Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-20-2017 1 APPROVED 12/4/2017 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING November 20, 2017 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Monday, November 20, 2017 at 7:00p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Dorosoin noted the following items at the Commissioners' places: - Green sheet: proposed Medicaid Resolution from Commissioner Rich - White sheet: PowerPoint for item 6-c PUBLIC CHARGE Chair Dorosin dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda None b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members Chair Dorosin recognized Bonnie Hammersley, who presented a novelty check to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for the refinancing amount the Board will save over the term. She said this is a $2 million reduction, which the Board will pay toward debt financing. Commissioner Jacobs reminded the Board that Congressman David Price is hosting a breakfast to discuss the Farm Bill, on December 4 at the Whitted Building. He said this event is open to the public. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board sent out a reminder about GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) certification, and to apply for funding. He said this is based on the Board's desire to get local foods into the two school districts. 2 Commissioner Jacobs said the Soil and Water Conservation Department hosted the BOCC for breakfast, and a tour of a local farm. He said many departments do so much in the community that receive both federal and state funding. Commissioner Jacobs said there was a meeting today between the County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and GoTriangle on the Orange County transit plan, which focuses mostly on bus service. He said he hopes to get back some suggestions about the implementation plan, including updates. Commissioner Jacobs represented Orange County at a meeting last week on Lake Jordan watershed, and Pam Hemminger invited him and other elected officials. He said there may be a possibility for this group to do something without the state. Commissioner Jacobs found one good thing proposed by the President, which is raising the federal gasoline tax by $0.07 for better infrastructure. Commissioner Burroughs had no comments. Commissioner Rich said there is a resolution in front of the Board from the State of Maine, regarding Medicaid expansion. Commissioner Rich said there was a follow up meeting at the VB (Visitors Bureau) to try and find some more demand generators for Orange County. She said the discussion focused on club sports. Commissioner Marcoplos said there is a copy of the North Carolina Clean Path 2025 at their places, which lays out a plan to generate half of their power from renewables with battery backup by 2025. Commissioner Price thanked staff at Soil and Water Conservation Department for the breakfast. Commissioner Price attended the two-day Human Trafficking Symposium, and she advocated support of law enforcement and social services in this area. Commissioner Price said she sent out the GAP funding information to a few farmers, and received one response that this process may not be totally farmer friendly. She asked if staff would look at this issue, and speak to some farmers to see how the process could be improved. Commissioner McKee had no comments. Chair Dorosin said he forwarded an email to the Board that he received from a group of attorneys who are getting involved in litigation in suing pharmaceutical companies over opioid distribution. He said this group has asked to be able to make a presentation to the Orange County Board of County Commissioners. John Roberts said he attended a meeting last week where these groups made their presentations, and there are two different groups: one suing marketers and distributors, and one is suing manufacturers. He said there are two different causes of actions, with different claims, and different legal grounds. He said he is gathering information from the Department of Social Services (DSS), Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the Sheriff's office and the impacts to Orange County. He said the attorney that has been contacting Orange County has an affective process, and it is worth hearing the presentation. The Board agreed to hear this presentation. Commissioner Price said one of the issues of note, is whether this becomes a class action suit; and if this case is similar to the tobacco pay out, it could lead to some damage to certain areas, which should be avoided if possible. Chair Dorosin said he will work with John Roberts. Commissioner Jacobs said to place a time limit on the length of the presentation. 3 Chair Dorosin said he sent an email to the Board of County Commissioners about an article in the News & Observer. He said the Board's peers in Montgomery County are dealing with a volunteer department that displays the confederate flag, and he would like to send a letter or resolution indicating Orange County's support for their stance against the display of the flag on a County building. Commissioner McKee said he supported such a resolution, since volunteer departments get County tax funding. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if residents would still receive fire services should funding be cut off to this fire department. He said he supports the removal of the flag, but does not want to see citizens harmed by their action. Commissioner McKee said the equipment is county-owned, and Montgomery County can take over the responsibility of a fire department if there are mutual aid contracts in place. He said there should be no adverse affect on the service to residents. The Board agreed by consensus for Chair Dorosin to draft a letter, and circulate to the Board for review. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations NONE 5. Public Hearings NONE 6. Regular Agenda a. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Bond Project Update The Board received an update from the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools ("CHCCS") regarding its General Obligation bond referendum funded capital projects and provide feedback to CHCCS. CHCCS School Board members present: Chair James Barrett, Rani Dasi, Margaret Samuels, Pat Heinrich, Joal Broun, and Superintendent Pamela Baldwin Gary Donaldson, Chief Financial Officer, reviewed the information below: BACKGROUND: On November 8, 2016 voters approved $120 million in School Bonds of which the CHCCS bond allocation is $72.1 million based on Average Daily Membership. The CHCCS allocation was earmarked for two projects; 1) Lincoln Center and 2) Chapel Hill High School. The Lincoln Center project was originally estimated at $21 million and Chapel Hill High School at $51 million. On March 21, 2017, the CHCCS staff updated the Lincoln Center estimate to $25 million and decreased the Chapel Hill High School project from $51 million to $47.1 million (Attachment 2). The updated Lincoln Center project budget of$25 million included both design and construction estimates. The CHCCS staff attributed the Lincoln Center increase to construction cost increases of 5% annually. On October 17, 2017, CHCCS staff updated the Board of Orange County Commissioners (BOCC) regarding its September 2017 bids for the Lincoln Center project. That CHCCS update indicated four base bids and the lowest responsive and responsible bid was significantly over 4 budget. The four base bids for the Lincoln Center ranged from $35.3 million to $35.8 million which exceeds the County's CIP Funding and Debt Affordability parameters. Following the CHCCS staff update on November 2, 2017, the BOCC approved an initial CHCCS bond amount of$5 million to reimburse CHCCS for design expenditures to date on the Lincoln Center and Chapel Hill High School and meet remaining cash flow requirements for design expenditures through the Chapel Hill High School bid openings in April/May 2018. This 1 additional time allows CHCCS to determine a definitive funding plan for both bond projects. County staff would then present a revised funding application and recommendation of issuing remaining first tranche bonds for CHCCS in March/April 2018 to the Local Government Commission. The CHCCS Administration is presenting the following two options: Option 1: Proceed with the Lincoln Center Redevelopment project Sources Bond Proceeds $28,845,900 CHCCS Fund Balance $5,576,000 CIP Reprioritization $2,400,000 Total $36,821,900 Uses Construction $32,771,900 Professional Fees $1,900,000 Furniture/Equipment $1,000,000 Contingency-3.5% $1,150,000 Total $36,821,900 A) CHCCS revised construction estimate includes deferment of gymnasium improvements, $1.2 million in Value Engineering reductions, $500,000 decrease due to a projected Town of Chapel Hill reimbursement for off-site work, and $97,000 increase for energy management controls. Option 2: Defer decision on Lincoln Center Redevelopment project until Chapel Hill High School construction bids are opened in March/April 2018 timeframe Benefits Provides certainty regarding cost of both projects and aligns with the Local Government Commission policy for bond financing projects. Challenges Proceeding with only Chapel Hill High School means centralizing Pre-K and expansion of Phoenix Academy not realized. Todd LoFrese, CHCCS Assistant Superintendent, made the following PowerPoint presentation: Bond Project Update and Capital Funding Needs November 20, 2017 5 The Why • 2010-2012 Study of our 10 Oldest Facilities o Address health, safety, and security o Increase capacity o Provide a long term (50 year) solution for facilities in disrepair o Address handicap access limitations o Correct traffic and pedestrian access o Bring facilities to Orange County Standards • Recommendations Older Schools o Major renovations, building replacements (when needed), and additions to increase capacity and delay the need for new schools o Complete over 10-15 years in 3 phases o Provide a long term solution and allow us to focus on newer (soon to be old) facilities Phase 1 Projects • Address facilities with most significant disrepair • Increase capacity to the greatest extent • Address health and safety • Provide swing space for remaining Phase 2 and 3 projects. • Glenwood: o Small addition to address security o ADA access corrections o Renovated staff workroom and restrooms o General building waterproofing o Funding Source: $1.2 million CHCCS Fund Balance • Lincoln Center Campus o Pre-K center for better service delivery o Improved safe facility for our youngest students o Greatest increase of elementary capacity: 189 additional elementary seats o Expanded Phoenix Capacity: 90 additional high school seats o Less costly, 2nd floor, open office admin space o Facilitates swing space for Phase 2 and 3 o Funding Source: 2016 Bond Funds NC K-3 class size reductions • 2016-17 Capacity (K-3 @ 21): 5,829 • 2017-18 Capacity (K-3 @ 20): 5,664 • 2018-19 Capacity (K-3 @ 17): 5,169 • Current enrollment: 5,522 • SAPFO Threshold (2018-19): 5,427 • LC Project creates 189 additional seats Phase 1 Projects • Chapel Hill High School o New academic building and renovated auditorium, gymnasium/locker rooms, cafeteria o New traffic flow for vehicle and pedestrian safety o Completely contained facility to address safety and security 6 o Addresses significant facility disrepair o Corrects flooding and indoor air quality issues o Corrects handicap access issues o Increases capacity by 105 seats o Funding Source: 2016 Bond Funds Chapel Hill High School Building Replacements (photographs) Chapel Hill High Renovations (photographs) Progress thus far • Lincoln Center o Designed and bid o Bids were $10 million over budget • CHHS o Design underway o March 2018 target special use permit o March/April 2018 project bidding DPI Cost of School Projects Analysis of 19 schools built in Triangle area from 2013 through 2017: 2013 average cost per sf - $ 156.18 2017 average cost per sf - $ 248.18 (through March) 59% increase Lincoln Center Campus Project Budget Post Bid Project Cost Construction 24,248,072 34,471,900 Professional Fees 1,900,000 1,900,000 Furniture/Equip. 1,000,000 1,000,000 Contingency (2%) 493,054 (3.5%) 1,142,000 PROJECT TOTAL $28,045,746 $38,513,900 Chapel Hill High School Budget Revised Estimate New Construction 34,220,000 = 217sf 45,504,000 = 288 sf Renovation 5,280,000 = 55 sf 9,120,000 = 95 sf Sub-total 39,500,000 54,624,000 Professional Fees 3,950,000 3,950,000 Furniture/Equip. 2,150,000 2,150,000 Technology (est.) 1,000,000 1,000,000 Contingency (3.5%) 1,400,000 1,900,000 PROJECT TOTAL 48,000,000 63,624,000 District Funding Assistance 7 2016-17 Unassigned Fund Balance $7,180,587 Reduction for Capital Projects $3,500,000 Balance of Unassigned Fund Balance (5.03%) $3,680,587 CIP Additional 5 year funding $2,400,000 Recurring Capital Fund Balance: 2016-17 Unassigned Fund Balance $976,000 2017-18 Unobligated Balance of Non-recurring $1.2M $700,000 Fund 6 Cash Balances (unobligated): $400,000 GRAND TOTAL FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $7,976,000 Financial Summary Both Projects Lincoln Center Campus $38,513,900 Chapel Hill High School —est. $63,624,000 Total $102,137,900 Bond Funding $72,100,000 Shortfall $30,037,900 Less: Value Engineering Lincoln Center $1,200,000 TOCH (2 projects) $1,643,000 District Funding $7,976,000 Remaining Shortfall $19,218,900 Compromises and Trade Offs • Moving forward with LC without additional funding jeopardizes the integrity of the CHHS project • Not moving forward with LC results in rebidding, possible increased costs, and delays capacity increases Value Engineering and Communication between Staff • Identified $1.2 million in potential LC reductions • Complete the CHHS design focusing to reduce costs • Exploring other strategies with the County Director of Asset Management Services Immediate Needs and Next Steps • Lincoln Center Project Bid Expires 12/26/2017 • How to best navigate our 2 projects and the current reality? • Continue discussions for options and cost reductions with the Director of Asset Management Services • Encourage State School Bond Future Discussion • What is feasible with the remaining 7 projects? o Will there be additional $? o Target date for additional funding? o Focus only on broken infrastructure? o Build new schools? Requires $ But where? 8 • Implement a plan to "escape" the perfect storm o Older facilities in disrepair o Newer facilities that have become older o Continued enrollment growth o Few school sites remaining Superintendent Baldwin presented this slide: CHCCS Requests Assistance • Provide ideas and guidance for the options presented • Continue to work with County Director of Asset Management Services • Create a small work group, to include Orange County staff, CHCCS staff, Town of Chapel Hill staff, and others to continue to brainstorm cost reduction and to provide thoughts and guidance towards options moving forward Commissioner Price asked if Todd LoFrese had figures showing that the trend is leaning towards more students at this younger age. Todd LoFrese said the district has been growing on average for 10 years at a rate of about 1-1.5% Pam Baldwin said the timeline is complicating their process, and their desire to delay a new elementary school. She said they have multiple concerns moving forward. She reviewed the following slide again: CHCCS Requests Assistance • Provide ideas and guidance for the options presented • Continue to work with County Director of Asset Management Services • Create a small work group, to include Orange County staff, CHCCS staff, Town of Chapel Hill staff, and others to continue to brainstorm cost reduction and to provide thoughts and guidance towards options moving forward Pam Baldwin said CHCCS needs a decision regarding the Lincoln Center project by mid-December. She stressed a desire and intent for the schools to work in partnership with the County. Commissioner Price clarified that the manager is recommending deferring any decision until the BOCC meets for its retreat in January, and how this plays into CHCCS needing a decision by mid-December. Bonnie Hammersley said her recommendation is based on resources. She said the consultants who are doing the County's 5-year forecast will be at the BOCC retreat, and will present an outlook on the County's available resources. She said at this time, the amount allocated in the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) with the bonds are at the debt affordability ceiling, so she does not know of any additional resources. Commissioner Price said she can see the wisdom in that recommendation, but wonders how the School Board feels. 9 James Barrett said there are two projects, two with bids, and if the School Board does not execute on these bids by 12/16 then the bids expire. He said if they go out for bids again, costs will be higher. He said time is of the essence for the Lincoln Center project. Chair Dorosin asked if CHCCS could just do the Pre-K project, and leave off the Phoenix Center and the Administration center at Lincoln Center. Todd LoFrese said scaling back projects with the contractor may result in not getting the dollar for dollar give back. He said the larger issue is that the Lincoln Center building needs to be deconstructed to provide available space for parking, egresses in and out of the site, and playground areas. He said the project does not facilitate leaving the Lincoln Center Building in place. Chair Dorosin said he understands the parameters, but asked if the December 26 deadline only allows for the plan as it currently exists; can changes be made; or would entirely new bids be required. Todd LoFrese said CHCCS could negotiate this with the contractor. He said renting space for administration would require 30,000 square feet x $20/foot = $600,000, etc. Commissioner Rich said the project came in 40% over budget, and asked if the project can be redesigned to live more within their means. Todd LoFrese said a re-design would be costly and time consuming, and waste the efforts made to this point. He said construction costs will only continue to increase, and redesign is not a viable option or close to their vision. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if anything is known about the rate of increased costs. Todd LoFrese said there are a variety of issues: slow labor market, disasters elsewhere attracting contractors, etc. Commissioner Jacobs asked to return to the following slide: District Funding Assistance 2016-17 Unassigned Fund Balance $7,180,587 Reduction for Capital Projects $3,500,000 Balance of Unassigned Fund Balance (5.03%) $3,680,587 CIP Additional 5 year funding $2,400,000 Recurring Capital Fund Balance: 2016-17 Unassigned Fund Balance $976,000 2017-18 Unobligated Balance of Non-recurring $1.2M $700,000 Fund 6 Cash Balances (unobligated): $400,000 GRAND TOTAL FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS $7,976,000 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the unassigned fund balance, and asked if this includes the fund balance that CHCCS are required to hold, according to its agreement with Orange County. Todd LoFrese said the target is 5.5%, so this number is below target at 5.03%. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the CIP Additional 5 year Funding could be clarified. Todd LoFrese said the Board of County Commissioners made a change to bond distribution from $125 million to $120 million for schools, and the County committed to dividing $1 million between the two school systems for 5 years. He said one year has been spent on design, and there has been discussion with Orange County Schools (OCS) on a joint transportation center, which is likely further out in OCS's timing plan and ultimately too costly. 10 He said the remaining 4 years of that distribution would be earmarked and steered towards the capital needs. Commissioner Jacobs asked if CHCCS would do that over the next 4 years. Todd LoFrese said yes. Commissioner Rich referred to value engineering, and asked if it was possible to value engineer one's way out of a project that is 40% over budget. She referred to the Eubanks Road recycling project, which had to go back to the drawing board due to being over budget. She said it was revised and completed in a manner in which the County could stay within its means. She said this likely needs to happen with this project. Todd LoFrese said reducing the Lincoln center by $10 million would lop off a huge piece of the project, which would result in the project being scrapped and needing to start over. He said the pre-K project addresses the issue of capacity. Commissioner Rich said everyone is thinking about capacity, but this is an enormous amount of money to try and make up. Commissioner Price said the abstract mentions $5 million to reimburse CHCCS for its design expenditures. She asked if this money has been used. Todd LoFrese said this money will be completely used up by the time the Chapel Hill High School (CHHS) project goes out to bid in March. Commissioner Price asked if the remaining amount is reflected on the slide. Todd LoFrese said he would have to get the exact numbers for the BOCC. Commissioner Price asked if the rest of the funds would be used up if CHCSS had to re-design. Todd LoFrese said yes and possibly more. Commissioner McKee said Pre-K holds a special place in his heart, but he does not know how both of these projects can move forward. He said because the Lincoln Center came in over budget, he would expect the same of CHHS. He said completing one project at the over budgeted prices cripples the other project. He senses a preference for moving ahead with Lincoln, but he is unsure if this is wise before knowing the bids for CHHS, and having no plan B. He said CHHS has some serious needs. Commissioner Burroughs said she looked at the 20th day numbers, and the elementary level has not grown for the last two to three years. She said birth rates are also remaining at unusually low levels. She said she is now unsure that capacity is as big of a need as she once thought. Commissioner Burroughs said Orange County does not have additional debt capacity, and no impact fees. She said this breaks her heart, but the County does not have any extra funding. She said CHCCS needs to look at its population growth, and there is no source of money at this time from Orange County without a major change in Raleigh. James Barrett said population growth is not the driver of reaching SAPFO in 2020, but rather it is the state-mandated changes in class size. He said it is not that there will be more children, but that less children will be able to go in each classroom, and thus more classrooms will be needed to meet the legislative mandate. Commissioner Burroughs said on the face of it that is the problem. She said pressure needs to be put on the General Assembly about the classroom issue, but regardless of that the County still does not have additional funds. Chair Dorosin said building more schools in not the only choice. He said Wake County is considering making larger classes in 4th and 5th grades. Commissioner Jacobs said this is an opportunity to change the way they look at these projects and how they are planned. He said coming in at the eleventh hour and 55th minute is a little late. He said they should have all been working together on this from the beginning as no one entity has all the answers. He said if this is not going to work, then how flexible and 11 creative can they be with other solutions. He said not to look at the December bid as the deadline, but rather to truly brainstorm. He said to him this is a chance to think differently and maybe phase the Chapel Hill High project. He said to set aside their assumptions and come up with some options together and forget about getting it done in 3 weeks. He said sometimes one has to spend money to save money. Chair Dorosin asked if the following slide would be put up, and asked if School Board members had comments: CHCCS Requests Assistance • Provide ideas and guidance for the options presented • Continue to work with County Director of Asset Management Services • Create a small work group, to include Orange County staff, CHCCS staff, Town of Chapel Hill staff, and others to continue to brainstorm cost reduction and to provide thoughts and guidance towards options moving forward School Board member comments: Rani Dasi said this is a hard conversation, and it feels as some of the ideas are abstract. She said all of these suggestions affect other costs, and how the children are educated. She said she does not feel that there is an appreciation of how much work has gone into this process thus far. She said there are other options, none of which are ideal. She said delaying will not lead to cost savings, but rather it is a kicking of the can down the road, the practice of which has lead to all these pressing needs being here in the first place. She said she understands that the County has limited resources, but the schools have increasing needs and she is unsure of the answer. Commissioner Price said she is interested in the third option of creating a small work group, and asked if there would still be a need to have a decision by December. Pam Baldwin said the December date is for the current bid, and it seems that this discussion is not on the table. She said the third bullet is simply stating the need for discussion about all of the projects moving forward, which is very important. She said the needs are real, and there must be a plan in place. Commissioner Price asked if it would be less agonizing to put the December deadline aside, and have a work group meet and start planning. Superintendent Baldwin said no matter what, CHCCS will leave tonight and work on how to meet legislative demands within the County's means. She said the agony will continue, but CHCCS would like to work in partnership with the County, as these issues will not go away. Commissioner Price asked if moving forward with option three would set aside the December date, and let the Board of County Commissioners meet in January to better assess resources, all the while working in a small group. Pam Baldwin said bullet three has the understanding of working towards the December deadline, while meeting in a small group to figure out next steps. Chair Dorosin asked if CHCCS has a preferred plan of attack: go with the Lincoln Center as bid, finding the additional funds. James Barrett said if CHCCS had a better answer, it would have provided it. He said the plans to address capacity and school construction standards are what the schools are working within. He said the BOCC wanted to expand capacity without building new schools, and this is the approach CHCCS has taken. He said cost escalation is beyond anyone's control, and CHCCS is asking for help. He said the current plans best meet all the agreements that are in place between the CHCCS and the County. 12 Chair Dorosin said they cannot get everything they want, and they need to determine the highest priority. He said it seems that capacity is the highest priority, and he suggested building the pre-K center and waiting on the other parts of the Lincoln Center. He said if that is not possible, then a new plan needs to be developed, whatever that may be. He asked if CHCCS has a top priority. James Barrett said capacity is foremost in their minds, as the deadline must be met; but also the idea of splitting up the project is not good either. He said Phoenix Academy does great work and should not be disrupted, but the administrative office space is needed too. Rani Dasi said her preference would be the Lincoln Center project, with more time to re-visit Chapel Hill High. She said she is not in favor of breaking apart the Lincoln project. Margaret Samuels said she agreed with Rani Dasi and James Barrett. She said it is often difficult to spend money on administrative space, but it is good to have these offices located near to pre-K and Phoenix Academy. She said the administration is quite diverse, and this sets a good example to these two groups of students. She said the School Board is invested in both of these projects, and a smaller work group would be helpful. She said there is not enough money, and conversations should have begun earlier between the schools and the County. Pat Heinrich said he agreed with the prioritizing the Lincoln Center project. He wants to move forward wisely, but wants to move as quickly as possible before costs rise any further. Joal Broun said she agreed with her colleagues about the priorities, but there are other school buildings, like Chapel Hill High, that need to be renovated. She said the time will come when it will no longer be possible to kick the can down the road. Commissioner Burroughs said this is a bind, and as the County gets its financial forecast in January it will be able to plan out further. She said there are significant needs in all of the schools, and it is good to have this discussion. Commissioner Marcoplos said everyone felt these projects had been accomplished, but then realities set it. He said he took a tour of Chapel Hill High School, and it does need a lot of work. He asked what happens to Chapel Hill High if all of the money goes to Lincoln Center, and said it may be helpful to get the bidders to do a three part break out of the Lincoln Center Project just to have the information. Commissioner Rich said 2/3 of the students in CHCCS go to new high schools, and 1/3 of students go to Chapel Hill High that is falling apart. She asked if CHCCS knows what it will say to the parents at Chapel Hill High School, if they prioritize Lincoln Center. She said as a parent, she sees Chapel Hill High School as the priority. Commissioner Rich said there are so many variables at play, and a lot is being asked of everyone. She appreciates the cooperative spirit that the schools are putting forward this evening. Rani Dasi said she is also a parent of students at Chapel Hill High School, and for her own children she would like CHHS finished today, but it is important to think of the district as a whole. She said there is no other way to solve capacity at the elementary level, and the highest priority has to be on closing the early gaps. She said the small group discussion is a good idea, but she expects it will reach the same conclusion. Commissioner Jacobs said this reminds him of the operating budget process, in that the BOCC does not tell the schools how to spend its money, despite having the legal authority to do so. He said ultimately the BOCC will defer to the schools in making its own priorities, but if the County and the schools plan to work together, feelings will occasionally get hurt. He said if Lincoln Center is completed, the schools will have to make do with what is left to accomplish work at CHHS. He said there are no additional monies, and it is important to be realistic. Commissioner McKee thanked Rani Dasi for speaking plainly, and he said he believes the Lincoln Center project is the top priority. He said he is a bit disappointed that the evening 13 did not begin with a clear opinion from the School Board. He said if the Lincoln Center project proceeds, he sees no point in not doing it completely. He said he will not vote for any further increase in taxes, and the best hope he can see for CHHS is a renovation. Commissioner Price said she agreed with Commissioner McKee, and she asked if it is possible to phase the projects at CHHS. Rani Dasi said that is something the School Board can look at, and with that project they will have more time. Rani Dasi asked if there is a way for the School Board to think about long-term facility needs, if Orange County has no more funding. Chair Dorosin said those would be questions for the small work group. He said there is general consensus to create a small work group, and keep the 12/26 deadline as of now. He said this group can review all options, and set both a short-term and long-term agenda. He said there will be many tough conversations ahead, but all can work together. Bonnie Hammersley said she and the two superintendents meet regularly to discuss the capital needs. She said if the Lincoln Center project is the priority, the County will need to amend its CIP since the first draw from the bonds will not be enough to cover this project. She said more will have to be brought in from the second draw, which will the County's affordability debt. Chair Dorosin said to make sure a member of the County finance department is in this work group. Commissioner Jacobs asked if more information could be provided about the impact on debt capacity. Bonnie Hammersley said the financial planner looked at the County's affordability over five years. She said this is over a seven-year period, and the placement of County and school projects determined where the County stood. She said as school projects are moved around, County projects may have to be reprioritized as a result. She said staff can be work on this quickly. Chair Dorosin asked if Pam Baldwin has an idea of who should be in this small work group, and if she envisions a Commissioner being in the group. Pam Baldwin said County staff should be involved, as well as a Commissioner. Commissioner Rich asked if the Town of Chapel Hill has been approached. Pam Baldwin said yes, and the Town has identified a staff member to participate. Joal Broun suggested that the Town of Carrboro should also be included. Chair Dorosin volunteered, and the Board agreed by consensus for Chair Dorosin to serve on this work group. b. Presentation of the Mobile Home Park Survey Report and Recommendations The Board received a report from the Mobile Home Park Work Group and considered endorsing the group recommendations. BACKGROUND: For many years, there has been interest in addressing the vulnerability of residents living in mobile home parks in Orange County. The Orange County Board of Commissioners allocated $1 million in the FY2015-16 budget process to address preservation and retention of manufactured homes parks and/or to assist in the acquisition of property and land banking for future residential development as an affordable housing alternative. During the FY2016-17 budget process, the BOCC allocated another $1 million to the land banking program. Mobile Home Park Work Group 14 Following the establishment of the land banking program and designated funding from Orange County, local housing partners began to discuss and evaluate the opportunities and obstacles in redeveloping an existing mobile home park or developing new affordable housing addressing the needs of mobile home park residents at risk. Orange County Habitat for Humanity invited interested, local individuals to form an informal ad hoc committee that became known as the Mobile Home Park Work Group. The Work Group consisted of local government staff, for-profit developers, and non-profit housing staff and continues to meet as facilitated by County staff. Over the course of several months, the Work Group reviewed and discussed several issues facing mobile home park residents and owners. The main issue identified by the Work Group was that mobile home park residents, specifically in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, were faced with losing their homes thereby resulting in displacement as a result of redevelopment of the existing parks. In addition, these residents faced limited affordable housing options due to a lack of available mobile homes and/or mobile home spaces elsewhere and increasing housing costs in the Towns. After identifying the main issues that may be unfolding in the immediate future, the Work Group set out to identify goals, explore options, and consider strategies that would assist in developing effective recommendations to address the mobile home park issue in Orange County. Additional information regarding the Mobile Home Park Work Group is included in Attachment 1. Mobile Home Park Survey Report Throughout the process, the Mobile Home Park Work Group stressed the need to learn more about the mobile home park residents. In order to develop an effective strategy to deal with the potential conversion of mobile home parks, the Work Group recognized it was imperative to learn about the needs and obstacles current mobile home park residents are facing. In addition, the group identified the importance to collect information regarding residents' social and economic needs in order to create successful recommendations in the future. In order to gather input and data on existing residents, the Orange County Family Success Alliance initiated a survey campaign in August which included the completion of 100 surveys from eight (8) mobile home parks in Orange County. The Mobile Home Park Survey Report is included in Attachment 2. Information collected from this survey was utilized to develop the proposed mobile home park recommendations. Best Practices See Attachment 3 — Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions Sherrill Hampton, Director for Housing, Human Rights and Community Development, made the following PowerPoint presentation: Mobile Home Park Survey Report and Recommendations November 20, 2017 Item 6-b Purpose • Overview • Mobile Home Park Survey Report 15 • Summary of Tools Used in Other Jurisdictions • Mobile Home Park Recommendations Overview • The rise of mobile home park closures and subsequent eviction of residents has become a growing concern for the affordable housing arena across the United States in recent years. • Mobile home parks are the largest segment of non-subsidized affordable housing in the country. • Approximately seven percent (7.4%) of Orange County's total housing units (56,297) are mobile homes. [Data comes from the US Census Bureau and the American Community Survey 5-year Estimates (2011-2015)] • Like Orange County, many jurisdictions, including those in Colorado, Texas, Florida, Louisiana, California and even New York, as well as Cleveland and Seattle have seen a rise in mobile home park closures that leave low income individuals and families struggling to find affordable housing in an already strained market where supply of such housing is limited. Mobile Home Park Work Group The Work Group consisted of local government staff, for-profit developers, and non-profit housing staff including: • Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity • Robert Dowling, Community Home Trust • Jess Brandes, CASA • Travis Myren, Orange County • Sherrill Hampton, Orange County • Craig Benedict, Orange County • Ashley Moncado, Orange County • Coby Austin, Family Success Alliance • Judy Johnson, Town of Chapel Hill • Edward Barberio, Town of Chapel Hill • Eric Chupp, Capkov Ventures, Inc. • Elam Hall, HHHunt Homes • David Beck, Self Help Craig Benedict, Planning Director, presented this portion of the PowerPoint: Mobile Home Park Evaluation • 100 existing mobile home parks in County - Estimated total number of mobile homes in mobile home parks 2,017 - Total number of mobile homes 4,165 • 21 mobile home parks identified for further evaluation • Selection and evaluation based on: - Access to transportation, water and sewer infrastructure, employment, health services, education, and shopping - Condition of the mobile home park, homes, infrastructure, and amenities - Vacancy rate - Future expansion and redevelopment opportunities o Estimated infrastructure cost 16 o Land use and zoning, including surrounding parcels o Potential acquisition costs - Current and future ownership, partnership, and management opportunities • 8 mobile home parks selected for surveying Chair Dorosin asked if there is a minimum size requirement in order to be designated a mobile home park. Craig Benedict said a park is any place where there are five mobile homes or more. He said no new mobile home parks have been created since 1987. Juliet Sheridan, Family Success Alliance and Health Department, presented this portion of the PowerPoint: Mobile Home Park Survey • 8 mobile home parks identified by Mobile Home Park Work Group - At high risk for displacement (5) - Needed more information (3) • 96 surveys conducted in four weeks • Approximately one-third of the residents were sampled Who Are These Families? • 89% of families are Hispanic with around 4.1 members/household • Low-income - 40% make less than $15,000/year - 85% make less than $30,000/year • Home owners of old houses (pre-2002) • Pay on average $563/month • Don't want to move (85%) • Half couldn't move their homes in Chapel Hill/Carrboro, 65% couldn't move outside of Chapel Hill/Carrboro Current Park Information • Repairs and infrastructure improvements • Public transit usage • Proximity to services • Internet connectivity • School districts What do Mobile Home Parks Bring to the Table? • Skilled residents - Carpenters, electricians, landscaping, etc. • Community support networks - More than half go to neighbors for childcare - Some parks have community potlucks Erika Cervantes Munoz's story • Born in Guanajuato, Mexico; raised in Chapel Hill • Currently living in Tar Heel Mobile Home Park with my parents, siblings, and son • Family Success Alliance (FSA) Zone 6 Navigator since August 2017 17 Why is a Mobile Home a Viable Option for Housing? • Moved from Royal Park Apartments to Tar Heel Mobile Home Park in 2004 due to affordability and space issues • Mobile home built in 1998 • All of my extended family members who live in the County followed this trend • A mobile home is the more affordable option Pros • Kids are zoned for great schools (Estes Hills Elementary, Smith Middle School, and East Chapel Hill High) • Timberlyne Shopping Center is within walking distance (Food Lion, Walgreens, and restaurants) • Sense of community (walking group, kids biking, and engaging in sports) Cons • Infrastructure: — Lack of lighting at night — No playground for kids — Since we own the home, we are responsible for all maintenance Impact of Relocation • Unable to move mobile home to another property due to age and condition • Would have to move in with extended family because an apartment is not an immediate option • Kids would have to relocate schools • My parents would lose their most valuable asset Commissioner Rich asked who is responsible to take care of the park. Juliette Sheridan said the owner of the park would take of potholes, etc. Commissioner Rich asked if maintenance costs are then assessed to the residents. Sherrill Hampton said, in many cases, yes. Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions - graph Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions - graph Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions - graph Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions - graph Sherrill Hampton presented the first two recommendations: Mobile Home Park Recommendations Recommendation 1: Mobile Home Park Improvement and Expansion Program (Short Term) • Orange County establishes a loan program for mobile home park owners to improve and/or expand their existing park. • Strategy would be part of an overall Rental Rehabilitation Initiative for Investor- Owners. • Recommended that up to $500,000 from the $2M Affordable Housing/Land Bank Set-aside in the approved Capital Investment Plan be used to initially fund this Initiative. • Mobile Home Park Recommendations 18 Recommendation 2: Repair and/or Replacement Program Component (Short Term) • Orange County establishes, with local funds, a repair and/or replacement program component for residents living in a mobile home, whether rental or owner-occupied. • Program capitalization using local funds • Urgent Repair Program • Single-Family Housing Rehabilitation Program • Mobile Home Park Recommendations Craig Benedict presented the final two recommendations: Recommendation 3: Mobile Home Park Development (Long Term) • Orange County uses designated funds to pursue the development of a mobile home park and/or mixed housing development on an undeveloped parcel. • May be pursued in the northern portion of the County, specifically the Eno and Efland areas, with access to transportation, goods, services, employment, and public water and wastewater infrastructure. • Allow for the County to work with an existing mobile home park owner to expand their existing mobile home park. • May require the County to initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. • Mobile Home Park Recommendations Recommendation 4: Greene Tract (Long Term) • Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro elected officials and staff continue to explore affordable housing opportunities on the Greene Tract, with a focus on alternatives for displaced mobile home park residents and utilization of a portion of the Greene Tract. • If this process is pursued, County funds allocated for mobile home parks may be put towards infrastructure improvements, site preparation, construction, and/or housing. • May require the County to initiate a Request for Proposal (RFP) process, similar to the RFPs initiated for the 2016 Affordable Housing Bond Funds. Recommendations: The Manager recommends that the Board: 1. Receive the presentation; 2. Discuss as appropriate; and 3. Endorse the recommendations contained in Attachment 4. Commissioner Price said she hoped the County would work together with the Towns. Craig Benedict said the Town of Chapel Hill is participating. Bonnie Hammersley said the Towns are very interested in this strategy, and asked that this presentation be made at a future affordable housing meeting. Commissioner Jacobs said #3 should be called, "Manufactured Housing Community Development," as mobile home is a stigmatized phrase. Commissioner Marcoplos said he likes the idea of a new name, and said he is a big fan of site built homes due to the employment opportunities. Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the community in Charlottesville, and said this is an incredible idea. 19 Chair Dorosin said developers have no incentive to build affordable housing in mobile home parks, as the land is so valuable. He said the surveys contain important information, especially regarding residents desire to stay in their mobile homes. He said he likes the short- term and long-term recommendations, but one piece is missing: if one of these parks is sold, it will happen very quickly, and there needs to be some type of emergency re-location plan. Commissioner Jacobs asked if Sherrill Hampton came across the survey that was done in the early 2000s of mobile home parks. Craig Benedict said there was an inventory done about 15 years ago, which was included in this current survey process. Sherrill Hampton said recommendation #1 would allow mobile home park owners to apply for funding to fix issues such as wells and septic tanks. Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff can they track what has changed in 15 years. He said Orange County is one of the most liberal counties in the state in that it allows manufactured housing in most zoning areas. Commissioner Jacobs said if the County is going to loan money to a community operator, then the County should specify their standards, which the community will be expected to meet. He said if the County is going to invest funding, the park owner cannot pass any costs along to the tenants, as the owner has not incurred the cost. Sherrill Hampton said that would be in the agreements, and this can be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners for review. Commissioner Price said she would like there to be a requirement for park owners to pay money back, if they fail to live up to the required standards. Commissioner Jacobs said they have been working on this for years, and they know there will be a crisis at some point, and having a rapid response is a great addition to the plan. He said the Commissioners tried to create retrofitted standards in the late 1980s, which failed. He said if more parks are not being created, he does not want standards to be cost prohibitive deterrents. Commissioner Rich asked if Chapel Hill or Carrboro have funds that help out with parks. Sherrill Hampton said this question has been asked, but no response has been received. Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity, thanked the Board of County Commissioners and staff for bringing this work group's recommendations forward. Mobile Home Park Work Group Recommendations: 1. Mobile Home Park Improvement and Expansion Program (Short Term) Orange County establishes a loan program for mobile home park owners to improve and/or expand their existing park. This strategy would be part of an overall Rental Rehabilitation Initiative for Investor-Owners with 25 or less properties. In addition, it is also recommended that up to $500,000 from the $2M Affordable Housing/Land Bank Set- aside in the approved Capital Investment Plan be used to initially fund this Initiative. Currently, the remaining balance in the Affordable Housing/Land Bank Set-aside is $1,706,600. 2. Repair and/or Replacement Program Component (Short Term) Orange County establishes, with local funds, a repair and/or replacement program component for residents living in a mobile home, whether rental or owner-occupied. This strategy would be part of the County's existing Single-Family Housing Rehabilitation and Urgent Repair Programs. Presently, assistance for mobile home repair is only available under the County's Urgent Repair Program and applicants must own the land, as well as the 20 mobile home. If the recommendation is approved, it would allow for the inclusion of residents who do not meet the aforementioned ownership requirements but either have the owner's written approval for proceeding with the repairs and/or replacement or own the mobile home but not the land. In addition, it would allow for mobile home repair and/or replacement under the County's Single-Family Rehabilitation Program. Currently, there is a combined total of$455,468 available for these programs. 3. Mobile Home Park (Manufactured Housing) Development (Long Term) Orange County uses designated funds to pursue the development of a mobile home park and/or mixed housing development on an undeveloped parcel with access to transportation, goods, services, employment, and public water and wastewater infrastructure in the County. 4. Greene Tract (Long Term) Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro elected officials and staff continue to explore affordable housing opportunities on the Greene Tract, with a focus on alternatives for displaced mobile home park residents and utilization of a portion of the Greene Tract. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to endorse the recommendations contained in Attachment 4, with the noted changes to establish an emergency protocol; a name change to "Manufactured Housing Community Development" on #1; language in agreement about costs cannot be passed onto tenants, etc., and to work with the Towns specifically on recommendation #3. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Commissioner Burroughs recognized Dorothy Cilenti, who has been serving as Interim Health Director. c. Request for Proposal Award of Surplus Property The Board considered awarding the Request for Proposal ("RFP") #5229 for County Surplus Properties and authorizing the County Manager to sign. Sherrill Hampton presented this item, which contained maps. BACKGROUND: In February 2017, Orange County released an RFP as it relates to ten (10) designated parcels available for affordable housing development. The deadline for submitting a proposal for the surplus properties was May 31, 2017. Any parcel(s) not selected under this RFP would be available in the 2018 RFP cycle for Surplus Properties and/or Affordable Housing Bond funds. Center for Homeownership (Application Withdrawn) Habitat of Orange County RTA-Triad (Application Deemed Non-Responsive to the RFP) An Application Review Committee consisting of the Deputy County Manager, Asset Management Director, Planning and Inspections Director, Housing, Human Rights and Community Development Director, and one member each from the Affordable Housing Advisory Board and Orange County Housing Authority reviewed the applications using the 21 criteria approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The Application Review Committee had additional questions and sent each of the responsive respondents an email detailing those questions. It was during this segment of the review process that the Center for Homeownership chose to withdraw its application. The Application Review Committee recommended the following entity be awarded the requested parcel as identified below: RESPONDENT PARCEL: Habitat of Orange County 09865516149 The County acquired the parcel at public auction in April 1977 with the formal transfer and deed being recorded in May 1977. The parcel is .95 of an acre - see Attachment 2. In addition, the Application Review Committee recommends, in light of the need in the community for overall revitalization, as well as the respondent's need for leveraged monetary assistance to install the needed infrastructure, that the Board of County Commissioners approve the additional request of$90,000 contingent upon submittal and County staff's approval of Habitat's detailed plan and final cost estimate and that funding, if approved, be paid in incremental draws after Habitat utilizes its identified available funds on hand. If approved, the funds would be paid from the $2 million Affordable Housing/Land Bank Set-Aside in the Capital Investment Plan. If this request for proposal award is approved, the remaining nine (9) parcels of surplus property will be available for the 2018 RFP cycle. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No negative financial impact is associated with the awarding of the surplus property. However, if the Board of County Commissioners approves the request for additional leveraged financial resources, there would be an outlay of$90,000 or less depending on the final detailed plan and cost estimate for the installation of needed infrastructure. Commissioner Price asked who will maintain the street. Susan Levy said the Town of Hillsborough. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the number of houses has been determined. Sherrill Hampton said it has yet to be determined, but one contingency that has been requested would allow the staff to work with Habitat for Humanity to maximize the number of units. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for the Board to: (1) accept the award recommendation of the Application Review Committee and authorize the County Manager to sign all necessary legal documents associated with transferring the surplus property (Parcel 09865516149) following approval by the County Attorney's Office; and (2) approve the request for $90,000 in leveraged financial resources for installation of infrastructure contingent upon submittal and County staff's approval of Habitat's final detailed plans and cost estimate. If approved, payment is to be made in incremental draws after Habitat utilizes its leveraged funds on hand. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Preferred Option — Public Comment Period 22 The Board received a presentation on the 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Preferred Option presentation from Orange County Transportation Planning staff and offer any comments in conjunction with the OUTBoard's November 15, 2017 comments. BACKGROUND: The Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization, (DCHC MPO) which is responsible for long range transportation planning for Durham County and parts of Orange and Chatham Counties, is updating its MTP. The 2045 MTP is a federally required, financially constrained, plan that recommends major transportation projects, policies and strategies designed to maintain existing transportation systems and address the region's future travel needs. Projects must be in the 2045 MTP to receive any state and federal transportation funding through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) did not receive a presentation from Orange County Transportation Planning staff at this stage of the 2040 MTP planning process. Staff is providing this presentation now primarily as information but also to find opportunity for Board comments. Any comments received will be communicated to the MPO Board for its consideration. Commissioner Barry Jacobs is Orange County's representative on the MPO Board with Commissioner Penny Rich as the alternate. On October 3, 2017 the BOCC endorsed the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) comments on the Alternatives Analysis and submitted to the DCHC MPO Board. The MPO included these comments along with others and drafted the Preferred Option. The MPO Technical Committee released the 2045 MTP Preferred Option for a 42-day public comment period on October 25, 2017. The MPO Board also conducted a public hearing on the preferred option on November 8, 2017. The preferred option is a 35 page document (Attachment 4). Orange County Transportation Planning Staff has reviewed the Preferred Option and has provided Attachment 2 as a summary of key Orange County information. 1 The OUTBoard provided the following comments (Attachment 3) at its November 15 meeting: 1. The LRT extension from Chapel Hill to Carrboro would better be served if it went along Main Street and into downtown rather than Cameron Avenue. 2. We would like to see a bike and pedestrian path between Hillsborough and Carrboro. 3. Hillsborough station is great and should be used often. Amtrak may provide only two stops a day so it will need to be planned for more frequent use. Next Steps • December 13 — DCHC MPO Board to approve the Preferred Option and release full 2045 MTP report and final Goals/Objectives/Targeted Performance Measures for public comment. • January 10 — DCHC MPO Board to adopt by resolution the 2045 MTP and report. Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner, made the following PowerPoint presentation: 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Preferred Option 11/20/2017 Outline ❖ Background o DCHC MPO role and responsibility o 2045 MTP Process 23 ❖ Key Aspects of 2045 MTP Preferred Option o Goals and Objectives o AIM High Model Results o Projects o Financial Plan ❖ Conclusion o DCHC MPO 2045 MTP Update Schedule ❖ Managers Recommendations Background DCHC MPO Role and Responsibility Durham-Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization • Responsible for long range transportation planning in o Durham City and County, and o Parts of Orange County and Chatham County. • Federal mandate — MPO must plan and approve use of federal transportation funding • Policy Board -- Composed mostly of local elected officials from member jurisdictions and counties. What is the 2045 MTP Process Durham-Chapel Hill Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization • Responsible for long range transportation planning in • Durham City and County, and • Parts of Orange County and Chatham County. • Federal mandate — MPO must plan and approve use of federal transportation funding • Policy Board -- Composed mostly of local elected officials from member jurisdictions and counties. Transportation Planning Framework (chart) What is the 2045 Process (chart) Key Aspects of 2045 MTP Preferred Option Goals and Objectives (chart) Goals and Objectives (chart) Population Projection-graph Craig Benedict Employment Projection-graph Scenario Planning 24 The 2045 MTP uses Connect 2045 Triangle model called Community Visualization (CommViz), two land use scenarios were generated based on the above population and employment guide totals. • Community Plan — based on local comprehensive plans and land use policies. • AIM-High —This scenario uses the Community Plan scenarios as a base but increases the land use density and mix around the future light rail. It is based on draft data from an ongoing regional study on rail station development potential, and though it pushes the limits it is still market possible. Household Distribution • Hillsborough and South of Chapel Hill • West Orange County north of 1-85/1-40 • Between Hillsborough and NC-54 • Between Hillsborough and Chapel Hill/Carrboro Employment Distribution • East of Mebane along 1-85/1-40 • West of Durham along 1-85 • North of Hillsborough, along NC-57 • Along MLK Blvd in Chapel Hill Highway Projects 2045 - 8 Orange County Projects • 2025 — 10 projects • 2035 —22 projects • STI Bike-Ped and Transit funding restrictions • Federally mandated Financially Constrained MTP Transit Projects-graph Bicycle, Pedestrian and Multiuse Projects • CTP Web site: http://bit.ly/DCHCMPO-Adopted-CTP (References Orange County Bicycle Plan) • Carrboro Comprehensive Bicycle Transportation Plan (2009) -- http://bit.ly/1 PeRnsl • Chapel Hill Bike Plan (2014) -- http://bit.ly/1uGbDZ5 • Chatham County Bicycle Plan (2011) -- http://bit.ly/1 TShcUv • Durham City and County Comprehensive Bicycle Plan (2006) -- http://bit.ly/1 UCSIDz • Hillsborough Community Connectivity Plan (2009) -- http://bit.ly/1 Uan3VO • Chapel Hill Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan (2004) -- http://bit.ly/28gbvqi • Durham Walks! Pedestrian Plan (2006) -- http://bit.ly/1Y66mfG • Durham Bike+Walk Implementation Plan (2017) -- http://bit.ly/2p2yHJS • Hillsborough Community Connectivity Plan (2009) -- http://bit.ly/1 Uan3VO Financial Plan — Revenue- graph Financial Plan — Costs-graph Financial Plan — Investment by Mode-graph 25 2045 MTP Schedule-graph Questions &Answers Commissioner Jacobs said the MPO member re-did the goals and objectives this year, to make it more in line with the vision of the elected officials, as to what they hope to accomplish within the federal law. He said most goals and objectives are not written this way by other jurisdictions. He said there is a strong preference on the Board to challenge the limitation on bike and pedestrian projects. He said the OUTBoard mentions the train station on the second page, and it is fully funded. He said Jeff Mann, GoTriangle General Manager, reports a tug of war between Norfolk Southern and the North Carolina Railroad, as to who is going to do the planning related to the train station. He said that is the reason for the delay in the train station. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board has not discussed the route in Carrboro, and he would like more information on this prior to a vote. He said he would like to see a new bike plan for Orange County. He said he agreed with #3. Patrick McDonough, GoTriangle Manager of Planning and Transit Oriented Development, said there is a way to have a positive impact on the discussion surrounding the train station. He said Nina Schlossburg, DCHC MPO, was recently appointed to the North Carolina Railroad Board of Directors, along with Bill Bell. He said this provides representation at a level where there has previously been none. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to endorse #3, and refer#1 and #2 to staff and the OUTBoard (attachment 3) VOTE: UNANIMOUS e. Board of Commissioners - BOCC Chair/Vice Chair Voting Process The Board discussed a process for selecting the BOCC Chair and Vice Chair during the Board's annual organizational meeting in December. BACKGROUND: The Board has historically utilized paper ballots for selecting the Board Chair and Vice Chair at its annual organizational meeting in December. This process consists of the Clerk to the Board distributing ballots to each Commissioner to complete and sign. The Clerk then collects the ballots and reads out loud the selected nominee on each ballot. The ballots are a public record and are kept in the Clerk's office in the permanent agenda files. At the Board's November 9, 2017 work session, two options were proposed: Option 1: To add an additional step to the current selection process which is to have the Clerk to the Board, after collecting the ballots, to not only read the nominee's name on each ballot, but also read the name of the signatory on each ballot so as to make the process transparent to the public attending the meeting and also to those viewers watching on the web and/or television. Option 2: Utilize a selection process in which the current Chair requests nominations from Board members for the position of Chair. The current Chair would close the nominations and then solicit votes by show of hands for each nominee for Chair, with each Board member only 26 having one vote. The nominee receiving four or more votes would be elected to the position of Chair. The newly-elected Chair would request nominations from Board members for the position of Vice Chair. The newly-elected Chair would close the nominations and then solicit votes by show of hands for each nominee, with each Board member only having one vote. The nominee receiving four or more votes would be elected to the position of Vice Chair. Commissioner Burroughs said option #2 makes more sense to her, and if the desire is for greater transparency, then a ballot seems unnecessary. Commissioner Rich said she prefers option 1. Commissioner McKee said he prefers option 1. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve Option 1 which is to add an additional step to the current selection process which is to have the Clerk to the Board, after collecting the ballots, to not only read the nominee's name on each ballot, but also read the name of the signatory on each ballot so as to make the process transparent to the public attending the meeting and also to those viewers watching on the web and/or television. VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Chair Dorosin dissenting) 7. Reports a. GoTriangle Update on Transit Oriented Development Process and Potential Rail Station Changes The Board received information on the principles and activities associated with the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Grant as well as an explanation of both the proposed Gateway Station Shift and the proposed addition of a station at the Durham Performing Arts Center. No cost increases can occur, and both the Gateway Station Shift and the Station Addition will be accommodated within the current budget if approved. Matthew Clark, GoTriangle Government Affairs Manager, reviewed the following information: BACKGROUND: The first part of the presentation will update the Board of Commissioners on the activities related to transit oriented development planning around the Durham-Orange Light Rail Stations. GoTriangle received a $2.1 million grant from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to help plan areas around the rail stations. This effort involves preparing appropriate land use plans and development standards to maximize the benefits of new investments in transit service, promote the development of walkable neighborhoods, and enhance existing communities. The planning grant also included a market study that assessed the potential economic development benefits of development or redevelopment that could occur around the rail stations. On October 16, Chapel Hill staff and the Transit Oriented Development consultant team held a meeting with members of the six Chapel Hill advisory boards and commissions to discuss the process for developing zoning regulations for the station areas, the project schedule, and community goals that should be prioritized. The current schedule would have a draft zoning code available for discussion in January of 2018. 27 The second part of the presentation will be to update the Board of Commissioners on two proposed rail station changes. The Orange County Transit Plan discussed the possibility of shifting the Gateway station to the west in order to promote more economic development opportunities, particularly in Orange County. The Transit Plan requires that GoTriangle seek input from the Board of Commissioners on any change in station location, which will be communicated to the GoTriangle Board before making a final decision. The second proposed station change is to add a station at the Durham Performing Arts Center (DPAC). The new station would be intended to provide better access to the Center and the Durham Bulls Athletic Park. The Transit Plan requires that the addition of any station must be approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, Durham County Board of Commissioners, and DCHC MPO Policy Board, and the GoTriangle Board. Go Triangle is requesting formal Board consideration at its December 12, 2017 meeting. The cost of the shift in the Gateway station is currently estimated to be $8 million, and the estimated cost of the new DPAC station is $2.5 million. Since the total light rail project budget was set when the project was approved to enter engineering, both of these changes would have to be accommodated in the current budget if approved. The attached memoranda from Go Triangle further describe these proposed changes. Matthew Clark began the PowerPoint presentation: Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit Project Orange County Commissioners November 20, 2017 Entry into Engineering • Our region is on track for a federal investment of well over a billion dollars. • Engineers will iron out the details of the Light Rail as they move it from around 30% to nearly 100% design. • FTA will invest in a stronger partnership with the Light Rail through the Project Management Oversight Consultant. • The budget for the Light Rail is set at around $2.47 billion. Patrick McDonough presented this portion of the PowerPoint: A Partnership for Transit-Supportive Walkable Places • A partnership supporting walkable neighborhoods in anticipation of the Light Rail • Continuing to engage the community to build on prior local planning • Local land use planning led by Chapel Hill & Durham Planning Departments • Durham and Orange County agree to pursue Strategic Economic Development Partnerships Station Planning: Steps Ahead- graph Distance & Mode Share Transit share decreases with distance 28 • First 600 feet really matters • Office mode share drops about 1% every 100 feet • 1/2 - mile residential share 300% higher than office Principles for Walkable Places 1. Sustainable density • A neighborhood average of 9 to 25 du/ac + to support LRT • Distance to transit matters 2. Mix of Uses • Vertical or Horizontal • The Details matter • Limit auto-oriented uses • Housing for everyone • Benefits ■ More walking / less auto use ■ Increased transit ridership 3. Compact pedestrian- oriented • Block sizes for 5-minute walk • Orient buildings to sidewalks • Active street edges 4. Active Defined Center • Up to 18 hours of activity with people living in the neighborhood • Compact and more dense • Employment closest to transit 5. Limited, managed parking • Consider size, location, design, and management • No minimum ratios, maximums • Disconnect parking from buildings, manage by district 6. Public Leadership • Focus on implementation • Nurture progressive developers • Plans + Capital Budgets align Ben Hitchings, Chapel Hill Planning Director, presented this portion of the PowerPoint: February 2017: Listening, Creating Concepts June 2017: Check-In with Town Council Key Questions: • Was early work on the right track? • Would Council support detailed work with advisory boards to move towards zoning concepts? July 2017: Market Study Deliverable Complete 29 Assesses Capacity of D-O LRT Corridor* • Office — 10 to 15 million square feet • Retail —3 to 4.5 million square feet • Hotel — 5,100 to 7,800 rooms • Residential —20,400 to 30,700 units October 2017: Advisory Board Review Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan to keep Orange County informed at each of these steps. Bonnie Hammersley said there is a disconnect, and there should be a representative from each funding source at every meeting. She said she will be talking with Jeff Mann tomorrow. Commissioner Rich said that sounds like a good idea. Bonnie Hammersley said that representative will be responsible for keeping the Board informed. Commissioner Jacobs said he would hope that person would be a participant in the meetings, and not just an observer. He said part of the negotiation with Durham was to move the Gateway project further into Orange County, as well as building affordable housing near the stations. Commissioner Jacobs said he thought the consultants would come back to speak to all elected officials in January, who could get some background materials ahead of time. Patrick McDonough said he was unsure how much information to bring this evening, and he is happy to provide more detail. He said it would be beneficial to have the elected officials together in January. He said there is a tentative plan to have a day long summit about Durham Orange Light Rail and station area neighborhood planning on February 6th Commissioner McKee said he is an employee of Summit Engineering, who may be working on this project at some future point. He said he and his division has no connection to this project, but he wants to be clear and offer full disclosure. Commissioner McKee asked to go back to the slide of the Gateway station. He said it would be helpful to see the County line on the map, as it appears that only a sliver of this proposed project will be in Orange County. He asked if the County line could be clearly identified. Patrick McDonough pointed out the County line, and discussed some of the details of the area. He said his staff looked at the original station as well as the newly proposed one today. He said within the quarter mile, it was originally 1.1 acres, and under the new location it is 29.4 acres. He said at the half mile radius level, the old station was 107 acres, and the new location is 182 acres. Commissioner McKee asked if the amount of actual developable land in Orange County is known. Patrick McDonough said he would have to get this information, but the key is the intensity with which the developable areas are developed. Commissioner Marcoplos referred to Eastowne Office Park, and how the location of the station will affect it. Patrick McDonough said the consultants have envisioned some type of high quality bicycle and pedestrian connection across from the new station location to Eastowne. He said there is an OWASA pump station, an historic property, and an intermittent stream near the old station location. He said the newer location is favorable. Patrick McDonough resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 30 Tentative Timeline January `18 — Draft code distributed for review February— Council Meeting: Review draft and invite Boards March — Joint Boards & Commission meeting to review draft March — Public Information Meeting April — Council Business Meeting April — Planning Commission: Review draft#1 April — Planning Commission: Review draft#2 May— Council Public Hearing (Part 1) May— Council Public Hearing (Part 2) June — Council Public Hearing (Possible Action) Station Planning: Potential County Roles - graph Matthew Clark said he wanted to review GoTriangle's design change approval policy. He said there are two categories: 2 and 1. He said category 2 contains changes like the Gateway Station adjustment, where GoTriangle comes to the BOCC for its feedback. He asked if Board of County Commissioners would submit changes for category 2 via Travis Myren. He said Category 1 changes include addition or deletion of stations, and all entities have to vote for category one changes. He said GoTriangle will return to the BOCC on December 12 for a vote on the additional station at Blackwell and Mangum Streets in Durham. Matthew Clark presented this portion of the PowerPoint: Proposed Engineering Updates • The estimated cost of the proposed Gateway station update is $8 million. • The estimated cost of the proposed DPAC station addition is $2.5 million. • The purpose of the Gateway station update is to provide more opportunity for economic development in Orange County. • The purpose of the DPAC station addition is to provide people in Orange and Durham Counties with easy access to the DPAC, Durham Bulls Athletic Park, and other center city destinations. • Both Engineering updates are contained within the budget which is set at around $2.47 billion Commissioner McKee asked if the $2.47 billion budget includes the long-term loans, as he understood the total cost to be over $3 billion. Matthew Clark said that is not correct, and the capital costs of the project are $2.47 billion. He said financing costs are not included in the capital costs. Commissioner McKee said citizens are not being presented with an honest portrayal of the total costs of the project. Commissioner Jacobs asked if GoTriangle could provide the BOCC with a report about how GoTriangle has engaged Durham Tech and the Orange County campus on providing jobs. Matthew Clark said he is spearheading a workforce development partnership with Durham Tech and several other partners. Commissioner Jacobs asked if something could be brought in writing to the BOCC on December 12th Matthew Clark said yes. 31 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if transit oriented development will begin before the rail line opens. Patrick McDonough said yes, if GoTriangle is doing its job correctly. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if it is known when transit oriented development will begin. Patrick McDonough said interest will spike when the Federal Government signs the full funding grant agreement, but those communities that have prepared the development ordinance for the areas of desired growth, and have well defined economic and community goals will be engaged in discussion. Ben Hitchings said when considering station area planning, it is the goal to pick locations that are already natural centers, or have this potential. He said Gateway fits this bill, and a new zoning framework may lead to development simply due to the existing advantages of the location. He said the rail investment would only increase the appeal of this location. Chair Dorosin said he heard that the developers of DPAC and American Tobacco are putting money in, and asked if this is accurate. He also asked if the BOCC could receive an update on the community group that planned to raise funds. 8. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda - Items e and f by Commissioner Jacobs. - Item b by Commissioner Price • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda - Items a, c, d, and g. VOTE: UNANIMOUS • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda The Board discussed items e and f at the same time: e. Resolution of Approval — Conservation Easement for Center Stream Farm Addition; and Approval of Budget Amendment#3-A The Board considered approving a resolution for the purchase of and acceptance by Orange County of an agricultural conservation easement for the Center Stream Farm addition, authorize the Chair to sign and approve Budget Amendment#3-A. Commissioner Jacobs said he wanted to pull this item to salute to their commitment to agricultural conservation easements. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to approve a resolution for the purchase of and acceptance by Orange County of an agricultural conservation easement for the Center Stream Farm addition, authorize the Chair to sign and approve Budget Amendment#3-A. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 32 f. Establishing a County Government Academy for Orange County Residents The Board will consider approving the development of a County Government Academy (CGA) as a series of classes held each spring and fall to educate residents about the many services and responsibilities of Orange County Government and thereby benefit Orange County by creating a pool of informed residents who would be more likely to serve on one of the many Orange County volunteer boards and advisory committees. Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Price both wanted to pull this item to acknowledge this proposed academy. Commissioner Jacobs said the County used to have a "County Day" in which students would come in and shadow department heads, hold mock board meetings, etc. in order to learn how local government works. He said he would encourage getting students involved again. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to approve the development of a County Government Academy (CGA) as a series of classes held each spring and fall to educate residents about the many services and responsibilities of Orange County Government and thereby benefit Orange County by creating a pool of informed residents who would be more likely to serve on one of the many Orange County volunteer boards and advisory committees. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Amendment#3 The Board considered approving budget and school capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2017-18. Commissioner Price said she had questions about the Food Council budget amendment. Bonnie Hammersley said the Food Council was going to make a presentation at the Assemblies of Government (AOG) meeting, requesting to mirror the model of the Partnership to End Homelessness, but the meeting was cancelled. She said these are monies to carry the Food Council over to the end of the fiscal year and give them the opportunity to make their case to the BOCC during the budget process. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve the budget and school capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2017-18. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from November 2 and 9, 2017 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Fiscal Year 2017-18 Budget Amendment#3 The Board approved budget and school capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2017-18 to Department on Aging; Department of Social Services; Visitors Bureau; Orange Public Transportation; School Capital Project Ordinances — Orange County Schools; and Outside Agency— Orange County Food Council. c. Marketing Communications Management Agreement with FleishmanHillard 33 The Board approved a professional services agreement for tourism marketing and advertising with FleishmanHillard. d. Termination of Lease and Joint Use Agreement with Orange County Schools The Board approved the termination of a Lease and Joint Use Agreement with the Orange County Board of Education for the use of tennis courts at Orange High School. This action is designed to simplify the public usage of the courts, removing a reservation process that has become unwieldy, and is based on mutual agreement with the Orange County Schools. e. Resolution of Approval — Conservation Easement for Center Stream Farm Addition; and Approval of Budget Amendment#3-A The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, for the purchase of and acceptance by Orange County of an agricultural conservation easement for the Center Stream Farm addition, authorize the Chair to sign and approve Budget Amendment#3-A. f. Establishing a County Government Academy for Orange County Residents The Board approved the development of a County Government Academy (CGA) as a series of classes held each spring and fall to educate residents about the many services and responsibilities of Orange County Government and thereby benefit Orange County by creating a pool of informed residents who would be more likely to serve on one of the many Orange County volunteer boards and advisory committees. g. Approval of NACo Rural Impact Community Challenge Resolution The Board approved a NACo Rural Impact Community Challenge resolution in a national effort to combat rural child poverty and authorize the Chair to sign. 9. County Manager's Report NONE 10. County Attorney's Report NONE 11. *Appointments NONE 12. Information Items • November 2, 2017 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Transmittal of the FY 2018-19 Human Services Funding Application • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from November 2, 2017 Regular Meeting 13. Closed Session NONE 14. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Mark Dorosin, Chair 34 Donna Baker Clerk to the Board