We often feel like a broken record, as this newspaper’s publisher repeatedly questions public officials about the lack of transparency in some of their dealings and the failure to notify citizens about its contemplated expenditures of thousands, sometimes millions, of dollars.
For the third month in a row, Mebane’s city council agenda this week included proposed land purchases – none of which had been previously discussed or otherwise announced.
A “small” purchase of $325,000 for a dentist office behind the city’s planning department was the agenda item for February.
Then in March, a heretofore unannounced interest in the building next door to it, a real estate office and the property on which it sits, manifested itself as an agenda item for the city to purchase for $1.046 million.
But April takes the cake. Two separate agenda items to purchase land for new parks – $1.4 million for one in the western part of the city (near two other major parks) and $1.5 million for one on the “south side of the interstate,” but in the far eastern stretches (actually beyond Mebane’s municipal limits) in western Orange County.
Why do governments feel such a compulsion for secrecy?
Here’s what they all have in common:
Not a single public word, before the item was on the agenda, that the city had an interest in any of the properties, much less that it intended to move forward with purchasing them.
Not a single appraisal of the fair market value of any of the properties.
Not a single public hearing or opportunity for the public to be heard or ask questions about the wisdom or rationale for each of the purchases. (Technically, there was a public hearing on the financing of the city’s purchase of the real estate office, since the city was proposing to let the current owner finance the city’s purchase over 10 years at a 3 percent interest rate. Only because the Local Government Commission requires a public hearing in such cases.)
Mebane has historically been one of the most open local governments this newspaper covers. But these actions are not transparent. Mebane residents are not being adequately informed about what actions the city council is contemplating – in some cases with very expensive price tags.
Does Mebane need more space for city offices – now or in the future? There’s been no discussion at any time that we recall about that.
And how many parks are enough?
Does Mebane need 87 more acres of park space – now or in the future? Keep in mind that the $2.9 million is just the price for buying the land. Millions more would be necessary for clearing and grading for ballfields or other recreational facilities, plus millions more, inevitably, for additional staff and annual operating costs.
In this month’s case, we also have to ask this fundamental question: how much parkland is enough for Mebane? We understand planning ahead, but buying land for a third large park within a mile of two others seems a bit much – to us, and we suspect, to a good number of Mebane taxpayers who will have to foot the bill for such extravagance – even for a city as seemingly flush with cash as Mebane. Especially when such purchases may result in a property tax hike.
Mebane already has four major parks, four pocket parks, and three other recreational facilities for a total of 350 acres of land dedicated to parks and recreation – or about 5 percent of the city’s municipal territory.
Residents south of the interstate, generally in the greater Hawfields community, have been advocating for a park on the south side of town for several years, and the council has been sympathetic to those pleas.
But this week’s proposal is for 50 acres of parkland two or three miles away to the east, in western Orange County. Yeah, it’s south of the interstate, but so far away, it’s not even in Mebane, yet. We don’t much think having a park six or seven miles away is what most residents had in mind as being a park for “them.”
The real collision of competing spending, however, soon emerged at this week’s Mebane city council meeting. Buying the park land would use up all of the “special kitty” that the city started several years ago for “capital projects.”
Another high priority for most council members is to build an auxiliary fire station (the city’s fourth), this one on the west side of town, near the future Buc-ee’s and Koury shopping center, both now under construction.
The $6 million needed would be for construction; an additional $3 million will likely be necessary annually for staffing the new station (with approximately 18 firefighters).
City manager Richard J. White, III acknowledged to the council this week that his draft budget is contemplating a 2-cent property tax increase for municipal taxpayers – apparently mostly just for the added fire station staffing costs.
Council members seemed to have amnesia about the priority order that they had established just three years ago. Additional recreational facilities – whether in parkland or a recreation center – was the third of three priority areas. The new fire station was first, a new police station second, and only then for additional recreation facilities.
These issues are to be resumed for consideration today at a special called meeting of the city council at 1:00 p.m. It seems to us Mebane residents need to weigh in on whether they want the city council to prioritize essential services – like fire, police, water & sewer service, trash pick-up, etc. – or non-essential services like more recreation space.
We continue to be surprised by the amount of money local governments are willing to spend on frivolous recreation-related purposes.
But surely there must be some limit.
Mebane looks like it’s about to bust the bank – and its taxpayers – with all the extraneous purchases and plans it’s been making lately.
