Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04-30-2024 - Work Session 1 APPROVED 6118/24 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION April 30, 2024 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, April 30, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, 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: Commissioner Earl McKee 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, except for Commissioner McKee. Chair Bedford asked for a motion to add a closed session to the agenda. A motion was made by Vice-Chair Greene and seconded by Commissioner Hamilton to add a closed session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 1. Consultant Briefing on Orange County Land Use Plan 2050 The Board received a briefing from Clarion Associates, LLC, on the Land Use Plan 2050 for discussion and feedback. BACKGROUND: At its February 15, 2024 work session, the BOCC received a presentation with a review of the first community engagement window outcomes and project deliverables, including Stakeholder Summary Report and the Community Policy Profile. Following is a link to the agenda materials from this meeting: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/0/doc/71722/Pagel.aspx All deliverables are also made available to the public on the project website, "Resources" tab: https://www.orangecountVIanduseplan.com Tonight's presentation will be the Board's third from Clarion and will include a briefing on project work completed and underway. More specifically, progress towards the development of land use alternatives that will be used to test and explore policy options for the new Plan will be discussed. Much of the basis informing this presentation and discussion is data that can be found in the prolect's Fact Book and the responses collected from Community Engagement Window #1. This will be an opportunity for the Board to ask questions and offer input for refining land use alternatives prior to the next community engagement window this fall. Tom Altieri, Senior Planner, introduced the item and the presenters Leigh Anne King, of Clarion Associates. ,�A ,y,, April 30,2024 �• < �:° ORANGE COUNTY LAND USE PLAN Board of County `' curcnaou Fume 2050 Commissioners Briefing s Leigh Anne King made the following the presentation: SlideCLARION °A • • • Progress 2. • Use Alternatives 1. t _ - Approach Purpose, c) Key b) Key Influences Question R y ProAlternatives posed Land Use 3. Next Steps Slide #3 Project Progress 3 Slide #4 Project Progress Phase 1: Phase 2 Phase 5: Launch Identify New cvatuate Develop Adopt the Project Issues and Planning PLan Ptah Opportunities Influences Moan A* 1 ¢-7 3-� 'Ad0 21-26 Slide #5 r. ReportPhases 2-4 Status Work that has been completed: • Phase 2: • Published the Community Engagement Window#1 Summary Report • Finalizing New Issues and Opportunities Report • Phase 3: • Published the Fact Book Resources • Phase 4: • Project Team Work Session—Land Use Alternatives Initial drafts of Plan Outline for Staff Team Review Work that is underway: -- —— Phase 4: Develop Draft Plan Framework,Vision,and Goals Development of Land Use&Development Recommendations Report(land use alternatives) Develop Plan Policies and Actions 4 Slide#6 EngagementCommunity • . ReportSummary • Provides a summary report of the ORANGI COUNTY LAND USE M0 activities, objectives, and outcomes of Community Engagement Window #1 • Provides a foundation for Phase 4 work • Available on the website under Resources Slide#7 New Issues and Opportunities Report 7T • Draft reviewed by County Staff Team • Finalizing report for website Wgmhed and OPC Space Rnrsenntion • Synthesizes the critical issues and opportunities identified in Phases 1-3 • Provides a foundation for Phase 4: c Develop the Plan New Issues&Opportunities: Key Themes Leigh Anne King said that their team wants sustainable development to reflect Orange County. 5 Slide #8 Fact . • • • Shares data and trends on community planning topics and future planning influences that are important considerations for developing plan policies. ` • Leverages existing technical2050 reports prepared by County as well as recent American Community Survey data • Includes data analysis shared C—ION during CEW 41 workshop • Available on the website under Resources Slide #9 3; h Y� 6 Slide#10 What are ■ use alternatives? 2050 Land 2030 Future Use Plan Land Use Plan _ _ I �—— ,,. Q Land Use Alternatives: Inform Selection for m Build off Current Policies Explore and Test Hypothetical Preferred Policy Approach ,, Future Land Use Policies M50 Plan Leigh Anne King said the alternatives are not intended to become the land use plan but will be used to create the preferred land use plan. She said the alternatives are a type of thought- exercise. Slide #11 Key Terms 1 . Land use alternatives and land use scenarios are synonymous terms. Z. Conservation and Growth Framework is a thematic title for the future land use map (FLUM) and categories. 0 7 Slide #12 Purpose/intentof LU Alternatives 1. Model hypothetical future land use policy alternatives for unincorporated Orange County and assess outcomes. 2. Share outcomes of alternatives modeling with County leadership and residents and gather feedback to inform development of 2050 Plan Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The final preferred Conservation and Growth Framework (FLUM) may be a combination of policy directions from more than one of the alternatives. Chair Bedford referred to slide #7. She asked if those key themes will be the measured outcomes. Leigh Anne King said they will be more detailed, but they will likely be grouped into those themes. Chair Bedford asked for an example. Leigh Anne King said one is thinking about the capacity for development in particular areas. She said the different alternatives could have different amounts of land that will be developed and land that will be preserved. She said that could be quantified and measured. She said they could also have guidance on how these alternatives might support transit service. She said they might ask if there are more opportunities for developing affordable housing in one alternative versus another. Vice-Chair Greene asked if Clarion needs guidance from the Board on which alternatives support transit better than others. Leigh Anne King said no, but when they evaluate the alternatives, they can have an evaluation of multiple types of metrics and one example could be how do the different alternatives compare in terms of creating development that could utilize transit fairly well or less so. Vice-Chair Greene clarified that it would be using the existing transit map. Leigh Anne King said yes. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if the alternatives based on current zoning only or are they dreaming of different possibilities. Leigh Anne King said they start off looking at current policies. She said they would look at the land use classification and current zoning. She said that the first scenario is asking where are we today and establishing a baseline. She said that there are three alternatives from that baseline. She said that she also would share more later in the presentation. Cy Stober, Planning and Inspections Director, said that zoning is not part of the modeling, but future land use classification is. He gave an example of Area A of the Buckhorn Economic Development District. He said that area is not going to change in this process, and the county would want to locate jobs in that area, but not houses. 8 Slide #13 Land Use Alternatives Process Identify the areas Explore the Evaluate the Inform the policies where we might potential land use outcomes of and land use want to see alternatives for those changes. changes needed change. those areas. to support the desired outcomes. Slide #14 How LU Alternatives Will Be Used Refine Plan Goals and Policies Adjust Future -_ Land Use Map CO010 Generate Share and �- Computer Collect Models of Feedback Land Use from Public Alternatives Engagement Slide Alternatives in � -� • Oran a Count Initial Public Inputs 0 on Plan Vision and .. ls g Conditions &Plannirg Influences Analysis Development Public Inputs on Preferred Aspects of Land Use Alternatives D- opmerit of Policies and Growth and categories)Conservation Framework (map and -- and Use Alternatives Discussion What is the What's the What are the modeling question? alternatives? approach? Define the question that iVlethvdoiogy and tools to alternatives modeling will Conceptual alternatives that model alternatives answer res{�ond to question 16 10 Slide#17 Work Completed To Date � ) 1. Project team work session to discuss question, conceptual alternatives, and begin discussing methodology. 2. Staff Working Group meeting to share the recommended question, conceptual four (4) land use alternatives, and discuss data needs. m Slide#18 Alternatives Approach: Exploratory Provides for exploration of critical community topics: • Natural resources and agricultural lands protection • Creating more affordable housing • Reducing carbon footprint through reduction of VMTs and transit • Economic equity and jobs creation _—_ - 11 Slide#19 SCENARIO:CURRENT OEVELOPMENTTRENOS SCENARIO!RURAL TRANSITION SCENARIO.TOWN CLUSTER$ mfNaemmmnw s�xkprat nw�mtirvahann mn9iowtic naaM1auyrediwwdn nee Na'M1wrmtvrtaern IrA+4'w�a�w��pr�nego.pn�vnnapau,na.ipaW�n�uxcipi OHI�6�Yq�Wren_ennenwMm 0.ptl>M en Gannr�aw•ati de�dymowbe OMrpi.nead Yq�4wnxwwYnw TeIGp lYonyNa nuq���Nmunre plu�.l6 e.eing xnxeiviu.MFL^'^�'�N Y'y/MYMYMdmwlpwaow wn nemw.NpMpaxlxs upll prnd nWnodntl wAiMeaMed ed�riwFarwndaud>Irvr� N�+w��vmrsubr..irlrti i.wwiin.iwn Jcniiiiuii M+tr�and�wea me�wemN�uaweada Y�4=vwnofw>rna�mNwN Iawrwh.x��ya4•M�e�}�.dgwr<n�N.r•y Nnu.ar alxwrwYin✓rno fnkea Nlrx W11nIhIIRiw[w .v.e,.1+�iY�l+eb IPBOl�YI fYWM ufe6m BItlI�I urA1IV!IIIEdOtr OSNWMy!GNMi.7kt GifWv dun■■:1■i Inn a a■n _�ww5 n�cw�llu Pia rvrP■om Mom Ruknd■nl w s����wer�Lvo«oeos �■P auala AlHfE�� 1�l .rM�ll...I[Ia�urR■I _■AV,I A P� �1■a 4 P N! _■MR!■M19F usis �uI.W wd Y n[! �■Fmr R P wt �i■qP Rt F MS �!N'NNW10.7 Pl1Pu■ _Il701MI■HIIPXHI �IumNNIP.Y F191mYtNf Slide#20 • ,rl Y 12 Slide #21 About the Key Question ■ Focuses effort so all groups involved have a common understanding of purpose and intent ■ Focuses analysis to ensure that testing includes a manageable number of variables and results in meaningful outcomes ■ Serves as a "beacon" during the development of the alternatives when other questions tend to creep in Slide#22 Identifying Key Question ■ What specific question do we want the land use alternatives to answer? ■ 4r put another way, what is the critical land use planning question that would benefit from alternatives analysis and testing with the public? 13 Slide#23 Key Influences to Consider Q1.Most critical roles for the county government in the next 10 to 20years �a =Direct Land Use Plan implication (including nexus &°' 7 with transportation) ov..liq dMW.l.hvm,Mnxm on■� ]vx mrt. 9YF ,oft MSYV.,mnn Slide#24 Key Influences to Consider Q11.Top local government services to be prioritized h .�.v.n answRawna.«naw" fnWpnn�Y,.suY.wW.ac.,im bpr.N.n 36x V+n'. .n.I.d..YnY Fl.umn mnenXC Enelopn�em t,F M�i..xnh�nlN'q 1,% Ya°M 0�°YYnmr, L� ]Fx The.ro ■ V3% [mnnuim lNu . .tx ' WturaV�.swrc . wx Otl�n , 6x hep�nmi Yx' 6% � -reptFiote :tMtlrin�LdrMre�,dlfldl2 ]IlcMre 14 Slide#25 Key Influences • Consider Q17.Rated Future Priorities of the County hrvK•nrwotrxv.rr.m.l...ir.awy'd..�•'r w�.ow 7 yr :<e.s vrWi m ainwltnr ue 31k 9x 1n<rew:,errnsn nan xarm.e r»armmxntrnr snsarKtene dnc txx Mkina��g Fwnrksirina 15l6 SH4 noxdirig inins waen ]]x 3ax ulne.cr nsfon:M np.Vtl nr.rr..! In[..as�gopyortu G...xe nglxe N% 1]% ro.sg..rq.nrimmd.ar..� ask 13x. �wwtin¢wgn�rwa d'�wrdK n% fes r.merra.euit.u.K.m t.n�.y w �xx a��db r drv^Ircrrasmyauess vo tvEs 13%x� 2a'd ncr.tnlorwel.r.r.n ww xn Adtrw ralm 31% 1Ti T11. Comh..ry rrm.r.nbt� a9t 3]% eewg opporwrixb fa retr.ave.a cJnre Prmddirrr Public lr.mponatoninvrircrporat.dar.n of elc.cMntr 3]k ]316 i%'. asrnb nw.iascenrul devebpmwr[ >7NL SpG o+ mF mlc dUfc sovx �NerV ixro.Awt�YMCVtaVd Neu[tal�NMImgwWit�N.tntllirnpartanr Slide #26 V Key Influences to Consider ■ Depending on how you ask the question, the priorities change. • It may be hard to understand the interconnections of some of these issues. ■ Example... 15 Slide#27 Key Influences to Consider ORANGE COUNTY COMMUNITY INVENTORY ORANGE COu NTY GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS INVENTORY P MOGE W k .DILDING f Fkcampf PROCESS k paNiE 5au RCE9ITATION k gEIONf ruarrivE EMlssrons A846 EUGInuE 0% I. 71 N%Ic Lk arl-r RESIDENTIAL ENERGY YEATERk1M SrEnwTER WAT£Rk YMETEYIAT£R TRANSITFLEET 1% u23 INDeSTRAL ENERGY CON.ERCIALEN£RGY 3'J%TfE caMLIurE 349G Plgure S Orange County CDrn m unity Inventory Figure C:Orange County Gwen nmenl overatlons'nvencury Interconnection of housing/affordability and climate action as it relates to commuting (distance between work and home). Slide#28 a�. Proposed Key Question Which aspects of the land Agricultural, Watershed,and Open use alternatives best Space Preservation achieve the balance of sustainable development DEVELOPMENT 111d,1 7 in unincorporated Orange Housing Attaipability Climate Responsive Countyand Advaricing Transportation and Development Vice-Chair Greene said that people are likely speaking to government subsidy in already dense areas rather than putting housing in unincorporated Orange County. She said this is a plan for unincorporated Orange County and there is a disconnect that causes conflict. Leigh Anne King said the first alternative is status quo and continue as is. She said the second alternative is for focused affordable housing development to happen in municipalities. She said there is not a policy that would direct affordable housing developments to unincorporated areas in the county. 16 Vice-Chair Greene said that is how she understands it but referenced slide 28 and said if that the answer shown is confusing to the reader if it is answering the question that is posed. Leigh Anne King said the other two alternatives do offer affordable housing in the county and that is one of the things they want to get feedback on. She said the question they have for the Board is if they want affordable housing in the county's jurisdiction or the county supporting efforts for those to be located within the municipalities. Vice-Chair Greene said that if there are four scenarios, scenarios 1 and 2 are confusing. Chair Bedford said they would want that for all of Orange County versus just the unincorporated part. She said they want to think big picture for all of the county. Leigh Anne King said they would be building off of total county statistics and off projections in the metropolitan transportation planning exercise that gets updated every five years. She said the reason this question shows unincorporated is because they are trying to be clear because they are testing what the county could do differently policy-wise in the areas that they have planning and zoning jurisdiction. Cy Stober said the scenarios will evaluate if the land use addresses affordable housing or not. He said it will show the potential to serve that need or not. He said that the land use plan will show whether the needs are being met or will need to be met in the municipalities. He said in terms of the language, they would take their thoughts under consideration. Commissioner Fowler asked if they mean housing that is more affordable for everyone, or do they mean affordable for lower income. Cy Stober said he would review the responses from the Strategic Plan to confirm. Vice-Chair Greene said that at the community sessions, people would say that they wanted more affordable housing. Commissioner Fowler said it is critical to clarify what affordable housing means before they take action. Commissioner Portie-Ascott said it would be important to define affordable housing, because her impression was, they were trying to address the issue of people driving each day to work in Orange County. Leigh Anne King said they take the land use planning focus to the work and when they think about affordable housing, they are thinking about what that would look like by types of developments that would support various income levels. Commissioner Richards said that in every community survey they have done, this issue has come up to the top. She said she understood that the "influencers" in the study were the things that the community has highlighted as important issues. She confirmed that the scenarios would be put together, and that Clarion would get feedback. Leigh Anne King said they are not presented as answers but as various options and there will be questions asked about what is liked and not liked in all alternatives. Commissioner Richards said that feedback from all four of the alternatives would be the basis of the development for the then recommended plan. Leigh Anne King said it is a safe, hypothetical way to test out options for policy direction. Commissioner Richards asked if the questions were already phrased or if Clarion was working on that. Leigh Anne King said this would be the overarching question for the process. She said they are trying to figure out what the best balance is for sustainable development in unincorporated Orange County. Commissioner Richards said it could change nothing, or three other alternatives. Leigh Anne King said that it would likely be something slightly different than all four alternatives. She said normally there are key pieces of exploratory scenarios and those come together meaningfully as a comprehensive land use approach. 17 Commissioner Richards said she is glad that they are not limiting where it can be. She said that they need to be able to look at alternatives. She said they might reject them all, but to not explore all of the possibilities, would shortchange themselves. Commissioner Hamilton said for the proposed key question, she would change the question to read "Which aspects of the unincorporated Orange County land use alternatives best achieve the balance of sustainable development in Orange County?" Vice-Chair Greene asked how that helps the question. Commissioner Hamilton said because it is clear that the question is regarding land use in unincorporated Orange County but that when they are making decisions about unincorporated Orange County, they are also considering all of Orange County. Vice-Chair Greene said her eye is drawn to the three circles and thinking about how to balance these things in Orange County and she said that she does not think they want to change their policies to the point of placing affordable housing all over rural Orange County. Commissioner Hamilton said she sees the suggestion as consistent with what Vice-Chair Greene is saying but they can only do the land use for the unincorporated area. Vice-Chair Greene said that they could take out the word unincorporated and all of the planners would know they were dealing with unincorporated. Leigh Anne King said it was important to be clear when presenting to the public that they are not planning for the municipalities. Commissioner Hamilton said they can discuss the language later. She said the tension between affordable housing, the environment, and economic development has been going on for a long time in Orange County. She said that you can increase density in the area, and it does not increase affordability because of the demand pressures in the area. She said that to be sure that there is affordable housing, it will take a lot due to demand pressures. She said the data to understand those dynamics needs to be part of the plan. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked for clarification for Vice-Chair Greene's earlier comments because she thought they were essentially dreaming about what could be done but based on the comments, she heard that there are areas that they want untouched. Vice-Chair Greene said that she was not going that far but the fact is that they have policies, and the towns have policies. She said the two biggest housing non-profits have no intention of developing in rural Orange County. She said they are working to develop affordable housing in the municipal areas and those policies have been in place for a long time. She said she does not want to force a question that leads to a confusing direction. Commissioner Richards said she disagreed with not looking at policies. She said the reason people do not develop in other areas is because they are told they cannot. She said it is critical to explore all the options. She said if they do not, this is a very expensive way to do nothing. Slide #29 4. • 0 • - a r� 18 Slide#30 ConsiderKey Influences to Climate Action Plan F"i�FF( Rural buffer and 9!ice conservation priorities Strategic Plan Environmental o stewardship, natural areas — protection, affordable housing Slide #31 • Fact Book findings: Demographic shifts A,rkull oral. l Housing trends wrrepndadop• Spare Resemnpn • Climate impacts 1 Agricultural lands loss • Natural resource impacts r Slide #32 And Data... Watersheds F k, Slr Municipal Jurisdiction 111 �.„„,,,,,• Streams M Water Bodies River Basin Boundary Watersheds Water Supply Watersheds: Protected 4 A Crtical Railroad 19 Leigh Anne King said that the watersheds are critical components that will guide what they put and where. Slide #33 ` 1 ' • • • ► 1 . Continue Current Policies 2. Enhance Agricultural and Environmental l' Protections 3. Add Low-Impact, Mixed-Use Neighborhoods in Strategic Locations 4. Add Higher Intensity, Mixed-Use Centers in Strategic Locations as Activities will guide engagement participants to identify aspects of each they support. Leigh Anne King said that in alternatives 3 and 4, the strategic location language means that these centers, or neighborhoods would not just go anywhere. Slide #34 i ► • Pill 111111 ' • Policies to Test: ' - Continue with currently adopted FLUM and associated zoning densities - Minor adjustments to _ change to parcel-based map and combine duplicative = = FLUM categories 20 Slide #35 ' tel • ' Policies to Test: Lowering densities to protect priority agricultural, environmental, watershed, and rural lands Assumption that new affordable/denser housing is accommodated within the municipalities - Could also eliminate the Rural Community Activity ■�■ Nodes that are not currently developed Commissioner Hamilton asked for a definition of Rural Community Activity Node. Tom Altieri said that it is land focused on the designated road intersections that serve as a nodal crossroads for the surrounding rural community and is an appropriate location for any of the following uses: church, fire station, small post office, school, or other similar institutional uses and one or more commercial uses. Leigh Anne King said this is a very common thing they do when they work with counties. She said when they update older plans, the communities found the nodes and said it would be a great opportunity. She said that the market has not really met the plan and now the review is more about questioning if the nodes are still in an appropriate location. Tom Altieri said there are 5 of these nodes in the county. He said there are four in the northern portion and one in White Cross. He said that they area a half-mile radius around historic areas in the community with access to transportation. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what would replace them if they are eliminated. Leigh Anne King said usually they revert to whatever is currently surrounding the node. Cy Stober said it would likely rural and agricultural residential. He said that there are also rural neighborhood activity nodes. Tom Altieri said there are about 10 of them. Cy Stober said that in these scenarios, they are pressing hard on levers to show different scenarios. He said that they will likely end up somewhere in between but this is a demonstration to prove a point. He said they are focused primarily on housing and jobs density and locations they would be fated to be over the next 20 years. Slide#36 Focus on creating conservation subdivisions that could include a mix of housing types and possibly neighborhood serving commercial areas - Protect key ecologically valuable areas of site - Will likely require municipal utility services or community systems to serve development Identify locations within County'sjurisdiction proximate to municipalities and outside of WSW critical areas �f - Potential testing of locations in Rural Buffer 21 Commissioner Hamilton asked for definitions of conservation subdivisions and community systems. Leigh Anne King referred to the slide #37. Slide #37 ■W. Conservation S • . • l _ ya' i A proposed A conservation Images courtesy , conventional suhdivisian of Randall Arendt site plan in New Bern. plan for the same site. ter` Cy Stober said community systems are decentralized wastewater systems and community wells. He said that Orange County does not have any decentralized wastewater systems and technology has come a long way. He said that it would be new ground, and Environmental Health would have to be involved. He said a lot of them are state permitted and involved proprietary technology. Slide#38 Focus on maximizing available land that could include a mix of housing types and commercial/employment areas - Protect currently required areas (e.g. RPA) - Will require municipal utility services to serve development; community systems could be an option - Identify locations within County's jurisdiction proximate to municipalities and outside of WSW critical areas ` - Potential testing of locations in Rural Buffer Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if this is the alternative that would impact the diversification of the tax base. Leigh Anne King said that could be quantified based on the square footage of non- residential areas. Cy Stober said yes, this would maximize EDDs throughout the county and fully filling those with municipal partnership. 22 Slide #39 j R ,�Fx Southern Village Slide #40 al Slide #41 �J For#Z (Expand Agricultural and Environmental Protection), should the following be included? Agricultural Preservation Board's plan work l Eno River and New Hope Landscape Plan for Wildlife Habitat Connectivity(ecologically valuable areas) Lands Legacy Program Priorities 1 (There are timing and effort implications to add in these I inputs into modeling.) m 23 Leigh Anne King said they recommended that they look at those plans and especially number 2. She said there is a level of preciseness that they can get to by working with other groups that are working in these areas. She said it is possible to shift the process by getting more detailed information to incorporate but they are not recommending that at this time because these are hypothetical at this point. She said they can come back and look at the underlying data when they are creating the preferred conservation growth framework. She said that she wanted to be clear that they would not be fully incorporating every detail because there are timing issues. Commissioner Richards said that if the final plan was in conflict with one of these plans, she would want to understand that. She said that she understood that the detailed work would not be done at the scenario level but would be done later. Leigh Anne King said that it would be incorporated in the preferred framework. Commissioner Richards said she is interested in where it might conflict. Cy Stober said that can be one of the output tests by showing the level of conflict. Leigh Anne King said they are going to try to avoid conflicts and make things realistic. She said that is their focus. Vice-Chair Greene said she would not want them to get too far ahead of the Agricultural Preservation Board. She said they will hear Piedmont Food Processing Center later and Orange County is largely about agricultural production. She said that in 2017 there were almost$37 million of agricultural products sold in Orange County. Commissioner Fowler said in terms of the connectivity plan a lot relies on the watershed area and hopefully that would prevent too much conflict. She said that it would be nice to try to avoid those. Leigh Anne King said they want to start off with the best that they can so that they are moving forward with something that can happen. Slide #42 : • • •ME"111111FAM ma . ' To stay on schedule, will need any further BOCC inputs by middle of May 2024. 24 Slide #43 .did"err r Slide #44 Next Steps Next Steps • Phase 4 - Develop Plan (Summer 2024): • Draft Plan Framework,Vision,and Goals • Growth and Conservation Framework • Land Use&Development Recommendations Report • Preparation for Community Engagement Window#Z Chair Bedford said she liked having the four alternatives to consider. She said that at one point, she thought about removing the entire rural buffer but that would lead to changes she does not want. She said she disagreed with the rural activity nodes having a lack of market but that it could be water restrictions and the rural buffer that limit. She said that she does not want to have an assumption but would like to find out what could be there, and what it looks like. She said regarding the economic development zone in Efland, she wondered if the zoning or FLUM should be changed there because the sewer was installed but not a lot more. Cy Stober said that the presumption in scenario 4 is the utilization of existing utilities. He said that the City of Mebane just put out a new RFP for a comprehensive land use plan. He said that they have a future growth area, and it goes farther east than their current future growth area. He said they have asked for their GIS file so that it is incorporated into this data. He said they do not have any data or public discussion on what they intend to do with that area. Leigh Anne King said they do not have any guidance to test what they might want to plan for in the areas, but they can look at the current plan and see what makes sense. Chair Bedford said that the Board of Commissioners were divided with the City of Mebane about the area, and it seems there will be the need for more collaboration. 25 Cy Stober said that the adoption of a comprehensive land use plan is intended to drive changes. He said that is usually how it plays out, and how he would prefer it as a planner. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if the Buckhorn Road area would impact the tax base. Cy Stober said yes. He said there has been rapid development in that area that has been served by the city but regulated by the county. He said the alignment of 1-40 and 1-85 in the county is remarkable. He said there is a north-south and east-west corridor and that is remarkable. He said that you do not really see that on the eastern seaboard. He said that Buckhorn Road is highly appealing to the development community. He said that there are also other areas that they have already agreed upon with the City of Mebane. He said that there are no signs of interest slowing. The Board and County Manager agreed for any feedback to be sent to the Clerk to the Board's office by May 15, and the Clerk would send it to the Planning Director. 2. Presentation on Piedmont Food Processing Center Management Services Agreement The Board received information regarding the County's management services agreement with the Piedmont Food Processing Center (PFPC), the state of the shared kitchen spaces, and the food business incubator services. BACKGROUND: At its October 3, 2023 Business Meeting, the Orange County Board of Commissioners approved a one-year contract renewal with the Piedmont Food Processing Center to continue managing a Shared Use Kitchen Incubator in the County facility located at 500 Valley Forge Road, Hillsborough, NC. In 2011, Orange County was one of four county government partners that helped to establish the Piedmont Food and Agriculture Processing Center. The Center has changed names (now Piedmont Food Processing Center), staff and leadership, and scope of services in the past 13 years. The County owns and maintains the facility in which the Piedmont Food Processing Center (PFPC), a North Carolina nonprofit corporation, operates shared kitchen spaces and provides food business incubator services. The County entered into the first management services agreement with PFPC in 2021. The management services agreement approved in October 2023 did not modify any of the provisions of the prior agreement. In follow-up to concerns raised by the Board of Commissioners regarding the management structure, business classification, operations, benefits to Orange County residents and other topics, County Cooperative Extension Director Jonathon Smith and Community & Rural Development Extension Agent Mike Ortosky have since met regularly with PFPC leadership to address ongoing concerns and to identify steps that can be taken to improve operations and accountability between the nonprofit corporation PFPC and Orange County. A presentation will be provided at the meeting with: 1. Clarification on the business classification of Piedmont Food Processing Center 2. Survey results from other Shared Incubator Kitchens operating in North Carolina 3. Suggestions for highlighting and enhancing Orange County-specific impacts 4. A proposal for instituting a future facility management contract that strengthens this public- private partnership and includes measurable goals as well as expected outcomes that benefit County farms and food businesses. Jonathon Smith, the Cooperative Extension Director, introduced the item and made the following presentation: 26 Slide #1 Update on Piedmont Food Processing Center Management Services Agreement Orange County Board of County Commissioners Work Session 4-30-24 1- PIEDMONT ... . ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Slide#2 Introduction of Presenters • Jonathon Smith,Director,Orange County Cooperative Extension • Eric Hallman, Executive Director, Piedmont Food Processing Center • Sue Ellsworth,Manager, Piedmont Food Processing Center • James Watts,Board Chair, Piedmont Food Processing Center • Mike Ortosky, Community&Rural Development Agent,Orange County Cooperative Extension .-4t-T % �1 ORANGE COUNTY - Nc�u nl rnanl 1>un Slide #3 Goals for Tonight • To clarify and improve the working relationship between Orange County Government and Piedmont Food Processing Center(PFPC). • To address BOCC concerns and to improve communication. • To improve processes in order to better support the small business food economy in Orange County. p[EnMONT ORANGE �� COUNTY NC]RTH CA RCII.INA 27 Slide #4 PFPC Historical Timeline (Where We Have Been and Where We Are Now) Piedmont Food Processing Center Time Line PFAP launched with PFAP IRSievokes Y30CC Trc-I 4 County MOU recleves 501{c)3 a roves2 PP IRS 501tcp Status year contract status wlth PFPC PFAP 01}icially - opens PFAP new PFPCwlthdraws anagement 541ts)3appilcatron with P FP 7AM an r12 12alu 94Y17 6A&-A 3AU23 !ZV25 Jonathon Smith said that the appropriate paperwork was not filed to maintain their 501(c)(3) status. He said that after new management took over, they chose to register as a non- profit corporation with the NC Secretary of State, but do not have 501(c)(3) status and are not tax exempt. Slide #5 PIEQMaNT Who is PFPC Reaching? Business Ownership -Race Business Ownership -Gender Non-White White Female 48% Black 30% Note:2023 Data 28 Slide #6 Client Type and Economic Impacts (2023) Client Type 1111, Pi >$2.5 M in RetaitValueCreated (.2311Y >150 Jobs 86 Businesses Incubatedruck >400 Products Launched >300 Companies+6 National Brands Slide #7 Insights from Shared Kitchen Incubator Survey Who owns the facility in which this operation is housed? 10 responses Owned by Management Company r'. �Owned by Cooperative r . r Owned by County Government r, Owned by Regional Council of Govern... Owned by Non profs 501(c)(3) •Owned by Community Colege •Owned by University Privately Owned currently seeking Facility:undetermined Ta be Owned by City Gayemment(City of Sanford) ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAR01 INA 29 Slide #8 Insights from Shared Kitchen Incubator Survey Who manages this incubator kitchen? 10 responses Contracted Management Company(C- corp,5-corp,LLC,...j Cooperative �'. �Non-profit 501(c)(3) �Cooperative Extension Other County Government ver Department S Regional Council of Government Community College University Privately Owned �­1110ft- ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CARCII INA Slide #9 Insights from Shared Kitchen Incubator Survey Types of support Respondents Have Received or are Currently Receiving from Governmental Partners Do you receive any government support for your incubator kitchen? to responses Grants County Government Funding from County Budget �vs No Facilities including maintenance and utility assistance Initial funding from county endowment Funding for equipment purchases ARPA Funding used to help construct a facility. Grants from outside agencies/nonprofits ORANGE COUNTY Jonathon Smith said sustaining food incubators for the long-term is difficult. He said many of the incubators they talked to are young. 30 Slide #10 Insights from Shared Kitchen Incubator Survey Note: For Since your incubator kitchen is located in a county or state-owned facility,do you pay rent? those paying 7 responses rent, Community •Yes Impacts was •NQ stated as one of the main drivers of rate. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Slide #11 Insights from Shared Kitchen Incubator Survey Note:While not all Does this incubator kitchen serve one primary county or does it serve people/businesses from more users sell their products solely in than one county? Orange County, 10 responses their payment of user fees subsidizes •Serves One(1}County Only ongoing operations •Serves Multiple Counties helping PFPC to remain an Orange r County business resource available ® to county residents. i ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 31 Slide #12 Estimated Ongoing Cost to County To Have PFPC in a County Facility • $120,000-140,000 per year(opportunity cost of not charging rent to PFPC) o Estimated$12-141sq ft(Pickett-Sprouse Realtors estimate) • No Capital Improvement Projects have been scheduled for FY25 or FY26. • Capital Improvement Projects Attributed to PFPC Operations Schedule from FY27-FY30 are estimated at$153,173 (In 2021 dollars). All CIP projects are subject to BOCC approval annually. o This number excludes regular facility maintenance projects such as roofing,HVAC,lighting upgrades,and other facility improvements required to maintain the county property. Note: PFPC covers all utilities. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROT INA Slide #13 Functional Goals For Moving Forward • Move to a Facility Management Contact model whereby the County contracts directly with Piedmont Food Processing Center to manage the facility. • A five year Facility Management Contract is optimal for business planning and operations. ORANGE f` COUNTY :VOW f H CAROI INA Jonathon Smith said that the current agreement is vague and more like a renter's contract. He said there are not any deliverables for what PFPC is expected to give to Orange County. He said that he would like the Board's feedback on changing the contract to meet Orange County's needs. 32 Slide #14 �1 Proposals for Improving Future Management Contracts ORANGCOUNT, 1. Provide discounted rates for Orange 3.Offer annual State of Food presentation to report County residents and businesses to on impacts on food economy and demand that use facility. PFPC is addressing. 2. Increase outreach efforts to agriculture community. 4.Conduct outreach meetings with Durham Tech, a. Improve user awareness of Carolina Farm Stewardship Association,Consumer local farm products and Packaged Goods(CPG)Value-Added Courses. encourage sourcing. b. Offer 2-3 courses annually in S.Increase outreach in community by supporting NC cooperation with Cooperative Farm School,Ag Summit,Young Chef competitions,and outreach to high Extension for farmers to help schools. them better understand how to access and use PFPC as a 6.Continue to work closely with area farmers resource for value-added markets. products. 7.Provide regular impact reports to Orange County Government as defined by contract. Slide #15 State and Federal Resources Available to Possibly Support �~ ORANGE PFPC Business Planning And Growth COUNTY NflRTl1 CA RfII 1NA 1. NO State Extension Food Business 5. Economic Development Partnership of North Carolina Resources And Staff A. Can assist with raising funds for existing a. Nick Fragedakis, Program Director business. and Acidified Foods Process Authority 6. Noah Ranells,NO Farml Director,IWC State Extension b. Chris Pennell, Research Associate 7, NC State Department of Food,Bloprocessing and Nutrition c. Allison Sain,Extension Associate Sciences Safety Programs d. Ann Zielinski, Extension Associate 2. Tom White,Director,Economic A. Dr.Clinton Stevenson,Associate Professor Development Partnership, NO State's B. Dr.Lynette Johnston,Assistant Professor and Office of External Affairs,Partnerships Food Safety Extension Specialist and Economic Development 8. NC State Department of Agricultural and Resource 3. NO Department Of Agriculture & Economics Business Development Resources and Staff Consumer Services Food&Drug Protection Division 9. NC A&T State University Urban&Community Food Complex(corning in 2025) 4. Small Business&Technology Development Center 33 Slide #16 Thank you! ORANGE COUNTY PIEDMONT NORTH CAROLINA Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if there are other management agreements with other entities and if this recommended agreement is consistent with those. Bonnie Hammersley said what is being recommended is to model a management agreement similar to the agreement the county has for the Sportsplex. She said the county owns the PFPC facility, just like how the county owns the Sportsplex. Jonathon Smith said that there may be some aspects that are like rental agreements, but there should be clear and defined goals. He said the areas of responsibility have been unclear since the beginning. He said for example, some commissioners asked if the goal would be to start fresh and define the expectations. He said that that they are a non-profit corporation and have their own by-laws, like any business would have. He said that the county could clarify the relationship and let them run the facility. He said that other folks could be removed if they are not a stakeholder. Commissioner Fowler said that the recommendations seem very responsive to previous commissioner comments. She said that she understands the comments about needing outside users. She said a small discount for Orange County residents would be beneficial so that Orange County does have a benefit from it. She said she loved the concept, but she thought it was important to have a more organized structure and find ways that both the county and PFPC could benefit. She said it does not make sense for Durham County to have positions on the PFPC board given that they do not have any other involvement. Jonathon Smith said one of the things they have talked about with the County Manager's department and they are also now doing food insecurity work. He said that Cooperative Extension would be involved on behalf of the county. Commissioner Hamilton thanked Jonathon Smith for his presentation. She said when looking at the data, she would like more details about the incubators in other counties. She wondered about some of the economic opportunities in those counties. She asked if this is something that county government should be doing, similar to the Sportsplex. She said that the county has limited resources and could use the maintenance funds for other uses. She said that if there is a management contract, they would have to treat it similarly to the Sportsplex and see if there are other management options. She asked if county government should be doing this. Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she took a tour of the facility and met with one of the business owners there who expressed their appreciation for PFPC. She said that over half of the businesses there are minority-owned. She said there is also a lot of vacant commercial spaces now that are not being utilized, and she would not want the county's facility to also sit vacant. Vice-Chair Greene said she appreciated the work they do and she also appreciates the presentation and the responses. She said in terms of investment, forgoing rent each year and achieving more retail value, then it is very powerful economic development. She said she is not 34 sure why they would want someone else to operate the facility when they have strong leadership. She said she looks forward to considering a draft of the five-year contract. Commissioner Richards said it was helpful to know what other counties are doing with incubators. She said she believed it was a helpful economic development tool. She said she was pleased to see the partnership with Cooperative Extension. She said the return on investment was amazing. She thanked the members of PFPC for their responsiveness to their questions and comments. She said having a five-year contract provides some continuity of business so that they can continue to do more extensive planning with Cooperative Extension and Economic Development. Chair Bedford asked if Article 46 sales tax is used for the capital needs of the facility. Bonnie Hammersley said yes. Chair Bedford said that is important. She said that even though she did not think tax dollars should be used to support a for-profit business when it does not happen in other industries but it was clear that she is the only one that thinks that way. She said that is why she volunteered to be on the board and help ensure their success. She said that many of the incubators are newer and are based on the work PFPC has done. She said that it may be better to use the contract to benefit Orange County residents, rather than having a majority of PFPC members to be from Orange County. She said that because it is a private company, the county does not really have a say-so on the board positions. Commissioner Hamilton asked why other counties did not participate in the PFPC. Bonnie Hammersley said initially it was thought to make the facility regional to attract grants, and that there would be funding from other counties. She said she asked those counties in 2015, and they declined. Jonathon Smith asked Mike Ortosky, an Orange County Extension Agent for Community and Rural Development, to provide more information. Mike Ortosky said that in a private business, the board is there to inform the business. He said these are remnants from that interlocal agreement. He said if it is going to be clarified, this is the perfect time to clean up the board membership for the benefit of the company. Vice-Chair Greene said she agreed. She said that when she was on the board, there were several members from Durham County who were strong members. Chair Bedford said she supported Cooperative Extension being the manager of the contract. Bonnie Hammersley said that is a management decision and will be discussed if supported by the Board. Chair Bedford said that the PFPC board is meeting regularly and that they completed the evaluation of the executive director. She said that the board's previous lack of activity was a real concern to her. Commissioner Richards asked how long it would take to draft a management contract. Chair Bedford said one thought she had was to give them a 6-month extension if necessary while the contract was being developed. Bonnie Hammersley said that she thought an initial draft could be brought back in September. She said the Finance department can do that and they do not need to hire anyone to look at those items. She said it could be an addendum that does not tie anyone's hands. Commissioner Richards said it could take a while, so she liked the idea of an extension giving everyone a chance to review. Chair Bedford asked if there is a law about when a contract has to go to bid. John Roberts said not in this type of situation. Commissioner Hamilton said it would be helpful to know about the other counties and what they are subsidizing. Jonathon Smith said they could research that information. 35 Chair Bedford said that Sue Ellsworth, Manager of PFPC, had an online class of how to start a food business. Mike Ortosky said he agreed and that the PFPC staff are providing a lot of information and value to other incubators. He said that he is excited that extension is involved, because they can provide a lot of value to the vendors. Eric Hallman, Executive Director of PFPC, thanked Jonathon Smith for working with PFPC. Sue Ellsworth thanked the Board members who were able to visit PFPC. She said she is excited about their work with Cooperative Extension. James Watts, Chair of the PFPC Advisory Board, thanked the Board of Commissioners. 3. Advisory Board on Aging —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments to the Advisory Board on Aging. BACKGROUND: The Advisory Board on Aging suggests policy and makes recommendations to the Board of Commissioners and the Department on Aging while acting as the liaison between older adults of the County and County government. It is charged with promoting needed services, programs, and funding that impacts older residents. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all twelve (12) members. The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Dr. Jeff Charles Chapel Hill Town Second Full Term 06/30/2027 Limits Ann Bradford Carrboro Town Limits First Full Term 06/30/2027 (reappointment) Sandy Walker At-Large Second Full Term 06/30/2027 Jonathan Wilner At-Large Partial Term 06/30/2025 Shahnaz GiGi At-Large Partial Term 06/30/2025 Rashdi If the individuals listed above are appointed, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus on the recommended applicants. 4. Arts Commission —Appointment Discussion The Board discussed an appointment to the Arts Commission. BACKGROUND: The Arts Commission recommends strategies to promote the artistic and cultural growth of Orange County, advises the Board of Commissioners on matters involving the arts, and acts as the granting panel for funding programs available to individual artists and non- profit groups sponsoring arts projects in Orange County. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all fifteen (15) At-Large members. 36 The following individual is recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Alexa Velez At-Large First Full Term 03/31/2027 If the individual listed above is appointed, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus on the recommended applicant. 5. Board of Health —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments to the Board of Health. BACKGROUND: The Board of Health makes policy and is charged with protecting and promoting public health in Orange County. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all eleven (11) members with representation from specific health-related professions and the general public. The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration: NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Keith Bagby At-Large Third Full Term 06/30/2027 BOCC Appointee Dr. Bruce Optometrist Third Full Term 06/30/2027 Baldwin Dr. Alison At-Large Second Full Term 06/30/2027 Stuebe BOCC Appointee Tony Whitaker Professional Engineer Second Full Term 06/30/2027 If the individuals listed above are appointed, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus on the recommended applicants. 6. Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee -Appointment Discussion The Board discussed an appointment to the Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND: The Carrboro Northern Transition Area Advisory Committee will review zoning amendment requests, special/conditional use permit applications for developments within the Northern Transition Area of Carrboro; make recommendations to the Carrboro Board of Adjustment or Carrboro Town Council; inventory areas of cultural, archaeological, historical significance; areas of open space, rural character, scenic qualities, biological values; areas of agricultural uses; and make recommendations based on the above studies for additional policies, 37 goals, etc. that will preserve and enhance the special character of this area, and relate to its growth. The Board of County Commissioners appoints three (3) members representing the Northern Transition Area. The following individual is recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Anahid Vrana Northern Transition Fourth Full Term 02/28/2027 Area BOCC A ointee If the position listed above is filled, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. She said that Carrboro's advisory board policy allows for exceptions to term limits due to lack of applicants or to increase diversity. She said in this case, it is because of a lack of applicants. The Board agreed by consensus on the recommended applicant. 7. Orange County Housing Authority Board —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments to the Orange County Housing Authority Board. BACKGROUND: The goal of the Orange County Housing Authority Board is to provide decent, safe, and sanitary housing for the low- and moderate-income families in the County. Due to the nature of its work, the Housing Authority Board does not make recommendations for appointments. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all seven (7) members. The following terms of current members need corrections: NAME POSITION TYPE OF CORRECT DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT EXPIRATION TERM DATE Jana E. At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2027 Murdock- Doherty Jenn Sykes At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2027 The following individuals and positions are presented for Board consideration: 38 NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Eva Weatherly- At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2029 Rosner BOCC At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2029 Appointment BOCC At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2029 Appointment If the positions listed above are filled, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to correct the term limits for Jana E. Murdock-Doherty and Jenn Sykes. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Eva Weatherly-Rosner to an At-Large appointment. Chair Bedford said one applicant resided in Alamance County and asked why they were able to apply. Tara May said it was because the applicant was a participant in a program. She said she would double check the rules. Chair Bedford suggested Othlone McCalla and Victoria Hudson for the remaining At-Large positions. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Othlone McCalla and Victoria Hudson to the two At-Large positions. 8. Orange County Parks and Recreation Council —Appointment Discussion The Board discussed an appointment to the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Parks and Recreation Council consults with and advises the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation, and the Board of County Commissioners on matters affecting parks planning, development and operation; recreation facilities, policies and programs; and public trails and open space. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all twelve (12) members with representatives from each of the County's townships plus its municipalities, as well as two (2) non-voting youth delegates. The following individual is recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION DESCRIPTION TYPE OF EXPIRATION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Allen Parker Cheeks Township First Full Term 03/31/2027 If the individual listed above is appointed, the following vacancy remains: 39 POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION DESIGNATION DATE Little River 03/31/2026 Vacant since 08/18/2023 Township Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus on the recommended applicant. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler and seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to enter in to closed session at 9:25 p.m. for the purposes listed below: "To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the attorney client privilege between the attorney and the public body regarding the national prescription opiate litigation, 1:17-MD-2804, and Thompson v. Orange County," NCGS § 143- 318.11(a)(3). VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to reconvene into regular session at 9:53 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to adjourn the meeting at 9:53 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Laura Jensen Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.