HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 11-15-2016 - 6-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: November 15, 2016
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
(Under Separate Cover) Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
Draft Minutes (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.
September 29, 2016 BOCC Joint Meeting with Schools
October 4, 2016 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 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION
6 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
7 JOINT MEETING
8 September 29, 2016
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a joint session with the Chapel
11 Hill—Carrboro Board of Education and the Orange County Board of Education on Thursday,
12 September 29, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, NC.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Mia
15 Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioner Rich
17 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Deputy Clerk Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna S.
19 Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
20 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Steve Halkiotis
21 and Board Members Brenda Stephens, Millicent Rainey, Tom Carr, Tony McKnight, Michael
22 Hood and Superintendent Todd Wirt and Deputy Superintendent Pam Jones were also present.
23 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT:
24 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS PRESENT:
25 Chair James Barrett and Board Members Annetta Streater, Joal Broun, Rani Dasi, Pat Heinrich,
26 Andrew Davidson, Margaret Samuels and Assistant Superintendent Todd LoFrese and Rydell
27 Harrison, Interim Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Services were also present.
28 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION MEMBERS ABSENT:
29
30 Opening Comments
31 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
32 Chair McKee said Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Price, and County Manager
33 Bonnie Hammersley would not be attending tonight.
34
35 1. Welcome and Opening Remarks
36 James Barrett said the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools' (CHCCS) Interim
37 Superintendent, Dr. Jim Causby, could not be here tonight, and that Dr. Rydell Harrison, Interim
38 Assistant Superintendent, Instructional Services, would be here instead.
39 Steve Halkiotis said he wanted to praise Bonnie Hammersley tonight, and he respected
40 the budget timeline and process. He said the Orange County Schools' (OCS) Board approved
41 a budget audit standing committee to coordinate efforts between OCS and the Board of County
42 Commissioners (BOCC). He suggested that their on-going collaboration committee has not
43 been very successful, and instead proposed the creation of a new committee, to improve the
44 budget process, made up of the three elected bodies: BOCC, Board of CHCCS and Board of
45 OCS. Steve Halkiotis said the Family Success Alliance (FSA) group has been working at the
46 New Hope Elementary, and there have been dramatic changes due to this alliance. He wanted
47 to thank Bonnie Hammersley for information on the funds collected from impact fees for the
48 school systems. He said the former County Manager failed to do this, and this information is
49 helpful to all involved.
2
1 Steve Halkiotis referred to the BOCC adopted goals and priorities, specifically#6. He
2 invited the Commissioners to attend the next OCS student achievement committee meeting.
3 He said there are many successful programs that are helping to close the achievement gap.
4 Chair McKee said he would relay Steve Halkiotis' comments to Bonnie Hammersley.
5 Commissioner Price arrived at 7:09 p.m.
6
7 2. Family Success Alliance
8
9 Background Information:
10 Poverty &Adverse Childhood Experiences
11 Poverty in Orange County has been on the rise. Research shows that people living in poverty
12 disproportionately experience Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs), which are potentially
13 traumatic events that can have negative, lasting effects on health and well-being. Intervening
14 early to address the social determinants of health, including ACEs and educational
15 achievement, are priorities for the health department and laid the foundation for the Family
16 Success Alliance (FSA).
17
18 Model Programs and Adaptation to Orange County
19 FSA is modeled on the Harlem Children's Zone, a "cradle to college or career" pipeline that
20 provides wrap-around services and intensive academic interventions. After 20 years of work,
21 HCZ has eliminated the racial achievement gap for its students. Adapting this model to Orange
22 County required identifying neighborhoods where families are struggling to make ends meet
23 and facilitating a community-engaged process for selecting two pilot zones, Zone 4 (Southern
24 Hillsborough) and Zone 6 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro).
25
26 Gap Analysis, Initial Programs, and Strategic Plan Development
27 FSA staff worked closely with community members living in the zones and other key
28 stakeholders to identify gaps in Orange County's "pipeline" and develop a Strategic Plan for
29 how to address those gaps. The two initial programs developed by FSA include 1) a summer
30 Kindergarten Readiness program, implemented in partnership with school districts, and 2) a
31 Navigator Program that helps FSA-enrolled families support their children's education and
32 connect with community resources by drawing on the expertise of zone residents who are hired
33 and trained by FSA. FSA also supports afterschool programing and summer enrichment for
34 enrolled children.
35 Program Update
36 Colleen Bridger, Director, Orange County Health Department, made the following
37 PowerPoint presentation:
38
39
�!J 40
HOO
)IDIJ�������������Ia r,Q r . a � In 1 1!4
(��I 42
43
44
45 Joint School Board and County Commissioner Meeting
46 September 29, 2016, Presentation Overview
47
48 Three Problems:
49 1. Safety net interventions too diluted
50 2. No robust evaluations
3
1 3. Communities not at the center of interventions
2
3 Poverty in Orange County
4 • Multiple poverty-related indicators are increasing in Orange County
5 • Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) include 10 indicators related to neglect, abuse and
6 household dysfunction. People living in poverty disproportionately experience Adverse
7 Childhood Experiences. There is a dose-response relationship between ACEs and the risk
8 of chronic disease.
9
10 Our Models
11 • Harlem Children's Zone pipeline model
12 o Combined a focus on academics with family/community support
13 o HCZ closed the racial achievement gap in both math and ELA by third grade
14 • HCZ scaled up = President Obama's "Promise Zones" & has been replicated across NC,
15 e.g. EDCI
16 • Orange County is rich in high-quality resources. We need to build on, expand, & enhance
17 existing services and supports. NOT replace or duplicate.
18 • Collective Impact approach
19 o New way of working together that emphasizes strong backbone support for
20 collaborative work and prioritizes shared data and evaluation.
21 o Equity is an additional component that experts agree should be added to the model
22 and is important for FSA
23 o OCHD is strong in both areas and serves as the backbone support for the FSA
24 collaborative with guidance from a diverse Advisory Council.
25 o Our Partners (organizations funded by United Way and those on the Advisory
26 Council)
27
28 Adapting to OC: Mapping our poverty zones
29 • Building a Neighborhood Poverty Index to identify "zones" in Orange County; neighborhood
30 level data are not available through Census and other common sources
31 • Goals: 1)Adjust for population density, 2) Use multiple data layers for assurance, 3) Drill to
32 neighborhoods with distinct types if possible
33 • Created an aggregate indicator (index) showing the likelihood of a neighborhood being low-
34 income. Each 1/4 mile block with >30 residences was scored from 0 - 4 based on four data
35 layers: (1) residential structure type (Land Records/GIS); (2) active housing choice
36 vouchers (Housing); (3) children on Medicaid (DSS); and (4) clinic patients (health
37 department)
38 • Identified 6 zones throughout the county where families are most struggling to make ends
39 meet
40 • Held meetings in the zones; all 6 zones identified a champion and applied; 2 were selected.
41
42 The Pipeline to Success —from Cradle to College/Career
4
�
/����IIIII I() '0�'
hrA
v wrI i n ef
f111U
rer Rlr
O
A JJJ ��IIIII r /� 411 :ii.i11,111,111111 li
\\ 1111111111i 4:1', opor44; I� �rI. , r r 1 � r � „ IN
/ fl �� "�° ' � d«f Irk nm ,”
Goal V. "small 2 GoaV:3, GoaV 4
f IIPnktra,d are IFw IIhy N a",yhddre n f youth an ;'y Yalu tlh gradu tte hum 7, IFan illi s&de or hoods
prepared fora+uuhviarrV Vn a llthy 8,succor d UR high an:IVuoa,ap 8u m WILI4U support the healkhyr
smuV ooll duye.Vonro int aapunlh'VIM rn
1
2 2015 Gap Analysis
3 • Community Input (interviews, focus groups, door-to-door and online surveys) in Zones 4
4 and 6
5 • Zone meetings to prioritize. Top three in common: childcare, K readiness, family support
6
7 Our Two-Generation Approach: Support Children & Families
8 • Initial programming: Kindergarten Readiness —just completed second year in both zones
9 o UNC FPG's evaluation (2016) showed improvement in: Attention, Print concepts,
10 Word Use, and teacher ratings of frustration tolerance, social skills, and
11 achievement
12 • Navigator Program: Link to resources; Peer coaches; Help families engage in and advocate
13 for educational success. Keep community voice at the center of our work.
14 o Formative and summative evaluations in process, partnered with UNC Peds & FPG
15
16 2016 —2018 Strategic Plan: Community engaged process, adopted in August, covers next two
17 years
18
19 Evaluation
20 • Context of the Initiative (continue to track poverty related indicators at neighborhood level)
21 • Collective Impact Initiative (evaluate how we work together using this collaborative model)
22 • System Changes (funding streams, cultural norms, etc)
23 • Impact of the Initiative -- Nationally-vetted indicators from Promise Neighborhoods
24 o Individual FSA Program Evaluation
25 o Longitudinal Cohort Study
26
27 What's Next?
28 • Continue to add & support cohorts in zones 4 and 6 & continue to build pipeline
29 • Ultimately, expand reach by working in additional zones, as resources allow
30
31 Key Publications: 2015 Gap Analysis, 2016-2018 Strategic Plan
32 http://www.orangecountync.qov/fsapublications.php
33
34 Photo Directory of Advisory Council members:
35 http://www.orangecountync.gov/fsaadvisory council.php
36
37 For more information, contact: Meredith McMonigle, Project Coordinator
38 mmcmonigle @orangecountync.gov, (919) 245-2071
39
5
1 James Barrett said he noticed that some of the school boundaries went beyond the
2 zone boundaries. He asked if the population served must be residents of the zone, or if being a
3 student within the zone would be sufficient.
4 Colleen Bridger said it was not an exact science, and they tried to follow the school zone
5 boundaries. She said sometimes doing this excluded a high need area, so zones were
6 expanded.
7 Steve Halkiotis asked if, in her professional opinion, the mental health needs of students
8 in North Carolina has gone up or down from 10% in 1979.
9 Colleen Bridger said the number in need has increased significantly and is possibly
10 upward of 30%.
11 Steve Halkiotis said mental health issues have been rampant in the schools and have
12 gone unrecognized for years. He said the work of the FSA in addressing some of the mental
13 health issues is appreciated.
14 Annetta Streater asked if there are any plans to connect with the school districts
15 regarding possible strategies to reach children that do not fall in the targeted zones.
16 Colleen Bridger said these pilots are identifying best practices, and the plan is to
17 disseminate what is working well across the entire county.
18 Rani Dasi said the FSA is helping both school districts, and she thanked Colleen Bridger
19 and the FSA. She echoed the vital need for mental health services.
20 Todd Wirt said the least amount of resources, for those with mental health, is in the
21 elementary schools. He said OCS has had a wonderful experience with the FSA.
22 Commissioner Dorosin asked Colleen Bridger if she could talk about what is in the
23 queue for working with even younger children.
24 Colleen Bridger said she has had conversations about targeted pre-K, targeted toward
25 the kids in the zones. She said the FSA is working with all of their partners to strengthen their
26 relationship with their childcare providers.
27 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a reason to not use the verbiage universal pre-
28 k.
29 Colleen Bridger said universal pre-K implies that everybody, regardless of need,
30 receives pre-K. She said research shows that pre-K is more effective when it is targeted to
31 those children who need it most.
32 Brenda Stephens expressed her appreciation of Colleen Bridger, and said she had
33 personally witnessed the enthusiasm and excitement in zone 4 this summer.
34 Rydell Harrison expressed his appreciation to the FSA and the staff of the Health
35 Department.
36 Donna Coffey said this presentation gave her a better understanding of the FSA
37 program. She said this is a great place to start setting their collaborative budget process.
38 Margaret Samuels echoed previous comments, and said in her professional job she
39 sees Navigators everywhere.
40
41 3. Update on School Impact Fee Study/Report
42
43 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, reviewed the background information:
44
45 On August 17, 2016, draft school impact fee studies for both school districts were sent via e-
46 mail to school district and municipal staffs. The studies were completed by a consultant with
47 whom Orange County contracted. The report for Orange County Schools was updated by the
48 consultant on September 1 because it was discovered that a portion of Appendix A was
49 missing.
50
6
1 School impact fees are fees charged to help defray the public costs of new development. The
2 fee is charged once to all new residential development in both school districts. Fees charged
3 must be proportional to the actual impact caused which is the reason a technical study is
4 completed; the data-based study determines the proportional impact of housing types and the
5 "maximum supportable impact fee" (MSIF) that can be charged for each type of housing.
6 Proceeds from school impact fees can be used only to increase student membership capacity
7 (e.g., Capital Facilities — new or expanded school buildings) in the school district in which the
8 fee was collected. School impact fee proceeds cannot be used to fund operations.
9
10 School impact fees were last updated in 2008 and were adopted to increase each year over
11 four years, with the last increase effective January 1, 2012. The final increase raised the fee to
12 60% of the MSIF, as calculated in 2008.
13
14 The recently completed studies disaggregate dwelling types by the number of bedrooms a unit
15 contains and also break out smaller sized (less than 800 square feet) detached units.
16
17 Additionally, the studies include information on Age Restricted Units. Attachment 3a shows the
18 MSIF at various percentage levels. It should be noted that the adopted percentage of MSIF
19 must be the same for all housing types (e.g., fees cannot be adopted at 40% MSIF for one
20 housing type and 60% MSIF for a different housing type).
21
22 Since 1995, Orange County has offered an impact fee reimbursement program for school
23 impact fees paid on affordable housing units. From FY09-10 through FY15-16, $606,318 in
24 collected impact fees was reimbursed for the 77 affordable single-family housing units and one
25 apartment building containing 6 affordable multi-family units constructed in that time period.
26
27 Orange County Planning staff will hold a public information meeting on September 26 at 6:00
28 p.m. at the Whitted Meeting Facility in Hillsborough. A representative from the consulting firm
29 will attend the joint School Boards/BOCC meeting on September 29 to present the results of
30 the study and address technical questions/comments on the reports.
31
32 A BOCC public hearing on potential updates to school impact fee levels has been scheduled for
33 October 4.
34
35 Possible options for updated fee levels include:
36 1. As calculated, adopting at some percentage of the MSIF.
37 2. Collapsing the Single Family Detached category in the Orange County Schools district
38 (due to an unexpected result in this category), charging the "Average" for this housing
39 type in this district, charging fees as calculated for other housing types, and
40 adopting at some percentage of the MSIF.
41 3. Collapsing all housing type categories in both or either school districts, charging the
42 "Average" calculation by housing type, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. a.
43 Note for this option: Accessory dwelling units (e.g., granny flats) are included in the multi-
44 family category (0-2 bedrooms) so setting the fee for the "average" calculation may result
45 in an increase for accessory dwelling units, depending on the percentage of MSIF
46 chosen.
47 4. Options 1-3 can also be implemented by increasing the percentage of MSIF over a period
48 of time (e.g., adopt at x% effective 2017, y% effective 2018, and z% effective 2019).
49
50 Perdita Holtz, Orange County Planning, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
7
1
2 2016 School Impact Fee Studies
3 Joint BOCC/School Boards Meeting
4 September 29, 2016
5
6 Overview
7 • School Impact Fees
8 o Enabling legislation in 1987
9 o Fees first adopted in 1993
10 o Help defray the public costs of new residential development
11 o Used to provide greater student capacity (e.g., new or expanded school
12 buildings)
13 Cannot be used to fund operations or repairs of existing facilities
14 • Updated technical studies done every few years to ensure the fees remain proportional
15 to the actual impacts caused
16 • Most recent studies (one for each school district) completed in summer 2016
17 • Over the years, types of housing has become more refined
18 o Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and digital data make this possible
19
20 Refined Housing Type Categories
21 • 1993 —fee charged per dwelling, regardless of type
22 • Each technical study has refined housing types a bit more
23 o Single-family &All Other
24 o Single-family, Manufactured Homes, All Other
25 o Single-family Detached, Single-family Attached, Multi-family, Manufactured
26 Homes
27 • Current study disaggregated data down to number of bedrooms per unit (SFD, SFA,
28 MF)
29 o Calculations for smaller-sized single-family detached (<800 square feet)
30 o Age-Restricted Units
31
32 2016 Study
33 Full studies available on website:
34 http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning and inspections/current interest proiect
35 s.php
36
37 Julie Herlands from TichlerBise presented this portion of PowerPoint:
38
39 Orange County Draft Educational Facilities Fees
40 --Orange County Schools
41 --Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
42
43 Presentation Overview
44 • Introduction
45 • Overview
46 o Impact Fees
47 o Process for the Studies
48 • Impact Fee Results (by System)
49 o Methodologies
8
1 o Levels of Service and Costs
2 o Maximum Supportable Amounts
3 • Q & A
4
5 TischlerBise, Inc.:
6 • National Practice
7 • Impact Fees (850+)
8 • Fiscal Impact Evaluations (700+)
9 • Infrastructure Needs & Revenue Strategies
10 • Public and Private Sector Experience*
11 Impact Fees
12 The purpose is to:
13 ". . . Help defray the costs to the County of constructing certain capital improvements, the need
14 for which is created in substantial part by the new development that takes place within the
15 County."
16
17 • Represent new growth's fair share of the cost for capital facility needs
18 • Used for capacity expansions
19 • Not a revenue raising mechanism but a way to provide growth-related infrastructure
20 • Three requirements must be met:
21 o Impact: Growth is generating need for infrastructure
22 o Benefit: Timing of improvements; accounting and expenditure controls
23 o Proportionality: Fair share of cost
24
25 Process for Study
26 • Interview key staff
27 • Analyze demographic data
28 • Consider methodologies and determine levels of service
29 • Determine capital costs
30 • Evaluate inclusion of credits
31 • Determine maximum supportable fee amounts for each school system
32 • Staff review
33 • Presentations to the public
34 • Decision by elected officials
35
36 Methodologies
37 • Cost Recovery (past)
38 o Oversized and unique facilities
39 • Incremental Expansion (present)
40 o Formula-based approach documents level-of-service with both quantitative and
41 qualitative measures; common for schools
42 • Plan-Based (future)
43 o Common for utilities but can also be used for other public facilities with non-
44 impact fee funding (e.g., roads)
45
46 Impact Fee Formula Overview (graph)
47
48 Impact Fee Methodolgy (flow chart)
49
9
1 Joal Broun referred to the portable classroom cost per student, and asked if that is
2 assuming that the portable classroom is a permanent fixture or used for as long as needed.
3 She asked if there is an average that is used.
4 Julie Herlands said it is based on what is in the ground today, within each school
5 system, and within each level of school (elementary, middle and high), leading to the number of
6 portable classrooms per students. She said if portables go away in the future, a higher level of
7 service will be needed.
8 Pat Heinrich asked if the calculations used to determine capital cost are a lagging
9 number; based on what is being spent today to determine impact fees for the level of service
10 provided in the future.
11 Julie Herlands said the dollars are in current dollars; what it costs today. She said it is
12 recommended that the County apply an inflationary factor to the whole schedule to keep up with
13 the increase in construction costs.
14
15 Orange County Schools
16
17 OCS Student Generation Rates (graph)
18
19 OCS Levels of Service (graph)
20
21 OCS Cost Per Student Summary(graph)
22
23 OCS Maximum Supportable Impact Fees (graph)
24
25 Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason that portable classrooms are included in
26 this schedule.
27 Julie Herlands said there is some level of capacity that is being provided by a temporary
28 facility currently. She said this capacity cannot be replaced in the fee calculation with a better
29 or higher level of service.
30 Craig Benedict said the capacity of portable classrooms is not counted with the School
31 Adequate Public Facilities Fee (SAPFO) as a determinate to decide whether additional
32 buildings are needed.
33 James Barrett said a policy decision has been made that portables are acceptable,
34 because it is assumed that capacity can exceed 100%.
35 Commissioner Price said she thought the goal, moving forward, was to do away with
36 portable classrooms, as they are unsafe.
37 James Barrett said the assumption is that portables will remain because funding is not
38 provided for new buildings until capacity is at 105 to 110%.
39 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that there is no formal plan to get rid of portables, and
40 the answer was yes.
41 Todd LoFrese said it would be wonderful to do away with portable units.
42 Steve Halkiotis seconded this statement.
43 Rani Dasi asked if the impact fee rates are updated regularly.
44 Julie Herlands said a full restudy is recommended every three to five years, and an
45 update on the costs, with an inflationary adjustment, annually.
46 Rani Dasi said if a project was approved in November, where a new building would
47 replace a number of portables significantly changing the square footage, the cost of said project
48 would be greatly understated if these numbers were not included.
10
1 Julie Herlands said typically there are not huge changes in levels of service figure, but
2 she said if a permanent space was created that significantly increased the level of service
3 standards (square feet per student), then the fee could potentially go up.
4 Steve Halkiotis asked if there is a reason that the reproductive rate in central and
5 northern Orange County seems to be less than the reproductive rate in southern Orange
6 County, given that the housing is similar. He said the whole topic may need to be revisited, and
7 the OCS is pulling in more impact fee money than CHCCS due to the tremendous growth in the
8 district.
9 Julie Herlands said this is all local data that is reflective of both school districts, as it
10 stands today. She said it is local census data. She said children that attend private schools are
11 not included. She said if an answer is desired to Mr. Halkiotis' question, she would suggest
12 doing a survey.
13 Matthew Roberts clarified that the number of children expected in a 3-bedroom house in
14 CHCCS, is higher than the number of children that would be expected in a 3-bedroom house in
15 OCS. He said this is all new to him.
16 Julie Herlands said there is local, geocoded data; public school students within each
17 district that reside in the different types of housing units.
18 Matthew Roberts asked if student housing in Chapel Hill is included.
19 Perdita Holtz said dorms are not included, but single family homes are included, even if
20 rented by university students.
21 Michael Hood asked if all apartment complexes are included in the CHCCS.
22 Julie Herlands said yes.
23 Michael Hood said many apartment complexes do not generate any students.
24 James Barrett said a lot of this has changed dramatically over the last eight years. He
25 said there are apartment complexes that were never expected to house children, which are
26 currently housing many families with children in the CHCCS.
27 Michael Hood said that may be reflective of the debt bubble. He said per capita income
28 for an area tends to produce fewer children per household. He said this is not reflective in the
29 numbers, and per capita income in OCS is lower than in CHCCS.
30 Julie Herlands said there is a type of unit difference as well, and there are underlining
31 drivers.
32 Michael Hood said he is bothered by the width of disparity.
33 Pat Heinrich said when he looked at the report he saw the Turner Building was used as
34 an inflationary scale for how costs would change over time. He said this is a national index, and
35 asked if there is a reason why Department of Public Instruction (DPI) numbers were not used to
36 get more regional numbers.
37 Julie Herlands said that was on the cost side. She said the starting point is the local
38 data, and to get to current dollars they use a construction cost index to find this out. She said
39 she would get him a more complete answer regarding the Turner Index.
40 Pat Heinrich said the numbers used were from the national index.
41 Julie Herlands said the numbers will not change drastically if a different index is used.
42 She said there is a weighted average by the type of school building. She said a sample of local
43 construction is gathered.
44 Pat Heinrich said there was a 31% regional increase in school construction from 2010-
45 2015, according to the DPI. He said from 2013-2015 there was a 24% increase in regional
46 schools, as opposed to a 13% increase in the Turner Index. He said his concern is that the
47 Turner Index is not relative to what is actually happening locally.
48 Julie Herlands said an adjustment can be made.
49 Pat Heinrich asked if this data is not relevant.
11
1 Craig Benedict said if the intent was to charge 100% of the maximum supportable
2 impact fee and to capture all of the localized increases, then a specific regional index should be
3 used. He said historically the County has been at the 60% level of the maximum supportable
4 impact fee. He sad that could be raised to 65 or 70%.
5 James Barrett said the upcoming bond and subsequent renovations will bring a lot of
6 changes. He asked if these costs will be a factor in this data.
7 Julie Herlands said they are trying to determine a replacement cost per square foot
8 based on today's dollars. She said the challenge is to use projects that have been done here in
9 Orange County and inflate them to get to current dollars. She said when the fees are collected
10 they can go towards capacity improvement.
11 James Barrett said asked if the next time a high school is needed in the CHCCS, the
12 dollars are refigured based on the upcoming renovation costs, or are the inflated numbers from
13 10 years ago still used.
14 Julie Herlands said the numbers from the upcoming Chapel Hill High School renovations
15 would be used and inflated.
16 Commissioner Dorosin said he is concerned that OCS feels it is not being treated fairly
17 in this process. He clarified that the housing of every student in both school districts is
18 determined and put into categories: 0-3 bedroom, apartment, etc. He said these numbers are
19 then reverse engineered to determine how this is all calculated, which yields some of the
20 anomalies that have been alluded to, such as a 4-bedroom house in OCS having less children
21 than a 4-bedroom house in CHCCS.
22 Julie Herlands said a previous study was done on student generational rates for recently
23 developed (within the last 10 years) housing units in the County and both school districts. She
24 said this study was the foundation for these rates. She said all students were geocoded and
25 matched to the assessors' database, which has good data in terms of the bedroom counts for
26 recent developments. She said for the current study, data prior to 2004 was folded in using
27 census data where possible. She said an impact fee is paid once for the life of the unit. She
28 said there may be other factors at play, such as private schools or other demographic realities.
29 Commissioner Dorosin asked if someone built an apartment complex in Chapel Hill
30 tomorrow, they would pay the current rate even if the complex never houses a single public
31 school child.
32 Julie Herlands said the first five years a property may serve one population, and the next
33 five years another type of population, etc. She said the age of a unit can impact the number of
34 students that reside there.
35 Commissioner Dorosin said the differences are the different demographics in each
36 school system.
37 Michael Hood said the data has been looking at new and recent development. He said
38 he has a problem with a 1970s era, 3-bedroom ranch home that now has an extended family
39 living in it. He said the children may not be included in census data.
40 Julie Herlands said these are kids that are generated by type of unit within the school
41 systems. She said there is very good data on the single family side, by size of the house, by
42 bedroom count, by numbers of kids, etc.
43 Rani Dasi said it is important to be transparent with the public, and the numbers should
44 be accurately reported.
45 Julie Herlands said choosing an index is a methodological choice.
46 Rani Dasi said she is asking to apply data that is appropriate to the community, so that
47 the process is transparent when percentages are charged, and investors know what they are
48 getting.
12
1 Julie Herlands said the construction costs are crosschecked and truth tested, and if this
2 is a point of contention, the percentage multiplier can be changed to 120 instead of 113,
3 resulting in a slight increase in the fee amount.
4 Commissioner Burroughs said it is ultimately at the discretion of the BOCC to make any
5 decisions, and all concerns should be directed to the BOCC, not the consultant.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said he hears that some people are not comfortable with the way
7 the Board of County Commissioners is calculating the impact fee, and so the Board may want
8 to review how the calculations are being done.
9 Steve Halkiotis said the input on this information is flawed, and the demographics in the
10 OCS system have changed dramatically. He said he is not happy with this analysis, which
11 shows partial children coming from OCS and whole children from CHCCS, despite being in the
12 same size home.
13 Julie Herlands resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
14
15 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (graph)
16
17 CHCCS Student Generation Rates (graph)
18
19 CHCCS Levels of Service (graph)
20
21 CHCCS Cost Per Student Summary (graph)
22
23 CHCCS Maximum Supportable Impact Fees (graph)
24
25 Perdita Holtz resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
26
27 Consultant Reports on Findings (graph)
28
29 Maximum Supportable Impact Fees (graph)
30 • Technical studies determined the "maximum supportable impact fee" (MSIF)
31 • In the past, Orange County has not adopted at the MSIF level
32 o Last 2 cycles were at:
33 (2001) 60%
34 (2008) 4-year increase at 32%, 40%, 50%, topping off at 60%
35
36 Current Fee Levels
37 Chapel Hill-Carrboro District (graph)
38 Orange County District (graph)
39
40 MSIF — Chapel Hill —Carrboro District (graph)
41
42 MSIF — Orange County District (graph)
43
44 Possible Options
45 • As calculated, adopting at some percentage of the MSIF.
46 • Collapsing the Single Family Detached category in the Orange County Schools district
47 (due to an unexpected result in this category), charging the "Average" for this housing
48 type in this district, charging fees as calculated for other housing types, and adopting at
49 some percentage of the MSIF.
13
1 • Collapsing all housing type categories in both or either school districts, charging the
2 "Average" calculation by housing type, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF.
3 • Options 1-3 can also be implemented by increasing the percentage of MSIF over a
4 period of time (e.g., adopt at x% effective 2017, y% effective 2018, and z% effective
5 2019).
6
7 Upcoming Meetings
8 • Joint Board of County Commissioners/ School Boards Meeting — Sep. 29
9 • Board of County Commissioners Public Hearing on October 4 beginning at 7:00 p.m. at
10 the Whitted Meeting Facility
11 • Possible adoption of updated fees at October 18 Board of County Commissioners
12 Meeting
13 Joal Broun referred to the new legislation that requires smaller K-3 class sizes, and
14 asked if there is a plan to factor in the additional space that will be needed to accommodate this
15 legislation.
16 Craig Benedict said that would have to be analyzed. He said if the same square
17 footage, at the same cost, provides less capacity, then there will be a higher cost per seat. He
18 said school construction standards will also be reviewed, as well as how the legislation would
19 affect school construction costs.
20 Joal Broun asked if this would be discussed before the Board of County Commissioners
21 decides on the impact fee.
22 Craig Benedict said the Planning Department could work with the Finance Department
23 and both school districts to see what the affects would be.
24 Commissioner Dorosin thanked the consultant, and said this was not supposed to be a
25 cross-examination. He said there are new board members on both Boards, and there are high
26 emotions and history with this issue, but her work is appreciated.
27 Commissioner Jacobs referred to Joal Broun's comment, and said if the County has to
28 anticipate another unfunded mandate from the State, then the County should anticipate it. He
29 said such litigation may pre-dispose the Board of County Commissioners to picking a higher
30 number with which to start. He said he would recommend phasing in the impact fees.
31 Commissioner Price asked if an extensive addition is built onto a mill home, which are
32 historic preservation homes, would it be considered for impact fees.
33 Craig Benedict said existing homes are grandfathered in, but if children are living in
34 these houses they will be captured in future analysis.
35
36 4. Discussion of School Related Topics
37
38 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
39 Todd LoFrese referred to page 20 in the BOCC packet, and reviewed the following
40 information about CHCCS:
41
42 • Demographic Challenges
43
44 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Demographic Changes
45 2000 2005 2010 2015
Lunch 17% 18% 25% 31%
Asian 9% 12% 15% 15%
Black 16% 14% 13% 11%
Hispanic 5% 9% 11% 16%
Multi 3% 5% 6% 6%
14
White 67% 60% 54% 52%
Enrollment 9,598 10,944 11,675 11,982 *12,230
1 *2016 estimate
2
3 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Immigrant Students and English Language Learners
4
Year Identified English Number of Percentage of EL Newcomers Program
Language Immigrant population Participation:
Learners Students: identified as
Immigrant:
2014-15 1280 629 49% 28 high school student
23 middle schools
students
2015-16 1222 808 66% 22 elementary students
55 middle school students
26 high school students
5
6
7 • Teacher Hiring Summary
8
Total hired for the 132
2016-2017 school year:
Elementary 60 elementary hires of the 132 total new
hires or 45.4%
Elementary classroom
• 43 elementary classroom teachers of
the 60 total elementary positions or
71.6%
• Of the 43 total elementary classroom
teachers, 8 were EC Teachers or 18.6%
Other elementary 17 others of the 60 total elementary
positions or 28.3%
• 2 Social Workers
• 1 Occupational Therapist
• 2 Instructional Tech Facilitators
• 2 Instructional Coaches
• 2 Interventionist
• 2 Media Coordinators
• 1 PE Teacher
• 1 Music Teacher
• 1 World Language (French) Teacher
• 2 ESL Teachers
• 1 Behavior Specialist
Secondary 72 secondary hires of the 132 total new hires
or 54.5%
Math
• 10 secondary math teachers of the 72
total secondary positions or 13.8%
• 5 middle school math teachers
15
• 5 high school math teachers
Science
• 8 secondary science teachers of the 72
total secondary positions or 11.1%
• 4 middle school science teachers
• 4 high school science teachers
EC • 11 EC teachers of the 72 total secondary
positions or 15.3%
• 4 middle school EC teachers
• 7 high school EC teachers
Other secondary 43 others of the 72 total secondary
positions or 59.7%
• 4 CTE Teachers
• 5 World Language Teachers
• 3 Cultural Arts Teachers
• 1 Dual Language Teacher
• 8 English Language Arts Teachers
• 1 ESL Teacher
• 1 Gifted Specialist
• 2 Instructional Tech Facilitators
• 1 ISS Coordinator
• 3 Media Coordinators
• 1 School Counselor
• 1 School Nurse
• 1 School Social Worker
• 1 Interventionist
• 9 Social Studies Teachers
• 1 Speech Language Pathologist
1
2 • Legislative Update
3 The state budget includes a provision that significantly lowers required class size
4 averages and maximums in Grades K-3. The legislation requires implementation to occur in
5 2017-18. If implemented, this will have a profound effect on elementary school capacity
6 throughout the county (and state). It will also have a significant budget impact. The K-3 funded
7 ratio is currently about 4 students below the average class size maximum of 21 and has been
8 below the average maximum for several years. The district has staffed K-3 classrooms based
9 on an average of 21 students. The difference between the funded ratio and the average ratio
10 has been used to fund non-classroom teachers, such as art, music, and PE. Implementing
11 2017-18 requirements would necessitate additional local expenditures, as the funds would be
12 limited to classroom teachers to meet the reduced averages. Additional budget would be
13 needed to fund aforementioned non-classroom teachers and teacher supplements for the
14 additional teaching positions.
15
16 Todd LoFrese presented an overview of the changes as provided in the Board's agenda
17 packet, Attachment 4-f, followed by the local capacity impact.
16
1 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there could be clarification about funded versus max
2 size versus max individual size.
3 Todd LoFrese said a current CHCCS kindergarten class has an average of 21 students.
4 He said the State gives additional teacher positions in K-3 classrooms than what the max
5 average class size can be. He said those additional teacher positions are used for art, music,
6 or PE. He said the actual class sizes are allocated at the max average. He said there are not
7 class size maximums in grades 4-12.
8 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this is going to be a huge unfunded mandate from the
9 State.
10 Todd LoFrese said he is very concerned about this, and the districts would need to
11 discuss if implementing such a mandate would even be possible.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said he assumes the State will give counties time to implement.
13 Todd LoFrese said this change is supposed to take place in 2017-18.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said there is about a year to try and come up with a plan, and
15 perhaps mobile classrooms will return.
16 Todd LoFrese said there is not room for 46 mobile classrooms or funds.
17 Commissioner Burroughs said the current legislature passed this legislation, and this is
18 an area to collaborate on giving their voice to their legislative delegation.
19
20 Orange County Schools
21 Todd Wirt referred to page 19 of the BOCC packet, which contains the OCS
22 information. He reviewed the following information:
23
24 • Legislative Update
25 Todd Wirt said their local impact is on page 19 of the agenda packet, and the lobbying
26 has begun. He said the impact of this legislation for OCS is an additional nine teachers. He
27 said there are several teaching positions in OCS that are funded by sources other than the
28 State.
29
30 • Demographics
31 Todd Wirt reviewed the Demographics on Page 17 of the agenda packet.
32 Chair McKee asked if the hiring success is attributed to the supplement increase.
33 Todd Wirt said this is difficult to analyze, but he has heard it has been a driving factor.
34 He said overall recruiting efforts have been improved.
35 James Barrett said this is true for CHCCS as well.
36 Commissioner Dorosin asked what are the overall demographics for OCS.
37 Dr. Wirt said OCS is 20% Hispanic; 15% African-American; 58% White; and 7% other
38 races.
39 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are concerns about the range of Free-Reduced
40 Lunches (FRL) in the elementary schools, especially when considering equity.
41 Todd Wirt said Hillsborough Elementary is an application only, year round school, and
42 he said an analysis is being done as to why minority families are not accessing this school. He
43 said efforts are being made to make the school, and the application process, better publicized
44 and more easily accessible.
45 Brenda Stephens said the application process for Hillsborough Elementary has been
46 worked on to make it more accessible.
47 Commissioner Dorosin said there is potential legislation that may target eliminating year
48 round schools, and asked if OCS may expand the year round schedule or if CHCCS has
49 considered year round schools.
17
1 Steve Halkiotis said the legislature is going to target these types of schools because of
2 lobbying by the travel and tourism industries. He said he would like to see a year round
3 schedule in all schools, and believes there would be dramatically positive results.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like for CHCCS to answer the question about year
5 round schools.
6 James Barrett said this topic has not been discussed recently. His understanding is that
7 the legislation would grandfather in existing schools, but would make it harder to create new
8 year round schools.
9 Todd LoFrese said CHCCS is looking at current summer programming and summer
10 school for elementary schools, and are considering adding more enrichment programs.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said a legislative update should be included each time these joint
12 meetings occur.
13 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a penalty for not complying with the 18-student
14 average classroom maximum mandate.
15 Todd LoFrese said the superintendent's salary will be withheld.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said there should be a strategy to deal with what is coming down
17 the legislative pipeline. He said the Board and the Districts must be in a position to act with the
18 least harm to the Districts and the students.
19 Commissioner Jacobs referred to year round schools, and said he would not want the
20 legislature to prevent the school systems from considering what they believe is in the best
21 interest of their students. He said the BOCC would try to find a way to defend the schools.
22 Rani Dasi said the CHCCS Board should talk about the issue of year round schools.
23 Steve Halkiotis thanked the Board of County Commissioners for its funding, and said
24 because of this funding OCS was able to implement a universal breakfast.
25 James Barrett said when the collaboration group met two weeks ago, it was suggested
26 to create a budget process ad hoc committee. He said such a committee was created and it
27 meets tomorrow.
28 Michael Hood said he is a parent of children who attended Hillsborough Elementary, and
29 he would support the legislature removing itself entirely from all matters of school scheduling.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said he sent an article about New Jersey having prohibitions on
31 suspensions, and maybe this could be a discussion topic next at their next meeting.
32 The meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m.
33
34 Earl McKee, Chair
35
36 Donna Baker
37 Clerk to the Board
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 October 4, 2016
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 4,
10 2016 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, 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 McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to add
25 the following item to tonight's agenda: Item 7b: Downtown Housing Improvement Corporation,
26 Inc.'s (DHIC) Request to Reduce Orange County's 99 Year Affordability Period for the
27 Greenfield Place Project to 40 Years.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
32 - White sheet: PowerPoint for Item 5-a
33 - White sheet: "2001 Orange County Bonds for Affordable Housing", for item 8-a
34 - Lavender sheet: revised abstract for Item 11-a.
35
36 PUBLIC CHARGE
37
38 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
39
40 2. Public Comments
41
42 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
43
44 Commissioner Price arrived at 7:10 p.m.
45
46 Marilyn Kille read the following comments:
47
48 I am here to ask for your help. As some know, for 21 years I have owned the
49 southernmost farm of those remaining within Carrboro's ETJ—on the county side
50 of Old Fayetteville Road opposite the Town's Autumn Woods apartments. For 15
51 years my farm rehabilitated hunting dogs for and stabled rescued by OCAS.
2
1 During those years, my farm was known for its husbandry expertise and
2 exceptional safety standards.
3
4 Soon after the County land across from my farm was annexed, trespassing and
5 vandalism began. I promptly spent $35,000 to further secure my livestock and
6 home.
7
8 By 1997, demand by UNC and area vets to board other's horses led me to build a
9 new barn. Because my house lies 600 ft. from the road front, a tiny caretaker
10 apartment was included with the original plan- to be completed when money
11 allowed. Seven permits were obtained from Carrboro for related purposes.
12 Installed was a separate electric meter and service for the apartment with lines
13 embedded under 4" of concrete -which could not have been done thereafter. This
14 is an important point!! 150+ photos documented the entire construction process,
15 including inspections by Town officials.
16
17 Ten years later, Carrboro alleged-falsely- that the apartment had never been
18 know, permitted, inspected, or given a Certificate of Occupancy (CO)–and sued
19 me! Why, after a decade?
20
21 According to its Planning Department, (as recorded in August 2008) because
22 (Quote): It would be prohibitively expensive for the town to buy (my) land or
23 otherwise to leapfrog over it to bring utilities to the farms north of its slated future
24 development!"
25
26 On August 24, 2008, a letter from the town read, substantively– if I would donate
27 my land to the Town, my legal problems would cease! Inexplicably, instead, the
28 judge ordered my farm subdivided and positioned for annexation. When
29 thereafter I didn't file the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)with Orange County, the
30 Town officials imposed $85,000 in fines. Thereafter, chose to criminalize me in a
31 subsequent trial. This, when the 1997 site plan—which the Town claimed during
32 the 2008 trial never existed—was introduced in an altered form and used to
33 criminalize me in 2009.
34
35 At this point, you must be asking: What is so important about the Kille Farm?
36
37 Between Sept. 2009-Feb. 2010 on three occasions, 27 southern Orange County
38 farms petitioned the BOCC- to protect our farms by returning jurisdiction to County
39 control-as allowed by NC law. Each of the three petitions disappeared.
40
41 By 2011 the NCGA responded to ETJ landowners' call for help! And adopted two
42 (Landmark) laws which aimed to address how, for decades, pro-development
43 Town leaders had been "taking" private land by denying landowners of their
44 Constitutional rights of"due process" and "just compensation". For years
45 thereafter, Carrboro regularly disregarded these laws, claimed continuing
46 jurisdiction over land uses, and issued illegal permits- causing added risks and
47 harm for owners.
48
49 It was thereafter that vandalism at my farm increased measurably (and she listed
50 these acts). Who knows what's occurred when I am not home or I am asleep.
51 Just this past week there were four more incidents of trespass! And with my
3
1 house setback from the road, I can't see what happens on my property or the
2 road-front. Instead I am left only to deal with the harm caused by unknown 3rd
3 parties.
4
5 In January 2014, I appealed to OCAS (Orange County Animal Services)for
6 understanding! And I asked for help exploring how to better safeguard my
7 livestock, home and family. By April 2014 this produced a renewed lash of
8 vandalism, including livestock releases. OCAS' response was to sue me—the
9 victim—alleging I had violated its "nuisance" law-4-45! Interestingly, legal opinions
10 concluded that this "Dog" law doesn't apply to livestock. And that OCAS and
11 Orange County's judiciary chose to disregard these opinions and NC law.
12
13 Also of interest! When OCAS learned during the April 2015 trial that NC's criminal
14 code doesn't allow for attachment of my land, OCAS withdrew its criminal
15 complaint and refiled as a civil lawsuit. Again, why?
16
17 There can only be one answer! So as to harm me! So as to ensure that my farm
18 is "taken"by surreptitious means otherwise now prohibited by NC law.
19
20 In April 2015, the same judge, who in 2008 denied admission of the 1997 permits
21 and all evidence, again denied evidence in April 2015. After which, OCAS denied
22 me the opportunity to complete the pending sale of an impounded pony-valued at
23 $23,000. And instead, disposed of it.
24
25 I ask you! Is it OCAS' charter to ensnare farm owners?
26
27 Wouldn't you be outraged if OCAS refused to help solve this life-threatening
28 dilemma? And, instead, used the heaviest handed legal option- criminalizing you,
29 the victim-to aid and abet wrongs by third parties?
30
31 Isn't it government's goal to protect citizens-to see justice when injustices occur?
32
33 How would you react if your home was invaded as you slept, to derelicts peeing in
34 your backyard. To finding escaped prisoners in your garage? To looking out your
35 bathroom window finding a stranger taking your picture? To hearing a gunshot
36 whizzing behind your house, and moments later, holding the injured and dying
37 animal in your arms? Or having to pay OCAS to recover your micro-chipped dogs
38 because someone stole them from your property and abandoned them
39 elsewhere? Having to repair fences week after week because drivers crash
40 through them; or neighbors' damage or steel boards that you can't know of unless
41 an animal is reported to have been released nearby?
42
43 How would you feel never again feeling safe?
44
45 Lastly, is it reasonable to believe that there is not relationship between my animals
46 being released and the Town having re-zoned all remaining ETJ farms by year
47 end 2010 for"future urban purposes"?
48
49 Again, I ask for your help in stopping this insanity, including in restraining OCAS!
50
51 Marilyn Kille
4
1
2 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
3 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
4 below.)
5
6 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
7 Commissioner Pelissier had no announcements or petitions.
8 Commissioner Jacobs asked the Manager if documentation for agenda items could be
9 placed behind the abstract to review before the meeting, whether it is a work session or regular
10 meeting.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to have a policy requiring advisory boards to
12 have meetings in rooms large enough to accommodate the public.
13 Commissioner Rich met with Dan May from the Arts Center and discussed more
14 collaboration between the art commissions. She asked if an update could be provided
15 regarding progress on this matter in the coming months.
16 Commissioner Dorosin said in the past the County has made ad hoc efforts to buy or
17 hire locally for County related contracting or business. He said given the conversation recently
18 about asking contractors to pay a living wage, etc., he would like a formalized policy for a local
19 purchasing priority.
20 Commissioner Jacobs said this has been brought up before in an ad hoc way, and
21 putting it in writing is overdue.
22 Commissioner Rich said there has been a resolution regarding food for events and
23 expressed support for this petition.
24 Commissioner Price said Indigenous People's Day is on Monday, October 10, and the
25 Town of Chapel Hill has some activities planned.
26 Commissioner Price said she attended an exciting workshop today about Smart Cities,
27 and there is an opportunity for cities and counties to get assistance to look at opportunities for
28 data and analytics. She said she will share this information with the Manager to research.
29 Commissioner Burroughs had no announcements or petitions.
30 Chair McKee asked if a discussion item to remove imminent domain, as related to the
31 Mountain to Sea Trail (MTS), could be brought back to the Board.
32 Chair McKee said the travel policy that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
33 approved does not align with the one that the ABC Board has written, and he asked for the ABC
34 Board policy to be brought back at the next regular BOCC meeting for further discussion.
35
36 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
37 None
38
39 5. Public Hearings
40
41 a. School Impact Fee Updates
42 The Board considered: 1. Conducting a public hearing on potential updates to current
43 school impact fee levels and amendments to the General Code of Ordinances — Educational
44 Facilities Impact Fees; 2. Discussing the topic as desired; 3. Closing the public hearing; 4.
45 Directing the consultant, TischlerBise, to finalize the draft school impact fee studies; and 5.
46 Directing staff to bring back amendments to the Code of General Ordinances — Educational
47 Facilities Impact Fees for adoption consideration on October 18, 2016.
48
49 BACKGROUND: On September 6, 2016 the Board of County Commissioners received draft
50 school impact fee studies for both school districts that had been completed by TischlerBise, a
51 consulting firm retained by the County. School impact fees are fees charged to help defray the
5
1 public costs of new development. The fee is charged once to all new residential development in
2 both school districts. Fees charged must be proportional to the actual impact caused which is
3 the reason a technical study is completed; the data-based study determines the proportional
4 impact of housing types and the "maximum supportable impact fee" (MSIF) that can be charged
5 for each type of housing. Proceeds from school impact fees can be used only to increase
6 student membership capacity (e.g., Capital Facilities — new or expanded school buildings) in the
7 school district in which the fee was collected. School impact fee proceeds cannot be used to
8 fund operations or repairs of existing facilities.
9
10 Possible options for updated fee levels include:
11 1. As calculated, adopting at some percentage of the MSIF.
12 2. Collapsing the Single Family Detached category in the Orange County Schools district
13 (due to an unexpected result in this category), charging the "Average"for this housing
14 type in this district, charging fees as calculated for other housing types, and adopting at
15 some percentage of the MSIF.
16 3. Collapsing all housing type categories in both or either school districts, charging the
17 "Average" calculation by housing type, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF. a.
18 Note for this option: Accessory dwelling units (e.g., granny flats) are included in the
19 multi-family category (0-2 bedrooms) so setting the fee for the "average" calculation may
20 result in an increase for accessory dwelling units, depending on the percentage of MSIF
21 chosen.
22 4. Options 1-3 can also be implemented by increasing the percentage of MSIF over a
23 period of time (e.g., adopt at x% effective 2017, y% effective 2018, and z% effective
24 2019).
25 It should be noted that the adopted percentage of MSIF must be the same for all
26 housing types
27 (e.g., fees cannot be adopted at 40% MSIF for one housing type and 60% MSIF for a
28 different housing type).
29
30 Attachment 2 is the section of the County's General Code of Ordinances that pertains to the
31 Educational Facilities Impact Fee with proposed amendments shown in "track changes" format.
32 Proposed amendments to this section of the Code of Ordinances include:
33 • Adding definitions for the various housing types.
34 • Adding language in Section 30-33 that would require age restricted units that do not
35 remain age restricted for at least 20 years be required to pay the difference between the
36 age restricted fee paid and the non-age-restricted fee in effect at the time a unit is no
37 longer age restricted.
38 • Adding language in Section 30-35(e) clarifying under what conditions a refund would be
39 issued if impact fees were reduced for a particular housing unit type.
40 • Adding language in Section 30-38 to recognize conditional zoning, which was adopted in
41 2011 when the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)was adopted.
42
43 Since 1995, Orange County has offered an impact fee reimbursement program for school
44 impact fees paid on affordable housing units. From FY2009-10 through FY2015-16, $606,318 in
45 collected impact fees was reimbursed for the 77 affordable single-family housing units and one
46 apartment building containing 6 affordable multi-family units constructed in that time period.
47 Planning staff held a public information meeting on September 26, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
48 Despite publishing display ads in two newspapers, only one person (a staff member with the
6
1 Town of Chapel Hill's Planning Department) attended the public information meeting. This topic
2 was also discussed at the September 29 Joint BOCC/School Boards meeting. Staff from
3 TischlerBise was in attendance at both of these meetings.
4
5 At the September 6 BOCC meeting, the proposed schedule indicated that updated fee levels
6 could potentially be adopted after the conclusion of the October 4 public hearing. Due to agenda
7 preparation constraints, staff is recommending that adoption consideration occur at the October
8 18, 2016 BOCC meeting.
9
10 Perdita Holtz, Planning Department, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
11
12 2016 School Impact Fee Studies
13 Public Hearing
14 October 4, 2016
15
16 Overview
17 • School Impact Fees
18 o Enabling legislation in 1987
19 o Fees first adopted in 1993
20 o Help defray the public costs of new residential development
21 Represent new growth's fair share of the cost for capital facility needs
22 o Used to provide greater student capacity (e.g., new or expanded school
23 buildings)
24 Cannot be used to fund operations or repairs of existing facilities
25 • Updated technical studies done every few years to ensure the fees remain proportional
26 to the actual impacts caused
27 • Most recent studies (one for each school district) completed in summer 2016
28 • Over the years, types of housing has become more refined
29 o Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and digital data make this possible
30
31 Refined Housing Type Categories
32 • 1993 —fee charged per dwelling, regardless of type
33 • Each technical study has refined housing types a bit more
34 o Single-family &All Other
35 o Single-family, Manufactured Homes, All Other
36 o Single-family Detached, Single-family Attached, Multi-family, Manufactured
37 Homes
38 • Current study disaggregated data down to number of bedrooms per unit (SFD, SFA, MF)
39 o Calculations for smaller-sized single-family detached (<800 square feet)
40 o Age-Restricted Units
41
42 2016 Study
43 Full studies available on
44 website: http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/planning and inspections/current inter
45 est proiects.php
46 • Consultant presented methodology at September 6 and 29 meetings
47
48 Basic Methodology
49 • Calculate Student Generation Rates
50 • Calculate Current Level of Service
7
1 • Calculate Cost per Student
2 • Calculate Maximum Supportable Impact Fee, using the above as the input variables
3
4 Orange County Schools — Maximum Supportable Impact Fee (chart)
5
6 Chapel Hill — Carrboro Schools — Maximum Supportable Impact Fee (chart)
7
8 Orange County Schools - MSIF Percentages (chart)
9
10 Chapel Hill — Carrboro Schools — MSIF Percentages (chart)
11
12 Possible Options
13 • As calculated, by bedroom count (if applicable), adopting at some percentage of the
14 MSIF.
15 • Collapsing the Single Family Detached category in the Orange County Schools district
16 (due to an unexpected result in this category), charging the "Average"for this housing
17 type in this district, charging fees as calculated for other housing types, and adopting at
18 some percentage of the MSIF.
19 • Collapsing all housing type categories in both or either school districts, charging the
20 "Average" calculation by housing type, and adopting at some percentage of the MSIF.
21 • Options 1-3 can also be implemented by increasing the percentage of MSIF over a
22 period of time (e.g., adopt at x% effective 2017, y% effective 2018, and z% effective
23 2019).
24
25 As Calculated, by Bedroom Counts (if Applicable) -(OCS) (chart)
26
27 As Calculated, by Bedroom Counts (if Applicable) —(CHCCS) (chart)
28
29 Collapse Single Family Detached in OCS Only (chart)
30 • CHCCS remains "as calculated, by bedroom counts, if applicable"
31
32 Collapse All Housing Types to "Average" —OCS (chart)
33
34 Collapse All Housing Types to "Average" —CHCCS (chart)
35
36 Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance
37 • Add definitions for the various housing types.
38 • Add language in Section 30-33 that would require age restricted units that do not remain
39 age restricted for at least 20 years be required to pay the difference between the age
40 restricted fee paid and the non-age-restricted fee in effect at the time a unit is no longer
41 age restricted.
42 • Add language in Section 30-35(e) clarifying under what conditions a refund would be
43 issued if impact fees were reduced for a particular housing unit type.
44 • Add language in Section 30-38 to recognize conditional zoning, which was adopted in
45 2011 when the UDO was adopted.
46 • Impact fee levels in Section 30-33 to be determined after public hearing
47
48 Additional Information
49 • Attachment 6:
50 o Average historical residential unit growth
8
1 o Assumed percentage increase
2 o Projected future annual residential unit growth
3 o Projected future unit mix
4 o Approximate Number of Approved but Unconstructed Housing Units, by
5 Jurisdiction
6
7 Joint School Boards Meeting (September 29)
8 • Topics discussed included:
9 o Construction inflation in the Triangle region
10 o Impact of class size legislation
11 o Level of service standards as they relate to portables
12
13 Commissioner Jacobs said a question was raised, at the meeting with the schools, about
14 the construction costs being used: generic vs. local. He said several school board members
15 said it would be more "transparent" to use local costs, which are higher.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said the difference between the 2007 and the 2016 impact fee is
17 less than $1,000, and he wanted to know the increase in construction costs, and asked if there
18 is a reason why switching to local standards is not being recommended.
19 Perdita Holtz said other indices were investigated after the meeting with the Schools.
20 She said a school board member recommended the Department of Public Instruction (DPI), but
21 DPI does not have a construction cost index. She said there does not seem to be a good local
22 index of construction standards.
23 Jeff Thompson, Director of Asset Management Services, said he did contact DPI about
24 their data, and he said DPI does not have formal regional standards. He said staff is working on
25 this issue.
26 Commissioner Jacobs asked Jeff Thomson if he feels there will be good local, or
27 regional, data available to make this change in the future.
28 Jeff Thompson said possibly in the future, but not right now. He said staff will work with
29 DPI on getting formalized data.
30 Commissioner Price referred to page 7, which discussed age restrictive units. She
31 asked if an example scenario could be provided. She said when she thinks of age restrictive
32 units, she typically thinks of an apartment or apartment building.
33 Perdita Holtz said this example refers to projects that are named as age restrictive units
34 to get a lower impact fee, but then do not remain so.
35 Commissioner Price said this was her fear. She asked if an age-restricted home is sold,
36 is there some declaration that must be made at the time of sale.
37 Perdita Holtz said in order to be age restrictive, a house would have to have age
38 restrictive covenants such as from a Home Owner Association document, etc. She said age
39 restrictive units are usually in a development where their covenants require that at least one
40 person be over the age of 55, or this can be done through restrictive covenants.
41 Commissioner Price referred to mobile homes on page 8, and asked if there would be an
42 impact by increasing the number of bedrooms.
43 Perdita Holtz said staff is not going back to look at these, since these existing dwellings
44 may not have had to pay an impact fee, if built prior to 1993, but have been paying taxes all of
45 this time anyway.
46
47 Recommendation for Tonight
48 1. Conduct a public hearing on potential updates to current school impact fee levels and
49 amendments to the General Code of Ordinances — Educational Facilities Impact Fees;
50 2. Discuss the topic as desired;
51 3. Close the public hearing;
9
1 4. Direct the consultant, TischlerBise, to finalize the draft school impact fee studies; and
2 5. Direct staff to bring back amendments to the Code of General Ordinances— Educational
3 Facilities Impact Fees for adoption consideration on October 18, 2016.
4
5 Commissioner Rich said she is not convinced that collapsing works, and would like
6 people to pay their impact fee rather than pay an average fee.
7 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, said not collapsing them would make more technical
8 sense, and the only reason collapsing is being suggested is because of the actual numbers
9 showing in the student generation rates.
10 Commissioner Dorosin referred to slide 10 on the hand out, Chapel Hill— Carrboro MSIF
11 Percentages, and asked if there could be clarification of this issue. He said 60% was picked
12 across all units. He said the current fee for single family detached is $11,423, which based on
13 new updated numbers, falls somewhere between 60 and 70% of the MSIF. He said the current
14 multi-family fee is $12,086 which is between 10 and 20% based on the new numbers. He said
15 he wanted to make sure the differences reflect the very changes in demographic and housing
16 size choices that people are making, and how the student generation numbers play out over
17 time. He said in an ideal universe these would all be around 60%.
18 Craig Benedict said there are less single-family homes in Chapel Hill, and thus families
19 move into a 3-bedroom multi-family unit, which affects the student generation rates. He said an
20 apartment complex that is mostly 1-2 bedrooms will have less student generation, and will pay a
21 proportional amount for that.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said this is an illustration as to why regular updates should be
23 completed.
24 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is bedroom distinction in any category with the
25 current fee.
26 Craig Benedict said no.
27 Commissioner Dorosin said he would favor moving away from that practice and toward a
28 more accurate analysis, given the more detailed data.
29 Commissioner Rich said there is the 800 square foot with higher impact fees, and she
30 would like to get away from that.
31 Commissioner Burroughs said she is comfortable with the numbers, as presented by the
32 consultant, because they match with reality.
33 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the gist of the conversation is to disaggregate these
34 housing types even further, based on the number of bedrooms, or is the current data
35 acceptable.
36 Craig Benedict said there are bedroom disaggregations in the study now, and before
37 there was a one size fits all. He said now they are able to determine student generation rates
38 more effectively.
39 Commissioner Dorosin said he is favor of further disaggregation, because it is more
40 accurate and reflects the true nature of the study.
41 Discussion ensued.
42 Chair McKee said he has concern about not collapsing. He said the fee for the detached
43 single family, 3 bedroom homes in Orange County Schools (OCS) is higher than the 4
44 bedrooms, which is the exact opposite of Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). He said
45 there seems to be a disconnect. He said if fees stay at 60%, there seems to be significant
46 increases.
47 Craig Benedict said there would be some significant increases in certain categories.
48 Commissioner Price asked if the cost of housing will be impacted, if families choose a
49 multi-family dwelling, because the impact fees will be enormous.
50 Craig Benedict said it is not the County's role to make decisions about how the private
51 sector incorporate these impact fees into housing costs, and these numbers may impact final
10
1 costs of a single family home. He said in multi-family dwellings, the owners, not the renters, will
2 incur these fees.
3 Commissioner Price said but the property owner may charge renters more because of
4 the increased fees.
5 Craig Benedict said they do not get into those areas at all.
6 Commissioner Dorosin said it is likely that a lot less three-bedroom apartments will be
7 built.
8 Commissioner Rich said if more people are coming here with children, then more
9 schools will need to be built. She said taxes will need to be raised, and impact fees are helping
10 to build these new schools.
11 Commissioner Burroughs agreed.
12 Commissioner Price said she was concerned about the percentage increase of the fees,
13 not so much about the actual impact fee.
14 Commissioner Jacobs asked if he is correct in assuming that they cannot differentiate
15 between the different categories of housing, as far as the impact fee is raised.
16 Craig Benedict said a chosen fee should be consistent throughout all categories.
17 John Roberts said the legal requirement is that there should be rough proportionality
18 between the fee that is set, and what that fee is offsetting. He said there could be a flat fee if so
19 desired, which may be seen as more equitable. He said to keep legal challenges to a minimum
20 proportionalities should be consistent across the categories.
21 Commissioner Jacobs asked if it would be defensible for the flat fee to benefit those with
22 the most affordable units, and would otherwise have the highest increase.
23 John Roberts said it would depend on the calculations, and Orange County and only two
24 other counties actually use an impact fee. He said there is no state law on this topic. He said
25 the more complicated the fee system gets, the more difficult it will be to defend. He said if there
26 is public policy reasoning behind the system, it may be more defensible.
27 Commissioner Jacobs suggested getting past the bond, etc., and if the BOCC wanted to
28 adjust the impact fee schedule in a defensible way, to make this all easier on affordable housing
29 residents, he thinks the Board would support this. He is in favor of impact fees helping to offset
30 the cost of schools, but he also sees the complication of how high the impact fee is going to be
31 for a manufactured housing unit that has 2 bedrooms, compared to a stick built house that has
32 high cost and two bedrooms.
33 Craig Benedict said there are different ways to invoke impact fees. He said a flat fee is
34 easy to implement, but the proportionality test is weak, and out of sync. He said in the past the
35 County did have a flat fee, but they have trended toward using the best available data and
36 where the student generation rates match.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said some of them do not want to affect the affordability of units,
38 and it may be good to have a couple of options with examples and how this would impact a
39 particular unit-proportional fee vs. a flat fee.
40 Craig Benedict said that a flat fee analysis would take months, and costs thousands of
41 dollars.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said this is the best data currently available and what the Board
43 should use to invoke impact fees or make any changes.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not sure whether the impact fee structure is the best
45 place to address affordability issues. He said he would be interested in pursuing other tools or
46 incentives to address the affordability issue.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said the County does not receive new school construction funds
48 from the state, but is receiving mandates to reduce class sizes; and this may be the best way to
49 address new resident impact on the schools. He renewed his petition from the spring, for other
50 incentives that may be available.
11
1 Commissioner Pelissier said this is all new housing impacts, and many of these new
2 units are not affordable housing units, especially in the OCS district.
3 Commissioner Pelissier said impact fees cannot solve everything.
4 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the County's existing practice, when affordable units
5 are built, could be identified.
6 Craig Benedict said each year there is money put in the budget to reimburse these
7 impact fees for affordable housing units.
8 Commissioner Burroughs said how much Orange County can afford, going forward,
9 must be considered. She said these tables are good as they are, and now the Board must
10 decide at which percentages to begin. She said she would be comfortable talking between 30
11 and 60% of the MSIF, with a potential phase in process.
12 Commissioner Burroughs asked if one reason fees may be phased in is because there
13 are projects in the pipeline already.
14 Craig Benedict said yes.
15 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is a break-even point when starting with a
16 particular percentage.
17 Craig Benedict said it would be a gamble for future development to try and state a break-
18 even point.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a decline in single-family detached housing in
20 CHCCS, and this trend could be projected to find a break-even point.
21 Commissioner Dorosin said this would not be possible with disaggregation.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said if it is known which type of housing is going to be built more
23 often, then there will be more impact fees from that type of housing, and break-even
24 calculations can be made.
25 Craig Benedict said this would be a challenge.
26 Commissioner Dorosin said to bring back information between 40-70% ranges for the
27 next meeting. He said he is pessimistic about the possibility of getting affordable housing
28 created by the private sector in Orange County, regardless of impact fees.
29 Chair McKee agreed with Commissioner Dorosin.
30 Chair McKee asked Craig Benedict to accommodate the requests the Board of County
31 Commissioners have made.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
34 close the public hearing.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 6. Consent Agenda
39 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
40 NONE
41 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
44 approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
49 NONE
50
51 a. Minutes
12
1 The Board approved the minutes for the September 8, 2016 BOCC Work Session as submitted
2 by the Clerk to the Board.
3 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
4 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
5 property tax values for six (6) taxpayers with a total of six (6) bills that will result in a reduction of
6 revenue of $1,548.66 to Orange County, the towns, and school and fire districts. Financial
7 impact year to date for FY 2016-2017 is $6,355.28.
8 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
9 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
10 values for eight (8) taxpayers with a total of eight (8) bills that will result in a reduction of
11 revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
12 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
13 The Board approved the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, for five (5) untimely
14 applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for five (5) bills for the 2016 tax
15 year.
16 e. North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program: Orange County Sheriff's Office
17 Traffic Safety Project and Approval of Budget Amendment#1-B
18 The Board adopted the North Carolina Governor's Highway Safety Program Local
19 Governmental Resolution recognizing federal funding for traffic safety projects to the Sheriff's
20 Office; authorized the Chair to sign the Resolution; and approved Budget Amendment#1-B
21 accepting the $40,000 in grant funds.
22 f. Authorization to Declare Solid Waste Management Vehicles Surplus
23 The Board declared various Solid Waste Management vehicles surplus, and authorized the
24 AMS Director to affect the sale of the items through GovDeals.
25 g. Bid Award for the Purchase of Two (2) Hook Lift Trucks
26 The Board awarded the purchase of two (2) Hook Lift Trucks to Freightliner of Austin, TX at a
27 delivered cost of$203,488 each for a total of$406,976; declared Truck#1780 and #1680
28 surplus after receipt of the new trucks; and authorized the AMS Director to affect the sale of
29 these items through GovDeals.
30
31 7. Regular Agenda
32
33 a. Approval of 2017 Schedule of Values
34 The Board considered adopting and authorizing the Chair to sign the Order of Adoption
35 approving the proposed 2017 Reappraisal Schedule of Values, and direct staff to publish in The
36 Herald Sun, News of Orange and Chapel Hill News the proper advertisements concerning the
37 notice of adoption.
38
39 Dwane Brinson, Tax Administrator, reviewed the background information below:
40
41 BACKGROUND:
42 The proposed 2017 Schedule of Values was presented to the Board at the September 6, 2016
43 regular meeting. On September 7, 2016 the Tax Assessor advertised in the News of Orange,
44 Herald Sun, and Chapel Hill News notice of the availability of the Schedule of Values for public
45 inspection, and the date of the public hearing on the Schedule of Values. The Board held the
46 public hearing regarding the Schedule of Values on September 20, 2016 regular meeting.
47
48 Per North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-317(c)(1), "the [Tax] Assessor shall submit the
49 proposed schedules, standards, and rules to the board of county commissioners not less than
50 21 days before the meeting at which they will be considered by the board. On the same day that
51 they are submitted to the board for its consideration, the assessor shall file a copy of the
13
1 proposed schedules, standard, and rules in his [or her] office where they shall remain available
2 for public inspection."
3
4 In addition, NCGS 105-317(c)(2) states "upon receipt of the proposed schedules, standards,
5 and rules, the board of commissioners shall publish a statement in a newspaper having general
6 circulation in the county stating:
7
8 a. That the proposed schedules, standards, and rules to be used in appraising real
9 property in the county have been submitted to the board of county commissioners and are
10 available for public inspection in the assessor's office; and
11
12 b. The time and place of a public hearing on the proposed schedules, standard, and
13 rules that shall be held by the board of county commissioners at least seven days before
14 adopting the final schedules, standards, and rules."
15
16 The timeline for the 2017 Reappraisal Schedule of Values adoption process is as follows:
17 • September 6, 2016: Submission to Orange County Board of Commissioners
18 • September 7, 2016: Advertise in newspaper
19 • September 20, 2016: Public hearing on SOV
20 • October 4, 2016: Adoption of SOV
21 • October 5, 2016: Publish 1st notice of adoption
22 • October 12, 2016: Publish 2nd notice of adoption
23 • October 19, 2016: Publish 3rd notice of adoption
24 • October 26, 2016: Publish 4th notice of adoption
25 • November 3, 2016: Last day for taxpayer to appeal the SOV
26
27 Dwane Brinson said they have not received any public feedback as of yet.
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin for the
30 Board to adopt and authorize the Chair to sign the attached Order of Adoption approving the
31 proposed 2017 Reappraisal Schedule of Values and direct staff to publish in The Herald Sun,
32 News of Orange and Chapel Hill News the proper advertisements concerning the notice of
33 adoption.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 b. Downtown Housinq Improvement Corporation, Inc.'s (DHIC) Request to Reduce
38 Oranqe County's 99 Year Affordability Period for the Greenfield Place Project to 40
39 Years
40 The Board considered a reduction of the County's long term affordability period as
41 requested by Downtown Housing Improvement Corporation (DHIC), Inc. from 99 years to 40
42 years for the Greenfield Place project in the Town of Chapel Hill (Representatives from DHIC
43 will be available during the meeting to address questions).
44
45 Audrey Spencer Horsley, Director of Housing, Human Rights and Community
46 Development, reviewed the information below:
47
48 BACKGROUND:
49 On May 5, 2015 the Board approved the Orange County FY 2015-2016 HOME Program Design
50 recommended by the Orange County Consortium Program Review Committee. Participants in
14
1 the HOME Consortium are Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and
2 Hillsborough. Under the HOME Program Design, funds in the amount of$154,500 were
3 approved for the Downtown Housing Improvement Corporation, Inc. (DHIC) to support the new
4 construction of eighty (80) apartment homes known as Greenfield Place for households at less
5 than sixty percent (60%) area median income (AMI). This is a Low Income Housing Tax Credit
6 (tax credits) development and will be located on Legion Road in Chapel Hill on land to be
7 donated by the Town of Chapel Hill.
8
9 The County's Long Term Housing Affordability Policy establishes the acceptable strategies for
10 ensuring long term affordability in affordable housing programs supported by County financial
11 resources. Housing projects that are funded with Orange County HOME Program funds have
12 been subject to the County's 99-year long-term affordability period that includes recorded deed
13 restrictions.
14
15 DHIC has requested that the County reduce the 99-year affordability period to 40 years for the
16 Greenfield Place development. DHIC has expressed that the 99 year requirement makes
17 financing challenging and creates issues for the tax credit investor in how it models the project
18 for tax purposes. According to the agency, the 99-year affordability period may cause
19 challenges in getting the equity closed in as timely a manner as needed. DHIC also stated that
20 the 99-year affordability period could also create problems in the future when DHIC will need to
21 get new financing to make capital improvements to the buildings to keep them in high quality
22 condition for tenants. DHIC noted that the affordability requirement for the federal tax credits
23 used in this project is 30 years. The Town of Chapel Hill, which is also a partner in this project,
24 is requiring a 32-year affordability period.
25
26 Audrey Spencer Horsley said this item is a request from the DHIC to reduce the 99-
27 year affordable period to a 40-year affordability period, because of their concern that it would
28 affect investors, and pose challenges to close the project on time. She said this was part of the
29 HOME program design in 2015.
30 Audrey Spencer Horsley said this project is being completed in part by the Town of
31 Chapel Hill and they donated the land. She said Chapel Hill is requiring a 30-year affordability
32 period. She said Gregg Warren from DHIC is here to answer any questions.
33 Gregg Warren, President and Executive Director of DHIC, said the concerns are those
34 of their lenders and investors with a long-term affordability period, especially if a project
35 foreclosed. He said having a 40-year period of affordability is consistent with the 40-year loan
36 period with Orange County.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
39 Board to approve a 40-year housing affordability period for the DHIC, Inc. Greenfield Place
40 project.
41
42 Commissioner Jacobs said he will vote in favor of this motion, but he does not think it
43 best to view these ad hoc changes intermittently, and at the last minute.
44 John Roberts said the motion this evening sets aside the County policy, and he
45 recommended that the Board either amend the policy in the near future to establish criteria for
46 project requests like these, or amend the policy as a whole to permanently change the
47 affordability period.
48 Commissioner Dorosin amended his motion to: approve the 40-year housing
49 affordability period for the DHIC in Greenfield Place project, because the project is designed to
50 serve in part, residents making 30% or less of area median income, and 60% or less of area
51 median income, which are targeted demographics that this Board has made a commitment to
15
1 reach out to, and which we have not done as good a job of reaching in many of our other
2 affordable housing supported projects.
3 Commissioner Price seconded.
4 Commissioner Rich agreed with having this conversation in the near future.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 8. Reports
9
10 a. Discussion of the Proposed Orange County FY 2016 — 2020 Affordable Housing
11 Strategic Plan
12 The Board reviewed and discussed the information provided on the Proposed 2016—
13 2020 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan, and provided direction to staff.
14 Audrey Spencer Horsley reviewed the background information, and said this item is to
15 continue the discussion on the Orange County Affordable Housing Strategic Plan.
16
17 BACKGROUND:
18 On April 5, 2016 the Orange County Board of Commissioners (Board) received the Proposed
19 2016— 2020 Affordable Housing Strategic Plan (Plan) that has been developed as the County's
20 long-range vision for addressing affordable housing needs over the next five (5) years. After
21 receiving an overview of the Plan by the Director of Housing, Human Rights and Community
22 Development (Director) and public comment, the Board requested that the Director conduct
23 additional community outreach on the Plan prior to holding a work session scheduled for May
24 10, 2016.
25
26 At the May 10, 2016 work session, the Board discussed all the recommendations of the Plan.
27 In follow-up to the Board's discussion above on the Plan recommendations, the Board held a
28 work session on September 8, 2016. For the work session there were two major items that the
29 Board had requested additional information and recommendations from staff:
30 • a mobile home strategy and
31 • the process for going forward with the Greene Tract (An update and options for the
32 Greene Tract was also the subject of the second Item for the September 8th Work
33 Session).
34 Staff included a few other discussion items for further clarification in moving forward:
35 • the Board's criteria and priorities on the use of land banking,
36 • moving forward on use of County owned property,
37 • planning initiatives to further affordable housing,
38 • the county's 1,000 units goal and special needs housing; and
39 • criteria or other areas of emphasis the Board would like included to address affordable
40 housing needs in the county
41
42 Staff also included in the material examples of innovations and successes from other
43 communities particularly with regard to use of mobile homes to meet special affordable housing
44 needs.
45 Travis Myren presented the following information:
46
47 Bond Funds to Help the County Reach a Countywide Shared Goal of 1,000 Affordable
48 Housing Units in Five Years: 2016 —2020
49 OPTION: TARGETING INCOME and SPECIAL NEEDS by#UNITS and TYPE
Household Income Range Target Units Percent of Examples of Population
16
Units Served
0 to < 30% 250 (all new rental) 25% Minimum Wage Earners,
Childcare Providers,
Restaurant Service
Workers and Artists
<30% to < 50% Area Median 250 (all new rental) 25% Maintenance Workers,
Income Nursing Assistants and
Health Aides, Teacher
Assistants and
Construction Helpers
> 50% to < 80% of Area 250 (rental and 25% Workforce employees,
Median Income homeowner; new teachers, small business
and existing units) owners and first
responders
Special Needs Populations 250 (all new rental) 25% Residents with disabilities,
older adults/seniors,
residents experiencing or
at risk of homelessness,
and
victims/survivors of
domestic violence
Total 1,000
1
2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Income Limits as of April 13,
3 2016:
4 Area median income for Orange County is $74,900 (family of four)
5 30%-$21,200
6 50%-$35,350
7 60%-$42,420
8 80%-$56,550
9
10 Travis Myren said staff would like to formalize this and determine how many units the
11 Board would like to designate for each category. He said an example would be if one category
12 fills up with 250 units, then that list could be closed. He said special needs projects would have
13 its own category.
14 Chair McKee asked if the special needs projects would be 30-80% of area median
15 income.
16 Travis Myren said yes.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if these plans include the work non-profit agencies are doing.
18 Travis Myren said yes, and they had a meeting with the non-profit providers on the
19 criteria after their last work session.
20 Commissioner Rich asked if 250 units are reached in one category and non-profits want
21 to add more one, can this be accommodated.
22 Travis Myren said staff suggests that once a target number is reached, then the Orange
23 County funding would cease for that category, and any other agency can fund what they want.
24 Audrey Spencer Horsley said on-going updates will be provided to the Board of County
25 Commissioners.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said the more he thinks about how they calculate the number of
27 units the more he is uncomfortable. He said government has a tendency to over-estimate what
17
1 it can achieve and unintentionally misleads people. He would prefer considering percentages of
2 units, rather than total number of units.
3 Commissioner Price asked if the amount of money per project or developer has been
4 considered.
5 Travis Myren said yes, in the scoring document.
6 Commissioner Price said she did not find anything about a per forma sheet or financial
7 statement. She asked if the project is financially feasible.
8 Audrey Spencer Horsley said this model is based on the County's bond policy, and all of
9 these things Commissioner Price mentioned are incorporated in the County's bond policy. She
10 said if these items were not already met, the project would not have made it to scoring.
11 Commissioner Burroughs said she commends them on this information. She said she is
12 okay with the 1,000 units and setting aspirational goals.
13 Commissioner Burroughs referred to Attachment 1 on the special needs population, and
14 asked if a non-profit would apply to do a domestic violence shelter.
15 Audrey Spencer Horsley said that is a very challenging question, and some of these
16 projects are not intended to be generated by staff or even non-profits, but in partnerships with
17 those specialists who are experts in these areas.
18 Commissioner Pelissier clarified that the County will help leverage bond money for 1,000
19 units and not pay for them all.
20 Audrey Spencer Horsley said that is one of the messages being emphasized.
21 Commissioner Dorosin said his concern is not that they are going to get flooded with the
22 0-30% need, but rather with lots at the 80% level. He said it may be wise to cap the higher
23 ones. He said it would be helpful to know how the 250 proposals that are already in the pipeline
24 break down in these categories.
25 Commissioner Dorosin said also it would be helpful to see into which categories the
26 projects fell in the 2001 bond projects.
27 Travis Myren reviewed Attachment 2. He said these are suggested weights and
28 stressing potential bond projects but not landbanking, which will be addressed separately.
29
30 Bond Funds to Help the County Reach a Countywide Shared Goal of 1,000 Affordable
31 Housing Units in Five Years: 2017 —2020
32 DRAFT
33 PROPOSED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM EVALUATION: SCORING CRITERIA
34
35 A. Income Targeting and Special Needs (45 points)
Household Income Range Points to be Awarded
0to < 30% 25
<30% to < 50% of Area Median Income 15
> 50% to < 80% of Area Median Income 10
Special Needs Populations 20
36
37 B. Leveraging (20 points)
Percent Funded by Bonds and Other County Funding Points to be Awarded
60 -80% 3
40 —59% 6
20 —39% 9
10 - 19% 15
<10% 20
38
18
Other Criteria Points to be Awarded
1. The project pays property taxes 2
2a. The project repays the bond funds — principal only. 5
2b. The project repays the bond funds — both principal and 10
interest.
3. The Project is a Mixed Income Project: The project serves 10
more than one income category and minimizes the
concentration of affordable housing projects in a particular
geographic area.
4. The Project is a Mixed Use Project: The project includes 10
uses in addition to residential uses that offer access to
employment opportunities and other day to day needs.
1
2 C. Design (20 points)
3 Building Design
Scoring Criteria Maximum Points to Be
Awarded
1. The project meets or exceeds the NC Housing Finance 3
Agency Energy Efficiency Criteria.
2. The project is accessible to needed services for the target 4
population such as healthcare, schools, and or grocery
shopping.
3. The project provides for handicap accessibility and/or utilizes 3
the principles of Universal Design in the building design.
4. Additional points may be awarded for meeting aspects 2
associated with functionality and maintenance.
5. The project is connected to water and sewer service or will 4
connect to existing service.
6. Public transportation and related facilities and improvements 4
are available where applicable, e.g., bus shelter, accessible
stops, etc.
4
5 Chair McKee said to give greater weight to those projects that are connected to public
6 transit and water and sewer.
7 Commissioner Burroughs agreed, especially regarding transit.
8 Commissioner Price wanted to stress the more universal design and to weight this
9 higher.
10 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Price.
11 Commissioner Pelissier agreed with transit and water and sewer, and to weight these
12 higher.
13 Travis Myren said the points can be balanced.
14 Commissioner Dorosin said if water and sewer are weighted higher, then big areas of
15 the County will be off the table. He also noted that water and sewer are expensive.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said if they talk about community systems, they should be careful
17 about definitions and would not be on water and sewer, but on a community system.
18 Travis Myren reviewed the following information:
19
20 Community Design (10)
19
Scoring Criteria Maximum Points to be
Awarded
7. The project contributes to a mix of housing within an existing 3
neighborhood.
8. Additional points may be awarded for criteria associated with 3
building appearance, quality of construction, compatibility with
surrounding housing, ability to foster a sense of a secure
community, and contributes to neighborhood revitalization and
or affordable housing preservation. (Details must be provided
by applicant)
9. Environmental impacts are identified with plans included to 4
adequately address minimizing impact on environment, e.g.
reuse of building materials recycling, storm water management
and water conservation.
1
2
3 D. Community Sponsorship/Support (25 points)
Scoring Criteria Maximum Points to be
Awarded
1. The applicant can submit explicit evidence that they 8
coordinated the application with other organizations to
complement and/or support the proposed project.
2. The applicant involved the intended beneficiaries of the 7
project in the planning process and describes outreach and
marketing plan to be inclusive.
3. The applicant can demonstrate that it has been actively 5
involved, or describes the steps it will take to become actively
involved in the Community's Consolidated Planning process to
identify and address a housing need or problem that is related in
whole or part to the proposed project.
4. The applicant has developed, or describes plans to develop 5
linkages with other community activities so solutions are holistic
and comprehensive.
4
5
6 E. Project Feasibility(30 points)
Scoring Criteria Maximum Points to be
Awarded
1. The applicant can demonstrate site control, zoning, 10
compliance, and a timely construction schedule that is
feasible.
2. Funding (other than bond or other County funding) is in 10
place at the time of application.
3. The applicant's proposal is complete and presents a 10
proposed project budget that is reasonable and is based on
reasonable assumptions.
7
8 F. Developer Experience (25 points)
Scoring Criteria Maximum Points to be
20
Awarded
1. Experience of the applicant in carrying out projects of 10
comparable scope and nature (e.g., new construction, rental
housing, rehabilitation, etc.) to that proposed, and has met
regulatory compliance for prior projects.
2. Applicant has proposed a team with demonstrated 5
development, managerial and financial management
capabilities in prior projects.
3. Applicant has successful record of meeting proposed 10
budgets and timetables.
1 TOTAL POTENTIAL POINTS: 200
2
3 Commissioner Price said when a proposal is presented, a per forma should be included.
4 Travis Myren said they could add something to that effect.
5 Audrey Spencer Horsley said there was a limit of point per category in the past bonds.
6
7 PUBLIC COMMENT:
8 Robert Dowling said bond funds will be just one source of subsidy amongst many. He
9 encouraged the Board to be flexible with the categories, but to be more rigid with the 51-80%,
10 where he fits in, because it is easier to do higher incomes. He said the most difficult one to fulfill
11 is the 0-30%, the lower incomes. He said $5 million will go very quickly.
12 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the next steps and the timeline could be outlined.
13 Travis Myren said staff can go back and make the requested tweaks, and bring it back to
14 the BOCC at another regular meeting.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said staff can make the changes, and send it out individually and
16 ask the Commissioners to provide feedback.
17 Bonnie Hammersley said staff is also working on the mobile home and landbanking
18 strategies and will bring this document back to the Board soon.
19 Commissioner Dorosin asked if it makes sense to have this finalized ahead of the bond
20 vote, or are the two on separate, but parallel, tracks.
21 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the County owned land, and asked if it is the sense of
22 the Board to move forward with this independently of the bond.
23 Commissioner Burroughs said in reference to the bond, the public can be directed to
24 these two attachments if need be, and the BOCC does not have to nail something down
25 immediately.
26 Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Burroughs about the affordable housing
27 plan, and feels that the Board needs to move forward on the issue of County owned lands
28 regardless of the bond issue.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said people who support the bond will do so with or without the
30 plan. He said in reference to the County owned lands, to be careful to define the GreeneTract
31 as part of the Greene Tract that is owned in part by the three governments. He said he thought
32 it had been decided not to put affordable housing at the Southern Human Services Center
33 (SHSC) site, and he would not want staff to move forward on County owned lands without being
34 specific on the SHSC site and the Greene Tract.
35 Commissioner Pelissier agreed and said the SHSC site does not lend itself to housing.
36 Commissioner Dorosin said he was not talking about the Greene Tract or the SHSC
37 sites, but rather the scattered County parcels.
38 Chair McKee said it was his understanding that the Board was willing to move forward
39 on the scattered County parcels, regardless of the bond.
40 Commissioner Dorosin said he would also like to get an update on the scattered parcels.
21
1 Commissioner Price agreed to go ahead with County owned parcels, with or without the
2 bond.
3 Travis Myren said he was planning on using the same scoring criteria with the County
4 owned properties and may not be able to bring this back till November.
5
6 9. County Manager's Report
7 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the following information:
8
9 Projected October 6, 2016 Joint Meeting with Chiefs' Council Agenda Items
10 • Fire Departments' Accomplishments During 2015
11 • Radio Infrastructure Including Paging
12 • Discussion on PageTrack Software
13 • Training Facilities for County First Responders
14
15 Projected October 6, 2016 Regular Work Session Items
16 • Detention Center: Update on Project Schedule and Discussion of Potential Scope
17 Expansion to Include Law Enforcement Center/Sheriff's Offices
18 • Discussion of Body-Worn Cameras
19 • Written Consent to Search Requirement for Law Enforcement
20
21 10. County Attorney's Report
22 John Roberts said the Board of Adjustment (BOA) will be hearing an appeal on the
23 flower farm/events center on Monday night.
24 Chair McKee said the turnout could exceed seating and asked if the venue could be
25 changed if necessary.
26 John Roberts said it is possible, and there is nothing illegal about it. He said if it
27 becomes apparent at a meeting that the public cannot entirely attend or view the meeting, a
28 brief recess may be taken, and the meeting be moved to a larger venue.
29 Commissioner Jacobs suggested moving the meeting to the Library next door.
30 Chair McKee asked Bonnie Hammersley and Jeff Thompson to look at other venues for
31 this meeting.
32
33 11. Appointments
34
35 a. Hillsborough Planning Board —Appointment
36 The Board considered making an appointment to the Hillsborough Planning Board.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
39 appoint the following to the Hillsborough Planning Board:
40
41 • Appointment to a first full term (position #1) "Alternate Hillsborough ETJ /County" for
42 Carolyn Helfrich expiring 10/31/2019.
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 b. Orange County Parks and Recreation Council —Appointment
47 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Parks and
48 Recreation Council.
49
50 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
51 appoint the following to the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council:
22
1
2 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #10) "Hillsborough Town Limits"
3 representative for Dr. Tori Williams Reid expiring 09/30/2019.
4
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 12. Board Comments
8 Commissioner Burroughs had no comments.
9 Commissioner Price attended the NCACC BOD's meeting and it was in D.C. and
10 broadband is on everyone's mind and mental health.
11 Commissioner Dorosin had no comments.
12 Commissioner Rich said Terra Vita was a successful event.
13 Commissioner Rich visited a Carrboro High School class and talked about elections.
14 She attended renaming ceremony for the Passmore Center. She also attended the Northside
15 Initiative.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said the Chair, Manager, Rich Shaw and David Stancil met with
17 the manager of Duke Forest on ways to collaborate and they came up with three things to work
18 on together to improve their relationship.
19 Commissioner Pelissier said she, Chair McKee and Commissioner Dorosin attended the
20 inter-city trip to Boulder, Colorado and had many discussions on transit and affordable housing.
21 Chair McKee echoed Commissioner Pelissier's comments on the inter-city trip.
22
23 13. Information Items
24 • September 20, 2016 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
25 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
26 • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
27 • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under$100
28 • State Transportation Improvement Program Regional Impact Funding Tier Project
29 Prioritization
30 • Transmittal of the FY 2017-18 Human Services Funding Application
31 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from September 20, 2016 Regular Meeting
32
33 14. Closed Session
34 NONE
35
36 15. Adjournment
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
39 adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 Earl McKee, Chair
44
45 Donna Baker
46 Clerk to the Board
47