HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-16-2024 - Business Meeting 1
APPROVED 2/20/24
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
BUSINESS MEETING
January 16, 2024
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Business Meeting on Tuesday, January
16, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Human Services Center in Hillsborough, NC.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jamezetta Bedford, Vice-Chair Sally Greene
and Commissioners Amy Fowler, Jean Hamilton, Earl McKee, Phyllis Portie-Ascott, and Anna
Richards
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
Travis Myren, and Clerk to the Board Laura Jensen. (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
Chair Bedford called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. All commissioners were present.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
Chair Bedford dispensed with reading the public charge.
2. Public Comments (Limited to One Hour)
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Terri Buckner said for the past 40 years, the towns and county have excelled at joint
planning. She said the rural buffer and WASAMPBA to reinforce protections of farms, rural
communities, wildlife, drinking water quality and supply, and community infrastructure. As part of
the joint planning, she said certain areas were identified for development like the 15-501 corridor
but not at the currently proposed densities. She said changing the plan now without a new
planning process ignores the impacts of climate change. She said affordable housing is needed
but she continues to observe some town elected officials prioritizing new affordable housing at
the expense of existing affordable housing. She said there are over 400 affordable housing
opportunities in the 15-501 area. She said using Chapel Hill's 15% affordable housing
requirement, if this area is built out to OWASA's estimate of 2,200 new homes, it would create
330 new affordable units, but asked what would happen to the existing 400 plus affordable units.
Between the pressure of new development and increased risk of flooding due to the loss of
permeable surfaces in the watershed, she asked if there would be a net gain or loss of affordable
housing. She said this type of strategic planning needs to occur before expanding the urban
boundary. She said Chapel Hill does not have the authority to require missing middle housing of
developers and the cost of extending water and sewer or the impact of those costs on housing
costs is unknown. She said it is also unknown what income levels will be served by new affordable
housing, the impact on schools, or the impact on transit. She said there are many open questions
and no answers and is depending on board to get the answers to those questions on residents'
behalf.
BJ Warshaw said he agrees with everything Terri Buckner just said. He said he continues
to be concerned about WASAMPBA. He said he lives in Chapel Hill ETJ and this Board is his
direct representation in this matter. He said he was disappointed to hear people continue to say
2
that this change would not impact the University Lake Watershed at a Chapel Hill Town Council.
He said state maps show otherwise and said he would like to see the findings of county staff on
this matter after the Board directed staff to investigate this issue at a previous meeting. He said
Carrboro had a motion to vote on this issue on February 6th and does not want them to vote
without the correct information. He said this decision feels rushed and that further studies are
needed to determine the impact of changing this agreement. He said there is no guarantee that
the stated affordable housing will ever occur and there is no full cost-benefit analysis or a plan for
how affordable housing will be developed in this area. He said he would like to see more
comprehensive planning at the county level and collaboration between county and towns on this
issue but also affordable housing and climate change issues across the county.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.)
3. Announcements, Petitions and Comments by Board Members
Commissioner Richards said there were a lot of activities during the holidays and on Martin
Luther King, Jr. Day. She said she attended the first meeting of the Jordan Lake One Water
Coalition and board officers were elected. She said it was a good organizational meeting and is
looking forward to serving.
Commissioner McKee said after learning that Buccee's will be built in Alamance County,
he is extremely disappointed that, over time, Orange County will lose tens of millions of dollars to
Alamance County because the Orange County Board of County Commissioners did not approve
that project.
Vice-Chair Greene said she stepped in for Chair Bedford at the graduation ceremony for
the 6th class of Project EngAge Volunteers. She said this is a great volunteer program for older
residents helping each other out. On a related note, she said that the senior centers are always
looking for volunteer drivers for seniors. She said she attended the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
events yesterday in Hillsborough and went to her second DSS Board meeting today. She said
that people are wanting to sign up for Medicaid expansion and staff is working to process nearly
1,900 applications at this time. She shared that this Board learned that Chapel Hill was interested
in applying for funding for an affordable housing project on Homestead Rd., and initially wanted
to use some county-owned land to build a covered bus shelter. Then, she said they learned that
the requirements were that the site had to have Saturday bus service, so Chapel Hill decided not
to apply after all. She said it was interesting to her because the state requirements did not used
to consider public transit, and it is not a deal breaker for funding now, but six extra points could
be applied to an application if Saturday transit were available. She said she is directing her
comments partly to the MPO representatives on the Board, because people at state level
recognize the connection between affordable housing, transit, mobility, and climate change but
funding transit is still a challenge.
Chair Bedford said she attended a Watauga Club dinner, and the subject was RTP 3.0
and the future development of RTP, including housing. She said it was interesting and will involve
Durham and Wake counties rezoning. She said she went to Carol Woods last week to thank them
for their$175,000 donation towards the Master Aging Plan. Finally, she said she attended a zoom
meeting earlier this month with Senator Graig Meyer as part of a subcommittee planning for future
land use if the UNC coal rail line ever becomes available.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she also attended the project EngAge graduation and
was impressed by the courses graduates took. She said she also attended several MLK Day
events. She said she enjoyed an oratorical contest that involved courageous students in
elementary, middle, and high school who made speeches. She said she attended two meetings
of the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness and attended a training on the point-in-
3
time count, which will provide the number of people experiencing homelessness in Orange
County, including those sheltered and unsheltered.
Commissioner Hamilton said she attended 3 Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Day celebrations
this weekend. She said the message she comes away with is the importance of not giving up
hope and working together despite differences to bring justice and improve the wellbeing of
everybody. She said she will bring that with her as the Board resumes its work for the year.
Commissioner Fowler said the Legislative Issues Work Group met since the last meeting
and updated the list, which will come to the Board before going to representatives. She said she
attended a Cooperative Extension in December, and the 2024 Ag Summit will be held on February
19' at Cedar Grove Community Center.
Commissioner Richards said she forgot to mention that she and Commissioner Portie-
Ascott went to Butner on Friday to see a 54-bed mental health facility for youth, which was very
impressive. She said the scarcity of beds for youth is well known. She said there were many
representatives from the Criminal Justice Resource Department and court system in Orange
County also in attendance for the tour of the facility and overview of the processes. She said more
renovations at the facility are forthcoming.
Commissioner Hamilton also wanted to mention that there are public engagement
sessions for the Orange County land use plan. She shared the dates and encouraged people to
provide input on the plan online.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations
a. Recognition of Graduates of the 2023 Orange County Youth Preparedness Camp
The Board recognized Molly Selleck and Layla Woolfolk for fulfilling all requirements to graduate
from the 2023 Orange County Youth Preparedness Camp, including completion of the PREP+6
Service project, impacting the disaster readiness level of fourteen (14) area families.
BACKGROUND: The Orange County Youth Preparedness Camp is an annual day camp for
Orange County teens conducted by Orange County Cooperative Extension and Orange County
Emergency Services. The Camp was first offered in 2018 and is based on the National Youth
Preparedness Initiative founded by Mississippi State Extension. The Camp has been held
annually in Orange County in 2018, 2019, 2022, and 2023.
During the June 26-30, 2023 camp, students engaged with the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) curriculum, exploring topics
from search & rescue to emergency medical services to fire safety. Instructors during the week
were County emergency services professionals and members of the Orange County Sheriff's
Office, as well as employees with the Department of Social Services. Through experiential
learning activities, presenters provided insight with youth into their career paths and
responsibilities. Youth also earned CPR/AED certification and participated in a disaster
simulation to apply skills learned throughout the week.
In order to officially graduate from the camp, youth are encouraged to impact their community
preparedness level by completing the PREP+6 project. This project requires each participating
youth to help their own household as well as six other area households develop an emergency
preparedness kit and communication plan. The camp participants provide educational resources
from FEMA to each household and provide additional guidance on ways to improve the
household's readiness for future disasters. The teen then verifies that the kit has been created
and that the communication plan has been completed.
4
In 2023, Molly Selleck of Chapel Hill and Layla Woolfolk of Carrboro completed the camp
graduation requirements and assisted a combined fourteen (14) area households to become
better prepared for emergencies. These young leaders now posess the skills to effectively help
their communities in the event of an emergency. They also achieved certification in CPR and AED
and are better prepared for the future.
Jonathon Smith, Cooperative Extension Director, introduced Molly Selleck and Layla
Woolfolk.
Sarah Pickhardt, Division Chief of Emergency Management, reviewed some of the skills
that participants learned throughout the week and highlighted their accomplishments.
Jonathon Smith said Molly Selleck and Layla Woolfolk went above and beyond helping
their own family and other families create an emergency preparedness plan and emergency
communications plan. In total, he said they have helped 14 families in Orange County.
5. Public Hearings
None.
6. Regular Agenda
a. Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) Funding Recommendations for FY 2023-24
Affordable Housing Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Funds and Remaining 2016 Bond Funds
The Board considered a resolution awarding funds for the FY 2023-24 Capital Investment Plan
(CIP) Affordable Housing request for proposals (RFP) process based on the funding
recommendations from the Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB).
BACKGROUND: The FY 2023-2033 Adopted Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes $5 million
for Affordable Housing development in each of the fiscal years FY 2023-24, FY 2026-27 and FY
2029-30. A total of$15 million for affordable housing development will be allocated over the ten-
year plan. The FY 2023-24 Affordable Housing funds of$5 million includes an additional $700,000
of remaining bond funds from 2016.
Additionally, at its June 20, 2023 Business meeting, the BOCC declared eleven (11) parcels of
County-owned land as surplus for affordable housing. The County may:
o Sell the properties by negotiated sale to either a public or private entity for the purpose of
developing affordable housing for persons of low to moderate income (the property could
be offered for below market rates to serve as a subsidy for the affordable housing project).
o Lease the property to a public or private entity for the purpose of developing affordable
housing for persons of low to moderate income (the lease rate could also be negotiated
below market rate to serve as a subsidy for the affordable housing project); and
o If there are no developers interested in the above options, sell the property on the private
market with the proceeds of the sale dedicated to other affordable housing projects.
On July 26, 2023, a request for proposals (RFP) was released which included the eleven (11)
parcels of County-owned land. The eligible proposals are for new construction and/or
rehabilitation for homeownership and/or rental development affordable to low-income
households. The proposed projects may be mixed-use and/or mixed income. As outlined in the
State of North Carolina's Olmstead settlement agreement, no more than 20% of residential units
may be set aside for people with disabilities and land banking is not an eligible use of the funds.
5
The eligible applicants for funding are non-profit organizations involved in affordable housing and
community development (including faith-based organizations), for-profit developers, and joint
ventures between eligible non-profit and for-profit entities.
The proposal evaluation scoring matrix (see Attachment 1) considers the following factors for
each proposed project:
(1) income and vulnerable population targeting,
(2) targeting of households currently living and/or working in Orange County,
(3) leveraging of other funding sources,
(4) building and site design, including environmental sustainability and accessibility
features,
(5) community design, including neighborhood compatibility and location,
(6) community sponsorship, engagement, and support,
(7) project feasibility, and
(8) developer experience.
The application cycle opened on July 26, 2023, and closed on Sept 28, 2023. The County
received ten (10) proposals. The Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) reviewed the
applications for the 2023-24 CIP Affordable Housing Bond Program on November 14, 2023, and
December 19, 2023. Based on the scoring matrix and discussion of the projects, AHAB proposes
the following funding recommendations:
Funding AHAB Funding Recommendation
Requested Score
Cedar Village (CASA) $825,000.00 191.1 $825,000.00
Homestead Horizons CASA $3,533,173.00 187.3 $733,500.00
Davie Circle $500,000.00 158.5 $500,000.00
EmPOWERMENT, Inc.
Wentworth Conveyance of Land 178.1 Conveyance of Land
EmPOWERMENT, Inc.
Homestead $1,000,000.00 150.5 $825,000.00
EmPOWERMENT, Inc.
East Village Habitat $3,700,000.00 189.7 $800,000.00
Hill Street Pee Wee Homes $166,500.00 178.4 $166,500.00
Trinity Court (Community $950,000.00 191.3 $950,000.00
Housing Partners
Homestead Gardens $900,000.00 176.0 $900,000.00
Community Home Trust)
Shady Acres $6,998,820.00 Incomplete $0
Total: $18,573,493.00 $5,700,000.00
The proposals are summarized below with AHAB's funding recommendations, and also
addressed in Attachment 2.
Cedar Village (CASA): $825,000
Community Partners: DR Horton
The proposal requests funds for the construction of three (3), twenty-four (24) unit residential
buildings, and one community building that will serve households at or below 30% to 60% Area
Median Income(AMI). The project will also include eight units set aside for referrals from Veterans
6
Bridge Home to address a Town of Hillsborough request for housing to serve veterans with
disabilities. Cedar Village will be developed as a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit community to
finance the project, allowing CASA to leverage significant private capital and debt with a relatively
small funding commitment from local partners. The site is a part of Collins Ridge, a new market-
rate subdivision developed by DR Horton, which will comprise over nine hundred (900) total
single-family homes, townhomes, and apartments upon completion.
Homestead Horizons (CASA): $733,500
Community Partners: UNC, Town of Chapel Hill, Self-Help, Community Home Trust and Habitat
for Humanity
The proposal requests funds to develop a thirty-two (32) unit apartment building that will provide
affordable housing for households earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The
project will be funded with the purpose of assisting in the development of the apartment building,
which will be subject to affordability restrictions for at least ninety-nine (99) years. The building
will be managed by UNC Horizons and will be operated as supportive housing for low-income
families with children headed by women in recovery from substance abuse. Homestead Horizons
is part of a larger effort to address the affordable housing crisis in Chapel Hill and will provide
much-needed housing options for low-income families in the area.
Davie Circle (EMPOWERment, Inc.): $500,000
Community Partner(s): N/A
The proposal requests funds for the acquisition of an existing rental property, which consists of
eight(8)affordable housing units in Chapel Hill, NC. This project is for individuals earning between
30%-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Specifically, the project aims to acquire eight rental
units in a centrally located complex, which offers proximity to the UNC Campus, UNC hospitals,
Franklin Street, and numerous other businesses. EMPOWERment aims to allow low-income
households to reside in Chapel Hill while ensuring long-term affordability. This property is
considered Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) and is currently occupied by seven
(7) families in the targeted AMI range 30%-60%.
Wentworth (EMPOWERment, Inc.): Conveyance of Land for PEACH II
Community Partner(s): N/A
The conveyance of the parcel of land will be used to produce affordable housing in Chapel Hill
catering to populations earning below 60% AMI. This project will be called PEACH II and, similar
to the PEACH Apartments, it will have access to public transportation. The units will be centrally
located, within walking distance to the UNC campus, Hospital, Franklin Street, schools, shopping
and other businesses.
Homestead (EMPOWERment, Inc.): $825,000
Community Partner(s): N/A
The proposal requests funds for the acquisition of ten (10) single-family homes located off
Homestead Road in Chapel Hill. This project will target people who are earning below 80% AMI.
This is a Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing property (NOAH). All ten (10) households are
currently occupied and, if funded, the occupants will not be displaced. This project will ensure that
communities like this one will remain safe and affordable. In the future, homes that become
available will be occupied by individuals who earn between 30% to 60% of the area median
income (AMI). These homes will remain affordable. EMPOWERment will identify funds to make
needed rehab and repairs and ensure the quality, health, and safety of the homes over the
affordability period.
East Village (Habitat): $800,000
Community Partner(s): N/A
The proposal requests funds to develop site infrastructure in contribution to the delivery of
seventy-six (76) needed new units of housing in Orange County. Of these units, sixty-four (64)
will be affordable Habitat homes sold to first-time homebuyers earning between 30% and 80% of
AMI. The remaining twelve (12) units (15%) in East Village will be market-rate homes. The project
has a mixed-income design and inclusion of two-story duplexes prioritizes smart density and
meaningful community interaction to create social and economic benefits for East Village
residents and the broader community.
Hill Street (Pee Wee Homes): $166,500
Community Partner(s): N/A
The proposal requests funds for the development of three(3)residences targeting Orange County
community members who have experienced chronic homelessness or are currently homeless
and have incomes below 30% AMI. The land these homes will be built on is located within the
Northside neighborhood and is right across the street from Baldwin Park and two blocks from
downtown Carrboro. By building in this neighborhood, the project leverages an existing
community asset to allow for tenants to live independently within the context of community.
Trinity Court (Community Housing Partners): $950,000
Community Partner(s): Town of Chapel Hill
The proposal requests funds for the redevelopment of fifty-four(54)affordable rental units serving
households earning from below 30% up to 80% AMI. Trinity Court will be comprised of twenty
(20) two-bedroom, twenty (20) three-bedroom, and fourteen (14) one-bedroom units. The range
of unit sizes and types will provide opportunities to serve target populations, including individuals,
families with children, persons with disabilities, individuals or families transitioning out of
homelessness, holders of housing vouchers, and others. Trinity will be developed under the
Housing and Urban Development(HUD)Rental Assistance Demonstration Program(RAD),which
will provide the property with a forty (40) unit project based rental assistance contract allowing for
forty (40) of the fifty-four (54) households to pay no more than 30% of their income towards
housing costs. The remaining fourteen (14) units will be subject to Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit requirements and income and rent restrictions.
Homestead Gardens (Community Home Trust): $900,000
Community Partner(s): Self-Help, CASA, Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, and Town of
Chapel Hill
The proposal requests funds for the development of twenty-one (21) townhomes, earmarked for
individuals and families earning 65% to 80% AMI The target population for the project is families
and individuals whose income falls within 80% or below the Area Median Income (AMI)threshold
and who either reside in or are employed in Orange County. The Homestead Gardens initiative,
situated at 2200 Homestead Road in Chapel Hill, represents a pioneering strategy for advancing
affordable housing through a distinctive collaborative framework. Notably, among these units, up
to three (3) will feature an integrated Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), facilitating housing options
for those earning below 65% of AMI.
8
Shady Acres (Shady Acres, LLC): $0
Community Partner(s): NA
The proposal requests funds to develop forty-two (42) units. Of the forty-two (42) dwellings, six
(6) of the units would be reserved for 30% to 60% AMI, ten (10) of the units would be reserved
for 60% to 80% AMI, and all units would serve a Special Needs Population of elderly residents
over sixty-two (62)years of age and/or Veterans with a priority on those with disabilities. Located
on Sawmill Road in Cedar Grove and within walking distance of Cedar Grove Community Center,
this subdivision would provide forty(40) dwellings, two (2)Community Gardens and a Community
Amphitheater with a Gathering Room attached.
AHAB's scoring of the applications using the evaluation scoring matrix approved by the Board of
Orange County Commissioners earlier this year is detailed in Attachment 3. The Affordable
Housing Advisory Board members made the decision to exclude the Shady Acres application
based on the application being incomplete.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The FY 2023-2033 Adopted Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes $5
million in FY 2023-24 for the purpose of requesting for proposals (RFP) for Affordable Housing
development from nonprofit organizations involved in affordable housing and community
development (including faith-based organizations), for-profit developers, and joint ventures
between eligible non-profit and for-profit entities. Additionally, $700,000 in remaining funds are
included from the November 2016 bond referendum.
Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager, made the following presentation:
Slide #1
ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Orange County
FY2023-24 Affordable Housing RFP
Board of Orange County Commissioners
January 16, 2024
Bonnie Hammersley introduced the Interim Housing and Community Development
Director, Blake Rosser. She also thanked members of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board for
their work on this matter.
9
Slide #2
OMTRPOSE: To consider adoption1on mvarding fijnds
Tovesunenthrequest
'posWs (RFP)
h pnxxss bused on the
funding ■
the Affordable Housing Advisory Board
COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Slide #3
Affordable Housing Request for Proposal
• The FY2023-24)33 Adopted Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes $5
million for Affordable Housing development in each of the fiscal years
FY2023-24, FY2026-27 and FY2029-30.
• A total of $15 million for affordable housing development will be
allocated over the ten-year plan.
• The Request for Proposal (RFP) released on July 26, 2023, included
FY2023-24 CIP Affordable Housing funds of $5 million with an
additional $700,000 of remaining bond funds from 2016.
• At the June 20, 2023, BQCC Business meeting the BOCC declared eleven
(11)parcels of County-owned land as surplus for affordable housing
which were included in the RFP.
ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
10
Slide #4
Affordable Housing Proposal Evaluation
• AHAS members reviewed and evaluated the propusals individually}with
discussiun regarding the proposals in two subsequent mectitngs.
• November 14,2023 meeting, applicants were invited to present their
propusal.
• Pruposal applicants were allowed to provide supplemental information to
provide clarity in relation to the scoring matrix by December 4,2023.
• December 19,2023 mectitng, review of the evaluation scures based on
supplemental information with final recurnmendation.
• AHA$used the scuring matrix as a base for the pruposal,thruugh the process a
dcficietncv in the scuting matrix was recognized.
• The scoring matrix is framed for development of new tmits and dues not
consider Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing(NOA-H).
• AHA$members believed that the NOAH propusals were vital to
maintaining existing affutdable honsinginventory.
• AHAB tecummcnded awarditng$5.7 million to the eligible proposals for 159
units funded as requested and approximately 29 units partially funded based on
the per unit cost.
ORANGE COUNTY
4W HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Commissioner Fowler asked if there is another funding source for Naturally Occurring
Affordable Housing (NOAH).
Bonnie Hammersley said the two NOAH projects had other funding in addition to county
funding.
Slide #5
Orange County Affordable Housing Bond Program Application
Scaring Farm
rY 3023.34 Caphal Invenmom Plan KIPI Funding Cycle
smrrmra a�rr..�tro,�
A4err rhrooyh rock rob of ehit sevrresrrs}wndJo w the dvxrlwrs ae eke wp afeorh eoh.Fhroxphvur rhr
scnrrcQ�,Doty rnrer7rd4rrnor7wr M yrern 6vnrs;wu+gr 4axrs mlllou[FdC Summary in!'wrnorivn wllloppror
tR the acurecurd Sermm see[wumehw.
Fri14r rhr opphcun r Hume and your ioomr 8rhw_
AwXcenr Na ;
Scorer Nam
scvrward Sumrnary
category Rointe Torcloofftrtaeas M
L lnoomr Tarp`tLngand SpecYaY Needs
3.L« 1 Resldmcy 0
3_Leveraging 0
A.&uilnineena Site Desian
5.Communlly 6eslgn 0
5.Communnv 5ponsorship/5upporx
7.ProJect Feasibility 0 30
a_Dr bp-E.prrlcnor 42
Total points
ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
11
Bonnie Hammersley said that there is a formula targeting income and special needs and
that allocates the total number of points.
Slide #6
i_IncameTargetln4 and
$pedal Needs(45 Polnts)
What income ron8e(s)and popwlaUon(s)
M II the proposed project serveD
lndJcate the number ajunitsservonggwhincome range;n the greenboxer under-On meT-aryeting-"place anXIn
vns gmen baxander"SpcP of Need:,"Oran a boxes wglaury Y,
PACOM! ulil
T1ri4lFi Na h3
feumbwraf
mks Franked pe:5tt oou the pr*dodrvepsaplewithrpeeulbmnirnesar4
un _
L__JHPonW I F-1Yes�24Po.rts1
L31-6%AMI � �ryp p¢rkfl
JS p�kfl
Fl=W's
o� IIII�III I� Subtotal
owrtsl
E3natal El5k*tcf 1z M 'mined aspeoAle vrYih dlsaGYfdex veierams ReoAlee+Uaer7enr8►9 homedessnesx holders�fNaurhQ
6baroe ov o7hervatwheN artdsm#vm Odonwak 4iok rer
p0iNT3
ORANGECOUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Commissioner Fowler asked if total points could be broken out in the future so they can
see where points were allocated.
Bonnie Hammersley said they can do that going forward.
Commissioner Richards asked if"other funding" means they have it required or in-hand.
Bonnie Hammersley said those projects have other funding in hand. She also said that
she had assumed commitment letters were required but they may not have been. She said she
did see them when she was reviewing the applications.
Commissioner Richards said she has a concern about that because the county is an initial
funder for some projects.
12
Slide #7
2.Local Residenty(5 Points)
What percentage of the proposed project will provide housing for Orange County re0ents?
Place an X'in one greee box by the appmpdate percent of targeted units.Orange boxes will auto-f tli.
Percent of current 0range County residents'at sale or lease-uo
0-50%ID points)
50•80%12 polms)I
86-100%15 pointsI
=TOTAL POINTS
'deflrted as households currenhy residing or wording in Orange County orhaWng resided in Orange County
nORANGECOUNTY
► HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Slide #8
3.Leueragwng{52 points}
To wl at degree doesthe proposed project include other sources of fords?
us�rltespntr brlewta rekidorr kvrregr,rAm pinerevt"k"im owgrem box by the Vpmprrotrlrvrmging Cow.amrtgebexrs wffba frJl.
penxyt Funded by County Fundi OtherCritona
=Sl-1i 1{9 points' Project pays property taxes(2 polnts�
�60-sm(3points) rhesetwo-wemvhmfyexcAtsweFlProjectrepdyihiWs-prindpal only 13pohms)'
�40-59%(6paint5) TMerwacremvrwryrxd4srre=PrujectrepaysPonds-P41110 points l`
�20-3945(9 points) F Pro*a is miNed income I14puintsl'
�10-19%(15 points) F-1ProjEcf is orkm-um[10 pdntsl'
❑{10%(20 paints) '7b—atErado aatapplvm nwepafit*a rdaraye& =Sumawl
❑Subtotal rn a �n a�a onr oAyr rm1 ax*e¢o�+undain giro geog qo rc
o�exootion of�ordohlrem6
C17EWO to ie Mage
COLaryfVffS{fRC 'rng 7io-QGfSr] 'Mnnhg leirtdudes nurre9denriol roses[nx o$er arar m engo61w% and hello and
hdaun sen+rb3
otherjwws(non-caranry)
permitCavrrtyfsrnding WTOTAL POINTS
13
Slide#9
&9u1 ldl rig and Slte 6eslgn 120 points)
Assfps a number olpofrrfs Or?the 9ree"boxes below 000ardJnC to Your best Jadgmen t, YOU may prowAfe a narratNe
explac tkn furraclr-
Narrstpea
�P-J—t Incorpo ratos s.rstalmtAQ d..Vn a kmants,
arc bass llerbulldlrlcsloes,weofIotaVrecvcled
bd king naatarlals�amrgy artklarlt taaturas,t
LED Ilghtlr&water c rverratlon Flntoms,of ident
FNAL cyst—r,etc.{ap m 5 po-rntr)
�Prafact prowldas harMcap accoulhllty and/or
Incorporates L)W"real Daslgn'pup to S pornts)
Fmja tIncorpo otes s. talmhhe carnrnurYty and
erw1mnmerlt21 des18n alQrmnts,such as rlafrlhle
lot dalan,law Impact draelo pre t,storm water
contra hh rrduord lmper k—asrraoe area,,
nat.ral o r dre.Sht-wslsta nt I2ndsc2p1h&or any
other aWltlo ml elemerlt that would sarw to
nJnlmlee ne¢etlw emiro rrrertel Impacts,as
Orarwe County reculatlom allow pup to 5 pakrts)
�Profact Is co rrwctad to water and swwr sQnAca,
wIII corrxct to a Istlncservlce,orwllImea
community wal I and sawar systara conslstant
with water and se r!: ,.nGary agraermntS
and lout stanrtbrds top le S polnls)
—TOTAL FMPIf S
'Pr�act meat�/attxads llCHFA o-nanp�crtto-FJd: hrlrs:lfufww.ndrfn eorrslsltesldefardtJhfesJmae otrarlJYNen[`S�Q.-0P�#i»OlAwendlr8.ndl
�Srr: httyasffwwsxswbdg.org}drsign-obJrctivrsJaccrss�b�rfbeyorn�arcrsslbld�[y-exrivrrsa�drsigrr
n ORANGE COUNTY
� HORSING DEPARTMENT
Bonnie Hammersley said Commissioner Fowler asked about Universal Design. She said
that the second box down asks for universal design.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if there was a minimum score.
Bonnie Hammersley said there were ten applications and one was incomplete, so only
nine were awarded funding. She said that she was in both meetings and once the NOAH projects
were identified and had occupants, that made an impact. She said the top three received total
funding and the others received partial funding
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said there were some that score low on community design.
Bonnie Hammersley said the ones that scored low in that category were the NOAH
projects because they aren't new and did not have the design aspect.
14
Slide #10
5.community BesFgn(20 p6ints1
A+s.pn a minder oJparnh in rhr V—&.ors 6rfuw orrwd+"nr to ra+nr d-rir+lwr'enr,Yox—ypr i.%,o nwr.orir e+rybnorrunfdr e—A,
tyarrative
QProject contmbnntes lrD a m1woF housIngwahln
e Ism rig nelghhorhood Cup to it pDbwft)
�Bo nus points far orrlltllng a paearance,qua Illy of
cor tnrctlnn,cnmpatlhl lity with surrounding
housinga hlllty to foster a sense of a samm
community,area co Mn 6utlan to nelghborhaba
redta Ilzatlon ar4Voraffordable housing
preseruatlon(details must be provktea by
applicant sup to S poiru)
Oproject isacces9hle to services suchas healthcare,
schools,gm—rles,etc.Cup to d points)
Public t-mportatlori,to Ind udea bus route or
on-oemarmserviae dorequh alent),and related
facllltles are avallable{e.e.bus shelters,
msslhle mops,et,.j{ap to ptik t:}
�Pmjed Is located In an area aF the county
traditionally underserved by honesingdevelopment
(up to 3 poL.ts)
=TOTAL POFNTS
nORANGECOUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Slide#11
8.Comnturllty Sponsorship/Support 120 pointz4
AasFda a R MbW ql pninn At.FW OrWrl 0ake5 allow amnifiad fo pour WOPAgOdredf.Yak mays/aefge a I mtMe eXgfarPs MrP fw tmfI.
IVdtfatFfe
Applicant can show evidence that they coo rd inated
wit h other o rpnizi tlo nsta complementlsoppo rt
the proposed project(upto 6 point;)
=kpplicent can sMw evidence that they in: lved
the Intended be nefich,desof the project inthe
planning process and t hat the outreach and
marketing plan d,nclusive Cup to 6 points)
AppIIca rra can dernonstr to It has been act roe ly
invblued,or rl s rito the steps it will toketo
became actNely moalved,In the coumy's
consolidated planning processor laentlfy and
adaress a housing need related to the proposed
project(up to 4ovintQ
Appllca nt has developed,or can demo nst rate
plaro-to develop,I inks with other co n,nwnity
hctrvitie t6 provide holetic c6nnrnunityservices
Cup to d paintsF
-TOTAL POINTS
nORANGECOUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
15
Slide #12
7,Project Feasibility J30 pointsi
Asripn a number 4f1 WAU W the grwn Nmes bEkw accorXng!o yovrbe51404mam.
F7Applrant can demonsuatesite onmrol.Laing cornplbnce,and timely and feasiNeoonstruction schedule(uptoi0 posh)
F7Funding{other than County funding)is in plar:e at time of appliation(Up to'k0 pants)
F7Appliea5t presents a proposed budget and financial model appropriatebmed on reasonable assumptlom(up to 10 points)
.Total points
nORANGECOUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Slide #13
S.neweloper Experlenea(40 points)
wiirpe rrnvmber e¢pefrrt1 RY the greeebn M bffiaw aemfAlQ3n yevrbempAdgmeat,.
akpplleant Kos eWerlenoe carrying our comparable projects to that proposed and has met regulatory wrnpllance Far
previous projects(up to 10 points)
aApplleant Kos a proposed teem wlrh demonstrated dewelopmenr,managerial,and Cnanclal manaeemenE eapablllcles In
prior p rojecCs lup to 10 points)
�Applir_ant and team members have successful record or meeting proposed budgets and timelines fupio 10puints]
proje[t sponsor is a nonprofit housing provider(up w 10 pokiu)
aTotal points
nORAN E COUNTY
� HOUSING DEPARTMENT
16
Slide#14
PROJECT COST, TIMELINE E & COMMUNITY PARTNERS
["s,l. 'LIL.,r SiS'867372 $M,Drju 3vda:cb 2f126 WarS�oacc Haur;ixQ Lams Fra�rain
Hs ffin Hft al JPm ebaeLLoeL Psagftmu
moSirfLX1ia.L O.'.dgd Canany
Puivi aaL�a.Y
GAiSA-Kwmestead Honxons W2100,000 3345J3073 Pebn.ary 2W4
Ar•ak g1o��iLd
uao
F—LPOWFR IEIT•d.L-Lr S],ZGU,UUU 3yJuxu CO13L.L7L11,-d fu-di Tu%&-4fCh�y�J
Ci.-o r w m ircLur Rarr Eas0lr.ytr CztLUr U.iiarL
a1`4*LL%;ban oft.we Cawny
rlm;vAme daea.i.
EmPGWERMENT-Wemtwm th NIA immi Wmamag-mith
F.mP0'&`F.R-MENT- -0 S"f F m 5i,onn,nnn cwnrrutted fruLda ToA•noL C hmpei
HomfoRead —LU eecvae �lmv Emp1 my CredA Undon
-{{msitiun Orange Lour"
Pnraia C}-
Habimc Etiar VLOage 514,171,431 53,700,QOU Spring 2026 UNC Chapel HiII
51sm vrfdcal 4lNC HrsLh
"i1i1fL7C4an Of affe Cauo Ly'
PgvATe Domi'r
Newfe Honme-Hi11Str"q V42.944 SLW 5X 1aLwDrf 202-4 TO -nOf Carrbora
Drgin C�ak Pormdatiam
Corm vetion (NF;lntge Comzq•
Powlte Dorton
Ca,mnu.brvHcpm;og Nur
T.ioiry CouLE 9WC Cix iII
Namha;de Nt;ghb rrh5ad
Cainink-mry Home Tnmer- C+e„5ad.i154 SRf MInD T'Qoarxer 2024 SrIN3elp Qedii[boon
HomeneadGasdena Begin CASA
ctm irmdon Habitat
Town ofC13 pelHill
Qvinge Com"
Bonnie Hammersley noted that the project cost shown for Trinity Court is incorrect and is
actually $18,983,793.
17
Slide#15
H B SCORES - F 0 3-24 PROPOSALS
Ch°SA- EMPOWER DUOTE EdTOWE-R ae HiNcu r F�eewee {await}• comuQn
CASk-CedAl H=aired mrot.Garin Amcor ul.Hamnand HMAf[4- Moo-KU KmmiagHome Lai•
VdKe HQcme EmtI' r ,N PM FS. Hameskad
Circle Aeoianrth Tuun'C44w Gmdems
S�''3,p110 53,i33,L73 S90 AO F a 9 S1A7 A0 S3,':OOMO SIWOO 34Skwo MAW
Requraerd Ammimt
caasesmoe
#L'36B/CUilNT1'161 `SLI,45$ 3'-::SIL0J1-2 $.S62.50u N- ]0:5100.0!�. G+:557.$LS I'S53-V 54:SL- }
1)1 acaolts f 5`u]j3erab4- 333i 40.E 20 a4 273 H2 373 31-2 25A
P tluioos
7L Local Rr-;i&nrs =X 4.- 4.2. --- �:- ]U 4U G G
3) 36.E 163 21.9 Z�5 IU 25� 93 32.4 :0
4)Buildiog/Sae IV 173 2A ]'u 6.4 W L9J) IC IN
Dp9i d
5)Conurnm Wry L"iga V.5 0.4 193 192 IM M t9s L94 171.4
6}Caunniu6ry 161- 1911 1-4 1S6 1 t IS., I00 I-J F-
S omhi
7)Fessilb ry 35.3 29.5 27? 20 233 27A 30D M 27.7
NLEwrdtnrr Ux kill - ;n 3113
TOtAlScme 19LI 187.3 158 5 178-1 1505 189.7 17843 191-3 17&0
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if Shady Court did not submit even after an opportunity
for supplemental information.
Bonnie Hammersley said they did not.
Commissioner Richards said she would still like to see the percentage of total project
funding that organizations have secured. She also asked if there is a timeline for when projects
have to be completed.
Bonnie Hammersley said the project must be started 18-24 months.
18
Slide #16
AHAIR Recommendation to BDCC
Fund;ng AHAB Funding
Requested score Recommendation
Cedar Village(CASA) $925,000.00 191.1 $82500.00
Homestead Horizons $3,533,173,00 187,3 $733,500M
CASA)
Davie Circle $500,000.00 158.5 $500,000.00
EMPOWERment,Inc,
Wentworth C.onteranceof 178,1 CQnve anceof Land
EMPOWERment,Inc. Land
Homestead $1,000,000.00 150.5 $825,000.00
ENIPOWERment,Inc,
East VII lace Ha bita 0 $3,701D,DW1 00 189,7 $800 DOO.00
Hill Street(Pee Wee $166,500.00 178,4 $166,500M
Homes)
Trinity Court(Community $950,000.00 191.3 $950,000.00
Housing Partners
Homestead Gardens $900,00mo 17CO $900,000.01D
(Community Home Trust
Shad Acres $6,998,820.00 Incomplete $0
Total: $5,700,000.00
ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Slide #17
RECOMM]ENDATION(S): The Manager reconuywnds that the Board adopt and
author= the Chair to sign the attached Resolution +
E+ AffirdableY + + process basedon the fundmgrecamniendations
ORANGE COUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
19
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Sandra Clinton said she has lived in Hillsborough for the past 25 years and has been a
homeowner at Crescent Magnolia Townhomes by Habitat for Humanity. She said she is grateful
for her home and is thankful for Habitat for Humanity. She said she currently serves on the Habitat
Advisory Committee and Homeowner Committee. She asked for funding for Habitat for Humanity.
Joseph Schwenker with Community Housing Partners and representing the Trinity Court
redevelopment. He said he could answer questions from the Board if they would like.
Commissioner Richards said the project seems like it is underway, and the county portion
is only 5% of the total. She asked how the county portion is helping move the project forward.
Joseph Schwenker said they have everything except what they are requesting from the
county. He said costs were much lower when the project was started, and this gap funding is
needed to make the project work now.
Commissioner Richards asked where they would get the money if not funded by the
county.
Joseph Schwenker said there are not a lot of other options left. He said they cannot cover
a million-dollar shortfall.
Chair Bedford said she was concerned about the disrepair of the property. She asked if
there are policies in place to ensure the project does not fall into disrepair again in the future.
Joseph Schwenker said yes. He said they are part of the rental demonstration program.
He said they are subject to NCHFA inspections and approvals, and they have equity investors
who buy tax credits, and they are invested for 15 years. He said there ae a lot of checks and
balances now. He said the project was poorly constructed in the mid-70's but this is a way to
remedy that and actually increase the number of affordable housing units.
Vice-Chair Greene said the backstory is the federal government has decided to disinvest
in public housing. She said that RAD is one of the latest devices that are really public-private
partnerships.
Anna Wu said she is the current board chair for the Orange County Habitat for Humanity.
She thanked the Board for their investment in affordable housing. She also thanked Bonnie
Hammersley and county housing staff for their hard work and leadership throughout this process.
She said they see how home ownership is slipping further out of reach for so many. She said that
many people who work here cannot afford to live here. She said the barriers are even higher for
people of color and those that make lower wages. She said that the East Village community in
Hillsborough is a key piece to assist homeownership in Hillsborough. She said that the project will
essentially double affordable housing units in Hillsborough, including fully ADA accessible units.
She said that the homes will be near public transit and even be walkable to the sportsplex. She
said that this type of large-scale development opportunities outside of Chapel Hill have been rare
due to the cost of infrastructure. She said that these projects and Habitat's $3.7 million request is
a request to supply affordable housing in previously underserved areas.
Delores Bailey, executive director of EmPOWERment, said that the Peach Apartments
are beginning to be built. She said that they will have 10 fully funded multi-family units by the end
of 2024. She thanked the Board for their previous support. She said the greatest need is for
families earning at or below 30% AMI. She said EmPOWERment recognizes that NOAH is one
of the best ways to meet this need. She said they have two projects and 18 families. She said
that NOAH projects scored lower because they are not new projects, but that does not minimize
the impact for the families who live there. She said when there is no affordable land, there can be
no new projects. She said they asked for 3 projects, combination of these rental properties would
help 18 families.
Bonnie Hammersley said she will be doing a debriefing with AHAB members and
applicants. She said she will provide the information to the Board at a work session and hear their
feedback to ensure the county is ready for the next RFP. She said they will draft the
20
recommendations but said ultimately, the decision is made by the BOCC. She said the Housing
Advisory Council is aware that the Board is making the final decision.
Chair Bedford clarified that the Board does not need to make a decision about the
remaining 10 parcels tonight.
Bonnie Hammersley said that will be at a future meeting.
Vice-Chair Greene said she is open to shifting numbers around, but her inclination is to
honor the recommendations of AHAB. She said she wants to see a conversation happen with
providers and the whole affordable housing coalition and a meeting of the minds about what the
matrix needs to look like. She said that her interest is that this process is reasonable, fair, and as
objective as possible.
Commissioner Hamilton said she supports AHAB's recommendation but also looks
forward to changes to the process. She said the low points for local residency stands out to her
on the matrix. She said that being able to see the big picture of housing units in the county and
the total number of affordable housing units would be helpful so that they can track the impact of
the money. She said she also focused want to use taxpayer money efficiently and the per unit
cost is important.
Commissioner Richards said she would like for the affordable housing community to be
able to provide feedback. She said that she was wondering if there should be a different scoring
matrix for NOAH projects. She said that those may need to be evaluated differently than new
projects.
Bonnie Hammersley said her thought was to have a section just for NOAH projects. She
said she agrees with Commissioner Hamilton and that this should come back at a work session
in the near future.
Commissioner Richards said she is confused by what the funding is already for some
projects. She said she would like for that to be incorporated into the process.
Bonnie Hammersley said that could be captured in the leveraging section of the scoring
matrix going forward.
Commissioner Fowler said it would be nice to know how the ruberics are used because
some got the highest and lowest funding. She said there is confusion on how rubrics are used
because scores do not equate to the recommended scoring. She said she read the minutes but
does not understand how AHAB members got to their decision.
Bonnie Hammersley said the matrix was used as a base. She said one of the AHAB
members said they used the scoring matrix, but also took into account the impact of displacement
if NOAH projects were not funded. She said the last time the scoring matrix was presented as a
scoring matrix and then the Board decided to change it and it was not based on the score. She
said the Board needs to discuss how to move forward with this.
Commissioner Fowler said local residency was not scored very highly.
Chair Bedford said this can come back at the work session and be explained better. She
said that there are restrictions based on federal funds.
Commissioner Fowler said given this discussion, she said she can support AHAB's
recommendation.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she supports AHAB's recommendation and appreciates
their consideration of the impact of displacing residents.
A motion was made by Vice-Chair Greene, seconded by Chair Bedford to adopt and
authorize the Chair to sign the attached Resolution awarding funds for the FY 2023-24 CIP
Affordable Housing RFP process based on the funding recommendations from the Affordable
Housing Advisory Board.
Chair Bedford said they discussed the RFP in June, and they did not change it then. She
said that the questions that were raised in the meeting minutes were the same questions she had.
21
Vice-Chair Greene said she continues to be impressed by the affordable housing
providers and their collaboration.
VOTE: Ayes, 6 (Commissioner Fowler, Commissioner Hamilton, Commissioner Portie-
Ascott, Chair Bedford, Vice-Chair Greene, Commissioner McKee), Nays, 1 (Commissioner
Richards)
MOTION PASSES
7. Reports
a. Presentation of School Membership Projections and School Capacity Calculations
The Board received presentations from the NC State Operations Research and Education
Laboratory (OREd) on its ten-year school membership projections and from County staff on
utilizing the Woolpert capacity calculation.
BACKGROUND: Over the past year, the School Capital Needs Workgroup and the SAPFOTEC,
a technical advisory committee, have discussed making improvements to the School Adequate
Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) enrollment projection and capacity determination process,
based on commonly identified limitations of the process. The County has worked with OREd and
Woolpert to develop alternative enrollment projection and capacity calculations frameworks.
OREd and County staff will present these updated frameworks.
OREd Enrollment Projections
The County currently projects future enrollment through a series of mathematical formulas based
on historic enrollment. Through the Certificate of Adequate Public Schools (CAPS) test, the
County receives information from Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough, and the County's planning
departments regarding future residential development, but does not directly utilize that information
in the future year projections.
Through a review of peer counties, County planning staff identified that most nearby counties use
OREd to provide student enrollment projections. Both districts also have worked with OREd in
prior years, and Orange County Schools is currently working with OREd through its ongoing
redistricting process.
OREd utilizes land-use and future residential development projections directly in its ten-year
enrollment projections. It determines the student generation rates of specific neighborhoods and
makes estimates of generation rates of future developments based on similar existing
neighborhoods. OREd has worked with the districts and the planning departments of the County
and all municipalities, including Mebane, to make its own enrollment projections for both districts.
Woolpert Capacity Calculations
The current SAPFO utilizes the building capacity estimates based on state and school district
guidelines as established in 2002. The capacity estimates have been updated based on
renovations, additions, and changes to state guidelines in the intervening decades, but the
underlying base assumptions have not been reviewed in that time. The base assumptions also
have not been updated to accommodate Pre-K and Exceptional Children (EC) classrooms.
As a part of the Woolpert assessment and long-term capital planning contract, the consultants
went through each school building and conducted a thorough review of the size, condition, and
type of each room. After accounting for each type of room present in each building, Woolpert was
22
able to make its own capacity estimates for the districts. These estimates can exclude the
classrooms that the districts have identified as being reserved for Pre-K. EC classrooms are
calculated as having a much smaller capacity than general classrooms. The estimates also have
a formula to account for course diversity, like arts, band and languages classes that require
different rooms. It prorates the capacity of each school to 95% at the Elementary level, 85% at
the Middle School level and 75% at the High School level. Based on utilizing the Woolpert capacity
framework, capacity in the districts increases by 78 students. If the Board of Commissioners
changes capacity policy to exclude Pre-K classrooms, the capacity drops by 574 seats, resulting
in a net decrease of 496. The table below illustrates the changes in calculation at both districts
and at each level.
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City SchoolsMiddle
SAPFO Capacity 5664 2944 3975 12583
Woolpert Capacity(/excluding Pre-K) 5704/5334 2993 3701 12398/ 12028
Difference(/excluding Pre-K) +40/-330 +49 -274 -185/-555
�Orange County • • . •
SAPFO Capacity 3361 2166 2939 8466
Woolpert Capacity(/excluding Pre-K) 3655/3451 2396 2678 8729/8525
Difference(/excluding Pre-K) +294/+90 +230 -261 +263/+59
In reviewing the OREd projections against both capacity models, no district exceeds the CAPS
threshold of 105%, 107% or 110% for Elementary, Middle and High School. That threshold
represents the point at which CAPS could no longer be issued for new developments, and the
County must plan for a school expansion. In both districts, the high school enrollment will exceed
100% capacity at different points in the 10-year horizon with the Woolpert Capacity calculation.
Kirk Vaughn, Budget Director, introduced Thomas Dudley and Brian Godfrey.
Thomas Dudley of ITRE made the following presentation:
Slide #1
School Enrollment Projections
OREd Land Use Study
(OPERATIONS RESEARCH AND EDUCATION LABORATORY
1TRE
INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND EDUCATION ................
CENTENNIAL CAMPUS L NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY
JANUARY 16, 2024
23
Slide #2
Operations Research and Education Laboratory (ORFd)
County Commissioner Meeting: January 16th, 2024
Outline
■About ITRE and oREd
■ Land Use Study: Process and Results
■ ❑ut-of-CapacityTables
■ Discussion / questions &Answers
Slide #3
About ITRE and OREd
:i
ITRE The Institute for Transportation Research and Education(ITRE)
e.�`�H..1=Z conductstransportation research and provides professional
training,education,and technical services.
24
Slide #4
About ITRE and OREd
OREd is an unbiased, third-party, evaluation
research group that helps to depoliticize the
school planning process.
+ OREd guides di stricts through data-driven
solutions and policies using stakeholder
Interviews, GIS analysis, mathematical
modeling, and applied decision science.
www.itre.ncsu.edu/OREd ='
Slide #5
About ITRE and OREd: The Role of 0REd
Integrated Planning far Schools and Communities (IPSAC)
Reflect on Historic Enrollment Data (Enrollment Forecasting)
Account for Current and Future Growth (Land Use Studies)
Compare Projected Needswith School Capacities
(out-of-Capacity Table)
25
Slide #6
About ITRE and OREd : : Client Map (1990-2023)
Thomas Dudley said they have worked with many districts over the history of the program.
Slide #7
Land Use Study: Interview Roster
County Leadership and Planning
Cy S tober P1mi&g 8a Iry pecliory Duectr
Orange County NishTuvedi TxaxupertahmDuectcr
Steve Bnaxdley Ecomxnic Development Director
Municipal Laurier"
City ot'Mebare Chris Rollins City Manager
Ashley Owxbey Development Director
Corey Isles Plarunng Manager
Taxn of Chapel Hill
Dwight Bassett Ecomxnic Develapment Director
Town of Canboio Marty Roupe Developxrexd Review Adn=txatar
TcwnofHi1bbonugh ShannanCampbell Plaxudw and EcomnicDeveloprrexdMaxager
CmmBmmidy StalOholders
OWASA Vishm Gangadharan Direcbi of Exgueexug axd Pbxunxg
26
Slide #8
Land Use Study: Enrollment Factors
• Transportation AccessibiIity
• I-40Widening Project—Improved access to Durham,RTP,and Triad
• S.Chu rtonStreet Widening—Improved access to Chapel Hill and Hilhbomugh
• HilbbomughTrainStation—Establish passe rger rai I service
• Chapel Hill Bus Rapid Trans it(BRT)—Establish dedicated bus lanes
■ Industrial Development
• Buckh urn Economic Develop meat District
• Demand for Life Sciences&Advanced Man Lffacturinff:Thermo Fis her Scientific
• Proximity to the Megasites:vinFEst,Walt peed,Greensboro Rand alp h Toyota
■ Residential Growth
• Widespread growth in multiple regions aft he district
• "vertical"high-density infillgrowth in southern Orange
• "Hor¢ontaWgrowth into vacant sitesin central and western Orange
■ Water&Sewer
• Overall robust infrastructure,tha ughwastewater capacity limitations in some areas
Slide#9
Land Use Studer: Development Inventory
rc
cb ic••m< a•cl wll 71-1
K i �xll
,,, mlys wF sym wryY .- ToxlFmlcs S2 C d"11
u•,., YII� mr c4.cl wll l6 SS kNhaw
wll �Ia ca.cl wll wsxnrt«erda weal 4e C t—
Ih C rlRill
mm 6Ik k%har+-14IDI GL•cl wllrlllr 2y hLhprq
w --fi'• w•Ik•w-GLclwl SN GL•cl wll pr{141y 29 S•.np
fl crlc u�r,f,...tt •cl wll rp ,4 31 {err_
s ac •cl wllnrrwFml 15 11rapuflil
• ••vc uTNSW.er 14 INOdMil
•, •.•oufn,•hT a•cl wll le y1[Oi Ixll II OYI Cwm
I t,eh4mis mr 'e las bMdAwnm SuaEhhlM 11 xll h
i.sT Inc 6l,.•nc• Irr '4 Y,s KAf ,d t Yxll
• �•lA•,••s•u��Mm 131 G .1 wll ppR P9qp C.My
•4amwow•c 14? PqqN C.My
I- r mw•u••IQ Im Or ye
•b..a�ctl 4tl I•-no-•• 119 C-1 wll 7 Oqrw,C.ntr
•b..a�ctl G,ac•s 113 C-1 wll id— E da fw
M1 � rla 4rvss Inw•sn••a IGr GL•cl wll IIM 5 dF• CNnI
I - rLc•v••]nu• a4 Ca•Inn FawFo-i 5 d• Cninlr
e•k t.•c non } G. [w
n _ a.r.olw1 3 l0qnip Swrrlr
Legend n rcllg..•r.•mwbos _ wlyY eea• m13 3 10qnpi Sw MY
K..d Gdi.Wp mY,•'l,xn•sK m w•cl wll
n•••r-•m=^,mx as c4.cl wll
Thomas Dudley said this shows the list of planned developments that will occur in the
school districts.
27
Slide #10
Membership Forecast: Out-Of-Capacitor Tables
Orange County Schools- SAPFO Capacities
?02814 I 2DQ"4 1 20243k =5 26 TMN 27 2027,7k 2778S9 NN4* 20M-, 2M b4 w—erac4r,arr
}.ypri}L�drW
[Nm4hluy pehloab
Certrdl Ekarlmlaly N21201 206 285 290 2g3 866 316 334 242 247 8b1
"R ;I Oh44k4 EhnlwWlrY G,a*9td�ri EIY"" 406 4A2 414 918 a,g 919 417 416 412 414 414
Hillbni-V 11mr— o 45T 4M 4ET 4h7 d37Me.Hopp Elwrgrdpry 519 510 525 528 5"
S12 316 307 30:5 30& 101 292 294 2A6 2@1 204 Capacily L u—d
RMG Pw%EI4r119rlhly
TON" 5981 7056 5U2 365g 4474 3104 M17 5157 3184 $175 5200 3711 K 9��0
Wimlo sm-4"(E 81 9i4o-+Ud
A L Sta"Dack MIddI9 740 &13 930 633 655 &W 062 663 670 678 696 996 y0A1'h-19d7i
f,,MZ NI h14dp1 7pp 1 4111 1 4105 46J 4715 506 525 562 578 5W 614 627
OrlryiF M4144 1 725 1 495 1 590 547 5W S41 54" W 547 534 ."S+• 599i
T.W. 21" iM ism 1W Im ,d94 17l1 176i 17M lam ii45 fAih
Nigh 9.cllcal.10,19*
C:"r Ru3r FI n +8W 1117 1136 1179 +14.7 +167 1174 1173 1= 1260 iZ56 >13+i
Orw,gp High 139q 1 1259 118U 1191 1253 12M 1+2" 1334 1W5 1377
Partrurshp Ara�rnY � aprr.nw ad,ra.m
rmau mm ZM m p am 2576 ZM RM A61V I!m RN7 gp 4 am
Imlrw HrTnnpanrlm
M1rircM1 aMCOuarlm
SyaE`rn Tmal 944M 7'Lii l68S 78yd 7181 72i@ 7975 74A4 71d8 706 }71G 7d34 M1mnan`r.snn4n.rtr
mn:IGXfnUS
Commissioner McKee asked what impact redistricting would have regarding the less than
95% capacity.
Chair Bedford asked Kirk Vaughn why the Board is doing this.
Kirk Vaughn said the current SAPFO is a mathematical model. He said that this will take
historical enrollment and capture the impact of new development.
Commissioner Hamilton thanked them all for this effort. She said she would like to see
and understand what the student generation formulas are. She asked how they can know that it
is the case for Orange County. She said that she is happy to go into closed session if that is
something that cannot be shared publicly but that it is very important to her to understand the
model. She asked how they check to make sure the assumptions are accurate.
Thomas Dudley said that the SGR shows the students come from the new developments.
He said they model that based on other neighborhoods of similar size and location.
Commissioner Hamilton asked if they could see the model.
Thomas Dudley said that he will talk that over with staff.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if there is any accounting for students who may leave
public schools for charter schools.
Thomas Dudley said their model assumes that students will continue leaving public
schools for charters at the current rate they are already leaving.
Commissioner Hamilton said it would be good to have some way to see what may drive
an increase of students at Partnership Academy and Phoenix Academy. She said it seems
unrealistic that it would stay the same.
Chair Bedford said that the Partnership Academy is moving.
Commissioner McKee said they are moving to the old facility on Hwy 70 and this is an
improvement for lunches and athletic fields.
Kirk Vaughn said he got those answers from school staff. He said that enrollment is based
on growth and district and charter is based on application rates. He said that was how they
modeled the future numbers.
28
Slide #11
Membership Forecast: Out-of-Capacity Tables
Orange County Schools- Woolpert Capacities
E-0-1 16.4 4 AM
7�i 813H1f4 71243E S7£ESfi Oh8fi�Y7 73Y27dB Ellis} YDP1dE IG19041 fbdl i7 ffi2E.]A b13HihL I.Tuxa+.mm�.nar�
ao4a.e an
MornwAury;ahaoW(N,51
Cu*il Ell&Mfo 4e1r1fl
265 230 296 305 336 854 342 947 SSA x r..x�alnr l.4
E11a - �1.6 E6rne try 50l
GreNr F ..i EIEMe■arl 412Hll,b gh IN-0.ry en 437 437 437 437 437 427 4S7 457 4S7
hopeElemepWy se S10 522 M 520 SL4 549 SSi 558 55ePalhxmyslmminmrp 474 MY AM 566 301 291 294 296 261 2@4R14x+P&t ElemeMely S59 �552 577
Temis 34M #IA 1 3GL2 MO 5074 1100 1 3117 31157 53M 31T3 32E4 SN1 4
94%
YlWIL Scheele(64h M;
h L'rA nherk lMdl■ 677 E3b 639 123 In 544 657 893 L70 4i76 INM
Cxeve�Hilm & GBS 411 409 163 476 606 £2G 512 579 5E6 918 527
O—Q.Mdal. 624 d3E 1533 E47 5M 041 15" so 542 IM EM A35
Teteh 23913 1579 1575 U43 16M 1E911 17M lies 179E lose 1645 ilea
Xlgh acheeM 1E-125
Cover RK4.HO i32E 111! iin 1172 110 n57 1174 lin I= 1280 12M 1312
0—g.11gh 1310 1222 1239 119E 1191 1353 125E 1299
PeRftd phrederny 4G 42 42 dp_ 42 42 42 gara4avwmra�m
7»ials 2676 25E4 Nib 43E4 237E 24A2 24Ei 2910 2M 9A67
1mlva MrTnmpma�lm
s G.m Total 8527 74118 RM T07E T135 72M 734E 74M rms ?M fT9E TEAL wmnhlrlarauonm
M1m M1aro F--iv
mr.:iq•7quex
Slide #12
Membership Forecast: Out-of-Capacity Tables
CHCCS- SAPFO Capacities
C e Wurre Fwraeh.iMatihA d➢4
ae:�a■ ■�a4 alu.� aura I .— rceraf am.� rmnao- ■■96a1 >m1Aa 911&aa 7�fa
IMm*rer7 Ec�■1{K-0I 1.7ms..�rar...a:.
wm,dr Ekmen L+x . ■ ma+a.e nrwoc4
CSf4blfu Enl6ry' 7 -040. a z1 7.swro-c.wan.,
x LrrNnsln•....
Ephc mElkm■rlury 430 365 3W E52 3E0 402 404 412 41E 1M 430 U4
E IM I�EL—My 515 339 334 327 D4 7r42 315 347 3EE am 3w 3w
F PG Eh—rLnry 521 5M 493 492 484 441 4E9 431 497 1 512 517
G6-,>AElaAwsr7 h 411 412
Ma)p 1EI■ro0M11y' 5a 460 458 70 4ES 449 454 564 498 472 49a 48E
$u,c laEl9mwW 556 me IM5 Cepaelly Legend
WrrM GDP*FJWIWWI 556 397 39e 351 3s1 2" 357 372 379 3E4 33B 392
Ra W,El-",y K 96°+6
7.h■h 69M ■FM JW2 JJJ2 I JLIS I MN J61. ■E16 bEd ■7.a JB1S YES
95�6-1¢pig
Maak lsn-k"
IkWrJe Mann r 160%-105%
Cl.WNek 4 1
FI 1, Md]o T95 ]43 163 604 575 4T9 Me25 514 am53:
SmrL 1i41kI 7S2 r F61 I 752 I 731 I 7M 1 743 123 1 7P5 1 M5 58f 727 I T42
79h■h f946 2716 2607 2712 2L11 2125 0170 25EL 2R7 2537 DIN S6M
WVh6 **1gl4-1l}
Ca.lrmo Hid
R.p91 HSH1y1 163] 1434Y imp IEEE iPR 1P17 IR2d 1793 IM}7
E—Ch4.IHEH 151.'� 1412 1395 7234 1323 1322 1221 1781 17E3 IM 17T1 1232 oprrnavwmra am
Ph—.M.14mf HOh 40 MBe 0 3d 3e 30 M ]0 35 Be
TphWI 3P70 M4 1949 3L00 3F25 MG 3L10 3004 my 3014 4771 3EM � rnmwrrnm
r1.,nnM1.�era�n�
Oy.I—TDbd 12063 111E6 11145 11101 1106E 110Y 1100E 11100 11071 f1117 11225 11SL4 M1mM1areFainn4�■wiv
n:IwAfi
29
Slide #13
Membership Forecast: Out-of-Capacitor Tables
CHCCS- Woolpert Capacities
31= M240 b1a1GY bG21d7 7[d1bL H2d48 i[dE.SY i01i81 �111 d1 110k 97 ffi114+L
ER—W-y 1khoY 1K41 I.3msa+.nrar..rrar�
Np71 M EL]'—y 4�W3-M
2M 304 345 ffi 235 3W B64 M 375 974 pataaa nraoc4
r-b..Err.Wl 499 4B1 499 19] 4B3 >.wmprr4psXu
Sa iEYrlilaWry
EphBB�B E4—.-y 4
E�sHLEk..1-y 334 3- 334 341 34E 347 350 -5M -1 3�FK EW-r r'rr� 41 1 4 7 1iFAr W aEg++�9�1b3 456 41 455 ++$ 454 r6'I 466 476 48$ An caadn Lagand
WnM GII)W EI6-OW19 509 951 M4 *4 $5y W 376 994 3&$ 9B2
R,,A# Ew,.W y 421 dil @A 037 K 94°!a
ToO�Y AL^S 4iT6 4RY2 4M2 "a 4W 46U Nis 4EEf �A3 #'16 49fY
96$b-704$b
Mlddii iMOYIF I/#1
I WO"Mope 772 709 70y 712 NO 979 617 91G M e22 649 956 IMAM
1M
O bwhmw, So
PhAm Mdit
Smih tiY a
Ta41M 1445 2746 2"7 012 24M 2W 2"0 NW 7417 5147 HN !E2#
1iW 5dpab4B•ip
C—I—Hbh ELI BM BG3 854 rA'.' 499 B7? a72 BBP
Cmptl hl H41 1595 1877 I" iBPf
EW QW@HI H,H1 I
---�� I owr+nm,w,nra,.ne
P` A--"HO 40 Y. % 9! 5§ .s> .i9 5k 54 99 -V I rar�4m i.m-,ram
Te111. iiB1 s� IminrabrTnmpm4m
^--_rcM1 artl[d ua4m
0Y41w Tohl 12M 1120 11146 11100 JIM 11W '11008 11039 1id7$ Jill? 112Z 11JE111 narnoran"'''rah"""`'
o�n:Ig46,QOPx
Slide #14
Discussion
Questions & Answers
30
Kirk Vaughn made the following presentation:
Slide #1
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
Woolpert Inc. Capacity
Calculations
January 16, 2024
Slide #2
WOOLPERT CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
• As part of the Long-Range Optimization Plan,
Woolpert created a full inventory of every room in
the two district's portfolios.
. Collected information about the size, condition,
use of each room.
* Using that information, Woolpert creates a
standardized capacity assessment of each school
based on the number of educational spaces by
type.
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROUNA
31
Slide#3
WID0LPERT CAPAC ITY CA LCU LATI 0 N S
• Each type of Educational Space has its own
capacity assumption, including EC classrooms.
Level Class7)pa Students/ Total
Rm Rooms
H5 krt Classroom 22 12
HS 3and Classrooms 38 6
HS rch./Strings Classrooms 42 2
rama Class roomN lack Sax f Theater
HS its 42 7
HS lass room-Core Academics 22 245
HS E-GeneralHl h-Ba Space 21 8
H5 E General Lab 19 17
HS Itness Weight Room 19 11
HS Pymnas1um Main 1 38 7
HS clenceciassraam Lab combo 22 50
HS C Life Skllls Classroom a 3
HS C Self-Contained Classroom 8 6
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CJAROLINA
Slide#4
WID0LPERT CAPACITY CALCU LATI0NS
• Because we have information at the classroom
level, we can exclude Pre-K. Classrooms as
reserved by each district.
Rooms Reserved for Pre-K 26 11
K-5 Capacity Reduced 370.5 243X
Pre-KCapacity 320 276
2024 Pre-K Enrollment 250 91
Percent Utilized 78% 52%
• Requires change in BoCC capacity policy to
remove Pre-K.
ORANGE COUNTY
NOWM CAROLINA
Commissioner Hamilton asked to go back to slide #2. She asked if Woolpert made
assumptions about classroom totals based on assumptions.
Kirk Vaughn said they made estimates based on the type of classroom.
Commissioner Fowler said the numbers between SAPFO capacity and Woolpert capacity
are the same, but the colors are changing because Woolpert has a different definition of what is
working and what is not.
Kirk Vaughn said if a building is under capacity, rooms might be used for another purpose.
32
Slide#5
WOOLPERT CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
• Also accounts for course diversity (i.e. languages,
arts, band, etc.) by prorating the total capacity of
the building at different rates.
• Elementary at 95%
• Middle at 85%
• Highschool at 75%
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH i:AROLINA
Commissioner Fowler asked what is meant by prorating.
Kirk Vaughn said the total number of classrooms with the number of students that can fit
into the classroom to determine building capacity. He said that they assume that not every
classroom is always full because of required electives and such.
Chair Bedford said that is why the high school numbers were reduced and some
elementary schools gained.
Slide #6
WOOLPERT CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
Comparison to SAPFO
• Overall change from current SAPFO capacity is
negligible, but clear variation at the school, district and
educational levels.
• Increase of 78 students from SAPFO, but a decrease of
496 when excluding Pre-K
SAPFO Ca"tity 566d 2944 3975 12583
Woolpert Capaclty{/excluding 5704 f 299S 3701 12398}
Pre 5334 12028
Difference Vexcludlrkg Pre-If •40 -330 449 -27d -185 1-555
r
SAPFO C dt�• 1 3361 2166 2939 8d56
Woolpert Capacity(fexcludtrtg 3655 f 8729 J
Prr 3d51 2396 2678 8525
Difference Vexcluding Pre-K) 1.294 .*! *230 -261 «263 «59 ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAF.VUNA
Commissioner Hamilton asked if pre-K is excluded, does that mean that those classrooms
with those students are just not counted.
Kirk Vaughn said yes.
33
Chair Bedford said that is what the school boards have been advocating for pre-K
classrooms to be removed from capacity.
Slide #7
W00LPERT CAPAC ITY CA LCU LATI 0 N S
Combined Table of new OREd Projections and
Woolpert Capacity (excluding Pre-K).
Elementary Schools 5334 4575 86% 4852 91%
Mlddle5chools 2993 2716 91% 2624 88%
HlghSchools 3701 3974 107% 3806 103%
System Total 12022 11265 94% 11282 94%
i
Orange Countio Schools CapacIty Enrollment Percent of Enrollment Percent of
Elementary Sthooh 3451 3055 889G 3211 93%
MlddleSchools 2396 1579 66% 1869 78%
HlghSchools 2678 2382 89% 2779 104%
System Total 8525 7016 82% 7854 92%
Note.CAPS Threshold Is set for 105%at Elementary.107%at Mladle ORANGE COUNTY
and 110%at High SGhaol NORTH CAROLINA
Slide #8
WOO LPERT CA PAC ITY CA LCU LATI 0 N S
Implications for Bond Planning
• Sufficient Capacity for Consolidation and Swing
Space at Elementary and Middle School levels.
• Growth in western part of the county
recommends location near Mebane rather than
renovating existing site.
• Possible need to reserve bond capacity for wing
expansions at High School levels.
ORANGE COUNT
NORTH C:AROLINA
Commissioner Fowler asked if the bond capacity is beyond what they already
recommended.
Kirk Vaughn said this would mean that some of the bond might have to go to high school
rather than other priorities. He said that it would not be required but it should be considered.
34
Commissioner Hamilton asked if mobile classrooms were included in either of the
capacities.
Kirk Vaughn said no.
Chair Bedford asked the Board if they would like to move forward with amending the
capacity framework.
Travis Myren said current SAPFO will require the Board to only require notice to other
partners. He said that if other parts of SAPFO are changed, would require approval.
Commissioner Hamilton said she is not comfortable making changes until she sees the
model.
Travis Myren said there is no time constraint for the projection models for this year. He
said they would need to provide notice by February of next year of the change.
Commissioner McKee said he wants to make sure that any discussion about projections
has the full involvement of both school systems.
Kirk Vaughn said that they contracted with the school districts directly.
Chair Bedford asked about thoughts on capacity.
Commissioner Richards said it is interesting to her that some are dismissive of SAPFO.
She said when they discussed the school and Greene Tract, SAPFO was not considered. She
said that if they are doing both, that is good, but she said she supports the methodology taking
development into account.
Chair Bedford asked how often the capacity numbers will be able to be updated and
whether staff will be able to do it. She asked how much that costs.
Kirk Vaughn said they have the framework from Woolport and that it would be possible.
He said the land use is only every so often, so it is not the same scale.
Commissioner Fowler said it would be nice to follow this for a year to see how it operates.
She said that it is hopeful to use this, and it will be good to know what they functionally need. She
said she is leaning towards that, but they need to see the information. She said that she does not
want to exclude pre-K rooms.
Chair Bedford said she has advocated for the pre-K count but it is not mandated they build
for the Pre-K but she thinks this board needs to do it. She said they have a joint meeting coming
up with the school boards.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Kari Hamel said she would like to see the modeling and methodology shared with the
public. She said that one of the boards asked to see where students were living that were leaving
for charter schools. She said that she is unsure how many language teachers are being used in
the two districts. She questioned if a classroom is needed if there is a 40% shift in some of these
subjects. She said she would also like to see the projections include the educational adequacy.
She said she would forward this information.
Chair Bedford asked if virtual instruction is calculated at all.
Thomas Dudley said they are counting students in seats and that is the standard across
districts.
Chair Bedford said there are some dual enrollment students and asked if they were
factored into the usage.
Thomas Dudley said he will check into dual enrollment with Durham Tech.
b. Discussion on School and County Capital Planning and Financing Scenarios
The Board reviewed and discussed financing scenarios related to implementing the long-range
County Facility Plan and the School Long Range Facilities Optimization Plan and provided
direction to staff on adjustments to the financing scenarios defined in this abstract with the goal
of adopting a preferred plan of finance by the end of January 2024.
35
BACKGROUND: The County engaged two facility consulting firms to evaluate the condition and
adequacy of both County and School facilities and to make prioritized recommendations on capital
improvements over a ten-year planning horizon. Both plans utilize the Facilities Conditions Index
which quantifies facility conditions and can be used to prioritize repairs and replacements.
County Facility Plan
The County selected O'Brien Atkins Associates in March 2022 to review the state of County
facilities from both a facility condition and space planning context over a ten-year period. O'Brien
Atkins Associates presented a final draft to the Board of Commissioners on November 9, 2023.
That draft identified eight decision points to improve public safety, justice, social services, and
recreational facilities over the next ten years. The lowest cost alternative identified a total of$130
million in renovation and construction needs.
School Facility Plan
The County and School Districts selected Woolpert in March 2023 to review the state of the school
facilities from a facility condition, space planning, and educational adequacy context. Woolpert
last presented to the County Board on December 4, 2023 outlining four options to address the
next five to fifteen years of school facility needs. The total cost of those options ranges from $219
million to $1.1 billion. Woolpert is recommending an option that would require $1 billion in capital
investment over the next 15 years.
County staff has worked with the County's financial advisors to determine alternative plans of
finance that would be needed to fund the various options. This presentation details the debt
metrics that are used to evaluate the amount of debt the County carries, the revenue and
expenditure assumptions contained in the debt model, and the tax rate and debt policy
implications of the options presented by Woolpert.
Debt Metrics
As credit rating agencies evaluate the County's financial condition, they examine three primary
metrics related to the amount of debt the County is obligated to pay.
• Ten Year Payout Ratio
This metric measures the amount of principal to be paid in the next ten-year period to
prevent backloading debt payments. One rating agency adds a positive adjustment if the
ten-year payout ratio is 65% or greater. This means that 65% of outstanding principal
payments are paid within ten years. The County's current payout ratio is 67.1% and is
managed by structuring level principal payments over the entire term of the debt issue.
• Debt to Assessed Value Ratio
This metric measures the amount of outstanding tax supported debt as a percentage of
the County's assessed value (tax base). This is one measure of the County's ability to
raise revenue to make debt service payments. As assessed values increase, the County's
ability to generate enough revenue to pay back existing debt also increases. The County's
current policy is that total outstanding debt will not exceed 3% of assessed value. The
County's current debt to assessed value ratio is 1.28%. Having a ratio under 3% also
results in a positive credit rating adjustment. All of the financing scenarios discussed
below maintain a debt to assessed value ratio of under 3%.
• Debt Service to General Fund Revenue Ratio
This metric compares the amount of debt service payments the County is obligated to pay
on an annual basis to total projected general fund revenues. This is a quantitative
36
representation of the County's ability to pay debt obligations on an annual basis. If debt
service is growing at a higher rate than general fund revenues, the proportion of the
County's budget that is dedicated to debt will increase and lower the ability to fund other
operating expenses. The County's current policy is to maintain annual debt service costs
at or below 15% of general fund revenues. The County has modestly exceeded this policy
in the past. According to one rating agency, a "strong" position is 8% to 15%, and an
"adequate" position is 15% to 25%. In FY2023-24, debt service is 13.60% of total general
fund revenues. This ratio is tracked in each of the financing scenarios below.
Model Assumptions
The debt model makes several assumptions to predict the likely impact that a given amount of
borrowing will have on the debt service to general fund revenue metric and the property tax rate
required to make annual debt service payments.
• Assessed Value
The assessed value growth assumption is important because it is directly linked to the
debt service to assessed value metric discussed above, and it dictates the amount of
revenue that each penny on the property tax rate can generate.
In most years, assessed value grows by approximately 2% annually. However, in years
in which a revaluation occurs, assessed value grows at a much higher rate as all of the
real property in the County is valued as closely as possible to market value. The
Department of Revenue has indicated that current market values are well above the
assessed values that were established in the 2020 revaluation. In the second quarter of
2023, the NC Department of Revenue estimated that current assessed values are
representing approximately 64.8% of market value. As a result, total assessed value may
increase by as much as 50% when adjusted to market conditions, increasing the value of
one penny from $2,304,674 to $3,476,344 which is reflected in the debt model. In future
revaluation years, the rate of growth is moderated to approximately 11% which is
consistent with prior revaluation years.
• Total General Fund Revenue
Total General Fund Revenue is primarily comprised of property tax (68%) and sales tax
(15.6%). Total property tax collections are calculated by applying a tax rate to total
assessed value which is assumed to grow as described above. Sales tax collections are
assumed to grow at a rate of 4% annually. Additionally, the model assumes that the
operating budget will increase by 3% annually which requires associated revenue growth.
• Current Existing and Planned Resources
The County has already authorized and planned funding in the Capital Investment Plan
(CIP) that would partially address the needs identified in the facility studies. The County
has approximately$202 million in existing and planned tax supported capital investments,
and the School Districts have approximately$148 million in approved and planned funding
to address the Woolpert Scenarios. Funding for school recurring capital and technology
investments are not included in the effort to fund the Woolpert recommendations.
. . . - . : .
Count Projects Approved Projects Not Financed $10 million
Count Projects —Ten Year CIP $192 million
Total Pro
and Planned $202 million
37
. . . I Le
Remaining 2016 Bond Funds $15 million
Remaining Deferred Maintenance Funds $38 million
School Projects—Ten Year CIP $95 million
Total Existing and Planned $148 million
Financing Scenarios
Each of the financing scenarios is evaluated on the basis of tax rate impacts and the resulting
debt service to general fund revenue metric. In order to manage the number of scenarios
presented, each model assumes that existing and planned tax supported borrowing is funded at
the amounts contained in the accepted Capital Investment Plan.
The variable in each of the scenarios is the amount of new funding for County and School facility
needs. As a starting point, the amount of funding for County projects represents either the first
five years of the County Facility Plan or all ten years. The financing scenario illustrations
(attached) indicate the tax rate impact on each scenario if only the first five years of County
projects were funded over the ten-year period in an effort to reduce the number of options. The
amount of funding for school projects substantially align with the options contained in the Woolpert
study of long range school capital needs. To provide a consistent comparison between options,
all models assume an upfront tax increase in FY 2026, after a potential bond referendum in
November 2024.
SchoolScenario New County New
FundingTitle .
Revenue
Al $75 million $130 million 4.00 cents 17.4%
A2 $130 million $130 million 4.57 cents 18.0%
C1 $130 million $400 million 7.89 cents 22.0%
C2 $130 million $300 million bond + 8.66 cents 19.4%
$100 million pay-go
D $130 million $630 million 11.22 cents 26.6%
Middle $75 million $200 million bond + 5.49 cents 17.2%
$50 million pay-go
Scenario Descriptions
• Scenario Al
o Spreads the first five years of County Facility Plan ($70 million) over ten years and
adds 3% annual inflation ($5 million) to account for spreading the projects over a
longer timeframe
o Continues the $130 million school bond from FY2023-24 CIP
o When combined with existing and planned resources, provides $219 M in the first
five years to meet Woolpert's Option A and an additional $59 million over the ten-
year planning horizon to address other priority needs.
o The County would have sufficient collateral to finance this scenario with a Limited
Obligation Bond instead of a voter approved General Obligation Bond.
38
• Scenario A2
o Funds the County Facility Plan short range and mid-range projects ($130 million)
over ten years
o Continues the $130 million school bond from FY2023-24 CIP
o When combined with existing and planned resources, provides $219 M in the first
5 years to meet Woolpert's Option A and an additional $59 million over the 10 year
planning horizon to address other priority needs.
o The County would have sufficient collateral to finance this scenario with a Limited
Obligation Bond instead of a voter-approved General Obligation Bond.
• Scenario B
Option B from the Woolpert report was not analyzed since it costs more ($1.1 billion)than
Option D ($1.0 billion) and does not address any of the educational adequacy or interior
space improvements.
• Scenario C1
o Funds the County Facility Plan short range and mid-range projects ($130 million)
over ten years
o Adds a $400 million school bond
o When combined with existing and planned resources, yields total school resources
of$548 million which meets the Woolpert Option C target of$541.2 million with an
additional $6.8 million to address other priority needs.
• Scenario C2
o Funds the County Facility Plan short range and mid-range projects ($130 million)
over ten years
o Adds a $300 million school bond and $100 million in pay-as-you go (cash)
o When combined with existing and planned resources, yields total school resources
of$548 million which meets the Woolpert Option C target of$541.2 million with an
additional $6.8 million to address other priority needs.
• Scenario D
o Funds the County Facility Plan short range and mid-range projects ($130 million)
over ten years
o Adds a $630 million school bond to fund Phases I & II over ten years
o Does not include the third phase since it falls outside of the ten (10) year planning
horizon
o When combined with existing and planned resources, yields total school resources
of $778 million which meets the Woolpert Option D target of $776.9 million for
Phases I & II with an additional $1.1 million to address other priority needs.
• Middle Scenario
o Due to the large difference in funding levels between Scenario A ($130 million for
school projects) and Scenario C ($400 million for school projects), staff are also
presenting a scenario between A and C.
o Spreads the first five years of County Facility Plan ($70 million) over ten years and
adds 3% annual inflation ($5 million) to account for spreading the projects over a
longer timeframe
o Adds a $200 million school bond and $50 million in pay-as-you go (cash)
o Woolpert will engage with the School Districts and the County to prioritize projects
to fit this budget, if chosen.
39
Bond Funding Practice
Historically, the County has allocated bond funds to the two school districts based on the average
daily membership in place at the time the bond was authorized. In FY 2023-24, that would mean
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools would receive 58.44% of the funding, and Orange County
Schools would receive 41.56% of the total. Unlike in the operating budget where average daily
membership must be used to allocate funding, the County is not obligated to fund capital projects
in the same way.
Since the County now has a prioritized plan for school funding, bond funds could be allocated on
a project basis instead of by average daily membership. Given that average daily membership
helps to drive facility needs, moving to a project-based approach would not have a dramatic
impact on these allocations. Based on the projects contained in Phase 1 of the Woolpert
recommended Option D, Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools would implement projects
representing 58.2% of the total Phase I projects while Orange County Schools would implement
projects representing 41.8% of the recommended amount.
Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, made the following presentation:
Slide #1
Agenda Item 7-b
f
ORANGE COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA
School and County Capital Planning and
Financing Scenarios
Board of Commissioners Business Meeting
January 16, 2024
40
Slide #2
Purpose
• Discuss financing scenarios related to implementing the County Facility Plan
and the Lang Range School Optimization Plan and provide direction to staff
on alternative scenarios
• Goal of developing preferred plan of finance by the end of January 2024
-ft6Zr—
z ORANGE COUNTY
Slide #3
202
SR1 R1l7wale LVt W1dkq It9 VPo9.R97
County Facilities
7 i ' C
[lcari51ruL1 C11C.feil iSulldlnp FAorc S7a7111 Lndmce SlrrdLY+to i:l:dlr Uromu Hluld a 2tl26
SR7 oVAVcr lrerkilg loL 5:Q75,534
F Occorrdrucl•Jourt SheetA— MK rRdul[ilo atlon&Ju rieJusticeinfo Lill Buikl
4
SR7 kg.lk,W exurla�parkuty kx +557,250
• KZ fleronolrud Orsviet Attorney fknkklp kdyre EXa7rlcl Anortrein[ol kdl Buildirq.BliWn 4047
rsRS ;nrlarr l�lulB kl 3-914,581
• Fifteen {15}year plan 4 SRO Budd EMS' re Brddnget Mdo foolc MrneFrnc�o ey5vx ocart of rmagmcy p
sir ar 2o28
SRT 1:u1hYyl.altrynyl Prh YswMsft,S'pJ Wyy{klIWIMI kH.AMS wfw,Lr�lrxprry 9nl95M'Fddtlly .r.578,287
• Costs estimated for the SRO W—Jape Savapr..,t l,r Oki t ru Po AiSI nna4cw lau.r o
first ten]rears 2029
SR Bud¢Cerlear R—iion e[1.t..PaW Site d Fairview Park 817,940,8&7
• Option A-$130 million CR1R RIIW;TIBnirMnal"Hl lildim AolHKw rrl Mnnr rrA Ruildrig. $o268299 20
• Option B-$137 million MR1 n„rIr&FAA.srrtr—JV fr.Affr aahkr H--i G
MR2 IIA;MNny.:1 R(vWi—0l WhlI-J.9 n ,,-•q_Gp_P&,,rr A.-., vSf_ 599R,197 2091
• First five years(Short MR3 11.Af Addiliw,lo%—d-n l lndni]]uildind in C7uprl l lill 516,01i6,726
Range)-$70 million
W MRI $124,977
L7
x 2032
MR5' lk1W Sh-rag uli—WM—podAll Mnvr Shodr oulurJustir Coign W MWwpod SRI 522.558.272
MRG HPnlmllrynem:l rbrr nl rurcinq Ju^lirx r:rmev k4lre[:lerk of l:amx to rilg9rillr lJlfur. �, p,�Z
20,33
MR7 tiecwnrer i�o.r•ri u!mn ku:e rynk]rq lug a.fJ Jrrc ni e.0.ikln ynrkm•.J,pr•ye $14,�7,156
i tnve CJWb ul Jual-c,,.1.AJ rYuuln 1lr:rrnlle,I Ink IJulk],q kr_9t,>'r41e AJ[:.11ll
MR8 Spare lu[]islnrl Coln l SLlw Space 372B4Oi1 7n14
MR9 Rcnw w .—ix C.— 51900,155
n[1 •lnmn rhu Ind ln
4 mi rinrrme nn Ihr I lk—
Travis Myren said the further out, the weaker the strength of the projections.
41
Slide #4
School Long Range Optimization Plan
OPTIONS RE7URNONINVESTMENT C45TPERYEAR X TIMELINE = TOTALINVESTMENT
COMFORTABLE W LiM
&SAFE Add�easdf s Nnchmigez Nochorrges Nnadditicnal ��6iMIW01Y -S]14millan
2D% teela"e bm to student arrenavated Steam
orfacilityneeds zpacrs capacity schools
COMFORTABLE ;
&SAFE, 0 �RR m La]
PLUS 16-YEAR A drll s No<hmn m Nochdrgeg No additional
FACILITY NEEDS TUCI055 Om tostudert nrrenovated la years
N#Cilltynafds spaces capacity schools
COMFORTABLE -t�
&SAFE, 'ded J -gS6millpn ■ -iSa1,7 nAIjQn
PLUS UFr6RADE0
loyean
LEARNINGTOOLS Renovations har°�Iges Replaremerrt New
schools sch�l
COMFORTABLE 40
&SAFE, 12 upgraded 2 -iST n�fan '6*0
PLUS NEW R , va itrny kkwNng tank Raplacrm9n! New ISWars
CONSTRUCTION and right-sine schools scnoois
4Zk*$FWM Wal: S
pxwHs rcp�[an4�4�'7'
£om rlribapksy?RI
Slide #5
Debt Metrics
• Why measure debt?
— Credit rating—Orange County is one of 13 North Carolina counties with highest rating(Aaa)
Impacts the cost of borrowing --�Higher credits get lowest interest rates
Impacts annual budgeter Debt service is the first legally binding budget obligation
ff not managed,debtsernee could crowd out spending on non-mandated services
Andlor require a tax rate increase to pay debt plus mandated services
ORANGE COUNTY
5 NL]RrH C ARC]7JNA
42
Slide #6
Debt Metrics
Ten Year Payout Ratio
Measures the praportion of total outstanding principal will be paid off in the next ten(1 D)years
- Prevents backloading principal payments
- Positive adjustment if 10 year payout ratio is 65%or more
- Current ratio is 67.1%
ORANGE COUNTY
NC7RtrH C;ARC3"NA
Slide #7
Debt Metrics
• Debt to Assessed Value Ratio
Measures total tax supported debt as a percentage of total assessed value
- One measure of ability to pay debt service
- As assessed value increases,the same tax rate generates more revenue
County policy to keep total outstanding debt service at or below 3%of total assessed value
- Current ratio is 1.28%
All of the financing scenarios maintain a debt to assessed value ratio of 3%or less
Debt Service to General Fund Revenue Ratio
- Measuresthe amount of debt service due annuallyto projected general fund revenues
- Another measure of abilityto pay debt service except on an annual basis
- Debt service isthe first obligation in budgeting
- Ifdebt service isgrowing fasterthan general fund revenue, lessfunding is availablefor everything else
- County policy establishesa targetof 15%ofgeneral fund revenues dedicatedtc debt service annually
- Current ratio is 13.6%
ORANGE COUNTY
7 NC}RTH C:ARC311NA
43
Slide#8
Debt Metric Summary
Targetwolicy
10 Year Payout 65% 87.1%
Principal satisfied in next ten years
Debt to Assessed Value 3% 1.28%
Total tax supported debt at or below 3% of total
assessed value
Debt Service to General Fund 15% 13.6%
Revenue Annual debt service at or below 15%of general fund
revenue
ORANGE COUNTY
B NC3R1"H C:A1tC3LJNA
Slide #9
Debt Model Assumptions
Projected Assessed Value Growth
- Measure of ability to pay INatural Growth-2%annually($470million from FY2024 to FY2025)
- 2024 Revaluation-50%projected growth with Sales Ratio of 64.8%
Projected.Assessed va lue Growth Illustration of Potential Impact of Reva I uati on on
hi&UlMs Revenue Neutral Tax Rate
�a000-
Given the now assess6dvalue. what Wavo the new tax
aom rate need to beta produce the Sarrw amount of property
tax revenue"Me year prKV to the reval"(Wn after
Sao-.om accovntfng fcr natu of groWh
83a000
aom
Prior ro $23,23 billion 0.8353 $194 01 mion
Revd
0 5-561
]6N W29 Jos 107 JOB ]029 Ion joi 102 101 ]Obi 2m5 After Revar E35 04 billion Effv4e 9 Mn 33 noun
FY202&26
ORANGE COUNTY
$ 1'4C3RTH C!ARf3LJNA
Commissioner McKee noted that revenue neutral does not mean revenue neutral for the
property owners.
Travis Myren said that is correct.
44
Slide #10
Debt Model Assumptions
• Total General Fund Revenue
- Measure of ability to pay
- Integral in Debt Service to General Fund Revenue metric
Operating budget growth-3%annually requires general fund revenue growth
Sales tax growth-4%annually
ORANGE
COUNTY
Nf3Rt H C;ARC3"NA
Slide #11
Debt Model Assumptions
Existing and Planned Resources
- Not starting from zero investment
• Facility analysis took a snapshot of facility conditions in summer of 2023
• Investment options include any deficiencies at that point in time
• Any planned spending can be used to achieve investment targets
- Projects have been approved but not financed - available spending
Capital Investment Plan
School DIStm(a EYJ&tin g a ri d Pla n ned 7ax Su pprted Borrowing County EzJsting and Planned TaxSupportad Borrowing
Remalning 2016 Band Funds $15 mian Counly Pr*gls Approved Projects Not Financed $10 million
Remalning NfvredMalnlenanm Funds pa Counly Pr*Qls—Ten Year GIP S192mion'
Schad Projects—Ten Year CIP $95 moon Tafy EafsfYtig and Planned $202 Million
Total Existing and Planned $148 mltllon
'$52 million dedicated Iv facity related prujegs
ORANGE COUNTY
11 110DRTl3 C:ARC311NA
45
Slide #12
Scenario Al - $130 million bond + $75 million County Plan
Financing Amounts
16tnf Colmty Fundfn First rNe years of County Faclllty Scenarlo Al•Tax Rate
Plan($74 mom)spread over ter Existing CIP 2.0 cents
years wllh addlhxmd InUflon
Existing County CIP $ 192-0 million added M mllllon). County Facility Plan 0.22 cents
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million Additional School Needs 1-78 cents
$13o ntargn nand assumed:1 otal Tax Impact 4.00 cells
County Faeil- Plan $ 75.0 million FY2025.24 CIP
Total Ca al Fundffl -County $ 277.0 rrtllllon Pr os$"mid,ever Scenario Al•Debt Serwlce to Revenue Pnllty
Woolpert Cprloh fl
- Would pr de ill 9 nlllcn IR•0�6 1r,a5L
Totof Schoof Funding MWEdy ror fi eI MMS In la.dw v�� ryas kR716 v,
yae 8-10oreddtnwl polulty 14.0% 13 IM1.Yf0 L4tn uxx
Existing School CIP $ 95.0mi lion naed9 14.0%
,2.0%
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.0million
• Front loaded School horn mFW e
dItIonal School Needs 130.0 mllllon - VWrnilion cwtlree erv�
conwCuka y@nr5 ill
Total IalpltalFunding $ 27S.amllllon xP�
0 o-sl
Could be acoemplleMd w171 a
Woolpert Option A(aver 5 years) $ 219.0 million tawud~ion Roaa:tateea of
a valor epprom Goaorel iK
verTar t $ 59.0 millron oergailan Road �opnnnam: —x,t
-Does not Include$33 nubon in recurring capllal or
Mien n praacted Article 46 revenue for lecllnology r �
1; ORANCDIR H NGE C UN1k Y
Travis Myren said this slide should help make the rest of the presentation clearer. He said
that it shows the CIP as planned and the county facility plan.
Commissioner Fowler asked if any of these projects included things that were already
planned in the CIP.
Travis Myren said they removed items that would overlap.
Commissioner McKee asked what the time frame would be for the tax rate increase.
Travis Myren said that would be a one-time 4-cent tax increase in FY 2025-26.
46
Slide #13
Scenario A2 - $130 million bond + 130 million County Plan
Financing Amounts
16tm1 CMMry Fundln $130 mion County Fecatllea Plan Scenario A2-Tax Rate
over ten years Isting CIP 2.0 cents
Existing County CIP $ 192-0 million ounty Facilo Plan 0,68cents
31W✓iw-i n band assumed in
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million FY2028.24 UP ditional School Needs L89cant5
County Faeil- Plan $ 130.0 million Pr{e1VCa11559 n>Wr owWoolpart otal Tax Irn ad 4.57celits
Total Ca al Fundln -County $ 332.00 rrilllw clown A
- CmId provds$11.9 mlllm Scenario A2•Debt Servlce to Revenue Policy
enn.alry rarminb9nance In
yBBfS a-16 or r0r Btl0rAnBl Za.4r6 1T9f��,Z.11fi
TOW$V louf Fundfn pmrltymoo& ra.4w ss.3� I >s.s. essrs l5dw
ExistingSchool CIP r7'0Y 13
$ 95.t}millian Front loaded 5ohool hormnn9a ra'4!u
u.ox
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.0mllllan - Si 34 milim older tNAe ,o-.ox
cor-wcubw WINS BAsf
dltional School Needs $ 130.0 mllllon - Rasulls inniunwtim rnpau aAu
.A9{
Total Capital Funding $ 278.Orrlllllon Gould be ammpllanad with a 4yx
urmed~ion acae:lrtrartora
(pert Option A(over 5 yearn $ 219.0 million K w e
vole aQprovad General Obllya5o.
leer 7irpr et 59.Q mlmnn
�Opibn Ra[as �aol[�
-Does not Include W mill in recurring capllal or
mill it prgecledArllcle 46 revenue for Ieelmlogy A r-�� 1� V
ORAR c•."H A UN1k }
Slide #14
Existing Annual Debt Service
County tax rate impact is Im"r due to Annual Debt Service Payments on Existing Debt
decline in existing debt service betvreea puo.ca4
FY2026-27 and FY2027-28
535,00JIM
Approximately W8.8 million of$75 million
is limed to occur after capacity is gained in 51M-MA3M
FY2027-28
SainanAo-u
School projects are front loaded resviiing szao-mA4c
in a higher tax impact
Sl]4A4A0o
• School project timing could be adjusted to
benefit from capacity gained in FY2027-25 $10.440A49
85AU4A40
f
zRQa xoz� zo-ze z�er zo-ze xnae xwo- zo-;3 zwx x4an znaa lo-3s
.m..nyamcar awxis.rvr. .9'Eo�Mn�M c'[M 9ae400 .oarcam rod Mra.�i oan�snrveo
ORANGE COUNTY
NL]RrH CIA ZC]LINA
Commissioner Fowler asked how borrowing affects the 10-20 year timeframe if they
wanted to do more borrowing for schools. She said that it only shows the first ten-year timeframe.
Travis Myren said the term would be for 20 years.
47
Slide #15
Scenario C1 - $400 million band + $130 million County Plan
Financing Amounts
16tni Cwmry Fundln
County Faclllty Plan over ten yearn Scanarlo C1-Tex Rate
- Tax Impact can be reduced bey sting CIP 2.ocents
Exi5ting Count CIP $ 192-0 million 7ocard IrComwplenredaced ounty Facllo Plan 0,68cents
Y to$75 rrdban
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million ditiorW School Needs 5.21Cent5
County Fadl4y Plan $ 130.0 million
Woolpert 00lon G T _3541.2 otal Tax Ir act 7.89cents
r�r>fal
Total Ca al Fundfn -County $ 332.00 rrullw 36.8 mutton aver waakprn 9unarla Scenario Cl-Debt Service to Revenue Policy
C laryel to ad}rys a4Vlonel ss.n%
r Y n66ft lLIX]a.GA 201% a•Y{
7otoiicAooiFunding saox ��ixrn
Existing School CIP+ $ 135.0 million rIvwtre hea ofacnccI bonvMnp wm ss.rr
of$133.33 M each over a sawn ss.o� DA,,
Plus Other Exrsting Resources $ 53.0 million yeer psdod
moss
dItIonal School Needs 400.0 mIIIIon
sn�
7btal[apltalFunding $ 548.0rfunbn
Wooanus
Ipert Optron C $ 541.2 million �, y R� p g�+ M1�A A�
verTar t $ 6..5 milliorr � � � ' 110*
-Dan not Include W moon in recurring capllal or �UpWnSe M —'I"F
Mien n prc*Ved Article 36 revenue for Iecimlogy ORANGE rr--��� N V
Chair Bedford said usually if a bond is approved, borrowing is spread out over several
years. She said it is front loaded and asked why the tax increase was planned where it was.
Travis Myren said when there is a one-year tax increase, building a reserve so that when
the peaks hit, that reserve can be applied, and a tax increase would not be necessary every time.
Vice-Chair Greene asked if the debt service revenue ratio is concerning here.
Travis Myren said it certainly would make budgeting a challenge to have around 20% of
revenue tied up in debt service before funding any services.
Commissioner McKee said that his fear is that it would drive tax increases and those are
much harder on their low wealth citizens.
48
Slide #16
$400 million bond + $130 million County Plan with
Incremental Tax Rate Increase
Scenario Cl-Debt service to Revenue Policy
��srer�arr'a cac�Ad 7MI."l
be funded using an
lrrcremen€al fax ra€$lrwmase instead of 1.2a an upFmnt increase. 2.06
This table iNus#rates FY2027-28 .52 15 P�6 59�
ar!irrcrem$n€al 15 a�
approach fir FY202&29 2.76
$ $f�afJo C1 FY202&30 1.06
v10.30-31 1.76
FY2031-32
Y10.32-33
FY2033-34 1.40
Y103d-35
qal 10.06
Cf mura0Ya Mobs 2.47 Pa1.78 'r2573-7-0F5Z42a�2}FR LQP-]dx]026.2:"'r*:.2Gv2LQ�-]9F1']G2?i0'r253G 3:'+ECil#2FRP3]-33 n2433.3�:5'ECit.}}
P4BF U�7dfPflC�n�Cl
�OR31on Raho �Rokry
ORANGE r
E R c:"H A U1kN }
Slide #17
Pay-Go Scenario
• Option C2 converts $100 million of band financing into $10 million annual cash (pay-go) for
annual maintenance
Trades a higher upfront tax impact and delayed distlybuticn of funding for the following
- Provides a stable funding source for school maintenance between band issuances
- Maintains more debt capacity for later major bond issuances
Provides more Flexibility to future Boards to adapt to Fnancial instability,no Flexibility in debt service
- No interest payments
ORANGE COUNTY
17 NL7RrH C1A1t£37J11JA
49
Slide #18
Scenario C2 - $300 million bond + $100 million School Pay-Co +
$130 million County Plan
Financing Amounts Saenarlo C2-Tax Rate
xisting CIP 2.0cents
161nf Cimairy FinidIng County Feclllty Plan over ten County Facility Plan 0.684;ents
yeara
Existing County CIP $ 192-0 million - Tax Impact canoe reduced Additional School Needs-Borrowed 3.25cents
by.eoce�Irntiwceald ditional school Meeds-Pa -Go 233cents
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million Fs RYi7n
otal Tax Irn act 8.66cerrts
County Facil- Plan $ 130.0 million woolpert optlon c Target
Tatal Ca al Fundffl -County $ 332.00 rr11111orI 38.8 million ever WogOert Scenario C2-Debt Service to Revenue
Scenario C carpet R+aOPllonal Policy
tpn5ntr�e+Ky
7otof Schoof Fundfng 25 vK
Existing School CIP* $ 95Xmillion $10 MOM InenmrelPayM� 200% 100961774x"31�+0.2rnle.ewlavr,+$�
you-go itn is(not borrawea) 14E34c14.r76
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.0 million
prnvldee llexlbllQy dudng 150%
Additional School Needs- economic cowrtnma 109% I
Borrowing $ 300.0 mllllan Taw Vanches atschW s vK
ditional Schaal Needs-Pay-Go$ 100.0 million towo4ing S100 each over e
Total
sewn peer period ,y` � � Ix ? y ,ti¢v^p ,�
Caplta�Furvdfrvg $ 54�.OmlllMrr
Vkolpert Option C $ 541.2 mllllan �4 ��yourlon Rados —Pd cs
ver Target 6.a Maw _
'Does not include 133 pion in recurring capital or$33
radon in pr*DledArlide46 renno_for technology ORANGE COUNTY
18 NORZ"H C.ARC3L1NA
Slide #19
Scenario D - $630 million bond + $130 million Counter Plan
Financing Amounts
County Facility Plan over ten Scenario D-Tax Rate
161n1 Coon Funding years Usting CIP 2.Otents
Existing County CIP $ 192.0 million - Tax Impact can be redmed bey CountV Facility Plan 0.68cents
.73 cares Ir redaced to$T5
Plus other Existing Resources $ 10-0 million mrinn Additronal Schaal Needs 8.54cents
County Facility Plan $ 130.0 million Woclpert Opllcn D T*-"- otal Tax Im act 77.22cel1t5
Phases I a x rtr wwyoar
Total WW Fundfn -Coury $ 334M rrrlllion tomlparlom(3TM.9 million)
Scenario D-Debt Service to Revenue Policy
Phase III In peers 11-15.5223,1 3"%
Tataf Stflaaf Funding nrT,m �so-x x3�xr.s�1r2w
Existing School CIP* $ 95.0 million $1 1 over Woolpmt target ZUG%
wax
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.0 million
Additional School Needs 630.0 million 4ar w,lnp t3 Tlv�Ing VF$ Ms?tocl 1°yx I I I I
21vntarm sacs
rutal Capltal Funding $ 778.0rnllllan over soon years
orvz
Woolpert Option C $ 776-9 million
Over Target $ 1.1 mNNan
�dPban Relks �r'dlry
-hoes rrdl Include$SS ngkn in recurring capital or$3S
mean n proonmedArllole 46 revenue for IeeMalogy
ORANGE COUNTY
19 110L3RTH C:ARC31111JA
50
Slide #20
Middle Scenario - $200 million bond + $50 million School Pay-Go
+ $75 million County Plan
Financing Amounts Middle 5aemrlo-Tors Rate
Existing CIP 2.0cents
liprd Cmaity Funding County Faclllty Plan over ten
years-575 mrro County Facility Plan 0.284;enks
Existing County CIP $ 192-0 million Additional School Needs-Borrowed 1.78 cents
$5 muuan In awwar M-as-pau• jMditional School Needs-Pay-Go 1.43 cents
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 10.0 million goicwh,W borrowW) otalTax Im act 5.49cenits
County Facility Plan $ 75.0 million Tlw"ya„Ches of scnoc+
Total Ca al Fundln -County $ 277.0 rnllllan "YOWInp 555,6 Wh awr Middle 5cenario-Geht Service to Revenue Policy
se"a?oar period
xaaa
iBA f5.3l6 ra xk 173Y 17316 �'n' L6.7A
ToWSchoorFundin when ccmcnea unh v,i� v
and planned reaoureea yield ylelda i aA to ��
Existing School CIP' $ 95.0 million $30 mron In total ac" ixoa
reaoume to sdldl a6 achod i"N
Plus Other Existing Resources $ 53.0 million P110OLy°weda BAIA
dltlonal School Needs- :AN
rrowing 200.0 million sax
oAA
ditional Schaal Needs-Pa �Go$ 50.0 million h4 °ti5 tia 1 M1,y � 95
Total Ca al Fundln $ 398.0 million 4 4 �� � � e� {' t'
�gp,ion aarss —a�[r
'Goes n0I include 133 noon in recurring capital or$33
noon is proiecied Article 46 rennv_for Iminology
ORANGE COUNTY
24 NC7R1"H C.A1tC3LJNA
Commissioner McKee said a one-time tax increase has a continuing impact because that
must be used to pay off the extra debt.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if the rate includes what the county is currently paying.
Travis Myren said the total tax impact is the total increase to the existing tax rate.
Slide #21
Comparing the Scenarios
Scenario New County New School One Time Tax Peak Debt Minimum 10
Title Funding Funding Rate Impact Service to Year Payout
Revenue Ratio
Al $75 million $130 million 4.00 cents 17. % 60.4%
A2 $130 million $130 million 4.57 cents 1&0% 59.9%
C1 $130 million $400 million 7.89 cents 22.0% 57.0%
C2 $130 million $300 million bond 6_E6 cents 19.4% 58-1%
$100 million pay-go
a $130 million $630 million 11.22 cents 26.6% F 55.0%
Middle $75 million $200 million fond 5.49 cents 17.2% 603%
$50 million pay-go
ORANGE COUNTY
110DRTH C:ARC3L1NA
51
Slide #22
Other Options
Scenario New County New School One 'rime Tax Peak Debt Minimum 10
ServiceTitle Fundin M Year Payout
F • • RaRevenue tio
H $75 million $300 million band 8.06 cents 18.65% .r�
$100 million pay-go
$130 million
Push $17-9 million $300 million bond
B in existing projects 5140 m nillio pay-go $47 cents 19.1 t3°fd 58.2°fo
outside of the ten
year plan
ORANGE COUNTY
NC7RrH C;ARC3"NA
Slide #23
Tax Impact on $500,000 Home
Scenario Title One Time Tax Rate Impact Impact on a$500,000 home
in cents
Al 4.00 $ 200.00
A2 4.57 $ 228.50
C 1 7.89 $ 394.50
C2 8.66 $ 433.00
D 11.22 $ 561.00
Middle 5.49 $ 274.50
H 8.06 $ 403.00
B 1 8.47 $ 423.50
ORANGE COUNTY
23 NORTH CAROLINA
Commissioner Fowler asked if the Board only does what is in the current CIP, if the tax
increase would be 2 cents.
Travis Myren said yes.
Chair Bedford said that the $12 million they set aside a year and a half ago prevented a
tax increase for two years.
52
Slide #24
Band Funding Practice
• Bond funds have been allocated between the two school districts on the basis of the average
daily membership �ADN1) in place at the time the bond was approved
Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools—58.44%
— Orange County Schools—41.5-6%
• Could move to a project based allocation
— Need based allocation
— Project costs estimated in Woolpert Study
— Woolpert Option D—Phase
Chapel Hil Carrhoro City SchwI5—5B 2%of total Phase I project casts
* Orange County Schools-41.8%or total Phase I prolecl costa
ORANGE COUNI
lV{IRTH C ARC)ILlNR
Chair Bedford said there should be an additional discussion because she does not
remember from the 2016 bond but when there are 999 charter students, she thinks that charter
students should not be factored into the ADM because they are not there to use the buildings.
Travis Myren said staff will model that and bring it to the Board's retreat on Friday.
Commissioner Fowler said project-based allocation would only work if the Board chooses
option D, and that otherwise, they should stick to ADM.
Slide #25
Recommendation
• Discuss financing scenarios related to implementing the County Facility Plan
and the Lang Range School Optimization Plan and provide direction to staff
on alternative scenarios
Goal of developing preferred plan of finance by the end of January 2424
ORANGE COUNTY
25 NC712r14 C_ARC]LJhiA
53
Chair Bedford said she is still confused about the recommendation to fund the
maintenance dollars and she does not understand where that is factored into any of this.
Kirk Vaughn said in each Woolpert plan, there is regular maintenance built into the plans
for those buildings that are not undergoing other renovations. He said option A, there are no
renovations, and all funds go to maintenance. He said once they go past those periods, that is
when they hit the pay-go period.
Chair Bedford said she would like to see what it is that the county should be funding every
year for building maintenance if the buildings were in perfect condition. She said that number is
important.
Kirk Vaughn said Woolpert estimated between $27 million and 34.9 million per year. He
said that does not include technology and further capital funding.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if there is an impact for families on personal property
and real property.
Travis Myren said it applies to both.
Slide #26
Proposed Timeline
Proposed F Bond Referendum Schedule
1. Review schedule of approvals for a band referendum and review
November9`+'Work Session
the County Facilities Master Elan
2. Review school racilities tons Range Optimization Plan-Woolpert December 4th Business Meeting
3_ Review Financing Scenarios IDecemher 12tfi Business Meeting
4. Approve a tentative plan for Bond Referendum ;JpnuprySb`A Business Meeting urrdfor
Ilonuary 19' Retreat
5. Staff meets with Local Government Commission on tentative
January/February 2024
Band plan
6. School Boards adopt a resolution supportfrng the referendum February 2024
T Review potential adjustments to the bond referendum plan,If March 7Business Meeting
needed March 12 Work Session
March 19 Business Meeting
GRANGE COUNTY
26 NC)ttrH CAR{?LFNA
54
Slide #27
Proposed Timeline
Proposed 2024 Capital Planning and Bond Referendum Schedule
8, B0CCadopts preliminary resolution esta bl ishing the band purposes)and sets not to
exceed bond anInt(s). Neither the purpose nor the not to exceed amvuntmaychange April 2"dgOCCBusinrrssMeeting
ollowrng this action,
9. IB0CC appoints a bond education commItteeand approprlates funds for outreach April 26",80CCBusinessMeeting
10. Staff publishes a notice of intent to file an application for a general obligatlon bond By May 1
referendum
JUL. Staff fIles bond applicatlon with the Local Government Commission By May 10
12. B0CC introduces bond order and schedules a public hearing May7�SOCC Business Meeting
11 BOCC holds public hearing on bond referendum Afay2V BOCC Bvshmss Mee#ng
14. B0CCadapts the bond order,formally set the ballot question and referendum date June4"'BOCC Business Meeting
15. Community vote an band referendum November 5,2024
ORANGE COUNTY
27 rvrc7121-1i C:tlxca"NA
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
George Griffin, CHCCS Board Chair read the following statement:
"Good evening Commissioners, I'm George Griffin and I'm Chair of the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City Schools Board of Education. I speak tonight on behalf of our Board, our
superintendent and several district leaders who are with us this evening. CHCCS is genuinely
appreciative of your continued support of our public school system. As you
review financing scenarios for the School Long Range Facilities Optimization Plan, we are here
to focus and support several options under your consideration. The long-range plan produced by
Woolpert outlines a total of four scenarios to address the next five-to-fifteen years of school facility
needs. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools favors serious consideration of'Scenario D', which adds
a $630 million bond to fund phases I & 11 over ten years. However, if the Commissioners feel as
though Scenario D is too ambitious, we feel Scenario "C-2" is a reasonable compromise. In short,
C-2:
• Provides $130 million to fund short-range and mid-range projects for Orange County
Government over ten years.
• Adds a $300 million school bond for major projects in both school districts, and $100
million in pay-as-you-go, to provide flexibility during economic downturns over the next 10
years.
• When combined with existing and planned resources, yields total school resources of
$548 million which meets the Woolpert Option C target of$541.2 million with an additional
$6.8 million to address other priority needs.
No matter which scenario is preferred by the Commissioners, the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
Board of Education requests that the allocated bond funds be distributed on an ADM basis
(58.44% to CHCCS) and not on a project basis. There remains a persistent myth going back
decades that there are funding inequities between the two school systems in Orange County
55
somehow under the control of the BOCC, or the state of NC, or both. This is simply not true. There
are in fact funding differences in annual operating budgets (i.e., per pupil expenditures) between
the districts, however, this is solely due to the CHCCS Special District Tax which has been in
place since 1909. This tax is only paid by residents of the CHCCS district and is not a financial
burden on other residents of Orange County. Thank you in advance for your consideration of
options D, or, C2. And for more on why, I yield the floor to Vice Chair Riza Jenkins."
Riza Jenkins, CHCCS Board Vice-Chair read the following Statement:
"Thank you George, and good evening everyone. I'm Riza Jenkins, and I'm Vice Chair of
the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education. 1, too, am here to urge the
Commissioners to strongly consider scenario "D", followed by C-2. I'm also here to publicly thank
the Commissioners who accepted invitations, from our administration and our PTA leaders, to
tour school facilities for a first-hand look at the needs in Chapel Hill-Carrboro, as we've been
having this conversation for a very long time:
• Thank you to Chair Bedford for her visits to Phillips Middle, Estes Hills Elementary and
Ephesus Elementary back in March of 2022.
• Thank you to Commissioner Hamilton for her visits to Carrboro, Glenwood and Seawell
elementary schools in March of 2022.
• Thank you to Commissioner Portie-Ascott for her visits to Culbreth Middle and Carrboro
Elementary back on May 4 of 2023. And then again for visits to Phoenix Academy High School
and McDougle Middle on November 20.
• Commissioner Green, we were delighted to host you back on October 5 for a visit to Ephesus
Elementary.
• Same for Commissioner Richards, who visited Carrboro Elementary on October 29.
Together we saw first-hand the aging facilities that make up a substantial portion of our
district. Those facilities, which have existed for generations, are loved and cared for ... but no
amount of maintenance and upkeep will outpace the speed of innovation in public education. The
Board of County Commissioners made it clear to us two years ago that we were to use the allotted
funds now, and not bank them for any type of new construction or major renovation project down
the road. Indeed, CHCCS has been spending our capital deferred maintenance dollars as
expected and directed. We have used the funds for roof replacements, HVAC replacements,
playground replacements, safety upgrades and more. We have done that in good faith and have
been excellent stewards of public funds. We understand you want to develop a preferred plan of
finance by the end of this month. We would appreciate and be available to participate in greater
detail at any time, including possibly your scheduled retreat on January 19, or any subsequent
meetings. We've reached a pivotal moment. Let's be honest about the 21 st century needs of our
school district. Together, we'll make our students, families and stakeholders proud."
CHCCS Board member, Rani Dasi, said she is not only a board member but also a parent
of 4 students who have attended CHCCS schools. She spoke about the experiences of her
children in school facilities. She said there is now a clear picture of the needs and plans to address
them. She said they have had flooding issues, unreliable heating and cooling, and failing sewage
systems that backed up. She said that delayed investment in school facilities continues to create
significantly more needs. She said she knows the board cares deeply about education and she
thanked them.
Commissioner Fowler asked if multiple options can be given on a bond resolution.
Travis Myren said it is a yes or no question for a bond.
Chair Bedford said looking at C-2, it could be $75 million for the county and the difference
is .57 cents.
Travis Myren said that would line up with the scenario that Commissioner Hamilton
mentioned.
56
Chair Bedford said she found $17.9 million that she finds important but not as important
as schools. She said they are at a breaking point with school capital funding. She thinks some
county capital needs can be postponed to prioritize schools. She said a tax increase has to be
done, but that leaves her concerned about affordability. She said she does not think there is any
way to do option D.
Vice-Chair Greene said she would like to see the details on the $17.9 million on Friday at
the retreat. She said the county's facility plan was done with a lot of forethought and consideration
as well. She said she is not opposed to a tax increase, she just isn't sure what is sustainable.
Commissioner McKee said the tax rate will increase over time. He said they need to
discuss if they will continue to not allow projects like Walmart and others that are just on the other
side of the county. He said that is taking funds from their residents that could help with the tax
base. He said there is always more demand. He said that he cannot support option D. He said he
does not think the Board would want to cut county operating costs in order to offset a tax increase.
He said the needs are valid, but he is concerned about how to pull off funding in a way that is
sustainable.
Commissioner Fowler said she is leaning towards the middle but she knows they have to
be reasonable and think about the voters. She said that she thinks voters will be turned off by
option D. She said it will be painful and hurt people in terms of taxes, but the needs have been
ignored for far too long. She said she is inclined to support the middle option to see if it can get
passed.
Commissioner Hamilton said she hopes the strategic planning process will help guide the
board's decisions and not do some projects if they are not outlined as priorities in the plan. She
said students today are faced with demands that her kids did not have. She said the physical
space of school makes a difference and appropriate spaces for all students is important. She said
they can pay now or later with increased mental health needs or people in jail. She said at the
same time, the board has to also look out for people who struggle to pay their property taxes. She
said she is not afraid to go to the community with this and if they say no, then the community has
spoken.
Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she is sensitive to families experiencing increased costs
for everything. She said she does not know which option she supports at this time. She said
Option C-2 or the middle option seem most realistic.
Commissioner Richards said she would like clarity on Friday on how the valuation impacts
the tax rate. She said she does not see Option D passing but has heard the community wants to
support schools. She said putting other things into the bond clouds the issue. She said she thinks
prioritizing projects is important and is part of the educating the community piece of the bond. She
said facilities money should possibly be managed as one pot.
Chair Bedford said if the Board picks the middle option, will Woolpert prioritize projects
within that option and clarify the order.
Vice-Chair Greene said she agrees with Commissioner Richards. She said prioritizing
needs across districts is important.
Chair Bedford said there is a misunderstanding in the community that the per pupil amount
in both districts is the same. She said in passing a bond, if some people think only one school
district will benefit, they are less inclined to vote for it. She said there has always been a conflict
with having two districts in one county.
Commissioner Greene asked if it was different for this because it was focused on facilities.
Commissioner McKee said there is a perception that the urban part of the county drives
the process, they are the cream of the crop, and the rural areas get what is left. He said that
perception has been around since he was a child.
Commissioner Richards asked if there was a gap 10 years ago.
Chair Bedford said there has never been a gap.
57
Commissioner McKee said there was a long-standing perception that no commissioners
took the rural parts of the county into consideration.
Commissioner Hamilton requested to see an option between H and B on Friday at the
retreat.
Travis Myren said there is some time before the final decision has to be made. He said
that they can get enough information on Friday that they will be prepared for the LGC meeting.
He said that it does not have to be made until April.
Commissioner Fowler asked to see an option for a $250 million bond and $100 million
pay-go.
8. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Hamilton, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to
approve the consent agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
a. Minutes
The Board approved the draft minutes from the November 9, 2023, November 10, 2023, and
November 14, 2023 BOCC Meetings as presented.
b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution to release motor vehicle property tax values for three (3)
taxpayers with a total of three (3) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue.
c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
The Board adopted a resolution to release property tax values for five (5) taxpayers with a total
of six (6) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue.
d. Late Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
The Board approved twelve (12) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
taxation for twelve (12) bills for the 2023 tax year.
e. Advertisement of Tax Liens on Real Property
The Board accepted the report on the amount of unpaid taxes for the current year that are liens
on real property as required by North Carolina General Statute 105-369, and approved and
authorized the Chair to sign the Order setting the lien sale advertisement on or about March 28,
2024.
f. Manager Signed Intergovernmental Agreements
The Board acknowledged and ratified various intergovernmental agreements signed by the
Manager as previously authorized by the Board of Commissioners (BOCC).
g. Approval of Orange County Transit Service Area Update
The Board approved the Orange County public transit service area for federal compliance to
include Orange County and ten (10) miles outside Orange County
h. Approval of Orange County 2022 Transit Plan Public Hearing Records
The Board approved the 2022 Orange County Transit Plan Public Hearing Records based on
federal guidelines for transit service improvements.
i. Orange Unified Transportation Board —Approval of Youth Delegate Position
The Board approved an amendment to the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
Policies and Procedures to establish a non-voting Youth Delegate position on the OUTBoard.
58
j. Resolution of Approval —Terry Road Farm, LLC Conservation Easement
The Board approved and authorized the Chair to sign the resolution approving the acceptance by
Orange County of the conservation easement, and authorized the Chair and the Clerk to sign the
conservation easement agreement, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney, with a
closing and recordation of the document expected to occur on or about March 30, 2024.
k. Contract Award to CRTS, Inc. for Design and Build of Two (2) Custom 48-Foot Tipper
Trailers
The Board approved a contract for the purchase of two (2)48-foot tipper trailers with a specialized
swing door for tipping to allow for the efficient transport and disposal of tires at the County's
contracted tire recycling facility.
I. Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Amendment#5
The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for Fiscal Year
2023-24.
m. Amendment to the Clean, Inc. Contract for the Visitors Bureau
The Board approved a contract amendment to the July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024 agreement
between Orange County and Clean, Inc. to increase the marketing contract for the Visitors
Bureau.
n. Approval of Motorola Solutions, Inc. Contract for Bi-directional Antenna Systems in K-
12 Schools
The Board approved and authorized the County Manager to sign a contract with Motorola
Solutions, Inc. for the first phase of installations of bi-directional antenna systems within K-12
public schools., with addendum, and any necessary amendments.
9. County Manager's Report
Bonnie Hammersley reminded the Board of the upcoming retreat on January 19, 2024
and reviewed the agenda. She also reviewed the agenda for the Assembly of Governments
meeting on January 23, 2024. She also mentioned the three retirees recognized in the information
items.
10. County Attorney's Report
John Roberts said the legislature is reconvening the short session on Apri124, 2024. He
said that any local bills must be submitted by April 15, 2024 in order to be considered.
11. *Appointments
None.
12. Information Items
• December 12, 2023 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
• Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
• Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100
• Memorandum — Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 — Update from Clarion
Associates
• Memorandum Regarding Historic Central High School Alumni Meeting
59
• Memorandum Regarding Short Range Transit Plan and Transportation Multimodal
Plan Kick Offs
• Memorandum — Recognition of County Employee Retirements from October 1, 2023
through December 31, 2023
13. Closed Session
None.
Adjournment
A motion was made by Vice-Chair Greene, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to adjourn
the meeting at 10:24 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Jamezetta Bedford, Chair
Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board
Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board