Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-15-2016 1 APPROVED 1/24/2017 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 15, 2016 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Mia Burroughs COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda A motion was made by Chair McKee seconded, by Commissioner Jacobs to add Commissioner Price's proposed resolution entitled "A RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING MOUNT BRIGHT MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH ON ITS 150TH ANNIVERSARY" to the agenda under Item 4. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places: - Pink sheet: Board of Elections Report - Tracy Reams - White sheet: Email from Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, for item 6-b - PowerPoint for item 7-a - News Article from Commissioner Jacobs, about impact fees, for item 7-a - PowerPoint for item 7-b - PowerPoint for item 7-c Bonnie Hammersley introduced Tracy Reams, Board of Elections Director, and said she is here to give an update on the November 8th election. Tracy Reams commended her staff, one-stop volunteers and precinct officials. She also recognized 38 student assistants. And she also recommended two of her Board members, Ms. Knight and Mr. Randall. Tracy Reams provided the Board with a general status report of the election, which is below: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS To: Orange County Board of County Commissioners From: Tracy Reams, Director of Elections Date: November 15, 2016 2 Re: November 8, 2016 General Election Report Following is a report of various activities and statistical information relating to the November 8, 2016 Elections held in Orange County for your review. • Pre-Election — The staff completed all pre-election tasks in a timely manner. This included, but not limited to receiving and auditing campaign finance reports, coordinating voting machine/equipment delivery and pickup, recruiting and training One-Stop staff and Election Day precinct officials, ordering and receipt of ballots, preparing precinct supplies, processing voter registration forms and absentee ballot requests. Thorough logic and accuracy testing was completed on every voting machine to ensure votes were recorded properly. Laptops were loaded with one-stop voting software and setup at the one-stop sites in addition to loading software on 132 plus Election Day laptops. The staff trained and certified "Multi-Partisan Assistance Teams" (MAT) to assist with requesting and casting absentee ballots for voters in assisted living homes. The MAT team was deployed to various sites in the county as requested. From July 1, 2016 thru November 8, 2016 the staff processed 14,894 new registrations, 8,592 duplicate registrations, 10,080 changes of information and removed 7,414 registrations from the voter rolls. A total of 26,366 voter cards were generated and mailed during this time. My staff worked together efficiently and accomplished our goal to have all registrations entered prior to the beginning of One-Stop voting. • Absentee Voting — As directed by the Elections Board, we established 5 one-stop early voting sites with a total of 568.5 cumulative hours. The votes cast at each site are as follows: (total 59,766) 13,484 - Hillsborough BOE 4,527 - Efland Ruritan Bldg. 15,326 - Carrboro Town Hall 13,348 - Seymour Senior Center 13,081 - Chapel of the Cross We processed a total of 1,879 same-day registrations during early voting. To date 3,132 Absentee By-Mail ballots have been approved and counted by the Board. • Election Day— Election Day voting was steady at all precincts with 18,831 ballots cast. All precincts were open at 6:30 a.m. as required. We had a total of 326 precinct officials working in 44 precincts. Although we thought we had thoroughly setup and tested the electronic poll books for every possible scenario, we found that several precincts had issues printing on Election Day. IT staff recommended that we "image" the laptops to eliminate several steps in the data loading process in addition to the countless updates to be processed which is very time consuming. In past elections we had to "marry" each laptop to a printer. With the image process, we were told this was not necessary. We found that it was necessary to "marry" the laptops and printers once they were setup and tested prior to Election Day. This did cause confusion with our precinct officials and voters at start-up. Once we discovered the issue, my staff and I were able 3 to walk the precinct officials through over the phone on how to fix the issue. We have been in contact with the IT staff and will address this issue to ensure it will not be an issue for future elections. I am happy to report that we did not have a single voting tabulator machine issue in the county. The voting tabulator equipment was very well received by the precinct officials and the voters. Precinct officials reported the ease of use was very much appreciated. The only issues we had with voting equipment are the aging ADA compliance machines. We had a few with screen and print issues. Due to the support of the BOCC, we are ready to replace the ADA machines as soon as approved by the State Board of Elections. Election Night results were reported and uploaded to website with no issues. All 44 precincts were fully reported by 9:30 p.m. • Post-Election — A total of 429 Provisional ballots were cast. At this time the staff is recommending the Board fully count 154, partially count 8 and not approve 263. There are currently 4 in pending status waiting for additional information from voter. The Board will meet on Wednesday, November 16 at 3:30 pm to act on and count Provisionals ballots cast. The Board and staff will conduct the sample audit count for two early voting sites as directed by the State Board of Elections to ensure machine accuracy on Wednesday, November 16 at 3:30 pm. The Board and staff will conduct a hand eye count on a total of 26,429 one-stop ballots cast for the contest of President. The Board will also act on supplemental Absentee By-Mail ballots received since the last absentee meeting on Election Day. To date we have timely received an additional 674 civilian, 15 military and 82 overseas ballots to process. The Board will certify the official results on Friday, November 18 at 11:00 am. Data was uploaded from the electronic poll books to complete voter history entry in record time. Voter history was completed by close of business on Wednesday. Absentee results by precinct will be reported as soon as all audits and recounts have been completed. We are expecting to receive several requests for a statewide recount. The State Board must receive any requests for a recount no later than Tuesday, November 22. The acquisition of electronic poll books and updated voting equipment has greatly enhanced the service we provide to the voters of Orange County. The Elections Board would not have been able to achieve our goal to provide the best possible service to Orange County residents without the continued support of the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. Thank you for your much-appreciated support. Commissioner Rich asked Ms. Reams if she could talk briefly about what a recount entails. Tracy Reams said the ballots that were cast during early voting, absentee, and on Election Day will have to be run through another machine count. She said this can be done 4 via one machine, which is a high speed counter that the BOCC allowed the Board of Elections to purchase. She said this will save an enormous amount of time. Chair McKee commended the Board of Elections for the hard work and diligence exhibited during the Election Day and afterwards. PUBLIC CHARGE Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda NONE b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members Chair McKee said Commissioner Burroughs will not be here tonight. Commissioner Price had no announcements or petitions. Commissioner Rich had no announcements or petitions. Commissioner Dorosin said he petitioned a few weeks ago about the revenue distributed back from the ABC Board to the County, and Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, provided some information. He said the profits are at 39%, which is lower than other counties. He petitioned the County to seek a higher distribution from the profits from their local ABC Board back to the County. Bonnie Hammersley said there is not a policy, and staff will bring back more information on this issue. Commissioner Dorosin said a friend, Cynthia Brown, passed away recently from cancer. He said she had been a facilitator at retreats. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board recently discussed developing a policy to purchase from local vendors in Orange County, and when that is not possible, to purchase products made in the United States. He requested that a letter go out to all caterers stating that meals, which are served in plastic, or Styrofoam containers and plastic silverware will not be accepted. Commissioner Pelissier asked for a regular report on the information item in their packet, the Human Services Transportation Research and Orange Public Transit's Challenges and Solutions, and said going forward this should be tracked regularly. Chair McKee had no announcements or petitions. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations Chair McKee said the Mount Bright proposed resolution would be addressed first. He read the resolution: A RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING 5 MOUNT BRIGHT MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH ON ITS 150TH ANNIVERSARY WHEREAS, prior to the emancipation of African-American slaves, a group of"coloured" men and women held membership and worshipped at the former Hillsborough Baptist Church, now the First Baptist Church of Hillsborough; and WHEREAS, London, a slave of S. Moon, was the first African-American accepted for membership at Hillsborough Baptist Church; and WHEREAS, the African-American congregation continued to meet at the church from 1866 until April 1868, when they voluntarily withdrew their fellowship to form a church of their own; and WHEREAS, minutes from the First Baptist Church records read: "The coloured members of the church with the exception of Bro. Lewis Jenkins having voluntarily withdrawn their fellowship from us for the purpose of organizing a church of their own, therefore, we recommend that their names be stricken from the roll and that we recognize them as a separate and distinct church"; and WHEREAS, twenty [20] members subsequently formed a congregation under the leadership of Reverend Alfred E. Bright, hence the name, Mount Bright Baptist Church, and they met in the homes of one another; and WHEREAS, in 1845, Susannah W. Graham, widow of William Graham, former governor of North Carolina, donated land to build the first church structure, and which was erected in 1906; and WHEREAS, the original members of Mt. Bright Baptist Church included: Mars Whitted, Ed Bolden, George Smith, Jim Thompson, George Craig, Mark Long, Marsh Dixon, London Robinson, Martin Whitted, Anderson Henderson, Alston Whitted, Daniel Latta, Sr., Annie Alston, Julia Craig, Peggie Clemons, Beanie Moore, Millie Robinson, Peggie Faribault, Jane Whitted and Fannie M. Whitted; and WHEREAS, when the first building had to be demolished, church members constructed and dedicated a new structure in 1979, at 211 West Union Street in Hillsborough, North Carolina; and WHEREAS, through the years, the Mt. Bright Missionary Baptist Church congregation has contributed to the social well-being of Orange County, and continues to hold special events to provide needed resources to individuals and families throughout the Orange County community; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners commends the services and achievements of the members, past and present, of the Mount Bright Missionary Baptist Church over the past 150 years; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners congratulates the members of Mount Bright Missionary Baptist Church on their 6 Sesquicentennial Anniversary, with the Reverend Melvin Gattis as Associate Minister, and the Reverend Sharon Shanklin Freeland as Associate Minister and Church Administrator; and BE IT MOREOVER RESOLVED, that Mount Bright Missionary Baptist Church is hereby recognized by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners as a pillar in the community, that has served, and may it continue to serve, as a beacon of hope, progress, revival and freedom for all. This 15th Day of November 2016. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to adopt the resolution: A RESOLUTION COMMEMORATING MOUNT BRIGHT MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH ON ITS 150TH ANNIVERSARY. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Resolution in Support of the Equal Rights Amendment The Board considered approving the Resolution in Support of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). BACKGROUND: At the November 1, 2016 Board meeting, Commissioner Renee Price petitioned the Board to consider a Resolution in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. Commissioner Price provided a draft resolution for consideration. The Equal Rights Amendment affirmed the equal application of the Constitution to all citizens; which read: "Men and women shall have equal rights throughout the United States and every place subject to its jurisdiction." The amendment was introduced in every session of Congress; and was approved in reworded form by the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives on March 22, 1972. The proposed 27th Amendment to the Constitution was sent to the States for ratification, and fell three states short of ratification; including the State of North Carolina. PUBLIC COMMENT: Jennifer Miller said she wanted to thank Commissioner Price for introducing this resolution. She said the Board's support of the ERA amendment will give hope and momentum to women seeking equal status under the United States Constitution. She said the ERA will strengthen the rights of women and give protection in the workplace, as well as many other areas. Marena Gral said she is the Chair of NC for ERA, and the Co-Chair of Statewide ERA NC Alliance. She said as a Durham resident she is proud to address Orange County. She said she believed in the Board's high calling as elected officials. She said they are asking the Board to advocate for the civil rights of women. She said legislation cannot be piecemealed, and there must be universal equality. She said state laws are not uniform and federal laws are not comprehensive, and all protective acts and titles can be revised, reduced, and repealed at the whim of the changing tides of political agendas and administrations. She said the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment is not that equal. She said this issue must be on the forefront of political discussions. 7 Commissioner Rich asked Ms. Gral if she is speaking in other parts of the state. Marena Gral said the other co-chair lives in the western part of the state, and the goal is to go to every county and congressional district in the state. Commissioner Jacobs said expressed gratitude to these women and encouraged them to keep fighting for equality. Commissioner Price read the resolution: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT WHEREAS, Orange County forthrightly supports equal rights for all residents of Orange County; and WHEREAS, women continue to confront a lack of political parity, workplace discrimination, healthcare inequities, disparate rates of poverty, rape and domestic violence assaults; and WHEREAS, the United States Constitution fails to guarantee explicitly that all rights that it purports to protect are held equally by all residents without regard to sex; and WHEREAS, the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment never has been interpreted to guarantee equal rights for women; and WHEREAS, the Equal Rights Amendment [ERA] was drafted to help correct systemic discrimination based on sex, i.e., by situating sex as a suspect category invoking strict judicial scrutiny, as with race, national origin and religion; and WHEREAS, the ERA was passed by Congress in 1972 and ratified by 35 of the 38 states necessary to put it into the Constitution, yet was assumed to have expired in 1982; and WHEREAS, Congress can alter time limits in the proposing clauses of amendments, and the deadline for the ERA appeared only in the preamble as opposed to the actual legislation; and WHEREAS, Senator Floyd B. McKissick, Jr. and Representative Carla Cunningham introduced ERA ratification bills in the NC General Assembly in the 2015 long session, with Senator Mike Woodard co-sponsoring the Senate bill and Representative Henry M. Michaux co-sponsoring the House bill; and WHEREAS, these legislators have indicated that they will introduce similar bills in 2017; and WHEREAS, US Representative David Price, Representative Alma Adams, and Representative G.K. Butterfield co-sponsored bills in the 114th Congress to adopt an ERA, and to lift the time limits on states for ratifying the ERA; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners calls on the US Congress to pass into law a bill to adopt an Equal Rights Amendment, or to remove the time limit for ratification of the ERA so that ratification shall be achieved upon the affirmative vote of 38 states, of which 35 already have ratified; and 8 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners calls on the NC General Assembly to pass into law a bill to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution as proposed by Congress on March 22, 1972. This, the 15th day of November 2016. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the Resolution in support of the Equal Rights Amendment. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings NONE 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 6-b, 6-d, by Commissioner Price and 6-e by Commissioner Jacobs • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda Commissioner Price asked if item 6-d could be addressed first as there was one person in the audience to speak on this item. 6d: Adoption of the Accessible Icon Project in Orange County The Board considered approving the implementation of the new wheelchair Accessible Icon Project for Orange County. PUBLIC COMMENT: Rollin Russell is here representing the Human Relations Commission (HRC), and he thanked the Board for doing an assessment of the accessibility of all County properties. He said the HRC is asking the Board to adopt the new icon for handicapped spaces and disability services. He said where it is possible for the County to use the new icon, he hoped that the County would. He said the cities of New Bern and Durham have already adopted this icon, and the Board has a brochure at its places. He invited the Board to attend the Human Relations Forum on Sunday, January 29th Commissioner Rich asked him if he could provide this information to the new Community Relations Director to advertise this forum. Commissioner Price asked Bonnie Hammersley if the County will be re-painting parking spaces. 9 Bonnie Hammersley said the new icon will be displayed wherever it can be or is allowed to be. She said staff is assessing how quickly this can be done and will follow up with a memo. Commissioner Jacobs said at the work session last week, the Board discussed advisory boards, and the size of the HRC board came up. He said he wanted to give Rollin Russell a heads-up. Rollin Russell said they are aware of the issue and look forward to the Board's recommendations. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the implementation of the new wheelchair Accessible Icon Project for Orange County. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6-b: Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#3 The Board considered approving budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17. Commissioner Price said she had a question on the Nature preserve item. She asked if the funding source could be identified. Paul Laughton, Finance and Administrative Services, said the Board approved this item on October 18th, and as a part of the resolution the Board failed to pass how and where to move the funding. He said this amendment is to officially approve the funds and moving this from finance to pay-as-you-go funding. He said this amendment is just to create the approval of the capital funds ordinances that were approved on October 18th A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to approve the budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6-e: Unified Animal Control Ordinance Amendments The Board considered adopting the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance amendments and approving and authorizing the Chair to sign the Resolution of Amendment, "A Resolution Amending Chapter 4 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances". Commissioner Jacobs said he wanted some clarification about the second item on the abstract, which states: "The Animal Services Advisory Board has determined that the word "vicious," found throughout the ordinance, is leading to some determinations being appealed, not based on the facts of the determination, but based on dislike of the word "vicious". In order to avoid this situation in the future, the Animal Services Advisory Board recommends the word vicious be changed to dangerous. That amendment is made throughout the attached document." Commissioner Jacobs asked if clarification could be provided on who disliked the term vicious. Bob Marotto, Animal Services Director, said the concern is the way in which dog owners understand the declaration of their dog to be vicious. He said the Animal Appeals pool has discussed this issue, and it was referred to the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) for consideration. He said the ASAB and staff concurred that removing this inflammatory term made good sense. 10 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to approve the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance amendments and approve and authorize the Chair to sign the Resolution of Amendment, "A Resolution Amending Chapter 4 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances". VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes for the September 29, 2016 Joint Meeting with Schools; and the October 4, 2016 Regular Meeting, as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#3 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17 for Department on Aging; Department of Social Services; Department of Economic Development; Health Department; County Manager; Headwaters Nature Preserve; and Planning and Inspection Department. c. Creation of Permanent Time-Limited Position for Group Respite Service The Board approved a permanent time-limited Social Worker II position effective November 15, 2016 through August 31, 2018. d. Adoption of the Accessible Icon Project in Orange County The Board approved the implementation of the new wheelchair Accessible Icon Project for Orange County. e. Unified Animal Control Ordinance Amendments The Board adopted the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance amendments and approving and authorizing the Chair to sign the Resolution of Amendment, "A Resolution Amending Chapter 4 of the Orange County Code of Ordinances". 7. Regular Agenda a. School Impact Fee Updates The Board considered: 1. Receiving a presentation by staff; 2. Discussing the topic as desired; 3. Authorizing finalization of the school impact fee study reports by the consultant (TischlerBise); and 4. Adopting one of the proposed Ordinances as follows: a. Attachment 2 if the Board believes a 50/50 multi-family unit bedroom split projection is the more realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 37% of the MSIF). b. Attachment 3 if the Board believes a 75/25 multi-family unit bedroom split projection is the more realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 43% of the MSIF). c. Additionally, the BOCC can choose to adopt different MSIF percentage levels from those listed in the ordinances and/or a different phasing timeline. BACKGROUND: Since 1993, Orange County has levied school impact fees to help defray the public costs of new development. The fee is charged once to all new residential development in both school districts. Fees charged must be proportional to the actual impact caused which is the reason a technical study is completed; the data-based study determines the proportional impact of housing types and the "maximum supportable impact fee" (MSIF) that can be charged for each 11 type of housing. Proceeds from school impact fees can be used only to increase student membership capacity (e.g., Capital Facilities — new or expanded school buildings) in the school district in which the fee was collected. School impact fee proceeds cannot be used to fund operations or repairs of existing facilities. It should be noted that people's housing choices over time can change and those choices are reflected in the data used in the technical studies. Variance from study-to-study is to be expected due to demographic and housing trends that are captured in the data. Impact fees are paid once (when units are constructed) and cover the entire life of each housing unit. Housing often displays a cyclical nature of occupancy through the decades that a unit exists. This is one of the reasons school impact fee studies necessarily consider the entire housing stock when determining student generation rates; the entirety of the housing stock provides a reasonable snapshot in time of how all units will be occupied during their existence. Additionally, redevelopment projects of existing housing units do not pay additional impact fees unless the number of new units exceeds the number of existing units, in which case impact fees are due only on the number of new units that exceeds the existing number (e.g., 200 housing units being redeveloped into a project that contains 250 new units would pay impact fees only on the 50 additional units). The Board of County Commissioners has extensively discussed the results of the 2016 studies and possible fee updates at four meetings since September. Meeting materials and videos of the meetings are posted at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/board of county commissioners/index.php Meeting dates were: • September 6, 2016 • September 29, 2016 • October 4, 2016 • October 18, 2016 At the October 18 meeting, the Board voted (5-2) on the preference for charging school impact fees based on bedroom counts, when applicable. The Board also deferred an adoption decision to give staff time to meet with representatives of three interested groups (the Homebuilders Association of Durham, Orange, and Chatham Counties; the Triangle Apartment Association; and the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce) who spoke at the meeting and also to conduct an additional breakeven analysis based on different assumptions from the analysis that was completed for the October 18 meeting. County staff met with representatives of various organizations on October 26 and the group sent an email with their comments on November 1. The e-mail and staff responses are included in Attachment 4. Some of the ideas presented by the stakeholders have been incorporated into the potential ordinances in Attachments 2 and 3. Details of the breakeven analyses are included in Attachment 1. The analyses differ in the multi-family bedroom split projections as follows: • A 50/50 multi-family bedroom split (0-2 bedrooms/3+ bedrooms) yields a breakeven point of 37% of the MSIF. Note that some stakeholders who attended the meeting on October 26 have indicated this bedroom split is not likely, particularly in the Chapel Hill 12 — Carrboro district; expectation that more 0-2 bedroom units will be constructed than 3+ bedroom units. • A 75/25 multi-family bedroom split (0-2 bedrooms/3+ bedrooms) yields a breakeven point of 43% of the MSIF. Note that some stakeholders have indicated this bedroom split may still be on the high side for 3+ bedroom units. Staff notes that if this indication is correct, the starting point of the MSIF would need to be higher if the County wishes to "breakeven" on school impact fee collections the first year. The breakeven analyses are based on the construction assumptions included in Attachment 1. If actual construction differs significantly from assumptions, actual impact fee amounts collected would be different (either higher or lower, depending on actual construction activity). When updated impact fees were last adopted in 2008, the initial fee amount was set at a level (32% of the 2008 MSIF) expected to collect $1.6 million in the Chapel Hill — Carrboro district in order to reach the amount budgeted for debt service in that district. The "breakeven point" was not calculated in 2008 (i.e., the MSIF percentage point was based on budget needs). Additionally, a four-year implementation period was adopted since the starting point of 32% of the MSIF provided a very low partial cost recovery. The fee started at 32% of the MSIF on January 1, 2009 and moved to 40%, 50%, and 60% each January 1 of subsequent years, completing the annual increases in 2012. The proposed Ordinances (Attachments 2 and 3) include the section of the County's General Code of Ordinances that pertains to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee with proposed amendments shown in "track changes" format. Proposed amendments to this section of the Code of Ordinances include: • Adding definitions for the various housing types. • Updating the schedule of public school impact fees in Section 30-33. • Adding language in Section 30-33 that would require age restricted units that do not remain age restricted for at least 20 years be required to pay the difference between the age restricted fee paid and the non-age-restricted fee in effect at the time a unit is no longer age restricted. • Adding language in Section 30-35(e) clarifying under what conditions a refund would be issued if impact fees were reduced for a particular housing unit type. • Adding language in Section 30-38 to recognize conditional zoning, which was adopted in 2011 when the UDO was adopted. The proposed Ordinances differ as follows: • Attachment 2 is the Ordinance that assumes a multi-family bedroom split of 50/50 (0- 2/3+ bedrooms) o Attachment 2 would adopt the impact fee levels at 37% of the MSIF, effective January 1, 2017 with an increase to 47% of the MSIF on January 1, 2018 and a final increase to 57% of the MSIF on January 1, 2019. • Attachment 3 is the Ordinance that assumes a multi-family bedroom split of 75/25 (0-2/3+ bedrooms) o Attachment 3 would adopt the impact fee levels at 43% of the MSIF, effective January 1, 2017 with an increase to 53%% of the MSIF on January 1, 2018 and a final increase to 63% of the MSIF on January 1, 2019. 13 • The sole difference between the two Ordinances is the Schedule of Public School Impact Fees in Section 30-33, reflecting the information in the above bullets. The adopting Ordinance for both options contains language clarifying building permit application deadlines and by when a building permit would have to be issued in order to pay the 2016 fee levels (this is relevant for housing unit types that had a lower 2016 fee). This language is included to ensure that genuine projects are given ample time to go through the normal permitting process (which can include required revisions prior to permit issuance) while discouraging premature applications containing inadequate information but which are submitting for the purpose of beating fee increase deadlines. The version of the Ordinance presented at the October 18 BOCC meeting allowed 120 days to obtain a building permit. As a result of stakeholder comments, this timeframe has been extended to 180 days. Additionally, in response to stakeholder comments, staff has added language to allow projects that have an approved Zoning Compliance Permit by January 1, 2017 and which apply for and receive building permits in the prescribed timeframes be permitted to pay the 2016 impact fee levels (this clause is relevant primarily to large multi- family projects). At the request of the Town, Orange County Planning staff made a presentation to the Chapel Hill Town Council on October 10, 2016. Comments made were primarily related to the effect of impact fees on housing affordability. Planning staff also presented to the Town of Carrboro's Board of Aldermen on October 25, 2016. Comments at Carrboro's meeting included: • Concern over the effect of the impact fees on housing affordability, including the idea that impact fees increase the resale prices (or rents) of existing housing. • Concern that an existing house could be demolished and replaced with a larger, more expensive house and no additional impact fees would be required. This also relates to concern about the potential negative impact on existing, more affordable neighborhoods. • Concern over social justice issues and equitability and the ideas that the old and new "formulas" should be better contextualized and how the affordability question manifests itself. • The idea that schools should be supported in a different way. Meeting materials and videos of these meetings are available on the Towns' websites. It should be noted that the adopted percentage of MSIF must be the same for all housing types (e.g., fees cannot be adopted at 40% MSIF for one housing type and 60% MSIF for a different housing type). Since 1995, Orange County has offered an impact fee reimbursement program for school impact fees paid on affordable housing units. From FY2009-10 through FY2015-16, $606,318 in collected impact fees was reimbursed for the 77 affordable single-family housing units and one apartment building containing 6 affordable multi-family units constructed in that time period. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 2016 School Impact Fee Update 14 November 15, 2016 Presenters: Craig Benedict, Planning Director; and Perdita Holtz, Planner III Overview • School impact fees are updated to reflect changing demographics and capital costs • Two new categories were included • Small cottage homes (<800 square feet) • Age restricted housing • Housing categories were further refined to reflect how smaller units (i.e., fewer bedrooms) generally show lower impacts • School impact fees are not an affordable housing tool but balance the capital needs of schools based on lost state revenues and link revenues to new construction and not the entire populace. Perdita Holtz, Planning, presented this portion of the PowerPoint: October 18 BOCC Meeting • Board voted on the preference for charging school impact fees based on bedroom count, when applicable • Deferred adoption decision until November 15 o Meet with stakeholder group o Additional breakeven analysis Activities Since October 18 Discussion • Additional breakeven analysis completed o 75/25 multi-family 0-2 BR/3+ BR split » Results in 43% MSIF starting point • Presentation to Town of Carrboro on October 25 o Summary of comments on page 4 of abstract • Met with stakeholder group on October 26 o Written comments received November 1 » Attachment 4, along with staff responses Proposed Ordinances • Begin fees at estimated breakeven points and increase by 10 percentage points of the MSIF for 2 subsequent years • Also language in adopting ordinance (Be It Further Ordained) clarifying building permit application deadlines and by when a building permit would have to be issued in order to pay the prior fee o Timeframe increased from 120 days to 180 days at stakeholder request • Language added to adopting ordinance (second Be It Further Ordained) for approved Zoning Compliance Permits due to stakeholder comments o Projects with a ZCP by January 1, 2017 and that submit for a building permit prior to January 1, 2018 may choose 2016 fee or updated fee, provided building permit is issued no more than 180 calendar days after submission of application • Other amendments to the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance previously presented o Contained in proposed ordinances in Attachments 2 and 3 15 Proposed Fees — 37% MSIF starting point (50/50 multifamily unit bedroom count mix) (graph) Proposed Fees — 37% MSIF starting point (50/50 multifamily unit bedroom count mix) (graph) Proposed Fees —43% MSIF starting point (75/25 multifamily unit bedroom count mix) (graph) Proposed Fees —43% MSIF starting point (75/25 multifamily unit bedroom count mix) (graph) Recommendation for Tonight 1. Receive presentation by staff; 2. Discuss the topic as desired; 3. Authorize finalization of the school impact fee study reports by the consultant (TischlerBise); and 4. Adopt one of the proposed Ordinances as follows: a. Attachment 2 if the Board believes a 50/50 multi-family unit bedroom split projection is the more realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 37% of the MSIF, increase to 47%, then 57%). b. Attachment 3 if the Board believes a 75/25 multi-family unit bedroom split projection is the more realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 43% of the MSIF, increase to 53%, then 63%). c. Additionally, the BOCC can choose to adopt different MSIF percentage levels from those listed in the ordinances and/or a different phasing timeline. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the item on projects with ZCP, and asked if there is a choice, by the time they get 180 calendar days, an additional year and half. Perdita Holtz said yes, potentially that would be the time frame. Commissioner Jacobs asked if he has 1,000 units, and he gets basic approval, at what point would he be vested for all 1,000 units, with this 18-month cushion. Perdita Holtz said one would be vested for the units that are covered by the building application that was submitted. She said if one only submitted for 250 units, those would fall under the previous fee, and the subsequent units would not. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the time frame that the building permits are still valid, if he applied for 1,000 building permits and only built 200, could be identified. Perdita Holtz said construction activity must occur within each six-month period. Commissioner Jacobs asked if building activity could be explained, and if any extensions are permitted. He asked if clearing land and building roads counts as building activity. Perdita Holtz said yes. Commissioner Jacobs said one could lay out a development, vest oneself for all 1,000 units and start building, then phase it over however many years, and asked if this would be acceptable. Perdita Holtz said yes, if it was phased correctly. Bonnie Hammersley said on page 5 of abstracts, attachment 3, should read 75/25. 16 PUBLIC COMMENT: Jacob Rogers is with the Triangle Apartments Association, and he thanked the Board for pausing the process to let them be involved. He said thank you to Planning staff for meeting with their various stakeholders. He said he wanted to address the zoning compliance permit, and asked that the same rights be added in subsequent years. He said they also agreed with starting in year one at 37% of MSIF, with annual increases of 5 percentage points of MSIF per year, instead of 10. Aaron Nelson said thank you to the Board of County Commissioners and staff for listening to their input during the process. He said impact fees are not the first choice for building schools, but they understand the need. He said they support bedroom count, and the 50/50 model. He referred to the grandmothering issue noting it is only for the first year, and he is asking them to extend this grandmothering clause. He said they liked the small home idea, and the refining of the categories. He asked if the Board could go slower with the fee increases. Commissioner Price said she appreciated the public input, but she still has problems seeing the fairness and equity in these proposed tables. She understands the goal, but there are too many inequities. Commissioner Rich said the public speakers were speaking about grandmothering, and asked staff if there are loopholes in this proposal where the County is losing money for the schools. Craig Benedict said there is grandmothering in this year, and the ability to pay this year's rates into next year; but those grandmothering in in late 2017 should know impact fees have changed, and should have worked this into their business plan. Commissioner Rich asked if there is an advantage to giving developers the option to choose which fee to pay. Craig Benedict said developers are being given the benefit of the doubt that their current business plan can continue, with the current fees. Commissioner Price asked Craig Benedict if he finds this proposal to be fair and equitable. Craig Benedict said the impact fees are based on methodology that is legally defensible, and the legally defensible matrix is to evaluate the student generation rate that comes from certain housing types, and certain bedroom counts. He said it is equitable because it has been found that these certain housing types and bedroom counts generate more students, and there is a direct linkage to the fee, and the impacts that come from these housing categories. Commissioner Price asked if the study tracked trends. Craig Benedict said two studies were completed, and one had to do with the last 10 years of growth (2004-2014), which showed trends of more multi-family homes being built in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said when determining impact fees, the entire housing stock must be reviewed because housing can be multi-family/student housing at one point, and then become family housing 20 years down the road. Commissioner Dorosin said he wanted to clarify the issues before the Board, so he can see a path to a decision: --recommendation choice: 75/25, 50/50 --three-year window incentive to get more accurate data and spacing --whether or not to do something different about grandmothering Commissioner Pelissier said she wanted to go with the 75/25 scenario; keep to 10% acceleration rate; and grandmothering only once, at the beginning. 17 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the age specific units, and asked if a development was to be in this category for 20 years, and this changed before the 20 years, does the entire impact fee get paid, or just the remainder. Craig Benedict said the difference between what was paid originally, and what the new rate is, will be paid. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board has very few options under the law to fund school construction, and this is one of their few tools. Commissioner Jacobs said he is in favor of the 75/25, but would consider a 7.5% increase per year, over a 4-year period. He said he does not want to extend the capacity to revert back to lower impact fees. Chair McKee asked if the lag time between the last adoption of impact fees and today could be identified. Craig Benedict said the study started in 2006, and they became effective in 2008. Chair McKee said he will not be able to support this tonight, but knowing that the majority of the Board does support it, he suggested doing a 4-5 year implementation schedule, starting at lowest level. Commissioner Jacobs said his suggestion of the 7.5%, over 4 years, was a compromise. He referred to the article at their places on impact fees, and said if some of the hurt can be reduced for the residents, it should be. Commissioner Dorosin asked if Craig Benedict would explain why the recommendation is for 75/25. Craig Benedict said this is an option. He said at the last meeting, it was evident that multi-family was not going to be 50% and 50%, but rather 75/25. He said staff put the proposal together to reflect a better assumption. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the two alternatives presented in the handout, the two tables, yield the same revenues. Craig Benedict said yes. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve: Attachment 3 if the Board believes a 75/25 multi-family unit bedroom split projection is the more realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 43% of the MSIF). VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Chair McKee and Commissioner Price) MOTION PASSES A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the rate of acceleration at 7.5% per year, over 4 years. VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Chair McKee and Commissioner Price) MOTION PASSES A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to accept the grandfathering provisions as described by the staff. 18 Commissioner Jacobs wanted to be clear that an additional 180 days are not being added. Craig Benedict said the zoning compliance permit implies certain activity, and suggested checking with the Towns to see if it covers putting a foundation in, or whether it refers to land clearing. John Roberts said he does not know how to put that in the adoption tonight, and he said the motion can be adopted tonight and staff can come back with ways to remedy this situation for a future amendment. Commissioner Jacobs said that would be fine. Commissioner Dorosin asked if this issue could be explained under the current ordinance, in comparison to this motion. Craig Benedict said under current ordinance one must have a building permit in hand before an impact fee had changed. He said one could get a zoning compliance permit, and then get 120 days to get a building permit. Commissioner Dorosin said the proposal benefits developers, whom under the current ordinance, must have a building permit in hand by the end of 2016, or they will pay the new rates. Craig Benedict said actually, under the current ordinance, the developer must have a certificate of occupancy. He said the proposal is to back it up to the zoning compliance permit. He said this is especially pertinent for some of the multi-family projects. Commissioner Rich asked the Attorney if the content of the motion is vague. John Roberts said knowing that this is the intent, staff can look at language to address this with a later amendment. Commissioner Rich asked if the motion could be restated. Commissioner Dorosin said the motion is to adopt the grandfathering language about the one-year grandfathering and the 180 calendar days, and that is the provision that will be studied to see if it is a loophole that can be closed or clarified. Commissioner Jacobs said he would defer this item until the December 5th meeting, and ask staff to come back with a tighter rein, and a timeframe that will allow flexibility, but will not give away the store. John Roberts suggested adopting the ordinance as amended, with the 75/25 split and the 7.5% implement change, but not the grandfathering issue and 180 day provision, which will be brought back for future discussion. Chair McKee said it is his understanding that the Board adopted the 75/25 split, and the 7.5% implementation change. He said the grandfathering issue is all that remains. John Roberts said Commissioner Dorosin made a motion to choose those two things, but the Board has not adopted the ordinance amendment itself. He said the Board will need to go back to number three, and authorize finalization of the study and adopt its results. He said the Board has not actually adopted the ordinance. Commissioner Dorosin withdrew the last motion he made. Commissioner Pelissier agreed. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to authorize finalization of the school impact fee study reports by the consultant (TischlerBise). VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Chair McKee and Commissioner Price) A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adopt attachment 3 subject to the changes above ( Attachment 3 if the Board believes a 75/25 19 multi-family unit bedroom split projection is the more realistic projection. (Fees would begin at 43% of the MSIF). Commissioner Rich asked if the timeframe for the next study has been determined. Craig Benedict said nothing about this is included in the ordinance. He said this can be handled separately as a policy request by the Board; it does not have to be included in the ordinance. Commissioner Rich said a plan should be determined, so as to avoid this circumstance in the future. VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Chair McKee and Commissioner Price) A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin for staff to come back with a timeframe for a follow-up study in four years, and staff to let the Board know that it is going in the budget year three. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Chapel Hill Town Hall Study Committee The Board considered authorizing participation in a Town of Chapel Hill committee to consider the use of Historic Town Hall as a visitor and history center and appoint a Commissioner representative to represent the County on this Committee. Travis Myren presented the following background: BACKGROUND: On October 26, 2016, the Chapel Hill Town Council created a committee to explore the use of the Town's former Town Hall building for use as visitor and history center. Although this topic has been discussed in general by the Board of Orange County Commissioners, no formal action has been taken to include the potential relocation of the Visitor's Bureau as part of future planning for the Historic Town Hall facility. This abstract would authorize the inclusion of the Visitor's Bureau in this analysis and appoint a Commissioner representative to the Committee. Attachment 1 is the resolution adopted by the Town Council that establishes the Committee and its composition. Attachment 2 is a citizen petition received by the Town in June of 2016 regarding the potential colocation of the Visitor's Bureau with the Chapel Hill Museum in Historic Town Hall. The Town and County Boards discussed ideas surrounding the future use of Historic Town Hall and other properties during its joint meeting on March 26, 2015. The portion of the agenda abstract dedicated to this discussion is attached as Attachment 3. The abstract discusses the potential options for the disposition of Historic Town Hall and how it could be used as a site for the Visitors Bureau or other community purpose. The abstract also mentions the potential reuse of the current Visitors Bureau building. Following this discussion, County staff engaged an architect and engineer to perform a facility analysis of Historic Town Hall to inform any future discussion. This report is located as Attachment 4, "June 9, 2015 Facility Analysis". 20 Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation: Chapel Hill Historic Town Hall Study Committee Board of Orange County Commissioners November 15, 2016 Purpose • Authorize participation in Town of Chapel Hill Committee on reuse of Historic Town Hall as a Visitor and History Center — Potential occupants may include • Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau • Chapel Hill Historical Society and/or • Chapel Hill Museum — Potential relocation of the Visitors Bureau to Historic Town Hall facility • Appoint a Commissioner representative to the Committee Background • Conceptual discussion of Town/County facilities during Joint Meeting — March 26, 2015 • Facility Analysis by Asset Management — June 9, 2015 • Visitors Bureau Board presentation on combining Visitors Center and Chapel Hill Museum by Reverend Robert Seymour and Alan Rimer — January 20, 2016 — No formal action • Report to the Town Council by Reverend Robert Seymour and Alan Rimer — June 27, 2016 • Town Resolution creating Committee to study possible reuse of Town Hall as a combined Visitors and History Center — October 26, 2016 Historic Town Hall • Constructed in 1938 — Listed on National Register of Historic Places • Corner of Rosemary St. and Columbia St. • Town owned and maintained • Currently occupied by IFC Community Kitchen • IFC to vacate facility in two to three years Visitors Bureau Facility • Constructed in the 1930's • Located at 501 West Franklin Street • County owned and maintained • Current Occupants — Visitors Bureau — Guardian ad Litem — Vacant Office formerly TerraDotta, LLC • No immediate space or facility repair needs 21 Committee Structure • Created by Town Resolution on October 26, 2016 • Committee Charge: Consider the possible use of the Historic Town Hall Facility as a Visitors and History Center • Committee Composition » Sally Greene —Town Council — Committee Chair » TBD - Board of Orange County Commissioners » Joel Curran - UNC-Chapel Hill » Moses Carey - Community Member » Richard Ellington - Community Member » Josh Gurlitz - Community Member » Alan Rimer - Community Member » Chela Tu - Community Member • Staff Support—Town and County • Report and Recommendations to Town Council and Board of Orange County Commissioners in May of 2017 Recommendation • Authorize participation in Town of Chapel Hill Committee on the Reuse of Historic Town Hall — Visitor and History Center — Potential relocation of the Visitors Bureau • Appoint a Commissioner representative to the Committee Commissioner Price asked if there is a plan to address potential asbestos and lead paint in the old Town Hall. Jeff Thompson, Director of Asset Management Services, said the preliminary findings showed that these items would be abated, and this would be part of the process. Commissioner Price asked if this is factored into the costs. Jeff Thompson said yes. Chair McKee said the abstract notes the financial impact as none, due to this being a study; but the actual implementation of any recommendations would have financial impact for the County. Travis Myren said costs to the County will be evaluated as part of the study. Commissioner Rich asked if a colocation occurs, what would happen to the building the County currently owns. Travis Myren said this would not be part of the study, but staff would engage the Board about the disposition of the building should a colocation occur. Commissioner Jacobs said the County could offer a building trade to the Town of Chapel Hill. He said this is not a number one priority for Orange County, and the Town of Chapel Hill at one time wanted the Visitors Bureau property for more incubator space. He said the County only has so much money, and the priority needs to be to the residents. He said he hoped the Board representative to this committee would say there is no commitment from the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, except to participate in discussions. He suggested directing staff to get an estimate of the value of the Visitors Bureau. 22 Commissioner Dorosin said Commissioner Rich is the Board representative on the Visitor's Bureau (VB), but having someone who is not on VB may be a good choice. He said he has mixed feelings and asked if the Board had thoughts on this. Chair McKee suggested taking care of the first item, before discussing an appointment. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to authorize participation in a Town of Chapel Hill committee to consider the use of Historic Town Hall as a visitor and history center, and direct staff to look at the value of current VB and space. Commissioner Jacobs said Commissioner Dorosin made a good point, but who better to understand the VB, than Commissioner Rich who is on the VB. Commissioner Dorosin said the Commissioner position is representing the Board of County Commissioners, not the VB. Commissioner Rich respected Commissioner Dorosin's comments, but she does not think this position is representing the VB. She said she would like to be on the committee. Chair McKee said he would endorse Commissioner Rich, as she brings three viewpoints: a Commissioner perspective, a VB perspective, and a former Town Council member perspective. He feels wholeheartedly that she would represent the BOCC. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Commissioner Rich to represent the County on this Committee. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project - North Carolina Central University Extension The Board considered: 1. Receiving the presentation from GoTriangle; and 2. Endorsing or providing comments on the Durham- Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) amendments: a. to the definition of its Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the D-O LRT project; and b. to the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for the D-O LRT project or provide comments. Jeff Mann, General Manager, said there is a financial gap that they will walk the Board through, and he reviewed the following information: BACKGROUND: In February 2016, GoTriangle received a Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)/Record of Decision (ROD) for the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) project from UNC Hospitals in Chapel Hill to Alston Avenue in Durham. In response to comments received during that process, GoTriangle started to evaluate the option to extend the project south on Alston Avenue to a station near North Carolina Central University (NCCU). Preliminary engineering and ridership forecasts found the station to be feasible and capable of generating high ridership. GoTriangle is currently studying the natural environment and community impacts. Recent guidance from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) indicates that the D-O LRT project must enter the Final Design phase by February 2017. In order to meet this milestone, allow the NCCU station to advance into the engineering phase along with the other parts of the 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 Preferred Alternative (LPA) and 2) The extension needs to be included in its 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). See Attachments 1 and 2. City of Durham, Durham County, and DCHC MPO Board Actions —While the City and County Boards do not have a role in approving the LPA or 2040 MTP amendments beyond their representation on the MPO Board, GoTriangle requested their "endorsement" before MPO Board consideration. The Durham City Council and Durham Board of County Commissioners, on September 22, and on October 4, 2016, respectively, voted to recommend that the DCHC MPO amend the LPA and 2040 MTP for the D-O LRT project. At its October 19 meeting, the MPO Board agreed to release the amendments for public comment to take place through November 29. The MPO has scheduled a public hearing on November 9, 2016, 9AM, in the Committee Room, located on the 2nd floor of Durham City Hall. A link to the amendment and information on submitting comments and requesting printed copies can be found on the MPO website at www.dchcmpo.org. Questions regarding the MPO process or submittal of public comments can be directed to Andy Henry, andrew.henry @durhamnc.gov, (919) 560-4366, extension 36419. Orange County BOCC History - The BOCC received its last update on the D-O LRT project at its April 14, 2015 meeting. Its last discussion, specific to the LPA for the project, occurred February 14, 2012. Links to previous BOCC materials: June 2, 2015 - http://bit.ly/2dTKt2O February 14, 2012 - http://bit.ly/2eCIGSo Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP) Amendments — Discussions are currently ongoing with a Staff Working Group to review and update the OCBRIP financial assumptions and associated services. GoTriangle is also working with a Funding and Community Collaborative to help identify revenue sources to close the state funding gap. The OCBRIP amendments will need to be approved by the three parties (Orange County, DCHC MPO, and GoTriangle) to the Interlocal Implementation Agreement. Amendments are scheduled to be complete by April 2017. GoTriangle's annual report for Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015 — June 30, 2016), expected to be received in the Manager's Office early this November, will also include some information on next steps. Danny Rogers made the following PowerPoint presentation: He said that he understood the financial portion is the priority of the Board of County Commissioners tonight. Chair McKee said he would like the financial portion to be reviewed before the addition of the NCCU station. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project Update November 15, 2016 Status of Durham-Orange LRT • Addition of NCCU Station • Entry Into Engineering o On-schedule to complete submittal to FTA by December 31, 2016 o Anticipated approval by FTA is by the end of February, 2017 Biggest issue remaining is Financial Plan 24 • FTA funding assumptions change • Funding Gap Remains • 30% of Non-New Starts funding must be committed • Revenues dedicated in the Plan meet this requirement • Remainder must be planned Entry into Engineering Schedule is Critical FTA has required D-O LRT to be in Engineering by March or must drop out of New Starts Program Project expenses incurred when project is not in the process are not eligible for future FTA reimbursement Cost to date for project are reimbursable upon obtaining Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) State and Federal Transit Funding Changes Since Approval of Plan Bus Service • State: 7.5% • Local: 92.5% Vehicles, Bus Stops, Park and Rides • Federal: 80% 4 38% • State: 10% 4 8% • Local/Other: 10% 4 54% Light Rail, Commuter Rail • Federal: 50% 4 50% • State: 25% 4 10% • Local/Other: 25% 4 40% Bus Rapid Transit • Federal: 50% 4 70% • State: 25% 4 0% • Local/Other: 25% 4 30% Hillsborough Train Station • State: 90% 4 91% • Local: 10% 4 9% • Local Transit Revenues (Shared by Bus and Rail) Sales Tax by Article (graph) D-O LRT Capital Funding Sources (chart) Financial Model Notes 1. Both scenarios use forecasts developed by Dr. Walden in 2014 2. Baseline Scenario assumes FTA disbursements of$125 million per year 3. Scenario One reduces FTA disbursements to $100 million per year 4. All Scenarios assume 10% State participation Funding Gap Gap = Lowest projected cash balance in system cash flow 25 — Assumes maximum borrowing while maintaining minimum 1.15x net debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) — Assumes reserves have been fully funded (operating, debt service, capital asset management) — Funding for expanded Bus Operations, revised Chapel Hill BRT project, and NCCU Station included in analysis Base Case (FTA Cap = $1.25 mil/year) Scenario #1 (FTA Cap = $100 mil/year) Ways to Resolve the Funding Gap Scenario 1: 10% State Funding, Walden 2014 Forecast, $100M FTA Cap Next Steps • Obtain approval to submit financial plan to FTA that includes planned additional local funding by December 10, 2016. • Continue to work with local partners to define details of additional local revenue sources to have available for reference prior to approving Final Design phase of General • Engineering Consultant contract in April 2017. Chair McKee said he would like to discuss this portion first. Chair McKee said it has been his ongoing concern that the only alternative financing would be from a few resources, and the majority of it would come from Orange County and Durham, in the amount of$175 million. He asked if this is accurate. Danny Rogers said that is accurate if this plan stays in place, but time is needed to get through the evaluations. Chair McKee referred to the slide the mentions the revenues percentage projections for the sales tax increases, and he said he questioned a 5% increase has been achieved every year, and he thinks they have been fairly flat over the last 2-3 years. Danny Rogers said that is correct, but over 10 years there was growth of 5.7%. He said that is over a longer period of time. Chair McKee said he questions if the County will ever reach these consistent percentages. Danny Rogers said a more current update on this question is being gathered. He said the numbers are lower for Orange County, and a bit higher for Durham County. Chair McKee asked if the current projected total cost for the light rail could be clarified. Danny Rogers said that is a complicated question, but the total cost in current dollars is $1.6 billion. He said it is a goal to add the NCCU extension, which would be about $90-110 million. He said joint development can be included in the project, such as affordable housing, to help leverage federal dollars. He said current efforts are looking at how to build the project, with an original goal of finishing in 2026. He said one thing that is affecting the ability to pay for the project is whether $100 million or $125 million is received. He said the gap of$25 million gets exacerbated when the construction period does not match the reimbursement period. He said the construction period has been extended a few years, to better match the expenditures with the revenues; but doing this increases inflation by about $2.3 billion, if the project is completed in 2028. Commissioner Rich asked if the increase on the Chapel Hill BRT could be identified. 26 Danny Rogers said from $25 million to a little over $100 million. Jeff Mann said the original estimate was $40 million, and it is now $125 million; due to an extension and some cost estimates that have increased. He said this is included in the financial model. Commissioner Jacobs clarified that it is included in the new financial model. Commissioner Jacobs referred to private capital contributions, and asked are there any actual commitments yet. Danny Rogers said there are commitments for Right of Way (ROW), and they are working with partners on funding, which is being received well. Jeff Mann said some draft letters of intent have been delivered, and things looks promising. Commissioner Pelissier referred to putting the BRT into the financial model, and asked if there is a way to make it later so there would not be the gap during construction of the light rail. Danny Rogers said probably not. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the timeframe for the BRT could be reviewed. Danny Rogers said 2019, and it hits before the main part of the LRT. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the entities who are a party to the implementation plan are Orange County, MPO, Durham County, Go Triangle. He said Chapel Hill is not actually a party to this agreement. He said parties who are not a party to the agreement can triple the cost of a project that they desire, and it becomes part of the plan without the actual parties being able to vote on it. Patrick McDonough, Manager of Planning for GoTriangle, said they are trying to figure out how to deliver projects for which people voted. Commissioner Jacobs said the BRT is a lovely plan, but is a much larger plan than the voters approved, and the question needs to be asked if it worth tripling the cost. Commissioner Price asked if the commitments from the private sector are contingent upon Orange County's decision. Danny Rogers said their commitments are contingent on the project happening, but not on Orange County's decision. He said these discussions have been happening on a parallel path. Commissioner Price asked if the $25 million, indicated in the presentation, is the total of the cumulative private capital. Danny Rogers said a plan is being created to present to the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA). He said the $25 million is a placeholder, and the totals could be more. Commissioner Rich said $25 million is a low number. Danny Rogers said there is a limit as to how much can be put in the plan, until there are more commitments. Commissioner Dorosin said he wanted some clarification regarding the Board's task this evening. He said there is a tight time line for the Board to give some kind of general approval to this plan, which includes the BRT and Light Rail extension to NCCU. Danny Rogers said nothing is being asked for right now, and they are still working through this process. He said more defined financial information will be brought back to the Board on December 5th. He said the Board will be asked to make a commitment to help find funding. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that there have been changes to state law, which has affected the costs. He said the Board must make a general policy commitment to understand and accept these changes; and then the Board must make a commitment to try and find funds to cover the increased costs. He said, today, that looks like an additional $4 million per year, 27 for 10 years from Orange County. He said that is about 2% of the County's budget. He clarified that the Board is not being asked to vote on anything substantive this evening. Commissioner Jacobs said the other element is if the Board wants to support the expanded scope with the addition of NCCU. Commissioner Rich asked if the $4 million is additional monies. Danny Rogers said this would be outside of the current funding. Chair McKee said the $4 million would not be covered by sales tax. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the distribution between Orange County and Durham County can be changed. She asked if there are opportunities for Tax Increment Financing (TIF) in Orange County, like Durham County has. Commissioner Pelissier said in December a Board intention for local funding will be desired, and given the timeframe of the final design phase, in April 2017. She said the Board is being asked to put a placeholder that says it has the intention to look but may or may not follow through. Danny Rogers read what the Board is being asked to consider endorsement or provide comments on the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization amendments: a. to the definition of its Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the D-O LRT project; and b. to the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for the D-O LRT project. Commissioner Pelissier clarified that the Board will need to give a firm commitment in April 2017. Danny Rogers said April is a timeframe for the GoTriangle and its partners; it is a gut check to decide if it is worth investing this money. He said no County money would be spent at that time. Danny Rogers said the next real point in the process would be in the summer of 2018. Chair McKee said there is a 5% change trigger that requires a re-look by their partners, and asked Jeff Mann if there is a reason that these figures do hit that 5%. Jeff Mann he said he would have to research this. John Roberts said he has the language, and this more than a 10% change, and the partners would have to review this. Chair McKee said this is a decision point as to whether or not to proceed with the project. Jeff Mann said the Bus and Rail investment plan is being update, and will be brought back to the Board for approval in the spring. Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to hear the rest of the PowerPoint presentation about NCCU. Commissioner Rich said she did not hear an answer to Commissioner Pelissier's question, as to whether the percentages of Durham County and Orange County can be looked at again, or if it has already been voted on, and is set in stone. She said Durham is at 77% and Orange-Chapel Hill, which is really just Orange County as Chapel Hill has not signed onto this, has the remainder. Jeff Mann said that was the current split between the counties based on the interlocal agreement. Commissioner Rich said the project is changing due to the potential line extension in Durham County. Danny Rogers resumed the PowerPoint presentation: Status of Durham-Orange LRT • Addition of North Carolina Central University (NCCU) Station 28 • Entry into Engineering • Financial Plan and Funding Needs Background • FTA issued a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision (FEIS/ROD) on the D-O LRT Project in February, 2016 • In response to comments, FTA and GoTriangle committed to look at some specific refinements including analyzing the feasibility of extending the alignment to NCCU Early analysis indicated that the extension is feasible FTA determined that a Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) would be required Proposed NCCU Station Location (map) Current Activities • The Supplemental EA on the NCCU LRT Station Refinement is now available for Public Review and Comment until Dec 7, 2016: — http://ourtransitfuture.com — NCCU James E. Shepherd Memorial Library — Main Branch of the Durham Public Library — GoTriangle's Administrative Office • DCHC MPO to vote on Metropolitan Transportation Plan Amendment to include NCCU Station on December14, 2016 Chair McKee said he repeatedly suggested the extension to NCCU six years ago, and he made no progress. He said it is completely inequitable to serve two universities, and not the third. He said he would vote for this part, as the project makes no sense without this extension. He said the overall costs of this project are absurd. Commissioner Pelissier asked if GoTriangle and the Durham County Commissioners have approved this. Danny Rogers said the Durham County Commissioners and the City of Durham gave support for this, but only the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the approval board on the action of adding it to the MTP. Commissioner Rich referred to the environmental study, and asked if it only covers Austin Avenue to NCCU. Danny Rogers said yes, as everything else has already been cleared. Commissioner Jacobs said he is totally supportive of extending the line to NCCU. Commissioner Jacobs said he has concerns: one is the cost share with Durham. He said more is being added in Durham, and the cost split should reflect that. He said he would like to see some value engineering on this project independent of Go Triangle. He said he is supportive of this project but it must be determined where it fits into the priorities of Orange County. He said he does not think it will be at the top of the list, and some adjustments will need to be made to this project. He said he has a willingness to continue to discuss this project, and would like to add the words "if possible" to the draft motion Danny Rogers read earlier. He said the County must be careful, and if this will cost Orange County the opportunity and ability to do other things, then tough choices must be made. Commissioner Pelissier said value engineering will be done, but not before the engineering phase. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this can be done by April. 29 Danny Rogers said this is being looked into. He said value engineering is good, while cost cutting is not. Commissioner Pelissier said the formula for cost sharing with Durham and light rail was based on the sales tax revenue at that time, and she said it was discussed more specifically regarding what percentage of the stations were in one county versus the other. She said having NCCU added, does not nullify the formula, but is rather a new negotiation. Patrick McDonough said many formula options were tried, and the groups arrived at a conclusion based on number of bus hours being delivered in other parts of the plan. Commissioner Pelissier said she did not recall that. Patrick McDonough said both counties agreed that they had reached their desired value, which was how the agreement was signed. He said in the past there was no hard metric. Commissioner Pelisser asked if the same formula would be used when adding a station. Patrick McDonough said there was no specific determination, but he would defer to legal staff for clarification. Commissioner Pelissier referred to Commissioner Jacobs' comments about priorities for Orange County, and said transit is a priority, and another is affordable housing. She said these priorities go hand in hand. She said would like Go Triangle to provide information to the Board on, if light rail were to exist, and bus routes could be changed, could more affordable housing be provided, due to the increased availability of public transportation. Commissioner Rich said she is in favor of the NCCU extension, and the overall project. Commissioner Rich said she too would like to review the cost sharing amounts with Durham. Commissioner Rich said she would like more information about funding for joint development for transit and affordable housing. She said this topic has not been discussed nearly enough. She clarified that the task this evening is a vote on the NCCU extension, and receiving of the financial report. Danny Rogers said nothing is being requested on the financial side tonight. Commissioner Price said she is glad NCCU is now included. She said, going forward, negotiations will be necessary for how these increased costs for the project are funded. She said the extension will benefit Orange County residents as well as Durham residents. Commissioner Jacobs said the County has no jurisdiction for affordable housing, along the light rail line, since that falls under the Town of Chapel Hill. He said the County could ask to see the Town's plans for affordable housing at the upcoming Assemblies of Governments meeting. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the expectations of the Board, for the December 5th meeting, could be reiterated. Danny Rogers said the Board will be asked to give permission to put in the plan that Orange County will make the effort to fund the additional local funds necessary to fill the financial gap; the intent to work toward that end. He said a concrete commitment of actual funds will come at a later date. Chair McKee clarified that it will only be a commitment to intent. Danny Rogers said yes. Chair McKee asked if the timeframe for commitment of actual funds could be identified. Danny Rogers said in April 2017 there will be more definition of the plan, and commitment from the County to be a part of the plan is desired at that time. He said the commitment that is required, when action must be taken, would be when submission is made to the FTA to get into the president's budget in the summer of 2018. 30 Chair McKee said design engineering is $60 or $70 million. He said the County is being asked to absorb another $60 million on an unknown before the County is being asked to commit formally. Danny Rogers said FTA is asking the County to commit. He said they do not want to commit to spending the $60 or $70 million, without an understanding from the sponsoring governments that this is desired. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to add NCCU station extension to the program and for Commissioner Jacobs to provide comments on the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization amendments: a. to the definition of its Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the D-O LRT project; b. to the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) for the D-O LRT project. VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an urgency to have a closed session tonight. Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager, said no. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich postpone their closed session meet and defer it to the December 13th meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Cancellation of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants The Board considered approving the cancellation of the declaration of restrictive covenants on real property (a single family home) located at 305 Pleasant Drive, Carrboro, NC. Audrey Spencer-Horsley, Director of Housing, Human Rights and Community Development, reviewed the following background: BACKGROUND: Housing projects that are funded with Orange County HOME Program funds are subject to the County's 99-year long-term affordability policy. Community Home Trust (CHT), formerly known as Orange County Housing and Land Trust (OCHLT), is requesting to sell one of the affordable homes out the housing portfolio. The home, located at 305 Pleasant Drive, Carrboro, NC was purchased by OCHLT in June 2000 and renovated in 2002 using $30,000 of HOME funds. The property was then sold to a low-income homebuyer. CHT re-purchased the home from the owner in 2014 and has determined that it is not in a suitable condition to convey to a new buyer without extensive renovations. CHT estimates that it will take more than $100,000 to remodel the home. The declaration of restrictive covenants will need to be cancelled in order for CHT to provide clear title. The property will be sold on the private market. There is a memorandum in the abstract from CHT Executive Director Robert Dowling that provides additional background information. Robert Dowling, Executive Director CHT, said this is not something the CHT does easily or naturally, but when the cost to upfit this home is considered, selling is the best route. He said CHT may take a loss, which CHT would ask the County to split with CHT. 31 Commissioner Pelissier said she assumed that there are mechanisms in place in order to avoid this happening again. Robert Dowling said yes, there are now years of experience, from which to learn. Commissioner Jacobs said this is the fourth instance that the County has bailed out CHT. He said there were good reasons each time, but he may not be in favor of splitting the loss with CHT. He said the County will soon be pouring millions more dollars into these programs, and must stick to policies, protect costs, and make sure decisions are thoroughly thought through. He said the people involved will come and go, and there must be systems in place to keep things functioning when exceptions are made to standards. Commissioner Rich said she is in favor of selling the house, and suggested amending the current policy and adding detail on how to sell a house out of the stock. She said there are decisions being made ad hoc, and some guidelines needs to be added. She said staff and legal should work on the language together. She said she is not sure if the loss has been worked into the CHT budget. She asked Robert Dowling if he could explain the financials of this property. Robert Dowling said a contract was signed in October for $180,000, and $175,000 is needed to break even. He said the contract was terminated on a Friday and a new offer was made the next day for $160,000. He said he asked for a deferment until the BOCC met, and the CHT Board meets tomorrow, to which the buyer agreed. He said the price of$160,000 would net about a $10,000 loss. Commissioner Dorosin asked if input should be gathered from housing agencies before changing the policy. He said the BOCC cannot make policy decisions without consulting those who are most affected by policy changes. Commissioner Dorosin said he is comfortable making fluid changes as needed. He said there cannot be one-size-fits-all policies with affordable housing, especially in Orange County, where property values can vary greatly. Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. Commissioner Jacobs said it would be the same as inviting the homebuilders for input on impact fees. He said input is welcomed, but ultimately the BOCC has to make the decisions. He said when the BOCC is waiving standards there must be some guidelines. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded Commissioner Price for the Board to approve the cancellation of the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants on real property located at 305 Pleasant Drive, Carrboro, NC and share in any loss if there is any. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Dorosin directed staff to put a policy on a work session after first of the year. 8. Reports NONE 9. County Manager's Report Bonnie Hammersley pointed out two of the Board's information items: the Memo Regarding Library Strategic Plan 2017-2020 and the Human Services Transportation Research and Orange Public Transit's Challenges and Solutions. Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the agenda for the Assemblies of Governments meeting on November 17th 32 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. Appointments a. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to appoint the following to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee: • Appointment to a full first term (Position #1) "At-Large" position for Martha Bell expiring 01/31/2019. (The one year training term has been successfully completed) • Appointment to a full first term (Position #10) "At-Large" position for Glenda Floyd expiring 06/30/2019. (The one year training term has been successfully completed) VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Workforce Development Board — Regional Partnership —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Workforce Development Board - Regional Partnership. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint the following to the Workforce Development Board - Regional Partnership: • Appointment to a full fifth term (Position #1) "Department of Social Services BOCC Appointment" position for Nancy Coston expiring 06/30/2019. • Appointment to a partial term (Position #2) "At-Large Private Sector - Business" position for Rhonda Sue Holaday expiring 06/30/2018. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Price said she recently attended a meeting of this group, since she is involved in this on the national level. She said the meeting was held in Moore County and was full of excellent information. She said this group used to always meet in Asheboro, but they are talking about rotating meetings to different counties. She said she would be interested in being the BOCC Liaison. Commissioner Jacobs suggested waiting until the BOCC pick their boards and commissions in January/February. 12. Board Comments Commissioner Pelissier had no comments. Commissioner Jacobs said a bon voyage to Sara Stephens who is leaving the Hillsborough Chamber; and to John Howell, who has been the Orange County Department of Transportation Engineer, who is moving to Alamance County. He thanked Michael Harvey for getting the buffers through the state maze, despite the Board's skepticism that this would happen. 33 Commissioner Jacobs said the developers of Collins Ridge are in the process of buying the Daniel Boone complex. He said County staff is working with the small business owners to see if the County can help. He said the t-ball fields will also go away, and there is no solution yet proposed to address this gap. He said it is important for the County to stay abreast of big developments in the municipalities as these developments often offer little back to the residents. Commissioner Dorosin had no comments. Commissioner Rich said many teams in Chapel Hill and Carrboro area won championships recently, and she asked Todd McGee, the Community Relations Director, if he would take a lead on this to follow up with the teams, write resolutions of recognition, etc. Commissioner Price said she attended the misdemeanant diversion program court, and she commends the Board to observe if possible. Chair McKee said several County Commissioners attended Veterans Day events last week, including the dedication of the land for the future memorial at the Southern Human Services Campus. Commissioner Jacobs congratulated Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Price and Commissioner Rich on their re-election, and Commissioner Elect Mark Marcoplos. 13. Information Items • November 1, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Memo Regarding Library Strategic Plan 2017-2020 • Human Services Transportation Research and Orange Public Transit's Challenges and Solutions • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from November 1, 2016 Regular Meeting 14. Closed Session DEFERRED UNTIL DECEMBER 13th Board of County Commissioners Meeting "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS § 143-318.11(a)(5). Closed Session Minutes 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board