Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-27-2015 APPROVED 3/3/2015 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Work Session January 27, 2015 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff inembers will be identified appropriately below) Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:05. He reviewed the following items at the Commissioner's places: - PowerPoint sheets and updated financial information for Item 1- Update on the Ephesus Church Road/Fordham Boulevard Public Improvements and Request for County Investment in the Project -Yellow, revised sheet for Item 4 —County Commissioners - Boards and Commissions Assignments 1. Update on the Ephesus Church Road/Fordham Boulevard Public Improvements and Request for County Investment in the Proiect BACKGROUND: The Town of Chapel Hill, at the March 21, 2014 Joint Meeting with the Board of County Commissioners, presented an improvement project for the Ephesus Church — Fordham Boulevard of 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 the financing of economic development projects occurs 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 50% of the actual annual debt service cost. The Town of Chapel Hill (Town) is suggesting that the County consider an approach to investing in the project using mutually agreed upon criteria, which will be tied to the Ephesus - Fordham project performance. The Town would provide an annual Ephesus Fordham project performance report during the County's budget deliberations that would include the following: additions to the tax base, status of public improvements, status of private improvements, including progress toward meeting affordable housing, energy efficiency and transportation goals, and economic impact analysis. The Planning Department has provided its comments in Attachment C about the project; specifically in regards to traffic analysis, stormwater/flood control and school impact fee scenarios depending on student generation. Traffic analysis and programmed projects note how some Ephesus-Fordham intersection improvements could be funded in part by Durham- Chapel Hill Metropolitan Planning Organization funds. Planning recommendations also note how a future transit study and Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP) funds could be used/assigned to `cross-town' routes to augment shopping opportunities between the downtown area/campus and this new retail node. Chapel Hill Transit (CHT) is presently studying bus routes to support future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT). Stormwater/flood control comments relate to how the County could participate in public sponsored improvements that have multiple benefits of flood control, water quality and environmental enhancement. Chapel Hill has recently (last fall) addressed a more comprehensive stormwater approach than anticipated early last year. School impact fee potential receipts were analyzed related to the existing impact fee schedule (Scenario A) vs. what new student generation rates (from a draft study completed late October 2014) may hypothetically generate from a student number perspective and an adjusted, yet unadopted fee schedule change (Scenarios B and C). A PowerPoint planning overview will be given at the meeting. Additionally, if a new high school and/or major additions have to be made to one of the existing Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) high schools to accommodate the projected increase in students, the additional debt service would reduce the net amount of property taxes received as a result of the planned project improvements. The first Ephesus Fordham performance report would be submitted during the first budget cycle in which an actual tax increment from the project was expected in the next fiscal year. The County could potentially benefit from participating with the Town of Chapel Hill from increased property and sales tax revenues. Based on information provided, the County would potentially receive incremental property tax revenues over three phases of the Project of approximately $14 million. County expenditures, based on current County financial policies and guidelines, would total $23 million prior to the requested debt contribution. After paying the requested debt contribution of$400,840 over 20 years, Attachment B-1 reflects Scenario 1 where the County would net a deficit of incremental tax revenues of$10.4 million. This scenario includes the cost impact of providing County services affected by the project, as well as the 48.1% target impact of General Fund revenues provided to Education, and the costs to fund the additional students in each phase of the project at the current per pupil amount of$3,571 per pupil. After paying the requested debt contribution of$400,840 over 20 years, Attachment B-2 reflects Scenario 2 where the County would net a deficit of incremental tax revenues of$6.9 million. This scenario only includes the 48.1% target to Education and the costs of the additional students in each phase of the project. In order for the County to participate in the project without incurring a deficit, the County would have to modify its financial policies in the areas of earmarking revenues for a particular purpose or project, and modify its funding target for education. Bonnie Hammersley introduced this item. She noted that the numbers included in this project presentation are speculative and will probably change. She said the town manager hopes the County will keep an open door in considering this project and remember that this request is not for a multi-year agreement. Craig Benedict reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Ephesus Church Road/Fordham Boulevard Project Small Area Planning Traffic Analysis Stormwater/Flood Control and School Impact Orange County Planning comments Outline of Comments A. Purpose B. Study Area Overview C. Objectives D. Context D-1 Surrounding Context D-2 Project Area Existing Land Use E. Public Transit F. Road Improvements G. Stormwater/Flood Control & Map H. Schoollmpact H-1 Abstract H-2 Scenarios; Table Form Overview & Orange County Comments A. Purpose: To review • Planning document • Synthetic S-TIF proposal costs • Stormwater and Water Quality • Flooding • Multi-modal Transportation • Regional Economic Development Opportunities • Schoollmpacts B. • Study Area Overview • A few miles from downtown Chapel Hill • Proximity to the I-40 interchange • Major commercial district of Chapel Hill and Orange County • High Potential for Redevelopment C. Primary Plan Objectives • Increasing the economic potential • Improving the transportation conditions D.1. Surrounding Context • Along Hwy 15/501 —a gateway corridor and a high investment corridor D.2. Existing Land Uses • Commercial —74% • High Density Residential — 13% • Low Density Residential —2% E. Public Transit Element of the Plan • Existing Transit Service Serving the Study Area • Orange County Planning Comment—Additional Transit Service o Enhanced bus element network : • A circulator shuttle that would provide service to: o Downtown Chapel Hill o The UNC Campus and future Carolina North • An adjusted OPT 420 bus route: o Rural Orange County & Hillsborough o Consider dedicated BRT lanes—as identified by Kimley Horn Traffic Analysis 2/18/2011, page 1.26 and 1.4 o High-order Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) • Walkability • Multi-modal Aspects • Future bus tie-in Light Rail F. Planned Roadway Improvements and General Comments in the Study Area Positive • Fordham Blvd (US 15-501) corridor is congested • Need for investment • Improvements are typically funded through DCHC-MPO • Some programmed • MPO recently (Nov. 2014) approved $2.17 million Ephesus-Fordham intersection improvement which decreases $8.8 million S-TIF estimate Negative • S-TIF or other Funding for roads is not a county function, however, participation in the prioritization of MPO projects is • State TIP/NCDOT Collaboration Positive • Mixed Use Project • Internal trip capture • Decrease typical external trip generation Negative • Stronger bus transit attributes • Downtown/college area integration (i.e. cross town shopping) Recommendations Building a Transit Infrastructure • Fund a study to review: 1. Circulator shuttle, 2. OPT 420 bus route adjustment (regional tie-in), and 3. Future BRT in corridor. • BRIP amendments to help fund above transit considerations • Circulator shuttle G. Stormwater/Flood Control Elements of the Plan 1. Background • Kimley-Horn & Associates Analysis in 201 2. Specific Original Work 3. Original Costs Estimates • $1.2 million ➢ $210,000 for design ➢ $910,000 for construction ➢ $80,000 for contingency 4. Stormwater Master Planning • Investigate solutions at both the micro and macro scale 5. New Direction • Beyond on-site drainage piping 6. Orange County Participation Suggestions • Best Management Practices (BMP's) to mitigate flood conditions • Reduce nutrient runoff • Benefits of flood control and water quality as it affects a larger regional or sub-regional context • Social, health and emergency service impact of flooding • Larger scale, publically sponsored flood/stormwater BMP's on public land or easements • Ameliorate flood events • Environmental benefits H. Schoollmpact H-1. Abstract of School Impact Scenarios • Range was from 105 to 450 students • Student Generation Rates (SGR) (proposed); higher degree of specificity using housing type and bedroom count which was not used in earlier studies. • Completed on October 28, 2014 but unadopted • Existing Rates (Scenario A), • Hypothetical Scenarios (Scenarios B & C) H-2. School Impact Scenarios (Tabular) SCENARIO A (Existing Program) • Present Schedule Adopted 2008 • Student Generation Rates from Census year 2000 ➢ Impact Fee Assessment (Potential Revenues) ✓ $1,922,570 ✓ 105 Students 0 14.29 multi-family units generate one student ➢ Capital (Expenditures) ✓ $4,500,000 — 18% of a school (cost $25m ±) o $42,750± per elementary student SCENARIO B (All Multi-Family 0-2 Bedrooms) • Impact Fee Assessment (Potential Revenues) ✓ $3,570,000 ✓ 194 Students 0 7.7 multi-family units generate one student • Capital (Expenditures) ✓ $8,290,000 —33% of a school (cost $25m ±) SCENARIO C [Mix of Multi-Family 0-2 Bedrooms (77.5%) and 3+ Bedrooms (22.5%)] • Impact Fee Assessment (Potential Revenues) ✓ $5,492,630 ✓ 299 Students 0 5 multi-family units generate one student • Capital (Potential Expenditures) ✓ $12,800,000 —51% of a school (cost $25m ±) Craig Benedict referred to the positives and negatives of the project and said that several perceived negatives can also be positives. He noted that possible congestion would actually help support the criteria required for the MPO to provide funding for traffic improvements. Craig Benedict referred to the slide on Orange County's participation and said the majority of the parcels in the area are almost 100 percent impervious and will have to pay into offsite funds to compensate for their inability to meet standards. He said there is interest in having some of the additional best management practices (BMP) turned into environmental aspects to be maintained by a municipal service district. He said a mechanism for maintenance is important. Craig Benedict noted that the school impact information uses hypothetical student generation rates that are in the books, but this may not be an accurate reflection of the future numbers. He said there is a wide range of variability with multi-family projects. He said the total number of projected units is 1495, but 198 of those units are being redeveloped and will be removed from the equation. Craig Benedict said a new student generation study was completed in November, and it showed an increase in development over the last 10 years. He said the 2007 numbers in all of the multi-family units showed only .07 students per unit. He said the new numbers are broken into categories by the number of bedrooms in the units. He said even the 0 to 2 bedroom numbers are higher than the 2007 projections. Craig Benedict said the County receives about$1,286 per unit with the current rates, which is very low. He said the school impact fees were never intended to cover the full cost of a student, but the number has been anywhere from 20-40 percent. He said, as we try to get closer to 60 percent, school construction accelerates, and the impact fee does not necessarily accelerate. He said scenarios B and C show that impact fees are an important revenue source, but they do not pay for the capital side of building the school based on the new development. Paul Laughton reviewed scenarios in their packet for the Fordham Financial Analysis- Based on Phases of Education. He said the first 2 scenarios have been presented to the Board, and the packet also includes scenario 3, which shows more of a cumulative effect. He outlined the following spreadsheet: Ephesus-Fordham Financia)Analysis (Scenario 1) Based on Phases 2s4.00 With Education 175.00 19.00 90.00 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Percentage of Percentage County Fy14-15 of Services Revenues Revenues Revenues FY14-15 Allocated to Bud�et Bud�et Project $ 1,424,704.00 $ 154,721.00 $ 726,694.00 Governing and $ Management 17,550,772 8.99% 8.99% 128,066.00 13,908.00 65,322.00 General Services 9,451,951 4.84% 0.00% - - - Community and environment 7,548,601 3.87% 0.00% - - - Human services 32,242,706 16.51% 16.51% 235,271.00 25,550.00 120,004.00 Public safety 22,382,107 11.46% 0.00% - - - Cultural and recreation 2,696,035 138% 0.00% - - - Education 76,847,414 3936% 0.00% 1,310,208.00 142,270.00 670,930.00 Debt service 26,529,306 13.59% 0.00% Total S 195 248 892 100.00% 0.00% 1,673,545.00 181,728.00 856,256.00 Net (248,841.00) (27,007.00) (129,562.00) Request 400,840.00 400,840.00 400,840.00 Net increase(deficit) S (649 681) S (427 847) S (530 402) Number of Years in phases 4 years 6 years 10 years Cumulative increase (deficit) S (2 598 724.00) S (2 567 082.00) S (5 304 020.00) A B C Cumulative deficit of project over life of project Total of A+B+C S (10 469 826.00) Notes: Education is based on 48.1�Target of General Fund Revenues being provided to Education,as well as the growth in students in each phase of the project. Paul Laughton said scenario 1 looks at the 2014-15 general fund budget of $195,000,000, and it does not include transfers. He said it only includes the expenditures for the departments, education, and debt service, and this is why the total is under $200,000,000. He said this scenario looks at the possible impacts of County services and departments related to this project, and it is difficult at this time to pinpoint the numbers and percentages of some of the departments. He said this shows a worst case scenario for those departments and functions that might be affected by this project, and a percentage has been attached for the county services that would be allocated to this project. Paul Laughton said this shows the entire function of the 8.99 percent of Governing and Management and 16.51 percent of Human Services. Commissioner Rich asked for clarification on how some of these numbers, such as public safety, are devised. Paul Laughton said this only looks at Governing and Management and Human Services. He said this is a very challenging scenario, but as the project moves forward it may be necessary to look at the effect on government services. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the 911 center is a public safety cost. Paul Laughton said yes, but it is not included in this. He said that is a special revenue fund and this is only looking at services from the general fund. Commissioner porosin asked for clarification on how the percentages in this sheet are calculated. He referred to the 16.5 percent number. Paul Laughton said this is strictly budget allocation out of the $195,000,000 budget. Commissioner porosin said the way he reads this is that there is a whole budget number, and then the goal is to determine how much additional cost the County will bear as a result of this development. He said it looks like 16.5 percent of all the human services cost will be connected to this new project. Paul Laughton said the 16.51 percent is the human services percent of the total budget, and this number has been used toward the incremental revenue that is anticipated for phase 1 in order to show a corresponding expense allocation. He said the same thing has been done for the governing and management. Commissioner Rich asked about the 39.3 percent for the schools. Paul Laughton said the 39.36 percent is just made up of the $76 million for education out of the $195 million. He said this was not allocated that way when looking at the impact of the $1.3 million for education. He said this is done using a target of 48.1 percent of general fund revenues earmarked for schools. He said that 48.1 percent number has been used, and then in these first two scenarios the student growth has been added to that. He read through the numbers from the spreadsheets. Commissioner Burroughs asked about the education piece and why the 48.1% target is used by both schools. Paul Laughton said 48.1 percent is the target the Board of County Commissioners has set for education from the general fund, and it is for total education. Commissioner Price asked if the phase 3 numbers refer to the beginning or the end of phase 3. . Paul Laughton said this project is supposed to be built out at the end of year 4. He said the $1.24 million is used for each year of phase 1. Commissioner Pelissier said it needs to be stated that these scenarios are not accurate, because revenues for phase 1 will continue in phase 2. She said the deficit is quite inflated. Paul Laughton said the $1.24 million is not one-time revenue, and this is why scenario 3 presents it as ongoing and cumulative each year. Chair McKee said the 48.1 percent is a moving target. He said if you assume that there is $1.24 in increased revenue in phase 1, and there are no additional children, then if funds are allocated on a per student basis, no additional funds would be allocated for the schools. Paul Laughton said most of the time, allocation of funds has been attributed to growth in the schools, but not all of the time. Chair McKee said if there are no children coming into schools during the first phase, then 48.1 percent of the $1.4 million will not be automatically allocated to the schools. Paul Laughton said if there is no growth, the goal is still to hold to the target of 48.1 percent of general fund revenue. He said if the $1.4 million in revenue is put into the general fund, then the goal will be to give $48.1 percent to education, although there will be no extra component for growth. Commissioner porosin said he thinks the target is 48.1 percent, whether there are more children or fewer children. He said this issue needs to be revisited. He thinks it is a bad budgeting idea to always set aside a certain percentage that then drives the budget. He said the budgeting should be based on needs. He said the budget does sometimes get driven by needs, but it only gets driven above 48.1 percent. Chair McKee said this is a concern of his. Commissioner Pelissier said she agrees that the 48.1 percent target needs to be discussed, but that discussion does not need to be just tied to this project. She said she is struggling with allocating the whole 48.1 percent, because when it is actually distributed, the attribution should be to the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). She does not think the entire attribution can be made to one school system, because it is not all expended in one school district. Bonnie Hammersley said staff is not saying that the entire 48.1 percent is going to CHCCS. She said the current policy says that whenever the revenue goes up in the budget, 48.1 percent goes to all education. Commissioner Jacobs noted that the number is approximately 48.1 percent, but there is not a cap. He noted that Village Apartments has already been approved for this site, so there will be additional students. Commissioner Jacobs said all of this information is hypothetical, and he does not trust projections. He said if this is going to be based on hypothetical information about revenue generation, then it is reasonable for the County to generate hypothetical expenditures. He said it should be proposed that the municipalities take these expenditures and impacts to the County into consideration. He said staff is working to try and articulate these impacts. He said there is no coefficient where the municipalities worry about how this will hit the County, but there will be complaints if County taxes are too high. He said better communication and cooperation can help people know upfront what the cost will be for a County taxpayer who happens to live in the municipality Commissioner Burroughs asked if it is correct to say that when you first look at this, you see a deficit because there is no revenue yet. She said this is an exercise in revenue foregone. Commissioner Rich said she thinks that the 175 students forecast in the first phase is an outrageous number if you consider the history of developments in Chapel Hill. She said this makes the education number high, and she thinks this is why there is a large deficit. Paul Laughton said the total number is still 284 students over the three phases, so the cumulative cost is still going to be there. Commissioner Rich said there is an impact fee for students, plus the 48.1 percent allocated for education, and then there is $3,500 per student. She said it seems that this is double charging. Paul Laughton said these scenarios have the 48.1 percent separate outside of the growth, and then the growth is added on. He said this is because experience has shown that the number goes over 48.1 percent as a result of growth. Commissioner Rich asked if schools have gotten more than 48.1 percent for multiple years. Paul Laughton said yes. Commissioner Jacobs said 48.1 percent is the floor, not the ceiling. He said, with the coefficient that Craig Benedict used, there are almost 19 students from the first approved apartment complex. He said blank assumptions cannot be made, and he does not know enough about these 265 apartments. He said the Board could shoot holes into each of these assumptions, but he is trying to take this as staff's first try at working with Chapel Hill on providing metrics to start the conversation on this project. Commissioner Price said she agrees with Commissioner Jacobs. She said she also questions the number of proposed students. She said unless you have an idea of who will be attracted to these accommodations, this is hypothetical, and it is scary to see such a huge deficit at the end. Commissioner Burroughs said design will also determine the housing with form based code projects. She said the bigger point is to determine the philosophy for this project and whether it is to bring in less revenue than you might have had. She said it is not about losing money, but it is about getting less money. She is open to continuing a discussion about this. Commissioner Pelissier said she understands this a little differently in terms of revenues and expenses. She said if a certain amount of revenue comes in, but spending is more than that revenue, then there would be a loss, and taxes would have to be increased or the money would have to be found elsewhere. Commissioner Pelissier said the conversation has focused on school generation rates and residential, but the County's interest is in the commercial portion. She wants to see the commercial development data and how this would generate sales tax and property tax revenues. Commissioner porosin said there are some important questions to answer. He is reluctant to start thinking about development and revenue generation if this is going to price out affordable housing and low wealth options. He said it is important to be cautious in putting everything on this market based analysis. Commissioner Jacobs said Chapel Hill has assured them that Orange County can jump into this project at any point, so this does not have to be articulated to everyone's satisfaction at this time. He said this should be viewed as a potential partnership with pros and cons. Paul Laughton said the second scenario takes out the attempt to attach a percentage for County services. He presented the following information on scenario 2: Ephesus-Fordham Financia)Analysis(Scenario 2) Based on Phases 2s4.00 With Education 175.00 19.00 90.00 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Percentage Percentage of County Fy14-15 of Services Revenues Revenues Revenues FY14-15 Allocated to Bud�et Bud�et Project $ 1,424,704.00 $ 154,721.00 $ 726,694.00 Governing and $ Management 17,550,772 8.99% 0.00% - - - General Services 9,451,951 4.84% 0.00% - - - Community and environment 7,548,601 3.87% 0.00% - - - Human services 32,242,706 16.51% 0.00% - - - Public safety 22,382,107 11.46% 0.00% - - - Cultural and recreation 2,696,035 138% 0.00% - - - Education 76,847,414 3936% 0.00% 1,310,208.00 142,270.00 670,930.00 Debt service 26,529,306 13.59% 0.00% Total S 195 248 892 100.00% 0.00% 1,310,208.00 142,270.00 670,930.00 Net 114,496.00 12,451.00 55,764.00 Request 400,840.00 400,840.00 400,840.00 Net increase (deficit) S (286 344) S (388 389) S (345 076) Number of Years in phases 4 years 6 years 10 years Cumulative increase (deficit) S (1 145 376.00) S (2 330 334.00) S (3 450 760.00) A B C Cumulative deficit of project over life of project Total of A+B+C S (6 926 470.00) Notes: Education is based on 48.1�Target of General Fund Revenues being provided to Education,as well as the growth in students in each phase of the project. Paul Laughton said the legal sheet at their places tonight is scenario 3, which shows a cumulative projection with less deficit. He reviewed the following information: Ephesus-Fordham Financial Analysis(Scenario 3) Based on Phases 284.00 With Education 175.00 194.00 284.00 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Percentage of Percentage County Fy14-15 of Services Revenues Revenues Revenues FY14-15 Allocated to Bud�et Bud�et Project $ 1,424,704.00 $ 1,579,425.00 $ 2,306,119.00 Governing and Management $ 17,550,772 8.99% 0.00% - - - General Services 9,451,951 4.84% 0.00% - - - Community and environment 7,548,601 3.87% 0.00% - - - Human services 32,242,706 16.51% 0.00% - - - Public safety 22,382,107 11.46% 0.00% - - - Cultural and recreation 2,696,035 138% 0.00% - - - Education 76,847,414 3936% 0.00% 1,310,208.00 1,452,477.00 2,123,407.00 Debt service 26,529,306 13.59% 0.00% Total S 195 248 892 100.00% 0.00% 1,310,208.00 1,452,477.00 2,123,407.00 Net 114,496.00 126,948.00 182,712.00 Request 400,840.00 400,840.00 400,840.00 Net increase (deficit) S (286 344) S (273 892) S (218 128) Number of Years in phases 4 years 6 years 10 years Cumulative increase(deficit) S (1 145 376.00) S(1 643 352.00) S (2 181 280.00) A B C Cumulative deficit of project over life of project Tota I of A+B+C S (4 970 008.00) Notes: Education is based on 48.1�Target of General Fund Revenues being provided to Education,as well as the growth in students in each phase of the project. Bonnie Hammersley said staff will continue to work with the Town of Chapel Hill. She noted that scenarios 2 and 3 did not include the cost for services throughout the County, because staff did not feel it was defensible to take the entire amount. She said there will be costs, and staff will work to get a more accurate view of this moving forward. Commissioner Rich asked if the numbers could also show the sales tax and other multipliers that bring in revenue. She said this is showing negative numbers because that information is not being included. She said she does not see this as a negative project. Bonnie Hammersley said as this project moves forward staff will have more accurate numbers and will include a breakdown of residential and commercial sales and property tax. She said her conversation with the Town Manager was that the County would continue to look at these numbers, and recognize that the town is not looking for a multi-year agreement. Commissioner porosin said if you look at the school impact scenarios that have been presented, development is already not expected to cover the costs. Commissioner Jacobs said he understands that Craig Benedict has spoken with Chapel Hill's engineer, and the town is contemplating a more comprehensive study of stormwater in the entire area. He asked if there is a timeframe for this. Craig Benedict said there are two requests for proposals (RFP's) that will be going out to address upstream watershed, and it will probably be about a 12 to 24 month time frame to find out what comes forward from the consultants. . Commissioner Jacobs said another problem with the way this discussion is going is that the Board does not have to address the whole $400,000 per year. He said he does not want to get involved in roads, but the stormwater management is a health and safety issue. He would like to know what the plan is before he is willing to invest in it. He said if Orange County decides not to be involved in a formula that predominately funds roads, then this would reduce their contribution Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the manager could do analysis with the proposed limited investing mentioned above. Commissioner Price referred to attachment C, and asked about the status of the possible reimbursement for the transportation project at 15-501 and Ephesus Church Road. Craig Benedict said it is very likely that this project will be funded, but it will be two years out. He said if improvements are to be done earlier than this funding, then Chapel Hill could proceed with interim money and then be reimbursed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) when it comes into the capital improvement program. Commissioner Price asked what will happen if this does not get reimbursement from the state. She asked if this could come back to the County. Craig Benedict said yes. He said originally there were $8.8 million worth of roadway improvements included in the $10 million package, and $1.2 million for stormwater improvements. Commissioner Price asked about the localized stormwater municipal service district. She asked if Chapel Hill would be levying a fee over the area, and she said her concern is the cost of living. Craig Benedict said it is important that the district is established now to find out what improvements would be subject to long term maintenance and what that cost will be. He said this is a dense, high intensity development, and there will likely be heightened sensitivity to the best management practices that are put in here. He said the district will be analyzed to determine what type of increment would be associated with all of the property owners. He said there is no current estimate for how much a district tax would be per household. Commissioner Rich said the County is not in the business of roads, but the County is in the business of putting in infrastructure for economic development, and she thinks that this includes the roads in the towns. She said these roads can be instrumental to attract companies. She said roads are infrastructure, and it is important to think about this. Commissioner Rich suggested putting the discussion of the 48.1 percent target for schools on the agenda for a future work session. Commissioner Price referred to page 14 on attachment c and asked when the Board should expect an estimate on these numbers. Paul Laughton said he does not have a time frame at this point. Chair McKee said the key point is that this is the first of many discussions on this proposed project and the level and timing with which the County wants to participate. He said another point is that this project is a component of economic development, and it will bring in additional property taxes and sales tax. Chair McKee said the Board has talked about the fact that about 85 percent of the County's revenue is from residential property tax, and there has been discussion about how to push this number down by increasing commercial development. He said Steve Brantley has said it takes about $160 million of investment to push this percentage down by one point. He said it is important to push this number down so that homeowners in the middle to low income levels can stay in their homes. Chair McKee said this may involve some policy discussion or decisions. Chair McKee said many of these numbers are hypothetical at this point, and it is important to keep this in mind. 2. Proposed Draft Applications, Guidelines & Scorinq Sheets for Article 46's Business Investment Grant &Aqriculture Economic Development Grant Steve Brantley presented this item and introduced the following four members of the Orange County Economic Development Advisory Board who were instrumental in creating these guidelines: Jim Kitchen, Delores Bailey, Karen McAdams, and DR Bryan. Steve Brantley reviewed the purpose and background from the abstract as follows: BACKGROUND: In November 2011, Orange County voters approved a referendum to levy a one-quarter (1/4) cent sales tax that provides additional annual funding for education and economic development purposes. This "Article 46"funding program generates approximately $2.5 million annually in new local sales tax proceeds which are split equally between education (shared between the Orange County & Chapel Hill/Carrboro school systems) and economic development. The 50/50 share of Article 46 funds for economic development, averaging $1.25 million per year, is initially set for 10 years. The BOCC adopted a Resolution in December 2011 authorizing the new one-quarter cent sales tax. Key Sectors for Use % of Total $ Annually • Debt service on water, sewer & associated 60% $750,000 Infrastructure made in Orange County's 3 Economic Development Districts (Eno, Hillsborough and Buckhorn) • Orange County's Small Business Loan Fund 16% $200,000 • Entrepreneurial & Incubator Support 8% $100,000 • Business Investment Grants 8% $100,000 • Agriculture Economic Development Grants 5% $60,000 • Marketing & Collaborative Outreach 1.5% $20,000 • Advertising, Publishing & Collateral Materials 1.5% $20,000 100% $1,250,000 While some Article 46 "key use" funding categories had immediate activity and expenditure needs, such as utility infrastructure improvements in the County's three economic development districts, the two grant programs lacked basic guidelines to help guide the best use of Article 46 funds. As a result, although funds began to accrue in accounts being set up for that eventual use, the specific grant programs were not immediately active. Also, the Economic Development Advisory Board was just being re-formed and had not yet assumed specific tasks. The Economic Development Advisory Board members did meet throughout 2014 and drafted a recommended set of Applications, Guidelines and Procedures (see Attachments B and C) recommending how to administer the Business Investment Grant and Agriculture Economic Development Grant programs. Much of the advisory board's effort was patterned after the County's Small Business Loan program and current By-Laws, Policies & Procedures, Application and review process. For Article 46's two grant programs, the Economic Development Advisory Board has offered to receive, review and award all grant applications, subject to the BOCC's comments and approval. Current accrued balances available to disburse are approximately $200,000 in the Business Investment Grant program and $120,000 in the Agriculture Economic Development Grant program. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with discussion of Article 46's two grant programs. There are no action items requiring formal decisions during the work session. Eventual funding of the Business Investment Grant and the Agriculture Economic Development Grant programs would be provided by Article 46 proceeds, and not from the General Fund. Jim Kitchen thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their support. He said this is an important proposal before the Board. He said there is approximately $200,000 in grant funding that has been allocated, but there is no policy or criteria in place for the allocation. He said a subcommittee with a wide variety of representation was formed to work on this, and it is still a work in progress. Jim Kitchen said the group is proposing two grants —a small grant up to $1,000, and a large grant up to $10,000. He said the purpose of this grant program is to grow the entrepreneurial ecosystem in the County and to encourage small business development, with the goal of increasing jobs and opportunities in Orange County. He said the Orange County Economic Development Committee and the sub-committee will bear most of the burden of the administration and will do most of the work, supported by the County staff. Jim Kitchen said the details are in the materials before the Board. He said businesses will fill out a simplified application for the smaller grants, and a 4 to 5 page, more complex document for the larger grants. He said mentoring will be an important part of this process, and there will be follow up required six months after the money is allocated. He said the committee is ready to go with this program as soon as the Board is ready. Delores Bailey is the Executive Director of Empowerment, Incorporated, which owns the Midway business center, the first small business incubator in Orange County. She discussed her incubator and the ways in which it has helped grow businesses. She believes this small business grant program will stimulate small business development and expansion in Orange County. Commissioner porosin asked how the amount of$1,000 was chosen as the size for the small grant. He said this seems small, and he wonders if$3,000 might be more useful. Jim Kitchen said the committee had heard that there were some businesses that only needed $500 to $1000 for specific needs. He said the goal was to make it fast and easy for those who just needed a low price stimulus to their business. He said this low amount requires less of a burden for providing data. He said the committee will learn quickly what the right numbers are. He said the program will start out with these numbers and then see what needs to be tweaked. Commissioner porosin said the amount is a threshold, and not everyone will ask for the full amount. He worries that the $1000 is a very small grant. Commissioner porosin referred to the scoring sheet on page 12 of the abstract. He said some of the criteria seem to be fairly on or off. He questioned how you can distinguish between someone whose need is a 7 versus a 9. He said some of the criteria seem more suited for a checklist. Jim Kitchen said it is clear when an applicant tells them there is a need that that is critical to their success and then can provide information to validate that. He said there are others who are more indifferent about their needs. He said this criteria has also been used successfully for the LAUNCH incubators and accelerators. Commissioner porosin said he appreciates the explanation. He said he thinks of applicants more at the grassroots level. Jim Kitchen agreed. He welcomes feedback if there is something that is missing from the criteria. Commissioner Pelissier said she appreciated all of the work their group has done on this. She asked about the requirement for a 6 month mentorship, and she said this seems a bit onerous for a $1000 grant. She said it seems that a lot of the questions are geared toward existing businesses and expanding businesses. She asked if it is anticipated that there will also be applicants for new businesses who might need a mentorship. Delores Bailey said a lot of start up businesses are being brought out of applicants homes or are just growing, so the applicants have no experience with actually talking with a professional. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there can be some flexibility in the mentoring requirements. Jim Kitchen said the goal was to spend Orange County's money wisely, and to ensure that if money was taken, the applicants would have the support to do something useful with it. Commissioner Price said she thinks the mentoring is good, but she wonders if the mentorship is too long. She suggested checking in with applicants after 4 months. Commissioner Price asked if business owners are required to be an Orange County resident. Jim Kitchen said the business has to be located in Orange County, but the owner does not. Commissioner Price said Orange County already has a precedent for the grant amounts, if you consider the arts commission, which has a $1,500 grant without further reporting. She is okay with $1,000 or $1,500 for a grant. Commissioner porosin said $1,500 is more acceptable to him, but he thinks it should be higher. Commissioner Price asked if there will be an online application. Jim Kitchen and Steve Brantley answered yes. Commissioner Jacobs thanked the group for their proposals. He suggested inclusion of a statement that Orange County encourages a diverse workforce and values paying a living wage. He suggested a stand-alone statement, possibly on page 7 or 8, under "compliance and regulations." He said this could be just an affirmative statement at the end. Commissioner Rich asked that staff work with the other towns to make sure they know that this is going into effect and to get the word out to the community. Chair McKee noted the discussion about the amount for the smaller grant, and he asked staff to bring back a recommendation on this. He asked that Commissioner Jacob's suggestion regarding the statement on diversity and a living wage be included. Agricultural Economic Development Grant Program (attachment c) Karen McAdams is the agricultural representative on this board, and she said this grant is similar to the previous grant, but there are also some differences. She said the grant is to increase farm income. She said there is a diverse and strong agricultural realm in Orange County and this is an exciting time. Karen McAdams said the proposed application borrows heavily from the Rural Advancement Foundation application for their tobacco trust fund grants. She said her staff expects to process grant applications quarterly and to review this process in 6 to 12 months and tweak it, as needed. Karen McAdams said diversity will be considered in the selection process, with the types of projects and with the recipients. She said the grant subcommittee has suggested having members from the economic development advisory committee, as well as folks from the agricultural community. She said it has come to her attention that the agricultural preservation board would like to have input as well. She said input is welcomed from the Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff has considered asking applicants whether their proposed enterprise will fill an unaddressed niche in the local agricultural economy. Karen McAdams said this question can be added. Commissioner Jacobs said the present use value system subsidizes farmers, because they pay a lower property tax. He said the people who do not qualify for the present use value but are producers have to pay full County property tax. He asked about the possibility of giving a targeted boost to these people who are not able to benefit from the use value system. Chair McKee asked if targeting would be allowed in this program. John Roberts said this is a grant program, and he does not see a reason why targeting could not be done. Karen McAdams said this suggestion will be considered. Commissioner Price said she would request that this application be online. She said her concern is the amount of detail that is required to get$1000. She wonders if it is possible to streamline the process. Karen McAdams said the goal is to be good stewards of the County's money and to make sure that applicants are able to do something that will add more agricultural jobs and will get something done. Commissioner Price said she does not want anyone to be scared away by the application. Karen McAdams said this has been discussed, and this is why the agricultural application is different from the business grant. Commissioner Pelissier noted that this application asks the applicant to find their own mentor. She suggested that applicants should be able to get direction on where to find assistance. Commissioner Pelissier said she does not think the criteria should be heavily based on innovation. She said the idea is to get more income, and there may be areas where the market still needs to be filled. Commissioner Jacobs said he would hope that staff would help people avoid running their heads into a competitive wall where the niche is already filled or saturated. He hopes the applicants are given guidance to steer them to places where they can be successful. Commissioner Jacobs expressed his thanks to staff for moving this forward. Commissioner Price asked where an applicant would go if they wanted to manufacture strawberry jam, and whether this would be an agricultural grant or a small business loan. Karen McAdams said this question has not been addressed yet. Chair McKee said he is one of the operations that enjoy the use value process. He said he would not want a detrimental effect to the small farmers who do not enjoy this use value, but he also does not want to see a mark against an operation that does use it. He said it is important to look at each individual operation on a stand-alone basis. Chair McKee thanked the staff for being conscientious about the use of the County's money. 3. FY 2015-16 Budqet Assumptions/Fiscal Outlook/Budqet Update Bonnie Hammersley presented the following PowerPoint slides on the overview of the budget process for 2015-16: ORANGE COUNTY FY2015-16 BUDGET Orientation Presentation Outline ■ FinancialOverview ■ Financial Projections ■ FY2015-16 Budget Process FY2015-16 Budget Goals • Structurally Balanced Budget • Implement Team Approach • Enhance Transparency and Communication • Maintain or Improve Service Levels General Fund GROWTH (Bar Graph) General Fund Revenues (Bar Graph) General Fund Expenditures (Bar Graph) General Fund Appropriated Fund Balance (Bar Graph) BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS • State Impact • Local Revenue • Cost to Continue State Budget Impact • Social Services • Public Safety • School Funding • Weakening Revenue Modest revenue growth • Property Taxes • Sales Tax COST TO CONTINUE • Personnel Cost - Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) -Work Performance Planning Review (WPPR) • Benefits - Health Insurance - Retirement • Ongoing Obligations - Consumer Price Index (CPI) impact • Reserve Levels - Actuarial requirement - Financial Policies Budget GUIDELINES • Maintain Current Appropriation • BE CREATIVE • Present at least one (1) collaboration opportunity FY2015-16 Budget Schedule (Chart) Conclusion Orange County exists to provide governmental services requested by our Residents or mandated by the State of North Carolina. To provide these quality services efficiently, we must; ■ Serve the Residents of Orange County— Our Residents Come First; ■ Depend on the energy, skills, and dedication of all our employees and volunteers; ■ Treat all our Residents and Employees with fairness, respect, and understanding. Oranqe County Residents Come First Bonnie Hammersley said the general fund growth slide illustrates the recession well, and the data supports the theory that government is about two years behind. She noted that anticipated federal and state grants are not included in the budget process. She said once grants are actually received, the budget is then amended. Bonnie Hammersley said the general fund revenues do exceed the adopted budget by an average of 2 to 3 percent. She said the general fund expenditures slide shows the practice of under-expending in the adopted budget. She said there is a six month vacancy freeze that is in place, and no value was placed on that, so that is part of the reason for the under-expenditure, which averages about 5 percent. She said she will be looking at this to determine whether some of the controls can be loosened up a little on these expenditures. Commissioner porosin asked if these two slides are showing that the County is bringing in more money than expected, and spending less money than expected. Bonnie Hammersley answered yes. Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the general fund appropriated fund balance. She said general fund balance has accumulated over the last few years, as it has been appropriated but not spent. She said the balance shown for 2015 is an accumulation of 2012, 2013, and 2014, as well as some additional fund balance. Bonnie Hammersley said the state impact for budget assumptions is where the County has the least amount of control and the most amount of uncertainty. She said there are issues with social service and the child care fund. She said there are public safety issues with state inmates and the possibility that they might be pushed into County jails. Bonnie Hammersley said there are issues with school funding, and specifically with drivers' education, which is an unfunded mandate. Bonnie Hammersley said there has been a swing in the property values, and properties in Orange County are currently selling at 1 percent over assessed values. She said staff is looking at a 1 percent growth in property taxes, which would amount to about$1 million more in the budget, but it is still early. Bonnie Hammersley said sales tax is one of the most unpredictable revenue sources. She said a change from point of sale to per capita has been discussed. She said if this change was made, Orange County would benefit from it, as it benefits rural counties. She said current projections give a conservative estimate of 3 to 5 percent, which would be somewhere near $1 million. Chair McKee said he has heard there is going to be a real push from the rural counties on the reallocation of the sales tax. He said it is important to note that this is going to be a major point of discussion. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this has been addressed by the legislative goals committee. Commissioner Pelissier said no. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that this might be a good time to bring it up. Bonnie Hammersley said cost to continue projections will likely come very late in the process. Bonnie Hammersley said the health insurance plan is currently in a fiscally positive position. Bonnie Hammersley said the consumer price index (CPI) has declined .6 percent since July of 2014, due to energy costs. Bonnie Hammersley said actuarial reviews are done on an annual basis to determine the reserve levels for health insurance. She said there is a stop loss requirement of$100,000, after which the health insurance provider kicks in. She said the actuarial review makes sure the reserves are at a level that will allow claims to be paid. Bonnie Hammersley said she has not included the schools in the cost to continue. She said that is part of this budget, but she is waiting to hear from the schools on their requests. Commissioner porosin asked about the past OPEB discussions. Bonnie Hammersley said she will bring a recommendation on this in the next budget discussion. Bonnie Hammersley said she has not had to ask department directors to cut their budgets. She said she has asked the department directors to bring forward additional requests, and she will consider the big picture and determine if there are things that can be done above and beyond the current appropriations. She reviewed the budget schedule, and she reminded the Board that the budget is a plan, and it is good to have contingency plans in place for each department, in case things do not go as anticipated. She said these contingency plans are renewed on an annual basis. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the goal of being creative, and he asked if department heads are allowed to move funding within their budgets to address issues or changes without waiting for the next fiscal year. Bonnie Hammersley said yes. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is any opportunity for Bonnie Hammersley to represent the department heads and give a presentation on the current appropriations and possible issues and areas of interest. Bonnie Hammersley said there will be individual meetings, but if that does not work, there are other tools to provide that information to the Board. 4. County Commissioners — Boards and Commissions Assiqnments Chair McKee said this is the chance to shuffle the deck a little bit and choose the boards and commissions that the Commissioners would like to work on. Chair McKee referred to page three of the yellow abstract, and he noted the governing policy regarding the round robin members. He said that officers can remain, and Commissioner Pelissier is the secretary for the Triangle Transit Board, and Commissioner Rich is the finance officer for the Visitor's Bureau. He said their names are to be marked to hold those positions. Chair McKee referred to the bottom of page 4 and top of page 5. He said Joint Orange- Chatham Community Action (JOCCA) is shown as a board for which continued participation needs to be decided. He said he is not sure any changes should be made here, and he noted that Commissioner Price is the current representative. He said what is not shown in this decision list is the library subcommittee on inter-local agreements/elected officials. He said he is not sure that there was ever a process to choose the two additional Commissioner members for this committee. He suggested, since there will be ongoing discussions with Chapel Hill regarding the Southern Branch Library and funding for the Chapel Hill Library, that this subcommittee be moved to become a standing committee and that it be included in the choices tonight. Donna Baker said this has been a floating committee that started with the interlocal agreement with Chapel Hill. Chair McKee said there needs to be consensus on what to do with this. He asked if the Board would like to add this to the list of choices with the other boards and commissions. There was consensus to add this to the list with a change of name to "Library Subcommittee/Elected Officials." Discussion ensued regarding the Commissioners' committee participation. Choices are noted in the chart below: BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER BOCC Member Serving 2015 Currently Serving -2014 STATUTORY ABC Board Monthly, Third Commissioner Not Commissioner Commissioner Tues 8:30 AM Required (non- Dorosin Burroughs voting member) Board of Health Monthly, Fourth 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Wed Required Pelissier - Burroughs 7:00 PM Member Board of Social Monthly, Third 2 appointees Chair McKee— Chair McKee Services Mon 4:00 PM Commissioner not Member required but usually a Commissioner Citizen-Already serves appointed Community 1 Commissioner or Chair McKee Chair McKee Oversight Board designee (part of OPC 1 Consumer/Family Community member Operations Center) 1 Citizen/ Stakeholder INTERGOVERNME NTAL and OTHER GROUPS WITH BOCC MEMBERS Burlington/Graham Requires Commissioner Commissioner MPO 1 Commissioner Jacobs-Member Jacobs— Transportation member member Advisory 1 Alternate Chair McKee - Committee Commissioner Alternate alternate-OPEN Communities in Monthly, Fourth 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Schools Wed 3:00-5:00 Required Dorosin Burroughs PM Community Home Monthly 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Trust BOD Required Rich- Member Price Durham-Chapel Monthly- second Requires OPEN-Member Commissioner Hill-Carrboro- Wed. 1 Commissioner Jacobs— Metropolitan Member Member Planning Chair Jacobs- Organization 1 Alternate Alternate Commissioner (MPO)- Commissioner Price -Alternate Transportation Advisory Committee Durham- Orange- Commissioner Chapel Hill Work Rich Group Commissioner Price Durham Tech Quarterly 2 Appointees—one Commissioner Commissioner Board of Trustees can be a Price — Member Price Commissioner but doesn't have to be Citizen already appointed Fire Chief's Bi-monthly—first Commissioner not Chair McKee Chair McKee Association of Weds.-7pm required as member Orange County — but can attend as guest(s) Healthy Carolinians Meets quarterly Commissioner not Commissioner Commissioner (3�d Thursdays at required —often Dorosin Pelissier 8:30am) same BOCC Member as on the Board of Health HOME Program Quarterly 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Review Committee Required Price Dorosin Intergovernmental Meets 3 times per 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Parks Work Group year at 5:30pm Member Jacobs /OPEN Rich — member 1 Alternate Commissioner Commissioner porosin - alternate JCPC (Orange 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner County Juvenile Pelissier Burroughs Crime Prevention Council) Library Committee- Chair McKee Elected Officials Commissioner Jacobs Orange County Bi-Monthly-last 1 Commissioner - Commissioner Commissioner Partnership for Wed of month- at Board of Directors Dorosin - Dorosin Young Children 8:30am Member Small Business Meets as needed 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Loan Program when a McKee Dorosin thoroughly vetted application has been received. Partnership to End Monthly -1 St Wed. 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Homelessness at 5:30pm member Pelissier Pelissier TJCOG Commissioner Rich — member Chair McKee - Alternate Triangle Area Rural Bi-monthly 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Planning Member Price —Member- Price - Chair Organization 1 Alternate CHAIR (TARPO) Commissioner Transportation Commissioner Advisory Pelissier - Committee Alternate Triangle Transit Monthly—4t May appoint a Commissioner Commissioner Board of Trustees Wednesday Commissioner or Pelissier - Pelissier— 1:OOpm-5:OOpm Commissioner- Secretary Secretary appointed citizen Workforce Meets monthly in Does not require a Nancy Coston — Nancy Coston Development Board Asheboro Commissioner- DSS Director — Regional usually has been 1 Partnership Non-Voting Liaison Visitor's Bureau Monthly—Third 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Wed Required Rich — Member- Rich 8:00 AM Finance Officer BOARDS TO WHICH BOCC HAS ALREADY MADE APPOINTMENTS for 2015 NACo Voting 1 Commissioner Commissioner Delegate Required Price NCACC Voting 1 Commissioner Commissioner Delegate Required Price Triangle Transit 2 Commissioners Commissioner Special Tax Board required Pelissier and open LIWG ( Legislative 2 Commissioners Commissioner Issues Work Group) Price and Commissioner Pelissier SHORT TERM TASK FORCES/WORKG ROUPS Alternatives to Jail Meets as needed 2 Commissioners Commissioner Assessment Work Jacobs and Group Commissioner Pelissier Cedar Grove Meets as needed 2 Commissioners Commissioner Advisory Board Jacobs and Meeting Commissioner Price Family Success Meets as needed 2 Commissioners Commissioner Alliance Dorosin and Commissioner Pelissier Strategic Meets as needed 2 Commissioners Commissioner Communications Discussion of Rich and OPEN Work Group topic to be held at Feb. 10th work session Solid Waste Meets as needed 2 Commissioners Commissioner Advisory Group Jacobs and (SWAG) Commissioner Rich Space Study Work Meets as needed 2 Commissioners Chair McKee Group and Commissioner Price EX-OFFICIO Hillsborough/Orang Chair Serves e County Chamber of Commerce- does not require a Commissioner NC DOT Quarterly Chair/Vice Meetings Chair School Chair/Vice Collaboration Chair Meetings Officers NCACC Board of Commissioner Directors Price TARPO Commissioner Price - Chair Triangle Transit Commissioner Board of Trustees Pelissier— Secretary thru September 2015 Visitor's Bureau Commissioner Rich — Finance Chair— Executive Committee Boards to be decided on/chosen at future work session JOCCA- need to Meets Quarterly 1 Commissioner Commissioner decide whether to in Pittsboro at Or Price continue 5:30pm - Citizen participation Boards — Not Meeting at this time Efland Mebane One meeting 1 Commissioner Small Area Plan scheduled for Implementation February 2, 2015 Focus Group Historic Rogers Not meeting at 2 Commissioners Commissioner Road Task Force this time Rich and Commissioner Price Hollow Rock Park Not meeting at 2 Commissioners Planning this time- Committee Per conversation with Dave Stancil –the interlocal agreement discussion is scheduled for the 2/17/15 BOCC meeting Library Services Has not met 2 Commissioners Task Force since 2009— suggestion to sunset and re- create, if needed at a later date Solid Waste Meets as needed 1 Commissioner Suspended Management Plan Until further Work Group direction Solid Waste How is this May be re- Interlocal different from constituted at a Agreement– SWAG? later date Elected Leaders Work Group Chair McKee said JOCCA will be discussed at a future work session. He said there is a question about continued participation. Donna Baker said there are some unanswered questions regarding funding. Commissioner Price said there are some issues and it would be tragic to drop it at this time. She said it would be good to discuss this. She said there has been discussion of submitting a grant application. Bonnie Hammersley said part of her upcoming conversation with the Chatham County manager will be regarding JOCCA. Chair McKee asked if Commissioner Price would continue as the JOCCA representative until a decision is made. A motion was made by Commissioner porosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board Orange County Board of Commissioners' regular meetings and work sessions are available via live streaming video at oranqecountync.qov/occlerks/qranicus.asp and Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Time Warner Cable).