HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 12-13-2016 - 6-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: December 13, 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.
November 1, 2016 BOCC Regular Meeting
November 10, 2016 BOCC Work Session
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 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 November 1, 2016
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 1,
10 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be
18 identified appropriately below)
19
20 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
21 Chair McKee said Bonnie Hammersley, Director of Economic Development, Steve
22 Brantley, and he met with the President of Morinaga on October 31St. He presented the Board
23 with a gift from Morinaga, which were two brass Saki cups.
24
25 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
26
27 Need a motion to add a closed session:
28 § 143-318.11.(a) (3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in
29 order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which
30 privilege is hereby acknowledged.
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier
33 to add a closed session to the agenda.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
38 - white sheet: additional information from a speaker regarding a topic not in the regular agenda
39 - white sheet: PowerPoint for item 5-a
40 - white sheet: PowerPoint for item 5-b
41 - white sheet: Attachment 1 for item 7-a
42 - green sheet: Attachment 4 for Item 7-a
43 - white sheet: PowerPoint for item 7-a
44 - white sheet: PowerPoint for item 8-a
45 - white sheet: PowerPoint for item 8-b
46
47 PUBLIC CHARGE
48 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
49
50 2. Public Comments
2
1
2 a. Matters not on the agenda
3 Indira Everett, said she is from Duke Energy, where she is the District Manager of
4 Government & Community Relations for Chatham, Durham, Lee and Orange Counties. She
5 said she wanted to visit each of the local governments to introduce herself formally and to thank
6 the Board for their service. She said Hurricane Matthew was a challenge, and she distributed
7 two handouts to the Board in reference to emergency preparation and information about the
8 process of power restoration after a weather emergency.
9 Lisa Fischbect, Episcopal Priest with the Episcopal Church of the Advocate in Chapel
10 Hill, said she is here representing Peewee Homes Collaborative, which is a collaborative effort
11 to provide affordable housing. She said this group is transcending usual work and cooperation
12 lines, by bringing together a church, the Town of Chapel Hill, non-profits, architects, a
13 carpenter, and contractors to find affordable housing for people who are at 30% of the average
14 median income in the County. She said the success of this project will be based not only on the
15 collaborations that form, but also the replication of this project elsewhere. She said the church
16 where she serves has 15 acres of land, which it intends to use to house three of these tiny
17 homes as the first project for this collaborative.
18 Sarah Howell, Architect, provided the Board with the preliminary designs for the
19 prototypes for the tiny homes in the Peewee homes project. She said the homes range in size
20 from 250-320 square feet. She said these homes are targeted to house one individual who
21 may be elderly, or on a fixed income. She said there are both handicap accessible and
22 standard floor plan options. She said the first three houses will be built on the Church of the
23 Advocate land, and should be built for$41,500 for the larger prototype, and $31,500 for the
24 smaller. She said these will be permanent structures. She said that the Town of Chapel Hill
25 has given a grant of$70,000 to this project.
26 Commissioner Price asked if these homes would be for sale or rent.
27 Sarah Howell said the homes would be for rent, for 30% of the individual's income, and
28 15% of the rental income will go into a savings account for the renter.
29 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this information is simply a presentation, or is this
30 organization asking for funding.
31 Lisa Fischbect said the process to apply for funding is not yet known, but there was a
32 desire to make the Board aware of the project. She said any advice or guidance would be
33 welcomed.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board would refer this to the County Manager.
35 Chair McKee said when housing is discussed later on the agenda, there will be an
36 opportunity to speak
37 Commissioner Dorosin said funds were received from Chapel Hill, and asked if there are
38 any other income sources.
39 Lisa Fischbect said approximately $150,000 is needed, and multiple grants are being
40 pursued. She said County funds would be wonderful.
41 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated this idea and especially likes the use of
42 church land.
43 Commissioner Rich advised the Collaborative to have discussions with the Town of
44 Chapel Hill about waiving permit fees.
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
3
1 Commissioner Burroughs had no announcements or petitions.
2 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to petition the Board for the County to pursue
3 establishing a joint planning group with Carrboro to review/plan development on Carrboro's
4 western border.
5 Commissioner Pelissier petitioned the Board to establish some format for Board
6 members who attend conferences to provide follow-up informational reports to other Board
7 members. She attended the Go Triangle Board meeting, and all attendees are required to do a
8 report of what was discussed and learned. She said the public needs to understand the value
9 of the Board attending conferences and meetings, and that if Board members attend
10 meetings/conferences, they should come back and report to the Board what they learned, etc.
11 Commissioner Dorosin had no announcements or petitions.
12 Commissioner Rich said she attended the policing forum in Chapel Hill last week, and
13 learned if there is a complaint about a Sheriff's Deputy, one can go online and file a complaint.
14 She petitioned the Board for Community Relations to work with the Sheriff's Office to make the
15 online complaint feature more visible.
16 Commissioner Rich petitioned the Board for staff to review the opportunities to plan for
17 solar pre-wiring of all new buildings as a standard feature, including contacting the Town of
18 Apex, and others, about their efforts.
19 Commissioner Rich said she has received feedback regarding early poling stations, and
20 the desire for all early voting sites to have the same hours. She said different hours at different
21 sites have led to confusion.
22 Commissioner Rich said she attended the Lincoln Center anniversary of desegregation
23 and wondered why the County was not officially represented.
24 Chair McKee said he was unaware of the event, and would have a conversation with the
25 Chair of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) about public invitations to elected
26 officials going forward.
27 Commissioner Rich said she and Commissioner Price were on a list serve for the
28 Lincoln Center.
29 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned that the County Public Affairs Officer meet with both
30 school systems' Public Information Officers (PIO) to help ensure that County and Board
31 members are aware of all school events and ceremonies to encourage friendly and courteous
32 interactions.
33 Commissioner Rich asked if the County would consider issuing a proclamation for this
34 significant anniversary.
35 Chair McKee directed staff to draw up a proclamation in reference to this anniversary.
36 Commissioner Price said the same anniversary for Orange County Schools will occur in
37 two years, and the County should be better prepared to mark this occasion.
38 Commissioner Rich said the panel discussion at the celebration was very informative.
39 Commissioner Price petitioned the Board to consider her submission of a Resolution to
40 support the Equal Rights Amendment. She said the City of Durham has passed a similar
41 resolution. She said this amendment seeks to guarantee equal treatment for women in the
42 Constitution.
43 Commissioner Price said her other petition was in reference to My Brother's Keeper,
44 who submitted a report last spring on its progress as requested by the Board of County
45 Commissioners (BOCC). She petitioned the Board to consider recognizing/approving
46 Movement for Youth as the lead agency for My Brother's Keeper. She requested a
47 presentation at the Board's next meeting.
48 Commissioner Price thanked a class for recently asking her to come and speak on
49 voting.
50 Commissioner Price said Representative Paul Lucke passed away on Saturday.
4
1 Chair McKee said he would like to brag about his stepson, Robert Moore, who recently
2 competed in the Ironman Triathlon in Wilmington.
3
4 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
5 NONE
6
7 5. Public Hearings
8
9 a. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments — Hillsborough Economic
10 Development District
11 The Board conducted a continued public hearing, reviewed revisions incorporated in
12 response to comments made at the September 12 Quarterly Public Hearing, including drive-
13 thrus, and considered action on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO that
14 would modify some development standards, types of permitted uses, and use standards within
15 the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) and which would revise the
16 Manufacturing, Assembly & Processing sections of the Table of Permitted Uses - General Use
17 Zoning Districts and Conditional Zoning Districts.
18 Perdita Holtz, Orange County Planning, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
19
20 UDO Amendments - Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD)
21 Board of County Commissioners Meeting
22 November 1, 2016
23 Item 5-a
24 Presenter: Perdita Holtz, AICP
25
26 Refresher on Overview
27 • Modify some development standards
28 • Revisions to types of permitted uses
29 • Amendments to some use-specific standards
30 • [presented more in-depth at the quarterly public hearing]
31
32 Purpose of Amendments
33 • County is currently working on plans to extend water and sewer infrastructure to parcels
34 south of Interstate 40.
35 • Desire to better promote economic development opportunities, especially high-tech
36 research and development/manufacturing.
37 o By-right approvals important to enhance competitiveness during site selection
38 process.
39 • Site selection specialists send detailed questionnaires to potential
40 communities.
41 • Used to weed out communities that don't have sites ready-to-go.
42 • Continued interest to simplify and shorten review processes, where feasible.
43 • Ensure standards are in place to promote development that will have minimal impacts
44 on surrounding properties.
45
46 Recent History
47 • Heard at September 12 quarterly public hearing
48 • Revised as a result of comments
49 o Allow drive-throughs in each of the EDH zoning districts
5
1 o Remove certain manufacturing uses from consideration
2 • Required modifications to the Tables of Permitted Uses for the General
3 Use and Conditional zoning districts
4 • Planning Board reviewed revised package at October 17 special meeting
5 o Recommended approval
6
7 Uses Removed after QPH
8 • Animal Food Manufacturing (3111)
9 • Grain and Oilseed Milling (3112)
10 • Animal Slaughtering & Processing (3116)
11 • Seafood Product Preparation & Processing (3117)
12 • Tobacco Manufacturing (3122)
13 • Leather & Hide Tanning & Finishing (3161)
14 • Sawmills and Wood Preservation (3211)
15 • Veneer, Plywood, and Engineered Wood Product Manufacturing (3212)
16 • Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Mills (3221)
17 • Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (324)
18 • Basic Chemical Manufacturing (3251)
19 • Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filaments (3252)
20 • Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing (3253)
21 • Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturing (3255)
22 • Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing (3259)
23 • Uses Removed after QPH (cont.)
24 • Tire Manufacturing (32621)
25 • Cement and Concrete Product Manufacturing (3273)
26 • Lime and Gypsum Product Manufacturing (3274)
27 • Primary Metal Manufacturing (331)
28 • Forging and Stamping (3321)
29 • Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing (332992)
30 • Ammunition (except Small Arms) Manufacturing (332993)
31 • Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing (332994)
32 • Motor Vehicle Manufacturing (3361)
33 • Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Manufacturing (3362)
34 • Railroad Rolling Stock Manufacturing (3365)
35 • Ship and Boat Building (3366)
36 • Military Armored Vehicle, Tank, and Tank Component Manufacturing (336992)
37
38 Reminder Regarding Existing Standards
39 • UDO contains a myriad of standards in place to lessen any impacts/mitigate impacts of
40 development.
41 o Use-specific standards in Article 5
42 o General standards (applies to all development) in Article 6.
43 o Examples — Performance Standards:
44 • Electrical Disturbance or Interference (Sec. 6.4.2)
45 • Noise (Sec. 6.4.3)
46 • Vibration (Sec. 6.4.4)
47 • Air Pollution (Sec. 6.4.5)
48 • Disposal of Liquid Wastes (Sec. 6.4.6)
49 • Hazardous Materials (Sec. 6.4.7)
6
1 • Utilities (including water use limitations; any use projected to require
2 more than 30,000 gallons per day cannot be permitted by-right) (Sec.
3 6.4.8)
4 • Solid Waste (Sec. 6.4.9)
5 • Service & Outdoor Storage (Sec. 6.4.10)
6 o Architectural Design Standards (Sec. 6.5.1)
7 o Landscaping, Buffers & Tree Protection (Sec. 6.8)
8 o Parking, Loading & Circulation (Sec. 6.9)
9 o Outdoor Lighting (Sec. 6.11)
10 o Signs (Sec. 6.12)
11 o Stream Buffers, Stormwater Management, and Soil Erosion & Sedimentation
12 Control (Sec. 6.13 to 6.15)
13 o Traffic Impact Analysis (Sec. 6.17)
14
15 Recommendation for Tonight
16 1. Conduct the continued public hearing and accept comment on the proposed
17 amendments;
18 2. Close the public hearing;
19 3. Deliberate on the petition as desired; and
20 4. Decide on one of the following options:
21 a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
22 (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3);
23 b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date;
24 c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; Deny the proposed
25 amendments.
26 (Note: Section 2.2.8 Effect of Denial on Subsequent Applications of the UDO states that no
27 application for the same or similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The
28 one-year period begins on the date of denial.)
29
30 Planning Board member Tony Blake said he had nothing to add.
31 Chris Cole, Orange County resident, said he spoke at the previous Quarterly Public
32 Hearing (QPH), and thanked the Board for making these changes. He said this is a huge step
33 in the right direction. He said he is a certified public accountant, and his familiar with this area.
34 He suggested the removal of four more items from the list of permitted uses: 3169, 3219,
35 3261, and 3262.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said he appreciated the Planning Board members being present.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said he does not understand some of the list of permitted uses.
38 He referred to page 84, and asked planning staff if Emergency Services has reviewed this list,
39 which includes some highly flammable items. He said he also has concerns about Polystyrene
40 Foam products.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said he also does not known what some of these products are,
42 and he is uncomfortable approving anything until he is better informed.
43 Commissioner Jacobs suggested giving the BOCC a week to review/pull items that they
44 do not understand or do not want on this list. He said this all relates to item 6e, the North
45 American Industry Classification System (NAICS), about which he has no understanding.
46 Commissioner Price referred to the list on page 84, and asked Commissioner Jacobs if
47 his concerns are that these items will be included.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said this is his question, and he is unclear.
49 Perdita Holtz said the NAICS is how the Hillsborough EDD was set up in the early
50 2000s. She said these codes were set up as the use codes. She said item 6-e has to do with a
7
1 complete overhaul of the tables of permitted uses, in response to the Bird vs. Franklin County
2 court case. She said legal staff would prefer that the County start using the NAICS code as the
3 basis for the table of permitted uses, as it is all-inclusive on all types of uses. She said that is a
4 large project, requiring work sessions with both the Planning Board and the BOCC. She said
5 page 84 is sector 42 of the NAICS code, which is suggested for inclusion in EDH5 zoning
6 districts. She said staff was specifically told, at the QPH, to look at the manufacturing sectors,
7 which is not sector 42.
8 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the NAICS code supersedes existing County policy.
9 Perdita Holtz said NAICS is using that code to determine use. She said the court case
10 has made it necessary to list prohibitive uses, as well as permitted ones.
11 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this is required moving forward.
12 Perdita Holtz said yes. She said this would also be true for the NAICS manufacturing
13 code now, if the Board adopts this amendment.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said he thought the Board would have an opportunity to go
15 through all of the uses, not only manufacturing.
16 Perdita Holtz said this may have been a misunderstanding.
17 Commissioner Price asked if hotels will be permitted.
18 Perdita Holtz said yes.
19 Commissioner Price said the Town of Hillsborough had some questions, and asked if
20 these have been resolved.
21 Perdita Holtz said she did not recall any questions from Hillsborough. Discussion
22 ensued, and all issues have been resolved.
23 Commissioner Rich said she is confused about how this proposed amendment ties in
24 with the future requirements from the Bird vs. Franklin County court case.
25 Perdita Holtz said these actions would be in compliance with the judicial decision, and
26 later there will be an expansion to different areas of the permitted use tables that are not being
27 discussed this evening.
28 Commissioner Dorosin said the Hillsborough EDD was ahead of the lawsuit, and now
29 the rest of the UDO will have to catch up.
30 Commissioner Rich said she shared Commissioner Jacobs' concern about reviewing the
31 list fully, and that the Board needs to have that conversation.
32 Commissioner Dorosin suggested taking Commissioner Jacobs' proposal to allow
33 BOCC members to review/pull items of concern, and have staff explain.
34 Commissioner Price referred to page 29, where there is a table on the permitted uses.
35 She asked if staff is suggesting removing the whole section on manufacturing, assembly and
36 processing, and starting over.
37 Perdita Holtz said the recommendation is to remove the existing section, and replace it
38 with the new NAICS code section.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said he cannot find the Commissioners resolution or motion in
40 the abstract.
41 Perdita Holtz said the QPH minutes were not available when this draft abstract was
42 submitted to the Manager's office.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said if the original motion was restricted to manufacturing, he
44 feels that was a mistake. He said the list is helpful, but it may be useful to have the same chart,
45 but in alphabetical order.
46 Chair McKee asked if this sequencing is consistent with the NAICS code.
47 Perdita Holtz said yes.
48 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said hopefully this information will be
49 available electronically, and then could be traced either way.
8
1 Craig Benedict referred to page 5-8, and said the existing code was too vague. He said
2 permitted and prohibited items need to be more specific. He said there will hopefully be an
3 opportunity, at a future work session, to vote on each item.
4 Chair McKee asked if this amendment were to be passed tonight, would the County be
5 locked in. He said there are many more steps before water and sewer can be expanded, and
6 he would not be comfortable with a 2 — 6 month delay.
7 Perdita Holtz said changes can be made at any time, via the usual amendment process.
8 She said there are other things that can continue to happen, while these items are being
9 hashed out.
10 Chair McKee said if the Board can continue this process and answer all its questions, he
11 would be in agreement with a short delay. He said each Commissioner should submit any
12 questions and concerns, address them in the near future, and move on with the process.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said he agrees with Chair McKee, and this item should come
14 back at a December meeting.
15 Chair McKee asked staff if this timeframe is acceptable.
16 Perdita Holtz said this timeframe would be possible as long as the Commissioners have
17 any questions submitted in a week.
18 Chair McKee said the Board can move quickly.
19 Commissioner Pelissier asked if staff would exclude a permitted use if only one Board
20 member wanted to exclude.
21 Commissioner Dorosin suggested all Commissioners send in their list, and if four or
22 more agree to remove a use, then staff should remove it from the listing. He said if there are
23 three or less votes to remove an item, the Board should review and vote on each.
24 Commissioner Price asked if the Board is reviewing the multicolor lists or the NAICS list.
25 Chair McKee said it is his understanding that the Board will receive a list of deleted
26 items from the 70 pages of numbered items; the NAICS codes.
27 Commissioner Price asked if the decisions will pertain to the Hillsborough EDD.
28 Perdita Holtz said the outcome will have to be included in the tables of permitted uses,
29 but staff can send the Board a list of the sector numbers that are in the EDDs, to make things
30 easier.
31 Commissioner Rich asked if staff will provide a list.
32 Perdita Holtz said yes.
33 John Roberts said the BOCC is able to send it back to the Planning Board with
34 instructions.
35 Chair McKee said it is now on the Board's table, and he believes the Board should go
36 through the list.
37 Commissioner Rich clarified that the Commissioners will review a list, and then provide
38 any input or questions back to staff within a week.
39 Perdita Holtz said she would provide the Board with the list by tomorrow morning.
40 John Roberts said staff counting votes outside of a public meeting would be a violation
41 of the Open Meetings law.
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
44 delay action on this item and continue the public hearing to the December 5th BOCC meeting;
45 staff will provide the NAICS list to the BOCC; the Board will review and respond by Tuesday of
46 next week (Nov. 8th)with any NAICS listed uses that the Board would like prohibited in the
47 Hillsborough EDD; staff will collect data and the BOCC will make all decisions in an open
48 meeting.
49
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
1
2 Commissioner Price referred to food services being prohibited on page 56, and asked if
3 something like Caribou Coffee would be allowed in the EDD.
4 Perdita Holtz said this could not be a stand-alone building, but would need to be part a
5 site plan.
6 Chris Cole asked if he could be notified by email, because he was not for this meeting.
7 Staff said yes.
8
9 b. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Hillsborough Economic Development District
10 The Board opened a continued public hearing and considered action on government-
11 initiated amendments to the Zoning Atlas involving five parcels south of Interstate 40 in the
12 vicinity of Old Highway 86 and adjacent interstate right-of-way.
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
15 continue this public hearing to the December 5th meeting.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 6. Consent Agenda
20 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
21 None
22
23 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier
26 to approve the items on the Consent Agenda.
27
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
31
32 a. Minutes
33 The Board approved the minutes from September 15, 2016 as submitted by the Clerk to the
34 Board.
35 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
36 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor
37 vehicle property tax values for two taxpayers with a total of two bills that will result in a
38 reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS.
39 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
40 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
41 values for five taxpayers with a total of eleven bills that will result in a reduction of revenue
42 in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
43 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
44 The Board considered nine untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
45 taxation for nine bills for the 2016 tax year.
46 e. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendment Outline Form and Schedule for
47 Proposed Text Amendment—Tables of Permitted Uses
48 The Board approved revised process components and schedules for a Planning Director
49 initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) text amendment.
10
1 f. Dedication of Stormwater Control Structure Easement for Fairview Park Parking Area
2 Expansion Project
3 The Board approved a dedication of the Stormwater Facility Easement built to service the
4 Parking Expansion Project at Fairview Park as presented, upon final review of the County
5 Attorney, and authorized the Chair to sign.
6
7 7. Regular Agenda
8
9 a. County Assisted Affordable Housing Income Targets and Project Scoring Criteria
10 The Board considered approving the income targets and proposed scoring criteria for
11 affordable housing projects as part of the Proposed Orange County FY 2016 - 2020 Affordable
12 Housing Strategic Plan.
13 Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation:
14
15 Affordable Housing
16 Unit Allocations and Scoring Criteria for County Assisted Units
17 Board of Orange County Commissioners
18 November 1, 2016
19
20 Unit Allocation —Option #1 (chart)
21 • Broadened application from "Bond Funds" to "County Funds"
22 • Maintains the 250 unit cap for all income levels
23
24 Unit Allocation —Option #2
25 • Broadened application from "Bond Funds" to "County Funds"
26 • Maintains 250 unit cap for>50% to <80% of Area Median Income (AMI) only
27 • Emphasizes the need to create units for incomes under 50% AMI and special needs
28 populations
29
30 Unit Allocation —Option #3
31 • Broadened application from "Bond Funds" to "County Funds"
32 • Input from Affordable Housing Coalition
33 • Allocates amount of funds rather than number of units in each category
34 • Changes income ranges to include 60% of Area Median Income to be consistent with
35 tax credit project guidelines
36 • Adds homeowner option to the <30% to < 60% Area Median Income category
37
38 Draft Project Scoring Matrix
39 • Broadened application from "Bond Funds" to "County Funds"
40 • Increased points (5 total) for accessibility, water and sewer service, and access to
41 transit
42 • Reduced points (5 total) for Community Sponsorship/Support to balance
43 • Included a financial model that demonstrates a financial sustainability over time to the
44 Project Feasibility section
45
46 The following emails were sent to Travis Myren, from Housing Providers, in reference to
47 comments on this issue. The emails were shared with the Board prior to meeting:
48
49 Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity
11
1
2 I agree with all of the comments below. Speaking on behalf of Habitat, I would agree that some
3 degree of flexibility is necessary, and that the 60% of AMI cut off makes more sense than the
4 50% of AMI, both to accommodate LIHTC projects, and also because Habitat serves 30-60% of
5 AMI, and we wouldn't want to have to limit all of our projects to 30-50% of AMI in order to
6 qualify for funding. On average, we serve folks at the 45% of AMI, so maybe approaching the
7 incomes served for a particular project based on the average of incomes served, rather than
8 having a cutoff that would eliminate serving those at 50-60% of AMI, would make more sense.
9
10
11
12 Maggie West, CEF
13 I agree with Robert's point/ $ breakdown for placing an emphasis in the resource limits on
14 projects that serve the lower-income AMI categories, and functionally prioritizing the bond
15 resources towards those categories.
16
17 In terms of the potential double-counting issue, I don't see that becoming a real issue so long
18 as the special populations served also are designated as populations earning below 80% AMI.
19 would imagine that designating specific funds to go towards projects serving special
20 populations would allow the commissioners some discretion as they approve projects in
21 determining which category to "count" a project towards, based on what they know about
22 additional projects coming down the pipeline and other resources that they will hopefully
23 continue to create to make this small pie (as Dan aptly called it) bigger in order to meet the
24 county's broader needs!
25
26 Dan Levine, Self-Help Real Estate
27 All good points below. One specific thing I'd add is that it would be wise to have 60% AMI as cut
28 off rather than 50%, given that it'd align with LIHTC project income limits. More broadly
29 speaking, my instinct is that it certainly makes sense to emphasize priority groups... but we
30 want to maintain flexibility so that we don't run short of dollars for projects based on whatever
31 opportunities emerge, since we're dividing a fairly small pie into multiple slivers. Seems like
32 dividing this pie by too much risks leaving money on the table that could be effectively
33 deployed. I'm curious to hear others thoughts on this.
34
35 Allan Rosen, IFC
36 I agree with Robert in the basics. As for the proportions amongst the four categories that can
37 be further discussed out, as well as how to handle possible double counting of special needs
38 projects that also meet AMI goals.
39 Also, there is a near precedent for this. I don't remember all the details, but when one of the
40 latter RFPs for the earlier bonds was released the county's affordable housing advisory board
41 recommended a $ set aside, perhaps $1 million, for general population affordable rentals since
42 those projects were consistently scoring lower than projects that earned points with special
43 needs attributes.
44
45 Robert Dowling, Community Home Trust
46 I think Travis is correct. If 100 apartments affordable below 50% AMI each require $50,000 of
47 bond funds, the $5MM is gone.
48 The BOCC talked about limiting the amount spent in each category when they last talked about
49 this. If they go in that direction, I think more funds should be allocated at the lower income
50 categories.
12
1 For example:
2 $1.5 MM for 0 to 30% AMI
3 $1.5 MM for 30 to 50% AMI
4 $1 MM for special needs
5 $1 MM for 50 to 80% AMI
6 The special needs category may get captured in the two lower income categories, so that
7 category should not get short-changed.
8
9 Targeting Matrix Discussion:
10 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a recommendation from the Affordable Housing
11 Advisory Board.
12 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said this Advisory Board has yet to receive the most recent
13 options. She said this Board has primarily expressed an interest on focusing on housing for the
14 lowest income groups.
15 Commissioner Jacobs asked if these documents specify that these housing units are for
16 Orange County residents only.
17 Audrey Spencer-Horsely said no.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said he feels these units should be for existing Orange County
19 residents, not for people who move into the County because the units are available.
20 Commissioner Price said that conversation has come up before, and there may be
21 people who were Orange County residents, and moved away due to lack of housing, but may
22 now want to come back.
23 Commissioner Burroughs asked if such limitation is legal to do.
24 John Roberts said he would not recommend such a restriction, as it likely violates
25 constitutional equal protection.
26 Commissioner Jacobs asked if anybody in North Carolina can move into these units.
27 John Roberts said yes. He said there may be a way to create some program that
28 assists current residents in order to get a jump-start on the process. He said specific restriction
29 policies would not be possible.
30 Commissioner Pelissier said there are people who work in Orange County, but live
31 outside of it. She said the only special needs population that has even been addressed through
32 affordable housing is seniors. She said special needs populations are likely quite tied to
33 Orange County, via services, etc., and this should be kept in mind.
34 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the first option is capping every category identically;
35 the second option is no caps, with the exception of the 50-80%; and the third option is going
36 back to everything having caps, but by percent of funds. He asked if it would be best to have
37 no caps in 0-30% and 30-60%, and the cap in the 50-80% being by percent of funds. He said
38 this would be a hybrid of options two and three.
39 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the emails from housing providers, noting that Robert
40 Dowling suggested even less of a cap for the 50-80%.
41 Commissioner Burroughs said she will second Commissioner Dorosin's motion when it
42 is made, and agrees with Robert Dowling as well. She referred to the issue of older adults and
43 seniors, saying she would prefer to focus on those of the lowest income in this population. She
44 asked if this is addressed in the scoring.
45 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said it does get addressed in the scoring.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said he is comfortable with this.
47 Commissioner Rich asked if it is 50 to 80, or 60 to 80%.
48 Travis Myren said Commissioner Dorosin suggested 60%.
13
1 Commissioner Rich said she still sees a strong need for workforce housing, and would
2 not want to drop lower in the 50-80%. She said changes can be made if necessary as things
3 unfold.
4 Commissioner Price said she agreed with focusing on the 0-60%, and getting rid of the
5 caps. She asked if it known how much will be given for each unit.
6 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said that almost all of the projects have other funding. She
7 said the applicants or non-profits leverage these funds. She said there is also the urgent repair
8 program, state tax credit program, other municipalities, etc.
9 Commissioner Dorosin said no cap, no cap, 20%, no cap.
10 Chair McKee said the goal is 1,000 units. He said the money will not stretch to 1,000
11 units, and the wording may need to change to "up to 1,000 units."
12 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said the goal may be more attainable than expected.
13 Commissioner Price said she votes strongly in favor of no caps.
14 Chair McKee said he would like to try to favor the residents of Orange County, within I
15 the limits before the Board.
16 John Roberts said there may be a way to do that through the Housing Authority Board.
17 Commissioner Jacobs asked if a certain point total could be added to the matrix for
18 projects that offer housing to residents of Orange County or those who work in Orange County.
19 John Roberts said that may be possible.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said to check if that is legal for the providers to do.
21 Chair McKee said he is not suggesting doing anything at this time, but it would be good
22 as a driving thought for further discussion.
23 John Roberts said he can look into that option, and thinks the Housing Authority may
24 have federal authority to do something along those lines.
25 Commissioner Jacobs said his basic concern is to address the needs of the residents of
26 Orange County, and those who work here. He said there is such a vacuum at the State and
27 Federal level, and the County's work may end up be subsumed by the needs of millions, if care
28 is not taken to avoid it.
29 Delores Bailey, Affordable Housing Provider, said the Board's intention is good, but she
30 is sensitive to those who use to live in Orange County and were priced out. She said she is
31 unsure of how to undo this reality and bring these people back to Orange County. She said a
32 homeless person has no address, so their residency is unclear. She said the whole topic binds
33 her up.
34 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Delores Bailey would feel more comfortable if the
35 wording addressed those who work, reside or have resided in Orange County.
36 Delores Bailey said that adds another level of fact checking into the process. She said
37 she has great interest in those who work in Orange County but have to live elsewhere.
38 Commissioner Burroughs said, to some extent, the County is already in the vacuum
39 described by Commissioner Jacobs. She asked if people are already moving in from other
40 states to secure affordable housing.
41 Delores Bailey said yes, for homeownership. She said it is less so for rentals, as there
42 are so many people locally seeking affordable rental housing. She said removing the caps is
43 fantastic.
44 Commissioner Rich referred to her comment about keeping the 60-80% at 20%, as
45 suggested by Robert Dowling, and said he also suggested that the special needs be lowered as
46 that population may fall into other categories.
47 Chair McKee asked if a person was accounted for in the special needs category, would
48 that person also be counted in the 0-30% or 30-60%.
49 Audrey Spencer-Horsely said no, that person would not be double counted.
14
1 Commissioner Burroughs said a project has a higher chance of success if it is low-
2 income seniors. She said in the scoring one is weighted, and the odds of success are higher.
3 Commissioner Rich said she may be getting too detailed.
4 Chair McKee said the details are important.
5 Commissioner Rich asked if there was a person with special needs, and who was also
6 low income, where would that person be counted.
7 Travis Myren said that person would be counted in special needs, for the purposes of
8 unit counting; but in looking at the scoring matrix, there are more points given for serving
9 populations that fit multiple categories. He said it is like getting bonus points.
10 Commissioner Burroughs said people are not being counted, rather projects.
11 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said all projects indicate who is trying to be served.
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
14 to adopt the targets as follows: 0-30%, no cap target units, no cap percent of funds; 30-60%,
15 no cap target units, no cap percent of funds; 60-80%, 20% percent of funds, and no cap for
16 special needs population.
17
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 Scoring Matrix Discussion:
21 Commissioner Price referred to page 5 of attachment 2, and asked if daily needs could
22 be defined.
23 Travis Myren said this refers to a grocery store, health care, etc.
24 Commissioner Price said access to employment is referenced, and said this may be a
25 demerit for retiree housing.
26 Travis Myren said employment would be just one factor. He said access to other
27 amenities for seniors could be more heavily weighted.
28 Commissioner Price referred to the qualifications for an entity to qualify, and asked if a
29 person with some land who wanted to build some affordable housing would be eligible for
30 funding.
31 Travis Myren said any nonprofit or private developer could apply for funds. He said
32 there must be an entity to accept the funds, not a private bank account.
33 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the criteria E-3, and asked if the Communities
34 Consolidated Planning Process could be explained.
35 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said this is the annual plan for all Federal funding. She said
36 much of the data used for the County's strategic plan came through this analysis. She said the
37 County must have an annual plan, and every five years must complete a five-year plan in order
38 to receive federal funding.
39 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Board will receive an annual report.
40 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said providing regular updates to the Board, possibly bi-
41 annually, is one of the action items.
42 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is any particular desire to provide affordable
43 housing in rural Orange County. He said this plan does not address rural areas at all, unless
44 housing was built on a transit line or with existing water and sewer.
45 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said that is right for larger units, but does not preclude
46 individual units or small projects from being done. She said vacant units would be a good focus
47 for the rehab program.
48 Commissioner Rich referred to attachment two, and asked if the household income
49 range will be made consistent with the changes made in the previous discussion, from 50% to
50 60%.
15
1 Audrey Spencer-Horsely said yes.
2 Commissioner Dorosin referred to Commissioner Jacobs' comment about rural areas,
3 and asked if a criteria line about dispersal should be added. He said funds have been set aside
4 for manufactured housing, and the staff has been tasked with reviewing County owned parcels
5 that could be used for smaller affordable housing developments. He said the other thing that
6 could be done would be to acquire other properties for the purpose of affordable housing in the
7 rural areas.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said he attended a meeting with rural residents where questions
9 about affordable housing were raised. He said these residents are being asked to support the
10 bond, and know of people in need of affordable housing, as well as those seeking to age in
11 place. He said finding land near bus routes would meet one of the urbanized-type criteria. He
12 said density can be increased when water and sewer are in place, but community systems
13 should not be precluded, when designed, constructed and maintained in accordance with the
14 designs of the utility that is responsible. He said this would offer some control to the County.
15 Chair McKee referred to the community systems idea, and asked if additional wording
16 could be added where projects, utilizing County-approved standards, would also score the
17 same as project with water and sewer.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said this would address the scoring discrepancy.
19 Travis Myren said language that says "a community septic system, consistent with
20 standards of the water-sewer boundary agreement" could be added.
21 Chair McKee said the language must be carefully tailored to include Orange County
22 regulations or water and sewer boundary agreements. He said the legal staff should be
23 included in making this change.
24 Commissioner Burroughs said transportation is a huge issue. She is concerned about
25 reducing scoring as pertains to transportation, but encouraging new rural housing to be located
26 near bus lines would alleviate some of her concerns.
27 Commissioner Price echoed Commissioner Jacobs' comments about rural housing.
28 She said one cannot assume that all jobs are in urban areas. She said she may rate water and
29 sewer more highly than transportation, as bus routes can be changed.
30 Commissioner Pelissier echoed Commissioner Burroughs' comments. She said she is
31 not in favor of lowering the point value associated with transportation. She said the cost of
32 housing is not just the housing, but it is transportation as well.
33 Commissioner Price said not everyone gets on a bus to go to work. She said once
34 homes are in place, and community developed, other services will come.
35 Chair McKee said he tends to agree with Commissioner Price. He said it would
36 incentivize a developer to look more closely at a rural project if the point incentive was on a
37 community system. He said a one-point shift will not make much difference, and the Board
38 must try to figure out a way to serve the entire County. He said he does not want there to be a
39 public perception that only urban areas matter.
40 Audrey Spencer-Horsley referred to section C-4, number 4, and said to shift additional
41 points there to the community systems in the rural areas.
42 Commissioner Rich said she shares Commissioner Pelissier's concerns. She said she
43 recalls how expensive it was to commute to New York City, such that having a job there was
44 unattainable. She said transportation does add a substantial amount to how much money one
45 is spending.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said it is so much cheaper to build in the rural area, which would
47 save money.
48 Chair McKee asked if anyone disagreed with Audrey Spencer-Horsely's proposal.
49 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said the community systems could be its own category in
50 number 4.
16
1 Commissioner Dorosin said he thinks the water systems go better with number 5. He
2 said he would take a point off number 6, and give it to number 4. He said he would add the
3 language that "additional points may be awarded for meeting aspects associated with
4 functionality, maintenance and dispersal" to number 4. He said there will not be 20 project
5 proposals at the same time. He said the goal is to incentivize the type of developments the
6 County is after.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
9 approve the County Assisted Affordable housing income targets and project scoring criteria for
10 inclusion in the Proposed 2016— 2020 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan; and to change C4 to
11 say additional points may be awarded for meeting aspects associated with functionality,
12 maintenance and dispersal; to change number 5 to say the project is connected to water and
13 sewer service, or will connect to existing service, or will use a community septic system
14 consistent with water and sewer boundary agreement and local standards; and number 6 would
15 go from six points to five points.
16
17 Chair McKee asked if the motion maker and seconder would agree to adding to number
18 5 the wording community well and sewer.
19 Commissioners Dorosin and Jacobs agreed.
20 Commissioner Price said to change the wording in B4 from daily needs to access to
21 employment opportunities and other health and human services.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said to have both daily needs and health and human services
23 included.
24 Commissioner Price agreed.
25 Commissioner Dorosin and Jacobs accepted this change.
26 Chair McKee said the percentages in section 8 should also be updated.
27
28 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Pelissier)
29
30 John Roberts said in reference to the earlier question about restricting housing to
31 Orange County residents, and he said it is not an equal protection issue, but rather it is a
32 privileges and immunities issues. He said a point system may be the way to address this, or a
33 30-day residency requirement.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said if the Attorney thinks it is a feasible to create some type of
35 criteria, he would like to have this researched, brought back to the Board and added to the
36 matrix.
37 Chair McKee directed John Roberts to bring back options to the Board.
38
39 b. Reimbursement Resolution for Capital Projects and Equipment Costs
40 The Board considered approving a Resolution providing for reimbursement of Capital
41 Project and Equipment costs.
42 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, said it would be ideal to move to spring
43 financing only. He said the benefits are cost of issuance, and being better prepared when
44 going to the state Local Government Commission, and can insure that the projects are ready to
45 be financed.
46 Gary Donaldson said staff wants to come before the Board in the fall with a
47 reimbursement resolution. He said as those projects are advance funded, through the general
48 fund, staff will reimburse the County in the spring through the installment financing.
49 Gary Donaldson reviewed attachment 1, the Reimbursement Resolution, and exhibit A,
50 Project Components.
17
1 Chair McKee said he recalled the Board considering an expansion for the scope or
2 design of the detention facility.
3 Bonnie Hammersley said the Board approved for staff to proceed, not exceeding
4 $30,000 for the architect to look at expanding the scope of the project, and to bring the
5 information back to the Board for final consideration. She said no approval has yet been given
6 to expand the scope.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
9 approve the Reimbursement Resolution.
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 8. Reports
14
15 a. Family Success Alliance Budget Projections
16 The Board received and considered a rough estimate of the Family Success Alliance
17 budget projections for the next five years.
18
19 Family Success Alliance
20 Five-Year Budget Projections
21 Coby Jansen Austin • BOCC Meeting • November 1, 2016
22
23 This presentation follows on the heels of Dr. Bridger's presentation at the joint meeting
24 with the school boards a couple weeks ago. She provided an overview of the history of the
25 Alliance and what we're doing today. But as commissioners you are already familiar with the
26 Alliance's work and have had a direct impact on the direction this initiative has taken over the
27 past couple years, either here in conversations among the commissioners or through your
28 service on the Advisory Council — past or present.
29 We are now at a place where we have mapped out our work with dozens of partners
30 and have begun to fill some of the gaps in the cradle-to-career and college pipeline. So the
31 purpose of this presentation is to preview the growth that we are expecting, based on our
32 current model and Strategic Plan. And I will remind you that we have a very thorough evaluation
33 plan that will help us make informed decisions about what programming we do and how we do
34 it.
35 Although I will be presenting some budget projections, these are just estimates meant to give a
36 rough idea of the program areas where we expect there to be activity. The feedback that we are
37 hoping to get from you is on the general direction that we are headed knowing that the actual
38 numbers will be refined during the budget process and you will have an opportunity to vet the
39 specific request at that time.
40 I also ask that you keep in mind that these are five-year projections, but that we are
41 making an even longer-term commitment to these children. In five years, our first cohort of kids
42 will be starting middle school, and our pipeline model requires that we support them until they
43 have graduated from high school college-ready. But we need to take this one step at a time,
44 evaluate diligently, and scale the model accordingly.
45 And lastly, these projections assume that we will not expand the program to additional
46 zones within the next five years, but once we understand what it will cost in our two initial zones,
47 we will be better positioned to be opportunistic if funding becomes available to do that.
48
49 Pipeline Overview
18
1 This is our pipeline from cradle to college and career. Here in OC, our focus is on
2 building the pipeline by expanding and enhancing existing supports and then filling in the gaps.
3 Before going into the budget numbers, I am going to give an overview of the main components
4 of the pipeline and highlight what gaps we have already identified and begun to fill.
5 Goal 1 of our pipeline is that children are healthy and prepared for school. We heard
6 loud and clearly during our gap analysis that families did not feel their children were ready for
7 Kindergarten, so the first program we launched was our K Readiness summer camp, which has
8 been evaluated by UNC and participating children are showing promising gains. There are
9 other critical pieces in this goal area, such as quality prenatal care, access to high quality
10 affordable childcare and pre-K, etc.
11 In goal area #2, which is that children are healthy and succeed in school, we know that
12 children from less affluent families are experiencing the "summer slide". This is a loss of
13 academic gains and can be prevented by providing evidence-based, literacy-focused summer
14 enrichment and afterschool opportunities. FSA is partnering with schools to offer this support,
15 as well as enhance the afterschool opportunities. We are also partnering with local orgs to
16 ensure students receive mentoring, and have ...
17 FSA has not yet focused on goal area #3...
18 For Goal 4, our current strategic plan includes several items, such as starting college
19 savings accounts for FSA enrolled children. We also know there are other important supports
20 for families and neighborhoods.
21 Across all of the goal areas, our navigator program has helped to link families with
22 resources and schools, but also to serve as peer coaches for parents and keep the
23 community's voice at the center of our work.
24 Lastly, the Health Department provides backbone support for the collaboration, which
25 includes evaluation, community engagement, strategic planning & communications, and
26 development.
27 FSA is empowering families and strengthening their support system, which we call the
28 pipeline. We are a convener in the community that pulls partners together and uses community
29 voice to identify and fill gaps in the pipeline.
30 FSA has worked with the school districts directly to create and fund new programming,
31 like K Readiness, where there are gaps in the zones. FSA also works with community partners
32 to target their interventions in the zone. In some cases partner work is funded through FSA. For
33 example, two years ago, UW shifted its funding approach — instead of directly funding
34 nonprofits, they are funding collaboratives.
35
36 Budget: Core Components
37 • Navigators
38 • Kindergarten Readiness
39 • Extended Learning/Out of School Time
40 • Maintain current pipeline components and enhance services in zones
41 • Strategic Plan implementation
42 - School Innovation Seed Funds
43 • Backbone support
44
45 The core pieces of these budget projections include:
46 - expansion of the navigator program,
47 - maintenance of the k readiness program,
48 - ensuring that all cohorts of kids who we work with have access to literacy-focused enrichment
49 afterschool and during the summer
50 - Support for our pipeline services and for implementation of our strategic plan
19
1 - And backbone support, which for the purposes of this projection is managed through the
2 health department
3 - In order to make budget projections, we had to determine the number of children we could
4 potentially reach through FSA in the coming 5 years. We taught our first cohort of K Ready
5 students last year, and in 5 years those children will be about 11 y/o. And although we started
6 with rising kindergarteners, we will be building the pipeline down to include early childhood
7 over the coming years, so we needed to know the total number of children living in poverty
8 from 0-11 y/o in the zones.
9 - The most accurate population level data on child poverty within the zones is the number of
10 children qualifying for free and reduced price lunch. Assuming a stable rate for each age
11 group, which corresponds with census data, we derived an estimate of the total number of
12 children meeting this criteria ages 0-11 y/o and an estimate of the number of families that
13 includes.
14
15 NAVIGATORS
16 The navigator program is one of FSA's core programs and I'd say it's the lynchpin of our
17 work. They have a common lived experience of struggling to make ends meet, they are seen as
18 leaders in their community and build trusting relationships families, they not only connect
19 families with services, but they inform service providers of how they can best meet family
20 needs. And they help keep families' voices at the center of our work.
21 Right now we have five part-time navigators who, by the end of this year, are expected
22 to reach 90 families. That puts our current reach in the zones at 12% of families living in
23 poverty.
24 In terms of budget implications, we are proposing a range, based on the reach of the navigator
25 program.
26 The growth of this program will depend on:
27 - Demand from the community
28 - Effectiveness of this intervention, as demonstrated by evaluations. And UNC is currently
29 doing a formative evaluation.
30 - Resources available to expand
31
32 KINDERGARTEN READINESS
33 Our plan is to maintain the K Readiness program as it currently exists. Our recent
34 evaluation data, which will be going out in a press release this week, demonstrates statistically
35 significant improvement for those children who participated this summer.
36 We are able to provide the robust summer program for up to 90 children for about $80k.
37 We just finished our second year of K Readiness and have some lessons learned for how to
38 improve recruitment that involve:
39 - Working with the schools to have access to K registration data earlier
40 - Diversify recruitment mechanisms. More than half of rising K students are not enrolled even
41 a month before school starts, so we're looking at recruiting through partners like home
42 visiting programs, Head Start, Pre-K, etc.
43
44 EXTENDED LEARNING/OUT OF SCHOOL TIME
45 • Maintain current pipeline components and enhance services in zones
46 • Strategic Plan implementation
47 • School Innovation Seed Funds
48
49 BACKBONE SUPPORT
50
20
1 SUMMER ENRICHMENT &AFTERSCHOOL
2
3 PIPELINE SERVICE PROVIDERS
4 There are a number of existing providers of summer and afterschool enrichment
5 programming in OC. Many already provide subsidies and serve some FSA families, but they
6 certainly aren't reaching all of them — and they don't necessarily include the literacy-focus that
7 we know is critical for maintaining academic gains. Some programs provide excellent content,
8 but because of their hours or location, it's not a feasible option for FSA families.
9 So our goal is to work with the schools and community partners to enhance
10 programming so it is accessible for parents and meets best practices in terms of supporting
11 literacy development.
12
13 UPCOMING ASSESSMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS WITH POTENTIAL FINANCIAL
14 IMPLICATIONS
15 Steps to strengthen prenatal — K pipeline
16 FSA works with dozens of partners throughout the zones. Some of those nonprofits
17 receive UW funding as part of FSA, which requires them to focus their programming in the
18 zones. We are still working to get a better global view of their work and how UW funds
19 complement county funding. All of these organizations received UW funding for their general
20 programming before FSA was created, and they are now using those dollars to focus their
21 support in the zones.
22 As we grow the navigator program and work directly with more families, we will get a
23 better understanding of family needs. Right now, these partners meet the needs of families by
24 providing:
25 Youth services:
26 • Life skills for youth
27 • Literacy sessions in zone schools; children's books and home visits for literacy support
28 • Childcare scholarships
29 • Bilingual mental health treatment, school-based behavioral consultations, parent support
30 and workshops
31 • Girl Scout Community Outreach program
32 • Mentoring for youth
33
34 Parent supports:
35 • Individual financial counseling, financial education workshops, individual career
36 counseling, career preparedness workshops
37 • Summer internship opportunities for youth
38 • Parenting education programs
39 • Family Literacy Program, basic literacy, GED preparation, digital literacy and English,
40 language instruction
41 The assumption of a 10% increase in funding is fairly modest, compared with the number of
42 families we will be expanding to serve in the coming years. As a collaborative, we will be
43 working with our partners to do collective budgeting.
44
45 PLAN FOR EXPANDING & IMPROVING ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY CHILDCARE
46 As Dr. Bridger mentioned in her recent presentation, the AC has adopted a 2-year
47 strategic plan for FSA. The plan includes several assessments that will lead to
48 recommendations made to the AC about how to fill gaps in pipeline.
49 For example, the goal 1 area includes an inventory of existing supports in early
50 childhood and recommendations for strengthening those supports. As you know, our cohort
21
1 model currently starts with K Readiness, and we know that ideally we will start working with
2 parents in the prenatal period and connect with children at birth.
3 I am also including here some other examples SP elements, including actions related to
4 improving access to quality childcare, assessing the need for school-based mental health
5 programming, supporting parent needs and providing parenting supports, and launching a
6 college savings program.
7
8 ASSESS THE NEED FOR, POTENTIAL STRUCTURE OF, AND RESOURCES NEEDED FOR
9 SCHOOL-BASED MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMMING
10
11 PARENT NEEDS ASSESSMENT & RECOMMENDATIONS
12 INCREASE NUMBER AND ARRAY OF PARENTING SUPPORTS
13 Launch College Savings Program
14 This is an example costing out a college savings account program that is linked with our
15 navigator program scaled up to have a 50% reach. It assumes an initial deposit and then
16 matching funds for family contributions and incentive funds for parents who complete certain
17 goals, like participation in financial literacy classes.
18 Our hope is that a program like this would be ideal for individual giving & soliciting
19 private funding.
20 Another way in which the AC has decided to support the Strategic Plan is by creating a
21 competitive opportunity for schools to identify ways in which they can support the plan's
22 implementation. We just closed the first round of applications, and 4 out of 6 eligible schools
23 applied. Their interventions range from engaging parents with specific outreach and materials
24 for those children who do poorly on standardized tests to working on behavioral health issues.
25 The overwhelming interest we saw in this opportunity suggests to us that it is a meaningful way
26 to get the schools taking ownership over SP implementation.
27 We know that to support this level of programming, we will need additional backbone
28 support. We have mapped out some hypothetical ideas about what that growth might look like,
29 phasing it in over time. We will walk through the specific details of what this looks like during the
30 actual budget review process so that you have a chance to thoroughly vet everything and help
31 shape the direction and the role of the county in it.
32 These budget numbers assume that FSA continues to receive support from the Health
33 Department's communications manager and from our Health Informatics Specialist. With that
34 support, we will be implementing our evaluation plan. The evaluation plan has additional
35 components that have more validity if they are done externally.
36
37 Program & Navigator Coordinator
38 - Academic and school-based programming (curriculum development, overseeing
39 implementation)
40 - Navigator program, including clinical supervision
41 - New programs —e.g., oversee College Savings Accounts
42
43 Community Liaison
44 - Community event planning
45 - Logistics (e.g., meeting minutes FSA, partner meetings)
46
47 Community Engagement Coordinator
48 - Leading community-driven strategy
49 - Managing Advisory Council
50 - Coordinating with partners and cultivating new partnerships
22
1
2 EVALUATION
3 For this reason, we have a partnership with UNC to evaluate the specific programming
4 that FSA launches and to collect some neighborhood level data. Right now, this support is
5 provided in-kind from UNC and we hope that between our partnership with the provost's office
6 and with other funders, like Brady foundation, we will be able to fund this through external
7 support.
8
9 FUNDING SOURCES
10 This is the make-up of our current funding sources. For comparison purposes, we have
11 adjusted it to reflect the actual value of the in-kind evaluation support from UNC and to include
12 what would have been the full cost of afterschool this year, which enables us to compare this
13 year to future years.
14
15 TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET
16 We expect to continue to grow to meet the needs of families. What you see here is a
17 range estimate of what this initiative is likely to cost over the coming 5 years. The range is
18 driven by the % of families in poverty that the navigators are reaching, which will then have
19 implications for the number of children we are serving within the pipeline. And just for some
20 perspective, the typical Promise Neighbohood grant, which is the federal government's
21 replication of HCZ, is 25 million over five years.
22 You can see here the total budget for the past two fiscal years, and the county
23 appropriation, which included $355,000 from the commissioners and $145,000 through the
24 Health Department's budget. The county funded 38% of this budget.
25 We expect that the commissioners will continue to want to be involved. As the budget
26 grows, we will continue to seek external funding to support that growth. If the commissioners
27 were to maintain their current funding percent, at 38%, then we show an estimate here of what
28 that would look like over the next five years.
29 And I expect there would be some stabilization in growth at the five-year mark, because
30 we would now be at the full cost of serving children throughout elementary school.
31
32 NEXT STEPS
33 Our next steps as a collaborative is to work with the schools and our other partners to
34 create a development plan to diversify the collaborative's funding and increase sustainability.
35 We will also be mapping out the steps for FSA to become a nonprofit in a 5-year timeframe and
36 will consult with the commissioners about the pros and cons of that strategy.
37
38 Chair McKee thanked Coby Austin for the informative presentation.
39
40 b. FY2016-17 First Quarter Financial Report
41 The Board received and considered a First Quarter General Fund and Enterprise Funds
42 summary Financial Report for the period of July 1, 2016 - September 30, 2016.
43 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
44
45 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
46 FY2016-17 FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT
47
48 Quarterly Financial Report Contents
49 • General Fund Revenues and Expenditures Analysis by Major Revenue Categories and
50 each Department by Functional Leadership Team
23
1 • 5-Page Narrative explaining Major variances (1st Attachment)
2 o Narrative delineating any material variance by either Performance or Timing
3 • Detailed Comparison of FY2016-17 Budget versus Actual and FY2015-16 Budget
4 versus Actual Table (2nd Attachment)
5 • NC State 2016 Economic Outlook (3rd Attachment)
6
7 General Fund Revenue Overview
8 • Solid revenue performance consistent with improving economy and consumer
9 confidence
10 • Property tax revenue performance reflects Tax Administration's Office collection efforts
11 and consistent with forecasted revenue growth; property tax revenues comprise 70% of
12 Budgeted General Fund revenues
13 • Sales tax remittances from NC Department of Revenue normally lag three months in
14 economic activity; these revenues are the next largest revenue source accounting for
15 10% of Budgeted General Fund revenues
16 • Remaining 20% of revenues consists primarily of Intergovernmental and Charges for
17 Services
18
19 General Fund Revenues Budget versus Actual Comparative Analysis (chart)
20
21 General Fund Expenditure Overview
22 • Expenditures are indicated by the Functional Leadership Teams
23 • Department Expenditures remain within Budgeted first quarter appropriations
24 • 1Q Spending accounts for 23.4% of Budgeted Expenditures as compared to 24.9% in
25 the prior year
26 • No significant variances attributed to Performance
27 • Debt Service payments are budgeted in Non-Departmental
28
29 General Fund Expenditures Budget versus Actual Comparative Analysis (chart)
30
31 Economic Summary
32 • NC State 2016 Economic Outlook indicates:
33 - Economic growth in North Carolina forecasted to continue; adding 86,000 payroll
34 employment and another 90,000 forecasted for 2017
35 - By end of 2017, several regions Asheville, Charlotte, Durham, and Raleigh- will have
36 unemployment rates below 4%
37 - Key state-wide economic issues include preparing workforce through training for
38 Technology sector jobs
39 - Public policy question of balancing attracting businesses and employment to regions
40 lagging in economic growth juxtaposed with developing skills of individuals living in
41 lagging regions
42 - Continued widening income inequality between highest average salaried sectors of
43 Financial Services and Information Technology
44 - The lowest average salaries are in Leisure and Hospitality, Trade, Utility, and
45 Transportation sectors
46
47 Commissioner Burroughs thanked Gary Donaldson for his presentation. She referred to
48 page four, and the charges for services. She asked if there is less crime and fewer calls to
49 EMS.
24
1 Bonnie Hammersley said this could be true or the collection of fees may not be as
2 aggressive. She said in the FY2015-16 budget the Tax Administration Office took over
3 collections for EMS, which has not worked out as well as hoped. She said she would gather
4 more information.
5 Commissioner Burroughs said the narrative allows questions to come to the forefront,
6 which is helpful.
7 Commissioner Rich said the County's new strategy is to look at a five-year plan, and
8 asked if the schools have also started this process.
9 Gary Donaldson said yes, the County and the Schools are collaborating well to get a
10 plan underway. He said hopefully this method will help to reduce the element of surprise
11 during the budget process.
12
13 c. New County Financial Transparency Portal
14 The Board, County Manager, residents and employees received information on the
15 Department of Finance and Administrative Services new County Financial Transparency Portal.
16 Gary Donaldson said this item comes through Munis, and the information is updated
17 weekly. He said it is to provide an alternate means of accessing the County's financial records,
18 and is completely private.
19 Bonnie Hammersley said this portal is going public tomorrow, and there will be a press
20 release issued about it.
21 The Board received this information item. (No vote required.)
22
23 9. County Manager's Report
24 Bonnie Hammersley formally introduced Todd McGee, the new Community Relations
25 Director.
26 Bonnie Hammersley responded to Commissioner Dorosin's petition about adding to the
27 Community Giving Fund. She said staff will proceed in adding a line item for a possible County
28 Fair.
29 Bonnie Hammersley reminded the Board that there will be a regular work session on
30 November 10th, the agenda for which is below:
31
32 Projected November 10, 2016 Regular Work Session Items
33 • Outside Agency Funding Target and Funding for Non-Profit Capital Needs
34 • Facility Naming Policy
35 • Boards and Commissions Discussion
36
37 10. County Attorney's Report
38 NONE
39
40 11. Appointments
41
42 a. Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool —Appointment
43 The Board considered making an appointment to the Animal Services Hearing Panel.
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
46 appoint Amanda Schwoerke to #10 -At-Large position vacancy expiring March 31, 2017.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
25
1 b. Amendment of Membership Roster and Make Appointment(s) to the Orange
2 County Criminal Justice Advisory Council
3 The Board considered amending the membership roster of the Criminal Justice Advisory
4 Council and making appointment(s) to the Criminal Justice Advisory Council (CJAC).
5 Chair McKee said Commissioner Pelissier will be resigning from the Board of
6 Commissioners in December, and thus that would affect her position on this committee.
7 Chair McKee said the Board would like to create an Emeritus position for Commissioner
8 Pelissier starting December 1St
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to create
11 an Emeritus position and appoint Commissioner Pelissier to the Emeritus position effective
12 December 1, 2016.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 Chair McKee said with Commissioner Pelissier moving to this position, a vacant BOCC
17 position is open on this Council.
18 Commissioner Pelissier said when this Council was originally created, she and
19 Commissioner Jacobs, who had both been on the Jail Alternatives Work Group, volunteered to
20 continue to be part of this conversation and process, and, thus, were added to this Council.
21 She said it should now be included in the Board's Boards and Commissions annual selection
22 process going forward, which will take place in February 2017.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said the next meeting of the CJAC is on the December 9th and he
24 encouraged any Commissioners interested in serving to attend the meeting, in order to get an
25 idea of what this Council is about.
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
27 add this Council to the Board's committee selection process.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31
32 12. Board Comments
33 Commissioner Rich said congratulations to the University of North Carolina for its
34 achievements in Waste Matters. She said the Chapel Hill Town Council is discussing the
35 creation of a committee about the old Town Hall building. She asked if this topic could be
36 added to the next meeting agenda.
37 Bonnie Hammersley said this item is already on the agenda for the November 15th
38 meeting.
39 Commissioner Price gave an update from the most recent Triangle Area Rural Planning
40 Organization (TARPO) meeting regarding funding for projects on North Carolina Highway 54.
41 Commissioner Dorosin said there will be a Community Police Summit on November 9th, at the
42 library in Hillsborough. He said the Hillsborough Police Department has had body cameras for
43 three years.
44 Commissioner Pelissier had no comments.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said the website 538 stated that Donald Trump has the same
46 chance of winning the Presidency as the Cubs do to win the World Series. He said the Cubs
47 are currently about to tie the series 3 to 3. He said the website is one that does statistical
48 analysis of polls in order to make projections.
49 Commissioner Burroughs said it is Commissioner Jacobs' birthday today.
26
1 Chair McKee said he attended the State of the Schools program for Orange County
2 schools, which was very informative, covering the current status, future plans, and how these
3 plans will be achieved. He said choral groups from both high schools performed, as well as a
4 jazz band and some elementary level choral groups. He said it was a very good program. He
5 asked if all Commissioners received an invitation to this event.
6 All Commissioners said the invitation was received.
7
8 13. Information Items
9 • October 18, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
10 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
11 • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
12 • Tax Assessor's Report — Releases/Refunds under $100
13 • Employment and Population Guide Totals for Transportation Modeling
14 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from October 18, 2016 Regular Meeting
15
16 14. Closed Session
17
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
19 to go into closed session at 10:38 p.m. pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 143-
20 318.11.(a) (3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to
21 preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege
22 is hereby acknowledged.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
29 reconvene into regular session at 11:11 p.m.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 15. Adjournment
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
36 adjourn the meeting at 11:12 p.m.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40
41
42 Earl McKee, Chair
43
44 David Hunt
45 Deputy Clerk to the Board
46
47
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 Work Session
6 November 10, 2016
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a work session on Thursday, November
10 10, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Dorosin
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager Travis
17 Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
21 Chair McKee congratulated Commissioner Price, Commissioner Dorosin and
22 Commissioner Rich on their re-elections and the newest Commissioner-Elect Mark Marcoplos.
23 He also acknowledged that this would be Commissioner Pelissier's last work session as a
24 Commissioner since she is retiring.
25 Chair McKee asked if Board members wanted to speak about the recent election.
26 Chair McKee said Commissioner Dorosin was unable to attend tonight's meeting.
27
28 1. Discussion of Outside Agency Funding Target and Funding for Non-Profit Capital
29 Needs
30
31 BACKGROUND: The FY 2016-17 Approved Budget includes funding awards for 55 outside
32 agencies totaling $1,176,763. This amount includes $83,530 for 12 new or previously unfunded
33 agencies.
34
35 Each year, Outside Agencies submit funding applications to the County detailing program
36 requests. These programs are reviewed by Advisory Boards and scored on a scale of 0-100
37 based on the following criteria:
38 • What is the program's Mission?
39 • Who are the program's Customers and what does the customer value?
40 • What are the program's Results?
41 • What is the program's Plan for implementation and improvement?
42
43 As a part of the budget development process, Outside Agencies applications and scorecards
44 are provided to the County Manager to assist in recommending decisions as part of the
45 Manager's Recommended Budget each year. The Board of County Commissioners then
46 approves final funding amounts as part of the Budget Adoption process in June. Performance
47 Agreements are executed for each funded Outside Agency, and funding allocations to the
48 agencies are provided on a quarterly basis throughout the fiscal year.
49 The Finance staff has surveyed other local governments in North Carolina to review other
50 funding target options for Outside Agencies.
2
1
2 The following are potential funding formulas for BOCC consideration:
3 • Percent of Budget
4 • Fixed Dollar Amount
5 • Incremental Unit of Tax Rate
6 • Dollar Per Capita
7
8 The staff presentation at the meeting will provide information on:
9 • Outside Agency Funding as a Percent of County Budget
10 • Outside Agency Dollar Requests versus Dollar Approved
11 • Other Potential Funding Formulas
12
13 The County currently provides funding to Outside Agencies for operating expenses only. At the
14 request of the BOCC, a review of options for capital requests is attached (Attachment A) and
15 addressed in the staff presentation.
16
17 These potential capital funding options include:
18 • Construct a building, and lease it long-term
19 • Make a restricted capital grant
20 • Make a multi-year grant that could be used for lease or loan payments
21 • Fund a loan-loss reserve to back loans to the outside agencies
22
23 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
24
25 Presentation to Board of County Commissioners
26 Outside Agency Work Session
27 November 10, 2016
28
29 Outside Agency Time Frame (graph)
30
31 Bonnie Hammersley said there had been some concerns raised by outside agencies
32 about the application. She said meetings were held over the summer between the Towns of
33 Chapel Hill and Carrboro with the County, and the application was updated and approved by all
34 involved, including the outside agencies representatives.
35 Bonnie Hammersley said she will invite outside agencies to do a presentation to the
36 Manager, prior to the Manager's recommended budget process.
37 Commissioner Price asked if the Manager would meet with the applicants after
38 applicants have met with the advisory board.
39 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
40 Commissioner Price asked if this would be open to all groups, or just those
41 recommended by the advisory board.
42 Bonnie Hammersley said this option will be open to all outside agencies.
43 Gary Donaldson resumed the presentation:
44
45 Outside Agency Funding as a Percentage of the Budget (graph)
46
47 Outside Agency Requests vs Approved (graph)
48
49 Other North Carolina Governments Funding Formulas
50 ➢ Percent of Budget
3
1 • $112,146,742x 1%= $1,121,467
2 ➢ Previous Year's Allocation as Base
3 • FY 2016-17= $1,176,763+Growth Rate
4 ➢ Incremental Unit of Tax Rate
5 • 1 Cent on $16,773,580,000 Tax Base = $1,677,358
6 ➢ Ten Dollars Per Capita
7 • $10 x 141,354 (2015 Population)= $1,413,540
8 ➢ Fixed Dollar Amount
9 • Subjective
10
11 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the growth rate is in the budget, or in the revenues
12 received.
13 Gary Donaldson said both of these would be good indexes to use. He said the growth
14 revenue rate from last year to this would be about 2-3%.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said historically there has been about a 3% growth rate in
16 revenues. She said there are other growth rate options, as well.
17 Bob Jessup, Bond Counsel, resumed the presentation:
18
19 Potential Capital Funding Options
20 ➢ Construct Building, and Lease Long-Term
21 ➢ Make Restricted Capital Grant
22 ➢ Make Multi-Year Grant for Lease or Loan Payments
23 ➢ Fund a Loan-Loss Reserve to back Loans to Outside Agencies
24
25 Fiscal Policy Consideration
26 ➢ Draft Fiscal Policy:
27 • The County may allocate an amount of public funds up to one percent(1%) of the total
28 County General Fund Budget Appropriation Less the Education Appropriation for the
29 purposes of funding outside agencies that benefit the community.
30 • Outside agencies must provide the requisite financial, organization and project
31 information to be eligible for funding. Funds shall be appropriated for public purposes.
32 • Requests for funding will only be accepted during the County's annual budget
33 preparation process. All complete applications will be presented to the Board of County
34 Commissioners for funding consideration and adoption in June of each fiscal year.
35
36 Bob Jessup provided the memo below, and how some of the ideas could work.
37
38 Memo below from Bond Counsel, Bob Jessup:
39 Orange County—capital funding for outside agencies
40 There are a variety of ways in which the County could provide capital funding for outside
41 agencies if it decided to do so. In each case, the legal basis for our approach represents a
42 combination of the statute that allows the County to contract with private entities to carry out
43 work that the County could carry out itself(Section 153A-449), and the statute that allows the
44 county to enter multi-year continuing contracts for services (Section 153A-13). In many ways,
45 these approaches mirror approaches used for affordable housing programs in which the units
46 will be privately owned.
47
48 Build a building, lease it out long-term
49 The County would build a building for use by the agency. The County would continue to
50 own the building. The County could either pay cash for the building or undertake an installment
51 financing for the building (whether the financing would qualify for tax-exempt financing or would
4
1 require more expensive taxable financing would have to be determined at that time). The lease
2 could either require a cash payment or provide that the use of the building is part of the
3 County's consideration for the services to be provided by the agency. Matters of maintenance,
4 taxes and insurance would also have to be resolved in connection with the lease. The
5 construction of the building would likely be subject to the construction and bid laws otherwise
6 applicable to County projects.
7
8 As an alternative, the County could establish a nonprofit corporation of its own to
9 undertake the financing and construction, although the lenders would still look to the County to
10 make the loan payments, and the construction and bids laws would likely still apply.
11
12 Make a restricted capital grant
13 The County would use cash on hand to make a larger than usual grant that the agency
14 could use for a capital expense. The performance agreement would restrict the use of the funds
15 for the planned capital expense, and would extend for a term commensurate with the size of the
16 grant. Because County money would be the intended source for the payment of the construction
17 costs, the construction of the building would likely be subject to the construction and bid laws
18 otherwise applicable to County projects.
19
20 Make a multi-year grant that could be used for lease or loan payments
21 The outside agency would contract for a capital project, and the County would enter a
22 multi-year grant agreement that was sized to provide for the agency's lease or loan payments
23 related to the project.
24
25 Fund a loan-loss reserve to back loans to the outside agencies.
26 As the County has done with its business loan programs, the County could fund a loan-
27 loss reserve to support loans incurred by the outside agencies.
28
29 Considerations for all approaches
30 The function to be served by the outside agency must be a function the County is
31 authorized to provide directly.
32
33 Each arrangement should be supported by a contract with the outside agency that
34 specifies the work to be done by the agency. If the County uses a multi-year grant approach,
35 then the contract should extend for the term of the grant. If the County uses a lease approach,
36 then the performance contract should extend for the term of the lease. There should in all
37 events be some level of proportionality between the funding from the County and the service by
38 the agency.
39
40 In undertaking any program of this sort, the County should build a strong record
41 documenting the public benefit expected from the arrangement. To the extent the County views
42 the project and benefitting agencies as enhancing employment and business prospects in the
43 County, the County would be well-served to also follow the statutory procedures (including
44 public hearings) provided for in the business incentive statutes.
45
46 A big issue at looking at capital funding is you have to look how much of a commitment
47 they would want to do.
48
49 Chair McKee asked Bob Jessup what would happen if the County had a five-year
50 contract with an agency for a building, and in year two the agency stopped performing, and the
51 County had to evict the agency.
5
1 Bob Jessup said the County can only enter into a contract/grant if the agency promises
2 to provide certain services; if the agency fails to do so, then the County should not renew the
3 grant.
4 Commissioner Rich asked if there are nearby local governments that help agencies with
5 capital expenses.
6 Bob Jessup said he was not familiar with any in the area, but he can research this if the
7 Board would like. He said there are governments that run business incubators, or have
8 agreements with providers for affordable housing, both of which are forms of capital funding.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said the County helped Orange Enterprises (OE) with their
10 building, and wondered how this was possible.
11 Bob Jessup said he recollects that Orange County paid for the building through financing
12 for a wide variety of projects, and did the payment for that particular project all in the first year.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said the County also did capital funding for the Red Cross at
14 Timberlyne years ago, and he thought that was more of a grant.
15 Commissioner Rich referred to the LAUNCH program, and said the County is only giving
16 money for operations. She asked if LAUNCH wanted to buy the building they are leasing, would
17 this be possible.
18 Bob Jessup said yes, depending on how the County decided to participate.
19 Commissioner Rich said many of the outside agencies provide services, which the
20 County is unable to. She asked if there is a difference between helping the agencies with
21 capital needs versus taking on that agency's service as a County department.
22 Bob Jessup said the County is only allowed to contract with a non-profit if the non-profit
23 is providing a service, which the County could also provide.
24 Commissioner Pelissier said Orange County must be authorized to provide the service
25 to fund the outside agency, and she asked if there is an example of a non-profit whose activities
26 would not be authorized for the County to provide.
27 Bob Jessup said there could be an organization that provided help to home schoolers or
28 charter schools, and the County is not authorized to help.
29 Commissioner Pelissier asked if most non-profits are providing services that the County
30 would be authorized to provide.
31 Bob Jessup said yes.
32 Chair McKee referred to the charter school example, and said the County does not fund
33 capital for charter schools. He asked if the County were to fund a non-profit that supported
34 charter schools, would the County be outside its purview. He asked if the Board were to make
35 a policy to provide capital for outside agencies, it seems only fair that agencies supporting
36 charter schools have equal ability to apply for funding.
37 Bob Jessup said such a non-profit could ask for consideration under the policy, but
38 Orange County is restricted by not being able to grant them funding because this is a service
39 Orange County cannot fund, thus the County cannot help them with capital funding.
40 Commissioner Rich asked what would happen if a non-profit was looking for funding
41 from different elected bodies.
42 Bob Jessup gave an example, and said the County could do a capital grant and let the
43 organization pick up the operational costs.
44 Commissioner Price asked if the County has been giving money to outside agencies for
45 leases.
46 Bonnie Hammersley said 501c-3s usually show a budget. She said in this last budget,
47 the Board waived the lease for Piedmont Food and Agriculture Processing Center (PFAP), and
48 the County is not charging PFAP rent in the building that the County owns.
49 Commissioner Price said many non-profits ask for funding, and many organizations will
50 not fund brick and mortar projects for non-profits. She said she struggles with constructing a
51 building for an organization, with all organizations rivaling each other.
6
1 Commissioner Burroughs said she has worked for non-profits for years, and she said
2 there are foundations that only pay for services. She said she feels this is also all that the
3 County should fund. She said non-profits are set up to meet needs, and many times needs
4 change. She said she is not interested in giving outside agencies capital funding.
5 Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Burroughs. She said she asked the
6 Board to discuss this item because, during the budget season, there was a non—profit that met
7 with every elected official individually for capital funding. She said she did not like these one on
8 one discussions, but felt the Board should discuss openly. She said offering funding for capital
9 needs would open too many floodgates, and governing bodies do help with operational funds for
10 many of the non-profits in their area.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said he is not as averse to doing a capital project if the County is
12 paid back in a fairly short time. He said he would be willing to consider this on a case-by-case
13 basis.
14 Bonnie Hammersley said staff has been looking for information on OE, and in FY 1998-
15 99 there was a line item for contributions to capital campaigns, such as the Red Cross. She
16 said OE was a different project.
17 Commissioner Pelissier said there should be a policy instead of ad hoc decisions. She
18 said many agencies would request funding, if offered.
19 Chair McKee said he had the same concern, and his preference is to have a policy that
20 the County does not fund capital projects for outside agencies.
21 Commissioner Price agreed that there should be some kind of policy.
22 Commissioner Burroughs said she talked with Margaret Samuels at OE, and that her
23 recollection was that OE had been a part of Orange County government years ago, and was
24 spun off.
25 Commissioner Jacobs said sometimes there are exceptions to the rules.
26 Chair McKee said policies can be changed or amended.
27 Commissioner Rich asked if the County has ever had any policies that included
28 exceptions.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said not currently, but this is certainly possible.
30 Commissioner Rich said OE and PFAP seem to be existing exceptions.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said the definition of an exemption could be when a non-profit
32 starts as a part of Orange County government, and then spins off.
33 Chair McKee said the Board does not vote at work sessions, but he hears a consensus
34 to bring this back as a proposed policy.
35 Commissioner Rich asked if staff could do some benchmarking research with other
36 governing bodies.
37 Bonnie Hammersley said staff would draft a policy of what is funded, with exceptions
38 noted.
39 Chair McKee said the discussion can now turn to the slide funding formulas. He asked if
40 there is a Board preference on how to look at funding.
41 Commissioner Rich asked if the current policy is 1%.
42 Bonnie Hammersley said that is only the practice, not the policy.
43 Bonnie Hammersley said this year funding was tied to Board goals, and the funding
44 coincidentally ended at around 1%. She reviewed the various funding scale options available to
45 the Board.
46 Chair McKee said the simplest option is to stay with a percentage of the budget, with the
47 option to find additional funds elsewhere in the budget.
48 Commissioner Rich said the Board had discussed wanting to increase funding to non-
49 profits during the budget process, and asked if this would fit into a 1% model.
50 Chair McKee said each year that he has been on the Board, monies have been given to
51 non-profits from the excess fund balance.
7
1 Commissioner Rich said she would like to avoid the uncomfortable position of having to
2 choose whether to give the extra fund balance to the schools or the non-profits.
3 Commissioner Burroughs said the full funding option is dicey, and most non-profits ask
4 for the amount that has been previously received.
5 Commissioner Burroughs said she likes a formula, and she does not like the horse-
6 trading for non-profits that is done during the funding process. She said a percentage makes
7 sense, and she felt 1% is too low but 2% is too high. She would like something around 1.25%.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said it is good to have a target for budget purposes, and starting
9 at 1% allows the Board to go up, if necessary. He said that kind of control with flexibility has
10 worked well with schools, and would work well with the non-profits.
11 Commissioner Price said using a percentage of the budget as a target would work well.
12 Commissioner Price said she is hoping that the Manager's meeting with the non-profits
13 prior to the budget discussion would provide more insight into their individual requests for
14 funding.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said staff has been looking at how to provide a more streamlined
16 process for the Board. She said the process of evaluating the applications is good, as well as
17 having advisory boards to look at the applications; but face time with these requesting outside
18 agencies has been missing. She said staff would also like to implement having the outside
19 agencies meet with the Board at a separate work session, rather than during the intent-to-adopt-
20 the-budget work session.
21 Commissioner Pelissier said she liked that idea. She said she did like the "horse
22 trading" discussions because the Board sometimes learns new information, and sometimes
23 changes have occurred from the application submission in January and the Board budget
24 process in June. She said she likes the percentage of the budget, as it is the cleanest option.
25 Commissioner Rich said she also liked the ideas of the Manager/non—profits interviews;
26 the Board meeting with the non-profits during a work session; and the percentage of the budget
27 option. She said she would want to insure, however, that there is flexibility, and the percentage
28 should be a target.
29 Commissioner Price agreed. She said Durham's process uses interviews, where the
30 applicants can talk with the elected officials.
31 Commissioner Price asked if, in the past, have the applicants been able to meet with the
32 evaluators.
33 Bonnie Hammersley said no. She said one of the first questions in the interview will be,
34 "has anything changed since you submitted this application?"
35 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the funding chart, and it looks similar to the school
36 funding methodology.
37 Gary Donaldson said there was a question about funding differences, and it was
38 $50,000 more in outside agency funding this year than last year.
39 Commissioner Burroughs said she strongly supports the agencies speaking to staff, but
40 not to elected officials. She said she will advocate for a rounding up to 1.25 as a percentage of
41 the budget for outside agencies.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said in relation to what the staff recommends, he does not always
43 feel like he has enough information about the applicant; either why they did not get funded or
44 got meritorious recognition. He said this information would be helpful.
45 Commissioner Rich said she would also like to hear about duplicate services.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board must be clear on what it is being asked to fund or
47 not to fund.
48 Chair McKee said for staff to bring them back a policy for a percentage of funding 1-1.25
49 %. He said the Board liked the new process and having a separate work session for discussion.
50
51
8
1 2. Oranqe County Property Naminq Policy
2 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the background information below:
3
4 BACKGROUND:
5 On March 1, 2016 Commissioner Bernadette Pelissier petitioned that the Orange County
6 Property Naming Policy be discussed at a BOCC work session. Specifically, Commissioner
7 Pelissier as well as other Commissioners have requested that the naming policy discussion
8 include clarification on the following issues:
9
10 • Under what circumstances should a property be named?
11 • What can be named?
12 • Should a county property be named for a living person?
13 • Definition of renaming a property?
14
15 She said attached to the abstract are the three (3) previous abstracts to amend the
16 policy, a list of County owned properties that have been named for an individual, and a
17 benchmark analysis of organizational naming policies in the area.
18 Commissioner Price said some schools were left off of the listing.
19 Jeff Thompson, Director of Asset Management Services, said these buildings are not
20 owned by Orange County. He said the facilities listed are ones that are deeded to the County.
21 Commissioner Pelissier said her main interest is on 2.1.3 on page 13 of attachment one,
22 which states: official names or titles for property belonging to the County shall only be changed
23 by the Board of County Commissioners as it deems appropriate. She said this should be more
24 thought out than "deems appropriate". She said the Board should be judicious in re-naming a
25 facility, and there should be concrete reasons that mean something.
26 Commissioner Pelissier said there should be a larger community consensus in re-
27 naming a facility, and a more inclusive process such as a public hearing.
28 Chair McKee agreed with Commissioner Pelissier as related to public input. He said the
29 issue of naming brings up other issues and it can get "sticky". He suggested the language of
30 "as it deems appropriate, after public input."
31 Commissioner Burroughs said, in her experience, a committee is appointed for new
32 buildings to address this process from the beginning. She said she preferred not naming a
33 building after a living person, unless there are extraordinary circumstances and a public
34 discussion is completed.
35 Commissioner Price said if the Board wants to honor someone, then do so and do not
36 wait until they pass away. She said she is in favor of naming buildings after living people.
37 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Price. He said Commissioner Dorosin
38 sent in an email, in which he also agreed. He said the recent re-naming of the farmer's market
39 after Congressman Price was a good example, as he was able to attend the ceremony and
40 appreciate the recognition.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to name buildings after things other than
42 people.
43 Commissioner Pelissier said people have approached her asking why the Board re-
44 named a facility after David Price, and she is adamant about re-naming a building without a
45 public process.
46 Commissioner Rich referred to page 13, section 2.1.2, and asked if rooms, within
47 buildings, are currently being named.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said yes, at the Orange County Library. He said a room was
49 added after the library was built, for a collection of books that a resident donated.
9
1 Commissioner Rich said Commissioner Dorosin said he did not want naming or re-
2 naming to be always attached to monetary donations.
3 Commissioner Rich said she does not have a problem with naming buildings after living
4 persons, and would want to re-name only if a building does not have a real name.
5 Commissioner Burroughs said to do a public process of naming/re-naming, and for staff
6 to talk with the school systems, which have a process. She said to broaden the policy for the
7 use of names.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said an example would be if the Friends of the Carrboro Library
9 raised $50,000, and asked for a room to be named for them. He said he does not see anything
10 wrong with that, and it may encourage more participation. He said there are reasons to have
11 exceptions.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said this policy came about after the County recruited Sports
13 Endeavors to help pay for the soccer complex.
14 Commissioner Price referred to 2.1.5, and suggested removing the word "monetary" and
15 replacing it with "significant contribution".
16 Chair McKee said that may remove the impression that the County is selling naming
17 rights. He agreed with Commissioner Price's suggestion.
18 Commissioner Rich said it is tricky, as one does not want to be discouraged from giving
19 money.
20 Chair McKee referred back to 2.1.3, and asked if the Board wants to change this.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said the wording of"after a process of public participation" could
22 be added. He said these buildings belong to the public, not the County.
23 Chair McKee said there is always the danger of naming after a living person, in that
24 changes occur.
25 Bonnie Hammersley said staff will bring this topic back soon.
26
27 3. Boards and Commissions Discussion
28
29 BACKGROUND: The Orange County Board of Commissioners, at several of its past meetings,
30 has identified specific topics related to Boards and Commissions that the Board wanted to
31 further discuss. Attachment A provides excerpts from approved sets of minutes on the Board's
32 prior discussion of the following items:
33
34 • Vetting of Applicants; Recommendations/No Recommendations from Advisory Boards
35 • Filling of Board Vacancies: Statutory and/or Board approved positions
36 • Advisory Board Meeting Times
37 • Advisory Boards- Size of Boards - 9/20/16 discussion
38
39 Attachment B contains a departmental Training/Orientation Overview of the various Orange
40 County Advisory Boards and Commissions
41
42 a. Vetting of Applicants; Recommendations/No Recommendations from Advisory
43 Boards
44 Discussion Point:
45 • Does the Board want to pursue a vetting process or continue the process as is?
46
47 Chair McKee asked Thom Freeman, Assistant to the Clerk, if he had heard any
48 complaints from applicants about the process.
10
1 Thom Freeman said he has not heard any complaints, but he has noted suggestions in
2 meeting minutes, from other board members on advisory boards, that appointees should be
3 more experienced.
4 Chair McKee asked if there are any concerns about the applications with extended
5 questions.
6 Thom Freeman said people fill them out, and he has seen that sometimes answers can
7 be incomplete.
8 Commissioner Rich asked if the boards with additional questions could be identified.
9 Thom Freeman, said Economic Development, Orange Water and Sewer Authority
10 (OWASA), ABC Board, Board of Adjustment, Equalization and Review (E&R), and the Planning
11 Board.
12 Commissioner Price said sometimes a vacancy needs filling and there is no
13 recommendation from a board, but other times there is a recommendation and the BOCC
14 ignores it. She said she wonders what kind of message this sends, and if recommendations
15 can be ignored, why ask for them in the first place.
16 Commissioner Rich asked if recommendations are sought.
17 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a difference between not following a
18 recommendation and ignoring one. He said with some boards more information is needed on
19 the applications, as some applicants apply to multiple boards at one time that seemingly have
20 little connection. He said perhaps, with some boards, applicants should only be able to apply to
21 that one board.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said restricting applicants to one board had been considered for
23 those boards that handle monetary issues. He said this issue was never resolved.
24 Commissioner Pelissier said she and Commissioner Rich talked about having a
25 committee conduct interviews of applicants for certain boards, but this came up and the Board
26 did not want to do it. She said perhaps there could be committees of two to three to review
27 applications, and interview applicants of certain boards.
28 Commissioner Pelissier said if staff sees that a person did not complete an application,
29 which has more extensive questions, to send it back to the applicant.
30 Commissioner Pelissier said the Board should consider adding extra questions for the
31 Board of Adjustment application.
32 Commissioner Price said there is no consistency within the boards; some boards recruit
33 for particular positions, but most boards choose whatever process they want, such as the
34 Chair/Vice Chair reviewing applications.
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Commissioner Price could define consistency.
36 Commissioner Price said consistency in who does the vetting for the applicant
37 recommendations.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said he does not have a problem with that. He said when he was
39 on the OWASA board years ago he was interviewed by two commissioners.
40 Commissioner Jacobs said it should be noted that Commissioner Dorosin advocated for
41 not vetting anyone.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said he does not agree with Commissioner Dorosin for the
43 statutory boards, quasi-judicial boards or those with fiduciary responsibilities.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said when he looks at who is applying, he looks at the various
45 demographics of the board: gender, race, geographic variety, etc. He said he does not make
46 his decisions solely on this, but he does looks at the balance. He said the Board should not put
47 someone on a board based on demographic profile.
48 Commissioner Rich said she agreed that some boards need to be vetted, but she does
49 not want it to be more difficult for residents to apply.
11
1 Commissioner Rich said sometimes she calls some applicants, and she encouraged
2 others to do this. She met with the E&R Board chair who wanted more vetting of applicants,
3 and perhaps John Roberts could create questions for this board's application.
4 John Roberts said he does not mind being involved with the quasi-judicial boards. He
5 said these boards have guidelines to follow, and he is working with Michael Harvey to set up a
6 training session with the Board of Adjustment. He said he did the same with the E&R Board,
7 and can do this on a regular basis.
8 Commissioner Price said in addition to the training, there should be more qualifications
9 for the quasi-judicial boards.
10 Chair McKee said there are three levels of boards being discussed: quasi-judicial, a
11 subset of non-quasi-judicial that are more involved (ABC Board, OWASA, E&R, Planning, etc.),
12 and then the rest of the boards.
13 Commissioner Price said she is talking about quasi-judicial boards that do not report
14 back to the BOCC.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board of Health and Department of Social Services are
16 statutory boards that do not have to report back to the BOCC, but do make policy decisions.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if the Board feels that repetitively putting the same people on
18 boards is acceptable, as well as people serving on more than one board at a time. She said
19 there are people in the applicant pools, but the same people continue to get appointed. She
20 said Commissioner Dorosin expressed not liking the process of repeatedly appointing someone
21 to a board.
22 Commissioner Price said the policy is that one can serve on two boards, and one task
23 force at one time.
24 Commissioner Rich said sometimes it feels that the BOCC are appointing the same
25 people. She said there must be more people that are interested in serving.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said this happens when there is an unspoken political benefit to
27 making that person happy.
28 Commissioner Pelissier said the same people tend to be reappointed because they are
29 known and are good "board" people. She said there is a level of comfort with known people.
30 She said there needs to be a vetting process for important boards versus just the advisory
31 boards.
32 Commissioner Pelissier proposed a two-step process: 1. Have some serious vetting
33 process, like a sub-committee, to review applicants and to make recommendations for the
34 quasi-judicial boards, and those that make significant decisions. 2. The other advisory boards
35 could have some other process. She said this may require more active involvement from the
36 BOCC.
37 Chair McKee asked if she is suggesting an interview process or a more thorough review
38 of all applicants.
39 Commissioner Pelissier said interviewing every applicant would be an ominous job, but
40 there could be a group that whittles down the applicants, and then conducts a phone interview,
41 or something similar.
42 Chair McKee asked if the sub group would be two commissioners.
43 Commissioner Pelissier yes, or perhaps John Roberts could interview applicants for the
44 quasi-judicial boards.
45 Commissioner Price said it seems like this is being done at times, but it should be a
46 formalized process.
47 Chair McKee said he sometimes supports a known person, simply because he knows
48 them and their commitment level.
49 Commissioner Pelissier said she likes having recommendations from advisory boards,
50 and would like to receive them from all advisory boards.
12
1 Commissioner Burroughs said the Board of Health has a sub-committee that does its
2 vetting.
3 Commissioner Burroughs referred to Commissioner Dorosin's input and said she thinks
4 vetting is useful, and boards should be strongly encouraged to look at diversity, when vetting.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a historical process of the Planning Board not
6 offering recommendations, and he would like to keep this as is. He said this has been done
7 because the BOCC is meant to be doing the vetting with these types of boards.
8 Chair McKee asked if this is a default policy.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said yes.
10 Chair McKee said that is fine with him and suggested that the Board of Adjustment also
11 not give recommendations.
12 Thom Freeman said recommendations are not received from the Planning Board, Board
13 of Adjustment and the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard).
14 Chair McKee asked if it is acceptable just to limit not receiving recommendations to the
15 Planning Board.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said yes.
17
18 b. Filling of Board Vacancies: Statutory and/or Board approved positions
19 Discussion Point:
20 • How would the Board want to proceed with vacant positions with statutory or Board
21 designated positions?
22
23 Chair McKee said he has concerns about this issue, and he does not like to fill
24 vacancies just for the purpose of filling them.
25 Commissioner Price said if there are applicants, then the positions should be filled,
26 unless there is a clear reason not to appoint someone.
27 Discussion ensued.
28 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a benefit to holding a seat open, or is it better to fill
29 the seat and have a full board.
30 Chair McKee said if you have one vacancy on a 7-member board, and it is an at-large
31 seat, he does not have a problem filling it. He said he does have a problem with filling a seat
32 that is a designated position with someone who is not qualified (such as does not live in a
33 particular district).
34 Commissioner Rich asked Chair McKee if he feels there is a limit to how long a seat
35 should be left open.
36 Chair McKee said he does not know, but if there is a designated seat then it should
37 remain open, if it does not adversely affect the board. He said six months did not feel like
38 enough time, and one year feels too long to wait.
39 Commissioner Rich said she does not like leaving open seats.
40 Chair McKee said the Board as a whole probably agrees with Commissioner Rich, but
41 he does not. His argument is if it is a designated seat, it should not be filled with someone who
42 does not fit the designation.
43 Chair McKee said he also objects to having one appointment recommendation on the
44 abstract, and then the Board filling other seats on the fly.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said he has no problem with filling seats, except when the
46 reasons why some people are not recommended is not known to the BOCC.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC could give notice to advisory boards that if they
48 are making recommendations, but not filling all of the seats, the advisory board should get in
49 touch with Board of County Commissioners Chair as to why seats are not being filled, or the
50 BOCC will fill the seats the next time.
13
1 Chair McKee said this sounds like a good recommendation. He said the process will
2 remain the same, and if he has concerns, he will vote his conscience.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said Commissioner Dorosin has the opposite concerns, in that he
4 wants no spots vacant. He said the advisory boards can have one shot to let the BOCC know
5 why seats are not filled.
6 Chair McKee said he is on one side of the argument, with Commissioner Dorosin is on
7 the other side, and the rest of the Board is on middle ground.
8
9 c. Advisory Board Meeting Times
10 Discussion Points:
11 • Does the BOCC want to do a blanket change to advisory board policies to allow
12 individual boards to decide their own meeting times?
13 • Or does the BOCC want to stay with the current status quo?
14
15 John Roberts said some boards set their own times, and some advisory boards' times
16 were designated by the Board of Commissioners.
17 Commissioner Jacobs said having meetings at different times is confusing to the public.
18 He said if a board changes the times of meetings, then it should only be allowed once within a
19 specified time period.
20 Chair McKee agreed.
21 Commissioner Rich said there are boards that meet during the day, and asked if these
22 should be handled differently.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said there may be restrictions for any time of day, but there
24 should be consistency to nighttime meetings.
25 Commissioner Rich agreed.
26 John Roberts said those advisory boards that set their own meeting times, usually meet
27 at the same time; and are not changing their times randomly, as may have been construed by
28 his earlier comments.
29 Commissioner Burroughs said she is inclined to let the advisory boards determine their
30 own meeting times, but discourage them from changing meeting times frequently.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said to let boards know there is a default formal meeting time,
32 and if boards want to meet at other times to let the BOCC know why.
33
34 d. Advisory Boards- Size of Boards
35 Commissioner Price said this question should be addressed when there is a large
36 absentee problem.
37 Commissioner Pelissier said she raised this concern originally, in reference to the
38 Human Relations Commission (HRC), which had 18 members, as this board was merged from
39 two other boards. She said this board does not require designated positions like the
40 Commission of the Environment. She proposed reducing the HRC by three or four members.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said when he was on the HRC, more members were desired in
42 order to have more community representation and outreach. He said if there is trouble filling the
43 positions, then it could be reduced.
44 Chair McKee said to reduce the number by natural attrition, for this board, or any board.
45 The Board agreed by consensus.
46 Commissioner Rich asked Thom Freeman if there is consistent attendance at the HRC
47 meetings.
48 Thom Freeman said this board is notorious for lack of attendance.
49 Commissioner Rich said to talk about a plan about reducing a few at-large positions,
50 without kicking anyone off, if there is an attendance problem.
14
1 Donna Baker said if there is a consistent problem with attendance, either staff or the
2 Clerk's office will contact the board member with attendance issues to see what is going on.
3 Thom Freeman said quarterly attendance reports are requested from all advisory
4 boards.
5 Chair McKee said there are multiple reasons why people cannot attend, but the Board of
6 County Commissioners can be more aggressive about stressing the importance of attendance.
7 Commissioner Price said it is important to make sure that those who really want to serve
8 are able to serve.
9 Chair McKee said to encourage advisory boards to be more conscientious about
10 attendance, instead of using attrition at this point.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said in the past there were Chair/Vice Chair and Advisory Chairs
12 meetings to review processes and procedures.
13 Commissioner Rich said this was the process on the Chapel Hill Town Council as well.
14 Chair McKee asked if there are any other questions about boards and commissions.
15 Commissioner Rich said she is comfortable with all that was discussed, if John Roberts
16 talks regularly with the quasi-judicial boards about processes/procedures.
17 John Roberts said he would conduct training consistently, and if there is a special need
18 or a new appointee in need of training.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs seconded by Commissioner Rich to
21 adjourn the meeting at 9:38 p.m.
22
23
24
25 Earl McKee, Chair
26
27 Donna Baker
28 Clerk to the Board
29