Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02-21-2017 1 APPROVED 3/21/2017 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING February 21, 2017 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, 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 7:00 p.m. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Dorosin said that Commissioner McKee would be late tonight. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to add a closed session to the agenda for the purpose below: § 143-318.11(a)(3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Chair Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places: -white sheet: listing of grant recipients for item 4-a -white sheet: PowerPoint for item 4-b - pink sheet: PowerPoint for item 4-c - yellow sheet: 2017 Informal Appeal Form for item 4-c -white sheet: PowerPoint for item 4-d - bright blue sheet: replacement sheets for item 7-a, pages 24-26 of attachment 5 -white sheet: oversized spreadsheet for item 7-b - lavender sheet: Board of Health by-laws, additional information for item 12-a PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 2 Wayne Hadler said he is the attorney for the Grove Park project, which was approved by the Town of Chapel Hill as a modification of a Special Use Permit (SUP) in December 2015. He said the owner, A.P. Segar and Project Engineer, Philip Post, join him this evening. He reviewed the information contained in the following email: Date: February 9, 2017 To: Chairman Dorosin and the Orange County Board of Commissioners (via email) From: A.P. Segar, Townhouse Apartments RE: Grove Park: Request for Adjustment to Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of Projects for School Impact Fee Collection Purposes Please consider this request for a minor amendment to the adopted resolution regarding grandfathering of projects for school impact fee collection purposes. I intend to present this petition in person at the February 21, 2017 meeting. My family owns the existing Town House Apartments, a college-student apartment complex, which has been preparing for a major renovation/expansion over the last 10 years. We are now one month away from submitting a Zoning Compliance Permit application to Chapel Hill. Our unique circumstances were not taken into account when you considered grandfathering of projects at your December meeting. Our situation is unique: • We have a 50+ year track record of not producing any school-age children, as our product caters to college students. • We have been diligently working on our expansion project, obtaining a Special Use Permit and Special Use Permit Modification in 2009 and 2015. • Our Zoning Compliance Permit application will be submitted in February, but we have completed many of the typical final plan requirements. These include: receiving administrative approval of Minor Changes as we prepare our final plan application, receiving approval of our detailed building elevations and lighting plan from the Chapel Hill Community Design Commission, and receiving our Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools (CAPS) from CHCCS. • We cannot absorb an unanticipated $1.2 million increase in the school impact fee. • If this project does not move forward, a property tax loss exceeding $625,000/year will result. • We are providing an affordable housing offering to Chapel Hill with an estimated value of$4 million over a 25-year period. To keep this project alive, we propose a minor adjustment to the resolution adopted last month regarding grandfathering of projects for school impact fee collection purposes. The proposed language is provided below as well as a more detailed history of how vested we are in this development expansion. Thank you for your consideration. We believe the tax base generated by the expansion of our apartment complex and the associated affordable housing offering warrants consideration of this minor adjustment to the grandfathering provisions. Proposed Additional Language for Grandfathering Resolution BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED THAT projects of 90-units in size or greater for which Detailed Building Elevations and Lighting Plan have been approved by the Town's Design Commission and Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools (CAPS) have been issued 3 prior to January 1, 2017, and for which a building permit application has been submitted prior to January 31, 2019 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 December 31, 2020 and a Certificate of Compliance is issued on or before December 31, 2020. Detailed Background of Town House Apartments/Grove Park Development 1961 Construction began on the 111 dwelling units at Town House Apartments • February, 2009 Chapel Hill Council approved rezoning and Special Use Permit for 346 units • October, 2015 Chapel Hill Council approved a Special Use Permit Modification • April, 2015 Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools (CAPS) issued by CHCCS (Certificate #0071) • June, 2016 Chapel Hill approval of minor changes to the 2015 Special Use Permit • November, 2016 Chapel Hill approval of minor changes to the 2015 Special Use Permit Dec. 15, 2016 Chapel Hill Community Design Commission approval of ZCP Detailed Building Elevations and Lighting Plan • February, 2017 Formal Zoning Compliance Permit submittal anticipated Since 1962, we have provided rental apartment units to college students at this Hillsborough Street location in Chapel Hill. We received approval from the Chapel Hill Town Council for a new residential project in 2009, which was then finely tuned with Town Council approval of a Special Use Permit Modification in 2015. We have been working diligently on our Zoning Compliance Permit (ZCP)/Final Plan submittal package since 2015. As we prepared detailed final plans, we have worked closely with the Chapel Hill staff and have received two administrative approvals for minor changes to the 2015 Special Use Permit. These changes were determined to be necessary as we fine-tuned our ZCP submittal for the town. We also had our detailed building elevations and lighting plan approved in December by the Town's Community Design Commission. This is a step in the process that typically occurs during Zoning Compliance Permit review by the town. We intend to submit our formal Zoning Compliance Permit application in February. A great deal of time and expense has gone into our proposal. We were not aware of significant school impact fee changes. We estimate that the additional $1.2 million required of us based on the increased school impact fees will damage our project and result in our inability to move forward. Please refer to the attachment identifying the cost associated with the increase in the school impact fee. Failure of our project to move forward will result in an estimated property tax base loss of at least$625,000 + each year to the county. We reflect a unique situation: Long time college-student rental housing that has received a Special Use Permit and Special Use Permit Modification, 2 Minor Changes, detailed Building Elevation and Lighting Plan Approvals, and Certificates of Adequacy of Public Schools, just weeks away from submitting our Zoning Compliance Permit application. We respectfully request consideration of a minor adjustment to the resolution regarding grandfathering of projects for school impact fee collection purposes. If it would be helpful to discuss any of this information, please contact me at apsegar @townhouseunc.com or 919-942- 2163. I appreciate your consideration of this request. 4 Attachment cc (via email): Wayne Hadler, Esquire John Roberts, Esquire Philip Post, PE, PLE Bonnie Hammersley, Orange County Manager Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director Perdita Holtz, Orange County Planner III Commissioner Jacobs arrived at 7:07 p.m. A.P. Segar echoed Mr. Hadler's comments. She said the family has been pursuing a viable redevelopment for close to a decade. Philip Post said he has been the engineer for this project since 2011. He asked if staff would look into their project, as he finds it deserving of the same relief that was given to the Northwoods-Raven project. He said the project was value engineered in the fall of 2016, with several costs being removed. He said the increase in the impact fees would be highly detrimental. He said it was his fault that the project did not come before the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) prior to Christmas 2016. Latandra Strong spoke on behalf of Hate Free Schools Coalition. Her children are in the Orange County Schools (OCS), and in the fall of 2015 she informed the Board of Education (BOE) about the confederate flag being shown on students' clothing. She said the BOE, school administrators and attorneys informed her that the students were within their rights to wear the flag. She said she and others had gone to the BOE and staff several times, and at the last BOE meeting they were locked out of the building when they wanted to speak in front of the BOE. She said there are serious racial concerns that must be addressed. Emily Elstad said she is a member of this coalition as well, and her child attends OCS. She said prior to March 2016, there was language in the OCS dress code policy, which prohibited racially divisive symbols on school property. She said the OCS BOE removed this clause from the dress code policy in March 2016. She said she wanted to share her experience at the February 13, 2017 BOE meeting, and felt her rights were violated. She said the BOE was in violation of the open meetings law. Chair Dorosin said to refer to staff for additional information on these items. 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 requested that the Board of County Commissioners get key cards for the back hallway at Southern Human Services Center. Commissioner Rich had no announcements or petitions. Commissioner Price said Rich Wooten at Cardinal Innovations has asked if OPC members would consider merging with Alamance and Caswell counties. She said his service areas do cover all these counties. Commissioner Burroughs had no petitions or announcements. Chair Dorosin said any texts that the Commissioners receive during meetings are public records, and everything done in meetings should be open and transparent, keeping all conversations out front and engaged. 5 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Orange County Arts Commission Fall 2016 Grant Recipients The Board presented checks to local artists and arts organizations receiving Fall 2016 Orange County Arts Grants. Katie Murray, Orange County Arts Commission Director, presented this item. Katie Murray reviewed the background information below. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Arts Commission awards grants for art programs to local artists, schools and nonprofit organizations from funds received from the state and Orange County government for this purpose. These funds are distributed for arts projects in all arts disciplines. Each grant recipient must match the granted amount at least dollar-for-dollar in order to receive funding. FINANCIAL IMPACT: A total of$25,440 was awarded to seven nonprofit organizations, fourteen schools and two artists during the 2016 Fall Grant Cycle. The North Carolina Arts Council provided $1,600 of the funds awarded, and funding totaling $23,840 was from Orange County. The Commission received 33 applications, six of which were first-time applicants. Of the 23 grants awarded, five were awarded to first-time recipients. Chair Dorosin read the names of the grant recipients, and Commissioner Price handed out the checks. ORANGE COUNTY ARTS COMMISSION Fall 2016 Grant Recipients and Representatives Organizations & Schools Carrboro Elementary School Lynn Weller Cedar Grove Neighborhood Association Sue Florence Cedar Ridge High School Dr. Lisa Napp Chapel Hill-Carrboro Public School Foundation Lynn Lehmann Chapel Hill High School Arts Academy Michael Irwin Chinese School at Chapel Hill Sean Cai (pronounced "sigh") Ephesus Elementary School PTA Darlene Reap-Klosty FRANK Gallery Gordon Jameson Hillsborough Presbyterian Church Lisa Flynn and Karen Wysocki McDougle Elementary School PTA Vicky DeCamp New Hope Elementary for New Hope Elementary, Efland- Dr. Lisa Napp Cheeks Elementary, and Central Elementary North Carolina Symphony Society, Inc. Pam Bash 6 Northside Elementary School Alder Keene One Song Productions Micha Segal-Miller Pathways Elementary Patricia Harris Phillips Middle School PTSA Elizabeth Welsby Mary Scroggs Elementary School PTA Lynn Dancy Seawell Elementary School PTA Jill Austin Women's Voices Chorus, Inc. Laura Delauney (pronounced De-LAW-nee) Artists Carter Hubbard Francesca Talenti b. OWASA Annual Update Presentation The Board received a presentation and information from the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) on recent activities. Ed Kerwin, OWASA Executive Director, made the following PowerPoint: OWASA Brief for the Orange County Board of County Commissioners and Public Water Emergency February 2-5, 2017 Key Take-aways • OWASA apologizes for the hardship • Public health and safety was our highest priority, we confirmed that water was safe • Community partners and customers provided invaluable assistance —Thank you! • Communications can be improved significantly; recognized by partners, too February 2017 Water Emergency (graph) Key Near-term Next Steps • Review emergency communication practices and systems (OWASA and partners) Key Near-term Next Steps • Review emergency communication practices and systems (OWASA and partners) • Develop corrective action plan to ensure reliable fluoride system —to be reviewed by Board of Directors prior to resuming fluoride addition • Develop action plan on additional near- and long-term measures to improve system resiliency • Continue transparency and proactive community engagement OWASA Meetings 7 • Friday, February 17, 2017, 7:00 p.m. —Special Work Session of the Board of Directors, OWASA Community Room, discussed the consultants' reports on the February 2nd fluoride overfeed and February 3rd water main break • Thursday, February 23, 2017, 7:00 p.m. — Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors, Chapel Hill Town Hall — Council Chamber, continue discussion from the February 17th Special Work Session, including public comment Contact OWASA: • www.owasa.org • Email OWASA at info @owasa.org • Call us at 919-968-4421 • Write us at 400 Jones Ferry Road, Carrboro, NC 27510 • Email OWASA Board & Leadership at: board_and_leadership @owasa.org How to help: Contact the Inter-Faith Council (IFC) for Social Service • www.ifcweb.org donatenow.networkforgood.org/flood • Call at 919-929-6380 • Mail or deliver cash or check to: Inter-Faith Council for Social Service RE: Water Emergency Relief Fund 110 W. Main Street Carrboro, NC 27510 Primary Durham Interconnect Pump Station Main Break Orange County Emergency Operations Center(EOC) Chatham County Interconnect Boil Water Notices being prepared Commissioner Rich thought the communication through this crisis was great, and she thanked everyone. She encouraged all to sign up for OC Alerts. Commissioner Price said the public has asked her if there was any relationship between the fluoride overflow and the water main break. Ed Kerwin said it is hard to say with absolute certainty. He said the water main was installed in 1972, five years prior to the inception of OWASA, and was installed on top of the storm drains, and had limited fill over the top of it. He said it was a recipe for an early failure. Chair Dorosin said the pipe was doomed for failure, and asked if there was a reason that the pipe was not in the queue for replacement. Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:46 p.m. Ed Kerwin said the information about the pipe was not known until after it broke. Chair Dorosin asked if OWASA is making any financial donations to the IFC. Ed Kerwin said no, as OWASA is not allowed to do that with its customers' monies. Bob Epting, OWASA Attorney, said OWASA is authorized to expend its customer's funds on contributions to the water and sewer system, and it cannot donate to charities. He said OWASA does provide insurance coverage for its activities, which is available through the League of Municipalities Insurance Fund. He said this insurance covers things that arise out of the negligence of OWASA employees. He said people with claims are being directed to that insurance coverage. He said there is no coverage for interrupted service, as interruptions are legally considered a natural part of the operation of a system. He said a no-fault restitution fund 8 would be a good way to address these types of issues, but it would take a legislative act to achieve this. Chair Dorosin asked if there is a prohibition on OWASA giving charitable donations, or is it that there is not an express authorization. Bob Epting said there is no express or implicit authorization. Chair Dorosin asked if there is an expressed prohibition. Bob Epting said no, but there is no way to imply authorization. Terri Buckner and Barbara Foushee, OWASA Board members, presented the annual report. New water rate for Multi-Family Master-Metered customers On December 8th, we approved a change in the water rates for Multi-Family Master-Metered (MFMM) customers, such as apartment complexes. Starting in May 2017, these customers will pay a year-round water rate of$5.67 per 1,000 gallons instead of the current seasonal water rates, which are higher from May through September and lower in the other seven months. In the past, MFMM residents expressed concern about unexpected increases in private water/sewer bills with the change to our peak seasonal rate in May, even when a resident's water use has not increased. About 7,700 households living in approximately 200 apartment complexes in Chapel Hill and Carrboro receive private water and sewer bills from property owners. Under rules of the NC Utilities Commission, the owners can pass through water/sewer costs to residents through private sub-metering and billing arrangements. The year-round rate will eliminate bill fluctuations due to changes in seasonal rates, so private bills should result in fewer questions and less confusion. Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) We are moving forward with evaluating and identifying a vendor and system for Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) in our community. AMI is a system that allows for remote meter reading via radio transmissions, which in turn allows for more frequent meter readings and faster leak detection. After conducting a feasibility study and engaging the community, the OWASA Board determined that such a system would be beneficial to the utility and community and would not require a rate increase. The Board decided to move forward with requesting proposals. In December 2016, staff received and began evaluating proposals. Early in 2017, we will select a team to provide and install an AMI system. We estimate that installing the new system for all 22,000 meters in our system will take about two years after the vendor begins. We will continue to inform and engage our customers as we move forward with the installation or consider any proposed policy changes related to AMI. Mountains-to-Sea Trail (MST) on OWASA land near the Cane Creek Reservoir On August 25th, we approved conditions for allowing the MST on OWASA land near the Cane Creek Reservoir. The conditions address water quality protection, risks related to hiking and ensuring that there will be no costs to OWASA due to the trail. The specific route of the trail on OWASA land is subject to our future approval. They informed stakeholders about our decision and we encourage residents to participate in the County's process for considering the MST. Letter to the governing boards on August 26th. 9 Diversity and Inclusion Program On November 3rd, they held a special meeting to receive information and insights from five professionals in Diversity and Inclusion. Staff is revising the draft program submitted to the Board in June and they will have further discussion in February 2017. Terri Buckner asked the Board of County Commissioners if it would rethink its allocation of appointments to the OWASA board; changing it to four representatives from Chapel Hill; three from Carrboro; and two from Orange County. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the daily savings for the reuse project could be identified. Ed Kerwin said between 400-500,000 gallons per day. He said the University of North Carolina (UNC) has been a particularly strong partner. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an update on the bio solid land application, if the same amount of acreage is being used, and if the same strategy will be used going forward. Ed Kerwin said the acreage is about 1,100 to 1,200, which is the same acreage, much of which is private land. He said about 18 months ago, the OWASA Board considered a number of alternatives, but decided to continue land application of highly treated liquid bio solids. He said the goal is that 75% of the bio solids produced at the Mason Farm Waste-Water Treatment Plant would be recycled on local farmland in surrounding counties; with the remaining 25% composted at a private facility in Chatham County. Commissioner Rich asked Terri Buckner if she could explain the Care to Share Program, and provide an update on how many people use it Terri Buckner said this program is their round up program, where customers can round their bill up to the nearest dollar, and the excess funds go to the IFC. She said the program is not doing great and has reached a stalemate. Chair Dorosin asked if the steps to changing the composition of the Board could be outlined. Bob Epting said the composition was set by the three entities, and would require an approved amendment of the purchase and sale agreements by the three entities: Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the problem with the composition could be identified. Terri Buckner said this is a touchy subject. She said right now Chapel Hill has appointed five engineers to the Board, while most of the other board members are not engineers and she said there needs to be a more balanced perspective. She said it is a question of whether the perspective should be social, economic, or technical. She said the five engineers are dedicated and have valid input, but she would like to see more balance. c. 2017 Orange County Revaluation Results The Board received an overview of the statistical results of the 2017 countywide revaluation. Dwane Brinson, Tax Administrator, reviewed the following background and PowerPoint presentation: 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. Orange County has approximately 55,500 real property parcels. During the revaluation process, each of those parcels has been modified to reflect a current estimate of market value. Tax office staff began working on the 2017 revaluation in 2014. 10 In January 2016, the tax office proactively sent each real property owner a snapshot of the property's public record and a request to review the information for discrepancies, and return it to the Tax Office with any discrepancies noted. This allowed for appraisal staff to verify and ensure the records were accurate in preparation for the revaluation. Prior to the 2017 revaluation, Orange County had only two defined neighborhoods set up in the appraisal database. A neighborhood is basically defined as a group of similar properties. A common example of a neighborhood would be 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 database now has 975 identified neighborhoods. A significant by-product of the revaluation is the improvement of the building use information in the tax database. In the past, requests for information such as the percentage of residential versus commercial in the tax base required Information Technologies programming and assistance. Throughout the 2017 revaluation, staff proactively invested the time to identify and code each of the 55,500 parcels with its corresponding building use such as single-family residential, restaurant, or student housing. Reporting for 2017 and forward will be much easier and more accurate because of these efforts. The effective appraisal date for the 2017 revaluation is January 1, 2017. Notices are on schedule to be mailed the last week of February. Informal appeals will begin immediately after taxpayers begin receiving notices of value. The Board of Equalization and Review will convene May 1st and begin hearing formal appeals. 2017 Revaluation Results February 2017 What is a Revaluation? O Process of updating real property tax assessments for market value and present-use value as of a single appraisal date O Primary goal is to equalize tax base O Effective appraisal date for Orange County's revaluation is January 1, 2017 What is Included in a Revaluation O All residential and commercial land through Orange County, including exempt property, and permanent structures on the land. O What is not included? • Business personal property • Motor vehicles, boats, airplanes • Public utility property Commercial Appraisals O Local commercial real estate appraisal firm provided market research, sales O A different commercial appraisal firm interpreted this market research and provided recommended values for all commercial parcels O Orange County senior appraisal staff reviewed recommended values Real Property Change by Area (graph) Commercial Change by Classification (graph) 11 Industry Standards (graph) Sales by Classification (graph) Scatterplot of 2016 Sales (graph) O 1,579 of 2,106 sales fall within .95 — 1.05 (75%) Commissioner Jacobs asked if the difference between vacant and undeveloped land could be given. Dwane Brinson said there is no difference, but the location of the land is considered, as well as size value. Commissioner Jacobs said he recalls that a number, vastly lower than the assessed value, is what is taxed. He asked if the current percentage could be given. Dwane Brinson said it depends on the soil on the property. He said the forestry classification is the lowest present use value. He said they are taxed on a fraction of market value, and there is about$700,000 million in present use value being tax deferred. Commissioner Jacobs asked if a breakdown of soil types, or use value uses tax rates could be provided. Dwane Brinson said yes. Commissioner Price asked if properties in extraterritorial jurisdictions (ETJs) are handled in the analysis. Dwane Brinson said such properties would not be included in the towns, but in the countywide assessments. Remaining Project Schedule O Values are complete— staff quality control through Friday, February 24 • Commercial new construction, 2nd mailing O New values available on website February 28, 2017 O Notices to be mailed March 3, 2017 O Deadline for informal appeals April 30, 2017 O Board of E&R to convene May 1, 2017 Revaluation Notice Mailing O Revaluation notice— sample provided previously O Informal appeal form O Informal appeal form instructions— located on reverse of revaluation notice O Insert on property tax assistance programs • Homestead Exemption, Disabled Veteran Exclusion, Circuit Breaker Deferment and Present-Use Value programs Appeals Process O Review property characteristics at bit.ly/ocnctaxsearch • Check square footage, bath count, etc. o Please allow reasonable margin of difference: 5% per NC Residential Square Footage Guidelines O Review online sales bank at bit.ly/ocncsalesbank • Final sales bank available as of this afternoon o Please allow reasonable margin of difference: 5% O Fill out and return appeal form located at bit.ly/ocnctaxappeal For More Information O Contact the Orange County Tax Office: 12 • 919-245-2100 • reval @orangecountync.gov • Live chat by visiting: www.orangecountync.gov/departments/tax/ Commissioner McKee referred to the slide on real property change by area, and asked if the commercial increase that is from an increase in the value of the base, or an increase of the base itself, is new. Dwane Brinson said that is due to any change in tax base. He said there has been little new commercial construction in the unincorporated areas, but the countywide figure includes the towns. He said there were also some changes between 2016 and 2017. He said Hillsborough is a great example of this, and the changes there are due to new developments within Hillsborough. He said annexation and rezoning come into play as well. Commissioner McKee said there seems to be a slight shift towards a commercial base. He said given the fact that larger changes are being seen, he assumes individual owners will see larger increases too. Dwane Brinson said this will be property specific, but some will see increases. Commissioner Burroughs said some individuals will see reductions. Dwane Brinson agreed. Chair Dorosin referred to the slide on commercial change by classification, and clarified that it is showing there are 61% more apartments or properties classified as apartments. Dwane Brinson said this means that the valuation of all apartments in Orange County has increased by 61%, regardless of method. Chair Dorosin said that should be clarified on the website. d. FY2016-17 Mental Health Gap Analysis Results and Prioritized Recommendations The Board received a report summarizing the results of the Health Department's FY 2016 Mental Health Gap Analysis and stakeholder-identified priorities. BACKGROUND: The 2016-2018 Board of Health Strategic Plan requests advocacy for and the pursuit of policies, practices, and partnerships that improve substance abuse and mental health services in Orange County, especially to vulnerable populations such as the homeless and those connected with the criminal justice system. Beginning in the fall of 2016, the Health Department engaged a Master of Public Administration intern from UNC to undertake an analysis of the barriers to mental health care in Orange County for residents 0-25 years old. Intern Sabrina Willard reviewed UNC Emergency Department data, interviewed 10 key stakeholders, surveyed 150 service providers and community advocates to determine the major barriers to care. Using this information the Health Department then held focus groups with stakeholders (mental health providers, educators, law enforcement, etc.) to prioritize the top barriers and propose action plans for prioritizing needs and meeting them. This presentation will include a summary of the focus group findings and potential next steps. Dr. Colleen Bridger, Health Department Director, made the following PowerPoint presentation: Assessment of Orange County Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services Phase 1: Gap Analysis August to December 2016 13 Background Initiated by the Orange County Health Department to determine the barriers professionals face as they seek to refer county residents aged 0-25 to mental health and substance abuse treatment services. ➢ Youth hospitalization records from 2009-2015 indicate: o Increase in mental health visits due to psychoactive substance abuse. From 27% to 31% o Increase in 0-25 mental health visits as a proportion of all mental health visits. From 18% to 24% Research Methodology ■ 10 informational interviews with prominent figures in the mental health community ■ 150 individuals surveyed based in the fields of healthcare, social services, criminal justice, behavioral therapy, K-12 education, and others Barriers to Accessing Treatment The most common barriers for Orange County residents aged 0-25 who need mental health and/or substance abuse treatment services were: ➢ Affordability: Many low-income residents either do not have insurance or find their coverage inadequately covers these services o High deductibles, few sliding scale/pro bono options, low maximum number of appointments ➢ Accessibility: Based on a variety of factors, all of which result in barriers to access o Citizenship status, language/cultural, location, type of condition, where/how to find care, transportation Phase 2: Focus groups January 2017 Purpose & Format Health department hosted 39 survey participants at a session to strategize three overarching priorities for improving the mental health system in FY 2017-18. Feedback The majority of focus group participants were in favor of increasing the capacity for three overarching priorities: 1. Restore funding for mental health services for birth to age 5 th 2. Provide greater in-school mental health services in K-12 grade (e.g. external, licensed providers who can bill for insurance and Medicaid in the schools) 3. Improve community's ability to access services (e.g., know: who to call, what number to call, when to call) Next Steps ➢ Mental Health Program Coordinator to work on priorities 1&2 (to be requested with the FY 17-18 Budget process) ➢ National Grant with UNC to address priority#3 ➢ Look for ways to use MH MOE funds to address priorities Commissioner McKee said he wanted to mention the Maintenance of Effort (MOE) money, and the coordination with Cardinal Innovations. He said in some areas the allocation of 14 the County of Maintenance of Effort directly, instead of through Cardinal, has improved some access for certain groups. He said he appreciated this effort. Commissioner Rich asked if these are some of the funds that had been redirected through Cardinal Innovations. Colleen Bridger said money that was MOE funding is now going to the Health Department's budget and being subcontracted with El Futuro, which allows El Futuro to serve undocumented residents. She said this would not have been as easy to achieve if the money had gone through Cardinal Innovations. Bonnie Hammersley said there are other funds going directly to the Department of Social Services that has been redirected with Cardinal. She said staff worked closely with Cardinal during last year's budget process, and funds were identified that could be redirected into County. She said this will be reviewed again for 2017-2018, in an effort to create a hybrid system, similar to that in Mecklenburg County. Commissioner McKee said there have been issues surrounding documentation and Cardinal Innovations. He said he is glad that people are being served, and the Federal government can deal with questions of documentation. Commissioner Burroughs said she is looking forward to the budget process. She thanked Dr. Bridger for her service to the community, and wished her luck in San Antonio. Chair Dorosin echoed Commissioner Burroughs comments. 5. Public Hearings NONE 6. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda Items f and h by Commissioner Price • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to approve the Consent Agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda f. Contract Award for Engineering and Environmental Services with Draper Aden Associates, Inc. The Board will consider approving a new agreement for general engineering and environmental services between the Orange County Solid Waste Management Department and Draper Aden Associates, Inc. (DAA) of Coats, North Carolina for consulting services for a five (5) year period and authorize the County Manager to sign. Commissioner Price said there is a section in the contract that reiterates the living wage, and she would like to include a paragraph emphasizing Equal Opportunity as well. She said these contracts may already be done, but moving forward she would like to see this included. John Roberts said this could be done. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve a new agreement for general engineering and environmental services between the 15 Orange County Solid Waste Management Department and Draper Aden Associates, Inc. (DAA) of Coats, North Carolina for consulting services for a five (5) year period and authorized the County Manager to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS h. Health Department Fee Schedule Changes The Board considered adopting and revising multiple Dental Health and Environmental Health fees approved by the Board of Health at its January 25, 2017 meeting. Commissioner Price referred to the fee increase, and asked if the patient will pay more. Colleen Bridger said patients are charged on a sliding fee scale, and those who slide above the minimum payment will pay a higher fee based on the percent of that fee. She said this is one reason why the health department did not use the customary charges that are seen in the area. Commissioner Price asked if a fee was charged previously. Colleen Bridger said these are new services. Commissioner Price asked if there will be a PSA about well water, due to the increase. Colleen Bridger said there can be an announcement. She said this fee was added as NPR ran a story about naturally occurring hexavalent chromium, and a handful of residents asked for their well water to be tested. Commissioner Price said she has no problem with the fee, but wants to know if the public at large are being made aware that it is possible for the well water to be tested. Colleen Bridger said such an announcement can absolutely be made. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adopt and revise multiple Dental Health and Environmental Health fees approved by the Board of Health at its January 25, 2017 meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from January 27, 2017 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Refund of Overpayment of Tax/Revenue Stamps The Board considered a refund for overpayment of Tax/Revenue Stamps totaling $1,640. c. Resolution Acknowledging February 28, 2017 as Spay Neuter Day USA in Orange County, North Carolina The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to officially acknowledge February 28, 2017 as "Spay Neuter Day USA" in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign. d. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#6 The Board approved budget and grant ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17 for the County Manager's Office; Economic Development; Department on Aging; and Animal Services Department. e. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Orange County Schools (OCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment#6-A Related to OCS 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 Orange County Schools (OCS), and approved Budget Amendment#6-A (amended School Capital Project Ordinances), contingent on the NCDPI's approval of the application. 16 f. Contract Award for Engineering and Environmental Services with Draper Aden Associates, Inc. The Board approved a new agreement for general engineering and environmental services between the Orange County Solid Waste Management Department and Draper Aden Associates, Inc. (DAA) of Coats, North Carolina for consulting services for a five (5) year period and authorized the County Manager to sign. g. Contract Award for Engineering and Environmental Services with SCS Engineers The Board approved a new agreement for general engineering and environmental services between the Orange County Solid Waste Management Department and SCS Engineers (SCS) of Midlothian, Virginia for consulting services for a five (5) year period and authorized the County Manager to sign. h. Health Department Fee Schedule Changes The Board adopted and revised multiple Dental Health and Environmental Health fees approved by the Board of Health at its January 25, 2017 meeting. i. Authorization for NC Recreational Trails Program Grant Submittal - Hollow Rock Nature Park The Board approved the submittal of an application to the North Carolina Division of Parks and Recreation Recreational Trails Program (RTP) for a $100,000 grant to develop an ADA accessible 1/3-mile loop trail consistent with the adopted Hollow Rock Nature Park master plan, with other amenities such as a wildlife viewing overlook, interpretive signage and restrooms being funded by previously-appropriated funds from Durham and Orange counties. The grant requires a 25% match or$25,000 (which would be shared by the two counties) and requires governing board approval to submit of the application by the February 24, 2017 deadline. 7. Regular Agenda a. Zoning Atlas Amendment: Modification of the Existing Zoning Boundaries for Non-Residentially Zoned Parcels — Efland Real Property LLC Properties in Cheeks Township The Board will consider continuing a review of, and take action on, Planning Director initiated amendments to the Zoning Atlas for four parcels owned by Efland Real Property LLC within the Cheeks Township. Based on concerns expressed at the November 21, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing, action was deferred on these parcels. Consistent with direction from the BOCC, staff met with residents of the Ashwick subdivision to discuss the rezoning of the four parcels in greater detail including staff's basis for recommending the properties be rezoned General Commercial (GC-4). Based on concerns expressed at the November 21, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing, action was deferred on these parcels. Consistent with direction from the BOCC, staff met with residents of the Ashwick subdivision to discuss the rezoning of the four parcels in greater detail including staff's basis for recommending the properties be rezoned General Commercial (GC-4). BACKGROUND: As the Board may recall from the November 21, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing, staff presented an item seeking to modify/alter the zoning of 15 properties within the Bingham, Cheeks, and Cedar Grove Townships. The item was in response to a BOCC petition asking staff to review the zoning of several non-residentially zoned properties and identify constraints, associated with existing general use zoning boundaries, potentially limiting development opportunities. For more background information please refer to Attachment 1. A map denoting the specific properties reviewed in the Cheeks Township at the public hearing is contained within 17 Attachment 2. Excerpts of the approved minutes from the November 21, 2016 Quarterly Public Hearing are contained within Attachment 4. During the hearing, concerns were expressed by several property owners who live adjacent to/near four parcels of property owned by Efland Real Property LLC that staff had recommended be rezoned General Commercial (GC-4). The Board voted to approve the rezoning on 11 of the subject properties, deferring action on the aforementioned Efland Real Property, LLC properties until a future meeting, and directed staff to meet with adjacent property owners to discuss the project in greater detail. Staff met with local residents on December 14, 2016 and January 11, 2017 to review the proposal, discuss development opportunities and constraints on the four properties, review staff's recommendation on the rezoning of the parcels, and provide detail on the County's planning vision for the area in general. Staff believes the majority of the residents who attended the meetings, most primarily residing within the Ashwick neighborhood, were made comfortable with staff's recommendation. Staff is still recommending the parcels in question be rezoned to General Commercial (GC-4) consistent with staff comments at the Quarterly Public Hearing. A summary of staff's recommendation, including maps of the four parcels, is contained within Attachment 3. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest, contained in Attachment 5 and proposed zoning atlas amendment package contained in Attachment 6 for the four parcels of property owned by Efland Real Property, LLC. As a reminder, at its November 2, 2016 meeting, the Planning Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed rezoning as detailed herein and reported at the Quarterly Public Hearing. Michael Harvey, Planner Ill, said for the BOCC to rely on the replacement pages at their places. He reviewed the background information, and showed slides of the four parcels of land. PUBLIC COMMENT: Kim Griffin said he is a realtor. He said there are four tracts here, and in order to market the adjacent property for residential there should be some amenities in the neighborhood nearby. He said the Planning Board's recommendation would be the right thing to do, and he is supportive of it. Kim Gush said she is a resident of the Ashwick Community, and she appreciated the planning staff coming out to explain all of this to the residents. She said something about this proposal is still a concern for her: 75% of these properties are currently residential, with the exception of these four tracts that will cause the surrounding areas to be zoned commercial. She said this change will affect their property values and quality of life. Rob Gray echoed Kim Gush's comments, and noted there are concerns in the Ashwick Community about the commercial re-zonings of these four tracts of land. He said the Planning Department did a great job of explaining the issues, but the residents still see no benefit of changing these parcels over to general commercial. Commissioner McKee asked if the proposed zoning is no more intense than the two parcels that are currently EC-5 and general commercial on the larger one. Michael Harvey said the larger parcel is split zoned existing industrial. He said the first consideration was to expand existing industrial to cover the whole property, but this was deemed to not be the best use of the property, given the surrounding land uses. He said 18 general commercial zoning designation was considered much more appropriate, which means there will potentially be a myriad of different land uses. He reminded the BOCC that this land is in the commercial industrial node, as defined in the comprehensive plan; and that it has always been intended for non-residential development. Commissioner McKee said this rezoning does not overshadow what is already there. Michael Harvey said he believed that what is being proposed is the better option than to leave it as existing industrial. He said any development will go through the SUP process. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the SUP process could be described if an automotive shop wanted to build on this site. Michael Harvey said an automotive repair shop, in the general commercial zone, is permitted by right in the table of permitted uses. He said a professional site plan would be submitted for review by the Planning Department. He said there would be no review and comment from an adjacent property owner, but the site plan would have to comply with all code and building requirements. He said a proposal requiring a SUP permit would go through a public hearing and neighborhood meeting. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the neighbors had been given this information. Michael Harvey said many of these items were discussed in a broad overview at the meeting he attended. Commissioner Rich asked if businesses will connect to one another, once this property is developed, via parking lots, roads, etc. Michael Harvey said it is hard to say, but with any subdivision of commercial property, any and all streets would have to be designed to the public street standard. He said it is most likely that there would be one to two land uses all sharing public parking, and abiding by the same landscaping standards. Commissioner McKee asked if these multiple entities would have to meet Department of Transportation (DOT) standards. Michael Harvey said yes, as well as impervious surface limits, storm water standards, land use buffers, parking, lighting, etc. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to: a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency (replacement Attachment 5) and Ordinance amending the Zoning Atlas (Attachment 6). VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Review and Amend the Orange County Housing Affordability Policy The Board reviewed suggested changes from the Affordable Housing Providers and considered the recommended amendments to the Orange County Housing Affordability Policy. Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the background information below: BACKGROUND: At the November 15, 2016 BOCC meeting, the Board requested that staff review the County's housing affordability policy and make a recommendation to amend the policy based on recent activity and input from the Affordable Housing providers. The County Attorney drafted an exceptions section in the policy to provide flexibility in the affordability term and the restrictive covenants as well as the addition of execution of agreement. The draft exceptions section supports the BOCC action on October 4, 2016 to approve the Downtown Housing Improvement Corporation, Inc.'s (DHIC) request to reduce Orange County's 99 year affordability period for the Greenfield Place Project to 40 years as well as the November 15, 2016 action to approve the Community Home Trust (CHT) request for cancellation of a declaration of restrictive covenants. 19 The draft policy was shared with the Affordable Housing providers for their input. Staff reviewed the providers' input and included some of the suggestions in the amended policy. Bonnie Hammersley reviewed a chart containing the amended policy and changes. Chair Dorosin clarified details about the hand out chart, and from where the comments came. Bonnie Hammersley said providers received the original policy with the County Attorney's amendment, but no other changes. Chair Dorosin said it may be best to go down each part of the chart and ask questions. Commissioner Rich asked if clarification could be provided about the difference between the Community Home Trust (CHT) and the Community Land Trust (CLT). Bonnie Hammersley said the CLT was a model that was used in 2000, and only applied to the CHT. She said the CHT designation will be used throughout the document. Commissioner Rich asked if this change will be made throughout the document, to make all CLT into CHT. Bonnie Hammersley said yes. Commissioner Price referred to the definition of affordable housing, and said it does not convey the intent behind what she felt the County was viewing as affordable. She said the definition is based on a home being 30% of one's income, rather than one's income being at a level of need, or within HUD definitions. John Roberts said this is for the Board's discussion, and the only part he changed was the Exceptions area. He said staff and local housing providers put in the other changes, and all are up for review by the Board. Chair Dorosin said combining both definitions of affordable housing would better achieve the Board's intent. Commissioner Price agreed. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the 90-day sale, and asked if that number came from particular reasoning, and how that number compares to the average time it takes for a home to sell in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Chair Dorosin said this is the section that refers to waiving the first time homebuyer restriction, if the home in question has been available for more than 90 days. Annette Moore, Interim Housing Director, said the CHT has been asking for this for the last four years. She said 90 days is the average time. Robert Dowling, CHT Director, said this request was made and granted several years ago, and after 90 days a home can be sold to non first-time homebuyers. Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a reason behind the 90 days number, and how long the average home is on the market in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Robert Dowling said he does not know the average in those towns, but the average for CHT is 60 days. He said homes that are on the market longer than 60 days are harder to sell, and in the interest of the seller, the 90-day time frame was requested and granted. Commissioner Dorosin said the request is to institutionalize a process that has already been occurring for some time. Bonnie Hammersley said many things in this document are already part of the process, but have never been formalized. Commissioner Price said there are two variables: a First Time homebuyer and a Qualified Buyer. She said one can be considered a first time homebuyer if one has not owned a home in three years, and the same waiver would apply if a first time homebuyer were not found for a home that has been on the market for 90 days. Annette Moore said the buyer would have to be income eligible whether they were a first time buyer or not, even if the home has been on the market more than 90 days. 20 Chair Dorosin pointed out that there is a clarification of this point in column 3 or 4. Annette Moore said to add, "and the home may be then sold to a qualified buyer" at the end of the sentence. Chair Dorosin asked if there is general consensus with staff recommendations in the two definition columns, with the addition of the sentence stated by Annette Moore. The Board indicated general consensus. Chair Dorosin asked if there were any questions on the Land Trust Model, and there were none. All recommendations are acceptable. Chair Dorosin asked if there were any questions about the Period of Affordability. Commissioner Rich said this is already in place. Chair Dorosin turned to the second page, and reviewed the recommended changes. The Board indicated general consensus to accept. John Roberts said unqualified should state non-qualified, in order to be consistent with the rest of the document. Chair Dorosin said the big issue is the exceptions to the 99-year affordability, located on page 3. He said the County is maintaining the 99-year affordability as the base policy, but the County is creating some provisions for waiving that, or adjusting it to 40 years, if certain circumstances are met, or if it is deemed appropriate by the BOCC. John Roberts said the reason for this change was due to several deviations from policy, and he said there was concern about not having guidelines or standards, and that is why these have been proposed. Commissioner Price referred to Exception C, and asked if this is particularly for CHT, or does it apply to any provider of affordable housing. John Roberts said it is for any provider that complies. Chair Dorosin said this is a good step forward, and he would be in favor of reducing the base of 99-years lower. Commissioner McKee agreed with Chair Dorosin. Annette Moore said the reason 99 years was chosen was due to wanting to keep the houses in the affordable housing program, and no other reason than that. She said there are banks that lend with the 99 years provision. Robert Dowling said the CLT was created in 2000, and a ground lease of 99 years was adopted. He said the County Attorney at the time crafted the affordability policy with a 99-year affordability term to mimic the ground lease. He said the only entities that do home ownership in Orange County are CHT and Habitat, and Habitat does its own financing. He said CHT has struggled with financing since the financial crisis, but the banks are not concerned with the 99 years affordability term, but rather the ground lease. He said the banks do not want to have a leasehold interest in property. He said the CLT model is a pain to administer, but it is the only way to insure perpetual affordability. Commissioner McKee said he thought the 99-year ground lease and the 99-year affordability ran separately, and asked if the 99-year affordability were changed, would the ground lease change as well. Annette Moore said all properties have a 99-year ground lease, which has affordability provisions in the restrictive covenants. Commissioner McKee asked if the affordability could be reduced on the house, but not the ground lease. Robert Dowling said the County's deed restriction is 99-years, and the ground lease is also 99 years. Commissioner McKee repeated his question. Annette Moore said these are two separate programs. She said the first is the ground lease program, which is for different properties than the deed restrictions being discussed. She said the ground lease properties in the CHT have a 99-year restriction on the ground. She said 21 the properties referred to in the 99-year deed restriction, have both a restriction on the home and the land. Commissioner McKee asked if, in the example being discussed, the restrictions would be reduced on the house and the land. Annette Moore said yes. Commissioner McKee said he thought these were two separate entities on both examples. Commissioner Price said the concept of 99 years had been around for decades, and she would have difficulty in changing this, outside of exceptions. She said she could live with certain conditions, but did not want to get rid of the 99 years. Commissioner Jacobs said if the 99 years does not affect people's ability to borrow, and it keeps the land, then it should be left alone. Chair Dorosin agreed. Commissioner Jacobs said he had a question about the blue comment on the 2nd page. Chair Dorosin said these were comments made by outside providers and were for review. Annette Moore said the County is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to have an equity-sharing portion in the affordable housing strategy. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve with proposed changes: 1. Change the target population numbers to percentages for consistency with the Affordable Housing ranking criteria 2. Added language to reflect the current practices 3. Edited Land Trust Model to reflect the Community Home Trust 4. Added Exceptions Section 5. Added Execution of Agreement Commissioner McKee commended Annette Moore as Interim Housing Director. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive Transportation Plan — Comments and Endorsement The Board received and reviewed the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) comments on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) document and the associated draft bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and highway maps for the Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO), provide any additional comments, and consider endorsement. Max Bushell, Transportation Planner, reviewed the following background information. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Board of County Commissioners received a report on the CTP at the February 7, 2017 meeting. This report provided detail about the purpose of the CTP, its relationship to other transportation plans, and the products of the CTP. CTP Definition The 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 (NCDOT) requires MPOs to produce a CTP; these plans are often the product of a joint planning effort between MPO 22 planning staff, NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch staff, and local planners. The CTP is, by definition, not fiscally constrained and is the longest range transportation plan. Key Projects The NCDOT Transportation Planning Branch, in coordination with the DCHC MPO, prepared two summary documents indicating key projects in the DCHC MPO area. The first (Attachment 1) provides information on the key projects around Hillsborough and in northern Orange County, while the second (Attachment 2) provides information on the key projects in and around Chapel Hill, Carrboro, southern Orange County, and northern Chatham County. The complete CTP document and associated maps can be found at this link, http://bit.ly/2bv3RQV, while interactive online maps can be found at this link, http://www.dchcmpo.org/programs/ctp/default.asp. February 15 Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) Comments At the February 15 meeting of the OUTBoard, the OUTBoard convened without a quorum. However, individual members provided specific comments on CTP alignments. These comments are summarized in Attachment 3. OUTBoard members also provided the following general comments on the CTP, which are detailed below. • Consider adding a project to address congestion on South Churton Street through Downtown Hillsborough. • Consider alternative methods for reducing traffic congestion as opposed to roadway widening, such as congestion charging schemes, dynamic tolling, reserved bus and carpool lanes, and additional bicycle and walking facilities. • Consider adding paved shoulders to all rural roads to facilitate the safe use by bicyclists and pedestrians. The OUTBoard endorsed the CTP in principle at its January 18, 2017 meeting. Next Steps During the month of February, each jurisdiction in the DCHC MPO area will have the opportunity to comment on the CTP. Once these outreach processes are complete, the DCHC MPO Technical Committee (DCHC MPO TC) will review the comments and make changes to create a final draft CTP. The DCHC MPO Board will hear a presentation on the proposed changes to the CTP on March 8 and will assess these changes. On March 22, the DCHC MPO TC will forward the final CTP to the MPO Board, which will formally consider the final CTP on April 12. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Old 86 and New 86 could be differentiated. Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is Chapel Hill's or the Department of Transportation's (DOT) preference to widen South Columbia Street to six lanes. He said he thinks Chapel Hill is against this change, and he would want to check with the Town before endorsing something that DOT has been trying to force for years. Commissioner Jacobs referred to the widening of the bypass in Hillsborough, and said the Town of Hillsborough does not want to mark it as a bypass. He said it could be labeled a southern bypass. He suggested creating a map that follows this route, and the problem with getting through west Hillsborough is rail crossings. He said it is unclear which crossings would be left open, and which would be closed. Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 11, and said it looks like a bit of a string that needs to be clipped off. Commissioner Rich said endorsing the widening of Columbia Street seems odd knowing that Chapel Hill has always pushed back against it. Commissioner Jacobs said he is unsure about the Town's feelings towards Columbia Street, but does know feelings about 1-40 have changed. 23 Chair Dorosin said to make a courtesy pass to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough for some expedited feedback. Max Bushell said the MPO has made this presentation to the Towns, minus the OUTBoard comments. Chair Dorosin said to forward the OUTBoard comments to the Towns. Commissioner McKee said given that the Board is being asked to endorse this draft CTP, and given the communication that came from FTC relative to part of the transportation plan, he said when a motion is made that the first item on page 5 in re: Orange-Durham light rail transit should be withheld, until the Board receives a presentation on that plan. Commissioner Price said to take out the widening of Columbia Street as well. Max Bushell said the Board can make this comment, and he would include it at the MPO. Commissioner Jacobs said he can bring up the widening of Columbia Street at the MPO, where the Mayor of Chapel Hill will be sitting across from him. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the BRT is wrapped up in the light rail plan (LRT). Commissioner McKee said it is part of the plan, but the questions he saw in today's communication did not involve BRT, only light rail. Commissioner Jacobs said items 1 and 2 can be held until there is a plan, and, in reference to the BRT, he said the Board might want to endorse the plan without the cost. Commissioner McKee said he has no problem holding BRT and LRT for later endorsement. Commissioner Jacobs said he could relay that information at MPO if that is the Board's pleasure. He said it would be his pleasure, but is not sure how the rest of the Board feels. Chair Dorosin clarified that the Board needs to vote on this, in one form or another, this evening, and this will be the last vote. He said there may not be an opportunity to re-endorse something that is removed today. Max Bushell said the Board could endorse with the caveat that these two projects need to be addressed in some other way. Chair Dorosin asked if the Board must act this evening, or can it wait to a later date. Max Bushell said that it is an option. He said the public comment period will close, and the process will continue to move on. Chair Dorosin asked if the comments from the OUTBoard will be incorporated. Max Bushell said all comments will be passed along to the MPO. He reminded the Board that this plan is very far reaching in nature, and many of the projects will never come to fruition; but any potential projects must be included in this plan. Chair Dorosin said given how amorphous this plan is, he has no reservations about leaving light rail and BRT in at this time. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the closing date for public comment could be identified. Max Bushell said it is on February 24th Commissioner Rich agreed with Chair Dorosin. Commissioner Marcoplos also agreed with Chair Dorosin. Commissioner McKee disagreed, and feels this is a statement of endorsement for something for which the Board has not seen the final product. He said the best path is to take out the LRT at least, and hold it for a future endorsement. He said to do otherwise will endorse the LRT project without knowing what the project, and all its details, is. Commissioner Burroughs said the Board can address financial issues separately, and this plan is very broad in its nature. Max Bushell said a commuter rail line from Hillsborough to Carrboro has been included, and he said this plan is very conceptual and it keeps the door open for a large variety of projects. 24 Commissioner Marcoplos said withholding items is asking for in depth detail on those two items that is not being asked for on other items. He said to treat this as an aspirational and conceptual plan. Commissioner McKee said there is not a single project in this packet that has caused such concern and confusion as the light rail and BRT. He said it is time for the Board to take control of its own conversation. Commissioner Price asked if the CTP will come back to the Board of County Commissioners. Max Bushell said this would not happen for a long time, maybe ten years. Commissioner Price said there are some projects listed in this plan that have been considered for a long time, but have had no action. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to move the CTP highway recommendations as seen in Attachment 1, with the understanding that: Commissioner Jacobs will talk with the Mayor of Chapel Hill about Columbia Street; a map of the potential bypass will be included; and the available rail crossings in West Hillsborough will be identified. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner McKee) 8. Reports NONE 11. Appointments - moved up due to the attendance of the Health Director a. Board of Health —Appointment The Board further discussed the appointment to the Board of Health (BOH), which was formally made at the Commissioners' February 7, 2017 Regular Meeting. Chair Dorosin noted the Board has a copy of the Board of Health by-laws, which indicate a former Department of Health employee cannot serve on the BOH. Commissioner McKee asked if the original intent of the by-laws could be identified. Colleen Bridger said this part of the by-laws has been on the books for decades, and it is a recommended best practice by the State. She said the intent is to avoid a situation where a disgruntled former Health Department employee could be appointed to the Board of Health and become a supervisor of a former co-worker. Commissioner McKee asked if there is any indication that this is the case with the currently appointed person. Colleen Bridger said no. Commissioner Price said her understanding is that this policy was made by the BOH, and it has not been adopted or sanctioned by the Board of County Commissioners, and is not a County rule. Colleen Bridger said the BOH does not trump the Board of County Commissioners' authority, and the BOH is respectfully requesting the BOCC to honor the by-laws, which are required by the State. A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to appoint Johanna Birkmayer (added: to a partial term (Position #8) "At-Large Citizen/Commissioner Appointment" position for expiring 06/30/2018.) Commissioner Price said the BOCC has already made an appointment, and asked if this appointment can simply be overridden with a motion. 25 John Roberts said he would look into this question during the ongoing discussion. Commissioner Burroughs said the BOCC can do whatever it wants, but when there is a Board, such as the Board of Health (BOH), whose members put in hours interviewing candidates in depth, she cautions the BOCC not to override these recommendations, as it undermines board members' service on all boards. She strongly endorsed the candidate in her motion above. John Roberts said once someone is appointed to the BOH, the only way to remove that person is to provide written notice with an explanation of why they are being asked to resign, and give that person the opportunity to be heard. Commissioner McKee made a friendly amendment that the Board leave the current policy in place, but make a one-time exception, thus keeping Dr. Barber's appointment in place. Commissioner Burroughs said she would have liked to have had the information shared by John Roberts prior to this item being returned to the agenda. Chair Dorosin said at this point, there are two options: to either go with Commissioner McKee's amendment, or pursue the procedure that is outlined in the rules for making adjustments. Chair Dorosin said it would have been good to have had the by-laws before the appointment last week. He said it is not appropriate to consider Commissioner Burroughs' motion. John Roberts said a motion can be withdrawn at any time, prior to a vote being taken. Colleen Bridger said another option would be to explain the situation to the original appointee, and give her the option to resign. Commissioner Price said it is unlikely that Dr. Barber knew about the by-laws. Colleen Bridger said the original appointee was told that she was ineligible to be appointed via email on three different occasions. She said it was her understanding that once someone applies, the application remains in the packet that comes to the BOCC, as the BOCC has the final say; and this is done regardless of eligibility. Commissioner Price said the BOCC has overridden board recommendations in the past, and she finds it odd to ask someone to resign. She said to leave the appointee in place. Chair Dorosin said that is an option. He asked if Commissioner Burroughs would like to withdraw her motion. Commissioner Burroughs said she is furious and this is irritating. Commissioner Burroughs said she will not withdraw the motion. Commissioner Jacobs suggested the Chair write a letter to the appointee indicating the by-laws had come to light, as well as the fact that the applicant had been notified of the by-laws; but, based on standard practice, her name was still in the pool, and respectfully ask the appointee to resign. Commissioner Burroughs said she would do a substitute motion with the suggestion just made by Commissioner Jacobs. Commissioner Rich seconded this motion. Commissioner Rich clarified that the letter written by the Chair will cover the requirements laid out by John Roberts. John Roberts said the letter must state the grounds for the request for removal. He clarified that the letter will ask the appointee to resign based on the BOH by-laws. Commissioner Jacobs said yes, with the understanding that appointee knew about the by-laws in advance. Chair Dorosin said the proposed letter would not be what John Roberts outlined originally, which was that the appointee would be removed involuntarily, but rather it is asking for her resignation. John Roberts said yes, and there are six reasons why an appointee can be removed, and this particular scenario does not fall under one of those six reasons; it is separate. 26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Price asked what would happen if the appointee refuses to resign. Chair Dorosin said the issue would come back before the BOCC. Commissioner McKee suggested that this letter be written in a neutral tone. 9. County Manager's Report • Joint meeting with Town of Hillsborough on February 23rd Commissioner Jacobs asked if Bonnie Hammersley has a copy of the letter from Orange County Schools to Hillsborough. Bonnie Hammersley said yes, and would distribute it at the meeting on Thursday. 10. County Attorney's Report None 12. Board Comments 13. Information Items • February 7, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Economic Impact & Marketing Strategy for Mountains-to-Sea Trail • Memorandum - Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP) • Memorandum - Update on Expanded Orange County Accessibility Self-Assessment • Memorandum - FY2016-17 Second Quarter General Fund and Enterprise Funds Financial Report • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from February 7, 2017 Regular Meeting 14. Closed Session —Addition to the agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to go into closed session at 10:42 p.m. for the purpose below: § 143-318.11(a)(3) To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION: A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to reconvene into regular session at 11:05 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m. 27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS Mark Dorosin, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board