OrangeCountyPolitics.org Comments http://www.orangecountypolitics.org We love OrangePolitics.org, but had to create a site to contain items censored there. en Wed, 23 Jul 2008 23:54:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=1.2.1 by: Neal Gorenflo http://www.orangecountypolitics.org/index.php?p=15#comments Fri, 22 Jul 2005 10:59:10 -0400 402:15@http://www.orangecountypolitics.org As long as we are talking about Orange County schools, I thought I should mention that there is a bill in the NC state that would go a long way toward protecting children from toxics in public schools. If you’d like to be heard by the State Senate on this issue, you can sign the below petition that will help influence the vote: www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/194933944 As long as we are talking about Orange County schools, I thought I should mention that there is a bill in the NC state that would go a long way toward protecting
children from toxics in public schools. If you’d like to be heard by the State Senate on this issue, you can sign the below petition that will help influence the vote:

www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/194933944

]]> by: Mark Peters http://www.orangecountypolitics.org/index.php?p=3#comments Fri, 06 May 2005 11:33:14 -0400 198:3@http://www.orangecountypolitics.org On May 5th, the Board approved Option 2 of the 60/40 plan. I was unable to attend and haven’t seen any accounts of the discussion. If we respect the intent of the NC Public School Building Fund and Education Impact Fees by not mixing these with the general debt service, it looks like it would mean $13.5M more over 10 years for school capital needs (see “Variation of Option 2″ in the attached spreadsheet). But I guess that it is too late to make this comment as a citizen. I didn’t realize that this may be the case until Commissioner Gordon commented on May 3rd. I requested the spreadsheet on May 4th, but didn’t get it until the 6th. Modified Options Spreadsheet On May 5th, the Board approved Option 2 of the 60/40 plan. I was unable to attend and haven’t seen any accounts of the discussion.

If we respect the intent of the NC Public School Building Fund and Education Impact Fees by not mixing these with the general debt service, it looks like it would mean $13.5M more over 10 years for school capital needs (see “Variation of Option 2″ in the attached spreadsheet).

But I guess that it is too late to make this comment as a citizen. I didn’t realize that this may be the case until Commissioner Gordon commented on May 3rd. I requested the spreadsheet on May 4th, but didn’t get it until the 6th.

Modified Options Spreadsheet

]]> by: Mark Peters http://www.orangecountypolitics.org/index.php?p=15#comments Fri, 06 May 2005 11:29:05 -0400 197:15@http://www.orangecountypolitics.org If we respect the intent of the NC Public School Building Fund and Education Impact Fees by not mixing these with the general debt service, it looks like it would mean $13.5M more over 10 years for school capital needs (see “Variation of Option 2″ in the attached spreadsheet). But I guess that it is too late to make this comment as a citizen. I didn’t realize that this may be the case until Commissioner Gordon commented on May 3rd. Modified Options Spreadsheet If we respect the intent of the NC Public School Building Fund and Education Impact Fees by not mixing these with the general debt service, it looks like it would mean $13.5M more over 10 years for school capital needs (see “Variation of Option 2″ in the attached spreadsheet).

But I guess that it is too late to make this comment as a citizen. I didn’t realize that this may be the case until Commissioner Gordon commented on May 3rd.

Modified Options Spreadsheet

]]> by: Mark Peters http://www.orangecountypolitics.org/index.php?p=15#comments Fri, 06 May 2005 11:24:10 -0400 196:15@http://www.orangecountypolitics.org To: Orange County Commisioners Subject: Comments on May 5th agenda items Cc: CHCCS School Board, OCS School Board Commissioners, “Use of Elementary School #10 funding for NON-SCHOOL purposes” Agenda Item (www.co.orange.nc.us/OCCLERKS/0505052.pdf): ES #10 funding should go FIRST to fund the real and well-documented increases in construction expenses of OCS MS3 and CHCCS HS3 and then should be allocated for other purposes. 60/40 Item: In support of the statements below, I wanted to remind you of some wording in the “EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE” ordinance Sec. 30-35: “Creation of public school benefit area trust funds. Public school impact fees collected by the county pursuant to this article shall be kept separate from other revenue of the county. There shall be one trust fund established for each of the benefit areas. The benefit areas correspond to the school district boundaries as determined by the school districts …” Thanks, Mark Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 11:28:52 -0400 To: orange County Commisioners Subject: Comments on May 5th agenda items Cc: CHCCS School Board, OCS School Board, Donna Dean Commissioners, 60/40 Item: I read the impact fee ordinance on www.municode.com and believe that options 2 and 4 violate the intent of this ordinance. Options 2 and 4 (and perhaps others) should move the impact fees and NC school fund down directly into the school capital funding (past line 50 of the spreadsheet). I have requested but have not received the spreadsheet so that I can do the math on this. Rather than diverting money from OCS new construction to non-school spending, it would be much more respectful of the ordinance’s intent to use OCS impact fees for OCS school renovations. My prior objections remain regarding the 60/40 being ill-conceived because it is not directly tied to inventoried and prioritized needs and costs. Scheduling: It was irresponsible to schedule High Schedule 3 discussions so late in the agenda on May 3rd that it would spill over into a night where the CHCCS BOE had a scheduled meeting. I would like to remind you that the BOE is another elected body subject to scheduling and other constraints of the Open Meeting Law, and the BOCC agenda committee should respect that. Thanks, Mark Peters To: Orange County Commisioners
Subject: Comments on May 5th agenda items
Cc: CHCCS School Board, OCS School Board

Commissioners,

“Use of Elementary School #10 funding for NON-SCHOOL purposes” Agenda Item (www.co.orange.nc.us/OCCLERKS/0505052.pdf): ES #10 funding should go FIRST to fund the real and well-documented increases in construction expenses of OCS MS3 and CHCCS HS3 and then should be allocated for other purposes.

60/40 Item: In support of the statements below, I wanted to remind you of some wording in the “EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES IMPACT FEE” ordinance

Sec. 30-35: “Creation of public school benefit area trust funds. Public school impact fees collected by the county pursuant to this article shall be kept separate from other revenue of the county. There shall be one trust fund established for each of the benefit areas. The benefit areas correspond to the school district boundaries as determined by the school districts …”

Thanks,
Mark

Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 11:28:52 -0400
To: orange County Commisioners
Subject: Comments on May 5th agenda items
Cc: CHCCS School Board, OCS School Board, Donna Dean

Commissioners,

60/40 Item: I read the impact fee ordinance on www.municode.com and believe that options 2 and 4 violate the intent of this ordinance. Options 2 and 4 (and perhaps others) should move the impact fees and NC school fund down directly into the school capital funding (past line 50 of the spreadsheet). I have requested but have not received the spreadsheet so that I can do the math on this. Rather than diverting money from OCS new construction to non-school spending, it would be much more respectful of the ordinance’s intent to use OCS impact fees for OCS school renovations. My prior objections remain regarding the 60/40 being ill-conceived because it is not directly tied to inventoried and prioritized needs and costs.

Scheduling: It was irresponsible to schedule High Schedule 3 discussions so late in the agenda on May 3rd that it would spill over into a night where the CHCCS BOE had a scheduled meeting. I would like to remind you that the BOE is another elected body subject to scheduling and other constraints of the Open Meeting Law, and the BOCC agenda committee should respect that.

Thanks,
Mark Peters

]]> by: Mark Peters http://www.orangecountypolitics.org/index.php?p=15#comments Thu, 05 May 2005 12:53:35 -0400 195:15@http://www.orangecountypolitics.org In continued BOCC disrespect for BOE scheduling, the May 5th BOCC meeting did not put High School 3 first on the agenda nor does it start early enough so that BOE members could attend (www.co.orange.nc.us/OCCLERKS/050505.htm). The High School 3 agenda item starts at 7pm, the same time that the BOE meeting starts (though my money is on the prior item running well past 7pm). In continued BOCC disrespect for BOE scheduling, the May 5th BOCC meeting did not put High School 3 first on the agenda nor does it start early enough so that BOE members could attend (www.co.orange.nc.us/OCCLERKS/050505.htm). The High School 3 agenda item starts at 7pm, the same time that the BOE meeting starts (though my money is on the prior item running well past 7pm).

]]> by: Mark Peters http://www.orangecountypolitics.org/index.php?p=15#comments Thu, 05 May 2005 10:08:30 -0400 194:15@http://www.orangecountypolitics.org The impact fees are CLEARLY intended to go to the schools only. So I believe even more strongly that these funds should go directly to each school system as outlined in the original post. You can view the impact fee ordinance, see www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=13166&sid=33 - search for “impact fees” (Article II starting at section 30). The impact fees are CLEARLY intended to go to the schools only. So I believe even more strongly that these funds should go directly to each school system as outlined in the original post.

You can view the impact fee ordinance, see www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=13166&sid=33 - search for “impact fees” (Article II starting at section 30).

]]> by: Mark Peters http://www.orangecountypolitics.org/index.php?p=2#comments Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:35:47 -0500 128:2@http://www.orangecountypolitics.org Paul, I agree that this was a last minute push before MB was out. Paul,

I agree that this was a last minute push before MB was out.

]]> by: Melinama http://www.orangecountypolitics.org/index.php?p=9#comments Thu, 17 Feb 2005 15:18:20 -0500 126:9@http://www.orangecountypolitics.org pratie.blogspot.com/2005/02/be-mentor.html training dates (table form) at pratie.blogspot.com/2005/02/mentoring-update-march-is-coming-up.html or, if my table didn’t work… Here are the training dates: Thursday, March 3 7-9 PM Program Orientation and Overview Saturday, March 5 8:30 AM - 4:00 PM How to be a Great Mentor! Monday, March 7 5:30 - 9:00 PM School Advocacy pratie.blogspot.com/2005/02/be-mentor.html
training dates (table form) at pratie.blogspot.com/2005/02/mentoring-update-march-is-coming-up.html
or, if my table didn’t work…

Here are the training dates:
Thursday, March 3 7-9 PM Program Orientation and Overview
Saturday, March 5 8:30 AM - 4:00 PM How to be a Great Mentor!
Monday, March 7 5:30 - 9:00 PM School Advocacy

]]> by: Donna Bozarth http://www.orangecountypolitics.org/index.php?p=6#comments Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:36:36 -0500 99:6@http://www.orangecountypolitics.org Of course, Terri didn’t run entirely on the merger question. In reviewing the CHH archives, I found a guest column where she did make a point of including her position on merger. She defended her stance in letters to the editor by saying the issue was revelent because it affects the citizens of Chapel Hill. I guess you could say that about the Patriot Act as well. Still, that doesn’t change the fact that merger is not under the jurisdiction of the Town Council and neither is enforcement (or non-enforcement) of the Patriot Act, so her charge of hypocrisy holds up. Of course, Terri didn’t run entirely on the merger question. In reviewing the CHH archives, I found a guest column where she did make a point of including her position on merger. She defended her stance in letters to the editor by saying the issue was revelent because it affects the citizens of Chapel Hill. I guess you could say that about the Patriot Act as well. Still, that doesn’t change the fact that merger is not under the jurisdiction of the Town Council and neither is enforcement (or non-enforcement) of the Patriot Act, so her charge of hypocrisy holds up.

]]> by: Paul D. Newton http://www.orangecountypolitics.org/index.php?p=6#comments Wed, 05 Jan 2005 17:16:48 -0500 98:6@http://www.orangecountypolitics.org I ran for the Hillsborough Town Board at the same time Ms. Tyson ran for the Chapel Hill Town Council. I am not familiar with how Ms. Tyson ran her campaign, but speaking for myself, I can say that on numerous occaisions I was asked my position on School Merger. That issue was completely irrelevant to the Hillsborough Town Board race. I was asked on the radio, I was asked at a candidates forum, and I was asked going door-to-door. Everytime I stated I was against merger. During my campaign, the leading pro-merger advocate, Ms. Liz Brown, pulled down my campaign signs (claiming they blocked her view of traffic). I was not running on any type of school merger platform, however, when the State of North Carolina took Ms. Brown to court, the papers reported that I ran on an anti-merger platform. I ran for the Hillsborough Town Board at the same time Ms. Tyson ran for the Chapel Hill Town Council. I am not familiar with how Ms. Tyson ran her campaign, but speaking for myself, I can say that on numerous occaisions I was asked my position on School Merger. That issue was completely irrelevant to the Hillsborough Town Board race. I was asked on the radio, I was asked at a candidates forum, and I was asked going door-to-door. Everytime I stated I was against merger.

During my campaign, the leading pro-merger advocate, Ms. Liz Brown, pulled down my campaign signs (claiming they blocked her view of traffic). I was not running on any type of school merger platform, however, when the State of North Carolina took Ms. Brown to court, the papers reported that I ran on an anti-merger platform.

]]>