HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-07-2014 - 6aSUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT:
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 7, 2014
Action Agenda
Item No. 6 -a
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) I No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245 -2130
I
PURPOSE: To correct and /or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
May 15, 2014
September 4, 2014
September 8, 2014
BOCC Work Session
BOCC Regular Meeting
Quarterly Public Hearing
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A -42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Attachment 1
DRAFT MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
May 15, 2014
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Thursday, May
151 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County
Managers Cheryl Young and Clarence Grier and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other
staff members will be identified appropriately below)
Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order. He said the following two items were to be
added to the agenda tonight:
Closed Session
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to add
a closed session at the end of the meeting for the purpose of:
To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the
area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic
development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations. The action
approving the signing of an economic development contract or commitment, or the action
authorizing the payment of economic development expenditures, shall be taken in an open
session. § 143- 318.11(a)(4).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Televising the additional budget public hearing
Clerk to the Board Donna Baker said this item is being brought forth because the Board
decided last week to televise the May 22nd Budget Public Hearing ( at DSS) in order to
introduce to the public the new County Manager.
She noted that at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on May 13th a
Commissioner requested that the May 29th Budget Public Hearing at Southern Human Services
Center also be televised to make this equitable.
Chair Jacobs said the cost would be a total of $2110, and the funding would come from
the Clerk's budget or the Board of County Commissioners contingency fund.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
authorize the Clerk to move forward with televising the May 29th Budget Public Hearing at
f
Southern Human Services Center, as well as the May 22 nc public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
2
1. Presentation on The Chapel Hill Report — The Dollars and $ense of Development
Patterns
Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Aaron Nelson said this analysis was
completed in March 2014. He reviewed a series of PowerPoint maps, photos, and graphs.
He said 92 percent of the land is in unincorporated Orange County. He said the
assessed value of the County is $14.9 billion. He said 43 percent of this value is in Chapel Hill,
13 percent is in Carrboro, and 5 percent is in Hillsborough.
Aaron Nelson said the purpose of this analysis was to determine what types of
development deliver the most amount of assessed value and produce the most taxes collected.
He reviewed the slides of individual sites and their assessed value. He noted that the East 54
Retail site is the highest assessed property in the County and produces $9.3 million an acre in
assessed value.
He said the theme is that the type and kind of development produces dramatically
different results, particularly as properties get denser. He said the most expensive acre in
Orange County is Greenbridge at $52 million. He noted that the higher value properties have a
low number of public school children.
Aaron Nelson reviewed the tax yield per acre and noted that the Greenbridge property
and 140 West Franklin generate about $500,000 in property tax on an annual basis. He
reviewed three dimensional maps of County value per acre.
He said the County gets a higher return for denser property. He said the ratio of
revenue for the highest density mixed use spaces (6 story mixed use) is 400:1.
Aaron Nelson noted that the County invested $4,000 in this study, and he expressed his
appreciation to for their support.
Chair Jacobs said this is a good prelude to the discussion of the next item and the
thinking about building up rather than out.
Commissioner Price asked what is being done with this report now that it is complete.
Aaron Nelson said this has transformed their thinking. He said when choosing between
a two or three story building, this shows that you can generate 40 percent more revenue by
adding the third story. He said this has changed their view about the kind of development that
is needed to generate the revenue to fund their schools and their government properly.
2. Ephesus Church Road - Fordham Boulevard Public Improvements
Michael Talbert introduced Clarence Grier and said this item is a response to questions
that came about after Chapel Hill's presentation on this project.
Clarence Grier reviewed the following background information from the abstract:
The Town of Chapel Hill at the March 27, 2014 Joint Meeting with the Board of County
Commissioners presented an improvement project for the Ephesus Church Road — Fordham
Boulevard area within the Town of Chapel Hill. In order to support the renewal of the Ephesus
Fordham area, the Town of Chapel Hill must make investments in much needed traffic and
stormwater capital improvements. The project would be financed with the use of Tax Increment
Financing or Project Development Financing. Under this method of financing, economic
development projects move forward by pledging the anticipated growth in tax base as a source
of repayment. The theory is that the project being financed is enabling the tax growth and
therefore the project is and will be self- financing because, if not for the project, the tax growth
would not have occurred.
The Town of Chapel Hill would like the County to participate in the Ephesus Fordham Renewal
Project by pledging the lesser of 50% of the actual increment property tax revenues received or
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
3
50% of the actual annual debt service cost. The County could potentially benefit from
participating with the Town of Chapel Hill from increased property and sales tax revenues.
The budget impacts for the County would be committing an average of $385,612 over 18 years
for a total of $6,941,017 for the project (Attachment C). This also takes in account the possible
impact of adding approximately 450 new students in the Ephesus Fordham area of the Chapel
Hill — Carrboro City Schools District (CHCCS) over an 18 -year period that could increase the
need for a new elementary and /or move up the timeline for Elementary #12 and Middle School
#5 for CHCCS.
Additionally, if a new high school and /or major additions have to be made to one of the existing
CHCCS high schools to accommodate the projected increase in students, the additional debt
service would reduce the net amount of property taxes received as result of the planned project
improvements.
Clarence Grier noted that the County has two school systems that are funded at 48.1
percent of the general fund revenue, and these were not taken into account.
He noted that additional information has been included in attachment A, which shows
the total cost of these improvements is $10.0 million ($8.8 million for traffic improvements and
$1.2 million for stormwater).
Michael Talbert said Chapel Hill has approved the re- zoning of these parcels.
Chair Jacobs asked for more explanation of what is being asked of them and the time
frame in which it is asked.
Ken Pennoyer, Business Management Director for the Town of Chapel Hill, discussed
the following financing and Repayment plan, as outlined in attachment A:
Financing Plan
The Town is planning on financing the Town Hall Renovation project and other CIP projects
with debt. By combining the financing of these projects using two common forms of debt that
the Town has used numerous times, the total cost of financing all of these projects will be
reduced and can be completed on the timetable established for the Ephesus Fordham Project.
The Projects
Town Hall Repair & Renovation $ 900,000
High Priority CIP Projects 800,000
Ephesus Fordham:
Traffic Improvements 8,800,000
Stormwater Capital 1,200,000
Total Ef Project 10,000,000
Total All Projects $ 11,700,000
The Debt
Two - thirds General Obligation Bonds $ 1,700,000
Installment Financing 10,000,000
Total Planned Debt issuance $ 1137003000
Repayment Plan
Debt Management Fund: The portion of debt used for Town Hall and CIP will be repaid
through the Debt Management Fund. The Debt Fund was established in 2009 with a dedicated
property tax to provide a source of funds to pay off Town debt obligations.
2
11
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
"Synthetic Tax Increment Financing (TIF) ":
The portion of the debt used for the Ephesus Fordham public improvements will be repaid by
the incremental increase in tax revenues resulting from redevelopment. In other words, the
redevelopment we are hoping to generate through the Ephesus Fordham Renewal Project will
increase property tax receipts from the area. Those tax receipts, over and above the base level
of tax receipts that existed prior to the project, will be dedicated to pay off the debt for the public
improvements. Although this method of financing economic development projects is fairly
common in North Carolina, it is the first time that the Town has used incremental tax receipts as
a primary source of debt repayment.
Synthetic versus "traditional" TIF: In 2004 the State Legislature approved Tax Increment
Financing (aka: Project Development Financing) legislation that enabled local governments to
finance economic development projects with a pledge of future additional (incremental) tax
revenues from an established TIF district. Because of the cost, complexity and length of the
process for approval there have only been two traditional TIFs approved in North Carolina in the
last 10 years. Part of the reason for the unpopularity of traditional TIFs in North Carolina is the
availability of an easier, faster and less expensive alternative. Many local governments in North
Carolina have opted for installment financing that uses a physical asset as collateral and
repayment from a tax increment to finance economic development projects. This accomplishes
the same thing as the traditional TIF, but is less expensive (lower interest rate) and takes less
time to issue. The Ephesus Fordham project does not have an asset that can be used as
collateral for an installment financing and therefore we have planned to combine the financing
with the Town Hall Renovation Project. By combining the projects in one financing the Town
Hall property can be used as collateral for both projects. This practice of sharing collateral
among projects is a common way of reducing the cost of borrowing for municipalities by
providing the best possible security for installment debt.
Backstop: There will be a time gap between when we issue the debt and when the
redevelopment will begin to generate a tax increment sufficient to pay debt service. To the
extent possible, we will structure the debt for the Ephesus Fordham Public Improvements to
defer debt payments to match the anticipated timing of incremental tax revenues. However, it
may be impossible to avoid a gap between the tax increment and the debt service payments in
the early years of the project. The Debt Management Fund has sufficient balance to cover the
mismatch in the timing of available tax increment and we plan on using the Debt Management
Fund to backstop debt service on the Ephesus Fordham Public Improvements portion of the
debt. Any amounts used would be restored to the Debt Fund once the tax increment surpasses
what is needed for debt service. One of the possible consequences of using the debt fund for
this purpose is the delay of planned capital expenditures such as the Public Safety Facility and
the Transfer Station.
Stormwater Management Costs
In addition to the $1.2 million of initial investment in stormwater facilities to serve the Ephesus
Fordham Area, the Town is planning to establish a Municipal Service District to finance
additional improvements and ongoing stormwater management costs. The planned Municipal
Service District will impose an annual property tax of 4 cents.
Ken Pennoyer said with public improvements in this area they are looking to finance
through installment financing which will be paid back in the incremental pay back of property
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5
taxes. He said in order to make this financing more solid, they are requesting that Orange
County give back some of the incremental taxes. He said the County would pay no more than
half of the increment and no more than half of the debt service ($800,000 /year which would be
$400,000 /year for the cost to Orange County).
Ken Pennoyer said the town has passed the first hurdle of approving the zoning, and
this will help begin the actual development project. He said the town is looking to put together
the debt funding package and the repayment plan, to include both the Town and the County
pledging those tax increments. He said the Town is taking the risk of a shortfall in the tax
increments should the projects be delayed or the tax increments not come in on the predicted
timeframe. He said the Town will pay for the debt service through its debt management fund.
Chair Jacobs said based on this model the Town is not asking Orange County to lay out
any funding up front, and the County would only be responsible for a portion of moneys that
would potentially be generated.
Ken Pennoyer said the maximum would be 50 percent of any additional incremental tax
revenue that comes in. He said a current baseline would be set, and anything after the re-
zoning would constitute an increment for the purposes of calculating the tax increment.
Michael Talbert said he has discussed this with Roger Stancil. He said the County does
have a re- evaluation in 2017 but that would have no impact. He asked for information about the
type of document that would need to be approved, and how this would impact the County.
Bob Jessup said the County may only have a resolution of intent to consider this
appropriation of incremental taxes annually; the nature of the obligation would not change if
there was an actual paper contract. He said the commitment would be expressed as a
renewing annual commitment that would occur during the budget season. He said it is very
easy to describe the nature of the commitment. He said the other benefit with the County's
participation, is that it may allow the overall financing term to be squeezed down a bit.
Michael Talbert asked for a breakdown of the anticipated bond schedule and whether
this would count against the County's debt limit or credit rating.
Bob Jessup said this would not count as outstanding County debt; but there would be
some sort of note disclosure of the commitment, and the parties would all know.
Chair Jacobs noted that this project has been approved by the town and at this point the
County is being asked for support of the proposal through a partnership. He said before this
reaches a decision point, it would be brought before the public. He said there may be
differences of opinion regarding the merits of how this was re- zoned, but that is not the issue
before the Board.
Chair Jacobs said the town wants the County to be on board as quickly as possible, but
they also need to be comfortable before moving forward on this as a decision item. He would
like to make sure there is time for due consideration.
Commissioner Rich asked about the type of financing, which has been called tax
increment financing and project development financing.
Ken Pennoyer said this is referred to as synthetic tax increment financing; the
development financing refers to financing done through state statutory tax increment financing.
He said this is a different model that is based on an installment financing that is secured by an
asset. He said this is being combined with the financing for the newly renovated Town Hall,
which will act as collateral for the asset. He said the synthetic tax increment financing is
preferred over the state statutory because it uses a standard method, which looks more solid
because it is backed by an asset.
Commissioner Rich said the way the tax base is being projected is based on how the
Town sees the project growing, and then the Town Hall is being used as a backup asset. She
asked if this is correct.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
R
Ken Pennoyer said based on re- zoning, staff has come up with a likely development
scenario with two phases. He said the first phase is based on actual development plans, and
the future phase is based on what the Town believes the zoning will enable and what can
happen based on current knowledge of the market. He said the financing plan utilizes the
installment financing combined with Town Hall to provide collateral.
Commissioner Rich referred to a similar project in Bloomington that was very
successful. She asked Dwight Bassett to comment on this.
Dwight Bassett said Bloomington, Indiana, as well as Asheville and Carrboro, N.C. all
have synthetic Tax Increment Financing (TIF) projects that are very successful. He said in
Bloomington, the base value of the land was estimated at $1 million, and after development it
was $10 million. He said the taxes on the $9 million difference were pledged back in to pay for
roads, lighting and improvements. He said they got back more than the amount spent, and a
TIF was put over the entirety of the downtown and it generates new revenue to be put back into
infrastructure. He said there were similar projects in Asheville and in Carrboro with the
development of 300 East Main.
Commissioner Pelissier asked for clarification on the number of new residential units
there will be. She would also like to know about the phasing of the commercial portion.
Dwight Bassett said there are two developments that will happen in the first four years of
the development. He said 235 residential units and 15,000 square feet of retail space will be
built on the former movie theater site on Elliott Road. He said the former Colony apartments,
which currently has 109 units, is projected to grow to 175 units.
He said the residential is coming first because the market plays a tremendous role in
development, and multifamily housing is the easiest of all commercial tax based projects to
finance. He believes the retail and office space will likely happen faster than projected. He said
the projections have been conservative because there are some issues with existing leases.
Commissioner Price asked who the Town is expecting to attract to this new re-
development. She is thinking about the school projections.
Dwight Bassett said based on other projects, they would be looking at about 100
students. He said there is a strong population of residents in their 20's who come for school
and then leave after graduation because the Town does not meet their lifestyle choices. He
said many of these residents do not want to be homeowners, but the desire is to be in a place
where they can live, work and play. He believes that half of the residential units would be for
that demographic of residents aged 20 -40, and the goal would be to create a live, work and play
district. He said the hope is that this will stop some of the brain drain of folks leaving to seek
employment elsewhere.
Commissioner Price asked how the flooding issues will be mitigated when adding the
additional development.
Dwight Bassett said there needs to be a higher level of standard to manage the quality
of the impervious services. He said $1 million has been set aside and the town has applied for a
$15 million grant to look at the overall storm water master plan and the flood basin.
Bob Jessup said the stormwater staff from Chapel Hill has pointed out that almost the
entire district is already impervious, and this will not increase the amount of impervious surface
by more than 1 -2 percent. He said the goal will be to improve on what is already there.
Commissioner Price asked if there will be any increase to the greenspace.
Dwight Bassett said zoning code requires that 20 percent of each new development be
set aside for public amenity space. He said staff plans to connect to the greenway trail system.
He said there is an area behind Whole Foods that cannot be developed and staff has asked for
this space to allow for creation of additional greenspace.
Commissioner McKee asked how staff arrived at the figure of $1.2 million for stormwater
capital. He said this will not build a lot of infrastructure.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
7
Dwight Bassett said this original budget was for design cost and the building of two
retention ponds. He said the approach changed, and the on -site stormwater retention was
prioritized over the public amenity side. He said the allocated money is intended for site by site
future improvements.
Commissioner McKee said that does not address the problem of that area being flooded
today. He said this project may not increase the flooding, but it will not decrease it. He
questioned whether there might be access to additional money or grants to mitigate the
problems in that area.
Dwight Bassett said this was part of the reason for the grant applications. He said the
Chapel Hill Stormwater Master plan is the most important thing that can be done in
implementing new infrastructure in the flood basin that feeds the district. He said this is more
important than anything that can be done inside the district. He said staff will be looking at
measures that can be taken upstream to reduce the water coming in to the area.
He said the build out estimates show only a 6 -8 percent impervious increase in 15
years, and with the new systems being put in place, he feels this will be balanced out.
Commissioner McKee said his concern centers around the idea that a greater likelihood
of continuing flooding problems will adversely affect the viability of additional commercial
development. He asked if this has been considered.
Dwight Bassett said Eastgate Shopping Center is in the floodplain and anything built
there must be flood proof according to town code. He said beyond that, the desire is to improve
the condition of the basin where the water is coming from. He said once the stormwater
management plan is adopted, it will counterbalance the negative impacts on the district and
downstream.
Commissioner Gordon referred to page 9 in their abstract materials. She asked about
the operating costs. She asked about the services that would be financed by the County, other
than education, such as social services and Emergency Services. She said there will be 1450
residential units, but she would like to know the resident population, and the cost of the
services.
Clarence Grier said this was not factored in to the original analysis, but it can be
factored in now, and an update can be provided.
Commissioner Gordon said Orange County has to fund the schools. She said impact
fees will be coming in and there will be costs, so money will be going out. She said the fiscal
year 2014 -2018 lists 300 students, and this is the approximate cost of half of an elementary
school, which is about $17 million. She said there are another 45 students listed in 2019 -2023.
She said elementary school #12 is listed in 2021 for $34 million. She said you can look at this
according to incremental costs, or when the new school will have to be built.
She is trying to figure out what kind of costs have to be applied against the total of $5
million coming in, in terms of services.
Clarence Grier said $5 million would be the operational costs of the increased
enrollment. He said staff would anticipate that the increase in enrollment would move
elementary 12 up, and would potentially mean a new middle or high school. He said this would
move the capital plan forward as a current expense. He said, as it stands right now,
construction of Elementary 12 would need to begin in 2018.
Commissioner Gordon said by 2024 if the CIP and SAPFO were followed, there would
be a new elementary school for $34 million, a high school addition for $23 million, and a middle
school. She said these are high costs and she is trying to figure out from a business
perspective what the number would be at the end of 2033 if it is not $5 million.
Clarence Grier noted that the new middle school would cost $46 million.
Commissioner Gordon would like to see an analysis of these costs, and an answer to
which is higher - revenue or expenditures.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 7 of attachment b. He said fiscal year one
shows that there would be no increment, and Orange County would have no payment.
Clarence Grier said yes.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if this would carry forward if any of the projected numbers
in year 2 or 3 were not reached.
Clarence Grier said yes.
Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 9 and asked if the increased funding for
education is based exclusively on the per -pupil cost for 300 students.
Clarence Grier said yes
Commissioner Dorosin asked about Clarence Grier's earlier point about 48 percent of
the budget going to schools. He asked if that increase is part of the $980,000.
Clarence Grier it is part of this analysis too.
Commissioner Dorosin asked what the $980,000 represents.
Clarence Grier said this number represents the 48.1 percent, plus the increase in school
enrollment.
Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to see that broken out.
Chair Jacobs asked why the bottom of the face page lists 450 new students
Clarence Grier said 300 was the initial allotment of students anticipated to be added to
the Chapel Hill Carrboro City School System (CHCCS), and then the number goes up
incrementally, ending with 450 students.
Chair Jacobs said he has great difficulty with projections, and all of this based on
projections. He said they are talking about 20 percent amenity space, and he asked if part of
this space can used for a new school site, such as an elementary school. He said a site is
needed and the project is much more feasible if the County already has one.
Dwight Bassett said most of the site has been purchased and is owned for re-
development. He said there is adjacent property on Legion Road that may be sold. He said the
majority of the parcels are small. He said the student generation rates from the study are much
lower than what the County is projecting. He said if this development is similar to 140 West and
East 54 developments, the rates will be much lower. He said the projection is 100 children for
the 1,500 units.
Chair Jacobs said the County is reviewing the student generation rates. He feels there
is a misunderstanding about the site size needed that could accommodate an urban school,
and a couple of acres are sufficient.
Chair Jacobs said he has concerns about committing to participation in an area that has
physical problems such as the upstream water management system. He asked if there had
been any conversation about dedicating incremental revenues to this issue in case the grants
are not approved. He would like to see the Board could see the Stormwater Management
Master Plan, and he feels that having revenue dedicated to this public safety issue is a pre-
requisite for County participation.
Dwight Bassett said stormwater staff could come speak to the Board. He knows that
the basin is a priority in the master plan.
Commissioner Pelissier echoed Commissioner Gordon's earlier comments regarding the
need for a full accounting of all increased costs. She questioned what the effect will be on debt
capacity if schools need to be moved up in the Capital Investment Plan (CIP).
Commissioner Pelissier asked if the County portion of the debt would be higher if the
road improvements cost more than projected
Ken Pennoyer said at this point public improvements are being limited to $10 million.
Commissioner Pelissier asked if Chapel Hill would absorb the difference if the amount is
higher.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
9
Ken Pennoyer said the Town would either scale back the project or find a different
source of revenue.
Dwight Bassett said these costs are projected based on road projects that have actually
occurred in this region. He said the projects have a 15 percent contingency in place for
engineering and cost overruns, so staff is comfortable with the numbers.
Commissioner Pelissier asked what the town's contingency plan would be if the County
funds less than 50 percent.
Ken said the town would use their debt management fund if the commitment fell short.
Commissioner Pelissier asked if staff is familiar with any similar projects like this across
the state.
Michael Talbert said he is not that he is aware of, other than a large theater in Granville
County that failed.
Commissioner Pelissier clarified that she is asking about interlocal agreements, not the
Synthetic TI F.
Bob Jessup said he is not aware of any projects that are based on the tax increment but
there are examples where a County agrees to make money available to a local government.
He said he can work to come up with something more concrete on this.
Commissioner Pelissier said she is talking about a project specifically like this one.
Michael Talbert said is not aware of any examples for road improvements and
stormwater projects.
Commissioner Price asked about the anticipated impact on existing housing in this area.
Dwight Bassett said many homes in this area are being rented, and staff believes that
increasing the supply of multi - family housing will create new opportunities for home ownership
in those adjacent neighborhoods. He said staff thinks the value of these neighborhoods will
grow dramatically, and the development will make it a desirable area to live.
Commissioner Price said her concern is affordability. She said if the value of current
property goes up, rent and costs would increase, and many people may be displaced.
Dwight Bassett said urban areas are beginning to realize that in order to meet market
demand, they need to look at micro units. He said staff has had that conversation with the
developers about including smaller, market rate, affordable units for those residents under that
median income category.
Commissioner Price asked if he is admitting that some people will be displaced.
Dwight Bassett said the Colony units are actually substandard, and staff believed they
can provide a better product at a similar market rate that will meet that need.
Commissioner Price said she is fine with making the housing decent and safe, but she is
concerned with the affordability.
Dwight Bassett said this is a long term issue that needs to be looked at, but staff
believes that increasing the housing supply in Chapel Hill will do more longer term to stabilize
the housing rate. He said the growth has not risen to meet the demand in Chapel Hill.
Commissioner Prices asked if there will be affordable units.
Dwight Bassett said the BCBS site will meet the 15 percent standard for affordable
housing. He said four sections of the district on the South side of Elliott Road have been
withheld for rezoning and staff is considering options for giving density bonuses for including 10
percent affordable housing for new buildings. He said staff will be meeting with property
owners to look at market conditions and whether that land is buildable.
Commissioner Rich said Chapel Hill can only do what Greenbridge has done if the
apartments are being purchased not rented. She said the development of Glen Lennox is not
far away and the developer is very dedicated to affordable housing.
Commissioner Rich said the Board should always keep in mind that if there is going to
be 450 students they will need more schools, and those projections should be included in the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
10
CIP. She is concerned with the fact that there are different numbers coming from different
places regarding student projections. She asked where the numbers come from.
Clarence Grier said the information was provided by the schools based on Schools
Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance ( SAPFO).
Commissioner Rich said won't there already be students in the school district that might
be moving into one of these apartments. She would like to have this information in the packet.
Michael Talbert said the extra information can be brought. He said the figure is .3
students per household in a multi - family setting.
Craig Benedict said the SAPFO numbers are broken into elementary, middle, and high
school. He said all of them together would equal something in the .2 range. He said it is
important to know that these numbers were based on multi - family units in Chapel Hill back 20
years ago, and the new study looks at new buildings over the past 10 years. He said if new
numbers come from this study, then those figures may be more realistic. He said the current
projections were done by consultants based on information available now.
Commissioner McKee said Chapel Hill approved the plan on Monday night. He asked
for clarification on where this project stands now.
Dwight Bassett said the Town approved the form based zoning to allow the re-
development to occur. He said there had been previous steps and resolutions regarding
financing.
Ken Pennoyer said the council has passed a reimbursement resolution allowing the
town to reimburse itself from the proceeds of debt issued in the future, so that the Town Hall
and the Ephesus improvement projects can be funded.
Commissioner McKee said the abstract notes that there is funding available to cover the
gap for the first fiscal year; and he heard the earlier comment that if costs come in higher there
is funding to cover that. He understands that the County's participation is not required to make
this project possible. He asked if this is correct.
Ken Pennoyer said if the County does not participate it would be make the town's
financing weaker, but they would still move forward. He said without County participation, the
town's coverage would be marginal and break even.
Commissioner McKee clarified that the development will be moving forward regardless
of County participation in the financing and Ken Pennoyer said that was correct.
Commissioner McKee said that answers his thought that the increased expenses and
revenue will be there regardless of County participation.
Commissioner Dorosin said this proposal has a 20 year term. He asked if any
agreement that is adopted would have some sort of provision or relief valve built in to allow for
renegotiation if the project has to be scaled back.
Bob Jessup said this is based on whatever the parties want to put into the contract. He
said the County's obligation will be put in terms of a lesser portion of A or B, and it would not
strike him that there would be a need to pull out. He said if the County were to say that
participation is based on a requirement that the project include certain things, then a schedule
of payments could be included.
Commissioner Dorosin said collaboration is important, and this is economic
development for the County. However, he feels that there are some competing interests, and
the County is not getting clear answers. He would like to know how this housing is being
marketed. He said it sounds as if this will be marketed to a demographic that does not have
children, and while this dissolves the school question, it raises a host of issue about socio-
economic diversity and affordability. He said the answers to these questions are important. He
said one of the biggest draws for this area is the school system, and he thinks that their general
skepticism about these student projections is real. He would like more answers to these
concerns.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
11
Commissioner Gordon said after the financial analysis comes in, the Board can look at
partnering with the towns. She said she would be interested in building a partnership. She said
she had read that the town was considering forming a districted and she was unclear whether
this was for stormwater, maintenance or utilities. She asked about this.
Ken Pennoyer said the proposal is to create a stormwater taxing district and to charge 4
cents for all of the occupants in that district in order for that money to go toward maintenance of
stormwater facilities
Commissioner Gordon asked what the $1.2 million is for, versus the 4 cents.
Ken said the $1.2 million would be for major capital improvements in the area, and then
the district tax would be an annual charge for ongoing maintenance.
Commissioner Gordon asked when the stormwater plan is going to be approved.
Dwight Bassett said some regulations are already part of the zoning that was passed on
Monday night, but there is additional information to be presented in the coming meetings.
Chair Jacobs said he has not heard any objection from the Board regarding the idea of
participation. He reviewed the following list of items that the Board would like to see:
1) An update of the full cost of County services, including the speed up in school facilities
2) Stormwater Management Master Plan
3) Comparable arrangements /projects between other governments
4) Updated student generation rates
5) Detailed copy of the plan
Chair Jacobs said there were also questions about proportionality as it relates to the
cost and the County's expected funding. He said there were also questions about the
marketing plan for the housing. He said the Board needs at least one or two more discussions
before entertaining public comments. He said the Board is not here to judge the project, as it
has been approved by the government with the authority to do so. He said the Board is just
going to try and address its concerns.
Michael Talbert asked for an explanation of the timeline.
Ken Pennoyer said the Town will be working on the calendar next week, and the debt
issuance will happen in the early fall.
Dwight Bassett said staff anticipates the first four roads could be out to bid by October
and construction could begin by late fall, early winter. He said the next design phase would
immediately follow this. He said the goal would be to complete the road projects inside of two
years.
Commissioner Gordon said she hopes the plans will include an explanation of form
based code and how it involves the County.
Chair Jacobs said he would like Steve Brantley to look at the 4 cent stormwater tax and
how it would affect affordability.
3. Proposed Satellite Tax Office in Chapel Hill
Michael Talbert said this project started about one year ago and staff was looking at
ways to create a satellite tax office in Chapel Hill to provide a better level of service to those
citizens. He said as the process progressed staff had an opportunity to talk with the Town
since they were renovating their town hall anyway due to the flood. He said if this moves
forward, he would anticipate the possibility of a long term lease of space in town hall.
Dwane Brinson reviewed the following information, as contained in the abstract:
The Orange County Tax Office (hereinafter "tax office ") has a single location in Hillsborough,
NC, in the County's Gateway Center above Weaver Street Market. The Town of Chapel Hill, in
its Town Hall, currently serves as an additional collection point for residents. However, no
property tax assessment services are provided at the Chapel Hill location, a demand that has
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
12
continued to grow over the years. This memorandum explains the proposal and scope of
services to be provided as part of a proposed co- location agreement at Town Hall between
Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill.
BACKGROUND
In early 2013 Ken Pennoyer, Business Management Director for the Town of Chapel Hill, and I
began conversations about offering property tax assessment services as a joint effort between
the two local governments. At the time these conversations began, the Town had just been
displaced from Town Hall and was considering an immediate short -term alternative for its first -
floor services, including tax collections. Sites were visited and a rental survey was completed by
staff to try and determine the best, suitable location for a full - service tax office in Chapel Hill.
This process began with Mr. Frank Clifton, former Orange County Manager, and it eventually
expanded to include all appropriate staff and managers once information had been gathered.
As an end result, the Town and County agreed that the best option would be to co- locate at
Town Hall in Chapel Hill. At the time this recommendation was made, Town staff was working
with an architect to redesign the first floor of Town Hall. The timing presented an opportunity for
the Town and County to provide a proposal that conveniently adds another set of services to
the Chapel Hill, Carrboro and surrounding population at little additional cost.
PROPOSAL
With Town Hall having accepted property tax payments for years, we feel that adding property
tax assessment services to the same location will create a synergistic affect. Departments to be
located within the first floor of Town Hall, such as stormwater management, permitting, etc.,
already work very closely with the tax office. Co- locating with this core group of departments will
only strengthen the accuracy of shared data, reduce transmittal errors and improve efficiency of
operations for both organizations.
One of the most important aspects of this proposal is that the tax office, being located at town
hall in Chapel Hill, would be conveniently located to assist walk -in and call -in taxpayers with
questions and forms. Following are a few examples. We currently do not have a Chapel Hill
presence to assist with tax assistance applications. Granted, we typically perform timely
presentations at the Seymour Center, but having someone conveniently located in Chapel Hill
to assist with filling out and explaining the requirements for tax assistance applications would
have a tremendous impact. Another aspect of our business practice that exists only is
Hillsborough is in- person property tax assessment explanations and appeals. This includes
business property, individual personal property, motor vehicles and real estate. Often taxpayers
wish to sit down face to face and discuss the valuation, and a Chapel Hill location would make
these services more accessible. Lastly, taxpayers currently can turn in their annual property tax
listing form only in Hillsborough. With a Chapel Hill location, staff would be available not only to
receive listing forms, but to explain and ensure all needed information is present.
With our impending 2017 countywide revaluation, having real estate appraisers located in
Chapel Hill will be incredibly useful. Considering this is a full list and measure revaluation, and
that staff is leaving information postcards at each residence, having staff conveniently located
to assist is crucial.
Staffing
Providing property tax assessment services in Chapel Hill will require reorganization of
responsibilities and positions. Staffing for the Chapel Hill location, tentatively, will include:
• One tax listing clerk — to support tax listing, personal property appraisal and tax
assistance questions from residents.
• One real property appraiser — to support real estate questions /appeals, and to save on
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
13
transportation costs for an appraiser working the southern Orange County area.
• One motor vehicle appraiser — to support vehicle tax appeals and questions.
• One floating management position — to support difficult questions /situations and provide
overall management for resident staff; rotating management positions will include: Tax
Administrator, Deputy Tax Assessor, Personal Property Appraisal Manager, Chief
Appraiser and Administrative Officer, each rotating one day per week.
Office Space
Four work stations at Town Hall would be needed for this arrangement. The four work stations
would be occupied at all times unless one were to be out sick or on vacation. It also is
recommended that the property tax assessment staff at Town Hall have access to a conference
room as needed. Meetings occur often, and taxpayers sometimes request a private setting to
discuss details of their situation confidentially. Such occurrences could be, and often are,
impromptu in nature.
As the tax office will be allocating only property tax assessment staff, and since the Town
already carries out the property tax collection function, this proposal suggests that collection
functions continue exclusively under the Town's direction at Town Hall. Only property tax
assessment staff will be present at Town Hall and will not be able to assist in collection
functions, i.e. receiving property tax payments. Of course, property tax assessment staff will be
present to answer questions of taxpayers coming into the office, but these positions will be
unable to assist in directly collecting revenue.
SUMMARY
Supplementing the current practice of property tax collection in Chapel Hill with property tax
assessment services, we feel, will have a positive effect on intergovernmental relations. It co-
locates departments that routinely work closely together and creates an environment that
should improve accuracy in data transmittal and tax records. Additionally, it affords southern
Orange County residents a convenient option of not only paying taxes, but to ask questions of
the tax assessment process, annual forms to be filed and property tax assistance programs.
This proposal would co- locate this service and would use existing staff. He said they would
have three positions and one floating supervisor. The town would continue the tax collection
service and the county would provide the rest
Michael Talbert said staff would work with the town to negotiate a market rate lease for
a minimum of 5 years with renewable options. He said the town manager is aware of this, and
it would need to be vetted with both units of government.
Commissioner Dorosin asked for information on the market rate.
Michael Talbert said this would be somewhere in the $15 - $17 range, but the square
footage has not been determined yet
Ken Pennoyer said this would be an open office layout with four 6 x 6 work stations, and
five smaller conference rooms. He said the common area would be split based on the square
footage of the actual work stations. He said the meeting rooms would be on a first come first
serve basis.
Chair Jacobs asked if the County would be paying rent for access to all five meeting
rooms or just one.
Ken Pennoyer said they would have to agree on a formula for the use of the common
area. He said there would also be a large lobby with computers and kiosks for customers, as
well as a reception area. He said a formula would be created based on the actual work station
area the rest of the common area.
Commissioner Pelissier asked how many staff will be left in Hillsborough.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
14
Dwane Brinson said there are 39 full time employees in the tax office, so that would
leave about 35 in Hillsborough and 4 in Chapel Hill.
Commissioner Gordon referred to the 3 employees, plus one floater supervisor in
Chapel Hill and asked if this meant there will be no new employees.
Dwane Brinson said yes. He said the only bottleneck in the Hillsborough tax office is the
collections areas. He said the ability to explain things in person will make things much more
efficient.
Commissioner Gordon asked for more of a ballpark cost on the rental.
Dwane Brinson said they do not know the dimensions yet.
Chair Jacobs said this will all be included in the decision item.
Commissioner Gordon asked if there is room in Town Hall for this.
Dwane Brinson said yes. He said there was not space in the old building, but there is
room in the newly renovated area of Town Hall.
Commissioner Price said this is a great idea but she has concern about the parking.
Ken Pennoyer said parking has been problematic at Town Hall, but more spaces have
now been designated for customers. He said staff may have to come up with alternative
options for employees, such as parking at the Wallace Deck. He said the parking for
customers is free now, and it will continue to be in the future.
Dwane Brinson said this office is located on the bus route, and this is great for
customers.
Commissioner Rich said this is a great idea. She asked if the equipment in Hillsborough
will be moved or if it will need to be duplicated.
Dwane Brinson said since these positions will be transferring from Chapel Hill, he
assumes there may be some potential to move resources.
Commissioner Rich said the idea of having a tax office where you live is a great one.
Chair Jacobs is supportive of this idea, but he knows there have been problems in the
past with adequate supervision of satellite offices. He hopes the supervisor will keep this in
mind.
Chair Jacobs said a value can't really be placed on convenience, but it may be useful to
have some way to track the increased in efficiency in tax collections. He said this would show
that there is sufficient return on the investment.
Dwane Brinson said staff will come up with some measures to show progress. He said
this could be tracking the increase in listing forms and tax assistance applications.
Michael Talbert said customer service is the main benefit. He is not sure there will be
any increase in revenue, as there is already a very high collection rate, and there is no new
collection service being added.
Michael Talbert said they will proceed.
4. Continuation of Review and Discussion of the Manager's Recommended FY 2014 -
19 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
Paul Laughton said tonight's item is to provide follow up information from the April 10th
CIP meeting. He went through the hand outs included in the packets.
He said Attachment A is a discussion of the Blackwood Farm Park. He said the original
CIP included an agricultural center and a parks operations base for a total of $6 million. He
noted that all changes in the documents are shown in yellow. He said this attachment shows
the agricultural center was taken out, and only a permanent parks operation base is included,
for a new total of $1.2 million. He referred to a site plan that is also included and he reviewed
the different components of the layout.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
15
Paul Laughton said staff is just asking for comments. He said attachment B also shows
a scenario for an environment and agriculture building on Revere Road, since this has been
taken out of Blackwood Farm. He said staff is happy to prepare other options if the Board has
any suggestions.
Commissioner Dorosin asked for an explanation of the $147,000 listed in year one.
Paul Laughton said this includes trail constructions, restrooms, parking issues,
equipment, and activities as part of a limited opening.
Dave Stancil said staff is looking at trying to get this facility open on a limited basis by
transferring some existing parks capital funds from other projects. He said this would include
building trails, improving and adding to the parking area, improving the existing driveway, and
possibly creating a picnic shelter, as well as signage throughout the site. He said the vision is
to have this open 2 -3 days per week.
Paul Laughton said the next project is outlined in Attachment B with the deconstruction
and reconstruction of an environment and agricultural center. He said this shows the
estimated project budget for a 15,000 square foot main building, as well as 2,000 square feet of
covered storage and yard area. He said this shows the intent of having a building there where
the operations and work at the current building can continue undisturbed during the
construction process. He said deconstruction of the old building would happen after the new
structure was built.
He said the original estimates for this location looked only at keeping the existing
structure as it is now, and doing repairs on the roof, HVAC and parking area to extend the life
expectancy. The cost for this was listed as $1.4 million in year 4. He said this new construction
project was also put in year 4 to show a comparison, and it comes to $3.38 million.
Commissioner McKee said the use of the term "life expectancy" bothers him when used
for a building. He feels the focus should be on the condition of the building and the necessary
repairs to keep it going. He said there is a danger to assigning a life expectancy on a building
because you are setting up an expectation that it will be replaced.
Chair Jacobs asked about the size of the Revere Road parcel.
Jeff Thompson said it is 4 acres and there are 3 structures on the property: Revere
Road Center, Station One, and a storage facility.
Chair Jacobs said he would like to see a full analysis of what the agricultural center
could be on this site. He said there were recommendations and ideas that have not been
incorporated in this plan. He would like to see if this could be more than just a building, and he
would like to do a more comprehensive look at this property and the potential interface between
interior and exterior areas. He feels that this is an opportunity that should be taken advantage
of. He said the best use of the old carwash area would be to have it open for other agricultural
related uses, instead of storage.
Commissioner Gordon said she would like to hear from David Stancil what he feels
would be appropriate for this building.
David Stancil said this location has proven to be a good location for the agricultural
community. He said the building has the capability to continue to serve in that capacity, but it is
intriguing to look at whether the site could be built on without taking down the original structure.
He thinks the idea of keeping the agricultural agencies together is a good idea.
Commissioner Gordon said there are also all of the offices, in addition to the agricultural
space. She asked if the building built for $3.38 million would be intended to have the same
functions.
Jeff Thompson said staff has met extensively with the all of the agricultural center
occupants. He said the space is inefficient and redundant, with County storage right in the
middle of it. He said there was discussion of the convenience of shared customer service
areas, individual partition areas, secured uses, and built in growth, and this came out to be
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
16
about a 17,000 square foot building. He referred to page 8 of the abstract, and said 15,000
square feet of the center would be interior space, and 2,000 would be outside demonstration
area. Commissioner Gordon said this agricultural center Commissioner Jacobs was talking
about was something different.
Jeff Thompson said the interior space would remain the same, but the exterior space
that interfaces with the larger acreage is different and makes a lot of sense.
Commissioner Gordon said there are two different things being looked at here, one is
the reconfigured office space for the agencies, and the other is the conception of an agricultural
center.
Dave Stancil said there is a lot of interest in this center due to the idea of a large
meeting area.
Commissioner Gordon said there are two different concepts being looked at and it may
be good to talk about phasing or even two different buildings. She said it make sense to her to
do a new building.
Paul Laughton reviewed Attachment C regarding the new jail project. He said there is a
total price of $30 million budgeted for design and construction. He said the major construction
was to be in year 4 with a 250 bed capacity. He said there was discussion of breaking the
project up into segments or pods. He said this is what is outlined on page 10. He said
$500,000 was kept for design and professional services in year 2 and 3, and the year 4
construction was kept, looking at a revised plan. He said there is an expansion concept shown
on pages 12 and 13. He said this contains 3 different segments or pods with a wide range of
beds and capacity. He said the new amount of $23.76 million in construction is basically for a
jail with a 216 bed capacity. He said this 216 bed concept could also be done in pods.
Chair Jacobs asked Cheryl Young to come up to microphone since she is the support
staff for the Jail Alternatives Work Group. He said there has been some discussion about the
size of the pods.
Cheryl Young said this is extremely preliminary, as it relates to the pod concept. She
said there is still a lot of time to work on this. She said 221 is the topped out sum of 140 local
inmates plus the current contracted 75 inmates.
Chair Jacobs asked if Sheriff Pendergrass had any comments about the jail concept.
Sherriff Pendergrass said this project will need to go forward. He said the daily capacity
last year was 130 inmates per day, and there was an average of 65 federal inmates daily last
year. He said there will need to be at least a 250 bed jail in the near future due to the impact
from state decisions.
Commissioner McKee said he hopes staff is working with the sheriff's department on the
actual layout and design to make sure it works on a daily basis on the ground.
John Sellew said the consultant has been working with them on the preliminary
sketches.
Commissioner Gordon said the state may be changing requirements and she asked if
the prisoners will have to go to another County if there is not enough space.
John Sellew said the only alternative if there were not capacity would be to farm these
inmates out to other counties and pay whatever price is being charged.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the advantages and disadvantages of taking federal
inmates. She said her understanding is that the average net income to Orange County for this
relationship is $268,000 in net revenue. She said the capital cost is $7.5 million. She said if
you divide this out, it takes 28 years to reach $7.5 million. She asked for an explanation of the
economy of taking federal prisoners.
Sheriff said he does not know that this can be explained. He said over the last 30 years
the County has probably raised about $60 million from the federal government that could have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
17
been put into an account to build two jails. He said there is a jail with plenty of room and people
pay to stay there. He said the only thing the County has to pay for is the inmates being there.
He said the federal government pays for the rest. He said the federal government has
renovated the jail two times.
Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to understand this as it relates to the discussion
of increased capacity and whether to build more space. She said they may not have the full
information here in terms of all of the benefits and burdens.
Commissioner Gordon said this started out as a $30 million jail and then there was
discussion of doing it in modules. She said the capacity is down to 216, but it still costs $26
million for the core facility, which doesn't save a lot.
Cheryl Young said there have been periods of time where the jail is at full capacity with
local inmates. She said the federal inmates are taken when there is space for them, and it is a
way to pay for making certain there is enough space for local inmates. She said it basically
pays for you to have additional capacity when you need it.
Commissioner Gordon said when you modularize and reduce to 216 instead of the full
number you don't save that much money, and she asked why.
Cheryl Young said she try to find out that information and send it out.
Chair Jacobs said this is being worked on by the consultant. He said the whole idea is
that costs can be staged by doing the pods. He said the idea is that some of the cost of a full
build out can be avoided at first, since full capacity won't be needed right away.
John Sellew said the core facility has to be built to withstand expansion. He said to
keep in mind that other counties will be affected by potential legislation as well and they may
not be able to take Orange County inmates.
Chair Jacobs said the core can be thought of like Carrboro High School.
Commissioner Gordon referred to page 10 and the capital budget booklet. She said the
5 year total for the proposed jail is $30 million, and then the other document lists a total of $29.4
million. She does not understand these numbers when you are going down from 250 to 216.
She would like to understand those costs.
Paul Laughton said the $29.4 million includes $2.8 million in debt service.
Commissioner Gordon said it would be helpful to get a break down.
Commissioner Pelissier said asked about the length of the contracts for the federal
inmates.
John Sellew said this is a 5 year contract.
Sheriff Pendergrass said the current contract is beginning its third year.
Commissioner Pelissier said she cannot believe it would only cost $4 million to build two
more pods.
Jeff Thompson said the consultant's charge now is to look at this number and to outline
the Request for Qualifications (RFQ) stipulations to help the County write that specification.
He said once a designer is selected, the details on the programming and the cost will
matriculate. He said that would be the focus of the next 12 months.
Commissioner Rich asked if anything will be done in the building process with newer
technology such as solar and thermal technology.
Jeff Thompson said Orange County's principle of high performance building standards
will be implemented. He said the site is flat and there is an ability to analyze several
technologies in the jail construction and operations field.
Commissioner Rich suggested looking at water re -use.
Jeff Thompson said staff has had success with solar thermal hot water, and geothermal
systems. He said all of these things will be considered.
Chair Jacobs said one factor in the capacity discussion, is the jail alternatives group. He
said the County can work with judges, district attorneys, public defenders, and the mental
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
limb
health community. He said there are a lot of alternatives to incarceration. He said he hopes
that when this comes forward to the Commissioners it will have some positive impact on the jail
population.
Chair Jacobs said the Board will be getting more refined numbers, and that is part of
what the consultant is hired to do.
Commissioner Gordon thanked Sheriff Pendergrass for being creative financially over
the years in defraying their expenses. She thanked him for his service over the years.
Paul Laughton referred to said Attachment D, which shows the impact the scenarios of
Attachment A, B, and C and how the debt service is affected. He said out to year 5, the County
was at 14.42 percent debt service as a percent of general fund budget. He said these new
scenarios decrease that slightly to 14.35 percent. He said staff will update the debt service for
the June 10 meeting to reflect the items approved on May 8t" related to the community center.
He said there will also be an update to the debt service related to the article 46 sales tax.
He said the manager's recommended operating budget has increased a bit, and this
raises the debt capacity, which is 15 percent of the operating budget.
Clarence Grier said the manager's recommended budget will increase substantially and
the debt capacity will go up approximately $2.8 million. He said the total additional amount of
debt that can be issued this year is approximately $18.4 million. He said the possible bond
referendum would get them closer to the affordability mentioned at the Board retreat, without a
tax increase.
Paul Laughton said there were two other issues that came up and they are included in
the packet. He said Attachment E on page 17 shows the debt service on the Sportsplex, as
requested by Commissioner Gordon.
He said Attachment F provides information on County wireless access.
Commissioner McKee asked if staff is factoring in the possible increase in interest rates
on the debt service.
Paul Laughton said yes.
Clarence Grier said he is hopeful that the County's interest rates would stay the same or
go lower over the next 5 or 6 years.
Commissioner Gordon said the CHCCS sent out a memo on April 22nd to request
$750,000 to start working on planning for renovation projects, in advance of the possible bond
referendum. She said if this works out, it could delay building a new school. She would like to
see a scenario to show how this could be incorporated.
Commissioner Gordon said she would like to know what it would cost to allow people to
access one agenda item at a time instead of downloading the entire agenda packet.
Commissioner Gordon asked if roll carts have been purchased for rural areas.
Michael Talbert said these have not been purchased, and they are in the proposed
budget. He said these have been scaled down to 7000 roll carts instead of 13,000.
Commissioner Gordon said the Eubanks Road Center is included in the Solid Waste
Convenience Center (SWCC) cost, and she asked if this is capital cost or operating cost.
Michael Talbert said it would be both. He said the renovation costs have gone up to
$2.2 million and the debt service would be factored into the operating cost.
Commissioner Gordon said if the County is talking with their partners about all of the
solid waste issues, she wonders if they should they hold back on committing to renovations to
the Eubanks SWCC until these conversations are done.
Michael Talbert said the manager's recommendation is to go ahead and move forward.
He said the improvements at Walnut Grove have made it much more popular and efficient. He
said the Eubanks Road facility is small and outdated, and the closing of the landfill has made it
necessary to fill this gap.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
19
Commissioner Gordon asked if there was any thought that the County might cooperate
if Chapel Hill were to locate a transfer station at Millhouse.
Michael Talbert said that is possible, but he does not know how likely it is. He said this
is still in the early planning stages and he doesn't know the time frame.
Commissioner Gordon suggested that this should be flagged for consideration.
Commissioner Dorosin referred to the Wi -Fi access and said he would be interested in
more information on which of the listed scenarios would give more bang for our buck. He said
the goal is to provide the broadest access possible and he asked if there is a way to evaluate
where you would get the most use.
Jim Northup said he did ask the planning department to provide information on the
number of access points, and he can provide those numbers at a later date.
Commissioner Dorosin said that would be helpful.
Chair Jacobs suggested this could be added to a work session. He said he would like to
see an analysis of where the service already exists, and where it would not be used.
Commissioner Rich asked if Jim Northup knows the locations of wireless points around
the County.
Jim Northup said staff does not keep track of private Wi -Fi access.
Chair Jacobs said two County Commissioners have brought up accelerating the
provision for handicap access to buildings in the CIP.
Chair Jacobs said there has been past discussion of a needs assessment for the Efland
Community Center, and he would like to see this somewhere in the CIP.
Paul Laughton said three Life Safety /ADA projects were added this year on page 37 of
the CIP.
Chair Jacobs said there was some discussion accelerating the provision of these
improvements. He said there was no discussion of specific projects, but more of a general
sense of urgency.
Chair Jacobs said if the Board is moving forward with talking about the Southern Branch
Library, there will need to be a more detailed presentation of alternatives. He said the grand
design presented earlier was over budget and it would be useful to see some alternatives to
allow the Board to decide on the higher priority issues.
Chair Jacobs said there was a discussion of the bond, regarding whether some of the
construction projects might be accelerated. He said Clarence Grier was encouraged to think
about whether the first $100 million would be sufficient, and to see if there was more capacity
within the debt to go above this.
Commissioner McKee said he would like to see a survey done in the rural areas to see
how many roll carts are actually going to be needed.
Michael Talbert said that survey will be done before the roll carts are ordered.
Commissioner McKee said there were some leakage and flooding issues today in one of
the schools. He is not sure how much sense it makes to spend $750,000 on planning for future
schools when there are major issues with the existing schools.
Paul Laughton said everything he presented were scenarios, and nothing has been
replaced. He welcomes direction from the Board.
Chair Jacobs said the default proposal and direction is based on what the Board said in
the discussions tonight.
5. Next Steps - Strategic Communications Plan
Rod Visser thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their cooperation. He said
there seems to be a lot of consensus on fleshing out a full blown strategic communications
plan, and that the Commissioners see the importance of a role for the Board in the
development and oversight of this plan.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
20
Chair Jacobs asked for an update on where things are in the process and where to go
next.
Rod Visser said the outline on April 8t" discussed a three phase approach. He said the
first phase occurred up to the April 8t" work session and focused on public outreach. He said
phase 2 has just been completed, which involved interviews with Commissioners, managers
and staff members. He said he has provided a report on this and the degree to which there is
consensus on specific issues.
He said the third phase, as envisioned by the manager, would be to proceed with
fleshing out a full strategic plan and a strategic communications team. He said this would
include a role for the Board and the departments already involved in the process. He said there
was consensus that the team should involve some additional departments that have related
needs and capabilities.
Rod Visser said this is at a point for the Board to consider whether it makes sense to
proceed formally with a strategic communication plan, and exactly what role the Board of
County Commissioners would play in this. He said there was discussion of having two Board of
County Commissioners members involved in the team and with oversight.
Michael Talbert said there was an abbreviated discussion at the last meeting too. He is
not sure there has been adequate opportunity to discuss this issue to move forward. He said it
would be hard to add this to the upcoming work sessions, but it should not be the last item.
Commissioner Pelissier said she feels like the information provided from the interviews
is enough to say this should go forward to develop a plan. She suggested appointing two
Commissioners, together with the department heads to come up with a plan. She said there
was a lot of agreement about the original goals. She is ready to move forward.
Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Pelissier.
Commissioner Gordon said she would like to move forward with a plan. She suggested
the development of a charge. She suggested that they let staff start working on it to be
presented in the fall. She said the Board needs to decide its role.
Commissioner Gordon referred to her memo regarding language in County documents
and asked the Commissioners to look it over.
Chair Jacobs asked Michael Talbert to direct staff to come back with a proposed plan
for the composition of a group that included two Commissioners to work on developing a
strategic communications plan. He said this would presumably be done this fiscal year.
CLOSED SESSION:
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
go into closed session at 10:39pm for the purpose of:
To discuss matters relating to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the
area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic
development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations. The action
approving the signing of an economic development contract or commitment, or the action
authorizing the payment of economic development expenditures, shall be taken in an open
session. § 143- 318.11(a)(4).
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
reconvene into regular session at 10:45 pm.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
21
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
adjourn the meeting at 10:45 pm.
Donna Baker
Clerk to the Board
Barry Jacobs, Chair
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Attachment 2
DRAFT MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
September 4, 2014
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Thursday,
September 4, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County
Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (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 7:00 p.m.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Chair Jacobs noted the following items at the Commissioner's places:
- Guide to Orange County Government
- White Sheet — Tips for a Successful Meeting
- Green Sheet — Arts Grant Recipients
- Pink Sheet — Update to Item 5 -e
- Yellow Sheet — Proposed addition to the agenda
- White Packet — Report on Planning items
- Handout regarding recycling containers
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to add
the proposed resolution: A Resolution Commemorating Saint Paul African Methodist
Episcopal Church on the 1501t —" Anniversary of its Founding to the consent the agenda as
item 6 -m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
`SPECIAL PRESENTATION
Chair Jacobs introduced Jeff Thompson to provide a short presentation on the new
Whitted Meeting facility.
Jeff Thompson presented a collage of pictures of the Whitted facility's past use, and he
outlined its history. He said this building is an excellent example of the Board- adopted space
use criteria of co- location, centralization, and sustainable building and operational practices.
He thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their leadership in preserving and using
this historic landmark. He thanked several individuals, staff members, government partners
and the project team for their dedicated and diligent work on this project.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
2
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Jacobs dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Don O'Leary said fluoride is a neurotoxin, and it needs to be removed from their water
supply. He discussed the dangers and the social implications of fluoridation. He asked the
Commissioners to research this issue.
Corey Stermer said he has lived in this area for 28 years. He said about 99 percent of
the water he has ever drunk has been from the public water supply, and he cannot think of a
more important issue to address than what is in that water. He said there is a total lack of
moral, scientific, or medical study regarding adding fluoride to the water to prevent tooth decay.
He said the precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of
causing harm to the public or the environment, in the absence of scientific proof that it is not
harmful, the burden of proof falls on the Board or government taking the action. He said there
are a lot of recent studies that indicate that fluoride might be harmful, and a recent journal
added it to a list of potential neurotoxins for children. He said on a legal level there are criminal
sanctions for those who distribute drugs for a medical purpose without a license, and fluoride is
a drug. His point is that the County should not medicate people against their will. He said the
responsibility is on the government to prove that this is not harmful.
Zach Davidson said he attended an OWASA board meeting, and he witnessed a public
admission that their fluoride products were acquired from the aluminum and fertilizer industries.
He said these fluoride products are distributed under the auspices of a dental benefit. He said
his main question is how public fluoridation is able to exist on the idea that it is innocuous when
it is actually a chemical by- product. He said a lot of the chemicals that operate under the
heading of fluoride are not simple compounds, and some of them are dangerous corrosive
materials. He questioned why, amidst the plethora of conflicting scientific studies, fluoride is
subsidized by public funds. He feels that this should be a civil rights issue.
Mattie Rose Crowder referred to an article regarding overexposure to fluoride and the
condition of dental fluorosis. She said the article also suggested that fluoride has no positive
effect on teeth if ingested. She said the current form of fluoride that is used in water supplies is
a by- product of the phosphate fertilizer industry. She cited multiple studies on the reasons for
tooth decay. She said for multiple reasons, fluoride should be taken out of the water supply.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.)
3. Petitions by Board Members
Commissioner Price said she is opposed to war, and she feels it is an ugly part of
humanity, but she still feels that the County should be honoring those who serve in the military
and veterans. She said there is no space in Orange County that recognizes veterans or those
who serve. She petitioned for the establishment of a task force or ad hoc committee to look at
how the County could begin to show respect and honor to the members of the military who
have served in wars and conflict to protect the United States. She suggested that this
committee should be comprised of Orange County staff from the Veteran Services Office,
family and community members.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
3
Commissioner Dorosin said the County put out an announcement today, based on the
advice of the attorney, concerning the EPA investigation with Rogers Road and stating that the
County can now move forward with improvements to the Rogers Road Community.
Commissioner Dorosin petitioned the Board to reach out to their partners directly and
inform them of this change as well as the County's continued commitment to the improvements.
He suggested that this be done expeditiously, as there is an upcoming meeting regarding
Chapel Hill's extension of the Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) to the Rogers Road area. He
asked that the manager or the Chair reach out to the town.
Commissioner Dorosin said several months ago he made a petition about a gun buy-
back program and he asked about the status of this.
Chair Jacobs said this was referred to the county attorney, and he may have referred it
to the sheriff. He said this will be revisited at the next agenda review.
Chair Jacobs said when he was at the National Association of County's Convention,
there was a booth from the NC Solar Center, now called the North Carolina Clean Energy
Technology Center. He said there is a program in the city of Raleigh that involves the practical
application of solar technology to all of their buildings. He would like to petition County staff to
see if the clean energy staff can come to Hillsborough for a discussion. He said he is in favor
of getting the County off the grid and using more natural technology.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Orange County Arts Grant Recipients
The Board presented checks to local artists and nonprofit organizations receiving spring
2014 Orange County Arts Grants.
Commissioner McKee presented the checks while Chair Jacobs called out the
recipients.
The Board acknowledged the following local recipients:
Spring, 2014 OCAC Arts Grant Recipients
Recipient:
ArtsCenter -
Cedar Ridge High School -
Compass Center for Women and Families -
Deep Dish Theater Company -
Estes Hills Elementary School PTA -
Franklin Street Arts Collective dba FRANK Gallery -
Free Spirit Freedom Program of Hillsborough Arts Council
Glenwood Elementary School PTA -
Hillsborough Arts Council -
Lindsay Ann Leach - Sparks -
McDougle Elementary School PTA -
Music Maker Relief Foundation -
Paul M. Neebe -
Northside Elementary School -
Sacrificial Poets -
SECU Family House at UNC Hospitals -
Attendee(s):
Jeri Lynn Schulke
Keith Yow, Carmine Prioli,
Hunter Thompson, Ian Surman,
Cody Gainey, Jose Martinez
Ardith Burkes
Liz Thorpe
Meredith Lassiter
Gordon Jameson
— Thomas Watson
Dana Gelin
Tinka Jordy
Lindsay Leach - Sparks
Rachael Cruickshank
Denise Duffy
Paul Neebe
Ben Davis
CJ Suitt
Kirsten Beattie
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Town of Carrboro /Recreation &Parks Dept.
(Carrboro Music Festival) — Rah Trost
Barbara Tyroler - Gordon Jameson
b. "The Nature of Orange" Photography Contest Recognition
The Board recognized and thanked the winners and participants of "The Nature of
Orange" 2014 Photography Contest.
Rich Shaw reviewed the following background information:
The Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation ( DEAPR) presented its
third annual "The Nature of Orange" Photography Contest, which culminated on May 16, 2014.
The contest was advertised from February 2014 through the May 16th via the Orange County
DEAPR website, advisory boards, local newspapers, and the Orange County DEAPR Program
Guide. The goal of the contest is to inspire exploration, celebration and appreciation of Orange
County's diverse landscapes and outdoor experiences. Photographers of all ages documented
the beauty of the County's wildlife, waterways, natural resources, and people connecting to their
environment.
Rich Shaw showed the winning photos and read the names of the winners and
participants. Commissioner Gordon distributed the certificates.
The Board recognized and thanked all of the contest winners and all those who
participated in the photo contest.
5. Public Hearings
a. Comarehensive Plan and Unified Develoament Ordinance Text Amendments for
Agricultural Support Enterprises Within the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification — Defer
Public Hearing Process to November 18, 2014 (No Additional Oral Comments Accepted)
The Board considered deferring the public hearing process on the Comprehensive Plan
and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) zoning text amendments pertaining to Agricultural
Support Enterprises within the Rural Buffer land use classification to November 18, 2014.
Perdita Holtz reviewed the following background information:
This item was presented at the February 24, 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing. It was noted at the
hearing that concurrent amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement
(JPA) were necessary in order for the County to adopt the proposed UDO zoning amendments.
The JPA land use amendments, which were heard at the March 27, 2014 joint public hearing,
must be approved by the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Orange County. The Orange
County Board of Commissioners adopted the JPA land use amendments at its June 3, 2014
meeting.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
5
The Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro considered the amendments at meetings in June, but
opted to continue to contemplate the JPA amendments, with the Town of Carrboro Board of
Aldermen in particular noting it wished to delve into the details of the UDO zoning amendment,
which would implement the JPA land use amendments. It is anticipated that the JPA land use
amendments, with discussion about the related UDO zoning amendments, will be on Town
agendas sometime in September.
Perdita Holtz said the purpose tonight is solely to further defer action on the proposed
text amendments until November 18, 2014 in order to allow additional time for necessary
amendments to be made to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement.
She said Commissioner Gordon provided some clarifying language regarding the
reason for the deferred hearing, and this is on the pink sheet at the Commissioners' places.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to:
1. Open the public hearing, and
2. Defer the hearing by adjourning it to November 18, 2014 in order to allow time for the
necessary amendments to the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan and Agreement to be further
considered, including the language changes made by Commissioner Gordon.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
Commissioner Rich requested the removal of item 6 -g.
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded Commissioner McKee by to
approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
6�. Professional Services Agreement — Tourism Advertising by Clean Design
The Board considered approving a professional services agreement for tourism
marketing and advertising with Clean Design and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Commissioner Rich said Clean Design has done a great job and has been extremely
helpful to the Visitor's Bureau. She said their support had put a spotlight on Orange County
locally and in other areas. She said she just wanted to bring special attention to this.
Commissioner Price said the advertising is great, but she would like to also see them
highlight the cultural and ethnic diversity of Orange County.
Laurie Paolicelli asked for clarification.
Commissioner Price said some of the advertising is homogenous, and she suggested
that they might seek out more diversity.
Commissioner Rich asked if Orange County has a policy to ensure that outside vendors
are fair and equal to their employees and pay a living wage.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
R
John Roberts said there was a recent statute that said local governments cannot require
certain things from contractors. He said he will research this further.
Chair Jacobs said Orange County has looked at trying to require all vendors to pay a
living wage, but this policy has not been adopted. He said it is good to have the attorney look at
this again.
Commissioner Price asked if it is illegal to ask a vendor if they have certain issues, such
as with LG BT.
John Roberts said it would not be illegal to ask the question, but it would potentially be
against statute not to select a vendor due to something of that nature.
Chair Jacobs said staff could do a google search to identify any issues.
John Roberts said staff could do that.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
approve a professional services agreement for tourism marketing and advertising with Clean
Design and authorized the Chair to sign.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from April 8, 29, May 20, 221 27 and June 3, 17 as submitted
by the Clerk to the Board.
b. Motor Vehicles Property Tax Releases /Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
property tax values for twenty -four (24) taxpayers with a total of twenty -eight (28) bills that will
result in a reduction of revenue, in accordance with NCGS.
C. Property Tax Releases /Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
values for nineteen (19) taxpayers with a total of twenty -eight (28) bills that will result in a
reduction of revenue, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105 -381.
d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption /Exclusion
The Board approved nine (9) untimely applications for exemption /exclusion from ad valorem
taxation for nine (9) bills for the 2014 tax year.
e. Tax Collector's Annual Settlement for Fiscal Year 2013 -2014
The Board received the tax collector's annual settlement on current and delinquent taxes,
approved by resolution the accounting thereof, and upon acceptance of the reports, issued the
Order to Collect for Fiscal Year 2014 -2015.
f. Bid Award — Commercial Collection Truck for Recycling
The Board awarded a bid to Freightliner of Houston, 9550 North Loop East, Houston, TX 77029
and GS Products, 322 Lavansville Road, Somerset, PA 15501 for a Commercial Recycling
Collection Truck at a delivered cost of $186,838.78 for the Recycling Division of the Solid
Waste Management Department.
h. Performance Agreement Between the Town of Chapel Hill and Visitors Bureau
The Board approved and authorized the Manager to sign the 2014 -2015 performance
agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and the Visitors Bureau.
i. Changes in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2014
The Board approved the following two changes to the Board of County Commissioners' regular
meeting calendar for 2014: changing the start time for the Joint Meeting with Mebane,
scheduled for Thursday, September 18, 2014 to 5:30 p.m. with the meeting to start at 6:00
p.m.; and changing the date of the Assembly of Governments Meetings (AOG) from Thursday,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
7
November 20, 2014 to Wednesday, November 19, 2014 starting at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted
Building, 300 West Tryon Street, Hillsborough.
j. Resolution for the Naming of the Cedar Grove Community Center
The Board approved a resolution to officially rename the Northern Human Services Center to
the Cedar Grove Community Center consistent with the County Property Naming Policy; and
authorized the Chair to sign the resolution on behalf of the Board.
k. Amendments to the Orange County Code of Ordinances Regarding Personnel
The Board amended Chapter 28 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances to remove the
Clerk to the Board as secretary of the Personnel Hearing Board, to clarify certain
inconsistencies, and to modify deadlines within the ordinance and authorized the Chair to sign.
I. Facilities Use Policy Amendment for Inclusion of Whitted Meeting Facilities
The Board amended the County's Facilities Use Policy to recognize and govern the new
Whitted Meeting Facilities.
M. A Resolution Commemorating Saint Paul African Methodist Episcopal Church on
the 1501t —" Anniversary of its Founding
The Board approved a Resolution Commemorating Saint Paul African Methodist Episcopal
Church on the 150th Anniversary of its Founding.
7. Regular Agenda
a. Resolution — Community Use of Schools Facilities for Recreation
The Board considered approving a resolution from the Intergovernmental Parks (IP)
Work Group supporting the use of school facilities for community recreation purposes and
authorizing the Chair to sign.
Dave Stancil said this issue has been a topic of much discussion over the years. He
said finding ways for public use of gymnasiums, playing fields, and tracks has long been a
desirable goal for local athletic programs and leagues as well as public usage, and it promotes
public health goals. He said the potential for use of these facilities is also an opportunity to
avoid future costs by precluding or delaying the need for expensive facilities for local sports
leagues.
He said in 2007 the IP Work Group reviewed current policies; identified key shared
issues and assumptions, and from those developed ten (10) guiding principles and three (3)
recommendations, which are outlined in Attachment 2.
Dave Stancil said the narrative of this document recognizes that accommodation of
facilities for public use at the high school and middle school level is more difficult due to the
volume of interscholastic use. He said more opportunities were seen at the elementary
schools, and there have been efforts to include more fields and facilities in the past several
years.
He said the guiding principles were eventually adopted by all of the local governments,
and school systems began to look at their policies and ask for more information about specific
desired usages. He said things then came to a standstill until 2013, when the workgroup again
took up the banner to address these issues.
Dave Stancil said in 2013 both school systems reworked their policies and revamped
their websites to be more user - friendly. He said the memorandum and resolution included in the
packet were created by the IP Work Group and is the outcome of that effort.
To date the resolution has been adopted by:
Orange County Schools Board of Education (March 24, 2014)
Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen (April 8, 2014)
Town of Hillsborough Board of Commissioners (April 14, 2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Chapel Hill - Carrboro City Schools Board of Education (May 15, 2014)
Town of Chapel Hill Town Council (June 23, 2014)
(Note: City of Mebane did not participate due to lack of school facilities in Orange County).
Dave Stancil said this resolution is brought before the Board tonight to complete the
process and enable staffs to begin working toward more specific actions to facilitate the usage
of facilities. He noted that Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Rich were a part of this
work group.
Meredith Stewart said the Health Department is interested in the community use of
schools as it relates to their work with the issue of childhood obesity. She passed out a letter to
the Commissioners which outlines these issues and the fact that the last community health
assessment revealed a need for more access to parks and recreation spaces. She said the
Health Department supports the shared use of school facilities for community members.
Commissioner Gordon said this is something she has been working on since 2008, and
there has been great collaboration between the schools, County and towns. She said this is a
thing that has been a long time coming, and she is very pleased.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the substance of this resolution is to help them move
forward with a program for shared use of the facilities.
Dave Stancil said yes, and the purpose is also to make it cost effective for local
governments and public entities to use school facilities.
Commissioner McKee said he would echo Commissioner Gordon's comments, and it will
be a relief to be able to answer community questions about this issue.
Commissioner Rich said this passed wholeheartedly by the school systems and
OWASA. She said there was a mutual agreement that these green spaces should be able to
be used at an affordable rate.
Chair Jacobs noted that he had participated in this process in 2008 as well.
Chair Jacobs said in the past everything was always trumped by the principals and /or
the athletic directors. He said he hopes that progress has been made with this sticking point.
Dave Stancil said there has been some progress here, but it is an issue they will
continue to work on.
Commissioner Gordon said the two school systems did change their policies, which will
facilitate this going forward.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee for
the Board to adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution supporting Community Use of
School Facilities for Recreation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Approval of an Easement for Two Interpretive Signs in River Park
The Board considered approving an easement to permit the Town of Hillsborough to
erect two interpretive sign panels along the public walkway within the County -owned River Park
and authorizing the Chair to sign.
Peter Sandbeck presented a series of PowerPoint maps and pictures of the Town of
Hillsborough's new Riverwalk trail, and he reviewed the following background information:
The Town of Hillsborough has recently completed a major section of the new Riverwalk, a
walking /hiking /bike trail that runs along the Eno River. The trail extends westward from the
County -owned River Park (behind the Justice Facility) to Gold Park in West Hillsborough. The
new Riverwalk is also a key section of the Mountains -to -Sea Trail. The project includes the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
9
installation of ten (10) new custom - fabricated interpretive signs, to be placed at regular intervals
along the Riverwalk.
He said two of these signs are proposed for location on County -owned property in the River
Park. It is standard County policy to require an easement for the placement of any sign on
County -owned property. The County Attorney has prepared a draft sign easement to initiate this
process. This document has also been reviewed and accepted for form by the Town's attorney.
Each sign will have a special focus on a topic relating to the history, culture or natural history of
the Town and /or County. The content for each sign was developed by an expert committee of
local historians, residents, museum specialists and knowledgeable residents assembled by the
Town for this purpose. Committee members carried out the research and developed the story
lines and images. The signs proposed for location on County property will focus on two themes.
The first sign will relate the history of the County's courthouses with a focus on the present Old
Courthouse and the Town Clock. The second sign will tell the story of the now vanished
African - American community that once existed on the River Park property.
Peter Sandbeck said public input for these signs was extensive, and he feels they will be
an excellent addition to the trail.
Chair Jacobs noted that the dedication for the Riverwalk is October 11, at 1 p.m. and
everyone is invited to attend.
Peter Sandbeck said that staff will be following the new protocol regarding the protection
of cultural resources, and there will be an archaeologist on hand to supervise the post hole
digging.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the proposed easement document once it has
been signed by the Town of Hillsborough.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8. Re ort - NONE
9. County Manager's Report
Bonnie Hammersley updated the Board on the following Orange County capital building
projects:
■ Rogers Road Eubanks Road Community Center - This project is ahead of schedule,
within budget and estimated for completion in October
■ Cedar Grove Community Center- This project will be ready to solicit construction bids
later this year. The construction is anticipated to begin in the spring of 2015, with
projected completion in early 2016.
■ Orange County Sportsplex lobby project — This is on schedule and should be
completed by October 31 t"
■ Orange County Sportsplex mezzanine project — This project was approved by the
Board as part of 2014 -15 budget, and the formal request for qualifications will occur
this fall.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
10
■ Southern Human Services Center campus project — This project is in the pre -
development planning and discussion phase, and it will come back to board with project
scope recommendations and a request to engage the project design team.
10. County Attorney's Report
John Roberts referred to the previous question from Commissioner Rich about outside
vendors paying a living wage. He said he was able to look up the statute, and he read it as
follows:
§ 153A -449. Contracts with private entities; contractors must use E- Verify.
(a) Authority. - A county may contract with and appropriate money to any person,
association, or corporation, in order to carry out any public purpose that the county is
authorized by law to engage in. A county may not require a private contractor under this section
to abide by any restriction that the county could not impose on all employers in the county, such
as paying minimum wage or providing paid sick leave to its employees, as a condition of
bidding on a contract.
John Roberts said this only limits the County from requiring contractors to abide by
whatever miscellaneous terms the County chose to require. He said the early inspection that
was mentioned would be fine under these terms.
John Roberts said the state legislature adjourned two weeks ago. He said he usually
does a legislative report, but he is having surgery next week on his arm. He will provide this
report as soon as he can.
John Roberts referred to the press release that was put out today. He encouraged the
Board to move forward with caution since there is an open federal investigation. He said he
has been told that the investigation has been closed, but a decision letter has not been issued.
He does not perceive the same level of risk at this point. .
11. Appointments - NONE
12. Board Comments
Commissioner Dorosin said he was at the Orange County ABC board meeting this
month, and they are having record breaking sales. He said there are some controls by state
statute regarding how much money the ABC can retain. He said it is likely that the ABC board
will bump up against those caps. He asked the Chair and Vice Chair to reach out to this board
for a greater amount of that money to come back to the County.
Commissioner Price said she would like to see a detailed report on the small business
loan program. She would like to see information on demographics, gender, age and reasons
for denial, to see how successful this program is and what may need to be done.
Commissioner McKee said he will pass this along to Steve Brantley, since he is on this
board.
Commissioner McKee said about 50 years ago he sat in this same spot in the Whitted
Building for his final Junior High piano recital.
Commissioner McKee said he provided landscape materials for Habitat for Humanity
homes in the Rogers Road area. He said he also took an unofficial tour of the Rogers Road
community center and it is close to fruition.
Commissioner McKee said Orange County Schools (OCS) has invited him to serve on a
board to help with their strategic plan and mission statement. He said are about 40 people
invited to participate with this group from all sectors and ethnic groups.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
11
Commissioner McKee said he hopes that the Board would re- invite OCS to use this
Wh itted facility.
Commissioner Pelissier said she has stepped down from the alternate position with the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), since she also serves with Triangle Transit. She
said someone else needs to be appointed to the MPO before Commissioner Gordon retires.
Commissioner Pelissier said the Orange- Durham express route, which started on
August 18th, already has an average of 25 riders per day. She also said the new Sunday
service in Chapel Hill had 573 riders.
Commissioner Pelissier said the final draft environmental statement for the light rail will
be issued next spring for public comment, but there will also be several public sessions this fall.
She said one of these will be in Orange County on Tuesday, Nov. 18th at the Friday Center.
Commissioner Pelissier attended the North Carolina Association of County
Commissioners (NCACC) conference. She said she attended a great agricultural session, as
well as a crisis communication session too.
Commissioner Pelissier said she attended an Artforce conference in Greensboro today,
which focuses on arts and agriculture to power economic development in rural areas. She said
there were some good ideas that came from that conference regarding the role of counties in
supporting arts and agriculture.
Commissioner Gordon said the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
Organization (DCHCMPO) has renamed its policy board the MPO Board. She said there will be
a meeting on September 10t ", and she will give an update after that.
Commissioner Gordon said the strategic communications work group has been meeting
over the summer. She said she and Commissioner Rich are serving on this and will have an
update at the September 11th work session. She said they would like the Board of County
Commissioners' opinion to make sure this is going in the right direction.
Chair Jacobs said the issue of an alternate voting Commissioner for the MPO will be
discussed at the agenda review meeting.
Chair Jacobs referred to Commissioner McKee's comment about re- inviting OCS to use
the Whitted facility. He said this can be discussed at their joint meeting on September 30th
Chair Jacobs referred to Commissioner Dorosin's comments about the increased ABC
sales. He noted the Compass Center's report that domestic violence is going up, and he said
alcohol is a key factor in this. He suggested staff gather more information about documented
incidents related to alcohol use, and said money could be targeted to services to address this.
Chair Jacobs said Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) has met once and will meet
four more times by the end of October. He said the group had had full attendance so far and
hopes to move expeditiously.
Chair Jacobs said he and the manager met with Chancellor Folt a couple of months ago
and discussed areas of mutual interest, including the SWAG. He said SWAG formally voted to
add two UNC representatives to the group, and the chancellor received a letter to that effect.
He said he also toured the new hospital in Hillsborough, which has 67 beds, free
parking, close proximity to the interstate, and operating rooms that are twice as large as the
ones in Chapel Hill. He said this facility will be a tremendous health care improvement for
people living in this part of the County, and it is scheduled to open in December.
Chair Jacobs said staff is working on providing a tour of the County to the Chancellor
sometime in the upcoming months.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
12
Chair Jacobs said he, Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Price attended the
National Association of Counties (NACo) conference in July. He said he attended several
sessions on jail alternatives.
Chair Jacobs attended the mayors /chairs meeting at TJCOG. He said one of the
members of the staff of the North Carolina League of Municipalities stated that he felt that there
had been improvements with where cities stand with the legislature. He said many of the urban
representatives took issue with this statement. He said he did not realize that there were
discussions about abolishing the article 46 sales tax as well as ETJs.
Chair Jacobs said the Board wanted to express their best wishes to Thomas Crowder, a
Raleigh City Councilman, who has just announced his retirement due to a medical illness.
Chair Jacobs said he will be missed and was a true public servant.
13. Information Items
June 17, 2014 BOCC Meeting Follow -up Actions List
• Tax Collector's Report - Numerical Analysis
• Tax Collector's Report - Measure of Enforced Collections
• Tax Assessor's Report - Releases and Refunds under $100
• Memorandum Regarding Implementation of Rural Area Recycling Roll Carts —
Information Report
• Memorandum Regarding the Permitting of Artist Studios
• Memorandum Regarding State Clarification of What Constitutes Impervious Surface
• Memorandum Regarding Economic Development Follow -up Items
• Memorandum Regarding State of the Environment 2014 and Environmental Summit
• BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from June 17, 2014 Regular Board Meeting
14. Closed Session
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
go into closed session at 8:49 p.m. for the purpose of:
Pursuant to North Carolina General Statute 143- 318.11.(a)(9), "To discuss and take action
regarding plans to protect public safety as it relates to existing or potential terrorist activity and
to receive briefings by staff members, legal counsel, or law enforcement or emergency service
officials concerning actions taken or to be taken to respond to such activity."
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
reconvene into regular session at 9:20pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15. Admournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
adjourn the meeting at 9:20pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Barry Jacobs, Chair
13
3 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Attachment 3
DRAFT MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
September 8, 2014
7:00 P.M.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on September 8, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building,
in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Mark
Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Deputy Clerk to the
Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board
members, Lisa Stuckey, Herman Staats, James Lea, Paul Guthrie, Tony Blake, Laura
Nicholson, and Lydia Wegman
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, H.T.
"Buddy" Hartley, Bryant Warren
A.
B.
C.
OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order. He noted the following items at their places:
- White Sheets from Michael Harvey regarding item C -4
- Power Point slides for items C -1, C -2 and C -5
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair Jacobs dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
1. 2030 Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text
Amendments and Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review government- initiated
amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and UDO and to the Zoning Atlas to
establish two new zoning overlay districts in the Efland area.
Perdita Holtz presented the following PowerPoint slides:
Comprehensive Plan Text, Unified Development Ordinance Text, and Zoning Atlas
Amendments for Two New Zoning Overlay Districts in the Efland Area
Quarterly Public Hearing
September 8, 2014
Item C.1
Process Background
• Former proposal heard at November 2012 quarterly public hearing
- Denied by BOCC in February 2013
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
2
-1 year waiting period required for a new application in cases of denial
Current proposal heard at February 24, 2014 quarterly public hearing
- Community members asked for a meeting in the community
- Public hearing adjourned until September 8, 2014
Community Meeting
• County Planning staff held a community meeting on April 7, 2014
- Approximately 33 people attended the meeting
-Staff encouraged meeting attendees to contact staff if they wanted to meet in
small groups or one -on -one
• Community representative contacted staff in mid - August
- Meeting with small group held on August 18
Result of August 18 Meeting
• Regular meeting date /time established for staff and interested community members to
meet
-3rd Wednesday of each month at 6:30 p.m. at Ruritan Club
-May be more frequent after holidays
• Staff suggests continuing the public hearing process
• General agreement that the target date for completion of proposal would be in time for a
March 2015 BOCC meeting.
Proposed Public Hearing Process
• Public Hearing must be adjourned to a date /time certain in order for the application to
not be considered a withdrawal
- Withdrawal treated the same as a denial (1 year waiting period for new
application)
• 2015 meeting calendar not yet adopted
• Propose to adjourn the public hearing until December 1, 2014 at which time it is
expected the public hearing will be further adjourned until a March 2015 meeting date
Recommendation
• Open the public hearing that was adjourned at the February 24, 2014 quarterly public
hearing.
• Accept any additional public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on the proposed
amendments.
• Adjourn the public hearing until December 1, 2014 at which time it is expected the public
hearing will be further adjourned until a March 2015 meeting date.
Lindsey Efland said the Efland community is involved in looking at the overall plans and
proposals being made. He said the community has agreed to this series of meetings, and he
estimates that it will take until late February or early March to finalize those work sessions. He
said the community would urge the Board to allow them the opportunity to meet with the
planning staff to develop and polish these amendments.
Chair Jacobs invited comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner McKee thanked the staff for their willingness to work with the community.
Chair Jacobs said he is glad to see this is being done, but he would like to note that this
is not the first time the community has had an opportunity to comment. He asked staff to look at
the number of times the group has met in Efland in the past.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
3
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
the Board to:
Adjourn the public hearing until December 1, 2014.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment - To review
government - initiated amendments to the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive
Plan to assign County land use classifications to approximately 500 acres of property
that are to be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
located generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and I- 85/I -40 in Cheeks and
Hillsborough Townships.
Tom Altieri reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment — Related to Town of
Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Relinquishment
Quarterly Public Hearing
September 8, 2014
Item C.2
Purpose
• To hold a public hearing on a County initiated amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map.
• This amendment assigns County land use classifications to properties that are to be
removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
• Affects approximately 500 -acres (22- parcels) located generally near the Eno River
between US 70 W and 1- 85/1 -40 in Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships
• This item is companion to Action Agenda Item No. C.3, "Zoning Atlas Amendment."
Background
• Genesis of changes to the Town's ETJ goes back to 2004 and previous joint planning
studies.
• In 2009, the Hillsborough- Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement established a
Town Urban Service Area and for consistency, identified areas for ETJ changes.
• In May 2014, both parties agreed to implement ETJ relinquishment only (No Expansion)
and have County Future Land Use Map and zoning classifications applied to affected
properties.
• Town held its public hearing on its ETJ relinquishment on July 17, 2014 and on August
21 its Planning Board unanimously recommended approval.
• At its meeting tonight, the Town Board is expected to approve its ETJ adjustment to
become effective October 1.
Proposed Action
• Amend the 2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map to apply County Future
Land Use Classification to the new areas of County jurisdiction, consistent with the following
map.
2030 Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment Proposal
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
The application of a Future Land Use Map category and overlays as proposed in this
amendment are:
• Consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan;
• Consistent with the types and densities of development that can be supported by
private wells and septic tanks;
• Compatible and consistent with those of the surrounding area; and
• Are of a very low density residential, agricultural and conservation oriented
nature. Supportive of a more rural style of development.
Public Notification
Completed in accordance with Section 2.3.6 of the UDO
• Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
• Mailed notices to affected property owners
• Mailed notices to property owners within 500 -feet of affected properties
• Posted signs in strategic areas of the affected areas
Recommendation
• Receive the proposal.
• Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comment.
• Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting.
• Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Tom Altieri said the effective date of October 1St has been established so that the County
can initiate its process this evening with the public hearing, and conclude its process of applying
both land use and zoning within the 60 day period required by state law.
He reviewed the map on slide 6 and said the areas in light gray are the areas being
relinquished. He said the proposal is that the future land use classifications in the periphery of
these areas would be extended and applied to these 22 properties. He said the base land use
classification is agricultural residential, with overlays for watershed and resource protection.
Commissioner Gordon referred to the map and asked about the section of land that has
been left in the service area
Tom Altieri this was discussed with the Town staff. He said this urban services
boundary was established earlier as part of the interlocal agreement, and there were a number
of options for the location of that area at the time. He said this is the boundary that the town
used when initiating its public hearing process. He said this does split a parcel, and there would
be a little bit of County jurisdiction within that urban services area boundary. He said this
consistent with the direction given by the Town of Hillsborough.
Commissioner Price said that Hillsborough is going to potentially approve this tonight,
but the County will not approve it until November. She asked what will happen if someone
decides to develop one of the parcels during that limbo period.
Tom Altieri said this would not become effective until October 1St. He said things within
the town would need to be processed according to the town's development regulations.
Commissioner Price noted that the County will not approve this until November 6t"
Tom Altieri said there has to be some time to apply land use and zoning to properties
that have been formally released by the town through its process. He said it would be difficult to
time things any closer than this.
He said the land will have been transferred after October 1St, but it is more a matter of
how the proposal fits into the future land use construct and zoning districts, which will not have
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
5
been applied yet. He said if an application comes in, there will be a required processing time
period that would allow time for the completion of this.
Commissioner Dorosin asked about the proposed zoning of the southern piece. He
noted that the southern area is surrounded by rural residential, versus agricultural residential.
Tom Altieri said this relates to the next agenda item
Commissioner Dorosin there is the same issue with the previous land use map.
Tom Altieri said there is a judgment call made by staff on which district to recommend.
He said this layout was part of the amendment outline previously approved by the Board. He
said these two zones are very similar, and there are only three or four different permitted uses
between them. He said the agricultural residential land use was more appropriate, as it allows
for the agricultural support enterprise zoning district to be applicable.
Pete Hallenbeck invited questions from the public.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the
Board to:
Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
County Board of Commissioners in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting.
Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3. Zoning Atlas Amendment - To review government - initiated amendments to the Zoning
Atlas to assign County zoning districts to approximately 500 acres of property that are to
be removed from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) located
generally near the Eno River between US 70 W and I- 85/I -40 in Cheeks and
Hillsborough Townships.
Tom Altieri noted that this is partnered with the previous item and relates to the same 22
parcels. He previewed the following PowerPoint slides:
Zoning Atlas Amendment — Related to Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
(ETJ) Relinquishment
Item C.3
Purpose
• To hold a public hearing on a County initiated amendment to the Zoning Atlas.
• This item is companion to the previous Action Agenda Item, "2030 Comprehensive Plan
Future Land Use Map Amendment."
• This amendment assigns County zoning districts to properties that are to be removed
from the Town of Hillsborough Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
• Affects approximately 500 -acres (22- parcels) located generally near the Eno River
between US 70 W and 1- 85/1 -40 in Cheeks and Hillsborough Townships.
Background & Proposed Action
• Background - Item and has its genesis in former joint planning studies and agreements
with the Town.
• Proposed Action - Amend the zoning atlas to apply County zoning to the new areas of
County jurisdiction, consistent with the following map.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
R
Examples of Permitted Uses in Proposed Districts
• Agricultural Residential (AR) — Single - Family Homes, Mobile Homes, Greenhouses *,
Bed & Breakfasts *, Parks, Governmental Facilities, Telecommunication Towers =< 75-
ft., and Churches.
*Only commercial uses permitted by right
• Public Interest District (PID) - Botanical Gardens, Parks, Governmental Facilities, and
Telecommunication Towers =< 75 -ft.
No commercial uses permitted by right
Zoning Atlas Amendment Proposal
The application of zoning districts and overlays as proposed in this amendment are:
• Consistent with the goals and objectives of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, as well as the
Future Land Use Map classifications that are being proposed;
• Consistent with the types and densities of development that can be supported by private
wells and septic tanks;
• Compatible and consistent with those of the surrounding area; and
• Are of a very low density residential, agricultural and conservation oriented nature.
Public Notification
Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
• Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
• Mailed notices to affected property owners
• Mailed notices to property owners within 500 -feet of affected properties
• Posted signs in strategic areas of the affected areas
Recommendation
• Receive the proposal.
• Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comment.
• Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting.
• Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Tom Altieri said the map shows the Public Interest District in aqua green and the
agricultural residential is show in light green.
He said there are a series of overlays on the map to note watershed protection and
special flood hazard areas, as well as a major transportation corridor shown in yellow.
Commissioner Dorosin said the map shows the Town of Hillsborough developing on one
side of the southern piece, and the other side is rural residential.
Tom Altieri said the other side would be rural residential or agricultural residential.
Commissioner Dorosin said the parcels outside of the area to be added are all rural
residential.
Tom Altieri said some are rural residential. He displayed another map that shows the
whole area, and he reviewed the different color coding. He said both classifications are applied
around Hillsborough's planning jurisdiction.
Commissioner Dorosin said he is just asking about this one piece. He said on one side
is the Town, and on the other side is rural residential. He asked if it is staff's position that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
7
agricultural residential is more of a transitional district going toward rural residential, or if it is a
lower intensity of use.
Tom Altieri said it is staff's position that there is very little difference between rural
residential and agricultural residential. He said the only difference is the allowance of the
agricultural support enterprises zoning construct in the agricultural residential. He said due to
the agricultural nature of this amendment area, this is a better fit.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if these parcels are currently in agricultural use.
Tom Altieri said some of them are. He said staff could outline more about the
differences in the permitted uses between the two districts.
Commissioner McKee said the technical differences between the rural residential and
agricultural residential have not really been explained. He said he is curious if this is moving
from a high density town area to a lower density agricultural residential and then back to a
higher density rural residential. He is not sure he understands that.
Commissioner McKee said he is generally familiar with the area, and it is a very steep
area. He questioned whether there are any agricultural operations at all in this area.
Tom Altieri said it is his understanding that there are some agricultural operations. He
said he does not have a copy of the zoning ordinance of permitted uses, but there are three or
four differences. He said a cemetery is a permitted use in one, and it is not allowed in the other.
He said the minimum lot size and impervious surface are the same for both.
Commissioner Gordon said it would be a good idea to get more information. She said
she has pointed out that rural residential (R1) districts do not allow Agricultural Support
Enterprises and the answer she received was that the R1 district specifically designates no farm
activity. She noted that the R1 districts do tend to be closer to the towns. She said, given that
the purpose of Agricultural Support Enterprises was to keep farmers farming, it did seem
strange to her that it was not allowed in the R1 district. She thinks that more information should
be gathered.
Commissioner Pelissier said there is no real difference in density, but there is a
difference in uses. She said it is important to keep this in mind.
Commissioner Pelissier noted that the watershed overlay areas have a lesser density.
Commissioner Price said the yellow area of the map tends to have a suburban feel, even
though it is rural. She said there is no intensive farming like you would find in the green, so it is
more of an intensive use rather than density.
Commissioner Dorosin said it seems like that is what you would want closer to the town.
There was some discussion about the map shading, relative to the town.
Chair Jacobs said it seems simple to get the different explanations of the categories, and
he asked for a listing of the existing land uses of the 22 parcels in question.
Commissioner Rich asked if all of the neighbors in the area had been reached, and if
anyone had a problem with the switch back to the County.
Tom Altieri said over 50 people attended the joint meeting, and only 2 came for the
areas that were going to be released. He said all of the property owners have been notified,
and there has been no opposition to being released by the town. He said he had received some
questions from folks who were just relieved to find out there were no development projects
associated with this.
Pete Hallenbeck suggested taking an aerial photo and overlaying the areas, in addition
to creating a list.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the
Board to:
Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
County Board of Commissioners in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular meeting.
2
0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the Planning
Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments, as well as the additional
information requested.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Jacobs said when this comes back he would like to see the planning area maps
that were used when planning with Hillsborough.
Chair Jacobs said, given the possible moves by the state legislature regarding ETJs, he
would like to see a report from the planning staff about which areas of the County are ETJs with
all four towns that are not jointly planned.
4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government-
initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to require that a neighborhood information
meeting be held at least 30 days prior to the public hearing regarding applications for a
Class A or Class B Special Use Permit.
Michael Harvey said the next item on the agenda starts on page 61. He referred to the
paper copies of two emails, as well as the three attachments in the abstract.
He reviewed the background information and said at the May 27 Public Hearing,
concerns were expressed by the Board that neighborhood meetings were not required for
special use permits. He said staff noted that neighborhood meetings are currently required for
all major subdivisions, conditional use and rezoning applications, as well as those individual
land uses categorized as government uses. He said a neighborhood meeting is an opportunity
for surrounding property owners to receive a presentation from the applicant providing a
synopsis of the proposed project, as well to ask questions.
Michael Harvey said staff keeps a record of this meeting, which is provided to the
applicant, as well the Planning Board and the County Commissioners.
He said this amendment proposes this same process be required for all special use
permits, both Class A and Class B. He said staff is proposing this meeting should occur 30
days prior to a public hearing, and notifications would go our 15 days prior to that.
Michael Harvey said staff has been coordinating this with the County Attorney's Office,
and there have been some proposed language /word choice changes that will be made. He said
staff will also incorporate comments from this evening
Commissioner Pelissier asked how staff picked the timeframe of 30 days.
Michael Harvey said 30 days was chosen because that is what is required for major
subdivisions and government uses. He said conditional zoning requests only require 2 weeks,
as these are a legislative decision and they are less complex.
Commissioner Price asked if there are any guidelines about the location and the hours
for these meetings.
Michael Harvey said these meetings are typically held during the day, because that is
when staff and the applicant can attend. He said he is aware of the concern that these may
need to be held at an appropriate hour to guarantee mass attendance, but these will have to be
coordinated with when the applicant can be available.
Commissioner Price said that would be her concern. She suggested a set of guidelines
within the department.
Commissioner Rich said she has some concerns about the 30 day notice. She wonders
if there is another way to let the neighbors know what is going on.
Michael Harvey referred to page 80 and the typical timeline for the submittal of a special
use permit applications. He said applications for a Class A special use permit are submitted 60
days prior to a public hearing. He said the timeline that has to be followed means that a
1
2
0
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
9
neighborhood meeting letter is being sent out within two weeks of acceptance of the application.
He said the application submittal deadline can certainly be altered if the Board wants to do so.
He said one reason he would urge the Board not to require notification of neighbors when an
application is submitted is that a sufficiency test has to be done to determine if the application is
even complete, and if it is not complete it is rejected by staff and review does not occur.
Commissioner Rich said the concern she had after the experience with the solar farm is
that the solar company had a long time with the planning board, and the neighbors had a very
short amount of time to understand what was happening. She said something was out of
balance there.
Michael Harvey said the application was submitted in December of 2013, but the
applicant requested the review of the application be continued from the February until the May
2014 quarterly public hearing. He said the mechanism was currently not available for staff to
notify property owners that an application had been submitted beyond the existing 2 week public
hearing notice. He said if one special use applicant is treated differently than others, this
creates a legal issue and the county could be challenged for being arbitrary. He said the
applicant chose to delay the hearing after not responding to staff emails outlining deficiencies.
Commissioner McKee referred to the outline on page 80 and said the notification is sent
out 15 days prior to the 30 days before the neighborhood meeting.
Michael Harvey said that is correct.
Commissioner Dorosin said it seems there are two different things that can be done to
improve this process. He said it seems that staff feels that there is no need to hold a meeting
until the application is approved, but the neighbors have an interest in what is going on. He
does not see these things as irreconcilable.
He referred to the monthly report received by the Board listing applications in the
planning queue. He suggested that this information, including the past 3 months of applications,
could be made available on the website for the public to view. He said this addresses the
criticism by giving more transparency and balancing the rights of the developers and the
community. He asked if this is feasible.
Michael Harvey said this would not be a difficult request to accommodate.
Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Dorosin's idea. She said this is
something being talked about in the strategic communication plan. She said this is an example
of using a tool to help people get information. She said the there may be a lot of questions, but
the opportunity for the community to know what is going on is very valuable.
Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on the timeframe required for the meetings
for major subdivisions.
Michael Harvey said major subdivisions require a meeting before the Planning Board
reviews a concept plan application. He said the neighborhood meeting covers the concept plan
review.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the timing for conditional use and conditional zoning
and whether 30 days would factor into that.
Michael Harvey said this would factor into the conditional use, but the conditional zoning
is currently two weeks, and it will stay that way in the current ordinance.
Commissioner Gordon asked what would need to be done to change the conditional
zoning to the longer time period.
Michael Harvey said staff has recommended that there is no need to change this, given
the fact that this is a legislative item and does not require expert testimony.
Commissioner Gordon said she thinks that this two week time period for conditional
zoning is a mistake, because these can be more problematic than conditional use. She said
this is true even though conditional re- zoning does not have a special use permit process.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
10
Michael Harvey said this is one of the reasons that the timeline was not expanded and
that he did not agree that conditional zoning was more problematic given the lack of requiring
expert testimony as with all quasi judicial cases.
Commissioner Gordon said the conditional re- zoning requires some negotiating between
the applicant and the County, and a lot of it is up to the Commissioners to approve. She said
some of the standards for uses permitted under the conditional zoning process are similar to
those for uses permitted under the Class 6 special use permit process. She said it is her
opinion that the range of negotiation and need for public knowledge is the same.
Michael Harvey said conditional use involves a special use permit and will have to meet
the 30 day meeting requirement.
Commissioner Gordon said it is still her opinion that you need every bit as much time on
a conditional re- zoning as you do on a conditional use. She said a special use permit does put
the additional burden of expert testimony.
Commissioner Gordon said she likes Commissioner Dorosin's idea of having three
months of submitted applications available, with clarification that these have not gone through
the process yet. She said one of the attached emails suggested the planning staff play a more
prominent role in the meetings, and staff needs to think about this and about what their role
should be.
She said she is extremely pleased to see that this idea about the neighborhood
information meetings and timing has been raised. She said it is important to allow transparency
and time to react.
Commissioner Pelissier said she appreciates Commissioner Dorosin's suggestion. She
thinks there is a front end of the process, but there also needs to be consideration of having
better communication when there are a lot of concerns. She said it is hard to predict public
reaction.
Michael Harvey said he feels that if staff can implement Commissioner Dorosin's
suggestion of using the webpage and if staff takes greater steps to explain the process and
educate residents, this will help things.
Chair Jacobs referred to Commissioner Price's question about the scheduling of
meetings at night. He said this may not work for everyone, but it is expected by most people,
and the developer should have a profit motive to be there.
Michael Harvey said staff gets requests and complaints both ways with respect to
holding meetings during the day and the evening, and there is no one way to make everybody
happy
Chair Jacobs said it seems to be the default to hold public meetings at night
Chair Jacobs said it would be easy to take the report that was received in their planning
packets and place it on the web as Commissioner Dorosin suggested.
Michael Harvey said this will be accommodated fairly easily.
Chair Jacobs said one of the reasons for talking about having public information
meetings for some of the applications was because government and quasi - governmental
facilities had no notice requirements.
Commissioner Price said she supports what Commissioner Dorosin said about the
meeting.
Commissioner Gordon said she wants to underscore Commissioner Pelissier's point
about situations where there are a lot of concerns, and more time is needed. She said the goal
is to identify categories where a meeting is needed and then to allow sufficient time. She thinks
conditional rezoning should be included in this.
She said something else that could be done when there is an issue that generates a lot
of concern is to adjourn the public hearing to a date certain. She said this was done for the
Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). She asked for an identification of situations where the
public hearing could not be extended.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
11
Michael Harvey said he cannot think of a situation where an extension would not be
allowed.
James Bryan said special use permits require a quasi - judicial decision and a fair trial
standard. He said this is ill defined, but there are principles of equity and fairness, so you
cannot repeatedly continue an application as a means of delay. He said you need to articulate
a reason for delaying.
Commissioner McKee said he agrees with most of what is being said. He wants to
make sure there is transparency for the public, and no one is blindsided. He said this
discussion is about the time before a public hearing, and he notes that there is no guarantee
that an item will pass once it gets to a public hearing. He said there has already been a lot of
talk over the years about the time that it takes to get a project to completion, and he agrees with
the staff recommendation of 30 days. He thinks a longer time frame would extend the time
frame too much.
Commissioner Rich asked if the Board is going to re -visit the previous question about
solar companies and how other governments have handled these.
Michael Harvey said this update will be presented at the October 7t" meeting.
Pete Hallenbeck said he has lots of notes for the Planning Board, and he is sees the
following four main issues: 1) Determining the number of days prior to the first public hearing, as
well as the idea of informing the public of new applications as soon as these become public, 2)
the need for more details on the information that an applicant must provide at the public
information meeting, 3) determining who owns the information and details — the planning
department or the applicant, and 4) determining the most convenient location and hours of
meetings.
Pete Hallenbeck invited comments from the Planning Board members.
Tony Blake said the issue that seems to be missing for him is the 500 feet requirement.
He said this is probably adequate notice in town or in subdivision areas, but in the County you
may not have a neighbor within 500 feet. He noted that the issue with the placement of the fire
station involved complaints from people half a mile away. He said it was also not clear to him
who the applicant was in the case of the fire station.
Lydia Wegman said she is speaking as a member of the Planning Board and as a
member of the public. She said she has concern about 30 days, and this time would have been
insufficient for her neighborhood in the case of the solar project. She said only 17 days was
allowed to get information to a neighborhood of 90 homes. She said 30 days is an
improvement, but this is a quasi - judicial process, and it involves attorneys and appraisers. She
has suggested 90 days, but even 45 would be better, because it takes a lot of effort, time, and
money to organize a neighborhood if there is a project of concern.
Chair Jacobs said there is a lot to consider.
Michael Harvey asked if there is any consensus from the Board regarding what timeline
they would like the staff and Planning Board to review.
Chair Jacobs said he thinks the two options are 30 days or 45 days.
Commissioner Price expressed her support of Tony Blake's comments regarding the
extension of the 500 foot limit. She feels it should be greater in the rural area.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
Board to: Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the November 18, 2014 BOCC
regular meeting. Adjourn the public hearing until November 18, 2014 in order to receive and
accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
12
5. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To review government -
initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to change the existing public hearing
process for Comprehensive Plan -, UDO -, and Zoning Atlas- related items /amendments.
Perdita Holtz said she would like to note that this amendment would not affect other
existing public hearing processes for other departments. She reviewed the following
PowerPoint slides:
Public Hearing Process Changes
Quarterly Public Hearing
September 8, 2014
Item C.5
Purpose of Amendment
• To change the current public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan, Unified
Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas Amendments
• Discussed at September 9, 2013 BOCC work session after quarterly public hearing
agenda
-Staff received direction on some points at this meeting, although not unanimous
• On February 24 and May 27, 2014 quarterly public hearing agendas but postponed due
to time constraints
Statutory Requirements
• Statutes require that the planning board be given the opportunity to review and comment
on amendments, and that public hearings be held with notification in compliance with
statutes. Local government can decide:
• When planning board recommendation occurs (before or after public hearing)
• How frequently public hearings are held
• Other process components such as whether the Planning Board holds its own public
hearing
Proposal
• End the current joint quarterly public hearings with the Planning Board
• Create the opportunity for a minimum of 8 plan ni ng-related public hearings per year
• Planning Board would provide a recommendation after the public hearing
• Policy decision to end practice of having the BOCC approve the legal advertisements
(would shave 3 weeks off of review process due to agenda deadline dates, much more
for the first hearing after the summer break)
• An alternative could be to circulate the draft ad via e -mail instead of making it a Consent
Agenda item
Existing &Proposed Processes
Designation of Public Hearing Dates
• A minimum of 8 meetings would be designated for planning - related public hearings each
year when the BOCC adopts its meeting calendar for the next year
• Internal changes to current agenda - setting processes
- Little ability to remove public hearing items that were filed by deadline dates
-Legal advertisements would be run in advance of agenda review dates (both
Attorney /staff and Chair/Vice- Chair) in order to meet statutory requirements
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
13
Ancillary Points
Current process of having all planning - related public hearings on segregated agendas
likely results in more predictable BOCC regular meetings
- Sometimes planning - related items can generate a great deal of public interest
and comments
- Possibility of having several planning - related public hearings on an agenda,
depending on when applications are received
- -Could affect the amount of time available during a meeting for non - planning
items
- -Since Special Use Permit quasi - judicial process tends to be more time
consuming than legislative (text amendments, rezonings) items, could
potentially limit SUP items to fewer agendas per year.
• Currently, public hearing agendas are posted to the website at least 10 calendar days
prior to the public hearing
• BOCC agendas are generally posted 4 calendar days prior to the meeting date
- -Fewer number of days for interested persons to have information in final form
• Requirement for written comments after oral public hearing (current requirement not
proposed for change)
- Allows interested persons to submit written comments to the Planning Board
- Ensures Planning Board meeting does not become a de facto second public
hearing
- Particularly important to avoid in quasi - judicial matters (Special Use Permits)
- Ensures BOCC is aware of additional comments
• Continuation of Public Hearings to date /time certain
-Case law in the mid -2000s resulted in legal advice to adjourn to a date /time
certain unless the public hearing is closed the night of the hearing
- Closing comments the night of the hearing would mean that no written
comments could be accepted after the hearing and interested persons
could not address the Planning Board
-Could not close hearing if additional information is requested at the
public hearing
• BOCC agenda language when accepting Planning Board recommendation and any
written comments
- Currently, listed under "Public Hearings" section but with note that no additional
comments are accepted
-If the County wants to maintain the existing process of allowing written
comments after the public hearing, but avoid potential confusion about an item
being listed as a "Public Hearing," a new Section could be added to BOCC
agendas that would not use the words "public hearing"
- However, additional comments could not be made (persons could not
sign up to speak on matters listed in this section)
Planning Board Ordinance
Review Committee
• Reviewed on January 8, 2014
• Generally supportive of changes
• Meeting Notes included in QPH package
-One member had concerns about the (existing) requirement of accepting only
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
14
written comments after the public hearing (e.g., no oral -only comments at
Planning Board meeting when a recommendation is made)
- Discussion starts on line 88 of meeting notes
Public Notification & JPA Review
• Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
- Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks
• Amendment package sent to JPA partners on January 13, 2014 since new process
would affect any requests related to the Rural Buffer
-To date, no comments have been received
Effective Date
• The effective date of the amending Ordinance should be a specific date so submittal
deadline schedules can be published
-Staff recommends beginning new process with 2015 meeting calendar, so
January 1, 2015 effective date
Recommendation
• Receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance.
• Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
the proposed amendment.
• Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 6, 2014
BOCC regular meeting.
• Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
Perdita Holtz noted that some of the process components are included in the Unified
Development Ordinance (UDO) as part of the procedure, but some things are just policies that
are not written into the ordinance.
She said the flow chart represents only the currently proposed process, but there was
also some discussion of having the Planning Board make a recommendation before the Public
Hearing, or having two separate public hearings for the Planning Board and the Board of County
Commissioners.
Perdita Holtz said the September meeting used to be held in August, and there is still a
reference in the UDO to an August meeting date. She said this administrative change will need
to be made at some point, even if no other changes are made.
Perdita Holtz said part of the internal change to the agenda- setting process is that
notifications would have to be mailed before the Chair /Vice Chair agenda meeting.
Referring to the last slide of ancillary points, Perdita Holtz said the language change
regarding written comments would be a policy type decision that would not be written into the
UDO.
Perdita Holtz said that if the County were to drop the requirement for accepting only
written comments after the oral public hearing, that it would be prudent to only do this for
legislative matters and not for quasi-judicial matters. She said it would be necessary to look at
how this change might affect processes, as a fair number of applications are both legislative and
quasi-judicial in nature. She noted the confusion related to this with the past process for the
Buckhorn Village project.
Chair Jacobs said when this first came up he was very supportive of making changes
and incorporating flexibility. He said the more he thought about it, and considering the four hour
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
15
solar array public hearing, he is definitely opposed to having these items on the Commissioner's
regular meeting schedules. He said it is very hard to predict what will generate a public
reaction, and it is hard to plan when there is no way to know when something may blow up.
He said it is reasonable to have the Planning Board comment after the Commissioners
have a public hearing. He said the rest of this just makes things more complicated.
Chair Jacobs pointed out on page 85 that staff states the Orange County's typical review
timeframe of 4 -5 months compares favorably to other North Carolina local governments. He
said the current process is not a burden to the development community.
Commissioner Dorosin said, as someone who has been pushing this kind of change, he
takes Commissioner Jacobs points well. He said his original concern with the current process is
that a public hearing is held and comments are taken, then these are sent to the Planning Board
for a meeting and discussion. He said the Planning Board comes back with its
recommendations, and then another Public Hearing is held with no actual public comments. He
said the renaming of this hearing is fine, but what is missing in the proposal is the fundamental
sequence of things.
Commissioner Dorosin suggested that the Planning Board should have a public hearing
or open meeting with notices to invite the public and take comments. He said after this the
Planning Board can submit its recommendation to the County Commissioners, who will then
hold a public hearing with public input. He said the public hearing could then be closed, and a
vote would be taken. He said this sequence would maximize the opportunity for public input. He
said whether this is done in one meeting or quarterly is a different question, but that is not the
main issue.
Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Dorosin's suggestion, and she said this
is the way she has done it in the past. She said she also agrees with Chair Jacobs.
Commissioner Pelissier said she is not sure where she stands on the sequence, but her
main concern is the timing. She said she does not want to base everything on the one meeting
that took four hours for the special use permit. She does not think this would happen if the
changes were made to the special use permit process.
She said part of what motivated this was the issue of not having quorums, which could
be addressed by not requiring the Planning Board to be part of the public hearing. She said
there were also grave concerns that some of the simple projects had to wait so long for approval
because they had to wait for the quarterly public hearings. She said the goal is to balance
having a process that is not onerous but allows for public input. She is interested in having
greater opportunity than quarterly public hearings.
Commissioner Gordon said she has no objections to changing the process. She wants
to follow the principles of making sure the public has enough notice to find out what is going on
and to formulate their comments.
Commissioner Gordon said there should not be a minimum of 8 hearings, but there
should be a maximum of 8 hearings. She referenced information on page 96 regarding the
potential meeting dates, which stated that there were only seven months when hearings were
feasible, and she said this information seems to point to no more than 8 possible dates. She
said there was also information stating that if these hearings are part of the regular meeting,
the required notice is only 4 days, which is worse than the usual 10 days for public hearings.
She agrees with Chair Jacobs that it makes the meetings unpredictable if you have
public hearing items that have to be scheduled in.
Commissioner Gordon said she did not even think about the internal timing changes until
she saw the information about publishing notices prior to attorney, chair and vice -chair review.
She said this change would not be wise.
She thinks it would be a good idea for the Commissioners to have some kind of review
of the advertisements for the timing.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
16
Commissioner Gordon said she would argue for the Planning Board to consider items
after the public hearing with the Board of Commissioners. She said if the Planning Board
makes the recommendation before the hearing, then they will have to confine themselves to
more technical comments. She said the official notice that gets attention is the one listing when
the Commissioners hold their public hearing, so you would get the public input here, and then
the process would be closed under the proposed process.
Commissioner Price said she agrees that the public might be better served if the
hearings are held more than quarterly. She said she has no problem with taking the legal
advertisements off of the consent agenda if there is another way to get approval from the
Commissioners. She said if they are going to do away with the joint public hearing, she feels
that it is even more important to get the Planning Board recommendation after the public
hearing. She said some of the recommendations may become null and void after the public
hearing.
Commissioner Price asked about the phrasing change for the public hearing title. She
asked why not just call it "close public hearing."
Perdita Holtz said staff was trying to avoid using the words "public hearing" in the title.
Commissioner Price said she understood the point of letting the public know that this
was the deadline for written comment. She thinks it needs to be simpler than what has been
recommended.
Chair Jacobs said if there are some items that would not be difficult to consider as part
of a regular agenda, there is no reason why that cannot be done now. He said the planning
director can consult with the manager to determine which items can go on the regular agendas.
He is just concerned about the larger items.
He said the advertisements can be approved by email.
Chair Jacobs said the issue of where the Planning Board fits in is somewhat of a
philosophical question. He said when he was on the Planning Board, it was very important that
they got the last word with the Commissioners. He said this setup gives the Planning Board
more weight, as they get to hear and weigh everything before commenting to the Board. He
said part of this process is making a decision about the role of the Planning Board, as this
proposal would allow the public to have the final word to the Commissioners. He said he is
willing to listen to the argument, but it is hard for him to think of doing it differently.
James Bryan said these public hearings can be very confusing. He said there are two
separate decisions, the legislative decisions and the quasi-judicial systems. He said it may be a
philosophical distinction, but there is also a legal distinction. He said these should be looked at
separately. He said neither the Planning Board nor the written comments should be involved in
the quasi-judicial decisions. He said written comments are hearsay and should have no value in
these situations. He said the only thing that can be considered is the evidence presented at the
quasi-judicial hearing.
Commissioner Rich asked if the public comes to the Planning Board meetings
Pete Hallenbeck said this ranges from 0 to 20 members of the public, but there is no
trend.
Commissioner Rich said she thinks this is a problem. She thinks that when the Planning
Board is discussing what will be presented, the public should be there.
Commissioner Rich said there is something wrong when we are calling something a
public hearing when it is not a public hearing.
Commissioner McKee said he agrees that the public should be involved in the Planning
Board meetings, but most of the public knows that the final decision is made here.
Most of the public knows that the final decision is made by the Board of County Commissioners
Commissioner Dorosin said if you said the culture could be changed to encourage
people to go to the Planning Board hearings. He said he has talked to a lot of people on
different advisory boards, and he has heard the opinion that the elected officials yield undue
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
17
influence. He said it seems that having the Planning Board make a recommendation after
listening to the public and the Commissioners is putting the thumb on the scale of what is
expected, if the Board is seeking the Planning Board's independent analysis.
Commissioner Dorosin questioned whether the Planning Board could be an expert at the
quasi-judicial hearing. He said they are the expert witnesses for the UDO and he feels this
would be relevant testimony.
Lisa Stuckey said this is her 4t" year on the Planning Board. She said staff members are
the experts, but the board members do not have a long enough term to be considered experts.
Lisa Stuckey said the Planning Board struggles to get a quorum at these meetings, and
she said that the planning board could not have a public hearing on a quasi - judicial matter. She
questioned whether it is really fair to the public to make them go through two public hearings.
Commissioner Dorosin said he does not think it is fair to call the public back to a second
public hearing where they cannot talk.
Lisa Stuckey said she understands this but she is not sure that adding another public
hearing in front of the Board's public hearing changes anything. She said the Planning Board is
not the final decision maker.
Tony Blake said he is on the planning board representing his neighbors. He feels that
the neighborhood information meetings might augment the Planning Board quite a bit, if they
are broad enough.
He said he is not a rubber stamp and he does not feel bound to the Board's opinions.
From his perspective the Board is not putting their thumb on the scale.
Lisa Stuckey said the Planning Board usually does not know what the Board of
Commissioners thinks. She said there is discussion, but it is rare that there is a consensus.
Paul Guthrie said this is a complicated issue because of the various functions within the
relationship. He said the number one question is what the Board wants from their Planning
Board, and how they want it to function. He said he has asked a lot of questions about these
proposed changes. He thinks that well managed citizen advisory groups serve an important
role. He thinks a better definition of what the Commissioners want from the Planning Board and
planning staff would be helpful, along with building a process that continues to bring information
from citizens about what is important to them.
Pete Hallenbeck said the quorum problems have been bad this year. He thinks it would
be helpful if the Planning Board did not have to have quorum at the hearings. He said it is
human nature for people to want to deal with decision makers and not middle managers, but he
does think it would help if the Planning Board could take input from the public.
He views the Planning Board role as a little bit of Planning Department oversight. He
said their role is also to provide community feedback.
Pete Hallenbeck said it seems that synergy has been shattered by this item, and
Commissioner input is low, which makes it hard to come up with something. He said every time
they try to streamline this process there are too many unknowns.
Lydia Wegman said it is burdensome to expect the public to attend two different public
hearings. She said the Commissioners are the decision makers and they will get more people,
and more focused comments than at the Planning Board meetings. She encouraged them to
allow opportunity for the public to speak. She said she hopes that she, as a Planning Board
member, would have an opportunity to hear everything the Commissioners hear before making
a recommendation.
Commissioner Gordon said the key question is the role of the Planning Board. She said
to get the Planning Board recommendation before the public hearing would only provide
technical comments. She said this would not provide the benefit of the experienced Planning
Board members going over the issues. She believes it would be better to get the Planning
Board recommendation after they have heard all of the information.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
limb
Commissioner Dorosin said a lot of time has just been spent talking about how to
engage people earlier in the process, and he thinks that engaging them with the Planning Board
early in the process is part of this. He asked if the public hearing could be left open and could
include the Planning Board's recommendation, as well as any public input. He said this is more
honest and sincere. He asked the attorney if this could be done.
James Bryan said the Board has broad discretion over legislative decisions.
Commissioner Rich asked why the Board closes the public hearing to comments.
Perdita Holtz said she is not sure why this is done. She said this is how it is written, and
it predates anyone on the staff. She said this would be a policy change with some minor text
amendments, and staff would need to work with the attorney's office regarding those items with
a re- zoning and a special use permit. She said this needs to be looked at closely.
Commissioner Rich said she understands not having the public hearing all over again,
but that's the part that doesn't make sense.
Perdita Holtz said the problem arose in the mid- 2000's. She said it used to be that the
public hearing was just open and there was always a requirement for written comments only
after the oral public hearing. She said the UDO would have to be re- written to state that this is
no longer a requirement.
Commissioner Price said she likes to go home at a reasonable hour, but she also likes
to hear what people say. She said she was on the Planning Board for an extended period of
time, and people would come to meetings and express their opinions. She said quorum was
rarely an issue. She said there were times when the board disagreed with the Commissioners,
and she would support the Planning Board hearing from the public before making a decision.
She said if it is the pleasure of the Board to hear other comments on the day that the public
hearing is closed, she is for this as well.
Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to hear the Planning Board recommendation
after the public comments. She said when she was on the Planning Board, no one really
thought about what the Commissioners thought. She said the Planning Board was there to give
advice, and as a Commissioner she looks to this advice when making land use decisions.
She asked planning staff if they have been able to predict which will be the difficult
decisions and which will not.
Planning Board member James Lea left at 9:42 p.m.
Perdita Holtz said no, not necessarily. She said staff would have to toss a coin. She
said obviously text amendments take longer to discuss.
Commissioner Pelissier said the legislative decisions are easier to incorporate into the
meetings, but the quasi - judicial decisions are more of an issue. She is not sure how to address
it, but she would like some consideration to not having these boxed in to so few dates. She
would like to see more than a quarterly option.
Commissioner McKee said he wishes he could say if it isn't broke, don't fix it, but this is
broken. He agreed with Commissioner Dorosin's comment about taking public comment at the
later meeting. He also agrees with Chair Jacobs' comments about time management and trying
to figure out how long these meetings are going to be. He said he is confused, and he thinks all
of what he has heard is reasonable.
He suggested that the current framework should be maintained, and the Board can
tweak it to make it more public friendly. He suggested maintaining the quarterly public hearings
due to the necessity of quasi - judicial decisions. He said maybe there will be other controversial
items that don't belong in a regular meeting. He said the Board should just tweak the things that
need to change, and if those tweaks don't work, they can be changed back.
Perdita Holtz said planning staff often does not know that an application is coming until
right at application deadlines, which are based on the public hearing process. She thinks that
the attorney would disagree that it is okay to have two different processes for judicial and
legislative processes, but not for quasi-judicial items or legislative items.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
19
Chair Jacobs said he is not sure this is at a good place to even be referred to the
Planning Board. He thinks there needs to be more discussion between the planning director,
manager, and attorney. He said someone needs to walk through the process and make some
projections.
He said the Board has heard that there needs to be more public participation, and there
is discussion about the ultimate role of the Planning Board. He said there are issues that staff
needs to talk about before this comes back for a public hearing.
Chair Jacobs said maybe a better job can be done of publicizing this discussion of the
process to encourage public input.
Commissioner Gordon said she would like to see this go back to the Planning Board to
see what they come up with.
Craig Benedict said he agrees that he needs to speak with the manager and the
attorney's office to glean some direction. He said there is an opportunity for conversation at the
upcoming dinner with the Planning Board. He agrees that there is not a consensus. He sees
that the public input at the end is a big issue, and this could be modified.
Commissioner Pelissier said she would also like to refer this back to the Planning Board.
She said two broken items have been identified, and one of them is a public hearing that cannot
be held due to a lack of Planning Board quorum. She said the other issue is allowing the public
to make comments at the final decision meeting.
Craig Benedict said this room offers the Planning Board members the opportunity to
watch the televised meeting if they were unable to attend.
Chair Jacobs said he also did not hear anyone disagree with the idea of looking at the
public hearing notices through email.
Commissioner Gordon said she would like to move the manager's recommendation.
Chair Jacobs asked if the manager has any input.
Bonnie Hammersley said she would be happy to work on this with staff and the Planning
Board. She said she and the attorney have some ideas of things that can be implemented. She
said focus groups could be formed in order to gather information. She said she also has some
ideas based on other places she has worked.
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee for
the Board to: Refer the matter to the Manager, staff and Planning Board with a request that a
recommendation be returned to the BOCC in time for the November 6, 2014 BOCC regular
meeting.
Adjourn the public hearing until November 6, 2014 in order to receive and accept the
Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments, as well as the
recommendation of the manager and staff.
Chair Jacobs noted that the motion creates a deadline for the Planning Board to bring
back information by November 6t"
Commissioner Gordon said this allows two months, and if that is not enough, it can be
continued.
Bonnie Hammersley said she thinks this is possible.
Commissioner McKee asked if the timing could be changed to the first meeting in
February.
Commissioner Gordon said she would like to be involved in the discussion.
Commissioner McKee said this seems like a tight timeline.
Commissioner Gordon asked the manager if she feels something can be pulled together
by November 6t"
Bonnie Hammersley said she will respect the opinions of the Planning Board, who look a
little unsure of that timing. She said her thought was that the planning staff and the manager
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
20
could work on this and then bring options to the Planning Board to consider for presentation to
the Commissioners. She said staff can support whatever level of urgency the Planning Board
wants to work with.
Perdita Holtz said that the next planning board meeting is October 8t"
Chair Jacobs said he would suggest that a compromise way of looking at this is to bring
back an interim recommendation by November 6t", with no expectation that it will be completely
done.
Bonnie Hammersley said this could be a progress report.
Chair Jacobs said this does not change the motion.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING -CHAIR
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to
adjourn the meeting at 10:02pm.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
David Hunt
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Barry Jacobs, Chair