Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20070329APPROVED 5/3/2007 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS March 29, 2007 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session for an Assembly of Governments meeting on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:., Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon and Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below} CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Kevin C. Foy and Council Members Sally Greene, Mark Kleinschmidt, Jim Ward, Bill Strom, Bill Thorpe, and Cam Hill CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Ed Harrison and Laurin Easthom CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Mark Chilton and Aldermen Joal Hall Broun, Dan Coleman, Randee Haven-O'Donnell, and Jacquelyn Gist CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Alex Zaffron and John Herrera HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Mayor Tom Stevens and Council Members Frances Dancey, Brian Lowen, Michael Gering, and Eric Hallman HILLSBOROUGH TOWN COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Evelyn Lloyd NOTE: All other participants are listed in the text as appropriate. NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Call to Order and Introductions Commissioner Jacobs said that Chair Carey is ill tonight. Commissioner Jacobs said that he just attended a meeting of the Animal Shelter Design Committee, and he asked staff to give a brief presentation. Ellen Weinstein and Jim Compton from Dixon and Weinstein were present. Ellen Weinstein said that this is a unique opportunity to bring together three functions of Animal Services -the animal shelter in Chapel Hill, Animal Control in Hillsborough, and Administration in downtown Chapel Hill. The design committee has been meeting since January and there is a needs assessment report where each phase and requirements are listed. The proposed building is 21,000 square feet and will be just south on Eubanks Road. The goals of the building are to see it as an animal resource center. She said that the building would be designed with high standards for sustainability. She said that there is a very aggressive schedule with the planning process with Chapel Hill. The plan is to be in the building by December 2008 and construction will begin December 2007. She said that the staff has been incredible in accommodating this expedited review. Commissioner Jacobs painted out that the timeline is driven by the fact that the University has told the County to be off of its property by December 2008. Sustainable Economic Development a. Update on EDC Strategic Plan and Overview of Work Plan for 2007-2008 Economic Development Director Dianne Reid distributed a copy of the EDC's strategic plan. She said that the process began in January 2004 with an Economic Summit. This led to the formation of four work groups -Business Climate, Infrastructure, Workforce Development, and Quality of Place. Overview of Orange County Economic Vision Overall Goal: Create 5,000 new private sector jobs and increase the assessed value of non-residential property by $125 million in Orange County by June 2010 Business-focused strategies: Business Climate: Publiclprivate partnerships will have farmed to create a stronger business climate and Orange County will have a clear set of guidelines, standards, and procedures designed to sustain and nurture existing businesses, encourage entrepreneurship, and attract targeted employers. Infrastructure: Infrastructure will be in place to support the County's economic development goals of increasing the commercial tax base and retaining and attracting targeted businesses. {Main goal to work with Durham to get water and sewer in Eno EDD). lNarker-focused strategies: Workforce Development: Effective systems will be in place to train and support residents and those who work in Orange County. At least 75 percent of new jabs in the County -for both new and expanding businesses -will be filled by County residents. Quality of Place: Orange County will have thriving partnerships ensuring that the County is a great place to live and work, attracting and retaining the creative community of innovators, artists, and civic leaders that will drive the desired economy. Dianne Reid said that, comparing 2005 to 2004, there was a net increase in private sector jobs of 915. In terms of tax base, the commercial tax base increased by $48 million from 2004 to 2005. b. Discussion of Economic Development throughout the County Dan Coleman said that the Carrboro Board of Aldermen sent a letter to Orange County about the State of the Local Economy Breakfast. He said that their position is that it is wrong to have this breakfast an a weekday from 7:15-9:00 a.m. when a small portion of the citizens are able to attend, and it is wrong to charge $30 for citizens. He said that the local economy belongs to everyone and this event should be more inclusive. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was a suggestion far the timing. Jacquelyn Gist said that her pet peeve is that there are meetings that are scheduled far the elite because they are during the day and they exclude the public. She said that there are fewer and fewer elected officials who have 8-5 jobs, and one of the reasons for this is significant meetings during working hours. Dan Coleman suggested looking at the meeting schedules of all jurisdictions. Jaal Hall Broun said that she is glad that this is on the agenda because they need to talk about the economic goals and if they are in line with the desired outcome. She said that Orange County does a good job of producing housing. The schools are the attraction, but the housing does not pay for the schools or for enough recreation. She said that none of the jurisdictions are rich, but the people that live in them are, and money is tight for the jurisdictions. She thinks that they should all start planning on how to fund future schools. She thinks that there needs to be another revenue tax source because the citizens are going to say that they have had enough and that the burden is too high. Her suggestion is that if they are going to discuss increasing the number of jobs and the assessed value of non-residential property, then there needs to be specificity about haw this is going to be done. She said that Carolina North is untaxed property and there is only a certain amount of revenue that is going to come out of that. Randee-Haven O'Donnell said that the map is ensuring that the economic development districts are on the major corridor between RTP and Greensboro. She said that this is an the exit highway and this concerns her because it creates a strip mall mentality, which does not go with the environmental principles of Orange County. Eric Hallman encouraged the municipalities to participate in the Economic Development Commission because they need the input. Mayor Stevens said that it is good to see the job trend changing. He asked Dianne Reid to speak to the Durham Tech satellite campus in Orange County. Dianne Reid said that the hope is to use the campus as a way for people to have careers in Orange County and to see that there are meaningful blue-collar jobs here also. Mayor Stevens said that his Board approved increasing commercial space at the Waterstone Development, and there will be some constraints. He said that there would not be all box stores at Waterstone. He encouraged the County to use the incubator space to build local businesses. He said that there is a module of flex space and distribution. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County is trying to have an incubator area around Cornelius RoadIUS 70. This is the area around Fairview. He said that this could also be a relocation area for those moving out of the Daniel Boone complex. Mark Chilton asked Dianne Reid to speak to the issue about whether this is an automobile oriented plan. Dianne Reid said that the EDD's were created in the 1990's and they may have been auto-driven then, but the regulations have been changed in the Hillsborough EDD. The EDDs are becoming more mixed use (housing nearby, etc.) so that there would not be an RTP type of model. Brian Lowen said that he thought that the EDD areas were targeted because they were not in the central part of the County and were economically depressed areas. Commissioner Jacobs said that at the Durham Technical Community College campus in Orange County, the County is building a park and ride lot, and there is a direct connection between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill that will run right past the campus. The County has also talked with Alamance and Mebane officials about an east-west route. Brian Lowen said that officials need to be straightfonrvard with the developers and people interested in Orange County. He said that there has been talk of a Cabela's possibly targeting the Buckhorn EDD. He said that if there is no interest in something like this coming to the County, then it should be made clear. Dianne Reid said that part of the plan is to bring back ideas to the municipalities about what could be in the EDDs and get feedback. 2~ Sustaining and Maintaining Affordable Housing Dwayne Pickney, Board member of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, said that they have focused on the sustainability of affordable housing. He introduced Robert Dowling, Executive Director of the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust organization. Robert Dowling made a PowerPoint presentation. Orange Community Housing and Land Trust Challenges and Solutions for Success March 29, 2007 The Land Trust was created in 1999 by local governments to keep affordable housing affordable in perpetuity The Original Model ^ We hold the deed to every property ^ We convey homeownership through a 99-year land lease ^ Lease contains resale formula ^ Owners receive 20°to - 30% of appreciation - Retaining the deed to the property ensures `community control' of Land Trust land forever. - The ground lease resale formula allows some control over future prices. - Homeowners only receive a portion of the appreciation. - If a property increases in value by $20,000 during period of ownership, the owner realizes about $5,000. - Retaining the deed to the property allows the Land Trust to buy it back at a greatly reduced price in the distant future. Current Land Trust Inventory ^ Today there are 125 homes in the Land Trust ^ 115 are in Chapel Hill ^ 28 homes have resold - Growth fueled by Town of Chapel Hill's inclusionary housing policy. - Resales allow us to see how the model performs. - Most of our inventory is in the following developments: o Legion Road Townhames 14 units o Rosemary Place Townhomes 32 units o Vineyard Square Townhames 30 units o Greenway Condominium 16 units o Larkspur 11 units To Achieve Success The Land Trust must accomplish two goals: Keep homes affordable Keep homes well maintained If we are successful in meeting these two objectives, Land Trust homes will always be available & desirable to low-income households What do we mean by affordable? 110 of our 125 homes much be affordable to families earning less than 80°~ of the area median income. 15 homes must remain affordable to households earning no more than 100°~ of median income. - For inclusionary housing to be successful, Land Trust homes cannot be allowed to fall into disrepair. How Are We Doing? Our current model: • is not keeping homes affordable due to stagnant HUD income limits, which have not increased since 2003 • was not well designed to ensure long-term maintenance - When the model was established in 1999, the original board and staff recognized that long-term maintenance would be an issue. - But the model that was put in place did not adequately address maintenance because we didn't understand the model well enough. We knew that maintenance would have to be addressed at some future date. Affordability ^ Land Trust homes are becoming more affordable relative to home prices - Appreciation is based upon independent appraisals performed when buyers purchase homes and sell them. - Land Trust homes have appreciated at a rate 5.62% annually - But Land Trust homeowners only receive 1.67% annual appreciation - This was how the model was supposed to work -allowing homes to increase in price over time, but becoming more affordable relative to home prices. Affordability ^ But land Trust homes are becoming less affordable to buyers because: ^ Our home prices increase but HUD income limits are not increasing ^ We are instituting a monthly stewardship fee - We can only sell (most of) our homes to individuals and families who earn less than 80% of HUD's area median income. - The 80% HUD limit has been flat since 2004 due to the separation of Wake County from Orange and Durham Counties. The HUD-published maximum income {80°~} for a family of three has been as follows: 0 2001 $47,250 0 2002 $48,950 0 2003 $50,850 0 2004 $51,350 0 2005 $51,350 0 2006 $51,350 0 2007 $51,350 We expect these income limits will remain flat until 2010 when we are projecting a 3% annual increase through 2026. As a result of this phenomenon, our homes are becoming more expensive to our buyer population. Affordability (chart) - This slide shows that the same home that became more affordable relative to appraised values, became less affordable relative to incomes. - As HUD income limits remain stagnant, affordability will become mare problematic. - The 2006 AMI Percentage figure includes the monthly stewardship fee of $70 per month. Affordability How do we keep homes affordable when HUD income limits are stagnant? • Add subsidy, or • Allow homes to be sold out of the Land Trust - When homes that are barely affordable come back onto the market at resale, the only way to sell them is to inject subsidy that allows us to reduce the price to the next buyer. - We have done this several times in the past when we thought a home was too expensive. - If homeowners are unable to sell their homes because they are not affordable, then our model breaks down. Affordability Subsidy funds needed: • $1,564,000 over 20 years ^ Could be higher if mortgage rates rise above 7% - Our projections show that $1.5 million will be needed to keep homes affordable using our new model. - It is important to realize that our projections are based upon mortgage rates remaining steady at 7% for 30 years. - If rates move higher, or if the HUD income limits do not increase as we are projecting, additional subsidies will be necessary. Maintenance ^ Long-term maintenance is expensive ^ Little incentive for homeowners in current model ^ Maintenance is a requirement of responsible stewardship ^ Important to inclusionary housing - With regard to long-term maintenance, anyone who has owned a home knows that properly maintaining a home is expensive. - We believe it is imperative for Land Trust homes to be well maintained because of where they are located - in newer neighborhoods like Larkspur, Meadowmont, Pacifica, and Vineyard Square. - As holders of the deed to all of these properties that represent community assets, we believe it is our responsibility as stewards of this property to insure they are well maintained. Our experience tells us that our homeowners are not incepted by our model, nor are they required to perform maintenance. In many cases homeowners simply do not have the financial wherewithal to maintain their properties. Maintenance ^ Culbreth Park homes, 15+ years old, have recently been folded into the Land Trust ^ Typical needs include new roof, HVAC, water heater, exterior siding, painting, carpeting, and new water supply piping in some cases ^ Costs can reach up to $40,000 - Culbreth Park is an affordable housing community built in 1990-1991. Many of the affordable homes have already been sold at market value and are no longer in the affordable housing inventory. - The Town of Chapel Hill, which sponsored Culbreth Park, has recently asked us to look at buying one of the remaining affordable homes. The owner, a single mother who has lived there for 15 years, has been unable to perform maintenance on the expensive items like exterior painting. - As a result, the masonite siding has deteriorated to a point where it needs to be replaced. - The polybutylene supply piping in the water system is also deteriorated and leaking. - The home also needs a new roof, a new heating and air conditioning system, and a new hot water heater. - We estimate the cost of these repairs to be as much as $40,000. - By doing the rigorous analysis we have done and by paying more attention to construction materials, we hope to propose a model that will cause Land Trust homes to be better maintained than this home in Culbreth Park. New Model ^ 1.5% fixed annual appreciation ^ Monthly stewardship fee ^ Repair-replacement schedule for capital maintenance - Our new model provides homeowners a flat rate of appreciation of 1.5% annually. This is somewhat less than the 1.67°lo that our experience has been in the past five years. - V1le believe that 1.5°~ is fair and will keep our homes affordable under normal circumstances. - 1Ne also believe the new model offers the benefit of predictability to the hamebuyers that offset the slight decline in appreciation. - The stewardship fee is designed to pay far replacement of particular capital items such as roofs, HVAC, water heaters, exterior painting, and flooring. - The fee will vary depending upon the particular home. Single family homes that do not have homeowner associations to assist with maintenance will pay a higher monthly stewardship fee than townhomes or condominiums. - The Land Trust will devise arepair/replacement schedule far every Land Trust home. It will only include the capital items listed above. New Model • Stewardship fee only applies when a home is sold into the new model • Deferred maintenance will persist far years • Our current inventory will require deferred maintenance subsidy • It is neither practical nor fair to saddle aloes-income homeowner with expensive capital repairs shortly after purchase - Our new model will only come into play when a home resells from the current model into the new model. Until a resale occurs deferred maintenance costs continue to accrue. - The Land Trust will need to assist with deferred maintenance with almost every home that resells -particularly as our housing stock ages. - We will not be able to sell aten-year old home without a maintenance reserve to a low- incame buyer and expect them to pay for several thousand dollars of capital repairs within a few years. - As a result, we need to estimate how much deferred maintenance will be the responsibility of the Land Trust. This requires projecting when homes will sell and how much deferred maintenance will have accrued. We have done this analysis, with spreadsheets that extend out over 30 years for each of our properties. - We estimate that our existing inventory will receive $1.51 million to pay for the deferred maintenance on capital systems. To arrive at this figure, we estimated the casts of the capital items for each Land Trust home until it sells out of the old model into the new model. - Once in the new model, homeowners will be charged a stewardship fee to pay far their portion of the costs of replacing those capital items. - When new homes come into the Land Trust, prices will need to be set laver to allow for the stewardship fee, similar to how we treat HOA dues. - Because the stewardship fee will reduce the affordability of our homes, subsidy will be needed to keep some homes affordable in the new model. Total Subsidy Needed (projection} ^ Affordability $1,564,000 ^ Deferred Maintenance $1,508,000 ^ TOTAL $3,072,000 In Summary ^ We want this model to be successful ^ We recognize the model needs revisions ^ Additional funding is essential for success: ^ $3.1 million for affordability/maintenance subsidy ^ Additional operational funding - We know that we need to revise our model to address long-term maintenance. But a new model alone will not be sufficient. Additional funding will be needed to address affordability and maintenance. We project that we will need approximately $3.1 million to make this model successful. Our Requests ^ To address these issues we ask that the local governments fully fund our operating requests for 2007-08, and ^ We ask that you determine a process that will allow you to make decisions about these matters within a stated time frame. The work demanded of the Land Trust staff will increase significant as we take on property management responsibilities. We cannot absorb the costs associated with this new position. In the next five years there will be at least 150 new units added to the Land Trust, many of which will be 1 BR and 2BR condominiums. We will need to increase our marketing staff to manage this volume. We also expect that many condominium units will turnover frequently, placing a perpetual burden on the organization to find new buyers who meet the eligibility guidelines. We ask that the local governing bodies determine a process to address these issues -either as separate boards or together. Although these affordability and maintenance challenges are not a crisis, the more homes that get added to the Land Trust without addressing these issues will only increase the risks that the model will fail to meet our expectations in the future. It was suggested by one of the elected officials that the Land Trust homes be used by DTCC students for training in repairs in order to save money on labor. Eric Hallman asked about the alder Land Trust homes and maintenance and Robert Dowling said that the problem is that no one is talking about maintenance. The Land Trust has a lot of units that came on at the same time and they will all get old together. He said that other organizations deal with maintenance on a case-by-case basis. He said that they need to have a policy and they need to set a standard. Bill Strom said that he appreciated this information. He said that no one imagined that this model would be so successful when they first started out. He said that the number of units is approaching 300 units in the pipeline. He said that when there was a bond referendum for affordable housing, it was very different and the Land Trust was not successful. He asked if the Land Trust has looked into ways to use the Orange County bond money. Robert Dowling said that it is more of a question about maintenance. Jim Ward made reference to the 1.5% guaranteed appreciation and asked if there was a fallback clause in case something happens to the market. Robert Dowling said that the times where this happens tend to be very short periods of time. He said that he does not have all of the answers, and they will continue to tweak this. Robert Dowling answered several clarifying questions for Jim Ward. Jim Ward made reference to Robert Dowling's question about whether he is being a good steward of the municipalities' money. He said that the municipalities need to put in place the kind of financial oversight that would answer this question. Commissioner Jacobs said that, in response to Robert Dowling's plea, he would like to suggest referring this to the staffs and asking the Managers to get together with Robert Dowling and find answers to questions about accountability. He also suggested that the Mayors and the Chair write a letter to the congress-beings about the inequity of the staggered income. He asked Robert Dowling to outline what such a letter might look like. Robert Dowling pointed out that the median family income declined from last year by $1,600 as published by HUD. Commissioner Jacobs expressed appreciation to Robert Dowling. Jacquelyn Gist left at 9:20 p.m. 3~ Shearon Harris Update County Engineer Paul Thames said that at the last AOG meeting in September 2006, there was discussion about the latest problem with Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, which has to do with insufficient fire prevention. The County Commissioners and some of the other boards supported a petition with some other groups to try and convince the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to order immediate shutdown of Shearon Harris until it is brought into compliance with existing fire prevention standards, and to also order Shearon Harris to bring itself into compliance with existing fire regulations. The resolution also asked that the NRC expand the emergency planning zone from the ten miles immediately around Shearon Harris to a 50-mile radiation ingestion zone, which includes the entirety of Orange County. Over the past six months, the NRC responded that it has denied the emergency petition and ten miles is sufficient. The NRC will also be taking its time on making a decision on the fire protection of Shearon Harris. He said that he thinks that the decision that the NRC is trying to make is not whether fire protection is adequate or inadequate. By the rules, it is proven to be inadequate. He thinks that the decision is whether it has the authority to hold its own regulations in abeyance for 20-30 years. Upcoming issues are that Shearon Harris is probably going to ask to build one or two additional reactors. This will be a very tang process. He said that he thinks that the NRC has decided, through design basis accidents, that nuclear power plants are safe against crashing fuel-filled planes. Commissioner Jacobs said that Shearon Harris does not seem swayed to participate in any kind of forum or any kind of public information event, despite coming to meetings and saying that they would participate. Joal Hall Broun asked if there could be a hook-up with other areas nationally to protest the concerns and to increase the grassroots base. She said that this is a billion dollar industry and we need to group with like people. Commissioner Jacobs said that there are representatives from NC Warn, and they are hooked into other national groups. Paul Thames said that in most of the things he read, it is not governments that usually take on the NRC and individual plants, but there are usually grassroots citizens that get involved. Commissioner Gordon said that now that Chatham County has changed leadership, it might be good to work with them since they are within the ten-mile limit, and therefore Chatham County could demand more from Progress Energy. We should explore this further. Mark Kleinschmidt said that there are other potential allies and they could go up against Progress Energy. He said that there are opportunities in the local community to undo this partnership and to isolate Progress Energy in our business community. He suggested finding members of the Chamber that share these values and getting friends on the committees to let Progress Energy know that it is not welcome here and neither is its money. Jim Warren, Executive Director of NC Warn, said that the NRC is abusing its authority, the plant has been in violation for many years, and the NRC is allowing this to happen under its "enforcement discretion authority." He said that fire is the major threat to a nuclear meltdown. He said that Progress Energy is relying an compensatory measures and stopgap measures. These measures were rejected years ago by the NRC after a major fire in Alabama. The measures were rejected again last year, but the agency continues to allow the plant to operate. The measures have never been approved or tested for reliability. He said that what has changed since they filed legal action in September, is that in January the NRC voted unanimously to not require defense of nuclear power plants against aircraft or against mare than a handful of ground attackers. He said that the NRC misled the national media and public about this issue in saying that plants can withstand aircraft attack. Numerous federal studies show the opposite. He said that the NRC has fumbled the ball over and over with this. He encouraged all to continue to be involved. Commissioner Jacobs asked Jim Warren to address the issue of other like-minded communities and Jim Warren said that there are many nuclear plants that are not in compliance with this fire prevention issue. There are people in congress concerned about this issue and the public pressure around the country is building. He said that this is a business decision that Progress Energy has chosen not to fix these problems for years. Jim Warren pointed out that Shearon Harris has applied fora 20-year license extension for the plant. Under the current rules, Progress Energy believes and the NRC seems to indicate that they would allow the plant to get this extension without complying with the federal fire safety regulations. Mark Chilton asked Jim Warren what he recommends for the local governments to do and Jim Warren said that being in contact with Chatham County, Senator Kinnaird, Congressman Price, Representative Miller, and others would be very helpful. He said that the NRC is accountable to Congress. Dan Coleman said that the NRC does not care what local governments think, but since they are accountable to Congress, he suggested sending a delegation of elected officials (including Chatham County and Pittsboro} to meet with Congressman Price about fire issues, emergency plans, and corruption. Commissioner Jacobs said that the Clerk is in the process of setting up a meeting with Chatham County officials and Orange County Commissioners. The Mayors of Carrboro and Chapel Hill and the Chair of the Board of OWASA will also be invited. The first few issues to discuss will be transportation, open space, and recreation. The goal is to establish a mare regularized relationship. He said that this could be a good venue to work with the Chatham County officials. Commissioner Jacobs said that he supports Mark Kleinschmidt's suggestion about excluding Progress Energy from the business community. The boards appointed the following representatives for the delegation: Orange County -Commissioner Gordan Chapel Hill -Mark Kleinschmidt Hillsborough -Michael Gering Carrboro -Dan Coleman Jim Warren said that on April 1$t" the NRC will be in Apex to have an informational meeting about the re-licensing process. NC Warn will be engaging in this process. Future School Site CollaborationlPlacementslLand-Banking Commissioner Jacobs said that this is an informational item and there is a draft letter from Chair Carey. Chair Carey is asking for written comments. This has been brought up at previous AOG meetings. He asked that comments be given to the Clerk so that they can be submitted to Chair Carey. Commissioner Gordon made reference to her memo, which is shown below: MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners Date: March 27, 2007 From: Alice Gordon Subject: Proposed CountylSchools Work Group School Site Land Banking Letter- Item 5-j The purpose of this memo is to give my comments on Item 5-j of the March 27 BOCC agenda. BACKGROUND A. Schools and Land Use Councils The general idea of having the towns, County, and school boards collaborate on school issues (including school siting} is an idea that the Commissioners, including me, have supported in the past. In 1996 I proposed that Orange County elected officials from three towns, two school boards, and the Commissioners participate in School and Land Use Councils (see attachment} for the two school districts. The Councils began meeting in October 1997 and were terminated by the BOCC in January 2004. The most notable accomplishment of the Schools and Land Use Councils was their work on developing and facilitating the adoption of the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) Memorandum of Understanding, signed in July 2003. B. SchooVPark Reserve Fund The general idea of land banking school sites is also an idea the Commissioners, including me, have supported in the past. In the mid-1990's the Commissioners established a School/Park Reserve Fund to buy land for school sites in appropriate locations. The concept was that, while this land was being held for school use, it could be used far recreation and parks. The Board appropriated the equivalent of one cent on the tax rate to this fund for several years, and then eventually decreased the amount to 113 of a cent. The Board has not appropriated any funds to the reserve for several years. QUESTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING THE LETTER While I am generally supportive of restarting the functions of the former Schools and Land Use Councils and SchoollParks Reserve Fund {see above) in a new format, I have same questions. A. Funding the Land Banking of Sites How will the Commissioners fund the sites that are identified? The care concept of this Work Group effort appears to be that jurisdictions will collaborate on identifying and purchasing school sites. When sites are identified, then what? Do the Commissioners intend to appropriate funds to buy the sites? Where is the money coming from? The Board's capital funding policy indicates that the Board will try to fund an additional one-cent on the tax rate for school recurring capital and one cent for County recurring capital. Is the Board prepared to appropriate additional funds for land banking school sites? If so, should that be added to the Board's capital funding policy? B. My Recommendation I recommend that the Board defer action on approving this letter until the BOCC clarifies its role in this Work Group, especially with respect to how the County will fund the land banking of school sites. A key sentence that must be clarified appears in the second paragraph of the proposed letter: "........The ultimate goal of this process would be that the County, who is responsible for funding school construction, might possibly consider opportunities to `land bank' properties that would be suitable for future school sites." The Board should change the letter to clearly reflect the BOCC role. If the Board is going to fund land banking, then the words "might possibly consider opportunities to land bank" should be changed to "will provide adequate funds to land bank." Then the Board can take action. Commissioner Gordan said that this is a proposal to start in a new format some things that the County Commissioners did in the past. Commissioner Jacobs said that the County Commissioners would not ask the towns for the money. Joal Hall Broun said that her concern is that Carrboro recently passed a moratorium on residential construction. She said that setting aside land for schools has an affect on the municipalities' bottom lines. Commissioner Jacobs said that the thrust of the letter is to ask municipal planners to work with the school systems and the County so that the siting is consistent with the desires. Mayor Chilton said that this letter could lead someone with the impression that there has not been a lot of work to date between each of the town governments and the school systems. He said that there has been a good level of communication between these entities. Michael Gering and Eric Hallman left at 90.07 p. m. Mayor Chilton said that ultimately, there is a conflict between the rural buffer and the needs far additional school sites. At some point there will have to be a compromise on the footprint of a school and how much land a school really needs or a compromise on where the rural buffer ends and whether schools can be put there. He said that this conflict is inevitable. He said that there are steps that can be taken now to begin to transition to a more compact school footprint so that it is not such a shock. Dan Coleman said that, if at some paint school sites cannot be identified, then population growth may have to be limited. Commissioner Jacobs said that next month there is a joint meeting with the two school boards, and the County Commissioners will be coming forth with school construction standards that directly relate to reduced acreage so that they can be built in a more urbanized setting. Mayor Foy said that a couple of years ago the legislature gave Chapel Hill the authority to designate a property as a school site. He does not know if Orange County, Hillsborough, and Carrboro have this authority, but it would be useful far everyone to have it. He encouraged the County Commissioners and jurisdictions to look into this. With no further items to address, the meeting was adjourned at 10:13 p.m. Moses Carey, Jr., Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board