Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-04-2016 1 APPROVED 11/15/2016 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 4, 2016 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 4, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to add the following item to tonight's agenda: Item 7b: Downtown Housing Improvement Corporation, Inc.'s (DHIC) Request to Reduce Orange County's 99 Year Affordability Period for the Greenfield Place Project to 40 Years. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places: -White sheet: PowerPoint for Item 5-a -White sheet: "2001 Orange County Bonds for Affordable Housing", for item 8-a - Lavender sheet: revised abstract for Item 11-a. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Commissioner Price arrived at 7:10 p.m. Marilyn Kille read the following comments: I am here to ask for your help. As some know, for 21 years I have owned the southernmost farm of those remaining within Carrboro's ETJ—on the county side of Old Fayetteville Road opposite the Town's Autumn Woods apartments. For 15 years my farm rehabilitated hunting dogs for and stabled rescued by OCAS. 2 During those years, my farm was known for its husbandry expertise and exceptional safety standards. Soon after the County land across from my farm was annexed, trespassing and vandalism began. I promptly spent$35,000 to further secure my livestock and home. By 1997, demand by UNC and area vets to board other's horses led me to build a new barn. Because my house lies 600 ft. from the road front, a tiny caretaker apartment was included with the original plan-to be completed when money allowed. Seven permits were obtained from Carrboro for related purposes. Installed was a separate electric meter and service for the apartment with lines embedded under 4" of concrete -which could not have been done thereafter. This is an important point!! 150+ photos documented the entire construction process, including inspections by Town officials. Ten years later, Carrboro alleged-falsely- that the apartment had never been know, permitted, inspected, or given a Certificate of Occupancy (CO)– and sued me! Why, after a decade? According to its Planning Department, (as recorded in August 2008) because (Quote): It would be prohibitively expensive for the town to buy (my) land or otherwise to leapfrog over it to bring utilities to the farms north of its slated future development!" On August 24, 2008, a letter from the town read, substantively– if I would donate my land to the Town, my legal problems would cease! Inexplicably, instead, the judge ordered my farm subdivided and positioned for annexation. When thereafter I didn't file the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) with Orange County, the Town officials imposed $85,000 in fines. Thereafter, chose to criminalize me in a subsequent trial. This, when the 1997 site plan—which the Town claimed during the 2008 trial never existed—was introduced in an altered form and used to criminalize me in 2009. At this point, you must be asking: What is so important about the Kille Farm? Between Sept. 2009-Feb. 2010 on three occasions, 27 southern Orange County farms petitioned the BOCC- to protect our farms by returning jurisdiction to County control-as allowed by NC law. Each of the three petitions disappeared. By 2011 the NCGA responded to ETJ landowners' call for help! And adopted two (Landmark) laws which aimed to address how, for decades, pro-development Town leaders had been "taking" private land by denying landowners of their Constitutional rights of"due process" and "just compensation". For years thereafter, Carrboro regularly disregarded these laws, claimed continuing jurisdiction over land uses, and issued illegal permits- causing added risks and harm for owners. It was thereafter that vandalism at my farm increased measurably (and she listed these acts). Who knows what's occurred when I am not home or I am asleep. Just this past week there were four more incidents of trespass! And with my 3 house setback from the road, I can't see what happens on my property or the road-front. Instead I am left only to deal with the harm caused by unknown 3rd parties. In January 2014, I appealed to OCAS (Orange County Animal Services) for understanding! And I asked for help exploring how to better safeguard my livestock, home and family. By April 2014 this produced a renewed lash of vandalism, including livestock releases. OCAS' response was to sue me—the victim—alleging I had violated its "nuisance" law-4-45! Interestingly, legal opinions concluded that this "Dog" law doesn't apply to livestock. And that OCAS and Orange County's judiciary chose to disregard these opinions and NC law. Also of interest! When OCAS learned during the April 2015 trial that NC's criminal code doesn't allow for attachment of my land, OCAS withdrew its criminal complaint and refiled as a civil lawsuit. Again, why? There can only be one answer! So as to harm me! So as to ensure that my farm is "taken"by surreptitious means otherwise now prohibited by NC law. In April 2015, the same judge, who in 2008 denied admission of the 1997 permits and all evidence, again denied evidence in April 2015. After which, OCAS denied me the opportunity to complete the pending sale of an impounded pony-valued at $23,000. And instead, disposed of it. I ask you! Is it OCAS' charter to ensnare farm owners? Wouldn't you be outraged if OCAS refused to help solve this life-threatening dilemma? And, instead, used the heaviest handed legal option- criminalizing you, the victim-to aid and abet wrongs by third parties? Isn't it government's goal to protect citizens-to see justice when injustices occur? How would you react if your home was invaded as you slept, to derelicts peeing in your backyard. To finding escaped prisoners in your garage? To looking out your bathroom window finding a stranger taking your picture? To hearing a gunshot whizzing behind your house, and moments later, holding the injured and dying animal in your arms? Or having to pay OCAS to recover your micro-chipped dogs because someone stole them from your property and abandoned them elsewhere? Having to repair fences week after week because drivers crash through them; or neighbors' damage or steel boards that you can't know of unless an animal is reported to have been released nearby? How would you feel never again feeling safe? Lastly, is it reasonable to believe that there is not relationship between my animals being released and the Town having re-zoned all remaining ETJ farms by year end 2010 for "future urban purposes"? Again, I ask for your help in stopping this insanity, including in restraining OCAS! Marilyn Kille 4 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Pelissier had no announcements or petitions. Commissioner Jacobs asked the Manager if documentation for agenda items could be placed behind the abstract to review before the meeting, whether it is a work session or regular meeting. Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to have a policy requiring advisory boards to have meetings in rooms large enough to accommodate the public. Commissioner Rich met with Dan May from the Arts Center and discussed more collaboration between the art commissions. She asked if an update could be provided regarding progress on this matter in the coming months. Commissioner Dorosin said in the past the County has made ad hoc efforts to buy or hire locally for County related contracting or business. He said given the conversation recently about asking contractors to pay a living wage, etc., he would like a formalized policy for a local purchasing priority. Commissioner Jacobs said this has been brought up before in an ad hoc way, and putting it in writing is overdue. Commissioner Rich said there has been a resolution regarding food for events and expressed support for this petition. Commissioner Price said Indigenous People's Day is on Monday, October 10, and the Town of Chapel Hill has some activities planned. Commissioner Price said she attended an exciting workshop today about Smart Cities, and there is an opportunity for cities and counties to get assistance to look at opportunities for data and analytics. She said she will share this information with the Manager to research. Commissioner Burroughs had no announcements or petitions. Chair McKee asked if a discussion item to remove imminent domain, as related to the Mountain to Sea Trail (MTS), could be brought back to the Board. Chair McKee said the travel policy that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved does not align with the one that the ABC Board has written, and he asked for the ABC Board policy to be brought back at the next regular BOCC meeting for further discussion. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations None 5. Public Hearings a. School Impact Fee Updates The Board considered: 1. Conducting a public hearing on potential updates to current school impact fee levels and amendments to the General Code of Ordinances — Educational Facilities Impact Fees; 2. Discussing the topic as desired; 3. Closing the public hearing; 4. Directing the consultant, TischlerBise, to finalize the draft school impact fee studies; and 5. Directing staff to bring back amendments to the Code of General Ordinances— Educational Facilities Impact Fees for adoption consideration on October 18, 2016. BACKGROUND: On September 6, 2016 the Board of County Commissioners received draft school impact fee studies for both school districts that had been completed by TischlerBise, a consulting firm retained by the County. School impact fees are fees charged to help defray the 5 public costs of new development. The fee is charged once to all new residential development in both school districts. Fees charged must be proportional to the actual impact caused which is the reason a technical study is completed; the data-based study determines the proportional impact of housing types and the "maximum supportable impact fee" (MSIF) that can be charged for each type of housing. Proceeds from school impact fees can be used only to increase student membership capacity (e.g., Capital Facilities — new or expanded school buildings) in the school district in which the fee was collected. School impact fee proceeds cannot be used to fund operations or repairs of existing facilities. Possible options for updated fee levels include: 1. As calculated, adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. 2. Collapsing the Single Family Detached category in the Orange County Schools district (due to an unexpected result in this category), charging the "Average" for this housing type in this district, charging fees as calculated for other housing types, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. 3. Collapsing all housing type categories in both or either school districts, charging the "Average" calculation by housing type, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. a. Note for this option: Accessory dwelling units (e.g., granny flats) are included in the multi-family category (0-2 bedrooms) so setting the fee for the "average" calculation may result in an increase for accessory dwelling units, depending on the percentage of MSIF chosen. 4. Options 1-3 can also be implemented by increasing the percentage of MSIF over a period of time (e.g., adopt at x% effective 2017, y% effective 2018, and z% effective 2019). It should be noted that the adopted percentage of MSIF must be the same for all housing types (e.g., fees cannot be adopted at 40% MSIF for one housing type and 60% MSIF for a different housing type). Attachment 2 is the section of the County's General Code of Ordinances that pertains to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee with proposed amendments shown in "track changes" format. Proposed amendments to this section of the Code of Ordinances include: • Adding definitions for the various housing types. • Adding language in Section 30-33 that would require age restricted units that do not remain age restricted for at least 20 years be required to pay the difference between the age restricted fee paid and the non-age-restricted fee in effect at the time a unit is no longer age restricted. • Adding language in Section 30-35(e) clarifying under what conditions a refund would be issued if impact fees were reduced for a particular housing unit type. • Adding language in Section 30-38 to recognize conditional zoning, which was adopted in 2011 when the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) was adopted. Since 1995, Orange County has offered an impact fee reimbursement program for school impact fees paid on affordable housing units. From FY2009-10 through FY2015-16, $606,318 in collected impact fees was reimbursed for the 77 affordable single-family housing units and one apartment building containing 6 affordable multi-family units constructed in that time period. Planning staff held a public information meeting on September 26, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Despite publishing display ads in two newspapers, only one person (a staff member with the 6 Town of Chapel Hill's Planning Department) attended the public information meeting. This topic was also discussed at the September 29 Joint BOCC/School Boards meeting. Staff from TischlerBise was in attendance at both of these meetings. At the September 6 BOCC meeting, the proposed schedule indicated that updated fee levels could potentially be adopted after the conclusion of the October 4 public hearing. Due to agenda preparation constraints, staff is recommending that adoption consideration occur at the October 18, 2016 BOCC meeting. Perdita Holtz, Planning Department, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 2016 School Impact Fee Studies Public Hearing October 4, 2016 Overview • School Impact Fees o Enabling legislation in 1987 o Fees first adopted in 1993 o Help defray the public costs of new residential development • Represent new growth's fair share of the cost for capital facility needs o Used to provide greater student capacity (e.g., new or expanded school buildings) • Cannot be used to fund operations or repairs of existing facilities • Updated technical studies done every few years to ensure the fees remain proportional to the actual impacts caused • Most recent studies (one for each school district) completed in summer 2016 • Over the years, types of housing has become more refined o Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and digital data make this possible Refined Housing Type Categories • 1993—fee charged per dwelling, regardless of type • Each technical study has refined housing types a bit more o Single-family &All Other o Single-family, Manufactured Homes, All Other o Single-family Detached, Single-family Attached, Multi-family, Manufactured Homes • Current study disaggregated data down to number of bedrooms per unit (SFD, SFA, MF) o Calculations for smaller-sized single-family detached (<800 square feet) o Age-Restricted Units 2016 Study Full studies available on website: http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning and inspections/current interest proje cts.php • Consultant presented methodology at September 6 and 29 meetings Basic Methodology • Calculate Student Generation Rates • Calculate Current Level of Service 7 • Calculate Cost per Student • Calculate Maximum Supportable Impact Fee, using the above as the input variables Orange County Schools — Maximum Supportable Impact Fee (chart) Chapel Hill — Carrboro Schools — Maximum Supportable Impact Fee (chart) Orange County Schools - MSIF Percentages (chart) Chapel Hill — Carrboro Schools — MSIF Percentages (chart) Possible Options • As calculated, by bedroom count (if applicable), adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. • Collapsing the Single Family Detached category in the Orange County Schools district (due to an unexpected result in this category), charging the "Average" for this housing type in this district, charging fees as calculated for other housing types, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. • Collapsing all housing type categories in both or either school districts, charging the "Average" calculation by housing type, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. • Options 1-3 can also be implemented by increasing the percentage of MSIF over a period of time (e.g., adopt at x% effective 2017, y% effective 2018, and z% effective 2019). As Calculated, by Bedroom Counts (if Applicable) - (OCS) (chart) As Calculated, by Bedroom Counts (if Applicable) — (CHCCS) (chart) Collapse Single Family Detached in OCS Only (chart) • CHCCS remains "as calculated, by bedroom counts, if applicable" Collapse All Housing Types to "Average" —OCS (chart) Collapse All Housing Types to "Average" — CHCCS (chart) Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance • Add definitions for the various housing types. • Add language in Section 30-33 that would require age restricted units that do not remain age restricted for at least 20 years be required to pay the difference between the age restricted fee paid and the non-age-restricted fee in effect at the time a unit is no longer age restricted. • Add language in Section 30-35(e) clarifying under what conditions a refund would be issued if impact fees were reduced for a particular housing unit type. • Add language in Section 30-38 to recognize conditional zoning, which was adopted in 2011 when the UDO was adopted. • Impact fee levels in Section 30-33 to be determined after public hearing Additional Information • Attachment 6: o Average historical residential unit growth 8 o Assumed percentage increase o Projected future annual residential unit growth o Projected future unit mix o Approximate Number of Approved but Unconstructed Housing Units, by Jurisdiction Joint School Boards Meeting (September 29) • Topics discussed included: o Construction inflation in the Triangle region o Impact of class size legislation o Level of service standards as they relate to portables Commissioner Jacobs said a question was raised, at the meeting with the schools, about the construction costs being used: generic vs. local. He said several school board members said it would be more "transparent" to use local costs, which are higher. Commissioner Jacobs said the difference between the 2007 and the 2016 impact fee is less than $1,000, and he wanted to know the increase in construction costs, and asked if there is a reason why switching to local standards is not being recommended. Perdita Holtz said other indices were investigated after the meeting with the Schools. She said a school board member recommended the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), but DPI does not have a construction cost index. She said there does not seem to be a good local index of construction standards. Jeff Thompson, Director of Asset Management Services, said he did contact DPI about their data, and he said DPI does not have formal regional standards. He said staff is working on this issue. Commissioner Jacobs asked Jeff Thomson if he feels there will be good local, or regional, data available to make this change in the future. Jeff Thompson said possibly in the future, but not right now. He said staff will work with DPI on getting formalized data. Commissioner Price referred to page 7, which discussed age restrictive units. She asked if an example scenario could be provided. She said when she thinks of age restrictive units, she typically thinks of an apartment or apartment building. Perdita Holtz said this example refers to projects that are named as age restrictive units to get a lower impact fee, but then do not remain so. Commissioner Price said this was her fear. She asked if an age-restricted home is sold, is there some declaration that must be made at the time of sale. Perdita Holtz said in order to be age restrictive, a house would have to have age restrictive covenants such as from a Home Owner Association document, etc. She said age restrictive units are usually in a development where their covenants require that at least one person be over the age of 55, or this can be done through restrictive covenants. Commissioner Price referred to mobile homes on page 8, and asked if there would be an impact by increasing the number of bedrooms. Perdita Holtz said staff is not going back to look at these, since these existing dwellings may not have had to pay an impact fee, if built prior to 1993, but have been paying taxes all of this time anyway. Recommendation for Tonight 1. Conduct a public hearing on potential updates to current school impact fee levels and amendments to the General Code of Ordinances— Educational Facilities Impact Fees; 2. Discuss the topic as desired; 3. Close the public hearing; 9 4. Direct the consultant, TischlerBise, to finalize the draft school impact fee studies; and 5. Direct staff to bring back amendments to the Code of General Ordinances— Educational Facilities Impact Fees for adoption consideration on October 18, 2016. Commissioner Rich said she is not convinced that collapsing works, and would like people to pay their impact fee rather than pay an average fee. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, said not collapsing them would make more technical sense, and the only reason collapsing is being suggested is because of the actual numbers showing in the student generation rates. Commissioner Dorosin referred to slide 10 on the hand out, Chapel Hill— Carrboro MSIF Percentages, and asked if there could be clarification of this issue. He said 60% was picked across all units. He said the current fee for single family detached is $11,423, which based on new updated numbers, falls somewhere between 60 and 70% of the MSIF. He said the current multi-family fee is $12,086 which is between 10 and 20% based on the new numbers. He said he wanted to make sure the differences reflect the very changes in demographic and housing size choices that people are making, and how the student generation numbers play out over time. He said in an ideal universe these would all be around 60%. Craig Benedict said there are less single-family homes in Chapel Hill, and thus families move into a 3-bedroom multi-family unit, which affects the student generation rates. He said an apartment complex that is mostly 1-2 bedrooms will have less student generation, and will pay a proportional amount for that. Commissioner Dorosin said this is an illustration as to why regular updates should be completed. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is bedroom distinction in any category with the current fee. Craig Benedict said no. Commissioner Dorosin said he would favor moving away from that practice and toward a more accurate analysis, given the more detailed data. Commissioner Rich said there is the 800 square foot with higher impact fees, and she would like to get away from that. Commissioner Burroughs said she is comfortable with the numbers, as presented by the consultant, because they match with reality. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the gist of the conversation is to disaggregate these housing types even further, based on the number of bedrooms, or is the current data acceptable. Craig Benedict said there are bedroom disaggregations in the study now, and before there was a one size fits all. He said now they are able to determine student generation rates more effectively. Commissioner Dorosin said he is favor of further disaggregation, because it is more accurate and reflects the true nature of the study. Discussion ensued. Chair McKee said he has concern about not collapsing. He said the fee for the detached single family, 3 bedroom homes in Orange County Schools (OCS) is higher than the 4 bedrooms, which is the exact opposite of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). He said there seems to be a disconnect. He said if fees stay at 60%, there seems to be significant increases. Craig Benedict said there would be some significant increases in certain categories. Commissioner Price asked if the cost of housing will be impacted, if families choose a multi-family dwelling, because the impact fees will be enormous. Craig Benedict said it is not the County's role to make decisions about how the private sector incorporate these impact fees into housing costs, and these numbers may impact final 10 costs of a single family home. He said in multi-family dwellings, the owners, not the renters, will incur these fees. Commissioner Price said but the property owner may charge renters more because of the increased fees. Craig Benedict said they do not get into those areas at all. Commissioner Dorosin said it is likely that a lot less three-bedroom apartments will be built. Commissioner Rich said if more people are coming here with children, then more schools will need to be built. She said taxes will need to be raised, and impact fees are helping to build these new schools. Commissioner Burroughs agreed. Commissioner Price said she was concerned about the percentage increase of the fees, not so much about the actual impact fee. Commissioner Jacobs asked if he is correct in assuming that they cannot differentiate between the different categories of housing, as far as the impact fee is raised. Craig Benedict said a chosen fee should be consistent throughout all categories. John Roberts said the legal requirement is that there should be rough proportionality between the fee that is set, and what that fee is offsetting. He said there could be a flat fee if so desired, which may be seen as more equitable. He said to keep legal challenges to a minimum proportionalities should be consistent across the categories. Commissioner Jacobs asked if it would be defensible for the flat fee to benefit those with the most affordable units, and would otherwise have the highest increase. John Roberts said it would depend on the calculations, and Orange County and only two other counties actually use an impact fee. He said there is no state law on this topic. He said the more complicated the fee system gets, the more difficult it will be to defend. He said if there is public policy reasoning behind the system, it may be more defensible. Commissioner Jacobs suggested getting past the bond, etc., and if the BOCC wanted to adjust the impact fee schedule in a defensible way, to make this all easier on affordable housing residents, he thinks the Board would support this. He is in favor of impact fees helping to offset the cost of schools, but he also sees the complication of how high the impact fee is going to be for a manufactured housing unit that has 2 bedrooms, compared to a stick built house that has high cost and two bedrooms. Craig Benedict said there are different ways to invoke impact fees. He said a flat fee is easy to implement, but the proportionality test is weak, and out of sync. He said in the past the County did have a flat fee, but they have trended toward using the best available data and where the student generation rates match. Commissioner Jacobs said some of them do not want to affect the affordability of units, and it may be good to have a couple of options with examples and how this would impact a particular unit-proportional fee vs. a flat fee. Craig Benedict said that a flat fee analysis would take months, and costs thousands of dollars. Commissioner Jacobs said this is the best data currently available and what the Board should use to invoke impact fees or make any changes. Commissioner Dorosin said he is not sure whether the impact fee structure is the best place to address affordability issues. He said he would be interested in pursuing other tools or incentives to address the affordability issue. Commissioner Jacobs said the County does not receive new school construction funds from the state, but is receiving mandates to reduce class sizes; and this may be the best way to address new resident impact on the schools. He renewed his petition from the spring, for other incentives that may be available. 11 Commissioner Pelissier said this is all new housing impacts, and many of these new units are not affordable housing units, especially in the OCS district. Commissioner Pelissier said impact fees cannot solve everything. Commissioner Burroughs asked if the County's existing practice, when affordable units are built, could be identified. Craig Benedict said each year there is money put in the budget to reimburse these impact fees for affordable housing units. Commissioner Burroughs said how much Orange County can afford, going forward, must be considered. She said these tables are good as they are, and now the Board must decide at which percentages to begin. She said she would be comfortable talking between 30 and 60% of the MSIF, with a potential phase in process. Commissioner Burroughs asked if one reason fees may be phased in is because there are projects in the pipeline already. Craig Benedict said yes. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is a break-even point when starting with a particular percentage. Craig Benedict said it would be a gamble for future development to try and state a break- even point. Commissioner Jacobs said there is a decline in single-family detached housing in CHCCS, and this trend could be projected to find a break-even point. Commissioner Dorosin said this would not be possible with disaggregation. Commissioner Jacobs said if it is known which type of housing is going to be built more often, then there will be more impact fees from that type of housing, and break-even calculations can be made. Craig Benedict said this would be a challenge. Commissioner Dorosin said to bring back information between 40-70% ranges for the next meeting. He said he is pessimistic about the possibility of getting affordable housing created by the private sector in Orange County, regardless of impact fees. Chair McKee agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. Chair McKee asked Craig Benedict to accommodate the requests the Board of County Commissioners have made. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda NONE • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda NONE a. Minutes 12 The Board approved the minutes for the September 8, 2016 BOCC Work Session as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for six (6) taxpayers with a total of six (6) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue of$1,548.66 to Orange County, the towns, and school and fire districts. Financial impact year to date for FY 2016-2017 is $6,355.28. c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for eight (8) taxpayers with a total of eight (8) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, for five (5) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for five (5) bills for the 2016 tax year. e. North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program: Orange County Sheriff's Office Traffic Safety Project and Approval of Budget Amendment#1-B The Board adopted the North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program Local Governmental Resolution recognizing federal funding for traffic safety projects to the Sheriff's Office; authorized the Chair to sign the Resolution; and approved Budget Amendment#1-B accepting the $40,000 in grant funds. f. Authorization to Declare Solid Waste Management Vehicles Surplus The Board declared various Solid Waste Management vehicles surplus, and authorized the AMS Director to affect the sale of the items through GovDeals. g. Bid Award for the Purchase of Two (2) Hook Lift Trucks The Board awarded the purchase of two (2) Hook Lift Trucks to Freightliner of Austin, TX at a delivered cost of$203,488 each for a total of$406,976; declared Truck#1780 and #1680 surplus after receipt of the new trucks; and authorized the AMS Director to affect the sale of these items through GovDeals. 7. Regular Agenda a. Approval of 2017 Schedule of Values The Board considered adopting and authorizing the Chair to sign the Order of Adoption approving the proposed 2017 Reappraisal Schedule of Values, and direct staff to publish in The Herald Sun, News of Orange and Chapel Hill News the proper advertisements concerning the notice of adoption. Dwane Brinson, Tax Administrator, reviewed the background information below: BACKGROUND: The proposed 2017 Schedule of Values was presented to the Board at the September 6, 2016 regular meeting. On September 7, 2016 the Tax Assessor advertised in the News of Orange, Herald Sun, and Chapel Hill News notice of the availability of the Schedule of Values for public inspection, and the date of the public hearing on the Schedule of Values. The Board held the public hearing regarding the Schedule of Values on September 20, 2016 regular meeting. Per North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-317(c)(1), "the [Tax] Assessor shall submit the proposed schedules, standards, and rules to the board of county commissioners not less than 21 days before the meeting at which they will be considered by the board. On the same day that they are submitted to the board for its consideration, the assessor shall file a copy of the 13 proposed schedules, standard, and rules in his [or her] office where they shall remain available for public inspection." In addition, NCGS 105-317(c)(2) states "upon receipt of the proposed schedules, standards, and rules, the board of commissioners shall publish a statement in a newspaper having general circulation in the county stating: a. That the proposed schedules, standards, and rules to be used in appraising real property in the county have been submitted to the board of county commissioners and are available for public inspection in the assessor's office; and b. The time and place of a public hearing on the proposed schedules, standard, and rules that shall be held by the board of county commissioners at least seven days before adopting the final schedules, standards, and rules." The timeline for the 2017 Reappraisal Schedule of Values adoption process is as follows: • September 6, 2016: Submission to Orange County Board of Commissioners • September 7, 2016: Advertise in newspaper • September 20, 2016: Public hearing on SOV • October 4, 2016: Adoption of SOV • October 5, 2016: Publish 1st notice of adoption • October 12, 2016: Publish 2nd notice of adoption • October 19, 2016: Publish 3rd notice of adoption • October 26, 2016: Publish 4th notice of adoption • November 3, 2016: Last day for taxpayer to appeal the SOV Dwane Brinson said they have not received any public feedback as of yet. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin for the Board to adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the attached Order of Adoption approving the proposed 2017 Reappraisal Schedule of Values and direct staff to publish in The Herald Sun, News of Orange and Chapel Hill News the proper advertisements concerning the notice of adoption. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Downtown Housing Improvement Corporation, Inc.'s (DHIC) Request to Reduce Orange County's 99 Year Affordability Period for the Greenfield Place Project to 40 Years The Board considered a reduction of the County's long term affordability period as requested by Downtown Housing Improvement Corporation (DHIC), Inc. from 99 years to 40 years for the Greenfield Place project in the Town of Chapel Hill (Representatives from DHIC will be available during the meeting to address questions). Audrey Spencer Horsley, Director of Housing, Human Rights and Community Development, reviewed the information below: BACKGROUND: On May 5, 2015 the Board approved the Orange County FY 2015-2016 HOME Program Design recommended by the Orange County Consortium Program Review Committee. Participants in 14 the HOME Consortium are Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough. Under the HOME Program Design, funds in the amount of$154,500 were approved for the Downtown Housing Improvement Corporation, Inc. (DHIC) to support the new construction of eighty (80) apartment homes known as Greenfield Place for households at less than sixty percent (60%) area median income (AMI). This is a Low Income Housing Tax Credit (tax credits) development and will be located on Legion Road in Chapel Hill on land to be donated by the Town of Chapel Hill. The County's Long Term Housing Affordability Policy establishes the acceptable strategies for ensuring long term affordability in affordable housing programs supported by County financial resources. Housing projects that are funded with Orange County HOME Program funds have been subject to the County's 99-year long-term affordability period that includes recorded deed restrictions. DHIC has requested that the County reduce the 99-year affordability period to 40 years for the Greenfield Place development. DHIC has expressed that the 99 year requirement makes financing challenging and creates issues for the tax credit investor in how it models the project for tax purposes. According to the agency, the 99-year affordability period may cause challenges in getting the equity closed in as timely a manner as needed. DHIC also stated that the 99-year affordability period could also create problems in the future when DHIC will need to get new financing to make capital improvements to the buildings to keep them in high quality condition for tenants. DHIC noted that the affordability requirement for the federal tax credits used in this project is 30 years. The Town of Chapel Hill, which is also a partner in this project, is requiring a 32-year affordability period. Audrey Spencer Horsley said this item is a request from the DHIC to reduce the 99- year affordable period to a 40-year affordability period, because of their concern that it would affect investors, and pose challenges to close the project on time. She said this was part of the HOME program design in 2015. Audrey Spencer Horsley said this project is being completed in part by the Town of Chapel Hill and they donated the land. She said Chapel Hill is requiring a 30-year affordability period. She said Gregg Warren from DHIC is here to answer any questions. Gregg Warren, President and Executive Director of DHIC, said the concerns are those of their lenders and investors with a long-term affordability period, especially if a project foreclosed. He said having a 40-year period of affordability is consistent with the 40-year loan period with Orange County. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price for the Board to approve a 40-year housing affordability period for the DHIC, Inc. Greenfield Place project. Commissioner Jacobs said he will vote in favor of this motion, but he does not think it best to view these ad hoc changes intermittently, and at the last minute. John Roberts said the motion this evening sets aside the County policy, and he recommended that the Board either amend the policy in the near future to establish criteria for project requests like these, or amend the policy as a whole to permanently change the affordability period. Commissioner Dorosin amended his motion to: approve the 40-year housing affordability period for the DHIC in Greenfield Place project, because the project is designed to serve in part, residents making 30% or less of area median income, and 60% or less of area median income, which are targeted demographics that this Board has made a commitment to 15 reach out to, and which we have not done as good a job of reaching in many of our other affordable housing supported projects. Commissioner Price seconded. Commissioner Rich agreed with having this conversation in the near future. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Reports a. Discussion of the Proposed Orange County FY 2016 — 2020 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan The Board reviewed and discussed the information provided on the Proposed 2016— 2020 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and provided direction to staff. Audrey Spencer Horsley reviewed the background information, and said this item is to continue the discussion on the Orange County Affordable Housing Strategic Plan. BACKGROUND: On April 5, 2016 the Orange County Board of Commissioners (Board) received the Proposed 2016— 2020 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (Plan) that has been developed as the County's long-range vision for addressing affordable housing needs over the next five (5) years. After receiving an overview of the Plan by the Director of Housing, Human Rights and Community Development (Director) and public comment, the Board requested that the Director conduct additional community outreach on the Plan prior to holding a work session scheduled for May 10, 2016. At the May 10, 2016 work session, the Board discussed all the recommendations of the Plan. In follow-up to the Board's discussion above on the Plan recommendations, the Board held a work session on September 8, 2016. For the work session there were two major items that the Board had requested additional information and recommendations from staff: • a mobile home strategy and • the process for going forward with the Greene Tract (An update and options for the Greene Tract was also the subject of the second Item for the September 8th Work Session). Staff included a few other discussion items for further clarification in moving forward: • the Board's criteria and priorities on the use of land banking, • moving forward on use of County owned property, • planning initiatives to further affordable housing, • the county's 1,000 units goal and special needs housing; and • criteria or other areas of emphasis the Board would like included to address affordable housing needs in the county Staff also included in the material examples of innovations and successes from other communities particularly with regard to use of mobile homes to meet special affordable housing needs. Travis Myren presented the following information: Bond Funds to Help the County Reach a Countywide Shared Goal of 1,000 Affordable Housing Units in Five Years: 2016—2020 OPTION: TARGETING INCOME and SPECIAL NEEDS by #UNITS and TYPE Household Income Range Target Units Percent of Examples of Population 16 Units Served 0 to < 30% 250 (all new rental) 25% Minimum Wage Earners, Childcare Providers, Restaurant Service Workers and Artists <30% to < 50% Area Median 250 (all new rental) 25% Maintenance Workers, Income Nursing Assistants and Health Aides, Teacher Assistants and Construction Helpers > 50% to < 80% of Area 250 (rental and 25% Workforce employees, Median Income homeowner; new teachers, small business and existing units) owners and first responders Special Needs Populations 250 (all new rental) 25% Residents with disabilities, older adults/seniors, residents experiencing or at risk of homelessness, and victims/survivors of domestic violence Total 1,000 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Income Limits as of April 13, 2016: Area median income for Orange County is $74,900 (family of four) 30%-$21,200 50%-$35,350 60%-$42,420 80%-$56,550 Travis Myren said staff would like to formalize this and determine how many units the Board would like to designate for each category. He said an example would be if one category fills up with 250 units, then that list could be closed. He said special needs projects would have its own category. Chair McKee asked if the special needs projects would be 30-80% of area median income. Travis Myren said yes. Commissioner Rich asked if these plans include the work non-profit agencies are doing. Travis Myren said yes, and they had a meeting with the non-profit providers on the criteria after their last work session. Commissioner Rich asked if 250 units are reached in one category and non-profits want to add more one, can this be accommodated. Travis Myren said staff suggests that once a target number is reached, then the Orange County funding would cease for that category, and any other agency can fund what they want. Audrey Spencer Horsley said on-going updates will be provided to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs said the more he thinks about how they calculate the number of units the more he is uncomfortable. He said government has a tendency to over-estimate what 17 it can achieve and unintentionally misleads people. He would prefer considering percentages of units, rather than total number of units. Commissioner Price asked if the amount of money per project or developer has been considered. Travis Myren said yes, in the scoring document. Commissioner Price said she did not find anything about a per forma sheet or financial statement. She asked if the project is financially feasible. Audrey Spencer Horsley said this model is based on the County's bond policy, and all of these things Commissioner Price mentioned are incorporated in the County's bond policy. She said if these items were not already met, the project would not have made it to scoring. Commissioner Burroughs said she commends them on this information. She said she is okay with the 1,000 units and setting aspirational goals. Commissioner Burroughs referred to Attachment 1 on the special needs population, and asked if a non-profit would apply to do a domestic violence shelter. Audrey Spencer Horsley said that is a very challenging question, and some of these projects are not intended to be generated by staff or even non-profits, but in partnerships with those specialists who are experts in these areas. Commissioner Pelissier clarified that the County will help leverage bond money for 1,000 units and not pay for them all. Audrey Spencer Horsley said that is one of the messages being emphasized. Commissioner Dorosin said his concern is not that they are going to get flooded with the 0-30% need, but rather with lots at the 80% level. He said it may be wise to cap the higher ones. He said it would be helpful to know how the 250 proposals that are already in the pipeline break down in these categories. Commissioner Dorosin said also it would be helpful to see into which categories the projects fell in the 2001 bond projects. Travis Myren reviewed Attachment 2. He said these are suggested weights and stressing potential bond projects but not landbanking, which will be addressed separately. Bond Funds to Help the County Reach a Countywide Shared Goal of 1,000 Affordable Housing Units in Five Years: 2017—2020 DRAFT PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM EVALUATION: SCORING CRITERIA A. Income Targeting and Special Needs (45 points) Household Income Range Points to be Awarded 0to < 30% 25 <30% to < 50% of Area Median Income 15 > 50% to < 80% of Area Median Income 10 Special Needs Populations 20 B. Leveraging (20 points) Percent Funded by Bonds and Other County Funding Points to be Awarded 60 -80% 3 40 -59% 6 20 -39% 9 10 - 19% 15 <10% 20 18 Other Criteria Points to be Awarded 1. The project pays property taxes 2 2a. The project repays the bond funds— principal only. 5 2b. The project repays the bond funds— both principal and 10 interest. 3. The Project is a Mixed Income Project: The project serves 10 more than one income category and minimizes the concentration of affordable housing projects in a particular geographic area. 4. The Project is a Mixed Use Project: The project includes 10 uses in addition to residential uses that offer access to employment opportunities and other day to day needs. C. Design (20 points) Building Design Scoring Criteria Maximum Points to Be Awarded 1. The project meets or exceeds the NC Housing Finance 3 Agency Energy Efficiency Criteria. 2. The project is accessible to needed services for the target 4 population such as healthcare, schools, and or grocery shopping. 3. The project provides for handicap accessibility and/or utilizes 3 the principles of Universal Design in the building design. 4. Additional points may be awarded for meeting aspects 2 associated with functionality and maintenance. 5. The project is connected to water and sewer service or will 4 connect to existing service. 6. Public transportation and related facilities and improvements 4 are available where applicable, e.g., bus shelter, accessible stops, etc. Chair McKee said to give greater weight to those projects that are connected to public transit and water and sewer. Commissioner Burroughs agreed, especially regarding transit. Commissioner Price wanted to stress the more universal design and to weight this higher. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Price. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with transit and water and sewer, and to weight these higher. Travis Myren said the points can be balanced. Commissioner Dorosin said if water and sewer are weighted higher, then big areas of the County will be off the table. He also noted that water and sewer are expensive. Commissioner Jacobs said if they talk about community systems, they should be careful about definitions and would not be on water and sewer, but on a community system. Travis Myren reviewed the following information: Community Design (10) 19 Scoring Criteria Maximum Points to be Awarded 7. The project contributes to a mix of housing within an existing 3 neighborhood. 8. Additional points may be awarded for criteria associated with 3 building appearance, quality of construction, compatibility with surrounding housing, ability to foster a sense of a secure community, and contributes to neighborhood revitalization and or affordable housing preservation. (Details must be provided by applicant) 9. Environmental impacts are identified with plans included to 4 adequately address minimizing impact on environment, e.g. reuse of building materials recycling, storm water management and water conservation. D. Community Sponsorship/Support (25 points) Scoring Criteria Maximum Points to be Awarded 1. The applicant can submit explicit evidence that they 8 coordinated the application with other organizations to complement and/or support the proposed project. 2. The applicant involved the intended beneficiaries of the 7 project in the planning process and describes outreach and marketing plan to be inclusive. 3. The applicant can demonstrate that it has been actively 5 involved, or describes the steps it will take to become actively involved in the Community's Consolidated Planning process to identify and address a housing need or problem that is related in whole or part to the proposed project. 4. The applicant has developed, or describes plans to develop 5 linkages with other community activities so solutions are holistic and comprehensive. E. Project Feasibility (30 points) Scoring Criteria Maximum Points to be Awarded 1. The applicant can demonstrate site control, zoning, 10 compliance, and a timely construction schedule that is feasible. 2. Funding (other than bond or other County funding) is in 10 place at the time of application. 3. The applicant's proposal is complete and presents a 10 proposed project budget that is reasonable and is based on reasonable assumptions. F. Developer Experience (25 points) Scoring Criteria Maximum Points to be 20 Awarded 1. Experience of the applicant in carrying out projects of 10 comparable scope and nature (e.g., new construction, rental housing, rehabilitation, etc.) to that proposed, and has met regulatory compliance for prior projects. 2. Applicant has proposed a team with demonstrated 5 development, managerial and financial management capabilities in prior projects. 3. Applicant has successful record of meeting proposed 10 budgets and timetables. TOTAL POTENTIAL POINTS: 200 Commissioner Price said when a proposal is presented, a per forma should be included. Travis Myren said they could add something to that effect. Audrey Spencer Horsley said there was a limit of point per category in the past bonds. PUBLIC COMMENT: Robert Dowling said bond funds will be just one source of subsidy amongst many. He encouraged the Board to be flexible with the categories, but to be more rigid with the 51-80%, where he fits in, because it is easier to do higher incomes. He said the most difficult one to fulfill is the 0-30%, the lower incomes. He said $5 million will go very quickly. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the next steps and the timeline could be outlined. Travis Myren said staff can go back and make the requested tweaks, and bring it back to the BOCC at another regular meeting. Bonnie Hammersley said staff can make the changes, and send it out individually and ask the Commissioners to provide feedback. Bonnie Hammersley said staff is also working on the mobile home and landbanking strategies and will bring this document back to the Board soon. Commissioner Dorosin asked if it makes sense to have this finalized ahead of the bond vote, or are the two on separate, but parallel, tracks. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the County owned land, and asked if it is the sense of the Board to move forward with this independently of the bond. Commissioner Burroughs said in reference to the bond, the public can be directed to these two attachments if need be, and the BOCC does not have to nail something down immediately. Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Burroughs about the affordable housing plan, and feels that the Board needs to move forward on the issue of County owned lands regardless of the bond issue. Commissioner Jacobs said people who support the bond will do so with or without the plan. He said in reference to the County owned lands, to be careful to define the GreeneTract as part of the Greene Tract that is owned in part by the three governments. He said he thought it had been decided not to put affordable housing at the Southern Human Services Center (SHSC) site, and he would not want staff to move forward on County owned lands without being specific on the SHSC site and the Greene Tract. Commissioner Pelissier agreed and said the SHSC site does not lend itself to housing. Commissioner Dorosin said he was not talking about the Greene Tract or the SHSC sites, but rather the scattered County parcels. Chair McKee said it was his understanding that the Board was willing to move forward on the scattered County parcels, regardless of the bond. Commissioner Dorosin said he would also like to get an update on the scattered parcels. 21 Commissioner Price agreed to go ahead with County owned parcels, with or without the bond. Travis Myren said he was planning on using the same scoring criteria with the County owned properties and may not be able to bring this back till November. 9. County Manager's Report Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the following information: Projected October 6, 2016 Joint Meeting with Chiefs' Council Agenda Items • Fire Departments' Accomplishments During 2015 • Radio Infrastructure Including Paging • Discussion on PageTrack Software • Training Facilities for County First Responders Projected October 6, 2016 Regular Work Session Items • Detention Center: Update on Project Schedule and Discussion of Potential Scope Expansion to Include Law Enforcement Center/Sheriffs Offices • Discussion of Body-Worn Cameras • Written Consent to Search Requirement for Law Enforcement 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts said the Board of Adjustment (BOA)will be hearing an appeal on the flower farm/events center on Monday night. Chair McKee said the turnout could exceed seating and asked if the venue could be changed if necessary. John Roberts said it is possible, and there is nothing illegal about it. He said if it becomes apparent at a meeting that the public cannot entirely attend or view the meeting, a brief recess may be taken, and the meeting be moved to a larger venue. Commissioner Jacobs suggested moving the meeting to the Library next door. Chair McKee asked Bonnie Hammersley and Jeff Thompson to look at other venues for this meeting. 11. Appointments a. Hillsborough Planning Board —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Planning Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to appoint the following to the Hillsborough Planning Board: • Appointment to a first full term (position #1) "Alternate Hillsborough ETJ / County" for Carolyn Helfrich expiring 10/31/2019. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Orange County Parks and Recreation Council —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint the following to the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council: 22 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #10) "Hillsborough Town Limits" representative for Dr. Tori Williams Reid expiring 09/30/2019. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Commissioner Burroughs had no comments. Commissioner Price attended the NCACC BOD's meeting and it was in D.C. and broadband is on everyone's mind and mental health. Commissioner Dorosin had no comments. Commissioner Rich said Terra Vita was a successful event. Commissioner Rich visited a Carrboro High School class and talked about elections. She attended renaming ceremony for the Passmore Center. She also attended the Northside Initiative. Commissioner Jacobs said the Chair, Manager, Rich Shaw and David Stancil met with the manager of Duke Forest on ways to collaborate and they came up with three things to work on together to improve their relationship. Commissioner Pelissier said she, Chair McKee and Commissioner Dorosin attended the inter-city trip to Boulder, Colorado and had many discussions on transit and affordable housing. Chair McKee echoed Commissioner Pelissier's comments on the inter-city trip. 13. Information Items • September 20, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under$100 • State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Impact Funding Tier Project Prioritization • Transmittal of the FY 2017-18 Human Services Funding Application • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from September 20, 2016 Regular Meeting 14. Closed Session NONE 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board