The longer we observe local governments, the more often we shake our head in disbelief at the creative ways so-called “public bodies” find to trample on the rights of their constituents.
The latest example was in the small hamlet of Swepsonville last week, where the town council was ostensibly holding a “public hearing” on the annexation and rezoning of property where the Sheetz gas station and convenience store company wants to build.
Here’s the novel approach taken by the town’s mayor, Henry Carrouth: the mayor unilaterally decided that only the nine people who signed in on the town’s “sign-up sheet” at the door before the meeting could talk, ask questions, or otherwise comment during what turned out to be about an hour-long public hearing.
Among those excluded was this newspaper’s publisher, who is also a resident of Swepsonville. The mayor told him and others who “didn’t sign up” that they could wait and speak during a “public comment period” at the end of the meeting – i.e., after the decisions on annexation and rezoning had already been made.
As one resident noted, the procedure did not allow for questioning unforeseen facts, comments, or other issues that arose during the company’s or the town’s presentations.
As noted by at least one other resident, it certainly appeared that the council members had already made up their minds before the meeting even began, which suggested that even the people who were allowed to speak during the meeting had no impact on the final decision.
Even more useless is the offer to allow those who were prevented from speaking to talk at the end of the meeting, after the decision has already been made.
As best we can recall, in 35 years of covering local boards, it was the first time the newspaper’s reporters, or the publisher himself, had been prevented from asking a question during a public hearing at an open meeting.
Not a single council member (other than the mayor) had anything to say – no questions or comments to the company’s representatives or any resident or other speaker during the hearing.
The publisher insisted that state law specified no such limitation on speakers during a public hearing.
We’ve checked around to be sure our memory and observation are correct: Carrouth’s determination that only those who signed in could speak during a public hearing is singularly unique and unprecedented among Alamance County public bodies.
No other jurisdiction that has occasional or regular public hearings – on annexations, rezoning requests, or just about any other topic (most notably, Burlington, Graham, Mebane, Elon, for example) – limits public participation to some sort of arbitrary “sign-up sheet.”
To the extent that those jurisdictions employ “sign-up sheets” at all, it is for miscellaneous public comments and not at state-required public hearings.
There is absolutely nothing in state law that restricts public participation during a required public hearing (such as for annexation and rezoning requests) in the manner Carrouth imposed.
The town’s attorney, Paul Koonts, twice deflected the publisher’s objections by assuring the mayor that the determination of whether to limit participation to the sign-up sheet signatories was “at the discretion of the council.”
The more typical practice among most local municipal councils is to allow anyone present to make their comments during a public hearing. In most jurisdictions, mayors and council members err on the side of openness and public participation. But not in Swepsonville.
What became especially clear was that the topic the council most didn’t want to hear challenged or questioned was the town’s plan to subsidize a multi-billion dollar company with $100,000 from the town’s coffers.
All the more puzzling is that there was no public hearing on the so-called “cost-sharing agreement.” It was a separate agenda item (from the annexation and rezoning public hearing) for which no public comment was sought or entertained.
The company has estimated that it will cost about $427,596 to run the sewer line from the current Laurelton Village subdivision to the future Sheetz site.
For reasons that remain a mystery to us and many others at last week’s meeting, the town somehow decided it would be a good idea for the town to fork over $100,000 of that cost. (All of which was initially determined behind closed doors over several months in closed sessions in July, August, September, and October.)
Carrouth kept insisting last week that the town would “recoup” that $100,000 over time through “system development fees” from (future) new development on the other side of NC 54.
The trouble is that no one addressed the fundamental question of why the town should pay out any of the money in the first place?
In real towns and cities, the first developer of a new area being serviced by the municipality bears all of the initial costs of the new infrastructure, such as the sewer line involved with the Sheetz project.
The municipality is thus the beneficiary of any privately-developed infrastructure; those who want to “tap on” to the line in the future, through residential or commercial expansions, would then pay to do so.
But the town or city doesn’t have to pay anything up front.
But not in Swepsonville. We’re quite sure the Sheetz representatives walked away from last week’s meeting laughing, high-fiving each other, and slapping each other on the back for having pulled one over on the hapless town council by making it pay some of what should have been entirely the company’s costs.
Also highly unusual is the town’s failure to have any information provided publicly about the traffic impact analysis (TIA) that had supposedly been done for Sheetz regarding the likely effect on traffic along NC 54 and North Jim Minor Road. There was nothing offered, neither verbally nor in writing in the “agenda packet” or otherwise available to the public.
Adding to the suspicions about how all this came about is the cozy relationship between the town’s attorney (Koonts) and Sheetz.
For the Swepsonville project, he is ostensibly Swepsonville’s municipal attorney. But for a different project the company has in the offing in Mebane, he is Sheetz’ attorney. The Sheetz company representatives in each case are otherwise the same.
As one resident asked rather pointedly, who is Koonts really representing in the case of the Swepsonville Sheetz: the town or the company?
All in all, this was the kind of meeting and decision-making that gives governments of any size a bad name.
336-270-4352
Service Areas
