HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-18-2017 - 8-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 18, 2017
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover) Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
March 21, 2017 BOCC Regular Meeting
March 28, 2017 BOCC Work Session
April 4, 2017 BOCC Regular Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 March 21, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March 21,
10 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23 Chair Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
24 - White sheet: Item 4-a, PowerPoint
25 - Pink sheet: Item 11-f, proposed Board of Health (BOH) appointment
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to add
28 this item- Board of Health appointment - to the agenda as Item 11-f.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 - Blue sheet: Item 11-b, revised abstract for Arts Commission
33 - Green Sheet: Item 11-d, revised abstract for Chapel Hill Planning Commission
34 - White sheets: Item 6-a, hand outs and PowerPoint
35 - Information Handout from Chapel Hill Meeting
36
37 ** Appointments (3)—the request was made to move these items up on the agenda.
38 Chair/Vice Chairs from the boards could not attend, but staff was available to answer any
39 questions about their recommendations:
40 Commissioner McKee suggested moving forward these appointments since there are no
41 heavy hitting items.
42 Chair Dorosin suggested making these appointments Item 5.
43
44 11a. Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool —Appointments
45 The Board will consider making appointments to the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool.
46 11 b Arts Commission —Appointments
47 The Board will consider making appointments to the Arts Commission.
48 11e. Economic Development Advisory Board —Appointments
49 The Board will consider making appointments to the Economic Development Advisory Board.
50
2
1 PUBLIC CHARGE
2
3 Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
4
5 2. Public Comments
6
7 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
8 Frances Henderson is the Director of the Dispute Settlement Center, which is
9 funded by Orange County. She said she is here to represent the Orange County Third
10 Sector Alliance, a membership group of 36 County funded non-profits that provides a
11 voice for the non-profit sector. She thanked the Board of County Commissioners
12 (BOCC) and the Manager's office for their support of non-profits.
13
14 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
15 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
16 below.)
17
18 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
19 Commissioner Marcoplos had none.
20 Commissioner Price said she forwarded a copy of a letter to the Board that she sent to
21 Congressman David Price about restoring funds to the CDBG and HOME funds.
22 Commissioner Price said she was part of a Stepping Up Initiative conference call, and
23 Cait Fenhagen, Criminal Justice Resource Manager, was a very informative part of this call.
24 Commissioner Price said on March 25th, there will be a sign unveiling for James
25 "Junebug" Stewart, as well as the opening of the parking lot, at Fairview Park.
26 Commissioner McKee had none.
27 Commissioner Rich said the hand out at their places is a presentation that was given at
28 a Chapel Hill Town Council meeting by charettes, regarding what goes around light rail stations.
29 She said this presentation focused on affordable housing and developable land around these
30 proposed stations.
31 Commissioner Rich said she has received calls about a current bill being proposed to
32 repeal the impact fees that Orange County currently implements. She said these fees go to
33 fund local schools. She said these fees have not been changed since 2008, and need to rise in
34 accordance with the rising costs of school construction. She said there is an appeal process.
35 Commissioner Jacobs acknowledged Dr. Robert Lackey, who was awarded the Order of
36 the Long Leaf Pine from the State. He said Dr. Lackey is a pioneer in radiology in North
37 Carolina, and was noted for his inclusiveness for treating all regardless of their race/ethnicity or
38 ability to pay.
39 Commissioner Jacobs reported on a meeting that he and Chair Dorosin just attended
40 with staff, Durham County elected officials, and GoTriangle representatives. He said
41 GoTriangle brought its latest fiscal analysis of the light rail (LRT) project and bus and rail
42 investment plan, which caused the elected officials to be even more concerned about the fiscal
43 viability of this project as currently constituted. He said adjustments and questions were
44 discussed, as well as which scenario should be analyzed further by GoTriangle. He said the
45 most pessimistic scenario was chosen, and the group will try and meet again in the next week
46 or two after the Davenport report is received. He said the best part of the meeting was that,
47 upon viewing the financials, the Durham County Commissioners are in accord with the Orange
48 County Commissioners about concerns. He said there was little argument about how to
49 change the percentages in the joint agreement, because the numbers showed the need for
50 Orange County to provide a smaller percentage. He said Durham wanted to take it to the public
3
1 as a scenario, and gather three weeks of public comment. He said Davenport will review the
2 scenario as well, and report back to the group. He said the plan is to still operate on the
3 assumption that a decision will be needed by the end of April. He said GoTriangle was told that
4 there is no guarantee that the BOCC is in favor of the LRT. He said the majority favor it, and
5 desire to work together, but there is no guarantee.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said all agreed that the current situation is a result of the State
7 cutting 15% of funding from transit funding.
8 Commissioner Burroughs said two weeks ago the police department in Hillsborough
9 started carrying naloxone, so that all local law enforcement departments now carry it. She said
10 Director interviews for the Health Director position are going forward.
11 Commissioner Burroughs said the Board of Health is reviewing outside agency
12 applications that deal with health issues.
13 Commissioner Burroughs wished Donna Baker a belated Happy Birthday.
14 Chair Dorosin said he attended his first Community Home Trust meeting as the BOCC
15 representative, which was exciting and efforts for coordination are coming together.
16
17 APPOINTMENTS- (3 MOVED UP)
18
19 11-a. Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool —Appointments
20 The Board considered making appointments to the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
23 appoint the following to the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool:
24
25 • Appointment to a first full term (position #4) "Town of Chapel Hill" for Daniel Ryan
26 expiring 03/31/2020.
27 • Appointment to a first full term (position #7) "At-Large Public Health Field" for Tony
28 Whitaker expiring 03/31/2020.
29 • Appointment to a first full term (position #10) "Orange County At-Large" for Amanda
30 Schwoerke expiring 03/31/2020.
31 • Appointment to a first full term (position #13) "At-Large Unincorporated County" for
32 Cathy Munnier expiring 03/31/2020
33 • Appointment to a first full term (position #16) "Animal Services Advisory Board Member"
34 for Edmund Tiryakian expiring 03/31/2020.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 11-b. Arts Commission —Appointments
39 The Board considered making appointments to the Arts Commission.
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
42 appoint the following to the Arts Commission:
43
44 • Appointment to a first full term (position #3) "At-Large" for Tarish Pipkins expiring
45 03/31/2020.
46 • Appointment to a first full term (position #4) "At-Large" for Daniel Mayer expiring
47 03/31/2020.
48 • Appointment to a second full term (position #5) "At-Large" for Tinka Jordy expiring
49 03/31/2020.
4
1 • Appointment to a second full term (position #11) "At-Large" for Ashley Nissler expiring
2 03/31/2020.
3 • Appointment to a partial term (position #12) "At-Large" for Anita Mills expiring
4 03/31/2018.
5 • Appointment to a partial term (position #13) "At-Large" for Consuelo Marshall expiring
6 03/31/2018.
7 • Appointment to a first full term (position #14) "At-Large" for Helen Jones expiring
8 09/30/2019.
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 11-e. Economic Development Advisory Board —Appointments
13 The Board considered making appointments to the Economic Development Advisory
14 Board.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
17 appoint the following to the Economic Development Advisory Board:
18
19 • Appointment to a partial term (Position #2) "Tourism" for Anthony Carey expiring
20 06/30/2018.
21 • Appointment to a partial term (Position #4) "Entrepreneur" for Sharon Hill expiring
22 06/30/2017.
23 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #9) "Core Business Community" for Keith
24 Coleman expiring 06/30/2019.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 Commissioner Jacobs said he served for years on past economic development boards,
29 and he would like to get reports back from the Economic Development Advisory Board (EDAB)
30 more than just once a year. He said this is a high-powered group to advise this department,
31 and he would like to be more knowledgeable about this group.
32 Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, said he will follow up with his board
33 on these suggestions.
34
35 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
36
37 a. Presentation of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FYE 6/30/2016
38 The Board considered receiving the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)for
39 FYE 6/30/2016 as information.
40
41 BACKGROUND:
42 The CAFR reports on all financial activity of the County for the fiscal year July 1, 2015 through
43 June 30, 2016. Mauldin and Jenkins, a firm of Certified Public Accountants, audited the
44 financial statements. The financial statements and audit are required by Chapter 159-34 of the
45 North Carolina General Statutes. The County prepares a Comprehensive Annual Financial
46 Report (CAFR) that meets the standards set by the Government Finance Officers Association
47 (GFOA). The CAFR is submitted to the GFOA in order to be awarded the Certificate of
48 Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The financial report for the Orange County
49 SportsPlex, as required under the management contract, is included in the County's CAFR.
50
5
1 The audit results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 indicate a strong financial position for
2 Orange County. The County received an unmodified (clean) audit opinion on the financial
3 statements received from the audit. The Chief Financial Officer and representatives of Mauldin
4 and Jenkins will cover highlights of the report and answer any questions.
5
6 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, acknowledged the members of his finance
7 team, and the Board presented the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence In Financial
8 Reporting award.
9 Gary Donaldson introduced the auditors from Mauldin and Jenkins.
10 Joel Black, Mauldin and Jenkins Engagement Partner, reviewed the following
11 PowerPoint presentation:
12
13 Mauldin and Jenkins
14 Presentation of 2016 Audit Results
15 Orange County, North Carolina
16 March 21, 2017
17
18 Agenda
19 • Engagement Team
20 • Results of 2016 Audit
21 • Financial Ratios
22 • Comments, Recommendations, and Other Issues
23 • Questions and Comments
24
25 • Mauldin and Jenkins, LLC; General Information
26 o Founded in 1920
27 o Large regional firm serving the Southeastern United States
28 o Offices located in Atlanta, GA, Macon, GA, Albany, GA, Bradenton, FL,
29 Chattanooga, TN and Birmingham, AL employing approximately 280 employees
30
31 • Mauldin and Jenkins, LLC; Governmental Sector
32 o Largest specific industry niche served by the Firm representing 25% of Firm
33 practice
34 o Serve more governmental entities throughout the Southeast than many other
35 certified public accounting firm requiring over 70,000 hours of service on an
36 annual basis
37 o Approximately 90 professional staff persons with current governmental
38 experience
39 o Current auditor for over 300 total governments in the Southeast, including
40 approximately:
41 • 40 counties;
42 • 85 cities
43 • 40 school systems;
44 • 40 state entities; and,
45 • 120+ special purpose entities (stand-alone business type entities,
46 libraries, etc.)
47
48 • Engagement Team Leaders for Orange County
49 o Joel Black, Engagement Partner
50 o James Bence, Audit Services Partner
6
1 o Adam Fraley, Quality Review Partner
2
3 Results of 2016 Audit
4 • Our Responsibility Under Auditing Standards Generally Accepted in the United States of
5 America (GAAS) and Government Auditing Standards (GAS)
6 o They considered the internal control structure for the purpose of expressing our
7 opinion on the County's basic financial statements and not providing assurance
8 on the internal control structure.
9 o Our audit was performed in accordance with GAAS and GAS.
10 o Our objective is to provide reasonable—not absolute—assurance that the basic
11 financial statements are free of material misstatement.
12 o We did not audit the financial statements of the Orange County ABC Board. We
13 reviewed and relied on the report of other auditors for amounts included in the
14 County's statements related to the ABC Board.
15 o The basic financial statements are the responsibility of the County's
16 management.
17
18 • Report on 2016 Basic Financial Statements
19 o Unmodified ("clean") opinion on basic financial statements.
20 o Presented fairly in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in
21 the United States of America.
22 o Our responsibility does not extend beyond financial information contained in our
23 report.
24
25 • Report on 2016 Single Audit
26 o Unmodified ("clean") opinion on compliance for 2 major federal programs tested
27 in accordance with Title 2 U.S. CFR Section 200 and 1 major state program (in
28 conjunction with 1 of the major federal programs) tested in accordance with the
29 State Single Audit Implementation Act.
30
31 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason that the ABC Board is not audited.
32 Joel Black said the ABC Board hires its own auditors, and he is not sure for the reason
33 behind this. He said he received the numbers from the ABC Board's auditors, and relies on
34 these numbers in their report.
35 Commissioner Rich asked if the ABC Board auditor or the County is responsible for the
36 ABC Board numbers.
37 Joel Black said ultimately the ABC Board is responsible for its numbers, but because the
38 numbers are a component of the County audit, the County is also somewhat responsible.
39 John Roberts said the County does not audit the ABC Board because it is a state
40 agency and is not part of county government.
41
42 • Significant Accounting Policies
43 o The significant accounting policies used by the County are described in Note 1 to
44 the basic financial statements.
45 o The policies used by the County are in accordance with generally accepted
46 accounting principles and similar government organizations.
47 o In considering the qualitative aspects of its policies, the County is not involved in
48 any controversial or emerging issues for which guidance is not available.
49
50 • Management Judgment/Accounting Estimates
7
1 o The County uses various estimates as part of its financial reporting process —
2 including valuation of accounts receivable, depreciation of capital assets, self-
3 insurance claim liabilities, and pension and OPEB assumptions.
4 o Management's estimates used in preparation of financial statements were
5 deemed reasonable in relation to the financial statements taken as a whole. We
6 considered this information and the qualitative aspects of management's
7 calculations in evaluating the County's significant accounting estimates.
8
9 • Finanical Statement Disclosure
10 o The footnote disclosure to the financial statements are also an integral part of
11 the financial statements and the process used by management to accumulate
12 the information included in the disclosures was the same process used in
13 accumulating the statements. The overall neutrality, consistency, and clarity of
14 the disclosures was considered part our audit
15
16 • Relationship with Management
17 o We receivevd full cooperation from the County's Management and Staff
18 o There were no disagreement with Management on accounting issues or financial
19 reporting matters
20
21 • Audit Adjustments
22 o There were several posted adjustments, which were necessary during the audit
23 process. Those entries have been provided to Management and have all been
24 recorded on the County's general ledger by Management and they have agreed
25 with all adjustments. There was one passed adjustment related to a loss on debt
26 refunds, which should have been deferred in prior years and amortized over time
27 in the Governmental Activities. The entry was not posted due to the entry
28 immaterial to the entire governmental activities opinion unit, this entry would
29 have been increased deferred outflows by $753,179, increased beginning of the
30 year net position by $878,709 and increased amortization expense by $125,530
31
32 • Management Representation
33 o We requested, and received, written representations from management relating
34 to the accuracy of information included in the financial statements and the
35 completeness and accuracy of various information request by us.
36
37 • Consultation with other accountants
38 o To the best of our knowledge, management has not consulted with, or obtained
39 opinions from, other independent accountants during the year, nor did we face
40 any issues requiring outside consultation.
41
42 • Significant Issues Discussed with Management
43 o There were no significant issues discurssed with management related to
44 business conditions, plans, or strategies that may have affected the risk of
45 material misstatement of the financial statements.
46
47 • Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements
48 o Our responsibility for other information in documents containing the County's
49 comprehensive annual financial report and our report thereon does not extend
50 beyond the information identified in our report. If the County intends to publish
8
1 or otherwise reproduce the financial statements and mae reference to our firm,
2 we must be provided with printers' proof for our review and approval before
3 printing. The County must also provide us with a copy of the financial
4 reproduced for material for our approval before it is distributed.
5
6 • Auditor Independence
7 o In accordance with AICPA professional standards, M&J is independent with
8 regard to the County and its financial reporting process
9 o There were no fees paid to M&J for management advisory services during the
10 fiscal year 2016 that may affect our independence as auditors.
11
12 General Fund Fund Balance Ratio to Expenditures (graph)
13
14 Trend Analysis of Property and Sales Tax Revenue per capita (graph)
15
16 Assessed Values vs Tax Rates (graph)
17
18 General Fund Budget to Actual Results —Fiscal Year 2016 (graph)
19 • General Fund revenues were 1.2% more than the amended budgeted amount. The
20 actual revenue was over budget due to increased actual sales tax collections from the
21 State.
22 • Expenditures for many functional areas were less than budget as the County generated
23 savings of$10.1 million (4.9%) from the operating budget. Several departments came in
24 under budget due to personnel vacancies and efforts to spend conservatively.
25 • Budgeted use of fund balance was not needed to the extent anticipated, as actual use of
26 reserves was only 4.5% of the final budgeted use.
27 • General Fund significant transfers were $5,167,984 to School Capital Improvement
28 Fund; $703,227 to County Capital Improvement Fund; and $1,718,018 to Solid Waste
29 Landfill Fund.
30
31 Enterprise Results (graph)
32
33 James Bence, Mauldin and Jenkins Audit Services Partner, reviewed the following
34 portion of the PowerPoint presentation:
35
36 Comments, Recommendations, and Other Issues
37 Material Weaknesses Reported
38 2016-001 Expenditure and Expense Recognition
39 Generally, expenditures/expenses should be recognized as soon as a liability is incurred,
40 regardless of the timing of the related cash flows in accordance with generally accepted
41 accounting principles. Misstatements were detected in the reporting of the County's
42 expenditures/expenses and the related balance sheet accounts. Audit adjustments totaling
43 approximately $6,354,000 were needed to correct the County's expenditures/expenses and
44 related balance accounts. This included three adjustments to the prior financial statement
45 amounts.
46
47 2016-002 Equity Reconciliation
48 Internal controls should be in place to ensure that financial statements are properly presenting
49 the financial position and results of operations of the County in accordance with generally
50 accepted accounting principles. Internal controls were not sufficient to detect misstatements in
9
1 the reporting of the opening net position balances of the County's Solid Waste Landfill Fund. An
2 audit adjustment totaling approximately $760,000 was needed to correct the County's opening
3 net position in the general ledger as of June 30, 2016.
4
5 2016-003 Capital Asset Reporting
6 Internal controls should be in place to ensure the subsidiary ledgers for the County's capital
7 assets, both governmental and business-type activities, include all capital assets purchased or
8 constructed during the fiscal year. Additionally, subsidiary ledgers should be maintained to track
9 the capital assets by cost and calculate annual depreciation amounts for the capital assets.
10 Material misstatements were detected by County management in the reporting of the current
11 year additions to the County's capital asset balances, as well as some previously unrecorded
12 capital assets. Adjustments of approximately $4,140,000 were needed to correctly report the
13 capital assets, including $1,023,000 of capital assets previously expensed in prior periods.
14
15 2016-005 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal and State Awards
16 2 CFR 200.302(b)(1) states that all nonfederal entities must identify in its accounts all federal
17 awards received and expended. The schedule of expenditures of federal and state awards
18 (SEFSA) should be derived from, and relate directly to, the underlying accounting and other
19 records used to prepare the financial statements for the County. During the preparation of the
20 schedule of expenditures of federal and state awards, it was noted the County was preparing
21 the report based on revenues, rather than expenditures. The majority of the County's federal
22 and state awards are related to health and human service grant activity, which is maintained
23 outside of the County's finance department. As such, the County did not have procedures in
24 place to permit for the reconciliation of the schedule of expenditures of federal and state awards
25 to the underlying expenditures of the County. Ultimately the County was able to internally
26 provide the necessary underlying records to support the expenditures reported on the schedule
27 of expenditures of federal and state awards, but the reconciliation was performed with the
28 Finance department and the department of Social Services working together to go through the
29 general ledger and supporting to reconcile the activity of the County to the SEFSA. This
30 process was not complete until January 2017.
31
32 Significant Deficiency
33 2016-004 Segregation of Duties
34 Segregation of employees' duties is a common practice in an effective internal control structure.
35 Segregation of duties is achieved when specific employee functions related to important
36 accounting areas are separated among different individuals to significantly reduce the risk that
37 any one individual could intentionally or unintentionally misappropriate assets. Policies should
38 be in place requiring the segregation of certain duties. The County's payroll processing controls
39 did not provide the appropriate segregation of duties related to the payroll processing. One
40 individual at the County has the ability to input employee time, prepare the batch time entry
41 reports to post to the general ledger, and edit employee hours. We recommend these controls
42 either be segregated or compensating controls be implemented such as periodic reports
43 reviewed of all changes made to employee time entered, new employees created as compared
44 to reports from Human Resources, changes in employee benefits, earnings, or withholdings.
45 During our testing we noted at the Sheriff's Department the same individual was capable of
46 creating and approving a purchase requisition. Without some segregation of duties within these
47 functions, there is increased exposure that someone could intentionally or unintentionally
48 misappropriate assets of the County. Additionally, without additional internal controls related to
49 financial reporting, errors could occur and not be detected.
50
10
1 Joel Black resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
2
3 Federal Awards — Significant Deficiency
4 2016-006 Monitoring Controls over 1571 Reporting
5 Sound internal controls require that all financial and performance reports be reviewed in details
6 by a knowledgeable person independent of the preparation process to ensure the accuracy and
7 the completeness of the reports. This review should include both the verification and validation
8 of the information included within the report, but also the accuracy of the information within the
9 report. The reviewer should be able to verify the source information to the supporting sub-
10 ledger information to ensure the valuation of the information included in the reports, the
11 accuracy of the data, and the completeness of the information. During our testing of the
12 preparation of the monthly 1571 report, as required by the North Carolina Department of Health
13 and Human Services, we noted the County does not have sufficient controls in place to perform
14 the necessary monitoring reviews to properly identify, summarize, and prepare the reports. By
15 not having a detailed review of the report preparation and submission, the County is exposed to
16 the risk of errors being included in the report. As the aggregation of information is very manual,
17 with little direct monitoring controls, the County is at risk for errors to occur in the monthly
18 reporting of federal and state expenditures and services. This report also provides information
19 for the preparation of the County's schedule of expenditures of federal and state awards and
20 any errors in this report would also result in an error to that schedule — see further discussion in
21 finding 2016-005.
22
23 • New GASB Pronouncements- Implemented This Year
24 o Statement No. 72, Fair Value Measurement and Application, provides guidance
25 on the measurement of fair values of certain accounts — most notably
26 investments. Due to the nature of the County's investments, no significant
27 change was required.
28 o GASB Statement No. 76, Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
29 for State and Local Governments, provides guidance on the authoritative
30 literature which should be utilized in applying GAAP to state and local
31 government financial statements. No significant change for the County.
32 o GASB Statement No. 79, Certain External Investment Pools and Pool
33 Participants, provides for the accounting of the value of external investment
34 pools (such as the North Carolina Capital Management Trust) at amortized cost,
35 as opposed to fair value, if the pool meets certain requirements. The North
36 Carolina Capital Management Trust— cash portfolio meets these criteria and
37 reports the value of its investments at amortized cost— and thus the County
38 reports its investment in the investment pool at amortized cost. This did not
39 result in a change in value for the County.
40
41 • New GASB Pronouncements for Future Years
42 o GASB Statement No. 73, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pensions and
43 Related Assets That Are Not within the Scope of GASB Statemenet 68, and
44 Amendments to Certain Provisions of GASB Statements 67 and 68, brings
45 standards for recording the Total Pension Liability (similar to the requirements of
46 GASB Statement 68)for plans not covered by that standard. This requirement
47 will be applicable for June 30, 2017. This should affect the reporting of the
48 County's Law Enforcement Officer's Special Separation Allowance.
49 o GASB Statement No. 74, Financial Reporting for Postemployment Benefits Plans
50 Other Than Pension Plans, enhances note diclosures and RSI for OPEB plan
11
1 finaicial statements. This standard is similar to the requirements of Statement
2 No. 67 (implemented in 2014) related to penrions and impacts the financial
3 statements of the plan (i.e. OPEB Trust Fund) itself. The County currently does
4 not have a OPEB Trust Fund. Applicable for June 30, 2017.
5
6 Commissioner Price asked if the County is required to have an OPEB Trust Fund.
7 Joel Black said it is not a requirement, and the majority of governments do not have
8 one.
9
10 o GASB Statement No. 75, Accounting and Financial Reporting for
11 Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions, requires governments providing
12 defined benefit OPEB plans (post-retirement health-care benefits) to recognize
13 the full amount of their long-term obligation for OPEB benefits as a liability for
14 the first time, and to more comprehensively and comparably measure the annual
15 costs of OPEB benefits. This standard is similar to the requirements of
16 Statement No. 68 related to pensions, which was implemented this year.
17 Applicable for June 30, 2018.
18 o GASB Statement No. 77, Tax Abatement Disclosures
19 o GASB Statement No. 78, Pensions Provided through Certain Multiple-Employer
20 Defined Benefit Pension Plans
21 o GASB Statement No. 80, Blending Requirements for Certain Component Units
22 o GASB Statement No. 81, Irrevocable Split-Interest Agreements
23 o GASB Statement No. 82, Pension Issues
24 o GASB Statement No. 83, Certain Asset Retirement Obligations
25 o GASB Statement No. 84 Fiduciary Activities
26
27 • Other Matters Currently Being Considered by GASB
28 o Conceptual framework and current measurement focus considerations (revenue
29 recognition/60 days rules and consumption vs. purchased method for expensing
30 inventories)
31 o Financial reporting model (is GASB 34's model the right model today?)
32 o Leases (do operating leases meet the definitions of being an asset or liability?)
33 o Debt extinguishments using existing resources
34
35 • Other Changes
36 o There continues to be changes to auditing standards relative to the conduct and
37 reporting of Single Audits. This year's financial and compliance audit recognized
38 the implementation of the new Uniform Grant Guidance (UG), which included
39 significant changes to cost principles and other requirements for auditees
40 receiving Federal funds. These changes are driven based on the grant award
41 date as awarded by the Federal agency. As such, auditors and auditees will
42 follow requirements from both the "old" and "new" guidance for a few years to
43 come.
44
45 Free Quarterly Continuing Education for Governmental Clients
46
47 Questions and Comments
48
49 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if an "audit adjustment" could be clarified.
12
1 Joel Black said part of the audit is a review of the financial statements produced from
2 Management's general ledgers. He said these numbers are tested to insure accuracy. He said
3 an audit adjustment would be something that is found during that review that needs to be
4 brought to Management's attention. He said the County has taken action on all audit
5 adjustments that were found during the review.
6 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the auditors could describe how they would have felt
7 if the County had a fund balance of 14%, rather than 16.2%.
8 Joel Black said that would be on the low side, but typically the larger the government the
9 lower the fund balance tends to be. He said the preferred range is 16-25%.
10 Commissioner Burroughs said in previous audits there have been no findings, which she
11 found unnerving. She said she was glad to see that there are findings in this audit, and that
12 staff is responding appropriately.
13 Chair Dorosin said it is a good reaffirmation of why it is best practice to change auditors
14 every few years. He thanked Mauldin and Jenkins for their work.
15
16 5. Public Hearings
17 NONE
18
19 6. Regular Agenda
20
21 a. Environmental &Agricultural Center (EAC) —Visioning Study Update and
22 Development Options
23 The Board considered receiving the preliminary visioning and development option study
24 regarding the Environmental and Agricultural Center (EAC) prepared by HH Architecture, and
25 providing direction to the Manager regarding the following staff-recommended development
26 options.
27 Jeff Thompson, Asset Management Services Director, made the following PowerPoint
28 presentation:
29
30 ORANGE COUNTY ENVIRONMENT AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER
31 Visioning Study Update & Development Options
32
33 Board action requested:
34 • Receive and provide feedback regarding the overall vision study conducted by HH
35 Architecture;
36 • Discuss and decide a development course of action for the Environment and Agricultural
37 Center (EAC) to inform the FY2017-22 Capital Investment Plan
38 A Brief History— BOCC Actions
39 Blackwood Farm Master Plan / Parks Operation Base
40 BOCC adopted March 3, 2011
41 Includes a new Parks Operation Base, not EAC
42 Revere Rd EAC / HH Architecture Preliminary Study
43 2013 decision to remove 2018 repair funds in favor of renovate/replace
44 Government Services Annex inappropriate
45 2015 decision to study options
46 BOCC Space Utilization Principles
47 Co-location (2001)
48 Consolidation (2001)
49 Owning (2001)
50 Sustainable practices (2005)
13
1 Highest and best use (2013)
2
3 Kristin Hess, HH Architecture, presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
4 Process
5 Interviewed face-to-face, distributed surveys, and solicited input from:
6 • County Commissioners
7 • Staff
8 • Directors
9 • Customers and other stakeholders
10 Program was supplemented from these interviews to include specific work spaces
11 requirements.
12
13 Existing Building
14 • Built in 1960, renovated in 1989
15 • Structure is stable; will require minor reinforcement
16 • Roof needs to be replaced
17 • Interior office flow and layout could be improved for efficiency
18 • Building lacks energy efficiency
19 • Mechanical systems require replacement
20
21 Existing Building (photograph)
22
23 Survey Results
24 • Roof leaks; moisture build up in walls
25 • Conference spaces are undersized
26 • Poor HVAC performance in peak seasons
27 • Limited site lighting is a safety concern
28 • Would like better functionality and connectivity
29 • Some offices are oversized, others are undersized
30 • Limited daylighting
31
32 Jeff Thompson resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
33
34 Vision Study Key Points &Analysis:
35 • Investment Needed: Facility is functionally obsolete & could benefit from a major
36 renovation.
37 • Location and Lot Size: Northern periphery of Hillsborough is desirable, but space
38 constraints and residential character may be better for other uses: e.g. affordable
39 housing, community center, or disposition (sale or partnership opportunities).
40 o Potential exploration of county property or acquisition.
41 • Co-location Opportunity: A new EAC could be built and co-located with the Park
42 Operations Center (currently slated for FY18-19 CIP at Blackwood Farm)
43 o All DEAPR divisions (except Recreation) and related agencies would be together
44 o Operational and capital cost efficiencies
45
46 Location & Development Recommendations
47 Staff has analyzed the HH Architecture study and present the following recommendations:
48 1) Major EAC Renovations — Revere Rd*
49 2a) Build New EAC —Torain St/Public Works Dr.*
14
1 2b) Build New EAC & Park Ops Center—Torain St/Public Works Dr.*
2 3) Build New— New Site
3 * County owned property
4
5 Option 1:
6 Major EAC Renovations — Revere Rd
7 Overview:
8 • Renovate the existing facility and parking lot
9 • Structurally sound building shell remains
10 • Major systems and interior space renovation; new roof and parking lot
11 Probable Cost Estimate: $3,685,000. Incl. $235,000 to be added in the FY2017-22 CIP
12 Advantages:
13 • Achieves functional efficiency for customers and administrative staff
14 • Increases energy efficiency
15 • Lowest cost option (EAC only)
16 Disadvantages:
17 • Site may not be the highest and best use
18 • Building footprint and site geometry limitations do not optimize site and space
19 functionality.
20 Conformance with BOCC Space Planning Principles:
21 ✓ Co-location
22 ✓ Owned Property
23 ✓ Sustainable design principles
24 ✓ Consolidation
25 ✓ Highest and Best Use
26
27 Kristin Hess presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
28
29 Option 1: Major Renovation (map)
30
31 Option 1: Major Renovation (plan)
32
33 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a plan for the rest of the site.
34 Kristin Hess said there are limits to what can be done, but there is a plan for limited
35 demonstration and gardening areas, animal husbandry, etc.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said there was a citizen recommendation for an agricultural
37 center, and he asked if this idea was followed up on.
38 Kristin Hess said a covered area was proposed for animal scales, but the scales cannot
39 be located. She said the intention is show off and showcase agriculture.
40 Commissioner Price asked if there is a plan for the other buildings on this site.
41 Jeff Thompson said one building is the current Emergency Services substation #1,
42 which plans to collocate with the Emergency Services substation plan in the CIP. He said the
43 other building is a storage facility, which is not in the best condition and could be disposed of to
44 open up the back part of the lot.
45 Jeff Thompson resumed the presentation:
46
47 Option 2a:
48 New Construction EAC —Torain St/ Public Works Dr
15
1 Overview: Build a new EAC facility on County property next to Fairview Park and County Fleet
2 operations campus on Public Works Drive
3 (Pre-engineered steel with exterior cladding and interior upfits)
4 Probable Cost Estimate:
5 • $4,458,000. Includes $1,008,500 to be added in the FY2017-22 CIP
6 • Sanitary sewer line upgrade, required storm water management features, and related
7 site costs
8 Advantages:
9 • Higher level of functional and energy efficiency for customers and administrative staff
10 • New construction, longer life
11 • Ability to re-purpose or sell the Revere Road property
12 Disadvantages:
13 • More secluded since not on a "through-street"
14 • Highest cost option
15 BOCC Space Planning Principles:
16 ✓ Co-location
17 ✓ Owned Property
18 ✓ Sustainable design principles
19 ✓ Consolidation
20 ✓ Highest and Best Use
21
22 Option 2: New Construction (map)
23
24 Torain St/Public Works Dr. Property (photograph)
25
26 Option 2: New Construction (plan)
27
28 Option 2b:
29 New Construction EAC & Park Ops Center
30 Overview: Build a new EAC facility and a co-located Park Operations Base on County property
31 next to Fairview Park and County Fleet operations campus on Public Works Dr. (Both Buildings:
32 Pre-engineered steel with exterior cladding and interior upfits)
33 Probable Cost Estimate:
34 • Probable Cost Estimate: $6,452,000 (New EAC $4,200,000, plus Park Ops $2,572,000)
35 o Includes $430,500 to be added in the FY2017-22 CIP
36 o Sanitary sewer upgrade, required storm water features, and related site costs
37 Advantages:
38 • Avoided Costs: Major septic system at Blackwood Farm, duplicative site work, shared
39 infrastructure (parking lots and areas for storage, staging, training, etc.)
40 • Higher level of functional and energy efficiency (same as Option 2a)
41 • Efficiency in co-locating the Park Operations Base with rest of DEAPR and near fuel
42 station and maintenance operations
43 • Adjacent to Fairview Park
44 • Ability to re-purpose or sell the Revere Road site
45 Disadvantages:
46 • Site not on a "through-street"
47 • Potential transportation impacts of servicing County parks
48 BOCC Space Planning Principles:
49 ✓ Co-location
50 ✓ Owned Property
16
1 ✓ Sustainable design principles
2 ✓ Consolidation
3 ✓ Highest and Best Use
4
5 Option 3: New Construction — New Site
6 Overview: Examine prospective sites within the Highway 70/Cornelius Street Corridor along the
7 northern Hillsborough periphery.
8 Probable Cost Estimate:
9 • Similar to Options 2a or 2b, plus site acquisition costs and other site development costs
10 • No requirement to appropriate additional funds to the CIP until costs more fully
11 understood
12 Advantages:
13 • Ability to locate a suitable site to address the perceived weaknesses of seclusion,
14 visibility, and transportation reach to County parks
15 • Capacity for growth within the County owned real estate portfolio
16 Disadvantages:
17 • Requires more time for site identification, due diligence, and acquisition
18 • Purchased property would be tax exempt
19 • Likely additional costs associated with the real estate purchase
20 and development.
21 BOCC Space Planning Principles:
22 Site selection based on Board-adopted criteria
23
24 Board action requested:
25 • Receive and provide feedback regarding the study conducted by HH Architecture;
26 • Discuss and decide a development course of action for the Environment and Agricultural
27 Center (EAC) to inform the FY2018-23 Capital Investment Plan
28 1) Major EAC Renovations — Revere Rd
29 2a) Build New EAC —Torain St/Public Works Dr.
30 2b) Build New EAC & Park Ops Center—Torain St/Public Works Dr.
31 3) Build New — New Site
32
33 Recommendations
34 The Manager recommends the Board receive the preliminary visioning and development option
35 study regarding the Environmental and Agricultural Center (EAC) prepared by HH architecture
36 and indicated the preferred option(s):
37
38 1.) Major EAC renovations — Revere Road: perform major renovations to the existing EAC
39 facility at 306 Revere Road (see attachment number 2 for Revere Road EAC site
40 and space plans);
41 • Additional CIP funds required: $235,000
42 2a.) Build new EAC-Torain St: Pursue a development plan and new construction of an
43 EAC facility located on County owned Torain St/Public Works Drive property (see
44 attachment number 3 for Torain St/Public Works Drive aerial);
45 • Additional CIP funds required: $1,850,000
46 2b.) Build new EAC & Park Operations Center—Torain St: pursue a development plan
47 and new construction of an EAC Facility and a collocated parks operations space
48 located on the County owned Torain St/Public Works Drive property;
49 • Additional CIP funds required: $430,500
50
17
1 3.) Build New Site: explore and recommend to the BOCC other sites for development on
2 the northen periphery of Hillsborough for either and EAC site or a collocated EAC/Parks
3 operations space site.
4 • Additional CIP funds required: similar to 2a/2b plus land acquisition cost.
5
6 QUESTION AND ANSWER
7
8 Commissioner Jacobs referred to option 2, and asked what is currently on the site.
9 Jeff Thompson said scrub pines and some hardwoods that could be protected.
10 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the possibility of turning the Revere Road site into
11 multiple affordable housing units has been discussed.
12 Chair Dorosin said many have suggested it.
13 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is a cost figure.
14 Jeff Thompson said no, but there is water and sewer on this property.
15 Commissioner Price said this is a mixed-use area in and around the Revere Road site,
16 and asked if the zoning could be identified.
17 Jeff Thompson said it is currently zoned retail and commercial, and re-zoning would
18 have to be worked on with the Town of Hillsborough in order to build residential.
19 Commissioner Price said she is not seeing the inadequacies of the site that are being
20 suggested.
21 Kristin Hess said the site and space are limiting and challenging. She said it is difficult
22 to maneuver large vehicles through the property, and some areas are cut off and thus feel
23 unsafe.
24 Commissioner Price asked if this site compares well to the Torain Street site.
25 Jeff Thomspon said there is a lot of maneuverability around that site, but it has been
26 noted that it is not a through street.
27 Kristin Hess said the current site feels like trying to fit 10 pounds of potatoes into a 5-
28 pound bag.
29 Kristin Hess said the shell part does not give you more space on the site, because it is
30 not being torn down.
31 Commissioner Price said she finds it confusing that the space is limiting, yet not all the
32 space is needed.
33 Kristin Hess said there is more building than is needed, but there is not enough of the
34 actual site. She said the site has odd pockets that make it tough, but some of the buildings
35 could be torn down to make some more room.
36 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the idea of affordable housing on the Revere Road
37 site. He said it looks like 14 units could be built in the existing space, with room for some
38 smaller homes around the outside.
39 Chair Dorosin referred to the overhead view of the current site, and said there is a
40 wooded area to the west. He asked if someone else owns this land, or if it is a right of way.
41 Jeff Thompson said this is not County property, and is owned by the Home Owners
42 Association of the neighboring development.
43 Chair Dorosin it may be worth looking into the purchase of this piece of land.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said the Torain Road site is his least favorite, and it suggests two
45 principles that should be avoided in the future: the Greenfield development, and failing to take
46 traffic considerations into account. He said traffic in this area is terrible.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said he is inclined by cost to stay at Revere Road, and if it were
48 used for affordable housing he would like the money for the property, as he is most in favor of a
49 Highway 70 site. He said there is a desire for economic development on the Cornelius Street
50 corridor, and this would be a perfect opportunity. He said this would be readily visible, easily
18
1 accessible, and already has water and sewer, etc. He said he would like to know cost
2 estimates for such an option.
3 Commissioner McKee said this project has run away, and originally a renovation of a
4 structurally sound building was the only option being considered. He said the vision has gotten
5 lost along the way. He said the current building is dated but usable, and he does not buy the
6 long hallway being inadequate. He said there are schools that are just as old as this building.
7 He said it is a residential neighborhood, but there is also a commercial strip on this portion of
8 Revere Road and it is a mixed-use area.
9 Commissioner McKee said the intersection of Highways 57 and 86 is very congested in
10 the morning, and he does not like this option.
11 Commissioner McKee said he is open to discussion to build a new site along the 70
12 corridor, but acknowledged that this would cost well over$7 million. He said there are higher
13 and better uses for those funds in many other areas of the County.
14 Commissioner Price said she agreed with previous comments, and she is not in favor of
15 the Torain Street site. She said the current site can be reworked, but she is open to a plan on
16 highway 70.
17 Commissioner Burroughs said major renovations on Revere Road would not be perfect
18 but would be workable, and there are limited capital funds at this point. She said her first
19 instinct is to do a conservative renovation and save some money. She is unsure if that site
20 would work for affordable housing.
21 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the proposed $7 million cost for a project on highway
22 70 would include proceeds if the Revere Road site sold for$2 million.
23 Commissioner McKee said he used the figures from option 2b. He said affordable
24 housing always seem to require the County to donate the property, in order to make the project
25 more affordable. He is unsure that there would be profit from using the Revere Road site for
26 affordable housing.
27 Commissioner Marcoplos said there are persuasive arguments for renovating the
28 existing building, despite how ugly it is. He said he thinks the option for creating affordable
29 housing is a viable one, but he understands the financial rationale behind renovating the current
30 EAC.
31 Commissioner McKee said he agrees with Commissioner Marcoplos that it is nice to
32 think about a new building, but driving a used car, for the next few years, may be wiser than
33 driving a new one. He said from the perspective of those who use the current building, it is not
34 well laid out but the building itself is workable. He said he has never heard complaints from the
35 staff that work there.
36 Commissioner Rich asked if the turn around issues in the parking lot will be addressed,
37 should the plan to renovate the existing site move forward.
38 Kristin Hess said the majority of the money will be spent on the building, and as little as
39 possible on the outer site. She said the lot may be re-surfaced.
40 Jeff Thompson said the lot does need to be re-surfaced.
41 Kristin Hess said some of the utilities need to be upgraded, and sprinklers will need to
42 be added to the building. She said there is too much impervious surface on this site.
43 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if daylighting baffles could be brought in on the roof, as
44 well as varying the ceiling height.
45 Kristin Hess said this is a good strategy, but it is more expensive to do this, and would
46 increase the current cost estimates.
47 Commissioner Marcoplos said it would be worth the investment as employees have
48 better work product when there is daylight.
49 Commissioner Jacobs said whenever the Board votes, he hopes it leaves room for
50 recommendations that were proposed by the citizen group in the early 2000s.
19
1 Chair Dorosin said the affordable housing potential for this building should not be
2 underestimated, and he would be inclined to look at another site for the EAC. He said this site
3 is probably the best County owned parcel of land for affordable housing. He suggested adding
4 affordable housing as a second story to the renovated EAC.
5 Chair Dorosin said if the Board moves towards the renovations, he would ask that time
6 be taken to look at other points offered up by Commissioner Price and Commissioner Jacobs.
7 Commissioner Price said that is why she suggested renovating at this point, and then
8 look at other sites down the line.
9 Chair Dorosin said he would rather not spend money on the current site, with the intent
10 to abandon it. He would rather take three months looking for an alternate site, and if nothing is
11 found, then proceed with the renovation.
12 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if it makes sense to defer this decision in order to find
13 out more affordable housing possibilities. He said there is information still needed from the
14 original work group recommendations, affordable housing possibilities, as well as any potential
15 EAC sites on highway 70.
16 Bonnie Hammersley said the request is for the Board to share its preferred option or
17 options. She said staff wanted to have this discussion in order to receive further direction, and
18 the Board does not have to make any decisions at this point. She said staff will follow up on
19 Commissioner Jacobs' requests - more uses for the current site, and other options on the 70
20 corridor.
21 Chair Dorosin said staff will look at recommendations from original study group;
22 affordable housing calculations, including possible multi-use on the current site; and look at
23 other parcels on highway 70 corridor.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
26 endorse option 1 as the preferred option, pending the review of the original work committee's
27 recommendations; more information on the highway 70 corridor; the cost for daylighting; and
28 figures on affordable housing.
29
30 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a reason for endorsing option 1.
31
32 1) Major EAC Renovations — Revere Road: Perform major renovations to the existing EAC
33 facility at 306 Revere Road (see Attachment#2 for Revere Road EAC Site and Space
34 Plans);
35 • Additional CIP Funds Required: $235,000
36
37 Commissioner McKee said he heard the majority of the Board stating a preference for
38 option 1, and he would like that to be the focus, noting that the new information may change the
39 direction of the plan at some point.
40 Commissioner Jacobs said the two motions were not that different, and are generally
41 tracking with each other. He said he is comfortable with Commissioner McKee's motion.
42 Commissioner McKee withdrew his motion, and instead made a motion for option 1 to
43 be the preferred option.
44 Chair Dorosin said if the option 1 stands alone, it may decrease the value of the other
45 information that the Board desires.
46 Commissioner McKee said to let his original motion stand.
47
48 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Burroughs,
49 Commissioner Price); Nays, 3 (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Marcoplos, Chair Dorosin)
50
20
1 b. Revisions to Schools FY 2016-17 CIP and Approval of Property Acquisition
2 The Board considered approving the amendments to the FY 2016-17 School Capital
3 Investment Program based on changes to both school systems project listing and approve the
4 acquisition of the Orange Charter School Facility by Orange County Schools pursuant to the
5 Capital Funding Policy.
6 Gary Donaldson said any revisions in the price of capital projects must come back for
7 approval by the Board.
8
9 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) —Assistant Superintendent Todd LoFrese
10 Todd LoFrese said the CHCCS projects slated for the bond funds have undergone
11 some adjustments. He said two things lead to the adjustment of the project budget: the bond
12 proceeds and distribution changed over time; and the construction costs have increased (from
13 2013). He said the Lincoln Center project is now estimated at $25 million, and Chapel Hill High
14 is now at $47 million now.
15 Commissioner Rich referred to a turn lane that is required by the Chapel Hill Town
16 Council, and asked if the funding source for this project has been identified.
17 Todd LoFrese said this expense will come from project budget.
18 Commissioner Rich asked if this was already budgeted into the Lincoln Center project.
19 Todd LoFrese said no, not to the extent required by the Town Council. He said a traffic
20 study has been required as well.
21 Commissioner Rich asked if it is known who will measure the traffic flow, and what
22 further recommendations will be made.
23 Todd LoFrese said he does not know what else may be recommended, but the district
24 will pay a traffic consultant of the Town's choosing to do a study. He said he does not know
25 what recommendations would result from the study.
26 Commissioner Rich asked if there was any funding set aside for the recommendations
27 that arise from the traffic study.
28 Todd LoFrese said bid day will determine the final budget, and whether there are any
29 funds left over.
30 Chair Dorosin asked if the numbers in the attachment will cover all costs for the Lincoln
31 Center and Chapel Hill High projects.
32 Todd LoFrese said it is not entirely clear, but this is the closest budget that can be made
33 prior to bids being received. He said the district can reserve some of its fund balance should
34 the project budgets require additional funds.
35 Commissioner McKee said the $47 million for Chapel Hill High is less than he
36 remembered being discussed at one time, and he asked if any structural unit was removed
37 from the project.
38 Todd LoFrese said this is connected to the amount of funding received. He said the
39 design process for the high school is still underway, and design decisions along the way drive
40 the budget. He said he is concerned about increasing costs and fears a surprise on bid day.
41 He said this project is not slated to go out to bid for another year. He said the district is
42 monitoring this closely and is working on strategies to control the costs.
43 Commissioner McKee said he understands it is a moving target, and he wondered if
44 there is an identified portion of the plan that can be cut in order to make the rest of the project
45 move forward.
46 Todd LoFrese said the project consists of two major components: to build a new
47 academic wing, and to renovate existing spaces. He said the extent of possible renovations is
48 likely what would suffer should costs be higher than expected.
49 Commissioner Jacobs asked Bonnie Hammersley if she was able to find the BOCC
50 policy, from the late 1990s, about reviewing school capital projects before they are executed.
21
1 Bonnie Hammersley said staff was unable to find anything. She said there were only
2 construction standards.
3 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Clerk's staff could research this.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said he will not vote in favor of these changes, as the BOCC has
5 received very little information about them. He said it is $70 million, and the plans have barely
6 been run by the BOCC. He said this is not consistent with past BOCC policies, and he feels the
7 Board is not being a responsible steward in allocating money without reviewing the details of
8 the plans.
9 Commissioner Burroughs said the planning for these projects has been going on in a
10 public manner for five years, and there are two elected school boards who have done their due
11 diligence.
12
13 Orange County Schools (OCS) — Dr. Todd Wirt
14 Todd Wirt gave a brief description of the planned use of the Orange Charter School
15 (920 Corporate Drive) as an OCS facility. He said the classroom wing addition will be removed
16 at Cedar Ridge High School from the CIP, but will go on through school construction impact
17 fees. He highlighted the following uses for the Orange Charter School facility:
18 • Building 1
19 o One stop shop for parents for services (nutrition, after school, translation, etc.)
20 • Building 2
21 o Blended learning academy (online and face-to-face education)
22 o Flexible learning sites
23 o Possible partnership with Durham Tech
24 o Evening academy
25 o Science lab for hands-on enrichment to an online science course
26 o Project and collaboration rooms
27 o Fitness area
28 o Café
29
30 Todd Wirt said there are other programs like this around the country, and he was a part
31 of developing one at his previous district. He said they have been successful in other parts of
32 the country. He said some other implications for existing facilities would be that the annex
33 currently houses the curriculum and instruction department, and it would be proposed that the
34 Information and Technology department move to the annex. He said this would move
35 technology out of Orange High School. He said the existing partnership academy could be
36 narrowed and be more focused on an alternative to both short and long term suspension. He
37 said there has been discussion about a possible site for Boomerang in Hillsborough, which
38 could be a part of this as well.
39 Todd Wirt said removing the technology from Orange High does not allow for a great
40 deal of additional capacity, but it could house the hands on portion of the new fire tech academy
41 that OCS will begin at the high school in the next school year.
42 Commissioner McKee asked if CHCCS is picking up an equal cost for the transportation
43 facility through funding venues outside of the bond monies.
44 Pam Jones, Deputy Superintendent, said it is not an equal amount of funding since OCS
45 is the lead LEA that is responsible. She said the BOCC gave an older facilities assessment for
46 five years, and that money would be dedicated by CHCCS for this project. She said this is in
47 the fifth year of the bond, allowing time to accumulate the necessary capital.
48 Commissioner Rich recommended that the school boards contact legislators about the
49 impact fees, and how any change to them could affect schools.
22
1 Commissioner Jacobs encouraged the CHCCS School Board to contact the Chapel Hill
2 Chamber of Commerce to reiterate the importance of impact fees. He said the only alternative
3 is to raise property taxes.
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price for
6 the Board to approve the amendments to the FY 2016-17 Capital Investment Plan and the
7 attached list of projects including the acquisition of the Orange Charter School Facility.
8
9 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan in place if the project costs change.
10 Bonnie Hammersley said if there is a change in allocation of funds, the districts need to
11 come back before the BOCC; if the districts do not spend as much on one project, and want to
12 move funds to another project, the districts are required to come back to the BOCC.
13 Commissioner Rich clarified that if there are any changes to the project cost sheet, the
14 districts must come back to the BOCC.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
16 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if in a year the bid on Chapel Hill High goes up to $55
17 million, but CHCCS adjusts its plans to only spend the approved $47 million, would CHCCS
18 need to come back to the BOCC.
19 Bonnie Hammersley said CHCCS only needs to come back to the BOCC is there is a
20 change in the amount of funds that is needed.
21
22 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs)
23
24 Commissioner Jacobs said he is not opposed to any of the projects, but he is opposed
25 to how some of them have been advanced.
26
27 c. Extension of Development of Affordable Housing in Orange County Utilizing
28 County Owned Property (RFP #5229) Deadline for Submission of Proposals
29 The Board considered a 60-day extension of the deadline to submit proposals for the
30 Development of Affordable Housing in Orange County Utilizing County Owned Property
31 Request for Proposal ("RFP")# 5229 and adopt the revised timeline at Attachment 2.
32 Travis Myren said when the original timeline was approved in February 2017, staff
33 envisioned issuing two RFPs: one for the bond funds, and one for a list of 10 County owned
34 properties that would be available for affordable housing development. He said staff anticipated
35 these proceeding along the same time line until a couple of weeks ago, when staff received a
36 request from the Affordable Housing Coalition to extend the RFP deadline for the County
37 owned properties, while maintaining the RFP deadline for the bond funds.
38 Travis Myren said the County owned land requires a bit more due diligence than was
39 originally anticipated. He said the 60-day delay would make these RFPs due at the end of May,
40 and they would return for the Board's recommended approval at the first meeting in September.
41 He said the only wrinkle is that there may be projects using County owned land that also seek
42 bond funds to subsidize the development. He said in this case the Board may wish to hold
43 back some amount of money at the June approvals. He said alternative-funding sources could
44 also be pursued.
45
46 PUBLIC COMMENT:
47 Dan Levine said he works with Self Help and is here to speak on behalf of the
48 Affordable Housing Coalition. He said the extension was requested because the County owned
49 parcels of land are new to the housing development partner providers, and he said there is a
23
1 desire to study the parcels properly and meet the request of the BOCC to collaborate and be
2 creative.
3 Commissioner Burroughs said she is in support of this extension.
4 Commissioner Rich asked if applications are still going to be accepted whenever, and
5 what will happen while waiting on the other applications in June.
6 Travis Myren said yes, and this will follow the timeline in Attachment 1. He said staff
7 and stakeholders will evaluate proposals that come in on March 31st, and no time will be lost on
8 the bond fund portion of this two-phased approach.
9 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan for the second phase.
10 Travis Myren said it would be the same process as the first.
11 Commissioner Rich asked if money will be held back.
12 Travis Myren said staff will have to discuss what, if any, amount gets held back with the
13 BOCC when it makes recommendations about the bond funding.
14 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the idea of holding money back, and asked if this is
15 $2.5 million.
16 Travis Myren said the Board may choose not to award the entire $2.5 million in June.
17 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to have a conversation about a long-term
18 strategy for the other $2.5 million, since there will probably not be another affordable housing
19 bond any time soon. He said there is not a lot of leeway in the operating budget, and there will
20 be a desire to do more projects, but the County must not run out of money.
21 Commissioner Marcoplos said he agreed with Commissioner Jacobs, and he said there
22 was a well-attended presentation about a project that saved a trailer park in Charlottesville, VA.
23 He said he would like to talk about such an idea here, as well as other creative ideas.
24 Commissioner Price asked if a decision has been reached about a limit per applicant for
25 bond funds.
26 Travis Myren said the only limitation that currently exists is that only $2.5 million will be
27 allocated during the first draw. He said there is no limit on how much an applicant can request.
28 Chair Dorosin said he is not in favor of setting aside a pot of money since it suggested
29 that projects can be scored apart from each other. He said the highest scoring project in pile
30 two, may be the lowest scoring project in pile one. He said he would be in favor of being more
31 flexible in this area, and he said there is other money put aside for affordable housing, and land
32 could be given away as a way to subsidize. He said he would not want to do anything that
33 constrains projects.
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price for
36 the Board to extend the timeline for RFP#5229 for 60 more days and adopt the revised timeline
37 at Attachment 2; and reaffirm the sense of flexibility and not set aside pots of money.
38
39 Commissioner Rich asked if the plan to create a long-term strategy for additional
40 monies could be added to the motion.
41 Commissioners Burroughs and Price agreed.
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45 7. Reports
46 NONE
47
48 8. Consent Agenda
49 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
50 None
24
1 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
4 approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
9
10 a. Minutes
11 The Board approved the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board for the February 21,
12 2017 BOCC Regular Meeting; and the February 23, 2017 BOCC Joint Meeting with Town of
13 Hillsborough.
14 b. 2017 Amendment to County Sheriff's Office: Records Retention and Disposition
15 Schedule
16 The Board approved the County Sheriff's Office: Records Retention Schedule Amendment,
17 dated October 1, 2016; and authorized the Chair to sign the Amendment.
18 c. Fiscal Year 2016-17 Budget Amendment#7
19 The Board approved the budget ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2016-17 to the
20 Department of Social Services; Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation;
21 Department of Aging; Health Department; Animal Services Department; Efland Volunteer Fire
22 Department; and New Hope Volunteer Fire Department.
23 d. Request for Road Addition to the State Maintained Secondary Road System (Eubanks
24 Road —SR 1727, Partial), and Secondary Road Abandonment of Maintenance (Eubanks
25 Road, SR 1727, Partial)
26 Enterprise Asset Management Facilities Software Purchase and Support Agreement
27 The Board: 1) Forwarded the Petition for Addition to the State Maintained System to the North
28 Carolina Department of Transportation for Eubanks Road — SR 1727 (partial); 2)
29 Recommended the NCDOT accept the road (partial)for maintenance as State Secondary
30 Roads; and 3) Adopted the Resolution requesting that the NCDOT execute abandonment of
31 maintenance of SR1727— Eubanks Road (Partial).
32
33 9. County Manager's Report
34
35 Projected March 28, 2017 Regular Work Session Items
36 • Boards and Commissions Annual Action Plans
37 • Discussion Regarding Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of
38 Commissioners
39
40 10. County Attorney's Report
41 NONE
42
43 11. *Appointments
44
45 c. Board of Equalization and Review—Appointments
46 The Board considered making 10 appointments to the Board of Equalization and
47 Review.
48 Chair Dorosin asked if the Attorney and Tax Administrator could offer specific training to
49 new board members in light of the revaluation and likely appeals.
50 John Roberts said this is already planned.
25
1 The Board agreed by consensus.
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Price to
4 appoint Pam Davis to the Board of Equalization and Review.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
9 appoint Robert Sprouse to the Board of Equalization and Review.
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
14 appoint Reginald Morgan to the Board of Equalization and Review.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
19 appoint the remaining members as alternates.
20
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
24 appoint Pam Davis as Chair.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 POSITION NO. NAME SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE EXPIRATION
29 DATE
30 1 Pam Davis - Chair Regular Member 03/31/2019
31 2 Robert Sprouse Regular Member 03/31/2019
32 3 Reginald Morgan Regular Member 03/31/2019
33 4 Barry Beuhler Alternate Member 03/31/2019
34 5 Randy Herman Alternate Member 03/31/2019
35 6 Barbara Levine Alternate Member 03/31/2019
36 7 Karen Morrisette Alternate Member 03/31/2019
37 8 Blaine Schmidt Alternate Member 03/31/2019
38 9 Dennis Strachota Alternate Member 03/31/2019
39 10 Alternate Member 03/31/2019
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 d. Chapel Hill Planning Commission —Appointment
44 The Board will consider making an appointment to the Chapel Hill Planning
45 Commission.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
48 appoint the following to the Chapel Hill Planning Commission:
49
26
1 • Appointment to a partial term (Position #2) "ETJ or JPA BOCC Appointee"
2 representative for Michael Everhart expiring 06/30/2017.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Addition of Board of Health Appointment
7
8 f. Board of Health (BOH) Appointment
9 The Board considered further discussing the appointment to the Board of Health that
10 was formally made at the Commissioners' February 7, 2017 Regular Meeting.
11 Chair Dorosin said the original appointee, Dr. Barber, received a letter explaining the
12 BOH bylaws. He said Dr, Barber did not respond to the letter, but when contacted by the
13 Clerk's office, Dr. Barber said she would still like to serve.
14 Chair Dorosin said it is time to bring some closure to this issue. He said the
15 appointment can stand, or the appointment can be rescinded.
16 Commissioner McKee said this is an unfortunate situation, but he thinks it is best to let
17 the appointment stand.
18 Commissioner Marcoplos said Dr. Barber received a letter and did not respect the
19 process nor did she respond.
20 Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner McKee, and said she disagreed with the
21 bylaws of the Health Department since the Board of Commissioners did not approve them.
22 She said to let the appointment stand.
23 Commissioner Rich said she has concerns that Dr. Barber did not respond to the letter
24 sent by the Chair, and she will vote against leaving her in the position.
25 Commissioner Burroughs said she will be voting negatively for this appointee.
26 Chair Dorosin said he feels the BOCC needs to seat Dr. Barber, as the County made
27 the mistake since the Board did not have full disclosure. He said there was some poor
28 communication between the Health department and the BOCC.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to let
31 appointment stand.
32
33 VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Price, Chair Dorosin); Nays, 4
34 (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Marcoplos, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner
35 Burroughs)
36
37 Motion failed.
38
39 John Roberts said the Board needs to make the five bullet point findings noted in the
40 abstract, if it plans to rescind the appointment. He said there needs to be factual background
41 and legal reasons stated.
42 Commissioner McKee asked if the failure of his motion effectively unseats Dr. Barber.
43 John Roberts said his vote was to leave things as they are, and to rescind the
44 appointment, requires a proactive motion to do so. He said the seat has been appointed, but
45 no one has taken the seat or an oath of office.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
48 rescind the appointment of Dr. Barber based on the findings below:
49
27
1 • The Board was unaware of the existence of the Board of Health bylaws that prohibit the
2 appointment of former health department employees to the Board of Health;
3 • The Board acknowledges that the bylaws are not binding upon the Board's appointment
4 process;
5 • The Board, however, desires to remain in compliance with the bylaws to avoid any
6 unnecessary conflicts among Board of Health members or between Board of Health
7 members and the health department and its employees;
8 • Dr. Barber has not taken the oath of office associated with membership on the Board of
9 Health or assumed any duties related to such membership and has therefore not
10 officially been appointed to that Board;
11 • For these reasons the original appointment of Dr. Barber to the Board of Health is
12 rescinded.
13
14 Commissioner Jacobs apologized to Dr. Barber, and said he feels the bylaws are
15 misguided, and if one has served in the health department that it should not preclude one from
16 serving on the BOH.
17 Commissioner Price said she disagreed with the bylaws.
18
19 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Jacobs,
20 Commissioner Marcoplos); Nays, 3 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Price,
21 Commissioner McKee)
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
24 Marcoplos to appoint Johanna Birckmayer to position 8.
25
26 Commissioner McKee said he will not be able to vote for this appointment in order to
27 stay consistent with his beliefs that the original appointment should stand. He said, however,
28 his vote against this motion has no bearing on Dr. Birkmayer's qualifications or fitness to serve.
29 Commissioner Price echoed Commissioner McKee's comments.
30
31 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich,
32 Commissioner Marcoplos); Nays, 3 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner
33 Price)
34
35 12. Information Items
36
37 • March 7, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
38 • Memo Regarding Historic Rogers Road Sewer Project Advertisement and Bid Schedule
39 • Memo Regarding Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plan Next Steps
40 • Memo Regarding Single Occupancy Restrooms, Cameron Street Sidewalk Update and
41 Historic Courthouse Update
42 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from March 7, 2017 Meeting
43
44 13. Closed Session
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to
47 go into closed session at 10:10 p.m. for the purpose below:
48
49 "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order
50 to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board."
28
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs seconded Commissioner McKee by to reconvene
6 into regular session at 10:55pm.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 The Board then discussed a meeting earlier today that included the BOCC Chair, the County's
11 GoTriangle Representative Commissioner Jacobs and Manager and Deputy Manager along
12 with elected officials and staff from Durham County and GoTriangle.
13
14 Commissioner Jacobs gave an update to the Board on a meeting held earlier in the day in
15 reference to the light rail discussion which included Chair Dorosin, BOCC Go Triangle
16 Representative Commissioner Jacobs and Manager/Deputy Manager along with elected
17 officials and staff from Durham County and GoTriangle staff on cost sharing.
18 He referred to a Scenario E which uses the more conservative sales tax projections. The
19 elected officials directed GoTriangle to show how this shortfall could be resolved by providing
20 specific cost cutting strategies. This scenario uses a capital cost share of 82% Durham and
21 18% Orange and an operating cost share of 80% Durham and 20% Orange. This scenario also
22 includes the original Chapel Hill BRT scope with a total project cost of approximately $25
23 million. The model cannot support both the light rail project and the expanded BRT project
24 through tax district funds alone.
25
26 Commissioner Jacobs said that both Orange County and Durham County elected officials
27 agreed in a closed session at the meeting without GoTriangle representatives present that
28 changes needed to be made for this plan to work.
29
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33
34 14. Adjournment
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
37 adjourn the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
38
39
40 Mark Dorosin, Chair
41
42 Donna Baker
43 Clerk to the Board
44
45
46
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 WORK SESSION
6 March 28, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, March 28,
10 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
21 Chair Dorosin said there is an item that needs to be added to the agenda:
22
23 Board of Equalization and Review -Appointments
24 The Board will consider the appointment of two (2) regular members from the list of appointed
25 alternates and one (1) additional alternate to the Board of Equalization and Review. Board of
26 the County Commissioners (BOCC) will designate a Chair from the list of appointed regular
27 members.
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to
30 appoint Barbara Levine and Karen Morrisette as regular members.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Marcoplos, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
35 appoint Reginald Morgan as Chair.
36
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
40 Marcoplos to appoint Pam Davis to an alternate position.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
POSITION NAME SPECIAL DATE OF
REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT
At-Large Reginald Morgan-Chair Regular Member 03/21/2019
At-Large Barbara Levine Regular Member 03/28/2019
At-Large Karen Morrisette Regular Member 03/28/2019
At-Large Pam Davis Alternate Member 03/28/2019
44
2
1
2 1. BOCC External Advisory Board Appointees
3
4 BACKGROUND:
5 The Board had suggested in 2014 to invite County appointed advisory board representatives to
6 external boards to a work session in order to give these appointees an opportunity to provide
7 updates/concerns on issues they believe should be brought to the Board's attention related to
8 their advisory board service. It is in everyone's best interest to improve communication with
9 these Orange County representatives, and to better coordinate their work for the betterment of
10 the County. These appointees have been solicited to submit updates, concerns and
11 suggestions ahead of time, if they wish, but none were received. The appointees have also
12 been invited to address the Board at this meeting. The item's purpose is to gain a better line of
13 communication between the Board and its appointees to external advisory boards.
14
15 • Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee —Anahid Vrana and Amy
16 Jeroloman
17 Amy Jeroloman reviewed the following portion of the handout:
18
19 3/28/2017 The Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee (NTAAC) whose primary purpose
20 is to review and make recommendations about development and planning concerns in the area
21 of Orange County under the jurisdiction of Carrboro, respectfully submits the following concerns
22 and recommendations to the Orange County Board of Commissions:
23
24 1) Traffic along Old NC 86 & Eubanks Roads is problematic:
25
26 As the Northern Study Area (NSA) has been developed, nothing has been done to improve
27 the road infrastructure.
28 a) Along Eubanks, traffic backs up at two locations:
29 • The west end by Morris Grove, on school mornings the traffic circle comes congested
30 so that cars back up to Old 86.
31 • The east end by Martin Luther King Blvd, traffic will back up to the park and ride lot.
32 b) Along old NC 86 between Calvander to Eubanks, during weekday mornings residents
33 can no longer make a left turn onto 86 RE) Have to cross traffic.
34 c) Old NC 86 is a major secondary road but this section is narrow, winding with slight blind
35 hills, no shoulders, and motorists routinely drive aggressively and exceed the speed
36 limit. Deer frequently cross this section, there are no bike lanes, and the shoulders are
37 too narrow for pedestrians and/or curbside recycling use.
38
39 2) North-South Connector Road via Lake Hogan Farms Extension Remains Stalled:
40 Given these ongoing traffic issues, the NTAAC would like to emphasize the importance
41 completing the North-South connector road (Lake Hogan Farms Road Extension northward to
42 Eubanks Road & Morris Grove School) to the future well-being of the NSA. This road extension
43 would link Eubanks and Homestead Roads, provide an alternate route to Old NC 86, and
44 improve traffic circulation and safety. Unfortunately, this proposed connector is dependent upon
45 the Ballentine developers. It's the NTAAC's understanding that two bridge crossings are now
46 being required to complete this connection to Morris Grove and Eubanks Road. As a result the
47 developer (MI Homes) does not plan to move forward given financial constraints of these
48 bridges.
49
3
1 Given the above issues, the NTAAC recommends the following:
2
3 1. The Commissioners request the DOT re-evaluate the traffic flows and patterns along
4 Old 86 and Eubanks Roads. 2013 Corridor/Traffic Studies have 6,400 trips/day on Old
5 86. (In comparison Jones Ferry Rd has 8,600 trips/day.) Surely the number of trips have
6 increased over the past four years.
7
8 2. We believe improvements can be made to both ends of Eubanks Road.
9 • West end by Morris Grove can be improved by adding a dedicated right turn lane
10 into the school.
11 • East end by Martin Luther King Blvd can be improved by extending the existing
12 right turn lane.
13
14 3. Any park or new development along Old 86 include traffic studies and specific plans and
15 methods to mitigate the additional traffic.
16
17 4. Any new future park entrances along Old NC 86 be limited a one way right turn and exit
18 through Morris Grove at Eubanks.
19
20 5. And finally, we strongly recommend that the Commissioners discuss these traffic
21 issues along Old 86 and Eubanks roads during your Joint Review Meetings with the
22 Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, including the status of the North-South Connector
23 Road via Lake Hogan Farms Extension.
24
25 Anahid Vrana reviewed the remaining portion of the handout:
26
27 3) Excessive Trash along Old NC 86 Calvander to Eubanks:
28 The NTAAC is also concern about the excessive trash along Old NC 86 (Calvander to
29 Eubanks). We believe this will only get worse now that the Eubanks Road Solid Waste
30 Convenience Center is closed for renovations until November. On Old 86, the trash is
31 collected twice a year by the Highway Departments' prison systems. This schedule is not
32 frequent enough. Old NC 86 is a major artery road feeding to the Solid Waste Center, and
33 unfortunately garbage accumulates along this road at a more rapid rate than other
34 locations.
35
36 The Solid Waste staff routinely collects the road side garbage along Eubanks road. NTAAC
37 recommends that the Commissioners ask Solid Waste Staff to extend the service of picking
38 up the trash to this section of Old Hwy 86. (From Eubanks Road south to Calvander
39 intersection.)
40
41 4) Carrboro's proposal to site light-industrial land uses on the Town-owned property:
42 Recently it has come to the NTAAC's attention that the Town of Carrboro is considering
43 permitting light-industrial land uses on the town property located at 7917 Old Hwy 86.
44 (Presented to the Board of Aldermen by the Town's Economic and Community Development
45 Director on September 20th 2016. The particulars of this meeting can be found here:
46 https://carrboro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2839205&GUID=DE286B5B-
47 CFDC-4C66-940A-35308El32327&Options=IDITextI&Search=flex
48
49 Has this proposed commercial use been discussed/presented to the Commissioners and what
50 is your reaction to the idea?
4
1
2 The NTAAC invited Annette Lafferty (formerly Annette Stone), the Town's Community
3 Economic Development official, to discuss the project in person with us, but she has declined.
4 Information on this development idea is clearly within the NTAAC scope but information has not
5 been forth coming.
6
7 Considering the already excess traffic pressure on Old NC 86, the neighbors have concerns
8 about the effects of increased industrial development at this property.
9
10 5) Proposed FLX applicant/Development Located at Old NC 86 & Eubanks Roads:
11 Over the past year most of the NTAAC's time was spent on understanding and refining the
12 new FLX zoning that was approved by the town of Carrboro, and is now being implementing
13 in our area of the county. Our committee is concerned that this new zoning will negate many
14 of the existing well-constructed zoning rules. (We objected to the FLX zoning format but the
15 town of Carrboro adopted it.) The first FLX zoning application has been submitted to
16 Carrboro for the 25 acre plot at the corner of Eubanks Road and Old NC 86. In the coming
17 months we will ask commissioners to be very attentive to this development.
18
19 Added 3/29/17:
20 Here is the link to find the video associated with the recent FLX item presented to the Board of
21 Alderman on 2/7/2017. Go - 1 hr. and 17 mins into the video to get to FLX.
22
23 http://carrboro.pranicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=2&clip id=137
24
25 6) NTAAC Continues to have one County Vacancy:
26 The NTAAC has had a vacancy for many years and needs assistance in recruiting new
27 members.
28 Respectfully Presented/Submitted by:
29 Amy Jeroloman - Orange County Rep to NTAAC and current Chair
30 Anahid Vrana- Orange County Rep to NTAAC
31
32 Commissioner Jacobs said traffic counts came up about a year ago, when a proposed
33 widening of Highway 54 was being considered, but the traffic counts were out of whack so the
34 Department of Transportation (DOT)was asked to provide updated information. He said the
35 connector of which they spoke would have to be built by the Board of County Commissioners,
36 so there may be a delay. He said the end of MLK Road is supposed to be re-done as part of
37 the Carraway Village development.
38 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the trash issue and said DOT will address this if
39 called.
40 Commissioner Jacobs said some of the Commissioners have concerns about what
41 Carrboro is doing out there as far as development on Hwy 86 and he is concerned about no
42 response from the Town or their Economic Development Director.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said the NTAAC should feel free to report any problems to the
44 Board of County Commissioners, and it does not need to wait until this yearly meeting.
45 Amy Jeroloman said the Town is difficult to get information from.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board thought that Carrboro was reaching out to the
47 community when the Town made the presentation to the Board of County Commissioners.
48 Amy Jeroloman said it is hard to get messages out, as there are no neighborhood
49 associations or sidewalks in their area. She said there has been a vacancy on the committee
5
1 for six years, and it is a County representative that is needed. She said there are people who
2 would like to rotate off, but it would leave the committee as non-functioning.
3 Commissioner McKee referred to the trash issue, and asked if the trash is a problem
4 going north up Old Highway 86 towards Hillsborough.
5 Anahid Vrana said yes, and it is car parts, construction debris, etc.
6 Commissioner McKee said he has had good results by talking to John Howell with DOT
7 about the trash issue.
8 Amy Jeroloman said calls have been made to him since February, and they had a pick
9 up this past week, but it is not enough. She said there needs to be a regularly scheduled pick
10 up.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a DOT luncheon tomorrow, and the BOCC can
12 share these concerns with John Howell directly.
13 Anahid Vrana asked if the Board was knowledgeable about the FLX zoning.
14 Chair Dorosin said no.
15 Anahid Vrana referred to her hand out which includes links to presentations about the
16 FLX zoning.
17 Chair Dorosin said he will ask planning staff to forward a summary to the Board.
18 Commissioner Price asked if the intersection with light industrial could be identified.
19 Ahahid Vrana said it is the corner of highway 86 and Britton Drive, before the power
20 lines and contains a pond.
21 Amy Jeroloman said there are no services on that side of the road.
22
23 Carrboro Planning Board — Susan Poulton
24 Susan Poulton said the Town of Carrboro voted against conditional re-zoning on the
25 Lloyd property. On June 21, 2016, the Planning Board adopted amendments to the land use
26 ordinance that added site-specific flexible zoning districts. She said it smacks of spot zoning,
27 and eligibility is dependent on several criteria, including minimum track size and that the subject
28 property has been the subject of a site specific plan and study by the Town. She said this
29 refers mostly to the property, at Eubanks Road and Old 86. She said the Town is looking for a
30 mixed-use proposal for this space. She there was a charette over five years ago. She said the
31 owners of this property have not submitted a formal application for rezoning.
32 Susan Poulton spoke about residential portions of Claremont South along Homestead
33 Road. She said a plan has been submitted for a commercial building with apartments above.
34 Susan Poulton said the Town has approved the first phase of the project at 610
35 Homestead Road, and construction plans have not yet been submitted.
36 Susan Poulton said a Hilton Garden Hotel has been approved in the Town of Carrboro.
37 She said the Planning Board is also dealing with AirBnBs. She said there is some stormwater
38 infrastructure construction related to the project, and this also serves a large community need.
39 She said there are lots of other projects going on in town as well. She thanked the BOCC for
40 its interest in the Town and acknowledged the Town's disrespect of the County.
41 Susan Poulton agreed with the need for a traffic study in the area of Eubanks Road and
42 Old Highway 86.
43 Commissioner McKee asked if there a status update on the Lloyd's property.
44 Susan Poulton said it has been purchased, but it is in limbo. She said the Planning
45 Board has turned down two proposals.
46 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a status update on the CVS property.
47 Susan Poulton said this property has not come before the Planning Board. She said
48 CVS owns the property.
49
50 Chapel Hill Parks, Greenways and Recreation Commission — Mary Musacchia
6
1 Mary Musacchia thanked the Board of County Commissioners for her appointment these
2 past two terms, and she will be rolling off the Commission in June. She reviewed highlights,
3 and the big issue is the Morgan Creek Trail. She said a bridge will be going across it, and this
4 will be critical with connectivity.
5 Mary Musacchia said another issue is that Orange County and Chapel Hill has shared
6 relations on Millhouse property, and last year they had Chapel Hill to reach out to Orange
7 County for planning purposes. She said there is etiquette to the process of communication,
8 and the Commission believes this property needs planning attention that should start sooner
9 rather than later.
10 Mary Musacchia said another strong concern is the concept of inclusion playgrounds,
11 which should be a standard for all parks. She said this is planned for Cedar Falls Park
12 currently.
13 Mary Musacchia said another topic is the Ephesus Fordham development. She said
14 several years ago Chapel Hill did not include the Commission as part of the development
15 process. She said staff is well involved, but the Commission is not included from a parks
16 mentality. She said this area is at the southern end of Booker Creek, and she said the
17 Commission recommended green space along Booker Creek, such as trails, benches, etc. She
18 said daylighting requirements were also recommended, as well as a code modification for this
19 type of district. She said the request was that 8% of the development be publically accessible.
20 Mary Musacchia said another concern of the Commission is the Legion Road property.
21 She said the Town of Chapel Hill chose not to exercise its right of first refusal, a decision, with
22 which, the Commission disagreed. She said in December 2016, the American Legion Post
23 purchased this 36-acre tract, which is adjacent to another 10-acre tract, which is a park. She
24 said the entire area is about 46 acres and it about the size of a community park. She said
25 Chapel Hill is currently considering how it would be able to purchase all of this land. She said
26 there is strong consideration for whether or not some portion of that land should be sold, once it
27 is acquired, or should there be a public-private partnership, etc. She strongly urged the Board
28 of County Commissioners that this is one of the densest sections of Orange County, and it is an
29 opening to the treasured asset that is the Town of Chapel Hill. She said there are not
30 adequate facilities to handle the residents from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Orange County, and
31 she implored the County to be involved in the future of this land. She said she advocates
32 keeping the parcel a contiguous property, and using it as a community park.
33 Mary Musacchia said her final topic is summer camps, which were full within six hours of
34 registration being opened. She said there are waiting lists, even though camps have been
35 expanded to include 80 additional slots at Frank Porter Graham. She said the camps cannot be
36 expanded further because facilities are maxed out. She asked the BOCC to consider that the
37 Legion Road property could also be a possible site for future camps, inclusive playgrounds, etc.
38 Commissioner Rich thanked her for her service, and encouraged her to look for another
39 board on which she could serve.
40
41 Hillsborough Board of Adjustment— David Remington
42 David Remington said he has been happy to represent Orange County on this
43 Adjustment, and in past terms on the Planning Board. He said extraterritorial jurisdictions
44 (ETJs) have been respected very well.
45 David Remington said Hillsborough's emphasis on zoning and development is to
46 encourage business development north of Town, so as not to add to the traffic problems. He
47 said Eno River Academy Charter School has been approved on Highway 57, and he
48 encouraged the Board of County Commissioner to be aware of, and a part of the coordination
49 of, planning and zoning in around the Town.
7
1 David Remington said another topic for discussion is pedestrian and bike connectivity.
2 He said there has been and a lot of work done with greenways within the Town, but there are
3 many residents outside of the Town limits, and there is a real need for pedestrian access. He
4 said new developments were supposed to install sidewalks, but the Town has been taking
5 payment in lieu in hopes that with enough funds there could be a more coordinated approach to
6 sidewalk connectivity at some point.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said David Remington may want to approach the Orange Unified
8 Transportation Board (OUTBoard), which is also interested in pedestrian access.
9
10 2. County Commissioners — Boards and Commissions —Annual Work Plans/Reports
11 Boards and their representatives below:
12
13 • ABC Board: already presented at March 7th meeting
14
15 • Adult Care Home Community Advisory Board: Max Mason, Chair
16 Max Mason said he does not have a formal presentation, but does have a few issues for
17 discussion. He said the main issue is reimbursement for individuals that require special
18 assistance to pay for their care. He said as facilities struggle to make ends meet, due to low
19 reimbursement rates, they are looking for ways to not admit these individuals. He sees this
20 becoming an increasing problem as the population ages. He said rates received are very low.
21 He said the Advisory Board will lean heavily on the Department on Aging to assist with getting
22 learning initiatives into some of their facilities.
23 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the state sets reimbursement rates.
24 Max Mason said yes, and it is about $36/day, which is not a lot to work with.
25 Commissioner Burroughs encouraged the Advisory Board to contact legislators to
26 inform them of these needs.
27 Commissioner Rich asked if the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
28 (NCACC) is doing anything to work with the adult care boards. She said this is another avenue
29 to work with, as the NCACC comes up with legislative goals to forward to the state.
30 Commissioner Price said NCACC designates a steering committee, and there is one on
31 health and human services, which is focusing heavily on mental health.
32 Commissioner Price suggested talking to their delegation about this.
33 Max Mason said he would be happy to do this.
34
35 • Advisory Board on Aging: Peggy Cohn, Chair
36 Peggy Cohn said assisted living and nursing home care in the County is very important,
37 and the struggles are entangled with Medicaid funding.
38 Commissioner Burroughs said to copy the Board of County Commissioners on these
39 discussions.
40 Commissioner Jacobs also encouraged the boards to copy the BOCC on this. He said
41 he had to deal with facilities with his own mother recently, and noticed a vast difference
42 between those paying publicly and those paying privately. He would be interested in knowing if
43 there are problem facilities in this County, as well as political problems.
44 Max Mason said the performance of these facilities needs to be improved.
45 Peggy Cohn said she is very proud of the Department on Aging, which is greatly
46 supported by the Board of County Commissioners but as well as staff members Mary Fraser
47 and Janice Tyler.
48 Peggy Cohn said the BOCC is familiar with the Master Aging Plan (MAP), and the
49 number of older adults is increasing daily in Orange County. She said the MAP has gotten
50 input from all segments and organizations in Orange County, and the Board of County
8
1 Commissioners will be getting a final report on the MAP in May. She emphasized volunteerism
2 with the aging population, and said Orange County senior centers have been recognized
3 nationwide. She said diversity is thriving, and the Advisory Board will push for expansion of
4 these senior centers.
5
6 • Affordable Housing Advisory Board: Arthur Sprinczeles, Vice Chair
7 Arthur Sprinczeles said the Advisory Board focused this past year on monitoring the
8 bond, which passed. He said the affordable housing tour was completed, which some of the
9 Commissioners attended. He encouraged the Board of County Commissioners to attend one of
10 their meetings. He said the Advisory Board conducts and annual review of outside agency
11 requests to assist the Manager's office. He said in 2017 the AHAB will look for barriers for
12 affordable housing, and how to remove them; look at what other counties do in regards to
13 affordable housing; place an emphasis on affordable rentals.
14 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an organization that provides affordable housing
15 just for seniors.
16 Arthur Sprinczeles said he would research this question.
17
18 • Arts Commission: Tim Hoke, Chair
19 Tim Hoke said his commission is trying to grow the arts in Orange County, and their new
20 director is helping them. He said they are reevaluating their board services, and they have
21 been under probation from the North Carolina Council of the Arts, and they are working to meet
22 some of their identified concerns. He said the Commission is working on countywide
23 collaboration. He said there are 171 different art organizations in Orange County, which
24 generate about $3.5 million into government funds. He said the Commission is trying to
25 increase their social media presence, and they are working with arts in education, tourism, and
26 creating "art maps" for visitors who come to the area and seek to engage with the arts.
27 Commissioner Price asked if the Commission has done anything with veterans and the
28 arts.
29 Tim Hoke said the Commission is looking at focus groups, and this could be one area to
30 consider.
31 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Commission's art map includes bookstores.
32 Katie Murray, Arts Commission Coordinator, said literary venues are included.
33 Tim Hoke said if they do a map and someone is left out, the Commission can contact
34 them to add entities.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to bring more attention to bookstores, and the
36 art of writing.
37 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the probation could be explained a bit further, as he
38 has always been impressed with the levels of arts in this community.
39 Tim Hoke said the Commission was told they were in non-compliance, but did not
40 receive clear direction on issues. He said the Commission has addressed all issues that were
41 brought to its attention, and should get a decision in June.
42
43 • Agricultural Preservation Board: Renee McPherson, Chair/Peter Sandbeck
44 Renee McPherson said some of their main accomplishments include 11 additional farms
45 being added to the Voluntary Ag District and the Enhanced Voluntary Ag District, which added
46 1,084 acres, bringing the total acreage to 11,464. She said the board also hosted a breakfast
47 meeting with about 75 attendees. She said moving forward her board will continue to
48 encourage keeping farmland as farmland.
49 Peter Sandbeck said the board is happy that the newly formed food council has asked
50 one of their members to serve. He said Ken Dawson is fulfilling this role.
9
1 Peter Sandbeck said there is new signage marking voluntary ag district farms, which is
2 a welcome addition.
3 Peter Sandbeck said they have worked with the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
4 on what to do with the growing feline population in Orange County, and he said there is a
5 program being considered called "working cats" that pairs cats needing homes with farms
6 needing cats.
7 Peter Sandbeck said an emerging issue, of which the BOCC is aware, is what is a bona
8 fide farm. He thanked the BOCC for their support on this issue.
9 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the issue of bona fide farms, and he asked if they
10 could share their insight with the Board of County Commissioners on this issue.
11 Commissioner Price asked if there are any comments from farmers about this.
12 Renee McPherson said the farmers on the board look at the NC definition of a bona fide
13 farm and try to match that.
14 Commissioner Price said she would like to hear farmers' feedback on specific definitions
15 of a bona fide farm.
16 Renee McPherson said she could provide further information about this.
17
18 • Animal Services Advisory Board: Maureane Hoffman, Chair/Bob Marotto
19
20 Maureane Hoffman said she is new at this, and highlighted some of the most important
21 issues:
22 o Unified Animal Ordinance
23 o Creating Pat Sanford's Animal Welfare Grant
24 o ASAB and AS will pursue strategic plan to address pet overpopulation, especially
25 with feral cats
26 o ASAB serves as a sounding board for residents and the Board of County
27 Commissioners
28
29 Chair Dorosin said, due to the slower pace of the evening, he will cancel the closed
30 session scheduled for the end of the meeting.
31
32 • Board of Adjustment: Michael Harvey, Planning Staff
33 No discussion.
34
35 • Board of Health (BOH): Liska Lackey (Chair) and Interim Health Director Dorothy
36 Celenti
37 Liska Lackey said Coby Austin, Policy Director, is in the audience.
38 Liska Lackey just completed the 4-year community health assessment, with over 1,200
39 responses being received. She said the ultimate outcome is three shared priorities that were
40 identified: 1) Social Determinants of Health; 2) Physical Activity and Nutrition and 3) Mental
41 Health and Substance Abuse.
42 Liska Lackey reviewed highlights from the year:
43 o BOH is reviewing ideas about making birth control available over the counter,
44 and are proceeding slowly with this.
45 o The Family Success Alliance (FSA) celebrated its second anniversary, and has a
46 total of 5 navigators, which allows more families to be served. She said the
47 kindergarten readiness program has been evaluated and determined to be an
48 effective intervention.
49 o Implemented an initiative to increase racial equity training among staff.
50 o The BOH is a founding partner of No Kid Hungry NC, and are partnering with
10
1 schools and community leaders to launch a summer meal program at Gateway
2 Village Apartments, which is located in zone 4 of the FSA.
3 o Partnering with University of North Carolina (UNC) health promotion and disease
4 prevention to pilot on line the Go Napsack Tool in Orange County.
5 o Syringe exchange now located in both Health Departments.
6 o All four law enforcement agencies in Orange County now carrying naloxone.
7 o Completed a mental health gap analysis.
8 o Successfully launched an integrative and behavioral health services and Health
9 Department clinic
10 o Smoke free public places rule evaluated, and showed continued improvement in
11 the percent of residents who are aware of this rule. E-cigarettes will likely be
12 included in this rule shortly.
13
14 • Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors: Rosemary Waldorf, Chair
15 She said tourism in Orange County has grown from $54 million/year in 1993 to $184
16 million in 2015. She said the County has over 2.5 million overnight visitors per year, and the
17 industry has created 1,850 jobs, and tourism is successful because of the Board of County
18 Commissioners.
19 She said a consultant has been hired to do a study that looked at conference center
20 facilities and indoor sports facilities, and the BOCC, and all other elected officials in the County,
21 will be invited to their meeting for this presentation on May 24th at 8:00 a.m. She said there will
22 be conclusions from this study in July, and surmised that anything that goes forward from this
23 study will probably need a private public partnership.
24 She said 7,000 people came through the Visitors Center last year. She said the visitors'
25 center has no position on whether the facility should move to the old town hall, as that is a
26 Town and County decision to make.
27 She said a large part of their budget is spent on marketing, and they do a lot of
28 partnering with the Towns. She said the National Association of Travel Journalists convention
29 will be held in southern Orange County, the securing of which was a true countywide effort.
30 She said HB2 has hurt them a lot.
31
32 • Board of Social Services: Tamara Dempsey-Tanner, Chair/Nancy Coston, Director
33 Tamara Dempsey reviewed the following highlights:
34 o Local- employment services program (café); continues to work with NC FAST;
35 energy program and child welfare; they serve between 15,000-20,000 clients;
36 o State level- improvement plan- waiting for results;
37 o Federal level- moving target on federal level such as funding, etc.
38 o Staff works diligently to insure families receive prompt service. Department of
39 Social Services (DSS) is serving between 15,000 and 20,000.
40
41 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the department's employment capabilities are sufficient
42 to cover those on Medicaid being required to work.
43 Nancy Coston said more staff would probably be needed to address these issues. She
44 said processing something like that would take a great deal of time.
45 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an estimate for the number of additional clients
46 that may need to be served, and if she would share this information with their Congressman.
47 Nancy Coston said she does not have this readily available but will get that information.
48
49 • Commission for the Environment: Vice Chair Bill Kaiser and Peter Sandbeck
11
1 Bill Kaiser said the Commission prepares news articles on environmental issues for
2 publication in papers. He said he would like to get more information on water resources in
3 Orange County, and to look for funding resources. He said he is interested in invasive plants,
4 which are insidious.
5 Commissioner McKee noted the severity of the hydrilla in the Eno River, and
6 encouraged the Commission to monitor this closely.
7 Bill Kaiser said the Commission is being kept aware of this.
8
9 • Economic Development Advisory Board: Jim Kitchen, Chair and Steve Brantley
10 Jim Kitchen thanked the BOCC for appointing three new board members last week. He
11 reviewed the following highlights:
12 o Small Business Grant Program has awarded 72 grants to date, and 245 jobs
13 have been created or retained from these grants. The grants have primarily
14 funded existing Orange County businesses in need of capital to expand
15 operations. On occasion grants have been given to LAUNCH.
16 o More fund requests submitted than grant funding available. To spread funds
17 around, the average grant for the last two quarters has been around $2500.
18 o Grant program funded at $100,000 per year, or $25,000 per quarter. Request
19 made for BOCC to allocate additional funds to this program.
20 o Orange County Farm Grant Program awarded 30 grants, with 83 jobs created or
21 retained. Also more grants requested than funds available.
22 o Working on a SWOT analysis to take a macro and micro look at the Economic
23 Development Districts (EDDs). This analysis is important because there is a
24 need to diversify the current tax place and make economic development a
25 priority.
26
27 Commissioner Marcoplos said there used to be a state of the economy annual
28 breakfast, which the Chamber of Commerce eventually took on. He asked if this event could
29 be reclaimed by Orange County.
30 Jim Kitchen said they will research this.
31 Commissioner Price asked if there has been any discussion to expand the digital
32 infrastructure.
33 Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, said there are regions within the
34 EDDS and the associated areas in Efland that are being reviewed. He said there is some
35 amount of existing fiber and IT infrastructure in these areas. He said the Planning and IT
36 departments are working on this, and he remains in contact with them. He said expansion is
37 being encouraged in the rural areas.
38 Commissioner Price said she wondered if the lack of access in the rural areas was a
39 hindrance to business growth.
40 Commissioner Jacobs supported Commissioner Marcoplos' suggestion about the state
41 of the economy breakfast coming back to Orange County.
42 Steve Brantley said this will be discussed by the board and staff.
43
44 • Historic Preservation Commission: Chair Todd Dickinson and Peter Sandbeck,
45 Staff
46 Todd Dickinson said in 2016 the Commission completed their final inventory of historical
47 structures in Orange County. He said the Commission is partnering with Hillsborough to create
48 a book of Orange County's significant historic resources. He said the Commission is slowly
49 taking more responsibility for those historical resources that have fallen through the cracks. He
12
1 said help is needed with this process, and no one is really looking after the historic resources in
2 the extraterritorial jurisdictions.
3 Todd Dickinson said the Commission has recently created a rural heritage small grant
4 program, offering owners of endangered historic outbuildings, log structures, silos, etc. help in
5 caring for these buildings.
6 Todd Dickinson said the Commission has begun working with the County on the
7 updating of the courthouse and the historic preservation parts of that work.
8 Peter Sandbeck gave an update on the historic courthouse. He said there has been
9 great cooperation between County staff and historians. He said a budget proposal will be
10 forthcoming to the BOCC to keep that building in good condition for the next 100 years. He
11 said the Commission is trying to promote/recognition of great houses in Orange County.
12 • Housing Authority (HA): Jean Bolduc, Chair
13 Highlights:
14 o Home repair funds are much needed
15 o HA stands in place for BOCC providing citizen oversight of the Section 8 housing
16 program. There are preferences in the housing section 8 vouchers waiting list, as
17 follows: local resident; veteran or surviving spouse of veteran wife; being elderly
18 or disabled; enrolled in an education program intended to make one more
19 employable; being in transitional housing; suffering displacement from housing
20 that is being taken down; being in substandard housing; and being unduly
21 burdened with rent (over 50% of income).
22 o Homelessness was not a preference on this list, and the HA added this under
23 HUD's definition as a preference that will trump all other preferences. Each
24 preference has an assigned point value, and if a household met all preferences
25 there would be a total of 55 points; but with addition of homelessness, it will
26 increase to 60 points. Residents will rise to the top of their waiting list.
27
28 • Human Relations Commission (HRC): Monica Richard, Chair
29 Monica Richard thanked the BOCC for coming out to their two main events. She
30 reviewed the following highlights:
31 o 28th anniversary to celebrate the Pauli Murray Awards
32 o Collaboration with Asset Management Services to investigate the accessibility
33 issues in the County
34 o Discussion of how to support those who are dealing with hate crimes
35 o Approached for support for a public forum about an issue that is happening in
36 the schools
37 Monica Richard said the Commission is in transition, and had a retreat to identify some
38 issues to work on this year:
39 o HRC application- - diversified application- leadership roles- attract those
40 reflection of their community
41 o Looking at collaboration with community partners
42 o Members — issue driven and mentoring program
43 o Build community awareness of HRC
44 o Request additional $2000 for their board- to allow their sub- committees to be
45 more engaged with their community such as snacks, bring in expert speakers
46 and to give them donations
47
48 Commissioner Rich said she attended both HRC programs, which were excellent, and
49 she encouraged the HRC to work with Community Relations Director, Todd McGee.
50
13
1 • Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee: Vibeke Tally, Chair
2 Vibeke Tally said she is the new chair. She said the Committee has four nursing homes
3 in Orange County, which it visits on a quarterly basis to meet with residents to discuss
4 concerns.
5 She said nursing homes are making good progress in their care, and the main issue at this time
6 is high staff turnover, both front line and administrative.
7
8 • OUTBoard: Heidi Perry, Chair
9 Heid Perry said infrastructure is needed for bikers and pedestrians outside of the
10 municipalities. She said it is one of the OUTBoard's goals to find money for this need. She
11 reviewed highlights of their report.
12 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there has been any discussion about a bike route
13 from Chapel Hill-Carrboro to Hillsborough.
14 Heidi Perry said this was mentioned at an OUTBoard meeting, and she said the board
15 hopes to look into other off road facilities, like the paving of the Mountains to Sea Trail. She
16 said these types of trails are as much a tool for economic development as they are for
17 pedestrian and cyclist safety.
18 Commissioner McKee asked if there has been any feedback regarding the expansion of
19 paved shoulders.
20 Heidi Perry said she had heard the funding was no longer there, and these are not being
21 done any more. She said if the shoulder is done correctly, with appropriate portioning and the
22 same specifications as the road, it is an excellent and safe addition to a road.
23
24 • Parks and Recreation Council (PRC): Tori Williams Reid, Chair
25 Tori Williams reviewed the following highlights:
26 o Opening of Blackwood Farm Park
27 o Opening of Hollow Rock Park
28 o Opening of Cedar Grove Community Center
29 Tori Williams said the most consistent feedback that is received from residents is for the
30 parks to be open longer.
31 o Nature of Orange Photo Contest
32 o Disc Golf— hoping to bring it to an Orange County park
33 o Mountains to Sea Trail: continuing to expand
34 o Working with other groups such as the Sportsplex
35 o Following Master Plan 2030, which drives PRC monthly meeting agendas
36 o Extended maintenance of parks, which is a funding issue
37 o Regular need for expanding services to compete with municipalities
38 o Discussion on how to improve communications with park facilities
39 o Looking at the soccer fields- natural vs turf?
40 o Inclusive/accessible parks
41
42 Commissioner Marcoplos said he heard there is a rumor about a disc golf course near
43 the Speedway.
44 No one had heard about this.
45 Commissioner Price referred to the issue of accessibility, and suggested that the PRC
46 may want to work with the Planning Department and Asset Management Services on this issue.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said there is park land that is not being utilized, the Kirby tract,
48 and this may be an area to discuss with David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture,
49 Parks and Recreation Director, about a disc golf space.
50
14
1 • Planning Board: Craig Benedict, Director
2 Craig Benedict reviewed the following highlights:
3 o new public hearing process, which allows for some expediting
4 o amendments made regarding temporary health care structures, and those who
5 are unrelated to allow for more flexibility
6 o collaborating on affordable housing issues, work with Information Technology on
7 broadband, and working with Economic Development on new SWOT Analysis
8 Craig Benedict said some goals for 2017 are:
9 o Housing —clustering of homes; public water and sewer; off site septic
10 o considering rural clustering
11 o streamlining regulations
12
13 3. Discussion Regarding Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board
14 of Commissioners
15 Greg Wilder, County Manager's office, reviewed the following background information:
16
17 BACKGROUND:
18 At the Board of Commissioners' January 24, 2005 regular meeting, representatives of a group
19 of Orange County residents addressed the Board and submitted a 1,200-signature petition to
20 the Board regarding the method by which the members of the Board of Commissioners were
21 elected in Orange County. The representatives requested that the Board review the current
22 method of election for the members of the Board, which entailed all five members of the Board
23 being nominated and elected to staggered four-year terms on an at-large basis.
24
25 At the Board's direction, the County Manager and County staff reviewed the issue and the
26 petition submitted and provided a report to the Board at the May 5, 2005 work session. The
27 report provided an initial framework of information upon which the Board of Commissioners
28 could deliberate and determine as appropriate any further steps in evaluating the issue and
29 responding to the request and petition submitted.
30
31 The Board then pursued a series of meetings over the next 13 months, including public
32 hearings, Board discussions on possible draft district maps/plans for either a five or seven
33 member Board, and decisions on specific map/plan issues.
34
35 The public hearings and discussions led to the development of a map/plan (identified in 2006 as
36 "Proposal D")for a seven-member board that met all statutory requirements. The County
37 Attorney prepared a draft resolution calling for a November 2006 referendum in concert with
38 "Proposal D", and the Board approved that resolution and the election plan/map at its June 27,
39 2006 regular meeting in preparation for a voter referendum as required by the North Carolina
40 General Statutes. The approved resolution and election map/plan are provided at Attachment
41 A. The population deviations for the approved 2006 map/plan, based on the 2000 Census, are
42 provided at Attachment B.
43
44 In the November 2006 referendum, the voters subsequently approved the election plan/map
45 with more than two-thirds supporting the initiative. The election plan/map was implemented with
46 the May 2008 primary election and all seven members of the current Board have since qualified
47 and been elected under the plan.
48
49 The election plan/map approved in 2006 established a district/at large system for electing seven
50 members of the Board of Commissioners, and includes two nominating districts.
15
1 • Three seats on the Board are filled, with staggered four-year terms, by individuals
2 residing in District 1 and nominated by the voters in District 1 during the primary
3 election.
4 These district-nominated candidates are then elected by all the voters in the entire
5 County during the general election.
6 • Two seats on the Board are filled, with staggered four-year terms, by individuals residing
7 in District 2 and nominated by the voters in District 2 during the primary election. These
8 district-nominated candidates are then elected by all the voters in the entire County
9 during the general election.
10 • The other two other seats on the Board are filled, with staggered four-year terms, by
11 individuals residing anywhere in the County and nominated by all voters in the County
12 during the primary election. These "at large" candidates are then elected by all the
13 voters in the entire County during the general election.
14
15 In summary, five district seats on the Board are filled based on district residency and district
16 nomination during the primary election, followed by countywide election in the general election.
17 The two at large seats are filled based on countywide nomination and countywide election.
18
19 REVIEW OF DISTRICT ELECTIONS MAP BASED ON 2010 CENSUS
20 Final numbers for the 2010 Census were published in 2011 providing new population numbers
21 for Orange County as a whole as well as for the two current electoral districts. North Carolina
22 General Statute 153A-22 states, "If a county is divided into electoral districts for the purpose of
23 nominating or electing persons to the board of commissioners, the board of commissioners may
24 find as a fact whether there is substantial inequality of population among the districts."
25 Population growth or decline in districts can lead to significant deviations in the numbers of
26 residents between districts, thereby compromising the integrity of the districts and the election
27 plan as a whole. Therefore the Board may, but is not required to, review the impact of the new
28 Census numbers to determine if there is substantial inequality.
29
30 Attachment C is a map showing the current electoral districts along with the population
31 numbers based on the 2010 census. In the 2006 adopted plan (Attachments A and B), Orange
32 County met its goal of keeping the population deviations within five percent of the exact
33 population totals for each district, less than a total of ten percent deviation (referred to nationally
34 as the Ten Percent Rule). Attachment C shows that Districts 1 and 2 were still within the Ten
35 Percent Rule deviation criteria based on the 2010 Census data. Since the Districts were,
36 combined, within the ten percent deviation allowed by law, there can be no finding of substantial
37 inequality.
38
39 Attachment D is the resolution adopted by the Board on June 2011 acknowledging there is no
40 substantial inequality revealed by the 2010 census results.
41 In recent months members of the Board of Commissioners have expressed an interest in
42 discussing and possibly amending the current election method for seats on the Board of
43 Commissioners. Several related issues have been voiced regarding potentially amending the
44 method. Staff has addressed some of those topics below.
45
46 If the Board chose to move forward with proposing an amendment to the current
47 election method, when could voter referendum occur?
48 • The North Carolina General Statutes require that counties schedule special voter
49 referenda only in even years when all the voting precincts in the County will be open.
16
1 Therefore, a special voter referendum on the election method cannot occur in 2017 with
2 the possible exception of a legislative act authorizing the referendum in 2017. Without
3 legislative intervention the next potential dates for a special referendum are May 2018 or
4 November 2018 when a countywide election with all precincts open is already
5 scheduled.
6
7 Do other North Carolina counties use an election method similar to Orange County's
8 current method?
9 • Attachment E is a chart from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
10 (NCACC)which details the current election method for all 100 North Carolina counties.
11 The chart initially indicates that Currituck, Pamlico, and Pasquotank counties share the
12 same election method as Orange County. However, further investigation by County staff
13 confirms that while all four counties have seven (7) Commissioner seats and all four
14 counties have Commissioner seats representing districts, there are variations in the
15 election methods for the district seats that differentiate the counties.
16
17 Orange County's current election method entails five district seats on the Board that are
18 filled based on district residency and district nomination during the primary election,
19 followed by countywide election in the general election. Conversely, Currituck County's
20 five Commissioner seats representing five districts are for residency purposes only.
21 Candidates for district seats in Currituck must reside in their respective districts, but
22 they are nominated/voted on in the primary and elected during the general election by
23 all voters in all precincts in Currituck County. Currituck County's two at large seats are
24 filled based on countywide nomination and countywide election.
25
26 An additional variation applies in Pamlico County. The five district Commissioner seats
27 representing five districts for the Pamlico County Board of Commissioners are for
28 residency, nomination, and election. Candidates for district seats must reside in their
29 respective districts, are voted on/nominated during the primary by only the voters in
30 their respective districts, and elected during the general election by only the voters in
31 their respective districts. Pamlico County's two at large seats are filled based on
32 countywide nomination and countywide election.
33
34 And like Pamlico, the four district Commissioner seats for the Pasquotank County
35 Board of Commissioners are also for residency, nomination, and election. Candidates
36 for district seats must reside in their respective districts, are voted on/nominated during
37 the primary by only the voters in their respective districts, and elected during the
38 general election by only the voters in their respective districts. Pasquotank County's
39 three at large seats are filled based on countywide nomination and countywide election.
40
41 What is the timeframe to place a proposed election method/plan on the ballot for voter
42 referendum?
43 • If the Board determined to pursue a voter referendum on an election method/plan in
44 May
45 2018, Board action on a resolution and election plan/map would be necessary before
46 February 28, 2018. The Board may want to consider whether action earlier than this
47 timeframe would be advisable for the benefit of voters.
48 • If the Board determined to pursue a voter referendum on an election method/plan in
49 November 2018, Board action on a resolution and election plan/map would be
50 necessary by August 17, 2018. It should be noted, however, that the Board's
17
1 contemplated 2018 summer break would in reality necessitate Board action before or
2 during June 2018. Alternatively, the Board could amend the summer break portion of its
3 contemplated 2018 meeting schedule to extend the timeframe for Board action up to the
4 August 17, 2018 deadline. The Board may want to consider whether action earlier than
5 these timeframes may be advisable for the benefit of voters.
6
7 Depending on the Board's potential interest related to the election method, will
8 population changes since the 2010 Census need to be considered?
9 • Although there have been changes related to Orange County's population since 2010,
10 those changes would not be considered as part of any potential election method or
11 district delineation. The 2010 Census remains the basis for all population calculations.
12
13 What is cumulative voting? Is cumulative voting permissible in North Carolina for boards
14 of commissioners' elections? Would Orange County need special legislation from the
15 North Carolina General Assembly to consider/implement a cumulative voting method for
16 seats on the Board of Commissioners?
17 • Cumulative voting is method of election that is utilized in the United States primarily by
18 corporations and to a lesser extent local governmental entities across the country. This
19 method allows minority shareholders to have a greater chance of electing corporate
20 officers and has been adopted in some local jurisdictions specifically to rectify voting
21 rights violations. Cumulative voting is specifically recognized in North Carolina law for
22 corporate voting.
23
24 Cumulative voting works by allocating a specific number of votes to all voters, five for
25 example. In an election with three candidates an individual voter may choose to place
26 all five votes on a single candidate or allocate the five votes among the three
27 candidates.
28 By pooling votes to a single candidate minority groups have a greater chance of
29 electing a candidate of their choice.
30
31 There appears to be no violation of the "one person, one vote" principle in a cumulative
32 voting setup due both to the fact that often it is implemented as a means of rectifying
33 voting rights violations and because each voter has the same number of votes. If the
34 Board were to select cumulative voting for Orange County Commissioner elections the
35 Board must seek special legislative authority from the General Assembly.
36
37 Chair Dorosin said the census data is from 2010, and asked if staff has looked at
38 anything more recent.
39 Greg Wilder said more recent data can be looked at, but decisions cannot be based on
40 it. He said staff will research this.
41 Commissioner McKee asked John Roberts if any changes endorsed by the BOCC
42 would have to go to the legislature.
43 John Roberts said no, the Board can choose to change the electoral structure and take
44 it to a referendum. He said any changes to the voting method must go to the legislature.
45 Commissioner McKee asked if changing to district nominate/district elect would be a
46 change in the structure or the method.
47 John Roberts said that would be a change in the structure, and is one of four statutorily
48 authorized methods. He said if the BOCC wanted to divide the County into seven districts,
49 where the voters in those districts both nominate and elect officials, then the County can
50 accomplish that through referendum.
18
1 Commissioner McKee asked what would happen if the same district set up remained,
2 but changed the voting from district nominate/county elect to district nominate/district elect.
3 John Roberts said such a change would go to referendum.
4 Commissioner Marcoplos said back in 1992 he ran for County Commissioner as an
5 Independent, and then the landfill debacle came up. He said so much attention was paid to
6 representation that the County formed a committee. He said a lot of effort was put into trying to
7 understand what may be done, and districts came to residents' minds. He said he was
8 introduced to cumulative voting at that time, which was 1993.
9 Commissioner Marcoplos said he always thought that cumulative voting was the more
10 simple way to vote, and he said this empowers minorities in the political system. He said in
11 cumulative voting, if there are three candidates each voter gets three votes, and can use them
12 as he/she so chooses. He said what can happen, when one represents a district, is that one
13 can become bound to what is popular in your district. He said the way commissioners are
14 elected now means that many people's vote does not count, and in Orange County, this is
15 mostly republicans. He said it is incumbent upon the BOCC to provide the fairest access to the
16 democratic process, and he believes that cumulative voting is the best way to achieve this.
17 He said this is the choice to settle legal issues over perceived unfair voting, and is the most fair.
18 Chair Dorosin said cumulative voting would require legislative approval, and asked
19 Commissioner Marcoplos if he thinks this could be pursued.
20 Commissioner Marcoplos said someone has to raise the idea so that people can
21 become educated. He said he is unsure if Commissioner McKee's idea of district
22 nominate/district elect would change anything.
23 Commissioner McKee said it would not change anything as far as the power structure as
24 it exists now, but it would change the perception that in District 2, for example, that the district
25 nominates, but the countywide election is what elects. He agreed that a republican candidate
26 cannot win a countywide election in Orange County. He said his proposed change is simple,
27 and does not require legislative involvement.
28 Commissioner Burroughs said she is interested in learning more about Commissioner
29 McKee's suggestion. She said it would clean up what currently exists, as people are familiar
30 with it. She is not confident that the legislature would support cumulative voting, but is open to
31 others' thoughts.
32 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to read more of the cumulative voting
33 information forwarded by Commissioner Marcoplos. He disagreed that a republican cannot be
34 elected in Orange County, but said a radical republican could not. He said there are
35 republicans on the school boards and the town councils. He said Greg Wilder's point about
36 how the BOCC sits in meetings indicates the fact that they represent the whole County, not just
37 a district or at large position. He said the current system mitigates towards that, and so far the
38 BOCC personifies that. He said he would be very careful about Balkanizing Orange County in
39 a way that may pit district against district. He said there is already a subtle divide in the County,
40 and he said the district nominate/district elect would only exacerbate that.
41 Commissioner Rich asked if Commissioner Jacobs recalls which options were
42 discussed in 2006.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said all of the permutations were considered, and there was a
44 report on this. He said the legislature tried to enforce a particular system on the County at that
45 time, which the County fought. He said non-partisan commissioner elections were discussed,
46 but not cumulative voting.
47 Commissioner Marcoplos said Commissioner Jacobs made a good point about the
48 school board non-partisan elections, but the major parties are not going to release their grip on
49 the partisan elections.
19
1 Commissioner Marcoplos said if changes are going to be made, the change should be
2 one that really makes a difference. He said he does not find Commissioner McKee's
3 suggestion to be worth the effort. He said in cumulative voting, one can use the power of one's
4 vote. He said it is a community building solution as well.
5 Chair Dorosin said the reality of getting something positive from the legislature is
6 daunting. He said there needs to be a fairer election system. He said there is the perception
7 that the current system is unfair, and this needs to be moved away from. He said at-large
8 elections are the least fair, and having residents run in districts, and to be elected from those
9 same districts, is fairer.
10 Chair Dorosin said he does not believe Commissioner McKee's suggestion would lead
11 to the Balkanization of the County, and it is interesting that the current at-large Commissioners
12 come from outside District 1.
13 Chair Dorosin said residents feel disenfranchised with the current system, and it would
14 be interesting to look at voter registration in each of the districts.
15 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the proposal would be to leave the at-large
16 Commissioners as they are, but make the districts vote primary and general election within the
17 districts.
18 Chair Dorosin said he would be amenable to get rid of the at-large positions and have
19 four Commissioners from District 1, and three from District 2; or however the numbers broke
20 down fairly. He asked if such a change could be done by a referendum.
21 John Roberts said yes, this could be done by referendum.
22 Commissioner Price said a Republican or an Independent can win in District 2, and it
23 would be more possible with the change proposed by Commissioner McKee. She said when
24 Chapel Hill votes in general elections the balance is shifted. She said this concern is often
25 raised to her, as it leads to Chapel Hill and Carrboro determining elections.
26 Chair Dorosin said a fair voting system does not mean that everyone gets to elect
27 whomever they want. He said if the minority is small enough, it will not be able to overcome the
28 majority. He said the question is whether or not the system is created fairly.
29 Commissioner Marcoplos agreed, and said the point of cumulative voting is that
30 everyone has a chance. He said in general elections the Commissioners are usually an
31 afterthought, since people vote their party.
32 Commissioner Marcoplos said for a Republican to win, he/she must appeal on the
33 issues across the County. He said if the County moved to having just two districts, and no at-
34 large positions, break down might be five commissioners in district 1, and 2 in district 2; based
35 on population. He said this would make residents in the rural part of the County very upset.
36 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the legislature was asked to consider cumulative
37 voting for Orange County, would it give a yes or no answer.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said, if invited in, the legislature could change it to whatever it
39 pleased, as seen in Greensboro and Wake County.
40 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the issue of independent voters, and said this is an
41 increasingly larger group. He said the BOCC should gather more information on this group.
42 He said he is more interested in finding out how to get these people to run, than he is in
43 messing with the districts. He said candidates should run on issues.
44 Chair Dorosin asked John Roberts if having non-partisan elections would require
45 legislative approval.
46 John Roberts said yes.
47 Commissioner Price referred to Commissioner Jacobs' comments, and said in other
48 states one has to be registered with a party to vote in a primary.
49 Commissioner McKee said he just wanted to tweak the system, not to change it. He
50 said he believes it is a perception problem, rather than a real problem. He said it has been over
20
1 a hundred years since a republican was elected in Orange County. He said anyone who is
2 elected to the BOCC, and tries to be a disruptive force, will find themselves up against other
3 Commissioners who will not put up with it. He said any changes that are made should be those
4 that can be made in house, and not involve the legislature.
5 Commissioner McKee said his intent is to alleviate the perception of inequity. He said
6 he does not believe there really is much inequity, but there is the perception of such.
7 Chair Dorosin summarized the discussion:
8 • Two ideas that require legislative approval, and BOCC would like more information:
9 cumulative and non-partisan voting
10 • District nominate/district election-
11 o Get rid of at large positions- and have two districts
12 o More information on voter registrations in district
13 o Updated census data
14
15 Greg Wilder said to have all seven seats elected by district, the district lines would need
16 to be redrawn, moving 4,000 people from district 1 to district 2, which would result in four
17 commissioner seats in District 1, and three seats in District 2.
18 Chair Dorosin said his intent was to have two multi-member districts. He said to have
19 seven individual districts would result in pizza slices coming out of Chapel Hill, and some
20 districts would violate other principles of drawing districts, such as having communities of
21 shared interest, etc. He said there could not be district blocks throughout the County, due to
22 the density of the population in certain areas.
23
24 4. Closed Session-Canceled
25 "To discuss and take action regarding plans to protect public safety as it relates to existing or
26 potential terrorist activity and to receive briefings by staff members, legal counsel, or law
27 enforcement or emergency service officials concerning actions taken or to be taken to respond
28 to such activity." [N.C.G.S. 143-318.11(a)(9)]
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner
31 Marcoplos to adjourn the meeting at 10:36 p.m.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34 Mark Dorosin, Chair
35
36 Donna Baker
37 Clerk to the Board
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
1
1 Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 April 4, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 4, 2017
10 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. He noted Commissioner
21 Burroughs was running late this evening.
22
23 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
24 Chair Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
25 - White sheets: PowerPoint for item 6-a
26 - White sheets: PowerPoint for item 6-b
27 - White sheets: PowerPoint for item 6-c
28
29 PUBLIC CHARGE
30
31 Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
32
33 2. Public Comments
34
35 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
36 None
37
38 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
39 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
40 below.)
41
42 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
43 Commissioner McKee had none.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said he and Chair Dorosin have been meeting with Durham
45 County officials about light rail (LRT), and the meetings are amicable and productive. He said
46 all the necessary agreements may be reached before the end of the month.
47 Commissioner Rich said she attended her first Department of Transportation (DOT)
48 meeting, and thanked Max Bushell, Transportation Planner II, for giving her a tour on the DOT
49 roads that were discussed in the meeting.
2
1 Commissioner Price said she appreciated staff for following up on her concerns at the
2 DOT luncheon.
3 Commissioner Marcoplos had none.
4 Chair Dorosin said the Board has received some inquiries about the capacity of the April
5 18th meeting at Southern Human Services Center (SHSC). He said it is important to keep the
6 meeting at that location for several reasons: there have been two public transit meetings at the
7 Whitted building, the SHSC can live stream the meeting, and everyone that signs up to speak
8 will be able to speak.
9 Commissioner Rich followed up with a suggestion that if there are many people wanting
10 to speak at the April 18th meeting, it may be worth considering reducing public comments from
11 three minutes to two minutes per person.
12 Commissioner McKee respectfully objected to limiting the time limit. He said there is an
13 obligation for the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to hear every comment on a project
14 of this size.
15 Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner McKee, and suggested when someone
16 finishes speaking that they go into the hallway, allowing those waiting in the hallway to come in
17 to speak.
18 Commissioner Rich said when she served on the Chapel Hill Town Council there was a
19 policy that reduced the public comment time per person when the total number of speakers hit
20 a certain threshold. She said it is important to be fair to the public.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said there was an instance like this in the past concerning the
22 tethering of dogs and the hearing ran two nights, with the public being asked to express their
23 agreement with comments made by other members of the public if they were in line with their
24 own sentiments. He said a limit was set on the total amount of time that would be given to
25 public comment.
26 Commissioner Marcoplos agreed with this approach. He said he does not want to limit
27 the public's chance to speak, but also does not want to hear repeated statements.
28 Commissioner Burroughs said on a board where she previously served, a two-minute
29 time limit was set on nights with large crowds, and it was successful.
30
31 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
32
33 a. 2017 Sunshine Award from North Carolina Open Government Coalition
34 The Board received the 2017 Sunshine Award from North Carolina Open Government
35 Coalition recognizing Orange County for its efforts to achieve the transparency goals of the
36 Board of Commissioners and County administration.
37
38 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board accept the 2017 Sunshine
39 Award from North Carolina Open Government Coalition and express appreciation to staff who
40 Contributed to the County achieving this recognition.
41
42 Todd McGee, Community Relations Director, introduced Jonathan Jones, Director,
43 North Carolina Open Government Coalition, Instructor, Elon University School of
44 Communications.
45 Jonathan Jones reviewed the North Carolina Open Government Coalition, noting it was
46 a non-partisan non-profit promoting citizen access to government information. He reviewed the
47 award, and presented it to the Orange County Government for its efforts in keeping citizens
48 informed, particularly through the transparency portal, and the addition to the transparency
49 portal on line of a great deal of financial data.
50 Chair Dorosin accepted the award on behalf of the BOCC.
3
1
2 b. 2017 Piedmont Laureate Mimi Herman Presentation for National Poetry Month
3 The Board considered recognizing National Poetry Month with a presentation by the
4 2017 Piedmont Laureate, poet Mimi Herman.
5 Tim Hoke, Arts Commission Board Chair, introduced Piedmont Laureate Mimi Herman,
6 who read a few poems.
7
8 c. Proclamation Recognizing the Annual Community Dinner
9 The Board considered a proclamation recognizing the Annual Community Dinner for
10 support of community ideals and authorizing the Chair to sign.
11 Nerys Levy thanked the BOCC for its support over the last 20 years, and said during this
12 time the dinner has fed over 14,000 people. She said the goal of the dinner is to celebrate the
13 diverse cultures in Orange County, and it will be held on April 30, 2017.
14 Commissioner Price read the proclamation:
15
16 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
17 PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING THE
18 ANNUAL COMMUNITY DINNER
19
20 WHEREAS, the Annual Community Dinner is an event to build community spirit, crossing
21 economic, racial, religious and ethnic barriers; and
22
23 WHEREAS, the attendees sit side-by-side to experience and enjoy culturally diverse food and
24 entertainment from the local community; and
25
26 WHEREAS, this is the 20th Annual Community Dinner co-chaired by Mildred Council (Mama
27 Dip) and Nerys Levy, coordinated with a diverse Community Dinner
28 Committee; and
29
30 WHEREAS, the first fiscal agent was Preservation Chapel Hill and for the past 10-years the
31 event has been held with the support of the Orange County Department of
32 Housing, Human Rights and Community Development; and
33
34 WHEREAS, the Community Dinner received national recognition in 2014 as a winner of a
35 National League of Cities Award for Cultural Diversity, as nominated by the
36 Town of Carrboro;
37
38 NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does
39 hereby recognize the Community Dinner as an exemplary display of
40 community ideals and a highly appreciated asset for the residents of Orange
41 County.
42
43 This the 4th day of April 2017.
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee for
46 the Board to approve the Proclamation Recognizing the Annual Community Dinner and
47 authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation.
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
4
1 d. Sexual Assault Awareness Month Proclamation
2 The Board considered a proclamation recognizing April 2017 as Sexual Assault
3 Awareness Month in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign.
4 Orange County Rape Crisis Center Board member Adina Safta accepted the
5 proclamation on behalf of the Crisis Center.
6 Commissioner Marcoplos read the proclamation:
7
8
9 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10 Proclamation
11 "Sexual Assault Awareness Month 2017"
12
13 WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center assisted over 500 survivors of sexual
14 violence, their loved ones, and community professionals during 2016; and
15
16 WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center works with the county's two school systems
17 and other groups to provide students with age-appropriate information about violence
18 prevention, reaching over 15,000 youth and adults each year; and
19 Donna, I can't get rid of this line!!
20 WHEREAS, the coordination of the Orange County Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) is
21 bringing together members of law enforcement, the medical community, the legal system, and
22 other community advocates to improve services for survivors of sexual assault who come
23 forward; and
24
25 WHEREAS, 1 in 5 American women have been sexually assaulted at some point in their lives
26 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010); and
27
28 WHEREAS, in the United States rape is the most costly crime to its survivors, totaling $127
29 billion a year considering factors such as medical cost, lost earnings, pain, suffering, and lost
30 quality of life (U.S. Department of Justice, 1996); and
31
32 WHEREAS, in the United States 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men have experienced some form of
33 sexual or physical violence committed by an intimate partner (Centers for Disease Control and
34 Prevention, 2010); and
35
36 WHEREAS, there are more than 16,500 sex offenders registered as living in North Carolina
37 (Department of Justice, 2015)
38
39 WHEREAS, victim-blaming continues to be an enormous problem in instances of rape and
40 sexual assault; and
41
42 WHEREAS, the Orange County Rape Crisis Center, a nonprofit agency that has served this
43 community since 1974, is working to stop sexual violence and its impact through support,
44 education, and advocacy;
45
46 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners,
47 do hereby proclaim the month of April 2017 as "SEXUAL ASSAULT AWARENESS MONTH"
48 and encourage all residents to speak out against sexual violence and to support their local
49 community's efforts to prevent and respond to these appalling crimes.
50
5
1 This the 4th day of April, 2017.
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
4 Board to approve the proclamation designating April as "Sexual Assault Awareness Month" in
5 Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation.
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 e. Child Abuse Prevention Month Proclamation
10 The Board considered a proclamation recognizing April 2017 as Child Abuse Prevention
11 Month and authorizing the Chair to sign.
12 Prevent Child Abuse - North Carolina's President and CEO Sharon Hirsch represented
13 this organization, and accepted the proclamation on its behalf.
14 Commissioner McKee read the proclamation:
15
16 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
17
18 PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2017 AS
19 CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION MONTH
20
21 WHEREAS, children are vital to our state's future success, prosperity and quality of life as well
22 as being our most vulnerable assets; and
23
24 WHEREAS, all children deserve to have the safe, stable, nurturing homes and communities
25 they need to foster their healthy growth and development; and
26
27 WHEREAS, child abuse and neglect is a community responsibility affecting both the current
28 and future quality of life of a community; and
29
30 WHEREAS, communities that provide parents with the social support, knowledge of parenting
31 and child development and concrete resources they need to cope with stress
32 and nurture their children ensure all children grow to their full potential; and
33
34 WHEREAS, effective child abuse prevention strategies succeed because of partnerships
35 created among residents, human service agencies, schools, faith communities,
36 health care providers, civic organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the
37 business community;
38
39 NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim
40 April 2017 as Child Abuse Prevention Month in Orange County, North Carolina
41 and call upon all residents, community agencies, faith groups, medical
42 facilities, elected leaders and businesses to increase their participation in
43 efforts to support families, thereby preventing child abuse and strengthening
44 the communities in which we live.
45
46 This the 4th day of April 2017.
47
48 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
49 Board to approve the Proclamation Recognizing April 2017 as Child Abuse Prevention Month in
50 Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation.
6
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 f. Parkinson's Awareness Month Proclamation
5 The Board considered a proclamation recognizing April 2017 as Parkinson's Awareness
6 Month and authorizing the Chair to sign.
7 Blake Tedder, Community Development Manager- NC Triangle--National Parkinson
8 Foundation (NPF) accepted the proclamation on behalf of his organization.
9 Commissioner Burroughs read the proclamation:
10
11 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
12 PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING APRIL 2017 AS PARKINSON'S AWARNESS MONTH
13
14 WHEREAS, Parkinson's disease is a chronic, progressive, neurological disease and is the
15 second most common neurodegenerative disease in the United States; and
16
17 WHEREAS, there is inadequate data on the incidence and prevalence of Parkinson's disease,
18 but it is estimated to affect approximately one million people in the United
19 States and the prevalence will more than double by 2040; and
20
21 WHEREAS, Parkinson's disease is the 14th leading cause of death in the United States
22 according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
23
24 WHEREAS, it is estimated that the economic burden of Parkinson's disease is at least $14.4
25 billion annually, including indirect costs to patients and family members of$6.3
26 billion; and
27
28 WHEREAS, the symptoms of Parkinson's disease vary from person to person and can include
29 tremors; slowness of movement and rigidity; difficulty with balance, swallowing,
30 chewing, and speaking; cognitive impairment and dementia; mood disorders;
31 and a variety of other non-motor symptoms; and
32
33 WHEREAS, increased research, education and community support services are needed to find
34 more effective treatments and to provide access to quality care to those living
35 with the disease today;
36
37 NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim
38 April 2017 as Parkinson's Awareness Month in Orange County, North Carolina.
39
40 This the 4th day of April 2017.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price for
43 the Board to approve the Proclamation Recognizing April 2017 as Parkinson's Awareness
44 Month and authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 Chair Dorosin said the new Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) superintendent
49 Dr. Pam Baldwin is in attendance tonight.
50 Pam Baldwin thanked the BOCC for its welcome, and introduced herself briefly.
7
1
2 g. Presentation of Manager's Recommended FY 2017-22 Capital Investment Plan
3 (CIP)
4 The Board received the Manager's Recommended FY 2017-22 Capital Investment Plan.
5 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the following background information:
6
7 BACKGROUND:
8 Each year, the County produces a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that establishes a budget-
9 planning guide related to capital needs for the County as well as Schools. The current CIP
10 consists of a 5-year plan that is evaluated annually to include year-to-year changes in priorities,
11 needs, and available resources. Approval of the CIP commits the County to the first year
12 funding only of the capital projects; all other years are used as a planning tool and serves as a
13 financial plan.
14
15 Capital Investment Plan — Overview
16 The FY 2017-22 CIP includes County Projects, School Projects, and Proprietary Projects. The
17 School Projects include Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools, Orange County Schools, and
18 Durham Technical Community College— Orange County Campus projects. The Proprietary
19 Projects include Water and Sewer, Solid Waste Enterprise Fund, and Sportsplex projects. The
20 CIP has been prepared anticipating slow to moderate economic growth of approximately 1% in
21 property tax growth and 4% in sales tax growth annually over the next five years. Many of the
22 projects in the CIP will rely on debt financing to fund the projects.
23
24 Recommended capital expenditures for FY 2017-18 total $27.5 million. Of this amount, $16
25 million is recommended for County capital projects, $3.73 million is recommended for
26 proprietary fund spending including water and sewer projects, Solid Waste, and Sportsplex, and
27 $7.78 million is recommended for school capital improvements.
28
29 The recommended FY 2017-18 CIP represents a decrease of approximately $41 million
30 compared to the FY2016-17 Approved CIP. The FY2016-17 CIP included the first of three $40
31 million allocations ($120 million total) of general obligation bond funding for school capital
32 projects and the first of two $2.5 million allocations ($5 million total) to fund affordable housing
33 projects. When the bond funds are excluded from this comparison, the total Recommended
34 FY2017-18 CIP represents a decrease of approximately $1 million compared to last fiscal year.
35 This memorandum describes projects that are recommended in the first year of the FY2017-22
36 CIP and other significant changes that are recommended compared to the CIP approved last
37 fiscal year.
38
39 Bonnie Hammersley made the following PowerPoint presentation:
40
41 County Manager's Recommended
42 FY2017-22 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
43 April 4, 2017
44
45 FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
46 Document includes:
47 ➢ Transmittal Letter
48 ➢ CIP Summaries
49 ➢ County Projects
50 ➢ Proprietary Projects
8
1 ➢ School Projects
2 ➢ Appendices
3
4 FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN-example page
5
6 FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN expenditures- graph
7
8 FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN funding sources-graph
9
10 FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN DEBT CAPACITY- graph
11
12 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the debt capacity graph, and asked if the debt is more
13 than the debt policy.
14 Bonnie Hammersley said staff has options for the BOCC to consider.
15 Commissioner McKee asked if the school bond is the driver for the increased
16 percentage.
17 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
18 Commissioner McKee asked if this takes into account any possible impact on the
19 County from the transit plan or the LRT.
20 Bonnie Hammersley said this is just for the general fund revenues for the CIP.
21
22 Continuation Funding:
23 FY2017-18
24 ➢ Detention Facility— $622,114
25 ➢ Environment & Ag Center— $3.4M
26 ➢ Solid Waste — $990,268
27 ➢ Sportsplex— $465,000
28
29 Policy Priorities:
30 FY2017-18
31 ➢ Community Centers —$75,000
32 ➢ Economic Development— $2.3M
33 ➢ EMS Substation Co-location — $845,000
34 ➢ Facility Accessibility & Security— $30,000
35 ➢ Rural Broadband —$500,000
36 ➢ School Capital Improvements —$7.8M
37
38
39 Parks, Open Space, and Trail Development:
40 FY2017-18
41 ➢ Blackwood Farm Park— $100,000
42 ➢ Fairview Park— $50,000
43 ➢ Hollow Rock Nature Park— $10,000
44 ➢ Park Renovation & Repairs —$191,000
45 ➢ Soccer Center Phase II — $300,000
46
47 Information Technology and Communications:
48 FY2017-18
49 ➢ BOCC Initiatives- $50,000
50 ➢ Fiber Connections — $1.2M
9
1 ➢ Infrastructure —$700,000
2 ➢ ITGC Initiatives — $510,000
3 ➢ Mobile Radios — $920,000
4 ➢ PS Communication Upgrades — $1.4M
5 ➢ Register of Deeds Automation — $400,000
6
7 Critical Infrastructure Improvements:
8 FY2017-18
9 ➢ Facility Enhancements — $450,000
10 ➢ HVAC Projects — $122,000
11 ➢ SHSC Renovation— $4.0M
12 ➢ Roofing and Facade— $102,444
13
14 Future Capital Projects:
15 FY2018-19
16 ➢ Affordable Housing — $2.5 million
17 ➢ Detention Facility— $12.5 million
18 ➢ Community Centers —$100,000
19 ➢ EMS Substations — $1.5 million
20 ➢ Information Technology— $1.1 million
21 ➢ Mobile Radios — $805,000
22 ➢ Parks Projects — $5.2 million
23 ➢ PS Communication Upgrades — $3.8 million
24 ➢ Renovation and Maintenance —$1.0 million
25 ➢ School Capital Improvements —$48.4 million
26 ➢ Solid Waste — $1.3 million
27 ➢ Southern Branch Library—$5.6 million
28 ➢ SHSC Renovation — $5.2M
29
30 Future Capital Projects:
31 FY2019-20
32 ➢ Community Centers —$1 million
33 ➢ Detention Facility— $7.5 million
34 ➢ EMS Substations — $700,000
35 ➢ Information Technology— $1.1 million
36 ➢ Parks Projects — $17.0 million
37 ➢ PS Communication Upgrades — $3.8 million
38 ➢ Renovation and Maintenance —$1.1 million
39 ➢ School Capital Improvements —$8.8 million
40 ➢ Solid Waste — $2.1 million
41 ➢ SHSC Renovation — $5.2 million
42
43 Future Capital Projects:
44 FY2020-21
45 ➢ EMS Substations — $1.5 million
46 ➢ Information Technology— $1.1 million
47 ➢ Parks Projects — $13.6 million
48 ➢ PS Communication Upgrades — $2.4 million
49 ➢ Renovation and Maintenance —$1.2 million
50 ➢ School Capital Improvements —$58.5 million
10
1 ➢ Solid Waste — $1.3 million
2 ➢ Sportsplex— $1.5 million
3 FY2021-22
4 • Economic Development— $2.2 million
5 • EMS Substations — $600,000
6 • Information Technology— $1.1 million
7 • Parks Projects — $2.5 million
8 • PS Communication Upgrades — $2.4 million
9 • Renovation and Maintenance — $2.5 million
10 • Solid Waste — $2.2 million
11 • School Capital Improvements — $19.5 million
12
13 FY2017-22 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
14 Next Steps:
15 Budget Work Session Date
16 Review Capital Investment Plan April 6
17 Schools, Outside Agency and May 25
18 Prioritization CIP projects
19 Budget Amendments and Resolution of June 15
20 Intent to Adopt
21 BOCC Regular Meeting
22 FY2017-18 Operating and CIP Budget June 20
23 Adoption
24
25 Document Availability:
26 o Clerk to the Board of Commissioners
27 o County Finance and Administrative Services Office
28 o Orange County Libraries
29 o Orange County Website
30 • www.orangecountync.gov
31
32 5. Public Hearings
33
34 a. Orange County Consolidated Plan -Annual Action Plan Needs Hearing
35 The Board received comments from the public during a second public hearing (the first
36 public hearing occurred at the January 24, 2017 BOCC regular meeting) regarding the housing
37 and non-housing needs to be included in the Annual Action Plan Update of the 2017-2018
38 Consolidated Housing Plan for Housing and Community Development Programs in Orange
39 County.
40 Interim Director Annette Moore reviewed the information below:
41
42 BACKGROUND:
43 In May 2015 a Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
44 Programs in Orange County was developed and approved by the U.S. Department of Housing
45 and Urban Development (HUD). This document details the housing needs of very low income,
46 low income and moderate-income families and special population groups in addition to outlining
47 the strategies and plans for addressing those needs.
48
49 Each year, local communities are required to reassess the needs of the community. This public
50 hearing provides an opportunity for the public, public agencies and other interested parties to
11
1 provide input into the Annual Action Plan Update. In addition, the public may comment on
2 proposed uses of an estimated $348,265 in 2017-2018 funds. Orange County is in the third
3 year of the Five Year Consolidated Plan. Information regarding actual Congressional allocation
4 is not available at this time. Eligible HOME Program activities include: acquisition; new
5 construction; housing rehabilitation; and rental assistance.
6
7 Since the approval of the Consolidated Housing in May 2015, Orange County residents
8 approved a bond referendum of$5 million on November 8, 2016 designed to help create up to
9 1,000 affordable units throughout the County. With the passage of the bond, Orange County
10 will be able to assist in adding affordable rentals, homeownership opportunities and address
11 other housing needs to low-to-moderate income residents. The needs assessment, data goals
12 and strategies provide in the Consolidated Housing Plan were incorporated into the
13 development of the Affordable Housing Strategic Plan.
14
15 The 2017 Annual Action Plan will be submitted to HUD on or before May 15, 2017 after
16 approval by the HOME Consortium Members — Orange County, the Town of Carrboro, the
17 Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Hillsborough.
18
19 In order to inform the general public of this opportunity and encourage participation, notices
20 have been placed in The Chapel Hill News and The Herald-Sun, sent to local non-profit
21 agencies and placed on local websites.
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to open
24 the public hearing.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 NO PUBLIC COMMENT
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
31 close the public hearing.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 6. Regular Agenda
36
37 a. Support for Local Immigrant and Refugee Population
38 The Board considered approving funding requests for immigrant and refugee support
39 services and to approve utilization of the Social Justice Fund as the funding source for $79,628.
40 Due to the immediate and critical need of the agencies, this request is outside the annual
41 nonprofit agency funding process. The Social Justice Fund, with a current balance of
42 $350,000, is a reserve that was established by the BOCC to support social justice needs that
43 may occur during the fiscal year.
44 Susan Clifford, Immigrant and Refugee Health Program Manager, introduced her
45 colleagues from local agencies discussed in the abstract. She thanked the Board of County
46 Commissioners for the opportunity to speak this evening, and for considering this immediate
47 need for funding outside the outside agency funding process.
48
49 PURPOSE:
12
1 To consider approving funding requests for immigrant and refugee support services and to
2 approve utilization of the Social Justice Fund as the funding source for$79,628.
3 Due to the immediate and critical need of the agencies, this request is outside the annual
4 nonprofit agency funding process. The Social Justice Fund, with a current balance of $350,000,
5 is a reserve that was established by the BOCC to support social justice needs that may occur
6 during the fiscal year.
7
8 BACKGROUND: Orange County is home to an increasingly diverse population:
9 • 13% foreign-born
10 • 17% residents speak a language other than English at home
11 • Refugee arrivals have almost doubled in the last two years, from 54 (FY2014-15) to 91
12 year-to-date.
13
14 The Board of Orange County Commissioners (BOCC) has supported community-based
15 agencies working to meet the needs of immigrants and refugees through the non-profit agency
16 process. However, due to the recent changes in federal immigration policies new challenges
17 and barriers exist that require an immediate response to expand services for immigrant and
18 refugee residents.
19
20 Confusion about new travel policies, changes in deportation policies/practices, harassment from
21 other residents, and rumors of checkpoints and raids have all spurred fear in the local
22 community—especially the Latino and Syrian communities. Local agencies — including law
23 enforcement and County agencies — held forums to educate community members about their
24 rights and to show support. Nevertheless many families are still concerned about driving, many
25 want to apply for citizenship, and some are fearful to leave their homes.
26
27 The Orange County Health Department and Orange County Social Services staff consulted on
28 the most efficient and effective way to address immediate needs. The recommendation to the
29 BOCC is to utilize the Social Justice Fund to provide $79,628 to support the local community
30 based agencies to expand services immediately to immigrants and refugees.
31
32 El Centro Hispano provides critical direct support, legal, employment and education services
33 to County residents. El Centro requests $54,168 to expand its immigration legal services.
34 Funding will cover the salary of a part-time Project Coordinator and full-time Board of
35 Immigration Appeals (BIA)Accredited Representative, as well as project operating costs. The
36 BIA Rep will assist with intake, conduct screenings, and help clients complete forms to be
37 submitted to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services. The Project Coordinator will
38 coordinate the Faith ID program and a new Civics/"No Operator" Education course, as well as
39 conduct community outreach and manage volunteers. The Faith ID program - in collaboration
40 with local law enforcement - offers a picture ID to community members who don't otherwise
41 have access to a form of identification. The Civics/"No Operator" course is an alternative option
42 - at the discretion of the District Attorney - for those individuals ticketed for driving without a
43 license.
44 o El Centro anticipates serving an additional:
45 o 100 clients through immigrant legal services
46 o 150 clients through the Faith ID Program
47 o 100 clients through the Civics/"No Operator" Course
48
49 Refugee Community Partnership (RCP), a community-based organization that builds
50 networks of support to help families address immediate needs, and establish and work toward
13
1 long-term goals. RCP is working to address barriers to financial self-sufficiency among diverse
2 refugee communities. In the wake of the recent executive orders, which slashed funding to
3 refugee resettlement agencies, economic hardship is undermining refugees' ability to address
4 financial, social and psychological distress. RCP is partnering with local agencies and
5 businesses to develop pathways to job improvement for local refugees. RCP seeks $14,120 to
6 support staff time for the Program Manager and Executive Director to create an employment
7 support and opportunity service for refugees. Part of their work will include development of a
8 sales force management system to: 1) efficiently identify and cultivate culturally-appropriate job
9 opportunities, 2) effectively track progress toward employment goals, and 3) map employment
10 channels for refugees to measure impact over time.
11 o Refugee Community Partnership anticipates:
12 • 20 refugees will be connected to improved employment opportunities and an
13 additional 10 refugees will be connected to employment support services.
14 • 10 additional volunteers will be trained as employment navigators
15 • RCP will establish relationships with 20 additional local employers and train 10+
16 employers on creative, culturally-appropriate solutions to working through language
17 barriers with employees.
18 • RCP will develop a customized management system and construct an employment
19 map to manage employment resources, support services and outcome measures.
20
21 Refugee Support Center provides legal, education, employment, financial and other resource
22 and referral services. The Refugee Support Center was recently notified that it will need to
23 leave its current donated office space within 6 weeks. The request entails $11,340 to cover the
24 cost of renting space for one year in order to continue and expand operations. This includes
25 space to provide: 1) Pathways to Citizenship classes and immigration legal services provided by
26 a BIA accredited representative on staff, 2) a confidential space for legal and direct service
27 consultation, 3) shared space for programming with collaborating agencies, and 4) storage
28 space for donations.
29 o Refugee Support Center anticipates:
30 • Continued operation despite losing current office space
31 • Improved efficiency and quality of service due to new space
32 • 203 Refugee clients served through the Pathways to Citizenship Program (20% increase
33 from 2016)
34 • Total of 975 refugees served last year
35
36 FINANCIAL IMPACT: A total of$79,628 is proposed for allocation from the Social Justice
37 Fund, leaving a Social Justice Fund balance of$270,372.
38 o El Centro's request of$54,168 will cover the salary of a part-time Project
39 Coordinator and a full-time BIA Representative, as well as project operating costs.
40 This will be at the cost of$155/client.
41 o The Refugee Community Partnership's request of $14,120 will cover the cost to
42 allocate more staff time and establish employment support resources to help
43 refugees find better work opportunities for the remainder of FY2016-17, at the cost
44 of $470.67/client.
45 o The Refugee Support Center's request of $11,340 will cover the cost of 12 months
46 of office space, at the cost of$11.63/client.
47
48 Commissioner Marcoplos said a resident tweeted the BOCC today, and suggested that
49 the sales force CRM data management system is free to non-profits.
14
1 Mattie Hayes, Refugee Community Partnership, said it is free to non-profits, and once
2 the license is acquired, it is up to the non-profit to custom code it to be able to be formatted and
3 organized with features that can house the data it needs to. She said the requested funding
4 would go towards the custom coding.
5
6 PUBLIC COMMENT
7 Riley Ruske said he is a veteran and taxpayer in Orange County, and he is totally
8 opposed to this action to use County funds to aid and abet foreign nationals. He said the
9 populations that will be served are "undocumented immigrants," and he said by their own
10 actions they are criminals. He said illegal immigrants rob citizens of jobs, education,
11 healthcare, etc. He said harboring, sheltering and shielding foreign nationals of illegal presence
12 are a federal crime, and aiding and abetting illegal activities are federal and state crimes. He
13 said if the Board of County Commissioners approves this item, it is violating laws and he
14 petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to not provide these funds for illegal activities.
15 Riley Ruske referred to the letter of support from the Sheriff, and he said the Sheriff's
16 primary responsibility is the enforcement of the law. He said it would be a gross dereliction of
17 duties if the Sheriff is aware of illegal activities and refuses to act.
18 Carol McCanna said our country is a melting pot, but there must be legal control over
19 the people who enter this country. She said a country can have and should monitor its borders.
20 She asked if there could be clarification on the proposals before the BOCC this evening,
21 especially regarding criminal acts committed by an illegal immigrant on a US citizen. She said
22 words have meanings, and we do have laws and should not be abetting illegal immigration.
23 She said immigrants are a part of this country, but they must come here legally.
24 Maria Palmer said she is here to support these organizations and this expenditure. She
25 said she has experience working with immigrants and their children. She said these
26 organizations support many wonderful people, many of whom have never knowingly broken the
27 law; especially children who were brought here as infants, and have no knowledge of their
28 home culture.
29 Heather Brutz said she had family that fled the Nazis, and we should be welcoming to
30 immigrants.
31 Ken Rothrock said he has lived in Orange County since 1980, and has practiced law for
32 36 years. He said this is nutty, and those that commit crime should have consequences. He
33 said spending taxpayer money to support those who are coming here illegally is not right. He
34 said there are rules, and if the BOCC starts passing these kinds of decisions then they will be
35 addressed in the elections in two years. He said many are waiting to come to America in the
36 right way, and these are the people the County should be looking to help.
37 Commissioner McKee said he is reading this proposal, and it is not addressing
38 undocumented residents. He said some undocumented may be included, and he asked the
39 agencies if they could address this question.
40 Flicka Bateman, Refugee Support Center, said refugees are legal, and they have
41 papers called I-94s. She said there are about 1,200 refugees in Orange County, and most of
42 these are from Burma. She said there are also 32 Syrians and about 50 from the Congo.
43 Commissioner McKee asked if the refugees are documented.
44 Flicka Bateman said refugees are legal.
45 Commissioner McKee asked John Roberts if this abstract violates any state or federal
46 law.
47 John Roberts said the County is prohibited from having a policy, procedure, or
48 ordinance in place that restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
49 Commissioner McKee said he has hired migrants and those from other countries, and
50 some of their papers are so good it is hard to tell if they are fake. He said he has hired many
15
1 good workers, and some have become citizens. He said it is not the BOCC's responsibility to
2 track down illegals. He said the great majority of the people being helped are here legally. He
3 said help will likely be given to someone that is here illegally, but he cannot agree with the
4 notion of only helping legals, or helping no one at all. He said he will support this, though he
5 has some concerns.
6 Chair Dorosin said this is an important matter, and it is a critical issue facing our
7 immigrants. He said there is an increase in discrimination of immigrants, and many of them
8 are fearful of vigilante violence, as well as police violence.
9 Chair Dorosin said he sees this item as spending money on the values that Orange
10 County holds dear: equality, fairness, engagement, and inclusiveness.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for
13 the Board to approve the funding requests listed below and approve utilization of the Social
14 Justice Fund as the funding source for $79,628:
15
16 o El Centro Hispano's expand immigrant legal services, including new BIA Rep
17 and Project Coordinator positions - $54,168;
18 o Refugee Community partnership to allocate more staff time to help refugees find
19 better work opportunities - $14,120
20 o Refugee Support Center's rental cost for office space due to loss of current
21 space - $11,340.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 b. Davenport & Company Independent Financial Review of GoTriangle Durham-
26 Orange Light Rail Transit Financial Plan
27 The Board received a presentation by Davenport & Company regarding the GoTriangle
28 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit (D-O LRT) Financial Plan. The presentation will clarify the
29 total costs of the project, the financing mechanisms used to fund the project, and the financial
30 risks associated with the project including credit, cash flow, and any potential budget
31 implications. The cost share and transit tax assumptions used in the presentation are presented
32 for modeling purposes only. They have not been adopted for use in the final Transit Plan. This
33 information is intended to inform the Board's deliberations on the Orange County Transit Plan
34 (formerly the Bus and Rail Investment Plan) scheduled for consideration on April 27, 2017.
35 Travis Myren reviewed the upcoming opportunities for public information and comment
36 on this topic.
37 Travis Myren introduced Ted Cole, Davenport Senior VP, who presented the findings of
38 the Davenport analysis.
39
40 BACKGROUND: On December 5, 2016, the Board of County Commissioners directed the
41 County Manager to engage a consultant to conduct an independent financial review of the D-O
42 LRT Project and the financial plan used to demonstrate project's financial viability in the context
43 of the Orange County Transit Plan. The County executed an agreement with its financial
44 advisor, Davenport & Company, to review the financial model.
45
46 Since the initial request to independently review the financial plan, GoTriangle created a new
47 financial model that delineates revenue, expenditure, debt service coverage and cash flow by
48 county. The model also allows the counties to evaluate different cost share scenarios between
49 Durham and Orange County for the D-O LRT project. The cost share that was adopted as part
50 of the 2012 Bus and Rail Investment Plan allocated 77.05% of the capital cost of the project to
16
1 Durham County and 22.95% of the capital cost to Orange County. Operating costs were
2 allocated on a 76.05% share for Durham County and a 23.95% share for Orange County. The
3 Davenport analysis (attached) uses different cost share assumptions for capital and operating
4 costs in an effort to model the financial implications of using different cost allocations. Cost
5 share discussions between the two counties are ongoing and could produce a different scenario
6 than the one modeled in this analysis.
7
8 Ted Cole made the following PowerPoint presentation:
9 D-O Light Rail Discussion Materials- Draft Based Upon Scenario 3 v9 C:
10
11 Topics for Discussion
12 ➢ DO LRT Near Term Schedule of Required Actions
13 ➢ DO LRT Long Term Project Schedule
14 ➢ County Transit Plans —What's Included / Excluded
15 ➢ DO LRT Project Cost/ Funding Sources & Plan of Finance
16 ➢ GoTriangle Financial Model: Major Revenue/ Expenditure Assumptions
17 ➢ Projected Results (Scenario 3 v9 C)
18 ➢ Financial Model Observations, Key Drivers, and Risk Factors
19 ➢ Potential Orange County Credit & Cash Flow/ Budget Implications
20 ➢ Wrap-Up & Items for Consideration
21
22 DO LRT Near Term Schedule of Required Actions
23
Cost Share Agreement negotiations
Ongoing
March 27thand 29th Briefing to Orange County Board on DO LRT project, related models, and
schedule
March 29th Briefing to Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO on Draft Plans
March 29th—April 3rd Public Comment Period for Draft Plans
April 3rd Presentation on Draft Durham County Transit Plan, updates on
agreements
April 3rd-12th Briefings to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Durham, and Hillsborough on Draft
County Plans
April 4th Orange County Board Meeting
❑Financial Plan Analysis presented to Orange County Board
April 11th Potential public hearing on Draft Durham County Transit Plan
April 12th
❑Presentation to Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO on Draft Plan, and
project cost-sharing agreement and Public Hearing
April 18th Orange County Board Meeting
❑Presentation on Draft Orange County Transit Plan and update on project
cost-sharing agreement
❑Public hearing on Draft Orange County Transit Plan
April 24th Action on Final Durham County Transit Plan, and project cost-sharing
agreement
April 26th GoTriangle Action on Final County Transit Plans
17
April27th Orange County Board Meeting
❑Action on Final Orange County Transit Plan, and project cos sharing
agreement
April 28th Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO Action on Final County Transit Plans
(Special Meeting)
1
2 Jeff Mann, GoTriangle General Manager, said the April 26 meeting is their Board's
3 meeting for the final plan for adoption.
4 Commissioner Price clarified that the GoTriangle board will cast its vote prior to the
5 BOCC vote.
6 Jeff Mann said yes.
7 Commissioner Price asked if the vote would be affected should either of the counties
8 reject the plan.
9 Jeff Mann said the plan has to be approved by all 4 entities: GoTriangle, Durham
10 County, Orange County, and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO).
11
12 DO LRT LONG TERM PROJECT SCHEDULE
13
April 2017 Update of D-O Transit Plans and execution of full General Engineering
Consultant (GEC) and Program Management Consultant (PMC) contracts
TBD Engineering Complete
June 2018 Request to be in President's budget—requires 50% of non-New Starts
funds to be committed
December 2018 Inclusion in Draft STIP —State share defined, but not committed
June 2019 Inclusion in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)—State
participation committed
October 2019 Submit request for FFGA with FTA—requires 100% of funding to be
committed
January 2020 FFGA Funding Approved
FY 2020 FFGA Funding Begins
Early 2020 Project Construction Bidding Begins(project will be bid in phases)
Mid to Late 2020 TIFIA Funding Approved
2020 Construction Begins
2028 Construction Complete
FY2029 I Operations Commence
14
15 New Starts Financial Plan —What's Included/Excluded
16 • GoTriangle has included the following services and projects in the New Starts Financial
17 Plan:
18 o GoTriangle's existing and expansion bus services and capital investments
19 o Local share if transit providers' expansion bus services and capital investments:
20 ➢ GoTriangle
21 ➢ GoDurham
22 ➢ Durham County
23 ➢ Chapel Hill Transit
24 ➢ Orange Public Transportation
25 o North-South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (N-S BRT) Project, managed by Chapel
26 Hill Transit (partial funding)
27 o D-O LRT Project, managed by GoTriangle
18
1 o The implementation period began in 2014 and is expected to conclude in 2028
2 with construction beginning in 2020
3 ➢ Hillsborough Train Station
4 ➢ GoTriangle has not included the following services and projects in the
5 New Starts Financial Plan:
6 ➢ GoTriangle's existing, non-Tax District revenues and expenditures
7 ➢ Other transit providers' existing services
8 ➢ Revenues received by other transit providers
9 ➢ Durham-Wake Commuter Rail Transit (D-W CRT) Project
10 ➢ Wake County Transit Plan revenues and expenditures
11 ➢ Full funding of North-South Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (N-S BRT) Project
12
13 Note: While GoTriangle and the local transit providers' existing bus services are not included in
14 the County Transit Plans, these services are not anticipated to be impacted moving forward and
15 are not funded through Transit District Revenues.
16
17 Commissioner McKee referred to the last item on the list of things that are not included,
18 and said he remembered that item to be $125 million. He asked if Ted Cole could explain what
19 would be gained from $6.1 million. He said there is a large disparity between the two.
20 Commissioner Jacobs said there is federal money that is drawn down that makes it
21 more than $6 million. He said full funding is not advocated or anticipated by the BOCC on BRT
22 as far as MLK, and he said one question he will have is what else can the BOCC do with the
23 $100 million.
24
25 DO LRT Project Cost/ Funding Sources
26
27 • The DO LRT project engineering, construction, and equipment cost is estimated to be
28 $2,388,568,428 in year of expenditure dollars.
29 o The project cost will be funded through a combination of:
30 ➢ FTA New Starts Grant: $1,194,284,2141
31 ➢ State Funding Contribution: $238,856,843
32 ➢ TIFIA Debt Funding: $430,000,000
33 ➢ In Kind Contributions: $19,376,433
34 ➢ Transit District Revenues: $506,050,938
35 o The total cost of the DO LRT construction, including financing cost and interest
36 payments is estimated to be $3,302,320,4432.
37
38 Commissioner Price asked if the in-kind contributions have been committed.
39 Ted Cole said memorandums of understanding (MOUs) have been committed for$10
40 million.
41 Commissioner Burroughs referred to the footnote on page 5 of the PowerPoint, which
42 states it does not include capital, financing, and interest cost associated with the State of Good
43 Repair project. She asked if this was taken into account in figures presented later in the
44 analysis.
45 Ted Cole said the concept of state of good repair, which is in the outer years, is the
46 expectation of having to reinvest in the system for repair and maintenance, etc., and is not
47 captured in the $2.3 billion. He said as the presentation proceeds, the state of good repair will
48 be pulled in, and where some borrowings may be expected to help fund those future
49 investments in the system.
19
1 Commissioner McKee referred to the state funding contribution on $238 million plus,
2 and asked if this represents the 10% of the project of which has been spoken previously.
3 Ted Cole said that is the 10% of the $2.38 billion of the project.
4 Commissioner McKee said if it scored a little over 8, why is the abstract number of "10"
5 being used.
6 Ted Cole said he will get that answer for him.
7 Commissioner McKee said he is concerned, as a project cost of $2.388 billion is being
8 shown, but the true cost is $3.3 billion. He asked if there is a reason why the true cost is not
9 being shown, since that is what will have to be paid.
10 Ted Cole said both numbers are correct, and show the upfront costs versus the cost of
11 what must be borrowed to build.
12 Commissioner McKee asked if $2.388 billion is shown in the Federal Transportation
13 Administration (FTA) application, and if this is the maximum amount of which the federal
14 government will pay 50%.
15 Ted Cole said yes.
16 Commissioner McKee said that would leave everything over $2.388 billion to be borne
17 by Orange and Durham Counties, which jacks the percentage that Durham County and Orange
18 County will have to pay from 40% to at least 52%. He said going with the 52% estimate,
19 Orange County would pay $394 million.
20 Ted Cole said yes, when the interest expense is pulled into the numbers.
21 Commissioner McKee said that does not include the state of good repair borrowing.
22 Ted Cole said yes.
23 Mitch Brigulio, from Davenport, said the numbers are moving around a little bit, but what
24 is included in the Transit Plan and the FTA document is around $2.46 million range. He said
25 the difference between the $2.388 million and $2.46 million is the financing costs that are
26 eligible to be reimbursed by FTA. He said that is the financing cost during the construction
27 period.
28 Mindy Taylor, GoTriangle Senior Financial Analyst, said FTA wants to see not only the
29 capital costs of the project, but the portion of financing costs that are eligible for federal
30 reimbursement.
31 Commissioner McKee asked if the financing cost, covered by FTA, only goes out to
32 2032 or 2035.
33 Mindy Taylor said it is until 2032, which is the amount of time it takes to disperse the
34 federal funding share.
35 Commissioner McKee asked if the Counties incur every dollar thereafter.
36 Mindy Taylor said yes.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said every time the costs are mentioned, the cost to which the
38 speaker is referring should also be mentioned. He said a lot of people see that the project
39 costs have jumped, and he said this is because GoTriangle went from present dollars to year of
40 expenditure dollars, and this should also be restated with frequency; all in the effort for
41 transparency.
42 Commissioner Price referred to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation
43 Act (TIFIA) debt funding, and asked if there is limit to the amount for which the project would be
44 eligible. She said her concern is that the state funding is not guaranteed, and wonders what will
45 happen if more funds need to be borrowed. She referred to the New Starts grant, and heard
46 that these will only be available for projects that are shovel ready within 90 days.
47 Mitch Brigulio said TIFIA funding has to be applied for through the federal government,
48 and there is no set cap to what can be applied for, but the loan will be awarded based upon the
49 application and what the government feels is the right number to award. He said part of this is
50 driven by what the revenues and expenditures are and what can be paid back.
20
1 Commissioner McKee said he challenged a number in a bullet point that states
2 $37,445,121 is spent through the third quarter of 2017. He said in December 2016 or February
3 2017, GoTriangle sent him an outline of expenses for each year, and it was at $37 million in
4 February 2016.
5
6 • Scenario 3 v9 C implements the following cost share assumptions:
7 o Operating Cost Share:80% Durham 120% Orange
8 o State of Good Repair Cost Share:80% Durham 120% Orange
9 o Capital Cost Share:82% Durham 118% Orange
10 o Financing Cost Share:82% Durham 118% Orange
11
12 • $37,445,121 has been spent on the DO LRT through the third quarter of FY 2017.
13 o $28,664,366 was funded through Durham County Revenues and $8,780,755
14 was funded through Orange County Revenues.
15 • Through FY 2018, it is estimated that $100,282,782 will be spent on the DO LRT
16 project.
17 o $82,231,881 is funded through Durham County revenues and $18,050,901 is
18 funded through Orange County revenues.
19 • Through FY 2020, it is estimated that $206,227,131 will be spent on the DO LRT
20 project.
21 o $169,106,248 is funded through Durham County revenues and $37,120,884 is
22 funded through Orange County revenues.
23 DO LRT Project Plan of Finance
24 • Due to the timing of the receipt of Federal, State, and Local revenues, the Plan of
25 Finance includes the following potential / planned short term borrowings for DO LRT
26 construction costs:
27 o Limited Obligation Bonds ("LOBs") —In Anticipation of Local Revenues:2024
28 LOBs:$30,000,000
29 ➢ 2024 LOBs: $90,000,000
30 ➢ 2026 LOBs: $60,000,000
31 ➢ 2026 LOBs: $29,000,000
32 ➢ 2027 LOBs: $10,000,000
33 ➢ Subtotal: $219,000,000
34 o Grant Anticipation Notes ("GANs") —In Anticipation of Federal and State Funding:
35 • 2025 GANs: $275,000,000
36 ➢ 2027 GANs: $60,000,000
37 ➢ Subtotal: $335,000,000
38 o Grand Total LOBs / GANs issued:$554,000,0001
39 o The total financing cost and interest associated with the LOBs and GANs is
40 estimated to be $642,960,026.
41 • In addition to the short term borrowings, a $430,000,000 Transportation Infrastructure
42 Finance and Innovation Act ("TIFIA") is under consideration. It is expected that the TIFIA
43 loan will be approved in FY 2020 with an initial draw in FY 2023.
44 o The total financing cost and interest associated with the TIFIA loan is estimated to
45 be $1,253,991,989.
46 • The current model identifies the need for future funding for ongoing capital repair and
47 maintenance costs (State of Good Repair) which are funded in part through future LOBs
48 currently scheduled for 2040, 2048, 2053, and 2058.
49 o In the aggregate, future State of Good Repair borrowings have a par amount of
50 $44,000,000 and a total financing cost of$47,916,026.
21
1 o In the current Scenario 3 v9 C, all of these borrowings would be associated with
2 Orange County expenditures.
3
4 Commissioner McKee referred to the interest, and said the information shows $1.2
5 billion interest and financing costs for TIFIA; $642,960,000 for the LOBs and the GANs; and
6 $47,916,000 for the state of good repair. He said this is an approximate $1.942 billion in
7 interest and fees paid on a $1.4 billion project.
8 Ted Cole said the $642 million of total pay back is for principle plus interest, and the
9 same is for the other numbers.
10 Commissioner McKee said then his figures are wrong.
11 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the collateral on the borrowings for the state of the
12 good repair would be the system itself.
13 Ted Cole said GoTriangle is expected to issue all of these borrowings through
14 generically and installment financing, secured by the assets that are being built or bought.
15 Commissioner Marcoplos said the loan goes through GoTriangle, and asked what would
16 happen to Orange County's credit if there is a default on the loan.
17 Ted Cole said what is the credit that will ultimately be developed and used to issue this
18 debt. He said Go Triangle will be the issuer of all debt, and all is expected to be secured by the
19 system. He said, at this point, there is no expectation of an explicit support agreement by the
20 counties; however, in his opinion, it is some time before this will be known definitively. He said
21 one of GoTriangle's next steps is to embark upon a more detailed discussion with the rating
22 agencies, which will go a long way to shaping that credit. He said some of that will be
23 determined by the state statutes; the kind of support agreements that Orange and Durham
24 Counties can provide, if they so choose; and how do the rating agencies look at the project. He
25 said two investment grade ratings must be secured in order to get the TIFIA loans.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said it will take a while to resolve all of these borrowing issues
27 with GoTriangle, and he is concerned about Orange County's fiscal health. He asked if the
28 County is still on the trunk of the tree, or is it out on a limb.
29 Ted Cole said the County is still on the trunk, but as the conversation evolves, the key
30 questions will be what is the County committed to, if it approves that transit plan and the cost
31 share agreement, and where are opportunities to take a step back and reassess. He said he
32 does not know the answer to these questions.
33 Richard Marvin, PFM-Financial Advisor to GoTriangle, said there is a requirement for
34 investment grade ratings. He said the way to achieve this with the LOB concept is to only
35 pledge the revenues of the system and the sales taxes. He said this is what will be used to
36 establish the investment grade rating, and by establishing this rating will lead people to buy the
37 bonds. He said they are restricted to the value of the system itself, and the revenues coming
38 in. He said there is no legal backstop from the Counties.
39 Commissioner McKee asked if this means that the County has absolute immunity from
40 any impact on the County's credit rating or the County's obligations to make sure these get
41 paid.
42 Richard Marvin said as far as getting them paid, yes there is immunity. He said there
43 would only be an adverse action to the County's rating, if the County became unable to raise ad
44 valorem taxes, or affected the economics of the County.
45 Commissioner McKee read a statement out of the Davenport report: "if there is a
46 significant shortfall, Orange County may be required or decide to contribute additional revenue
47 in order to maintain the viability of the project, regardless of whether there is a contractual
48 requirement to do something." He said this statement seems to be at odds with what Richard
49 Marvin is saying.
22
1 Ted Cole said the statement read by Commissioner McKee is on page 11 of the
2 PowerPoint, and "may be required" is a nod to the fact that Davenport does not know what the
3 credit is ultimately going to be. He said there is an expectation today that there will not be any
4 need for a formal support agreement between Orange County, Durham County, and
5 GoTriangle; but if the credit were to evolve to where such an agreement were needed, then that
6 is where "required" comes into play. He said it anticipates that the credit will be evolved, and if
7 there is a support agreement required to get the credit for GoTriangle, then Orange County
8 may be required to support it; and if not, then the County could decide to support.
9 Commissioner McKee said he would not want them to find themselves in court in 2032
10 trying to define the word required.
11 Ted Cole said he understands, and when the time comes to develop the credit of
12 GoTriangle for the purposes of funding this project, the County will have great clarity on
13 whether it is required to support it or not. He said at this point the expectation is that there will
14 be no requirement, but the process has yet to be completed.
15 Chair Dorosin said should that time come, the County would be able to decide whether
16 or not to proceed.
17 Commissioner McKee said yes, but the County will be hundreds of millions of dollars in,
18 at that point.
19
20 GoTriangle Financial Model
21 Major Revenue and Expenditure Assumptions
22 • The following major revenue and expenditure assumptions have been included in the
23 financial model. Items listed in the parentheticals represent potential vulnerabilities that
24 may arise:
25 o Major Revenue Assumptions
26 ➢ FTA New Starts Federal Funding (approval, timing, and amount)
27 ➢ State Funding —10% of Capital & Operating Costs (approval, timing, and
28 amount)
29 ➢ TIFIA Funding(approval, timing, and amount)
30 ➢ LOBs / GANs —DO LRT Funding(approval, timing, and amount)
31 ➢ LOBs —State of Good Report (approval, timing, and amount)
32 ➢ Transit District Revenues (realization of projected growth)DO LRT Fare
33 Revenues(realization of projected growth)
34 o Major Expenditure Assumptions DO LRT Capital Cost
35 ➢ DO LRT Operating Cost
36 ➢ Existing and Expansion Bus Costs
37 ➢ Bus Rapid Transit
38 ➢ Ongoing DO LRT Capital / Maintenance Costs (State of Good Repair)
39
40 Article 43 Sales Tax Assumptions (Orange County)
41
42 • There are currently three projection scenarios for the Orange County Article 43 Sales
43 Tax under consideration: Moody's baseline scenario, Moody's pessimistic scenario, and
44 Dr. Walden 2014 projections. Scenario 3 v9 C incorporates Moody's baseline
45 projections.
46
47 Projected Results (Scenario 3 v9 C) Orange County, NC 8 Overall Results —Adjusted
48 Scale for Orange County Graph
49
23
1 Projected Results (Scenario 3 v9 C) April 4, 2017 Orange County, NC 9 Overall Results —
2 Uniform Scales for All Graphs
3
4 Financial Model Observations, Key Drivers, and Risk Factors ( page 10)
5 • In order to implement this Plan of Finance and access long term capital funding,
6 GoTriangle will need to receive two investment grade credit ratings. In order to receive
7 investment grade credit ratings, GoTriangle will need to be able to demonstrate:
8 o Ability to maintain positive cash flows.
9 o Ability to demonstrate minimum Debt Service Coverage levels.
10 o Ability to manage the project.
11 o Some minimum level of operating / capital reserves.
12
13 • As GoTriangle, Durham County, and Orange County continue to evaluate the project
14 and Plan of Finance, the following key drivers / risk factors may be considered:
15 o Potential changes (positive or negative) in the DO LRT Capital Cost.
16 o Approval, timing, and amount of FTA New Starts Federal Funding, State
17 Funding, and TIFIA Funding.
18 o Realization of assumed Transit District Revenues and DO LRT Fare Revenues.
19 o Actual / revised estimates for DO LRT Operating Costs and ongoing DO LRT
20 capital / maintenance costs.
21 o Ability to fund existing and expansion bus service and Bus Rapid Transit.
22
23 Potential Orange County Credit & Cash Flow/ Budget Implications
24 • Credit Implications.
25 o All financings will be secured by Light Rail assets and will be subject to annual
26 appropriations from GoTriangle.
27 o Beyond the revenues identified on the prior pages, there are no additional
28 GoTriangle revenues available to fund this project.
29 o Between the TIFIA loan and market based financing, no other credit details have
30 been developed or disseminated to the working group.
31 o In their review, the Rating Agencies may view Orange County as having a
32 contingent liability to the GoTriangle financial plan, regardless of whether or not
33 there is an explicit guarantee provided by Orange County.
34 ➢ Davenport would anticipate that the rating agencies will review
35 Orange County's credit with and without a liability for GoTriangle.
36 ➢ The soundness of the business plan at the time of the review will help
37 the Rating Agencies determine the level, if any, of the potential
38 contingent liability.
39 • Cash Flow/ Budget Implications.
40 o As discussed previously, there are a number of key assumptions included in the
41 GoTriangle financial plan.
42 o Changes, positive or negative, to these assumptions will impact Orange County's
43 cash flow requirements under this plan.
44 o If there is a significant shortfall, Orange County may be required or decide to
45 contribute additional revenue in order to maintain the viability of the project,
46 regardless of whether there is a contractual requirement to do so.
47 • As the Plan of Finance continues to develop and key decision points are reached, more
48 information about the potential credit and financial impacts will be available.
49
50 Wrap-Up & Items for Consideration
24
1 • The decision to move forward with the General Engineering Consultant and Program
2 Management Consultant contracts represents a significant capital commitment for
3 Orange County residents.
4 o $37,445,121 has been spent on the DO LRT through the third quarter of FY
5 2017, $8,780,755 of which was funded through Orange County Revenues.
6 o Through FY 2020, it is estimated that $206,227,131 will be spent on the DO LRT
7 project, $37,120,884 of which is funded through Orange County revenues.
8
9 • Key items for consideration in approving this continued investment:
10 o Adequacy of the updated Transit Plan.
11 o Adequacy of the updated Cost Share Agreement.
12
13 • Based upon our review of GoTriangle's financial models and related documents, we
14 offer the following initial observations:
15 o Based on preliminary modeling and current assumptions, we believe the Project
16 is financeable in terms of TIFIA requirements.
17 o The viability of the market-based financings will require additional due diligence,
18 further refinement of the primary Project assumptions and formalizing the "credit"
19 as it will be presented to the rating agencies and/or potential investors.
20 o Project feasibility is, in some respects, a subjective concept. While the current
21 GoTriangle model projects that the Project will cash-flow, the margin for error is
22 very small and a number of assumptions will need to materialize as modeled to
23 avoid needing additional financial support in the future.
24 o Given current projections for Project performance, Orange County cumulative
25 cash balances are insufficient in certain years to properly insulate the County
26 from potential future financial support requirements/requests. Of note on this
27 observation, Durham County cumulative cash balances may be available to
28 provide additional financial resources for Project underperformance. Clarity on
29 this point is recommended.
30 ➢ GoTriangle has identified the following mitigation strategies in an effort to
31 insulate the counties from additional financial support in the event that the
32 forecast assumptions do not materialize as projected:
33 • Contingency in the project budget; Design changes to reduce
34 project cost; Savings from property donations; Cost transfer to
35 project partners; and new revenue.
36 o Given the scope of the Project and current financial projections, Davenport is of
37 the opinion that this Project will be a discussion item and consideration as part of
38 the County's ongoing rating agency interactions.
39 • As Local Government Commission ("LGC") approvals will be required for the planned
40 non-TIFIA financings, a preliminary dialogue with LGC staff in the near future is
41 recommended.
42 • If interest and support for the Project are confirmed, the Orange County Board of
43 County Commissioners should request a clear and concise explanation of its current
44 commitments, future Project approvals and any opportunities/mechanisms for
45 multilateral and unilateral Project modification/suspension/termination.
46
47 PUBLIC COMMENT:
48 Robert David said he has moved from being a supporter to this plan to becoming an
49 opponent of it. He said there is a lot of money at stake, and more may be coming with
50 unknown costs. He asked if there is any benefit to the County from the transit plan, as there
25
1 are only three to four stops in all. He asked the BOCC to reject the plan as he now sees it, and
2 asked that they consider if they want GoTriangle to be the financial manager of this plan. He
3 encouraged the BOCC to establish a separate line of communication with the FTA. He thanked
4 the BOCC for its openness.
5 Paul Rockwell said the light rail is a beautiful dream that becomes a nightmare with the
6 project costs and financial responsibility. He said these costs will be pushed onto the
7 taxpayers. He said he is a strong supporter of public transportation, but not a supporter of light
8 rail, and he asked the BOCC to follow Wake County's lead and to find other solutions that are
9 more beneficial to Orange County.
10 Maria Palmer asked the BOCC to support Light Rail, and highlighted some of the
11 reasons why.
12 Ken Larson said he came up with a graph to examine the probability of success for this
13 project: receiving federal money- low; state funding at 10%- low; cost overruns- low; improved
14 bus service across all of Orange County— low; reduce traffic- low; route will serve most transit
15 dependent— low; improve environment- low. He said he does not support the project, and
16 playing the funds on the slot machines in Vegas would give a better return.
17 John Morris thanked the BOCC for commissioning the Davenport analysis. He said this
18 plan is based on a lot of assumptions and risks, and all must go perfectly for things to work out
19 for Orange County. He said any one of the risks could derail the financing plan. He said a
20 great deal of money is being borrowed, resulting in huge amounts of interest. He said
21 GoTriangle has not earned the trust of the County.
22 Brenda McCall said she has lived in this area for a long time, and is a strong supporter
23 of mass transit for Orange County. She said she is here representing organizations that serve
24 seniors in rural Orange County. She said she voted for the transit tax, but this light rail should
25 not be built on the backs of Orange County residents. She said the LRT will cannibalize transit
26 dollars for decades to come. She said Orange County cannot afford LRT, and she does not
27 support light rail. She encouraged the BOCC to say yes to a comprehensive transit system for
28 all of Orange County.
29 Bonnie Hauser said she is speaking on behalf of herself and Dr. Eric Ghysels,
30 Economics professor at the University of North Carolina (UNC). She said they are pleased to
31 see Davenport's report, but the scope of the work did not include the economic forecasting or
32 simulation modeling. She said the Moody numbers were accepted at face value and plugged
33 into the financial models. She said the veracity of the sales tax forecast was not tested. She
34 said economists in the area believe that Moody's forecast used in scenario C is overly
35 aggressive and unrealistic. She said it assumes that Orange County sales tax will grow by
36 8.5% this year, and by 3-6% annually for the next 45 years. She said numbers from recent
37 years simply do not show this. She said the sales tax numbers should be evaluated and
38 publically validated before moving forward in any way.
39 Julie McClintock thanked the BOCC for delving into the details and commissioning the
40 analysis. She said there are two bottom line questions: does the GoTriangle plan deliver the
41 best transit plan for Orange County, and can the County afford it. She said the only way this
42 plan will work is if there are no complications, and every assumption works as anticipated. She
43 said she sees the potential for economic growth for Durham County, but not for Orange.
44 She requested that all the work papers of Moody's and Davenport be released to the public,
45 including all the risk scenarios; Moody staff be available to answer question by local
46 economists; staff to arrange with an open discussion with Moody and Davenport.
47 Tom Farmer said he is a GoTriangle commuter who wants to age in place, which
48 requires a good transit system. He reviewed experiences living in other regions that installed
49 light rail, noting that these areas understood the investment. He said this region is failing to
26
1 understand the potential of this LRT plan. He said he is supportive of the light rail plan, and the
2 benefits it will bring to the community.
3 Sam Gharbo said the shiny rails of the LRT are attracting our attention. He said fiscal
4 responsibility is important, and the BOCC should not go after the new and shiny rails. He said
5 there is so much more that can be done with this money.
6 Charles Humble said the Davenport report shows Durham County can afford this
7 project, but it is very risky for Orange County. He said LRT is a big win for Durham County, but
8 he sees very few benefits for Orange County, as the stations will be located on tax exempt UNC
9 property. He said taxpayers will be asked to assume a long term financial risk if the BOCC
10 approves this.
11 Ramona McGee said she works with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC),
12 who is supportive of the light rail project. She urged the BOCC to support the project.
13
14 Commissioner Burroughs referred to pages 8 and 9 of PowerPoint that discusses cash
15 flow balances, and said these balances are for the light rail system, but asked if this includes
16 the Bus Rapid Transit Plan (BRIP)
17 Mitch Brigulio said the cash flow balances include everything in the program, everything
18 at the top of page 4 of the PowerPoint presentation.
19 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the roughly $200,000 that would be in the cash
20 balance in 2048 is in 2048 dollars.
21 Ted Cole said the model itself is projecting the capital and operating costs associated
22 with these things. He said these are being grown out to dollars in the future, based on some
23 growth factor. He said the tax district revenues are growing based on the projection. He said
24 he would consider those dollars as being the net cash flow of those projected dollars. He said it
25 will be a small amount of money.
26 Commissioner Burroughs asked if margin of error is specifically very small for Orange
27 County, and that there is more cushion for Durham County.
28 Ted Cole said yes, based on all that has been reviewed, Orange County has a very
29 small margin of error.
30 Commissioner Burroughs asked if one way to deal with the low cash flow is to change
31 the cost sharing percentages.
32 Ted Cole said yes, that is one input in the model, which if adjusted, will shift the costs.
33 He said this has evolved over the past few weeks, along with restructuring the debt, and adding
34 in the state of good repair borrowings in the latter years.
35 Commissioner Burroughs said there seems to be difference of opinion about the
36 potential impact on the County's credit rating, and asked if there is more of a risk for Orange
37 County than Durham County.
38 Ted Cole said this is a very significant project, and impact on the credit rating does not
39 necessarily mean it is all negative. He said a big part of local government credit analysis is the
40 local economy, its strength and vibrancy. He said a project like this could improve the
41 economy. He said the potentially negative side is that it is reasonable for the BOCC to expect
42 that this project will be a part of the conversation of Orange County's credit rating moving
43 forward. He said as the financial plan gets firmed up, and as the credit gets better defined, the
44 affect on the County's credit rating will become clear.
45 Commissioner Burroughs said the Moody's forecast was discussed in the public
46 comments, as well as the expected increase in local sales tax, and asked if he had comments
47 on these items.
48 Ted Cole said Moody's data on this, on page 7, picks up with 2017 as a baseline year,
49 and it is growing off of that. He said the first year under the baseline there is 4.7% growth,
50 which evolves every year until 2045. He said what this model requires is that the County has
27
1 those dollars (tax district revenue dollars) every year. He said when considering percentage
2 growth over a long period of time, one can determine a growth rate that takes the plan from
3 year one to year 40. He said there is some vulnerability with this model, because a temporary
4 period of no growth, or reduced growth, would greatly impact this model.
5 Mitch Brigulio said what year it happens and to what extent such a change may occur is
6 very important. He said cumulative dollars needed is what is being considered. He said there
7 may be years with flat or negative growth, but if there have been years prior with greater than
8 predicted growth, there may be surplus to cover the lower years.
9 Commissioner Rich referred to page 10, which talks about capital reserves, and said
10 she looked at a GoTriangle flow chart, which discussed debt service reserves, and an operating
11 reserve. She asked if the difference between these two reserves could be explained and their
12 relationship to the cash flow.
13 Ted Cole said the debt service reserve is specific to those borrowings that are
14 anticipated to take place, and as part of those individual borrowings, part of what is funded is a
15 reserve that is set aside in order to make a year's worth of payments if there is a problem. He
16 said the amount that is set aside is one year's debt service, and if the money is never needed, it
17 is used at the end of the loan to make the last payment. He said these dollars cannot be used
18 for any other purpose.
19 Ted Cole said in the model there is also an operating reserve.
20 Mitch Brigulio said there is an operating reserve set up in the model, which is essentially
21 three months worth of Orange County and GoTriangle operations for the system. He said it
22 does not include the LRT.
23 Mindy Taylor said the operating reserve is for the system operations and is modeled in
24 three separate places; a portion is allocated to Durham, Orange, and GoTriangle's own agency
25 operations, outside of the county plans.
26 Commissioner Rich asked if the source of the operating reserve could be identified.
27 Mindy Taylor said it comes from the sales tax. She said the reserve is 25% of the
28 annual operating expenses, and if there were a shortfall for three months, there would be funds
29 to cover it.
30 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the graphs on page 8 and 9, and said it appears to
31 show the disappearing orange bars, which could not be seen because of the size of the graph.
32 He said this is a problem because there is the 82/18 split, which is a part of this thought
33 process. He said the cash balance for Durham is in relation to their 82%, and the cash
34 balance for Orange is in relation to its 18%.
35 Commissioner Marcoplos said there needs to be a way to make this clear on the
36 website so that the public does not get the wrong impression.
37 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the sales tax assumptions table, column b, on
38 page 7, and said he does not see business cycles there.
39 Ted Cole said there may well be, and some expectation of business cycles. He said the
40 process to derive these growth rates was very involved.
41 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the line item that notes 30% contingency funds,
42 which seems to be based on an FTA requirement; but to him this contingency number should
43 be based on actual estimates on the actual project.
44 Commissioner Marcoplos said the answer that he originally got back from GoTriangle
45 was that 20% of the total base cost is allocated contingency, which seems to be saying to him
46 that excavation, stations, rail installation, etc. are going to have a certain amount of
47 contingency. He said there is then 10% that is unallocated. He said he is a builder and builds
48 contingency into his projects as well, and there seems to be no way of dealing with the fact that
49 if this is a true contingency it may indicate that 5-10% is not needed. He said a 5% contingency
50 amount would be $120 million, plus any finance costs. He said he is curious to gain a more in
28
1 depth understanding of the contingency, as 30% of the project is a lot of money, and a
2 contingency fund is not a contingency fund if every penny is spent.
3 Danny Rogers, GoTriangle Project Director, said the allocated contingency is identified
4 with each of the pieces of the project; track, system, facilities, etc. He said the contingencies
5 are adjusted as the design process continues. He said the level of contingencies are fairly
6 common, as well as being consistent with expectations from FTA. He said there is an initially
7 high level of contingency, because at a certain level of design there are some unknowns, as the
8 design is not final. He said as the design is finalized, the contingency level will reduce. He said
9 the unallocated contingency is an amount for the unknown unknowns.
10 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is any chance that the contingency fund will not
11 be spent, given that it is 5% over the required FTA amount.
12 Danny Rogers said he does not expect to spend the entire amount, and the New Starts
13 program has a track record of coming in under budget since the FTA has established some
14 new guidelines.
15 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the BOCC could receive information about these
16 other projects that have come in under budget.
17 Danny Rogers said the information is on the FTA website.
18 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the development funds line item, and asked if the
19 value of these funds could be clarified, and what would be the ramifications if these funds were
20 not allocated.
21 Danny Rogers said about $130 million is associated with the joint development
22 opportunity, which is an opportunity that the FTA has put into the process as something with
23 which it will participate in funding. He said this could result in affordable housing, joint
24 development near stations, etc. He said if this investment is not obtained and spent, then the
25 cost of the project would go down.
26 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is any debt cost associated with this line item.
27 Mindy Taylor said the financing for the project is based on the total cash flow need,
28 which includes the joint development costs. She said if those costs were not in the project cost,
29 then the finance needs would reduce.
30 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if it is in the project, and there are financing costs
31 associated with it, would those financial costs need to be calculated against whatever gain is
32 received from the government with that money. He said a closer look at that may reveal how
33 valuable it is to keep it in to begin with.
34 Mindy Taylor said this could be looked into, and a 50% federal match and 10% state
35 match is anticipated.
36 Commissioner Marcoplos said some examples of how others have utilized it would be
37 helpful.
38 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Davenport could do more analysis in the next few weeks,
39 or is their involvement complete.
40 Ted Cole said Davenport can continue to work with the County.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said an analysis that he would like to see is what happens if the
42 project is delayed. He said he would like to understand this better: the pros and cons, the
43 fiscal impact, etc.
44 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the sales tax, and said both counties use the article 39
45 history, Moody's base line sales tax. He said Orange County bleeds sales tax to its neighbors,
46 and Durham has a much larger commercial, retail, industrial tax base, as compared to Orange
47 County's primarily residential one. He asked if there is a reason not to run the pessimistic view
48 for Orange County, and let Durham run the view it so chooses.
49 Commissioner Jacobs said it looks like when the LRT is funded that there is no room for
50 buses. He asked if this is correct.
29
1 Ted Cole said what is in there now is the dollar value for expanded bus service that was
2 consistent with the 2012 BRIP.
3 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this runs through 2062. He asked if there are annual
4 funds, or if it is one lump spent down over time.
5 Mindy Taylor said it is an annual amount of expenditures.
6 Ted Cole said it is accounted for up top as an expense.
7 Commissioner Jacobs clarified that there is bus money all the way through scenario.
8 Ted Cole said that is his understanding.
9 Mindy Taylor said there is funding for bus service and bus capital all the way through the
10 cash flow. She said the amount that is programmed in the plan is consistent with the
11 investments that were in the original adopted Orange Transit Plan. She said that plan also
12 identified funded and unfunded needs. She said there is also increased funding from the tax
13 district for capital investments, for bus facilities, bus shelters, maintenance, etc. She said there
14 is limited capacity to expand bus service beyond what was originally promised, but if revenues
15 are higher than expected, they can be reallocated.
16 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this could be quantified by saying how many bus hours
17 are projected.
18 Mindy Taylor said that information is in the draft plans, and she can send that to the
19 BOCC.
20 Chair Dorosin moved item 6c: Recommendations for Employee Health Insurance and
21 Other Benefits to the BOCC work session on April 6.
22 Commissioner Price asked if clarification can be provided about fares, and how they will
23 be determined.
24 Mindy Taylor said the fare revenue assumption was determined based on analysis of
25 several different peer transit systems with similar types of projects, and this information can be
26 provided to the BOCC.
27 Commissioner Price clarified that the fare is not based on ridership, but rather an
28 average of other projects.
29 Mindy Taylor said that is correct.
30 Commissioner Price referred to a section called credit implications, and said it indicates
31 that all financings will be secured by light rail assets and will be subject to annual appropriations
32 from GoTriangle. She asked if the source of the appropriations could be identified.
33 Ted Cole said the tax district revenues.
34 Commissioner Price said this information should be included in the PowerPoint, in the
35 interest of transparency.
36 Commissioner Price said the scenarios do not take into consideration any type of
37 recessions. She said if time allows, she would like to know the implications of delaying the
38 project, as well as the implications of a recession.
39 Ted Cole said the model has the ability to input a change in the tax revenues, and it is a
40 question of when would this occur, and to what extent.
41 Commissioner Price said perhaps to consider inputting a change prior to the completion
42 of the construction, and perhaps one afterwards.
43 Commissioner McKee said he appreciated Ted Cole correcting him about the figures he
44 had about the interest. He said earlier in the week he expressed agreement that the Orange
45 and Durham counties were liable for 40% of the approximately $2.4 million in the plan. He said
46 he also mentioned the interest that falls entirely on the County, and recalled Ted Cole
47 calculating the County's percentage to about 52%. He asked if Ted Cole recalled this
48 conversation.
49 Ted Cole said yes, and his team revisited that more formally.
30
1 Mitch Brigulio said the counties, and local partners' share, is at about 55%; factoring in
2 the total cost of the project, the total interest and financing costs, the amount of the financing
3 that FTA will reimburse, etc.
4 Commissioner McKee asked if this information could be forwarded to the
5 Commissioners, with the details broken down.
6 Commissioner McKee referred to the packet, and said everything is financeable if you
7 are willing to mortgage to a certain point. He said the very next line discusses feasibility, and
8 that it is subjective, with which he agrees. He said the packet further reads: "given current
9 projections for project performance, Orange County's cumulative cash balances are not
10 sufficient in certain years to properly insulate the County from potential future financial support
11 requirements." He asked if Davenport stands by that statement.
12 Ted Cole said yes.
13 Commissioner McKee asked if, given these low cash balances, the likelihood of things
14 going perfectly for 40 plus years could be identified.
15 Ted Cole said he supposed it is as equally likely as unlikely, but there is a very thin
16 margin given the size of the project. He said 40-year projections are extremely difficult to do in
17 an accurate fashion. He re-emphasized that with the sales tax, it is one thing to get from year
18 one to year 40, on a 4% track over the long term; but it is another thing to hit every single year
19 with dollars growing. He said this model requires the dollars growing every year, and a delay in
20 the dollars made up in later years, does not necessarily work.
21 Commissioner McKee asked Jeff Mann where one could go to find information on the
22 resale value of used locomotives for light rail.
23 Jeff Mann said he could research this question, but typically these vehicles have a long
24 life, and he is unaware of an active resale market.
25 Commissioner McKee said the assets back the loans, and the only sellable asset he
26 sees are the carriages and locomotives, the land, and the buildings, with the rest being scrap.
27 He said he does not see $2.4 billion worth of assets.
28 Commissioner McKee said he submitted a list of questions to GoTriangle on Monday
29 through Travis Myren. He said these questions were from Dr. Ghysels. He said it is his
30 understanding that Dr. Ghysles tried to speak to Moody's, and Moody's would not speak to him,
31 as GoTriangle was the owner of the report. He asked if GoTriangle will answer the list of
32 questions in a timely fashion, and authorize Moody's to speak with Dr. Ghysels.
33 Mindy Taylor said GoTriangle did receive this request, and spoke with Moody's, who is
34 in the process of preparing a memorandum to address as many of the questions as possible.
35 She said some of the requested information is proprietary, and GoTriangle will need to review
36 its contract with Moody's. She said it is not typical to give this type of information away without
37 a non-disclosure agreement.
38 Commissioner McKee asked John Roberts if he could research whether the ownership
39 of that information belongs to GoTriangle, Moody's or the taxpayers.
40 Chair Dorosin said it is time to wrap up this conversation.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said he does not want to wrap this up, as this is one of the only
42 opportunities that the BOCC has to ask questions with both Davenport and GoTriangle in
43 attendance. He said the BOCC must get their questions answered.
44 Commissioner Rich referred to contingent liability, and she wanted to understand how
45 the County is being protected. She asked if this information could please be forwarded to her.
46 John Roberts said he will go back and look at comments and research this for the
47 BOCC.
48 Commissioner Burroughs said the cost-sharing agreement with Durham County at 82/18
49 does not work for her. She asked for all involved to talk to Durham about reducing the cost
31
1 sharing for Orange County. She said she sees great value in having LRT, but the split will need
2 to be significantly different for her to vote favorably.
3 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to buses, and whether there will be any revenue left
4 to expand the buses for new routes. He asked if the remaining funds are for new bus routes.
5 He also asked if the current buses can be deployed elsewhere, once the LRT is in place, and if
6 that is in addition to the projected bus expansion that is in the BRIP.
7 Mindy Taylor said whether the additional dollars will go to new routes, or to additional
8 hours on existing routes, is a question for the individual transit providers. She said this
9 information is laid out in the draft Orange transit plan.
10 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if that plan utilizes these buses that will be re-located
11 and re-routed, or are those buses gravy on top of the existing buses.
12 Danny Rogers said this is referred to as dividend hours, some of which is GoTriangle,
13 but majority of which is Chapel Hill Public Transit. He said there are agreements with Carrboro,
14 Chapel Hill and UNC, and most of that is provided by UNC. He said the way in which these
15 dividend hours are divided would be up to those entities. He said this is fully expected to
16 happen, and would allow for a fairly significant amount of buses to provide connections to the
17 LRT, and other parts of the area.
18 Commissioner Marcoplos said he does not think the Board has seen that on the same
19 page as the other bus expansion.
20 Danny Rogers said John Tallmadge, GoTriangle Regional Services Department
21 Director, will include this information in his presentation on the draft plan
22 Commissioner Jacobs said the dividend hours go to Chapel Hill Transit, and one of the
23 issues is that the LRT is in Chapel Hill; the dividend hours are in Chapel Hill; everything is in
24 Chapel Hill, despite the plan being promised to the whole County. He said it is important to
25 consider whether the Board is fulfilling the commitment made to the residents that there will be
26 a robust bus system in Orange County when the Board asked them to vote for the transit tax.
27 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the state of good repair, and that this was going to be
28 contributed to down the years. He said he thought this contribution was going to come out of
29 the cash balances, and asked if this is correct, as the cash balances are so small.
30 Ted Cole said part of the reason the cash balances fall to where they are is because
31 some state of good repair improvements will be funded out of the cash balances. He said a
32 borrowing would be inserted, when the cash balances are no longer sufficient to fund the state
33 of good repair improvements.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said this is the same predicament that exists with schools. He
35 said there is not enough funding to repair the old, pay operations, and build new schools.
36 Ted Cole said they try to do what they can on a pay as you go basis, and when that
37 does not work money is borrowed.
38 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the BRT, and asked where is the $100 million coming.
39 Mindy Taylor said GoTriangle is not the project sponsor on the BRT, and said to contact
40 the Town of Chapel Hill about this. She said funding options are being considered outside of
41 the tax district share, and currently no state funds are being considered, and the federal share
42 could be higher.
43 Brian Litchfield, Transit Director for Town of Chapel Hill, said the current estimate is
44 $125 million year of expenditure, which assumes a 70% from a federal grant, and a 30% local
45 match. He said the current draft plan includes $6.1 million of that 30%. He said as the next
46 phase of the project continues, the Town will have to look at the costs for the project and
47 whether there are ways to minimize them.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a difference of about $28 million, and asked if this is
49 included in the BRIP at this point, or is the County expected to contribute.
32
1 Brian Litchfield said that difference is currently unfunded, and as they move into the
2 engineering phase, the Town can consider a variety of adjustments, including delaying
3 elements of the project, changing the cost share with the federal government, etc. He said
4 design and environmental work have yet to begin.
5 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a reason that the BRT is even in this basket of
6 conversation about LRT.
7 Brian Litchfield said the BRT was originally included in the investment plan, as it was
8 considered a regional project, and both projects work better together than they do separately.
9 Commissioner McKee asked if staff could gather actual sales tax growth data since the
10 inception of this project, and to forward it to Davenport. He asked if Davenport could factor that
11 data into the chart found on page 7. He said, as he understands, the sales tax growth since
12 inception of this project, started above projections in year one, but then flat lined thereafter.
13 Commissioner McKee referenced the state of good repair loans, and said he does not
14 remember seeing these before. He said in December the Board was sold a bill of goods.
15 Commissioner Marcoplos referenced the Hillsborough train station, and asked if this can
16 be built on time regardless of any other part of the plan.
17 Jeff Mann said it is the goal to build it, and NCDOT rail division is working on this, and
18 nothing in this plan is stopping the progress of that station.
19 Commissioner McKee said a question and answer session was held for the Mountains
20 to Sea Trail about a month ago, and asked if there is any way to set up that style of interactive
21 conversation on this topic as it may quell some concerns.
22 Commissioner McKee said maybe a delay would be the best thing to do.
23 Jeff Mann said there are a number of public workshops set up where any questions can
24 be asked.
25 Commissioner McKee said he was referring to a question and answer session between
26 the community and Orange County staff.
27 Commissioner Jacobs said he appreciated that there will be a meeting in Hillsborough,
28 as all areas of the County need to have an opportunity to ask questions and be heard. He
29 thanked GoTriangle for indulging his questions, and the Chair for indulging the Board's
30 questions despite the hour.
31
32 c. Recommendations for Employee Health Insurance and Other Benefits
33 DEFERRED UNTIL April 6th
34
35 d. Petition Requesting Adjustment to Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of
36 Projects for School Impact Fee Collection Purposes
37 The Board considered a petition submitted at the February 21, 2017 Board of County
38 Commissioners (BOCC) meeting regarding grandfathering of projects for school impact fee
39 collection purposes.
40 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, reviewed the following information:
41 BACKGROUND:
42 On December 13, 2016, the BOCC adopted a Resolution Regarding Grandfathering of Projects
43 for School Impact Fee Collection Purposes (Attachment 1). The resolution was in response to
44 concerns raised during deliberations that occurred in the fall of 2016 which resulted in updated
45 school impact fees being adopted on November 15, 2016.
46
47 On February 21, 2017 representatives of "Townhouse Apartments" located in Chapel Hill
48 attended the BOCC meeting to submit a petition to adjust language in the grandfathering
49 resolution to accommodate their ongoing plans to renovate/expand their existing apartment
50 complex (see Attachment 2). The Townhouse Apartments petition includes suggested language
33
1 to be added to the grandfathering resolution. The suggested additional language essentially
2 would allow projects of 90-units in size or greater to be subject to 2016 impact fee levels if the
3 project:
4 • Had obtained a specific lesser level of permitting than the currently required Zoning
5 Compliance Permit (ZCP) by January 1, 2017, and
6 • Submits a building permit application prior to January 31, 2019 (current date for this
7 milestone is January 1, 2018).
8 Additionally, the suggested language would require payment of the fee prior to December 31,
9 2020 (the current language requires the fee be paid by June 30, 2019). The suggested
10 language keeps the current "outer limit" of December 31, 2020 for issuance of a Certificate of
11 Compliance (formerly known as a Certificate of Occupancy).
12
13 The petition was referred to staff to gather further information on the project. Staff
14 worked on the petition and tentatively scheduled the grandfathering request for hearing
15 at the April 18, 2017 regular meeting of the BOCC. Before the BOCC could consider the
16 petition, two bills were filed in the North Carolina House of Representatives (House) that
17 potentially severely impact Orange County's ability to fund school capital needs.
18
19 On March 20, 2017 House Bill 406 was filed in the House. If it passes, House Bill 406,
20 which specifically targets Orange County, will strip the County of its authority to levy
21 impact fees. On March 22, 2017 House Bill 436 was filed in the House. House Bill 436 is
22 similar to House Bill 406 in that it would strip the County of its impact fee levying
23 authority. Unlike House Bill 406, House Bill 436 targets numerous jurisdictions
24 throughout the state and eliminates all regulatory fees on new construction unless the
25 fee is specifically authorized by general law. Should either bill pass Orange County will
26 lose millions of dollars annually that is used to assist in school capital projects. This will
27 leave a deficit that ultimately must be filled with a tax increase that requires all property
28 owners in Orange County to pay for the costs of new development.
29
30 Staff has analyzed the submitted petition and suggests revising the dates in the current
31 resolution to allow for a longer grandfathering period for projects 90-units or greater in size
32 rather than adopting the language suggested by the petitioner, which is tailored for a specific
33 project. Other projects that are currently in various planning phases could potentially take
34 advantage of the longer grandfathering period if submittal deadlines are met.
35 Staff shared the staff recommendation with the petitioner. The petitioner provided the following
36 suggestions:
37 • Move the staff-recommended Zoning Compliance Permit (ZCP) issuance date of July
38 31, 2017 out to December 31, 2017; alternatively, require only submission of the ZCP
39 application by May 15, 2017.
40 o Staff notes an alternative exists where the ZCP submission is in May and the
41 issuance is in December. Petitioner's position on this alternative was unclear at the
42 time of publication.
43 • Move the Building Permit application date from January 1, 2019 to January 31, 2019.
44 • Move the fee paid-by date from June 30, 2019 to June 30, 2020 (to be more in-line with
45 the Certificate of Compliance date of December 31, 2020). In accord with the attached
46 resolution, the BOCC intends that any additional grandfathering requests for projects
47 90-units in size or greater must be submitted prior to July 31, 2017.
48
34
1 FINANCIAL IMPACT: Allowing for a longer grandfathering period is likely to result in a lesser
2 amount of school impact fee collections than might otherwise be collected.
3 Commissioner McKee asked if this applicant came before the Board in February.
4 Craig Benedict said yes.
5
6 PUBLIC COMMENT:
7 Wayne Hadler said he was before the BOCC on February 21St. He said they are hoping
8 to submit their ZCP tomorrow. He said the way the resolution is written now, on page 2 of the
9 agenda, calls for an issuance of a ZCP by July 31, 2017. He said when the ZCP is submitted it
10 will likely be reviewed by Chapel Hill, come back to him, and be resubmitted with corrections.
11 He said due to this slow timeline, it is likely that he will be unable to meet the proposed
12 deadlines for the County. He said his proposed solution is to change the language to read that
13 the ZCP will be submitted by May 2017, and the issuance will occur by December 31, 2017.
14 Wayne Hadler said this is a project that will build out an estimated $625,000 per year of
15 tax revenue, and one that has a wonderful affordable housing component to it, providing $4
16 million of value to the Town of Chapel Hill over 25 years. He said this will include six apartment
17 units, of mixed bedroom size, that will be leased to the Town for $12/year for 25 years.
18 Commissioner Rich asked if these apartments are for UNC Students, with the exception
19 of the affordable housing.
20 Wayne Hadler said yes. He said the affordable units will be on the Hillsborough side of
21 the project, closer to the houses.
22 Craig Benedict said the amendments being requested to the resolution in Attachment 3
23 states the Applicant wishes to have a submittal by May 15, and an issuance prior to December
24 31, 2017.
25 John Roberts said he has typed out the petitioner's request in the form of two new
26 paragraphs at the end that he can read into the record, if the Board votes to adopt the changes
27 requested by the Petitioner.
28 Chair Dorosin said the Applicant made a petition, which the Board referred to staff. He
29 said staff and the Petitioner have worked together in good faith, and in the interim, legislation
30 was introduced that would eliminate the County from being able to collect impact fees. He said
31 the Board's willingness to work with this issue existed in advance of the legislative bills being
32 filed, and by no means is the Board acting with a gun to its head.
33 Wayne Hadler said that Chair Dorosin sent a personal email to him after the February
34 21st meeting to let him know that his request had been referred to staff.
35 John Roberts read the proposed amendments to the resolution:
36 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT projects of 90-units in size or greater for which a Zoning
37 Compliance Permit application has been has been submitted prior to May 15, 2017 and for
38 which a building permit application has been submitted prior to January 31, 2019 may choose to
39 pay either the public school impact fee that was in effect for 2016 for the housing type(s)
40 proposed in the application or the fee required by the public school impact fee schedule in
41 section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of Ordinances, provided the
42 fee is paid prior to June 30, 2020 and a Certificate of Compliance is issued prior to December
43 31, 2020.
44
45 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT applicants for additional grandfathering of projects of 90-
46 units in size or greater that submit a zoning compliance permit application prior to May 15, 2017
47 may submit requests and supporting information no later than July 31, 2017 to Orange County
48 Planning Staff who, in conjunction with the Orange County Attorney, will prepare agenda items
49 for Orange County Board of Commissioners consideration at the next available regular meeting
50 of the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
35
1
2 Wayne Hadler agreed to this amended language.
3 John Roberts said the second paragraph is needed so that this is not seen as an
4 individual benefit to one developer.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos to
7 approve the amended resolution in Attachment 3 (deleting two paragraphs, and replacing them
8 with two new paragraphs above).
9
10 Chair Dorosin clarified that the motion contains that the ZCP must be submitted by May
11 15, 2017, and issued by December 31, 2017.
12 John Roberts said the language says it has to be submitted by May 15, 2017, and a
13 building permit application must be submitted by January 31, 2019, and does not address what
14 Chair Dorosin just asked.
15 Chair Dorosin said the motion contains no language about the ZCP being issued by
16 December 31, 2017. He asked if this additional language, about the issuance, should be
17 added.
18 John Roberts said this was the alternative requested by the Petitioner, and it makes it
19 easier for any petitioner who meets the May 15, 2017 application deadline, because they are
20 not sitting around waiting for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, or County approval. He said petitioners will
21 still have to meet the later deadlines of building permit application, so it takes out a step, but is
22 unlikely to expand greatly the number of developers that qualify.
23 Commissioner Rich said it may be wise for the Board to consider impact fees when
24 housing is exclusively for students, and she asked if John Roberts and staff would look at this.
25 John Roberts said, in an earlier meeting with developers, he explained that the Board of
26 County Commissioners cannot treat student housing as it does senior housing, but the
27 authorizing legislation for impact fees does authorize the Board to look at fairness and equity in
28 setting the impact fees.
29 Commissioner Jacobs suggested taking the gist of the resolution, putting it in the form
30 of a public hearing announcement, and publishing it in the local newspapers.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
35 direct staff to look at options when a project comes forward with student housing, and what the
36 Board's response to that would be.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 Commissioner Marcoplos said to send a notice to the Homeowners Associations, and to
41 Representative Sara Stephens.
42
43 REVISED RESOLUTION:
44
45 RESOLUTION REGARDING GRANDFATHERING OF PROJECTS FOR SCHOOL IMPACT
46 FEE COLLECTION PURPOSES
47 WHEREAS, on November 15, 2016 the Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted
48 amendments to Chapter 30, Article II — Educational Facilities Impact Fee of the Orange County
49 Code of Ordinances, and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby
36
1 provides technical guidance on "grandfathering," for school impact fee purposes, of projects
2 that are currently in later stages of project development.
3
4 BE IT RESOLVED THAT persons submitting a building permit application prior to January 1,
5 2017 may choose to pay either the public school impact fee that was in effect for 2016 for the
6 housing type(s) proposed in the application or the fee required by the public school impact fee
7 schedule in section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of Ordinances,
8 provided the building permit is issued no more than 180 calendar days after the application
9 submittal date and a Certificate of Compliance (aka, Certificate of Occupancy) is issued no later
10 than 365 calendar days after issuance of a building permit. If a building permit is not issued
11 within 180 calendar days after the application submittal date or if a Certificate of Compliance is
12 not issued within 365 calendar days of building permit issuance, the fee shall be the fee listed in
13 section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of Ordinances.
14
15 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT projects for which a Zoning Compliance Permit has been
16 issued prior to January 1, 2017 and for which a building permit application has been submitted
17 prior to January 1, 2018 may choose to pay either the public school impact fee that was in
18 effect for 2016 for the housing type(s) proposed in the application or the fee required by the
19 public school impact fee schedule in section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange
20 County Code of Ordinances, provided the building permit is issued no more than 180 calendar
21 days after the application submittal date and a Certificate of Compliance (aka, Certificate of
22 Occupancy) is issued within 365 calendar days of building permit issuance. If a building permit
23 is not issued within 180 calendar days after the application submittal date or if a Certificate of
24 Compliance is not issued within 365 calendar days of building permit issuance, the fee shall be
25 the fee listed in section of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of Ordinances.
26
27 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT projects of 90-units in size or greater for which a Zoning
28 Compliance Permit application has been has been submitted prior to May 15, 2017 and for
29 which a building permit application has been submitted prior to January 31, 2019 may choose to
30 pay either the public school impact fee that was in effect for 2016 for the housing type(s)
31 proposed in the application or the fee required by the public school impact fee schedule in
32 section 30-33 of Chapter 30, Article II of the Orange County Code of Ordinances, provided the
33 fee is paid prior to June 30, 2020 and a Certificate of Compliance is issued prior to December
34 31, 2020.
35
36 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT applicants for additional grandfathering of projects of 90-
37 units in size or greater that submit a zoning compliance permit application prior to May 15, 2017
38 may submit requests and supporting information no later than July 31, 2017 to Orange County
39 Planning Staff who, in conjunction with the Orange County Attorney, will prepare agenda items
40 for Orange County Board of Commissioners consideration at the next available regular meeting
41 of the Orange County Board of Commissioners.
42
43 7. Reports
44 NONE
45
46 8. Consent Agenda
47 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
48 NONE
49
50 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
37
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
3 approve the Consent Agenda.
4
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
8
9 a. Minutes
10 The Board approved the minutes from March 7 and 27, 2017 as submitted by the Clerk to the
11 Board.
12 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
13 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
14 property tax values for five (5) taxpayers with a total of five (5) bills that will result in a reduction
15 of revenue in accordance with NCGS.
16 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
17 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
18 values for four (4) taxpayers with a total of thirteen (13) bills that will result in a reduction of
19 revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
20 d. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill —Carrboro
21 City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment#7-A Related
22 to CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
23 The Board approved an application to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
24 (NCDPI) to release proceeds from the NC Education Lottery account related to FY 2016-17
25 debt service payments for Chapel Hill —Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), and to approve
26 Budget Amendment#7-A (amended School Capital Project Ordinances), contingent on the
27 NCDPI's approval of the application and authorized the Chair to sign.
28 e. Public Safety Telecommunications Week Proclamation
29 The Board adopted a proclamation designating the week of April 9 through 15, 2017 as Public
30 Safety Telecommunications Week in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign.
31 f. National Public Health Week Proclamation
32 The Board adopted a proclamation to officially recognize April 3 through 9, 2017 as National
33 Public Health Week in Orange County and authorized the Chair to sign.
34 g. Fair Housing Month Proclamation
35 The Board approved a proclamation designating April 2017 as Fair Housing Month in Orange
36 County and authorized the Chair to sign.
37 h. North Carolina Housing Finance Agency(NCHFA) —2017 Essential Single-Family
38 Rehabilitation Loan Pool (ESFRLPI7) Award
39 The Board approved the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency Essential Single-Family
40 Rehabilitation Loan Pool Funding and Written Agreement for Sub-recipients and adopted the
41 Assistance, Procurement and Disbursement Policies for the 2017 Essential Single
42 Rehabilitation Loan Pool award and authorized the Chair to sign.
43 i. Approval of Revised Resolutions for the Orange County FY 2015-2016 and FY 2016-
44 2017 HOME Program Design for Habitat for Humanity Homeownership Assisted
45 Projects
46 The Board approved a revision to the HOME Program Design Resolutions for FY 2015-16 and
47 2016-17 and authorized the Chair to sign.
48
49 9. County Manager's Report
50 Projected April 6, 2017 Budget Work Session Items
38
1 Capital Investment Plan — Project by Project Discussion (except Schools)
2
3 10. County Attorney's Report
4 NONE
5
6 11. Appointments
7 NONE
8
9 12. Information Items
10 • March 21, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
11 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
12 • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
13 • Tax Assessor's Report — Releases/Refunds under $100
14
15 13. Closed Session
16 NONE
17
18 14. Adjournment
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
21 adjourn the meeting at 12:01 a.m.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24 Mark Dorosin, Chair
25
26 Donna Baker
27 Clerk to the Board
28