Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-06-2018 Work Session1 APPROVED 10/16/2018 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION September 6, 2018 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, September 6, 2018 at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, 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: John Roberts 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) Chair Dorosin called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. 1. Economic Development Districts – Follow-up from Board Retreat Travis Myren reviewed the following information: Background: The work session discussion will attempt to clarify the strategic issues raised by the Board during the 2018 retreat and provide direction to staff on future economic development goals and tactics. Staff will provide information and facilitate a discussion on the following questions and themes: 1. What is the context for economic development in Orange County? The Board has adopted a social justice goal and an operational goal related to economic development. The social justice goal is to Ensure Economic Self Sufficiency and is further defined as, “The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their dependents.” The Board’s adopted operational goal is to, “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.” On an operational level, economic development may also influence the Board’s current policy priorities: • Tax base growth to pay for increased demand for public services • Living wages and housing • Transportation • Environmental preservation • Impacts on the criminal justice system 2 • Economic diversification and quality of life 2. What activities are included in the category of economic development? How should those activities be prioritized? • Arts • Commercial and Industrial Recruiting • Small Business Development • Agricultural Development • Tourism 3. How much money is the County currently investing in economic development? Specifically, how are Article 46 funds being allocated? What is the return on investment for those activities? 4. What is the current land use framework in which economic development may occur? 5. What is the tax base profile and how has it changed over time? How has recent economic activity changed the tax base? 6. What is happening in the Economic Development Districts that may impact future economic development strategy? • Status of water and sewer extensions • Encroaching residential development • Practical considerations of expanding utilities in the Eno Economic Development District 7. What are the potential next steps for discussion and implementation? • Using objective criteria identify the most marketable sites within the current areas designated for economic development. • Reduce development risk by preparing a site for development o Identify willing sellers o Conduct due diligence o Gain property control for price certainty o Extend utilities and other infrastructure • Pre-zone property in the areas designated for economic development that are within the County’s zoning jurisdiction • Reexamine the boundaries of areas designated for economic development • Investigate the potential for research and development sites in cooperation with area universities • Reexamine the uses of Article 46 sales tax revenue • Review permitting and regulatory procedures with respect to barriers to efficient processing Travis Myren said there is a copy of the PowerPoint presentation, a revised handout for the Article 46 sales tax, and a booklet of the loan and grant recipients from 2017-18 at the Commissioners’ places. He made the following PowerPoint presentation: Economic Development Work Session Board of Orange County Commissioners Southern Human Services Meeting Facility 3 September 6, 2018 Context for Economic Development in Orange County • Social Justice Goal o Ensure Economic Self Sufficiency: Create and preserve infrastructure, policies, programs, and funding necessary for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing, and medical care for themselves and their dependents. • Strategic Goal o Implement planning and economic development policies for a balanced, dynamic local economy that promotes diversity, sustainable growth, and enhanced revenue while embracing community values. Commissioner Price arrived at 7:07:06 PM Operationalizing Economic Development Goals • Tax Base Growth o Pays for Public Services and Balances the Tax Base • Living Wages & Housing o Allows Economic Self Sufficiency • Transportation o Reduces Single Occupancy Trips and Miles Traveled • Environmental Preservation o Makes Farmland Profitable to Reduce Development Incentive • Criminal Justice System o Reduces Crime Associated with Poverty and Improve Outcomes • Quality of Life o Promotes Economic Diversity and Opportunity Economic Development Activities – What Counts? • Arts o Director of Arts Commission o Grant Program • Commercial and Industrial Recruiting o Water & Sewer Extensions o Staff Support • Small Business Support o Staff Support o Grant Program • Ag Development o Staff Support o Grant Program • Tourism o Visitors Bureau Staff Support o Marketing Economic Development Investments (chart) 4 Chair Dorosin asked which infrastructure has the debt on it. Travis Myren said mostly in the Buckhorn Economic Development District (EDD). Commissioner Rich said Mebane is at 17%, and asked if this is also part of the infrastructure in the Buckhorn EDD. Travis Myren said no, all of the infrastructure will show up in the red portion of the pie chart (53%), and the Mebane-specific portion is grants and/or loans going to businesses primarily located in Mebane, Efland, etc. Commissioner Rich said it seems strange that Mebane is the smallest portion, yet it receives more than other municipalities. Commissioner McKee asked if this 14% includes agriculture grants. Travis Myren said yes. Commissioner Rich said that makes more sense. Commissioner Jacobs clarified that this is not within the City of Mebane Travis Myren said it would be within Mebane, but also includes the incentives for Morinaga. Commissioner Rich said that makes even more sense. She said she wanted to make sure that funds are being spent in the Orange County portion of Mebane. Commissioner Jacobs said when this sales tax began, it seemed logical to build in the EDDs as all of the municipalities would get a cut of the pie. He said he is unsure if this was equitable or not, and would be curious to know if the reverse is true: if County funds are spent in the municipalities, is the same percentage returned as when funds are spent in the County? Travis Myren said he would have to research this question. He said he imagines that analysis would work both ways. Commissioner Jacobs said he wonders if it is a mirror image, or if it is different because it is going through the municipality versus the County. Travis Myren said if there were tax base growth anywhere in the County, it would drive down the countywide tax rate. He said in that sense tax base is tax base. Commissioner McKee said they were talking about sales tax increases that the County distributes out to the municipalities. Commissioner Jacobs said he wants to know how this works coming back to the County. Chair Dorosin said it all goes to the State, and then it comes to the County and is distributed. He said every municipality benefits when any municipality does better. Commissioner Jacobs said a past County Manager wanted to change the formula to freak out the municipalities, and when considering how to spend the infrastructure money, it would be interesting to see if there is a dollar-for-dollar return. Travis Myren said the County has a choice as to whether to use a per capita distribution or an ad valorem distribution, and he is not sure of the implications based on where the tax revenue is generated; and if there are any. He resumed the presentation: Article 46 Sales Tax (chart) Article 46 Sales Tax Expenditures To Date (pie chart) Article 46 Performance Measures Measuring Return on Investment • Small Business Investment Grant Program (From FY15-16 – Present) o 105 Grants Made o $558,230.95 Granted o 191 New Jobs • Agriculture Grant Program (From FY15-16 – Present) o 53 Grants Made 5 o $402,249.98 Granted o 114 New Jobs • Loan Fund (From 2009) o 22 Loans Made o $974,848 Loaned • Commercial Businesses Connected to Sewer o Morinaga Commissioner McKee asked if some of this money was used to connect businesses in Carrboro to the sewer. Steve Brantley, Economic Development Director, said yes; $27,000. Commissioner Price asked if the average grant amount is known, and the number of applicants. Travis Myren said staff will get that information to the Board. Mike Ortosky, Agriculture Economic Developer, said ag grants average about $8000, and have about 20-30% more applicants. Travis Myren resumed the presentation: Article 46 Performance Measures (chart: page 9) Incentives Return on Investment Article 46 Sales Tax Projections (graph: page 10) Chair Dorosin noted the blue line on page 10, and asked if this referred to the Buckhorn and Hillsborough EDDs only. Travis Myren said it also refers to the Eno EDD. Chair Dorosin asked if water and sewer are planned for the Eno EDD. Travis Myren said yes, a $1.4 million project, but not all of those expenditures have been made yet. He resumed the presentation: Economic Development and Land Use Land Use Framework • Annexation and Zoning o Town/City Annexation Extinguishes County Zoning o Interlocal Agreements Provide Joint Understanding/Boundaries of Development • Joint Land Use Agreement o Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro o Establishes Urban Growth Boundaries, Transition Areas, Rural Buffer • Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement-map o Orange County, Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough o Establishes Boundaries for Utility Extensions Appendix A: Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement (map: page 12) Economic Development & Property Tax Base (pie chart: page 13) Property Tax Base Profile by Jurisdiction – 2017 (pie charts: page 14) 6 Commissioner Rich referred to page 13, and said Mebane only gives back 2% to Orange County, yet is receiving more Article 46 tax dollars than Chapel Hill. Chair Dorosin said the money is still in Orange County. Commissioner Rich said she is just concerned about this. Chair Dorosin said the goal of the conversation is to talk about the EDDs, which is the driver behind the disparity that Commissioner Rich is seeing. Commissioner McKee said there is a difference between money spent in the City of Mebane, versus money spent on a Mebane address. He said Morinaga is not a City of Mebane project. Commissioner Rich said Article 46 monies come from across the entire county. Commissioner McKee said he understands, but does not want this conversation to be that one town is getting more than another. Chair Dorosin said the EDDs are what is driving how the Article 46 monies are spent. Commissioner Price clarified that the tax base in Chapel Hill is 19%, which is 42% of the County. Travis Myren said no that would be all uses within Chapel Hill, which includes everything. Economic Development & Property Tax Base (table: page 15) Economic Development & Property Tax Base (graph: page 16) EDD Status and Trends (chart: page 17) Commissioner Price asked if, upon completion, will the Eno EDD be transferred to Durham? Travis Myren said yes. He resumed the presentation: Encroaching Residential Development (map: page 18) Travis Myren said the discussion at the retreat was to pre-zone sites. He resumed the presentation: Cost of Community Services (graphs: page 19) • The cost of Community services in Orange County from 2006- revenue 1.00 and expenditure is $1.32 in Orange County • The Cost of Community Services in North Carolina • Averages per $1.00 Tax Revenue- Residential: 1.26/ Commercial Industry Type/Investment/Tax Revenue (table: page 20) Commissioner Jacobs said the County’s policy was not to recruit high water users, due to limited capacity, and this was not acknowledged in the report. He said he would like the Planning Department or the Commission for the Environment to reply to that aspect of what is being discussed. Travis Myren resumed the presentation: Utilities in the Eno Economic Development District • Served by the City of Durham • County to Assume Project Responsibility 7 • Eno EDD is comprised of 776 Acres • $6.3 Million is the most recent cost to serve all 776 acres • The current project ($1.4 million) would serve approx. 100 acres o At an additional cost of $100,000 - $150,000 a private sewer pump system could be installed to serve an additional 100 acres Utilities in the Eno Economic Development District (map: page 23) Commissioner Marcoplos referred to the area in solid red on the map, and asked if that is an abandoned area. Commissioner McKee said that area is found in the red dash line area. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, said the dashed circle is more of a redevelopment area, and the 100 acres are primarily undeveloped, and there is a 25,000 square foot building under site review in Durham and a 36,000 square foot site plan under review on undeveloped property in the 100 acre area. He said a 25,000 square foot building has been built already that did not undergo annexation with Durham, but now Durham would like to annex all new buildings. He said staff does not see a problem with this, as long as there is coordination. He said the Eno Small Area Plan has standardized the regulations between both areas, and the same outcomes will be achieved. Chair Dorosin asked if “both areas” could be defined. Craig Benedict said whether it is in Orange County, or whether it is annexed by Durham. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan for the dotted line area. Craig Benedict said the area is underdeveloped or undeveloped, and the private property owners are trying to form a 100+ acre area to install their own pump lift station, and pump it across to the new gravity line being installed by the County. He said the County cannot extend the gravity sewer any further than the red box, but residents can pump to it. He said Durham has verbally agreed to this connection should the private property owners wish to pump into the system. He said there are always limitations on the amount of sewer capacity, and Durham is in the process of upgrading the sewer just over the county line, which Orange County can flow into by gravity. He said the $6.3 million would be a large lift station and pumping over 3 miles into downtown Durham to find a place that was not over capacity, which is really not feasible. Commissioner Price said she thought the Board had discussed that the area across from the residential portion would not be economic development, in order to provide a buffer. Craig Benedict said the land use in the lavender portion remains economic development, as this is one of the few districts that has a lower intensity economic development. He said the zoning has not been changed. He said there is such difficulty in serving this entire area, and part of the discussion must be are there better places that can be served more easily from a utility standpoint. He said this has been on the map since the 1980s due to its location, being that it is an interchange to I-85; thus making it an appropriate place for development. Commissioner Price said the residents expressed some concern about the area south of this, and she thought the County was going to try to avoid having industrial development on the other side of the road. Chair Dorosin said there is a lot to consider, and the theme from the retreat was if some of this needs modification. Commissioner Jacobs said Commissioner Price’s recollection is accurate, and there have been several conversations with Duke about the possibility of locating economic research facilities in this area, and Duke has been verbally receptive, but Orange County has not pursued the idea. He said Duke keeps expanding, and there is no reason for the County to not try and make Duke a partner here in this EDD. 8 Chair Dorosin said it is encouraging to hear about these new flex space buildings going up in this area. Craig Benedict said one may be a recreation/retail building. Craig Benedict said staff has met with the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding the N.C. 751 area, which DOT has said may be a feasible 4-way intersection. He said staff is in discussions with property owners up in the red area. He said DOT may have some funds for intersection reconfigurations, if the County can secure the right of way to the north. Travis Myren resumed the presentation: Economic Development Future Identify Most Marketable Sites • GIS Site Selection Study o $15,000 to $25,000 • Scope of the Analysis o Current Economic Development Districts o Include Town Land o Examine Land Outside of Economic Development Districts • Potential Boundary Adjustments o Mebane Area Planning o Implication for Joint Land Use Plan and Water & Sewer Boundary Agreement Site Readiness • $1,000 to $1,500 per acre with utilities in place o Identify Willing Sellers o Geotechnical Analysis o Wetland Delineations o Boundary Surveys o Mitigate Adjacent Property Uses o Water & Sewer Capacity Study  $75,000 to $100,000 Pre-zoning Parcels in Economic Development Districts (map: page 25) Steve Brantley said, a year ago, the Board discussed incentives for Project Sky, and this was announced in Greensboro last week: Publix warehouse, $300 million and 1000 jobs. He said Sky Publix came to Orange County three times, but the proposed site has residential next to it. Steve Brantley said a Japanese company has also visited twice in the past nine months, but announced last week in Sanford: 109 jobs in auto parts, and a $30 million investment. He said this company was heavy manufacturing, and Orange County had residential by its site. Steve Brantley said there are statistics for the cost of services, but for business recruitment is that it is detrimental; it is not compatible. He said one would not buy/build a home next to a factory, and factories do not want to buy/build next to residential. He said the more the County puts money in the ground to provide water and sewer, the more the properties proliferate with housing; and the less likely it becomes that a quality investor, like Morinaga, will want to build near by. Commissioner Price said the Board still does not know what type of economic development it wants. She said Raleigh has economic development next to residential, and it all depends on the type of economic development that is pursued. She said the Board needs to 9 decide which type of development it wants to pursue, and some want research and development, while others seek commercial. Steve Brantley said staff wants all types of development, and Wake County has 13 municipalities, which makes finding existing commercial office space easy. He said Wake County also has industrial properties, and the comparable blue-collar job sites in Orange County are going to be along the interstates in the EDDs. He said the Blue Cross Blue Shield building represents an opportunity to land high tech companies, which have typically gone to Raleigh, but this will not create the type of blue-collar jobs that many are looking for. He said having both opportunities is ideal. Commissioner Jacobs said Commissioner Price made a good point, and in addition to look at land use, the County needs to consider what it wants to hunt. He said the Board constantly hears negativity about Orange County as a place to develop economically, and the County needs to promote the positive strengths in Orange County, and type of development it can attract. Chair Dorosin said he does think the focus in only on the negative, and there is a sequence to this. He said there are broader questions from retreat: the need for larger parcels; access to parcels; questions about set ups of EDDS, etc. Chair Dorosin said one of the challenges of discussions like this is the desire to put their arms around the entire concept, instead of taking incremental steps. Travis Myren resumed the presentation: Land Prices Relative to the Market (table: page 26) Site Control Options • Option Agreements o 2% - 5% of the per acre cost for one year o Example: $50,000 per acre for 50 acres = $50,000 - $125,000 • Ownership o Price will vary by site o Example: $50,000 per acre for 50 acres = $2,500,000 Prepared Product • Shovel Ready or Pad Ready Sites o $50,000 to $100,000 per acre • Spec Buildings o $50 to $100 per square foot Other Opportunities • Identify Additional Economic Development Partnerships with Towns • Reexamine the Uses of Article 46 Sales Tax Revenue • Investigate Research Partnerships with Area Universities • Review Permitting and Regulatory Processes o Overall Efficiency o Identify Common Barriers or Misconceptions Chair Dorosin said no one wants to abandon the EDDs, but there seemed a merging consensus of revisiting the redevelopment of them. He said on the maps the EDDs look huge, but in reality they are much smaller areas, in which to achieve some substantive economic development. 10 Commissioner Burroughs said she finds it important to work rather quickly on pre- zoning, which is a defensive move. Chair Dorosin asked if the number of these areas that are already pre-zoned is known. Craig Benedict said the whole purple area in the Buckhorn EDD (900 acres gross) has been pre-zoned. He said the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) are areas that were not pre-zoned; 1300 acres total in the Buckhorn/Mebane area, and only 300 have been pre-zoned. He said there are more areas in the yellow and green that can be pre-zoned. He said in the New Year, some land uses may be combined to allow for more streamlined ED zones. Chair Dorosin clarified that the purple area cannot be zoned residential. Craig Benedict said that is correct. Commissioner Rich asked if there is a downside of pre-zoning. Craig Benedict said the property owners may be in agreement with pre-zoning, or not. He said the pre-zoning in the CITAN area went smoothly, and pre-zoning needs to be done comprehensively, and not by small areas. He said in 1994 the Board pre-zoned the Buckhorn, Hillsborough, and Eno EDDs. Chair Dorosin asked if there is a difference between pre-zoning and zoning. Craig Benedict said pre-zoning means to have zoning consistent with the land use already, so that it does not have to be done retroactively. Craig Benedict said, in contrast, the CITAN areas have been left at base zones, and everyone would have to ask for different zoning, unless residential were permitted by right. Commissioner Burroughs said she is focused on preventing residential areas. Commissioner Jacobs said in the 1990s there was pre-zoning, but with the idea that the developers had to bring the infrastructure, which is why nothing happened. He said a different Board put Gravely Hills Middle School in the middle of an EDD to get water and sewer into the EDD. Commissioner Jacobs said the Board did turn down a subdivision in the EDD. He said the Board has discussed the idea of housing above shops - more of a mixed use. He said he would not preclude having some form of mixed use in the some the EDDs. He said the main reason it was not zoned any further is because it gives more negotiating leverage, but he is not sure what the County is trying to negotiate at this point. Commissioner Marcoplos said his main questions are if the Board decides to go ahead and do this, what would it look like, how long would it take, and is there any advantage to finding a likely place for a mixed-use area. He said the Board ought to go ahead and pre-zone. Craig Benedict said there was a work session on this 8-10 years ago that discussed permitting uses that fit certain areas; and zoning according to the type of development that would naturally fit. Craig Benedict said this could probably be accomplished in 3-4 months, and would have to have additional community meetings. He said there are has been some community meetings in the Buckhorn/Efland area when utilities were installed. He said the residential property that has been mentioned closer to Mebane cannot contain an industrial building, due to the topography. Craig Benedict said staff can come up with a proposal for rezoning in the next month or so. Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there are any anticipated speed bumps. Craig Benedict said staff had community meetings about the Efland/Buckhorn/Mebane access management program, and 100 people attended. He said the land uses are roughly appropriate in the area, there are utilities, and so staff is working on bolstering the roadway infrastructure system. He said there will be some community concern. Commissioner McKee said to move forward as quickly as reasonably possible. He asked if there is a downside of not doing pre-zoning. He said for him, it would be to have 2-3 11 residential developments pop up in the Buckhorn EDD, which would kill commercial development. Steve Brantley said his staff and advisory board are not high on the Eno EDD. He said there are concerns about the EDDs being slow to perform, and only one sewer line has been completed in the 7 years he has been with Orange County. He said what happens first will set the tone for what happens next. He said in the 30 years that the EDDs have existed, they have filled up with homes, and residential will continue to move in if the County does not do something. He said the Flea Market site would be suitable for a Tanger mall, and there is another confidential possibility in the works currently. He said if the County took 2000 acres of land and designated all of it industrial, with infrastructure put in various parts of it, decisions would be made on where the County wants to focus investment first. He said Mebane is a water-sewer partner, and helped incentivize the Morinaga project. He said it is unfortunate that Carrboro does not have an EDD. Steve Brantley said to consider the history, and reason that Article 46 was passed in the first place, was to diversify the non-residential tax base, and alleviate the burden off of the residential tax base. Chair Dorosin said the Board is on the same page about the residential, and wants the EDDs to work better. He said it may be wise to identify marketable sites, and maybe not pre- zone all areas, but rather ones that may be more marketable. He said these options are not mutually exclusive. He hears consensus about moving forward with pre-zoning, and wants to also consider site readiness, site control, and is it easier for the County to put smaller parcels into a larger, potentially more marketable, parcel. Commissioner Price said the area is already zoned, and asked if the intent is now to zone it with pre-zoning. Craig Benedict said the EDD in the dark purple area has appropriate zoning, and it is the yellow and light green areas that need to be considered. He said this should be changed away from residential and agricultural/residential. He said there are 2400 acres. Commissioner Price said she still is unclear about what is best to put in the EDD, and if there are trends to consider. She said it is also important to consider the desires of residents. Chair Dorosin said right now the focus is on not wanting housing. Commissioner Price said but with pre-zoning, what kind of ED does the Board want? She said the desire for big fish projects that will bring blue-collar jobs is understandable, but there are many artists seeking studio and retail space. She said when anything is built the surrounding areas are affected. Chair Dorosin said he agrees, but he does not think pre-zoning against residential will have an impact. Commissioner Jacobs said all of the rezoning was done for Buckhorn Village in less than a year. He said another reason why they focus on Mebane is that Mebane has abided by the idea of developing under Orange County standards, and then annexing the property. He said Hillsborough has not done the same. He said some criteria is needed about how long the County will hold onto a parcel waiting for the potential “big fish” project before moving ahead with a guaranteed “smaller fish” project. Commissioner Burroughs said she would like to start identifying marketable sites and site readiness, with criteria being developed at some point down the line. Commissioner McKee agreed with Chair Dorosin with putting the pre-zoning in place, and do what was identified in the PowerPoint presentation: studies, analysis, etc. He said he does not want to get too far down in the weeds of what the Board wants and does not want, and the more expeditiously this moves forward, the better it is for all. Commissioner Marcoplos said a lot of these things can be done simultaneously, and he also does not want to get hung up on what kind of ED they want. He said the Board should take away as many of the roadblocks as possible. 12 Commissioner Rich said she is excited about the pre-zoning, and would like to add public–private partnerships to the list, besides the universities. Commissioner Rich said she went to the Chairs/Mayors meeting at Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG), and the topic was behavioral patterns in government, and the lack of innovation in comparison to the private sector. She said it is important to think outside of the box, and be more innovative. She said she liked the idea of allowing some mixed use. Commissioner Jacobs referred to what Craig Benedict was describing with the Eno EDD property owners coming together to develop a parcel, and said at least 10 years ago he and Senator Valerie Foushee met with the residents of the Eno EDD, who very much wanted to develop it. He said this is a great opportunity to partner with small, private investors. Chair Dorosin said it may be possible for the County to play a role without actually buying the parcels. Commissioner Price said when she was referring to understanding trends; it was not to define who would move into the spaces, but rather related to site readiness. Chair Dorosin said there is consensus here regarding: pre-zoning; a site readiness capacity study; and identifying marketable sites, with the Board needing to determine whether to limit it just to EDDs or broaden it outside of the EDD; he is in favor of broadening this. Commissioner Rich said she would like to add access points. Commissioner McKee referred to sites outside of the EDDs, and asked Steve Brantley if it is more efficient to focus on areas within EDDs now, and broaden the scope as a second step. Steve Brantley said the staff can go either way, and knows where most of the outside sites are, but have yet to approach property owners. He said the Economic Development Advisory Board would also be excited to participate in this matter as they have a great deal of expertise. Commissioner McKee said he does not want to shift focus by making the scope too large. Chair Dorosin said the GIS study would be a first step, and knocking on the doors of property owners may come next. He said there may be parcels in the towns or town extraterritorial jurisdictions (ETJs) that may be more marketable options to consider. Commissioner McKee said that is good and he just does not want to give too much workload to staff. Bonnie Hammersley said, as staff looks into the most marketable sites, a third party would be brought into to do much of the legwork. Commissioner Jacobs suggested not venturing out too far from EDDs prior to investigating the capabilities within them, because that is where sprawl occurs, like in Wake and Durham counties. He said when this happens, the integrity of the land use plan is compromised. Commissioner McKee said that is part of his concern too. Commissioner Jacobs said the more deliberative way to do this is to use what currently exists and see if that is enough; if not, then decide where you want to go. Commissioner Marcoplos agreed with the danger of overreach, but knows there is land that has been asked about, and the sooner marketable sites are identified, the better the Board can address this issue. He said the EDD maps are 30 years old, and may need to be reconfigured. He said it is important to be mindful of these issues like sprawl, the rural buffer, what makes Orange County unique and attractive, etc. Chair Dorosin said there are controls in place like the rural buffer to prevent sprawl, and he has confidence in them. He said there seems to be consensus to look into the EDDs, and the areas immediately around them, while being open to other marketable sites that staff may uncover. He said the Board can move forward with the pre-zoning and site readiness capacity study. Commissioner Jacobs said this is good summary, but there is not consensus. 13 Chair Dorosin said there is consensus on doing all that he mentioned within the EDDs specifically, and a majority of the Board that is willing to look immediately beyond the EDDs. Bonnie Hammersley asked if the Board wants to limit this evening’s agenda, given the hour. Chair Dorosin said to do the election item, and defer items 3 and 4 to another agenda. The Board agreed by consensus. 2. Additional Discussion Regarding the Election Method for Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners Greg Wilder, Assistant to the County Manager, reviewed the following background information: BACKGROUND: In late 2016 and early 2017, some members of the Board of Commissioners expressed an interest in discussing and possibly amending the current election method for seats on the Board of Commissioners. Several related topics were voiced regarding potentially amending the method. At the Board’s March 28, 2017 work session, staff addressed those topics and others in the agenda abstract for the meeting (See Attachment A – March 28, 2017 Work Session Agenda Abstract). During the March 28th discussion, the Board asked for additional information on several items. Those items are addressed below and/or in concert with Attachments B through I. 1) Keeping all other aspects of the current Commissioner election method intact, what is the approval process for a change from the current district residency/district nomination/countywide election method for Commissioners – to a district residency/district nomination/district election method? A change from the current district residency/district nomination/countywide election method for Commissioners – to a district residency/district nomination/district election method – would require Board approval of a resolution detailing the change and authorizing a countywide voter referendum on the proposed change. If the voters approved the proposed change, the Board of Commissioners could then consider a resolution implementing the change. If voters did not approve the change, no further action on the matter would occur. At no time would this potential change require review or approval by the North Carolina General Assembly. 2) What is the party affiliation for current voter registration countywide and by the two current Commissioner electoral districts? Staff has provided a map as Attachment B summarizing the party affiliation for current voter registration countywide and by the two current Commissioner electoral districts. 3) Can staff review the annual population projections published by the American Community Survey (ACS) and provide information on the population trends for both Commissioner districts - since the 2010 Census - in anticipation of the 2020 Census? 14 Staff reviewed 2010 Census data and the most recent population estimates from the American Community Survey. The 2010 Census detailed population numbers are based on more precise block level delineations (Attachment C). Conversely, the ACS develops its population projections at a larger block group level, with each block group consisting of multiple Census blocks (Attachment D). The block group areas in some cases consist of land areas larger than the towns in the County. Additionally, while block boundaries align more directly with the Commissioner electoral districts, the larger block group level boundaries vary substantially from the current Commissioner electoral district lines. The ACS 5-Year estimates utilize 5 years of collected data to produce estimates based on the block group level. It should also be noted that the ACS data are only estimates based on sampling and are not as accurate as the decennial Census data. For example the 2010 Census population for Orange County was 133,801. Conversely, the 2010 ACS (5-year), a 5 year period prior to the 2016 ACS, estimated the County’s population at 129,562. This equates to 3.22% lower than the actual 2010 Census. The 2016 ACS may similarly underrepresent the 2016 population, but is statistically relevant. Using the 2016 ACS 5-year data (the most current data available from ACS), staff developed estimates of the population for the two BOCC voting districts. Unfortunately, as noted previously, the block group boundaries do not follow the current BOCC electoral districts (figure 1). There are six block groups that are split by the voting districts. Figure 1 For each block group that was entirely within a single BOCC voting district staff assigned the population numbers to that voting district. For three of the block groups that were split, staff utilized the County’s current address layer to calculate how many residential addresses were in each block group. Staff subsequently took the percentage of addresses for each block group that were in each voting district and then divided the total population for each block group by the percentages and then assigned the population numbers to each district (figure 2). This allowed staff to estimate the 2016 populations for each BOCC voting district (figure 3). For the other three split block groups that had only a small percent of addresses in a district, staff applied the entire population to the district that had the majority of addresses. Figure 2 To summarize, the 2010 Census population for District 1 was 82,412. The County staff generated 2016 ACS 5-Year estimate for District 1 is 85,990. The 2010 Census population for District 2 was 51,389. The County staff-generated 2016 ACS 5-Year estimate for District 2 is 53,817. The 2010 Census total County population was 133,801. The 2016 ACS 5-Year estimate for the entire County is 139,807. 4) Can staff investigate and provide potential scenario maps eliminating at large Commissioner seats and detailing two Commissioner districts with multiple Commissioners representing each district? – {Page 4 of abstract. ) At the March 28, 2017 work session, the Board discussed, in theory, the elimination of at large seats. A scenario of seven districts with one Commissioner representing each district was discussed. However, based on Board discussion, staff understood that seven-district framework 15 was removed from consideration due to the “pie-shaped” districts that would emanate from the Chapel Hill Carrboro area due to the population concentration in that area. The Board also discussed establishing two Commissioner districts with multiple Commissioners representing each district. The possibility of a district consisting of five seats and a district of two seats was discussed. Staff understood however following Board discussion that this concept was also set aside and that the Board requested that staff develop information and mapping for two districts - one consisting of four seats and the other district consisting of three seats. Staff has provided two possible “4-3” scenarios for the Board’s initial review – Possibility 1 and Possibility 2 (See Attachments E and F). There are other possible variations that could be developed and considered based on Board input. These two scenarios were chosen by staff as starting points as both entail limited variance from the current Commissioner district lines, and also limited variance from the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools district boundaries which were used to guide delineation of the original Commissioner district lines established in 2006. Possibility 1 re-assigns a total of 6,143 voters from the current District 1 to District 2. Possibility 2 relocates 3,684 voters from the current District 1 to District 2. Attachment G provides inset maps for the areas included in the population shifts from District 1 to District 2. Implementation of Possibility 1, Possibility 2 or any other similar election method that a) decreases or increases the number of at large seats, and/or b) changes the number of seats from a district, and/or c) changes the boundaries for the Commissioner electoral districts would require Board action and a countywide voter referendum. Potential changes such as these would necessitate Board approval of a resolution detailing the changes and authorizing a countywide voter referendum on the proposed changes. If the voters subsequently approved the proposed changes, the Board of Commissioners could then consider a resolution implementing the changes. If voters did not approve the change, no further action on the matter would occur. Potential changes of this nature would not require review or approval by the North Carolina General Assembly. 5) Can staff provide additional information on cumulative voting and non-partisan voting and the potential to consider them as options for Board of Commissioners seats? Attachment H At the March 28th work session, Board members discussed cumulative voting and non-partisan voting. County Attorney John Roberts noted that an electoral plan that relied upon cumulative voting would require approval by the North Carolina General Assembly. Several Board members expressed concern about pursuing an option that would require General Assembly action, while other members suggested that the Board further discuss the topic. County Attorney Roberts also noted that while he was aware that some jurisdictions in other states employed non-partisan elections to elect county commissioners, and that school boards in North Carolina utilized non-partisan elections, he was unaware that any NC county had implemented a non-partisan election method for county commissioners. Mr. Roberts further noted that pursuit of a non-partisan system Carolina General Assembly. County Attorney Roberts has provided additional information on cumulative voting, non-partisan voting, and other related topics in Attachment H. 6) Does Robeson County utilize a board of commissioners election method similar to 16 the current mixed at-large/district method used by Orange County?- 8:57:37 PM Attachment I depicts the current structure of Orange County’s election method for the Board of Commissioners. Robeson County does not utilize a similar election method. Robeson County Board of Elections Director G.L. Pridgen has confirmed that the eight members of the Robeson County Board of Commissioners are all elected from eight different electoral districts utilizing a district residency/district nomination/district election method. Each of the eight commissioners must reside in their respective districts, must be nominated by only the voters in their respective districts, and must be elected by only the voters in their respective districts. There are no at large commissioners seats, and no commissioners are nominated or elected at any time on a countywide basis. Greg Wilder said he thinks voter referendums in counties can only occur in even- numbered years. John Roberts said they can only occur during a primary in which all precincts are open, which would be an even-year primary; in a general election, when all three seats are open; or if the state holds some random election in an odd numbered year. Greg Wilder said given that information, the next opportunity would be May or November 2020. Chair Dorosin asked John Roberts if he could summarize what the Board can do without any additional legislative authority. John Roberts said the Board can change the electoral structure by referendum to the voters of all district, all at-large, or a combination of that. He said in a district residence only, with the entire county electing, there are several of those and as long as it is just electoral structure, the Board can do that via referendum. Chair Dorosin clarified that if the Board wanted to go to a 4-3, or a district primary/district general, the general assembly does not to be involved. He asked if there is a referendum, at the primary election in 2020, when it would become effective. John Roberts said it would be not be effective in November of that year, but at the next election cycle. He said the Board would need to designate which seats are which, and it would become effective as people come up for election. Commissioner Burroughs said she considers the census numbers, and how they play into this. She said if everything is kept the same, except changing to district nominated/district in 2020, then the census data could be reviewed and the change implemented in 2022. Greg Wilder said in 2020 the census data from 2010 would have to be used to develop a map to be voted on in 2020. He said if this was adopted, the map would then have to be revised with the new 2022 census data. John Roberts said the map would only need to be revised if there was a significant discrepancy. Commissioner Burroughs said this happened in 2010, and everything was fine in the end. Greg Wilder said the County went through an evaluation process, and there were changes, but they remained within the standard deviation of 5%. Commissioner Burroughs said she is inclined to keep everything the same, except to add the district elected. Commissioner Price asked if this would leave the at-large positions. Commissioner Burroughs said yes, in her thinking. Commissioner McKee said he is supportive of this, and is wary of doing anything that would involve the legislature. He said no one should think that the effective representation rural versus urban is going to change. He said the breakdown of the Board is not rural versus urban, 17 but rather issue-to-issue, with members swinging back and forth. He said going to district- nominate and district-elect will take away the argument of some people in district 2 that say, “we nominate, but the whole County elects.” He said there is a perception of unfairness. Commissioner Price said the perception is, “we nominate, and Chapel Hill elects.” Commissioner McKee said the most equitable thing is to go to district-nominates and district-elects. He said he thinks it is possible for a republican, independent, or green candidate to win if one can get on the ballot and run a strong campaign. Chair Dorosin asked John Roberts if legislative involvement was required for the County wants to go to 4-3. John Roberts said no, that would not require legislative approval. Commissioner McKee said some options would require legislative involvement. John Roberts said pure districts do not require legislative involvement; the County could go can go to 7 districts and not go to legislature. Commissioner Marcoplos said going with 7 districts would lead to it all going pie shaped towards Chapel Hill, which would be ridiculous. Commissioner Marcoplos said he has immersed himself in this issue more than anyone, and has studied it for many years. He said his goal is to enhance democracy, and the only way to provide fair representation is to go over to proportional representation, instant run off, or cumulative voting, etc. He said FairVote.org gives a lot of information, but this would require going to the legislature, and that would never work. He said the suggested “district-nominate/ district-elect” is a waste of money and time, would change nothing, and it does not accomplish the goal of increasing democracy, and, as such, he cannot support it. He said democrats will always win in Orange County for the foreseeable future, which is the root of the issue for folks. He is not in favor of using taxpayer money to address symbolism, and the Board has better things to do with its energy, and should give this up for now. Commissioner Burroughs said Carrboro used to be an incredibly conservative mill town, and has flipped in the last 30-40 years. She said the foreseeable future is not that far. Commissioner Rich said she shared her thoughts over the summer with Chair Dorosin, and she would like to hear from the voters. She said a way to do this is to set up a committee, and have public sessions throughout the County for resident input. She said any type of committee would have to have a charge from the Board of County Commissioners. She said Chatham County is doing something similar, as it is considering increasing its number of board members and the way of doing elections. Commissioner Rich proposed the creation of a committee to research this, noting that when the County went from 5-7 board members, there was an internal committee that came back with recommendations. She proposed creating a committee that does more than hold two public hearings. She said a decision is not needed until late 2019, so there is plenty of time to hear from the public. Commissioner McKee said conversation would be good, but he is hell bent on his proposed changes. He agreed that this would be merely symbolic, but Orange County spends money on symbolic issues all the time. He said it will not change the power structure, but it is impossible to have anyone other than a democrat win with the current process of elections. He said district-nominate/district-elect could offer a good candidate, running a good campaign on the issues, instead of ideas, the chance to win, which will level the playing field. Commissioner Marcoplos said if the Board makes this change, he will make a good bet with Commissioner McKee. Chair Dorosin said a committee involving citizens is a good idea. Chair Dorosin said any change the Board can make to make this more democratic is good, and he suggested adding the cumulative voting issue to North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) legislative agenda. He said he would go further than what 18 Commissioner McKee proposed, and eliminate the at-large seats, which have traditionally been used as tool for advancing majority voting interests against minority voting interests. Chair Dorosin said having 4-3 is more democratic than having 3, 2 and 2. Commissioner McKee said he is not opposed to that. Chair Dorosin said the committee would need to have all the facts as to what requires legislature action and what does not. He said this is not just symbolic as perception is reality, and if people perceive they are not being represented, then that has value. Chair Dorosin said there is huge amount of unaffiliated voters in each district, and they need to be moving toward 7 districts. Commissioner Jacobs said he hopes, as part of this committee, the idea of cumulative voting will at least be introduced to the public. He said the at-large seats are the ones that represent everyone. He said Orange County has tried to ethically represent everyone, whether in their districts or not. He said the at-large seats provide a buffer between the political district war between the people who live in different parts of the County. He said the people in the middle represent everyone by their very nature. Commissioner Price said it is important to hear from the community, and what she hears is that the at-large positions are controlled by Chapel Hill, whether one lives in Chapel Hill or not. Commissioner Price said in other areas districts have actual blocks, and wonders what this would look like here. Commissioner Marcoplos said you have to have 5% margin of error, so you have to dip down into the urban population density to make every district within 5% population of the other. Commissioner Marcoplos said he agreed with Commissioner Jacobs about the at-large positions. He said he has run in District 2 and at-large, and if one is campaigning for an at-large seat, one will go all around the County. He said if there are districts, one will be inclined to stay in one’s own districted area. Commissioner Marcoplos said this proposed change is based on ignorance, and will not change anything. He suggested waiting to see what the legislature will do. He said this was a big issue in 1993, after he ran in 1992, and many felt unrepresented. He said Moses Carey had a citizens committee that came out with a report that recommended going to districts or cumulative voting. He suggested getting that report. Commissioner McKee said there is no way that Orange County can increase the animus that the General Assembly has for Orange County. Commissioner Price said under the current system, she was forced to campaign in District 1, which was helpful because the issues that the Board deals with cross over district lines. Chair Dorosin asked Greg Wilder if Orange County is the only county in the State that has the district primary, and at-large general. Greg Wilder said there are three counties that do something similar, but not exactly the same. He said Orange County is the only one in the State that does it exactly this way. Chair Dorosin said historically, what was the rationale to have the primary for districts, and county-wide for the general election. Commissioner Jacobs said because they had been all at-large seats, and it was basically to force people to interact across the entire County. Chair Dorosin said he is tired of acting out of fear of what the legislature will or will not do, but realistically getting the authority to enact cumulative voting is a long reach, but it is good to introduce this and be a leader. Chair Dorosin said there is a majority willing to set up to a committee to do public hearings, etc. He asked if staff would come back with a charge, or outline of a charge, for this committee, timeline, membership, etc. Commissioner Price said to add the concept of cumulative voting. 19 Commissioner Marcoplos said to have the committee look at instant run-off and proportional representation. 3. Discussion on Proposed Nonprofit Capital Funding Policy and Criteria DEFERRED 4. Board of Commissioners - Boards and Commissions Appointment Process Discussion DEFERRED The meeting adjourned at 9:33 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Mark Dorosin, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board