HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06-07-2022 Business Meeting I
APPROVED 9/6/22 MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BUSINESS MEETING
June 7, 2022
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, June
7, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Renee Price, Vice Chair Jamezetta Bedford,
and Commissioners Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Jean Hamilton, Earl McKee, and Anna
Richards (arrived at 7:02 PM)
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
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. All commissioners were present,
except Commissioner Richards.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Chair Price proposed adding a discussion on the Regulation of Large Gatherings on
School Property and Public Playgrounds as item 6-c on the agenda.
Commissioner Richards arrived at 7:02 p.m.
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to
add the discussion as item 6-c on the agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Chair Price dispensed with reading the public charge.
2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Karen Kary thanked the Board for their work. She said she is representing her
neighborhood on Redgate Rd. She said her neighborhood was not included in the initial
contract the County signed with Northstate for fiber access. She said it is currently impossible
for them to work, complete schoolwork, or even attend telehealth appointments from their
homes. She said members of her community reached out to Spectrum and found out the
reason they were not included in the contract was because Spectrum incorrectly reported to the
FCC that they offer service to the neighborhood. She said she and her neighbors recently had
surveys done with Spectrum and none of them were approved for service by Spectrum. She
said they have now reported this to the FCC. She said this report to the FCC seems to be the
reason that her neighborhood was left off of the county's map. She asked if county staff would
follow up with her and her neighbors to give an update on the investigation.
2
Todd McGee, Community Relations Director, recognized the residents who participated
in the Orange County Government Academy. He reviewed the topics they covered in the
classes and invited participants to have their picture taken with the Board of Commissioners.
He said the class will be offered again next spring for anyone who is interested.
Chair Price asked all of participants to introduce themselves to the Board.
Todd McGee said this is the third "graduating" class of the County Government
Academy, and one class was cancelled due to the pandemic.
Commissioner Bedford invited residents to apply for the County's advisory boards.
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 said she attended the Alliance Board meeting last week and
passed the budget. She said she also attended the JCPC meeting and received updates from
each organization. She said that compared to COVID, their numbers are going up. She said
that the Juvenile Justice staff commented they are low on staff and working hard.
Commissioner Richards said she attended the Commemoration of Gun Violence
Prevention the previous Friday. She said that with the recent gun violence events, it seemed
particularly meaningful. She said it was Pride Month and that she went to some events over the
weekend. She said she attended the Justice Advisory Council, and the Journey of
Reconciliation event is coming up on June 17th at the courthouse and there will be a court
proceeding.
Commissioner Bedford congratulated all graduating high schoolers and wished them
well. She thanked teachers and staff who got through the year.
Commissioner McKee said that there is an increasing need for more athletic facilities.
He said it started out with baseball but now they need field hockey and lacrosse fields. He said
that the Soccer.com facility is a perfect example of what it can be. He said that he is petitioning
the Board for staff to bring back a report and a plan of action for moving forward for the
purchase or property and athletic facilities because they will be dealing with potential loss of
athletic fields in Hillsborough due to the train station.
Commissioner Hamilton had no announcements.
Commissioner Greene said she attended the Northside Neighborhood Initiative walk-
around. She said that it was good to have historic and distinctive homes pointed out and
thanked George Barrett. She said that they ended the walk on Cobb Street in Carrboro and
there are two new Habitat for Humanity homes, for which Orange County contributed funding.
She said that she sat in on meetings of the Eno-New Hope group that is working on a
connectivity collaboration strategic action plan. She said they are working on ideas to help
preserve wildlife corridors throughout the county.
Chair Price brought the Board's attention to a handout from Orange County Library
about Juneteenth. She said that on June 17th there will be a special court session and program
for a motion for appropriate relief regarding the four gentlemen that were arrested in 1947. She
said that there will be another Juneteenth program Saturday at Hillsborough Presbyterian
Church in conjunction with the Orange County NAACP and the Orange County Historical
Museum with a "Say Their Names" program and a tribute to Ms. Dorothy Shankland. She said
there is a "Walking in our Liberation" event on Monday at 4:00 pm, starting at the Margaret
Lane Cemetery. She echoed Commissioner Bedford's congratulations to graduates. She said
there are a number of summer programs available at Parks and Recreation, various churches
and organizations, and at Cooperative Extension.
3
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Process for Realignment of Regional Workforce Development Boards
The Board received a presentation from North Carolina Department of Commerce staff
regarding the realignment of regional workforce development boards, options for Orange
County for future alignment, and the approval process for proposed realignments.
BACKGROUND: Orange County is currently one of five counties in the Regional Partnership
Workforce Development Board. The other counties are Alamance, Randolph, Montgomery and
Moore. There are currently three Board members appointed by the Board of Commissioners:
Katie Loovis (Chapel Hill Chamber of Commerce), Rhonda Sue Holaday (Summit Design and
Engineering) and Orange County Social Services Director Nancy Coston.
The purpose of the Workforce Development Board is to help job seekers with employment,
education, training and support to succeed in the job market while supplying skilled workers for
employers. The Board also provides oversight for the regional allocation of Workforce
Innovation and Opportunity Act funds. These funds provide services to all populations and
have a particular focus on dislocated workers, youth and other job seekers with specific
barriers.
In 2013, the Orange County Department of Social Services (DSS) won the competitive bid to
operate the youth program in Orange County. In 2017, after a competitive bid process, DSS
became the operator for all the adult and youth programs and the NCWorks Center and has
continued to provide these services and integrated them with the existing employment and
support services at DSS and Skills Development Center. There are other grants and services
provided directly by the regional partnership staff, including business support.
Recently the NCWorks Commission approved a realignment of counties within workforce
boards. Staff from the Department of Commerce will provide information about the proposed
realignment and the impact on Orange County. Commerce staff will also review the steps
required for Orange County to align with another area.
Chet Mottershead and Jenny Harris introduced themselves and gave the following
PowerPoint presentation:
Slide #1
V � � #
METRICS SUPPORTING THE REALIGNMENT OF
GEOGRAPHICALTHE NCWORKS SYSTEM
•- -•
PROSPERITY ZONES •- ECONOMIC, ■ ■
GOVERNMENT
V
4
Chet Mottershead said that Work Force Solution's mission is to connect talent to jobs.
He said that they are 100% federally funded. He said they fund the twenty-two work force
development boards with grant funding received from the US Department of Labor. He said
they have 450 employees and 75% are located at NC Works Career Centers across the state.
Slide #2
State Low:
NC Prosperity Zones: Economic,Education and Government
Regionalism and Collaboration
NC General Statutes§143B-28.1 �..�.� _ '+ ul�i'wow w :^
8 Regional Prosperity Zones .1%P
NC Dept of Commerce _ 4
• Economic Development Partnership of NC
• NC Community College System
• NC Dept of Health and Hunan Services
• NC Dept of Public Instruction
NC Dept of Transportation
• NC Dept of Environmental Quality
• NCSU Industry Expansion Solutions
NOgTH GAROUNf
DEPARTMENT of
MG—Wag-4,WW2� COMMERCE
Chet Mottershead said the purpose of this realignment is to better align economic
development and workforce development. He said this map is how the state apparatus pushes
economic development resources to the regions in the state.
Slide #3
22 WORKFORCE DEVELOPNMENT BOARDS (III UnVLJur1,20221
1- 10 Counties per board Counties for current boards are located in as
(does not promote reglonalisln) many as 3 different Prosperity Zones
• Very in aperationai and procedural Prosperity Zones have 3-6 Workforce Boards
implementations represented with a sl ngle county or more
(does not provide consLsteucy)
17 of the 22 Workforce Development Boards are
Management oversight and economic priorities located in a single Prosperity Zane;with 6 of
differ (does not promote coilahoration) those operating in a single county
0nIEdRTiAltki f
5
Chet Mottershead said that the focus is on Zone 3 tonight. He said that is one of the
boards that is the strongest in the state. He said that Orange County is part of the regional
partnership. He said that NC Works Commission recently passed guiding principles on how to
realign workforce development and economic development. He said that the guiding principles
including things like reducing single county work force boards.
Jenny Harris said that when economic development projects come into the state, they
will pull from a 45-mile radius and if a county is not within one of those work force zones, they
are not a part of the conversation. She said that is a huge driver of realignment at both the
federal and state levels.
Slide #4
Key Factors of Realignment
• The State is YWui@ndating 8l3oards, Realignment does not necessarily mean one specific
number of local workforce boards will be the result_
• Funding for rural counties will not be impacted by any Realignment changes.All counties
receive funds based oneslabllshed US DOL forinulas,
• There will still be local control of allworkforce boards and HCWorks Career Centers.
• We do not foresee massive layoffs with local workforce staff There may be some
admlulstrative savtup,over time.
• Following a request frmn local governments,the State has the statutory authority to
implement realignment for individual boards.2 D EFR 679.24fl allowa the Covernor to
designate a local area,after the appropriate local elected officials nuke such a request.
• E?WS will work with local governments to implement the NCWorks Commission's guiding
principles regarding alignment
�a DlPilRT1iEXT of
MAMERCE
Slide #5
Supporting Data
Connecting Workforce Development and Economic Development
/ + t H411TH CIIRVLIIIA
DEPARTMENT of
COMMERCE
6
Slide #6
WIQA Title I Funding Allocations
■ Title 1 Funding Allocations are calculated at the county level using set
federal formulas.
■ The amounts each county receives are unaffected by realignment.
B efo re
Realignment After Realignment
cw.tp PY;1W3 Adult County "3021 Adak
Fundo Fund+
Oran a i109A21A0 Orange 5109.-qL1,00
11961H CAROLINA
r DEPARTMENT of
COMMERCE
Slide #7
Commuting Patiernsfor Orange County Residents and Employees
78,9% {34,471}of Orange County residents commute to another county far work
• 73,15% 12:5, 1�of indiwid uarls am ployed in Orange County commute from another
county to work
00,90 (22.197)of Orange County residents commute to Durham,Wake,Chatham,Lee
Counties for employment
+ 38,10% (13,256) of Individuals working In Orange County commute from Durham
Wake. Chatham.Johnston. Person Counties for employment
Outflow Inflow
urtam Caunty,NC lum 3MUN urtnrnlau-ty,N[ MM 17,19Yr
e County.NE 7,913 ]Big% aCo.nrr,NC 4030 UAW
m[ourtry,NE N3 LM% dann County.NC 1,SM t549L
Oo-rak,MC 290 6..1111 ohn.ton05.wrT,W Ws 2tU4
um 1rr3y7 3p W% nCounty.NE 491 14A
um 13,�G 3a,L1k
1411M 4f14L��+
10
4 DCPARIM&T of
COMMERCE
Slide #8
Opportunity; Companies Receiving Economic Development Incentives
and HCWorks Workforce Development Services between 40 17-2021
3ra[[yA[rie;receireciaGRe opment services betwa&n
, -
eMFUOMk InCendVE in Ot suLs:
coLrny Pill n
works
aftbe ca[[paniea(o9i)hie Ks
receivedHGYlbrlrawloddorre '
ae"Ces
r MATE
i 851x th4ui..x
{m DE PARTM€OT r
COMMERCE
Jenny Harris said the committee looked at Orange County and workforce boards within
the county to see how many economic development projects took place and how many of those
worked with workforce development services. She said that there are many types of economic
development projects. She said that three received state incentives, but zero projects received
workforce services. She said that you would expect workforce services to be aligned with these
projects, but they have not been.
Slide #9
graining Mobility patterns
96fnrolled � k
Nix[La
Mist College oww1de OM SwNk• rgis[CDuntsr iP of 4 DRS �+WQBS[a rliri rrl a5
Enrollment an Up:ihle Training Provider i
Durham Comm un i4y College 3596 15%wake 2 8 -x l
DEPARTJAEMT {
COMMERCE
8
Jenny Harris said when they look for training, they immediately go to community
colleges because they are providing the training. She said workforce board staff must do
strategic level work to figure out who is best aligned for the work and then vet and hire those
people. She said Durham Technical Community College is where Orange County is heavily
invested. She said they are looking at ways to make it seamless and consistent across the state
and that the priorities are workforce development and meeting the needs of employers.
Slide #10
NCWorks Commission Guiding
Principles
The Governance and SystemAlignment Committee identified 8 guiding
priinciiplesto supportlocal leaders in their realignment efforts.
/ + t NOIITH CAROLIHA
DEPARTMENT of
COMMERCE
Slide #11
Guiding Principles
HCWorks Commission
Governance and System All9ament(emmlttee
1. Seek to better the lives of forth Carolinians through reatignment
2. Expand IDeal warkforcedevelopmentboard arcess
3, Decrease redundancy among local workforce develapment boards with inecanomir
developinentareas
4. Setter align community cotlege and workforce developineut board service areas
5. Match Iocal workforce development board outreaclitoareajobseeker and busuress
customer needs
6, Ensure consistent service,strong visibility,and sufficient capacity among local workforce
devetopmentboards
7, Allow flexibility for administrative entities
8, Consider further reviewof the broader workforce system
COmmr;RCE
9
Chet Mottershead said they are looking to better serve their customers. He said they
feel like a realignment with a board will benefit the Orange County customer base. He said that
the careers center in the county will not change.
Slide #12
Benefits of Re-alignmentaI the NCWorks system
Fewer local workforcedevelopmentboards will be bettertneaurcedtosuppvit
ecanomicdewlopment;despite cuts in federal funds.As a result of realignment;
• No fewerparticipaiits served
F No fewerservices provided
F Noclxangeina]loratiosrpereountymethadology
F No diange in eontrol of trai ning needed
F Greater administrative efficiencies.econamiesofscale
F U3UOL,NC Govenror's Office,EronomicDevelopment Partnership of NC,NC
Community Call ege System supportive of a]igning workforce and economic
development
+ i "011x tIhtrLl
1 DEFARTM&T�f
' COMMERCE
Slide #13
Workforce DevelnpMerill Board Realignment Study Timefins
Activities Timeframe
NCWarks Commission Cha I r announced that the Governance&System
lignmentCommitkeewiIIconductaworkforcedevelopmentboard Novemher2421
sylstem rea I Ign ment study
The Commlttee conducted In-depth Intervlewsandsurueyswith November 2421—
workforce,economic development and education leaders across the February 2022
state.
Govemance&System AllgnmentCommltteevoted on the realignment
Suidingprinciples;Commission members and the public were then able February-M arch 2022
to provide Input for comment perlod of 14 calendardays
NCWorks Commission m"ting to conslderfvoteon realignment guiding March 30,2022
princi pies
Ch lef Local Elected BfFlcla Is may su bmlt req uests for any new Workforce March 50—July 3l,
Development Board Areas to the KChtlbM Commission 2022
Depa rtment of Commerce to p rovide tech nical gu idance on
regional{Iocaiaperatlons and planning+ April 2022-J une 2023
Target date for any new local areas becoming effective;July 1,2023
10
Chet Mottershead said they are looking for local county officials to consider realignment
with the Capital Area Workforce Development Board. He said they want to get it done this
summer because it will be implemented next July. He said Governor Cooper strongly endorsed
the proposal. He said they will bring in a consultant to help at the local level. He said they feel
that it is progress and that it will be better for everyone.
Slide #14
DEPARTMENT of
xt'
Commissioner Fowler said realignment makes sense for the reasons they outlined. She
asked if the Capital Area Workgroup has made any comment.
Chet Mottershead said they have expressed enthusiasm.
Chair Price said she spoke with the Chair of Wake County, and he is enthusiastic
because the counties collaborate so much already.
Commissioner Bedford said she hopes Durham will want to join that group as well.
Chet Mottershead said Durham still has some questions they want answered and they
have concerns. He said that the timeline might be a little longer with Durham. He said that the
realignment is taking longer than anticipated and that any convincing from the commissioners is
welcome.
Chair Price said she spoke to the Durham County Chair and their situation is different
because of the City of Durham. She said that the city makes it more involved.
Chet Mottershead said the City of Durham is the administrative entity as opposed to the
county or a Council of Government (COG).
Commissioner Bedford said it is a conundrum because it would be odd for Orange to not
be aligned with Durham. She asked how the group could facilitate the scenario of combining
Durham and Orange.
Chet Mottershead said in terms of administration of the funds, they are trying to see who
manages the funds the most efficiently. He said that the Capital Area Workforce Board has a
stellar record of managing federal funds, helping job seekers, a strong youth program, on the
job training program, and strong partnerships with reentry councils.
Commissioner Richards asked if there will still be three members on the board after
realignment.
Chet Mottershead said the number is based on a consortium agreement and would work
with the Capital Area to determine that.
Chair Price said there is room for discussion and that she has had that conversation.
Commissioner Richards asked how to ensure that Orange County still has the same
focus when Wake is so much larger.
Chet Mottershead said that is a great point and they feel that moving with Capital Area
is going to give Orange County a stronger voice when employers come, and how policies are
set. He said that leadership recognizes the importance of all counties being represented. He
11
said they previously provided Johnston County with a higher level of funding because they
understood the need to help rural citizens and make sure counties are effectively resourced.
Commissioner Richards said that the materials said that Orange County won a
proposed bid to run a youth program. She asked if there will be another competitive process
going forward and if there will be local management of the youth programs.
Chet Mottershead said this would be decided through the consortium agreement.
Jenny Harris said that discussing the consortium agreement will be the next step when
new counties come together. She said there is a federal formula for the makeup of a workforce
board, and it must be representative of the entire workforce of the region.
Commissioner Hamilton said she is struggling to understand what these boards do. She
referenced back to the three companies in Orange County that received state funding but zero
workforce support and asked what that could have looked like.
Jenny Harris defined that a project is the combination of capital investment and the
creation of jobs when an existing company has ideas to expand. She said that projects come
into workforce boards and receive assistance with all the other types of incentives that may be
out there. She said what that could have looked like is that a staff member from workforce
would have been with the economic development staff at the meetings with the company so
they could make sure they are getting access to all of the possible incentives and aid that is out
there, so they are more likely to succeed.
Commissioner Hamilton asked for clarification on the workforce staff not being there.
Jenny Harris said those three employers did not receive any outreach from the
workforce development board staff.
Commissioner Hamilton asked where the federal money goes.
Chet Mottershead said there are three buckets---youth, adults, and dislocated workers.
He said they always want to make sure the primary use is for training opportunities, and once
trained, there are services that put them back to work. He said they want to make sure the
federal dollars are most effectively utilized. He said they also provide on the job training
programs where the funds are used to support the first six months of a new employee's job.
Commissioner Hamilton said that she wants to go back to the $109,000 and asked if
there is a program like that, would the money go to a company for on-the-job training.
Chet Mottershead said yes.
Commissioner Bedford asked what happens if Orange County is not happy with the
change after realignment.
Chet Mottershead said there is plenty of time between now and next July to work
everything out. He said that like any change will take compromise but overall, they feel it is a
better fit and will be better for Orange County.
Commissioner Fowler said if they are aligned there is still the need for the economic
development board to communicate with workforce development boards. She asked why that
did not happen and how can it be done better.
Jenny Harris said that in 2015 when the prosperity zones were created, it was for the
sole purpose of aligning the support services that go with economic development. She said that
is why there is representation from each prosperity zone. She said that there are a million
different reasons the workforce side didn't receive the same, but that Governor Cooper wants to
see it happen now because the federal Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) says
that workforce and economic development need to be aligned. She said that the state system is
looking at the prosperity zone map and the workforce boards and seeing the complications and
inefficiencies of them. She said that the employers do not deserve to not benefit from workforce
services because it is confusing.
Commissioner Fowler asked if each county still has its own training center that would
still be five different groups.
12
Chet Mottershead said that the new Capital Area Workforce Board set policies for all
counties in the zone. He said that those policies would apply to all counties equally.
Commissioner Fowler asked if they could all be serving the new company or those job
seekers.
Chet Mottershead said yes. He said that right now it is a regional partnership and Moore
and Montgomery counties are working with Orange County to determine what the priorities
should be. He said they believe Orange County's customers will be better served working with
Capital Area.
Commissioner Greene asked when the realignment will take place.
Bonnie Hammersley said tonight the Board will direct staff to draft a letter of intent for
the NC Works Commission. She said that will then be brought back to the Board for a vote,
hopefully by June 21st
Chair Price said she was on the workforce development board and attended meetings in
Alamance and Moore counties and it was so different than the work happening there. She said
that the issues here are part of the Triangle. She said that some of the interests of Randolph
and Moore are so different than the jobs that they are seeking here because Orange County is
part of the Triangle. She said she is encouraged by this because it brings Orange County into
the Capital Area and working regionally on these issues just makes sense to be aligned. She
said that for 3-4 years she was on a steering committee called community, economic, and
workforce development and they looked at all those issues at the same time so to see the
property zones aligning with the workforce boards is common sense.
A motion was made by Commissioner Bedford, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to
authorize staff to coordinate the realignment process as prescribed by the Department of
Commerce and to provide a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners.
Commissioner Bedford said it is important that Orange County be aligned with Durham
because of Durham Tech, so Orange County may need some flexibility, just as Durham has
been given on the timeline.
Chair Price said that Durham Tech is on board and in support of this realignment. She
said that Durham County is taking a bit longer because of their structure.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Voluntary Agricultural District Designation — Multiple Farms
The Board received a presentation from North Carolina Department of Commerce staff
regarding the realignment of regional workforce development boards, options for Orange
County for future alignment, and the approval process for proposed realignments.
BACKGROUND: Orange County's Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program was started in
1992. To date there are 138 farms in both the Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the
Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) program —totaling 16,845 * acres.
The County's Voluntary Farmland Protection Ordinance (VFPO) outlines a procedure for the
Agricultural Preservation Board to review and approve applications for qualifying farmland, and
to make recommendations to the Board of Commissioners concerning the establishment and
modification of agricultural districts. Section VII of the VFPO contains the requirements for
inclusion in a voluntary agricultural district. To be certified as qualifying farmland, a farm must:
(1) Be located in the unincorporated area of Orange County;
13
(2) Be used for bona fide farm purposes, as that term is defined in G.S. 106-743.4(a) and
G.S. 160D-903;
(3) Be in accordance with the minimum size requirements, which are as follows:
(a) Consist of at least (i) one contiguous acre of land in production for horticultural or
agricultural purposes; or (ii) at least twenty total acres of land under management for
forestry;
(b) In the event that a landowner has multiple tracts of qualifying farmland that are
eligible, and those tracts are located within one mile or less of each other, then they
may comprise a Voluntary Agricultural District.
(4) Be managed in accordance with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and N.C.
Division of Soil and Water Conservation defined erosion-control practices and have a
current conservation farm plan and/or forestry management plan associated with the
current usages and owner; and
(5) Be the subject of a conservation agreement, as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121-35,
between the County and the owner of such land that prohibits non-farm use or
development of such land for a period of at least ten years, except for the creation of
not more than three lots that meet applicable County zoning and subdivision
regulations.
The Orange County Agricultural Preservation Board reviewed the findings of the staff
assessments for the attached applications for the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District
program at its regular meeting in May, 2022. All farm applications were reviewed and verified to
have met or exceeded the minimum criteria for certification into the program.
The Agricultural Preservation Board voted to recommend approval of the certification for these
five (5) farms, and their inclusion in the Voluntary and/or the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural
District programs. The certification documentation is on file in the DEAPR/Soil and Water
Conservation District office. The farms are described briefly below:
Brief Farm Descriptions:
1) Owners Jeanne and Larry Crabtree have submitted an application to enroll one (1) parcel of
land totaling 14.46 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD)
in the Caldwell Agricultural District. The farm operation includes corn and soybeans.
2) Owner Jennifer Noah, Trustee of Sarah A. Clayton Trust, has submitted an application to
enroll one (1) parcel of land totaling 14.46 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary
Agricultural District (VAD) in the Caldwell Agricultural District. The farm operation includes
corn and soybeans.
3) Owners Richard and Jamie Holcomb of Coon Rock Farm have submitted an application to
enroll three (3) parcels of land totaling 42.77 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary
Agricultural District (VAD) program in the New Hope Agricultural District. The farm operation
includes vegetable production, pasture, and managed forestry and woodland.
4) Owners Glenn and Payton Rose have submitted an application to enroll one (1) parcel of
land totaling 19.51 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD)
14
program in the New Hope Agricultural District. The farm operation includes vegetable and
herb production and woodlands.
5) Owners William and Sandra Totten have submitted an application to enroll one (1) parcel of
land totaling 29.64 acres as qualifying farmland for the Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD)
program in the Schley/Eno Agricultural District. The farm operation includes managed
forestry and woodland.
Jessica Perrin gave the following PowerPoint presentation:
Slide #1
Action Agenda
ORANGE COUNTY Item le.a-b
NORTH CAROLINA
Orange County
Voluntary Farmland Preservation Program
Vol untary Agric ultu ra I District(VAD)Applications
Orange County Board of Commissions Meeting
June 7,2022
Slide #2
Orange County VADIEVAD Program Benefits
YMunlary Anarlcuku ral Gl ldcr WAD);R4qulros o 106V*W commltm4nt for tpnd is r4marn In fa+m
use cc forestmanagemeirt Thelsndovmef can wittdraw f rmnthe VAD Et any time,forany reason,
with a 30day notificafsonto theAgnicullural Prasenration Board.
Erkhhrmoetl Vaf u nfar V Airrltuku raf Clistrfcf 1EVAG1.Requires an irravocabla 10-year commilmentfor
lend to rurem In iarm us4 or lkwesi ma+aig4ment,Quallflsa fa+m far up 01aD%cask 0ws rnlsa and
prdoary foeou"rstalt and fk"gmm fwWs,
Bern0wlndude:
Increesedpubic awmenessafrocal agdcubxe and im vital falein the economicsafthe ccunty.
VAD sgnap on farm to proa+do nollflcaban Who locellcn of VA D EVAD rarms.
Land wordssaarch onae%)mpsrtlsawAhln a Vz mII►radlus aba 9rovld4s+natrk*1Icac4VRDor
EVAD etatua.
AgeK%Aural Pre"rvailce Board can n4gmstpvollc h4m wgs foe propoaidcondenyw1ceof VAD
rend.
L Mty sesessments maybe suspended or watered cm Lw d in EVAD if ndr cannacfad rn the uh Ry.
EVADfarm may rocalve uplo 25%.olgrossseloafwm1ho solo-of nDn4mmyroductsand sde
mwooln Its aaning 4x"W h as a bona fld4 farm.
ORANGE COUNTY
tii�IX]']r CAR011NA
15
Slide #3
VAD Application
Jeanne and Larry Crabtree
YM1•Y5�Y
• 14,40ooes,o"parcelof LwW,Cod wellhgmumural Dow
Cam and 5aybeane.Dccaeionellywheat
ORANGE COUNTY
NaOFrrl r CARDL[NA
Slide #4
VAD Application
Jennifer Noah, Trustee of Sarah A. Clayton Trust
i T { 997 S2bB#U
• 14,46acas,a+�parcMof�r+d,�a�d,wllAgr�c�rluraldlsb+cl _
Cam end SDybeene.Occasionally wheat t
ORANGE COUNTY
?ODFM r CAADLINA
16
Slide #5
VAtiD Application
Coon Rook Farm, LL
Richard and .Jamie Holcomb
.9 t
may{
�f n
r F
4277ac res.Wet pa+c-els-of land,N"HopeAgwc,Alural Da4dck _.
Vegetable pmdwlan,pasture,and awmragedforesiryend woodland ORANGE COUNTY
1,oORT]r CARLDL[NA
Slide #6
VAtiD Application
Glean (Weston) and Payton Bose
F
l
19,61 Beres,or4 yarcN of Wd, N"Hop&Agrlculkow Dlstwcl �.
• Vegetable end herb pn}duo6onand wocdlends. ORANGE COUNTY
�,OR I I I I.ARl A IN:3
17
Slide #7
AD Applrcatron
William and Sandra Totten
9935d56500
r�
dkIRFk1F�
COUNTY
2D.84*cas,o".ParcMc44P+d,Sch1oy1En4Agdewlhwa Doldck 4
Mana fled fomehy and woodland. ORANGE COUNTY
M OFM[CARMINA
Slide #8
Orange County VAD/EV D Program
The Agrii�ulturaI Preservation Board has recommended all of the
Voluntary Agricultural District applications for approval as
presented.
Requesting approval from the Board of County Commissionersto
accept five (5�farms into the Orange County VAD program.
121 new acres proposed for the VA D program.
ro r Jed acres
ORANGE COUNTY
�'k')RTl[( ARG1.LNA
18
Slide #9
v��,ay,�priculh�r�r�;,cvrco�
Orange County
g VAD/EVAD Program Acreage
.1.cGw.. -�- •{ S•�4sR
-k _I • „ June 2022
# r,t61j
i r VAD■ 14,371 acres'
H" EVAD=2,585 acres`
F
Haaa.m� =imndid xua,.7dAag i&l and Wovak
„• d VAD Program 0ocrdlnawr-Jesslc Nrrin
DEAPR-Sdancl WaterConaarmlon
Maps cree6ed by:
t Brlwey Pendsown
Oraeg&County Land Rocordx
N-
ORANGE COUNTY
list raorcr]r CAROLINA
Commissioner Greene said it is always wonderful to see these applications come
forward. She thanked Jessica Perrin for her work.
Chair Price thanked Jessica Perrin for her work and for increasing the acreage in
conservation. She asked that thank you letters be sent to each farmer.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to
certify the five farm properties noted above totaling 121 acres; designate them as Voluntary
Agricultural District farms within the Caldwell, New Hope, and Schley/Eno Voluntary Agricultural
Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Farmland Preservation Program's Voluntary
Agricultural District (VAD) program.
Commissioner Richards asked if there is a percentage of what the total numbers are
and if there is a goal.
Jessica Perrin asked if she is looking for what percentage 16,966 acres is to the total
acreage in Orange County.
Commissoiner Richards said yes.
Jessica Perrin said she can get that information to the Board.
Commissioner Richards said she has been trying to figure out if there is a preservation
goal.
Chair Price said no.
Commissioner McKee said this started off slowly and it was viewed with a bit of
suspicion. He said farmers wondered about the unseen ramifications. He said that in regards to
the percentage, it would be very small, but it is significant because he is unsure if any other
county is matching this or is close. He said there are a lot of farmer protections with it.
Commissioner Bedford asked for information on the protection from condemnation.
Jessica Perrin said she thinks that is referring to any government taking of the land for
public use.
Commissioner Richards asked if there are tax considerations for this designation.
19
Commissioner McKee said not for this designation. He said the tax designation comes
under farm use. He said that is with state law. He said that comes with a significant reduction.
Bonnie Hammersley said that she had the answer to Commissioner Richard's question
about acreage. She said that it makes up just under 7% of the total acreage in Orange County.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5. Public Hearings
a. Second Public Hearing and Proposed Orange County FY 2022-23 HOME Annual Action
Plan and Activities
The Board held a second public hearing on the Annual Action Plan for the HOME Investment
Partnerships Program and considered:
1) Adoption of a Resolution authorizing submission of the FY 2022-2023 Annual Action
Plan;
2) Adoption of a Resolution approving the proposed HOME Program Activities for FY 2022-
2023; and
3) Authorizing the County Manager to implement the HOME Program as approved by the
BOCC, including the ability to execute agreements with partnering nonprofit
organizations after consultation with the County Attorney and based on the allocation
received from HUD.
BACKGROUND:
Annual Action Plan
Every year, state and local governments ("Participating Jurisdictions") that receive HOME
Investment Partnerships Program ("HOME") funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development ("HUD") are required to complete an Annual Action Plan that lays out how
they will allocate HUD funds for the upcoming program year in order to address the goals and
priorities in the Consolidated Plan. A summary of the draft Annual Action Plan for FY 2022-2023
is provided at Attachment 1.
Orange County is a special type of Participating Jurisdiction, called a Consortium, consisting of
Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough. Orange County
serves as the lead entity for the Orange County HOME Consortium. The Consortium completed
the Annual Action Plan based on the HOME award recommendations made by the Local
Government Affordable Housing Collaborative, detailed in the section below.
A public comment period, as required by HUD, was established for April 1 — May 2, 2022, and a
public hearing was held on the draft Annual Action Plan at the April 26, 2022 Orange County
Board of Commissioners meeting. Public notice of the hearing was posted in The Herald Sun
and La Noticia. Copies of the draft Annual Action Plan were posted on the Orange County
Department of Housing and Community Development website, and a link to the website and
draft plan were circulated by public notice in the newspapers listed above, as well as email
outreach to more than 100 relevant stakeholders to include local service providers, nonprofit
organizations, government entities, elected officials, and interested residents. All comments
have been incorporated into the final Annual Action Plan to be submitted to HUD.
In April, HUD issued Notice CPD-22-05 instructing HOME Participating Jurisdictions to not
submit Annual Action Plans until the actual grant amounts have been determined by HUD. HUD
20
announced those amounts on May 17, 2022, necessitating this second public hearing on the
proposed FY2022-23 HOME awards with correct funding amounts. Public notice for this second
public hearing was also posted in The Herald Sun and La Noticia. Copies of the revised draft
Annual Action Plan were posted on the Orange County Department of Housing and Community
Development website, and a link to the website and draft plan were circulated by public notice
in the newspapers listed above, as well as email outreach to more than 100 relevant
stakeholders to include local service providers, nonprofit organizations, government entities,
elected officials, and interested residents. Staff will incorporate all comments into the final
Annual Action Plan to be submitted to HUD.
The FY 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan must be submitted to HUD on or before July 17, 2022.
The Board of Commissioners is therefore asked to consider approval of the attached resolution
authorizing submission of the Annual Action Plan (Attachment 2).
FY 2022-2023 HOME Program Activities
For FY 2022-2023, Orange County will receive the following HOME resources:
FY 2022-2023 HOME Funds $ 443,498
HOME Program Income $ 13,306
Local Match $ 99,787
Total $ 556,591
The Local Government Affordable Housing Collaborative (the "Collaborative"), comprised of
one (1) elected official and staff members from Orange County and the Towns of Carrboro,
Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough, reviewed the received applications for the FY 2022-2023 HOME
Program on March 3, 2022, and again after actual HOME allocations were announced by HUD
on May 17, 2022. The Collaborative made the following funding recommendations for
consideration by each of the jurisdictions' elected bodies:
Applicant and Project HOME HOME
Request Award
Community Empowerment Fund — Homebuyer $50,000 $90,000
Assistance
EmPOWERment— Rental Acquisition $ 105,000 $ 105,000
Gateway — Debt Refinancing and Rental Units $771,800 $0
Rehabilitation
Habitat for Humanity— Homebu er Assistance $ 475,000 $ 167,241
Rebuilding Together of the Triangle - Homeowner $ 150,000 $ 150,000
Rehabilitation/Reconstruction
Administration 10% of HOME Funds, per statute $ 44,350 $ 44,350
Total $ 1,551,800 $ 556,591
As the chart above shows, all applicants except for the Gateway project received either full or
partial funding. The Gateway application requested debt refinancing and unit upgrades for a
project-based Section 8 apartment complex in Hillsborough and requested more funding
($771,800) than the Consortium expects to have for all projects for the FY 2022-2023 HOME
Program ($439,392). Discussions with the applicant revealed that partial funding for this project
would not be a viable option, because the debt refinancing must be paired with the renovations.
The applicant asked if partial funding could be guaranteed over a 5-year period, but HOME
21
funds do not allow for multiyear allocations. Staff is working with this project applicant to pursue
other funding streams to preserve affordable housing resource at Gateway.
Two other projects also received a different amount of funding from their application amounts.
The Collaborative members were concerned that the Community Empowerment Fund (CEF)
funding requested of $2,000 per homebuyer would not be a substantive amount for potential
new homeowners in the current housing market climate once these funds will come available
for use starting July 1, 2022, and increased the CEF award amount to $4,000 per homebuyer
for 20 homebuyers (subtotal, $80,000) in addition to the $10,000 in overhead in the original
application (total award, $90,000). After also fully funding the EmPOWERment rental
acquisition property application ($105,000) and the Rebuilding Together of the Triangle
homeowner rehabilitation ($150,000), Collaborative members awarded the balance of available
funding ($167,241) to Habitat for Humanity for down-payment assistance. A summary of each
of the above projects is provided at Attachment 3.
In accordance with the Orange County HOME Consortium Agreement, approved in May 2011,
the HOME Program Design for each year must be approved by all jurisdictions prior to
submission to HUD. The HOME Program Design is scheduled for approval by the:
• Town of Chapel Hill on June 8, 2022
• Town of Hillsborough on June 13 2022; and
• Town of Carrboro on June 14, 2022.
The Board of Commissioners is therefore asked to consider approval of the attached HOME
Program Design Resolution (Attachment 4).
HOME Program Implementation
After approval of the FY 2022-2023 HOME Program Design by all Consortium participants,
authorization is requested to allow the Orange County Manager, based on the HUD allocation
received, to execute agreements with partnering nonprofit organizations as necessary to
implement the approved HOME Program Design. All agreements will be reviewed and
approved by the County Attorney's Office.
Corey Root, Housing and Community Development Director, gave the following
PowerPoint presentation:
Slide #1
ORANGE COUNTY
Q HOUSING DEPARTMENT
FY2023 HOME Annual Action Plan
June i,2022
22
Slide #2
There are several elements for HOME item
HOME Overview
FY22-23 HOME Funding Application
Process
Annual Action Plan Overview
Public Hearing
ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Slide #3
Four purposes&four uses of HONM funds
-Purposes
Increase the supply of decent,affordable housing to law-Income
households
• Expand the capacity of nonprofit housing providers
5trengt#ien the ability of state and local governments to provide
housing
Leverage private sector participation
-Uses
Acquisrtion of real property, site improvements,&housing
construction
Housing rehabilitation&reconstruction
• Homeownership assistance
Tenant-based rental assistance ROUNTY
HU51NG DEPARTMENT
Slide #4
FY22-23 HOME application process was
similar to previous years
•Project applications due February 25
Applications were reviewed and scored Local Government
Affordable Housing Collaborative and staff from Towns and
County
Scoring criteria
Income targeting
Vulnerable population(s)
Long-term affordability
Project locatron relative to services&employment
Leveraging other funding
Cost effectiveness
Capacity to complete project
•Award recommendations made by Collaborative
23
Slide #5
This year Orange County has $556,591 to
award for HOME projects
FY 2022-2023 HOME Funds $443,496
HOME program Income $ 13,306
Local Match $ 99,767
ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Slide #6
5 agencies submitted progtam applications
HOME
Applicant and Project Request
community Empowerment Fund - Flornelbuyerl $50,000 $so,oao
Assistance
Em-• - - $ 105,0m $ 105,000
Gateway - Dett Refinancing and Rental Units $771.&00 $0
Rehabilitation
$475,000 $ 167,241
. . ,
$ 150,0m $150,000
:.
r • $ 44.350 $ 44,350
- 1 $1,551,800 $554,591
Corey Root said it is a little unusual for an applicant to receive more money than
requested, but the collaborative decided to award Community Empowerment Fund —
Homebuyer Assistance more than the request because the original amount was $2,000 per
homebuyer and the collaborative felt that the current housing climate called for more and
increased the amount to $4,000 per homebuyer. She said that Gateway was not awarded any
funds because any partial award would not have been helpful, based on conversations with the
applicant.
24
Slide #7
Annual Action Plan(AAP)updates 5-year
Consolidated Plan that covers 2020-2025
Includes HOME funding awards
•Chapel Hill creates separate AAP for
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
0.wYur 6dator rFe Number of 11ouae6d6 W Om Yw GdOwtim NurrrbmdNura.hd�
e.s� n.d TM
Ho Len 1 Ilerrtal AasiHanm 0
NSnHpmplpy 7g Ihg rYgdi[[gn(11 NpurVMS 0
Nehab.tbMLrg llnhs 7
—1 2p A� idtWn 0 PxMing Vnrlf 17
TOW a
nORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Slide #8
Annual Action Plan(AAP)updates 5-year
Consolidated Plan that covers 2020-2025
Ar n 1 Gcm1 Brad❑bimli %
Sre heal hanr Srure tad � Gaep
Y arie Mrrb FYxJwp Goal6rraenm.
011k. V_ Yw A— Addr•aMd rMwra
L H_krye+ A)22 2ii27 AHudeble Orerke Dv pq� 5257,241 Dr
ArvNansa HDsW OwntV asri6larrce Financial
Acurrvo-rn
F*nmHrd]L
bores V..
Ra Lpl+w^Ikm 2W 2017 Affordable [ rbo Ilfta dA. SM.9m 1 r j
Hanme hwc'g auwad
Hon rk» aR.Wt..
N_
Homekaa
�Peaad
Ha•dr
HmWig 7W2 2027 Aflmdablr Orange RNnrdabk 5156,000 Rentalunlb
RrhabilhalkW HD-4 Loamy h-wk, rchahll A.&
Preis.ration vna.rnion YUnii�
Na.
H �
Need.
Slide #9
`Towns are voting on HOME program
design this month
-Town of Chapel Will June 8, 2022
-Town of Hillsborough June 13 2022
Town of Carrboro June 14, 2022
ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
25
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to
open the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
No one signed up to speak at the public hearing.
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to
close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to
adopt a Resolution authorizing submission of the FY 2022-2023 Annual Action Plan; adopt and
authorize the Chair to sign a Resolution approving the proposed HOME Program Activities for
FY 2022-2023; and authorize the County Manager to implement the HOME Program as
approved by the BOCC, including the ability to execute agreements with partnering nonprofit
organizations after consultation with the County Attorney and based on the allocation received
from HUD.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Regular Agenda
a. Longtime Homeowner Assistance (LHA) Additional Information
The Board received information and considered options for the LHA property tax program in
2022.
BACKGROUND: At the May 24, 2022 Business meeting, staff provided the Board with detailed
cost estimates for options to change the LHA program design. The Board of County
Commissioners reviewed the options and requested additional information from staff. A
summary of information provided at this meeting:
• Additional statement for the informational insert: If you received assistance from this
program on your 2021 tax bill, you DO NEED TO APPLY again to qualify for assistance
on your 2022 tax bill.
• An estimated 20,009 owner-occupied residential properties owned for 5 or more years
will have an increase in their County tax.
• An estimated 9,704 owner-occupied residential properties owned for 10 or more years
will have an increase in their County tax.
• Staff estimated the following number of households at the Area Median Income levels:
Estimated owner-
occupied
Income level households in OC
Over 80%AMI 9,984
61-80%AMI 3,181
31-60%AMI 3,622
30%AMI and under 3,241
TOTAL 80%AMI and below 10,045
26
Community Outreach
Please find the community outreach plan for the 2021 Longtime Homeowner Assistance
program included as Attachment 1. Staff created the materials enumerated in this plan (flyer,
FAQ) and performed extensive outreach in communities and via the local media. In addition to
this completing all activities in this communication plan, Housing staff also organized and
staffed three in-person events to help people complete LHA applications and distributed
information about these events in English and Spanish-language flyers (Attachment 2). The
Housing Department also mailed LHA flyers to every resident of Fairview and Piney Grove
communities, and printed copies for every resident of Northside to receive LHA flyers along with
the monthly neighborhood newsletter.
Expanded community outreach is a key issue for the 2022 LHA program. Staff will include an
LHA program insert in the Orange County Tax Assistance Application Packet and included in
the real property tax bills mailed in July 2022. Staff will continue to work with community
organizations and networks to get the information out about the 2022 LHA program. Staff will
continue to have materials available in languages other than English, and to have information
available via a variety of channels including the media, community partners, and County
programs including offices and the Housing Helpline. Staff will work with program participants
and the groups that work with them to understand and craft and implement a plan for expanded
outreach.
Durham County Property Tax Relief Program
In 2021, Durham implemented a property tax relief program similar to LHA — there were 340
total number of applicants and 204 approvals. Durham expects the number of applicants will
increase 100% for the 2022 year based on lowering the number of years the applicant must
have owned and lived in the property from 10 years to 5 years. Durham will be changing its
program design to reflect a tiered award amount based on income. This year the award amount
will be 50% of the tax amount of the last tax bill available not to exceed:
• $1,000 for 61-80% AMI
• $1,250 for 31-60% AMI
• $1,500 for 30% AMI and below
Durham County implemented a communication plan for its program that targeted faith-based
organizations, used presentations at local agencies, traditional media and social media, along
with a program insert in tax bills. Durham County plans to change the insert this year to inform
homeowners that the County can reimburse funds if homeowners have already paid their tax bill
when the award is approved. There is not a plan for prioritizing the awards, and it will be
provided on a first come first served system. In addition, staff plans to communicate with the
Durham County Board of Commissioners if additional funding is needed to cover all
applications received.
Prioritizing Awards
At the May 24th meeting, the Board of Commissioners asked staff to present options for
prioritizing LHA applications based on need, should prioritization be needed because
application awards exceed available funding. First-come, first-served prioritizations favor people
with lower service needs, and therefore are not recommended. Staff recommends using the
following factors (in combination or alone) to determine need:
• Tax burden — percentage of total tax bill divided by household income; higher
percentages to be prioritized over lower percentages
o Staff recommend using tax burden as the highest prioritization factor
27
• Age —older homeowners prioritized over younger homeowners
o Staff recommend using age as the second highest prioritization factor
• Length of time in home — people who have been in homes longer (or in the case or heirs
or trust properties, families who have been in homes longer) prioritized over
people/families who have been in homes a shorter amount of time
o Staff recommend using length of time in home as the third prioritization factor
Other prioritization factors could include:
• Income — people at lower income levels prioritized over people at higher income levels
• Geography — people in certain neighborhoods or areas of Orange County prioritized
over people in other neighborhood or areas of Orange County
How this can work: staff will process applications as they are submitted to determine eligibility
and total potential award amounts. After the application period closes on December 1, 2022,
staff will assess the total potential award amount for all eligible applicants — if this is less than
the available program funding, all approved applications will be awarded. If awards are
projected to exceed available program funding, staff will arrange applications in priority order
based on the prioritization factors chosen by the Board. If the Board adopts the staff
recommended criteria above, this will mean prioritizing all eligible applications first by tax
burden, then age, and then length of time in home.
After prioritization, awards can be made either in full (full awards for all prioritized eligible
applications up to available program funding, and applications beyond that amount not
receiving any award) or on a percentage basis using maximum award amounts for as many
applicants as possible, ensuring that all eligible applications receive some award. For example,
the top 50% of prioritized eligible applications could receive full awards while those prioritized
lower would receive a percentage of their award. Staff could calculate the percentage to use for
partial awards based on available funding and award amounts, ensuring that applicants
receiving partial awards receive the highest award possible using all available funding.
Corey Root made the following presentation:
Slide #1
no�c
ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING&COMMUNITY➢EVELOPMENT
Longtime Homeowner Assistance
(LHA) Further Information
June 7,2022
28
Slide #2
Staff returningwith more info on Longtime
Homeo,Amer Assistance program
•Brief overview
= Revised homeownership calculation
estimates and methodology
Revised cost estimates
•Prioritization options
QCHCD
Slide #3
Orange County is considering options for
2022 Longtime HomeovvmerAssistance
• Program piloted in 2021 to cover increases in
County portion of property tax
2021 pilot program
•91 eligible applications
•$97 median award amount
Staff have worked with community partners to
propose program changes for 2022
11-01
Corey Root noted the low application numbers and the low median award amount. She
said they have worked extensively to make change to make this program more impactful.
Slide #4
Pending budget approval,$250,000 available
for 2022 program,some changes approved
•Adjust program operation dates to August 1-
December 1, 2022
Include informational insert with tax assistance
application packet to increase awareness about LHA
Formalized LHA policy for heirs' properties
•Formalized policy for Family Trust owned properties
•Require applicant provide copy of targeted tax bill
Reduce the requirement to have owned and lived in
the home from 10 years to 5 years to increase access
to the program
QCHCD
29
Slide #5
Homeownership
Methodology
Slide #6
Staff found better source of
homeov nership by income data
-Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS) data
• https:JJwww.huduser.gov}porta1/datasets/q htmI
• Slightly different cut offs of 50% AM instead of 60%
AMI—staff used these interchangeably
I�.yM,l�i.l.for 4r�S�iii•.vrrih S•rhr.
x.-r x.Lrr•n:a•n9mx 5[S
Slide #7
Staff used Tax Office numbers of 5-and 10-year
homer xvners-,N ith%of hameov.,nership
•Owner-occupied residential properties in OC
•Owned for 10+years 9,704
•Owned for 5+ years 20,009
year owner-
hornPGVMa
4vor00%AN 24,215 74% 141M 7,221
61.80%AM1 4,125 IS% 2,636 1,230
31-50%AM1 2.115 15% 1.301 631
39%AMI and under 2.080 6% 1.279 620
TOTAL In OC 32,540 100% 20,008 9,703
TOTAL 80%AN and
below 8,320 26% 5.116 2,481
30
Slide #8
Revised
Estimates
Slide #9
$300 minimum LHA award results in $1.5
million total liability for 5-year occupancy
" S 1,534,892 $ 383,701 S 767.401 5 1,151,102
yea
0
1 $ 744.351 $ M.688 $ 372.176 $ 558,263
^CHCD
Slide #10
5 YEAR OCCUPANCY Covering half of
tax bill up to capped amounts
Ino"a in
•2536 1W% NIA $ 500 S 1.266.241
1W1 67% $1.007 $ 750 S 96 533
1279 5% $1,063 $1,000 S 722.652
5,116 S 2,859,428
Slide31
YEAR OCCUPANCY.
tax bill up to cappedREVISED
9S 2U21 apps Average of
pwner. wrGPunry ra■hill
occupied partipn of hiq under�■
housenolds PYBr2M fad][ max Ihax
Incarne In OC assisrnnce asslssnnce .Rssis[anca. Total
AMI
37 A646
AMI
3496A6A1
and under 0 goo 6 r
2.215.519
TQTRL
Slide #12
10
90°�AMI
antl hMaw
YEAR OCCUPANCY:Covering half of
tax bifl up to capped
°lr 2U21 apps Rv ore yc v1
Owner. wlGPunty fax hill
vtcupied ppltiPn of hiq under 7x
housenolds arer�x max ma: Max
Incvnre in OG assistants assrsmnce .Rssis[anca Total
. 1w% NIA $ Soo S. 515.074
AMI
3l A096
f i
AMI
30R5AM1 r r iii 3M.473
altd under
TOTAL
•09G AMI2,01 4Slide #13
antl helrnri
10
YEAR OCCUPA.NLCY-.Covering half of
tax bill up to cappedREVISED
9S 2fr21 apps Average aF
Owner. wiGaunFy rax bdl
accupind portion Pf hiq under 2x
nousEhv]ds arer7xrndx max Max
Income in OG assYstnnce asslstante RssisSanc!" Satal
$1 849b 0 r r, 3619.044
AMI
31$4°la
$1.007 s :ii 5 358.150
Ahdl
3056AM1 r
and under
TQTRL
2,4H s 1.074.486
antl Iselaw
32
Slide #14
5 YEAR OCCUPANCY-. Capping tax amount based on
income (CHALICE: $1,500 average tax bill,riot $ ,954)
61-80j%Ml 25M MOO 52,292 S S - 51,529 S - S -
31-WI- M 1301 557,30O `61,719 9 S - $1.148 S 354 3 460.395
30%AMud 1279 L2B950 IS830 t W $B19,2d1 1573 S 927 1,185965
under
TOTAL M%
AMU vW 8,1110 7819,2U1 S1 BAE,U26
dNDl4
Slide #15
10 YEAR OCCUPANCY. Capping tax amount based on
income (CHANCE: $1,500 average tax bill,not $ ,954)
-Owher- FAward Award
8 -eftM9 1,230 S-A%" 52,M2 S - S - 51,529 S - $ -
31-60j%AW 031 557,300 $1,719 6 - S - $1,1416 6 354 3 223278
',10%AM Rid 620 528950 $i5M $ 611 S 397297 5573 L 927 3 575.011
under
TOTAL W%
ALAI w o 2.M % 3aF,g7: # 7ee,29o-
belay
Corey Root said she used $1,500 for the average tax bill rather than $3,000 because
those with lower incomes tend to have a lower bill.
33
Slide #16
Prioritization
Slide #17
Staff recommend using prioritization based
on need,should prioritization be needed
-First-come, first-served favor people with
lower service needs
Factors could be used alone or in
combination
•Tax burden
-Age of homeowner
-Length of time in home
HCQ
Slide #18
Jackson Center model for prioritization for
their property tax program
-Tax burden calculated first
-Property tax/income
-(Age of homeowner + number of years in
the community) x tax burden x multiplying
factor
Multiplying factor currently .67
-Adjusted to meet amount of funding available
each year GCHC❑
Commissioner Bedford said that she does not fully understand where the .67 amount is
coming from.
34
Chair Price asked for questions to wait until after the presentation.
Slide #19
Operationaliaing prioritization options
•Staff process LHA applications as they are
submitted to determine
• Eligibility
• Potential total award amount
•If total award amount{$250,000, make all
awards
GCHCD
Slide #20
Operation alizing prioritization if potential
awards amounts outstrip available funding
•If total award amount a$250,000,staff can
arrange apps in priority order
•Awards can either be made
•In full for limited numberof households up to available
funding
•Partially for all eligible applicants
In full for some eligible applicants and partially for other
eligible applicants
• Example:top 50%of prioritized eligible applicant receive full awards,
bottom 50%of prioritized eligible applicants receive a portion of their
award based on available funding H CD
Slide #21
Staff request Board direction for 2022 LHA
program
•Program design
Prioritization
QCHCD
35
Commissioner Richards noted that the 10-to-5-year homeownership requirement really
increases the impact. She said that this is estimated at 100% usage and even 25% would be a
huge increase to last year.
Commissioner Fowler asked what portion of the bill this would cover.
Corey Root said all these scenarios cover the Orange County portion.
Commissioner Fowler asked if this means that people in the 31%-60% and 60%-80%
would not get assistance.
Corey Root said using these averages but that this is the highest income estimated and
each situation would be calculated individually.
Commissioner Bedford asked for information on how the multiplying factor of .67 is
derived.
Commissioner Hamilton thanked Corey Root and Nancy Freeman for their work on this
presentation. She asked if previous data reflects the incomes of the recipients.
Corey Root said it was calculated and she can provide that.
Commissioner Hamilton asked if it covered all income levels
Corey Root said yes, up to 80%, and all the other levels were covered.
Chair Price asked if it is sustainable to change the distribution guidelines year by year as
opposed to having a fixed formula.
Bonnie Hammersley said that is currently how the county handles the grants for the
small business and ag grants and this is modeled after those as far as prioritization.
Chair Price said she felt concerned when looking at property taxes versus a grant but if
it is ok by statute, she is fine.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
George Barrett said they are working with a much smaller sample set of people. He said
that the multiplying factor of .67 helps them distribute the funds evenly while representing the
full formula. He said they knew they had $40,000 and they experimented with factors and .67
made sense. He said that not every formula is perfect, so the multiplying factor to aid the
person's tax burden can be adjusted. He thanked the Board and staff for all their work on
figuring out this program. He said there has been a big arch from where it started. He asked the
Board to pass the second year of the LHA program. He said the program should focus on tax
burden and should qualify people who have lived in their home for 5 years. He said it should
focus on those under 80% AMI. He said that everyone who applies and qualifies should receive
some assistance. He said that no person should spend more than 2% of their income on
property taxes so that would mean that those applying that are over 80% AMI should still
receive some assistance if they qualify based on their income to tax bill ratios.
Matthew Fearrington said he has been in his house for over 20 years and his uncle
before him. He said that he has never seen a tax assessor at the house, so he has no idea how
the tax is assessed. He said if someone did come by, he would have told them that he lives in a
flood zone and homes flood often. He said if the tax assessor would come to his house, he
would show them the damage. He said the house is not worth what it is assessed at because of
the structure even though it looks nice on the outside.
Heather Ferrell said she grew up in northern Orange County and now lives in Northside.
She said she is here with her neighbors tonight. She said that the residents in the Northside
district are living treasures and are up against forces of gentrification. She said that there is not
a lot that can be done about it, but the LHA program is something that can be done. She
thanked Nancy Freeman and Corey Root for their work on this program. She asked the Board
to approve eligibility at 80% AMI, occupancy at 5 years, and to address the whole tax burden
36
because this has affected Orange County for a long time. She said that no qualifying person
should pay more than 2% of their income.
Kathy Atwater said she is grateful the Commissioners are looking for ways to help
residents stay in Orange County. She said people move here because they love it but move out
because they cannot afford to live here. She agrees with keeping the qualification at below 80%
AMI, allow the 5-year homeowner, and that it should address the whole tax burden. She said
that longtime residents have seen increases over time.
David Remington said he agrees with the suggestions of others and believes there is a
good possibility that using tax burden as an indicator will keep award total below the available
funding amount. He said that he does not think it will be anywhere near 100%. He said if it is
not, he encouraged them to keep the program as broad as possible to serve the most people.
He said that he agrees with the 5-year homeownership, the 80% limit, and to encompass the
broadest group that it can. He said he echoes everyone else's thoughts on this.
Commissioner Fowler asked about the change in average awards between the last
presentation and now. She asked where the $2,954 came from before.
Nancy Freeman said that is the average tax bill for all those properties in the 5- and 10-
year properties.
Commissioner Fowler asked if that included the 60-80% AMI.
Nancy Freeman said that once they were able to establish that, they were able to
change it to $1,500.
Commissioner Fowler asked if they felt this set of numbers was more accurate.
Corey Root said yes, and there is also a lower number of households, so both numbers
decreased.
Commissioner Fowler said if you use the 2% cap then no one would get the reward. She
said that makes it hard to believe because previously that had been a much larger number.
Corey Root said using the $2,954, the average award is much higher.
Commissioner Fowler asked if it is more correct that those in the 60%-80% would be
getting closer to nothing.
Corey Root said yes, but not everyone.
Chair Price asked about prioritizing age over length of time in the home, she felt
uncomfortable. She said now feels better after seeing the formula and the multiplier. She said in
terms of neighborhood preservation age is not a determining factor in helping keep someone in
their home.
Commissioner Greene said if tax bill is lower than 2% of someone's income, they do not
need this program. She said she does not see that as an issue here.
Commissioner Fowler said she was surprised that it was estimated at zero.
Commissioner Greene said she does not know if the estimates are right and that they
will vary.
Commissioner Bedford said at $75,000, 2% is $1,500. She said these are just averages.
She said it was a little surprising and that she agrees with Commissioners Greene and Fowler.
Commissioner McKee said he appreciates the goal here but for him, the issue is the
disparity of the revaluations. He said he was shocked when people held up the pictures of
home revaluation comparisons at the last meeting this was discussed. He said he does not
know how to reconcile that. He said there is a need for a revaluation method that is not so
convoluted and onerous. He said something about the way they are done is not right or fair to
him. He said he prefers the 10-year requirement because he does not consider 5 years a
longtime homeowner. He said he wants to figure out a way to help those at 60% AMI and below
without creating a situation that is not sustainable. He said that is a factor because of where we
live, but in Duplin County it would be different. He said every year the taxes go up and in the
37
1980s and 1990s they were 2-6 cents per year. He said that drives people out of the county. He
said the county does not have the legal ability to do anything about gentrification. He said they
have the ability to do what they are doing with grants and that is about all they can do because
they cannot change the tax factor. He said that he will go along with whatever the Board wants
to do.
Commissioner Greene said the fiscal responsibility is within the county's control. She
said that the 100% estimates do not scare her because she knows the county has control over
how the funds are spent. She said that said she understands what Commissioner McKee is
saying about 60-80% AMI. She said that she knows the tax burden is very high. She said the
Board should be looking at the income formula and supports the 80% AMI requirement. She
said that after talking to people at Justice United, she thinks 2% of income will hit more of the
people who need it. She said she is aligned with the 2% scenario on page 7. She said that
staff's formula suggestion is a good one and agrees with going with that. She said she feels
that the age of the homeowner is a factor and should be considered.
Chair Prices said she agrees it is a factor but that the length of time should be
prioritized.
Commissioner Greene said that she agrees with the length of time as well, but the age
is also important. She said she agrees with the multiplying factor if that has been proven.
Commissioner Hamilton said she agrees with Commissioner Greene that the Board
controls the sustainability of the program with the cap of how much they put into it. She said she
is open to choosing the 2% and the 5 years. She asked for more information on how the
formula is used. She asked how that number is then used. She asked if it is used to rank
because she wants to be very clear on the metric for determining prioritization if they have
limited funds.
Chair Price and Commissioner Hamilton invited George Barrett to answer this question.
Commissioner Hamilton asked how the number from the formula is used to prioritize.
Commissioner Richards said she understood it to mean if there are 'Y' number of
requests and "y" money, then they would do a factor, and everyone would get 3/4 and that would
be the factor adjusted to meet the amount of funds available.
Commissioner McKee said that is how he understood it.
Commissioner Hamilton asked for clarification on the total formula.
Commissioner Bedford said that did not make sense.
Commissioner McKee said there is a dual process.
Commissioner Hamilton said there is a number and asked what the number goes to.
George Barrett said that it did not rank someone, and the end number is an amount. He
approached the dais and showed Commissioners Hamilton and Greene a demonstration of the
formula. The rest of the Commissioners could not see this.
Bonnie Hammersley asked that the formula be emailed to all of the Board members
because the demonstration was not very transparent.
Chair Price said the number that is derived is a dollar amount.
Commissioner Bedford said she likes the bottom of page 7 or a weighted score. She
said each category could be assigned a weigh based on prioritization. She suggested
determining the program they like first and then the prioritization.
Commissioner Hamilton said the formula is a weight.
Commissioner Fowler said she agrees to 5 years and including tax burden.
Chair Price said the formula is tried and true because the Jackson Center is using it now
and she likes it better than trying to weigh individual factors.
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to
adopt the plan that would include residents who have owned their home for 5 or more years,
38
cap the county portion of the bill at 2% of resident's income, include residents at 80% AMI
down, and keep the fund at $250,000 for next year.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Hamilton said she would like to have the chance to work the formula
before voting.
Commissioner Richards asked if staff could determine the formula.
A motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner McKee, to
direct staff to create a prioritization formula up to $250,000.
VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Chair Price, Commissioner Fowler, Commissioner Greene,
Commissioner Hamilton, Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Richards); Nays, 1
(Commissioner Bedford)
MOTION PASSES 6-1
b. Manufactured Homes Action Plan
The Board considered approving a Resolution Endorsing the County-Wide Manufactured
Homes Action Plan and authorizing County staff to move forward with the towns on
implementation.
BACKGROUND: For many years, there has been interest in addressing the vulnerability of
residents living in manufactured home communities (MHC) in Orange County. In 2016-2017,
the County, Towns, and local housing partners formed a manufactured homes work group to
begin to discuss and evaluate opportunities and obstacles to addressing the needs of
manufactured home community residents. There are 100 manufactured home communities in
Orange County housing over 2,000 households. About half of manufactured homes need minor
repairs, and about 28% need major repairs, with only a small percentage, 3.2%, economically
infeasible to repair. Most residents are of low-income, making it difficult to fund needed repairs.
Also, many of the MHCs are under threat to be redeveloped, in particular the MHCs closer to
town centers where market demand is high.
The Manufactured Homes Action Plan is designed to provide a plan to address the
redevelopment threats facing manufactured home communities in Orange County. The Plan is
a collaborative effort between the Towns of Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Orange
County that outlines specific objectives, strategies, action steps, partners and resource needs
to address the redevelopment threat facing manufactured home communities. The other
participating jurisdictions adopted the Action Plan strategies last month — the Town of Carrboro
on April 5, 2022, the Town of Hillsborough on April 11, 2022, and the Town of Chapel Hill on
April 27, 2022.
Housing and Community Department staff from the local governments will play a leading role in
implementing the strategies and action steps listed in the plan, while also collaborating with
many Town and County departments and community partners.
This plan recognizes manufactured housing is an important source of naturally occurring
affordable housing serving diverse populations, including vulnerable community members. It
uses resident engagement as the foundation for the strategies proposed.
39
At the May 24, 2022 Board of County Commissioners meeting, Board members asked staff to
provide information to the Board on the tax values of manufactured homes in Orange County
increasing versus the decrease that normally occurs. Orange County Tax Administrator Nancy
Freeman has shared that, as a rule, manufactured homes are considered personal property
and, like all personal property, are valued annually. Manufactured homes depreciate annually,
so the value would be less each year for the same manufactured home. Most manufactured
home values from 2020 to 2021 would have depreciated as well. Some manufactured homes
that are considered real property likely had an increase in value due to the 2021 revaluation. In
order for a manufactured home to be considered real property, both the manufactured home
and the land would need to be owned by the same owner, and the home would need to be
affixed on a permanent foundation, with wheels, axles, and tongue removed. The majority of
manufactured homes located in a manufactured home park would be considered personal
property because the resident would own the manufactured home and the park owner would
own the land, so those mobile homes would be considered personal property and would be
valued annually with depreciation.
Corey Root made the following presentation:
Slide #1
ro)C H C D
ORANGECOUNTY HOUSING&COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT
County-Wide Manufactured Home Action Plan
June 7,2022
Slide #2
NLANUFACTURED HOMESACTION PLAN
Collaborative effort between Towns and County
�3 ®n . ...
Guiding Principies I _-
1. Engagement Fndings as foundation for strategies _
1 Include a variety of strategies to fully address the I i �
different issues.
_. Manufactured housing Is an Important source of
naturallyoccurringaffordable housing
=
a. The Plan Is a living document that will be updated and «�`=
adapted over time
."�.. . H�: lliCHCD
40
Slide #3
MANUFACTURED HOMES AMON PLAN
• Strategic objectives:
I Preserve Manufactured Home Communities
MrnImcze resident dIsplacememtdLie to redevelopment
;. Provide rntaningful relocation assestarice aptiorbsfor residents Faring
displacemera
HELLSLL{]R{}l7lirl Q�aMy��iQl,r. QXHCD
{il F.::h4" :i•If•Wtl5rrY11YYlYl
Corey Root said this work began in the spring of 2020. She said there was an extensive
review and revision of the plan based on feedback from elected officials on the collaborative.
She said it has been vetted by those involved in affordable housing throughout the community.
Slide #4
MANTJFAC 1 URF.D HOMES ACTION PLAN STRUCTURE
as sy*r.,11h11nawr.wrvK,.w +..lrrtl,t.waa�w..�.yy�,1+.1 I..t�,rr..,. Sif#
t � It.,.rlr�.lww-,.�..e�.tr, _ .• ar.rrl.rNr
syplli.7.pr.�af.•a YS S4�t
r Y-%rYr�a
.....+wr+•+..I•.+r.'lae uN.•.�......wl.'....�..Iwlry. I�orr�,y.lrr. !!i##
x [.�s„w Y•p.ol�w.l Y�rc ago yr d.16———,:.—Y L d r— #y* .�...I...x...v�.. -a.,It— T
. ..Ya.+.l....l., l,.a a— $$
ry.r..Wi*.Yr r—r.. IOW Di-r.
• ...�-...-�..r.a erc rrss
`n+r•�+14S..+J•W 4.+s�•.
at Ldmvin i—i I—r NH :._.Mlratt
IYWiY.a.2�YY.•i11LL.lh— -0[• ii PlrwMdID. x S te•+{�c'+WPs r1N•
hn4w• Iv�a rv11cFW uM
>+ t•�.,I.,.I�r..-+v ml..�lo�r,k la„orrl,.. ,1.«,alrwv»*� I..x row iy*
YI�LJI YltY.l•i1d1 Na.Mr Y .r�� G& B.6.l a— +,
4rff`��PI��•_...
rp.IrWal1YY1dj1mi—lYWdcdbd"
.IfrM 01 S[irl'+W.•�IdrFfMM17 U+k<1ribr
Huuecar+c�rx;bi .�r►f�rJ►Y QCHCD
�.I....n�v. T�Y:1111'iY111,A
dYiol-0OLYrSIdIK i GOYYi#A Gd1IY W R
41
Slide #5
Objective 1:Preserve ManuficturedHoi-te onin)Lir.ittes
5upportcFf rtstocrtateResid-ant-OwnedComrn Lin ltl2s
b'i Pkjrsueacquisltlonapporturrities
Explore land use polrciesthat support manufactured home communities
:I) Work wlthmanufactur-LAhom wnerstolmproveparkquality
,.; Rehab and repair manufactured homes
i; Create anearlvwamingsystem
0
..,.�...
. #•• H[Luuraat�ix;ei .�#gOlfiRr MHCD
d4iY41V1FNlif i+{ y",GM IMYIR
Corey Root said that the Resident Owned Community (ROC) structure puts homes in
the hands of residents. She said that there is not a ROC model in Orange County yet, but they
are excited about this option.
Slide #6
Objectkrc I Mkiirnize Resident Displs Ll-irn it
.,I Pursue on and off-site coristruckion as part of redevelop merit
I:; Explamland Lisa and n5gulatorypollclesthatcan be applledto redevelopment
of m a nufactu red home comm un iti es
r) Imp lemerit master plariniriE pro cesses to proactively create develop merit
plans that rnIrurnlze dIspIacament
it
QWCHCD
waQatl]Ia�uii W WfSGGM IYYI R
42
Slide #7
Ob*-dve 3:Pro-side Meaningful Relocadon Assistance Options
a Proactively engage residents to connect them with resources
b) Use publiclyowned land to create relocatlon opportunitles
e) Provide housing sears h assistance
-d} Identify communitieswith vacancy
I Provide flnanclal assistance to relocate homes _ F
r, PrcNWe tlnanclal assistance to secure new housing ~` I
# • H[Luucaaca[x;[iCO� QCHD
w�mivvr�u�i ur��oavrru rt
Corey Root said they are looking to create a package to present to folks that would be in
this situation. She said this would be delivered in a culturally competent way to try to minimize
the trauma and stress of a very difficult situation. She said that language is important, and they
will be engaging leaders to assist with the work.
Slide #8
Resources for Acdon Man Iniplenientation
- Dedicated resources
FfordableHousingLand BankingFund 10rangeCoumy)
displacemens MklgationAssissameProgranr 10rangeCounty)
• Potential resources
Chapel H it l-A fordable Hausi ng Fund,Arrorda ble Housing Development Reserve,CDBG,
Alforda ble Housi ng Rond
Carrboro!AffordaUeHousingSpetlal RevgnueFur)d
x
OranrCounty:Ur8em Repair Program,HOME Program
H[�uutaRta[x�ei r =HCD
MWWVMW"i0a M"UMrr
43
Slide #9
P•areners
• Cmrnunity Organizations
Carorina Common EnterprlseJROC USA and Uffi r3ioi i%cdlgarizwia s
orwlradom pro.dlrg+awaage wAxes mNor awx3rWgwlkh LakllnccomnwMm5
Chapel FFrG CvrMoro Clty 5ckvii
6anksard ierding.nstyhiklore
• Local Government Departments
• State Organizations 4
North Caroline Har.-sirq:.ia ice A4,eicy
North.3ralinekflada�IrHoi;.sir�Caal��
• Park Owners
*' QC H i
wiu a�wwsra i mew�rm uw w
Slide #10
Key Next Steps
1. Continued engagement with residents
• 01strlbule Housing Resource Guide
• CoAaboratewith [ornmunitypartnersfor
ongoing resident engagement
}. Continue work already underway
Pursue priority strategies not yet
underway
jI QCHCD
t wo aa�uvwus i u W urn om uw w
Commissioner McKee asked how to avoid impinging on the right of the property owner
to achieve the highest and best use of the property because that is what he sees happening in
Chapel Hill. He said an owner can develop it themselves, continue to generate income, or sell it
outright. He said the word "communities" brings a flag up for him just like with the suspicion that
was originally felt with the farmland program.
44
Commissioner Greene said there is nothing in this that involves coercion of a landowner
to sell their property. She said it does not take property from anyone. She said the ROC people
are proud of the fact that they do not talk to the residents until the seller has decided to sell to
the homeowners. She said she watched a video and the owner sold to the residents and got full
market value. She said the county would probably be asked to contribute. She said that the
owner said they had good offers from others, but the tenants were right there with the other
offers they had, and it is certainly a fair market purchase.
Corey Root added that the market forces are incredibly large. She said there is the
expectation that some will be sold and redeveloped, some owners might be amenable to the
ROC model, and on occasion an owner may choose to work with resources to avoid resident
displacement.
Commissioner McKee said he is not talking about the ROC model. He said that Orange
County has 1,000 pages of a UDO and every item is in there because someone did something
that was egregious and caused a member of this board or staff to say this should not have
happened. He said a lot of regulations are required by someone doing something they should
not. He said that his concern is exploring land use policies. He said that he gets concerned
when he sees potential for a change to county policy for an owner to receive the best use. He
said there was some strong push back by members in the community in Chapel Hill.
Chair Price said "looking at land use policies" seems very general to her and four boards
have already approved this. She said it just leaves the door open to look at them if it is
warranted.
Commissioner McKee said when you leave the door open, something walks through it
and that is what concerns him. He said the county is going to get more expensive to live in and
he does not want a regulation in place that stands in the owner's way.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Emily Bane said to change the use and designation of a mobile home park or lot, you
must provide a 12 month notice pursuant to statute. She said a 60-day notice is required for an
eviction. She said that mobile homes are taxed as personal property and she has talked to all
her residents, and they have told her their bills have gone up and not down. She said most
tenants do not have fire or homeowners' insurance. She said if there was an incentive if they
showed proof of insurance to protect themselves in case their homes are damaged it would be
helpful. She said that they do not have a repair area and there is no hope of water and sewer
currently. She said they have a community water system, and she tests it herself. She said the
tests are increasing and that increases the costs. She said it would be nice if some of things
were incentive based rather than punishment based. She said she wants to help everyone in
Orange County.
Commissioner Greene said they got an email from the tax assessor, and it says that the
manufactured homes in her parks both went down in value during the last year.
Emily Bane said not one of the residents that she spoke with said their tax bill went
down. She said to speak with Shavonda in the tax office because she would be an excellent
resource for that information.
Commissioner Richards asked if there is a timeline for the more creative parts of the
plan.
Corey Root said they are hoping to get an endorsement before all four boards, and they
are ready to move forward.
Commissioner Greene encouraged the other Commissioners to endorse this because it
has been workshopped and passed by the other jurisdictions. She said it is policy guidance for
staff time and resources.
45
A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to
approve and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution endorsing the County-wide Action Plan
and authorize county staff to move forward with the towns on implementation.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The following item was added at the beginning of the meeting:
c. Regulation of Large Gatherings on School Property and Public Playgrounds
The Board considered the first reading of the ordinance prohibiting picketing on School
Property and Playgrounds.
BACKGROUND: The Board of Commissioners requested information on how the County may
regulate protests or large gatherings in Orange County. The Board initially received information
on this subject at its February 1, 2022 Business meeting. At that meeting the Board discussed
many aspects of this type of regulation including prohibiting large gatherings on certain public-
school properties. The Board further discussed this topic at its May 10, 2022 work session. At
that work session the Board determined parades would not be regulated and provided further
direction to the County Attorney to be brought back to the Board for future consideration. At the
June 2, 2022 work session, the Board determined to move forward with an ordinance
prohibiting picketing on School Property. The agenda materials for each prior discussion may
be viewed at the links above.
Pursuant to the Board's prior discussions and input, the County Attorney revised the draft
ordinance which generally provides as follows:
• Only covers Picketing conducted on, or within one thousand feet of, School Property
and Public Playgrounds;
• Declares violations to be subject to a monetary fine, equitable relief, or trespass
depending on the facts and circumstances.
Recent changes to North Carolina law provide that when a local ordinance involves a potential
criminal penalty, the ordinance may not be adopted at the meeting at which it is first introduced.
Such an ordinance may only be adopted at the next regular meeting following its introduction.
Because one potential penalty of this ordinance is trespass, which is a statutory misdemeanor,
this ordinance may only be adopted at its second reading.
John Roberts said if this version of the ordinance is satisfactory, the Board can move
onto the second reading at their next business meeting.
Commissioner McKee asked how many reported incidents of injury have been
associated with picketing in Orange County over the last five years.
John Roberts said he does not have that information and it would have to come from the
Sheriff or EMS.
Commissioner McKee asked if it must come back for a second reading.
John Roberts said yes.
Commissioner McKee asked if trespassing was automatic.
John Roberts said first they would be notified they are trespassing, and then if they do
not leave, they can be charged.
46
Commissioner McKee said he has an issue with 1,000 feet.
Commissioner Fowler asked if this would prevent school students and staff from
participating.
John Roberts said it would prevent staff, but not enrolled students. He said however,
this would not impact any school rules prohibiting this type of activity.
Commissioner Bedford asked if the Board takes any action tonight ahead of the second
reading.
John Roberts said the Board could direct staff to bring it back for a second reading at
the next business meeting.
Commissioner Hamilton said the ordinance itself is fine but would like to change the
subject on the abstract to reflect the changes they have made by removing the word "large."
Chair Price asked that it be brought back on June 21st
7. Reports
None.
8. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to
approve the consent agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
a. Minutes
The Board approved the draft minutes from the April 26, 2022, April 28, 2022, and May 3, 2022
Board of County Commissioners meetings.
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board approved a resolution to release motor vehicle property tax values for six taxpayers
with a total of six bills that will result in a reduction of revenue.
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board approved a resolution to release property tax values for eight taxpayers with a total
of thirty-three bills that will result in a reduction of revenue.
d. Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment#12
The Board approved a budget amendment for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
e. Renewal of Health Services Agreement with Southern Health Partners for Medical
Services at the Orange County Detention Center
The Board approved the amendment and renewal of the Health Services Agreement with
Southern Health Partners for medical services at the Orange County Detention Center; and
authorized the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board.
f. Table Application for Future Land Use Map and Zoning Atlas Amendment—
Richardson (MA20-0006) — NC Highway 86 South, Near Fletcher Road
The Board tabled action to its December 5, 2022 BOCC Business Meeting on Comprehensive
Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Zoning Atlas amendments for a 2.72-acre parcel of
47
property, further identified using Orange County Parcel Identification Number (PIN) 9873-54-
6387, owned by Ms. Gary Carleen Richardson.
g. Orange County ABC Board Travel Policy
The Board approved the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board's adoption
and continued use of Orange County's travel policy.
9. County Manager's Report
Bonnie Hammersley said there was an information item in the agenda packet on the
Master Aging Plan. She said staff will come back with more information on that in September.
10. County Attorney's Report
John Roberts said he did not have a report. He asked the Board to revisit Item 6-c to
make a motion to direct staff to schedule the item for second reading and approval at the June
21, 2022 Business meeting, to be consistent with the County Manager's recommendation on
the abstract.
A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Bedford, to
direct staff to schedule Item 6-c for a second reading and approval at the Board's June 21,
2022 Business meeting.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11. *Appointments
None.
12. Information Items
• May 24, 2022 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
• Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
• Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100
• Memorandum —2022-27 Master Aging Plan (MAP)
13. Closed Session
None.
14. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to
adjourn the meeting at 10:16 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Renee Price, Chair
Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board
Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.