HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 02-19-2019 8-a - Minutes 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: February 19, 2019
Action Agenda
Item No. 8-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: Board of County
Commissioners
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Draft Minutes Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
(919) 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
January 29, 2019 Assembly of Governments Meeting
February 5, 2019 BOCC Regular Meeting
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
I Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL
6 HILLSBOROUGH BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
7 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN
8 January 29, 2019
9 ASSEMBLY OF GOVERNMENTS (AOG)
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Towns of Chapel Hill,
12 Carrboro and Hillsborough for an Assembly of Governments meeting on Tuesday, January 29,
13 2019 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
14
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich and Commissioners
16 Jamezetta Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Mark Marcoplos, Earl McKee, and Renee
17 Price
18 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
19 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
20 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
21 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
22 appropriately below)
23 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS/STAFF PRESENT: Mayor Pam Hemminger, Alan
24 Buansi, Nancy Oates, Donna Bell, Rachel Chaevitz, Michael Parker, Hongbin Gu, and Town
25 Manager Maurice Jones
26 CHAPEL HILL TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Karen Stegman, Jessica Anderson
27 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS PRESENT/STAFF: Mayor Lydia Lavelle,
28 Aldermen Damien Seils and Sammy Slade and Town Manager David Andrews
29 CARRBORO BOARD OF ALDERMEN MEMBERS ABSENT: Randee Haven O'Donnell,
30 Jacquelyn Gist, Bethany Chaney, Barbara Foushee,
31 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS/STAFF: Mayor Tom Stevens, Town
32 Commissioners Mark Bell, Kathleen Ferguson, Jenn Weaver, and Town Manager Eric Peterson
33 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Matt Hughes and Evelyn Lloyd
34
35
36 Welcome, Call to Order and Opening Comments (BOCC Chair and Mayors)
37 Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
38 Chair Rich said item #5 has been pulled per Mayor Hemminger.
39 Chair Rich said at the Board of County Commissioners retreat they talked about "one
40 Orange County" to encourage more collaboration between the Towns and the County.
41 Chair Rich said Commissioner McKee and Mayor Lavelle will be late.
42 Mayor Hemminger said that Hongbin Gu and Rachel Chaevitz will also be late
43
44 1. Affordable Housing Update
45 Mayor Hemminger introduced this item.
46
47 a) Update on Chapel Hill Affordable Housing Bond and Associated Plans
2
1 Town staff has developed an Affordable Housing Work Plan for FY 18 through FY 20. The
2 Work Plan identifies the key projects underway and indicates when action has been taken or
3 when the Council is scheduled to discuss the topics.
4
5 More information about the Town's FY19 progress toward meeting the Council's Affordable
6 Housing Goals please see the Town's Affordable Housing Quarterly Report, and visit the
7 Town's Affordable Housing webpage, and the Affordable Housing Dashboard, for more
8 information about the Town's affordable housing activities.
9
10 Updates from the Town on affordable housing activities are as follows:
11
12 Loryn Clark, Chapel Hill Executive Director Housing and Community presented this item:
13
14 1) Affordable Housing Bond
15
16 On November 6, 2018, Chapel Hill voters approved a $10 million Affordable Housing Bond
17 Referendum. It is expected the funds will produce 400 new affordable housing units and
18 preserve 300 existing housing units over the next five years. In their agenda packet there is an
19 Allocation Strategy and Funding Process Overview for the Town of Chapel Hill's Affordable
20 Housing Bond. Staff continues to work with the Town's Housing Advisory Board to refine the
21 Strategy and will present recommendations to the Council in the Spring. Staff anticipates
22 issuing the first Request for Proposals for bond funds in late 2019 or early 2020.
23
24 2) Employee Housing Incentive Program
25 In November, 2018, the Chapel Hill Town Council approved an Employee Housing Incentive
26 program. Staff conducted extensive outreach with Town employees and determined that many
27 employees identified housing costs as the top barrier to living in Town. The program would
28 provide financial assistance to employees interested in renting or purchasing a home in Chapel
29 Hill.
30
31 The approved pilot program provides assistance as follows:
32 Rental Incentive: provides a one-time payment for security deposit and utility connection
33 fees:
34 ■ $1,250 for a two-bedroom (or less) home;
35 ■ $1,650 for a three-bedroom home
36 ■ $1,850 for a 4 or more bedroom home
37 o Eligibility requirements
38 ■ Permanent employees with households earning less than 80% of
39 AMI
40 ■ Must live in Chapel Hill Town limits
41 ■ Have a lease term of at least 12 months
42 Homeownership Incentive: provides one-time down payment or closing
43 cost assistance
44 o Assistance
45 ■ Maximum assistance: $7,500
46 ■ Conditions for repayment for employees that leave Town within 5
47 years
48 ■ 20% forgiven every year up to 5 years
49 o Eligibility requirements
50 0 Permanent employees with a household income at 115% AMI and
3
1 below
2 ■ Seek housing in Chapel Hill
3 ■ Home must be primary residence
4
5 The Town will also offer financial counseling and training opportunities to all employees as part
6 of this program.
7
8 The Town plans to begin implementation this program in the winter of 2019.
9
10 3) The Town was notified by HUD that its application for a Rental Assistance Demonstration
11 (RAD) conversion for two of its public housing communities was approved. The plan is to
12 renovate and redevelop the Trinity Court and Craig-Gomains public housing neighborhoods.
13 The Town continues to engage with residents and the community about the RAID program to
14 jointly develop plans for the future of the communities.
15
16 4) The Town, in partnership with residents, community partners, and staff, has developed a
17 Public Housing Master Plan to help create a sustainable strategy relative to the maintenance,
18 development, and redevelopment potential of public housing communities. Consistent with this
19 purpose is the mission to provide programs and services to help public housing families
20 improve basic life skills and increase their economic independence. Town staff will present this
21 plan to the Chapel Hill Town Council on January 30, 2019.
22
23 5) The Town is pursuing affordable mixed-income development on several Town owned sites.
24 The Town has completed the visioning and Concept Plan process for 2200 Homestead Road.
25 Town staff is in the process of identifying potential development partners and advancing
26 through the next steps of the development review process. The Town Council also prioritized
27 three additional Town-owned parcels in the Spring of 2018, and is in the process of conducting
28 analysis to determine feasible options for development on these sites.
29
30 6) The Town continues to implement a Manufactured Home Communities Strategy to
31 proactively engage residents and owners of the Town's manufactured home communities.
32
33 7) The Town supported the development of 99 new affordable housing units in Chapel Hill and
34 the preservation of 23 existing affordable homes in fiscal year 2018. The development of 99
35 homes surpassed the Town's annual goal of 80 new homes and brought the total number of
36 subsidized affordable housing units to over 1,000. The Town also deployed $1.7 million in Town
37 funding (in FY 2018) to support affordable housing projects in the community.
38
39 8) The Town provided support for the development of several tiny homes in in the community,
40 including the Church of the Advocate project on Homestead Road, a tiny house duplex in
41 Northside, and Grisham cottages relocated to Town-owned parcels in the Northside
42 neighborhood. These projects will provide affordable rental housing to very low-income
43 households in the community.
44
45 Commissioner Greene referred to the plan to acquire properties for affordable housing,
46 and asked if this is moving forward.
47 Loryn Clark, Chapel Hill Executive Director Housing and Community, said not at this
48 moment, due to the current plan of working with already owned properties. She said this would
49 be a future opportunity.
4
1 Commissioner Greene referred to the possibility of"developing a payment in lieu for
2 rental housing", and asked if this was successfully achieved.
3 Loryn Clark said this policy has not been reviewed or approved by the Council yet, but
4 the housing advisory board is very interested in pursuing this, and staff will be working on this
5 during this fiscal year.
6 Commissioner Greene asked if there is an update regarding exploring "affordable
7 housing incentive options."
8 Loryn Clark said other than the employee incentive program, there are none. She said
9 this is also a future project.
10 Commissioner Greene referred to properties on the south side of Elliot Road that had
11 been held back in hopes to encourage the developer community with affordable housing, and
12 she recalled that this was not too successful. She asked if any other ideas have come about,
13 especially in regards to voluntary density bonuses.
14 Loryn Clark said staff is coming back to the Council with some recommendations on
15 how to pursue incentive options in the Blue Hill District.
16 Commissioner Price asked if the current housing needs could be identified, as well as
17 the projections for the next 5-10 years.
18 Loryn Clark said she does not have a specific number for the need, but there is a
19 tremendous need, anecdotally. She said staff is trying to set some targets for creation of
20 housing over the next 5 years: 400 new units, and preserve 200-300 units.
21 Commissioner Price asked if there is any data to show how much the needle moved.
22 Loryn Clark said some market studies have been completed over the years, but she
23 does not have those numbers off the top of her head.
24 Commissioner Price referred to the rental incentives for employees, and asked what
25 would happen if the landlord raises the rent. She said this is a one-time thing, and wonders
26 how it is sustainable.
27 Loryn Clark said staff has presented this as a pilot program, and will review it. She said
28 it is a one-time payment that is offered to an employee for rental assistance.
29 Commissioner Price asked if this is an issue because Town employees' wages are not
30 meeting the median income. She asked if wages needed to be increased.
31 Pam Hemminger said it is more an issue of the cost of housing in this community.
32
33 Rachel Chaevitz arrived at 7:14 p.m.
34
35 Commissioner Greene said they are in the same federal group as Durham, and the
36 average income base includes Durham, which brings the average down.
37 Commissioner Greene referred to the "update payments-in-lieu for home ownership
38 units," and said she recalled the need to review/update the inclusionary signing ordinance. She
39 asked if this ordinance is going to be looked at.
40 Loryn Clark said the Housing Advisory Board plans to review the payment-in-lieu and
41 the ordinance.
42 Council Member Oates said the rental piece given to the employees is an incentive, not
43 a subsidy. She said it is to encourage employees to live in Chapel Hill, as opposed to
44 elsewhere.
45 Mayor Hemminger said it is a pilot program, and the Town will learn from the
46 experience.
47 Commissioner Price said it can be called an incentive, but she is trying to think long
48 term, and how employees can stay in one place. She said homeowner's association dues can
49 also be a problem.
50
5
1 b) Manufactured Home Relocation Update/Concerns
2 Sherrill Hampton, Orange County Housing Director, reviewed the following information:
3 2017 and 2018 saw a number of programs and services implemented by the County as it
4 relates to mitigating the closure of manufactured home parks, which are sources of naturally
5 occurring affordable housing. They include the following:
6
7 • Accepted and approved the four (4) recommendations from the multi-sector
8 Work Group (November 2017). Attachment 1 b-1.
9 • Implemented a Rapid Response Protocol for handling any imminent closures. The Rapid
10 Response Team includes representatives from various County departments and both
11 school districts. Began to utilize the protocols in February 2018 as the Homestead
12 Mobile Home Park instituted closure proceedings.
13 • Allocated funding for and implemented a Displacement Mitigation Assistance
14 Program (D-MAP). Contracted with EmPOWERment, Inc. to provide relocation
15 coordination services. To date, three (3) families at Homestead Mobile Home Park was
16 successfully relocated. See Pictures —Attachment 1 b-2 (old units and new unit). The
17 other two (2) families declined assistance. In addition and collaborating with Habitat, one
18 (1) family at Tar Heel Mobile Home Park is receiving a new replacement unit that is
19 currently underway; set-up of the new unit should be completed on or before February
20 28, 2019.
21
22 Note that due diligence was undertaken to ensure that this unit would not be impacted
23 given the proposed redevelopment of Tar Heel Mobile Home Park.
24 Hosted a meeting with manufactured home park owners. Over fifty (50) park owners
25 participated. Announced the upcoming "Revolving Loan Program" for park owners. The
26 new loan program will be launched by the end of the 2019 first quarter.
27
28 Collaborative Activities Under This Category
29
30 The jurisdictions keep each other updated during the monthly joint senior staff meetings on
31 affordable housing matters, especially about any potential manufactured home park closures.
32
33 Discussion on the formulation of a Coordinated Manufactured Home Park
34 Displacement Strategy began in April 2018 and is ongoing. The strategy and any revisions will
35 be brought to the Affordable Housing Local Government Collaborative for review. Most recently,
36 the jurisdictional staff has begun discussions regarding the redevelopment of the Tar Heel
37 Mobile Home Park.
38
39 County Housing and Community Development Concerns/Needs
40 • Access to infrastructure in order to undertake development of any new manufactured
41 home parks.
42 • Review of the current land use and zoning requirements, as well as the development
43 ordinance as it relates to manufactured home parks in order to facilitate the expansion
44 or creation of new parks.
45
46 Other Noteworthy County Affordable Housing Accomplishments
47 Allocation of$100,000 by the BOCC to initiate a local voucher program resulting in the
48 availability of approximately fifteen (15) new vouchers. The BOCC approved guidelines
49 for the new program on December 18, 2018. The program is anticipated to launch in
50 February or March 2019.
6
1 Revision of the guidelines and launch of the Risk Mitigation and Housing Displacement
2 Fund. The program was originally funded and launched in 2017 in an effort to maintain
3 landlords in various voucher and other subsidized programs, assist with housing
4 stabilization and mitigate displacement of low and very low income residents, as well as
5 prevent homelessness, revisions to the program guidelines were implemented.
6
7 Attachment 1 b-3.
8 The Fund provides assistance in three (3) activity areas:
9 o Risk Mitigation (for landlords only)
10 o Housing Stabilization (provision of assistance for security deposits,
11 utility connections and rental payments)
12 o Displacement Mitigation Due to an Urgent Community Need
13
14 Held in both 2017 and 2018, successful engagement meetings with landlords
15 participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Thirty (30) landlords participated
16 in 2017 and fifty (50) participated in 2018.
17
18 For a complete listing of Orange County's housing and community development programs and
19 services, see Attachment 1 b-4.
20
21 c) Other Current Collaboration Activities
22 Besides monthly joint meetings between the applicable senior staff, other collaborative activities
23 during the past year include the following:
24
25 Ongoing municipal and county assistance for voucher holders, i.e. security deposits and
26 utility connections. While each of the municipalities provides the assistance either
27 through DSS, the Community Empowerment Fund or directly to applicable vendors, the
28 rental assistance is jurisdiction-specific. Orange County revised its program to include
29 referrals from the Partnership to End Homelessness's coordinated entry program and
30 most recently the Orange County Criminal Justice Resource Department. These
31 additions would help ensure that "gaps" in services are being mitigated.
32 The role of the former HOME Review Committee was expanded in 2017, approved by
33 the various Orange County jurisdictions and the Committee is now known as the Orange
34 County Local Government Affordable Housing Collaborative. See Attachment 1 c.
35 The Collaborative meets quarterly and is comprised of elected officials and applicable
36 senior staff from each of the jurisdictions. It still reviews and makes recommendations
37 regarding the HOME Program and has also begun to take a more strategic approach to
38 reviewing broader affordable housing issues in the County. A listing of the issues will be
39 discussed in the Section
40 The flooding of Camelot Village — The County and municipalities shared information and
41 kept each other informed as to the provision of assistance for residents who were
42 displaced due to flooding from Hurricane Florence. The various municipalities
43 coordinated with Orange County EMS, Department of Social Services, Housing and
44 Community Development and others, as applicable.
45
46 Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
47 issues and provide feedback to staff related to this item as necessary.
48
49 Attachment I— Orange County Local Government Affordable Housing
50 Collaborative Resolution
7
1
2 d) Future Collaboration Framework
3 As mentioned earlier in the document, the Orange County Affordable Housing Local
4 Government Collaborative is the body undertaking a more strategic approach in regard to
5 intergovernmental partnerships as it relates to the alleviation of affordable housing issues. The
6 Collaborative seeks to identify common areas of interest where the jurisdictions can leverage
7 their knowledge, skills, lessons learned and outcomes. Along with the other mandates of the
8 authorizing Resolution, the Collaborative's Work Plan, beginning in 2019-2020 and ongoing is
9 two-fold:
10
11 Develop a better understanding of the various affordable housing plans and strategies
12 across the jurisdictions and the progress towards these goals to date. Where do the
13 plans intersect or have common goals and how they do or do not support each other?
14 (Excerpted from an instructional email sent by Alderman Bethany Chaney on behalf of
15 the Collaborative.)
16 Explore the topical areas that have come up across all of the jurisdictions to 1)
17 understand what is happening now and the opportunities that may exist to jointly plan or
18 test strategies and create consistency across ordinances where practical and/or 2)
19 engage in collaborative planning for certain "hot spots" countywide. (Excerpted from an
20 instructional email sent by Alderman Bethany Chaney on behalf of the Collaborative.)
21 The topical areas are as follows:
22 o Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
23 o Tiny homes
24 o Manufactured homes and "at risk" manufactured home parks
25 o Affordable housing development on the Greene Tract
26 o The "heat map" of vulnerable and/or high priority areas for creating affordability
27 o Housing for teachers and/or other targeted populations
28 o Nonprofit providers, their strategic plans for affordable housing development and
29 helping to inform those plans as a means of implementing a coordinated
30 approach to alleviating the affordable housing issues in Orange County.
31
32 The jurisdictional staff will provide information for Collaborative members based on the Work
33 Plan at each of the upcoming meetings.
34
35 Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
36 issues and provide feedback to staff related to this item as necessary
37
38 Update from Carrboro
39 Rebecca Buzzard, Town of Carrboro, identified a two-page sheet of current projects and
40 future projects. She said the Town of Carrboro Board passed a half-cent tax last fiscal year,
41 and it hopes to increase this to 1.5 cents in the next 2 years, which will be dedicated to the
42 affordable housing special revenue fund. She said the Town is working on a new application
43 process to go before the Board of Aldermen next week. She said this will be a more
44 standardized and equitable process. She said Shelton Station is pre-leasing, and has ten
45 affordable units at 60% AMI and less, and 80% AMI and less. She said the land closed on the
46 CASA development, on which the Town partnered with Chapel Hill and the County. She said
47 the AHAC is a relatively new committee, and Carrboro looks forward to mirroring much of what
48 peers are doing with graphics, and painting a clearer picture of all that Carrboro is doing.
49 Commissioner Dorosin said all entities need to look for opportunities for collaboration,
50 and given the shared vision for affordable housing, where are the collaborative opportunities.
8
1 He said things are happening in individual towns, but how can the entities talk and work
2 together. He would like to see where collaboration will make the biggest impacts...funding,
3 communications, resources, etc. He said everyone is walking in the same direction, but not
4 necessarily pulling the ropes together.
5 Mayor Hemminger said there is great collaboration with on-going monthly meetings
6 between senior staff and the housing collaborative.
7 Chair Rich said at the BOCC retreat, Commissioner Greene mentioned the need for
8 more policy focus, and they are missing the policy guidance.
9 Commissioner Greene said the idea of expanding the home consortium with a broader
10 charge came out of one of the AOG meetings years ago. She said former Commissioner
11 Bernadette Pelissier suggested tasking the Managers to come up with a structure that is
12 somewhat similar to the Partnership to End Homelessness (PTEH).
13 Commissioner Greene said that her suggestion was to add the non-profit partners at
14 these meetings, but it occurred to her later that this may prove a conflict as non-profits are
15 applying for funds. She said Roger Stancil, former Chapel Hill Town Manager, had the idea for
16 the HOME framework, but she is not sure if this format is exactly what the original request
17 intended.
18 Commissioner Greene said there needs to be more of a policy priority list and some
19 concrete ideas to come out of these discussions. She said it is not like the PTEH as the
20 elected bodies are not really involved, but with affordable housing all entities need to agree on
21 some priorities to give this group a more robust charge.
22 Alderman Seils said there is also opportunity to recognize how much affordable housing
23 policy is limited by the state legislative level. He said he would like to explore the possibilities of
24 partnering with jurisdictions outside of Orange County, who share similar values and goals
25 regarding affordable housing, as well as advocating together at the state level.
26 Commissioner Price said she would like some numbers identifying the needs around the
27 County, in the towns and otherwise. She said it is important to know the need, where people
28 are going, and where they are able to live. She said the factual information is needed to
29 undergird the policies.
30 Commissioner Marcoplos said the biggest collaborative impact can be made on
31 affordable housing by focusing on the Greene Tract.
32 Hillsborough Town Commissioner Ferguson said they have not leveraged well the
33 Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG). She said TJCOG serves as Chatham County's
34 affordable housing expert. She said they are expanding and have the legislative ability to serve
35 as a housing authority. She said TJCOG has a stated goal both as a legislative action as well
36 as policy and data acquisition perspective of getting the data to which Commissioner Price
37 referred. She said affordable housing is a regional issue, and it is wise to utilize some of these
38 other resources. She said other counties are taking advantage and the technical staff has
39 experience within Orange County specifically.
40 Hillsborough Town Commissioner Weaver said having more policy clarity is needed, and
41 at some point there may be a legislature that will give more tools, and if a clear voice on can be
42 put forward on this, all can be prepared when more tools are made available.
43 Councilmember Buansi said Orange County and Chapel Hill staffs have been meeting
44 periodically regarding relocation strategies for the residents of mobile home owners. He said
45 this is a good example of collaboration, and an update may be beneficial at some point.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said there is good collaboration at the staff level, but not so
47 much at the policy level. He said affordable housing is an across the lines issue and is one of
48 the highest deficiencies that exists in Orange County. He said there should be a strategy that
49 recognizes this deficiency, and if work is being done in one part of the County, all entities
9
1 should be highlighting, promoting, and supporting it. He said a collective vision and message is
2 important.
3 Commissioner Greene said data and numbers can be found, and should not be a
4 stumbling block to going forward.
5 Alderman Slade said the Community Home Trust is the partner for all jurisdictions for
6 affordable home ownership, and it is important not to brush aside agencies working on
7 affordable rentals in the area. He said this is where it may be important to include the various
8 housing providers in the discussions when creating policies, to ensure all are being supported,
9 but also getting a handle on who is giving the best bang for the buck.
10
11 2. Comprehensive Transit Plan
12 Alderman Seils introduced this item, and Travis Myren served as facilitator.
13
14 a) Summary of Bus Hours Expansion Activities
15
16 Mayor Lavelle arrived at 7:44 p.m.
17
18 Theo Letman, Orange County Transit Director, reviewed information in the agenda
19 packets.
20 Attachment 2a-1 is Section 2 of the Orange County Transit Plan. Section 2 outlines the
21 additional bus hours and services that have been provided through the dedicated transit sales
22 tax (Article 43). The full Transit Plan can be accessed at gotriangle.org/orangetransit.
23
24 b) Reverse Hillsborough Circulator Implementation Schedule
25 Attachment 2b-1 — Hillsborough Circulator Map
26 Attachment 2b-2— Circulator B Map
27 Attachment 2b-3— Circulator A Map
28
29 Theo Letman said one new strategy is the idea of"mobility on demand" to aid those who
30 live in rural areas lacking fixed route public transportation. He reviewed existing fixed routes,
31 and the areas they serve, noting the lower level of ridership on some routes. He said the
32 Hillsborough Circulator is one of the most popular routes. He said a "reverse circulator" is being
33 considered. He said the current circulator makes a long route around Hillsborough, and can be
34 inconvenient for passengers. He said a north-south route is being considered as well as
35 different circulator, with two intersecting loops that create higher frequency. He said hours may
36 also be extended at the beginning and the end of the day to cover more peak hours.
37 Theo Letman said the Mobility On Demand is an uber type of travel. He said staff got
38 survey results from constituents, and this need was one of the top priorities.
39
40 c) Ridership and Routes Data/Stats from Chapel Hill Transit, Orange County Public
41 Transit and GoTriangle (i.e. buses passing UNC Hospital each hour; how many
42 commuters from Orange County/Chapel Hill to Durham and back each day, etc.)
43
44 Brian Litchfield, Town of Chapel Hill Transit Director, said the most of the information in
45 the agenda packet pertains to investments through the Orange County Transit Plan, which has
46 been utilized since 2013 to improve services in Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and to UNC. He said an
47 additional 10,500+ hours of service have been invested, as a result of funding from the Orange
48 County transit plan, which leaves about 1000 hours to still be invested as part of the short-
49 range transit plan that is currently under way. He said this transit funding has also been used to
10
1 purchase 8 buses, 5 of which went into service last year, and 3 are currently on order, expected
2 to arrive in Chapel Hill in August 2019.
3 Brian Litchfield said funding will also be used to upgrade 13 bus stops, ranging from
4 ADA improvements to replacing entire shelters and adding sidewalks. He said the Orange
5 County transit plan is also funding the north-south Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, which is
6 moving into preliminary design and environmental work. He said staff continues to work on the
7 local funding associated with that project, but it is moving forward. He said work is being done
8 with partners to develop a short-range transit plan, a component of which will be testing the
9 micro-transit or ride hailing services within Chapel Hill and Carrboro as well. He said the goal is
10 to use in-house services.
11 Alderman Slade asked if the Town is getting an electric bus.
12 Brian Litchfield said hopefully two electric buses.
13 Alderman Slade asked if there is a plan moving forward regarding buses.
14 Brian Litchfield said a federal grant was received to fund two electric buses, and the
15 invitation to bid should go out within the next week, bringing the buses into service 12-18
16 months thereafter. He said the idea is to bring two of these buses into the fleet, try them out in
17 different scenarios, and see how they work out. He said if the experience is positive, the goal
18 will be to expand the fleet. He said they have already learned a lot of lessons from the hybrid
19 buses in the fleet.
20
21 Commissioner McKee arrived at 7:53 p.m.
22
23 Alderman Slade suggested looking into the feasibility of charging these buses with in-
24 house solar power.
25 Brian Litchfield said staff has written a few grants to fund feasibility studies to move this
26 idea forward. He said this has been unsuccessful so far, but staff is looking for other ways to
27 pursue this possibility.
28 Theo Letman reviewed Attachment 2c— Summary of OCPT Data.
29
30 d) Current Transit Connections (i.e. how people move from town to town, county to
31 county)
32 Theo Letman said the fixed routes are not as popular, and ridership is not as strong, so
33 services may shift to other routes. He said one idea is service from northern Orange County to
34 Durham. He said the mid-day connection between Chapel Hill and Hillsborough is not as strong
35 either.
36
37 Attachment 2d-1 — Transportation Needs Extend Throughout County
38 Attachment 2d-2— Transit Strategies
39 Attachment 2d-3— Regional System Map
40
41 Mayor Stevens said at some point he would like a lot more information about the
42 circulator, especially the idea of a reverse circulator. He said it is important, on many levels, for
43 residents to be able to get around with greater efficiency.
44 Theo Letman said the inter-locking loop concept may provide more frequency and meet
45 more needs.
46 Commissioner Ferguson said she is happy to see the Durham and Hillsborough
47 connector, and asked if there is a reason for the hours being 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., as this
48 misses commuter hours.
49 Theo Letman said transit in this area is a regional concept, rather than just one service.
50 He said if Orange County does not provide service during a peak area then someone else may.
11
1 Commissioner Ferguson said she worked in Research Triangle Park (RTP), and it takes
2 3 hours one way to get there via public transportation, which is unacceptable. She said they
3 are missing the boat on this.
4
5 e) Potential Improvements to Better Move People in the Future
6 Attachment 2e— Potential Transit Vision Improvements
7
8 f) Hillsborough Train Station and Light Rail (FRT) Transit Update
9
10 Background:
11 The Durham-Orange Light Rail project continues to pursue a full funding grant agreement from
12 the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Due to the limitations imposed on State funding,
13 engineering changes, and other FTA requirements, both the cost share agreement between
14 Durham and Orange counties and the Orange County Transit Plan will need to be amended.
15 The Board of Orange County Commissioners is scheduled to learn initially discuss the
16 proposed changes on February 5, 2019 and may consider those changes on February 19,
17 2019.
18
19 Travis Myren said the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) was supposed to hear
20 from GoTriangle at its February 51" meeting but due to the federal government shutdown, that
21 date was pushed back to February 19t", and should include updated costs. He said he expects
22 action to be required in early March.
23 Commissioner Dorosin asked if a timeline for the LRT could be clarified.
24 Travis Myren said the most pressing is the state legislation that imposed an April 30t"
25 deadline on funds to be committed. He said if these local funds are not committed, then state
26 funding would be in jeopardy.
27 Margaret Hauth, Hillsborough Planning Director and Assistant Town Manager, said the
28 funding agreement for the Hillsborough Train Station is very nearly in place with the two
29 partners: NC Department of Transportation (DOT) and GoTriangle. She said the funding has
30 been approved for a number of years, but that actual document that outlines who gives how
31 much money, and when, has yet to be completed. She said there the train station must be
32 delivered in 5 years, and discussions are starting to move this forward. She said the staff
33 recommendation is to consider publishing an RFP or RFQ for a public/private partnership to
34 make about 5 acres of Town-owned land available for development, including the train station.
35 She said there would be hard parameters about what could be developed. She said the Town
36 Board has not formally agreed to this, but all recognize that 5 years will pass very quickly.
37 Commissioner Dorosin asked if 5 acres is the maximum amount of land available there.
38 Margaret Hauth said the Town owns 20 acres, and she said the conceptual plan leads
39 staff to believe that the station and some non-residential development would fit on something
40 between 5-7 acres. She said it is assumed that the station and development would increase the
41 value of the remaining acreage, and there is no rush to put all of the land on the market at the
42 same time.
43 Mayor Stevens said the station itself would not take 5 acres, but rather it would be a
44 commercial area around the station.
45 Margaret Hauth said the plan and budget for this station are tied very closely to the
46 Kannapolis station model, due to the similarities between the size and needs.
47 Commissioner Marcoplos said it would be great to have a sidewalk from downtown
48 Hillsborough to the train station. He said he has been thinking of sidewalk needs in general,
49 and it would be wise for the County to discuss this need with the Town, and whose
12
1 responsibility it is to plan, build, maintain, etc. sidewalks. He said this is an issue that is ripe for
2 collaboration.
3 Margaret Hauth said this topic is on the agenda for the upcoming meeting in February
4 between Hillsborough and Orange County.
5 Town Commissioner Weaver said at the Town board meeting last night, the board
6 discussed a variety of uses for the initial 5 acres, and leveraging the fact that Hillsborough owns
7 the land. She said part of this may include some sort of affordable housing effort.
8 Alderman Slade referred to the update on the light rail and the short timeframe between
9 receiving an update on the Federal Transit Authority (FTA) funding and the deadline with the
10 State. He asked if there is any sense of how funding is going.
11 Chair Rich said the FTA was guiding GoTriangle along, and discussing funding
12 contingencies. She said these conversations stopped abruptly due to the federal shutdown, but
13 there are some draft assumptions to consider. She said the FTA is back online, and
14 conversations are beginning again, but all the numbers are very preliminary, and is important to
15 have more concrete numbers for discussions.
16 Alderman Seils said when the FTA shut down, it delayed GoTriangle's ability to finalize
17 the financial plan amendments that they are bringing to the partners for approval.
18 Alderman Slade asked if there is some adjustment needed, or is it out of their hands.
19 Alderman Seils said there will be amendments to the financial plan, but it has all been
20 pushed back due to the shutdown.
21 Commissioner Marcoplos said there is a finite number of things that needed to happen
22 and 90% of the issues raised have been worked through, with the remaining issue being the
23 Duke agreement. He said Mr. Goodman resigned from the fund raising board, but he just
24 recently donated money for the Blackwell Station.
25 Commissioner Marcoplos said a lot of companies want naming rights to the stations,
26 which will make up some of the required funding. He said once the Duke agreement is
27 finalized, these companies can come out of the bushes and commit money. He said there is
28 time to meet the schedule.
29 Council Member Parker said the real deadlines are April 30t" when all non-federal and
30 non-state funding has to be identified and committed, and November 30t" when all non-state
31 funding has to be committed.
32 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the state deadline includes the private funding.
33 Council Member Parker said yes, all non-federal, non-state funding has to be identified
34 and committed by April 30tn
35
36 3. Intergovernmental Cooperation Opportunities
37 Steve Brantley, Orange County Economic Development Director, reviewed the following
38 information:
39
40 a) Shared Funding on Projects
41
42 b) Improving Project Collaboration Opportunities (Courtesy Review Potential Enhancements,
43 Conversation Opportunities between Jurisdictions on Projects (Examples: 203 Project
44 Carrboro, Gateway in Chapel Hill and Hillsborough Train Station)
45
46 Steve Brantley made the following PowerPoint presentation:
47
48 Shared Funding on Projects
49 Article 46 Update prepared by Orange County Economic Development
13
1 for the Orange County Assembly of Governments
2 January 29, 2019
3
4 Article 46: Historic Overview
5 • A supplemental "1/4 cent retail sales tax" was passed by Orange County voters in a
6 Nov. 2011 referendum.
7 • Orange County Board of Commissioners adopted a Resolution in Dec. 2011 to outline
8 the core uses of the new"Article 46" funds.
9 • The County received the initial Article 46 funds from the N.C. Department of Revenue
10 beginning in the Spring of 2012.
11 • Annual revenues (estimated at $2.5 million total in 2011) are split 50/50 between
12 Education (Orange County Schools & Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools) & Economic
13 Development, with each group to receive approx. $1.25 million.
14 • By 2018, the County's total Article 46 revenues were projected to be approx. $3.6 million
15 for the new fiscal year, due to a steady 5% - 7% annual growth rate in the local
16 economys retail sales collections.
17 • Within the Economic Development portion of Article 46 funds ($1,825,976.00 estimated
18 for the FY 2018-2019 budget), approx. 50% - 60% of annual proceeds have historically
19 funded long-term debt obligations for the cost to install water & sewer lines in the
20 County's various Economic Development districts. To date, 2 major utility projects to
21 install needed infrastructure in the Efland, Buckhorn Road & Mebane areas have been
22 completed.
23 • The County's successful recruitment of the Morinaga factory was made possible
24 by the completion of this initial utility work. Current business prospect activity is
25 expanding and focusing on new sites that have more recently gained utility line
26 infrastructure.
27 • Of the remaining 50% of Economic Development's available Article 46 funds each year,
28 a variety of successful programs are underway to support the growth, expansion &
29 retention of existing small businesses, promote new business recruitment,
30 entrepreneurial incubator support, and local agriculture &food processing.
31 • These programs, to include the award winning LAUNCH incubator, the County's small
32 business loan and grant programs, the agriculture/food processing grant program, and
33 related collaborative business networking events held with the Towns, directly benefit
34 the local economies of Carrboro, Hillsborough & Chapel Hill by supporting their many
35 small businesses.
36 • Special events & new programs that enhance the County's & Towns' economy and
37 livability are also funded by the remaining half of Article 46 funds, to include the annual
38 Orange County Agriculture Summit, the new LocalFest event, a reintroduction of the
39 annual Orange County Economic Summit, and, innovative support for the "Orange
40 Connect" scholarship program for Orange County's students attending the Hillsborough
41 campus of Durham Technical Community College.
42 • In conclusion, the intent of the various economic development programs funded by
43 Article 46 is to benefit all Orange County residents by supporting a thriving local
44 economy.
45
46 Article 46 Sales Tax: Orange County's Resources for Economic Development Funding
47 for FY 20187-19 (chart)
48
14
1 Article 46 Sales Tax: Budgeted Allocations for Economic Development Projects in
2 Orange County in FY 2018-19 (pie chart)
3
4 Article 46 Sales Tax: Budgeted Allocations for Economic Development Projects in
5 Orange County in FY 2018-19 (chart)
6
7 Article 46 Sales Tax: Total Economic Development Expenditures (2012 to present)
8 Article 46 Sales Tax Projections (graph)
9
10 Orange County's Use of Article 46 Funding to Collaborate with Towns on Joint Economic
11 Development Projects: Town of Chapel Hill
12 • LAUNCH incubator: 50/50 cost sharing to co-fund the facility's lease payments (2012 to
13 present.) County & Town of Chapel Hill each pay $73,500.00 per year.
14 • Marketing campaign via WCHL1360 AM radio to promote Town & County-wide tourism
15 (2013).
16 • Co-funding of the "Urbana" consultant's property tax & urban density study for the Town,
17 supported in partnership with the Chapel Hill/Carrboro Chamber of Commerce (2014).
18 • LAUNCH incubator: 50/50 cost sharing to co-host 2 business networking events (2014 &
19 2015).
20 • Business networking & speaker series conference events held at Carolina Inn,
21 supported in partnership with the Town and assisted by Chapel Hill Magazine (2016 &
22 2017).
23 • Joint recruitment & incentive commitment by the County & Town for Wegmans Food
24 Markets' new 99,000 sq. ft. retail store (2016); the upcoming 5-year payment of the
25 County's & Town's joint financial incentives to Wegmans, to be split 50/50, will not begin
26 until approx. 2022.
27 • Cumulative value of Article 46 funds used by the County since 2012 to approve small
28 business grants & small business loans provided to Chapel Hill-based firms, including
29 LAUNCH incubator tenants. ($737,189.00)
30
31 Orange County's Use of Article 46 Funding to Collaborate with Towns on Joint Economic
32 Development Projects: Town of Hillsborough
33 • Cumulative value of Article 46 funds used since 2012 to approve small business grants
34 & small business loans, and agriculture grants for Hillsborough-based firms, including
35 food processing tenants at the Piedmont Food Processing Center. ($1,029,704.00)
36 • County has plans in 2019— 2020 to extend sewer to serve commercial & light industrial
37 sites within the Hillsborough Economic Development District, located at the southwest
38 quadrant of Interstate 40 and Old N.C. 86.
39
40 City of Mebane
41 . Orange County pays a $50,000 annual "Utility Service Agreement") to Mebane to
42 guarantee a reserve capacity of 250,000 gal/day of sewer to serve the Economic
43 Development District sites in the Efland, Buckhorn Road & Mebane region in western
44 Orange County.
45 • County has previously completed one sewer line project (connecting to the factory
46 Morinaga) to serve commercial & light industrial sites within the Buckhorn Economic
47 Development District in western Orange County, and has recently completed Phase II of
48 the Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane sewer line extension project.
49
15
1 Orange County's Use of Article 46 Funding to Collaborate with Towns on Joint Economic
2 Development Protects: Town of Carrboro
3 • Cumulative value of Article 46 funds used since 2012 to approve small business grants
4 & small business loans for Carrboro-based firms ($104,860.00).
5 • Co-funding by the County & Town in 2012 to provide the 25% required co-pay for a
6 "Community Development Block Grant" (CDBG) awarded by the N.C. Department of
7 Commerce to repair a failing privately-owned sewer line located along Roberson Street.
8 Previous proposal by the Town regarding a desire to have municipal water brought to
9 several business tracts located along N.C. 54 West, in order to create fire protection
10 sprinkler service for those sites, and request the County's financial participation from
11 Article 46. (2012, 2013 & 2014).
12 Previous proposal by the Town to have municipal water and sewer brought to a 20-acre
13 Town-owned site located along Old N.C. 86 for the purpose of creating a business park.
14 (2016 & 2017).
15 Current proposal by the Town to seek Article 46 or other funding from the County to
16 provide for additional parking (to include construction of a desired parking deck or a
17 parking lot) to serve the planned 203 S. Greensboro Street library & town offices project.
18 Current proposal by the Town to seek Article 46 or other County funding to help pay for
19 new wayfinding signage in downtown Carrboro (up to $400,000 total cost).
20
21 Orange County's Use of Article 46 Funding to Collaborate with Towns on Joint Economic
22 Development Protects
23 Small Business — retention & expansion of existing firms
24 Manage the County's marketing of small business Loan and Grant programs & disburse
25 all funds — all 3 Towns.
26 Co-host various joint County & Chapel Hill business networking events for existing small
27 businesses (includes LAUNCH incubator cohorts).
28 Co-fund the LAUNCH incubator in Chapel Hill to support the growth of emerging high-
29 tech entrepreneurial firms.
30 Encourage joint County & Town visitation program with existing small businesses.
31 Hosted the joint County & Town participation in the U.S. Small Business Administration's
32 recent Disaster Recovery workshop for firms impacted by Hurricane Florence.
33
34 Examples of Economic Development Collaboration Between the County & Towns
35 Orange County Small Business Grant Program (total since 2014)
36 125 grants provided to existing small businesses in our 3 Towns.
37 $653,681.00 in total grants awarded.
38 Orange County Agriculture Grant Program (total since 2009)
39 55 grants provided to existing ag & food processing businesses in our 3 Towns.
40 $402,249.98 in total agriculture grants awarded.
41 Orange County Small Business Loan Fund (total since 2009)
42 22 loans provided to existing small businesses in our 3 Towns.
43 $974,848.00 in total loans awarded.
44 Orange County Arts Commission (for FY 2018-19)
45 38 grants were funded to 28 artists, 21 organizations & 10 schools in our 3 Towns.
46 $61,394.00 in Orange County & NC Arts Council funds were awarded
47 29% increase in applications received over the previous year
48
49 Examples of Economic Development Collaboration Between the County & Towns
16
1 New Business Recruitment— increasing jobs & investment
2 County's & Towns' economic development staff routinely attend joint marketing and
3 business development events, & invite participation.
4 Conduct joint marketing of County's & Town's identified real estate sites and buildings to
5 business prospects.
6 Trust to share activity of leads, prospect visits & updates on overall prospect activity.
7 Joint presentations have been made to the State of NC's main business lead generator:
8 Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina (EDPNC)
9 Ongoing partnership have been successful between the County and Towns with
10 business development prospects, to include the successful recruitment with Chapel Hill
11 to attract Wegmans, and with Hillsborough for the expansion of Yep Roc
12 Records/REDEYE.
13
14 Examples of Economic Development Collaboration Between the County & Towns
15 Workforce Development—examples of school collaborations
16 Orange County Economic Development staff meet with and advise the Career and
17 Technical Education (CTE) curriculum planners with the Orange County Schools &
18 Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools, and with staff from Durham Technical Community
19 College — Hillsborough campus
20 New Ideas for 2019 — building relationships among agencies
21 Explore closer liaison with County-wide marketing & programs & advertising
22 Increase the frequency of joint County & Towns' business prospect recruiting
23 Increase our mutual internal dialog and resources to support workforce development.
24
25 Examples of Economic Development Collaboration Between the County & Towns
26 Tourism Promotion — County's efforts on behalf of our Towns
27 Visitors Bureau advertises and promotes the Towns' local festivals in the County's visitor
28 guides and materials, and via online social media programs and newsletters.
29 Visitors Bureau supports local major events that bring tourists to area, including Chapel
30 Hill's TerraVITA event and the Ackland Art Museum, The Carrboro ArtsCenter,
31 Hillsborough's Hog Day, the northern Orange County equestrian Polo Tournament, and
32 the Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce's annual events.
33 Visitors Bureau staff works with OUR STATE magazine to run feature stories on tourism
34 happenings in Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Hillsborough.
35 Visitors Bureau sales staff works with the Towns' local hotels on leads, and to refer
36 business each week to those hotels with group meeting space.
37 Visitors Center staff make daily referrals to walk-in visitors who visit each day regarding
38 local hotels, restaurants, shopping and tourism attractions.
39 Produces the Orange County Visitors Guide book featuring information on all 3 towns,
40 and distributes at RDU Airport and "Visit NC" interstate Welcome Centers.
41 Prepares regular public relations support of the County's major tourism events occurring
42 in all 3 towns, and advertises through PR Newswire.
43 Hosts frequent travel media press visitors and gives tours of the area.
44 Produces the "This is Tourism"segment on WCHL1360 radio to amplify local event
45 happenings in all 3 towns.
46 Orange County stakeholders, which includes representatives from all 3 towns and UNC,
47 sit on tourism's advisory board which meets monthly and reviews tourism programming
48 and upcoming initiatives.
49
17
1 Examples of Tourism Economic Development Collaboration Between the County &
2 Towns
3 The Orange County Arts Council actively supports artists in our Towns:
4 In partnership with the Hillsborough Arts Council, the Orange County Arts Council
5 hosted the 2nd annual "Paint it Orange: Plein Air Paint-out & Wet Paint Sale", as a
6 fundraiser for OCAC and HAC drawing artists from four states.
7 Served as part of leadership team in the coordination of the inaugural Orange County
8 LocalFest, which attracted approximately 1,500 visitors.
9 Working in partnership with Orange County Department of Parks and Recreation to
10 determine needs of new stage and event infrastructure in River Park, enabling the
11 venue to host more large-scale events.
12 Sponsored the annual River Park Concert, which drew approximately 4,000 to
13 Downtown Hillsborough.
14 Serving on Varsity Task Force to determine future of possibly performing arts venue in
15 downtown Chapel Hill.
16
17 Alderman Slade referred to the 20-25 year debt service, and asked if this is from today,
18 or from when payments start.
19 Bonnie Hammersley said they started collecting in 2012, but debt service does not start
20 until the money is borrowed. She said all the money has not been borrowed, and it is currently
21 just under $1 million in debt service, and this is being done by 20 year limited obligation bonds
22 (LOBs). She said it will be satisfied in about 25 years.
23 Alderman Slade said he is curious to know when some of this money will be free to use
24 for better economic development. He asked if there is going to be an opportunity to see how
25 the investment into the infrastructure in the Buckhorn and Eno areas has been realized, prior to
26 investing in other Economic Development Districts (EDDs).
27 Bonnie Hammersley said that was discussed at the Board of County Commissioners
28 retreat last week, and staff will be looking into how to best go forward with the EDDs.
29 Alderman Slade encouraged the Board of County Commissioners to review the
30 investment in the current EDD before pouring money into other EDDs.
31 Alderman Slade said there is an opportunity to synergize with the emergency that is
32 represented by climate change, and studies show supporting locally owned businesses gives
33 back to the local community in so many ways.
34 Alderman Slade said Carrboro is not seeing any revenue from the cent sales tax, and
35 he said would appreciate recognition of this fact, and also looks forward to collaboration with
36 the County in getting more support on Carrboro economic development, and finding ways
37 where people can work without having to depend on cars and public transportation. He said
38 this opportunity may present itself in transition area 2.
39 Mayor Lavelle referred to the article 46 sales tax monies and economic development in
40 Carrboro, and said Carrboro is a small town with geographically limited economic development
41 opportunities. She said Carrboro's economic engine is downtown, and the Town wants the
42 Board of County Commissioners to think through this when considering ways to partner
43 together.
44 Alderman Seils echoed Mayor Lavelle's statement and said downtown Carrboro is an
45 EDD for Orange County. He said the Town is hopeful for more ways to collaborate with the
46 County to recognize that fact.
47 Mayor Hemminger said the LAUNCH funding is good for the entire county and more
48 companies are staying within their borders.
49 Commissioner Dorosin said this was the theme at the BOCC retreat: collaboration on
50 affordable housing, transit, and economic development. He said there are these obvious
18
1 places for collaboration with Carrboro, and he would like to see talk turn into action. He said
2 they need to prioritize the most important thing that Carrboro and Orange County can work on
3 together. He said sometimes plans are brought to the Board too late, and discussions need to
4 occur earlier.
5 Commissioner Greene referred to Alderman Slade's comments, and said Orange
6 County has an agricultural economic development officer with lots of ideas to boost the local
7 food economies. She said these ideas should not get lost, and are valued by the BOCC.
8 Mayor Lavelle agreed that economic development for one can provide economic
9 development for all, but said Carrboro has a focus on local businesses and retaining local
10 businesses. She said this is highly valued.
11 Alderman Slade said there is a large question of where is the biggest bang for the buck.
12 He asked if the County has ever done a leakage analysis to identify the sectors of the economy
13 that would multiply financial investment. He said less than one percent of local food is
14 consumed locally, and it is all leaving the area. He said he would like to capture a higher
15 percentage of the millions of dollars represented by the food consumed. He said it is a bigger
16 issue than just taxes. He would like to see a study commissioned to ensure that the money that
17 is being spent is being spent effectively. He said growth in Hillsborough will rub off on
18 Carrboro, but he fears development that supports a Japanese candy factory does not return as
19 much money to the local economy as a local business would. He said the dollars are leaving
20 the community.
21 Town Commissioner Ferguson said she wants to support their local businesses, but
22 they also have people that want to work for big, global business and it is a question of how to
23 support both things, as it should not be an either/or.
24 Commissioner McKee said the small amount of funding that Carrboro received, from the
25 small business investment grants and business loans, stands out to him. He said he is curious
26 as to whether the Carrboro Economic Development (ED) Director is getting the word out to
27 businesses about these funding opportunities. He asked if there is any way for the County to
28 help alleviate this disconnect.
29 Mayor Lavelle said their ED Director has been in contact with the County over the years.
30 She said Carrboro has an internal fund that has been successful for many years, and this may
31 be where people are going instead of County funds. She said staff will continue to follow up on
32 this opportunity.
33 Commissioner McKee said he is open to any suggestions from the towns for these
34 funds, and let them be brought forth to the Board of County Commissioners to review and
35 discuss.
36 Steve Brantley said the Japanese candy company connected to the first water and
37 sewer extension paid for by article 46 funds, and this company employs 130 people on three
38 shifts, and are the single largest corporate tax payer in the entire Mebane industrial district of
39 Orange County, and they stand to double or triple in employment and investment. He said the
40 second sewer system that the County has built in the Efland region represents acreage that is
41 under option with a letter of intent by a single company that would move there and pay more
42 than $15/hour per job. He said it takes a long time to get water and sewer connected, but
43 progress is being made. He said there needs to be a balance in commitment to both large
44 industrial recruiting and small business growth in the Towns.
45 Chair Rich said the bottom line is to look at all options and continue conversations
46 across all entities.
47
48 4. Update from Climate Change Ad Hoc Committee
49 Commissioner Marcoplos said there is a handout at their places. He said so many of
50 them have been affected by climate change, and after the hurricanes, he reached out to an
19
1 elected official from every government to jump-start a collaborative effort. He reviewed the
2 handout. He said the members of the ad hoc committee are: Rachel Shaevitz, Alderman
3 Slade, Jenn Weaver, Sammie Slade, and Mark Marcoplos.
4 Hillsborough Town Commissioner Weaver said the packet contains a resolution with
5 which Commissioner Ferguson was involved. She said the Town of Hillsborough does not have
6 staff member to address some of these issues, but they are nimble due to being small. She
7 said there are ways to collaborate: share information; all jurisdictions should review land use
8 policies; have a unified voice, committing to system level changes, and fostering a local
9 government collaboration and not competition. She said this is a regional problem.
10 Alderman Slade said climate change is an existential threat, and a collaborative group is
11 needed to address it, and for each government to make an investment during budget time. He
12 said he would like to see a dedicated staff person, which could be a shared position, like exists
13 between Durham County and Durham City. He said he hopes the New Green Deal will get
14 support in 2020, and he said would like to start working on ways to collaborate on local, state
15 and federal levels, counting on 2020 elections to flip the White House and the Senate. He said
16 he is in favor of supporting local residents to come up with ways to have an impact on the
17 neighborhood level and have a community action plan.
18 Mayor Hemminger said climate change was also a top priority at the recent Town
19 Council retreat. She recommended a monthly collaborative meeting including an elected official
20 and a staff person from each entity. She said there is a benefit to collaborating nationally, and
21 referenced the monthly climate mayors' phone call that sites best practices and new ideas. She
22 said the Town facilities represent a small percentage of the community, and it is vital to get
23 residents involved in making change. She said UNC is doing some amazing things, and would
24 be a good partner to have at the table, as well as the K-12 schools.
25 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if there is a way to set this group up.
26 Mayor Hemminger said each entity can appoint somebody.
27 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if this group can be created within a month.
28 Mayor Hemminger said Mayors can make a recommendation, and Councils can
29 discuss/approve at next meeting. She said she is happy to share all information that she learns
30 from the climate mayors' phone call.
31 Chair Rich said she would like for the members of the ad hoc group to continue on, and
32 suggested inviting someone from Mebane to join as well.
33 Mayor Lavelle spoke for Commissioner Price who had lost her voice: she said citizen
34 input should be a part of this committee.
35 Chair Rich said there were over 100 people at an event on Sunday, and the
36 conversation was amazing. She said this input will not be ignored.
37
38 5. Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) —
39 Discussion Regarding Potential Line Change for Two Properties on Millhouse
40 Road DEFERRED
41
42 6. Census Update
43 Mayor Hemminger said she is on the state census committee, and the federal
44 government is not going to be funding as much as it did in the past and the Governor stepped
45 in and said he wants to make sure that North Carolina counts, as direct dollars are given out
46 depending on how many people are counted. She said not as many enumerators will be hired
47 to go out and follow up with people who fail to return the census form, and the governor has
48 asked local entities to come up with a plan to bring people to complete the census online. She
49 said the entire census will be done online on one day only: April 1 st, 2020. She said libraries
50 and senior centers are great partners. She said if people mail in forms that is wonderful, but
20
1 there will be no census staff following up on paper forms. She said plans need to be created to
2 communicate all this information, as well as ways to make access to online forms and people to
3 help on site.
4 Mayor Hemminger said a staff committee is needed to make sure that all people are
5 counted. She said data will be provided on areas that typically underreport, but there needs to
6 be a strategy to make use of this data. She said volunteer enumerators are one possibility, but
7 would be labor intensive. She is particularly concerned about rural residents without electronic
8 access, as well as the entire online system crashing on April 1. She said the local and state
9 populations have changed drastically in the last 10 years, and it is vital to get all the state and
10 federal dollars that are available. She said these numbers are used for so many things, and
11 accuracy is paramount.
12 Commissioner Dorosin said the County had a committee in 2000 that was more of an
13 public education campaign, which the County funded, and there were a lot of volunteers. He
14 asked if it was possible to have enumerators to follow up.
15 Mayor Hemminger said the Governor is trying to figure out the best strategies, and there
16 is a census committee for the State. She said the online component is an unknown. She said
17 initially paper forms were not even going to be sent, but now they are.
18 Commissioner Dorosin asked if enumerators can be hired at the County level to follow
19 up.
20 Mayor Hemminger said there will be some, but not nearly as many as before. She said
21 the Governor is focused on this, and local planning is crucial.
22 Councilman Bell said there has been a lot of talk about policy this evening, and the need
23 for collaboration. She said it would be really good to come up with a policy to determine the
24 worth of an accurate count and whether funds should be dedicated to ensure greater accuracy.
25 She said she is hearing a desire to get an accurate count, and she would encourage individual
26 entities to discuss this further in order to create joint memorandums of agreement. She said
27 this issue affects every part of the County.
28 Chair Rich said everyone can follow up on this.
29
30 Town of Hillsborough elected officials and staff left at 9:07 p.m.
31
32 7. Greene Tract— Decision Points and Decision Timelines for Each Jurisdiction
33 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, reviewed the following information:
34
35 The Greene Tract is a 164 acre parcel of which 104 acres is jointly owned by Orange
36 County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro and 60 acres owned by Orange
37 County (Headwaters Preserve). In 2002, local governments approved a resolution
38 conceptualizing uses of the 104 acre joint owned area. In 2017, local governments agreed to
39 have the Managers, Mayors, and Chair (MMC) consider preservation and development options
40 for the Greene Tract. In addition, the MMCs recommended staff examine the reconfiguration of
41 the joint-owned and county-owned tracts. The purpose of this request was to determine the
42 feasibility in adopting a revised resolution supporting the reconfiguration of these tracts. The 60
43 acres which are county-owned would be established as prime preservation areas.
44
45 At the January 30, 2018 Assembly of Governments meeting, the proposed modified headwaters
46 preserve area and alternatives were presented to elected officials. At the February 20 Board of
47 County Commissioners meeting, the Board stated support for modification to the Headwaters
48 Preserve area. The Chapel Hill Town Council considered this item on June 6, 2018 and stated
49 support for the reconfiguration of the Headwaters Preserve area. The Carrboro Board of
50 Aldermen considered this item on June 12 and stated support for the reconfiguration of the
21
1 Headwaters Preserve area. Elected officials from the Towns stated concerns with determining
2 density and affordable housing goals at that time. As a result, the resolution and conceptual
3 plan does not include any reference to density or affordable housing thresholds for the Greene
4 Tract, but primarily the location and acreage of uses including a general description of use
5 categories.
6
7 Following Board confirmation, the staff work group drafted the resolution contained in
8 Attachment 7a to modify the 104 acres jointly owned by Orange County, the Town of Chapel
9 Hill, and the Town of Carrboro and 60 acres owned by Orange County (Headwaters Preserve).
10 In addition, staff drafted the conceptual plan which includes future land uses, proposed land
11 use definitions, and ownership status/transfers based on comments received from MMCs,
12 elected officials, and staff throughout the process. Local government staff has completed a
13 variety of draft density scenarios and calculations, which are available for review at such time in
14 the future when development goals are established. Attachment 7b includes additional
15 background information on this item.
16
17 With adoption by all three governing boards, the resulting resolution would supersede the
18 2002 Resolution, approved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners on December
19 10, 2002, which outlined the County and Towns' intentions for developing the Greene Tract.
20 The December 10, 2002 BOCC abstract which includes the approved resolution can be found
21 at the following link:
22 http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=8376&dbid=0
23
24 The purpose of this item is to receive and discuss the proposed Greene Tract Resolution and
25 Conceptual Plan. In addition, a project schedule to determine density and affordable housing
26 goals could be also considered.
27
28 Staff will provide any other information at the meeting, and the governing boards can discuss
29 issues related to this item as necessary.
30 Attachment 7a — Greene Tract Resolution and Conceptual Plan
31 Attachment 7b— June 19, 2018 Information Item
32 Attachment 7c— Greene Tract Flow Chart
33
34 Craig Benedict made the following PowerPoint presentation:
35
36 Greene Tract Update
37 Assembly of Governments Meeting
38 January 29, 2019
39
40 Background
41 Project area
42 Approximately 164 total acres
43 ■ 104 acres jointly owned by Orange County, Town of Chapel Hill, and
44 Town of Carrboro
45 ■ 60 acres owned by Orange County
46 Previous Planning Efforts
47 ■ 2002 Orange County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro Greene Tract Resolution
48 ■ Rogers Road Task Force Report
49 ■ Mapping Our Community's Future Report
50 ■ Managers, Mayors and Chair's Objectives from May 17, 2017
22
1 Ongoing joint staffs collaboration
2
3 Greene Tract (Jurisdictional Context) (map)
4
5 Greene Tract (Flow Chart) 9:12:27 PM
6
7 Greene Tract Ownership Status/Possible Transfers Map
8
9 Greene Tract Conceptual Plan (Proposed Future Land Use) (map)
10
11 Greene Tract Resolution and Conceptual Plan (map)
12
13 Elements of the Resolution
14 ■ Modify Headwaters Preserve and Joint Owned areas
15 ■ Approve Conceptual Plan and land use definitions
16 ■ Designate acreage and land uses (Less than 15% future deviation)
17 ■ Does not include any reference to density or affordable housing
18 thresholds
19 ■ Allow staff to proceed with recombination
20 ■ Ownership transfers - Joint ownership to County and County ownership to Joint
21 ownership
22 ■ Recommend additional actions
23 ■ Pursue a conservation easement protecting the reconfigured
24 "Headwaters Preserve" (60 acres)
25 ■ Pursue a conservation easement protecting the Joint Owned Preserve
26 (22 acres)
27 ■ Solicit input from the public, stakeholders, and elected officials regarding
28 land use and affordable housing needs
29 With adoption by all three governing boards, the resulting resolution would supersede
30 the 2002 Resolution
31
32 Greene Tract Flow Chart
33
34 Questions and Comments
35
36 Alderman Seils said the Alderman had a conversation last spring about various
37 scenarios, and asked if all of these are still viable.
38 Craig Benedict said the scenarios are still out there, and the desire from the Managers,
39 Mayors and Chairs was to pursue the highest development potential to start with. He said in
40 the coming months, staff will work with the various boards to determine development goals. He
41 said this land can be developed in pods of affordable housing, or as mixed income
42 development, which seemed preferable. He said the question of density would need to be
43 considered as well. He said the trend seems to be leaning towards do more rather than less;
44 more total units and possibly more affordable housing.
45 Alderman Seils said he hoped all towns and staff has been able to review these
46 scenarios.
47 Craig Benedict said yes, and they are still available to be viewed.
48 Alderman Seils said this is a high priority for everyone at the table tonight. He said he
49 hopes staff will hold the elected officials to the timeline, so this topic can move from
50 conversation to action.
23
1 Council Member Parker said he found that deadlines are good tools for getting things
2 done, and he encouraged everyone to embody this resolution. He said he would like to see a
3 work plan attached to the resolution for accountability, and it is incumbent on them to be
4 accountable to their constituents.
5 Mayor Lavelle said it seems that everyone is in complete support of this resolution, and
6 it should be put on an agenda immediately in order to move forward.
7 Commissioner Dorosin said this conversation seems to be exactly where it was a year
8 ago. He said staff, managers, and chairs worked out all these details, and then progress
9 stopped last spring. He said all entities have already agreed to the reconfiguration, and the
10 BOCC voted on the density alternatives. He said he favors putting some hard dates on these
11 deadlines as this is now a policy issue. He said affordable housing is their highest priority and
12 this can be their test case on collaboration. He said thus far they are all failing, and he agreed
13 with Mayor Lavelle to put it on their agendas as soon as possible.
14 Councilmember Oates said this is an isolated site, requiring personal transportation, and
15 it is important to do focus groups before deciding what will be built there. She said it is well
16 meaning to want to serve as many people as possible, but it is critical to hear the input from
17 those who actually want to live there.
18 Councilmember Bin echoed Councilmember Oates' comments, and said planning goes
19 hand in hand with environmental issues, both of which are very important. She said there are
20 many other factors to consider with this project in determining sustainable development. She
21 said this project has waited 20 years, and it is important to do it right.
22 Councilmember Bell said she supports this process, and appreciates caution, but said it
23 is time to do something now. She said a desire for perfection should not get in the way of work
24 actually being done, and there has been no affordable housing built that has gone unfilled.
25 Commissioner Marcoplos said it has been 27 years since this tract was released from
26 being a landfill, and he would like to see everyone commit to the flowchart.
27 Commissioner Greene said they own the land, and that is the most valuable thing to a
28 developer. She said it may not be an ideal location, but it is a good location and they need to
29 do something.
30 Chair Rich agreed with Councilmember Bell. She said they own the land, there is a lot
31 of data showing what can be built, and it is time to move on this. She said she would like a
32 commitment from everyone tonight to move on to the next steps. She said it is not fair to make
33 the staff keep redoing the data. She referred to Commissioner Dorosin's comments from the
34 BOCC retreat that this project is something that all involved could be very proud of, and if this
35 can happen, there is no limit what can be accomplished. She said she will reach out to the
36 Mayors to follow up.
37
38 The meeting was adjourned at 9:38 p.m.
39
40 Penny Rich, Chair
41
42
43 Donna Baker
44 Clerk to the Board
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 REGULAR MEETING
7 February 5, 2019
8 7:00 p.m.
9
10
11 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, February 5,
12 2019 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
13
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Penny Rich and Commissioners Jamezetta
15 Bedford, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Earl McKee, Mark Marcoplos, and Renee Price
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None
17 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: None
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
19 Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
20 appropriately below)
21
22 Chair Rich called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
23
24 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
25
26 - Blue sheet: Proposed Addition to the Agenda (Item 4-c) - A RESOLUTION OPPOSING
27 ALTERNATIVE 4A AS A DESIGN FOR MODIFICATIONS TO EUBANKS ROAD AND NC
28 86 AS PART OF NCDOT PROJECT 1-3306A FOR PROPOSED WIDENING OF 1-40
29 FROM 1-85 TO DURHAM COUNTY LINE
30 - Pink sheet: Item 6a- Orange County Transportation Priority List for SPOT 6.0 / FY 2022-2031
31 STIP--Date in title corrected (2022-2031)
32 - PowerPoint for Item 5-a
33 - PowerPoint for Item 6-a
34 - Yellow sheet: Updated information for Item 6-b
35 - PowerPoint for Item 6-b
36 - Revised Item 6-c
37
38 PUBLIC CHARGE
39 Chair Rich acknowledged the public charge.
40
41 Arts Moment
42 Doris Friend, Orange County Arts Commission Member introduced Katie Bowler Young.
43 Katie Bowler Young is the author of State Street, a chapbook published by Bull City Press, and
44 a biography of Mexican sculptor Enrique Alferez, forthcoming from The Historic New Orleans
45 Collection. Katie's has published poetry and prose in The Southern Review, Carolina Quarterly,
46 Louisiana Literature, Soundings East, and many other journals. Katie is also director of global
47 relations for UNC Global, working to support Carolina's international activity. She lives in
48 Orange County.
49 Katie Bowler Young read a poem from a collection of poems about the effect of
50 incarceration on family members, and the poem was called "Lessons on Animal Behavior".
2
1
2
3 2. Public Comments
4 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
5
6 David Keil read the following comments:
7
8 Chair Rich and Members of the County Commission, I'm David Kiel and I have been a resident
9 of the County since 1977.
10
11 Tonight I speak on behalf of Affordable Transit For All. We are a coalition of Orange and
12 Durham citizens and civic groups. We advocate for practical transportation solutions.
13 We have many concerns about the proposed Light Rail Project. Tonight, however, I want to
14 focus only the potential negative impact on transportation, schools and other public services in
15 Orange County.
16
17 The original capital expense for this project was set at $2.4 billion. The actual price including
18 interest on borrowing was recently calculated to be $3.3 billion. We just learned that changes in
19 the plan required by Durham may add as much as $500 million to the capital cost, a figure
20 which, as I understand it, does not include associated interest charges. As a result, the project
21 is hundreds of millions of dollars short. And here is the essence of the threat we see: Durham
22 and Orange will be expected to make up the difference. The light rail project is currently
23 absorbing almost all our transit funds. We believe these funds could be used to serve more
24 people, more flexibly at a fraction of the cost.
25
26 Therefore tonight we ask the Commission to consider four actions:
27 1.) Please honor your commitment to cap the County's share of the capital outlay for the
28 project at $149.5 million.
29 2.) Please consider a cap on Orange County's borrowing associated with light rail, already at
30 $150 million—and we will be responsible for the associated interest costs on this amount.
31 3.) Please do not offer other revenue streams to close the funding gaps that we foresee. The
32 county's schools and essential services face their own serious funding challenges. They should
33 not lose funds to Light Rail.
34 If there are unexpended transit tax funds, please use them to expand bus, bus rapid transit and
35 demand services for seniors and other vulnerable populations.
36 4.) Since GoTriangle must now come back to this body with a new financial plan taking into
37 account the increased costs, please invite Davenport, the County's respected financial
38 consultant, to return and review the new Light Rail financial plan so you can be fully informed as
39 you consider any further commitments to the project.
40
41 We believe these simple actions are essential to safeguard our citizens from the likely negative
42 impact of this project on the County's finances, transportation, and other public services. Thank
43 you.
44
45 Bonnie Hauser read the following comments:
46 Good evening Commissioners. I'm Bonnie Hauser and I'm also speaking for Affordable Transit
47 for All. We know you are facing some challenging questions about the light rail project, and we
48 are working to help you become fully informed.
49
3
1 I'm here to share some work that we did with the TOD Guidebook. You see we were really
2 surprised to hear numbers like $1.4-$1.9 billion in revenue, even as high as $2 billion. So we
3 went through the ream of paper and looked for ourselves.
4
5 Here's what we learned.
6 • The $1.4-$1.9 billion is cumulative over 40 years and includes revenue for Durham
7 county and Town, Orange County and Chapel Hill.
8 • If you look at the net annual numbers, it's actually a lot lower. Orange County and
9 Chapel Hill each might generate $5 million a year or so in new property tax revenue.
10
11 As you already know, the estimates in the Guidebook include tax exempt university property
12 and don't consider any of the infrastructure or service costs that come with the new
13 development. It also doesn't include the costs that Chapel Hill has agreed to cover to maintain
14 the light rail infrastructure.
15
16 It's conceivable that after you net the costs and the tax exempt properties, there's no economic
17 benefit at all for Orange County or for Chapel Hill.
18
19 But please, don't believe us. Here's the analysis we did using the data from TOD the
20 guidebook. The numbers come from Appendix G - that's around page 365. Please ask
21 GoTriangle and their consultants to look at it and see if we're close.
22
23 Also-while you're at it, please ask them whether Glen Lennox and other properties that are
24 already under development are counted in the revenue estimates. It's important because
25 Hamilton Road is by far the most economically beneficial station area for Orange County or
26 Chapel Hill. The question is whether that's because of development that's already in the
27 queue.
28
29 Thank you for listening.
30
31 Craig Carter said he previously asked the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
32 about his memorial flag, which he cannot fly due to its size. He said he has heard no response
33 regarding this inquiry. He said he also talked about the lack of EMS services in the northern
34 portion of the County, and the time it takes for EMS to arrive in that part of the County. He said
35 he previously asked the Board about why an ambulance is not being stationed at the new fire
36 department on St. Mary's Road, and has since learned that the Board did vote to station an
37 ambulance there over a year ago, but it has yet to come to fruition. He said he was told that no
38 one can be stationed there due to the lack of sprinkler system; however, a sprinkler system has
39 been installed, yet no one is stationed there. He said the station is on a well, and if the power
40 goes out, the sprinkler system will not work anyway. He said he is frustrated with the lack of
41 resources to his portion of the County.
42
43 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
44 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the
45 agenda below.)
46
47 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
48 Commissioner Greene said on Monday she will attend a meeting on Emerging Issues in
49 Raleigh.
4
1 Commissioner McKee asked if Bonnie Hammersley would contact Davenport to get a
2 report, prior to the February 191" meeting, regarding the additional cost incurred with the
3 changes to light rail (LRT) and exactly what "backstopping" means for Orange County's
4 finances and credit rating.
5 Commissioner McKee petitioned Bonnie Hammersley to contact the Chapel Hill
6 Manager prior to February 191" to ask Town staff to provide a report on Chapel Hill transit's
7 current and future met and unmet needs.
8 Commissioner McKee said the Board of County Commissioners put out a statement
9 about a year ago about not committing any more funds to light rail, and he petitioned that the
10 Board re-commit to that statement.
11 Commissioner Price said the Ag Summit is on Monday, February 111n
12 Commissioner Price said that she and others attended a Stepping UP Initiative
13 stakeholders' group in Buncombe County. She said she noticed the resources dedicated to
14 diversionary programming, and the comprehensive and cohesive approach that Buncombe
15 County takes. She said the group visited family justice center and the detention center, and it
16 was concluded that prosecution and incarceration cannot solve or remedy any of the pressing
17 social issues.
18 Commissioner Marcoplos petitioned the Planning Department to do a planning
19 assessment of the detached section of the rural buffer in the southeast corner of the County:
20 east of Old Lystra Road, on the edge of the Chapel Hill transition area. He said discussions
21 about the future of this area are inevitable, and it would be helpful for the Board to know the
22 implications of the land use in that area.
23 Commissioner Marcoplos respectfully added on to Commissioner McKee comments
24 about LRT, and said it would be money not well spent to pay Davenport to do any economic
25 analysis on the light rail, since the Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) has not returned a
26 report on the risk assessment. He said there are a lot of unknowns at this point, and it would
27 be fruitless to do such an analysis.
28 Commissioner Dorosin suggested that the County look into creating some Orange
29 County swag.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said the General Assembly is back in session and there have
31 already been several bills introduced that reflect priority items of the BOCC: expanding
32 Medicaid; repealing the confederate monument protections; raising minimum wage to $15/hour;
33 red flag laws regarding gun violence.
34 Commissioner Bedford said she attended the Legislative Breakfast on Mental Health,
35 and it is the time to be loud about the need for the expansion of Medicaid.
36 Commissioner Bedford said that she would like to engage Davenport, and have them on
37 standby, as Davenport will need to time to be prepared should the County need them. She
38 said she would like Davenport to analyze the proposed LRT cost sharing agreement that will be
39 coming to the Board, as assumptions have changed and the Board needs factual information.
40 Commissioner Bedford said the Board needs to understand the numbers, and
41 Davenport may just want to be ready. She said the Board needs a comparison — like a truth in
42 lending.
43 She said she is very concerned about the interest rates, and the Board needs an analysis from
44 an independent source so the Board knows exactly to what it is committed.
45 Chair Rich said Happy Chinese New Year, noting it is the year of the pig.
46 Chair Rich referred to the rural buffer discussion that happened at the Chapel Hill
47 Council meeting, and agreed that it would be good for the BOCC to get some information about
48 that southeastern corner of the County. She said would also like a bit more history on why this
49 portion of the County is in the rural buffer and information on the sensitive stream buffers and
50 watersheds. She said she heard that the ETJ stays the way it is as it is the open space for
5
1 southern village, and she does not know if these two areas are related. She said she would
2 also like a bit more information about typography.
3 Chair Rich said she is glad to work with Commissioner Dorosin on the "One Orange"
4 theme, and possibly kick off something in the spring.
5 Chair Rich said she attended the Extension Community Association meeting on
6 Saturday morning, and there are 80 women doing wonderful things for those in need in the
7 community: knitting blankets, making pillows, etc.
8 Chair Rich said she had three take-aways from Assembly of Governments (AOG)
9 meeting: Greene Tract resolution; formation of the climate change committee; and the
10 formation of the census committee. She said she would like more information on all of these
11 items, and how each will move forward.
12 Chair Rich reviewed the following information:
13
14 At the Board's January 22, 2019 regular business meeting, a petition was brought forward
15 from the public, and a petition from Commissioner McKee.
16
17 1. Review and consider request that the BOCC formally act to voice support for opening up to
18 the public the light rail workgroup meetings and other discussions that currently exclude the
19 public
20
21 2. Review and consider request by Commissioner McKee that the BOCC receive copies of the
22 January 10 Transit Workgroup Meeting minutes and that minutes from future meetings be
23 provided to Board members within 10 business days
24
25 As with all petitions, the BOCC received and referred this to staff and then to agenda review
26 with the Chair/Vice Chair/Manager/Deputy Manager/Greg Wilder/Donna Baker. It was
27 concluded that the Chair would confer with the county attorney for legal advice on how to
28 respond to this petition. It should also be noted that the Chair spoke with the Go Triangle
29 attorney before crafting this response.
30
31 There is no workgroup. That is a manufactured assumption. There are no minutes of the 1/10
32 meeting. GoTriangle staff and GoTriangle board representatives and Board Chairs from
33 Orange and Durham counties, along with the Mayor of Durham gathered to discuss draft
34 assumption numbers. No information had been presented at this meeting from the FTA b/c
35 there was a shutdown and the FTA was not open.
36
37 Please note that the topic of open meetings was addressed in a memo from the County
38 Attorney on January 16, 2019.
39
40 John Roberts' memo below:
41
42 FROM: John Roberts, County Attorney
43 DATE: January 16, 2019
44 RE: Open Meetings
45
46 This memorandum is in response to a request for information on open meetings requirements
47 by Commissioners Rich and Bedford.
48
49 The starting point for this discussion is NCGS 143-318.10, which requires official meetings of
50 public bodies be open. So unless there is a statutorily authorized reason to close a meeting,
6
1 such as discussions of economic development, personnel, or privileged communications with
2 attorneys, etc., meetings of public bodies must be open to the public. Further, if an official
3 meeting of a public body occurs "full and accurate" minutes must also be kept of the meeting
4 and any actions occurring at the meeting.
5
6 Thus the first question to analyze is what constitutes a public body? For purposes of local
7 government 143-318.10(b) defines public body as "any elected or appointed authority, board,
8 commission, committee, council, or other body of the State, or of one or more counties, cities,
9 school administrative units, constituent institutions of The University of North Carolina, or other
10 political subdivisions or public corporations in the State that (i) is composed of two or more
11 members and (ii) exercises or is authorized to exercise a legislative, policy-making, quasi-
12 judicial, administrative, or advisory function."
13
14 With regard to elected bodies there is no question that when there is a quorum present, unless
15 there is a legal reason for excluding the public, the meeting is a meeting of a public body and
16 must be open. The murkier issue is with the question of ad hoc attendees to a meeting. If the
17 ad hoc attendees merely attend a meeting due to their expertise or position in order to discuss
18 or negotiate issues and were not appointed to do so by any particular entity the meeting likely
19 does not constitute a meeting of a public body.
20
21 There is existing North Carolina case law that provides some insight into what constitutes a
22 public body with regard to ad hoc membership in a meeting group. In DTH Pub. Corp. v. Univ.
23 of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill, 128 N.C. App. 534 (1998) the Court noted that in order to
24 constitute a public body the members of the body must have been appointed by an entity that is
25 authorized to make appointments. So, for example, if the Board of County Commissioners
26 appointed its Chair, Manager, and several other staff to form a committee and hold meetings
27 with the mayor, manager, and staff of a town to discuss a water line and the town likewise took
28 action to appoint those individuals to do so then the meetings could be meetings of a public
29 body. This is not absolute, however, and whether it is a public body would depend on the facts
30 of the individual situation. It's otherwise clear that without that official appointment by an
31 authorized entity the ad hoc group is not a public body.
32
33 What constitutes an official meeting? 143-318.10(d) defines official meeting as a "meeting,
34 assembly, or gathering together at any time or place or the simultaneous communication by
35 conference telephone or other electronic means of a majority of the members of a public
36 body for the purpose of conducting hearings, participating in deliberations, or voting
37 upon or otherwise transacting the public business within the jurisdiction, real or apparent, of
38 the public body. However, a social meeting or other informal assembly or gathering together of
39 the members of a public body does not constitute an official meeting unless called or held to
40 evade the spirit and purposes of this Article." This would cover most meetings of elected or
41 officially appointed groups.
42
43 I will utilize three examples to describe what is and what is not an official meeting of a public
44 body.
45
46 The first example of what are certainly official meetings of public bodies would include any
47 scheduled meeting of the Board of County Commissioners (elected), the Orange County
48 Planning Board (appointed by the Commissioners), the Orange County Board of Equalization
49 and Review (appointed by the Commissioners), etc. Each of these is a scheduled meeting of a
50 body comprised of either elected or appointed officials at which the public body will engage in
7
1 either"legislative, policy-making, quasi-judicial, administrative, or advisory functions." These
2 meetings must be open to the public unless the subject matter qualifies for an exception to the
3 open meetings law.
4
5 The second example is of a meeting that is absolutely not a meeting of a public body. In this
6 example the Planning Director, County Manager, Health Director, and several other staff
7 members meet to discuss an issue on an upcoming Board of County Commissioners' regular
8 meeting agenda. The product of the meeting is an advisory memo to the Board of County
9 Commissioners in which the staff members recommend specific action. This meeting does not
10 involve elected or appointed officials and is not a regularly scheduled meeting, and further
11 NCGS 143-318.10(c) specifically excludes staff only meetings from the definition of what
12 constitutes public body.
13
14 For the final example I will use a hybrid meeting that is not an official meeting of a public body.
15 In this example several department directors and multiple staff of several local governments
16 attend a meeting to discuss details of an intergovernmental agreement. In addition to the staff,
17 several elected officials from various local governments also attend the meeting, although no
18 quorum of any one elected body is present. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss changes
19 to the intergovernmental agreement. Assuming this is an ad hoc group that met to discuss the
20 changes and will then present the results of the discussion to the various governmental boards
21 for action this would not be an official meeting required to be opened to the public. Some of the
22 reasons include; the attendees were not appointed by any governmental entity to attend and
23 the group itself was not created by any governmental entity. If the attendees were appointed by
24 the various governmental entities to attend then it could rise to the level of a public body and
25 the meeting would then rise to the level of an official meeting but those are not the facts of this
26 example. Even though this was not an official meeting of a public body the public could be
27 invited, but this is not required and whether or not to do so would be up to the host entity.
28
29 This final example is analogous to the recent meeting at GoTriangle that consisted primarily of
30 staff but also involved some elected officials. That meeting, similar to others in the past, did not
31 involve a quorum of any governmental entity and did not result in any official action taking place
32 at the meeting. Also, to the best of my knowledge, the attendees were not appointed to
33 participate by any of the involved governmental entities. This meeting would not constitute a
34 meeting of a public body. Since it was not an official meeting of a public body it was not
35 required to be open to the public and the decision of whether to do so rests entirely with the
36 host of the meeting. Certainly some members of the public could want access to the meeting
37 to see the proverbial sausage being made, however, the open meetings law does not require
38 that access and it was entirely lawful to exclude the public from the meeting if the host entity
39 elected to do so.
40
41 Chair Rich read the following:
42
43 Response: I will note this response addresses only Orange County hosted meetings.
44 Meetings hosted by other governmental organizations are the responsibility of those
45 organizations.
46
47 In formulating this response I consulted with the County Attorney to determine what is required
48 by law to be open to the public. The County Attorney's response was that most meetings of
49 elected officials are required by law to be open to the public, meetings comprised entirely of
50 staff are not required to be open to the public, and meetings of informal groups comprised of
8
1 staff and elected officials are also usually not required to be open to the public so long as there
2 is no quorum of an elected body present.
3
4 Small groups of elected officials meet often to discuss items that may come up for discussion
5 on their respective governing boards. These small groups such as the Mayors of the towns, the
6 Chair, and some number of staff should be able to meet regularly or as needed to discuss
7 important business without having to schedule those meetings and provide for public
8 attendance. This freedom to meet and exchange ideas is crucial to a thorough understanding
9 of issues. These types of informal meetings do not involve final decisions on any issue. Final
10 decisions are the sole purview of the governing boards of each jurisdiction.
11
12 Opening all meetings, whether those meetings are comprised exclusively of staff or are
13 comprised of a group that may include staff and a limited numbers of elected officials, would not
14 be productive and would likely have a disquieting effect on what would be discussed at those
15 staff or predominantly staff meetings. Also, opening staff or predominantly staff meetings for all
16 transit or light rail meetings would likely lead to opening staff meetings on other topics as well.
17 Meetings of the Orange County Board of Commissioners regarding transit issues and
18 particularly the light rail have been open and have had high levels of public engagement for a
19 number of years. Quarterly transit and light rail reports are provided at regular Board of County
20 Commissioners meetings, which are always open to the public. Similarly, decisions on transit
21 and light rail issues are only made at regular board meetings. This is a level of openness and
22 transparency that is in excess of state open meetings laws, thoroughly engages the public, and
23 will not change. (We have had 17 meetings from 1-1-17 — 1-30-19 where we discussed or took
24 action on the LRT.)
25
26 In conclusion, the BOCC does not have the legal authority to direct GoTriangle to open their
27 meetings to the public.
28
29 Commissioner McKee said the meeting on January 10t" was not a meeting of friends
30 over coffee for discussion. He said this group has a name and the lack of minutes is irrelevant,
31 as there was a PowerPoint presentation at that meeting. He said the only way he got this
32 presentation was through a public records request to GoTriangle. He said the night he made
33 these petitions, he distinctly agreed that the open meeting law did not apply to this meeting, but
34 morally, and because this is a divisive issue in this community, no one should be excluded from
35 sitting in the back of a meeting and quietly listening.
36 Commissioner Marcoplos said to Commissioner Bedford that she is welcome to contact
37 him at any time to find out what happens at any GoTriangle meetings.
38 Commissioner Marcoplos said one cannot say that any particular issue is deserving of
39 changing the basic way of governing to make all meetings open. He referred to other items
40 (detention center, ag center, etc.) and said meetings occurred in recent weeks that discussed
41 preliminary numbers, which are no longer accurate. He said things change from day to day,
42 and this is the type of meeting that was held at GoTriangle on January 10t", and so much was
43 discussed that is not reflected in the basic PowerPoint, and so many things have changed since
44 that meeting. He questions if it is good governance to make every single work session between
45 staff and elected officials open. He said the numbers at the January 101" meeting, were not
46 actual factual numbers, and there has to be a happy medium. He said Orange County
47 government has always been transparent, and he finds it interesting that this concern is only
48 being raised about LRT. He said there has to be a balance between transparency, and getting
49 day to day work done in order to present current, factual information to the public for discussion
50 and vote.
9
1 Commissioner Marcoplos said he appreciates the passion of those opposed to light rail,
2 but this is a tactic to slow the project down and it is not entirely about the open meetings law.
3 He said no numbers have been hidden.
4 Commissioner McKee said if Orange County is going to define itself as transparent, then
5 this should apply to any meeting, not just light rail. He said he does not advocate for people to
6 be allowed to speak at all meetings, but just for the right to attend meetings. He said any
7 discussions, preliminary or not, should be open to the public. He said to him this is a moral
8 issue.
9 Commissioner Bedford suggested that the Commissioners have a facilitated meeting
10 about their roles on different boards, and how they report back to each other, staff and the
11 public. She said this can help to develop norms, and allow the BOCC to operate at a higher
12 level on all issues. She said the onus should not be on her, or any Commissioner, to track
13 everyone's meetings to find out what is going on, and it is not good governance to shut out
14 other Commissioners from information that all need to hear. She said those BOCC
15 representatives attending board and commission meetings have more time to digest and
16 consider information, as opposed to their fellow commissioners who receive an abstract a few
17 days before a BOCC meeting, at which a decision must be made. She said she was able to
18 read the PowerPoint from the GoTriangle meeting, and decipher what was relevant, and what
19 may have changed, which was very straightforward and helpful. She said another suggestion
20 may be to have only staff attend meetings, such as a GoTriangle meeting, and keep elected
21 officials out of the deliberation.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said the BOCC does a good job with transparency, and rather
23 than more of them attending other meetings, he would promote having more open discussion in
24 the BOCC meetings, like tonight. He said these meetings are televised and recorded and the
25 Board can have longer discussions. He said the focus of transparency lies in their BOCC
26 regular and work session meetings.
27 Commissioner Dorosin petitioned to get a response about the ambulance issue that Mr.
28 Carter brought forward.
29 Chair Rich said Dinah Jeffries, EMS Director, did send out a response to Mr. Carter
30 about this issue, which can be forwarded to Commissioner Dorosin. She said a response from
31 the Planning Department about the flag is forthcoming.
32 Commissioner Price said the issue is not about the light rail, but rather about all of the
33 noise she heard surrounding the January 101" GoTriangle meeting. She said it was unclear
34 what the meeting was for, and what occurred at the meeting. She said it was touted as an
35 unimportant meeting, but then a PowerPoint appeared. She said she would like more
36 transparency and collegiality. She said everyone does not need to be at every meeting, and if a
37 meeting is announced, it is fair to expect that people may want to attend.
38 Commissioner Marcoplos said if the Board is going to have a mediated meeting, he
39 would like the Board of County Commissioners members to have a list of the controversial
40 topics in the past, so that the discussion can be comprehensive.
41 Chair Rich said the GoTriangle representative and the Chair of the Board of
42 Commissioners have been meeting at GoTriangle for over two years now, and nothing different
43 occurred at the meeting on January 101", than has occurred at any meeting in the past 2 years.
44 She said sometimes it was Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Jacobs who attended,
45 and then it was Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Marcoplos.
46 Chair Rich called for no more discussion and ended the conversation.
47
48 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
49
10
1 a. Proclamation Recognizing the Orange High School Future Farmers of America
2 (FFA) Senior Livestock Judging Team for Winning State Competition
3 The Board recognized the Orange County High School Future Farmers of America
4 Senior Livestock Judging Team for winning the State competition.
5 Travis Myren introduced this item and Cole Watkins, the Ag Teacher, introduced the
6 team.
7 Commissioner Price read the proclamation:
8
9 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
10 PROCLAMATION OF RECOGNITION
11 ORANGE HIGH SCHOOL FUTURE FARMERS OF AMERICA SENIOR LIVESTOCK
12 JUDGING TEAM WINNING 2018 STATE COMPETITION
13
14 WHEREAS, on November 27, 2018, Orange High School entered a Senior Livestock Judging
15 Team in the 2018 N.C. Future Farmers of America (FFA) Association's annual Livestock
16 Evaluation Career Development Event; and
17
18 WHEREAS, the competitive event is for agricultural education students, emphasizing skills in
19 livestock evaluation, selection and management as taught through the agricultural
20 education curriculum; and
21
22 WHEREAS, under the leadership of Cole Watkins, an instructor in the Career and Technical
23 Education Department at Orange High School, the team placed 1st in the state out of 89
24 high school teams; and
25
26 WHEREAS, through hard work, dedication and commitment, the team brought honor upon
27 themselves, Orange High School, the Orange County Schools District and Orange County;
28
29 NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
30 expresses its sincere appreciation and respect for the Orange High School Senior Livestock
31 Judging Team and Cole Watkins for this outstanding achievement, and wishes them great
32 success when they represent the school and county at the national event in October 2019.
33
34 This the 5t" day of February 2019.
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee, for the
37 to authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation recognizing the students and faculty advisor for
38 winning the competition, representing the community and school and wishing them great
39 success in the nationwide competition this fall.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 b. NC Association of Assessing Officers Distinguished Jurisdiction Award
44 The Board recognized the Orange County Tax Office for its selection as a distinguished
45 assessment jurisdiction by the North Carolina Association of Assessing Officers.
46 Dwane Brinson, Tax Administrator, reviewed the background information below:
47
48 BACKGROUND: Each year the North Carolina Association of Assessing Officers (NCAAO)
49 recognizes up to three (3) counties for the Joseph E. Hunt Distinguished Jurisdiction Award. For
50 the third year in a row, Orange County has been selected for this prestigious award. Per the
11
1 NCAAO announcement, the award is presented each year in recognition of a county's
2 achievement in areas of property tax assessment and/or collection, the implementation of a
3 project, or endeavors to enhance the overall effectiveness of a county tax department. The
4 recipient receives prestigious recognition and an award at the annual NCAAO Fall Conference
5 held in November.
6
7 The Board recognized the Orange County Tax Office for its award selection, including
8 acknowledgement of the plaque received from NCAAO highlighting the recognition.
9
10 c: ITEM ADDED (no abstract)
11 The Board considered a Resolution Opposing Alternative 4a as a Design for
12 Modifications to Eubanks Road and NC 86 as Part of NCDOT Project 1-3306A for Proposed
13 Widening of 1-40 from 1-85 to Durham County Line.
14
15 PUBLIC COMMENT:
16 John Hollingsworth from the Northwood community said he is grateful that the Board of
17 County Commissioners has been supportive to the Northwood neighborhood. He asked that
18 the Board endorse this resolution tonight. He said while they have fended off one crisis, they
19 still face grave threats from the design of this road and the amount of traffic that will use their
20 neighborhood as a cut-through. He said they are going to continue to advocate for their
21 neighborhood and ask for the Board's continued support.
22 Chair Rich asked John Hollingsworth (Northwood resident) to read this item:
23
24 A RESOLUTION OPPOSING ALTERNATIVE 4A AS A DESIGN FOR MODIFICATIONS TO
25 EUBANKS ROAD AND NC 86 AS PART OF NCDOT PROJECT 1-3306A FOR
26 PROPOSED WIDENING OF 1-40 FROM 1-85 TO DURHAM COUNTY LINE
27
28 WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) has initiated a project
29 for widening 1-40 in Orange County, which includes proposed modifications to Eubanks Road
30 as part of reconstruction of the 1-40 / NC 86 interchange; and
31
32 WHEREAS, NCDOT has developed alternative designs for modifications to Eubanks Road
33 and has shared them with the public for feedback in January of 2019; and
34
35 WHEREAS, alternative 4A and precursor designs depicted a realignment of Eubanks Road
36 through the Northwood neighborhood that would necessitate the demolition of multiple
37 homes and would create substantial negative impacts to the neighborhood fabric; and
38
39 WHEREAS, residents of the Northwood neighborhood submitted a petition to Orange County
40 urging a design solution that does not endanger homes, property values, well and septic
41 infrastructure, or neighborhood character; and
42
43 WHEREAS, NCDOT has been exploring additional alternatives such as the one shown on Map
44 4B which align Eubanks Road in a way that reduces impacts to the Northwood neighborhood.
45
46 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
47 the Board hereby states its opposition to the alternative 4A realignment of Eubanks Road, as
48 depicted on NCDOT Public Meeting Map 4A, for this portion of the design for NCDOT Project
49 1-3306A.
50
12
1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board supports a design that does not significantly
2 alter the alignment of Eubanks Road, and strongly encourages NCDOT to continue refining
3 design options in order to meet the following criteria:
4
5 • Minimize and mitigate adverse impacts on neighborhoods surrounding the
6 project
7 • Support alternative modes of travel, specifically bicycle and pedestrian
8 • Contribute positively to the character of Chapel Hill
9 • Stagger construction of improvements on Old NC 86 and NC 86 so that
10 construction occurs on each road at different times, thereby optimizing
11 vehicular access to 1-40
12 • Protect the feasibility of future improvements to Eubanks Road and NC 86 for the
13 North South BRT project, as planned by Chapel Hill Transit
14 • Ensure design that allows for sufficient emergency response
15 • Maintain left turn movements from Eubanks Rd onto northbound NC 86 as
16 much as possible, potentially as a short-term measure until traffic levels exceed
17 certain thresholds
18 • Widen the eastbound 1-40 exit ramp to create an additional lane of traffic exiting
19 onto NC 86. This would be in addition to the proposed slip lane from the exit ramp
20 onto Eubanks Road
21
22 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Orange County Commissioners requests that
23 this resolution be transmitted to the Orange County Legislative Delegation.
24
25 This the 5th day of February 2019.
26
27 A motion was mad by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to
28 approve the resolution and transmit it to the Legislative Delegation.
29
30 Commissioner Dorosin said adoption of this resolution does not mean that the BOCC
31 does not support the widening of 1-40, because the BOCC does support that. He said this is
32 about opposing the construction/design of the interchange.
33 Commissioner McKee said he met with the neighbors on a raw, cold day, and the
34 number of neighbors involved impressed him, and the amount of time, energy, and focus the
35 neighbors put into researching the impacts of this proposal. He said this indicated a level of
36 thoughtfulness and cooperation on all fronts.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 Commissioner McKee said this might be a good discussion item at the next Department
41 of Transportation (DOT) quarterly meetings.
42 Chair Rich said it was discussed at the last meeting, and will be so again at future
43 meetings.
44
45 5. Public Hearings
46
47 a. Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan Update
48 The Board received an overview of the Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access
49 Management Plan (E-B-M AMP), continue the public hearing, and provide comments before the
50 Plan is scheduled on an upcoming agenda for Board action.
13
1 Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Planner II, introduced this item.
2
3 BACKGROUND:
4 On April 3, 2018 the BOCC authorized the Planning Department to update the adopted 2011 E-
5 B-M AMP in accordance with an approved public and advisory board review. This update has
6 been conducted through a comprehensive public involvement process which included
7 community input and recommendations from the Planning Board and Orange Unified
8 Transportation Board (OUTBoard). Planning staff also presented the draft plan to the Economic
9 Development Advisory Board (EDAB) and its staff for input.
10
11 There is no voting tonight only public comment.
12 The E-B-M AMP is:
13 • A combination of the original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP, 2017 Transportation Study,
14 County
15 • Planning, City of Mebane, and public comments.
16 • A long-range transportation vision for the area illustrating roadway alignment and
17 corridor
18 • width necessary to serve future land uses and address traffic impact as development
19 occurs.
20 • A plan that assists the County in promoting economic development through its
21 development review process by encouraging developers to dedicate right-of-way
22 necessary for future roads.
23
24 The E-B-M AMP is not:
25 • A proposal for, nor does it seek authorization for, funding right-of-way acquisition.
26 • However, an AMP would be a necessary prerequisite to guide the investment to improve
27 access, where necessary.
28 • A collection of future road design and construction projects, nor does it include a
29 schedule.
30 • A guarantee that future development will occur or that roads will be built.
31
32 Summary and key highlights from the E-B-M AMP
33 Chapter 1 - Introduction —federal, state, and local regulations authorizing such plans
34 including
35 the process used in updating this plan.
36 • 2030 Orange County Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives.
37 • Traffic trend details in addition to the 2017 Transportation Study results.
38
39 Chapter 2 —Access Management Planning — Introduction of 2017 Transportation Study and
40 recommendations for the planning area. This should be a focus area for review.
41 • Includes Volkert, Inc., County staff and the recently adopted Mebane 2040
42 • Comprehensive Transportation Plan (June 2018).
43
44 Chapter 3 — Enforcement (aka Implementation) — lists the various resources, roles and
45 responsibilities of state and local officials as well as property owners.
46 Includes process to amend the plan through developer initiated Traffic Impact Analysis
47
48 Chapter 4—Appendix— 2011 E-B-M AMP, 2017 Transportation Study and remarks collected
49 throughout the planning process.
14
1 Contains survey results and specific comments provided by the public.
2
3 A summary of key planning areas and responses to public comments are provided below. Also
4 see Attachment 1, Public Questions & Comments.
5 o West of West Ten Road and east of Mebane city limits.
6 • Plan updated to avoid multiple stream crossings.
7 • Intersection locations updated and requiring additional study.
8 o Railroad crossings in Efland — Efland-Cedar Grove Road to Mt. Willing Road.
9 • Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP.
10 • Key crossing identified by staff requiring additional study.
11 • NCDOT requests Orange County conduct feasibility study through MPO.
12 o Turner Street Extension through Center Street residential area.
13 • Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP.
14 • Property zoned Local Commercial; LIDO Section 3.4.10 requires property "have
15 • direct access to a street classified either as an arterial or collector".
16 • Provide access to land locked parcels west of residential neighborhood.
17 o US-70 and Preston Loop Subdivision
18 • Plan not changed; carry forward from original adopted 2011 E-B-M AMP.
19 • No recommendations on US-70 or through Preston Loop Subdivision.
20
21 Appendix C of the plan provides comprehensive documentation of all public involvement
22 activities throughout the planning process.
23
24 Planning Board Review- September 5, 2018
25 Planning Board began reviewing the Draft E-B-M AMP. Following are key highlights from its
26 initial review:
27 o What is planned for the area, where will development occur, and will County take property
28 for roads?
29 • The AMP is similar to the Future Land Use Map; it expresses a vision, has no financial
30 component, and is achieved over an indefinite time period.
31 • The plan gives the County legal standing to request right-of-way dedication during the
32 development review process. If development does not occur, neither do new roads.
33 o Who contracted the study (2017 Transportation Study)?
34 • The County funded the study and contracted it out to Volkert, Inc.
35 o Does it include alternative transportation such as cyclists and pedestrians?
36 • Yes, the 2017 Transportation Study recommended 3 of NCDOT's standard street cross
37 • sections. Each includes either a 5-foot sidewalk or wide paved shoulder or both.
38
39 OUTBoard Review- September 19, 2018
40 The OUTBoard received the Draft E-B-M AMP for review. Following are key highlights from its
41 initial review.
42 o What about multimodal travel?
43 The recommended NCDOT approved standard street cross sections include either a
44 sidewalk or wide paved shoulders. Some include both.
45 o Bicycle safety needs to be included in the scope of the project.
46 The street cross sections address Bicycle and Pedestrian safety by including 5-foot
47 sidewalks and/or wide paved shoulders. The plan does not include specific road
48 design/engineering but does accommodate sufficient right-of-way in several cases for
49 future bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
15
1
2 Public Notice of Planning Board and OUTBoard meetings
3 On September 20, 2018, approximately 1,000 notices were mailed to property owners in and
4 within 1,000 feet of the planning area informing them of the October Planning Board and
5 OUTBoard meetings.
6
7 Planning Board Recommendation - October 3, 2018
8 The Planning Board recommended the BOCC approve the E-B-M AMP with the Planning
9 Director's recommended revisions and the following additions:
10 o Provide more clarity on what the plan is and is not.
11 • Information added to Draft E-B-M AMP
12 o Provide more information on how the plan meets Economic Development Objective 2.2 and
13 2.3 (Page 5 of Draft E-B-M AMP).
14 • Included a street cross section with a bicyclist and cite NCDOT guidelines
15 • Information added to the Draft E-B-M AMP
16
17 OUTBoard Recommendation - October 17, 2018
18 The OUTBoard members who were present— in the absence of a quorum - provided the
19 following comments:
20 • Include roundabouts as potential intersection improvements for both 2017
21 Transportation Study and staff recommended intersections.
22 • Limit lane widths in the planning area to 11 feet and provide more shoulder.
23 • Incorporate recent advancements in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
24 technologies at intersections.
25 • Incorporate public transit into the plan.
26 • BOCC proceed with its decision provided all comments are addressed.
27
28 Public Notice of BOCC Public Hearing
29 On October 19, 2018, approximately 1,000 notices were mailed to property owners in and within
30 1,000 feet of the planning area informing them of the BOCC Public Hearing.
31 On November 1, 2018, the BOCC opened the Public Hearing for the E-B-M AMP but
32 continued it to February 5, 2019 so that planning staff could address any impacts the
33 plan may have on the economic development district. The primary concern raised by the
34 Economic Development Department is the future marketability of relatively large
35 properties (e.g. where new connector roads bisect the area) that have been targeted for
36 economic development purposes.
37
38 Economic Development Advisory Board - January 8, 2019
39 The Planning Department originally provided the Draft E-B-M AMP to the Economic
40 Development Department for their review on August 31, 2018. The EDAB provided the
41 following comments on January 8, 2019:
42 • Improve communication and coordination between the two departments.
43 • Provide an option in the plan with no internal road connectivity.
44 • A Draft Reduced Connectivity option has been provided for the BOCC's consideration
45 (Attachment 2).
46 EDAB provided a letter (Attachment 3) recommending BOCC approve the Reduced
47 Connectivity option as part of the plan.
48
49 Planning Director Recommendation
16
1 Based on the input staff has received from the public, EDAB, and staff, another option for
2 consideration is in the Reduced Connectivity Option (Attachment 2). This option removes the
3 vast majority of new connectivity roadways through undeveloped properties. Although, there is
4 a strong merit in our AMP that supports all 4 elements (i.e. right-of-way width, intersection
5 placement, Frontage/Service Joint Road Access, and Master Plan Road Connections), the
6 perception that the connectivity aspect may encumber and/or eliminate the property from a
7 "short list" potential may outweigh the benefits of having the road documented on an AMP.
8
9 Without the connectivity element, staff cannot ask for these connections with "by right"
10 approvals, only with agreement to include them during a conditional zoning process. The
11 developer may find it advantageous to add the connections upon their own reflection, so the
12 comprehensive transportation solution may still be achieved. In any event, the "Reduced
13 Connectivity" option is viable and may balance the interests and unencumber development
14 potential.
15
16 Craig Benedict, Planning Director, said there is a PowerPoint presentation at the
17 Commissioners' places, and he will be going through only a few of the slides:
18
19 Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane
20 Access Management Plan Update
21 February 5, 2019
22 Board of County Commissioners
23 Item 5.a
24
25 Purpose of Item
26 To provide an overview of the Draft Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan
27 (E-B-M AMP), to continue the public hearing, and collect Board comments before placing the
28 draft on an upcoming agenda for decision.
29
30 Presentation Outline
31 Background
32 o What the plan is and is not
33 o Adopted 2011 plan and 2017 Transportation Study
34 o Process and Public Involvement
35 E-B-M AMP
36 o The plan — annotated
37 o Recommended Road Network
38 o Reduced Connectivity Option
39 o Recommended Cross-Sections
40 o Community Input
41 o 2011 vs 2019 update
42 Next Step
43 o Requested Action
44
45 Background — Plan Purpose
46 • Improve overall transportation system
47 • Minimize congestion and crashes
48 • Efficient traffic flow, safety and access to properties
49
50 Background —What the plan is
17
1 A long-range vision for the area
2 Dedication of right-of-way through a development application
3 Ensure future development addresses transportation through approval process
4
5 What the plan is not:
6 Funded new roads or improvements
7 Acquisition/purchase of right-of-way
8 Construction of future roads
9 Permanent/guarantees area develops
10
11 Background — How the plan works (table)
12
13 Background — Plan History (table)
14
15 Background — Future Land Use Map (map)
16
17 Background— 2011 Adopted E-B-M AMP (map)
18
19 Background — 2017 Transportation Study (map)
20
21 Background — 2017 Transportation Study (map)
22
23 Background — 2017 Transportation Study (map)
24
25 Background — Process & Public Involvement
26
27 Background — Public Questions & Comments
28 Questions
29 • What the plan is and is not
30 • Will existing roads be improved?
31 • Will government take property for the roads?
32 • When will the development occur or the future roads?
33 • What about multimodal, bike, ped, transit, etc.?
34 • No four way stops, roundabouts!
35
36 Responses
37 • Existing road will not be removed
38 • No, government is not taking or buying land
39 • This is a vision, plan has no horizon year
40 • Cross sections takes multimodal into consideration
41
42 Background — Process & Public Involvement
43
44 The Plan — Outline
45 1. Introduction
46 a) State and Local Regulations; b) Background and Planning Area; c) Goals and
47 Objectives; and d) Planned Projects
48 2. Access Management Plan
18
1 a) Community Meeting; b) 2017 Transportation Study; c) Recommendations -
2 Future Roadway Network, Cross-Section and Intersection Improvements; and d)
3 AMP Update and Implementation
4 3. Implementation
5 a) Roles and Responsibilities; b) Amendments; and c) Resources
6 4. Appendix
7 a. 2011 E-B-M EDD AMP; b) 2017 E-B-M Transportation Study; and
8 b. Community meeting
9
10 The Plan —2019 Draft E-B-M AMP (map)
11
12 The Plan — Reduced Connectivity Option (map)
13
14 The Plan — Includes Road Cross-Section Recommendations
15
16 The Plan — Includes Road Cross-Section Recommendations
17 The Plan — Includes Road Cross-Section Recommendations
18
19 The Plan — Includes Road Cross-Section Recommendations
20
21 Community Input Documented
22 Appendix C
23 o Sign in sheets from Community Meeting, Planning Board and OUTBoard
24 o Surveys submitted by public
25 o Emails and letters submitted by public including responses
26 o Questions and Answers
27
28 Plan Comparisons —Adopted & Update
29
30 Implementation Over Time
31
32 Planning Board Recommendation (October 3, 2018)
33 ❑ Provide more information on how the plan meets:
34 o Objective ED-2.2: Encourage mixed use projects that support walkable
35 communities. (Text drafted, in Goals and Objectives)
36 o Objective ED-2.3: Promote public transportation, alternative modes of
37 transportation, and encourage carpooling and park-and-ride participation.
38 (Text drafted, in Goals and Objectives)
39
40 What AMP elements are employed?
41 1. Right of Way Width
42 2. Intersection Placement
43 3. Frontage/Service Joint Road Access
44 4. Master Plan Road Connections
45
46 Background — Elements of the Plan
47
48 Right-of-Way
49 a.) Existing Buckhorn and West Ten Road are 60' wide, AMP says both roads to be
50 100'.
19
1 b.) Ask developer along Buckhorn Road and West Ten Road to dedicate 20' on east
2 side.
3 Intersection
4 a.) Existing AMP notes a NCDOT "pre-approved" location for a full flow intersection with
5 possible traffic light.
6 b.) Ask developer to plan project to above AMP intersection location, limit other access
7 points, and make improvements according to TIA needs at this point in time.
8 Frontage/Service Roads
9 a.) Existing AMP promotes Frontage/Service Roads.
10 b.) Ask developer to include frontage/service road easement so large area and smaller
11 projects can be redirected to future traffic signal intersection (after NCDOT warrants are
12 met)
13 Through Connectivity
14 a.) Existing AMP shows approximate alignment
15 b.) Ask developer to plan project with a future public road through the property to the
16 east to distribute (and create internal capture) traffic to infrastructure focus areas.
17
18 Background — Elements of the Plan
19
20 Background — How the plan works
21
22 Background — How the plan works
23
24 Background — How the plan works
25
26 Background — How the plan works
27
28 Not having a plan
29
30 Transportation/traffic efficiency and effectiveness/Connectivity
31 ■ Businesses must rely on an already very limited road system, including
32 multimodal opportunities
33 ■ New development would not be responsible for the impact they cause, including:
34 ■ Preventing adjacent property owners from accessing their property
35 ■ Increasing traffic in the area without mitigating it
36
37 Safety
38 Current transportation network will:
39 ■ Become more congested
40 ■ Crash rates will increase
41 ■ Traffic flow will continue to deteriorate
42 ■ Degrade and become unsafe for all users
43
44 Economic Development
45 ■ County receives no funding for new roads
46 ■ State does not build new roads unless there are "lines on a map"
47 ■ "Perceived impacts of access management on adjacent commercial businesses
48 and landowners are often major impediments to projects moving
49 forward...perceptions are often worse than reality. (#9 Economic Impact of
50 Access Management, 2011 adopted E-B-M AMP)
20
1
2 Not having a plan
3 Funding Opportunities
4 ■ County weakens its partnership with the MPO/RPO and NCDOT, making it
5 difficult for the public, staff, and County to advocate for its transportation needs.
6 ■ Without a strong public-private partnership to address the transportation
7 network, County— including its residents— relies totally on the State to fix the
8 transportation problems brought on development, even without development.
9 ■ Future businesses seeking to develop in the County may not want to take
10 responsibility for the traffic impacts they will cause to existing roads nor be
11 accountable for future traffic patterns they create due to their development.
12
13 The Plan — Right-of-Way
14
15 The Plan — Intersections
16
17 The Plan — Intersections
18
19 The Plan — Intersections
20
21 The Plan — Intersections
22
23 The Plan — Road Connections
24
25 The Plan — Service Roads
26
27 The Plan — Roadway Connectivity
28
29 PUBLIC COMMENT:
30 NONE
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee for
33 the Board to close the public hearing.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the reduced access plan, and the recommendation in
38 the packet to go with the reduced connectivity plan, and clarified that this is recommended
39 because the other plan may hinder economic development due to the burden of the
40 requirement to build roads.
41 Craig Benedict said that is correct, and a line on the map may inhibit a potential
42 development. He said with economic development being so competitive, it is wise to keep
43 things as visible and understandable as possible.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said by not having the more extensive plan, when the properties
45 get developed the County does not have the same leverage to require that these connections
46 be made. He asked if it is more dependent on the developer and its desires.
47 Craig Benedict said yes, if a project is permitted by right, there are standards within the
48 code to ask for a lot of things, but since this would not be in there, a road cannot be required.
49 He said if it is conditional zoning, or a master plan development conditional zoning, it may be
50 possible to bring this requirement back in via negotiation. He said other elements of the plan
21
1 are still alive: dedicate more roads for widening, bring development to a certain predetermined
2 intersection point, and use frontage and service road concepts that would help support the
3 overall transportation plan.
4 Commissioner Dorosin said at the BOCC retreat, the Board discussed the impediments
5 to developing some of these properties: that there is a lack of infrastructure, piecing together
6 multiple parcels, etc. He clarified that the reduced connectivity option still envisions building
7 more major arteries that will address some of the concerns the Board has heard.
8 Craig Benedict said yes. He said Industrial Drive and providing access to one of the
9 largest rail sites have still been preserved. He said there are also discussions between
10 Mebane, DOT and the railroad to build a flyover at Buckhorn Road over towards Frasier Road.
11 He said this even reflects a plan brought forward by the rail authority to limit the rail crossings.
12 He said the elements of this plan can help lead to investments.
13 Commissioner Greene asked if the determinate between development by right and
14 development by conditional zoning could be identified.
15 Craig Benedict said the areas have certain zoning designations. He said if it is
16 Economic Development-Buckhorn District 1, it is assigned to the property already. He said a
17 use listed in that zoning category can be approved by staff. He said some uses may be Special
18 Use, and Class A special use would end up in front of the BOCC. He all standards within the
19 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) would still need to be met, but the access management
20 plan would not be included.
21 Commissioner Greene said she understands that by right is a good thing to attract
22 potential developers, and she will not argue with the deletion of the proposed roads, but she
23 finds reducing connectivity to be concerning.
24 Commissioner Marcoplos referred to page 3, where it says alternative transportation is
25 included (cycle and pedestrian) as well as a 5-foot sidewalk or a wide paved shoulder. He
26 asked if the shoulder would also be 5 feet wide.
27 Craig Benedict said it is 4-5 feet for an on road bike lane; and if bikes are going to ride
28 on a sidewalk it has to be 8 feet wide. He said in the County there are cross-sections of roads,
29 but the sidewalks would likely not go in unless Mebane, etc. annexed it. He said DOT will not
30 maintain sidewalks.
31 Commissioner Price referred to the purple sections, where it says "further analysis," and
32 asked if this could be defined.
33 Craig Benedict said that is, for example, a possible traffic separation study that the rail
34 authority and DOT has been working on to say whether Buckhorn Road should be widened in
35 this area or a bridge be built over the road. He said further analysis is required. He said
36 roundabouts and full intersections have also been considered.
37 Commissioner Price asked if the ones to the east could be clarified, near Efland-Cedar
38 Grove.
39 Craig Benedict referred to the map, pointing out Mt. Willling Road, which is presently 2
40 lanes, but is recommended to be 80 feet wide in the future (15-20 feet wider on either side of
41 the existing roadway corridor). He said if a development comes in, with over 800 trips/day, the
42 developer must complete a traffic impact study, and if this study says more than one access
43 point is required, then the developer must comply, per the UDO.
44 Commissioner Price said she encourages roundabouts.
45 The Board agreed by consensus to schedule the Plan on the March 7t" meeting for
46 Board action.
47
48 6. Regular Agenda
49
50 a. Orange County Transportation Priority List for SPOT 6.0 / FY 2022-2031 STIP
22
1 The Board considered voting to approve a resolution endorsing lists of Orange County
2 transportation projects to the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO),
3 Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro
4 Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) for Strategic Prioritization of Transportation
5 (SPOT)/Strategic Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
6 Nishith Trivedi said a copy of the SPOT 6.0 presentation is at the Commissioners'
7 places, and in an effort to save time, he will review the key points presented in the abstract.
8
9 The main points are:
10 • NCDOT and MPO/RPO are about to start the next round of SPOT process and we must
11 identify potential projects for submission to MPO/RPO by March. That is why this is time
12 sensitive.
13 • Each MPO/RPO has unique processes for selecting limited number of projects they can
14 submit to NCDOT and they must complete their work by this summer.
15 • You have three attachments with maps, one for each MPO/RPO with a list of potential
16 projects, with staff and OUTBoard recommendations.
17 • All previous County Priorities for SPOT 5.0 are being carried forward as highway
18 projects rather than bike/ped projects and 6 new potential projects have been identified:
19 o US-70 widening due to high crash incidents, increasing traffic, and strategic
20 freight corridor
21 o NC-86 widening from north of Hillsborough to Caswell County
22 o Old NC-86 modernization with wide paved shoulder from Hillsborough to
23 Eubanks Road,
24 o Lebanon Road, just intersection improvements for safety, no widening
25 o Mebane Oaks Road, a project we would coordinate with Mebane
26 Manager recommends the Board approve the list of transportation projects for
27 submission to MPO/RPO
28 He said he is happy to go over the presentation if the Board would like and answer any
29 questions or concerns they may have.
30
31
32 BACKGROUND: Biennially, the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT) adopts a ten
33 year STIP that funds and schedules transportation projects throughout the state for all modes
34 of transportation. The STIP implements Metropolitan and Rural Planning Organization's
35 (MPO/RPO) adopted Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) and Metropolitan
36 Transportation Plan (MTP). The CTPs and MTPs are used by MPO/RPOs to determine which
37 projects are submitted for considered in the STIP using the SPOT process.
38
39 SPOT 5.0/STIP FY 2020-2029
40 Orange County has thirty-nine (39) projects in SPOT 5.0. This includes its member jurisdictions
41 - Hillsborough, Mebane, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro. Eight of them have been funded, and those
42 projects are:
43 • TIP - 1-3306A: I-40 Widening from I-85 to US 15/501
44 • TIP - 1-5984: 1-85 at NC-86 Interchange upgrade
45 • TIP - 1-0305: 1-85 Widening from Orange Grove Road to Durham County
46 • TIP - U-5304A, B, D, E, F: US 15/501 improvements from NC-86 to 1-40 (Chapel Hill)
47
48 SPOT 6.0 Schedule and Process— FY 2022-2031
49 Between July 1, 2019 — September 30, 2019, MPO/RPOs across the state will submit their
50 limited number of projects— based on their population and total centerline miles —to the North
23
1 Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) for inclusion in SPOT 6.0. These projects
2 must be approved by their respective Boards prior to submission. Orange County's process
3 requires that the Board of County Commissioners (BPCC) approve the list of County
4 transportation priorities prior to submission to the respective MPO/RPO. Each MPO/RPO has
5 its own unique process for determining which limited number of projects it submits to NCDOT.
6 • DCHC MPO will only submit projects listed in the adopted MTP
7 • TARPO will establish a subcommittee to determine which projects to submit
8 • BG MPO uses a multi-criteria process to determine which projects to submit
9 Before MPO/RPO Boards approve the projects for submission, they will conduct a 30 day public
10 comment period and public hearing.
11
12 SPOT 6.0 Project List— Staff and OUTBoard Recommendations
13 Based on changes to MPO/RPO SPOT project selection processes, staff is recommending
14 Orange County transportation priorities also change so that projects may compete better. Staff
15 has also met with member jurisdictions in Orange County to identify specific corridors they
16 would like addressed through SPOT/STIP or other funding opportunities. These changes and
17 potential corridors are provided as staff recommendations for Orange County Transportation
18 Priorities (Attachments 1 - 3). Many Orange County 2017 transportation priorities are carried
19 forward and highlighted in Green. Possible new priorities are provided in Jange.
20
21 Staff is recommending removal of independent bike/pedestrian projects based on
22 Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) Law § 136-189.11 (d).(3).c.
23 o The Department shall not provide financial support for independent bicycle and
24 pedestrian improvement projects.
25 o Independent bike/ pedestrian projects can be pursued through "Federal Surface
26 Transportation Block Grant Direct Allocation".
27 o They require 20% local match and local administration.
28 Staff recommends converting paved shoulder projects and independent
29 bike/pedestrian projects to highway modernization projects with bike lanes.
30 o First 5 feet of sidewalk width is subject to NCDOT's Sidewalk Cost Share Policy
31 — 50% for Orange County— and any additional width must be 100% locally
32 funded.
33 Staff recommends adding Old NC-86, NC-86, US-70 and NC-54 as County Priorities
34 for SPOT and other funding opportunities.
35 o OUTBoard recommendations are provided in Attachments 1 — 3. Below is a
36 summary of its recommendations:
37 o Carry forward previous County Priorities and recommend they be highway
38 projects with 11' travel lane and 5' paved shoulder, no curb and gutter or
39 sidewalk.
40 o Projects in town jurisdictions should be coordinated with the town with the
41 understanding towns may submit them to MPO.
42 • US-70 widening not recommended as possible project
43 o Opposes more cars on road and find better ways to keep trucks on interstate so
44 they do not avoid the weigh station.
45 • Table NC-86 and NC-54 till MPO/RPO complete update to CTP
46 o Recommend BOCC request TARPO request NCDOT study NC-86 and update
47 CTP before proceeding with possible project.
48 o Await DCHC MPO action on NC-54 Corridor Study before proceeding with
49 possible project.
50
24
1 Nishith Trivedi made the following PowerPoint presentation:
2
3 Orange County Transportation Priority List for SPOT 6.0 / FY 2022-2031 STIP
4 February 5, 2019
5
6 Purpose of Item
7 To consider a resolution endorsing transportation projects to the BGMPO, TARPO and DCHC
8 MPO for SPOT 6.0/STIP 2022-2031.
9 -Burlington Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BG MPO)
10 -Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO)
11 -Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO)
12 -Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT)
13 -State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
14
15 Presentation — Outline
16 ❑ SPOT 6.0 Processes
17 ■ NCDOT
18 ■ DCHC MPO, BG MPO, & TARPO
19 ■ Orange County
20 ■ Orange County Priorities
21 ■ TARPO
22 ■ DCHC MPO
23 ■ BG MPO
24 ■ Requested Action
25
26
27 SPOT 6.0 Process — NCDOT (chart)
28
29 SPOT 6.0 Process — NCDOT
30 Highway
31 Statewide— Interstates, Highways, Toll Facilities, etc.
32 Regional — any US and NC routes
33 Division —any SR and Local roads
34 Bike/Ped
35 Bike/Ped
36 Statewide — None
37 Regional — None
38 Division - $0 state funds (Federal STBDGA or NCDOT local cost share)
39 Public Transit
40 Statewide — None
41 Regional — 10% cap on services spanning 2 or more counties
42 Division —All other services including terminal & stations
43 Aviation, Ferry, & Rail
44
45 SPOT 6.0 Process — MPO/RPO
46 Orange County submits SPOT projects are to:
47 DCHC MPO
48 TARPO
49 BG MPO
25
1 MPO/RPO submits limited # of projects to NCDOT for inclusion in SPOT and consideration in
2 STIP, limit is based on:
3 • Total population in MPO/RPO
4 • Total Centerline miles in MPO/RPO
5
6 SPOT 6.0 Process — MPO/RPOs
7
8 SPOT 6.0 Process — Orange County
9 ❑ Staff reviewed previous adopted plans
10 ■ NCDOT FY 2018-2027 and 2020-2029 STIP
11 ■ DCHC MPO, TARPO, BG MPO CTP & MTP
12 ■ Locally adopted plans (AMP, Comprehensive, etc.)
13 ❑ Staff reviewed previous BOCC adopted priority list
14 ■ May 5, 2017
15 ❑ Coordinate and Collaborate with local jurisdictions
16 ■ Mebane, Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough
17 ❑ Obtain recommendations from OUTBoard
18 See Attachments 1-3
19
20 Orange County Priority List—TARPO
21 . TARPO (Attachment 1)
22 . DCHC MPO (Attachment 2)
23 • BG MPO (Attachment 3)
24
25 Orange County Priority List—TARPO
26
27 Orange County Priority List—TARPO
28
29 Orange County Priority List— DCHC MPO
30
31 Orange County Priority List— DCHC MPO
32
33 Orange County Priority List— DCHC MPO
34
35 Orange County Priority List— BG MPO
36
37 Orange County Priority List— New Protects
38 ❑ NC-54 - OUTBoard recommends delay till MPO action
39 ➢ Staff recommends project due to
40 ❖ Traffic exceeds road capacity—worsening over time
41 ❖ Increasing accidents, including severity & fatalities
42 ❑ US-70 - OUTBoard does not recommend project
43 ➢ Staff recommends project due to
44 ❖ Traffic exceeds road capacity—worsening over time
45 ❖ Increasing accidents, including severity & fatalities
46 ❖ Strategic Freight Corridor
47 ❑ NC-86 - OUTBoard recommends delay
48 ➢ Staff recommends project due to
49 ❖ Traffic exceeds road capacity—worsening over time
50 ❖ Increasing accidents, including severity & fatalities
26
1
2 Requested Action
3 The Manager recommends that the Board approve/endorse the resolution (Attachment
4 4) to submit transportation projects to the BGMPO, TARPO and DCHC MPO for SPOT
5 6.0/STIP 2022-2031.
6
7 Transportation Framework-
8 Example Life Cycle
9 Highway Projects - Multimodal Aspects
10 ❑ Surface Transportation Block Grant Direct Allocation (STBGDA)
11 ■ Federal funds incorporated into NCDOT STIP
12 ■ Requires 20% local match plus local administration
13 ➢ Commitment Letter from local jurisdiction to provide funds
14 ■ Follow all Federal regulations & NCDOT oversight
15 ➢ Violation could result in 100% local costs
16 ➢ Choreographed with County's budget process
17 Highway Projects-Strategic Transportation Investment (STI) Law § 136-189.11 (d).(3).c.—The
18 Department shall not provide financial support for independent bicycle and pedestrian
19 improvement projects
20 OUTBoard Recommendation —Table
21 Road Improvements: OUTBoard recommends - NCDOT standard street cross section 2B (60'
22 row, 11' travel lane, with 5' paved shoulder) with intersection improvements, no C&G or
23 sidewalk
24 OUTBoard Recommendation- Widening: OUTBoard recommends
25 Table till MPO/RPO updates CTP/MTP
26 BOCC request TARPO request NCDOT study NC-86 for possible update
27
28 Orange County Priority List—TARPO (table)
29
30 Orange County Priority List— DCHC MPO (table)
31
32 Commissioner Greene asked if the difference between SPOT 5 and SPOT 6, as
33 pertains to bicycle projects, could be clarified.
34 Nishith Trivedi said bicycle projects become highway projects. He said bicycle and
35 pedestrian projects require the County to invest into such projects in order to be submitted. He
36 said there are two different funding sources used for bike/ped projects. He said the County has
37 a hard time getting these projects, and, as such, staff has converted them into highway
38 projects, which would have paved shoulders wide enough for a bike lane.
39 Chair Rich said the OUTBoard presents this concern all the time, as NCDOT does not
40 recognize bike/pedestrian projects as a priority. She said this is a way around the issue, getting
41 the road that is wide enough to add the bike lane.
42 Commissioner Price asked if there is an update with Hwy 54.
43 Nishith Trivedi said the corridor study is recommending widening, but there is an issue
44 between Carrboro and the MPO on additional work to be done on this study.
45 Commissioner Price asked if widening means additional lanes.
46 Nishith Trivedi said yes, one lane on both sides.
47 Commissioner Marcoplos said the elusive bike path from Carrboro to Hillsborough could
48 be created if the County was able to pick which project gets completed.
49 Nishith Trivedi said Old Highway 86 is the highway project connecting Hillsborough to
50 Eubanks Road with a larger lane with a shoulder.
27
1 Commissioner Marcoplos said most include the component of widening the road enough
2 to include bike travel. He said maybe this will happen some day.
3
4
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (revised)
6
7 A RESOLUTION ENDORSING ORANGE COUNTY'S LIST OF TRANSPORTATION
8 PROJECTS FOR THE BURLINGTON-GRAHAM AND DURHAM-CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO
9 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (BGMPO AND DCHC MPO) AND THE
10 TRIANGLE AREA RURAL PLANNING ORGANIZATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF
11 INCLUSION IN THE 2022 — 2031 STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT
12 PROGRAM
13
14 WHEREAS, the North Carolina Board of Transportation (BOT), every two years, prepares a
15 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) that identifies transportation projects to
16 be implemented over the next ten years with State and Federal funding; and
17
18 WHEREAS, the North Carolina BOT solicits input for identifying transportation projects of local
19 and regional importance to be included in the FY 2022-2031 STIP; and
20
21 WHEREAS, the BGMPO and TARPO Transportation Advisory Committees and the DCHC
22 MPO Board are charged with the development of a Metropolitan Transportation Improvement
23 Program (MTIP) or regional priority list; and
24
25 WHEREAS, Orange County is a member jurisdiction of the BGMPO, TARPO and DCHC MPO;
26 and
27
28 WHEREAS, Orange County gives priority to identified safety needs on existing roads and
29 bridges, to transportation projects that encourage alternatives to automobile travel, to projects
30 that minimize adverse impacts on the natural environment and cultural sites, and to those
31 projects that foster economic development in the County's designated Economic Development
32 Districts; and
33
34 WHEREAS, Orange County strongly encourages the North Carolina Department of
35 Transportation (NCDOT) to design all highway projects, where appropriate, to accommodate
36 bicycle and pedestrian traffic to provide alternative means of transportation that may result in
37 reduced automobile traffic and related air and water impacts; and
38
39 WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all new or replacement bridges
40 with sufficient clearance to allow wildlife to cross safely under them, and to allow pedestrian
41 passage along any existing or planned trail-system connectors; and
42
43 WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all roads, bridges, and rights-of-
44 way so as to protect ecosystems and non-renewable resources; and
45
46 WHEREAS, Orange County has outlined its transportation needs within the BGMPO, TARPO
47 and DCHC MPO planning areas in attachments to this resolution; and
48
28
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
2 the Board endorses the following list of transportation projects to be submitted for scoring by
3 the State and to ultimately be considered for inclusion in the FY 2022-2031 STIP.
I Burlington-Graham MPO:
2
3 1) US-70 Improvements: Widen US-70 and improve intersections from Buckhorn Road
4 (SR-1114) to Durham County with NCDOT standard street cross-section 4G (110, row,
5 17.5' median, 11' travel lanes, 5' bike lane, c&g, and sidewalk), add turn lanes and
6 safety improvements at NC-86, St. Mary's Road (SR-1002), Efland Cedar Grove Road
7 (SR-1004), Frazier Road (SR-1310), Richmond Road (SR-1312), Brookhollow Road
8 (SR-1324), Faucette Mill Road (SR-1328), Miller Road (SR-1555), Lawrence Road (SR-
9 1561), Palmers Grove Church Road (SR-1562), Pleasant Green Road (SR-1567),
10 Orange High School Road (SR-1588), and N Scotswood Boulevard (SR-2300).
11
12 2) Mattress Factory Road Interchange: Construct a new interchange at the existing grade-
13 separated crossing of Mattress Factory Road and 1-85/1-40.
14
15 3) Mattress Factory Road Extension to U.S. 70: Extend Mattress Factory Road northward
16 across East Washington Street and the NCRR/Norfolk Southern railroad right-of-way to
17 intersect U.S. 70 and close the existing railroad crossover road connecting East
18 Washington Street and U.S. 70 approximately 240 feet to the east of the intersection of
19 Mattress Factory Road and East Washington Street.
20
21 4) Buckhorn Road (SR 1114) Widening: Widen Buckhorn Road from U.S. 70 to West Ten
22 Road (SR1144) to multiple lanes with bicycle and pedestrian facilities with grade
23 separation connection at US-70.
24
25 5) Lebanon Road Improvements: Intersection and safety improvements along Lebanon
26 Road (SR-1306) from Mill Creek Road (SR-1345) to Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR-
27 1004).
28
29 6) Mebane Oaks Road Improvements: Modernize Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) from NC
30 54 to 1-85 with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with
31 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Old Hillsborough Road
32 Road (SR-2126), Hebron Church Road (SR-1139), Yarborough Road (SR-1138), Oak
33 Grove Church Road (SR-1117), Jones Road (SR-1123), S Jim Minor Road (SR-2135),
34 Nicks Road (SR-1119), Bradshaw Quarry Road (SR-1100), and NC-54.
35
36 Triangle Area RPO:
37
38 1) Old Greensboro Road Paved Shoulders: Modernize Old Greensboro Road (SR-1005)
39 from Jones Ferry Road (SR-1942) to Alamance County with NCDOT standard street
40
1 2) safety improvements at Jones Ferry Road (SR-1942), Hatch Road (SR-1944), Neville
2 Road (SR-1945), Carl Durham Road (SR-1950), White Cross Road (SR-1951), Wildcat
3 Creek Road (SR-1953), and Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (SR-1956).
4
5 3) Efland-Cedar Grove Road Improvements: Widen Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR 1004)
6 from Highland Farm Road (SR 1332) to Carr Store Road (SR 1352) with NCDOT
7 standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add
8 turn lanes and safety improvements at Carr Street (SR-1357) and highland Farm Road
9 (SR-1332)
10 4) Orange Grove Road Improvements: Modernize Orange Grove Road (SR-1106) from I-
11 85 to Dodson Crossroad (SR-1007) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60'
12 row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements
13 at Ode Turner Road (SR-1130), Dimmocks Mill Road (SR-1134), Crossroad Church
14 Cemetery Road (SR-1131), Davis Drive (SR-1129), Kimbro Road (SR-1128) and
15 Dodson Crossroads (SR-1102)
16
17 5) Dairyland Road Improvements: Modernize Dairyland Road (SR-1177) from Orange
18 Grove Road (SR-1006) to Old NC-86 (SR-1009) with NCDOT standard street cross-
19 section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety
20 improvements at Orange Grove Road (SR-1006), Dodson Crossroads (SR-1102),
21 Rocky Ridge Road (SR-1113), Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road (SR-1104) and
22 convert intersection at Old NC-86 (SR-1009) to Roundabout.
23
24 6) Dodsons Crossroads Improvements: Modernize Dodson Crossroad (SR-1102) from
25 Orange Grove Road (SR-1006) to NC-54 with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B
26 (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety
27 improvements at Orange Grove Road (SR-1106), Borland Road (SR-1126), Arthur
28 Minnis Road (SR-1115), and Dairyland Road (SR-1177).
29
30 7) Mebane Oaks Road Improvements: Modernize Mebane Oaks Road (SR 1007) from NC
31 54 to 1-85 with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with
32 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements at Old Hillsborough Road
33 (SR-2126), Hebron Church Road (SR-1139), Yarborough Road (SR-1138), Oak Grove
34 Church Road (SR-1117), Jones Road (SR-1123), S Jim Minor Road (SR-2135), Nicks
35 Road (SR-1119), Bradshaw Quarry Road (SR-1100), and NC-54.
36
37 8) Old NC-86 Improvements: Modernize Old NC-86 (SR-1009) from 1-40 to Eubanks Road
38 (SR-1727) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with
39 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes at Davis Road (SR-1129), and New Hope Church
40 Road (SR-1723).
41
42 9) NC-54 Improvements: Widen NC-54 from Mebane Oaks Road (SR-1007) to Orange
43 Grove Road (SR-1006) and Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) to Butler Rd (SR 1951) /
44 Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) and from Butler Rd (SR 1951) / Dodsons Cross Rd (SR
45 1102) to Old Fayetteville Road (SR-1107) / Inside DCHC with additional lanes and
46 multimodal facilities along the corridor and safety improvements at each intersection.
47
48 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO:
49
1 1) US-70 Improvements: Widen US-70 and improve intersections from Buckhorn Road
2 (SR-1114) to Durham County with NCDOT standard street cross-section 4G (110' row,
3 17.5' median, 11' travel lanes, 5' bike lane, c&g, and sidewalk), add turn lanes and
4 safety improvements at NC-86, St. Mary's Road (SR-1002), Efland Cedar Grove Road
5 (SR-1004), Frazier Road (SR-1310), Richmond Road (SR-1312), Brookhollow Road
6 (SR-1324), Faucette Mill Road (SR-1328), Miller Road (SR-1555), Lawrence Road (SR-
7 1561), Palmers Grove Church Road (SR-1562), Pleasant Green Road (SR-1567),
8 Orange High School Road (SR-1588), and N Scotswood Boulevard (SR-2300).
9
10 2) NC 86 Improvements North of Hillsborough: Widen NC 86 from U.S. 70 Bypass to north
11 of NC 57 to four (4) lanes with intersection improvements at U.S. 70 Bypass and NC 57.
12
13 3) Eno Mountain Road/Mayo Street at Orange Grove Road: Realign the intersection of Eno
14 Mountain Road (SR 1148) and Mayo Street (SR 1192) with Orange Grove Road (SR
15 1006) and make safety improvements.
16
17 4) U.S. 70 East/1-85/1-40 Connector: Modify the 1-85/1-40 Connector (SR 1239) interchange
18 at U.S. 70 to provide access from all directions.
19
20 5) Old Greensboro Road Paved Shoulders: Modernize Old Greensboro Road (SR-1005)
21 from Jones Ferry Road (SR-1942) to Alamance County with NCDOT standard street
22 cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and
23 safety improvements at Jones Ferry Road (SR-1942), Hatch Road (SR-1944), Neville
24 Road (SR-1945), Carl Durham Road (SR-1950), White Cross Road (SR-1951), Wildcat
25 Creek Road (SR-1953), and Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road (SR-1956).
26
27 6) Dairyland Road Improvements: Modernize Dairyland Road (SR-1177) from Orange
28 Grove Road (SR-1006) to Old NC-86 (SR-1009) with NCDOT standard street cross-
29 section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety
30 improvements at Orange Grove Road (SR-1006), Dodson Crossroads (SR-1102),
31 Rocky Ridge Road (SR-1113), Bethel Hickory Grove Church Road (SR-1104) and
32 convert intersection at Old NC-86 (SR-1009) to Roundabout.
33
34 7) Dodson Crossroad Improvements: Modernize Dodson Crossroad (SR-1102) from
35 Orange Grove Road (SR-1006) to NC-54 with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B
36 (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety
37 improvements at Orange Grove Road (SR-1106), Borland Road (SR-1126), Arthur
38 Minnis Road (SR-1115), and Dairyland Road (SR-1177).
39
40 8) Orange Grove Road Improvements: Modernize Orange Grove Road (SR-1106) from I-
41 85 to Dodson Crossroad (SR-1007) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60'
42 row, 11' travel lanes, with 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes and safety improvements
43 at Ode Turner Road (SR-1130), Dimmocks Mill Road (SR-1134), Crossroad Church
44 Cemetery Road (SR-1131), Davis Drive (SR-1129), Kimbro Road (SR-1128) and
45 Dodson Crossroads (SR-1102).
46
47 9) NC-54 Improvements: Widen NC-54 from Orange Grove Rd (SR 1006) to Butler Rd (SR
48 1951) / Dodsons Cross Rd (SR 1102) and from Butler Rd (SR 1951) / Dodsons Cross
49 Rd (SR 1102) to Old Fayetteville Road (SR-1107) / Inside DCHC with additional lanes
I and multimodal facilities along the corridor and safety improvements at each
2 intersection.
3
4 10)Lebanon Road Improvements: Intersection and safety improvements along Lebanon
5 Road (SR-1306) from Mill Creek Road (SR-1345) to Efland-Cedar Grove Road (SR-
6 1004).
7
8 11)Old NC-86 Improvements: Modernize Old NC-86 (SR-1009) from 1-40 to Eubanks Road
9 (SR-1727) with NCDOT standard street cross-section 2B (60' row, 11' travel lanes, with
10 5' paved shoulder), add turn lanes at Davis Road (SR-1129), and New Hope Church
11 Road (SR-1723).
12
13 12)Dimmocks Mill Trestle Improvements: Improve current Dimmocks Mill Rd (#735154S)
14 grade separation and close Bellvue St (#735152D) rail crossing.
15
16 13)Exchange Park Lane Rail Trestle Improvements: Improve the current trestle at
17 Exchange Park Lane to accommodate Pedestrian traffic to support a pedestrian link
18 from the proposed train station to downtown Hillsborough.
19
20 14)Orange Grove Rd. Widening with Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements: Construct one
21 additional lane between Patriot's Pointe Drive and New Grady Brown School Road (SR
22 1221) to include both pedestrian and bicycle improvements along the roadway. The 1-40
23 bridge would be widened to accommodate both pedestrian and bicycle amenities and
24 one additional travel lane.
25
26 15)Calvander Roundabout: Construct a roundabout at the intersection of Old NC 86,
27 Dairyland Road (SR 1004/1113/1177), and Homestead Road (SR 1777) in Calvander
28 outside of Carrboro.
29
30 16)Old NC-86 Bike Lanes: Construct bicycle facilities on Old NC 86 from Farm House Road
31 in Carrboro to Homestead Road (SR 1777).
32
33 17)Homestead Road Bike Lanes and Sidewalks: Improve Homestead Road (SR 1777) from
34 Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to NC 86 to include bicycle lanes and sidewalks in sections of the
35 corridor where they do not exist.
36
37 18)Eubanks Road Bike Lanes: Construct bicycle lanes on Eubanks Road (SR 1727) from
38 Old NC 86 (SR 1009) to NC 86.
39
40 19)Mt. Carmel Church Road Bike/Pedestrian Improvements: Construct bike lanes and
41 sidewalks from US 15-501 to Bennett Road and bike lanes from Bennett Road to the
42 Chatham County line.
43
44 20)Orange High School Road/Harold Latta Road Sidewalk Improvements: Construct a
45 sidewalk along the west side of Orange High School Road from Harold Latta Road to
46 U.S. 70, construct a sidewalk along the south side of Harold Latta Road from Cloverfield
47 Drive to Orange Grove Road, install high visibility crosswalks and in-road signage at
48 school entrances and exits on Orange Grove Road, and construct a sidewalk along
49 entrance roads to CW Stanford Middle School.
50
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Greene for the
3 Board to approve approve/endorse the resolution (Attachment 4) to submit transportation
4 projects to the BGMPO, TARPO and DCHC MPO for SPOT 6.0/STIP 2022-2031, with the
5 addition of the following language:
6
7 WHEREAS, Orange County encourages the NCDOT to design all roads, bridges, and rights-of-
8 way so as to protect ecosystems and non-renewable resources;
9
10 Nishith Trivedi said staff recommended additional projects, but the OUTBoard did not
11 agree with this recommendation. He asked if the Board wanted to consider new projects in the
12 resolution: US 70, N.C. 54 and Old Highway 86.
13 Commission Dorosin asked if these projects are included in the presentation.
14 Nishith Trivedi said yes, and pointed out the projects for the Board. He said the
15 OUTBoard generally opposes these projects due to opposition of widening roads and
16 encroaching on OUTBoard members' property.
17 Commissioner Dorosin supported adding these three projects to the resolution.
18 Commissioner McKee agreed. He said these three projects will address a public safety
19 issue, as well as the reality that the traffic is what it is.
20 Commissioner Marcoplos said Highway 54 is not going to be widened for a substantial
21 portion coming out of Carrboro, which should be a win for the OUTBoard. He said this seems
22 like a good idea, and he definitely supports the Highway 54 project.
23 Commissioner Price said she would be cautious with Highway 70, as parts of it go
24 through Hillsborough, and she would prefer to work with the Town on its plans for Cornelius
25 Street.
26 Nishith Trivedi said staff would coordinate with Hillsborough.
27 Commissioner Price asked if there is a timeline in place.
28 Nishith Trivedi said this is a two-year process, after which there would be a new Capital
29 Improvement Program that would say when and where things would happen or not.
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
32 support adding these three road projects to the resolution: US 70, N.0 54 and Old Hwy 86
33 Commissioner Price accepted friendly amendment and Commissioner Greene agreed.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 b. Northern Campus Project Update
38 The Board reviewed schematic design cost estimates for the County's Northern County
39 Campus, consider voting to approve an option and authorize staff to present budget
40 adjustments to the project at a future meeting.
41 Travis Myren referred to updated information, on the yellow sheet, at the
42 Commissioners' places. He reviewed the following information:
43
44 BACKGROUND: The County's FY2018-19 Capital Investment Plan merged three independent
45 projects into the Northern Campus development. This development, located off of Highway 70
46 in Hillsborough, is intended to include a replacement Detention Center, Environment and
47 Agricultural Center, and Parks Operations Base. The Board of Commissioners appropriated
48 approximately $28 million for the project.
49
I As currently designed, the new Detention Center would consist of one hundred forty-four (144)
2 beds in approximately 48,900 square feet. The new facility would replace the existing 40,227
3 square foot detention facility located in downtown Hillsborough that was originally constructed in
4 1925 with additions and modifications occurring in the early 1980's and mid-1990's. The new
5 17,200 square foot Environment and Agricultural facility would replace the 19,087 square foot
6 office building currently located on Revere Road that houses the Department of Environment,
7 Agriculture, Parks and Recreation, Cooperative Extension, Farm Service Agency, and Soil and
8 Water Conservation. Finally, the 8,500 square foot Parks Operations Base would replace
9 scattered facilities at Millhouse Road Park used for office and equipment storage.
10
11 The County has recently completed the schematic design phase of the project and updated
12 cost estimates based on the building dimensions described above and programming needs of
13 the future building occupants. Based on those estimates, the current authorized budget amount
14 is not sufficient to complete the entire scope of the project.
15
16 With no changes to the current project scope or value engineering, the project is projected to
17 exceed the budgeted appropriation by approximately $13 million. Attachment 1 details the
18 schematic design cost estimates and budgeted appropriations for each element of the project.
19
20 At least three factors have contributed to this difference. First, these projects have been
21 included in the Capital Investment Plan for several years without budget escalation to recognize
22 inflationary cost pressures. The Detention Center has been in the CIP since 2012. The
23 Environment and Agricultural Center was originally included in the CIP in 2014, and the Parks
24 Operations Base was included in 2013. In recent years, construction costs have escalated by
25 five to seven percent annually. Second, the current construction environment is highly
26 competitive, so an inflationary adjustment of seven percent (7%) is added to the projected
27 costs. Finally, the original budget did not assume site acquisition costs or the associated
28 increase in site preparation for a larger site compared to the original detention center site
29 owned by the State. Several strategies can be used to reduce the cost of the Northern Campus
30 Project.
31
32 Repurpose Previously Appropriated Funds: The County had previously borrowed funds for
33 Detention Center Design. Of this amount, approximately $718,000 is remaining to apply to the
34 current Northern Campus Project.
35
36 Value Engineering: Value engineering strategies can be used to change architectural and
37 aesthetic features without impacting how the facilities function. The project team has identified
38 $875,000 in value engineering strategies as detailed in Attachment 2.
39
40 Project Scope Reductions: Elements of the project may be reduced or eliminated to produce
41 savings. The staff team has identified $438,000 in potential scope reductions as detailed in
42 Attachment 3. As part of the scope reduction exercise, the number of Detention Center beds
43 was examined. The Detention Center capacity could be reduced by forty (40) beds which would
44 eliminate any capacity to house federal inmates and would immediately fill the available beds.
45 The elimination of federal inmates would also reduce operating budget revenue by $1.6 million.
46
47 Project Deferments: Projects that are currently programmed in the Capital Investment Plan
48 could be eliminated or deferred to a later date when the County's debt capacity would
49 accommodate them. The Southern Human Services expansion and a portion of the Cedar
50 Grove Park Phase 2 expansion could be postponed for a savings of $2.6 million. Components
I of the Northern Campus project could also be postponed. Postponing the Environment and
2 Agricultural Center and the Parks Operations Base would defer $7.75 million in construction
3 costs. Given the County's current debt profile, debt capacity will begin to increase in FY2023-
4 24. See Attachment 4.
5
6 Using a combination of these strategies, current project costs may be reduced. The following
7 table outlines different strategy combinations in four (4) different options.
8
9 NORTHERN CAMPUS PROJECT OPTIONS
10
Current Estimated Costs
and Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
Estimated Project Costs — $ 41,155,486
January 2019 $ 28,095,831) $ 41,155,486 $ 41,155,486 $ 41,155,486
Appropriated Budget $ (28,095,831) $ (28,095,831) $ (28,095,831)
DIFFERENCE $ (13,059,655) $ (13,059,655) $ (13,059,655) $ (13,059,655)
Cost Reduction Strategies
Repurpose Funds from Prior Jail
Project $ 719,700 $ 719,700 $ 719,700 $ 719,700
Value Engineering $ 875,000 $ 875,000 $ 875,000 $ 875,000
Strategies Project Scope $ 438,000 $ 438,000 $ 438,000 $ -
Reductions Other CIP
Deferments Postpone EAC $ 2,655,500 $ 2,655,500 $ 2,655,500 $ 2,655,500
and Parks Ops.
Construction $ 7,751,375 $ 7,751,375 $ - $ -
Reduce Detention Center $ 2,647,020 $ - $ - $ -
GaDaGitV
TOTAL COST REDUCTION
STRATEGIES $ 14,366,895 $ 11,719,875 $ 3,968,500 $ 3,530,500
DIFFERENCE $ 2,026,940.00 $ $ $ (8,809,455.00)
11
12 Option 1 would fund a smaller Detention Center only. It employs a sufficient
13 number of reduction strategies to create a positive project balance of
14 approximately$2 million.
15
16 Option 2 funds a 144 bed Detention Center but defers construction of the
17 Environment and Agricultural Center and Parks Operations. This option would
18 require an additional $620,000 in budget authorization.
19
20 Option 3 completes all of the components of the project but eliminates
21 project scope requested by the stakeholders. This option would require
22 approximately $8.37 million in additional budget authorization.
23
I Option 4 completes all of the project components and funds the full
2 project scope as requested by the project stakeholders. Option 4 would
3 require an additional $8.8 million in authorized funds.
4
5 Northern Campus Options and Five Year Debt to General Fund Revenue Policy- graph
6
7
8 The Board of County Commissioners has established a debt to general fund revenue policy of
9 fifteen percent (15%). Given the amount of debt that the County has issued and plans to issue
10 in the approved Capital Investment Plan, that target is exceeded in FY2022, 2023, and 2024.
11 Adding budget authorization in Options 2, 3, and 4 will have some impact on this metric. Option
12 4, for example, adds $8.8 million to the project budget and increases the debt to revenue
13 measure from 17.79% to 18.13% in 2022, an increase of 0.34%.
14
15 Travis Myren said the yellow sheet provides an updated abstract. He made the
16 following PowerPoint presentation:
17
18 Northern County Campus Project Review Schematic Design Cost Estimate
19 Board of Orange County Commissioners
20 February 5, 2019
21
22 Northern Campus Development Plan
23 Purpose
24 o To review schematic design cost estimates for the County's Northern County
25 Campus and consider budget adjustments to the project.
26
27 Preconstruction Process and Schedule
28 • Schematic Design: January 2019
29 • Design Development: February 2019
30 • Construction Drawings: July 2019
31 • Bid Process: August 2019
32 • Guaranteed Maximum Price: September 2019
33 •
34 Northern Campus Development Plan- site plan
35
36 Schematic Design Cost Estimates - table
37
38 What Has Changed Since Original Cost Estimates?
39 • Acquisition Costs & New Site
40 o $400,000 Acquisition Not Included in Original Budget
41 o Larger Site Not Part of Original Budget - $1 million
42 • Time
43 o Detention Center Budgeted in 2012
44 o Environment and Agriculture Center Budgeted in 2014
45 o Parks Operation Base Budgeted in 2013
46 • Construction Environment
47 o 7% Inflationary Adjustment Included in New Estimates
48
49 Recent History- Cost per Square Foot-graph
1
2 Cost Reduction Strategies- table
3
4 Debt Service to General Fund Revenue %- graph
5
6 Debt Service to General Fund Revenue %- graph
7
8 Debt to Revenue Policy— Compared to Status Quo- table
9
10 FY2018-23 Recommended Capital Investment Plan
11 Debt Service to General Fund Revenue ($)
12
13 Annual Debt Service Analysis — Compared to Status Quo- table
14
15 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that what these graphs show is that, when one looks at
16 the actual comparisons, the differences are more incremental.
17 Travis Myren said this takes the $13 million difference and spreads it over the life of the
18 project. He said over the life it is $840,000 every year, which could be accommodated with a
19 one-time tax impact of approximately 0.5 cents.
20 Commissioner Dorosin asked if that is why the lines overlap in some of the charts.
21 Travis Myren said yes. He said, of the four options, only 2 have perceptible differences.
22 Commissioner McKee referred to Option 2 and the delay of the EAC and Park OPS
23 construction, and asked if staff knows when these items may come back on line.
24 Travis Myren said the County will start experiencing some relief in 2023, as that is when
25 the debt capacity will start opening up.
26 Commissioner McKee said so roughly a 4-year delay, effectively.
27
28 Stakeholder Considerations
29 Vehicle Sallyport
30 Fence vs. Brick
31 Aesthetics
32 Security
33 Savings of$200,000
34
35 Stakeholder Considerations
36 Magistrate's Hearing Room
37 Alternative to Courthouse
38 Backup to Video
39 Wedding Venue
40 Savings of$128,000
41
42 Comparison of Options
43
IMI
Repurpose Funds Repurpose Repurpose Repurpose Funds
Repurpose Funds from from Prior Jail Funds from Repurpose Funds from Funds from from Prior Jail
Prior Jail Project Project Prior Jail Project Prior Jail Project Prior Jail Project
Project
Value Engineering Value Engineering Engineering Value Value Engineering Value Engineering Value Engineering
Strategies Strategies Strategies Strategies Strategies Strategies
Project Scope
Project Scope Reductions
Project Scope Project Scope Project Scope Reductions Add Back Add Back
Reductions Reductions Reductions Sallyport - $200,000 Sallyport and
Hearing Room
- $328,000
Other CIP Deferments Other CIP Other CIP Other CIP Deferments Other CIP Other CIP
Deferments Deferments Deferments Deferments
Postpone EAC and Postpone EAC
Parks Ops. Construction and Parks Ops.
Construction
Reduce Detention Center
Capacity by 40 Beds
26,104,011 28,751, 031 36,502,406 $36,702,406 $36 830,406 36,940,406
1
2 Commissioner Price referred to option 2, and asked if includes the brick sallyport and
3 the hearing room.
4 Travis Myren said if those items are included, option 2 would increase by $328,000.
5 Commissioner McKee asked if the brick sallyport would have the razor wire around the
6 top.
7 Travis Myren said the concertina wire at the top could be omitted.
8 Commissioner McKee said it changes the appearance, and given the location, this is a
9 critical consideration.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said the presentation said reducing the number of beds would
11 reduce the federal revenue, and he thought that this revenue was a net loss for the County.
12 Travis Myren said on a per bed daily basis, the County receives $93, and it costs
13 approximately $110 per day to house the prisoner. He said the biggest cost of the per-bed day
14 is the staff supervision, and in order to realize the savings, which would be associated with not
15 housing the federal inmates, the County would have to reduce the number of full-time
16 employees supervising the inmates.
17 Travis Myren said there is some built in expansion capability at 144 beds, and if the local
18 population increases that this would crowd out the federal inmates.
19 Commissioner McKee said he wondered if reducing the bed capacity would result in
20 people losing jobs. He said he suspects the office needs more officers, not less.
I Travis Myren said that would be a policy decision by the Board of County
2 Commissioners, and staff is not proposing this choice. He said the only way to realize the
3 savings is to reduce the personnel costs.
4 Commissioner McKee clarified that dropping the 40 beds would essentially put the jail at
5 its current population, and he wonders why the County would ever build a facility for the current
6 population.
7 Travis Myren said that is a judgment call, and today there are 81 inmates in the jail. He
8 said that number fluctuates and, of those 81 inmates, 82% are there on felony charges. He
9 said staff is working to get the pre-trial number as small as possible, but there is still a larger
10 group of inmates there on larger charges.
11 Commissioner Marcoplos reiterated why he supported the number of beds: he said the
12 last thing he would want is for the County to find itself over capacity 10, 20, 30 years down the
13 line. He reaffirmed his support for 144 beds. He referred to the sallyport, and said it is near
14 the entrance. He too voiced concern about the razor wire, but said it seems the razor wire may
15 not be necessary. He said he spoke with the Sheriff last week, who mentioned that the sallyport
16 is a fallback containment area in the case of an emergency evacuation of the building. He said
17 he wonders what impact it may have if this capability were not an option.
18 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if the area could be used for evacuation if there was a
19 fence with a roof over it.
20 Sheriff Blackwood thanked Travis Myren for the work he has done. He referred to the
21 difference of brick versus fence, and said the County made a promise to the community that
22 they would design this facility to look unlike a jail. He said it is important to keep this promise
23 when at all possible. He said the ability to pull into an enclosed brick structure to unload and
24 load inmates is critical, and is one that he can work around. He said he has a team of
25 committed staff that will make whatever work, wherever.
26 Sheriff Blackwood said ultimately this is a cost issue, and it is a decision to be made by
27 the BOCC. He said the BOCC will either be remembered for doing this really right, or really
28 wrong. He said he and Commissioner Price visited Buncombe County, which is a bigger
29 county. He said he does not necessarily want to be a big county, but does want to be a safe
30 county. He said he will support any type of fence structure, as long as it is done right.
31 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if landscaping could make the entrance more
32 aesthetically pleasing.
33 Blair Bordeaux said landscaping could hide it somewhat, but it will still look like a fence.
34 He said a fence is also somewhat of a security issue, as it maintains a line of sight, as opposed
35 to an enclosed structure.
36 Commissioner Dorosin said his position is to reduce the size the facility, and he sees no
37 reason to house federal inmates at all. He said the smaller facility is manageable and
38 reasonable. He said funds are being put into diversionary programming, and Orange County is
39 not growing that fast. He said given the savings that this change would produce, this is one of
40 the changes the Board should make. He said he would not support postponing the other
41 projects, especially the EAC. He said if these projects are postponed, he doubts they will ever
42 get built. He said if the philosophy is that these buildings can be done later, then he thinks the
43 same philosophy should apply if an expansion is needed on the jail at a later time. He said the
44 EAC is in poor shape, and putting money into it is a waste. He said the current EAC sits on the
45 most valuable piece of property that the County owns, and leaving it as the EAC is the lowest
46 and worst use of this land.
47 Commissioner Dorosin pushed option 3 with an inclusion of reducing the facility by 40
48 beds. He said he would still support option 3 if the Board does not want to reduce beds.
49 Commissioner Bedford said she is concerned about the capital budget in general, but a
50 delay in the build will only cost more later, which is true with every project the Board must fund.
I She said the Carrboro library will need funding and the schools need capital investment, etc.
2 She said she supports option 2 and keep the sallyport, but is open to the majority's wishes.
3 Commissioner Marcoplos said there is no way to know how much construction will cost
4 in 4-6 years, but he feels the BOCC must do the right thing by not paying those costs then. He
5 said he is persuaded that the sallyport should be the entryway, and he supports option 3a. He
6 said the debt service can be helped by a 1/8 or % cent tax increase.
7 Commissioner Price said she would like to see a bigger push for the diversionary
8 programming, and she agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. She said she is in favor of the brick
9 sallyport and the hearing room.
10 Commissioner McKee said, at first blush, he would support option 2. He said he
11 understands the cost of the EAC and such will be higher. He said he would not want any future
12 board to question if this Board overbuilt this facility, but given the influx in the population in the
13 Triangle, he said the natural flow will tend towards Orange County, and he also does not want a
14 future board to question why this Board underbuilt the facility. He said he supports the 144-bed
15 option because it gives room for expansion as needed, reducing the federal population as
16 needed. He said if the Board does not support option 2, then he would support option 3a.
17 Commissioner Greene said she strongly believes all of these buildings need to be built
18 at once, and she supports option 3b. She said she is the least certain about the bed number,
19 since she was not involved in the original discussion. She asked if the cells are single bed
20 cells, with the capacity for two beds.
21 Sheriff Blackwood said no beds are scheduled to be double.
22 Commissioner Greene asked if they could be doubled.
23 Blair Bordeaux said yes.
24 Sheriff Blackwood said he would not want to do that.
25 Blair Bordeaux said the current 144-bed facility includes 8 pods, one of which is single
26 occupancy and could be converted to double, as could the ADA cells.
27 Commissioner Greene said doubling up where possible could substantially increase the
28 number of beds.
29 Blair Bordeaux said that would only be possible in one pod, and the majority of the cells
30 are already double occupancy to get to the 144 capacity.
31 Commissioner Greene said she heard all of the arguments, and can see logic in all.
32 She said she would provisionally go with option 3b, and she does not feel strongly about the
33 144 beds, but does feels strongly about the EAC.
34 Chair Rich said she supports option 3b, but would be happy with anything between 3-3b.
35 She said the Board is building a facility for the next 50 years.
36 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board told the community that it would build a campus,
37 not just a detention center. He said the campus is meant to be vibrant and bring people to the
38 area.
39 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciates building for the future, but he does not find
40 the argument persuasive. He said the budget for 144 beds is too much, and the Board should
41 commit to the values of diversionary programming and keeping people out of jail. He said he
42 would rather think of the best-case scenario, as opposed to the worst-case scenario.
43 Commissioner Greene said she would want to sell the old jail property, but she is not in
44 favor of selling the EAC and would rather keep it for affordable housing.
45 Commissioner Price said the sale of any currently County-owned properties is not
46 included in the PowerPoint. She said she does want the entire campus built, but supports a
47 reduction in the number of beds. She said she does is not ready to equate a growing
48 population to growing crime.
49 Chair Rich said building a 144-bed jail does not have a negative effect on their
50 diversionary programs.
I Commissioner Marcoplos said he is now in support of option 3b.
2 Commissioner Bedford said it is more cost effective to incorporate it all in the long term.
3 Travis Myren said, if it so chooses, the Board can include in the motion to direct staff to
4 apply any proceeds from the sale of the current detention center facility to debt service.
5
6 Board Action
7 Approve a Scope and Budget Option and Authorize Staff to Prepare a Budget Amendment
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price, to
10 approve option 3b with the reduction of the detention center capacity by 40 beds.
11
12 VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price); Nays, 5 (Chair Rich,
13 Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Marcoplos, Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner
14 Greene)
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Marcoplos
17 for the Board to approve Northern Campus Option 3b and authorize staff to present a budget
18 amendment at an upcoming meeting to appropriate funds based on the Board-approved
19 Option.
20
21 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin)
22
23 c. Funding Plan for Orange County Services Impacted by Federal Government
24 Shutdown
25
26 The Board considered approving $100,000 from the Social Justice Funds to be used for
27 food if the demand is greater than the capacity of the existing food programs.
28 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the following information:
29
30 BACKGROUND: The shutdown of the United States federal government began at midnight on
31 Saturday, December 22, 2018. About 380,000 federal employees were furloughed, and an
32 additional 420,000 employees for the affected agencies were expected to work with their pay
33 delayed until the end of the shutdown, totaling 800,000 workers affected out of 2.1 million
34 civilian non-postal federal employees.
35
36 During the shutdown, 95% of federal staff for the USDA's Food and Nutrition Services were
37 furloughed. The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the food-stamp program,
38 was funded through a $3 billion contingency fund appropriated by Congress in 2018; if the
39 shutdown continued through March 2019, those funds will be exhausted, leaving some 38
40 million Americans without food stamps and endangering food security.
41
42 The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was one of the federal agencies
43 closed during the partial government shutdown that began on December 22, 2018. HUD
44 indicated there were enough Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) funds to keep the
45 program running through the end of February. Although landlords may not get their payments
46 from HUD in March, the Housing Authority (PHA) cannot terminate due to a government
47 shutdown but landlords can terminate if they do not receive payment from either the PHA
48 and/or tenant regardless of a shutdown. HUD requires these conditions in the leases used for
49 both the Section 8 HCV program and properties receiving Section 8 Project-Based Rental
50 Assistance (PBRA).
1
2 ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
3 As detailed in Attachment 1, there was an early issuance of Food and Nutrition (SNAP) benefits
4 for February and those households will not receive additional funds until sometime in March,
5 even though the shutdown ended. For some of these families, managing their funds so they do
6 not run out of food before the March issuance will be problematic. Information about this
7 situation has been sent to clients by the state, and the Orange County Department of Social
8 Services (DSS) is answering phone calls from the public about their concerns. The guidance
9 the County is receiving (see Attachment 1) is to encourage families to stretch these resources
10 and that the funds will remain on their cards for the usual twelve months.
11
12 Orange County Department of Social Services (DSS) continues to take and process new
13 applications and these can be approved since the shutdown ended. If another shutdown
14 occurs, USDA would again be in the position to run out of funds for new applicants.
15
16 For these reasons, DSS anticipates additional requests for food, particularly after February
17 15th. Although food pantries appear to be stocked fairly well for now, it is unlikely that they
18 would be able to support this higher demand. Although the shutdown ended for three weeks, a
19 food shortage is still possible during the transition. It is difficult to estimate how many of the
20 5,000 local households would need assistance until the March distribution. If another shutdown
21 occurs, all households would be impacted and there would be a monthly loss of$1.1 million
22 until such time as USDA can release funds.
23
24 It appears there may be some movement to adopt legislation to release Temporary Assistance
25 to Needy Families (TANF) and child care (has passed House and Senate). That passage
26 would assure continuance of Work First checks and staff costs paid by TANF. If not, another
27 shutdown could have significant impacts starting in March. Another impact if this continues
28 past February would be lost revenue to support staff working in Food and Nutrition services or
29 in programs supported by TANF. Orange County could lose approximately $122,000 in
30 administrative funds for Food and Nutrition and another $166,000 from TANF each month of
31 the shutdown.
32
33 In terms of the County's response, DSS suggests promoting food drives starting in mid-
34 February and continuing until food benefits are issued again. DSS has convened the various
35 organizations with food pantries or other food resources to coordinate efforts to meet this need.
36 There may also be a need for emergency funds to assist families impacted by the early
37 distribution or by another shutdown. Any funds provided by the County for food will not be
38 reimbursed by federal or state agencies.
39
40 ORANGE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
41 The government shutdown has negatively impacted the work being undertaken in the Housing
42 and Community Development Department (H&CD) in two (2) ways, including the following:
43
44 Funding for FY18-19 HOME projects will be delayed. Therefore, the four (4) entities awarded
45 funding will not be able to start their projects as anticipated in January 2019. The entities and
46 award amounts are as follows:
47 Community Home Trust—$60,000
48 EmPOWERment, Inc. — $145,000
49 Habitat for Humanity— $60,000
I Orange County—$139,613 (includes $25,000 for the Rapid Re-Housing Program and
2 $114,613 for the new Local Rent Supplement Program).
3
4 H&CD staff will conduct a conference call with the aforementioned entities in early February to
5 ascertain the impact to the projects and what actions may need to be undertaken at that time.
6
7 There are approximately 537 to 550 voucher holders in the County Housing Choice (HCV)
8 Voucher Program. HUD allocated 623 general vouchers and 5 Veterans Affairs Supportive
9 Housing (VASH) vouchers to the Orange County Housing Authority (OCHA). The County
10 received payment from HUD for January and anticipates, per HUD, receipt of the February
11 2019 payment. HUD payments are made the first of each month. The County pays its landlords
12 and applicable HCV participants on the first of each month. The total amount of HUD-Held
13 Reserves is $235,736. The OCHA will seek HUD permission to utilize its HUD-Held Reserves,
14 as needed. HUD has limited the use of outside sources of funding in the Housing Choice
15 Voucher (HCV) Program. HUD provides guidance for this in a Public and Indian Housing (PIH)
16 Notice 2013-28 (Attachment 2).
17
18 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The $100,000 from the Social Justice Fund will be used for non-
19 reimbursable food expenses and will leave a balance of $128,000 in the Social Justice Fund.
20
21 Nancy Coston, Social Services Director (DSS), said because of the way the continuing
22 resolutions were written, there was an opportunity for the USDA to release some of the food
23 and nutrition funds early, which caused a gap for people so their next distribution will not be in
24 March; however, she heard today, that even if the government shuts down again on February
25 15t", the March distribution will occur. She said the $100,000 was to help the department with
26 the stopgap until the March distribution can be sent out. She said there are 5000 households in
27 Orange County that receive SNAP benefits, and staff is trying to make sure they can support
28 their food pantry at DSS and other food banks.
29 Sherrill Hampton, Housing and Community Development Director, said it is still very fluid
30 for her department, and staff is waiting on more information from HUD; and if there is another
31 shutdown, her department will need to have additional funding. She said there are roughly 195-
32 200 landlords, and there is a total of$350,000 per month between landlords and utility
33 assistance.
34 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the February payments have been made and,
35 without another shutdown, all will be fine with March.
36 Sherrill Hampton said yes.
37 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that there may be a gap in the food benefits, even
38 without an additional government shutdown, but this is not the same with the housing
39 department.
40 Sherrill Hampton said no, not right now. She said there are about 4-5 HOME program
41 projects that have been interrupted, and all involved have been notified. She said this impact
42 will continue if there is another governmental shut down.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
45 Board to approve $100,000 from the Social Justice Funds to be used for food if the demand is
46 greater than the capacity of the existing food programs.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50
1 7. Reports
2 NONE
3
4 8. Consent Agenda
5
6 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
7 NONE
8
9 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Greene to
12 approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
17
18 a. Minutes
19 The Board approved the minutes from January 22, 2019 as submitted by the Clerk to the
20 Board.
21 b. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
22 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
23 values for three taxpayers with a total of six bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in
24 accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
25 c. Advertisement of Tax Liens on Real Property
26 The Board received a report on the amount of unpaid taxes for the current year that are
27 liens on real property as required by North Carolina General Statute 105-369 and voted to
28 approve March 20, 2019 as the date set by the Board for the tax lien advertisement.
29 d. Request for Road Addition to the State Maintained Secondary Road System for
30 Stoneybrook Subdivision
31 The Board voted to make a recommendation to the North Carolina Department of
32 Transportation (NCDOT), and the North Carolina Board of Transportation (NC BOT),
33 concerning a petition to add Possum Place in Stoneybrook Subdivision to the State
34 Maintained Secondary Road System.
35 e. Approval of a Construction Contract and the Repurposing of Funds from Existing
36 Capital Protects and New Financing, and Approval of Budget Amendment #5-A for the
37 Remediation, Repair, and Reconstruction of the Phillip Nick Waters Emergency
38 Services Building
39 The Board voted to approve a construction contract with Bar Construction Company, Inc., in
40 the amount of$1,412,855 to remediate, repair, and reconstruct the Phillip Nick Waters
41 Emergency Services building as well as the repurposing of available budgeted funds from
42 several existing capital projects and new financing, for the remediation, repair, and
43 reconstruction of the Phillip Nick Waters Emergency Services Building, and to approve
44 Budget Amendment#5-A to finance the project.
45
46 9. County Manager's Report
47 NONE
48
49 10. County Attorney's Report
50 NONE
1
2 11. Appointments
3 NONE
4
5 12. Information Items
6
7 • January 22, 2019 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
8 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
9 • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under$100
10
11 13. Closed Session
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
14 adjourn into closed session at 9:58 p.m. for the following purposes:
15
16 "To discuss and take action regarding plans to protect public safety as it relates to existing or
17 potential terrorist activity and to receive briefings by staff members, legal counsel, or law
18 enforcement or emergency service officials concerning actions taken or to be taken to respond
19 to such activity." NCGS 143- 318.11(a)(9).
20
21 "To discuss the County's position and to instruct the County Manager and County Attorney on
22 the negotiating position regarding the terms of a contract to purchase real property," NCGS §
23 143-318.11(a)(5).
24
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
30 reconvene into regular session at 10:35 p.m.
31
32 Commissioner Dorosin requested that going forward that he would prefer having closed
33 session materials sent to him electronically instead of having a deputy to deliver to his home.
34 Commissioner Price agreed.
35
36 14. Adjournment
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
39 adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 Penny Rich, Chair
44
45
46 Donna Baker
47 Clerk to the Board