Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-11-2014 APPROVED 1/22/2015 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Work Session November 11, 2014 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, November 11, 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 Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) Steve Brantley distributed handouts for Item 2 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. He noted the following two items at the Commissioner's places: - Handout— Synthetic Tax Increment Financing - Handout— County Insurance Benefit Plan 1. Update on Urban Roll Cart Implementation Gayle Wilson reported that the roll cart implementation program is going very well in all three of the towns. He said initially there were concerns about the size and color of the carts, but there have been no complaints recently. He said there had been reports of broken carts, and staff has determined that this is caused by improper placement of the carts at the curb. He said staff is working on an education and outreach program to demonstrate how to properly set these containers out at the curb for automatic collection. He said there has been an increase in the handicapped customer requests, which have increased from 119 to 224. He said it has been suggested that the County should have a more formal policy for handicapped collection, and staff is proposing a more systematic application process. Gayle Wilson said in the first quarter of this fiscal year the tonnage is up 29 percent since the implementation of the roll out carts. He said this exceeds expectations, and the benefit of the roll carts has been proven. He said the monthly participation rate is between 85 and 90 percent, and this is an increase from previous months. Commissioner Rich asked if the issue with the damaged carts is specific to certain neighborhoods or if it is consistent throughout the towns. Eric Gerringer said the issue is random at this point, and it is hard to determine certain areas. He said it is primarily due to placement of the carts. Commissioner McKee said he was looking at the special service request form, and age is a consideration. He noted that there are questions for handicaps on that same form, and he asked if applicants will receive special service if they have an age issue but are not handicapped. Gayle Wilson said there is no particular age designated, and there is no formal policy. He said anyone with a handicapped driving sticker will be accommodated, and the program is set up for the medically impaired, regardless of age. Commissioner Price asked if the people collecting the garbage are instructed not to get out of the truck or move the bins. Gayle Wilson said the program is supposed to be fully automated, and workers are instructed to minimize the amount of time in and out of the truck. Commissioner Price asked if the County workers are allowed to get out and straighten the bins. Gayle Wilson said yes. He said 45 damaged bins out of 18,200 bins is not a major problem, but workers will straighten them out as needed. Commissioner Gordon said she is happy to hear about the increased tonnage. She asked when an update will be given on the rural areas, regarding keeping bins or moving to the roll carts. Gayle Wilson said two surveys were sent out to residents in the rural service areas, and 7,500 responses have been returned. He said 6,841 of these respondents wanted the roll carts, and about 700 did not. He expects to see the positive number grow. He said this is an opt-in program. Chair Jacobs asked what happens if people decorate their carts. Gayle Wilson said staff would prefer that residents not make any permanent alterations to the carts. Commissioner porosin asked for clarification on the proper placement of carts. Gayle Wilson said the preference is that the carts are not in the street, but that they are placed on the sidewalk or grass curb area. 2. Update on the Ephesus Church Road/Fordham Boulevard Public Improvements and Request for County Investment in the Proiect Ken Pennoyer said it has been six months since the Town asked Chapel Hill for assistance, and this is an update as well as a suggestion of a somewhat different approach. He said the Town Council approved the right of way and easement acquisition, or phase 1 of the roadway improvements. He said the Town has also received its first development application, for Village Plaza apartments. He reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Ephesus Fordham Renewal Financing Plan Redevelopment will enable self-financing of public improvements by using a "Synthetic" Tax Increment Financing. The Town is planning an installment financing to pay for$10 million of Ephesus Fordham public improvements by combining financing with the Town Hall Renovation Project Synthetic Tax Increment Financing Funds for repayment of the debt will come from the additional (incremental) taxes generated from the redeveloped properties Total Annual Payments would be about$800,000 (20 years) Expected Development (Bar Graph) 2.2 Million Sq. Ft. & $260 Million Value 20 Year Cost Benefit Comparison (Graph) Cumulative Debt Service & Town Property Tax Increment Major Revenues Schools & County (Chart) Proposed County Participation Lesser of 50% of the actual tax increment or 50% of the actual Debt Service on the $10 million of public Improvements �Serbf�ct t� �r�r�er�l�� r��rf�tf�r� b�����r� T"�wr��r� r��� r� �rt�r��r�f��t��r�'�r �r��� Maximum Annual Payment would be about$400,000 Annual Reporting • The Town will provide the County with an annual project performance report during the budget cycle that will include: ■ Additions to Tax Base ■ Public improvement status ■ Private improvement status ■ Economic impact analysis Projected County Tax Increment (Bar Graph) 20 Year Cost Benefit Comparison (Graph) Cumulative Debt Service & Town Property Tax Increment plus County Contribution School Generation Numbers • Difference Between Town and County Student Growth numbers: ■ Based on available (2007) Student Generation factors for CHCCS for multi-family Housing units Town calculated 105 new students for 1,495 units ■ County estimated 450 new students based on over-all student generation rates (all housing types) 2007 Student Generation Numbers (Bar Graph) 2014 Student Generation Numbers* • New Student Generation Rates ■ Broken out by Sub-Areas (Chapel Hill & ETJ) ■ Separate factors for number of bedrooms - Multifamily: 0-2 bedrooms, 3+ Bedrooms & Average) ■ Based on market demand we believe that student generation for Ephesus Fordham Development will be mostly 1-2 bedroom multi-family units 2014 Student Generation Numbers* (Graph) (Chapel Hill and ETJ) Village Plaza Apartments • 1 st Ephesus Fordham Development Application ■ 266 Multi-Family Housing Units (1-2 bedrooms) ■ 15,600 Square Feet of new retail ■ Population Estimate: 505 new residents Village Plaza Apartments Preliminary Revenues Estimates Revenue Town County Schools Property Tax $354,900 $594,675 $141,200 Sales Tax 31,100 75,381 0 Impact Fees (one-time) 0 0 342,076 Village Plaza Apartments* (Bar Graph) Student Generation Numbers (2014) Ken Pennoyer said the Town originally looked at a tax increment financing (TIF); however the structure of the law in N.C. makes this too expensive and somewhat less efficient. He said the local government commission staff dissuaded the town from using this and instead encouraged them to use an installment purchase model. He said there was also an opportunity to combine projects. He said the problem with the improvements for the Ephesus Fordham area is that they are roadway and storm water projects, which offer no asset to use as collateral. He said in order to make this work it had to be combined with a project that has collateral. He said the needed update of the Town Hall provided an opportunity to combine projects and use the Town Hall as a security for the $10 million. Ken Pennoyer said by using the synthetic tax increment financing, the idea is that the majority of the funds to repay the debt would come from the increase in the value of the development that happens in the tax increment area. He said the Ephesus Fordham project would create increased property tax values and tax revenue that would help pay for the debt for the project. Ken Pennoyer reviewed the expected development graph and said the development is planned to have 3 separate phases, and the cash flow has been projected out 20 years in order to match the debt service. He said the expectation is that the actual development will be completely built out within 15 years. He said the goal was for the cumulative debt service to be paid for by the cumulative property tax increment achieved by the town extending services to the new development. He said the "Cost Benefit" graph shows where these cost and tax increment lines cross. He said in formal tax increment financing, the process would be to come to the County Commissioners to have the tax increment approved in a vote. He said the County would then have the opportunity to decide whether or not to participate. Ken Pennoyer said the projection based on the current tax rate is that the total property tax generated after a 15 year period would be approximately $2.3 million, and the school impact fees would be $1.9 million (based on the estimate of 1,495 new family housing units). He reviewed the slide regarding proposed County participation, and he said based on the anticipated debt service of$80,000 per year, the maximum the County would pay is $400,000. He said if the increment ends up being $100,000 in the early years, the maximum request of the County would be 50 percent of that, or $50,000. Ken Pennoyer said the Town has been working with this for years and has a comfort level that allows them to make the leap. He said it is different from the County's perspective; so in order to help the County make a decision without committing to it for 20 years, the town will provide annual reporting as outlined on the slide. He said the decision to allocate money could be an annual budgetary decision based on whether the project is meeting expectations. He said this is a departure from the original presentation. Ken Pennoyer reviewed the slide regarding Projected County Tax Increment, and he said the green bar represents the maximum amount of debt service the County would have to pay in the given year. He said the cumulative net tax increment, after taking this amount off, would be $25 million. He said the green line in the next slide shows how the County contribution impacts the 20 Year Cost Benefit Comparison. Ken Pennoyer said, in looking back at the last presentation, he noticed that the numbers used for student generation were wildly different than the numbers being used by County staff. He said the Town was estimating 105 students based on the 2007 student generation numbers for multifamily housing. He said the County estimate was 450 new students, and this is significantly higher. He said this was based on the housing generation for all different types of housing. He said a new, preliminary set of numbers have just been received for 2014. He reviewed the slides on these numbers and said the figures are broken down by areas and house size. He said the estimate, based on these new numbers, is a range of 179 to 284 new students. Ken Pennoyer said the difference from the initial presentation is a suggested approach where the town provides an annual project report that will form the basis of the County's budget decision making with regard to funding. Commissioner Pelissier said there is a project being submitted by Chapel Hill tomorrow at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) meeting. She said is a project for over$2 million for the intersection of Ephesus Church and Fordham Boulevard. She would like to know what other transportation projects might come from DOT money. She would also like to know how this project being looked at by the MPO plays into the Ephesus Fordham project. Ken Pennoyer said there is a $2.1 million project being submitted to the DOT, and this would actually reduce the $8.8 million in costs associated with roadway projects. He said this would come in the form of a reimbursement in 2018, so the full amount would still be borrowed initially, and then the $2 million would be an early redemption to reduce the overall cost. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are any other projects in the MPO plan that relate to road improvements in this area. Dwight Bassett said there is an additional request related to studying a bridge that connects over the wetlands between Eastgate and Whole Foods, but there are no other requests related to roads. Commissioner Pelissier referred to the slide on cost benefit comparisons. She asked if staff had calculated how much of a property tax increase would be needed to close the gap Ken Pennoyer said it would be in the range of a 1 to 2 cent increase. He said this would have to happen in the early part of the project, as it would take awhile for enough development to happen to create the revenue; however, he said the plan was to use fund balance in the debt management fund in order to fill any initial gap. Commissioner Gordon acknowledged Commissioner Elect Mia Burroughs, two members of the Chapel Hill Town Council, George Cianciolo and Maria Palmer, and Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt. She asked about the economic impact analysis that was mentioned as part of the annual report. Ken Pennoyer said staff would look at what was being built and the impact with regard to retail sales, employment, and basic increases in value and property tax. Commissioner Gordon asked if an analysis like this is available now based on the figures that are known. Ken Pennoyer said a large cost benefit analysis has been done for the overall project. He said this is a fairly large undertaking, and once you get beyond 10 years it is pretty speculative as far as returns. He said this is available on their website. Commissioner Gordon said it would be helpful to share this with the Board of County Commissioners and the staff. Commissioner Gordon asked Craig Benedict if the County's fiscal impact analysis might be helpful to use here. Craig Benedict said the County's fiscal impact analysis is focused more on residential development, so it is not an appropriate model for non-residential developments. He said there are new models out there to look at the multiplier effect. Commissioner Gordon said that would be helpful. Commissioner McKee referred to page 11, and he asked for more explanation of the public and private improvement status and how this would be measured. Ken Pennoyer said the public improvement status would be an update on the progress toward roadway and storm water improvements. Commissioner McKee said he understands that the improvements to the road make the redevelopment more likely, but the improvements to the road do not factor into an increase in tax revenue for the County. He asked how this is factored in with the performance report. Ken Pennoyer said the performance report is more an update on the milestones the Town has set for making progress on the project, and it will provide a snapshot of where road development is and how this affects the potential for other development in the area. Commissioner McKee asked if the Town is preparing an exit strategy in the event that the County decides that the project is not meeting expectations. Ken Pennoyer said he is proposing that this decision be made on an annual basis during budget deliberations. He said part of this is based on the realization that money from new taxes has a lot of demands. He said the purpose of the performance report is to illustrate the fact that the project is creating value with regard to what was expected. He said the exit strategy would only be needed if the County decides it has a higher use of those funds. Commissioner McKee said this does not seem to align with the 20 year build out of this project. He said he would think that there would be some expectation of the County to see this through to the end. Ken Pennoyer said the town would like to see a 20 year commitment, but they understand that in order for that to make sense the project would need to perform and meet the needs of Orange County in terms of economic development. He said staff obviously feels that the project is going to meet the milestones in the development scenario, but they want to structure it in a way that gives the County a choice. Commissioner porosin said he wants to be clear. He said if these student projections are way off and there are actually more students coming in, the County could choose not to give the $400,000 to the project, and could allocate to the schools instead. He asked if this is an accurate assessment. Ken Pennoyer said that is the County's prerogative. Commissioner porosin asked about slide 12 and said it looks like the payment would only be less than the $400,000 in the first year. He said every other year it looks like the green block is the same size. Ken Pennoyer said this slide is based on a likely development scenario. He said the portion of the increment would be less than 50 percent of the debt service, and the town would make up the difference. Commissioner porosin said Ken Pennoyer referred to another format this funding path could have taken. He said he feels like this has come to the Board much later than it should have, and that is the one troubling aspect. He asked for clarification on this timing. Ken Pennoyer said the financing of this public project lagged behind some of the other elements, and by the time staff began trying to figure out financing, there were not a lot of options. He said they finally arrived at the tax increment financing (TIF) with the statutory method. He said until the flood at Town Hall last year, there was no project to be combined to provide collateral. He said the formal TIF has a lot more formal requirements, including a vote from the Board, so staff held out on this and did not get the ball rolling until later when they realized the town hall could be used as collateral. He said staff also had to get through several other loopholes before spending time on financing. He said, in hindsight, this should have been done sooner. Commissioner Price said this project is exciting; however she wants to consider the worst case scenario. She said years from now there will be a different Board in place, and she wonders what plan B will be if that Board did not want to fund this project. Ken Pennoyer said the Town is committed to the project, and the backup plan would be to use future debt capacity to fill in the gaps. He said the numbers used to determine the revenue numbers are very conservative, so he feels there is a greater upside to the project. Commissioner Price asked who would be renting these properties. She asked if this would put any new pressure or weight on social services or the health department if there is an influx of new people. Ken Pennoyer said the town did get information from the developer on the targeted market for these units. He said this information can be provided to the Board. Commissioner Rich asked for more information on other economic development in this area. Dwight Bassett said this process was started back in the spring, and the projections were very conservative based on what he sees happening now. Commissioner Rich asked if the future projections include more retail, office and commercial space. Dwight Bassett said yes. He said staff knew there would be an initial wave of housing, which is a traditional growth pattern in supporting retail. He said Village Plaza's announcement to proceed with their project has sent a signal to other developers to begin exploring office and retail. He said there is a much broader mix of development being discussed now that there was in the spring. Chair Jacobs said the opportunity to have annual reports is an improvement. He said County staff may want to request that specific information be built into these reports. Chair Jacobs said the Town is requesting that the Board address the entire infrastructure, but Orange County can choose whatever portion of the project they would like to support. Ken Pennoyer said that is correct, although the town would like for the County to participate to the greatest extent that is comfortable for them. Chair Jacobs said the Board will likely have a conversation about this at the work session on January 27th. He said Orange County has never been in the business of funding roads, but there is a possibility of pulling out the part that is storm water management. He asked if there will be any metrics regarding decreasing storm water flow, or is this just a stasis type of plan. Ken Pennoyer said he is out of his depth with that question. He said he would refer that question back to their engineers. He believes there have been some significant changes to this in the past few months. Steve Brantley said there has been a lot of subjective information about this project in the media and through public opinion; however, he has chosen to seek objective areas to consider this from an economic development perspective. Steve Brantley presented the following PowerPoint slides: Ephesus Fordham Renewal Potential Economic Development for Oranqe County The proposed redevelopment of Chapel Hill's Ephesus Church — Fordham Boulevard district offers several realistic economic development benefits: • Significantly greater property tax valuation is created, per acre, due to the higher density allowed by the proposed redevelopment. • Retail sales tax potential will reduce our local sales tax leakage, and help retain wealth currently flowing out of Orange County and into our neighboring counties. Although Orange County ranks #1 in N.C. for highest per capita income, we rank 81 st among all 100 N.C. counties in retail sales tax collected per capita. • The inventory of available commercial office locations will grow, thereby making Orange County & Chapel Hill more competitive to recruit new and expanding corporate headquarters site search projects. Currently, larger office headquarters projects are able to find suitable commercial space in Durham County &Wake County that is not available in Orange County. Ephesus Fordham Renewal Potential Economic Development for Oranqe County • Promotes a new and exciting destination for tourism. • Generates opportunity to attract more affordable housing options. • Creates more shopping, dining & employment opportunities here at home, which reduces transportation & out-migration to adjacent counties. • Identifies and improves critical infrastructure needs such as road improvements, mass transit and storm water systems. • Synthetic Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a commonly used & successful financial tool that regularly assists other North Carolina communities in promoting local economic development and land use goals. • Economic development offices with the Town and County should collaborate on the recruitment of active investment clients and prospects. Ephesus Fordham Renewal Potential Economic Development for Oranqe County • The Ephesus Fordham Renewal Planning incorporates consultant recommendations made in 2013 by Urban3, LLC which created a 3-D visualization map showing property tax revenue per acre throughout Orange County. The report's visualization tool showed where the County's property tax revenues are derived, where property values are highest, the link between higher density development and increased property tax generation, and the positive economic potential of redevelopment of mixed use projects. Higher density generally yields higher real estate market values and property taxes. • Urban3 LLC's study was jointly funded in a partnership between the Town of Chapel Hill, Orange County (Economic Development), the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, area developers (East West Partners) and local real estate firms. Per Capita Income in North Carolina Orange County & Adjacent Counties —2012 (bar graph) Annual Retail Sales Tax Per Capita Orange County & Adjacent Counties —2012 (bar graph) Retail Sales Taxes Per Capita Orange County vs. Durham County—2012 (bar graph) Retail Sales Tax Leakage -2012 Orange County vs. Alamance & Chatham Counties (bar graph) Steve Brantley noted the significant leakage of retail sales tax. He said any retail development that occurs within Orange County, especially this close to Durham County's Patterson Place and New Hope Commons, is a plus in both job creation and retail sales tax. He said Orange County is highest in terms of per-capita income, but it is 81 St in retail sales tax per capita. He said the inventory of properties for commercial use in the County is very low. He said companies are not willing to wait for a property to be built for them in 2 or 3 years, so this business usually goes to Cary, Durham or Raleigh. He said any commercial buildings that go up in Orange County will provide the benefit of being able to pursue projects that cannot currently be pursued. Steve Brantley said new restaurants become a new destination that draws people in and generates other business. He said this project will also generate new housing and affordable housing, and it will also create hundreds of long term construction jobs, which would be a benefit for residents. Steve Brantley said he has asked Dwight Basset and the other associates with the town to find ways to work more closely to collaborate on recruitment for projects. He said that way the County has a more immediate and confidential insight into the prospects of projects on the horizon. He reviewed the bar graph slides on per capita income, and retail sales tax. He noted that Alamance County does not experience the same retail sales tax leakage as Orange County. Steve Brantley read through the information on the yellow handout titled "Synthetic Tax Increment Financing Program (TIF) Program — City of Charlotte & Mecklenburg County." Clarence Grier said they would like to bring back a financial analysis at a later work session. He said tonight was for receiving information. Steve Brantley said this opportunity would allow the County to partner with Chapel Hill in a significant way. He said he has looked at Chapel Hill's plan, and the numbers are not guaranteed; however, the town's more recent developments have shown that these projects do very well. He said the use of form based code facilitates more demand coming in. He said there is a quite a bit of residential there, whereas his preference would be to see mostly commercial and retail. However, he said he has been reminded that it is the residential piece that helps make the retail piece work. Clarence Grier said he would like to bring back a financial analysis at a later work session that details the County's perspective. He said tonight was just an opportunity for the County to receive information. Craig Benedict said he agreed with Clarence Grier. He outlined the following items that will be brought back as part of the analysis: - School Impacts (capital impact and operating expenses) - Storm water facilities - NCDOT and MPO projects that might reduce overall cost Commissioner Gordon asked for more information on the new student generation rate study and when this will be presented for approval. Craig Benedict said this report was received about two weeks ago. He said some large differences do show up when looking specifically at multi-family properties. He said staff intends to look at the findings and present this at a work session in the New Year, as part of the School Adequate Public Facilities Report. He said this will be used in the short term for the Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS). He said in the long term this may be used to modify the actual impact fees. Commissioner Gordon said it would be helpful if County staff could work with the town to try and agree on the parameters of an economic development analysis. She said there is no information on the cost of County services. Clarence Grier said this collaboration has been discussed with the representatives from the town. Commissioner Price asked if Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) had signed off on this project. Dwight Basset said there have been meetings with OWASA and they have expressed interest in additional facilities in the Elliot Road extension in order to create a loop system. Chair Jacobs said he has heard requests for more information on the following items: - Targeting for the rental housing - Economic Development analysis - Further analysis of the storm water management planning Chair Jacobs said to Bonnie Hammersley that the County has had this information since April, and the Board is disappointed in the lack of a thorough presentation from staff tonight. He hopes that this will be available in January. Maria Palmer thanked Steve Brantley for mentioning the word partnership. She said where Orange County goes, Chapel Hill goes and vice versa. She said Commissioner porosin mentioned that this is coming to the County a little late; however, she said none of this would be happening without form based code, and that was not a sure thing. She said the cost of doing nothing is a lost opportunity for both the County and the town. She said the County is bleeding people and the hole needs to be fixed. She said a $2 million piece of land has been put into affordable housing, and many residents have been waiting for years to live in decent housing. She said this is an exciting investment, and Chapel Hill believes in this project. Mayor Kleinschmidt said right now this district is failing economically. He said there are bright spots, but there are also failing strip malls, abandoned car dealerships, and roads that make no sense. He said took this project to a mayors conference in 2010, and that is when this began. He said there was a struggle to develop a vision and a small area plan, but nothing happened. He said two special use permits (SUP) for the vacant lot on Elliot Road, but it is still vacant. He said there is no infrastructure in place to support the economic development. He said analysis has shown that if you provide infrastructure, economic development will follow. Mayor Kleinschmidt said Rams Plaza has not filled space because no one can tell their customers how to get there, and developers cannot afford to make the necessary road changes and improvements. He said this is why the town began discussing ways to provide these improvements. He said storm water improvements are also necessary because there are no developers to make this happen. Mayor Kleinschmidt said two months after the re-zoning was approved, the first project came in, and it will provide tens of millions of dollars of investment. He said now that one project is on board others are following. He said the revenue is going to come to the County and the town; and in the worst case, if it does not create revenue, the County will not have to participate. He said long ago the town developed a debt management fund that produces more money than is owed in debt, and this is the plan B that Commissioner Price asked about. Mayor Kleinschmidt said there are some myths out there that he would like to take off of the table. He said this district is going to have the highest standards for storm water in the state, because the code requires it. He said the flooding issues are being addressed. He said staff has pulled back and looked at the entire storm water basin. He said investments are being made in the whole upstream to manage the water as it comes downhill. Mayor Kleinschmidt said there is an unmatched commitment to affordable housing in this district, and 300 of the 1400 units will be affordable housing. He said an incentive program is also being created for private developers to provide affordable housing. Mayor Kleinschmidt said the County and the towns are in a new place when it comes to economic development, and all of the government entities are working together to share the goals of the economic development. He said this tide has the potential to raise their boats pretty high. Mayor Kleinschmidt said when the Orange County staff brings back the answers to the Board of County Commissioners' questions, he hopes that the Board will decide to participate. He said what is good for Orange County is good for Chapel Hill. Chair Jacobs expressed his appreciation for the town being here and including the County in this discussion. He said the town and the County are inextricably intertwined and have the same goals and aspirations. He hopes that they can make this work. Commissioner Gordon expressed her thanks to the Mayor and two members of the Chapel Hill Town Council for coming here to share their vision. She said it has been a new day in Orange County for collaboration in many areas. Mayor Kleinschmidt thanked the Board members, as well as some retired Commissioners for their efforts to work together. Commissioner Gordon said she feels that we are all in a good place and the partnerships are all strong. Commissioner McKee said this project has some definite benefits, and it can be a tool to help move Orange County out of the 81 St position for retail sales. He said the County cannot remain in that low position and expect not to continue increasing tax on residential properties, which is not sustainable. Commissioner McKee said he questions a few of the numbers, and he had hoped to have some financial information tonight to help clarify some issues for him. He said he would like to see information from staff on the potential with regard to the commercial and retail development when this comes back in January. He said there needs to be some sort of business that will generate a significant amount of retail sales. Commissioner McKee said he would like to see all of the costs associated with the residential development, including the impact of additional housing, additional retail, and how it impacts our social services. He would like to know the pros and cons on whether this will create a cascading effect of other projects coming to them. Commissioner McKee said no county in this state is in the road business. He said this project involves a considerable amount of expenditure for road improvements. He questioned whether involvement in the project would put the County in the road business. He would to see some strong financial analysis from the Orange County staff. Commissioner porosin said this project is focusing analytically on the idea that development of any kind has to not only pay for itself, but also be a net gain. He said this is a dangerous way to look at the future of the County, as it will effectively eliminate projects like meaningful affordable housing. He said this comment is not aimed at this project in particular, but it is a comment about the way the Board needs to think about growth and whether the tax revenue always has to offset the cost. Commissioner Pelissier she would like to see a breakdown of the different values for residential and commercial developments. 3. Update on Employment and Child Care Proqrams Operatinq at Social Services Nancy Coston said this is a discussion of employment and childcare. She said she would like to start by sharing some successes. Sharron Hinton reviewed the following new and successful employment programs at the Department of Social Services: -- NC Food and Nutrition Services Employment and Training program. - This is a volunteer program for low income residents who recently began receiving food stamps, and it provides job support and employment training services. -- Job Club—This has provided help to 92 individuals who have received employment through this program in the past 12 months. --Youth Employment and Training Program (Building Futures Program)—This is targeted to residents aged 16-21, and it provides various means of educational support. 113 individuals have been served with this program. -- Job Fairs — Program provides job fairs to individual in the Work First program, as well as any unemployed or underemployed individuals in the County. This has served over 600 individuals. -- Partnerships with local employment agencies -- Partnership with Access Wireless - This agency provides federal cell phones for low income individuals. 1500 phones have been distributed. Chair Jacobs said Southern Season has worked Work First clients in the past. He asked if this is still in place. Sharron Hinton said that is not in place at this time. Nancy Coston she also comes tonight to get feedback on the childcare situation. She said this is a very complicated picture with moving parts. She said one thing staff did not know about was that the rebasing from the census was going to cause an enormous cut. She said the County gave them $500,000 to help with the waiting list for working families, and this was exciting. She said the cut from the rebasing was $700,000, which was very discouraging. She said some of the rules and regulations affect the families very negatively. She said the updates on this are listed in the charts she has provided. Nancy Coston said, with what is proposed and considering the cut, they will be about $100,000 short without taking anyone off of the waiting list. She said the department would be able to continue to serve the target groups, which includes Work First, adolescent parents, homeless children, and some of the welfare cases. She said these are not subjected to the waiting list. She said, after this list, you begin to look at where the funds can be used. She said one group that was hurt significantly were the families with children aged 6-18, who lost their eligibility. She said County money was used to give these residents 3 month notice until this could come before the Board. She said she has put the amount in to show what it would cost to keep doing the rolling 3 months. Nancy Coston said the market rate increase for providers is a requirement, and it will cost$150,000 - $200,000. She said staff is very concerned about the relative child care and what affect that might have on the child welfare program. She said when a child's relative is asked to consider taking care of a child in lieu of placing a child in foster care DSS pays the childcare with no fee to them. She said the new law counts their income starting in January. Nancy Coston said the bottom line is that the department may be able to make it to May with the money the County has already provided, but this is dependent on what is gotten in reallocation. She said she is looking for direction on where the County money should be spent, and it seems impractical to think that they can pick up everything that has been dropped. Commissioner Gordon said the chart was helpful. She asked for clarification on the issue with relative childcare. She asked if a relative's income is included when they receive childcare money. Nancy Coston said the statute affects step parents and other relatives, including aunts, uncles, and grandparents. She said everyone pays the same rates now, and it is a percentage of your gross income. She said if a relative were asked to take care of a child, 10 percent of their income must go toward childcare, regardless of the actual cost of the childcare. She said the concern is that relatives are going to be unable to afford to pay the childcare to keep the child in the home. Commissioner porosin asked about the 3 month rolling cost being paid to families of children aged 6-18. He asked where this money goes. Nancy Coston said this is being paid to the provider, the same as with the state dollars. Commissioner porosin asked if this is paying for after school care. Nancy Coston said yes. Commissioner porosin said he appreciated the frank analysis, but he does not want to see this as a no win situation. He would like to see them go beyond plugging the holes. He would like to prioritize what the next step after the holes are plugged. He would like for there not to be a waiting list. He thinks there should be a discussion of universal pre-k. He said the most successful tool for eliminating the racial achievement gap in schools than the availability of pre- k. He would like to know what the fantasy situation would be for going beyond plugging the holes. Nancy Coston said the situation is very discouraging, and these low income parents will never get off the waiting list without additional resources. She said it will take everything in the budget just to do this. She said there will be 300 kids on the waiting list by the end of the month. She said a price tag can be put on all of this. She said it costs about $6,000 per year per child and there are 300 kids, so that is $1.8 million. She said there are also a lot of needy children not on the waitlist, because the family has abandoned it. Commissioner McKee asked how much is left in the social safety net fund. Clarence Grier said the County put$350,000 into the fund this past year. Commissioner McKee said part of this could be used to work on this list. Nancy Coston said people come and go with child care, and much of it is an estimate. She said some people may get served because someone else drops out. Commissioner McKee said he agrees that these children represent the most critical need. Chair Jacobs said he would like to see a list of things that are considered essential. He said this is similar to the situation with Section 8, and it is impossible to do it all. He said he would like to see staff come back with a list of what is reasonable to take on, what would be nice to take on, and what might be dangerous but desirable to take on. He said once this information is provided, the Board can make an informed decision about how far they want to push it. Nancy Coston said there are choices about whether you try to make up the 133—200 percent, or whether it is more important to get everybody below 133 percent who is on the waiting list. Chair Jacobs said part of this consideration will be looking at the analysis of the professionals in the department as to which is regarded as the most effective or imperative. Nancy Coston asked if the 3 month rolling plan should continue in the meantime. Chair Jacobs said the Board needs to confer on whether this can wait until May or whether the $350,000 needs to be moved over to their budget right away. Nancy Coston said she does not want to turn these people away until she knows the Board's interest, so she will come back with information as quickly as possible. 4. Proposed Parameters for Extra Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) Approval Craig Benedict reviewed the following information from the abstract. BACKGROUND: ETJs are afforded to cities in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 160A-360. These are areas where the county relinquishes its zoning, subdivision, and building code regulations to the adjacent city. These areas are outside the city corporate limits, but are likely urban growth areas and would develop more compatibly with nearby city/town regulations because of the proximity of existing or planned urban form. Counties have to review and act upon these request using General Statutes. The majority of the procedures and processing is done by the municipality. However, counties can develop their own review policies to assist in an orderly transition from rural to urban environments whether the area is annexed or not into the adjacent city. Since these areas are not part of a city and therefore no city voting rights, before potential annexation, general statutes recognize the need for ETJ representation on city planning & board of adjustment boards. The county makes such appointments. Orange County does not have a specific policy on ETJ requests since the County and cities have formed other planning mechanisms to ensure orderly development in these adjacent city zones. The joint planning agreements have promoted this planning and growth collaboration. However, since ETJ areas do and can provide additional supplemental powers to a city beyond a joint planning area authority, ETJ expansion is still viable and preferred in some instances. Therein, a draft review policy is attached to evaluate ETJ requests. This policy can be augmented over time. Craig Benedict said Orange County does not have an ETJ approval policy, because over the years, the County has dealt with planning in and around cities in a different manner. He said tonight he is providing an overview of the minimums that are mandated by statutes, and Orange County's interest may go a little bit beyond that. He said there has been a variety of small area planning groups as part of the Rogers Road and Chapel Hill project. He said all of this can be used as a good example for the future if there are other ETJ expansion requests. He asked the Board to take a look at the draft policy. He noted that this could be augmented over time, and he said some counties go beyond the minimum. He briefly read through some of the points in the draft policy on pages 2 and 3 of the abstract. Commissioner Price said that there is a note that residents and property owners can comment, and she would like to include businesses here. She would also like to change the wording that says comments "may" be included, to say that comments "shall" be included in the consideration. She said it is important that anyone living in the affected area has a chance to speak and have their comments considered. Commissioner Price referred to page 3 and said she would like to have the statement about provision of municipal services be clearer. She said there may need to be a policy that if residents are to be part of a municipal district, they will have the services. She said she is open to discussion on this, but it should be specified. Commissioner Price asked if the reference to growth management areas and the location requirement that "its" closest point be within 2 miles of the jurisdiction. She asked what "it" refers to. Craig Benedict said that refers to a border. He said she has touched on a point where there has been some change in legislative thought about annexations and ETJ. He said annexations are more difficult now, and the requirement for public services in annexed areas has changed. He will try to analyze this. Commissioner Gordon asked if the ETJ rules have also changed. Craig Benedict said not as much, but they are more specific on representation. He said this was a harbinger of the possible removal of ETJs. He said there will likely be a more elaborate process for the appointment of ETJ representatives. Commissioner Gordon referred to page 3 on pre-submittal. She said it states that the idea goes from the elected board of the municipality to the County via the clerk and/or the manager. She said it seems better to her to be very definite about what needs to be done, and take out the "and/or." She said the syntax here was not clear. Commissioner Gordon said she would edit number 2 in the pre-submittal process to include the term "in accordance with state statute." Commissioner Gordon said Item D, number 1 should specify "Orange County" Planning Board. Commissioner Gordon said she is glad to see this policy being considered. Commissioner porosin said the Rogers Road proposal is related but separate from this issue. He said it would be in the best interest to expedite the Rogers Road process even if this is not finalized. He said one thing that is important moving forward is to have language suggesting that ETJs should not remain ETJs forever. He said this is not fair to the residents. Commissioner Pelissier said she would like to have a copy of the comments that were made to the Chapel Hill Town Council regarding this particular case. Craig Benedict said he will include as much information as staff can get. He said, by December 1St they should have the Chapel Hill ETJ expansion request. Chair Jacobs said he had asked staff in March to come back with an analysis of the way rules have changed for ETJs. He would like to have this. Chair Jacobs said he thought that joint planning appointments were to be changed to ETJ appointments. He asked for clarification on this. Craig Benedict said there are joint planning area representatives on the Chapel Hill Planning Board. He said there will be a process to have ETJ representatives voted on by Orange County to sit on the Chapel Hill Planning Board. Chair Jacobs said the joint planning area and this ETJ are not synonymous. Craig Benedict said a thousand acres of Chapel Hill's joint area will possibly be converted to ETJ, and there will be one small joint planning area (JPA) left over. He said representation for both of these is based on population. He said there is currently one JPA seat left. Commissioner Rich asked how many ETJs are currently in Chapel Hill Craig Benedict said there are a few general areas outside of corporate town limits —the southern triangle rural buffer area; Rogers Road and Northwoods; the Triangle north of interstate 40 near Sunrise Road; and a small area north of Interstate 40 behind New Hope Commons and the Wal-Mart complex. Commissioner Rich said it seems like there are a lot of different areas that might not have representation on a board. Chair Jacobs said it would be helpful to bring a map that shows the areas with the acreage. John Roberts said the statute provides for ETJ representation based on a mathematical calculation, so until a certain threshold is reached, there is no obligation to add anyone. He said the County could request an addition. Chair Jacobs said the question is whether this should be requested, and it would be good to have some date and maps to consider. Commissioner McKee asked if there is any representation for areas outside of those ETJ areas or anywhere else that is somewhat controlled by Chapel Hill. Craig Benedict said presently there are either ETJ representatives for those limited areas or JPA/Transition area representatives. Craig Benedict said he has met with participants and representatives of ETJ and joint planning areas so that they can get the perspective of what their role is. He agreed that a map would be good. Chair Jacobs said he appreciates Craig Benedict's willingness to help train and orient people. He said an area like Northwoods can feel very isolated and unrepresented. He said the residents do not know where to turn, but they are being impacted by a government in which they have a limited voting stake. He said this was a key issue in joint planning, and the Commissioners wanted to make sure to be a voice for those people who would eventually be annexed. Commissioner Gordon said she remembered the passionate way the people in the ETJ had reacted to their status in the past, and the fact that this negative reaction provided a lot of the impetus for the cooperative joint planning. She said, in general, perhaps the language should be strengthened in favor of joint planning as opposed to ETJ. She said a joint planning agreement solves a lot of issues. Craig Benedict said this will be fine tuned and brought back in February. He asked if the Board would be interested in having a joint process with the municipality. Chair Jacobs answered yes. 5. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to go into closed session at 9:58 p.m. for the purpose below: "To discuss matters related 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," NCGS § 143- 318.11(a)(4). VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to reconvene into regular session at 10:35pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to adjourn the meeting at 10:35pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board