services but
the earmarked funds would be available for the jobs programs that the Mayor’s Youth Program could
access as well as others. The point is increasing funds for employment opportunities in the
community. The second bullet point is the new community framework, the same framework you heard
talking about on the afterschool space. We shared with you at the last meeting this is happening in
the youth employment spaces as well under the Workforce Development Board Youth Council. I
reminded you last time that the Mayor has appointment authority over the Workforce Development
Board and the Youth Council, so they have asked the Mayor to be an Honorary Chair and be the
community champion for youth employment; that is the sub-bullet. What we are asking is that staff
work with the Workforce Development Board to develop and refine a new community framework for
employment within that broader context of youth development, through a reconstituted Youth Council.
We also think that this would be the place to tuck in recommendations or enhancements to the
Mayor’s Mentoring Alliance; you referenced this in the letter as well. We deleted a reference to
removing funds from the Goodwill Youth Job Connection after we sent some push backs and what that
might do to that Program. We did not include that and I wanted to make you aware of that point.
Once you told me that there were two full-time people; I don’t want to put no one out of a job. Is
there a motion?
I will make that motion.
I will second.
Recommend to Council to request the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Workforce Development Board to
redirect $100,000 of Federal Workforce Investment Act Funds to support a jobs program for eligible
youth. Work with the Workforce Development Board to develop and refine a new community
Economic Development Committee
Meeting Summary for April 26, 2011
Page 16
framework to address youth employment with a broader context of youth development that includes
education, health and safety, housing and community life functioning. Motion made by Cannon and
seconded by Burgess. Kinsey was absent for the vote.
Mitchell:
Kimble:
Osborne:
Mitchell:
Carter:
Osborne:
Mitchell:
Cannon:
Kimble:
Cannon:
Kimble:
Mitchell:
Adjourned:
.
Thank you Brad and thank you staff. I would like Ms. Independence to introduce the next item.
This item we don’t think that you or I are going to be in a position to make a recommendation. They
are going to share a lot of information and follow back up with you.
We are going to ask for recommendation for Plan review, so I would like to defer to the next meeting
if at all possible.
From a scheduling standpoint, and I want to be sensitive to the fact that Nancy and staff would like to
get this behind them. If we were to run on May 12th, we would miss one Council Meeting which is May
10th. Does that impact us trying to wrap this up by the end of May? Staff, we need to bring this to
closure.
That might be helpful because they are coming out to the District 5 Meeting this Thursday and can
have some feedback.
That is fine.
This will be our number one item on May 12th and we can make a recommendation to Council on May
23rd. Ron is that possible? And to Ms. Carter’s point, her town hall meeting will allow more input. We
can incorporate that into the discussion on May 12th, with the goal to make recommendation to
Council on May 23rd.
So are we going to have four items on that May 12th agenda potentially?
We will work through it and determine if all four need to be on there or bounce one off because this
one bounced on. We will work it out.
I would hope that you would keep the Mosaic Village on there and the corridor revitalization.
We can leave Mosaic Village on provided that we continue to get information that we have asked for
from the developers so that we can have a meaningful discussion with the Committee.
Ms. Independence, thank you for your patience. We are adjourned.
5:50 p.m.
Economic Development Council Committee
Tuesday, April 26, 2011 at 4:00pm
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Rooms 270-271
Committee Members:
James Mitchell, Chair
Patrick Cannon, Vice Chair
Jason Burgess
Andy Dulin
Patsy Kinsey
Staff Resource:
Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager
AGENDA
I.
YOUTH INITIATIVES – 60 minutes
Staff: Brad Richardson, Neighborhood & Business Services
Action: Receive a presentation on the Foundation for the Carolinas “Out of School Time Report” and
receive an update from staff on the new community framework for youth services. Committee will be
asked, if it is ready, to make a recommendation to City Council to meet the requested April 30th
timeframe for reporting back to Council. Attachments
II.
INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD AREA PLAN – 30 minutes
Staff: Alysia Osborne, Planning & Brian Horton, CDOT
Action: Further discuss citizen and Council feedback on the Plan, and if ready, consider recommending
the adoption of the draft Independence Boulevard Area Plan, Volume I: The Concept Plan with
recommended changes, and receive Volume II: The Implementation Plan as information.
Attachment
III.
CRVA April Barometer Report – Information Only (Attachment)
IV.
NEXT MEETING: Thursday, May 12 at 3:30pm, Room 280
Possible Topics: Mosaic Village Student Housing
Business Corridor Revitalization Strategy Update
Processing Historic Landmarks
Distribution: Mayor/City Council
Curt Walton, City Manager
Leadership Team
Executive Team
http://smallbizweek.charlottenc.gov CALENDAR Friday – May 13 ¾ Charlotte Start‐up Weekend 2 (Kaufmann Foundation) Monday – May 16 ¾ Small Business Week Kick‐off with Mayor and Council (City) ¾ Women In Business Forum (Federal Reserve Bank) ¾ Lunch ‐‐ Charlotte International Community Awards (CIC) Tuesday – May 17 ¾ ‘How to do Business with the Federal Government and City/County” (GSA and City) ¾ Lunch & learn ‐‐ Collaboration and Partnership for SBEs (City and partners) ¾ Lunch – Latin American Chamber of Commerce regular monthly lunch @ Mint Museum (LACC) ¾ Seminar of City Resources for Small Businesses (City) Wednesday – May 18 ¾ Entrepreneurial Success 2011 (CPCC) ¾ Lunch & Learn ‐‐ "Innovation and Creativity in Strategic Planning and Marketing" (The MLC Group and Asterisk Creative) ¾ Social Media Options for Small Businesses (FreeMoreWest Business Assoc.) ¾ Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation (Packard Place/ Sharon Lachow-Blumberg) Thursday – May 19 ¾ Access to Capital Conference (City and Chamber) ¾ Charlotte‐Mecklenburg Black Chamber of Commerce Monthly Meeting (Black Chamber) Friday – May 20 ¾ Networking to Grow Your Business (Employers Association) ¾ Business Advisory Committee meeting (BAC) ¾ Small Business of the Year Awards Luncheon (Events and Celebrations Inc.) ¾ Annual MecDec event @ The Square (May 20th Society) Saturday – May 21 ¾ Charlotte Small Business Week Expo of Small Businesses (Charlotte League of Businesses) ¾ Small Business Seminars (Events and Celebrations, Inc) After School Activities Funding
NEIGHBORHOOD & BUSINESS SERVICES
Greater Charlotte Enrichment Program FY05 605,854
FY06 605,854
FY07 605,854 FY08 605,854
FY09 664,953
FY10 605,854
FY11 605,854 Bethlehem Center Enrichment Program 199,207
199,207
199,207 199,207
199,207
199,207
199,207 CMS Afterschool 185,576
185,576
185,576 185,576
185,576
185,576
185,576 Northwest Afterschool Program 60,000
60,000
60,000 60,000
60,000
60,000
60,000 St Paul Enrichment Program 57,735
57,735
57,735 57,735
57,735
57,735
57,735 YWCA Scattered Site Daycare 114,546
114,546
114,546 129,546
139,546
134,546
134,546 Total $1,271,617 $ 1,271,617 $1,271,617 $1,286,617 $1,355,716 $1,291,617 $ 1,242,918 CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT
FY05 Boys & Girls Clubs Danger Involved with Gangs (DIG) Gang of One Xtreeme Challenge Hidden Valley After school grant Gang of One No Easy Walk Partners in Out of School Time (P.O.S.T.) FY08 19,555 4,767 5,280 4,635
4,450 Do the right thing (DRT) Total FY11 33,572
295,510
FY10 McCrorey YMCA Race 2 Inspire Stimulate & Educate (RISE) Program Police Activities League (PAL) FY09 3,835
Right Moves for Youth (RMFY) FY06 FY07 13,651 316,833
328,597 82,728
27,130 282,204
586,596
454,414 3,510
12,995
87,964
14,692 4,600 410,133
126,762 676,193
5,000
5,000 565,153
310,449 $ 299,345 $ 378,738 $ 352,602 $ 695,847 1,363,112 1,154,353 $ 442,211 Youth Involvement Council (YIC) •
•
•
•
•
•
The Youth Involvement Council (YIC) was a program of the National Conference for Community and Justice (NCCJ) which operated in Charlotte‐Mecklenburg from 1927 – 2005. The YIC was a “multicultural leadership program” of students (grades 9 ‐ 12) who met to “learn about one another and respond actively to social, educational, and political issues” (source: archival NCCJ website). Membership in the YIC was open to all youth in Mecklenburg County. In 2001, the City discontinued funding of the NCCJ (after providing approximately $40,000 in previous years) citing that the NCCJ program had been refocused and was receiving funds from Mecklenburg County. In 2005, the NCCJ National organization closed and the NCCJ Charlotte Chapter became an independent nonprofit. It was rebranded as Charlotte Coalition for Social Justice (CSL). In 2010, CSL lost County and United Way funding and no longer operates. Youth Council Membership Listing
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Workforce Development Consortium
(Local Area Name)
*Indicate the number of WDB members
authorized by current bylaws: [_10__]
Member’s
Name and Title
Employer/Agency
or Sector
Represented
1
*Robin Strayhorn, (Chair) Sales
Recruiter
2
Kimberly Hammonds (Vice Chair)
3
*Mr. Jimmy Chancey, Director, Career
and Technical Education CharlotteMecklenburg Schools
Education
K-12
4
Ms. Linda Ejlali, JobLink Manager
JobLinks
5
Dawn Hill, Program Manager, MYEP –
Mayor’s Youth Employment Program
N.C. Division of Employment & Training
Private
Government
Voc Rehab
Government
City Ec. Dev.
Individual/Agency
Address, Telephone Number
(e-mail address as appropriate)
Reliance First Capital
14120 Ballantyne Corporate Place Suite 200
Charlotte, NC 28277
704-970-1448
rstrayhorn@reliancefirstcapital.com
Vocational Rehabilitation
5501 Executive Center Drive
Suite 101
Charlotte, NC 28212
704-568-8804
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
700 E. Stonewall Street, 4th Floor
Charlotte, N.C. 28230
Phone: (704) 343-6200
Fax: (704) 343-6202
j.chancy@cms.k12.nc.us
Eash Charlotte JobLink Career Center
10801 Monroe Rd.
Matthews, NC 28105
704-847-2660
linda.ejlali@ncmail.net
City of Charlotte Economic Development Office
600 East 4th Street, Suite 138
Charlotte, NC 28202
704-336-4445 Tel
dhill@ci.charlotte.nc.us
WDB
Member?
Term
(begin and end
dates)
Yes
7/1/10-6/30/12
no
7/1/10-6/30/12
Yes
7/1/09-6/30/11
No
7/1/09-6/30/11
No
7/1/10-6/30/12
PY 2007 WIA Local Transition Plan Instructions
Attachment B
6
Tricia Nielsen, Phoenix Project
Coordinator
7
Chris Campbell, Assistant Director
Client Services
8
9
open
open
10
Christine McKinley, Division
Recruiting Specialist
11
12
open
Officer Lisa Speas, CMPD
13
Keith Smith,
Attorney
14
open
Duplicate form as necessary.
Government
Department of Social
Services
Charlotte Housing Authority
Non-Profit
Job Corp
Private
Parent
Law Enforcement
Government
Justice
Goodwill Industries of the
Southern Piedmont
Youth & Family Services
720 E. 4th St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
704-336-3290
neilsps@co.mecklenburg.nc.us
Charlotte Housing Authority
326 Benjamin Street
Charlotte, NC 28236
704-336-8555
campbellc@cha-nc.org
No
7/1/09-6/30/11
no
7/1/10-6/30/12
No
no
Job Corps
Family Dollar
10301 Monroe Rd
Matthews NC 28105
704-814-3580
cmckinley@familydollar.com
CMPD/Steele Creek Youth Network
1750 Shopton Rd
Charlotte, NC 28217
704-336-8360
Lspeas@cmpd.org
Meck. Co. Attorney's Office
720 E. 4th Street, Suite 500
Charlotte, NC 28202
keith.smith@mecklenburgcountync.gov
(704) 336-4967
2122 Freedom Drive
Charlotte NC 28208
www.goodwillsp.org
no
7/1/10-6/30/12
no
no
7/1/10-6/30/12
no
7/1/09-6/30/11
no
SHOW ALL VACANCIES
N.C. Division of Employment & Training
PY 2007 WIA Local Transition Plan Instructions
Attachment B
5/19/2011
The charge of the Out of School Time Task Force
Out of School Time Task Force
Update to Economic Development
Committee
• Deliver to the community and the Catalyst Fund a
set of recommendations to improve the Out of
School Time system in Charlotte-Mecklenburg
April 26th, 2011
•Publicly represent the Task Force and its
recommendations/activities
•Contribute to and participate in a plan to engage
the community further
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
2
1
5/19/2011
Key stakeholders in the sector were represented on
the Task Force
Rusty Bryson, Co–chair
Managing Director
Cary Street Partners
Alisa McDonald, Co-chair
VP, Foundation & Community Affairs
Duke Energy
Laura Belcher
Senior VP, Chief Financial & Operations Officer
Arts & Science Council (ASC)
Michelle Lancaster
General Manager
Mecklenburg County
Brett Loftis
Executive Director
Council for Children's Rights
Pamela J. Wideman
Housing Services Manager
Neighborhood & Business Services
City of Charlotte
Kwain Bryant
Senior Consultant
Empowerment Exchange
Joni Trobich
President
Mecklenburg PTA Council
Ann Clark
Chief Academic Officer
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
Brian Collier
Senior Vice President, Community Philanthropy
Foundation for the Carolinas
• Out of School Time programs (afterschool and summer) can help
Charlotte’s youth
-Evidence shows that Out of School Time programs can help a child
develop academically, socially, cognitively, and physically
• There is a renewed urgency around education and youth
development issues in Charlotte
-Project LIFT
-Mayor Foxx’s priorities
Lydia Garza Olmstead
Director Preschool
St. John’s Baptist Church
• Funders want to fund Out of School Time, but have identified
several challenges to doing so
Lauren Woodruff
Vice President
Bank of America
-Lack of information about what programs and their quality
-Opportunity for more collaboration and coordination
James Mitchell
Charlotte District 2
City Councilman
TBG
Why now?
110426_EDC OST update vf
3
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
4
2
5/19/2011
High-quality afterschool and summer programs can
help youth succeed in Charlotte
Vision for Out of School Time in the community
• Increased awareness that high-quality, full-time afterschool and
summer programs can contribute to the academic, social and
emotional, and physical development of youth
Improves
academic
performance
Enhances social
and emotional
skills
• Better grades,
test scores, and
school attendance
• Higher selfesteem and
confidence
• Lower dropout
rates
• Better social and
communication
skills
• Decrease in
summer learning
loss
Promotes safe
and healthy
behaviors
• Increased
knowledge of
safe sex and
avoidance of
sexual behavior
• All unsupervised youth should have the opportunity to enroll in
and attend age-appropriate afterschool and summer programs
that are offered 4 to 5 days per week throughout the year
Increases
health and
wellness
• More knowledge
of nutrition and
physical activity
• Improved health
statistics (e.g.
BMI)
• Avoidance of
drugs and alcohol • More positive
• Reduction in
body image
juvenile crime and
juvenile victims
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
5
• Parents, youth, and funders have the information needed to
make informed choices and advocate for Out of School Time
that meets their needs
• All programs deliver high-quality Out of School Time services
based on a common and clear set of standards
• Clear leadership is responsible for supporting, promoting, and
advocating for the Out of School Time sector in Charlotte
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
6
3
5/19/2011
Gaps-parent and youth empowerment
500+ distinct programs/sites identified in the
community
Parents and youth drive funding for Out of School
Time, but cost and information are still challenges
• ~$40M+ is spent annually on Out of School Time in Charlotte– parent
driven fees (~$18M) and subsidies ($12.6M) provide the most
funding for programs
• Among parents participating in focus groups, cost is still the top priority
-Safety and convenience are also among the top priorities
-Quality/caring staff was also noted
- 113 OST providers identified in total, but 17 providers were unresponsive
-Free/subsidized programs fill quickly
-Difficulty in finding out about programs – no centralized place for information
-Difficulty of finding programs that match their schedules
-Language barrier, especially for Latino parents
-Week-by-week summer schedules
• Focus groups with students identified youth priorities for out-of-school time
-Youth ranked experiential learning and sports/recreation as their
preferred features
-Youth also value a variety in programming, the ability to choose, and social
interactions
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
• Inventory focused on programs that offered regular structured
activities during afterschool and summer; unstructured programs (e.g.
home-based childcare, sports leagues) and programs occurring during
school hours (e.g. Communities in Schools) were not included
• Enrollment and quality data collected from 96 providers across more
than 500 distinct sites/programs
• Parents cited several challenges to enrolling their children in
programs, including:
Source: Lee Institute focus groups with parents and youth
Gaps-coverage
7
• The 15 largest providers (all with enrollments of >500 and included in
data) in Mecklenburg County comprise 80% of county-wide
enrollment
- Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools is the largest provider of afterschool services
(6,197 students enrolled)
- Other large providers include Boys & Girls Club, Boy and Girl Scouts,
Children’s Theater of Charlotte
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
8
4
5/19/2011
Gaps-coverage
Gaps-coverage
System has ability to serve more youth, however
cost and information gaps are barriers
Gaps in coverage are present, especially for
minorities, several neighborhoods and older youth
• There is room in the system to serve an additional ~20K children in
existing programs; however, free programs are in high demand
• Across Mecklenburg County 18% of youth are in
programs during afterschool and 10% of youth are in
summer programs
-Fee-based programs could serve an additional ~20K children (~14K in afterschool,
~6K in summer); however, providers cite families’ inability to pay fees as a main
obstacle towards increasing enrollment
-Vast majority of open slots are in 5 day programs; ~50% are at CMS ASEP
-Free programs have excess demand of ~4K slots, ~85% are at higher-quality
programs
• Minority children appear to be under-represented
• ~40% of children in afterschool programs are enrolled in
programs offered only one day per week
• Providers cite several causes for extra capacity among fee-based programs:
-Parents cannot afford fees
-Parents are not fully aware of what is available
-Parents don’t necessarily know about the benefits of OST programs
-Rising transportation costs (rise in price of gas)
• Geographic distribution of programs is uneven
-Neighborhoods in the East and Southwest (Independence Avenue,
South Blvd) were the most under-covered versus county-wide OST
• Those providers with waiting lists believe they could serve even more youth
if several challenges are addressed:
• Programs for older youth are limited county-wide
-Limited funding for enrollment/financial aid and high quality staff
-Restrictions on capacity/functionality of facilities
Source: OST program landscape and data analysis
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
9
Source: OST program landscape and data analysis; POST interviews
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
10
5
5/19/2011
The Task Force has prioritized several actions
Gaps in quality and leadership also exist
Parent and
youth
empowerment
• Majority of youth are in programs of unproven
quality
System quality
-~60% are enrolled in programs that meet one or
fewer research-based indicators of quality
• No clear point of view on quality to help make
decisions about funding
System
coverage
• No coordinated data systems to capture
information on enrollment and best practices
• Help parents and youth learn about and provide feedback
on afterschool and summer programs
-Better use existing channels (i.e. Parent U) and social media
-Create a program locator
• Increase high-quality afterschool programs offered 4 or 5
days per week or multi-week summer programs
• Start in neighborhoods of need
• Connect Task Force to other reform efforts, such as LIFT
• Advocate for greater funding to increase # of slots
Leadership
• Other communities have established strong
coordination and collaboration, with a clear leader,
standards, and aligned funding sources
System
quality
• Develop quality standards, training and assessments
• Develop grant process for awarding $ based on quality
• There is no clear leader in Charlotte
• Support, advocacy, and partnerships are
uncoordinated
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
• Create small “champions circle”
Leadership
11
• Identify clear lead to advocate, support afterschool and
summer programs
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
12
6
5/19/2011
Next steps for the Task Force
• Finalize recommendation to funders on which gaps in
program coverage to address first
-Eliminate waiting lists vs. programs for MS/HS youth?
• Recommend series of investments to funders
• Communicate the plan to key stakeholders
• Develop and share RFP for lead organization
TBG
110426_EDC OST update vf
13
7
DRAFT Economic Development Committee Draft Recommendation to City Council on Youth Development April 26, 2011 The Economic Development Committee was tasked by City Council to review Mayor Foxx’s letter on youth development (dated March 7, 2011) and report back by the end of April. The review was to focus on delivering services more efficiently to achieve greater results with no increase in City funding. Following discussion at three committee meetings, the committee recommends the following to City Council: I.
II.
Youth Employment • Request the Charlotte‐Mecklenburg Workforce Development Board (WDB) to redirect $100,000 of federal Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds to support a jobs program for eligible youth. ‐ If approved, funds would become available in FY12 and assist in a summer jobs program for 2012. • Work with the WDB to develop and refine a new community framework to address youth employment, within a broader context of youth development, that includes education, health and safety, housing, and community life functioning ‐‐‐ through a reconstituted community Youth Council. ‐ The WDB has requested that Mayor Foxx serve as the honorary chair and “community champion” for the Youth Council. ‐ Incorporate enhancements to the Mayor’s Mentoring Alliance under this new community framework. After School Programs • Work with community resource partners to develop performance criteria for afterschool programs, and develop a process to solicit proposals from potential providers by February, 2012. i. Implement new model beginning July 1, 2012. Independence Boulevard Area Plan
Proposed Changes to April 2010 Draft
April 20, 2011
#
Recommendation
and Location
Purpose of Change
Current Text, Map or Graphic in Draft Plan
Proposed Revision
(BOLD TEXT)
1.
Page iii, First bullet,
Transportation
Revise reference to the
proposed future right-ofway for Independence
Boulevard to reflect the
March 21, 2011 text
amendment that
eliminated the
transitional setback along
portions of Independence
Boulevard.
Independence Boulevard should be
developed within a 250 feet envelope west
of WT Harris Boulevard and a 280 feet
envelope east of WT Harris to the Plan Area
boundary.
Independence Boulevard should be developed within a
250 feet envelope east of Sharon Forest Drive to WT
Harris Boulevard and a 280 feet envelope east of WT
Harris to the Plan Area boundary.
2.
Page 50,51
Revise Figure 8 - Freeway
Cross-section and text
describes the proposed
future right-of-way for
Independence Boulevard
to reflect the March 21,
2011 text amendment
that eliminated the
transitional setback along
portions Independence
Boulevard.
Existing Condition: Independence
Boulevard in this section has three lanes in
each direction and auxiliary lanes in various
locations. Rights-of-way vary between
locations along the corridor. The adopted
right-of-way envelope for the roadway is
250 feet west of WT Harris Boulevard, and
280 feet east of WT Harris Boulevard.
Proposed Roadway Facility: Recommended
width includes allowance for:
• Three travel lanes in each direction
• HOV lanes on inside of travel lane
• Transit facility (BRT/LRT) in median
• Additional widening for right turn lane
may be required in some circumstances in
accordance with CDOT standards.
• Paved shoulders.
Tree planting is required with spacing,
irrigation, subdrainage, and adequate soil
See Revised Proposed Cross-section for Independence
Boulevard - Attachment #1.
Existing Condition: Independence Boulevard in this
section has three lanes in each direction and auxiliary
lanes in various locations. Rights-of-way vary between
locations along the corridor
Constrained Section: NCDOT has already converted
Independence Boulevard to an expressway west of
Albemarle Road and will soon extend this conversion
to Sharon Forest Drive. Given these recent and
committed highway improvements, no additional
right-of-way will be reserved for properties west of
Sharon Forest Drive. However, future transportation
projects, such as transit stations and/or managed
lanes, may require additional right-of-way acquisition.
Future Section: The adopted right-of-way envelope is
250 feet east of Sharon Forest Drive to WT Harris and
280 feet east of WT Harris to the City limits.
Independence Boulevard Area Plan Proposed Revisions – Page 1
Nature of Change
2.
Recommendation
and Location
(continued)
3
Page 45, Map 14
Replace Map 14 with
Attachment #2 which
includes modifications to
the future transportation
network.
4.
Page 14, 16
Modify Future Land Use
Recommendation for
Parcel Identification
Number 19106121. The
land use policy in the
current draft has the
parcel split with
institutional and
retail/office land uses.
The recommended future
land use should be
retail/office which is
consistent with the
existing land use and
zoning.
#
(continued)
Current Text, Map or Graphic in Draft Plan
space for roots per the Charlotte Tree
Ordinance within a landscaped buffer.
Map 14 – Future Transportation Network
Proposed Revision
(Bold Text)
Proposed Regional Transportation Corridor:
Recommended width includes allowance for:
• Three travel lanes in each direction.
• HOV lanes on inside of travel lanes.
• Transit facility (BRT/LRT) in median.
• Additional widening for right turn lanes maybe
required in some circumstances in accordance with
CDOT standards.
• Paved shoulders.
Tree planting is required with spacing, irrigation,
subdrainage, and adequate soil space for roots per the
Charlotte Tree Ordinance within a landscaped buffer.
Attachment #2 – Future Transportation Network
Modify Recommended Future Land Use for Parcel
Identification Number 19106121 from retail/office and
institutional to retail/office.
Independence Boulevard Area Plan Proposed Revisions – Page 2
#
5.
Recommendation
and Location
Page 19, LU-5
Nature of Change
6.
Page 20, LU-9
Add language to specify a
residential density for the
future land use
recommendation.
7.
Page 56 and Figure
16 on Page 57,
Delete Local Residential
Street Cross-section
graphic and supporting
language. This crosssection was initially
included to illustrate side
street requirements
within the proposed PED
overlay district. PED side
street specifications are
provided on Page 59.
Current Text, Map or Graphic in Draft Plan
Add language to
encourage use of existing
residential structures
along Monroe Road to
maintain residential
character in areas
between proposed nodes.
Proposed Revision
(Bold Text)
ADD TEXT: Adaptive reuse of existing residential
structures is strongly encouraged.
ADD TEXT: Residential densities up to 8 DUA with
townhome type development will be considered
appropriate at this location.
Figure 16 – Local Residential Street Crosssection.
Delete Figure 16 – Local Residential Street Crosssection and Language on Page 56.
Local Residential Street
Description: Local streets provide access to
residential neighborhoods or mixed-use
development. The majority of Charlotte’s
streets are classified as local streets and are
typically built through the land
development process.
Proposed Curb to Curb: The recommended
width for these streets is 27 feet from back
of curb to back of curb for streets with
moderate levels of traffic. For streets with
higher levels of traffic, 35 feet from back of
curb to back of curb may be required. The
preferred right-of-way width is 50 to 60
feet, depending on the travel lane
requirement.
• One travel lane in each direction shared
with bicyclists.
• On-street parking on both sides. Curb
Independence Boulevard Area Plan Proposed Revisions – Page 3
#
Nature of Change
Current Text, Map or Graphic in Draft Plan
7.
Recommendation
and Location
(continued)
(continued)
8.
Page 79, 80
Revise proposed PED
Overlay boundary for Area
#6 to remove Parcel
Identification Number
16110712.
extensions may be used to narrow street
width at intersections and other locations
where on street parking is not appropriate.
• Widening for left turn lanes onto
thoroughfares may be required in
accordance with CDOT standards.
Proposed Behind the Curb: Minimum
building setback is determined by zoning
classification. A planting strip and sidewalk
is required behind the curbline in
accordance with the Urban Street Design
Guidelines. The planting strip provides
buffer from traffic to pedestrians on the
sidewalk, and tree planting is required with
spacing, irrigation, subdrainage, and
adequate soil space for roots per the
Charlotte Tree Ordinance. The minimum
sidewalk width for local residential streets is
six feet, unless located within ¼ mile of a
transit station, then the minimum sidewalk
width is eight feet.
Proposed PED Overlay Map #18 , Area #6
Proposed Revision
(Bold Text)
(continued)
Remove Parcel Identification Number 16110712 from
Area #6, Proposed PED Overlay Map #18 , Area #6
*General note: In addition, minor typographical changes that do not impact the intent of the plan will be made.
Independence Boulevard Area Plan Proposed Revisions – Page 4
Independence Boulevard Area Plan Revisions
Attachment #1
Future Cross-section for Independence Boulevard
Current Draft
Proposed
Revision
*
* Indicates the proposed changes to the Independence Boulevard Area Plan to reflect the March 21, 2011 text amendments
to eliminate the transitional setback along portions of Independence Boulevard.
Independence Boulevard Area Plan
Independence Boulevard Area Plan
Attachment #2
Proposed Revisions – April 13, 2011
a
b
c
d
Summary of Proposed Revisions
a. From 5-Lane Avenue to 3 Lane Avenue
b. Modify future street connection
c. Modify future street connection
d. Remove 6-Lane Avenue classification
e. From 4-Lane Boulevard to 5-Lane Avenue
f. From 3-Lane Avenue to 5-Lane Avenue
e
f
APRIL 2011
CONVENE MEETINGS MARKET SURVEY
According to Convene’s 2011 meetings market survey, nearly half (46%) of respondents
expect 2011 attendance will increase over 2010. The same amount (46%) expect
attendance in the coming year will stay the same. Only 8% expect a decrease, less than
half the number of respondents who expected attendance to slide in 2010. As far as
exhibitor sales go, two-thirds of survey respondents (64%) expect the number of 2011
exhibitors to stay the same. Nearly one-third (29%) expect the number of exhibitors to grow in 2011. Just 7% anticipate a
decrease in the number of exhibitors in 2011 fewer than half the number that thought there would be a decrease in 2010.
National & International
Business &
Convention
The most common expenses meeting planners incur in running their largest event are (average % of budget): food & beverage
(32%), audio-visual (15%), registration-housing (8%), staff travel & accommodations (8%), decorator/labor (8%), speakers &
entertainment (7%), marketing/promotion (7%), space rental (6%), destination management (2%), security (2%), insurance (2%)
and other (4%).
CHARLOTTE AREA LODGING – FEBRUARY SMITH TRAVEL RESEARCH
Local Perspective
February occupancy surpassed 60% in the Charlotte area for the first time in two years.
February also marks 16th straight month of Charlotte area demand increases.
February occupancy was 60.8% in the Charlotte market, up 3.4% from February 2010.
Charlotte area occupancy has risen in 14 consecutive months. Year to date, area occupancy is 54.6%, up 5.4% from the same
period last year. By comparison, year to date occupancy has also increased 5.4% in the US and in NC; year to date occupancy
is up 5.6% in the Top 25.
Charlotte area room demand grew 5.4% in February, for a total of 547,879 rooms sold during the month, establishing a new
record total for February. February marks the 16th consecutive month the area has experienced demand increases. Year to
date, Charlotte area room demand has increased 7.2% from the same period last year. By comparison, year to date demand
has grown 6.5% in the US, 7% in NC and 6.8% in the Top 25.
Charlotte market average daily rate (ADR) was $83.55 in February, up 1.4% from February 2010. That’s the 8th straight month
of rising rates in Charlotte. Year to date, Charlotte average rate is $81.72, up 3% from the same period last year. By
comparison, year to date ADR has risen 2.7% in the US, 2% in NC and 3.7% in the Top 25.
Charlotte market revenue per available room (RevPAR) was $50.78 for February, up 4.9% from February 2010. RevPAR has
improved in the market for 13th consecutive months. Year to date, RevPAR is $44.64 in Charlotte, up 8.6% from the same
period last year. By comparison, year to date RevPAR is up 8.3% in the US, 7.6% in NC and 9.5% in the Top 25.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY HOSPITALITY TAX COLLECTIONS-- FY11 THROUGH FEBRUARY
Mecklenburg County 6% regular occupancy tax collections total $15.2 million fiscal year to date through February, a 15%
increase from the same period last fiscal year.
1
Mecklenburg County 2% NASCAR Hall of Fame tax collections total $5.1 million fiscal year to date through February, also a
15% increase from the same period last year.
Mecklenburg County 1% prepared food & beverage tax collections total $13.6 million fiscal year to date through February, a
6% increase from the same period last year.
US TRAVEL ASSOCIATION TRAVEL SENTIMENT INDEX
National Leisure
& Tourism
The US Travel Association’s Traveler Sentiment Index™ (TSI) soared to its highest level
since April 2007 in February and now stands at 95.2, up 9.2% from October 2010, and at its
highest point since April 2007. Travel Horizons™ revealed a substantial increase in the
"affordability of travel" index, suggesting that consumers are increasingly more positive about
their ability to afford to travel than just three months ago.
The February survey also showed that 59% of U.S. adults intend to take a leisure trip between now and July 2011, up from 56%
last February. An estimated 138 million U.S. adults now expect to take at least one leisure trip between now and July, while 24%
(55 million) have already decided not to travel for leisure purposes. The remaining 40 million U.S. adults, however, have yet to
decide whether or not to take a leisure trip during the next six months, creating an opportunity for destinations to entice this large
block of "undecided’s" to travel to their destinations.
US TRAVEL & TOURISM SPENDING GREW IN 4TH QUARTER
According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, real spending on travel and tourism
increased at an annual rate of 2.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, following an increase of
8.6% in the third quarter of 2010. By comparison, real gross domestic product (GDP)
increased 2.8% in the fourth quarter, after increasing 2.6%in the third quarter. Overall growth
in prices for travel and tourism goods and services accelerated increasing 3.4% in the fourth quarter of 2010 following a 0.2%
increase in the third quarter. The slowdown in real spending on tourism mainly reflected a deceleration in international air
transportation, primarily due to a strong upturn in prices and a slowdown in revenue; airlines imposed higher surcharges to
recover increased fuel costs. Real travel and tourism spending turned up in 2010, increasing 3.4% after two consecutive years of
decline. Overall price growth for travel and tourism goods and services increased 3.9% in 2010 after a decrease of 4.3% in
2009.
Economy
MARCH 2011 VOCUS
During March 2011 Vocus identified 6,344 news items on key words tracked by the CRVA. By
category, the top five were: Time Warner Cable Arena (18%), Democratic National
Convention (8%), NASCAR Hall of Fame (7%), Charlotte Tourism (7%) and Charlotte Sports
(5%). By media, 49% of March’s news clips were picked up by Online Consumer sites,
followed by Online News & Business sites (27%), Television Program (7%), Newspaper (7%) and Community Newspaper (2%).
A total of 87% of March’s media hits took place outside of the Charlotte Region.
Media
Sources for this Publication
• Convene
• Mecklenburg County Tax Office
• Smith Travel Research
• The Conference Board
• The TAP Report
• US Bureau of Economic Analysis
• US Department of Labor
• US Travel Association
• Visit Charlotte/CRVA
• Vocus
Michael Applegate, CDME
Director of Research, CRVA
michael.applegate@crva.com
Inside This Report
• Barometer Summary (p. 1&2)
• Hospitality Industry Statistical
Report (p. 3)
• Definite Bookings (p. 4)
• Pace Report (p. 5)
• Charlotte Convention Center
Tradeshow & Convention Booking
Outlook (p. 6)
• Hospitality Industry Sales
Activities (p. 7)
• Lost Business Report (p. 8)
• Occupancy Tax Collections (p. 9)
• Prepared F&B Tax Collections and
The Economy (p. 10)
2
HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY STATISTICAL REPORT
March 2011
Charlotte Market Lodging Production
Charlotte
Market
60.8
3.4
83.55
1.4
50.78
4.9
54.6
5.4
81.72
3.0
44.64
8.6
February 2011 Occupancy %
% Change
February 2011 ADR $
% Change
February 2011 RevPAR $
% Change
2011 YTD Occupancy %
% Change
2011 YTD ADR $
% Change
2011 YTD RevPAR $
% Change
Source: Smith Travel Research-Stats lag by one month
North
Carolina
51.9
4.8
76.47
1.0
39.71
5.8
47.1
5.4
75.83
2.0
35.75
7.6
Competitive
Set
55.0
4.3
86.75
1.1
48.02
5.4
51.0
5.7
86.33
1.8
44.36
7.6
United
States
55.7
5.2
98.95
2.5
55.15
7.9
51.5
5.4
97.99
2.7
50.41
8.3
Top
25
63.3
5.8
118.04
3.9
74.67
10.0
59.2
5.6
116.38
3.7
68.99
9.5
Comp Set includes: Tampa, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Baltimore, Minneapolis, St. Louis,
Greensboro, Raleigh, Cincinnati, Columbus, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Nashville
Charlotte Douglas International Airport Aviation Production
Passenger Enplanements
Passenger Deplanements
Month of February
1,412,548
1,411,878
% Chg from Feb ‘10
9%
9%
2011 YTD
2,866,807
2,884,316
YTD % Chg from ‘10
9%
9%
Source: Charlotte Douglas International Airport-Stats lag by one month
Visit Charlotte Definite Room Night Production
Total Room Night Production
Visitor Economic Development ($)
Number of Definite Bookings
Average Size of Definite Bookings
Total Attendance
Convention Center GSF Booked
Month of
March
12,531
8,796,420
33
380
27,050
120,000
Change from
March 2010
-11,656
-1,883,450
-9
-196
-27,560
-1,180,000
FY 2011
YTD
414,533
307,968,718
296
1,400
620,638
15,020,000
YTD Chg (%)
from FY10
146,192 (54.5%)
105,761,094 (52.3%)
34 (13.0%)
376 (36.7%)
66,028 (11.9%)
3,940,000 (35.6%)
Visit Charlotte Lead Room Night Production
Total Room Night Production
Number of Lead Bookings
Average Size of Lead Bookings
Month of
March
108,529
70
1,550
Change from
March 2010
17,694
13
-44
FY 2011
YTD
778,346
617
1,262
YTD Chg (%)
from FY10
-77,577 (-9.1%)
89 (16.9%)
-359 (-22.1%)
Visit Charlotte Housing Bureau Production
Month of March
1,389
6,480
Total Reservations Produced
Total Room Nights Produced
FY 2011 YTD
7,968
32,200
YTD% Chg from FY10
73.7%
257.7%
Visit Charlotte Leisure Tourism Promotion & Production
Advertising Impressions
Visit Charlotte Web Site Visitors (Google )
Motor Coach Group Bookings (Passengers)
Month of March
4,307,100
96,293
485
FY 2011 YTD
49,610,474
789,672
3,767
YTD % Chg from FY10
N/A
0.9%
15.4%
3
DEFINITE BOOKINGS
March 2011
Charlotte Convention Center
Group Name
Mack Trucks Inc. ®
Event Marketing
Services ®
Meeting
Type
Event
Date
Meeting
Jun 11
Consumer
Nov 11
Days
Exhibit
Gross
Sq Ft
Total
Room
Nights
Attend
Visitor
Econ. Dev.
($)
1
40,000
76
75
23,550
2
80,000
3,030
10,000
1,340,000
120,000
3,106
10,075
1,363,550
Total
Conference Sales
Group Name
W.H. Gill & Associates Inc.
Visit Charlotte – CRVA Lead Training
BASS/ESPN Outdoors ®
North Carolina National Softball Association –
7 events ®
Football Club Carolina Alliance
Council of Chief State School Officers
The University of Arizona
Winder & Samiljan Wedding
Wells Fargo ®
North Carolina AAU Gymnastics
Council of Great City Schools Client Family
Reunion
South Park Youth Association
Dawson, Walker, Smith, Brown Family
Reunion
HME News/United Publications
Airline Transport Association
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
Cincinnati Insurance Company
Jenkins – Drummond Family Reunion
The Washington Center
Society for Music Theory
Total
GRAND TOTAL
Days
Total
Room
Nights
Attendance
Visitor Econ.
Dev. ($)
Mar 11
Mar 11
Mar 11
2
1
4
65
N/A
1,160
30
80
3,000
18,840
N/A
1,608,000
Various
2 avg.
658
4,000
1,072,000
Apr 11
May 11
May 11
May 11
May 11
Jun 11
2
3
3
3
1
2
66
424
105
50
415
200
400
175
30
60
2,000
1,250
107,200
164,850
28,260
56,520
628,000
335,000
Jul 11
3
64
100
94,200
Jul 11
5
735
500
335,000
Aug 11
2
66
75
47,100
Sep 11
Sep 11
2
4
210
425
200
150
125,600
188,400
Nov 11
4
990
550
690,800
Feb 12
Aug 12
Aug 12
Oct 12
1
2
8
3
170
90
1,205
593
450
150
275
400
141,300
94,200
690,800
376,800
9,425
16,975
7,432,870
12,531
27,050
8,796,420
Event
Date
Sports & Leisure Spending DKS&A 2007 Charlotte Update (attendance x $134 x # days)
Convention & Conference Spending 2005 DMAI ExPact Study (attendance x $314 x # days)
® Repeat Business
$8,796,420 spending generates $13,370,342 in local tourism economic impact, sustains 89 jobs and results
in $369,165 in state & local tax collections
4
Eight Year Dynamic Room Night Pace Report
(As of 3/1/11) Trends Analysis Projections, LLC
400,000
350,000
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
Definite Room Nights
Tentative Room Nights
Consumption Benchmark
Dynamic Pace Targets
2018
Eight Year Dynamic Room Night Pace Report
(As of 3/1/11) Trends Analysis Projections, LLC
Charlotte
Definite
Room Nights
Pace Target
Pace
Percentage
Tentative
Room Nights
Consumption
Benchmark
Peer Set
Pace
Percentage
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Total
315,761
171,812
109,365
95,691
13,483
0
5,937
0
712,049
272,478
160,669
100,020
61,434
33,852
15,730
7,071
2,857
654,111
116%
107%
109%
156%
40%
0%
84%
0%
109%
60,694
163,922
97,186
70,589
74,670
74,270
3,525
18,730
563,586
328,653
328,653
328,653
328,653
328,653
328,653
328,653
328,653
2,629,224
98%
89%
90%
88%
125%
111%
94%
240%
96%
Peer Set Data includes Charlotte, Baltimore, Louisville, Pittsburgh and Tampa
5
Charlotte Convention Center
Tradeshow & Convention Booking Outlook
(As of 4/5/11)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2007
2008
2009
2010
Definite
2011
Tentative
2012
2013
2014
Additional
Charlotte Convention Center
Tradeshow & Convention Booking Outlook
(As of 4/5/11)
Fiscal Year
Definite Bookings
Tentative
Bookings
Subtotal
2007
24
2008
30
2009
27
2010
23
2011
24
2012
19
2013
16
2014
8
0
24
0
30
0
27
0
23
0
24
3
22
1
17
1
9
21
9
26
1
30
-7
33
-9
25*
-3
34*
-17
36*
-27
Definite
20
Target
4
Variance
*new goal beginning FY11
6
HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY SALES ACTIVITIES
March 2011
Site Visits
Group Name
DEFINITES
US Environmental Protection Agency – Energy Star
Conference (November, 2011)
Americans for the Arts (November, 2012)
TENTATIVES
American Association on Intellectual & Developmental
Disabilities (May, 2012)
Albert Harris High School Reunion (August, 2012)
American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
(August, 2012)
Amateur Athletic Union (TBD)
Venue
Total Room
Nights
Total
Attendance
Hotel
Hotel
990
870
550
600
Hotel
Hotel
755
200
400
250
CCC
TBD
1,987
TBD
550
TBD
Trade Shows & Events (attended by staff)
Event Name
Conference Direct
North Carolina Amateur Sports
North Carolina Governor’s Conference
Meetings Industry Council
Sales Calls
Location
Washington, DC
Burlington, NC
Asheville, NC
Denver, CO
Philadelphia, PA
7
Visit Charlotte Pace vs. Demand Comparison – Lost Business
(As of 3/1/11)Trends Analysis Projections, LLC
1,000,000
900,000
800,000
700,000
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Definite Room Nights
2016
2017
2018
Lost Business
Visit Charlotte Pace vs. Demand Comparison – Lost Business
(As of 3/1/11)Trends Analysis Projections, LLC
Charlotte
Definite
Room Nights
Pace Target
Pace
Percentage
Total
Demand
Room Nights
Lost Room
Nights
Conversion
Percentage
Peer Set
Conversion
Percentage
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Total
315,761
171,812
109,365
95,691
13,483
0
5,937
0
712,049
272,478
160,669
100,020
61,434
33,852
15,730
7,071
2,857
654,111
116%
107%
109%
156%
40%
0%
84%
0%
109%
927,751
755,247
499,521
375,351
220,026
140,924
54,464
51,292
3,024,576
611,990
583,435
390,156
279,660
206,543
140,924
48,527
51,292
2,312,527
44%
18%
18%
11%
6%
0%
14%
0%
31%
26%
20%
21%
20%
25%
25%
17%
18%
23%
Peer Set Data includes Charlotte, Baltimore, Louisville, Pittsburgh and Tampa
8
6% OCCUPANCY TAX COLLECTIONS
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
FY09
$1,500,000
FY10
FY11
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
2% NASCAR HOF TAX COLLECTIONS
$1,000,000
$800,000
$600,000
FY09
FY10
$400,000
FY11
$200,000
$0
9
1% PREPARED FOOD & BEVERAGE TAX COLLECTIONS
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
FY09
FY10
FY11
$1,000,000
$500,000
$0
THE ECONOMY
February 2011
2010
2011
% C han ge
Consumer Confidence Index
46.4
72.0
55.2%
Consumer Price Index (CPI)
216.741
221.309
2.1%
Unemployment Rate
-
National
9.7%
8.9%
-8.2%
-
State
11.4%
9.7%
-14.9%
-
Local
12.8%
10.7%
-16.4%
10
Download