HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 8-a- MinutesORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 20, 2018
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover)
Action Agenda
Item No. 8 -a
INFORMATION CONTACT:
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.
January 26, 2018
January 30, 2018
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
BOCC Board Retreat
Assembly of Governments Meeting
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Attachment 1
DRAFT MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ANNUAL PLANNING RETREAT
Maple View Agricultural Center
January 26, 2018
9:00 a.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for their annual Board retreat on Friday,
January 26, 2018 at 9:00 a.m. at the Maple View Agricultural Center in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Mark Dorosin and Commissioners Mia
Burroughs, Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker.
FACILITATOR: Andy Sachs, Dispute Settlement Center
Resource Persons: Kevin Knutson, Regional Vice President, and Francine Ramaglia, Senior
Manager, Management Partners; Joe Hines and Blake Hall, Timmons Group.
Observers — Department Directors and members of the public and news media.
Desired Outcomes
• Greater awareness of the impact of any new policies, programs, and projects upon the
County's budget and tax rate.
• Priorities for the County's FY18 -19 budget.
• Updated view of the potential and design challenges related to Orange County's Economic
Development Districts and Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Nodes.
• Prioritized strategies for realizing the potential of our EDDs and CITANs.
9:00 Convene
Commissioner Dorosin welcomed the attendees. He invited the County staff to raise questions
and participate in today's conversation.
Commissioner Rich asked to comment on the Board's January 23, 2018 meeting. The meeting
lasted past midnight. She thanked the Chair for leading a good meeting. Following up on a
suggestion by Commissioner Marcoplos, she said that Board members should feel free to take
a stretch during lengthy meetings. She thanked everyone for staying engaged in the meeting,
including County staff and members of the public. We moved the needle forward on every single
topic on the agenda, she said. Commissioner Price said it was a good meeting with good
agenda items, but it was unfair that people had to sit through such a long meeting or wait for so
long to get to the podium, especially those who came from out of town. I would prefer to
continue to another time a meeting that is going over time rather extending it for so long, she
said.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
2
The facilitator acknowledged this year's retreat planning committee: Commissioners Price,
Burroughs, and Marcoplos; Deputy County Manager Travis Myren, Clerk to Board of County
Commissioners Donna Baker, and David Hunt, Deputy Clerk to the Board.
The group adopted with the following changes the Desired Outcomes and Agenda developed by
the planning committee and distributed earlier:
• The fourth desired outcome was revised to "Prioritized strategies for realizing the potential of
economic development." This placed the discussion about EDDs and CITANs in a larger
context. In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Commissioner Burroughs said that
jobs development can be a part of the discussion.
• A stretch break was added at 10:40 AM
The facilitator reminded the group of the ground rules it used at its 2017 retreat, and proposed
that they be relied upon for today's meeting as well. The group agreed:
• Be open to disagreement
• Be committed to sharing relevant information
• Do not surprise each other
• Be honest
• Seek truth through synthesis of all participants' contributions
• Be present
Following a brief icebreaker intended to advance interpersonal appreciation among the Board
members, the group turned its attention to the substantive agenda.
9:40 FY18 -19 budget
Presentation by Management Partners on County's Five Year Financial Plan (20 minutes)
Bonnie Hammersley opened this agenda item by reminding the group that the County had
retained a consultant to develop a comprehensive financial forecast of the County's operating
budget. Although the forecast is not full of great news, she said, be assured that we are on top
of this and will have solutions to the challenges we are facing. Our consultants, Management
Partners, will be presenting some options.
Kevin Knutson, Regional Vice President, and Francine Ramaglia, Senior Manager, of
Management Partners, gave a PPT presentation and led the discussion.
Orange County Long Term Financial Forecast
Services
• Operations Improvement
• Strategic Planning
• Service Sharing
• Financial Planning /Budgeting
• Organization Analysis
• Organization Development
• Performance Management
• Process Improvement
• Facilitation and Training
• Executive Recruitment
• Executive Coaching
Project Objectives and Today's Purpose
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Construct a 10 -year financial forecast model for the County
• Provide an impartial third -party projection of the County's finances
• Work with staff to develop consensus on assumptions
• Forecasting is a "best practice"
Present areas for consideration in building budget strategies to address structural deficit
• Interview the County's senior management team
• Topics included wide range of both financial and operational areas including matters such as
revenue enhancement, expenditure controls and cost shifts, service delivery changes, service
reductions /elimination
General Basis for Forecast Projections
Management Partners has created a 10 -year budget model
• History for revenues and expenditures back to FY 2002 -03
• Balances based on CAFR actuals through FY 2016 -17
• Staff estimates used for FY 2017 -18 in lieu of Revised Budget
• Basis for future projections is 95% of FY 2017 -18 Revised Budget
Applies to all department/programs except Transfers, Retiree Medical, Debt Service (where
there are specific amounts), or Education (100% of budget)
• Growth rates for FY 2018 -19 and thereafter set by department /program
• Debt Service based on Davenport & Co. debt affordability analysis (1/9/18)
Major Assumptions
Operating cost drivers:
• Health costs average 7.5% growth
• Salaries /benefits average 3.1 % growth
• Education costs average 3.0% growth
• Non - personnel costs average 2.0% growth
• Debt service costs rise from current $26.7M to $39.2M in FY 2022 -23
f Declines thereafter under Davenport analysis, but forecast assumes debt service remains at
`$35M, to meet future capital financing needs
• CIP- related operating costs included (costs rise to $3.2M by FY 2027 -28)
• Loss of impact fee revenues ($3.3M in FY 2017 -18 budget)
Conclusions
If property tax rate remains at current level, operating cost trends, together with loss of impact
fees and higher debt service, would create an average $11 M annual structural imbalance that
would require higher property tax rates and /or expenditure reductions to resolve
Revenues
Recessions have occurred on an average every 6.8 years since 1927
• Budget impacts often lag official recessions
• Forecast assumes minor recessions in FY 2019 -20 (starting mid -2019) and FY 2026 -27
• Key is timing and magnitude; model allows range of assumptions to be tested
County Funding Primarily Supported by Property Taxes
-graph
-graph
Property Tax Rates Assuming Constant Tax Rate
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
- graphs
Property Tax Rate
At a constant property tax rate, property tax revenue will reflect increases as assessed value
increases
• Revenues will vary if tax rate is increased to cover:
'clLoss of impact fees
_j Increased debt service
JOngoing operating cost increases (assuming continued FTE and health cost increases)
Sales Tax
Significant impact from last recession
• Assumes minor recessions in FY 2019 -20 and FY 2026 -27
• Includes added revenue and incentive payments related to Wegman's (assumes $400K/year
from FY 2020 -21 through FY 2024 -25)
• Projection consistent with short -term trend
Charges for Service
Big drop in planning fees related to construction activity, due to last recession
• Projection builds on FY 2017- 18 budget estimates, which is in keeping with the trend of the
prior 5 years
Intergovernmental
Includes $4M drop in Social Service fees (child day care funding switch to state) with
commensurate drop in expenses for child care
• $1.3M included for Lottery (was zero in original FY 2017 -18 budget)
Other Revenues
Includes Privilege Tax, Franchise Fee, Interest and Miscellaneous Revenue (excludes
appropriated fund balance)
• The large decrease in FY 2017 -18 is due to the reclassification of the State Hold Harmless
Sales Tax revenues from Miscellaneous Revenues to the Sales Tax Revenues category
Transfers In
Volatile source
• Category mostly consisted of development impact fees
j =llncrease reflects $2 million in FY 2017 -18 per reimbursement resolution for capital projects
ff —IThe flat line from FY 2020 -21 reflects the elimination of Impact Fees.
Expenditures
Staffing Growth Exceeds Population Growth Over Last 7 Years, Even Over Long -Term- graph
Inflation
Consumer Price Index is used as general measure of inflationary pressures on wages and other
costs
• CPI relatively stable over past 20 years
=20 -year average is 2.20%
10 -year average is 1.85%
• Federal reserve's target goal is 2%
• Forecast assumes 2% annual growth rate in inflation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Community Services- graphs
• Growth varies by individual program, ranging from 0 -5 %, with net growth of 3.5% FY
2019 -20 throughFY2027 -28; assumes solid waste contribution continues at $1.OM
General Government - graphs
• Average annual growth of 3.3% FY 2018 -19 through FY 2027 -28; close fit to long -term
trend
Public Safety - graphs
• Average annual growth of 3.4% FY 2018 -19 through FY 2027 -28; 3.5% growth is in-
between short and long term trends
Human Services- graphs
• Ave. annual growth of 3.0% FY 2018 -19 through FY 2027 -28; State takeover of child day
care in FY 2017 -18 reduces expenditure level $4M (also revenue, hence a wash); 3%
growth projected in line with previous growth periods
Education- graphs
• Average annual growth of 2.9% FY 2018 -19 through FY 2027 -28; assumes $3M in
recurring capital funded through bonds instead of pay as you go funds; growth is
consistent with short and long -term trends
Support Services- graphs
• Original budget includes centralized costs for wage /benefit increases which are
reallocated to departments after the budget is adopted. Those reallocations are reflected
in the revised budget amount.
Debt Service
Projection through FY 2022 -23 based on total of:
iExisting debt service
-1 "Proposed CIP and GO Referendum" per Davenport debt affordability analysis (1/9/18)
• Assumes no less than $35M starting FY 2023 -24
(This allows for up to $200M in new bonds to fund both County and Education needs
CIP - Related Operating Costs
Tied to analysis of current CIP by county staff ($1.7M through FY 2021 -22), including:
=iBlackwood Farm Park (starts FY 2017 -18)
1911 Center improvements /backup capability (starts FY 2017 -18)
jCedar Grove Community Center (starts FY 2017 -18)
_ISouthern Branch Library (starts FY 2019 -20)
�Twin Creek Park (starts FY 2021 -22)
• Assumes continued growth for future projects
Transfers: School Capital Projects
Averaged $4.4M over previous 15 years
• Original budget in FY 2017 -18 was zero because County substituted pay -go with 2/3 bonds
• Long -term this amount is equal to the $1.3M in projected annual Lottery revenue
Transfers: County Capital Projects
Amounts for County capital projects per CIP through FY 2021 -22, with 2% growth thereafter
($900K in FY 2022 -23, for pay as you go funds)
Transfers: All Other Funds
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
e
Transfers to OPEB Trust account for high amounts ($3M in FY 2012 -13, $3M in FY 2013 -14,
and $1.5M in FY 2014 -15)
• Assumes Efland Sewer ($145K) ends FY 2019 -20
• Assumes Affordable Housing ($812K) continues at 2% growth
• Assumes Grant projects ($56K) continue at 2% growth
• Assumes Sportsplex ($168K) continues at 0% growth
Fund Balance
Baseline Forecast
Assumes property tax rate remains at current $0.8377 (see below for key property tax
assumptions)
• Before any corrective actions
• Results in structural shortfall leading to net deficit by FY 2022 -23
• 16% reserve is County policy, while 8% is Local Government Commission's minimum reserve
requirement
Sample Option A
Property Tax levy raised by $0.0576 in FY 2018 -19 (8.7% increase) and maintained at that
same rate thereafter regardless of assessed valuation growth
D8% increases in FY2021 -22 and FY2025 -26 due to reappraisal years
• Requires no reduction in expenditures
• Meets 16% reserve goal in out -years mostly with unassigned balance alone
Sample Option B
Property tax levy increase of $0.0576 phased -in over a 3 -year period, with fixed rate thereafter
• Meets 16% reserve goal in near -term and out -years with combined state required reserve and
unassigned balance
• Potential expenditure reductions required in mid- 2020's to comply with County's 16% reserve
policy
Sample Option C
Property tax levy increase of $0.0576 phased -in over a 3 -year period, with 2% tax levy growth
thereafter (rate floats up or down based on assessed value changes, to net 2% revenue growth)
• No change in expenditure levels
• Property tax revenue is inadequate to prevent future deficits
Sample Option D
Option D includes a series of expenditure reductions (eventual 6% total cut) to close the
remaining revenue gap from Option C
L 1$10M reduction in FY 2021 -22
D$2M reduction in FY 2023 -24
I_j$3M reduction in FY 2025 -26
• Total reductions of $15M are ongoing; assumes 2% annual growth in value of avoided costs
Observations
Financial Sustainability and Best Practices
Structurally balanced budget
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
7
• Financial forecasting
• Limited use of one -time resources
• Established reserves
• Debt Issuance
• Employee compensation
• Fees and charges
• Capital Improvement Projects
• Grants
• Performance Measures
General Observations
New and /or enhanced revenues
• Ongoing continuous improvement process
• Expansion or revision of current practices
• Opportunities for operational efficiencies
• Opportunities to increase efficiencies through update of existing policies /elimination of
redundancies
• Suggestions from and involvement of all departments
• Role of Functional Leadership Teams
Strategic Plan & Budget
Link strategic plan to budget (countywide and at dept. level)
• Clear priorities & service levels:
❑Core or mandated services
❑Education & Economic development
❑Areas /populations served
• Budget direction
-1 Ranking process, return on investment, and customer served
_.1 Expectations on goals and service delivery
• Dashboards & reporting platforms for transparency
• Clear linkage to strategic plan and budget on agenda items
Performance Reporting
Family of measures to evaluate projects /programs:
❑IWorkload
U Efficiency /effectiveness
Outcomes
• Process to monitor & report progress:
�_ (Executive /Policy level
(Manager level
Partnerships
UNC and other partner organizations
• Interlocal agreements with cities, schools & other agencies (fee recovery, cost sharing for
services, use of facilities, etc)
• Shared service delivery and regionalization
• Community programming through not - for - profits
• School Systems
Fees & Fee Studies
Formal policy for fees and cost recovery (internally and externally)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
N.
• Underlying cost of services & targeted recovery
• General Fund subsidy levels, regardless of fund providing service (example: solid waste;
Sportsplex)
• Other governmental and related agencies
Comprehensive fee studies on regular schedule: annual internal update /bi- annual external study
• Inflationary increases
• Benchmark to other agencies & private providers
• Desired level of competition, if any
• Audit significant revenue streams
Other Revenues
Explore all statutorily allowable revenue sources
• Economic development and code revisions
• Update existing revenue policies & ordinances
• Expand use of naming rights
• Seek additional sponsorships & grant funding and aggressively use fundraising ability of 3rd
party organizations
• Legislative Efforts
❑Local option gas tax dedicated to capital projects
❑Support for additional /separate school tax
F-1 Excise Tax (roughly $2 million annually not updated since 1980's)
2 Keys to Operating Efficiencies
Technology
❑Maxing out existing technology— mandated use & greater training; seeking opportunities for
new technology (example: increase mobility and encourage more on -line services in every dept)
❑Improve technology to better leverage staff resources (example: automate, motion sensors
for energy efficiency, etc.)
• Business Process Review /Redesign
f- (Conduct workload studies and process map major service delivery areas to identify process
improvements, staff utilization & cross training and desired customer service
❑Evaluate opportunities for co- location and consider centralized cost centers where practicable
and shared resources /services to eliminate duplication
❑Evaluate staffing levels and consider leveraging third party services /resources where
practicable
Other Opportunities for
• Best management practices
❑Require departments to research and identify best practices in their fields
• Studies in process (examples: Fleet, facilities, solar energy, transfer station /recycling, P &R,
etc)
• Enterprises self - supporting (include Sportsplex and any other similar contractual
arrangements)
• Purchasing:
_iUpdated purchasing policies and procedures
)Increased competitive selections (RFP) and take a more pro- active purchasing approach to
test market; participate in cooperative purchasing agreements
_IUse of P3s and performance contracts
End of PPT
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
E
The following additional points were noted by the facilitator during the presentation:
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Knutson said that Management
Partners recommends that the County use a ten year financial forecasting model instead of
a five year model. They have two reasons for this. First, the longer view enables the analysis
to consider that economic recessions occur about every 4 -7 years. Second, the longer view
also enables the analysis to capture the impacts of Orange County's four -year property
revaluation cycle.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Price about the Major Assumptions used in the
modeling, Mr. Knutson said the growth in the set of operating cost drivers reflects growth in
the number of staff as well as growth in the cost per staff person of health costs,
salaries /benefits, etc.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Rich, the $11 M annual structural imbalance does
not include any tax increase associated with the recent bond.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Marcoplos, Ms. Ramaglia explained that the
annual half - million dollars anticipated from Wegman's offsets the impact of future recessions
on the County's sales tax projections.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Burroughs, Mr. Knutson said that the divergence
(increase) of forecasted property tax revenue from the short term trend at 2021 is influenced
by the growth of development in the county over time.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Rich, Mr. Knutson said that the property tax rate
analysis does not include fees other than those fees directly related to the tax such as late
payments and interest charges.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs about Intergovernmental Revenues, Ms.
Ramaglia said that the $1.3M for the lottery is now included in this category after being
reclassified from Miscellaneous.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Ms. Ramaglia explained that the
Intergovernmental forecast is being driven by two changes: a decision by the State to
remove Social Service pass through fees from the County budget, and the reclassification of
the education lottery into this category. Ms. Hammersley added that child care services will
continue to be paid for, but they will be paid for by the State.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Ms. Ramaglia said that the proposed
impact fee for parks is not included in revenue from Transfers In category, although it is
addressed in the study's conclusions and recommendations.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Ms. Hammersley said that Support
Services includes IT, Human Resources, and Finance. Mr. Myren added that increases in
personnel costs are assigned first to Support Services and then reallocated to the other
categories as needed.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Ms. Ramaglia explained that there is no
growth in the forecast line for Transfers: School Capital Projects after 2020 because that line
is based on the projected $1.3M education lottery revenues.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Burroughs, Mr. Myren said that the Baseline
Forecast and Sample A Option assumes that the County does not drop to a revenue neutral
position. Other options presented today do allow for revenue neutrality.
• In reply to questions from Commissioners McKee and Price, Mr. Knudsen and Ms. Ramaglia
said the model captures revenue expected from an assumed rate of growth in population
and development, based on historical patterns. Revenue from development that would push
beyond that historical pattern is not included. Mr. Benedict, Director of Planning and
Inspections, explained that there is a 2% growth baseline built into the model.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Ms. Hammersley said that even under
phase -in scenarios, such as Sample Option B, the Board retains the flexibility to set the tax
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
10
rate each year. A phase -in scenario will give us time to make adjustments if they are
needed, she said.
In reply to a question from Ms. Hammersley, Ms. Ramaglia said that under Sample Option B
the property tax would increase less than two cents per $100 of value per year for three
years.
The following additional points were noted by the facilitator following the presentation, during a
more general discussion:
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Knudsen said that Management
Partners is headquartered in Ohio.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Marcoplos, Mr. Myren clarified that unassigned
General Fund Balance amounts are represented by the blue portions of the bars on the
Sample Option slides — this would be the "spendable" amounts -- and reserved amounts
( "not spendable" under the current 16% policy) are represented by the white portions.
Commissioner Dorosin suggested that the unassigned segments of the bars be placed
above the assigned amounts so that the spendable amounts would be easier to see on the
charts.
• Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to see a scenario with a different fund balance.
What would 14% or 15% look like? What would be the break point from AAA to the next
lower bond rating if we went from 16% to a lower reserve, he asked. If we are moving into a
more difficult financial future and we are considering an increase in the property tax rate,
then we should understand the implications of this option as well.
• Mr. Knudsen said the 16.7% recommended reserve in Orange County is based on two
months of working capital. 16% is a standard, but it does not apply in all situations. A steady
history of revenues might enable a jurisdiction to deviate from that standard. The bond rating
firms are more interested in your history and how you are planning for your future than they
are in the specific policy. The fact that you have a policy is very good, but the level at which
you set that policy is dependent upon your organization.
• Ms. Ramaglia added that the County's other financial policies would also be taken into
consideration by the bond raters. For instance, if you lower your 16% general fund balance
standard then the rating firms might want to see how your policies enable your other funds
to be self - supporting.
• Commissioner Dorosin said that the property tax is the only progressive source of revenue
the County has access to. Fees are more regressive. There are social justice aspects to
these options that we should take into consideration.
• Discussion as needed to clarify "budget drivers" for FY18 -19
• FY 18 -19 Budget Exercise: "What do things cost, and how might we prioritize across new
budget items in FY18 -197"
Following a short break, Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, gave a presentation and
led a discussion on "FY2018 -19 and Beyond."
Travis Myren presented the PPT below:
ORANGE COUNTY BUDGET PLANNING
FY2018 -19 and Beyond
Board of Orange County Commissioners Retreat
January 26, 2018
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
Orange County exists to provide governmental services requested by our Residents or
mandated by the State of North Carolina.
To provide these quality services efficiently, we must;
Serve the Residents of Orange County — Our Residents Come First;
Depend on the energy, skills, and dedication of all our employees and volunteers;
Treat all our Residents and Employees with fairness, respect, and understanding.
Oranrae County Residents Come First
Budget Context — Mission Statement
Foster a community culture that rejects oppression and inequity.
Ensure economic self- sufficiency.
Create a safe community.
Establish sustainable and equitable land use and environmental policies.
Enable full civic participation.
Budget Context — Social Justice Values
Goal 1
Ensure a community network of basic human services and infrastructure that maintains,
protects, and promotes the well -being of all county residents.
Goal 2
Promote an interactive and engaging system of governance that reflects community values.
Goal 3
Implement planning and economic development policies which create a balanced, dynamic local
economy, and which promote diversity, sustainable growth, and enhanced revenue while
embracing community values.
Goal 4
Invest in quality County facilities, a diverse work force, and technology to achieve a high
performing County government.
Goal 5
Create, preserve, and protect a natural environment that includes clean water, clean air, wildlife,
important natural lands, and sustainable energy for present and future generations.
Goal 6
Ensure a high quality of life and lifelong learning that champions diversity, education at all
levels, libraries, parks, recreation, and animal welfare.
Budget Context — Board Goals
FY2017 -18 Expenses as % of Total Expenditures
Budget Context — Expenditures by Category
FY2017 -18 Revenues as % of Total Revenues
39 Budget Context — Revenues by Category
12
1 Five Year History of Actual Expenditures and Revenues
2 Budget Context — Year End Results History
3 Property Tax
4 No rate adjustment; 1.5% Growth in New Assessed Value
5 $2.2 million projected increase
6 Sales Tax
7 6.5% Growth Above FY2017 -18 Budget
8 $1.6 million projected increase
9 Charges for Services
10 Historic growth of 4%
11 $300,000 projected increase
12 Intergovernmental Revenue
13 Historic Growth of 1.8%
14 $320,000 projected increase
15 Grant /Intergovernmental Losses
16 Soil and Water Conservation positions in DEAPR
17 CARES Grant in Department on Aging
18 FY2018 -19 Revenue Projections
19 Personnel Costs
20 Employee Salary and Wages
21 Across the Board Wage Adjustment — Each 1 % Increase is $550,000
22 Living Wage Funding - $15 per hour regular employees - $20,000 to annualize
23 Compression Adjustment - $250,000 consistent with FY2017 -18
24 Employee Benefits
25 Health Insurance — projected 7.5% increase $875,000
26 Dental Insurance — projected 2% increase $6,200
27 Education Funding Targets
28 Current Expense Funding Level Options
29 48.1 % of General Fund Revenues — target achieved with new debt funded
30 Class Size Ratio Reduction in K -3 - $900,000 in OCS; CHCCS has waiver until
31 2020
32 Continuation Budgets - $7 million based on FY2017 -18 cost to continue and
33 mandate requests including class size reduction in OCS
34 Health and Safety Contracts — 2% increase $67,000
35 FY2018 -19 Expenditure Projections
36 Outside Agency Funding Target
37 1.2% of County Expenditures (Excluding Education)
38 $20,000 projected increase
39 Debt Service
13
1 Debt Service Increase Related to Bond and Approved Capital Investment Plan
2 $5 million projected increase
3 Unassigned General Fund Reserve
4 16% of General Fund Expenditures
5 Projected Revenues vs. Projected Expenses
6 Approximately $7 million without any rate adjustments (taxes and fees) or expenditure
7 reductions
8 FY2018 -19 Expenditure Projections
9 Budget Direction to Departments — Status Quo
10 No General Purpose Revenue /Tax Funded Positions
11 Reallocation or New Revenues
12 No Operating Expense Increases
13 Exception for current contractual obligations
14 Reallocation or New Revenue
15 Recurring Capital — Replacement Only
16 Analyze Expenditure Levels vs. Historic Spending
17 Functional Leadership Team Engagement
18 Identify Resource Sharing and Collaboration
19 Streamline Performance Measures and Department Objectives
20 Management Reports
21 Policy Reports — Focus on Outcomes
22 FY2018 -19 Budget Planning
23 County Manager Initiatives
24 Enhance Functional Leadership Team Interactions
25 Identify mandated and core services
26 Identify Redundancies
27 Evaluate /Update Policies
28 Process Improvement
29 Department Five Year Operating Plans — informed by Cost of Service Study
30 Link Department Plans to Board Policy Priorities and Goals
31 Use for Long Range Budget Forecasting Model
32 Leveraging Technology
33 Focus on Existing Technology Resources — Break in New Projects
34 Operating Cost Reductions — Solar Energy, Fleet
35 FY2018 -19 Budget and Beyond
36 Operating Budget Policy Issues
37 Funding Mechanism for Recurring Capital
38 Transfer School Recurring Capital ($3 million annually) to Capital Budget
39 Provides Operating Budget Flexibility in Short Term
14
1 Property Tax — Compensate for Increased Debt Service
2 One Time Increase vs. Incremental Increase
3 Each 1 cent generates $1.8 million
4 FY2018 -19 Budget and Beyond
5 Operating Budget Policy Issues
6 Enterprise Department Subsidies
7 Solid Waste Subsidy - $1 million annually contained in model
8 Sportsplex Subsidy — debt service ranges from $170,000 to $350,000; currently
9 no indirect costs
10 Intergovernmental Services Provision
11 Opportunities to Expand Shared Services
12 Regionalization of Programs and Services
13 Charges for Services - Cost Recovery
14 Examine Fully Loaded Costs, Benchmarking
15 Payment in Lieu of Taxes for Parks and Recreation
16 Building and Inspections Permit Costs
17 Services Provided to Municipalities
18 Register of Deeds Fees — Legislative Agenda
19 FY2018 -19 Budget and Beyond
20 Operating Budget Policy Issues
21
Use of Outside Agencies
22
Contract for Specific, County Directed Services
23
Outside Funding Sources
24
Grants
25
Sponsorships
26
Naming Rights
27
Fundraising
28
Economic Development Priorities
29
Clarified Later in Retreat
30 FY2018 -19 Budget and Beyond
31 Capital Budget Planning — Debt Affordability
32 Based on Approved Capital Investment Plan & Tax Rate Adjustment Options
33 FY2018 -19 Budget and Beyond
34 Capital Budget Planning — Long Term Debt Capacity Model
35 FY2018 -19 Budget and Beyond
36 Questions and Comments
37 FY2018 -19 Budget and Beyond
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
15
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Mr. Myren said there is no requirement for
the County to continue funding the Other Post - Employment Benefits (OPEB) account. In
fact, last year the County did not make an OPEB contribution, he said. OPEB contributions
could increase as the County's Full -Time Equivalent number increases. We know the
potential liability and are including it on our balance sheet. Commissioner McKee said he
feels the Board is obligated to fund OPEB. Ms. Hammersley said that everyone who is
eligible is receiving their benefits. The OPEB account is a savings tool we have to ensure, if
there are not enough "pay as you go" funds, then our retired employees would still be able
to receive their benefits. We are one of only two counties in the state that maintain an OPEB
account, she said. In states with greater economic challenges such as California and
Michigan it is needed more. I'm not opposed to the idea of the account, she said, but there
is a challenge to us when we're trying to figure out whether to serve residents or fund this
savings account. Last year when we faced that challenge, we chose not to put additional
money into the account. Commissioner McKee said he supported last year's decision, and
that there is no guarantee that we will not be faced with the same economic challenges as
the places where OPEB accounts are required. We have an ethical obligation to provide for
the former employees we have made promises to, he said. Ms. Hammersley said that the
County is indeed providing for them.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Mr. Myren said that "the break" anticipated
in new technology projects means the County will complete innovations that already have
been budgeted. This will enable the administration to continue with improvements that will
pose no burden on the budget.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Mr. Myren said that a one -time increase
in the property tax rate of 4.56 cents would be combined with increased revenues from other
sources and /or reductions in expenditures.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner McKee, Mr. Myren said that Sportsplex operations
are indeed generating a surplus. The surplus is plowed back into operations to help the
organization absorb operational cost increases and stabilize its user fees.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Mr. Myren said the County's current
practice is to recapture through fees a little better than 80% of the costs of issuing building
and inspections permits.
• In reply to question from Commissioner Burroughs, Mr. Myren said the long term debt
capacity model he presented — in which as much as $200M of additional borrowing over six
years begins to be available in FY2024 -25 if the County chooses to maintain $35M in debt
capacity — also assumes one of the two tax increase scenarios he presented earlier.
• Commissioner McKee said that the state of local school facilities, the increasing age of
County facilities, and population increases will require continued or increased capital
investment by the County over time. He asked the County staff to provide information on
what the expected demand will be for school and County facilities into the future, and how
that will impact borrowing and the tax rate. Ms. Hammersley said the chart on Capital
Budget Planning — Long Term Debt Capacity Model illustrates when (i.e., FY2024 -25) the
County could afford to do another bond referendum if the Board so chooses.
• In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Mr. Myren explained that while both of the
tax - increase scenarios are designed to pay for peak debt service ($39M) in FY2021 -22, the
one -time tax increase generates more than is needed in the year it's collected. The
additional revenue from the one -time increase would be placed in a capital reserve account
to pay for the debt service when it peaks. The incremental model collects revenue to cover
expenses "as you go" each year they are in effect.
Travis Myren's presentation ended and the group continued its discussion:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
16
Commissioner Price said she is concerned about residents' ability to live affordably. Tax and
fee increases are going to make it more expensive to build and to live here. We could be
moving in the direction of making Orange County too exclusive. It's heart- wrenching to hear
that long term residents have to move to Durham or Alamance because taxes and fees here
are too expensive for them.
Commissioner Burroughs agreed that social justice is a factor. And, she said, there is an
$11 M structural imbalance that we are required to address. I believe we will have to raise
taxes, either using the one -time or the incremental scenario. And I would make the case
now that we should go with the one -time increase option. She offered the following reasons:
first, no one likes tax increases, so doing it three years in a row is more painful than doing it
once. Second, this Board cannot bind future boards. We cannot count on future boards to
join us in fixing the structural imbalance. It is our responsibility as the Board today to provide
the solution. Third, we told folks who voted for the bond that there would be a tax increase in
FY18 -19. The farther in time we get from the bond referendum that generated this need, the
more distant the tax payers will be from those made the decision to raise their own taxes. A
one -time increase would maintain a closer connection between those who incurred the
obligation and those who are going to pay for it.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he feels strongly that a recession will occur in the not -too-
distant future. At the same time, our relationship with the State and federal governments has
never been worse. In my household when a big storm is predicted we get conservative
about how we handle our resources and how we make our plans. I want to take a more
conservative approach to the County budget until after the next recession and after the next
elections give me a firmer feel about the future, he said. My instinct right now would be to
agree with Mia, and have a full increase now before there is a crisis, and hope it will help us
to build up a cushion to weather the storm. Her other reasons were valid as well: a one -time
increase would be more palatable and predictable for people. Most people do not have a lot
of time in their lives to follow everything we do, so doing it once will be less of a burden on
them.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Ms. Hammersley said that in the absence
of any changes there will be a budget shortfall in FY18 -19 of $7M. Commissioner Dorosin
said that a tax increase is too narrow a frame for the Board's discussions today. The
broader discussion is whether our policies and practices have created an unaffordable
situation for residents. I don't think it's fair to say we don't like tax increases — I believe in
providing the funds the government needs to provide services. But the taxes here are very
high. It's easy when a lot of wealthy people tell us to raise their taxes, but there are people
moving away because they cannot afford to live here. We need to have three elements in all
our discussions: efficiencies, potential revenue increases -- like a tax increase -- and
potential cuts, he said.
Commissioner Jacobs said that he agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos's perspective
regarding "the coming storm" and with Commissioner Dorosin's suggestion that the group
consider a range of solutions. We also have to look at the undesignated fund balance, he
said. I've been on the Board during periods when the property tax rate increased for eleven
years, and for the past eight years when it only went up once. We have come to the point in
terms of affordability where I think a tax increase is a last resort. The fund balance should be
the fourth part of the equation. My goal would be to pay for the school bonds without raising
taxes; I don't think we can answer today whether we can do that or not. It's a little early to
17
1 figure out what we are going to do. I would like to say that we have a priority order for
2 decision making, where a tax increase is at the end. We might have to raise the tax, and it is
3 part of our responsibility to meet our fiscal obligations, but there are different ways that we
4 can get there.
5
6 Commissioner Rich said she was thinking along the same lines as Commissioner Jacobs.
7 Different residents of the county have different expectations of what our budget should be
8 and what we should be spending money on. Not everybody is going to be happy when we
9 start cutting or if we raise taxes. We should balance out as best as possible all that is before
10 us. Commissioner Jacobs added that the tax equity study's presentation of the difference in
11 income across the different areas of the county is eye- opening. That's a factor we never
12 really discuss, but it's an underlying current in everything we do.
13
14 Commissioner McKee said that when he joined the Board seven years ago he was
15 adamantly opposed to any tax increase, because of the ten or eleven years of constant tax
16 increases. I have evolved in my thinking, he said. I don't see how we are going to be able to
17 go forward long term without some tax increase. But I also don't see how we can remain
18 healthy and affordable without cuts; and those cuts are going to be painful and they are
19 going to be adamantly opposed. We are going to have to be prepared for that. We're not
20 going to see the storm that Commissioner Marcoplos referred to earlier, before it hits.
21
22 Commissioner Burroughs expressed appreciation for Commissioner Dorosin's broadening of
23 the conversation. We definitely should look at efficiencies, cuts, and "selling the cow" by
24 making a short term adjustment in our reserves. We can talk at a high level about all these
25 things, but when we come back to this conversation after today we will be responding to the
26 Manager's budget, she said. In fairness to the Manager, and as leaders, we need to give the
27 Manager some specific direction. In reply to a question from Commissioner Marcoplos. Ms.
28 Hammersley said it would be helpful to hear specific suggestions for cost efficiency
29 opportunities from the Commissioners, perhaps after the lunch break.
30
31 Commissioner Price said she agreed with the broader look suggested by Commissioner
32 Dorosin. We also have to be mindful of approaches that others can take to help the county
33 address the local economy, which impacts the County budget. She acknowledged the work
34 Commissioner Rich is doing on the living wage, for example. Economic development that
35 brings in jobs and additional development are factors affecting our budget as well, she said.
36
37 Commissioner Rich asked the staff to present after the lunch break on the actual dollar
38 amounts that would be added to the household budgets of owners of differently valued
39 homes under the two tax - increase scenarios.
40
41 12:00 Lunch Break
42
43 12:45 Continue Budget Exercise
44 We'll focus on the set of items favored by a majority of the Board for the next
45 discussion:
46 • What Board values /goals is advanced by this set of potential priorities, and how?
47 • What concerns would staff or Board members have if this (majority) set of budget
48 priorities were adopted by the Board?
49 • How might the Board or staff address those concerns?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
• Do you need to prioritize further? If so, do one more round of votes and discuss, as
needed and time allows.
The conversation continued after the lunch break, as follows:
• Mr. Myren presented a slide showing the information requested by Commissioner Rich just
before the break. He agreed to distribute the slide to the Commissioners, including
information on houses valued at $150,000 and $200,000.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Mr. Myren said that the incremental
scenarios would bring in 2.3 cents per $100 valuation more at the end of five years than the
one -time tax increase. Commissioner Dorosin said that if we have an amount to cover, then
the tax increase should be set to bring in that target amount and not any more. In reply to a
question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Myren said that in the years following Year 5, the
increase would be "embedded" unless the Board changed the tax rate.
The facilitator asked the Board if it was ready to brainstorm specific suggestions for efficiencies,
revenues, cuts, and reserves. Commissioner Rich said that it might be premature. We don't
know what the discussions are within each of the Departments, she said. We don't know what
they need to keep services at an acceptable level. Ms. Hammersley said that the Functional
Leadership Team will be identifying core functions and mandated services, to clarify the areas in
which there is flexibility. We would be interested in hearing today if the Board had specific items
or general areas that it would like the staff to look into. Doing it now would give us all more time
to investigate our options, she said. And it doesn't all have to be done today. Board members
can follow -up with an email of ideas to me and Mr. Myren, she added.
Commissioner Rich said she wanted the County to continue its commitment to a living wage.
I'd like for the people who work for the County to have the opportunity to live in the county,
she said. Ms. Hammersley said that the lowest paid non - temporary County employee now
makes $15.00 /hour. The lowest paid temporary position is at $13.75 /hour. Commissioner
Marcoplos said that the Orange County Living Wage is calculated on rental housing; it is a
"housing wage." There would be another number for home ownership, he added.
• Commissioner Rich said she would like the County to look at how to better address the
services for the aged. People providing caretaker services for the elderly need our support,
for example opportunities for finding some free time for themselves.
Commissioner Marcoplos noted that 80% of buildings and inspections permitting costs are
covered by the consumer, and 20% is subsidized by the County. I don't think it would
unpalatable to most builders in most cases if 100% of the cost were covered by the
consumer. Although it is not meaningless, it is a relatively small part of the cost of projects,
he said. Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks the County should charge 100 %, now that
the County no longer can charge impact fees for housing.
• Commissioner Marcoplos suggested that the staff consider the economics of the County
running its own solid waste transfer station.
• Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the staff look at the Hillsborough circulator for
possible cuts. Also, when we meet with Hillsborough in February we might want to raise the
idea of the Town participating in the funding. If we're only seeing a few hundred people a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
19
month and paying six figures for that, then we might want to look at more efficient ways of
serving them.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested that the staff look at programs the County has invested in
after the recession and after the State cut funding to those programs. For example, the
Family Success Alliance. Like the rest of us, he said, I am a "do- gooder" and in general
supportive of such investments to keep these programs robust. But, for example, our
support to FSA is currently structured as an open -ended cost to us. It is a County function
only because we have chosen it to be. I don't think we should pull the rug out from under the
people already hired, but we need to get a handle on future costs. Commissioner Burroughs
added that FSA is getting outside grants. Let's look at programs we have added in the last
five or six years, he said. Let's also look at the percentage increases in per pupil funding, he
added, compared to historical averages. The schools should understand that we are looking
at everything. I would not deny the schools their due, but we should be trying to keep things
in some kind of proportion. Unless we want to cut these other programs so we can give
more to the schools, we need to be clear about what we have and what we can invest in.
• Commissioner Dorosin said that it will be important to manage expectations, with the
schools and with the larger community. Everyone needs to understand that we have a $7
million gap that we have to close. We need to have the conversation with the schools now
rather than on May 1 when the budget is released.
• Commissioner Dorosin said that the Board also should look at "non -do- gooder" budget
items. The universe of things we will be reviewing should be broad, and not limited to items
we picked up because of the recession or Legislative cuts. It should include not only cuts,
but also delays, reprioritizing, etc.
• Commissioner Dorosin said that a tax increase should be the lowest priority across the
general options discussed so far at today's retreat.
• Commissioner Dorosin said the County needs to frame a message immediately about how
the County has gotten into this fiscal situation, including an explanation of the bond and the
education that took place earlier informing voters that the bond would lead to debt and a tax
increase.
• Commissioner Burroughs said that Family Success Alliance might need about $100,000
more in FY18 -19. It is getting outside funding through a Blue Cross Blue Shield grant to
Empowerment, Inc. They are working on raising additional non - County funding.
• Commissioner Burroughs said that while parks are "super important," she thinks the County
could defer improvements slated in the CIP until the County gets on the other side of the
current fiscal squeeze.
• Commissioner Burroughs also asked that the County consider what would happen if the
$1 M subsidy to the solid waste fund were temporarily suspended.
• Commissioner Price said that the focus on the Hillsborough circulator should be on
efficiency and not doing away with the service. The circulator carries people to Durham Tech
and other offices that people need to get to in order to receive essential services.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
20
• She also said that the County's investments in social programs not supported by the State,
such as the Family Success Alliance, are critical. She said that FSA's intergenerational
model for defeating poverty is especially important as the income gap in society widens.
• Commissioner Marcoplos agreed that messaging is important. Many people are under the
misconception that we "let the schools deteriorate," for example. We need to do a better job
at explaining.
• He and Commissioner Price said that cuts in social services programs will have
consequential costs. We should try to understand those costs, he said. How much will it cost
the Department of Social Services to make up for the costs we might make to FSA, for
example?
• Commissioner Jacobs said that in messaging, the County also should explain the loss of
impact fees, the impact of State mandated class -size reductions, the State's interest in
providing construction funds to charters and private schools, and the disincentive State
policies are having on some parents' decision to send their children to public schools. Our
fund balance actually helps us to stay ahead of these deprivations, he added.
• He read an email about the housing living wage sent to Board members by Mr. Myren in
June 2016. It said there are 97 employees who are earning below the hourly rate needed to
provide 30% or less of annual earnings dedicated to housing costs for a one bedroom
apartment. The cost of increasing those employees' earnings to $15.31 /hour would be
approximately $157,000.
• Commissioner Rich asked for "solid numbers" from staff for the cost of the ideas being
brainstormed today or otherwise under consideration. Commissioner Price agreed.
• While agreeing that a tax increase would be a last resort, Commissioner Burroughs said the
County probably will have to do it. A one -time increase will be less expensive to
homeowners than the incremental scenario, she added. She asked what other Board
members thought. They responded:
o Commissioner McKee said that a one -time tax increase would override any positive
or explanatory message the County tried to communicate. The conversation will be
dominated by the counter - message, that the Board is raising taxes by over four
cents. From that perspective, we would be better off phasing in the tax increase.
Second, the budget changes from year to year. I would be reluctant to do an
immediate raise, because I hope that our efforts at economic development,
efficiencies, cost reductions, other revenue enhancements, etc. will alleviate the
need in years 4 or 5 for those tax - increase increments.
o Commissioner Jacobs said a similar question came up within the Solid Waste
Advisory Group regarding the recycling fee, and the Manager recommended
phasing, he said. The group approved the recommendation, thinking that a one -time
increase in the fee would be too much sticker shock. The Group took no blow back at
all.
o Commissioner Price said that phasing is better. Although the tax increase will be
easy for some people to pay, there are other people in the county living month -to-
21
1 month. Even though residents can pay their tax bills in installments if they have to,
2 some cannot afford the rise. Maybe over the time period some people who do not
3 have a job now will have one.
4
5 o Commissioner Marcoplos said that he might change his mind, but today he is seeing
6 the advantages to a one -time increase. Phasing will make residents experience a tax
7 increase year after year; after only one increase over the past eight years residents
8 will find that repeated increase objectionable. The amount may not be as important
9 as the perception that we are in an era of tax increases. I also would like us to have
10 some revenue stored up front before what I expect will be a difficult future. I see the
11 benefits of phasing as well, he said, and I look forward to our continued discussions.
12
13 o Commissioner Dorosin said he is leaning toward phasing. It is how I would run my
14 home finances, he said: putting a large necessity on a credit card and paying the
15 amount off over time. If I thought all our residents could pay off the $7M all at once
16 then I would support a one -time increase, but we all can't. The one -time increase
17 might be enough to displace people.
18
19 o Commissioner Rich said she supports a one -time approach, at least right now. We
20 told folks that if they voted for the bond referendum it would mean a five cent
21 increase in their taxes. Residents will have to pay a lot more under the phased rather
22 than the one -time scenario. I think we should continue the conversation and weigh it
23 out together.
24 o Commissioner Jacobs noted that the Board has been talking about the highest
25 possible increase under the two scenarios. If we actually did some of the other things
26 — cost reductions, other revenue enhancements, efficiencies, adjusting the reserves
27 — then the tax increase might be lower — two cents instead of four cents -- and more
28 palatable as a one -time event.
29
30 o Commissioner Marcoplos said that another option is to phase in the increase in two
31 increments (year one and three, for example).
32
33 o Commissioner Price said that when the tax increases stopped over the past eight
34 years, residents' expectations settled around the idea that the tax rate does not
35 increase. She added that even if the Board decided on a one -time increase for FY18-
36 19, there is no guarantee that new conditions would not arise making it necessary to
37 increase taxes again in the next or in future years.
38
39 Ms. Hammersley thanked the Board for this discussion. She said her thinking when
40 recommending phasing to SWAG was that in the later years an opportunity might arise to
41 help avoid the later phases. The numbers are not my primary consideration when I craft a
42 budget recommendation, she said. The primary consideration is the balance across
43 environmental sustainability, social justice, and economic vibrancy. We're affecting people's
44 lives, and we need to keep that in mind as we make our decisions. We'll give you as much
45 information as we have to help you in understanding the impacts. This is the first time we
46 have talked about the budget before the budget, and it is giving me a greater perspective for
47 thinking about how I'm going to address this without surprises for you all.
48
49 Commissioner Rich said that the County's messaging on the budget situation has to happen
50 repeatedly. It used to be you had to say something three times before people remembered
51 it, now that number might be seven. It's important for us not to have our message hijacked.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
22
Commissioner Dorosin said that the message should not be depressing, about scarcity. We
should emphasize some of the positive things we are doing around affordable housing,
around FSA, around the things the bond is allowing us to do at Chapel Hill High and for
housing. We are careful and responsible stewards of the public's monies, and from that
stewardship we are accomplishing great things for our residents. Ms. Hammersley added
that this is a manageable situation. It is not "slash and burn;" it will help us to be even more
creative at finding better ways together to meet our residents' needs. Commissioner Dorosin
added that the long term picture looks especially good.
1:45 Stretch Break
2:00 Economic Development Districts
After a short break, Jim Kitchen, Chair of the County's Economic Development Advisory Board,
introduced Joe Hines and Blake Hall of the Timmons Group. Timmons Group presented on the
Economic Development Site - Related SWOT Analysis that they had conducted (PPT):
SWOT ANALYSIS
Overview
❑ Why is Economic Development
Important to the County
❑ Background Review
❑ Study Findings
❑ Study Recommendations
❑ Wrap -up discussion
Why do you need Economic Development?
❑ Creates Living Wage" Jobs & Opportunity for ALL your citizens (blue collar and white collar
jobs)
❑ Local tax revenue from Real Estate and Machinery & Tools
❑ State tax revenue from Employee Wages & State Income Tax
❑ Helps build resourcesfor your locality and state
❑ Creates wealth within your community
❑ Social Justice- allows you to build schools, pay for healthcare and other social programs as
well as help set up training programs for your citizens
Where Orange County stands today....
❑Lacking "Ready to Go" Sites and Buildings
❑ Not as much developable property as we thought once you place constraints on the
properties & remove inhabited properties
❑ Ever increasing competitive market with shorter and shorter timelines for decisions tobe
made (i.e. Need diverse "Ready to Go" Product)
❑ Properties are overpriced compared to adjacent localities (Alamance)
❑ Lacking water & sewer capacity (gallons per day) in districts
❑ Missing out on opportunities for Prospects due to lack of Sites and Buildings as well as
inadequate water & sewer capacities
Desired Outcomes of Study
❑ More balanced " Residential vs. Non - Residential Split of Tax Revenues
❑ Try to accomplish 70/30 Split Countywide
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
23
❑ Create Living Wage Jobs for existing residents
❑ Preserve Uniqueness & Culture of Orange County
❑ Economic Development outcomes should be a major consideration for infrastructure
investments
❑ Better coordination with other County Departments and Utility Systems (i.e. Planning, Utilities,
etc.)
The Big Picture
❑ Economic Development Partnership of NC and North Carolina is moving up the business
rankings
❑ Need to align your sites & infrastructure with the market
❑ It takes time and resource (financial and political) to commit to a longterm Economic
Development Strategy
❑ Orange County appears to be at the intersection of Commerce and Trade with 1 -40 and 1 -85
merger
❑ We're bullish on the future of Orange County
❑ Now is the time to align your resources and commit to make your own future"
❑ Economic Development is getting increasingly competitive
Site Selection Magazine
Site Selectors' Top Location Criteria
1 Existing Workforce Skills Strong
2 State and local tax scheme Marginal to Competitor Localities
3 Transportation Infrastructure Strong
4 Utility Infrastructure Lacking / Needs Improvement
5 Land / Building prices & supply Marginal / High
6 Ease of permitting & regulatory procedures Marginal
7 Flexibility of Incentive Programs Neutral
8 Right -to -work State Strong
9 Availability of incentives Neutral
10 Access to higher education resources Strong
How fast are prospects moving?
$4.93 billion investment & over 14,000 jobs
2014 — Boeing announced $1.1 billion & 2,000 add'l jobs
Orange County — Unique Assets & Opportunities
= Two Interstate s: -1B5 and 1 -40 Merge
= UNC Chapel Hill & Durham Technical Community College
= Adjacent to Research Triangle Park
= RDU and GS International Airports
= On the cusp of RTP and Piedmont Triad
=Diverse Culture &Millennial Coolness'Factor
= Rural Character with Urban Access / AmenitiesActs as a "Gateway" for Northeast US
(via 1 -85) and Eastern NC (via 1 -40) to Western NC and Southeastern US
Orange County — Southeastern US
Access to markets via 1 -40, 1 -85 & 1 -95
• Map
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
24
Orange County — Regional Perspective
• Map
Orange County — 2015 NCDOT Interstate Traffic Counts
• Map
Orange County vs. Rest of NC Comparative Traffic Counts
County (City)
Durham (Durham)
Interstate
1 -85
1 -40
Wake (Raleigh)
1 -40
Alamance (Burlington)
1 -40 & 1 -85
Guilford (Greensboro) 1 -40
& 1 -85
Mecklenburg (Charlotte)
1 -85
1 -77 74,000 to 182,000
Forsyth (Winston - Salem)
1 -40
1 -40 Bus
Orange
1 -40
1 -85
1 -40 & 1 -85
2015 NCDOT Traffic Counts
46,000 to 96,000
90,000 to 181,000
104,000 to 167,000
111,000 to 123,000
69,000 to 135,000
108,000 to 178,000
52,000 to 103,000
50,000 to 77,000
58, 000 to 73, 000
43, 000 to 47, 000
98, 000 to 103, 000
Natural Opportunities - 8 Interstate Interchanges within the CITAN's and EDD's
• Map
Opportunity Costs — Does Water &Sewer Matter? What Mfgr Opportunities has Orange missed
out on...
• Graph
Opportunity Costs? What has Orange County lost out on to Alamance
• Graph
Project Sky — Large Grocery Distribution Center
❑ $328 Million Investment
❑ 1,100 jobs
❑ $41,000 / yr ( laving Wage " Jobs)
❑ Orange County Submitted
❑ 4 site visits to Buckhorn Road Sites
❑ Met in closed session to pre - authorize local incentives
❑ TBD where they will locate -- •.
What has Orange County had a legitimate shot to win?
Opportunities from2012 — 2017 Potential Investment Potential
Jobs
Manufacturing $1.3 to $1.6 Billion 2,400
to 2,555
Distribution / Alamance $393 Million 1,304
Project Sky $328 million 1,100
Totals $2.0 to $2.3 Billion 4,804 to 4,959
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
25
Water & Sewer Capacities for EDD's / CITAN's
• Graph
METHODOLOGY FOR SITE ANALYSIS
❑ Sites Analysis
❑ For Sale /Vacant
❑ Les s than 5 Acres / Residential (excluded from developable area)
❑ Greater than 5 Acreswith structures on land (excluded need to approach land owners)
Environmental / Physical Constraints
❑ Streams, Buffers
❑ Easements
❑ Topography
❑ Wetlands, Floodplains
Jurisdictional
❑ Impervious limitations
❑ Landscape Buffers
❑ Building setbacks
❑ Zonirg
❑ Highway overlay buffer
Additional Considerations
❑ Adjacent land use
❑ Ae s th e tic s
❑ Engineering Judgement
Buckhorn CITAN — Case Study
• Map
Eno CITAN- Case Study
• map
Overall Summary — Developable Acres- graph
Totals 549 3,010 615 2,396
ACTUAL Developable Acreage of PODs = 668 Acres or 22%
* Assumes no property constraints, structures, setbacks or parcel boundaries
Overall Summary — Developable Acres
Total County Acreage — 272,546 Acres
EDD's
Acreage within EDD's — 2,379 Acres
GIS Acreage (Excluding R/W) — 1,856 Acres
Available & Vacant Lands — 832 Acres
Developable Pods - 454 Acres - 0.17% of Total land in County
CITAN's
Acreage within CITAN's — 1,494 Acres
GIS Acreage (Excluding R/W) — 1,154 Acres
Available & Vacant Lands — 495 Acres
Developable Pods - 214 Acres - 0.08% of Total land in County
Industrial Investment & Trends- graph
❑ Morinaga: $48 Million for 120,000 SF ($400 per SF)
❑ Water & Sewer Requirements: 40,000 GPD
❑ Site Size: 21 acres
❑ Adjacent Parcel: 55 acres
❑ Potential Build -out: 360,000 SF (3 Morinaga's)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
26
What can Economic Development afford the County? A realistic scenario... graph
Real Estate Tax Rate: $0.8377 per $100
Key Take Aways
❑ Data Indicates Orange County has Legitimate Prospect Activities and Opportunities to close
deals
❑ There is less developable acreage than originally anticipated in the EDD's and CITAN's
❑ Water & Sewer capacity is an issue for recruiting high $$ per SF industries (Food &
Beverage, Manufacturing /Bio, IT /Data Centers)
❑ Orange County has some legitimate properties that can be developed, however, the County
needs to be thinking beyond the existing CITAN's and EDD's
❑ Economic Development opportunities can generate significant tax revenues to help pay for
Infrastructure, Schools and other key County
Services in addition to creating "living wage" jobs
Other factors to consider...
❑ Curb Appeal & Compatible uses are factors
❑ Ease of access to Interstates &Turning Movements
❑ Residential Development &Potential Traffic Patterns
Land Prices Revisited
Alamance County — Comparable Land Sales- graph
Land Prices Revisited
Durham County — Comparable Land Sales- graph
Current Listings on Real Estate Market Alamance County (as of Dec 31, 2017) -graph
• Average Price Per Acre= $33,809
Current Listings on Real Estate Market Durham County (As of Dec 31, 2017) -graph
• Average Price Per Acre= $40,744
Current Listings on Real Estate Market Orange County (As of Dec 31, 2017)
• Average Price Per Acre= $51,681
Relative Comparison of Real Estate Pricing
Relative Comparison of Real Estate Pricing
County
Buckhorn EDD — Optimistic Build Out 3.1 M SF
Why are projects NOT locating here?
• Adjacent Residential Development
• Adjacent to Schools / Soccer Fields
• Limited access due to rail on north side of interstate
• Lack of Water & Sewer
• Land costs significantly higher than competing sites in adjacent locals
Immediate Recommendations
❑ Enter discussions with Mebane to increase capacity within water & sewer agreement
❑ Have Planning Department interact with the Economic DevelopmentDepartment on a regular
(monthly) basis and during infrastructure planning stages.
❑ Work with the Towns &revisit intergovernmental agreements to make sure they are
conducive to the needs of Economic Development
❑ Approach property owners about willingness to sell their properties within the Buckhorn,
Efland and Hillsborough EDD's / CITAN's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
27
Prioritize development of the top sites in EDD's / CITAN's
❑ Buckhorn CITAN: Property on Ben Wilson Road
❑ Buckhorn EDD: Rohl / Collins Property, Flea Market Property, Clark Property
❑ East Efland CITAN: 304 Mt Willing Road— Rezone to align with development goals
❑ Hillsborough EDD: approach property owner on NW quadrant of intersection of 140 and Old
86 to gage willingness to sell. Continue activity at southwest quadrant.
Immediate Recommendations
Complete necessary due diligence to achieve Tier 4 status on top sites.
❑ Geotechnical, Wetland Delineations, Topographic & ALTA Boundary Surveys, etc.
Tier 4 is considered "Certifiable" status and has eliminated any UNKNOWNS or
RISKS regarding site or infrastructure development that could negatively impact timeline for
development. Generally 9 -12 months of development timeline.
BUDGET: Site dependent but generally $1,000 to $1,500 per Acre with infrastructure
already in place (significantly increases value of property on a per acre basis)
Immediate Recommendations
❑ Align zoning within CITAN's and EDD's to be consistent with preferred development goals
Immediate Recommendations
Consider adjusting boundaries of EDD's /CITAN's AND Water & Sewer Districts to include large
tracts adjacent to these districts with low cost of development (utility extensions, etc.).
Significant property within the EDD's and CITAN's have been lost to Non or Minimal Tax Paying
entities such schools, soccer fields, solar farms, etc. In order to potentially gain that area back
there may be opportunities to expand or redraw the boundaries of the EDD's and or
CITAN's. There are a few larger tracts with minimal environmental impacts located near or
adjacent to the existing EDD's/CITAN's that could be explored; however this may mean
adjusting the water sewer agreements.
BUDGET: $10,000 to $15,000 in Consultant time to evaluate parcels as well as Staff Time
Thinking outside the EDD's and CITAN's - Buckhorn CITAN — Example Parcels- MAP
Study Recommendations
Complete a countywide water and sewer study to identify options to increase water and sewer
capacities.
A countywide water and sewer study would identify opportunities to increase and expand water
and sewer capacities within each service area. A full study would help the County to better
understand the limiting factors and what the cost and timelines are needed to increase the
availability. The ED staff is losing opportunities regularly based on not being able to meet the
demands for water and /or sewer.
This needs to be completed on behalf of the County, and not the jurisdictions or authorities who
own and manage the water & sewer systems.
BUDGET: $75,000 to $100,000
Study Recommendations
Complete a GIS Site Selection Study to identify sites with greatest development potential near
or adjacent to development corridors.
A GIS site selection study is a non -bias computer based site selection study that can look over
all parcels within a county or selected area to determine developability based on selection
criteria defined. For example, if the parameters were to identify all parcels with XX acres of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
4 H.11
developable acres adjacent to rail within XX miles of the interstate, queries would be run to find
the best parcels available. Once the data is assembled running queries can be run quickly.
BUDGET: $15,000 to $25,000
Study Recommendations
Consider advantages of developing "Ready to Go" product. Could form a public - private
partnership.
❑ Shovel /Pad Ready Sites
❑ SpecBuildings
Approximately 60 -70% of inquiries come in for Shovel / Pad Ready Sites and /or Existing
Buildings. Shovel ready and speculative building has some risk based on the financial
investment needed to develop sites; however, it is best way to reduce development timelines
and has proven to be a successful model in other locations throughout the state.
BUDGET: $50 to $100 per SF for Spec Buildings (including site work)
$50,000 to $100,000 per acre for Shovel /Pad Ready Sites
Study Recommendations
Consider gaining "control" of properties (i.e. option agreements) with high development
potential. These sites would be identified with the GIS Site Selection Study.
Approximately 60 -70% of inquiries come in for Shovel / Pad Ready Sites and /or Existing
Buildings. Shovel ready and speculative building has some risk based on the financial
investment needed to develop sites; however, it is best way to reduce development timelines
and has proven to be a successful model in other locations throughout the state.
BUDGET: $100 to $200 per acre for options
Study Recommendations
Reinitiate Discussions & explore developing a research park with UNC Chapel
Hill and taking advantage of the research and entrepreneurial culture of the Research Triangle
Park (RTP).
Developing a relationship with UNC and developing a common goal to create a research park
could be an easy step to help the County and University attract talent and industry to the region
similar to other Universities throughout the Country.
BUDGET: Staff Time
Comparable University Parks- graph
Other Considerations
❑ Re- evaluate and potentially reallocate funds for existing water and sewer projects that appear
to have minimal ROL
❑ Evaluate and enhance the expre s s " review process to make sure it is consttent with "fast -
track" permitting in the site selection market.
❑ Pursue grant opportunities for top sites (this will most likely require property cbntrol').
❑ Gold Leaf
[:]Duke Energy Site Readiness Program
❑ Evaluate underdeveloped interchanges in the county (Exit 263 & 266 in particular).
Recommendation Per Area
Buckhorn EDD
❑ Work with Flea Market property owner on land price vs comps
❑ Complete due diligence items for available properties
❑ Work with the City of Mebane to increase water and sewer availability
Hillsborough EDD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
29
❑ Meet with land owner for property on northwest quadrant to gage willingness to sell
❑ Extend sewer south of interstate 40
❑ Complete Due Diligence items such as environmental investigation
Recommendation Per Area
Eno EDD
❑Investigate willingness to sell large tracts on western side of district,
(potential rail sites, although these do not have sewer, long term goals show
providing sewer to this area).
❑ Look at reducing size of district to minimize residential
❑ Work to deNelop option to make the 70/85 interchange more user friendly Buckhorn CITAN
❑ Work to rezone parcels to protect them from development that is not in the best interest of
Orange County and Economic Development staff.
❑ Secure the land south of Morinaga to rrevent from residential development.
❑ Look to expand water and sewer boundary agreement and extend boundary south of
Bowman Road
❑ Look for opportunities to extend water service within the district.
Recommendation Per Area
West Efland CITAN
❑ Study options to provide access to site
❑ Review site to determine if rail service is possible
❑ Complete an environmental investigation to determine if streams and buffers are correct.
❑ If the above can be accommodated look to extend sewer service to the properties.
East Efland
❑ Work to provide access from exit 160 at Ben Johnson Road to extend to the large pod to the
west.
❑ Work with Orange - Alamance water to expand serviceability for new users in the area
❑ Complete environmental assessments for the largest devebpable property
❑ Look into options to support one large user (may require relocation new sewer)
Recommendation Per Area
Hillsborough CITAN
❑ Look for site options to expand the existing facilities should the existing user want to remain
on site
❑ On the smaller site to the north, work with residents to see willingness to sell although this is
a small parcel with heavy environmental constrains make this site challenging for development.
Cornelius
❑ Look to market vacant properties for redevelopment
❑Improve aesthetics within the district.
❑ Add sidewalks and bus shelters at bus stops
❑ Improve main intersections
❑ Focus on creating pedestrian connections from neighborhoods to Cornelius Street
❑ Look for grant opportunities for redevelopment
A Site Selector's Perspective
Additional Consultant Recommendations
❑ Regional Cooperation and Collaboration is a Major Key to Economic Development Success.
❑ Abandon the EDD & CITAN names— confusing to the Site Selection professionals relative to
other localities. Label them "Economic Development Corridors" or "Development Corridors"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
30
❑ Look at developing supplier / logistics parks for OEM's and other manufacturing companies.
Orange County has a tremendous opportunity given the logistics network in place with 1 -40 & I-
85 and proximity to RTP & Research Universities
❑ More swiftly implement Article 46 Funds for infrastructure related projects.
Study Conclusions
❑ Lacking beady to Go" Product
❑ Not as much developable property as we thought once you place constrains on the
properties & remove inhabited properties
❑ Ever increasing competitive market with shorter and shorter timelines for decisions to be
made (i.e. Need diverse "Ready to Go" Product)
El Properties are overpriced compared to adjacent localities(Alamance)
❑ Lacking water & sewer capacity in districts
❑ Missing out on opportunities for Prospects due to lack of product &inadequate water & sewer
capacities
In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Mr. Hall explained that vacant properties
were included in the site selection methodology regardless of whether the properties were for
sale; properties greater than five acres with housing structures on them were not included.
In reply to a question about living wages from Commissioner Marcoplos, Mr. Hines said that the
County's first step is to have a product, a suitable parcel with water and sewer available. That
way the County would be in the position to say No to undesirable prospects as opposed to the
prospects rejecting the County. Once the County has suitors, it can be more selective, for
example by using living wages as a criterion, he said.
Commissioner Jacobs said he has a mixed reaction to the report. For the most part what you
are describing is positive and hopeful, he said. I think we can address most of the concerns that
Timmons Group has raised. But it reads as though it does not understand Orange County's land
use plan, its environmental ethics, some of the reasons why we have done what we have done.
For example, siting a school in an EDD was the only way we were able to extend water and
sewer to the EDD at that time. Instead of looking at that as a negative, you should understand
that the school was how we got water and sewer to the area. Second, the two Interstate
interchanges you recommend for development are in the Rural Buffer, which for 25 years and
as an essential component of our land use plan is not to have water and sewer extension. Third,
you should not be referring to a countywide water and sewer plan; I think you mean a water and
sewer plan that is inclusive of the development corridor. We have watersheds into which we
decided 35 years not to extend water and sewer. Some of this just feels like boiler plate.
The other ideas — trying to get property ready for sale and trying to have property pre -zoned —
may be worth exploring, he said, although we just approved a development on a property that
was pre -zoned and the neighbors did not understand; we would need to accompany this
approach with a public education process.
Steve Brantley, Director of Economic Development for the County, said the county has some
theoretically developable properties, but they are disbursed across buffers, utility lines, streams,
homes, and properties that are not for sale. We don't see a lot of projects looking for one acre
sites, he said, and there are not a lot of one -acre sites contiguous to each other that can be
combined to support a larger footprint. The average site per acre of developable properties is
quite low, he said.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
31
In reply to a question from Commissioner McKee, Mr. Hines said the limited availability of water
and sewer is most significant factor is making the County's EDDs unattractive.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Mr. Hall said if there was not a sufficient supply
of willing land owners within an EDD then the availability of willing land owners adjacent to an
EDD might open up new opportunities.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Price, Mr. Hines said that "legacy issues" were factors
in the ability of the Planning and Economic Development Departments to collaborate. We want
to ensure that both departments are on the same page, he said. He referred to a transportation
study conducted by Planning that had not engaged Economic Development. A collaboration gap
exists between Orange County and Hillsborough as well, said Mr. Hall.
Commissioner Marcoplos suggested that the Board revisit the Eno EDD during a future work
session. We might no longer be looking at that area in the same way as we did 30 years ago, he
said. Perhaps some modifications are in order. There are a lot of residents near there, sensitive
environmental areas, a blighted Scottish Inn property which I can't imagine much better
replacing right now, and uncertainties about water and sewer. Maybe at that work session or
another time the Board can talk about boundary adjustment for the Buckhorn EDD.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Dorosin, Mr. Hines clarified that sewer service is an
even greater constraint than water supply. There is a limit on capacity now, and a further limit
imposed by the cost of providing that capacity, he said. If Mebane is going to spend $20M
upgrading its treatment capacity, for example, is Orange County going to pay for a proportion of
that cost in order to gain access to a proportion of that capacity? In addition, there are costs
associated with extending the water and sewer systems to the properties. Commissioner
Dorosin then asked f would make more sense to raise the profile of properties where there
already is water and sewer, beyond the EDDs.
Commissioner Dorosin wondered how realistic it is to think in terms of "getting another
Morinaga." Perhaps we're not competitive for developments like that, and instead should be
more strategic about realigning our approach to another model. Mr. Hines said that it would be
smart to prepare for the next Morinaga — at least to know the costs of water and sewer
extensions to likely sites -- so that when it appears the County is positioned to act. You won't
have time to act when the opportunity shows up. You need 12 months or less to extend the
utilities.
Commissioner Jacobs said that during negotiations with Mebane about the Buckhorn EDD, the
City opposed future water and sewer extension below NC -10. If Timmons is recommending that
kind of expansion, then the implementation is going to be much more complicated than
Timmons appears to appreciate.
Commissioner Jacobs said that Duke University might be interested in a research campus at
the Eno EDD. It's so expensive to bring water and sewer to that area that we will need a
partner, and the only partners possible are Duke and Durham. We tend to be focused on
Carolina, but Duke is Orange County's largest property owner.
Commissioner Jacobs said that "big game hunting" needs to fit into a larger economic
development strategy. Part of that is, how much are we willing to invest in a framework for "big
game hunting." We never have had that conversation. It would be good to have numbers to
inform us on what that would mean. Settlers Point was already zoned, but people still were very
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
32
unhappy that we were changing the way in which that property is going to be used. We should
not speak lightly about changing the borders of an EDD without doing a lot of outreach in
advance with the public. People here have a more aggressive attitude than elsewhere in the
state about how they want to be treated with regard to their land. I felt reading the report that
Timmons was doing what it was supposed to do, but that it was not as tuned to local conditions
as we are.
Commissioner Burroughs said she was struck this morning by the immediate impact the
Wegman's project has on the Orange County budget. "Big game hunting" can make a difference
on the budget, on the quality of life in Orange County, on taxes, and on the resources we have
available to do what we want to do.
In reply to a question from Commissioner Burroughs, Mr. Hall explained that sewer service
already exists on NC -10. In order to make the 95 acres south of NC -10 next to the Buckhorn
EDD available, the water and sewer boundary needs to be updated, he said. Water would need
to be extended from the Morinaga site. Mr. Benedict added that the land use plan would need to
be changed in order for the water and sewer boundary to change. Commissioner Burroughs
said she thinks it is time to have a discussion about changing the water and sewer boundary in
that area; 35 years is a long time, she added. She also said she is open to another conversation
with Mebane. I don't want us to assume that what we have done in the past in what we will do in
the future. On a smaller note, she added, I'm open to eliminating the name "CITAN." Every time
I see it I have to look up what it means.
Commissioner Rich said that the Board needs to have a work session to follow -up from today's
discussion. I would like to learn at that work session how much we are paying to support our
economic development efforts, and what the payoff is from that investment. I've been on this
Board for six years, and other than Morinaga and Wegman's I've not seen the needle move
forward, she said. In addition, at the work session we need to discuss Article 46 funding, she
said. The Towns have been asking for Article 46 funding, but we tell them we cannot give any of
it to them because we are investing it into economic development infrastructure.
I also agree with my colleagues here who already have said that we can think much further
outside of the box. Lots of smaller development might be more fitting than another Morinaga,
for example. Another research campus such as Carolina North might not be an appropriate
model for us, she said; that effort fell apart. And let's be careful about referencing Amazon as
the kind of business we would want to attract. Amazon has destroyed Seattle. It gentrified the
City, chased away the artists and grunge community, took away its charm, and raised the cost
of living to a ridiculous level.
Finally, she said, Mebane has a $4M surplus because it is directing its non - residential
development to its Alamance side and its residential development into Orange. Commissioner
McKee said that Mebane is directing non - residential development into Alamance because the
timeframes and cost of development are lower in Alamance than they are in Orange.
Commissioner McKee said that the County's fiscal situation calls for an approach to economic
development that is optimistic, hard headed, and realistic. Some of the decisions might get us
unelected, but let's not do the same things over and over and expect different results; that's the
definition of insanity. We've been doing the same thing with EDDs for 30 years. It's only recently
that we have put water and sewer in Buckhorn. Only in the past few months has this Board
moved forward with a sewer system in Hillsborough. The Eno EDD is still "on the books," but I
don't have a clue as to what that means. There are sites across Old NC -10 from the Buckhorn
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
33
EDD that we won't touch, but we all say it needs to be included. Let's pick a number — a
thousand feet, two thousand feet — and draw a line. A couple of years ago, he said, we added
five words to the Unified Development Ordinance that almost eliminated development at every
intersection with 1 -40 in Orange County: "where sewer and water exist." Those words were
added on the fly. Those words eliminate the otherwise prime developable properties at the 1 -40
intersections with NC -86 and New Hope Church Road, because those areas are in the Rural
Buffer. I don't have an issue with the Rural Buffer, but I do have an issue with a conversation
dominated by "you cannot touch this." We have to revisit this sacrosanct attitude. We can use a
little common sense here.
We're not going to catch a lot of "big game," he said, but we caught one with Morinaga and
another with Wegman's. They will have an immediate impact. Maybe we need a lot more along
the scale of USA Dutch. I agree with that. I have no problem with all sizes. And they are paying
decent wages. It's disconcerting to me to hear phrases like "Orange County values" and
"Orange County vision." Orange County is gentrified. We are not a rural county. Chapel Hill is
not a village. Hillsborough is not a mill town. If we don't take a different path with our economic
development then we are going to become an elitist, gated community.
I want to know what my fellow Board members mean when they say we need to realign our
strategy, he said. Does that mean we walk away from what we have been doing? I hope that
means we need to go out to get everything we can get. Commissioner Rich said that to her it
means an inventory of what we already have and what we have not yet gotten, of thinking of
new ideas for what we are doing. What we're doing now — what we have been doing for 30
years -- is not working. We need to start thinking at a higher level than how we have been
thinking. Commissioner McKee said that we should not change our approach just because there
will be a backlash in the community. I don't want to impinge upon the established residential
community next to the Eno EDD, he said, but we can take an area out of Eno, put water and
sewer there, and support some development. We have to have the willpower to stand up to the
backlash that's coming, he said.
Commissioner Price said that the Board has tried to protect the existing residential community
next to the Eno EDD. We've tried to put transitional kinds of development across the street from
residential areas so people are not living across from a manufacturing plant. Any plans should
be flexible. We need to reassess areas that have been stagnant for 30 years and decide anew
what to do with these chunks of land.
Commissioner Price said she was not seeing anything in the Timmons study about incubators,
cottage industries, small technology, etc. Those are the kinds of projects Jim Kitchen has been
working on with people in Chapel Hill. She noted that some of the Article 46 funds are being
used for small businesses. But most of the Timmons report is about manufacturing. I find that
kind of narrow, she said. Mr. Hines replied that Timmons looked for the "game changers" - the
big components and opportunities being missed for the small sites in Orange County if you had
the appropriate water and sewer infrastructure in place. There are a lot of indirect benefits to the
kinds of development Commissioner Price is talking about, he said. But we saw you already
taking steps to implement those sorts of things and wanted to show you the kinds of things you
are missing out on. Commissioner Price said she thinks the incubators, cottage industries, and
small technology businesses do not have to be indirect players, but significant components of a
diverse economic ecosystem.
Mr. Hines said that while sub - economies can underlie a local economy, Orange County will not
attract the kind of development it needs if it does not solve the water and sewer infrastructure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
34
issues Timmons is raising. We are aware that UNC -CH said no to that site, but times change,
people change, and there are too many of these university parks popping up around the country
to say that Orange County should not revisit that kind of development. American Underground
in downtown Durham is a phenomenal success story that contains Google and Apple and other
components. The business school at Duke University has an international footprint of over 60
countries that are alumni. I've had conversations with NC Commerce Secretary Copeland about
using that network as a path to attracting international companies to North Carolina. There is so
much here in the Triangle.
Commissioner Dorosin said that it would be relatively inexpensive for the County to address the
marginal rating identified on p. 7 in the Timmons report regarding "ease of permitting and
regulatory procedures." If there is other lower hanging fruit like that then I think we should
identify and address them, he said.
On the macro scale, he continued, I think a realigned economic development strategy means an
expansion of our options. If we have to do something different to make the EDDs successful,
then we have to determine what that is, such as extending water and sewer where we can, and
how much that costs, and then whether that cost is worth it. But I'm not sure it is worth it.
Wegman's is not in an EDD, it's in Chapel Hill. American Underground and Amazon want to be
close to a community and a downtown and things like that. I think we need to identify the most
valuable parcels in the County and focus on those. And where are the other opportunities?
There's the NC -54 study taking place that might identify potential in that corridor for commercial
development. There are issues associated with Old NC -86 we can discuss. I don't have the
answer, but I think there is a more comprehensive context to set before we agree to extend
water and sewer to these big parcels in order to better market them for economic development.
I worry that we might have over valued the highway as the greatest lure. I'm hearing that
Amazon wants an attractive social setting for its employees, where people can go to restaurants
and bars and cultural venues.
Commissioner McKee said that in the late 70's through to the early 2000's his perception of
"Orange County values" was that it was anti - business. We got behind our neighbors because of
that. Shopping centers located just beyond our borders would have provided millions of dollars
for us to use for parks and social services. I'm not interested in turning our intersections with I-
40 into Myrtle Beach. I am interested in determining whether a small foot print is available at the
Eno EDD that would not have a negative impact on the existing residential area, and in deciding
about whether to expand Buckhorn, and in looking elsewhere in the county including the Towns
for economic development. Wegman's wanted to be in town; I have no problem with supporting
the effort where ever it needs to be. But this Board is going to have to push forward.
Commissioner Marcoplos said that he used to imagine EDDs all built out. I now believe that's
not going to happen. Another way to look at this for the 21St century is to set a target of, say,
three larger businesses, to ask what kinds of businesses would have the impact we need in
terms of taxes and jobs, instead of trying to fill up all the EDDs. Then we can focus on those
while at the same time providing the kind of support needed by local businesses and some of
these other creative ideas. Then we might say, where is the land today that would generate the
most interest now among the kinds of two or three larger businesses we are interested in. Never
mind the lines they drew in the 80's when these EDDs were being created. That would help us
to shift our attention to the land that is going to get us where we want to go. Maybe we take the
east side of the Buckhorn district out, for rural land.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
35
And if we got a minor league baseball team here, he added, we could call it the Orange County
Values.
Commissioner Jacobs said that no Board member has ever opposed the extension of water and
sewer to the EDDs. Some of us worked hard to change the perception of Orange County from
being anti - business, and to a large extent I think we have succeeded, he said.
I would like to define a holistic view of economic development for Orange County, he added.
"Big game" has to fit into a context. There is a broader mosaic that we're working on that
includes the arts, tourism, agricultural economic development, etc. We need a conversation
about how all these things fit together and how we want to use our resources.
In addition, he said, it is no small thing for the people who are affected for us to change the land
use plan and have an effect on properties that people live on. We must talk with the residents
adjacent to the Eno EDD, and have a public component to this conversation.
Finally, he said, I do believe there are untouchable places here. We don't want to be like Wake
County or Durham County, and we sure don't want to be like Alamance County. It doesn't even
have zoning. We want to look like Orange County ten years from now, and fifty years from now.
We're way ahead of those counties in a lot of respects. We should be talking about the things
we have that we are proud of, not what we lack. Instead of talking about our land values being
so high, let's talk about how beautiful our land is. That's where tourism comes from.
Mr. Brantley thanked the Board for devoting time at the retreat for discussing economic
development. I've been here for over six years, and this is the first time we have had this level of
discussion. Please recall, he said, that the SWOT analysis was not intended to be a county
economic development review. It is specific to the EDDs and CITANs, which necessarily comes
with an industrial and warehousing focus. Also please recall that Article 46 was passed in 2011
in order to create a funding mechanism for extending utilities to economic development districts.
Recall that the 2005 economic development plan set 2010 as the target for when all the EDDs
would have infrastructure. The County did not have the funding, or start the Phase 1 Efland-
Mebane sewer line until 2010 -11. It will be two years from now before the Hillsborough EDD line
is completed, before the Efland Phase 2 line is completed, and maybe before the Eno EDD is
completed. We have not been waiting 30 years for the EDDs to generate economic value,
because in truth they have had no zoning up until recent years, no incentives until 2011, no
marketing, and no utilities. Article 46 also created funding for small business. That includes
PFAP, Launch, the small loans and grants, and arts and tourism. We're not discussing those
areas. I was hired in 2011 to be the Big Game Hunter. It was specific to not only managing the
Department's overall functioning and budget and to include these other areas, but also for the
first time to try to layer in some larger businesses recruitment in which Orange County had been
deficient for decades. We were fortunate in 2013 to get Morinaga. Our office sees new
prospects knocking on the door on a daily basis. We've gone over six years from getting zero
inquiries to now having seventy to eighty qualified inquiries a year that could help us meet the
budget that would have us paying at or beyond the living wage, creating job opportunities,
slowing or reversing gentrification, especially among blue collar residents. We're at a point in
market interest now that we should have been at 25 or 30 years ago. I get impatient when I see
projects, like Lid[ -- $110M- $150M, 200 -300 jobs -- that should be here but go somewhere else.
It could have been on one of our sites. We need to have utilities in place, and land that can have
houses on the sewer line paid for with Article 46 funds to serve Morinaga and other companies.
We do have some projects that max out our sewer capacity. The irony is that many of these
projects represent the tax base or the salaries at high levels that we want. We need to a have a
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
36
piece of Orange County economic development in addition to agriculture, tourism, and small
business, which we do well, focused on larger scale industrial recruiting. When we hit on that
regard we are going to be having a big win. When Morinaga announced here, they needed 90-
100 people; 900 people showed up at Durham Tech to apply for those jobs. In the first week of
February, I'm going to be meeting with two clients. One wants to put a hotel in one of our EDDs
and a large warehouse in another. The other has a 200 job, $20M project to make a medical
product. These are the kinds of projects that can fit here: we have the land, the sewer capacity,
the zoning, and the quality of life. So, that's what we should be focusing on in addition to all else
that we are doing. Let's not throw in the towel in terms of industrial recruiting at this level. Even
though we are not Alamance County, in the past three years they've announced 2,000 jobs and
a $1 B in investment. We can get a piece of that. RTP is east of us and Alamance to our west.
Chatham to the south of us has the new Chatham Park. We can't afford to be in a vacuum. We
have to be prepared to try to get what we want to attract.
Commissioner McKee said that the Board needs to have an honest conversation moving
forward. We will be walking into a buzz saw if we activate the Eno EDD, but we need to have
the conversation. I agree that there are Orange County values to uphold, he added. And I agree
that there are untouchable areas. I just don't think the land immediately to south of Old NC -10 is
untouchable.
Commissioner Rich said she is not ready to throw in the towel on "big game hunting." But none
of the current members other than Commissioners Jacobs and McKee were on the Board when
the Article 46 funds were designated for EDD infrastructure. I don't know why people from the
Towns did not speak up for those funds then, but it's a problem now when they ask for those
funds. I think that's wrong. There is economic development in the Towns that could be
encouraged with those funds. That's where businesses like Google want to be. I would like to
talk more about the Article 46 funds when we get back together to talk about economic
development.
Commissioner Marcoplos said he does not think it is all that risky to activate the Eno EDD.
While there may be a "buzz saw" on one side, somebody else will be handing us flowers. We'll
be thanked for expanding the tax base, for thinking about jobs, for making use of a district that
was set aside for economic development purposes.
Commissioner Price thanked Mr. Brantley for his remarks. She said she would be interested in
hearing from a university expert about the trends in entrepreneurship. I hear about young
people inventing things, starting businesses, and then moving from Orange County to expand.
Why aren't they remaining here when they expand? I want to hear about trends other than those
related to "big game hunting." I'm interested in economic development for the urban areas. Eric
Hallman has asked me why the County is not interested in this. I think Chapel Hill and Carrboro
would be interested in this as well. I also hear from people living near the Eno EDD: they are not
opposed to all development. They wouldn't mind a bank, for example. Or maybe drug store.
They just didn't want to see manufacturing. So we should continue to talk to people there.
Commissioner McKee said that he would be open to considering a proposal from the Towns to
use the Article 46 funds. If Wegman's had needed a sewer line, for example, then I would have
supported it, he said. Commissioner Jacobs said that it is only recently that Article 46 funds are
available. We told the towns that they would benefit from the tax revenues that would come from
the EDDs, and they supported our proposal to use Article 46 funds for the EDDs. We can
evaluate proposals from the towns on a case by case basis, but the philosophy is to use those
funds to catch up our capacity to support economic development in the EDDs by providing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
37
infrastructure. If we want to change the formula, then also should be talking about our small
business loan program, which is not as active as I had thought it would be. Let's put all this in
the context of a larger economic development strategy.
3:45 Retreat Wrap Up
Last thoughts from each person at the table reflecting on the retreat, including what worked well,
what to consider doing differently in future retreats?
Each person at the table had the opportunity to share their last thoughts:
Commissioner Rich — I always get something good from our retreats. It is helpful to talk freely
and to learn. The room does not have good acoustics, so I don't think I would want to return to
this location. Otherwise a good day.
Commissioner Dorosin — I appreciate everyone's candor. I think it would be better to have more
engagement from staff, at least to have staff sitting closer so that it would be more conducive for
staff to participate. There was more presentation today than I would have wanted. I value the
back and fourth among us. I wonder if next year the presentations could be provided at a Board
meeting prior to the retreat or as material to review in advance. Resource people could be
available for questions, but not to present. I liked having the focus today on a single or two
related topics; these were the right topics to take up now. Finally, I think we need to consider
our messaging: how what we talk about gets talked about. The facilitator did a good job.
Commissioner Burroughs — The "appreciation" ice breaker at the start helped us to disagree
comfortably later in the day. I liked the presentations here, in real time. They focused my mind
and kept the material fresh for our conversations. I wish you all luck next year!
Commissioner Marcoplos — I find it valuable and satisfying to have these kinds of discussions,
to have ancillary ideas arise from our back and forth. I think we should have a conversation
about our communications: how we communicate, how our ideas get communicated, how our
policies get explained, how we operate in this new media environment. Thanks to all in
attendance. This was a great event.
Mr. Myren — It was a great discussion. We got sufficient direction. I look forward to putting
together the budget.
Ms. Hammersley — This was very helpful to us, and for the team that is here today. We do not
see the challenges as a negative. It is always the case that there are not enough resources to
do everything we want. This meeting today was beneficial because the Board's input to us is
very important. We heard from you today, before we enter the budget process, and that will
make the coming process even better than the ones we have had before — which you have told
me you have appreciated. It is scary when you see gaps, but we're going to balance the budget.
It does not have to be painful as long as we are honest about what we can do and what we
cannot do. Thank you for today.
Commissioner Price — Today has been informative. I appreciate the Chair's focus on "where we
are going." That's what retreats are for: talking about the future. Not doom and gloom. There is
a horizon ahead, and as long as we are moving toward it then we will make progress.
Commissioner Jacobs — I always enjoy the conversation. I don't think we have ever figured out
how to involve the staff in such a way that it is worth their time to be here. I appreciate that so
many members of the staff came and listened. The more you can hear our conversations the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
better we all are as going forward as a team. The facilitator does a good job, but I would like to
have conversations that are not moderated, part of the time. It doesn't have to be comfortable,
but it can be useful. It's awkward to have to wait 5 -10 minutes to respond to what someone else
has said. The topics on today's agenda fit together. It may be worth having a retreat topic on
how we communicate; we have done that in the past but obviously we have not surmounted that
problem. Another topic for a future retreat might be the land use plan. The single greatest
investment of a lot of people is their home, and when we talk about changing the character of
their neighborhood through changes in the land use plan, and then it gets reported, then we are
causing uncertainty or distress, and that is not the way to treat people. So, we may need to be
more sensitized to land use, zoning, and how we work through all that. Maybe we need to do a
better job at having community meetings before we have discussions of land use, so people are
a little more plugged in. Commissioner Dorosin asked when the last time the County had a long
range visioning process. Commissioner Jacobs referenced the Shaping Orange County's Future
process from the mid -90's, and an effort by the Planning Director "to do the good plan," which
"got shot down." Commissioner Price referenced a lengthy Comprehensive Plan update
process. Mr. Benedict mentioned some small areas planning processes for Efland, Eno, and
Hillsborough.
Commissioner McKee — Appreciated the work of the retreat planning committee. You chose two
"red meat" issues. We had a good discussion today. The back and forth was respectful and
informative.
The meeting adjourned at 4:OOp.m.
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
Mark Dorosin, Chair
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Attachment 2
DRAFT MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
January 30, 2018
ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS (AOG)
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Towns of Chapel Hill,
Carrboro and Hillsborough for an Assembly of Governments meeting on Thursday, January 30,
2018 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Dorosin and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
Barry Jacobs, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, Renee Price, and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
18 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
20 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
21 appropriately below)
22 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS /STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Pam Hemminger,
23 Donna Bell, Alan Buansi, Hongbin Gu, Nancy Oates, Rachel Chaevitz, Michael Parker, Karen
24 Stegman, and Town Manager Roger Stancil
25 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Jessica Anderson
26 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT /STAFF: Mayor Lydia Lavelle,
27 Aldermen Damien Seils, Jacquelyn Gist, Randee Haven O'Donnell, Bethany Chaney, Barbara
28 Foushee, Sammy Slade
29 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Town Manager David Andrews
30 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS /STAFF: Mayor Tom Stevens, Town
31 Commissioners Brian Lowen, Mark Bell, Evelyn Lloyd, Kathleen Ferguson, Jenn Weaver, and
32 Town Manager Eric Peterson
33 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
34
35 Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
36 Mayor Stevens welcomed all to Hillsborough, and said all of his board is represented.
37 Mayor Lavelle greeted everyone, and said all her board is present as well.
38 Mayor Hemminger said all of Chapel Hill's Town Council is here tonight except Jessica
39 Anderson. She said having the AOG in January is better, and asked if this change could be
40 permanent. She asked if this could be considered as part of the agenda.
41 Chair Dorosin suggested moving item four up to the first item of the evening.
42
43 4. Report on Joint Planning Agreement (JPA)
44
45 BACKGROUND:
46 The Joint Planning Agreement is an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County, the Town of
47 Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro. The Agreement was established in 1987 to establish a
48 coordinated and comprehensive system of land use planning and to clearly identify where
49 Towns are allowed to grow and where rural character is to be maintained.
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
2
The Agreement creates an urban growth boundary to concentrate density and development
within the Towns and curb urban sprawl. One of the primary features of the Agreement was to
create the Rural Buffer and associated zoning regulations that promote rural character and
agricultural support enterprises.
The attached Summary of the Joint Planning Agreement in the abstract provides more detail
about the elements of the Plan. Three maps are also attached. The maps show the Joint
Planning Area land use plan, the growth management system in place throughout the County
designating urban from rural areas, and the collaborative agreements that are in place
throughout the County between the County and its municipalities.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
issues related to these items as necessary.
- Attachment 4a — Summary of the Orange County - Chapel Hill - Carrboro Joint Planning
Agreement
- Attachment 4b — Map - Orange County - Chapel Hill- Carrboro — Joint Planning Area Land
Use Plan
- Attachment 4c — Map - Growth Management System — Urban and Rural Designated
Areas
- Attachment 4d — Map - A County of Collaboration- Review Agreements
- Attachment 4e — Rural Buffer Retrospective
Commissioner Jacobs provided the introduction. He said he and Commissioner
Marcoplos started talking about this agreement, and noted that many elected officials have
come and gone in the last 30 years, since it was first adopted. He said it seemed a good time
to provide a history of this agreement.
Commissioner Jacobs said this agreement came about when certain situations arose in
the 70s and 80s, and there was a severe water shortage. He said part of the agreement was to
make sure that the towns did not compete for annexation opportunities, and so people living in
rural areas, which became parts of towns, would have elected representation. He said 1 -40 was
coming into being in the 1980s. He said in an effort to avoid sprawl and a contentious future, a
joint vision was needed. He said he was the Chair of the Orange County Planning Board at that
time, and approving things in an expeditious and collaborative manner was important.
Commissioner Jacobs said there is an urban service boundary, and the agreement has
worked very well. He said the Planning Directors from the Towns, Travis Myren and Sally
Greene (former Chapel Hill Town Councilmember), David Stancil (Orange County DEAPR
Director) and Roger Waldon (former Chapel Hill Planning Director), worked along with him and
Commissioner Marcoplos on this presentation and history.
Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said Ben Hitchings, Chapel Hill
Planning Director, and Trish McGuire, Carrboro Planning Director, have joined him this evening.
He said there will also be a video from Roger Waldon. He reviewed the information in their
packet.
Craig Benedict began the following PowerPoint presentation:
AOG Meeting
Agenda Item 4
Report on Joint Planning Agreement
January 30, 2018
Outline
1 1. Elected Official Introduction
2 2a. Outline Overview Maps
3 2b. How did we get here? Video (also handout in the agenda)
4 3. What is the Joint Planning Agreement?
5 4. How has it been working?
6 5. The future of the JPA — Inside and Outside the UGB
7 6. Celebration of the JPA and Rural Buffer
8 a. new signage
9 b. website /video primer
10 c. event /keynote people
11 d. metrics
12
13 Overview Maps
14
15 Overview Maps
16
17 Overview Maps
18
19 Video from Roger Waldon
20
21 How did we get here? Video (with Roger Waldon) (Also handout in agenda)
22 • 1970's Boom - Sprawl Potential
23 • Critical Watersheds (Drought, Pre -Cane Creek Reservoir), Rural Character, Town(s)
24 Charm, New 1 -40 Interstate
25 • Countywide Issue
26 o Addressed by Interlocal Agreement (i.e. JPA)
27 o Annexation Limits (Urban Growth Boundary)
28 Rural — Urban dynamic
29 • Still a GREAT STORY 30 years later
30
31 What is the Joint Planning Agreement
32 • What is the "Rural Buffer "?
33 • What does the JPA do?
34 • How big is the Joint Planning Area?
35 • How does the JPA affect growth and conservation patterns?
36 • Are there any Collateral Agreements that reinforce the JPA?
37
38 Trish McGuire presented this portion of the PowerPoint, and said this plan provides
39 predictability to the residents:
40
41 Plan Changes /Amendments
42 * *13 Amendments, notably
43 • New Hope Creek Open Space
44 • University Lake Watershed
45 • Southern Small Area Plan
46 • Northern Study Area Small Area Plan
47 • American Stone Quarry expansion
48 • (SAPFO — by agreement /ordinances)
49 • WASMPBA
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
M
• Agricultural Support Enterprises
JPA Stats — Then and Now (graph and maps)
The Future of the JPA
From Occoneechee Mountain to Chapel Hill
Ben Hitchings presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
The Future of the JPA
Our character underpins our success
• Vibrant towns
• Accessible rural landscape
Challenge is to maintain distinctiveness of each
• Each provides important functions
• Town: Essential services, culture, education, and friendly encounters in a
walkable environment
• Country: Clean water, healthy food, local agricultural economy, open spaces
• Higher and Lower Density Balance
Importance of transition
• Each functions best when it has its designated place
• Managing the interface maintains the distinctiveness
• Addressing Growth Pressures Still (2045 CommunityViz Modeling)
• Collaboration to preserve what makes us special provides basis for other forms of
positive collaboration
• Have opportunity to explore other partnerships in years ahead that leverage assets of
town and county
Commissioner Marcoplos presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
Celebration of the JPA and Rural Buffer:
a. New Signage
b. Website / Video
c. Event / Key People
d. Metrics: population, climate, farm use, etc.
• Environmental Impacts of these changes
Rural Buffer: 37,248 acres
Commissioner Marcoplos said there will be a commemorative celebration at Blackwood
Farm in the spring to recognize individuals that helped create the JPA, and give them public
credit. He said there will also be good food.
Commissioner Price asked if it is known who will plan this event, and if the signage has
been approved.
Commissioner Marcoplos said there is a JPA working group with Sally Greene, Roger
Waldon and planning directors. He said others are welcome.
Commissioner Price asked if this is a committee, and said she is not clear on who "we"
is.
Commissioner Jacobs said he and Commissioner Marcoplos proposed this idea at a
Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) meeting in the fall, and the Board gave the go ahead.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
Commissioner Price said she did not know there was a committee.
Commissioner Jacobs said Commissioner Price was welcomed to participate.
Alderman Slade said this presentation was timely, and all are on the same page. He
said he would like to see one of those metrics be a means for understanding successes
regarding making things more walkable, transit friendly, and bikeable; and to be able to go
forward with some foresight. He said he is concerned about maintaining the rural buffer, and
he encouraged them all to have more conversations about this.
Alderman Chaney said this presentation has helped her learn the genesis of the JPA
and what they want to celebrate. She said they cannot just celebrate the rural buffer and the
JPA, because the effects of the JPA are starting to be felt: creating a dense urban environment,
and to limiting growth in ways that increases the expense of living here. She said these two are
directly related to the affordability problems in the County, and if they are going to recommit to
the JPA, they must also commit to how to use the remaining public lands in the terms of equity.
She said they need to mitigate what they can now.
Alderman Gist agreed, and asked if an evaluation of the opportunities lost by the JPA
could be conducted, such as loss of middle class, affordable housing, jobs, commercial growth,
etc. He said the JPA lead to a lot of gains, but a lot was also lost. She said to concentrate on
how to compensate for these losses.
Commissioner Price agreed, and said to look at the changes that have happened, with a
view to the future. She said when change occurs; it does not always go according to plan, and
what does all this mean in terms of the County's current situation.
Council Member Oates said she does not want to lose sight that the rural buffer is not
the only thing that has caused a loss of affordable housing, and if the rural buffer is opened to
development, housing prices will plummet.
Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) —
Discussion Regarding "Essential Public Facilities" for Future Millhouse Road
Park
BACKGROUND:
Staffs of Orange County and Chapel Hill have engaged in discussions this year regarding the
future development of a County -owned 78 -acre parcel of land on Millhouse Road for a park
facility, sometimes referred to as Millhouse Road Park. The park is expected to have a sizeable
active recreation component, including fields for sports such as soccer. For the possible
intensity of an active park facility, connection to a public water and sewer system is typical for
restroom and other facilities, such as concession stands, fire hydrants, possible irrigation
systems, etc.; however, the parcel of property is located on the edge of the Rural Buffer and,
therefore, is not within a "primary service area," (where public water and sewer is permitted) as
depicted on the WASMPBA map (see attachments). Orange County is researching other
private onsite water and sewer facilities and technologies that could accommodate peak water
and sewer demands.
No change in jurisdiction is being proposed. Subsequent to a suggestion earlier this year that
the Town of Chapel Hill's ETJ (Extraterritorial Jurisdiction) could be extended and the
WASMPBA Map could be amended to designate the proposed park area as "primary service
area," staff was asked to instead investigate the possibility of using existing provisions in the
WASMPBA that could designate park facilities as "essential public facilities." As is shown in the
highlighted portions of the attached WASMPBA, essential public facilities are permitted within
"Long -Term Interest Areas." Also of note (and highlighted) is language that restricts the size of
lines into long -term interest areas such that only the intended use would be served.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
6
Park planning is not yet to the stage of having a concept plan or preliminary engineering
(joint discussions have begun) completed, but the future Millhouse Road Park parcel is
serviceable by OWASA's nearby water and sewer lines (see attached map). In keeping with
possible options, service could occur in a few manners:
1. The five signatory parties to the WASMPBA agree that the Millhouse Road Park
facility is an essential public facility (no amendment to the WASMPBA would be
necessary but passing formal resolutions (of this interpretation) would likely be best
in order to have a formal record for the future), or
2. The WASMPBA is amended to specifically add "parks and associated facilities" (see
definition in Attachment 1a for other uses) to the definition of "Essential Public
Facility." (Would require adoption by the five signatory parties).
3. Continue with research of innovative onsite private water and sewer systems and
match intensity of future operations accordingly.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
issues and provide feedback to staff related to this item as necessary.
- Attachment la
— Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement
- Attachment 1b
— Map - Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary
Agreement
- Attachment 1 c —
Map - Millhouse Road Park Parcel & WASMPBA
- Attachment Id
— Existing Water & Sewer Lines Near Millhouse Road Park Parcel
Bonnie Hammersley said she would defer to Craig Benedict for the presentation.
Craig Benedict made the following PowerPoint presentation:
AOG Meeting
Water & Sewer Management, Planning, and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA)
January 30, 2018
Tonight's Purpose:
To discuss the WASMPBA as it relates to the future Millhouse Road Park.
Brief History of the WASMPBA
• Five party agreement adopted in 2001
— Orange County, OWASA, and Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough
• Defines Primary Service Areas and Long -Term Interest Areas
— Primary Service Areas: areas where water and sewer either are provided or
might reasonably be provided in the future, according to adopted plans and
future amendments to adopted plans
— Long Term Interest Areas: areas where water and sewer is not anticipated,
but if such services are to be provided, they would be provided by the entity
designated for each long term interest area (e.g., OWASA, Town of
Hillsborough, or Orange County)
Amending WASMPBA
• All five entities must approve amendments
— Formal public hearing not required
— Can follow normal agenda /decision process
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
7
• No specific language on exceptions but staff recommends a formal approval action
(resolution) by all five entities.
• Amending WASMPBA
Current Service Area Map
Proposed Millhouse Road Park Parcel
• Proposed park parcel is located immediately adjacent to "Primary Service Area" on the
edge of the Rural Buffer
Existing Water & Sewer Lines Near Millhouse Road Park Parcels (map)
Future Park Facilities
Potable water, sewage disposal facilities, and probable fire suppression and irrigation
systems would be necessary to develop a soccer park on the site.
Private vs. Public?
Private systems will be limited by groundwater capacity and proper soils for septic
systems.
WASMPBA Provisions
• WASMPBA has a provision for "essential public facilities" that would allow extension of
public water and sewer services outside the primary service area if a facility meets the
definition.
Language highlighted in packet (p. 15 and 16) limits the sizing of lines into interest
areas and access to extended lines.
Essential Public Facility
• A publicly -owned facility, or a facility wholly financed by Federal, State or local
government (or a combination thereof) that provides a service for the health, safety and
general welfare of County residents (for example, a school, fire station, public safety
substation or solid waste convenience center).
Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Interest Areas (highlighted in the packet- Page
...Publicly owned facilities other than a public school shall be located in a manner that
promotes the orderly provision of water and sewer service. The preferred method of
connection is to lines that already exist, or in a manner that would minimize the need to
extend existing lines.
Other Options for Future Park
• If extension of lines is not desired, staff can continue with research of innovative onsite
private water and sewer systems and match intensity of future operations accordingly.
• Inherent conflicts with large expanses of park development (flat, well- drained soils) and
those needed for septic nitrification fields.
Parks an Essential Public Facility?
1. The five signatory parties to the WASMPBA agree that the Millhouse Road Park facility
is an essential public facility.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
N.
• No amendment to the WASMPBA would be necessary but passing formal
resolutions of this interpretation would likely be best in order to have a formal
record for the future.
• Or
2. The WASMPBA is amended to specifically add "Parks or associated Facilities" to the
definition of "Essential Public Facility"
• Would require adoption by the five signatory parties
Mayor Hemminger said Chapel Hill brought this item forward, as this land was
purchased to be a park. She said when a park has intense use, it needs water and sewer, both
for safety and stewardship of the environment. She said she knows there is not a park plan yet,
but it is important to bring water and sewer to the area in anticipation of a public park.
Council Member Oates asked if there are legal constraints to insure that development
does not come to the area.
Mayor Hemminger said this land was purchased with lands legacy funds and designated
for a park, and to change that designation it would require the County and Town of Chapel Hill
to vote on it.
Craig Benedict said there is a provision in the agreement that says utilities will only be
sized to serve this property, and not be oversized so that other projects could tie on.
Commissioner Jacobs said there are no plans for this property, and there are no funds
for any parks at this time. He said if the rules for parks are changed, there needs to be some
type of standards, since water and sewer could be run into the rural buffer for miles. He asked
if a legal opinion is needed from their attorneys and the School of Government. He said in the
current legislative environment, being creative requires caution. He said there should be a
definition of distance for running water and sewer in the rural buffer.
Commissioner Price asked if Mayor Hemminger is hoping for a soccer park.
Mayor Hemminger said there are public - private partnership opportunities, if they develop
a park and run water and sewer. She said this land is intended as a park for active recreation,
as opposed to Blackwood Park. She said amending the definition is the way to go.
Commissioner Price asked if the intended intensity of use for this park is known.
Mayor Hemminger said they are not asking to appropriate funds, but rather to allow the
opportunity if it so arises.
Commissioner Price said she could see issues arising, especially without a clear plan for
the park.
Commissioner Marcoplos said it is too early to know how many people will be out there,
and he is confidant public health would not be endangered with any system that may be put out
there. He said more information is needed in order to carry on the conversation.
Commissioner Burroughs said she would encourage her peers on the Board of County
Commissioners to keep an open mind. She asked if more information could be gathered on
how much money will be needed on the parks going forward. She said if this park can be
planned early, or if there are investors that could move the process along more quickly, all
should keep an open mind. She said Millhouse Park is close to the Chapel Hill as opposed to
Blackwood Farm, and they could redefine the definition of distance into the rural buffer.
Mayor Lavelle said she agreed with several of the points Commissioner Burroughs
made, and she asked that all keep an open mind because parks do contribute to health and
welfare, just like schools do.
Commissioner McKee said the BOCC talked recently about the expanded use of this
property, and possibly relocating residents displaced from mobile home parks.
Commissioner Jacobs said Blackwood Farm is very close to Hillsborough's water and
sewer, and it is important to have a measured plan moving forward. He said Mayor Hemminger
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
I
may have had conversations with private partnerships, and, if so, he would like to see this
information.
Mayor Hemminger said there is a partnership with soccer clubs in Chapel Hill, who are
fronting the money to artificially turf the Homestead fields. She said there are other groups
interested in talking with the County, if water and sewer were present for bathroom facilities.
She said she is asking the BOCC to consider this option, as everything takes time.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this type of turf needs water.
Mayor Hemminger said yes and no. She said cork will be used at the Homestead site,
and the amount of watering needed by artificial turf is far less than grass. She said she does
not have specific statistics, but pesticides will not be used.
Commissioner Price asked if it is possible to use existing developed property across the
road, in order to build restrooms.
Mayor Hemminger said it would be unadvisable to have children /people crossing active
roads.
Mayor Lavelle suggested getting the particulars of this possible discussion of the
amending of the WASMPBA, and to have all attorneys bring information forward to each of the
boards.
Chair Dorosin asked Mayor Hemminger to share any information with all the boards.
2. Orange County Food Council
Travis Myren reviewed the information below:
BACKGROUND:
The Orange County Food Council (OCFC) began as a grassroots effort of local residents
involved in the local food system. The first tangible product of this effort was a baseline
Community Food Assessment created for the Food Council's initial Task Force in 2015 -16.
Over 100 interested attendees participated in the first community meeting held in 2015. The
efforts of that first gathering resulted in a one -time grant administered by United Way from the
Burt's Bees Foundation, as well as seed funds from Orange County's Agriculture Economic
Development grant program. The OCFC was officially formed and began meeting in May 2016.
The Council currently operates as an outside agency using Orange County as its fiscal agent
and receives financial support from the County and the Towns. This funding supports a half-
time Coordinator position and a modest operating budget for workgroup activities and
community outreach.
The Council has evaluated different organizational structures to support its work, including a
fiscal agent model, an independent nonprofit agency, and a publicly supported and hosted
position. The Council has concluded that seeking collaborative governmental funding from the
County and Towns to support a County employee as its Coordinator was the most desirable
choice.
During the Council's presentation, Food Council leadership discussed the history and purpose
of the Food Council, as well as a proposal for sustained support from the County and Towns.
The proposal will involve multijurisdictional funding support based on the model used by the
Partnership to End Homelessness, which calculates each jurisdiction's contribution based on
population.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
10
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
issues and provide feedback to staff related to this item as necessary.
- Attachment 2a — January 16, 2018 Memorandum — Orange County Food Council
Background
- Attachment 2b — Orange County Food Council Action Plan 2017 -2018
- Attachment 2c — Food Access Working Group 2017 -2018 Action Plan
- Attachment 2d — Local Food Economy Workgroup Action Plan 2017 -2018
Ashley Heger, Council Coordinator, made the following the PowerPoint presentation:
Orange County Food Council
Assembly of Governments
January 30, 2018
Presentation
I. Overview of Orange County Food Council
II. 2017 - 2018 Scope of Work
III. What Comes Next
Overview of Orange County Food Council
We are a coalition of community members committed to building a healthy food system
for all Orange County.
OCFC includes representatives from local government, educational institutions, and food -
related agencies, as well as individual citizen - consumers, food producers and entrepreneurs.
Our Mission: Grow a community- driven food system that ensures access to nutritious foods for
all, promotes sustainable agriculture, increases economic development, and advances social
justice.
• Jenn Weaver, Hillsborough Board of Commissioners
• Cyril Murphy, Camp Chestnut Ridge (Efland)
• Eva Bailey, S. Estes Community Garden (Chapel Hill)
• Julia Sendor, Anathoth Farm (Cedar Grove)
• Molly De Marco, UNC -CH (Nutrition)
• Sammy Slade, Carrboro Board of Aldermen
• Ashley Rawlinson, Orange County Health Dept.
• Mike Ortosky, Orange County Office of Economic Development
• Valerie Green, Orange County Schools - Child Nutrition
• Pam Hemminger, Chapel Hill Town Council
• Suyapa Mejia- Guevara, Orange County Extension
• Ken Dawson, Maple Springs Farms
• Mark Dorosin, Orange County Board of County Commissioners
• Alex Rike, Chapel Hill Downtown Partnership
• Marcie Cohen - Ferris, UNC (American Studies)
Graph /Timeline
- Baseline assessment helped form the workgroups
- OCFC's by -laws and membership structure emphasizes an inclusive and diverse council
that considers race, socio- economic status, gender and geographic location within the
county.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
11
- Council members also represent the diversity of stakeholders /sectors in the food
system. Food Access/ security, Agriculture, Health, Economic Development,
Environmental stewardship/ justice, Planning, Public education, Wholesale /Retail
(grocers, restaurants), Waste management, Elected officials from municipalities,
UNC /area educational institutions, Faith - based, and Consumers (diverse including
across lifespan, ethnicity, etc.).
- Council members and the coordinator have participated in race - equity trainings.
- 2 community forums convened policy makers, area non - profits, public educators, and
community stakeholders
- Local Food Economy Workgroup / Food Access Workgroup
- Host at Carrboro Summer Streets on July 16th
2017 -2018 Actions & Goals
- Mobilize workgroups (action plans in your packets)
- Develop an Action Plan (in your packets)
- Research and advocate
- Convene and coordinate
- Develop a racial- equity lens for the work that we do and how we do it
Accomplishments to Date
- Hosted 4 Community Forums
- Developed a baseline community food assessment
- Created action plans for council & workgroups
- Increased practitioner involvement in workgroups
- Developed strategic partnerships
- Help coordinate a statewide SNAP Campaign for the 2018 Farm Bill
- Local Food Economy Workgroup developed a 2018 policy agenda
- Presented to community groups
- 9 of 15 council members have attended at least 1 racial- equity training
- Working with Board of Health to research and propose healthy eating promotion policies
- Secured additional funding for community listening sessions and equity facilitation
- Convened regional Food Councils to seize opportunities with Durham and Wake
Counties
Ashley Heger said the primary challenge is the lack of staff.
Commissioner Ferguson said she is glad that the Council is looking to follow the
Partnership for Homelessness model. She said a concern is that the Food Council needs to
duplicate a structure that is already in place, leverage existing resources and structures. She
encouraged more coordination with Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG).
Ashley Heger said one desired outcome for tonight is to know with whom they can
connect.
Commissioner Weaver said she is the Town of Hillsborough's representative to the
Food Council, and Commissioner Ferguson's concern is one they all share. She said the
Council is here to convene all the great work being done in the food system, and to help close
the gaps.
Commissioner Ferguson said there are organizations that have much greater capacity
than the Food Council.
Alderman Chaney said the option of the position being a County position seems to make
sense, but this position is an advocacy role and asked if being a part of the County may present
any barriers.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
12
Ashley Heger said as a County employee one cannot advocate against County policy,
but the Council itself would remain a separate entity.
Travis Myren said to the extent that the County ethics policy would be involved, a
County employee would have to abide by the rules. He said there would need to be care taken
with coordinator lobbying other local governments on behalf of the Council.
Alderman Chaney said two municipalities may have competing goals, or differences,
and she wondered how a County employee would navigate this.
Travis Myren said the Coordinator could be a mediator, but not an advocate for either.
He said the Coordinator would not be able to advocate for something not previously endorsed
by the BOCC.
Mayor Lavelle asked if the Food Council endorsed something, would the BOCC then
have to ratify it.
Travis Myren said it would be with more adversarial issues.
Commissioner McKee expressed praise for the Council. He said his concern is that this
proposal is at 30,000 feet, and his concern is at 3 feet: getting food to people who need it, with
the least amount of bureaucracy. He said he is disappointed to see no outreach to farmers, or
service providers who are already working in this arena. He said there are concerns from other
organizations about the Food Council, and how it will impact their work.
Ashley Heger said the Council is still defining what a partner is, and that is why this is
not included as part of the package. She said there are broader goals, and there are
practitioners and direct service providers already in place.
Commissioner McKee said he would like to know how the Council's efforts have
increased provision of service to the residents.
Alderman Seils said this is a systemic approach to a systemic problem. He said the
Council can still serve as an advocate, while the coordinator could not if it was a County
employee. He said the way the Partnership to End Homelessness is structured and funded is
via a memorandum of understanding (MOU). He would expect this proposed model to come
with strings attached if this became a County function.
Commissioner Price expressed appreciation for the Council. She asked if the Council is
working with existing service providers, and if there are any organizations to which the Council
should reach out, such as churches.
Ashley Heger said this is in the beginning stages, and she is now starting to meet with
entities to map what already exists, and the best way to build upon that. She said there are
challenges due to limited staff and time.
Ashley Heger said she has learned that there is no central database for all food access
resources, and the Council is currently compiling such a database. She said this should be
completed in the early summer, and will be sent out to all direct service providers.
Commissioner Weaver said the Food Council is not a direct food service provider, but it
is a convening group trying to bridge the farmer to those providing the food. She said the Farm
Food Economy Work Group is trying to compile a list of farmers that can be available to the
public, and restaurants.
Commissioner Weaver said the funding model needs to be thought through, but from
the Food Council perspective it is important to look at things from a systems level, and to have
investment from all of the elected bodies. She said elected officials may have different things to
think through, and she encouraged staff to think creatively and for all elected bodies to invite
the current Food Council Coordinator to a regular meeting.
Commissioner Rich said the job of elected officials is to help the Food Council with
connections to resources, and she encouraged the Council to have a way for elected officials to
get information to the Food Council.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
13
Council Member Stegman said it is good to have a group that is looking at the "why ".
She said there have been challenges identified with the proposed model, and she asked if other
food councils have been reviewed regarding structure and funding.
Ashley Heger said the partnership model was brought to the Council, but she does not
personally think it is the best fit. She said most councils in North Carolina are grassroots
organizations that have less than $20,000 budgets. She said some are directly connected to
Council of Governments, but most councils depend on a fiscal sponsor or a fiscal agent. She
said other councils focus on a particular area of the food sector, such as food access.
Council Member Buansi said the action plan indicates three open council seats, and
asked if these openings are being promoted.
Ashley Heger said part of the promotion strategy is to take the liaisons on the Council
and send them out to their communities and stakeholder groups to promote the Council. She
said social media and the website are also used, as well as public speaking opportunities. She
said they just received a micro grant to do listening sessions, which will be facilitated by the
Jackson Center in Chapel Hill, and will connect directly to work around mapping and tracking
racial equity in the food system.
Commissioner Jacobs said the list of relevant stakeholders does not include any
consumers. He said it is not hard to set up a 501(c)(3), and he urged the Food Council to look
at this option again. His said his concern is there are organizations in Orange County that were
left out of the Council's matrix, and some of this reads like running in parallel to what already
exists, rather than incorporating.
Ashley Heger said the Council thoroughly reviewed the options of being within a fiscal
sponsor, creating a 501(c)(3), and the County's proposal. She said the Council operates by
consensus, and chose to pursue the County's proposal.
Alderman Slade said he hoped that all of the boards could see the viability of this Food
Council.
3. Manufactured Home Parks
Sherrill Hampton, Orange County Housing Director, and Craig Benedict reviewed the
following information and PowerPoint presentation:
BACKGROUND:
For many years the Orange County Board of County Commissioners had a keen interest in
addressing the vulnerability of residents living in mobile home parks and thus allocated funding
to address land banking for mobile home parks and /or to assist in the acquisition of property for
future residential development as an affordable housing alternative. Following this action by the
BOCC, local housing partners, County staff and other interested constituents began to discuss
and evaluate the opportunities and obstacles associated with re- developing an existing mobile
home park or developing new affordable housing to address the needs of mobile home park
residents at risk. Thus the Affordable Housing Land Banking /Mobile Home Park Work Group
was formed.
The presentation will provide an update on the work of the Affordable Housing Land
Banking /Mobile Home Park Work Group and the recommendations that were approved
by the Orange County Board of County Commissioners on November 20, 2017 in regard
to mobile home parks in the County, and proposed strategies for mitigating resident
displacement and relocation challenges due to re- development efforts.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can
discuss issues and provide feedback to staff related to this item as necessary.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
14
- Attachment 3a — Mobile Home Park Survey Report
- Attachment 3b — Mobile Home Park Recommendations
Manufactured Home Park Survey Report, Recommendations and Update
January 30, 2018
Presentation to the Assembly of Governments
Purpose
• Overview
• Manufactured Home Park Survey Report
• Summary of Tools Used in Other Jurisdictions
• Manufactured Home Park Recommendations
Overview
• For purposes of this presentation, manufactured home (s) or manufactured home
park(s) are synonymous with mobile home(s) or mobile home park(s).
• The rise of manufactured 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.
• Manufactured 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
manufactured 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 manufactured 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.
Manufactured Home Park Work Group
The Work Group consists of local government staff,
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
• Julie Eckenrode, Town of Carrboro
• Annette Lafferty, Town of Carrboro
• Judy Johnson, Town of Chapel Hill
• Nate Broman - Fulks, Town of Chapel Hill
• Edward Barberio, Town of Chapel Hill
• Eric Chupp, Capkov Ventures, Inc.
• Elam Hall, HH Hunt Homes
• Margaret Hauth, Town of Hillsborough
• David Beck, Self Help
for - profit developers, and non - profit
15
2 Manufactured Home Park Work Evaluation
3 ■ 100 existing mobile home parks in County
4 ■ 21 mobile home parks identified for further evaluation
5 ■ Selection and evaluation based on:
6 — Access to transportation, water and sewer infrastructure, employment, health
7 services, education, and shopping
8 — Condition of the mobile home park, homes, infrastructure, and amenities
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
— Vacancy rate
— Future expansion and redevelopment opportunities
• Estimated infrastructure cost
• Land use and zoning, including surrounding parcels
• Potential acquisition costs
— Current and future ownership, partnership, and management opportunities
8 mobile home parks selected for surveying
Manufactured Home Survey
■ 8 mobile home parks identified by Manufactured 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 Manufactured Parks Brina 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's story
■ Born in Guanajuato, Mexico; raised in Chapel Hill
16
1
■
Currently living in Tar Heel Mobile Home Park with my parents, siblings, and son
2
■
Family Success Alliance (FSA) Zone 6 Navigator since August 2017
3
4
Why is a Manufactured Home a Viable Option for Housing?
5
■
Moved from Royal Park Apartments to Tar Heel Mobile Home Park in 2004 due to
6
affordability and space issues
7
■
Mobile home built in 1998
8
■
All of my extended family members who live in the County followed this trend
9
■
A mobile home is the more affordable option
10
11
Pros
12
■
Kids are zoned for great schools (Estes Hills Elementary, Smith Middle School, and East
13
Chapel Hill High)
14
■
Timberlyne Shopping Center is within walking distance (Food Lion, Walgreens, and
15
restaurants)
16
■
Sense of community (walking group, kids biking, and engaging in sports)
17
18
Cons
19
■
Infrastructure:
20
— Lack of lighting at night
21
— No playground for kids
22
■
Since we own the home, we are responsible for all maintenance
23
24 Imaact of Relocation
25 ■ Unable to move mobile home to another property due to age and condition
26 ■ Would have to move in with extended family because an apartment is not an immediate
27 option
28 ■ Kids would have to relocate schools
29 ■ My parents would lose their most valuable asset
30
31 Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions — table
32
33 Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions — table
34
35 Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions — table
36
37 Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions — table
38
39 Recommendation 1: Mobile Home Park Improvement and Expansion Program (Short
40 Term)
41 Orange County establishes a loan program for mobile home park owners to improve
42 and /or expand their existing park.
43 ■ Strategy would be part of an overall Rental Rehabilitation Initiative for Investor -
44 Owners.
45 ■ Recommended that up to $500,000 from the $2M Affordable Housing /Land Bank
46 Set -aside in the approved Capital Investment Plan be used to initially fund this
47 Initiative.
48 Recommendation 2: Repair and /or Replacement Program Component (Short Term)
49 Orange County establishes, with local funds, a repair and /or replacement program
50 component for residents living in a mobile home, whether rental or owner - occupied.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
17
• Program capitalization using local funds
• Urgent Repair Program
• Single - Family Housing Rehabilitation Program
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.
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.
Update:
• The BOCC approved the recommendations as presented at the November 20, 2017
meeting and requested that County staff develop a "rapid response" protocol in order to
be proactive and lend assistance to residents in a timely fashion.
• Proposed re- development of the Lakeview Mobile Home Park (33 units) is underway.
Town of Chapel Hill is serving as the Lead Entity.
• Orange County is exploring the development of a portion of the Millhouse Road site as
an alternative site for a "Home Park ". BOCC approved moving forward with due
diligence activities at their January 23, 2018 meeting. (but learned today that this site is
not in the Chapel Hill school district and staff will follow up with this to see if concessions
can be made for these children)
• Relocation activities are underway at the Homestead Mobile Home Park per the Park
owner. There are 9 lots but only 7 -8 are currently occupied. The County will begin its
Rapid Response process to learn more about resident needs and how to best lend
assistance.
Mayor Hemminger said all of the elected officials are grateful for the work group's
efforts.
Alderman Seils said he is glad different home structures are being considered. He liked
the resident's own story. He encouraged them to focus long -term recommendations not only
on mobile homes, but on other home structures as well.
Sherrill Hampton said she agreed, but it should be based on each individual family's
needs and financial picture.
Alderman Seils said any long -term option should take access to transit into account.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Council Member Parker said as one looks at the constellation of mobile home parks,
most of these homes are not mobile. He said if the residents are displaced, residents will need
more: a new home and other needs met. He said he is concerned that they are not thinking
largely enough about these problems. He said hundreds of units will be unmovable, and
residents will not only need land to live on, but homes to live in. He said the Millhouse site is
being considered, but the mobile homes cannot be relocated, only the people. He said water
and sewer would be best to serve these people in the long run, as well as the park.
Council Member Bell said some people's dream is to live in a mobile park, because it
represents an ecosystem where they are able to support themselves. She said it can give
access to jobs, childcare, good schools, etc. She said mobility is a privilege, and it is
affordable. She said they must be as creative as possible, and there is not a model that will
work for everyone.
Sherrill Hampton said there needs to be a vibrant community for these residents.
Commissioner Price referred to recommendation #3, and the reality of scattering people
to different parts of the County. She said those who live in Chapel Hill and Carrboro should be
able to remain in these towns. She said very few properties have been considered in these
towns.
Craig Benedict said the County has worked with the Towns, and there are very few
places left in Chapel Hill and Carrboro to develop, without demolishing existing properties. He
said the price of land in Chapel Hill is prohibitive. He said staff will continue to explore any
areas. He said existing mobile home parks in Hillsborough are being reviewed, and the County
is working with local public transportation providers to improve mobility and connectivity
throughout the County.
Commissioner Price asked if the cost to site a tiny home is known.
Commissioner Marcoplos said that is a complicated question, and could be discussed in
greater detail at a later date.
Sherrill Hampton said there may be room for entrepreneurship opportunities within the
skills of the residents, and staff is trying to have a broad menu to bring back to the BOCC.
Commissioner Rich asked if Chapel Hill would consider how it will utilize the American
Legion Property on Legion Road. She said this is 35 acres, and would be a perfect piece of
land for affordable housing and re- location, due to its proximity to public transportation, and
shopping areas.
Commissioner Jacobs said Millhouse Road is being considered because the County
already owns it, but the County has set aside a lot of capital funds to help address this problem.
He said the BOCC is committed to moving forward to address as many short -term problems as
it can, and to work collaboratively on long -term opportunities.
Alderman Haven O'Donnell thanked the people that came out tonight to hear this
discussion. She said she is taken with Council Member Bell's comments, and the importance
of respecting the dignity of where and how residents currently live. She encouraged all to think
creatively, as well as create a coalition of people who can take action.
Council Member Oates said there are some constraints with relocating undocumented
residents, and at some point she would like to learn more about these constraints in order to
better problem solve.
Commissioner Marcoplos said the Board of County Commissioners had the foresight to
anticipate these displacements, and thought of Millhouse as a possible relocation site. He said
he looks forward to all governments working cooperatively, and learning from each experience.
Council Member Stegman said the resident owned community model is the model that
should be pursued, as it allows residents to build community and equity. She said all of the
properties that Chapel Hill owns, or has access to, should be considered.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
19
Sherrill Hampton said staff will be respectful of the Rogers Road Community, as they
will be neighbors to this property. She said community meetings will occur, and she looks
forward to Chapel Hill's partnership in this process.
Commissioner McKee said he hoped all governments will be open to the possibility that
options may include changing regulations, extending water and sewer, and changing or shifting
transit routes.
Chair Dorosin and the group honored Town Commissioner Brian Lowen on his
upcoming retirement from the Hillsborough Town Council.
Chair Dorosin asked if there are any objections to scheduling the AOG in January going
forward.
There were no objections.
The Town of Hillsborough elected officials and staff left the meeting at 9:58 p.m.
5. Greene Tract Update
BACKGROUND:
The Greene Tract is a 164 acre parcel of which 104 acres is jointly owned by Orange County/
Chapel Hill /Carrboro and 60 acres owned by Orange County (aka ' Headwaters Preserve'). Last
year, local governments agreed to have the mayors and chair consider preservation and
development options on the overall parcel. A joint staffs and management (with Rogers Road
Community input) work group analyzed environmental /cultural features and development
potential (including a school /park site).
Staff will provide an overview of the options of land use location and density.
The attachments explain and illustrate the process and options.
Options were requested that exhibited three levels of development /preservation,
high /medium /low. These options (in Attachment 5c; two sets of three options) illustrate the
location and extent of land uses. In addition, another table (Attachment 5d) shows what
residential varying density may produce. The total units are shown and since one strategy is for
a private sector mixed income development, the potential of affordable housing as a
percentage of the total is also hypothetically shown in Attachment 5e.
The purpose of this item is to conceptually agree to a preservation /development option
(i.e. high, medium, low) which would be incorporated into a revised Greene Tract Land
Use Resolution (originally 2002). In addition, density, total units, and percentage affordable
housing could be also considered.
The implementation of the above decisions and other next steps will return to the Boards in the
spring /summer of 2018.
Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
issues related to this item as necessary.
Attachment 5a — An Overview of the Preservation and Development Alternatives
Attachment 5b — Environmental and Cultural Features
Attachment 5c — Greene Tract Land Use Concept Plans (Two Sets of High, Medium,
Low (HML))
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
C
(Special note regarding the second set - the elected official workgroup asked staff to
consider reshaping the County owned 60 acre `Headwaters Preserve' to capture the
best preservation area encompassing the three headwater basins.)
Headwater Change Area
Attachment 5d — Table - High, Medium, Low Alternatives; Land Use Acreage and
Density Outcomes
Attachment 5e — Table - Affordable Housing Potential
Craig Benedict made the following PowerPoint presentation:
Greene Tract Update
Assembly of Governments Meeting
January 30, 2018
Background
• Project area
o Approximately 164 total acres
■ 104 acres jointly owned by Orange County, Town of Chapel Hill, and
Town of Carrboro
■ 60 acres owned by Orange County
Previous Planning Efforts
■ 2002 Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro Greene Tract Resolution
■ Rogers Road Task Force Report
■ Mapping Our Community's Future Report
Managers, Mayors and Chair's Objectives from May 17, 2017 (High, medium, and low
scenarios and 60 acre headwaters preserve reconfiguration)
Greene Tract
(Jurisdictional Context)
Purpose
• Understand the preservation and development potential of the Greene Tract and offer
guidance to create an action plan
Overview
Provide three different levels of development
(with and without reconfiguration):
• High
• Medium
• Low
Alternatives must incorporate and allow for:
• Natural preservation areas
• Environmental buffers
• Cultural areas of significance
• Road network and infrastructure
• Development (affordable housing opportunities, mixed use potential, etc.)
• Recreational facility site
• School site
• Park space
Proposed alternatives are preliminary concept plans
21
1 Items of Consideration
2 • Determine development goals
3 o Land use
4 o Location
5 o Density
6 • Determine affordable housing goals
7 o Mixed income
8 o Minimum percent
9 o Total number of affordable housing units sought
10 • Modification of the 2002 Resolution?
11 • Reconfigurations of the headwaters preserve areas?
12
13 Infrastructure
14 • Roads
15 o North, south, west, and east connections
16 • Norfolk Southern Railroad (East connection)
17 o Three existing crossings typically have to be closed in exchange for a new
18 crossing
19 o They will accept and consider a proposal for a new crossing without closings.
20 Decision is made based on various factors. Ultimately the decision is based on
21 what is in the company's best interest
22 o Requesting party is responsible for all money involved with a proposal and,
23 ultimately, construction as well if approved
24 o Overhead / underground pedestrian and bicycle crossing also discussed.
25 Approval typically more easily accomplished but very expensive to construct
26 o Suggestion from railroad representative to consider obtaining one or more
27 parcels to provide alternative location for access without crossing railroad
28 • Water and Sewer
29 • Stormwater
30
31 Commissioner Jacobs asked staff to mark the property any decisions are made, so that
32 the Board of County Commissioners and other boards can walk the property.
33
34 Commissioner Jacobs left at 10:15 p.m.
35
36 How to Apportion use of 104 acres (chart)
37
38 Greene Tract — Environmental and Cultural Features
39
40 Greene Tract Conceptual Plan — Alternative 1 (high), headwaters existing (map)
41
42 Greene Tract Conceptual Plan — Alternative 2 (medium), headwaters existing (map)
43
44 Greene Tract Conceptual Plan — Alternative 3 (low), headwaters existing (map)
45
46 Headwaters Preserve Area
47 Should the existing Headwaters Preserve area (60 acres) be reconfigured? (BOCC)
48 o A reconfiguration of the Headwaters Preserve area would allow for the protection
49 of the most preservation- worthy areas of the Greene Tract
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
22
• Creates an environmental corridor with lands under joint ownership
• Would allow for the best available acreage for future development
Possible Modifications to Headwaters Preserve Area
Possible Modifications to Headwaters Preserve Area
Greene Tract Conceptual Plan — Alternative 1 (high), headwaters modified (map)
Greene Tract Conceptual Plan — Alternative 2 (medium), headwaters modified (map)
Greene Tract Conceptual Plan — Alternative 3 (low), headwaters modified (map)
Land Use Acreage Outcomes (chart)
Development Potential
What percent of the joint owned property (104 acres) of the Greene Tract should be designated
for development?
A. 80 — 75%
B. 74 — 60%
C. 59 — 40%
D. 39 — 20%
Development Potential
What type of residential development do you prefer to see on the Greene Tract?
A. Single- family homes
B. Townhomes
C. Apartments
D. Mix of single - family homes and townhomes
E. Mix of townhomes and apartments
F. Mix of single - family homes, townhomes, and apartments
Affordable Housing Potential (graph)
(If mixed income development — % of affordable housing shown at bottom left)
Affordable Housinq Potential
How many affordable housing units do you envision on the Greene Tract?
A. 50 units or less
B. 51 to 100 units
C. 101 to 150 units
D. 151 to 200 units
E. 201 units or more
Affordable Housing Potential
Which of the following do you prefer in order to incorporate affordable housing on the Greene
Tract?
A. Designate a portion of the Greene Tract for a higher density affordable housing project
B. Promote mixed income development with a variety of housing types and densities
throughout the Greene Tract
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
23
Background (2002 Resolution)
2002 Resolution
Do you support modifications to the 2002 Resolution?
A. Yes
B. No
Items of Consideration
• Determine development goals
• Land use
• Location
• Density
• Determine affordable housing goals
• Mixed income
• Minimum percent
• Total number of affordable housing units sought
Modification of the 2002 Resolution?
• Reconfiguration of the headwaters preserve areas?
Questions and Comments
Chair Dorosin suggested that all of the boards ask their members to answer these
questions in the coming weeks.
Mayor Lavelle said this subject has been worked on for a year, and she is keen for
momentum to continue.
Hongbin Gu said this is exciting, and she would like to know more about how this project
will fit into the strategic plans of the County and the Towns.
Alderman Foushee asked if the headwaters preserve area has been discussed before.
Chair Dorosin said the County bought the parcel that was along the line that was drawn,
and when proposals started coming in, it became clear that the purchase was made without
considering what was really on the land, and if it is all worth preserving. He said it is unclear
whether developable parts are being wasted, or if parts that should be preserved are not being
so. He said the desire is to preserve 64 acres, but the question remains as to which are the
best 64 acres to preserve.
Alderman Foushee referred to the alternatives, and said she sees no cons listed for
alternative 2. She asked if this was an accurate conclusion.
Craig Benedict said as less is developed, the infrastructure costs per unit increase. He
said there is benefit to preserving more. He said there are so many scenarios as it is a
complete balance of providing inventory, while adhering to required environmental concerns.
He said marketing less property leads to less affordable housing inventory.
Mayor Hemminger said the blue site at the bottom of the map is reserved for a school
site. She said Chapel Hill would like to ask the Board of County Commissioners to reorganize
these parcels to make them more usable.
Chair Dorosin said the school site is not on the original 2002 plan, and asked if the
BOCC would need to re -vote if it wanted to add this site.
Craig Benedict said that is correct.
Mayor Lavelle asked if both scenarios would require two roads.
Craig Benedict said yes. He said the lowest development potential would allow for some
of the connectivity to be phased in over time, but traffic will be generated and there will need to
be as many roads as possible.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24
Council Member Chaevitz asked if any outreach has been done to the Rogers Road
Community.
Craig Benedict said the community asked if mixed use and commercial development
could be included and identified areas outside of the Greene Tract, near Eubanks Road, for
commercial development. He said the County is not opposed to a small commercial node, if
the density levels exist to support one. He said the community wanted to preserve the
environmental lands, some old house structures, and historic roads. He said Reverend
Campbell was part of these discussions.
Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the east side is available for affordable housing.
Craig Benedict said yes, and access to it would need to be from the north.
Alderman Slade said as the land is publicly owned, there is greater control over what
happens on the land, and he would like to find a way to honor the Rogers Road community's
wish for a commercial node.
Alderman Chaney said the questions are a bit limiting and she hopes all governments
will discuss these topics broadly and creatively, keeping funding and financing opportunities in
mind. She said a grocery store will be important in this area.
6. Information Item — Memorandum on Agricultural Support Enterprises in the Rural
Buffer (Written Update — Not for Specific Discussion)
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m.
Donna Baker
Clerk to the Board
Mark Dorosin, Chair