Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-30-2018 AOG1 APPROVED 2/20/2018 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 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS/STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Pam Hemminger, Donna Bell, Alan Buansi, Hongbin Gu, Nancy Oates, Rachel Chaevitz, Michael Parker, Karen Stegman, and Town Manager Roger Stancil CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Jessica Anderson CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT/STAFF: Mayor Lydia Lavelle, Aldermen Damien Seils, Jacquelyn Gist, Randee Haven O’Donnell, Bethany Chaney, Barbara Foushee, Sammy Slade CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Town Manager David Andrews TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS/STAFF: Mayor Tom Stevens, Town Commissioners Brian Lowen, Mark Bell, Evelyn Lloyd, Kathleen Ferguson, Jenn Weaver, and Town Manager Eric Peterson TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Mayor Stevens welcomed all to Hillsborough, and said all of his board is represented. Mayor Lavelle greeted everyone, and said all her board is present as well. Mayor Hemminger said all of Chapel Hill’s Town Council is here tonight except Jessica Anderson. She said having the AOG in January is better, and asked if this change could be permanent. She asked if this could be considered as part of the agenda. Chair Dorosin suggested moving item four up to the first item of the evening. 4. Report on Joint Planning Agreement (JPA) BACKGROUND: The Joint Planning Agreement is an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro. The Agreement was established in 1987 to establish a coordinated and comprehensive system of land use planning and to clearly identify where Towns are allowed to grow and where rural character is to be maintained. 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 I-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 3 1. Elected Official Introduction 2a. Outline Overview Maps 2b. How did we get here? Video (also handout in the agenda) 3. What is the Joint Planning Agreement? 4. How has it been working? 5. The future of the JPA – Inside and Outside the UGB 6. Celebration of the JPA and Rural Buffer a. new signage b. website/video primer c. event/keynote people d. metrics Overview Maps Overview Maps Overview Maps Video from Roger Waldon How did we get here? Video (with Roger Waldon) (Also handout in agenda) • 1970’s Boom - Sprawl Potential • Critical Watersheds (Drought, Pre-Cane Creek Reservoir), Rural Character, Town(s) Charm, New I-40 Interstate • Countywide Issue o Addressed by Interlocal Agreement (i.e. JPA) o Annexation Limits (Urban Growth Boundary) Rural – Urban dynamic • Still a GREAT STORY 30 years later What is the Joint Planning Agreement • What is the “Rural Buffer”? • What does the JPA do? • How big is the Joint Planning Area? • How does the JPA affect growth and conservation patterns? • Are there any Collateral Agreements that reinforce the JPA? Trish McGuire presented this portion of the PowerPoint, and said this plan provides predictability to the residents: Plan Changes/Amendments **13 Amendments, notably • New Hope Creek Open Space • University Lake Watershed • Southern Small Area Plan • Northern Study Area Small Area Plan • American Stone Quarry expansion • (SAPFO – by agreement/ordinances) • WASMPBA 4 • 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 o Town: Essential services, culture, education, and friendly encounters in a walkable environment o Country: Clean water, healthy food, local agricultural economy, open spaces o 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. 5 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. 1. 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. 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 1a – Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement - Attachment 1b – Map - Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement - Attachment 1c – Map - Millhouse Road Park Parcel & WASMPBA - Attachment 1d – 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 sew er 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 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 16) • …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. 8 • 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 9 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, for-profit developers, and non-profit housing staff, including:  Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity  Robert Dowling, Community Home Trust  Jess Brandes, CASA  Travis Myren, Orange County  Sherrill Hampton, Orange County  Craig Benedict, Orange County  Ashley Moncado, Orange County  Coby Austin, Family Success Alliance  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 15 Manufactured Home Park Work Evaluation  100 existing mobile home parks in County  21 mobile home parks identified for further evaluation  Selection and evaluation based on: − Access to transportation, water and sewer infrastructure, employment, health services, education, and shopping − Condition of the mobile home park, homes, infrastructure, and amenities − Vacancy rate − Future expansion and redevelopment opportunities • 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 Bring to the Table?  Skilled residents – Carpenters, electricians, landscaping, etc.  Community support networks – More than half go to neighbors for childcare – Some parks have community potlucks Erika’s story  Born in Guanajuato, Mexico; raised in Chapel Hill 16  Currently living in Tar Heel Mobile Home Park with my parents, siblings, and son  Family Success Alliance (FSA) Zone 6 Navigator since August 2017 Why is a Manufactured Home a Viable Option for Housing?  Moved from Royal Park Apartments to Tar Heel Mobile Home Park in 2004 due to affordability and space issues  Mobile home built in 1998  All of my extended family members who live in the County followed this trend  A mobile home is the more affordable option Pros  Kids are zoned for great schools (Estes Hills Elementary, Smith Middle School, and East Chapel Hill High)  Timberlyne Shopping Center is within walking distance (Food Lion, Walgreens, and restaurants)  Sense of community (walking group, kids biking, and engaging in sports) Cons  Infrastructure: – Lack of lighting at night – No playground for kids  Since we own the home, we are responsible for all maintenance Impact of Relocation  Unable to move mobile home to another property due to age and condition  Would have to move in with extended family because an apartment is not an immediate option  Kids would have to relocate schools  My parents would lose their most valuable asset Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions – table Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions – table Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions – table Summary of Tools Used In Other Jurisdictions – table Recommendation 1: Mobile Home Park Improvement and Expansion Program (Short Term)  Orange County establishes a loan program for mobile home park owners to improve and/or expand their existing park.  Strategy would be part of an overall Rental Rehabilitation Initiative for Investor- Owners.  Recommended that up to $500,000 from the $2M Affordable Housing/Land Bank Set-aside in the approved Capital Investment Plan be used to initially fund this Initiative. Recommendation 2: Repair and/or Replacement Program Component (Short Term)  Orange County establishes, with local funds, a repair and/or replacement program component for residents living in a mobile home, whether rental or owner-occupied. 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 of ficials 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. 18 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. 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)) 20 (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): o High o Medium o Low • Alternatives must incorporate and allow for: o Natural preservation areas o Environmental buffers o Cultural areas of significance o Road network and infrastructure o Development (affordable housing opportunities, mixed use potential, etc.) o Recreational facility site o School site o Park space • Proposed alternatives are preliminary concept plans 21 Items of Consideration • Determine development goals o Land use o Location o Density • Determine affordable housing goals o Mixed income o Minimum percent o Total number of affordable housing units sought • Modification of the 2002 Resolution? • Reconfigurations of the headwaters preserve areas? Infrastructure • Roads o North, south, west, and east connections • Norfolk Southern Railroad (East connection) o Three existing crossings typically have to be closed in exchange for a new crossing o They will accept and consider a proposal for a new crossing without closings. Decision is made based on various factors. Ultimately the decision is based on what is in the company’s best interest o Requesting party is responsible for all money involved with a proposal and, ultimately, construction as well if approved o Overhead / underground pedestrian and bicycle crossing also discussed. Approval typically more easily accomplished but very expensive to construct o Suggestion from railroad representative to consider obtaining one or more parcels to provide alternative location for access without crossing railroad • Water and Sewer • Stormwater Commissioner Jacobs asked staff to mark the property before any decisions are made, so that the Board of County Commissioners and other boards can walk the property. Commissioner Jacobs left at 10:15 p.m. How to Apportion use of 104 acres (chart) Greene Tract – Environmental and Cultural Features Greene Tract Conceptual Plan – Alternative 1 (high), headwaters existing (map) Greene Tract Conceptual Plan – Alternative 2 (medium), headwaters existing (map) Greene Tract Conceptual Plan – Alternative 3 (low), headwaters existing (map) Headwaters Preserve Area • Should the existing Headwaters Preserve area (60 acres) be reconfigured? (BOCC) o A reconfiguration of the Headwaters Preserve area would allow for the protection of the most preservation-worthy areas of the Greene Tract 22 o Creates an environmental corridor with lands under joint ownership o 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 Housing 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 23 Background (2002 Resolution) 2002 Resolution Do you support modifications to the 2002 Resolution? A. Yes B. No Items of Consideration • Determine development goals o Land use o Location o Density • Determine affordable housing goals o Mixed income o Minimum percent o 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. 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. Mark Dorosin, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board