HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-07-2017 - 6-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 7, 2017
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover) Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
February 7, 2017 BOCC Regular Meeting
February 13, 2017 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing
February 16, 2017 BOCC Work Session
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 February 7, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 7,
10 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23 Commissioner Dorosin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
24 - white sheet: PowerPoint for item 4-b
25 - white sheet: PowerPoint for item 7-a
26 - white sheet: PowerPoint for item 8-a
27
28 PUBLIC CHARGE
29 Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
30
31 2. Public Comments
32
33 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
34 NONE
35
36 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
37 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
38 below.)
39
40 3. Petitions by Board Members
41 Commissioner Burroughs had no petitions.
42 Commissioner McKee said, as the GoTriangle presentation may not be taking place on
43 February 16th, he would still like a representative from GoTriangle present at the meeting to
44 explain the delay.
45 Chair Dorosin said he would be content with such an update in an email.
46 Commissioner Marcoplos said at the last meeting he petitioned the Board making a
47 focused resolution on the local economic impacts of HB2. He said things are moving so fast,
48 and he would like to see if the Board could create a resolution quickly and pass it at the QPH on
49 the 13th.
2
1 Chair Dorosin said there was discussion in Chair/Vice-Chair about composing a letter
2 from the Chair. He said he could have this ready by the next meeting.
3 Commissioner Marcoplos said his main goal is to get it done quickly and out to the
4 press.
5 Commissioner Rich said a letter is worthwhile, and should be sent to the newspapers.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said he is also comfortable with a letter. He referred to
7 Commissioner McKee's request, and said he urged GoTriangle to come to the February 16th
8 meeting anyway, to explain why GoTriangle chose light rail over Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). He
9 said there are many questions surrounding this conversation.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board received a thorough report about where Orange
11 County employees live, and he would like to see one specifically about where senior staff lives.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said he mentioned, at the retreat, about changing the order of
13 regular meeting agendas, placing items of interest to the public at the beginning of the meeting
14 and internal items at the end.
15 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned the passing of a bicycle helmet ordinance for Orange
16 County, and the Board agreed to refer this to the Attorney.
17 Commissioner Price said there are parents that take their children to activities in the
18 Fairview neighborhood, and as the Board discusses bus service, it should consider service to
19 and from Fairview and Gateway Center.
20 Commissioner Price said Hillsborough Police Chief Hampton has asked the legislative
21 delegation to look into help foreign nationals, who can drive and know the law, to be able to
22 obtain drivers' licenses. She petitioned the Board to write a letter in support of these efforts
23 being made by the Hillsborough Police Department.
24 Chair Dorosin had no petitions.
25 Chair Dorosin said he would be in favor of a report from GoTriangle at the 16th meeting.
26 Chair Dorosin said he would use his petition time to highlight an Orange County fact:
27 Orange County was the first county in North Carolina to enact a recyclable materials recovery
28 ordinance.
29
30 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
31
32 a. Presentation of the Joseph E. Hunt Distinguished Jurisdiction Award
33 The Board considered recognizing the Orange County Tax Office staff for its achievement in
34 earning the 2016 Joseph E. Hunt Distinguished Jurisdiction Award from the North Carolina
35 Association of Assessing Officers (NCAAO).
36
37 BACKGROUND: The North Carolina Association of Assessing Officers (NCAAO) has
38 established the Jurisdiction Award to be presented each year in recognition of a county (or
39 counties) achievement in areas of property tax assessment and/or collection, the
40 implementation of a project, or endeavors to enhance the overall effectiveness of a county tax
41 department. The recipient(s) receive prestigious recognition and an award at the annual
42 NCAAO Fall Conference in November. The NCAAO reserves the right not to make this award
43 annually, but as it deems justified.
44
45 The Orange County Tax Office received the award for its 2017 revaluation collaborative
46 community outreach efforts. Specifically, the NCAAO took note of Orange County's 2017
47 Revaluation Partner Program and its collaborative, transparency and educational components.
48
49 Bonnie Hammersley recognized Tax Administrator Dwane Brinson, and his assessment
50 officers, for receiving an award for the 2017 revaluation collaborative community outreach
3
1 efforts. Specifically, the NCAAO took note of Orange County's 2017 Revaluation Partner
2 Program, and its collaborative, transparency and educational components.
3 Dwane Brinson introduced his assessment officers.
4 Chair Dorosin presented the plaque to Dwane Brinson and staff.
5 The Board recognized the Orange County Tax Office staff for this achievement.
6
7 b. 2017 Orange County Revaluation Update
8 The Board received a high-level overview of the process for the 2017 countywide revaluation,
9 with Tax Office staff scheduled to present more specific findings, numbers, and details of the
10 revaluation to the Board at the February 21, 2017 regular meeting.
11
12 BACKGROUND: North Carolina counties must conduct a revaluation at least once every eight
13 years. Orange County's last revaluation took effect January 1, 2009. The effective appraisal
14 date of the 2017 revaluation is January 1, 2017. Tax office staff began working on the 2017
15 revaluation in 2014. A collaborative approach was taken throughout the entire 2017 revaluation,
16 and the community involvement has helped improve the process.
17
18 In January 2016, the tax office proactively sent each real property owner a snapshot of the
19 property's public record for review and correction. This was an effort to ensure accurate
20 records.
21 Early in the project, the tax office also developed and implemented its award-winning 2017
22 Revaluation Partner program. Becoming a 2017 Revaluation Partner consists of interested
23 parties reviewing the County's updated tax website, watching three Learn and Share videos,
24 and taking a quiz that consists of ten questions. After successfully passing the quiz, participants
25 earn a Certificate of Achievement deeming them a 2017 Revaluation Partner. At the same time
26 the website was updated to include the 2017 Revaluation Partner program, a revaluation
27 section was added to the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list for the Tax Office. In addition,
28 a 2017 Revaluation FAQ brochure will be available in the Tax Office at the time that notices are
29 mailed out.
30
31 Conducting a countywide revaluation takes significant effort and staff dedication. Orange
32 County has approximately 55,500 real property parcels, and each of those parcels has been
33 modified to reflect a current estimate of market value. Prior to the 2017 revaluation, Orange
34 County had two (2) defined neighborhoods. A neighborhood is basically a group of similar
35 properties. A great example is a subdivision.
36
37 As part of the process, staff defined more neighborhoods, thereby allowing better organization
38 and pricing models for the current and future revaluations. The County now has 975
39 neighborhoods. Additionally, prior to the 2017 revaluation staff had limited building use
40 information. Projects such as computing the percentage of residential versus commercial in the
41 tax base required Information Technologies programming and assistance. Throughout the 2017
42 revaluation, staff invested the time to improve this identification by identifying and coding each
43 of the 55,500 parcels with its corresponding building use, i.e. single-family residential,
44 restaurant, student housing, etc. Reporting for 2017 and forward will be much easier and more
45 accurate because of these efforts.
46
47 The effective appraisal date for the 2017 revaluation is January 1, 2017. Notices are on
48 schedule to be mailed the last week of February. The tax office will continue to conduct
49 revaluation presentations throughout the County. Acceptance of informal appeal requests will
50 begin immediately after taxpayers begin receiving notices of value. Tax office staff members
4
1 have developed an updated Appeals Form and a corresponding Appeals Form Instruction
2 Sheet. The Appeals Form and Instruction Sheet will become available online and in the office at
3 the time that the notices are mailed to property owners. Tax office staff members will be
4 available to assist the public in completing the Appeals Form. The Board of Equalization and
5 Review will convene May 1st and begin hearing formal appeals.
6
7 Chair Dorosin said the Board of County Commissioners will get more details at their
8 February 21st meeting, and this presentation is just a high level update.
9 Dwane Brinson made the following PowerPoint presentation:
10
11 2017 Revaluation
12 T. Dwane Brinson, CAE
13 Orange County Tax Administrator
14
15 What is a Revaluation?
16 • Revaluation is the process of updating all real property countywide to its current market
17 value as of a single appraisal date
18 • Real property: land and attached improvements
19
20 Why Have a Revaluation?
21 • North Carolina General Statute 105-286 requires all counties to conduct a revaluation at
22 least once every eight years
23 • A primary goal in conducting a revaluation of all real property is to equalize the tax base
24 o Over time most properties change in value, but they often do so at different rates
25 • Our last revaluation was effective January 1, 2009
26 o 2013 delayed revaluation
27 o 2015 delayed revaluation
28
29 What is market value?
30 • North Carolina General Statute 105-283 defines market value as "the price estimated in
31 terms of money at which the property would change hands between a willing and
32 financially able buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or
33 to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of all the uses to which the property is
34 adapted and for which it is capable of being used."
35
36 Applicable Laws
37 • NCGS 105 — 283: Uniform Appraisal Standards
38 o Property to be appraised at market value
39 • NCGS 105 — 286: Time for general reappraisal
40 o Must conduct revaluation at least once every eight years
41 • NCGS 105 — 287: Changing appraised value of real property in years in which general
42 reappraisal is not made
43 o (b)(2) cannot adjust for economic changes (paraphrased)
44
45 Timeline
46
47 April 2014 -January 2016: Field visits to verify property record cards
48 January 2016: Mail summary description of properties with listing forms
49 January 2016 -April 2016: Initial field review of sales used in models
5
1 February 2016 - May 2016: Review grade, depreciation, etc. field reviews
2 April 2016 -July 2016: Develop new rates for Schedule of Values (SOV)
3 July/August 2016: Finalize SOV
4 September 2016: Public hearing on SOV
5 October/November 2016: Adoption of SOV
6 January/February 2016: Final, holistic review
7 February 2017: Send out value change notices
8 February 2017 -April 2017: Informal appeals
9 May 2017 - June 2017: Board of Equalization and Review hearings
10
11 The Process
12 • Property visits began in 2014
13 • Land being valued as if vacant
14 • Models tested in the office
15 • Revaluation presentations in the community
16 • Commercial parcels appraised by private firm
17 • Organized properties into 975 neighborhoods — previously had 2 neighborhoods
18 • Classified building types, i.e. single family, office warehouse, manufactured home,
19 restaurant, etc.
20 o Now have 173 building types classified, up from 16 building types prior to 2017
21 • Appraisers were assigned neighborhoods to complete for consistency
22
23 Data Anomalies
24 • Field reviews/Data Correction Forms
25 o Property characteristic data changes for current year and future years
26 o Examples of exceptions: new home constructed that is not on tax records
27 (discovery), house fire resulting in total loss that is still being taxed (refund)
28
29 Current Tax Assessments
30 • Last appraisal date was January 1, 2009
31 o Adopted schedule of values for 2009 revaluation
32 o Current tax assessments reflect value as of that date
33 • Based on sales from 2007 and 2008
34 • Per NCGS 105 —287, cannot change 2009 tax assessments until date of next
35 revaluation, January 1, 2017
36 • Current sales ratio is .96, 1.007 in 2014 and 1.04 in 2013
37
38 Appeals
39 • Sample Revaluation Notice and Informal Appeal Form provided as part of this agenda
40 packet
41 o Informal Appeal Form instructions to be provided with mailing
42 o Insert on property tax assistance programs provided with mailing
43 • Stage 1 - tax office review in-house with an appraiser
44 • Stage 2 — hearing with Orange County Board of Equalization and Review (third party
45 members)
46 • Stage 3— North Carolina Property Tax Commission
47 • Stage 4 —Appeal courts
48
49 Community Outreach
6
1 • 2017 Revaluation Partner Program
2 o Review of information on website
3 o Learn and Share revaluation video series (772 total views as of 2/7/17)
4 o 10-question interactive, educational quiz on website
5 • 51 quizzes taken, average score 93
6 o Certificate of Achievement
7 • Summary Description Mailing with 2016 listing forms
8 o Partnering with the community to gather the most accurate data possible
9 • Sales Bank/Appeals Process on website
10 o Win-win appeals process
11 o Sample adjustment grid
12
13 Commissioner McKee asked if the Tax office anticipates what feedback may be
14 received.
15 Dwane Brinson said in a revaluation, the general rule is to expect up to 10% in appeals.
16 He said he does not think this percentage will be reached, as the data is strong and
17 communication has been clear. He said many corrections have been made, which should help
18 limit appeals.
19 Chair Dorosin said he appreciates all the effort put into the revaluation, and this process
20 was designed to accurately reflect the value of a property.
21 Commissioner Jacobs spoke about the previous revaluation in 2009, which was not as
22 rigorous as the current one, and noted there were so few property sales due to the recession.
23 He said this process made it clear that additional staff were needed earlier in the process. He
24 said in the last revaluation, the appeals process was advertised so that it was clear to the
25 public.
26 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that Dwane Brinson invite Realtor Joe Phelps in to talk
27 about the revaluation, since he is always negative about it.
28
29 5. Public Hearings
30 NONE
31
32 6. Consent Agenda
33
34 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
35
36 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
39 approve the Consent Agenda.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
44
45 a. Minutes
46 The Board approved the minutes from December 13, 2016 and January 24, 2017 as submitted
47 by the Clerk to the Board.
48 b. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
7
1 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
2 value for one taxpayer with a total of one bill that will result in a reduction of revenue, in
3 accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
4 c. Application for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
5 The Board considered untimely application for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation
6 for one bill for the 2016 tax year.
7 d. Advertisement of Tax Liens on Real Property
8 The Board received a report on the amount of unpaid taxes for the current year that are liens on
9 real property as required by North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) 105-369 and requested
10 March 22, 2017 be set by the Board for the tax lien advertisement, and authorized the Chair to
11 sign.
12 e. Fairview Park Standard Access and Maintenance Easement with Duke Energy
13 Carolinas
14 The Board approved a standard access and maintenance easement to Duke Energy Carolinas
15 for the maintenance of parking area site lighting utilities to service the Orange County Fairview
16 Park parking expansion; and authorized the Chair to sign the necessary paperwork upon final
17 County Attorney review.
18 f. Resolution Certifying and Approving the Results of the November 8, 2016 Bond
19 Referenda
20 The Board certified and approved the General Obligation Bond election results from the
21 November 8, 2016 Bond referenda.
22 g. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro
23 City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment#5-A Related
24 to CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
25 The Board approved an application to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction
26 (NCDPI) to release proceeds from the NC Education Lottery account related to FY 2016-17
27 debt service payments for Chapel Hill —Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), and approved Budget
28 Amendment#5-A (amended School Capital Project Ordinances), contingent on the NCDPI's
29 approval of the application, and authorized the Chair to sign.
30
31 7. Regular Agenda
32
33 a. Proposed Release of Request for Proposals for Use of County Bond Funds and
34 Designated Surplus Land for Affordable Housing
35 The Board received an update on the timeline to release Request for Proposals (RFP)
36 for use of County bond funds for affordable housing projects and consider approval of the
37 following:
38
39 Travis Myren made this presentation, and noted there are three objectives tonight:
40
41 1) An amended project scoring criteria that includes points for local residency
42 preference;
43 2) A resolution declaring eight (8) County owned parcels surplus land for the
44 purposes of affordable housing development; and
45 3) The schedule for release of Affordable Housing RFP's for use of $2.5 million in
46 bond funds and eight (8) County-owned parcels for affordable housing
47 development.
48
49 Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation:
50
8
1 Affordable Housing
2 Next Steps for Allocating Bond Funds and
3 Surplus County Owned Land
4 Board of Orange County Commissioners
5 February 7, 2017
6
7 Objectives
8 1. Approve amended scoring criteria to include points for serving Orange County residents
9 - Attachment 2
10 2. Approve resolution authorizing the use of County owned parcels for affordable housing -
11 Attachment 5
12 3. Review and provide feedback on timeline for awarding bond funds through an Request
13 for Proposal (RFP) Process - Attachment 6
14
15 Amended Scoring Criteria
16 • Local Residency Preference
17 — May not have a durational element
18 — May add points to scoring criteria
19
20 County Owned Land for Affordable Housing
21 • Ten parcels identified as surplus to County needs
22 o Eight parcels owned by Orange County
23 o Two parcels conveyed to the Housing Authority by Orange County in 1992
24 — Housing Authority has approved disposition by RFP process
25 • One parcel does not have ready access to water/sewer
26 • Acquired by tax lien judgement or tax foreclosure
27 • Resolution for Disposition
28 — Authorizes Manager to Use 3 Disposition Options
29 o Negotiated sale for affordable housing
30 o Negotiated lease for affordable housing
31 o Market rate sale with proceeds dedicated to affordable housing
32 development
33 — Disposition conditions
34 o Affordability period
35 o Safety
36
37 Timeline for Requests for Proposal
38 • Request for Proposals Process
39 — Two RFP's
40 • Bond funds
41 • County owned property
42 — Communication plan
43 • Website, press release, targeted outreach, social media
44 — Scoring process
45 • Use approved unit targets and scoring criteria
46 • Interdepartmental County staff team
47 • Representatives from Affordable Housing Advisory Board and Housing
48 Authority
49 — Final awards approved by the Board of Commissioners
50
9
1 Timeline for Requests for Proposal-graph
2
3 Objectives
4 1. Approve amended scoring criteria to include points for serving Orange County residents
5 —Attachment 2
6 2. Approve resolution authorizing the use of County owned parcels for affordable housing
7 —
8 Attachment 5
9 3. Review and provide feedback on timeline for awarding bond funds through an Request
10 for Proposal Process —Attachment 6
11
12 Commissioner McKee asked if management has a suggestion about the affordability
13 period.
14 Travis Myren said typically it is 99 years, and this will be a discussion item at the
15 February 16th meeting.
16 Commissioner Price asked if the residency requirement could be explained.
17 Travis Myren said a durational requirement cannot be used, so a point in time must be
18 chosen as to when a person is a resident. He said the point of occupancy is the moment that
19 was chosen.
20 Commissioner Price said the scoring is done in advance.
21 Travis Myren said the provider will have to do an estimate.
22 Commissioner Price said she had a concern about this.
23 Commissioner Price asked if there could be clarification about the difference between
24 Orange County and the Housing Authority Board (HAB), and what is approved by each entity.
25 Travis Myren said the parcels that HAB owns have been approved for the County to
26 include in the RFP process. He said these parcels will be used as part of the mix of parcels
27 that are available for affordable housing development.
28 Commissioner Price asked if the HAB is part of Orange County.
29 John Roberts said the HAB is its own separate entity and owns property. He said
30 Orange County cannot authorize the sale of HAB properties without HAB authority.
31 John Roberts said local residency as a determinative factor is prohibited, and likely
32 constitutionally unlawful, as it violates equal protection and a person's right to travel. He said
33 Orange County's use of residency is not determinative, but rather adds a few points to the
34 overall selection criteria.
35 Commissioner Price asked if the timetable for money disbursement could be explained,
36 and if the approval process can be accelerated for organizations with property ready to
37 rehabilitate.
38 Travis Myren said to her first question, there will be two draws: $2.5 million this June,
39 and another$2.5 million in 2019, and he said the Board of Commissioners can release more
40 monies if it so chooses.
41 Commissioner Price asked if there is a cap as to how much money an organization can
42 receive.
43 Commissioner Price said if there are projects that are ready, and if organizations are
44 ready, can the process be accelerated.
45 Travis Myren said the money would be authorized this year. He said some time has
46 been built in for application workshops, and some weeks may be able to be cut off.
47
48 PUBLIC COMMENT:
49 Yvette Matthews is from the Community Empowerment Fund, who paid a large part in
50 the passing of the affordable housing bond. She said she knows many homeless people, and
10
1 this bond is so important to her organization. She is supportive of these efforts, and hopes
2 building will start soon.
3 Chinita Howard said she came to this County to interview a client, but had a seizure on
4 the way to that meeting, and she remained here for the medical facilities. She found a home,
5 which she thought was affordable, but upon arrival found it to be bug infested. She said she
6 went to the owners, neighbors, etc., to explain about this, but had to leave after 30 days. She
7 found a new place at the Crest for $540, and stayed there five years until rent went up to fair
8 market value, which was $1,110. She reviewed the many places she went and the waiting lists,
9 and then she lived in the woods in the fall of 2016 for two months. She said most people like
10 teachers cannot afford to live in Orange County.
11 Brittany Bullock said she is a community advocate at the Community Empowerment
12 Fund and InterFaith Council (IFC). She said it is difficult seeing her clients coming for
13 assistance with affordable housing, and not being able to provide any. She is in support of
14 affordable housing efforts.
15 Soteria Shepperson said she works mainly with the IFC and assists them in many areas,
16 including trying to find affordable housing when they leave the IFC. She implored the Board to
17 find the value in the people. She said she is supportive of affordable housing efforts to support
18 hard working members of the community.
19 Susan Levy said thank you to the Board of County Commissioners for expediting this
20 process, and it is moving quickly. She referred to the criteria about giving points to those who
21 are already living in Orange County, and said points need to be given to those who work in
22 Orange County. She said she is unclear about the RFP for County-owned properties, and
23 asked if a donation of property at zero cost would be considered.
24 Robert Dowling said there is a need for affordable rental housing. He said this process
25 is very quick. He agreed with Susan Levy about assigning points for those living in the county
26 or working in the county. He said as far as the land, he would hope Orange County would
27 donate the land for affordable housing. He said he hopes all partners would continue to work
28 collaboratively through this process.
29 Allan Rosen said he agreed that those working in Orange County should receive the
30 same consideration as a resident. He said this spring they will know how much $2.5 million will
31 be able to buy and afford. He thinks this amount may need to be supplemented down the line
32 to reach 1000 units in five years.
33 Delores Bailey said affordable rentals are what are needed in Orange County, and this
34 is a countywide need. She said it is urgent to get this process moving, and the money
35 allocated.
36 Chair Dorosin asked Travis Myren if the resolution for disposing of property does allow
37 the Board to donate County property to one the providers.
38 Travis Myren said yes.
39 Commissioner Burroughs referred to the terms of scoring, and suggested adding a word
40 or two to capture those that work in Orange County, as opposed to just residents.
41 John Roberts said he has no objection to that suggestion.
42 Commissioner Rich asked Bond Counsel if he could explain the actual process, now
43 that the bond is passed.
44 Bob Jessup, Bond Counsel, said the process this evening is the Board, as part of the
45 consent agenda, formally confirmed the results of the election. He said the regulating authority
46 wants the County to have construction bids in hand for the projects, on which the money will be
47 spent. He said this is true of both housing and school projects. He said more than $5 million
48 should be ready to go to market, and then there will be a bond sale. He said the County will be
49 ready for a bond sale in the fall 2017, and it is important to know the cost of projects so that the
50 correct amount of money is borrowed. He said money can be spent prior to the fall.
11
1 Commissioner Rich asked Travis Myren if the County is providing money up front for
2 these projects, and then reimbursing itself with the bond proceeds in the fall.
3 Travis Myren said a reimbursement resolution is the next item on the agenda, proposing
4 to do just that.
5 Commissioner Jacobs asked Commissioner Burroughs if she was proposing language.
6 Commissioner Burroughs said she would propose adding the words "or workers" to the
7 criteria.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said he agreed with this proposed language.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said if money is spent down too quickly, funds may be depleted
10 too quickly, which has happened before. He said he would encourage staff to remember some
11 projects may be quicker than others, and to take this into consideration as staff rates the
12 criteria. He said there was a situation years ago where the Board was told that bond money
13 was available for a project, when it actually was not.
14 Commissioner Price said when she hears the public share dire situations, due to
15 bureaucracy, it is very upsetting, and she would like to provide money before June if need be.
16 Commissioner Marcoplos said he has a problem with the residency/locally-employed
17 criteria. He is not sure if there is any benefit to including it.
18 Commissioner McKee said there is another$2 million directed toward affordable
19 housing, and asked if these funds are ready to be dispersed now.
20 Travis Myren said $1 million was specifically targeted toward mobile homes, and another
21 $1 million towards a land banking program, the parameters of which are not yet defined. He
22 said there are also funds in the operating budget for the rehabilitation and urgent repairs
23 programs.
24 Commissioner McKee said there are other funds beyond the $5 million from the bond,
25 which allows for a bit more flexibility.
26 Chair Dorosin agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos about the residency requirement in
27 the scoring criteria, and suggested deleting that provision.
28 Commissioner Burroughs agreed.
29
30 1) The project scoring criteria as amended in Attachment 2;
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
33 remove item B in Attachment 2, pertaining to percentage of Orange County residents served at
34 time of occupancy.
35
36 Commissioner Rich said it is important to take care of locals first, and while she is
37 amenable to removing item B, she wants to make sure that taking care of those that live and
38 work in Orange County first remains a goal of the Board.
39 Chair Dorosin said deleting item B does not mean it is no longer a priority, and he finds
40 that is not something that is reasonably measured through this matrix.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said he agreed with Commissioner Rich, and the object is to
42 serve those who are living and working in Orange County.
43 Commissioner Price said she could see both sides, and the community organizations
44 know the locals and can connect the neediest to the available housing.
45 Commissioner McKee said leaving the wording in aligns with the County's value of local.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said if there is a mission statement, the Board can use that to
47 articulate that the Board's goal, to the greatest extent possible, is to serve those who live and
48 work in Orange County.
49 Travis Myren said staff can include a policy statement, of that nature, in the RFP
50 documents, noting that first priority will be given to those who live and work in Orange County.
12
1 Commissioner McKee made an amendment that if this motion passes, staff should be
2 directed to add this proposed language from Commissioner Jacobs into a policy statement.
3 Commissioner Burroughs and Commissioner Price agreed.
4
5 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
8 adopt the resolution declaring eight (8) County owned parcels surplus land for the purposes of
9 affordable housing development in Attachment 5 and authorized the Chair to sign the
10 resolution.
11
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
15 approve the schedule for release of Affordable Housing RFP's for use of$2.5 million in bond
16 funds and eight (8) County-owned parcels for affordable housing development in Attachment 6
17 with the amended language (below)
18
19 Commissioner Price said to add, "on or before June 6th" to "BOCC consider approval of
20 recommendations".
21 Commissioner McKee said he would accept the amendment.
22 Commissioner Rich asked if that would give everyone a fair opportunity.
23 Chair Dorosin said all items would still be due no later than June 6th, but if reviews can
24 be completed before that date, then the Board should do so.
25 Commissioner Rich agreed.
26 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if an application submission could be defined.
27 Travis Myren said the application submission would solicit information that corresponds
28 to the scoring criteria. He said design plans and architectural drawings would not be due at that
29 time.
30 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if it would be possible to score a project without the
31 design of the project.
32 Travis Myren said the scoring criteria addresses the more qualitative aspects of the
33 project.
34 Commissioner Marcoplos said the application submission is more subjective.
35 Travis Myren said there are some elements in the scoring criteria that address building
36 design, so some information will be needed; but final building documents would not be needed.
37 Commissioner Marcoplos said there will be some binding nature to these applications.
38 Travis Myren said yes. He said all the conditions presented in the application would
39 become part of a grant agreement.
40 Commissioner McKee said Commissioner Marcoplos' question brings up an interesting
41 point, and asked what would happen if only one or two applications come in during this timeline
42 that can be approved.
43 Travis Myren said there is nothing prohibiting a second round of RFPs.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 b. Reimbursement Resolutions for General Obligation Bond Projects
48 The Board considered approving resolutions providing for General Obligation Bond
49 proceeds reimbursement for school and housing capital projects expended prior to bond
50 issuance.
13
1 Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, presented this item:
2
3 BACKGROUND: On November 8, 2016 Orange County voters approved $120 million in
4 General Obligation bonds to fund capital improvements for the Chapel-Hill Carrboro City
5 Schools and Orange County Schools, and $5 million to fund capital improvements for providing
6 housing for persons of low and moderate income.
7
8 Attachment 1 includes the list of school projects to be funded with general obligation bond
9 proceeds. The total expenditures are consistent with the amounts authorized in the County's
10 Capital Investment Plan. However, the distribution of funds between projects has been
11 reallocated to reflect the most recent information available.
12
13 The Orange County Schools project list was updated to include the acquisition of the Orange
14 Charter School facility for$3.1 million with an offsetting reduction in the Cedar Ridge High
15 School project. The balance of Cedar Ridge High School project is anticipated to be funded
16 using existing impact fee revenue due to its impact on school capacity.
17
18 The Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools project list increases the amount of funds allocated to
19 the
20 Lincoln Center Campus Redevelopment and reduces the amount allocated to Chapel Hill High
21 School. The 2013 Facilities Assessment estimated the Lincoln Center project at $21 million.
22 The District recently received an updated cost estimate of approximately $24.6 million. The
23 District reports that this increase is primarily driven by construction cost increases of
24 approximately 5% annually. The Chapel Hill High School project is now budgeted at
25 approximately $47 million to offset the increase in the Lincoln Center project and to account for
26 the allocation of bond funds based on the average daily membership that was authorized in the
27 FY2016-17 Budget.
28
29 The attached Reimbursement Resolutions allow the County to advance fund initial project costs
30 if necessary, and then reimburse itself from financing proceeds upon the issuance of the
31 General Obligation Bonds, now scheduled for Fall 2017.
32
33 Commissioner Price asked if the figures for the A.L. Stanback and Chapel Hill school
34 renovations are so high because of the square footage.
35 Gary Donaldson said yes.
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
38 approve the Reimbursement Resolutions.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 8. Reports
43
44 a. Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization Comprehensive
45 Transportation Plan
46 The Board received a presentation on the purpose of the Comprehensive Transportation Plan
47 (CTP) and the draft bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and highway maps for the Durham Chapel Hill
48 Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). Orange County Transportation
49 Planning staff will return to the BOCC at its February 21 meeting with the OUTBoard's complete
50 comments on the CTP and an OUTBoard recommendation for the BOCC to endorse.
14
1
2 BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) is a document prepared at the
3 Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) level and identifies roadway, transit, bicycle, and
4 pedestrian infrastructure improvements for future implementation. The North Carolina
5 Department of Transportation requires MPOs to produce a CTP; these plans are often the
6 product of a joint planning effort between MPO planning staff, North Carolina Department of
7 Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Planning Branch staff, and local planners. Once
8 adopted, the CTP will replace County and local community thoroughfare plans.
9
10 CTP Purpose
11 The purpose of the CTP is to identify a universe of potential future highway, transit, pedestrian,
12 and bicycle infrastructure projects for the MPO's planning area, based on identified needs.
13 CTPs typically have a horizon year, or year of proposed full implementation, of more than 20
14 years into the future and are fiscally unconstrained. Using the Triangle Regional Model (TRM),
15 the travel demand model for the Triangle region, a deficiency analysis is conducted on the
16 current roadway network to better understand where and how future growth in employment and
17 population will affect the transportation network. The deficiency analysis also examines metrics
18 for transit, bicycling, and walking.
19
20 CTPs are adopted by the MPO Board as well as by the North Carolina Board of Transportation.
21 Once adopted, CTPs represent the mutual vision on the part of the State, local jurisdictions,
22 and the MPO for future transportation needs. The presentation, provided in Attachment 1, will
23 provide more information about the CTP, its relationship to other plans, and its importance with
24 respect to reserving right-of-way.
25
26 Relationship to Other Plans
27 The CTP is the overarching transportation plan for the DCHC MPO. As a State requirement, the
28 CTP replaces the Thoroughfare plans that have been conducted in North Carolina since the
29 1950s. With a focus on multi-modal transportation, the CTP is designed to work within a
30 planning framework, which includes the Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and the State
31 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
32
33 Projects included in other Orange County transportation plans, including the Orange County
34 Bus and Rail Investment Plan, must be included in the CTP. While CTPs are not regularly
35 updated, they can be amended. If local projects and priorities change and projects are
36 specifically removed from local plans, the CTP can be amended. It is, however, important to
37 note that the CTP represents an aspirational, non-fiscally constrained, long-range
38 transportation network and includes all possible transportation improvements. While some of
39 these transportation improvements may never come to pass based on funding or feasibility, this
40 plan indicates a long-range vision that supports a robust multi-modal transportation network and
41 provides a diversity of projects for programming in subsequent fiscally constrained plans and
42 funding programs.
43
44 Products
45 The final CTP will contain two distinct elements, the CTP Maps (Attachment 2) and the CTP
46 Study Report. The CTP Study Report contains a great deal of background information including
47 problem statements for specific projects and a summary of the CTP process. The Highway
48 Minimum Problem Statements document is provided as an example (Attachment 3). The entire
15
1 draft document, all of the maps, and explanatory tables for each mode can be found at this link:
2 h tp://billy/2bv3RQV. It is important to note that the NCDOT Board of Transportation only
3 approves the CTP maps; this body does not approve the CTP Study Report.
4
5 CTP Footnote
6 In many communities, the dedication of right-of-way to support associated cross-sections for
7 the construction of new facilities or the enhancement of existing facilities is handled using
8 subdivision/land development ordinances or special zoning entitlements. In Orange County,
9 however, land is often developed "by right" under existing zoning. In order to compel
10 developers/sub-dividers/etc. to dedicate right-of-way for new streets/highways or to improve
11 existing streets/highways, an adopted CTP is required. The CTP requirement would, however,
12 only apply if the jurisdiction is interested in acquiring the dedication through its zoning
13 processes, subdivision control ordinances, and/or special zoning entitlements. It is the opinion
14 of the County Attorney that no other planning policy guide (e.g. small area plans, locally
15 adopted corridor plans, special district plans, etc.) can legally compel right-of-way dedication
16 when the dedication is being sought through zoning, subdivision, or any other land use control
17 ordinances.
18
19 With this in mind, staff has worked with the MPO and with NCDOT Transportation Planning
20 branch for over two years to create language linking local access management plans and small
21 area plans to the CTP, i.e. to ensure that the roadway alignments in these plans are equivalent
22 to CTP alignments. This will provide solid footing to support requiring the dedication of the right
23 of- way in development projects that are programmed "by right." The following language has
24 been tentatively finalized for inclusion on the CTP maps. A longer, more explanatory passage
25 will also be included in the CTP Study Report.
26
27 The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes and are subject to change.
28 These concepts will need additional analysis to meet state and federal environmental
29 regulations, to determine final locations and designs, and to be funded for
30 implementation. Local zoning or subdivision ordinances may require the dedication of
31 right of way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local collector street plans,
32 based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and §136-66.10.
33
34 For the purposes of Orange County, access management plans and small area plans are
35 referenced in the CTP as including collector street plan alignments.
36
37 January 18 Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) Comments
38 At the January 18 meeting of the OUTBoard, Orange County Transportation Planning staff
39 made a presentation on the CTP. The OUTBoard undertook action to endorse the CTP as a
40 replacement to the Thoroughfare Plans in principle, with the caveat that the members will spend
41 more time reviewing the specific alignments in detail. The OUTBoard members requested that
42 staff reserve time to review the OUTBoard's specific comments at the OUTBoard's next
43 meeting
44 (February 15) and transmit these comments to the BOCC. During the meeting, OUTBoard
45 members expressed concern that no projects were included in the CTP to address congestion
46 on Churton Street through Downtown Hillsborough.
47
48 Next Steps
49 The CTP Report document and the CTP maps have undergone an internal NCDOT review. At
50 this point in the process, the DCHC MPO is currently accepting public comment on the CTP
16
1 maps through February 24. The CTP maps can be found here: http://www.dchcmpo.orq/
2 pirogirams/cep/defaulLasp. Both the DCHC MPO Board and the NCDOT Board of Transportation
3 will approve the CTP maps in early 2017. Commissioner Barry Jacobs serves as the liaison to
4 the DCHC MPO Board.
5
6 Staff reviewed the 1985 un-adopted Thoroughfare Plan for Orange County as well as the
7 Thoroughfare plans for Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough to ensure that undesirable
8 projects had not been carried forward to the CTP. The maps from these plans are provided
9 in Attachment 4.
10
11 Orange County Transportation Planning staff will return to the BOCC at its February 21 meeting
12 with the OUTBoard's complete recommendation. This item will include specific comments from
13 the OUTBoard on the CTP.
14
15 Max Bushell, Transportation Administrator, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
16
17 Durham Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization
18 Comprehensive Transportation Plan
19
20 Agenda
21 / Review:
22 ° Relationship to Other Plans
23 ° CTP Schedule
24 ° Products
25 • Maps
26 • Tables
27 / Thoroughfare Plans vs. CTP
28 / Complete Streets Element
29 / CTP Footnote
30 / Next Steps
31
32 Relationship Between Plans
33
34 Plans (chart)
35
36 CTP Schedule
37
38 Key Products - Highways
39
40 Key Products - Highways
41
42 Key Products — Public Transportation and Rail
43
44 Key Products — Public Transportation and Rail
45
46 Key Products — Bike, Pedestrian and Paths
47
48 A Note on Adoption
49 / The NCDOT Board of Transportation will adopt only the maps. The MPO Board may
50 adopt the entire document.
17
1 / The CTP replaces existing Thoroughfare Plans.
2 / Any reference to Thoroughfare Plans in local ordinances may need to be changed.
3
4 CTP vs. Thoroughfare Plans
5 / Both Grant legal authority to reserve right-of-way
6 / Both permit certain types of uses, e.g. industrial and allow speed humps, depending on
7 the jurisdiction
8
9 Local Thoroughfare Plans
10 / Durham, 1992
11 / Chapel Hill, 1994
12 / Carrboro, 1994
13 / Hillsborough, 1996
14 / Orange County, 1990 (not adopted)
15 / Chatham County, 1983
16
17 Replace Thoroughfare Plans
18 • CTP matches old Thoroughfare plans fairly well in terms of roadway type.
19 ✓ MPO staff conducted multiple meetings with local staff to ensure comfortable
20 with any roadway changes.
21 • Local government reference to Thoroughfare:
22 ✓ Local staff are aware of any references to old T-fare Plan
23 ✓ Local staff will make any needed changes to local ordinance after CTP is
24 adopted.
25
26 Roadway Type (chart)
27
28 Thoroughfare Plan vs. CTP (map)
29
30 Thoroughfare Plan vs. CTP (map)
31
32 Thoroughfare Plan vs. CTP (map)
33
34 Thoroughfare Plan vs. CTP (map)
35
36 Complete Streets
37 • Report Reference
38 ✓ Complete Streets policy will be prominent in the CTP report.
39 • Cross-Sections
40 ✓ In CTP highway table, every roadway has cross-section designated.
41 ✓ MPO, NCDOT, and local staff have worked to ensure that bicycle and pedestrian
42 facilities are included.
43
44 CTP Footnote
45 / Footnote Text:
46 ° The concepts shown on a CTP are for planning purposes and are subject to
47 change. These concepts will need additional analysis to meet state and federal
48 environmental regulations, to determine final locations and designs, and to be
49 funded for implementation. Local zoning or subdivision ordinances may require
18
1 the dedication of right of way based on the concepts shown on the CTP and local
2 collector street plans, based on N.C.G.S. § 136-66.2 and § 136-66.10.
3 / Report Text:
4 ° Locally approved transportation plans may contain street or highway right-of-way
5 dedication recommendations or requirements, and collectively function as the
6 collector street plan for the MPO or municipality as referenced under G.S. § 136-
7 66.2.
8
9 To Summarize
10 / CTPs replace Thoroughfare Plans
11 / CTP Maps are adopted by the Board of Transportation
12 / The controversial alignments from the Thoroughfare Plan have been removed
13 / To Note: There is a drop-in meeting on February 16, 5:30-7:30 in the Orange County
14 Library on the CTP
15
16 OUTBoard Action
17 / The OUTBoard
18 ° Endorsed the CTP in principle;
19 ° Is working through specific comments for their February 15 meeting; and
st
20 ° Will provide these comments for your review at the February 21 meeting.
21
22 Action Today
23 The Manager recommends the Board:
24
25 • Receive the report;
26 • Provide any initial comments; and
27 • Ask any questions.
28
29 Commissioner Jacobs explained why the Thoroughfare Plan was never adopted in
30 1990. He said the Department of Transportation (DOT) ignored the BOCC, to the point that
31 Orange County hired a traffic consultant to re-do what DOT was doing in the rural parts of the
32 County, around Hillsborough. He said DOT was trying to do an entire Raleigh outer loop
33 around Hillsborough, including Davis Road, Elizabeth Brady Road, and a highway across the
34 upper Eno watershed. He said the County Government at the time, as well as many Orange
35 County citizens were very much opposed to some or all of those alignments, and so the BOCC
36 hired a consultant. He said it was a struggle, partially, because Hillsborough had already
37 adopted a plan before Orange County was consulted. He said Hillsborough's plan did not
38 consider rural Orange County. He said they were also asked to design to the Efland
39 Interchange, which is almost as incomprehensible as the Hampton Pointe parking lot. He said
40 the County was not part of those conversations, and the BOCC objected. He said a meeting
41 was meant to take place to resolve the differences, but this never occurred. He said at the
42 same time, in August 1990, the BOCC decided not to add a large meeting room to the
43 Government Services building, and were discussing the status of a countywide school district
44 tax, but were waiting to hear from Orange County Schools (OCS), and were also discussing the
45 possibility of combining into one school district.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said, at the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), he
47 wanted to make sure that none of these roads appeared on any contemporary maps, because
48 those battles have been fought and won previously.
49 Commissioner Jacobs asked if 1-40 is missing from the maps.
19
1 Max Bushell said there is a link to interactive maps in the Board's packets.
2 Commissioner Jacobs said he is looking at Attachment 3.
3 Max Bushell said he included the maps in Attachment 3 as a sample of the type of
4 information that is presented in the document. He said 1-40 is a major project statement, and
5 he only included minor ones. He said there is additional information.
6 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a link to that information.
7 Max Bushell said yes, it is on page 3 under "next steps". He said there is a link to major
8 project statements in the packet as well.
9 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the person who prepared the verbiage in Attachment 3
10 could be identified.
11 Max Bushell said the previous person in his position did so.
12 Commissioner Jacobs asked if these are subject to refinement or is this the final word.
13 Max Bushell said they can be refined.
14 Commissioner Jacobs pointed out some inconsistencies:
15 - 1-40 to the Durham County line, "to relieve anticipated congestion;"
16 many would say this is already congested.
17 - South Churton street: he said it would be good to have the specific
18 vehicle count
19 - Eno Moutain Rd/Mayo St/Orange Grove Rd intersection: this does
20 not refer to the new development that has just opened at the corner of
21 Eno Mt Rd and Orange Grove, nor does it refer to the 1,000 unit
22 proposed Collins Ridge development
23 - Eubanks Road: this makes no mention of Duke Forest
24 Chair Dorosin asked if the appropriate method for getting Commissioner Jacobs'
25 comments into the record could be identified.
26 Staff said to provide them with a copy of Commissioner Jacobs' comments, and the
27 changes will be made.
28 Commissioner Price referred to the verbiage portion on page 38 with regards to NC 54,
29 and noted it says at bottom, "Orange County recommends a four lane divided cross section for
30 this facility". She said the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) opposed the
31 widening of this section of 54, in order to go along with Carrboro's traffic improvements, and
32 push public transportation with more bus lanes.
33 Max Bushell said this was written before he was here.
34 Staff said this change will be made, but the MPO is going to do a study of NC-54 from
35 Carrboro out to 1-40, and this should hopefully answer some of these questions, such as does
36 54 need to be widened, are additional lanes needed, etc.
37 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Burlington-Graham MPO is involved in this.
38 Max Bushell answered yes.
39 Commissioner Price referred to page 42, NC highway 86, and said if this is referring to
40 new highway 86, there is bus service on this road all the way to Cedar Grove.
41 Max Bushell said he would add in this information.
42 Chair Dorosin said the public comment period closes on February 24th, and Board
43 members should send comments to the Manager prior to February 21st.
44 Chair Dorosin referred to the CTP Footnote issue, and asked if the incorporation of the
45 footnote allows for the donation of right of ways in streets below minor thoroughfare.
46 Max Bushell said yes.
47
48 9. County Manager's Report
49 Bonnie Hammersley reported on the upcoming 2/16 work session items.
50
20
1 10. County Attorney's Report
2 John Roberts said the legislature is back to work, and has filed about 100 bills so far.
3
4 11. Appointments
5
6 a. Board of Health —Appointments
7 The Board considered making appointments to the Board of Health.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
10 appoint Jennifer Deyo to a first full term (Position #2) "At-Large Pharmacist" position, expiring
11 06/30/2019.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
16 appoint for Johanna Birkmayer to a partial term (Position #8) "At-Large Citizen/Commissioner
17 Appointment" position, expiring 06/30/2018.
18
19 VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Marcoplos);
20 Nays, 4 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Price)
21
22 Motion fails.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
25 appoint Dr. Barber to (Position #8) "At-Large Citizen/Commissioner Appointment" position,
26 expiring 06/30/2018.
27
28 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Burroughs)
29
30 Commissioner Burroughs said in reference to Commissioner Price's nomination that
31 there is a subcommittee on the BOH, who had interviewed the candidates and made the strong
32 recommendation of Johanna Birkmayer. She said she would like to honor the
33 recommendations they made.
34 Commissioner Price said she nominated Dr. Barber because of her experience.
35 Commissioner McKee he would agree with Commissioner Price, and does not question
36 the vetting of the other candidates, but feels Dr. Barber brings specific expertise and diversity to
37 the BOH.
38 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if boards do their own vetting of applicants.
39 Donna Baker said there is not a set vetting process, but most boards do their own
40 vetting and put forth recommendations to the BOCC.
41 Chair McKee said some Boards have special positions with specific requirements.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said he came prepared to vote for the BOH recommendation, but
43 since someone else was brought up that was qualified, he did not follow through on that
44 recommendation. He respects and wants to support boards that vet candidates, especially for
45 specialized boards; and in most cases he chooses to honor the recommendation of a given
46 board.
47
48 b. Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau —Appointment
49 The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors
50 Bureau.
21
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
3 appoint the following to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitor's Bureau:
4
5 Appointment to a first full term (Position #6) "NC High School Athletic Association"
6 position for Kayla Austin expiring 12/31/2019.
7
8 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the role of a "special representative" could be
9 defined.
10 Commissioner Rich said the Visitor's Bureau has specific targets for how many people
11 serve on the board from specific areas. She said the position that is open this evening is for a
12 specific role, and other positions will become available in the future.
13 Chair Dorosin said there has been a lot of discussion about these designated positions,
14 and their value.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 c. Historic Preservation Commission —Appointment
19 The Board considered making an appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
22 appoint the following to the Historic Preservation Commission:
23
24 Appointment to a first full term (Position #7) "At-Large" for Todd Dickinson expiring
25 03/31/2019.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 Commissioner Jacobs said Mr. Dickinson's application refers to a book that he is writing
30 regarding Orange County architecture, and said this book has been in process for 25 years. He
31 asked the Manager if she could get an update on this project, and possible create a deadline
32 for its completion.
33
34 d. Orange Unified Transportation Board —Appointment
35 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange Unified Transportation
36 Board.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
39 appoint Jenn Sykes to a partial term to fill a vacancy (position #9) "At-Large" expiring
40 09/30/2017.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 12. Board Comments
45 Commissioner Price had no comments
46 Commissioner Jacobs said there was a meeting to discuss the Durham Tech
47 scholarship fund, and some progress was made regarding a memorandum of understanding
48 between the Department of Social Services Director and Durham Tech to share more
49 information about whom they serve, so that those in need can be better connected to the
22
1 available funds. He said a program that serves those fresh out of high school as well as those
2 who may have been out of school for some time, and seeking to re-enter, was also discussed.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) heard two good
4 presentations recently.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said he provided the Board with a copy of the Durham-Orange
6 Light Rail Transit Project tour that occurred yesterday. He said the Manager has requested an
7 electronic copy to be posted on the County website.
8 Commissioner Rich reported on the Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA)
9 incident this past weekend, and she thanked all those involved for the great work. She hoped
10 the Board would receive a follow up report. She said public feedback expressed that the
11 greatest cause for concern was the unknown timeline for the reinstatement of the water.
12 Commissioner Rich referred to the SWAG meeting, and said a report will be provided
13 soon about the cost of recycling, since it is not as it use to be. She said there was also a
14 report on Boulder Colorado, as related to recycling, and Orange County is doing more than
15 them.
16 Commissioner Marcoplos said he represented the BOCC on the GoTriangle Community
17 Meeting last week, and he was struck by the discussion that compared BRT to Light Rail. He
18 said he heard more at that meeting than he had heard at any of GoTriangle's presentations,
19 and encouraged the Board to stick with that theme at the upcoming work session, as there is a
20 lot of information to get out to the public. He said the discussion about funding was interesting
21 too. He suggested the BOCC go on a tour of the light rail route.
22 Commissioner McKee said this past Saturday, Free Spirit Freedom put on an event to
23 honor former Mayor of Hillsborough Horace Johnson, and if not for Commissioner Price he may
24 not have received this recognition. He said he also attended David Price's Town Hall meeting.
25 Commissioner McKee said last weekend's water event was a perfect storm, and he
26 commended everyone that was involved. He also participated in a meeting with Club Nova and
27 Cardinal Innovations where funding for their capital project was requested, as well as increased
28 remittances on their services.
29 Commissioner Burroughs said the Board of Health is reviewing resumes for Health
30 Director, and hope to have someone on board by the end of the spring.
31 Commissioner Price said the OWASA Board of Directors meeting is tomorrow at 6:00
32 p.m., and is being held at the Town Hall to accommodate the crowds.
33 Chair Dorosin reminded the Commissioners to write up brief summaries of their many
34 meetings.
35
36 13. Information Items
37
38 • January 24, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
39 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
40 • Tax Assessor's Report — Releases/Refunds under $100
41 • Memorandum - Mosquito Population Control
42 • Memorandum - State Transportation Improvement Program Draft Document and Orange
43 County Funded Projects
44 • Memorandum - Status of Countywide Radio Communications Project
45 • Memorandum - Status and Path Forward on Hillsborough EDD Utility Service Agreement
46 and Future Utility Infrastructure
47 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from January 24, 2017 Regular Meeting
48
49 14. Closed Session
50 NONE
23
1
2 15. Adjournment
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
5 adjourn the meeting at 9:47 p.m.
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 Mark Dorosin, Chair
10
11 Donna Baker
12 Clerk to the Board
13
14
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 FEBRUARY 13, 2017
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Quarterly Public Hearing on Monday,
10 February 13, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Mark Dorosin and Commissioners Mia
13 Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Deputy Clerk to the
17 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18
19 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
20
21 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
22 Chair Dorosin noted the dual purpose of this evening's meeting: a quarterly public
23 hearing and a Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) work session.
24
25 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
26 Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
27
28 C. PUBLIC HEARING —QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS
29 NONE
30
31 D. PUBLIC HEARING — LEGISLATIVE ITEMS
32
33 1. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment - To
34 review government-initiated amendments to the text of the Comprehensive Plan and
35 UDO regarding revisions and modifications to the Mobile Home Park Conditional Zoning
36 District (MHP-CZD). The modifications would revise the district standards to also allow
37 for Temporary Residential Units [namely, Recreational Vehicles (RVs)]. The zoning
38 district would also be renamed Home Park Conditional Zoning District (HP-CZD).
39
40 BACKGROUND: This amendment is in response to a BOCC work session item on February 18,
41 2016 reviewing current development regulations and discussing opportunities for allowing more
42 flexibility with respect to residential development. During this work session, staff recommended
43 modifying the existing MHP-CZ District to allow for temporary residential units within mobile
44 home parks, including recreational vehicles (RVs) and tiny homes constructed to the RV
45 standard. Information from the work session can be viewed at:
46 http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/weblink8/0/fol/40558/Rowl.aspx.
47
48 This item was presented to the Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) at its November 2, 2016
49 meeting. As a result of various comments received on the proposal, staff has crafted an
50 amendment that:
51
2
1 i. Provides standards for Temporary Residential Units that allow for up to a 180-day
2 occupancy;
3 ii. Balances the various state and federal construction standards for temporary and
4 permanent units; and
5 iii. Allows for a wider-range of housing types.
6
7 The goal is to revise existing development standards in an effort to encourage purposeful
8 growth and development within the county in a cost efficient manner while promoting varied
9 housing options.
10
11 The Comprehensive Plan text amendment involves modification of Appendix F to change
12 references to the Mobile Home Park Conditional Zoning (MHP-CZ) district to Home Park
13 Conditional Zoning (HP-CZ) district.
14
15 For more background information please refer to Attachment 1. Proposed text amendment
16 language for both the UDO and Comprehensive Plan changes can be found in Attachment 6
17 within a "track changes" format.
18
19 Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends approval of the
20 Statement of Consistency, indicating the amendments are reasonable and in the public interest,
21 contained in Attachment 5 and the proposed amendment package as contained in Attachment
22 6.
23
24 Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board originally reviewed this item at its
25 December 7, 2016 regular meeting and voted 7-1 to recommend approval. Minutes from this
26 meeting are contained within Attachment 3. Agenda materials can also be viewed at viewed at:
27 http://www.orangecountync.gov/12.7.16AgendaPacket.pdf
28
29 After this meeting the County's Attorney office identified inconsistencies in the use of
30 terminology and definitions within the amendment package. Staff revised the amendment and
31 resubmitted to the Attorney for review. It was deemed necessary to have the Planning Board
32 review the revisions and take additional action on the proposal.
33
34 The Board reviewed the revised amendment package at its February 1, 2017 regular meeting
35 and voted unanimously to recommend approval. The Statement of Consistency for the
36 amendment can be found in Attachment 4.
37
38 The proposed amendment, as deemed legally sufficient by the County's Attorney office and as
39 recommended for approval by the Planning Board, is contained in Attachment 6.
40
41 Patrick Mallett, Current Planning, reviewed the Abstract and the Attachments, and noted
42 a grammatical/graphical error in the Table of Permitted Uses (page 5-25, page 35 in the
43 packet). He said there is an "x" through the Table of Permitted Uses, which covers a single-
44 family residential use within the home park district. He said it is intended that this should be
45 allowed for permitted use, in order to allow for a caretaker's residence at a mobile home park.
46 Patrick Mallett made the following PowerPoint presentation:
47
48 BOCC
49 UDO Text Amendment
50 Modification of Mobile Home Park Conditional Zoning (MHP-CZD)
3
1 Creating Home Park Conditional Zoning District (HP-CZD)
2 February 13, 2017
3
4 Overview
5 • Orange County has approximately 90 mobile home parks scattered throughout the
6 county. These home parks offer affordable housing and can serve significant needs in
7 our community.
8 • Residents have expressed greater interest in RVs and "Tiny Homes" as alternative
9 housing types. These options are a temporary housing alternative to suit their family
10 and/or medical needs.
11 • The current UDO doesn't allow for RVs.
12 • Staff has seen an increase in RVs in mobile home parks, which not consistent with State
13 Codes and UDO requirements.
14 • These units cannot be legally considered as permanent dwellings.
15
16 All residential construction (including "Tiny Homes, Micro-Homes and/or cottages) must be
17 classified and built as either a:
18 1. Manufactured (aka Mobile) Homes = HUD Standards;
19 2. RV = State Home Park Model Standards;
20 3. Single-family "Stick Built" = State Building Code; or
21 4. Single-family "Modular" = State Building Code.
22
23 Mobile Home Park Locations (map)
24
25 Goals of the Amendment
26 • As directed by the BOCC on February 18, 2016, Planning staff is proposing
27 amendments to the UDO, providing additional options for temporary and permanent
28 housing.
29 • Align with Housing and Land Use Goals in the Comprehensive Plan.
30 • Address a petition by the Commissioners to encourage more flexibility and housing
31 options in the County.
32 • Ensure that UDO requirements are consistent with State and Federal Codes and
33 guidelines.
34
35 Objectives
36 1. Revise the Mobile Home Park Conditional Zoning District (MHP-CZD) and other
37 applicable UDO Sections to allow for both permanent units (i.e. mobile homes) and
38 temporary units (i.e. RV Parks and Trailer Models).
39 2. Rename MHP-CZD to HP-CZD.
40 3. Offer additional opportunities in the UDO that encourage flexible development in rural
41 sections of Orange County.
42 4. Establish clear standards for temporary and permanent home park units.
43
44 Benefits of Text Amendment
45 • Addresses emerging needs.
46 • Avoids non-conformities and illegal land uses.
47 • Designed to solidify addressing and EMS issues.
48 • Provides temporary housing options.
49
50 What This Amendment Will Not Do
4
1 • Provide a total solution for those interested in living tiny homes and/or RVs.
2 • Allow for RVs as permanent residences.
3 • Permit such uses outside of a Home Park.
4 • Define Tiny Homes.
5 • Automatically allow in existing MHPs.
6
7 Mobile Homes
8 • Built to HUD standards.
9 • Can be located in Home Park or on single-family lot.
10 • Requires permanent utility connections.
11 • Fixed in space with skirting or foundation.
12 • Typically requires 5,000 sq. ft. of space.
13 • Home Park spaces typically rented on a monthly basis.
14
15 Recreational Vehicles
16 • Technically a vehicle or a trailer.
17 • Uses temporary utility connections.
18 • Uses a drive through space.
19 • Must be built to the RV Park Model Standard.
20
21 Tiny Homes
22 • Legally, there is no such thing as a "tiny home."
23 • Must meet one of the following standards:
24 - RV Park Model;
25 - Mobile Home HUD;
26 - Modular Construction; or
27 - Single-family residence (aka "stick built").
28
29 Utility Connections
30 • Mobile Homes require permanent connections, while RVs require temporary hook-ups
31 • Each space must be designated and developed as one or the other
32
33 Outreach
34 • Issued press releases inviting Mobile Home Park owners and interested parties to
35 participate.
36 • Posted information on the Orange County and Planning websites.
37 • Sent 90+ letters to existing Mobile Home Park owners.
38 • Staff hosted numerous individual meetings with mobile home park owners November-
39 December 2016.
40 • Staff has continued dialogue with residents and design professionals vested in this
41 amendment.
42 • Staff shared materials with Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Mebane, and Hillsborough for peer
43 review.
44
45 Revision Highlights
46
47 • Revised UDO Section 3.8 Mobile Home Park Conditional Zoning District (MHP-CZD)
48 and retitled to Home Park Conditional Zoning District (HP-CZD).
5
1 • Revised UDO Sections 5.2 Table of Permitted Uses and 5.5.4 Performance Standards
2 for Mobile Homes.
3 • Added/revised definitions in UDO Section 10.
4
5 Recommendations
6 The Administration recommends the Board:
7 1. Receive the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and UDO as detailed in
8 this abstract and attachments.
9 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept comments on the proposed amendments
10 3. Close the public hearing (Note that, because this is a legislative decision, additional
11 comments at a later date are permitted).
12
13 Decide on one of the following options:
14 a. Adopt the proposed amendments by approving the Statement of Consistency
15 (Attachment 5) and Ordinance (Attachment 6)
16 b. Defer a decision to a later BOCC regular meeting date;
17 c. Refer this item back to the Planning Board for a specific purpose; or
18 d. Deny the proposed amendments. (Note: Section 2.2.8 Effect of Denial on Subsequent
19 Applications of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar amendment
20 may be submitted for a period of one year. The one-year period begins on the date of
21 denial.)
22
23 Commissioner Price asked if the process, after the 180 days expires, could be outlined.
24 Patrick Mallett said the time is set by the North Carolina building code, and after 180
25 days it becomes a permanent structure, and must meet certain guidelines. He said an RV is not
26 designed to meet such deadlines.
27 Commissioner Price said asked if it would be legal for the RV to move to the adjacent
28 lot.
29 Patrick Mallett said he believes so, from a legal perspective. He said there would need
30 to be discussion regarding how the 180-day time limit would be enforced.
31 Commissioner Jacobs asked if a manufactured housing community is fully occupied, will
32 one be allowed to add onto the water and sewer system, and will there be some sort of
33 certification of adequacy.
34 Patrick Mallett said appropriate measures would need to be taken, whether the home is
35 temporary or permanent. He said mobile homes would have a fixed system, whereas converted
36 spaces, like the RV park model, would have different types of fixtures. He said all would be
37 reviewed and approved by the Health Department. He said most mobile home parks have
38 spaces that have not been utilized, which could be set aside for conversion for temporary units.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said there are some mobile home parks with failing systems, and
40 asked if these parks would be allowed to add units.
41 Patrick Mallett said no; if there is a failing system, Environmental Health should be
42 working with the park to get the systems up to speed and functioning safely.
43 Commissioner Rich asked if the lack of a legal definition of a tiny home is an issue
44 nationwide.
45 Patrick Mallett said he does not know about the rest of the country, but in North Carolina,
46 there is no legal definition or code for tiny homes. He said there are two main obstacles: is
47 there a square footage that would qualify as a tiny home; and, in many cases, marketed tiny
48 homes on a chassis cannot be built to the building code.
49 Commissioner Rich asked if other states have been able to work around this issue.
50 Patrick Mallett said the State requirements control what can and cannot be done.
6
1 Commissioner Marcoplos said a national definition is lacking. He said a home on a
2 trailer is an RV, and a home on a foundation is a home. He said the law seems to pertain to
3 connections. He asked if one had an RV home on a trailer, with a solar panel and a battery and
4 a composting toilet, and gas cooking and heating capability; could one park in the RV lot without
5 connection and not violate the UDO.
6 Patrick Mallett said from the Planning perspective, there would need to be a plan
7 indicating that this was a temporary residential unit. He said if a unit is off the grid, the
8 classification defers to whether the electrical and composting toilet would match up with
9 Environmental Health and building code requirements.
10 Commissioner Marcoplos said the utility connection is not the only determining factor.
11 Patrick Mallet said it goes back to specifics of building and health codes.
12 Commissioner Price referred to page 51, section 2-C, which states: "no permanent
13 mobile homes or temporary residential units, or other accessory structures shall be permitted
14 within a home park space." She asked if this means there can be no temporary residential
15 units.
16 Patrick Mallett said permanent and temporary structures cannot be located on the same
17 lot.
18 Commissioner McKee said the wording is awkward.
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT
21 Tom Pritchard thanked BOCC for their questions about this topic. He said his parents
22 founded Spring Hill Park in 1972, which currently houses RVs mostly. He said the Orange
23 County Visitors Bureau has worked with his park for many years, and the park has done much
24 good over the years. He said many people have come to the area to receive health treatment,
25 and have moved into his park during their time here. He said some people stay longer than 180
26 days. He said the amount of income that this brings into the County is noteworthy, and his park
27 uses significantly less water than a mobile home park. He said his park is clean, safe and quiet,
28 offering a place where people can feel comfortable surrounding medical treatments.
29 Planning Board Chair Lydia Wegman said a great deal of thought went into the
30 recommendations from the Planning Board.
31 Commissioner Marcoplos read a letter from resident below:
32 Hi,
33
34 My name is April Kemper. I live and work in Chapel Hill. I've been following the tiny house
35 movement for years now. Like Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County, other communities
36 are trying to provide affordable, energy efficient, sustainable housing for their residents. Tiny
37 houses on wheels are one way to provide such housing. I would be happy to sit down with the
38 Orange County Planning Staff to share what I have learned from other communities who have
39 made tiny houses an option for their residents by revising their local zoning and building codes.
40 Thank you for considering another affordable housing option for our community.
41
42 Commissioner Price reiterated that section 2-C on page 51 was ambiguous.
43 Patrick Mallett said this section can be stricken.
44 Commissioner Rich said this is a good start, with solutions for RV homes. She said she
45 would like to examine the tiny home trend a bit more, along with County ordinances. She said
46 tiny homes could be a viable option for affordable housing, and she does not want to miss it.
47 Patrick Mallett said this is one part of the discussion, and it should continue more
48 completely. He said more thought needs to be given to a tiny home definition.
49 Commissioner Rich said all options should be explored.
7
1 Commissioner Marcoplos said it is interesting to hear that there are people who stay
2 longer than 180 days, and this information should be passed onto State representatives with the
3 intent that exceptions might be given for medical situations.
4 Commissioner Price agreed, and noted that the Department of Housing and Urban
5 Development (HUD) does not recognize tiny homes. She said she would like to see this
6 challenged, as tiny homes are a good option.
7 Michael Harvey, Planning, reminded the Board that if it approves the amendment, it is
8 approving the revision to page 46, and the striking of sub-section 2 on page 52.
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
11 close the public hearing.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
16 amend the amendment as stated below:
17
18 The revision of page 46, allowing single-family residences in the home park, and to strike 5.5.4
19 subsection 2-C on page 56.
20
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
24 adopt the proposed amendments (as amended) by approving the Statement of Consistency
25 (Attachment 5) and Ordinance (Attachment 6).
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 E. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by to Commissioner Burroughs
32 adjourn the public hearing at 7:38 p.m.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36
37 F. WORK SESSIONS ITEMS
38 1. Introduction to Potential Joint Planning Amendments —To receive a presentation
39 on possible amendments to the Orange County— Chapel Hill — Carrboro Joint
40 Planning Land Use Plan and Agreement.
41
42 BACKGROUND: Planning staffs of the three local government jurisdictions that are party to the
43 "Joint Planning Agreement," as it is commonly called, have been discussing possible
44 amendments to the Land Use Plan to better align with various local government goals and
45 policies, including the Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement
46 (WASMPBA) (WASMPBA is also the subject of a separate agenda item).
47
48 The map in Attachment 1 depicts the possible amendments to the Land Use Plan (the current
49 version of which is included in Attachment 4). A summary of possible amendments is as follows:
50 • Chapel Hill Area:
51 o Change the Millhouse Road Park (78.2 acres) parcels, three smaller parcels (6.3
8
1 acres) owned by the Town of Chapel Hill and located between Millhouse Road and
2 the Millhouse Road Park parcels, and 2.2 acres of road right-of-way from Rural
3 Buffer to Chapel Hill ETJ (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction).
4 • This modification would allow the planned park to eventually be served by
5 public water and sewer systems, if WASMPBA is also amended. Service by
6 public water and sewer is an important component of increasing the capacity
7 of the park and its expected active recreation (possible soccer center)
8 component, since a park served only by well and septic systems would have
9 a more limited capacity.
10 o Change the northern portion of the parcel on which the Town of Chapel Hill's
11 Operations Facility is located from Rural Buffer to ETJ (32.2 acres).
12 Change 66 acres of Chapel Hill Transition Area to ETJ. This area is located
13 immediately south of Interstate 40 in the vicinity of Sunrise Road.
14 o Change 207.8 acres from Chapel Hill Transition Area to Rural Buffer. This area is
15 located in the southwest corner of the county between Highway 15-501 and Old
16 Lystra Road. Staff's understanding is that this area was formerly part of Chapel
17 Hill's Urban Service area before the WASMPBA"primary service area" boundary
18 was established in 2001, thereby removing this area from urban utility access.
19
20 • Carrboro Area:
21 o Change 2.9 acres on Highway 54 West from Rural Buffer to Carrboro ETJ. This
22 proposal involves six parcels and was discussed at the October 13, 2016 joint
23 BOCC/Town of Carrboro meeting. The portions of the parcels located immediately
24 adjacent to the highway are currently within Carrboro's ETJ while the northern
25 portion of the parcels is designated as Rural Buffer. This change would designate
26 all of the smaller parcels (five parcels) as ETJ while moving the ETJ line of a "flag
27 lot" slightly further north. Because of the relatively small size on the overall map, a
28 "zoomed in" map is provided in Attachment 2.
29
30 The map in Attachment 3 shows the "primary service area" of WASMPBA overlaid on the
31 geographic area. The Millhouse Park Road/Town Operations Center area would have to be
32 designated as "primary service area" on the WASMPBA map in order to be served by public
33 water and sewer. The 66 acres in northern Chapel Hill proposed to be designated as ETJ is
34 currently within the "primary service area"for water and sewer services. The 207.8 acre area
35 south of Chapel Hill's ETJ currently designated as "Transition Area" is outside of the "primary
36 service area" and is proposed to be designated "Rural Buffer." The parcels on Highway 54West
37 are outside of the "primary service area" and are not proposed for change in this regard.
38
39 The following table summarizes the possible amendments in terms of acreage:
40 Transition Area to Rural Buffer 207.8 acres
41 Rural Buffer to ETJ 121.8 acres
42 Transition Area to ETJ 66 acres
43
44 Amendments to the Joint Planning Land Use Plan would require approval of all three signatory
45 local governments (Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro) subsequent to a
46 joint public hearing (which includes mailed notifications to affected and nearby property owners).
47 JPA public hearings can be held in the spring and fall of each year, generally the March and
48 October joint meeting dates, which must be "converted" to joint public hearing dates on the
49 governmental calendars.
50
9
1 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, reviewed the background of this topic and the history
2 of the Joint Planning Area (JPA).
3 Perdita Holtz, Planner III, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
4
5 Introduction to Possible Joint Planning Area Amendments
6 February 13, 2017
7 QPH Work Session
8 Item F.1
9
10 Tonight's Purpose
11 • To receive an introduction to possible Joint Planning Area amendments and provide
12 feedback to staff
13
14 Brief History of JPA
15 • Land Use Plan and Agreement between Orange County and Towns of Chapel Hill and
16 Carrboro
17 • Initially adopted in 1986
18 • Outlines zoning requirements, development standards, development review and
19 permitting, and limitations on annexations
20 • All three jurisdictions must approve amendments to plan or agreement, after a joint
21 public hearing
22 o Joint public hearings held in March or October
23 o Change joint meetings on calendar to joint public hearings
24 • For many years, joint public hearing was a meeting date on adopted
25 calendars, deleted in late 2000's because hearings were sometimes
26 canceled. Decision made to have hearings on an as-needed basis by
27 converting joint meeting dates to 3-party hearings.
28
29 Current Joint Planning Area
30 • Rural Buffer (approx. 37,000 acres)
31 • Carrboro Transition Areas (1 and 2) (496 acres & 1,258 acres, respectively)
32 • Chapel Hill Transition Area (274 acres remain, ETJ authority extended over Roger Road
33 area in late 2015)
34
35 Possible Amendments to JPA Map
36 • Amendments are not interlinked
37 • Being pursued together due to required process of joint public hearing and separate
38 action by the three jurisdictions, including respective Planning Board recommendations
39 • Four geographic areas:
40 o Millhouse Road
41 o Sunrise Road
42 o Old Lystra Road
43 o Highway 54 West
44
45 Possible Map Amendments
46 • Millhouse Road Park (78.2 acres), 3 parcels owned by Town of Chapel Hill (6.3 acres),
47 and 2.2 acres of road right-of-way
48 o From Rural Buffer to Chapel Hill ETJ
49 o Would allow proposed park to be served by public water and sewer of
50 WASMPBA is also amended
51 • Town of Chapel Hill's Operation Facility, northern portion of parcel (32.2 acres)
10
1 o Town staff expressed interest a few years back
2 o Currently awaiting direction from Town Management/Council
3 o From Rural Buffer to Chapel Hill ETJ
4
5 Chair Dorosin asked if water and sewer could only be extended to Millhouse Road Park
6 area by changing the designation from rural buffer to Town of Chapel Hill ETJ.
7 Perdita Holtz said yes.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said, in the interest of openness, when the County had
9 discussions regarding the boundaries of the historic Rogers Road community and what was the
10 Rogers Road community. He said there were people that insisted that the whole area near
11 Millhouse Road Park and the Chapel Hill Operation Facility was part of Rogers Road. He said,
12 moving forward, there should be transparency with the community about the possible use of
13 these lands. He said this area may be used for a transfer station or recycling facilities.
14 Perdita Holtz resumed the presentation:
15
16 • Chapel Hill Transition Area in vicinity of Sunrise Road (66 acres)
17 o From Transition Area to Chapel Hill ETJ
18 • Chapel Hill Transition Area in vicinity of Old Lystra Road (207.8 acres)
19 o From Transition Area to Rural Buffer
20 o No longer in Town's urban services area
21 • Should likely have been considered for changes in early 2000s
22
23 Commissioner Jacobs asked if these potential changes will affect the fire districts.
24 Chair McKee said he was trying to work this out.
25 Perdita Holtz said staff will look into this topic. She resumed the presentation:
26
27 • Highway 54 West (2.9 acres)
28 o From Rural Buffer to Carrboro ETJ
29 o Discussed with Town of Carrboro at October 13, 2016 joint meeting
30
31 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the BOCC fall meeting with the Town of Carrboro, and
32 asked if there was an update regarding the 75% development of transition area one.
33 Perdita Holtz said she spoke with Carrboro staff, and said there have been some
34 preliminary calculations done, and the area is very close 75%. She said more specific
35 calculations are being worked on currently.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said there was some sentiment about discussing a more
37 comprehensive look at the intersections of interest between Carrboro and the County on
38 Highway 54, as far as updating land use. He said there was a string of lots on Highway 54 that
39 could be reviewed comprehensively. He said he would like to reintroduce that concept.
40 Perdita Holtz said she does not have an update on this topic.
41 Chair Dorosin said to forward this as a petition, and he will follow up with the Manager
42 and the Town of Carrboro.
43 Perdita Holtz resumed the presentation:
44
45 WASMPBA Primary Service Area
46 • Millhouse Road area currently outside of Primary Service Area (PSA)
47 • Sunrise Road area is within PSA
48 • Old Lystra Road area was moved out of urban services area when WASMPBA was
49 adopted in 2001
50 • Highway 54 West area is outside of PSA& proposed to remain outside (service by well
51 & septic)
11
1
2 Questions/Feedback
3 • Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen received information as a Consent Agenda item on
4 February 7
5 • Town of Chapel Hill staff determining process/date to inform Town Council
6 • If jurisdictions wish to proceed, earliest joint public hearing date would be October 26,
7 2017
8 • Normal process mandated by State statutes would be required for Towns to extend
9 ETJs
10 • Questions and feedback for staff by BOCC
11
12 Commissioner Price asked if the Town of Carrboro had this report on their consent
13 agenda.
14 Perdita Holtz said the Aldermen received the information and asked questions.
15 Commissioner Price clarified that the Alderman just received the information and made
16 no decisions.
17 Perdita Holtz said yes, the Board of Alderman just received the information.
18 Commissioner Rich asked if clarification could be provided regarding potential
19 complications with the fire zone in the southern portion of the map.
20 Commissioner McKee said with these maps, it is unclear whether changing the zoning
21 will remove water from the fire zones.
22 Commissioner Rich asked if this area of the map is solely residential.
23 Perdita Holtz said mostly residential.
24 Commissioner Rich said Chatham County is building right up to this area. She said this
25 is a triangle of land that seems to be hanging out there, and she does not understand why it
26 became the rural buffer.
27 Commissioner Marcoplos said he totally agreed with Commissioner Rich, and asked if
28 there is value in the triangle of the rural buffer. He said it is a unique land section, different from
29 the rest of the rural buffer, and he would like to know more about it.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said people in Chapel Hill wanted to preserve open spaces, and
31 this piece of land may have served that purpose in anticipation of greater development.
32 Chair Dorosin asked if staff could follow up on all these questions.
33 Commissioner Rich clarified that it would be helpful to know the Town of Carrboro's land
34 use plan for the aforementioned areas.
35
36 2. Introduction to Potential Amendments to the Water and Sewer Management, Planning,
37 and Boundary Agreement—To receive a presentation on possible amendments to the
38 Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement.
39
40 BACKGROUND: Planning staffs of the three local government jurisdictions that are party to the
41 "Joint Planning Agreement," as it is commonly called, have been discussing possible
42 amendments to the Land Use Plan to better align with various local government goals and
43 policies (this is a separate agenda item) and accompanying modifications to the Water and
44 Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) map. Additionally,
45 during discussions regarding the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) that
46 occurred in the fall of 2016, it was mentioned that it could be advantageous to the EDD to
47 designate additional WASMPBA primary service area immediately south of the EDD to the
48 Rural Buffer boundary.
49
50 These potential amendments would change the designation from `long term interest area' to
51 `primary service area' which would permit development in the short term.
12
1
2 Also in the fall of 2016, OWASA and Town of Carrboro staff broached the potential idea of
3 designating additional "primary service area" adjacent to Smith Level Road. The area is zoned
4 R-10 (Residential, 10,000 square feet per dwelling unit)which is extremely small if onsite well
5 and septic service is necessary. There is water service in part of the area already (which may
6 have started in 1969, according to OWASA pipe data) and a sewer line is stubbed out at Bixby
7 Lane which could provide service to a portion of the properties; others would be served from
8 lines adjacent to Smith Level Road.
9
10 The maps in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 depict the possible amendments to the WASMPBA map
11 (the current version of which is included in Attachment 4 with the possible changes overlaid). A
12 summary of possible amendments is as follows:
13 • Chapel Hill Area:
14 o Designate 118.9 acres in the vicinity of Millhouse Road as "primary service area."
15 These parcels include:
16 • 78.2 acres Orange County owns for the planned Millhouse Road Park
17 • Three smaller parcels (totaling 6.3 acres) owned by the Town of Chapel
18 Hill, located between the railroad tracks and the Millhouse Road Park
19 parcels.
20 • 2.2 acres of road right-of-way.
21 These three modifications would allow the planned park to eventually
22 be served by public water and sewer systems. Service by public
23 water and sewer is an important component of increasing the
24 capacity of the park and its expected use as a soccer center since a
25 park served only by well and septic systems would have a more
26 limited capacity.
27 • The northern portion of the parcel on which the Town of Chapel Hill's
28 Operations Facility is located (32.2 acres).
29
30 • Carrboro Area:
31 o Designate 20.6 acres (comprised of 34 parcels, 3 partial parcels, and road right-of
32 way) in the vicinity of Smith Level Road near Carrboro High School as "primary
33 service area."
34
35 • Hillsborough Area:
36 o Designate 87.5 acres (comprised of 12 parcels, 2 partial parcels, and road right-of
37 way) contiguous to, and south of, the Hillsborough EDD as "primary service area."
38
39 Amendments to the WASMPBA would require approval of all three five signatory parties
40 (Orange County, OWASA, and the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough) through
41 the regular agenda/decision process (a formal public hearing is not required).
42
43 Craig Benedict reviewed this item with the Board.
44 Chair Dorosin asked if the phrase "long term interest area" could be explained.
45 Craig Benedict said it mainly refers to whose responsibility it would be if there was any
46 crisis that occurred in the area, or maybe on the fringe, a minor expansion into that area.
47 Chair Dorosin said it is like the water system's ETJ.
48 Craig Benedict said yes. He said sometimes before amendments are made, small area
49 plans need to be reviewed. He said the Efland-Mebane small area plan was completed in the
50 mid-2000s, and included some area on the outskirts of Mebane. He said this area was changed
13
1 from a long-term interest area to a primary service area, and is the current location of the
2 Morinaga Factory.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said one utility outlet, which has not been mentioned, is
4 Orange/Alamance Water System (OAWS), and asked if this entity fits into this discussion.
5 Craig Benedict said Orange/Alamance Water System is located in Orange County, but
6 serves parts of Alamance. He said they are not a signatory to this agreement, and there are no
7 sub agreements either. He said there are annual meetings held with them to discuss economic
8 development within the Efland area, as well as any long range plans they may have.
9 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Orange/Alamance Water System has adopted a master
10 plan.
11 Craig Benedict said no, but staff is moving closer to presenting the Board with a water
12 infrastructure integrity analysis.
13 Commissioner Rich asked if the service area for Orange/Alamance Water could be
14 defined.
15 Craig Benedict said all of the residential within the unincorporated Efland area, and the
16 Perry Hills neighborhood, as well as around part of Mebane's water system serving an area to
17 the north and southwest of it. He said he is working in an ongoing fashion to stress that the
18 water needs to not only be potable, but also a fire suppression system.
19 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the Orange/Alamance Water Supply is exclusively
20 from wells.
21 Craig Benedict said no, part is an allocation from the Lake Orange Eno Capacity Use
22 Agreement; part is from wells; and part is from interlocal agreements with Mebane/Graham
23 Water System.
24 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if OAWS has drilled any new wells in the last 10 years.
25 Craig Benedict said not in Orange County but perhaps in Alamance.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said OAWS is a wild card in the middle of the County. He said
27 there is a history of a dysfunctional relationship.
28 Commissioner Jacobs said a central public facility can be put in the rural buffer, to be
29 served by water and sewer, like a school or a fire station, but it has yet to actually happen.
30 Craig Benedict said the one time this topic did come up was the Solid Waste
31 Administration Center. He said as the Rogers Road long range planning area is discussed, the
32 topic of the rural buffer near Eubanks Road is sure to come up.
33 Perdita Holtz made the following PowerPoint presentation:
34
35 Introduction to Possible Water and Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary
36 Agreement (WASMPBA) Amendments
37 February 13, 2017
38 QPH Work Session
39 Item F.2
40
41 Tonight's Purpose
42 • To receive an introduction to possible WASMPBA amendments and provide feedback to
43 staff
44
45 Brief History of WASMPBA
46 • Five party agreement adopted in 2001
47 o Orange County, OWASA, and Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough
48 o Amended only once— in 2010
49 • Defines Primary Service Areas and Long-Term Interest Areas
14
1 o Primary Service Areas: areas where water and sewer either are provided or
2 might reasonably be provided in the future, according to adopted plans and
3 future amendments to adopted plans
4 o Long Term Interest Areas: areas where water and sewer is not anticipated, but if
5 such services are to be provided, they would be provided by the entity
6 designated for each long term interest area (e.g., OWASA, Town of Hillsborough,
7 or Orange County)
8 • All five entities must approve amendments
9 o Formal public hearing not required
10 o Can follow normal agenda/decision process
11
12 Current Service Area Map
13 • Primary Service Area and Long Term Interests
14 o OWASA
15 o Hillsborough
16 o Orange County
17
18 Possible Amendments — Northern Chapel Hill
19 • Millhouse Road parcels that are proposed for possible addition to the Town of Chapel
20 Hill's ETJ (118.9 acres total)
21 • JPA-related land use amendments would have to occur first
22 o Can run concurrently
23
24 Possible Amendments — Southern Carrboro
25 • Smith Level Road in vicinity of Carrboro High School (20.6 acres)
26 o OWASA has provided water and sewer services to much of the area since the
27 1960s
28 o Potential oversight in primary service area boundary when WASMPBA was
29 adopted??
30
31 Possible Amendments — Hillsborough EDD Area
32 • Old NC Highway 86 immediately south of existing Hillsborough EDD (87.5 acres)
33 • Would also require concurrent amendments to Joint Hillsborough/OC Land Use Plan
34 • Rezoning may also be desirable to reflect urban service boundary
35 o Currently zoned R-1 (Rural Residential)
36
37 Land Use Plans — Hillsborough Area (map)
38
39 Questions/Feedback
40 • Town of Carrboro Board of Aldermen received information as a Consent Agenda item on
41 February 7
42 • Town of Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and OWASA staff determining process/date to inform
43 governing boards
44 • Questions and feedback for staff by BOCC
45
46 Commissioner Rich said the big map shows that some of the area looks like they fall in
47 the OWASA long term.
48 Perdita Holtz said boundaries need to be firmed up.
49 Craig Benedict said the rural buffer has to do with watersheds.
50 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the two white bulges on the map, and clarified that
51 these areas could possibly be amended and open to development of water and sewer.
15
1 Perdita Holtz said yes.
2 Commissioner Jacobs said, again, to be open with the public that there is a potential
3 development that is waiting for this area to be rezoned.
4 Perdita Holtz said this development application will be on the agenda for the May
5 Quarterly Public Hearing.
6 Craig Benedict said an application was filed on February 3, and was found to be
7 sufficient on February 10. He said a review of the application will proceed, and staff will get this
8 information out to the Board. He said the public will also be informed about any changes in this
9 general area.
10 Commissioner McKee referred to the previous item, and the 200 plus acres south of
11 Chapel Hill. He said this land is close to highway 15-501, and asked if the zoning ordinances
12 for this area could be provided.
13 Perdita Holtz said this is a transition area, and Town of Chapel Hill zoning would apply
14 there. She said she would get complete information to the Board.
15 Chair Dorosin asked if Commissioner McKee wants information on all the parcels of
16 land, or just one.
17 Commissioner McKee said it is difficult to tell if this is one parcel of land, or multiple.
18 Perdita Holtz said it is 71 parcels.
19 Commissioner McKee said he would just like a general idea about the area, and whether
20 any are already zoned commercial.
21
22 G. INFORMATION ITEM
23 1. Unified Development Ordinance—Tables of Permitted Uses —To receive an update on
24 amendments to the UDO that would reorganize the Tables of Permitted Uses in
25 response to the Byrd v. Franklin County judicial decision.
26
27 ADJOURNMENT OF WORK SESSION
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
30 adjourn the meeting at 8:34 p.m.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34
35 Mark Dorosin, Chair
36
37 David Hunt
38 Deputy Clerk to the Board
39
40
1
1 Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 WORK SESSION
6 February 16, 2017
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, February
10 16, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
21 Chair Dorosin said Agenda Item 1 needs to be moved to February 21st, due to the full
22 nature of this evening's agenda.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to move
25 this item to the 21st agenda.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 Commissioner Rich asked if, when Item 1 is presented next week, could it be formatted
30 differently to make it easier to read the comments.
31 Bonnie Hammersley said staff felt similarly, but wanted the Board of County
32 Commissioners (BOCC) to see all the comments. She said staff received three sets of
33 comments, and rather than manipulating the comments, chose to number the pages and enter
34 page numbers as each item was discussed. She said some comments were moved into the
35 recommendations, and noted the different colors were due to various technology that was used,
36 and the colors were difficult to manipulate.
37
38 Chair Dorosin said he would like to reverse the orders of Items 4 and 5 this evening.
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
41 reverse the order of these two items.
42
43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
44
45
46 1. Review and Amend the Orange County Housing Affordability Policy
47
48 This item moved to the February 21st Board of County Commissioners Regular meeting.
49
50 2. Solid Waste Five Year Financial Plan and Cost Study
2
1 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the information below, and noted that this presentation
2 has already been given to the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG).
3
4 BACKGROUND: The Department of Finance and Administrative Services determined that the
5 current programs fee of $107 was not sufficient to meet Solid Waste expense requirements in
6 subsequent fiscal years attributed in part to a dramatic shift within the Recycling industry. From
7 fiscal years 2010-11 to the present, the recycling market has undergone significant changes
8 which have resulted in a decrease in recycling revenues to the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund.
9 During the same period, operating expenses for recycling operations processing has increased,
10 as evidenced by the tons recycled. The chart below illustrates the decrease in recycling
11 revenues and the increase in tons recycled from FY 2010-11 through FY 2015-16. The Solid
12 Waste Enterprise Fund has had to utilize fund balance to offset the decline in recycling
13 revenues.
14
15 As a result of the unstable state of the recycling market, the County retained an independent
16 third party consultant, SCS Engineers to confirm its' internal assessment by conducting a solid
17 waste cost of services and rate study. SCS Engineers in collaboration with County staff
18 developed a Five Year Financial Plan to ensure fiscal resiliency to the Solid Waste Enterprise
19 Fund on a long-term basis while at the same time maintaining the County's record and
20 reputation for achieving high waste reduction targets and landfill diversion.
21
22 The financial analysis concluded that an increased program fee is necessary to achieve a
23 sustainable and recurring revenue stream for the Solid Waste Enterprise Fund. The suggested
24 method for increasing the fee is to use a multi-faceted approach with a General Fund and a
25 Solid Waste Fund Balance contribution to modestly increase the program fee. On January 30,
26 2017, the County Manager presented to the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) two options
27 that used the multi-faceted approach (Attachment C). Also, the Community Development
28 Director will develop a communication plan to inform residents of the Solid Waste program fee.
29
30 Bob Dick with SCS Engineers made the following PowerPoint presentation. He
31 reviewed some history, noting, prior to FY 15-16, Orange County had several different fees
32 after the closing of the sanitary landfill in 2013. He said these fees were discontinued in 15-16,
33 and the County introduced a comprehensive program fee to 60,000 developed parcels. He said
34 the finance department observed a potential shortfall, and SCS Engineers was called in to look
35 at a more comprehensive 5-year financial plan.
36 Bob Dick made the following PowerPoint presentation:
37
38 Financial Plan and Rate Study for Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
39 Orange County, NC
40 Presented by Bob Dick, PE and Ryan Duckett
41 February 16, 2017
42
43 Summary of SCS' Efforts
44 Since May 2016 SWAG Meeting
45 • Revision of Financial Model based on Actual FY 2016-17 Budget
46 • Budgetary Leveling throughout Financial Model
47 • Additional Revenue/Expense Analysis
48 • Finalize and Submit Final Report
49
50 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
3
1 • 4 Cost Centers (Divisions within Department)
2 • 33 Distinct Revenue Sources (line items)
3 • 47 Distinct Expense Sources (line items)
4 • 5 Capital Sources
5
6 Budgeted SW Dept. Revenue Components as Portions of Total Revenue (FY 2016-17)
7 (chart)
8
9 Baseline (Status Quo) Scenario
10 • 5-Year Projections
11 • Maintains Revenues
12 o SW Programs Fee— $107/parcel
13 o Appropriated Fund Balance — Excludes sources other than loan proceeds in last
14 4 years
15 • Estimated Fund Deficit of $1.8 Million addressed by Appropriated Fund Balance in FY
16 2016-17 only
17
18 Commissioner McKee referred to the deficit for FY 2017-18 and FY 2018-19, noting an
19 increase of about $100,000 each year. He asked if there is a reason for the jump in those
20 years. He said the solid waste balance appropriation is going down, but the deficit is
21 increasing.
22 Bob Dick said any place where there is not a direct correlation between the indication of
23 a diminishing appropriated fund balance contribution, and the ultimate deficit, is most likely
24 attributed to capital projects that are to be completed in that individual year. He said the
25 department is in the process of modernizing some of the solid waste collection centers. He said
26 the operation costs tend to change in a uniform nature, and any substantial changes are due to
27 larger equipment purchases, or an upgrade or modernization of a collection center.
28 Chair Dorosin asked if the current general fund contribution, listed at $2 million, is the
29 total of the fee collected.
30 Bob Dick said no. He said the Solid Waste Assessment fee, at $107 per parcel, yields
31 about $6.5 million, which is included in the top line revenues. He said this current general fund
32 contribution is an allocation that the County has made historically each year.
33 Chair Dorosin asked if $2 million is in addition to the $6.5 million that is generated by the
34 fees.
35 Bob Dick said yes. He resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
36
37 Baseline (Status Quo) Scenario
38 • FY 2016-17
39 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $3.8 Million
40 - General Fund (GF) Contribution= $2.0 Million
41 - SW Fund Balance = $1.8 Million
42 Yields Balanced SW Budget = $0
43
44 • FY 2017-18
45 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.0 Million
46 - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million
47 - SW Fund Balance* = $0.5 Million
48 Remaining SW Deficit = $1.5 Million
49
50 • FY 2018-19
4
1 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.1 Million
2 - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million
3 - SW Fund Balance* = $0.5 Million
4 Remaining SW Deficit = $1.6 Million
5
6 *Residual Solid Waste Fund Balance Phase Out not included in Pro Forma model
7 Baseline (Status Quo) Scenario
8
9 • FY 2019-20
10 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.4 Million
11 - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million
12 - SW Fund Balance* = $0.3 Million
13 Remaining SW Deficit = $2.1 Million
14 • FY 2020-21
15 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.6 Million
16 - Current GF Contribution= $2.0 Million
17 - SW Fund Balance* = $0.3 Million
18 Remaining SW Deficit = $2.3 Million
19 *Residual Solid Waste Fund Balance Phase Out not included in Pro Forma model
20
21 Financial Analysis Conclusions
22 Status Quo (Scenario 1)
23 • Enterprise Fund current financial structure is unsustainable.
24 • Significant annual deficits are projected for next 5 years.
25 • Fund subsidized by General Fund Contribution (historical precedent) and allocation from
26 Appropriated Fund Balance (SW reserves).
27 • Allocations from Appropriated Fund's Balance could deplete entire Fund in 5 years.
28 • Refer to Table 1 in Appendix F of Report (page F-1).
29
30 Scenario 1 (chart)
31
32 Financial Analysis Conclusions
33 Break-Even Analysis (Scenario 2)
34 • If the historical General Fund Contribution is maintained, then break-even Fee required
35 calculated at approximately $137 to $148 per parcel.
36 • Refer to Table 1 in Appendix F of Report (page F-1)
37
38 Break-Even Scenario
39 • FY 2016-17
40 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $3.8 Million
41 - General Fund (GF) Contribution= $2.0 Million
42 - SW Fund Balance = $1.8 Million
43 Yields Balanced SW Budget = $0
44
45 • FY 2017-18
46 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.0 Million
47 - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million
48 Remaining SW Deficit = $2.0 Million
49
50 • FY 2018-19
5
1 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.1 Million
2 - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million
3 Remaining SW Deficit = $2.1 Million
4
5 • FY 2019-20
6 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.4 Million
7 - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million
8 Remaining SW Deficit = $2.4 Million
9
10 • FY 2020-21
11 Enterprise Fund Deficit = $4.6 Million
12 - Current GF Contribution = $2.0 Million
13 Remaining SW Deficit = $2.6 Million
14
15 Scenario 2 (chart)
16
17 Financial Analysis Conclusions
18 • As an alternative to solely increasing the Program Fee, the County could take a multi-
19 faceted approach by increasing the General Fund Contribution, using Solid Waste Fund
20 Balance when available, and more modestly increasing the Program Fee.
21
22 Cost-of-Services Benchmarking (graph)
23
24 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is no fee indicated, does that mean that the
25 particular county does not charge a fee.
26 Bob Dick said yes, and he said every municipal jurisdiction gets its funding through
27 slightly different formulas. He said this chart was completed using only counties that assess a
28 Solid Waste fee. He said if a county receives funds via the county tax rate, a fee would not
29 show up in this chart.
30 Commissioner Price asked if the commissioner approved fee schedule, contained in the
31 report, is consistent with other counties.
32 Bob Dick said this is a difficult question to answer definitively as Solid Waste programs
33 tend to have all sorts of mechanisms and fees assigned. He added that throughout its review,
34 SCS Enterprises did not see any glaring inefficiencies throughout the entire department's
35 programs that would warrant a suggestion of improved efficiency.
36 Commissioner Price asked if there is any particular plan to deal with recycled materials
37 that are not purchased.
38 Gayle Wilson said all of their materials are going to market daily in Raleigh, and he said
39 the County no longer has to pay to have those materials received. He said changes are being
40 made day-to-day, and a bit of money is being made currently, with the exception of glass.
41 Commissioner Price asked if there is a way to dispose of glass without a market for it.
42 Gayle Wilson said there is a market for glass if it is given away. He said it is a difficult
43 material to run through the machinery, but once it is sorted there is a market, but it is not paid
44 for.
45 Commissioner Price said she wanted to insure that the recycling efforts are not in vain.
46 Gayle Wilson said that County agreements prevent glass from being landfilled.
47 Bob Dick resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
48
49 Recommended Financial Plan
50 • Continue General Fund Contribution
6
1 • Reduce reliance on Solid Waste Fund Balance in a phased manner as necessary
2 • Increase Program Fee in FY17-18 and beyond
3 • Evaluate Potential Revenue Generating Ideas
4 • Evaluate Potential Expense Reductions
5 • Evaluate Potential Cost Saving Ideas
6 • Consider Program Financing Issues
7
8 Bonnie Hammersley made the following PowerPoint presentation, which she noted had
9 been presented to the Solid Waste Advisory Group (SWAG) in January:
10
11 Solid Waste Fee
12 Key Assumptions
13 Parcels Average Annual Growth Rate 1.1%
14 Expenditure Average Annual Growth Rate 1.6%
15 Landfill Post-Closure Liability $6,570,862
16 Available Solid Waste Fund Balance $4,441,611
17 General Fund Balance Appropriations-Annual $2,000,000
18
19 Solid Waste Fund Balance Appropriation TBD
20
21 Option #1
22 Five-Year Financial Forecast
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Solid Waste Fund $750,000 $500,000 $350,000 $200,000 $200,000
Balance Appropriation
General Fund $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Appropriation
Program Fee $128 $132 $139 $145 $148
Estimated Available $4,441,611 $3,691,611 $3,191,611 $2,841,611 $2,641,611 $2,441,611
Solid Waste Fund
Balance
%of operating 42% 28% 24% 19% 19% 17%
expenses
Number of Assessed 60,178 60,840 61,509 62,186 62,870
Parcels
23
24 Option #2
25 Five-Year Financial Forecast
FY 17-18 FY 18-19 FY 19-20 FY 20-21 FY 21-22
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Solid Waste Fund $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000 $400,000
Balance Appropriation
General Fund $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000
Appropriation
Program Fee $134 $134 $138 $142 $148
Estimated Available $4,441,611 $4,041,611 $3,641,611 $3,241,611 $2,841,611 $2,441,611
Solid Waste Fund
Balance
%of operating 42% 30% 27% 22% 20% 17%
expenses
Number of Assessed 60,178 60,840 61,509 62,186 62,870
Parcels
26
27 Bonnie Hammersley said after she presented this to the SWAG, they suggested she talk
28 to all of the Town Managers about her recommended options.
7
1 Bonnie Hammersley said staff is putting together a communications plan about this
2 proposed fee increase.
3 Commissioner Price said the report discussed the possibility of reducing hours, and
4 asked if the Manager's schedule takes that into effect.
5 Bonnie Hammersley said her plan does not cut back hours, but she recommended
6 looking at this each year.
7 Commissioner McKee asked if there was consideration given to increasing the general
8 fund contribution to $2.5 million or more, in order to soften the first year blow.
9 Bonnie Hammersley said this consideration was not given, and available funds would
10 need to be identified in the general fund.
11 Commissioner McKee said he asked this question because if the general fund
12 appropriation was increased, it would not change the draw off of the fund balance, but it would
13 allow the first year increase to be a bit less dramatic.
14 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the parcels are solely residential.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said this includes developed and individual parcels.
16 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the University of North Carolina (UNC) pays its fair
17 share.
18 Bonnie Hammersley said UNC has its own system, and staff is working closely with the
19 University.
20 Commissioner Jacobs said non-profits have to pay the fee too.
21 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Manager has a plan to pay back the fund for the
22 County's portion of the Greene Tract.
23 Bonnie Hammersley said the purchase of the Greene Tract from Solid Waste was
24 already completed, and is in this year's activities; and at year-end 2016-17, this will be
25 completed. She said this is not reflected in the numbers at this time, but it will be at year-end.
26 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this would potentially affect the point made by
27 Commissioner McKee.
28 Bonnie Hammersley said yes, depending on how the year ends. She said this will be
29 more clear as the budget process continues.
30 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the manner in which other governments fit into this
31 could be explained.
32 Bonnie Hammersley said staff is working on an interlocal agreement. She said the
33 County cannot charge the towns unless this fee is agreed to, and staff is working closely with
34 the Towns on this issue. She said the SWAG has been very helpful, and she expects this to be
35 resolved before the beginning of the next fiscal year.
36 Commissioner Burroughs clarified that these options are being presented to the Towns.
37 Bonnie Hammersley said yes, that she is meeting with the Managers on this, and has
38 also offered to present at town meetings.
39 Commissioner Burroughs recalled this issue being tricky in the past.
40 Commissioner Jacobs said the closure of the landfill raised a lot of resentment, and in
41 the course of talking about the interlocal agreement the County made sure that the Towns were
42 informed in plenty of time, so that the fees could be worked into the various budgets. He said
43 some of the attitudes on the SWAG have become more collaborative, which has made this
44 process easier.
45 Commissioner McKee said he had issues with the fee because of its impact on low-
46 income residents, and asked if ways to lessen the impact on low-income residents, such as
47 those in mobile home parks, has been discussed.
48 Bonnie Hammersley said staff has looked at the mobile home parks, and the fees that
49 park owners assess to renter is unknown, making it difficult to come up with a solution. She
8
1 said those who own their mobile homes do not receive tax notices. She said staff is looking at
2 best practices from other counties, and is working to try and find a suitable solution.
3 Chair Dorosin referred to the closure liability and the Solid Waste fund, and asked if
4 there is any requirement that these two be related. He said the amount that is in the Solid
5 Waste fund is not necessarily linked to the $6 million closure liability.
6 Bonnie Hammersley said no and there is no state mandate for what you have to have.
7 She said the $6 million liability is based on what it would take if there were a catastrophic event.
8 Chair Dorosin asked if there is another pot of money, other than the fund balance, for
9 closure liability.
10 Bonnie Hammersley said there is the $6.5 assigned within the balance sheet for that
11 purpose. She said the available fund balance is also on the balance sheet and is unassigned.
12 Chair Dorosin clarified that there is $6.5 million set aside to cover the potential closure
13 of the landfill, and if the balance fund were to be dipped into to cover this shortfall, the $6.5
14 million would not be affected.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said that is correct, and the $6.5 million is separate from the $4.4
16 million.
17 Chair Dorosin echoed Commissioner McKee's concern about this fee and its affect on
18 low-income residents, and he hoped to find a solution for this. He said he would like to reduce
19 the County's reliance on fees, as stated by Commissioner McKee.
20 Chair Dorosin said the Board has looked at various potential revenue sources for the
21 closed landfill, and the consensus seems to be that nothing can be done with it. He said he
22 would like to keep working on this and encouraged creativity.
23 Commissioner Rich thanked all who come to the SWAG meetings.
24 Chair Dorosin thanked Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Rich for their service
25 on this committee.
26 Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Manager for her work on this committee.
27 Commissioner Price asked if the way in which apartments will be affected by this fee
28 could be outlined.
29 Gayle Wilson said each apartment unit is assessed a fee, for which the owner of the
30 building is responsible to pay.
31 Commissioner Price requested that any public outreach and education on this topic
32 should include information about the tax exemption for this fee. She said many people do not
33 know about this.
34 Commissioner Marcoplos said it may be worthwhile to look at other counties that do not
35 have fees, but are still high performing.
36 Commissioner Marcoplos said landfills take about 30 years to settle.
37 Gayle Wilson said it may take longer, but federal law says 30 years post closure
38 maintenance and monitoring.
39 Commissioner Marcoplos said there is solar technology that can be overlaid on a landfill
40 prior to 30 years.
41 Gayle Wilson said this is possible depending on the degree of subsidence and settling
42 of the landfill. He said if it is stabilized enough, it is possible.
43
44 3. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)-Light Rail Transit (LRT) Discussion
45
46 BACKGROUND: In 2010 and 2011 (adopted July 2011) an Alternatives Analysis (D-O AA) of
47 the Durham Orange Transit Corridor was conducted by URS (now AECOM) consultants as part
48 of the Triangle Regional Transit Program. An introductory excerpt from the 171 page study is
49 below. The link for this information is http://ourtransitfuture.com/wpcontent/
50 uploads/2013/12/2.2.2a-00401-DO-Vol-l-Detailed-Def-July-ALL-DVD-READY.pdf.
9
1 Triangle Transit has commissioned an Alternative Analysis (AA) to initiate fixed guideway transit
2 service between Durham and Orange counties. The AA is a component of the Triangle
3 Regional Transit Program, a comprehensive effort to study expanded bus and rail networks
4 across Wake, Orange, and Durham counties.
5
6 This report documents the analysis and findings of the Durham-Orange County Corridor
7 (Durham-Orange Corridor) AA process. The AA is an outgrowth of the system-level Transitional
8 Analysis that was completed in the fall of 2010 and that recommended the Durham-Orange
9 Corridor as one of the region's priority high-capacity transit corridors to be advanced into the
10 more detailed AA process. The AA evaluates and screens alternative alignments, modes, and
11 station locations within the Durham-Orange Corridor and concludes with the selection of a
12 recommended Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA).
13 The AA process detailed in this report is consistent with the Federal Transit Administration's
14 (FTA) New Starts guidelines that enable fixed-guideway projects to be eligible for federal funds.
15
16 The purpose of an AA is to determine the best mode or technology (i.e. Bus Rapid Transit,
17 Light Rail Transit, or Commuter Rail Transit)for the corridor based on goals of the local
18 government. Table ES-1 entitled "Summary of Evaluation Results for LRT, BRT-High and BRT-
19 Low Alternatives" is included as Attachment B. This table provides a high level summary of the
20 capabilities and costs associated with the technologies that were evaluated. BRT-High
21 represented a dedicated lane approach while BRT-Low represented more of a mixed traffic
22 approach.
23
24 Although this document was created in 2011, it represents the information that was available at
25 that time to the policymakers involved in recommending the mode of transportation in the
26 corridor and the alignment. Work has continued since 2011. One significant difference between
27 the 2011 estimates and current estimates is that the estimated ridership on the LRT project has
28 increased from approximately 12,000 in the 2011 study to over 24,000 in the most recent
29 analysis.
30
31 Wake County has gone through an extensive transit analysis and public outreach process in
32 preparation for the County's 2016 transit referendum. Their alternatives analysis of a more
33 dispersed transit region concluded that a mix of BRT, CRT, and bus service would best serve
34 the needs of the County.
35
36 In this presentation, GoTriangle has been asked to provide information on why BRT was not
37 chosen as the appropriate technology for the Durham Orange Transit corridor and why it was
38 chosen for application in Wake County.
39
40 Patrick McDonough, GoTriangle Manager of Planning and Transit Oriented
41 Development, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
42
43 Orange County-Why Light Rail Was Selected for the Durham-Orange Corridor
44 Orange County Board of County Commissioners
45 February 16, 2017
46
47 Presentation Overview
48 • Matching Transit Technology to a Particular Corridor
49 • Key Travel Data for Durham and Orange Counties
50 • LRT & BRT performance in the USA
10
1 • Transit & the Environment
2 • Discussion
3
4 The Triangle Will Be A Growth Leader (graph)
5
6 Lessons from Seattle-Tacoma and Minneapolis-St Paul
7 • Multiple transit providers
8 • Several modes of transit
9 • The right "transit tool" differs from one corridor to another
10
11 Minneapolis-St. Paul metro: 3.5 million people (photo)
12
13 Seattle-Tacoma metro: 3.7 million people (photo)
14
15 How These Communities Decided Which Mode Goes Where
16
17 Key To Travel Markets: Density of Jobs and Housing
18
19 Mode Profile: Conventional Bus
20 Where It Works:
21 • All major roadways, arterials, collector streets, and some neighborhood streets
22 • Demand for service every 20 to 60 minutes at rush hour
23 • Trip Intensities of 10-35 trips/acre
24
25 Operating Characteristics:
26 • Operates in mixed traffic with cars
27 • Stop spacing: every 1/4 mile to every 1/2 mile
28 • Typically 40-foot bus
29 • Avg speed at rush hour: 6-12 mph, depending on traffic conditions
30
31 Mode Profile: Bus Rapid Transit
32 Where It Works:
33 • Major roadways and urban arterials within bus-only lanes, with limited travel in mixed
34 traffic. 60-foot articulated buses do not fit on neighborhood streets and some collector
35 streets.
36 • Demand for service every 10-30 minutes at rush hour
37 • Trip intensities of 20-75 trips/acre
38
39 Operating Characteristics:
40 • Operates mostly in dedicated bus lanes
41 • Stop spacing: every 1/2 mile to every 1 mile
42 • Articulated buses for busway-only service, 40-ft bus for buses that use part of busway
43 • Avg speed at rush hour: -14 mph in recent USA installations
44
45 Mode Profile: Light Rail Transit
46 Where It Works:
47 • Dedicated tracks in separate right-of-way or rail-only segment of major roadways
48 • Demand for service every 5 to 15 minutes at rush hour
49 • Trip intensities of 50-100+ trips/acre
11
1 Operating Characteristics:
2 • Operates on dedicated tracks out of traffic, limited lane sharing with buses/first
3 responder vehicles
4 • Stop spacing: every 1/2 mile to every 2 miles
5 • 90-foot cars that can be joined together in trains
6 • Avg speed at rush hour: -21 mph in recent USA installations
7
8 Mode Profile: Commuter Rail
9 Where It Works:
10 • Only mainline railroad corridors
11 • Demand for service every 20 to 60 minutes at rush hour, limited or no off-peak or
12 weekend service
13 • Serving long-haul trips for large regular workday employment market to dense job
14 center in city CBD
15
16 Operating Characteristics:
17 • Shares tracks with freight, Amtrak trains
18 • Stop spacing: every 2 miles to 5 miles
19 • Typically 3 or more coach cars hauled by diesel locomotive
20 • Avg speed at rush hour: 25-40 mph
21
22 Measuring Trips Per Acre in Durham and Orange Counties
23 Key To Travel Markets: Trip Intensity Map of Triangle (TJCOG) (graph)
24 Trips Per Acre by Location (see map handout)
25
26 D-O LRT Corridor Trips Per Acre, 2040 (graph)
27
28 North Hills, Raleigh- Projected 2040 Trip Intensity: 75 trips/acre (graph)
29
30 The Major Trip Generators in the Durham-Orange Corridor Are Strongly Related to Each
31 Other
32
33 Transit Onboard Survey, Durham & Orange Counties, 2014 (map)
34
35 Transit Onboard Survey, Durham & Orange Counties, 2014 (map)
36
37 Transit Onboard Survey, Durham & Orange Counties, 2014 (map)
38
39 Transit Onboard Survey, Durham & Orange Counties, 2014 (map)
40
41 The reasons the Durham-Orange corridor is the largest transit market in the Triangle
42 What Drives Transit Ridership Outcomes
43 • Growth Patterns
44 • Policy Choices
45 • Level of Service Provided
46
47 Key Durham & Orange Decisions That Made the D-O LRT Corridor
48 • 1789 — UNC founded
49 • 1855 — NC Railroad begins operation Greensboro-Goldsboro
12
1 • 1892 - Duke University moved to Durham from Trinity, NC
2 • 1910 - NCCU founded
3 • 1974 -Jordan Lake complete, limiting access to Chapel Hill from East, pushing future
4 traffic towards NC 54
5 • 1982 - UNC and Duke Hospital designated Level 1 Trauma Centers. Only 6 such
6 centers in North Carolina, all but 2 along D-O LRT corridor
7 • 1980s - Orange County and municipalities adopt Rural Buffer, Durham creates Rural
8 Tier
9 • 1988 - Interstate 40 built, limiting "crossing" points between Durham and Chapel Hill
10
11 Why BRT Was a Good Fit for Wake County, and LRT Was a Good Fit for Durham-Orange
12 (chart)
13
14 Policy Choices
15 FARES
16 • Chapel Hill Transit: $0
17 • GoDurham: $1.00
18 • GoRaleigh: $1.25
19 • GoCary: $1.50
20
21 Transit Service Hours By Metro Area (graph)
22
23 Recent Transit Ridership
24 • Durham-Orange: -72,000 boardings per day (Chapel Hill Transit, GoDurham, Duke
25 Transit, GoTriangle Durham/Orange routes)
26 • Wake County: -38,000 boardings per day (GoRaleigh, GoCary, NCSU Wolfline,
27 GoTriangle Wake routes)
28 • Durham and Orange have roughly half the population of Wake County, but generate
29 nearly double the transit ridership
30
31 Commissioner McKee asked if the portion of the Durham Orange, that is Chapel Hill
32 transit, could be identified.
33 Patrick McDonough said about 25,000-27,000.
34
35 Transit Usage by Metro Area (graph)
36
37 Key Take-Aways
38 • Durham & Orange counties have been investing in transit at a higher level for a long
39 period of time, and have built a large transit market responding to their compact growth
40 choices and job centers
41 • Wake County is investing to catch up to Durham-Orange, using a plan and technologies
42 that complements their more suburban growth choices
43 • Different transit technology choices can match transit markets in the different counties,
44 and still become a fully integrated system
45
46 Commissioner Price asked if the riders' destination could be identified.
47 Patrick McDonough said riders are moving within the corridor among the various zones.
48 He said the 3D map shows the intensity of the trips.
13
1 Commissioner Price asked if the conclusion is that bus riders would rather get on the
2 train.
3 Patrick McDonough said in areas of high bus ridership, the addition of higher capacity
4 transit draws riders to it, and in greater numbers.
5
6 LRT and BRT rarely provide a similar type of service.
7 "BRT" is a term used for many things.
8
9 Travel Speeds of Light Rail and BRT in the USA, Projects Built or Added to Since 2000
10 (hand out)
11 Why is speed important?
12 In a large, continuing study of upward mobility based at Harvard, commuting time has emerged
13 as the single strongest factor in the odds of escaping poverty. The longer an average commute
14 in a given county, the worse the chances of low-income families there moving up the ladder."-
15 'Transportation Emerges as Crucial to Escaping Poverty," New York Times, May 7, 2015
16
17 Operating Costs of Bus & Light Rail (graph)
18
19 Economic Development & Rail (graph)
20
21 Projected Economic Impact of D-O LRT
22 • Add $4.7 Billion in economic output in Durham and Orange Counties each year
23 • Add $600 Million in additional economic impact statewide
24 • Estimated 750 of direct construction related jobs, + over 1,000 indirect construction
25 related jobs
26 • Add $175 Million in new tax revenue (per year) due to economic impacts
27
28 BRT and LRT both offer environmental benefits.
29 LRT benefits demonstrate increasing efficiency with greater use, just like operating cost.
30
31 Emissions of Transit Modes Per Passenger Mile-graph
32
33 Emissions Benefits Facilitated By Compact, Focused Growth
34 • More walking means fewer short vehicle trips, fewer cold starts trips
35 • Each 1% of short-trip mileage reduced typically reduces air emissions by 2-3%.
36
37 Mixed-Use Developments Reduce Traffic
38 • Mixed use generates far less traffic than single - use suburban development
39 • Experiences of 6 large - scale US Suburban Mixed Use Developments:
40 o 30% Internal Capture
41 o On average, 15% of external trips by foot, bike, transit-
42 • Thus "45% of trips put no strain on external road network"
43
44 Public Health Benefits Facilitated By Rail
45 Before —and-after surveys of Charlotte, North Carolina LRT passengers found:
46 • Body Mass Index (BMI) declined an average of 1.18 kg/m2 compared to non-LRT users
47 in the same area over a 12-18 month period, equivalent to a loss of 6.45 lbs. for a
48 person who is 5'S.
49 • LRT users were also 81% less likely to become obese over time.
14
1
2 Summary
3 • Durham-Orange corridor is already a large, robust transit market, in a high-growth
4 metropolitan area.
5 • LRT can provide capacity to meet current &future demand in a way BRT cannot
6 • LRT supports the compact growth & economic development strategies of
7 Durham/Orange that preserve farms/forests, reduce emissions
8 • LRT will provide faster service and more opportunity/social mobility than BRT over 17
9 miles
10 • LRT will provide lower cost per passenger trip
11
12 Review: 2011 AA Document vs Dec 2016 FEIS/ROD to NCCU
13 Review-2011 Documents vs Dec 2016 FEIS/ROD to NCCU
14 -LRT Vehicle Capacity: -180 passengers per car
15 -Standard Bus Capacity: -50 passengers per bus
16
17 What they have learned since 2011 AA
18 • GoPass use increased LRT ridership
19 by making transit feel free
20 • If BRT had been chosen, ridership
21 would have risen for BRT, too
22 • Lower bus capacity + Higher BRT ridership =
23 o More buses/higher operating cost
24 o Introduces new, significant traffic impacts
25 • Then, A Tough Choice:
26 o BRT in mixed traffic— slower, less reliable service
27 o Spending more on capital cost to add up to 40 bridges
28 • LRT remains a better fit for high-demand corridor
29
30 Discussion
31
32 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the state wide economic benefits could be identified.
33 Patrick McDonough said there is a contractor in Granville or Person County that sells
34 concrete railroad ties nationally. He said this contractor would be a great bidder because they
35 would have a really short transportation cost to sell concrete ties one county away. He said this
36 would be a rural county selling to an urban project, which is a statewide impact beyond the
37 three core counties.
38 Commissioner Rich asked if the average age of riders could be identified.
39 Patrick McDonough said this information has been gathered, and he will send it to the
40 Board.
41 Commissioner Rich said her sons take public transportation everywhere, and do not
42 want to use their cars. She said 20-40 year olds do not want to be in the car, and she would
43 like to see if GoTriangle's research matches her experiences.
44 Commissioner Rich said there is a lot of talk about BRT versus Light rail, but a lot of
45 money has already been invested in light rail. She asked what would be lost if the plan were to
46 switch to BRT.
47 Patrick McDonough said the process is at 30% design stage, which is 30% completion
48 on the construction drawings to hand to a contractor to build.
49 Patrick McDonough said it would be a minimum of a 4-year loss of time.
15
1 Commissioner Rich asked if the timing, from the beginning to the end, of the light rail
2 line could be identified.
3 Patrick McDonough said it was originally a 35 minute ride time in 2011, but the design
4 has changed in order to accommodate community values; for example, property impacts and
5 the addition of the North Carolina Central University (NCCU) stop. He said these changes
6 lengthen the time.
7 Commissioner Price referred to the comparison of Durham and Orange with King
8 County, Washington, and asked if Orange County will benefit in the same way. She asked if
9 people in rural areas like Efland will benefit from the LRT.
10 Patrick McDonough said the most important element is good rail-bus integration
11 planning.
12 Chair Dorosin referred to the hand out about buses that run in 100% mixed traffic lanes,
13 and asked if this is the case, how is that type of bus considered rapid.
14 Patrick McDonough said the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has noticed this as
15 well, and has redefined BRT to require that lanes must be at least 50% bus dedicated. He said
16 the cities referenced in the presentation are still committed to improving their bus systems.
17 Chair Dorosin said there could be a bus system, which goes down the existing traffic
18 ways of Martin Luther King Boulevard in Chapel Hill that is called a BRT system. He asked if
19 the distinct characteristics of a BRT system could be identified.
20 Patrick McDonough said there is a national standard checklist for a BRT definition. He
21 said BRT is still being applied to a wide variety of implementations nationwide.
22 Chair Dorosin said one of the challenges is that there are not clear definitions about
23 many of the things being discussed.
24 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if BRT systems ever get faster.
25 Patrick McDonough said it depends on the system and the location.
26 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if Wake County is focusing on BRT due to the wide-
27 open spaces that exist there.
28 Patrick McDonough said Wake County is much more spread out than Orange and
29 Durham, and BRT would work better for them. He said Orange and Durham counties have
30 gone to great planning lengths to preserve the LRT corridor.
31 Commissioner Price asked if Patrick McDonough could speak more about decreased
32 car trips in Raleigh, as mentioned in the presentation.
33 Patrick McDonough said he was actually talking about Franklin Street. He said since
34 the buses became fare free, ridership doubled over a few years.
35 Commissioner Price asked if there was a way that it was determined that buses or the
36 move to fare free were the cause of the decreased ridership, as opposed to more people living
37 in town.
38 Patrick McDonough said this is part of it, but traffic has dropped, and it would be a
39 strange coincidence if this were not related to the buses being fare free.
40 Danny Rogers, GoTriangle Project Director, said he is here to update the BOCC on the
41 project, and it is moving forward at an appropriate pace. He said the next big step is moving
42 into engineering, and good progress is being made. He said all information has been given the
43 FTA, and there are a few additional clarifications that need to be made regarding the existing
44 bus rail investment plan and the money that is included in that. He said as the timeline has
45 been followed appropriately, the FTA is allowing additional time to make up the clarifications
46 during.
47 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the plan is for the GoTriangle Board to vote on
48 advancing the engineering contract on April 26th.
16
1 Danny Rogers said the schedule must be held to, and that date is correct. He said the
2 draft plans should be ready prior to that date. He said these contracts are not all or nothing and
3 there would be the opportunity to stop, if necessary.
4 Commissioner Burroughs said the draft plan should be available prior to the April 26th
5 date, and then there will be a required comment period, but the Board of County
6 Commissioners and MPO will be looking at the draft plan prior to April 26th
7 Danny Rogers said the draft county transit plans will be available ahead of April 18th,
8 and on that date GoTriangle will share with the BOCC that it is ready to go to its own Board of
9 Directors (BOD)for approval.
10 Commissioner Burroughs said she will have a very hard time signaling positively about
11 going forward with the engineering, having only seen the draft plan for such a short period of
12 time. She asked if more detail could be given as to why it must be April 26th, and why the
13 engineering decision cannot be lined up with the final plan being considered in June and July.
14 Danny Rogers said the FTA schedule for New Starts is on a calendar year schedule,
15 and if a deadline is missed by a month, it may be missed by a year. He said deadlines have
16 been pushed as far as possible to reduce exposure. He said if this is approved April, there is
17 still room to pull out in June. He said if the plan is not approved in April, the FTA may be
18 missed, and the whole cost of building the project would be delayed a year, resulting in inflation
19 being added, the cost of administration would increase, etc. He said it is a much bigger risk to
20 not approve the contracts, than it is to approve them.
21 Commissioner Burroughs said the project would not be knocked out of New Starts, but a
22 year would be lost resulting in increased costs.
23 Danny Rogers said there would be increased costs from project administration for the
24 delay and increased costs from inflation. He said as the project moves forward into
25 engineering, hopefully in the next few weeks, the budget is set on year of expenditure. He said
26 if the project is delayed a year, the inflation does not get adjusted in the budget, and would be a
27 true cost increase. He said this puts more on local ability to pay for the project, as the budget
28 does not get adjusted from the FTA's perspective.
29 Commissioner Burroughs said she would like to see this played out from a money
30 perspective as there is a real due diligence issue here with the timing, and she would like to
31 know exactly how much it will cost to delay a year, versus what would be paid in the first few
32 months of the engineering contracts.
33 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Burroughs, and said it would be
34 helpful to have a timetable of all items and costs, and as the cost is discussed. He said he is
35 interested in GoTriangle's cost and/or Orange County's exposure based on the cost.
36 Danny Rogers said this information can be put together.
37 Commissioner McKee asked if the expectations of the Board of County Commissioners
38 in June could be specifically outlined, and if it is a go-no-go decision on the BOCC's part.
39 Danny Rogers said June is the update of the transit plan, and in April they would be
40 committing to a higher level of expenditure to advance the design. He said if the BOCC is not
41 comfortable in April, it can direct the BOCC representative on the GoTriangle BOD to vote
42 against approving the contracts. He said in June the BOCC will be asked to approve the
43 County Transit Plans, which would include the DOL-RT and all the other parts of that which
44 would be necessary for continuing to move forward.
45 Commissioner McKee asked if there is a reason that preparations have not been made
46 to bring it to the Board of County Commissioners in April. He said it seems to be getting the
47 cart before the horse, and it looks as if the BOCC will need to approve contracts before seeing
48 the revised County Transit Plan.
49 Danny Rogers said the plan has been adjusted due to the statewide participation, and
50 financial models have been updated. He said GoTriangle is in the process of finalizing all the
17
1 information that the BOCC needs to move forward. He said the original schedule had the two
2 coinciding, but this is no longer the case.
3 John Talmadge said in September 2016, the staff working group agreed that the plans
4 needed to be updated, with April set as a deadline, as it was in line with when the MPO wanted
5 some information. He said all staff worked very hard to get information ready for that time, but
6 two weeks ago the assessment was that the product is not ready to be taken out for public
7 comment, and that there is more information that needs to be vetted, as well as answers to
8 questions that cannot yet be given.
9 Commissioner McKee said what happens if Board of County Commissioners directs its
10 representative to the GoTriangle BOD to vote no.
11 John Talmadge said the decision is the GoTriangle Board of Trustees to make, but prior
12 to that Management will have to decide whether or not to bring the item before the Board of
13 Trustees. He said he cannot say what the Board of Trustees will decide,
14 Commissioner McKee referred to the plan and the changes, and said he would like to
15 know when was the work on the new financial model, that eliminated the $4 million a year for 10
16 years, completed.
17 Danny Rogers said at the end of December 2016, when it was turned into the FTA. He
18 said that model was being worked on, with the hope that it would succeed, but this was not
19 known for certain until December.
20 Commissioner McKee said it would have been helpful if he had known this plan was
21 being pursued during the meetings in December.
22 Chair Dorosin said the concern is the voting in April, and that information related to that
23 vote in April, may not be available until June. He said getting Commissioner Burroughs'
24 information request would be critical.
25 Chair Dorosin said as much information that is available in April should be shared, even
26 if it is not in its final form.
27 Chair Dorosin said the above item would have been better discussed at a regular
28 meeting.
29
30 4. Discussion on Board Policies and Procedures
31 Chair Dorosin said issues have come up over the past year about policies and
32 procedures that predate the majority of the current Board.
33
34 Discussion Points for BOCC
35 1. For Board and staff to discuss eliminating the practice of attributing planning
36 efforts to specific Board members
37
38 Excerpt from the December 13, 2016 APPROVED BOCC Meeting Minutes
39 • Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
40
41 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned to eliminate the practice of attributing planning efforts
42 to particular Commissioners in the abstracts.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said he brought this up, and he does not think it should be an
44 abstract, as to who made the petition about a particular issue. He said it is fine to leave it in the
45 minutes, but do not add to it an abstract.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
48 adopt a policy to take attribution out of abstracts and keep it in the minutes.
49
18
1 Bonnie Hammersley clarified when staff writes an abstract that may be related to a
2 Commissioners petition, staff will not use individual names, but rather will state, "the Board
3 requested."
4 Chair Dorosin said yes.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 2. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Chair and Vice Chair would come back with a
9 clarification of policy about having the BOCC represented on other boards, in
10 positions that require an elected official.
11
12 Excerpt from the December 13, 2016 APPROVED BOCC Meeting Minutes
13 • Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
14
15 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Chair and Vice Chair would come back with a
16 clarification of policy about having the BOCC represented on other boards, in positions that
17 require an elected official (as well as other elected officials serving on BOCC advisory boards,
18 but who are not members of the BOCC-separate item below).
19
20 Chair Dorosin said this is related to delegating a seat, which is assigned to the Board of
21 County Commissioners, to a non-Commissioner delegate. He asked if the Board wants to
22 require a Commissioner sit on a board that is assigned to a Commissioner, or can the spot be
23 delegated to another person.
24 Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Jacobs if he remembers to what this was in
25 reference to.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said he did not.
27 Commissioner Rich said she wondered if it pertains to a former Commissioner who may
28 still be representing the Board in one of the aforementioned seats.
29 Chair Dorosin said there is a difference between a delegate being a County staff person
30 versus a member of the general public.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said the difficulty is that people who represent the BOCC on
32 boards never report back to the Board of County Commissioners. He said there has not been a
33 successful mechanism to loop people in.
34 Commissioner McKee said he does not want to limit the Board's options, and there are
35 situations where it works extremely well, such as with Pam Hemminger who represented the
36 BOCC on the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA). He said he would like to leave
37 things as they are and make a decision on a case-by-case basis.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said he has no problem with keeping things as they are, but he
39 would like there to be a stipulation that this person would report back to the BOCC on a regular
40 basis.
41 Chair Dorosin said that suggestion is reasonable.
42 Commissioner McKee said to make that the stipulation of the appointment, and if it is
43 not done, it would be grounds for revoking.
44 Commissioner Rich said Todd McGee could create a sheet similar to the reporting form
45 used by the BOCC for conferences, etc.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
48 remain with the current system and consider appointments outside of a Board of County
49 Commissioners' position on a case by case basis and include the stipulation that the appointee
50 must report back to the full Board on a regular basis.
19
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 3. For the Board to discuss about having elected officials from other entities serve on
5 their County boards.
6
7 Excerpt from December 13, 2016 APPROVED BOCC Meeting Minutes:
8 • Orange County Planning Board —Appointment
9
10 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Planning Board.
11 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this appointment could be deferred until the Board
12 discusses a policy about having elected officials from other entities serve on their boards.
13 Commissioner Price said she emailed John Roberts, and he said it was fine if the BOCC
14 wanted to appoint an elected official from another board to this board.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said in the past, appointing other elected officials on their boards,
16 has been avoided. He said there is only one applicant, which is not an effective pool.
17 Commissioner Rich said she does have concerns about this, and which board does that
18 person report to. She said there is a conflict.
19 Commissioner McKee asked if an example could be given.
20 Commissioner Rich said if one is a school board member doing planning for Orange
21 County that effects a school district, does one recuse oneself.
22 Commissioner McKee said one cannot recuse oneself unless there are financial gains
23 involved. He said he could not recuse himself when his wife was being appointed to the Bond
24 Board.
25 Commissioner Rich said she does not see Commissioner McKee's example as a
26 conflict, but does see her example as a conflict.
27 Commissioner Price said she does not see a conflict, as the BOCC serves on different
28 boards. She said there is no statutory restriction, and she sees no issue with it. She said an
29 elected official serving on another board would be serving as a citizen.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said he has been on boards where he was not an elected official,
31 and there were elected officials on the boards who big footed other members. He said he does
32 not want advisory boards to be put in that position.
33 Commissioner Burroughs said she agreed with Commissioner Jacobs, and she would
34 not vote in favor of appointing an elected official to another board, whether a policy is created
35 this evening or not.
36 Commissioner Marcoplos said he would be uneasy about it, and he said these advisory
37 boards give citizens a chance to engage with government and learn. He said the elected
38 officials are already in that foray and do not need that same opportunity. He said more citizens
39 need to be invited into the process.
40 Commissioner McKee said the Board always has the option not to appoint someone.
41 Chair Dorosin said such a policy has the quality of being directed at an individual, which
42 makes him uncomfortable, and he would vote against this.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
45 keep the policy as is, in which there is no formal prohibition if an elected official wanted to apply
46 for one of the BOCC advisory boards.
47
48 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Price, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner
49 Burroughs); Nays, 3 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Marcoplos)
50
20
1 4. For the Board to discuss revising the Regular Meeting Order of Business to move
2 Board Comments to near the beginning of the meeting and/or combine with
3 Announcements by Board Members
4
5 Excerpt from the January 24, 2017 Approved BOCC Meeting Minutes:
6 • Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
7
8 Commissioner Rich petitioned to move Board comments up on the agenda, to be
9 combined with petitions.
10
11 Below is the current order for Agenda items:
12 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
13 Public Charge
14 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
15 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) -
16 4. Proclamations/Resolutions/Special Presentations
17 5. Public Hearings
18 6. Consent Agenda —
19 • Removal of Items from Consent Agenda
20 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
21 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
22 7. Regular Agenda
23 8. Reports —
24 9. County Manager's Report
25 10. County Attorney's Report
26 11. Appointments
27 12. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner)
28 13. Information Items
29 14. Closed Session
30 15. Adjournment
31
32 Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Jacobs if there is a layout or plan that he had
33 in mind.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said the only item that is a bit difficult to sort is the consent
35 agenda, as it is a hodge podge.
36 Chair Dorosin asked the Clerk if there must be a formal structure to the agenda.
37 Donna Baker said there is a policy and procedures book, and any time there is structural
38 change, this book is updated. She said standardization of agendas is good, as it helps the
39 public follow along, and to know what to expect.
40 Greg Wilder, Manager's Office, said in some cases it may be easy to determine external
41 versus internal items, but sometimes it may not.
42 Chair Dorosin asked if there could be a policy for the order of business that said high
43 priority, high interest items will be put at top of agenda, with internal reports pushed towards the
44 end of the agenda.
45 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the consent agenda for the February 21st meeting,
46 noting there is only one item that would interest the public. He said it is unclear to him why
47 these items would be before the regular agenda, in which the public may be interested.
48 He said the way it has been done, up to this point, was to be respectful of staff time at the price
49 of the public, and noted that staff is paid to be present. He said he thought it may be worth
50 trying for flexibility.
21
1 Chair Dorosin said if having an order is important, then the Board should look at how the
2 order can be rearranged to make more sense.
3 Commissioner McKee said line staff could be sitting for hours, if the consent agenda is
4 moved down.
5 Bonnie Hammersley said she could answer most questions that may come up in a
6 consent agenda, and anything that she could not answer could be brought back at a later time.
7 She is always willing to cover for staff if necessary.
8 Commissioner McKee said he is good with that.
9 Chair Dorosin said the Board has been good about flagging things through emails prior
10 to meetings.
11 Commissioner Marcoplos said to do a trial run, and then reevaluate.
12 Commissioner Burroughs said on another elected board, on which she served, the
13 agenda was changed all the time, and she is in favor of giving the Chair/Vice Chair the flexibility
14 to make a call if needed.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said it would solve a problem of what belongs on consent or not.
16 He said if there was a consent item of particular interest to the public, the Chair/Vice Chair
17 could move it to the regular agenda.
18 Commissioner Rich said additions and changes to the agenda would give the option of
19 changing the agenda.
20 Chair Dorosin said he is convinced that there should be structure, but with retained
21 flexibility.
22 Commissioner Rich said to move the regular agenda (item 7) before the consent
23 agenda (item 6).
24 Chair Dorosin said petitions could be moved to the end, move announcements to the
25 beginning and petitions to the end.
26 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an opportunity to discuss responses to petitions
27 at meetings. He said this information is typically only sent in a letter, and there is no discussion.
28 He said he liked having petitions at the beginning, as it allows concerns to be raised while
29 people's attention is fresh. He said sometimes this is just posturing, but sometimes items of
30 great concern are shared. He said if comments are wasted at the end of the meeting, due to
31 no one listening, then petitions would be wasted there as well.
32 Commissioner Burroughs clarified that the proposal is to put comments at the beginning
33 of a meeting.
34 Commissioner Rich said no, announcements only.
35 Commissioner Price asked if it is wise to have announcements and petitions at the
36 same time, as it would take up a lot of time. She agreed with Commissioner Jacobs.
37 Chair Dorosin said it is not fair to say that petitions are made and then not discussed
38 again. He said many petitions turn into future agenda items, where they are discussed in full.
39 Commissioner Marcoplos said to try it out with some flexibility, and if there are some hot
40 topic issues, to move them up and see how it goes.
41 Commissioner McKee said the Board very seldom uses more than 10-15 minutes for
42 petitions as a group. He suggested keeping petitions and announcements where they are.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said there is never a public component for petition responses.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said if all Commissioners agree to keep
45 petitions/comments/announcements at three minutes, then he would be in favor of keeping the
46 agenda as it is. He said the Chair or Vice Chair should be empowered to keep track of the
47 time, and cut Commissioners off when time is up.
48 John Roberts said the BOCC rules require the Board make rule amendments at a
49 regular meeting.
22
1 Commissioner Burroughs said sometimes people are not comfortable with being cut off,
2 but she is happy with any of the aforementioned options.
3 Chair Dorosin suggested modifying policy at an upcoming regular meeting as follows:
4
5 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
6 Public Charge
7 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
8 3. Announcements/Petitions/Board Comments by Board Members (Three Minute Limit Per
9 Commissioner)
10 4. Proclamations/Resolutions/Special Presentations
11 5. Regular Agenda
12 6. Public Hearings
13 7. Reports
14 8. Consent Agenda
15 • Removal of Items from Consent Agenda
16 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
17 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
18 9. County Manager's Report
19 10. County Attorney's Report
20 11. Appointments — **subject to be moved up if need be
21 12. Information Items
22 13. Closed Session
23 14. Adjournment
24
25 Commissioner Jacobs requested the clerk's office look at appointments that come in,
26 and note any bi-laws, special considerations of training or other qualifications in the agenda
27 abstract with the appointment. He noted recent confusion regarding a Board of Health
28 appointee.
29 Donna Baker said there is an advisory policy, and bi-laws were adopted in 2012. She
30 said the Board of Health by-laws were never given to the Clerk or the County Attorney. She
31 said any board specific information that she has is always included in the abstract.
32 Commissioner Rich asked if board appointments are being moved up in general, or only
33 when there is an attached recommendation.
34 Donna Baker said appointments are typically done once a month.
35 Chair Dorosin suggested moving them up in general, as appointments typically go
36 quickly.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said if a board chair is going to attend, then appointments should
38 be moved up; but if not, the public does not care to hear appointments and they could be left
39 towards the end.
40
41 5. For the Board to discuss re-structuring the agenda order to reflect externally
42 oriented items versus internally oriented agenda items.
43
44 Excerpt from the January 27, 2017 BOCC Retreat DRAFT Minutes:
45 • In response to Chair Dorosin's earlier remarks about the Board's meetings not being as
46 engaging to the public as they could be, Commissioner Jacobs said that the Board could
47 consider changing its meeting agendas. The first part of our meeting could be externally
48 oriented. Then in the middle we could have a presentation from one of the Departments.
49 We could leave the dais at that point and turn the podium over to the staff. And then we
50 would come back for the more internally oriented agenda items after that, such as
23
1 procedures for advisory boards or appointments, for example. Just like they have moved
2 public hearings up to the front, because that is what is of interest to most people in the
3 public, they could identify the items that most people in the public do not care about, and
4 address them later.
5
6 This item was addressed in the above item.
7
8 5. Policy for Governing the Selection Process of BOCC Boards/Commissioners
9 Assignments
10 Additional discussion item:
11 Chair Dorosin wanted to discuss and change tonight how the Board chooses their
12 annual boards and commissions to serve on. He said the current policy is below:
13 Policy Governing the Selection Process of BOCC Boards/Commissions Assignments -
14 2011
15
16 • Each BOCC member (veteran) shall chose one board that they currently serve on to
17 keep in perpetuity
18 • The junior member will then pick one board first in the first round and then least senior
19 members of the Board will choose one board on which to serve ((suggestion is to do this
20 alphabetically—by last name)
21 • In the second round, the senior member will pick first, and then the other senior
22 members to the least senior member will pick
23 • And then it is back to the junior member....
24 • Round Robin will not include short-term taskforces (limited duration), ex-officio boards,
25 and non-O.C. boards with BOCC in officer/leadership positions (these boards also
26 cannot be taken away by other BOCC members).
27
28 Chair Dorosin recommended not having this policy, which allows one board picked by
29 senior members. He said he would throw the process wide open, and he finds himself
30 disengaged with the work of boards on which he never has the opportunity to serve.
31 Commissioner Rich asked if this pertains to the boards that Commissioners choose, or
32 just to the boards on which a Commissioner is also an officer.
33 Chair Dorosin said to get rid of it all, and just put all boards on the floor for choosing.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said if this policy is set, it should be done next year, as this just
35 came up and Commissioners may lose a lot of positions unexpectedly.
36 Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Jacobs, and he does not have a
37 problem with Commissioners keeping one saved board.
38 Commissioner Price agreed.
39 Commissioner Rich said she would like to throw it open in order to learn other boards.
40 Commissioner Burroughs agreed it may be nice to mix things up, but is fine with waiting
41 until next year to do so.
42 Commissioner Marcoplos deferred to the rest of the Board.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said having no boundaries will encourage folks to think about
44 next year's process and picking.
45
46 A motion was made by Chair Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to keep the
47 process as is for this year, and abandon the entire policy going forward, starting in 2018.
48
24
1 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner
2 Burroughs, Commissioner Marcoplos); Nays, 2 (Commissioner McKee and Commissioner
3 Price).
4
5 5. County Commissioners — Boards and Commissions Assignments
6
7 BACKGROUND: BOCC members serve on various County and County-related boards and
8 commissions. BOCC members on an annual basis indicate their desire to continue serving on
9 specific boards or commissions or their desire to make changes.
10
11
12 The Board discussed and chose the boards/commissions that they would like to serve on in
13 2017:
BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER BOCC Member Serving 2017
Currently Serving
STATUTORY
ABC Board Monthly, Third Commissioner Not Commissioner Commissioner
Tues 8:30 AM Required (non-voting McKee McKee
member)
Board of Health Monthly, Fourth 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner
Wed Required Burroughs - Burroughs
7:00 PM Member
Board of Social Monthly, Third 2 appointees Chair McKee— Commissioner
Services Mon 4:00 PM Commissioner not Member McKee
required but usually a
Commissioner serves Citizen-Already
appointed
Community Oversight As needed 1 Commissioner or Commissioner Commissioner
Board (part of OPC designee Price Price —Vice Chair
Community Operations 1 Consumer/Family
Center) member
1 Citizen/
Stakeholder
INTERGOVERNMENT
AL and OTHER
GROUPS WITH BOCC
MEMBERS
Burlington/Graham 6x/year-(or more Requires Commissioner Commissioner
MPO Transportation as needed) 1 Commissioner Jacobs — Member Jacobs- Member
Advisory Committee Tuesdays at member Chair McKee - Commissioner
5pm in 1 Alternate Alternate Marcoplos-
Burlington Commissioner Alternate
Chatham Orange Work As needed 2 Commissioners 2 OPEN Commissioner Rich
Group POSITIONS Commissioner
Marcoplos
Criminal Justice 4x/year 2 BOCC Commissioner Commissioner
Advisory Council Jacobs Jacobs- co chair
25
1 Open Position Commissioner
Price -
Community Home Monthly- 1 Commissioner Commissioner Rich Chair Dorosin
Trust BOD Wednesdays at Required
6pm
Durham-Chapel Hill- Monthly- 2nd Requires Commissioner Commissioner
Carrboro-Metropolitan Wed. at 9am in 1 Commissioner Jacobs -Member Jacobs — member
Planning Organization Durham Member Commissioner Commissioner
(MPO)- Transportation 1 Alternate Price -Alternate Rich- Alternate
Advisory Committee Commissioner
Durham- Orange- Quarterly- at 2 BOCC Commissioner Rich NOT MEETING AT
Chapel Hill Work noon - rotates Commissioner THIS TIME- MAY
Group locations- Jacobs BE SUNSETTED —
Durham/ BUT WAITING ON
Chapel INFO FROM
Hill/Orange DURHAM
County
Durham Tech Board of Quarterly 2 Appointees—one Commissioner Commissioner
Trustees can be a Price— Member Price
Commissioner but
doesn't have to be Citizen already
appointed
Family Success Meets as 2 Commissioners Commissioner Rich Commissioner
Alliance needed Burroughs
One Open Position Commissioner
Marcoplos
Fire Chief's Association Bi-monthly—first Commissioner not Chair McKee Commissioner
of Orange County Weds.-7pm required as member— McKee
but can attend as
guest(s)
Food Council 2x monthly 1 Commissioner Commissioner Chair Dorosin
Jacobs
Go Triangle Board of Monthly 1 Commissioner Former Commissioner
Trustees Commissioner Jacobs (for 2017)
Pelissier
Go Triangle Special Meets every 2 Commissioners Commissioner Chair Dorosin and
Tax Board January and required Dorosin and Commissioner
maybe more Commissioner Burroughs
often at needed- Burroughs —elected (Secretary)
in Durham Secretary 1/2017
Healthy Carolinians Meets quarterly Commissioner not Commissioner Commissioner
(3rd Thursdays at required —often same Dorosin Burroughs
8:30am) BOCC Member as on
the Board of Health
HOME Program Quarterly 1 Commissioner Commissioner Chair Dorosin
Review Committee Required Dorosin
Intergovernmental Meets 3 times 1 Commissioner Member- Open Commissioner
Parks Work Group per year at Member Rich- Member
26
5:30pm 1 Alternate Alternate- Commissioner
Commissioner Commissioner Rich Burroughs-
Alternate
JCPC (Orange County Meets as 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Rich
Juvenile Crime needed Price
Prevention Council)
LIWG ( Legislative Meets as 2 Commissioners Commissioner Commissioner
Issues Work Group) needed Burroughs and Price and
Commissioner Rich Commissioner
Marcoplos
Orange County Bi-Monthly-last 1 Commissioner- Commissioner Commissioner
Partnership for Young Wed of month- Board of Directors Burroughs Burroughs
Children at 8:30am
Small Business Loan Meets as 1 Commissioner Open Position Commissioner
Program needed when a Jacobs
thoroughly
vetted
application has
been received.
PFAP Commissioner Commissioner
Jacobs Jacobs
Partnership to End Monthly -1St 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner
Homelessness Wed. at 5:30pm member Dorosin Marcoplos
TJCOG Meets every Commissioner Rich Commissioner Rich
other month at — member Commissioner
6pm in Durham Commissioner Price- Alternate
McKee -Alternate
Triangle Area Rural Bi-monthly- 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner
Planning Organization meeting at noon Member Price —Member- Price —Chair
(TARPO) in Lee County 1 Alternate CHAIR-
Transportation Commissioner Alternate —
Advisory Committee Alternate-OPEN Commissioner
McKee
Upper Neuse River Bi- monthly Commissioner Commissioner
Basin Association (meets in McKee and McKee- Director
Butner) Commissioner
Jacobs Alternate:
(and Pam Commissioner
Hemminger) Price
Workforce Meets monthly in Does not require a Nancy Coston — Nancy Coston —
Development Board — Asheboro/Siler Commissioner-usually DSS Director DSS Director
Regional Partnership City has been 1 Non-
Voting
Liaison
27
Visitor's Bureau Monthly—Third 1 Commissioner Commissioner Rich Commissioner Rich
Wed Required — Member- — Member-
8:00 AM Finance Officer Finance Officer
(part of Executive (part of Executive
Team) Team)
BOARDS TO WHICH
BOCC HAS ALREADY
MADE
APPOINTMENTS for
2017
NACo Voting I Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner
Delegate Required Price Price
NCACC Voting 1 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner
Delegate Required Price Price
1
2
3 SHORT TERM TASK FORCES/WORKGROUPS 2016 2017
Cedar Grove 2 Commissioners Commissioner Future Phase
Advisory Board Jacobs and forthcoming
Meeting Commissioner
Price
Chapel Hill Historic Meets as 1 BOCC Commissioner Rich Commissioner Rich
Town Hall Committee needed
Joint Public Safety Schedule to be 2 BOCC Commissioner
Training Facility Work developed McKee and
Group Commissioner
Burroughs
Solid Waste Advisory Meets as 2 Commissioners Commissioner Commissioner
Group (SWAG) needed Jacobs and Jacobs and
Commissioner Rich Commissioner Rich
Space Study Work Meets as 2 Commissioners Chair McKee and In Maintenance
Group needed Commissioner
Price
Strategic Meets as 2 Commissioners Commissioner Rich In Maintenance
Communications needed and
Work Group OPEN POSITION
4
5
EX-OFFICIO
Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce- does not Chair Serves
require a Commissioner
NC DOT Quarterly Meetings Chair/Vice Chair
School Collaboration Meetings Chair/Vice Chair
6
7
OFFICERS
NCACC Board of Directors Commissioner Price
28
TARPO Commissioner Price - Chair
Visitor's Bureau Commissioner Rich –Finance
Officer–2017
Go Triangle–Special Tax Board Commissioner Burroughs –
Secretary ( elected 1/2017)
1
2 Boards to be decided on/chosen at future work session
JOCCA- need to decide Meets Quarterly in 1 Commissioner
whether to continue Pittsboro at 5:30pm - Or
participation Citizen
3
4 Boards – Not Meeting at this time
5
Efland Mebane Small Area Not meeting at this 1 Commissioner
Plan Implementation Focus time
Group
Historic Rogers Road Task Not meeting at this 2 Commissioners-
Force time Commissioner Price and
Commissioner Rich
Hollow Rock Park Planning Not meeting at this 2 Commissioners
Committee time-
Will take all 4
governmental entities
to sunset this group
Library Services Task Force Has not met since 2 Commissioners
2009—suggestion
to sunset and re-
create, if needed at
a later date
6
7
8 The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m.
9
10
11 Mark Dorosin, Chair
12
13 Donna Baker
14 Clerk to the Board
15
16
17
18
19