Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 11-02-23; 8-a - Minutes 1 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: November 2, 2023 Action Agenda Item No. 8-a SUBJECT: Minutes DEPARTMENT: Board of County Commissioners ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Draft Minutes (Under Separate Cover) Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board, 919- 245-2130 PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the draft minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as listed below. BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's proceedings. Attachment 1: September 19, 2023 Business Meeting Attachment 2: September 21, 2023 Work Session — Strategic Plan Attachment 3: September 26, 2023 Joint Meeting with School Boards FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item. 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 the Board approve minutes as presented or as amended. Attachment 1 1 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 BUSINESS MEETING 5 September 19, 2023 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, 9 September 19, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. 10 11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair McKee and 12 Commissioners Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Jean Hamilton, Phyllis Portie-Ascott, and 13 Commissioner Richards 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. 15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 17 Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified 18 appropriately below) 19 20 Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present, 21 except Vice-Chair McKee and Commissioner Richards. 22 23 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda 24 25 Chair Bedford dispensed with reading the public charge. 26 27 Commissioner Richards arrived at 7:01 pm. 28 29 2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour) 30 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 31 Mary Bratsch-Hines said Orange County Solid Waste will soon be seeking the Board's 32 approval to build a large-scale waste and recycling center on land currently owned by OWASA at 33 the corner of Orange Grove Rd. and HWY 54. She provided the Commissioners with a copy of a 34 letter that she and other residents presented to OWASA last week in opposition to the proposed 35 sale. She said the site plan developed by the Solid Waste Department does not represent the 36 number of nearby homes. She said there are 70 residential properties within 2000 feet of the 37 proposed site, including 35 homes that are within 1000 feet. She said this represents 2.5-4x 38 greater residential density than exists within 1,000 feet of any other waste and recycling center in 39 Orange County. She said other centers are sited alongside commercial or industrial properties, 40 which is far more appropriate than in a residential area. She said her biggest concern is increased 41 traffic because of closing the Bradshaw Quarry and Ferguson Rd. waste and recycling centers. 42 She said the plan is for the new waste and recycling center to be open 6 days a week and would 43 make traveling on that part of Orange Grove Rd. treacherous. She said her children and dozens 44 of others ride the bus on this road each day. She said the bus stop is very close to the proposed 45 site entrance, and the entrance is also on a blind curve in a 55 MPH zone. She said the intensified 46 traffic places all at risk. She said rural residents haven't asked for a waste and recycling center, 47 especially not at this price and location. 48 Barry Lawrence said he and his wife live in the Collins Creek community which is adjacent 49 to the proposed waste and recycling center on Orange Grove Rd. He said he is concerned by the 50 smells, the noise, the traffic, and runoff this proposed plan would cause and the impact it may 51 have on his property value, quality of life, and possibly contaminate his well. He said this proposal 2 1 carries a significant environmental justice concern and cited the Board's Social Justice Goals. He 2 said of the 35 homes within 1,000 feet that the previous speaker mentioned, 80% of them are 3 already within 1000 feet of the biosolid field, and 60% of them make up a mobile home community. 4 Of those living in the mobile home community, he said 60% are Hispanic or Latino. He said those 5 families didn't receive any information in Spanish from anyone, and they do not want this either, 6 but are not comfortable coming forward. He said questions of disproportionate burden should be 7 asked any time one community asked to accommodate multiple waste management activities, 8 especially if the community shares demographic or socioeconomic traits. He asked the Board to 9 direct Solid Waste to come up with a new proposal that doesn't affect a residential area. 10 Joyce McGuire said she and her husband have lived at their home, adjacent to the 11 proposed waste facility and the OWASA biofield, for 35 years. She said she is most concerned 12 with noise, odor, and potential well water contamination because of the waste and recycling 13 center. She said the closest properties to the site are only 100 feet away and there will be 14 extremely loud compactors, shattering glass, backup beepers, and slamming cars 6 days a week 15 all day long. She said complete odor-containment is impossible and foul-smelling odors will 16 greatly depreciate surrounding property values. Regarding wells, she said some residents' wells 17 are within 500 feet of the proposed facility and there can be no guarantee that this won't result in 18 contamination of the wells of surrounding homes. She asked the commissioners to say no to the 19 Solid Waste Department's request to build a waste and recycling center on this site. She also 20 encouraged Board members to walk the property and stated that after doing so they will see that 21 this is not a suitable location. 22 Susan Walser said she lives in Bingham Township. She said she doesn't live near the 23 site, but she is part of this community and is concerned. She said she is a realtor and is concerned 24 that any resident around the facility will have to disclose that there is odor and noise from the 25 commercial facility when attempting to sell their property. She said this facility will certainly have 26 a negative impact on real estate in this area. Ms. Walser also said she was at the Solid Waste 27 Advisory Group meeting last night and there was a presentation by a consultant about a zero- 28 waste proposal. She stated that the survey conducted in relation to this topic was only completed 29 by 1,400 people and the results don't represent the county. She said the numbers in the 30 presentation didn't make sense. She added that the presentation was geared toward the towns 31 and proposed raising the solid waste fees which would have a negative impact on the many 32 financially compromised people in the county. She said this would benefit the towns but not the 33 rural townships. She encouraged the Board to focus on what is wanted vs. what is needed in the 34 county. 35 Marilee McTigue said she has lived in Orange County for over 30 years and resides in 36 Bingham township around 5 miles away from the proposed site for the waste and recycling center. 37 She said the people in this area don't see the need for this and don't understand the justification 38 for the cost. She said she'd rather see this money go toward other rural needs like more 39 investment in high-speed internet. 40 41 Vice-Chair McKee arrived at 7:15 pm. 42 43 Joshua Setzer said his home is about 1,700 feet from the proposed waste and recycling 44 center site. He said there are a lot of problems with this proposal. He said closing the Bradshaw 45 and Ferguson sites will mean more driving for residents which is counter to the idea of a 46 convenience center. He said this may also lead to more illegal burning and dumping of garbage. 47 He said there is a path to upgrading the current facilities, which would better benefit residents. He 48 said the bins do need repair and replacement and has heard people would like the existing 49 facilities to be open more days a week. He said he understands this is a staffing issue and 50 suggested paying staff more. He said there are sport shooting ranges near the site that would 51 make residents uncomfortable using the facility. He said building the site would require clear- 3 1 cutting a significant amount of forest and abandoning two other sites that were already clear cut 2 and contaminated, which doesn't sound like the best environmental decision. He added that the 3 creek flows to eventually to Jordan Lake, which is part of Chapel Hill-Carrboro's long-range water 4 plan. He said there are also a lot of liability issues for the county to consider when building on a 5 site used for biosolids, especially considering pending EPA guidance on PFAS and biosolids. 6 7 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda 8 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 9 10 3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members 11 Commissioner Fowler said she attended the Ideal Communities Action Team on 12 September 8th, which has created a vision for people with disability and older adults in North 13 Carolina to be informed about and have access to a wide array of inclusive, safe, affordable 14 housing options. She said the team is looking at policy changes and accessing currently available 15 funding. She said there was a SWAG meeting last night and they received a presentation on the 16 Zero-Waste Master Plan, which presented multiple options for implementation ranging from little 17 capital investment and a small cost increase for users up to significant capital investment and 18 price increases. She said the plan will eventually be brought back to SWAG and then ultimately 19 to the BOCC for consideration. She said SWAG also heard updates on the proposed waste and 20 recycling center, including public comment from 10 residents. She indicated that Robert Williams, 21 Solid Waste Director, will be providing additional information on the Solid Waste website later this 22 week. Finally, she shared that she attended the ABC Board meeting this morning and sales are 23 still higher now than this time last year, and the legislature is considering legislation to allow 24 Sunday sales and open stores on July 411 and January 1St 25 Commissioner Richards said she was at the Burlington-Graham MPO meeting tonight, 26 which resulted in her arriving late. She said the Metro-Transportation Improvement Plan was 27 approved at the meeting, and the SPOT and other priority items were pushed to the October 28 meeting. She said that October 21St is Great Trails State Day, and every county is encouraged to 29 do something around trails. She said she recently learned there is a Transit to Trails program that 30 will provide transportation to trails across the state. She said today is National Voter Registration 31 Day, and only 1 in 4 eligible voters is registered to vote. Commissioner Richards recognized this 32 month as Hispanic Heritage Month. She also said she also attended the Justice Advisory Council 33 meeting on September 8th and one of the things that has been long-planned and is ready to initiate 34 is medication for opioid-use disorder at the jail. She said this will benefit new detention center 35 residents experiencing withdrawal and create a plan for them to continue treatment at release. 36 Vice-Chair McKee said he and several other commissioners attended the Orange Grove 37 Fire Department 501h anniversary event. He said it was a very good event, with a lot of reflection 38 and recognition of past firefighters and community members who were involved in these efforts. 39 Chair Bedford said she met with the OWASA delegation this morning and their budget is 40 impacted by inflation. She said the merging of Pittsboro and Sanford water and sewer supply 41 created a wrinkle that OWASA must figure out regarding western intake on Jordan Lake. She said 42 OWASA also has until the end of 2028 to meet new EPA PFAS regulations and will hire a 43 consultant to do short term and long-term work on this. She said the Board of Social Services met 44 yesterday and there are some children in DSS care and having the house for visitation has 45 provided relief for the children after school. Chair Bedford added that the NACO annual meeting 46 is tentatively scheduled in Florida, and the Clerk is drafting a letter asking them to reconsider that 47 decision. 48 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she attended the reception to meet Jeff McNeil, Veterans 49 Services Officer, and met some other disabled veterans and learned about the services they are 50 offering to other veterans in Orange County. She said she is coordinating a time to meet with Jeff 51 McNeil one on one to understand more about the services they are providing. She said she also 4 1 talked with the DSS Director and staff at the reception to get a better understanding of traditional 2 Medicaid vs. the Medicaid waiver program. She attended a special presentation on housing from 3 the former Wake County planning director. She said it was interesting to see how they streamlined 4 their permitting process for residents. 5 Commissioner Greene agreed that the presentation Commissioner Portie-Ascott 6 mentioned was very well done. She said her takeaway was the importance of combining land use 7 with transportation planning. Commissioner Greene took a moment to recognize a couple of 8 events that took place over the summer that the Board forgot to mention at their last meeting. She 9 said the UPROAR festival was a tremendous success and hopes the Board and staff will support 10 Katie Murray in planning another event. She said there was also a groundbreaking for the Lumos 11 project, which will bring broadband to over 20,000 households in Orange County. She said 12 because the Board used$10,000,000 directly from the federal government, this process is moving 13 more quickly than some other counties using other funding sources. Commissioner Greene also 14 encouraged everyone to get their vaccines this season. 15 Commissioner Hamilton thanked Commissioner Greene for bringing attention to UPROAR 16 and updates on Lumos. She said she attended the Alliance Health board meeting earlier this 17 month. She said for those who don't know, Alliance Health is the Manage Care Organization for 18 the county, which provides mental health services for residents with Medicaid and uninsured 19 residents. She said Alliance Health is working hard to improve services to residents, get ready for 20 Medicaid expansion, and have a plan to coordinate physical and mental health. Commissioner 21 Hamilton said the Capital Needs Work Group is meeting tomorrow morning and will receive a 22 report from a consultant regarding the capital needs of schools. She said this presentation will 23 likely also take place at the joint meeting with the school boards on September 261h 24 Chair Bedford said two volunteers from the Board are needed to serve on the Naming 25 Committee for the 203 Project. Commissioner Greene and Commissioner Richards volunteered 26 to serve. 27 28 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations 29 30 a. Presentation of the Schools Safety Task Force Final Report 31 The Board received a presentation on the Schools Safety Task Force Final Report. 32 33 BACKGROUND: The Charge and composition of the Schools Safety Task Force were 34 established at the Board's November 15, 2022 Business Meeting. With a subsequent amendment 35 to the Charge approved at the Board of Commissioners' April 18, 2023 Business meeting, the 36 Task Force was charged to: 37 1) Discuss ways in which the Orange County government, schools, law enforcement, and 38 community can enhance the safety of the school environment to protect from external 39 threats and promote the education of Orange County K-12 public school students; and 40 2) Recommend to the Board of County Commissioners new or amended policies, 41 ordinances, and/or practices that will address those external threats and provide a safer 42 school environment for our students, teachers and staff. 43 44 Task Force members were appointed in December 2022 and January/February 2023. 45 46 Commissioner Jean Hamilton and Commissioner Earl McKee served as Co-Chairs for the Task 47 Force, and Retired District Court Judge Jay Bryan served as the facilitator. The Task Force met 48 six times between February and June 2023 and explored the primary topic areas of: 49 • Protest/demonstrations 50 • Active Assailants, and 51 0 Public Access to School Property During School Hours. 5 1 2 Presenters to the Task Force included: 3 • Karen Fairley, Executor Director of the Center for Safer Schools, an agency within the NC 4 Department of Public Instruction 5 • UNC Law School Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea regarding the First Amendment and 6 the Constitution 7 • John Roberts, County Attorney for Orange County Board of Commissioners 8 The agendas and meeting summaries for Task Force meetings are available at: 9 https://www.orangecountync.gov/AgendaCenter/Search/?term=&CIDs=38,&startDate=&endDat 10 e=&dateRange=&dateSelector= 11 12 Based on the information gathering efforts, presentations and discussion, the Task Force 13 developed the attached Final Report including nine (9) recommendations (see page 7 of the 14 Report). 15 16 Greg Wilder, Assistant to the County Manager for Legislative Issues, reviewed the 17 background information for this item. He invited retired District Court Judge and task force 18 facilitator, Jay Bryan, to make comments. 19 Jay Bryan thanked the Board for the opportunity to serve as facilitator for this task force 20 and said he enjoyed working with Commissioner Hamilton and Vice-Chair McKee as co-chairs, 21 as well as Greg Wilder. He said the Board's wisely chosen task force members brought a wide 22 array of perspectives and expertise. He shared the topics discussed at each meeting and 23 reviewed the recommendations from the task force: 24 1. Annual meetings of the Task Force or other group be convened by the BOCC to review 25 policies that address safety in the school districts and provide education on laws 26 addressing school disruptions. 27 2. Quarterly meetings of school staff involved in school safety issues and law enforcement 28 to continue to be held to discuss coordination and communication regarding safety. 29 3. The physical boundaries of each school in the school districts be identified and shared 30 with stakeholders, including law enforcement, emergency management, school staff, 31 parents, and others involved in school safety. 32 4. Assessments of improvements to school buildings regarding safety as well as funding for 33 such improvements be continued. 34 5. Law enforcement, schools, and emergency management continue to follow Standard 35 Response Protocols and evaluate approaches that are individualized for each school. 36 6. The roles of SROs, teachers, and staff be clearly communicated among all stakeholders. 37 7. Annual surveys of teachers and students' perceptions of safety and disruption of schools 38 be promulgated and evaluated for promoting safety. 39 8. Common definitions and accessible language for terms and first responder codes involved 40 in school safety (i.e.., "disruption", "external threats", "lockdown") be developed for both 41 school districts and the community. 42 9. Outreach should continue a coordinated basis with the public about how the community 43 can support school safety. 44 45 Commissioner Hamilton said this was a good task force experience. She said there is 46 amazing expertise in this community, and it was present on this task force. She specifically 47 recognized the student representative that participated and highlighted the importance of their 48 perspective. 49 Commissioner Richards asked why only one student participated. 6 1 Commissioner Hamilton said her understanding is there was an issue of getting students 2 to and from meetings, so that's why one of the recommendations is to have surveys to get 3 additional students' perspectives. 4 Vice-Chair McKee added that the task force varied the times and locations of meetings to 5 try to accommodate members. 6 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if any meetings were held during the school day. 7 Commissioner Hamilton and Vice-Chair McKee said no. 8 Commissioner Hamilton said Greg Wilder and Jay Bryan were great to work with. She 9 thanked them both for their unique contributions to the task force. She said while this was a good 10 task force experience, it wasn't perfect. She said that one of the downfalls of the task force was 11 not having more student input, and the schools did what they could to get student representatives. 12 Commissioner Hamilton said there was discussion about meeting at the schools, but law 13 enforcement members of the task force were concerned about the safety of students. She said 14 she learned a lot through this experience, and it was great to have the law enforcement and school 15 safety experts. She said for the most part, the county, school districts, and law enforcement are 16 already doing what is considered best practice around school safety, but there is opportunity for 17 more clarity and to share information with the public to the extent possible. She said she supports 18 the task force recommendations, thinks they are doable, and they keep a process going to help 19 them all be better able to respond in the future. 20 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how all stakeholders being aware of the boundaries of 21 school property will keep students safe. 22 Commissioner Hamilton said there are a lot of components to consider when establishing 23 physical boundaries of school properties and it isn't always clear. She asked John Roberts to 24 weigh in. 25 John Roberts said Commissioner Hamilton was correct--there is a question of where 26 school property ends and the public right of way adjacent to the property begins. He said a 27 member of the public may be on the sidewalk, but for a road, it isn't always clear how far into the 28 road the school's right of way extends. 29 Commissioner Hamilton said that is why the recommendation is there to figure out those 30 boundaries so that law enforcement is aware and can limit people crossing over that line. 31 Vice-Chair McKee said some of these recommendations may seem vague, but there were 32 often even more questions after receiving presentations and information from experts. He said 33 this will remain a living document and be open to interpretation, amendment, clarification, and 34 revision so that it can grow and respond with the needs at the time. Vice-Chair McKee highlighted 35 that the well-being of students was a focus throughout all the task force's discussions. 36 Commissioner Fowler said establishing the physical boundaries of schools is a critical 37 action item and asked who it has been assigned to. 38 Vice-Chair McKee said he thinks it will fall to the school district to define where the property 39 limits are. 40 Commissioner Fowler said this information could be incorporated into the schools' annual 41 safety plans. 42 Commissioner Hamilton agreed that this does need to be assigned to someone to 43 complete. To add to her response to Commissioner Portie-Ascott's early question about ensuring 44 safety, she said the laws on books don't protect emotional distress. She said law enforcement 45 can act if actions disrupt the school day or school operations. She said having an expert to explain 46 that an annual meeting is critical so that everyone understands this is a limit, but also knows there 47 is a plan in place in case that does happen. 48 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how this information can be communicated to parents 49 and to students to show that they are doing all they can to keep them safe. 50 Commissioner Hamilton said she believes the annual meeting can result in information 51 that is disseminated to the broader community, including parents and students. She said she 7 1 believes the whole community is needed in this conversation because it is too big for the schools 2 to take on alone. She said she views the county commissioners as the conveners to bring 3 everyone together. 4 Commissioner Greene asked if this information will be shared with the Capital Needs Work 5 Group. 6 Commissioner Hamilton said the capital needs are beyond safety, but she agrees safety 7 will inform some of the decisions about capital needs. 8 Vice-Chair McKee said the task force's recommendations should serve as a guide. 9 Regarding the connection between safety and capital needs, Vice-Chair McKee said thinking 10 about access points at schools and other safety issues needs to be part of every conversation 11 regarding future schools and renovating existing schools. He said common definitions are also 12 needed to keep stakeholders on the same page when having these conversations. 13 Commissioner Richards said she thinks there are specifics in the recommendations that 14 should be seen through. She said she hopes there is some commitment on the part of the schools 15 to act relative to this. She said many of the recommendations center around clarity, 16 communicating, and educating on an ongoing basis, and now the Board and stakeholders should 17 move toward implementing and working toward the recommendations. 18 Vice-Chair McKee said he thinks this should come up every joint meeting with the school 19 boards and wants follow up from the schools. 20 Chair Bedford said the school systems have long been working on making schools safer 21 and continue to do so. She said the Board should partner with the schools. 22 Commissioner Hamilton said there is a role for the county commissioners to convene 23 stakeholders and communicate beyond the school community to convey what schools are facing. 24 She said School Collaboration Meetings are an opportunity for decisions on how to move forward 25 with implementation. She said she is happy to serve on a committee for the annual meeting and 26 rotate with others. 27 Chair Bedford said she will raise that issue at the November 911 School Collaboration 28 Meeting. 29 Commissioner Hamilton highlighted the importance of making sure meetings work with 30 the school calendar. 31 32 5. Public Hearings 33 a. 5311 Rural Area Formula Grant and Combined Capital Program (5311/5339) Grant for FY 34 2024 35 The Board held a public hearing on the 5311 Administrative grant application and the Combined 36 Capital grant application for FY 2024 and approved the Local Share Certification (Attachment 1). 37 38 BACKGROUND: Each year, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 39 Integrated Mobility Division (IMD) accepts requests for capital, operations, and administrative 40 needs for county-operated transit programs. Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) is 41 eligible to make application for both capital and administrative funding and seeks a total of 42 $1,796,947 in transit grant funding. 43 44 Detailed breakdown is outlined in the table below: 45 8 Source 5311 Admin Grant Combined Capital Totals Grant Total $ 196,947 $ 1,600,000 $ 1,796,947 Federal $ 157,557 $ 1,280,000 $1,437,557 State $ 9,848 $ 160,000 $ 169,848 Local $ 29,542 $ 160,000 $ 189,542 1 2 OCTS provides the opportunity for access to jobs and services to many individuals. Public notices 3 were advertised through News of Orange in English and Spanish. 4 5 The 5311 Administrative and Combined Capital grants provide financial support for transit 6 services that promote economic self-sufficiency to a wide range of residents and locations. The 7 funds additionally support a system that enhances the access of residents in the non-urbanized 8 areas to health care, shopping, education, employment, public services, and recreation. 9 10 Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Service Director, reviewed the background information for 11 the item. 12 13 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to 14 open the public hearing. 15 16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 17 18 There were no comments. 19 20 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to 21 close the public hearing. 22 23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 24 25 A motion was made by Vice-Chair McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to approve 26 and authorize the Chair and staff to sign the Local Share Certification. 27 28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 29 30 b. 5311 Rural Area Formula Grant and Combined Capital Program (5311/5339) Grant for FY 31 2025 32 The Board conducted a public hearing on the 5311 Administrative grant application and the 33 Combined Capital grant application for FY 2025, approved the 5311 Administrative grant 34 application, and approved the Program Resolution (Attachment 1) and Local Share Certification 35 (Attachment 2). 36 37 BACKGROUND: Each year, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 38 Integrated Mobility Division (IMD) accepts requests for capital, operations and administrative 39 needs for county-operated transit programs. Orange County Transportation Services (OCTS) is 40 eligible to make application for both capital and administrative funding and seeks a total of 41 $206,764 in grant funding. 42 43 Detailed breakdown is outlined in the table below: 9 Source 5311 Admin Grant Combined Capital Totals Grant Total $ 206,794 $ 0 $ 206,794 Federal $ 165,435 $ 0 $ 165,435 State $ 10,339 $ 0 $ 10,339 Local $ 31,020 $ 0 $ 31,020 1 2 OCTS provides the opportunity for access to jobs and services to many individuals. The 5311 3 Administrative and Combined Capital grants provide financial support for transit services that 4 promote economic self-sufficiency to a wide range of residents and locations. The funds 5 additionally support a system that enhances the access of residents in the non-urbanized areas 6 to health care, shopping, education, employment, public services, and recreation. 7 8 OCTS staff received new information from NCDOT regarding the discretionary allocation and are 9 required to redo the public hearing and update the Local Share Certificate to receive these 10 additional grant funds. 11 12 Nishith Trivedi, Transportation Service Director, reviewed the background information for 13 the item. 14 15 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to 16 open the public hearing. 17 18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 19 20 There were no comments. 21 22 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to 23 close the public hearing. 24 25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 26 27 A motion was made by Commissioner Greene, seconded by Vice-Chair McKee, to 28 approve the 5311 Administrative grant application for $206,794 including a local match total of 29 $31,020, and to approve and authorize the Chair and staff to sign the Program Resolution 30 (Attachment 1) and Local Share Certificate (Attachment 2) 31 32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 33 34 6. Regular Agenda 35 a. Orange County NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study 36 The Board approved the NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study in Orange County. 37 38 BACKGROUND: In Fall 2018, the consultant (VHB) concluded the NC 54 West Multimodal 39 Corridor Study presenting a thorough existing conditions, environmental and economic analysis 40 of the corridor, two rounds of public engaging workshops in each of the local jurisdictions and 41 presented the full report (link). VHB also followed up with a Phase 2 (Attachment 1) report 42 addressing all the important issues raised throughout the planning process. 43 10 1 The City of Graham approved the study prior to the Phase 2 report while the Burlington-Graham 2 Metropolitan Planning Organization in collaboration with Alamance County approved the study in 3 its entirety with phase 2. These entities submitted the western portion of the corridor for the State's 4 Strategic Prioritization of Transportation (SPOT) 6.0 and will do so again for 7.0. Orange County 5 received the report, as did the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) and the 6 Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (DCHC MPO). Both regional 7 agencies defer to the County respectively. In Fall 2019, the Town of Carrboro Town Council 8 unanimously approved a resolution unconditionally opposing the study. 9 10 While Orange County continues coordinating and collaborating with all its local and regional 11 partners along the corridor since the study's completion, traffic on NC 54 has returned to pre- 12 covid levels, serious injuries and fatalities continue at increasing rate, and development pressure 13 increase in southern Orange County. Orange County continues to collaborate with the North 14 Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), which updated its Complete Street Policy and 15 Implementation Guide in 2019, revamping State highway projects for a more comprehensive 16 benefit for all users. The State also grants local government the ability to adopt transportations 17 plans and implement them through Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinances. 18 19 State's New Process— Complete Streets (link) 20 Over the past three years, NCDOT has made significant progress is advancing the policy and 21 improving its implementation through its Project Delivery Network (PDN). All highway projects 22 now go through a comprehensive "complete" use assessment. The Comprehensive 23 Transportation Plan (CTP) is the governing document for the State's new Complete Street Policy 24 and its implementation. Per the new policy, "during the Comprehensive Transportation Planning 25 process, bicycle, pedestrian, transit, and other multimodal usage shall be presumed to exist along 26 and across certain corridors." NCDOT recognizes that an individual user is a pedestrian, bicyclist, 27 transit rider, EV/gas vehicle driver, etc., and often times in the same day. Therefore, the policy 28 dictates "Consideration of multimodal elements will begin at the inception of the transportation 29 planning process and the decisions made will be documented." 30 31 Local Authorization— UDO and Collector Street Plans 32 The Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) in section 2.5.3.(V), includes the 33 requirement that applications for site plans demonstrate compliance with adopted transportation 34 plans. This may include reserving or dedicating right of way or requiring road construction listed 35 in locally adopted Transportation Plans or on the Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP). 36 Specific mention is also made in North Carolina General Statute (NCGS) § 136 66.2 and § 136 37 66.10 regarding the reservation or dedication of right of way based on the concepts shown on the 38 CTP and locally adopted transportation plans. Orange County currently has three locally adopted 39 transportation plans: 40 • Efland-Buckhorn-Mebane Access Management Plan 41 • Orange Grove Road Access Management Plan 42 • Eno Economic Development District Access Management Plan 43 44 Approval of NC 54 West Multimodal Corridor Study would be a fourth locally adopted 45 transportation plan and will demonstrate the County's commitment to multi-mobility, transit 46 access, and safety of the transportation as an important local priority, followed by the US 70 47 Multimodal Corridor Study which is anticipated to be completed Fall 2023. It will also demonstrate 48 to local, regional and state partners that the County, like NCDOT's Complete Streets, sees the 49 road network as equitable for all travelers, not favoring one over the other, and acknowledges that 50 a traveler throughout the course of the day will walk one place, ride another, drive to and from a 51 third, and bike yet another. 11 I Transportation Advisory Service (TAS) 2 April 2023 —The TAS unanimously recommended approval of NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study. 3 4 Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) 5 May 22, 2023 — The OUTBoard voted 4 — 1 in favor of BOCC approving the Study (an excerpt 6 from the meeting minutes with detail discussion is provided at Attachment 2). 7 8 Chair Bedford said this is coming forward because there are four members of the Board 9 that have not ever seen this. She said this will provide them a chance to discuss the study and 10 ask questions. 11 Nishith Trivedi, Orange County Transportation Services Director, made the following 12 presentation: 13 14 Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study September 19, 2023 BOCC 15 16 17 Slide #2 Outline o Background • The Multimodal Corridor Recommendations • Complete Street and vision Zero Environmental Justice(in transportation) o All Issues Addressed o Requested Action 18 12 1 Slide #3 - NC 54 West Corridor DCHC MPO urlsdiction and MPOIRPO - mil miles-22%%of corridor Cor - ]�f (2.8 muss-80.87%Orange County) - - (1.8 miles-39.43%Carrboro) kiAy Grahaml5TJ 1 4.7 miles f ! 8.25% !� SweeapsonvilleJETJ or�ngi Cooney _ 1.2 mites E7J J Alamance County - l 7.3 miles TARPO ( 35.44Nn5.8 Miles-28°,.6 of corridor 1001,6 Orange County _ ! i - _ BG MPO r rtT 10.2 Miles•50%of canidor 18396 Alamance County) Orange County I (17%Graham) � ! 8.6 miles 1 Y. ! 41.75% - f ds CarrboroIETJ � o ye�yl 1.8 miles 8.73% _ i Y 2 ... 3 4 Slide #4 Multimodal Corridor Recommendations ------------------------------------------ - .�s-_�-- 4 sem`v _ l ETJ { ETJ l--_- ---.-------r- ---- - -- -----7 CJ a.. r—r-- —iar.ic.—.c-zccaar--`r ---mi-------:aarriocr--w ,. I 1 1 1 F I 1 I I I I _.xmrwrar:rxu..rrl� 'Or.trngv Gyxnnty O�FFbOraF I I ! I a;.�¢•d.nv. �r.�e.�•a�trp ri. ! - I I ETJ I I ! --------------------------------------------- 5 __ --------.. _.r_s., ----.----------------- 5 Sowce.Carrboro GAS Zorrrrig Map and Googk, 6 Nishith Trivedi discussed the area that is in the ETJ of Carrboro and said that is Orange 7 County. 13 1 Slide #5 Multimodal Corridor Recommendations r;r+lrl - a ry .%r CY■q.G—-r!q M14.4 i e T naafi q rrti+u-i � r r 2 Source_Pa Nic Workshop#2, mase 7&2 RepM Travel lane=transit,EMS,freight,auto,EV, etc. � 3 Nishith Trivedi said that it is already exceeding the capacity of the corridor, and this will 4 address transit and EMS. 5 6 Slide #6 Multimodal Corridor Recommendations 4�S.rwl "}% Burlington - „_F,,, ►" BG hi PG CTP PART add service after made Nlultimada] PnR Q Mebane Gals Now the Nest and Retreat Cuter + Fell trA H — PnR Q We Cn s FQmzer DQIlar General wr.r PrQPQ5zO Figure 18:Transit Rouoes and 11444•Rida Lots 7 .Sl7WCi7 Pun,rrYpart 3 14 1 Nishith Trivedi said that there are multiple park and ride lots proposed for the future. He 2 said there are transit improvements as well. 3 4 Slide #7 Multimodal Corridor Recommendations $ 3 $ 30.800 000 $4.600,000 35.400.000 4 $ 16,400,000 $ 3,100,000 19,600,000 5 $29,600.GQG $ 3,106,000 5 32..700,000 6 $20,100.000 $ 3,300,000 S 23_400,000 7 $ 37,490,GOG -$ 5,800,040 S 43.200,000 PrOPO GOSI sao Baa s.� Sip S-S Segment P 3 4 3 a ? wHigway?Roadway nBlWp-ed. 5 Source_PuNic Wc)rk,shop# ; Phase I A 2 Report 6 6 Nishith Trivedi said that all pieces included a shared use of the bike path and 10% was 7 added for the bike/ped piece. He said the green shows the additional cost. 8 9 15 1 Slide #8 FY2024-2033 STIP—US Routes Seeking CS through Highway Improvements Us 1 Us 221-No 226 Us 117 Bus/Us 117(N.Williams Street) Us 23 Business(South Main Street) Us 13(Berkeley Boulevard) Us 258 Us 131Nc 11 Us 25a(Sweeten Creek Road) Us 151 Us 401 Us 276(Russ Avenue) Us 151 Us 501 Us 401 Us 158(Shortcut Road) Us 421 Us 17 Us 421/Us 321 Us 19e Us 601 Us 19e,No 194 Us 64 Us 21-Nc 115 Us 64/Nc 69 Us 21 (Charlotte Highway) Us 70(South Church Street) Us 220 Business Us 74 Us 221 NC 98(Holloway Street) No 279 No 105 Nc 279(New Hope Road) No 112(Sardis Roadl Sandhill Road) Nc 3 Nc 115 Nc 42 Nc 119 No 43 No 125 No 49 No 133(Castle Hayne Road) No 53 No 150 Nc 56 Nc 150(Oak Ridge Farm Highway) No 59(South Main Street) Ne 16(Providence Road South) Nc 63(Leicester Highway) No 184 No 69 Nc 211 Nc 84 Nc241Nc27 EL, Nc87 2 3 Nishith Trivedi said slide #8 shows the corridors that are seeking complete street 4 improvements across the state. He said these are funded by state and federal funds. 5 6 Slide #9 NCDOT Complete Streets 2.1 Adopted Plans A Cumprehenslve Transportallon Plan(CTP)Is a mutuality adopted transportation planning document fhal 6dentlhes the multi-modal Uanspolrtatlon needs of a community or Jurisdiction. The CTP may include a4wor reference loc* adopted plans for public transportallon, bicycle facilities,pedestrian facilities and greenways The adopted CTP will M considered the controlling plan for the identification of non-motorized facilities to ee evaklated as partof a roadway project.Other locally adapted plans will be consldered so long as 1.)the plarmd facility addresses a[ransponatlon need and 2)the planned facility meets the design guidance slarxlards K[XL2U224MI"�. f,(Oe'lkl�ilg ORANGE CADUhTV BOAPI)OF COMMISSIONERS R SOLLMON YOR THEW I'MIN OPORANGE C't7LrNIN LUMPLFTE V'RL'.LI'M NJUC1' WFER&58sIW Oinw.Cone}1*ca WC.,dyC—iHiunns(IKKC}hie rued Gm Oar.e i,n,Is crpr.W9 IMsPOM1i-r'LMh1„E re 4 alarlhlW'm4,ea6yM#a]Itrt,rid n;trlpK4r.wne fi9heQ Ih*OtW^nwo wllh 7%IPW t34*Wxg l W 16007,­1 Y4'FdSRFAS the HCCIL'."R—d iIr-n—m impl—lai--atlSc Yur11i S;yrt+Fmr DapletrnW of Tnmopar4licm 17fCDOT1 Cmnplok pit 10 rRIky in o11 oFils,wplimblr 1xLl.enrr.d0tlkysr11011 rOUflp*tii hlpLanp p.pJe4aq a5 m eraeer dr.��.neupn Iepelu�;aer WHEREAN,(I*V4 row"*.pKes Iaesl k nlrr pe46-Alri r5-by Li—ppLterei and WH1 RFAS, C9n"0.e [..nimiy I'!e Ihal by LWanelnlJ all Irrulx)-0 1-1. uid —nlo 6mg olkmm..od�3pli¢p a C'ee{Arlc Su ees�r¢und roria4unian of viler nrxrsrmie¢aucs dW the lsanspu4un6@Jg 2jgajlL WW equitnhl};and WRERF:A8,4�:—pJne Su­}'4'ky ear;help c¢ aaffic,mdu a rrk pppoeunid= rncrr¢x physkol usiviry,and—mdrrerrvvol¢ny11s.tl.c vdealx ,Lyui—: iOw THEREFORE.RE m RESMNZD.,thu r,*Fp Cn qe3,—its mpp¢t ofca.*W Slam mthe=plmwng,deaiRea¢d c—&-ii¢n fhi@b --aL poujtcls. 7 {]range Ceuniyy- NCOO7rmvrementSad'on C,ttfde&Crruf#y Covnolatx Stmei F5frcy 7 16 1 Nishith Trivedi said that the complete streets program has been amended and is better 2 now than it was. He said that Orange County also adopted a complete street policy so that they 3 can make sure transportation is equitable across all uses and for everyone. 4 5 Slide #10 Background -- MarketAnalysis -=3 OMNI Hill FN Burg i"eon mJ - Shops at Lloyd Farm �ar►Ylora Or-hnm I. I �J IThe Nest lei And f etrezil Center - rte,�r1+'.nuu4n �'� p+k�lapnr 91raf�llllp k Pluck Farm HSI Je�bpava ww I ' I Potential +Development Nodes Woody Dr. . +Jiang-Uroi-r;d. NC 119 • Vt.INIIIE-Rd. Old Fayetteville Rd. ' NIL-banLeIrak.Ru. • Bethel-Hkbry Grove Ch.Rd. 6 oUrCe_ PhISSe7 Markef A raPr�'s- Rose Associates 9 7 Nishith Trivedi said that Rose and Associates completed the market analysis and since 8 the study, there have been development proposals presented. He said that this shows the 9 potential development nodes throughout the county and along NC 54. 10 11 17 Slide #11 Environmental Justice Title A of Civil Rights and Environmental Justice * 1964 Civil RightsAct and Title VI of the Act(nondiscrimination) * 1994 Executive Order No. 12898-Environmental Justice . Communities of Concern . Benefits and Burdens There are benefits and burdens related to every Ira risportation-related project and both must be considered for each specific project during the project identification and prioritization phases of long-range planning activities such as MTP and the TIP (p.4-15) 2 TO 3 Nishith Trivedi said that environmental justice was codified and went into effect in 1994. 4 He said that this identified communities of concern. He said it uses census data and individual 5 block groups. 6 7 Slide #12 Environmental Justice Community of Concern • Census Books thatmeel.County level EJ thresholds are called Community of Concern (COC):non-white,minorities,Hispanic/Latino,elderly,zero car,Limited English prokiency(LEP) • Darker the red, more overlap,meets multiple thresholds • COG 4-Eastern half of NC 54 Multimodal Corridor meets. . Non-white,minority,Hispaniell-atino,and elderly COG 3-Wester half of NC 54 Multimodal Corridor meets: . HispanIcIll-alino,elderly,and Limited English Proficiency(LEP) Qr&nqe County- DCHC UPO 2420 Enyironrwfnaf)u5ffce Repon ii 18 1 Nishith Trivedi said that the county thresholds show that southern Orange County has two 2 communities of concern that have four overlapping criteria that need investment in transportation 3 improvements. 4 5 Slide #13 Environmental Justice Northern County Benefil • tmplerrrent 1-40 widening o J-• • 100%slate and federal investment • Lang distance commuters • Limited access Southern grange County is • Only vahi-cle and 1 over burdened and transit. no bikeiped underserved Southern County L - _ i * Planned NC 54 Multimodal t 10109 state ar)d federal irwvestrnent (potential) Local and regional commuters Few high level C0C • InckWas transit- - Wkerped andIF'"_ 6 vehicle - 12 7 Nishith Trivedi said that currently the widening of 1-40 is not equitable because it serves 8 Northern Orange County. He said that Southern Orange County is not getting benefits right now. 9 He said the planned NC 54 multimodal would benefit southern Orange County. 10 11 19 1 Slide #14 Environmental ,Justice ia,l#iL6f10,ttr Staff Update • Traffic Volume returned to Pre-Covid levels Chapel H,II Man tuElad to Wrack that IfJosad NC 5A E.ia�y . Accidents increasing due to variety of reasons including and not limited to, lane departure, rear end and others 2021 —59 (19 serious injury, 1 fatal) • 2022—63 (28 serious injury,0 fatal) • Source:Highway Patrol v 0 v 2 r3 3 Nishith Trivedi said they have been meeting with the NC Highway Patrol and the number 4 of accidents have increased since 2021. He said that includes an increase in serious injuries. 5 6 Slide #15 Issues Addressed o Bike/Ped accommodations are provided through shared use path as recommended, study includes transit recammendatlons. o SUP by itself is independent bike/ped project and requires local match 7.1€r5rrrplete Weet Crtsi Share The table belaw illustrates thefundmg respansibllities for Complete Streets incorpoaating bicycle and pedestrian and public han5portaMn facilftbm. co"lete si reet Cast Share Faciuw Type in plan and arat in Phot, Pe"erFr4m Wed ldrntified but Need ldmillficd Through Evaluation PrCKM Pedestrian Faclhtty NCDOT pays full Cost sFurse Local On Road Bkyeie Facility NCDOT pays full NCDOT pays hull Wtal Shared-use Parhi5idepath N=T pays full Cost Share Local Separated Bicycle Faclity NCDGT pays kill Cos#Share total rxeeslwaycrtlssing NCDQTpays fcrlt COA Share Weal Transit Padrities' NOWT pays 10 Cast Share Local o NCDOT Complete Street applies only to highway projects. NCDOT pays for non-highway facilities (SUP, Bike Lanes, Transit stops, etc.) only if they are pari of CTP/Locally Adapted Plans and included in highway improvements. 7 r4 20 1 Nishith Trivedi said that if the project is in a locally adopted plan, NCDOT will pay the full 2 cost. He said if it is not in the plan but is an identified need, there will be a cost share. He said 3 that if it is a project that has never been identified then the local government has to pay for those 4 facilities. 5 Vice Chair McKee asked if a shared use path is a sidewalk. 6 Nishith Trivedi said no because a shared use path is 10 feet, minimum, and a sidewalk is 7 5 feet. He said that NCDOT defines them separately. 8 9 Slide #16 Issues Addressed • NC 54 east of Chapel Hill; • DCHC MPO — approved 2012 —widening (6 lane) with multimodal • CAMPO— approved 2016 —widening (4—6 lane) along rail corridor o Widening increases demand —gradual increase, based on growth rate • Local and regional development increases traffic, not just its demand as documented in TIAs (Dollar General, Shops at Lloyd Farm, etc.) o Only 2,000 additional traffic is generated by the widening. Current approved TIAs demonstrate that they generate more traffic even without the widening o UNC hospital and university— UNC's annual commuter survey (rink)- less than % of use NC 54, more than M people on NC 54 use it for other destinations. UNC hospital - bulk of its traffic is east of Orange County o NCDOT wants 4 lane divided without bikelped or transit — Not true o 1-40 not included in analysis — Not true • A bus on 54 will take cars off of 54 — Not true 10 15 11 Nishith Trivedi said the NC 54 widening is part of the Triangle bikeway study now. He said 12 that the TIA's demonstrate that the developments will increase traffic more than the widening 13 itself. He said that UNC used an annual commuter survey and it showed only '/4 came from 14 Orange County. 15 16 21 1 Slide #17 Issues Addressed o NCDOT will do an Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) as required by NEPA after the project is programmed in the STIP. SPOT is used to secure funding and possibility of programming (cam mitmentldevelopment). o Septic and Wells—NCDOT currently owns 120'ROW and all are already addressed. None are impacted if kept in existing ROW. If any additional ROW is required due to NEPA; If in the right-of-way, NGDOT will address through encroachment agreements or easements during ROW phase. ✓ If any were installed after the current right-of-way. they are unauthorized and will be addressed during project development. v If any were installed prior to right-of-way acquisitton,they were fully encased in a steel encasement within the limits of the RNV. If outside the right--of-way, they should be a minimum 10'away from the property line and within private property per County regulations. V If any are less than 10',they will be addressed during project development. 2 f6 3 Nishith Trivedi said that a more detailed environmental study will be done after the project 4 is programmed into the STIP. He said that wells and septic were studied, and they all have been 5 addressed if they are in the right of way. 6 7 Slide #18 Issues Addressed Traffic impact of Lloyd Farr?Development(e.g.Harris Teeter and other mitred use) NC-54 and Old Fayetteville(old NC-86)across the street from Carrboro Playa This includes the Traffic ImpactAnalysis approved by Carrboro and NCDOT c County's commitment to coordinate across All partners • Count oontinues working with PART,SG MPO,other Counties,TARPO.NCDOT Rail and IM D,and uses all resources to support coordination for multimobility such as Complete Streets,SPOT Safely/MobilityFH51P,etc. • March 6,2C20 joint DCHC MPO,TARPO, NCDOT,Carrboro and Orange County meeting in Carrboro in early 2020 following DCHC MPO action. • Watershed-addressed in 2019-recommended improvements are in accordance with County's Comprehensive Plan and watershed regulations in the UDO. o Downtown Carrboro traffic_Phase 2 showed reduction in downtown Carrboro using Streetlight and google technology • NC 54 By-pass is the destination from multiple origins • Phase 2 also showed what happens to other roads in southern orange counlyif you don't widen. • Shop's at Lloyd Farm TIA, other developments in Carrboro,Chapel Hill and Chatham County(Vinfast,Chatham Park.,etc_) g 17 22 1 Nishith Trivedi said that traffic impact analysis done for development does not include 2 widening because it is not existing right now. He said the watershed was addressed and 3 improvements made in accordance with the county's plans. 4 5 Slide #19 Issues Addressed 0 Southern Orange County can simply use the widened 1-40. • Southern rural County residents and businesses,must not be over-burdened and underserved by transportation investments made to benefit just the northern and eastern,urban,or other regional commuters. • 1-40 widening may help but it serves a totally different function then NC 54 • Phase 2 demonstrated destination and origin patterns between Chatham, Orange and Alamance Counties travel behavior are using AJC 54,Not 110. a Safety and Operational improvements anticipated along '.NC-54(R-5321A) • Traffic is back to pre-covid levels and accidents rates are on the rise,especially i nju ries and fatalities_ • Complete scoping,engineering to start in 2027 for possible:3 left tum lanes • Construction may fund up to 3 of them. • Hatch road—west bound left turn lane(CarrborolETJ) • Southern driveway at NC 54-driveway access(CarrborolE J) • American Stone Company driveway access(Orange County) • Should construction be funded,any bikelped will require local match • Currently not a locally adopted plan • subject to rescoring in SPOT 7, if not successful,project is removed from STIP Designation and Origin-Google and Streetlight technology-travel is predominantly on NC 54 for all of southern Orange County,from BurlingtonlGraham to areas beyond Chapel Hill and Carrboro_not 140 6 T 7 Nishith Trivedi said that the R5021A is funded for engineering and includes three left turn 8 lanes. He said there is a possibility of funding all three and they are near the Hatch Road area. 9 He said this will not address the safety issues highlighted in Southern Orange County. 10 11 Slide #20 Action o Manager recommend BCOCC approve NG 54 Multimodal Corridor Study 12 23 1 Chair Bedford asked for clarification on received or approved for the Board action. 2 Nishith Trivedi said that approving the study makes it a locally adopted program that they 3 can use at the state level. He said that a received document means that the contract is closed out 4 and the consultant is paid but not included in the plan. 5 Chair Bedford asked if the process still includes public hearings and officially including the 6 project in SPOT. 7 Nishith Trivedi said that it would require that process and that SPOT would tie money to 8 the project. He said that it will also still require STIP to plan the project. He said that SPOT is the 9 funding and STIP is the programming. He said that multiple iterations would have to be done. He 10 said that adopting the study allows local governments to leverage complete streets so the state 11 can fully fund the project. 12 Commissioner Greene said the study in the agenda packet does not have the word 13 "multimodal" in it. She said that this is a traffic analysis. She said that she recommends accepting 14 the plan rather than adopting it. She said widening roads induces traffic, and Carrboro does not 15 want this. She said Carrboro would bear the brunt of the traffic. She said that she hears that the 16 projects would be paid for under complete streets but that she is not clear on where that is 17 guaranteed. She said that right of way acquisition is expensive, and she does not think the state 18 will pay for all of that. She said that Carrboro and the MPO have questions about this. She said 19 that she is on the MPO, and they will be discussing next week, and she is unsure why they are 20 discussing this tonight before the MPO does. 21 Chair Bedford asked if DOT already owns the right of way. 22 Nish Trivedi said they own 120 feet. He said the closest project is in Clayton and that is 23 109 feet of right of way with a divided four lane highway. He said that Pender County has another 24 project. He said that there are projects that are done with less right of way. 25 Commissioner Richards asked if this has been around since 2019. 26 Nishith Trivedi said it has been since 2013 when the issues were first identified. He said 27 the study was pursued and completed in 2018. He said that there is a lot more communication 28 until the project is finished. 29 Commissioner Richards asked if the Board voted on this before. 30 Nishith Trivedi said they previously voted to receive the study but did not approve the 31 study. He said if it is approved there is stronger leverage for NCDOT to pay for the project. 32 Commissioner Richards asked if reviewing and accepting are the same thing. 33 Nishith Trivedi said that voting that it is received is simply closing the contract and paying 34 the vendor. 35 Commissioner Richards asked what the options are tonight. 36 Nishith Trivedi said that he is hoping they will approve the study. 37 Commissioner Greene said they can still vote to receive the study rather than approve. 38 Commissioner Richards said that the study has already been voted to be received and 39 that is why she is confused about this tonight. 40 Chair Bedford said that this Board now includes four commissioners that were not on the 41 Board in 2019 when it was voted to be received. She said that it was removed by the technical 42 committee from SPOT 7 after Carrboro raised concern. She said that she thought it would be 43 beneficial for the four commissioners to see the report. She said that in 2019, they had a mayor 44 show up to the meeting and announce that Carrboro was against it. She said they then voted to 45 receive it. She said Carrboro does not want to widen Hwy 54 and they are concerned about the 46 process. She said that the MPO would like additional discussion from the towns although Chapel 47 Hill said they do not want to be part of this right now. She said that Carrboro is concerned about 48 increased demand and enforcing DOT to pay for the multimodal. 49 Commissioner Richards said that the process is involved after local priority is given. She 50 said that without local priority, there is no action taken. She said that there are at least four other 51 gates it needs to go through. 24 1 Nishith Trivedi said there are multiple phases that it would still have to go through. 2 Chair Bedford said this is for 2045 so there is still a lot to discuss and plan for. 3 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked for more information on the information that Southern 4 Orange County is disproportionately affected by existing transportation and said that it seems this 5 is mostly people of color that are being affected. 6 Nishith Trivedi said that Southern Orange County has seven different census block 7 groups. He said those blocks are analyzed by demographic and socio-economic makeup. He said 8 that this measures against the county's thresholds. He said that some of the census blocks are 9 minorities or elderly with no cars. He said there is a need for improvements and service in that 10 area. He said that there is zero investment in Southern Orange County for transportation. He said 11 that there are projects in urban areas, but rural Orange County has no benefit but has great needs. 12 He said that he has a video that he wanted to show that shows a transit driver onto 54 out of 13 driveways. 14 Commissioner Fowler asked if bike-ped was included in 2019. 15 Nishith Trivedi said yes. 16 Commissioner Fowler said that transportation buses used to take this route but now they 17 take 1-40. 18 Nishith Trivedi said that they would come back if the roads were widened but not until 19 then. He said that is why Alamance is also improving their roadways. 20 Commissioner Hamilton said that she had not seen this before. She said that it is tough to 21 follow the alphabet soup with transportation planning. She asked about the big picture of a study 22 like this. She said that the document has the NC54 Corridor study but does not have the term 23 multimodal in it and asked if it mattered. 24 Nishith Trivedi said no. He said the name is not what determines the study. He said that 25 is determined after being studied. He said that the NC98 study was done and not called a 26 multimodal study. He said that the study recommended multimodal, but the title does not make 27 the difference. 28 Commissioner Hamilton asked if there is a possibility of changing aspects of the findings 29 or do they have to do exactly what the study is recommending. 30 Nishith Trivedi said that the study is simply recommending that they divide the road to 31 address the demand. He said while that is being done, transit improvements can be made. He 32 said that the details of the recommendations can be shaped and modified throughout the process. 33 He said that right now it is about getting the project approved so that it can be funded. He said 34 that NCDOT would continue to have more public meetings and discussions before a project is in 35 final design stages. He said that there is still an environmental impact analysis that would also 36 have to be done. 37 Commissioner Hamilton said that her understanding is that approving the study is saying 38 they agree with the analysis that there needs to be improvements and increased capacity and 39 that they agree that the addition of bike-ped is important. She said that the details of how that 40 happens will be determined in the next steps. 41 Nishith Trivedi said that is accurate. He said that it can even be broken down into additional 42 steps. 43 Commissioner Greene said that while there is mention of park and rides, there is no 44 mention of shared use paths on either side in the report. She said that this is the first step to a 45 four-lane highway, and she is having trouble seeing the environmental justice issue because they 46 are bringing more cars. She said that transportation is the word being used but it seems to mean 47 "highways." She said that she is signed up for a meeting with the MPO next week and that this 48 feels it is the cart before the horse. She said that she is happy to accept the report but not ready 49 to adopt it because she has too many questions and some she cannot even articulate at this point. 50 Commissioner Fowler said the bike-ped and PART buses returning to the route are two 51 aspects that seem inviting to her. She said this would increase the ability to use public transport. 25 1 She said the SPOT and STIP processes are very slow, and these projects are many years out. 2 She said she would rather the NCDOT fund this than the county. She said that if folks are to 3 consider biking as a true method of transportation, then it needs to be like this and connected. 4 Nishith Trivedi said that the Department of Aging is trying to develop a fixed route for 5 transportation in Southern Orange County. He said this calls for resources to do that and this 6 would assist in providing those resources. He said that park and ride lots cannot be planned 7 without a fixed route service. 8 Commissioner McKee said that for years he was content to study and talk about the 9 southern branch library. However, he came to the position that it is time to make a decision. He 10 said they should decide to approve and move forward. He said this has been discussed for years 11 and he is aware that several members have not, but to receive this means they paid for a study 12 to be placed on the shelf. He said that receiving this signals to everyone that they acknowledge 13 that traffic is bad, but they will not move forward. He said that approving this signals that they can 14 begin. He said there is an entire process that has to run, and it will not start tomorrow. He said 15 that they will be in the mix if they approve it. He said that the right of way that is already owned 16 by NCDOT is adequate already to complete this. He said that traffic is going to continue to get 17 worse. He said that people are going to continue to move here, and Hwy 54 is already a corridor. 18 He said that public transportation will become impossible on the two-lane road and approving the 19 study is the only way he sees forward to expanding public transportation out in the county that 20 connects to feeder routes. He said that the bike lane gives enough room to put bicycles and 21 pedestrians. He said that Carrboro has this from Carrboro High School to the subdivision. He said 22 he would hate to see this Board to make the mistake the previous board made with 1-85 and 1-40. 23 He said that Hwy 54 will be widened in the future, with or without the Board's approval. 24 Commissioner Greene read from an email from Carrboro Mayor Seils. She said that part 25 of this is about process. She said that the UDO Board received the report in 2019 and directed 26 staff to implement items to improve the study and identify future work. She said that last week the 27 MPO removed the widening. She said she thinks there are a lot of assumptions being made here 28 and that is why she cannot vote in favor. 29 Chair Bedford referred to Figure 13 from the agenda packet showing minor roads that feed 30 into this study. She said that her concern previously was around safety. She said that if they take 31 the regional approach, they are responsible for all of Orange County. She said remember that the 32 ETJ votes for the commissioners. She said this shows that the feeder roads are being used 33 because 55 is so congested and the other roads are not built for traffic and that is where the 34 accidents are happening. She said they are planning for three turns near Hatch Road. She said 35 they can adopt this contingent on the multimodal factors being included and that they can work 36 with the other partners. She said that she thinks they should tell NCDOT that they intend to be 37 very involved. She said that multimodal has a lot of opportunities in this. 38 Nishith Trivedi clarified that the SPOT 7 project is with TARPO. He said that this might 39 have to be done again in future SPOT versions until it is funded. 40 Commissioner Greene asked for clarification that TARPO is the one that has submitted 41 this project. 42 Nishith Trivedi said yes that it was approved as part of the county's resolution and 43 submitted through TARPO for the whole plan. He said that when it was removed DCHC, the only 44 portion that was removed was the portion from Orange Grove Road to Old Fayetteville Road. He 45 said that it was submitted twice as two different projects with one in TARPO and one in DCHC. 46 Commissioner Greene asked if she heard him say that the TARPO submission goes all 47 the way from Alamance County to Old Fayetteville Road. 48 Nishith Trivedi said yes, Mebane Oaks Road to Old Fayetteville Road. 49 Commissioner Greene asked if TARPO has already submitted this to SPOT 7. 50 Nishith Trivedi said yes. 51 Chair Bedford said that is just part of the project. 26 1 Commissioner Greene said that it is a lot of it. 2 Chair Bedford said yes but also at the MPO she would say that they should not put any 3 points on the project because they want to wait and work with their partners. 4 5 A motion was made by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Vice-Chair McKee, to 6 approve the NC 54 Multimodal Corridor Study in Orange County. 7 8 Commissioner Hamilton said she would like to not vote on it tonight, but have it brought 9 back within a reasonable timeframe. She said she wants to read it over with what she is learned 10 today to make sure she understands what the study says. She said she does not understand the 11 process well enough. She said that if it is a safety thing, she would rather the study be approved. 12 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said as they continue to wait, the roads will continue to be 13 overcapacity and overburdened. She said there is still an increased risk of serious injury and the 14 disproportionate impact on minority residents. She said she is ready to move forward. 15 Commissioner Greene said she would have been okay with a condition on the multiuse 16 paths. She said that she is not sure they can condition it on that. 17 Nish Trivedi said they have a complete streets policy, and they can use that for leverage. 18 Commissioner Greene said when they were considering the school site off of Hwy 70, they 19 were told that a complete streets option was not available because there was not enough 20 development in the road. 21 Nishith Trivedi said that was previously in 2019 and it is different now. 22 Commissioner Greene asked if the policy was not available just a few months ago. 23 Nishith Trivedi said that the complete streets policy was adopted by the county in October 24 2022. 25 Commissioner Greene said they just heard the school program this year and clarified that 26 this was part of the Lawrence Road project. 27 Nishith Trivedi said that they provided comments when the TIA was done for Lawrence 28 Road and used the complete streets policy to provide comments during the TIA review to address 29 bike-ped and other issues along that area. He said that they do not have a corridor study for US 30 70 yet. 31 Commissioner Greene said that the school was within the site and not on the road. 32 Nishith Trivedi said that they are providing sidewalks on site. 33 Commissioner Greene said that they are providing sidewalks within the site but not on the 34 road. 35 Nishith Trivedi said that is because they do not have a study for Hwy 70 yet that would 36 allow them to push for them to accommodate it. 37 Commissioner Greene said she is concerned this will end up being a widened road without 38 the other modes and that it will ultimately create more traffic. 39 Vice-Chair McKee said the map on slide #2 says a lot. He said that TARPO is a 40 rural area organization. He said the reason for the 4 feet bike shoulder in southern Orange County 41 was because during his tenure on TARPO he negotiated with Moore and Lee County that he 42 would vote for some of their projects if they would help him get the bike shoulder. He said this is 43 not the prettiest way to make it happen but that is what happened. He said that this is likely more 44 than a decade of process. He said he understands Commissioner Greene's concern, but they 45 may end up with the same outcome if they do not approve the study. 46 Commissioner Greene said the plan they have is not called a multimodal plan. She said 47 that the 10 feet bike and ped lanes are not mentioned in the plan. 48 Nish Trivedi said that it is the shared use path (SUP) that is in the recommendations for 49 the study. He said that during the alternatives analysis there was the possibility of a SUP in the 50 median itself but because of the public meetings and workshops they prefer that it be done on the 51 north side. He said that the shared use path is a critical part of the study. 27 1 VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Commissioner Hamilton, Commissioner Portie-Ascott, Chair Bedford, 2 Vice-Chair McKee, Commissioner Richards, Commissioner Fowler); Nays, 1 3 (Commissioner Greene) 4 5 MOTION PASSES 6 7 7. Reports 8 a. Discussion on Potential Amendment to Unified Development Ordinance Regarding 9 Planning Director Analysis & Recommendations on Applications 10 The Board received information from staff and discussed the potential removal of the Planning 11 Director's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), as well as possibly 12 the recommendations to the Planning Board and Board of Adjustment, as currently required by 13 the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). 14 15 BACKGROUND: At its June 20, 2023 Business Meeting, the BOCC received a petition from 16 Commissioner Jean Hamilton to consider amending the Orange County UDO to have the 17 Planning Director perform an analysis on applications without a recommendation to the BOCC. 18 Upon review, staff determined that, in addition to the Planning Director making a recommendation 19 to the BOCC on zoning matters, the Orange County UDO requires that the Planning Director's 20 recommendation be provided to both the Planning Board and the BOCC for all proposals to 21 amend the UDO and the Comprehensive Plan, as well as approving Major Subdivisions. The 22 Planning Director also makes a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment on Appeals to staff 23 interpretations of the UDO. 24 25 North Carolina's land use laws (North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) 160D)-are silent on the 26 role of Planning staff in advising the county on land use decisions. NCGS 160D Article 4 and 27 Article 6 identify the responsibilities of jurisdictions in land use matters presented to the BOCC, 28 including the requirement that the Planning Board provide a recommendation to the BOCC. These 29 articles allow for administrative, public notification, application analysis, and advisory 30 responsibilities to be assigned to staff. 31 32 It is common practice in North Carolina for jurisdictions that entrust administration and 33 determination of land use matters to a "Planning Director" to receive recommendations from that 34 individual. These recommendations are based upon findings of 1) application completeness; 2) 35 conformance with UDO standards; and 3)consistency with all relevant adopted plans, but namely 36 the"Comprehensive Plan", as defined by NCGS 160D. Those jurisdictions that do not have a staff 37 recommendation for land use matters mostly rely upon a "Zoning Administrator" who reviews an 38 amendment packet for completeness and ensures public notification criteria are met. Per 39 Commissioner Hamilton's petition, this staff analysis would remain detailed in the staff report and 40 abstract to the BOCC but be digested into a findings of conformance and consistency with County 41 standards and plans. The Planning Board's recommendation is required by NCGS 160D and is 42 largely based upon adopted plans consistency and interpretations of UDO conformance, 43 particularly in conditional zoning cases that can allow for some flexibility of standards. 44 45 The evaluation of the petition and potential directions include: 46 47 a) Amendment of the UDO to respond to the petition, and remove the Planning Director's 48 recommendation to the BOCC on Zoning Atlas and UDO text amendments only; 49 28 1 b) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to the BOCC 2 on proposed amendments to all land use documents, as well as major subdivision 3 approvals, as required by Sections 2.3.10, 2.8.9, and 2.15.3; 4 5 c) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to both the 6 Planning Board and the BOCC on proposed amendments to land use documents and 7 major subdivision approvals; 8 9 d) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to the 10 Planning Board and the BOCC on proposed amendments to land use documents and 11 major subdivision approvals, as well as to the Board of Adjustment on Appeals; or 12 13 e) Maintenance of the current UDO text, requiring a Planning Director recommendation to 14 the BOCC and Planning Board on proposed amendments to land use documents and 15 major subdivision approvals. 16 17 Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director, made the following presentation: 18 19 Slide #1 GRANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Potential Amendment to Unified Development Ordinance Regarding Planning Director ►Analysis & Recommendations on Applications Report September 19, 2023 20 21 22 23 29 1 Slide #2 Orange County Requirements Orange County UDO Requires planning Director Recommendation for Multiple BOCC Decisions — Amendments to Zoning Atlas, LIDO Text,& Comprehensive Plan — Approval of Major Subdivision Concept Plans and Preliminary Plats _ ORANGE COUNTY NOWT I CAROUNA 2 3 4 Slide #3 Orange County Requirements • BOCC Motes on Amendments are Legislative Actions — Commissioner Hamilton's June 20 petition concerned hawing a staff recommendation in a vote by elected officials • BOCC Motes on Major Subdivisions are Administrative Actions ORANGE COUNTY C OWI-H CAROUNA 5 6 Cy Stober said there are requirements for subdivisions and his recommendations are 7 simply if it meets the standards or does not. 8 9 30 1 Slide #4 BOCC Actions on Land Use Matters * NCGS 160D-402 assigns to the Administrative Staff: — Drafting and implementing plans and development regulations-_ — (Determining whether applicationsfor development approvals are complete; — Receiving and processing applicationsfor development approvals: — Providing notices of applications and hearings, Making decisions and determinations regarding development regulation implementation: Determining whether applications for development approvals meet applicable standa rd s a s esta blished by law and local ordinance. — Conducting inspections,enforcing development regulations.recommending bringing judicial actions against actualor threatened violations,keeping adequate records;and any other actions that may be required in order adequately to enforce the laws and development regulations under their jurisdiction. ORANGE COUNTY NrOWI ICAROLINA 2 3 Cy Stober said that this does not include making recommendations to the elected officials 4 or the planning board. He said that a comprehensive plan is now mandatory if zoning is going to 5 be in place. 6 7 Slide #5 BOCC Actions on Land Use Matters • NCGS 160D-301 assigns to the Planning Board: — To develop and recommend policies, ordinances, development regulatjons, administrative procedures, and other means for carrying out plans in a coordinated and efficient manner; and To advise the governing hoard concerning the implementation of plans, including, but not limited to, review and comment on all zoning text and maty amendments ORANGE COUNTY I\Llltl-i-1{�4IdOLlIV:4 8 9 10 31 1 Slide #6 BOCC Actions on Land Use Matters * NCGS 1600 Allows for some Planning Board responsibilities to be assigned to staff — Planning Board most provide recommendations to governing board on Zoning ,Atlas, Ordinance, and Plans amendments — Many jurisdictions assign an advisory role to a "Planning Director" in their ordinances Jurisdictions with a "Zoning Administrator" rely upon staff for administrative rather than advisory or informative rose ORANGE COUNTY NrOWI I CAAOUNA 2 3 4 Slide #7 Planning Director Advises on Lend Use Matters JURISDICTION ADVISORY ROLE buncombe County N Chatham County y Durham City/County y Guilford County Y Inedell County N Johnston County" Y" New Hanover County Y Wake County Y Carrboro^ N Chapel Hill YIN (Mgr Recommends) Hillsborough Y Mebane y ^&card actbri mexclog hefty subsequent to public hearing 'Prammng Direcicrsraeoraxi pndauonfbdows puhrrcnew1fV ORANGECOUNTY C OWI-H CAROUNA 5 6 Cy Stober said that Chapel Hill may change the advisory role in the near future. He said 7 that currently, the Town Manager bases his recommendation on the Planning Director's staff. 8 Commissioner Greene said that Chapel Hill has a public hearing first and then a second 9 public hearing where the recommendation is provided. 10 32 1 Slide #8 BOCC Actions on Land Use Matters * NCGS 1600 Allows for some Planning Beard responsibilities to be assigned to staff — Planning Board must provide recommendations to governing board on Zoning Atlas, Ordinance, and Plans amendments — All Planning Directors and Zoning Administrators must perform an analysis on conformance with adopted ordinances and laws„ as well as ensure application completeness and public notification requirements served Some jurisdictions reserve Comprehensive Plan consistency interprelation for Planning Board only ORANGE COUNTY NORT 1 CAROLINA 2 3 Cy Stober noted that the slide was incorrect where it includes Zoning Administrators in the 4 roll of mandatory analysis. He said that it is just Planning Directors. 5 6 Slide #9 Orange County Planning Director Advisory Role Grange County UDO also assigns Planning [director an advisory role for — Major Subdivision Concept Plan & Preliminary Plat Approvals — Planning Board votes on land use matters These inform Planning Board recommendations to the BOCC — Berard of Adjustment regarding Appeals to the Planning Director's administrative decisions in enforcing and interpreting the U DO ORANGE COUNTY NORTE1 CAROLINA 7 8 Cy Stober said that the UDO requires the Planning Director to provide recommendations 9 and assigns an advisory role. 10 33 1 Slide #10 Commissioner Discussion & Direction to Staff ORANGE COUNTY NOWT I CAROUNA 2 3 4 Slide #11 Orange County Planning Director Advisory Role • Potential Next Steps — Amend UDC] to Remove Planning Director Recommendation: • Zoning Atlas and UDO TextAmendrnents (BOCC only) Petition Directive • Zoning Atlas and UDO Text Amendments &Adopted Plans (BOCC only) • Zoning Atlas and UDO Text Amendments, Adopted Plans, and Major Subdivision Approvals (BOCC only) • To Planning Board and BOGG on All Legislative Matters • To the B[]CC, Planning Board, and Board of Adjustment on all matters ORANGECOUNTY 5 6 Commissioner Hamilton said she found it difficult to understand the process of decision 7 making as a county commissioner when it came to planning and land use. She said that it was 8 helpful to her when the planning director and staff provide an analysis of where a project is or is 9 not consistent. She said that staff's expertise is important, but it is up to the commissioners to 10 decide the legislative decision. She said that there are political aspects of tradeoffs and plan 34 1 interpretation. She said that understanding different aspects is more helpful than providing one 2 recommendation. She said there was a member of the public who lost confidence because the 3 staff was involved, and she thinks changing this will help bring more trust into this process. 4 Vice-Chair McKee asked Cy Stober how many years he and his planning staff have in 5 planning experience. 6 Cy Stober said he has 16 years and that combined, his planning staff has 120-150 years. 7 Vice-Chair McKee said he asked this because he relies on the professional planning staff 8 and their recommendations when making decisions. He said he supports continuing to have this 9 recommendation. He said that he does not always agree with them, but he can use their expertise 10 to inform his decisions. 11 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how long this process has been in place. 12 Cy Stober said this was adopted in 2011, and he's unaware of an amendment. He said 13 the UDO was adopted then, but this policy predates it. 14 John Roberts said it was well before 2011. 15 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she values those who have expertise in land use and 16 development, so she likes the idea of receiving the analysis. She said she would like something 17 in addition to the analysis as well and she would like to see the recommendation as well. She said 18 she is in favor it this practice continuing. 19 Chair Bedford referred to page 2 and said she did not realize that the Planning Director 20 made recommendations to amend the LIDO. She said that she does not want to change B or C. 21 She said that they need to keep that. She said that D is with the major subdivisions approvals and 22 that should be kept. She said that E is required and is important. She said those fall outside of 23 the petition and they should be kept as is. She said the question then becomes about consistency 24 with plans and she agrees that it creates tension, and it puts staff in a bad spot when the Board 25 overrules staff. Chair Bedford read the following passage: 26 The evaluation of the petition and potential directions include: 27 a) Amendment of the LIDO to respond to the petition, and remove the Planning 28 Director's recommendation to the BOCC on Zoning Atlas and LIDO text 29 amendments only; 30 b) Amendment of the LIDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to 31 the BOCC on proposed amendments to all land use documents, as well as 32 major subdivision approvals, as required by Sections 2.3.10, 2.8.9, and 2.15.3; 33 c) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to 34 both the Planning Board and the BOCC on proposed amendments to land use 35 documents and major subdivision approvals; 36 d) Amendment of the UDO to remove the Planning Director's recommendation to 37 the Planning Board and the BOCC on proposed amendments to land use 38 documents and major subdivision approvals, as well as to the Board of 39 Adjustment on Appeals; or 40 e) Maintenance of the current UDO text, requiring a Planning Director 41 recommendation to the BOCC and Planning Board on proposed amendments 42 to land use documents and major subdivision approvals. 43 Cy Stober said the zoning atlas has been ruled to be an extension of the text of the LIDO. 44 He said that the decisions by the Board have been enlightening for his staff and they are 45 assembling resources to better inform recommendations and to give the resources regarding 46 planning consistency. He said that they will better inform the public, the planning board, and the 47 public on those matters. He said there will be a more thorough analysis in the future and that 48 began the day after the Lawrence Road discussion. He said he certainly heard the Board that 49 night. 50 Commissioner Greene said she agrees with Commissioner Hamilton that the analysis is 51 helpful from staff, but a recommendation and ultimate decision is political and should be done by 35 1 the Board except for major subdivisions. She said she would like the Planning Director's 2 recommendation on text amendments. She would also like a recommendation for a county- 3 initiated zoning atlas amendment but not a recommendation when it is from the outside. 4 Cy Stober said he does not know if they can legally make the decision just for county 5 initiated. 6 John Roberts said they will need to work through it. 7 Commissioner Fowler said she does not feel strongly either way. She said that the analysis 8 of the last project was helpful. 9 Commissioner Richards said she also appreciated the analysis and seeing both sides. 10 She said she feels there is lack of clarity around what the recommendation means and that is 11 what was an issue for her. 12 Vice-Chair McKee said he does not support a change but would be okay with the addition 13 of an analysis. He said that he is not in favor of any change at this time. 14 Commissioner Greene asked if most text amendments are initiated by staff. 15 Cy Stober said over 90% of the time either in response to state law or because of their 16 professional practices. 17 Commissioner Greene said there is more distrust in the community about the Board's 18 decisions. She said having planning staff analysis is helpful but should stop just short of making 19 a recommendation on approval or denial. 20 John Roberts asked if it would be easier to say, "the Planning Director shall not make a 21 recommendation on special use permits or conditional zoning applications" and leave the rest of 22 it untouched. 23 Cy Stober said that would be striking the recommendation from the text. 24 Chair Bedford asked about the zoning atlas versus a text amendment. 25 Cy Stober said it is seen as an extension of the text, but they can be separated. 26 John Roberts said he is not suggesting anything other than if the Board would like to 27 consider removing the recommendation from the conditional zoning applications. 28 Cy Stober said in regard to the consistency analysis, he needs to do a better job of doing 29 the analysis, so they have both options before them. He said that it is required by him to perform 30 the analysis, but he can do better without an amendment. 31 John Roberts said the Planning Director would still go through the conformity, but he can 32 change what the recommendations looks like. 33 Cy Stober said removing the recommendation would require an ordinance amendment 34 and this could be done by removing the recommendation requirement. 35 Commissioner Fowler said she wants that simple amendment to come back. 36 Commissioner Hamilton said she is pleased with the clarity and carefulness of analysis 37 brought by the Planning Director, but aware that may not always happen depending on who is 38 the director. She said it may be hard for some to be completely neutral. She said that she looks 39 forward to having the amendment brought back. 40 41 8. Consent Agenda 42 43 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda 44 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda 45 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda 46 47 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Vice-Chair McKee, to approve 48 the consent agenda. 49 50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 51 36 1 a. Minutes — None. 2 b. Amendments to the Orange Unified Transportation (OUT) Board Policies and 3 Procedures 4 The Board approved amendments to the OUTBoard Policies and Procedures. 5 c. Orange County Transportation Priorities —Amended Resolution 6 The Board approved the amended County Transportation Priority Resolution to include Regional 7 Transportation Multimodal Center. 8 d. Central Pines Rural Planning Organization Memorandum of Understanding 9 The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the updated Central Pines Rural Planning 10 Organization Memorandum of Understanding. 1 1 e. Boards and Commissions —Appointments 12 The Board approved the recommended appointments as reviewed and discussed during the 13 September 12, 2023 Work Session. 14 15 9. County Manager's Report 16 Bonnie Hammersley said staff will have FAQs on the convenience center online by the 17 end of the week and will send them out through Community Relations as well. She said staff went 18 through the questions for the neighborhood information meetings and some questions from Chair 19 Bedford to develop the FAQs. She said the Strategic Plan Work Session will begin at 9:00 am on 20 Thursday, September 21s' at the Solid Waste Center in Chapel Hill. Bonnie Hammersley said the 21 Board will also have a joint meeting with the school boards on September 26th and reviewed the 22 agenda for that meeting. 23 24 10. County Attorney's Report 25 John Roberts had no report for the Board. 26 27 11. *Appointments 28 None. 29 30 12. Information Items 31 • September 5, 2023 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List 32 33 13. Closed Session 34 None. 35 36 Adjournment 37 38 A motion was made by Vice-Chair McKee, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to 39 adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m. 40 41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 42 43 44 Jamezetta Bedford, Chair 45 46 47 Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board 48 49 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board Attachment 2 1 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 WORK SESSION — STRATEGIC PLAN 5 September 21, 2023 6 9:00 a.m. 7 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on the Strategic Plan on 9 Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. at the Solid Waste Management Facility in Chapel 10 Hill, NC. 11 12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford and Commissioners Amy 13 Fowler, Sally Greene, Jean Hamilton, Phyllis Portie-Ascott, and Anna Richards 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Vice-Chair Earl McKee 15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 17 Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified 18 appropriately below) 19 20 Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. All commissioners were present, 21 except for Vice-Chair McKee. 22 23 Welcome and Introduction 24 25 1. Welcome and Purpose 26 27 Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, reviewed the Strategic Plan survey results 28 originally presented to the Board on September 12th in greater detail. He discussed the results 29 from Question 4 and alternative ways to interpret the data. Orange oounry.Mc z¢zSurvey Q4. Biggest influences on the decision to stay in the county over the next five years by percentage of respondents who selected the items as one of their top three choices Close to family/fnends 30% Access to health care services 27% Low crime rates 26% Parks&open space options 25% Local tax rate&cost of living 21% Gose to your work/school :20% Housing options 17% Arts,cultural,&entertainment amenities 15% Low traffic congestion 15% Quality of public education opportunities 13% Diversity of the people who We here 13% Employment opportunities *% Access to farm fresh meats&produce B% Public transportation systems ■7% Recreation opportunities/facilities for adults 6% Shopping options .6% Higher education opportunities -5% Quality of government 5% Recreation opportunities/facilities for youth 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% MTop choice 2nd choice 3rd choice ETC ImnWb(=3) t. 30 2 1 Travis Myren also reviewed the GIS maps showing where survey respondents 2 lived. Orange[ounry,NC 1013 Survey Location Map (Boundaries by Census Block Group) : J ­A HERE 3 fTCImF1Wh l2L23� Pagel 4 Orange[eunry,NC2il235urveY Q2-01. The County Government is well run Agreement Mean rating on a 5-P.Im scale - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree 'j Neutral Somewhat Disagree - Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTE 5 FTC In tlr m120230 Cage2 3 orange[wn[y�NL 2023 Lnvey Q2-02. The Board of County Commissioners effectively manages County resources Agreement Mean rating on a 5-point scale - StrongCy Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree :znrm cnuFew.ojmzm Nene Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTE 1 EiL InSLru➢e lzmz3l Fage3 2 Manges nV,,NL-3.—V Q2-03. The County does a good job managing its growth and development in rural (unincorporated) areas of the County Agreement Mean rating on a Spoint scale r LS - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree :.+ureH..:aon:NEF:c Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTE + 3 n 1u@i2023i Fagan 4 Orange rmn(y,N[2A23 Survey Q2-08. The County provides adequate resources to those in need Agreement Mean rating on a 5-point scale - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree anrD cauPER,e'o20 HERE - Sim iy Disagree io ETC INSTITUTE " 1 €TG Ingtl1u4 i2il23� Pege9 2 orange[aunty.N[3023 Survey Q2-10. My property is appraised fairly in the County Agreement Mean rating on a 5-point scale - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree 1�20 CALMER,CID20 HERE Strongly Disagree €TC INSTITUTE 3 ETC—..l2Q23i Page S� 5 orange[nunry,NL}D23 Survey Q9-10. As a place to start a business P., Perceptions Mean rating on a 5-point scale Excellent Good Neutral Below Average e2M MERE Poor ETC INSTITUTE lE f n tltu a t��i nage 2 ]range —V,NC2MS—V Q9-13. As a place where you can earn a living wage '4- Perceptions Mean rating on a 5-point scale - Excellent Good Neutral Below Average - Poor ETC INSTITUTE 3 E Clnstl2uttt2023) Fag.27 4 6 Orange[ountY,N[10]3 Survey Q9-14. As a place where you can find affordable housing Perceptions Mean rating on a 5-point scale - Excellent Good t➢ Neutral Below Average :..tL CALIPER x2020 HERE Poor \ ETC INSTITUTE + ETt 11 12( 1 Page 2E 2 Orange[aunty,Nf P023 A.— Q9-18. Availability of internet services in your area I Perceptions Mean rating on a 5-point scale Excellent Good ® Neutral Below Average - Poor ETC INSTITU I 3 ET[Instltu a 12023) Orange C—T,NE 3033 Surrcy Q10-04. Quality of County development, planning, and zoning I a Satisfaction Ratings Mean rating on a 5-poinn scale - Very Satisfied Satisfied ® Neutral 4 Dissatisfied QDZD CALIPER.e1030 HERE Very Dissatisfied CO ETC INSTITU TE 1 ETC lrstltutti aa3 Page 37 2 Onnge u—v'Nc 3N3 si ry Q14-3. The County effectively communicates what they are doing to ensure all County residents are treated equitably i , Agreement Mean rating on a 5-point scale - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree - Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTE + 3 rrc—I..jw2st rage ar 8 Orange[ounry,N[1023 Survey Q16-01. Manages the education budget well T Agreement Mean rating on a 5-point scale -_.I Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree 02020 CA WEN.c 020 HER Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTE ETC trrs 1—12023Y Pag.m 2 Orange County.NC P023 Surrey Q16-02. Attracts high quality teachers Agreement Mean rating on a 5-point scale - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTL =K 3 fTr lnstllula�2023i Page SU 9 orange[aunty,N[NY]35urvey Q16-03. Is transparent about education-related decision making V� Agreement Mean rating.on a 5-point scale - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree CN20 CALPEN.QUO Nene Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTE ETC Inscltute i202E.1 Cage ST 2 0nnge[aunty,NC 2023 Survey Q16-04. Encourages community involvement in education-related decision making �l "4 Agreement Mean rating on a 5-point scale - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree -2020 curaee,a oto Nene Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTE 3 ETC Inat1—120231 Ng,11 10 Orange[ ,W,NC M3 SI—V Q16-05. Ensures quality education for students f Agreement Mean rating on a 5-point scale - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree C2020 CALIPER 01020 HERE Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTE 1 erinstlwel�31 Page 33 2 Orange fnunry,Nt 20]35urvey Q16-06. Has effective leadership in K-12 education Agreement j Mean rating on a 5-point s ale - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neutral Somewhat Disagree - Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTE " 3 Ftt InsffiuLe pb231 Page Si 11 Orange County,NC 211235urvry Q16-07. Has adequate school facilities Agreement Mean rating on a 5-point scale - Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree ® Neutral Somewhat Disagree B20A cAEfPEn:o A2G NEVE Strongly Disagree ETC INSTITUTE 1 ETC I-1—IM231 Page 55 2 Orange CaunYy,NC 2023 Survey Q17-21. Increasing non-residential development Importance Mean rating on a 5-point scale - Very Important Important Neutral Not Important Not at all Important I ETC •I`3TITUTE ' 3 ETC lnsntute P— Page>] 12 1 Commissioner Portie-Ascott referred to the GIS maps related to education and asked if it 2 was possible to know if the respondents have children in school. 3 Travis Myren said they could find out. He said he would also share the school related 4 information with the school systems. 5 6 Setting the Stage— Review the Environmental Scan 7 8 Charline Kirongozi and Shannon Flowers from BerryDunn, the strategic plan consultant 9 group, introduced themselves. 10 Charline Kirongozi made the following presentation: 11 12 Slide #1 • J Orange County Board of Commissioners Strategic Planning Session September 21, b BerryDunn ORANGE COUNTY 13 14 15 Slide #2 Agenda Review Environmental Scan Review/Develop the County's Mission Statement Develop the County's Vision Statement Review Core Values/Develop Guiding Principles Develop Strategic Priorities Develop Strategic Goal Statements b 16 13 1 Slide #3 Guidelinesfer Effective participation ,. Speak from your own perspective - using "I" statements. 2. Respect ethers' viewpoints while � listening respectfully and intently. _ 3. Stay focused on the discussion at —� hand. 4. Ask questions. �` Q �!_ �i7 - r tl 2 3 4 Slide #4 Strategic Nanning Process Strategic Plan Implementation Pertarmance Project Initiation Stakeholder Development and Recommendations Monitoring and and Planning Engagement Continuing Approval and Budget Engagement 5 6 7 8 14 1 Slide #5 Planning Process: What is a Strategic Plan? goingrr Delliries WHAT, not HOW What we want the County to become(vision) What we are (goals)so we can achieve the vision The Strategic Plan defines - measures) WHAT the County will L- so the County can evaluate progress prioritize and focus on. A UVING DOCUMENT that guides the HOW the County carries out County's decision-making about its strategy to reach the vision, - Budgets priorities, and goals is defined 1 in an Implementation plan Econornicandcommunily development County services This implementation plan is `. L developed by staff AFTER qwltool for goveminent transparency and the Strategic Plan is complete. publicaccountability - Residents,taxpayers,and the general • communityres urces,why,and to achieve what 2 _ 3 4 Slide #6 Planning Process: Plan Development Board The North Starvi5ion • Mission Statement serines as a unifying foul Vision Statement long-term for an organization's • bang-term achievement.1t • Care Values/Guiding must be clear enough for Principlesstakeholders to know what they are working towards • Strategic Priorities s and how to get there. • Strategic Goals Stakeholders rnu5tsee their rode in this vision and Z believe in the organization's f7U11$ Leadership 5�lll dream,as they will play a p vital role in executing on it r • Current and Future Stake • • Strategic Objectives • Performance Measures 5 b AA 6 15 1 Slide #7 What's An Environmental Scan...and Why Does It Matter? identify potential opportunities,challenges, and trends that Can drive the CouNy'S focus Provide everyone involved in strategic Help County leaders successfully navigate and effectiveness. planning with a shared-understanding of the the forces ark ahstacfes that can hinder the County's current environment. aChily Ment of Shared vision. 2 b AA 3 4 Slide #8 Environmental Scan Approach Board of Commissioners County Leadership and Staff Community Leaders Community Partners Residents Committees and Commissions Interviews with diverse stakeholders ✓ Social Pinpoint Community Engagement Platform Meeting-in-a-box Three in person community forums ✓ Employee survey and Employee focus groups ✓ Reviewed other County documents 5 Statistically valid survey 6 Chair Bedford commented that not many people came to the community forums, but she 7 was pleased that so many people responded to the survey. 8 Charline Kirongozi said that the number of respondents to the survey was high. She said 9 the types of community engagement they receive varies by community. 10 16 1 Slide #9 Open Discussion Question Which Wards Best Describe Orange County? �4 �. — .moi y 1yx� d ```'.1"RR I��f'�yy�,• r',�. - u. xr:• b 2 3 4 Slide #10 What's on Your Blind, Orange County? SniallIlou in Provide DepartnYem Creek V) o _ Iswu� u n street"� - r Tr' af f ic X Sch oo-= S- C ,�- i H1* 114-1111115[IsL m ,unit\ Du ebjprnen UUal- p DriI". fy'� bSource.2023 Social Pinpoint 5 6 Slide #10 includes words that people used when they think of Orange County. 7 8 17 1 Slide #11 Orange County Community Profile 1J , � {r Batu i f 2 3 4 Slide #12 About Orange County $79,205 Median Household Orange County Population Income 2SO,ND $339,900 200,twt3 Median Home Value 14tS,91A ISU,I30Q 134,OSfa ar .lx�p 93.7% High School 5o,ud� Graduate or Higher c 2917 2924 12.2% Source_Nnrlh Carnlrna office of State Budget Residents Below &Management. State Dernographer Poverty level Source.2022 Papulation Estimates, US Census Surea u 6 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said that the data in Slide #12 is out of date and they should 7 use the Realtor's Association data. 8 Commissioner Richards said that the numbers for the Chamber of Commerce are also 9 very different. 10 Travis Myren said he would send out updated data. 18 1 Slide #13 Demographics: Race and Ethnicity 2010 Race and Ethnicity 2022 Race and Ethnicity •tMdte or Caucasian •dUhlre ar Caucasaan iNon-hispanic)-71% SNOn-hisyanic)-Z 8�t, .Black of African .Black or African American-12% American-12% ■Asian-7% aAsaan or Aslan Indian- 6.2% •Two or Ivtcre Races-2,Y. •Two or Wro Races- 2.8% •Hispanic-8% ■Hispanic-8.0% bSources U.S Census Bureau AA 2 3 4 Slide #14 Employment and the Economy Top 5 Employment Industries 1 Educational Services 2. Professional,Scientific,and Management 3. Retail Trade 4. Arts,Entertainment,Reoreation 5. Construction Most Common hobs Held by Rersldents 50 000 40,000 N' UO 20.000 10,@00 Production, Natural Strike Salesamoirice Managtmtnt, transportaion. resources. Occupations occupalicns business, and malemal consttucilon,and science,and arts moving mainlenance 5 Source: U.S.Censers Bureau,Arnencen Community Survey 2021 6 7 19 1 Slide #15 Quality of Life in Orange County 2n°Best County to Live in North Carolina -!Niche,2023 � 3111 Healthiest County in North Carolina i -Niche,2023 2181 of 2,768 Best Counties to Live in America -Niche, 2023 . 84'"of 2,768 Healthiest Counties in America flit Niche, 2023 2 3 4 Slide #16 Quality of Life in Orange County Mediangross Median gross rent $1,180 health insurance mortgage - 1 expectancy82.1 years life 62.1% in civilian Mean travel time .bforce minutes Source-U.S Census Bureau, North Caroline Department of Health and Human Services 5 6 7 20 1 Shannon Flowers continued the presentation: 2 3 Slide #17 Community Perspectives 4 5 6 Slide #18 �•. �, Analysis of Stakeholder Input All Individual stakeholder input and survey responses - were compiled,analyzed,and coded by theme- - s A response,idea,or comment had to be mentioned multiple times in order to be listed as a theme. Themes are identified as possible strategic priorities for Board consideration. - A AH specific ideas for improvements have been captured for consIderation.These area will be I tilt - i ' presented to the Board and County staff as strategies and actions to support the v-sign and strategic goals " developed to the planning process. 7 8 9 21 1 Slide #19 Social Pinpoint Site wu.l. l r Orange 'V.Sir Councr a cell[Plan P C'sem Gvn Strategic Plan! fA4r ;c:yy Fr',i ilia... i � rll0J, Slat'iaru. L " ■urlha+r l7r/77n-+tnn�joff' l � Share your ideas HIFnm uuf:r ro [:. Let the Cooney Mnuw where}alu have.reedbeck irkm arld Legend J mfg Tow o., M 0. „x.m. * Holding /��ye, � +�� EConoani(�6evelOpmen[ `Nn�c rm"' 7JIP, i=s Qu.,jliry a(uiFe * F n I � Environment and Sustainability ,.� rmw:�e - � eon. /Pf Education Health and Human Services Ad 2 3 4 Slide #20 Voices from the Community We pay our good public sdwolswith our propertytares that The County should collaborativglywith municipalities toallow are high in Carrboro and Chapel Hill.If you like to-have better and incentivize affordable,clustered residential development schools,you nee)to pay nigher cases.Plus Carrboro and ariple shared open spare&garden Vat"in transitional Chapel Hill have a lot of families who work in the UNC system areas with public servicesandlorin crossroad communities in or commute to the research triangle and can or should support which needeid residential services tan be provided without our school#act my and financially.Trac drawback is that famlies can't afford a house in the Carrboro-Chapel Full district adverse impaceito current residents or to the area's significant anymore.ellen with a solid income. natural resources. MEd—t— e—h I& Lt+e lC casl 11+mumngl 2m ft W Liar#-6 as--Q orange'CourPty hasa growing aging papulation.Ensuring that It sure would be xvnderful if asolution could be found to open part of planning is thinking about needs of older adultsthe entire fhverwalk to blcydes.This way Folks on the east.side of Hdisborough could cycle into cowmto shop., r+hledl*ral+um.r sm�+ces l ?^+arnr+r Lf.yll-a Cr."Q �Q..ly at 4#1 amamh Mp Life J13 Thea D Clark Pool rs the only public outdoor pool serving Carrboro and Chapel Hill.There is none in Carrhoro and no Want better quality schools througlhoucOrange County--not water feature of ary kind on any playground in the Chapel Hal just Chapel Hillixarrboro. or Carrboro area.Water Features on play grounds or a community park vnth a floor IMinrain(Greerksboro for ly Ed-1 zrnanshs example)that can be used by all residents 6 missed a lot ''�` uv -a alsfloeQ of nmwn during aur hot summers. 7 5 6 7 8 22 1 Slide #21 Challenges What are the biggest challenges in the next three to five years? Creating an open and welcoming community 4C1i responses Addingfdiversifying recreational amenities Food insecurity Natural resource prolectionipreservalion � Public health Community divisiveness and polarization Crime � Climate change Sustaining adequate County services - Meeting the needsai changingeeviagraphics � Overdevelopment Homelessness Mental health needs Economy Managing population growth Traffic congest on Housing affordability bCost of living ra sa l�0 15p Hca 2 Source-2423 Employee Survey 3 4 Slide #22 Opportunities What are somethings that the County government does well?Check all that apply. 406 responses —ran5poriation alternatives iwatkways,puheo fra+rsporfation,bike pa-hs) Environmentally sustainaole practices and programs Puhin awareness and education of County Prcgram5 and activities Natural resource protectlon,pteservaeoi Responslvenessand rusicnners¢re"mentmily Smart,efrletant managat nent or public funds Commuelty engagement Aacessable_elliclent,and eflectrve government Recreational"ac9ve"pubk parks facilities Equity and inclusion Arts and culture amenities "Passive"pubtic preserves and 41a>3s Public Safety Emergency preparedness&response 0 5 1a 15 20 25 30 35 4t] 45 5b PortM1 5 Source.2023 Employee Survey 6 7 23 1 Slide #23 Quality of Life What do you think about the overall Quality of life in Counly(ETC)? Not prr ov��ded Getting better 16% re Odd spm nscs Getting worse ■Getting better 30% 10AS Staying the same ■Getting worse st.3ying the same What do you Ihirik about the overall quality of lite In County 12% Not provided (ETC nonrandom)? Not provided Getting hrtter 4% 17% ■Getting better Staying the t3arl3e ■Getting worse Getting w❑rse g 15% ■Staying the sanne 6Q5 reyy s Not provided b 2 Source_2423 Stallsncany+Valid SurmV aed 2423 Doan-Random Survey 3 4 Slide #24 Business Environment As a place to start a business(ETC): 604 responses As a place to start a Wsiness(non-rar4onn)' Egg reapaFes ExcellentExcellent 1 5.47% W Good27.7046 Good 25,013% ■Poor ■Poor Neutral 36.60% Below Neutral 25„08% Below average Average Nev"I Below Average 1720% t4e13uel Below average 10,64% ■Good ■Good Poor I 10.41796 Poor 0 7.60% ■Excellent a Excellent 0% 10% 20% 30% 409O' 50% 0% 1D% 20% 30% Sta3rce.2023 Sla164kally'Jalld$uney and 2021 Non-Randurn Survey r• 5 AL 6 24 1 Slide #25 Housing Affordability As a place where you can fund affordable housing (ETC): As a place where you can find affordable housing(non- 604 responses raadom) 896 responses facellene 4.60% Exc�llenr 2% Gwd 14,if}96 Gcod 896 Neoral 29.10% N#utril 2996 &elan ■Poor Bx_ ■Poa- APereSr 6,1b% Nmw A—ft. 35% t410-x A—p AYx�p •Yrnrtl •r—I Poor 3.1696 Pe 2T% ■Gvad ■Goad G6 9.6 1076 tb% RK 25% N% 36% •rx�llmt u% 1M4 .�]': 31�: x016 ■@xoaM Source:2023 Slaustcally Valid Survey and 2023 Non-Rand=Survey 2 3 Commissioner Fowler asked how the non-random survey was distributed. 4 Travis Myren said it was sent out to community groups and advisory boards, and other 5 groups that are typically more engaged. 6 Charline Kirongozi said it was also posted online. 7 Chair Bedford said she sent it to her neighbors. 8 Shannon Flowers said there were dramatic differences in the results between the non- 9 random survey and the ETC survey on slide #25. 10 Chair Bedford noted that Commissioner Richards had commented that many people who 11 need affordable housing have already had to leave the community, so they wouldn't have been 12 sent a random survey. 13 14 Slide #26 Number One Priority Selected Percentage of Respondents who Prioritized the Percentage of Respondents who Prioritized the Following as Following as thelr top cholce for increased Funding ttwair top choice for Increased Funding (rfon-randomized). (ETC). 604 responses 696 responses 3-Lawarrkr pmant.Wds f"lmivrx 9% 5-P.Ink—penetlen AlYerrerlwen 5,10% 4•Earp chrtdh..d.0-0- 4- 0-0 a4.EarfYcMldh_d Education 6.30% 3•Law Enforcema nt Lad Salary 3-clh_te ettbn 12% Wrl.fl_ 9.30% 2-Puede 5ch—IOp—d— 22.40% 2-Afrordshle hwalraE 34% 1-Pubrk xh-l.para j—{Seaehers, 37% 1-Atf5eda6Fe Ha dr;d 7.5496 mlarkst 0% 596 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 0% 3% 10% 13% W% 25% W% 35% 40% Source.2023 Staustrally Valld Survey and 2623 Non-random Survey 15 25 1 Commissioner Fowler noted that on the randomized survey, people said they didn't think 2 there was a housing issue, but they also said it was the number one priority for increased funding. 3 Shannon Flowers said this kind of result can mean that the community wants something 4 to be maintained. 5 Commissioner Richards noted that people who are residents have found something 6 affordable to live in, but they might recognize that there are people who would like to live here but 7 can't. 8 Charline Kirongozi said that it is a national topic of discussion. 9 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said that when people begin to see unhoused persons in their 10 communities, they become more aware of the need. 11 12 Slide #27 Top Four Priorities Based on Overall Responses PinpointSocial • Increased housing choice and affordability • Alternative transportation methods • Manage growth and development. • Passive recreation Statistically Valid Survey • Public schools (teachers, salaries) • Affordable housing Behavioral health services • Public transportation bSource.202S Soclal Popov CommunlN Survey aed 2423 Stans.se:d'y Vabd Sure 13 u 14 Commissioner Hamilton said she would want to know more about where the responses 15 came from. She said it would bring context to the results. 16 Shannon Flowers said they would provide that information. 17 Travis Myren said county employees are service providers and may be more in tune with 18 some of the issues in the community. He said that may have informed how they completed the 19 survey. 20 26 1 Slide #28 Ideal Future What should Orange County look and feel like five years from now? v' Improved housing choices and affordability V Improved road infrastructure v Access to public water and sewer across the County • Access to broadband • More jobs inside the county ✓ Preserving natural spaces v Environmental protection and focus on climate change efforts • Allowing growth and change ✓ Curbing overdevelopment bSource-2023 Social Pinpoint Community Survey and Stakehnlder Interviews 2 3 Shannon Flowers noted that the last two items can be in opposition to each other. 4 Commissioner Richards said that "Access to public water and sewer across the County" 5 is an area the county decided not to do years ago. She wonders how much the public is aware 6 of this history. 7 Chair Bedford asked if the results in slide#28 could be shown by where respondents lived 8 in the county. 9 Charline Kirongozi said this information was captured in the social pinpoint survey, and 10 that the information wasn't available geographically. 11 Commissioner Hamilton said that access to water and sewer is also important from a 12 public health perspective because of failing wells in the northern part of the county. She said we 13 put water in for economic development, but not for public health reasons. 14 Commissioner Greene said repairing failing septic systems is possible if you have enough 15 land, but the cost is prohibitive. 16 Commissioner Hamilton said some properties don't have the option to repair. 17 Commissioner Richards said some properties are too small. 18 Commissioner Greene said it's rare that they can't be fixed, but it takes money. 19 Commissioner Fowler said when she lived in the county, they had a filter to improve the 20 water quality. She asked if public water discussion was on the statistically valid survey. 21 Travis Myren said it was not specifically on the survey. 22 Chair Bedford said she worries that there is not enough potable water in general in the 23 county. 24 Bonnie Hammersley said if there are failing wells in the county, there are ways for the 25 county to assist, but there are also barriers. She said the county can't pay for future water and 26 sewer payments. She said the county can pay for installation and capital and provide a loan. 27 1 Slide #29 Stakeholder Views On a scale of 1 to 5,with 5 being most confident and 1 being least confident,how confident are you that the County will be an evert better place to live five years from now? » 60 so m 30 20 10 0 3 2 3 a 5 M") Source:2023 Sodal Pinpoint Community Survey 2 3 4 Slide #30 Environmental Scan — SWOC Analysis SWOC stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges. A SWOC analyses assesses the organization's current position before deciding on any strategies. Using a SWOC analysis allows the County to make the most of its strengths and reduces the chances of failure by understanding what is lacking and eliminating obstacles that get in the way of effective strategy. r 5 6 28 Slide #31 Environmental • Analysis Discussion strengthsWhat are the • the County What are weaknesses that -r to •- considered?Community? • government? What opportunities does the County on •r comm For • operations, organizational challengesWhat • t for its future? What threats does the County••vemment face to effectively serving communitythe r and in the future? 31 Slide Existing SWOC ■ nalysis: What should be added or removed? What are the strengths? Whale are the weaknesses? 6 The Board discussed the fact that some strengths could also be seen as a challenge or 7 an • Preserve#ion and prokeetion of the County's natural Residents do not agree an the def nition of spaces and resources suskainablegrowth • Natural beauty and ou#door recrea#ianal experiences ' Lack of diuerse businessesthroughoutthc County • Safe community,low erimerate Publictransprrrtakion accessfor residents • County government i$willing to collaborate with ' Lack of diuerse eommunitieswithinthc County public and pri+rate entities Cost of Lining within the County(residents unable#o • Robust school system for ooun#y residents live in the County while working in the Caunty) • Foad inseeunty among residen#s • Housing fkffordabilit3+ What are the opportunities? �ivhat are the chaklenges? ° Renovation of older buddmgs - Hausing avadabiGty and affordability;gentrification + Encourage bilingual teachers in public education Lack of economic diversity ° Encourage more diverse oommunitieswikhin t?range Limitahonsto commercialdevelopment County(specifically Chapel Hill area) Geographical locahanand remoteness of rural areas • Sewer and water aocess expansion across the within the County County for all residents Limited transportation options • Mmplemenkpubliotransportation access(sidewalks. Food Insecurity and biking trailsaeeessibleforall} tnabitlty to afford living in Orange County while • Increase broadband access for rural residents working in C?rangs County • Increase mailing notificationsto rural residents Aging population • �mprov+�public areas for children and families aalancinggrowkh of builtenvironmen#and preseruation of natural environment • Support community and family-oriented businesses High property taxes • Aocessibilityforclderly membersof the oommuniry opportunity. 29 1 Charline Kirongozi continued the presentation: 2 3 Slide #33 Board Strategic Area s it aub;,RI l OF moi,.,,. � _ V4J4 i t 4 5 6 Slide #34 Board Strategic Areas — cont. I 1 J �j1'1i ? 30 1 Slide #35 Environmental Scan Discussion What stood out in the presentation? Did you learn anything newt? Which themes are the most important in shaping your thinking about the future direction of Orange County? b 2 3 Commissioner Greene said she was surprised that climate issues were not at the top of 4 community priorities. She said she felt climate action should be a priority for the Board. 5 Commissioner Fowler said many of the responses from the community have a climate 6 impact, such as bicycle and pedestrian trails and affordable housing. 7 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she was surprised that the white population of the county 8 was decreasing and the black population was staying the same. She was also surprised that the 9 Latino population only increased by 1%. She said it doesn't feel like that in the schools. 10 Chair Bedford noted that it might be related to in-county migration due to mobile home 11 parks closing in the municipalities and populations moving to the rural areas. 12 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said in the northern part of the county, it feels like the black 13 population is decreasing. 14 Commissioner Richards said it felt similar in Chapel Hill. 15 Commissioner Fowler said the Latino population might be under-represented. 16 Commissioner Hamilton said that when she went to apartments and condos while 17 campaigning, she was surprised by the number of African Americans living in those 18 developments. She said that as African Americans move to the county, they might not be living 19 in traditional African American communities. 20 Bonnie Hammersley said that the percentage of African American employees has 21 increased by 20% from 2015 to 2023. She said the White employee population grew by 4%. She 22 said 43% of employees live in the county. 23 Travis Myren said that most of the students leaving the school systems for charter schools 24 are white. 31 1 Review the Mission Statement 2 3 Slide #36 Strategic Planning Session: Day 1 with Board 4 _ 4 5 6 Slide #37 Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles, and Strategic Priorities How are they connected? Mission Vision What you do noWhere you're going now whom What you want your mission to achieve for ''foul organizational your community purpose Guidin 49 f*4L_Prineip[es 3trar Haw does the Pri[7rIties community carr out its mission What is the focus to How does it -'Ve toward the vision interact with the bcommunity 7 8 9 10 32 1 Slide #38 How [does It All Fit Together? Mission WStrategic Strategic Strategic Strategic Priority Priority 2 Priority Goal 4.l Goal Goal GuidingStatement Statement Statement Statement 2 3 4 Slide #39 Review Mission 'Statement What is a Mission Statement? A mission statement describes an organization's purpose or reason for existing. It is the public statement of the contribution it promises to make to help accomplish the community vision. It answers the questions: ■ Why do we exist? • What do we do? 5 b AA 6 33 1 Slide #40 Review the Mission Statement Mission Statement Discussion Current Mission Statement As you reflect on this statement, does it Orange County exists to provide governmental services accurately describe the purpose of Orange requested by our residents or mandated by the State of County? North Carolina.To provide these quality services efficiently, we must: Does it describe what you do,why you do it, and how you do it? Serve the Residents of Orange County-Our Residents Come First If not,what needs to be changed? Depend on the energy,skills and dedication of all our employees and volunteers Treat all our Residents and all our Employees with fairness, inspect, and understanding ■ . comse statement that clearly defines bthe scope af the organization, 2 3 The Board discussed the language to include in a revised mission statement. The final 4 draft mission statement is as follows: 5 6 Orange County strives to be a leader in providing governmental services that are 7 required by law and valued by our residents in an equitable, sustainable, and 8 efficient way. 9 10 Develop Vision Statement 11 12 Slide #41 Review Vision Statement What is a Vision Statement? A vision statement defines your • desired future state and provides directions for where you are going asIS an organization. It is aspirational and ION answers the questions: yllhat will Orange County look like 5— 10 years from now? 13 34 1 The Board wrote down ideas they had for a vision statement, which the consulting team 2 will put together as a draft for the Board to review later. 3 4 Slide #42 Review the Vision Statement Vision Statement Discussion Previous Client Vision Statement Examples Where do you Want to see Orange "Wausau is a fun,vibrant,and highly connected County in five years? community providing diverse and accessible social,arts,cultural and outdoor What do you want the County to look recreational experiences and a thriving economy and feel like? where everyone has the opportunity to achieve success and happiness."(Wausau,WI) How do you want ©range County to "An engaged community with a sense of place be described? and belonging where everyone is welcome."(5t. Charles,IL) What has been achieved? bOutcome: A clear picture of the future the Board envisions for Orange 5 6 7 The Board developed the followin vision statement ideas: ov �mQd �v j lrw 'w r WRY to 1 / Ov" Ica a�(Pss crya�, sem,10AWy t05ldwk ¢bk �AL0,,�At,\ 8 35 1 The Board took a 10-minute break at 11:04 am. 2 3 Review/Develop the County's Core Values/Develop Guiding Principles 4 5 Shannon Flowers continued the presentation: 6 7 Slide #43 Review Core Values/Develop Guiding Principles Guiding principles are the precepts that guide an organization throughout its life in all circumstances, irrespective of changes in its goals, strategies, type of work or the top management. They are expectations for how the County GUIDING will conduct its business, make -principles decisions, and deliver programs and services to the community. b 8 9 10 Slide #44 Review Core Values/Develop Guiding Principles Previous Client Core Values Example Guiding Principles Discussion Examples from St,Charles,IL: EXCELLENCE -We strive to provide high quality services and What principles accurately capture an exceptional quality of life, how Commissioners would like the ENGAGEMENTANDINCLUSION -Weencouragealvoicesbe heard and create accessible opportunities for everyone to County t0i carry out Its mission and participate and conthbute to our community vision? SUSTAINAEtLITY AND RESILIENCE -We prepare for the future and cultivate progress while valuing our natural environment and resources RESPECT-Wetreat our residents,businesses, employees, and visitors with dignity. SENSE OF COMMUNITY-We foster a safe and vibrant environment in which new ideas and perspectives combine with our unique character to create a sense of place STEWARDSHIP AND ACCOUNTABILITY-We pledge to be honest, reliable, and open in ourdecision-making, communications, and actions to earn and retain the trust of our community because vie take pride in the importance ofourservicetothe public. Outcome'. Short set of essential values or guiding principles, b� 11 36 1 The Board discussed principles that they felt supported the draft mission statement, which 2 the consulting team will put together as a draft for the Board to review later: al[ ) b4y\MCO C&L k4,{na�a�� �dve�fi 3 ftdl-b cam - - 4 Commissioner Richards said she wanted items that come before the Board for review 5 and/or approval to be tied to the Strategic Plan. 6 Travis Myren said that would happen when the Strategic Plan is finalized. 7 8 37 1 Identify Strategic Priorities 2 3 Slide #45 Develop Strategic Priorities What are strategic priorities? Strategic Priorities are the most important It is best to keep this list to four to six areas your organization needs to focus on.They focus areas so that they are achievable, are the small number of focal points that you have and the organization is not overwhelmed determined to be critical in achieving your mission by multiple priorities. and vision. b 4 5 The Board wrote down what they think are strategic priorities for the county to focus on. 6 7 The Board took an hour break for lunch and resumed at 12:59 pm. 8 9 Slide #46 Develop Strategic Priorities Strategic Priorities Discussion Brainstorming Instructions Based on what we learned from the 1. Reflect for a few moments on the outcome you Environmental Scan and what we collectively want to achieve for each strategic priority. know about©range County, what are the i. Decide on the ideas you want to share with the four to five strategic areas of focus that full group should guide the next two to five years so we 3. Write your ideas for each priority on Post -It notes can make progress toward our shared one idea per card vision? x},46 EDEA IDEA t • awards maximum If we make gains in these areas,will we Use markers PER � -TDGA - achieve our vision? Srrctrr Tien 3 • Write BIG! NarE If the answer is no,what should we focus on instead? Outcome: resources,and capacity toward achie�ing the . . -term Asion. 10 AA 38 1 The Board reviewed their notes from the strategic priorities exercise and the consulting 2 team categorized them into common themes. The Board also discussed and named their strategic 3 priorities as follows: 4 5 • Housing For All 6 • Healthy Community 7 0 Public Education 8 • Multimodal Transportation 9 • Environmental Stewardship 10 • Vibrant Economy 11 12 The Board agreed that quality of government including improving communication and 13 engagement with residents, transparency, decreasing racial disparities across all outcomes, and 14 ensuring a diverse workforce in all county departments, is a cross-cutting priority. 15 16 17 Develop Strategic Goals 18 19 The Board discussed what concepts should be included in the strategic goals to make 20 progress toward each strategic priority they identified. The consulting team will take the Board's 21 suggestions and draft strategic goals to be presented to department heads at their Strategic 22 Planning Meeting the following day. The following images reflect the Board's suggestions: 23 I -- I I 24 25 39 C vyY r Sammi a� S� � .2 l i vy�, no0r- , �C �I WQY (�mrvw lVQ- Svcs S©C4.:tl 1 Adcn Associates. sa TlrflC/cY 2 �1�y fid` l I mwy m-•s 3 40 V\Uon r �ati "I ra�nsp� �n �n4 �Jl v �Ar+ r A-At n - Collabavu'�- 1 2 SvS+�i +gab �,1 ac cs I cns C,,,S ramal-vrx U L' ,t1 'p-CQ v c'L d�7► N Cir; CAfi t Mprax 47-ARcri- d am ear n wHt�`"`t - �cEi fr'za141 �- i'r<Acr�vv.s,r Pfcf 1 f 3w 3 - BMW 41 u • 4u„>� wr`aae n ���r�a-r- W t� �u61Y�acf fav�rv��k-r dlrrx Suck+r^+hk } &viM�k bulrwec ° 13rirredbAlq � Cc�labdru-k I!'9�aed wdri-ncr� 1 2 3 Reflection, Closure, and Next Steps 4 5 Slide #49 Reflection and Closure I s pws any addlE" How old 7hls retreat Met worked well today4 Is ance ym acrd¢ra the rorNrlau6a abity io What a your process for 1Mra anylhingg could alllny team and Cowmy avrk ®r What are your aspect J,a con c or .6 done dk}erentry toreadeeshlp t3am ti as Formonitcrag end repordng make 74 a�parar�ca para aan For dauardprn� Commissioers to labora l serve the I{ragrasa on the plan? Mona l0 4a plan In current cycle? hatieO ecm+es and perionnance mads aT1ha Ca�riy7 d ou"mo meauras7 b 6 7 Commissioner Fowler said she thought all of the commissioners were in the same 8 mindset. 42 1 Commissioner Richards said having materials ahead of time was helpful so that she could 2 read through the packet and see the plan for the day. She also thought the pre-work staff did with 3 the survey results data was very helpful in understanding where some of result were coming from. 4 She said all of this made the day go smoother. 5 Chair Bedford said she agrees with Commissioner Fowler and Commissioner Richards. 6 She said she isn't surprised that the priorities mentioned in February and today are similar and 7 are also aligned with the community. She said that she wants staff members who will be at the 8 strategic planning session tomorrow to feel free to critique the Board's work because they are 9 more directly involved. 10 Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she agrees with what has been shared so far and 11 appreciated the relaxed atmosphere of the day and that she felt comfortable asking questions. 12 Commissioner Greene thanked staff and the consulting team for their preparation and 13 work throughout the day to make the conversation successful. 14 Commissioner Hamilton said she also agrees with what others said. She said having 15 examples is very helpful and appreciated the team reminding them of definitions and objectives 16 to keep the Board focused on the current topic. She said she thinks the day went well, and really 17 appreciates when Board members have time to talk and ask questions of each other. She asked 18 what the next steps are as far as when the Board will next have input. 19 20 Slide #50 Next Steps Develop draft language for Mission, Vision, Core Values/Guiding Principles, Strategic Priorities, and Goal Statements. Hold Strategic Planning Session 2 with County staff leadership to develop objectives and performancefoutcome measures. Develop Draft Strategic Plan for review and adoption by the Board. b 21 22 Charline Kirongozi said the consulting team will meet with staff the following day to develop 23 more specific topics and measures. She said they will then begin drafting the plan and will bring 24 it back to the Board for review and adjustments at a similar work session before any adoption. 25 She said there will also be a public comment period and opportunities to review the draft plan. 26 She said the draft plan will be ready some time in October. 27 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how the Board will be able to hear about ideas that 28 staff has that may be different from the Board's. 29 Charline Kirongozi said the consulting team will capture any reactions from staff and bring 30 it to the Board before anything is changed. She said the Board will decide ultimately decide which 31 direction to go. 32 Bonnie Hammersley said the Board has decided the goals, so staff will discuss and come 33 up with ideas for how to make progress toward the goals in everyday work. 43 1 Chair Bedford said she would like for the strategic plan and other county plans to work 2 together. 3 Charline Kirongozi said the consulting team will look at all of the county's plans to ensure 4 there is no misalignment. 5 Commissioner Fowler asked how government mandates that may not specifically align 6 with a goal will be captured on an agenda. 7 Charline Kirongozi said the strategic plan isn't meant to include all of the county's mission- 8 critical activities and should focus on what needs improvement. 9 Chair Bedford said after this process,the Board and staff can discuss the format of agenda 10 abstracts. 11 Commissioner Richards said she thinks almost anything the Board does could be tied to 12 one of the identified priorities. 13 Commissioner Greene said the intention of an abstract should make it clear what the 14 purpose of the item is. 15 Bonnie Hammersley said her goal is for the purpose section of the agenda abstract to be 16 sufficient to explain the reason the Board is seeing an item. 17 Charline Kirongozi thanked the Board for their input and guidance today and said they 18 have provided a lot of material for the team to work with in drafting the strategic goals. 19 20 Adjournment 21 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to 22 adjourn the meeting at 2:51 p.m. 23 24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 25 26 Jamezetta Bedford, Chair 27 28 29 Recorded by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board and Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board 30 31 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board. Attachment 3 1 1 DRAFT MINUTES 2 ORANGE COUNTY 3 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 JOINT MEETING WITH 5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION AND 6 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION 7 September 26, 2023 8 7:00 p.m. 9 10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a joint meeting with the Orange County 1 1 Board of Education and Chapel-Hill Carrboro Board of Education on Tuesday, September 26, 12 2023 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC. 13 14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair Earl McKee, 15 and Commissioners Amy Fowler, Sally Greene, Jean Hamilton, Phyllis Portie-Ascott, and Anna 16 Richards 17 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None. 18 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts 19 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager 20 Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen (All other staff members will be identified 21 appropriately below) 22 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENT:, Vice-Chair George Griffin, 23 and Board Members Riza Jenkins, Ashton Powell and Michael Sharp 24 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO BOARD OF EDUCATION ABSENT: Chair Rani Dasi and Board 25 Members Jillian LaSerna and Deon Temne 26 CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO SCHOOLS (CHCCS) STAFF PRESENT: Superintendent Dr. Nyah 27 Hamlett and Chief Financial Officer Jonathan Scott 28 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION PRESENT:, Vice-Chair Andre Richmond, and 29 Board Members Carrie Doyle, Bonnie Hauser, and Sarah Smylie 30 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION ABSENT: Chair Anne Purcell and Board 31 Members Will Atherton and Jennifer Moore 32 ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS (OCS) STAFF PRESENT: Interim Superintendent Dr. Jim Merrill, 33 Chief Finance Officer Rhonda Rath, and Chief Officer of Operations Dwayne Foster 34 35 Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present. 36 37 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS 38 Chair Bedford welcomed the elected officials and staff from Chapel Hill Carrboro City 39 Schools and Orange County Schools. All of the elected officials and staff introduced themselves. 40 41 1. Presentation from Woolpert on Public School Capital Needs Assessment 42 As a strategy to improve the quality and efficiency of operational services, Orange County 43 Government, Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) and Orange County Schools (OCS) 44 collaborated on the issuance of a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a design firm to provide a: 45 Comprehensive Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) 46 Optimization Plan of Existing Space Utilization; and 47 Examination of Prioritization Models, Benchmarking Best Practices and Scenarios for both 48 school districts that recognize the distinct structure of the County allocating funds to the two school 49 districts. 50 2 1 The products of this study will help County and School professionals and elected officials better 2 plan, manage and fund new construction and maintenance of the thirty-one (31)school campuses 3 and administrative offices for the two school districts. 4 5 At the Board of County Commissioners' March 21, 2023 Business Meeting, the Board approved 6 a contract with Woolpert, Inc. totaling $984,561 to perform this work. 7 8 Woolpert will provide a presentation on the current status of the Public Schools Capital Needs 9 Assessment. 10 1 1 Jessica Goodell and David Sturtz from Woolpert made the following presentation: 12 13 Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY 2023 NORTH CAROLINA LONG-RANGE ' i0k. tea. Af'EL I IILI- • + N APMP) 10 OPTIONS PLANNING September 2023 14 15 16 Slide #2 1 AGENDA • Project Overview e • Condition Assessment • Educational Adequacy • Capacity • Survey Results • Options f 17 3 1 Slide #3 PROJECT OVERVIEW fel 1A•YEAA [IFE IM C.) FACHLITY LONG RANGE PLAN 1 REPAIR Im5f 2 3 Jessica Goodell said they walked through all of the schools as part of the assessment. 4 5 Slide #4 CURRENT DEFICIENCY • Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Priority 1—Critical • Priority 2—Roofing g6Q Priority 2—Essential • East Chapel Hill High $70 Priority 3-Necessary • McDougle Middle/Elementary $60 Priority 4-Suggested • Carrboro High $5o Priority 5—Improvements • Culbreth Middle goo • Orange County Schools 130 • Priority 5—Interior Finishes $20 • Terrazzo flooring(Orange Middle&High) $10 • Ceiling Tiles&Grid(Orange Middle) $- Vinyl flooring(Cedar Ridge HS) Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4 Priority 5 • ■Orange County Schools ■Chapel Hill-Carrhore City Schools aA'i 6 7 Jessica Goodell said that this list is if there was no limit on funding, everything would be 8 done. She said since that is not an option, they are prioritized by importance and items that do 9 not interrupt school. 10 11 4 1 Slide #5 FIVEYEAR LIFE CYCLE PROJECTION • Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools • Mechanical • Year 4—Ductwork/Controls/Lighting/Chiller 2 5200 .Chapel Hal.Carrhom City Schools .orange Ccurry Schools • East Chapel Hill High Schools $1891 51 • Carrboro High school 59 s1a0 5 Yr-$235 M • Orange County Schools $120 • Interior 5100 sag • Year 4—Roofing 559 • Orange High School 549 szo • River Park Elementary $. ■ Pathways Elementary Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Vear 4 Year 5 Yearti Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year T • 2 3 Jessica Goodell said that mechanical is the largest need in Chapel Hill and interior needs 4 in Orange County schools. She said that both school systems have these estimates four years 5 from now. 6 7 Slide #6 FIVE WAR FACILITY CONDITION INDEX (FCI) FCI RATING SCALE • Ratio to compare dissimilar facilities VEST I<I 04b • Indicator of facility health GOOD I10-20% • Higher the FCI the greater the need AVERAGE I21-30% • FCI is only one factor in decision making Avf LOW 31-50% FIVE-YEAR FCI POOR I51-65% REPLACEMENT Great COMBINED TOTAL FIVE-YEAR CANDIDATE than 65% FIVE-YEAR REPLACEMENT FCI NEED COST rr 8 9 5 1 Jessica Goodell said this is how they can compare dissimilar facilities across the entire 2 portfolio. She said that once it gets to 60%, they say that is throwing good money after bad if 3 trying to fix rather than replace. 4 David Sturtz said that once you get to 50% Facility Condition Index (FCI), it means that if 5 the building gets replaced at the same square footage, you would spend about half as much 6 replacing the school as you would just fixing issues. He said as you get higher, the percentage is 7 the amount you would need to spend on the replacement value of the building. He said that the 8 FCI is a condition equalizer and an investment metric. He said it addresses the question of at 9 what point financially is it a better bet to renovate the building vs. just fixing the problem. He said 10 that fixing it leaves everything where it was and the design unchanged. 11 12 Slide #7 PORTFOLIO FACILITY CONDITION INDEX (FCQ 5-YearFC1 10-YearFC1 9 ■CHCCS ■OCS a ■CHCCS ■OCS 8 7 7 06 0 �$ u5 rn �4 S4 S a 3 ¢`ale Qo°f er 5 'e6 eca,�¢ ,¢lade Q�t eQ\a�e y "PO �2 :a 13 14 Jessica Goodell said that the real concerns are expected facility conditions in 10 years. 15 She said it was important to begin planning now. She said the transportation building falls into 16 replacement because most of the cost is associated with the asphalt parking lot. She said the 17 next five years are ok but at the ten-year model, things tend toward below average or worse 18 conditions. 19 20 6 1 Slide #8 EDUCATIONAL ADEQUACY r A0 2 3 David Sturtz said the biggest gaps are where space types are just missing because the 4 buildings were not designed with modern educational standards. 5 6 Slide #9 CAPACITY • NCDPI - students per room type • Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools • Elementary some surplus capacity Ll • Middle & High at or above capacity E` MS H5 • Orange County Schools oc5 • Elementary some surplus capacity • Middle some surplus capacity = • High at capacity ES MS 15 ■Capwty ■EnrolMreM %At IT 7 8 David Sturtz said that they looked at this from a design style capacity approach asking 9 what the building can do. He said they will add in the functional capacity through SAPFO at the 10 next presentation. He said those have the most impact in the elementary schools. He said that 7 1 several schools are at or above capacity in both districts. He said that some schools have 2 capacity, but some have none and this creates an imbalance. 3 4 Slide #10 4-GI V UTILIZATION >Y. eYCi a, 0 WOMMi1 Y 'l 1XIM111 I ].dw, .1 i UCilif3tiurY %A 01 5 6 Slide #10 is in reference to Orange County Schools. 7 David Sturtz said that it is best to be at 20-30% FCI when assessing facilities. 8 Chair Bedford asked if trailers were included in the study. 9 David Sturtz said they were included in the study, but not in the capacity. 10 David Sturtz said he uses 37.5 feet per student when calculating space needs. He said 11 that with all of the conditions and needs that they found, he believes there is a major change in 12 portfolio strategy that is necessary in Orange County Schools. 13 14 8 1 Slide #11 FCI V UTILIZATION CHCCS Total xre Total1 Year Need 1 x +o- BillionReplacement Value-$1 0( C % G Average 5-Year FC1-28% U O Average 1 U d LL Overall 187%Utilization Districtwide:range 1 61%to>100% are undersized UYI�IZ_elflfJ l- 2 3 Slide #11 is in reference to Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools. 4 David Sturtz said that addressing the needs in Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools will 5 require a similar strategy change as needed in Orange County Schools. He said Woolpert will 6 likely recommend significant facilities investment and replacements of assets. He said that the 7 small elementary schools have the highest capacities with the highest FCI. He said this shows 8 that a right sized elementary school has met the needs. He said that the high schools are full. 9 10 Slide #12 SURVEY RESULTS r KeyTakeaways • 3,960 responses (1/3 from OCS) • Top 3 Safety and Security • Upgrade and Add Cameras - • Controlled Entries / • Add electronic door access security for perimeter doors • Top 5 Facility Investments • Technology Infrastructure • Small Group/Pull-out • Reduce/Eliminate Portables • Upgrade FFE • Covered areas(canopies)for bus pick up and drop off and walkways • 88%likely to support increased funding 11 9 1 David Sturtz said that the survey responses were similar between school systems with no 2 meaningful differences. He said this shows that around 3,700 support increased funding to make 3 the investments in facilities. 4 5 Slide #13 OPTIONS DEVELOPMEN i • Utilization _ • FCI • Portables • Site constraints • Educational Adequacy ®1 • Survey • What investments are best for students and best value in the long-term? - 6 8 Slide #14 OPTIONS DEFINED • Option A - Priority Maintenance Addressed • Option B - Priority Maintenance and Minor Renovations • Priority Maintenance-Top 3 priorities of Critical, Essential, Necessary (Cool,, Worm, Safer Dry) • Minor Renovation - Improving learning environment • Major Renovation - Improving condition, moving walls, right sizing space types 9 10 11 10 1 David Sturtz said these will be reviewed with the administrative team and they will build 2 this on budget assumptions. He said the recommendations will be brought back to the 3 commissioners for a decision. 4 5 Slide #15 CHAPEL HILL CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS 6 . 8 Slide #16 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (CHCCS) - CURRENT STATE School Mame Year Bullt Total Square Feet Dellclency Total FCI %Space Types %Space Types> %Teaching/ Capacity 2022-23 2022-23 Present in size Learning Tools Enrollment Utilization Present arrhom E$ 1957 78,012 $ 3,650,822 61% 52% 48% 543 485 89% E hesU5E5 2972 73,952 $ 11,152,211 34% 72% 36% 50% 578 353 51% Estes Hills E$ 1958 63,001 $ 11,999,522 42% 67% 47% 51% 528 331 63% Frank Porter Graham ES 1960 72,300 $ 15,420,956 47% 87% 54% 64% 589 512 87% le—ood E$ 1952 67,300 $ 6,608,290 22% 76% 54% 57% 407 432 106% Morris Gro-ES 2009 90,221 $ 12,027,060 30% 77% 73% 59% 547 426 78% Northside ES 2013 109,100 $ 6,080,804 12% 95% 87, 583 377 65% 8ashkis ES 2003 115,562 $ 20,514,681 39% 79% 67% 68% 532 423 80% ro s ES 3999 93,580 $ 11,431,422 27% 92% 65% 73% 521 317 72% swell ES 1969 66,198 $ 4,870,839 16% fi6% 33% 48% 378 464 % MCDOU Ie ES 1996 249,092 $ 23,297,836 21% 82% 69% 69% 589 477 81% 1981 1,078,318 $ 127,045,442 26% 77% so% 62% 5,795 4,657 go% I" •$127 million in • Utilization ranges > •About 60%of deficiencies from 61%-123% m Educational 4-1 iy •2 schools>40%FCI N •Average is—80% Cr Adequacy C cV requirements 0 4[ •SmaIler spaces 9 10 11 1 David Sturtz said this slide shows the deficiencies by building. He said if you are less than 2 90% of the minimum standard then it is undersized. He said the schools score lower because 3 they are older. 4 5 Slide #17 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (CHCCS) - OPTIONS Planning Area Current Option Impact Condltion CHCCS E5 Option Description Capacity Enrollment FCI utilhation Needs{0-5 Total Option Resulting Resulting years) Investment Capacity utilisation Option Priority Maintenance $109,461,691 5,795 80% Option B Minor Renovations to Improve Educational Adequacy $125,348,379 5,795 BO% Option Major and Minor Renovations to Improve Condition&Adequacy 5,795 4,657 26% 80% $127,045,442 $220,990,781 5,319 88% Option D Create a K-8 School for Estes Hills ES&PhtlBps MS $225,796,319 4,790 97% 6 7 David Sturtz said one option for Estes Hills Elementary and Phillips Middle Schools is to 8 combine their campuses and build one K-8 school. He said they will look at the first three priorities. 9 Vice-Chair McKee asked for clarification that if they only do renovations, they lose capacity 10 of 1,000 students. 11 David Sturtz said that was correct. He said they modeled how many classrooms they 12 would lose in a renovation. 13 14 12 1 Slide #18 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (CHCCS) - OPTIONS A B C D Priority Maintenance& Consolldate into Priority Maintenance Adequacy Renovations Partial Renovation Major Renovation Partial Renovation Major Renovation New School Carrboro ES Carrboro ES Estes Hills ES Carrboro ES Frank Porter Graf Carrboro ES Estes Hills ES Ephesus ES Ephesus ES Frank Porter Gral Ephesus ES Morris Grove ES Ephesus ES Estes Hills ES Estes Hills ES Morris Grove ES Glenwood ES Northside ES Glenwood ES Frank Porter Graham ES Frank Porter Graham ES Northside ES Seawell ES Rashkis ES Seawell ES Glenwood ES Glenwood ES Rashkis ES Scruggs ES Morris Grove ES Morris Grove ES Scruggs ES McDougle ES Northside ES Northside ES McDougle ES Rashkis ES Rashkis ES Scruggs ES Scruggs ES Seawell ES Seawell ES McDougle ES McDougle ES V—! —VT- 2 3 4 5 Slide #19 MIDDLE SCHOOL (CHCCS) CURRENT STATE School Name Year Built Total Square Feet Deficiency Total FCI %Space Types %Space Type— %Teaching/ Capacity 2022-23 2022-23 Present min six. Learning Tools Enrollment Utilization Present McDougle MS 1994 85% 54% 73% 707 753 106% Culhreth MS 1969 115,462 $ 19,n67,027 35% 81% 50% 68% 775 650 85% Phillips MS 1962 109,498 IS 15,392,752 30% 93% 37% 72% 702 610 87% Smith MS 2001 134,180 1$ 25,457,155 40% 91% 59% 78% 679 771 1982 359,140 Is 59,916,934 3S% 1 87% 50% 1 7S% 1 2,864 1 2,794 98% $60 million in = Utilization ranges 6<75°%of Educational a deficiencies o from 87%-114% U Adequacy Average is"100% requirements 1 Smith MS has c highest FCI at 40% N a, •3/4 score 85%+Ed U F 4-1Q Ad space types %AJ 6 7 David Sturtz said that simply put, the middle schools are full. He said the ones that are 8 there are undersized. 9 13 1 Slide #20 MIDDLE SCHOOL (CHCCS) - OPTIONS Planning Area Current Option Impact Condition CHCC$_Ms Option Description Capacity Enrollment FCI Utilization Needs(0-5 Total Option Resulting Resulting years) Investment Capacity Utilization OptionA Priority Maintenance 561,122,639 2,745 92% Option B Priority Maintenance and Minor Renovations to Improve $75,065,134 2,745 92% Educational Mai Maintenance 2�74S 2,518 35% 92% $$3,214,770 Option C Adequacy Maintenance and Renovations to improve[audition& $177,339,114 2,776 91% Adequacy Option D Rebuild Phillips M5&Estes Hills ES as a K-8 School,Priority $202,694,826 3,210 78% Maintenance and Renovations to Remaining Facilities \u 2 -.. 3 4 Slide #21 MIDDLE SCHOOL (CHCCS) - OPTIONS A 6 C D Priority Priority Maintenance& Maintenance R Priority Maintenance& Priority Maintenance Major Renovation Major Renovation Adequacy Renovations Adequacy Adequacy Renovations Renovations McDougle MS McDougle MS McDougle MS Culbreth MS McDougle MS Culbreth MS Culbreth MS Culbreth MS Smith MS Phillips MS Smith MS Phillips MS Phillips MS Smith MS Smith MS Rebuild On-Site Phillips MS 5 6 7 14 1 Slide #22 HIGH SCHOOL (CHCCS) CURRENT STATE School Name Year Built Total Square Feet Deficiency Total FCI %Space Types %Space Types> %Teaching/ Capacity 2022-23 2022-23 Present min size Learning Tools Enrollment utilization Present Carrboro HS 2007 152,823 $ 33,983,248 45% 82% 35% 71% 851 853 l00% Chapel HIII IS 2020 320,328 $ 20,672,972 13% 83% 69% 79% 11535 11578 103% E.Chapel Hill HS 1996 279,992 $ 45,376,687 33% 84% 55% 77% 1,275 1,425 112% 2008 753,143 S 100,032,907 27% 83% 57% 76% 31661 3,856 105% o •$100 million in C • Utilization avg 3/3 80%+space deficiencies 0 105% a types 1 •27%avg FCI with N • 3 schools>100% CT • Highest FCl has 45%highest `V �o 0 lowest Ed Ad 2 — • Small spaces 3 David Sturtz said Woolpert recommends that an addition be built at Carrboro High School. 4 He said it was not designed as a comprehensive school and the space sizes are simply not there. 5 He said he wanted to recommend razing and rebuilding but based on the recent construction, 6 they could not prioritize that method. He said the addition would fit between the wings. 7 Chair Bedford said that the high school was designed to have an addition built in the future 8 for 400 students. She also suggested that with roof needs, some of the roofs may still be under 9 warranty. She said that would not cover the openings, but the warranty should be reviewed. 10 David Sturtz said they are all over utilized. 11 12 15 1 Slide #23 NIGH SCHOOL (CHCCS) - OPTIONS Planning Area Current Option Impact Condition CHCCS HIS Option Description Capacity Enrollment FCI Utilization Needs{O-5 Total Option Resulting Resulting yearsInvestment Capacity utilization ) Option A Priority Maintenance $84,933,236 3,661 105% Option 8 Priority Maintenance and Renovationsto Improve Educational $90,103,422 3,661 105% Adequacy 3,661 3,856 27% IOS% $100,032,907 Option C Addition&Adequacy Renovations at Carrboro RS to Increase $117,288,515 3,946 98% Capacity and Improve Condition&Adequacy Option O N/A ry— tyr 2 3 David Sturtz said the options are redoing schools and adding capacity to Carrboro High 4 School. 5 6 Slide #24 RIGH SCHOOL (CHCCS) - OPTIONS A B C Priority Maintenance Priority Priority Maintenance Maintenance Carrboro HS Chapel Hill HS Chapel Hill HS Chapel Hill HS E.Chapel HIII HS E.Chapel Hill HS E.Chapel Hill HS Partial Renovation Partial Renpvation &addition Carrboro HS Carrboro HS a u 7 8 9 16 1 Slide #25 ALT HIGH SCHOOL (CHCCS) - CURRENT STATE School Name Year Built Total Square Feet Deficiency Total FCI %Space Types %Space Typesi %Teaching/ Capacity 2022-23 2022-23 Present min site Learning Tools Enrollment Utilisation Present Phoenix Academy 2009 15,182 $ 2,188,595 29% 8% 4% 5% 83 28 34% 2009 15,182 $ 2,188,595 29% 9% c FCI is 290 Low utilization7 Low Educational o • 55 opera seats ca Cr m Adequacy +� a✓ C aJ (0 � 2 3 4 Slide#26 ALT HIGH SCHOOL (CHCCS) - OPTIONS Planning Area Current Option Impact Condition CHCCS ALTHS Option Description Capacity Enrollment FCI Utilization Needs(0-5 Total Option Resulting Resulting years) Investment Capacity Utilisation Option A Priority Maintenance $1.726,291 83 34% Option B Renovation to Improve Condition&Adequacy $5,711,468 62 45% 83 28 29% 34% $2,188,595 Option ',N/A Option D N/A 5 6 Commissioner Richards asked if there was a programmatic decision made about the 7 alternative high school that affects the recommendation. 8 David Sturtz said they have not made a decision about this but there have been 9 discussions about relocating. 10 Al Ciarochi said that the program is packed, and expansion is a future consideration 11 because the facility is being used at 100%. He said that if there are any spaces in the district that 12 become available, they would consider that for alternative programs in the district. 17 1 Commissioner Richards asked if they would lock-in on the plan when there is a need in 2 the district for support for this kind of alternative program. 3 David Sturtz said they understand the need for support for the program. He said that it 4 would be up to the board to decide after they receive the recommendation based on the 5 consultants understanding of the needs. 6 7 Slide #27 ALT HIGH SCHOOL (CHCCS) - OPTIONS A B Priority Maintenance Partial Renovation Phoenix Academy Phoenix Academy •r —QTS 8 9 10 Slide #28 r ORANGE COUNTY SCHOOLS s 11 18 1 Slide #29 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (OC, ) CURRENT TATE 9.h..l N—. V_Bulk rn•d 5gr.A FMe a.xeer yrcnr w %sp—Typo x ..sp...ryp %T..ddrgl -p ky 3422-2a 2022-75 F. rnm— L....ing T l+ tilt dr.N. uim-fion ar.a.r� M+al E5 L957 6 L 102 111. 471 7644 56M 6336 447 295 ,5515 f and-"eek5 f5 1952 65,98A 5".603 20% at% 5534 65% 536 550 no Uradj 6rAw4 E5 1974 75M6 6,740.826 199% 86% 7816 747% 495 410 LIA ill�oro 5 1953 65 32 $ 4 77356 93% 75% _,ria 63% 544 430 R%- ..310 1:5 L911 10]'A86 $ 57047159 37% 7744 46% 67 552 599 98% athwa 6 E5 2000 85 282 S 8535 603 -22% 8694 7A% 73% S39 359 573% Rrner 41,4 E3 1956 r46 24 5 14 706427 22% 794% 494& 83% 580 357 D15% LOW IRsI 73,5K3U 279% 8d1% 3976 0% 16671 1.15'1 adz% C • $715 million in 4/7<85% � a X4/7<65%Ed Ad O deficienciesutilization ru requirements ■ 1/7>40%ICI 2 near 10D% � a Small space types •4/7 f 22%FCI _ 1>100% -� 2 - 7) d 3 David Sturtz said there is big swing in conditions, right-size, and utilization. He said there 4 are adequacy issues in the elementary schools and several have high needs. 5 6 Slide #30 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (OCS) - OPTIONS Planning Area Curmnt Option Impact oesjE5 option aesciWidn capaexy Erdl4went rn Mili tton t:nndRion leeede 7otei opdoe Rexdt t r%1 *3106..] Ir..c4n.rrt Capacbty Vt1lix tlan G"lanA Priarlty hfat.tiea wr $25,779622 3,671 86% Priority Mai rW4r4rr1Fa and ME.Inor Rdlwtatlont to 41nprn4 4ptlonB EducananaE,cdaquacy $381649g" 3.671 "M P"MV MaE.xer%ence wWRemyittloneto enpnrae EdW@do nl optwmc AdeWiacy.RshulldCantral and Oil 8r.4arpulh at Canhal as Chis 3x671 3461 2756 $6'35 $7#.566 ;1pp,}90„1p1 3,411 42% 6druol Priority MalNar.rrnc.and R.Wtlonr to WProv.Ed.ca80.ral 0"16MD Adeq cy.Rebuild Central and HEllyheraugh at r[ntral an OM $129,837,936 1,947 30% School.Build a Now Elamantary or W atom ki,$wr, sax ■i 7 8 David Sturtz said he felt that combining Hillsborough and Central Elementary Schools 9 would be one of the best options for addressing the needs at each school. 10 19 1 Slide #31 ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (OCS) OPTIONS A B C D Priority Maintenance& Priority Priority Maintenance& PrioriMaintenance Pr°Doty Priority Maintenance Priority Adequacy Maintenance Adequacy Renovations Maintenance Renovations Central ESGrady Brown ES Efland-Cheeks ES Grady Brown ES Efland-Cheeks ES Grady Brown ES Pathways ES New Hope ES Pathways ES New Hope ES Efland-Cheeks ES Pathways ES Grady Brown ES Hillsborough ES New Hope ES Priority Maintenance& Major Rerrovation Rebuild On-Site Consolidate into alor Renovation Rebuild on-site Pathways ES Adequacy Renovations New Scholl River Park E5 River Park ES Central ES Central ES River Park ES Central ES Hillsborough ES Efland-Cheeks ES H illsborough ES Consolidate into Na.Construction New Hope ES New School River Park ES Hillsborough ES New E5 option %As 2 3 4 Slide #32 MIDDLE SCHOOL (OCS) - CURRENT STATE School Name Year Built Total.Square Feet oefldencq Total PCI %Space Types %Space Types> %Teaching/ Capacity 2022-23 2022-23 Present min size Learning Tools Enrollment Utilization Present A.L. MS 1995 136,758 $ 27,859,070 43% 75% 48% 61% 813 642 79% Gravelly Hill MS 2006 122,793 $ 17,963,599 31% 71% 45% 59% 663 42S 65% range MS 1968 130,400 $ 21,435,075 35% 82% 55% 68% 791 525 66% 1990 389,951 5 67,257,742 36% 76% 49% 63% 2,267 11595 70% c • $67+million in 70%avg utilization Meets about 60% deficiencies 2/3<70% of Ed Ad La • FCI range 31%- N utilization Cr requirements U 43% Small space types 5 6 7 20 1 Slide #33 MIDDLE SCHOOL (OCS) - OPTIONS Planning Area Current Option Impact Condition CCS-MS Option Description Capacity Enrollment F[I Utilization Needs(0-5 Total OptiInvestmeon Resulting Resulting nt Capacity Utilization years) Option Priority Maintenance $50,351,395 2,267 70% Option 0 Partial Renovation at all Middle Schools to Improve Condition and $117,246,147 1,927 83% Adequacy Option C Major Renovation at all Middle Schools to Improve Condition and 2,267 1,595 36% 70% $67,257,742 $151,561,835 1,700 94% Adequacy Option D Rebuild Orange MS and Major Renovations at Stanback&Gravelly $166,654,314 1,973 61% Hill MS to Improve Condition and Adequacy 2 3 David Sturtz said there is a little extra wiggle room in middle schools. He said the adequacy 4 is ok if size is not considered. 5 6 Slide #34 MIDDLE SCHOOL (OCS) - OPTIONS A 6 C D Priority Maintenance Partial Renovation Major Renovation Major Renovation Rebuild On-Site A.L.Stanback MS A.L-Stanback MS A.L.Stanback MS A.L.Stanback MS Orange MS Gravelly Hill MS Gravelly Hill MS Gravelly Hill MS Gravelly Hill MS Orange MS Orange MS Orange MS sa 7 8 9 10 21 1 Slide#35 HIGH SCHOOL (OCS) - CURRENT STATE School Name Year guilt Total Square Feet Deficiency Tool FCI %Space Types %Space Types> %Teaching/ Capacity 2022-23 2022-23 Present min size Learning Tools Enmollme.1, Utllizntlon present edar Ridge HS 2002 270,229 $ 12,164,741 79% 71% 72% 1,328 1,108 E3% range HS 1962 236,337 5 35,707,628 31% 79% 61% 71% 1,310 1,340 102% 1982 506,566 $ 47,872,37$ 19% 79% 66% 71% 2,638 2,448 93% •s4► C7 • $48m deficiencies Highest —80%space types +, • FCI-9%and 31% ° utilization/enrollm and 71% N ent(142%)_ C requirements o highest FCI{31%} U Q !� 2 3 David Sturtz said that Orange High is overly full. He said from a space perspective, they 4 are ok, but there is room for investment and improvement. 5 6 Slide #36 NIGH SCHOOL (OCS) - OPTIONS Planning Area Current Option Impact Condition Total Option Resulting Resulting OCS_HS Option Description Capacity Enrollment FCI Utilization Needs l0-9 Investment Capacity Utili:atian yearn Option Priority Maintenance $36,024,603 2,698 93% Priority Maintenance at Cedar Ridge and a Partial Renmaticn at Option 6 $40,834,233 2,638 93% Orangeto lm rove Condition and Adequac 2,638 2,448 19% 93% $47,872,375 Priority Maintenance at Cedar Ridge and Mayor Renovation at Option[ Orangeto improve Condition and Adequacy $90,637,961 2555 96% Option D Priority Maintenance at Cedar Ridge and Rebuild Orange $143,912,286 2,899 84% 7 8 9 10 22 1 Slide #37 HIGH SCHOOL (OCS) - OPTIONS A B C a Priority Maintenance Priority Priority Maintenance& Priority Maintenance Partial Renovation Priority Rebuild On-Site Maintenance Adequacy Renovations Maintenance Cedar Ridge H5 Cedar Ridge HS Orange HS Cedar Ridge H5 Orange HS Cedar Ridge HS Orange HS Orange H5 u 2 -�♦ 3 4 Slide #38 ALT HIGH SCHOOL (OCS) - CURRENT STATE School Name Year Built Tota.ISquareFeet OeBclency Total F23 %Space Types %SpaceTypes> %Teaching/ Capacity 2022-23 2022-23 Present minslze Leaming Tools Enrollment Utilization Present Partnershlo Academv 2006 6,660 $ 602,768 19% 2% 0% 0% 116 34 29% zoos 5.600 $ 602,788 1 19% 2% 0% 0% 116 34 29% c FCI is 19% • Low utilization • Low Educational _© •2 • 82 open seats CZAdequacy N � d} V a--� Q 5 7) k 6 David Sturtz said that functional capacity is different than what the building can hold but 7 the program is full from a programming standpoint. He said they are looking at options to expand 8 with a commons area and kitchen. 23 1 Slide #39 ALT HIGH SCHOOL (OCS) - OPTIONS Planning Area Current Option Impact Condition Total Option Resulting Resulting OCS_ALTHS Option Description Capacity Enrollment p[I Utilization Needs(0-5 Investment Capacity Utilization years) Option Priority Maintenance $568,541 116 29% Option 0 Priority Maintenance and Renovationsto Existing Building. $3,028,541 149 23% Classroom(4)Addition with Commons and Kitchen 116 34 19% 29% $602,788 Option[ NA $568,541 Option O NA $568,541 2 3 4 Slide #40 ALT HIGH SCHOOL (OCS) - OPTIONS A 6 Priority Maintenance Priority Maintenance +addition Partnership Academy Partnership Academy ►.r -T� 5 6 7 8 24 1 Slide #41 QUESTIONS WOOLPEPT 2 3 David Sturtz said the team would review this information with administrative teams in 4 conjunction with budget considerations. 5 Commissioner Richards asked a question about slide #8, Educational Adequacy. She 6 asked if there is no line for adequacy shown, does that mean there is nothing. 7 David Sturtz said it is showing that it is either not there or there and undersized. He said 8 the data would be in the State of the Schools report. 9 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked about what the space looks like in CHCCS for 10 exceptional children. 11 David Sturtz said it is a traditional, regular classroom, which has been repurposed for 12 exceptional children. He said this would be a classroom likely designed in the 1960's. He said 13 that standards now are for exceptional children's classrooms to be much larger. He said they 14 have a room but not all of the space that you would ideally plan for. He said the support space, 15 such as a lift or washer and dryer, would not be there. 16 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how many exceptional children are in the classrooms. 17 Nyah Hamlett said it was about 8-10 students in each. 18 Sarah Smylie said there are meaningful differences in the SAPFO projections,which when 19 reviewed place all of the elementary schools at over capacity. She said she wanted to make sure 20 the options Woolpert presents are based on the real-life capacity of the buildings. 21 David Sturtz said the aggregate differences are about 10% but individual buildings are 22 greater in some cases. He said that they developed options with both in mind. He said they were 23 not looking at any major reduction strategies for Orange County Elementary Schools. He said 24 they look at capacity as what can the building hold in the long-term. He said policies can change, 25 but the building will stay fairly constant. He said Orange County Schools need relief in capacity. 26 Sarah Smylie asked about the difference in the state law between classroom sizes. 27 David Sturtz said they looked at state law and that is a big one. He said that they look at 28 standard loading. He said when they walked the building, their assessors could not distinguish 29 between K, 1, and 2 classrooms when walking through the schools over the summer. He said 30 they used NCDPI loading standards and averaged them across K-5 to 20. He said they then use 31 that against core classrooms. 32 Bonnie Hauser asked what assumptions they made about Pre-K. 33 David Sturtz said Pre-K is loaded at 18. He said they looked at spaces that designated 34 Pre-K to get to 18. He said the only rooms that had capacity at elementary were Pre-K and core 35 classrooms. 25 1 Bonnie Hauser said the Orange County School Board is considering expanding the 2 alternative high school and starting an alternative middle school. She asked if Woolpert could 3 provide recommendations about what that might look like for the middle school. 4 David Sturtz said absolutely, and it will be added to the mix. 5 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how alternative high schools are over capacity. 6 David Sturtz said that a traditional classroom could hold 20-25 children. He said that's not 7 how an alternative high school works. He said they looked at what the building could 8 accommodate. He said if the building had a different purpose, they could make it fit, but it does 9 not. He said he should have shown that information differently next time. 10 Ashton Powell asked what the timeframe for policy changes is based on the DPI 11 standards. He asked if CHCCS has been behind in complying with those standards for five or 12 fifteen years. He asked how long they have been out of compliance. 13 David Sturtz said he cannot speak to the exact dates. He said that standards keep being 14 updated, but buildings do not. He said the standards are for new design. He said they took the 15 new design standards and compared them to the existing buildings. 16 Sarah Smylie said the recommendation to build a new school at the Central campus was 17 surprising, because there are limitations to that site. She said that AL Stanback has the highest 18 FCI, and she was surprised that Orange Middle was recommended to be replaced rather than 19 Stanback. 20 David Sturtz said the question is what is driving the FCI. He said it could be the roof that 21 is the driver, or it could be a variety of other things. 22 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked about slide #5. She asked if those priorities were 23 included in the critical needs. 24 David Sturtz said yes that they are included everywhere. He said that if they assume you 25 cannot meet all of the condition needs, they start with saying you will at least take care of 1-3 26 priorities for starting the discussion. 27 Commissioner Fowler asked what the difference between essential and necessary is. 28 Jessica Goodell said it is shades of grey. She said priority 2 would be a roof while priority 29 3 would be electrical components. 30 Chair Bedford asked if a $130 million bond covers Priority 1 and Priority 2 needs. 31 David Sturtz said yes. He said that would cover nothing else. 32 Commissioner Hamilton said it would be $1.8 billion to replace all of the schools. She said 33 that it is helpful to look at options over time and allow them to be economically responsible while 34 meeting the needs of the students. She said they have to consider how they are going to make 35 investments in the schools that make sense. 36 David Sturtz said that $1.8 billion is the basis for creating the FCI. He said that industry 37 standards suggest that organizations set aside 2% of the total need of replacement value for 38 annual repairs and maintenance. He said that would be $37 million for repairs and maintenance. 39 He said if you do that math over 10 years, then that is bigger than $130 million so they will work 40 with the team to develop scenarios to consider in terms of low, medium, and high budget 41 assumptions. 42 Vice-Chair McKee asked if$37 million assumes they are starting off with new schools. 43 David Sturtz said yes. He said the 2016 State of our Schools Report addresses the issue. 44 He said that since the county and school systems have not been keeping up with the deferred 45 maintenance, the recommendation is 7% rather than 2%. 46 Vice-Chair McKee said they have to do something but there is no alternative to doing a 47 lot. He said this is going to be a heavy lift. 48 Commissioner Fowler said that they had been investing $3 million a year, but that they 49 had been doing $30 million for a couple of years to try to catch up, but even that was inadequate. 50 Vice-Chair McKee said that the county and school systems are losing ground. 51 26 1 2. Budget Concerns/Impacts Related to State Funding/Potential Federal 2 Shutdown/Inflation 3 4 Both School systems provided updates on the county, state and federal funding for their districts 5 this fiscal year. 6 7 a) Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools 8 9 George Griffin introduced the presentation. 10 Nyah Hamlett made the following presentation. 11 12 Slide #1 THINK (AND ACT) • 4 STPATEGIC PLA 2022-2027 - � �. . 13 14 15 Slide #2 LUOur Vision: U- U- Equipping students to navigate - world and make s positive impact throughout STRATEGIC PLAN 2022-2027 16 17 CHCCS believes every individual's unique background and culture enhance aur schools. By providing students with a safe and joyful learning environment, we collaborate with families to create a community where all students, families and staff members feel affirmed and respected to develop (heir fullest potential. THINK(AND ACT) DIFFERENTLY 27 1 Slide #3 Chapel HIIFCortGoro City Schods phccs.org I •I fore Val�ue� 7 Slide #5 • Engagement • Collective Efficacy • Social Justice Action • Wellness •Joy THINK{AND ACT) DIFFERENTLY Chapel Hip.Can6000 Ciry Schools I chccs.org Y� M M �i Beginning of Year Leadership Summit, THINK(AND ACT) August 2023 DIFFERENTLY chapel Hill-Catrbola CHy SChoali fJ1CC5.IXg 28 1 Slide #6 Accountability Data Highest graduation rate ever at 94.8% A new record high for the second consecutive year Chapel HdlcC­ba1c eNykhaols I ch-s-g THINK(AND ACT) 2 3 4 Slide #7 Accountability Data • 83.3% of schools Exceeded or Met Growth expectations "Ity kh..1,i cnacs.og THINK(AND ACT) 5 6 7 Slide #8 Accountability Data • District gains included a 71 .1 % passing rate on all state exams • Highest in the Triangle Chap lHfIFCaub=C9V5ahaala I corm-g THINK(AND ACT) 8 29 1 Slide#9 Accountability Data • 66.7% of CHCCS schools earned an "A" or " B„ grade • Statewide, 26.7% earned an "A„ or IAB„ mace[HSC. —CH,S&—o i�n­ g THINK(AND ACT)PUMMUM 2 3 4 Slide #10 Student Growth CHCCS achieved a noticeable "bounce-back" from unfinished learning, such as: Year-over-year 3rd grade Black reading: Up 11.1 percentage points (to 37.5%Q from 26.4%) Year-over-year 3rd grade Latinx reading: Up 3.9 percentage points (to 41.8%from 37.9%) • Some cohort: 4th grade Black reading: Up 3.8 percentage points (to 30.2%from 26.4%when the some students were 3rd graders) .,h,0Ha-c.,,bo Citrsc­ ..r,._.. _ THINK(AND ACT) 5 6 George Griffin continued the presentation. 7 8 Slide #11 THINK r + DIFFERENTLY Results of Operations in the Local Fund lidA 2022-2027 9 30 1 Slide #12 FY 2022-23 Results - • LU Operations B. • • • r Est.7909 •♦ 2-... • 2 3 4 Slide #13 Looking Back... In the the FY 2022-23 CHCCS Board Adopted Budget, bold strategies were considered,and acted upon,to strengthen the District's position to attract and retain highly qualified staff to deliver and support the instruction received by our students.These strategies included: • Salary increases for our classified staff • Local supplement increases to our certified staff, • Other staff-related recruitment and retention strategies The CHCCS Board of Education approved the appropriation of$5.125 million from their existing unassigned local fund balance to fund these bold actions eo- —b—CNs r,oi: -_r=_ prepared by Business and Financial Services THINK(AND ACTe 5 6 7 Slide #14 Fiscal Results in FY 2022-23 The combination of the fund balance appropriation and higher-than-expected continuation costs created an clear structural deficit situation for the the Fiscal Year 2022-23 local fund Preliminary estimates indicate that there will be an approximate$6.5 million reported loss to the local fund once the district's financial statements are audited This loss is approximately$1.38 million above the Board's 2022-23 original projection and local fund balance appropriation cnr• ,l Hai-C—bar,cry scion I ch--g Prepared by Business and Financial Services TH I N K(AN D ACT)ENNUMM 8 31 1 Slide #15 Largest Non-salary Increases in FY 2022-23 M1P Penoanrl E'1.2022 FyZ°n T°`•('".°&° 1�u1-� . Largest increase seen in Utilities with Expenxr r'n.-I C'.1h.% ['untie dServices 3,758736 3,849,099 90,361 2% approximate 11% increase or Y[ofessivnal 636.535 806,940 170,401 127% �-$435,0100 [k elnpm ml. [liiliiiex 4030,742 4,465,733 111,991 11% • Increase in Charter School 17.en1sdulsuws 80,240 163.021 5'_-,751 10386 enrollment led to increase in R"`"'°5 ` payments to Charter Schools of a.h. 845,092 877.6 t0 32,728 4 0 Portral S.fl az 790,671 884,470 93,799 127 —$147,000 Clurter SeAml 891,427 1,038,529 147,102 17% General increases in cost of services Payments S 11,1133.434 S 12,118*.6112 S 1,952,167 10% led to higher expenses in contracted services, Insurance, software, etc. as shown in the table Chapel will-Carrboro City Schools I anaas.org prepared by Business and Financial Services THINK (ANP ACT) 2 3 4 Riza Jenkins continued the presentation. 5 6 Slide #16 m9r,10111111 Fund Balance Analysis -w?C) B 01 i iy Fst.194� STRATEGIC 71 2022-2027 8 9 Slide #17 32 Fund Balance Remaining after Results Of FY 2022-23 As of the end of the 2022-23 fiscal year, the remaining total local fund balance level is expected to be reported at $5.51 million. Of that amount, approximately $3.5 million will remain unassigned and available for appropriation in the FY 2023-24 budget. Before any appropriation is made for the FY 2023-24 budget, the District's local unassigned fund balance percentage of budget expenditures is projected at approximately 4% Chapel Hill-Cor UoIR City$.Chppls l ChCCs,01g prepared by Business and Financial Services THINK (AND ACT) 1 2 3 Slide #18 Fund Balance Remaining after Results 4f FY 2022-23 District Administration the FY 2023-24 operating budget will likely require a fund balance appropriation to balance. A$1 million fund balance appropriation in the FY2023-24 operating budget would reduce that unassigned percentage to 2.81% of budgeted expenditures A$1.5 million appropriation would reduce it to 2.25% of budgeted expenditures Chopel Hill-Carrboro City schools i ahacs.arg prepared by Business and Financial Services THINK (AND ACT) 4 5 6 33 1 Slide #19 3 Casho w Analysis .. ■ M4 iwQ;W� STRATEGIC PLAN 7 1 T 22-20272 3 4 Slide #20 Cash Flaw Discussion During the Orange County Joint School Collaboration meeting on April 20, 2023 discussion emerged around the need for a consistent understanding and alignment of what the school districts' levels of unassigned fund balance should be Both District Administrations were tasked with examining ©range County Policy on Fund Balance - 3.1 and conducting a cash flow analysis to assess whether maintaining a fund balance equivalent to 5.5% of budgeted expenditures remains an appropriate standard for each school district cnnr�i y o.c o Oily S nooac I cncc,.arp Prepared by Business and Financial Services THINK (AND ACT) 5 6 34 1 Slide #21 Cash Flow Discussion CHCCS' Special District Tax accounted for $25.5 million or 31% of total collected local revenues of$82.5 million in FY 2023 In Orange County, property taxes are due on September 1, however they do not become delinquent until January of the following year Due to the annually recurring pattern of collections, the District had only collected $4.6 million or 18.2% of Special District Tax revenue as of November 30, 2022 By November 30, 2022, the District's local operations netted a loss of$6.1 million Chapel Hill-Coriboro City schools I chccs.org Prepared by Business and Financial Services THINK (AND ACT) � 2 3 4 Slide #22 Cash Flow Discussion FY2023 Revenue(Cash In) Expenses(Cash Out) EOM Cash Balance excluding 1i • At 5.5%,the additional cash balance provided July 4,645,256 4,073,837 531,419 by a positive fund balance to cover cash flow August 9,322,081 10,893,711 (1.571,630) would have been$4.89 million September 16,133,548 19,278,165 43.144.657) October 22,E96,211 26,179,367 13,983.156) • Local fund balance would not have been at a Neo cnlrer 27,826932 33,994,775 (6,167,843) sufficient level to cover the deficit in operations December 40,591,948 42,141,883 (1,549,935) during the July to'November timeframe January 52281,640 50,585,214 1696,425 • The Government Finance Officers Association February 61,372,598 61,546.038 (173440) (GFOA)offers guidance that an 8% March 66,247,180 70,264,363 14,017,183) unassigned fund balance target is"good", April 71,587,093 78,472.,005 (6,884,911) while a 16%target is a"healthy"target for May" 76,540,427 86,35s 447 19.818,o20) government agencies June 82542,137 88,998975 16,496,839) • At 8%,the cash available in the local fund from -AL,2023—,demi,--if e.n..nrhhecunze&eDis—rnXaredrlreeio, fsrareend fund balance would have been approximately T derv!Grmrr Fwrd,[n.hme.5rhrch d—,—f—rhe xana!nmelrne_ $7.1 million, which would have been enough to cover the operating deficits through November Chapel Hill-Carrboro city schools I chccs.org Prepared by Business and Financial Services THINK (AND ACT) • 5 6 7 35 1 George Griffin continued the presentation. 2 3 Slide #23 Policy Review 4 5 6 7 Slide #24 Fund Balance Policy The School District's Local Current Expense Fund Balance Policy establishes guidelines and practices for managing fund balances within school districts,emphasizing the importance of maintaining funds for cash flow, using fund balances for non-recurring expenses,and addressing unforeseen emergencies collaboratively between the school districts and County Commissioners. The last revision to the policy was approved by the BOCC in June of 2019. It outlines the School Districts Local Current Expense Fund Balance Policy,which is a joint policy between the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education, and Orange County Schools Board of Education.The policy states that the School/County Collaboration Work Group shall review the policy every 18 months to determine if changes to the policy are necessary. The local operating fund balance and cash flow information was shared with the Orange County Joint School Districts Collaboration Work Group at its meeting on September 7,2023.Given the expected cash deficit in the month of November,the County has agreed to prepay a portion of the December county appropriation to cover the cash deficit in November. Chopel Hill-Carrboro city Schools I cnccs.org Prepared by Business and Financial Services THINK (AND ACT) g 9 George Griffin said that the revision to the policy was in 2018, not 2019. 10 Chair Bedford said that it was possible for the county to forward an advance to the school 11 system to help with the cash flow issues. 12 George Griffin said he appreciated the support from the county. 36 Riza Jenkins continued the presentation. 1 2 Slide #25 3 4 5 Slide #26 6 7 8 9 37 1 Slide #27 see 0 eer ---ORO ,l STRATEGIC PLAN I Est.1909 2022-2027 2 3 Vice-Chair McKee asked if federal funding is a guaranteed funding stream. 4 Riza Jenkins said no. 5 Jonathan Scott said that some of the federal funding listed includes pandemic-rescue plan 6 funding, which the districted is winding down. 7 Vice-Chair McKee asked what the plans are for the future of ESSER. 8 Jonathan Scott said the majority of pandemic relief for CHCCS went to programs for 9 recruiting and retaining employees, in the form of signing bonuses and additional bonuses to 10 employees. 11 Vice-Chair McKee clarified that ESSER funds were used for non-recurring expenses. 12 Jonathan Scott said that was correct, that those expenses would not be recurring after 13 FY24. 14 Commissioner Fowler asked if the already agreed support from Orange County was 15 factored into the fund balance analysis shown in the presentation, or if that is something they want 16 codified in a fund balance policy. 17 George Griffin said those funds were just to address a payroll shortfall. 18 Commissioner Fowler asked what kind of fund balance recommendation they were hoping 19 for. 20 George Griffin said they would like to see the fund balance policy set at a minimum of 8% 21 so they can have flexibility to meet expense needs each month. 22 Commissioner Richards said she read the letter in the folder that CHCCS provided to the 23 Board. She said she had concerns about how realistic it is to address the financial needs listed 24 in the letter. [The letter is included in the minutes below.] 25 38 FROM THE Rani Dasi I Chair,Board of Education BOARD OF EDUCATION at,R{} Nyah D.Hamlett,Ed.ID.,Superin*rident CHAPEL HILL-CARRSORO CITY SCHOOLS W x W— C, Jamezetta Bedford Chair, Orange County Board of County Commissioners 300 West Tryon Street H[Ilsborough, NC 27278 Honorable Members of the Grange County Board of Commissioners, The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education is pleased to provide a financial overview of our Fiscal Year 2022-23 results,and to discuss some critical financial matters that have come to our attention, In FY 2022-23, we pursued strategies aimed at strengthening our ability to attract and retain highly qualified staff to support our students' education.These strategies included: • Salary increases for classified staff. • Enhancements to the local supplement for certified staff. • Various recruitment and retention initiatives. To fund these actions,the Board of Education approved the appropriation of$5.1 million from our existing local fund balance.However,a combination of fund balance appropriation and inflation driving higher-than-expected continuation costs created an inherent deficit situation during the 2022-23 fiscal year, Preliminary estimates indicate an approximate$6.5 million net loss in the local fund once the districts financial statements are audited.This loss exceeds the Board's original projection and local fund balance appropriation by approximately$1.4 million. Cue to this loss,the remaining total local fund balance at the end of the 2022-23 fiscal year is expected to be reported at$5.5 million, with approximately$3.5 million available for appropriation in the FY 2023-24 budget,Therefore, before any fund balance appropriation in the FY 2023-24 budget, our local unassigned fund balance percentage of budgeted expenditures is projected to be approximately 4%. As is consistent with historical'budget adoptions,we anticipate some level of fund balance appropriation to balance the FY 2023-24 operating budget.A$1 million fund balance appropriation would reduce the unassigned percentage to 2.8%,and a$1.5 million appropriation would further reduce it to 2.3%of budgeted expenditures. 750 S.Merritt MITI Road I Chapel Hill,INC 275161 P 919.987.8211 Chapel 1101-Carrboro City Schools administers all educairnnd gwugnn:,napinmem aniwiues and adraisAuits wti.dwal dimnmination be U.yr M mcr, rel,gams,,etamral ar elluric algin,.color,agr,miutary xmce,dis,x oly,.mental atNus,r wil s�arLL:,ea gender,cusp whenr eaemt:,ion A appeapeit,c and allowed by laay. 1 2 39 Moving forward,we are actively urging the Board of County Commissioners(BOCC)to conduct a comprehensive review of the minimum fund balance target within the BOCC's School Districts Local Current Expense Fund Balance Policy(Policy 3.1)to ensure its a lig n ment with the ever-evolving financial landscape,As you are aware,this policy outlines the fundamental,principles governing fund balance management across both school districts (CHCCS and Orange County Schools)and underwent its most recent review and approval by the BOCC in June 2018_ Currently,the policy stipulates a minimum target of 5.5%of budgeted expenditures for unassigned fund balance. However, recent cash flow analyses have revealed that this target falls shoat in adequately covering operational cash flow during specific periods. We have determined that a minimum target of 5%of budgeted expenditures aligns more closely with the operational realities of our District.We believe in the value of conducting regular assessments and considering potential revisions to ensure that the policy remains in harmony with our current financial needs and challenges. In closing,we would like to express our gratitude for your invaluable support and assistance with the ongoing cash flow requirements of the District.We eagerly anticipate the BOCC's continued partnership and commitment to serge as the school district's safety net,in order to safeguard our financial stability and,prosperity.Together, we remain committed to providing the best possible learning environment for our students, and investing in our staff,while maintaining equitable and transparent stewardship of public resources_ Thank you for your continued prioritization of these important issues. Sincerely, The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education • Rani D. Dasi, M.B.A, Chair • George 1N_Griffin, Ph-D., Vice Chair • Riza Jenkins, J-D., M.B.A_ • J'illian J_La Sema, Ed-D- • Ashton W. Powell,Ph.0- • Michael H. Sharp.. M_Ed_ • Deon L. Temne 1 2 40 't 41 1 � FROM THE #tail U4�Il�I gin,bCaid CA L+aucautin BOARD OF EDUCATION ��+�1ZRaRf� Nyah D..rtiimiett,IEd_b_,Superintendent CHAPEL WILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS Dear Commissioner Bedford and Members of the Orange County Board of Commissioners, The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education is pleased to provide an update on our staffing and vacancy data forthe 23-24 School Year,and to discuss some critical upcoming needs that warrant our attention. At the start of the 2022-2023 school year, we opened schools 82.6% staffed. As I am sure you would agree,we all strive to fully staff all of our schools and classrooms with talented and highly qualified individuals_With strategic and targeted stewardship of district funding, allotted towards personnel needs,we have been able to move in line:with our Strategic Plan's theme to"Act and Think Differently"_ Consequently, our focus on recruitment and retention has led our district to opening schools 95% staffed with certified employees (i.e. teachers, school counselors, etc.), which has risen to 97% as of today. We are also 97°1 staffed with classified employees. This ability to attract and retain educators is of paramount importance and a top indicator of improving success for our most impacted learners and maintaining high levels of student learning outcomes for all.See below for a breakdown of current vacancies. CATEGORY Licensed Employees(Schaal-Based) 34 96.76% Classified Employees(School-Based) 18 96.92% Teachers 32 96,64% Bus Drivers 9 89.53% Special Education Teachers 9 90.82% {Based on data as of September 21,�t123- Without adequate funding, the strategies and initiatives that have been put into place, for our students and school communities, will not be able to continue and thus negatively impact our students. Thank you for your continued support of our students,families and community. In Service to Children, Rani D. Dasi, M.B.A., Chair Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education 750 S.Merritt MIR Road I Chapel trill,NC 27516 1 P 919.9674211 WIA Hill-Carrboro City'Seiiools adnimistem alt educateunol progrunii,enlpk"ient.qcl i+a ....:..,.huessrans mAhmn discrmnnapun 4wuuire of race. religion,na.tmnal nr rihnic origin,color.age,railnary 4yiywo,dimbibty,nwiiul status,parental Status,tx @endCF,exiepl uUra exeanpilanis ni,lanpnale and ills ,,J'4 t,r 1 2 Chair Bedford said that they want special district tax funds to be spent on the children that 3 year. She said the county is not in a recession, Orange County has a health fund balance, and 4 there is insurance should something terrible happen to the facilities. She said the county provides 5 a backstop for the schools. 6 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked for clarification about the cash flow issue. She asked 7 if the cash flow issue was created because of how property tax is collected. 41 1 Jonathan Scott said that because the fund balance has been drawn down, there is not 2 sufficient cash in the bank. He said comparing revenues to expenditures, they are about $6.5 3 million in the hole. He said in previous years they had cash investments that were reflected in 4 their fund balance, which allowed them to float the negative fund balance. He said that the 5 numbers assume that the fund balance is zero. 6 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if the higher expense vs. revenue is due to payroll. 7 Jonathan Scott said that the majority of their expenses are annualized and 85% of their 8 expenses are related to personnel. He said their expenses are relatively flat over the course of 9 the year. He said the district tax accounts for$26 million, and collection does not start in earnest 10 until November, December, and January. 11 Vice-Chair McKee acknowledged and complimented the academic gains made by 12 CHCCS. 13 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how the student achievement numbers compare to 14 state averages. 15 Nyah Hamlett said that increases and growth are some of the highest in the Triangle 16 region. She said one of the things they look for is growth and proficiency within student groups. 17 She said previously, they compared academic achievement of racial and ethnic groups to each 18 other. She said now, they look at achievement within student groups. 19 Chair Bedford asked what the vacancy rate is for teachers and staff. 20 Nyah Hamlett said it was in the letter. 21 Commissioner Fowler said she would like for students with disabilities to be included, 22 given that teacher vacancy rates in that area are often one of the highest. 23 Nyah Hamlett said they have 5 student groups they focus on: students with disabilities, 24 economically disadvantaged, Black, Latinx, and multi-lingual learners. She said when they have 25 more data disaggregated, they will share that publicly. 26 Chair Bedford asked what the plans are for recruitment and retention. She said the state 27 recently came to an agreement on the budget, but the salary increases for teachers are dismal. 28 Jonathan Scott said the state budget includes 4% salary increases, which is what CHCCS 29 and the county also budgeted. He said there was a reduction in fringe benefits, vs. what they 30 projected. He said that he felt the budget will be sustainable with a minimal fund balance 31 appropriation. 32 Commissioner Fowler asked about paternity leave, which the state will now cover. She 33 asked if that was factored into their budget projections. 34 Jonathan Scott said that was already factored in and will help the district. 35 36 42 1 b) Orange County Schools 2 3 Andre Richmond made the following presentation. 4 5 Slide #1 ZINGAGE.CHALLENGE. INSPIRE. Orange County Schools •Yn.iN LAAO. Boards Meeting )4 September 26, 2023 Anne Purcell, 1' OCS Board Chair F . OCS Board Vice Chair Y Bonnie • Dr.James Wrrill,OCS interim Superintendent 6 7 8 Slide #2 OCS at a Glance, 2023-24 025 r Vii' K-1 students M Race/Ethnicity /`a � 36°bo iF A—k—I.E.0.24% Aslan 1.94, 1 •>HeWk.1amn 27.31% The number of students aual� Mgloocq •04[k � =W 141S% +11 for Free andkeduced-Pri;eMea15 xmne+a4o% increased during the pandernic. employees !308— .d lia-1 s 213 3wcn-.cd.1.f•x adazswecd dg-... 1 �1 schools .[d ;,"' 17 tl 1 ed,t—.L cL--4L1AU sctloaLS ;fear---d cicrRgA1412Y schg4L 3 rm&ac s hoaW DifferentlmIttguages spokeriat 9 3 3ugh set,00Ls ho-meolher than Enoah 10 Andre Richmond said that schools opened with only 22 vacancies compared to over 40 at 11 the same time last year. He said that only 4 were core classroom vacancies compared to 17 at 12 the same time last year. He said they transported 3,974 students and had a bus driver for every 13 route. He said that more than 50% of OCS students are students of color. He said more families 14 are limited in English proficiency and it is important to remember that not every multilingual learner 15 speaks Spanish. He said that more students are identified as eligible for special needs services 16 than the state provides funded for. He said that to ensure every OCS student's success, 43 1 resources are needed beyond those provided by the state, and that OCS must lean more heavily 2 on local funds. 3 4 Bonnie Hauser continued the presentation. 5 6 Slide #3 Fund `r . lance Uii let FY23 Beginning Balance $ 4,932,927 FY23 Ending Balance $ 3,419,757 Obligated/Assigned 347,392 FY24 Unassigned/Available $ 3,072,365 r �YO 7 EHGAGE. CHALLENGE. INSPIRE. 8 Bonnie Hauser said their fund balance is at about 7.0%, which is above the policy 9 recommendation of 5.5%. She said they prefer to carry enough fund balance to cover one month 10 of local and federal salaries and benefits which is about $3 million. She said that last year, OCS 11 drew down about$1.5 million from fund balance, mostly for stipends and bonuses. She said they 12 paid planning period stipends for teachers who gave up planning periods to cover classes, 13 stipends for state mandated training, incentives for substitutes, and other stipends for people who 14 went above and beyond the call of duty. She said they also provided bonuses to attract and retain 15 bus drivers and math teachers. She said that staffing is in a better place, so the school board 16 decided to discontinue most of those strategies. She said they also added stronger controls so 17 the board can better monitor spending in this area. She said that if OCS needs it, they have $4.7 18 million in capital from county, which has not yet been committed. She said the board has 19 committed the $43 million in capital which was given through the end of last year. 20 21 Slide #4 FY 2024 Budget Decisions OD Net Local Operations Budget Increase $4,213,138 $538/pp • Legislated increases in Salary&Benefits • Inflation increases for custodial&other contracts • Improved School security&nursing staff • Continue bus driver&substitute incentives • Begin transition of ESSER funding cliff • IntroduceSchool autonomy throughatdskallotme ts 22 GE. CHALLENGE. INSPIRE. 44 1 Slide #5 FY 4 What we couldn'tdo r■ • More TA's in our elementary schools • Increase local supplement to recruit and retain • Increase classified pay scales • Expand STEM/STEAM across the district 2 `t GAG,-. CHALLENGE.. INSPIRE. 3 4 Slide #6 FY2024 Federal Anticipated Expenditures Total Federal Anticipated Expenditures 6.5 M Title I - $2.OM IDEA - $1.9M Title 11 - $230K USDA-$2.21x1 Title III - $1 OOK Title IV- 100K Total Federal Payroll $ 5.3 M School Nutrition - $1,81VI Title 1, 11, 111, IV, IDEA - $8.5M 5 CHALLENGE. f, R- . 6 Bonnie Hauser said that at this time, they don't foresee an issue for Orange County 7 Schools with a possible federal government shutdown. She said Rhonda Rath is in regular 8 communications with DPI and has gotten no indication that they should be concerned about these 9 funds. She said if there was a problem, they would use available fund balance first, then look at 10 the $4.7 million in new capital funds received July 1. 11 Sarah Smylie said that one federal budget proposal is to cut Title I funding by 80%. She 12 wanted to make sure the group was aware that it was a possibility. 13 14 45 1 Slide#7 eedback/Questions 2 3 Commissioner Fowler asked for clarification that they would use capital funds if necessary. 4 She asked if that was a legal use. 5 Bonnie Hauser said they were under the impression that it was a possibility if necessary. 6 Bonnie Hammersley said it would be an interim solution. 7 Commissioner Fowler clarified that the funds would get paid back. 8 Vice-Chair McKee said it was concerning to use capital funding for ongoing expenses. 9 Bonnie Hauser said it would only be if the federal government shuts down, and OCS 10 spends their fund balance to cover a loss of funding. 11 Chair Bedford said that Bonnie Hammersley said that if there is a fiscal crisis the first thing 12 is to stop capital programs. 13 Bonnie Hammersley said once the federal funds started up again, the capital funds would 14 be replenished. 15 Vice-Chair McKee said he would not want to set a precedent. 16 Commissioner Fowler thanked the OCS board for their presentation. 17 Chair Bedford asked how many more nurses they were able to fund. 18 The OCS board indicated it was two nurses per school. 19 Sarah Smylie said they were Nurse Technicians. 20 Commissioner Hamilton referred to slide #6. She asked if the $5.3 million in payroll was 21 in addition to the $6.5 million. 22 Bonnie Hauser said it was included in the $6.5 million. 23 Ashton Powell said he was curious as to what it would cost to feed lunch for every child. 24 Vice-Chair McKee said he was also interested in this information. 25 Chair Bedford asked if there was a waitlist for pre-school. 26 Rhonda Rath said she would have to bring that information back to the Board. 27 Nyah Hamlett said she doesn't think there is a waitlist. 28 Chair Bedford said that the county knows there are children not in pre-school, and there 29 is county funding available to support them. She said the Partnership for Children wants to 30 understand the barriers. 31 Commissioner Richards said there are still unfilled slots, and funding is available. 32 Bonnie Hauser asked if the Partnership for Children includes Head Start. 33 Chair Bedford said it is for More at 4. 34 Bonnie Hauser said they have Head Start students at elementary schools. 35 Chair Bedford acknowledged that information and said that the schools would have to be 36 licensed differently. 46 1 Adjournment 2 3 A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler and seconded by Vice-Chair McKee to 4 adjourn the meeting at 9:17 p.m. 5 6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7 8 9 Jamezetta Bedford, Chair 10 11 12 Recorded by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board 13 14 Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.