Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09-10-2024 - Work Session I APPROVED 10/15/24 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION September 10, 2024 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, September 10, 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: None. COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Travis Myren, Interim Deputy County Manager Caitlin Fenhagen, 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. 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 April 30, 2024 work session, the BOCC received a presentation with an update on completed project deliverables and progress towards the development of land use alternatives to be used to test and explore policy options for the new Plan. The work session provided an opportunity for the Board to ask questions and offer input for refining land use alternatives prior to the upcoming community engagement window. Agenda materials from this work session can be viewed at: http://server3.co.orange.nc.us:8088/WebLink/0/doc/72384/Page1.aspx All deliverables are also made available to the public on the project website, "Resources" tab: https://www.orangecountylanduseplan.com Tonight's presentation from Clarion will include a briefing on the development and preliminary findings of four (4) modelled land use alternatives. Much of the information to be presented can be found in a recently completed project deliverable, the"Land Use Alternatives Report", available at the following link: https://www.orangecountylanduseplan.com/resources Community Engagement Window #2 (three total) — A series of public workshops and targeted community meetings will provide opportunities for community members to participate and share their reactions to the four alternatives. Community reactions to various aspects of the alternatives will inform an eventual single map, the Conservation and Growth Framework (also known as a "Future Land Use Map"), which will be an important part of the overall Land Use Plan. The public survey period, including online surveys, will launch on September 18, 2024 and close on November 3, 2024. Two (2) surveys will be offered, in short-form and long-form versions, to provide options for participation and increase online participation. Two Public Workshops are scheduled as follows: 2 3 Wednesday, September 25, 2024, 6:00pm —7:30pm Gravelly Hill Middle School Auditorium, 4801 W Ten Rd., Efland Thursday, October 3, 2024, 6:00pm — 7:30pm, American Legion Post 6, 3700 NC Highway 54, Chapel Hill County Planning staff has been tabling at area community events such as Efland-Cheeks Community Center Back to School, Festival Latino Americano in Carrboro, and others. This work will continue until early November and is to promote interest and collect input via surveys. Planning staff is also working directly with community organizations and leaders to host community meetings for reaching populations that have traditionally been underrepresented in Orange County land use planning. The Clarion team will be assisting Planning staff with the facilitation of meetings and Planning staff is partnering with meeting hosts to distribute invitations and encourage participation among respective communities. This is a different approach than that which was used during Community Engagement Window#1, which featured fewer meetings and less Planning staff involvement. Additional information is provided in Attachment A. A PowerPoint presentation will be provided at the meeting. Tom Altieri, Senior Planner, introduced the item and the presenters Leigh Anne King and Emily Gvino of Clarion Associates. Leigh Anne King made the following the presentation: Slide #1 1*4 M� September 1 2024 • • ♦ PLAN BOCC 2050 CLARION 4 Slide #2 Agenda• Project Status • Land Use Alternatives: • Purpose and intent • How they are defined • Outcomes of modeling • Collecting feedback • Next Steps Slide #3 Project Process oeleo I'll, 'zovv 5el thesla Collect Evaluate Creme Orak Adopt Plan 9e Community Existing Vision and Goals & Inputs Conditions & Callen Test Land use Stakeholder 8` & Alternatives Inputs t7efine New Planning & Issues and Influences o.ak aad Opportunities tinalire Plan Slide #4 Purpose of Land Use Alternatives Identify the areas Define and explore Evaluate the Collect and use where the potential land use impacts those Community community might alternatives changes could feedback to inform want to see through yield using development of the Chang e, hypothetical modeled outcomes. plan policies modeling exercises. needed to support the desired outcomes. 5 Slide #5 • Formal recommendations for new policies • They are hypothetical land use policy options to evaluate through mapping analysis and discuss as part of community engagement activities. • A recommended new future land use map (FLUM) • They are policy options to evaluate and inform development # of the new 20SO Land Use Plan's FLUM.The new FLUM could be a hybrid of different aspects of the alternatives. Chair Bedford asked how long it will take to change the future land use map. Perdita Holtz, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning, said a new future land use map will part of the comprehensive plan, which may be adopted in December 2025. She said there would not be a separate process. Slide #6 How LU Alternatives will be used... Refine Plan Goals and Policies Adjust Future • � Land Use Map Develop and Feedback �- Model from BOCC - Alternatives Briefing and - Public Engagement - Slide #7 Basic Steps of Land Use Alternatives Exercise 1. Identify key question to answer with land use alternatives. 2. Start from current Future Land Use Map(FLUM)and policies.Update to current policy context. 3. Develop and model hypothetical future policy alternatives for unincorporated Orange County and assess outcomes. 4. Share outcomes with County leadership and residents and gather feedback on support for future alternatives. AswrrdoNon Neat RrraJ prekrred Gmu?h a�Canservahcn Framework(FI UMJ yae a rombiuN'arr afpoliry the Yrons from Nrese altemaNver 6 Slide #8 ContextDefining Land Use ■ Initial Current 0AIternatives Community Technical Future Feedback Analysis Land Use[strareg�[w CEw x,,and PoliciesStakeholder Interviews Slide #9 Refresher on Key Question Derived from Public Engagement FeedbackT ,, Which aspects of the Poect C,Paal Wa e.afied Away antl Open Spaces antl Pieserre land use alternatives best achieve the balance of sustainable CULTIVATE development in Orange SUSTAINABLE 77 .. County? 0 Slide #10 Start from Current Policies Baseline Alternative with Policy Updates Enhance Agricultural Low-Impact Rural Mixed-Use Centers Conservation ,— 0 and Environmental and New Employment protections Neighborhoods and New in strategic Locations m Employment in Strategic Cnntin—C.,-rent Pol,nes Ln:alior's Regarding slide #10, Chair Bedford asked if by "employment" Leigh Anne King meant jobs. 7 Leigh Anne King said yes, it refers to opportunities for employment development. She said this is an opportunity to test how much capacity could be created or reduced, based on these alternatives. She said options 3 and 4 have the same strategic employment component. Slide #11 Environmentally Sensitive Areas 7T For all"new'"alternatives, avoided adding more dense or thin._. • Critical water supply watersheds • Voluntary Agricultural Districts(VAD)and Enhanced(EVAD) I n the ex'erit practical,avoideLi adding more dense or intensive d ., Protected water supply Enhance Agricultural Low-Impart Aural Mixed-Use Centers watersheds and Environmental Conservation and New Employment • Conservation corridors Protections Neighborhoods andNew in Strategic Locations m ( Employment in Strategic Eno/New Hope Habitat] ocations Slide #12 LandUse Classifications Updated ClaSSifiLations for Hypothetical Land Use Alternatives Mixed Use Center Low Density Neighborhood Urbanizing Residential Rural Activity Node Rural Conservation Neighborhood Rural Residential Rural Buffer 8 Slide #13 Baseline Alternative #1 Baseline Altemative with Policy Updates Updates: • Refined palette of land use classifications • Reflect Hillsborough's new Comprehensive Plan and study area for Mebane's forthcoming plan • Update to include Blackwood Station as Rural Node(bring into alignment with Joint Planning • _ Agreement,Rural Node as subcategory of Rural Buffer) Continue Current Policies Slide #14 Baseline Alternative #1 Maintain current densities for land use categories in unincorporated areas Land Use Alternative 1 City Limits ETJ JPA Economic Development Area Rural Activity Node Rural Buffer Rural Residential Low Density Neighborhood III!urbanizing Residential Slide #15 Alternative Agricultural s Environmental Protections Focus on protecting priority agricultural,environmental, watershed,and rural lands Would lower densities for all B?s��in• residential areas(except Urbanizing Residential and Lower Density Altematllve * Residentlaq Would limit the extent of new housing opportunities in unincorporated Orange County through more restrictive residential density Folio- Wou Id not require changes to Enhance Agricultural water/wastewater policies;users and Environmental would rely on individual well and Protections septic systems Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked about the third bullet point on slide #15. She asked if it was correct that this alternative would limit the extent of new housing opportunities more than the county currently does. 9 Leigh Anne King said yes. Commissioner McKee asked if there was any consideration on the impact to lower-income residents by limiting opportunities for housing. Leigh Anne King said that these alternatives are only for discussion purposes, they are not recommendations. Commissioner McKee said that by discussing the alternatives it would raise a lot of concerns. Vice-Chair Greene said that she would not support lowering density. She said that the community would not support that. She said that as far as she could recall, the last time it was done was decades ago to create the Cane Creek water supply, and it created hurt feelings. She said that her preference is that this not be an option to bring to the community. Chair Bedford said unless the consultants use it as an extreme example as something they are not going to do. Leigh Anne King said there was a lot of community feedback for protecting priority areas, so they created an alternative that explored doing more conservation. She said everything has tradeoffs. Commissioner Richards said she was glad to see it as an alternative. She said she reviewed the survey results from a previous year and said the number one reason people said they moved to Orange County was for the open space. She said having that alternative is helpful for people to understand the implications and tradeoffs from a practical standpoint. She said it is also helpful for residents to understand that this alternative also involves more wells and septic tanks. Commissioner Fowler said that this discussion isn't happening in a vacuum and if the towns are building up while the county conserves land, we could end up with more housing. Leigh Anne King said it is helpful to remember that these alternatives are for unincorporated areas. Slide #16 EnvironmentalProtections Lower residential densities for majority of lands in unincorporated areas Land Use Alternative 2 City Limits ET] JPA .Economic Development Area _ Rural Activity Node Rural Buffer Rural Residential ■ei Low Density ��^^• Neighborhood Urbanizing Residential 10 Slide #17 Alternative #3: Rural Conservation Neighborhoods • Would require Rural Conservation Neighborhoods in strategic locations Would require that Rural Conservation Neighborhoods permanently protect 60%of site prioritizing key areas(farm, Baseline ecological areas,hahitat)in trade for ltemati V�@ higher-density housing tU Would offer the potential for a mix o1 housing types and neighborhood- scale commercial in un'inmrporated J areas Would support expansion of Buckhom Economic Development Low-Impact Rural District south of West Ten Road n Conservation Nei hborhoods m 9 Would require explicit polity to allow and New Employment in for community systems(water and Strategic Locations wastewater) Leigh Anne King said that this alternative would require allowing community wastewater and water systems. Vice-Chair Greene said the county's policy does not restrict those types of systems, but they are very expensive. Slide #18 ■ — Imagesc to yy of Randali Arendt Convenlional Neighborhood Rural Conservation Neighborhood Slide #19 Alternative #3: Rural Conservation Neighborhoods Rural Conservation Neighborhoods and Economic Development Areas in strategic locations Land Use Alternative 3 teary emits �E17 ]PA -Etarromr Development Nee _ r Rumal Activity Node Rura Ru(fer '°""' -Rural Conservation Neighbwlwotl Rural Resltlent;al Low bensity Neighborhood ��....x Unuiniring Residential 11 Commissioner Richards asked if this alternative would expand the Buckhorn Economic Development district farther than it currently stands. Leigh Anne King said yes. Commissioner Hamilton asked what water and wastewater community systems means. Leigh Anne King said most developments are on private well and septic in the county. She said well and septic is not suitable for more intense developments. She said community systems are private water and wastewater systems that are only for specific developments. Commissioner Hamilton asked if there needs to be a policy change or is the barrier the cost. Perdita Holtz said in the 2010s there was a requirement removed from the development regulations that required a special use permit for community systems. She said they are expensive systems, but there may be a misconception that they are still not allowed. Commissioner Hamilton said it may be more an issue of education for the community. Commissioner McKee said that there are many community systems in Wake County. Vice-Chair Greene said her understanding of water and wastewater community systems is that they are better than they used to be. Commissioner McKee said they are essentially micro-municipal utilities that are limited to the development project. Chair Bedford said that the community then hires a company to manage the community system. She said that they are learning that they need to do more education in the community. Tom Altieri said there are some community water systems, but there is not an example of a conservation subdivision that incorporates both a community water system and a community wastewater system. He said the closest example is the Fiddlehead Corners development proposal which has gone to the Planning Board. Slide #20 Alternative #4: Mixed Use Centers Would allow two areas to provide higher-density,mixed-use developments Would support expansion of Buckhorn Economic Development BiIS!(Ili1! y� District south of West Ten Road Altemative Mixed Use Centers to he located adjacent to municipalities to increase the feasihilityfor extension of public water and wastewater utilities Would require changes to waterlwastowatarpolicles to allow Allow Mixed-Use Centers and for expansion of public water and New Employment in Strategic sewer systems to these sites Locations 12 Slide #21 r v Southern Village Slide #22 Alternative #4: Mixed Use Centers 7T ® New Mixed Use Centers and Economic Development Areas in strategic locations Land Use Alternative 4 City Limits ET] IPA -Economic t}evelopment . Area _ L Mixed Use Center Rural Activity Node Rural Buffer tea_ �RuraIResidential m Low Density � Neighborhood "�"� �Urbanizing Residential 13 Slide #23 It Outcomes of Alternatives Conservation Residential Nonresidential Land Capacity Capacity requiredTotal amount of Residential Nonresidential land development development . be capacity capacity protectedconserved as if all lands either in unincorporated if permanently Orange County all lands in open were to bp un�ncorporatpcl space or as part developed. •"County of private rural were to be lots if all lands developi?d. were to bo developed Slide #24 • • mes: Conservation Land 7T Alternative#1 74,589 Alternative#2 74,589 Alternative#3 75.827 Alternative#4 73,947 { M000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 70,000 80,000 Acres of Conservation Lands Leigh Anne King said that Alternatives #1 and #2 result in the same conserved acreage amount. She said Alternative #3 has more because of the conservation because of the 60% requirement that was applied. She said Alternative #4 had less because it is building out more of the land. Chair Bedford asked how many total acres there are in unincorporated Orange County. Leigh Anne King said it depends on how you want to calculate acreage. Chair Bedford said it would be helpful to know what percentage of the county is being conserved. Leigh Anne King said for Alternatives #1 and #2, it is roughly 33%. She said that total acres in the land use classification is 216,593, which is on page 26 of the report. 14 Slide #25 ■ • mes: Residential Capacity Alternative#'1 46,669 PJternative M2 38366 Alternative*3 49.4 T 7 Alternat-F4 48,860 9 T0,001) 20,00❑ 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,0❑0 Number of Dwelling Units Commissioner Hamilton asked for clarification on residential capacity. She asked if this reflects new capacity or new plus existing capacity. Leigh Anne King said it is new capacity. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if dwelling units considers the number of beds. Leigh Anne King said that was not part of this analysis. Slide #26 Outcomes: Nonresidential Capacity Alternative#1 59,179,789 Alternative#2 69,179,789 Alternative#3 81226,184 Alternative#4 87,995,297 0 10A0❑A00 209❑❑.000 30.000,000 40,OOg000 50,000,❑00 60.000,❑00 70,00❑,O❑0 80,000,000 90,000,❑❑0 100,000,000 Square feet of Nonresidential Capacity Chair Bedford asked for clarification of non-residential capacity. Leigh Anne King said it is square footage of development that is non-residential, such as stores, shops, commercial buildings, etc. She said it is looking at land capacity. Commissioner McKee said it is approximately 2,000 acres. 15 Slide #27 Itk Comparison of Outcomes Alternative#2 Alternative#3 Alternative#4 1 nc reasi ng protedi o n o( high-value environmental, Wdium Medium Low agricultural,and rural lands I nc reasi ng a(fo rda 61e housing or increase housing Low High Medium stock I nc reasi ng po ten li a I to r transit use in unincorporated LOW Medium High Orange County ReducingVMTsorreducing Medium Low Medium greenhouse gases Creating new employment opportunities in Low Mediurn High unincorporated areas Chair Bedford asked that the word affordable be removed from the comparison, because she did not want the county to make that kind of promise and not be able to deliver. Commissioner McKee said he does not envision affordable housing occurring in the commercial sector. Commissioner Richards said it will not happen at a large scale. Leigh Anne King said they can focus on increasing housing stock in the alternatives. Slide #28 t, eChniCa Re port {•�} IDocuments the methodology, llanalysis, and outcomes. VIC Available online: https:llwww.crangecountylanduseplan.com/resources 16 Slide #29 EngagementCommunity . . Testing Land Use Alternatives Please join us at the following events: Wednesday,September 25th Thursday,October 3 6:00 pm-7:30 pm 6:00 pm-7:30 pm Gravelly Hill Middle School American Legion Post 6 4801 W Ten Rd,Efland,NC 27243 3700 NC-54,Chapel Hill,NC 27516 In addition,Orange County Planning staff is working directly with community representatives to host targeted community meetings. Commissioner McKee noted that Alternative #1 was not in the comparison of outcomes table. Leigh Anne King said that Alternative #1 is no change, so the other three reflect a change from #1. Commissioner McKee said that there might be questions on where remaining the same might rank. Leigh Anne King said they did not do an analysis of how the county is doing today. Commissioner Richards said the quantitative information would be helpful for making comparisons. Commissioner Hamilton said that they might consider putting in Alternative #1 and describing it as "baseline." Slide #30 �r22 Community Engagement tir1GAGE�,j��T 0 4 f j' A 17 Slide #31 Community • • CHOICES FOR OUR FUTURE @ LAND USE ALTERNATIVES @CHOICES FOR OUR FUTURE WhI is the OAange County land the Plan 20507 5­✓ere ienc PAe Ar—e: wna.,M aa.w.w�l.,�d u..rA�msor MMMMM on-a m.�.eaa am mwroecl.rw �wpw wa+lr. m.e.ra..Iwenan�..r ur.wnMn..«n.0 enirn e,waa an. XeWenrwM MWd-uw GyenN Aa�aaw oatwnda..anA orwe..l.o deeAaemiu.caewn�:mntr nveeASAm�Ar Nppypq lX�ellpru AAMeyc 4an4w eerbweow in omq.tnunyA w yry aA n.. .�..�+waawx.xw,'•w -.iw ,....,r.,...r.��. .............r.--',.,�....-.., -..., ...,i. .. rewamm Aww�r"-.'4 M.�,o-�.w Ho,e C-IIPorllcip.le Tod.l •,. - 4: Navealew minulei3 .,. '°""""•'°' nos.. �...u.e,arwaw..w. A e :__...,...�eea Plea Ae cemplele ens tr ow A.n 'u bash Ah.AI surveys IN " }hls QY code o,paper Q-.- l e AbeW! M1 Anemellw vow pee tOPles Prpvded. -. - - �� rvr..v nc-•••••••'.o.n �- .. Sr AortlwAeetl - xeeeAaAele9 o�.e wardb lessees M]ue.Me ne ccede be ew la Nan mare � _. - A 41iN Aim Slide #32 Y - Community AITEWINAINTO q�"� COWINVE CVAMEW POVCICS e ..e e' N&GHBOR"DOM TRUEGtE LOCARONS CENTERS IN STRATEGIC LOCATIONS 18 Slide #33 Community Engagement LAND USE ALTIERNAIVES: LAND USE ALTER NAMES oDRAFT Slide #34 Community Engagement SHARE YOUR FEEDBACN� E%IT OIIESTEDMNAIRE wm�la�san n.�Gqu iH cas w.qip s A short survey and a song survey are available for the convenience of participants. Voluntary exit questionnaires can provide self-reported data. 19 Slide #35 Commissioner Richards asked if calibrating with the Mebane and Hillsborough plans impact the economic development districts and activity and industrial transition nodes that the county currently has. Tom Altieri said there were relatively small reductions around the Hillsborough fringe. He said on the Mebane side it would be an expansion. Commissioner Richards asked if the economic development district maps would be updated. Tom Altieri said that the next step would be to prepare a single draft future land use map. He said that would be part of the draft plan for the third and final engagement window. He said they would be looking to home in on what those economic development districts would look like. Commissioner Hamilton said she would like to see the impact of these alternatives on equity. She said they should know if some of these alternatives are disproportionately affecting communities. Leigh Anne King said that as they begin looking at the future land use map that will be an opportunity to get more finely grained on what areas are we potentially talking policy change and having more specific discussions with the Board of Commissioners. She said that it has been a higher-level, broad-brush test, and this will be pared down and more detailed. She described a tool that is being used by Buncombe County to analyze development proposals. Vice-Chair Greene asked if Clarion Associates coordinated with Chapel Hill and Carrboro and their land use plans. Leigh Anne King said they were assumed as part of the land use alternatives. She said they assumed that joint planning areas that have been defined will continue to be as current policy is today. She said they focused on unincorporated areas. Commissioner Fowler asked if there were plans for better community engagement in the Blackwood Station area. Tom Altieri said there is not currently a meeting scheduled in the Blackwood Station area. He said that they are trying to move meetings around. Commissioner Fowler said that the community needs to be educated about this. Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she would be interested in how diverse the attendance will be at the proposed meetings. She suggested having representatives from the non-profit and for-profit housing partners. Tom Altieri said they are working with housing partners, but not specifically for the current workshops. He said they are planning to host smaller community meetings during the next engagement window and will rely on housing partners to notify members. 20 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if they have been receptive to participating. Tom Altieri said they have found some community leaders who were willing to assist. Chair Bedford asked if previous attendees would receive notifications. Tom Altieri said that over 200 people have signed up to receive notifications, in addition to advisory board networks and the work done by the Community Relations Department. Perdita Holtz noted that Tom Altieri has worked very hard to cultivate new relationships with populations the county has not previously worked with. 2. Discussion on Orange County Outside Agencies Application, Scoring and Funding Process The Board discussed the current Outside Agencies funding process to ensure the County's Strategic Goals and Objectives are prioritized and that the application and scorecard incorporate the Strategic Plan and the County's priority needs. BACKGROUND: At the June 4, 2024 Business meeting, Board of Commissioners` Chair Jamezetta Bedford submitted a petition requesting that the Board review the Outside Agencies funding process to align it more directly with the County's priorities and the Strategic Plan and Objectives. Currently, Outside Agencies apply for funding from Orange County using a joint funding application created by the County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. The Outside Agencies process begins in late October/early November with a kick-off orientation hosted by the County and Towns for the agencies explaining the application process and requirements. Attachment A is the application used for the FY 2024-25 funding process. (Please note that the attached application is a hard copy version of the online application that is available in the Open.gov portal on the Town of Chapel Hill's website.) Upon receipt of the applications in mid-January, the County Manager's office distributes applications to assigned Department Directors for review and evaluation. The County Manager requests that the County's scorecard be completed by the Department Director (and any applicable review boards) prior to individual agency meetings with the Manager in mid-March. The current scorecard used by Orange County is provided at Attachment B. Currently, the same scorecard is used for new agencies and those that have received prior funding. The towns utilize their own scorecards. The County Manager, Business Officer/Outside Agencies Coordinator Melissa Allison and the assigned Department Director meet with each agency that has applied for a brief presentation. The towns jointly host their own agency presentations to their advisory boards and town staff. Following the County Manager presentations, the scorecards are reviewed, finalized and submitted to the Manager for the final funding recommendations. Following Board of Commissioners` adoption of the Budget in June, the assigned Department Directors (or their designees) are responsible for formalizing the funding agreements with the agencies beginning at the start of the next fiscal year. Directors (or their designees) receive and review quarterly outcome forms and ensure quarterly payments to the agencies. The Outcomes Form is provided at Attachment C. The current application, scorecard and outcomes form do not reference the County's Strategic Plan and Objectives. 21 County Manager's office staff have discussed possible changes to the application, scorecard and quarterly outcomes form that would require agencies to indicate which Strategic Goals and Objectives would be met by the agencies and ensure the applications are evaluated for addressing priority County needs. In addition, staff could ensure performance measures are in place that track these goals and objectives. The County's Strategic Plan Manager, Kelly Guadeloupe, would consult on these changes, and moving forward would be included in the presentations by the agencies along with Melissa Allison and the assigned Department Director. These three County staff members would complete the scorecards for submittal to the County Manager for final funding recommendations. The need to have a separate scorecard for new agencies which does not lower their score for prior outcomes and results has also been disussed. The County Manager would make the final funding recommendations with a formula that prioritizes the highest scoring for new and exisiting agencies that align with County strategic goals and needs. Caitlin Fenhagen introduced the item and made the following presentation: Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Outside Agencies Application, Scoring and Funding Process Board of Commissioners Work Session September 10, 2024 22 Slide #2 Background for Discussion June 4, 2024 Petition by Chair Bedford ■ Align Outside Agencies Funding Process with County Strategic Plan and Objectives ■ Review Application and Scorecard to Ensure Agencies Evaluated on County's Priority Needs • Discuss Changes to Process ORANGE COUNTY 2 NORTH CAROLINA Slide #3 Background on Current Process • Kick-off Meeting led by Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro staff in late October/early November with interested agencies. • County and Towns use a common funding application. Chapel Hill and Carrboro have a special section for their applicants which includes Specific Strategic Objectives and Performance Indicators for their towns. Orange County does not. • O &A sessions held for applicants November—January • Applications due Mid-January • County uses its own Application Scorecard for evaluators • County Manager, relevant Department Director, and Manager's Business Officer/Outside Agencies Coordinator meet with every applicant agency for up to 30 minutes. Chapel Hill and Carrboro host a separate joint presentation meeting with each applicant agency • County Scorecards submitted to County Manager for final funding recommendations to present in Budget. ORANGE COUNTY 3 NORTH CAROLINA 23 Slide #4 Communication with the Towns • Chapel Hill, Carrboro and County Outside Agency/Human Services coordinators meet regularly throughout the year • Chapel Hill and Carrboro are considering revisions to their processes • Chapel Hill and Carrboro coordinators have been briefed on potential changes to the County process ORANGE COUNTY 4 NORTH CAROLINA Slide #5 Possible Changes to Consider • Inclusion of Orange County Strategic Goals and Objectives y In Application, Scorecard and Quarterly Progress Reports • Require that Performance Measures in Application Align with a County Strategic Goal and Objective • County Strategic Plan Manager Consults on Revisions to Materials and Reviews Submitted Applications and Scorecards and Provides Feedback to County Manager • Outside Agencies Coordinator, Relevant Department Director and Deputy Manager Attend Joint County and Towns Agency Presentations • Separate Scorecards Completed for New Agencies • Manager Receives Scorecards and Prioritizes Fun�g for County Needs ORANGE COUNTY 5 NORTH CAROLINA Caitlin Fenhagen said that new agencies cannot score as high as existing agencies with the current scorecard. She said a new scorecard would level the playing field. 24 Slide #6 Discussion and Questions ORANGE COUNTY 6 NORTH CAROLINA Caitlin Fenhagen said that at this point in the year it will be difficult to incorporate dramatic changes to the process. Commissioner Richards said that the timing is difficult. She said that there will be a strategic plan scorecard coming based on strategic plan performance measurements. Caitlin Fenhagen said that the Strategic Plan Coordinator, Kelly Guadalupe, was working on the scorecards and would have them ready by the end of the year. She said that those measures will be incorporated into the process. Commissioner Richards said that since the agencies support departments, understanding how they will be measured would be helpful. She asked if by the time an agency is selected if they will have the scorecard. She said the agencies won't have it by the time the application is released. Caitlin Fenhagen said that they will have objectives and they will be asked to come up with performance measures. Commissioner Richards clarified that it would be how agencies support the strategic plan. She thanked Caitlin Fenhagen for proposing a change to the scorecard for new agencies. Chair Bedford noted that the Board agreed with Commissioner Richards' comment. Commissioner Richards clarified that it should not be a problem if Chapel Hill and Orange County have different questions on the application. She said having a joint meeting would be productive in that they would hear all of the questions, but the criteria and selection rubrics would be different. Caitlin Fenhagen said they would continue to have the different scorecards. Commissioner McKee noted that the application in the agenda packet was for the previous year and that it would be updated for the next application cycle. Chair Bedford said that the proposed changes still keep a separation of the process from Board influence. She said that this is enough changes for one year. She said advisory boards don't always know of the various ways the county supports non-county agencies. She said that it would be good to have the strategic plan manager, department directors, Business Officer Melissa Allison, and the Deputy County Manager review the applications because they know more 25 about what's happening in the county. She said that she felt the scorecard needed updating to make sure that agencies are supporting key county priorities. She hoped that connecting funding to the strategic plan will help the county get closer to funding those priorities. She suggested that if an agency does not align with a strategic plan goal or priority, that they not be considered for funding. Caitlin Fenhagen said the scorecard will be updated to reflect the strategic plan. Chair Bedford said the current formula does not capture key priority areas for county funding. She said that not enough points are given for equity. She said two other areas of concern are timing and geography. She said that new agencies or agencies that didn't score as highly should continue to provide quarterly reports. She said that agencies with a good track record could probably submit reports less frequently. She expressed concerns about funding educational agencies when the county already provides funding to the school districts. Commissioner Hamilton said they want to make sure agencies are treated fairly. She said that on the scorecard, the points assigned seem arbitrary. She said that the county must reflect on whether the scorecard is working the way it's designed. She said that will be the only way to know if their performance matches the given score. She said they don't have the strategic plan performance measures yet, so she expressed concern about using those to score applicants. She said that they should find a system that doesn't require a lot of staff time to make sure resources are being used wisely. Vice-Chair Greene clarified that the performance measures listed by the applicant in their application would be reviewed to ensure that they align with the strategic plan. She said they aren't county performance measures. Caitlin Fenhagen said that was correct. Caitlin Fenhagen said that Chapel Hill and Carrboro offer an agency review twice a year. She said that would really help departments. She said for contracts that are now housed in departments, they should apply the same principles when reviewing those contracts. She said they want those performance measures to also be aligned with county priorities. She said it will be important to discuss these changes with department heads. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked what type of review is happening quarterly. Caitlin Fenhagen said they submit progress reports with their outcomes that quarter, and then are paid out for that quarter after a review of the report. Commissioner Portie-Ascott clarified that they must meet benchmarks to receive funding. Caitlin Fenhagen said they are the benchmarks that were listed in their funding agreement. Commissioner Richards asked if it would be helpful to identify priorities for funding. Chair Bedford said that the Board has never discussed priorities or a hierarchy. Commissioner Hamilton asked if it is an issue that there are some agencies that don't fit into the priorities. Chair Bedford said that all non-profits could be slotted into a county goal. Commissioner Hamilton said that on the scorecard points could be assigned based on where the agency falls in the strategic plan. Chair Bedford suggested that they had enough change at this time, but they should bring back ideas in the spring. Commissioner Hamilton said they could compare the data that they receive over the year and determine how the process meets their priorities. Commissioner Fowler said that the Board has set goals, but priorities may change depending on what the county is already doing or has accomplished. She said it makes sense to her to have the County Manager change and prioritize based on what the county is already doing. Travis Myren said that while an agency might fit into a strategic objective, their activities might not be as directly related as other agencies. 26 3. Review of BOCC Proclamations The Board reviewed the proclamations that have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners since 2016. BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners requested that staff create a 12-month calendar of proclamations for possible inclusion on future Business meeting agendas. Chair Bedford introduced the item. She said that this stemmed from a request for priority proclamations to not fall through the cracks and be forgotten. She said that the process for adding proclamations has fallen to the position of the Chair. She said she would like to discuss the purpose of proclamations and review the list of proclamations from 2016. She would like to make sure that the proclamations that are priorities for the Board are added to agendas. She said that they need to decide if those proclamations should be read aloud at the meeting or be put on consent. She said they should talk about requests from the public for adding proclamations. She asked if those who request should reside in Orange County. Commissioner Richards asked what does it mean for the county to approve a proclamation. She asked if departments should be part of a proclamation and have planned activities. She asked what is the purpose of a proclamation. She asked if it would be a useful activity during the work session to go through the list. Chair Bedford said she thought they could identify the priority proclamations during the meeting. Commissioner Fowler said that if the county has planned activities around a proclamation, they should be prioritized. Vice-Chair Greene said that she thought that they should still remain receptive to the community and their interests. Chair Bedford thought that some of those proclamations should be on consent, but any of those could be pulled from consent. Commissioner Richards said if there are certain proclamations that they will do every year, they should be planning ahead. Commissioner Hamilton said the purpose of a proclamation can fall in a couple of categories. She said a proclamation could fall into an advertisement for a county event or activity, but that could be done without a proclamation. She said another reason is that a proclamation might reflect the views of the Board. She said that a third reason is that a proclamation might recognize a larger community and the importance, or something that's about safety that the county wants to emphasize. She said that agendas can be long, so they still have to keep some proclamation items brief. Chair Bedford said that for some proclamations, it emphasizes how much they value staff. Commissioner Portie-Ascott said it is good to acknowledge different events. She asked how the Board approves proclamations being developed. Chair Bedford said that the Chair and Vice-Chair review each proclamation. She said there are no standards, and that is the dilemma. Commissioner McKee said that proclamations can burn up a lot of time during a meeting. He said proclamations are celebratory and a way for the county position its priorities and publicly broadcast them. He said the more that they have, the less impactful they are. He suggested it be pared back to one or two a month. He said he would like to see it tied to department activities and something the county is specifically doing. Vice-Chair Greene said that on the next meeting's agenda there will be a proclamation on family literacy. She said that the county has provided funding to the organization. She said when there a group that is aligned with the county's mission asks for the proclamation, she supports that. She said that the requestor wrote a draft and it was refined by the County Manager's Office. 27 The Board reviewed the list of proclamations and discussed which ones they wanted to make sure were considered each year. They also identified proclamations that could be potentially on the consent agenda. February • Black History Month • Women's History Month March Incorporate the two below together and include on consent: • Creek Week • World Water Day April • Child Abuse Prevention Month (include on consent unless there are specific activities or requests) • Public Safety Telecom municators Week (consent) • Fair Housing Month (include on consent unless there are specific activities) May • Older Americans Month • Mental Health Awareness Month • Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Week June • National Gun Violence Awareness Day (include on consent unless there are specific activities) • Juneteenth • Pride Month September • Suicide Prevention Month October • National 4-H Week • Fire Prevention Week • Arts and Humanities Month (include on consent unless there are specific activities) • Domestic Violence Awareness Month (consent) • Disability Employment Awareness Month (consent) November • Native American Heritage Month December • Bill of Rights Day (consent) Commissioner Richards said they can acknowledge without having a proclamation. 28 Chair Bedford said that Assistant to the County Manager Greg Wilder will keep the list on his calendar and make sure they are included on agendas. 4. Adult Care Home and Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee — Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments to the Adult Care Home and Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee. BACKGROUND: The Adult Care Home and Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee works to maintain the intent of the Adult Care Home and Nursing Home Residents' Bills of Rights and promote community involvement and cooperation with these homes to ensure quality care for older and disabled adults. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all fourteen (14) members. REMINDER: As of July 1, 2017, House Bill 248 was approved by the North Carolina Legislature regarding the training period for pending members of the "Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee and Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee". Applicants will be selected from our county "Applicant Interest List" for a condensed training and if the applicant successfully completes the training, they would be recommended for appointment. Therefore, when an applicant is recommended for appointment, it would initially be for a one year preliminary term and their training will have already been completed. The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Rev. Dr. Robert At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2027 Ashburn Jacqulyn At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2027 Podger (reappointment) Karen Green- At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2027 McElveen (reappointment) Dr. Carol Kelly At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2027 (reappointment) Dr. Prakash At-Large One-year initial term 09/17/2025 Sista SPECIAL NOTATION: None of the other applicants have completed the mandatory pre- appointment training and are therefore not eligible for appointment at this time. If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancies remain: POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION DESCRIPTION DATE At-Large 09/30/2026 Vacant since 11/02/2023 Adult Care Home 09/30/2025 Vacant since 11/02/2023 Administrator Nominee 29 Adult Care Home 09/30/2026 Vacant since 11/02/2023 Administrator Nominee Nursing Home 09/30/2024 Vacant since 11/02/2023 Administrator Nominee Nursing Home 09/30/2025 Vacant since 11/02/2023 Administrator Nominee Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus on the recommended applicants. Tara May noted that she sent an email to the Board earlier regarding training requirements for this committee. 5. Affordable Housing Advisory Board — Appointment Discussion The Board discussed an appointment to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board. BACKGROUND: The Affordable Housing Advisory Board prioritizes affordable housing needs and assesses project proposals. The board also publicizes the County's housing objectives, monitors the progress of local housing programs, explores new funding opportunities, and works to increase the community's awareness of, understanding of, commitment to, and involvement in producing attractive affordable housing. As a general practice, this board has decided not to make recommendations for vacancies. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all fifteen (15) At-Large members. The following position is presented for Board consideration: NAME SPECIAL TYPE OF EXPIRATION REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTMENT DATE TERM BOCC At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2027 Appointee If the positions listed above are filled, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Todd Orr to the vacant position. 6. Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool —Appointments Discussion discuss appointments to the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool. BACKGROUND: The charge of the Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool is to hear appeals concerning violations of the Orange County Code of Ordinances, Chapter 4 ("Animal Control Ordinance"), as provided in the Orange County Code of Ordinances, Section 4-53 Appeals and also potentially dangerous dog appeals as prescribed by NC General Statute §67-4.1(c). It is the responsibility of pool members to conduct fair and impartial hearings for these appeals and they will receive training in both law and proper procedure prior to participating in a hearing. 30 The Board of County Commissioners appoints twelve (12) members, with representation from various fields. There are also two (2) members representing the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough. The following individuals and positions are presented for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Pam C. At-Large Second Full Term 09/30/2027 Schwentner Unincorporated Cynthia J. Veterinarian Second Full Term 09/30/2027 Stubbs BOCC At-Large Partial Term 03/31/2026 Appointee Unincorporated If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancies remain: POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION DESIGNATION DATE Town of Carrboro 03/31/2026 Vacant since 03/31/2023 Town of Carrboro 03/31/2027 Vacant since 03/31/2024 Town of Chapel 03/31/2026 Vacant since 03/31/2023 Hill Town of 03/31/2025 Vacant since 03/31/2022 Hillsborough Public Health Field 03/31/2026 Vacant since 03/31/2023 At-Large 03/31/2025 Vacant since 03/31/2022 At-Large 03/31/2026 Vacant since 03/31/2023 Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Pam Schwenter to the At-Large Unincorporated position, Cynthia Stubbs to the Veterinarian position, and James Wheeler to the Public Health position. 7. 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. 31 The following individual is recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Renee Hayes 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. 8. Historic Preservation Commission —Appointment Discussion The Board discussed an appointment to the Historic Preservation Commission. BACKGROUND: The Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) is charged with undertaking an inventory of properties of historical, prehistorical, architectural, and/or cultural significance. It recommends areas to be designated or removed as "historic districts" and reviews and acts upon proposals for alterations, demolition, new construction, etc. In considering new applicants, the HPC is required to follow the guidelines from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in order for the County to remain eligible to participate in the state's Certified Local Government (CLG) program. Those guidelines include the following language governing the qualifications of prospective HPC applicants: "All members shall have demonstrated experience or knowledge in history, architecture or related disciplines that is supported by resume information sufficient to allow the SHPO to confirm the qualifications of members, pursuant to 36 CFR Part 61." The Board of County Commissioners appoints all seven (7)At-Large members. The following individual is recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Eric Deetz At-Large Partial Term 06/30/2026 If the individual listed above is appointed, the following vacancy remains: POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION DESCRIPTION DATE At-Large 03/31/2026 Vacant since 03/31/2024 Tara May introduced the item. Commissioner Fowler asked for more information about Kristofer Cason's experience and qualifications. Tara May said she would follow up. The Board agreed by consensus on the recommended applicant. 32 9. Orange County Board of Adjustment—Appointment Discussion The Board discussed an appointment to the Orange County Board of Adjustment. BACKGROUND: The Board of Adjustment hears, reviews, decides appeals, and reviews any order requirement, decision, or determination made by the Zoning Officer in the performance of official duties. It also hears and decides applications for the approval of those Special Uses requiring Board of Adjustment approval, in accordance with the rules and conditions laid down in the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), hears and decides appeals for variances from the dimensional regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance(UDO), and decides or determines other matters as may be required by the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) or State law. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all seven (7) members. Due to the nature of its work, the Board of Adjustment does not make recommendations for appointments. The following position is presented for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM BOCC Alternate First Full Term 06/30/2027 Appointee If the position listed above is filled, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Kyle Myers to the vacant position. 10. Orange Unified Transportation Board —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed an appointment to the Orange Unified Transportation Board. BACKGROUND: The Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUT Board) advises the Orange County Board of County Commissioners on the overall planning and programming of transportation improvements in the County. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all twelve (12) members, with representation from each of the County's townships to the extent possible. There is also one (1) non-voting youth member. The OUT Board does not make recommendations. The following positions are presented for Board consideration: 33 NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Roy Schonberg Chapel Hill Township Second Full Term 09/30/2027 Michael Hughes At-Large Second Full Term 09/30/2027 BOCC At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2027 Appointee BOCC At-Large Partial Term 09/30/2025 Appointee BOCC Youth Member (non- First Full Term 09/30/2027 Appointee voting) If the positions listed above are filled, no vacancies remain. Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to reappoint Roy Schonberg and Michael Hughes to the Orange Unified Transportation Board. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Chloe Pankratz to the vacant youth position. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Heidi Perry and Gene Owens for the vacant At-Large positions. Adjournment A motion was made by Vice-Chair Greene , seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Laura Jensen Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.