Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-18-2016 1 APPROVED 12/5/2016 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 18, 2016 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places: - White sheet: additional resolution for item 5-a - White sheet: revised abstract for item 5-b - PowerPoint for item 7-a - PowerPoint for item 7-c PUBLIC CHARGE Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. Chair McKee said the Board of County Commissioners released a statement condemning the bombing of the Republican Party Headquarters. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Don O'Leary said the bombing of the GOP headquarters is reminiscent of the 1960s and 1970s. He said he does not believe this was a random act. He said this is similar to paid agitators that come into cities and counties and start riots. He said we do not have a federal government anymore, but rather an occupation. He said Orange County should sever itself from the federal government, and keep local decisions local. He said both parties are bad at the federal level. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members 2 Commissioner Burroughs said Durham County upgraded its family leave policy, and she would like Orange County to review its policy as well. Commissioner Pelissier had no petitions or announcements. Commissioner Jacobs had no petitions or announcements. Commissioner Dorosin said Durham County also raised their living wage to $15.00 per hour. He said Orange County has a Community Giving Fund, and he said he would like to see a policy for adding line items to this fund. He would like to add a line item for a county fair, and would like to have a discussion about this. Commissioner Rich said Orange County Living Wage now has 88 registered employers, recently adding Orange County Schools and the Town of Hillsborough, whom she congratulated. She said she and Commissioner Jacobs would like to see Orange County's living wage go up to $15.00 per hour. Commissioner Price said the coordinated campaign was also hit with graffiti, in addition to the bombing at the GOP headquarters. Commissioner Price said OPC/Cardinal Innovations Coordinator Debra Farrington is leaving her position. She acknowledged her presence this evening, and her service to the County. Chair McKee had no petitions or announcements. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Proclamation Recognizing University of North Carolina (UNC) Men's Lacrosse 2016 NCAA Championship The Board considered approving the proclamation recognizing the UNC Men's Lacrosse Team for winning the 2016 National Championship and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation on behalf of the Board. Coach David Metzbower said this is the first NCAA Men's Lacrosse Championship win for UNC since 1991. He reviewed the schedule and wins. Chair McKee read the proclamation: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION OF RECOGNITION ON UNC MEN'S LACROSSE TEAM WINNING THE 2016 NCAA LACROSSE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP WHEREAS, on May 30, 2016, the University of North Carolina men's lacrosse team captured the NCAA Division I Men's Lacrosse National Championship; and, WHEREAS, under the guidance of Head Coach Joe Breschi, the UNC men's lacrosse team earned its first NCAA National Championship title since 1991; and, WHEREAS, the Tar Heels completed the season with a 14-13 overtime win against Maryland; and, WHEREAS, the UNC men's lacrosse team finished the year with a 12-6 record; and, WHEREAS, through hard work, dedication, teamwork, and commitment, the Tar Heels have brought honor upon themselves, the University of North Carolina, Orange County and the State of North Carolina; NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Orange County Board of Commissioners expresses its sincere appreciation and respect for the University of North Carolina men's lacrosse team, for the Tar Heels' outstanding achievement, and for their 3 inspiration to youth across the nation through their dedication, teamwork, and athletic prowess. This, the eighteenth day of October 2016. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the Board to approve the attached proclamation recognizing the UNC Men's Lacrosse Team for winning the 2016 National Championship and authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation on behalf of the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Recognition of Basic Law Enforcement Training Academy Graduates The Board considered recognizing the recent graduates of the 1st Basic Law Enforcement Training Academy established through a partnership with Durham Technical Community College. Sheriff Blackwood reviewed the following background information: BACKGROUND: The Orange County Sheriff's Office included in its System Plan a goal of establishing a Basic Law Enforcement Training ("BLET") Academy, which would meet and exceed minimum State requirements. The underlying idea was to create an Academy with the look and feel of the Sheriff's Office, utilize in-house instructors as well as those from local agencies, and offer agency specific training, with the overall goal of exceptional training culminating in competent and eager graduates. After much collaboration between Durham Technical Community College administrators and Sheriff's Office Training Division staff, the BLET 1st Class began on May 2, 2016 and graduated September 22, 2016. Several members of staff from the Sheriff's office gave a synopsis of the cadet process. Sheriff Blackwood thanked the Commissioners and Durham Tech, saying this is a dream come true. He introduced each of the cadets. The Board recognized the recent graduates of the 1st Basic Law Enforcement Training Academy. 5. Public Hearings a. North Carolina Community Transportation Program Administrative and Capital Grant Applications for FY 2018 The Board considered: conducting a public hearing to receive public comments on the proposed grant application; approving the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2018 in the total amount of$392,866 with a local match total of$48,285 to be provided when necessary; authorizing the Chair to sign the Community Transportation Program Resolution and the Local Share Certification for Funding forms; and authorizing the Chair and the County Attorney to review and sign the annual Certifications and Assurances. Peter Murphy, Orange County Public Transportation Administrator, reviewed the following background information: BACKGROUND: Each year, the NCDOT Public Transportation Division accepts requests for administrative and capital needs for county-operated community transportation programs. OPT 4 is eligible to make application for both administrative and capital funding. The current year FY 2017-approved application includes $166,765 in administrative funding and $211,188 in capital funding for replacement vehicles with total expenses equaling $377,953. The total CTP funding request for FY 2018 is $179,964 for community transportation administrative expenses and an additional $212,902 for capital expenses. This draft grant application is made for expenses totaling $392,866 and would entail a 15% local match ($26,995) for administrative expenses and a 10% local match ($21,290) for capital expenses. The total local funding of$48,285 from the County's General Fund would be included in the Manager's recommended 2017-2018 budget. The acceptance of these grant funds requires compliance with the annual certifications and assurances, for which the signature pages are attached (Attachment 42). The attached signature pages are for the certifications and assurances for FY 2016 as an example. The FY 2017 certifications and assurances signature pages are very similar to those for FY 2016; however, the County has not yet received them from NCDOT. When received, they will be forwarded to the County Attorney and Chair for review and signatures. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The NCDOT CTP FY 2018 grant requires a 15% local match ($26,995) for administrative expenses and a 10% local match ($21,290) for capital expenses for a total of $48,285. As a comparison, the total CTP grant amount approved for FY 2017 was $166,765 for administrative expenses ($25,015 local match) and $211,188 for capital expenses ($21,119 local match) for a total of$46,134 local match, an increase of$14,913 in total expenses ($2,151 local match) from FY 2017 to FY 2018. The indicated local match amounts will be requested in the upcoming FY 2018 budget cycle and must be committed from Orange County's budget for the performance period of July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018 (FY 2018), as indicated in the attached Local Share Certification for Funding form (Attachment 4). This will require Orange County to obligate funding in its next budget cycle for these expenses. A total of$48,285 would come from the County's general operating budget and would be included in the Manager's recommended 2017-2018 budget. PUBLIC COMMENT None A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to: -Approve the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2018 in the total amount of$392,866 with a local match total of$48,285 to be provided when necessary; -Approve and authorize the Chair to sign the two Community Transportation Program Resolutions and the Local Share Certification for Funding forms; and - Authorize the Chair and the County Attorney to review and sign the annual Certifications and Assurances document in Attachment 2. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5 b. Public Hearing Regarding an Economic Development Recruitment Incentive for Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., and a Supplemental Interlocal Agreement Between Orange County & the Town of Chapel Hill The Board considered: 1) Receiving the proposal to consider the issuance of incentives to a private company for the recruitment of Wegmans Food Market, Inc. to Orange County; 2) Approving the "performance-based" economic development incentive agreement between Orange County and the Company, Wegmans Food Market, Inc., with claw- back provisions, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and authorizing the Chair to sign the agreement on behalf of the County; 3) Receiving the supplemental proposal to consider an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill, whereby the County administers the performance-based incentive agreement with the Company, and the County and Town equally share 50/50 in the cost-sharing of the annual incentive payment during the 5- year term of the incentive agreement; and 4) Approving the Interlocal Agreement, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and authorizing the Chair to sign on behalf of the County. Project Description: In response to the ongoing relocation by the Performance Automall car dealership operation (owned by Hendrick Automotive Group) out of Chapel Hill and Orange County and to the SouthPoint Mall area in adjacent Durham County, and the resulting transfer of over 300 full- time jobs out of the community, the Town and County have partnered to spur redevelopment of the 14-acre site that serves as an important gateway entry into Chapel Hill. During 2016, the leadership of Orange County and Chapel Hill collaborated closely in this regard to encourage the recruitment of a single high-quality tenant grocery store, with restaurants, prepared foods, a farmers market and related retail businesses by the grocery chain Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. This joint recruitment effort of Wegmans endeavors to attract to the community a significant number of new jobs, with health insurance & related employment benefits, and notable tax revenues that warrant the proposed incentive offer to the company. Considering Wegmans' competitive site selection efforts as it moves down the eastern seaboard and into North Carolina and establishes its first retail locations in the state, Orange County and Town of Chapel Hill have partnered in a joint recruitment and incentivization effort to attract this specific retail business to the U.S. 15-501 location. The proposed joint financial incentive, calculated at a value up to $4.0 million over a proposed 5-year start-up period by the company, will be equally shared 50/50 by the County & Town. The economic development inducement incentive will be performance-based with respect to the County's annual verification of the Company's targeted increases in (1) employment, wages & benefits, (2) net new taxable real & personal property additions, and (3) retail sales tax collections from projected revenue growth, as Wegmans establishes a Chapel Hill retail presence. Incentives would only be paid following confirmation of the Company's required annual threshold growth in these measures, and, on a pro-rata reimbursement in case the company's targeted growth in any year lags current growth projections. 6 Orange County will serve as the primary administrator of the performance-based Inducement Agreement between Wegmans and the local governments, and the County is holding the required public hearing. In addition, there is a separate Interlocal Agreement that governs the cost share incentive payment transactions between the County and Town over the term of the total incentive period. This incentive offering is based off the following benefits a Wegmans retail facility will bring to the community. Travis Myren reviewed the sequence of events for this item. Steve Brantley, Orange County Economic Development Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation: Presentation to Orange County Board of Commissioners Public Hearing for a Proposed Economic Development Recruitment Incentive for Wegmans Food markets, Inc. & Interlocal Agreement Between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill October 18, 2016 Description of"Project Eagle" • A redevelopment of the current 14-acre Performance Automall site (following the auto dealership's ongoing relocation to Durham by owner Hendrick Automall Group) and the establishment of a single tenant grocery store, with restaurants, prepared foods, farmers market and related retail businesses by Wegmans Food Markets. Proposed site for Wegmans Food Market, Inc. (aerial photo) Wegmans Headquartered in Rochester, New York • $7.6 billion in Revenue (2015) • Over 46,000 Employees Company Values: • We care about the well-being and success of every person. • High standards are a way of life. We pursue excellence in everything we do. • We make a difference in every community we serve. • We respect and listen to our people. • We empower our people to make decisions that improve their work and benefit our customers and our company. Wegmans: helping you make great meals easy • Asian Bar • Bakery • Beer • Catering • Complements • Floral • Kosher Deli • Market Café • Nature's Marketplace 7 • Patisserie • Pharmacy • Pizza • Pub • Sub shop • Sushi • Wine, liquor, beer Community Benefits • Substantial employment, averaging 350 full-time equivalent jobs. • Minimum starting wage of$12 per hour for at least 70% of FTE employees. • Health insurance benefits provided to all full-time employees working at least 30 hours per week. • Significant gains in new property & retail sales taxes collected. • Broad regional market draw from other areas & tourism boost. • Direct synergies with Orange County's local food economy. • Improvements to a critical U.S. 15-501 gateway location into Chapel Hill. Outline of Performance Based Incentives (on a $4 million dollar incentive) Incentive Structure • $4.0 million proposed total incentive, split 50/50 between Orange County ($2 million) and the Town of Chapel Hill ($2 million). • Orange County will serve as the primary administrator of the performance-based incentive agreement between Wegmans and the local governments, and hold the required public hearing. • Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill will have a supplemental Inter-local Agreement governing the co-share incentive payment over the term of the incentive period. This incentive offering is based off the following: 1.) Gateway location along U.S. 15-501 into our community 2.) Large number of jobs that would be created (185 full-time and approximately 413 part- time; or 350 full-time equivalent jobs). 3.) Significant amount of net new taxable investment being made to develop and improve the site ($30+ million) 4.) Significant amount of sales tax that will be generated (potentially $1.5 million +/- annually between the County and Town of Chapel Hill). 5.) This store location will be close to a potential light rail stop. 6.) Environmental clean-up associated with the site's redevelopment. 7.) Replacement of outgoing Performance Motors with another company that supports community values. • Overall property valuation of at lease $18,144,000 in real property and at least $8,000,000 in personal property. The award is calculated at 25% of the total incentive based on real and personal property valuation. • If the property tax valuation target is not achieved, the incentive payment will be reduced proportionally. 8 • Wegmans store retail sales are projected to reach $83,000,000 by the end of the first five years. The award is calculated at 50% of the total incentive based on retail sales. • If the retail target is not achieved, the incentive payment will be reduced proportionally. Retail Sales Projections: 1st year $62,000,000 2nd year $67,000,000 3rd year $72,000,000 4th year $78,000,000 5th year $83,000,000 • Wegmans will maintain employment consistent with the job chart below during the term of the incentive agreement. The award is calculated at 25% of the total incentive based on job creation and wages. • If the employment target is not achieved, the incentive payment will be reduced proportionally. Employment projections: 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) Orange County Revenue Projections: 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 REVENU 2 2 2 2 2 0 E Incentive ($400,000) ($400,000) ($400,000) ($400,000) ($400,000) ($2,000,000) Payment Project Timeline (chart) Commissioner Jacobs asked if the square footage for this building is known. Dan Aiken, Wegmans, said 120-130,000 square feet, and this is on the upper end of typical for a new store. He said each store is designed individually. 9 Commissioner Rich asked if Dan Aiken could review how the retail sales will increase over a period offive5 years; and if it is based on other Wegmans stores, or on what happens in this region. Dan Aiken said it is based on how Wegmans sees its sales continue to grow from year to year. He said the 91 Wegmans stores, which are currently operational, have been reviewed, and the income from the first five years has been totaled to prepare an estimate for the store here. Commissioner Jacobs said there are four specialty food stores in Orange County, and asked the consultant if anyone has looked at the effect of a larger store moving into an area with the smaller stores. Dwight Bassett, Economic Development Officer for the Town of Chapel Hill, said the largest impact is generally felt in the first 90-120 day after the opening of a store, and then returns to what it was before, based on buying preferences. He said the market is anticipated to grow in the long term, and this is an opportunity to grow as a foodie destination beyond restaurants. Commissioner Jacobs said the benefits, which Wegmans provides to its employees, should be commended. He said Orange County has a living wage in place, as do over 80+ businesses. He asked if Wegmans would support the living wage. Dan Aiken said Wegmans would be inclined to support this, and they have committed to benchmark against what was on the Orange County Living Wage website at the time of this current agreement. He said this will be continually reevaluated going forward. PUBLIC COMMENT: Pam Hemminger, Mayor of Chapel Hill, said the Town Council did vote unanimously last night to approve this business. She said the Town is grateful for the partnership with Orange County. She said there were a lot of questions last night about the incentive plan, but there were no questions or concerns about this particular company. She said Wegmans is greatly liked. She said this is the first time a company has been successfully lured away from a bigger county that has access to incentives. She said this is a great opportunity for Orange County, and it sends a huge signal that we are serious about business opportunities in our area. Delores Bailey, Executive Director of Empowerment, Inc., said she is present tonight as a member of the Orange County Economic Development Advisory Board, who is in full support of this project and the incentives. She praised this project and Wegmans' great support of its employees. She commended Wegmans for its philanthropic contributions in the communities where their stores are located. Kristen Smith said she is here on behalf Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, who is in support of the Wegmans project and the interlocal agreement. Commissioner Burroughs said she is in support of this project. She said it should be reiterated that the incentives are performance based. She said Wegmans is a destination store. Commissioner Price thanked both staffs for their diligence in pursuing this project. She supports this project. Commissioner Rich said she is speaking as the liaison to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitor's Bureau, and tourists come for many aspects of Orange County including food and hospitality. She said tourism has increased tremendously over the years, and this store will only help to increase this. Commissioner Rich said she is in the food business, and she hates the word "foodie." She would like this word to be taken out of the press releases going forward. 10 Commissioner Pelissier echoed the comments of the other Commissioners. She looks forward to Wegmans doing things in their stores that reflect the values of Orange County. Commissioner Jacobs said he appreciates the opportunity to welcome Wegmans to Orange County, along with the Town of Chapel Hill. He said Wegmans' profile is similar to that of Morinaga. He thanked both staffs from Orange County and Chapel Hill. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that there is no incentive or requirement that Orange County residents should receive these newly created employment opportunities. John Roberts said no there is not because there would be constitutional equal protection issues with doing so. Commissioner Dorosin asked if localized employment can be part of a community benefits agreement with a developer. John Roberts said that may be possible through community development programs, but not from this contractual agreement. Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to see that built into future community development agreements. Steve Brantley said when Orange County wins a project, a relationship is gained with that business entity. He said this leads to the introduction of non-profits and the possibility of earning the philanthropy of the business. He said Wegmans allows them to work together in a partnership. Commissioner Dorosin said one of the elements of these programs is that jobs will be created, and creating jobs for Orange County residents is something he would like to encourage with future businesses. John Roberts said if the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approves this, he needs to add one sentence to the approval language when appropriate. Chair McKee said the values that Orange County holds highly aligns with Wegmans' corporate culture. He is very much in support of this project. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the Board to close the Public Hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to: - Approve the "performance-based" economic development incentive agreement between Orange County and the Company, Wegmans Food Market, Inc., with claw-back provisions, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and authorize the Chair to sign the agreement on behalf of the County; - Receive the supplemental proposal to consider an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County and the Town of Chapel Hill, whereby the County administers the performance-based incentive agreement with the Company, and the County and Town equally share 50/50 in the cost-sharing of the annual incentive payment during the 5- year term of the incentive agreement; and - Approve the Interlocal Agreement, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the County; and - That the Board specifically determines that all appropriations related to the project shall benefit the County by increasing employment, business prospects, and taxable property. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 11 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda Item b, by Commissioner Price • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda b. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#2 The Board considered approving budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17, item #8: Community Loan Fund. Commissioner Price said she would like clarification regarding the $100,000 from the general fund, and what has happened to these funds since 2012. Paul Laughton, Orange County Finance and Administrative Services, said since 2012 five loans have been distributed to residents, totaling approximately $22,000. Paul Laughton said the original abstract is included from 2012, and this fund was set up in a separate fund, and this is a technical amendment. He said this is an amendment to transfer the funds from the General Fund back into its own line item. Commissioner Price asked if residents in the Efland and Rogers Road areas are aware of these funds. Paul Laughton said he is not sure, but residents were involved in the creation of this fund in 2012. Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to revisit this process, and make these no interest loans. Chair McKee said this can be taken as a petition. Commissioner Price said she agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. Commissioner Jacobs said People for Progress were the original neighborhood for whom this fund was established. Commissioner Jacobs added if this petition is to move forward, then staff should make robust effort to publicize this program's existence. Commissioner Jacobs said from where the funds will come should be considered, and not to limit it to certain neighborhoods. He said the types of neighborhoods that are desired could be defined. Commissioner Dorosin said economically distressed neighborhoods could be targeted, with regards to hook-ups for water and sewer. Commissioner Price said she would like these petitions to move forward, and the status of those who have already received loans should be reviewed. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12 a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes for the September 12, 2016 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing; and the September 20, 2016 BOCC Regular Meeting, as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#2 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17 for Department on Aging; County Manager's Office; Department of Social Services; Asset Management Services; Cardinal Innovations Healthcare-OPC Community Office; Southern Orange Campus Capital Project; and Emergency Medical Services Substations Capital Project. c. Board of Commissioners Meeting Calendar for Year 2017 The Board approved the final schedule of meetings for the Board of County Commissioners for calendar year 2017. 7. Regular Agenda a. School Impact Fee Updates The Board considered adopting the updated school impact fee levels and amendments to the General Code of Ordinances — Educational Facilities Impact Fees. Possible options for updated fee levels presented at the public hearing included: 1. As calculated, adopting at some percentage of the Maximum Supportable Impact Fees (MSIF). 2. Collapsing the Single Family Detached category in the Orange County Schools district (due to an unexpected result in this category), charging the "Average" for this housing type in this district, charging fees as calculated for other housing types, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. 3. Collapsing all housing type categories in both or either school districts, charging the "Average" calculation by housing type, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. a. Note for this option: Accessory dwelling units (e.g., granny flats) are included in the multi-family category (0-2 bedrooms), so setting the fee for the "average" calculation may result in an increase for accessory dwelling units, depending on the percentage of MSIF chosen. 4. Options 1-3 can also be implemented by increasing the percentage of MSIF over a period of time (e.g., adopt at x% effective 2017, y% effective 2018, and z% effective 2019). It should be noted that the adopted percentage of MSIF must be the same for all housing types (e.g., fees cannot be adopted at 40% MSIF for one housing type and 60% MSIF for a different housing type). Although no members of the public spoke at the public hearing, there was extensive discussion on the impact fee topic. Discussion included: • potential impacts on housing affordability; • lack of availability of a regional school construction cost inflationary index; • how units would qualify for the age restricted housing rate; • how changes in demographics, including housing choices, have resulted in differences in the impacts by housing types which could result in potential large increases in impact fees for some housing types, particularly multi-family, due to the large increase in the housing type's proportional impact on student membership; and 13 • comments about which potential option to choose, including potential phasing, and at which percentage levels. Additional information regarding the "breakeven point" between current and updated fees was also requested by the BOCC. Details of this information, including assumptions regarding projected dwelling unit counts and bedroom count splits, are included in Attachment 1. In order to calculate the estimated impact fee collection amounts if fees are collected based on the number of bedrooms a unit contains, staff assumed a 50/50 split between units with fewer bedrooms and units with a greater number of bedrooms. If actual construction differs significantly from assumptions, actual impact fee amounts collected would be different (either higher or lower, depending on actual construction activity). The estimated breakeven point if data is disaggregated to bedroom count levels is 37% of the MSIF. The estimated breakeven point for the "calculated average" of housing types is 43.5%. When updated impact fees were last adopted in 2008, the initial fee amount was set at a level (32% of the 2008 MSIF) expected to collect $1.6 million in the Chapel Hill — Carrboro district in order to reach the amount budgeted for debt service in that district. The "breakeven point" was not calculated in 2008 (i.e., the MSIF percentage point was based on budget needs). Additionally, a four-year implementation period was adopted since the starting point of 32% of the MSIF provided a very low partial cost recovery. The fee started at 32% of the MSIF on January 1, 2009 and moved to 40%, 50%, and 60% each January 1 of subsequent years, completing the annual increases in 2012 (see Attachment 5). Craig Benedict, Planning Director, and Perdita Holtz, Planning, made a PowerPoint presentation. Perdita Holtz presented the following slides: 2016 School Impact Fee Update Results of October 4 Discussion • Breakeven analysis completed • Information regarding affordability concerns compiled • Two potential ordinances for consideration • One to charge by bedroom counts, if applicable • One to charge by calculated average Note: October 10th presentation at Chapel Hill Council Meeting; Consensus generally favorable Breakeven Analysis • Breakeven assumes what revenues would be received under old fee schedule vs. new when using projected housing type and bedroom mix of future years. • Also parallels development projections. • Also approximates budget projections. Attachment 1 — Breakeven Analysis Actual Fee Structure (Discussed later in presentation) • Bedroom Count tables — • Projected Annual Collections Added • Breakeven % Determined (37%) • Columns added at 37%, 47%, and 57% MSIF 14 • Calculated Average Tables • Projected Annual Collections Added • Breakeven % Determined (43.5%) • Columns added at 43.5%, 53.5%, and 63.5% MSIF Proposed Ordinances • Begin fees at estimated breakeven point and increase by 10 percentage points for 2 subsequent years • Also language in adopting ordinance (Be it further ordained) clarifying building permit application deadlines and by when a building permit would have to be issued in order to pay the prior fee Additional Ordinance Amendments • Add improved definitions for the various housing types. • Age Restriction; add language in Section 30-33 that would require age restricted units that do not remain age restricted for at least 20 years be required to pay the difference between the age restricted fee paid and the non-age-restricted fee in effect at the time a unit is no longer age restricted. • Additional Ordinance Amendments Cont'd • Add language in Section 30-35(e) clarifying under what conditions a refund would be issued if impact fees were reduced for a particular housing unit type. • Add language in Section 30-38 to recognize conditional zoning, which was adopted in 2011 when the UDO was adopted. Craig Benedict presented the following slides: Proposed Fees (bedroom counts) with % Change From Current Fee (Graph) Proposed Fees (bedroom counts) with % Change From Current Fee (Graph) Proposed Fees (calculated average) with % Change From Current Fee (Graph) Proposed Fees (calculated average) with % Change From Current Fee (Graph) Affordability Summary— CHCCS, by Bedroom Count (at 37, 47, 57% MSIF) • By and large, units with fewer bedrooms (are smaller less expensive units) • Are smaller less expensive units • Impact Fees are lower • SFD 4+ bedroom would experience a decrease the first year • Small Homes (<800 square foot detached) • Major decrease • Multi-family, 0-2 bedrooms would experience an increase • Of note: 2017 fee would be less than the 2001-2008 fee of$1979 • New manufactured homes • Lower Fees • Age-restricted units; major decrease Affordability Summary— OCS, by Bedroom Count (at 37, 47, 57% MSIF) • Multi-family units with 0-2 bedrooms experience a decrease 15 • Lower Fees • Small Homes (<800 square foot detached) • Major decrease • SFD, 0-3 bedrooms • Decrease in year 1 • modest increase in year 2 • Year 3 increase more • SFA, 0-2 bedrooms • Decrease in years 1 and 2 • Year 3 increase • Age-restricted units; major decrease Some Possible Anecdotal Conclusions from the Study Results • Pre-recession, fewer families were living in multi-family and single-family attached units. • In the recent past, the number of new multi-family and single-family attached units has increased faster than the numbers of other units • Families are moving into these new units at a greater rate than families are moving into single-family units • Slower family empty nester conversions • New lower bedroom count multi-family units in the CHCCS district have been heavily marketed to UNC students. • Less land for Single Family Detached so families are choosing other 3 bedroom housing types Recommendation for Tonight • Receive a presentation by staff. • Discuss the topic as desired. • Authorize finalization of the school impact fee study reports by the consultant (TischlerBise). • Adopt one of the proposed Ordinances as follows: • Attachment 2 if impact fees are to be charged by bedroom counts, if applicable, for each housing type. • Attachment 3 of impact fees are to be charged using the calculated average for each housing type. • Additionally, the BOCC can choose to adopt different MSIF percentage levels from those listed in the ordinances and/or a different phasing timeline. Commissioner Price said she is having difficulty with the justification of the bedroom chart within the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City School (CHCCS). Craig Benedict said it has been found through, the majority of the numbers analyzed, that the higher the bedroom count, the more children there are living in the home. He said it is not as simple as looking at one facility at a time. Commissioner Price said the other area she has concerns with is that the type of home increases the fees; such as going from a single family detached to a multi-family home. Craig Benedict said renters do not pay impact fees. He said the fee falls on the owners of the building, and is usually spread over a period of time. Commissioner Price said her concern is that the fee is probably passed on to the renter in the form of higher rent. 16 Craig Benedict said impact fees are not an affordability tool, but rather a way for new construction to pay for the impact of new development on schools. He said the fees are not as high as they could be, and this is a balanced approach, paying only 50% of the MSIF. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a definition of age restricted. Craig Benedict said one person in the house has to be over 55 years of age, and the property is deed restricted for at least 20 years. He said there is a small number of over 55 year olds with children still in school. Commissioner Jacobs said if there was a home where grandma was part of the family, the property could be age restricted and four school children could live there, and lower impact fees would be paid. Craig Benedict said the family member over age 55 has to be the head of household. He said there may be cases where a grandmother invites her extended family to live with her, but he would hope the age restricted community would have covenants to address these other issues. Commissioner Jacobs said there are more and more cases of grandparents raising grandchildren, which will lead to the existence of more exceptions to the rule. Commissioner Dorosin asked if a covenant could be defined. Craig Benedict said in order to be assessed for an impact fee, in the age restricted category, the development must have a recorded document that could not be broken. He said should the development ever wish to move away from being age restricted, it would then have to pay the impact fee at the going rate at that time. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the covenant would say that someone over the age of 55 would always reside in the property. Craig Benedict said yes. John Roberts said it would be something to that effect, and there is not a draft covenant yet. He said it would be recorded in the Register of Deeds office, likely tied to a Home Owners Association, and these homes are not single family detached, but usually part of a particular community. Commissioner Dorosin said the proposal suggests increasing the chosen fee by 10% after the first year, and 10% again after the second year. He said these increases seem to be at a faster rate than the last time impact fees were changed. Craig Benedict said there were new impact fees that went into effect in 2008, and they went up 10% each year, for four years. He said the 2008 analysis showed that the new fees were higher than the old fees because of the increasing cost of schools. Commissioner Dorosin asked if a new analysis would be done in 2019/2020, due to this current analysis only going out two years. Craig Benedict said the demographics do change, and staff would probably suggest another analysis be completed around 2020. He said the data is improving with each analysis. Commissioner Dorosin said all of these numbers are based on the actual study where current children now live. He asked if the extent, to which these fees will drive the development of houses over the next three years, is known. Craig Benedict said it is not so much the fees that are the drivers, but rather the land constraints and the housing market. Commissioner Rich said the Chapel Hill Town Council asked why Orange County did not do an analysis sooner than 10 years, and she will make a motion to do an analysis more often to keep current. Commissioner Rich said the Town Council also wondered why total square footage of a house was not considered, instead of the number of bedrooms, but staff did explain to them in detail about this. 17 PUBLIC COMMENT: Jacob Rogers said he is with the Triangle Apartment Association and is here to express concerns about these fees. He said developers will not swallow these fees, and the residents will have higher rents and higher home prices. He said there was no proactive outreach, about this proposal, to the people it will affect the most. He said Orange County is one of two counties in the state that implement these fees. He said their association is involved with the discussion of affordability, and they want to be involved in these conversations. He asked the Board to forego a decision, and to ask staff to reach out to the stakeholders to discuss this further. Brenda Brantley said she is with the Triangle Apartment Association, and echoed the comments of Jacob Rogers. Aaron Nelson said he is the Director of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, and he just learned of this issue six days ago. He said he does not look at the classified section to read the advertisements about meetings like this. He said there should be a good conversation with all stakeholders to help Orange County create a reasonable impact fee schedule. He highlighted some of the technical issues with the current proposal. Holly Fraccaro said she is the Executive Officer of the Home Builders Association of Orange County and Durham County. She said she is equally disappointed that they were not contacted to be a part of the discussion on impact fees. She asked the Board to forego a vote, and to have a discussion with the stakeholders before making a decision. Aaron Nelson said they have been encouraging developers to build three bedroom multi-family units, as housing is needed for families. He said developers will favor building two- bedroom units as it is cheaper. Commissioner Price said she would be in favor of postponing the vote. Chair McKee said he does not question the numbers analysis, but some of these columns have outrageous increases. He said these increases will have a cumulative effect over three or four years. He asked if there is any timeframe, in this proposed plan that the County comes up with less revenue than is currently being received. Craig Benedict said if more single-family homes than multi-family homes are built, there may not be as much revenue. He said the proposed mix of housing is an assumption based on the trends of development. Chair McKee asked if it also depends on what percentage of MSIF is set as the starting point. Craig Benedict said yes. He said the breakeven point is intended to be almost neutral in year one and it would increase in the ensuing two years. Chair McKee said even at 37%, it is only neutral in one year, and is not at all neutral in other categories. Craig Benedict said it is not neutral by any individual category. He said the idea of starting different categories at different percentages of the MSIF was considered, but a similar percentage across the board is needed to keep proportionality. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the increase in school construction costs since 2008 is known. Craig Benedict said the percentage increase went from 12.5-24% in the 2000s on the elementary school level. He said new numbers for building in tight urban settings can be even higher. Commissioner Jacobs said to John Roberts that he understands the rates have to be statistically defensible to be legally defensible, and asked if there could be a negotiated/ad hoc arrangement that could also be legally defensible. 18 John Roberts said no. He said the Supreme Court has determined there must be proportionality between who pays the fee, what the fee is, and what the fee is paying for. He said the County's authorizing legislation requires an apportionment between what the fee payers are paying, and what cost the fee is off setting. He said a side agreement would not be defensible. He said there is a fee agreement provision in the ordinance, but it involves a dedication of land, and there must be an appraisal of the land completed to establish the value, to ensure that the fee being waived is comparable to the value of the land. Commissioner Rich asked if the number of three bedroom units being built is known. Craig Benedict said the Special Use Permits for approvals do not specify bedroom counts. He said it is at the discretion of the builder, but the one flat fee does not promote the building of three bedroom units over one-bedroom units. Commissioner Rich said the assumption that three-bedroom units will be built is unrealistic. She added that those three bedroom units that are being built are not affordable. Chair McKee asked if increasing the fees will increase the number of three bedroom units being built. He does not see how it would, as these units are not being built currently. Commissioner Rich said the only way these larger units get filled is with UNC students, which does not support the local schools. Commissioner Pelissier said it seems that if the bedroom breakdown is implemented, what is being built is unknown. She asked if there is a way, after one year, to track what is happening on the ground, how the fee is working, and to adjust it as needed. Craig Benedict said the Towns have been asked to collect better data and the school boards for address matching. He said it takes about a year to get information for the past 10 years of data. He said a consultant may help in gathering data. He said the numbers may not move that much in one year. He said in the past 15 years multi family housing has changed from student housing to family housing, which leads to the numbers changing. Commissioner Pelissier said the purpose of the fees is to have the new growth to pay the partial costs of schools. Commissioner Burroughs said updating the data is good, and the data is not negotiable. She asked if paying the impact fee over time would be possible. John Roberts said if it is in the ordinance, then it may be allowable. Commissioner Burroughs said the breakeven is the breakeven, and she understands the idea of phasing in, but she has some concerns about starting at the breakeven and phasing in at a higher rate thereafter. She said she is wondering about the difficulty of doing this. Craig Benedict said the impact of saying, for multi family, that 25% is for a 3 bedroom and 75% is for a 0-2 bedroom, would make the breakeven point higher, as there are a lot of revenues coming with the high three bedroom student generation rates. He said this analysis would raise the numbers. He said the Board has asked for upcoming projects to be analyzed. He said the number of bedrooms may vary wildly. Commissioner Burroughs said the data from where the students are generated is fairly exact, but then there is a fair amount of room. She said if 100% of the MSIF was the goal, then the numbers could be more exact, but this is not the goal. She said anything less than 100% of the MSIF is a judgment call by the BOCC. She said Craig Benedict's comments about predicting the number of bedrooms to be built in the future is inexact. She said the BOCC has to make a judgment that feels fair, and the current breakeven rate is a good starting point. Commissioner Dorosin said the statute requires this rational relationship, which leads to the analysis model. He said the statutory restrictions, and the modeling, has to be based on this snapshot. He said the information that the Board desires cannot be captured in the tool they have. 19 John Roberts said the data on which to base the estimate is necessary to make it legally defensible, and the farther one gets from data the more one may be challenged in a court of law. Commissioner Dorosin said the current rate is based on data that is 10 years old. Chair McKee asked John Roberts if using the current fee schedule, and increasing it by 10%, would be defensible. John Roberts said it could be defensible, but there would be no data attached to this formula, and he would not advise this proposal. He said any increase should be tied to some data. Craig Benedict said a comment was made 10 years ago about going up to 30%, then 40% then 50% and then waiting a few years and going up to 60%, 70%, and 80%. He said it was determined that this course of action would rely on old data, and it was important to have it updated. He said the existing fee structure has weakness in it, as the cost of school construction has doubled over the last 10 years. Commissioner Jacobs said this conversation started in the spring, and it was not fast tracked. He said in response to the public comments, there are some agencies with government affairs staff who should remain apprised of the BOCC agendas, and should have known this discussion was taking place. He said impact fees are a complicated issue, and no matter how many meetings occur, it will remain complicated. He said the BOCC has grappled with questions of fairness and affordability each time this topic has been discussed, as did the previous BOCC. He said in the calculated average, 13 out of 18 categories go down for the CHCCS, but only 7 out of 18 for Orange County Schools (OCS); so at first blush it seems bedroom count is a fairer approach, as most categories go down in both districts. He said as far as student housing goes, it can be converted to housing for families, unless restricted otherwise. He said Orange County is not competing with Chatham County for housing. He said homebuilders insist that residential growth pays for itself, but this is a fallacious argument. He said Orange County conducted a study with North Carolina State University, which showed it does not pay for itself. Commissioner Jacobs said there are no longer state school construction funds; the homebuilders fought bitterly on having a real estate transfer tax; there are also complaints from the same communities that Orange County taxes are too high; and the question remains how does the County pay for the schools. He said there must be mechanisms to address this issue, and there are not too many other choices. He said the County must do what is legally defensible and ethically honest. Commissioner Jacobs said if there are to be further conversations with other stakeholders, which he does not advocate, then he would want to have the County Attorney present, and a predetermined end point. He said he is not in favor of delaying, but he respects people making this argument. Commissioner Price asked if this topic can be delayed, and if so, for how long. John Roberts said waiting a meeting or two would be acceptable. He said if the topic waits too long the data may become stale. Commissioner Price said to take a little more time to engage the community. Commissioner Burroughs asked if this must run by the calendar year. Craig Benedict said another start date can be set. He said there is very methodical language in the ordinance for starting this process and permitting dates. He said he can schedule meetings with stakeholders and the Attorney, and within a month this should be vetted out. He said it is clear that the BOCC takes this issue seriously. He said he would recommend getting this concluded in the next month before a new board member joins the BOCC. 20 Commissioner Rich said there have been three or more discussions on this topic, and the words legally defensible keep coming back. She asked if the study has to be approved along with the numbers, and would be legally defensible. John Roberts said yes, this would adopt the data upon which the ordinance is based. Commissioner Rich asked if the numbers were altered would they then no longer be legally defensible. John Roberts said the authorizing legislation states that the Board shall determine what should be fairly born by the people who are paying the taxes, which comes into play with what percentage of the maximum supportable fee is fair. He said that is up to the Board, but recommends that the data in the categories should not be tampered with. Commissioner Rich referred to the idea of paying over time, and would like more information about this. Craig Benedict said if that practice were instated, it must be available to all. Commissioner Rich suggested the possibility of starting lower than the breakeven amount of 37%, knowing that the numbers will go up. She said she is on the fence about having further discussions. Commissioner Pelissier said it seems to her that everyone is already paying the impact fee over time. She said her only concern is that affordable housing units pay impact fees up front, and then have to wait for the reimbursement. She asked if there is a way to speed that up. Commissioner Pelissier said the Board should vote on which options of data to use: bedrooms or the average. Commissioner Dorosin said to conclude the conversation. He said there is a consensus of value in the process of engaging stakeholders, and suggested staying on a timeline to approve this on November 15th A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to defer the final consideration of this item to the November 15th BOCC meeting, and in the interim direct staff and the County Attorney to meet with stakeholders, and the leadership of school boards and to share information. Commissioner Jacobs offered a friendly amendment to pick bedroom count as the method before this is put out for further discussion. Commissioner Dorosin accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Price said she is not happy with the friendly amendment, but she would accept it as she sees Commissioners nodding their heads. Chair McKee said he is not nodding his head, and he feels that if a conversation is going to be opened up, then it should be opened up in its entirety. He said locking any aspect of this topic down gives the impression of a predetermined outcome. Commissioner Price said she will not accept the friendly amendment, and withdraws her second to it. Commissioner Jacobs said having an extending conversation is already a compromise. Commissioner Rich seconded the friendly amendment. Vote on amendment: Ayes, 5 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Burroughs); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Price and Chair McKee). Discussion resumed regarding the original motion made by Commissioner Dorosin, as amended to include the method of the bedroom count: 21 Chair McKee said the Board must consider what does not get built, and how the Board's decisions are directing what does get built. He said no one has mentioned that anything that is built will provide new property taxes, some of which may be significant. He said he is adamantly against starting below the breakeven point. Chair McKee said this whole topic does not have to be this complicated, and the discussion tonight suggested ways to make it even more complicated. He said there are 98 other counties in North Carolina that build schools without impact fees. Chair McKee said he heard a lot of conversation tonight that was not centered on schools, but rather how to direct development. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Chair McKee) A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to direct staff to come back with a policy for reimbursement of the impact fees for non-profits organizations. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Orange County ABC Board Travel Policy The Board considered approving the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board's use of the amended travel policy. Bonnie Hammersley said this was a reconsideration of a motion on which the Board acted in June. Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, led the presentation: BACKGROUND: Five years ago, the North Carolina Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission enacted a new policy requirement that each local ABC Board adopt a travel policy on an annual basis. A local ABC Board can adopt the State of North Carolina's travel policy, or the travel policy of the County in which the ABC Board resides, or a travel policy that conforms to the travel policy of the County. The Orange County ABC Board voted the last five years to adopt and use Orange County's travel policy. The travel policy was most recently adopted by the BOCC on June 21, 2016. Subsequent to the June adoption, the ABC Board had minor ABC revisions primarily pertaining to ABC approval in order for the ABC Board to use the proposed amended policy, the Board of County Commissioners must approve. Chair McKee said the ABC Board does not object to informing the Manager of their travel plans. He said the ABC Board is a state board, though the BOCC appoints board members and Chair, but does not provide operational funding. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for the Board to approve the Orange County ABC Board's use of the amended travel policy. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Designation of the "Headwaters Nature Preserve" and Approval of Budget Amendment#2-A 22 The Board considered approving the Resolution To Designate and Create the "Headwaters Nature Preserve", with changes and revisions as needed, and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution as approved by the Board. David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation: Designation of Headwaters Nature Preserve October 18, 2016 Site Description O 60 acres adjoining Greene Tract and Neville Tract O Acquired as part of Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement O Forested, with volunteer trails O Landlocked — only access through Greene Tract or to north Context Map Proposed Uses O Consistent with March 2000 Memorandum O Land selected primarily for natural resource / conservation values O Proposed name — headwaters of Old Field Creek Site Map Recommended Actions 1. Announce intention to use for open space and low-impact recreation 2. Enroll in Lands Legacy Program as Headwaters Nature Preserve 3. Authorize reimbursement as per FY 2016-21 CIP 4. Direct staff to return with master plan and implementation schedule Commissioner Price asked if there is a way to access this property. David Stancil said the property is landlocked, and access would be through the Greene Tract, or via the properties to the north. Commissioner Jacobs commended staff for using the low impact recreation verbiage. Commissioner Jacobs said it will take years to develop a plan for the Greene Tract, and limiting access for that long is unacceptable to him. He said the other owners of the Greene Tract should be informed that the County plans to allow access to the Headwaters Preserve via the Greene Tract. He said if there is an objection it can be dealt with; but if there is no objection, the land should be accessible with an "enter at your own risk" posting. Commissioner Dorosin suggested that a trail should be in place. Commissioner Jacobs said there is already a trail, and suggested using what is there, after it has been checked by County staff for major ruts or obstacles. He said it is important to just get people using it. David Stancil said staff will look at the volunteer trails, which will probably need to be fixed, but are usable. Commissioner Price asked if an easement could be requested to allow access to this nature preserve. David Stancil said the simplest thing to do would be to get a temporary trail easement. 23 Chair McKee said access would require an agreement with Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and asked if a dedicated easement for future access could come off of Lizzie Lane. John Roberts said there may be an existing easement to use. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION To Designate and Create the "Headwaters Nature Preserve" WHEREAS, Orange County owns 60 acres of land south of Eubanks Road, west of Purefoy Drive, north of Homestead Road and west of the North Carolina Railroad on the north side of Chapel Hill; and WHEREAS, the location of this property makes it conducive for public open space and low impact recreation — including trails, picnic tables and wildlife viewing areas — for the surrounding neighborhoods and the Rogers-Eubanks community; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners of March, 2000 — citing the natural resources present on site - expressed an intention to keep this 60 acres of land undisturbed; and WHEREAS, a 2002 master plan for the adjoining 104-acre Greene Tract reflected open space as an important and contiguous future land use, and recent planning efforts for the Greene Tract continue to show open space and low-impact recreation as a recommended part of the mix of future uses; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners adopted an FY 2016-17 budget that included funds to reimburse the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund for this property; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2016 the Board expressed a desire to move forward with designation of the 60-acre suite for open space and low-impact recreation. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Orange County Board of County Commissioners hereby designates this 60-acre property as the "Headwater Nature Preserve' and take the following actions: 1. That this 60-acre property be assigned for use as publicly-accessible open space and low-impact recreation, with such usage to begin as soon as practical. 2. That this land be enrolled in the County's Lands Legacy Program, to be protected and conserved for this designated purposes. 3. That the County Manager and staff be directed to develop a plan for implementation. This, the 18th Day of October 2016. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the resolution, with changes and revisions as needed and authorized the Chair to sign. And direct staff to make this parcel accessible as soon as possible. 24 The resolution will be shared with the elected boards of the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Schools Board of Education, and the current Greene Tract staff working group. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee said due to lateness of the evening, he would like to defer the rest of the items on the agenda. 8. Reports None 9. County Manager's Report DEFERRED 10. County Attorney's Report DEFERRED 11. Appointments DEFERRED 12. Board Comments DEFERRED 13. Information Items • October 4, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Memorandum - Old Courthouse Square Project - Norwood Jones Office Preservation • Memorandum - Facility Parking and Pedestrian Sidewalk Project Update • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting 14. Closed Session NONE 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to defer the rest of the items on the agenda and to adjourn the meeting at 10:54 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board