HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-05-2016 - 6-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 5, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover) Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
October 6, 2016 BOCC Joint Meeting with Fire Departments (early)
October 6, 2016 BOCC Work Session (late)
October 13, 2106 BOCC Meeting with Town of Carrboro
October 18, 2016 BOCC Regular Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 JOINT MEETING WITH THE
6 ORANGE COUNTY CHIEF'S ASSOCIATION
7 October 6, 2016
8 7:00 p.m.
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners held a joint meeting on Thursday, October 6,
11 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
14 Mia Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Penny Rich and Renee Price
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
18 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified
19 appropriately below)
20
21 VOLUNTEER FIRE CHIEFS PRESENT:
22 Brad Allison, Fire Chief, Caldwell FD; Matt Sullivan, Fire Chief, Town of Chapel Hill; Matt
23 Lawrence, Chapel Hill Deputy Fire Chief; Chief Susanna Williams, Town of Carrboro; Kent
24 Squires, Carrboro Deputy Fire Chief; Jeff Borland, Fire Chief, Cedar Grove FD; Phillip Nasseri,
25 Fire Chief, White Cross FD; Jeff Cabe, Fire Chief, Orange Rural FD; John Stroud, Fire Chief,
26 North Chatham FD; Kevin Brooks, Fire Chief, Efland FD; Pete Hallenbeck, Efland Deputy Fire
27 Chief; Matthew Mauzy, Chief, South Orange Rescue Squad (SORS); Mike Tapp, Fire Chief,
28 New Hope FD; Steve McCauley, Fire Chief, Orange Grove FD; Keith Hayes, Chief, Eno FD;
29 Dinah Jeffries, Orange County Emergency Services Director
30
31 VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPTS. —CHAIRS, BOARD OF DIRECTORS
32 Barry Walker, Caldwell BOD President; Bill Waddell, Orange Grove BOD President; John
33 Holland, Orange Rural BOD President; Fred Stipe, SORS BOD President; Howard Pratt, New
34 Hope BOD President,;Tony Blake, White Cross BOD President
35
36 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
37
38 Welcome and Introductions
39 Chair McKee recognized Dinah Jeffries as the new Orange County Emergency Services
40 Director.
41
42 1. Fire Departments' Accomplishments During 2015
43
44 White Cross Fire Chief Phillip Nasseri
45 Phillip Nasseri thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for this
46 collaborative meeting.
47 He went through a list of the Fire Departments' Accomplishments for 2015, and his
48 comments are below:
49
50 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board.
2
1 Good evening and thank you for having us. This year, the Fire Departments and Emergency
2 Services of Orange County have accomplished a tremendous amount. We have conducted
3 several county wide training sessions.
4 • Orange Rural Fire Department successfully mitigated one of the largest structure fires in
5 the Town of Hillsborough's history, with help from almost every other fire agency in the
6 county.
7 • Emergency Services has coordinated or supported 6 large-scale events this past year.
8 • Emergency Services activated the Emergency Operations Center on 3 different events
9 throughout this last year.
10 • Emergency Services participated in a FEMA Complex Coordinated Workshop with multi-
11 agency/multi-jurisdictional participation. They also provided a resource-typing program
12 to the fire departments of the county through a program called Salamander, currently 6
13 fire departments are enrolled and actively using it.
14 Several fire departments this year continued to improve their ISO ratings.
15 • The Town of Chapel Hill received new grade of Class 2 from a Class 3.
16 • White Cross Fire Department received a new grade of a Class 5 from a Class 7.
17 • Several of our other departments such as Caldwell Fire Department and Cedar Grove
18 Fire Department are working on submitting or have submitted a request to improve their
19 grade further.
20 • Additionally, Cedar Grove, White Cross and Orange Grove Fire Departments have
21 placed several new rural water points in service this year.
22
23 The fire departments of the county have put several pieces of new equipment into service for
24 the protection of its citizens.
25 • The Town of Chapel Hill placed a new engine and mobile support SCBA trailer into
26 service.
27 • Orange Rural Fire Department put two new fire engines into service.
28 • New Hope Fire Department placed a new fire engine into service.
29 • Orange Grove Fire Department purchased a new 2000-gallon elliptical tanker.
30 • Efland Fire Department has put a new medical response unit and paced it into service.
31 • Eno Fire Department has placed a new extrication/rescue unit into service.
32 • North Chatham Fire Department replaced three tankers. One of the tankers provides
33 direct support to southern Orange County.
34 • Orange County EMS placed a new ambulance into service.
35 • Cedar Grove Fire Department is currently working on the processes to purchase a new
36 fire engine to replace an out-of-date unit.
37
38 This year the fire departments of Orange County have worked on improving their rescue
39 capabilities.
40 • Orange Grove Fire Department purchased extrication equipment,
41 • New Hope Fire Department upgraded their extrication equipment to new Hurst cordless
42 equipment.
43 • White Cross Fire Department has applied for medium rescue certification.
44 • Orange Rural Fire Department has received their heavy rescue certification.
45
46 The members of the various departments have attended thousands of hours of training
47 throughout the year.
48 • Carrboro Fire department has sent numerous members to National Fire Academy
49 courses.
3
1 • New Hope Fire Department hosted Mayday and Safety and Survival programs.
2 • White Cross Fire Department hosted the new North Carolina Technical Rescue course,
3 successful certifying 26 new rescuer technicians throughout the County.
4 • Orange Rural Fire Department hired a training and safety officer.
5 • Efland Fire Department certified four new emergency medical technicians within their
6 department.
7
8 The fire departments have been working very hard to replace out-of-date equipment with new
9 technology that provides safer and more efficient operations.
10 • New Hope Fire Department, Efland Fire Department and Chapel Hill Fire Department
11 have all replaced their self-contained breathing apparatuses this past year. All the
12 departments work to replace our protective gear regularly as they only have a 5 to 10-
13 year life span.
14 • Efland Fire Department put a new stationary breathing compressor for use by their
15 members into service.
16 • Emergency Services has been working on the County's Backup 9-1-1 Center and the
17 project is moving forward. Radio equipment has been purchased, contracts for the
18 phones have been completed, and they are working with the vendors and Asset
19 Management/IT to start the implementation.
20 • The Communication Center has added new technology for CAD-to-CAD information
21 sharing with Alamance County. Communications is working on implementing the
22 technology with Durham and Person Counties next. The Fire Marshal's office continues
23 to work with the fire departments on needs for technical rescue operations and
24 equipment for these services. They continue to provide on-scene support for the fire
25 departments when requested. They have provided fire safety presentations when
26 requested and helped purchase materials for Fire Safety Month to be provided to the
27 schools thorough their local fire department.
28
29 The fire departments of the county over the past year have accomplished several upgrades to
30 their facilities or approved plans for new facilities.
31 • Caldwell Fire Department renovated their administrative office area and dayroom.
32 • Cedar Grove Fire Department is midway through a station renovation at their Station 2.
33 • Orange Rural Fire Department is completing a remodel of their Station 3 to facilitate 24-
34 hour staffing, while repurposing their Station 2 for housing an Orange County EMS unit.
35 • Chapel Hill Fire Department approved the Station 2 re-development project with a joint
36 partnership component with Orange EMS.
37 • White Cross Fire Department installed a 13-D sprinkler system to protect its 24-hour
38 staff.
39 • North Chatham Fire Department rebuilt their Station 3 Located on Manns Chapel Road
40 to add 2 personnel for 24-hour a day staffing. This station directly supports operation in
41 the southern part of Orange County.
42 • Additionally, Emergency Services has been working with Orange Rural Fire Department,
43 UNC Air Care and South Orange Rescue Squad for additional collaboration for EMS
44 station locations.
45
46 Commissioner Rich asked if the 15,000 calls are comparable to the number of calls in
47 the past two years.
48 Phillip Nasseri said most departments are at least maintaining, but more likely
49 increasing, the number of calls about 2-5% per year.
50 Commissioner Rich asked if the calls tend to be emergencies or fires.
4
1 Phillip Nasseri said fires in general are on the decline, but the fires that do occur are
2 more severe in nature due to modern construction techniques. He said calls tend to be rescue
3 based.
4
5 2. Radio Infrastructure Including Paging
6
7 Background Information:
8 The Countywide Radio Communications Interoperability and Systems Engineering Services
9 Committee was established in January 2016. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on
10 January 29, 2016 for a vendor neutral consultant who could determine the most efficient and
11 effective method for designing a countywide radio system. A total of seven (7) Fire/Rescue
12 representatives —four (4) from the Chief's Association and three (3) from Municipal
13 Departments — make up this committee along with a representative from every Law
14 Enforcement Department and four (4) representatives from Orange County Government. The
15 committee conducted an interview assessment and met afterwards to discuss and deliver a
16 recommendation of the selected consultant. Efforts are currently in the contract stage.
17
18 Phillip Nasseri said this project is costly but vital to Orange County for communications.
19 Commissioner Price asked if there is anything Orange County can do in reference to the
20 infrastructure.
21 Phillip Nasseri said when the contract is awarded it would be helpful to have the Board
22 of County Commissioners to support the consultant's recommendations.
23 Commissioner Dorosin asked if Phillip Nasseri could detail the current challenges with
24 the communication infrastructure.
25 Phillip Nasseri said the current 800 system, the VIPER Network System, being used by
26 the State and Orange County has limited user sites and limited coverage area. He said there
27 are minimal towers, which are used by multiple jurisdictions leading to overuse. He said on a
28 day-to-day basis, things function fairly well, but in times of inclement weather or greater
29 emergencies, the system is not sufficient.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said the problem is insufficient capacity.
31 Phillip Nasseri said that is correct, and some problems are due to aging equipment.
32 Commissioner Price asked if it is possible to communicate between various counties
33 across the State, during emergencies.
34 Phillip Nasseri said there are statewide channels, which can be used. He said the
35 problem being discussed this evening is a local one.
36 Dinah Jeffries said the currently used 800mz does not allow data information on it, or
37 non-public safety entities to use it; for example: schools, animal control, transportation, etc.
38 She said it was designed very much for Highway Patrol.
39
40 3. Discussion on PageTrack Software
41
42 Background Information:
43 This item provides an opportunity to discuss issues and opportunities relating to PageTrack
44 software. Emergency Services is working closely with Efland Deputy Chief Pete Hallenbeck.
45 Efforts have been made to configure some Gateway boxes to talk to the PageTrack server,
46 meaning that fire and Emergency Medical Services can see one another. Work is continuing on
47 getting the remaining Gateway boxes configured and Deputy Chief Hallenbeck has suggested a
48 meeting to figure out what can be done with this capability and how to manage it.
49
5
1 Orange Rural Fire Department Chief Jeff Cabe made the following PowerPoint
2 presentation:
3
4 PageTrack Overview
5 Features responders use and like
6
7 PageTrack Statistics
8 • Used by over 500 Fire responders with 10 departments in Orange County.
9 • In development for 5 years.
10 • The User Interface was designed by responder feedback that comes from field use.
11 • Has many features not found on the SunGuard/OSSI system.
12
13 Unique Features
14 • There are several features in PageTrack that the CAD vender solutions do not have.
15 • Other features may exist in the CAD vendor solutions, but the user interface is difficult to
16 use in responding apparatus. Trucks bounce around a lot more than a desk does.
17 • Feedback from fire, EMS, and rescue responders drives the look and feel of PageTrack.
18
19 o The main use is seeing a map of where the incident and responders are in real-time
20 o Once on scene, units can see where all apparatus are located and see pre-plans for
21 buildings
22 o PageTrack is not limited to just apparatus. It engages volunteers by sending
23 incident page-outs to their smart phones.
24 o This also serves as a back-up dispatch system for when the radio system is down.
25 o PageTrack can also page-out calls when the CAD system or county email is down.
26 o PageTrack is not limited to just apparatus. It engages volunteers by sending
27 incident page-outs to their smart phones.
28 o This also serves as a back-up dispatch system for when the radio system is down.
29 o PageTrack can also page-out calls when the CAD system or county email is down.
30 o Real-Time weather information for woods fires
31 o Show detours on the map, along with detour routes. At 2 in the morning, you might
32 not remember that a bridge was being replaced
33 o A Bulletin Board feature to keep everyone informed
34 o A "Big Picture" view showing everything going on in your department
35 o Hazardous Materials tools to help responders identify "Hot Zones" and exposure
36 zones to protect themselves and the public.
37 o There are tools to help visualize statistics about your department so you can improve
38 your performance.
39 o This incident history map shows where your calls are.
40 o There is a tool for visualizing how good your response times are into various areas.
41 o This can help with station location decisions or other changes that could improve
42 response time.
43 o Scatter plots of response times help you see time of day based strengths and
44 weaknesses.
45 o Bad cell coverage areas can be determined, and they can also be displayed to
46 responders on their maps so they know where they will have communications
47 problems.
48 o Closest and critical information is displayed, speeding up decisions.
49 o Responders can see mutual aid partners in different counties dispatched from
50 different CAD systems.
6
1 o Fire Units can see where EMS units are located. Hopefully, as the SunGuard/OSSI
2 integrates with PageTrack or EMS uses PageTrack everyone can see everyone
3 else.
4 o There are many EMS specific features being used by dispatch areas that use
5 PageTrack for EMS.
6 o Here we see a list of closest hospitals along with information such as "the VA is on
7 diversion and not taking patients at this time".
8
9 Page Track Features
10 • This is an example of the features that PageTrack has that the CAD vendor solutions do
11 not.
12 • There are many other features in the system.
13 • The best feature is the user interface designed by responder feedback. It is easy to use
14 in the mobile environment.
15
16 Dinah Jeffries said it will not always be possible to have one technology that all entities
17 can efficiently and effectively use, but strides are being made in this area to integrate the
18 technologies.
19 Matthew Mauzy said this has been used at large events such as UNC games, etc., and
20 is also being put on ambulances. He said it is not just useful in Orange County, but also when
21 responding out of county to mutual aid calls.
22 Chair McKee asked if there is any interest in surrounding counties.
23 Pete Hallenbeck said two departments in Person County, some departments in Caswell
24 County, and Mebane Fire are using and evaluating it, and there is some interest in Chatham
25 County and Wilmington. He said there are also some departments in other states using the
26 technology.
27 Commissioner Price asked if everyone involved has the right smart phone to use this
28 technology.
29 Jeff Cabe said any phone can be used, as long as there is an internet/wi-fi connection.
30
31 4. Training Facilities for County First Responders
32
33 Background Information:
34 Emergency Services welcomes the opportunity to join others at the table for discussions
35 regarding a countywide training facility. Emergency Services has been coordinating to actively
36 reach out to state and federal resources gathering information that may provide guidance and
37 direction on best practices to pursue this venture.
38
39 Jeff Cabe said staff needs to be trained, while protecting districts as the same time. He
40 said the Chief's Council wants to get a training facility in place.
41
42 Orange County Training Center Concept Discussion
43 October 2016
44
45 Needs
46 • Facilities for training Firefighters (Live Fire, Search and Rescue, Suppression
47 • Facilities for Training EMS Personnel (Patient Access, Triage, Movement)
48 • Facilities for Training Rescue Personnel (Victim Access, Packaging, Removal)
49 • Facilities for Training Law Enforcement (Building Search, Forcible Entry)
50 • Facilities for storing Equipment Trailers and the Children's Fire Safety House
7
1
2 Obstacles
3 • Funding- How do we fund specialized training facilities? (Initial vs Long Term)
4 • Location- How do we build Facilities so all agencies have access and maintain district
5 coverage while training?
6 • Access- How do we build enough Facilities for so many agencies to Share?
7 • Management- Who has final oversight for design, development and scheduling?
8
9 Funding
10 • Propose to increase county wide property taxes by 1/2 cent for Training Facilities
11 o Approximately $830,000 per year
12 • Funds would be used to develop, maintain and operate the training Centers
13 • Once the sites were completed, the tax rate would decrease to 1/4 cent for maintenance
14 and Operations
15 o Approximately $419,000
16
17 Location
18 • County owned Property on Mincey Road
19 o Police Driving Course
20 o Burn Building with Rappelling Anchors (Residential Design)
21 o Vehicle Training Classroom (Apparatus Bay)
22 • Efland Fire Department Property
23 o Burn Building with Rappelling Anchors (Commercial/Industrial Design)
24 o Pump Operator Test Facility (Tank and Plumbing)
25 o Training Classroom for 50 seats with AV Equipment
26 • Southside of the County near Chapel Hill/Carrboro
27 o Burn Building with Rappelling Anchors (Combination Residential and
28 Commercial)
29 o LP/Natural Gas Fire Trainer
30 o Classroom with seating for 50 with AV Equipment
31 o Fire/EMS Rescue Driving Course
32
33 Access
34 • Construct three separate sites that are geographically located so that travel distance to
35 and from is reduced
36 • Agencies can train together while still maintaining district coverages
37
38 Management
39 • Create a Task Force of BOCC, County Management, Police, Fire, ES to manage the
40 project
41 • Task Force would be responsible for design and construction, management of funding
42 • Create a web site or page on the county web site for scheduling and requesting use of
43 the facilities
44
45 Next Steps?
46 • Further discussion on needs, Logistics, insurance, funding, permitting, etc...
47 • MOU/MOA with Efland for use of their land
48 • Locate property for south side site
8
1 • Open conversations with Alamance Orange, OWASA or Hillsborough for Water Supply
2 depending on site locations
3
4 Chapel Hill Chief Matt Sullivan said there is a law enforcement issue to this topic, and a
5 site such as this would be of value to all the emergency responders of Orange County. He said
6 Durham Tech also has a place at the table in this discussion, since it does the majority of the
7 training.
8 Phillip Nasseri said Durham Tech would not have a training program if not for Chapel
9 Hill's older training facility. He said the relationship with Durham Tech has been bumpy over
10 the years on this topic. He said if Orange County would support this, he felt that Durham Tech
11 would come on board to support a new training facility.
12 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the suggested three-site model and asked if this is
13 the ideal, or is it the most practical option due to size of the county.
14 Jeff Cabe said this is the ideal since other one-site options would make it difficult to for
15 County departments to train together on a regular basis. He said training in one location would
16 leave districts without staff to provide emergency services, or cause a delay in completing the
17 training, as staff would have to travel in groups to be trained. He said ideally the sites would be
18 geographically located in the northeast, central-west and south of the County.
19 Commissioner Price asked if Durham Tech has a burn facility.
20 Jeff Cabe said no, it uses the Durham City Fire Department, where it also runs the
21 academies. He would prefer that Orange County run the proposed training facilities.
22 Sheriff Blackwood said he is supportive of a three-site training facility. He said Durham
23 Tech does not even have showers. He said if a facility is built in Orange County, it should be
24 run and managed by Orange County.
25 Commissioner Jacobs asked Sheriff Blackwood if he has settled on an indoor firing
26 range.
27 Sheriff Blackwood said property is being acquired by a federal seizure in the Cedar
28 Grove area near the Community Center. He said if the land can be acquired, it is 17 acres with
29 many options. He said outside of a firing range, a playground, community garden, classrooms
30 or shelter could be established. He said this land was previously used to sell drugs, and
31 repurposing it for positive use would send a powerful message. He said there would be some
32 cost, but the federal agencies involved are in favor of the idea, and all involved will need to think
33 about how to acquire the land.
34 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the overall capital costs for the training facilities are
35 known.
36 Jeff Cabe said a residential style burning building would cost about $100,000. He said
37 on the commercial side, it would be in the $200,000-$300,000 range, because land would have
38 to be purchased and gas piped in.
39 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the $800,000 capital costs on the PowerPoint slide
40 would cover most of the expenses.
41 Jeff Cabe said yes, especially if property could be donated.
42 Jeff Cabe said he knows EMS is looking to have more space for ambulances, and these
43 proposed training sites would be able to accommodate this.
44 Commissioner Rich asked if the expected income produced by these training sites is
45 known.
46 Jeff Cabe said he does not know at this point, but the infrastructure costs could be
47 determined, and then determine what fees could be charged to others to use the facility.
48 Commissioner Rich asked if the cost to send employees to out of county firing ranges
49 could be shared.
9
1 Sheriff Blackwood said it is about $6,500 per agency per year. He said if a range were
2 to be built, it would be available for citizens to use as well, with an appropriate usage fee being
3 determined.
4 Phillip Nasseri said going to out of county burning facilities, etc., is very expensive.
5 Deputy Chief Matt Lawrence of Chapel Hill said the concrete capital costs are not yet
6 known, but they wanted to propose their priorities. He said in addition to the actual buildings,
7 there would also be site development, security, asphalt, etc.
8 Jeff Cabe said a two 50-person classroom could be added in the proposed training
9 centers and be used by the community.
10 Chair McKee asked if there is a proposed time frame or next steps. He would like to
11 move this conversation forward.
12 Jeff Cabe said Board feedback on this proposal is important to determine if it is even a
13 possibility. He said a task force can work on crunching the numbers, and he hoped to work with
14 the County Manager and Dinah Jeffries.
15 Chair McKee said the best route is to have the Fire Chief's Council put more definitive
16 costs together, with a timeline for further discussion by the Board of County Commissioners.
17 Commissioner Price said she strongly supports the exploration of this proposed idea.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said he would want the Sheriff and Emergency Services to be
19 part of putting the proposal together, before it gets to the Manager. He said he would like to
20 have an order of priorities within the proposal; and questions such as if this would be part of the
21 fire tax or property tax, and who would be included.
22 Chair McKee said if the Council wanted Durham Tech to be involved, it should be invited
23 to work with the Fire Chiefs.
24 Commissioner Burroughs and Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Jacobs.
25 Commissioner Rich asked if the way in which this proposal fits into the annual budget,
26 and its priorities, could also be pursued.
27 Commissioner Price said there may be grant funding available, which can be
28 researched.
29 Jeff Cabe said the process will move forward with these suggestions, with all
30 stakeholders being included.
31 Kirby Saunders gave an update on Hurricane Matthew.
32 The meeting adjourned at 8:39 p.m.
33
34 Earl McKee, Chair
35
36 Donna Baker
37 Clerk to the Board
38
39
40
41
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 Work Session
6 October 6, 2016
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a work session on Thursday, October 6,
11 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, Hillsborough, N.C. immediately following the
12 adjournment of the Joint Meeting with the Fire Chiefs' Council.
13
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
16 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
18 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager Travis
20 Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
21 appropriately below).
22
23 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 8:52 p.m.
24
25 1. Detention Center: Update on Project Schedule and Discussion of Potential Scope
26 Expansion to Include Law Enforcement Center/Sheriff's Offices
27
28 BACKGROUND:
29 After authorizing the Manager to engage Moseley Architects as the designer for the Detention
30 Center project in the summer of 2015, initial project vision planning, comprehensive stakeholder
31 input sessions, the jail population profile, and projections for future growth were conducted in
32 the fall of 2015.
33
34 Subsequent schematic programming and planning activities were halted in the fall of 2015 in
35 order to process an amendment to the County's Ground Lease with the State of North Carolina
36 enabling the County to provide the built detention facility as collateral for standard project debt
37 financing. This amendment was successfully achieved through enabling legislation approved by
38 the State Legislature in the summer of 2016. The County is currently awaiting an executed
39 lease amendment from the State and will fully resume planning and design efforts once this
40 fully executed amendment is returned to the County.
41
42 Based upon the receipt of the executed Lease Agreement Amendment in October 2016, the
43 projected timeline for this project is as follows:
44
Activity Estimated Date Range
BOCC: Construction Manager at October-November, 2016
Risk Award
Schematic and Developmental Fall-Winter, 2016-2017
Design Preparations with Board and
Stakeholder Review/Feedback
2
BOCC: Approval of Final Design, Summer-Fall, 2017
Guaranteed Maximum Price
Permitting, State Review, Fall 2017— Summer 2019
Construction Period (16-20 months)
Occupation Fall-Winter, 2019
1
2 Concurrent to this process, staff was requested to provide information to the Board regarding a
3 potential scope expansion of the project to include the co-location of a Law Enforcement
4 Center/Sheriff's Offices ("LEC") with the proposed Detention Center. Staff proposes that this
5 scope discussion include three options:
6 1) Standalone Detention Center only — This option represents the current project scope
7 as contained in the County's Capital Investment Plan (CIP).
8 2) Detention Center with co-located LEC — This option would construct new
9 administrative office space on the Detention Center site and relocate the Sheriff's
10 administrative offices from the courthouse to the Detention Center.
11 3) Detention Center with infrastructure for future co-located LEC — This option would
12 prepare the Detention Center site and install appropriate utilities and infrastructure for a
13 colocation of the Sheriff's administrative offices on the Detention Center site at some
14 point in the future.
15
16 If the Board of Commissioners authorizes further analysis of these options, staff recommends
17 five evaluation criteria to inform the decision making process. These factors include:
18 1) Cost of Construction
19 2) Staffing (Detention and LEC)
20 3) Operations and Maintenance (Detention and LEC)
21 4) Court operations support and security
22 5) "Backfill" options for potentially vacated spaces within the Justice Facility
23
24 A matrix of general information regarding the three development options as well as comparative
25 topics to be addressed in the Designer's analysis for each of the five decision factors is
26 attached. This will be presented in an effort to encourage Board discussion and feedback to
27 staff.
28 Jeff Thompson, Director of Asset Management Services, made the following PowerPoint
29 presentation:
30
31 Detention Center Update
32 Board of Orange County Commissioners
33 Work Session
34 October 6, 2016
35
36 Purpose
37 • to receive an update on the Detention Center project schedule; and
38 • To discuss and provide feedback to staff regarding a potential project scope expansion
39 to move the existing Sheriff's Office administrative offices from the lower level of the
40 courthouse to a co-located Law Enforcement Center on the new jail site. Court security
41 staff would maintain offices in the courthouse.
42
43 Activities to Date
44 • Extensive stakeholder input
45 • Jail population profile and projections for future growth;
3
1 • Preliminary schematic design and space programming;
2 • Further design work is on hold until the execution of the ground lease amendment;
3 • Staffing study in progress
4
5 General Schedule of Events
6
Activity Estimated Date Range
BOCC: Construction Manager at October-November, 2016
Risk Award
Schematic and Developmental Fall-Winter, 2016-2017
Design Preparations with Board and
Stakeholder Review/Feedback
BOCC: Approval of Final Design, Summer-Fall, 2017
Guaranteed Maximum Price
Permitting, State Review, Fall 2017— Summer 2019
Construction Period (16-20 months)
Occupation Fall-Winter, 2019
7
8 Jeff Thompson said staff is waiting on the execution of the lease from the State, and
9 there is a staffing study for the facility that is in progress.
10 John Roberts said he has contacted the General Counsel for the Department of
11 Administration with the State, seeking help to move things along, but has received no response.
12 He said he will call again next week.
13 Chair McKee said he would contact their Legislative Delegation to try and get this
14 executed.
15 Jeff Thompson reviewed the following information:
16
17 Options and General Information to Assist in Board Discussion
Detention Center Detention Center with Detention Center
Only built, co-located Law with LEC
Enforcement Center infrastructure for
(LEC) future co-location
General Facility Current detention Current LEC facility
Information facility information: information:
Original Constructed/renovation
construction: 1925 : 2009
Capacity: 139 Estimated Project Cost:
Detainees $5MM
Square Footage: Square Footage:
40,227 20,000
Area: 1.4 acres
Design Process Yes No No
Currently
Authorized by
BOCC
Schematic Secure 144 bed Detention Center with Detention Center
Characteristics facility with "core" additional with prepared
infrastructure for estimated 12,000- additional site and
250 bed maximum 18,000 square feet of infrastructure
capacity; LEC space connections for
4
approximately future LECZ
49,500-52,200
square feet of
Detention Center
1
space; 6.8 acre site
Conceptual Project Est. $17.6-$19.9 tbd tbd
"First Cost" million
Estimates
1
Travis Myren reviewed the following information:
Operational Factors Detention Center Detention Center with Detention Center
and needed analysis Only built, co-located Law with LEC
Enforcement Center(LEC) infrastructure for
future co-location
-Construction Cost -Additional first cost and life
cycle impact
-Life cycle cost impacts
-Staffing -Staffing study -Potential staffing impacts on
anticipated Fall 2016 both the spindle and rear
comparing spindle vs. chase designs options.
rear chase design
options.
-Operations and -Significant -Potential Impacts on
Maintenance improvements in efficiencies for both
programming, housing operations and maintenance
conditions, workplace activities.
safety and security, -Potential sustainability
and maintenance of impacts associated with co-
operations equipment. location.
-Additional
improvements
anticipated in facilities
maintenance activities
due to new facility and
modern equipment.
-Court Operations -Court staff -Potential Impacts of co-
Support and Security unchanged. location on opportunity of
-Efficiency Court staff to be housed in
improvements with close proximity within a co-
video-conferencing located facility.
technology within
Court facilities and
detention pods for
Court officials and
detainees.
-Designed multi-
purpose room can
serve as court space.
-"Backfill"options for Analysis of Potential Uses:
vacated LEC facilities -Child Support Services;
-Probation and Parole;
-Public Defender;
-District Attorney;
5
-Justice Resource Office;
1
2
3 Chair McKee said he had talked with some judges, who also indicated a possible desire
4 for space.
5 Travis Myren said all stakeholders would be contacted.
6
7 Recommendations
8 • to receive an update on the Detention Center project schedule;
9 • to discuss and provide feedback to staff regarding a potential project scope expansion
10 to include co-located Law Enforcement Center facilities; and
11 • Should the Board reach a consensus on the project scope expansion, the Manager will
12 sign an amendment with Moseley Architects to analyze the implications of adding a Law
13 Enforcement Center to the current Detention Center project at a cost not to exceed
14 $30,000.
15
16 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the slide with possible co-location and its impacts,
17 and asked if this would be a co-location at the new jail or current Sheriff's space.
18 Travis Myren said the court administration would stay at the courthouse, and he said the
19 co-location questions would be if there are any impacts on court operations by moving the
20 administrative capacity of the Sheriff's office away from the court operations.
21 Commissioner Dorosin said a co-location and an un-colocation would occur, if the
22 change is made.
23 Travis Myren said both options need to be studied to get a balanced view.
24 Sheriff Blackwood said this would not be a wholesale pulling out of the Sheriff's office
25 from the courthouse, and he would like to talk to each Commissioner individually about current
26 operations in the Sheriff's office, and how they would change in a LEC co-location. He
27 reviewed how the operations located at the current court facility would move to the new
28 detention center. He said not having support staff in the new detention center would make
29 managing the inmates more difficult. He said his office would do its best wherever it is located.
30 Commissioner Jacobs asked Travis Myren if there will be a cost analysis done for future
31 co-location.
32 Travis Myren said both options would be studied: the immediately built law enforcement
33 center, and the infrastructure layout for future expansion. He said both could be studied
34 together or separately.
35 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the analysis of potential uses of the Law Enforcement
36 Center, and asked if probation and parole, the magistrate, etc. would also be co-located in the
37 detention facility regardless.
38 Travis Myren said with the current detention facility layout the Magistrates are included,
39 but Probation and Parole are not.
40 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to see some support services, which would
41 benefit from being located near the jail population, included.
42 Sheriff Blackwood said the feedback he is getting from probation and parole is that they
43 are best located in the courthouse.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said he got the opposite information from one of the Judges. He
45 said he also has concern about the Sheriff's office not being in the courthouse.
46 Sheriff Blackwood said his department's work is not in the courthouse, but out in the
47 field.
6
1 Chair McKee said he thought there would be meeting rooms and access for
2 probation/parole to talk with their clients at the detention center, but that the department would
3 not actually be housed there.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said the possibility of meeting facilities, for mental health officials
5 to meet with clients at the new detention center, was also discussed. He said this must be
6 considered wholistically, locating as many services at one site as possible to more effectively
7 serve this population.
8
9 The Board agreed by consensus to direct staff to proceed on the project scope
10 expansion, and approve the Manager to sign an amendment with Moseley Architects to analyze
11 the implications of adding a Law Enforcement Center to the current Detention Center project at
12 a cost not to exceed $30,000.
13
14 Commissioner Dorosin asked Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Pelissier if the
15 Jail Alternatives group is in favor of locating the Sheriff's Office at the new Detention Center.
16 Commissioner Pelissier said space issues were not discussed at the Criminal Justice
17 Advisory Council, but the Judges wanted a space-needs study completed. She said she
18 thought such a study would address this.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said spacing was discussed pertaining to reducing the size of the
20 overall facility, as related to the prisoners. He said when Sheriff Blackwood joined the group,
21 this issue had already been discussed, and the moving of the Sheriff's Office did not come up
22 until much later.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said he and Commissioner Pelissier did talk to Jeff Thompson
24 about the interacting components and how they may work, which is when he started hearing
25 from the Judges, and when Sheriff Blackwood came up with a different scenario about moving
26 the Sheriff's Office.
27 Chair McKee said he had the opportunity to talk to two Judges who said if the detention
28 center was built, and the Sheriff's Office moved, there would be more space in the court for the
29 court activities. He said the Judges were not promoting the removal of the Sheriff's Office, but if
30 space were available in the courthouse, they would be interested.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said he assumed the old jail, and how to use it, will be addressed.
32 Bonnie Hammersley said staff met with the Town of Hillsborough to begin this
33 discussion and will be bring this item back at a later time.
34
35 2. Discussion of Body-Worn Cameras
36
37 BACKGROUND:
38 At the May 5, 2016 Board of Orange County Commissioners meeting, Commissioner Mark
39 Dorosin submitted a petition requesting that the Board discuss, with Orange County Sheriff
40 Charles S. Blackwood, adopting a policy to institute the use of body-worn cameras by Deputies.
41 Body-worn camera usage is a topic that has been in the national spotlight in recent years due to
42 officer-involved shootings. Although believed to be a panacea for reducing distrust of law
43 enforcement and incidents of unnecessary use of force, the use of body-worn cameras is
44 surrounded by a number of outstanding questions. Unfortunately, little research exists to assist
45 law enforcement leaders to decide whether to join a growing minority of agencies that are
46 implementing use of body-worn cameras.
47
48 Commissioner Dorosin said this has become a critical issue in our society as of late, and
49 there were some discussions about a year ago at the Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood
7
1 Association (RENA) center about community and police relations. He said as these
2 conversations continue this issue of body cameras keeps coming up.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said Carrboro was about to adopt a body camera policy, but a
4 state law was passed, which has not completely pre-empted the use of body cameras, but has
5 put some limitations on the use.
6 Commissioner Dorosin said the first step is to have a philosophical discussion about the
7 value of having body cameras as pertains to what takes place between law enforcement and
8 citizens. He said he would like to pursue the issue of wearing body cameras, and he is
9 interested in the Sheriff's opinion, and how the State law impacts this analysis.
10 Sheriff Blackwood said he is aware of what is going on in many communities, and, in
11 large part, the community that would benefit from increased trust is not the community that
12 causes the uproar when shootings occur. He said his philosophical approach to this topic is
13 based in Graham v. Conner, which happened in Charlotte, NC. He said this case guaranteed
14 that an officer will be judged by the "officer-on-the-scene" standard and not 20/20 hindsight,
15 with the reasonable objectiveness that the officer has to make split decisions where
16 circumstances are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving. He said this perspective evaporates
17 when a camera comes into play, as it allows for 20/20 hindsight. He said this discussion has
18 gone up and down with sheriffs all over the State. He said he does not have the answer to
19 what should be done. He said the legislation was poorly written, despite having been drafted by
20 two former members of law enforcement, but it is a starting point. He said if the shooting in
21 Charlotte had happened today the video would not be released, due to the new State law. He
22 said this is weighing heavy on him. He said in order to do this right the County should wait to
23 see the final legislation on body cams. He said the cost of the equipment is becoming more
24 affordable, but the cost for storage is huge.
25 Sheriff Blackwood said he wanted to do the right thing with body cameras, and the
26 purchase and use of them.
27 Chair McKee asked if the Sheriff's office has any equipment now.
28 Sheriff Blackwood said there are in-car video cameras, and if the Board funds one, then
29 it should fund both cameras. He said the two cameras do different jobs, and to get the best
30 footage both cameras must be present.
31 He said his department is blessed to be in Orange County, and they are one of the only
32 Departments in the State that has standards in place for their deputies.
33 Sheriff Blackwood said he is not ready to accept body cameras yet, but he will continue
34 to talk and work with the BOCC.
35 Chair McKee asked if the in-car cameras are forward or forward and rear looking, and if
36 the body cameras are on the vest.
37 Sheriff Blackwood said there are many configurations, and the body camera can be on
38 the eyepiece, which is the most optimal location for a body camera. He said the car cameras
39 are forward looking, but can also view someone being transported in the back of a vehicle.
40 Commissioner Burroughs said she wanted to know more about costs.
41 Sheriff Blackwood said the costs of the cameras are between $20 and $60 each, with
42 packaging including 5-year warranties and replacement cameras. He said 20 cameras would
43 be $44,588, and 60 cameras would be $134,660.
44 Sheriff Blackwood said unlimited cloud is very expensive, with a retention schedule from
45 30 days up to 20 years. He said the Sheriff Association is undecided as to whether the State
46 should be allowed to set standards regarding the issue of equipment. He said this is not done
47 with firearms, uniforms, cars, etc.
48 Sheriff Blackwood said the camera issue is a big one, and the legislation has to be re-
49 written.
50 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the retention timeframes are best practices only.
8
1 Sheriff Blackwood said yes. He said the cost for unlimited cloud for 20 cameras, for one
2 year would be $105,800, and for 60 cameras would be $315,560.
3 Commissioner Burroughs said the first year would be about $500,000, and the most
4 costs come with the storage.
5 Sheriff Blackwood said yes.
6 Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Sheriff for sharing his honest thoughts. He said the
7 issue of cost is more troubling than the actual concept of the body cameras, and it is probably
8 too late since the public will expect law enforcement to have body cameras.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said he would encourage the Sheriff to think this through, but he
10 believes it is likely unavoidable.
11 Sheriff Blackwood said he knows the legislation will probably require body cameras.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said long term it will be to the benefit for law enforcement to have
13 body cameras.
14 Sheriff Blackwood said there are more reasons to have them than not.
15 Commissioner Pelissier asked if anything else is being considered to build and/or keep
16 trust between the community and law enforcement.
17 Sheriff Blackwood said that is the purpose of the community discussions.
18 Commissioner Rich said she is conflicted with the General Assembly saying what can
19 and cannot be done.
20 Sheriff Blackwood said the mechanism is there to have footage released, it just requires
21 a court order.
22 Commissioner Rich said if and when cameras are used, she wanted to make sure the
23 best equipment is secured.
24 Commissioner Price said she respected the Sheriff and his point of view, but there is
25 always the potential for an officer(s) that probably should never have been hired. She said for
26 the safety of citizens, and to protect their own officers, body cameras are needed.
27 Commissioner Dorosin said this is a national issue of trust/distrust. He said it is critical
28 to have body cameras/video as another evidentiary tool. He said there is a racial component to
29 this discussion as well. He wanted to know if it is the will of this Board to have these cameras,
30 and what needs to be done to address the Sheriff's concerns.
31 Sheriff Blackwood said he would like the BOCC to commit to him that his department
32 will not have to give up the car cameras, that each officer receives a body camera, and that he
33 will not get crucified if he does not release a video, per the legislation.
34 Commissioner Dorosin said these requests seem eminently reasonable to him.
35 Commissioner Burroughs said she felt that costs should not be a barrier to purchasing
36 and implementing body cameras. She is in favor of moving forward.
37 Commissioner Rich said as the issue moves forward, she asked Sheriff Blackwood to
38 continue to share his concerns if any come up. She said there must be mutual trust.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said he supported the conversation thus far, and he suggested
40 the Sheriff come back with a more concrete cost proposal.
41 Sheriff Blackwood said he has reached out to other sheriffs and has been in touch with
42 vendors.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said with the issue of releasing videos, they should come up with
44 a policy together on this topic, if the law remains the same. He said the Board may want the
45 Sheriff to request a Judge's permission to release a video. He said the Sheriff has more
46 knowledge than any attorney about law enforcement.
47 Commissioner Price said it is important that all understand she is coming from a
48 different perspective. She said she has been stopped for walking twice in Orange County, and
49 once in Charlotte. She said something needs to be done, and the body cameras will help. She
50 is supportive of the usage of these sooner rather than later.
9
1 Chair McKee asked if Sheriff Blackwood would work with management about pricing,
2 and get figures back to the BOCC to make a decision with him, not for him.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said the hour is late.
4
5 3. Written Consent to Search Requirement for Law Enforcement
6
7 BACKGROUND:
8 At the September 6, 2016 Board of Commissioners' ("BOCC") meeting, Commissioner Mark
9 Dorosin submitted a petition that the topic of written consent to search be discussed at an
10 upcoming BOCC work session. Some law enforcement agencies in North Carolina, including
11 the Durham, Greensboro, and Fayetteville Police Departments have adopted policies requiring
12 police to obtain written consent to search. Both federal and State law, however, allow consent
13 to be provided in writing, orally, or by other means, as long as the expression of consent
14 communicates its meaning clearly.
15 Proponents of requiring use of written consent to search forms assert that this measure is
16 necessary given statistics that seem to indicate that minorities are disproportionately more likely
17 to be stopped and searched than white drivers. Meanwhile, concern has been voiced from law
18 enforcement that such a requirement would negatively affect their ability to engage in efforts to
19 combat crime and ensure public safety.
20
21 Commissioner Dorosin said this is an important tool they should adopt. He said this
22 goes a long way to building trust and a tool in the service of law enforcement. He urged the
23 Sheriff's Department to adopt this and his peers to support it.
24 Sheriff Blackwood said written consent to search was used in the 1980s, but it went
25 away because attorneys started instructing law enforcement that written or verbal consent can
26 be used to search, as long as the consent was clear. He talked to retired law enforcement, who
27 said they would feel less safe if this was implemented.
28 He said he would not adopt the policy, but when feasible, he would require his deputies
29 to use the written consent form. He said if this practice is abused, there will be camera records
30 to show it. He said if there are complaints to searches, he would address them.
31 Chair McKee asked Commissioner Dorosin if there is probable cause to search, then
32 the written consent is not used, or necessary.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said the written consent is for when there is not probable cause
34 to search.
35 Jennifer Galassi, Legal Advisor to the Sheriff's Office, said that is not necessarily always
36 the case, as sometimes written consent is received even when there is probable cause. She
37 said getting the consent facilitates law enforcement's ability to things more expeditiously. She
38 said if consent is received, the interaction tends to be more cooperative. She said law
39 enforcement does not have to inform the person in question that there is the right to give written
40 consent, and the prosecution does not have to prove the person in question knew that written
41 consent existed.
42 Commissioner Dorosin said if people know they can say no, they will say no, and while
43 the right exists, law enforcement does not want them to say no. He feels law enforcement
44 should inform the person in question that they can give written consent or refuse the search.
45 Jennifer Galassi said there is a notion that the idea of consent is being substituted for
46 the idea of reasonableness, which is the touchstone of the fourth amendment.
47 Commissioner Jacobs asked if one does not give consent, can an officer say there is
48 probable cause to search, or does the refusal to consent halt the interaction.
49 Jennifer Galassi said if there is truly no probable cause, then yes the interaction should
50 end upon refusal to consent.
10
1 Commissioner Jacobs said watching TV and movies have polluted his view of all of this.
2 He said the question for him is how well do people know their rights, and how obligated is law
3 enforcement to inform them.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said this is a more difficult issue than the body cameras for him.
5 He told Commissioner Dorosin that he appreciated the topic being brought up and suggested
6 re-visiting this. He said he thought body cameras would help, and would like to check back with
7 the Sheriff to see how his proposed practice is working. He would also like to hear updates
8 from those working in the civil rights movement.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said he wanted to respect the Sheriff's prerogatives and his staff.
10 Sheriff Blackwood said he will provide the BOCC with a breakdown of the searches that
11 have consent and those that do not.
12 Chair McKee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs.
13 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board should review the data from Bumgarner and have
14 this discussion.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said to ask Sheriff to analyze the stops.
16 Sheriff Blackwood said they met with Mr. Bumgarner to ask him to analyze their
17 searches since Sheriff Blackwood has been in office, as well as searches broken down by
18 officer. He said the collection of data is confusing and complicated.
19 Jennifer Galassi presented the data from the period of two years prior to December
20 2014, and the 20 months since then.
21 Commissioner Rich asked if this data should be weighted due to the larger white
22 population, as compared to the black population.
23 Jennifer Galassi said that is difficult because the people being ticketed are not even
24 residents.
25 Sheriff Blackwood said they are trying to correlate better data sets to be collected,
26 including where people live, the race of the officer, etc. He said they have been challenged to
27 come up with four categories to check, which are currently not being checked. He said these
28 are interesting numbers, but this is not indicative of what is really going on, as all stops do not
29 require documentation. He would support changing this practice, and collecting data on every
30 interaction: who was stopped, why they were stopped, what was the outcome, was there a bias
31 involved in the stop, etc.
32 Commissioner Jacobs asked if data for Hispanics could be collected as well.
33 Chair McKee said this all boils down to having trust in the Orange County Sheriff's
34 office, and he does trust them.
35 Commissioner Jacobs suggested bringing this information back at the February 16th
36 work session.
37 Sheriff Blackwood said he does care about civil liberties, and his department has to use
38 the law that is given to it, and keep working together towards a better place.
39
40 The meeting was adjourned at 10:47 p.m.
41
42 Earl McKee, Chair
43
44 Donna Baker
45 Clerk to the Board
46
47
1
1 Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
4 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
5 JOINT MEETING
6 October 13, 2016
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a joint meeting with the Town of
9 Carrboro Aldermen on Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human
10 Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Mia
13 Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Price
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Lydia Lavelle and
20 Aldermen Bethany Chaney, Randee Haven-O'Donnell, Michelle Johnson, Damon Seils, Sammy
21 Slade, Jacquelyn Gist, and David Andrews, Town Manager
22 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT:
23
24
25 Welcome/Introductions and Opening Remarks
26 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
27 Chair McKee said Commissioner Price would not be able to attend tonight.
28 Chair McKee gave recognition to Orange County Emergency Services for their efforts
29 during Hurricane Matthew.
30 Mayor Lavelle echoed Chair McKee's words.
31
32 1. Economic Development
33 a) Development of Old NC Highway 86 Property Owned by the Town of Carrboro for
34 Affordable Commercial Space
35
36 Carrboro's Planning Director, Trish McGuire, presented this item. She showed a map of
37 the area being discussed this evening, and reviewed the following background information:
38
39 BACKGROUND:
40 The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an opportunity for the Boards to discuss possible
41 development of Town-owned property located on Old NC Highway 86 for affordable commercial
42 space.
43
44 Trish McGuire said affordable space for flex warehouse/light manufacturing is very limited in
45 Carrboro; therefore the Carrboro Board of Aldermen directed staff to identify opportunities to lift
46 barriers to developing this type of space. Availability and cost of land are limiting factors
47 affecting commercial development and the town's ability to attract or retain light manufacturing
48 businesses. The Town of Carrboro is seeking input from the Orange County Board of
49 Commissioners on developing a Request for Proposals (RFP) to invite proposals for developing
2
1 Town-owned property located on Old NC 86 as an affordable, light manufacturing commercial
2 park.
3
4 Trish McGuire said the property, located across from the Twin Creeks park property, was
5 originally purchased by the town in 2001 to be used for a new public works facility. In response
6 to the Board of Aldermen's interest in expanding opportunities for flex/light manufacturing
7 commercial space, staff has begun studying the property for this alternative use. Preliminary
8 study reveals a building program of approximately 90,000 square feet of warehouse/flex
9 commercial space is possible. The site plan illustrates four (4) 20,000 square feet buildings and
10 the possibility of two or more, smaller 5,000 to 10,000 sq. ft. building footprints. The
11 improvements would be taxable assets with an estimated tax value of$9,000,000, which would
12 result in approximately $79,020 in annual County property tax revenues, $18,756 for the Chapel
13 Hill/Carrboro City School district and $53,046 in town revenues upon annexation into the Town
14 limits.
15
16 The Town is seeking input from the BOCC on development parameters that can be included in
17 a Request for Proposals (RFP). This input will be included in the development of site design
18 criteria and building design elements, required square footage, ownership and leasing terms,
19 including rent controls and other provisions.
20
21 Trish McGuire said the process for gathering input from neighboring property owners is in
22 preparation. The 22 acre parcel is currently zoned RR, Rural Residential, and would need to be
23 rezoned for low impact commercial uses that generate little or no customer trips.
24 The concept is for the town to retain ownership and lease the land to a developer who would
25 construct the project and lease the buildings for a defined period (e.g. 2 to 30 years). The
26 primary goal is to keep the project affordable and therefore capable of attracting and retaining
27 local manufacturers, service providers, craftspeople and artisans.
28
29 She said other elements to be included in an RFP would focus on preserving the feel and
30 character of the property with careful thought be given to the aesthetic and the rural nature of
31 the area. Buildings should have a rural character as illustrated in Attachment la-2. The existing
32 house on the front of the property could be preserved and used as a small retail location, to
33 provide employees and local residents with basic staple groceries and some prepared food.
34
35 As envisioned, the project would require public water and sewer which are available south of
36 this property near Lake Hogan Farms, and a turning lane to accommodate turning traffic which
37 should include employees, services vehicles, and delivery trucks only. The preliminary
38 estimated cost of these improvements is $1,000,000. This cost may be an opportunity for an
39 Orange County—Town of Carrboro collaboration on an economic development initiative.
40 Orange County's role in this proposal would be related to the Joint Planning Area Agreement
41 which includes a review and approval mechanism for a change in zoning. In addition, the
42 Northern Transition Advisory Board would review the proposal. The County would also be
43 responsible for considering a request from the town to partner on utility extensions and
44 infrastructure improvements.
45
46 Mayor Lavelle said this agenda item, and the next, are efforts by the Town to retain
47 these types of commercial sites outside of the Town limits, as they are priced out of being
48 within the Town limits.
49 Alderman Gist said the abstract does not mention social justice impacts, but they do
50 exist with this proposed project. She said the new buildings in downtown Carrboro are too
3
1 expensive for the locals to purchase or lease, and this site provides affordable small business
2 space.
3
4 Alderman Slade echoed Alderman Gist's sentiments. He said this project also serves as
5 a counterpoint to how economic development has always been done, and this is a way to
6 support home grown, locally owned businesses, as opposed to bigger or national businesses.
7 He encouraged the County to help support this type of economic development.
8 Alderman Haven O'Donnell said she agreed with both Aldermen. She said Carrboro has
9 always been a service-oriented economy. She said locals have to flee to outside areas,
10 because they cannot afford downtown Carrboro.
11 Commissioner Dorosin said this is an exciting proposal.
12 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the map at the Commissioners' places, and said
13 there is water and sewer going north of this site. He asked if it is known how far these lines go.
14 Trish McGuire said the water line goes to Hillsborough, and the sewer line goes up to
15 Morris Grove Elementary School.
16 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the proposed commercial park, which would be home
17 to businesses with little traffic, other than employees. He said Old Highway 86 has traffic
18 anyway, and he would not feel as constrained with expanding economic development in this
19 area, as he might in others.
20 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the house in the area, which is intended for
21 preservation, and asked if the condition of it is known.
22 Trish McGuire said it is still in good enough condition that it could be renovated, but it
23 has not been occupied for a number of years.
24 Alderman Seils said there are other things occurring in that general area that is allowing
25 for some commercial development. He asked if Trish McGuire could explain what kind of re-
26 zoning would have been required if a public works facility had been pursued on this property.
27 Trish McGuire said public works is a Town owned and operated facility, and is a
28 permissible use in the RR zoning district. She said she is fairly certain this would not require
29 any rezoning.
30 Alderman Seils asked if rezoning would be required for something like the proposed
31 commercial park.
32 Trish McGuire said one of the zoning districts that was created for the northern study
33 area plan implementation is an office assembly zoning district. She said up to 10% could be
34 retail, but it is intended as a light manufacturing and office type of use.
35 Commissioner Rich asked if this piece of property is now part of Carrboro, or does it
36 have to be annexed.
37 Trish McGuire said it is not in the Town limits at the present time, but it is in the Town's
38 planning jurisdiction and the Town would expect annexation.
39 Commissioner Pelissier asked if details have been fleshed out as to how to make, and
40 keep, this flex space affordable.
41 Trish McGuire said this information can be provided to the Board.
42 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the types of light manufacturing that would be allowed
43 there have been discussed.
44 Mayor Lavelle said a general discussion has occurred. She said an artisan component
45 has been suggested for this project as well. She said this will be fleshed out with the RFP.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said he applauded this idea, but he has some concerns regarding
47 land use and cost benefit. He said a long-range plan for this area has not been presented. He
48 said the described proposal may not warrant water and sewer, and spending $1 million of
49 County funds to provide it to this project may not be necessary. He said if water and sewer
50 were to be provided, it would open the gates to all kinds of other development. He would like
4
1 to know the land use plan before he endorsed this project, and he would like Orange County
2 Economic Development Director Steve Brantley to do a cost benefit analysis. He suggested
3 that well and septic be considered before spending $1 million.
4 Alderman Chaney said Commissioner Jacobs' concerns are reasonable and should be
5 discussed. She said when an RFP is developed, the amount of water needed can be
6 determined. She said this is an opportunity for the Town and the County to collaborate. She
7 said collective local food strategies could be considered for a collaborative effort, such as
8 additional cold storage or food hub, commercial kitchens, etc. She said there are also
9 cooperative opportunities such as the woodworkers or metal workers of Orange County.
10 Commissioner Jacobs seconded Alderman Chaney's comments. He said the next
11 agenda item is a collaborative effort for three governmental entities. He suggested another
12 possibility for this area could be modalities.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a huge demand for flex space in Orange County,
14 and he applauded the Town for bringing this forth. He asked if a bit more work could be done
15 together before this goes to an RFP. He would like to see how this fits into long range planning
16 and consider the alternatives for waste water and water, as well as costs, etc.
17 Commissioner Rich said she would like to visit this property site and would also like a
18 map of the zoning in this area.
19 Alderman Gist said she understands wanting to consider well and septic, but she is
20 skeptical about looking at a long-range plan, since it would delay the process. She said a small
21 area plan already exists. She said the Town wants to make sure this project does not
22 negatively impact this area.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said he was not proposing a new plan, but wanted to see the plan
24 that currently exists. He said the aspect of water and sewer has a huge impact on other
25 parcels, and if it was not needed, then this area would not blow up as much with development.
26 Alderman Seils asked if staff could provide the Board of County Commissioners with the
27 Northern Study Area Small Area Plan and the Joint Planning Area Land Use Plan, pointing out
28 the sections of that plan that would speak to this kind of development, as well as the
29 surrounding land uses.
30 Mayor Lavelle said in lieu of an organized field trip, if anyone wanted to see the land,
31 just call her up and she will show them around.
32 Commissioner Burroughs asked if anyone could explain the small area plan tonight.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said he is reluctant to put everything to a cost benefit analysis.
34 He does want to look at the overall costs, but many benefits are not quantifiable.
35 Alderman Slade said he agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. He said, beyond the plan
36 for that area, the Town also has a plan to support locally owned businesses, which can be more
37 economically beneficial simply because they are local.
38 Chair McKee asked if rent control can be defined as relates to affordability.
39 Alderman Gist said the Town is not talking about what Chair McKee may fear. He said
40 the Town owns the land, which allows costs to be kept down. She said the Town wants the
41 savings passed on to the businesses, much like the Community Home Trust model.
42 Alderman Chaney said this rent control concept does need to be defined.
43 Chair McKee said when rent control is mentioned the New York City example
44 immediately comes to mind. He said he hopes there will be opportunities in the future to
45 incentivize businesses, and definitions will be important.
46 Trish McGuire pulled up a map of the northern part of Carrboro's jurisdiction. She said
47 there is a small area planning document that applies to this area. She described the
48 surrounding area and land use plan.
49 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the relationship between Transition areas 1 and 2 could
50 be explained.
5
1 Trish McGuire said the rezoning of area 2 is not to occur until transition area 1 has
2 reached 75% build out, per a number of criteria, which are spelled out in the plan.
3 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Trish McGuire could identify where in that process the
4 areas currently stand.
5 Trish McGuire said these calculations are being worked on currently.
6 Chair McKee said this is an interesting idea, and he likes the focus on local businesses.
7 He said he does not need specific answers tonight, but he does have some concerns. He
8 asked if the 90,000 square foot building is the maximum foot print build for this property.
9 Trish McGuire said that is the maximum for a single level building, with the possibility of
10 a bit more space through a mezzanine level, or something similar.
11 Chair McKee said if a commercial site is going to be built here, he would like it to be the
12 maximum size.
13 Chair McKee asked if the proposal is to build a shell to rent, which would be outfitted by
14 the renter to suit their needs; or is the proposal to build out to the maximum level. He said a
15 building shell would only cost around $100,000, and even with five buildings the total would be
16 far less than $9 million.
17 Trish McGuire said the concept was that the development would be done by a private
18 entity instead of the Town, but she would check on this.
19 Chair McKee said the land would remain in the ownership of the Town, which would
20 provide no tax benefit at all. He said the buildings would be a leasehold improvement to the
21 land, and he read a 30-year term is proposed for the lease. He said he would like to know what
22 would happen after the 30-year lease. He said he keeps coming back to the revenues, as they
23 may have to defend the use of economic development monies for this on Highway 86. He
24 agreed with Commissioner Jacobs about the use of water and sewer, and the development it
25 may open up.
26 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Chair McKee, and that is why he keeps saying to do
27 a cost analysis of this proposal to determine if this is a wise investment.
28 Commissioner Jacobs suggested not calling this an industrial park, to make it more
29 user-friendly for this community.
30 Commissioner Rich said having a copy of the Northern Transition Area (NTA) plan
31 would help all of them to understand this area.
32 Alderman Gist said she went to Boulder, CO several years ago, and while there were
33 lovely amenities, there was no middle class present. She said Carrboro and the County are
34 being gentrified in the same way, and this is a chance to provide real living wages and space
35 for those who make a living with their hands.
36 Chair McKee said there was still no middle class in Boulder on their recent trip there.
37 Chair McKee said the County's zoning regulations have a great, but limiting, benefit.
38 Alderman Chaney said she is not opposed to the cost benefit analysis, but she is
39 opposed to doing it based only on current assumptions. She said it is useful in understanding
40 potential dynamics, and in creating a plan, but may cause potential benefits of the project to be
41 missed if such an analysis were to be weighed too heavily. She said it is a tool, but not an up
42 or down decision-making tool.
43
44 b) NC Highway 54 West— Commercial Potential and Challenges
45
46 The purpose of this agenda item is to provide an opportunity for the Board of Aldermen and the
47 Board of County Commissioners to discuss the Town's interest in extending its extraterritorial
48 jurisdiction to encompass the entirety of five lots along NC Highway 54 West, the jurisdiction
49 and zoning of which are currently split between the Town and County.
50
6
1 Trish McGuire presented several maps via PowerPoint. She reviewed the following
2 information:
3
4 Carrboro town staff along with County staff have been studying opportunities for development in
5 the NC Hwy 54 West corridor within Carrboro's extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) since this is one
6 of the few areas in or near the Town that are zoned for light manufacturing. Most of the
7 properties on the north side of Hwy 54 are split by Town and County jurisdictional boundaries.
8 Real estate professionals have indicated that this can be a barrier to development by potential
9 buyers of commercial properties.
10
11 The zoning of these parcels is also split with the portions in Carrboro's ETJ zoned Watershed
12 Manufacturing (WM-3) and the portions in County jurisdiction zoned Rural Buffer (RB). With
13 such disparate zoning and the associated limitations on impervious surface area in the
14 University Lake watershed, the development potential of these parcels is limited. Most of the
15 neighboring parcels split by the jurisdictional boundary in this area are zoned RB and WR
16 (Watershed Residential), zoning which mostly allows the same type and amount of
17 development activity to occur in either jurisdiction. Currently on these five properties, all aspects
18 of a commercial, manufacturing development have to be contained on the portion of the parcel
19 that lies within Carrboro's ETJ —about half of each lot.
20
21 The Town has received several inquiries about redevelopment opportunities for one of the
22 parcels. Another property owner has discussed with staff challenges associated with the
23 conditions described above. The complications associated with the split jurisdiction and zoning
24 have apparently proved to be a deterrent to the submittal of formal applications. The Board of
25 Aldermen has discussed the benefits of uniform jurisdiction and zoning for these parcels, which
26 could be achieved by an extension of the Town's ETJ to cover the parcels in full or by
27 encouraging owners to request voluntary annexation into the Town limits and is seeking the
28 Board of County Commissioners' perspective.
29
30 Information letters have been sent to the affected property owners regarding possible extension
31 of the Town's ETJ. The initial feedback from property owners is they would like to see an
32 expansion of existing uses that are allowed in the town's WM3 zoning district. Town staff will be
33 reviewing this for a possible land use ordinance amendment.
34
35 Expansion of the town's ETJ will require approval from the County Board of Commissioners.
36 The state statutes describe the procedural requirements that apply to the County and municipal
37 governments. These requirements are summarized below, with notes indicating which party has
38 responsibility for the action:
39
40 1. Extraterritorial area must be set by an ordinance adopted by the city governing board.
41 Newspaper notice, mailed notice and public hearing requirements apply (Town).
42 2. Approval of a request for the extension into any area where the county is enforcing
43 zoning, subdivision regulations, and the building code (County and Town).
44 3. Approvals, requests or agreements must be established by a formally adopted
45 resolution of the governing board (County and Town).
46 4. Adopted boundary map must be recorded with the register of deeds and the map
47 maintained permanently in the office of the city clerk (County and Town).
48 5. New zoning designation(s) must be applied to ETJ (Town)following procedures for
49 zoning amendments. The statues provide for a sixty-day transition period, during which
50 prior county zoning remains in place and enforceable.
7
1 6. Membership of planning board and board of adjustment must include ETJ
2 representation (Town). Appointments to ETJ seats on municipal boards are made by the
3 board of county commissioners.
4
5 No specific requirements or standards for county approval or disapproval are included, other
6 than the need for County approval to be secured at any time before the effective date of
7 adoption or amendment of the extraterritorial ordinance. The Board of County Commissioners
8 held a work session in November 2014 to consider establishing a process for reviewing ETJ
9 extension requests. The most recent release/expansion of extraterritorial jurisdiction occurred in
10 December 2014 when the Board of County Commissioners approved a request from the Town
11 of Chapel Hill to exercise ETJ authority over 1,033 acres in and around the Rogers
12 Road area of what was formerly Joint Planning Transition Area.
13
14 Courtesy review by the Orange County Planning Board did occur in conjunction with that
15 request and approval.
16
17 Orange County's role would relate to:
18 1. Expansion of ETJ
19 2. Amendment to JPA Rural Land Use Classification Boundary
20
21 Although estimates are difficult without knowledge of specific supply, demand, needs of the
22 business, one could project the need for water storage capacity and pressure to support
23 sprinkler systems for many non-residential uses. This could entail a water study to determine if
24 public or private systems are better suited for fire suppression. Accordingly cost estimates vary
25 widely from $300,000 to amounts more conservative. From a public sewer perspective, again
26 depending on the relative water and sewer needs, analysis for the existing sewer system
27 including the sewage lift station would have to be conducted. These properties could possibly
28 flow by gravity if a jack and bore sewer line was installed under Highway 54. The partial cost of
29 this sewer extension would approximate $125,000. Additional cost would also be anticipated
30 regarding the existing lift station operation.
31
32 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a reason why zoning lines were drawn down
33 these properties, thus splitting them. He said this should be fixed.
34 Trish McGuire said this was done prior to 1966.
35 Mayor Lavelle asked if there are any comments.
36 Alderman Slade agreed with Commissioner Dorosin about possibly changing the zoning.
37 Mayor Lavelle asked if any of the feedback from property owners warranted sharing.
38 Trish McGuire said the main take away is to look at tweaking the zoning to allow more
39 uses.
40 Alderman Seils said that suggestion from the property owners is a separate question
41 than the question before them of reconciling the boundaries.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said if the property owners agree, then rectify the issue.
43 Alderman Chaney said it would be better to fix problems wholesale rather than
44 piecemeal. She said more opportunity is created, and cost reduced to the owners, if this is
45 fixed.
46 Mayor Lavelle said there are five properties on one side of Highway 54 and asked how
47 big the project would be if both sides of Highway 54 were rectified.
48 Trish McGuire said maybe 30 properties.
49 Chair McKee said if five properties are going to be addressed, then the whole area
50 should be addressed at the same time.
8
1 Damon Seils said he would not want the goal of fixing the whole pie to slow down the
2 immediate need of fixing the five specific properties.
3 Alderman Chaney asked if it is that much more complicated to look at the whole area.
4 Trish McGuire said it is just a matter of finding all the areas that have split zoning, and it
5 should not be terribly cumbersome.
6 Mayor Lavelle said she does not want to do anything to delay the five properties, but it
7 makes sense to take care of the entire area. She said if staff can do it via a phasing process,
8 this would be acceptable, as long as the issue does not get bogged down.
9 Mayor Lavelle said Carrboro staff will communicate with Orange County staff to look at
10 timeline options, and to do it as expeditiously as possible.
11 Alderman Gist asked if there are any unintended consequences of moving from one
12 zone to another.
13 Alderman Seils said affected residents would get a letter that explains the planning
14 jurisdiction changes, and the tax jurisdiction would not change.
15 Trish McGuire said there would be some decision points to address by staff before
16 notifying residents.
17 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said the focus should be on the
18 commercial node area at this time, and results for the other areas can be achieved later.
19 Trish McGuire said a point of difference between the two jurisdictions is the issue of
20 voting representation among ETJ members.
21 Chair McKee said to focus on the five properties first, with the intent to look at the other
22 properties and corridor in the second phase.
23 Commissioner Dorosin said the whole corridor should be done at one time.
24 Alderman Seils said staff needs to determine how complex it is to do it all at once. He
25 said if it is straightforward, then it should be done at the same time.
26
27 2. Greene Tract— Current Situation and Future Uses
28
29 Craig Benedict showed a context map via a PowerPoint presentation, and reviewed the
30 following information:
31
32 The Greene Tract (164 acres)was acquired in 1984 for $608,000 and came to Orange County
33 as an asset in the Solid Waste Fund. The 1998 Interlocal Solid Waste Agreement and
34 amended April 12, 2000 provided for the three owning partners to determine, over a two-year
35 period, the ultimate disposition of the remaining 104 jointly held acres. The Agreement further
36 included a repayment mechanism to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. The financial
37 reimbursement to the Solid Was Fund began on July 1, 2008.
38
39 This link—
40 http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=27031&dbid=0
41 — provides a history of the Greene Tract from 1999 through 2008 which is a compendium of
42 various reports and studies which was presented at a `Joint Greene Tract Work Session' on
43 April 29, 2008 and at an Assembly of Governments meeting on December 6, 2012. Attachment
44 2a provides information regarding the last action taken by the Board of County Commissioners
45 (BOCC) on December 10, 2002. Although there has been considerable discussion about the
46 future of the Greene Tract, no action has been taken by the BOCC since 2002. Although not
47 specific to the Greene Tract, multiple Historic Rogers Road Area (HRRA) small area studies
48 and planning efforts have been conducted by the local governments over the last 15 years.
49
9
1 More recently, the HRRA staff workgroup has been reviewing and developing two new
2 initiatives:
3 1) The Community First planning program (Rogers Road Eubanks Neighborhood
4 Association (RENA) and the Jackson Center) hired by the joint governments.
5 2) Multi-Jurisdiction Technical Environmental Scan of the Greene Tract. All aspects are
6 being researched and updated and maybe ready for a joint meeting in the fall.
7
8 Over the years there have been many options (based on various studies) discussed as a
9 possible future use of the 104 acres jointly owned by Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro.
10 Listed below are the options that have been explored:
11 1) Joint Affordable Housing could be planned for 18.1 acres and the remaining 85.9 acres
12 would remain join open space.
13 2) The 104 acre tract should remain as open space to be protected by conservation
14 easements.
15 3) The acreage for affordable housing could be placed in the Land Trust.
16 4) Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools requested that part of the Greene Tract be reserved for
17 a future elementary school site. An approximate 11-acre area south of the 18 Affordable
18 Housing site was considered.
19 5) Rename the property to recognize the headwaters of Bolin Creek, Booker Creek and Old
20 Field Creek.
21
22 As a result of the Inter Local Agreement, 60 acres of the Greene Tract was conveyed to
23 Orange County for"Solid Waste management purposes". Utility design and extension to the
24 Rogers Road area is in progress.
25
26 Commissioner Jacobs said the plan for the 60 acres is to leave it as undisturbed natural
27 habitat with low intensity recreation purposes.
28 Alderman Seils asked if this decision will be made formal.
29 Chair McKee said the County would like to move toward a formal agreement with the
30 Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro regarding what will happen with the Greene Tract, and
31 whether the Towns will retain ownership or wish the County to take over ownership.
32 Alderman Seils asked if a formal decision will be announced about the 60 acres.
33 Chair McKee said there is no timeframe, but the unofficial intent is for the 60 acres to
34 remain as open space.
35 Bonnie Hammersley said this item will be on the Board of County Commissioners'
36 agenda on October 18th
37 Chair McKee said in regards to the rest of the land, the County would like to have a
38 discussion with both Towns as to what will be done with the 104 acres.
39 Alderman Chaney asked if the location of the closest grocery store is known.
40 Mayor Lavelle said five miles.
41 Alderman Chaney said if affordable housing, financed through low income housing tax
42 credits, is to be built on this site, there must be a grocery store within a mile. She said doing
43 the circuit riding from stakeholder to stakeholder, to find options for the site, is ineffective, and a
44 master plan is needed for this site. She said she saw what can be achieved during the inter-
45 city visit to Boulder. She said it took 10 years, but the City worked with all stakeholders to get it
46 done. She said the property must be maximized to benefit the County as a whole.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said he thought staff was directed, at a previous Assembly of
48 Governments (AOG) meeting, to do a draft master plan of mixed used development on this site,
49 so the elected officials could react to. He thought staff was working on it.
10
1 Craig Benedict said that was the directive, and the Jackson Center drafted a plan, which
2 staff is currently reviewing and discussing with the Center. He said it is hoped that this plan will
3 be available in November at the AOG.
4 Mayor Lavelle said her board often talks about the Greene Tract in reference to
5 affordable housing, food shopping, etc. She said it must be determined which jurisdiction will
6 take the lead in this process.
7 Chair McKee said he fears that this conversation will be never ending, and decisions
8 need to be made collaboratively with one entity taking this project and running with it. He said
9 this needs to be a mixed use and mixed revenue community.
10 Mayor Lavelle said this will be brought up at the AOG in November.
11 Alderman Slade said the community first process should be honored.
12 Alderman Seils agreed with Alderman Slade. He said if processes are not considered
13 about how to make decisions, then wheels will just keep spinning.
14 Chair McKee agreed and said the process needs to be defined and how they will get
15 there. He said all entities can be involved, but only one entity should take the lead.
16 Alderman Seils said the Carrboro Board needs to have a discussion amongst them
17 selves about how Carrboro wants to be involved.
18 Commissioner Burroughs said it is important to know who the partners are before any
19 decisions are made.
20
21 3. Information Items (Written Updates - Not for Specific Discussion)
22 a) Rogers Road Infrastructure Update
23 b) Rogers Road: Mapping Our Community's Future
24 c) Southern Library Update
25
26 The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
27
28 Earl McKee, Chair
29
30
31 Donna Baker
32 Clerk to the Board
33
34
1
1 Attachment 4
2
3 DRAFT
4 MINUTES
5 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 REGULAR MEETING
7 October 18, 2016
8 7:00 p.m.
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 18,
11 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
14 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager Travis
18 Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
19 appropriately below)
20
21 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
22
23 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
24 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
25 - White sheet: additional resolution for item 5-a
26 - White sheet: revised abstract for item 5-b
27 - PowerPoint for item 7-a
28 - PowerPoint for item 7-c
29
30 PUBLIC CHARGE
31
32 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
33 Chair McKee said the Board of County Commissioners released a statement
34 condemning the bombing of the Republican Party Headquarters.
35
36 2. Public Comments
37
38 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
39 Don O'Leary said the bombing of the GOP headquarters is reminiscent of the 1960s
40 and 1970s. He said he does not believe this was a random act. He said this is similar to paid
41 agitators that come into cities and counties and start riots. He said we do not have a federal
42 government anymore, but rather an occupation. He said Orange County should sever itself
43 from the federal government, and keep local decisions local. He said both parties are bad at
44 the federal level.
45
46 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
47 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
48 below.)
49
50 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
2
1 Commissioner Burroughs said Durham County upgraded its family leave policy, and she
2 would like Orange County to review its policy as well.
3 Commissioner Pelissier had no petitions or announcements.
4 Commissioner Jacobs had no petitions or announcements.
5 Commissioner Dorosin said Durham County also raised their living wage to $15.00 per
6 hour. He said Orange County has a Community Giving Fund, and he said he would like to see
7 a policy for adding line items to this fund. He would like to add a line item for a county fair, and
8 would like to have a discussion about this.
9 Commissioner Rich said Orange County Living Wage now has 88 registered employers,
10 recently adding Orange County Schools and the Town of Hillsborough, whom she
11 congratulated. She said she and Commissioner Jacobs would like to see Orange County's
12 living wage go up to $15.00 per hour.
13 Commissioner Price said the coordinated campaign was also hit with graffiti, in addition
14 to the bombing at the GOP headquarters.
15 Commissioner Price said OPC/Cardinal Innovations Coordinator Debra Farrington is
16 leaving her position. She acknowledged her presence this evening, and her service to the
17 County.
18 Chair McKee had no petitions or announcements.
19
20 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
21
22 a. Proclamation Recognizing University of North Carolina (UNC) Men's Lacrosse
23 2016 NCAA Championship
24 The Board considered approving the proclamation recognizing the UNC Men's Lacrosse
25 Team for winning the 2016 National Championship and authorize the Chair to sign the
26 proclamation on behalf of the Board.
27 Coach David Metzbower said this is the first NCAA Men's Lacrosse Championship win
28 for UNC since 1991. He reviewed the schedule and wins.
29 Chair McKee read the proclamation:
30
31 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
32 PROCLAMATION OF RECOGNITION ON
33 UNC MEN'S LACROSSE TEAM WINNING THE
34 2016 NCAA LACROSSE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP
35
36
37 WHEREAS, on May 30, 2016, the University of North Carolina men's lacrosse team captured
38 the NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse National Championship; and,
39 WHEREAS, under the guidance of Head Coach Joe Breschi, the UNC men's lacrosse team
40 earned its first NCAA National Championship title since 1991; and,
41 WHEREAS, the Tar Heels completed the season with a 14-13 overtime win against Maryland;
42 and,
43 WHEREAS, the UNC men's lacrosse team finished the year with a 12-6 record; and,
44 WHEREAS, through hard work, dedication, teamwork, and commitment, the Tar Heels have
45 brought honor upon themselves, the University of North Carolina, Orange County
46 and the State of North Carolina;
47 NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
48 expresses its sincere appreciation and respect for the University of North Carolina
49 men's lacrosse team, for the Tar Heels' outstanding achievement, and for their
3
1 inspiration to youth across the nation through their dedication, teamwork, and
2 athletic prowess.
3
4 This, the eighteenth day of October 2016.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
7 Board to approve the attached proclamation recognizing the UNC Men's Lacrosse Team for
8 winning the 2016 National Championship and authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation on
9 behalf of the Board.
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 b. Recognition of Basic Law Enforcement Training Academy Graduates
14 The Board considered recognizing the recent graduates of the 1st Basic Law
15 Enforcement Training Academy established through a partnership with Durham Technical
16 Community College.
17 Sheriff Blackwood reviewed the following background information:
18
19 BACKGROUND: The Orange County Sheriff's Office included in its System Plan a goal of
20 establishing a Basic Law Enforcement Training ("BLET")Academy, which would meet and
21 exceed minimum State requirements. The underlying idea was to create an Academy with the
22 look and feel of the Sheriff's Office, utilize in-house instructors as well as those from local
23 agencies, and offer agency specific training, with the overall goal of exceptional training
24 culminating in competent and eager graduates. After much collaboration between Durham
25 Technical Community College administrators and Sheriff's Office Training Division staff, the
26 BLET 1st Class began on May 2, 2016 and graduated September 22, 2016.
27
28 Several members of staff from the Sheriff's office gave a synopsis of the cadet process.
29 Sheriff Blackwood thanked the Commissioners and Durham Tech, saying this is a
30 dream come true. He introduced each of the cadets.
31 The Board recognized the recent graduates of the 1st Basic Law Enforcement Training
32 Academy.
33
34 5. Public Hearings
35
36 a. North Carolina Community Transportation Program Administrative and Capital
37 Grant Applications for FY 2018
38 The Board considered: conducting a public hearing to receive public comments on the
39 proposed grant application; approving the Community Transportation Program Grant
40 application for FY 2018 in the total amount of $392,866 with a local match total of$48,285 to be
41 provided when necessary; authorizing the Chair to sign the Community Transportation Program
42 Resolution and the Local Share Certification for Funding forms; and authorizing the Chair and
43 the County Attorney to review and sign the annual Certifications and Assurances.
44 Peter Murphy, Orange County Public Transportation Administrator, reviewed the
45 following background information:
46
47 BACKGROUND: Each year, the NCDOT Public Transportation Division accepts requests for
48 administrative and capital needs for county-operated community transportation programs. OPT
49 is eligible to make application for both administrative and capital funding. The current year FY
4
1 2017-approved application includes $166,765 in administrative funding and $211,188 in capital
2 funding for replacement vehicles with total expenses equaling $377,953.
3
4 The total CTP funding request for FY 2018 is $179,964 for community transportation
5 administrative expenses and an additional $212,902 for capital expenses. This draft grant
6 application is made for expenses totaling $392,866 and would entail a 15% local match
7 ($26,995) for administrative expenses and a 10% local match ($21,290) for capital expenses.
8 The total local funding of $48,285 from the County's General Fund would be included in the
9 Manager's recommended 2017-2018 budget.
10
11 The acceptance of these grant funds requires compliance with the annual certifications and
12 assurances, for which the signature pages are attached (Attachment 42). The attached
13 signature pages are for the certifications and assurances for FY 2016 as an example. The FY
14 2017 certifications and assurances signature pages are very similar to those for FY 2016;
15 however, the County has not yet received them from NCDOT. When received, they will be
16 forwarded to the County Attorney and Chair for review and signatures.
17
18 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The NCDOT CTP FY 2018 grant requires a 15% local match ($26,995)
19 for administrative expenses and a 10% local match ($21,290) for capital expenses for a total of
20 $48,285. As a comparison, the total CTP grant amount approved for FY 2017 was $166,765 for
21 administrative expenses ($25,015 local match) and $211,188 for capital expenses ($21,119
22 local match) for a total of $46,134 local match, an increase of $14,913 in total expenses
23 ($2,151 local match) from FY 2017 to FY 2018.
24
25 The indicated local match amounts will be requested in the upcoming FY 2018 budget cycle
26 and must be committed from Orange County's budget for the performance period of July 1,
27 2017, through June 30, 2018 (FY 2018), as indicated in the attached Local Share Certification
28 for Funding form (Attachment 4). This will require Orange County to obligate funding in its next
29 budget cycle for these expenses. A total of$48,285 would come from the County's general
30 operating budget and would be included in the Manager's recommended 2017-2018 budget.
31
32 PUBLIC COMMENT
33 None
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
36 close the public hearing.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
41 - Approve the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2018 in the total
42 amount of$392,866 with a local match total of $48,285 to be provided when necessary;
43 - Approve and authorize the Chair to sign the two Community Transportation Program
44 Resolutions and the Local Share Certification for Funding forms; and
45 - Authorize the Chair and the County Attorney to review and sign the annual Certifications and
46 Assurances document in Attachment 2.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
5
1 b. Public Hearing Regarding an Economic Development Recruitment Incentive for
2 Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., and a Supplemental Interlocal Agreement Between
3 Orange County&the Town of Chapel Hill
4
5 The Board considered:
6 1) Receiving the proposal to consider the issuance of incentives to a private company for
7 the recruitment of Wegmans Food Market, Inc. to Orange County;
8 2) Approving the "performance-based" economic development incentive agreement
9 between Orange County and the Company, Wegmans Food Market, Inc., with claw-
10 back provisions, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and authorizing the
11 Chair to sign the agreement on behalf of the County;
12 3) Receiving the supplemental proposal to consider an Interlocal Agreement between
13 Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill, whereby the County administers the
14 performance-based incentive agreement with the Company, and the County and Town
15 equally share 50/50 in the cost-sharing of the annual incentive payment during the 5-
16 year term of the incentive agreement; and
17 4) Approving the Interlocal Agreement, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and
18 authorizing the Chair to sign on behalf of the County.
19
20 Proiect Description:
21 In response to the ongoing relocation by the Performance Automall car dealership operation
22 (owned by Hendrick Automotive Group) out of Chapel Hill and Orange County and to the
23 SouthPoint Mall area in adjacent Durham County, and the resulting transfer of over 300 full-time
24 jobs out of the community, the Town and County have partnered to spur redevelopment of the
25 14-acre site that serves as an important gateway entry into Chapel Hill.
26
27 During 2016, the leadership of Orange County and Chapel Hill collaborated closely in this
28 regard to encourage the recruitment of a single high-quality tenant grocery store, with
29 restaurants, prepared foods, a farmers market and related retail businesses by the grocery
30 chain Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. This joint recruitment effort of Wegmans endeavors to
31 attract to the community a significant number of new jobs, with health insurance & related
32 employment benefits, and notable tax revenues that warrant the proposed incentive offer to the
33 company.
34
35 Considering Wegmans' competitive site selection efforts as it moves down the eastern
36 seaboard and into North Carolina and establishes its first retail locations in the state, Orange
37 County and Town of Chapel Hill have partnered in a joint recruitment and incentivization effort
38 to attract this specific retail business to the U.S. 15-501 location. The proposed joint financial
39 incentive, calculated at a value up to $4.0 million over a proposed 5-year start-up period by the
40 company, will be equally shared 50/50 by the County & Town.
41
42 The economic development inducement incentive will be performance-based with respect to the
43 County's annual verification of the Company's targeted increases in (1) employment, wages &
44 benefits, (2) net new taxable real & personal property additions, and (3) retail sales tax
45 collections from projected revenue growth, as Wegmans establishes a Chapel Hill retail
46 presence. Incentives would only be paid following confirmation of the Company's required
47 annual threshold growth in these measures, and, on a pro-rata reimbursement in case the
48 company's targeted growth in any year lags current growth projections.
49
6
1 Orange County will serve as the primary administrator of the performance-based Inducement
2 Agreement between Wegmans and the local governments, and the County is holding the
3 required public hearing. In addition, there is a separate Interlocal Agreement that governs the
4 cost share incentive payment transactions between the County and Town over the term of the
5 total incentive period. This incentive offering is based off the following benefits a Wegmans
6 retail facility will bring to the community.
7
8 Travis Myren reviewed the sequence of events for this item.
9 Steve Brantley, Orange County Economic Development Director, made the following
10 PowerPoint presentation:
11
12 Presentation to Orange County Board of Commissioners
13 Public Hearing for a Proposed Economic Development Recruitment Incentive for
14 Wegmans Food markets, Inc. & Interlocal Agreement Between Orange County and the
15 Town of Chapel Hill
16 October 18, 2016
17
18 Description of "Project Eagle"
19 • A redevelopment of the current 14-acre Performance Automall site (following the auto
20 dealership's ongoing relocation to Durham by owner Hendrick Automall Group) and the
21 establishment of a single tenant grocery store, with restaurants, prepared foods, farmers
22 market and related retail businesses by Wegmans Food Markets.
23
24 Proposed site for Wegmans Food Market, Inc. (aerial photo)
25
26 Weqmans
27 Headquartered in Rochester, New York
28 • $7.6 billion in Revenue (2015)
29 • Over 46,000 Employees
30 Company Values:
31 • We care about the well-being and success of every person.
32 • High standards are a way of life. We pursue excellence in everything we do.
33 • We make a difference in every community we serve.
34 • We respect and listen to our people.
35 • We empower our people to make decisions that improve their work and benefit our
36 customers and our company.
37
38 Wegmans: helping you make great meals easy
39 • Asian Bar
40 • Bakery
41 • Beer
42 • Catering
43 • Complements
44 • Floral
45 • Kosher Deli
46 • Market Café
47 • Nature's Marketplace
48 • Patisserie
49 • Pharmacy
7
1 • Pizza
2 • Pub
3 • Sub shop
4 • Sushi
5 • Wine, liquor, beer
6
7 Community Benefits
8 • Substantial employment, averaging 350 full-time equivalent jobs.
9 • Minimum starting wage of$12 per hour for at least 70% of FTE employees.
10 • Health insurance benefits provided to all full-time employees working at least 30 hours
11 per week.
12 • Significant gains in new property & retail sales taxes collected.
13 • Broad regional market draw from other areas & tourism boost.
14 • Direct synergies with Orange County's local food economy.
15 • Improvements to a critical U.S. 15-501 gateway location into Chapel Hill.
16
17 Outline of Performance Based Incentives
18 (on a $4 million dollar incentive)
19
20 Incentive Structure
21 • $4.0 million proposed total incentive, split 50/50 between Orange County ($2 million)
22 and the Town of Chapel Hill ($2 million).
23 • Orange County will serve as the primary administrator of the performance-based
24 incentive agreement between Wegmans and the local governments, and hold the
25 required public hearing.
26 • Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill will have a supplemental Inter-local
27 Agreement governing the co-share incentive payment over the term of the incentive
28 period.
29 This incentive offering is based off the following:
30 1.) Gateway location along U.S. 15-501 into our community
31 2.) Large number of jobs that would be created (185 full-time and approximately 413 part-
32 time; or 350 full-time equivalent jobs).
33 3.) Significant amount of net new taxable investment being made to develop and improve
34 the site ($30+ million)
35 4.) Significant amount of sales tax that will be generated (potentially $1.5 million +/-
36 annually between the County and Town of Chapel Hill).
37 5.) This store location will be close to a potential light rail stop.
38 6.) Environmental clean-up associated with the site's redevelopment.
39 7.) Replacement of outgoing Performance Motors with another company that supports
40 community values.
41
42 • Overall property valuation of at lease $18,144,000 in real property and at least
43 $8,000,000 in personal property. The award is calculated at 25% of the total incentive
44 based on real and personal property valuation.
45 • If the property tax valuation target is not achieved, the incentive payment will be reduced
46 proportionally.
47 • Wegmans store retail sales are projected to reach $83,000,000 by the end of the first
48 five years. The award is calculated at 50% of the total incentive based on retail sales.
49 • If the retail target is not achieved, the incentive payment will be reduced proportionally.
8
1
2 Retail Sales Projections:
3 1st year $62,000,000
4 2nd year $67,000,000
5 3rd year $72,000,000
6 4th year $78,000,000
7 5th year $83,000,000
8
9 • Wegmans will maintain employment consistent with the job chart below during the term
10 of the incentive agreement. The award is calculated at 25% of the total incentive based
11 on job creation and wages.
12 • If the employment target is not achieved, the incentive payment will be reduced
13 proportionally.
14
15 Employment projections:
16
1St year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year
Full Time 185 185 185 185 185
Jobs
Part time jobs 250 287 325 350 413
(approximate)
Total (Full 285 300 315 325 350
time
equivalent)
17
18 Orange County Revenue Projections:
19
1St year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year 5th year TOTAL
Net New $103,782 $95,002 $86,222 $77,442 $68,662 $431,112
Property
Tax
Revenue
Sales Tax $813,426 $879,025 $944,624 $1,023,343 $1,088,941 $4,749,359
Revenue
TOTAL $917,208.3 $974,027.3 $1,030,846.3 $1,100,785.3 $1,157,603.3 $5,180,470.6
REVENUE 2 2 2 2 2 0
Incentive ($400,000) ($400,000) ($400,000) ($400,000) ($400,000) ($2,000,000)
Payment
20
21 Project Timeline (chart)
22
23 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the square footage for this building is known.
24 Dan Aiken, Wegmans, said 120-130,000 square feet, and this is on the upper end of
25 typical for a new store. He said each store is designed individually.
26 Commissioner Rich asked if Dan Aiken could review how the retail sales will increase
27 over a period offive5 years; and if it is based on other Wegmans stores, or on what happens in
28 this region.
29 Dan Aiken said it is based on how Wegmans sees its sales continue to grow from year
30 to year. He said the 91 Wegmans stores, which are currently operational, have been reviewed,
9
1 and the income from the first five years has been totaled to prepare an estimate for the store
2 here.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said there are four specialty food stores in Orange County, and
4 asked the consultant if anyone has looked at the effect of a larger store moving into an area
5 with the smaller stores.
6 Dwight Bassett, Economic Development Officer for the Town of Chapel Hill, said the
7 largest impact is generally felt in the first 90-120 day after the opening of a store, and then
8 returns to what it was before, based on buying preferences. He said the market is anticipated
9 to grow in the long term, and this is an opportunity to grow as a foodie destination beyond
10 restaurants.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said the benefits, which Wegmans provides to its employees,
12 should be commended. He said Orange County has a living wage in place, as do over 80+
13 businesses. He asked if Wegmans would support the living wage.
14 Dan Aiken said Wegmans would be inclined to support this, and they have committed to
15 benchmark against what was on the Orange County Living Wage website at the time of this
16 current agreement. He said this will be continually reevaluated going forward.
17
18 PUBLIC COMMENT:
19 Pam Hemminger, Mayor of Chapel Hill, said the Town Council did vote unanimously last
20 night to approve this business. She said the Town is grateful for the partnership with Orange
21 County. She said there were a lot of questions last night about the incentive plan, but there
22 were no questions or concerns about this particular company. She said Wegmans is greatly
23 liked. She said this is the first time a company has been successfully lured away from a bigger
24 county that has access to incentives. She said this is a great opportunity for Orange County,
25 and it sends a huge signal that we are serious about business opportunities in our area.
26 Delores Bailey, Executive Director of Empowerment, Inc., said she is present tonight as
27 a member of the Orange County Economic Development Advisory Board, who is in full support
28 of this project and the incentives. She praised this project and Wegmans' great support of its
29 employees. She commended Wegmans for its philanthropic contributions in the communities
30 where their stores are located.
31 Kristen Smith said she is here on behalf Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce,
32 who is in support of the Wegmans project and the interlocal agreement.
33 Commissioner Burroughs said she is in support of this project. She said it should be
34 reiterated that the incentives are performance based. She said Wegmans is a destination
35 store.
36 Commissioner Price thanked both staffs for their diligence in pursuing this project. She
37 supports this project.
38 Commissioner Rich said she is speaking as the liaison to the Chapel Hill Orange County
39 Visitor's Bureau, and tourists come for many aspects of Orange County including food and
40 hospitality. She said tourism has increased tremendously over the years, and this store will
41 only help to increase this.
42 Commissioner Rich said she is in the food business, and she hates the word "foodie."
43 She would like this word to be taken out of the press releases going forward.
44 Commissioner Pelissier echoed the comments of the other Commissioners. She looks
45 forward to Wegmans doing things in their stores that reflect the values of Orange County.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said he appreciates the opportunity to welcome Wegmans to
47 Orange County, along with the Town of Chapel Hill. He said Wegmans' profile is similar to that
48 of Morinaga. He thanked both staffs from Orange County and Chapel Hill.
49 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that there is no incentive or requirement that Orange
50 County residents should receive these newly created employment opportunities.
10
1 John Roberts said no there is not because there would be constitutional equal protection
2 issues with doing so.
3 Commissioner Dorosin asked if localized employment can be part of a community
4 benefits agreement with a developer.
5 John Roberts said that may be possible through community development programs, but
6 not from this contractual agreement.
7 Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to see that built into future community
8 development agreements.
9 Steve Brantley said when Orange County wins a project, a relationship is gained with
10 that business entity. He said this leads to the introduction of non-profits and the possibility of
11 earning the philanthropy of the business. He said Wegmans allows them to work together in a
12 partnership.
13 Commissioner Dorosin said one of the elements of these programs is that jobs will be
14 created, and creating jobs for Orange County residents is something he would like to
15 encourage with future businesses.
16 John Roberts said if the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approves this, he
17 needs to add one sentence to the approval language when appropriate.
18 Chair McKee said the values that Orange County holds highly aligns with Wegmans'
19 corporate culture. He is very much in support of this project.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
22 the Board to close the Public Hearing.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to:
27
28 - Approve the "performance-based" economic development incentive agreement between
29 Orange County and the Company, Wegmans Food Market, Inc., with claw-back
30 provisions, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and authorize the Chair to
31 sign the agreement on behalf of the County;
32 - Receive the supplemental proposal to consider an Interlocal Agreement between
33 Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill, whereby the County administers the
34 performance-based incentive agreement with the Company, and the County and Town
35 equally share 50/50 in the cost-sharing of the annual incentive payment during the 5-
36 year term of the incentive agreement; and
37 - Approve the Interlocal Agreement, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and
38 authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the County; and
39 - That the Board specifically determines that all appropriations related to the project shall
40 benefit the County by increasing employment, business prospects, and taxable property.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 6. Consent Agenda
45 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
46 Item b, by Commissioner Price
47
48 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
49
50 b. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#2
11
1 The Board considered approving budget, grant, and capital project ordinance
2 amendments for fiscal year 2016-17, item #8: Community Loan Fund.
3 Commissioner Price said she would like clarification regarding the $100,000 from the
4 general fund, and what has happened to these funds since 2012.
5 Paul Laughton, Orange County Finance and Administrative Services, said since 2012
6 five loans have been distributed to residents, totaling approximately $22,000.
7 Paul Laughton said the original abstract is included from 2012, and this fund was set up
8 in a separate fund, and this is a technical amendment. He said this is an amendment to
9 transfer the funds from the General Fund back into its own line item.
10 Commissioner Price asked if residents in the Efland and Rogers Road areas are aware
11 of these funds.
12 Paul Laughton said he is not sure, but residents were involved in the creation of this
13 fund in 2012.
14 Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to revisit this process, and make these no
15 interest loans.
16 Chair McKee said this can be taken as a petition.
17 Commissioner Price said she agreed with Commissioner Dorosin.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said People for Progress were the original neighborhood for
19 whom this fund was established.
20 Commissioner Jacobs added if this petition is to move forward, then staff should make
21 robust effort to publicize this program's existence.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said from where the funds will come should be considered, and
23 not to limit it to certain neighborhoods. He said the types of neighborhoods that are desired
24 could be defined.
25 Commissioner Dorosin said economically distressed neighborhoods could be targeted,
26 with regards to hook-ups for water and sewer.
27 Commissioner Price said she would like these petitions to move forward, and the status
28 of those who have already received loans should be reviewed.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
31 approve the budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
38 approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 a. Minutes
43 The Board approved the minutes for the September 12, 2016 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing;
44 and the September 20, 2016 BOCC Regular Meeting, as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
45 b. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#2
46 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year
47 2016-17 for Department on Aging; County Manager's Office; Department of Social Services;
48 Asset Management Services; Cardinal Innovations Healthcare-OPC Community Office;
49 Southern Orange Campus Capital Project; and Emergency Medical Services Substations
50 Capital Project.
12
1 c. Board of Commissioners Meeting Calendar for Year 2017
2 The Board approved the final schedule of meetings for the Board of County Commissioners for
3 calendar year 2017.
4
5 7. Regular Agenda
6
7 a. School Impact Fee Updates
8 The Board considered adopting the updated school impact fee levels and amendments
9 to the General Code of Ordinances — Educational Facilities Impact Fees.
10
11 Possible options for updated fee levels presented at the public hearing included:
12 1. As calculated, adopting at some percentage of the Maximum Supportable Impact Fees
13 (MSIF).
14 2. Collapsing the Single Family Detached category in the Orange County Schools district
15 (due to an unexpected result in this category), charging the "Average" for this housing
16 type in this district, charging fees as calculated for other housing types, and adopting at
17 some percentage of the MSIF.
18 3. Collapsing all housing type categories in both or either school districts, charging the
19 "Average" calculation by housing type, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. a.
20 Note for this option: Accessory dwelling units (e.g., granny flats) are included in the
21 multi-family category (0-2 bedrooms), so setting the fee for the "average" calculation
22 may result in an increase for accessory dwelling units, depending on the percentage of
23 MSIF chosen.
24 4. Options 1-3 can also be implemented by increasing the percentage of MSIF over a
25 period of time (e.g., adopt at x% effective 2017, y% effective 2018, and z% effective
26 2019).
27
28 It should be noted that the adopted percentage of MSIF must be the same for all housing types
29 (e.g., fees cannot be adopted at 40% MSIF for one housing type and 60% MSIF for a different
30 housing type).
31
32 Although no members of the public spoke at the public hearing, there was extensive discussion
33 on the impact fee topic. Discussion included:
34 • potential impacts on housing affordability;
35 • lack of availability of a regional school construction cost inflationary index;
36 • how units would qualify for the age restricted housing rate;
37 • how changes in demographics, including housing choices, have resulted in differences
38 in the impacts by housing types which could result in potential large increases in impact
39 fees for some housing types, particularly multi-family, due to the large increase in the
40 housing type's proportional impact on student membership; and
41 • comments about which potential option to choose, including potential phasing, and at
42 which percentage levels.
43
44 Additional information regarding the "breakeven point" between current and updated fees was
45 also requested by the BOCC. Details of this information, including assumptions regarding
46 projected dwelling unit counts and bedroom count splits, are included in Attachment 1. In order
47 to calculate the estimated impact fee collection amounts if fees are collected based on the
48 number of bedrooms a unit contains, staff assumed a 50/50 split between units with fewer
49 bedrooms and units with a greater number of bedrooms. If actual construction differs
50 significantly from assumptions, actual impact fee amounts collected would be different (either
13
1 higher or lower, depending on actual construction activity). The estimated breakeven point if
2 data is disaggregated to bedroom count levels is 37% of the MSIF. The estimated breakeven
3 point for the "calculated average" of housing types is 43.5%.
4
5 When updated impact fees were last adopted in 2008, the initial fee amount was set at a level
6 (32% of the 2008 MSIF) expected to collect $1.6 million in the Chapel Hill — Carrboro district in
7 order to reach the amount budgeted for debt service in that district. The "breakeven point" was
8 not calculated in 2008 (i.e., the MSIF percentage point was based on budget needs).
9 Additionally, a four-year implementation period was adopted since the starting point of 32% of
10 the MSIF provided a very low partial cost recovery. The fee started at 32% of the MSIF on
11 January 1, 2009 and moved to 40%, 50%, and 60% each January 1 of subsequent years,
12 completing the annual increases in 2012 (see Attachment 5).
13
14 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, and Perdita Holtz, Planning, made a PowerPoint
15 presentation. Perdita Holtz presented the following slides:
16
17 2016 School Impact Fee Update
18
19 Results of October 4 Discussion
20 • Breakeven analysis completed
21 • Information regarding affordability concerns compiled
22 • Two potential ordinances for consideration
23 ° One to charge by bedroom counts, if applicable
24 ° One to charge by calculated average
25 Note: October 10th presentation at Chapel Hill Council Meeting; Consensus generally
26 favorable
27
28 Breakeven Analysis
29 • Breakeven assumes what revenues would be received under old fee schedule vs. new
30 when using projected housing type and bedroom mix of future years.
31 • Also parallels development projections.
32 • Also approximates budget projections.
33
34 Attachment 1 — Breakeven Analysis
35 Actual Fee Structure (Discussed later in presentation)
36 • Bedroom Count tables —
37 ° Projected Annual Collections Added
38 ° Breakeven % Determined (37%)
39 ° Columns added at 37%, 47%, and 57% MSIF
40 • Calculated Average Tables
41 ° Projected Annual Collections Added
42 ° Breakeven % Determined (43.5%)
43 ° Columns added at 43.5%, 53.5%, and 63.5% MSIF
44
45 Proposed Ordinances
46 • Begin fees at estimated breakeven point and increase by 10 percentage points for 2
47 subsequent years
48 • Also language in adopting ordinance (Be it further ordained) clarifying building permit
49 application deadlines and by when a building permit would have to be issued in order to
50 pay the prior fee
14
1
2 Additional Ordinance Amendments
3 • Add improved definitions for the various housing types.
4 • Age Restriction; add language in Section 30-33 that would require age restricted units
5 that do not remain age restricted for at least 20 years be required to pay the difference
6 between the age restricted fee paid and the non-age-restricted fee in effect at the time a
7 unit is no longer age restricted.
8 • Additional Ordinance Amendments Cont'd
9 • Add language in Section 30-35(e) clarifying under what conditions a refund would be
10 issued if impact fees were reduced for a particular housing unit type.
11 • Add language in Section 30-38 to recognize conditional zoning, which was adopted in
12 2011 when the UDO was adopted.
13
14 Craig Benedict presented the following slides:
15
16 Proposed Fees (bedroom counts) with % Change From Current Fee (Graph)
17
18 Proposed Fees (bedroom counts) with % Change From Current Fee (Graph)
19
20 Proposed Fees (calculated average) with % Change From Current Fee (Graph)
21
22 Proposed Fees (calculated average) with % Change From Current Fee (Graph)
23
24 Affordability Summary—CHCCS, by Bedroom Count (at 37, 47, 57% MSIF)
25 • By and large, units with fewer bedrooms (are smaller less expensive units)
26 ° Are smaller less expensive units
27 ° Impact Fees are lower
28 ° SFD 4+ bedroom would experience a decrease the first year
29 • Small Homes (<800 square foot detached)
30 ° Major decrease
31 • Multi-family, 0-2 bedrooms would experience an increase
32 ° Of note: 2017 fee would be less than the 2001-2008 fee of$1979
33 • New manufactured homes
34 • Lower Fees
35 • Age-restricted units; major decrease
36
37 Affordability Summary—OCS, by Bedroom Count (at 37, 47, 57% MSIF)
38 • Multi-family units with 0-2 bedrooms experience a decrease
39 ° Lower Fees
40 • Small Homes (<800 square foot detached)
41 ° Major decrease
42 • SFD, 0-3 bedrooms
43 ° Decrease in year 1
44 ° modest increase in year 2
45 ° Year 3 increase more
46 • SFA, 0-2 bedrooms
47 ° Decrease in years 1 and 2
48 ° Year 3 increase
49 • Age-restricted units; major decrease
15
1
2 Some Possible Anecdotal Conclusions from the Study Results
3 • Pre-recession, fewer families were living in multi-family and single-family attached units.
4 • In the recent past, the number of new multi-family and single-family attached units has
5 increased faster than the numbers of other units
6 ° Families are moving into these new units at a greater rate than families are
7 moving into single-family units
8 ° Slower family empty nester conversions
9 • New lower bedroom count multi-family units in the CHCCS district have been heavily
10 marketed to UNC students.
11 • Less land for Single Family Detached so families are choosing other 3 bedroom housing
12 types
13
14 Recommendation for Tonight
15 • Receive a presentation by staff.
16 • Discuss the topic as desired.
17 • Authorize finalization of the school impact fee study reports by the consultant
18 (TischlerBise).
19 • Adopt one of the proposed Ordinances as follows:
20 ° Attachment 2 if impact fees are to be charged by bedroom counts, if applicable,
21 for each housing type.
22 ° Attachment 3 of impact fees are to be charged using the calculated average for
23 each housing type.
24 ° Additionally, the BOCC can choose to adopt different MSIF percentage levels
25 from those listed in the ordinances and/or a different phasing timeline.
26
27 Commissioner Price said she is having difficulty with the justification of the bedroom
28 chart within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School (CHCCS).
29 Craig Benedict said it has been found through, the majority of the numbers analyzed,
30 that the higher the bedroom count, the more children there are living in the home. He said it is
31 not as simple as looking at one facility at a time.
32 Commissioner Price said the other area she has concerns with is that the type of home
33 increases the fees; such as going from a single family detached to a multi-family home.
34 Craig Benedict said renters do not pay impact fees. He said the fee falls on the owners
35 of the building, and is usually spread over a period of time.
36 Commissioner Price said her concern is that the fee is probably passed on to the renter
37 in the form of higher rent.
38 Craig Benedict said impact fees are not an affordability tool, but rather a way for new
39 construction to pay for the impact of new development on schools. He said the fees are not as
40 high as they could be, and this is a balanced approach, paying only 50% of the MSIF.
41 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a definition of age restricted.
42 Craig Benedict said one person in the house has to be over 55 years of age, and the
43 property is deed restricted for at least 20 years. He said there is a small number of over 55
44 year olds with children still in school.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said if there was a home where grandma was part of the family,
46 the property could be age restricted and four school children could live there, and lower impact
47 fees would be paid.
48 Craig Benedict said the family member over age 55 has to be the head of household.
49 He said there may be cases where a grandmother invites her extended family to live with her,
16
1 but he would hope the age restricted community would have covenants to address these other
2 issues.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said there are more and more cases of grandparents raising
4 grandchildren, which will lead to the existence of more exceptions to the rule.
5 Commissioner Dorosin asked if a covenant could be defined.
6 Craig Benedict said in order to be assessed for an impact fee, in the age restricted
7 category, the development must have a recorded document that could not be broken. He said
8 should the development ever wish to move away from being age restricted, it would then have
9 to pay the impact fee at the going rate at that time.
10 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the covenant would say that someone over the age of
11 55 would always reside in the property.
12 Craig Benedict said yes.
13 John Roberts said it would be something to that effect, and there is not a draft covenant
14 yet. He said it would be recorded in the Register of Deeds office, likely tied to a Home Owners
15 Association, and these homes are not single family detached, but usually part of a particular
16 community.
17 Commissioner Dorosin said the proposal suggests increasing the chosen fee by 10%
18 after the first year, and 10% again after the second year. He said these increases seem to be
19 at a faster rate than the last time impact fees were changed.
20 Craig Benedict said there were new impact fees that went into effect in 2008, and they
21 went up 10% each year, for four years. He said the 2008 analysis showed that the new fees
22 were higher than the old fees because of the increasing cost of schools.
23 Commissioner Dorosin asked if a new analysis would be done in 2019/2020, due to this
24 current analysis only going out two years.
25 Craig Benedict said the demographics do change, and staff would probably suggest
26 another analysis be completed around 2020. He said the data is improving with each analysis.
27 Commissioner Dorosin said all of these numbers are based on the actual study where
28 current children now live. He asked if the extent, to which these fees will drive the development
29 of houses over the next three years, is known.
30 Craig Benedict said it is not so much the fees that are the drivers, but rather the land
31 constraints and the housing market.
32 Commissioner Rich said the Chapel Hill Town Council asked why Orange County did
33 not do an analysis sooner than 10 years, and she will make a motion to do an analysis more
34 often to keep current.
35 Commissioner Rich said the Town Council also wondered why total square footage of a
36 house was not considered, instead of the number of bedrooms, but staff did explain to them in
37 detail about this.
38
39 PUBLIC COMMENT:
40 Jacob Rogers said he is with the Triangle Apartment Association and is here to express
41 concerns about these fees. He said developers will not swallow these fees, and the residents
42 will have higher rents and higher home prices. He said there was no proactive outreach, about
43 this proposal, to the people it will affect the most. He said Orange County is one of two
44 counties in the state that implement these fees. He said their association is involved with the
45 discussion of affordability, and they want to be involved in these conversations. He asked the
46 Board to forego a decision, and to ask staff to reach out to the stakeholders to discuss this
47 further.
48 Brenda Brantley said she is with the Triangle Apartment Association, and echoed the
49 comments of Jacob Rogers.
17
1 Aaron Nelson said he is the Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of
2 Commerce, and he just learned of this issue six days ago. He said he does not look at the
3 classified section to read the advertisements about meetings like this. He said there should be
4 a good conversation with all stakeholders to help Orange County create a reasonable impact
5 fee schedule. He highlighted some of the technical issues with the current proposal.
6 Holly Fraccaro said she is the Executive Officer of the Home Builders Association of
7 Orange County and Durham County. She said she is equally disappointed that they were not
8 contacted to be a part of the discussion on impact fees. She asked the Board to forego a vote,
9 and to have a discussion with the stakeholders before making a decision.
10 Aaron Nelson said they have been encouraging developers to build three bedroom
11 multi-family units, as housing is needed for families. He said developers will favor building two-
12 bedroom units as it is cheaper.
13 Commissioner Price said she would be in favor of postponing the vote.
14 Chair McKee said he does not question the numbers analysis, but some of these
15 columns have outrageous increases. He said these increases will have a cumulative effect
16 over three or four years. He asked if there is any timeframe, in this proposed plan that the
17 County comes up with less revenue than is currently being received.
18 Craig Benedict said if more single-family homes than multi-family homes are built, there
19 may not be as much revenue. He said the proposed mix of housing is an assumption based on
20 the trends of development.
21 Chair McKee asked if it also depends on what percentage of MSIF is set as the starting
22 point.
23 Craig Benedict said yes. He said the breakeven point is intended to be almost neutral in
24 year one and it would increase in the ensuing two years.
25 Chair McKee said even at 37%, it is only neutral in one year, and is not at all neutral in
26 other categories.
27 Craig Benedict said it is not neutral by any individual category. He said the idea of
28 starting different categories at different percentages of the MSIF was considered, but a similar
29 percentage across the board is needed to keep proportionality.
30 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the increase in school construction costs since 2008 is
31 known.
32 Craig Benedict said the percentage increase went from 12.5-24% in the 2000s on the
33 elementary school level. He said new numbers for building in tight urban settings can be even
34 higher.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said to John Roberts that he understands the rates have to be
36 statistically defensible to be legally defensible, and asked if there could be a negotiated/ad hoc
37 arrangement that could also be legally defensible.
38 John Roberts said no. He said the Supreme Court has determined there must be
39 proportionality between who pays the fee, what the fee is, and what the fee is paying for. He
40 said the County's authorizing legislation requires an apportionment between what the fee
41 payers are paying, and what cost the fee is off setting. He said a side agreement would not be
42 defensible. He said there is a fee agreement provision in the ordinance, but it involves a
43 dedication of land, and there must be an appraisal of the land completed to establish the value,
44 to ensure that the fee being waived is comparable to the value of the land.
45 Commissioner Rich asked if the number of three bedroom units being built is known.
46 Craig Benedict said the Special Use Permits for approvals do not specify bedroom
47 counts. He said it is at the discretion of the builder, but the one flat fee does not promote the
48 building of three bedroom units over one-bedroom units.
49 Commissioner Rich said the assumption that three-bedroom units will be built is
50 unrealistic. She added that those three bedroom units that are being built are not affordable.
18
1 Chair McKee asked if increasing the fees will increase the number of three bedroom
2 units being built. He does not see how it would, as these units are not being built currently.
3 Commissioner Rich said the only way these larger units get filled is with UNC students,
4 which does not support the local schools.
5 Commissioner Pelissier said it seems that if the bedroom breakdown is implemented,
6 what is being built is unknown. She asked if there is a way, after one year, to track what is
7 happening on the ground, how the fee is working, and to adjust it as needed.
8 Craig Benedict said the Towns have been asked to collect better data and the school
9 boards for address matching. He said it takes about a year to get information for the past 10
10 years of data. He said a consultant may help in gathering data. He said the numbers may not
11 move that much in one year. He said in the past 15 years multi family housing has changed
12 from student housing to family housing, which leads to the numbers changing.
13 Commissioner Pelissier said the purpose of the fees is to have the new growth to pay
14 the partial costs of schools.
15 Commissioner Burroughs said updating the data is good, and the data is not negotiable.
16 She asked if paying the impact fee over time would be possible.
17 John Roberts said if it is in the ordinance, then it may be allowable.
18 Commissioner Burroughs said the breakeven is the breakeven, and she understands
19 the idea of phasing in, but she has some concerns about starting at the breakeven and phasing
20 in at a higher rate thereafter. She said she is wondering about the difficulty of doing this.
21 Craig Benedict said the impact of saying, for multi family, that 25% is for a 3 bedroom
22 and 75% is for a 0-2 bedroom, would make the breakeven point higher, as there are a lot of
23 revenues coming with the high three bedroom student generation rates. He said this analysis
24 would raise the numbers. He said the Board has asked for upcoming projects to be analyzed.
25 He said the number of bedrooms may vary wildly.
26 Commissioner Burroughs said the data from where the students are generated is fairly
27 exact, but then there is a fair amount of room. She said if 100% of the MSIF was the goal, then
28 the numbers could be more exact, but this is not the goal. She said anything less than 100% of
29 the MSIF is a judgment call by the BOCC. She said Craig Benedict's comments about
30 predicting the number of bedrooms to be built in the future is inexact. She said the BOCC has
31 to make a judgment that feels fair, and the current breakeven rate is a good starting point.
32 Commissioner Dorosin said the statute requires this rational relationship, which leads to
33 the analysis model. He said the statutory restrictions, and the modeling, has to be based on
34 this snapshot. He said the information that the Board desires cannot be captured in the tool
35 they have.
36 John Roberts said the data on which to base the estimate is necessary to make it legally
37 defensible, and the farther one gets from data the more one may be challenged in a court of
38 law.
39 Commissioner Dorosin said the current rate is based on data that is 10 years old.
40 Chair McKee asked John Roberts if using the current fee schedule, and increasing it by
41 10%, would be defensible.
42 John Roberts said it could be defensible, but there would be no data attached to this
43 formula, and he would not advise this proposal. He said any increase should be tied to some
44 data.
45 Craig Benedict said a comment was made 10 years ago about going up to 30%, then
46 40% then 50% and then waiting a few years and going up to 60%, 70%, and 80%. He said it
47 was determined that this course of action would rely on old data, and it was important to have it
48 updated. He said the existing fee structure has weakness in it, as the cost of school
49 construction has doubled over the last 10 years.
19
1 Commissioner Jacobs said this conversation started in the spring, and it was not fast
2 tracked. He said in response to the public comments, there are some agencies with
3 government affairs staff who should remain apprised of the BOCC agendas, and should have
4 known this discussion was taking place. He said impact fees are a complicated issue, and no
5 matter how many meetings occur, it will remain complicated. He said the BOCC has grappled
6 with questions of fairness and affordability each time this topic has been discussed, as did the
7 previous BOCC. He said in the calculated average, 13 out of 18 categories go down for the
8 CHCCS, but only 7 out of 18 for Orange County Schools (OCS); so at first blush it seems
9 bedroom count is a fairer approach, as most categories go down in both districts. He said as
10 far as student housing goes, it can be converted to housing for families, unless restricted
11 otherwise. He said Orange County is not competing with Chatham County for housing. He
12 said homebuilders insist that residential growth pays for itself, but this is a fallacious argument.
13 He said Orange County conducted a study with North Carolina State University, which showed
14 it does not pay for itself.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said there are no longer state school construction funds; the
16 homebuilders fought bitterly on having a real estate transfer tax; there are also complaints from
17 the same communities that Orange County taxes are too high; and the question remains how
18 does the County pay for the schools. He said there must be mechanisms to address this issue,
19 and there are not too many other choices. He said the County must do what is legally
20 defensible and ethically honest.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said if there are to be further conversations with other
22 stakeholders, which he does not advocate, then he would want to have the County Attorney
23 present, and a predetermined end point. He said he is not in favor of delaying, but he respects
24 people making this argument.
25 Commissioner Price asked if this topic can be delayed, and if so, for how long.
26 John Roberts said waiting a meeting or two would be acceptable. He said if the topic
27 waits too long the data may become stale.
28 Commissioner Price said to take a little more time to engage the community.
29 Commissioner Burroughs asked if this must run by the calendar year.
30 Craig Benedict said another start date can be set. He said there is very methodical
31 language in the ordinance for starting this process and permitting dates. He said he can
32 schedule meetings with stakeholders and the Attorney, and within a month this should be vetted
33 out. He said it is clear that the BOCC takes this issue seriously. He said he would recommend
34 getting this concluded in the next month before a new board member joins the BOCC.
35 Commissioner Rich said there have been three or more discussions on this topic, and
36 the words legally defensible keep coming back. She asked if the study has to be approved
37 along with the numbers, and would be legally defensible.
38 John Roberts said yes, this would adopt the data upon which the ordinance is based.
39 Commissioner Rich asked if the numbers were altered would they then no longer be
40 legally defensible.
41 John Roberts said the authorizing legislation states that the Board shall determine what
42 should be fairly born by the people who are paying the taxes, which comes into play with what
43 percentage of the maximum supportable fee is fair. He said that is up to the Board, but
44 recommends that the data in the categories should not be tampered with.
45 Commissioner Rich referred to the idea of paying over time, and would like more
46 information about this.
47 Craig Benedict said if that practice were instated, it must be available to all.
48 Commissioner Rich suggested the possibility of starting lower than the breakeven
49 amount of 37%, knowing that the numbers will go up. She said she is on the fence about
50 having further discussions.
20
1 Commissioner Pelissier said it seems to her that everyone is already paying the impact
2 fee over time. She said her only concern is that affordable housing units pay impact fees up
3 front, and then have to wait for the reimbursement. She asked if there is a way to speed that
4 up.
5 Commissioner Pelissier said the Board should vote on which options of data to use:
6 bedrooms or the average.
7 Commissioner Dorosin said to conclude the conversation. He said there is a consensus
8 of value in the process of engaging stakeholders, and suggested staying on a timeline to
9 approve this on November 15th
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
12 defer the final consideration of this item to the November 15th BOCC meeting, and in the interim
13 direct staff and the County Attorney to meet with stakeholders, and the leadership of school
14 boards and to share information.
15
16 Commissioner Jacobs offered a friendly amendment to pick bedroom count as the
17 method before this is put out for further discussion.
18 Commissioner Dorosin accepted the friendly amendment.
19 Commissioner Price said she is not happy with the friendly amendment, but she would
20 accept it as she sees Commissioners nodding their heads.
21 Chair McKee said he is not nodding his head, and he feels that if a conversation is going
22 to be opened up, then it should be opened up in its entirety. He said locking any aspect of this
23 topic down gives the impression of a predetermined outcome.
24 Commissioner Price said she will not accept the friendly amendment, and withdraws her
25 second to it.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said having an extending conversation is already a compromise.
27 Commissioner Rich seconded the friendly amendment.
28
29 Vote on amendment: Ayes, 5 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner
30 Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Burroughs); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Price and
31 Chair McKee).
32
33 Discussion resumed regarding the original motion made by Commissioner Dorosin, as
34 amended to include the method of the bedroom count:
35 Chair McKee said the Board must consider what does not get built, and how the Board's
36 decisions are directing what does get built. He said no one has mentioned that anything that is
37 built will provide new property taxes, some of which may be significant. He said he is
38 adamantly against starting below the breakeven point.
39 Chair McKee said this whole topic does not have to be this complicated, and the
40 discussion tonight suggested ways to make it even more complicated. He said there are 98
41 other counties in North Carolina that build schools without impact fees.
42 Chair McKee said he heard a lot of conversation tonight that was not centered on
43 schools, but rather how to direct development.
44
45 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Chair McKee)
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
47 direct staff to come back with a policy for reimbursement of the impact fees for non-profits
48 organizations.
49
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
1
2 b. Orange County ABC Board Travel Policy
3 The Board considered approving the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
4 Board's use of the amended travel policy.
5 Bonnie Hammersley said this was a reconsideration of a motion on which the Board
6 acted in June.
7 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, led the presentation:
8
9 BACKGROUND: Five years ago, the North Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission
10 enacted a new policy requirement that each local ABC Board adopt a travel policy on an annual
11 basis. A local ABC Board can adopt the State of North Carolina's travel policy, or the travel
12 policy of the County in which the ABC Board resides, or a travel policy that conforms to the
13 travel policy of the County.
14
15 The Orange County ABC Board voted the last five years to adopt and use Orange County's
16 travel policy. The travel policy was most recently adopted by the BOCC on June 21, 2016.
17 Subsequent to the June adoption, the ABC Board had minor ABC revisions primarily pertaining
18 to ABC approval in order for the ABC Board to use the proposed amended policy, the Board of
19 County Commissioners must approve.
20
21 Chair McKee said the ABC Board does not object to informing the Manager of their
22 travel plans. He said the ABC Board is a state board, though the BOCC appoints board
23 members and Chair, but does not provide operational funding.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for
26 the Board to approve the Orange County ABC Board's use of the amended travel policy.
27
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 c. Designation of the "Headwaters Nature Preserve" and Approval of Budget
31 Amendment#2-A
32 The Board considered approving the Resolution To Designate and Create the
33 "Headwaters Nature Preserve", with changes and revisions as needed, and authorized the
34 Chair to sign the resolution as approved by the Board.
35 David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
36 Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
37
38 Designation of Headwaters Nature Preserve
39 October 18, 2016
40
41 Site Description
42 0 60 acres adjoining Greene Tract and Neville Tract
43 0 Acquired as part of Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement
44 0 Forested, with volunteer trails
45 0 Landlocked —only access through Greene Tract or to north
46
47 Context Map
48
49 Proposed Uses
50 0 Consistent with March 2000 Memorandum
22
1 0 Land selected primarily for natural resource / conservation values
2 0 Proposed name— headwaters of Old Field Creek
3
4 Site Map
5
6 Recommended Actions
7 1. Announce intention to use for open space and low-impact recreation
8 2. Enroll in Lands Legacy Program as Headwaters Nature Preserve
9 3. Authorize reimbursement as per FY 2016-21 CIP
10 4. Direct staff to return with master plan and implementation schedule
11
12 Commissioner Price asked if there is a way to access this property.
13 David Stancil said the property is landlocked, and access would be through the Greene
14 Tract, or via the properties to the north.
15 Commissioner Jacobs commended staff for using the low impact recreation verbiage.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said it will take years to develop a plan for the Greene Tract, and
17 limiting access for that long is unacceptable to him. He said the other owners of the Greene
18 Tract should be informed that the County plans to allow access to the Headwaters Preserve via
19 the Greene Tract. He said if there is an objection it can be dealt with; but if there is no
20 objection, the land should be accessible with an "enter at your own risk" posting.
21 Commissioner Dorosin suggested that a trail should be in place.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said there is already a trail, and suggested using what is there,
23 after it has been checked by County staff for major ruts or obstacles. He said it is important to
24 just get people using it.
25 David Stancil said staff will look at the volunteer trails, which will probably need to be
26 fixed, but are usable.
27 Commissioner Price asked if an easement could be requested to allow access to this
28 nature preserve.
29 David Stancil said the simplest thing to do would be to get a temporary trail easement.
30 Chair McKee said access would require an agreement with Chapel Hill and Carrboro,
31 and asked if a dedicated easement for future access could come off of Lizzie Lane.
32 John Roberts said there may be an existing easement to use.
33
34 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
35 RESOLUTION
36 To Designate and Create the "Headwaters Nature Preserve"
37
38 WHEREAS, Orange County owns 60 acres of land south of Eubanks Road, west of Purefoy
39 Drive, north of Homestead Road and west of the North Carolina Railroad on the north side of
40 Chapel Hill; and
41
42 WHEREAS, the location of this property makes it conducive for public open space and low
43 impact recreation — including trails, picnic tables and wildlife viewing areas —for the surrounding
44 neighborhoods and the Rogers-Eubanks community; and
45
46 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners of March, 2000 — citing the
47 natural resources present on site - expressed an intention to keep this 60 acres of land
48 undisturbed; and
49
23
1 WHEREAS, a 2002 master plan for the adjoining 104-acre Greene Tract reflected open space
2 as an important and contiguous future land use, and recent planning efforts for the Greene
3 Tract continue to show open space and low-impact recreation as a recommended part of the
4 mix of future uses; and
5
6 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners adopted an FY 2016-17
7 budget that included funds to reimburse the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund for this property; and
8
9 WHEREAS, on September 8, 2016 the Board expressed a desire to move forward with
10 designation of the 60-acre suite for open space and low-impact recreation.
11
12 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
13
14 That the Orange County Board of County Commissioners hereby designates this 60-acre
15 property as the "Headwater Nature Preserve' and take the following actions:
16
17 1. That this 60-acre property be assigned for use as publicly-accessible open space and
18 low-impact recreation, with such usage to begin as soon as practical.
19 2. That this land be enrolled in the County's Lands Legacy Program, to be protected and
20 conserved for this designated purposes.
21 3. That the County Manager and staff be directed to develop a plan for implementation.
22 This, the 18th Day of October 2016.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
25 approve the resolution, with changes and revisions as needed and authorized the Chair to sign.
26 And direct staff to make this parcel accessible as soon as possible.
27
28 The resolution will be shared with the elected boards of the towns of Chapel Hill and
29 Carrboro, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools Board of Education, and the current Greene
30 Tract staff working group.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 Chair McKee said due to lateness of the evening, he would like to defer the rest of the
35 items on the agenda.
36
37 8. Reports
38 None
39
40 9. County Manager's Report
41 DEFERRED
42
43 10. County Attorney's Report
44 DEFERRED
45
46 11. Appointments
47 DEFERRED
48
49 12. Board Comments
50 DEFERRED
24
1
2 13. Information Items
3
4 • October 4, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
5 • Memorandum - Old Courthouse Square Project - Norwood Jones Office Preservation
6 • Memorandum - Facility Parking and Pedestrian Sidewalk Project Update
7 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting
8
9 14. Closed Session
10 NONE
11
12 15. Adjournment
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
15 defer the rest of the items on the agenda and to adjourn the meeting at 10:54 p.m.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 Earl McKee, Chair
20
21 Donna Baker
22 Clerk to the Board