Where Durham County commissioner candidates stand on school repair funding, commuter rail and more
The five seats on the Durham County Board of Commissioners are up for election this year, and early voting is underway.
The News & Observer and The Herald-Sun asked each of the 15 candidates three questions:
▪ Would you support a climate change mitigation tax like Orange County has, and are there other measures the county should take to reduce carbon emissions?
▪ The recently proposed plan to fund repairs and improvements for Durham Public Schools was $493 million, about $250 million short of the school system’s assessed needs. How should the county commissioners address those needs?
▪ Do you support commuter rail with Wake County, and how can elected leaders ensure transparency and effective oversight to earn public trust in the project?
County commissioners set the county budget and property tax rate; allocate money to schools, social services and public safety; and make policies affecting services, the local economy and more for years to come.
All 15 candidates are registered Democrats, and no Republicans filed to run. This means the five winners of the primary are also the winners of the general election, barring an unaffiliated candidate joining late.
Commissioners serve a four-year term and receive $25,417 per year. The county commissioners chair gets a slight raise, to $29,920.
The N&O reached out to all 15 candidates; nine have submitted answers so far. This story will be updated as more candidates submit their answers.
Reducing Carbon Emissions
Would you support a climate change mitigation tax like Orange has and are there other measures you think the county should use to reduce carbon emissions?
Nida Allam: The effort Orange County is making is a great signal to North Carolina local governments that we can take action on climate. The role of counties and cities in addressing climate change is vital to our global health and safety. As Durham’s population rapidly expands we must invest in transit, build energy efficiency, and switch fuel to zero-carbon energy sources. I look forward to the Durham County commission working with our City Council and neighboring locales to meet the challenges pollution brings. Our current commission has already taken great steps to eliminate single-use plastics from county contracts.
Durham county should also move to weatherization services for income-qualified home owners and renters, more sustainable purchasing policies for county operations, land conservation to protect natural areas and farms, and ask developers to estimate embodied emissions in materials. Of course, we need to develop a stable funding schedule and transition for these plans, but the climate crisis will not wait for us to have a perfect budget or timeline.
Nate Baker: Because Durham currently allows large developers to convert hundreds of acres of farmland and wildlife habitat to low density, automobile-oriented sprawl each year, Durham residents have fewer options to travel and commute other than driving. This trend not only increases household expenditures on transportation ($12,000 annually per household), it also increases greenhouse gas emissions at a higher rate than population growth (75% increase since 1990).
I am committed to a bold, inclusive, and comprehensive approach to achieving community-wide carbon neutrality by 2045. Pending the recommendation of a Climate Action Plan, I would cautiously consider a climate mitigation tax. However, there are many competing financial priorities, and my No. 1 spending priority is schools. My Green New Deal For Durham proposal seeks to achieve climate neutrality through land-use reform that changes the way we grow and develop — prioritizing transit and pedestrian-oriented development rather than continuing fiscally imbalanced auto-oriented growth.
LeVon Barnes: I would be in favor of a climate change mitigation tax for a number of reasons. I believe that without a sound, equitable and impactful climate change plan in this county our next generation will suffer and knowing we could do something about it. This issue motivates me every day to personally ensure I do my part as a citizen to promote environmentally friendly practices and that as your next county commissioner I would look to make Durham County a leader in becoming a sustainable energy county in the next 10 years.
Just recently they used $150,000 created from the tax to provide weatherization & LED lights to low-income homes. I would like see Durham lead in solar energy homes as this would not only bring in new jobs to our local workforce but lower the cost for so many of our residents in need.
Nimasheena Burns: NA
Patrick Byker: I am passionate about efforts to attack global warming. However, I am not aware of any statutory authorization for such a mitigation tax. If I missed the General Assembly’s statewide authorization to such a tax, I apologize. As an attorney licensed by the State of North Carolina since 1992, I will not violate my oath of office to uphold the laws of the State of North Carolina. Accordingly, I need to be assured of the General Assembly’s authorization in Chapter 153A of the N.C. General Statutes that such a mitigation tax is duly authorized. (Editor’s note: The Orange County measure, sometimes referred to as a “tax,” is a quarter-cent tax increase approved in the last budget to address climate change in the county.)
Beyond that, I believe Durham County must pursue land-use regulations that promote pedestrian-oriented mixed use developments (such as 751 South and Davis Park) that will reduce the need for automobile trips to meet basic needs and to locate housing near to employment opportunities.
Heidi Carter: We are currently developing a revised Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan and a plan for meeting our renewable energy goals. We should implement strategic actions in these plans within our current budget first. If we then need additional revenue, I would support a climate mitigation tax. We need to take significant action to achieve our 100% renewable energy and carbon-reduction goals.
That action should include using a shared-fleet of vehicles in county government; investing in community solar energy, including a Solar Schools Initiative; energy-efficiency retrofits for public housing communities and low-income homeowners; increased investment in public transit and enabling transit-oriented development so more residents can use buses, bikes and scooters; local apprenticeship programs so retrofits and construction projects provide jobs to residents; and more trails, tree-lined streets and restored wetlands which can bolster resiliency to a changing climate while also providing areas for outdoor recreation.
Tara Fikes: At this time given the urgent public school maintenance issues in Durham County and the associated costs, I am unable to support a climate change migration tax (in the upcoming budget year). It is, however, a viable mechanism for revenue generation to achieve climate change goals in the community that should be explored in the future.
Meanwhile, the county can implement measures to reduce carbon emissions such as promoting energy-efficient home practices, the use of electric vehicles and the use of mass transit to include electric buses within the fleet to name a few proactive measures.
Fred Foster Jr.: NA
Brenda Howerton: The protection of our environment is one of the most important issues in which local governments should be engaged. Durham County has had for the past several years a sustainability strategy that looks at reducing greenhouse emission through multiple approaches. These approaches include transportation demand management, developing LEED-certified building and water-conservation measures. I am in favor of having dedicated funding sources that support the reduction of greenhouse emissions.
James Hill: NA
Wendy Jacobs: I strongly supported adoption of our Renewable Energy Resolution which commits Durham County Government toward 100% renewable energy by 2050 and a resilient and sustainable economy. Our staff is working on the next step — a Climate Change Action Plan — to implement these goals, an update to our 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Sustainability Plans and the Triangle Resiliency Plan.
There will be many options to consider for implementation of these plans including designating a tax percentage or portion or our revenues as we do with our Durham Pre-K program and funding as part of county operational and capital budgetary priorities and investments.
Current county actions to reduce carbon emissions include 1) electric charging stations in county facilities, 2) purchase of county hybrid and electric vehicles, 3) LEED certification required for all county renovations/new construction, 4)energy efficient light bulbs and HVAC retrofits, 5) county supported GoPasses, 6) promoting companies with green jobs and green building practices. We need to accelerate and prioritize all these efforts along with strong investments in transit and land use that promotes biking, walking, transit and more compact land use to address our urgent climate crisis.
Matt Kopac: The climate crisis demands a bold and comprehensive response. Our communities, particularly people of color, are already taxed with intensified heat, flooding, and the high energy costs associated with poor housing conditions. To address the climate emergency, we must act now on initiatives like renewable energy, energy-efficient affordable housing, clean transportation, green jobs, sustainable agriculture, and green infrastructure, like trees.
To achieve this, we must pull all levers at our disposal: new development rules, revised building codes, public pressure on our energy utilities, innovative school and workforce development curricula, responsible allocation of existing local tax dollars, and advocacy for state, federal and philanthropic dollars. If more local revenue is necessary to meet our climate goals, and community buy-in exists, I would support it, while always remaining mindful of how we might shift the burden away from our low and moderate income households who can least afford it
Regina Mays: NA
Michael Page: NA
John Rooks Jr.: NA
Public School Repairs
The recently proposed plan to fund repairs and improvements for DPS was $493 million, about $250 million short of the schools’ assessed needs. How should the board of commissioners go about addressing those needs?
Nida Allam: The local property tax funding model used by most school districts, including Durham, limits how much those counties or districts can actually control those funds. While we continue to support the efforts of public school teachers (led by the Durham Association of Educators) to gain adequate and equitable funding from the legislature, there are strategies the county could explore to develop more equitable school construction. Education is the county’s largest expenditure at 34.9% of the overall budget.
Due to numerous state-level preemptions, the tools available at the county level are severely limited to a regressive property tax increase or a bond. As it stands today an education bond seems to be necessary if we are going to provide a world-class education Pre-K-12 for ALL of our children. Within this bond I would like to see the following: 1) universal high-quality pre-K 2) expanded choices through more magnet/community schools 3) development of Durham Tech 4) small class sizes for more individualized learning.
Nate Baker: School funding is my top spending priority, especially as we face continued attacks from the irresponsible GOP-led state legislature. Priority funding areas include urgent action to address (1) needed repairs that enhance the safety and learning environment of our students, teachers, and administrators; and (2) upgrades that make our schools climate and energy resilient.
Although my proposed land-use reforms would not free up resources immediately, they would result in better fiscal management of growth over the next five years and beyond. I am hopeful Democrats will be able to win the legislature so that we can adequately fund our public school needs through income tax rather than property tax. But we must plan for a worst-case-scenario where additional bonds are needed to pay for the upgrades that will produce cleaner, renewable schools and save school system resources over the long-term.
LeVon Barnes: As the only public school teacher on the ballot, I am very concerned about the infrastructure of our school buildings. To clarify there is about $700 million in repairs needed in our schools. We have been putting band-aids on wounds that need surgery, and now it is coming back to haunt us. Outside of getting rid of the Republican leadership in the N.C. General Assembly that has purposely shown that it could care less about education.
As one of your county commissioners I will push on a gradual increase in our per capital outlay expenditure the state commits to increase spending. We will also have to pass a bond to build newer more energy efficient schools. I fully understand that tough decisions would need to be made in order to find the funding, but our students have been on the back burner long enough and the safety of them and all the teachers and staff must be at the forefront.
Nimasheena Burns: NA
Patrick Byker: If the debt service ratios are acceptable to bond underwriters so that Durham County’s AAA bond rating is not jeopardized, I will champion a General Obligation bond referendum to cover the capital needs of DPS.
Heidi Carter: The additional $250 million of needs are in part due to lack of funding for routine maintenance. Deferring maintenance is not efficient and leads to more expensive repairs long-term. We need to increase annual county funding for ongoing capital needs, as requested by the Board of Education. I strongly support and have long advocated for providing regular, consistent funding for school capital needs.
The county and DPS need an integrated approach to capital planning. Currently, DPS and the county each adopt a capital plan and later try to blend them, which has not proven effective. The county also needs regularly scheduled bond referenda for long-range capital needs. Before the 2016 bond, the last one was held in 2007. I have been calling for more regular and substantial bond funding that keeps pace with our school system’s needs. We must also pressure the state to have its long overdue bond for school capital needs.
Tara Fikes: The proposed plan relies heavily on bond financing from two proposed bond referendums as well as property tax increases – both, two main sources of funding for school capital. This limits revenue sources for additional funding, thus, the remaining funds will likely come from increased property taxes. This will require careful fiscal planning to prevent unaffordable tax increases while balancing school needs with other community priority areas.
Fred Foster Jr.: NA
Brenda Howerton: The Board of Commissioners and DPS have to schedule the school’s repairs and improvements in the county’s end-year capital improvement plan, which is updated every two years. Both the commissioners and DPS will reassess current priorities to ensure that investing in the educational system is remains a top priority for the future of Durham, which means cuts may be required elsewhere.
James Hill: NA
Wendy Jacobs: Our revised Capital Improvement Plan provides a means to meet Durham County and DPS needs over the next nine years. It includes the $468 million of priority needs identified by DPS. This plan, which includes bond referendums in 2022 and 2026, makes conservative financial and project management assumptions that will be updated and revised every two years as work is implemented.
The plan will be adjusted based on actual project budgets, completion timelines, interest rates, the county’s financial capacity, etc. which may provide the opportunity to include additional DPS projects. The DPS-identified needs will be incorporated into future funding year projections as the CIP is continually updated and revised. A critical factor is to ensure the county and DPS are working together on successful implementation of the CIP, maintenance of the county’s sound fiscal practices and our resulting AAA bond rating.
Matt Kopac: The evacuation of Morehead Montessori is symptomatic of the chronic underfunding of our public schools. As a DPS parent, the issue is personal. The $493 million proposal is a welcome shift and will help our schools address the highest priority maintenance and improvement needs. I support increasing annual operations and maintenance funding as well as bonds to fund this proposal.
Our kids, teachers and staff deserve safe, healthy schools. Plus, it costs more to fix crises than to do a job right the first time, and we are losing significant money when we don’t invest ambitiously in energy efficiency. While weighing all of our school and community needs and the tax burden on our residents, we must find a way to address more of our schools’ assessed long-range needs, starting by demanding that our state legislature fulfill its constitutional obligation to provide all our children with a quality and safe education.
Regina Mays: NA
Michael Page: NA
John Rooks Jr.: NA
Public Trust in Commuter Rail
Do you support commuter rail with Wake County and how can elected leaders ensure transparency and effective oversight to earn public trust in the project?
Nida Allam: The failure of the light-rail project was a failure to get deep public input and engagement beginning with the planning of the project. As a consequence, $158 million of taxpayer dollars were spent on consultants and asset acquisition for a project that never broke ground. This has understandably broken the trust many Durham residents have in local government for delivering on mass transit on that scale.
Here’s what we can do: 1) have a better partner at the federal and State Level 2) appoint a commission of representative residents to give the recommendation to decision-makers 3) secure firm stakeholder commitment based on benefits delivery at the beginning of the project.
Nate Baker: High-quality affordable transit is critical for the future of Durham. We need frequent, reliable, connected, and expansive service. We need to be willing to fund that service, recognizing that it helps low income residents, the environment, and public health.
It is time to finally construct — and I will fight for — a high-quality and comprehensive local and regional bus rapid transit (BRT) system that connects to jobs, housing, and services. That will require unwavering political commitment, and I will provide the leadership and backbone to ensure the BRT is built, through a transparent, community-supported process.
Among a comprehensive transit approach, commuter rail should also be explored. It must be accessible to a diversity of Durham residents. Land uses around stations must include permanent affordable housing with public and non-profit ownership to limit the impacts of gentrification. All major projects need to be transparent and have a diverse steering committee.
LeVon Barnes: YES. I am a supporter of commuter rail. The people of Durham County got burned on the deal for light rail, and lots of money, time and energy was spent on this project in which we allowed Duke University to kill a project 20 years in the making. We must have a new public transit plan that connects the city to other major cities but also the county, it needs to be eco-friendly and survive off sustainable energy.
We can take examples of how we can be more efficient from countries around the world. With over 10,000 people moving into Durham County each year we must come up with a plan quickly. To ensure transparency all stakeholders must sign a contract through completion once finalized. Community groups like Engaged Durham also give us insight into what the community wants and expects from a public transit system.
Nimasheena Burns: NA
Patrick Byker: I have no inner peace about the current commuter rail proposal. Beyond the transparency problems with Go Triangle and the loss of approximately $150 million in taxpayer dollars generated in Durham County, I believe a robust community engagement process is necessary to address the following two questions: 1) Does the commuter rail project necessitate a “Great Wall” that will divide downtown Durham?
As a former chairman of the Durham Convention Center Authority, I believe the pedestrian connection between the Convention Center and the hotels to the north and the Durham Bulls, American Tobacco and DPAC to the south of the rail line, is sacrosanct, and the thought of commuter rail obliterating that pedestrian connection is unconscionable; and 2) how many people will really use this commuter rail, and does that ridership justify an exorbitant price tag, especially if there will not be a connection to RDU Airport?
Heidi Carter: In 20 years when our region has 500,000 more people, we must have a strong regional transit system to address congestion, climate change, and equitable access to jobs and services. I support commuter rail and also believe we should invest in improved local bus service, regional connections with bus rapid transit, and better bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
Durham voters approved the half-cent sales tax, and commuter rail was a major priority for the tax. We must fully engage our community in the development of the County Transit Plan, and we must have solid answers to questions around costs and risks associated with commuter rail construction. We must receive regular updates on the need for additional track, partnership with N.C. Railroad, and grade crossing requirements in downtown Durham. To earn trust, we must continuously engage the community, especially those who have been under-represented, to explain the steps/decision points and seek regular input.
Tara Fikes: I do support commuter rail with Wake County and believe that transparency and effective oversight are possible when all stakeholders are identified early with roles clarified and agreed upon; deliberations are public, documented and that documentation is easily accessible; and the deliberative/decision-making body is representative of the community.
Fred Foster Jr.: NA
Brenda Howerton: Given the projected growth for our region, commuter rail as well as other forms of transit will be imperative going forward. To increase transparency and effective implementation, I recommend a Regional Governance Committee (or Steering Committee, Oversight Committee – not sure what you would call it) composed of senior leaders of corporations, higher educational institutions (public and private), RDU International Airport, and state and local government from within the region.
James Hill: NA
Wendy Jacobs: I support moving forward with continued study and assessment of the Wake-Durham Commuter Rail project. We need a traffic free transportation option for the growing congestion on I-40 during peak commute times. The first phase of the study has confirmed the 37-mile Durham-Garner or Durham-Clayton scenarios with 20 round trips a day are projected to meet the eligibility requirements for FTA funding.
The next phase of study will assess many different risk factors including stakeholder commitment, additional project costs, construction and design risks, funding sources, passengers served, etc. Elected leaders can ensure transparency, effective oversight and earn public trust by making sure all information related to the Commuter Rail project is shared and communicated at each step of the way and making sure the public and all stakeholders are actively engaged with input and decision making.
The next phase of study will require all key partners to sign detailed agreements (MOUs), strategies for strong stakeholder communication and a plan for robust community engagement.
Matt Kopac: Commuter rail has the potential to connect people and jobs in Durham County with people and jobs in Wake County with fast, reliable service. That said, the county commissioners must first listen to our residents, partner with GoTriangle and neighboring communities to study the costs and benefits of commuter rail, and compare it with other technologies.
In my decision making I will prioritize making Durham more livable, walkable and bikeable, fighting congestion, transitioning to low or no-emissions transit, combining transit and affordability, collaborating regionally, and centering the voices of residents who are most impacted.
If we are to earn public trust, we need community engagement that is equitable. We need an updated demand study and a long-term strategic plan that looks out a generation. We will also require frequent, transparent and meaningful stakeholder engagement. Finally, we must have all agreements in place before spending significant sums toward a project.
Regina Mays: NA
Michael Page: NA
John Rooks Jr.: NA
This story was originally published February 25, 2020 at 6:23 PM.
