Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12-05-2016 1 APPROVED 1/24/2017 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING December 5, 2016 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, December 5, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, (incoming Commissioner) Mark Marcoplos, (retiring Commissioner) Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County 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 7:07 p.m. Resolution of Commendation for Commissioner Bernadette Pelissier Chair McKee read the resolution: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION FOR COMMISSIONER BERNADETTE PELISSIER WHEREAS, the residents of Orange County elected Bernadette Pelissier to the Board of County Commissioners in 2008 and re-elected her in 2012; and, WHEREAS, Bernadette Pelissier was elected Chair of the Board of Commissioners in 2011 and again in 2012; and, WHEREAS, Bernadette has proven herself to be a dedicated and effective public servant who has gained the respect of all who have known her in both the public and private sectors; and WHEREAS, prior to her election as a Commissioner, Bernadette served on the Orange County Planning Board, Commission for the Environment, Special Transit Advisory Committee, Shaping Orange County's Future Task Force, the Carolina North Leadership Advisory Council, and also served in leadership roles as Chair of the Orange Chatham Sierra Club and Chair of the OWASA Board; and WHEREAS, during her tenure as an Orange County Commissioner, Bernadette Pelissier has shared her talent for leadership and public service through her work on numerous committees, 2 boards, and task forces focusing on regional transportation, environmental protection, and improving jail conditions; and WHEREAS, she served on the Triangle Transit Board of Trustees, Orange County Board of Health, Orange County Partnership for Young Children, Orange County Family Success Alliance, GoTriangle, and Chair of the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness; and WHEREAS, she served as a member of the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners' Environment Steering Committee and the Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee; and WHEREAS, Bernadette has served on the Jail Alternative Work Groups and was recently appointed for an Emeritus position on the Orange County Criminal Justice Advisory Council; and WHEREAS, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce awarded Bernadette Pelissier, Chair of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, with the 2011 Chair's Award for Public- Private Partnership ; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners desire, on behalf of County officials and employees, and the residents of Orange County, to express to Bernadette Pelissier their deep appreciation and gratitude for the services rendered by her to the County over the past eight years. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the Orange County Board of Commissioners offers Bernadette our very best wishes for success, happiness, prosperity and good health in her future endeavors. This, the fifth day of December 2016. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to approve the Resolution of Commendation for Commissioner Pelissier. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Each Commissioner congratulated Commissioner Pelissier on her retirement and spoke of highlights of their relationship with her as one of their Board members. Commissioner Pelissier said being a public servant on this Board for the past eight years has been a stupendous honor, and she thanked the public who voted for and supported her along with her many peers over the years on this Board. She said being a County Commissioner requires a personal support group as well, and she recognized her many family members who were in attendance tonight. She highlighted two long lasting effects of Board of County Commissioners decisions and one was the 1/4 cent sales tax and economic development. She said there are two initiatives which are game changers going forward: one is the Criminal Justice Advisory Council and the other is the Family Success Alliance. Oaths of Office for Board Members • Deputy Register of Deeds William Madden, aided by Former State Senator Ellie Kinnaird, administered the oath to Commissioner-Elect Mark Marcoplos 3 • N.C. State Senator Angela Bryant administered the oath to Commissioner Mark Dorosin • Superior Court Judge Carl Fox administered the oath to Commissioner Renee Price • Town of Carrboro Mayor Lydia Lavelle administered the oath to Commissioner Penny Rich Board Organization a. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair The Clerk distributed the ballots for Chair and Vice Chair. - Election of Chair: Chair Dorosin; VOTE: 7-0 - Election of Vice Chair: Commissioner Rich; VOTE -7-0 b. Designation of Voting Delegate for all NCACC and NACo Meetings for Calendar Year December 1, 2016-2017 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to nominate Commissioner Price as the Voting Delegate for all NCACC and NACo Meetings for Calendar Year December 1, 2016-2017. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Appointments a. Manager A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Bonnie Hammersley as the County Manager. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Clerk to the Board A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint Donna Baker as Clerk to the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. County Attorney A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to appoint John Roberts as the County Attorney. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded Commissioner Burroughs to move item 7-c to December 13th meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 4 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to add My Brother's Keeper Community Challenge Recommendations for Movement of Youth (MOY) to be the lead agency for My Brother's Keeper(MBK) Orange Initiative to tonight's agenda as Item 7-c. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places: -white sheet: PowerPoint for item 4-b -white sheet: PowerPoint for item 7-d - My Brother's Keeper item just added - Purple sheet: Corrected replacement page for item 6-h A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to add the substitute page 8 to Item 6-h Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Approval of Membership and Capacity Numbers and to keep it on the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Dorosin read 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 Commissioner Marcoplos had no announcements or petitions. Commissioner Jacobs congratulated those who joined, or rejoined, the Board tonight. He congratulated Attorney General-Elect Josh Stein and Governor-Elect Roy Cooper. Commissioner Price petitioned the Board to confirm a date in March for a ribbon cutting at the parking lot at Fairview Park. She asked if this event could be scheduled in coordination with the Community Watch group. Commissioner Price petitioned on behalf of resident Peggy Misch for the Board to issue a proclamation for the Bill of Rights Day, and also for the Commissioners to consider passing a Resolution in Support of the NC Commission of Inquiry on Torture. Chair Dorosin said this item would be put on the next agenda. Commissioner Rich had no announcements or proclamations. Commissioner McKee said he enjoyed the two years as both vice chair and chair of this Board. Commissioner Burroughs welcomed Commissioner Marcoplos. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 5 a. Resolution of Approval — Conservation Easement for Persimmon Hill Farm The Board considered voting to approve a resolution to approve the acceptance by Orange County of an agricultural conservation easement donation for Persimmon Hill Farm, and authorizing the Chair to sign. Rich Shaw, Land Conservation Manager, reviewed the background below: BACKGROUND: The acquisition of conservation easements to protect highly important natural and cultural resource lands in Orange County is a longstanding goal of the Board of Commissioners, and is a priority of the Lands Legacy program. Since 2001, the County has partnered with landowners and other entities to protect 2,153 acres of prime farmland and natural areas with permanent conservation easements. Over the past several months, DEAPR has worked with Bernadette Pelissier and Vann Bennett on a project to conserve significant land and water resources at the Persimmon Hill Farm located at 8403 NC Highway 86 (Cedar Grove Township). The owners grow organic blueberries and lease portions of the farm out for a variety of row crops and vegetables. The 90-acre farm (comprised of three adjacent parcels) is located in the South Hyco Creek Protected Watershed, within which an agricultural conservation easement would have a dual effect of protecting prime farmland and surface water quality. The farm drains to Roxboro Lake, which supplies drinking water for residents of the City of Roxboro and Person County. The owners intend to grant a permanent conservation easement that will restrict future development to protect prime farmland soils and forested riparian buffers, as well as scenic views of the farm from NC 86 and Burton Road. DEAPR Staff and the County Attorney have worked with the owners to prepare an agreement that meets their needs and the County's interests. There are two existing residences on the 90-acre property— a farmhouse with outbuildings and a rental house. The easement will allow the construction of one future residence and prohibit future subdivision of the property. The easement will also protect forested stream buffers located throughout the farm. All other non- agricultural development rights will be extinguished through the conservation easement. Future farm activities will be in accordance with a Conservation Plan prepared for this farm by the Orange Soil & Water Conservation District and updated periodically. DEAPR staff will monitor the property on an annual basis. A copy of the draft easement agreement is attached along with maps showing the property outlined in red. Bonnie Hammersley recognized that Rich Shaw would be retiring at the end of December, and this would be his last formal presentation to the Board. Agricultural Conservation Easement Persimmon Hill Farm Conservation Easement: ➢ Perpetual easement ➢ Rights of privacy ➢ Right to farm ➢ Agricultural buildings/structures 6 ➢ 1 future home site ➢ No subdivision Persimmon Hill Farm The landowners will donate the conservation easement to Orange County (Bernadette Pelissier and Vann Bennett). The owners will retain the rights to: privacy, farm the land, build new agricultural buildings, expand existing buildings, and one future home site on the property. There will be no future subdivisions on the property. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for the Board to adopt the resolution approving the acceptance by Orange County of the conservation easement, and authorize the Chair and the Clerk to sign the conservation easement agreement, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney, with a closing and recordation of the document expected to occur on or about December 15, 2016. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program - Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural District Designations - Multiple Farms - Bonham; Mulligan/Carter; Myers; Lloyd; & Brooks The Board considered voting to approve applications from multiple landowners/farms to certify qualifying farmland within the Schley/Eno, Cedar Grove, New Hope, and High Rock/Efland Voluntary Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) programs. Gail Hughes, Soil Conservationist, reviewed the following information and PowerPoint presentation: Orange County's Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program was started in 1992. To date, 73 farms have enrolled in the Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) program and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) program, totaling 10,917 acres (rounded) in the program. The County's Voluntary Farmland Protection Ordinance (VFPO) outlines a procedure for the Agricultural Preservation Board to review and approve applications for qualifying farmland, and to make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners concerning the establishment and modification of agricultural districts. Section VII of the VFPO contains the requirements for inclusion in a voluntary agricultural district. To be certified as qualifying farmland, a farm must: a) Be located in the unincorporated area of Orange County; b) Be engaged in Agriculture as that word is defined in NC GS 106-581.1 c) Be certified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the United States Department of Agriculture as being a farm on which at least two-thirds of the land is composed of soils that are best suited for providing food, seed, fiber, forage, timber, forestry products, horticultural crops and oil seed crops; d) Be managed in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and NC Soil and Water Conservation Service defined erosion-control practices that are 7 addressed to said highly-erodible land; and have a current conservation farm plan and/or forestry management plan associated with the current usages and owner; and e) Be the subject of a non-binding conservation agreement, as defined in N.C.G.S. §121- 35, between the County and the owner that prohibits non-farm use or development of such land for a period of at least ten years, except for the creation of not more than three lots that meet applicable County zoning and subdivision regulations. The Agricultural Preservation Board reviewed the findings of the staff assessments for the applications for the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District program at the September and November 2016 meetings. All farm applications were reviewed and verified to have met or exceeded the minimum criteria for certification into the program. The Agricultural Preservation Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the certification for the five (5) farms, including 547 acres (rounded) of farmland, and their inclusion in the Voluntary and/or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District program. The certification documentation is on file in the DEAPR/Soil and Water Conservation District office. The farms are described briefly below: Brief Farm Descriptions: 1) Owners Paul and Patricia Bonham have submitted an application to enroll two (2) parcels of land totaling 116.85 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary Agricultural District program (VAD) in the Schley/Eno Agricultural District. The farm operation includes hay crops, pasture, wildlife habitat, and managed woodland. The Bonham property has been evaluated against each of the VAD certification requirement standards and meets or exceeds all of the measures above. 2) Owners Michael Milligan and Alicia Carter have submitted an application to enroll two (2) parcels of land totaling 31.87 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary Agricultural District program (VAD) in the New Hope Agricultural District. The farm operation includes managed woodland, Christmas trees, pumpkins, and chickens. The Mulligan/Carter property has been evaluated against each of the VAD certification requirement standards and meets or exceeds all of the measures above. 3) Owner Beth Myers has submitted an application to enroll one (1) parcel of land totaling of 12.15 acres as qualifying farmland for the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) program located in the Cedar Grove Agricultural District. The farm includes seasonal vegetables; such as tomatoes, peppers, onions, etc.; and also managed woodland. The farm has been evaluated against each of the EVAD certification requirement standards and meets or exceeds all of the measures above. 4) Owners Andrew B. Lloyd and Andy Lloyd have submitted an application to enroll four (4) parcels of land totaling 271.49 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) program in the High Rock/Efland Agricultural District. The farm operation includes soybeans, small grains, and hay crops. The farm also includes managed woodland. The Lloyd Farm property has been evaluated against each of the VAD certification requirement standards and meets or exceeds all of the measures above. 8 5) Owners Dennis and Linda Brooks have submitted an application to enroll two (2) parcels of land totaling 113.84 acres as qualifying farmland for the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) program in the New Hope Agricultural District. The farm operation includes beef cattle, horses, pastures, and hay crops. The farm also includes managed woodland. The Brooks Farm has a Conservation Easement with Orange County on the farm, and installed riparian buffers along the streams through their property to protect Hillsborough's water supply. The Brooks Farm has been evaluated against each of the VAD certification requirement standards and meets or exceeds all of the measures above. Orange County Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural Program Orange County Board of Commissioners Meeting December 5, 2016 Orange County VAD/EVAD Program Benefits of Agricultural Districts ➢ Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) is a 10 year commitment for farm to be in active farm production, but the landowner can withdraw from the VAD at any time, for any reason, with a 30 day notification to the Agri. Preservation Board. ➢ Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) is an irrevocable 10 year commitment to be in active farm production, therefore the "enhanced" qualifies farm for up to 90% cost share rates and a priority for state and federal grants funds. Benefits include: ➢ Makes public more aware of the local agricultural and its vital role in the economics of the county; ➢ Recorded notice of agricultural district property is recorded at County Land Records office; ➢ Land search on all properties within a 1/2 mile radius has notification of the agricultural status, therefore, the agricultural landowner has increased protection from nuisance lawsuits. ➢ Agricultural Preservation Board can request public hearings for proposed condemnation of VAD land and utility assessments may be suspended or waived on EVAD land if not connected to the utility. ➢ Farm may receive up to 25% of gross sales from the sale of non-farm products and still maintain its zoning exemption as a bona fide farm. (EVAD only) ➢ VAD District signs are placed on farms, for public to know location of VAD/EVAD farms. Paul and Patricia Bonham Schley/Eno Agricultural District Farm includes hay crops, pasture, wildlife habitat, and woodland/forestry acres VAD = 116.85 acres (2 parcels) Michael Milligan and Alicia Carter New Hope Agricultural District Farm includes pumpkins, Christmas trees, chickens, and managed woodland/forestry acres. VAD = 31.87 acres (2 parcels) 9 Beth Myers Cedar Grove Agricultural District Farm includes seasonal vegetables; tomatoes, peppers, onions, cabbages, etc. EVAD = 12.15 acres (1 parcel) Andrew B. Lloyd and Andy Lloyd Lloyd Dairy Farm High Rock/Efland Agricultural District Farm includes soybeans, small grain and hay crops, and managed forestry/woodland. VAD= 271.49 acres (4 parcels) Dennis and Linda Brooks Rocking B Farm New Hope Agricultural District Farm includes beef cattle, horses, pastures, and hay crops. EVAD =113.84 acres * (2 parcels) *Since 2012- Farm is in permanent Conservation Easement with Orange Co. and the State of NC, protecting Hillsborough water supply by excluding livestock and adding riparian buffers to all the streams on the farm. Orange County Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural Program • Requesting approval from Commissioners to accept five (5) farms into the program. • 421* acres in the Voluntary Agricultural District program • 126* acres in the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District program • If approved, total of acres increase in both programs= 547 acres* • * = rounded acres Overview Map December 2016 VAD = 9320 acres EVAD = 2144 acres Total Acres = 11,464* = rounded acres Commissioner Rich thanked Gail Hughes for hosting the first VAD breakfast last week. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee for the Board to certify the five (5) farm properties noted above totaling 421 acres (VAD) and 126 acres (EVAD) (rounded acreage) as denoted in the attached documentation as qualifying farmland; designate them as a Voluntary or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District farm within the Schley/Eno, Cedar Grove, New Hope, and High Rock/Efland Voluntary Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and 10 the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) programs. With approval of these additional acres, the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District Program will have enrolled 78 farms, totaling 9,320 acres in the VAD and 2,144 acres in the EVAD for a total of 11,464 acres (rounded) in the program. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments — Hillsborough Economic Development District The Board considered voting to delay consideration and continue the public hearing on government-initiated amendments to the text of the UDO related to the Hillsborough Economic Development District until December 13, 2016. Perdita Holtz, Planning Systems Coordinator, said the action tonight is to delay this action, and the next item tonight as the recommendations indicate. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for the Board to delay consideration and continue the public hearing until the December 13, 2016 BOCC meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Zoning Atlas Amendment— Hillsborough Economic Development District The Board considered voting to delay consideration and continue the public hearing on government-initiated amendments to the Zoning Atlas until December 13, 2016 on an amendment involving five parcels south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Old Highway 86 and adjacent interstate right-of-way. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for the Board to delay consideration and continue the public hearing until the December 13, 2016 BOCC meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Chair McKee to remove items i, j, k, I, m . VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda. 11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda i. Technical Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of Projects for School Impact Fee Collection Purposes Perdita Holtz said at the November 15th Board of County Commissioners meeting the Board adopted updated impact fee allowances, and also asked staff to come back with more information on the grandfathering. PUBLIC COMMENT: Adam Golden reviewed the following information, which he provided to the Board via email: My name is Adam Golden, and I am a Vice President of Development with Northwood Ravin. I am also an Orange County resident living on Bayview Drive in Chapel Hill. Our firm is the owner and developer of two large mixed-use residential projects currently underway in Chapel Hill - Carraway Village (formerly The Edge) on Eubanks Road, which is preparing to start, and Carolina Square on Franklin Street currently under construction. Over the last 15 years our firm has developed several other Chapel Hill apartment communities - Chapel Watch Village, Chapel Hill North, Cosgrove Hill, Apartments at Meadowmont, and Dobbins Hill Phase I and II. I am writing you to express our serious concern over the current language in the Action Agenda Item No. 6-I, specifically the Technical Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of Projects for School Impact Fee Collection Purposes. As drafted, the grandfathering provision would exclude our project though we believe you intend to include it, and it will have a severe financial impact on our Carraway Village project. We have been working in earnest with the Town of Chapel Hill for more than 4 years and have secured both our Special Use Permit and our Zoning Compliance Permit as well as have been the recipient of the Town's first economic incentive grant. To accomplish your expressed desire to grandfather projects like ours who received their permits in 2016, please consider our addition proposed below so that your Technical Resolution adequately covers projects like Carraway Village. Our firm has been participating in the School Impact Fee increase discussion since it was first brought forward several months ago, and we were pleased to participate in the recent stakeholder meeting to discuss grandfathering with your staff, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber, Home Builders and the Triangle Apartment Association. We understand the need to increase the fee, and we believe your intent was to grandfather projects that have been working their way through the development process and were unaware of, and had not been budgeting for, impact fee increases. We were looking forward to the technical solution that would grandfather projects like Carraway Village, but when we received the proposed resolution late Friday, we quickly realized the current proposal does not work for large-scale projects. While the current provisions may be suitable for smaller projects, the timing provision added that requires i) receiving building permits 180 days from application, and ii) receiving 12 certificates of occupancy 365-days from building permit issuance create significant issues for large-scale complicated mixed-use projects such as ours. Time frames to submit a building permit application are within our control, but time frames to actually obtain building permits on large-scale projects are not. Receiving a building permit for a project our size can easily take 6 months or more to obtain. For example, building permits at our Carolina Square project took exactly 6 months to obtain, and that was with the Town working hard to help us expedite the approval. In Chapel Hill, many large projects are required to be reviewed first by the North Carolina Department of Insurance (NCDOI), and then by Town's Inspections Department. The NCDOI review times are 8-10 weeks for each review, and often multiple reviews are required to obtain approval. This time is in addition to the Town Inspection Department review times. Limited review staffs, project backlogs if several large projects come in at the same time and building code changes enacted mid-stream, are just some of the other factors that can delay permit issuance. Time frames to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy (C/O) on large projects are even harder to predict, and can vary on variety of factors some of which are completely out of our control. For example, the construction schedule of the 400-unit first phase of Carraway Village is projected at 30 months (well beyond the 365 days your draft Technical Resolution contemplated —this is from start to final C/O (note: this also assumes there are no unforeseen weather or site conditions that further delay construction). Another example is our Special Use Permit approval, which requires that, prior to the 2nd C/O being issued, all road improvements on Eubanks Road and the Martin Luther King, Jr. intersection be complete and accepted by NCDOT. Unforeseen weather or underground conditions, and NCDOT review and inspection delays could all cause significant impacts to our schedule, which would directly impact our ability to obtain C/O's. Carraway Village is a very large project, and the Special Use Permit includes 109 stipulations specific to the project, many of which are directly tied to issuance of final C/O's. We believe there is a simple solution to cover larger-scale projects (proposed below) that would meet both the County's needs to having a definitive end date on grandfathering, and allow a complicated project like Carraway Village to move through the approval and construction process without having hurdles that are risky or unachievable. Proposed Addition: Add a 3rd paragraph to current draft resolution covering large-scale projects (defined as 100+ units), which keeps the currently proposed end date and requires the fee be paid by then, but removes the requirements we cannot control, specifically issuance of building permits and C/O's. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT projects of 100-units in size or greater for which a Zoning Compliance Permit has been issued prior to January 1, 2017 and for which a building permit application has been submitted prior to January 1, 2018 may choose to pay either the public school impact fee that was in effect for 2016 for the housing type(s) proposed in the application or the fee required by the public school impact fee schedule in section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of Ordinances, provided the fee is paid prior to June 30, 2019. 13 As additional background, I thought it might also be helpful to provide a quick summary of our Carraway Village project to help illustrate how much time, effort and investment has gone into the current project, and also highlight the net benefits to the County in tax revenue: Carraway Village - Special Use Permit approved for 935,290 sf - Designed as mixed-use village, approved uses: Residential, Retail, Office, Hotel - Phase I ZCP approved for 400 apartment units, and 8,800 sf of ground floor commercial space - Current tax value of 54-acres: $3,133,000 - Current Orange County Annual Tax: $27,500/yr - Projected Value of Phase I: $50,000,000+ - Projected Orange County Tax Phase I: $439,000+/yr - Projected Additional Value of future phases: $30,000,000 - 60,000,000 - Projected Orange County Tax future phases: $263,000 — 526,000/yr Project Milestones: ❑ 2008-Developing the 54-acres Carraway Village site becomes a Town of Chapel Hill Economic Development initiative ❑ 2012-Our firm became the 4th development group to get involved, all others had walked away ❑ 2013-12-months of working with NCDOT/Town Transportation to figure out road improvements to Eubanks Road/Intersection -Determined road cost of$3-4M, approached Town for financial help with road improvements ❑ 2014-Submitted our Special Use Permit ❑ 2015-Special Use Permit approved, but question of Town's help with road costs pushed post-SUP ❑ 2016-Submitted our Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase I (400 apartments, 8,500 sf commercial), and road work -Economic Development Incentive Agreement for help with road costs approved/executed November 7, 2016 -Zoning Compliance Permit for Phase I approved on November 28, 2016 -Building design underway for Phase I Again, we request you please consider adding the above provision to the resolution. Aaron Nelson, Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce, said he worked with Mr. Golden on the above information, and this is a technical issue. He hoped that the Board would adopt the proposed draft above, and send it back to staff for review, etc. Commissioner Marcoplos said their request is within the spirit of what the Board was trying to accomplish, and needs more review. He suggested scheduling this item for a future meeting, after staff review. Commissioner McKee agreed that the Board should at least consider this. Commissioner Price asked if there are any legal ramifications to paying early. John Roberts said no, but he recommended deferring this item to December 13th to give staff time to review this. Commissioner Rich asked if there are more large projects like this one. Commissioner Jacobs said he is willing to have staff to review this, but he also does not want this available as an ad infinitum opportunity going forward. He said the Chamber is 14 helping some entities that are large, while others are not receiving help; and he wanted to be fair to all. He said there should be some limits. He hoped staff would look at a reasonable compromise. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to bring this agenda item back on December 13th after staff and attorney reviews. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6-j, k, I, m — Emergency Services Franchise Agreements Kim Woodard, Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Operations Manager, said these are the first readings of the three convalescent ambulance services, and South Orange Rescue Squad (SORS) is also applying for a renewal in Orange County. Commissioner Jacobs said there was a time when Orange County EMS was called to provide ambulance services. He said people were afraid to call because they could not pay their bills, so Orange County developed a process to assist these will lower incomes. He said he would like to track if paying for ambulance services is a problem for Orange County residents, and review this in the future in case they need to subsidize this service for private providers. Kim Woodard said EMS would look into this. Chair Dorosin asked if it would be reasonable to include a letter that goes with the contract noting the concerns of the Board of County Commissioners, and that the issue will be monitored. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner McKee asked if there are options either through the Department of Social Services (DSS) or Health Department to help to pay these bills. Kim Woodard said there is a service in place to address this issue. She said she has made many referrals to this program with DSS, and it has been widely used and is only applicable to Orange County residents. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to ask staff to draw up a letter to attach to the contracts to indicate the Board's concerns, and to approve all of the franchise agreements. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Chair Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to re- consider item 6-g. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6-g — Orange County Property Naming Policy The Board considered approving the amended the Orange County Property Naming Policy as directed by the BOCC at the November 10, 2016 work session. Chair Dorosin said he wanted to vote against this policy, as he believes that it is overly restrictive about naming facilities after those who are still alive. Commissioner Price said the policy was changed to include living people. Chair Dorosin said the exceptions in the ordinance read that if"one has made a significant contribution to the development or the construction of a public building or facility" 15 and he finds this too narrow. He said it should say living persons who have made a significant contribution to the life and well being of Orange County. Commissioner Burroughs suggested that Commissioner Dorosin offer an amendment to the policy. Commissioner Price agreed and said that she thought Commissioner Dorosin's point had already been accommodated in the policy previously. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to amend section 2.1.5b to say: living persons who secure funding and/or make a significant contribution to the life and well-being of Orange County. Commissioner Rich said she questioned why a building would be honored after a living person who had no relationship with the building. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Rich) a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from October 6 (Joint Meeting with Fire Depts. and Work Session), 13 and 18, 2016 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for seven taxpayers with a total of seven bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with NCGS. c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for eleven (11) taxpayers with a total of thirty-six (36) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board considered eleven untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for ten bills for the 2016 tax year. e. Next Generation A9-1-1 Backup PSAP Connection and Call Service Delivery The Board approved an amendment to the Next Generation A9-1-1 Solutions agreement, originally approved by the BOCC on October 7, 2014, to provide connectivity between the backup 911 Center and the primary 911 Center and authorized the use of Emergency Telephone funds to fund the necessary hardware and software and authorized the Manager to sign. f. Bid Award for a Compact Wheel Loader for Recycling The Board awarded a bid to Gregory Poole Equipment of Raleigh, North Carolina for one (1) Compact Wheel Loader at a delivered cost of$131,145, for the Recycling Division of the Solid Waste Management Department. g. Orange County Property Naming Policy The Board approved the amended the Orange County Property Naming Policy as directed by the BOCC at the November 10, 2016 work session. (See above.) h. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) — Approval of Membership and Capacity Numbers The Board approved the November 15, 2016 membership and capacity numbers for both school districts (Orange County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools) which will be used in developing 10-year student membership projections and the 2017 SAPFO Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Report. 16 i. Technical Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of Projects for School Impact Fee Collection Purposes The Board considered adopting a technical resolution regarding grandfathering of projects for collection of recently adopted updates to school impact fees. (See above.) j. First Reading: Emergency Services Franchise by Ordinance - First Choice Medical Transport, LLC The Board approved on First Reading the granting of a franchise by Ordinance to First Choice Medical Transport, LLC (First Choice) and the Franchise Agreement under which it will operate — approval on "first reading" is based on State law requirements that a franchise by ordinance pass two readings in order to be granted by the Board of Commissioners. (See above.) k. First Reading: Emergency Services Franchise by Ordinance - North State Medical Transport The Board approved on First Reading the granting of a franchise by ordinance to North State Investment Group, LLC d/b/a North State Medical Transport (North State) and the Franchise Agreement under which it will operate — approval on "first reading" is based on State law requirements that a franchise by ordinance pass two readings in order to be granted by the Board of Commissioners. (See above.) I. First Reading: Emergency Services Franchise by Ordinance - LifeStar Emergency Services -2023, LLC The Board approved on First Reading the granting of a franchise by ordinance to LifeStar Emergency Services - 2023, LLC (LifeStar) and the Franchise Agreement under which it will operate — approval on "first reading" is based on State law requirements that a franchise by ordinance pass two readings in order to be granted by the Board of Commissioners. (See above.) m. First Reading: Emergency Services Franchise by Ordinance — South Orange Rescue Squad, Inc. The Board approved on First Reading the granting of a franchise by ordinance to South Orange Rescue Squad, Inc. (SORS) and the Franchise Agreement under which it will operate — approval on "first reading" is based on State law requirements that a franchise by ordinance pass two readings in order to be granted by the Board of Commissioners. (See above) 7. Regular Agenda a. Recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee The Board received the recommendations of the Firearms Safety Committee, which include rules regulating the safe discharge of firearms in Orange County and establishing an educational campaign to increase awareness of firearms safety issues and deliberate as necessary. John Roberts reviewed the background information: BACKGROUND: This item was presented in similar form at the January 21, 2016 meeting by Orange County Planning Staff as an amendment to the Orange County Code of Technical Ordinances ("UDO") recommended by the Planning Board and at the February 16, 2016 meeting. No decision on the item was made at those meetings and subsequently the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") created the Firearms Safety Committee to consider issues related to firearms safety and make a recommendation to the BOCC. 17 The Firearms Safety Committee met multiple times from June through October and developed recommendations. The proposed recommendations include (see attachment for full listing): • An amendment to the Code of Ordinances that includes provisions prohibiting the discharge of firearms while an individual is impaired, maintaining adequate backstops for projectiles, and requires discharged projectiles to remain on the property on which they are discharged. • A recommendation that the BOCC direct the Department of Social Services and/or Health Department to develop and distribute educational material on gun safety. • A recommendation that the County collaborate with public and private organizations to increase firearms safety awareness through training and distribution of safety materials. The Firearms Safety Committee by consensus unanimously recommended the firearms safety education and awareness items. The Committee voted 6-1 in favor of recommending the proposed ordinance. Section. 24-3. - Regulating the Discharge of Firearms. (a) This Section is enacted pursuant to the authority of N.C.G.S. 153A-129. This Section shall be interpreted in accordance with any sections of the North Carolina General Statutes which, by their terms, limit the authority of the County to regulate the discharge of firearms. (b) Firearm as referenced herein shall mean any handgun, shotgun, or rifle which expels a projectile by the ignition of gunpowder or by other explosive reaction. (c) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm except into a natural or constructed backstop adequate to stop the projectile. This subsection shall not apply to trapshooting, skeet shooting, and sporting clays when such activities are undertaken through use of a shotgun. (d) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm carelessly or heedlessly in disregard for the safety of others. (e) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm in any manner that causes the projectile to leave the property on which it is discharged. This subsection shall not apply when the person discharging the firearm has written permission for such activity from the person on whose property the projectile comes to rest. The document demonstrating written permission must be immediately available at the time of the discharge and shall be provided to any investigating officer. (f) It is unlawful for any person to discharge a firearm after that person has consumed alcohol or any other impairing substance. As used in this paragraph, an impairing substance is defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. §20-4.01. A conforming alcohol screening device may be used to detect the presence of alcohol. A conforming alcohol screening device is any device listed in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Conforming Products List of Evidential Breath Alcohol Measurement Devices as published in the Federal Register and as that list may be amended from time to time. An investigating officer may ascertain the consumption of an impairing substance or any level of impairment in any lawful manner. (g) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prohibiting the discharge of a firearm: (1) When used for lawful hunting activities pursuant to Chapter 113, Subchapter IV; or (2) When used in defense of person or property; or (3) When used pursuant to lawful directions of law-enforcement officers. (h) A violator of this Section shall be guilty of a Class III misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to five hundred dollars ($500.00). A violation of this Section may subject the 18 violator to a civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars ($500.00). All assessed penalties may be recovered in any manner authorized by law and, if not paid within thirty (30) days, may be recovered in the nature of debt. Commissioner McKee noted that the group spent about four months on this issue, including many conversations and effort. He said the Committee has brought a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners. Commissioner Jacobs said the group was very amicable despite their many differences, and people tried to understand others' positions and to work toward a consensus. He said the only place where communication broke down was when excessive noise from gunfire was discussed. Chair Dorosin thanked the committee and Facilitator Andy Sachs. PUBLIC COMMENT: Ann Crawford said she is in favor of section 24.3, and would like to see the noise clause (g) reinstated. She said her neighborhood is disturbed by loud gunfire, which is upsetting to the residents, as well as dangerous to children and pets. Cathy Cole provided a hand out, and she agreed with Ann Crawford Riley Ruske is not supportive of this ordinance, and feels the Board of Commissioners is trying to infringe on residents' second amendment rights. Lisa Price said she is glad that the Board of County Commissioners is addressing firearms safety in Orange County, and she also hopes the portion addressing excessive noise is reinstated. Becky Ceartas is the Director of N.0 Against Gun Violence, and urged the Board of County Commissioners to adopt this proposed ordinance, and reinstate article "g" about noise. Gilbert Carnathan said he attended some of the meetings, and the recommendation are prudent and promote safety and firearm safety education. He said he believed that section "g" should be added back in, and the Board of County Commissioners should adopt the ordinance. Rollin Russell said the right to bear arms is constitutional and he supports that right, but he also believes in sensible regulation to protect all citizens. He said he hoped the Board would make the best decision for the residents of Orange County. Greg Andrews said he is here on behalf of the residents in Efland, where turkey shoots are held for fund raising purposes. He said he is concerned that this ordinance may affect that tradition, and that it infringes on the right to bear arms. He said he does not support the reinstatement of article g. Ashley Campbell commended the committee for its work. She said the most important topic discussed was firearms safety in Orange County. She said an ordinance is not really needed but if the Board wants one, then the one presented is reasonable. Don O'Leary said this ordinance is reasonable, and the question of noise is tricky. He said those living in rural areas should expect reasonable gunfire, as it is a way of life. Jack Hunnell said he served on this committee, and the Board of County Commissioners did a great job of appointing a diverse group to tackle this issue. Commissioner McKee said the better part of most of the meetings was used to try and define noise. He said he told the committee if it could not come to a decision about noise, the Board of County Commissioners could, and would, through other avenues. He said the motion to remove the section on noise was made by one who wanted it included, and that removing it was a compromise on his part. He said the proposed ordinance does have some "teeth". He said this is a good start, and other issues can be addressed later. 19 Commissioner Burroughs said she is pleased with what she has heard about this committee and the facilitator. She said the committee created a solution, and she wants to honor this work by voting for the ordinance. She said she is disappointed that progress was not made on the noise issue, and suggested that staff come back to the Board with options about how to address it. Commissioner Marcoplos said the issue of noise is real, and there is a possible solution within the ordinance. He said the distant sound of a gun is different than bullets landing in one's yard. He said he does understand the difference between urban and rural areas. He read the proposed ordinance, which states: this subsection shall not apply when the person discharging the firearm has written permission for such activity from the person on whose property the projectile comes to rest. He said the same could be said of the property on which the noise comes to rest. He said written permission could be obtained from neighbors, and if that is not possible, then the neighborhood may be too dense for the noise. Commissioner Jacobs said noise should be addressed in the noise ordinance. He said there is a proposed entry into the noise ordinance, as well as Commissioner Marcoplos' suggestion, and examples from other counties. He said he would be inclined to adopt the ordinance, thank the committee, and refer the noise question to staff, asking for a common sense recommendation. He said rapid gunfire, for extended periods of time and in close proximity to neighbors, is the noise issue at hand. Commissioner Rich said she wanted to thank the committee for a good ordinance, but the noise issue must be discussed. She wanted to hear from the Sheriff's office as to what this ordinance means to them. Jamie Sykes, Chief Deputy, said in past cases, where there was no property damage or personal injury, sheriffs could not do anything. He said this ordinance does give the Sheriff's Office some teeth, and gives them the ability to handle some situations that they could not previously. Commissioner McKee asked if the ordinance would also apply to a person sitting on their porch firing into a 6-inch sapling, as it does not meet the requirements of an appropriate backstop. Jamie Sykes said it depends on the type of firearm, what is beyond the target, and the proximity of other residents; but this would not be a sufficient backstop. Commissioner Rich said the Board got an email from Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) Chair James Barrett about a shooting incident near the school. John Roberts said there are federal laws prohibiting the discharge a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, but the law does not apply to private property. He said Orange County has legislative authority, and prohibited hunting within 150 yards of a school. Commissioner Rich asked if the Board can change this policy about firing a gun on private property within 1,000 feet of a school. John Roberts said the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to establish regulation of gun discharges within a distance of an occupied structure. Commissioner Rich petitioned that this topic be reviewed at the same time that the Board looks at the noise issue. She said she does not want to stop the committee's work. Commissioner Price thanked the committee, and said that most residents in Orange County are responsible with firearms. She said the Board should go forward with the proposed ordinance. She said the Board should re-visit the noise ordinance. Chair Dorosin said there seems to be a consensus about moving forward with this ordinance. Commissioner Marcoplos said he spoke to James Barrett about this issue, and the concern was regarding noise. Commissioner Jacobs said Deputy Sykes was at all of the committee meetings. 20 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board had to get legislative authority to enact the limitation on hunting with 150 yards of a school, and asked if it would also be necessary to obtain legislative authority to limit target shooting within 150 yards of a school. John Roberts said the General Assembly (GA) has exclusive authority over fishing and hunting, but the GA has not withheld all authority on firearms regulations, so it is not a total preemption. He said there is preemption on nuisance regulations, such as noise. He said the County has the authority to regulate to some degree. Commissioner Jacobs supported Commissioner Rich's comments about the school's concerns. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to adopt the recommendations from the committee, and asked staff to bring back recommendations in the spring with possible language on: making changes to noise ordinance and addressing the issues of time and distance. Commissioner Jacobs made a friendly amendment to add that staff will look at limiting target distance practice within a school. Commissioner McKee accepted this amendment. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Realignment of Staff Resources at Social Services to Reflect New Legal Requirements of the Affordable Care Act, and Approve Budget Amendment #3-A for Additional Funding for the Food and Nutrition Employment and Training Program The Board considered 1) Creating four (4) permanent part-time benefited positions funded by Second Family Foundation; 2) Creating one (1) permanent part-time non-benefited position funded by UNC Hospital; 3) Allowing the Social Services Director flexibility to create temporary positions and varying limited time trainee appointments for subsidized employment positions for work program participants using existing and expanded work program funding; and 4) Accepting additional federal funds by approving Budget Amendment#3-A. Nancy Coston, Director of DSS, reviewed the following information: BACKGROUND: Legal requirements related to the Affordable Care Act necessitate changes in the way temporary positions are established and used at Social Services. Several programs within the department provide funds for part-time staff and/or create temporary job opportunities for program participants to establish employment history and gain work-related skills. The three impacted program areas and related staffing changes are outlined below: • The Second Family Foundation currently pays for three temporary positions to mentor at-risk youth participating in the Second Family Foundation program and to transport them to jobs and other activities. Second Family has also requested to fund a fourth, similar position before the end of the year. The Second Family program is well established, and the employees are expected to work a sufficient number of hours to qualify for health insurance coverage and other benefits under County policy. As a result, Social Services recommends creating four part-time 20 hour-per-week permanent staff positions for this program that will include benefits. All costs, including benefits, will be reimbursed by Second Family. 21 • UNC Hospital continues to request a part-time economic services supervisor to work on-site at the hospital assisting with Medicaid applications. This position is currently a temporary position, but it is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. As a result, Social Services recommends establishing a permanent part-time position to work at UNC Hospital 15 hours per week. The County's costs are reimbursed through the hospital contract. • Social Services received notification of a grant award in the amount of$540,000 for federal fiscal year 2016-17 to expand the Food and Nutrition Employment and Training program in Orange County. This $340,000 dollar increase requires a match that can be met this year with existing funds, and also allows Social Services to help more individuals acquire jobs that pay the County living wage of$13.15 per hour through subsidized employment. There are some unique challenges related to creating positions for subsidized employees, and the proposed plan created with Human Resources and Finance will address those issues but require minor changes to procedures. Social Services proposes to place most of the subsidized employment program participants into six-month temporary positions based on the individual's skill sets and available job placement sites. Most of these sites are in county government, other government agencies or non-profits, but some are in local businesses. There will be some special circumstances warranting additional time in subsidized employment beyond the six-month period (for example, individuals with serious barriers such as former foster youth). These individuals will be placed in trainee appointments and will be provided benefits. The Social Services Director would indicate the length of the appointment to the individual as well as to Human Resources and Finance. This would assure that these employees receive appropriate benefits while maintaining the flexibility needed to operate an effective subsidized employment program, particularly for individuals with substantial barriers. The number of participants involved would be dictated by the funding available for this program component. These positions and programs support the economic self-sufficiency goal by providing opportunities for low-income individuals to receive additional training and job placement services and to increase their wages. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to: 1) Create four (4) permanent part-time benefited positions at 20 hours per week funded by Second Family Foundation; 2) Create one (1) permanent part-time non-benefited position at 15 hours per week funded by UNC Hospital; 3) Allow the Social Services Director flexibility to create temporary positions and varying limited time trainee appointments for subsidized employment positions for work program participants using existing and expanded work program funding; and 4) Accept additional federal funds by approving Budget Amendment#3-A. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs) c. Financial Policy for Outside Agency Funding- DEFERRED 22 The Board will consider establishing a financial policy for Outside Agency Funding that provides guidance on the appropriation of County funds to the non-profit community, with the scope of the policy establishing funding targets and criteria. 7c- added: My Brother's Keeper Community Challenge Recommendations for Movement of Youth (MOY) to be the lead agency for My Brother's Keeper(MBK) Orange Initiative. The Board considered receiving a report and proposal from the My Brother's Keeper Community Challenge of Orange County, which includes a request to recognize Movement of Youth as the lead agency for managing MBK- Orange, in order to enhance the structure and provide the support needed for Phase II of the initiative. Bonnie Hammersley reviewed this item. She said at this time there is no financial impact. BACKGROUND: In February 2015, community members, under the leadership of Commissioner Renee Price, launched the MBK Orange initiative. Since that time, there have been several events involving youth and adults from Orange County. The strong attendance at the events recognized the need to continue this effort with enhanced structure and support. On October 6, 2016, the community members in The My Brother's Keeper Community Challenge unanimously agreed to make a recommendation for Movement of Youth [MOY] to become the lead agency in the next phase of the MBK Orange Community Challenge and to request that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners accept the recommended action to continue MBK-Orange. The community members of the MBK-Orange support appointing MOY as the lead agency because it will allow greater success in fundraising for the sustainability of MBK Orange. A lead agency will strengthen the organization which will allow them to build capacity with information and guidance from the national level, as was indicated at the MBK NC Summit in Greensboro on October 10, 2016. Movement of Youth is a non-profit agency that works to prepare diverse youth to lead and succeed in the 21st Century through mentoring and targeted enrichment activities led by college students. MOY has a proven track record with its staff and programming. MOY founder, Atrayus Goode, attended the meeting on October 6, and indicated the MOY Board of Directors is willing to assume the responsibility to be the lead agency for MBK-Orange Initiative. The community members present at the October 6 meeting were representing various nonprofit organizations, county agencies and the community: Atrayus Goode, President and CEO, Movement of Youth Charlene & Jeff Campbell, Co-Founders, Beyond Expectations, Inc. Bishop Victor Glover, Executive Director, Fathers on the Move Sheriff Charles Blackwood, Orange County Dawn Bagwell, Orange County Schools Linda Hall, Durham Technical Community College Samathryn Witham, Town of Chapel Hill Jenn Weaver, Commissioner, Town of Hillsborough Kathleen Ferguson, Commissioner, Town of Hillsborough Cat Griffith, Community Member 23 Steven Drake, Attorney, Community Member Susan Worley, Volunteers for Youth In addition, the following community members have indicated an interest in serving on an MBK- Orange Advisory Board, Charlene and Jeff Campbell, Bishop Glover, Deputy Andre Richmond and Commissioner Price. Also, representatives from other participating groups and agencies will be recruited for appointments once this proposal becomes final. Atreus Goode made the following PowerPoint presentation: My Brother's Keeper Orange County December 5, 2016 Fast Facts MOY started with 11 students at Hillside High School in 2006; currently, MOY impacts hundreds of middle and high school students annually and is in the process of scaling nationally. Since MOY's inception, 99% of participants have been students of color with the following outcomes: 100% of students complete at least eight (8) hours of community service per school year (MOY mentors and mentees have completed 10,000+ volunteer hours since 2006) 100% of high school students enroll in at least one (1) Honors or Advanced Placement Course 100% of students graduate from high school 99% of students enroll in college What We Do— Team Mentoring College students may apply annually to become mentors and friends for students Year-long relationships provide participants with access to a student scholar What We Do— Leadership Academy Leadership Academy is held twice a month on Saturdays and features a variety of sessions built to challenge participants in different ways intellectually, physically, and socially. Sessions are tailored to address the complex and unique issues that diverse youth face daily, while also providing opportunities for individual growth and professional development. What We Do— Summer Enrichment Academy Summer Enrichment Academy includes recreational activities, STEAM (science, technology, engineering, art, and mathematics) workshops, career training, field trips, and guest speakers among other things. What We Do—J.U.S.T. Global Fellowship The J.U.S.T (Journeys to Uncover Social Truth) Global Fellowship is a global youth initiative that partners with community organizations to send high school and college students of color to engage in international work and volunteerism abroad during the summer. What We Do Tyreic E. Hemphill Memorial Scholarship What We Do College Tours Why is My Brother's Keeper Orange County Important? 24 MBK Orange County Priority Areas Commissioner Price said MBK was started as a way to pool resources to help the County's young men of color. She said she can no longer do all the work, and MOY is needed to carry forward MBK. She said this would provide a way for MBK's to continue to raise funds. Commissioner McKee commended Commissioner Price for the leadership she has given up to this point. He asked if staff has been involved in discussions regarding MBK, and if there is an update. Atrayus Goode said he has met with several community members, and there is consensus that MOY would be the best agency to lead this work forward. Commissioner Price said the Manager and Deputy Manager have been involved in discussions. She said the Sheriff's department is also very important in this work. Chair Dorosin clarified that MOY is a 501-c3, and that MBK is an Orange County initiative, and not a formal entity. He asked if these two groups will be merged. Atrayus Goode said MOY will coordinate the work and activities of the various agencies, making MBK more attractive for funding. He said he worked with MBK in Durham, and organizations like this struggle to thrive within a government agency, and the non-profit world can move with greater speed. Chair Dorosin asked if there would be leadership and oversight. Atrayus Goode said an advisory will be formed, via an application process. Commissioner Price said MBK was endorsed by the BOCC about a year ago, and there is information within the Orange County website. She said MOY has risen to the point that it can take on the MBK mission and carry it forward. She said MBK needs to go to the next level. She said the names listed in the abstract were at the last meeting, where the recommendation was made to move to MBK under MOY. She said there is support for MBK throughout Orange County. PUBLIC COMMENT: Carol McKanna said this sounds like a good program. She said she is a proud conservative, and likes to have language that does not divide residents into different groups. Bonnie Hammersley said since this is not a County organization, the best approach is for the Board of County Commissioners to consider supporting the recommendation for MOY to be the lead agency. She said there is no financial request at this time. John Roberts said he had not looked at this item yet. Commissioner Rich asked if this item is time sensitive. Commissioner Price said this item has already been held up for a couple of months, and she wanted to move this forward so MOY can apply for grant funding. Chair Dorosin asked if it would hurt to defer to the December 13th BOCC meeting, to allow John Roberts to review the status of the current County initiative. There was Board consensus to defer this item until the December 13th BOCC meeting. d. Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project — Proposed "Non-Binding" Memorandum of Understanding The Board considered approving a proposed "non-binding" memorandum of understanding with GoTriangle agreeing to cooperate with the municipalities within the County and to work together to identify potential additional funding mechanisms to directly support the D-O LRT Project and authorize the Chair to sign. Jeff Mann, GoTriangle General Manager, and Danny Rogers, GoTriangle Project Director, reviewed the following information: 25 BACKGROUND: At its November 15, 2016 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) received a presentation from GoTriangle staff that included the status of the D-O LRT project, proposed extension to North Carolina Central University (NCCU), and state, federal, and local funding changes. The BOCC endorsed the extension of the D-O LRT project to NCCU, but deferred any action to cooperate with municipalities in the County and to work together to identify, develop, and implement additional funding mechanisms to directly support the D-O LRT Project to a future meeting. An Orange County Assembly of Governments Meeting was held November 17, 2016 among the BOCC and Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough. At this meeting, GoTriangle presented the information previously shared with the BOCC to the larger group. There was considerable discussion among the group of attendees regarding the importance of the project, the increased local cost if the project were to move forward, and timeline for actions. 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, GoTriangle needs the BOCC to approve the attached "non-binding" proposed memorandum of understanding this month. In the future, items for BOCC consideration include: • April 2017 — Amendments to the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan (OCBRIP); and • June 2018 — Decision to commit any local funds included in the financial plan (OCBRIP). Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Actions —At its December 14 meeting, the MPO Board will consider two separate amendments related to the extension of the D-O LRT Project to NCCU: 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). 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 funding gaps. The OCBRIP amendments will need to be approved by the three parties (Orange County, DCHC MPO, and GoTriangle) to the Interlocal Implementation Agreement. Jeff Mann made the following PowerPoint presentation: Durham and Orange Transit Plan Funding Needs Orange County Board Of Commissioners December 5, 2016 Clarifications Durham and Orange counties are being asked to provide non-binding letters of intent to work with GoTriangle and other community partners to identify funds to complete the Durham- 26 Orange Light Rail Transit Project. The counties are not being asked to invest any additional funds for the project at this time The funding gap is approximately $250 Million in Year-of-Expenditure (YOE) Dollars. In 2016, the North Carolina General Assembly capped available state funding for light rail at 10% of the project's cost, as opposed to the 25% that was previously awarded to two similar projects in Charlotte The Federal Transit Administration is still expected to invest 50% in federal funds for Durham and Orange Counties' light rail project (D-O LRT Project), contingent on the remaining 50% coming from the existing dedicated transit revenues, state, local or other funding sources Before Durham and Orange counties are formally asked to commit additional funds to complete their light rail project, GoTriangle will continue to work with the counties, the Funding and Community Collaborative, and community partners to find ways to reduce the funding gap. Durham-Orange LRT • Funding Gap • Cost of D-O LRT Project • Request for Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to explore additional funding sources • Schedule of next steps Danny Rogers presented this portion of the PowerPoint: What is the Funding Gap? Gap = $250 Million in Year-of-Expenditure (YOE) Dollars • Gap is for entire combined Durham and Orange Transit Plan • Includes future funds to operate and maintain full bus and rail system, including vehicle replacements and state of good repair for D-O LRT Project • Bus Operations funded first for Orange Public Transportation, Chapel Hill Transit, GoDurham, Durham County, and GoTriangle services in Durham and Orange Counties • Financial plan includes buildout of revised Chapel Hill Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project, Hillsborough Train Station, and amended D-O LRT Project including Joint Development and NCCU Station Why Is There A Gap? Bus Service State: 7.5% Local: 92.5% Vehicles, Bus Stops, Park and Rides Federal: 80% - 38% State: 10% - 8% Local/Other: 10% - 54% Light Rail, Commuter Rail Federal: 50% - 50% State: 25% - 10% Local/Other: 25% - 40% Bus Rapid Transit Federal: 50% - 70% State: 25% - 0% 27 Local/Other: 25% 4 30% Hillsborough Train Station State: 90% 4 91% Local: 10% 4 9% How Does the Current Project Estimate Compare to the Original Estimate? Formula n y = x(1+r) Variables y = 2016 dollars x = original year dollars r = escalation rate n = number of years LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph) LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph) LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph) LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph) LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph) LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph) LRT Construction Cost Updates (graph) D-O LRT Funding Updates (chart) Dedicated Transit Revenue Updates (chart) Ways to Resolve the Funding Gap (chart) Includes 10% State Funding Other Steps To Fill Gap • Steps already taken o Adjusted D-O LRT Project construction schedule to better match FTA reimbursement rate (delayed completion of construction from 2026 to 2028) o Hired new financial advisor, experienced in structuring financing plans for major federally funded projects, to begin refining financing assumptions • Steps that will be evaluated between December and April o Value engineering / cost cutting opportunities o Financing optimization o Joint Financial Staff Working Group • Coordinated evaluation of financial plans 28 • Refinement of funding shortfall need • Evaluation of additional revenue sources Jeff Mann resumed the PowerPoint presentation: Key Dates Jan. 2020 Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) with FTA Oct. 2019 Submit request for FFGA with FTA— requires 100% of funding to be committed Jun. 2019 Inclusion in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) — State participation committed Dec. 2018 Inclusion in Draft STIP - State share defined, but not committed Jun. 2018 Request to be in President's budget— requires 50% of non-New Starts funds to be committed Apr. 2017 Update of Transit Plans and execution of full General Engineering Consultant (GEC) and Program Management Consultant (PMC) contracts Getting to April 2017 Dec. 2016 • Deadline for GoTriangle to request entry into FTA Engineering phase for D-O LRT Project • Non-binding MOU to work with GoTriangle and other community partners to identify funds to complete the D-O LRT Project • The counties are not being asked to invest any additional funds for the project at this time Jan. -Apr. 2017 • Revise and finalize financial plan • Monthly Transit Plan financial updates to County, MPO, and GoTriangle Boards Mar. 2017 • Present for information the full GEC and PMC contracts Apr. 2017 • County, MPO, and GoTriangle Boards review updated Transit Plans with potential additional revenue assumptions • Execution of GEC and PMC contracts required to maintiain proposed construction schedule Next Steps • Obtain approval from Orange (Dec. 5) and Durham (Dec. 12) Boards of County Commissioners to submit financial plan to FTA that includes potential additional local funding: o "Subject to and contingent upon any authorizations required by Orange County, including the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Orange County agrees to cooperate with the local municipalities and work together to identify, develop, and implement additional funding mechanisms to directly support the D-O LRT Project." • Obtain similar approvals from MPO (Dec. 14, 2016) • Continue to work with local partners to identify potential additional local revenue sources prior to approving full GEC and PMC contracts in April 2017 • Note: No additional local funds will be spent on the D-O LRT Project prior to receiving a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) from FTA in 2020 29 Questions Commissioner Burroughs asked John Roberts if this is a non-binding agreement. John Roberts said it is non-binding for the time being. He said if the Board of County Commissioners looks for additional funding, it creates the expectation that it will implement that funding, but the Board is not obligated to implement that funding, under this agreement. He said he drafted additional language, which can be added to the agreement. Commissioner Burroughs said revenue assumptions are going to be discussed by GoTriangle in April, and asked if GoTriangle will have heard from Orange County, at that point, regarding its commitment of funds. Jeff Mann said yes, April is a progress check. He said it should be known at that time whether the FTA has cleared to project to move into engineering. He said there will also be better understanding, at that time, regarding any and all additional funding that may have been secured. Commissioner Burroughs said to Bonnie Hammersley that April is a pivotal time in the County's budget process, and asked if she had an idea at what point the Board would make another decision on how much funding it would commit. Bonnie Hammersley said April would be a hard stop, and staff would be working with Durham County and GoTriangle, up to that time, and would bring back any updates to the Board of County Commissioners. Jeff Mann said the full commitment of funds would not be until June 2018. Commissioner Burroughs asked if the actual expenditure starts in June 2018. Jeff Mann said no, any additional local revenues would not be needed until 2020. Commissioner Burroughs asked if there is a larger expenditure that will occur between 2018 and 2020. Jeff Mann said yes, if the full general engineering and program management consultant contracts are executed, there will be a significant expenditure for design, as well as program management. He said there are sufficient funds to do this now, without these additional local revenues, but there would be an accelerated rate of expenditure to move the project from where it is today, at 30% design, to final design. Commissioner Burroughs said if in June 2018 the County decides not to proceed, there would be no reimbursement from the federal funds. Jeff Mann said that is correct, and federal reimbursement would be granted upon reaching a full funding grant agreement. He said if a full funding grant agreement is not received, the project would not be subject for reimbursement. Commissioner Burroughs said the County has to make a decision by April 2017. Commissioner Price said there will be no increase in funding between now and April, and asked if staff and GoTriangle will be working on finding additional funding. Jeff Mann said there is a project team working on funding, value engineering and continues to work with the Funding and Community Collaborative. He said the bus portion will also be updated. Commissioner Price asked if Jeff Mann feels the federal funds are secure given the upcoming change in administration. Jeff Mann said, while nothing is guaranteed, the funding is expected without issue. Commissioner Jacobs clarified that Jeff Mann said there are sufficient local funds to begin the engineering studies in April, but with a faster expenditure rate. 30 Jeff Mann said when the final design phase is entered, money will be spent at a faster rate. He said this will be done with local funds until a full funding grant agreement is reached with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and state funding begins in 2019. Commissioner Jacobs asked for the timeline, if one looks at a calendar. Jeff Mann said state funding would not be available until 2019/2020, and federal funding not until 2020. Commissioner Jacobs said April 2017 is not a hard deadline, as there are funds to proceed; but the funds will just be spent at a faster rate. Jeff Mann said it is an internal checkpoint for them to see if the project is clear to go into the engineering phase. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the bus side of the funding, and said the BOCC received a presentation, and no consultation, regarding a bus rapid transit project (BRT) in Chapel Hill, which exceeds $100 million. He asked what would happen to this money if this project was removed from the bus side of the equation. Jeff Mann said the local share of the Chapel Hill BRT project is about $40 million. Commissioner Jacobs said the total is triple the amount of the original projection. Jeff Mann said yes, as the project was extended and more dedicated lanes were added. Commissioner Jacobs asked if this $40 million is removed, where would the funds go. Jeff Mann said removing the BRT project would be a modification to the bus and rail investment plan, and the BOCC would make a recommendation for the allocation of these funds. He said GoTriangle would not determine the purpose of these funds. Commissioner Jacobs said the funds could be put toward the gap. Jeff Mann said yes. PUBLIC COMMENT: Tony Blake said he is against light rail. He urged the Board not to approve the MOU until an independent cost analysis is completed, and the more hidden costs are known. He said if the BOCC wants to sign the MOU, he would suggest two amendments to it: no more spending on engineering of light rail until a cost benefit cost study is done. Alex Castro provided a handout, and asked what is the funding gap and why is there a funding gap. He said if all available funds go to the light rail, then other services will suffer such as local transit, OPT, etc. He said Light Rail will not serve its first customer until 2028. Ken Larsen said light rail is a giant vacuum cleaner to suck the money from all the taxpayers. He said the only benefactors are UNC and the developers. He does not want the Board to sign the MOU-Letter of Intent. Aaron Butner said he is a resident of Hillsborough from a modest background. He is a current employer in Chapel Hill, and asked the Board not to sign the Letter of Intent. Ed Tiryakian asked the Board not to sign the Letter of Intent. He said the MOU would put expectations on the County, and it goes against the will of the voters. He said the burden of financing has shifted heavily to Orange County. Sam Gharbo said the Board has a golden opportunity to be fiscally responsible. He said the Board could not find enough money for schools, and had to float a bond. He said if there is not enough funding for schools, where will the Board find double, if not triple that amount for this project. He wondered if the Board will be putting forth a light rail bond. He said the County is going to be rail poor. He said this was a bad idea four years ago, and it is a bad idea today. Olivia Truax said she is in support of the Light Rail project, and its many benefits to the residents of Orange County. 31 Anthony Alexander said he is in support of the Light Rail project. Ramona McGee said she is an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), who urges the Board to sign the Letter of Intent. Norma White said she speaks on behalf of rural Orange County (The Grange), and asked the Board not to sign the Letter of Intent. Gary Saunders said he has been using the bus system since 2005, and he is in support of light rail. Patricia Clayton said she is speaking on behalf of the Northern Orange National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), who are in support of public transportation, but not light rail, since it would only benefit certain parts of the County. Tom Farmer said he is a user of bus transit, and he is supportive of light rail. Tanya Jisa said she strongly supports the light rail. Archie Daniel said he speaking for the seniors who live in Orange County, since he works a part time job providing oversight and care for seniors in northern Orange County. He said the Board needs to make sure the seniors get bang for their buck. Cor Radenmaker said he is in support of light rail. Brenda McCall said she works with seniors in northern Orange County, and these are the most vulnerable and needy residents in Orange County. She said the funds for LRT will take funding from other public transportation services, and she is not in support of LRT. Charles Humble said he is a long-term supporter of the SELC, and of mass transit in general. He said this proposal could have made sense years ago, or if it was designed to connect us with other points in the triangle, and had more financial supporters; but it was not and it does not. He is persuaded that BRT is more beneficial to Orange County, and he asked the Board not to sign the letter of intent. Dave Laudicina said he is supportive of LRT. Katy Lang said she is a car free resident, and she asked the Board to sign the Letter of Intent. Vijay Sivaraman said he is an ardent supporter of the LRT. Alison Stoebe said she is in support of light rail and the letter of intent. John Morris said public transportation is very important and he uses it frequently, but they need a light rail plan that works for the residents of Orange County. He said this is not the right project for Orange County, and it will only serve a tiny corner of Orange County. He is concerned this will sap the budget for other County services. Julie McClintock said she loves rail, but the figures are not adding up. She said the line is not going where the people are. She said Wake County did away with the light rail plan and went with BRT. She said Orange County should do the same. Leif Rasmussen said this plan is too expensive, and it is better to invest in bike infrastructure. Taylor McAdam said she is in support of light rail, and urged the Board to sign the letter of intent. Cheryl Hardman said she does not support moving forward with the light rail, and does not think there will be sufficient ridership. She said an independent analysis should be conducted. Bonnie Hauser thanked the citizens for coming out to speak, and the BOCC for listening. She provided the Clerk with a community petition for the Board to delay a commitment to light rail, not sign the letter of intent, and to conduct an independent analysis. Alex Cabanes said this is a bad idea. Commissioner Jacobs thanked the public that came out to speak tonight, as well as the staff from GoTriangle. He said he is not prepared to re-adjudicate the project at this point, but 32 he does have some concerns, and the Board needs a better comfort level before the April deadline. Commissioner Jacobs asked the Manager to look into an independent consultant to review the value engineering and finances. He suggested the possibility of Kimley-Horn, who worked on Wake County's transit plan. He would like to review the possibilities of cuts; combining the Dowling Creek and Woodmont stations; shortening the platforms; and a full explanation of why BRT is not a preferable option. He asked the Manager to talk with the Durham County Manager about the financial split between the two counties, especially given the addition of the NCCU stop, and that most of the economic development is in Durham County. He said Orange County is paying 23% of the plan. He said Chapel Hill — Orange bus split should be reviewed again. He said the BOCC must set Orange County's transportation priorities. He said a greater public forum is needed to discuss the issues in depth, with Orange and Durham County staff, and GoTriangle staff. Commissioner Jacobs said he has problems that over time, GoTriangle has been a translucent organization, such as the numbers changing; and who will be giving them the money. He referred to the MLK BRT, and said Orange County is the funding entity but there have been no conversations with Chapel Hill. He said GoTriangle is working for the County, and not the other way around. Commissioner Jacobs said he is going to support the MOU, with the following addition: Proposed Item 2 under NOW, THEREFORE The Orange County Board of Commissioners considers this non-binding MOU between the Research Triangle Regional Public Transportation Authority and Orange County to keep faith with voters who, by a large majority, approved the half-cent sales tax for enhanced public transportation, including light rail. Our support for light rail has not wavered. However, the MOU does not express an obligation, moral or implied, to fund the Durham-Orange Light Rail project beyond currently authorized levels if further investigation proves financial burden to taxpayers would, in our judgment, compromise Orange County's ability to reasonably fund other, more critical goals and functions of government. Commissioner Rich said all partners have never been together in the same room to have some of the discussions to which Commissioner Jacobs referred. She asked if the Manager would talk with Durham County and the MPO. Commissioner Burroughs said she is satisfied that the MOU is non-binding. She said it is imperative to take an opportunity to re-negotiate with Durham County. Commissioner McKee said when the Board approved the sales tax he stood down, and has stayed that way for the last five years; however, this last minute request for additional funds from Orange County has caused him to speak up. Commissioner McKee said he submitted several questions to GoTriangle prior to this meeting: - how much has been spent, to date, on light rail -- $27,681,063 - What is the monthly burn rate for light rail -- $400,000 He said the amount spent over the past 36 months is $768,918 per month. Finance staff from GoTriangle said $400,000 is the average over the last 12 months. Commissioner McKee said for the three years prior to that, the average was up to $700,000. 33 Finance staff said she would have to review the numbers to have an informed answer. She said the $27 million does not include bus services. Commissioner McKee said the thought that this MOU is not a commitment is false. He said he votes for the MOU, it would be a commitment that he will need to follow through with, thus he will vote against it. Commissioner McKee asked if there is a plan if the State provides no funding. Jeff Mann said clearly this is a risk, but GoTriangle will work hard with value engineering over the coming months in order to seek cost savings for the project, in the event that the State does not provide funding. Commissioner McKee said this project could be value engineered into the ground. Jeff Mann said it is believed that this project will score highly in STI. He said adding the NCCU stop will only increase the score. Commissioner McKee said he asked the County's CFO what were the growth rates for sales tax, and he said 3.6% in the original plan. He said the original document was 3.6%, but GoTriangle used 4.1% in recent presentations. He said this is a material change, and he thought material changes would come back to the partners. Jeff Mann said the New Starts application was based on the Dr. Walden 2014 forecast. Commissioner McKee said these were not the figures given to this Board. Commissioner McKee said they talked about commitment, and April 2017 being a hard stop; but he does not see a vote happening during any of this time. He asked if there is a hard vote to say yea or nay to this project. Jeff Mann said funds would have to be committed in 2018, and the opportunity in 2017 is to approve the BRT update. Commissioner McKee said this does not give the Board a hard stop. Jeff Mann said if the Board does not approve the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment plan in April, then it does not go into the plan. Commissioner McKee said the expansion if the cost has been discussed as it has grown. He asked if the costs will ultimately reach $3 billion. Jeff Mann said this is not anticipated to happen, and there have been two independent cost reviews. He said the increases seen tonight reflect the addition of the NCCU stop, and inflating to 2016 dollars, and year of expenditure dollars. Commissioner McKee said he is glad 2016 dollars are being discussed, because taxes are paid in 2016 dollars. Commissioner Marcoplos said he is satisfied that this is a non-binding MOU. He did spend some time with the planning staff last week, and there are some troubling figures. He is willing to move forward tonight. He agreed with Commissioner Jacobs' proposed language amendment. Commissioner Price said her views are close to Commissioner McKee, but also agrees with some of Commissioner Jacobs' comments. She said the MOU implies that Orange County is supportive of this since it supported the sales tax before, but that vote was intended to include the buses and the Amtrak station. She said the MOU does not even mention NCCU. Chair Dorosin said he could support the MOU, with Commissioner Jacobs' amendment. He said he does not feel this is a financially or morally binding document. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos for the Board to adopt his statement of intent. 34 Commissioner McKee made a friendly amendment in that he could support Commissioner Jacobs' proposed language if he removed "a large" majority and "Our support for light rail has not wavered." Commissioner Jacobs said he would take out the word "large," but not the next statement about the Board's unwavering support. Commissioner McKee withdrew his friendly amendment. VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Marcoplos); Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price) MOTION PASSES John Roberts said he sent the Board some language, which he read: 4. Entry into this MOU shall not relieve any parties to the Interlocal Implementation Agreement for the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan, or the Interlocal Agreement for Cost Sharing for LRT Rail Project of their responsibilities to re-examine those agreements and those agreements shall be re-examined within six five months of the date of adoption of this MOU; 5. nor shall Orange County's approval of this MOU be utilized by any party to signal that Orange County has expressed any willingness or intent to commit additional funds to the DO- LRT Project beyond the funds previously committed through approval of the Orange County Board of Commissioners. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt the proposed "non-binding" memorandum of understanding with John Roberts' suggested language, with the modification of five months instead of six months and, if approved, authorize the Chair to sign the document. Commissioner McKee said no one wants to be the one to stop the train, but this MOU creates an expectation. He said every month this project moves forward, funds are expended, and it becomes increasingly difficult to back off. He said Orange County will be responsible for at least 25% of costs, if the Board goes forward. He said life causes changes, and noted a letter from Duke Heath, which voiced major concerns with the project. He said he understands UNC's support of the project, but says UNC is moving 1,100 jobs out of Chapel Hill. He said UNC also has a hospital in Hillsborough, which is nowhere near a light rail line. He said Duke and UNC are developing clinics throughout the area, none of which are on the light rail line. He said the economic development will only occur in Durham. Commissioner McKee noted GoTriangle's statement that no funds are being asked for at this time, but noted further down in the statement that Orange and Durham counties understand by their actions, that they will "incur costs not anticipated." He said this is as clear as day that there will be additional costs. He said there is an understanding at large that if the County backs out now, it will lose all funds already committed. He said this is not his understanding based on information from GoTriangle, and he asked if this could be clarified: if the project does not proceed and falls out of the New Starts Program, but gets back in at some point in the future, what costs would not be eligible for reimbursement from the FTA. He said it is his understanding that if the project falls out of the New Starts program, and is reinstated at a later date, the funds spent during the time between are all that would be ineligible for 35 reimbursement. He said the project could stop tonight, and not all expended funds would be lost. Jeff Mann said the County would not be reimbursed unless it was allowed back into the program. Commissioner McKee said this is not the explanation that was given to the Board previously, and this is a perfect example of frustrations with communication. Commissioner Rich said she would like to get facts to back up what was heard tonight. Chair Dorosin said Commissioner Jacobs had talked about cost analysis, and suggested having that in another motion. VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Marcoplos); Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Price) A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to direct the Manager to engage someone to help do independent review of finances and value engineering choices for this project; direct the Manager to contact Durham to initiate discussions of reevaluating the split in funding based on changes in mileage and differences in economic development opportunities in the two counties; revisit Chapel Hill/Orange County bus split to understand what change a possible bus rapid transit would have on the split and the ability of Orange County to do what it wants to do; and the Board have an opportunity to articulate its own County transportation goals. Commissioner McKee said he already sent a letter to Durham County Chair to open up these discussions, and this meeting did not take place due to scheduling conflicts; but the door was left open for this meeting to occur. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Bonnie Hammersley said in anticipation of this evening's meeting, her office put together a team that will be working on this item. She said Deputy Manager Travis Myren will be the primary contact for all GoTriangle/D-O LRT questions and concerns. 8. Reports NONE 9. County Manager's Report Deferred 10. County Attorney's Report Deferred 11. Appointments NONE 12. Board Comments DEFERRED 13. Information Items 36 • November 15, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100 • Memorandum - City of Mebane's Comprehensive Land Development Plan • Access to Mental Health Services Assessment • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from November 15, 2016 Regular Meeting 14. Closed Session NONE 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the meeting at 12:36 a.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Mark Dorosin, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board