HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-16-1999- 2Updated W97
COMMUNICATION
GOAL: TO PROMOTE MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AND AMONG THE
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND ORANGE COUNTY CITIZENS, OTHER LOCAL
OFFICIALS AND WITHIN THE BOCC
The Board of Commissioners approved the creation of an Information Specialist position in the
Commissioners Office. The Information Specialist has assisted in public information efforts regarding
the November 1997 bonds, and with disseminating public information on the rabies problems; has
produced press releases on other topics as needed; and has enhanced the availability of County
information to citizens and the media through wider use of the County's WorldWide Web site. The
Board has continued to engage other elected Boards through the Assembly of Governments, and has
expanded its 1998 meeting schedule to include more regular, periodic meetings with municipal
governing boards. Several staff members and Commissioners participated in a two day training
session in September 1997 on approaches to improving both written and oral communication,
especially as associated with Commissioner meetings. The Board discussed options for enhancing
communications processes at their September 16, 1997 meeting. Staff has compiled the responses-
from Commissioners to a survey on next steps for communications enhancements, and transmitted
that compilation to the Board for their consideration.
PLAN OF ACTION - COMMUNICATIONS
ADOPTED MILESTONES
REVISED MILESTONES
Tasks
Completion Date
Tasks
Completion Date
Emphasize and augment the public
Summer 1997 -
information /public relations function in
Spring 1998
county government so the public and the
media will better understand Orange
County government and County goals
Foster cooperation and communication
Summer 1997 -
among elected boards in Orange County
Spring 1998
Increase effectiveness of communication in
Summer 1997 -
Board meetings and hearings.
Spring 1998
Adopted 8/7/97
Revised 11/13/97
Revised 2/27/98
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
GOAL: APPLICATION AND REFINEMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
This initiative represents the continuation of an objective first included among the Commissioners' goals for
FY 1990 -91. With the adoption of Economic Development District (EDD) proposals by the Board of
Commissioners in March, 1994, land use and zoning classifications, and design guidelines were applied to
two districts, one at I- 85/Buckhorn Road and another at I- 85/U.S. Highway 70. In January, 1995, another
district was added at I -40 /Old N.C. 86 through cooperative efforts with the Town of Hillsborough.
Since January, a cooperative planning effort has been undertaken with the Town of Hillsborough on
proposed entranceway standards for the I- 85/N.C. Highway 86 interchange. A work session with the Town
of Hillsborough is proposed to determine what steps to take next on this initiative. In addition,
adjustments to the district boundary lines in the I -40 /Old N.C. 86 EDD were presented at public hearing and
acted on by the Board of Commissioners. A proposal to expand the I- 85Buckhorn Road district on the
south side of I -85 (east of Buckhorn Road) was also considered at public hearing and subsequently
adopted in August, 1996.
Additional work in FY 1997 -98 will involve: (1) a cooperative planning effort, with the City of Mebane, on
the proposed expansion of the I- 85Buckhorn Road district west of Buckhorn Road; and (2) a study,of the
impact of the I -85 widening on land parcels in the vicinity of interstate highway interchanges.
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES
As one of its FY 1990 -91 goals, the Board of Commissioners asked that specific parcels be identified for
pre - zoning in a manner consistent with the Orange County Land Use Plan. In October, 1990, the Economic
Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board (PB) adopted an agreement which included the
following objectives:
1. Identify appropriate locational criteria, land use categories, and zoning designations to promote
business; and
2. Develop performance standards and project size thresholds which measure the impact of land
development.
In December, 1990, the EDC Target Advisory Group completed a report identifying preferred locations and
types of businesses for Orange County. Using construction cost data supplied by an area contractor and a
spreadsheet template to evaluate the economic feasibility of development scenarios, the PB/EDC Work
Group identified the preferred distribution of land uses for.selected target areas.
Rather than limit itself to traditional techniques, the PB/EDC Work Group decided to evaluate other
methods of controlling land use intensity. Among the techniques were those promoted by performance
zoning advocates. To help the PB/EDC Work Group understand the application of the standards, the staff
conducted detailed analyses of selected business sites to illustrate the relationship between development
character and intensity standards.
2
All of the work completed by the PB/EDC Work Group led to the formulation of a more definitive goal;
i.e., to develop an "economic development district" proposal with clear, acceptable performance standards
and streamlined approval procedures. The concept of an economic development district was not new. The
zoning district designation existed in the Zoning Ordinance, and the purpose of the district was "to provide
locations for a wide range of low intensity industrial, institutional, office and research use with no adverse
impacts beyond the space occupied by the use."
While such districts are normally associated with the Land Use Plan designations of "Commercial' and
"Commercial- Industrial" Activity Node, and designated in close association with interstate highways, some
changes to the Land Use Plan were required to "target" economic development districts at specific
locations. Thus, a new land use category entitled "Economic Development Activity Node" was proposed.
A second proposal involved the actual application of the category through changes to the Land Use Plan
(Map), including Township Plans. Finally, changes to the Land Use Element - Zoning District Matrix, and
applicable goals and policies were proposed to insure consistency between the Land Use Element and the
Zoning Ordinance.
Associated with the changes to the Comprehensive Plan were proposals which sought to apply a revised
"Economic Development District" zoning categoy to specific "target areas" in the county. Associated with
the rezoning proposal was the establishment of performance standards and design criteria, and streamlined
approval procedures applicable within those districts.
The efforts of the PB/EDC Work Group culminated with the application of Economic Development District
(EDD) land use and zoning classifications, and design guidelines by the Board of Commissioners to two
districts in March, 1994, one at I- 85Buckhorn Road and another at I- 85/U.S. Highway 70. In January,
1995, another district was added at I -40 /Old N.C. 86 through cooperative efforts with the Town of
Hillsborough.
Since January, a cooperative planning effort has been undertaken with the Town of Hillsborough on
proposed entranceway standards for the I- 85/N.C. Highway 86 interchange. In addition, adjustments to the
district boundary lines in the I -40 /Old N.C. 86 EDD have been presented at public hearing and acted on by
the Board of Commissioners. A proposal to expand the 1-85/Buckhorn Road district on the south side
of I -85 (east of Buckhorn Road) was also considered at public hearing and subsequently adopted in
August, 1996.
Additional work in FY 1997 -98 will involve: (1) a cooperative planning effort, with the City of Mebane, on
the proposed expansion of the I- 85/Buckhom Road district west of Buckhorn Road; and (2) a study of the
impact of the I -85 widening on land parcels in the vicinity of interstate highway interchanges.
The first initiative has been divided into two parts to reflect not only jurisdictional divisions but watershed
boundaries as well. For the area east of Buckhorn Road, the expansion of the EDD will focus on Orange
County's jurisdiction. To the west of Buckhorn Road, where both Orange County and the City of Mebane
have jurisdiction, the expansion of the EDD will be undertaken through the cooperative efforts of both units
of local government.
Related to #2 above is an issue resulting from the widening of I -85 to eight lanes. As the interstate passes
through Orange County, it bisects three watersheds: Back Creek, Upper Eno, and Lower Eno. In some
watershed locations, the widening has created "islands" of land, surrounded by interstate interchanges,
3
collector roads, and/or marginal access roads. These "islands" are unsuited for residential use as evidenced
by citizen complaints to State and Federal officials. Staff has been made aware of these concerns through
correspondence and/or phone conversations with the affected citizens. A new initiative under the broad goal
of economic development has been proposed to identify the number and extent of such situations, and
evaluate alternative land use patterns consistent with local and State watershed protection standards.
RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
Completion of this goal involved the following commitment of existing staff resources:
Planning Director Economic Development Director
Planner HYCurrent Planning Supervisor Economic Development Specialist
Planner IH/Comprehensive Planning Supervisor
Staff will compile data from time sheets concerning staff hours expended and costs associated with
completion of this goal. Monthly reports will be distributed to County Manager, Advisory Boards, and
Board of Commissioners outlining monthly /cumulative staff hours and costs assigned to this project.
4
PLAN OF ACTION - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
ADOPTED MI1XSTONES
REVISED MII,ESTONES
Completion
Completion
Tasks
Date
Tasks
Date
Finalize erform an ce standards and design guidelines for
ember-
September- t
each nonresidential use category associated with specific
October, 1992
economic development districts.
I
Finalize locational criteria for economic development
P
October -
districts including he e and distribution of land uses
, g tYP
r 1 2
November, 99
,
associated with each site.
Identify approval P rocedu r es and implementation lmentation
November-
strategies ies for development projects in economic
Decem ber , 1992 92
development districts.
Presentation of Economic is Develo ment District
February, 1993
a residents. idents.
proposals o osals s
als resented at
Economic mic Development District proposals os
, 1 93
February, Y
i
P ublic hearing.
g•
-
Revise Economic Development District rict ro osals based
March , 1 93
u
hearin g and
on public citizen comment received at b c
P resent to PB/EDC Work Group.
--
Board of Commissioners work session.
April, 1993
Revised Economic Development District proposals
May,
presented at public hearing, including design guidelines.
Meetings with neighborhoods and/o r property 3 owners to
3
June ,1993
1 99
1 t
discuss concerns/develop alternate a P lans
Revise Tans /develo final design criteria and
P P
June-August,
t,
performance standards for EDC-Planning Board Work
1993
Planning Board and Economic Development
Commission hold joint meeting and recommend December, 1993
approval of Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance
amendments, including Design Manual.
Report to the Board of Commissioners of Planning December, 1993
Board and Economic Development Commission
recommendations.
Board of Commissioners continues discussion of December, 1993
economic development district proposals.
~n
b
O
pa ~
Q
O
U
O
H
A
W
W~
a ~
~t mot- ~ d-
d- ~t d'
U' ~ w w ~ ~~'~~ ~ ~~~y~p ~~p
o a°i ~ ~ ~ ,fin ~ ~ o
W ~ ~ ~ A ~ A a~ ~o ~
z o
• ~
• A on
b ~ a
~ ~ ~ ~'
~
W ~
• ~ v
ti ~ ~
r-a U ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
cd
C''
~
O
p ,G
b U
~ .~
a
O O
p
Q
O Q
0 ~
~
. 'd
° a 'd ~ a .~ a, a°i ~ c~ Gq aoi ~ ~ ~ ~ a°i ~ ~ ~ ~
O ~ ~ U U~ N U N b ~" ~ .~ ~ U U ~ .~ ~ U U O O
~ °
U~ U
i~ ~ U
~ ~
: N U yy ~ ~.,
ttttttiii RRRttt ~
~ a°i ~ ~ ~ ~ •° a o o ~ °~' ~ ~ o ~ °~' °~' ~ o, A
c~. U ° .~ U ~ ~, ~ en ~ •o o ~s ~, ~ an ~ ,o o, an ~ .o
° °~ ~ a ~ O ~ ~ o „
w ° Gq ~ txl U o w a~ ~ ~ CA ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ •~ .~ s
a a
° o ~
~ U '°
O °
° ~ `~ U on -~ an -d
°
~
S
~ o `" ~
~ "° ~ 'ti
o ~ ~ "° ~ -o
_
° U
~.~
~ ~
° °
° .~
nno
o
v ~
o NU
.
~.
U
~.°U... .~ U
~
'° ~
~ .
,
U ° ~. U
~ U•~
~
"~ ~
~ O ~
~. U
a~:~
~ ~
~ O
0 .~ ~
~ en ~
• ~
O
o O
WOcs,t~,a,Aa
~ ~
O
~CAOa~a,aat~ .
~
~wa,G~
0
`~ ~ o
Q ~vp ~
~
W o ~
o
~ ~ ~~.
a~ U ai
?-, GA N U U• o • a • o U• • • • • o Q N o • o
PLAN OF ACTION - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (CONTINUED)
ADOPTED MILESTONES
REVISED MILESTONES
Completion
Completion
Tasks
Date
Tasks
Date
Coo P erati a
planning e
v 1 nnm effort, w o with the Town f
n
Hillsborough, h
g o the I -40 /Old N.C. 86 district.
• Work Group charge e ado ted
P
April, 194
9
Wo rk Gr oup u organizational izational meeting
g
July, 1994
• Preparation ation of EDD proposal osal
Au ust -
October
• i
Initiate neighborhood meetings P proposal s to resent ro osal
g
1 4
99
and i
obta n feedback
October, 1994
• Wo rk Group report to BOCC/Town of Hll sborou h
October, 1994
• Public ub c Hearin g
November, 1994
Planning Board
Bo recommendation
December, 1994
-------- -
>: �;:::::<::::> r:.,.., ................
.:.............................
e BOCC decision
January, 1995
I ifi i
C ar cat on of ermitted uses in I-40/Old
P e N.C. 86 EDD
>>
acent to
adjacent Cornwallis Hills Subdivision.
• Mediation sessions wi th Co rn w 1 i s Hills /Old N.C.
January-March,
86 residents
1995
• m
Planning
P I ann Board recommendation
June ,1995
Jun 995
..........
• BO CC decision
June 1995
l y
..ii }:::$::::i::ii.
Adjustment of I-40/Old 40 /Old N.C. 86 EDD bound lines to
J �'
eliminate "split" properties.
erties.
.... .....................:......:..
• Public Hearing
August 99 5 1
• Planning Board recommendation
Se tember 1995
• B e
OCC decision
October, 1995
Cooperative planning effort, with the Town of
Hillsborough, on I- 85/N.C. 86 interchange area.
• BOCC/Hillsborough Work Session, at which:
May, 1995
0 EDC/Hillsborough Staff directed to prepare
June -
recommendations on improving the I- 85/N.C. 86
September,1995
entranceway; and
Board of Commissioners -Town of Hillsborough
0 County Planning Staff directed to prepare land
August -
Work Session, including discussion of next steps to be
May, 1998
use recommendations for the area extending
October,1995
taken to improve the I- 85/N.C. 86 entranceway.
from the I -40 /Old N.C. 86 EDD northeast to the
vicinity of the proposed Oakdale Drive
extension.
• BOCC/Hillsborough Work Session to receive staff
November,1995
reports and consider fixture course of action.
7
PLAN OF ACTION - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS (CONTINUED)
ADOPTED MILESTONES I REVISED MQESTONES
Completion Completion
Tasks Date Tasks Date
Cooperative e Tannin
effo
with h the City of Mebane, on
-
expansion f
othe I 85Buckhorn Road district.
Phase I - East Side of Buckhom Road
Draft proposal
December, 1995
Conduct neighborhood meeting to present proposal
March, 1996
Revise proposal based on neighborhood comment
March, 1996
Report to Planning Board
April, 1996
Public Hearing
May, 1996
Planning Board recommendation
June, 1996
Board of Commissioners decision
August, 1996
Phase s II - West ide
S of Buckhorn Road
Draft proposal
October , 1997
Octobe r, 1998
to resent proposal
Conduct neighborhood meetin g P P
November, 1997
1 98
November, 9
Revise ro P g mm
P osal based on neighborhood comment ent
Decem r
December, 1997
'`
���
December, 1998
Report to Planning
January, 1998
January, 1999
Public Hearing
g
1998
':
February 1 9 9
ry 9
Plannin g Board recommendation
March 1998
April, ril 1999
Board of Commissioners decision
April, 1998
May, 1999
Complete I-r
85 Corrid o Stud .
• Plannin g conducts Staff cond is f I-85 corridor and
Y
Jul 1996
Y
December, 1998
�
identifies parcels impacted b widenin gP roJ e
project and
-
-
land use alternatives.
October, 1997
J nua 1999
ry
• Report rt to Board of Commissioners/referral to
November , 1997
F bru a ry 1999
Plannin g Board.
• Ordinance Review recommendation
December, 1997
March 1999
s P1 annin Board re commendation.
January,
April, 1999
• Public ub c hearin g .
February, 1998
Ma 1999
Y
• Planning Board recommendation. .
March , 1998
Jul 1999
9
Board of mmi '
Co ssioners decision.
April, 1998
August, ust 1999
Adopted: 12/04/95
Revised: 06/23/97
Revised: 02/27/98
C�T7�`►[!i 5[K���7�11 Y'f rC�7:hf 1�Z�] rA
GOAL: TO DEVELOP A LOAN POOL TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE FINANCING FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES IN ORANGE COUNTY
In September 1997, the Board of County Commissioners voted to proceed with the loan pool program.
Some changes were made in the program's Operating Policies and Procedures, such as establishing a
residency requirement for loan. recipients, and requiring participants to follow the minimum standards of the
Orange County Living Wage Ordinance, if adopted. The County Attorney then drafted Articles of
Incorporation and Bylaws for a non - profit entity which would administer the program. These documents,
establishing the Orange County Small Business Loan Program Company, were approved in
December 1997. The non - profit will be governed by a nine - person Board of Directors; six representatives
to be chosen by participating banks, and three representatives of the County.
Currently, the EDC staff is working to re- confirm agreements from local banks to provide $500,000
for the loan pool. Staff is also working to complete agreements for third -party contracts to service
the loans. Staff turnover has caused some delay in completing these negotiations. The loan pool
should be operational early in the 1998 -99 fiscal year.
BACKGROUND & OBJECTIVES
The Economic Development Strategic Plan calls for the encouragement of small business in Orange County
through "creative financing options." At the strong encouragement of the EDC Board of Directors, the staff
began working with the local banking community to develop a program. In December 1995, a preliminary
report was made to the Board of County Commissioners outlining the details of a loan pool. The
Commissioners directed the staff to continue work and bring back final- details.
RESOURCE REQU]J2EMENTS
Based on estimates from similar programs, the Orange County loan pool will require significant staff time
as well as direct funds for marketing and third -party contracts. The best estimate of staff time is
approximately 520 hours, valued at approximately $13,000 per year. This is time of current staff and
would replace time spent on current activities. Third -party contracts are estimated at $15,000. In addition,
the County needs to provide $150,000 over the next 3 years in a loan loss reserve that would cover defaults
in the loan portfolio. Total staff and other costs are $28,000 annually plus $50,000 annually for the loan
loss reserve. Aside from re- prioritization of staff, the program would require $65,000 in . new
appropriations, $50,000 in the Capital Improvements Plan and $15,000 in the EDC operating budget.
N
r ~
O ~ ~
~
y
a
°°
°° ~
° + it
A n c
, .a
~ .
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
U c. c~ a ~ cs,
~ ~ ~ d ~
O
[-+
~ ~
W ~ b
~ A
a '
~
~ '~
~
O WW
a
Ei
~ ~ ~
as
~' a , ~
, +
O
° ~ ~ ~ 8
~-1 ~
a, ~
A b c
a. nn ° a
~ ~ ° 0
®
U 0
~ ~ ~ .~
~ ~ ~ ~ A v~
;:;<;::
1
i
~:
;•
~ t?3`:
<
;: .
{ :i, ,{
~.~YF
.•5+~.~~
.
® F+q
~ A :
4;!~:;: iW:~
;~;: :
is ~.:
:..
.? ;.;
:
!
++
'
M
,
' y.~y~
U
U
~~ ~}}
:ti~(..
'i~ti
:::~;.: .
<::
W
O
ti{::
r: \•
:i;;+:;:
:;
~
~~//~r
Vl
~
~: ;{
:jiiY!$
'~~~jy
•x
.•}:
~~%jr k
i~\:~+:
~:
•':'t?~ is }:
{ i
r
}::'~f1}
~i
rti;'{{:
~?
•
H .
r^
r
V1
~}f~
•
r
~
~
F{;'
. }'
~
..,
} ~ r
~
>
$}.;'~ ~
r
y 4: }
A
~
v
~
~: $$;{'r,
$~;:};
::iw:
.
,,
j
0
:iCi::
,~:
f
~`t'
~ ~' .
>
}:
}, v
`
:: .;
`
~
:::~>
:::cx~:
,~~}
.
;~ S
i $
.
:
~
.
ier ~~~
~~'
'~ ~~~.,
~}}:
yyy~~~~
:;:LA? ~
;
:
:~ • •,
?ti'?{#;
~ ~.
ti.
i4Y:{
~
r
'
ri
.'e'
~
tip'.
.
.
:~~~~ ::
Y ...1{.
.;
:
•
'?
~
.~.SYti~
M ; ~
~g ~^ ~x
.i~.~iC
tir,44
;
%..
:: :: $ ti?i
EQUITABLE ANI) EFFECTIVE SCHOOL FITN1)ING
Updated 4/98
GOAL: TO PROMOTE FAIRNESS, EFFECTIVENESS, AND EFFICIENCY IN THE ALLOCATION
TO AND USE OF RESOURCES BY THE TWO SCHOOL SYSTEMS.
At their December 1996 annual planning retreat, the Board of Commissioners adopted a revised capital funding plan that
addresses school and county capital project funding and provides for growth in annual recurring capital allocations to
school systems. The Capital Needs Advisory Task Force met regularly between early February and mid-April 1997 to
develop recommendations to the Board of Commissioners concerning the elements and size of a bond referendum
planned for November 1997. Their formal report, presented to the Board in May 1997, recommended a bond referendum
of up to $61.7 million, to supplement on-going pay-as-you-go funds. and State school bonds approved by voters in the
November 1996 election
On November 4, 1997, Orange County voters approved $47 million in bonds for new school construction and
renovations to various existing school facilities. The Board of Commissioners adopted the 1997-98 Orange
County Budget Ordinance to include full funding of the current expense budget request of the Orange County
Board of Education. The Board approved an increase of 2 cents in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools special
district tax to increase the amount of operational funds available to CHCCS for 1997-98. The Board
appointed a High School Construction Standards Task Force, which has held three meetings since mid-
December, 1997 and is tentatively slated to complete its work in late May, 1998. The Schools and Land
Use Council was appointed and has held several meetings since its initial meeting in October, 1997..
N
M
w
O
~ rn ~ rn rn
p ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
E ~ r
~ ~ C C
_
.
.
• N
V Q. Ri ~ i2
Q. ~ ~ ~
Q LL fq fq C/~ --~ fn tq
W
O
H
N
_Z J
Z 0
W
~ ~
N
..1 W N
0 ~ H
V
N
W
H
W
W
W
Z
Q
W ,$'
OJO ~
a
w c
~ U
Z
O
H N
V W
Q Z
O ~
z- w
Q J_
.o.
0
w
E-
O ~
~ R
Q ~
_ ~
U O ~
N
O ~ of .~ ~ ~ O N .! ~ ~ ~
U C .~
U u v .~ ~ Q. N'
t~ U '
U O O U > v~ .~ N N V '~ '~ O
N ~ Q'~ N 0 ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ O ~ cn
O. tCj
N C
~ 'a
L .O ~ Q.
~ O N
'p tQ ~
O '~ ~ yN N (tf '~ N cn C fU ~ ~ C .~-~
U U -p
O O Q y ~,
~ O
N ` O ~
N
'p .
N
~ ~+ O 'a
.O ~' ~ ~ ` ~
~
N yO U ~
~ .
t~
~ ~ ~
C N N
'~-, ~
C C ~ ,
C ~ N
O
~ ~ ~-•
cn ~ u~ .~ 'L7 ~ O ~ .~ N t!~ ~ Q. O N
_
~ ~ c E~ ~ ~ N o C N E.~ ° ~ C
~~ ~ ~,
~
~
o
o~sv
U~ c o
U~ 'U ~cvi
O N ~~N
v N .~-• OX
U~ -
,
,
~ Q- '~
o ~~ O O~ U
o ~~~
c ~
~ U U tL o .F.. ~ v
'a °' ~ ~
'a .~ 'C ~ ` ,,_,
'c a~ ~ ~ o
~ -v o a c
-v o vi
-v o o vi
~ o
o ~' °~ ~
oo
m a~ oo
-
m.c ~~ ~
a..~.~ ~o~U
<(..Q ~n.E i
oma
m v c -
U~'ai
v) u~.2,~