HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20070412APPROVED 5/15/2007
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
April 12, 2007
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Thursday,
April 12, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough,
North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr., and
Commissioners Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, and Mike Nelson
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County
Manager Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker {All other staff members
will be identified appropriately below)
NOTE:
MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS.
Chair Carey distributed a copy of a bill that was filed today, which has 125 co-
signers in this House, which means that it has a significant amount of support. This bill
is related to the counties' share of Medicaid being reduced.
1. Economic Development Commission FY 2007-08 Goals Update
Laura Blackman said that these goals are not on the retreat follow-up list
because this department has a whole list of goals and she wanted to do a complete
update.
Economic Development Director Dianne Reid said that when the staff brought
goals in February, there were some specific things targeted that needed to happen right
away, specifically getting the loan program up and running. This is underway. The
bylaws are also being revised. There was also an immediate goal of getting the
feasibility study for the value added agricultural processing center underway. She said
that she spoke with Senator Kinnaird and someone from Person County about setting up
a meeting to get Person County as a final partner. The other immediate goals are listed
in the abstract, and are as follows:
Expansion of Broadband and Cell Phone Coverage
During March, members of the Infrastructure Wark Group met with Jane Patterson,
Executive Director of e-NC, whose mission is increasing statewide access to broadband
connectivity. Ms. Patterson shared information an broadband availability in Orange
County, and agreed to have her GIS staff work with Orange County staff to map access.
The group will meet again in May to review the results and discuss next steps. The
effort to expand coverage for economic development includes County Information staff,
the County Manager's office, and County Planning staff in addition to EDC staff.
Reorganization of Quality of Place Work Group
Under new co-chairs Winkie La Force (Executive Director of Leadership Triangle) and
Jon Wilner (Executive Director of the ArtsCenter), twelve potential work group members
met on March 29 to discuss collaborative efforts to market the County and its many
cultural assets. The group identified others to invite to a second meeting in early May, at
which time it will develop objectives and a work plan far 2007-08. The overall goal of the
Quality of Place Work Group is to create thriving partnerships ensuring that the county is
a great place in which to live and work, attracting and retaining the "creative community"
of innovators, artists and civic leaders that will drive the desired economy.
Agricultural Services and Other Rural Enterprises
A group consisting of Planning, Environment and Resource Conservation, and Economic
Development Department staffs are meeting weekly to wrap up recommendations for
changes to support innovative agricultural enterprises throughout the county. The work
will be presented at the May Quarterly Public Hearing. EDC staff is also working with
Planning Staff on a proposal for Rural Economic Development Areas and on
reexamining regulations governing rural crossroads community nodes. The Rural
Economic Development Area concept will be part of the May Quarterly Public Hearing,
with an update on the nodes targeted for the Fall Quarterly Public Hearing.
Central Permitting and Facilitated Development
Interdepartmental predevelopment meetings (including Hillsborough staff as appropriate)
continue on a regular basis. Project applicants meet, face-to-face, with all staff that has
a project review role, with Economic Development staff present in anon-regulatory,
facilitating role. The applicant has an opportunity to learn all of the steps involved in
project approval and to ask any clarifying questions of staff. Minutes of the meetings
become the road map for the approval process. While time consuming and sometimes
difficult to schedule, staff and applicants have expressed great satisfaction with the
results. Building Inspections is preparing information on additional staff requirements to
formalize the one-stop permitting process.
Target Industries for the Economic Development Districts
Attachment A shows the Desirable Business Matrix developed by the Business Climate
Work Group during the past year. The first part of the matrix ranks the importance of
potential criteria in determining the desirability of target businesses. The last section
shows which of the ten industry clusters identified in the Research Triangle Regional
Partnership's competitiveness plan, Staying on Top, could be appropriate in Orange
County. It is the recommendation of the Business Climate Work Group that businesses
meeting the criteria (particularly those ranked high) would be welcomed into our
community, would receive expedited review, and would be eligible for any incentives that
might be created at the local level. Attachment B gives more detail on the RTRP
clusters, and makes a first cut at identifying target industries for the three Economic
Development Districts.
Investing in Innovation
Business Climate Workgraup
Attachment A
Potential Criteria High Med Law
Build upon or supports existing assets in the county:
• Suppliers for or buyers of products of existing businesses X
• Enhances product lines of existing businesses {food processing facility) X
• Co-location with other linked businesses (as an eco-industrial park) X
• In-fill development in downtowns, economic development nodes X
• Located on existing or potential transportation corridor, including public X
transit lines
• Employee needs matches local labor forceltraining potential X
• Re-uses or preserves existing structures when possible X
Creates high quality jobs for OC residents Qobs pay well, offer benefits, career
advancement potential):
• Hires local workers X
• Provides training and promotion opportunities X
• Provides adequate wages and comprehensive benefits X
• Provides a safe, clean, and healthy work environment X
• Provides family-friendly benefits X
Increases commercial tax revenues (property andlor sales tax) X
Creates minimal impact on the environment:
• Minimizes use of natural resources, including water resources X
• Uses recycled content products when possible X
• Uses energy efficiently X
• Promotes accessibility via public transportation/car or van pools/bicycles X
• Utilizes best management practices for water run-off X
• Avoids production and use of hazardous waste or other forms of pollution X
• Helps preserve green space X
Possesses viable business plan/potential for long-term success with growth X
potential (particularly in jobs) I
Preference for local ownership and management
Commitment to remain in the county
X X
Potential Criteria High Med Low
Preference for headquarters X
Supports community by:
• Providing financial support to community agencies ~ X
• Supporting volunteerism and community involvement by employees X
• Supporting community events and celebrations X
Preference for business in one of ten industry clusters identified in Research
Triangle Partnership's competitiveness plan {Staying on Tap)
• Pharmaceuticals {Law Manufacturing) Not Desirable
• Biological Agents and Infectious Diseases X
• Agricultural Biotechnology Not Desirable
• Pervasive Computing X
• Advanced Medical Care X
• Analytical Instrumentation X
• Nanoscale Technologies X
• Informatics X
• Vehicle Component Parts Manufacturing X
• Logistics and Distribution X
Attachment B
Targeted Industries
GENERAL TARGETS (from RTRP Clusters of Innovation, with emphasis on
clusters in which UNC-Chapel Hill has research strength):
Biological Agents and Infectious Diseases
Opportunities in the area of biological agents include not only public health but also
protection of the environment, water supplies and food sources (plant and animal) from
natural or terrorist exposure to biological agents. Infectious disease is receiving
increased attention because of emerging or re-emerging infectious disease (e.g. mad
cow disease, West Nile virus, SARS), drug resistance across all classes of microbial
pathogens and bioterrorism. At the regional level, the Research Triangle has multiple
strengths, including
• World-class public and environmental health research organizations
• Discovery and development of new infectious disease therapeutics
• Sensors and sensor webs, analytical instrumentation and data mining, which will
be critical to early detection and monitoring of outbreaks
• Nanomaterials research, which will provide improved barrier systems for infection
control
Pervasive Computing
Pervasive computing enables on-demand access to information from anywhere at
anytime. Creation of pervasive computing networks involves integrating wireless
technologies, optical communications and computational hardware and software -all
areas of strength in the region. The rise of pervasive computing networks will create
opportunities in areas such as:
• Medical devices that enable monitoring of patients in real-time and improve the
quality of health care in rural areas
• Wearable electronics that are incorporated into textiles or miniaturized to be
worn unobtrusively on the body
• Sensor networks deployed at remote locations for various uses, including
inventory tracking
• Laboratory information management systems, especially to support
pharmaceutical research and clinical trials
Advanced Medical Care
In the next 10-2Q years, combined advances in several fields -medical devices and
diagnostics, drugs and drug delivery systems, genomics and proteomics,
telecommunications and informatics -will revolutionize medical case. Our region offers
world-class health care institutions that will continue to lead in the evolution of quality
health care. Examples of advanced medical care advances include:
• Diagnostic tests to identify early cellular and molecular changes that are
characteristic of a given disease
• Injectable nanomachines that deliver localized drugs, clean arteries, selectively
destroy cancer cells or repair organs
• Gene therapy to treat tumors
• Remote, cost-effective monitoring of patient progress during and after treatment
using wireless sensors and telecommunications
Analytical Instrumentation
Analytical instrumentation incorporates advances in sensors in a variety of fields
including chemistry, civil engineering and security. The Research Triangle Region has
expertise in optics/photonics, combinatorial methods and informatics. Examples of new
analytical instrumentation include:
• Tunable lasers that will replace spectroscopic light sources
• Advanced, low-cost, lab-on-a-chip technologies, such as corrosion monitors on
bridges and chemical sensors in factories
• Applications of combinatorial methods to the health care industry
Nanoscaie Technologies
Recent advances in chemistry enable molecular-level engineering of complex structures
such as polymers, metals, ceramics, proteins and genes. Our region is well-positioned
to capitalize on the emergence of these nanoscale technologies, particularly for life
science applications. Examples include:
• The creation of medicines personalized to individual DNA structures
• New composites useful in medical sensors, tumor labeling and cell transport
agents
• Creation of nanoscale materials for automotive components and architectural
structures
Informatics
Informatics includes a broad range of information technologies, computer hardware,
software and IT services used to manage and analyze data to drive innovation and
create business advantage. In the knowledge economy, competitive advantage comes
largely from an organization's ability to make effective and timely use of internally and
externally generated data. Three areas with significant cross-cutting potential are critical
to the continued growth of the region's informatics sector:
• Distributed computing
• Analytical software techniques
• Imaging and visualization systems
Logistics and Distribution
The Research Triangle Region is also focusing on continuing to focus on this traditional
industry sector that remains a viable job creation opportunity. Because of Orange
County's strong transportation assets (Interstates 40 and 85) and its location midway
between the Triangle and the Piedmont Triad, logistics and distribution has good
potential, particularly in the Buckhorn Economic Development District.
SPECIFIC TARGETS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS
Eno EDD
The Eno EDD Work Group has not yet completed its visioning work for the types of
businesses desired for the area. We expect that the group's draft recommendations will
be completed this summer. However, given the general area, the size of the parcels,
and the proximity to residential development, we would expect the targeted industries to
include:
• Construction offices
• Light manufacturing and assembly, including within multiple-tenant flex space
• Small-scare storage and warehousing
• Wholesale Trade {both durable and non-durable goods}
• Retail Trade, including restaurants and service stations
• Financial institutions, insurance agents and real estate agents
• Personal Services
• Professional services
Development is expected to be small-scale, one to two floors, and to generally blend in
with the architecture along Route 70 on both sides of the county line.
Hillsborough EDD
Fallowing the pattern of the Waterstone project, we expect development within the
Hillsborough EDD to continue as mixed-use development, with single and multi-family
housing co-existing near retail, office, and institutional uses. Retail will include big box
and locally-owned businesses, movie theatres, restaurants, and hotel/conference
facilities. Offices will include large Class Amulti-story buildings featuring a mix of tenant
businesses (including research and development for the targeted industries described
above} and linear one-story office buildings featuring personal and professional services,
and finance, insurance and real estate businesses. Hillsborough is already home to
several large call-center oriented businesses (A Southern Season, PHE, Sports
Endeavors); we should build on the existing cluster, targeting financial services as well
as other consumer goods centers. Another logical extension would be to add to the
informal food cluster that is developing at the Hillsborough Business Center with the
Weaver Street "Food House" and a coffee roaster. We should attempt to attract other
relatively small- scale food preparation and storage operations serving the high-end
specialty restaurants in the region. The office spaces should target UNC spin-offs,
graduates of the incubator programs at Carolina North, and other research and
development facilities that do not require close proximity to RTP. As Wake and Durham
Counties are running out of large parcels of land, Hillsborough and Buckhorn will
become more attractive.
Buckhorn EDD
Given the development of the Gravelly Hill Middle School and the West Ten Soccer
Complex in the southern part of the Buckhorn EDD, we are proposing less industrial
uses for the land along West Ten Road. We recommend destination or clustered retail
for the large parcel fronting Buckhorn Road, with a mix of uses to include restaurants, a
hotel, and small and large retail. An example of destination retail would be Bass Pro
Shop or Ikea; an example of clustered retail would be home furnishings or auto dealers.
We suggest exploring an open-air farmers market! festival marketplace east of the
soccer complex, possibly combined with a park and ride lot serving east-west transit.
On the north side of Interstate 40185 (which has rail access}, we suggest a
warehouse/distribution center on the western edge, moving to heavier industrial uses to
the east, to the existing building at Redmond Crossing currently under contract to a
custom millwork manufacturer. Possible targets for the distribution center would be big
box retailers and parcel delivery services.
Commissioner Gordan made reference to the criteria "Creates minimal impact on
the environment" and suggested changing the first bullet to, "Minimize use of water and
other natural resources," to highlight the water. Also, she thinks that "uses energy
efficiently" should be a top priority. She said that she needs more information on the
biological agents and infectious disease industries. There could be some concern about
this. Dianne Reid said that RTP uses a lot of these and staff will clarify these.
Commissioner Nelson made reference to the targeted industries and said that
the ones that are listed make sense, but the report reflects existing things. He said that
with the changes in how to deal with energy, there is a tremendous economic
opportunity with these systems. He said that the Board would have to educate itself
about this world, which is right around the corner.
Commissioner Nelson made reference to broadband and said that there are
many citizens that do not have it. He wants to make sure that it happens and that there
is broadband all over. He made reference to the Quality of Place Work Group and said
that his experience is that this type of people will nat join committees. He said that
Carrboro had brainstorming lunch work sessions with people to get ideas.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the value added agricultural center and
pursuing the meeting with Person County. He said that he got a call from an Alamance
Commissioner who is very interested in this and wanted to know when the County plans
to hire the consultant. Dianne Reid said that the instructions were that they are waiting
for the money before the contract is executed and Geof Gledhill agreed. Commissioner
Jacobs said that the County could try and recoup the money as opposed to waiting for
the money. He thinks it is important to keep moving.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like Orange County to focus on
separating itself and using environmentally-oriented and futuristic industries. He made
reference to the Business Climate Work Group and said that the quality of place work is
too generic and self-apparent. He would also like to see mare young people involved.
Chair Carey asked about the rationale for the local ownership and management
priority being low and Dianne Reid said that it was a debate in the working committee
and they placed it as a low priority.
Commissioner Faushee said that it was relative in the discussion and they talked
about certain preferences as to what they wanted to attract in Orange County. It just did
not have the same importance as a larger business.
Commissioner Gordon said that it does not make sense for the "Commitment to
remain in the County" to be a high priority and the "Preference for local ownership and
management" to be low. She said that the County has a priority to use local businesses.
Laura Blackmon said that the Economic Development Commission is working
diligently on these goals, and as it moves forward, the Board of County Commissioners
may want to formalize the EDC's working as a policy commitment to do the things that
the EDC is recommending.
2. Landfill Gas Opportunities Update
Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson introduced Bab Selig, President of Olver, Inc.
and his associate Ed Schopler. He said that staff last spoke to the Board of County
Commissioners about this issue last fall, regarding options for landfill gas recovery and
utilization. At that time, the proposal was for a preliminary feasibility study to try and
indicate the options for using landfill gas. The Board asked the staff to proceed with a
more detailed feasibility study. This item is to report the results of this study and to
make a recommendation on haw to proceed.
Bob Selig made a PowerPoint presentation.
Preliminary Evaluatian
• Based upon current electric rates, the sale of electricity alone will not support
development of a Eubanks Road LFG recovery project
• Cogeneration is required to make an LFG recovery project more attractive
^ Cogeneration -generation of electric power and recovery of waste heat from
electric power generation equipment
^ Coincident user need for electric power and thermal energy
^ Thermal energy (heating)
Cogeneration Opportunities
• Eubanks Raad Project
' Solid Waste Operations Center
' Animal Shelter
' Transfer Station
^ Auxiliary Site Use
' Elementary School
• Carolina North Project
' Multi Building Campus Development (8,251,000 GSF}
User Energy Demands
Energy Balance
System Components
• LFG Extraction Wells and Collection System (South Eubanks MSWLF}
• Blower & Flare Station {South Eubanks MSWLF}
• Moisture Removal & Compressor Station {South Eubanks MSWLF}
• Gas Transmission Line {Landfill to Schaol}
• Fuel Conditioning & Microturbine (Schaol)
Economic Evaluation
(Average Annual Costs)
Considerations
• Preliminary Economic Assessment
' Estimated Costs exceed Revenues and Avoided Costs - ($108,6001yr on an
Average Annual Basis}
' Economics Negatively Impacted by Low Thermal Energy Demands of Primary
Users
Energy Demand Comparison
LFG System Components
• LFG Extraction Wells and Collection System (North & South Eubanks MSWLFs}
• Blower & Flare Station (North & South Eubanks MSWLFs}
• Moisture Removal & Compressor Station (South Eubanks MSWLF)
• Gas Transmission Line {Landfill to Carolina North Campus)
• Fuel Conditioning & Microturbine {Carolina North Campus)
Energy Summary
Economic Evaluation
{Average Annual Costs)
Considerations
• Preliminary Economic Assessment
' Separate Cogeneration Facility
• Must Maximize Cogeneration Energy Production and Usage
' Alternative Fuel
• Natural Gas Substitute
Average 10-Year Cost
Considerations
' Delays in Carolina North Development Timeline Could Adversely Impact Project
Feasibility
' Time Dependent Decline in LFG Generation Rates
• Environmental Benefits
' Green Power/Energy Conservation
' LFG Emission Reduction from Landfills
Conclusions
• Eubanks Road Project Does Not Appear to be Economically Viable
• Use of LFG as a Renewable Energy Source by the University at the Proposed
Carolina North Campus Appears to be Economically Viable
Recommendations
• Pursue Further Discussions with the University Regarding the Sale of LFG for Use at
the Proposed Carolina North Campus
' Collection, Cleanup and Transmission of LFG, only
• Develop Implementation Approach
Key Implementation Steps
• Establish Philosophical Approach
^ Maximize Revenue Potential
^ Balance Ecanomic & Environmental Benefits
• Present Final Economic Evaluation to University
• Establish General Energy Contract Frame Work
• Conduct LFG Testing Program
• Finalize Implementation Plan
Renewable Energy Incentives
' Public Sector
^ Energy Improvement Loan Program (EILP} - $500,000; 1°~ Interest; 10-Year
Maximum Term
^ NC GreenPower Production Incentive - RFP Procurement Process; $0.015-
$0.019/kWh
Commissioner Nelson asked why this was limited to just a few users and Bab
Selig said that they went with the larger energy users.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about Chapel Hill's operation center and Bab Selig
said that they looked at this briefly, but it was concluded that they have their energy
sources in place. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the staff asked Chapel Hill and Gayle
Wilson said that he spoke briefly with the Chapel Hill Public Works Director last summer
and he said that Chapel Hill had already committed to their own resources. The staff
can revisit this if the Board wishes.
Bob Selig said that his conclusion, based on size, is that a standalone Eubanks
Road project would not be economically viable. The Carolina North project has more
opportunity than a standalone project.
Commissioner Nelson said that he is ready to move on this and there is potential
to make money on the carbon credits. He has wanted to do this for a long time.
Commissioner Jacobs said that this is a good opportunity to reuse energy but the
only caution he has is that he heard a lot at Carolina North meetings about the concern
from local governments about how energy would be used. He would like to invite the
Town of Chapel Hill to be a part of this.
Commissioner Foushee agreed with including the Town of Chapel Hill. Gayle
Wilson asked who to speak with first and Commissioner Foushee suggested the Town
Manager.
Commissioner Gordon said that it seems like a good idea and she would like to
know more about how the carbon credits work. She asked about the next step and Bob
Selig said that the next step is closure with UNC to see if there is still interest.
Chair Carey suggested having a discussion with the Town of Chapel Hill soon.
He said that he and Commissioner Jacobs are planning to meet with the UNC
Chancellor about other issues such as the Animal Shelter, and they can also talk about
this topic.
Gayle Wilson said that staff would contact UNC and the Town of Chapel Hill and
provide information about carbon credits to the Board of County Commissioners.
3. Equal Opportunity Policy And Affirmative Action Plan For Qualified
Individuals With Disabilities And Qualified Veterans
Policy and Compliance Officer Annette Moore said that in 1981 Orange County
adopted an affirmative action plan and the plan was updated in 1999. This plan
specifically addressed race and sex in accordance with Executive Order 11246. The
draft plan before the Board addresses both qualified individuals with disabilities and
veterans as required by the Rehabilitation Act of 1974 and the Vietnam Era Veterans'
Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. While Executive Order 11246 provides a specific
exemption for state and local governments to maintain a written affirmative action plan,
the regulations for the two acts do not contain the same exemption. The proposed plan
contains the required contacts of the affirmative action program and the cads of federal
regulations. She asked the Board for direction.
Chair Carey asked her to present the key elements of the plan that are different
than what is being done now.
Annette Moore said that this plan savers those with disabilities under ADA and
the Veterans Act, and contains the same components of the affirmative action plan. She
said that this plan reviews the physical and mental qualifications and class specifications
to ensure that position are not stereotyped. Also, this new policy allows people to self-
identify if they so choose after selection and before employment begins.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested some editing on pages 10 and 11. Also, on
page 16, he suggested adding "Responsibilities of the Board of County Commissioners."
One of the responsibilities would be to receive this annual report and conduct a public
hearing, at which the Board invites representatives of veterans and the disabled to tell
the Board if there are any concerns about employment. He said that he was looking at
the County website, but there is no link to Veterans Affairs and no contact person or
phone number. He suggested making it more apparent. Also, he said that he heard on
NPR about a place in the country where there are job fairs for veterans and the disabled.
He suggested teaming with neighboring counties and organizing an opportunity for
veterans and the disabled for job placement.
Annette Moore said that this plan will come back to the Board of County
Commissioners for adoption at a subsequent meeting.
4. Establishing an Assessment for County Water and Sewer Projects:
Decision Points and Policy Options
Assistant County Manager Gwen Harvey said that she has been assisting
County Engineer Paul Thames and Engineering Specialist Kevin Lindley on this item.
The last time the Board looked at this idea of assessment was in January. She said that
the companion piece is a relief assistance policy for those households that may be
adversely impacted by an assessment. She described the attachments. The first
attachment deals with the decision points in establishing the generic assessment policy.
The second attachment has to do with the relief options. Attachments 3-6 are
background information. She said that the staff will take the Board of County
Commissioners' direction for a relief policy for final consideration and then draft an
assessment policy and a relief assistance policy, which will come back for the Board's
final consideration. A resolution would then have to be adopted to designate the specific
area of the assessment.
Laura Blackmon said that the staff would like same direction tonight so that they
can draft a policy. This issue is being brought up with more frequency.
Commissioner Nelson asked why there is not an assessment policy yet.
Geof Gledhill said that Orange County is not generally in the water and sewer
business. The only water and sewer utilities were with the Efland project that was
instigated by a complete failure of a septic system of the Efland-Cheeks Elementary
School 25 years ago. There has been no real need since then. He said that now it
looks like there is a need.
Kevin Lindley explained the decision points.
WATERISEWER ASSESSMENT POLICY DECISION POINTS
Introduction
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC} has expressed its interest and
intent to consider a policy of assessment for County funded utility extension projects. To
that end, Staff has outlined a series of policy decision points for BOCC review and
reference. Much of the assessment process and administrative procedures are outlined
by North Carolina General Statutes {NCGS). However, there are options available to the
BOCC that allow for customization of the assessment process. These are as follows.
Decision # 1: Percentage of the total project cost to be recovered through
assessment
Decision Summary
The BOCC may elect to assess for any percentage of the total project cast, up to
100%. This total project cost can include not only the cost to construct the system, but
may also include casts for engineering and design, construction supervision, legal fees,
costs for obtaining easements, interest on construction loans, etc. An assessment
policy would state the percentage of the total costs to be assessed for each project and
what types of costs make up that total. As an example, the OWASA assessment policy
approved by their board does not assess for engineering and design fees up to 15°~ of
the total project cost or legal fees up to 5% of the total project cost.
The BOCC may also want to consider establishing other offsets to total cast in
the County's policy. The mast prominent example would be to subtract from the total
cast of the project the value of any grant money received for the project. In the case of
discounting assessments based on grant money received, it will be important to note
whether the terms and conditions of the grant specifically indicate or limit who is
supposed to benefit from the grant money andlor how to treat the grant money with
regards to assessments.
Decision # 2: Basis(esl for the assessment
Decision Summary
A County policy an utility assessment should outline how the total costs will be
apportioned to the beneficiaries of the new utility. The NCGS spells out several bases
available for the County to use, as follows:
• Street frontage of the parcels to be served
• Utility frontage of the parcels to be served
• Area of the parcels to be served
• Valuation of the land, without improvements, as shown on the County's tax
records
• On a per lot basis, at an equal rate per lot
• A combination of two or more of these bases
No other bases for assessment may be used. As stated above, the BOCC may elect to
use any one of these or any combination of these, but the same basis for assessment
must be used for each lot served. For example, it would not be allowed to assess one
lot on the basis of area and another lot on the basis of street frontage. The only
exemption circumstance allowed by NCGS is that of a corner lat. When assessing an
the basis of street frontage, a corner lot does not have to be assessed for its entire
frontage. However, no more than 75°!0 of the frontage of any side, or 15a feet
(whichever is greater) may be exempted from assessment.
The general method for using any of these bases would be to add the total
number of units together (e.g. feet of frontage, acreage, dollars of land value, or number
of lots), then divide the total cost to be assessed by the number of basis units, to give
the cost per basis unit. Then, the basis unit cost would be multiplied by the number of
basis units associated with each lot to give the amount of the assessment per lot. The
following figure and tables illustrate a simple assessment example, followed by
descriptions of the bases far the assessment calculation. This is a theoretical
example for illustration purposes only, and should not be interpreted as
representing with any specificity unincorporated Orange County.
Parcel B ~
Example Street
New Sewer Line
Parcel A
Figure 1. Iv1ap of Theoretical Utility Assessment Area
Table 1. Sample Parcel Data
Name Street Frontage Utility Frontage Area Tax Valuation
Parcel A 1 as feet 1 as feet a.42 acres $25a,aa0
Parcel B 85 feet 85 feet 0.49 acres $135,aaa
Table 2. Sample Parcel Assessment Values"
Name Frontage Area Valuation Per Lot
Parcel A $15,aaa $15,a00 $18,75a $15,aoa
Parcel B $12,75a $15,978 $10,125 $15,aaa
Based on a total assessed project cost of $3ao,aaa.
Frontage assessment: The new sewer line installed along Example Street (Figure 1) is
1aaa feet long. Assuming that the new sewer line could serve lots on both sides of the
street, the total frontage will be 2aaa feet. (In this example, since the sewer is installed
in the right-of-way of the street, the street frontage of the parcels and the utility frontage
of the parcels are the same thing. Utility lines do not always follow the roadways,
though, in which case the street frontage of a parcel and the utility frontage of a parcel
could be different.} The total project cost was $300,000. If the County were to assess
for 100% of the total project costs, then the total cost, $300,000, would be divided by the
total frontage, 2000 feet, giving an assessment per foot of frontage of $150. Parcel A
has 100 feet of frontage, while Parcel B has a frontage of 85 feet (Table 1). The
assessment for Parcel A would be $15,000 ($1501ft " 100 ft.) and the assessment for
Parcel B would be $12,750 ($150/ft ~` 85 ft.) (Table 2).
Area assessment: For the same project, the total area of the parcels to be served is
9.2 acres. The project cast of $300,000 divided by the total acres of 9.2 gives $32,608
per acre. Parcel A has an area of 0.46 acres and Parcel B has an area of 0.49 acres
(Table 1}. The assessment for Parcel A would be $15,000 ($32,608/acre * 0.46 acres)
and the assessment for Parcel B would be $15,978 ($32,608/acre * 0.49 acres} {Table
2).
Valuation assessment: The total value of all the parcels served by the new sewer line
on Example Street is $4,000,000, based on County Tax records. The project cost of
$300,000 divided by the tax valuation of $4,000,000 gives an assessment amount of
$0.075 per dollar of valuation. Parcel A is valued at $250,000, while Parcel B is valued
at $135,000 (Table 1}. The assessment amount far Parcel A would be $18,750
($0.075/dollar ~ $250,000) and the assessment amount far Parcel B would be $10,125
{$0.075/dollar * $135,000) (Table 2}.
Per Lot assessment: There are 20 lots being served an this project. The project cost
divided by the number of lots would give an assessment amount of $15,000 per lot. The
assessment amount far bath Parcel A and Parcel B would be $15,000 (Table 2).
Decision # 3: County established policy for payment of the assessed amount
Decision Summary
NCGS allows that any assessment fees may be paid in full, with no interest, as long as
the payment is made within thirty days of the assessment schedule's confirmation and
publication by the County Tax Assessor. The County may choose to allow annual
payments for any amounts not paid within thirty days. If annualized payments are
allowed, the following are the components that would need to be included in a payment
policy.
• Interest amount
• Due date
• Length of time to pay
• Abeyance
Interest amount: The County is allowed to accept payments on portions of the
assessment not paid within thirty days of publication of the assessment schedule by the
County Tax Assessor, but interest must be charged on a per annum basis. The
maximum interest rate is 8%, according to NCGS, but no minimum rate is given.
Due Date: The County may make the due date for the annual payments either the
same day as real estate property taxes are due, or 6Q days from notification that the
assessment schedule has been published. Once a due date for the annual assessment
payments has been established, the payments will be due on the same date every year
for as many years as the payment policy allows.
Length of time to pay: The County may allow the assessment payments to be spread
out into equal annual payments, plus interest as described above, for up to 10 years.
NCGS does not allow for payments to be extended beyond 10 years.
Abeyance: The County may choose to hold assessment payments in abeyance, with
no interest, far up to 10 years. The date on which the abeyance ends may be a date
certain, or may be the date that improvements on the property are connected to the
water or sewer system for which the assessment was made, whichever comes first.
Once the period of abeyance ends, the assessment must be paid in accordance with the
terms set out in the assessment resolution.
Conclusion
Any policy created by the BOCC would need to address these three major decision
points. Though the NCGS lays out a very rigid framework for the special assessment
process, these decision points will allow the BOCC to tailor the assessment policy to
better meet local needs.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the summary and said that something
that is not mentioned in the summary, but is mentioned on page 35 is that OWASA
decided not to include offsite costs. There will be some offsite costs and Orange County
could also exclude these.
Chair Carey asked if different models could be used for different areas of the
County and Kevin Lindley said yes.
Commissioner Jacobs asked for a different rendering of the illustration on page
39 because he cannot read it.
Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the variables and said that if it was
weighted heavily on acreage in one place, it would really hurt people in the rural area
who might have land but not money. He thinks it is important to have flexibility.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would like a policy that addresses all of the
different aspects in a consistent way.
Commissioner Jacobs asked about the total waterline costs and what is included
in the $719,QOQ. Kevin Lindley said that it includes everything. Commissioner Jacobs
asked for a breakdown.
Paul Thames said that waterlines usually lie in roadway rights-of-way so there
are no acquisitions.
Continued presentation.
WATERISEWER ASSESSMENT RELIEF ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
DRAFT POLICY OPTIONS
Introduction
The Board of County Commissioners has expressed its interest and intent to consider
means allowable under State statutes to provide financial assistance to low-wealth
residentslproperty owners who could be adversely impacted by any public utility
assessment process the Board may have need or desire to establish.
Staff has outlined a series of policy options below for Board review and reference.
Option # 1: County defers the assessment payment
Process Description:
The BOCC elects to defer the date when an assessment begins to be collected. Unlike
the regular assessment system where 10 percent of the total assessment plus interest
on the unpaid balance is collected annually over a 10 year period, the BOCC can
choose to delay the onset of collection until the end of the fifth year, for example.
Advantages:
- Liens against all subject properties are recorded as security for the full amount of
the assessment.
- Provides the low-income residentlpraperty owner the opportunity to use the first
five years to sell the subject property and pay the full assessment out of the
proceeds of the sale.
- Simple and straightforward; easy to administer.
Disadvantages:
- Relief assistance is not targeted. Under law, the deferred assessment option
would be available to all residents/property owners within the assessment area,
not just those meeting low-income criteria.
- By deferring assessment collections the County forgoes present day opportunity
to accrue funds to help initiate additional public sewer extension projects. The
ability to partner in or direct future projects with assessment revenues is delayed.
- By deferring assessment collections the County presents the low-income
resident/property owner with a "balloon payment" due and payable in full at
closing, dramatically reducing any realized profit to provide suitable replacement
housing, income security, reinvestment opportunity, etc.
- The deferred assessment is dependent upon the vagaries and unpredictability of
the real estate market -and may be detrimental to low-income residents/property
owners more likely to be inexperienced and unskilled at property negotiations.
- The County should be mindful that a residenttproperty owner could also use the
deferment period to attempt to subdivide ar redevelop the subject property. If
successful, the resident/property owner would need to be liable for the full cost of
all availability fees in accordance with rates and fees established as applicable
by either the Town of Hillsborough or the City of Mebane, in addition to the
assessment.
Option # 2: Countv pays the assessment cost for each qualifying low-income
residentlproperty owner (Rogers Raad Waterline Connection
Program Model)
Process Description:
This option is generally based an the BOCC approved process for the Rogers Raad
Waterline Connection Program. Residentslproperty owners would make application to
the Housing and Community Development Department, and using HUD and any
additional County eligibility criteria a determination would be made on eligibility to
receive the Public Utility Relief Assistance. See chart below for 2007 Household Income
Limits applicable to Orange Countv:
HUD HOUSEHOLD INCOME LIMITS
FY 2007 Median Income - 60,100
1 -Person 2 -Person 3 -Person 4- Person 5- Person
Very Low 24,950 28,500 32,100 35,650 38,500
Income
50010
Median
Low - 39,950 45,650 51,350 57,050 61,600
Income
80%
Median
Property owner assistance would be provided in the form of a direct grant
payment/transfer to the assessment fund based on the following determination:
• Far applicants with household income up to 80 percent of HUD published median
income limits, the County would pay 100 per cent of the assessment
• For applicants with household income 80 to 100 per cent of HUD published
median income limits, the County would pay 50 percent of the assessment
Terms of Assistance borrowed from the Rogers Road Waterline Connection Project
include:
• Applicants must execute a grant agreement with documented proof of property
ownership and family income
• Applicant household income could be up to 80 per cent of HUD published
median income limits
• Applicants can not have any preexisting overdue County loans or loans in default
to the County
• Applicants must not be outstanding in their County property taxes
• Applicantllandlords must sign an agreement restricting rental rate increases
• Confidentiality, Conflict of Interest, and Non-Discrimination statementslprovisions
are applied
Advantages:
- The County has prior experience in the promotion and implementation of this
type assistance program.
- HUD income guidelines are a nationally recognized and generally acceptable
index for determining eligibility based on need.
- Simplified accounting with the direct and immediate elimination of the particular
assessment/liability.
Disadvantages:
- This policy - as with the Rogers Road Waterline Connection Program -would
place additional responsibilities upon County staff (Housing and Community
Development and Engineering} to conduct outreach and educational sessions
and handle the administrative tasks for program accuracy and accountability.
- Local general funds are the only known public finances available to cover relief
assistance grants.
Option # 3: County establishes a aercentage of the entire utility extension
proiect cost plus a cap per lot that it will pay to reduce the final
assessment amount for each impacted residentlproperty owner
Process Description:
This option is modeled on the policy adopted by the Town of Chapel Hill in September
1988 for sewer extensions for existing neighborhoods within the Town limits. The Town's
assistance level is 20°lo with a cap of $4,500 per lat. OWASA does not assess far costs
covered by the Town.
After a project is complete, the OWASA Board of Directors would determine the amount
of assessments and the list of properties that are assessed. Pre lot assessments are
calculated as actual costs of the completed project, less the OWASA and Town support
as noted, divided by the number of benefiting lots. (Note: Under OWASA Board
adopted policies, OWASA does not assess for engineering expenses up to 15 per cent
of project costs or far legal expenses up to 5 per cent of project cost.)
Based on this model, the BOCC would exclude {"forgive") a certain percentage of the
entire assessment project cost, thereby decreasing the assessment charge for every
resident/property owner regardless of economic status. In addition, the BOCC would
provide ("absorb") a fixed cap per lot to further buy-down the individual assessment.
Advantages:
- Flexible since the BOCC decides an the overall project "discount" and per
property "cap" that determine the subsidy
- Easy to articulate and defend within mixed income populations
- Relief not reliant upon personal economic variables ar the need to self-identify
- Builds on notions of community "participation" and "partnership"
Disadvantages:
- Reduces the amount of revenue returned for reinvestment
- Income-neutral way to provide assessment relief
Connection Costs -Also Covered by the Assistance Program:
Connection costs to public waterlsewer services are an additional expense associated
with an assessment function. In order to be served, the property owner/household must
decide to connect to the service. Connection costs typically include service laterals from
the home to the water/sewer, and if needed, changes to plumbing under the house to
connect to the service lateral, and taking an old septic system out of service. Actual
connection costs would depend upon the scope or work and authorized contractor. The
property awnerlhousehold would decide when to connect to the service, assuming the
septic system in place meets health code requirements to remain in use. The BOCC -
as in the case with OWASA -has no current requirement to connect to public sewer if a
septic system is performing properly.
Staff recommends that any option the BOCC chooses for an assessment relief
assistance program for income eligible property ownerslhouseholds also include grant
assistance for actual costs of connection. The connection assistance program would
again be modeled after Option 2 {and the Rogers Road Waterline Connection Project),
in that applicants with income less than 80 percent of the median would have all
connection costs paid by the County; applicants with income above 80 to 100 percent of
the median would have half the connection costs paid by the County.
Conclusion:
These three policy options have been developed to inform and engage BOCC thought
and deliberation. It should not be seen as an exhaustive list of potential options or
possible permutations.
Staff looks forward to BOCC review and discussion, followed by specific feedback and
guidance on next steps, in a focused work session setting.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to know about the advantages and
disadvantages of what is being done on Rogers Road and who it is not working for.
Gwen Harvey said that one of the gaps that appeared as it relates to Rogers
Road are those slightly above the 50°~ of median income. The way in which the
particular policy was prescribed made them ineligible. Paul Thames said that there were
about 120 occupied parcels in the Rogers Road community, and 33 got assistance. He
does not have any evidence about how many people applied and how many people that
might have been eligible did not apply.
Commissioner Jacobs said that there is the premise that every taxpayer in
Orange County is paying far all of this, minus what is assessed. He said that one of the
reasons that Orange County had never done water and sewer was because they did not
want to subsidize developers.
Laura Blackmon said that this is where abeyance will came in.
Laura Blackmon suggested discussing the options more in a work session.
Commissioner Jacobs asked for a matrix including full recovery of monies
expended and how it affects the different decisions (i.e., acreage, frontage, value). Also,
the matrix should show how much money it would cost to determine who could be
subsidized versus how much money the County wants to recover.
5. Follow-up from the BOCC Retreat
Laura Blackmon said that the staff went through and wrote goal statements and
objectives. This is on a one-year basis and what can be accomplished within one year.
There are eight goals and a list of fallow-up items. She said that her expectation is that
the next time there is a retreat, there will be goals and objectives and they will be
updated with what has been done. Her goal is to have another retreat in the fall so that
the staff can begin developing the budget earlier in the year. She is asking the Board to
adopt the goal statements at the next Board meeting.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
Nelson to adjourn at 10:10 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Moses Carey, Jr., Chair
Donna S. Baker
Clerk to the Board