HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 05-05-2015 - 6aSUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT:
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: May 5, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 6 -a
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y /N) No
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245 -2130
I
PURPOSE: To correct and /or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
March 26, 2015 Assembly of Governments Meeting
March 26, 2015 Joint Meeting with the Town of Chapel Hill
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A -42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
2
3 DRAFT
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Attachment 1
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
March 26, 2015
ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Towns of Chapel Hill,
Carrboro and Hillsborough for an Assembly of Governments meeting on Thursday, March 26,
2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl 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 members will be
identified appropriately below)
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS /STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, Ed
Harrison, Jim Ward, Lee Storrow, George Cianciolo, Maria Palmer, Donna Bell, Sally Greene
and Town Manager Roger Stancil
CHAPEL HILLTOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT:
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS /STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Lydia Lavelle,
Aldermen Damien Seils, Jacquelyn Gist, Michelle Johnson, Randee Haven O'Donnell, Sammy
Slade, Bethany Chaney and Town Manager David Andrews
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Jacquelyn Gist
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS /STAFF PRESENT: Town Commissioners
Eric Hallman, Brian Lowen, Evelyn Lloyd, Kathleen Ferguson, Jan Wenn, and Town Manager
Eric Peterson
TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mayor Tom Stevens and Evelyn
Lloyd
Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
Welcome and Opening Remarks
Chair McKee said there is only one item on this agenda tonight and that is the Solid
Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) presentation of the solid waste program fee options. He asked
the Mayors and the Town of Hillsborough Mayor Pro Tern for their comments.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said the SWAG has been working on this for nine months, and he is
happy for the opportunity to have this conversation with the elected officials
Mayor Lavelle noted that Jacquelyn Gist would not be able to attend tonight.
Mayor Pro Tern Brian Lowen said he looked forward to coming to an amicable
agreement, and he noted that Mayor Stevens was not able to attend tonight.
Chair McKee asked Commissioner Jacobs, as Chair of the SWAG, to lead off the
conversation.
2
1 1. Solid Waste Program Fee Options Recommendation — Solid Waste Advisory
2 Group
3 Commissioner Jacobs said the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) has been meeting
4 since August of 2014, and he asked the members to acknowledge themselves by raising their
5 hands.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said there has been good joint participation by staffs. He said
7 work has been done on basic agreements, and there has been discussion about the fees for
8 basic recycling. He said everyone agreed to do things in a way that would make it easy for all
9 of the governments to budget for this coming fiscal year with regard to any fees.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said the group started out with four staff proposals for possible
11 fees for the recycling program, and then this was reduced down to two options. He introduced
12 Gayle Wilson to review these choices.
13 Gayle Wilson said option 1 and option 2 are similar in that the revenue requirements are
14 the same, but are achieved in a slightly different way.
15 He reviewed the following information from the abstract attachments regarding the two
16 options:
17
18 Option 1 is a two part annual fee; One Comprehensive Solid Waste Program Fee for all
19 Municipal Units - $94 /year (based on FY 14/15 budget revenue requirement), and One
20 Comprehensive Solid Waste Program Fee for all Rural units - $118 /year (based on FY 14/15
21 budget revenue requirement).
22 Option 1 would establish an urban fee and a rural fee that would be applied to each developed
23 property and multi - family units throughout the county, including tax exempt properties, except
24 for UNC -CH properties that are served by the University's separate recycling program. Option 1
25 would incorporate an approximate 33% solid waste convenience center costs into the urban fee
26 component and an approximate 66% solid waste convenience center costs into the Rural fee
27 component.
28
29 Option One:
30 e Simplified fee structure
31 e Easy to administer, manage, and explain
32 e Includes phased expansion of rural curbside service, increasing recycling and waste
33 reduction rate
34 e Flexibility in providing services without being constrained by rigid categories
35 e Example: If a business is located on a residential route (urban or rural) and generates
36 recyclables in quantities similar to a residence, it can be assigned to a residential route
37 without concern that there is not an appropriate fee category.
38
39 Key Factors
40 • Rural curbside service is proposed to be phased in to entire unincorporated area over three
41 year period, equalizing services by the fourth year. The rural fee will increase incrementally over
42 phasing period.
43 • Efforts to provide more equitable services among all the program users could be implemented
44 over time by improving service efficiencies and availability of services.
45 • Single family, multi - family and developed non - residential property owners in the rural sector
46 pay $24 more than property owners in the urban sector.
47
48 Option 2 is a Single Comprehensive Fee - $103 /year (based on FY -14/15 budget revenue
49 requirement) that would be applied equally to all developed properties and multi - family units
50 throughout the county, including tax exempt properties, except for UNC -CH properties that are
I served by the University's separate recycling program. Option 2 would evenly distribute solid
2 waste convenience center costs across all sectors.
3
4 Option 2
5 e Most simplified fee structure
6 e Easiest option to administer, manage, and explain
7 e Includes phased expansion of rural curbside service, increasing recycling and waste
8 reduction rate
9 0 Flexibility in providing services without being constrained by rigid categories is
10 maximized
11 0 Example: If a business is located on a residential route (urban or rural) and generates
12 recyclables in quantities similar to a residence, it can be assigned to a residential route
13 without regard to changing
14
15 Key Factors
16 • Rural curbside service is proposed to be phased in to entire unincorporated area over three
17 year period, equalizing services by the fourth year. The program fee will increase incrementally
18 over phasing period.
19 • All developed properties pay the same amount, although eligibility for services may vary
20 between jurisdictions and sectors.
21 • Efforts to provide more equitable services among all the program users could be implemented
22 over time by improving service efficiencies and availability of services.
23 • This option presents a new funding paradigm and new way of viewing solid waste program
24 funding by offering a singular fee. This holistic approach to funding eliminates any division
25 between rural and urban boundaries, creating a truly integrated and comprehensive approach
26 to program funding county -wide.
27
28 Universal Elements for Both Options
29 • Undeveloped properties do not pay a fee.
30 • All developed properties including tax - exempt properties pay a fee.
31 • The fee structure is stable and predictable.
32 • Fee impacts for potential service expansions, improvements, and changes can be easily
33 determined and made available for elected boards to consider.
34 • Some property owners may consider the proposed fee rates a significant increase because no
35 fee for rural or urban curbside service or multi - family service has been assessed for the past
36 two years.
37 • Failure of elected boards to approve a funding mechanism for the FY 2015 -16 Budget may
38 lead to suspension of services or further debiting of the solid waste landfill closure and post -
39 closure reserves account.
40 • Orange County will continue to provide financial assistance for qualifying low- income residents
41 who are unable to pay for solid waste program fees. In 2014, approximately 700 parcels were
42 provided assistance through the County's 3R Fee Financial Assistance program.
43 • Funding option proposals are based on FY 2014 -15 budget revenue requirements. For FY
44 2015 -16, minor fee adjustments may be implemented to align with the actual FY 2015 -16
45 budget revenue requirements.
46
47 Gayle Wilson noted that the current year's budget was used in this analysis, and the
48 fees in the packet reflect calculations based on the current year solid waste budget and
49 expenditures. He said the rate of the fee could vary next year once the new budget is
50 completed.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
M
Mayor Kleinschmidt noted the fact that the Solid Waste Convenience Center (SWCC)
fees allocated to the rural portion of option 1 is twice that of the municipal portion. He said the
basic 3 -r fee for the municipal portion looks to be about 70 percent lower than the rural fee for
that amount. He said he wants to be fair in noting the substantial differences in the basic fees
in option 1.
Council Member Bell arrived at 7:11 pm.
Commissioner Burroughs asked for more information about the services included in the
fee.
Gayle Wilson said the basic fee includes almost everything except the urban curbside,
rural curbside and the multifamily program. He said the fee includes the food waste collection
program, commercial services, park and ride lot collections, parks collections, government
building collections, unstaffed recycling drop -off centers, hazardous waste and electronics
collection, several landfill based recycling services, as well as education and outreach.
Alderman Slade arrived at 7:13pm.
Chair McKee opened the floor for comments.
Alderman Slade said his original perspective on this was to choose an option that
reflects where the costs are located. He said, as he has further looked at the formulas, he feels
it is a rough way to allocate costs based on the number of people in the rural and urban areas.
He said this does not reflect the costs he would want to have reflected in a fee, specifically with
regard to fuel costs.
He said he is not sure which option he prefers, but he would like for this group to
consider either option as a pilot option. He said this would allow a fee to be put in place before
the deadline, given the amount that has already been drawn funds from the landfill closing fund.
Alderman Slade said he is not sure if the costs for the roll out carts were paid for by the
rural residents, but his understanding is that both rural and urban will be paying for this in the
universal option, whereas it would be separated in the other option. He said the rural option
would be a 3 to 5 percent increase over the next three years and then would taper off. He said
this would mean residents would pay about $20 more on top of an already increased amount,
and he felt this needs to be considered in the deliberation.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said he likes the idea of a pilot program. He said the SWAG was
challenged by using the data to justify the fee. He said the two main conversation drivers were
equity and the principle that everyone is in this together with the goal of promoting increased
recycling.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said he and the other Chapel Hill representative, Council Member
Ward, were struck by the way the fees are structured for the funding of the SWCCs. He said
these fees supplement the general fund contribution from Orange County, and with both
options 35 percent of the proposed fee would go to support the SWCCs. A survey was done to
determine who uses these centers, and the snapshot showed the municipal residents make up
11 percent of the users. He said the $1.8 million in general funds from the County comes
largely from the municipal residents. He said 42 percent is from the Town of Chapel Hill
residents. He said there were some concerns about this as it related to equity.
Mayor Kleinschmidt said both options have 35 percent going to the SWCCs, and he and
Council Member Ward saw this as a compromise. He said the two fee system is a better
compromise.
Alderman Johnson arrived at 7:23pm.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Mayor Kleinschmidt said it would be easier to pilot a program with two fees rather than a
single fee. He said his Town Council has talked about this and felt that it would be more
difficult to change a fee once it is implemented as a single fee. He said data could continue to
be gathered over a pilot period in order to determine whether the fee structure should be further
adjusted.
Council Member Ward said Mayor Kleinschmidt summarized it well. He said he
articulated at the SWAG meetings as a representative of his constituents, that option 1 more
closely sets the fee rate at the cost of services that the citizens are actually getting. He said
the snapshot survey does show that Chapel Hill is paying more for the SWCCs than the citizens
actually use. He said there is no need to parse that out at this time, and the Town is supportive
of option 1 on a trial basis of one year. He said the goal would be to have the SWAG continue
to look at this issue or to investigate this trial period later in the year in order to make a more
informed decision for 2016 -17.
Mayor Lavelle said, at the SWAG meetings, she was in favor of funding option 2. She
liked the idea of roll out carts going to everyone and the idea of establishing a holistic
countywide approach. She found it difficult to look at all of the services that Orange County
provides and to parse out those things that benefitted County residents versus urban residents.
She said she looks at this as a countywide effort; everyone pays property taxes, and everyone
pays the same fee. She said the survey illustrates that people in the County are continuing to
use the SWCCs more because they do not have roll out carts yet. She said there has been a
21 percent increase in recycling with the rollout carts in the urban areas, and there may be such
an increase with the rollout to the County. In her view, it feels like it makes more sense to go
forward with one fee.
Commissioner Price said she concurs with Mayor Lavelle. She said option 2 is fair to
everyone. She said some services are just basic to the County. She pays for education in the
County and she is glad to do it, even though she does not have children in the system. She
said she feels there should be a flat fee for everyone.
Town Commissioner Wenn said she is supportive of a flat fee. She said any countywide
issues are in need of countywide support, and a flat fee is an easier sale to their constituents.
Town Commissioner Ferguson said the other element that she felt was important was to
encourage usage. She said there are rural residents who have concerns with the higher fees.
She said the single fee lowers the barrier to usage, which has an impact. She said this needs
to be looked at holistically.
Commissioner Pelissier said she supports a flat fee. She said the goal is to get people
to recycle for all of the environmental benefits. She said equity is not the primary goal here, but
it is equity to say that there is a flat fee for everyone in this County. She said part of this is a
perception issue, and she would not want to tell farmers and other rural residents that they have
to pay more because they live in a rural environment.
Alderman O'Donnell said everyone is in this together as a county, and she supports the
flat fee. She is a teacher and she spends time teaching kids to understand that the mindset
should not just be about taking care of their own recycling. She said the goal is to get people to
understand the value of taking care of the existing waste as a whole as well as individually.
She said the flat fee says that we are going to take care of recycling together as a County.
Commissioner Burroughs said she has become increasingly focused on the $9
difference between option 1 and option 2. She thinks of this $9 and the constituency, and this
amount could be a struggle for some people. She said she wants to work together to help
struggling homeowners. She said it is important to focus on what that $9 means and to whom it
means something.
D
I Mayor Kleinschmidt said these are all good responses, and it is important to improve
2 recycling capabilities countywide, but he does not want to miss an important aspect of this
3 decision. He said both options provide for the increased curbside recycling, and neither option
4 creates a barrier for people because of where they live. He said a lot of this comes down to
5 solid waste convenience centers, and these centers provide a broader service than just
6 recycling. He said the primary use of these centers is the disposal of municipal solid waste. He
7 said the residents of the towns pay a portion, through their taxes, for the disposal of their
8 household waste. He said Chapel Hill is satisfied with 35 percent of the fee supporting the
9 SWCC, because this moves toward the mindset of being in it together.
10 Mayor Kleinschmidt said if people believe there is a barrier related to option 1, he would
11 like to hear that articulated, because he does not understand what that is.
12 Commissioner Rich said there are options for people who can't afford these fees.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said Orange County is currently assisting 700 households.
14 Commissioner Rich gave an example of the Rogers Road area where one side of the
15 street would pay one fee and the other side another fee. She said this is a picture of how
16 equity does not always work out. She said this same scenario happened with the roll carts and
17 this, along with the discussions of the SWAG is part of what convinced her to go with the flat
18 fee.
19 Commissioner Rich said a decision does not have to be made tonight.
20 Chair McKee said this will be a discussion tonight and then it will be taken back to their
21 respective boards for final decisions. He said a decision will need to be made within a timeline
22 that adheres to the budgets moving forward.
23 Town Commissioner Ferguson said the situation in Hillsborough is similar to the Rogers
24 Road situation, but there are neighbors with lots beside each other that have different fees.
25 She said the $22 difference is greater than the $9 savings. She said the per capita income
26 tends to be lower in the County. She said we are in this together and this difference does
27 create a barrier and an artificial us versus them mentality.
28 Council Member Bell said there are many times where it is clear that we are not all in
29 this together. She said in the end, this may be a conversation about supporting a unified
30 recycling service. She said the town pays more taxes and then certain things are harder and
31 easier when you live in the County. She said neither of these options is onerous, and they are
32 divided by the thinnest of lines. She said the question is who will be the unifying voice. She
33 said it is a good idea to use option 1 for a year to see how it works, and it is easier to move
34 from a two tier system to a one tier system if changes are necessary. She said there is a larger
35 conversation to have about supporting one another and being in this together.
36 Town Council Member Palmer said the trash problem needs to be solved long term.
37 She said this is taking pieces of huge environmental and social justice issues and trying to
38 figure out how to make progress. She said her neighbors in the County understand the
39 differences associated with living there. She said if there is any confusion, people can be
40 educated about this.
41 She said most of the people in Chapel Hill who would struggle to pay for the fee would
42 not be among the 700 people who apply for assistance. She said most of these people are
43 renting, and the owners will just up the rent to cover the fee. She said there is a lot that Chapel
44 Hill could do with $212,000 to help its residents.
45 Town Council Member Palmer said it would be important to have people in place to
46 explain the fees to residents. She said she is hoping that this ends up as one fee, but she
47 understands the difficulty of explaining the taxes and fees to residents, some of whom are
48 struggling. She suggested a trial period with monitoring.
49 Alderman Chaney said she agreed that this program is a system, and it is not a la carte.
50 She said residents can choose whether or not to access the system. She said it is also
7
1 foundational to the solid waste program in reducing the waste stream, and because of this she
2 is less inclined to agree that it makes sense to pay proportionally. She said it is important to
3 send a message about the value of reducing the waste stream. She said she does not want to
4 ask people to pay more for the services that they do not have, when those same people have
5 been subsidizing those services by others by virtue of the fact that they have not had them.
6 She said there have been investments in the towns before the rural areas, and this investment
7 has included the wear and tear on rural resident's cars as they travel to the convenience
8 centers, and it has been on their time and the neglect on the waste stream in rural areas. She
9 said the towns are just going to return that investment.
10 Alderman Chaney said the fee is going to be lower under either one of these options,
11 and single family properties will pay lower fees, so a lot of people will already see savings. She
12 said both plans put a higher burden on the commercial sector, and to some degree, the multi -
13 family sector, which is somewhat troubling. However, she said these are also the sectors with
14 the highest burden on the system. She said single fee system allows a reduction in stress on
15 some users, and sends a clear message to others that the goal is increasing service and better
16 meeting needs. She said she is not opposed to a pilot program, but she thinks this pilot should
17 be the single fee system, and it should be for three years, to allow for more data. She said the
18 data should be about real cost, and if fuel cost is going to be considered, the fuel cost for
19 residents using the SWCC should be considered.
20 Commissioner Price said she agreed with Alderman Chaney. She noted that option 1
21 will mean that rural residents will pay $24 more for a service they will not get for three years,
22 and this is unfair.
23 Commissioner Dorosin said the two tiered system is inherently divisive. He said this is a
24 place where a one - size - fits -all would work. He said he is not sure a pilot program is needed,
25 but if it is, it would need to go longer than a year. He said everyone feels there is some service
26 they are subsidizing but not using. He said a single fee makes sense, and this is where it
27 should start.
28 Commissioner Jacobs said the County does subsidize 700 households, and this could
29 be looked at as just the start. He said one component that is not quantified is the educational
30 component, and this could be built upon.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said there are a lot of issues involved in the solid waste
32 enterprise that could do with more analysis. He does not understand the necessity of a pilot
33 program, but he thinks there should be a requirement to scrutinize all of the numbers and
34 assumptions. He said Orange County will be upgrading and re- opening the Eubanks SWCC
35 next year, and the number of users from the towns will increase over time. He said the smart
36 thing to do is to take a comprehensive look at this as it goes along, and there may be a need
37 for reasonable changes to some of these components. He said these are the numbers and
38 data that have to be used right now.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said there are many other weighty issues, but recycling is
40 something that everyone agrees is a high value for the community. He said nothing has to be
41 decided tonight, but it will be important next week for the respective boards to have given some
42 indication of where they want this to go.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said that he went into the process with the SWAG thinking that
44 either option was fine, but he was persuaded by other representatives about the benefit of one
45 flat fee. Commissioner Jacobs said too much has been spent talking about the urban -rural
46 divide. He said there is also too much time spent talking about who is putting something over
47 on someone else. He said it is important to be united and look at the bigger picture. He said
48 this is an example of how to start moving in that direction.
49 Commissioner Jacobs said he has been convinced to go with option 2.
I Town Council Member Cianciolo said he came out of the council meeting feeling like he
2 could go with either option. He said the SWCC equity issue does not concern him very much,
3 and he can make an argument that these are a valued asset for the entire County. He said it is
4 important to work together more, and he noted that there are 75 percent more citizens living in
5 the City of Durham than there are in the whole of Orange County, and there is also competition
6 with things happening at the state level. He said the council members would have to sell the
7 single fee option to residents if that is what is chosen.
8 He said a recent report listed Orange County as the healthiest county in the state. He
9 said having people drive less frequently to drop off their trash should have a positive effect on
10 the environment, and this is one of the things that can be discussed in convincing the
11 community of the value. He has no objections to the single fee with option 2.
12 Alderman Seils said this is an opportunity to do something positive for all residents in
13 Orange County. He said this will expand recycling and do something everyone can feel good
14 about. He said it is important to create opportunities to participate in the program, and the feels
15 the two tier program is divisive. He is supportive of the flat fee option.
16 Town Council Member Palmer asked Alderman Chaney about her earlier comment and
17 how people would be saving money.
18 Alderman Chaney said she based this on the information on the spreadsheet attached
19 to their agenda abstract.
20 Gayle Wilson said there are some winners and losers in this process. He said single
21 family homeowners in the towns will be paying less than the rural areas, but the urban multi -
22 family will be paying more. He read through these numbers from the chart.
23 Gayle Wilson said generally the single family homes are paying less and non - residential
24 and multi - family dwellings will be paying more.
25 Town Council Member Palmer said she did not study the chart well enough to see the
26 cost savings, and she feels that her Council needs to discuss this further. She expressed
27 appreciation for this discussion.
28 Mayor Kleinschmidt said this has been a good discussion, and it has given everyone a
29 chance to talk about what they care about most. He said it is possible to be respectful of the
30 differing views and recognize the value of the principles that everyone brings to these
31 conversations, and this will lead to a more satisfying outcome.
32 Mayor Kleinschmidt said the Chapel Hill Town Council has some things to talk about.
33 He does not see any difference in these two options creating barriers, and he would appreciate
34 hearing how option 1 creates barriers to the larger goal. He does have concerns about the
35 County's general waste stream being funded disproportionately from this fee. He would like to
36 see his colleagues continue to provide comments and perspective.
37 Chair McKee said this has been the best AOG meeting he has attended in the last five
38 years. He said the points have been well stated and respectful. He said the County has a
39 great recycling program now, and everyone in the room wants to make it better. He said he
40 originally thought this goal could not be reached, but he sees now that the target will be
41 reached, and possibly exceeded.
42 Chair McKee said some good points were made about the convenience centers, and he
43 thinks the center on Eubanks Road is going to provide a better service.
44 Chair McKee said he is supportive of the single fee. He said there is no way to make it
45 fair for every person in the County, but this is a good place to start.
46 Town Council Member Palmer asked about the timeline going forward.
47 Bonnie Hammersley said the SWAG will be meeting on April 1 st and will make a
48 recommendation for the respective governing boards to decide on.
49 Chair McKee said the point for tonight was to lay concerns on the table. He said
50 everyone is moving into budget season, so there are decisions to be made.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
0
Council Member Ward said his perspective is that if he goes for the flat fee option, it
means getting the less divisive option by asking Chapel Hill taxpayers to pay more for a service
they are not getting. He asked for clarification on this fiscal iniquity. He said right now he is
unwilling to ask his constituents to pay more for a one fee system. He said the figures being
presented show that Chapel Hill is paying for more than they are getting in services with either
option, but with option two this is especially true. He said part of good government is having a
rational nexus between taxes and services.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
Earl McKee, Chair
2
3 DRAFT
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Attachment 2
MINUTES
JOINT MEETING
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
March 26, 2015
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Town of Chapel Hill for a joint
meeting on Thursday, March 26, 2015 following the AOG meeting (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 members will be
identified appropriately below)
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS /STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt, Ed
21 Harrison, Jim Ward, Lee Storrow, Matt Czajkowski, George Cianciolo, Maria Palmer, Donna
22 Bell, and Sally Greene and Town Manager Roger Stancil
23 CHAPEL HILLTOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT
24
25 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 8:46pm.
26
27 Welcome and Opening Remarks
28 Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt and BOCC Chair Earl McKee (no opening remarks).
29
30 1. Bond Referendum Updates
31 a) Town of Chapel Hill November 2015 Bond Referendum
32 Mayor Kleinschmidt said this has not been officially approved yet, but there has been
33 preliminary approval of the bond order.
34 Roger Stancil reviewed the following information, as included in the abstract:
35 The Town of Chapel Hill is planning a General Obligation Bond Referendum for November of
36 2015. The planned referendum will be about $40.3 million and will include streets & sidewalks,
37 trails and greenways, recreation facilities, a solid waste transfer station and stormwater
38 improvements. The Town finances its long -term capital improvement through its Debt
39 Management Fund. The Debt Fund uses a dedicated portion of the property tax that, along with
40 other revenues such as transfers from enterprise funds, is used to fund debt service payments.
41 Based on our projections, the proposed referendum bonds can be paid using the existing
42 capacity in the Debt Management Fund. In other words, it is expected that the Town will not
43 need to increase taxes in order to pay the debt service on the planned referendum debt.
44
45 Bond Orders
46 The planned bond orders (categories of projects that will be presented on the ballot)
47 include projects that have been prioritized through the Town's internal review process. Among
48 other things, this process took into consideration the following:
49 • Priority in various Master Plans, including the Parks & Greenways, Stormwater,
50 Streetscape, Bike and Sidewalks Master Plans.
2
1 • Whether the project was contemplated in the Town's 2020 planning process.
2 • The project's importance score in the Community Survey.
3 Streets & Sidewalks $ 16,200,000
4 Trails and Greenways $ 5,000,000
5 Recreation Facilities $ 8,000,000
6 Solid Waste Transfer Station $ 5,200,000
7 Stormwater Improvements $ 5,900,000
8
9 Schedule
10 The Town Council is scheduled to take its first official action for the planned referendum
11 on April 27th when they take up the preliminary findings resolution. Other important milestones
12 in the referendum process include introduction of bond orders and setting of the public hearing
13 scheduled for May 27th and holding the public hearing, adoption of bond orders and setting of
14 ballot questions on June 22nd.
15 Debt Affordability
16 The Town has manageable debt levels as evidenced by its low debt per capita and debt
17 to assessed value benchmarks compared to its triple A rated municipal peer group. The Town's
18 debt pay -out ratio (amount of debt service payable in the next ten years) is 77.9 %, which is
19 considered very strong. In addition, the Town's annual debt service as a percent of
20 governmental revenues is currently about 9.2 %, which is well below historic levels.
21
22 b) Potential November 2016 Orange County Bond Referendum
23 Chair McKee said Orange County has discussed a possible referendum on two separate
24 occasions.
25 Paul Laughton said both school systems are looking at about $330 million worth of
26 repairs and renovations to their older schools. He said the County is still gathering information
27 on this, and it would be a large portion of a potential bond referendum.
28 He said information was shared at the Board of County Commissioners' retreat
29 regarding the 2001 bond and its process, two key debt ratios and where Orange County stands
30 regarding this. He said that the County debt capacity is 15 percent and currently the county is
31 at 13.24 percent. He said that Orange County is AAA bond rated and is therefore in the strong
32 category. He said that debt to assess value is also important. The County sets the maximum
33 debt to assess value at 3 percent, and it is currently at 1.17 percent. He said this again puts
34 the County in a strong rating category.
35 Paul Laughton said the Board of County Commissioners discussed at their March 3 d
36 meeting the intent to schedule a bond referendum in November 2016 to address County and
37 school needs. The Board also discussed the creation of a Capital Needs Advisory Task Force.
38 The Board of County Commissioners asked for additional information from the schools. He
39 said Orange County schools will present their priorities in May.
40 Paul Laughton said staff has looked at possible timeframes with appointing a task force
41 in late spring. He said the task force could meet over summer break and could come back with
42 recommendations by October 6, 2015 if not before.
43 Paul Laughton said they are looking at a potential $125 million bond. The total of $330
44 million in repairs cannot be accomplished in one bond referendum; therefore priorities will be
45 important.
46 Bonnie Hammersley said that more information will be given to the Board of County
47 Commissioners. She said the process for doing so has not yet been determined.
48 Chair McKee said the County is restrained as to when they can put a bond forward, and
49 that would be 2016.
50 Commissioner Rich asked when Chapel Hill will finalize their bond.
I Roger Stancil said the process is to be concluded by April 26tH
2 Mayor Kleinschmidt said that the information used to determine bond priorities came
3 from plans that the Council initiated over the past several years, identifying various needs of
4 departments and the priorities within those needs. Chapel Hill puts money aside to pay debt,
5 thus not raising taxes when bonds are issued.
6 Council Member Ward asked about the tax implications of a $125 million bond.
7 Paul Laughton said this would be about a 5 cent tax rate equivalent.
8 Chair McKee said it would be staggered over cycles.
9 Council Member Ward asked if the schools would ever get caught up with this backlog
10 of renovations.
11 Bonnie Hammersley said one of the efforts in remediation is that it will create more
12 seats for students and thus would push out the need for new schools going forward. She said
13 Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) has a figure of $170 million for schools built before
14 1990.
15
16 2. Discussion on Town and County Properties
17 Mayor Kleinschmidt said he and Chair McKee had breakfast after a meeting of Town
18 Council in which the Town was assessing their properties, and the discussion had come up
19 about putting County facilities in town buildings and vice versa.
20
21 a) Town Hall/Visitors Bureau /Skills Development Center
22 Mayor Kleinschmidt said the town is going to be undertaking a renovation of the old own
23 Hall on the corner of Rosemary Street and Martin Luther King Drive (MLK) and possibly putting
24 the visitor's bureau in this location, thus freeing up space downtown where the bureau is now.
25 Council Member Lee Storrow said both he and Commissioner Rich are representatives
26 on the Visitor's Bureau Board, and he said there is excitement about shifting the Bureau to this
27 location, since the current location does not invite foot traffic, and possibly pairing this new
28 location with a destination location that would be of high interest to visitors.
29 Commissioner Rich said their director was excited about a multi - purpose Visitor's
30 Bureau.
31 Commissioner Rich said she was interested in the timing and cost. She said that the
32 building seemed in need of heavy renovation.
33 Roger Stancil said the old Town Hall would need to be gutted; but it would be three
34 years before the Inter -Faith Council (IFC) would be able to vacate the premises. He said the
35 IFC is unsure to where the new facilities will be. He said that there is an ongoing discussion
36 about how to respectfully address the needs of the homeless population during the time of
37 transition.
38 Roger Stancil said that discussions are ongoing regarding actual renovations and how
39 they would be completed. He said Developers have expressed interest in the project, and
40 preservation of the building is a high priority, but there is a possibility of developing around the
41 building.
42 Commissioner Rich asked if the property includes the old Town Hall and parking lot.
43 Roger Stancil said yes.
44 Roger Stancil said that agreements would have to be reached with the neighboring
45 property owners.
46 Mayor Kleinschmidt said he would like a program plan to bring the Town and the County
47 together to propose functions and do the logistical work ahead of time. He said that may be a
48 driver to move this forward.
49 Council Member Bell said that the Visitors' Bureau could be used as a centralized base
50 for various programming to better serve the Town and the County. She said that in moving
M
1 forward with any discussion it is prudent to be strategic in thinking about how to maximize the
2 functionality of a space.
3 Council Member Greene said she would want to see it connected to larger missions and
4 transit; to see the building preserved; and she would like to consider involving Preservation
5 North Carolina. She reminded the Board of a transit transfer station downtown, as suggested in
6 Rosemary Imagine drafts. She said it would boost the potential of the Visitors' Bureau.
7 Town Council Member Palmer said she would like to see space for artist exhibits,
8 offering support to artists while earning some revenue. She would also like to see support for
9 local agriculture.
10 Town Council Member Cianciolo said he does not know what is going to happen to the
11 IFC kitchen and shelter at this point. He said that a future location is unknown and that IFC will
12 not be expected to move until an alternate location is secured. He said that the larger issue of
13 homelessness will require partnership between the Town and the County.
14 Council Member Greene said moving forward there will need to be a conversation with
15 the Partnership to End Homelessness and she said the current shelter is not in accordance with
16 modern best practices.
17 Council Member Harrison said he heard there is a three year time frame for this facility
18 and he discussed incorporation of a new Chapel Hill museum into the Visitor's Bureau location.
19 He said that the historic museum in Durham County took at least three years to establish their
20 museum. He said he believes a historic county museum should be in historic Hillsborough. He
21 said that this time should be used to have a group of non elected officials to consider the best
22 way to move forward. He said there are many ideas for the use of the old Town Hall that would
23 be great.
24 Commissioner Price said this is an exciting idea, and seeing the building serving
25 residents and visitors alike will bring people more in to the center of town.
26 Commissioner Rich said the County would need to decide what to do with the proposed
27 vacated Visitor's Bureau site.
28 Council Member Bell asked if the County has talked about what to do with the space
29 where the bureau is now. She said if this space were modernized it would create more density
30 in that part of West Franklin Street.
31 Mayor Kleinschmidt said he would encourage the county to offer comments toward their
32 downtown improvement plans, since Orange County is a major property owner in downtown
33 Chapel Hill. He said he would like to explore how the County may to use it to help advance the
34 neighborhood.
35 Commissioner Price said she and Chair McKee sit on the internal Orange County Space
36 Study Needs Taskforce. She said a conclusion has not been reached, but the value of the
37 property is recognized. She said the services currently being offered in that building are not
38 convenient. She said she is interested in seeing the Town's overall plans for the area.
39 Council Member Ward said the low hanging fruit is economic development for the old
40 Town Hall space, and economic development can come in various forms. He suggested an
41 incubator space to be a mutually beneficial possibility that could be done in the current space or
42 with greater space through renovation.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said there is another partner with the Skills Development Center,
44 and that is Durham Tech. He said they prefer to be located to public transportation allowing
45 greater access. He said that Durham Tech would be amenable to moving, depending on the
46 location.
47 Town Council Member Palmer said the Durham Tech Orange Campus is not serving its
48 students adequately. She said in order to best serve the community there must be greater
49 partnership in order to provide sufficient options as well as better services and technology. She
50 said this will better prepare students to enter the work force.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Council Member Ward said skills development activities should be arm in arm with an
innovation center, and there is a synergy that can be achieved. He said working as a
partnership can be more complicated, but involving UNC, Durham Tech, the Town and the
County together leads to a higher investment in the outcome.
Commissioner Price said the location of the Skills Development Center is good in some
ways but is inconvenient for parking. She said Durham Tech would be happy to move if able to
stay in the same general area. She said the current satellite offices of Durham Tech need to be
consolidated into a campus in Orange County at Waterstone, in addition to Durham and RTP
campuses.
Chair McKee said these two properties have possibilities.
b) Joint Parks and Recreational Opportunities
David Stancil noted the lateness of the hour and said he is happy to answer any
questions.
Council Member Ward asked if there was access to summary information on artificial
turf and its success.
Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation Director Jim Orr said with the joint partnership
between Orange County and Chapel Hill, an artificial turf complex was opened at Cedar Falls in
December 2013. He said in the first year there was an increase of 67,200 participants using
that field compared to the prior year when condition was subpar. He said the participants
rented the field, and it was opened to the public as well on Fridays and Sunday afternoons. He
said approximately 7500 people used the fields during that time. He said the fields offered
greater use due to the artificial turf and it brought in $80,000 in revenue compared to $2,000 of
maintenance cost. He said every two to three years the field is lightly top dressed at an
expense of approximately $10,000. He said the fields are not booked to capacity, and additional
users for the field are being explored. He concluded that the partnership between Orange
County and Chapel Hill regarding the artificial turf seemed to be beneficial and should continue.
Commissioner Jacobs said he hoped staff could continue to talk about doing fields
across from the Town's Operation Center.
Council Member Ward said this is a piece of land that the County owns, and he asked
that staffs be instructed to move forward with a plan for this site and how it may play to the
bond issue.
David Stancil said the Millhouse Road Park is in both of their master plans.
36 3. Update on Rogers Road Project
37 Mary Darr from Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) said they have been
38 working with the Towns and the County on sewer projects. She said engineers went out in the
39 field to verify the table top plans previously created for the project in 2012. She said that a
40 consulting engineer, the Jackson Center, as well as the stakeholders in the Rogers Road area
41 have been consulted. She reported that this preliminary engineering report showed no
42 surprises. Some items from the table top report have been improved. She said the estimated
43 cost is $5.7 million for 3.5 miles of sewer. She said this does not include private plumbing costs,
44 easement acquisitions, and connection fees. She said the anticipated timeline is at least two
45 years, starting with engineering plans with design and permitting in FY 2016 at a cost of
46 $370,000. She said this would be followed by construction bids and the construction itself in FY
47 2017 -2018.
48 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is any possibility of moving this forward
49 expeditiously.
D
I Mary Darr said there is a 10 month design period. She said parallel to that is an
2 easement acquisition process of undetermined time. She said that work can begin as soon as
3 design and permits were secured.
4 Commissioner Dorosin said this is a long drawn out process. He said there are no
5 surprises, and the community desires the project. He asked if there is any way to expedite the
6 process, including paying a higher cost, if necessary.
7 Chair McKee said maybe the Managers and OWASA can talk about this and bring back
8 information back to the Boards.
9
10 4. Economic Development Potential for Ephesus /Fordham Development Project
11 Update
12 Mayor Kleinschmidt said in 14 years on the Council they have approved one project that
13 got built in this district.
14 Dwight Bassett said they are in final stages of securing easements, and the project is at
15 90 percent plan stage. He said comments have been taken from Department of Transportation
16 (DOT) and the plans are being revised. He said the only thing that will prevent meeting the
17 June 2015 first phase bidding deadline is entering a municipal agreement with the North
18 Carolina DOT. He said a scope for phase two has been negotiated for the roadway systems.
19 He said they will initiate that contract in the coming weeks. He said two projects are pending
20 along with several other smaller ones. He said a larger project being worked on is extending
21 Elliot Road, and this is in the very early stages.
22 Mayor Kleinschmidt said two of the three projects are 100 percent retail.
23 Commissioner Price asked for clarification on Chapel Hill's definition of affordable
24 housing in this district.
25 Mayor Kleinschmidt said Chapel Hill did not abandon their commitment to affordable
26 housing when they re -zoned this district. He said it is not a simple answer. He said the Town
27 will take a district wide approach to affordable housing rather than a building by building
28 approach. He said the Town committed to 30 percent affordable housing, which will be
29 achieved in two ways. He said the first part will leverage the town's resources to provide for an
30 affordable housing site. He said this is being done through an on -going application with DHIC
31 on the north eastern part of the district. He said the second part is an incentive package built
32 into the zone laid on the western side of Elliot Road. He said this goal is the highest affordable
33 housing goal that they have ever had in a single housing project.
34 Commissioner Price asked if it is more of the work force housing or lower income.
35 Mayor Kleinschmidt said if you want to live in Chapel Hill, it is important to make sure
36 there is a safe, quality place for you to afford to live. He said that means that their Planning
37 Department has been reorganized to have efforts to develop strategies for affordable rental
38 housing targeting 30 to 60 percent income earners. He said there is a long term program with
39 the Home Trust targeting 80 percent income earners for home ownership, which is the most
40 successful of its kind in the nation.
41 He said that innovative approaches are being developed that accommodate state laws
42 prohibiting rental caps. He said this includes creative ideas to inspire private developers to
43 create affordable rentals within their developments. He said examples of this are the Timber
44 Hollow Project, a rebuild project that either created affordable housing where there had
45 previously been none; and the new build Graduate Project behind the Franklin Hotel, which
46 created affordable housing despite it not being a requirement of the project.
47 Council Member Ward said the Town did not abandon affordable housing but gave
48 away the bank in terms of having one lever - to increase density in that district - to leverage
49 affordable housing. He said that was abandoned and he hoped that they would revisit this for
50 this entire area.
7
1 Mayor Kleinschmidt said that there are many more levers, and one of them is excusing
2 their own properties, and creating incentives.
3 Council Member Ward said giving $2 million to somebody to help build affordable
4 housing is unassociated with the rezoning of Ephesus /Fordham.
5 Commissioner Rich asked when the request from Chapel Hill on funding from Orange
6 County to this area will be back on the Commissioners' agenda.
7 Bonnie Hammersley said it is not on the three month rolling calendar at this time.
8 Chair McKee said it was left so that when the project came forward it would come back
9 to the Board's attention.
10 Bonnie Hammersley said that the County would leave the door open and will look at the
11 performance.
12 Roger Stancil said the agreement was that they would come back to Orange County
13 when there was an actual tax value and when they knew better the number of school children
14 living in the district.
15 Commissioner Rich said their timing is past the three month rolling calendar. She asked
16 when that information will start flowing in.
17 Roger Stancil said the first project is just beginning construction, and information will
18 come when this is on the tax bill.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
21 adjourn the meeting at 10:02 p.m.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 Earl McKee, Chair
26
27 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
28
29