Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-06-2021 Virtual Business Meeting 1 APPROVED 5/4121 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS VIRTUAL BUSINESS MEETING APRIL 6, 2021 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday, April 6, 2021 at 7:00 p.m. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Renee Price, Vice Chair Jamezetta Bedford, and Commissioners Amy Fowler, Jean Hamilton, Mark Dorosin, Sally Greene, Commissioner McKee (arrived at 8:00 pm) COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) Chair Price called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A roll call was called; all members were present except for Commissioner McKee Due to current public health concerns, the Board of Commissioners is conducting a Virtual Business Meeting on Tuesday, April 6, 2021. Members of the Board of Commissioners participated in the meeting remotely. As in prior meetings, members of the public were able to view and listen to the meeting via live streaming video at http://www.orangecountync.gov/967/Meeting-Videos and on Orange County Gov-TV on channels 1301 or 97.6 (Spectrum Cable). In this new virtual process, there are two methods for public comment. • Written submittals by email • Speaking during the virtual meeting Detailed public comment instructions for each method are provided at the bottom of this agenda. (Pre-registration is required.) 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Greene, to add a closed session at the end of the meeting, pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board." "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board." Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS 2 Chair Price dispensed with reading the public charge. Public Charge: The Board of Commissioners pledges its respect to all present. The Board asks those attending this meeting to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner toward each other, county staff and the commissioners. At any time should a member of the Board or the public fail to observe this charge, the Chair will take steps to restore order and decorum. Should it become impossible to restore order and continue the meeting, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. The BOCC asks that all electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Please be kind to everyone. Arts Moment— No Arts Moment was available for this meeting. 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Robb Levinsky said he wanted to speak on the land use planning process and Buckhorn area plan. He said there has not been much public engagement, and this plan will effect the County for generations to come. He said it would have significant impact on those who deserve input. He said his concern goes beyond the scope of the plan, and residents live here because they value the rural residential character of the County. He said rural buffers should be developed between Mebane and Efland. He said industrial development projects are like a cancer, ruining everything in their path. He said nothing in the plan sets appropriate limitations, and Orange County does not want to be the next Newark, New Jersey. He urged the Board to please choose wisely. Catherine Matthews read the following statement: Hello County Commissioners. I'm back. First let me thank you for your World Water Day proclamation and then let me thank Commissioner Greene for attending our World Water Day Celebration in Efland. I wish more of you could have attended this event to learn about our efforts to preserve clean water and undisturbed land in Orange County. I'm here tonight to ask you how you intend to respond to our President's climate agenda. One of Biden's goals is to conserve nearly a third of US land and ocean waters by 2030. Biden's proposal, known broadly as 30 by 30, is to preserve 30% of our lands and 30% of our ocean waters by 2030 (9 short years away). Currently, only 12 percent of the country's land and 26 percent of its oceans are protected. While Biden's goal is laudable, I think we need to look at our past in North Carolina to see how this national goal might be enacted. Twenty years ago the General Assembly and Gov. Hunt declared that North Carolina should add 1 million more acres of protected land as parks, forests, natural areas, farmlands, etc. before the end of 2010. In 2020, 10 years later, North Carolina finally attained that goal. North Carolina's population continues to grow along with greater land development pressures for conversion of private farmlands and forests to intensive development. With the kind of demands on limited water supplies, consequences of a changing climate, diminished food production, need for outdoor recreational opportunities, 11% is simply not enough! The bottom-line, of course, is "what is enough?" What percentage would guarantee not only our survival, but the biodiversity of planet Earth. E. O. Wilson, a preeminent biologist at Duke 3 University, said that we must conserve 50%. Wilson makes his argument clear in a 2016 book, called Half-Earth. As a member of a Voice for Efland/Orange I am holding each of you responsible for behaving in an ecologically sane manner. While we collectively stopped Buc-ees, another massive development crept in. While we do not expect to deconstruct Medline, we do expect Medline to work with the North Carolina Wildlife Federation to protect what remain of the acres not covered in concrete. We are opposed to the development in the Buckhorn Area Plan. You must decide is it 30% or 50% of Orange County lands that will be preserved. Thank you. Fiona Johann read the following statement: Hello, I'm Fiona Johann and I've been an orange county resident for 20 years. I want to start by thanking our BOCC and staff for meeting with the Mebane City Council in reference to the Buckhorn Area Plan in March. I am excited to see what kind of strategic planning will come from these two groups joining together to work on this important topic. In regards to the Buckhorn Area Plan I want to focus a bit on Gravelly Middle School. Gravelly Middle School serves Mebane residents who also live in Orange county, which is geographically half of Mebane. Gravelly Middle school currently serves 485 6-8 graders. Those middle schooler's are already surrounded on two sides by Medline and the highway. The Buckhorn Area Plan proposes surrounding the school and soccer fields by even more industrial builds. Every other middle school in Orange County is surrounded by residential housing, other schools and nature. What message are we sending to our middle schoolers and their parents by surrounding their school by industrial development? What will that do to their mental and physical health? We know that children benefit from being surrounded by nature. This isn't news to anyone, in fact in 2003 Nancy Wells an environmental psychologist and Gary Evans an environmental and developmental psychologist co-published the following findings, "In a rural setting, levels of nearby nature moderate the impact of stressful life events on the psychological well-being of children. Specifically, the impact of life stress was lower among children with high levels of nearby nature than among those with little nearby nature." (Wells, Evans, 2003) How can we know something and have it proven by science and still decide that industrial builds near a school are the good option? Not only am I concerned for the children's mental health but also their physical health. The traffic on west Ten will turn to primarily 18 wheelers coming from Medline and the approved Al Neyer distribution center. Isn't that enough risk? Do we really need to add more 18 wheelers to the area and trust that it will just "work out?" There is the risk of accidents but let us not forget the emissions that will come from these vehicles as they break, park, ideal and start in an area so close to the school. Children participate in sports on the middle school complex and soccer fields, are we really okay with putting them in a situation of breathing in even more diesel fumes while breathing heavily for extended periods of time? At least now there are a lot of trees in the area to help absorb emissions, what happens when we cut down our nature provided filters to create even more air, sound and water pollution? You all know I have multiple problems with the Buckhorn Area plan, but today I am focusing on the children that live here. We are hurting their futures in more way than one by extending the industrial development area. They will lose nature around their school, in the area they live and 4 also be more prone to long term mental and physical health problems if you continue to expand economic development districts into a historically rural residential and agricultural area. Let us live up to the expectations of our community and do better. While on the topic of schools and working with Mebane I would like to mention that Mebane city has 300 new family homes in progress and are most likely to approve another 400 all on the Orange County side of the city. I would like to confirm that the school board and commissioners are aware of all these new developments that will affect Cheeks Elem and Gravelly middle. Mebane City said they invited Orange County officials to these conversations but no one has attended. I wanted to make sure you all of aware of this growth that will directly affect Orange County Schools. Lib Hutchby said she is a grandparent of 5, and has promised her grandchildren to protect the water, air, and soil. She thanked the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) for its world water day proclamation. She said water does not just fall from the sky and it does not originate in plastic water bottles. She said humans are dependent on water to survive, just as they are dependent on oxygen. She said the Haw River is polluted with polyfluoroalkyl substances(PFAS), the "forever chemical". She said water across the nation contains harmful things, like arsenic and lead. She PFAS has such tight bonds that are almost indestructible, and are very dangerous. She asked if Orange County has tested its water for PFAS, and if the BOCC has a plan to protect the water in Seven Mile Creek. She asked if the BOCC will choose to protect water forever, or protect forever chemicals. Andrea Riley read the following statement: I've been wondering how Orange County citizens and the Orange County Board of Commissioners are going to be able to conserve our land and water resources for future generations — resources that are among Orange County's greatest assets, and that, once paved over or polluted, can be reclaimed only at great cost and with immense difficulty. I'm also wondering if the Commissioners are aware that there is now a contract on what was to be Buc- ee's land, and if they know what is planned for this land. And, are you also aware that significant portions of two of the areas being considered for development in the Buckhorn Area Plan are a part of the Critically Protected Watershed surrounding Seven Mile Creek? Will there be so much impervious ground cover in these developments that it produces water runoff and pollution of Seven Mile Creek, the Eno River, and the headwaters of the Neuse River, contaminating the drinking water of Hillsborough, Raleigh, and communities further downstream? And will it inhibit the recharge of the groundwater necessary to sustain Orange County wells and provide enough water during predicted droughts? Will the plants and animals dependent upon the Seven Mile Creek ecosystem survive? Shouldn't all land in a Critically Protected Watershed and upstream from Seven Mile Creek be conserved and given a zoning designation that protects it from environmental degradation, rather than be zoned for industrial development? And shouldn't Orange County begin to require permeable ground cover for all new developments in order to protect our water resources and land? The Board of County Commissioners needs to demand strict adherence by any future developments to the requirements established in our Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the LIDO, the Efland/Mebane Small Area Plan, and the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (or, WASMPBA). These plans are rapidly becoming outdated, however, and have yet to be aligned with the plans of the Mebane Planning Department and Mebane City Council. 5 Orange County needs to create a binding Joint Land Use Plan with Mebane, and also invite the inclusion of that town into the Orange County WASMPBA, in order to realize that plan's stated goals for all of Orange County, namely: 1. To provide a comprehensive, County-wide system of service areas for future utility development; 2. To complement growth management objectives, land use plans and annexation plans in existing agreements; 3. To resolve in advance and preclude future conflicts about future service and annexation areas; 4. To provide for predictable long-range water and sewer capital improvement planning and financing; and 5. To provide for limitations on water and sewer service in certain (buffer) areas. In order to counter the rapidly advancing environmental threats and increasing commercial pressures from the neighboring town of Mebane, Orange County needs to act NOW — in conjunction with Mebane - to protect the land and water resources it has — both for its citizens' present well-being, and for future generations. Thank you. John Dempsey read the following statement: The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program recently compiled 2 lists of plants, insects and animals living in the Sevenmile Creek watershed that they identify as Significantly Rare, of Special Concern, Threatened or Endangered. One of the lists covers the Buckhorn Area Plan's Growth Areas `C' and `D' and identifies 10 species that meet this criteria. In addition to the species cited there are also four Natural Communities identified as Rare. An example of a Rare Natural Community is the Sevenmile Creek Sugar Maple Bottom. It consists of a large stand of southern sugar maple, hackberry and swamp chestnut oak; and includes a variety of herbs growing in its understory. Their second list covers Growth Area `E'. It names 16 species as Significantly Rare, of Special Concern, Threatened or Endangered and identifies 8 Rare Natural Communities. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's list is not definitive and they advise people to check with other agencies, such as the US Fish and Wildlife Service, for species not included in their survey that may also be considered threatened or endangered. In this case the Neuse River Waterdog is not included on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's lists. However the US Fish &Wildlife Service includes areas C, D and E within its range and has proposed to Congress that it be classified as an Endangered Species. It is also of note that the North Carolina Resources Commission published a conservation plan for five rare aquatic species in the Neuse and Tar-Pamlico Rivers just this past December. It calls for"Establishing and maintaining working relationships between governing bodies (federal, state, and local), universities, private landowners, private companies, and conservation organizations" in order to protect these species from extinction. This is not the first time that a critical watershed has been crossed by an Interstate Highway. When a highway does cross a watershed then you get a corridor that suddenly has increased economic market value and market interest. Those market forces that determine value for economic purposes do not factor for the environmental costs of development. That is the task of local government with zoning jurisdiction. What is the value of Sevenmile Creek? What dollar amount can be placed on a system as rich and as beneficial to Orange County as Sevenmile Creek? It is the upper reach of our watershed, recently studied as a viable potential municipal water reservoir. Considering the projected future growth in our part of Orange County and the 6 beneficial environmental resource that it is, then we should follow the North Carolina Resources Commission's lead and protect Sevenmile Creek with appropriate zoning restrictions while working towards long term protections for this priceless resource. Thank you Tim Spruill read the following statement: Hello, I am Tim Spruill and have lived in Orange County in Efland for more than 20 years. I am concerned about the disappearance of the rural countryside in Orange County east of Mebane and the degradation of Sevenmile Creek, which will receive drainage from the proposed development by Mebane. This all results in a lower quality of life for those who prefer and value rural areas, good water quality, and good biodiversity. In 2019, new rules were passed by the State Legislature governing development in critical and protected watersheds (and are shown in the table that I sent in my letter). The County governments that have land use authority within designated water supply watersheds shall adopt and enforce ordinances and watershed maps that meet or exceed the requirements of the law to protect water supply watersheds. My concern is that the planned development will negatively impact Seven Mile Creek, a High Quality Water that also contributes a major portion of water to Hillsborough's public water supply (it empties directly into Lake Ben Johnston) and provides habitat for a multitude of invertebrate and vertebrate species, several of which are considered threatened or endangered. Large areas of impervious surfaces in the form of building roofs and parking areas will ultimately cause an increase in biological impairment of the receiving streams, a decrease in water quality, an increase in flow magnitude, and an increase in sediment loads, effectively creating a lifeless and ugly urban stream as urbanization increases. I am concerned that existing laws concerning allowable buildouts with impervious surfaces are too high-up to 24% for Critical Watersheds and up to 30% for Balance of Watershed (which is a Protected Watershed in Sevenmile Creek between Buckhorn Road and Efland/Hillsborough) will cause severe water quality and biological degradation of Sevenmile Creek and significant degradation of Hillsborough's water supply from Lake Ben Johnston. Research over the past 20-30 years has shown much lower impervious surface percentages cause significant water quality and biological degradation- only 10% impervious coverage in a watershed can cause significant (25% or more) biological community degradation according to a 2012 USGS study. There are several other studies that offer similar conclusions. It is the responsibility of Orange County and Mebane to enforce existing State Laws at a minimum, and to consider and hopefully adopt, stricter rules governing critical (6 % maximum impervious) and protected (12% maximum impervious) watersheds to preserve the character of the rural environment between Mebane and Efland/Hillsborough, as well as to limit any development to north of West 10 Road only, to ensure protection of the water quality of Sevenmile Creek and Hillsborough's water supply. Thank you. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members Commissioner Fowler petitioned the Board to declare May Mental Health Awareness month. Commissioner Hamilton said she had no comments. 7 Commissioner Greene petitioned the Board to start planning legislative agenda items earlier in the year, so that the Board may provide input to the legislative delegation earlier in the process. Commissioner Greene petitioned the Board to add a component to its development review: a concept review. She said she would like this to be added before a development proposal goes to the Planning board. She said this addition would avoid the situation where proposals go to the Planning board and others before it comes to the Orange County Board of Commissioners. She said this would apply when rezoning is requested. She said the purpose would be to engage the Commissioners at the beginning of the process, instead of the end, so that the public has an idea of what the proposal is about. Commissioner Dorosin suggested that the BOCC members on the legislative agenda committee should be removed from the December discussion of boards, and rather decided earlier in the year, such as September. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is an update about his request for the next steps on Buckhorn Area Plan. He said he would like to see the response accelerated. He said he appreciates the civic engagement residents have shown regarding the Buckhorn Area Plan. He said he would like the plan to very clearly state when opportunities for citizen and resident engagement will be available. He also mentioned Orange County's strong history of environmental protections, and said he would like for more context to be provided to the public. Commissioner Bedford said she had no comments. Chair Price said she met with a group of people from Medline, as well as Commissioner Bedford, the County Manager, Durham Tech staff, and Economic Development staff to discuss economic impacts in the community and employment opportunities. She said Medline is eager to be an active and good neighbor. Chair Price said she attended the Quarterly meeting with NCDOT, which included Hillsborough Mayor Jen Weaver and Planning Director. She said regional transportation was discussed, specifically support of the Hillsborough train station. She said negotiations will be needed to allow trains to actually stop at the train station. Chair Price said American Rescue Plan funds will come around May 10, with the other half about a year later. She said Orange County may be eligible for $20-29 million, and she is in discussion with other local government entities about possible economic development projects that could be pursued. Chair Price referred to the Buckhorn Area Plan, and said there is a proposal that the Mebane City Council will voting on tomorrow to allow 409 residential units on the Orange County side, which will impact the schools. She suggested the Board continue to set up ongoing meetings with Mebane. She said this is one example of continued development, as well as the need to work out the Buckhorn Area Plan. She said she and other Commissioners reviewed new State statutes on how the Planning Board will conduct business and how to approach community participation in regards to Buckhorn Area Plan. She suggested the BOCC look at areas A and B, as well as the whole picture to determine the low hanging fruit. She said it is important to engage the community as much as possible. Commissioner Dorosin said he requested last week that the schools provide information on what they have done with normal operating funds that were not expended, due to Covid. He said since he made that request, it has become clear that there will be a great deal of federal funding coming to schools, and he would also like to know how the schools plan to spend those funds. He said he would like any update on these funds at the joint meeting with the schools later this month. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 8 a. Resolution for the Re-naming the New Orange County Environmental Proclamation Recognizing Judicial District 15-B District Court Judge Beverly A. Scarlett Upon Her Retirement The Board considered voting to approve a proclamation recognizing Judicial District 15- B District Court Judge Beverly A. Scarlett upon her retirement. BACKGROUND: Beverly A. Scarlett was appointed as a Judge for Judicial District 15-B of the North Carolina District Court System in 2007, becoming the first Woman of Color to serve the district in this capacity. Judge Scarlett was subsequently elected to the same position by the voters of Orange and Chatham counties in 2012, 2016 and 2020. Judge Scarlett has served the residents of Orange and Chatham counties tirelessly and with distinction as a District Court Judge, and has announced her plans to retire. The attached proclamation recognizes and expresses sincere gratitude to Judge Beverly A. Scarlett for her exemplary service, and congratulates Judge Scarlett on her retirement. Chair Price introduced the item. Commissioner Greene thanked Judge Scarlett for being an inspiration to her during her time as an assistant prosecutor on the drug treatment and family courts with Judge Buckner, and congratulated her on her career. Latarndra Strong recounted the first time she met Judge Scarlett through their children, who were friends. She said, at that time, she did not know that Judge Scarlett was a judge, but she was a firm parent with high expectations. She said she has learned a lot from Judge Scarlett. She said Judge Scarlett loves this community, and it is evident in her stories and her decades of services. She said she hopes Judge Scarlett is blessed in her retirement, and thanked her for her service. Empress Roi recounted when she met Judge Scarlett during a custody trial. She said her attorney pressed for her case to be heard by Judge Scarlett, who, after careful deliberation, restored her custody rights. She said the decision changed her children's trajectory. She said she is happy to have an opportunity to express her thanks and respect to Judge Scarlett upon her retirement. Chair Price said Judge Scarlett has become a true friend, and the roots of the Scarlett family go deep and wide in Orange County. Chair Price read the proclamation: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING JUDGE BEVERLY A. SCARLETT WHEREAS, Beverly A. Scarlett was born in rural Orange County into a family with deep and extensive roots in the county; and WHEREAS, in 1983, Scarlett received her undergraduate degree from Saint Augustine's College, and later enrolled in North Carolina Central University School Law where she earned her Doctor of Jurisprudence in 1993; and WHEREAS, Scarlett became the first Woman of Color from Orange County to have a solo private law practice in Hillsborough; and 9 WHEREAS, Scarlett became the first Woman of Color to work in the Prosecutorial District 18 as an Assistant District Attorney; and WHEREAS, in 2007, former Governor Mike Easley appointed Scarlett to serve as Judge for Judicial District 15-B of the North Carolina District Court System, which includes Orange County and Chatham County, and thus became the first Woman of Color to serve in this capacity in the district; and WHEREAS, Judge Scarlett subsequently was elected as Judge for Judicial District 15-B in 2012, 2016 and 2020, consistently running without opposition; and WHEREAS, as many Women of Color, Judge Scarlett has had to fight against sexism and racism during her careers; and WHEREAS, throughout her career, Judge Scarlett has remained a staunch advocate for the rights of children, women and families, and has promoted accountability and community safety to assure safe homes for child well-being and development; NOW THEREFORE BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, on behalf of the people of Orange County, hereby recognizes and expresses sincere gratitude to Judge Beverly A. Scarlett for her exemplary service to Orange County, for breaking barriers and challenging systems, and for her numerous contributions for the betterment and advancement of her community; and BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, on behalf of the people of Orange County, congratulates Judge Beverly A. Scarlett on her retirement, and hopes that her life journey hence forward will abound in excitement and joy. This the 6th day of April, 2021. Renee Price, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners A motion was made by Chair Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin, to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS Judge Scarlett said she was emotional thinking of her family members who went through difficult circumstances to survive, and on whose shoulders she stands. She said it has been an honor to serve in every capacity. She said she loved her job as a judge, and made decisions that she felt were in the best interests of her community. She said she has a sisterly bond with Latarndra Strong. She recounted meeting a person in the courtroom for whom she used to clean toilets. She read a passage written by Langston Hughes. She said she loves her community. 10 Commissioner Hamilton thanked Judge Scarlett for her service, and for demonstrating a model of perseverance. b. Proclamation Recognizing Thom Freeman-Stuart The Board considered voting to approve a proclamation recognizing and expressing gratitude to retired Orange County Assistant Deputy Clerk Thom Freeman-Stuart. Commissioner Bedford read the resolution: BACKGROUND: After almost 15 years of dedicated service to Orange County, Thom Freeman-Stuart retired on March 31, 2021. Following a career in the private sector, Thom Freeman-Stuart joined Animal Services in 2003 as an Office Assistant. He then became an Accounting Technician with the Department of Social Services in 2008. Mr. Freeman-Stuart joined the Board of County Commissioners' office as an Assistant to the Clerk in 2013 and was reclassified to an Assistant Deputy Clerk in 2017. Mr. Freeman-Stuart managed the advisory boards and commissions process, by recruiting volunteers, maintaining records, ensuring appointments were made in a timely manner, and acting as the liaison between the Board of County Commissioners and the advisory boards and commissions. Mr. Freeman-Stuart also oversaw the day to day financial matters of the Board of County Commissioners' office, and assisted in developing and monitoring the budget each fiscal year. Additionally, he served as the lead person for arranging special functions in the county, including advisory board volunteer and employee recognition events. ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING AND EXPRESSING GRATITUDE TO THOM FREEMAN-STUART, RETIRING ASSISTANT DEPUTY CLERK WHEREAS, Thom Freeman-Stuart started working with Orange County in 2006 as an Office Assistant with Animal Services; and WHEREAS, Thom earned a promotion to Accounting Technician with the Department of Social Services in 2008; and WHEREAS, Thom transferred to the Board of County Commissioners; Office as an Assistant to the Clerk in 2013 and was later reclassified to Assistant Deputy Clerk in 2017; and WHEREAS, during his time in the Board of County Commissioners' Office, Thom did an exceptional job maintaining and improving the advisory boards and commissions process, as well as managing the budget and finances for the office; and WHEREAS, Thom provided excellent service to both internal and external customers, and was always available to lend a hand; and WHEREAS, Thom is regarded by his coworkers as a wonderful colleague and friend whose kindness and good humor will be missed; and 11 WHEREAS, Thom retired from Orange County on March 31, 2021 after almost 15 years in service to the County and its residents; NOW THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby recognize and express deep appreciation and respect for the services rendered by Thom Freeman-Stuart to the Orange County community, and wish him well in his retirement. This the 6th day of April, 2021. Renee Price, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation recognizing and expressing appreciation to Thom Freeman-Stuart for his service to the people of Orange County and wishing him well in his retirement. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS Laura Jensen expressed her thanks to Thom Freeman-Stuart for helping her get established in this new role. Commissioner Dorosin said Thom Freeman-Stuart did a great job, and always did it with grace, enthusiasm and a positive attitude Commissioner Bedford said she knows Thom Freeman-Stuart will not miss the late night meetings, and she could not keep all of the advisory boards and commission information straight without him. Chair Price said Thom Freeman-Stuart always worked with a smile, and did his job with ease, a sense of humor and a sense of calm. She thanked him for all of his work. Thom Freeman-Stuart said he was overwhelmed with his item coming after Judge Scarlett, whom he respects. He said government work fell into his lap thanks to former Animal Services director Bob Marotto. He said he is confident in the new Clerk and her staff. He said after moving to Hillsborough, he and his husband were able to get married in front of the old Orange County courthouse, and many of the employees from Orange County came to the wedding. He said he never thought that would happen in his lifetime. He said he is grateful to have had the opportunity to work at the County. Commissioner McKee joined the meeting at 8:00 p.m. c. Fair Housing Month Proclamation The Board considered voting to approve a proclamation designating April 2021 as Fair Housing Month in Orange County, North Carolina. Annette Moore, Human Rights and Relations Director, introduced the item and discussed how the different resolutions the board passes fit together. She highlighted information from the background described in the agenda: 12 BACKGROUND: The month of April is National Fair Housing Month. April 2021 will mark the 53rd anniversary of the enactment of the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the 27th anniversary Fair Housing portion of the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance. These laws grant every person a right to live where they choose, free from discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, familial status, or disability. The Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance, established in 1987, adds additional protection from discrimination based on age and veterans status. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has chosen "Fair Housing: More Than Just Words" as the 2021 Fair Housing Month theme. The chosen theme addresses the idea that ending discrimination in housing is more than providing equal housing opportunities for all. Housing can also be a tool to erase economic and education inequalities and help dismantle systemic racism. In the 1930s, the federal Government Federal Housing Administration ("FHA") was part of the New Deal, whose job was to guarantee Americans' loans so they could buy a home in subdivisions and suburbs across the United States. FHA made homeownership possible for millions of average Americans by ensuring long-term, low monthly paying mortgages. However, the FHA required deed restrictions that prevented Blacks from purchasing these homes. This housing boom was bolstered by the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944 ("G.I. Bill") that provided $95 billion into expanding a range of benefits for returning World War II Veterans. Benefits included helping 16 million veterans receive low-cost mortgages, low- interest loans to start a business or a farm, getting one year of unemployment compensation, and receiving education expenses to attend high school, college, or vocational school. Veterans Administration Mortgages guaranteed mortgages for nearly five million new homes for veterans. Between 1946 and 1947, VA mortgages alone accounted for 40% of the homes purchased during that year. Residential ownership became the critical foundation to economic empowerment in the United States. The G.I. Bill was championed as improving returning veterans' economic prospects, promising each soldier the status of the "unforgotten man." Ira Katznelson in, When Affirmative Action Was White: The Untold Story of Racial Inequality in the Twentieth-Century America , contends that the New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal Programs discriminated and contributed to the widening gap between Black and White Americans. Katznelson says the G.I. Bill "was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow." He argues that President Franklin Roosevelt, to gain legislative support for the G.l Bill, made compromises with Southern legislators that allowed the G.I. Bill to be drafted in a discriminatory manner. As a result, the G.I Bill, while race-neutral, disproportionately impact black veterans because the legislation as written allowed the program to be in the hands of state and local officials who could interpret guidelines in a racially discriminatory manner, thus excluding Black veterans from receiving benefits. A study conducted by the Research Division of Veterans Administration in 1950 demonstrated that between September 1940 and August 1945, returning Black veterans participated almost at the same levels as their white counterparts in G.I Bill programs. However, they did not benefit in the same way. White local officials, businessmen, bankers, and college administrators were in charge of local programs that disenfranchised programs Black veterans. Depending on locality, Blacks veterans were denied housing and business loans, admission to white-only colleges and universities, unemployment benefits, and excluded from job training programs and career opportunities. It didn't take long after the G.l Bill's passage for reports of the obstacles 13 Black veterans faced in obtaining benefits to come to light, from securing loans to being discharged without a hearing and given "less than honorable" ratings so Black veterans wouldn't be eligible for benefits. The disparate impact was apparent even in the North, where in New York and Northern New Jersey, less than 100 out of 67,000 G.I. Bill VA Mortgages were provided to Black veterans. Because of these past discriminatory practices, this year, the Department of Human Rights and Relations highlights the protected class of "Veterans" during Fair Housing Month and throughout this next year. The County honors all veterans' service and the missed opportunities of those who served and did not receive the full benefit of what the Country promised them for their service. This month the Department will host a Webinar with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") regarding discrimination issues faced by Veterans in Housing and the Workplace, "Hot Topics for Veterans: COVID & Beyond." Wednesday, April 21, 2021 Veterans Housing and Employment Hot Topics COVID & Beyond 1:OOpm - 4:OOpm Later in this Spring, the Department will co-host a "Veterans Stand Down" with State and Federal partners, including the EEOC, the Department of Social Services, the N.0 Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to provide additional resources to Veterans in Orange County. More information about these events can be found at http://www.orangecountync.gov/departments/human_rights_and_relations/index.php. Annette Moore read statistics about veterans in Orange County, who make up 4.6% of the population. She said 90% are male, 72% are white, 23% are black, 48% are under the age of 65, 3.9% live below the poverty level, 20% have a disability, and 58% of veterans between the ages of 18 and 64 participate in the labor market. Annette Moore described the events her department will hold for veterans during the month of April, regarding housing and employment opportunities. Commissioner Dorosin thanked Annette Moore for her presentation of the background information, as it is important context for people to know. He said the Fair Housing Act was the one civil rights act that imposed an obligation to create diverse, inclusive, and integrated neighborhoods. He thanked Annette Moore for the work her department does. Chair Price expressed thanks for bringing the item forward and showing the continuing necessity of efforts regarding fair housing. Annette Moore read the resolution: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PROCLAMATION FAIR HOUSING MONTH WHEREAS, April 11, 2021 marks the 53rd anniversary of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (formally known as the Fair Housing Act) and the 38th anniversary of the North Carolina Fair Housing Act prohibiting discrimination in housing on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, disability and familial status; and WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners enacted the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance on June 6, 1994, which affords to the residents of Orange County the 14 protections guaranteed by the Fair Housing Act and additionally encompasses the protected classes of Veteran Status and Age; and WHEREAS, Orange County and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development as well as concerned residents and the housing industry are working to make fair housing opportunities possible for everyone by encouraging others to abide by the letter and the spirit of fair housing laws; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development annually declares the month of April as National Fair Housing Month, designating Fair Housing: More Than Just Words as the national theme and ideal for 2021; and WHEREAS, despite the protections afforded by the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance and the Fair Housing Act, illegal housing discrimination still occurs in our nation and within our County; and WHEREAS, by supporting and promoting fair housing and equal opportunity, we are contributing to the strength of our County, State and Nation. NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County North Carolina, do proclaim April 2021 as FAIR HOUSING MONTH and commend this observance to all Orange County residents. This the 6th day of April, 2021. Renee Price, Chair Orange County Board of Commissioners A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve the proclamation and authorize the Chair to sign. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Presentation by Carolina Common Enterprise on the Resident-owned Community Model for Manufactured Home Communities The Board received a presentation on Carolina Common Enterprise's implementation of the resident-owned community model for manufactured home communities (MHCs). Emila Sutton, Housing Director, introduced the item and the speakers. BACKGROUND: Manufactured homes are an important piece of the affordable housing continuum. The per square foot cost of producing a manufactured home is less than half the cost of constructing a comparable stick-built, single-family detached home, making manufactured housing one of the most affordable options available to both renters and homeowners. Orange County has 15 approximately 100 manufactured home communities collectively containing more than 2,000 lots. Due to the high value of land in the County and the potential for large profit margins, many developers are interested in buying and redeveloping manufactured home communities for other uses, placing residents in danger of displacement and housing insecurity. As such, developing an actionable manufactured housing strategy for the County is a priority. Carolina Common Enterprise (CCE) is a tax-exempt nonprofit cooperative development center that provides training and technical assistance to cooperatives in North Carolina, including start- up and growing cooperatives, and businesses converting to a cooperative enterprise. Operating as ROCarolinas, CCE is also the North Carolina network affiliate of ROC USA, a New Hampshire-based nonprofit that establishes resident-owned communities (ROCs) — manufactured home communities that are owned by a cooperative of resident homeowners rather than an outside landlord. In a ROC, residents buy a share in a cooperative that owns the entire community rather than each resident renting or owning an individual lot. To date the ROC USA Network has converted 268 MHCs to resident ownership in 20 states. CCE facilitated the first such North Carolina conversion last year in Randolph County. CCE will present information on its implementation of the ROC USA development model and the potential of this model as a solution for increasing affordability and stability in manufactured home communities. Thomas Beckett, Carolina Common Enterprise Executive Director, introduced the topic, and made the following PowerPoint presentation: Manufactured Housing Cooperatives-Potential For ROC usa Orange County Far Orange County Board ai County Commissioners 6 April 2021 Catalina Common Enteprk.j ROC USA Network RO[arallnas Thomas Reclatr,Ex 1We DI rector Mary O'Hara.�iredor T Ia Evans.Associate Director RM CAROLINAS RxgiiOCusa Carolina Common Enterprise Cooperative Development Center • Tla i n i ng and tech nica l assista nce Tor cooperative businesses to create i term systemic change in North Carolina's economy. Legal services for ce-nps. • 501(c)(3)tax-exempt,founded 2012. • Primary funding Is USDA Rural Cooperative Development Grant. • "Helping People Relp Themselves"—cooperatives give people greater control over their own economic circumstances. • First Resident-Owned Cooperative in 2020:Oak Meadows in Asheboro. Certified Technical Assistance Provider in ROC USA Network. 089 U.n Mary O'Hara, ROC USA Director, presented the following slides: 16 ROC Liga History of ROC USA t9ea-zoos 1 state-No.Hamp¢hi re Limited equity cooperative model ea Resldem owned communItles,s,ovo Member owners 20%of all MRCS(now ovef 30%) r " zoos-curron lost. StandaMind limited equity cooperative model 267 Resident Owned Communities-18,100 Membef owners 12 certlfled Tech.Assistance AM later p More than$280 mil lion in financing provided 1 ROC USA is 501.3 nonprofit LLC with 3 non pit Members and 1 Member-the ROC Association- that Is an anoclatlon of the ROCS we serve. ROC us8 OC LELIPROC : .::--- .ar Iad.Rr�� r..arr sfr_—wi � Casa No R v. SD No PA INY NE GH IL IN TNAZ AL CA SIG RM _ LA c R+rs ROC use �..... tt CHEA art.. ROC usa° Core Services �1r, 1. Find viablef -sale opportunities for home a. Em—ive market developments Identify viablefar-sale communities h. Industry frlend ly brand Focus on corn-1.l market tl mr6anaae 2, Expert Assistance: a. Development of the—p and fad IItatlnn of the purchase process h. Poshpurchasstra l ning,coaching and tech nical ass lstare, c. In-person a no anti no train I ng nd _ networking oppoHunitie,for ROC leaders 3. Community Financinlp i •.s.'_ a. Forgivable d up dlligencefinancing ' {,_• h. Acquisition Rnancing Improvement financing Leverageathcrlendersandgrantom Thomas Beckett resumed the presentation: 17 In short: • Only work with landlords willing to sell. • work with resident homeowners after landlord agrees: -Feasibility&due diligence to examine costs/benefitsso homeowners can make an informed choice. -Training&.Skill-building for long-term stability after closing. • ROC USA Capital 110%LTV financing for purchase and expected capital improvements. • Ten-year contract between ROCarolinas and Resident Owned Cooperative for ongoing training and guidance. CAROLINAS a • Orange County Manufactured Home Communities within the County • 81 Manufactured Home Communities(-1810 homes) • 32 with more than 25 lots(-1390 homes) • 1 awned by national investor(~215 homes) • 4 within Town of Chapel Hill(-162 homes) R � Town of Chapel Hill Manufactured Home Communities lu Thomas Beckett said ROC USA has been in talks with the Town of Chapel Hill to determine how its model could help the four manufactured home communities in northern Chapel Hill. He resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 18 ROC uss ,t "People are no longer tenants, they're owners —and that makes them feel good.The security is the very,very best part." Ja JEAN STEWAFT CAROL INAS Hnoen rrae rnwe,wae.wJrnw.xaa+. RQCusa' Contact Information www-commonenterprise.coop www.ROCUSA.orR 919-246-9929 Mary O'Hara Durham, North Carolina mary@rocusa.org Thomas Beckett thomas@cvmmonenterprise.coop Teia Evans teia@eommanenterprise.coop RD CAROLIHAS Commissioner Fowler thanked the presenters. She said there are big pressures on mobile home communities in Chapel Hill. She asked if clarification could be provided on how the program would help communities in Chapel Hill. Thomas Beckett said the program can help communities by creating opportunities for financing so they can purchase their properties, and remove them from the speculative market. He said properties with a high asset value have a high purchase price. He said the program can help with financing, but a higher price makes the rent unaffordable for residents. He said in these types of situations, the program looks for alternative financing to reduce the costs of the loan for residents. Mary O'Hara said meeting the purchase price of a high asset value can make it difficult for residents, so the program seeks financial assistance from community groups or local governments. She said, in some cases, government funding can lower the interest rate, which makes it more affordable for residents. Chair Price said she spoke this morning with the local Mayors, and it was suggested that the Orange County Affordable Housing Collaborative be enlarged by adding a member from each jurisdiction, and including non-profit organizations that work with housing. She said the collaborative could research programs like ROC USA and Carolina Common Enterprise. She said the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) could expand the charge of the Affordable Housing Collaborative. Commissioner Dorosin said local government can aid in financing, and asked if there are other ways local government could be involved. He noted previous ideas for assisting residents in mobile home parks. He said he is not sure adding so many members to the 19 Affordable Housing Collaborative would be useful, since any decisions would have to come back to the local governing boards for approval. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are criteria for choosing mobile home parks to assist through programs like ROC USA. Mary O'Hara said every affiliate has targeted areas, but also review areas that come up for sale. She said the affiliates tend to target bigger areas and developments. She said investors look for areas where rents are lower, as there is a greater ability to increase rent. She said infrastructure funding and financing are critical, since some developments have maintenance issues. She said the public sector can also provide incentives to the community owners to sell to the residents, and some have used zoning to address alternative use issues. Commissioner McKee asked if this was exclusive to owner-occupied or renter-occupied homes. He asked if the increase in rents can be identified, as many residents are already living on little funds. Mary O'Hara said ROC typically looks for owner-occupied homes, as they are more suited for set up a resident cooperative. She said if more than 25% of the homes are rented, it is more difficult to be successful. She said she does not have an average amount of rent increases, and it depends greatly on what the market rents are, how far below market value the rents currently are. She said if an investor buys a property, the rents typically increase to market value as quickly as possible. She said residents have raised their rents anywhere from $5-$180 increase to purchase the community, and it really depends on the market. She said a $30-$40 increase is probably most typical. Commissioner McKee agreed with the idea of asking the HOME Collaborative to research the ideas further. Commissioner Greene asked Thomas Beckett to speak on limited equity cooperative housing and what it means over time. Thomas Beckett said limited equity housing is a term used to distinguish it from market rate housing. He said in cooperative housing residents own the asset. He said in New York City the model is market rate, and each resident owns a share in the cooperative, and the cooperative owns the building and they all share in maintaining the building. He said the pricing is comparable to market rates in the city, because the membership if a full equity ownership in the value of the underlying property. He said the limited equity housing came about in New York as well, due to many abandoned properties with squatters. She said the membership does not participate in the equity of the building, but rather in maintaining and governing it. He said ROC USA is a limited equity model, where the cooperative corporation is a non-profit, and there are no owners in the equity. He said members of a ROC pay a modest membership fee, and each receives a vote for the Board of Directors and major issues of the community. He said members are buying into a long-term stable rent situation, and the residents have the opportunity to turn any cash flow into a reinvestment into the community. He said the home is classified as a motor vehicle, which are generally considered depreciating assets. He said in a resident owned community, the rents are stabilized, and generally become a higher valued community, which creates equity. He said using a nonprofit as the vehicle takes the land off of the speculative market, and no longer allows an investor to come in and turn it into condos. Chair Price suggested, given the late hour that this topic be researched further by a committee. Commissioner Greene said she supports taking this to a committee for further research and discussion. She said this idea is so valuable, as this is a market driven situation. She said if a landlord wishes to sell, ROC USA begins the process. She said if this model is adopted, it does not create a lot of work for a committee, and the Affordable Housing Collaborative does not need to have its charge changed in order to cover. 20 Chair Price said she supports letting the Affordable Housing Collaborative move forward with researching the item, and would like to increase the membership on the committee to increase the diversity of the group. She said she would like to expand the number of voices on the committee, including representation from people who live in the mobile home communities. Commissioner Greene said the collaborative will bring information back to the full boards for further discussion, and she does not want to slow things down. Chair Price said she is not trying to slow things down, but rather wants to move them along. She said she would like the BOCC to vote to pursue this. Commissioner Greene said she would like for the Board to decide if this is a model that in which the County wants to participate. Chair Price said she thought the existing Affordable Housing Collaborative should research the model. She said the only suggestion she and the mayors of the municipalities had was to increase the diversity of the collaborative Commissioner Greene clarified the suggestion of expanding the number of people on the collaborative. She said, as elected officials, the existing representatives represent the voters of Chapel Hill, the County and the Towns. Commissioner Fowler said the suggestion of a separate committee was to bring in other voices from residents in mobile home communities. She said her thought was to keep the same committee (the Affordable Housing Collaborative), but to bring in other perspectives. Chair Price said the suggestion was to also increase the voices of people of color and those that would be affected by development in mobile home community. She said if the Board agrees to pursue the model, the Affordable Housing Collaborative could begin researching and discussing how to move forward. Commissioner Bedford supported partnering with the municipalities to move forward with implementing the ROC USA model in Orange County. She referred to Chair Price's suggestions earlier in the meeting for next steps. A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to add four members to the Orange County Affordable Housing Collaborative and to move forward with implementing the ROC USA model. Commissioner McKee said the item was put on the agenda as a discussion item, and he was not sure what the Board would be voting on. Chair Price clarified the motion. Commissioner McKee said he felt this was not the appropriate time to vote on the item, since it was only to be a presentation. Commissioner Dorosin said he had all of the information he needed to vote on the motion. Roll call ensued. VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Commissioner McKee abstained from voting) Chair Price said she would work with Emila Sutton to move forward on the item as quickly as possible. Chair Price thanked the presenters from ROC USA. Chair Price suggested taking a 3-minute break. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is anything that could be moved off of the agenda to a future date in the essence of time. 21 Commissioner Bedford said future agendas are packed through the end of the fiscal year. A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to recess the meeting for 3 minutes. Roll call ensued VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin) MOTION PASSES RECONVENE THE MEETING Commissioner Bedford was not yet present, but due to a quorum of Board members being present, Chair Price reconvened the meeting at 9:14 p.m. All members were present except for Commissioner Bedford. The agenda was reviewed to see if anything could be moved. Bonnie Hammersley suggested alternatives for the CIP presentation. She said the Greene Tract item needs to be voted upon, and suggested that the revaluation item could be moved to a future meeting. Commissioner Dorosin requested that the CIP presentation take place. The Board decided to table the revaluation item (item 7) to a future meeting. e. Presentation by of Manager's Recommended FY 2021-26 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) The Board received a presentation of the Manager's Recommended FY 2021-26 Capital Investment Plan to the Board of County Commissioners. BACKGROUND: Each year, the County produces a Capital Investment Plan (CIP) that establishes a budget planning guide related to capital needs for the County as well as Schools. The current CIP consists of a 5-year plan that is evaluated annually to include year-to-year changes in priorities, needs, and available resources. Approval of the CIP commits the County to the first year funding only of the capital projects; all other years are used as a planning tool and serves as a financial plan. Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation: ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN FY2021-26 Board of Orange County Commissioners April 6,2021 22 FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan • Change from FY2020-25 Adopted Plan �42U21-22 $ 72,1a1,U5a $ Si,a55,18r '� i18,U958F9� �Y2022-23 S 47.6r3,960 S 61.074.164 S 13230,304 �-023-24 S 21,46i.049 S M.940-47MC s i.4n.427 Y2�24-25 5 19,626319 5 22,232837 S 2AP1,321 I2TAL 6 1fi7,MA" 6 IN.3,D%4µ i 6•al4,167 Net Increase of$5.0 million over four years • FY2021-22i mosDin Watersmne EMS Subst3kn forstrnreetar-li 5O.D0 • FY2021.22new EW Subaletnn locullon study-$250,DD0 • FY2021-22natimmaeen ban—Anpfor2438.G—ebom-$275,G00 FY2D21-22nowromod amn pmj"l far S05,1006 • FV2023-24new EMS substatmat requestof Chapel HE F"-$3mion ORANGE COUNTY r•]OR-n I CAROLINA FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan • Major Education Projects Supplemental Deferred Maintenance • $30m+anawrNo&(3)years-Now four(4)Yms • Applyfo Def—d —e and Life&Safety Improvements • AllxaladbyAwre¢sDm+OArm6srs"mFY2020-21{CHCCS599M:6CS40.07N Frmx-21 81,BaDl= 14,15D000 &5.95D12D3 FY202122 23,600.000 $3,000.000 FY2am-m 51D)3D3,D3U W.25s D2 514,25s,000 FY2023.24 W.197900 56,19T900 TOTAL r1T.+r'f,aao C17M.M f:]U,HOM u�. ORANGFCOUNTY 117k 1'11 CARL11.1NN 3 Travis Myren said Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools will take a year hiatus in FY22 from deferred maintenance. He resumed the PowerPoint presentation: 23 FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan • Major Education Projects - Final 2016 General Obligation Bond Draw-$13.3 million • CHCCS-$1,922.000 for Cuom Hill Hgh$-:wa • OCS-$11,3$6,000famecheriical syetemeat six(S}Schoolsand mafreplecementset hw f21 xhoob. - Orange County Campus-OTCC-53 million • NeadsaesfrasmrMend propramminprraamlmndebans-MYry 2021 • Sibs unrk Guerenteed Maximum Price(Gh1P)in FY2021-22 • Canswc11cdWN41rdlnFY22-23 foe Q2.5mllllcn ORANGE COUNTY a NOWT]I CARDLINA FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan • Major County Projects - EMS Substation at Waterstone-$2.45 million • Landdcr>eud by Town otFwbcroughfrom Wmemicne Developmrm.agreemenl • Cu4mammwith Orange Rural Fins Departrnent • Shared coslsfor site work,mechanlcal systems,comasmareals • Total County Share-$3.4 million - 203 South Greensboro Project-$8.7 million Sn lhem Bravech L•brary • Permanent Skills❑—kpwmtCenter • Costlncn34of31.BmIlllcnoffwiorw5275,008nn"I>orrming • Guarentee4MwImumPrKe-Octalser2D21 • Opening-Early 2023 ORANGE COUNTY 5 14OFM I CARDLINA FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan • Capital Investment Plan by the Numbers - Total Recommended Capital Expenditures-554.1 million • CaunryCaplta•S1B.6mllllo•r • Pmpriemry Furde-$4.9mion • SchoolCapltar•33D 6mllllc•r - Increase fromFY2020-21 -$20.2 million • $6.7 million for 2D3SoulhGreenslwoNctectmmedWo Year 1 • Leet General O6igetion Schod9ond Drew — CHCCS-51.9 rnlllm - OC-9411.3milim Debt Service Increase-$6.773,125 ORANGE COUNTY WWT]I CARDI.IN. 6 24 FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan FY2020-22 CIP Expenditures FY2021.22 CIP Expenditures smog 9.vp�vaiy °6 .paac � �x IX Campus campuc- -DT7CC ¢or[L 3M fik ORANGE COUNTY p NOR7]I CAROLINA FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan FY2021-26 Recommended CIP Expenditures Based an RecommeadedOP ua®am �a.wvc.w. - ucap�a.a c pmprxpx-o*cc uapooapo .c.wvca+te •wwkiovsoras sss®am .s<s.pp+caa�ai ■R�ppeo-p wpsm taapp .a c..pw-pttc ORANGE COUNTY 9 MOM ICAROLIN. FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan Debt Service Schedulethrough FY202"6 Based as RecammendedUP $A5,DOO,�Oe $'MmA d SM1D,lSij.3- 5d0.000.006 535.W." iauaua Seo-,poo-, S�s,000-,o-oo- S�unnudwe 515,00vmo — 910-aoo-aoo ORANGE COUNTY WS ][CARC11.[N. 25 FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan Proportion of County a rid School Debt Service Hosed on Recommended UP 949.Pw DN $ia1R Id7 . �1i�1 $�.3M10.519 539,351,999 $30,000,000 - $35,We,ePP ■lLlty 5]u,om,00u ■&h-h $S9,eee,ePe - $Se,aee,eee - s - PV77 Pf49 P5'28 M25 R25 ORANGE COUNTY 3u NO67]I CAROLINA FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan Debt Service to General Fund Revenue Policycompliance 8o7ed on Recommended UP 12% IB% 15% Ids% 1A% �Poery trot 19% �Prolened 11% 191r F1'72 �V'49 R'M h45 R'M ORANGE COUNTY 11 NOI I I CAROLINA FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan Tax EquivalentAnalysis MOM Year F'Y2020.21 FY2021-22 Approved UP Recernmendad UP FY2021.22 4.91 cants 422conts FY2022-M FY2023.24 0.07cues FY2024.25 TOTAL MBcaara 4L22chrM Va m oia perry Incrsasad by 9.5%lo$2,14B,55BT vs.2%prmm essum$oodm to revdne- Total debt service 2 mlll ed du ly free year period o .4t�fe¢^o}Lie2 mlllm ellls]r} o 4ke d debt wince resew to&PWP9 W&W—P cheruw _ ORANGE COUNTY s N01r7]I CAROLINA 26 FY2021-26 Recommended Capital Investment Plan • schedule for Consideration - Introductionof the Capita I Investment Plan-April 6 - Work Session on capital Investment Plan-April 13 Further Consideration through Budget Work Sessions - ApprovaIof the Operating and Capita I Budget-June 15 ❑RANGFCOLNTY Muk I I I CARuJIN:1 13 Commissioner Dorosin asked if clarification could be provided on the deferred maintenance by Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). Travis Myren said it was only for supplemental deferred maintenance. Commissioner Dorosin said he thought the reduction in FY21-22 would have been smaller. Travis Myren said in 2021-22, Orange County Schools is requesting its share of the deferred maintenance, and will have exhausted its funds by the later years. He said OCS is taking its funds earlier than CHCCS. He said the share of supplemental deferred maintenance is requested in FY23 by CHCCS. Travis Myren clarified that each school system will use their supplemental deferred maintenance shares, but on different schedules. 5. Public Hearings a. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Zoning Atlas Amendment— Richardson (MA20- 0006) The Board held a public hearing, received the Planning Board/staff recommendation and public comments, closed the public hearing, and considered action on applicant initiated amendment(s) to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Zoning Atlas for a parcel within the Hillsborough Township of Orange County. BACKGROUND: The basic facts concerning this application (Attachment 1) are as follows: Applicant: Ms. Gary Carleen Richardson PO Box 4186 Burlington, NC 27215 Parcel Information: A. Parcel and Size: PIN 9873-54-6387. An approximately 2.72 acre parcel. B. Township: Hillsborough. C. Current Zoning: Rural Residential (R-1) and Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District (Higher Intensity Development Area). STAFF COMMENT: The parcel is not located within a Watershed Protection Overlay District. 27 D. Requested Zoning: General Commercial (GC-4). STAFF COMMENT. Action to approve this request will not affect the parcel's location within the Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District. The potential rezoning of the parcel to GC-4 is not inconsistent with the purpose and intent of this Overlay District. E. Current Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: Rural Residential land use category. Please refer to the maps contained in Attachment 2 for more information. STAFF COMMENT: Applicant has requested the FLUM designation for the property become Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN), which is necessary to approve the rezoning request. As detailed in Attachment 2, the parcel to the north is located within the CITAN while property to the west, across NC Highway 86, is located within the Economic Development Activity Node, as detailed on the FLUM. Parcel(s) to the south and east are located within the Rural Residential land use category. F. Growth Management System Designation: Rural Designated. G. Existing Conditions/Physical Features: The parcel is currently undeveloped and heavily wooded with varying topography. H. Roads: The parcel has approximately 360 ft. of frontage along NC Highway 86 to the west. I. Water and Sewer: Development of the property will rely on individual well and septic systems. The Property is not in an area served by public water/sewer. Surrounding Land Uses: North: 4 acre parcel zoned General Commercial (GC-4) supporting a self-storage business; South: An undeveloped 2.7 acre parcel zoned Rural Residential (R-1); West: NC Highway 86, parcels ranging in size from 2.6 to 30 acres in area zoned Economic Development Hillsborough Limited Officer (EHD-2). The 30 acre parcel is developed and utilized to support a single- family residential land use; and East: An approximately 235 acre parcel zoned Rural Residential (R-1) owned by Duke University School of Forestry. 28 Development Process, Schedule, and Action: The typical cadence for the review of a General Use Rezoning and Zoning Atlas amendment is: • FIRST ACTION — Submission of a General Use Rezoning application with required supporting documents by the property owner. STAFF COMMENT: Ms. Richardson provided required document(s) on November 6, 2020, supplemented in January of 2021 with additional information providing support for the requested change in the FLUM designation. • SECOND ACTION — The Planning Board reviews the application at a regular meeting and makes a recommendation to the BOCC. STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board reviewed this item at its March 3, 2021 regular meeting where members voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request(s). • THIRD ACTION — The BOCC receives the Planning Board recommendation and makes a decision at a previously advertised public hearing. STAFF COMMENT: Scheduled for April 6, 2021. Consistent with State legislation regarding virtual/remote meetings, there is a 24- hour waiting period required before a decision becomes effective. The purpose of the 24-hour waiting period is to allow for submission of written comments. General Use Rezoning: Zoning promotes development of land uses that can co-exist in proximity to one another consistent with the promotion of the public health, safety, and general welfare. Regulations establish opportunities/constraints associated with land development in an attempt to ensure one person's `reasonable use' of property does not affect another person's ability to make reasonable use of their property. This request involves a property owner seeking to change the zoning designation of their property from a residential general use zoning district (R-1) to a district allowing for the development of non-residential land uses (GC-4). In acting on this request, the County is unable to impose conditions and the applicant is not required to define what type of development (i.e. permitted use category) is anticipated. If rezoned, all land uses permitted within the GC-4 general use zoning district are suitable for development on the property once compliance with applicable regulations is demonstrated. General Use Rezoning applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e., does not require sworn testimony or evidence) and decisions are based on the BOCC's determination the request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Proposal: Applicant requests the general use zoning designation of the property become GC-4 arguing: ... changing this (property's) zoning to General Commercial (GC-4) will be more in line with the Character of the area. There is a shopping center approximately one mile down the road that includes a Walmart, Home Depot, and various other chain stores and fast food restaurants. On the other side of the road from the shopping center is a newly built Sheetz, which also has space to have another tenet beside them. 29 The request also involves changing the future land use designation for the property from Rural Residential to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN). STAFF COMMENT. This change is necessary to approve the rezoning request. The applicant argues current development trends along NC Highway 86, as well as existing land use designations on parcels to the north and west, support changing the designation of the subject property to CITAN. Other pertinent information concerning the property is as follows: • Comprehensive Plan: The subject parcel is currently located within the Rural Residential land use category. Per Appendix F, "Relationships Between Land Use Categories and Zoning Districts Matrix" of the adopted Orange County Comprehensive Plan, GC-4 is not an allowable general use zoning category for property located within a Rural Residential land use category. The GC-4 general use zoning district is permitted within the Commercial-Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN). Per Appendix G Land Use Classification and Overlay Locational Criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, CITAN is located in areas meeting specific criteria including, but not limited to: o Areas currently, or could be reasonably and efficiently, served by centralized public services and utilities; o Located at the intersection of arterial and/or collector highways or in proximity to other major transportation networks; o In areas near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services, which are appropriate for non-residential and higher density residential uses. As detailed by staff (Attachment 5), the subject parcel is not located in an area currently or planned to be served by public utilities (i.e. water and/or sewer). In order for the property to have access to public utilities, the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA) would need modification first. For more information on the definition of CITAN, and to review the allowed zoning designations permitted within same, the Comprehensive Plan is accessible at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/1242/2030-Comprehensive-Plan. • Future Land Use Map (FLUM) Designation: The FLUM can be accessed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4054/Future-Land-Use-Map- PDF. • Growth Management System Map Designation: The property is Rural Designated. STAFF COMMENT: The Growth Management System Map is a tool utilized by staff to identify permit review thresholds for residential (i.e., subdivision) projects. 30 • Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan: COCA is a joint land use document defining locations of `future land use categories' to achieve desired and coordinated pattern(s) of development. Implementation of the COCA Land Use Plan is achieved through consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map, application of County zoning, and a coordinated approach to rezoning. The subject parcel is outside of the Town's Urban Service area. Consistent with COCA, the Town may not extend utilities outside the service area. The applicant approached the Town in 2012 about moving the Urban Service boundary to include this parcel. In recommending approval of COCA, Hillsborough's planning board supported the concept of amending the boundary but did not take action to do so. COCA can be accessed at: https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/14011/Central-Orange- Coordinated-Area-COCA-Land-Use-Plan-PDF. Please refer to the map in Attachment 3 for more information. As previously indicated, COCA modifications are necessary to extend the Urban Service Area allowing the property to qualify for utility service. • Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA): Property is located within the Town of Hillsborough Long-term Interest Area. Public utilities (i.e. water and sewer) are available only if the property owner seeks voluntary annexation into the Town and the WASMPBA Primary Service Area boundary is amended to include the parcel. The WASMPBA agreement can be accessed at: http://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4190/Water-and-Sewer- Management-Planning-and-Boundary-Agreement-PDF. • Environmental Assessment (EA): Per Section 6.16.2 (A) of the UDO, the application is exempt from the Environmental Assessment (EA) requirement. Once a formal development proposal (i.e. site plan) is submitted, it will be evaluated for compliance with the provisions of the LIDO. Please note, an environmental assessment application is typically required only for projects exceeding two acres of proposed land disturbance. Analysis: As required under Section 2.8.5 of the UDO, the Planning Director is required to: `cause an analysis to be made of the application'and provide analysis to the reviewing body. In analyzing this request, the Planning Director offers the following: 1. The application is complete in accordance with the requirements of Section 2.8.3 of the UDO; 2. The Rural Residential land use category is defined within the adopted Comprehensive Plan as: Land in the rural areas of the County which is appropriate for low intensity and low-density residential development and which would not be dependent on urban services during the plan period. 3. The Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) is defined within the adopted Comprehensive Plan as: Land near major transportation routes that could be provided with public water and wastewater services and is appropriate for retail and other 31 commercial uses; manufacturing and other industrial uses; office and limited (not to exceed 25% of any Node) higher density residential uses. 4. The property is not eligible for service by public water and wastewater services based on: a. The Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan; and b. The Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA). As a result, extension of CITAN is not viable at this time as the parcel is ineligible for public water and wastewater services; 5. The request, while potentially representing a logical extension of the CITAN land use category along NC Highway 86 as well as the GC-4 general use zoning district, is inconsistent with applicable planning document(s) are detailed herein; 6. Existing agreement(s) between the County and the Town of Hillsborough do not identify this property as being suitable for high intensity residential and/or non-residential development. These agreements would have to be modified to allow the request to receive a favorable recommendation. Public Notifications: In accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the LIDO, notices were mailed via first class mail to property owners within 1,000 ft. of the subject parcel providing the date/time of the BOCC public hearing where the proposal is to be reviewed on March 18, 2021, 19 days before the meeting. Staff also posted the subject parcel with a sign indicating the date/time of the public hearing on March 22, 2021, 15 days before the meeting. For more information, please refer to Attachment 7. Planning Board Recommendation: The Planning Board reviewed this request at its March 3, 2021 regular meeting where the following comments were made: • A Board member asked if another future land use designation that would be appropriate for the property. There was discussion on the merits of extending the Economic Development Transition Activity Node, west of the property across NC Highway 86, as an alternative to CITAN. STAFF COMMENT: According to the Comprehensive Plan, the GC-4 general use zoning district is only permitted within the: ➢ Commercial Transition Activity Node, and ➢ Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN). Based on surrounding land use designations, and the applicant's wishes, CITAN was the only option. Unfortunately, the area is not suitable for non-residential zoning/development based on existing agreement(s) between the Town and County. Until these agreement(s) are modified, neither CITAN or Economic Development Transition Activity Node could be extended onto the subject property. • Board members acknowledged receipt of two emails from adjacent property owners requesting the application be denied due to anticipated traffic impact(s) from non- residential development and extension of `urban development intensities' into what they perceived to be a `rural' area of the county. 32 • The applicant did not speak at the Planning Board meeting. After discussing the request, and reviewing staff's recommendation, Board members voted unanimously to recommend denial of the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 8) and the proposed Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 9). Excerpts of the minutes from the meeting, as well as the Board's signed statement of consistency, are included in Attachment 6. Agenda materials from the meeting can be viewed at: https://www.co.orange.nc.us/AgendaCenter/Planning-Board-26. Planning Director's Recommendation: The Planning Director recommends the request be denied due to the following: a. Extension of the Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) is not viable at this time as the property cannot be provided with public water and wastewater services; b. The requested rezoning (i.e. R-1 to GC-4) cannot be approved without the extension of CITAN; c. The requested rezoning is inconsistent with the current policies of the adopted County Comprehensive Plan, the Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) Land Use Plan and the Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA); d. Existing agreement(s) between the County and the Town of Hillsborough do not identify this property as being suitable for high intensity residential and/or non-residential development. If amendment(s) to COCA and WASMPBA occur, specifically making the subject parcel suitable for service by public utilities, staff could make an affirmative recommendation on requested future land use map and rezoning amendments. These amendments would have to occur before such a recommendation could be made. Effect of Denial or Withdrawal: In the event the rezoning application is denied or withdrawn, it should be noted that Section 2.2.8 of the UDO states that no application for the same or similar amendment, affecting the same property or portion thereof, may be submitted for a period of one year. The one year period begins on the date of denial or withdrawal. Michael Harvey, Current Planning and Zoning Supervisor, made the following presentation: ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA AGENDA ITEM: 5-a PUBLIC HEARING Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Zoning Atlas Amendment Richardson — NC Highway 86 Orange County Board of Commissioners April 6, 2021 33 Meeting Cadence: 1. Staff presentation,opening of public hearing, acceptance of applicant and public comments; 2. Questions from BOCC Members; 3. Summary of recommendations; 4. Board deliberation,closure of public hearing, opening of public written comment period, scheduling of vote. NOTE: BOCC will not take action on request until April 20,2021 business meeting. ORANGE COUNTY Iuarcn I urtoLINA REQUEST: PW$ Change Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation: FROM Rural Residential TO: Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node(CITAN) • Rezone property: FROM Rural Residential (R-1); Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District(Higher Intensity Development Area) TO: General Commercial (GC-4): Stoney Creek Basin Overlay District(Higher Intensity Development Area) Applicant suggests request will bring property more in line with the character of the area, is consistent with existing development trends on NC Highway 86, and represents logical expansion of existing commercial development/zoning along the highway. _ ORANGE COUNTY WO I CA LINA PROPERTY PW4 r • PIN 9873546387; 1 • Approximately 2.7 r• acres in area; • Currently zoned R-1 • Undeveloped — heavily wooded with varying topography; • Approximately 350 ft of frontage along N � NC Highway 86. ORANGE COUNTY � ]I CAR LINA 34 ROLES: P�6 • Staff: — Determine application completeness; — Determine consistency with Comprehensive Plan,UDO,and other planning documentslagreements; — Complete analysis and make a recommendation. • Planning Board: — Hear from applicant,staff,and the general public, — Review/discuss analysis and recommendation(s), — Recommend approval or denial to the BOCC. • BOCC: — Sched u lelhold public hearing to receive application; — Hear from applicant,staff,and the general public, — Review/discuss staff and Planning Board's analysis and recommendation(s); — Close the public hearing; - -Approve or deny the request. ORANGE UNnLNO PW 6 Applicant Presentation: ORANGE COUNTY NO ]ICAR LINA The Applicant was not in attendance, and Michael Harvey resumed the PowerPoint presentation: STAFF ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION: P-1 • Application is complete; • Property is not eligible for service by public utilities: The Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area(COCA)Land Use Plan and The Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement (WASMPBA)both indicate parcel is not intended to be served by public waterlsewer • FLUM designation can't be changed to Commercial Industrial Transition Activity Node (CITAN) — inconsistent with definition; • Request inconsistent with applicable planning documents (i.e.COCA,WASMPBA,Comprehensive Plan,etc.); • Staff cannot recommend approval at this time ORANGE COUNTY NO ]I CA LINA 35 Planning Board Recommendation,Pit • Reviewed request at its March 3, 2021 regular meeting; -NOTE Applicant did not speak at meeting. • Voted unanimously to recommend denial of the request based on staff analysis; • Recommended BOCC take action on Statement of Consistency (Attachment 8) and Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 9) document denying request. ORANGE COUNTY N MFI I CAR LINA BOCC Action. Pwr9 Manager recommends the Board: 1. Receive request and conduct the public hearing receiving the Planning Board recommendation, staff, and public comments, 2. Close the public hearing and authorize acceptance of written comment(s) until 9.00 a.m. on Thursday April 8, 2021: I Schedule action on the statement of Consistency (Attachment 8)and Zoning Atlas Amendment(Attachment 9),as recommended by Staff,at the Board's April 20,2021 business meeting For more information or Questions on this proposal. Michael Hanrey,Current Planning Supervisor ORANGE COUNTY nrharvevll'4oranQecounlvnc.Qov or(919)245.2597 N MICA LINA A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin, to open the public hearing. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS PUBLIC COMMENTS: None A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to close the public hearing and asked to accept the planning board's recommendation. Commissioner Dorosin said he had some questions. Commissioner McKee withdrew his motion. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin, to close the public hearing. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS 36 Commissioner Dorosin asked a question about the process of reviewing and voting on proposals. He said the Planning Board has recommended denial, as the property cannot be connected to water and sewer. He asked if, given that, there is a reason why this project is coming before the BOCC at all. Michael Harvey said an applicant has paid an application review fee, despite the Planning Board's recommendation of denial, and the Board of Commissioners must follow through with the process. He said the Applicant was notified of the public hearing, but is not in attendance. Michael Harvey said due to the definition of CITAN in the comprehensive plan (page 6 of the abstract), the parcel cannot be provided utility services based on current planning documents. He said the Planning Department suggested the Applicant approach the Town of Hillsborough for a modification of agreements to allow for water and sewer to be available to the parcel, but the applicant did not do so. Commissioner Dorosin said it is odd that someone could request rezoning for uses that would be impossible, but that the Planning department still has to go through the whole process. Michael Harvey said yes. He said the Applicant requested that the process continue, despite staff explaining that it would not be recommended for approval. Michael Harvey said the Applicant felt she could make a reasonable argument for approval. He said he and the Planning Director did not disagree with her that this request represents a logical extension of the commercial/industrial node. He said the problem is that the extension cannot happen without other things happening first. He said the Planning department encouraged the Applicant to go through the other steps first, as did the Town of Hillsborough Assistant Town Manager. Commissioner Dorosin said looking at the parcel, and what is around it and being near to Highway 86, the application makes some sense. He asked if there should be flexibility in how the lines are drawn. He said it seems to be a poor use of infrastructure resources to have lines run along parcels that are suited to economic development. He said infrastructure on one side of a thoroughfare, but not on the other, is not a good use of resources. He said he would like to work with other jurisdictions to adjust parcels and lines such as these. He said water and sewer is not far away from this parcel. Commissioner Fowler said staff is saying the Applicant should have gone to Hillsborough first to request water and sewer. Commissioner Dorosin said the procedure would require the adjustment of boundaries, which would require action from the BOCC. Michael Harvey said that water and sewer infrastructure would have required annexation by Hillsborough. Commissioner McKee thanked Commissioner Dorosin for his excellent comments. Commissioner Hamilton said the overall discussion is interesting and important, but the Board is only addressing one application at this meeting. She said further discussion should take place at a later time. Chair Price clarified the motion that needed to take place. A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to receive the request, and authorize the acceptance of written comments via e-mail to the Board at ocbocc@orangecountync.gov or by delivery to the Planning Department's office at 131 West Margaret Lane, 2nd floor, Hillsborough, North Carolina 27278, until 9:00 a.m. on Thursday April 8, 2021; and to schedule a vote to take action on the Statement of Consistency (Attachment 8), 37 and the Zoning Atlas Amendment (Attachment 9) at the Board's April 20, 2021 Business meeting as recommended by the Planning Board and Planning Director. Roll call ensued VOTE UNANIMOUS Chair Price requested that future zoning items include more context of the parcel being presented. She also said rezoning signs are too small and need to be larger for people to easily read. 6. Regular Agenda a. Interlocal Agreement Regarding the Current and Future Use of the Jointly Owned Greene Tract The Board considered voting to approve an Interlocal Agreement between Orange County, the Town of Chapel Hill, and the Town of Carrboro regarding the current and future use of the jointly owned Greene Tract. BACKGROUND: The Greene Tract is a 164 acre parcel of which 104 acres is jointly owned by Orange County/Chapel Hill/Carrboro and 60 acres owned by Orange County (Headwaters Preserve). The parcel is located east of the Rogers Road community within the Town of Chapel Hill's ETJ (Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction)— see vicinity map in Attachment 4. In May 2017, a joint staff work group began to examine the preservation and development potential of the Greene Tract. This process included specific elements and goals including, but not limited to: • incorporate a future elementary school and park site, • preserve valuable environmental features and corridors, • protect historical and cultural resources, • encourage cost effective infrastructure, and • identify areas for future development. In addition, the Managers, Mayors, and Chair (MMC) recommended staff examine the reconfiguration of the joint owned and County owned tracts. Greene Tract Resolution for a Path Forward In January 2020, the Towns and County adopted the 2020 Greene Tract resolution. Not only did this resolution identify land use acreages for the Greene Tract and initiate an environmental assessment, but it also initiated the drafting of an Interlocal Agreement between the three jurisdictions. This document would provide a decision-making process for the three jurisdictions to agree to. Managers, Mayors, and Chair (MMC) Meetings On February 14, 2020, the Managers, Mayors, and Chairs (MMC) met to review the draft Greene Tract Interlocal Agreement (ILA). At that meeting, the group completed a thorough reading of the document and proposed revisions. Following this meeting, the Orange County Attorney edited the document, based on comments received, and provided the revised ILA to the MMC. 38 On February 26, 2021, the MMC reviewed and discussed the revised draft of the ILA. Due to concerns with Section 5, Disputes, revisions were made to the document. At that meeting, the MMC decided to move forward with presenting the ILA to their respective Boards in April. Greene Tract Interlocal Agreement The attached Interlocal Agreement ("Agreement"), contained in Attachment 1, related to the Greene Tract is intended to begin the process of resolving longstanding issues related to the property that began with the adoption of the 1999 Agreement for Solid Waste Management by and between the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill and Orange County. The Greene Tract was addressed briefly in the 1999 agreement primarily in requiring the parties to determine the ultimate uses of the property. The process to make the determination of uses was initiated several times over the years, but was never completed. The key aspects of the Agreement include the following: ■ An initial two-year term followed by five five-year terms; ■ Termination of the Agreement by either mutual agreement of all parties or by any single party upon 60 days' written notice to the other parties; ■ Requiring that the parties act jointly in selecting professional services, entering development agreements, engaging in public outreach, receiving public input, assigning the Mayors, Chair, and Managers to form a working group to negotiate ultimate uses of the Greene Tract before submitting their recommendations to the governing boards of the parties, and reaching final determinations of the ultimate uses of the property within 18 months of execution of the Agreement; ■ Agreeing that the initial intent of the parties is for the property to include mixed use and affordable housing, a school site with a public recreation component, a joint preserve area, and connectivity (pedestrian, vehicular, utility, transportation); ■ Providing a dispute resolution process that requires good faith participation by the parties and includes initial negotiation by the working group followed by mediation if necessary; ■ Providing a means by which the parties may partition their ownership interests and dispose of the property if agreement cannot be reached on the ultimate uses of the property. The Interlocal Agreement is planned for adoption consideration at the April 6, 2021 Carrboro Town Council meeting and the April 7, 2021 Chapel Hill Town Council meeting. Any amendments to the Interlocal Agreement by the Town of Chapel Hill or the Town of Carrboro would prompt a return to the BOCC for consideration. Greene Tract Update Additional information on the Greene Tract, including next steps following the adoption of the Interlocal Agreement, is contained in Attachment 3. Staff will not present the update at the BOCC meeting, but will be available to address any questions. John Roberts reviewed the background information, and the terms of the interlocal agreement. He said the Town of Carrboro approved the interlocal agreement with the following change: deleted last sentence in mediation paragraph (page 8) and replaced with "an agreement will be binding contingent upon approval by each of the governing bodies." Commissioner Greene clarified that in 2g, the words "final approval" means after a lot of discussion by all of the boards. John Roberts said yes. 39 Commissioner Fowler asked if there could be clarification about connecting natural areas. Craig Benedict, Planning Director, said the County's property will be reshaped to create connections to 24 acres of preserved property. He said the County's share of that preserved area is 60 acres. Commissioner Fowler asked if further clarification could be provided. Craig Benedict said there will be a total of 82-84 acres of preservation. He said there are 164 acres total, with 104 that are jointly owned and 60 acres of County owned. He said the County's 60 acres may be reshaped to take the best environmental lands. He said some of the original 60 acres may be developed, while other better parts of environmental lands will be added to create a newly shaped 60 acres. Commissioner Dorosin asked if clarification could be provided on the time frame for future developments. John Roberts said there will likely be an 18-month process in reviews, depending on public engagement. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that it will require unanimity between all of the jurisdictions, including mediation. John Roberts said yes, there will need to be unanimous agreement between all of the jurisdictions. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the parties cannot come to agreement, could the County request that its share be bought out by the other parties. John Roberts said that is an option, as well as a judicial partition of the tract. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the property is in the Chapel Hill extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). Craig Benedict said yes. Commissioner Dorosin said ultimately Chapel Hill controls the review process for any developments. John Roberts said yes. He said there is the possibility that it could be withdrawn from the ETJ, but that would be an extreme situation, and take about 2 years. Commissioner Dorosin said he is concerned that development of the Greene Tract will continue to be delayed, and that the County has a more expansive vision of affordable housing than other jurisdictions. Chair Price said the pandemic interrupted public engagement with the community on the property. Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciates the work the group has done, but he would prefer a tighter timeline than 18 months. Chair Price said the timeline could be tightened. Commissioner Hamilton asked if clarification could be provided of what a judicial partition means. John Roberts said it would require going to the court system to divide the property. Commissioner Hamilton said she supports the agreement and it does show progress. She said the current board has intent and vision for the property, but the property being vacant is supporting environmental goals. She said there are some benefits to leaving it undeveloped. She encouraged the Board to focus on the present, and move forward to the benefit of the community, the environment and economic development. A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to approve the interlocal agreement with the change as approved by the Town of Carrboro and authorized the Chair to sign. 40 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that he does not want to short circuit the process, or not have public input, but the tract has been in discussion for 20 years, and there is already opposition to any development. He said he is concerned about further delays. Roll call ensued VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Fowler, Commissioner Greene, Commissioner Hamilton, Commissioner McKee, Chair Price); Nays, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin) MOTION PASSES b. Follow-up on Orange County's Proposed 2021 Legislative Agenda The Board will: 1) review and discuss an updated Draft 2021 legislative package in follow-up to the Board of Commissioners' discussion of the Legislative Issues Work Group's recommended package at the March 16, 2021 Business meeting; 2) consider approval of updated Draft 2021 Orange County Legislative Priority Issues document for submittal to the County's legislative delegation; and 3) consider approval of the Orange County 2021 Legislative Interests document (which also includes the Priority Issues) to also be shared with Orange County's legislative delegation. BACKGROUND: The 2021 North Carolina General Assembly session convened on January 27, 2021. The Board of Commissioners has historically appointed a Legislative Issues Work Group (LIWG) to work with staff to develop a proposed legislative package for the County. Based on the work of the LIWG, the BOCC has then reviewed and approved packages of legislative items to present to Orange County's legislative delegation. Commissioners Renee Price and Amy Fowler are serving on the 2021 LIWG and worked with staff on the proposed 2021 legislative package, which consisted of the two documents, in preparation for the Board's April 19, 2021 Legislative Breakfast meeting with Orange County's legislative delegation. The LIWG identified twenty-two (22) Legislative Priorities, acknowledging that the full Board of Commissioners may want to consider modifying the list, exchange one item for another item, other potential revisions, etc. The LIWG also recommended that the County express its positions on other topics with a draft Other Orange County 2021 Legislative Interests document. The Board of Commissioners discussed and considered the Legislative Priorities and the Other Orange County 2021 Legislative Interests documents at the Board's March 16, 2021 Business meeting. As part of the discussion, the Board provided feedback to staff on additions, revisions and repackaging of the materials. The updated Draft documents are provided as Attachment 1 and 2 for Board discussion and consideration for approval as amended. Greg Wilder, Manager's Office, reviewed the item. 41 Commissioner Dorosin proposed adding the protection of civil rights of transgender persons, and the opposition of any laws that limits civil rights or any targeting for discrimination. He cited two bills in the General Assembly HB358 and S13514, which target transgender residents. Commissioner Greene thanked Greg Wilder for the reformatting. Chair Price asked if Commissioner Dorosin's request would mean including seven priority issues. Commissioner Dorosin said yes. Greg Wilder said clarified the wording for the item. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Greene, to approve the legislative agenda, with the addition of a seventh priority, as described. Roll call ensued. VOTE UNANIMOUS Greg Wilder suggested this item be added after#31 in the entire list, and #7 on the front page. The Board agreed by consensus. Greg Wilder said the packet will be sent to the legislative delegation. 7. Reports a. 2021 Orange County Revaluation Results This item was tabled to a future meeting. 8. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda None • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Greene, to approve the consent agenda. Roll call ensued. VOTE: UNANMIOUS a. Minutes The Board approved the draft minutes for the March 2 and 9, 2021 Board of County Commissioners meetings. b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted of a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for nine taxpayers with a total of nine bills that will result in a reduction of revenue 42 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for eleven taxpayers with a total of eleven bills that will result in a reduction of revenue. d. Resolution Authorizing Exchange of Property for the Sheriff's Office The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, authorizing the exchange of surplus ammunition for credit from AmChar Wholesale, Inc. e. Change in BOCC Meeting Schedule for 2021 The Board considered approval of changes to the Board of Commissioners' meeting calendar for 2021. f. Fiscal Year 2020-21 Budget Amendment#10 The Board considered voting to approve budget and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2020-21 for the Health Department; Emergency Services; BOCC/Clerk's Office; Orange County Southern Branch Library Capital Project Ordinance; Coronavirus Relief Funding; Library Services; Department of Social Services; and the Arts Commission. g. Merritt Mill Apartments Development Updates The Board received an update on changes to the Merritt Mill developments being financed in part with Affordable Housing Bonds Funds and considered authorizing the developments to move forward as detailed. h. Compliance Plans for CDBG-CV Grant The Board approved four plans required by the NC Department of Commerce as part of Orange County's Community Development Block Grant— Coronavirus (CDBG-CV) award. i. Approval of the Continuity of Services Plan to Guide Realignment from Cardinal Innovations Healthcare to Alliance Health The Board considered voting to approve the Local Management Entity/Managed Care Organization (LME/MCO) Continuity of Services Plan to guide the process of disengaging from Cardinal Innovations Healthcare and realigning with Alliance Health to administer Medicaid and uninsured behavioral health and intellectual/developmental disability services for Orange County residents that are insured by Medicaid or are uninsured. 9. County Manager's Report None. 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts said the Senate filed 160 additional bills to be considered by the General Assembly, and the House still has 2 weeks for additional bills. He said he will provide an overview of these additions. 11. *Appointments There were no appointments. 13. Closed Session "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board." A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to go into closed session at 10:23 p.m. Roll call ensued 43 VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to reconvene into regular session at 10:44 p.m. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANMIOUS 14. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner McKee and seconded by Commissioner Fowler to adjourn the meeting at 10:44 p.m. Roll call ensued VOTE: UNANIMOUS Renee Price, Chair Laura Jensen Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.