Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080408 APPROVED 6/24/2008 Orange County Board of County Commissioners WORK SESSION Tuesday, April 8, 2008 7:30 pm Link Government Services Center, Hillsborough, NC The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, April 8, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. at the Link Government Services Center in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Valerie Foushee COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geof Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m. He said that Commissioner Foushee was out of town and would not be in attendance. The green page was from OWASA for information. 1. Real Property Transfer Tax Voter Education Effort Rod Visser gave an update on this process. The County has finalized an agreement with Ballen Media. The agenda package includes an extract from the contract, which has the scope of work. There have been two additional meetings of the Education Advisory Committee and Gil Fitts and Dwayne Ballen attended both of those meetings. Ballen Media will continue with the newspaper, radio, TV, direct mail advertising effort. The committee has been responsible for developing the first draft of frequently asked questions, which staff and the attorney will also be working on. He and the attorney will be going over all of the media language to make sure that it is accurate, clear, and simple. Gil Fitts walked through the process of educating the public and made a PowerPoint presentation. He said that the education will focus on not stopping at the top of the ballot, but getting informed and aware of the issues at the bottom of the ballot. The title of the overall campaign is Your Choice, and the website address is yourchoice-oc.com. He read two draft statements, as follows: - By now you have probably chosen your presidential candidate, but there is still another important choice to make. Don't stop at the top of the ballot, but also vote on the Orange County Land Transfer Tax. To make sure you have the best information on what's involved and who benefits, go to yourchoice-oc.com. - Who benefits from the Land Transfer Tax? Who is for it? Who is against it? Where would the money go? If you need answers go to yourchoice-oc.com. The goal of the media plan is to reach 60% of all adults 18+ a minimum of four times with the Orange County message. The advertising plan is as follows: - A combination of television, newspaper, cable, and radio will be utilized to achieve this goal. - Advertising will start on Monday, April 14th and run through Monday, May 5th. - Lighter schedules will air the first two weeks with heavier schedules airing the last two weeks. - Once the plan is approved and the buy is implemented, you will be provided with a detailed advertising calendar showing ad placement for all media. - Stations will be selected based on their strength in covering Orange County. - Newspapers will be selected based on their strength in covering Orange County. Two Durham newspapers were included in the buy. The costs for TV, radio, and newspaper advertising total $50,000. The costs for direct mail of 6 x 8.5 postcards to 45,000 Orange County households total $20,775. He showed some drafts of the potential postcards that would be mailed. The emphasis would be on not stopping at the top of the ballot and that the Land Transfer Tax is NOT a real estate tax, a sales tax, or a home tax. There will be a descriptive statement on the back of the direct mailing. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the back of the direct mailing and said that it should say exactly what the money is going to be used for. She wants it to be clear that if this is not passed, there will not be enough money for schools and parks or the property taxes will have to be raised. She also suggested not using any of the pictures with homes on them and Commissioner Carey agreed. Commissioner Nelson said that he liked the eraser and blackboard picture. Commissioner Carey asked about the personal url and it was answered that any name used with yourchoice-oc.com would direct someone to the website, but the readership goes up with the personal urls because it gets people's attention. Commissioner Nelson pointed out that gubernatorial was misspelled. Commissioner Nelson asked about the radio stations and said that there is no country, urban, or modern music stations. He wonders if the demographic is broad enough. Chair Jacobs suggested more word-smithing and punctuation. He agreed with Commissioner Gordon about explaining what the money would be used for and what happens if the land transfer tax does not pass. Essentially, it is a "pay me now or pay me later" issue. He also agreed with not using a house as the picture. He said that he is uncomfortable with singling out the real estate industry. Commissioner Gordon agreed with not characterizing the opposition. Chair Jacobs agreed about the demographics and said that this is a good chance to reach the younger population. Discussion ensued about the FAQ list. Rod Visser said that this would be a living document. It would be on the website so that it could be updated regularly. Commissioner Gordon asked about other types of brochures that could be distributed at other venues. Gil said that once all of the scripting is done (text, graphics, etc.), it will be easy to make flyers, which could be distributed anywhere. Rod Visser said that part of the role of the committee is to be part of the low-cost, low- tech dissemination methods. 2. West Ten Soccer Center Public Private Partnership Laura Blackmon said that at the October 9, 2007 BOCC meeting, the Board authorized staff to move forward with developing a sponsorship program to match the $150,000 challenge received from Sports Endeavors and its offer for naming rights at the West Ten Soccer Complex. Parks and Recreation Director Lori Taft and her staff, the Visitor's Bureau, the Chamber of Commerce, and others have been trying to get sponsors for this program. The goal is to have brochures to distribute, asking for help in funding. Lori Taft said that the Parks and Recreation Department originally worked with Planning on this, specifically because of the zoning in this area, which is different because of the economic development district. There has been a plan worked out for this. There is still work to be done on the campaign, and hopefully people will start calling indicating interest in helping. There will be a package coming back for approval in June with a brochure, cover letter, and return card. These will be mailed out to targeted businesses (most all are in Orange County or do business in Orange County). Laura Blackmon said that the County was initially approached by Sports Endeavors for some naming rights, but also these funds will be used for operations, because this will be an expensive complex to maintain. Anything that is raised in this method would not have to come from the general fund to pay for supporting this facility. She said that if the Board is ok with this package, then the staff will move ahead. Commissioner Gordon made reference to the fourth bullet point in the brochure and said to make sure that the "tens of thousands" statement could be backed up. She suggested just putting "thousands." She also asked that the quotes be checked for approval from Mia Hamm and Paul Bryant. Chair Jacobs said that this is located in central Orange County and not in northern Orange County, and the brochure repeatedly says that it's in northern Orange County. Also, there are a couple of places where there is a word missing, and he pointed these out to staff. He also thinks that fitness is an important component, and this should be worked in. Chair Jacobs said that he did not realize that the Board had decided that this was exclusively a facility for young people. Lori Taft said that this was not decided, but youth in the community were prioritized. Chair Jacobs said that it reads like it is exclusive. Commissioner Gordon made reference to signage and said to make sure that businesses can do the same thing the County can, and that the County is not given preference over businesses. Laura Blackmon said that the changes in sign ordinances would be for the EDD overall. The staff will bring this back to the Board with a more complete package. (8 3. Use of Unbudgeted Sales Tax Refunds for Capital Projects Laura Blackmon said that the CHCCS sent a letter to Pam Jones requesting the sales tax refund for Carrboro High School. Most of this was done while she was not here, but she was around when there was some sales tax refund budgeted for Morris Grove Elementary. She is drawing upon that knowledge for this item. When the Carrboro High School was done, the expectation was that there would be a sales tax refund for this facility totaling $450,000. There is a lot of background information regarding when the State decided that the schools could not receive sales tax reimbursement for construction of facilities. There is nothing about what happens if the amount received was neither above that which was budgeted nor below that amount which was expected. Based upon the letter received, the anticipated sales tax reimbursements for Carrboro High School is $450,000. The total received was $912,756, which resulted in over $462,000 in unanticipated project-related revenue. She said that she wants to discuss developing a policy so that each time this comes up, the policy will be followed and there will not be separate decisions. The letter listed four items that the money would be used for: additional furniture, performing arts equipment and supplies, spectator stands for the competition field, and additional textbooks. The options are listed on page 3: - Budgeting for Sales Tax Reimbursements — Budget some or all anticipated sales tax reimbursements "in arrears" meaning that rather than the County anticipating sales tax revenues in the original project ordinance, Commissioners could amend the capital project ordinance after actual sales tax revenues are received. This approach is similar to how the County budgets for NC Education Lottery proceeds. - Use of Sales Tax Reimbursements —Among the options for how the Board could use some or all anticipated sales tax reimbursements for (1) allowable project expenditures not included in the original project budget; (2) offset debt service for the project; and (3) reserve for future school planning. Geof Gledhill said that there is an issue about per pupil that arises when non-capital items are being considered. He said that it seems that the expenditures have to be limited to capital items. Chair Jacobs said that the Vice-Chair and the Chair have talked to the Manager about this several times, and he thinks that there is a differentiation between this project and future projects and there is a policy decision to be made about future projects. It was the Board's understanding that the Board agreed to serve as a conduit for the sales taxes without qualification for this project. It may not be how the Board wants to operate in the future, but it is what the Board said that it would do. He does not want to change the policy for this project. Laura Blackmon said that this seemed like a good time to talk about the need to develop a policy. Commissioner Gordon agreed that the Board said that it would serve as a conduit. In terms of future projects, she would like some distinct rules. She thinks that there is a difference between this sales tax revenue and other revenue. In answer to a question from Commissioner Carey, CHCCS Assistant Superintendent of Support Services Steve Scroggs said that the improved record-keeping is done with sub- contractors and contractors, and this results in a higher rate of sales tax revenue. If the school system keeps on its general contractor and sub-contractor to turn in everything, this can drive up the sales tax return substantially. The items the Board is addressing tonight were items that were in the original project, but the school system had to back off buying because of road improvements and cost overruns, etc. Commissioner Carey said that the money came from the schools and he thinks that the Board should honor the commitment. Laura Blackmon said that she understood that there was a commitment, and it will be on the next agenda for approval. This was an excellent example of how it can be very complicated and that the Board needs to make some policy decisions for future projects. 4. Greene Tract Status Report and Decision Points Laura Blackmon said that this was on the agenda for the Assembly of Governments meeting, but there was not time to address it. It has been moved to the April 29th JPA meeting. The Board needs to discuss this issue before this meeting. There are some decision points that all entities will be asked to address. Chair Jacobs said that there have been two meetings with the Chair, Vice-Chair, the Mayors, and the Managers and some staff to try and talk through some of the issues. The topic areas include: - Background land use and ownership - Environmental/natural features/preservation parameters - Utility existing and proposed - Transportation and access - Affordable housing tract development alternatives - Community task force Chair Jacobs said that the Greene Tract is being discussed as a possible school site. Laura Blackmon said that the reason this whole thing started is because the entities need to start paying back the solid waste enterprise fund, and this triggered the discussions about doing things on this site and whether some of the earlier thoughts should be reevaluated. Commissioner Nelson suggested having a better copy of a map, because he cannot see the three different tracts. He also suggested having one term for "decision points". Chair Jacobs suggested sticking with the discussion points, because no decisions will be made until all partners come together. Commissioner Carey said that there has never been any real agreement on how many units of affordable housing can go on the tract. Commissioner Gordon described the differences among the tracts. She said that the 104 acres (2 tracts) is a joint property and has part affordable housing and part open space. The 60-acre tract is different and was given to the County. She does not agree that the County has to start paying back on the 60 acres, because it was given to the County as a solid waste system asset. She suggested that there be two different conversations —one with the Assembly of Governments about the 104 acres and one within the County government about the 60 acres. Chair Jacobs said that the attorney is saying that the County did not adequately decide this with the other two entities. Background Land Use and Ownership: Planning Director Craig Benedict said that there are three tracts. Tract 1 is 60 acres that is part of the solid waste system asset. Tract 2 is an 18-acre affordable housing tract. Tract 3 is 86 acres for park and open space. Tracts 2 and 3 are the 104 acres that is of joint ownership between Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County. With the original concept plan group, the reason for the affordable housing tract being where it is, was because it could be serviced by a gravity sewer system, and the Tract 3 area is part of three headwaters and is the most environmentally sensitive. The original land use plan for the entire Greene Tract was when the joint planning area was done in 1987 and said, "Landfill Pending Further Study." The joint land use plan was then changed in 2001-2002 to solid waste purposes in one area and affordable housing and open space in the other area, so there was a conscious amendment to the land use. Commissioner Gordon said that Chapel Hill was in charge of solid waste, and Chapel Hill wanted Orange County to take it over. One part of the agreement was that Orange County got a certain amount of the property free and clear, and it was to be used as a landfill asset. Later on, there was some discussion about the hardwoods, but it was never in writing. Chair Jacobs suggested looking over the minutes from some of those Board of County Commissioner meetings, because there seem to be different recollections. Commissioner Carey agreed. Commissioner Nelson said that he has a different perspective because he was involved in the Town of Carrboro at the time. He has a very clear recollection that the County was adamant that it wanted those 60 acres for solid waste purposes. The purposes were undefined, but the County was adamant about having the 60 acres for solid waste purposes. Commissioner Gordon said that she also remembers it this way. Commissioner Carey said that the County Commissioners were adamant about having the 60 acres as a landfill asset, but not for landfill functions. He thought that the Board was clear about that. Geof Gledhill said that the Board was clear about not burying waste. The agreement prohibits burying solid waste and construction and demolition waste. However, it is just as clear on the other side of this that the land is to be used for solid waste purposes. Chair Jacobs suggested that the County Commissioners concede that there are different recollections. Environment and Resource Conservation Director Dave Stancil said that his recollection is that, as the 60 acres was officially designated in 2002, the County looked at creating the 60 acres based on both the mature hardwoods that were present on site and access to the rail line for some purpose in the future. Also, he remembers that the only statement that Orange County has officially made about the ultimate use of the 60 acres is a letter that went to Mayor Rosemary Waldorf in 2000 that indicated that it was the County's current intent to retain it as open space. To his knowledge, there has been no further elaboration on what that means. Environmental/natural features/preservation parameters: Dave Stancil said that this area is the headwaters of three different drainage basins. There are areas with mature hardwoods. The most ecologically sensitive portions of the property are the northernmost portions. More recently, the County has been talking with Triangle Land Conservancy for a couple of years about conservation easements on the property, specifically the 86 acres of joint open space. He made reference to Attachment 1, which indicates that TLC has agreed in principle to hold the conservation easement. TLC is also willing to hold an easement on the County's 60 acres, which would be a separate easement. He read the three issues on Attachment 1: 1. Do the three jurisdictions wish to proceed with placing a conservation easement on Tract 3 and adopt a revised concept plan? 2. Does Orange County wish to amend the Interlocal Agreement to provide for and place a separate conservation easement on its 60 acres (Tract 1), with lessened monitoring provisions? 3. Does the County agree with the proposed Guiding Principles and Parameters (Attachment 4) for the conservation easement(s)? 4. There will likely be some stewardship endowment funding requested by TLC for the easement on Tract 3, which has not yet been calculated. Chair Jacobs made reference to issue number two and "lessened monitoring provisions." Dave Stancil said that for a couple of years, there has been discussion about placing the 60 acres in the Lands Legacy program and using the County staff to monitor it, which would avoid the stewardship costs. Utility Existing and Proposed: Craig Benedict said that there was public water in the area adjacent to Tract 2. There are no existing gravity systems there, but there is a gravity sewer system in the Rush Hollow subdivision, which is a Habitat for Humanity project. There is another Habitat project of about 40 units in Chapel Hill, which is in process, and this would bring sewer directly to the western portion of the affordable housing tract. The best way to service gravity utilities to this area would be OWASA. Regarding the possibility of a school site in the general area, if there was an area to the south of the site that could be used for ball fields in conjunction with the school and possibly a community park, an area could be added adjacent to the affordable housing tract, and this would not have to be serviced by a sewer system. The Rogers Road neighborhood and task force passed a resolution that said that it was in agreement with the school board pursuing further analysis of part of this affordable housing tract for an urban-sized school. Chair Jacobs said that he was in touch with Ed Holland from OWASA today, who sent him an email indicating that it would cost $3-3.5 million to extend sewer to this area. Commissioner Carey asked if the potential for placing a school on the site would reduce the number of affordable housing units that the site would accommodate. Craig Benedict said that the current zoning would allow about 35 units to go there. There could be some amendments to a portion of the tract to allow for more units. Commissioner Nelson asked if there would have to be a pump station if a school were on the site. Craig Benedict said that there would have to be more engineering analysis, but it depends on where the school is sited. Transportation and Access: Craig Benedict showed a Rogers Road study area map and possible network connections done by the Chapel Hill Planning Department. He said that Purefoy Road is the only access point into the Greene Tract, and it is underdeveloped, meaning that it is only 18 feet wide. The Rogers Road Task Force has concerns about the amount of traffic. A railroad crossing in this area would be problematic. The task force received a presentation by a church group that wants to build a large facility such as a community center. There is a possibility of a roadway that would connect along the north side of the Habitat project and connect to Rogers Road. If there is a school site, there will have to be two access points. Another option would be to upgrade Purefoy Road. Chair Jacobs said that when the County representatives met with the Mayors, they agreed not to present this to the Assembly of Governments because it is too complicated and that they were not interested in roads that traverse the Greene Tract, mostly for environmental reasons. Affordable Housing Tract Development Alternatives: Craig Benedict said that the Greene Tract Work Group Concept Plan did not mention what type of units, how many units, or the density, so there are still opportunities for the affordable housing groups to discuss with the local governments about the needed affordable housing units. There was mention by the Rogers Road Task Force that the whole area could become a big Habitat for Humanity project. Commissioner Nelson said that years ago, members of the school board were approached about a school site here, and he remembers one member who turned up her nose about the idea of putting a school this close to the landfill. He said that he thought all along that there should be a school in the Greene Tract. He is glad that it is being discussed. His concern has to do with the affordable housing tract. The original proposal was to take about a third of the 104 acres and set it aside for affordable housing. The committee chopped it down to 20 acres, and then it got chopped again to 18 acres. He was upset at the time that there was such a big opportunity and it got chopped down to 18 acres. He would have a really hard time chopping it down any further because of the history and he would like to explore the option of expanding the affordable housing, because there is an affordable housing deficiency in the County. Chair Jacobs asked what Commissioner Nelson envisioned —a variety of housing types or just detached housing. Commissioner Nelson said that there was a decision made not to articulate a vision at that time because the building of affordable housing was so far into the future. Commissioner Carey said that he remembers two schools of thought— 100 or more units of multi-family housing or a combination of different housing types. Commissioner Gordon agreed with sticking by the commitment to use the 18 acres for affordable housing. Also, as this goes forward to the AOG, she would urge the Board to separate the conversation and not talk about the 60 acres at this time. Commissioner Carey agreed. He does not want to diminish the capacity of affordable housing on these 18 acres. Chair Jacobs suggested asking staff to do an environmental assessment on how far down it would be reasonable to go south of the 18 acres. Laura Blackmon said that her understanding, from talking to the other Managers, is that they are already reeling from what they would need to budget to pay back for 104 acres. If the 60 acres were brought up, there would possibly be a delay in budgeting. If a portion is going to be a school site, the expectation is that the County would pay for all of that portion. Chair Jacobs said that the affordable housing community might be able to make an estimate of the number of units that the 18 acres would accommodate. He said that this could be discussed at the AOG meeting. Laura Blackmon reviewed what the County Commissioners asked of staff—a possible environmental assessment for going south of the 18 acres and a recommendation from staff on how to regard the 60 acres. She said that for the 104 acres, with a five-year period payback of 6% interest, it would be $91,000 a year for five years. If a portion of the land would be for a school site, it would be more. The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board