Michael Bobbitt: Notes From The Peanut Gallery (City Council June 10th, 2013)


A plethora of public hearings

The first of the public hearings was the final opportunity to praise or denounce the councils work on the draft consensus budget for the coming fiscal year.  I expected to observe harmonic resonance as taxpayers discussed the necessary needs of the citizens and mandates of regulatory authorities.  Sadly not one presenter shared my vision of the intent of the opening topic of public hearing.  First to speak was Mr. Sam Watkins, the only presenter not required to give his name and address.  Mr. Watkins’ spoke first about how over regulation stifles growth, then suggesting that prudence prevail, and encouraged growth with as little government as possible.  Before he made a rambling summation in support Downtown Development Corporation, Mr. Watkins said he is not opposed to taxes per say.  Now in full disclosure prior to the start of the meeting, Mr. Watkins and I talked about taxes.  He said taxes hurt businesses.  I replied businesses don’t pay taxes; taxes are passed through to the customer.  Mr. Watkins said he has restless nights worrying about how he is going to grow his business.  I said, you love it or you won’t be doing it today.  There was a small smile of agreement on his face. 

Next to speak was David Thomas with the airport authority.  He informed the council the airport authority had signed the contract to authorize building the runway extension.  The major impetus for the extension is the federal prison system in Butner.  The military flights to and from California require a longer runway.  Mr. Thomas assured Councilperson Insoce that there is also more business use of the airport.  The next three speakers included Jason Stewardson and Phil Hart, respectively the outgoing and incoming president of the Downtown Development Corporation, and Stuart Litvin, Director Economic Development.  All three were praising the DDC.  Mr. Litvin encouraged the council to view the money spent on DDC as an investment in downtown development as well as the long term growth of the whole community.  These meatless public comments concluded the public hearing on the draft consensus budget for the coming fiscal year. 

The second public hearing regarded “consideration of approval of ordinance 13-32, amending the zoning map to change … from R20 and R15 to RA in the ETJ off Brodie Road” (see the agenda for the detail language).  The point of the zoning change is to allow the building of a new animal shelter.  Jonathan Care, Vance County’s attorney, defined the technical aspects of the change.  Following Mr. Care was silence, neither proponents nor opponents from the public spoke.  The Council approved this change.

The third public hearing was for approval of ordinance 13 – 33 to allow another zoning change.  Mr. Litvin and Austin Williams, representative for CA Moloir, LLC, both spoke favoring the change.  Mr. Williams said someone made an error 20 years ago when zoning the location necessitating this zoning change for his company to place a ‘doc in the box’ where Block Buster is or soon to be was.  Again, no one spoke in opposition and the change was approved.

The final public hearing regarded the approval of ordinance 13 -34, to amend a table of permitted uses including selling gasoline, doing an oil change, fixin’ tires with a special use permit the central business district.  Beyond the city’s support for the change there was no opposition so this change was approved. 

For all the carping about local government, when given the time and place to speak in support or objection about the budget and zoning changes the public’s’ silence is deafening.

New Business

There were five resolutions under the umbrella of new business.  Resolution 13-50 was a shocker to me.  After a brief discussion resolution 13-50 was approved by the City Council.  The resolution asks “the Vance County Board of Commissioners [to] consider implementing new delinquent tax collection policies and practices that would help increase the rate of collection by enhancements such as focusing on the oldest taxes first rather than using the alphabetical listing [and to hire] a staff attorney for the Vance County Tax Department to focus full-time on foreclosure, etc.”  Here is a game of pretend.  The rules of the game include these. Your last name starts with a letter in the last third of the alphabet.  You own a property rental business and you are aware of the county’s tax collection policy and practice.  Remember that taxes and interest are a business expense passed through to the customer.  The game is this.  As an amoral business owner or individual would take full advantage of the county’s tax collection policy and practice?

Something must change if we have any real intent to reduce the amount of unpaid property taxes, especially when 100 property owners (individuals and businesses) collectively owe $546,828.04 or 38.82% of 2012’s total outstanding tax liens.  The same 100 owe $1,151,981.63 in total past due taxes going back to 2003 in one case. 

I digress to the topic all five resolutions were approved without any disagreement. 

Sara Coffey’s Question

As the meeting raced towards adjournment Council member Coffey asked Mr. Griffin what action the Council could take to assure the voters that elected officials are current with their property taxes.  Mr. Griffin said there is no state law that prevents someone from holding or running for office and is unwilling to fulfill their obligation of paying their or their business’ property taxes.  Maybe once the State, the County and the City governments have completed slicing and dicing the taxpayers’ money among the necessary needs of the citizens and mandates of regulatory authorities the elected officials will begin the process of crafting a rule that compels public disclosure of the “elected’s” tax payment status.  In my narrow view of the world any elected person who is unwilling to pay their fair share, especially over time, has no standing in how others’ money is used to meet the needs of the citizens and mandates of regulatory authorities.