HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-17-2015 - 6a - Minutes 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 17, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
Draft Minutes
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
October 13, 2015 BOCC Work Session
October 15, 2015 BOCC — JPA Meeting
October 15, 2015 BOCC Joint Meeting with Town of Carrboro
October 20, 2015 BOCC Regular Meeting
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
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated
with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as presented
or as amended.
1
I Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 WORK SESSION
6 October 13, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday,
10 October 13, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
21
22 1. Report on Article 46 Funds (One-Quarter Cent Sales Tax) to Support Education
23 and Economic Development Programs in Orange County
24 Paul Laughton, Orange County Finance Administrative Services, referred to Attachment
25 B, a spreadsheet with budgeted amounts and committed uses of the tax since its inception in
26 April 2012. He reviewed this information.
27 Paul Laughton said 50 percent of the Article 46 sales tax goes toward education, and 50
28 percent towards economic development. He referred to the tables.
29 Paul Laughton said revenues were studied, and since 2012 collections have been over
30 the budgeted amounts by about 9 percent. He said any excess will be reviewed on an annual
31 basis and reported back to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), after which a budget
32 amendment could be done to bring in the additional revenue and budget it equally for education
33 and economic development.
34 Commissioner Jacobs asked Paul Laughton to clarify if the BOCC determines how
35 schools spend their Article 46 funds.
36 Paul Laughton said the schools turn in a submittal showing how they would like to spend
37 the money, and list their usages as part of their budgetary information.
38 Chair McKee asked if the 9 percent overage that Paul Laughton mentioned is from the
39 FY2014-2015.
40 Paul Laughton said it is cumulative since the inception of the tax in April 2012, and the
41 funds are sitting in the account. He said it is a separate special revenues fund.
42 Commissioner Dorosin said the originally adopted resolution says that the schools can
43 only use Article 46 funds for capital needs and Information Technology.
44 Paul Laughton said yes, and that is how the funds have been used.
45 Commissioner Dorosin said Orange County Schools (OCS) use their funds solely for
46 Information Technology.
47 Paul Laughton said yes, and that OCS has done so since the inception of the tax.
48 Commissioner Rich clarified that the schools list their desired funding expenditures
49 during the budget process.
2
1 Paul Laughton said yes, it is listed annually as part of the schools' Capital Investment
2 Plan (CIP) in March.
3 Paul Laughton referred to the second table for economic development usages. He said
4 the largest initiative is the debt service on the infrastructure. He said the debt service is 60
5 percent of the portion of economic development funds that are brought in.
6 Paul Laughton said there was one other section within the economic development
7 funds. He said this is an undesignated section, with two allocations for economic development
8 utility extension projects. He said no specific projects have been currently identified for utility
9 extensions. He said these funds are budgeted, but not yet committed.
10 Chair McKee asked if the sewer line collapse project in Carrboro would fall under this
11 category.
12 Paul Laughton said yes, but asked Craig Benedict to elaborate.
13 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said this fund was more of a
14 Morinaga-like utility extension. He said in that case there was a backbone system that was
15 about 1,500 feet away from the project. He said funds were used to extend sewer and water to
16 the Morinaga parcel of land.
17 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are restrictions on the usage of this $500,000.
18 Craig Benedict said the parameters would most likely be a Greenfields project where
19 existing infrastructure is identified, and the project coming forward would show a return on the
20 investment. He said there would be agreements in place showing that if utilities were extended,
21 there would be a party responsible for their upkeep. He said it would be evaluated on a case-
22 by-case basis.
23 Commissioner Dorosin asked if funds must be used for the extension of water and
24 sewer or natural gas, or is a more broad usage permitted.
25 Craig Benedict said under infrastructure there could be any number of possibilities,
26 though water and sewer is typical.
27 Bonnie Hammersley said the funding in place is a placeholder and is not designated at
28 this time. She said it is in this account, but can be used anywhere.
29 Commissioner Rich referenced the Ephesus Fordham project and asked if the money
30 for it would come from Article 46 funds.
31 Craig Benedict said no decisions would be made until the projects come forth, and the
32 data is reviewed. He said the Board of County Commissioners would determine from where
33 the funds would come.
34 Commissioner Rich said there are different categories for projects in the southern and
35 northern portions of the County.
36 Bonnie Hammersley said when data comes back staff would present a recommendation
37 to the BOCC regarding funding sources. She said Article 46 funds would certainly be
38 considered as a potential funding source. She said no funds are earmarked at this time, as
39 amounts are unknown.
40 Paul Laughton reviewed information from Attachment B, regarding the debt service.
41 Commissioner Burroughs asked if funds have been budgeted yearly going into the
42 future.
43 Paul Laughton said funds have only been budget through FY 2015-2016.
44 Steve Brantley, Orange County Economic Development Director, presented the
45 following PowerPoint slides:
46
47 Orange County Economic Development
48 Discussion of Article 46
49 (One Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Economic Development)
50 October 13, 2015
3
1
2 Economic Development Programs in Orange County Funded by "Article 46"
3 (One Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Economic Development)
4 (Pie chart)
5
6 Economic Development Programs in Orange County Funded by "Article 46"
7 (One Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Economic Development)
8 • Debt Service on Utilities& Infrastructure to 3 Economic Development Districts
9 Airficle 66 nu uaa. l fa. n61ng"� $7501000 or 60% of i i 11
10 • Small Business Loan Fund
11 Airficle 66 annuall fun61ng"� 2001000 or 16% of tot II
12 • Innovation/Incubator Center for Entrepreneurial Developments (LaUNCh Chapel Hill)
13 Airficle 66 annuall fun61ng"� 1001000 or 8% of tot II fun61ng
14 • Small Business Investment Grants
15 Airficle 66 annuall fun61ng"� 1001000 or 8% of t t II
16 • Agricultural Economic Development Grants
17 Airficle 66 annuall fun61ng"� 601000 or 5% of t t II
18 • Marketing and Collaborative Outreach
19 Airficle 66 annuall fun61ng"� 201000 or ` 5% of t t II
20 • Collateral Material, Advertising, Publishing
21 Airficle 66 fun61ng"� 201000 or ` 5% of t t II
22 Total Allocation Per Year: $1,250,000 or 100%
23
24 Debt Service on Utilities and Infrastructure to 3 Economic Development Districts
25 Article 46 annual funding: $750,000 or 60% of total
26 Examples of Use:
27 Town of Carrboro
28 County's 50/50 financial participation with the Town of Carrboro to share in the co-pay
29 requirement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that funded the
30 repair of a failing sewer line on Roberson Street. The utility line has now been repaired.
31 Buckhorn Economic Development District
32 Over $4 million spent or committed to fund a backbone water & sewer utility line in the
33 Buckhorn Economic Development District to help recruit prospective industries &
34 business considering sites.
35
36 Craig Benedict present this portion of the PowerPoint slides:
37
38 Debt Service on Utilities & Infrastructure to 3 Economic Development Districts
39 Article 46 annual funding: $750,000 or 60% of total
40 Projects
41 Buckhorn-Mebane Phase 2 - Completed
42 Buckhorn EDD Phase 2 Extension - Design 99%
43 Eno EDD Utilities — Feasibility
44 Hillsborough EDD Utilities — Conceptual
45 Buckhorn-Mebane Phase 3 and 4— Conceptual
46 Economic Development Account (Undesignated Proceeds, Not Debt)
47 Morinaga Area Infrastructure— Completed
48 ED Utility Extension Projects — Prospective industry, project specific infrastructure
49
4
1 Efland/Buckhorn/Mebane Capital Projects (map)
2
3 Eno EDD CIP Project Area (map)
4
5 Hillsborough EDD CIP Project Area (map)
6
7 Steve Brantley resumed the presentation of the PowerPoint slides.
8
9 Small Business Loan Fund
10 Article 46 annual funding: $200,000 or 16% of total
11
12 • Article 46 includes a provision to provide up to $200,000.00 annually in additional
13 lending flexibility to Orange County's existing Small Business Loan Program.
14 • The Program's current loan portfolio is supported by a separate source of revolving
15 funds previously authorized by the BOCC, and no Article 46 monies have been required,
16 to date, to supplement the Program.
17 • There are no loan delinquencies in the Program's activity.
18
19 Entrepreneurial & Incubator Support
20 Article 46 funding: $100,000 or 8% of total
21
22 Examples of Use:
23 • "LaUNCh Chapel Hill" innovation center is funded 50/50 through an Interlocal
24 Agreement between Orange County & Town of Chapel Hill. The Interlocal Agreement
25 expires on 12/31/15.
26 • Orange County will contribute $140,000.00 for 3 '/2 year through the initial Interlocal
27 Agreement. UNC & private sponsors also contribute.
28 • At the request of LaUNCh, the Town of Chapel Hill and UNC, staff will soon present to
29 the BOCC a recommended proposal for a 3-year extension of the Interlocal Agreement,
30 at the same annual cost, to continue the County's financial commitment to LaUNCh.
31
32 Small Business Investment Grant
33 Article 46 annual funding: $100,000 or 8% of total
34
35 Summary of Grant Awards to date:
36 • Grant program was approved by the BOCC in March 2015.
37 • Subcommittee comprised of Orange County Economic Development advisory board
38 members meet quarterly to review grant applications.
39 • 8 initial grants totaling $61,712.00 were recently awarded in the program's first round of
nd
40 application reviews during the 2 Q 2015.
41 • 5 applications were deferred until the second review period
42 • 34 new and/or deferred grant applications requesting a total of$243,541.67 in grant
43 awards have been submitted for the second subcommittee review meeting on Oct. 20,
44 2015.
45
46 Small Business Investment Grant
47 Article 46 annual funding: $100,000 or 8% of total
48
49 Approved Grants:
5
1 Carrboro Community Acupuncture (Kim Calandra— business expansion)
2 Tempeh Girl (Beth May—sales expansion)
3 Woman Craft (Katherine Palomba — promotional
4 activities)
5 Trill Financial (Simon Jung —computer testing equipment)
6 MasterPeace Barber (Mark Holt— repairs to business location)
7 Regulator Brewing (Anna McDonald Dobbs — marketing)
8 Seal The Seasons (Patrick Mateer & Will Collins — machinery)
9 The Accidental Baker (Kevin Mason — new bakery equipment)
10
11 Agricultural Investment Grant
12 Article 46 annual funding: $60,000 or 5% of total
13
14 Summary of Awards to date:
15 • Grant program was approved by the BOCC in March 2015.
16 • 7 initial agriculture grants totaling $57,987.00 were recently approved in the program's
17 first quarterly round of applicant reviews.
18 • Grant program is funded by up to $60,000.00 annually from Article 46 proceeds.
19
20 Agricultural Investment Grant
21 Article 46 annual funding: $60,000 or 5% of total
22
23 Approved Grants (first quarterly review):
24 • Taylor Fish Farm (Valee Taylor—tilapia fish farming)
25 • BoxCarr Farm (Austin Genke —fencing for milk goats)
26 • ColorFields Farm (Kelly Morrison — greenhouses)
27 • Four Leaf Farm (Tim McCaller— greenhouses)
28 • Smith Family Farm (Dawn Denson —well for irrigation)
29 • Dawn Breaker Farms (Ben Grimes — poultry processing equipment)
30 • Sweet Retreat Orchards (Aniko Redmon — irrigation system)
31
32 Agricultural Investment Grant
33 Article 46 annual funding: $60,000 or 5% of total
34
35 New Proposed Agriculture Grants:
36 (scheduled for second quarterly review on Nov. 18, 2015):
37 • 3 new applications have been received.
38 • 6 additional applications are anticipated to be submitted.
39 • $60,000 in total awards is forecast for the upcoming second quarterly review of new
40 applications.
41 • Initial marketing round included radio and newspaper ads; most recent marketing effort
42 had 800 post cards mailed out in Sept. 2015 to County-wide farms & agricultural-related
43 small firms
44
45 Marketing & Collaborative Outreach
46 Article 46 annual funding: $20,000 or 1.5% of total
47
48 Examples of Use:
6
1 Co-sponsor of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce's Partnership for a
2 Sustainable Community & Town of Chapel Hill to jointly fund a public-private consultant
3 study by the firm "Urban3 LLC". The study created a 3-D mapping of property tax
4 values per acre throughout the Orange County, and the economic development impact
5 of increasing commercial and retail density in an urban area.
6 Hillsborough Chamber's "Riverwalk Movie Series" sponsor in 2015.
7 Carrboro Film Festival sponsor.
8 Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce's "General Member Breakfast" guest speaker
9 series sponsor in 2015.
10 Orange County Agriculture Summit sponsor in 2015 to provide free attendance & meal
11 for all participants.
12
13 Advertising, Publishing & Collateral Materials
14 Article 46 annual funding: $20,000 or 1.5% of total
15
16 Examples of Use:
17 Participation in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce's annual PRIMETIME
18 Business Expo.
19 New ad campaign & series of 3 business networking breakfast presentations with the
20 Town of Chapel Hill, assisted by Chapel Hill Magazine, will begin in early 2016.
21 Ad campaign with WCHL 1360 AM radio highlighting activity by Orange County's
22 Visitors Bureau & Economic Development.
23 Subscription to Buxton Company's "Scout" software to support retail retention &
24 recruitment efforts.
25
26 Commissioner Dorosin referred to slide number 15 and asked if these percentages were
27 set in stone.
28 Steve Brantley said the percentages are a Board decision. He said the pie charts, and
29 the recommended percentages, were published and promoted by the County.
30 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the public voted on the percentages or just the
31 categories.
32 Steve Brantley said these were the recommended uses of the funds promoted by the
33 County at the time of the vote, so it would be the public's expectation that the funds would be
34 allocated accordingly.
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this was formally adopted in 2012.
36 Steve Brantley said in December 2011.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said this was to be a 10-year plan. He added that at the time, the
38 biggest point was to allocate the 60 percent, and the other percentages were less driving
39 forces.
40 Commissioner Pelissier said the 60 percent was crucial, because water and sewer in the
41 Economic Development Districts (EDDS) was expensive.
42 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is a remaining total left on the debt for the water
43 and sewer infrastructure.
44 Paul Laughton said the total debt for the water and sewer was 20 years, so there is
45 seventeen years to go.
46 Commissioner Pelissier said the 60 percent would stay since there is debt already for
47 the water and sewer in Buckhorn.
48 Paul Laughton said this is included in the CIP for debt service for water and sewer.
49 Commissioner Dorosin asked if it would be possible to change the percentages in the
50 future.
7
1 John Roberts said the allocation of the funds is at the discretion of the Board of County
2 Commissioners.
3 Commissioner Rich asked if$40,000 is really being spent on marketing, collaborative
4 outreach, collateral materials, and advertising.
5 Steve Brantley said quite a bit has been spent, but some funding remains.
6 Steve Brantley said he can only show properties to potential industrial/commercial/retail
7 prospects in the EDDs that have existing utilities, or where it can be installed in a timely
8 manner.
9 Commissioner Jacobs referred to slide 18, and asked if the Orange Alamance Water
10 System ever adopted a master plan.
11 Craig Benedict said no.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said it would be nice to explain the relationship between Orange
13 County and the Orange Alamance Water System to newer Board members.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said what is being done to serve the Efland Small Area Plan.
15 Craig Benedict referred to the Efland/Buckhorn/Mebane Capital Projects map on slide
16 18 and explained that Orange County passed an overlay district that allows some conversion to
17 small business along the route 70 corridor. He added that a recent amendment to allow a
18 village overlay is also included in this area. He said the sewer in this area allows for good
19 coverage, giving businesses the opportunity to tie in to the gravity system. He said interest in
20 this area is growing thanks to the available sewer system.
21 Commissioner Jacobs asked Steve Brantley if there is an update about the area west of
22 Efland, going towards Mebane on route 70.
23 Steve Brantley said Economic Development and Planning are working closely together
24 in this area.
25 Chair McKee said there has been some discussion in Efland about possible
26 development, and asked if anything has been formally proposed.
27 Craig Benedict said there are just conversations at this point.
28 Chair McKee said he has heard some chatter about Efland being incorporated, and if
29 so, would Efland have autonomy.
30 John Roberts said if Efland does incorporate, it would have a designated territorial
31 jurisdiction; in which County ordinances would not apply, unless Efland elected for them to do
32 so.
33 Commissioner Dorosin asked if area D on the map has public water and sewer.
34 Craig Benedict said it has some public water and sewer, but some areas are difficult to
35 sewer. He said some lots have septic systems, and some lots are not developed.
36 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the neighborhood north of Efland, called Perry Hill.
37 He said this area is not included in any small area plans and is overlooked. He said this area is
38 in Orange County, and he suggested talking to Mebane about serving this area with water and
39 sewer.
40 Commissioner Rich said she would like information on the Orange Alamance Water
41 System and the rates they charge.
42
43 Discussion and questions about the EDDs
44 Eno EDD (slide 19):
45 Craig Benedict said development interest in this area is growing. He said there are a lot
46 of mobile home parks in this area.
47 Commissioner Price said this area has been scheduled for development for decades
48 and asked what will happen if Durham says no.
8
1 Craig Benedict said low water use projects that run on septic systems could be
2 considered. He said such projects would have to meet all applicable standards. He said there
3 are conversations taking place with Durham.
4 Commissioner Price asked what will happen if Durham says no to putting in water and
5 sewer.
6 Craig Benedict said Durham is not saying no, they are saying the cost of$6 million is
7 too high.
8 Commissioner Price asked if Durham does say no, regardless of the reason, what is
9 Orange County's plan for this area.
10 Craig Benedict said Durham agrees that there is still potential, and the City could
11 possibly annex part of this if desired. He said Durham says the current engineering plan for this
12 area is too costly at $6 million.
13 Commissioner Price asked what would happen if Durham is completely out of the
14 picture. She asked if projects would simply have to rely on septic.
15 Craig Benedict said Hillsborough would not be a viable partner for this area. He said
16 Durham is the best partner, and no one is giving up on this district yet. He added that it may be
17 several years out before fruition.
18
19 Hillsborough EDD (slide 20):
20 Craig Benedict said putting water and sewer under the 1-40 interstate could take
21 eighteen months. He said this length of time is an impediment to attracting development.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC had a discussion about developing an internal
23 policy for extending water and sewer for economic development purposes. He asked if there
24 was an update on this policy.
25 Craig Benedict said the existing zoning policies lock in how land can be used. He said
26 he can offer a report about what those uses can be.
27 Commissioner Jacobs said he recalled a conversation addressing the concern that
28 Hillsborough will annex land. He said it is important that Hillsborough not use County economic
29 development infrastructure monies to replicate the model of Waterstone, which has too much
30 residential. He asked if there is a formula to apply economic development funds to insure that
31 those funds are used for economic development, and not residential development.
32 Craig Benedict said discussions with Hillsborough about land use have started and that
33 jointly adopted land uses are in place. He said these are generalized land use categories and
34 do not include percentages for non-residential versus residential development.
35 Bonnie Hammersley said staff would work on an internal policy and bring it back for the
36 Board's consideration.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said he remembered him bringing this up last spring and talking
38 about having an internal policy.
39 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the 18-month timeframe of putting water and sewer
40 under the interstate could be reduced, and if the County could act proactively toward this end.
41 Craig Benedict said these discussions have begun with Department of Transportation
42 (DOT).
43
44 2. Discussion on Using a County Water and Sewer District as a Mechanism to
45 Provide a Tool to Finance Expenditures in the Rogers Road Area
46 Bonnie Hammersley said in the final report of the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood
47 Task Force, dated September 2013, this issue was discussed and directed the Manager to find
48 an innovative approach. She said she has worked with the Town Managers and with Orange
49 Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and has kept the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood
50 Association (RENA) in the loop.
9
1 Bonnie Hammersley said Carrboro will be discussing this issue on October 20, and
2 Chapel Hill has not yet scheduled a discussion. She said the purpose of this evening's
3 discussion is to get direction from the Board of County Commissioners. She said Bob Jessup is
4 here tonight as well to provide information on this issue.
5 Bob Jessup, Bond Counsel, said a lot of time has been spent with staff putting together
6 the abstract on this issue.
7 Chair McKee asked if Bob Jessup would please review the information in the abstract.
8 Bob Jessup read the information from abstract:
9 A "county water and sewer district" is a type of governmental entity authorized by North
10 Carolina law. Many counties across the State form these districts as a tool to provide utility
11 service in areas that cannot be conveniently served by existing utility providers. Some counties
12 have had more than five districts within their boundaries. These districts are often created to
13 serve isolated or more sparsely settled areas, but the vehicle provides flexibility to serve any
14 defined area within a single county.
15
16 Differences
17 Creating a county water and sewer district offers certain flexibilities compared to
18 extending service using current policies and procedures.
19 1. The District would be able to implement a schedule of rates, fees, and charges independent
20 of Orange Water and Sewer Authority's (OWASA) schedule, which can therefore be tailored to
21 the special characteristics of the District. For example, a District could establish a fee to recover
22 primary infrastructure costs as properties are developed or redeveloped in the future. Similarly,
23 the District could make use of unique technologies and design features that OWASA might not
24 choose to use on a system-wide basis, but might be appropriate for a smaller area.
25 2. The District may be able to obtain loans and grants for which Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and
26 Orange County are not eligible. This would include loans and grants from traditional water and
27 sewer funders, but also from funders more interested in the social justice aspects of the project.
28 3. Although the District would not have its own planning authority, having the District defined as
29 a separate entity may facilitate coordinated planning and other land use discussions among the
30 relevant governments.
31
32 Governance, Management and Construction
33 By law, the Board of County Commissioners serves as the District's governing body.
34 Existing law allows for no alternatives to this governing structure. Although the District could
35 bid and supervise the system's construction itself, staff has contemplated that the District would
36 contract with OWASA to supervise and manage the construction of the system. The District
37 could also contract with OWASA to manage the provision of utility service where OWASA would
38 be responsible for monitoring and maintaining the system and for billing and collecting from
39 customers.
40
41 Procedure to Create the District
42 Creating the District is not procedurally complex. The District could be fully established
43 within 60 days of the Board's determination of the geographic boundaries of the District.
44 Attachment B outlines the procedure for creating the District. Carrboro would need to consent
45 to including within the District any property that is within Carrboro town limits.
46
47 Financing
48 There are a variety of options for financing the construction of the system and for
49 recovering any loans made to the District. This discussion sets aside the possibility of external
10
1 grant funding and does not address the on-going fee structure that would be used to pay for
2 regular operations and maintenance. These available tools can be used in combination.
3 Initial Financing
4 1. The governmental partners could lend or grant money to the District to fund construction.
5 a. The terms of loan repayment, if any, could include provisions for the
6 District to pay interest or for portions of the loan to be forgiven upon defined conditions.
7 b. There are ways that a local government partner could borrow money to be loaned or
8 granted to the District if a partner wanted to explore that option.
9 c. Funds could be either paid to the District up front or on an as-needed basis over the
10 project construction period.
11 2. The District could borrow money from a third-party lender.
12 a. The District could use most of the tools regularly available to North Carolina local
13 governments, including general obligation bonds, (subject to a vote of the residents of
14 the District) non-voted installment financing (which uses the financed assets as collateral
15 for the loan), or revenue bonds (which pledges net operating revenues of the system as
16 security for the loan).
17 b. Because the District will be a new operating entity with a small scope, a private lender
18 might well ask one or more of the governmental partners to provide "moral obligation"
19 backing to a District loan which is a promise to consider funding a loan payment that the
20 District could not otherwise pay. This would be an annual, "subject to appropriation"
21 promise similar to the County's commitment to its installment financings and limited
22 obligation bonds.
23
24 Cost Recovery
25 The District would have most of the same tools to raise revenue as other general
26 purpose local governments.
27 • Property tax—a rate would be established annually by the Board of Commissioners. There is
28 no obligation to levy a separate property tax within the District.
29 • Water and sewer rates, fees and charges — including usage fees and availability fees, as well
30 as capital charges for new service
31 • Special assessments against benefitted properties — allows the District to collect funds over a
32 ten-year period. Please note that special assessments can be assessed to recover less than all
33 of the costs of a project, and that installments can, but are not required to, include a component
34 of interest over time.
35 • Sales taxes —the District would not share in sales tax distributions.
36
37 Commissioner Dorosin asked what would happen if the OWASA disagreed with the
38 County's requests or plans.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said there can be differential rates.
40 Commissioner Dorosin said his concern is that the project is not being put out to bid,
41 and OWASA may not want to do what the County requests. He said having differential rates is
42 a clear advantage.
43 Bob Jessup said OWASA can speak for themselves on this question. He said the
44 second reason to focus on the district was that the defined area may assist the three
45 jurisdictions in doing joint planning. He said the district itself does not have any land use
46 authority. He said the third reason to focus on the district is the idea that the district might be
47 eligible for loan and grant programs that the County is not otherwise eligible for on its own. He
48 said the Department of Agriculture programs are the best example of that.
49 Commissioner Price asked who would write and manage such grants.
50 Bob Jessup said the district would contract that responsibility or assign it to staff.
11
1 Commissioner Price asked how this responsibility could be assigned to staff, if the
2 County is not eligible for the grant.
3 Bob Jessup said the grant would be awarded to the district. He said who writes it is
4 irrelevant. He said County staff or another assigned group can administer the grant, while the
5 district is considered the recipient.
6 Bonnie Hammersley said the Board could assign County staff towards the district.
7 Commissioner Dorosin said the three advantages are 1.) charging differential rates, 2.)
8 potential developers can help subsidize the cost of the infrastructure, and 3.) eligibility to apply
9 for other funding resources. He asked if Bob Jessup could identify any disadvantages. He said
10 it seems that the setting up of a new administrative structure carries some administrative
11 burdens.
12 Bob Jessup said in practice the Board could include district items on its agendas, or
13 gavel in and out as the district board. He said the burdens are insignificant. He said rather
14 than considering disadvantages, one could consider the alternatives. He said the alternatives
15 would be to do nothing, pay OWASA to do it all, cooperate with Carrboro and create a new
16 water authority, or do it all as a County, but not have access to alternate financing.
17 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board can amend the district.
18 Bob Jessup said parcels could be added as long as noticed and hearings are held. He
19 said the parcels do not have to be contiguous.
20 Commissioner Rich asked if water would still be bought from OWASA, and if so, where
21 would the money come from to cover the difference for the reduced rates.
22 Bob Jessup said that would be a general fund obligation.
23 Commissioner Rich asked if, with this information, it would be possible to split costs with
24 Carrboro to make up the difference.
25 Bonnie Hammersley said if that was the intention, this district could enter into some type
26 of agreement with municipalities about the costs.
27 Bob Jessup said a separate tax rate could be charged in the district, and after a period
28 of development it may be more beneficial to levy a tax.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said this has been looked at as a financial tool, not to be funded by
30 the general fund, but to look at alternate resources for financing to cover the subsidies.
31 Commissioner Rich asked if the Managers' initial discussions only involved the 86
32 current properties, or if there was an expansion.
33 Bonnie Hammersley said the district has not yet been defined, but it will not change
34 anything for these 86 properties.
35 Commissioner Rich said there was a suggestion in SWAB to do districts, and it was not
36 well received. She said a strong educational element will be important if this process moves
37 forward.
38 Commissioner Price said if the district does move forward, would the Board be able to
39 apply grants to pay for the hook ups for the water and sewer.
40 Bob Jessup said yes, grants can be used to do this if there are such grants available.
41 Bonnie Hammersley said any kind of grants available for this purpose are being
42 pursued, and there would be more access to these funding resources as a "district' as opposed
43 to a "county".
44 Commissioner Jacobs said he has an incomplete recollection of asking OWASA to
45 change its policies on government extending utilities and then the government not being able to
46 recoup the cost of installation from developers. He said OWASA was not interested in
47 changing its policy.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said the County could structure the district so that entities that
49 came in after the district was created would have to reimburse the body politic, not only pay an
50 assessment fee.
12
1 Commissioner Pelissier said Commissioner Jacobs comments sound familiar but she
2 does not recall the outcome.
3 Commissioner Dorosin asked if permission would be required from Carrboro but not
4 from Chapel Hill.
5 Bob Jessup said that is correct.
6 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Manager could elaborate on her discussions with
7 RENA.
8 Bonnie Hammersley said she shared the draft of the memo in the packet and there were
9 no specific questions. She said RENA was supportive, and if the Board of County
10 Commissioners directed staff to go further, RENA would be involved and may have more
11 questions at that time. She said there was some skepticism but she felt comfortable when she
12 left the meeting. She said the OWASA Board had a lot of questions which will not be answered
13 until it is determined that the process should move forward.
14 Commissioner Dorosin said there must be clear communication and outreach to this
15 community as the proposed process moves forward; emphasizing that the service they would
16 receive would be same as everyone else that is served with water and sewer.
17 Bonnie Hammersley said the issue of rates did come up at the meeting and she assured
18 them that the BOCC would have some flexibility.
19 Chair McKee said he was comfortable with the district idea and lower rates. He asked if
20 the district was set up for the 86 current properties, and there are empty parcels, what would
21 happen if someone built a $500,000 home.
22 Bob Jessup said that homeowner would pay the same gallonage monthly rate, but the
23 upfront capital recovery includes a debt cost; and he said any existing structures prior to today
24 would pay 50 percent recovery costs, but charge others after a certain date a different cost.
25 Chair McKee said he is not comfortable with 20 to 30 new, high dollar homes being built
26 that the County then subsidizes.
27 Commissioner Rich said the district could be extended further to offset some costs.
28 Commissioner Pelissier said even though the same rates would be charged to
29 everyone, it would be possible to do a tiered rate for usage.
30 Chair McKee said he is uncomfortable with straight out subsidies to higher dollar homes.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said there was a similar issue with the Efland water rates.
32 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the debt that this district will incur affects the County's
33 debt capacity.
34 Bob Jessup said it would affect the debt capacity only to the extent that a break-even
35 system is not being run. He said if the capital and operating costs are being covered through
36 the rates, fees, and charges, it is invisible to the debt capacity.
37 Chair McKee asked if Bob Jessup could clarify further.
38 Bob Jessup said this would not be a general fund obligation. He said if the system is
39 operated so that it pays it owns bills, then the rating agencies will not be worried about it.
40 Bob Jessup said the Board has Attachment B, which is the chart of activities for creating
41 a water and sewer district. He said the district could borrow money and pay back funds just like
42 the County.
43 Bob Jessup said special assessments could be used to recover some of the capital. He
44 said this would involve taking a portion of the cost to run the infrastructure past a residence and
45 charge the resident to recover all or a portion of that cost. He said there is a petition process
46 where the landowner can get up to 30 years to pay off such costs.
47 Bob Jessup said the Local Government Commission (LGC) cannot require the district to
48 be self-sufficient. He said the LGC will want there to be some sort of stated policy as to
49 whether the County is seeking a self-sufficient district or a subsidized one.
50 Chair McKee said to direct staff to continue to proceed further with this process.
13
1 Commissioner Rich said she has many more questions, but is content to hold them for
2 now until the process moves forward a bit more.
3 Commissioner Price asked if an advisory board could be set up, outside of the Board of
4 County Commissioners.
5 Bob Jessup said the BOCC is the governing board, but an advisory board could be set
6 up should the BOCC so desire.
7
8 3. Waste Diversion at Special Events and Other Waste Management Related
9 Outreach Efforts
10 Muriel Williman, Solid Waste Education and Outreach Coordinator, presented the
11 following PowerPoint slides:
12
13 It's not "ZERO-WASTE"
14 but it is...EXTREME WASTE DIVERSION!!!
15
16 Orange County provides varying levels of waste reduction assistance to public and
17 private special events
18 • Technical assistance (for food waste diversion, source reduction, straight-up recycling;
19 for vendors and organizers)
20 • Containers, collection, equipment and staffing for large events often where we also
21 host an information booth
22 • Loan, delivery and pick-up of recycling and/or food waste containers for events where
23 organizers agree to collect, manage and separate materials
24 • There is no charge for these services
25
26 Waste reduction resources
27 • Recycling for all— people AND materials
28 o Well established program, universal throughout Orange County
29 o Beverage containers, non-bottle plastics such as tubs, cups and plastic bags
30 • Food waste diversion options
31 o Brooks Contractors for commercial composting, special events, and now public
32 drop-off
33 • Collaborations
34 o Public Works, Parks and Rec, Community groups
35 • Volunteer
36
37 Care and Feeding of Volunteers
38 • Solicit through press releases, social media, government and university list-serves, high
39 school and scout groups
40 • Save contact info to cultivate experienced volunteers
41 • Send info to the group so they are well prepared
42 • Give goodies
43 • Thank you note with diversion results
44
45 Small, Medium and Large Events
46 • How many people? Venue footprint?
47 o Volume of waste, scale of operations
48 • How will the waste be managed?
49 o What level of diversion engages the organizer? Just recycling or compost too?
14
1 o How much help is needed... how much help do they have?
2 • What is being served?
3 o What can be recycled, replaced, or eliminated
4 o Recommend durables first, work backwards
5 Employee Picnic
6 • Trade offs
7 o Reusable, recyclable, compostable
8 o Convenience, cost, availability of resources
9 • Never leave waste alone
10 o MUST have someone minding the trash sort
11 • Level of diversion depends on the organizer, their interest and ability
12
13 Small Events
14 • 300 people or less. Waste stream is manageable.
15 • Identify sources of waste
16 o First, recommend durables, then a combination of durable, compostable and
17 recyclable.
18 o Just food? Compost at home. All compostables? 4-5 carts.
19 o Catered? Kegs? Bottles?
20 Fork It Over!
21 o 200+ stainless steel utensil sets from PTA Thrift and other donors.
22 o 200+ white cloth napkins
23 o Loan out clean and separated, returned washed and separated.
24
25 Farmer's Market Harvest Dinner
26 • White linen tablecloths, fabric napkins, durable utensils compostable cups and
27 paper plates.
28 o Easy to compost plates, cups, separate the rest
29 o Has a classy look and feel
30 • Very little trash! Consistently 95%+ waste diversion
31
32 Medium Sized Events
33 • One - two thousand people; drop containers and collect the "results"
34 o Walk for Education
35 o Ramblin Rose/ Bike and foot races
36 o Ruritan Rodeo/ Car shows
37 • Areas of waste tend to be isolated
38 o Casual finger-foods: Pizza, hotdogs, popsicles = NO serving ware or packaging!
TM
39 • Race Without a Trace ; best practices
40 o Electronic goodie-bag
41 o Reusable equipment and banners
42 o Large thermos for paper water cups, not bottles
43
44 Farm to Fork
45 • Organizer provides ALL compostables to food vendors
46 • One fork/participant
47 • Paper table toppers
48 • Next to no need for sorting
49
15
1 Extreme Waste Diversion!!!
2 • 15 pounds "true trash" (plastic film contaminated with food waste or grease)
3 • 960 lbs. food and related paper waster composted
4 • 590 lbs. common recyclables (glass, wine, and beer bottles, paper table toppers,
5 aluminum foil pans, very few plastic drink bottles)
6 • 25 lbs. corrugated cardboard
7 • 20 lbs. of clean plastic film such as ice bags
8 • 1 lb. of wine corks (donated locally for creative reuse)
9 1611 total pounds
10 1596 diverted = 99% waste diversion
11
12 Cost? Yes.
13 • 3 recycling staff$12.50/9 hours = $337.50
14 • Trucks and containers
15 • Volunteer solicitation and organizing
16 • Composting collection $80 or more
17
18 Large Events
19 • 10-30,000 people
20 • Mix of food and vendor types
21 • Lots of variables
22 • High volume of waste materials
23 • Vendors MUST be on board + organizer support/enforcement
24 o MOU with organizers
25 o Vendor contract specifies compostable serving ware
26
27 Hillsborough Hog Day: Most environ-"mental"-ly improved
28 • 0-85% in only 10 years!
29 • Incremental improvements:
30 o Communication, booth placement and amount of material diverted
31 o Vendor contract to use only compostable or recyclable serving ware; enforced by
32 organizer
33 o Organizers paid for compost collection
34 o Composter assured good material with planning and oversight
35 Now they still compost cooker waste= heaviest
36
37 Extreme Waste Diversion: 2013 Hillsborough Hog Day Waste Diversion
38 Total garbage, courtesy of Town of Hillsborough: 700 pounds
39 Comingled bottles, cans, and lemonade cups:
40 11 ninety gallon carts (.445 cubic yards) = 11 x .445 x 225 = 1402
41 Compostable food and paper waste = 1400 lbs.
42 Used oil 10 gallons, 7.7 lbs. per gallon = 77 lbs.
43 Plastic bags and other film = 15 lbs.
44 Total recycling/composting weight = 2894
45 Total refuse weight = 3594
46 Waste diversion rate = 80%
47
48 Extreme Waste Diversion!!!
49 • Staffed trash sorting stations
16
1 • Clear signage
2 • Always pair a trash can with recycling bin at least
3 • Collaboration and cooperation
4
5 Cost? Yes.
6 • Vehicles and containers
7 • Paid staff$12.50/hour
8 32 hours = $600
9 o Vendor liaison
10 o Volunteer liaison
11 o Booth assistance
12 • My time
13 o Meetings, logistics, scheduling over 30 volunteers
14 • Brooks: drop-off and collect 16 compact carts on-site = $300 (organizers pay)
15
16 Benefits? Yes.
17 GREAT education opportunities on all levels
18 o Community volunteers
19 o Community organizers
20 o Food service folks
21 o Point of contact with residents and visitors
22 • Sponsor status
23 • Saves money
24 o Future lost cost
25 • Models "Going Green"
26
27 Program-based outreach
28 Curbside Recycling
29 o Urban— Door to door
30 o Rural-Annual and targeted mailing
31 o Cart info with cart at point of delivery
32 o Collaborate with community groups
33 o Dedicated program managers deal with issues right away
34 Commercial and MFU Recycling
35 o Door to door
36 o Work with enforcement officers
37 o BARS
38 Landfill Tours
39
40 Broad- based outreach
41 • Tabling at local events
42 • Phone calls, emails answered by knowledgeable staff
43 • Informative web page
44 • List-serve: 5,700 + subscribers
45 • Local media contacts in press, radio
46 o Paid advertising
47 o Articles and interviews
48 • Annual "WASTE MATTERS"
49 • County's communication team
17
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
3 adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
4
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 Earl McKee, Chair
8
9 Donna Baker
10 Clerk to the Board
11
12
13
1
I Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
6 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
7 October 15, 2015
8 JOINT PLANNING AREA (JPA) PUBLIC HEARING
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Towns of Chapel Hill and
11 Carrboro for a Joint Planning Area (JPA) public hearing on Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 7:00
12 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Mia
15 Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier and Penny Rich
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price
17 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Staff Attorney Annette Moore
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
19 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
20 appropriately below)
21 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS/STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt,
22 Jim Ward, Lee Storrow, George Cianciolo, Maria Palmer, Sally Greene and Town Manager
23 Roger Stancil
24 CHAPEL HILLTOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Member Donna Bell and
25 Council Member Ed Harrison
26 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS/STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Lydia Lavelle,
27 Aldermen Damien Seils, Jacquelyn Gist, Randee Haven O'Donnell, Sammy Slade, Bethany
28 Chaney and Town Manager David Andrews
29 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Alderman Michelle Johnson
30
31 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
32
33 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR AND MAYORS
34 Mayor Lavelle said Alderman Johnson was not feeling well and might arrive late.
35 Mayor Kleinschmidt said Council Members Harrison and Bell would not be attending.
36 Chair McKee said that Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price had conflicts and
37 would not be attending tonight.
38
39 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
40 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading the Public Charge.
41
42 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
43
44 1. Text Amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement—Consider revisions to existing
45 language regarding Transition Area resident representation on the Town of Chapel Hill's
46 Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment.
47
48 Mayor Kleinschmidt reviewed the following background information:
49 PURPOSE:
2
1 To receive public comment on two proposed options to amend the Joint Planning
2 Agreement to revise existing language regarding Transition Area resident representation on the
3 Town of Chapel Hill's Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment.
4
5 BACKGROUND:
6 In the mid-1980s Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro adopted a
7 Joint Planning Land Use Plan and accompanying Agreement that provided land use planning
8 for the area of the county commonly referred to as the Rural Buffer and for areas designated as
9 "Transition Areas" adjacent to the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Transition Areas were
10 defined as areas in transition from rural to urban and were projected to be provided with urban
11 services (public utilities and other town services). The full plan and agreement is available at:
12 http://orangecountync.gov/planning/Documents.asp.
13 In October 2014, the Town of Chapel Hill enacted an Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ)
14 expansion ordinance that changed most of the Town's designated Transition Area to ETJ.
15 Because there is relatively little Chapel Hill Transition Area remaining, the Town of Chapel Hill
16 has proposed two options for potential amendments to the Joint Planning Agreement regarding
17 Transition Area resident representation on its Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment.
18 The attached Town staff report provides further details on the options. Amendments to the Joint
19 Planning Agreement require a joint public hearing and approval by the three governing boards
20 of the jurisdictions that are parties to the agreement.
21 Gene Poveromo, Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department Development Manager,
22 made the following PowerPoint presentation:
23
24
25 October 15, 2015
26 Joint Public Hearing
27
28 Amending the Joint Planning Area Agreement
29 Recommendation
30 Consider the amendment
31 Continue the Public Hearing
32 o Chapel Hill Town Council
33 ❖ November 11
34 o Carrboro Board of Aldermen
35 ❖ November 24
36 o Board of Orange County Commissioners
37 December 7
38
39 Joint Planning Area Agreement Amending JPA Resident Membership on Town of Chapel
40 Hill
41 Planning Board
42 Board of Adjustment
43 JPA Resident Membership
44 "...at least on resident of each town's respective Transition area shall be appointed
45 ...planning board and board of adjustment..."
46 TRANSITION AREA = JOINT PLANNING AREA
47
48 Chapel Hill Planning Jurisdiction (map)
49
50 Chapel Hill Planning Commission Recommendation
3
1 Amend the JPA Agreement and replace the JPA seat on the Planning Commission and
2 Board of Adjustment with a Chapel Hill resident seat
3 Planning Commission
4 "...current ETJ/JPA population (6.7%) as compared to current Planning Commission
5 member percentage (22%)."
6 Other Options...
7 Make no changes to membership...retain JPA seat on Planning Commission & Board of
8 Adj.
9
10 Another Option...
11 • Change the JPA seat to an ETJ or JPA seat
12 o County Commission appointment
13 • Seat can be filled by a Chapel Hill Resident if unfilled for 90 days
14 o Town Council appointment
15
16 Recommendation
17 Consider the amendment
18 Continue the Public Hearing
19 o Chapel Hill Town Council
20 ❖ November 11
21 o Carrboro Board of Aldermen
22 ❖ November 24
23 o Orange County Commission
24 December 7
25
26 Town Council Member Palmer said the slides did not reflect the current membership that
27 shows the enormous contrast between the less than 1 percent of the population being in the
28 joint planning area, yet being 20 percent of the representation on the Planning Board.
29 Mayor Kleinschmidt said if another column was added to show the percentage of
30 representation on the Chapel Hill Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment, a huge
31 disparity would be evident between the population and the representation.
32 Alderman Seils asked if the Chapel Hill Planning Commission had permitting issuing
33 authority.
34 Mayor Kleinschmidt said this Commission is a quasi-judicial group, depending on the
35 type of permit that is being sought.
36 Alderman Seils said the Carrboro Planning Board does not have such authority.
37
38 PUBLIC COMMENT:
39 Debbie Masquela read an email that she had sent to all boards:
40 1 live in the JPA Chapel Hill map area. I would like to suggest a good compromise on
41 the Option B for the Joint Planning Area Membership. Please consider this compromise.
42 If we are to use Option B but to retain the title on the individual seats on the Chapel Hill
43 Planning Commission and Chapel Hill Board of Adjustment as having JPA/ETJ status. Which
44 means the persons filling those seats, if they do remain vacant after 90 days of being available
45 to JPA or ETJ residents, those people would be responsible to represent the interests of
46 JPA/ETJ residents. The seat would retain their titles as JPA/ETJ representatives, even if after
47 this 90-day vacant period lapsed and the seats were then filled by Chapel Hill residents.
48 If you do not agree with this compromise, I, plus my neighbors would like to know why
49 we would be denied this representation in our own Town's government; and not just because
50 we are outnumbered in population and acreage. Our countryside landscapes of rolling hills of
51 farms, woods, forest, fields, creeks, streams, ponds add immeasurably to the aesthetic value
4
1 and harmony of our Chapel Hill Community as a whole. These peaceful lands cannot be held in
2 comparison to the Town's lands that are weaved with shops, traffic lights, cookie cutter
3 neighborhoods upon a mixture of asphalt and cement. JPA/ETJ areas are greatly different in
4 form, and function than Chapel Hill In-Town Limits. The interests and environments of the
5 JPA/ETJ people need to have their own representative, because unless you live there, you just
6 don't get it and you won't understand what we want and why we want it."
7 Debbie Mesquela asked for her comments to be put on the Chapel Hill website. She
8 said the request is that the names of the seats remain the same, and whoever holds these seats
9 would represent the needs of the JPA/ETJ.
10 Mayor Kleinschmidt clarified that the only seat to be eliminated was the JPA seat, which
11 would be replaced with a Chapel Hill resident. He said the ETJ seat would remain the same.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said the proposal from Chapel Hill is reasonable, and the County
13 has a similar process for addressing seats that are vacant for 180 days. He suggested a period
14 between 90 to 180 days.
15 Mayor Kleinschmidt said that suggestion is different than the Town of Chapel Hill's
16 Planning Commission's recommendation.
17 Alderman Chaney asked if two seats would be reduced to one seat and would represent
18 this small percentage of the population.
19 Mayor Kleinschmidt said yes.
20 Commissioner Rich clarified that the ETJ position would not be done away with, but
21 rather the JPA seat would be combined, or if it goes unfilled by an ETJ/JPA person in a
22 specified time period, that the seat would go to a Chapel Hill resident.
23 Mayor Kleinschmidt said the Planning Commission's recommendation is to morph the
24 JPA seat into a Chapel Hill resident seat, but there are other options to consider and he
25 reviewed them.
26 Commissioner Rich asked if the Planning Commission has a definite number of
27 membership slots or can the numbers be increased.
28 Gene Poveromo said State statute requires that there be at least one person from the
29 ETJ on Board of Adjustment and Chapel Hill Planning Commission. He said the Planning
30 Commission is made up of nine members, and the JPA agreement says there must be one JPA
31 position.
32 Town Council Member Palmer said Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion of 180 days is a
33 long time and explained the appointment process and Advisory Board schedules. She said
34 even the 90 days could be problematic. She said there are only 298 residents that live in the
35 JPA area, which is a small number from which to find a representative to serve on these boards.
36 Councilman Ward said he believed that the JPA still needs representation, and he
37 supports the "another option" choice.
38 Gene Poveromo said there is one seat dedicated to the ETJ, and it would be possible to
39 have a second ETJ seat.
40 Councilman Ward asked if it is possible to transform the remaining ETJ seat into one
41 that could also be filled by a JPA resident.
42 Mayor Kleinschmidt said that is not be possible, because there must be an ETJ
43 representative.
44 Mayor Kleinschmidt said another option would be to consider bringing the small JPA
45 area into the ETJ or releasing it to the County. He said the latter option would be a longer
46 process.
47 Mayor Kleinschmidt said when this was created years ago, there was a lot more
48 transition area and a lot more residents in the JPA area.
49 Councilman Ward said he hoped that if the shorter time frame was chosen, Chapel Hill
50 would be able to help Orange County fill these positions as the Board should be fully staffed
51 with membership. He said a time extension could be requested if need be.
5
1 Alderman Slade asked if this potential change would affect Carrboro.
2 Gene Poveromo said the proposal does not include changing Carrboro's jurisdiction.
3 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that Ms. Masquela could apply for this position through
4 the Orange County Clerk's office.
5 Mayor Kleinschmidt referenced the recommendation below and said all three elected
6 boards will discuss and recommend an option from their entity by the suggested dates below, or
7 whenever they chose to do so.
8
9 RECOMMENDATION:
10 The Planning Staffs recommend that the governing boards:
11 1. Hear public comment on the proposed options to amend the Joint Planning Agreement.
12 2. Close the public hearing.
13 3. Refer the matter to the local governments for decision in accordance with the following
14 schedule:
15
16 a. Orange County
17 Orange County Planning Board for recommendation — November 4, 2015
18 Board of County Commissioners for possible action — December 7, 2015
19
20 b. Chapel Hill
21 Chapel Hill Planning Board for recommendation —done on September 1, 2015
22 Town Council for possible action — November 11, 2015
23
24 c. Carrboro
25 Carrboro Planning Board for recommendation — November 5, 2015
26 Board of Aldermen for possible action — November 10 or 24, 2015
27
28 ADJOURNMENT OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING
29
30 The Joint Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 The Town of Chapel Hill left at 7:36 p.m.
35
1
I Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
5 JOINT MEETING
6 October 15, 2015
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a joint meeting with the Town of
9 Carrboro Aldermen on Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human
10 Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Annette Moore, Staff Attorney
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lydia Lavelle and
20 Aldermen Bethany Chaney, Randee Haven-O'Donnell, Damon Seils, Sammy Slade, Jacquelyn
21 Gist, and David Andrews, Town Manager
22 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Alderman Johnson
23
24 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:42 p.m.
25
26 1. Southern Library Discussion —Site Selection and Potential Capital Needs
27 Bonnie Hammersley deferred the discussion to Jeff Thompson, Orange County Director
28 of Asset Management Services; Trish McQuire, Planning Director of Carrboro; and Michael
29 Harvey, Orange County Planning Supervisor. Jeff Thompson reviewed the following
30 information:
31
32 Background:
33 The Orange County Board of Commissioners authorized the County Manager to move
34 forward with further site study of the 203 S. Greensboro site (owned by the Town of Carrboro—
35 See Attachment 1 a) according to the Board adopted site criteria process on September 15,
36 2015 (see abstract at Attachment 1 b) and to begin site control negotiations with the Carrboro
37 Town Manager. Included in Attachment 1b is the County Manager's memo dated July 17, 2015
38 that summarizes the activities of County staff over the past several months and emphasizes
39 clear communications between the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the Carrboro
40 Board of Aldermen.
41 The Carrboro Board of Aldermen met on October 6, 2015 and authorized the Town
42 Manager to work with the County Manager on site control negotiations of the 203 S.
43 Greensboro parcel. Next steps in the process will include: 1) initial and follow-on discussions
44 between the County Manager and the Town Manager as directed by the governing Boards; 2)
45 detailed physical site due diligence to include geotechnical analysis, environmental analysis,
46 storm water management impacts, utility capacity, traffic flow, and parking impacts; 3) land use
47 analysis in partnership with Carrboro planning staff; and 4) Southern Branch Library operations
48 and programming analysis in coordination with previous public input received in the spring of
2
1 2014. County staff will brief the Orange County Board of County Commissioners no later than
2 December 7th with regard to the progress of the 203 S. Greensboro study.
3 Jeff Thompson said similar themes emerged in all feedback provided to the Managers
4 by the Town and the County. He said those themes are:
5 1) acknowledgment of the site's potential for a southern branch library
6 2) opportunities and challenges of an urban library site with downtown Carrboro
7 3) vehicular parking, management and capacity
8 4) potential for mixed uses on the property
9 5) options for site control for Orange County and Carrboro for collaboration
10 Trish McQuire referred to the point about site control, saying there is interest in looking
11 at options for funding from outside sources.
12 Mayor Lavelle said she was aware of a grant that NCCU School of Law was seeking.
13 She said it is a grant to create virtual judicial offices in public libraries across North Carolina,
14 and said this proposed library was one of the sites.
15 Alderman Gist said it is not possible to dig under this site, because there is granite
16 underneath. She said the minute that Carrboro bought this land as a parking lot, it has been
17 filled. She said the effect of taking this away from their small local businesses must be
18 considered. She said co-location must be taken off the table. She said the citizens of Carrboro
19 do not support co-location at all.
20 Alderman Slade said he hoped an opportunity to support a site for co-location could be
21 found. He offered the suggestion of the co-location of the Cat's Cradle as opposed to the Arts
22 Center. He said the Cat's Cradle has been looking for another space in Town. He encouraged
23 the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to think collaboratively with Carrboro about this
24 possibility.
25 Alderman Haven O'Donnell agreed with Alderman Slade, and said their Board would
26 entertain a discussion about co-location with the Cat's Cradle, which is a beloved and
27 successful local business. She said the Cat's Cradle is only seeking 10,000 square feet. She
28 said if the library project moves forward at this location, there will need to be a parking plan for
29 the downtown businesses. She said creative parking plans for this site were floated several
30 years ago, and she thinks the conversation is worth having and pursuing.
31 Mayor Lavelle said the Arts Center and Kidzu presented an elaborate co-location plan,
32 and her takeaway was that the public was not ready to support the project in the way it was
33 presented. She said the organizations were told to go back to the drawing board. She said she
34 does not want to forget these groups, but the Board of Aldermen was clear that the library
35 process was not to be slowed down. She agreed parking is a huge concern.
36 Jackie Gist said the people who spoke in favor of an Arts Center co-location were part of
37 that Center.
38 Chair McKee said the idea of a southern branch of the library has been years in the
39 making, and nothing is simple about this process. He added that Orange County is committed
40 to finding a site that is workable for all. He said almost all of the sites considered thus far have
41 had issues. He encouraged both staffs to continue to work together.
42
43 2. Rogers Road Updates
44 a) Rogers Road Sewer Line— County and Town Perspectives
45 Bonnie Hammersley said Travis Myren has been participating on the project team, and
46 he would give an update on the schedule.
47 Travis Myren said the sewer extension is underway, and earlier this summer the County
48 executed two contracts to move this forward. He said the first contract was with Orange Water
49 and Sewer Authority (OWASA) and drawings for the design work are expected in a few weeks.
50 He said the easement acquisition process would also begin, kicking off with a community
3
1 meeting. He said the second contract is with the Jackson Center to do community outreach
2 and help the County work with property owners one-on-one as easements are needed.
3 Travis Myren said there is a project team that meets on a weekly basis.
4 Travis Myren said the upcoming major decision points are: updated cost estimates plus
5 drawings, and as the project proceeds into construction, a subsequent interlocal agreement that
6 finances the construction.
7 Alderman Slade asked if there was a way to equitably reflect the funding.
8 David Andrews said Carrboro has set aside $900,000 for their portion of this project. He
9 said Carrboro is in support of the concept of a district.
10 Commissioner Rich asked if this amount was from an estimate given two years ago.
11 David Andrews said the preliminary estimates have not changed that much, but there
12 may be some adjustments needed.
13 Chair McKee asked David Andrews if Carrboro had been given a presentation on the
14 district concept.
15 David Andrews said not yet, but one is expected on October 20tH
16 David Andrews said the Managers have been very positive about this project.
17
18 b) Potential or Actual Positions of County and Carrboro on Rogers Road Sewer and
19 Water District
20 No presentation or discussion.
21
22 3. Collaborative Efforts on Affordable Housing
23 Chair McKee said there was concern regarding the amount of monies allocated to the
24 bond referendum for affordable housing. He said it is well understood by the BOCC that $5
25 million is not enough to address all the affordable housing needs. He said the BOCC will
26 address many of these needs through the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) or the budget.
27 Bonnie Hammersley said Audrey Spencer-Horsley, Director of Housing, Human Rights,
28 and Community Development; was supposed to attend tonight but she has not arrived yet.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said she met with Ms. Spencer-Horsley today and she is working
30 on a plan that will include community outreach. She said Ms. Spencer-Horsley would be giving
31 a presentation to the Board of County Commissioners on November 15 to lay out the
32 framework going forward. She said Ms. Spencer-Horsley has been working closely with the
33 Town of Carrboro and will continue to do so.
34 Chair McKee said she is working on a plan for the Board of County Commissioners and
35 all of the partners, to determine how everyone can more effectively work together on this issue.
36 Alderman Chaney asked Carrboro staff to forward the Town's plans to Audrey Spencer-
37 Horsley.
38 Chair McKee said the BOCC had already received these plans.
39 Commissioner Rich thanked everyone for the efforts regarding affordable housing and
40 said it is very important that this issue is being addressed with a unified front.
41 Alderman Gist said it is also important to keep the middle class in mind as well.
42 Commissioner Pelissier said sharing information is a good start, but she urged everyone
43 to remember that conversation must occur at both the staff and elected official level in all
44 jurisdictions.
45 Alderman Haven-O'Donnell said she appreciated Commissioner Pelissier's comments.
46 She said that people in the services industries such as teachers, police and firefighters are not
47 making middle class salaries and cannot afford to live in Orange County. She said community
48 is deepened when the service people live in the community. She said Durham has started to
49 create housing for their service people, and she would like to look at this possibility and build a
50 framework to support the service people of Orange County.
4
1 Alderman Chaney said the people that come to purchase Habitat homes are State
2 employees. She said this challenges them to raise their wages so that subsidies can be used
3 for those who really need it. She said the State Employee Credit Union (SECU) is heavily
4 invested in workforce housing, and she said is it worth opening a conversation with SECU about
5 a public partnership on this issue. She said she is glad that Orange County is investing some
6 of the bond money in affordable housing.
7 Alderman Chaney said the affordable housing discussion did not start off with a vision,
8 and if it had the allocation of bond funds, it may have gone differently.
9 Alderman Chaney said if the right mechanism and a strategic plan for affordable
10 housing can be established, she believes the County can move forward.
11 Chair McKee said Bonnie Hammersley was writing down the idea about SECU. He said
12 the point that the conversation started with the schools is the primary reason the BOCC has
13 asked Audrey to create a master plan for affordable housing. He said additionally a plan for
14 seniors has been requested, so a vision can be determined for these issues. He said this will
15 not change the past bond discussion, and this bond will not cover all needs; but the focus of the
16 bond was on the schools.
17 Chair McKee said there is not just $5 million in the bond, but additionally the Board of
18 County Commissioners voted to put a minimum of$1 million in the annual CIP, which could go
19 to both capital and operating needs.
20 Mayor Lavelle said all plans to address affordable housing must be creative.
21 Chair McKee said in the spring Commissioner Jacobs proposed land-banking land for
22 affordable housing, and Orange County has dedicated $1 million for this purpose.
23 Alderman Slade said there is a tiny home movement for homeless people that are
24 mentally disabled. He said there is a project in Chatham County that could be a good resource.
25 He said there are benefits to locating affordable homes in urban areas since there is public
26 transportation.
27 Commissioner Pelissier said there was a presentation about the Chatham County
28 Project at the Partnership for Homelessness. She said at the Assembly of Governments (AOG)
29 meeting in November that the Greene Tract will be discussed. She said Chapel Hill, Carrboro
30 and Orange County own this property, and it would be a great place for an experiment with tiny
31 homes.
32 Bonnie Hammersley said Ms. Spencer-Horsley had called and was following time
33 frames on the agenda and did not think she needed to be at the meeting until 9:10 p.m.
34
35 4. Update on One-Quarter(1/4) Cent Sales Tax Proceeds and Uses
36 Bonnie Hammersley said this presentation was given to the BOCC on Tuesday night.
37 Paul Laughton, Orange County Director of Finance and Administrative Services,
38 reviewed the financial side of the '/4 cents sales tax and proceeds, as of 2015. He said 50
39 percent of the Article 46 sales tax goes toward education, and 50 percent towards economic
40 development. He reviewed the tables in Attachment 4-b, Article 46 Sales Tax Proceeds
41 Budgeted and Use (since Inception on April 1, 2012).
42
43 Steve Brantley made the following PowerPoint presentation:
44
45 Orange County Economic Development
46 Discussion of Article 46
47 (One Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Economic Development)
48
49 Economic Development Programs in Orange County Funded by "Article 46"
50 (One Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Economic Development)
5
1 (Pie chart)
2
3 Economic Development Programs in Orange County Funded by "Article 46"
4 (One Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Economic Development)
5 • Debt Service on Utilities& Infrastructure to 3 Economic Development Districts
6 Airficle 66 nu uaa. l fa. n61ng"� $7501000 or 60% of i i 11
7 • Small Business Loan Fund
8 Airficle 66 nu uaa. l fa. n61ng"� 2001000 or 16% of i i 11
9 • Innovation/Incubator Center for Entrepreneurial Developments (LaUNCh Chapel Hill)
10 Airficle 66 annuall fun61ng"� 1001000 or 8% of tot II fun61ng
11 • Small Business Investment Grants
12 Airficle 66 annuall fun61ng"� 1001000 or 8% of tot II
13 • Agricultural Economic Development Grants
14 Airficle 66 annuall fun61ng"� 601000 or 5% of t t II
15 • Marketing and Collaborative Outreach
16 Airficle 66 annuall fun61ng"� 201000 or ` 5% of t t II
17 • Collateral Material, Advertising, Publishing
18 Airficle 66 fun61ng"� 201000 or ` 5% of t t II
19 Total Allocation Per Year: $1,250,000 or 100%
20
21 Debt Service on Utilities and Infrastructure to 3 Economic Development Districts
22 Article 46 annual funding: $750,000 or 60% of total
23 Examples of Use:
24 Town of Carrboro
25 County's 50/50 financial participation with the Town of Carrboro to share in the co-pay
26 requirement for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that funded the
27 repair of a failing sewer line on Roberson Street. The utility line has now been repaired.
28 Buckhorn Economic Development District
29 Over $4 million spent or committed to fund a backbone water & sewer utility line in the
30 Buckhorn Economic Development District to help recruit prospective industries &
31 business considering sites.
32
33 Debt Service on Utilities & Infrastructure to 3 Economic Development Districts
34 Article 46 annual funding: $750,000 or 60% of total
35 Projects
36 Buckhorn-Mebane Phase 2 - Completed
37 Buckhorn EDD Phase 2 Extension - Design 99%
38 Eno EDD Utilities — Feasibility
39 Hillsborough EDD Utilities — Conceptual
40 Buckhorn-Mebane Phase 3 and 4— Conceptual
41 Economic Development Account (Undesignated Proceeds, Not Debt)
42 Morinaga Area Infrastructure— Completed
43 ED Utility Extension Projects — Prospective industry, project specific infrastructure
44
45 Small Business Loan Fund
46 Article 46 annual funding: $200,000 or 16% of total
47
48 Article 46 includes a provision to provide up to $200,000.00 annually in additional
49 lending flexibility to Orange County's existing Small Business Loan Program.
6
1 • The Program's current loan portfolio is supported by a separate source of revolving
2 funds previously authorized by the BOCC, and no Article 46 monies have been required,
3 to date, to supplement the Program.
4 • There are no loan delinquencies in the Program's activity.
5
6 Entrepreneurial & Incubator Support
7 Article 46 funding: $100,000 or 8% of total
8
9 Examples of Use:
10 • "LaUNCh Chapel Hill" innovation center is funded 50/50 through an Interlocal
11 Agreement between Orange County & Town of Chapel Hill. The Interlocal Agreement
12 expires on 12/31/15.
13 • Orange County will contribute $140,000.00 for 3 '/2 year through the initial Interlocal
14 Agreement. UNC & private sponsors also contribute.
15 • At the request of LaUNCh, the Town of Chapel Hill and UNC, staff will soon present to
16 the BOCC a recommended proposal for a 3-year extension of the Interlocal Agreement,
17 at the same annual cost, to continue the County's financial commitment to LaUNCh.
18
19 Small Business Investment Grant
20 Article 46 annual funding: $100,000 or 8% of total
21
22 Summary of Grant Awards to date:
23 • Grant program was approved by the BOCC in March 2015.
24 • Subcommittee comprised of Orange County Economic Development advisory board
25 members meet quarterly to review grant applications.
26 • 8 initial grants totaling $61,712.00 were recently awarded in the program's first round of
nd
27 application reviews during the 2 Q 2015.
28 • 5 applications were deferred until the second review period
29 • 34 new and/or deferred grant applications requesting a total of$243,541.67 in grant
30 awards have been submitted for the second subcommittee review meeting on Oct. 20,
31 2015.
32
33 Small Business Investment Grant
34 Article 46 annual funding: $100,000 or 8% of total
35
36 Approved Grants:
37 Carrboro Community Acupuncture (Kim Calandra— business expansion)
38 Tempeh Girl (Beth May—sales expansion)
39 Woman Craft (Katherine Palomba — promotional
40 activities)
41 Trill Financial (Simon Jung —computer testing equipment)
42 MasterPeace Barber (Mark Holt— repairs to business location)
43 Regulator Brewing (Anna McDonald Dobbs — marketing)
44 Seal The Seasons (Patrick Mateer & Will Collins — machinery)
45 The Accidental Baker (Kevin Mason — new bakery equipment)
46
47 Agricultural Investment Grant
48 Article 46 annual funding: $60,000 or 5% of total
7
1
2 Summary of Awards to date:
3 • Grant program was approved by the BOCC in March 2015.
4 • 7 initial agriculture grants totaling $57,987.00 were recently approved in the program's
5 first quarterly round of applicant reviews.
6 • Grant program is funded by up to $60,000.00 annually from Article 46 proceeds.
7
8 Agricultural Investment Grant
9 Article 46 annual funding: $60,000 or 5% of total
10
11 Approved Grants (first quarterly review):
12 • Taylor Fish Farm (Valee Taylor—tilapia fish farming)
13 • BoxCarr Farm (Austin Genke —fencing for milk goats)
14 • ColorFields Farm (Kelly Morrison — greenhouses)
15 • Four Leaf Farm (Tim McCaller— greenhouses)
16 • Smith Family Farm (Dawn Denson —well for irrigation)
17 • Dawn Breaker Farms (Ben Grimes — poultry processing equipment)
18 • Sweet Retreat Orchards (Aniko Redmon — irrigation system)
19
20 Agricultural Investment Grant
21 Article 46 annual funding: $60,000 or 5% of total
22
23 New Proposed Agriculture Grants:
24 (scheduled for second quarterly review on Nov. 18, 2015):
25 • 3 new applications have been received.
26 • 6 additional applications are anticipated to be submitted.
27 • $60,000 in total awards is forecast for the upcoming second quarterly review of new
28 applications.
29 • Initial marketing round included radio and newspaper ads; most recent marketing effort
30 had 800 post cards mailed out in Sept. 2015 to County-wide farms & agricultural-related
31 small firms
32
33 Marketing & Collaborative Outreach
34 Article 46 annual funding: $20,000 or 1.5% of total
35
36 Examples of Use:
37 Co-sponsor of the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce `s Partnership for a
38 Sustainable Community & Town of Chapel Hill to jointly fund a public-private consultant
39 study by the firm "Urban3 LLC". The study created a 3-D mapping of property tax
40 values per acre throughout the Orange County, and the economic development impact
41 of increasing commercial and retail density in an urban area.
42 Hillsborough Chamber's "Riverwalk Movie Series" sponsor in 2015.
43 Carrboro Film Festival sponsor.
44 Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce's "General Member Breakfast" guest speaker
45 series sponsor in 2015.
46 Orange County Agriculture Summit sponsor in 2015 to provide free attendance & meal
47 for all participants.
48
49 Advertising, Publishing & Collateral Materials
8
1 Article 46 annual funding: $20,000 or 1.5% of total
2
3 Examples of Use:
4 Participation in the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce's annual PRIMETIME
5 Business Expo.
6 New ad campaign & series of 3 business networking breakfast presentations with the
7 Town of Chapel Hill, assisted by Chapel Hill Magazine, will begin in early 2016.
8 Ad campaign with WCHL 1360 AM radio highlighting activity by Orange County's
9 Visitors Bureau & Economic Development.
10 Subscription to Buxton Company's "Scout" software to support retail retention &
11 recruitment efforts.
12
13 Alderman Chaney said sometimes non-profit organizations apply for Federal grants and
14 need matching funds. She asked if the Article 46 funds would be appropriate for this.
15 Steve Brantley said any request through the County would be received and reviewed
16 according to their criteria for grants.
17 Steve Brantley said there might be avenues in the agricultural grant process.
18 Alderman Chaney said one area of need is support for local growers and aggregation.
19 She asked if there is an update regarding this area in Orange County.
20 Steve Brantley said that would warrant a follow up report regarding the things that have
21 been going on behind the scenes.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said it is likely that Orange County will be getting a proposal to
23 use the Cedar Grove community building as a potential hub for aggregation. He said the
24 County is moving in the right direction on this issue.
25 Alderman Chaney asked if there are ways to reduce, and possibly redirect, liquidity, and
26 if staffs could work together to gain some efficiency in how to use the loan funds.
27 Alderman Slade expressed appreciation for the update, and for the direction Orange
28 County is taking. He said he is interested in the proportions of funding from the sales tax. He
29 said Carrboro represents 14 percent of the County population, but only receives 1 percent of
30 these funds. He said Carrboro seeks more of these funds to go to locally owned businesses.
31 Alderman Haven-O'Donnell said she wanted to thank both of the Economic
32 Development directors for their hard work and dedication. She asked about LaUNCh and if the
33 interlocal agreement would be renewed at end of the year.
34 Steve Brantley said it is expected that LaUNCh, the Town of Chapel Hill and the
35 University of North Carolina (UNC) will make this request before the end of the year.
36 Alderman Haven-O'Donnell asked if the County's economic development plans include
37 any options for a design or maker center. She referenced a project at UNC involving 3D
38 printers making prosthetic hands for children. She said such projects are going on right here in
39 Orange County that should be encouraged and facilitated.
40 Alderman Haven-O'Donnell reiterated the importance of focusing local, and that the
41 County should promote the efforts of local agriculture, in particular.
42 Chair McKee encouraged both the Town of Carrboro and the County to get the word out
43 regarding the available agricultural grants.
44 Bonnie Hammersley introduced the new Orange County Chief Financial Officer, Gary
45 Donaldson.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said there will be a consultant from Toronto, Canada at the
47 November 4th Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) meeting to talk about food waste recycling.
48
49 The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
50
9
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3
4 Donna Baker, Clerk
5
6
7 Earl McKee, Chair
8
9
10
11
12
1
I Attachment 4
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 October 20, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
10 October 20, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Mia Burroughs
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair McKee called meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23
24 - PowerPoint slides for item 8a: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
25 Assessment of Orange Public Transit (OPT)
26 - PowerPoint slides for item 8b: Orange County Detention Center Project Update
27
28 PUBLIC CHARGE
29
30 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
31
32 2. Public Comments
33
34 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
35 Terry Rekeweg read the following statement:
36 First, I believe the Durham-Orange LRT project is headed for failure for a large number
37 of reasons.
38 Second, if tax money is left over to begin redesign efforts, the project could be
39 redesigned to take more passengers to where they really want to go. It could be safer, more
40 cost efficient and faster. 11 minutes faster from Chapel Hill to downtown Durham.
41 The current light rail plan does not really connect Chapel Hill eastward to the rest of the
42 Triangle Region. Who in this room would consistently ride a transit system from Chapel Hill to
43 RTP or Raleigh going 13 miles out of your way? This extremely slow and winding track
44 alignment would add 26 miles and 1 hour to your work commute. No way! Passengers would
45 instead take a direct bus or drive.
46 There are many smart citizens in Orange County who get the problem and have made
47 comments on this rail project. I will pick one of these comments from many: "In its current
48 form, I do not believe we should spend the money to build the D-O LRT for the reason that
49 ridership patterns do not indicate the proposed routing will significantly reduce car trips into or
50 out of Chapel Hill. The majority of car trips into or out of Chapel Hill do not start or end in north
2
1 Durham, but rather in southwest Durham, RTP, RDU, Cary and downtown Raleigh...It should
2 instead go where traffic already exists from Chapel Hill to the Park (RTP), airport, and points
3 further east. Even with further expansions, this will not occur with such a long, winding
4 circuitous route, which takes longer than driving."
5 An independent transit consultant should be brought in to confirm the findings from
6 many others and myself.
7
8 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
9 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
10 below.)
11
12 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
13 Commissioner Rich said she had two petitions, with the first being the resolution at their
14 places titled: Resolution Declaring "Indigenous Peoples Day" that was originally sent out by
15 Carrboro Alderman Johnson who asked for the Towns and the County to pass a similar
16 resolution. Commissioner Rich said she is petitioning for a resolution, and this is a placeholder
17 for future discussion to refine it into the best resolution possible. She would like for the Board
18 to pass it by the end of the year, and said she would work with any other Board members or
19 community members on revising this resolution.
20 Chair McKee said Commissioner Price was also involved with a group working on a
21 similar resolution and hoped that these two groups could work together with those that had
22 ancestors here prior to Europeans colonization, in order to insure accurate wording.
23 Commissioner Rich petitioned the Board to have the Chair write a letter to the Board of
24 Elections expressing support for Sunday voting hours for the Presidential primary. She said
25 this could promote the "Souls to the Polls" effort, enlisting the help of local churches to provide
26 transportation for those that may not otherwise be able to get to the polls.
27 Chair McKee said he had already spoken to Board of Elections Director, and she is
28 gathering some data to forward to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC).
29 Commissioner Rich asked if the Board is making a motion with many steps, such as
30 the one at the October 6th meeting, to have it up on a screen or monitors for the public to view
31 as the Board is voting.
32 Chair McKee said this idea has been tried in the past, with varying degrees of success.
33 He said this suggestion would be a policy decision for the Board to discuss. He said he would
34 refer the item to Chair-Vice Chair.
35 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned the Board to consider providing GoTriangle bus
36 passes for Orange County employees. He said the City of Durham and Durham Tech are
37 already doing so for their employees.
38 Chair McKee said this item would be referred to the Manager.
39 Commissioner Dorosin said residents expressed concerns to him about an Orange
40 County School bus stop on Phoebe Road, and that the bus does not turn on to this road but
41 rather the children have to cross highway 86 to get to the bus. He asked if the Manager could
42 reach out to the school leadership about these concerns. He said he believed Phoebe Road is
43 a private road, and the owner may be willing to allow the bus to turn onto the road to insure
44 greater safety for the children.
45 Bonnie Hammersley said she would follow up on these concerns and report back to the
46 BOCC.
47 Chair McKee said the property owner is a friend of his and would be willing to speak
48 with them if necessary.
49 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the Board could be provided with information about
50 private road standards as they relate to development.
3
1 Chair McKee said the Manager could follow up on this request.
2
3 Commissioner Pelissier said she looked at the Master Aging Plan (MAP), and she
4 asked if staff could gather a group of stakeholders in this area to determine the infrastructure
5 needs for senior services in the future.
6 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an update regarding the space study, and if
7 Commissioner Pelissier's question is being covered in that report.
8 Bonnie Hammersley said staff would be reporting to the BOCC on these issues on
9 November 17tH
10 Chair McKee said he is on that group and it would not offer a comprehensive overlay
11 with the MAP. He added that the Senior Centers have been discussed.
12 Commissioner Price said Durham Tech provides a Go Pass for students and
13 employees.
14 Commissioner Price asked if bus stop markers along the routes could be added. She
15 gave the example of highway 70, saying that the public sees the buses go by, but report being
16 unsure of where to wait in order to catch the bus.
17 Chair McKee asked if the Manager would follow up.
18 Chair McKee had no petitions.
19
20 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
21
22 a. Proclamation Recognizing November 2015 as Orange Congregations in Mission
23 (OCIM) Month
24 The Board considered approving a proclamation recognizing November 2015 as Orange
25 Congregations in Mission (OCIM) Month in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign the
26 proclamation.
27 Reverend Sharon Freeland, OCIM Executive Director, read the proclamation:
28
29 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
30 Proclamation
31
32 ORANGE CONGREGATIONS IN MISSIONS MONTH (OCIM)
33 November 2015
34 Whereas, Orange Congregations in Mission (OCIM) is a private non-profit ministry composed
35 of almost 50 congregations in northern Orange County; and
36
37 Whereas, OCIM is committed to providing a helping hand to those in our community who are in
38 need of assistance; and
39
40 Whereas, OCIM strives to meet the emergency needs of those who find themselves in a crisis
41 situation; and
42
43 Whereas, the OCIM mission is fulfilled by ministering to the needs of people who have
44 populated the small communities and rural areas of Orange County since 1981; and
45
46 Whereas, OCIM is committed to feeding the hungry, providing clothing and other essentials
47 through its Meals on Wheels and Food Pantry Ministries and Thrift Shop Ministry; and
48
49 Whereas, other needs are met through its Samaritan Relief Ministry; and
50
4
1 Whereas, OCIM volunteers, staff, town and county governments contribute greatly to the
2 success of its programs;
3
4 NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do proclaim November
5 2015 to be OCIM Month and urge all community members to engage with those in need
6 through cheerful giving.
7
8 This the 20th day of October 2015.
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
11 approve the proclamation recognizing November 2015 as Orange Congregations in Mission
12 (OCIM) Month in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 5. Public Hearings
17
18 a. North Carolina Community Transportation Program Administrative and Capital
19 Grant Applications FY 2017
20 The Board considered:
21 1. Conducting a public hearing to receive public comments on the proposed grant application;
22 2. Closing the public hearing;
23 3. Approving the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2017 in the total
24 amount of$483,547 with a local match total of$56,693 to be provided when necessary;
25 4. Approving and authorizing the Chair to sign the Community Transportation Program
26 Resolution and the Local Share Certification for Funding form; and
27 5. Authorizing the Chair and the County Attorney to review.
28
29 Peter Murphy, Orange County Transportation Administrator, said this is a request for a
30 grant application for a Community Transportation Grant for both capital and administrative
31 funding. He said these funds would cover salaries for administrative staff, as well as some
32 items such as public utilities. He said the capital funds would go towards the purchase of new
33 buses. He said the Board had the appropriate paperwork before it showing that all procedural
34 steps were properly completed. He reviewed the recommendations before the Board.
35 Commissioner Price referred to Attachment 3 where it says that written comments can
36 be submitted up to November 2nd
37 John Roberts said the public hearing will be closed, and he is not sure why the
38 attachment says otherwise.
39 Peter Murphy said there is no requirement to keep the hearing open.
40 John Roberts said if the Board of County Commissioners wanted to keep the hearing
41 open until November 5th, in order to accept any written comments, it could do so.
42 Chair McKee asked the Board if it wished to close the hearing.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
45 keep the Public Hearing open until November 5th
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is any change in the administrative expenses
50 under the grant.
5
1 Peter Murphy said it is exactly the same amount as last year.
2 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the County's administrative expenses are higher.
3 Peter Murphy said yes. He said this is the funding that is available under the rural
4 administrative grant program, and urban funding is being applied for as well.
5 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that costs are going up but the grant is remaining the
6 same. He asked if the gap is getting significantly wider.
7 Peter Murphy said the cost of living is the most significant difference, and the County is
8 able to make up for some of these deficits with other funding sources.
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
11 approve the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2017 in the total
12 amount of$483,547 with a local match total of$56,693 to be provided when necessary;
13 approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Community Transportation Program Resolution and
14 the Local Share Certification for Funding form (Attachments 1 and 4); and authorized the Chair
15 and the County Attorney to review and sign the annual Certifications and Assurances document
16 in Attachment 2.
17
18 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the application should be approved tonight, as the
19 Board is holding the public hearing open until November 5th
20 John Roberts said as the application has to be submitted by November 6th, the Board
21 can adopt the resolution, publicize written comments to be accepted, and have the hearing
22 automatically close at November 2nd at 5pm. He said at the BOCC meeting on the 5th the Board
23 could close the public hearing. He said he is comfortable with adopting the resolution tonight,
24 but the decision is up to the Board of County Commissioners.
25 Peter Murphy said the application is filed electronically, and he is happy to leave the
26 vote until November 5th
27
28 Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Pelissier withdrew their motions.
29
30 Bonnie Hammersley said staff would bring back information at the next meeting,
31 regarding the administrative costs for last year and this year.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 6. Consent Agenda
36
37 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
38 NONE
39
40 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
43 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
48
49 a. Minutes
6
1 The Board approved the minutes for the September 8, 2015 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing;
2 the September 10, 2015 BOCC Work Session; and the September 15, 2015 BOCC Regular
3 Meeting as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
4 b. Approval of Amendment to Service Agreement for Senior Lunch Caterer Contract with
5 Nantucket Grill, Inc.
6 The Board approved an Amendment to Services Agreement for the food service caterer
7 contract with Nantucket Grill, Inc. to provide noon meals for the Home and Community Care
8 Block Grant-funded Senior Lunch Program at the Seymour and Central Orange Senior Centers
9 for the period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, and authorized the County Manager to sign the
10 Amendment and to approve any amendments or renewals of the contract.
11 c. Republication of the Unified Development Ordinance as the Code of Technical
12 Ordinances of Orange County, North Carolina
13 The Board adopted and authorized the Chair to sign the Resolution of Republication and create
14 the Code of Technical Ordinances of Orange County, North Carolina to be housed and
15 maintained in the Orange County Planning Department and made available on the Orange
16 County website.
17 d. Board of Commissioners Meeting Calendar for Year 2016
18 The Board approved the final schedule of regular meetings for the year 2016.
19
20 7. Regular Agenda
21
22 a. Acceptance of an Administration For Community Living and Alzheimer's Disease
23 Initiative Grant and Approval of Budget Amendment#2-C
24 The Board considered accepting an Administration For Community Living and
25 Alzheimer's Disease Initiative three year grant of$897,298 for the grant period of September
26 2015 through August 2018, authorizing the Manager to sign the documents associated with the
27 grant award, and approving Budget Amendment#2-C which includes the receipt of the
28 $897,298 in grant funds and the addition of 2.625 full-time equivalent (FTE) time limited grant
29 positions.
30 Janice Tyler, Orange County Department on Aging Director, said the Board is being
31 asked to accept this grant in the amount of$897,298, and she provided background on the
32 grant:
33
34 BACKGROUND:
35 This award given to the Orange County CARES (Community Awareness, Respite,
36 Educations and Support) program was one of eleven awarded across the nation and the only
37 one in North Carolina. The funds will enable the Department on Aging to expand services and
38 supports for caregivers and persons with Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD),
39 including those with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I DD), so they will enjoy
40 improved health and quality of life while also reducing caregiver burden and social isolation.
41 The grant will be used to enhance Orange County's ability to be a fully dementia capable
42 community and will focus on the following objectives:
43 • Expand both the type and amount of person-centered support services (in-home
44 consultation/training, group--oriented support activities, and respite services) to
45 caregivers caring for persons with moderate to severe dementia.
46 • Provide training to increase the knowledge and skills of direct care workers serving
47 persons with ADRD.
48 • Provide training to Orange County government workers and persons employed in
49 commercial businesses to increase their knowledge, skills and attitudes about dementia,
50 thereby improving the caregivers' experience of community interactions.
7
1
2 Mary Fraser, Aging Transitions Administrator, reviewed the specifics of how the grant
3 funds would be used, saying the outcomes will hopefully increase the quality of life for both the
4 patient and the caregiver. She said there is a multi-pronged approach to achieve these goals:
5 individual level, program level, and community level. She said this approach would involve a
6 variety of stakeholders working together. She said at the community level, a group of 10
7 businesses have signed to go through a pilot training that will better equip them to serve those
8 suffering with dementia, as well as their caregivers. She said County offices that work with the
9 public will also go through this training.
10 Commissioner Price asked if it is known when the pilot program may be able to spread
11 from Chapel Hill into other towns and throughout the County.
12 Mary Fraser said probably early 2016.
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
15 Board to accept the grant, authorized the Manager to sign the documents associated with the
16 grant award, and approved Budget Amendment#2-C which includes the receipt of the
17 $897,298 in grant funds and the addition of 2.625 full-time equivalent (FTE) time limited grant
18 positions, and congratulationed the Department on Aging for their work.
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 8. Reports
23
24 a. North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Assessment of Orange
25 Public Transit (OPT)
26 The Board considered receiving a report on the North Carolina Department of
27 Transportation (NCDOT) Orange County Public Transportation Assessment Study and
28 providing direction to staff as appropriate.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said this study was funded with State funds. She said the purpose
30 of the OPT assessment was to insure that services were safe and accessible; that cost and
31 ridership are documented; and that they are in compliance with State and Federal to obtain
32 funding to provide options for appropriate organizational structure, and to improve service to
33 residents.
34 Bonnie Hammersley said it is the intention of staff to review this report and to implement
35 changes as needed.
36 Fred Fravel, KFH Group, Inc., was the lead consultant on this study, and he made the
37 following PowerPoint presentation:
38
39 Orange County Public Transportation Assessment Study Draft Final Report
40 Orange County Board of County Commissioners
41 October 20, 2015
42
43 Study Purpose
44 * Determine the appropriate organizational structure for Orange Public Transportation
45 (OPT)
46 * Identify and evaluate near-term service improvements
47
48 Current Conditions
49 * Advisory and Governance Structure
50 * Vehicle Fleet
8
1 * Facilities
2 * Technology
3 * Description of Current Services
4 * Service Supplied, Ridership and Performance
5 * Operating and Administrative Costs
6 * Capital Costs
7 * Funding and Revenues
8 * Cost Allocation
9
10 Current Services-Fixed Route
11 * Hillsborough Circulator
12 * Hillsborough to Chapel Hill Route 420 Mid-Day Route
13 o Near-term expansion of nine daily service hours, more frequency and extension
14 to Cedar Grove (in rural area)
15 o Expansion requires use of two buses
16 * GoTriangle:
17 o Route 420 peak services
18 o Orange-Durham Express (ODX )
19
20 Current Services—Demand Response
21 * ADA paratransit services (for fixed-route areas and schedules)
22 * Other demand-response
23 o Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance
24 o Rural General Public
25 * Specialized/Dedicated
26 o Department of Social Services/Medicaid
27 o Department of Social Services/Employment Transportation Assistance
28 o Department on Aging/Senior Center Transportation
29 o Orange Enterprises/Residential Services, Inc.
30 o Parks and Recreation/Sportsplex
31
32 Vehicle Fleet
33 * 19 Light Transit Vehicles (LTVs) and Vans
34 * Current operations require 8-10 vehicles at peak, VUD shows nine needed at peak
35 * Five vehicles currently out of service, two of them in disposal process
36 * 12 vehicles currently eligible for replacement in 2015, 4 more in 2016, and one in 2017
37 * Two new vehicles entering service, five more due later this summer, adds up to seven
38 eligible vehicles currently in service being replaced
39
40 Administrative Structure
41 * Administration – Planning and Inspections Department, Transportation Division
42 o Eight drivers (will increase with service expansion)
43 o Transportation Administrator
44 o Assistant Transportation Administrator
45 o Administrative Assistant I (proposed reclassification to Transit Coordinator or
46 Scheduler/Dispatcher)
47 o Office Assistant
48 * Planning – Comprehensive Planning Division
49 o 50% FTE Planner 11 (OPT planning and grants administration)
9
1 o 15% FTE Planner II (OPT-related OUTBoard support)
2 o 10% Comprehensive Planning Supervisor (oversight of Planner Ils)
3
4 Service Supplied (FY 2014)
5 * Ridership: 63,519
6 o Fixed-route: 16,690
7 o Demand-response: 46,829
8 • Human service: 28,222
9 • Non-contract: 18,607
10 * Trends difficult to ascertain because of data inconsistencies
11
12 Performance
13 * Comparison based on peer group selected by Institute for Transportation Research and
14 Education (ITRE)
15 * Subsidy per trip: slightly below Median
16 * Cost per trip: Superior
17 * Trips per hour: Superior
18 * Non-contract trips per non-urban population: Superior
19
20 Operating and Administrative Costs
21 * Put FY 2014 MUNIS transit program revised budget for and actuals into FTA G-code
22 chart of accounts
23 * Includes Orange County indirect costs as line items where possible, allocates planning
24 staff time on transit
25 * Total operating cost: $1,088,112, or $66.00 per service hour
26 * Incremental operating cost in FY 2014 $ is $44.28 per service hour
27
28 Capital Costs
29 * Replacement Vehicles:
30 o FY 2016- $232,000
31 o FY 2017- $208,000
32 o FY 2018- $285,000
33 o FY 2019- $443,000
34 o FY 2020- $343,000
35 * Expansion Vehicles:
36 o FY 2016-$417,000
37 o FY 2017-215,000
38
39 Cost Allocation
40 * Developed approximation of costs per trip for each contract/service type
41 * Used the ITRE Cost Allocation model, and operating data from OPT (by route/service,
42 not passenger trip)
43 * Cost per trip varies by service, but all services are subsidized by a combination of local
44 and state operating funds
45
46 Near-Term Service Plans-Funded
47 * Orange-Chapel Hill (Cedar Grove) Connector
48 * Rural Zonal Route-Deviation Services
49 * Later Senior Center Service
10
1 * Orange-Alamance Connector (US 70 Mid-day service)
2 * Efland-Hillsborough Commuter Loop
3
4 Unfunded Potential Expansion
5 * OPT Staff Plan-$202,124 annual additional operating (based on incremental hourly
6 costs):
7 o Expand US 70 Mid-day to Durham
8 o Add Reverse Loop to Hillsborough Circulator
9 o Hillsborough Circulator Saturday service
10 o Extend Route 420 Peak to Cedar Grove
11 o Saturday US 70 service
12 * Potential Additional-$368,928 annual additional operating (based on incremental hourly
13 costs):
14 o Daily service—rural route deviation zones
15 o Additional demand-response-seniors
16 * Total potential fleet size: 29
17
18 Service Plans
19 * Planned services are appropriate service types given densities and trip patterns.
20 * Performance measures to be used to monitor implementation
21 * Consideration of unfunded potential expansion based on ridership
22
23 Organizational Options
24 * Add transit planner job function
25 * Keep transit in Planning and Inspections, or
26 * Move transit into Asset Management Services, or
27 * Create a new separate transit department, or
28 * Consolidate with another provider.
29 Transit as Separate Department (flow chart)
30
31 Summary Comments
32 * Fleet, compliance, facilities significantly improved
33 * Staffing role key-need for transit planning/grants management functions
34 * Shift to broader role with more fixed-route, route-deviation general public services is well
35 underway
36 * With a larger operating program, organizational options need to be considered
37 * Need to monitor performance of new services
38 * Marketing and public information needed
39 * Unmet needs—existing and expanded resulting from demographic changes, may
40 require more services
41
42 Contact:
43 Fred Fravel
44 KFH Group, Inc.
45 4920 Elm Street, Suite 350
46 Bethesda, MD 20814
47 301-951-8660
48 ffravel@ kfhgroup.com
49
11
1 Commissioner Pelissier said Frank Fravel referenced the need for performance
2 measures, noting such measures are also necessary for the implementation agreement for the
3 '/2 cent sales tax. She asked if the CTS software is capable of providing these performance
4 measures.
5 Frank Fravel said he believed the software could provide the necessary data.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said there was a study done years ago, that the Department of
7 Transportation (DOT) aborted, looking at non-urban public transportation. He asked if Orange
8 County is just back in a silo.
9 Frank Fravel said the outcome of that last study was consolidation within the county
10 silos, and he said other organizations such as Chapel Hill Transit have a lot on their plate
11 already and did not see any benefit to a merger.
12 Frank Fravel said he thought Orange County is on the right side of the cost curve. He
13 said there was a study of merging the larger organizations, but it went south. He said this study
14 did put forth Go Smart and suggested getting OPT in the mix regionally to advance coordinated
15 information to the public.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said Mebane has cast its lots with Orange County regarding
17 transportation and asked if this study consulted Mebane.
18 Frank Fravel said he did not talk with Mebane, and this is not a full community services
19 transportation plan, but a more condensed study.
20 Commissioner Jacobs said Frank Fravel did not make a recommendation for a structural
21 step.
22 Frank Fravel said the advisory committee discussed a variety of options which will be
23 presented to the BOCC for a decision.
24 Commissioner Price said her comments were similar to Commissioner Jacobs and
25 asked if two headways were considered with the Hillsborough Circulator.
26 Frank Fravel said a second bus is recommended as one of the expansion items. He
27 said this bus would run in the opposite direction to the current Circulator.
28 Commissioner Price noted the need to streamline a lot of this process. She asked if
29 Frank Fravel is aware that there are numerous buses and plans.
30 Frank Fravel said he was aware and said regional passes are one idea to facilitate ease
31 of transportation. He said OPT is poised to be part of the region. He said there are a lot of
32 objectives for the transit system in Orange County and the recently passed fare policies have a
33 lot of complicating factors that must be considered. He said it is hard to mesh such a specific
34 fare policy with something regional.
35 Commissioner Price referred to page 28 of the report and asked if there could be
36 clarification regarding the elderly and disabled transportation assistance plan.
37 He said the grant is intended to cover 100% of the cost but the State allows a fare to be
38 collected on these trips as well. He said he is unsure how the collected fares are allocated
39 against the operating costs.
40 Commissioner Price referred to page 18 where it stated that "transportation as a priority
41 was number 20 out of 26 in the Board of County Commissioners' goals and priorities". She
42 suggested that the Board review this going forward and possibly rank transportation more
43 highly.
44 Chair McKee referred to the organizational options and expressed confusion around the
45 logic of moving transportation to Asset Management Services (AMS).
46 Frank Fravel said in some counties it is included in a public works or public works and
47 transportation department. He said AMS seems to be the closest fit to such a department.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said the question of where transportation belongs has been
49 floated around for years. He said Frank Fravel's comments about the lack of staff devoted to
50 marketing and the low profile system were very interesting and he sees this as a key gap. He
12
1 said it might be a good time to make a decision as to how transportation should be structured.
2 He said he interpreted the study to say that this system has matured enough to be a stand-
3 alone department.
4 Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Jacobs and she read the report to
5 say that there is an adolescent transportation department that needs to grow up. She said
6 since transportation has to interface with so many departments, it would be easier for it to be a
7 stand-alone entity.
8 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Manager had any thoughts.
9 Bonnie Hammersley said the discussions with Mebane are ongoing. She said in
10 regards to silos, talks continue with Go Triangle regarding fare boxes; and she continues to talk
11 with Chapel Hill as well. She said there are areas for collaboration as opposed to merger that
12 are being worked on. She said staff is using the report before the Board as a baseline.
13 Bonnie Hammersley agreed that transportation is a system that could potentially stand
14 on its own. She said the Planning Department has done a wonderful job at overseeing
15 transportation, but Planning is regulatory and OPT is customer service.
16 Bonnie Hammersley said one of the Human Services team's functions is to look at the
17 unmet transportation needs.
18 Bonnie Hammersley said organizational changes could move forward during the budget
19 of 2016-17. She said the vacant planning position might be addressed prior to the budget
20 process.
21
22 b. Orange County Detention Center Project Update
23 The Board considered receiving an update on the progress of the Detention Center and
24 providing feedback on the schematic design to staff and the designer.
25 Jeff Thompson, Orange County Asset Management Services Director, introduced Dan
26 Mace of Moseley Architects.
27 Dan Mace made the following PowerPoint presentation:
28
29 Orange County Detention Center
30 Progress Update Presentation
31 Board of Orange County Commissioners
32 Regular Meeting
33 Southern Human Services Center
34 Chapel Hill, North Carolina
35 October 20, 2015
36
37 Intended Outcome
38 • Introduce Moseley Architects
39 • Detention Center Progress Update
40 • Review Stakeholder Input within Programming and Schematic Design Process
41 • Solicit feedback from the Board of Orange County Commissioners
42
43 Who is Moseley Architects?
44 • Founded in 1969, Moseley has over 45 years of continuous practice exclusively in the
45 South
46 • We SPECIALIZE in County detention facilities, justice complexes, state and federal
47 corrections,
48 • law enforcement, and public sector planning and design — over 80 detention facility
49 projects completed in the last 10 years alone !
13
1 • Over 190 architects, engineers, project management, operations specialists, and
2 construction professionals
3 • 85% of our current business is from repeat clients
4 • Commitment to energy efficient design — 69 Leadership in Energy Efficient Design
5 ("LEED") certified facilities — over 12 million square feet
6
7 North Carolina Detention Projects
8 • Beaufort County Detention Facility
9 • Bladen County Detention Facility
10 • Buncombe County Detention Center
11
12 Expansion (consultant)
13 • LEED Gold Camp Lejeune Regional Brig
14 • Craven County Judicial Center
15 • Cumberland County Detention Center
16
17 Expansion
18 Guilford County "Old" Detention Center
19
20 Renovations
21 • Guilford County New Detention Center
22 • Halifax County Sheriff's Office and Jail
23
24 Expansion
25 • Harnett County Law Enforcement and Detention Center
26 • Hoke County Detention Center Addition
27 • Iredell County Jail Expansion
28 • Lincoln County Detention Center
29
30 Mecklenburg County Jail Arrest Processing
31 Renovation/Expansion
32 • Mecklenburg County Security Systems Replacement
33 • Montgomery County Detention Center
34 • LEED Gold Rockingham County Judicial Center
35 • Rowan County Satellite Jail
36 • Sampson County Detention Center
37 • Stanly County Detention Center Expansion
38 • Stokes County Jail Expansion
39 • LEED Silver Transylvania County Public Safety Facility
40 • Wayne County Satellite Jail Facility
41
42 Process to Date
43 • Design "Charge"
44 • Stakeholder Survey and Direct Interview Input
45 • Jail Personnel
46 • Courts, Justice
47 • Law Enforcement
48 • Jail Alternatives Professionals
14
1 • Staff
2 • Elected Officials
3 • Final Jail Program, Schematic Design Options
4 • Concepts needing Board feedback
5
6 Charge & Stakeholder Input: Major design issues to address
7
8 1. Protect safety of officers, staff, inmates and the public
9 2. Design for staff efficiency— great sightlines into housing units
10 3. Provide for alternative programs to help reduce inmate recidivism
11 4. Design to "normalize"the interior where possible (non-institutional)
12 5. Cost— both initial capital outlay and life cycle costs need to be reconciled
13 6. Maintenance resilience — look at ease of maintenance — quality systems
14 7. Reduce utility/energy consumption — creative energy-efficient strategies
15 8. Allow for ease of future growth / expansion
16
17 Key Elements of Jail Program
18 • 146 bed Jail with a 250 bed "core"
19 • Prefer "indirect podular" supervision with option to use "direct" supervision if desired
20 • Magistrate and Hearing Room Space
21 • Ample multi-purpose and classroom space for inmate programs
22 • 1 maximum security male unit— 12 beds
23 • 1 medium/maximum security flexible use unit (female, special population, mental health,
24 etc.) —22 beds
25 • 1 medium/maximum security juvenile/flexible unit—8 beds
26 • 1 segregation/flexible unit— 8 beds
27 • 1 minimum security male/flexible dormitory—24 beds
28 • 3 general population male units —24 beds each
29
30 Option A-Spindle 1st Floor
31 Option A-Spindle Mezzanine (2nd Floor)
32 Option B Rear Chase Single Floor
33
34 Schematic Design Concept Comparison
35 "Spindle w/Mezzanine"
36 • Centralized Control; Indirect Supervision (can be switched to direct)
37 • Standard "Y" plumbing chases —maintenance personnel must enter secure spaces
38 • "Mezzanine" 2 level — more intensive to build/manage
39 • Single control room overlooks all housing units
40 • Fewer multi-purpose rooms given housing layout
41 • Less natural light in housing via window wall
42 • Design minimizes inmate movement in the facility
43
44 "Rear Chase Single Level"
45 • De-Centralized Control; Indirect Supervision (can be switched to direct)
46 • Rear plumbing service chases - safer for inmates, staff, and maintenance; ease of
47 maintenance; less disruption of secure space
48 • Single level — no stairs or mezzanines to build/manage
49 • Multiple control rooms on ground level — one per 2 housing units
15
1 • More multi-purpose rooms given housing layout
2 • Increased natural light in housing via window wall
3 • More inmate movement down single movement corridor
4 • More building square feet than Spindle
5 • Easier to expand future housing units
6
7 Schematic Design Concept Comparison
8 "Spindle w/Mezzanine"
9 • Approx. 49,500 Gross Square Feet
10 • Estimated Project*Cost: $15-$16 million
11
12 "Rear Chase Single Level"
13 • Approx. 52,220 Gross Square Feet
14 • Estimated Project*Cost: $16-$17 million
15
16 *Includes 15% design, construction and escalation contingency
17
18 Jeff Thompson continued the PowerPoint presentation:
19
20 Concepts Needing Board Feedback
21 • Disposition of Vacated Jail Site
22
23 Dan Mace resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
24 • Co-location of Law Enforcement Center with new Detention Facility
25 • Staff and Designer to continue analyzing opportunities and challenges
26
27 Proposed Schedule
28 • Schematic Design Phase Completion, Board Presentation — November/December 2015*
29 • Design Development Phase Completion — January 2016
30 • Construction Document Phase— February - May 2016
31 • Agency Approvals — June 2016
32 • Construction Award Phase— June -August 2016*
33 • Construction Phase — (construction must begin prior to September 9, 2016) completion
34 estimated February, 2018
35 • Closeout, Training, and Transition Phase —April 2018
36 • Must have inmates in facility by September 9th, 2019
37
38 *Site and Building Phases; Upon BOCC Approval
39
40 Commissioner Price asked if either of the two design options is better for separating
41 juveniles and adults.
42 Dan Mace said option B.
43 Discussion ensued about the different housing options.
44 Sheriff Blackwood said the large maps of the schematic designs are in his office. He
45 said there are pluses and minuses with both options, though option B may be better.
46 Commissioner Pelissier said she understands there are more multi-purpose rooms in
47 option B, but asked if the location of such rooms could be pointed out.
48 Dan Mace said State law requires a sally-ported entry into every different housing unit.
49 He said that required space is used in option B to provide the multi-purpose areas. He pointed
16
1 out a large classroom area as well, which could be used for clergy visits, GED, ESL classes,
2 etc.
3 Commissioner Pelissier asked if operational costs for the proposed options could be
4 provided in order to compare and contrast them.
5 Jeff Thompson said this information could be provided to the Board at a November
6 meeting.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said the Jail Alternatives group talked about other functions in the
8 jail that could address the mental health and job training needs of the inmates.
9 Sheriff Blackwood said this has been discussed. He said now that the newly hired Jail
10 Alternatives Coordinator is on board, these programs can be fleshed out in greater detail. He
11 said option B is favored as it supports addressing these very needs more effectively.
12 Commissioner Jacobs asked if option B is similar to the jail toured in Chatham County.
13 Sheriff Blackwood said the Chatham County jail is a blend of options A and B, and that
14 particular design was far more expensive than what is being proposed in Orange County.
15 Dan Mace said if rear chases can be double loaded and back-to-back, they are far more
16 efficient. He said option B would allow for easier expansion of the jail in the future.
17 Commissioner Jacobs said the chase design reminds him of an older urban street
18 design with alleys behind the houses where everyone places their garbage rather than in front
19 of the house. He said garbage trucks could go down the alley and are able to gather the
20 garbage from two rows of house instead of just one.
21 Dan Mace said this is exactly the benefit of rear chases. He said this design also allows
22 for greater amounts of natural light which positively affects inmate behavior.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said natural lighting is better.
24 Dan Mace said a more normative environment conveys a rule of order and has a
25 positive impact on the detainees.
26 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the vacated jail site saying it is a 90-year old historic
27 facility. He said he hoped a simple use for it could be found.
28 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the two drawings are at the same scale as option B
29 looked like a larger footprint.
30 Dan Mace said option B is about 3,000 square feet more of a footprint. He said it will
31 take up more surface area for the same bed count but also allows for more multi-purpose
32 rooms. He said the decentralized smaller control rooms also add to the square footage. He
33 reiterated that having a single level allows for easier future expansion.
34 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the drawings are accurate and option B is a larger
35 footprint. He said option B is more expensive and asked if that is relatively comparable per
36 square foot with option A.
37 Dan Mace said option B is less per square foot to construct than option A; however, as
38 option B is 3,000 square feet larger than option A, it is more expensive overall.
39 Commissioner Dorosin said option B has more amenities and asked if there is a case to
40 be made for option A.
41 Dan Mace said the biggest plus of option A is for staff to have one large control room
42 versus multiple decentralized control rooms.
43 Commissioner Rich asked if Dan Mace could explain how much more space there is for
44 future build out.
45 Dan Mace said at least 100 beds could easily be added with either option and doing so
46 appeared to be more cost effective with option B.
47 Commissioner Rich asked if there are specific reasons that would force jail expansion.
48 Sheriff Blackwood said a 50 to 60 year facility is being considered. He said it is his hope
49 that this facility would not need to be expanded but rather alternatives programs will limit
17
1 growth. He added that Orange County is growing; and therefore, expansion must be
2 considered to some extent.
3 Commissioner Pelissier asked if Moseley architects receive feedback regarding previous
4 jail designs, and if plans are modified as a result of these "lessons learned".
5 Dan Mace said absolutely.
6 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the underlining data for projections on inmate population
7 has been shared with the BOCC; and if not, the Commissioners should receive this information.
8 Sheriff Blackwood said he agreed.
9 Bonnie Hammersley said this information would be shared with the Board prior to the
10 next presentation.
11 Commissioner Price asked if there is a plan for a natural disaster given that the design
12 does not include a basement.
13 Dan Mace said this would probably be the safest building in the County, and staff is
14 trained for these types of disasters.
15 Chair McKee referred to the vacated jail site and said he sees this site being very well
16 located for use by the justice community and in support of the courts. He said he would not
17 want to see this building taken down.
18 Chair McKee said he was glad to see the co-location of the law enforcement and
19 detention facility included. He asked if the law enforcement center would be a separate building
20 or attached to the jail.
21 Dan Mace said the current plan would be for it to be an attached facility. He said the
22 current law enforcement needs are estimated at 20,000 square feet.
23 Chair McKee asked if this co-location would free up space in the bottom of the Justice
24 Facility currently occupied by Sheriff's offices.
25 Jeff Thompson said yes.
26 Chair McKee asked if it could also accommodate a holding facility.
27 Sheriff Blackwood said this issue would arise with either option of co-locating or non-co-
28 locating.
29 Judge Buckner said he is such a small part of this planning process and the heavily
30 used magistrate space is his main concern. He said efficiency is always a goal. He said there
31 are opportunities with co-location and a hearing room. He said the need for programming
32 during incarceration is essential and is excited about the options afforded with the new designs.
33 He said he is open minded to all possibilities and has a great deal of information and ideas from
34 his peers in the justice community around the State.
35 Chair McKee asked if Bonnie Hammersley could include the information from the courts
36 with future updates to the Board of County Commissioners.
37 Jeff Thompson said at the November meeting the process would be ready to move
38 forward into the developmental design. He asked for clarification if the Board wants to pursue
39 the option of co-locating the law enforcement at the jail site.
40 Commissioner Jacobs said yes, as long as both capital and operational costs are
41 brought back to the Board.
42 Bonnie Hammersley said this would be done.
43
44 9. County Manager's Report
45 Bonnie Hammersley said her office is working on doing a better job of providing
46 information related to petitions. She referred to Commissioner Jacobs' petition regarding tax
47 equity and financing in local government projects. She said a professor at the University of
48 North Carolina's School of Government (UNCSOG) was consulted who agreed to conduct a
49 study. She said an inter-jurisdiction team was created to participate in scope development and
50 facilitate access to information in order to complete the study. She said unfortunately the
18
1 professor had to take a leave for personal reasons and thus the study has been delayed until
2 the spring.
3 Bonnie Hammersley said it has been typical practice to not inform the BOCC until
4 petitions were complete, but she said her office is now attempting to give updates throughout
5 the process.
6
7 10. County Attorney's Report
8 John Roberts reminded the Board that next week the UNCSOG is hosting a 2-day
9 webinar on legislative updates.
10
11 11. Appointments
12
13 a. Agricultural Preservation Board —Appointment
14 The Board considered making an appointment to the Agriculture Preservation Board.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
17 appoint the following to the Agriculture Preservation Board:
18
19 Appointment of Jane Saiers to a first full term (position #4) "New Hope/Hillsborough Vol. Ag.
20 Dist." expiring 06/30/2018.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
25 appoint the following to the Agriculture Preservation Board:
26
27 Appointment of Ken Dawson to Position #5 — Schley/Eno Volunteer Ag District—first full term
28 expiring on June 30, 2018.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 b. Arts Commission —Appointment
33 The Board considered making an appointment to the Arts Commission.
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
36 appoint the following to the Arts Commission:
37
38 Appointment of Judy Morris to a first term (position #1) At-Large expiring 03/31/2018.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 c. Economic Development Advisory Board —Appointments
43 The Board considered making appointments to the Economic Development Advisory
44 Board.
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
47 appoint the following to Economic Development Advisory Board:
48
49 Appointment of Nitin Khanna to a first full term (Position #2) Tourism expiring
50 06/30/2018.
19
1 • Appointment of James Watts to a first full term (Position #5) Agriculture expiring
2 06/30/2018.
3 • Appointment of Lori Eichel to a second full term (Position #8) Core Business Community
4 expiring 06/30/2018.
5 • Appointment of Mark N. O'Neal to a second full term (Position #10) Core Business
6 Community expiring 06/30/2018.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 d. Orange County Housing Authority—Appointment
11 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Housing Authority.
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
14 appoint the following to Orange County Housing Authority:
15
16 Appointment of Ismay (Gina) James to a first full term (position #7) "Resident Member—
17 Section 8" representative expiring 06/30/2019.
18
19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
20
21 e. Orange Unified Transportation Board—Appointments
22 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange Unified Transportation
23 Board.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
26 appoint the following to Orange Unified Transportation Board:
27
28 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #1) "Bingham Township" representative for
29 Alex Castro, Jr. expiring 09/30/2018.
30 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #7) "Little River Township" representative for
31 Theodore W. Triebel expiring 09/30/2018.
32 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #10) Environmental Advocate representative
33 for Gary Saunders expiring 09/30/2018.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
38 appoint the following to Orange Unified Transportation Board:
39
40 Appointment of Erle Smith to a first full term to Position #4 — "Chapel Hill Township Position"
41 expiring 9/30/2018.
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
46 appoint the following to Orange Unified Transportation Board:
47
48 Appointment of Jeff Charles to a first full term to Position # 12 — "Pedestrian Access Advocate
49 Position" expiring on 9/30/2018.
20
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 12. Board Comments
5 Commissioner Price said she attended the National Association of Counties (NACo)
6 Rural Action Caucus Symposium and learned a great deal regarding a variety of topics. She
7 said it was excellent.
8 Commissioner Pelissier said she and Chair McKee attended the Project Engage kick off
9 series, and she said she was asked to attend one of the nursing home community advisory
10 committee meeting. She said she attended the Chamber's Development briefing this morning.
11 She said she would share the link to a slide show with the Board.
12 Commissioner Dorosin said he had no comments.
13 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Craig Benedict for attending the hearing on the Collins
14 Ridge and Waterstone developments.
15 Commissioner Jacobs congratulated the Economic Development department on their
16 first newsletter and congratulated the UNC Hospital School on its 50th anniversary.
17 Commissioner Jacobs said he attend the Burlington-Graham MPO meeting earlier this
18 evening. He said there were two presentations: one by the Chief Financial Officer of the
19 Department of Transportation (DOT), and one about Unmanned Vehicles that fly. He said
20 North Carolina is seeking to be the leader in this field. He said the FAA recently announced
21 that drone regulations would be issued. He said the topic will be very interesting as it
22 progresses, and asked the County Attorney to keep an eye out for updates.
23 John Roberts said the State did address drones in a limited manner and he expects
24 more to come.
25 Commissioner Rich thanked David Hunt and others for getting the individual agenda
26 items listed so that the entire agenda does not have to be downloaded.
27 Commissioner Rich said there would be park updates soon. She said a park locator
28 feature is being updated on the website.
29 Commissioner Rich said she met with Travis Myren and Jim Northup about legislative
30 goals on technology.
31 Chair McKee said he, Commissioner Pelissier and staff met with the DOT. He said he
32 would get a summary of these conversations to the rest of the Board.
33 Chair McKee said drones are the hot item this coming year. He said if one violates
34 restricted air space around military installations, there would be extensive consequences.
35
36 13. Information Items
37 • October 6, 2015 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
38 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from October 6, 2015 Regular Meeting
39
40 14. Closed Session
41 NONE
42
43 15. Adjournment
44
45 A motion was made Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
46 adjourn the meeting at 9:42 p.m.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
21
1
2
3 Earl McKee, Chair
4