HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-08-2016 1
APPROVED 10/4/2016
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Work Session
September 8, 2016
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a work session on Thursday, September
8, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Price
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager Travis
Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
Vice Chair Commissioner Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. He said
Chair McKee will be a little late this evening.
Chair McKee arrived at 7:05 p.m.
1. Discussion of the Proposed Orange County FY 2016 -2020 Affordable Housing
Strategic Plan
Bonnie Hammersley said the goal this evening is for staff to facilitate conversation.
Chair McKee said he spoke with Commissioner Elect Marcoplos about being a part of
this year's retreat planning committee, and he decided not to be seated as part of this
committee this year.
Chair McKee said the retreat planning committee will consist of himself, Commissioner
Jacobs and Commissioner Price.
Audrey Spencer Horsley, Director of Housing, Human Rights, and Community
Development, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan
2016 —2020
Purpose of Work Session
• Follow-up to the Board's Questions and Discussions on the Plan
• Consider Approval for Staff to Prepare the Final Draft of the Orange County Affordable
Housing Strategic Plan: 2016 - 2020 for the Board's Adoption
What is the Affordable Housing GAP in Orange County and Special Needs?
• Income and Poverty
• Rental and Owner Occupied Housing Stock and Housing Costs
• Cost Burden
• Housing for Special Needs, Persons with Disabilities, Seniors, Homeless, etc.
• Other Housing Problems
2
• Housing Types and Development Cost
Cost Burden — The Gap
• 7,629 households were cost burdened by 30% to 50% and
• 8,751 households were cost burdened by greater than 50%
• The 1000 Units proposed by the Plan would address approximately 11% to 13% of the
households cost burdened
The Affordable Housing Gap in Orange County and Special Needs
• Based on resident surveys, stakeholder interviews, roundtable discussions, data
analysis, and public meetings, the following needs were estimated for the non-
homeless special needs population that totaled 955 units:
• Elderly Persons/Older Adults - 450 housing units
• Frail Persons - 200 housing units
• Persons with Mental, Physical and Developmental Disabilities - 150 housing units
• Persons with HIV/AIDS and their families - 5 housing units
• Victims of Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, and Stalking - 150
housing units
The Affordable Housing Gap in Orange County Goal and Priorities
Affordable Housing Providers Services and Capacity for Growth
• Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition collective assets among providers, current
services and capacity for growth in new development, property management and
partnerships
• Providers of housing across spectrum of affordability and needs
— Homelessness Assistance
— Permanent Supportive Housing
— Rentals income based
— Elder housing & repairs
— Workforce rentals & homeownership
— Affordable Homeownership
— Households rental and homeownership < 30% AMI (409 units), < 65% (1,093
units), 80% AMI (235 units) to 115% AMI (32 units)
Affordable Housing Providers (Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition (OCAHC))
Services and Capacity for Growth
• Current and Planned (5yrs) Affordable Rentals
— CASA 53 units current; 120 units planned growth
— DHIC current n/a; 140 units planned growth
— EmPOWERment 46 units current; 54 units planned growth
— Chapel Hill Public Housing 336 units current*; n/a planned growth
Total Rental Current—435 current units*; Planned — 314 units
• Current and Planned (5yrs) Affordable Homeownership Stock
— Community Home Trust 245 current; 34 planned growth
— Habitat 263 current; 90 planned growth
Total Homeownership Current - 508 units; Planned — 124 units
Affordable Housing Providers Services and Capacity for Growth
3
Total Rental and Homeownership Units Planned —438 units
New Subsidy Dollars Needed - 298 units (DHIC funded)
Rental (174 units) $ 6,720,000
Homeownership (124 units) $ 4,620,000
Urgent Repairs & Rehabilitation (242 units) $ 1,759,000
Housing Locator $ 200,000
Risk Mitigation Fund $ 50,000
Total $13,349,000
Projected Resources by OCAHC - $12, 550,00 (includes Chapel Hill Development
Reserve and CDBG, Carrboro Affordable Housing Fund, HOME Funds and Orange
County Affordable Housing Bond)
Working cooperatively, sharing resources can identify better opportunities, optimize assets,
have greater impact than separately.
Affordable Housing Gap: Goals and Priorities
Goal: 1000 affordable housing assisted units
• Greatest needs priority:
— rental homes for extremely low income (persons and families with incomes at or
below 30% of median income and special needs populations) - 500 units or
more
— Followed by workforce rental and homeownership assistance for persons and
families at or below 50% to 80% median? — 500 units
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the target income ranges for the 314 planned rental
units are known.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said the full range: less than 30%, and up to 80%.
Commissioner Dorosin said having this information would be useful.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the statistics about households that are cost burdened
are linked to affordable housing. He said one could live in an expensive house, and still be
cost burdened.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said the cost burden number represents people who are the
lowest income, and of those people how many are paying more than 30% of their income for
housing.
Commissioner Dorosin referred to the roughly 16,000 households on page 3, and
asked if there is a cut off point for these households.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said these households range from those at 30% and 50% of
median income.
Chair McKee asked if the median income could be identified.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said the median income for Orange County is about $72,000
for a family of four.
Commissioner Pelissier referred to the affordable housing providers listed on page 7,
and asked if these prices assume you have to buy land.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said that information was not provided, but it can be obtained.
Commissioner Pelissier referred to the section urgent repairs and rehab, and asked if
these units are currently occupied affordable housing units which are in danger of being
unlivable.
4
Audrey Spencer Horsley said a program called Brush of Kindness, run by Habitat for
Humanity, typically provides improvements to the exterior of a home. She said the Rebuilding
Together program, also run by Habitat, involves more substantial rehabilitation. She said
these units are not at risk of going offline.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the programs just mentioned are different from the
County's urgent repair and rehab program.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said the Rebuilding Together program does similar work.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the funds budgeted by Orange County are included
here.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said this does not include County funds.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if the housing locator position could be explained, and
how it is different from Mr. Strowd, who was hired a few years ago.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said a normal housing locator usually works in conjunction
with a homeless program and goes out to identify housing for hard to place residents.
Bonnie Hammersley clarified that Commissioner Jacobs is talking about the scope of
services that changed in the 2016-17 budget for Mr. Strowd's focus.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said Mr. Strowd's expertise is economic development and
working for homeowners, and he is working to increase home ownership numbers. He is
currently working with lenders for residents who are ready to be homeowners.
Bonnie Hammersley said Mr. Strowd's focus shifted under the County's guidance, and
is better using his expertise.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a reason behind the number of 1,000 units over
5 years.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said this was determined by looking at how many homes have
been brought on line historically countywide with their housing providers, and trying to widen
the partnerships. She said the 1,000 units will not be sufficient, but the examination of various
factors determined the number. She said the number is 10% of the cost burden.
Commissioner Rich asked if Audrey Spencer Horsley could talk about her collaboration
with the Towns, and what the future looks like with these partners.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said the HOME program is one example of multijurisdictional
collaboration. She said the County has already been collaborating with the Towns, but it is
hoped that it will be a more formalized partnership. She said one of the challenges has been
trying to find places where the housing vouchers will be accepted. She said it is important to
involve the elected officials in all jurisdictions.
Commissioner Rich asked if there is a way to include the Towns' strategic plans in an
overarching strategic plan for the County.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said she would like for all jurisdictions to get together, look at
the pools of funding, and sew the funding streams together to be used more effectively for
affordable housing clients.
Bonnie Hammersley said once an action plan is adopted, and with the expanding
scope of the HOME consortium, which includes elected officials and staff from all jurisdictions,
there will be greater collaboration. She said the strategic affordable housing plan should be
reviewed and updated annually, and then reviewed by the Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
Commissioner Dorosin referred to slide number 6, which discusses current and planned
units. He said Chapel Hill Public Housing is listed, which is appropriate, but it is different from
the other organizations. He said the Section 8 Housing voucher program should be added to
this list as well.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said this can be done.
5
Chair McKee said he wants to make sure that the County does not run out in front of its
partners, and he is making the assumption that this same conversation, regarding a unified
effort, is going on in the Towns.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said yes, there is a unified commitment at the staff level, and it
is hoped through the HOME Consortium that the elected officials will assist in closing the gap.
Chair McKee asked if there is a way to get to a unified effort at the elected officials'
level.
Commissioner Dorosin said it is important to determine the next steps. He said there is
a generalized list of goals, a list of providers, what they are doing, and a pot of money. He
said the projects and funding need to be prioritized. He said all elected bodies need to come
together to determine a process for evaluating projects in the queue, and those that are
waiting to get into the queue.
Commissioner Dorosin said they need some type of criteria or matrix by which to
prioritize projects. He said a plan can then be put in place, such as a project on the Greene
Tract, etc. and the funding distributed. He said the plan needs to move forward in a concrete
way. He said it would be helpful to have something for him to discuss at the Home
Consortium.
Commissioner Burroughs agreed with that summary of getting to the next step. She
said Orange County can drive the next agenda at the Consortium, and provide a draft matrix in
order to facilitate a creative and collaborative conversation.
Chair McKee said this discussion is addressing his concern that the Board is just talking
without any action.
The Affordable Housing Gap in Orange County Goal and Priorities
Discussion Question #1
• Are there any additional questions or priorities regarding the shared Goal of 1,000
Affordable Assisted Units over the next five years (through community, nonprofit,
intergovernmental and private sector partnerships)?
Commissioner Rich asked if the top priorities are known, and where to begin. She
referred to the income levels of those that are almost ready to move out of Orange County,
because it is too expensive to live here anymore. She asked if there is a plan to incorporate
work force housing into the picture.
Commissioner Jacobs said work force housing is a priority, and this is where the
University of North Carolina (UNC) can be engaged in the conversation, as many of their
employees cannot afford to live in this community. He said Orange County so highly values
education, yet teachers cannot afford to live here.
Commissioner Rich said it is important to identify a certain number of homes, for work
force housing, as part of the 1,000 units.
Commissioner Dorosin said the lower income residents are not served as much as the
higher income residents. He said if a matrix was set up, there could be a third of the units
dedicated to a certain range, the next third at another range, and the final third at yet another
range. He said the Board must work together to make this work, so that all the housing does
not serve just one group.
Commissioner Jacobs said the Board must determine priorities and stick with them. He
said it is useful to have a holistic view of the community.
Commissioner Burroughs said there are categories of work force housing that also fall
in the lowest income levels, such as certified nursing assistants and teaching assistants. She
6
said the Board must be very intentional about meeting the needs of those at the lowest income
levels.
Commissioner Pelissier said workforce housing for lower level incomes, those with
special needs, the homeless and seniors, have all been missed by the Board historically. She
wants to prioritize those groups that have not been addressed in the past, as opposed to
standard workforce housing. She said the Board should focus on those residents that are
here in Orange County, and want to stay here.
Commissioner Rich said to also include the creative classes who bring diversity to
Orange County.
Commissioner Dorosin said the bond money has to serve low-income residents.
John Roberts said the bond money will be limited to what is on the bond issue question
on the ballot.
Commissioner Burroughs said the bond money is limited, and it is important to be
focused.
Commissioner Jacobs said the Board could consider incentivizing one project, which
does not fit into the bond money criteria, and work with the non-profits to make it work.
Commissioner Pelissier said the ballot says housing for low and moderate income, up
to 80% median of$72,000 for a family of four.
Commissioner Dorosin said one of the factors in a matrix could be income range, while
others may be a particular population; or access to public transportation, which will limit where
you put units; or access to water and sewer; or strategic partnerships.
Commissioner Dorosin said this is a living document, and perhaps in the first year
priorities a, b, and c are addressed, and in the following year(s) other priorities are addressed.
Commissioner Dorosin said there should be a list of questions to put into the
prioritizations.
Chair McKee said work force housing and parameters of percentages of income were
mentioned.
Chair McKee asked if the Board wants to indicate a preference for a particular target
area, such as targeting work force, with a focus on low income; or target the entrepreneurs
such as the creative class.
Commissioner Rich said the Board has not even talked about micro housing, and it is
important to think outside of the box when making priorities. She said $5 million is not a lot of
money, and a matrix for how to use this funding needs to be determined, as well as what to do
when this funding runs out.
Commissioner Jacobs said one of the handicaps for jobs in Orange County is the lack
of public transportation, and the Board should consider the criteria to include in a plan for the
usage of the bond money and beyond. He said the funds are for housing, but the overall plan
should be bigger than just housing. He said the Board has yet to come to terms with how it
wants to do land banking.
Commissioner Pelissier said to add land banking to the matrix, allocating points to
different variables in proposed projects.
Commissioner Jacobs said there could be an incentive for not using public land or
money.
Commissioner Pelissier said the biggest challenge is targeting income level, and may
make it messier in terms of assigning points.
Audrey Spencer-Horsley said points can be assigned for serving a particular income
level.
Chair McKee asked if the Board wants Audrey Spencer Horsley and her staff to come
back with a matrix of prioritization areas, with some potential percentages, incorporating
comments she has heard tonight.
7
The Board agreed by consensus.
Commissioner Dorosin suggested connecting with the Consortium on items that may
need to go into the matrix.
Bonnie Hammersley said staff will move forward on this.
Land Banking for Affordable Housing
Discussion Question #2
What are the Board's criteria and priorities for land banking?
Chair McKee asked if there is a direction the Board would like to take.
Commissioner Burroughs suggested thinking broadly on this, like the model in
Charlottesville.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested having a one-meeting working group to discuss the
aspects of land banking, such as whether or not to use public land; mobile home parks; what
are the alternatives, etc. He said there must be action soon or there will be no mobile homes
left in the urban areas of Orange County.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the discussion of land banking is limited to
manufactured housing, or if it is broader, including developments like Phoenix Place. He
asked if the Board should be looking at a 20-unit project or larger, and if the Board wants to
look at ones that have water and sewer, or access to public transportation. He said Justice
United just did a survey on residents of mobile home parks, which may be useful to review.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said there is the overall inventory of mobile homes in Orange
County, and then there are the mobile home parks.
Commissioner Dorosin said the manufactured housing has overlaps with the land
banking issue, but not wholly. He asked if there should there be funds in the emergency repair
program that are available to do minor repairs in these units.
Commissioner Rich said the original intent for the safety net was for mobile home
residents that lost their property, and to use the safety funds for new homes for these
residents.
Chair McKee said that is correct.
Commissioner Rich said she did not want to lose sight of the original thought for this
funding.
Commissioner Dorosin said the safety net would be more than moving the mobile unit if
a park is sold. He said many units are too old to be moved. He asked if the safety net should
be a County or non-profit owned park, to which people could simply move.
Commissioner Jacobs said the County could provide land and some infrastructure, and
let others provide the housing, similar to a business park.
Chair McKee asked if the Board agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion
regarding a one-time working group, and having staff set up a day and time.
The Board agreed.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if there was a priority list of the lands legacy land
banking.
David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
Director, said the lands legacy program already has a list of priority lands to land bank.
Bonnie Hammersley said this would help give staff direction for land banking.
Commissioner Rich suggested involving the Planning Department as well.
Craig Benedict, Planning Director, presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
Mobile Homes in the County: Affordable Housing Strategies
8
Total mobile homes in Orange County 4236
Number of Mobile Home Parks 100
Number of Mobile Homes outside of parks in rural area 1959
Vacancies (in Mobile Home Parks) 250
Mobile Homes in the County: Affordable Housing Strategies (chart)
There are 2,017 homes in the 100 mobile home parks of the County; a summary of conditions
is shown below.
Mobile Homes in the County: Affordable Housing Strategies
Vacancies in Mobile Home Parks (chart)
• Mobile Homes in the County: Affordable Housing Strategies
• Sustaining existing inventory
• Reducing vacancies where possible (see lease options)
• Improving conditions within Mobile Home Park's
• Redeveloping where available unit potential may exist or be created
• Creating new inventory by Mobile Home Park development
• Land
• Ownership/Leasing
• Community Engagement (Depending on redevelopment or development)
• Planning and Zoning (AKA Entitlements)
• Utilities (Water, Sewer and fire hydrants)
• Mobile Hone (HUD Standards), Building Construction and other
• Development Fees
• Financing
• Administration of Project
Audrey Spencer Horsley asked about the land banking.
Commissioner Jacobs said to address mobile homes and other priorities.
Chair McKee said the $1 million they budgeted for last year is for use by mobile home
parks only.
Commissioner Dorosin said the land banking may be used in other ways.
Mobile Homes in the County: Affordable Housing Strategies
Discussion Question #3
Are the strategies provided viable options to consider and what are the concerns and the
guidance by the Board?
Use of County Owned Property
Leveraging Existing County And/or Other Local Government Owned Land
• Small parcel uses - accepting existing housing units needing displacement.
• Small parcel uses - Making available parcels for small housing development through an
RFP process.
• Large parcel uses - Making available parcels for a variety of affordable housing
development through an RFP process.
• Continue collaborating with County municipalities on each jurisdiction's inventory of
publicly owned land and housing units.
9
Chair McKee asked if the Board felt there are enough viable options currently
presented, or if there are any holes.
Commissioner Dorosin said these strategies are good.
Chair McKee echoed that this is a living document that can be changed.
Audrey Spencer Horsley asked for clarification regarding the purpose of land banking,
and whether it will be done predominantly for mobile homes, or if mobile homes are a priority
but other ideas are not precluded.
Commissioner Jacobs said to address mobile homes and other priorities, but the $1
million set aside last year is intended to create a safety net for existing mobile homes.
Chair McKee agreed. He said more money can be put aside for additional land
banking.
Commissioner Rich asked the Manager if she has ever discussed the future of the
urban mobile home parks with the Town Managers.
Bonnie Hammersley said she has not specifically discussed this, but Chapel Hill is land
banking within the Town.
Commissioner Dorosin said the land banking may not be to build another mobile home
park, but rather used for other ideas.
Commissioner Pelissier referred to page 21,and the listing of future amendments. She
asked if there is a reason to limit tiny homes to a mobile home park, as opposed to a cluster of
homes.
Craig Benedict said tiny homes that have wheels are considered recreational vehicles
(RV), and cannot be in standard mobile homes. He said a mixed-use property could be
designated for cottage homes, tiny home RVs, and mobile homes.
Craig Benedict said one way to create more mobile homes lots in existing mobile home
parks is to provide infrastructure, as many are on well and septic. He said by removing the
well and septic systems, and putting the property on public utilities, a park could possibly grow
from 15 to 25 lots. He said this idea could be enacted in a park that is near public utilities and
transportation.
Use of County Owned Property
Discussion Question #4- page 18 —slide
Staff is ready to move to next steps for use of some of county owned land and prepare
request for proposals (with the exception of the two largest properties, the Greene tract
and Southern Human Services Campus); is the Board in agreement with staff
proceeding?
Chair McKee asked if the Board is ready to have staff to move forward on this.
The Board agreed by consensus.
Bonnie Hammersley said there will be criteria that will have to be met, and their team
will look at parcels, and make some requests/options on what the Board may want to put on
these properties. She said staff will bring a progress report back to the Board.
Commissioner Dorosin said it is important to maximize the available space, getting the
most housing possible.
Bonnie Hammersley agreed.
Planning Initiatives that Further Affordable Housing
Summary of Planning actions taken to date, being considered or regulations that currently exist
to further affordable housing:
• UDO does not set minimum square footage requirements for residential structures
10
• Variety of housing types allowed for residents in the general use, economic
development and conditional zoning districts by right
• Two family dwellings (duplexes) and manufactured housing permitted by right in
several zoning districts
• Group care facilities currently permitted in nine residential zoning districts, six general
commercial zoning districts, and one conditional zoning district
• Rehabilitative care facilities are permitted by right in general, economic development
and conditional zoning districts.
• Rooming houses (also known as boarding houses) are permitted by right in four
residential and one general commercial district (s).
• Efficiency apartments/accessory dwelling units up to 800 square feet are permitted
as an accessory use to a single-family dwelling unit in several residential, general
commercial, economic development, and conditional zoning districts.
• Up to five persons who are not related may reside together in a residential dwelling
unit, which could promote co-housing.
• Temporary Custodial Care Units provide an affordable option for a caregiver to
provide care for a mentally or physically impaired person.
Future Amendments
• Revision to Existing Subdivision Standards — revisions to existing minimum lot and
offsite septic standards to allow for smaller lot sizes and accommodate micro housing,
pocket neighborhoods and cluster developments.
• Rural Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning District—Allow for flexible
residential development in the rural areas of the County; minimum lot sizes and cluster
options.
• Recreation Vehicles and Tiny Homes as Temporary Housing — Establish a new
district allowing for recreational vehicles in rural areas and tiny homes within a mobile
home park
• Continue to find `zoning techniques' to promote private sector affordable housing
and examining authority county was given in 1991 for density bonuses in
consideration of affordable housing related amendments recently proposed. The
affordable housing density bonuses/references were deleted from Planning's new
amendment and will be analyzed to ensure within the bounds of legislation.
Planning Initiatives to Further Affordable Housing
Discussion Question #5
Are there other planning issues and opportunities the Board believes need to be pursued
or are we on the right track?
Audrey Spencer Horsley said staff has tried to capture some of the criteria discussed
by the Board over the past months, which can be found on page 24.
Criteria Important to the Board from Previous Discussions and Community Engagement
Summary of key points and criteria to be incorporated in the Plan and for considering
affordable housing development projects:
Goal: 1,000 Assisted Homes to Address Greatest Affordable Housing Needs in Our
Community
11
Highest Priority:
• Affordable Rental Homes for Households with Lowest Of Incomes and Persons with
Special Needs; then Workforce Rental and Homeownership. Homes for Persons with
Low To Moderate Income
• Range of Housing and Mixed Incomes in Diverse Neighborhoods (Not Concentrated
• Energy/Environmentally Efficient
• Universal Design
• Leveraging
• Transit Oriented Development
• Consider Transportation and Housing Costs
• Private and other Public Investment (non-county)
• Intergovernmental Collaboration and Investment
• Inclusiveness and Diversity
• Creativity/Innovations in Providing Access to Transportation/Community-wide
(Eliminating Areas of Isolation)
• Access to Amenities (Services and Shopping including Grocery Stores/Food)
• Coordinating and Collaboration Among Other Related Initiatives For Stronger
Community Outcomes (e.g., Anti-poverty, FSA, Aging and Homelessness Initiatives)
• Assistance to persons transitioning from incarceration to community life
• Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing
• Access to Educational and Employment Opportunities
• Learning from Past Efforts (Studies, Plans and Projects)
• Learning from New Initiatives, Strategies and Evaluating Different Housing Models
• Dedicated Source of Future Funding
• Prepared for and or Creating Opportunities (Land Banking, strategic partnerships, etc.)
• Community Partnerships (including Nonprofits, Neighborhoods, Faith Based
Organizations and Intergovernmental and Private Sectors)
Criteria Important to the Board from Previous Discussions and from Community
Engagement
Discussion Question #6
Are there any other major areas of emphasis or criteria the Board would like considered
for addressing affordable housing in the County?
Chair McKee said this is a living document and will continue to evolve.
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan: 2016 —2020
Next Steps
• Consider approval to direct staff to prepare the final draft of the Orange County
Affordable Housing Strategic Plan 2016 - 2020 for the Board's adoption
• The Plan is intended to be a "living" Plan and will need to be implemented in phases
• Comments and information provided will be incorporated into the final draft of the Plan
• With the Board's approval of the Plan, staff will bring back to the Board more detailed
work plans and metrics in consultation and collaboration with community and municipal
partners and county agencies.
12
Bonnie Hammersley said staff will provide ongoing updates at regular Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) meetings, as information becomes available. She said this practice
will allow for momentum to continue.
Chair McKee asked if any updates from the Towns could be shared as well, noting that
a strong partnership between the County and the Towns is important.
2. Greene Tract Historical Information and Options
BACKGROUND: The Greene Tract (164 acres) was acquired in 1984 for $608,000 and came
to Orange County as an asset in the Solid Waste Fund. As a result of the 1998 Interlocal Solid
Waste Agreement, 60 acres of the Greene Tract was conveyed to Orange County for "Solid
Waste management purposes" (now known as Orange County SW 60 Acre Tract). The
Interlocal Agreement (amended April 12, 2000) provided for the three owning partners to
determine, over a two-year period, the ultimate disposition of the remaining 104 jointly held
acres. The Agreement further included a repayment mechanism to the Solid Waste Enterprise
Fund. The financial reimbursement to the Solid Was Fund began on July 1, 2008.
This link http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=27031&dbid=0
provides a history of the Greene Tract from 1999 through 2008 which is a compendium of
various reports and studies which were presented at a `Joint Greene Tract Work Session' on
April 29, 2008 and at an Assembly of Governments meeting on December 6, 2012.
Attachment A in agenda packet provides information regarding the last action taken by the
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) on December 10, 2002. Although there has been
considerable discussion about the future of the Greene Tract, no action has been taken by the
BOCC since 2002. Although not specific to the Greene Tract, multiple Historic Rogers Road
Area (HRRA) small area studies and planning efforts have been conducted by the local
governments over the last 15 years. More recently, the HRRA staff workgroup has been
reviewing and developing two new initiatives:
1. The Community First planning program (Rogers Road Eubanks Neighborhood Association
(RENA) and the Jackson Center) hired by the joint governments.
2. Multi-Jurisdiction Technical Environmental Scan of the Greene Tract. All aspects are being
researched and updated and maybe ready for a joint meeting in the fall.
The remaining 60 acres of the Greene Tract continues to be owned as an asset in the Solid
Waste Fund. However, the FY 2016-17 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes funds to
purchase the property. Over the years there have been many options (based on various
studies) discussed as a possible future use of the 104 acres jointly owned by Orange County,
Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
Listed below are the options that have been explored:
1. Joint Affordable Housing could be planned for 18.1 acres and the remaining 85.9 acres
would remain join open space.
2. The 104-acre tract should remain as open space to be protected by conservation
easements.
3. The acreage for affordable housing could be placed in the Land Trust.
4. Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools requested that part of the Greene Tract be reserved for a
future elementary school site. An approximate 11-acre area south of the 18 Affordable
Housing site was considered.
13
5. Rename the property to recognize the headwaters of Bolin Creek, Booker Creek and Old
Field Creek.
As a result of the Inter Local Agreement, 60 acres of the Greene Tract was conveyed to
Orange County for "Solid Waste management purposes".
Bonnie Hammersley said they would be giving some historical information on the
Greene Tract, and then move into some of the activities that are currently taking place.
Craig Benedict said there has been a multi-jurisdictional work group that has met over
30 times, and the initial priority was to get the sewer system into the design phase. He said
the objective tonight is to talk about the green infrastructure on this parcel. He said presently
the property is 164 acres, purchased by the Solid Waste Entity. He said when the property
was transferred to the County in 1998; 104 acres fell under the joint ownership of the County,
Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said a 60-acre parcel remained as a Solid Waste asset, with
some other criteria on what the future use could be. He reviewed a few maps outlining the
area.
Craig Benedict said there was a multijurisdictional task force that worked to develop
some of the future uses of the 104 acres. He said this task force passed a resolution in 2002
stating that roughly 18 acres of the site next to the Rogers Road Neighborhood could be used
for affordable housing, and roughly 85 acres would be held in open space. He said of the 104
acres there is a somewhat isolated 5-acre parcel near the railroad tracks. He continued to
review portions of the area on the maps. He showed various utilities within this acreage and
areas that will be served by them. He said overall this site separates into three watersheds:
Old Field Creek flowing to the north, Bowling Creek, and Booker Creek. He said these three
watersheds makes running sewer difficult, as it is placed in watershed drainage-ways.
Craig Benedict said another issue to consider is the reevaluation of the work done
since 2000. He said a cultural and archeological analysis is being completed, including
existing maps, photographs, and face-to-face conversations; with newer technology being
used to identify wetlands, stream buffers, and the like. He said all of this information will
inform this evening's discussion and decisions on how to move forward with this land.
Craig Benedict made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Greene Tract
Board of County Commissioners Work Session
Southern Human Services Center
September 8, 2016
Item 2
Objective
• Brief ownership history of the tract with green and gray infrastructure aspects as a
backdrop to discussing options for future use/preservation of the lands.
• Method
— Briefing then facilitation/outcomes
Outline
• Background
(Including Ownership/Multiple Subtracts/Land Use)
• Environmental/Cultural Features
They are fine-tuning these features.
• Infrastructure
14
— Water- there is not water but adjacent to it
— Existing and proposed sewer-
- Roadways/Access
• Affordable Housing Alternatives
Not in original plan for the 18 acres but depending on what the choices are with the local
governments, there could be. There is a community effort that has come up with some ideas
and options for this site.
• Outcome Action Plan
— (AKA `Decision Tree')
Decisions (6 slides - flow chart)
Craig Benedict said local residents and neighborhood groups have proposed some
ideas for affordable housing in the area, but did not necessarily consider jurisdictional
boundaries when doing so.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if the community mentioned the possibility of a school
in its ideas.
Craig Benedict said there was just a reference to a school, and it was not shown on the
map. He added that there are some areas that were previously considered as possible future
school sites.
Craig Benedict said all entities would need to be involved if the Board wants to change
any part of the 2002 resolution. He said this resolution did not get into the specific uses of the
open space acreage.
Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan for mixed-use, and if the support services
for this area can be identified.
Craig Benedict said the 2002 resolution only has a general amount of acreage and did
not get into a mixed-use discussion. He said this discussion would need to be opened.
Commissioner Jacobs said he does have some historical knowledge of this tract.
Commissioner Jacobs said the parcel they did not discuss was the 60 acres, and they
need to decide what to do with this and get it off the table. He said it was decided to keep it as
protected open space with passive recreation, per the Town of Chapel Hill. He said an entity,
that will conserve this parcel, should be found. He said if this can be accomplished, there
would be a remarkable amenity in this area of Chapel Hill.
Commissioner Jacobs said the other issue is what to do with the other parcel. He said
there was initially great resistance to mixed-use, but over time people started talking about it as
a possible school site. He said also people began talking about opening up active recreation
on the 99-acre site, in association with a school, and housing, etc. His historical recollection
was that staff was directed to bring back a mixed-use proposal for this parcel, but this has not
happened.
Commissioner Jacobs said he hoped that this meeting would lead to the 60-acre parcel
being completed, and the 99 acres having a mixed-use scenario, including a school, active
recreation and affordable housing.
Chair McKee said he has no issue with setting aside the 60-acre parcel, as originally
intended. He said having a partner to do so, may be financially advantageous.
Commissioner Jacobs said his intent would be for this to be low impact recreation in the
midst of an urbanized area.
David Stancil gave some historical background on the 60-acre parcel, and the possible
conservation on this site.
15
Bonnie Hammersley referred to the multi-jurisdictional staff team, and said they are
looking at the environmentals of the Greene Tract site, which she shared with the Town
Managers.
Chair McKee suggested bringing this back to the Assemblies of Governments (AOG),
which would afford the opportunity to gauge the buy-in from all involved. He echoed
Commissioners Rich and Jacobs' comments that only placing affordable housing in this area is
irresponsible. He said there must be commercial as well.
Bonnie Hammersley said presenting to the AOG would be at the discretion of the
Board. She said the work group has talked about the work that the Rogers-Eubanks
Neighborhood Association (RENA) has done on this, and when she gets this report she will
share it with the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Pelissier endorsed Chair McKee's suggestion to add this topic to the
AOG. She said this issue has to move forward.
Commissioner Burroughs said there are now only two places left for elementary
schools: the Greene Tract and Carolina North sites, with the latter being shaky. She said part
of the goal of the bond is to increase capacity in the schools. She said growth will continue,
and the Greene Tract may be an option.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Manager and staff for their work on this item.
Commissioner Jacobs reiterated the previous suggestion of the County buying out its
partners in this site, if they are not interested in pursuing something on it.
Commissioner Rich said she thinks people are ready to move forward with the Greene
Tract.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the next step could be identified.
Craig Benedict said as of now the 2002 resolution is firm, but a discussion on how to
change the original resolution could be done at the AOG. He said staff cannot move forward
to suggest other uses until the 2002 resolution is changed, but staff can start plotting out
options to propose at the AOG.
Craig Benedict said it is good to hear from the community, and a report from the
Jackson Center will offer this insight.
Commissioner Dorosin said the Board will receive the report from the Jackson Center
and asked if the next step would be for all local governments to get together to discuss, or if
Orange County should propose a change option for local governments to discuss.
Commissioner Dorosin suggested getting the Jackson Center report next week and
bringing it back for discussion as part of decision tree options presented in the PowerPoint.
Commissioner Jacobs agreed. He suggested putting an action item on one of the
Board's agendas about a conservation easement for the 60-acre site.
Commissioner Rich said a timeframe must be put on everything.
Chair McKee said to get an action item for Commissioner Jacobs' request, and options
for the other parcel, put on an upcoming agenda.
Bonnie Hammersley said the 60 acres can be done anytime, and she will update all
Town Managers about this evening's discussion.
Chair McKee said a decision on the 60 acres will set a tone from the Board, and he
would like to make this decision sooner rather than later.
Chair McKee said to put options in another report, or agenda item, to discuss,
and feedback can be gathered at AOG.
3. General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance Policy- 9:45PM
Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, said they met with the schools to develop a 5-
year plan for the fund balance.
16
Gary Donaldson made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Work Session Update on Appropriate Level of Unassigned Fund Balance
Presentation to Orange County Board of County Commissioners
Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer
September 8, 2016
Regular Finance Updates to BOCC and Manager
➢ Financial Reporting
• Quarterly Financial Report Provide General Fund Reserve Updates as part of
regular financial reporting
• New Five Year Financial Plan Provide County General Fund balance
information as part of the long-term financial planning
Best Practices for Unassigned General Fund Balance
➢ The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of U.S. and Canada:
• Updated the Best Practice on unassigned general fund balances in 2009
• At a minimum an unassigned general fund balance of no less than 2 months of
regular general fund operating revenues or operating expenditures
• Equates to 16.7% of either general fund operating revenues or operating
expenditures
Appropriate Use of Unassigned General Fund Balance
➢ The essential uses of General Fund reserves:
• Mitigate risk attributed to revenue shortfalls or unanticipated non-recurring
expenditures
• Provide a financial bridge during recessions or weak economic conditions
• Use for natural disasters and emergencies
• Cash Balance cushion
S&P Scorecard (chart)
Moody's Scorecard (chart)
The Ten `AAA' Rated Counties of North Carolina (chart)
General Obligation Bond Rating Scale (chart)
Audited Unassigned Fund Balance as a Percent of Expenditures—General Fund (graph)
Best Practice Unassigned Fund Balance
➢ In Summary
• GFOA Recommends Unassigned Fund Balance at 2 Months of Expenditures or
16.7%
• North Carolina AAA Rated County Peers Maintain at Least 2 Months; one
exception
• Strong Fund Balance provides Financial Bridge in Recession and Emergencies
17
General Fund Cash flow
Gary Donaldson said the long term financial plan is a better narrative, and the fund
balance becomes a part of this.
Commissioner Rich asked Gary Donaldson if he believes the County needs a fund
balance policy.
Gary Donaldson said yes, because the rating agencies weight it highly.
Chair McKee asked if, in his professional opinion, the fund balance should stay at 17%.
Gary Donaldson said when the current audit is concluded, there will be a clearer part of
the picture; and when a 5-year financial plan is developed, the question will be better
answered. He said he thinks 17% is a good level.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if any analysis was done prior to the balance being set at
17%. He clarified that Gary Donaldson is suggesting that the amount should be set by
financial projection and other variables.
Gary Donaldson said a plan is simply a plan, and the rating agencies will not
necessarily view a deviation from said plan as a negative. He said in his view, two months of
expenditures should be the model.
Commissioner Dorosin said the Local Government Commission (LGC) requires 8% and
the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) says 16%, the latter of which he thinks
to be overly conservative. He said the Board should consider lowering it. He knows there is a
financial aspect to this, but he likens it to a personal savings account, which one uses when
one needs it. He said he does think a policy is needed, but he finds the current fund balance
of 18% to be too high.
Gary Donaldson said when the audit results are received, and a 5-year financial plan
created, it will be easier to determine what the fund balance should be. He said a draft 5-year
plan will be completed by January 2017.
Bonnie Hammersley said the rating agencies want policies and 5-year financial
forecasts, but it is up to the elected officials to determine the policies. She said the
organization must be sustainable, which is dependent on economic, environmental and social
factors. She said no one knows the magic number, but if there are policies in place and the
County is sustainable, then the number is what the elected officials want it to be.
Commissioner Jacobs said the decision to be fiscally conservative was made to
navigate the recession years ago, but there have been surpluses every year since. He said
there has to be a relationship to interest rates. He said it does seem reasonable to change the
fund balance amount now.
Commissioner Jacobs said he would not want this to be a floating target, and having
enough for two months expenditures is a starting point for a discussion.
Commissioner Burroughs said it does not take a large change to get some revenue.
Commissioner Dorosin said when people are being taxed, and there is an annual
surplus, it is unfair. He said there are additional needs, for which the funds could be used.
Commissioner Burroughs said the Manager and staff have worked hard to tighten the
budget, and there is still an overage.
Bonnie Hammersley said, over the last two budgets, she has been able to use some of
the surplus for the betterment of the County. She said she adjusts the budget to what is
available, and there are controls in place to follow the policy. She said the policy sets a rule to
follow.
Commissioner Dorosin suggested lowering the fund balance to 16.2%.
Chair McKee said he would not oppose going to this rate, but he sees two issues: the
fund balance, and the excess fund balance that exists each year. He said it is a question of
18
spending it on the front end, or spending on the back end, as the fund balance always seems
to get fed back in to the next budget. He said if the balance is moved to 16.2%, then next year
there will be $1 million to reduce taxes or spend. He asked if there is a million dollars savings
in the first year only, or every year going forward.
Gary Donaldson said the fund balance is appropriated.
Chair McKee clarified that the fund balance is only appropriated down to 17%.
Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
Gary Donalson said after the fund balance is appropriated, a projection is done in terms
of how that metric aligns with the policy. He said this exercise happens each year.
Chair McKee said he still does not understand an answer to his original question as to
whether there will be savings every year.
Gary Donaldson said there will be revenues and expenditures every year, and there
has always been an appropriation of some level of fund balance. He said there is a target
percentage that will be adhered to, and there will be a continuing savings every year.
Commissioner Pelissier said the $1 million will not seem like a lot going forward, and it
will not stretch as far in the years to come. She said there will always be more requests and
additional monies needed.
Chair McKee said his reservation is simple: he fears that the Board is doing the
standard government tactic of grasping for more money to spend.
Commissioner Burroughs said it will be a million more dollars of services that the Board
will be able to provide, and that is the Board's job. She said there are needs for which more
money must be grasped.
Commissioner Rich said the excess money will be worked into the new budget, and the
Board will spend the money up front rather than at the end of the budget.
Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Chair McKee. He said government spending is like
an accordion that expands and contracts, depending on external pressures or political will. He
said the more easily it can expand, the more likely money is going to be spent. He said the
only way to deal with that is to be rigorous in discussion and understanding of the burden of
taxation.
Chair McKee said he would be comfortable with a half percent drop. He said when
working in government, one can never know what tomorrow will bring, and he would prefer to
have a rainy day account. He would not want to see a pattern develop where the fund balance
gets lowered every few years.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if there is consensus on 16.2%.
Chair McKee said he heard no objection and asked if staff could bring this item back in
November.
4. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
adjourn the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Earl McKee, Chair
Donna Baker
Clerk to the Board
19