Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 10-10-2023; 5 - Discussion on the County’s Participation in Mayors, Managers, Chair (MMC) Meetings 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: October 10, 2023 Action Agenda Item No. 5 SUBJECT: Discussion on the County's Participation in Mayors, Managers, Chair (MMC) Meetings DEPARTMENT: County Manager ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Excerpt of Minutes from the 2016 Assembly of Governments Meeting Travis Myren, 919-245-2308 B. MMC Meeting Notes for the Last Twelve (12) Months PURPOSE: To discuss the County's participation in multijurisdictional Mayors, Managers, Chair (MMC) meetings. BACKGROUND: In most years, the County and the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough hold a joint meeting called the Assembly of Governments meeting. In 2016, one of the agenda topics was an update on the Greene Tract. As part of an effort to advance progress on the development of the Greene Tract, the group discussed the creation of a Task Force to provide recommendations on the development of the property for affordable housing, a school site, and other potential uses. A history of the Greene Tract and related agreements and past planning activity is available here. Discussion during the 2016 Assembly of Governments meeting included the possible creation of a public task force to recommend potential uses for the Greene Tract. Another suggestion involved the creation of a task force made up of the Mayors from Carrboro and Chapel Hill, the Chair of the Board of Commissioners, and the Managers from each participating jurisdiction. A final suggestion was that the managers for each jurisdiction create a proposal for governing board review. Ultimately, discussion on the topic ended with the suggestion that a starting point would be a meeting of the Mayors, Managers, and Chair (Attachment A). There was no action taken at the Assembly of Governments meeting to create a task force, and none of the participating jurisdictions took formal action at a later date to create a task force. In fact, the Mayors and Chair may have met informally prior to 2016 to discuss policy matters of mutual interest or to set agendas for joint meetings. The only agenda item that the Board of Commissioners adopted that referenced the Mayors, Managers, and Chair assemblage was the 2021 Greene Tract Interlocal Agreement. This Agreement assigned the Mayors, Managers, and Chair to "...be the representatives of the Parties 2 for the purpose of negotiating the ultimate uses of the Property and working directly with staff to bring such negotiated results to the governing board for final approval and determination." The scope of topics discussed during MMC meetings has broadened over time to include topics like human services related agreements among the jurisdictions and responsibilities for housing related services. The meeting notes from the preceding twelve months of MMC meetings are provided as Attachment B. General concerns have been raised about the general role of the MMC and transparency to the elected governing boards and the public. This discussion is intended to address concerns Board members have about the MMC group and to provide direction on whether the County continues to participate, and if so, on what basis or under what types of limitations. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The discussion on participation in MMC meetings has no financial impact. SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated with this item. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There is no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal impact associated with this item. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board discuss the County's participation in MMC meetings. 3 19 the project, and ensure that the entire new alignment qualifies for the 50% Federal match, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO) has initiated two actions: 1) The extension needs to be included in its Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and 2) the extension needs to be included in its 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP). At its October 19 meeting, the MPO Board released the amendments for public comment, which is taking place through November 29, and held a public hearing on November 9, 2016. The Durham City Council and Durham Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) endorsed the amendments in September and October, respectively. The Orange County BOCC received a presentation on the extension at its meeting on November 15. NCCU Station • FTA issued a combined Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision (FEIS/ROD) on the D-O LRT Project in February, 2016 • In response to comments, FTA and GoTriangle committed to look at some specific refinements including analyzing the feasibility of extending the alignment to NCCU o Early analysis indicated that the extension is feasible o FTA determined that s Supplemental Environmental Assessment (EA) would be required Proposed NCCU Station Location Current Activities • The Supplemental EA on the NCCU LRT Station Refinement is now available for Public Review and Comment until Dec 7, 2016 http://ourtransitfuture.com NCCU James E. Shepherd Memorial Library Main Branch of the Durham Public Library GoTriangle's Administrative Office • DCHC MPO to vote on Metropolitan Transportation Plan Amendment to include NCCU Station on December14, 2016 Questions Alderman Seils said he is appreciative of this station. He asked if there is an expectation that the addition of this leg will increase the scoring process. Danny Rogers said the project scored really well, and this addition will make the project better. Alderman Slade said he hoped the next leg of the light rail will be in Carrboro. 5. Greene Tract- Deferred Chair McKee noted that the time is 10:02 p.m. He said the next item is not critical and can be given as an information item. He said to let the Managers come back with a proposal for a task force. Mayor Hemminger said she hoped there would be a task force to get moving on this topic, and agreed with the Managers working together to come back with a strategic process. Mayor Lavelle agreed. 4 20 Alderman Slade said he hopes the task force will look at the work done in the Rogers Road community as a starting point from which to move forward. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the charge of the task force could be identified. He said a task force sounds like reinventing the wheel again; and it is important to know what is being sought. He said affordable housing is a universal goal, and said perhaps an RFP is next. Mayor Lavelle said to have Managers to come up with something, and let the Mayors and the Chair be the task force and provide feedback to the respective boards. Commissioner Rich said some points are in the abstract, and provides a starting point. Mayor Hemminger said that is why she asked the Managers to come back with a strategic process. Chair McKee said when this topic was put on the agenda he noted that he is at the same point, with the Green Tract now, that he was 10 years ago with the Rogers Road Community Center. He said he is tired of this topic going nowhere, and is ready to make a plan and take action, or stop talking about it altogether. Commissioner Price said a deadline should be set for establishing a plan. Commissioner Jacobs said this was discussed at the joint meeting with Chapel Hill months ago, and staff was asked to take their vision and put it on to paper. He said that would be a reachable goal. He said a strategic plan must reflect how the elected officials think currently, which includes mixed-use development. Alderman Chaney said there must be a grocery store within a mile of a low-income housing tax credit application site, if any type of multi-family units is planned. Chair McKee asked if it is agreeable to have the Managers put together a unified proposal for the three boards. There was general consensus. Commissioner Price said the community is being left out of this discussion. Chair McKee said it is important to keep it concentrated at the beginning, in order to keep things moving. Mayor Lavelle said a starting point would be to have a meeting between the Managers, the Mayors and the Chair. She said the community will not be excluded. Commissioner Price said she is outnumbered, but feels the community should be included from the start. Chair McKee said to start with the Managers, the Mayors and the Chair. DEFERRED a) Brief Historical Update The Greene Tract (164 acres) was acquired in 1984 and came to Orange County as an asset of the Solid Waste Fund. The 1998 Interlocal Solid Waste Agreement (amended April 12, 2000) established the three owning partners for a 104 acre parcel. The remaining 60 acres, long held by Solid Waste, is in the process of being transferred to an asset of the General Fund to be used for preservation and low impact recreation purposes. Although there has been considerable discussion about the future of the Greene Tract, no formal action has been taken by the BOCC since 2002. And although not specific to the Greene Tract, multiple Historic Rogers Road Area (HRRA) small area studies and planning efforts have been conducted by the local governments over the last 15 years that referenced the Greene Tract. 5 21 Over the last few years, the local governments have pursed the construction of a Rogers Road Community Center and the design of the Rogers Road Sewer Project. More recently, the Historic Roger Road Area (HRRA) staff workgroup (local government management, planners, and Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA)) has been reviewing and developing two new initiatives: 1. The Community First planning program. The Jackson Center was hired by the joint governments to work with Rogers Road stakeholders to create a guide and recommendations for future of the community. 2. Multi-Jurisdiction Technical Environmental Scan of the Greene Tract. Many cultural and environmental aspects have been researched and updated. Over the years there have been many options (based on various studies) discussed as possible future uses of the 104 acres jointly owned by Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Listed below are the options that have been explored: 1. Joint Affordable Housing could be planned for 18.1 acres and the remaining 85.9 acres would remain join open space. 2. The 104 acre tract should remain as open space to be protected by conservation easements. 3. The acreage for affordable housing could be placed in the Land Trust. 4. Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools requested that part of the Greene Tract be reserved for a future elementary school site. An approximate 11 acre area south of the 18 Affordable Housing site was considered. 5. Rename the property to recognize the headwaters of Bolin Creek, Booker Creek and Old Field Creek. The Greene Tract map is in the abstract which shows the proximity of the various aforementioned parcels. b) Potential Task Force The possibility of forming a task force to develop concrete recommendations relative to the Greene Tract has been a topic of discussion. A task force could potentially consist of representatives from governmental bodies and community stakeholders and provide recommendations on affordable housing, a school site, and other potential uses for the Greene Tract. 5. INFORMATION ITEMS (Written Updates — Not for Specific Discussion) a) OWASA Update of the Long Range Water Supply Plan b) Agricultural Support Enterprises in the Rural Buffer C) Solid Waste Financial Report d) Rogers Road — Mapping Our Community's Future Report The meeting adjourned at 10:12 p.m. Earl McKee, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board 6 Orange County— Carrboro — Chapel Hill — Hillsborough Joint Meeting to Discuss Human Services-related agreements October 13, 2022, 10:30 am-noon Summary Notes Objective: To develop a more holistic and integrated analysis and approach toward addressing the community's homeless and broader housing and human services needs in order to allocate resources in a way that maximizes impacts. High level interests - Identifying what we are trying to accomplish - Establishing a more holistic plan to achieving those outcomes - Determining the best model for working together Participants Jamezetta Bedford, Loryn Clark, Margaret Hauth, Pam Hemminger, Maurice Jones, Travis Myren, Renee Price. Corey Root, Damon Seils, Anne-Marie Vanaman. Sarah Vinas, Jenn Weaver, Richard White Facilitator: Maggie Chotas, DSC Summary Notes Hopes Participants identified the following hopes for the time together: - Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the Town and county governments— Damon - Better understanding of responsibilities of Towns to support Human Services— Richard - Starting a discussion of the County-wide housing goals— Loryn - Identifying next steps to keep moving— Margaret - Forward progress—Jenn - Leaving with direction on the process for the Partnership to revise the MOU — Jamezetta - Increasing the ability of people earning low incomes to thrive in Orange County—Corey - Working on where are we trying to go and what's our overarching vision — Pam - Strengthening our collaborative efforts with a focus on One Orange -Renee - Beginning process of getting a timeline for moving forward on various MOUS—Travis - Understanding the depths of the housing issues that we're facing in Orange County and how best to address those issues collaboratively and efficiently— Maurice - Clear next steps—Sarah - Developing a structure for working together on these agreements—Anne-Marie Working Together Participants agreed to following norms for their time together - Begin and adjourn on time 7 Speak directly, honestly and aim for being concise One speaker at a time Listen for understanding Say what you need to say while making room for others to say what they need to say Be aware of assumptions & ask clarifying questions It is OK to disagree...please do so respectfully - Use first names What are we trying to accomplish? Responses, grouped into themes,follow. For a snapshot of this discussion, please see Meeting Synopsis. Keep real people at the center and serve them - We have an affordable housing crisis in our County where real people either have no home at all or can't really afford where they are living. Or they work here, but can't afford to live here Big system approach driven by needs analysis - A systems approach that looks at the big picture and strategically funds projects and programs driven by the needs analysis, not necessarily current directions of providers - Each partner provides their piece based on those needs and their charge Address the full spectrum of housing system —continuum of needs - The system addresses the full continuum from homelessness all the way up to those who don't need support - Even within homelessness, there's the chronic homeless with mental health needs Coordinate plans + Report comprehensively - Putting all the pieces together is an exciting goal - Right now, we have a lot of different plans, but not one plan to rule them all - We also have many providers with different services that feed into affordable housing, but there's so many other areas that are braided together - An overall comprehensive report could graphically show how everything comes together Work together to make homelessness in Orange County, rare, one-time and brief - Collaborate— play to our strengths & capacity as jurisdictions; each partner has a role to play How do we want to accomplish this vision? Promoting dignity throughout processes Page 2 8 Use trauma-informed care, a client-centered approach and an empowerment model - A lot of the "help" clients have received in the past has actually been pretty traumatic for the folks receiving that help - Approach with a racial equity lens Collaboratively - Collaboration doesn't mean we're all performing the same functions, but we do what we are best suited to do and what we have the capacity for - Effective collaboration reflects being transparent regarding the best role for each partner and the capacity to take on those responsibilities - Once you understand your role, stay in your lane Via MOUS - MOUs are very important: they are how we are reaching the goals - Performance standards, measurement and tracking when applicable Thoughtfully and strategically - Coordinate plans and approaches Effectively communicate - Communication strategy o To elected officials on a regular basis for the purpose of continuity o To community as well Consider the full range of Human Services - Housing, health (including mental health), transportation,jobs, schools, food What do we need in order to accomplish this vision? Build on our best practices we use from other collaboration models - Good model in Partnership to End Homelessness because we developed a gaps analysis in 2017 and we do annual updates to all the boards and to the community o Need to publicize that more—a lot of people don't understand that we're working together on it - Can be helpful as a compare and contrast exercise to think about the other ways in which the jurisdictions collaborate where we have interlocal agreements, for example: Solid Waste, Greene Tract Better understand who is being helped by resources and how—via data gathering - It seems like we keep repeating the same number of people experiencing homelessness—are we actually moving the needle? Is this a new group of 150 or are we serving the same people? Are we using our resources in a way that really helps the needs we have here with our people? Page 3 9 How do we make sure people are living in safe, decent, standard housing? - Tracking is an important thing we all need to do to see how people are migrating across the county and if their needs are being meet - Each jurisdiction could do the tracking for themselves and then we bring it together Current waitlists Sarah Vinas reported some preliminary data regarding waitlists: o Public housing waitlist is 271 households currently o CASA is over 1000 households o Habitat is also 1000 households o Home Trust 300 - There may be crossover on the lists, but the numbers show the need for the people who are already here or working here and trying to live here—explains the goals we are trying to reach Define roles & responsibilities - Because of the urgent, growing needs, all jurisdictions are asking the question how can we help? What can we do? - When it comes to our roles, there are real differences in capacity. How can we acknowledge these differences in staffing and other resources? How to best tackle these problems? - It's important for jurisdictional goals to be clear, but the real conversation has to come around to roles and responsibilities - Who can do what and how can we support each other? Eg., Perry Place - What is it the Town can do? What dollars can you get? And what dollars can the County get to show it's all one effort? Coordinate MOUs - Learn about how each jurisdiction approaches MOUS - Consider would it be appropriate to have joint agreements versus individual agreements - Be aware of timelines & Budget cycles What are the roles of the towns versus the county? How can we more clearly define those roles so that we can best meet the needs of the community? Overview of jurisdictional staffing and resources - Carrboro has three positions in the housing office currently, property tax raised 1.5 cents to support the special revenue funds dedicated to achieving affordable housing goals and strategies. $380,000 for affordable housing fund; more than a third of that goes to agreements which support keeping people in their units. For creating units it's about $250,000 Page 4 10 Hillsborough doesn't have any staff people dedicated to housing. Margaret has taken on the role because it's so important. When you add up the amounts Hillsborough is paying on the MOUs it's over 2 cents on the tax rate; if we had met all last year's requests at our percentage it would have exceeded so it would have left nothing for the Coalition's request. Margaret also said she is leaving and the person who comes after her won't have the institutional knowledge she has gained Chapel Hill's housing office includes affordable housing and community connections. There are two dedicated affordable housing staff currently and then two senior manager positions. In terms of resources, Chapel Hill has about $15 million total to implement affordable housing strategies, including the $10 million affordable housing bond which will be fully allocated as of November. Dedicate 1 cent on the property tax rate which generates about $600,000— not quite there, but working toward 1 cent - Orange County has 49 staff which includes program staff. There has been rapid expansion to try to meet unmet needs during the pandemic. The Partnership had one staff person at the beginning of 2020. By December 2020, 12 staff. Pushed out $12 million in rental and utility assistance and shored up nonprofits Housing Help Line supported by ARPA funding— hope that can stay in place We need a no barrier best practice with IFC—good neighbor plan has barriers. Housing First We've created these units— how do we get chronically homeless into them? Individual jurisdiction goals Each jurisdiction will be different based on size, capacity We all want affordable housing - Carrboro: Help people stay in their homes and expand the number of units, whether that's permanently affordable units or just the number of units that are available to shape the direction of the housing market and availability of housing - Chapel Hill: More affordable housing units and the SOHRAD because most people who don't have somewhere else to be tend to hang out in the downtown areas - helping them transition into better situations helps our downtown - Hillsborough: Find ways to expand the number of affordable units that don't require municipal dollars be spent—trying to incentivize - The County's overarching goal is to be the social safety net. It doesn't build housing, but can provide other supports Partnership to End Homelessness Budget Timeline for Partnership to End Homelessness Jamezetta presented a proposed budget timeline for the Partnership to End Homelessness, designed to help be proactive and transparent about steps. See the proposal in the Appendix. Page 5 11 The group discussed the proposal and agreed that the budget timeline won't be resolved until we have the bigger discussion about MOUs generally. There was a general agreement that early February is a good time for managers to hear about budget needs. IFC - Further exploration of representation question - Is there any scenario where there would be comfort with not having representation? o If there are performance agreements—these work well with several groups Chapel Hill contracts with o Orange County assigns department chairs to be responsible for every nonprofit that receives funding and there is a contract - IFC is asking for 5-year agreements Next Steps 1. The group will meet again November 18, noon-1:30. A key focus will be on roles and responsibilities. Toward that goal, two next steps emerged: a. Staff will pull together information about the roles and responsibilities of their jurisdiction, including what is currently happening, number of positions, number of open positions, ARPA funding impact as programs wind down, capacity, how they approach MOUS, etc. b. Big picture of roles and responsibilities for Towns/Counties in NC (School of Government has resources here - + others) 2. IFC is a topic for further conversation on the near horizon. Discuss Good Neighbor Initiative. Check Out Participants were invited to share a word or phrase that describes what was on their mind at the end of the meeting: - Appreciation - Great tone in the room, Great energy - Hopeful - Focused - Keep moving - Nearly overwhelming - Informed - Collaboration - Open and honest Adjourned at 1:33. Page 6 12 Appendix Key questions: Discuss: What are we trying to accomplish? What are our joint and individual jurisdiction goals? - Where we are in terms of coordinated efforts? - What issues or gaps do we need to address?Why? Discuss: What are the roles of the towns versus the county? How can we more clearly define those roles so that we can best meet the needs of the community? - What do issues or gaps do we need to address? Why? Discuss: How do we do a better job of thinking and planning holistically?What is a vision/goal for future collaboration? - How do we accomplish our goals/vision? Other key questions: How do we use our limited resources to be more effective and efficient in addressing the range of housing needs in our County? When we jointly fund efforts, what is the best way to apportion the "fair share" or each jurisdiction? Traditionally we have done this by population. Is that the best or only way? Are these joint MOUS the best way to accomplish what we are trying to do, or is there some other arrangement (like direct contracts) that could work better? MOUS, Agreements and programs currently being negotiated: • Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness (MOU) • SOHRAD—agreement and funding • InterFaith Council (MOU)—goals and accountability mechanisms • Orange County Food Council (MOU) - goals, coordination, funding formula • Diversion facility—capital vs. operating costs • Community Home Trust (Interlocal Agreement) —generally working well;performance agreement Emergency Housing Assistance program (Interlocal Agreement) —evaluation and report out coming soon (County) Page 7 13 Draft budget timelime re: Partnership to End Homelessness OCPEH Executive Team Funding Process October 10, 2022 Intro: OCPEH is jointly funded by the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and Orange County for the purpose of implementing the Plan to End Homelessness. Additionally, OCPEH receives pass- through grant funding to support homeless programming-Coordinated Entry, Rapid Rehousing, Homelessness Prevention, and Housing Location. In order to maintain a well-coordinated funding request process to the four municipalities,the following process is recommended. September-October • OCPEH staff will review the previous year's budget, including end of FY spending with the Executive Team no later than mid-September. o OCPEH staff will provide additional information, such as outcome reports from Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) as requested. • At the Executive Team's Fall meeting, members will discuss and recommend funding levels for the next FY.The Executive Team will review the gaps analysis, expected federal funding, and the Partnership continuation budget, along with any expansion budget requests,for evaluation and develop a minimum threshold for essential staffing and prioritized tiers for expansion or reduction depending on the budget outlook.These tiers will be aligned with the community needs as reflected in the Gaps Analysis. • OCPEH staff will share recommendations to and solicit input from Towns and County Managers and Housing Directors. November-January • OCPEH staff will present system-level data, obstacles, and successes to the Towns and County elected boards in sessions between November and January and to the Partnership Leadership Team January • Executive Team finalizes approval of budget request. • OCPEH staff conduct a brief survey during Point-In-Time (PIT) count to solicit input from people currently experiencing homelessness regarding their prioritized needs (picklist) to inform the next cycle. February • OCPEH staff will present the proposed request budget to the Leadership Team for comment. Members will be able to provide context and prospective impacts of funding recommendations, either expansion or reduction, and will receive information about potential funding availability should they need to consider additional sources of funding and/or explore additional areas for collaboration. • Staff will send the formal budget request to the Towns and County Managers, Elected officials, and Housing Directors • Staff will incorporate feedback from stakeholders noted above Page 8 14 March -June • Staff is available to provide additional information to elected bodies and stakeholders March - May • Towns and County Managers present their recommended budgets to their elected boards April - May • OCPEH staff conduct community engagement sessions to solicit input, prioritizing people with lived experience of homelessness and overrepresented groups among people experiencing homelessness. Sessions will focus on people's lived experience accessing resources, sufficiency of existing programs, prioritization for additional resources needed. Sessions will also be held for service providers and stakeholders in order to develop and implement a more consistent tool for gathering information and measuring performance from providers across time. May-June • Elected boards adopt Towns and County budget for upcoming FY Page 9 15 MMC Meeting regarding Greene Tract January 10, 2023 / 3:30-5 pm / Virtual Purpose For Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill to continue to collaborate around the future of the Greene Tract. Participants Meeting Goals Carrboro: 1. Review draft scope of work for Damon Seils, Mayor consultant to guide future Richard White, Town Manager development and connectivity of Trish McGuire, Planning Director the Greene Tract. Marty Roupe, Development Review Administrator 2. Consider updates about Recombination Plat and Deed, as Chapel Hill: well as the Inman Property Pam Hemminger, Mayor 3. Identify next steps Chris Blue, Interim Town Manager Judy Johnson, Assistant Planning Director Mary Jane Nirdlinger, Interim Planning Director Orange County: Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Orange Board of County Commissioners Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Cy Stober, Planning Director Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner 16 Meeting Summary This meeting addressed three topics: 1. Update: Inman Property 2. Master Plan - Draft Scope of Work 3. Update: Recombination Plat and Deed Details per Topic Area 1. Inman Property: Moving forward with the Environmental Assessment? Key points • Environmental Assessment Phase 1 will likely be a couple of thousands of dollars, and take a week. • Judy Johnson will work with counterparts to work through scope, make edits as needed and get underway. Decision for this area => Move forward with the consideration of the proposal for the Environmental Assessment. 2. Master Plan - Draft Scope of Work Presentation here Draft Scope of Work here The group evaluated whether to release an RFP for a consultant to draft a Master Plan for the 45 acres identified for future development and connectivity. Ashley Moncado gave the presentation and emphasized the components of the scope of work would be shaped by the discussion. Ms. Moncado presented three possible options for the scope of work: Greene Tract Master ' Draft Scope of Work Project Coordination and Project Coordination and Project Coordination and Management Management Management Research and Analysis Research and Analysis Research and Analysis Community Engagement Community Engagement Community Engagement Master Plan(including Connectivity Connectivity Plan Master Plan(including Connectivity Plan) Plan) School and Recreational Site Analysis I� I_ Key points • Mayor Hemminger suggested Option 3 is best from public perspective and also from a staff capacity point of view. • Mayor Seils suggested in addition to including the Connectivity Plan in Option 3, that the School and Recreational Site Analysis also be included as part of the Master Plan. • Chair Bedford added we need to know whether it can be developed for a school. Having the analysis is important and public perspective leads to do it all. Consultant can give options. • Cy Stober added that the Master Plan will identify the development restraints. Footprint of school campus and parking. Not a site plan. o Technical work with consultant would not be significantly more expensive. Additional cost comes in integrating the School Board into the steering committee of the project. Hasn't happened yet. • Mayor Seils asked at what point would we need the sign off by our governing boards? o Mayor Hemminger added Boards do better when they have something specific to respond to.The MMC group is empowered to get ideas, but not to implement. o Trish McGuire added we would need to develop the interlocal agreement or modify it regarding the cost share and the project management duties, etc. The concept is in the resolution, but details aren't. o Bonnie Hammersley added that RFPs can be released, but Boards would have to appropriate funds to pay for the work. • Mayor Seils stressed the importance of communication to ensure expectations are clear. For example, what is a Master Plan? What's the timeline? • Chair Bedford would need to keep her Board up to date on the process that we're going to do the RFP and the timeline. Need an information item. • Bonnie Hammersley suggested quarterly reports to all Boards on the Greene Tract moving forward. • Mayor Seils suggested the following points be included the information update: o What work has been accomplished by staff team since the last update o Want to remind Board members work has continued Decisions for this area => Move forward with Option 3 for the RFP => Staff will work together to share information with the Boards, coordinate when to share with the Boards and finalize RFP details, including costs - Estimations should be priced out separately for different portions of the project 18 Process Steps, Summarized • Staff can send unified RFP and dates all at the same time • Staff will send information items to Boards at the same time • Management will work with staff to streamline document for RFP, etc. • Staff will consolidate and coordinate information to be distributed • Staff will come to Chairs and Managers about what has been received 3. Recombination Plat and Deed Key points • Two town managers have signed off • Marty Roupe will deliver to Hillsborough for the County to sign off • Carrboro is working with attorney to have quick claim work for register of deeds • Mayor Hemminger asked for clarification that the ultimate goal is for the County to permanently preserve the space? Yes, once the lines are finalized • It is being recorded and will be on the County agenda to be permanently preserved • Include this in the information updates Shared agreements out of this meeting 1. Move forward with the consideration of the proposal for the Environmental Assessment. 2. Move forward with Option 3 for the RFP 3. Staff will work together to share information with the Boards, coordinate when to share with the Boards and finalize RFP details, including costs - Estimations should be priced out separately for different portions of the project What's Next / Action Items 1. Evaluate what is in the interlocal agreement as to when to engage respective Boards in the decision Judy Johnson will work with counterparts to work through scope of work for the Environmental Assessments, make edits as needed and get underway 3. Staff will work together to evaluate the cost of different parts of the Scope of Work for the consultant for the Master Plan, coordinate communication content and timing with the Boards and the public, and finalize the RFPs 1. 4. Staff will include information updates about the Recombination Plat and Deed in item #3 above o It is being recorded and will be on the County agenda to be permanently preserved 5. Staff will provide updates on the Environmental Assessment when it comes back 6. This MMC group will meet again virtually from 3:30—4:30 pm on Tuesday, April 25th. If the meeting is not needed, it will be canceled 7. In the future, Maggie will put agendas in the emails and also in the calendar invites 20 Orange County — Carrboro — Chapel Hill — Hillsborough Joint Meeting to Discuss Human Services-related agreements February 20, 2023, 2-4 pm Orange County Solid Waste Conference Room Summary Notes Overall Objective: To develop a more holistic and integrated analysis and approach toward addressing the community's homeless and broader housing and human services needs in order to allocate resources in a way that maximizes impacts. ***See page 3 for more context about original guiding questions *** Participants Jamezetta Bedford, Chris Blue, Loryn Clark, Matt Efird, Bonnie Hammersley, Margaret Hauth, Pam Hemminger, Travis Myren, Mary Jane Nirdlinger, Corey Root, Damon Seils, Anne-Marie Vanaman. Sarah Vinas, Jenn Weaver, Richard White Facilitation: Maggie Chotas, DSC Summary Notes Clarifying the Role and Function of the MMC After affirming group norms, the group considered the following clarifying questions related to the role and function of the MMC: 1. How are decisions or plans of action/next steps made in these meetings? How are different roles taken into account? - Recommendations may come out of this group, but we don't take formal action in the MMC - Timeliness is always a process - If we don't reach consensus, we can send more than one option to our respective boards - This group is an opportunity to learn about where we are and consider where to go —to see where we sit with high altitude questions - All are welcome to participate in discussions. Any recommendations will come from elected officials 2. Request for recording— how to approach this? The group decided not to have recordings for the meeting. Maggie Chotas, the facilitator, noted she will summarize notes from flipcharts and her own contemporaneous notes. As always, draft summary notes will be shared with the group for review and revision before considered final. After notes are final, they can be released to governing boards. 21 Reviewing & Confirming the agenda Participants confirmed the following agenda, based on items sent to the facilitator in advance: 1. Follow up from January meeting 2. OCPEH a. Discussing OCPEH budget process & request b. Education and clarity re: What's CoC (Continuum of Care) and what's County c. What is the Partnership? What isn't it? What is the function? 3. Considering how to fund IFC cooperatively— MOU or another approach 4. Systems level analysis— Bigger picture—Tabled for future agendas a. What is each jurisdiction doing in tackling complex issues? Working through agenda items 1. Follow up from January meeting a. Chapel Hill shared updates on process for changing the Good Neighbor Plan: Pam Hemminger reported that someone from IFC needs to recommend any changes to the Good Neighbor Plan. Chapel Hill Town Council can't lead the process. Any proposed changes will be aired in two public hearings and would have to go through the Special Usage Permit (SUP) modification process, but wouldn't require doing away with the SUP. Considering changes to the Good Neighbor Plan would not pose a risk of losing the existing permit. b. County shared updates on the projected amount to be budgeted to give to outside agencies: Travis Myren reported the projected amount to be 1.2% of general fund expenditures minus $1.8 million. He noted that target has already been exceeded for the current fiscal year. 2. OCPEH a. OCPEH budget process & request b. Education and clarity re: What's CoC and what's County c. What is the Partnership? What isn't it? What is the function? Bonnie Hammersley noted the budget is supported by the four entities; oversight is an elected member of each jurisdiction who makes up the Executive Committee. The decision-making goes from the Executive Committee to the Leadership Team. Last year (2021), the Executive Committee didn't meet regularly. Some context is that when Corey Root started in 2016, the Partnership had one position. Now there are three positions funded by OCPEH (Homeless Programs Manager, Homeless Programs Page 2 22 Coordinator, and the Housing Access Coordinator); the remaining positions and program funding is grant funded (pass through dollars from HUD and other sources). As the group's discussion ensured, it was revealed there were different understandings of how OCPEH functions. Bonnie Hammersley noted her understanding that OCPEH was independent of the County. For example, as County Manager, Bonnie Hammersley said she is in the same boat as other managers and hasn't seen the draft budget. Damon Seils, however, noted the Governance Charter did not delineate such independence and his understanding is that the Partnership is a coalition essentially administrating programs on behalf of the County. Margaret Hauth noted that OCPEH was modelled after the Visitor's Bureau and was meant to be independent. Loyrn Clark remembered that as well. They are OCPEH employees; an organization within an organization. Bonnie Hammersley made the point that employees of OCPEH couldn't be employees of four jurisdictions; none of the growth has been due to the work of County. Loryn Clark added OCPEH started with a Chapel Hill employee, then took on a different level. There has been a disconnect when programs started to grow. We've missed having the conversation, digging deeper into roles and responsibilities and who should do what. OCPEH moving into direct service work, beyond the coordination work serving as the Continuum of Care (CoC) is a major departure of what we've done. Corey Root noted that there has been an issue with finding service providers to do the direct service work identified in the Homeless System Gaps. At one point in 2017, OCPEH had funding in hand for a Street Outreach program and could not find a service provider partner to do this work. In 2020 when COVID funding became available again for Street Outreach it was jointly sponsored by Orange County Housing and Criminal Justice Resource Department. 3. Considering how to fund IFC cooperatively— MOU or another approach The group began the conversation about this item with a review of the current state of payments to IFC: - County pays IFC quarterly - Hillsborough hasn't committed yet; waiting on an audit - Chapel Hill pays quarterly. Currently is waiting for a report and then IFC can submit an invoice - Carrboro is waiting for a budget request Jenn Weaver noted that she feels conflicted about funding IFC. IFC fills an important role for the County, but it's hard to justify for Hillsborough. She isn't sure if it's the best use of Page 3 23 Hillsborough's funds. She noted they haven't discussed as a Board yet. She wondered if more people would use the services if they were closer. Corey Root added she wasn't sure that was true. Jenn Weaver continued four different agreements for IFC feels hard. Pam Hemminger agreed that four different agreements feel excessive—even with simplified forms, they have to send information into four places. It's a burden on them. Bonnie Hammersley added IFC wants consistency and commitment, like the Community Home Trust. She noted she wasn't advocating for that, but clarifying IFC's interests. If this were a County program, we would do it differently. IFC doesn't meet all needs, for example—they were scrambling for cold weather beds. Jamezetta Bedford noted she feels conflicted as well and we don't do an interlocal agreement for other essential agencies. She added she personally didn't believe in 1.2% set-aside for all of the County's outside agenda funding as she didn't think Commissioners should be bound to a percentage. Five years seems too long. Critical priorities change from year to year. The County Facility Needs Report will come out next month and it will be good to know our needs projected out 20 years. If we commit to a five-year timeframe with an IFC agreement, are we going to be able to do the work we need to do to be future-focused? Pam Hemminger summarized that everyone is feeling conflicted: wanting to support changing the model for shelter and reducing homelessness, but not sure the timing is right for signing a five-year agreement. What would next steps look like? Damon Seils said if the agreement is shared, what is the right approach among jurisdictions? If we assume it's a joint responsibility, what is the split? Bonnie Hammersley explained how the outside-agency funding process works with the County. The County tells the outside agencies the functions the County needs them to perform because the County isn't doing them and the agencies are funded to fulfill those needs. Damon Seils noted it's different for the municipalities because they are not hiring outside agencies to perform essential functions—they are not things the municipalities would normally do. For Hillsborough, the process works differently. There are MOUS with the Arts Council and the Exchange Club for helping with the museum. Jamezetta Bedford emphasized that the homeless services aren't mandated for the County to provide either. Bonnie Hammersley underscored COVID funding sunsets in March, which will Page 4 24 result in $1.3 million a month not coming into the County to help with food and housing. All moratoriums are expired. There is greater need now in housing and food than before COVID. Jenn Weaver reflected that she sees IFC as a County function philosophically and she hears that the County doesn't have the funds. The ask from IFC to Hillsborough is $42,000—would that be better if we put it upstream? Additional considerations: what would the needs would be if IFC has to close? If the Good Neighbor Plan changes, would there be more funding? Corey Root added CoC monies aren't allowed for shelter. Bonnie Hammersley explained that there are so many competing priorities. Half of the County's budget goes to public schools. Sarah Vinas added that the IFC has said that even if the Good Neighbor Plan is changed significantly, it would only mean an increase of 17 beds. Corey Root added that Rapid Rehousing would help. Jamezetta Bedford asked if there is a way to prioritize the most vulnerable—a tiered system that protects the most fragile? Next Steps The group agreed to the following next steps: 1. Review foundational documents' regarding the OCPEHI, including the Governance Charter and the MOU. 2. Update the list of cross-jurisdictional MOUs and programs currently being negotiated to reflect the following: - SOHRAD shouldn't be singled out, or other similar programs should be listed as well; - The Orange County Food Council MOU has expired and OCBOCC voted not to continue. 3. The MMC group will reconvene after May 2. In the meantime,jurisdictions will work through their own budgeting processes. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 4 pm. i https://www.ocpehnc.com/ files/ugd/52554b 69bb4bc542064154861178ba146f1cfa.pdf Page 5 25 MMC Meeting regarding Greene Tract April 25, 2023 / 3:30- 4:30 pm / Virtual Purpose For Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill to continue to collaborate around the future of the Greene Tract. Participants Meeting Goals Carrboro: 1. Share updates since the last Damon Seils, Mayor meeting on January 10, 2023. Richard White, Town Manager 2. Discuss plan for the Inman Trish McGuire, Planning Director Property purchase. Marty Roupe, Development Review Administrator 3. Identify next steps. Chapel Hill: Pam Hemminger, Mayor Chris Blue, Interim Town Manager Britany Waddell, Planning Director Judy Johnson, Assistant Planning Director Orange County: Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Orange Board of County Commissioners Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Cy Stober, Planning Director Ashley Moncado, Special Projects Planner Meeting Summary This meeting addressed three topics: 1. Updates since the meeting on January 10, 2023 2. Status of the RFPs for Greene Tract Master Plan 3. Discuss Inman Property Purchases Shared agreements out of this meeting Move forward with... 1. Re: RFPs: notifying RFP respondent of rejection; gathering information from firms who did not submit RFPs; and creating new RFQs with timelines that split the process into two parts (community engagement and technical design services); 2. Re: Inman Property— Boards consider purchasing the Inman Property, with the hope of votes happening before June 30tH What's Next / Action Items 1. Staff will follow necessary process and notify respondent that their RFP will not be accepted. 2. Staff will gather feedback from firms who attended information session and did not submit RFPs. 3. Staff will develop a new process and timeline for requesting RFQs and splitting the process. 4. Judy Johnson will share her PPT and written documents relating to the Inman Property. 5. Travis Myren will review MOU section relating to shared ownership and exiting as it applies to future ownership of the Inman Property. 6. All jurisdictions will communicate necessary information with respective Boards to get approval of Inman Property purchase, with the hope for this happening by June 30. 7. This MMC group will meet again virtually from 3:30—4 pm on Tuesday, May 16, 2023 to review the timeline for the RFQs. 8. This MMC group will meet again virtually from 3:30—4:30 pm on June 27, 2023. o Chris Blue will ask Anita Badrock to facilitate the meeting. o The purpose of this meeting will be to finalize the plan for the Inman property and the RFP/ RFQ process. 27 Details per Topic Area 1. Updates since the last meeting on January 10, 2023 Key points • Chair Bedford has not shared the January notes with her Board, because the sale of land is a closed session item and the sale is still pending. • Mayor Hemminger shared that Chapel Hill had an open discussion about the sale of land because it was related to fund balance. • Ashley Moncado shared that,just today, she took the plat and the deed to the Orange County Register of Deeds office. They accepted it so it is being processed. We should see a change on the tax and GIS records soon. o This step was necessary for the Orange County Commissioners to consider preserving the land. o When the deeds are official, they will be mailed to the County Managers office. Ashley will be checking daily to see when it is officially recorded. o Once the deed is official, we will meet with the Orange County DPR staff to discuss conservation of the 60 acres. ■ Chair Bedford added that her Board does know about DPR doing this plan as it was an open session item. 2. RFPs for the Greene Tract Master Plan: Adapting the process for RFPs Key points • Cy Stober shared that the County released the RFP in late March, and they were due on April 18, 2023. The County only received one proposal totaling $367,000, and unfortunately, this proposal was lacking with regard to community engagement. • Given the importance of the project to Rogers Road, community engagement is a critical piece of the proposal. Without this important section, we are not comfortable recommending this proposal. o Judy Johnson explained that her team was also disappointed with the proposal. Although we want this process to move forward, we shouldn't just accept something that doesn't meet the needs. • Mayor Seils asked why there was a poor response to the outreach of proposals? o It would be interesting to know why the other groups did not submit proposals. o Cy Stober added that five firms attended the information session, and there were almost no questions. Out of the five firms, only one submitted a proposal. I 2'78 I o Mayor Hemminger added that it would be helpful to reach out directly to Renaissance Partners to see why they did not submit an RFP, especially given their previous work in the community. She agreed with Judy that we don't just want to accept any proposal. • Mayor Hemminger added that the SAPFO report came out stating that no new schools are projected in the school system for at least 10 years. • Cy Stober presented the solution of splitting this project into two proposals: (1) a community engagement RFQ; and (2) a technical services RFQ for the design element. o Going the RFQ route would allow for great negotiation and for the community engagement consultant to sit on the steering committee for the technical services work. o Trish McGuire added that we should develop questions to ask the firms regarding why they didn't respond. We can use that feedback to help shape next steps. It is a big important project and not an insignificant amount of money. o Mayor Seils asked if these two approaches would be parallel or sequential? ■ Cy Stober responded that the group discussed having a 4-6 month lag, whereby the community engagement work would have at least a 3-4 month head start. ■ Mayor Seils suggested it might be good to hear from the firms before we adopt and finalize any new approach. ■ Chair Bedford asked if the 4-6 month delay was related to the meeting calendar? She noted that she can call another meeting if needed. Next steps 1) Notify the respondent that their RFP was not accepted 2) Reach out to all firms who attended the information session to get more information about why they didn't respond to the RFP; and 3) Develop an alternative strategy with a corresponding timeline. => Judy Johnson will put together a timeline within the next week or two, and all groups can share the same information with their Boards as an information message in the Board packets in the next week or two 4) This MMC group will meet again to evaluate the new timeline. 3. Inman Property Purchases Judy Johnson explained that an environmental assessment was completed at the property a month ago, and nothing significant was found on the site. There was small concern about the mounds, and whether we needed to do additional work on those. The environmental lu —fel I_ assessment did not identify any potential contamination sources in the mounds. The debris observed would be able to be disposed at a permitted landfill. Judy added that she has continued to have conversations with the property owner to purchase the property. Is there interest among partners to participate in those discussions? Key Points • All jurisdictions are open to moving forward with purchasing the property. All groups still need full approval from each respective Board/Council. • Mayor Hemminger expressed hope that everyone can be supportive. There is no way into the larger property without going through the Inman property. This property could be used for affordable property in the future. We still need to work out negotiations from the Church of the Advocate as we need a small part of their land to make this work. Chapel Hill is ready to move forward with spending the money on their portion of the property. • Chair Bedford added that her Commissioners haven't discussed it yet. Do we have an update on the price? Would mobile homes be considered for this property? o Mayor Hemminger responded that we would want something denser and more energy efficient. There are no utilities there now, so we would likely look to a housing partner to do something there. It could be of interest to Community Home Trust, Habitat for Humanity, or Tiny Homes. • Richard White asked about the timeline for this transaction, and there was agreement around trying to purchase the property before the end of this fiscal year. It would be helpful to have a packet of information to share with the Council. o Next step—Judy Johnson will share her PPT and packet of information with all partners. • Mayor Hemminger added that this family will sell to someone else if we don't go ahead and buy it now. • Mayor Seils added that we should be able to get the information in front of his Council soon. • Travis Myren asked how much of the property would be required for Greene Tract access versus other purposes? His Board would want to have this information. o Chair Bedford responded that this would be contingent on getting the easement with the Church. That needs to happen simultaneously. • Cy Stober added that he recently met with David Stancil and let him know this issue might elevate again soon, given the RFP. He is pivoting to make sure newer staff members are aware of what to expect. • Judy Johnson added that she went over to the property recently when people called about chainsaws. There were men building jumps. o For safety reasons, individuals shouldn't go alone to respond to concerns and need to involve Public Safety. o The land is not open to the public. o Judy shared that there will be trails, likely within the Headwater Preserve in the future. • Mayor Seils asked what information is needed from each jurisdiction in order to move forward with this? o Mayor Hemminger noted we will need to know if you are in, and we will need to have a vote to move forward before arranging for an attorney for the closing. Hoping for votes to happen before June 30th, so closing can occur over the summer. o There is an offer out for$450,000 for the 4 acres, and there will be closing costs. o We need confirmation that we are ready to go so that we can pass it by the end of June 30tH o Mayor Hemminger added that once the property is purchased, this group can discuss the best use of the land and take that back to our Boards. o Judy Johnson confirmed that the zoning for the property is for single-family residential use and that there are three, lawfully created lots there. o The zoning could be changed in the future if the three Boards would like to see a different use of the land. • Chair Bedford asked who will be the point person to connect with the Church, noting to her it's contingent on having the access from the Church? o Judy Johnson will work with the Church as they have worked together previously. Judy will work with the partners to have those conversations. o Travis Myren asked if we have talked about ownership structure? It will take time to get those documents in place. We would need something more formal than the Greene Tract ownership model, so that there would be a way for parties to exit if desired. ■ Mayor Hemminger added that we have that already in the MOU with the Greene Tract. Travis will review the Greene Tract MOU regarding that section to see how it's applicable in this case. o Chair Bedford added that she can imagine that her Board would want to own the road; whereas Chapel Hill might want to own the portion for residential property. We should expect those questions from our Boards. 31 MMC Meeting regarding Greene Tract August 30, 2023 /3:30- 5 pm /Chapel Hill Public Works Building Purpose For Orange County, Carrboro and Chapel Hill to continue to collaborate around the future of the Greene Tract. Participants Meeting Goals Carrboro: 1. Updates on Inman Property. Damon Seils, Mayor 2. Review of Community Richard White, Town Manager Engagement process. Marie Parker, Assistant Town Manager 3. Update on Master Plan process. Trish McGuire, Planning Director 4. Identify next steps. Marty Roupe, Development Review Administrator Chapel Hill: Chris Blue, Interim Town Manager Britany Waddell, Planning Director Judy Johnson, Assistant Planning Director Pam Hemminger,Absent due to illness Orange County: Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Orange Board of County Commissioners Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager Cy Stober, Planning Director Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director— Long-Range Planning &Administration Meeting Summary This meeting addressed the following topics: 1. Update on the Inman Property 2. Review of Community Engagement process 3. Update on Master Plan process Shared agreements out of this meeting The MMC decided to recommend... ■ To negotiate the contract with Gensler as the Community Engagement Consultant to include the base and optional activities outlined in their proposal. The total cost of the proposal would be $360,000 o Each Board will consider their portion of the consultant fees in their September or early October meetings before the item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners as part of the Consent Agenda' on October 17, 2023. o Consultant will be confirmed by the end of the year. ■ To follow the Town of Chapel Hill Review process in the development of the Greene Tract o Staff members will develop a matrix of standards/codes to flag as decision points ■ Information will be shared with the MMC before sharing it with the design consultant; expected to design consultant by the end of the year. ■ To have staff members develop a matrix to compare a development agreement v. conditional zoning and share with the MMC. ■ When the time is right, for staff members to talk with new property owners of the Inman Property to discuss access point to the Greene Tract. ■ For Cy Stober to talk with Gensler to get their thoughts about benefits/drawbacks/ considerations regarding whether to use a compass group/steering committee. o Once gathered, staff will share this information with MMC. ■ For the MMC to meet again the week of October 17. o Polling will determine exact date, time and location. Chair Bedford emailed follow-up on 9/11/2023 that this would be on the BOCC regular agenda, instead of the consent agenda 3 Details per Topic Area 1. Updates on the Inman Property Key points • Chris Blue shared that the group did not get the Inman Property. It went to a higher bidder, who offered approximately $30,000 more. • It may still be possible to get access to the Greene Tract from the new owners. o It is not clear when the sale will be finalized, but staff will continue to monitor. 2. Review of Engagement Process Key Points ■ Cy Stober discussed responses to the RFP for the Community Engagement Consultant. (The MMC previously decided to split the project into two proposals—one for Community Engagement and one for Professional Services to Design a Master Plan.) o Better response this time. They received around 5 proposals; had two interviews; and have awarded a preliminary contract to Gensler. o Gensler gave an excellent presentation on how to re-engage with a group of people who feel like they have been engaged exhaustively. o VHB will be a subcontractor of Gensler as they are more "on the ground" locally. o The review group was comprised of representatives from all three jurisdictions, and the proposals were vetted through Equity and Inclusion staff. o Gensler proposed a 16-month timeline for their engagement. o The engagement team will be working with the community to identify design and development interests, specify uses, clarify maximum and minimum development parameters, and deliver these to the design consultant. ■ The group discussed which standards will apply for the new design. o Brittany Waddell suggested that the group use Chapel Hill standards, unless one of the other jurisdictions has a more restrictive standard. o Staff will develop a matrix of standards/codes to flag and bring back this information to the MMC. ■ This information will be needed by the end of the year. i o Chair Bedford noted that it will be good to work through these issues ahead of time since the community will have questions and concerns that will need to be addressed. o Staff will develop a pros/cons list to compare a development agreement versus conditional zoning. The MMC will need this information for future planning. ■ MMC decided to follow the Town of Chapel Hill development standards in development of the Greene Tract. o It makes the most sense to follow the development standards of the entitlement agency, unless there is a significant reason to deviate from the standards. ■ Discussion around the timing of the community engagement and design processes. o The engagement piece will start first, and then the design award will follow. There will be overlap when the engagement consultant is working with the design team. ■ More details from the Engagement Consultant's proposal: o All social media will be done by the public partners on this project— messaging will continue to be managed by staff and not the consultant, for consistency. o Proposal included plans to table at already scheduled community events. o Optional ■ Some of these options come with a higher price tag. ■ Proposal would be $270,100 total, with add-ons bringing the total to $360,000. o Engagement services include listening sessions, temporary installation of oral histories. ■ Discussion around whether to include a "compass group" as part of the engagement process: o Chair Bedford expressed concerns about elevating some interests and voices over others in a compass group format, as well as that it could be time consuming and end in the same place. o Brittany Waddell emphasized the importance of being proactive and front- loading community engagement. o Mayor Seils noted that we are not starting from a "clean sheet" but instead, we are starting with the Mapping Our Community's Future report. o Cy Stober noted the importance of robust community engagement that tells the story of the future. o Trish McGuire noted that there are examples of polarized groups that have made progress and achieved a shared outcome via a similar group. o Brittany Waddell added that if we do have a compass group, it must be clear how their feedback will be used. What weight will we give the group? o The MMC agreed that the compass group would focus on "how we develop the Greene Tract, not if we develop the Greene Tract," including the information in the 2021 Resolutions and ILA (Interlocal Agreement). o Richard White raised a concern about equity as it relates to the groups that have been engaged in the past. o Mayor Seils added that people on the compass group/steering committee cannot be there to undermine decisions that have already been made. The group should be composed of members who are already on-board with the process. ■ Discussion around how to determine composition of the compass group, if that option is implemented: o Staff offered three different options: (1) Option 1 —Equal appointments by a113 boards (2) Option 2—Number of appointments based on 2021 ILA Cost Share (43/43/14) (3) Option 3—One Board appoints all members o No decision was made in this meeting. The MMC will continue to discuss. o Action step—Staff will ask consultant following questions: o Have you used a strategy with a steering committee that had effective outcomes, especially when interests are polar opposites? o Importance of how we use information from the steering committee— What happens if their input isn't taken seriously? o Importance of targeting voices we might not hear regularly in the spirit of advancing equity • MMC decided to accept the higher figures offered by Gensler and everyone agreed to pay portions for each respective jurisdiction. o As an interim step, each Board will consider higher amounts in September or early October, before the item is presented to the Board of County Commissioners on the Consent Agenda on October 17, 2023. 3. Update on Master Plan Process Staff shared update on the RFP process for Master Design Services. Key Points • Staff is currently reviewing 6 applications for the Master Design Services contract. • Staff does not yet know the cost associated with the Master Plan Design Services. • The MMC will decide on funding for the Master Plan at a later point. The meeting adjourned at 5:05 pm.