Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11-19-19 Item 12-2 - Information Item - Memorandum - Minutes - Intergovernmental Collaboration with Municipal Partners 1 (DRANGE COUNTY NaRTH CARaLINA MEMORANDUM DATE: November 19, 2019 TO: Board of Orange County Commissioners FROM: Bonnie B. Hammersley Orange County Manager RE: Minutes - Intergovernmental Collaboration with Municipal Partners The Intergovernmental Collaboration with Municipal Partners meetings were held with Mebane on September 25, Carrboro on September 27, Hillsborough on October 3, and Chapel Hill on October 11. I have attached the minutes from the meetings for you review. At the April 9, 2019 Board of Orange County Commissioner (BOCC) regular meeting, the BOCC approved a pilot of the Intergovernmental Collaboration with Municipal Partner meetings to move forward in FY2019-20 instead of holding joint BOCC and Town meetings with the full boards. The Intergovernmental Collaboration with Municipal Partner meetings were individual meetings with each Town. The framework consisted of representatives from the County (Chair and Vice- Chair) and two elected representatives from the Town, administrative leadership from each body, as well as other staff as required for support on specific topics. The Collaboration meeting was facilitated by Maggie Ellis-Chotas, Dispute Settlement Center, she solicited agenda items in advance of the meeting, facilitated the work group meetings, and created the attached minutes from the meetings. If you have questions,please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Attachments 2 Orange County/Mebane Work Group September 25, 2019, 11 am-1 pm Location: John Link Governmental Center, Hillsborough, NC Session Goals 1. Establish positive, productive agreements for working together. 2. Define what effective collaboration looks like for this group. 3. Identify success factors for the group's work and the metrics that will be used to gauge progress. 4. Prioritize topics for the group's work. 5. Clarify topics and confirm questions to be addressed. 6. Beginning to jointly generate possible solutions. Participants Everett Greene, Bonnie Hammersley, Travis Myren, Patty Philipps, Renee Price, Penny Rich Facilitator Maggie Chotas, DSC Session Notes Welcome &Why we're here— Penny Rich & Renee Price Penny Rich welcomed participants to the meeting and gave some history about how we have gotten to the point of the intergovernmental pilot project for the current year. Generally over a year, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and Boards of the municipalities meet separately, but the meeting with Mebane hasn't happened in two or three years. The outcomes of the meetings with the joint Boards weren't really giving managers clear directions on next steps and there was a desire to try something different. Travis Myren thought we could try something new based on the Schools Collaborative. Building on that model, this Work Group will identify topics of mutual interests and answer questions such as, What are we building? What are we partnering on? How many school children is Mebane putting into Orange County schools? Related to the schools topic, Everett Greene asked if the County getting any feedback on the number of people in new subdivisions who will affect the school system. Ms. Rich responded that the County's planning staff talks to Mebane's planning staff and they strive to get accurate projections. Students can't actually be accounted for until they are in homes, so trends are identified that support accurate planning. Mr. Greene noted he was surprised to find out recently that Eastern Alamance has less attendance this year than last. Ms. Rich asked if students were going to charter schools. Mr. Greene responded that yes, students were going to charter schools and there's a new charter school in Alamance, right outside of Mebane. There is also a fear of what's happening in schools which surprised him. He said he would be interested in knowing more about how Mebane's students were affecting capacity in Orange County Schools. 3 Renee Price commented Mebane and Orange County have a strong relationship that's been built around economic development. She suggested that it makes sense to think regionally to find out what's happening in Orange and Alamance—at least on the Mebane side. The more communication is improved and the more we can continue to build bridges, the better. Hopes for the Work Group Patty Philipps reflected on how she has seen collaborations between governmental entities work extremely well. She noted that by working together bigger projects can be achieved. In the past few years it has seemed like the only connection between Mebane and Orange County was at the staff level. She observed that staff work very well together and she is very proud of the staff and how they work with Orange County, but there are bigger picture things and priorities that need to be set beyond the staff level. Mr. Greene observed it's important to develop a rapport back and forth again. When you know each other, you can clear out the underlying undertones that can hinder moving forward with positive things. He noticed that the County has an Economic Advisory Board and wasn't sure if anyone from Mebane was on it. If not, he proposed looking into that. Bonnie Hammersley offered some background on the Schools Collaboration project and how it is an inspiration for the pilot project with intergovernmental Work Groups. Staff does attend the Schools Collaboration meetings and she expressed a hope that in future Work Group meetings Mebane's Town Manager and Planning Director and other staff they designate will attend because it's good for management to hear from the elected officials. Another hope she expressed was for items to be identified for which staff can provide elected officials with information. Travis Myren indicated he hoped that the Work Group identifies specific items to work on together that will result in tangible actions. Ms. Rich said she hoped what is learned from individual Work Groups is built on so we can connect all Orange County. Renee Price expressed a hope for continuity with dialogue over long-term projects, which can keep projects on track even as the people involved change. How we want to work together Ms. Rich noted that the elected officials were present because their Boards have chosen them. As such, sharing information including meeting minutes with both whole Boards and getting feedback will be key. In addition to sharing information with Boards, staff need to have direction that is clear. Ms. Price added that getting buy-in from both Boards is critical to move forward. Mr. Greene added tangible and decisive next steps will build effective partnerships. Ms. Philipps agreed with what was said about buy-in from our full Boards and communicating fully. Ms. Rich emphasized if there's not buy-in, it's helpful to know that too. Mebane Work Group Minutes, September 2019, Page 2 4 Ms. Price asked what kind of communications are we envisioning in-between meetings? Maggie Chotas noted that it was up to the group to determine that. The pilot project lays out at least two work group meetings over the year—one in the fall and one in the spring. What success looks like Mr. Greene identified success as achieving mutual goals and economic development projects. Ms. Rich stated that success for her will be when she is in a meeting and a question comes up about Mebane and she has a response— not to have to say she doesn't know. Mr. Greene observed in order to reach that level of information sharing, the Work Group has to build the relationship in the twice-yearly meetings and then reach out informally as needed in between. Ms. Rich added that success will involve the comfort level of calling each other and feeling comfortable asking the hard questions. Ms. Hammersley reflected that what wasn't successful about the other meetings we had, was that staff's role was just doing presentations and then walking away without clear next steps. There wasn't a lot of accountability in what we were going to be doing moving forward. The goal of these Work Groups is to come out with homework, which will encourage working together as managements to make sure the elected officials get what they need. Ms. Price offered that she would like to see both Boards coming together on occasion, possibly over lunch or dinner. Ms. Philipps indicated that keeping our Board informed about what we are doing will lead to success, adding there are disparate opinions on their Board about many issues. Ms. Rich interjected it's not necessarily a bad thing to have diverse opinions and Ms. Philipps agreed "because it makes you refine your position and articulate it more successfully." Ms. Rich emphasized that in doing so, you learn how to compromise and Ms. Philipps noted that compromise is hard, but it's effective and can get you the best result. A measure of success is if the Work Group is able to get buy-in from other Board members. Prioritizing topics for discussion Work Group members identified the following topics prior to the meeting: • Economic Development o In and around the Buckhorn Economic Development District, including south of West Ten Road o Traffic related to those projects • Residential growth and development o Future Single Family house development in Orange County • Planning for schools o Estimated numbers in the next 5 years o Capacity • Climate mitigation/plan • Extension of the Mebane Extra-territorial Jurisdiction Mebane Work Group Minutes, September 2019, Page 3 5 • Long range planning • Perry Hills • Transportation issues • Continued partnership Work Group members determined the priorities for discussion, which ore reflected in the order outlined below. Planning for schools Ms. Rich began by noting that for a long time SAPFO has helped determine when the next school will be built, but Mebane wasn't part of SAPFO, so we were constantly asking "when are you building?" Now Mebane is part of the SAPFO process and that is an important tool for determining where schools will be built.This is connected with long-term planning, extending the Extraterritorial Jurisdiction, as well as the amount of single-family homes being built. Ms. Price shared that even though there are algorithms to determine trends based on housing, these aren't totally accurate. Mebane might be growing into Orange County Schools, but different schools are at different capacities and we're going to have to look at redistricting, especially for elementary schools. She asked: How does the growth of Mebane impact Orange County schools? Also, what is the impact of charter schools? What is the trend? Ms. Philipps wondered if SAPFO was sufficient and how timely the information from Mebane was. She shared that some housing units that have been approved that haven't scraped the earth yet, so having approved housing in projections versus having housing starts would make a difference. She suggested examining the method for notification to make sure Mebane is doing everything possible to get the County the information it needs. Mr. Greene asked if when Mebane sends the County information that a housing development happening, is there a feedback process from the County to indicate approval? Mr. Myren responded that the formal SAPFO agreement between Orange County and Chapel Hill/Carrboro says if this development triggers a new school, then it gets postponed. Since Mebane isn't a signatory to that agreement, that doesn't apply to Mebane. The County does get timely information and it currently is pointing to needing a new elementary school somewhere in the western part of the County. One of the tangible results of this Work Group could be answering the questions: Should we be eyeing a school site and where would that be appropriate? Where does the city want it? Where does the County want it? It has to be connected to water and sewer and have access to transportation. As the redistricting process unfolds, they can zero in on an area that seems like it could work. Mr. Myren indicated information will be shared with Mebane as it is available. Mr. Greene asked how many houses are anticipated between Daniel Boone and the next exit? Mr. Myren answered that there will be a thousand units. Mr. Greene wondered if we should be looking now for a site and finding out where Mebane is in the numbers of potential students. Mebane Work Group Minutes, September 2019, Page 4 6 Ms. Rich wondered if there were concerns with people in the Orange County schools part of Mebane that they don't want to go to Orange County or Alamance. Ms. Philipps indicated concerns have surfaced in the past with Mill Creek because there was just a very small part of that neighborhood in Orange County. That issue has never been resolved, she noted, and reflects a failure of collaboration. Buckhorn Economic Development District, including south of West Ten Road Ms. Phillips opened the next topic for discussion around the Buckhorn Economic Development District, which had previously been eliminated from development by Orange County. She noted there will be a lot of pressure to build there. Mr. Myren offered that Medline has those parcels under contract and may have purchased them. Mr. Greene indicated Medline has indeed purchased them. Mr. Myren explained that those parcels are outside the water and sewer boundary agreement that Orange County has with Chapel Hill and Carrboro and Mebane is free to execute its annexation authority. According to state law, that trumps any water, sewer boundary agreement in place, but he said he didn't know if there would be feedback about it. Mr. Greene asked if he meant feedback from Medline. Ms. Rich clarified that the feedback would come from the Boards of Chapel Hill and Carrboro because they're signatories to the water sewer boundary agreement. The concern is that if it goes into annexation and Medline takes up some of the property but not all, will single-family homes start being built next to an Economic Development District. Ms. Philipps noted that there have been homes approved on the other side of Buckhorn Road and there will be more pressure in that area as well. Mebane is feeling pressure from developers to buy up any piece of property anywhere near Mebane due to its location as well as water and sewer capacity. She indicated her personal opinion that if development is going to occur, it's better to have it with those features and in a condensed area instead of spreading it out. Ms. Rich noted she didn't think everyone is aware of Medline buying up the properties in the water/sewer boundary area and when it is out there, the Boards' reactions could go either way because it is in the water/sewer boundary agreement area. Mr. Greene asked if she thought it might not be well received and Ms. Rich replied that she wasn't sure. Sometimes it seems as though everyone understands we need to grow the Economic Development Districts and we need to stop putting the burden on our taxpayers when we could get good economic development, but people are conflicted because they want both. Longstanding agreements aren't that easy to break. Ms. Price brought up another pressure—when you have a landowner who's had the land for a long time, and it was great when they were young and they were farming, but the children and grandchildren don't want the land anymore, so they're going to sell it to a developer. Mr. Greene wondered how to control growth and when do you say this is enough. Ms. Hammersley shared Orange County has controlled growth with policies and agreements such as the rural buffer and water/sewer agreement. She added controlling growth isn't popular for everyone. Just like growth isn't popular for everyone. Ms. Philipps observed that Mebane's Mebane Work Group Minutes, September 2019, Page 5 7 industries are our largest taxpayers and they're also providing jobs and, for those raising a family, sometimes people want their children to be able to stay in their town. In order for that to happen you have to expand the job base as well as the housing base. Mr. Greene emphasized the excellent salaries, health and retirement benefits and bonuses that Medline will offer. Ms. Rich shared that in addition to the excellent salaries and benefits, Medline will have a Leed Platinum building and that this is the kind of industry that is being attracted to that area. Mr. Greene requested that Mebane be kept in mind for potential new industries. Extension of the Mebane Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Moving to the next topic of discussion, Ms. Philipps wondered if expanding Mebane's Extraterritorial Jurisdiction will be helpful so the town is annexing parts are already in its ETJ. Mr. Myren indicated the County has allocated funds in the current year budget for a consultant to update the small area plan and could result in a recommendation to expand the ETJ. Ms. Price asked how would this affect the Efland/Mebane small area plan from 2006, which she found online. Mr. Myren responded that the old plan needs to be refreshed. Perry Hills Ms. Philipps brought up the Perry Hills area and shared that Mebane continues to get pressure from an environmental justice group for for failing to provide water and sewer capacity to various areas around Mebane, including Perry Hills. These areas are outside of the ETJ and outside its potential service area. In the past, she said, her understanding was that Mebane could not possibly service it, but it was possible that with the extension of the sewer service that the County has put in over the last ten years, there may be other areas of underserved folks who are on septic systems that could be picked up. Ms. Rich asked how that fits with providing water and sewage sewer for places that aren't in Mebane? Ms. Philipps responded that it doesn't, but wants to be cognizant of ways to remediate past wrongs and be responsible for everybody in the area. Ms. Rich wondered if Perry Hills then gets annexed into Mebane if it was going to get water service. Ms. Philipps said she would hope so because then they could vote and have representation. Mr. Greene added that the other thing to keep in mind is that then residents would have to start paying taxes. Renee Price shared what projects the County has been working with them on, including roads and other projects, which have been completed. Her observation was something else to consider is bus transportation. Buckhorn Mr. Greene asked about Orange County's opinion about Buckhorn, noting that at one point it was zoned non-residential, but that seems to have changed. Mr. Myren clarified that at the last Board retreat, there seemed to be consensus to keep it non-residential. Ms. Philipps wondered if the Doby property subdivision that got approved a couple of months ago was objectionable to Orange County. To which Mr. Myren responded it wasn't objectionable to the County because they looked at it carefully and it was approved for a couple of different reasons, Mebane Work Group Minutes, September 2019, Page 6 8 including it is an area that wouldn't be an appropriate industrial site anyway. Mr. Greene expressed concern about development west of the Doby property and Mr. Myren responded there will be a work session to look at Economic Development Districts which may need to be reworked so that growth in Buckhorn can be accommodated. Ms. Hammersley said that Craig Benedict will talk with Mebane staff about potentials. Mr. Greene requested that Ms. Philipps and he, along with the rest of the Council, hear updates as well. Ms. Philipps noted that there were probably other parcels that are unsuitable for economic development and elected officials take some heat with the public when a parcel that was deemed unsuitable for industrial development is rezoned for residential. Development, Transportation issues Ms. Rich requested a list of developments that Mebane has adopted and approved when it looks like the building may affect Orange County. She added that as the Work Group is thinking regionally, it will be important to consider transportation and moving people around, considering what increased development might mean for traffic. Mr. Greene shared the place with the largest growth in Mebane is old Hillsborough Road where probably 1,500 houses are located near Jones Road. Climate Mitigation Ms. Philipps reflected that she wasn't sure what the climate mitigation plan is in Mebane, except she tries to be mindful about climate impact when approving subdivisions. Ms. Rich indicated that just mentioning the idea of a plan to your Board gets them starting to think about their policy. Ms. Price indicated when the planning/zoning Board was working on some projects in Mebane they identified issues dealing with climate, such as not paving the entire parking lot and having a tree canopy. Some of these items might already be included in ordinances. Ms. Rich commented that Orange County has a Climate Action Intergovernmental Committee that has just started meeting. They're going to come back to the BOCC with suggestions and a quarter-cent sales tax that will help mitigate some of the problems. She reflected it would be good to have a representative from Mebane on the committee. Ms. Philipps updated the Work Group on Mebane's transportation plan that incorporates multiple modes of transportation and ensures sidewalks are added when the Department of Transportation puts in new roads. Mr. Greene shared concerns about recycling since China is no longer taking plastics and those that are recycled are going to a landfill somewhere. He also wondered if there were any initiatives to eliminate plastic bags. Ms. Price responded that it can't be mandated, but pressure has to come via public engagement campaigns and individual stores can decide to ban them. Ms. Rich let the group know that Weaver Street doesn't have any plastic bags. Ms. Rich noted that there could be opportunities to partner on solid waste at some point in the future. She visited the ENTSORGA plant in West Virginia and learned how they take all solid Mebane Work Group Minutes, September 2019, Page 7 9 waste and turn it into a dust compact that gets used as fuel instead of coal. Orange County doesn't create enough trash on its own to support such a plant and would need regional partners to make it work. The ENTSORGA plant cost $11 million on 12 acres. Identifying next steps Participants clarified the next steps coming out of the session. Action step Who will do what 1. Research new school site in the Travis Myren will follow up with Orange County western part of the County Schools on the timeline for the student reassignment study which will identify an area near or around Mebane where students are generated • Travis Myren will email both Orange County and Mebane staffs about findings • Information will be shared out to the Work Group 2. Ensure the data for SAPFO is Bonnie Hammersley and Travis Myren will consult accurate and timely , with Craig Benedict and Ashley Moncado 3. Update the small area plan and The County has funds in 19/20 budget to hire a Extraterritorial Jurisdiction consultant 4. Add a Mebane representative to • Identify a Mebane representative the Orange County Climate • The County will keep Mebane updated Mitigation Committee 5. Share Economic Development • County will share information with Mebane District updates with Mebane 6. Include Mebane in transportation • County will share with Mebane planning • Look at including Mebane in the planning to think regionally 7. Consider adding a bus stop at Perry Bonnie Hammersley and Travis Myren will talk with Hills the Transportation Director Evaluating the session The facilitator asked participants to reflect on what worked well about this session and what they would like to see changed for the next one. A confidential electronic evaluation was also distributed. What worked well What to change for the next session - Free flowing conversation - Manager and assistant manager attend - Facilitation next meeting - Identifying topics beforehand - Have maps available - Advance work Mebane Work Group Minutes, September 2019, Page 8 10 Carrboro Work Group September 27, 2019, 11 am-1 pm Session Goals 1. Define what effective collaboration looks like for this group. 2. Identify success factors for the group's work and the metrics that will be used to gauge progress. 3. Prioritize topics for discussion. 4. Clarify topics and confirm questions to be addressed. 5. Begin to jointly generate possible solutions. Participants David Andrews, Rebecca Buzzard, Bonnie Hammersley, Lydia Lavelle, Travis Myren, Renee Price, Penny Rich, Damon Seils, Annette Stone, Trish McGuire Facilitator Maggie Chotas, DSC Session Notes Welcome &Why we're here— Penny Rich & Renee Price Penny Rich welcomed participants and provided context for the intergovernmental pilot project for the current year. Previously full Boards of the County and local jurisdictions would meet together. The feedback from those meetings was that staff members weren't getting clear directions on next steps. Travis Myren proposed trying something new based on the Schools Collaborative. Ms. Rich explained this is the second meeting of the pilot; the first meeting with Mebane was positive. Lydia Lavelle asked if the County had work sessions with Mebane in the past? Ms. Rich responded that it had been some time since they had met and had lost touch with what they were doing. Renee Price said the Work Group setting provided an opportunity to come together to have deeper conversations that were harder to have in the larger meetings. She emphasized the importance of keeping full Boards in the loop so collaborative efforts are strong. Hopes for the Work Group Participants identified hopes they have for the Work Group: Damon Seils expressed a hope the Work Group will be designed around the needs of staff and can send staff and citizens away from the meetings with something useful. Ms. Lavelle hoped information or assignments get communicated back to Board members who aren't present so Boards know mutual priorities. David Andrews said he hoped the process of the Work Group will establish systematic ways to continue to improve collaboration around policies and topics of joint interest in an ongoing way. Annette Stone expressed hope for clear communication. 11 Ms. Rich said she hoped the Work Group would take advantage of the opportunity to have conversations and be honest with each other, which can be harder to achieve with a lot of people in the room. Mr. Seils added he hoped Work Group members would try to be helpful to each other in pointing out those places where we see possible points of tension with our Boards. Ms. Hammersley noted a hope to be able to bring back to staff what needs to be done and identify where they can assist elected officials with their goals. Ms. Price emphasized the connectedness of the community—Carrboro is part of Orange County and vice versa. There are areas we can and need to make decisions together. The Work Group can help us move forward overall with mutual support and identify gaps that might not be as obvious in a larger group. Trish McGuire reflected on a strong history of working together and hoped, whatever the framing is, it continues to strengthen the collaboration. Rebecca Buzzard hoped for actionable items for staff to work on. Articulating the vision for collaboration Ms. Lavelle emphasized the importance of continually checking back in with Boards, as individuals don't reflect all opinions represented by Board members. By moving forward together and informing our Boards, noting where there is divergence, time won't be wasted. Mr. Seils indicated the importance of being clear when we are talking from our own point of view or when we think we are representing the full Board. He noted staff are relied upon for their expertise and said success will be clarity for them. Ms. Price said Boards represent different points of view and segments of the community. Success is when all voices are heard and considered. Ms. McGuire wondered if it was possible to establish a structure where there is vetting of concepts and ideas in the smaller Work Group and then a check-in with Board members who weren't present before concepts and ideas go to staff. Ms. Hammersley shared the plan to include Work Group minutes as an information item with the Commissioners, which means they will also be shared with the public. Mr. Seils noted many topics on the list for possible discussion have been there for a while. A metric that will indicate success is when topics are either dropped off or moved along. Prioritizing topics for discussion Work Group members identified the following topics prior to the meeting: 1. Parking 2. Greene Tract strategy 3. Library 4. Zinn property-flex zone-future annexation 5. Old 86 Maker's Village property 6. Conservation easement for FLX 7. Transportation projects 8. Affordable housing 9. Economic Development, including in ETJs Carrboro Work Group, September 2019, Page 2 12 10. Transit and Transportation Planning—e.g., NC 54 11. Historic Rogers Road Area Development 12. Continued partnership Work Group members determined the priorities for discussion, which are reflected in the order outlined below. Zinn Property Ms. Rich initiated the Work Group's discussion of the Zinn Property, noting there needs to be a coordinated response to assure community members in the ETJ they are heard. Ms. Lavelle shared the newspaper published a story today that indicated the developer is putting the project on hold. Ms. Stone emphasized the larger issue is economic development in the ETJ in terms of who is representing community members. Mr. Seils added the coordinated communications with residents is an issue. Ms. Rich agreed a coordinated response in the ETJ is important to avoid pitting Carrboro against Orange County. Mr. Andrews asked if written protocols would come out of the conversation to provide guidance on how to handle these kinds of issues. Ms. Hammersley added there are protocols for coordinated responses, even though these might not always be written. The County always checks in when it's not their issue and won't respond until there's information from the jurisdiction that oversees it. Working together on economic development Ms. Lavelle transitioned the discussion to consider how Carrboro and the County work together on economic development. Underlying the conversation about the Zinn property, she said, are efforts to partner with the County on something economic. Carrboro is different than Chapel Hill or Hillsborough with its geography, opportunities and local focus and there is concerted focus on a vibrant downtown. Mr. Andrews shared a question that arises for the Town: "Do we want to go it alone or co-develop with the County?" He responded Carrboro would like to co-develop in the interest of regional collaboration. He indicated Carrboro isn't as skilled navigating the climate in the ETJ and with the AAC. He brought up an experience in the last year or so where Carrboro attended a County meeting and a Commissioner had an issue with extending water and sewer. As a result of feeling like they received a negative response, Mr. Andrews added, Carrboro pulled back. Ms. Rich emphasized the importance of not thinking one Commissioner speaks for the whole Board. The broader question is how do the County and Carrboro collaborate more on economic development? What does this look like for Carrboro? Mr. Seils elaborated on opportunities for collaboration around specific projects such as the library, perhaps Makers Space and the Greene Tract. Other opportunities include participating with the County in determining how to spend economic development tax revenues. Still other opportunities for collaboration include investments in infrastructure, such Carrboro Work Group, September 2019, Page 3 13 as a parking deck— noting that the Carrboro Board has different views on that particular topic. He reflected on the County's help with the sewer line on Main Street, which was an important investment for infrastructure. The 203 Project and Parking Ms. Lavelle provided context for how the 203 Project has involved discussion around parking. While there are differences of opinions about parking, she emphasized everyone is committed to no net loss of spaces, although everyone would like to see less need for parking over time. Parking needs are so intertwined with discussions around the 203 Project that planning has been stymied for a year, especially after the Arts Center pulled out. She noted in order to move forward, the Carrboro Board must decide if it is going to take affirmative action or not. If plans do involve a parking structure, she suggested the County would need to be involved. She was hopeful something more definitive would be known in the next two weeks. Mr. Andrews further elaborated, noting Carrboro is having conversations about parking deck placement along with what they're willing to pay. He offered thanks to Ms. Hammersley and the County for their patience, explaining redevelopment in an old area with 6.4 square miles is a challenge, but progress is being made. Ms. Rich asked when Carrboro anticipates starting to charge for parking. Mr. Seils responded if there is going to be a parking structure, it will be paid parking—in part because if payment is isn't required, parking will push around into the unpaid spaces around it and also because the deck has to be paid for. For context it was added that the Town only controls about 16% of parking. Mr. Andrews explained if there isn't a decision from Carr Mill in 30 days, they will go back to designing the library site with enough parking to park the site. Elaborating, he informed the group that when the Town found out the Arts Center wasn't in, architects were asked to build 750 parking spaces along the 203 side which would satisfy the library and the Town's needs. At that point, he said, representatives from Carr Mill suggested taking a look at an opportunity for a deck behind Robeson. Ms. Stone shared Carrboro Business Alliance's stance to have no net loss in parking. She added other stakeholders want an increase the number of spots. The Town will need to figure out the overall parking needs long term. Mr. Seils reflected on the significance of Downtown Carrboro as an economic development district for the County. It's really important that we continue to work together to make sure it continues to thrive, he said, whether that's by infrastructure, programming, business loans. Ms. Lavelle added landmark institutions such as the Arts Center and Cats Cradle want to stay in Carrboro just as new restaurants and businesses are coming in. She said there is concern about losing the 100 spaces in the lot and where replacement spaces will come from and the Board will have to work through differences of opinions on the matter. Carrboro Work Group, September 2019, Page 4 14 Mr. Myren requested the Work Group consider an urgent matter related to the 203 Project involving finding replacement space for the Skills Development Center. He explained the need to determine a reliable timeline in order to move forward with the disposition of the property as soon as possible. Ms. Rich elaborated the County is considering selling the building and the Skills Development Center will need new space for 2020/21. Mr. Myren emphasized they will be feeling pressures about this soon, explaining it's an 18 month construction process. Ms. Hammersley added it's difficult for the County because they hear Carrboro wants something but they're never completely clear about what it is and the County hasn't seen any proposals. Ms. Lavelle explained there's a lot of conversation, but depending on much a deck would be, she thought there would be majority support for it from the Board. Mr. Seils elaborated, speaking for just for himself, that he would rather see the funds invested in other ways. He acknowledged the majority of the Board, in reality, is looking down the road to a parking deck and will need help from the County. Working together on economic development projects: Debriefing Old 86/Makers Village Ms. Rich shared the County Board has had conversations about how to invest more economic development dollars for Carrboro, but the specifics haven't been determined. Mr. Seils noted decisions along those lines would be a productive use of conversations in the Work Group. Ms. Hammersley emphasized if one Commissioner says something and Carrboro backs off from it because one Commissioner was unhappy, that's not the way it's supposed to work. The reality is you need a vote and Commissioners can't vote if they don't have anything in front of them. Mr. Andrews asked if the County is looking for is a written proposal from Carrboro for economic development projects. Ms. Rich clarified it isn't just a written proposal that is needed. Carrboro needs to be 90% certain they want to go through with it. Using the Old 86 Village Project as an example, she said the Commissioners never had a clear direction except a concept plan. Ms. Hammersley elaborated it needs to be beyond a concept plan and the County Board needs to be convinced, just like Carrboro's Board needs to be convinced. If it's a deck, how much is it going to cost? What are the justifications behind it? Commissioners need the opportunity to vote it up or down. Ms. Price added she didn't think it would be a bad idea to share concepts along the way as ideas are developed. Mr. Seil reflected on the Old 86/Maker's Village idea. He said the concept was written up into a plan because Carrboro was asking for grant funding from the County for water and sewer. In his recollection it came up through general discussion about the concept plan and Carrboro Work Group, September 2019, Page 5 15 then it got shot down, based on what some thought was erroneous information about the future of water and sewer. He noted it wasn't on anyone; the project just stopped. Mr. Andrews added this is the way things work sometimes. At the staff level you know all the technical things that need to be done, but the elected officials have to muddle through it because they have to answer to their constituents who are giving them a hard time. Staff is doing up front planning including cost estimates, but haven't been able to get synergy because of unknowns for elected officials who aren't sure how much opposition they will get. Ms. Lavelle said she wasn't sure the Maker's Village process got that far. Mr. Seils added the Carrboro Board didn't follow up that conversation with clear direction to staff. Ms. Rich said because the follow up wasn't there, the narrative changed. Public input took us down a different path and the boards seemed not to be inline anymore. Ms. Lavelle said she didn't recollect the Board coming back to the issue and there was so much attention being put on other issues like the 203 Project. Ms. Rich emphasized she's always been excited about the Maker's Village and invited Carrboro to come back at some point when they feel comfortable about starting up the conversation again. Ms. Price encouraged Carrboro to bring it back around because it will benefit everyone. Mr. Andrews thought staff might have the capacity to return to the topic once the parking deck issue is resolved. Transit and Transportation Planning Calavander— Intersection of Old 86 and Homestead Mr. Seils reflected on the history over the last few years of the County and Town coordinating with potential transportation projects of mutual interest. Calavander at the intersection of Old 86 and Homestead is an area both jurisdictions have interest in improving in terms of safety. He stated his opinion that lately it feels like there's been divergence in what what's being proposed for the area and asked for a focus on better coordination between planning departments. Carrboro has been proposing improvements primarily for bicycles. Apparently a separate proposal from the County was submitted for the same intersection that was focused on traffic flow. This proposal resulted in the NCDOT presenting a high level proposal for a double lane roundabout. The different goals of the intersection reflect the need for staffs to keep focusing on the overall vision for the intersection, which for Carrboro is improving bicycle safety. Carrboro needs to better understand the County's interest. He asked for the Town and County to work together and not submit separate projects. Ms. Hammersley asked if there wasn't an opportunity before requests are submitted to know what the other is requesting. Ms. McGuire replied that each jurisdiction can provide input. Ms. Rich asked when the County proposal was submitted. Ms. McGuire responded the County's proposal was submitted recently. Ms. Rich suggested there should be a process. Ms. Hammersley said she would talk with the County Planning Director about consulting with Carrboro Work Group, September 2019, Page 6 16 adjacent jurisdictions whenever suggesting changes. If there are legs of the intersection shared between the County and Carrboro, Ms. Hammersley said, the County needs to talk with Carrboro before submitting requests to see if that will help them as well. NC Highway 54 Mr. Seils raised the topic of NC 54 West and provided context about corridor studies, which Carrboro requested to better inform decision making about the implications of potentially widening Highway 54. He stated Carrboro's interest is in standing by its decades- long policy of not widening Highway 54 unless absolutely necessary. In the past, Carrboro and the County have been in partnership about not widening. He observed lately it seems there may have been divergence in opinions that seemed to happen without a lot of discussion between the two jurisdictions. Mr. Seils recommended a smaller group of staff and elected officials meet to focus on interests of both jurisdictions vis a vis widening/not widening Highway 54. Ms. Rich noted there have been discussions among Commissioners about the issue and not everyone sees its as Carrboro does. There hasn't been a vote with the Commissioners, but there has been talk about widening 54 and putting in a park and ride. Ms. Price added there have been efforts to try to get signalization down the road. Ms. Hammersley said she would work with Mr. Myren to set the meeting. Greene Tract strategy Ms. Rich provided background information about the process of a government document for the Greene Tract, which is jointly owned by Chapel Hill, Carrboro and Orange County. When it was first established, she said there was general understanding about what to do with it, but there weren't any written agreements so it essentially became partnership on a handshake. The partnership has broken down a bit because Carrboro and Orange County are on the same page and the other partner isn't. Ms. Rich noted this has been going on 17 years and a number of different things have been done, including bringing water and sewer to Roger's Road, changing the speed limit, changing the zoning. Partners still aren't in agreement about affordable housing and how to develop the Greene Tract. Ms. Lavelle added that this part of the process started 2 % years ago. Before Carrboro engaged, they called to question whether they wanted to move forward or pull out. Having decided to engage, Ms. Lavelle said for 2 % years partners were working toward the same goals until this summer when there was a reboot. She expressed frustration because she feels time has been wasted. She affirmed Carrboro wants to see the Greene Tract happen. Mr. Seils voiced disappointment in the process on this outcome, noting staff has spent a lot of time on this topic and there is much else that could be focused on. Ms. Price expressed frustration for Carrboro Work Group, September 2019, Page 7 17 the community as well because they've been wanting some kind of development that will help their neighborhood. Mr. Seils wondered if Carrboro's involvement is useful in moving partners forward in meeting the goals outlined in Mapping our Community's Future report. If it's not helpful in moving to getting to that end, Mr. Seils said he is ok not being part of it. At the same time, he expressed a desire to remain in the partnership if it is helpful. Ms. Lavelle noted that whatever comes out of the conversation, Carrboro needs assurance they won't be blindsided again. Ms. Rich said it would be part of the government document. Mr. Myren explained there isn't an ownership document, which has resulted in not moving forward together or unilaterally because there isn't an understanding for which part of the 104 acres the County might own. Ms. Rich reflected on the limitations of the handshake agreement from 17 years ago. The Work Group will be kept informed about the process. Identifying next steps Participants clarified the next steps coming out of the session. 1. Ms. Hammersley and Mr. Myren will set up meeting for joint staffs and elected officials regarding Highway 54. 2. Carrboro will share updates with the County by November 1 regarding parking. 3. The Perkins Will addendum will be executed. 4. After the 203 Project is resolved, move forward with discussions regarding Old 85. 5. Keep the Work Group informed of conversations with the Greene Tract. 6. Meet again as a Work Group in Spring 2020. Evaluating the session The facilitator asked participants to reflect on what worked well about this session and what they would like to see changed for the next one. A confidential electronic evaluation was also distributed. What worked Well What to change for the next session Facilitator manner. Work through scheduling with the Town Clerk—want managers and staff to attend. Background information shared ahead of time. Staff being frank and letting elected officials where action is needed. _ Jointly developed agenda. Thank you to the County leadership for this T process. - Clear next steps. Carrboro Work Group, September 2019, Page 8 18 Hillsborough Work Group October 3, 2019, 9:30-11:30 am Location: Link Government Services Building, Large Conference Room Session Goals 1. Define what effective collaboration looks like for this group. 2. Identify success factors for the group's work and the metrics that will be used to gauge progress. 3. Prioritize topics for discussion. 4. Clarify topics and confirm questions to be addressed. 5. Begin to jointly generate possible solutions. Participants Bonnie Hammersley, Margaret Hauth, Travis Myren, Eric Peterson, Renee Price, Penny Rich, Tom Stevens, Jenn Weaver Facilitator & Notetaker Maggie Chotas, DSC Session Notes Welcome &Why we're here— Penny Rich & Renee Price Penny Rich welcomed participants to the meeting and provided history about the intergovernmental pilot project for the current year. Previously full boards of the county and local jurisdictions would meet together. The feedback from those meetings was that staff members weren't getting clear directions on next steps.Travis Myren proposed trying something new based on the Schools Collaborative. The hope is the Work Group format will provide more opportunities for clear next steps and follow up. Ms. Rich shared how Mr. Stevens and she met a year and a half ago to develop the agenda for the full boards meeting. When they pulled up the agenda from the prior year, nothing had changed. Via the Work Groups, the hope is items will move forward and the format will be a better way of communicating with the boards, which could receive the minutes electronically once they are finalized. Managers are suggesting after minutes are final they go into the agenda packet for the public where they will also be posted on websites. Ms. Price added there are many areas where the town and the county overlap and intersect. Keeping the dialogue open and collaborating is positive because Hillsborough and Orange County affect each other. It's important to see where the town and the county come together on projects and help each other. Hopes for the Work Group Participants identified hopes they have for the Work Group: 19 Mr. Stevens expressed a hope the Work Group will identify specific actions for moving forward. Ms. Price said she hoped the group can resolve any obstacles and perceived barriers to achieve action steps. Ms. Weaver expressed the hope for using this space to maintain a good relationship between the town and the county, which we have now but it's not always like that. It works better when it is. Ms. Rich noted her hope is that coming out of all these meetings we as elected officials are giving staff the right kind of direction and if staff feel like we're not doing that they feel free to follow up in between meetings. Ms. Hammersley said she hoped to get clear indication as a Manager of what direction we're going. Ms. Weaver said she hoped for clear answers to take out to communicate to the public— not in an over-promising kind of way. She reflected there are items on our list that are important to the community and she hoped the town and the county would communicate the same thing. Articulating the vision for collaboration Ms. Price emphasized the importance of working together to communicate with the public to quell rumors, let people know the facts and show we are collaborating. Ms. Rich expressed appreciation for staff and how much elected officials rely on their expertise to do the work. She highlighted the need for elected officials to give staff clear direction so they can do their job. She asked staff if that's what they need. Mr. Peterson encouraged board members to challenge staff and follow up, noting we all have tunnel vision to an extent and that's why we have lots of people working together: to see the whole field at play. Mr. Stevens added the more we communicate, the more we miscommunicate. There are always a number of items that need to be checked out and followed up on. Ms. Rich said that can be a problem. Sometimes as elected officials, she said, we can send staff down too many different paths that uses a lot of time that could have been spent on something else. When that happens she asked for staff to let elected officials know. Mr. Stevens added elected officials need staff to challenge them sometimes too. Ms. Weaver agreed. Mr. Peterson added having dates or deadlines are very helpful to get things done. Hillsborough Work Group, October 2019, Page 2 20 Mr. Stevens asked for clarification on what the Work Group means by collaboration in a larger sense. What is specific beyond working together? We're partners and will have joint ownership of some things, but not everything should be collaborative. At times we need to cooperate, communicate or coordinate but doesn't mean we're taking joint ownership of everything we do. Collaboration always takes a lot of effort, gets more people involved and there's a cost for doing that. We should collaborate when 2+2=42. If 2+2=4, don't necessarily need to collaborate. As the town and county work together, he continued, we need to practice discernment about the level of collaboration with partnership. Ms. Price agreed, adding some projects require just checking in with each other. Ms. Hammersly elaborated the model being used for the Work Group is similar to the one used with school collaboration, as Ms. Rich described earlier. One of the important reasons the county and the schools have those meetings is to identify what we collaborate on and what we don't. There might be barriers to certain issues or maybe the schools don't need the county's help on something and that is fine. Mr. Stevens continued with recognition for the constraints the town and the county are under. Ms. Hammersley added if we can't collaborate, it's not a bad thing. Mr. Stevens said sometimes he thinks the town isn't appreciated for how small the bandwidth is and the county isn't appreciated for the possibility of precedence if one town does something the others might too. Ms. Hauth reminded the group about the importance of doing a good job in carrying the messages back to everyone else who isn't in the Work Group meetings. She reflected everyone in the Work Group will hear things straight from the person we wanted to hear them from and it will be up to us to translate what is said so everyone hears it with the same authority and certainty with which it was intended. Ms. Rich shared in the Carrboro Work Group meeting one member was specific in identifying when he was sharing his personal opinion versus the opinion of the board. In sharing his personal opinions, it didn't mean he wasn't going to bring the conversations back to the board. Ms. Hauth added it's important to let the Work Group know which of our multiple roles we are speaking from at a given time. Ms. Chotas asked if there was anything specific to be added to ensure communication is carried back to board and staff members who aren't present—beyond what has already been described in terms of adding verbatim notes to the public docket. Ms. Hauth responded we will have to see what comes up in the meeting. Ms. Chotas emphasized the pilot nature of the meetings and the desire to extract lessons learned along the way and make changes as needed to ensure action steps and an effective process. Prioritizing topics for discussion Work Group members identified the following topics prior to the meeting: 1. Valley Forge Road - Bridge and road repairs Hillsborough Work Group, October 2019, Page 3 21 - Annexation of county property 2. Minimum housing inspections 3. Extension of water/sewer to EDD across interstate 4. Sidewalk/connectivity to schools and areas outside of town limits 5. Event management coordination (town/county; courthouse/park) 6. Affordable Housing 7. Transit 8. Economic Development Other/Updates - Transportation - expansion of public transportation, circulator route, train station, S Churton expansion - Collins Ridge - Jail/OC campus construction - Census - Other economic development/tourism; museum Ms. Chotas asked Work Group members if there were similar items to be grouped together. Ms. Hauth reflected Affordable Housing, Transit and Census have their own committees and unless there's something specific for us to take action on, those have their own paths and their own groups driving them and would be more of a check in. Mr. Stevens agreed. Ms. Rich added the jail and the Orange County campus are more information items and don't need to go in much detail there. Ms. Hauth added Collins Ridge is as well, unless there's a question from the county. The Work Group agreed the top priorities for the discussion in the meeting would be the Valley Forge Road and sidewalk/connectivity to schools and areas outside town limits. Minimal Housing Inspections Ms. Rich asked for clarification on this issue. Ms. Hauth responded it is a simple request that was made to the former Housing Director to see if the county has the capacity for the town to contract and pay them to assist on the 2-3 complaints the town gets every year. The county has the staff with the technical knowledge to do the inspections and work with the property owners. Ms. Hammersley asked for further information about when the request was made. Ms. Hauth said she sent the former Housing Director an email, noting she was supposed to follow up with a draft agreement and didn't. Ms. Hammersley said the item can be taken off the list— the new Housing Director started last week. Ms. Hauth will pick up the conversation with the new Housing Director. Valley Forge Road Mr. Stevens provided context for this topic by referring Work Group members to Ms Hauth's letter to Mr. Myren dated September 18, 2019. This letter, which was distributed prior to the meeting, gives background information, construction options, funding options and ways the county could help. Mr. Stevens elaborated there has been talk for some time about whether these properties should be annexed and the town has also talked with its legislators because Hillsborough Work Group, October 2019, Page 4 22 federal monies are attached to named storms and the storms doing the damage aren't named storms. Ms. Rich provided more context, noting the county doesn't build roads or sidewalks and Hillsborough owns part of the road that collapsed. The county owns the property to get to the road. The county owns the only parcel that requires using the collapsed creek crossing for access (i.e. the county parcel is the only one damaged by the collapse). Mr. Stevens elaborated it's a gravel road that has a temporary repair from the NCDOT; since it's a temporary fix, the concern is what happens when another storm comes through. Mr. Stevens continued the cost of doing the repair is such that the town has considered abandoning the road altogether, but even to abandon it is upwards of$200,000. Mr. Stevens stressed the town wants to to do the right thing and take responsibility. At the same time he emphasized it feels like the county has a stake in it since it's county property and the properties could be annexed which could generate some of the revenue to support the cost of the road. Mr. Stevens stated he realized a decision wouldn't be able to be made at the Work Group session and would have to go to the boards for further consideration. Ms. Rich indicated Ms. Hauth's letter was shared with the board and she didn't recall if conversations with board members have brought points forward. She shared the board has talked about what annexation looks like and how the company would be responsible for Hillsborough taxes. She asked if anyone has spoken to the company about that possibility. Ms. Hauth responded the town's communication with the company has been focused on if they were interested in participating in fixing the roads and they have said they aren't. She wasn't aware if anyone talked with them about the possibility of being annexed. Ms. Rich asked about the boundary lines and how the road is partly owned by the town. Ms. Hauth reflected she couldn't explain how or why the town took over the road, noting the decision predates her. She speculated perhaps the town took over the road from the state because someone didn't realize the road wasn't wholly in the city limits. Ms. Rich asked for more information about what's wrong with the road now. Mr. Stevens said it's a temporary fix that won't last to which Ms. Hauth elaborated the next big rain storm will probably wash it out. Mr. Peterson said Summit Engineering is being paid to come out and measure the road regularly to make sure it's stable. Ms Hauth added it would between two-six weeks or more to fix the road, depending on how much funding is devoted to the project. The town has been advised it is next to impossible to keep a traffic lane open, which will mean the company will take a significant hit. Mr. Peterson said the solution estimate is for$500,000 for around the clock work, which is significantly better than the early estimates of$1,000,000. Even the lesser estimate of$500,000 is significantly higher than the town's budget for road maintenance and enhancement. Ms. Price wondered if the NCDOT could be cajoled to take the road back. Ms. Hauth added they won't take it back in its current condition. Ms. Price continued even if the condition of the road was better, was there enough right-of-way for the road? Ms. Hauth said it was her understanding the right-of-way wasn't a concern. Hillsborough Work Group, October 2019, Page 5 23 Mr. Peterson added design work is going on now and has been working on it for a few weeks. Ms. Hammersley said the county would look into annexation and would contact the owner of Builders First Source to gauge their reaction to the possibility. If they were to say they weren't going to rent after this year, that would be a significant loss because they lease the land from the county. She clarified if they were annexed, the company would only pay on the improvements since the county-owned land is tax exempt. Ms. Hammersley asked what the figure would be. Ms. Hauth responded it would be $23,000 a year, which would be on the improvements, not on the value of the land. Mr. Stevens clarified if this is the amount that would go to the town and Ms. Hauth affirmed, noting the county is already receiving their tax. Ms. Hammersley indicated the county will do more work on this and she will ask the new Director in Asset Management, who manages the leases, to talk to Builders First Source. Ms. Hammersley noted the county will also look into the gap for improving the road which would come from the county's capital budget if that were to happen. Ms. Hauth added whoever approaches Builders Source to remind them annexation is forever so they might want to do a cost-benefit analysis of financially participating in this project for 1-2 years versus paying the $23,000 a year for as long as they are there. Ms. Rich asked about the status of other parts of the road. Mr. Stevens noted the rest of the road is in good shape and was recently repaved. He clarified the town has a 20 year cycle of repaving (for comparison, Raleigh's is a 40-50 year cycle). Mr. Stevens added the repaving policy is one the town is proud of as they are staying on top of infrastructure needs and setting a good example. He emphasized how this one road is setting off that cycle and for a business that isn't in town. While the company benefits us all via sales tax, it's hard to justify the cost of the road for what it benefits the citizens. At the same time, we don't want to lose the company. If they indicated they were considering leaving, it could make sense to help them move and keep them in the county. Mr. Stevens reflected on the possible downsides of closing the road in terms of the $200,000 expense and also the significance of maintaining an option for possibly getting over the railroad tracks in the future, noting this road is one of the few places it could happen. Ms. Rich asked if all the properties are zoned as industrial and Ms. Hauth answered yes and there are small businesses on them. Ms. Hauth connected PFAP to this topic. Since it is s currently outside city limits, she said, if you wanted to partner the two and get some benefit back to the county, having that property annexed will save you whatever the water bill is. Could be a benefit back to the county general fund not having to pay that water bill. Ms. Rich suggested this might be a next step to look at the difference in water bills in town and out of town. Mr. Peterson said he would find out who was paying the water bill and report back. Hillsborough Work Group, October 2019, Page 6 24 Sidewalk/connectivity to schools and areas outside of town limits Ms. Rich provided context for this topic, explaining it is an ongoing safety issue for students who walk to school. Recently a child was hit on his way to school and suffered a broken arm. Ms. Hammersley let the Work Group know there is funding in the 19/20 budget for a feasibility study to see what could be done along Orange Grove Road. She has asked staff to release the RFP for a consultant. She said they will be looking at bike/pedestrian paths which wouldn't have to have curb and gutter. Once the study is complete, she outlined her plan to talk with the town, the schools and the NCDOT about what to do. She emphasized it's not as simple as parents calling and saying the county needs to do something—the cost will be significant. Ms. Hauth added at the end of the day, the NCDOT rests on the fact that there isn't an existing network of pedestrian facilities in the vicinity so they don't want to spend the money to improve the bridge. If there can be a way to bring a network to the bridge it would apply pressure and help it score better than it has in the past. Ms. Rich emphasized it's important to get the study done and wondered about what to say to some concerned parents. The response from the principal was don't let them walk to school, but that's not necessarily a good response because they will walk to school. She suggesting crafting a communication to let the community know the study is occurring. Ms. Hammersley emphasized the need to manage expectations. The results of the study could indicate a fiscal solution that couldn't be taken on without raising more taxes. The county is looking at it and cares about it, but can only do so much. Ms. Price indicated there have been many studies and Ms. Hammersley asked if there were studies on this particular topic. Ms. Hauth said she didn't think so. Ms. Hammersley expressed hope the consultant would offer suggestions for funding sources. Ms. Hauth added if a sidewalk or path is added, it will also need to be determined who will maintain it because it's outside the city limits. Ms. Hammersley said the issue of maintenance wasn't as big of a concern for the county—their concern is the cost and also easements. She emphasized the timeline is unknown. Mr. Peterson agreed with Ms. Hammersley that there can be complicating cost factors of sidewalks. The town hasn't completed many sidewalks, but one it did do was Nash Street ten years ago, which was 1.4 miles and cost $1.4 million. Unexpected finds under ground increased costs 40%. He explained retrofitting sidewalks is a tough nut to crack. Ms. Hammersley added it is a complex issue and maybe someone saying they should ride the bus is insensitive but maybe for safety for right now, that's the best approach because we want students to be safe. Hillsborough Work Group, October 2019, Page 7 25 Ms. Rich said she would like to see a unified message, even if it is we're studying it. Mr. Stevens said the town can help manage expectations and reference the connectivity plan. Ms. Chotas asked if in terms of next steps the group wanted to set any action steps around sending a unified message. Ms. Rich asked if the town was still hearing concerns from parents. Ms. Weaver said the concerns have died down, but the issue will keep coming up and it will be helpful to say the county is doing a study. She expressed how everyone has been been trying to stay consistent about who can do what and who is responsible for what even though that can come across as "it's not us, it's them —we don't really care." Reflecting her own perspective, she said she's been saying it's a failure of government to keep people safe by not funding big projects like this and not attributing particular responsibility to the county. Ms. Hauth emphasized the need to take these considerations into account the next time a school is being built. Hindsight being 20/20, that wasn't a great place to put a high school, though there must have been reasons for the school siting. From this perspective, she continued, it wasn't a great choice. Ms. Hammersley said she will keep Mr. Peterson informed when the RFP goes out, noting she is anticipating a 3-6 month study. Ms. Hauth wondered about putting the town and county public communication officers preparing a joint statement for the future when it's needed, such as when RFP goes out. Mr. Peterson emphasized from a climate change perspective more connectivity will be important. Mr. Stevens offered a success example—the sidewalk section along the Visitor's Center to the school, which filled in the missing link. The county funded it and the town took over the maintenance. Event management coordination (town/county; courthouse/park) Ms. Rich asked for more information about what's involved with the topic. From a tourism point of view, Mr. Stevens responded, coordinating with the county can be complicated. He suggested it seemed like the town and county could do a better job of coordinating. Ms. Hauth added the town has a special permit process for events on public or private property so town services are cued in and they know there will be a crowd. The town requires the property owner being ok with the events happening on their property and most events are on county property. The county has its own process rightfully to vet the request. The process is convoluted, she said, and nonprofits aren't used to it. She wondered if there is a possibility to streamline the process. Ms. Hammersley explained River Park is under Parks and Rec and the Courthouse is under asset management because they're in charge of county facilities. Ms. Price interjected the importance of coordinating so the town knows what to expect with events. Ms. Hammersley responded she would talk with both department directors to see what can be done. Ms. Hauth reflected on special circumstances of serving alcohol and how the town works with law enforcement to prevent underage drinking. The town gets a fair amount of feedback about Hillsborough Work Group, October 2019, Page 8 26 serving too much alcohol and not being family friendly. Law enforcement want to see strict beer gardens with double fencing so a beer can't be passed out. Staff needs to work through the finer points and hoped elected officials would make a push that it needs to happen. Ms. Hammersley reiterated she will talk with department heads as a next step about streamlining the process of notification. She said she has to sign off on any event that serves alcohol, but she's not policing them. Ms. Hauth said event organizers are saying if you want these events that bring money into our community, lighten up because attendees want to be able to wander around the Courthouse with a glass of wine. Mr. Stevens added, speaking for the board, they are divided on this topic and the community is divided on it. Ms. Hammersley said she didn't remember signing for alcohol at Courthouse events. Ms. Hauth noticed some alcohol service seems to happen spontaneously. Ms. Hammersley closed out the topic by saying the most important thing is all notifying each other and if there's a problem to bring it to her attention. Updates Participants shared brief updates on the following topics. Collins Ridge Ms. Hauth said they were hoping to deliver lots to the builder in August, but the weather and other issues have made it so they're not ready and there isn't a revised date, noting the utilities aren't in the ground. Jail Ms. Hammersley reported it is under construction, with a groundbreaking to occur later this month. In next 6-12 months, will need to talk about the current jail site. South Churton Street Mr. Stevens said Ms. Hauth and the planning staff have done a good expansion job giving the board updates on what the project really looks like which is different from what community envisioned 15 years ago. The town is doing a deep dive on the issue now and will communicate as they move along. He noted it is surprising how little it will benefit the town, given the costs of the project. Identifying next steps Participants clarified the next steps coming out of the session. Valley Forge Road 1. The county will contact the leasee affected by the road issues to explore potential annexation. 2. The town will keep the county informed about where they are in the design process and if there are any changes to the road. Hillsborough Work Group, October 2019, Page 9 27 3. The town will look at water bills for PFAP and Mr. Peterson will follow up with the county. 4. The town and the county will have a conversation after steps 1-3 to determine what to do next. If anything is to be included in a capital investment plan, the county needs to know before April 2020. Sidewalk/connectivity to schools and areas outside town limits 5. Ms. Hammersley will keep Mr. Peterson informed about the connectivity feasibility study and when the RFP is released. 6. Public information officers will work together to develop joint responses for relevant steps along the process with the feasibility study (eg., when the RFP is released, study completed). The county and town will co-post communications. Event management 7. Ms. Hammersley will talk with relevant department directors about opportunities to streamline the event management coordination and notification process. Other 8. Next time the Work Group meets, discuss the Museum in context of the jail site and Downtown. Evaluating the session The facilitator asked participants to reflect on what worked well about this session and what they would like to see changed for the next one. A confidential electronic evaluation was also distributed. What worked well? What to consider changing? Talking through prioritized confidential, We'll have to see if the detailed minutes and 7 complex issues. reporting them out is sufficient in terms of information items or if there's a need to Having clear next steps. Probably have more develop a quick report out for the larger clarity than if we had two full boards. boards on updates. Identifying specific projects to address. Quickly prioritizing topics. Hillsborough Work Group, October 2019, Page 10 28 Orange County/Chapel Hill Work Group October 11, 2019 11 am-1 pm Location: Solid Waste Administration Office, Chapel Hill Session Goals 1. Establish positive, productive agreements for working together. 2. Define what effective collaboration looks like for this group. 3. Identify success factors for the group's work and the metrics that will be used to gauge progress. 4. Prioritize topics for the group's work. 5. Clarify topics and confirm questions to be addressed. 6. Beginning to jointly generate possible solutions. Participants Jess Anderson, Loryn Clark, Bonnie Hammersley, Pam Hemminger, Judy Johnson, Maurice Jones, Travis Myren, Renee Price, Penny Rich Facilitator Maggie Chotas, DSC Session Notes Welcome &Why we're here— Penny Rich & Renee Price Penny Rich welcomed participants to the meeting and provided history about the intergovernmental pilot project for the current year. Previously full boards of the county and local jurisdictions would meet together. The feedback from those meetings was that staff members weren't getting clear directions on next steps for municipal staff or county staff. Travis Myren proposed trying something new based on the Schools Collaborative. The hope is the Work Group format will provide more opportunities for clear next steps and follow up. Ms. Rich shared how Mr. Stevens and she met a year and a half ago to develop the agenda for the full boards meeting. When they pulled up the agenda from the prior year, nothing had changed. Via the Work Groups, the hope is items will move forward and the format will be a better way of communicating with the boards, which could receive the minutes electronically once they are finalized. Managers are suggesting after minutes are final they go into the agenda packet for the public where they will also be posted on websites. Renee Price added there are many areas where the town and the county overlap and intersect. Keeping the dialogue open and collaborating is positive because Chapel Hill and Orange County affect each other. It's important to see where the town and the county come together on projects and help each other. Hopes for the Work Group Participants identified hopes they have for the Work Group: - Loryn Clark expressed a hope to learn about partnership opportunities with the county. 29 - Judy Johnson said she hoped to have actionable items with clear direction. - Maurice Jones said his biggest hope is to continue to look for partnership opportunities with Chapel Hill and Orange County and have open lines of communication on important issues affecting residents. - Pam Hemminger noted her hope is to find those pathways forward where we can collaborate. She emphasized how helpful it is to know parameters of collaboration— including where the county is interested and wants to do, as well as what the county can't do. Jess Anderson hoped ideas and opportunities for collaboration come up and helpful next steps are identified. She said she would love to come away with a procedure to bring information back to respective boards and to the community. Renee Price said her hope is to be able to work together. Chapel Hill is such a major force in the county, it is critical to do as much as we can together and be able to leverage more opportunities for prosperity. Bonnie Hamersley said her hope is the same for all the work groups: to have open lines of communication and be able to bring information back to staff from the meetings to provide direction. Penny Rich said she hoped we find we can come to some sort of conclusions and have next steps. Reviewing the goals of the meeting Ms. Chotas walked through the goals of the meeting and asked if there were any questions. Ms. Hemminger asked if by prioritizing the agenda items that meant we wouldn't get to all of the items. Ms. Chotas responded the decision about what to discuss would be made as a group. She recommended making sure the most important and the most urgent items are addressed first in the depth needed. Articulating the vision for collaboration Participants identified the following aspects of the kind of collaboration they would like to see in the Work Group: - Ms. Rich noted sharing information and goals. - Ms. Hemminger added sharing where we are in relationship to our goals, recognizing timelines might be different. - Mr. Jones added, when appropriate, understanding what barriers to collaboration have been in the past. - Ms. Hammersley added identifying what we can collaborate on — not all topics require collaboration. - Ms. Price noted if we can't actually collaborate, see how we can support one another and share the same narrative when possible. - Ms. Hemminger observed we represent constituencies, not just ourselves. Ms. Rich added if you are representing your opinion, say that; if you are representing your board, say that. Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 2 30 Ms. Chotas asked work group members to consider how they want their conversations to look and feel. Participants responded: - Ms. Rich said as we do in school collaboration, one person should talk at a time, follow up and ask what is meant. Don't be afraid to ask. It's an open communication. - Ms. Hemminger added not interrupting. - Ms. Price said respecting each other's opinions, even if we don't agree. - Ms. Chotas noted her role as facilitator is to help the group fulfill what they want to do. What success looks like Participants identified success factors for the Work Group: - Ms. Hemminger said a list of next steps and follow through. - Mr. Jones added movement on projects and initiatives. - Ms. Rich said clear messages to staff so they understand what elected officials needs are. - Ms. Hammersley noted continued support from the boards so they see this as a value and they are getting information to understand. - Mr. Jones added an understanding from the public that we are working together. In order to get that to happen, we need to message it out to the community. Ms. Rich said when it gets back to the Assembly of Governments meeting, we're all on the same page. She continued there will still be issues we need to work through because the towns haven't met together, but we are all know what we are moving towards. Ms. Anderson asked for clarification about the goals of the Assembly of Government meeting in January and wondered what would be able to be accomplished between the Work Group meeting and the Assembly of Government meeting, given the need to engage the public. Mr. Jones said it would be helpful to know what will happen at the Assembly of Government and asked is there going to be a presentation about the Work Group's decision to focus on certain issues. Ms. Rich described the purpose of the Assembly of Governments meeting as having discussion about topics of shared interest --for example about transportation. Individual towns and the county have already been talking about it—some of these issues have been discussed in the Work Groups and will have already gone back to the boards, hopefully with clear directions to staff. At the Assembly of Governments meeting, hopefully we can offer some solutions, though nothing is set in stone or voted on at the meeting itself. Ms. Price emphasized the solutions coming forward will still need discussion and there still may be some issues to iron out because of differences of opinions. Ms. Hammersley shared an example of how this process works. The Solid Waste Advisory Group had the idea of one fee across the county and that was brought up for discussion at the Assembly of Government meeting. Everybody on all the groups didn't agree, but the Solid Waste Advisory Group brought it forward and, coming out of the meeting, the issue went to boards and the boards engaged the public afterwards. Ms. Anderson summarized the purpose of the Assembly of Government is we are on the same page as to what we bring forward. Ms. Rich said she hoped there are some things that are already in motion, with decisions already made. Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 3 31 Ms. Hemminger reflected on effective Assembly of Governments meetings in the past as those when we had some shared topics we all wanted to discuss such as economic development, the need to change EMS response times and strategies and co-locating EMS and Fire together. She identified animal control as a topic of shared interest that hasn't been discussed previously in that format. Prioritizing topics for discussion Work Group members identified the following topics prior to the meeting: 1. Economic Development • UNC start-ups 2. Transit &Transportation • Voting structure and Orange County Transit Plan 3. Climate Action Plan, Committee &Tax - Materials Recycling Program 4. Affordable Housing • Update on Town's efforts (2200 Homestead, Public Housing) • Partnership Opportunities? • Residential Development & Gentrification 5. Greene Tract • Next Steps, Resolutions and MOU • What does Partnership look like to the Town? • Governance Document 6. 2020 Census 7. Library Funding Informational Updates: Mobil Parks, Wegmans, BRT Ms. Chotas asked if there were other items to add to the list and Ms. Hemminger added the possibility of a 611/non-emergency number in addition to 911 so people can call in for non- emergencies to get more information. Ms. Chotas asked the group to consider what's most important and what's urgent about the items on the list to prioritize discussion topics and make the best of the small group space and time. The Work Group decided to sort the agenda into items that would require shorter discussion time, those that would be more involved and quick discussions for next steps: Shorter discussion items: Longer discussion item: Quick discussions for - Transit and transportation Greene Tract next steps: - 2020 Census - Climate Action Plan - Library funding - Consider 611 - Economic development - Affordable housing Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 4 32 Transit and Voting Structure Ms. Hemminger provided context for the transit agenda item based on her discussion with the mayors of Hillsborough and Carrboro. She noted she doesn't talk with the mayor of Mebane about transit issues. Currently, the structure is staff driven and there are only three voting members who make recommendations that go to the Orange County Commissioners for decisions. The three voting members are Orange County Planning, the MPO and GoTriangle. She informed the Work Group the three mayors will be making a request for towns to have representation as votes for recommendations are made. Ms. Hammersley noted this was brought up when she was first brought in as County Manager and at that time the county wasn't interested. She said she didn't know if they were interested now, but they are familiar with it. What she was told was towns were represented through the NPO. It will be up to the Orange County board if they want to give voting rights away to the towns. Ms. Rich added this is something we would have to bring to the board. Ms. Hammersley shared the mayors can make a formal request. Ms. Price added she thought Wake County has moved in that direction, with weighted votes reflecting the size of the towns. Ms. Hemminger concluded she would write the letter to the board and the other mayors have asked to be included. 2020 Census Ms. Hemminger opened the conversation by stating she is delighted to work on this project together and it is hugely important to count the numbers. The next steps are to figure out what the towns and counties are doing together to make it happen which will require resources. Ms. Price, who is on the Census Committee, noted the critical thing is financial resources. The federal government and NC are not giving any assistance besides materials. Ms. Hemminger identified the need for a coordinated effort and messaging plan to be reaffirmed at the Assembly of Governments, which happens in January, and Census date is April 1. Ms. Rich asked if Chapel Hill has representation on this group. And Ms. Hemminger said they did. Ms. Rich asked when will the report from the committee be delivered? Ms. Price responded there hasn't been a request for a formal report. Ms. Rich said a formal report will be important for communicating and coordinating the committee's plans and next steps and identifying financial support needed. Mark Dorosin was involved during the last census in 2010 and there was a lot of coordination in the community. Ms. Hemminger requested a formal report before the Assembly of Governments meeting so it can be presented. Ms. Rich requested a timeline for the report to be delivered in December or Early January. Library Funding Ms. Hemminger reflected the Chapel Hill Library hasn't had an increase in funding for many years and there is a desire in the town to make a specific ask for the county budget cycle. She asked what the request should look like, should the town decide to make it. Ms. Hammersley Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 5 33 responded the last time this funding request was considered was 2014/ 2015. She indicated it would be helpful to the county to receive data that showed a breakdown of Hillsborough and Carrboro users. Ms. Hemminger added we have the data right now about how many non- Chapel Hill users who are from Orange County and will work to break that down further. Ms. Rich asked if charging non-Chapel Hill residents for a library card had been considered. Ms. Anderson responded that was not a part of the conversation, adding the orientation of the board is to make the library as accessible as possible and move towards an equity-model where individuals aren't charged. Ms. Hammersley said she has heard from some commissioners they would like to wait and see the impact of the Southern Branch Library because the county will be funding that as well. Mr. Jones asked when the Southern Branch Library was to open. Ms. Hammersley responded hopefully the groundbreaking will occur in the spring, once Carrboro resolves some parking issues. Ms. Hemminger said a formal letter of request will be submitted once the library board collects the data needed. Economic Development Ms. Hemminger described the desire to continue to partner with the county. There are a lot of projects going on at the moment and as much as possible strong communication will help. She recognized closed session discussions make open communication challenging. Mr. Myren gave an update on real estate, noting appraisals have come in totaling about $5.2 million on the three parcels: Visitor's Center, Skills Development Center and the parking lot. The expectation is the sales price will be the appraisal figure. What we are struggling with now is finding space for the Skills Development Center to move into before the Southern Branch library is built. Long term it will go there, but the process has been stalled because of Carrboro's parking questions. What we would want help with is some appropriate location for the Skills Development Center for 12,000-15,000 square feet with access to transportation and parking. The appraisal indicated the highest and best use is for demolition of existing buildings and mixed use. In terms of a new place for the Skills Development Center and the Visitor's Bureau, Mr. Myren indicated University Place had been approached and the county had received some push back because University Place indicated they were only looking for retail. Mr. Myren said the county was preparing additional information to share about foot traffic. Ms. Hemminger said the town would love to keep the Visitor's Bureau in downtown Chapel Hill. Ms. Price added she wanted to make sure UNC start-ups are able to stay in Orange County. Ms. Hemminger added this is a top goal of the town as well: keeping start-ups and helping them Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 6 34 grow. Ms. Price described this as a culture of collaboration—working together to help companies find a good fit with the amenities they are looking for when they are thinking to relocate or expand. Ms. Hemminger noted not everyone might know how we work together to move quickly on economic development opportunities. When an opportunity arises, manager, chair, economic development directors and the mayor meet to see if there is a consensus on a path forward and then we take it to our boards. She suggested making the joint statement the town and county are working together on economic development and we support start-ups coming to all Orange County. We are all working together to keep those and attract new ones. Ms. Price said when they do come here, she would like to make it public and celebrate the collaboration between town and county. Ms. Hemminger asked if the thinking is the property will be sold by the end of the year. Mr. Myren shared that a letter of intent hasn't been negotiated yet. Ms. Hemminger requested notification as early as possible for public hearings, noting the importance of being prepared. She shared the information the town is trying to get the parking deck voted on in November. Ms. Chotas asked for other items related to the topic area of economic development. Mr. Jones and Ms. Clark shared handouts of the town's new affordable housing dashboard data, noting long-term, the more we can look at affordable housing as partners, the better. We're all facing this issue of new affordable housing—there needs to be more of a regional approach to it. Ms. Hemminger asked if there were similar stats the county could provide. Ms. Hammersley said the information will be shared with the new Housing Director who will also share the county's data. Ms. Hemminger reflected the affordable housing dashboard approach came out of the trip to Boulder where similar information was shared. We developed our own version and it was very helpful in setting the stage for the bond. The reality was we were always talking about affordable housing, but we had no clue where we were. We wanted to be able to quantify it, talk about it in the same terminology and make it so anyone could access the information. She expressed a hope for Carrboro, Hillsborough and the county to all have similar ways to share so we can see how we are all doing collectively. Ms. Clark noted at the most recent meeting with the Coalition and the Collaborative, both Carrboro and Orange County provided information in a similar format and it's being identified as a priority with the Collaborative itself so joint measures will be available to track what the Collaborative is doing county-wide. Ms. Hemminger asked if the topic of affordable housing with joint statistics could be on the agenda for the Assembly of Governments. Ms. Clark said the data could be packaged, if that's helpful. Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 7 35 Greene Tract, Resolutions, MOUs, Documents, What does Partnership look like for the town? Ms. Rich provided context for this discussion topic, noting the County Commissioners are concerned about what the town thinks the partnership looks like. She asked the town to identify what partnership on the Greene Tract looks like to them, noting we met for two and a half years and we thought we were on the same page, and turns out we weren't. Ms. Hemminger responded from her perspective, elaborating we thought we were on a path together to do affordable housing on the Greene Tract, and we had certain steps in working through all the things that had happened in the Rogers Road community. Ms. Rich clarified that this wasn't about Rogers Road, but the question from the board is what does our partnership look like for the Greene Tract? Ms. Hemminger responded it's not separate for the town because we had to spend a lot of staff time working with steps for the zoning compliance and not gentrification. We stopped to do a market analysis because the community was telling us one thing and we wanted to see if that was viable. We brought a consultant in and did community meetings to tell us what could go on the Greene Tract. We agreed to move the headwater lines around to preserve the sensitive areas. We were on that path as well and we voted to move those lines, but we didn't have the same agreement about what the blobs meant after that because we've had other things come up with the schools and the community saying we didn't notify them and that we haven't done an environmental impact study to see if the blobs are the size they're supposed to be. We've been on this path that we want to work on this together, but we ended up not being on the same timeline because we had more work to do that had to be done by our staff with the community. Ms. Rich asked again for Chapel Hill to answer the question what does our partnership look like? What does the town of Chapel Hill partnership look like with Orange County and Carrboro? What does our partnership look like because it doesn't feel like we are partners right now—that's what the board wants to know. Ms. Price said to not include her with the board and asked Ms. Rich to indicate if she was representing herself or the board. Ms. Rich responded she was not representing herself, she was representing a majority of the board who wants to know what the partnership looks like. Ms. Hemminger indicated it's two things and the town wears two hats. One hat is as joint owners of the land, which includes the fact that we want to offer affordable housing there together with our partners. We are also regulators of the land and we have to wear another hat at times where we want community input and certain standards met before we can move forward with partners on the site. Because of all of the things going on in our community, it is taking a longer time than what our developer partners want. Ms. Rich said the question is how do we move forward together, being honest with each other and understanding we are partners? We met for two and a half years, we discussed something, we bring it forward and it was killed. We don't understand what partnership looks like. Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 8 36 Mr. Jones added an important component is making sure we are all operating with the same information. One of the concerns we've had recently is the question as to whether the Council voted to preserve the headwater reserve and also the joint preserve. They've done that twice now—in January and in July. That wasn't up for discussion, yet continues to come up. The one big question mark between where we are now and where we were before July is the Council has said we are in agreement with many issues, including: school site, public recreation, housing mixed use. The biggest difference seems to be where these will be. Ms. Rich responded when we moved that resolution forward, nothing was binding as to where things were going to be. We weren't talking about affordable housing even though it was on the map and where it was suggested to be. The resolution was to move us to the next step to make sure we all could be involved in the environmental study and we all could be involved in community meetings. And we haven't—that has not happened. Ms. Hemminger responded the Chapel Hill board felt having labels on a map predetermined what was going to happen there and they wanted a resolution —with help from the community —that said we have the same goals, but we are not willing to put labels on those goals in specific places on the map. Mr. Jones reflected, by your account, we're even closer than I thought. Ms. Rich agreed, but wondered what a partnership looks like and how to move forward together as partners. We were all involved in creating the environmental impact study and moving forward --that was the whole part of meeting for two and a half years, but then it fell apart. Mr. Jones noted the environmental study is supposed to be moving forward. At this point we have to figure out how to get our staffs to work together on it. We've reached out, but staff, understandably so, feel they haven't been directed to work on this yet because the new resolution hasn't been approved by the boards. Ms. Hammersley affirmed that is true. Mr. Myren added a staff level environmental study has been done. Mr. Jones said that the internal study doesn't seem to be what the boards are looking for. Mr. Myren added a whole staff team working through the exercise determined how the headwaters may be reconfigured. Mr. Jones noted a good step is the deliverance of a draft MOU that is being reviewed. Ms. Hemminger said she thought the MOU sends a conflicting message and hasn't shared it with the whole board because she found it very negative. She said she thought we were going forward together and in the document the message is the county wants to divide it all up. We thought we were going toward affordable housing together. Ms. Rich interjected thank you for sharing that and explained it came out of the majority of County Commissioners not feeling like the conversations at the MMC were respected because there was an agreement that no community meetings would happen without all of the partners there. Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 9 37 Ms. Hemminger said we all did ourselves a disservice by not publishing the next steps out of the MMC meetings. Because the steps weren't published, the community didn't know about them and the community demanded this meeting in July. We were not prepared staff-wise for it and it disrupted our trajectory. Ms. Rich added the town also had a community meeting and the partners weren't there. County staff and some stakeholders were present, but the town didn't have any elected officials [from the county]. Ms. Hemminger elaborated she didn't call the meeting, but got invited because she was bringing some stakeholders who had come in to talk. She said she was sorry that whole meeting happened —she indicated she didn't know what she didn't know about the rules of engagement on these things. At the MMC meetings, we need to document the steps we've agreed to and share with boards and the public so they know what the plan is. She noted she feels like what we are really disagreeing about is the timeline. I think we have the same goal list, but it might not happen in the time frame, but it will happen. We all want it to happen. Ms. Rich added she disagreed and didn't think it was just about the timeline. Ms. Price reflected she would like the group to think more positively and assume we are all trying to do something good. She said positive thinking will help dispel suspicions and conspiracy theories. Ms. Hammersley added in response to the draft of the governance document the county provided, it was her understanding the reason for it was because this isn't the first time there have been challenges. This has also happened back in the 2000s when we were moving forward and it stopped because we couldn't get in agreement. With the governance document, if we can't move forward, there's a way for us to turn our back on it and not just leave it. I don't know how you put that in a positive light when it's more or less a mediation document. It's also a draft and if it can be written in a more positive manner, make a proposal. We were asked to put it together by the group so that's what we did. As Travis said a number of times during that meeting, it's fine if you want to throw this draft away, but we do ultimately need a document. The first agreement doesn't give anybody information about what to do if we all don't agree. We're sorry if we offended anybody by it being negative. We hope it's going to work out, but if it doesn't, what do we do as partners? Mr. Jones reflected that was why he thought it was a good first step, noting even if we disagree with some elements of it, this is an opportunity to respond back. Ms. Hammersley added it's up to the attorneys to work it out. Ms. Rich elaborated it's important to remember when the collaborative started, the Greene Tract was not in the ETJ. The history of the Greene Tract was Ralph Karpinos would not let Chapel Hill spend any money on Rogers Road or the Greene Tract, unless it was in the ETJ. No one wanted it to happen, but it got put in because that was the only way Chapel Hill could spend money on sewer,the community house and on affordable housing on the Greene Tract. Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 10 38 Ms. Hammersley added it was very recent—2015. Ms. Rich stated she understood the town had to wear different hats, but emphasized ultimately the town also has to work with what the partnership looks like because we were partners way before the Greene Tract was in the ETJ. Ms. Hemminger said the town still wants to be partners and disagreed with Ms. Rich's statement. From her perspective, the MOU stopped the town from moving forward on the environmental impact study because they said they wanted that first. If we were to stop doing everything we wanted to do to move the housing part forward, she said she felt that was a roadblock. Mr. Jones added technically the town stopped because we weren't getting the cooperation needed. Ms. Chotas shared her observation it seemed there was common ground being identified throughout the conversation and she saw some openings for building the partnership back up and strengthening the collaboration. She advised you can do both: plan for worst case scenarios while working toward your vision. Ms. Rich added it's important to have these conversations with the other partner and we could take the notes from this Work Group meeting to the MMC meeting in November. Ms. Anderson said it seems like another next step is to have foundational information so everyone is operating from the same facts. In watching the county meeting last night, she observed folks were asking for the differences between the resolutions and other foundational information. There seemed to be a lot of misconceptions and misinformation. To move forward either way, people need to operate with the same information. Ms. Hemminger emphasized the importance of having information at the MMC meetings and producing next steps to share back with boards and the public. Ms. Rich added the topic needs to be on the Assembly of Governments agenda, no matter where things stand, so we can discuss it together. Mr. Myren described how in the introduction to the governance document, he tried to lay out the differences in the resolutions. He asked if the Work Group would be comfortable sharing just that part of it to the boards, with the attached resolutions. If so, everybody would know what everybody else does. Mr. Myren requested Work Group members look at the introduction in that light and let the county know if they are comfortable sharing the information with the boards. Climate Action Ms. Hemminger asked for more information about the parameters with the new tax to have an understanding of what it can be used for. Ms. Rich responded the group just had their first meeting and Chapel Hill has a representative on the committee. She further elaborated the county is relying on countywide groups for recommendations about what to spend the tax on and County Commissioners will have it as an agenda item. Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 11 39 Identifying next steps Participants clarified the next steps coming out of the session. Topic , Action Step 1. Transit Along with Hillsborough and Carrboro, Ms. Hemminger will send the county a formal request for representation on the voting structure for transit. _ 2. 2020 Census The Census Committee will be asked to develop a report to be made available before the Assembly of Government meeting. 3. Library Funding The town will make a formal request by February/March that includes data beyond Chapel Hill users of the library. 4. Economic Development Continue working toward a culture of collaboration by: - Communicating as soon as possible when public hearings are scheduled — before actual agenda comes out, - Sharing affordable housing information gathered by the town with the new county housing director and other towns; - Working toward parallel data regarding affordable housing in the county. _ 5. Greene Tract - Bring relevant parts of the Work Group minutes to the MMC meeting. - Share foundational information — including background information from the MOU draft, if Work Group members are comfortable with that approach — let the county know. 6. Materials Recycling - Refer to the Solid Waste Advisory Group and the Program Commission on the Environment. 7. 611 - Continue to gather information and revisit at a later time. 8. Assembly of Government - Affordable housing. I agenda items - Greene Tract. Informational Updates Mobil Parks: Efforts are ongoing. Wegmans: Limited SUP. Staff can have a conversation if there's an interest in reducing parking spaces. BRT: Close to finishing up 30% design, still some traffic considerations Council will review. Had community engagement activities in September. Waiting to hear back from the federal government in January/February. Talked to David Price about this. Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 12 40 Evaluating the session The facilitator asked participants to reflect on what worked well about this session and what they would like to see changed for the next one. A confidential electronic evaluation was also distributed. What worked well? I What to consider changing? - Got through a lot of ideas. - Have materials to talk about ahead of - Listing next steps is helpful. time. - Identifying what we want to bring to - Consider including Carrboro for relevant the Assembly of Governments discussions, such as transportation and meeting. the Greene Tract. - Good that we could actually talk about our differences—that's where trust and honesty comes out. Chapel Hill Work Group Minutes, October 2019, Page 13