HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-24-2017 - 6-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 24, 2017
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 15, 2016 BOCC Regular Meeting
November 17, 2016 Assembly of Governments Meeting
November 21, 2016 QPH
December 5, 2016 BOCC Regular Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 November 15, 2016
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November
10 15, 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 Mark Dorosin,
13 Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Mia Burroughs
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 7:08 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23
24 A motion was made by Chair McKee seconded, by Commissioner Jacobs to add
25 Commissioner Price's proposed resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING
26 MOUNT BRIGHT MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH ON ITS 150TH ANNIVERSARY" to the
27 agenda under Item 4.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
32 - Pink sheet: Board of Elections Report - Tracy Reams
33 - White sheet: Email from Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, for item 6-b
34 - PowerPoint for item 7-a
35 - News Article from Commissioner Jacobs, about impact fees, for item 7-a
36 - PowerPoint for item 7-b
37 - PowerPoint for item 7-c
38
39 Bonnie Hammersley introduced Tracy Reams, Board of Elections Director, and said she
40 is here to give an update on the November 8th election.
41 Tracy Reams commended her staff, one-stop volunteers and precinct officials. She also
42 recognized 38 student assistants. And she also recommended two of her Board members, Ms.
43 Knight and Mr. Randall.
44 Tracy Reams provided the Board with a general status report of the election, which is
45 below:
46
47 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS
48 To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners
49 From: Tracy Reams, Director of Elections
50 Date: November 15, 2016
2
1 Re: November 8, 2016 General Election Report
2
3 Following is a report of various activities and statistical information relating to the November 8,
4 2016 Elections held in Orange County for your review.
5
6 • Pre-Election —
7 The staff completed all pre-election tasks in a timely manner. This included, but not limited to
8 receiving and auditing campaign finance reports, coordinating voting machine/equipment
9 delivery and pickup, recruiting and training One-Stop staff and Election Day precinct officials,
10 ordering and receipt of ballots, preparing precinct supplies, processing voter registration forms
11 and absentee ballot requests.
12
13 Thorough logic and accuracy testing was completed on every voting machine to ensure votes
14 were recorded properly. Laptops were loaded with one-stop voting software and setup at the
15 one-stop sites in addition to loading software on 132 plus Election Day laptops.
16
17 The staff trained and certified "Multi-Partisan Assistance Teams" (MAT) to assist with
18 requesting and casting absentee ballots for voters in assisted living homes. The MAT team was
19 deployed to various sites in the county as requested.
20
21 From July 1, 2016 thru November 8, 2016 the staff processed 14,894 new registrations, 8,592
22 duplicate registrations, 10,080 changes of information and removed 7,414 registrations from the
23 voter rolls. A total of 26,366 voter cards were generated and mailed during this time. My staff
24 worked together efficiently and accomplished our goal to have all registrations entered prior to
25 the beginning of One-Stop voting.
26
27 • Absentee Voting —
28 As directed by the Elections Board, we established 5 one-stop early voting sites with a total of
29 568.5 cumulative hours. The votes cast at each site are as follows: (total 59,766)
30
31 13,484 - Hillsborough BOE 4,527 - Efland Ruritan Bldg.
32 15,326 - Carrboro Town Hall 13,348 - Seymour Senior Center
33 13,081 - Chapel of the Cross
34
35 We processed a total of 1,879 same-day registrations during early voting.
36 To date 3,132 Absentee By-Mail ballots have been approved and counted by the Board.
37
38 • Election Day—
39 Election Day voting was steady at all precincts with 18,831 ballots cast. All precincts were open
40 at 6:30 a.m. as required. We had a total of 326 precinct officials working in 44 precincts.
41
42 Although we thought we had thoroughly setup and tested the electronic poll books for every
43 possible scenario, we found that several precincts had issues printing on Election Day. IT staff
44 recommended that we "image" the laptops to eliminate several steps in the data loading
45 process in addition to the countless updates to be processed which is very time consuming. In
46 past elections we had to "marry" each laptop to a printer. With the image process, we were told
47 this was not necessary. We found that it was necessary to "marry" the laptops and printers
48 once they were setup and tested prior to Election Day. This did cause confusion with our
49 precinct officials and voters at start-up. Once we discovered the issue, my staff and I were able
50 to walk the precinct officials through over the phone on how to fix the issue. We have been in
3
1 contact with the IT staff and will address this issue to ensure it will not be an issue for future
2 elections.
3
4 I am happy to report that we did not have a single voting tabulator machine issue in the county.
5 The voting tabulator equipment was very well received by the precinct officials and the voters.
6 Precinct officials reported the ease of use was very much appreciated. The only issues we had
7 with voting equipment are the aging ADA compliance machines. We had a few with screen and
8 print issues. Due to the support of the BOCC, we are ready to replace the ADA machines as
9 soon as approved by the State Board of Elections.
10
11 Election Night results were reported and uploaded to website with no issues. All 44 precincts
12 were fully reported by 9:30 p.m.
13
14 • Post-Election —
15 A total of 429 Provisional ballots were cast. At this time the staff is recommending the Board
16 fully count 154, partially count 8 and not approve 263. There are currently 4 in pending status
17 waiting for additional information from voter. The Board will meet on Wednesday, November 16
18 at 3:30 pm to act on and count Provisionals ballots cast.
19
20 The Board and staff will conduct the sample audit count for two early voting sites as directed by
21 the State Board of Elections to ensure machine accuracy on Wednesday, November 16 at 3:30
22 pm. The Board and staff will conduct a hand eye count on a total of 26,429 one-stop ballots
23 cast for the contest of President.
24
25 The Board will also act on supplemental Absentee By-Mail ballots received since the last
26 absentee meeting on Election Day. To date we have timely received an additional 674 civilian,
27 15 military and 82 overseas ballots to process.
28
29 The Board will certify the official results on Friday, November 18 at 11:00 am.
30
31 Data was uploaded from the electronic poll books to complete voter history entry in record time.
32 Voter history was completed by close of business on Wednesday.
33
34 Absentee results by precinct will be reported as soon as all audits and recounts have been
35 completed. We are expecting to receive several requests for a statewide recount. The State
36 Board must receive any requests for a recount no later than Tuesday, November 22.
37
38 The acquisition of electronic poll books and updated voting equipment has greatly enhanced
39 the service we provide to the voters of Orange County. The Elections Board would not have
40 been able to achieve our goal to provide the best possible service to Orange County residents
41 without the continued support of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. Thank
42 you for your much-appreciated support.
43
44 Commissioner Rich asked Ms. Reams if she could talk briefly about what a recount
45 entails.
46 Tracy Reams said the ballots that were cast during early voting, absentee, and on
47 Election Day will have to be run through another machine count. She said this can be done via
48 one machine, which is a high speed counter that the BOCC allowed the Board of Elections to
49 purchase. She said this will save an enormous amount of time.
4
1 Chair McKee commended the Board of Elections for the hard work and diligence
2 exhibited during the Election Day and afterwards.
3
4
5
6 PUBLIC CHARGE
7
8 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
9
10 2. Public Comments
11
12 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
13 NONE
14
15 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
16 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
17 below.)
18
19 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
20 Chair McKee said Commissioner Burroughs will not be here tonight.
21 Commissioner Price had no announcements or petitions.
22 Commissioner Rich had no announcements or petitions.
23 Commissioner Dorosin said he petitioned a few weeks ago about the revenue
24 distributed back from the ABC Board to the County, and Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial
25 Officer, provided some information. He said the profits are at 39%, which is lower than other
26 counties. He petitioned the County to seek a higher distribution from the profits from their local
27 ABC Board back to the County.
28 Bonnie Hammersley said there is not a policy, and staff will bring back more information
29 on this issue.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said a friend, Cynthia Brown, passed away recently from cancer.
31 He said she had been a facilitator at retreats.
32 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board recently discussed developing a policy to
33 purchase from local vendors in Orange County, and when that is not possible, to purchase
34 products made in the United States. He requested that a letter go out to all caterers stating that
35 meals, which are served in plastic, or Styrofoam containers and plastic silverware will not be
36 accepted.
37 Commissioner Pelissier asked for a regular report on the information item in their
38 packet, the Human Services Transportation Research and Orange Public Transit's Challenges
39 and Solutions, and said going forward this should be tracked regularly.
40 Chair McKee had no announcements or petitions.
41
42 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
43
44 Chair McKee said the Mount Bright proposed resolution would be addressed first. He
45 read the resolution:
46
47 A RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING
48 MOUNT BRIGHT MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH ON ITS 150TH ANNIVERSARY
49
5
1 WHEREAS, prior to the emancipation of African-American slaves, a group of "coloured" men
2 and women held membership and worshipped at the former Hillsborough Baptist Church, now
3 the First Baptist Church of Hillsborough; and
4
5 WHEREAS, London, a slave of S. Moon, was the first African-American accepted for
6 membership at Hillsborough Baptist Church; and
7
8 WHEREAS, the African-American congregation continued to meet at the church from 1866 until
9 April 1868, when they voluntarily withdrew their fellowship to form a church of their own; and
10
11 WHEREAS, minutes from the First Baptist Church records read: "The coloured members of the
12 church with the exception of Bro. Lewis Jenkins having voluntarily withdrawn their fellowship
13 from us for the purpose of organizing a church of their own, therefore, we recommend that their
14 names be stricken from the roll and that we recognize them as a separate and distinct church";
15 and
16
17 WHEREAS, twenty [20] members subsequently formed a congregation under the leadership of
18 Reverend Alfred E. Bright, hence the name, Mount Bright Baptist Church, and they met in the
19 homes of one another; and
20
21 WHEREAS, in 1845, Susannah W. Graham, widow of William Graham, former governor of
22 North Carolina, donated land to build the first church structure, and which was erected in 1906;
23 and
24
25 WHEREAS, the original members of Mt. Bright Baptist Church included: Mars Whitted, Ed
26 Bolden, George Smith, Jim Thompson, George Craig, Mark Long, Marsh Dixon, London
27 Robinson, Martin Whitted, Anderson Henderson, Alston Whitted, Daniel Latta, Sr., Annie
28 Alston, Julia Craig, Peggie Clemons, Beanie Moore, Millie Robinson, Peggie Faribault, Jane
29 Whitted and Fannie M. Whitted; and
30
31 WHEREAS, when the first building had to be demolished, church members constructed and
32 dedicated a new structure in 1979, at 211 West Union Street in Hillsborough, North Carolina;
33 and
34
35 WHEREAS, through the years, the Mt. Bright Missionary Baptist Church congregation has
36 contributed to the social well-being of Orange County, and continues to hold special events to
37 provide needed resources to individuals and families throughout the Orange County
38 community;
39
40 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County
41 Commissioners commends the services and achievements of the members, past and present,
42 of the Mount Bright Missionary Baptist Church over the past 150 years; and
43
44 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
45 congratulates the members of Mount Bright Missionary Baptist Church on their
46 Sesquicentennial Anniversary, with the Reverend Melvin Gattis as Associate Minister, and the
47 Reverend Sharon Shanklin Freeland as Associate Minister and Church Administrator; and
48
49 BE IT MOREOVER RESOLVED, that Mount Bright Missionary Baptist Church is hereby
50 recognized by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners as a pillar in the community,
6
1 that has served, and may it continue to serve, as a beacon of hope, progress, revival and
2 freedom for all.
3
4 This 15th Day of November 2016.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
7 adopt the resolution: A RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING MOUNT BRIGHT MISSIONARY
8 BAPTIST CHURCH ON ITS 150TH ANNIVERSARY.
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 a. Resolution in Support of the Equal Rights Amendment
13 The Board considered approving the Resolution in Support of the Equal Rights
14 Amendment (ERA).
15
16 BACKGROUND:
17 At the November 1, 2016 Board meeting, Commissioner Renee Price petitioned the Board to
18 consider a Resolution in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. Commissioner Price provided
19 a draft resolution for consideration.
20
21 The Equal Rights Amendment affirmed the equal application of the Constitution to all citizens;
22 which read: "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every
23 place subject to its jurisdiction." The amendment was introduced in every session of Congress;
24 and was approved in reworded form by the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives on
25 March 22, 1972.
26
27 The proposed 27th Amendment to the Constitution was sent to the States for ratification, and
28 fell three states short of ratification; including the State of North Carolina.
29
30 PUBLIC COMMENT:
31 Jennifer Miller said she wanted to thank Commissioner Price for introducing this
32 resolution. She said the Board's support of the ERA amendment will give hope and momentum
33 to women seeking equal status under the United States Constitution. She said the ERA will
34 strengthen the rights of women and give protection in the workplace, as well as many other
35 areas.
36 Marena Gral said she is the Chair of NC for ERA, and the Co-Chair of Statewide ERA
37 NC Alliance. She said as a Durham resident she is proud to address Orange County. She said
38 she believed in the Board's high calling as elected officials. She said they are asking the Board
39 to advocate for the civil rights of women. She said legislation cannot be piecemealed, and
40 there must be universal equality. She said state laws are not uniform and federal laws are not
41 comprehensive, and all protective acts and titles can be revised, reduced, and repealed at the
42 whim of the changing tides of political agendas and administrations. She said the equal
43 protection clause of the 14th Amendment is not that equal. She said this issue must be on the
44 forefront of political discussions.
45 Commissioner Rich asked Ms. Gral if she is speaking in other parts of the state.
46 Marena Gral said the other co-chair lives in the western part of the state, and the goal is
47 to go to every county and congressional district in the state.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said expressed gratitude to these women and encouraged them
49 to keep fighting for equality.
50 Commissioner Price read the resolution:
7
1
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
4
5 WHEREAS, Orange County forthrightly supports equal rights for all residents of Orange
6 County; and
7
8 WHEREAS, women continue to confront a lack of political parity, workplace discrimination,
9 healthcare inequities, disparate rates of poverty, rape and domestic violence assaults; and
10
11 WHEREAS, the United States Constitution fails to guarantee explicitly that all rights that it
12 purports to protect are held equally by all residents without regard to sex; and
13
14 WHEREAS, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment never has been interpreted
15 to guarantee equal rights for women; and
16
17 WHEREAS, the Equal Rights Amendment [ERA] was drafted to help correct systemic
18 discrimination based on sex, i.e., by situating sex as a suspect category invoking strict judicial
19 scrutiny, as with race, national origin and religion; and
20
21 WHEREAS, the ERA was passed by Congress in 1972 and ratified by 35 of the 38 states
22 necessary to put it into the Constitution, yet was assumed to have expired in 1982; and
23
24 WHEREAS, Congress can alter time limits in the proposing clauses of amendments, and the
25 deadline for the ERA appeared only in the preamble as opposed to the actual legislation; and
26
27 WHEREAS, Senator Floyd B. McKissick, Jr. and Representative Carla Cunningham
28 introduced ERA ratification bills in the NC General Assembly in the 2015 long session, with
29 Senator Mike Woodard co-sponsoring the Senate bill and Representative Henry M. Michaux
30 co-sponsoring the House bill; and
31
32 WHEREAS, these legislators have indicated that they will introduce similar bills in 2017; and
33
34 WHEREAS, US Representative David Price, Representative Alma Adams, and
35 Representative G.K. Butterfield co-sponsored bills in the 114th Congress to adopt an ERA,
36 and to lift the time limits on states for ratifying the ERA;
37
38 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County
39 Commissioners calls on the US Congress to pass into law a bill to adopt an Equal Rights
40 Amendment, or to remove the time limit for ratification of the ERA so that ratification shall be
41 achieved upon the affirmative vote of 38 states, of which 35 already have ratified; and
42
43 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners calls
44 on the NC General Assembly to pass into law a bill to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment to
45 the United States Constitution as proposed by Congress on March 22, 1972.
46
47 This, the 15th day of November 2016.
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
50 approve the Resolution in support of the Equal Rights Amendment.
8
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 5. Public Hearings
5 NONE
6
7 6. Consent Agenda
8
9 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
10 6-b, 6-d, by Commissioner Price and 6-e by Commissioner Jacobs
11
12 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
15 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
20
21 Commissioner Price asked if item 6-d could be addressed first as there was one person
22 in the audience to speak on this item.
23
24 6d: Adoption of the Accessible Icon Project in Orange County
25 The Board considered approving the implementation of the new wheelchair Accessible Icon
26 Project for Orange County.
27
28 PUBLIC COMMENT:
29 Rollin Russell is here representing the Human Relations Commission (HRC), and he
30 thanked the Board for doing an assessment of the accessibility of all County properties. He
31 said the HRC is asking the Board to adopt the new icon for handicapped spaces and disability
32 services. He said where it is possible for the County to use the new icon, he hoped that the
33 County would. He said the cities of New Bern and Durham have already adopted this icon, and
34 the Board has a brochure at its places. He invited the Board to attend the Human Relations
35 Forum on Sunday, January 29tH
36 Commissioner Rich asked him if he could provide this information to the new
37 Community Relations Director to advertise this forum.
38 Commissioner Price asked Bonnie Hammersley if the County will be re-painting parking
39 spaces.
40 Bonnie Hammersley said the new icon will be displayed wherever it can be or is allowed
41 to be. She said staff is assessing how quickly this can be done and will follow up with a memo.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said at the work session last week, the Board discussed advisory
43 boards, and the size of the HRC board came up. He said he wanted to give Rollin Russell a
44 heads-up.
45 Rollin Russell said they are aware of the issue and look forward to the Board's
46 recommendations.
47
48 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
49 approve the implementation of the new wheelchair Accessible Icon Project for Orange County.
50
9
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 6-b: Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#3
4 The Board considered approving budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for
5 fiscal year 2016-17.
6 Commissioner Price said she had a question on the Nature preserve item. She asked if
7 the funding source could be identified.
8 Paul Laughton, Finance and Administrative Services, said the Board approved this item
9 on October 18th, and as a part of the resolution the Board failed to pass how and where to move
10 the funding. He said this amendment is to officially approve the funds and moving this from
11 finance to pay-as-you-go funding. He said this amendment is just to create the approval of the
12 capital funds ordinances that were approved on October 18tH
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
15 approve the budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 6-e: Unified Animal Control Ordinance Amendments
20 The Board considered adopting the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance amendments
21 and approving and authorizing the Chair to sign the Resolution of Amendment, "A Resolution
22 Amending Chapter 4 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances".
23
24 Commissioner Jacobs said he wanted some clarification about the second item on the
25 abstract, which states: "The Animal Services Advisory Board has determined that the word
26 "vicious," found throughout the ordinance, is leading to some determinations being appealed,
27 not based on the facts of the determination, but based on dislike of the word "vicious". In order
28 to avoid this situation in the future, the Animal Services Advisory Board recommends the word
29 vicious be changed to dangerous. That amendment is made throughout the attached
30 document."
31 Commissioner Jacobs asked if clarification could be provided on who disliked the term
32 vicious.
33 Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, said the concern is the way in which dog owners
34 understand the declaration of their dog to be vicious. He said the Animal Appeals pool has
35 discussed this issue, and it was referred to the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) for
36 consideration. He said the ASAB and staff concurred that removing this inflammatory term
37 made good sense.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
40 approve the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance amendments and approve and
41 authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution of Amendment, "A Resolution Amending Chapter 4 of
42 the Orange County Code of Ordinances".
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 a. Minutes
47 The Board approved the minutes for the September 29, 2016 Joint Meeting with Schools; and
48 the October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting, as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
49 b. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#3
10
1 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year
2 2016-17 for Department on Aging; Department of Social Services; Department of Economic
3 Development; Health Department; County Manager; Headwaters Nature Preserve; and
4 Planning and Inspection Department.
5 c. Creation of Permanent Time-Limited Position for Group Respite Service
6 The Board approved a permanent time-limited Social Worker II position effective November 15,
7 2016 through August 31, 2018.
8 d. Adoption of the Accessible Icon Project in Orange County
9 The Board approved the implementation of the new wheelchair Accessible Icon Project for
10 Orange County.
11 e. Unified Animal Control Ordinance Amendments
12 The Board adopted the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance amendments and
13 approving and authorizing the Chair to sign the Resolution of Amendment, "A Resolution
14 Amending Chapter 4 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances".
15
16 7. Regular Agenda
17
18 a. School Impact Fee Updates
19 The Board considered:
20 1. Receiving a presentation by staff;
21 2. Discussing the topic as desired;
22 3. Authorizing finalization of the school impact fee study reports by the consultant
23 (TischlerBise); and
24 4. Adopting one of the proposed Ordinances as follows: a. Attachment 2 if the
25 Board believes a 50/50 multi-family unit bedroom split projection is the more
26 realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 37% of the MSIF). b. Attachment 3 if
27 the Board believes a 75/25 multi-family unit bedroom split projection is the more
28 realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 43% of the MSIF). c. Additionally, the
29 BOCC can choose to adopt different MSIF percentage levels from those listed in
30 the ordinances and/or a different phasing timeline.
31
32 BACKGROUND:
33 Since 1993, Orange County has levied school impact fees to help defray the public costs of
34 new development. The fee is charged once to all new residential development in both school
35 districts. Fees charged must be proportional to the actual impact caused which is the reason a
36 technical study is completed; the data-based study determines the proportional impact of
37 housing types and the "maximum supportable impact fee" (MSIF) that can be charged for each
38 type of housing. Proceeds from school impact fees can be used only to increase student
39 membership capacity (e.g., Capital Facilities — new or expanded school buildings) in the school
40 district in which the fee was collected. School impact fee proceeds cannot be used to fund
41 operations or repairs of existing facilities.
42
43 It should be noted that people's housing choices over time can change and those choices are
44 reflected in the data used in the technical studies. Variance from study-to-study is to be
45 expected due to demographic and housing trends that are captured in the data. Impact fees are
46 paid once (when units are constructed) and cover the entire life of each housing unit. Housing
47 often displays a cyclical nature of occupancy through the decades that a unit exists. This is one
48 of the reasons school impact fee studies necessarily consider the entire housing stock when
49 determining student generation rates; the entirety of the housing stock provides a reasonable
50 snapshot in time of how all units will be occupied during their existence. Additionally,
11
1 redevelopment projects of existing housing units do not pay additional impact fees unless the
2 number of new units exceeds the number of existing units, in which case impact fees are due
3 only on the number of new units that exceeds the existing number (e.g., 200 housing units
4 being
5 redeveloped into a project that contains 250 new units would pay impact fees only on the 50
6 additional units).
7
8 The Board of County Commissioners has extensively discussed the results of the 2016 studies
9 and possible fee updates at four meetings since September. Meeting materials and videos of
10 the meetings are posted at:
11 http://www.oranpecountync.pov/departments/board of county commissioners/index.php
12 Meeting dates were:
13 • September 6, 2016
14 • September 29, 2016
15 • October 4, 2016
16 • October 18, 2016
17
18 At the October 18 meeting, the Board voted (5-2) on the preference for charging school impact
19 fees based on bedroom counts, when applicable. The Board also deferred an adoption decision
20 to give staff time to meet with representatives of three interested groups (the Homebuilders
21 Association of Durham, Orange, and Chatham Counties; the Triangle Apartment Association;
22 and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce) who spoke at the meeting and also to
23 conduct an additional breakeven analysis based on different assumptions from the analysis that
24 was completed for the October 18 meeting.
25
26 County staff met with representatives of various organizations on October 26 and the group
27 sent an email with their comments on November 1. The e-mail and staff responses are included
28 in Attachment 4. Some of the ideas presented by the stakeholders have been incorporated into
29 the potential ordinances in Attachments 2 and 3.
30
31 Details of the breakeven analyses are included in Attachment 1. The analyses differ in the
32 multi-family bedroom split projections as follows:
33 • A 50/50 multi-family bedroom split (0-2 bedrooms/3+ bedrooms) yields a breakeven
34 point of 37% of the MSIF. Note that some stakeholders who attended the meeting on
35 October 26 have indicated this bedroom split is not likely, particularly in the Chapel Hill —
36 Carrboro district; expectation that more 0-2 bedroom units will be constructed than 3+
37 bedroom units.
38 • A 75/25 multi-family bedroom split (0-2 bedrooms/3+ bedrooms) yields a breakeven
39 point of 43% of the MSIF. Note that some stakeholders have indicated this bedroom
40 split may still be on the high side for 3+ bedroom units. Staff notes that if this indication
41 is correct, the starting point of the MSIF would need to be higher if the County wishes to
42 "breakeven" on school impact fee collections the first year.
43
44 The breakeven analyses are based on the construction assumptions included in Attachment 1.
45 If actual construction differs significantly from assumptions, actual impact fee amounts collected
46 would be different (either higher or lower, depending on actual construction activity).
47
48 When updated impact fees were last adopted in 2008, the initial fee amount was set at a level
49 (32% of the 2008 MSIF) expected to collect $1.6 million in the Chapel Hill — Carrboro district in
50 order to reach the amount budgeted for debt service in that district. The "breakeven point" was
12
1 not calculated in 2008 (i.e., the MSIF percentage point was based on budget needs).
2 Additionally, a four-year implementation period was adopted since the starting point of 32% of
3 the MSIF provided a very low partial cost recovery. The fee started at 32% of the MSIF on
4 January 1, 2009 and moved to 40%, 50%, and 60% each January 1 of subsequent years,
5 completing the annual increases in 2012.
6
7 The proposed Ordinances (Attachments 2 and 3) include the section of the County's General
8 Code of Ordinances that pertains to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee with proposed
9 amendments shown in "track changes" format. Proposed amendments to this section of the
10 Code of Ordinances include:
11 • Adding definitions for the various housing types.
12 • Updating the schedule of public school impact fees in Section 30-33.
13 • Adding language in Section 30-33 that would require age restricted units that do not
14 remain age restricted for at least 20 years be required to pay the difference between the
15 age restricted fee paid and the non-age-restricted fee in effect at the time a unit is no
16 longer age restricted.
17 • Adding language in Section 30-35(e) clarifying under what conditions a refund would be
18 issued if impact fees were reduced for a particular housing unit type.
19 • Adding language in Section 30-38 to recognize conditional zoning, which was adopted in
20 2011 when the UDO was adopted.
21
22 The proposed Ordinances differ as follows:
23 • Attachment 2 is the Ordinance that assumes a multi-family bedroom split of 50/50 (0-
24 2/3+ bedrooms)
25 o Attachment 2 would adopt the impact fee levels at 37% of the MSIF, effective
26 January 1, 2017 with an increase to 47% of the MSIF on January 1, 2018 and a
27 final increase to 57% of the MSIF on January 1, 2019.
28
29 • Attachment 3 is the Ordinance that assumes a multi-family bedroom split of 75/25 (0-2/3+
30 bedrooms)
31 o Attachment 3 would adopt the impact fee levels at 43% of the MSIF, effective
32 January 1, 2017 with an increase to 53%% of the MSIF on January 1, 2018 and
33 a final increase to 63% of the MSIF on January 1, 2019.
34
35 • The sole difference between the two Ordinances is the Schedule of Public School
36 Impact Fees in Section 30-33, reflecting the information in the above bullets.
37
38 The adopting Ordinance for both options contains language clarifying building permit application
39 deadlines and by when a building permit would have to be issued in order to pay the 2016 fee
40 levels (this is relevant for housing unit types that had a lower 2016 fee). This language is
41 included to ensure that genuine projects are given ample time to go through the normal
42 permitting process (which can include required revisions prior to permit issuance) while
43 discouraging premature applications containing inadequate information but which are
44 submitting for the purpose of beating fee increase deadlines.
45
46 The version of the Ordinance presented at the October 18 BOCC meeting allowed 120 days to
47 obtain a building permit. As a result of stakeholder comments, this timeframe has been
48 extended to 180 days. Additionally, in response to stakeholder comments, staff has added
49 language to allow projects that have an approved Zoning Compliance Permit by January 1,
50 2017 and which apply for and receive building permits in the prescribed timeframes be
13
1 permitted to pay the 2016 impact fee levels (this clause is relevant primarily to large multi-family
2 projects).
3
4 At the request of the Town, Orange County Planning staff made a presentation to the Chapel
5 Hill Town Council on October 10, 2016. Comments made were primarily related to the effect of
6 impact fees on housing affordability. Planning staff also presented to the Town of Carrboro's
7 Board of Aldermen on October 25, 2016. Comments at Carrboro's meeting included:
8 • Concern over the effect of the impact fees on housing affordability, including the idea
9 that impact fees increase the resale prices (or rents) of existing housing.
10 • Concern that an existing house could be demolished and replaced with a larger, more
11 expensive house and no additional impact fees would be required. This also relates to
12 concern about the potential negative impact on existing, more affordable
13 neighborhoods.
14 • Concern over social justice issues and equitability and the ideas that the old and new
15 "formulas" should be better contextualized and how the affordability question manifests
16 itself.
17 • The idea that schools should be supported in a different way.
18
19 Meeting materials and videos of these meetings are available on the Towns' websites.
20
21 It should be noted that the adopted percentage of MSIF must be the same for all housing types
22 (e.g., fees cannot be adopted at 40% MSIF for one housing type and 60% MSIF for a different
23 housing type).
24
25 Since 1995, Orange County has offered an impact fee reimbursement program for school
26 impact fees paid on affordable housing units. From FY2009-10 through FY2015-16, $606,318
27 in collected impact fees was reimbursed for the 77 affordable single-family housing units and
28 one apartment building containing 6 affordable multi-family units constructed in that time period.
29
30 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
31
32 2016 School Impact Fee Update
33 November 15, 2016
34 Presenters: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; and Perdita Holtz, Planner Ill
35
36 Overview
37 • School impact fees are updated to reflect changing demographics and capital costs
38 • Two new categories were included
39 ° Small cottage homes (<800 square feet)
40 ° Age restricted housing
41 • Housing categories were further refined to reflect how smaller units (i.e., fewer
42 bedrooms) generally show lower impacts
43 • School impact fees are not an affordable housing tool but balance the capital needs of
44 schools based on lost state revenues and link revenues to new construction and not the
45 entire populace.
46
47 Perdita Holtz, Planning, presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
48
49 October 18 BOCC Meeting
14
1 • Board voted on the preference for charging school impact fees based on bedroom
2 count, when applicable
3 • Deferred adoption decision until November 15
4 o Meet with stakeholder group
5 o Additional breakeven analysis
6
7 Activities Since October 18 Discussion
8 • Additional breakeven analysis completed
9 o 75/25 multi-family 0-2 BR/3+ BR split
10 » Results in 43% MSIF starting point
11 • Presentation to Town of Carrboro on October 25
12 o Summary of comments on page 4 of abstract
13 • Met with stakeholder group on October 26
14 o Written comments received November 1
15 » Attachment 4, along with staff responses
16
17 Proposed Ordinances
18 • Begin fees at estimated breakeven points and increase by 10 percentage points of the
19 MSIF for 2 subsequent years
20 • Also language in adopting ordinance (Be It Further Ordained) clarifying building permit
21 application deadlines and by when a building permit would have to be issued in order to
22 pay the prior fee
23 o Timeframe increased from 120 days to 180 days at stakeholder request
24 • Language added to adopting ordinance (second Be It Further Ordained)for approved
25 Zoning Compliance Permits due to stakeholder comments
26 o Projects with a ZCP by January 1, 2017 and that submit for a building permit
27 prior to January 1, 2018 may choose 2016 fee or updated fee, provided building
28 permit is issued no more than 180 calendar days after submission of application
29 • Other amendments to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance previously
30 presented
31 o Contained in proposed ordinances in Attachments 2 and 3
32
33 Proposed Fees — 37% MSIF starting point (50/50 multifamily unit bedroom count mix)
34 (graph)
35
36 Proposed Fees — 37% MSIF starting point (50/50 multifamily unit bedroom count mix)
37 (graph)
38
39 Proposed Fees —43% MSIF starting point (75/25 multifamily unit bedroom count mix)
40 (graph)
41
42 Proposed Fees —43% MSIF starting point (75/25 multifamily unit bedroom count mix)
43 (graph)
44
45 Recommendation for Tonight
46 1. Receive presentation by staff;
47 2. Discuss the topic as desired;
48 3. Authorize finalization of the school impact fee study reports by the consultant
49 (TischlerBise); and
50 4. Adopt one of the proposed Ordinances as follows:
15
1 a. Attachment 2 if the Board believes a 50/50 multi-family unit bedroom
2 split projection is the more realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 37%
3 of the MSIF, increase to 47%, then 57%).
4 b. Attachment 3 if the Board believes a 75/25 multi-family unit bedroom
5 split projection is the more realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 43%
6 of the MSIF, increase to 53%, then 63%).
7 c. Additionally, the BOCC can choose to adopt different MSIF percentage
8 levels from those listed in the ordinances and/or a different phasing
9 timeline.
10
11 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the item on projects with ZCP, and asked if there is a
12 choice, by the time they get 180 calendar days, an additional year and half.
13 Perdita Holtz said yes, potentially that would be the time frame.
14 Commissioner Jacobs asked if he has 1,000 units, and he gets basic approval, at what
15 point would he be vested for all 1,000 units, with this 18-month cushion.
16 Perdita Holtz said one would be vested for the units that are covered by the building
17 application that was submitted. She said if one only submitted for 250 units, those would fall
18 under the previous fee, and the subsequent units would not.
19 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the time frame that the building permits are still valid, if
20 he applied for 1,000 building permits and only built 200, could be identified.
21 Perdita Holtz said construction activity must occur within each six-month period.
22 Commissioner Jacobs asked if building activity could be explained, and if any
23 extensions are permitted. He asked if clearing land and building roads counts as building
24 activity.
25 Perdita Holtz said yes.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said one could lay out a development, vest oneself for all 1,000
27 units and start building, then phase it over however many years, and asked if this would be
28 acceptable.
29 Perdita Holtz said yes, if it was phased correctly.
30 Bonnie Hammersley said on page 5 of abstracts, attachment 3, should read 75/25.
31
32 PUBLIC COMMENT:
33 Jacob Rogers is with the Triangle Apartments Association, and he thanked the Board for
34 pausing the process to let them be involved. He said thank you to Planning staff for meeting
35 with their various stakeholders. He said he wanted to address the zoning compliance permit,
36 and asked that the same rights be added in subsequent years. He said they also agreed with
37 starting in year one at 37% of MSIF, with annual increases of 5 percentage points of MSIF per
38 year, instead of 10.
39 Aaron Nelson said thank you to the Board of County Commissioners and staff for
40 listening to their input during the process. He said impact fees are not the first choice for
41 building schools, but they understand the need. He said they support bedroom count, and
42 the 50/50 model. He referred to the grandmothering issue noting it is only for the first year, and
43 he is asking them to extend this grandmothering clause. He said they liked the small home
44 idea, and the refining of the categories. He asked if the Board could go slower with the fee
45 increases.
46 Commissioner Price said she appreciated the public input, but she still has problems
47 seeing the fairness and equity in these proposed tables. She understands the goal, but there
48 are too many inequities.
16
1 Commissioner Rich said the public speakers were speaking about grandmothering, and
2 asked staff if there are loopholes in this proposal where the County is losing money for the
3 schools.
4 Craig Benedict said there is grandmothering in this year, and the ability to pay this year's
5 rates into next year; but those grandmothering in in late 2017 should know impact fees have
6 changed, and should have worked this into their business plan.
7 Commissioner Rich asked if there is an advantage to giving developers the option to
8 choose which fee to pay.
9 Craig Benedict said developers are being given the benefit of the doubt that their current
10 business plan can continue, with the current fees.
11 Commissioner Price asked Craig Benedict if he finds this proposal to be fair and
12 equitable.
13 Craig Benedict said the impact fees are based on methodology that is legally defensible,
14 and the legally defensible matrix is to evaluate the student generation rate that comes from
15 certain housing types, and certain bedroom counts. He said it is equitable because it has been
16 found that these certain housing types and bedroom counts generate more students, and there
17 is a direct linkage to the fee, and the impacts that come from these housing categories.
18 Commissioner Price asked if the study tracked trends.
19 Craig Benedict said two studies were completed, and one had to do with the last 10
20 years of growth (2004-2014), which showed trends of more multi-family homes being built in
21 Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said when determining impact fees, the entire housing stock must
22 be reviewed because housing can be multi-family/student housing at one point, and then
23 become family housing 20 years down the road.
24 Commissioner Dorosin said he wanted to clarify the issues before the Board, so he can
25 see a path to a decision:
26 --recommendation choice: 75/25, 50/50
27 --three-year window incentive to get more accurate data and spacing
28 --whether or not to do something different about grandmothering
29 Commissioner Pelissier said she wanted to go with the 75/25 scenario; keep to 10%
30 acceleration rate; and grandmothering only once, at the beginning.
31 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the age specific units, and asked if a development
32 was to be in this category for 20 years, and this changed before the 20 years, does the entire
33 impact fee get paid, or just the remainder.
34 Craig Benedict said the difference between what was paid originally, and what the new
35 rate is, will be paid.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board has very few options under the law to fund school
37 construction, and this is one of their few tools.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said he is in favor of the 75/25, but would consider a 7.5%
39 increase per year, over a 4-year period. He said he does not want to extend the capacity to
40 revert back to lower impact fees.
41 Chair McKee asked if the lag time between the last adoption of impact fees and today
42 could be identified.
43 Craig Benedict said the study started in 2006, and they became effective in 2008.
44 Chair McKee said he will not be able to support this tonight, but knowing that the
45 majority of the Board does support it, he suggested doing a 4-5 year implementation schedule,
46 starting at lowest level.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said his suggestion of the 7.5%, over 4 years, was a
48 compromise. He referred to the article at their places on impact fees, and said if some of the
49 hurt can be reduced for the residents, it should be.
17
1 Commissioner Dorosin asked if Craig Benedict would explain why the recommendation
2 is for 75/25.
3 Craig Benedict said this is an option. He said at the last meeting, it was evident that
4 multi-family was not going to be 50% and 50%, but rather 75/25. He said staff put the proposal
5 together to reflect a better assumption.
6 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the two alternatives presented in the handout, the two
7 tables, yield the same revenues.
8 Craig Benedict said yes.
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
11 approve: Attachment 3 if the Board believes a 75/25 multi-family unit bedroom split projection
12 is the more realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 43% of the MSIF).
13
14 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich,
15 Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Chair McKee and Commissioner Price)
16
17 MOTION PASSES
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
20 approve the rate of acceleration at 7.5% per year, over 4 years.
21
22 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich,
23 Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Chair McKee and Commissioner Price)
24
25 MOTION PASSES
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
28 accept the grandfathering provisions as described by the staff.
29
30 Commissioner Jacobs wanted to be clear that an additional 180 days are not being
31 added.
32 Craig Benedict said the zoning compliance permit implies certain activity, and suggested
33 checking with the Towns to see if it covers putting a foundation in, or whether it refers to land
34 clearing.
35 John Roberts said he does not know how to put that in the adoption tonight, and he said
36 the motion can be adopted tonight and staff can come back with ways to remedy this situation
37 for a future amendment.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said that would be fine.
39 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this issue could be explained under the current
40 ordinance, in comparison to this motion.
41 Craig Benedict said under current ordinance one must have a building permit in hand
42 before an impact fee had changed. He said one could get a zoning compliance permit, and
43 then get 120 days to get a building permit.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said the proposal benefits developers, whom under the current
45 ordinance, must have a building permit in hand by the end of 2016, or they will pay the new
46 rates.
47 Craig Benedict said actually, under the current ordinance, the developer must have a
48 certificate of occupancy. He said the proposal is to back it up to the zoning compliance permit.
49 He said this is especially pertinent for some of the multi-family projects.
50 Commissioner Rich asked the Attorney if the content of the motion is vague.
18
1 John Roberts said knowing that this is the intent, staff can look at language to address
2 this with a later amendment.
3 Commissioner Rich asked if the motion could be restated.
4 Commissioner Dorosin said the motion is to adopt the grandfathering language about
5 the one-year grandfathering and the 180 calendar days, and that is the provision that will be
6 studied to see if it is a loophole that can be closed or clarified.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said he would defer this item until the December 5th meeting, and
8 ask staff to come back with a tighter rein, and a timeframe that will allow flexibility, but will not
9 give away the store.
10 John Roberts suggested adopting the ordinance as amended, with the 75/25 split and
11 the 7.5% implement change, but not the grandfathering issue and 180 day provision, which will
12 be brought back for future discussion.
13 Chair McKee said it is his understanding that the Board adopted the 75/25 split, and the
14 7.5% implementation change. He said the grandfathering issue is all that remains.
15 John Roberts said Commissioner Dorosin made a motion to choose those two things,
16 but the Board has not adopted the ordinance amendment itself. He said the Board will need to
17 go back to number three, and authorize finalization of the study and adopt its results. He said
18 the Board has not actually adopted the ordinance.
19 Commissioner Dorosin withdrew the last motion he made.
20 Commissioner Pelissier agreed.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
23 authorize finalization of the school impact fee study reports by the consultant (TischlerBise).
24
25 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich,
26 Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Chair McKee and Commissioner Price)
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
29 adopt attachment 3 subject to the changes above ( Attachment 3 if the Board believes a 75/25
30 multi-family unit bedroom split projection is the more realistic projection. (Fees would begin at
31 43% of the MSIF).
32
33 Commissioner Rich asked if the timeframe for the next study has been determined.
34 Craig Benedict said nothing about this is included in the ordinance. He said this can be
35 handled separately as a policy request by the Board; it does not have to be included in the
36 ordinance.
37 Commissioner Rich said a plan should be determined, so as to avoid this circumstance
38 in the future.
39
40 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich,
41 Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Chair McKee and Commissioner Price)
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin for
44 staff to come back with a timeframe for a follow-up study in four years, and staff to let the Board
45 know that it is going in the budget year three.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 b. Chapel Hill Town Hall Study Committee
19
1 The Board considered authorizing participation in a Town of Chapel Hill committee to
2 consider the use of Historic Town Hall as a visitor and history center and appoint a
3 Commissioner representative to represent the County on this Committee.
4
5 Travis Myren presented the following background:
6
7 BACKGROUND:
8 On October 26, 2016, the Chapel Hill Town Council created a committee to explore the use of
9 the Town's former Town Hall building for use as visitor and history center. Although this topic
10 has been discussed in general by the Board of Orange County Commissioners, no formal
11 action has been taken to include the potential relocation of the Visitor's Bureau as part of future
12 planning for the Historic Town Hall facility. This abstract would authorize the inclusion of the
13 Visitor's Bureau in this analysis and appoint a Commissioner representative to the Committee.
14
15 Attachment 1 is the resolution adopted by the Town Council that establishes the Committee and
16 its composition. Attachment 2 is a citizen petition received by the Town in June of 2016
17 regarding the potential colocation of the Visitor's Bureau with the Chapel Hill Museum in Historic
18 Town Hall.
19
20 The Town and County Boards discussed ideas surrounding the future use of Historic Town Hall
21 and other properties during its joint meeting on March 26, 2015. The portion of the agenda
22 abstract dedicated to this discussion is attached as Attachment 3. The abstract discusses the
23 potential options for the disposition of Historic Town Hall and how it could be used as a site for
24 the Visitors Bureau or other community purpose. The abstract also mentions the potential reuse
25 of the current Visitors Bureau building. Following this discussion, County staff engaged an
26 architect and engineer to perform a facility analysis of Historic Town Hall to inform any future
27 discussion. This report is located as Attachment 4, "June 9, 2015 Facility Analysis".
28
29 Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation:
30
31 Chapel Hill Historic Town Hall Study Committee
32 Board of Orange County Commissioners
33 November 15, 2016
34
35 Purpose
36 • Authorize participation in Town of Chapel Hill Committee on reuse of Historic Town Hall
37 as a Visitor and History Center
38 — Potential occupants may include
39 • Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau
40 • Chapel Hill Historical Society and/or
41 • Chapel Hill Museum
42 — Potential relocation of the Visitors Bureau to Historic Town Hall facility
43 • Appoint a Commissioner representative to the Committee
44
45 Background
46 • Conceptual discussion of Town/County facilities during Joint Meeting
47 — March 26, 2015
48 • Facility Analysis by Asset Management
49 — June 9, 2015
20
1 • Visitors Bureau Board presentation on combining Visitors Center and Chapel Hill
2 Museum by Reverend Robert Seymour and Alan Rimer
3 — January 20, 2016
4 — No formal action
5 • Report to the Town Council by Reverend Robert Seymour and Alan Rimer
6 — June 27, 2016
7 • Town Resolution creating Committee to study possible reuse of Town Hall as a
8 combined Visitors and History Center
9 — October 26, 2016
10
11 Historic Town Hall
12 • Constructed in 1938
13 — Listed on National Register of Historic Places
14 • Corner of Rosemary St. and Columbia St.
15 • Town owned and maintained
16 • Currently occupied by IFC Community Kitchen
17 • IFC to vacate facility in two to three years
18
19 Visitors Bureau Facility
20 • Constructed in the 1930's
21 • Located at 501 West Franklin Street
22 • County owned and maintained
23 • Current Occupants
24 — Visitors Bureau
25 — Guardian ad Litem
26 — Vacant Office formerly TerraDotta, LLC
27 • No immediate space or facility repair needs
28
29 Committee Structure
30 • Created by Town Resolution on October 26, 2016
31 • Committee Charge: Consider the possible use of the Historic Town Hall Facility as
32 a Visitors and History Center
33 • Committee Composition
34 » Sally Greene —Town Council — Committee Chair
35 » TBD - Board of Orange County Commissioners
36 » Joel Curran - UNC-Chapel Hill
37 » Moses Carey- Community Member
38 » Richard Ellington - Community Member
39 » Josh Gurlitz- Community Member
40 » Alan Rimer- Community Member
41 » Chela Tu - Community Member
42
43 • Staff Support—Town and County
44 • Report and Recommendations to Town Council and Board of Orange County
45 Commissioners in May of 2017
46
47 Recommendation
48 • Authorize participation in Town of Chapel Hill Committee on the Reuse of Historic Town
49 Hall
50 — Visitor and History Center
21
1 — Potential relocation of the Visitors Bureau
2 • Appoint a Commissioner representative to the Committee
3
4 Commissioner Price asked if there is a plan to address potential asbestos and lead paint
5 in the old Town Hall.
6 Jeff Thompson, Director of Asset Management Services, said the preliminary findings
7 showed that these items would be abated, and this would be part of the process.
8 Commissioner Price asked if this is factored into the costs.
9 Jeff Thompson said yes.
10 Chair McKee said the abstract notes the financial impact as none, due to this being a
11 study; but the actual implementation of any recommendations would have financial impact for
12 the County.
13 Travis Myren said costs to the County will be evaluated as part of the study.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if a colocation occurs, what would happen to the building the
15 County currently owns.
16 Travis Myren said this would not be part of the study, but staff would engage the Board
17 about the disposition of the building should a colocation occur.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said the County could offer a building trade to the Town of
19 Chapel Hill. He said this is not a number one priority for Orange County, and the Town of
20 Chapel Hill at one time wanted the Visitors Bureau property for more incubator space. He said
21 the County only has so much money, and the priority needs to be to the residents. He said he
22 hoped the Board representative to this committee would say there is no commitment from the
23 Orange County Board of County Commissioners, except to participate in discussions. He
24 suggested directing staff to get an estimate of the value of the Visitors Bureau.
25 Commissioner Dorosin said Commissioner Rich is the Board representative on the
26 Visitor's Bureau (VB), but having someone who is not on VB may be a good choice. He said he
27 has mixed feelings and asked if the Board had thoughts on this.
28 Chair McKee suggested taking care of the first item, before discussing an appointment.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
31 authorize participation in a Town of Chapel Hill committee to consider the use of Historic Town
32 Hall as a visitor and history center, and direct staff to look at the value of current VB and space.
33
34 Commissioner Jacobs said Commissioner Dorosin made a good point, but who better to
35 understand the VB, than Commissioner Rich who is on the VB.
36 Commissioner Dorosin said the Commissioner position is representing the Board of
37 County Commissioners, not the VB.
38 Commissioner Rich respected Commissioner Dorosin's comments, but she does not
39 think this position is representing the VB. She said she would like to be on the committee.
40 Chair McKee said he would endorse Commissioner Rich, as she brings three
41 viewpoints: a Commissioner perspective, a VB perspective, and a former Town Council
42 member perspective. He feels wholeheartedly that she would represent the BOCC.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
45 appoint Commissioner Rich to represent the County on this Committee.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 c. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project - North Carolina Central University
50 Extension
22
1 The Board considered: 1. Receiving the presentation from GoTriangle; and 2. Endorsing
2 or providing comments on the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
3 Organization (DCHC MPO) amendments: a. to the definition of its Locally Preferred Alternative
4 (LPA) for the D-O LRT project; and b. to the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP)for
5 the D-O LRT project or provide comments.
6 Jeff Mann, General Manager, said there is a financial gap that they will walk the Board
7 through, and he reviewed the following information:
8
9 BACKGROUND:
10 In February 2016, GoTriangle received a Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement
11 (FEIS)/Record of Decision (ROD)for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) project
12 from UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill to Alston Avenue in Durham. In response to comments
13 received during that process, GoTriangle started to evaluate the option to extend the project
14 south on Alston Avenue to a station near North Carolina Central University (NCCU).
15 Preliminary engineering and ridership forecasts found the station to be feasible and capable of
16 generating high ridership. GoTriangle is currently studying the natural environment and
17 community impacts.
18
19 Recent guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) indicates that the D-O LRT
20 project must enter the Final Design phase by February 2017. In order to meet this milestone,
21 allow the NCCU station to advance into the engineering phase along with the other parts of the
22 project, and ensure that the entire new alignment qualifies for the 50% Federal match, two
23 separate DCHC MPO actions must occur: 1) The extension needs to be included in its Locally
24 Preferred Alternative (LPA) and 2) The extension needs to be included in its 2040 Metropolitan
25 Transportation Plan (MTP). See Attachments 1 and 2.
26 City of Durham, Durham County, and DCHC MPO Board Actions —While the City and County
27 Boards do not have a role in approving the LPA or 2040 MTP amendments beyond their
28 representation on the MPO Board, GoTriangle requested their "endorsement" before MPO
29 Board consideration. The Durham City Council and Durham Board of County Commissioners,
30 on September 22, and on October 4, 2016, respectively, voted to recommend that the DCHC
31 MPO amend the LPA and 2040 MTP for the D-O LRT project. At its October 19 meeting, the
32 MPO Board agreed to release the amendments for public comment to take place through
33 November 29. The MPO has scheduled a public hearing on November 9, 2016, 9AM, in the
34 Committee Room, located on the 2nd floor of Durham City Hall. A link to the amendment and
35 information on submitting comments and requesting printed copies can be found on the MPO
36 website at www.dchcmpo.org. Questions regarding the MPO process or submittal of public
37 comments can be directed to Andy Henry, andrew.henry@durhamnc.gov, (919) 560-4366,
38 extension 36419.
39
40 Orange County BOCC History - The BOCC received its last update on the D-O LRT project at
41 its April 14, 2015 meeting. Its last discussion, specific to the LPA for the project, occurred
42 February 14, 2012. Links to previous BOCC materials:
43 June 2, 2015 - http://bit.ly/2dTKt2O
44 February 14, 2012 - http://bit.lv/2eCIGSo
45
46 Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP)Amendments — Discussions are
47 currently ongoing with a Staff Working Group to review and update the OCBRIP financial
48 assumptions and associated services. GoTriangle is also working with a Funding and
49 Community Collaborative to help identify revenue sources to close the state funding gap. The
23
1 OCBRIP amendments will need to be approved by the three parties (Orange County, DCHC
2 MPO, and GoTriangle) to the Interlocal Implementation Agreement. Amendments are
3 scheduled to be complete by April 2017. GoTriangle's annual report for Fiscal Year 2016 (July
4 1, 2015 —June 30, 2016), expected to be received in the Manager's Office early this November,
5 will also include some information on next steps.
6
7 Danny Rogers made the following PowerPoint presentation:
8 He said that he understood the financial portion is the priority of the Board of County
9 Commissioners tonight.
10 Chair McKee said he would like the financial portion to be reviewed before the addition
11 of the NCCU station.
12
13 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit
14 Project Update
15 November 15, 2016
16
17 Status of Durham-Orange LRT
18 • Addition of NCCU Station
19 • Entry Into Engineering
20 o On-schedule to complete submittal to FTA by December 31, 2016
21 o Anticipated approval by FTA is by the end of February, 2017
22 Biggest issue remaining is Financial Plan
23 • FTA funding assumptions change
24 • Funding Gap Remains
25 • 30% of Non-New Starts funding must be committed
26 • Revenues dedicated in the Plan meet this requirement
27 • Remainder must be planned
28 Entry into Engineering Schedule is Critical
29 FTA has required D-O LRT to be in Engineering by March or must drop out of New
30 Starts Program
31 Project expenses incurred when project is not in the process are not eligible for future
32 FTA reimbursement
33 Cost to date for project are reimbursable upon obtaining Full Funding Grant Agreement
34 (FFGA)
35
36 State and Federal Transit Funding Changes Since Approval of Plan
37 Bus Service
38 • State: 7.5%
39 • Local: 92.5%
40 Vehicles, Bus Stops, Park and Rides
41 • Federal: 80% 4 38%
42 • State: 10% 4 8%
43 • Local/Other: 10% 4 54%
44 Light Rail, Commuter Rail
45 • Federal: 50% 4 50%
46 • State: 25% 4 10%
47 • Local/Other: 25% 4 40%
48 Bus Rapid Transit
49 • Federal: 50% 4 70%
24
1 • State: 25% - 0%
2 • Local/Other: 25% - 30%
3
4 Hillsborough Train Station
5 • State: 90% - 91%
6 • Local: 10% - 9%
7 • Local Transit Revenues
8 (Shared by Bus and Rail)
9
10 Sales Tax by Article (graph)
11
12 D-O LRT Capital Funding Sources (chart)
13
14 Financial Model Notes
15 1. Both scenarios use forecasts developed by Dr. Walden in 2014
16 2. Baseline Scenario assumes FTA disbursements of$125 million per year
17 3. Scenario One reduces FTA disbursements to $100 million per year
18 4. All Scenarios assume 10% State participation
19
20 Funding Gap
21 Gap = Lowest projected cash balance in system cash flow
22 — Assumes maximum borrowing while maintaining minimum 1.15x net debt service
23 coverage ratio (DSCR)
24 — Assumes reserves have been fully funded (operating, debt service, capital asset
25 management)
26 — Funding for expanded Bus Operations, revised Chapel Hill BRT project, and
27 NCCU Station included in analysis
28
29 Base Case (FTA Cap = $1.25 mil/year)
30
31 Scenario #1 (FTA Cap = $100 mil/year)
32
33 Ways to Resolve the Funding Gap
34 Scenario 1: 10% State Funding, Walden 2014 Forecast, $100M FTA Cap
35
36 Next Steps
37 • Obtain approval to submit financial plan to FTA that includes planned additional local
38 funding by December 10, 2016.
39 • Continue to work with local partners to define details of additional local revenue sources
40 to have available for reference prior to approving Final Design phase of General
41 • Engineering Consultant contract in April 2017.
42
43 Chair McKee said he would like to discuss this portion first.
44 Chair McKee said it has been his ongoing concern that the only alternative financing
45 would be from a few resources, and the majority of it would come from Orange County and
46 Durham, in the amount of$175 million. He asked if this is accurate.
47 Danny Rogers said that is accurate if this plan stays in place, but time is needed to get
48 through the evaluations.
25
1 Chair McKee referred to the slide the mentions the revenues percentage projections for
2 the sales tax increases, and he said he questioned a 5% increase has been achieved every
3 year, and he thinks they have been fairly flat over the last 2-3 years.
4 Danny Rogers said that is correct, but over 10 years there was growth of 5.7%. He said
5 that is over a longer period of time.
6 Chair McKee said he questions if the County will ever reach these consistent
7 percentages.
8 Danny Rogers said a more current update on this question is being gathered. He said
9 the numbers are lower for Orange County, and a bit higher for Durham County.
10 Chair McKee asked if the current projected total cost for the light rail could be clarified.
11 Danny Rogers said that is a complicated question, but the total cost in current dollars is
12 $1.6 billion. He said it is a goal to add the NCCU extension, which would be about $90-110
13 million. He said joint development can be included in the project, such as affordable housing, to
14 help leverage federal dollars. He said current efforts are looking at how to build the project,
15 with an original goal of finishing in 2026. He said one thing that is affecting the ability to pay for
16 the project is whether$100 million or $125 million is received. He said the gap of $25 million
17 gets exacerbated when the construction period does not match the reimbursement period. He
18 said the construction period has been extended a few years, to better match the expenditures
19 with the revenues; but doing this increases inflation by about $2.3 billion, if the project is
20 completed in 2028.
21 Commissioner Rich asked if the increase on the Chapel Hill BRT could be identified.
22 Danny Rogers said from $25 million to a little over $100 million.
23 Jeff Mann said the original estimate was $40 million, and it is now$125 million; due to
24 an extension and some cost estimates that have increased. He said this is included in the
25 financial model.
26 Commissioner Jacobs clarified that it is included in the new financial model.
27 Commissioner Jacobs referred to private capital contributions, and asked are there any
28 actual commitments yet.
29 Danny Rogers said there are commitments for Right of Way (ROW), and they are
30 working with partners on funding, which is being received well.
31 Jeff Mann said some draft letters of intent have been delivered, and things looks
32 promising.
33 Commissioner Pelissier referred to putting the BRT into the financial model, and asked if
34 there is a way to make it later so there would not be the gap during construction of the light rail.
35 Danny Rogers said probably not.
36 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the timeframe for the BRT could be reviewed.
37 Danny Rogers said 2019, and it hits before the main part of the LRT.
38 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the entities who are a party to the implementation plan
39 are Orange County, MPO, Durham County, Go Triangle. He said Chapel Hill is not actually a
40 party to this agreement. He said parties who are not a party to the agreement can triple the
41 cost of a project that they desire, and it becomes part of the plan without the actual parties
42 being able to vote on it.
43 Patrick McDonough, Manager of Planning for GoTriangle, said they are trying to figure
44 out how to deliver projects for which people voted.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said the BRT is a lovely plan, but is a much larger plan than the
46 voters approved, and the question needs to be asked if it worth tripling the cost.
47 Commissioner Price asked if the commitments from the private sector are contingent
48 upon Orange County's decision.
26
1 Danny Rogers said their commitments are contingent on the project happening, but not
2 on Orange County's decision. He said these discussions have been happening on a parallel
3 path.
4 Commissioner Price asked if the $25 million, indicated in the presentation, is the total of
5 the cumulative private capital.
6 Danny Rogers said a plan is being created to present to the Federal Transportation
7 Administration (FTA). He said the $25 million is a placeholder, and the totals could be more.
8 Commissioner Rich said $25 million is a low number.
9 Danny Rogers said there is a limit as to how much can be put in the plan, until there are
10 more commitments.
11 Commissioner Dorosin said he wanted some clarification regarding the Board's task this
12 evening. He said there is a tight time line for the Board to give some kind of general approval
13 to this plan, which includes the BRT and Light Rail extension to NCCU.
14 Danny Rogers said nothing is being asked for right now, and they are still working
15 through this process. He said more defined financial information will be brought back to the
16 Board on December Si". He said the Board will be asked to make a commitment to help find
17 funding.
18 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that there have been changes to state law, which has
19 affected the costs. He said the Board must make a general policy commitment to understand
20 and accept these changes; and then the Board must make a commitment to try and find funds
21 to cover the increased costs. He said, today, that looks like an additional $4 million per year,
22 for 10 years from Orange County. He said that is about 2% of the County's budget. He
23 clarified that the Board is not being asked to vote on anything substantive this evening.
24 Commissioner Jacobs said the other element is if the Board wants to support the
25 expanded scope with the addition of NCCU.
26 Commissioner Rich asked if the $4 million is additional monies.
27 Danny Rogers said this would be outside of the current funding.
28 Chair McKee said the $4 million would not be covered by sales tax.
29 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the distribution between Orange County and Durham
30 County can be changed. She asked if there are opportunities for Tax Increment Financing
31 (TIF) in Orange County, like Durham County has.
32 Commissioner Pelissier said in December a Board intention for local funding will be
33 desired, and given the timeframe of the final design phase, in April 2017. She said the Board is
34 being asked to put a placeholder that says it has the intention to look but may or may not follow
35 through.
36 Danny Rogers read what the Board is being asked to consider endorsement or provide
37 comments on the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
38 amendments:
39 a. to the definition of its Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)for the D-O LRT project; and
40 b. to the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for the D-O LRT project.
41 Commissioner Pelissier clarified that the Board will need to give a firm commitment in
42 April 2017.
43 Danny Rogers said April is a timeframe for the GoTriangle and its partners; it is a gut
44 check to decide if it is worth investing this money. He said no County money would be spent at
45 that time.
46 Danny Rogers said the next real point in the process would be in the summer of 2018.
47 Chair McKee said there is a 5% change trigger that requires a re-look by their partners,
48 and asked Jeff Mann if there is a reason that these figures do hit that 5%.
49 Jeff Mann he said he would have to research this.
27
1 John Roberts said he has the language, and this more than a 10% change, and the
2 partners would have to review this.
3 Chair McKee said this is a decision point as to whether or not to proceed with the
4 project.
5 Jeff Mann said the Bus and Rail investment plan is being update, and will be brought
6 back to the Board for approval in the spring.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to hear the rest of the PowerPoint presentation
8 about NCCU.
9 Commissioner Rich said she did not hear an answer to Commissioner Pelissier's
10 question, as to whether the percentages of Durham County and Orange County can be looked
11 at again, or if it has already been voted on, and is set in stone. She said Durham is at 77% and
12 Orange-Chapel Hill, which is really just Orange County as Chapel Hill has not signed onto this,
13 has the remainder.
14 Jeff Mann said that was the current split between the counties based on the interlocal
15 agreement.
16 Commissioner Rich said the project is changing due to the potential line extension in
17 Durham County.
18 Danny Rogers resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
19
20 Status of Durham-Orange LRT
21 • Addition of North Carolina Central University (NCCU) Station
22 • Entry into Engineering
23 • Financial Plan and Funding Needs
24
25 Background
26 • FTA issued a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision
27 (FEIS/ROD) on the D-O LRT Project in February, 2016
28 • In response to comments, FTA and GoTriangle committed to look at some specific
29 refinements including analyzing the feasibility of extending the alignment to NCCU
30 Early analysis indicated that the extension is feasible
31 FTA determined that a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) would be
32 required
33
34 Proposed NCCU Station Location (map)
35
36 Current Activities
37 • The Supplemental EA on the NCCU LRT Station Refinement is now available for Public
38 Review and Comment until Dec 7, 2016:
39 — http://ourtransitfuture.com
40 — NCCU James E. Shepherd Memorial Library
41 — Main Branch of the Durham Public Library
42 — GoTriangle's Administrative Office
43 • DCHC MPO to vote on Metropolitan Transportation Plan Amendment to include NCCU
44 Station on December14, 2016
45
46 Chair McKee said he repeatedly suggested the extension to NCCU six years ago, and
47 he made no progress. He said it is completely inequitable to serve two universities, and not
48 the third. He said he would vote for this part, as the project makes no sense without this
49 extension. He said the overall costs of this project are absurd.
28
1 Commissioner Pelissier asked if GoTriangle and the Durham County Commissioners
2 have approved this.
3 Danny Rogers said the Durham County Commissioners and the City of Durham gave
4 support for this, but only the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the approval board
5 on the action of adding it to the MTP.
6 Commissioner Rich referred to the environmental study, and asked if it only covers
7 Austin Avenue to NCCU.
8 Danny Rogers said yes, as everything else has already been cleared.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said he is totally supportive of extending the line to NCCU.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said he has concerns: one is the cost share with Durham. He
11 said more is being added in Durham, and the cost split should reflect that. He said he would
12 like to see some value engineering on this project independent of Go Triangle. He said he is
13 supportive of this project but it must be determined where it fits into the priorities of Orange
14 County. He said he does not think it will be at the top of the list, and some adjustments will
15 need to be made to this project. He said he has a willingness to continue to discuss this
16 project, and would like to add the words "if possible" to the draft motion Danny Rogers read
17 earlier. He said the County must be careful, and if this will cost Orange County the opportunity
18 and ability to do other things, then tough choices must be made.
19 Commissioner Pelissier said value engineering will be done, but not before the
20 engineering phase.
21 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this can be done by April.
22 Danny Rogers said this is being looked into. He said value engineering is good, while
23 cost cutting is not.
24 Commissioner Pelissier said the formula for cost sharing with Durham and light rail was
25 based on the sales tax revenue at that time, and she said it was discussed more specifically
26 regarding what percentage of the stations were in one county versus the other. She said
27 having NCCU added, does not nullify the formula, but is rather a new negotiation.
28 Patrick McDonough said many formula options were tried, and the groups arrived at a
29 conclusion based on number of bus hours being delivered in other parts of the plan.
30 Commissioner Pelissier said she did not recall that.
31 Patrick McDonough said both counties agreed that they had reached their desired value,
32 which was how the agreement was signed. He said in the past there was no hard metric.
33 Commissioner Pelisser asked if the same formula would be used when adding a station.
34 Patrick McDonough said there was no specific determination, but he would defer to legal
35 staff for clarification.
36 Commissioner Pelissier referred to Commissioner Jacobs' comments about priorities for
37 Orange County, and said transit is a priority, and another is affordable housing. She said these
38 priorities go hand in hand. She said would like Go Triangle to provide information to the Board
39 on, if light rail were to exist, and bus routes could be changed, could more affordable housing
40 be provided, due to the increased availability of public transportation.
41 Commissioner Rich said she is in favor of the NCCU extension, and the overall project.
42 Commissioner Rich said she too would like to review the cost sharing amounts with
43 Durham.
44 Commissioner Rich said she would like more information about funding for joint
45 development for transit and affordable housing. She said this topic has not been discussed
46 nearly enough. She clarified that the task this evening is a vote on the NCCU extension, and
47 receiving of the financial report.
48 Danny Rogers said nothing is being requested on the financial side tonight.
29
1 Commissioner Price said she is glad NCCU is now included. She said, going forward,
2 negotiations will be necessary for how these increased costs for the project are funded. She
3 said the extension will benefit Orange County residents as well as Durham residents.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said the County has no jurisdiction for affordable housing, along
5 the light rail line, since that falls under the Town of Chapel Hill. He said the County could ask to
6 see the Town's plans for affordable housing at the upcoming Assemblies of Governments
7 meeting.
8 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the expectations of the Board, for the December 5th
9 meeting, could be reiterated.
10 Danny Rogers said the Board will be asked to give permission to put in the plan that
11 Orange County will make the effort to fund the additional local funds necessary to fill the
12 financial gap; the intent to work toward that end. He said a concrete commitment of actual
13 funds will come at a later date.
14 Chair McKee clarified that it will only be a commitment to intent.
15 Danny Rogers said yes.
16 Chair McKee asked if the timeframe for commitment of actual funds could be identified.
17 Danny Rogers said in April 2017 there will be more definition of the plan, and
18 commitment from the County to be a part of the plan is desired at that time. He said the
19 commitment that is required, when action must be taken, would be when submission is made to
20 the FTA to get into the president's budget in the summer of 2018.
21 Chair McKee said design engineering is $60 or $70 million. He said the County is being
22 asked to absorb another $60 million on an unknown before the County is being asked to
23 commit formally.
24 Danny Rogers said FTA is asking the County to commit. He said they do not want to
25 commit to spending the $60 or $70 million, without an understanding from the sponsoring
26 governments that this is desired.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to add
29 NCCU station extension to the program and for Commissioner Jacobs to provide comments on
30 the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization amendments:
31
32 a. to the definition of its Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)for the D-O LRT
33 project;
34 b. to the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for the D-O LRT project.
35
36
37 VOTE: 6-0
38
39 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an urgency to have a closed session tonight.
40 Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager, said no.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich
43 postpone their closed session meet and defer it to the December 13th meeting.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 d. Cancellation of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants
48 The Board considered approving the cancellation of the declaration of restrictive
49 covenants on real property (a single family home) located at 305 Pleasant Drive, Carrboro, NC.
30
1 Audrey Spencer-Horsley, Director of Housing, Human Rights and Community
2 Development, reviewed the following background:
3
4 BACKGROUND: Housing projects that are funded with Orange County HOME Program funds
5 are subject to the County's 99-year long-term affordability policy. Community Home Trust
6 (CHT), formerly known as Orange County Housing and Land Trust (OCHLT), is requesting to
7 sell one of the affordable homes out the housing portfolio. The home, located at 305 Pleasant
8 Drive, Carrboro, NC was purchased by OCHLT in June 2000 and renovated in 2002 using
9 $30,000 of HOME funds. The property was then sold to a low-income homebuyer.
10 CHT re-purchased the home from the owner in 2014 and has determined that it is not in a
11 suitable condition to convey to a new buyer without extensive renovations. CHT estimates that
12 it will take more than $100,000 to remodel the home. The declaration of restrictive covenants
13 will need to be cancelled in order for CHT to provide clear title. The property will be sold on the
14 private market. There is a memorandum in the abstract from CHT Executive Director Robert
15 Dowling that provides additional background information.
16
17 Robert Dowling, Executive Director CHT, said this is not something the CHT does easily
18 or naturally, but when the cost to upfit this home is considered, selling is the best route. He
19 said CHT may take a loss, which CHT would ask the County to split with CHT.
20 Commissioner Pelissier said she assumed that there are mechanisms in place in order
21 to avoid this happening again.
22 Robert Dowling said yes, there are now years of experience, from which to learn.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said this is the fourth instance that the County has bailed out
24 CHT. He said there were good reasons each time, but he may not be in favor of splitting the
25 loss with CHT. He said the County will soon be pouring millions more dollars into these
26 programs, and must stick to policies, protect costs, and make sure decisions are thoroughly
27 thought through. He said the people involved will come and go, and there must be systems in
28 place to keep things functioning when exceptions are made to standards.
29 Commissioner Rich said she is in favor of selling the house, and suggested amending
30 the current policy and adding detail on how to sell a house out of the stock. She said there are
31 decisions being made ad hoc, and some guidelines needs to be added. She said staff and
32 legal should work on the language together. She said she is not sure if the loss has been
33 worked into the CHT budget. She asked Robert Dowling if he could explain the financials of
34 this property.
35 Robert Dowling said a contract was signed in October for$180,000, and $175,000 is
36 needed to break even. He said the contract was terminated on a Friday and a new offer was
37 made the next day for$160,000. He said he asked for a deferment until the BOCC met, and
38 the CHT Board meets tomorrow, to which the buyer agreed. He said the price of $160,000
39 would net about a $10,000 loss.
40 Commissioner Dorosin asked if input should be gathered from housing agencies before
41 changing the policy. He said the BOCC cannot make policy decisions without consulting those
42 who are most affected by policy changes.
43 Commissioner Dorosin said he is comfortable making fluid changes as needed. He said
44 there cannot be one-size-fits-all policies with affordable housing, especially in Orange County,
45 where property values can vary greatly.
46 Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Dorosin.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said it would be the same as inviting the homebuilders for input
48 on impact fees. He said input is welcomed, but ultimately the BOCC has to make the decisions.
49 He said when the BOCC is waiving standards there must be some guidelines.
50
31
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded Commissioner Price for the
2 Board to approve the cancellation of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants on real property
3 located at 305 Pleasant Drive, Carrboro, NC and share in any loss if there is any.
4
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 Commissioner Dorosin directed staff to put a policy on a work session after first of the
8 year.
9
10 8. Reports
11 NONE
12
13 9. County Manager's Report
14 Bonnie Hammersley pointed out two of the Board's information items: the Memo
15 Regarding Library Strategic Plan 2017-2020 and the Human Services Transportation Research
16 and Orange Public Transit's Challenges and Solutions.
17 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the agenda for the Assemblies of Governments meeting
18 on November 17th
19
20 10. County Attorney's Report
21 NONE
22
23 11. Appointments
24
25 a. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee—Appointments
26 The Board considered making appointments to the Nursing Home Community Advisory
27 Committee.
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
30 appoint the following to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee:
31
32 • Appointment to a full first term (Position #1) "At-Large" position for Martha Bell expiring
33 01/31/2019. (The one year training term has been successfully completed)
34 • Appointment to a full first term (Position #10) "At-Large" position for Glenda Floyd
35 expiring 06/30/2019. (The one year training term has been successfully completed)
36
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 b. Workforce Development Board — Regional Partnership —Appointments
40 The Board considered making appointments to the Workforce Development Board -
41 Regional Partnership.
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
44 appoint the following to the Workforce Development Board - Regional Partnership:
45
46 • Appointment to a full fifth term (Position #1) "Department of Social Services BOCC
47 Appointment" position for Nancy Coston expiring 06/30/2019.
48 • Appointment to a partial term (Position #2) "At-Large Private Sector- Business" position
49 for Rhonda Sue Holaday expiring 06/30/2018.
50
32
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 Commissioner Price said she recently attended a meeting of this group, since she is
4 involved in this on the national level. She said the meeting was held in Moore County and was
5 full of excellent information. She said this group used to always meet in Asheboro, but they are
6 talking about rotating meetings to different counties. She said she would be interested in being
7 the BOCC Liaison.
8 Commissioner Jacobs suggested waiting until the BOCC pick their boards and
9 commissions in January/February.
10
11 12. Board Comments
12 Commissioner Pelissier had no comments.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said a bon voyage to Sara Stephens who is leaving the
14 Hillsborough Chamber; and to John Howell, who has been the Orange County Department of
15 Transportation Engineer, who is moving to Alamance County. He thanked Michael Harvey for
16 getting the buffers through the state maze, despite the Board's skepticism that this would
17 happen.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said the developers of Collins Ridge are in the process of buying
19 the Daniel Boone complex. He said County staff is working with the small business owners to
20 see if the County can help. He said the t-ball fields will also go away, and there is no solution
21 yet proposed to address this gap. He said it is important for the County to stay abreast of big
22 developments in the municipalities as these developments often offer little back to the
23 residents.
24 Commissioner Dorosin had no comments.
25 Commissioner Rich said many teams in Chapel Hill and Carrboro area won
26 championships recently, and she asked Todd McGee, the Community Relations Director, if he
27 would take a lead on this to follow up with the teams, write resolutions of recognition, etc.
28 Commissioner Price said she attended the misdemeanant diversion program court, and
29 she commends the Board to observe if possible.
30 Chair McKee said several County Commissioners attended Veterans Day events last
31 week, including the dedication of the land for the future memorial at the Southern Human
32 Services Campus.
33 Commissioner Jacobs congratulated Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Price and
34 Commissioner Rich on their re-election, and Commissioner Elect Mark Marcoplos.
35
36 13. Information Items
37 • November 1, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
38 • Memo Regarding Library Strategic Plan 2017-2020
39 • Human Services Transportation Research and Orange Public Transit's Challenges and
40 Solutions
41 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from November 1, 2016 Regular Meeting
42
43 14. Closed Session
44 DEFERRED UNTIL DECEMBER 13th Board of County Commissioners Meeting
45
46 "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on
47 the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS §
48 143-318.11(a)(5).
49
50 Closed Session Minutes
33
1
2 15. Adjournment
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
5 adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m.
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 Earl McKee, Chair
10
11 Donna Baker
12 Clerk to the Board
13
14
15
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
6 HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
7 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
8 November 17, 2016
9 ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Towns of Chapel Hill,
12 Carrboro and Hillsborough for an Assembly of Governments meeting on Thursday, November
13 17, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners
16 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Renee Price, Bernadette Pelissier and Penny Rich
17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mia Burroughs
18 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Staff Attorney Annette Moore
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
20 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
21 appropriately below)
22 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS/STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Pam Hemminger, Ed
23 Harrison, George Cianciolo, Maria Palmer, Nancy Oates, Michael Parker, Sally Greene and
24 Town Manager Roger Stancil
25 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Council Members Jessica Anderson
26 and Donna Bell
27 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT/STAFF: Mayor Lydia Lavelle,
28 Aldermen Damien Seils, Bethany Chaney, Sammy Slade and Town Manager David Andrews.
29 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Aldermen Jacquelyn Gist,
30 Randee Haven O'Donnell, Michelle Johnson
31 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS/STAFF: Mayor Tom Stevens, Town
32 Commissioners Brian Lowen, Evelyn Lloyd, Kathleen Ferguson, Jenn Weaver, and Town
33 Manager Eric Peterson
34 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Mark Bell
35
36 Welcome, Call To Order and Opening Comments
37 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the
38 Whitted Building.
39 Mayor Lavelle added her welcome, and said Alderman Haven O'Donnell, Alderman
40 Johnson and Alderman Gist would not be attending tonight.
41 Mayor Hemminger added her welcome, and said that said Council Member Bell and
42 Council Member Anderson could not attend tonight.
43 Mayor Stevens welcomed the group to Hillsborough, and said Commissioner Mark Bell
44 will not be able to attend tonight.
45 Chair McKee said Commissioner Burroughs could not attend this evening, and
46 Commissioner Elect Mark Marcoplos is in attendance.
47 Bonnie Hammersley said Ed Kerwin from Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA)
48 is here tonight to address any questions on the OWASA information item at the end of the
49 agenda.
50 No questions were asked.
2
1
2 1. Introduction of New County Arts Director and Update on County Arts
3 Activities/Future Goals
4 Bonnie Hammersley introduced the new Orange County Arts Commission Director,
5 Katie Murray.
6 Katie Murray reviewed the following background information, and PowerPoint
7 presentation:
8
9 Over the last two months, Orange County Arts Commission (OCAC) Director Katie Murray has
10 been meeting with stakeholders in the arts community to determine the future direction of the
11 Commission. Historically, the primary role of OCAC has been one of grant funder to artists and
12 arts organizations. While this will remain a significant role of the commission, the director, as
13 well as County Management and the OCAC Advisory Board, believe the commission can serve
14 the arts community of Orange County in a more significant way.
15
16 In addition to grants, a needs assessment has resulted in the identification of several areas of
17 assistance for the County's arts community.
18
19 1. Promotion/Marketing
20 Most of the 177 arts-related organizations within the county are nonprofit organizations with
21 limited marketing budgets, working to promote only their own programs and projects. The
22 OCAC can help to further promote arts happenings for the entire county through an enhanced
23 social media presence, an improved e-newsletter, a more engaging website and new media
24 campaigns.
25
26 2. Unification of arts community
27 One common complaint among arts stakeholders has been a lack of communication within the
28 arts community, both within similar groups (i.e. theater groups, galleries), organizations within
29 the same community, and communication among the three primary communities of Chapel Hill,
30 Carrboro and Hillsborough.
31
32 3. Coordination of county-wide arts projects
33 Again resulting from the fact that most county arts entities are working within the confines of the
34 nonprofit world (limited resources and time), most organizations are strictly focused on their
35 own mission. There is a lack of projects that benefit the greater arts community and promote,
36 on a larger scale, the arts of Orange County. The communities within Orange County are
37 heavily saturated in the arts. This fact, combined with a demonstrated commitment to the arts
38 by County management and the Board of County Commissioners, means that Orange County
39 could potentially serve as a major arts destination. By helping to promote, unify and
40 contribute to the overall arts community, the OCAC will serve as the catalyst to make the
41 arts a primary identity and economic driver for Orange County.
42
43 The resulting goals from these observations are to be determined at the Arts Commission
44 retreat on Saturday, November 19, 2016.
45
46 The Arts and Orange County
47 A Summary of the state of the arts in Orange County, NC
48 Orange County Arts Commission
49 Katie Murray
50
3
1 How Does Orange County Compare?
2 Orange vs Wake vs Durham vs Buncombe vs national average
3 Arts Indicators
4 • Arts activity: levels of participation and production
5 • Resources: arts revenue and organization resources used in the arts
6 • Competitiveness: the arts relative to other community markers
7 • Local Cultural Character: attributes that differentiate our community
8
9 Arts Indicator 1: Arts Activity
10 • Highest in 4 of 9 Arts Activity Markers among Orange, Wake, and Durham Counties
11 • Higher than Buncombe County in 7 of 9 markers
12 • Higher than the national average in 8 of 9 markers
13
14 Highlights: Arts Activity
15 • Adult population attending live performing arts
16 o 19% higher than Wake
17 o 27% higher than Durham
18 o 50% higher than Buncombe
19 o 45% higher than national average
20 • Nonprofit cultural expenditures per capita
21 o 30% higher than Wake
22 o 8% higher than Durham
23 o 55% higher than Buncombe
24 o 86% higher than the national average
25
26 Arts Indicator 2: Resources
27 • Highest in all 23 Resource Markers among Orange, Wake, Durham Counties
28 • Higher than Buncombe County in 16 of 23 markers
29 • Higher than the national average in 16 of 23 markers
30
31 Highlights: Resources
32 • Total nonprofit arts orgs per capita
33 o 104% higher than Wake
34 o 70% higher than Durham
35 o 24% higher than Buncombe
36 o 60% higher than national average
37 • Nonprofit arts revenues per capita
38 o 74% higher than Wake
39 o 32% higher than Durham
40 o 158% higher than Buncombe
41 o 129% higher than national average
42
43 Highlights: Resources
44 • Working artists per 100K population
45 o 97% higher than Wake
46 o 56% higher than Durham
47 o 11% lower than Buncombe
48 o 233% higher than national average
49
4
1 Arts Indicator 3: Competitiveness
2 • Higher in 5 of 7 Competitiveness Markers among Orange, Wake, and Durham Counties
3 • Higher than Buncombe County in 6 of 7 markers
4 • Higher than the national average in all markers
5
6 Highlights: Competitiveness
7 • Arts and Culture share of all establishments
8 o 41% higher than Wake
9 o 50% higher than Durham
10 o 5% higher than Buncombe
11 o 140% higher than national average
12 • Working artist annual income
13 o 72% higher than Wake
14 o 36% higher than Durham
15 o 43% higher than Buncombe
16 o 75% higher than national average
17
18 Arts Indicator 4: Local Cultural Character
19 • Higher in 6 of 7 Character Markers among Orange, Wake and Durham Counties
20 • Higher than Buncombe County in 5 of 7 markers
21 • Higher than the national average in 3 of 7 markers
22
23 Highlights: Character
24 • Visual and Performing arts degrees per 100K population
25 o 4x more than Wake
26 o 2.5x more than Durham
27 o 3.5x more than Buncombe
28 o 2x more than national average
29
30 Areas of Need
31 • Promotion/Marketing
32 o Expanded OCAC social media presence to include twitter and Instagram
33 o Improved monthly e-newsletter highlighting the arts community
34 o Production of an Orange County Arts Map (2017)
35 o More useful and informative website
36 o Better utilization of media contacts to promote the arts in Orange County
37 • Unification and Communication
38 o Formation of Orange County Creatives group on Facebook to "start the
39 conversation"
40 o Hosting "Listening Sessions" and social events to improve and unify arts
41 community (2017)
42 • Coordination of County-Wide Initiatives
43 o Researching county-wide programs and projects including research projects,
44 public art and events
45
46 Maximizing the Potential of the Arts Community
47 Challenges
48 • Funding
49 o All current external funds (NC Arts Council) are spent on local arts grants
5
1 o More programs require more funding
2 o Exploring options: grants, events, sponsors, the selling of an item to raise funds
3 • Fragmented Resources
4 o Conducting Arts Resource Survey among town managers
5 o How do we make sure each resource is being fully utilized? How do we make
6 sure we're not duplicating efforts? How do we work in collaboration to
7 accomplish more?
8 • Getting the Arts in the Conversation
9 o Almost every municipal project, tourism campaign, or economic development
10 initiative is an opportunity to incorporate the arts and promote Orange County as
11 and arts destination!
12
13 Mayor Lavelle welcomed Katie Murray, and said the Town of Carrboro looks forward to
14 her work in Orange County.
15 Mayor Hemminger said greetings to her, and encouraged the importance of marketing
16 the County's entire arts programming to all segments of the population.
17 Alderman Slade arrived at 7:29 p.m.
18 Alderman Chaney said it is important for the elected bodies to understand the kinds of
19 calculators that should be used when thinking about the arts and their contribution to the
20 economy. She said it is important to highlight and support the residents of color in our
21 community.
22 Katie Murray said the Arts and Economic Prosperity Study is currently being completed,
23 the results of which will come in March 2017. She said these results will help measure the
24 impact of arts in our communities. She echoed the comments about giving light to artists of
25 color.
26 Commissioner Price encouraged Katie Murray to look at Winston Salem and Forsyth
27 County as well.
28 Mayor Stevens commended Orange County for the use of the Whitted facility to
29 highlight the arts, such as exhibiting the paper hand puppets recently.
30 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the University of North Carolina (UNC) is included in
31 arts discussions.
32 Katie Murray said yes.
33 Mayor Hemminger asked if the Arts Commission is cross-promoting.
34 Katie Murray said yes.
35 Mayor Hemminger said the Town of Chapel Hill is having a lantern festival for the
36 Chinese population in January 2017, and encouraged all residents to participate.
37 Commissioner Rich said Katie Murray was part of the hand puppet parade.
38
39 2. Economic Development— Five Minute Updates from County and Towns on
40 Projects and Possibilities Related to Industry, Retail and Agriculture, With
41 Discussion Following Each Update
42
43 Chair McKee said he would like the County and each town to give a 5-minute update.
44
45 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT: ORANGE COUNTY
46 Steve Brantley, Orange County Director of Economic Development, made the following
47 PowerPoint presentation:
48
49 Economic Development Report
50 November 17, 2016
6
1 Assembly of Governments Meeting
2
3 Agricultural Economic Development
4 • Orange County Food Council working to build a local food system that ensures:
5 o Health
6 o Sustainable agriculture
7 o Access for all local residents
8 • Piedmont Food & Agriculture Processing Center (PFAP)
9 o Continues to incubate new food processing businesses
10 o Now offers expansion potential at the County's newly renovated "Cedar Grove
11 Park & Community Center"
12 • New Initiatives - Efforts underway to have the County:
13 o Potentially lease the 400-acre "Breeze Farm"agriculture training facility
14 o Create a public-private partnership to facilitate a higher level of effectiveness
15 19th Annual Orange County Agriculture Summit - February 27th 2017
16
17 Orange County Visitors Bureau
18 • N. C. Department of Agriculture collaboration to develop a new smart media App
19 (called North Carolina Farms) highlighting Orange County's:
20 o Fresh food markets
21 o Farm tours
22 o "Pick your Own" produce farms
23 • Launched the "All Are Welcome" LGBT friendly campaign
24 (Won Platinum award from Destination Management Association of N. C.)
25 • During the year:
26 o Served 12,000 walk-in visitors
27 o Distributed over 50,000 visitors guides and maps
28 • Tourism services provided to the Towns included:
29 o Hillsborough Handmade Puppet Parade
30 o Carrboro's Music Festival
31 o Chapel Hill's Festival
32 • Launching North American Travel Journalists Association conference to bring 100
33 national travel writers to the County spring 2017
34
35 Small Business Promotion
36 • LAUNCH Chapel Hill
37 o Lease was renewed for 3 more years
38 o Will double in size to add more co-working space
39 o Assisted 63 entrepreneurial start-up firms since 2013;
40 o Currently hosting the 6th cohort
41 o 23 full-time and 55 part-time jobs were supported by 7 LAUNCH firms in 2016
42 • Orange County Economic Development's new web-based searchable database listing
43 all identified Orange County firms.
44 • Article 46 financial programs to support the growth, expansion & retention of Orange
45 County's small businesses. (1/4 cent sales tax for economic dev.)
46
47 Business Recruitment Efforts
48 • Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. recruitment by the County & Town of Chapel Hill
7
1 o $1.7 million annual retail sales tax and property taxes for the County and all 3
2 towns
3 o 350 full-time equivalent jobs
4 • Buckhorn Economic Development District—BOCC approved funding the "Efland Sewer
5 to Mebane Phase 11 Extension"utility line extension in early 2016.
6 • Morinaga America Foods, Inc.
7 o Grand opening held in early in 2016
8 o Company has reached its' Phase One employment target of 90 jobs
9 o Now operating 2 production shifts
10 • SWOT Analysis - Upcoming release of a request for proposals (RFP) to conduct a
11 SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) for properties the 3
12 Economic Development Districts.
13 • Business Recruitment Efforts
14
15 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT—TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
16 Shannon Campbell, Economic Development Planner, Town of Hillsborough, made this
17 presentation:
18 • She said they have been busy on King Street.
19 • The Town Public Information Office and Economic Development are working together to
20 improve the resources available on the Town's website to prospective business owners
21 and those looking to start and expand business in Town. The Town would like to engage
22 with small business owners and entrepreneurs more.
23 • The Town's Economic Development Planner is now the first and main point of contact
24 for those looking to start, relocate, or expand their business in Town. This position can
25 assist with questions regarding land use, zoning, parking, obtaining building permits,
26 availability property and vacancies in existing buildings within the Town of Hillsborough.
27 • The Town continues to work with the real estate brokers to market available retail
28 locations at Waterstone, Oakdale Village, Hampton Pointe, and vacant anchor tenant
29 space at the North Hills Shopping Center.
30 • The Town has been working closely with the Orange County Economic Development
31 Office which has graciously assisted in providing existing data and reports to help the
32 Town entice new business. The County Economic Development Office has also been
33 helpful and inclusive of Town Economic Development Staff in meetings and discussions
34 that involved properties in the Town limits.
35 • The Town is confidentially working with a number of businesses offering restaurant,
36 retail, recreation/entertainment, and general services.
37
38 Mayor Stevens extended a welcome to Ms. Campbell, who has been with the Town for
39 about a year.
40
41 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT—TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL
42 Dwight Bassett, Economic Development Director, Town of Chapel Hill presented this
43 presentation:
44 • We are operating under a Commercial Development Strategy that was developed 2015-
45 2016 with the Vision of"Taking our place on the map of like cities for research and
46 development."
47 • Working with our Engineering division to evaluate what might be built on the Wallace
48 Parking Deck. We are thinking this could be reduced rate office space and we might
49 partner with a private developer to see this happen.
8
1 • We are looking at starting a Maker organization to help facilitate the interest of people
2 who are moving into the Maker industry. They have held one organizational meeting.
3 • Working with UNC to think about critical strategies related to Entrepreneurship and the
4 possibility of creating an Innovation Council to help grow our private support for
5 entrepreneurs. It would have strong private section representation to help encourage
6 involvement from that sector.
7 • Continue to work with County staff on drafting an Incentives Policy for further
8 consideration.
9 • We are working with our Parking division to explore growing our parking opportunities
10 in downtown and having a greater percentage under single management.
11 • Working with Planning Dept. to draft an advanced manufacturing/research/flex zone for
12 approximately 50 acres off Millhouse Road. The Town has a concept plan for about 1/3
13 of the property and it could accommodate up to 390,000 sq ft.
14 • Working with multiple developers to help move approved projects forward and meet the
15 Town's interest in retail and office space.
16
17 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REPORT—TOWN OF CARBORO
18 Trish McGuire, Planning Director, made this presentation, and referred to the 6 projects
19 below that were in their report in their abstract:
20
21 Project Description Current Status Next Steps Tenants
22 Lloyd Farm Property- Old
23 Fayetteville and NC Hwy 54
24 • 116,000 sq ft mixed use development to include a grocery store, commercial outparcels
25 and multi-story 200 unit senior living complex.
26 • Under review by the Board of Aldermen.
27 • Scheduled for the December 6th Board meeting
28 • Tenant: Harris Teeter
29
30 South Green — South Greensboro and NC Hwy 54
31 • 43,500 sq ft retail development
32 • Approved by Town
33 • Major improvements underway at South Greensboro to NCDOT storm water and
34 OWASA waterlines
35 • Tenant: Announcing Soon!
36
37 Shelton Station North Greensboro and Shelton Street
38 • 22,706 retail/office and 90 units residential rental units
39 • Retail/office is under construction
40 • Vertical construction for residential portion of the project will begin in the fall
41 • Tenant: UNC School of Medicine (12,000 sq ft)
42
43 Inara Court— 102 Fidelity Street Single Family Residential
44 • 6 — 15 units
45 • Approved conditional rezoning and LUO text amendment 6/28.
46 • Review of SUP plans begin again once resubmitted
47 • Tenant: n/a
48
49 New Hotel — Hilton Garden Inn
9
1 • 145 rooms
2 • Approval existing CUP modification
3 • Anticipated construction early 2017
4 • Tenant: n/a
5
6 PTA Thrift Shop Expansion 103 Jones Ferry Road
7 • 5300 sq. ft.
8 • office/retail space
9 • Under construction Expected completion December 31, 2016
10 • Tenant: Youth Worx—A nonprofit collaborative venture focused on youth
11 Town Commons
12 • Renovation of existing Town Commons
13 • Plans approved by Board of Aldermen
14 • Project is out for construction bids
15
16 Parking Study
17 • A study of parking in Downtown Carrboro
18 • Consultant has been collecting data from the community including surveys, parking
19 counts, focus group discussions
20 • Final report due to the Board of Aldermen in November 2016.
21
22 Active Projects Map Online: http://cis.ci.carrboro.nc.us/iCarrboro/cCurDev.html
23
24 Commissioner Ferguson referred to the SWOT Analysis, and asked Steve Brantley if he
25 is looking at areas outside of the Economic Development Districts (EDDs).
26 Steve Brantley said, as of now, the study is limited to the three EDDs in Orange County.
27 Town Council Member Cianciolo referred to the Visitor's Bureau (VB), and said it is
28 important to include, in the marketing campaign, that Orange County is not only a great place to
29 visit, but also a great place to do business. He said the VB and the Town Council are working
30 on this.
31 Mayor Hemminger commended the partnerships among the governing entities, and
32 encouraged them all to look for more opportunities for economic development.
33 Council Member Palmer said a significant art space could be included in the old Town
34 Hall building, and stressed the importance to work together to make this space usable. She
35 said Orange County is a great place for cycling tourism, and suggested marketing this more
36 heavily.
37 Alderman Slade said when the quarter cent tax was approved there was a 10-year plan,
38 which is currently at the halfway point. He would like to see an update on the intentions for
39 these funds against how these funds have actually been spent. He said it may be time to
40 consider what to do with the next 10 years. He said 60% of Article 46 sales tax are allocated to
41 infrastructure around EDDs, and after 10 years these funds may be available for other things.
42 He said one allocation is for small businesses, with 0-16% designated annually, and the
43 language of being self-sufficient. He said he wanted to understand what self-sufficient meant.
44 He said there are two models of economic development: to support local businesses and
45 recruitment of outside businesses. He is interested to see an analysis of these two models in
46 the coming future.
47 Chair McKee said some local grant funds have gone to community businesses, and he
48 asked if Steve Brantley could provide the full information on this.
10
1 Steve Brantley said a booklet will soon be released that will have information in it for all
2 businesses that have received Article 46 funds.
3 Chair McKee asked if the repair to the Carrboro sewer line was paid in part by sales tax
4 money.
5 The answer was yes, in the amount of $37,500.
6 Alderman Chaney said at last night's Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG)
7 meeting there was a presentation on local food councils, and she was surprised at a statistic
8 that there is a huge gap between the farmer and market. She said Orange County is doing well
9 compared to other rural counties, because Orange County has done a great job at working with
10 their local farmers.
11 Chair McKee recognized Commissioner Jacobs who has been at the forefront in leading
12 this process in Orange County.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said the Hillsborough Farmer's Market was dedicated to
14 Congressman David Price, who has one of the only congressional districts in the Country where
15 the number of farms is increasing. He said the wings at Cedar Grove Community Center have
16 been preserved, with one being used for storage for agricultural products. He said Piedmont
17 Food and Agriculture Processing Center (PFAP) plans to rebrand itself, and will use part of the
18 storage space. He said Seal the Seasons is the largest customer at PFAP.
19
20 3. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Update
21
22 a) Updated Cost Projections
23 GoTriangle staff provided the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plans Frequently
24 Asked Questions document in the agenda packet.
25 Jeff Mann, General Manager of GoTriangle, said the financial plan has been impacted
26 by external factors and has changed some of their assumptions: reduction in state funds;
27 change in the how quickly federal funds can be drawn down; revised and lower growth rates of
28 sales taxes. He said it is a critical time in the process.
29 Danny Rogers, Light Rail Project Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
30
31 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit
32 Project Update to Orange County Assembly of Governments
33 November 17, 2016
34
35 Status of Durham-Orange LRT
36 • Entry into Engineering
37 • Financial Plan and Funding Needs
38 • Addition of NCCU Station
39
40 Entry Into Engineering
41 • On-schedule to complete submittal to FTA by December 31, 2016
42 o Anticipated approval by FTA is by the end of February, 2017
43 • Biggest issue remaining is Financial Plan
44 o FTA funding assumptions change
45 o Funding Gap Remains
46 o 30% of Non-New Starts funding must be committed
47 Revenues dedicated in the Plan meet this requirement
48 Remainder must be planned
49 • Entry into Engineering Schedule is Critical
11
1 o FTA has required D-O LRT to be in Engineering by March or must drop out of
2 New Starts Program
3 o Project expenses incurred when project is not in the process are not eligible for
4 future FTA reimbursement
5 o Cost to date for project are reimbursable upon obtaining Full Funding Grant
6 Agreement (FFGA)
7
8 State and Federal Transit Funding Changes Since Approval of Plan
9 Bus Service
10 • State: 7.5%
11 • Local: 92.5%
12 Vehicles, Bus Stops, Park and Rides
13 • Federal: 80% 4 38%
14 • State: 10% 4 8%
15 • Local/Other: 10% 4 54%
16 Light Rail, Commuter Rail
17 • Federal: 50% 4 50%
18 • State: 25% 4 10%
19 • Local/Other: 25% 4 40%
20 Bus Rapid Transit
21 • Federal: 50% 4 70%
22 • State: 25% 4 0%
23 • Local/Other: 25% 4 30%
24 Hillsborough Train Station
25 • State: 90% 4 91%
26 • Local: 10% 4 9%
27
28 Local Transit Revenues (Shared by Bus and Rail) (graph)
29
30 Sales Tax by Article (graph)
31
32 D-O LRT Capital Funding Sources (graph)
33
34 Financial Model Notes
35 1. Both scenarios use forecasts developed by Dr. Walden in 2014
36 2. Baseline Scenario assumes FTA disbursements of$125 million per year
37 3. Scenario One reduces FTA disbursements to $100 million per year
38 4. All Scenarios assume 10% State participation
39
40 Funding Gap
41 Gap = Lowest projected cash balance in system cash flow
42 • Assumes maximum borrowing while maintaining minimum 1.15x net debt service
43 coverage ratio (DSCR)
44 • Assumes reserves have been fully funded (operating, debt service, capital asset
45 management)
46 • Funding for expanded Bus Operations, revised Chapel Hill BRT project, and NCCU
47 Station included in analysis
48
12
1 Ways to Resolve the Funding Gap
2 Scenario 1: 10% State Funding, Walden 2014 Forecast, $100M FTA Cap- graph
3
4 Next Steps
5 • Obtain approval from Orange County Board of County Commissioners to submit
6 financial plan to FTA that includes planned additional local funding at their December 5,
7 2016 meeting and they would be asking Orange County to:
8 o "Subject to and contingent upon any authorizations required by Orange County,
9 including the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Orange County agrees to
10 cooperate with the municipalities within the county and work together to identify,
11 develop, and implement additional funding mechanisms to directly support the
12 D-O LRT Project by October, 2019."
13 • Obtain similar approvals from Durham (November 29, 2016) and the DCHC MPO
14 (December 14, 2016).
15 •
16
17 • Continue to work with local partners to define details of additional local revenue sources
18 to have available for reference prior to approving Final Design phase of General
19 Engineering Consultant contract in April 2017.
20 • Note: No additional local funds will be spent on the D-O LRT Project prior to receiving a
21 Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) from FTA in 2020.
22
23
24
13
, , III
rrr,,,,,,,,,% 111
j �
.III. ,,,�r, ,11 n rc� � 1 e f i1
„ . I
GoTriangle Complete DOLRT application to Sign contract, begin DOLRT Apply to include DOLRT
Action Engineering Phase Engineering Phase in President's Budget
Provide non-binding letter of intent to work Review/Approve updated Commit any local funds
Local Gov't Action w/GoTriangle to identify funds to complete county Transit Plans with be part of DOLRT
DOLRT planned revenue assumptions financial plan
Staff Working Work with GoTriangle to refine County Present revised plan to elected Review Plan Progress
Group Transit Plan Assumptions officials w/GoTriangle
Private Partners Provide non-binding letters of intent for Additional commitments Sign agreements to
land/other commitments identified make commitments offic
1 Town Council Member Cianciolo asked Danny Rogers if he could identify when the
2 Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) dropped the cap from $125 to $100 million.
3 Danny Rogers said this information was received in the last 3 weeks.
4 Town Council Member Ciancolo asked if up until that time there was no gap.
5 Danny Rogers said yes.
6 Town Council Member Cianciolo asked what will happen if the FTA funding drops back
7 to $75 million.
8 Danny Rogers said the $100 million has been the bar that the FTA has used for a while.
9 Chair McKee said there is a new day in Washington, and it is an unknown. He asked if
10 money spent will be reimbursed, if approval is not received in April.
11 Danny Rogers said if there is a full funding grant agreement with FTA, and all money
12 spent so far is eligible for reimbursements. He said if engineering does not begin by the end of
13 February, the project will fall out of the New Starts program. He said if the project is able to get
14 back into the New Starts program, the time period between leaving the program and being
15 reinstated, would not be eligible for reimbursement. He said if the project does not proceed at
16 all, then no monies are eligible for reimbursement.
17 Chair McKee said this is the first he has heard of this information in the last six years.
18 Chair McKee said there is another stop point in June 2018 and asked, if everything is
19 not in place at that point, could there be ramifications.
14
1 Danny Rogers said the current stop point of beginning the engineering process by
2 February, is firm. He said if it does not begin, the project falls out of the program. He said if
3 the project is not ready with information or commitments to submit for the President's budget in
4 June 2018, the project will not drop out of the New Starts program, but will be delayed a year.
5 Chair McKee said his concern is receiving approval in April 2017 means a $60-70 million
6 jump to move forward, and that they may get further in the process, and then find other
7 surprises. He said all of this money may be spent, without getting through the project.
8 Danny Rogers said entering into the contract in April means the pace of spending will
9 increase each month. He said it does not mean $60-70 million will be spent, and there is a
10 termination for convenience that will be included in the contract. He said a higher rate will be
11 spent per month, and it is important to continue their side of the unknown of this equation to be
12 more comfortable that GoTriangle can do its part.
13 Council Member Palmer said a lot of money and energy has been expended to get to
14 this point, and putting the breaks on a project, that will move our region into a greener and more
15 connected future that facilitates job development, due to changes at the state and federal level
16 is counter productive to the region's own interests. She said it must be determined if the project
17 can move forward or if the vision should be abandoned. She asked if the reimbursement
18 amount, which would be forfeited by not moving forward, could be identified.
19 Danny Rogers said it depends on how much is spent in that gap time, and how long it
20 takes to get back into the program. He said hundreds of thousands of dollars would need to be
21 spent on a monthly basis to get back into the program, and the biggest cost would be the one
22 year delay.
23 Council Member Parker said there have been questions about the sales tax growth
24 rates, and the numbers used in the presentation tonight are the 2014 numbers. He asked if
25 newer sales tax projections are considered, what is the magnitude of the gap.
26 Danny Rogers said a work has been procured from Moody's to put together growth
27 rates for their sales tax. He said Orange County's numbers are lower than 2014, and Durham's
28 was about the same. He said the $200 million is what is currently expected.
29 Council Member Parker said come April more commitment and funds will be needed.
30 He asked if more specific financial information is anticipated between now and April, such that
31 the financial situation will become clearer, and the plug can be pulled if necessary, or is it full
32 steam ahead at this point.
33 Danny Rogers said the point of the checkpoints is to be able to stop and review at each
34 step in the process.
35 Alderman Seils asked if their expectations of the Metropolitan Planning Organization
36 (MPO) could be outlined.
37 Danny Rogers said they are asking the MPO for permission to show in the plan that
38 additional local revenue will be put into the plan.
39 Alderman Seils clarified that the Counties and the MPO are being asked to buy the
40 project time in order to get into the engineering phase of the project, and figure out the specific
41 financials.
42 Danny Rogers said it is permission to say it is going to be done, permission to find out
43 how it is going to be done and doing it committing the actual funds later.
44 Alderman Seils said this process has been known all along, and the steps are of no
45 surprise. He said the expenditures, up to this point being eligible for reimbursement, are
46 something he spoke of in front of the Board of County Commissioners in 2012, and he said it is
47 important to stay in the program to be eligible.
48 Mayor Lavelle said the voters voted for light rail, and having a few more months to feel
49 more grounded is reasonable.
15
1 Commissioner Pelissier said there have been suggestions made of scrapping the light
2 rail and doing a bus rapid transit system instead. She said it is her understanding that stopping
3 now would require a total re-start, a loss of funds spent thus far, would take five to seven years,
4 and would end up costing the same amount of money as the light rail system.
5 Danny Rogers added that the money spent so far would not be eligible.
6 Mayor Hemminger said the need and the desire for this project is out there, and more
7 information is being received, and she wants it to work. She said Chapel Hill has a vested
8 interest in the bus transit to get to the light rail stops. She said Orange County has a huge
9 decision to make as it does not get that much benefit out of it, with the stations outside of the
10 Gateway Station, and that one is still in Durham County. She said having Orange County
11 commit to 23% of this gap scares her.
12 Mayor Hemminger said she was unaware of the BRT in Chapel Hill being a part of this
13 equation. She said she hoped the sales tax will go up. She said there is a lot more to be
14 discovered, and there are a lot of opportunities and holes. She said if there is a commitment to
15 funding these numbers, then they need to figure out how. She asked if the UNC Council Estate
16 has been asked for permission for the right of ways.
17 Danny Rogers said UNC said it would pursue the issue. He said this is the plan, and he
18 said there is precedent in North Carolina for that Right of Way donation with UNC-Charlotte.
19 Mayor Hemminger said it is important to understand what resources will be needed to
20 be able to fund these extra figures.
21 Danny Rogers said these numbers are included in the financial plan.
22 Council Member Ed Harrison said for any Bus Rapid Transit project to even approach
23 the effectiveness of the Light Rail project, it would have to be about the same alignment, which
24 would be complicated.
25 Commissioner Pelissier said assuming the Orange County Board of County
26 Commissioners will work with GoTriangle to find the funding, there are still not many
27 opportunities for benefits for Orange County as compared to Durham County. She said the
28 percentage distribution between Orange and Durham counties is a placeholder, and there could
29 be negotiations with Durham County.
30 Danny Rogers said he failed to point out, on the timeline, that this is a complimentary
31 concurrent updating for the BRT for Orange County and Durham County.
32 Council Member Parker asked if the parties that will be making the decision in April,
33 could be identified.
34 Danny Rogers said the final responsibility rests with the Board of Trustees for
35 GoTriangle. He said that Board will want to know the intentions of the governmental entities
36 and what they are going to do. He said the signatories are Orange County, Durham County,
37 MPO, and GoTriangle,
38 Jeff Mann said an updated Orange County Bus and Rail Investment plan will be
39 presented in the spring. He said the Orange County BOCC can approve it, or not.
40 Town Council Member Cianciolo said he wanted to understand the issues of cost
41 reimbursements. He said assuming all is completed successfully by 2028, and the FTA sends
42 reimbursement funds, he asked if GoTriangle then writes a check to Orange County.
43 Danny Rogers said the reimbursements are for money they have spent, to pay off the
44 debt.
45 Town Council Member Cianciolo said it has to be a decision that focuses on the costs
46 going forward, as money spent to date is gone, for all intents and purposes. He said it must be
47 decided if this project is deemed to be beneficial.
48 Danny Rogers said if the project falls out of the program, whilst decisions are trying to
49 be made and money is spent, those funds are not eligible for reimbursement. He said getting
16
1 to engineering is time sensitive, and allows far more specific information to be gathered prior to
2 making decisions about major financial commitments.
3 Alderman Chaney said Town Council Member Cianciolo's point is well taken. She
4 asked if the number of people, who will get out of their cars if this project is built, is known.
5 Danny Rogers said about 24,000 per day.
6 Patrick McDonough, Manager of Planning for GoTriangle, said just under 27,000 riders
7 per day, when including the NCCU station; and another 20,000 when including the bus trips to
8 and from the various light rail stations.
9 Alderman Chaney said that is a lot of people who will benefit from this project. She said
10 she hoped that the Board of County Commissioners will think about getting to the next step.
11 She said they want to achieve the goal so badly, and it is the proportion that has changed not
12 the cost. She said there is a risk here but she, as a taxpayer, is willing to take that risk.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said he suggested on Tuesday night, the need to re-negotiate the
14 formula with Durham. He said before moving forward in April, he would like to know who is
15 going to do the value engineering. He said he would like to see independent value engineering,
16 and he asked if there is a development coordinator to solicit funds from the universities and the
17 private sector.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said, at some point, the BOCC will need information from Chapel
19 Hill about the extension of the BRT, the tripling of the cost, and why the BOCC has not been a
20 part of this conversation. He said the topic of affordable housing along the light rail also needs
21 to be revisited.
22 Mayor Hemminger said the Town Council was working today to see what is happening
23 with the BRT, since they just heard about this. She said the Town would work on the affordable
24 housing request. She said three of the stops are UNC owned and will not include affordable
25 housing. She said Glenn Lennox is already built out, and the only other opportunities are the
26 Woodmont and Gateway stations.
27 Town Commissioner Weaver said she wanted to speak up for those in the northern part
28 of the County, and she sees the benefit to the light rail project. She said there are a lot of risks
29 and unknowns, but this current step is really important, and she does not want to lose sight of
30 the bigger picture and overall benefits.
31 Commissioner Pelissier said sometimes risks have to be taken, and voting to at least
32 look at funding options is not that big of a risk. She hopes her colleagues will vote in favor of
33 doing so. She said light rail will add to affordability.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said just because the Board of County Commissioners asks
35 tough questions, it does not indicate any lesser commitment to light rail and affordability. He
36 said the BOCC will have to deal with the consequences of adding more funding.
37 Alderman Slade said the engineering phase is rapidly approaching, and asked if it is
38 realistic that GoTriangle will be able to meet the deadline.
39 Danny Rogers said the process is on track, and if a financial plan is in place they should
40 be in good shape to submit it to FTA. He said it would then wait to be seen as to how FTA
41 reacts to said plan.
42 Commissioner Rich said the Board of County Commissioners is supportive of this
43 project, and it would be a shame to throw this all away. She commended Commissioner
44 Pelissier for all of her hard work on this.
45 Chair McKee asked if, funding gap aside, there is a firm, written commitment from Duke
46 to pick up any Right of Way (ROW).
47 Danny Rogers said Duke has made a commitment to donate the ROW, and is putting
48 together a letter of intent to that effect.
49 Chair McKee asked if there is a commitment for $25 million, or if that is for the ROW.
17
1 Danny Rogers said the ROW would be in the line above that. He said the $25 million is
2 a goal of funding from private donors, and the end total may be higher. He said that process
3 takes time.
4 Chair McKee asked if UNC or NCCU has made any commitment, given that they are
5 state entities. He said he assumed Council of State will have to be involved there.
6 Danny Rogers said UNC and NCCU are not expected to give money, but are able to
7 clear a path for them such as clearing some land, or building facilities further back in order to
8 leave room for the light rail.
9 Chair McKee said he does not agree that the $200 million is the only funding gap. He
10 said today the state funding has gone from $400 million, to $160 million on 10%. He said the
11 County has not yet agreed to pick up the extra $40 million, at $4 million a year. He also is
12 unsure of Durham's commitment. He said there may be a commitment of intent, but not of
13 money.
14 Danny Rogers said a commitment of intent is the only thing being sought at this time.
15 Chair McKee said it is important to be realistic about the gap, which is over $400 million
16 at this point in time.
17 Danny Rogers said the change in the state participation is as Chair McKee describes.
18 He said GoTriangle puts the revenue growth, which comes through the sales tax, into the
19 financial model, and also puts in the borrowing opportunities that are available. He said that
20 which is left is the gap that cannot be covered. He said the current commitment allows
21 GoTriangle to say the 30% share can be covered, and the part beyond that must receive
22 approval. He said that is planned.
23 Chair McKee said the real stop point for making a decision is the end of December
24 2016. He said the Board of County Commissioners must decide whether or not to issue a
25 letter of intent by that time.
26 Danny Rogers reread the slide, which outlined what the Orange County Board of County
27 Commissioners will need to do, and the BOCC will need to issue a letter of intent at its
28 December 5th meeting.
29 Chair McKee said a letter of intent does carry with it the implication that Orange County
30 will come forward to filling this funding gap.
31 Danny Rogers said a letter of intent means that the BOCC is committed to working
32 together to fill this gap.
33 Chair McKee said Orange County is being asked to commit to $4 million per year for 10
34 years to fill the federal gap. He said he fears that Orange County will end up spending $8
35 million per year to fill the federal funding gap, as well as the state-funding gap.
36 Danny Rogers said it is very complicated.
37 Jeff Mann said the same amount of federal funding will be received, but it will take
38 longer for it to come. He said it will be 50% of funding, distributed in $100 million per year
39 increments, as opposed to $125 million per year. He said the result is that more will have to be
40 borrowed up front.
41 Chair McKee said he will concede that point, but he is still seeing $4 million per year, for
42 10 years, that the taxpayers of Orange County will have to pay.
43 Chair McKee said paying for this will require a minimum of a three cent tax increase. He
44 said the voters approved a transit tax, but this conversation no longer relates to that tax. He
45 said the voters did not approve coming back at a later date to cover a gap that is not of their
46 making. He said he does not think the state will correct this issue.
47 Danny Rogers said the BOCC is being provided accurate information in order to make
48 an informed decision.
49 Council Member Parker asked if there is any chance that this gap will get smaller.
18
1 Danny Rogers said there are reasons to be optimistic, but there may be other surprises
2 coming down the pike.
3 Chair McKee asked if GoTriangle would be open to an independent analysis of the
4 engineering and financial plan.
5 Jeff Mann said the FTA conducts an independent analysis of the financial plan
6 throughout the process.
7 Chair McKee asked if GoTriangle is open to Orange County having a consultant, at the
8 County's expense, review the financial plan before moving forward.
9 Jeff Mann said yes, but there may not be time before December.
10 Saundra Freeman, GoTriangle Chief Financial Officer, said three consultants have
11 already reviewed the financial plan, and what Chair McKee is proposing will take several
12 months to complete.
13 Chair McKee asked if GoTriangle is willing to give Orange County additional time to
14 conduct an independent financial analysis.
15 Saundra Freeman said yes, an independent analysis would be fine, but the timing is
16 tricky.
17 Jeff Mann said there is a hard deadline, of the end of 2016, to submit a financial plan,
18 with a request to enter engineering. He said the plan must be submitted by the end of
19 December, and there is insufficient time to complete an analysis before then, but one could be
20 done at some time.
21 Chair McKee said he felt that he is being backed into a box, and the timeframe is so
22 short. He said the level of detail is so great, and the implications for the taxpayers of Orange
23 County are so critical.
24 Saundra Freeman said GoTriangle is convening a financial consortium, which will
25 include the appropriate financial staff from Orange County, to walk through the model. She
26 said a great deal of detail will be provided through that process.
27
28 b) Extension to North Carolina Central University(background)
29
30 Danny Rogers reviewed the following background, and made the following PowerPoint
31 presentation:
32
33 In February 2016, GoTriangle received a Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement
34 (FEIS)/Record of Decision (ROD)for the Durham-Orange Light Rail
35 Transit (D-O LRT) project from UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill to Alston Avenue in
36 Durham. In response to comments received during that process, GoTriangle started
37 to evaluate the option to extend the project south on Alston Avenue to a station near North
38 Carolina Central University (NCCU). Preliminary engineering and ridership
39 forecasts found the station to be feasible and capable of generating high ridership.
40 GoTriangle is currently studying the natural environment and community impacts, as
41 well as addressing state, federal, and local funding constraints.
42
43 Recent guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) indicates that the DO LRT
44 project must enter the News Starts Engineering phase by February 2017. In order to meet this
45 milestone, allow the NCCU station to advance into the next phase along with the other parts of
46 the project, and ensure that the entire new alignment qualifies for the 50% Federal match, the
47 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan
48
19
1 Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) has initiated two actions: 1) The extension needs to be
2 included in its Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and 2) the extension needs to be included in
3 its 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP).
4
5 At its October 19 meeting, the MPO Board released the amendments for public comment,
6 which is taking place through November 29, and held a public hearing on November 9, 2016.
7 The Durham City Council and Durham Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) endorsed the
8 amendments in September and October, respectively. The Orange County BOCC received a
9 presentation on the extension at its meeting on November 15.
10
11 NCCU Station
12 • FTA issued a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision
13 (FEIS/ROD) on the D-O LRT Project in February, 2016
14 • In response to comments, FTA and GoTriangle committed to look at some specific
15 refinements including analyzing the feasibility of extending the alignment to NCCU
16 o Early analysis indicated that the extension is feasible
17 o FTA determined that s Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) would be
18 required
19
20 Proposed NCCU Station Location
21
22 Current Activities
23 • The Supplemental EA on the NCCU LRT Station Refinement is now available for
24 Public Review and Comment until Dec 7, 2016
25 http://ourtransitfuture.com
26 NCCU James E. Shepherd Memorial Library
27 Main Branch of the Durham Public Library
28 GoTriangle's Administrative Office
29 • DCHC MPO to vote on Metropolitan Transportation Plan Amendment to include
30 NCCU Station on December14, 2016
31
32 Questions
33
34 Alderman Seils said he is appreciative of this station. He asked if there is an
35 expectation that the addition of this leg will increase the scoring process.
36 Danny Rogers said the project scored really well, and this addition will make the project
37 better.
38 Alderman Slade said he hoped the next leg of the light rail will be in Carrboro.
39
40 5. Greene Tract- Deferred
41 Chair McKee noted that the time is 10:02 p.m. He said the next item is not critical and
42 can be given as an information item. He said to let the Managers come back with a proposal
43 fora task force.
44 Mayor Hemminger said she hoped there would be a task force to get moving on this
45 topic, and agreed with the Managers working together to come back with a strategic process.
46 Mayor Lavelle agreed.
47 Alderman Slade said he hopes the task force will look at the work done in the Rogers
48 Road community as a starting point from which to move forward.
20
1 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the charge of the task force could be identified. He said
2 a task force sounds like reinventing the wheel again; and it is important to know what is being
3 sought. He said affordable housing is a universal goal, and said perhaps an RFP is next.
4 Mayor Lavelle said to have Managers to come up with something, and let the Mayors
5 and the Chair be the task force and provide feedback to the respective boards.
6 Commissioner Rich said some points are in the abstract, and provides a starting point.
7 Mayor Hemminger said that is why she asked the Managers to come back with a
8 strategic process.
9 Chair McKee said when this topic was put on the agenda he noted that he is at the
10 same point, with the Green Tract now, that he was 10 years ago with the Rogers Road
11 Community Center. He said he is tired of this topic going nowhere, and is ready to make a
12 plan and take action, or stop talking about it altogether.
13 Commissioner Price said a deadline should be set for establishing a plan.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said this was discussed at the joint meeting with Chapel Hill
15 months ago, and staff was asked to take their vision and put it on to paper. He said that would
16 be a reachable goal. He said a strategic plan must reflect how the elected officials think
17 currently, which includes mixed-use development.
18 Alderman Chaney said there must be a grocery store within a mile of a low-income
19 housing tax credit application site, if any type of multi-family units is planned.
20 Chair McKee asked if it is agreeable to have the Managers put together a unified
21 proposal for the three boards.
22 There was general consensus.
23 Commissioner Price said the community is being left out of this discussion.
24 Chair McKee said it is important to keep it concentrated at the beginning, in order to
25 keep things moving.
26 Mayor Lavelle said a starting point would be to have a meeting between the Managers,
27 the Mayors and the Chair. She said the community will not be excluded.
28 Commissioner Price said she is outnumbered, but feels the community should be
29 included from the start.
30 Chair McKee said to start with the Managers, the Mayors and the Chair.
31
32 The meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m.
33
34 Earl McKee, Chair
35
36 Donna Baker
37 Clerk to the Board
38
39
40 DEFERRED
41
42 a) Brief Historical Update
43
44 The Greene Tract (164 acres)was acquired in 1984 and came to Orange County as an asset of
45 the Solid Waste Fund. The 1998 Interlocal Solid Waste Agreement (amended April 12, 2000)
46 established the three owning partners for a 104 acre parcel. The remaining 60 acres, long held
47 by Solid Waste, is in the process of being transferred to an asset of the General Fund to be
48 used for preservation and low impact recreation purposes.
49 Although there has been considerable discussion about the future of the Greene
21
1 Tract, no formal action has been taken by the BOCC since 2002. And although not specific to
2 the Greene Tract, multiple Historic Rogers Road Area (HRRA) small area studies and planning
3 efforts have been conducted by the local governments over the last 15 years that referenced
4 the Greene Tract.
5 Over the last few years, the local governments have pursed the construction of a Rogers Road
6 Community Center and the design of the Rogers Road Sewer Project. More recently, the
7 Historic Roger Road Area (HRRA) staff workgroup (local government management, planners,
8 and Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA)) has been reviewing and developing two
9 new initiatives:
10 1. The Community First planning program. The Jackson Center was hired by the joint
11 governments to work with Rogers Road stakeholders to create a guide and recommendations
12 for future of the community.
13 2. Multi-Jurisdiction Technical Environmental Scan of the Greene Tract. Many cultural and
14 environmental aspects have been researched and updated. Over the years there have been
15 many options (based on various studies) discussed as possible future uses of the 104 acres
16 jointly owned by Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Listed below are the options that
17 have been explored:
18 1. Joint Affordable Housing could be planned for 18.1 acres and the remaining 85.9 acres
19 would remain join open space.
20 2. The 104 acre tract should remain as open space to be protected by conservation easements.
21 3. The acreage for affordable housing could be placed in the Land Trust.
22 4. Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools requested that part of the Greene Tract be reserved for a
23 future elementary school site. An approximate 11 acre area south of the 18 Affordable Housing
24 site was considered.
25 5. Rename the property to recognize the headwaters of Bolin Creek, Booker Creek and Old
26 Field Creek.
27 The Greene Tract map is in the abstract which shows the proximity of the various
28 aforementioned parcels.
29
30 b) Potential Task Force
31
32 The possibility of forming a task force to develop concrete recommendations relative to the
33 Greene Tract has been a topic of discussion. A task force could potentially consist of
34 representatives from governmental bodies and community stakeholders and provide
35 recommendations on affordable housing, a school site, and other potential uses for the Greene
36 Tract.
37
38
39 5. INFORMATION ITEMS (Written Updates — Not for Specific Discussion)
40 a) OWASA Update of the Long Range Water Supply Plan
41 b) Agricultural Support Enterprises in the Rural Buffer
42 c) Solid Waste Financial Report
43 d) Rogers Road — Mapping Our Community's Future Report
44
45
1
1 Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 November 21, 2016
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a
10 Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday, November 21, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in
11 Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs,
14 Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Burroughs
16 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
18 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
19 appropriately below)
20
21 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
22
23 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
24
25 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
26 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
27
28 C. PUBLIC HEARING —QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS
29 NONE
30
31 D. PUBLIC HEARING — LEGISLATIVE ITEMS
32
33 1. Zoning Atlas Amendments - To review government-initiated amendments to the zoning
34 atlas that would modify the existing zoning boundaries of 16 parcels in the Bingham,
35 Cheeks, and Cedar Grove Townships to address nonconforming issues
36
37 BACKGROUND: After a petition from BOCC members, staff began reviewing the zoning of
38 several non-residentially zoned properties within the aforementioned townships and discovered
39 existing designations do not fully encompass all required land area necessary to allow for the
40 non-residential use of property. In many instances zoning district boundaries were drawn by
41 former staff in a manner that encompassed only the building and parking area while excluding
42 other required areas, most notably septic fields and required land use buffers.
43
44 Many of these boundaries were designated when zoning was originally put into effect over 30
45 years ago.
46
47 Staff has been working with several property owners impacted by this situation to address the
48 problem. This proposal seeks to modify existing zoning district boundary lines to ensure all
49 elements of the non-residential land use are located within the appropriate general use zoning
50 designation as should have been done when affected properties were originally zoned. Staff
2
1 considers this a necessary modification to existing district boundaries to ensure consistency
2 with the UDO as well as the adopted Comprehensive Plan. For more information please refer to
3 Attachment 1.
4
5 Maps denoting the properties reviewed as part of this project are contained within Attachment 2
6 and broken down by township. A breakdown of recommended rezoning actions, including maps
7 of all impacted properties, is contained in Attachment 3.
8
9 Staff is moving forward with those properties where owners have indicated an interest and is still
10 working to address questions from remaining owners who have not made a final decision.
11 Work on these remaining properties will continue and staff will provide periodic updates as
12 necessary.
13
14 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
15 Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
16 contained in Attachment 6 and proposed zoning atlas amendment package contained in
17 Attachment 7.
18
19 Planning Board Recommendation: At its November 2, 2016 meeting, the Board voted
20 unanimously to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency and the Zoning Atlas
21 amendments.
22
23 Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, made the following PowerPoint
24 presentation:
25
26 November 21, 2016
27 Agenda Items: D-1
28 BOCC
29 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING:
30 ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENTS
31
32 BACKGROUND
33 • Over the years different methodologies have been employed related to the
34 establishment of zoning district boundaries.
35 • Old zoning atlas was maintained on paper tax maps. Over the years these maps were
36 modified to a point where confusion was created as to where actual zoning boundaries
37 were and what properties were zoned.
38 • In many instances, zoning boundaries were drawn in a manner that encompassed only
39 the building and parking areas while excluding other required areas, most notably land
40 use buffers.
41 • In some cases, maps for properties are missing altogether.
42
43 EXAMPLE OF OLD ZONING ATLAS (photograph)
44
45 BACKGROUND (continued)
46 • After a petition from BOCC, staff began reviewing zoning in Bingham, Cheeks, and
47 Cedar Grove Townships.
48 - STAFF COMMENT: other townships will be reviewed at a later date.
49 • Staff identified several instances where existing zoning did not fully encompass all
50 required land area to allow for use of property.
3
1 • Also found zoning designations inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan and existing land
2 use(s).
3 • Staff reached out to impacted property owners to review issues.
4 - STAFF COMMENT: There are several property owners we are still working
5 with to address questions on zoning as well as providing feedback on
6 potential impacts (i.e. tax implications, allowable land uses in various
7 districts, development opportunities and constraints, etc.).
8 - Additional work will be completed on properties in the Bingham, Cheeks,
9 and Cedar Grove Townships for review at future BOCC meeting(s).
10 • Staff is moving forward with the property owners ready to take action at this time.
11
12 STAFF DETERMINATION:
13 As part of this process, and in accordance with Section(s) 1.2 and 2.8 of the UDO, staff has
14 determined that:
15 • There are zoning designations inconsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan that
16 need to be addressed.
17 • Boundaries of existing general use zoning districts are unclear due to
18 incomplete/contradictory historical mapping data and need to be modified to ensure
19 consistency.
20 - EXAMPLE: we have zoning boundaries drawn through buildings housing
21 non-residential land uses creating non-conformities.
22 - We have non-residential land uses on property not zoned to allow for such
23 activity that were in existence since the implementation of zoning.
24 • We now have better mapping technology/capabilities that can assist with the addressing
25 this issue.
26
27 EXAMPLE OF ZONING IMPACT (aerial photograph)
28
29 PLANNING BOARD/STAFF REVIEW
30 • Planning Board reviewed the request at its November 2, 2016 regular meeting
31 • Voted unanimously to recommend approval. The Board's signed Statement of
32 Consistency is contained in Attachment 4.
33 • Staff recommends approval of the re-zonings as detailed in Attachment(s) 6 and 7.
34
35 RECOMMENDATION
36 The Administration recommends the BOCC:
37 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the Zoning Atlas,
38 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment,
39 3. Close the public hearing,
40 4. Decide on one of the following options:
41 - Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
42 (Attachment 6) and Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 7).
43 - Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date.
44 - Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose.
45 - Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 Effect of Denial on
46 Subsequent Applications of the UDO states that no application for the same or
47 similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year
48 period begins on the date of denial.)
49
4
1 Michael Harvey referred to the maps within Attachments 3 and 7, and reviewed the
2 areas affected. He went through each parcel and the Commissioners were able to ask
3 questions.
4 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the first parcel, to which Michael Harvey referred, is not
5 actually resolving the split zoning of the parcels completely.
6 Michael Harvey said yes.
7 Commissioner Dorosin said the modification is less than the whole parcel; and if the
8 Board approves this tonight, this parcel will have two zoning designations.
9 Michael Harvey said the benefit is that the commercial operation will be fully enclosed in
10 the existing commercial 5 (EC5), by making it more reasonable for the property owner to make
11 use of the property, while still maintaining a zoning lot zoned agricultural-residential that can
12 support residential development on the rear of the property at a later date. He said the zoning
13 boundary for EC5 is being modified.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason that the parcel appears to go out into the
15 highway.
16 Michael Harvey said the zoning boundaries go to the centerlines of highways.
17 Commissioner Jacobs said a parcel of this nature existed five years ago, where the
18 owner of a commercial property needed more room to install a septic tank. He said hopefully
19 this amendment will eliminate a protracted process like that one.
20 Michael Harvey said the next rezoning is off of Mt. Willing, and there is a split-zoned
21 parcel: agricultural-residential/neighborhood-commercial. He said there is not commercial
22 activity on the property and never has been. He said the owner has no interest in maintaining
23 the neighborhood-commercial zoning and the whole property will be zoned agricultural
24 residential.
25 Michael Harvey said the next parcel is an existing commercial operation off of Orange
26 Grove near Dairy land Road. He said there is split zoning, and it is proposed that the entire
27 property be rezoned. He said there is potential expansion needed, and this will bring the
28 property into compliance should the owner choose to redevelop it.
29 Michael Harvey said the next parcel is an existing gas station at Buckhorn and Highway
30 70, which is zoned residential. He said they are recommending this to be zoned neighborhood-
31 commercial, which will allow the gas station to remain a legally performing use of property.
32 Chair McKee asked if the gas station would be considered out of compliance, if this
33 rezoning does not occur.
34 Michael Harvey said it would be illegal-not in conformity, meaning that it was developed
35 at a point in time prior to its residential zoning designation. He said it would be allowed to
36 continue operating and could make minor modifications; however, if the owner wanted to make
37 major renovations, the owner would have to go through the zoning process.
38 Michael Harvey said the next property is off of Highway 70, which contains a mobile
39 home park and a small grading business. He said staff is proposing to expand the EC5 zoning
40 designation to fully cover a portion of the existing commercial building that is part zoned
41 residential and EC5. He said staff is also proposing to expand the EC5 designation to provide
42 driveway access to the highway. He said that was done at the request of the property owner,
43 and staff was in agreement.
44 Michael Harvey said the next parcels are several lots owned by Efland Real Property,
45 LLC along Highway 70. He reviewed the existing zoning designations of the different parcels.
46 He said staff met with the Applicant on numerous occasions, and the Applicant has no interest
47 in maintaining the existing industrial, but wanted to maintain some non-residential activity on the
48 property. He said staff is recommending that all four parcels be zoned general commercial. He
49 said the simple establishment of a commercial zoning designation does not mean that the whole
50 property gets developed for commercial activity. He said the Applicant will be responsible for
51 maintaining all required land use buffers surrounding the property. He said there is no
5
1 development proposal for this lot currently. He said staff's recommendation is due to the
2 property's location in a commercial industrial transition zone, and this is a more acceptable land
3 use for the area in general versus existing industrial.
4 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this is part of the Efland Mebane Small Area Plan.
5 Michael Harvey said yes.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said the purpose, in part, for that Plan was to pre-plan for some
7 commercial development on this corridor, where there was existing infrastructure.
8 Michael Harvey said staff believes general commercial zoning allows for more flexibility.
9 Michael Harvey referred to the parcel of land off of Mt. Willing Road, saying it is zoned
10 commercial property, and staff is recommending it be re-zoned agricultural residential. He said
11 the Department of Transportation (DOT) owns this parcel. He said there may have been a
12 commercial entity at some point, but when DOT took the property the zoning was not re-
13 designated.
14 Michael Harvey referred to the next parcel, which is an existing automotive repair
15 business, off of highway 70. He said the majority of the property is zoned neighborhood-
16 commercial. He said staff is recommending that the entire parcel be zone neighborhood-
17 commercial. He said this property will also have to insure that the land use buffer is part of the
18 commercial lot.
19 Michael Harvey reviewed the remaining parcels of land, their zoning designations, and
20 any changes being proposed by staff.
21 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the process by which staff identified these parcels could
22 be explained, and if there are other parcels that may be brought forward in the future.
23 Michael Harvey said Attachment 3 shows that staff identified approximately 100
24 properties in the Bingham, Cheeks and Cedar Grove Townships, which had inconsistent or
25 messy zoning. He said the property owners were contacted to discuss the land, some of whom
26 expressed no interest in changing the zoning of their land. He said this is acceptable as long as
27 there is no inconsistency with the comprehensive plan. He said the other four townships will be
28 reviewed at a later date.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said this is all consistent with the Woods rezoning on Highway 70,
30 when the Board of County Commissioners asked staff to fix all of these properties. He said that
31 brought the need for rezoning to the County's attention years ago.
32 Michael Harvey said this project has been a long time coming and is not yet completed.
33 He said it has been important to involve the landowners in the discussion.
34 Commissioner Price agreed that this is excellent work.
35 Commissioner Price referred to the parcels with owners who do not want rezoning, and
36 asked if these properties were to be sold in the future, would the new owner be made aware of
37 the zoning inconsistencies.
38 Michael Harvey said anyone that buys property should ask about zoning, but staff will
39 work with anyone to insure the zoning is consistent. He said staff was given a specific direction
40 to look at zoning by the Board of County Commissioners, and if the residents choose not to take
41 advantage of this opportunity then the onus would be on the residents.
42 Chair McKee asked if any property owners, or other members of the public, would like to
43 speak.
44
45 PUBLIC COMMENT:
46 Rob Gray said it would be helpful to display the Ashwick neighborhood across from
47 Highway 70.
48 Michael Harvey said he did not have that map.
49 Rob Gray asked for a map of the property across from this location, where there is a golf
50 cart repair business. He said many of these rezoning suggestions make a lot of sense. He said
51 the property in the map he requested is located near a neighborhood called Ashwick. He said
6
1 he was unsure if this neighborhood's Home Owners Association (HOA) is aware of these
2 proposed changes. He asked if the proposed changes move forward, how does this affect the
3 homeowners adjacent to these properties and their property values. He also asked if zoning
4 could be more thoroughly explained, and what does this zoning classification include.
5 Chair McKee said there is no one here to answer his property value question.
6 Michael Harvey said, from a land use stand point, a manufacturing operation could be
7 built on this property under the current industrial zoning designation. He said if the parcel is re-
8 zoned general commercial, there could be a restaurant, office space, grocery store, retail, etc.
9 He said any development would have to go through the site plan approval process, demonstrate
10 compliance with the various set backs, parking, land use, etc.
11 Michael Harvey said there was a letter sent to the Ashwick HOA, as well as everyone
12 living within 1,000 feet.
13 Rob Gray said he did not mean to imply that there was no attempt to contact the HOA.
14 He said he is concerned about what can be built on this land under the new zoning designation,
15 and he suggested possibly breaking this up in different segments to review in greater detail.
16 Guerry Sterling Willis said she is also from Ashwick, and she found out about this topic
17 on Saturday. She said the homeowners are concerned about property values, congestion,
18 noise pollution, and water pollution.
19 Kimberly Gush said she also lives in the Ashwick Community and echoed the concerns
20 of the other two speakers.
21 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the parcel, to which the public is referring, is currently
22 under zoning that makes it vulnerable to the changes that the residents fear.
23 Michael Harvey said the current zoning allows for manufacturing operation on the
24 property, which is more detrimental then the general commercial zoning. He said there are
25 regulatory statutes in place that may address some of the resident's concerns. He said it his
26 opinion that there is a more reasonable zoning designation that is more consistent with the
27 current plans, policy and County vision for this area.
28 Commissioner Price said the general commercial zoning will also allow offices, and this
29 would be less intense than a manufacturing business.
30 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the total number of acres could be identified.
31 Michael Harvey said it is a total of four to five acres.
32 Chair McKee asked if this property will still be bound by the regulatory statutes in place
33 for parking, watershed, etc.
34 Michael Harvey said yes, and that also means compliance with the storm water
35 ordinance.
36 Chair McKee asked if the tract that has the golf cart repair business could be switched to
37 a manufacturing facility now.
38 Michael Harvey said yes, under the existing industrial zoning designation.
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
41 close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments
42 at a later date are permitted).
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 Commissioner Jacobs said this is being presented to the Board as a package, but asked
47 if one parcel could be removed.
48 Michael Harvey said yes, if the Board is specific.
49 Commissioner Jacobs said he approved what the staff did, but he does understand the
50 concerns of the Ashwick residents. He would like to afford the community the opportunity to ask
51 additional questions, and bring the item back at a later date.
7
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to:
3 a.) adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 6)
4 and Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 7), with the exception of the Efland Real
5 Property LLC properties: PIN 9844881230, 9844788137, 9844786242, 9844786236, which will
6 be held over for further discussion with the community, and be brought back to the Board of
7 County Commissioners no later than February 7tn
8
9 Commissioner Price asked if the community had been invited to the Planning Board
10 meeting.
11 Michael Harvey said letters were sent to residents that lived within 1,000 feet, including
12 the Ashwick HOA. He said staff met their obligation under the ordinance, and provided notice of
13 the Planning Board meetings and the Board of County Commissioners meetings.
14 Commissioner Price said she respected the residents, but felt that this has been going
15 on for a long time, and there have been opportunities for the neighborhoods to come to the
16 meetings. She said this new designation is making the area better.
17 Commissioner Dorosin referred to his question about keeping this parcel open, and
18 asked if options could be reviewed. He said this process was designed to clarify the zoning
19 based on what is actually on these properties now and avoid creating non-conforming uses. He
20 said the option of changing this property to general commercial is consistent with the fact that
21 there is some type of commercial operation on the property now.
22 Michael Harvey said when staff started meeting with the property owners there was
23 concern with an existing industrial operation or manufacturing operation in this particular area of
24 the County. He said rather than modifying or altering the existing industrial, staff was asked
25 about rezoning the area to general commercial. He said staff reviewed numerous studies of the
26 area, and found the suggestion was consistent with those documents, and moved forward with
27 the change. He said this brings the property more into compliance with the Efland-Mebane
28 Small Area Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
29 Commissioner Dorosin said the neighbors may want a residential zoning for this parcel,
30 but that would be an unrealistic expectation. He said continuing the conversation may lead to a
31 false hope.
32 Commissioner Jacobs said he agreed with both Commissioner Dorosin and
33 Commissioner Price, and he also thinks staff made good points. He said he knows from
34 experience that residents do not understand the process, and he would like to create another
35 forum for them to have a conversation with staff to be able to ask questions about how this
36 affects their community.
37 Commissioner Rich said she agreed with Commissioner Jacobs.
38 Chair McKee asked Craig Benedict, Planning Director, if he could identify how long it
39 would take to bring this item back, and if, during conversations with staff, the residents have
40 expressed a desire for any of the proposed changes.
41 Craig Benedict said when HOAs turnover from the developers to the HOAs, staff usually
42 has meetings with them. He said the Ashwick HOA has turned over again, and staff can meet
43 with the HOA to provide information and answer questions. He said staff did look at the existing
44 zoning, and feels the proposal is a better solution for the property owners and the
45 neighborhood.
46 Commissioner Pelissier said she is fine with delaying a vote on this set of properties, but
47 she would not want to wait until spring.
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
8
1 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
2 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding subdivision regulations and review
3 processes.
4
5 Patrick Mallett, Planner II, reviewed the abstract, the attachments and the background
6 information prior to the making a PowerPoint presentation.
7
8 BACKGROUND: In response to a BOCC petition, staff conducted a work session on February
9 18, 2016 to review current subdivision regulations and discuss opportunities for allowing for
10 more flexibility with respect to residential development in rural areas. The primary focus was to
11 develop opportunities for greater flexibility for the clustering of proposed lots with the
12 preservation of additional open space. Minutes from this meeting are contained in Attachment
13 4.
14
15 Community Outreach: As part of the outreach program, two open house meetings were held on
16 July 20, 2016 to solicit public input/comment on potential subdivision modifications. The
17 meetings were:
18 • From 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. with local land surveyors, developers, and property owners who
19 had gone through the existing subdivision review process. Approximately five people
20 were in attendance; and
21 • From 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. with local property owners. Approximately five people were in
22 attendance.
23
24 As a result of comments received during these various meetings, staff crafted an amendment
25 that:
26 i. Eliminates the "outdated" Cluster Development subdivision type as currently contained
27 in Section 7.12 of the UDO, and replaces it with a Flexible Design process.
28
29 ii. Allows for residential lots to be clustered smaller than the 40,000 sq. ft. limit as
30 detailed in Section 7.13.4 (B) (6) of the UDO with the preservation of additional common
31 open space area(s)within the subdivision.
32
33 iii. Allows for a maximum of 12 lots (vs. the current maximum of 5 lots with a
34 conventional design) to be allowed through the Minor Subdivision process if the property
35 owner/applicant chooses to go through the Flexible Design subdivision process.
36
37 iv. Maintains current density limits, but allows for added lots via more flexible design
38 requirements.
39
40 v. Mimics Flexible Designed provisions already permitted with Major Subdivisions within
41 County.
42
43 vi. Allows development to cluster in logical land use patterns that complement the
44 transition from urban to rural areas of the County.
45
46 The goal is to revise existing development standards in an effort to encourage purposeful
47 growth and development within the County in a cost efficient manner (e.g. shorted roads and
48 area cleared for residential lots), while promoting the perpetual maintenance/preservation of
49 common open space areas.
50
51 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
9
1 Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
2 contained in Attachment 2 and proposed UDO text amendment package contained in
3 Attachment 3.
4 Planning Board Recommendation: The text amendment was presented to the Planning Board's
5 Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) on September 7, 2016. Planning and Environmental
6 Health Staff presented materials related to conservation, open space, flexible design, and the
7 state's new guidelines for off-site individual septic systems. This item was then presented to the
8 Planning Board at its October 17, 2016 meeting. The Planning Board voted unanimously to
9 recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency contained in Attachment 2 and the UDO
10 text amendment package contained in Attachment 3.
11
12 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing
13 UDO Text Amendment
14 of Minor Subdivision Regulations — Item D.2
15 November 21, 2016
16
17 Goal of the Amendment
18 • As directed by the BOCC on February 18, 2016, Planning staff is proposing
19 amendments to the UDO, providing additional opportunities for the clustering of
20 subdivision lots and the preservation of open space.
21 • The proposed amendments align with Housing and Land Use Goals in the
22 Comprehensive Plan.
23 • This amendment addresses a petition by the Commissioners to encourage the clustering
24 of residential lots and preserve open space.
25
26 Objectives
27 1. Revise the sections of the UDO that conflict with other sections on flexible development
28 (i.e., a method of clustering); and
29 2. Offer additional opportunities in the UDO that encourage flexible development in rural
30 sections of Orange County.
31 Major UDO sections needing revision include:
32 • Section 2.14: Minor Subdivisions;
33 • Section 7.2.2: Minor Subdivisions;
34 • Section 7.8: Access and Roadways;
35 • Section 7.12: Cluster Developments;
36 • Section 7.13: Flexible Developments; and
37 • Section 10: Definitions
38
39 Benefits of Flexible Development (AKA Cluster Development)
40 • Conserve significant tracts of open space while still preserving development values.
41 • Encourage recreational uses, such as hiking and biking.
42 • Preserve the rural character.
43 • Create open space buffers between homes and adjacent agricultural uses.
44 • Decrease impervious surface and built-upon areas.
45
46 What This Amendment Will Not Do
47 • This amendment will not make changes to the Rural Buffer. Changing the Rural Buffer
48 would require amending the Joint Planning Agreement (JPA).
49 • It will not increase or decrease density limits or eliminate a conventional design option
50 for minor subdivisions.
10
1 • The amendment will not allow for community septic. It will allow for individual off-site
2 septic areas, with each septic area deeded to the lot it serves.
3
4 Revision Highlights
5 • Consolidate the Cluster Development subdivision types as currently contained in Section
6 7.12 with the Flexible Development subdivision type currently contained in Section 7.13.
7 • Revise existing language allowing for the use of individual off-site septic for wastewater
8 processing to mirror State guidelines.
9 • Revise the submittal and review processes and development requirements to give
10 greater flexibility to projects proposing clustering of lots and dedication of common open
11 space.
12 • Allow minor subdivisions using the Flexible Development Option to go up to 12 lots.
13 • Require a minimum of 33% open space (primary and/or secondary)for minor
14 subdivisions using the Flexible Development Option.
15 • Make the setback and lot width reductions allowed for Flexible Development apply to
16 both Minor and Major Subdivisions.
17 • Reduce the minimum lot size for minor subdivisions using the Flexible Development
18 Option in exchange for increases in open space:
19 ➢ 40,000 sq. ft. lot size = 33-39% Common Open Space
20 ➢ 30,000 sq. ft. lot size = 40-44% Common Open Space
21 ➢ 20,000 sq. ft. lot size = 45-49% Common Open Space
22 ➢ 15,000 sq. ft. lot size = 50-59% Common Open Space
23 ➢ 10,000 sq. ft. lot size = 60% + Common Open Space
24
25 Conventional Minor Subdivision Under Existing Regulations (5 Lots) (maps)
26
27 Flexible Design Minor Subdivision Under Existing Regulations (5 lots) (maps)
28
29 Flexible Design Minor Subdivision Under Proposed UDO Text Changes (8 lots) (maps)
30
31 Example: Glen Ellen in Concord, NH
32
33 PUBLIC OUTREACH
34 • Staff sent invitation letters to land surveyors/developers who do regular work in Orange
35 County.
36 • Staff hosted two public outreach and input sessions with land surveyors/developers and
37 the general public on July 20, 2016.
38 • The outreach meetings were advertised via press release on the Orange County
39 website.
40 • Staff has continued dialogue with residents and design professionals vested in this
41 amendment.
42 • Staff presented these materials to the Orange County Commission for the Environment
43 on October 10, 2016.
44
45 PROCESS
46 STEP ONE —Submit UDO Amendment Outline Form
47 • BOCC authorized Current Planning to proceed on May 5, 2016.
48 • Public outreach meetings were held after staff received authorization from
49 BOCC.
50 STEP TWO—Ordinance Review Committee Meeting
11
1 • The Ordinance Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment,
2 heard a presentation from Environmental Health on off-site septic systems, and
3 provided feedback to Planning staff at the ORC meeting on September 7, 2016.
4 STEP THREE — Planning Board Meeting
5 • The Planning Board reviewed the proposed text amendment and made a
6 recommendation to the BOCC in compliance with Section 2.8.8.
7 • The Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the text
8 amendment.
9 STEP FOUR—Quarterly Public Hearing
10 • After considering these recommendations, the BOCC will deliberate, certify the
11 record, close the public hearing, and render a final decision.
12
13 Recommendations
14 1. Receive the proposed amendments.
15 2. Conduct the public hearing and accept comment on the proposed amendments.
16 3. Close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
17 comments at a later date are permitted).
18 4. Decide on one of the following options:
19 a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
20 (Attachment 2) and Ordinance (Attachment 3);
21 b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date;
22 c. Refer the item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or
23 d. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 Effect of Denial on
24 Subsequent Applications of the UDO states that no application for the same or
25 similar amendment may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year
26 period begins on the date of denial.)
27
28 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the 5-12 minor subdivision, and clarified that a minor
29 subdivision can go up to 12 lots, if it clusters the lot and has open space, and if there is an entity
30 to manage that open space.
31 Patrick Mallett said yes. He said above the cap, there must be a proportional amount of
32 open space.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said it is not an increase of density, because most of these could
34 accomplish that density, but choose not to because of not wanting to fall into the major
35 subdivision category.
36 Patrick Mallett said yes.
37 Commissioner Dorosin said this is exciting.
38 Commissioner Rich agreed that she liked this proposal. She referred to page 1-63, and
39 asked if there is a reason that developers are only being encouraged to support connectivity,
40 and not strongly encouraged.
41 Patrick Mallett said the reality is that with subdivisions you look at the big picture and try
42 to look for opportunities for connectivity.
43 James Bryan said staff has to go by the ordinance, and the ordinance has to have very
44 clear standards. He said the Board of County Commissioners has discretion over projects but
45 staff does not, thus the word "encourage".
46 Commissioner Rich brought up her neighborhood, saying it flows nicely with the open
47 spaces. She said she hoped, when applicable, that all would encourage connectivity with open
48 spaces.
49 Patrick Mallett said this is in the context of a minor subdivision only, which can go up to a
50 maximum of 12 lots.
12
1 Commissioner Jacobs said he is supportive of this proposal. He said he did not hear the
2 attorney say the Board could not do it, but just that the Board must be specific in the ordinance.
3 He said being connected to contiguous open space could be required, unless it is not possible.
4 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 122-2-b3, and said the fire department used to
5 be on the list, but is not anymore. He asked if there is a reason why the fire department is no
6 longer included.
7 Patrick Mallett said there are other elements and newer standards that may change
8 these lists.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said being part of the process is where they came up with access
10 to a water resource and increasing the density in an area being served.
11 Patrick Mallett said part of that is covered with pedestrian oriented open space area,
12 which says an area cannot be blocked off without providing access.
13 Commissioner Price said when she was on the Planning Board they requested a Fire
14 Marshal or an Emergency Services member to be part of their development advisory committee.
15 Patrick Mallett said these departments are on the development advisory committee.
16 Commissioner Jacobs asked if all of these entities are on the committee.
17 Patrick Mallett said for the most part these entities participate, and it is in another part of
18 the ordinance.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said minor subdivisions do not require a public process, but a
20 major subdivision does. He asked Patrick Mallett if this is correct.
21 Patrick Mallett said yes. He said the main difference is that minor subdivisions are
22 usually on family owned lands.
23 Commissioner Jacobs said his concern would echo what just happened with Ashwick,
24 and that a minor subdivision will only come to the Board's notice when staff has already
25 approved it, since it is a staff process. He said he is favor of the concept, but asked if there is a
26 way to allow public involvement.
27 Patrick Mallett said with a minor subdivision of five units there are not neighborhood
28 meetings.
29 Commissioner Jacobs clarified that a 12 lot minor subdivision would be different.
30 Patrick Mallett said that is a valid point. He said staff routinely sees family land being cut
31 up into minor subdivisions, and he said this needs to be a bit more controlled. He said the other
32 scenario is two minor subdivisions, with five homes each, which have no public involvement.
33 Commissioner Jacobs said there should be a way to consider the feelings of the
34 neighbors when these minor subdivisions are created.
35 Michael Harvey said the motion could be amended to require a neighborhood meeting
36 for any subdivision proposing more than five lots.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said he is not trying to make things more difficult, but Michael
38 Harvey's proposal would satisfy his concerns without adversely affecting a developer's
39 streamlined process.
40 Patrick Mallett said theoretically there could be a neighborhood informational meeting in
41 the middle of the process, when a schematic plan can be shared.
42 Commissioner Pelissier said this proposal is a great step for the County, and helps
43 preserve rural character.
44 Commissioner Pelissier said she is reluctant to say that open spaces must connect with
45 existing streets. She said houses may be clustered in certain areas, and existing or planned
46 streets may be way on the other side of the open space. She would not want to see a road
47 going though the open space just to connect it to an existing road.
48 Patrick Mallett said a flexible development gives the connotation that it is a case-by-case
49 basis, and there can be a reasonable solution that does not force a situation that requires
50 connecting to a road that may or may not be appropriate or used.
13
1 Commissioner Jacobs said he did not take Commissioner Rich's comments to refer to
2 roads. He said he was not commenting on roads either, but rather contiguous open spaces. He
3 said he agreed with Commissioner Pelissier about roads.
4 Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Pelissier.
5 Commissioner Price referred to page 198, with additional submittal requirement and
6 scenic vistas. She asked if this is even enforceable, and, if not, why is it included.
7 Discussion ensued.
8 Chair McKee said most of these developments will be in isolated areas in rural Orange
9 County and on family lands. He said the Board does not want to make this an onerous process
10 for residents.
11 Patrick Mallett said one of the outcomes of the community outreach was that much of
12 the land is family owned, with ancestral ties. He said most families do not want to "sell the
13 farm," but rather want to carve out a portion of it to perhaps give to a relative. He said there can
14 be phasing done, which would allow some flexibility for the landowner to give land to relatives or
15 sell some land.
16
17 PUBLIC COMMENT:
18 Jay Zaragosa from Hillsborough said much of the County has overlay districts to deal
19 with impervious surfaces, and asked if this process could be explained within a cluster
20 development.
21 Patrick Mallett said subdivisions have a gross area, and there is an impervious surfaces
22 allocation based on the watershed. He said part of the subdivision process is to develop a set of
23 declarations, where allocations are made in the gross area to each individual lot, or to some
24 amenities in the open space. He said smaller lots do not need long driveways, and thus the
25 average impervious surface would go down.
26 Tom Heavner said this is a great proposal that preserves open space.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
29 close the public hearing. (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional comments
30 at a later date are permitted).
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to:
35
36 Direct staff to bring the matter back on a consent agenda after drafting the proposed
37 amendments that minor subdivision of more than five lots will have a neighborhood information
38 meeting & that open space will connect with contiguous open space on adjoining parcels.
39
40 James Bryan said the wording is important. He said the Board is asking the Planning
41 staff to come back with amendments with these proposed changes.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said he would be content to have this come back on a consent
43 agenda.
44 Commissioner Rich agreed.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 E. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
49
50 F. INFORMATION ITEMS
51
14
1 1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR)/Strategic Growth and Rural Conservation —
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
4 adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 Earl McKee, Chair
9
10 Donna Baker
11 Clerk to the Board
12
1
1 Attachment 4
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 December 5, 2016
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, December 5,
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, (incoming Commissioner) Mark Marcoplos, (retiring
14 Commissioner) Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
18 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
19 appropriately below)
20
21 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
22
23 Resolution of Commendation for Commissioner Bernadette Pelissier
24
25 Chair McKee read the resolution:
26
27 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
28 RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION
29 FOR COMMISSIONER BERNADETTE PELISSIER
30
31
32 WHEREAS, the residents of Orange County elected Bernadette Pelissier to the Board of
33 County Commissioners in 2008 and re-elected her in 2012; and,
34
35 WHEREAS, Bernadette Pelissier was elected Chair of the Board of Commissioners in 2011 and
36 again in 2012; and,
37
38 WHEREAS, Bernadette has proven herself to be a dedicated and effective public servant who
39 has gained the respect of all who have known her in both the public and private sectors; and
40
41 WHEREAS, prior to her election as a Commissioner, Bernadette served on the Orange County
42 Planning Board, Commission for the Environment, Special Transit Advisory Committee,
43 Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force, the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Council,
44 and also served in leadership roles as Chair of the Orange Chatham Sierra Club and Chair of
45 the OWASA Board; and
46
47 WHEREAS, during her tenure as an Orange County Commissioner, Bernadette Pelissier has
48 shared her talent for leadership and public service through her work on numerous committees,
49 boards, and task forces focusing on regional transportation, environmental protection, and
50 improving jail conditions; and
2
1
2 WHEREAS, she served on the Triangle Transit Board of Trustees, Orange County Board of
3 Health, Orange County Partnership for Young Children, Orange County Family Success
4 Alliance, GoTriangle, and Chair of the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness; and
5
6 WHEREAS, she served as a member of the North Carolina Association of County
7 Commissioners' Environment Steering Committee and the Justice and Public Safety Steering
8 Committee; and
9
10 WHEREAS, Bernadette has served on the Jail Alternative Work Groups and was recently
11 appointed for an Emeritus position on the Orange County Criminal Justice Advisory Council;
12 and
13
14 WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce awarded Bernadette Pelissier,
15 Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, with the 2011 Chair's Award for Public-
16 Private Partnership ; and
17
18 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners desire, on behalf of County officials
19 and employees, and the residents of Orange County, to express to Bernadette Pelissier their
20 deep appreciation and gratitude for the services rendered by her to the County over the past
21 eight years.
22
23 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Orange County Board of Commissioners offers
24 Bernadette our very best wishes for success, happiness, prosperity and good health in her
25 future endeavors.
26
27 This, the fifth day of December 2016.
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
30 approve the Resolution of Commendation for Commissioner Pelissier.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 Each Commissioner congratulated Commissioner Pelissier on her retirement and spoke
35 of highlights of their relationship with her as one of their Board members.
36 Commissioner Pelissier said being a public servant on this Board for the past eight
37 years has been a stupendous honor, and she thanked the public who voted for and supported
38 her along with her many peers over the years on this Board. She said being a County
39 Commissioner requires a personal support group as well, and she recognized her many family
40 members who were in attendance tonight. She highlighted two long lasting effects of Board of
41 County Commissioners decisions and one was the 1/4 cent sales tax and economic
42 development. She said there are two initiatives which are game changers going forward: one
43 is the Criminal Justice Advisory Council and the other is the Family Success Alliance.
44
45 Oaths of Office for Board Members
46 • Deputy Register of Deeds William Madden, aided by Former State Senator Ellie
47 Kinnaird, administered the oath to Commissioner-Elect Mark Marcoplos
48 • N.C. State Senator Angela Bryant administered the oath to Commissioner Mark Dorosin
49 • Superior Court Judge Carl Fox administered the oath to Commissioner Renee Price
3
1 • Town of Carrboro Mayor Lydia Lavelle administered the oath to Commissioner Penny
2 Rich
3 Board Organization
4
5 a. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair
6 The Clerk distributed the ballots for Chair and Vice Chair.
7 - Election of Chair: Chair Dorosin; VOTE: 7-0
8 - Election of Vice Chair: Commissioner Rich; VOTE -7-0
9
10 b. Designation of Voting Delegate for all NCACC and NACo Meetings for Calendar
11 Year December 1, 2016-2017
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
14 nominate Commissioner Price as the Voting Delegate for all NCACC and NACo Meetings for
15 Calendar Year December 1, 2016-2017.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 Appointments
20
21 a. Manager
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
24 appoint Bonnie Hammersley as the County Manager.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 b. Clerk to the Board
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
31 appoint Donna Baker as Clerk to the Board.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 c. County Attorney
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
38 appoint John Roberts as the County Attorney.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded Commissioner Burroughs to
45 move item 7-c to December 13th meeting.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to add
50 My Brother's Keeper Community Challenge Recommendations for Movement of Youth
4
1 (MOY) to be the lead agency for My Brother's Keeper (MBK) Orange Initiative to tonight's
2 agenda as Item 7-c.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Chair Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
7 - white sheet: PowerPoint for item 4-b
8 - white sheet: PowerPoint for item 7-d
9 - My Brother's Keeper item just added
10 - Purple sheet: Corrected replacement page for item 6-h
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to add
13 the substitute page 8 to Item 6-h Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) —
14 Approval of Membership and Capacity Numbers and to keep it on the consent agenda.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 PUBLIC CHARGE
19 Chair Dorosin read the Public Charge.
20
21 2. Public Comments
22
23 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
24 None
25
26 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
27 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
28 below.)
29
30 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
31 Commissioner Marcoplos had no announcements or petitions.
32 Commissioner Jacobs congratulated those who joined, or rejoined, the Board tonight.
33 He congratulated Attorney General-Elect Josh Stein and Governor-Elect Roy Cooper.
34 Commissioner Price petitioned the Board to confirm a date in March for a ribbon cutting
35 at the parking lot at Fairview Park. She asked if this event could be scheduled in coordination
36 with the Community Watch group.
37 Commissioner Price petitioned on behalf of resident Peggy Misch for the Board to issue
38 a proclamation for the Bill of Rights Day, and also for the Commissioners to consider passing a
39 Resolution in Support of the NC Commission of Inquiry on Torture.
40 Chair Dorosin said this item would be put on the next agenda.
41 Commissioner Rich had no announcements or proclamations.
42 Commissioner McKee said he enjoyed the two years as both vice chair and chair of this
43 Board.
44 Commissioner Burroughs welcomed Commissioner Marcoplos.
45
46 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
47
48 a. Resolution of Approval —Conservation Easement for Persimmon Hill Farm
5
1 The Board considered voting to approve a resolution to approve the acceptance by
2 Orange County of an agricultural conservation easement donation for Persimmon Hill Farm,
3 and authorizing the Chair to sign.
4 Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager, reviewed the background below:
5
6 BACKGROUND: The acquisition of conservation easements to protect highly important natural
7 and cultural resource lands in Orange County is a longstanding goal of the Board of
8 Commissioners, and is a priority of the Lands Legacy program. Since 2001, the County has
9 partnered with landowners and other entities to protect 2,153 acres of prime farmland and
10 natural areas with permanent conservation easements.
11
12 Over the past several months, DEAPR has worked with Bernadette Pelissier and Vann
13 Bennett on a project to conserve significant land and water resources at the Persimmon Hill
14 Farm located at 8403 NC Highway 86 (Cedar Grove Township). The owners grow organic
15 blueberries and lease portions of the farm out for a variety of row crops and vegetables.
16
17 The 90-acre farm (comprised of three adjacent parcels) is located in the South Hyco Creek
18 Protected Watershed, within which an agricultural conservation easement would have a dual
19 effect of protecting prime farmland and surface water quality. The farm drains to Roxboro
20 Lake, which supplies drinking water for residents of the City of Roxboro and Person County.
21
22 The owners intend to grant a permanent conservation easement that will restrict future
23 development to protect prime farmland soils and forested riparian buffers, as well as scenic
24 views of the farm from NC 86 and Burton Road.
25
26 DEAPR Staff and the County Attorney have worked with the owners to prepare an agreement
27 that meets their needs and the County's interests. There are two existing residences on the 90-
28 acre property— a farmhouse with outbuildings and a rental house. The easement will allow the
29 construction of one future residence and prohibit future subdivision of the property. The
30 easement will also protect forested stream buffers located throughout the farm. All other non-
31 agricultural development rights will be extinguished through the conservation easement. Future
32 farm activities will be in accordance with a Conservation Plan prepared for this farm by the
33 Orange Soil & Water Conservation District and updated periodically. DEAPR staff will monitor
34 the property on an annual basis. A copy of the draft easement agreement is attached along
35 with maps showing the property outlined in red.
36
37 Bonnie Hammersley recognized that Rich Shaw would be retiring at the end of
38 December, and this would be his last formal presentation to the Board.
39
40 Agricultural Conservation Easement
41 Persimmon Hill Farm
42
43 Conservation Easement:
44 ➢ Perpetual easement
45 ➢ Rights of privacy
46 ➢ Right to farm
47 ➢ Agricultural buildings/structures
48 ➢ 1 future home site
49 ➢ No subdivision
50
6
1 Persimmon Hill Farm
2 The landowners will donate the conservation easement to Orange County (Bernadette Pelissier
3 and Vann Bennett). The owners will retain the rights to: privacy, farm the land, build new
4 agricultural buildings, expand existing buildings, and one future home site on the property.
5 There will be no future subdivisions on the property.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
8 for the Board to adopt the resolution approving the acceptance by Orange County of the
9 conservation easement, and authorize the Chair and the Clerk to sign the conservation
10 easement agreement, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney, with a closing and
11 recordation of the document expected to occur on or about December 15, 2016.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 b. Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program - Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural
16 District Designations - Multiple Farms - Bonham; Mulligan/Carter; Myers; Lloyd; &
17 Brooks
18 The Board considered voting to approve applications from multiple landowners/farms to
19 certify qualifying farmland within the Schley/Eno, Cedar Grove, New Hope, and High
20 Rock/Efland Voluntary Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County
21 Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD)
22 programs.
23
24 Gail Hughes, Soil Conservationist, reviewed the following information and PowerPoint
25 presentation:
26
27 Orange County's Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program was started in 1992. To date, 73
28 farms have enrolled in the Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) program and the Enhanced
29 Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) program, totaling 10,917 acres (rounded) in the program.
30
31 The County's Voluntary Farmland Protection Ordinance (VFPO) outlines a procedure for the
32 Agricultural Preservation Board to review and approve applications for qualifying farmland, and
33 to make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners concerning the establishment and
34 modification of agricultural districts. Section VII of the VFPO contains the requirements for
35 inclusion in a voluntary agricultural district. To be certified as qualifying farmland, a farm must:
36 a) Be located in the unincorporated area of Orange County;
37 b) Be engaged in Agriculture as that word is defined in NC GS 106-581.1
38 c) Be certified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States
39 Department of Agriculture as being a farm on which at least two-thirds of the land is
40 composed of soils that are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber,
41 forestry
42 products, horticultural crops and oil seed crops;
43 d) Be managed in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and NC
44 Soil and Water Conservation Service defined erosion-control practices that are
45 addressed to said highly-erodible land; and have a current conservation farm plan and/or
46 forestry management plan associated with the current usages and owner; and
47 e) Be the subject of a non-binding conservation agreement, as defined in N.C.G.S. §121-35,
48 between the County and the owner that prohibits non-farm use or development of such
49 land for a period of at least ten years, except for the creation of not more than three lots
50 that meet applicable County zoning and subdivision regulations.
7
1
2 The Agricultural Preservation Board reviewed the findings of the staff assessments for the
3 applications for the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District program at the September
4 and November 2016 meetings. All farm applications were reviewed and verified to have met or
5 exceeded the minimum criteria for certification into the program. The Agricultural Preservation
6 Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the certification for the five (5) farms,
7 including 547 acres (rounded) of farmland, and their inclusion in the Voluntary and/or Enhanced
8 Voluntary Agricultural District program. The certification documentation is on file in the
9 DEAPR/Soil and Water Conservation District office. The farms are described briefly below:
10
11 Brief Farm Descriptions:
12 1) Owners Paul and Patricia Bonham have submitted an application to enroll two (2)
13 parcels of land totaling 116.85 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary Agricultural
14 District program (VAD) in the Schley/Eno Agricultural District. The farm operation
15 includes hay crops, pasture, wildlife habitat, and managed woodland. The Bonham
16 property has been evaluated against each of the VAD certification requirement
17 standards and meets or exceeds all of the measures above.
18
19 2) Owners Michael Milligan and Alicia Carter have submitted an application to enroll two
20 (2) parcels of land totaling 31.87 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary
21 Agricultural District program (VAD) in the New Hope Agricultural District. The farm
22 operation includes managed woodland, Christmas trees, pumpkins, and chickens. The
23 Mulligan/Carter property has been evaluated against each of the VAD certification
24 requirement standards and meets or exceeds all of the measures above.
25
26 3) Owner Beth Myers has submitted an application to enroll one (1) parcel of land totaling
27 of
28 12.15 acres as qualifying farmland for the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District
29 (EVAD) program located in the Cedar Grove Agricultural District. The farm includes
30 seasonal vegetables; such as tomatoes, peppers, onions, etc.; and also managed
31 woodland. The farm has been evaluated against each of the EVAD certification
32 requirement standards and meets or exceeds all of the measures above.
33
34 4) Owners Andrew B. Lloyd and Andy Lloyd have submitted an application to enroll four (4)
35 parcels of land totaling 271.49 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary Agricultural
36 District (VAD) program in the High Rock/Efland Agricultural District. The farm operation
37 includes soybeans, small grains, and hay crops. The farm also includes managed
38 woodland. The Lloyd Farm property has been evaluated against each of the VAD
39 certification requirement standards and meets or exceeds all of the measures above.
40
41 5) Owners Dennis and Linda Brooks have submitted an application to enroll two (2)
42 parcels of land totaling 113.84 acres as qualifying farmland for the Enhanced Voluntary
43 Agricultural District (EVAD) program in the New Hope Agricultural District. The farm
44 operation includes beef cattle, horses, pastures, and hay crops. The farm also includes
45 managed woodland. The Brooks Farm has a Conservation Easement with Orange
46 County on the farm, and installed riparian buffers along the streams through their
47 property to protect Hillsborough's water supply. The Brooks Farm has been evaluated
48 against each of the VAD certification requirement standards and meets or exceeds all of
49 the measures above.
50
8
1 Orange County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program
2 Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural Program
3 Orange County Board of Commissioners Meeting
4 December 5, 2016
5
6 Orange County VAD/EVAD Program
7 Benefits of Agricultural Districts
8 > Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) is a 10 year commitment for farm to be in active
9 farm production, but the landowner can withdraw from the VAD at any time, for any
10 reason, with a 30 day notification to the Agri. Preservation Board.
11 > Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) is an irrevocable 10 year
12 commitment to be in active farm production, therefore the "enhanced" qualifies farm for
13 up to 90% cost share rates and a priority for state and federal grants funds.
14
15 Benefits include:
16 > Makes public more aware of the local agricultural and its vital role in the economics of
17 the county;
18 > Recorded notice of agricultural district property is recorded at County Land Records
19 office;
20 > Land search on all properties within a 1/2 mile radius has notification of the agricultural
21 status, therefore, the agricultural landowner has increased protection from nuisance
22 lawsuits.
23 > Agricultural Preservation Board can request public hearings for proposed condemnation
24 of VAD land and utility assessments may be suspended or waived on EVAD land if not
25 connected to the utility.
26 > Farm may receive up to 25% of gross sales from the sale of non-farm products and still
27 maintain its zoning exemption as a bona fide farm. (EVAD only)
28 > VAD District signs are placed on farms, for public to know location of VAD/EVAD farms.
29
30 Paul and Patricia Bonham
31 Schley/Eno Agricultural District
32 Farm includes hay crops, pasture, wildlife habitat, and woodland/forestry acres
33 VAD = 116.85 acres (2 parcels)
34
35 Michael Milligan and Alicia Carter
36 New Hope Agricultural District
37 Farm includes pumpkins, Christmas trees, chickens, and managed woodland/forestry acres.
38 VAD = 31.87 acres
39 (2 parcels)
40
41 Beth Myers
42 Cedar Grove Agricultural District
43 Farm includes seasonal vegetables; tomatoes, peppers, onions, cabbages, etc.
44 EVAD = 12.15 acres
45 (1 parcel)
46
47 Andrew B. Lloyd and Andy Lloyd
48 Lloyd Dairy Farm
49 High Rock/Efland Agricultural District
50 Farm includes soybeans, small grain and hay crops, and managed forestry/woodland.
9
1 VAD= 271.49 acres
2 (4 parcels)
3
4 Dennis and Linda Brooks
5 Rocking B Farm
6 New Hope Agricultural District
7 Farm includes beef cattle, horses, pastures, and hay crops.
8 EVAD =113.84 acres *
9 (2 parcels)
10 *Since 2012- Farm is in permanent Conservation Easement with Orange Co. and the State of
11 NC, protecting Hillsborough water supply by excluding livestock and adding riparian buffers to
12 all the streams on the farm.
13
14 Orange County
15 Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary
16 Agricultural Program
17 • Requesting approval from Commissioners to accept five (5) farms into the program.
18 • 421* acres in the Voluntary Agricultural District program
19 • 126* acres in the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District program
20 • If approved, total of acres increase in both programs= 547 acres*
21 • * = rounded acres
22
23 Overview Map
24 December 2016
25 VAD = 9320 acres
26 EVAD = 2144 acres
27 Total Acres = 11,464*
28 = rounded acres
29
30 Commissioner Rich thanked Gail Hughes for hosting the first VAD breakfast last week.
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the
33 Board to certify the five (5) farm properties noted above totaling 421 acres (VAD) and 126 acres
34 (EVAD) (rounded acreage) as denoted in the attached documentation as qualifying farmland;
35 designate them as a Voluntary or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District farm within the
36 Schley/Eno, Cedar Grove, New Hope, and High Rock/Efland Voluntary Agricultural Districts;
37 and enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the
38 Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) programs. With approval of these additional
39 acres, the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District Program will have enrolled 78 farms,
40 totaling 9,320 acres in the VAD and 2,144 acres in the EVAD for a total of 11,464 acres
41 (rounded) in the program.
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 5. Public Hearings
46
47 a. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments — Hillsborough Economic
48 Development District
10
1 The Board considered voting to delay consideration and continue the public hearing on
2 government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO related to the Hillsborough Economic
3 Development District until December 13, 2016.
4
5 Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, said the action tonight is to delay this
6 action, and the next item tonight as the recommendations indicate.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
9 for the Board to delay consideration and continue the public hearing until the December 13,
10 2016 BOCC meeting.
11
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 b. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Hillsborough Economic Development District
15 The Board considered voting to delay consideration and continue the public hearing on
16 government-initiated amendments to the Zoning Atlas until December 13, 2016 on an
17 amendment involving five parcels south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Old Highway 86 and
18 adjacent interstate right-of-way.
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
21 for the Board to delay consideration and continue the public hearing until the December 13,
22 2016 BOCC meeting.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 6. Consent Agenda
27
28 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Chair McKee to remove
31 itemsi, j, k, l, m .
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
36 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
37 approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
38
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
42
43 i. Technical Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of Projects for School Impact Fee
44 Collection Purposes
45 Perdita Holtz said at the November 15th Board of County Commissioners meeting the
46 Board adopted updated impact fee allowances, and also asked staff to come back with more
47 information on the grandfathering.
48
49 PUBLIC COMMENT:
11
1 Adam Golden reviewed the following information, which he provided to the Board via
2 email:
3
4 My name is Adam Golden, and I am a Vice President of Development with Northwood Ravin.
5 am also an Orange County resident living on Bayview Drive in Chapel Hill. Our firm is the
6 owner and developer of two large mixed-use residential projects currently underway in Chapel
7 Hill - Carraway Village (formerly The Edge) on Eubanks Road, which is preparing to start, and
8 Carolina Square on Franklin Street currently under construction. Over the last 15 years our firm
9 has developed several other Chapel Hill apartment communities - Chapel Watch Village,
10 Chapel Hill North, Cosgrove Hill, Apartments at Meadowmont, and Dobbins Hill Phase I and II.
11
12 I am writing you to express our serious concern over the current language in the Action Agenda
13 Item No. 6-I, specifically the Technical Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of Projects for
14 School Impact Fee Collection Purposes. As drafted, the grandfathering provision would
15 exclude our project though we believe you intend to include it, and it will have a severe financial
16 impact on our Carraway Village project. We have been working in earnest with the Town of
17 Chapel Hill for more than 4 years and have secured both our Special Use Permit and our
18 Zoning Compliance Permit as well as have been the recipient of the Town's first economic
19 incentive grant.
20
21 To accomplish your expressed desire to grandfather projects like ours who received their
22 permits in 2016, please consider our addition proposed below so that your Technical Resolution
23 adequately covers projects like Carraway Village.
24
25 Our firm has been participating in the School Impact Fee increase discussion since it was first
26 brought forward several months ago, and we were pleased to participate in the recent
27 stakeholder meeting to discuss grandfathering with your staff, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
28 Chamber, Home Builders and the Triangle Apartment Association.
29
30 We understand the need to increase the fee, and we believe your intent was to grandfather
31 projects that have been working their way through the development process and were unaware
32 of, and had not been budgeting for, impact fee increases. We were looking forward to the
33 technical solution that would grandfather projects like Carraway Village, but when we received
34 the proposed resolution late Friday, we quickly realized the current proposal does not work for
35 lame-scale projects.
36
37 While the current provisions may be suitable for smaller projects, the timing provision added
38 that requires i) receiving building permits 180 days from application, and ii) receiving certificates
39 of occupancy 365-days from building permit issuance create significant issues for large-scale
40 complicated mixed-use projects such as ours.
41
42 Time frames to submit a building permit application are within our control, but time frames to
43 actually obtain building permits on large-scale projects are not. Receiving a building permit for
44 a project our size can easily take 6 months or more to obtain. For example, building permits at
45 our Carolina Square project took exactly 6 months to obtain, and that was with the Town
46 working hard to help us expedite the approval. In Chapel Hill, many large projects are required
47 to be reviewed first by the North Carolina Department of Insurance (NCDOI), and then by
48 Town's Inspections Department. The NCDOI review times are 8-10 weeks for each review, and
49 often multiple reviews are required to obtain approval. This time is in addition to the Town
50 Inspection Department review times. Limited review staffs, project backlogs if several large
12
1 projects come in at the same time and building code changes enacted mid-stream, are just
2 some of the other factors that can delay permit issuance.
3
4 Time frames to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) on large projects are even harder to
5 predict, and can vary on variety of factors some of which are completely out of our control. For
6 example, the construction schedule of the 400-unit first phase of Carraway Village is projected
7 at 30 months (well beyond the 365 days your draft Technical Resolution contemplated —this is
8 from start to final C/O (note: this also assumes there are no unforeseen weather or site
9 conditions that further delay construction).
10
11 Another example is our Special Use Permit approval, which requires that, prior to the 2nd C/O
12 being issued, all road improvements on Eubanks Road and the Martin Luther King, Jr.
13 intersection be complete and accepted by NCDOT. Unforeseen weather or underground
14 conditions, and NCDOT review and inspection delays could all cause significant impacts to our
15 schedule, which would directly impact our ability to obtain C/O's. Carraway Village is a very
16 large project, and the Special Use Permit includes 109 stipulations specific to the project, many
17 of which are directly tied to issuance of final C/O's.
18
19 We believe there is a simple solution to cover lamer-scale projects (proposed below) that would
20 meet both the County's needs to having a definitive end date on grandfathering, and allow a
21 complicated project like Carraway Village to move through the approval and construction
22 process without having hurdles that are risky or unachievable.
23
24 Proposed Addition:
25 Add a 3rd paragraph to current draft resolution covering large-scale projects (defined as 100+
26 units), which keeps the currently proposed end date and requires the fee be paid by then, but
27 removes the requirements we cannot control, specifically issuance of building permits and
28 C/O's.
29
30 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT projects of 100-units in size or greater
31 for which a Zoning Compliance Permit has been issued prior to January 1,
32 2017 and for which a building permit application has been submitted prior
33 to January 1, 2018 may choose to pay either the public school impact fee
34 that was in effect for 2016 for the housing type(s) proposed in the
35 application or the fee required by the public school impact fee schedule in
36 section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of
37 Ordinances, provided the fee is paid prior to June 30, 2019.
38
39 As additional background, I thought it might also be helpful to provide a quick summary of our
40 Carraway Village project to help illustrate how much time, effort and investment has gone into
41 the current project, and also highlight the net benefits to the County in tax revenue:
42
43 Carraway Village
44 - Special Use Permit approved for 935,290 sf
45 - Designed as mixed-use village, approved uses: Residential, Retail, Office, Hotel
46 - Phase I ZCP approved for 400 apartment units, and 8,800 sf of ground floor commercial
47 space
48 - Current tax value of 54-acres: $3,133,000
49 - Current Orange County Annual Tax: $27,500/yr
50 - Projected Value of Phase I: $50,000,000+
13
1 - Projected Orange County Tax Phase I: $439,000+/yr
2 - Projected Additional Value of future phases: $30,000,000 - 60,000,000
3 - Projected Orange County Tax future phases: $263,000 —526,000/yr
4
5 Project Milestones:
6 ❑ 2008-Developing the 54-acres Carraway Village site becomes a Town of Chapel Hill
7 Economic Development initiative
8 ❑ 2012-Our firm became the 4th development group to get involved, all others had walked
9 away
10 ❑ 2013-12-months of working with NCDOT/Town Transportation to figure out road
11 improvements to Eubanks Road/Intersection
12 -Determined road cost of$3-4M, approached Town for financial help with road
13 improvements
14 02014-Submitted our Special Use Permit
15 02015-Special Use Permit approved, but question of Town's help with road costs pushed
16 post-SUP
17 ❑ 201 6-Submitted our Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase I (400 apartments, 8,500 sf
18 commercial), and road work
19 -Economic Development Incentive Agreement for help with road costs
20 approved/executed November 7, 2016
21 -Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase I approved on November 28, 2016
22 -Building design underway for Phase
23
24 Again, we request you please consider adding the above provision to the resolution.
25 Aaron Nelson, Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said he worked with Mr.
26 Golden on the above information, and this is a technical issue. He hoped that the Board would
27 adopt the proposed draft above, and send it back to staff for review, etc.
28 Commissioner Marcoplos said their request is within the spirit of what the Board was
29 trying to accomplish, and needs more review. He suggested scheduling this item for a future
30 meeting, after staff review.
31 Commissioner McKee agreed that the Board should at least consider this.
32 Commissioner Price asked if there are any legal ramifications to paying early.
33 John Roberts said no, but he recommended deferring this item to December 13th to give
34 staff time to review this.
35 Commissioner Rich asked if there are more large projects like this one.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said he is willing to have staff to review this, but he also does not
37 want this available as an ad infinitum opportunity going forward. He said the Chamber is
38 helping some entities that are large, while others are not receiving help; and he wanted to be
39 fair to all. He said there should be some limits. He hoped staff would look at a reasonable
40 compromise.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
43 bring this agenda item back on December 13th after staff and attorney reviews.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 6-j, k, I, m — Emergency Services Franchise Agreements
14
1 Kim Woodard, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Operations Manager, said these are
2 the first readings of the three convalescent ambulance services, and South Orange Rescue
3 Squad (SORS) is also applying for a renewal in Orange County.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said there was a time when Orange County EMS was called to
5 provide ambulance services. He said people were afraid to call because they could not pay
6 their bills, so Orange County developed a process to assist these will lower incomes. He said
7 he would like to track if paying for ambulance services is a problem for Orange County
8 residents, and review this in the future in case they need to subsidize this service for private
9 providers.
10 Kim Woodard said EMS would look into this.
11 Chair Dorosin asked if it would be reasonable to include a letter that goes with the
12 contract noting the concerns of the Board of County Commissioners, and that the issue will be
13 monitored.
14 John Roberts said yes.
15 Commissioner McKee asked if there are options either through the Department of Social
16 Services (DSS) or Health Department to help to pay these bills.
17 Kim Woodard said there is a service in place to address this issue. She said she has
18 made many referrals to this program with DSS, and it has been widely used and is only
19 applicable to Orange County residents.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to ask
22 staff to draw up a letter to attach to the contracts to indicate the Board's concerns, and to
23 approve all of the franchise agreements.
24
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 A motion was made by Chair Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to re-
28 consider item 6-g.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 6-g —Orange County Property Naming Policy
33 The Board considered approving the amended the Orange County Property Naming
34 Policy as directed by the BOCC at the November 10, 2016 work session.
35 Chair Dorosin said he wanted to vote against this policy, as he believes that it is overly
36 restrictive about naming facilities after those who are still alive.
37 Commissioner Price said the policy was changed to include living people.
38 Chair Dorosin said the exceptions in the ordinance read that if "one has made a
39 significant contribution to the development or the construction of a public building or facility" and
40 he finds this too narrow. He said it should say living persons who have made a significant
41 contribution to the life and well being of Orange County.
42 Commissioner Burroughs suggested that Commissioner Dorosin offer an amendment to
43 the policy.
44 Commissioner Price agreed and said that she thought Commissioner Dorosin's point
45 had already been accommodated in the policy previously.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
48 amend section 2.1.5b to say: living persons who secure funding and/or make a significant
49 contribution to the life and well-being of Orange County.
50
15
1 Commissioner Rich said she questioned why a building would be honored after a living
2 person who had no relationship with the building.
3
4 VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Rich)
5
6 a. Minutes
7 The Board approved the minutes from October 6 (Joint Meeting with Fire Depts. and Work
8 Session), 13 and 18, 2016 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
9 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
10 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
11 property tax values for seven taxpayers with a total of seven bills that will result in a reduction of
12 revenue in accordance with NCGS.
13 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
14 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
15 values for eleven (11) taxpayers with a total of thirty-six (36) bills that will result in a reduction of
16 revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
17 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
18 The Board considered eleven untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
19 taxation for ten bills for the 2016 tax year.
20 e. Next Generation A9-1-1 Backup PSAP Connection and Call Service Delivery
21 The Board approved an amendment to the Next Generation A9-1-1 Solutions agreement,
22 originally approved by the BOCC on October 7, 2014, to provide connectivity between the
23 backup 911 Center and the primary 911 Center and authorized the use of Emergency
24 Telephone funds to fund the necessary hardware and software and authorized the Manager to
25 sign.
26 f. Bid Award for a Compact Wheel Loader for Recycling
27 The Board awarded a bid to Gregory Poole Equipment of Raleigh, North Carolina for one (1)
28 Compact Wheel Loader at a delivered cost of $131,145, for the Recycling Division of the Solid
29 Waste Management Department.
30 g. Orange County Property Naming Policy
31 The Board approved the amended the Orange County Property Naming Policy as directed by
32 the BOCC at the November 10, 2016 work session. (See above.)
33 h. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Approval of Membership
34 and Capacity Numbers
35 The Board approved the November 15, 2016 membership and capacity numbers for both
36 school districts (Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools)which will be used in
37 developing 10-year student membership projections and the 2017 SAPFO Technical Advisory
38 Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report.
39 i. Technical Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of Projects for School Impact Fee
40 Collection Purposes
41 The Board considered adopting a technical resolution regarding grandfathering of projects for
42 collection of recently adopted updates to school impact fees. (See above.)
43 j. First Reading: Emergency Services Franchise by Ordinance - First Choice Medical
44 Transport, LLC
45 The Board approved on First Reading the granting of a franchise by Ordinance to First Choice
46 Medical Transport, LLC (First Choice) and the Franchise Agreement under which it will operate
47 — approval on "first reading" is based on State law requirements that a franchise by ordinance
48 pass two readings in order to be granted by the Board of Commissioners. (See above.)
49 k. First Reading: Emergency Services Franchise by Ordinance - North State Medical
50 Transport
16
1 The Board approved on First Reading the granting of a franchise by ordinance to North State
2 Investment Group, LLC d/b/a North State Medical Transport (North State) and the Franchise
3 Agreement under which it will operate — approval on "first reading" is based on State law
4 requirements that a franchise by ordinance pass two readings in order to be granted by the
5 Board of Commissioners. (See above.)
6 I. First Reading: Emergency Services Franchise by Ordinance - LifeStar Emergency
7 Services -2023, LLC
8 The Board approved on First Reading the granting of a franchise by ordinance to LifeStar
9 Emergency Services - 2023, LLC (LifeStar) and the Franchise Agreement under which it will
10 operate — approval on "first reading" is based on State law requirements that a franchise by
11 ordinance pass two readings in order to be granted by the Board of Commissioners. (See
12 above.)
13 m. First Reading: Emergency Services Franchise by Ordinance — South Orange Rescue
14 Squad, Inc.
15 The Board approved on First Reading the granting of a franchise by ordinance to South Orange
16 Rescue Squad, Inc. (SORS) and the Franchise Agreement under which it will operate —
17 approval on "first reading" is based on State law requirements that a franchise by ordinance
18 pass two readings in order to be granted by the Board of Commissioners. (See above)
19
20 7. Regular Agenda
21
22 a. Recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee
23 The Board received the recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee, which
24 include rules regulating the safe discharge of firearms in Orange County and establishing an
25 educational campaign to increase awareness of firearms safety issues and deliberate as
26 necessary.
27 John Roberts reviewed the background information:
28
29 BACKGROUND: This item was presented in similar form at the January 21, 2016 meeting by
30 Orange County Planning Staff as an amendment to the Orange County Code of Technical
31 Ordinances ("UDO") recommended by the Planning Board and at the February 16, 2016
32 meeting.
33
34 No decision on the item was made at those meetings and subsequently the Board of County
35 Commissioners ("BOCC") created the Firearms Safety Committee to consider issues related to
36 firearms safety and make a recommendation to the BOCC.
37
38 The Firearms Safety Committee met multiple times from June through October and developed
39 recommendations. The proposed recommendations include (see attachment for full listing):
40 • An amendment to the Code of Ordinances that includes provisions prohibiting the
41 discharge of firearms while an individual is impaired, maintaining adequate backstops
42 for projectiles, and requires discharged projectiles to remain on the property on which
43 they are discharged.
44 • A recommendation that the BOCC direct the Department of Social Services and/or
45 Health Department to develop and distribute educational material on gun safety.
46 • A recommendation that the County collaborate with public and private organizations to
47 increase firearms safety awareness through training and distribution of safety materials.
48
17
1 The Firearms Safety Committee by consensus unanimously recommended the firearms safety
2 education and awareness items. The Committee voted 6-1 in favor of recommending the
3 proposed ordinance.
4
5 Section. 24-3. - Regulating the Discharge of Firearms.
6 (a) This Section is enacted pursuant to the authority of N.C.G.S. 153A-129. This Section
7 shall be interpreted in accordance with any sections of the North Carolina General
8 Statutes which, by their terms, limit the authority of the County to regulate the discharge
9 of firearms.
10 (b) Firearm as referenced herein shall mean any handgun, shotgun, or rifle which expels a
11 projectile by the ignition of gunpowder or by other explosive reaction.
12 (c) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm except into a natural or constructed
13 backstop adequate to stop the projectile. This subsection shall not apply to trapshooting,
14 skeet shooting, and sporting clays when such activities are undertaken through use of a
15 shotgun.
16 (d) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm carelessly or heedlessly in disregard
17 for the safety of others.
18 (e) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm in any manner that causes the
19 projectile to leave the property on which it is discharged. This subsection shall not apply
20 when the person discharging the firearm has written permission for such activity from
21 the person on whose property the projectile comes to rest. The document demonstrating
22 written permission must be immediately available at the time of the discharge and shall
23 be provided to any investigating officer.
24 (f) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm after that person has consumed
25 alcohol or any other impairing substance. As used in this paragraph, an impairing
26 substance is defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-4.01. A conforming alcohol screening
27 device may be used to detect the presence of alcohol. A conforming alcohol screening
28 device is any device listed in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's
29 Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Alcohol Measurement Devices as
30 published in the Federal Register and as that list may be amended from time to time. An
31 investigating officer may ascertain the consumption of an impairing substance or any
32 level of impairment in any lawful manner.
33 (g) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prohibiting the discharge of a firearm:
34 (1) When used for lawful hunting activities pursuant to Chapter 113, Subchapter IV; or
35 (2) When used in defense of person or property; or
36 (3) When used pursuant to lawful directions of law-enforcement officers.
37 (h) A violator of this Section shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor punishable by a fine
38 of up to five hundred dollars ($500.00). A violation of this Section may subject the
39 violator to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars ($500.00). All assessed penalties
40 may be recovered in any manner authorized by law and, if not paid within thirty (30)
41 days, may be recovered in the nature of debt.
42
43 Commissioner McKee noted that the group spent about four months on this issue,
44 including many conversations and effort. He said the Committee has brought a
45 recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said the group was very amicable despite their many differences,
47 and people tried to understand others' positions and to work toward a consensus. He said the
48 only place where communication broke down was when excessive noise from gunfire was
49 discussed.
50 Chair Dorosin thanked the committee and Facilitator Andy Sachs.
18
1
2 PUBLIC COMMENT:
3 Ann Crawford said she is in favor of section 24.3, and would like to see the noise clause
4 (g) reinstated. She said her neighborhood is disturbed by loud gunfire, which is upsetting to the
5 residents, as well as dangerous to children and pets.
6 Cathy Cole provided a hand out, and she agreed with Ann Crawford
7 Riley Ruske is not supportive of this ordinance, and feels the Board of Commissioners is
8 trying to infringe on residents' second amendment rights.
9 Lisa Price said she is glad that the Board of County Commissioners is addressing
10 firearms safety in Orange County, and she also hopes the portion addressing excessive noise
11 is reinstated.
12 Becky Ceartas is the Director of N.0 Against Gun Violence, and urged the Board of
13 County Commissioners to adopt this proposed ordinance, and reinstate article "g" about noise.
14 Gilbert Carnathan said he attended some of the meetings, and the recommendation are
15 prudent and promote safety and firearm safety education. He said he believed that section "g"
16 should be added back in, and the Board of County Commissioners should adopt the ordinance.
17 Rollin Russell said the right to bear arms is constitutional and he supports that right, but
18 he also believes in sensible regulation to protect all citizens. He said he hoped the Board would
19 make the best decision for the residents of Orange County.
20 Greg Andrews said he is here on behalf of the residents in Efland, where turkey shoots
21 are held for fund raising purposes. He said he is concerned that this ordinance may affect that
22 tradition, and that it infringes on the right to bear arms. He said he does not support the
23 reinstatement of article g.
24 Ashley Campbell commended the committee for its work. She said the most important
25 topic discussed was firearms safety in Orange County. She said an ordinance is not really
26 needed but if the Board wants one, then the one presented is reasonable.
27 Don O'Leary said this ordinance is reasonable, and the question of noise is tricky. He
28 said those living in rural areas should expect reasonable gunfire, as it is a way of life.
29 Jack Hunnell said he served on this committee, and the Board of County
30 Commissioners did a great job of appointing a diverse group to tackle this issue.
31 Commissioner McKee said the better part of most of the meetings was used to try and
32 define noise. He said he told the committee if it could not come to a decision about noise, the
33 Board of County Commissioners could, and would, through other avenues. He said the motion
34 to remove the section on noise was made by one who wanted it included, and that removing it
35 was a compromise on his part. He said the proposed ordinance does have some "teeth". He
36 said this is a good start, and other issues can be addressed later.
37 Commissioner Burroughs said she is pleased with what she has heard about this
38 committee and the facilitator. She said the committee created a solution, and she wants to
39 honor this work by voting for the ordinance. She said she is disappointed that progress was not
40 made on the noise issue, and suggested that staff come back to the Board with options about
41 how to address it.
42 Commissioner Marcoplos said the issue of noise is real, and there is a possible solution
43 within the ordinance. He said the distant sound of a gun is different than bullets landing in
44 one's yard. He said he does understand the difference between urban and rural areas. He
45 read the proposed ordinance, which states: this subsection shall not apply when the person
46 discharging the firearm has written permission for such activity from the person on whose
47 property the projectile comes to rest. He said the same could be said of the property on which
48 the noise comes to rest. He said written permission could be obtained from neighbors, and if
49 that is not possible, then the neighborhood may be too dense for the noise.
19
1 Commissioner Jacobs said noise should be addressed in the noise ordinance. He said
2 there is a proposed entry into the noise ordinance, as well as Commissioner Marcoplos'
3 suggestion, and examples from other counties. He said he would be inclined to adopt the
4 ordinance, thank the committee, and refer the noise question to staff, asking for a common
5 sense recommendation. He said rapid gunfire, for extended periods of time and in close
6 proximity to neighbors, is the noise issue at hand.
7 Commissioner Rich said she wanted to thank the committee for a good ordinance, but
8 the noise issue must be discussed. She wanted to hear from the Sheriff's office as to what this
9 ordinance means to them.
10 Jamie Sykes, Chief Deputy, said in past cases, where there was no property damage or
11 personal injury, sheriffs could not do anything. He said this ordinance does give the Sheriff's
12 Office some teeth, and gives them the ability to handle some situations that they could not
13 previously.
14 Commissioner McKee asked if the ordinance would also apply to a person sitting on
15 their porch firing into a 6-inch sapling, as it does not meet the requirements of an appropriate
16 backstop.
17 Jamie Sykes said it depends on the type of firearm, what is beyond the target, and the
18 proximity of other residents; but this would not be a sufficient backstop.
19 Commissioner Rich said the Board got an email from Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
20 (CHCCS) Chair James Barrett about a shooting incident near the school.
21 John Roberts said there are federal laws prohibiting the discharge a gun within 1,000
22 feet of a school, but the law does not apply to private property. He said Orange County has
23 legislative authority, and prohibited hunting within 150 yards of a school.
24 Commissioner Rich asked if the Board can change this policy about firing a gun on
25 private property within 1,000 feet of a school.
26 John Roberts said the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to establish
27 regulation of gun discharges within a distance of an occupied structure.
28 Commissioner Rich petitioned that this topic be reviewed at the same time that the
29 Board looks at the noise issue. She said she does not want to stop the committee's work.
30 Commissioner Price thanked the committee, and said that most residents in Orange
31 County are responsible with firearms. She said the Board should go forward with the proposed
32 ordinance. She said the Board should re-visit the noise ordinance.
33 Chair Dorosin said there seems to be a consensus about moving forward with this
34 ordinance.
35 Commissioner Marcoplos said he spoke to James Barrett about this issue, and the
36 concern was regarding noise.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said Deputy Sykes was at all of the committee meetings.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board had to get legislative authority to enact the
39 limitation on hunting with 150 yards of a school, and asked if it would also be necessary to
40 obtain legislative authority to limit target shooting within 150 yards of a school.
41 John Roberts said the General Assembly (GA) has exclusive authority over fishing and
42 hunting, but the GA has not withheld all authority on firearms regulations, so it is not a total
43 preemption. He said there is preemption on nuisance regulations, such as noise. He said the
44 County has the authority to regulate to some degree.
45 Commissioner Jacobs supported Commissioner Rich's comments about the school's
46 concerns.
47
48 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
49 adopt the recommendations from the committee, and asked staff to bring back
20
1 recommendations in the spring with possible language on: making changes to noise ordinance
2 and addressing the issues of time and distance.
3
4 Commissioner Jacobs made a friendly amendment to add that staff will look at limiting
5 target distance practice within a school.
6 Commissioner McKee accepted this amendment.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 b. Realignment of Staff Resources at Social Services to Reflect New Legal
11 Requirements of the Affordable Care Act, and Approve Budget Amendment #3-A
12 for Additional Funding for the Food and Nutrition Employment and Training
13 Program
14
15 The Board considered 1) Creating four (4) permanent part-time benefited positions funded by
16 Second Family Foundation; 2) Creating one (1) permanent part-time non-benefited position
17 funded by UNC Hospital; 3)Allowing the Social Services Director flexibility to create temporary
18 positions and varying limited time trainee appointments for subsidized employment positions for
19 work program participants using existing and expanded work program funding; and 4)
20 Accepting additional federal funds by approving Budget Amendment#3-A.
21
22 Nancy Coston, Director of DSS, reviewed the following information:
23
24 BACKGROUND: Legal requirements related to the Affordable Care Act necessitate changes in
25 the way temporary positions are established and used at Social Services. Several programs
26 within the department provide funds for part-time staff and/or create temporary job opportunities
27 for program participants to establish employment history and gain work-related skills. The three
28 impacted program areas and related staffing changes are outlined below:
29 • The Second Family Foundation currently pays for three temporary positions to mentor
30 at-risk youth participating in the Second Family Foundation program and to transport
31 them to jobs and other activities. Second Family has also requested to fund a fourth,
32 similar position before the end of the year. The Second Family program is well
33 established, and the employees are expected to work a sufficient number of hours to
34 qualify for health insurance coverage and other benefits under County policy. As a
35 result, Social Services recommends creating four part-time 20 hour-per-week
36 permanent staff positions for this program that will include benefits. All costs, including
37 benefits, will be reimbursed by Second Family.
38 • UNC Hospital continues to request a part-time economic services supervisor to work on-
39 site at the hospital assisting with Medicaid applications. This position is currently a
40 temporary position, but it is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. As a result,
41 Social Services recommends establishing a permanent part-time position to work at
42 UNC Hospital 15 hours per week. The County's costs are reimbursed through the
43 hospital contract.
44 • Social Services received notification of a grant award in the amount of$540,000 for
45 federal fiscal year 2016-17 to expand the Food and Nutrition Employment and Training
46 program in Orange County. This $340,000 dollar increase requires a match that can be
47 met this year with existing funds, and also allows Social Services to help more
48 individuals acquire jobs that pay the County living wage of$13.15 per hour through
49 subsidized employment.
50
21
1 There are some unique challenges related to creating positions for subsidized employees, and
2 the proposed plan created with Human Resources and Finance will address those issues but
3 require minor changes to procedures. Social Services proposes to place most of the subsidized
4 employment program participants into six-month temporary positions based on the individual's
5 skill sets and available job placement sites. Most of these sites are in county government, other
6 government agencies or non-profits, but some are in local businesses.
7
8 There will be some special circumstances warranting additional time in subsidized employment
9 beyond the six-month period (for example, individuals with serious barriers such as former
10 foster youth). These individuals will be placed in trainee appointments and will be provided
11 benefits. The Social Services Director would indicate the length of the appointment to the
12 individual as well as to Human Resources and Finance. This would assure that these
13 employees receive appropriate benefits while maintaining the flexibility needed to operate an
14 effective subsidized employment program, particularly for individuals with substantial barriers.
15 The number of participants involved would be dictated by the funding available for
16 this program component.
17
18 These positions and programs support the economic self-sufficiency goal by providing
19 opportunities for low-income individuals to receive additional training and job placement
20 services and to increase their wages.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to:
23
24 1) Create four (4) permanent part-time benefited positions at 20 hours per week funded by
25 Second Family Foundation;
26 2) Create one (1) permanent part-time non-benefited position at 15 hours per week funded
27 by UNC Hospital;
28 3) Allow the Social Services Director flexibility to create temporary positions and varying limited
29 time trainee appointments for subsidized employment positions for work program participants
30 using existing and expanded work program funding; and
31 4) Accept additional federal funds by approving Budget Amendment#3-A.
32
33 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs)
34
35 c. Financial Policy for Outside Agency Funding- DEFERRED
36 The Board will consider establishing a financial policy for Outside Agency Funding that
37 provides guidance on the appropriation of County funds to the non-profit community, with the
38 scope of the policy establishing funding targets and criteria.
39
40 7c- added: My Brother's Keeper Community Challenge Recommendations for Movement
41 of Youth (MOY) to be the lead agency for My Brother's Keeper (MBK) Orange Initiative.
42 The Board considered receiving a report and proposal from the My Brother's Keeper
43 Community Challenge of Orange County, which includes a request to recognize Movement of
44 Youth as the lead agency for managing MBK- Orange, in order to enhance the structure and
45 provide the support needed for Phase II of the initiative.
46 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed this item. She said at this time there is no financial
47 impact.
48
49 BACKGROUND:
22
1 In February 2015, community members, under the leadership of Commissioner Renee Price,
2 launched the MBK Orange initiative. Since that time, there have been several events involving
3 youth and adults from Orange County. The strong attendance at the events recognized the
4 need to continue this effort with enhanced structure and support.
5
6 On October 6, 2016, the community members in The My Brother's Keeper Community
7 Challenge unanimously agreed to make a recommendation for Movement of Youth [MOY] to
8 become the lead agency in the next phase of the MBK Orange Community Challenge and to
9 request that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners accept the recommended
10 action to continue MBK-Orange.
11
12 The community members of the MBK-Orange support appointing MOY as the lead agency
13 because it will allow greater success in fundraising for the sustainability of MBK Orange. A lead
14 agency will strengthen the organization which will allow them to build capacity with information
15 and guidance from the national level, as was indicated at the MBK NC Summit in Greensboro
16 on October 10, 2016.
17
18 Movement of Youth is a non-profit agency that works to prepare diverse youth to lead and
19 succeed in the 21st Century through mentoring and targeted enrichment activities led by
20 college students. MOY has a proven track record with its staff and programming. MOY founder,
21 Atrayus Goode, attended the meeting on October 6, and indicated the MOY Board of Directors is
22 willing to assume the responsibility to be the lead agency for MBK-Orange Initiative.
23
24 The community members present at the October 6 meeting were representing various nonprofit
25 organizations, county agencies and the community:
26 Atrayus Goode, President and CEO, Movement of Youth
27 Charlene & Jeff Campbell, Co-Founders, Beyond Expectations, Inc.
28 Bishop Victor Glover, Executive Director, Fathers on the Move
29 Sheriff Charles Blackwood, Orange County
30 Dawn Bagwell, Orange County Schools
31 Linda Hall, Durham Technical Community College
32 Samathryn Witham, Town of Chapel Hill
33 Jenn Weaver, Commissioner, Town of Hillsborough
34 Kathleen Ferguson, Commissioner, Town of Hillsborough
35 Cat Griffith, Community Member
36 Steven Drake, Attorney, Community Member
37 Susan Worley, Volunteers for Youth
38
39 In addition, the following community members have indicated an interest in serving on an MBK-
40 Orange Advisory Board, Charlene and Jeff Campbell, Bishop Glover, Deputy Andre Richmond
41 and Commissioner Price. Also, representatives from other participating groups and agencies
42 will be recruited for appointments once this proposal becomes final.
43 Atreus Goode made the following PowerPoint presentation:
44
45 My Brother's Keeper Orange County
46 December 5, 2016
47
48 Fast Facts
49 MOY started with 11 students at Hillside High School in 2006; currently, MOY impacts hundreds
50 of middle and high school students annually and is in the process of scaling nationally.
23
1 Since MOY's inception, 99% of participants have been students of color with the
2 following outcomes:
3 100% of students complete at least eight (8) hours of community service per school year
4 (MOY mentors and mentees have completed 10,000+ volunteer hours since 2006)
5 100% of high school students enroll in at least one (1) Honors or Advanced Placement
6 Course
7 100% of students graduate from high school
8 99% of students enroll in college
9
10 What We Do —Team Mentoring
11 College students may apply annually to become mentors and friends for students
12 Year-long relationships provide participants with access to a student scholar
13
14 What We Do — Leadership Academy
15 Leadership Academy is held twice a month on Saturdays and features a variety of sessions
16 built to challenge participants in different ways intellectually, physically, and socially.
17 Sessions are tailored to address the complex and unique issues that diverse youth face daily,
18 while also providing opportunities for individual growth and professional development.
19
20 What We Do —Summer Enrichment Academy
21 Summer Enrichment Academy includes recreational activities, STEAM (science, technology,
22 engineering, art, and mathematics)workshops, career training, field trips, and guest speakers
23 among other things.
24
25 What We Do —J.U.S.T. Global Fellowship
26 The J.U.S.T (Journeys to Uncover Social Truth) Global Fellowship is a global youth initiative
27 that partners with community organizations to send high school and college students of color to
28 engage in international work and volunteerism abroad during the summer.
29
30 What We Do
31 Tyreic E. Hemphill Memorial Scholarship
32
33 What We Do
34 College Tours
35
36 Why is My Brother's Keeper Orange County Important?
37
38 MBK Orange County Priority Areas
39
40 Commissioner Price said MBK was started as a way to pool resources to help the
41 County's young men of color. She said she can no longer do all the work, and MOY is needed
42 to carry forward MBK. She said this would provide a way for MBK's to continue to raise funds.
43 Commissioner McKee commended Commissioner Price for the leadership she has
44 given up to this point. He asked if staff has been involved in discussions regarding MBK, and if
45 there is an update.
46 Atrayus Goode said he has met with several community members, and there is
47 consensus that MOY would be the best agency to lead this work forward.
48 Commissioner Price said the Manager and Deputy Manager have been involved in
49 discussions. She said the Sheriff's department is also very important in this work.
50 Chair Dorosin clarified that MOY is a 501-c3, and that MBK is an Orange County
51 initiative, and not a formal entity. He asked if these two groups will be merged.
52 Atrayus Goode said MOY will coordinate the work and activities of the various agencies,
53 making MBK more attractive for funding. He said he worked with MBK in Durham, and
24
1 organizations like this struggle to thrive within a government agency, and the non-profit world
2 can move with greater speed.
3 Chair Dorosin asked if there would be leadership and oversight.
4 Atrayus Goode said an advisory will be formed, via an application process.
5 Commissioner Price said MBK was endorsed by the BOCC about a year ago, and there
6 is information within the Orange County website. She said MOY has risen to the point that it
7 can take on the MBK mission and carry it forward. She said MBK needs to go to the next level.
8 She said the names listed in the abstract were at the last meeting, where the recommendation
9 was made to move to MBK under MOY. She said there is support for MBK throughout Orange
10 County.
11
12 PUBLIC COMMENT:
13 Carol McKanna said this sounds like a good program. She said she is a proud
14 conservative, and likes to have language that does not divide residents into different groups.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said since this is not a County organization, the best approach is
16 for the Board of County Commissioners to consider supporting the recommendation for MOY to
17 be the lead agency. She said there is no financial request at this time.
18 John Roberts said he had not looked at this item yet.
19 Commissioner Rich asked if this item is time sensitive.
20 Commissioner Price said this item has already been held up for a couple of months, and
21 she wanted to move this forward so MOY can apply for grant funding.
22 Chair Dorosin asked if it would hurt to defer to the December 13th BOCC meeting, to
23 allow John Roberts to review the status of the current County initiative.
24 There was Board consensus to defer this item until the December 13th BOCC meeting.
25
26 d. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project — Proposed "Non-Binding"
27 Memorandum of Understanding
28 The Board considered approving a proposed "non-binding" memorandum of
29 understanding with GoTriangle agreeing to cooperate with the municipalities within the County
30 and to work together to identify potential additional funding mechanisms to directly support the
31 D-O LRT Project and authorize the Chair to sign.
32 Jeff Mann, GoTriangle General Manager, and Danny Rogers, GoTriangle Project
33 Director, reviewed the following information:
34
35 BACKGROUND:
36 At its November 15, 2016 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) received a
37 presentation from GoTriangle staff that included the status of the D-O LRT project, proposed
38 extension to North Carolina Central University (NCCU), and state, federal, and local funding
39 changes. The BOCC endorsed the extension of the D-O LRT project to NCCU, but deferred
40 any action to cooperate with municipalities in the County and to work together to identify,
41 develop, and implement additional funding mechanisms to directly support the D-O LRT Project
42 to a future meeting.
43
44 An Orange County Assembly of Governments Meeting was held November 17, 2016 among
45 the BOCC and Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough. At this meeting, GoTriangle
46 presented the information previously shared with the BOCC to the larger group. There was
47 considerable discussion among the group of attendees regarding the importance of the project,
48 the increased local cost if the project were to move forward, and timeline for actions.
49
25
1 Recent guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) indicates that the D-O LRT
2 project must enter the Final Design phase by February 2017. In order to meet this milestone,
3 GoTriangle needs the BOCC to approve the attached "non-binding" proposed memorandum of
4 understanding this month.
5
6 In the future, items for BOCC consideration include:
7 • April 2017 — Amendments to the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan
8 (OCBRIP); and
9 • June 2018 — Decision to commit any local funds included in the financial plan (OCBRIP).
10
11 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Actions —At its December 14
12 meeting, the MPO Board will consider two separate amendments related to the extension of the
13 D-O LRT Project to NCCU: 1) The extension needs to be included in its Locally Preferred
14 Alternative (LPA) and 2) The extension needs to be included in its 2040 Metropolitan
15 Transportation Plan (MTP).
16
17 OCBRIP Amendments — Discussions are currently ongoing with a Staff Working Group to
18 review and update the OCBRIP financial assumptions and associated services. GoTriangle is
19 also working with a Funding and Community Collaborative to help identify revenue sources to
20 close the funding gaps. The OCBRIP amendments will need to be approved by the three
21 parties (Orange County, DCHC MPO, and GoTriangle) to the Interlocal Implementation
22 Agreement.
23 Jeff Mann made the following PowerPoint presentation:
24
25 Durham and Orange Transit Plan Funding Needs
26 Orange County Board Of Commissioners
27 December 5, 2016
28
29 Clarifications
30 Durham and Orange counties are being asked to provide non-binding letters of intent to
31 work with GoTriangle and other community partners to identify funds to complete the Durham-
32 Orange Light Rail Transit Project. The counties are not being asked to invest any additional
33 funds for the project at this time
34 The funding gap is approximately $250 Million in Year-of-Expenditure (YOE) Dollars.
35 In 2016, the North Carolina General Assembly capped available state funding for light rail at
36 10% of the project's cost, as opposed to the 25% that was previously awarded to two similar
37 projects in Charlotte
38 The Federal Transit Administration is still expected to invest 50% in federal funds for
39 Durham and Orange Counties' light rail project (D-O LRT Project), contingent on the remaining
40 50% coming from the existing dedicated transit revenues, state, local or other funding sources
41 Before Durham and Orange counties are formally asked to commit additional funds to
42 complete their light rail project, GoTriangle will continue to work with the counties, the Funding
43 and Community Collaborative, and community partners to find ways to reduce the funding gap.
44
45 Durham-Orange LRT
46 • Funding Gap
47 • Cost of D-O LRT Project
48 • Request for Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to explore additional funding
49 sources
50 • Schedule of next steps
26
1
2 Danny Rogers presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
3
4 What is the Funding Gap?
5 Gap = $250 Million in Year-of-Expenditure (YOE) Dollars
6 • Gap is for entire combined Durham and Orange Transit Plan
7 • Includes future funds to operate and maintain full bus and rail system, including
8 vehicle replacements and state of good repair for D-O LRT Project
9 • Bus Operations funded first for Orange Public Transportation, Chapel Hill
10 Transit, GoDurham, Durham County, and GoTriangle services in Durham and
11 Orange Counties
12 • Financial plan includes buildout of revised Chapel Hill Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
13 Project, Hillsborough Train Station, and amended D-O LRT Project including
14 Joint Development and NCCU Station
15
16 Why Is There A Gap?
17 Bus Service
18 State: 7.5%
19 Local: 92.5%
20 Vehicles, Bus Stops, Park and Rides
21 Federal: 80% - 38%
22 State: 10% - 8%
23 Local/Other: 10% - 54%
24 Light Rail, Commuter Rail
25 Federal: 50% - 50%
26 State: 25% - 10%
27 Local/Other: 25% - 40%
28 Bus Rapid Transit
29 Federal: 50% - 70%
30 State: 25% - 0%
31 Local/Other: 25% - 30%
32 Hillsborough Train Station
33 State: 90% - 91%
34 Local: 10% - 9%
35
36 How Does the Current Project Estimate Compare to the Original Estimate?
37 Formula
n
38 y = x(1+r)
39
40 Variables
41 y = 2016 dollars
42 x = original year dollars
43 r = escalation rate
44 n = number of years
45
46 LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph)
47
48 LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph)
49
27
1 LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph)
2
3 LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph)
4
5 LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph)
6
7 LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph)
8
9 LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph)
10
11 D-O LRT Funding Updates (chart)
12
13 Dedicated Transit Revenue Updates (chart)
14
15 Ways to Resolve the Funding Gap (chart)
16 Includes 10% State Funding
17
18 Other Steps To Fill Gap
19 • Steps already taken
20 o Adjusted D-O LRT Project construction schedule to better match FTA
21 reimbursement rate (delayed completion of construction from 2026 to 2028)
22 o Hired new financial advisor, experienced in structuring financing plans for major
23 federally funded projects, to begin refining financing assumptions
24 • Steps that will be evaluated between December and April
25 o Value engineering / cost cutting opportunities
26 o Financing optimization
27 o Joint Financial Staff Working Group
28 • Coordinated evaluation of financial plans
29 • Refinement of funding shortfall need
30 • Evaluation of additional revenue sources
31
32 Jeff Mann resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
33
34 Key Dates
35 Jan. 2020 Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with FTA
36 Oct. 2019 Submit request for FFGA with FTA— requires 100% of funding to be committed
37 Jun. 2019 Inclusion in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) — State
38 participation committed
39 Dec. 2018 Inclusion in Draft STIP - State share defined, but not committed
40 Jun. 2018 Request to be in President's budget— requires 50% of non-New Starts funds to
41 be committed
42 Apr. 2017 Update of Transit Plans and execution of full General Engineering Consultant
43 (GEC) and Program Management Consultant (PMC) contracts
44
45 Getting to April 2017
46 Dec. 2016
47 • Deadline for GoTriangle to request entry into FTA Engineering phase for D-O LRT
48 Project
28
1 • Non-binding MOU to work with GoTriangle and other community partners to identify
2 funds to complete the D-O LRT Project
3 • The counties are not being asked to invest any additional funds for the project at this
4 time
5 Jan. - Apr. 2017
6 • Revise and finalize financial plan
7 • Monthly Transit Plan financial updates to County, MPO, and GoTriangle Boards
8 Mar. 2017
9 • Present for information the full GEC and PMC contracts
10 Apr. 2017
11 • County, MPO, and GoTriangle Boards review updated Transit Plans with potential
12 additional revenue assumptions
13 • Execution of GEC and PMC contracts required to maintiain proposed construction
14 schedule
15
16 Next Steps
17 • Obtain approval from Orange (Dec. 5) and Durham (Dec. 12) Boards of County
18 Commissioners to submit financial plan to FTA that includes potential additional local
19 funding:
20 o "Subject to and contingent upon any authorizations required by Orange County,
21 including the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Orange County agrees to
22 cooperate with the local municipalities and work together to identify, develop,
23 and implement additional funding mechanisms to directly support the D-O LRT
24 Project."
25 • Obtain similar approvals from MPO (Dec. 14, 2016)
26 • Continue to work with local partners to identify potential additional local revenue sources
27 prior to approving full GEC and PMC contracts in April 2017
28 • Note: No additional local funds will be spent on the D-O LRT Project prior to receiving a
29 Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) from FTA in 2020
30
31 Questions
32
33 Commissioner Burroughs asked John Roberts if this is a non-binding agreement.
34 John Roberts said it is non-binding for the time being. He said if the Board of County
35 Commissioners looks for additional funding, it creates the expectation that it will implement that
36 funding, but the Board is not obligated to implement that funding, under this agreement. He
37 said he drafted additional language, which can be added to the agreement.
38 Commissioner Burroughs said revenue assumptions are going to be discussed by
39 GoTriangle in April, and asked if GoTriangle will have heard from Orange County, at that point,
40 regarding its commitment of funds.
41 Jeff Mann said yes, April is a progress check. He said it should be known at that time
42 whether the FTA has cleared to project to move into engineering. He said there will also be
43 better understanding, at that time, regarding any and all additional funding that may have been
44 secured.
45 Commissioner Burroughs said to Bonnie Hammersley that April is a pivotal time in the
46 County's budget process, and asked if she had an idea at what point the Board would make
47 another decision on how much funding it would commit.
48 Bonnie Hammersley said April would be a hard stop, and staff would be working with
49 Durham County and GoTriangle, up to that time, and would bring back any updates to the
50 Board of County Commissioners.
29
1 Jeff Mann said the full commitment of funds would not be until June 2018.
2 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the actual expenditure starts in June 2018.
3 Jeff Mann said no, any additional local revenues would not be needed until 2020.
4 Commissioner Burroughs asked if there is a larger expenditure that will occur between
5 2018 and 2020.
6 Jeff Mann said yes, if the full general engineering and program management consultant
7 contracts are executed, there will be a significant expenditure for design, as well as program
8 management. He said there are sufficient funds to do this now, without these additional local
9 revenues, but there would be an accelerated rate of expenditure to move the project from
10 where it is today, at 30% design, to final design.
11 Commissioner Burroughs said if in June 2018 the County decides not to proceed, there
12 would be no reimbursement from the federal funds.
13 Jeff Mann said that is correct, and federal reimbursement would be granted upon
14 reaching a full funding grant agreement. He said if a full funding grant agreement is not
15 received, the project would not be subject for reimbursement.
16 Commissioner Burroughs said the County has to make a decision by April 2017.
17 Commissioner Price said there will be no increase in funding between now and April,
18 and asked if staff and GoTriangle will be working on finding additional funding.
19 Jeff Mann said there is a project team working on funding, value engineering and
20 continues to work with the Funding and Community Collaborative. He said the bus portion will
21 also be updated.
22 Commissioner Price asked if Jeff Mann feels the federal funds are secure given the
23 upcoming change in administration.
24 Jeff Mann said, while nothing is guaranteed, the funding is expected without issue.
25 Commissioner Jacobs clarified that Jeff Mann said there are sufficient local funds to
26 begin the engineering studies in April, but with a faster expenditure rate.
27 Jeff Mann said when the final design phase is entered, money will be spent at a faster
28 rate. He said this will be done with local funds until a full funding grant agreement is reached
29 with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and state funding begins in 2019.
30 Commissioner Jacobs asked for the timeline, if one looks at a calendar.
31 Jeff Mann said state funding would not be available until 2019/2020, and federal funding
32 not until 2020.
33 Commissioner Jacobs said April 2017 is not a hard deadline, as there are funds to
34 proceed; but the funds will just be spent at a faster rate.
35 Jeff Mann said it is an internal checkpoint for them to see if the project is clear to go into
36 the engineering phase.
37 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the bus side of the funding, and said the BOCC
38 received a presentation, and no consultation, regarding a bus rapid transit project (BRT) in
39 Chapel Hill, which exceeds $100 million. He asked what would happen to this money if this
40 project was removed from the bus side of the equation.
41 Jeff Mann said the local share of the Chapel Hill BRT project is about $40 million.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said the total is triple the amount of the original projection.
43 Jeff Mann said yes, as the project was extended and more dedicated lanes were added.
44 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this $40 million is removed, where would the funds go.
45 Jeff Mann said removing the BRT project would be a modification to the bus and rail
46 investment plan, and the BOCC would make a recommendation for the allocation of these
47 funds. He said GoTriangle would not determine the purpose of these funds.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said the funds could be put toward the gap.
49 Jeff Mann said yes.
50
30
1 PUBLIC COMMENT:
2 Tony Blake said he is against light rail. He urged the Board not to approve the MOU
3 until an independent cost analysis is completed, and the more hidden costs are known. He said
4 if the BOCC wants to sign the MOU, he would suggest two amendments to it: no more
5 spending on engineering of light rail until a cost benefit cost study is done.
6 Alex Castro provided a handout, and asked what is the funding gap and why is there a
7 funding gap. He said if all available funds go to the light rail, then other services will suffer such
8 as local transit, OPT, etc. He said Light Rail will not serve its first customer until 2028.
9 Ken Larsen said light rail is a giant vacuum cleaner to suck the money from all the
10 taxpayers. He said the only benefactors are UNC and the developers. He does not want the
11 Board to sign the MOU-Letter of Intent.
12 Aaron Butner said he is a resident of Hillsborough from a modest background. He is a
13 current employer in Chapel Hill, and asked the Board not to sign the Letter of Intent.
14 Ed Tiryakian asked the Board not to sign the Letter of Intent. He said the MOU would
15 put expectations on the County, and it goes against the will of the voters. He said the burden of
16 financing has shifted heavily to Orange County.
17 Sam Gharbo said the Board has a golden opportunity to be fiscally responsible. He said
18 the Board could not find enough money for schools, and had to float a bond. He said if there is
19 not enough funding for schools, where will the Board find double, if not triple that amount for
20 this project. He wondered if the Board will be putting forth a light rail bond. He said the County
21 is going to be rail poor. He said this was a bad idea four years ago, and it is a bad idea today.
22 Olivia Truax said she is in support of the Light Rail project, and its many benefits to the
23 residents of Orange County.
24 Anthony Alexander said he is in support of the Light Rail project.
25 Ramona McGee said she is an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center
26 (SELC), who urges the Board to sign the Letter of Intent.
27 Norma White said she speaks on behalf of rural Orange County (The Grange), and
28 asked the Board not to sign the Letter of Intent.
29 Gary Saunders said he has been using the bus system since 2005, and he is in support
30 of light rail.
31 Patricia Clayton said she is speaking on behalf of the Northern Orange National
32 Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), who are in support of public
33 transportation, but not light rail, since it would only benefit certain parts of the County.
34 Tom Farmer said he is a user of bus transit, and he is supportive of light rail.
35 Tanya Jisa said she strongly supports the light rail.
36 Archie Daniel said he speaking for the seniors who live in Orange County, since he
37 works a part time job providing oversight and care for seniors in northern Orange County. He
38 said the Board needs to make sure the seniors get bang for their buck.
39 Cor Radenmaker said he is in support of light rail.
40 Brenda McCall said she works with seniors in northern Orange County, and these are
41 the most vulnerable and needy residents in Orange County. She said the funds for LRT will
42 take funding from other public transportation services, and she is not in support of LRT.
43 Charles Humble said he is a long-term supporter of the SELC, and of mass transit in
44 general. He said this proposal could have made sense years ago, or if it was designed to
45 connect us with other points in the triangle, and had more financial supporters; but it was not
46 and it does not. He is persuaded that BRT is more beneficial to Orange County, and he asked
47 the Board not to sign the letter of intent.
48 Dave Laudicina said he is supportive of LRT.
49 Katy Lang said she is a car free resident, and she asked the Board to sign the Letter of
50 Intent.
31
1 Vijay Sivaraman said he is an ardent supporter of the LRT.
2 Alison Stoebe said she is in support of light rail and the letter of intent.
3 John Morris said public transportation is very important and he uses it frequently, but
4 they need a light rail plan that works for the residents of Orange County. He said this is not the
5 right project for Orange County, and it will only serve a tiny corner of Orange County. He is
6 concerned this will sap the budget for other County services.
7 Julie McClintock said she loves rail, but the figures are not adding up. She said the line
8 is not going where the people are. She said Wake County did away with the light rail plan and
9 went with BRT. She said Orange County should do the same.
10 Leif Rasmussen said this plan is too expensive, and it is better to invest in bike
11 infrastructure.
12 Taylor McAdam said she is in support of light rail, and urged the Board to sign the letter
13 of intent.
14 Cheryl Hardman said she does not support moving forward with the light rail, and does
15 not think there will be sufficient ridership. She said an independent analysis should be
16 conducted.
17 Bonnie Hauser thanked the citizens for coming out to speak, and the BOCC for
18 listening. She provided the Clerk with a community petition for the Board to delay a
19 commitment to light rail, not sign the letter of intent, and to conduct an independent analysis.
20 Alex Cabanes said this is a bad idea.
21 Commissioner Jacobs thanked the public that came out to speak tonight, as well as the
22 staff from GoTriangle. He said he is not prepared to re-adjudicate the project at this point, but
23 he does have some concerns, and the Board needs a better comfort level before the April
24 deadline.
25 Commissioner Jacobs asked the Manager to look into an independent consultant to
26 review the value engineering and finances. He suggested the possibility of Kimley-Horn, who
27 worked on Wake County's transit plan. He would like to review the possibilities of cuts;
28 combining the Dowling Creek and Woodmont stations; shortening the platforms; and a full
29 explanation of why BRT is not a preferable option. He asked the Manager to talk with the
30 Durham County Manager about the financial split between the two counties, especially given
31 the addition of the NCCU stop, and that most of the economic development is in Durham
32 County. He said Orange County is paying 23% of the plan. He said Chapel Hill — Orange bus
33 split should be reviewed again. He said the BOCC must set Orange County's transportation
34 priorities. He said a greater public forum is needed to discuss the issues in depth, with Orange
35 and Durham County staff, and GoTriangle staff.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said he has problems that over time, GoTriangle has been a
37 translucent organization, such as the numbers changing; and who will be giving them the
38 money. He referred to the MLK BRT, and said Orange County is the funding entity but there
39 have been no conversations with Chapel Hill. He said GoTriangle is working for the County,
40 and not the other way around.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said he is going to support the MOU, with the following addition:
42
43 Proposed Item 2 under NOW, THEREFORE
44
45 The Orange County Board of Commissioners considers this non-binding MOU between the
46 Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority and Orange County to keep faith
47 with voters who, by a large majority, approved the half-cent sales tax for enhanced public
48 transportation, including light rail.
49
32
1 Our support for light rail has not wavered. However, the MOU does not express an obligation,
2 moral or implied, to fund the Durham-Orange Light Rail project beyond currently authorized
3 levels if further investigation proves financial burden to taxpayers would, in our judgment,
4 compromise Orange County's ability to reasonably fund other, more critical goals and functions
5 of government.
6
7 Commissioner Rich said all partners have never been together in the same room to
8 have some of the discussions to which Commissioner Jacobs referred. She asked if the
9 Manager would talk with Durham County and the MPO.
10 Commissioner Burroughs said she is satisfied that the MOU is non-binding. She said it
11 is imperative to take an opportunity to re-negotiate with Durham County.
12 Commissioner McKee said when the Board approved the sales tax he stood down, and
13 has stayed that way for the last five years; however, this last minute request for additional funds
14 from Orange County has caused him to speak up.
15 Commissioner McKee said he submitted several questions to GoTriangle prior to this
16 meeting:
17 - how much has been spent, to date, on light rail -- $27,681,063
18 - What is the monthly burn rate for light rail -- $400,000
19 He said the amount spent over the past 36 months is $768,918 per month.
20 Finance staff from GoTriangle said $400,000 is the average over the last 12 months.
21 Commissioner McKee said for the three years prior to that, the average was up to
22 $700,000.
23 Finance staff said she would have to review the numbers to have an informed answer.
24 She said the $27 million does not include bus services.
25 Commissioner McKee said the thought that this MOU is not a commitment is false. He
26 said he votes for the MOU, it would be a commitment that he will need to follow through with,
27 thus he will vote against it.
28 Commissioner McKee asked if there is a plan if the State provides no funding.
29 Jeff Mann said clearly this is a risk, but GoTriangle will work hard with value engineering
30 over the coming months in order to seek cost savings for the project, in the event that the State
31 does not provide funding.
32 Commissioner McKee said this project could be value engineered into the ground.
33 Jeff Mann said it is believed that this project will score highly in STI. He said adding the
34 NCCU stop will only increase the score.
35 Commissioner McKee said he asked the County's CFO what were the growth rates for
36 sales tax, and he said 3.6% in the original plan. He said the original document was 3.6%, but
37 GoTriangle used 4.1% in recent presentations. He said this is a material change, and he
38 thought material changes would come back to the partners.
39 Jeff Mann said the New Starts application was based on the Dr. Walden 2014 forecast.
40 Commissioner McKee said these were not the figures given to this Board.
41 Commissioner McKee said they talked about commitment, and April 2017 being a hard
42 stop; but he does not see a vote happening during any of this time. He asked if there is a hard
43 vote to say yea or nay to this project.
44 Jeff Mann said funds would have to be committed in 2018, and the opportunity in 2017
45 is to approve the BRT update.
46 Commissioner McKee said this does not give the Board a hard stop.
47 Jeff Mann said if the Board does not approve the Orange County Bus and Rail
48 Investment plan in April, then it does not go into the plan.
49 Commissioner McKee said the expansion if the cost has been discussed as it has
50 grown. He asked if the costs will ultimately reach $3 billion.
33
1 Jeff Mann said this is not anticipated to happen, and there have been two independent
2 cost reviews. He said the increases seen tonight reflect the addition of the NCCU stop, and
3 inflating to 2016 dollars, and year of expenditure dollars.
4 Commissioner McKee said he is glad 2016 dollars are being discussed, because taxes
5 are paid in 2016 dollars.
6 Commissioner Marcoplos said he is satisfied that this is a non-binding MOU. He did
7 spend some time with the planning staff last week, and there are some troubling figures. He is
8 willing to move forward tonight. He agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' proposed language
9 amendment.
10 Commissioner Price said her views are close to Commissioner McKee, but also agrees
11 with some of Commissioner Jacobs' comments. She said the MOU implies that Orange County
12 is supportive of this since it supported the sales tax before, but that vote was intended to
13 include the buses and the Amtrak station. She said the MOU does not even mention NCCU.
14 Chair Dorosin said he could support the MOU, with Commissioner Jacobs' amendment.
15 He said he does not feel this is a financially or morally binding document.
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos
18 for the Board to adopt his statement of intent.
19
20 Commissioner McKee made a friendly amendment in that he could support
21 Commissioner Jacobs' proposed language if he removed "a large" majority and "Our support for
22 light rail has not wavered."
23 Commissioner Jacobs said he would take out the word "large," but not the next
24 statement about the Board's unwavering support.
25 Commissioner McKee withdrew his friendly amendment.
26
27 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner
28 Marcoplos); Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price)
29
30 MOTION PASSES
31
32 John Roberts said he sent the Board some language, which he read:
33
34 4. Entry into this MOU shall not relieve any parties to the Interlocal Implementation Agreement
35 for the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan, or the Interlocal Agreement for Cost
36 Sharing for LRT Rail Project of their responsibilities to re-examine those agreements and those
37 agreements shall be re-examined within si* five months of the date of adoption of this MOU;
38
39 5. nor shall Orange County's approval of this MOU be utilized by any party to signal that
40 Orange County has expressed any willingness or intent to commit additional funds to the DO-
41 LRT Project beyond the funds previously committed through approval of the Orange County
42 Board of Commissioners.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
45 adopt the proposed "non-binding" memorandum of understanding with John Roberts'
46 suggested language, with the modification of five months instead of six months and, if
47 approved, authorize the Chair to sign the document.
48
49 Commissioner McKee said no one wants to be the one to stop the train, but this MOU
50 creates an expectation. He said every month this project moves forward, funds are expended,
34
1 and it becomes increasingly difficult to back off. He said Orange County will be responsible for
2 at least 25% of costs, if the Board goes forward. He said life causes changes, and noted a
3 letter from Duke Heath, which voiced major concerns with the project. He said he understands
4 UNC's support of the project, but says UNC is moving 1,100 jobs out of Chapel Hill. He said
5 UNC also has a hospital in Hillsborough, which is nowhere near a light rail line. He said Duke
6 and UNC are developing clinics throughout the area, none of which are on the light rail line. He
7 said the economic development will only occur in Durham.
8 Commissioner McKee noted GoTriangle's statement that no funds are being asked for
9 at this time, but noted further down in the statement that Orange and Durham counties
10 understand by their actions, that they will "incur costs not anticipated." He said this is as clear
11 as day that there will be additional costs. He said there is an understanding at large that if the
12 County backs out now, it will lose all funds already committed. He said this is not his
13 understanding based on information from GoTriangle, and he asked if this could be clarified: if
14 the project does not proceed and falls out of the New Starts Program, but gets back in at some
15 point in the future, what costs would not be eligible for reimbursement from the FTA. He said it
16 is his understanding that if the project falls out of the New Starts program, and is reinstated at a
17 later date, the funds spent during the time between are all that would be ineligible for
18 reimbursement. He said the project could stop tonight, and not all expended funds would be
19 lost.
20 Jeff Mann said the County would not be reimbursed unless it was allowed back into the
21 program.
22 Commissioner McKee said this is not the explanation that was given to the Board
23 previously, and this is a perfect example of frustrations with communication.
24 Commissioner Rich said she would like to get facts to back up what was heard tonight.
25 Chair Dorosin said Commissioner Jacobs had talked about cost analysis, and
26 suggested having that in another motion.
27
28 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner
29 Marcoplos); Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price)
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
32 direct the Manager to engage someone to help do independent review of finances and value
33 engineering choices for this project; direct the Manager to contact Durham to initiate
34 discussions of reevaluating the split in funding based on changes in mileage and differences in
35 economic development opportunities in the two counties; revisit Chapel Hill/Orange County bus
36 split to understand what change a possible bus rapid transit would have on the split and the
37 ability of Orange County to do what it wants to do; and the Board have an opportunity to
38 articulate its own County transportation goals.
39
40 Commissioner McKee said he already sent a letter to Durham County Chair to open up
41 these discussions, and this meeting did not take place due to scheduling conflicts; but the door
42 was left open for this meeting to occur.
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 Bonnie Hammersley said in anticipation of this evening's meeting, her office put
47 together a team that will be working on this item. She said Deputy Manager Travis Myren will
48 be the primary contact for all GoTriangle/D-O LRT questions and concerns.
49
50 8. Reports
35
1 NONE
2
3 9. County Manager's Report
4 Deferred
5
6 10. County Attorney's Report
7 Deferred
8
9 11. Appointments
10 NONE
11
12 12. Board Comments
13 DEFERRED
14
15 13. Information Items
16
17 • November 15, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
18 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
19 • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
20 • Tax Assessor's Report — Releases/Refunds under $100
21 • Memorandum - City of Mebane's Comprehensive Land Development Plan
22 • Access to Mental Health Services Assessment
23 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from November 15, 2016 Regular Meeting
24
25 14. Closed Session
26 NONE
27
28 15. Adjournment
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
31 adjourn the meeting at 12:36 a.m.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 Mark Dorosin, Chair
36
37 Donna Baker
38 Clerk to the Board
39
40