Presentation to Chapel Hill City Council Central West focus area Issue – Fair representation Firoz Mistry (Ironwoods area resident) Oct 24, 2012

We represent concerned citizens Thank you for allowing us to present our viewpoint My family and I have been residents of Chapel Hill for the past 16 years and enjoy living here These recommendations were arrived at after 4 meetings each lasting 2-3 hours and attended by at least persons from the community We are neither anti-growth nor anti-development nor anti-business. In fact quite a few of us are business persons too. We seek quality growth for Chapel Hill through a process which has been carefully thought through and driven by data in terms of –Realistic increased tax revenue expectation, –Accurate estimate of increased city services requirements and –Impact of increased transportation bottlenecks across three important arteries – MLK, Estes and Homestead

We represent substantial citizen numbers, property values and tax revenues The impact area covers about 3,000 acres –2000 acres cover single family homes –The rest is Carolina North, non-profit businesses and developed and undeveloped commercial properties The 2000 acres of single family homes represent –An estimated 2 - 4,000 homes ( ,000 persons?) –Combined property values of over $1 billion –And a property tax revenue of $5 million to the city

Steering Committee composition We had extensive discussions and debate about the desirable Steering Committee composition and concluded that we needed –4 experts (Planning, Carolina North, Schools, Transportation) –4 business and non-profit (landowners and businesses) –8 area residents (homeowners and other) SC would decide by a super-majority (60% or 75%)

We are disappointed with the Planning/Staff recommendations Our effort over 4 days was not given sufficient weight in their report The Planning /Staff recommendations reduced the homeowner component to only 5 out of 17 (less than a third) We are requesting a fair representation on the SC in proportion to our citizen numbers and property values. Our recommendation of 8 out of 16 on the SC was modest and in keeping with the goals of having a community-driven planning process.

In conclusion The SC committee should retain the 8 positions for residents, and if others are added (at-large, Chamber of Commerce, etc), then the 50% representation of residents should be maintained. We want Chapel Hill to continue its high- standards of town planning and seek the input of its citizens, so that it remains a desirable place to live, 10, 20, 50,… years into the future. I fully endorse and support the community driven resolution.