Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-07-2017 1 APPROVED 3/7/2017 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING February 7, 2017 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 7, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, 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 Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Commissioner Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places: -white sheet: PowerPoint for item 4-b -white sheet: PowerPoint for item 7-a -white sheet: PowerPoint for item 8-a PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda NONE b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Burroughs had no petitions. Commissioner McKee said, as the GoTriangle presentation may not be taking place on February 16th, he would still like a representative from GoTriangle present at the meeting to explain the delay. Chair Dorosin said he would be content with such an update in an email. Commissioner Marcoplos said at the last meeting he petitioned the Board making a focused resolution on the local economic impacts of HB2. He said things are moving so fast, and he would like to see if the Board could create a resolution quickly and pass it at the QPH on the 13th 2 Chair Dorosin said there was discussion in Chair/Vice-Chair about composing a letter from the Chair. He said he could have this ready by the next meeting. Commissioner Marcoplos said his main goal is to get it done quickly and out to the press. Commissioner Rich said a letter is worthwhile, and should be sent to the newspapers. Commissioner Jacobs said he is also comfortable with a letter. He referred to Commissioner McKee's request, and said he urged GoTriangle to come to the February 16th meeting anyway, to explain why GoTriangle chose light rail over Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). He said there are many questions surrounding this conversation. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board received a thorough report about where Orange County employees live, and he would like to see one specifically about where senior staff lives. Commissioner Jacobs said he mentioned, at the retreat, about changing the order of regular meeting agendas, placing items of interest to the public at the beginning of the meeting and internal items at the end. Commissioner Jacobs petitioned the passing of a bicycle helmet ordinance for Orange County, and the Board agreed to refer this to the Attorney. Commissioner Price said there are parents that take their children to activities in the Fairview neighborhood, and as the Board discusses bus service, it should consider service to and from Fairview and Gateway Center. Commissioner Price said Hillsborough Police Chief Hampton has asked the legislative delegation to look into help foreign nationals, who can drive and know the law, to be able to obtain drivers' licenses. She petitioned the Board to write a letter in support of these efforts being made by the Hillsborough Police Department. Chair Dorosin had no petitions. Chair Dorosin said he would be in favor of a report from GoTriangle at the 16th meeting. Chair Dorosin said he would use his petition time to highlight an Orange County fact: Orange County was the first county in North Carolina to enact a recyclable materials recovery ordinance. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Presentation of the Joseph E. Hunt Distinguished Jurisdiction Award The Board considered recognizing the Orange County Tax Office staff for its achievement in earning the 2016 Joseph E. Hunt Distinguished Jurisdiction Award from the North Carolina Association of Assessing Officers (NCAAO). BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Association of Assessing Officers (NCAAO) has established the Jurisdiction Award to be presented each year in recognition of a county (or counties) achievement in areas of property tax assessment and/or collection, the implementation of a project, or endeavors to enhance the overall effectiveness of a county tax department. The recipient(s) receive prestigious recognition and an award at the annual NCAAO Fall Conference in November. The NCAAO reserves the right not to make this award annually, but as it deems justified. The Orange County Tax Office received the award for its 2017 revaluation collaborative community outreach efforts. Specifically, the NCAAO took note of Orange County's 2017 Revaluation Partner Program and its collaborative, transparency and educational components. 3 Bonnie Hammersley recognized Tax Administrator Dwane Brinson, and his assessment officers, for receiving an award for the 2017 revaluation collaborative community outreach efforts. Specifically, the NCAAO took note of Orange County's 2017 Revaluation Partner Program, and its collaborative, transparency and educational components. Dwane Brinson introduced his assessment officers. Chair Dorosin presented the plaque to Dwane Brinson and staff. The Board recognized the Orange County Tax Office staff for this achievement. b. 2017 Orange County Revaluation Update The Board received a high-level overview of the process for the 2017 countywide revaluation, with Tax Office staff scheduled to present more specific findings, numbers, and details of the revaluation to the Board at the February 21, 2017 regular meeting. BACKGROUND: North Carolina counties must conduct a revaluation at least once every eight years. Orange County's last revaluation took effect January 1, 2009. The effective appraisal date of the 2017 revaluation is January 1, 2017. Tax office staff began working on the 2017 revaluation in 2014. A collaborative approach was taken throughout the entire 2017 revaluation, and the community involvement has helped improve the process. In January 2016, the tax office proactively sent each real property owner a snapshot of the property's public record for review and correction. This was an effort to ensure accurate records. Early in the project, the tax office also developed and implemented its award-winning 2017 Revaluation Partner program. Becoming a 2017 Revaluation Partner consists of interested parties reviewing the County's updated tax website, watching three Learn and Share videos, and taking a quiz that consists of ten questions. After successfully passing the quiz, participants earn a Certificate of Achievement deeming them a 2017 Revaluation Partner. At the same time the website was updated to include the 2017 Revaluation Partner program, a revaluation section was added to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for the Tax Office. In addition, a 2017 Revaluation FAQ brochure will be available in the Tax Office at the time that notices are mailed out. Conducting a countywide revaluation takes significant effort and staff dedication. Orange County has approximately 55,500 real property parcels, and each of those parcels has been modified to reflect a current estimate of market value. Prior to the 2017 revaluation, Orange County had two (2) defined neighborhoods. A neighborhood is basically a group of similar properties. A great example is a subdivision. As part of the process, staff defined more neighborhoods, thereby allowing better organization and pricing models for the current and future revaluations. The County now has 975 neighborhoods. Additionally, prior to the 2017 revaluation staff had limited building use information. Projects such as computing the percentage of residential versus commercial in the tax base required Information Technologies programming and assistance. Throughout the 2017 revaluation, staff invested the time to improve this identification by identifying and coding each of the 55,500 parcels with its corresponding building use, i.e. single-family residential, restaurant, student housing, etc. Reporting for 2017 and forward will be much easier and more accurate because of these efforts. 4 The effective appraisal date for the 2017 revaluation is January 1, 2017. Notices are on schedule to be mailed the last week of February. The tax office will continue to conduct revaluation presentations throughout the County. Acceptance of informal appeal requests will begin immediately after taxpayers begin receiving notices of value. Tax office staff members have developed an updated Appeals Form and a corresponding Appeals Form Instruction Sheet. The Appeals Form and Instruction Sheet will become available online and in the office at the time that the notices are mailed to property owners. Tax office staff members will be available to assist the public in completing the Appeals Form. The Board of Equalization and Review will convene May 1st and begin hearing formal appeals. Chair Dorosin said the Board of County Commissioners will get more details at their February 21st meeting, and this presentation is just a high level update. Dwane Brinson made the following PowerPoint presentation: 2017 Revaluation T. Dwane Brinson, CAE Orange County Tax Administrator What is a Revaluation? • Revaluation is the process of updating all real property countywide to its current market value as of a single appraisal date • Real property: land and attached improvements Why Have a Revaluation? • North Carolina General Statute 105-286 requires all counties to conduct a revaluation at least once every eight years • A primary goal in conducting a revaluation of all real property is to equalize the tax base o Over time most properties change in value, but they often do so at different rates • Our last revaluation was effective January 1, 2009 o 2013 delayed revaluation o 2015 delayed revaluation What is market value? • North Carolina General Statute 105-283 defines market value as "the price estimated in terms of money at which the property would change hands between a willing and financially able buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of all the uses to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used." Applicable Laws • NCGS 105 —283: Uniform Appraisal Standards o Property to be appraised at market value • NCGS 105 —286: Time for general reappraisal o Must conduct revaluation at least once every eight years • NCGS 105 —287: Changing appraised value of real property in years in which general reappraisal is not made o (b)(2) cannot adjust for economic changes (paraphrased) 5 Timeline April 2014 -January 2016: Field visits to verify property record cards January 2016: Mail summary description of properties with listing forms January 2016 -April 2016: Initial field review of sales used in models February 2016 - May 2016: Review grade, depreciation, etc. field reviews April 2016 -July 2016: Develop new rates for Schedule of Values (SOV) July/August 2016: Finalize SOV September 2016: Public hearing on SOV October/November 2016: Adoption of SOV January/February 2016: Final, holistic review February 2017: Send out value change notices February 2017 -April 2017: Informal appeals May 2017 -June 2017: Board of Equalization and Review hearings The Process • Property visits began in 2014 • Land being valued as if vacant • Models tested in the office • Revaluation presentations in the community • Commercial parcels appraised by private firm • Organized properties into 975 neighborhoods — previously had 2 neighborhoods • Classified building types, i.e. single family, office warehouse, manufactured home, restaurant, etc. o Now have 173 building types classified, up from 16 building types prior to 2017 • Appraisers were assigned neighborhoods to complete for consistency Data Anomalies • Field reviews/Data Correction Forms o Property characteristic data changes for current year and future years o Examples of exceptions: new home constructed that is not on tax records (discovery), house fire resulting in total loss that is still being taxed (refund) Current Tax Assessments • Last appraisal date was January 1, 2009 o Adopted schedule of values for 2009 revaluation o Current tax assessments reflect value as of that date • Based on sales from 2007 and 2008 • Per NCGS 105 —287, cannot change 2009 tax assessments until date of next revaluation, January 1, 2017 • Current sales ratio is .96, 1.007 in 2014 and 1.04 in 2013 Appeals • Sample Revaluation Notice and Informal Appeal Form provided as part of this agenda packet o Informal Appeal Form instructions to be provided with mailing o Insert on property tax assistance programs provided with mailing • Stage 1 - tax office review in-house with an appraiser 6 • Stage 2 — hearing with Orange County Board of Equalization and Review (third party members) • Stage 3 — North Carolina Property Tax Commission • Stage 4 —Appeal courts Community Outreach • 2017 Revaluation Partner Program o Review of information on website o Learn and Share revaluation video series (772 total views as of 2/7/17) o 10-question interactive, educational quiz on website • 51 quizzes taken, average score 93 o Certificate of Achievement • Summary Description Mailing with 2016 listing forms o Partnering with the community to gather the most accurate data possible • Sales Bank/Appeals Process on website o Win-win appeals process o Sample adjustment grid Commissioner McKee asked if the Tax office anticipates what feedback may be received. Dwane Brinson said in a revaluation, the general rule is to expect up to 10% in appeals. He said he does not think this percentage will be reached, as the data is strong and communication has been clear. He said many corrections have been made, which should help limit appeals. Chair Dorosin said he appreciates all the effort put into the revaluation, and this process was designed to accurately reflect the value of a property. Commissioner Jacobs spoke about the previous revaluation in 2009, which was not as rigorous as the current one, and noted there were so few property sales due to the recession. He said this process made it clear that additional staff were needed earlier in the process. He said in the last revaluation, the appeals process was advertised so that it was clear to the public. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that Dwane Brinson invite Realtor Joe Phelps in to talk about the revaluation, since he is always negative about it. 5. Public Hearings NONE 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the Consent Agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 7 a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from December 13, 2016 and January 24, 2017 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax value for one taxpayer with a total of one bill that will result in a reduction of revenue, in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. c. Application for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board considered untimely application for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for one bill for the 2016 tax year. d. Advertisement of Tax Liens on Real Property The Board received a report on the amount of unpaid taxes for the current year that are liens on real property as required by North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-369 and requested March 22, 2017 be set by the Board for the tax lien advertisement, and authorized the Chair to sign. e. Fairview Park Standard Access and Maintenance Easement with Duke Energy Carolinas The Board approved a standard access and maintenance easement to Duke Energy Carolinas for the maintenance of parking area site lighting utilities to service the Orange County Fairview Park parking expansion; and authorized the Chair to sign the necessary paperwork upon final County Attorney review. f. Resolution Certifying and Approving the Results of the November 8, 2016 Bond Referenda The Board certified and approved the General Obligation Bond election results from the November 8, 2016 Bond referenda. g. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment#5-A Related to CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances The Board approved an application to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) to release proceeds from the NC Education Lottery account related to FY 2016-17 debt service payments for Chapel Hill — Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), and approved Budget Amendment#5-A (amended School Capital Project Ordinances), contingent on the NCDPI's approval of the application, and authorized the Chair to sign. 7. Regular Agenda a. Proposed Release of Request for Proposals for Use of County Bond Funds and Designated Surplus Land for Affordable Housing The Board received an update on the timeline to release Request for Proposals (RFP) for use of County bond funds for affordable housing projects and consider approval of the following: Travis Myren made this presentation, and noted there are three objectives tonight: 1) An amended project scoring criteria that includes points for local residency preference; 2) A resolution declaring eight (8) County owned parcels surplus land for the purposes of affordable housing development; and 8 3) The schedule for release of Affordable Housing RFP's for use of$2.5 million in bond funds and eight (8) County-owned parcels for affordable housing development. Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation: Affordable Housing Next Steps for Allocating Bond Funds and Surplus County Owned Land Board of Orange County Commissioners February 7, 2017 Objectives 1. Approve amended scoring criteria to include points for serving Orange County residents -Attachment 2 2. Approve resolution authorizing the use of County owned parcels for affordable housing -Attachment 5 3. Review and provide feedback on timeline for awarding bond funds through an Request for Proposal (RFP) Process - Attachment 6 Amended Scoring Criteria • Local Residency Preference — May not have a durational element — May add points to scoring criteria County Owned Land for Affordable Housing • Ten parcels identified as surplus to County needs o Eight parcels owned by Orange County o Two parcels conveyed to the Housing Authority by Orange County in 1992 — Housing Authority has approved disposition by RFP process • One parcel does not have ready access to water/sewer • Acquired by tax lien judgement or tax foreclosure • Resolution for Disposition — Authorizes Manager to Use 3 Disposition Options o Negotiated sale for affordable housing o Negotiated lease for affordable housing o Market rate sale with proceeds dedicated to affordable housing development — Disposition conditions o Affordability period o Safety Timeline for Requests for Proposal • Request for Proposals Process — Two RFP's • Bond funds • County owned property — Communication plan • Website, press release, targeted outreach, social media 9 — Scoring process • Use approved unit targets and scoring criteria • Interdepartmental County staff team • Representatives from Affordable Housing Advisory Board and Housing Authority — Final awards approved by the Board of Commissioners Timeline for Requests for Proposal-graph Objectives 1. Approve amended scoring criteria to include points for serving Orange County residents —Attachment 2 2. Approve resolution authorizing the use of County owned parcels for affordable housing Attachment 5 3. Review and provide feedback on timeline for awarding bond funds through an Request for Proposal Process —Attachment 6 Commissioner McKee asked if management has a suggestion about the affordability period. Travis Myren said typically it is 99 years, and this will be a discussion item at the February 16th meeting. Commissioner Price asked if the residency requirement could be explained. Travis Myren said a durational requirement cannot be used, so a point in time must be chosen as to when a person is a resident. He said the point of occupancy is the moment that was chosen. Commissioner Price said the scoring is done in advance. Travis Myren said the provider will have to do an estimate. Commissioner Price said she had a concern about this. Commissioner Price asked if there could be clarification about the difference between Orange County and the Housing Authority Board (HAB), and what is approved by each entity. Travis Myren said the parcels that HAB owns have been approved for the County to include in the RFP process. He said these parcels will be used as part of the mix of parcels that are available for affordable housing development. Commissioner Price asked if the HAB is part of Orange County. John Roberts said the HAB is its own separate entity and owns property. He said Orange County cannot authorize the sale of HAB properties without HAB authority. John Roberts said local residency as a determinative factor is prohibited, and likely constitutionally unlawful, as it violates equal protection and a person's right to travel. He said Orange County's use of residency is not determinative, but rather adds a few points to the overall selection criteria. Commissioner Price asked if the timetable for money disbursement could be explained, and if the approval process can be accelerated for organizations with property ready to rehabilitate. Travis Myren said to her first question, there will be two draws: $2.5 million this June, and another $2.5 million in 2019, and he said the Board of Commissioners can release more monies if it so chooses. Commissioner Price asked if there is a cap as to how much money an organization can receive. 10 Commissioner Price said if there are projects that are ready, and if organizations are ready, can the process be accelerated. Travis Myren said the money would be authorized this year. He said some time has been built in for application workshops, and some weeks may be able to be cut off. PUBLIC COMMENT: Yvette Matthews is from the Community Empowerment Fund, who paid a large part in the passing of the affordable housing bond. She said she knows many homeless people, and this bond is so important to her organization. She is supportive of these efforts, and hopes building will start soon. Chinita Howard said she came to this County to interview a client, but had a seizure on the way to that meeting, and she remained here for the medical facilities. She found a home, which she thought was affordable, but upon arrival found it to be bug infested. She said she went to the owners, neighbors, etc., to explain about this, but had to leave after 30 days. She found a new place at the Crest for $540, and stayed there five years until rent went up to fair market value, which was $1,110. She reviewed the many places she went and the waiting lists, and then she lived in the woods in the fall of 2016 for two months. She said most people like teachers cannot afford to live in Orange County. Brittany Bullock said she is a community advocate at the Community Empowerment Fund and InterFaith Council (IFC). She said it is difficult seeing her clients coming for assistance with affordable housing, and not being able to provide any. She is in support of affordable housing efforts. Soteria Shepperson said she works mainly with the IFC and assists them in many areas, including trying to find affordable housing when they leave the IFC. She implored the Board to find the value in the people. She said she is supportive of affordable housing efforts to support hard working members of the community. Susan Levy said thank you to the Board of County Commissioners for expediting this process, and it is moving quickly. She referred to the criteria about giving points to those who are already living in Orange County, and said points need to be given to those who work in Orange County. She said she is unclear about the RFP for County-owned properties, and asked if a donation of property at zero cost would be considered. Robert Dowling said there is a need for affordable rental housing. He said this process is very quick. He agreed with Susan Levy about assigning points for those living in the county or working in the county. He said as far as the land, he would hope Orange County would donate the land for affordable housing. He said he hopes all partners would continue to work collaboratively through this process. Allan Rosen said he agreed that those working in Orange County should receive the same consideration as a resident. He said this spring they will know how much $2.5 million will be able to buy and afford. He thinks this amount may need to be supplemented down the line to reach 1000 units in five years. Delores Bailey said affordable rentals are what are needed in Orange County, and this is a countywide need. She said it is urgent to get this process moving, and the money allocated. Chair Dorosin asked Travis Myren if the resolution for disposing of property does allow the Board to donate County property to one the providers. Travis Myren said yes. Commissioner Burroughs referred to the terms of scoring, and suggested adding a word or two to capture those that work in Orange County, as opposed to just residents. John Roberts said he has no objection to that suggestion. 11 Commissioner Rich asked Bond Counsel if he could explain the actual process, now that the bond is passed. Bob Jessup, Bond Counsel, said the process this evening is the Board, as part of the consent agenda, formally confirmed the results of the election. He said the regulating authority wants the County to have construction bids in hand for the projects, on which the money will be spent. He said this is true of both housing and school projects. He said more than $5 million should be ready to go to market, and then there will be a bond sale. He said the County will be ready for a bond sale in the fall 2017, and it is important to know the cost of projects so that the correct amount of money is borrowed. He said money can be spent prior to the fall. Commissioner Rich asked Travis Myren if the County is providing money up front for these projects, and then reimbursing itself with the bond proceeds in the fall. Travis Myren said a reimbursement resolution is the next item on the agenda, proposing to do just that. Commissioner Jacobs asked Commissioner Burroughs if she was proposing language. Commissioner Burroughs said she would propose adding the words "or workers" to the criteria. Commissioner Jacobs said he agreed with this proposed language. Commissioner Jacobs said if money is spent down too quickly, funds may be depleted too quickly, which has happened before. He said he would encourage staff to remember some projects may be quicker than others, and to take this into consideration as staff rates the criteria. He said there was a situation years ago where the Board was told that bond money was available for a project, when it actually was not. Commissioner Price said when she hears the public share dire situations, due to bureaucracy, it is very upsetting, and she would like to provide money before June if need be. Commissioner Marcoplos said he has a problem with the residency/locally-employed criteria. He is not sure if there is any benefit to including it. Commissioner McKee said there is another $2 million directed toward affordable housing, and asked if these funds are ready to be dispersed now. Travis Myren said $1 million was specifically targeted toward mobile homes, and another $1 million towards a land banking program, the parameters of which are not yet defined. He said there are also funds in the operating budget for the rehabilitation and urgent repairs programs. Commissioner McKee said there are other funds beyond the $5 million from the bond, which allows for a bit more flexibility. Chair Dorosin agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos about the residency requirement in the scoring criteria, and suggested deleting that provision. Commissioner Burroughs agreed. 1) The project scoring criteria as amended in Attachment 2; A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to remove item B in Attachment 2, pertaining to percentage of Orange County residents served at time of occupancy. Commissioner Rich said it is important to take care of locals first, and while she is amenable to removing item B, she wants to make sure that taking care of those that live and work in Orange County first remains a goal of the Board. Chair Dorosin said deleting item B does not mean it is no longer a priority, and he finds that is not something that is reasonably measured through this matrix. 12 Commissioner Jacobs said he agreed with Commissioner Rich, and the object is to serve those who are living and working in Orange County. Commissioner Price said she could see both sides, and the community organizations know the locals and can connect the neediest to the available housing. Commissioner McKee said leaving the wording in aligns with the County's value of local. Commissioner Jacobs said if there is a mission statement, the Board can use that to articulate that the Board's goal, to the greatest extent possible, is to serve those who live and work in Orange County. Travis Myren said staff can include a policy statement, of that nature, in the RFP documents, noting that first priority will be given to those who live and work in Orange County. Commissioner McKee made an amendment that if this motion passes, staff should be directed to add this proposed language from Commissioner Jacobs into a policy statement. Commissioner Burroughs and Commissioner Price agreed. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adopt the resolution declaring eight (8) County owned parcels surplus land for the purposes of affordable housing development in Attachment 5 and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the schedule for release of Affordable Housing RFP's for use of$2.5 million in bond funds and eight (8) County-owned parcels for affordable housing development in Attachment 6 with the amended language (below) Commissioner Price said to add, "on or before June 6th" to "BOCC consider approval of recommendations". Commissioner McKee said he would accept the amendment. Commissioner Rich asked if that would give everyone a fair opportunity. Chair Dorosin said all items would still be due no later than June 6th, but if reviews can be completed before that date, then the Board should do so. Commissioner Rich agreed. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if an application submission could be defined. Travis Myren said the application submission would solicit information that corresponds to the scoring criteria. He said design plans and architectural drawings would not be due at that time. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if it would be possible to score a project without the design of the project. Travis Myren said the scoring criteria addresses the more qualitative aspects of the project. Commissioner Marcoplos said the application submission is more subjective. Travis Myren said there are some elements in the scoring criteria that address building design, so some information will be needed; but final building documents would not be needed. Commissioner Marcoplos said there will be some binding nature to these applications. 13 Travis Myren said yes. He said all the conditions presented in the application would become part of a grant agreement. Commissioner McKee said Commissioner Marcoplos' question brings up an interesting point, and asked what would happen if only one or two applications come in during this timeline that can be approved. Travis Myren said there is nothing prohibiting a second round of RFPs. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Reimbursement Resolutions for General Obligation Bond Projects The Board considered approving resolutions providing for General Obligation Bond proceeds reimbursement for school and housing capital projects expended prior to bond issuance. Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, presented this item: BACKGROUND: On November 8, 2016 Orange County voters approved $120 million in General Obligation bonds to fund capital improvements for the Chapel-Hill Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools, and $5 million to fund capital improvements for providing housing for persons of low and moderate income. Attachment 1 includes the list of school projects to be funded with general obligation bond proceeds. The total expenditures are consistent with the amounts authorized in the County's Capital Investment Plan. However, the distribution of funds between projects has been reallocated to reflect the most recent information available. The Orange County Schools project list was updated to include the acquisition of the Orange Charter School facility for $3.1 million with an offsetting reduction in the Cedar Ridge High School project. The balance of Cedar Ridge High School project is anticipated to be funded using existing impact fee revenue due to its impact on school capacity. The Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools project list increases the amount of funds allocated to the Lincoln Center Campus Redevelopment and reduces the amount allocated to Chapel Hill High School. The 2013 Facilities Assessment estimated the Lincoln Center project at $21 million. The District recently received an updated cost estimate of approximately $24.6 million. The District reports that this increase is primarily driven by construction cost increases of approximately 5% annually. The Chapel Hill High School project is now budgeted at approximately $47 million to offset the increase in the Lincoln Center project and to account for the allocation of bond funds based on the average daily membership that was authorized in the FY2016-17 Budget. The attached Reimbursement Resolutions allow the County to advance fund initial project costs if necessary, and then reimburse itself from financing proceeds upon the issuance of the General Obligation Bonds, now scheduled for Fall 2017. Commissioner Price asked if the figures for the A.L. Stanback and Chapel Hill school renovations are so high because of the square footage. Gary Donaldson said yes. 14 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the Reimbursement Resolutions. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8. Reports a. Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Transportation Plan The Board received a presentation on the purpose of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and the draft bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and highway maps for the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). Orange County Transportation Planning staff will return to the BOCC at its February 21 meeting with the OUTBoard's complete comments on the CTP and an OUTBoard recommendation for the BOCC to endorse. BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is a document prepared at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) level and identifies roadway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure improvements for future implementation. The North Carolina Department of Transportation requires MPOs to produce a CTP; these plans are often the product of a joint planning effort between MPO planning staff, North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Planning Branch staff, and local planners. Once adopted, the CTP will replace County and local community thoroughfare plans. CTP Purpose The purpose of the CTP is to identify a universe of potential future highway, transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure projects for the MPO's planning area, based on identified needs. CTPs typically have a horizon year, or year of proposed full implementation, of more than 20 years into the future and are fiscally unconstrained. Using the Triangle Regional Model (TRM), the travel demand model for the Triangle region, a deficiency analysis is conducted on the current roadway network to better understand where and how future growth in employment and population will affect the transportation network. The deficiency analysis also examines metrics for transit, bicycling, and walking. CTPs are adopted by the MPO Board as well as by the North Carolina Board of Transportation. Once adopted, CTPs represent the mutual vision on the part of the State, local jurisdictions, and the MPO for future transportation needs. The presentation, provided in Attachment 1, will provide more information about the CTP, its relationship to other plans, and its importance with respect to reserving right-of-way. Relationship to Other Plans The CTP is the overarching transportation plan for the DCHC MPO. As a State requirement, the CTP replaces the Thoroughfare plans that have been conducted in North Carolina since the 1950s. With a focus on multi-modal transportation, the CTP is designed to work within a planning framework, which includes the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). 15 Projects included in other Orange County transportation plans, including the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan, must be included in the CTP. While CTPs are not regularly updated, they can be amended. If local projects and priorities change and projects are specifically removed from local plans, the CTP can be amended. It is, however, important to note that the CTP represents an aspirational, non-fiscally constrained, long-range transportation network and includes all possible transportation improvements. While some of these transportation improvements may never come to pass based on funding or feasibility, this plan indicates a long-range vision that supports a robust multi-modal transportation network and provides a diversity of projects for programming in subsequent fiscally constrained plans and funding programs. Products The final CTP will contain two distinct elements, the CTP Maps (Attachment 2) and the CTP Study Report. The CTP Study Report contains a great deal of background information including problem statements for specific projects and a summary of the CTP process. The Highway Minimum Problem Statements document is provided as an example (Attachment 3). The entire draft document, all of the maps, and explanatory tables for each mode can be found at this link: http://bitiy/2bv3ROV. It is important to note that the NCDOT Board of Transportation only approves the CTP maps; this body does not approve the CTP Study Report. CTP Footnote In many communities, the dedication of right-of-way to support associated cross-sections for the construction of new facilities or the enhancement of existing facilities is handled using subdivision/land development ordinances or special zoning entitlements. In Orange County, however, land is often developed "by right" under existing zoning. In order to compel developers/sub-dividers/etc. to dedicate right-of-way for new streets/highways or to improve existing streets/highways, an adopted CTP is required. The CTP requirement would, however, only apply if the jurisdiction is interested in acquiring the dedication through its zoning processes, subdivision control ordinances, and/or special zoning entitlements. It is the opinion of the County Attorney that no other planning policy guide (e.g. small area plans, locally adopted corridor plans, special district plans, etc.) can legally compel right-of-way dedication when the dedication is being sought through zoning, subdivision, or any other land use control ordinances. With this in mind, staff has worked with the MPO and with NCDOT Transportation Planning branch for over two years to create language linking local access management plans and small area plans to the CTP, i.e. to ensure that the roadway alignments in these plans are equivalent to CTP alignments. This will provide solid footing to support requiring the dedication of the right of-way in development projects that are programmed "by right." The following language has been tentatively finalized for inclusion on the CTP maps. A longer, more explanatory passage will also be included in the CTP Study Report. The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes and are subject to change. These concepts will need additional analysis to meet state and federal environmental regulations, to determine final locations and designs, and to be funded for implementation. Local zoning or subdivision ordinances may require the dedication of right of way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local collector street plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and §136-66.10. 16 For the purposes of Orange County, access management plans and small area plans are referenced in the CTP as including collector street plan alignments. January 18 Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) Comments At the January 18 meeting of the OUTBoard, Orange County Transportation Planning staff made a presentation on the CTP. The OUTBoard undertook action to endorse the CTP as a replacement to the Thoroughfare Plans in principle, with the caveat that the members will spend more time reviewing the specific alignments in detail. The OUTBoard members requested that staff reserve time to review the OUTBoard's specific comments at the OUTBoard's next meeting (February 15) and transmit these comments to the BOCC. During the meeting, OUTBoard members expressed concern that no projects were included in the CTP to address congestion on Churton Street through Downtown Hillsborough. Next Steps The CTP Report document and the CTP maps have undergone an internal NCDOT review. At this point in the process, the DCHC MPO is currently accepting public comment on the CTP maps through February 24. The CTP maps can be found here: http://www.dchcmpo.org/ programs/ctp/defauVt.asp. Both the DCHC MPO Board and the NCDOT Board of Transportation will approve the CTP maps in early 2017. Commissioner Barry Jacobs serves as the liaison to the DCHC MPO Board. Staff reviewed the 1985 un-adopted Thoroughfare Plan for Orange County as well as the Thoroughfare plans for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough to ensure that undesirable projects had not been carried forward to the CTP. The maps from these plans are provided in Attachment 4. Orange County Transportation Planning staff will return to the BOCC at its February 21 meeting with the OUTBoard's complete recommendation. This item will include specific comments from the OUTBoard on the CTP. Max Bushell, Transportation Administrator, made the following PowerPoint presentation: Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Transportation Plan Agenda / Review: • Relationship to Other Plans • CTP Schedule • Products • Maps • Tables / Thoroughfare Plans vs. CTP / Complete Streets Element CTP Footnote 17 / Next Steps Relationship Between Plans Plans (chart) CTP Schedule Key Products - Highways Key Products - Highways Key Products — Public Transportation and Rail Key Products — Public Transportation and Rail Key Products — Bike, Pedestrian and Paths A Note on Adoption / The NCDOT Board of Transportation will adopt only the maps. The MPO Board may adopt the entire document. / The CTP replaces existing Thoroughfare Plans. / Any reference to Thoroughfare Plans in local ordinances may need to be changed. CTP vs. Thoroughfare Plans / Both Grant legal authority to reserve right-of-way / Both permit certain types of uses, e.g. industrial and allow speed humps, depending on the jurisdiction Local Thoroughfare Plans / Durham, 1992 / Chapel Hill, 1994 Carrboro, 1994 / Hillsborough, 1996 / Orange County, 1990 (not adopted) / Chatham County, 1983 Replace Thoroughfare Plans • CTP matches old Thoroughfare plans fairly well in terms of roadway type. ✓ MPO staff conducted multiple meetings with local staff to ensure comfortable with any roadway changes. • Local government reference to Thoroughfare: ■ Local staff are aware of any references to old T-fare Plan ■ Local staff will make any needed changes to local ordinance after CTP is adopted. Roadway Type (chart) Thoroughfare Plan vs. CTP (map) 18 Thoroughfare Plan vs. CTP (map) Thoroughfare Plan vs. CTP (map) Thoroughfare Plan vs. CTP (map) Complete Streets • Report Reference ■ Complete Streets policy will be prominent in the CTP report. • Cross-Sections ■ In CTP highway table, every roadway has cross-section designated. ✓ MPO, NCDOT, and local staff have worked to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian facilities are included. CTP Footnote / Footnote Text: • The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes and are subject to change. These concepts will need additional analysis to meet state and federal environmental regulations, to determine final locations and designs, and to be funded for implementation. Local zoning or subdivision ordinances may require the dedication of right of way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local collector street plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and § 136-66.10. / Report Text: • Locally approved transportation plans may contain street or highway right-of- way dedication recommendations or requirements, and collectively function as the collector street plan for the MPO or municipality as referenced under G.S. § 136-66.2. To Summarize CTPs replace Thoroughfare Plans CTP Maps are adopted by the Board of Transportation / The controversial alignments from the Thoroughfare Plan have been removed / To Note: There is a drop-in meeting on February 16, 5:30-7:30 in the Orange County Library on the CTP OUTBoard Action / The OUTBoard • Endorsed the CTP in principle; • Is working through specific comments for their February 15 meeting; and st • Will provide these comments for your review at the February 21 meeting. Action Today The Manager recommends the Board: • Receive the report; • Provide any initial comments; and • Ask any questions. 19 Commissioner Jacobs explained why the Thoroughfare Plan was never adopted in 1990. He said the Department of Transportation (DOT) ignored the BOCC, to the point that Orange County hired a traffic consultant to re-do what DOT was doing in the rural parts of the County, around Hillsborough. He said DOT was trying to do an entire Raleigh outer loop around Hillsborough, including Davis Road, Elizabeth Brady Road, and a highway across the upper Eno watershed. He said the County Government at the time, as well as many Orange County citizens were very much opposed to some or all of those alignments, and so the BOCC hired a consultant. He said it was a struggle, partially, because Hillsborough had already adopted a plan before Orange County was consulted. He said Hillsborough's plan did not consider rural Orange County. He said they were also asked to design to the Efland Interchange, which is almost as incomprehensible as the Hampton Pointe parking lot. He said the County was not part of those conversations, and the BOCC objected. He said a meeting was meant to take place to resolve the differences, but this never occurred. He said at the same time, in August 1990, the BOCC decided not to add a large meeting room to the Government Services building, and were discussing the status of a countywide school district tax, but were waiting to hear from Orange County Schools (OCS), and were also discussing the possibility of combining into one school district. Commissioner Jacobs said, at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), he wanted to make sure that none of these roads appeared on any contemporary maps, because those battles have been fought and won previously. Commissioner Jacobs asked if 1-40 is missing from the maps. Max Bushell said there is a link to interactive maps in the Board's packets. Commissioner Jacobs said he is looking at Attachment 3. Max Bushell said he included the maps in Attachment 3 as a sample of the type of information that is presented in the document. He said 1-40 is a major project statement, and he only included minor ones. He said there is additional information. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a link to that information. Max Bushell said yes, it is on page 3 under "next steps". He said there is a link to major project statements in the packet as well. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the person who prepared the verbiage in Attachment 3 could be identified. Max Bushell said the previous person in his position did so. Commissioner Jacobs asked if these are subject to refinement or is this the final word. Max Bushell said they can be refined. Commissioner Jacobs pointed out some inconsistencies: - 1-40 to the Durham County line, "to relieve anticipated congestion;" many would say this is already congested. - South Churton street: he said it would be good to have the specific vehicle count - Eno Moutain Rd/Mayo St/Orange Grove Rd intersection: this does not refer to the new development that has just opened at the corner of Eno Mt Rd and Orange Grove, nor does it refer to the 1,000 unit proposed Collins Ridge development - Eubanks Road: this makes no mention of Duke Forest Chair Dorosin asked if the appropriate method for getting Commissioner Jacobs' comments into the record could be identified. Staff said to provide them with a copy of Commissioner Jacobs' comments, and the changes will be made. 20 Commissioner Price referred to the verbiage portion on page 38 with regards to NC 54, and noted it says at bottom, "Orange County recommends a four lane divided cross section for this facility". She said the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) opposed the widening of this section of 54, in order to go along with Carrboro's traffic improvements, and push public transportation with more bus lanes. Max Bushell said this was written before he was here. Staff said this change will be made, but the MPO is going to do a study of NC-54 from Carrboro out to 1-40, and this should hopefully answer some of these questions, such as does 54 need to be widened, are additional lanes needed, etc. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Burlington-Graham MPO is involved in this. Max Bushell answered yes. Commissioner Price referred to page 42, NC highway 86, and said if this is referring to new highway 86, there is bus service on this road all the way to Cedar Grove. Max Bushell said he would add in this information. Chair Dorosin said the public comment period closes on February 24th, and Board members should send comments to the Manager prior to February 21st. Chair Dorosin referred to the CTP Footnote issue, and asked if the incorporation of the footnote allows for the donation of right of ways in streets below minor thoroughfare. Max Bushell said yes. 9. County Manager's Report Bonnie Hammersley reported on the upcoming 2/16 work session items. 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts said the legislature is back to work, and has filed about 100 bills so far. 11. Appointments a. Board of Health —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Board of Health. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to appoint Jennifer Deyo to a first full term (Position #2) "At-Large Pharmacist" position, expiring 06/30/2019. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to appoint for Johanna Birkmayer to a partial term (Position #8) "At-Large Citizen/Commissioner Appointment" position, expiring 06/30/2018. VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Marcoplos); Nays, 4 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Price) Motion fails. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint Dr. Barber to (Position #8) "At-Large Citizen/Commissioner Appointment" position, expiring 06/30/2018. 21 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Burroughs) Commissioner Burroughs said in reference to Commissioner Price's nomination that there is a subcommittee on the BOH, who had interviewed the candidates and made the strong recommendation of Johanna Birkmayer. She said she would like to honor the recommendations they made. Commissioner Price said she nominated Dr. Barber because of her experience. Commissioner McKee he would agree with Commissioner Price, and does not question the vetting of the other candidates, but feels Dr. Barber brings specific expertise and diversity to the BOH. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if boards do their own vetting of applicants. Donna Baker said there is not a set vetting process, but most boards do their own vetting and put forth recommendations to the BOCC. Chair McKee said some Boards have special positions with specific requirements. Commissioner Jacobs said he came prepared to vote for the BOH recommendation, but since someone else was brought up that was qualified, he did not follow through on that recommendation. He respects and wants to support boards that vet candidates, especially for specialized boards; and in most cases he chooses to honor the recommendation of a given board. b. Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint the following to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitor's Bureau: Appointment to a first full term (Position #6) "NC High School Athletic Association" position for Kayla Austin expiring 12/31/2019. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the role of a "special representative" could be defined. Commissioner Rich said the Visitor's Bureau has specific targets for how many people serve on the board from specific areas. She said the position that is open this evening is for a specific role, and other positions will become available in the future. Chair Dorosin said there has been a lot of discussion about these designated positions, and their value. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Historic Preservation Commission —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to appoint the following to the Historic Preservation Commission: 22 Appointment to a first full term (Position #7) "At-Large" for Todd Dickinson expiring 03/31/2019. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Jacobs said Mr. Dickinson's application refers to a book that he is writing regarding Orange County architecture, and said this book has been in process for 25 years. He asked the Manager if she could get an update on this project, and possible create a deadline for its completion. d. Orange Unified Transportation Board —Appointment The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange Unified Transportation Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint Jenn Sykes to a partial term to fill a vacancy (position #9) "At-Large" expiring 09/30/2017. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Commissioner Price had no comments Commissioner Jacobs said there was a meeting to discuss the Durham Tech scholarship fund, and some progress was made regarding a memorandum of understanding between the Department of Social Services Director and Durham Tech to share more information about whom they serve, so that those in need can be better connected to the available funds. He said a program that serves those fresh out of high school as well as those who may have been out of school for some time, and seeking to re-enter, was also discussed. Commissioner Jacobs said the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) heard two good presentations recently. Commissioner Jacobs said he provided the Board with a copy of the Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project tour that occurred yesterday. He said the Manager has requested an electronic copy to be posted on the County website. Commissioner Rich reported on the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) incident this past weekend, and she thanked all those involved for the great work. She hoped the Board would receive a follow up report. She said public feedback expressed that the greatest cause for concern was the unknown timeline for the reinstatement of the water. Commissioner Rich referred to the SWAG meeting, and said a report will be provided soon about the cost of recycling, since it is not as it use to be. She said there was also a report on Boulder Colorado, as related to recycling, and Orange County is doing more than them. Commissioner Marcoplos said he represented the BOCC on the GoTriangle Community Meeting last week, and he was struck by the discussion that compared BRT to Light Rail. He said he heard more at that meeting than he had heard at any of GoTriangle's presentations, and encouraged the Board to stick with that theme at the upcoming work session, as there is a lot of information to get out to the public. He said the discussion about funding was interesting too. He suggested the BOCC go on a tour of the light rail route. Commissioner McKee said this past Saturday, Free Spirit Freedom put on an event to honor former Mayor of Hillsborough Horace Johnson, and if not for Commissioner Price he 23 may not have received this recognition. He said he also attended David Price's Town Hall meeting. Commissioner McKee said last weekend's water event was a perfect storm, and he commended everyone that was involved. He also participated in a meeting with Club Nova and Cardinal Innovations where funding for their capital project was requested, as well as increased remittances on their services. Commissioner Burroughs said the Board of Health is reviewing resumes for Health Director, and hope to have someone on board by the end of the spring. Commissioner Price said the OWASA Board of Directors meeting is tomorrow at 6:00 p.m., and is being held at the Town Hall to accommodate the crowds. Chair Dorosin reminded the Commissioners to write up brief summaries of their many meetings. 13. Information Items • January 24, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100 • Memorandum - Mosquito Population Control • Memorandum - State Transportation Improvement Program Draft Document and Orange County Funded Projects • Memorandum - Status of Countywide Radio Communications Project • Memorandum - Status and Path Forward on Hillsborough EDD Utility Service Agreement and Future Utility Infrastructure • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from January 24, 2017 Regular Meeting 14. Closed Session NONE 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to adjourn the meeting at 9:47 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Mark Dorosin, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board