HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 06-02-2016 - Abstract for Joint Meeting Discussion Items 1
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING
AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: June 2, 2016
SUBJECT: Joint Meeting Discussion Items
DEPARTMENT: County Manager/Town
Manager/County & Town
Economic Development/
County Solid Waste
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
As noted in "Background" section Bonnie Hammersley, 245-2300; Roger
Stancil, 968-2743; Travis Myren, 245-2300;
Dwight Bassett, 969-5010; Steve Brantley,
245-2325; Gayle Wilson, 968-2885; Matt
Sullivan, 968-2814
PURPOSE: To discuss topics of mutual interest between the governing boards of Orange
County and the Town of Chapel Hill.
BACKGROUND:
1. Economic Development
a) Incentives
The item provides the opportunity for elected officials from Orange County and the
Town of Chapel Hill to discuss the possibility of a shared incentives policy. This
potential idea arose during a discussion involving Town of Chapel Hill elected
officials as Town staff began to draft a new work plan for the Town's recently
developed Commercial Development Strategy.
At the request of the County and Town Managers, Orange County Economic
Development Director Steve Brantley and Town of Chapel Hill Economic
Development Officer Dwight Bassett have been meeting over the course of the last
few months to discuss best practices across the nation and targeted ideas that may
positively affect the success of local economic development efforts. Attachment 1 a
is intended to be a framework for conversation and the interest as expressed in this
shared conversation among elected officials and will guide County and Town
Managers' further efforts on this project. If there is sufficient interest in the areas
outlined, work will move forward with other staff members to develop the first draft
policy documents for further review.
2
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can
discuss issues related to this item as necessary.
Attachment la - Chapel Hill and Orange County Incentive Policy- Worksheet
b) County Economic Development Districts and County Economic Development
Activities
In preparation for a brief presentation at the meeting, Orange County Economic
Development Director Steve Brantley has provided the attached PowerPoint
presentation. The attachment highlights Orange County Economic Development's
various activities, to include:
• Highlighting successful areas of mutual economic development cooperation
between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill.
• Promotion & financial support directed at the growth and retention of local
entrepreneurial start-ups, small businesses, agricultural ventures and the
arts throughout Orange County.
• Examples of local use of the 1/4 cent sales tax proceeds for economic
development (Article 46 funds)
• Examples of overall business prospect recruitment activity & trends.
• Recent local manufacturing assistance, and update on Orange County's
Hillsborough Economic Development District & Buckhorn Economic
Development District.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can
discuss issues related to this item as necessary.
Attachment lb - Orange County Economic Development Presentation to Board of
Commissioners and Chapel Hill Town Council
2. Affordable Housing — Multi-Jurisdictional Task Force
On March 22, 2016, Commissioner Bernadette Pelissier petitioned the Board of
Commissioners to create a multijurisdictional work group composed of elected officials to
guide Countywide, collaborative efforts on affordable housing. The Board of
Commissioners discussed this topic during its work session on the Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan as a way to coordinate programs and leverage resources.
During that discussion, Board members asked staff to evaluate whether the existing
HOME Committee could be used as the multijurisdictional entity by simply expanding its
scope as an alternative to creating a new committee.
The HOME Committee has many of the characteristics and orientation necessary to
assume the responsibilities of a multijurisdictional affordable housing committee.
1. The purpose of the HOME Consortium is to allow jurisdictions to take a more
regional and collaborative approach to affordable housing, recognizing that
housing needs cross Town and County boundaries.
3
2. The Committee is already composed of representatives from Orange County,
Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough.
3. The HOME Consortium develops the Consolidated Plan which defines housing
needs in the community and an annual Action Plan that describes the specific
uses for federal housing funds.
4. The HOME Committee already uses a competitive request for proposal process
for soliciting, reviewing, and selecting affordable housing projects.
The attached table outlines additional tasks that may be required or suggested transition
the HOME Committee into a Multijurisdictional Task Force on Affordable Housing.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can
discuss issues related to this item as necessary.
Attachment 2 — Operational Decisions Framework - Multi-Jurisdictional Affordable
Housing Task Force
3. Solid Waste Management
a) Solid Waste Programs Fee
The Solid Waste Programs Fee has been recommended to remain at $107 for Fiscal
Year 2016-17. In collaboration with the Town Managers, the County Manager has
initiated a process to perform a rate study and create a long term financial plan for
the enterprise fund, using the consultant SCS Engineers, PC. The study will not be
concluded in time for discussion and endorsement by the Solid Waste Advisory
Group (SWAG) or consideration by the various governing boards, so the
recommendation was made to maintain the current fee until these discussions can
be accomplished. The impetus for the study at this time is the escalating cost of
some of the recycling services coupled with the substantive deterioration of recycling
markets and loss of revenue. This study will take into account the financial
implications of the recent closing of the municipal solid waste landfill and the
associated loss of revenue as well as the $3 million expense paid from reserves to
construct the final cap system required for closure and the reserve funding of
recycling programs following the suspension of the 3-R Fee for two years.
A long term financial plan, including annual fee projections and an analysis of the
enterprise fund reserve structure, is an expected outcome of the study. The initial
component of the study — Establishing the Financing Modeling (basis for revenues
and expenses) and SCS's familiarization with the Enterprise Fund's Programs and
Services — has been recently completed.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can
discuss issues related to this item as necessary.
No Attachments
4
b) Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) Update
The SWAG most recently met on May 25, 2016. The primary items on the agenda
were: the County Manager's recommendation on the Solid Waste Programs Fee for
Fiscal Year 2016-17; and the introduction to the SWAG of SCS Engineers, PC who
presented an Interim Report on the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund Financial Planning
study project. The previous SWAG meeting was held on March 30.
The SWAG will be tracking and evaluating the outputs of the financial study as they
are available in preparation for re-engaging on the Interlocal Agreement for Solid
Waste Management that has currently been suspended pending the outcome of the
financial component of the Agreement. The SWAG will also be involved in
recommending solid waste program priorities, tracking the implementation of the
rural curbside recycling program expansion, progress of the Eubanks Road Waste &
Recycling Center modernization project and other issues as they arise such as
mattress disposal, results of shred-a-thons, alternative means of disposal, etc.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can
discuss issues related to this item as necessary.
No Attachments
4. Joint Training Center for Public Safety
Attachment 4 is a memorandum from Town and County staff providing background
information for this topic.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can
discuss issues related to this item.
Attachment 4 — Memorandum - Joint Public Safety Training Facility
5. Report from Managers on Joint Efforts
a) Outside Agency Funding Application
For several years, Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro have
issued a unified request for applications for outside agency funding. For the
FY2016-17 funding cycle, changes were made to the application. The Third Sector
Alliance, a membership group of nonprofits serving Orange County, provided
feedback indicating challenges in completing and submitting applications. The
survey summary (Attachment 5a) from the Alliance is attached as well as the
corresponding full report (Attachment 5b) for your review. The County Manager and
Town Manager intend to initiate a process this summer that will include Town staff,
County staff and the Alliance to revise the funding application as well as exploring
ways to provide an informative and interactive process that will assist in meeting the
needs of the Third Sector Alliance and the local government Boards.
5
The Managers will provide any other information at the meeting and the governing
boards can discuss issues related to this item as necessary.
Attachment 5a-1 — Summary of Findings of Survey regarding FY '17 Orange Funding
Application
Attachment 5a-2 — FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback (Third Sector
Alliance Survey)
b) Additional Items of Interest
The Managers will provide information on other topics of interest at the meeting, and
the governing boards can discuss issues related to these topics as necessary.
No Attachments
6. INFORMATION ITEM (Written Update — Not for Specific Discussion)
Attachment 6— Memorandum - Town of Chapel Hill Construction Projects
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no direct Social Justice Goal impact associated with the
discussion of these topics.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no direct financial impact associated with the discussion of
these topics. There are no action items requiring formal decisions.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Managers recommend the governing boards discuss the topics
listed and provide appropriate direction to the respective staffs.
Attachment 1 a 6
R E C O M E N D A T I O N S
GOAL:reduce business cost,influence business decisions,advance social and environmental welfare,and connect with well-established best practices in economic development.
Support in shared priorities for the good of the community.
Chapel Hill and Orange County Incentive Policy-Worksheet
I TARGETED AREAS
Jobs Tax Base Creation Retention Start-uo General Business Grants SHARED PRIORITIES
Goal: To foster the creation of To assist in growing the To retain the companies that To help prevent the loss of To foster specific activities Affordable Housing GreenspacelTrails
jobs. commercial tax base. locate here by offering to small companies to to promote business activity.
assist in meeting their adjacent and surrounding
needs. counties.
INCENTIVE TYPES
STATE
JDIG(150+employees) Yes Yes
One NC Fund(Job creation,local
match required) Yes Yes Yes
Other-NC DOT,CDBG and other
for significant jobs and tax base
creation,by special approval. Yes Yes-Potential Yes-Potential
LOCAL
If but for...
Syn-TIF-Grants for tax base/job
creation(Would be based on a
per-job and investment grant.) Yes Yes
gi Gen.Fund-Grants for job creation Shared cost where Shared cent where
.1 only(Similar to above but for job Yes appropriate. appropriate.
only.)
Loans and Entrepreneur Grants
(This could be similar to the
existing County grant program.) Yes Yes
GF funded
County Art Grant($500$1500)
Yes-Non-profit Yes-Non-profit
Town-Small Art Bus.Loan
(Loans of up to$30,000 at LIBOR
for art related investment) Yes Yes
Municipal service and GF funding
OC Loan Program(As existing,up
to$100,000)ED Tax Yes Yes Yes
. OC Small Business Investment
Grant Program(as existing,up to
$10,000)ED Tax Yes Yes Yes
Pertormace Bawd
Industiral/Business Grant
(performance based)(Jobs and tax Yes Yes Yes
base.)GF funded
Agriculture Business Investment
Grant(as existing,up to$10,000) Yes Yes
Measurement: Job Creation Tax Base growth Tenure of companies bawd Small company growth in the Overall business activity as
here. market targeted with the grant
Syn TIF-Performance based Yes I Yes
i
7
Attachment 1 b
e."
17 Ei 011 -1 52
'‘'4 ,1J
raj ea o
Orange County
Economic Development
Presentation to Orange County Board of
Commissioners & Chapel Hill Town Council
June 2, 2016
i
8
vt // n1 1 of Commercial a ys s
E- air,*21
,f
Industrial Pr o s e ct ct 1 1 t Y
• Record number of new industrial & commercial investment prospect inquiries
were received between May 2015 — May 2016.
➢ 68 investment prospect inquiries contacting Orange County
➢ 41 available site or building submissions to clients by Orange County
• Top Project Sources:
➢ State of North Carolina's new business recruitment agency "Economic
Development Partnership of North Carolina" (62%)
➢ Commercial brokers & developers (16%)
➢ Direct contact by local business owners (7%)
➢ Utilities/Duke Energy (6%)
➢ Local town economic developers & Chambers of Commerce (4%)
➢ Site selection consultants (4%)
Updated as of: May 23, 2016
♦ r
� / Analysis o f Commercial
,7 E- air,*21
Industrial Pr o s e ct ct 1 1 t Y
➢ How Orange County Economic Development was able to successfully respond
with real estate information to 41 investor leads:
➢ 20 projects requested sites
➢ 35 projects requested buildings
➢ 11 projects requested sites or buildings
➢ 2 projects requested build-to-suit options
• Top reasons why Orange County could not to pursue 27 other investor leads:
➢ No available building of the requested size (sq. ft. and/or ceiling height)
➢ No available building of requested type (existing large commercial class A
office space, datacenter, call center, wet/dry lab space, unique telecom/IT
needs, warehouse, flex space, refrigeration)
➢ Large acreage requirement (sites larger than 120 acres in size)
➢ Utility constraints (large water and/or sewer requirements)
Updated as of: May 23, 2016
i
10
`°
Examples of Commercial,
i4/. .7. Industrial & Marketing Projects
• The LAUNCH Chapel Hill innovation center begins a new 3-year lease in 2016
with Chapel Hill & Orange County signing a new interlocal agreement.
• Chapel Hill & Orange County economic development partner to co-host a series
of 3 business networking events in 2016 (assisted by Chapel Hill Magazine), and,
meet frequently to discuss joint financial incentive options.
• Orange County Board of Commissioners approved the "Efland Sewer to Mebane
Phase Two Extension " on February 2, 2016 to extend utility lines further into
properties zoned & marketed to attract new businesses. (refer to the following
site map)
• The Hillsborough Economic Development District, adjacent to the Waterstone
development (home to Durham Tech & UNC Health Care's new northern Orange
County hospital) is receiving marketing support, prospect activity & future sewer
line extension planning by the County.
Updated as of: May 23, 2016
■
■
11
{',.SF ` Co,••,,, Buckhorn Economic Development
�z . . . :��] District & "Efland Sewer to Mebane,
-
t = Phase Two Extension"
ort,1 carve
N
/ Z ._ i ,Q .1
_ t
a
_ U
l
: ,
., <� I.. 01-,b � lV�Y W
i *a�>�
I- . O
�-
✓ ^". _ rn l�� - -- -. r_ FOt RREt STr VE '
i + i
5. ',
�.r a F ■1 1
z
{{U ,� ; TURNER-
!-- -
N t p ""' 1 i .•w } m
wtas"" Kr.WIII 0'',6■Vc.401,44111.lilt , ,,,:,,..)„, 11 ..
,..__' 4,..ao!T.•re s=so um 1.m 3 ms N O.'
Cdr,, - _Exit 160 —
s
niiu
' fat 41.'i� '� ,h;, 'n,.7 -16,2,.�
It"J - WEST r i-,ss _ , +err.,.
a 4.,y Y —.,r..,
�l may'
Pro posed Gravity Sewer Existing Force Main
� F x ` 4 . Py Proposed West Ten Pump Station m 8„ 8„
' "r 'i I ` -- Proposed Force Main m.■ 12" ■ 10"
`' r' y
. : - M
■
sY
i
12
�i,„t�, = Co„,t� Hilisborough Economic
17 r --,15z
Development District
'°,.r,, sf.n0\"‘ & Waterstone
0. ' ° III , J
,,,,.
rani
•
" ? ■Hill r u.h ECID
'Ai,� ^nom" .. z ;�. � I ., _ A� - 'i` '�,t
1 .
j
Waterstone
��U1t'h Air
{ Exit 261 k }••'
r mss. `, ,`` ` ' t 7,'_ '--
■
`k 1 I
9
1 ,.. ! I' .
a _ - -
1,
..___i y.A
i-----T , /.//1-'' N,
i
co
Recent Assistance with13
E- air,*21
Local
• REDEYE/Yep Roc Records was assisted by the County in the firm's purchase of
the 90,000 sq. ft. warehouse in Hillsborough (previously occupied by A Southern
Season), bringing 40 — 50 office & distribution jobs.
• Efland Hosiery Mill is closing a 43,640 sq. ft. production facility, and Orange
County Economic Development is assisting management to begin to remarket
the facility to new potential corporate users.
• Morinaga America Foods, Inc held a Grand Opening ceremony on May 26,
2016. The company's 120,000 sq. ft. "Hi-Chew" candy production facility will
employ 90 associates and has already invested over $36 million. A Phase Two
plant expansion of equal size is anticipated.
Updated as of: May 23, 2016
i
14
co Business Loan Small
Programs E- Z*21
� Grant
• Orange County's Small Business Loan Program has 14 active term loans
totaling $621,000.00 in approvals & $516,562.00 in debt outstanding,
with 4 Chapel Hill-based small business loan recipients comprising 27% of
the total. (SandwHich Restaurant, Flawless Day Spa, Gray Matter Group &
ISA Counseling).
• The Small Business Investment Grant Program has awarded 51 total
grants totaling $314,215.00 from 6/31/15 to 3/31/16. Chapel Hill-based
small businesses accounted for 29 of these grants (56% of total).
• Both financial assistance programs are funded by the 1/4 cent sales tax
proceeds to support economic development (called Article 46 funds).
Updated as of: May 23, 2016
i
15
f 1 E c ml
et
���� Agri cu tor e on o c
it = sz
Development
Az,
rte c..a% -
• Agriculture Economic Development Grant Program has awarded 23 total
grants totaling $170,481.00 from 6/31/15 to 3/31/16.
• Orange County Food Council has been formed.
• 18th Annual Agricultural Summit was conducted on February 29th, 2016
including a video production celebrating 18 years of changing agriculture
on Orange County
• Annual "Farm to Fork" events help fund Breeze Farm, earning $35,000
in revenue in 2015 to support the Breeze Incubator Farm efforts. The
upcoming June 3-5 event includes presentations by representatives from
the White House (First Lady's "Let's Move" Executive Director Deb
Eschmeyer, and Assistant White House Chef Sam Kass)
Updated as of: May 23, 2016
i
16
vAgriculture E ml c
con o
Development
:_: �
• Piedmont Food & Ag Processing Center (PFAP) is expanding further into
County facilities as it successfully grows, and, has had a recent change in
management and Board leadership.
• Agriculture Grant funding was very successful in its first year, with
numerous ag grants awarded to several Orange County farmers in
support of the local food economy.
• "Seal the Seasons' is one example of a Chapel Hill-based LAUNCH
incubator & PFAP tenant that has received County loan & grant funding to
support the firm's food processing business.
• Food processing & manufacturing is a priority target regarding the
development of sites and a potential campus hub to attract food
businesses to Orange County.
Updated as of: May 23, 2016
.
17
,,,tv ` ca
V Orange County Arts
17 i2
K11 . " Commission
't,
C.A0°.s
• The Arts Commission awarded $28,540 to fund 22 arts grant recipients in
Orange County, to include 13 non-profit arts agencies, 6 grants to
elementary & middle schools & 3 artists.
• Financially supported the 5-county Piedmont Laureate Program &
regional Emerging Artists Awards Program, to include grants to 3 Orange
County artists.
• Collaborating with Orange County's municipal town partnership to
prepare the 5-year "Arts & Economic Prosperity 5" arts economic impact
study.
• Sponsored 3 professional artists salons for local Orange County artists.
Updated as of: May 23, 2016
18
Attachment 2
Operational Decisions Framework
Multi-Jurisdictional Affordable Housing Task Force
HOME Consortium Additional Tasks Considerations
Governance and Lead Agency Determine Structure and Member Can be the same or may choose to
Roles for Additional Tasks. modify.
Common Program Year and Informal or Formal Agreement for May use current agreement as
Written Agreement additional tasks. framework and prepare an
addendum for additional tasks as
agreed upon.
Joint Consolidated Plan/Annual No change required. Should share and discuss current
Action Plan and future affordable housing plans
on regular basis and priorities.
Coordinate planning efforts and
activities.
Citizen Participation and Citizen No Change required. May want to discuss and develop
Participation Plan enhancements to the citizen
participation process to ensure
inclusiveness and transparency.
Match Funds Required No change required. May want to identify where shared
funding of projects and plans
would advance priorities and meet
most urgent needs.
CHDO Set-Aside Funds (15%) No change required. Encourage building nonprofit
capacity and may want to consider
set aside of funds for shared
priorities.
Project Selection, Subsidy May want to follow HOME Identify sources of funding to be
Analysis and Requirements for Program Model or modify included in this structure;funding
Funding according to additional local priorities and project selection
requirements and priorities as process changes,if any.
identified for local and other public
funding.
Reporting and Annual Determine reporting for additional Support by existing inter-
Performance Evaluation areas of funding,record-keeping, jurisdictional staff team.
monitoring and compliance as
appropriate,particularly for share
funding of projects.
19
Attachment 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager
Roger Stancil, Town of Chapel Hill Manager
FROM: Matthew Sullivan, Town of Chapel Hill Interim Fire Chief
Dinah Jeffries, Orange County Emergency Services Interim Director
Travis Myren, Deputy Orange County Manager
DATE: June 2, 2016
RE: Joint Public Safety Training Facility
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with an overview of discussions surrounding
needed public safety training facilities in Orange County. Initial discussions have identified a
possible opportunity for a multi-jurisdictional/multi-discipline training facility. This project is a
future project and will not need funding in fiscal year 2016-2017.
The need for fire training facilities was a topic during the October 1, 2015 Orange County
Commissioner's meeting with the County Fire Chiefs. The necessity of improved and/or new
training facilities have been topics of conversation for multiple years. The Orange County Fire
Chiefs support the concept of a multi-jurisdictional/joint training facility. Such a facility would
maximize resources of the collaborating partners and provide additional opportunities for joint
training. A sub-set of the Orange County Fire Chiefs have begun meeting to further the
discussion and visioning process regarding training needs and the specific elements needed at the
facility.
As we continue to vision this facility, we strongly believe that additional synergy can occur from
the inclusion of law enforcement and emergency service partners who also have a need for
additional and updated training facilities. Informal conversations with several of these Chiefs and
department heads have resulted in additional support for the project. The Community College
system could also be an important partner in this initiative. Asheville Buncombe Technical
Community College has demonstrated success in the development of a joint public training
facility in Woodfin,North Carolina.
Over the past several years the Triangle J Council of Governments has been assessing the
feasibility of building a regional joint public safety training facility. While this is an important
initiative, the regional site will not serve the day to day training needs of our County public
safety entities.
20
Over the next several months our plan would be to pull together representatives of all public
safety agencies in Orange County and the Community College to continue this conversation with
the interest of bringing a proposal to the County Commissioners and the local elected bodies for
additional action and consideration.
CV -a
a) o
"S E
"2 8 a U
v)
s
c vi 0 co a-
IP• w a) ID
0 a.)
4-,
co
co a.)
.c
O "0 0 o
CI: U) 1/1 Ino
......
is-i
(1)
w E -c en
= -1-■ - 0
II
0 0 " =
co 1/4„3.1 Z
C I— 0 n:3
cf;•
(.0 ,- .0 vi
ell co n:3 0
• co 5 c 0
I I
Ts (li 10
Z a.) u
fa cn....?. 3 ....
C- ,....._ ._
c a . Ts
U
ij ........
..._,.. Q.)
n:3 0
V) -1-, (13 C . ..." m
1"
C C. II re al
G) = L-
. in ° le Z 01 1:1-i c
E 2 a) ,..,5 = 01 ......
C
_c 0 7, t-.'_ u) C
0 C _Q •••• eL ID
13 74.7 :5 ‹ E
ea a L.-. E c Gi c ba. C
= .sa
.... .. 7..1 co co 1- co 0
RI U a)L.- F6 0.0/) m
0
LI) -2 . .....-69 E 0 44
" (T) u) c a) 2 L. RI
0 .0 .1..0 .....; 0
0. _ w = --c,4- .sa 44 al (.4 01
— C m c
—
a s (I:3 0 -70 r e c c i 11=1 I I IP
C -cii ...c a) u (0 i j ....../ (1)T Z 0
s ...../ Ts
E C E
= u 0 a a a
U. , rj al.(I.) To .4) u Ira u
w o ..o cr) 4_, re 0
al v) E ...„-c -a-2 8 a. -0-. w u a)
i
. >. u.:
.
C a. c
• C ) - ( .0 re
Q.„ T 10=
u
0 I- - u -o = co u co
r■ w -;-,6 4= 0 4- 0I C O. .1..0
w
re t:n (I)
Ts
c oi .ti)- 4- 0 i.. .1..0
U) E ci
.c c re a 0
01 . .., 0 0. c.) 5
C 4- Q)
C 0 CI § ''''**),,7).,..--,,,..--,, L. e•-•..e•-•..
...-.., 0 0 /***,0 0 C
a ..--..,•-■....5,) ,..55,,,
0 0 .1..0 0
11) Q) co L.r.) NI (71 ko tO) c■ c.)
le U 0 u < U u co co co c0 c0 C c) 0 NI 71- M 0 C W
C 6' r< [I: 1-i " " 0 c) 1: t-Ni c; rei (I) .1..0
(1) R co co oo m `c) .....
1.. 01 rNi 01 c.) 140 M ei ci (NI 71"%1
• c eL fa C •„_...-c tn., ..-, ,-...•,-,•,-, re re) •—■•—■•—■ ....-■•—, 0 To
co co u
o-, co I\ en (N tO) .-
-r% .- co. cm NI NI NI 4au I i 0 0 co 71- ,°) '-'
1,- C
> 0 co l'2 .(/)
X c cl) Z
4 =
1,.. ...c (I) " ' C. •:...`u ..0
= (i) 4- -CI Cp X Q co La O......., 0 U
I IL" C CO U U) fla E C (I) IA X 4)
- (V ......■e-N
4.0 0 0
■• 4.... CI) `-' (1) IP " (1.1 i. 0 T
\ c,
Z 0 >-•1-1- E fa u) :1) RI $6... ..... c o
o .a) r0 RI CLI
"a") 0 C Q Q
4 to) U
EP E• w c 4... - w r.... r.si
..1 c P., .- .4.-.- a) c\I 13 • a ..,) ij .._........
ct 1/4-5 6 "tpc < ' ro°1 0 (r) 6,
(r) u 4 - 0 X
4a CU (LF) .17_
a) C NI c7)
Ni 0 w E.I) 0- 4v ci) r.,
• ...- ,-. 4- ,.../_a jm 4, c =
a)
1- 4... LI- U 8 (I) ID CD E ea a le ("t3 E
0 6. cu E E co
O a
r• (1) >, rt:3 — >, ° = til
X
C i:1" _ =
RI 0 ":6--■ u 76-3 " C
L., fa -c 4- co Q.) c
L._
ca w a) ( E = o 4-' f) 0 ° 01 .....L. 0
.0 Le:, ai 12 0 Tu 0) 003L.0
0 0 FL,. (i) - ' w
1.. o >..
m• E tuit '- c W mea ruCI C 12 Z
C s.... 3.. , L.... 0 V >4 L- •Fli 0 s_ < (1)
ix) > .: ..t I= ca 0 0
I.-. U) c:0 c) vs (7) SP (f) (,•-s 4 MUOUL.) 2 1.4 ClUiLUQZFAZ
C\I NI
(N 13
CD 0 m CN N 1-1 (N
Ja 01 v,
.0 fu Ln o.) co d-
al 3„. cri cri Ni Ni Ni
3 a
co co
.....i O ,N VD 0 cr Lt
II cD ,.-1 1-1 r-I r-I = rci" 7J- 1- 01 r.] U-,Z (r) (r) 01 Cr) Cfl Ni Ni Ni Ni
>
:C ex
>. — — — — —
13, c*' c*' c ' c*' c '
0
c co .,.., .,.., 0 m m .,.., (,1 cD C) cD CD II QD OD 01 Crl
2). (-I m m C) CD
to 01 rri Cri (-se; ci 6' Z NJ NI 01 r.] CN
u) ex
c* c* 0 *c 0 cu 0..:, 0.0,
0.E 0.?, 0
0
a, ,_,
o
L. c5 c5 ,-i a6 Lri 6 o 6 r< ci .7i or3
a) r■ r■ 1- M IN Z E Ln in 01 N Ul
4 ..... ..., ...... ....... .._. -
..--, ...--. ...--. ..--..
..--, ,--... ,..... ,.....
c c*' c*' .--. 00-^.
0 0
0 N
0 ....,
0 0 0 0 .,
0 0 0
,-1 1- ,_, ,—I re)
- 6 Ni Ni csi
o c). ,-, qi ,--1 r-I r-I 4..0 N CV ci IA N.
Z 0 •--- „ — ....- u) 1- m N. N. re)
C ,......, 0 ...._, ....., ...... ...._, ...._,
o ,,--,---,
0 0 IA r1
?
,:: m
c*' c 0 0 0
to 0
II co
u at Ne N Pr) cz) '4) " r-I NJ ni VD 01
Z c
O q;.
qi Ni Ni a6 c6 ,6. -4 c6
0
o. i3 es, m mm ,.....,....-•
0 ,--,
,--, ---, ---.
c a) ....! i
0
4 „--1 VD Ul 0 ..,, .,
1--1 ri >
Cri
0 to NI ko m N C
.... ...._.. c; ci 6 (vi
t%.. ...„
T.3 —
C muo uo 1-1 a) a) a)
iL. fri 3.. tli
6 of oi
0 0
CU u) 0 II 0
01 Z U
C 0 0 0 )...
r.... Ch 1-1
o .1.• 4..•
0 u) li VD 01 V) w
.1.1 0 >. U ka cc; , 1
IN u 0. 0 E
,-, 0 0 to 4c w
§ r_
to
....u.). .0 0
to c RI :6 al in ko
CN 1--I r-I w
I...
u) 4
-o c o.
--.. o U = .11.I 0 w CA t 0 E
al E c ..14 cp c cn to
a) co col 0 a..• rt) o
C .... 0 c ._ vi. 12 ........-.. 0 "0 u) cu v
rci IC to
" " " 2 0 ft" CU
1.4 C
01 TI. CL ,...z. ... - .2 Q. o o 0 CU 10
U E a a
z z z w c
toL"
ox ---- ig. c :1-1 I. .11.I }I I.: = 0 0" ,....4j
01 0. W E wx in 5 a = r) 0 C 0 1..
4., L"
W
I"
CU 4.3 L. 0 0:1)
>.• t 73u) cof 4." 0 0
C C 4- MI
> 44 01 44 "0 cu 00:-., .- w 0 cu
>. c :a c a. tn Q.
w = C
0 t
73 0 0
.... .1-• ni i. 1.. 0 0
> N tn U a) o .1..., ,,, to .1...,
u9 (..) to) 12.
n .- Cs ,.,
a . to "a" c. i'l .0
lA fa ..." ti■
O 4■ 0 0 10 t 0.
(34) co u) fa c ,
ta.E to
Z U C 0 (1)
0 .0 3.. (1) 0 = E
4., W 3., E E .1.0 U t 4.4 ).• C E
4 0 3.. frj 4) 0 ict E = 34.■ 0
1.4 0 C cl) c eu ,, a ...i 0 - iu cu o Q.) i'fi 717 0 . 0 :0
RI C
u Tn" .c iti
+.0 (V ..... 0 4... i.)
0 0 tn 4.1 0
O• C 0 Ir.i W C Ir.i E 4Ia co -R = - m C EzL`-' Sts. co Z 'Fa CU 01:-
o r 1: E c a
l'"• 4la 0 to a) 4-1 E -0 0 u . ..
w <
O 0 CO3.. cin 453.. c , )( .0 eg s 0 w
0 . at =- c cn .2 n3 'la ILI ^la U 6-'1 •Qi .I..0
UJ >.
7.30 0 mx •-, u) W '-' Wo io 4... 4:'., .t1 to
-a to `47, 3,.. W a) 01 CU 01 s4- id rill ICV) I-
• to
0
-• E
1--• U) 1- .u. a.i- CI gn 41.0 C U in Z 7 7 7 Q.
m
co
8 L-. CsJ C
CN v)
4- a)
> < :P.
ra t
C
... C
v) < 0 ; Ms
4.; U
LI- a)
•■-• v) _C v)
Ms
El) 0 2 x 0 -0 a)
cou 1....
ID T.) (1) a)
0 t 0 0. IL) a) 4-; E ,0 — ra _a
E :--- Ms
V) V) (1) ...._
U LA l).- CDs rt3 w •E
4- .6, L-- a) c
cr) , cu , ID c
0 E 0 *0
c lc
cu I . co ro a) _0 ft) 0 4.-■ fu c
a) co V) a "0 CL. 2 vz E. v)
0 0 ra a)
> E
a) o a., LA >.... C o.4- •-
a) Ct. ra 4-,
> v) ,..,•., (I) CO
oi.6.,
'3 a) 0 its •-`-' _0
_ce2a.)
CU)
E .. 4 , 4- •-•C 76 —
El.' a) 1= 0 v) II ■%, -■
> V) 4-, 01. ' -5 - , 4-, ..
o co C a) C ,,,r° 0 v) ..0 Cs RS C) 4-
rO " El) " .4= It: ra 0) fu 0 0 0 0
• 0 a) 0 c U (1.) 0:0 a) f 0 ID ,Cin I)
—
ti 4., ra _0
U c U .- _':-.... ..
U vo N- ,-, • (13 4., -I-,
•- _._, if)- s, eL a) ,
0 -ci 55 4 , •s ro I 8
>-.
0) .,_7- -0 -r-a c c LI-
CI a, 4..■ 413 fp ...., E ._
U (13 (13 .6., ›.... a.) Ili .,., L3
(I) cc) a) .E. E • -c ra v)
a) 0 . -C --iti 1.0 1=
Cr O. a) m o- E 6.7- >. E, LA 6-, ..c co -1-
a) 0. e.,-) u_ 17.2 ro a a)
V) 4
a) E LI- I 0) E 0.*-6 4- c 4- iil, 0
m C E ,c
-o >- o -0 0 0 0) v) - 0 0 •-•
CL)
C -I-' U _Y C Lo a) Cl
c 2 a) 0.4- -8 — L._ V)
t a) o '4=
= a) C 0 CD 1.... • 4_ L.)
0 "CI 2 CD
V) V) ro
C =
-1-■ 4d = = C (1) C s g
a) CS U 4 , rO ID .0 0 -"I
0. 111) = ,• .0 i:5 " ' CL f'CI v; t4-
- ,
Cit2 5
4- V) ID • E
4., 0
To V) ,-," ,,_L- " a) o
a) c L... o 4-' E 4-' 4E' " 8 10
, c _0 -0
a) a) cu c u 0 .-- 4= - ID .--
> V) 0 .— U "
=
E a) >, .2 a;
C m u
ra N a) c .;:t U
a) _C ru
- , .-
= -0 ..c c C - ' ro
0 tf) 4-
C a) 0 rO 4-n 40 4.-■ _0 4 , 0 C
0 v)
4-d
Et./ — -1-■ a) 2 C
01 C a, -- >••• 1/4-' -2,-- c
IP 03 ro s..., c ro (1) 0. ,,.,"•• (I) LA a) o
c
0
u a) E 55 L.- 0 a) ..... =
a) C *--• 4.-
c -I-' 0
,--
.-5 E c (.1) .s U LA a.) X (1) 4-; CC Ot01=
....,V) CL CI) " 0 ro
O. o = -._s oi 2 0 0 0 a)
Q„ as U 4- -r- C ro 10, -0- U"-. CI- ›.- >• V) 0) 0 4.j '..-2 cl-
E
4 0 a) 4-
no Ts
c _
-0 ru 01 U
cn =IP -C,_, v) C
._ L.... 4-, a) a ■%., c a.) C U • - C
c L) -
:L.3 ID <1.)
co " Ci.
. . -1-,
rEs CO 0 LLJ
C a)
c _c U . (.7 . 4-, (1) a.) a) 0 :,-• c
C
0 4-, C
LL. ....: <2 C co -CS LL., p C 1.... n; - V) V) IP 4..■
(L) ,-, 0
a) Li?
L... c V) CTI
I . 0 C U ID
E vo 0
a) 0 V) a) IS 0
- V) 0
0 m =
-1-, >"` V) a) ..C - t
ra .
C v) co
.
le co u 55 >. co 8 .-5 4--I C c CT = -gs ,;.. 8 I
cu >-• C 0 .o .. 0
0 C > fp al • 0 Q) - C
0 > a)
E 0 (' cs) ° .-.5 En its
4-, -c-L > ouv) ou
0, ,:u o (L) _ •1.-_ c ._ 4_, ,
-C
a) _c c -a. 0 .- - 0 0 , z c E — 0- v) a)
.- C a) =
u) E x 4_, tr_- ,r, -
o 0
4- — 0 .47, 0 C >•• E _c
LA - a,
c u ...0 = 4-, Ct.-3 • ro eL 4..■ -C y...
01 _C a• ° 0 - U 04_ 00.
U > (L) C
Z rife f ut_,,' rE a
0 0co.4-,-__- .0;" a$-) ga V
O E E ow o DE - c
0 0 •- a) c,
C . - C >
—.(6=:,' a
4vc-)■ 0 1E-
cn 0 = 0 "0 (13 a) co co CU u • 5
= •-• -EL_C CI-
11) LLJ -C .0 •-•
-I-' -C ,, C
co Z c u --- ...c -6, 0 ri= c 8 cL 0 52
>. .- ...„ 1._
O .. .0 0 2 co ,,'",";u_ U = a) —4-, E 10 M
(i) u_ 4_, - "t0 "' 0 • a) o..5 o. c _ v) - ' _c -a ra •,.._Y
> u) -5 col Tn.1 c c E Cl...1-■ a) CD a) 1,-; V)
E -c
0 CU co
.... 0 ,(.,-,9 4-,
1:3 " = "c c —
LLI 0 .71- _C
— -C •"" U '-'-' 0 P- 8't ',:r. r D —
tn ...... L... 4_, 0 = a3
CI = 4-
Z 0 • C V) U " E c co "
4 0 v) co a) = 0 -0 a) c 75 C
I•4 01 4.-' a) CLE C -C e E C , '3 11)
...1 - ft) 4-, *4-.5 4-:•_-, 0- 01_c u -5<
V) (I) a)
d c E 4_,V) V) v)a) .... fp •,....- 0 we (I) 0 E ro .,. 4_, :1.., ro 0 ...c a) I- 0 a) C I 4_, =
O a".' C • r° C . .) C '-' ° > Ca) -C " wEEE .(-2 u
o _c
U v) ro 4--, ., (1) ..., -0 its I- >•' v) -- 4- 0 a) - >•-•
O 0 C C a . 5:-., E co 71)
0 °, -6-. (1) .70 4-'," 4:1 v) 15.4- ,,R fp M - C i.-_) 0 a) l',0 Eu_ oi E
muj i->. lil uo c- cs- ..cs ..6 rg ,ccz 47,, .(7)a) _ciu" -,_ 1:9 1:3- 2.9 2 mE Ea.' 72 69
17.1 a) = ,__ro >, c ._-= C a)
VI a) .C C L-
e., re
rd E (:„ a) (1) 0 rO = c U = t •Ct rT) = CI. V) X 0 a) = ..c (1) -.,-,- C 0 CI) -6-, 0 f•-•," a) -1-
La. f- "*.--- Li-i E E col z = . • a L.= > L._ CO v) = a) v) z cn.6., 1.) ,..., = 1.- V) 4-, ...., 1.- -.- CL)
- C -0)01- E E g Ct,
0
0 0 0. I=
I-- U) Z U U 0 0• • 4 • • • • • a. • •
J. c
(N o
-6, c
= a)
- , (..)
x
a)• L o a)
a)
c -o .v3 73
(ID c E
>
2
D cu V)
-6,
To ro 3 2
L.) 0
o • its 6"
_1 eL z c
E a)
vi o L5 c•)
0
U
E 0 8- o
c
'
• a) c v)
v)
Eu_
v)
= o its
Li- LA 5 c
ro
E "
To = 10
u cr) a) vi
, u
c
a • a) o
2 6'•-ei, vi ..-L•0 iz--3
a) -o
C c) g o a) = a)
IP°
0 10
.—
—
Cl.
v) a)
4
c L-
CA o _o a.... o.
ra
C ...0 ro = " I
U. ...0
-0 c -,...
W a) a) E._ a, 0110
ca E a) En
C 4— > v) 0
...0 .— ms >.4-,
re 4- 0 —
L. o cu c) •
r0 10 —
0 _o To E.0 E IP
c & ...0
10
o (-)
MS a,▪ It C • ra v)
oS- — .3.- Z.
C = .
.... eL v; c
MS
IV C (I) ID C a) (1)
la. 01 > co
113 > E
-6, .—
).. V) a) =
4) a) o .., 1— cu ...a
WI • 10- 0 _Y tv
(0) -c ra 0 L- C
O _ +.2 (I) 1... 0 "0 0
Z
< 0 v) ti 0 t' MS ro
..0
—
I-I
—1 CA a) c - a) = •
_J .
4 ti v) = 0 7,5 Tu LA E
d 5 o v) c
O 4- a v, -E u
I— 4"' 0 CU _CD (1) a) U
U °
w >. v)
.V) 0
(1)
ID E
d C = 0E 5 02 ra 2
I•4 G Cl.
X = =
I"" CA • 0 • •
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 25
ATTACHMENT 5a-2
"' Agency Information
Answer Choices Responses
Agency Name 100.00% 35
Contact person for this survey 100.00% 35
Contact phone# 100.00% 35
Contact email 100.00% 35
# Agency Name Date
1 Historical Foundation of Hillsborough and Orange County 2/26/2016 4:27 PM
2 CHARLES HOUSE ASSOCIATION 2/26/2016 2:58 PM
3 Triangle Disability Awareness Council 2/25/2016 4:26 PM
4 The Arc of the Triangle 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
5 Eno Publishers 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
6 Behavioral Insights(formerly Pretrial Services) 2/25/2016 2:49 PM
7 North Carolina High School Athletic Association,Inc. 2/25/2016 2:20 PM
8 Farmer Foodshare 2/25/2016 1:52 PM
9 Farmer Foodshare 2/25/2016 1:01 PM
10 RENA 2/25/2016 12:43 PM
11 HOPE FOR HAITI MINISTRIES,INC 2/25/2016 12:37 PM
12 Orange Congregations in Mission 2/25/2016 11:33 AM
13 OE Enterprises,Inc. 2/25/2016 11:20 AM
14 Compass Center for Women and Families 2/25/2016 11:12 AM
15 Habitat for Humanity of Orange County 2/22/2016 12:33 PM
16 Orange County Rape Crisis Center 2/21/2016 3:14 PM
17 Friends of the Robert and Pearl Seymour Center 2/20/2016 9:50 PM
18 Community Home Trust 2/17/2016 11:37 AM
19 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Meals on Wheels 2/16/2016 9:15 PM
20 Friends of the Seymour Center 2/16/2016 6:27 PM
21 The ArtsCenter 2/16/2016 3:48 PM
22 Inter-Faith Council for Social Service 2/16/2016 3:37 PM
23 Piedmont Health Services Inc. 2/16/2016 2:14 PM
24 SKJAJA Fund 2/16/2016 2:00 PM
25 Child Care Services Association 2/16/2016 1:55 PM
26 Mental Health America of the Triangle 2/16/2016 12:36 PM
27 Community Empowerment Fund 2/16/2016 12:35 PM
28 A Helping Hand 2/16/2016 12:31 PM
29 Orange County Department on Aging 2/16/2016 12:22 PM
30 Historical Foundation of Hillsborough and Orange County 2/16/2016 12:21 PM
1 124
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 26
31 Bridge II Sports 2/16/2016 12:17 PM
32 Boys&Girls Clubs of Eastern Piedmont 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
33 The Exchange Club's Family Center in Alamance County 2/16/2016 12:10 PM
34 El Futuro 2/16/2016 12:09 PM
35 Dispute Settlement Center 2/16/2016 12:05 PM
# Contact person for this survey Date
1 Candace Midgett 2/26/2016 4:27 PM
2 PAUL KLEVER 2/26/2016 2:58 PM
3 Lynn Shields 2/25/2016 4:26 PM
4 Susan Chandler 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
5 Elizabeth Woodman 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
6 Joyce Kuhn 2/25/2016 2:49 PM
7 Karen DeHart 2/25/2016 2:20 PM
8 lari Hatley 2/25/2016 1:52 PM
9 Gini Bell 2/25/2016 1:01 PM
10 Rosie Caldwell 2/25/2016 12:43 PM
11 PAULETTE BEKOLO 2/25/2016 12:37 PM
12 Kay Stagner 2/25/2016 11:33 AM
13 Tracey Craven 2/25/2016 11:20 AM
14 Cordelia Heaney 2/25/2016 11:12 AM
15 Grace Johnston 2/22/2016 12:33 PM
16 Alyson Culin 2/21/2016 3:14 PM
17 Katherine Leith 2/20/2016 9:50 PM
18 Lori Woolworth 2/17/2016 11:37 AM
19 Stacey Yusko 2/16/2016 9:15 PM
20 Myra Austin 2/16/2016 6:27 PM
21 Julie Tomkovick 2/16/2016 3:48 PM
22 Elizabeth Garfunkel 2/16/2016 3:37 PM
23 Jen Cunningham 2/16/2016 2:14 PM
24 Charlotte White 2/16/2016 2:00 PM
25 Vivian Eto 2/16/2016 1:55 PM
26 Marci White 2/16/2016 12:36 PM
27 Maggie West 2/16/2016 12:35 PM
28 Jennifer Ashley 2/16/2016 12:31 PM
29 Myra Austin 2/16/2016 12:22 PM
30 Candace Midgett 2/16/2016 12:21 PM
31 Ashley Thomas 2/16/2016 12:17 PM
32 Sarah Marion 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
33 Sarah Black 2/16/2016 12:10 PM
34 Jennifer Casanova 2/16/2016 12:09 PM
35 Frances Henderson 2/16/2016 12:05 PM
2 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 27
# Contact phone# Date
1 919.732.2201 2/26/2016 4:27 PM
2 919-967-7570 2/26/2016 2:58 PM
3 919 245 4337 2/25/2016 4:26 PM
4 919 942 5119 ext 111 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
5 919-632-6893 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
6 (919)245-3310 2/25/2016 2:49 PM
7 919-240-7369 2/25/2016 2:20 PM
8 9195994710 2/25/2016 1:52 PM
9 9193606358 2/25/2016 1:01 PM
10 (919)918-2822 2/25/2016 12:43 PM
11 919-610-2883 2/25/2016 12:37 PM
12 919-732-6194 ext.12 2/25/2016 11:33 AM
13 919-732-8124 2/25/2016 11:20 AM
14 919-968-4610 2/25/2016 11:12 AM
15 (919)932-7077 ext.219 2/22/2016 12:33 PM
16 919-968-4647 2/21/2016 3:14 PM
17 919-929-9808 2/20/2016 9:50 PM
18 919-967-1545 x313 2/17/2016 11:37 AM
19 919-942-2948 2/16/2016 9:15 PM
20 919-245-2020 2/16/2016 6:27 PM
21 919-929-2787 2/16/2016 3:48 PM
22 919-929-6380 2/16/2016 3:37 PM
23 919-913-1097 2/16/2016 2:14 PM
24 919-929-9099 2/16/2016 2:00 PM
25 919-403-6950 2/16/2016 1:55 PM
26 919-942-8083 2/16/2016 12:36 PM
27 9192705730 2/16/2016 12:35 PM
28 919-403-5555 2/16/2016 12:31 PM
29 919-245-2020 2/16/2016 12:22 PM
30 919.732.2201 2/16/2016 12:21 PM
31 866-880-2742 2/16/2016 12:17 PM
32 540-597-5809 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
33 336-227-5601 2/16/2016 12:10 PM
34 919-688-7101 ext 607 2/16/2016 12:09 PM
35 (919)929-8800 2/16/2016 12:05 PM
# Contact email Date
1 candace @nc.rr.com 2/26/2016 4:27 PM
2 paul @charleshouse.org 2/26/2016 2:58 PM
3 Ocdac @orangecountync.gov 2/25/2016 4:26 PM
4 schandler @arctriangle.org 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
3 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 28
5 elizabeth @enopublishers.org 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
6 kuhnjoyce @gmail.com 2/25/2016 2:49 PM
7 karen @nchsaa.org 2/25/2016 2:20 PM
8 lari @farmerfoodshare.org 2/25/2016 1:52 PM
9 Gini @farmerfoodshare.org 2/25/2016 1:01 PM
10 rosiecaldwellrena2 @gmail.com 2/25/2016 12:43 PM
11 paulette.bekolo @hfhm.org 2/25/2016 12:37 PM
12 ocimsrm @embargmail.com 2/25/2016 11:33 AM
13 cravent @oeenterprises.org 2/25/2016 11:20 AM
14 director @compassctr.org 2/25/2016 11:12 AM
15 gjohnston @orangehabitat.org 2/22/2016 12:33 PM
16 alyson @ocrcc.org 2/21/2016 3:14 PM
17 kleith @bellsouth.net 2/20/2016 9:50 PM
18 Iwoolworth @communityhometrust.org 2/17/2016 11:37 AM
19 stacey @chcmow.org 2/16/2016 9:15 PM
20 maustin @orangecountync.gov 2/16/2016 6:27 PM
21 jtomkovick @artscenterlive.org 2/16/2016 3:48 PM
22 info @ifcmailbox.org 2/16/2016 3:37 PM
23 cunningj @piedmontheatlh.org 2/16/2016 2:14 PM
24 char @SKJAJAfund.org 2/16/2016 2:00 PM
25 viviane @childcareservices.org 2/16/2016 1:55 PM
26 mwhite @mhatriangle.org 2/16/2016 12:36 PM
27 maggiew @communityempowermentfund.org 2/16/2016 12:35 PM
28 jennifer.ashley @ahelpinghandnc.org 2/16/2016 12:31 PM
29 maustin @orangecountync.gov 2/16/2016 12:22 PM
30 director @orangenchistory.org 2/16/2016 12:21 PM
31 ashley @bridge2sports.org 2/16/2016 12:17 PM
32 smarion@bgcepnc.org 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
33 sarah.black @exchangescan.org 2/16/2016 12:10 PM
34 jcasanova @elfuturo-nc.org 2/16/2016 12:09 PM
35 fhenderson @disputesettlement.org 2/16/2016 12:05 PM
4 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 29
2 Author Info/Experience
Answer Choices Responses
Position title of person who completed funding application 100.00% 35
#of years previous experience with Orange/Chapel Hill/Carrboro funding application 100.00% 35
# Position title of person who completed funding application Date
1 executive director 2/26/2016 4:27 PM
2 Executive Director 2/26/2016 2:58 PM
3 Chair 2/25/2016 4:26 PM
4 Assistant Director of Social and Volunteer Opportunities 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
5 Executive Director 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
6 ED 2/25/2016 2:49 PM
7 Karen DeHart and Mary Vrnak 2/25/2016 2:20 PM
8 Director of Development 2/25/2016 1:52 PM
9 Development Director 2/25/2016 1:01 PM
10 Program Manager 2/25/2016 12:43 PM
11 CEO Founder 2/25/2016 12:37 PM
12 Kay Stagner,Manager of Client Services 2/25/2016 11:33 AM
13 Director of Community Employment 2/25/2016 11:20 AM
14 Executive Director 2/25/2016 11:12 AM
15 Database and Grant Manager 2/22/2016 12:33 PM
16 Development&Communications Director 2/21/2016 3:14 PM
17 board member,Jerry Finn+staff of the DoA,Myra Austin 2/20/2016 9:50 PM
18 Director of Operations and Finance 2/17/2016 11:37 AM
19 Executive Director 2/16/2016 9:15 PM
20 2 people worked to complete Sr Cntrs Administrator&A Voluneeter Friends Bd member 2/16/2016 6:27 PM
21 Development Director 2/16/2016 3:48 PM
22 Stephani Kilpatrick 2/16/2016 3:37 PM
23 Data Analyst 2/16/2016 2:14 PM
24 Director/Founder 2/16/2016 2:00 PM
25 Sr.Director of Family Support 2/16/2016 1:55 PM
26 Executive Director 2/16/2016 12:36 PM
27 Maggie West,Program Coordinator 2/16/2016 12:35 PM
28 Executive Director 2/16/2016 12:31 PM
29 Myra Austin 2/16/2016 12:22 PM
30 Executive Director 2/16/2016 12:21 PM
31 E.D. 2/16/2016 12:17 PM
32 Chief Executive Officer 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
5 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 30
33 County Director 2/16/2016 12:10 PM
34 Grants Manager 2/16/2016 12:09 PM
35 Executive Director 2/16/2016 12:05 PM
# #of years previous experience with Orange/Chapel Hill/Carrboro funding application Date
1 1 2/26/2016 4:27 PM
2 12 2/26/2016 2:58 PM
3 3 2/25/2016 4:26 PM
4 3 years 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
5 2 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
6 23 2/25/2016 2:49 PM
7 6 2/25/2016 2:20 PM
8 1 2/25/2016 1:52 PM
9 3 2/25/2016 1:01 PM
10 3 years 2/25/2016 12:43 PM
11 0 2/25/2016 12:37 PM
12 18 2/25/2016 11:33 AM
13 10+ 2/25/2016 11:20 AM
14 0 2/25/2016 11:12 AM
15 4 2/22/2016 12:33 PM
16 5 2/21/2016 3:14 PM
17 10(?) 2/20/2016 9:50 PM
18 5 2/17/2016 11:37 AM
19 6 2/16/2016 9:15 PM
20 3&<1 2/16/2016 6:27 PM
21 6 2/16/2016 3:48 PM
22 1 2/16/2016 3:37 PM
23 5+ 2/16/2016 2:14 PM
24 0 2/16/2016 2:00 PM
25 6 years 2/16/2016 1:55 PM
26 2 2/16/2016 12:36 PM
27 4 2/16/2016 12:35 PM
28 2 2/16/2016 12:31 PM
29 3 2/16/2016 12:22 PM
30 1 2/16/2016 12:21 PM
31 5 2/16/2016 12:17 PM
32 4 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
33 3 2/16/2016 12:10 PM
34 2 2/16/2016 12:09 PM
35 27 2/16/2016 12:05 PM
6 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 31
Please indicate which funding sources
your agency applied for (please select all
that apply)
Answered:33 Skipped:2
Town of
Carrboro Hum...
Town of Chapel
Hill Human...
Orange County
Human Services
CCDBG ■
HOME I
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Town of Carrboro Human Services 81.82% 27
Town of Chapel Hill Human Services 87.88% 29
Orange County Human Services 84.85% 28
CCDBG 9.09% 3
HOME 6.06% 2
Total Respondents: 33
7 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 32
In comparison to initial expectations or
past experience completing this funding
application, please assess the ease or
difficulty of your overall experience:
Answered:33 Skipped:2
(no label)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Significantly Easier About the More Significantly more N/A(no prior Total Weighted
easier same difficult difficult experience) Average
(no 0.00% 0.00% 24.24% 42.42% 30.30% 3.03%
label) 0 0 8 14 10 1 33 4.12
8 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 33
Q5 Approximately how many total hours
were spent to complete the application?
Answered:33 Skipped:2
Responses Date
1 38 2/26/2016 4:32 PM
2 60 2/26/2016 3:35 PM
3 8 2/26/2016 2:58 PM
4 20 2/25/2016 4:27 PM
5 16 hours 2/25/2016 3:46 PM
6 12(6 for each) 2/25/2016 2:50 PM
7 5 2/25/2016 2:20 PM
8 30 2/25/2016 1:52 PM
9 8 2/25/2016 1:01 PM
10 8-12 hours 2/25/2016 12:46 PM
11 1 2/25/2016 12:37 PM
12 unable to calculate 2/25/2016 11:34 AM
13 30 2/25/2016 11:21 AM
14 75 2/25/2016 11:13 AM
15 40 2/22/2016 12:34 PM
16 25 2/21/2016 3:15 PM
17 20(?) 2/20/2016 9:51 PM
18 35 2/17/2016 11:58 AM
19 20 2/16/2016 9:15 PM
20 30 2/16/2016 6:28 PM
21 60 2/16/2016 3:59 PM
22 30 2/16/2016 2:15 PM
23 30(across 2 people) 2/16/2016 1:56 PM
24 25-30 2/16/2016 12:37 PM
25 12 2/16/2016 12:36 PM
26 15 2/16/2016 12:31 PM
27 30 2/16/2016 12:24 PM
28 30 2/16/2016 12:21 PM
29 10 2/16/2016 12:18 PM
30 56 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
31 Financial section-30 hours 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
32 20-25 2/16/2016 12:10 PM
33 40 2/16/2016 12:05 PM
9 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 34
Ut Please indicate your agreement or
disagreement with the following
statements:
Answered:31 Skipped:4
The questions
posed in the...
The page limit
in the...
.14
The Work
Statement fo...
The budget
worksheets w...
The budget
detail(i.e....
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
. ■ I Strongly I Disagree ' No I Agree Strongly Total Weighted
Disagree Opinion Agree Average_
The questions posed in the narrative Program/Project Description section 3.33% 6.67% 16.67% 70.00% 3.33%
were sufficient to explain our proposed services 1 2 ' 5 21 1 30 3.63
The page limit in the narrative Program/Project Description section was 0.00% 22.58% 6.45% 67.74% 3.23%
sufficient to explain our proposed services 0 7 2 21 1 31 3.52
The Work Statement form provided a sufficient template/format for 9.68% 32.26% 12.90% 41.94% 3.23%
summarizing activities,goals,measures and results 3 10 4 13 1 31 2.97
The budget worksheets were straightforward and easy to complete 9.68% 38.71% 12.90% 38.71% 0.00%
(EXCLUDING technical difficulties) 3 12 4 12 0 31 2.81
The budget detail(i.e.,cost per unit section)was straightforward and 22.58% 38.71% 12.90% 25.81% 0.00%
easy to complete 7 12 4 8 , 0 31 2.42
# Comments for The questions posed in the narrative Program/Project Description section were sufficient to Date
explain our proposed services"
1 Questions e and f seemed to be specifically for projects,not ongoing programs. 2/25/2016 12:01 PM
2 Questions B and C were very similar.Question D was similar to question C.Other than a projected timeframe, 2/17/2016 12:56 PM
Question F was difficult to answer for CDBG funds since these funds are use for specific projects not a provided
ongoing service.The program beneficiary demographics was difficult to answer in such detail,since we do not know
who we will sell our homes to.We can project income ranges,but race and age are difficult to determine when looking
into the future.It was especially difficult in regards to the CDBG request.
3 Some sections were tricky to translate into our structure of services.le.We serve families not individuals so that was 2/16/2016 12:17 PM
difficult to place in their tables.
# Comments for"The page limit in the narrative Program/Project Description section was sufficient to explain Date
our proposed services"
1 I They allowed attachments;which is new 2/25/2016 2:52 PM
10 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 35
2 4 pages would have been better 2/25/2016 11:14 AM
3 We were able to stay within the required limitations,however,it would have been better to ask one(maybe two) 2/17/2016 12:56 PM
questions and give the agency more freedom to describe the program,rather than ask several redundant questions.
4 Very difficult providing all requested info/detail within the space provided 2/16/2016 2:07 PM
5 We needed more space to give justice to our programming and the need for the program in the county. 2/16/2016 12:17 PM
Comments for"The Work Statement form provided a sufficient template/format for summarizing activities, Date
goals,measures and results"
1 Hard to tell because I don't know if ffectively conveyed what I intended 2/25/2016 2:52 PM
2 I was unable to figure out the template and had to call Allen to get help.I was told there was a problem with the 2/25/2016 12:01 PM
original one and did receive a"fixed"one.Even then,it took time to figure out how to use it.
3 We had several technical difficulties when completing this table.Data was repeatedly lost or wouldn't print correctly on 2/17/2016 12:56 PM
the page.On the CDBG application,it was difficult as the projects we are applying for funds for today may not be the
projects funded last year,so it is hard to compare over a span of time.
4 I struggle with this section-how to measure delivering meals and having social interaction as a goals and how to 2/16/2016 9:20 PM
evaluate.
5 Excel within Word very difficult to work with. 2/16/2016 2:18 PM
6 Structure of chart did not flow logically and was limiting 2/16/2016 2:07 PM
7 The work statement form assumes generally that the goals do not change significantly from year to year and that they 2/16/2016 12:38 PM
must translate from year to year/be consistent.
8 This part of the application was difficult to adjust and add items as needed without disrupting format.Also the text was 2/16/2016 12:32 PM
unclear ass it appear text was superimposed and couldn't fix it.
9 Focuses too much on inputs and outputs and not outcomes.Schedule of positions does not accurately reflect the true 2/16/2016 12:17 PM
cost of the program.
10 We complete this but it is not a useful way for us to describe our work. 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
Comments for"The budget worksheets were straightforward and easy to complete(EXCLUDING technical
difficulties)"
1 The insert Excel was difficult to work with and format,vs.the Excel file used in previous years. 2/26/2016 3:25 PM
2 Same as always 2/25/2016 2:52 PM
3 Had some technical difficulties.The spreadsheets in the application were not usable-only graphics-so I had to input 2/25/2016 2:22 PM
the data into a spreadsheet and then add that page into the application.Makes it difficult to send electronically if you
cannot scan the finished document in.
4 They seemed to be the same as in the past. 2/25/2016 12:01 PM
5 The program budget works okay for us,as we were able to adapt our operating budget to the budget form.However, 2/17/2016 12:56 PM
on the CDBG application,the budget form did not apply at all.The projects have a budget.We just included our
regular operating budget along with our own budget format for the CDBG application since we could fit the project
budget into the provided format.
6 It was difficult to discern from the directions what was to be submitted.An example may be helpful. 2/16/2016 6:33 PM
7 Its very difficult to put our budget into this format both from a programmatic perspective,and the way it was embedded 2/16/2016 2:18 PM
this year made nonfunctional
8 I'm used to these,but it is an extra and time consuming task.It would be better to ask for us to submit our financial 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
review or audit,and our own budget.Why have your agency executives spend their time on this?
Comments for"The budget detail(i.e.,cost per unit section)was straightforward and easy to complete" Date
1 I think it is tough to make a form that is a one size fits all;just wish we could present to the county. 2/25/2016 2:52 PM
2 The Cost Elements/Quantity/Unit of measure chart seemed redundant.Our program budget line items do not all fit into 2/25/2016 12:01 PM
units of measure.
3 The budget detail actually was okay on the CDBG application,but it did not work with program services.Since we are 2/17/2016 12:56 PM
asking for operating funding we provide multiple services,to multiple people,with varying costs associated.We
skipped this question on the program services application as we could not figure out a way to answer it accurately.
4 Example was helpful 2/16/2016 6:33 PM
11 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 36
5 not all components of our program fit into this cost per unit metric 2/16/2016 2:18 PM
6 Our services are not easily broken down into a clean,simple formula,as used in the example.It is very unclear what 2/16/2016 2:07 PM
value this section provides to the review process given the wide ranging nature of services provided by different
applicants.
7 I find this section to be duplicative and superfluous.I assume the idea is to be able to compare across agencies based 2/16/2016 12:38 PM
on a cost efficiency metric,but I am pretty positive there is no way it translates.The program budget detail in this
section was repetitive and way too detailed when we already provide a program budget.
8 Cost per unit section does not seem useful to me.Is it useful to the funding boards? 2/16/2016 12:11 PM
12 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 37
Did you experience any
technical/technology difficulties completing
or submitting this application?
Answered:31 Skipped:4
Yes(please
describe in...
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Answer Choices Responses
Yes(please describe in Comments) 70.97% 22
No 29.03% 9
Total 31
# Comments Date
1 All forms requiring import of files from other formals were difficult. 2/26/2016 4:35 PM
2 Our initial CD of the application and attachments was not readable by Town of Chapel Hill staff.The second CD copy 2/26/2016 3:46 PM
of the material was readable.
3 The insert sections--for the work plan and budgets were difficult to work with and format. 2/26/2016 3:31 PM
4 Some files were not accessible fir those using screen enhancers 2/25/2016 4:31 PM
5 See comments section about the program/agency budget. 2/25/2016 2:24 PM
6 Some pages would not let me type onto them 2/25/2016 1:56 PM
7 We had problems with the excel program. 2/25/2016 12:52 PM
8 The original program activity template did not allow(or I could not figure out)for work to be typed in. 2/25/2016 12:12 PM
9 Embedding the budgets proved difficult.IT eventually able to make it work. 2/25/2016 11:26 AM
10 Fortunately,the staff person,Myra Austin,was actively involved.However,getting all the supporting documents was 2/20/2016 10:00 PM
difficult.One thing,it was required that the board pass a motion that the President could seek funding-although it
says in the bylaws that the sole function of the Friends is to raise money!The directions were not clear which caused a
number of phone calls and emails for clarification.In seeing Jackie,I suggested that someone,who is not familiar with
it or technologically knowledgeable,read it before it's distributed to increase its clarity.
11 We encountered several issues with the work statement.We repeatedly lost data and could not get it to print correctly 2/17/2016 1:05 PM
on the page.A lot of time was spent dealing with the inefficiency and deficiencies of the work statement section.
12 Insertion of the Excel budget worksheet imbedded into the document and inclusion of the signed documents in the 2/16/2016 6:38 PM
submission process.-especially since one of them was in the middle of the document.
13 One of our computers didn't have enough memory to embed the excel sheets.We wasted time until we realized that 2/16/2016 4:04 PM
the director's laptop could do it.
13 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 38
14 We had to do a separate Excel because the embedding did not work. 2/16/2016 2:27 PM
15 The embedded Excel budget sheets were difficult to work with and much time was spent on getting formatting and 2/16/2016 2:22 PM
insertion to work correctly.I did not receive timely email feedback about receipt of electronically submitted application
materials causing concern and several additional follow-up efforts to ensure we had met the submission deadline.
16 I submitted the attachments via a Zip file,but Orange County staff couldn't access it.Nor could they when I tried 2/16/2016 12:56 PM
sharing the files from Google Drive.I had to email the attachments one-by-one.
17 The Work Statement table once input back into the Word Document was too small to be legible.I just printed straight 2/16/2016 12:39 PM
from Excel and incorporated into the packet additional pages.
18 We had some issues w/the timestamp feature of the document and trying to get signatures. 2/16/2016 12:32 PM
19 Could not work easily with Excel pages 2/16/2016 12:29 PM
20 I say yes,but it really was about the messy,jumbled,and unnecessarily complicated-ness of the form.I hope that it 2/16/2016 12:20 PM
works really well for the recipient funding boards.If it does,I am happy to do it.If not,I would say that it needs to be
revised.In my opinion,combining the forms with local government human services and federal requests was a terrible
idea.My understanding is that these funders have different needs and different relationships with the grantee
agencies.
21 Regardless of what was done,even by a very experienced and adept computer employee,it was impossible to get the 2/16/2016 12:19 PM
worksheets working correctly.Either they disappeared off the page,or if usable,the table did not allow you to enter all
the data in a viable format!It became much easier to simply do a spreadsheet and insert it.Since we apply to other
local government entities for funding,we have learned to use and work with the different formats.This one was by far
the most difficult and we are not sure why it needs to be when other counties and towns are using a similar application
and there are no problems getting the information onto the application at all.
22 Mostly in the charts and budget sections. 2/16/2016 12:18 PM
14 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 39
New attachments/supplemental
documents were required for this year's
funding application. Did any of these new
requirements pose difficulties? If yes,
please describe/elaborate in comment box.
Answered:31 Skipped:4
Articles of
Incorporation
Authorization
to Request...
Authorized
Official...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes .No
Yes No Total
Articles of Incorporation 3.33% 96.67%
1 29 30
Authorization to Request Funds(board approval for submission of funding request) 51.61% 48.39%
16 15 31
Authorized Official Designation(permission of board for executive to enter into contracts) 48.39% 51.61%
15 16 31
# Comments Date
1 We(mis)read the fine print on the last two documents as being required only by CCBDG applicants,thus making 2/26/2016 4:35 PM
board authorization a difficult.
2 It would be easier to have a signed letter by the board chair or a board member than submitted minutes of a board 2/26/2016 3:46 PM
meeting approving the application.
3 All of these additional items seem unnecessary.The board chair signs the application.Requiring the board to take 2/26/2016 3:31 PM
action on authorizing an executive director to carry out this responsibility is trite.It is difficult to believe that the Articles
of Incorporation are really read as part of the evaluation process.The Secretary of State and IRS would not provide
required designations without Articles,so what additional"safe guard"could be attained by requiring these?
15 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 40
4 Because I was unfamiliar with these new requirements I didn't have enough time to request this at a timely board 2/25/2016 3:50 PM
meeting.I needed to turn these in at a later time than the grant deadline,it just stressed me out a little,but everyone
from the town was so nice and supportive that next year it won't present any problems.
5 Typically,it might be hard for us to get these signed docs from our Board President;due to timing this year of our 2/25/2016 2:24 PM
meeting,we were actually able to get him to sign these relatively easily.It would be better if we could provide online
electronic signature.
6 It was a challenge to find where the definitions were. 2/25/2016 1:56 PM
7 My mistake was assuming the attachments would be the same as they had been for the past years.It was last minute 2/25/2016 12:12 PM
that I noticed the new items and then I had no idea what was being asked for.
8 If Board Chair is signing off on application with Director this seems sufficient rather than having several forms including 2/25/2016 11:26 AM
the Authorization to Request and Official Designation.
9 *Board approval:(1)I think it's ridiculous to require board approval for a grant application.It is well within the 2/21/2016 3:23 PM
Executive Director's purview to submit grant applications,and the Board President's signature is required anyway.(2)
The timing was not adequate to get approval from the entire board.We received the application in Nov,and we didn't
have a board meeting in Nov or Dec because of the holidays.Our January board meeting was scheduled for the day
after the application was due.*Authorized official designation:This wasn't difficult to obtain,as the board president
was already needed to sign the application.But it is completely unnecessary--(1)It is already well within the ED's
purview to sign contracts for the agency and(2)it's redundant if the board president is required to sign the application.
10 We had to do some research to figure out what the Authorized Official Designation was.This seemed a little 2/17/2016 1:05 PM
unnecessary since we already had to show proof that the board authorized the request for funding.We did it,but it
always creates an added inconvenience when you have to get the board's signature since they are not typically in the
office.We had to have our board president come to the office twice to sign documents related to the application.
11 Seem like more hoops to jump through but they weren't difficult 2/16/2016 9:21 PM
12 New attachments should have been discussed at the session.It is very difficult to get Board signature between board 2/16/2016 2:27 PM
meetings.We think like the proof of paying our recycling fee do not belong in a grant application.
13 If the Board Chair must sign the application in multiple places,shouldn't that imply board approval of the funding 2/16/2016 2:22 PM
submission?Also,our agency does not require board approval for submission of every individual funding application
and execution of each contract.The agency President has general approval for such actions.We had no board
meeting minutes to document these permissions and had to craft a separate letter/memo to be signed by the Board
Chair explaining this.
14 Thankfully,I remembered to get a letter well in advance from the Board chair.Otherwise,it would have been a 2/16/2016 12:56 PM
challenge to submit the application on time.
15 I had no idea what these forms were and could not find an explanation in the presentation materials or email. 2/16/2016 12:35 PM
16 As these processes were new,both to the board and to the executive director,they required us to work outside of our 2/16/2016 12:29 PM
board meeting schedule,and request quick action on the part of our board members to fulfill.Next year we'll have a
better grasp on what's expected.It would be helpful to have these documents in hand before the month of December,
so that we can plan around staff and board holiday schedules.
17 These two items were repetitive and unnecessary.With the timing,it was difficult to get the board to review something 2/16/2016 12:20 PM
basically meaningless and repetitive.
18 Normally protocol is that the Executive Director informs the board of funding requests made not the other way around. 2/16/2016 12:18 PM
16 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 41
u i Please rate how well your support needs
were met by the County/Towns
Answered:31 Skipped:4
Orientation
session
Written 17..mmil
application...
Email
communicatio...
Accessibility
of staff for...
Length of time
provided to...
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Could have done with less .....Just right Needed more Total Weighted Average
Orientation session 7.69% 42.31% 50.00%
2 11 13 26 2.42
Written application instructions 10.71% 32.14% 57.14%
3 9 16 28 2.46
Email communication from staff 0.00% 70.00% 30.00%
0 21 9 30 2.30
Accessibility of staff for questions 0.00% 75.86% 24.14%
0 22 7 29 2.24
Length of time provided to complete application 3.45% 37.93% 58.62%
1 11 17 29 2.55
Comments on any of the above I ' Date
1 Could have used more time between orientation and application due date.Snow day right before due date didn't help. 2/26/2016 3:46 PM
All staff I spoke to were wonderful to deal with and responded promptly.
2 I had difficulty getting clarification and definition of the intent of the new question regarding our"experience"with 2/26/2016 3:31 PM
similar programs.The question is vague and doesn't specify what information is needed for the evaluation process.
3 This process should be a complete onlone process with minimal signatures 2/25/2016 4:31 PM
4 It would be nice to have until mid-February as the deadline. 2/25/2016 2:24 PM
5 Staff was actually very kind and helpful 2/25/2016 1:56 PM
6 Need more sessions,one time only is not enough 2/25/2016 12:52 PM
7 Allen,from Orange County was great with answering my calls and emails.I am just baffled that I had so many 2/25/2016 12:12 PM
questions.Because of the winter weather closings,the 3:00 Monday deadline caused a lot of anxiety.I had financial
information that I could not get until closer to the application deadline,so the day Orange County,and our agency,was
closed due to icy roads was a crucial work day.An extension of a day or even a few hours would have been very
helpful.
17 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 42
8 Needed more foc s on the changes at the Orientati n session and instructions. 2o5/2016 11:26 AM
9 While the length of time provided to complete the application was adequate,the timeline is during a difficult time of 2/21/2016 3:23 PM
year.For example,getting required pieces from the Board is difficult during the holidays(see question 8).Additionally,
the risk of snow/ice made it very difficult to complete the application on ume—wm/°I had the grant completed in
advance of the deadline just in case of adverse weather,needing multiple original signatures from different people
meant that 4 days of snow/ice before the deadline made it nearly impossible to complete.I tried to reach out to Chapel
Hill staff multiple times(about a week in advance with questions about the app and again a couple days in advance
with questions about the snow/ice deadline)and didn't get sufficient responses.
10 Especially with the storm,the deadline should have been extended.The application should have been available a lot 2/20/2016 10:00 PM
earlier so that it wouldn't conflict with the end of the year holidays,etc.
11 We had a staff member attend the orientati n that left feeling like the process was very similar to previous years.This 2/17/2016 1:05 PM
years application took a significant amount of additional time,which left us scrambling near the deadline.There was so
much in the written m»muct/onn,it was hard to weed through what was important and what wasn't.The email
communication regarding the orientation was confusing.We had several emails sent about the program orientation
and the CDBG/HOME application with different information and from different people.We ended up attending one,
that had apparently been moved to a different date.It was all very confusing.Loryn was available to Robert when he
had questions on the application.The time provided was fine.If we had known the amount of time it was going to take
to complete we could have adjusted accordingly and had less stress leading up to the deadline.
12 I think the month of January is busy for most of us finishing up year end.I'd like to see a Feb 15 deadline. 2/16/2016 9:21 PM
13 It was a challenge to get to the Instruction Documents and to find the Towns priorities. 2/16/2016 6:38 PM
14 We didn't realize that if we applied to Outside Agency/Human Services and CDBG we should fill in the application two 2/16/2016 4:04 PM
times.We apply for different programs and it was deemed confusing to have so much unnecessary information for the
CDBG reviewers.Then we had a winter storm in the days before the deadline which makes us even busier than usual.
15 The full application instructions were only available at one Agency website(Orange)instead of all 3.We got all our 2/16/2016 2:27 PM
initial information from Town of Chapel Hill site,but found the Orange County website instructions and new
attachments last minute.
16 The date of the Orientation was a conflict for many agencies.Staff representatives who did attend were led to believe 2/16/2016 2:22 PM
there was no significant change to the process or documents,which did not hold true,and written materials did not
help address changes that had been made.More communication from staff would have been helpful regarding the
weather conditions that complicated the submission process in the days before the application was due.
17 A staff person attended the orientation session for me since I was unable to attend.The delay in posting the 2/16/2016 12:56 PM
application and instructions on the County website reduced the time available to complete the application.
18 Instructions for the separate programs(i.e.human services,home,cgbd)would have help avoid some confusion with 2/16/2016 12:32 PM
submission requirements.Time to complete application was also an issue due to inclement weather on Friday and no
flexibility on deadline for submission on Monday.It was difficult for team members to do a final quality check on final
application submitted as we were trying to meet deadline and get signatures from board.
19 First,all staff are pleasant and helpful to deal with.Second,the orientation session somehow did not convey how 2/16/2016 12:20 PM
different the forms would be.I've been doing these a long time(since 1988.)Last year,it finally seemed streamlined
and easier.Then,this year was a blow-up.In all due respect and appreciation,the form could be simpler,tidier,take
less time,and be readable.(I don't see how it will be easier for the reviewers to handle.)Also,with each funder
needing things in different formats,it was stressful and UN-unified.For example,we don't use flash drives why all of
a sudden was this required?
18 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 43
Q10 Please provide any comments or
feedback you have about the consolidation
of the Human Services funding application
with the CCDBG and HOME applications
(i.e., helpful? more complicated? had no
impact?):
�iuraY/eI d 28 SH i.fpod
# Responses Date
1 I think this consolidation has made completion of the application more complicated,particularly for small non-profits 2/26/2016 4:43 PM
with one-or two-person part-time staffing.
2 Found the combination application more complicated. 2/26/2016 3:56 PM
3 For those of us new to the CCDBG and HOME portions,it was a bit confusing.But,shouldn't be a problem. 2/26/2016 3:33 PM
4 Extremely helpful to streamline the process understandable signature pages be sogin r f 2/25/2016 4:33 PM
5 putting it on a flash drive made it a little bit more complicated for me.I like the idea of just sending it through the mail 2/25/2016 3:55 PM
or email.
6 Great to be allowed to add attachments 2/25/2016 2:53 PM
7 As long as you can decipher what you need to complete vs not complete,its not really an issue.For someone not 2/25/2016 2:25 PM
acquainted with this type of application,I can see where he/she may have issues.
8 My first year so I can't compare 2/25/2016 2:04 PM
9 Did not have any impact. 2/25/2016 12:53 PM
10 I will be applying not this round 2/25/2016 12:39 PM
11 I felt it was more complicated.There were questions better suited to projects,rather than ongoing programs. 2/25/2016 12:26 PM
12 Having helped to complete all of these applications in prior years,I think the consolidation had the opportunity to be 2/22/2016 12:50 PM
helpful but instead made the process more complicated.It felt like the applications were combined into one simply by
jamming them together,not by actually consolidating.Things that were asked on the main application were asked
again on the supplemental parts but in a format just different enough to require a rewrite of the answer previously
given.
13 The consolidation made it difficult to figure out the application.There were so many pieces to skip that it made it 2/21/2016 3:34 PM
difficult to read what we were supposed to fill out.Different components of the application didn't seem to be divided
properly be section.For example,section 3 is Project/Program Information,but it included the Schedule of Positions
and the Conflicts of Interest forms,which were the same for both programs and therefore should have been included
in section 2(Agency Information).Having those pieces under section 3 made it confusing when we needed to repeat
section 3 for our second program.
14 N/A 2/20/2016 10:04 PM
15 If the consolidation is the reason for the additional complexity added to the Human Services application,then it made 2/17/2016 6:37 PM
it more complicated--WAY more complicated.
16 Combining the two applications made it confusing,much more complicated,and a lot more work.Several questions 2/17/2016 1:23 PM
applied to Human Services,but not CDBG/HOME and visa versa.They are two completely different types of funding,
often used for two completely different purposes and it was impossible to fit them both into the same"box."If they
wanted to combine applications,it would have made more sense to have the AHDR fund application(which was much
easier and streamlined)and the CDBG/HOME funds together since they are more similar in nature.
17 no impact 2/16/2016 9:22 PM
18 Wasn't a problem for Friends 2/16/2016 6:39 PM
19 If it would have been explained that we needed to turn it in separately it would have been fine. 2/16/2016 4:06 PM
19 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 44
20 If consolidation was what let to the additionally required agency attachments or changes to the cost per until and 2/16/2016 2:33 PM
scope of work charts,then the result was increased complication/difficulty.If those changes were independent of the
consolidation of the apps,then no impact.
21 no comment(we applied only for Human Services).Directions were clear. 2/16/2016 2:31 PM
22 No impact-since we do not apply for those other funds. 2/16/2016 1:00 PM
23 More complicated and confusing. 2/16/2016 12:39 PM
24 Its a bit more difficult to see what was required or not from different applications-specially in terms of attachments. 2/16/2016 12:38 PM
Having a table format may help see what was needed for each.The word document instructions were difficult to follow.
25 This made the application more complicated due to the different methods needed for delivery! 2/16/2016 12:32 PM
26 In my opinion it was not a good idea to combine.It just made things messy. 2/16/2016 12:24 PM
27 No impact. 2/16/2016 12:24 PM
28 I have found the staff at all three agencies very helpful.I have called for clarification and they do an awesome job 2/16/2016 12:21 PM
guiding.
20 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 45
al 1 Please describe any other challenges
or issues, not already addressed, that were
experienced completing and/or submitting
the application:
sv md: "I mwppem�a�
�
Responses Date
1 The application form itself wa not difficult to work with. 2/26/2016 3:56 PM
2 nu 2/25/2016 2:25 PM
3 It was quite time consuming.The time needed to complete took me by surprise 2/25/2016 2:04 PM
4 None 2/25/2016 12:53 PM
5 NA 2/25/2016 12:39 PM
6 Although I do feel that enough advance notice was given that everyone should have had sufficient time to complete 2/22/2016 12:50 PM
the applications,the timing of them being due right after a short week(due to the MLK holiday),at 2pm(instead of the
previous 5pm),and right after a Friday snow day was not ideal. In this day and age,having to burn the files onto a CD
or save them on a flash drive and mail or deliver them somewhere in town seems outdated,in additional to a specified
(and large)number of paper copies for some applications,and email submittal.In addition,it didn't actually say
anywhere on the instructions where the applications should be mailed/delivered to.Assumedly the addresses on the
cover page of the instructions serve for the Human Services funding,but the address for the HOME application(which
is different)was never given.
7 What was requested was not clear. 2/20/2016 10:04 PM
8 It is always challenging for IFC because we apply for different programs(food,shelter,support circles). 2/16/2016 4:06 PM
9 Submission seems overly complicated and difficult email submissions,cd-rom/thumb drives,hard copy delivery of a 2/16/2016 2:33 PM
varying number of signed originals and copies,etc.The bad weather created added difficulty and stress due to office
closures on the Friday before the deadline and poor road/driving conditions on the Monday of the due date.An
extension of the due date to Tuesday would have been appreciated.
10 Completing 3 separate applications for different of our programs was much more complicated and increased the risk of 2/16/2016 1:00 PM
making mistakes or omissions for the different jurisdictions.
11 Also,given the changes and our conflict to attend the orientation meeting,we were expecting to see an audio/video 2/16/2016 12:38 PM
recording of the session...beyond the online materials to understand process better.
12 The entire process was difficult,from the lack of written/clear instructions,to the low support of staff in understanding 2/16/2016 12:32 PM
or correctly responding to questions,to attempting to understand exactly what financial data was needed,to trying to
get the data on the document.For an organization needing more than one person to work on the application,the
process was very unfriendly.Very often,a financial employee needs to access the application along with a program
employee.This application was not conducive to more than one person from the agency working on it.
13 see above 2/16/2016 12:24 PM
14 I always ask if I do not know.Again,staff is very helpful and knowledgeable. 2/16/2016 12:21 PM
21 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 46
C)12 Please provide any suggestions you
have for improving the application materials
or process.
swa,aa: m Skip 141,
�
Responses Date
1 It wo ld be very helpful to offe workshops more than once prior to the grant application cycle,and perhaps once 2/26/2016 4:43 PM
during the cycle.
2 Is it possible to have one method of submitting the application to all government entities?Such as,send an email with 2/26/2016 3:56 PM
the application as a word doc,as separate excel nwn,with the signed application as a PoF,plus digital copies of all
attachements.
3 Maybe at the orientation they can use a grant that was well written/documented to show us an example of what the 2/25/2016 3:55 PM
towns are looking for.
4 Wish I could present to Orange in person 2/25/2016 2:53 PM
5 nu 2/25/2016 2:25 PM
6 None 2/25/2016 12:53 PM
7 NA 2/25/2016 12:39 PM
8 If there are to be changes,have the orientation address the changes.Past orientations may have been a little bit too 2/25/2016 12:26 PM
detailed,but anything new had always been clearly explained.There was nothing in the orientation regarding the
changes,especially the authorization attachments.There were opportunities to look at the few applications available
during the orientation,but that was not sufficient.
9 A 2 to 3 year funding cycle with annual budgeting should be considered.The full application process then woudl only 2o5/2016 11:29 AM
have to be done every 2-3 years.
10 It would be great if everything for all applications could be submitted electronically,if not by email(where sometimes 2/22/2016 12:50 PM
large file sizes pose a problem)then by a file upload service such as dropbox.
11 Separate human services from other funding. Re-arrange components in a wa that makes it easier to complete the 2/21/2016 3:34 PM
application for multiple programs. Simplify the budget.The program budget detail,cost elements,and cost per unit
don't make a lot of sense.We already have comprehensive budgets prepared that are more than adequate for all of
our federal and state grants,and then we have to completely re-work the budget for this application,which takes a
great deal of staff time. Allow the budget to be included as an attachment rather than embedded,which never seems
to work properly. Allow the application to be submitted electronically so we don't have to deliver apps in person or
organize a thousand paper copies.
12 Greater clarity.Application available much earlier.More explanations at the orientation.Opportunity to ask questions 2/20/2016 10:04 PM
perhaps a session after the orientation.
13 Simplify;remove the section about program budget detail since already have the overall program budget spreadsheet; 2/17/2016 6:37 PM
remove the section about unit cost as I do not believe it achieves what you are going for.
14 By including the Schedule of Positions in the body of the application,it limits who can work on the application and 2/17/2016 1:23 PM
organize the finished product,since salary data is included.It would be nice if this was a separate worksheet(like the
budget)that would allow someone to put together the entire application and then someone else could just add the
confidential salary information at the end.It also would be good if we could have an online application and be able to
upload documents instead of making multiple copies and using jump drives.
15 We operate on a calendar year I find it onerous to try to repackage our budget and statistics into the July 1 fiscal year 2/16/2016 9:22 PM
but I don't see any solution to it
16 For those of us who apply every year,some fields could be prepopulated. 2/16/2016 4:06 PM
17 Enhance logic model section,eliminate'cost per unit' section,make submission guidelines consistent across 2/16/2016 2:33 PM
Towns/County
22 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 47
18 As a non-profit agency,we have received ongoing support from Orange Co/Town of CH/Carr and want to continue to 2/16/2016 12:38 PM
comply w/application instructions and/or new requirements.However,we also have conflicting priorities during
orientation with another orange county agency that is helping our families and children.Having a little more flexibility to
have the mandatory orientation or making video/audio recordings from that meeting available will be extremely helpful
moving forward in order to submit a high quality application.Thank you!
19 Chatham County and United Way of Chatham County use a very friendly grant process where an organization can 2/16/2016 12:32 PM
easily have more than one person work on the document.All one must do is pull up their site and enter your own
username and password.The application is there for whoever needs to input information.You can maneuver around
in the document and enter data,save it,and close without losing data.The process for delivering the application is the
same for both organizations.The process has clearly been tweaked in order to work with nonprofits making it much
more simpler for small,understaffed agencies.
20 UN-COMBINE with the federal applications.We do not seek federal funding because of these issues.What we 2/16/2016 12:24 PM
appreciate about the local process is that the people involved know us,it is local,and unnecessary information is not
requested.All these different materials just mean the proc ss was a red-hot mess rather than a chance to
communication successes and goals with friendly,supportive funders,as it is at best.
21 Make sections in the combined application for splicing out what each pot of money is paying for.This gets especially 2/16/2016 12:24 PM
difficult
23 / 24
FY17 Orange Funding Application Feedback(Third Sector Alliance Survey) 48
���� Any final comments?
*mmwa,aa: "Ie Skip 1e
Responses Date
1 I think that we are enormously lucky to live in a community that believes in what us non-profits do each day.the town 2/25/2016 3:55 PM
board/members/community has been so supportive every year,they are intelligent,kind and caring people.I can't
thank them enough.
2 thanks 2/25/2016 2:53 PM
3 nu 2/25/2016 2:25 PM
4 No 2/25/2016 12:53 PM
5 None 2/25/2016 12:39 PM
6 We are grateful for the County and Town support of our programs and want to work together to be as efficient as 2/25/2016 11:29 AM
possible while serving Orange County residents.
7 I suppose another re-write next year of the application is unlikely,but it would be great to see.I don't know what the 2/22/2016 12:50 PM
process was this year,but it seems like a lot more feedback from funded organizations needs to be taken into account.
In the past we have received Human Services funding from Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well as Orange County,but
we decided not to apply for these two this year,because the funding amount received is not worth the large amount of
staff time and effort needed to complete the applications(given that all three Human Services,CDBG,HOME,and CH
AHDR applications are all due on the same day).I am happy to provide additional feedback and specific examples if
you wish.Thanks!
8 Glad you're doing this survey. 2/20/2016 10:04 PM
9 I think combining the applications did not work.There is a difference between program(operating)funding and project 2/17/2016 1:23 PM
funding and there needs to applications(I don't know who they can reasonably be on one)that recognize the
differences and asks questions that apply and are useful when making a decision.The AHDR application was good,
and I think it would have made complete sense to include HOME/CDBG on this one application.
10 We appreciate the opportunity to apply for much needed funding for our safety net services. 2/16/2016 4:06 PM
11 Of the 7-10 annual applications I do for my service area/department every year,this application is the most onerous. 2/16/2016 2:33 PM
Our Budget and Contracts Manager,who assists with budgeting docs and supplemental materials,feels the same.
12 We apply for multiple Federal,state,private sector and local grants annually and this process is by far one of the most 2/16/2016 2:31 PM
difficult.Any effort to streamline/simplify would be greatly appreciated.Electronic submission would be preferred over
hard copy delivery.Top 3 issues this year: 1)not being able to locate full set of instructions;2)Excel Tables in Word,
3)New Attachments
13 I have alwa »munumeunx»anumnowuprevvnvvrmeneu,mumeuomntsmuememvst°xxu"m/v°anuconfu»mu 2/16/2016 12:39 PM
of any other grant we apply for.On top of that,we receive the least amount of funding for what takes a ton of time and
resources to put together.The flash drives,multiple copies and hearings on top of the submission for$2,000 to$4,000
is difficult to stomach.The combination of all three opportunities seems convenient but is not.And since we are talking
three difference funding sources in one shot(as well as visibility in Orange County)it is also impossible to NOT
participate.
14 Thank you for the new option to submit attac ments in an USB drive and not having to print those out.Very prac u,/. 2/16o016 12:38 PM
In general,I think the new process is helpful but just flexibility in coaching us through change is much needed with
agencies like us that are trying our best to serve our community despite limited resources(i.e.time and staff).Thank
you
15 Thanks for everyones work on this.I know that not all local governments fund agencies.The fact that ours do is a big 2/16/2016 12:24 PM
reason our community is so great.I know it takes a lot of staff and volunteer work.
16 I really like the combined application.It helps keep continuity,support for the county as a whole,and each group 2/16/2016 12:21 PM
knowing what the other is doing.Thank you for the opportunity.
24 / 24
49
Attachment 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Bonnie M. Hammersley, Orange County Manager
Roger Stancil, Chapel Hill Town Manager
FROM: Barry McLamb, Town of Chapel Hill Emergency Management Coordinator
DATE: May 27, 2016
RE: Town of Chapel Hill Construction Projects
This summer there are a large number of road construction projects occurring in the Town of
Chapel Hill that will have significant impact the community. These projects includes large
commercial construction projects and construction for commercial fiber networks. The road
work portion of the projects represents a $9 million investment in the community infrastructure
and more than eight months of planning and preparation in some cases.
In 2013, the Town faced a similar situation with numerous projects that were impacting the
southern entry to Chapel Hill. The Emergency Management Coordinator at the time was asked
by the Town Manager to take the lead and form a team to ensure effective communication and
coordination took place before and during the impacts. Using Incident Management System
principles common to everyday fire service operations, EMC Robert Bosworth was able to form
a cross-functional team of town staff to address the challenges we faced that summer. Based on
the success of that team, the Town Manager has again asked that the Emergency Management
Coordinator to lead another cross-functional team to work on projects impacting traffic around
Chapel Hill.
Unlike 2013, this year's projects are spread throughout Town rather than being isolated to one
area, which has provided a somewhat different dimension and challenge to the team. As we
found out three years ago, over-communicating is an important aspect of keeping the community
informed. The communication strategy involves a multi-pronged approach that includes
websites, newsletters, social media,public information meetings,post cards, trash can hangers,
and mailer inserts. In partnership with OWASA, information on the projects and links to the
Town's project website will appear on water bills. We have also partnered with the Chapel Hill
Downton Commission to offer information sessions to their members. Below is a list of the
current road construction projects that are either underway or will be shortly:
• Ephesus-Fordham Frontage Road Connection (Super Street U-Turn)
• Ephesus Church-Fordham Blvd Intersection Improvements
• Ephesus-Fordham Frontage Road Improvements (Ram's Plaza)
• Rosemary Street Improvement Projects
• Ridge Road Reconstruction
• Friday Center Drive
• Street Resurfacing (various locations)
50
• NCDOT Resurfacing: South Road, Columbia Street,
Other projects impacting traffic include:
• AC Hotel Construction: East Rosemary and Church Streets
• Carolina Square Development: East Franklin Street
• Evolve 1701 North(Charterwood): Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd
• Fiber Network Construction: AT&T and Google—throughout Town
• OWASA water line replacement: Henderson, Rosemary, Hillsborough Streets
• Weaver Crossing Development: Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and Weaver Dairy
Road
Additional information about these road construction projects can be found at the following web
address: http://www.townofchapelhill.org/roadwork
A copy of an information flyer is attached to this memorandum.
C1E L��J O I 51
�Li 1 rOL , e In roue
g
O A O _ l ffO
DZ gALLoLL_..,MMI
Our community stands to benefit from about$2 million Ephesus Fordham Area 2016 Road Improvements
of infrastructure improvements that will improve traffic North
flow and bicycle and pedestrian safety in the Ephesus- i
Fordham area,an area that has the highest number of [ A Project Sites, to 5 S
traffic accidents in town. o
•Reduce traffic congestion
These improvements address what Chapel Hill residents F •Increase connectivity and traffic flow
said is the No.1 issue—the overall flow of traffic and •Improve bicycle and pedestrian safety t a
congestion—that should receive the most emphasis from •goy° Q,��
the Town,according to recent Community Surveys. Details online:townofchapelhill.org/traffic °o'po�et\ . le\�
Most project construction will begin in April 2016 and ram aQe ,,, Ai
continue through October 2016. O`�Jtra" o
Frontage Road Connection ,f ���gg �a o
Super Street U-Turn Project / q
Allow left turns from the existing super street access �t7ggq��� "'`a
onto westbound service road,providing improved i
I'� ` Frontage Road Connection
connectivity to the nearby commercial areas and Super Street U-Turn Project
reducing congestion at the Ephesus-Fordham 4.
Quality
intersection.Improvements will also improve bicycle P t Inn
and pedestrian safety. J
Frontage Road Access Improvement F,k- 0.." %' Access tImprovement
Ram's Plaza Project jk
�0 Ram's Plaza Project
Provide access in and out from Ram's Plaza to
t
northbound Fordham Boulevard.Reduce traffic a
Trader
traveling through the Ephesus Church-Fordham Joe's Food .moo° c
intersection.A portion of the abandoned service Lion v 4,
road alignment will be used for future off road East ate "'��-� v
bicycle and pedestrian path. Shopping >s F4es
Center co -Gs Area
Intersection Improvement E -'c6 Detail
Ephesus Church-Fordham Project c Ce,. m
Realign the eastern leg of the intersection,reconfigure P �'o.
lanes and upgrade the signal.Traffic will be able to 'O Intersection Improvement 01
move more efficiently.Improve safety and connectivity Ephesus Church-Fordham Project
for pedestrian and bicycle traffic.New bike lanes,
bike detection loops,sidewalks and crosswalks.
Chapel Hill
More Information
We are committed to providing the public—and area www.townofchapelhill.org/roadwork
businesses—with regular updates on construction
progress and temporary disruptions.
Contact Us:Chris Jensen:919-969-7233 or Road Construction Across Chapel Hill
cjensen @townofchapelhill.org or Barry McLamb: w N
919-968-2705 or bmclamb @townofchapelhill.org A 2016 Summer Road Construction Public ��
E-mail Notifications:Subscribe to news updates! Information Meeting is set for 6 p.m.Tuesday,
® Contact us at info @townofchapelhill.org May 3,at Chapel Hill Town Hall,405 Martin
0 @chapelhillgov#CHtraffic Luther King Jr.Blvd.If you are unable to
attend,view the meeting live on the Town (
0 www.facebook.com/chapelhillgov website at www.townofchapelhill.org/video pE`
0 chapelhillgov