Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11-12-2024 - Work Session 1 APPROVED 12/10/24 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION November 12, 2024 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Tuesday, November 12, 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. A motion was made by Vice-Chair Greene, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to amend the agenda to add consideration of an appointment to the Jury Commission. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Fowler, to suspend the rules of procedure and take action at a work session. VOTE: UNANIMOUS The Board reviewed and discussed four applications for the Jury Commission. A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler to appoint Kimberly Young Statkevicus to the Jury Commission. The motion failed for lack of a second. A motion was made by Commissioner Portie-Ascott, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint Sylvia Smith to the Jury Commission. 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 September 10, 2024 work session, the BOCC received a presentation with an update on the development and preliminary findings of four (4) modelled land use alternatives. Much of the information that was presented can be found in a project deliverable, the "Land Use Alternatives Report". This Report and all other completed deliverables are available on the project website, "Resources" tab: https://www.orangecountylanduseplan.com. 2 Tonight's presentation from Clarion will include a briefing on: • Project progress; • Preliminary outcomes of the second community engagement window; and • Initial recommendations for the draft Conservation and Growth Framework. Additional information is provided in Attachment A. A PowerPoint presentation will be provided at the meeting. Community Engagement Window (CEW) #2 — CEW #2 tested public response to the four (4) modelled land use alternatives and concluded on November 3, 2024. The Clarion team assisted Planning staff with survey development and administration, preparation of engagement materials, and meeting facilitation. A third engagement window will be held to collect feedback and input during the final plan drafting process. To promote the project and collect feedback, County Planning staff tabled at area community events such as Efland-Cheeks Community Center Back to School and Festival Latino Americano. Planning staff also featured the Land Use Plan 2050 project at the County Roadshow. Community Workshops were also held on September 25 and October 3, 2024 at Gravelly Hill Middle School and the American Legion Post 6, respectively. Planning staff worked directly with community organizations and leaders to host three (3) community meetings in October for populations that have traditionally been underrepresented in Orange County land use planning. Meetings were hosted by El Centro Hispano, United Voices of Efland Cheeks, and the Jones Grove Missionary Baptist Church. Upon request and availability, County Planning staff met with the Habitat for Humanity Policy and Advocacy Committee (Affordable Housing Coalition and Affordable Housing Advisory Board as guests); Chapel Hill — Carrboro Chamber of Commerce; and representatives of the Agricultural Preservation Board. Planning staff also assisted several organizations with responses to questions, which helped to facilitate receipt of comments around the land use alternatives. Tom Altieri, Senior Planner, introduced the item and the presenters Leigh Anne King and Emily Gvino of Clarion Associates. Emily Gvino made the following the presentation: Slide #1 Community Engagement �4 •RANGE COUNTY Summary LAND USE PLAN • • Board of County November 12,2024 WN 3 Slide #2 Agenda 1. Project Update �t 2. Community Engagement �y f Window#2 a. Activities b. Objectives c. Outcomes 3. Discussion of Policy Direction 4. Next Steps Slide #3 Project Timeline K Phase 2: Phase 5: Launch Identify New Evaluate DeveLop the Adopt the Project Issues and Planning Plan Plan Opportunities Influences 2021 '2023 „„v 2025 -- 2026 2023 2014 2024 'i 2025 Zp=s,. Community Engagamant Wlndow All: Community Eng.gement Window N2: Confirming Community Aspirations Testing the[onservatlon antl Growth Framewor Comm ow N3= Unveiling of Dralt Plan PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Slide#4 Status Report Work that has been completed: • Phase 4.- Development of Land Use&Recommendations Report(land use alternatives) • Community Engagement Window#2 Work that is underway: • Phase 4: Community Engagement Window#2 Summary Report Develop Draft Plan Framework.Vision.and Goals Develop Plan Policies and Actions Emily Gvino said this information is on the website. She said that the community engagement technical report will be added to the website as well. 4 Slide#5 is J-.• • • - - - r Slide #6 Community Engagement Window#2:Testing the Conservation a • Growth Framework • The second Community Engagement Window— Testing the Conservation and Growth Framework-was held in the fall of 2024. w may. • This phase of engagement asked community members to L„ review modeled land use alternatives and draft vision themes and goals. Emily Gvino said that the community was provided draft language to review. Slide #7 Community Engagement j' Window 1 CEW#2 activities included: Staff tabling at three events (August and September 2024) ~ ��. ✓Five in-person meetings ••"• (September and Dctober 2024) �r ✓Oniine activities available (September 25-November 3) ii. Emily Gvino said that county planning staff did a wonderful job at all of the community engagement sessions. 5 Slide#8 EngagementCommunity Window CEW#2 activities included: '� ✓Online Outreach: _ o o ➢ social media,newsletters,bilingual flyers s ✓Direct Mailings 1,000+properties ✓Online surveys available 305 surveys completed online Slide#9 Slide #10 EngagementObjectives The three objectives of Community Engagement Window#2 included: ,W-A _•_ Engagement Satisfaction Representative Engagement Increased Engagement 6 Slide#11 ObjectivesEngagement Measuring Representation of Engagement No response M 27% Other 16864% • Which racial Two or More Race$ =60% groupdo you White/Caucasian 1�?g� most closely 1 American Indian/Alaska Native I��a% identify with? {1 Black/African American i 111.7% Asian rE,=,%78% *290 out of 305 respondents answered this 0% 109A 20% 30% 40% SO% 60% 70% 80% 90% m question on the voluntary,self-reported exit 0 Orange County(2022 Census Data) ■Exit Questionnaire Responses` questionnaire. Emily Gvino said that the community represents more closely the Census data for Orange County. Slide #12 Engagement Objectives Measuring Representation of Engagement yes • Do you identify as No %913 Hispanic/Lati nx? 84.6% Prefer Not to Ansv r/No Response '285 out of 305 respondents answered this 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% question on the voluntary,self-reported exit questionnaire. ■Orange County J2022 Census Data) ■Exit Questionnaire Responses' Slide #13 Engagement Objectives Measuring Increased Engagement Benchmark: The Orange County Climate Action Plan Climate Action Community Community r Total Plan Engagement Engagement Window#1 Window#2 Community Survey 510 completed 164 complete surveys 420 complete surveys 594 complete surveys surveys Draft CAP Symposium: 12 attendees Approximately 244 in Approximately 165 in q09 in person In Person Engagement person attendees at person attendees at attendees Online rop Groups: community events community events 40 participaa Groups: total _J Community Engagement Window#3 will occur in late spring 2025. Emily Gvino said they had a goal to meet or exceed the engagement from the Climate Action Plan and they have surpassed the goal. Chair Bedford asked if this allows for duplicates. Emily Gvino said that there is a question that asked if the participants have participated in previous engagement sessions and 72% were new to the process this time around. Slide #14 Additional Public (► Organizational Letters Received • Duke Forest Teaching and Research Laboratory • NC Wildlife Resources Commission • Sierra Club,Orange-Chatham Group Executive Committee • Triangle Connectivity Collaborative Personal Letters Received • Barry Jacobs • Michael Hughes • Megan Kimball m Emily Gvino said that these letters will also be included in the report. 8 Slide #15 EngagementObjectives • Takeaways from Community Engagement Window#2 to Apply to Community Engagement Window#3 Engagement satisfaction:continue to offer multiple ways to participate with creative,fun,flexible,and accessible options • Representative engagement:Continue creating partnerships/connections and tailoring outreach efforts to support representative participation(such as African American,Hispanic/Latino,and Asian community members;youth;etc.) • Increased engagement:Community Engagement Window#3 will occur in the spring of 2025 to continue to increase overall engagement numbers. Chair Bedford said that they are requesting that one of the sites for the next round of engagement be in Carrboro or Chapel Hill. Commissioner Richards asked who the partners were for events. Emily Gvino said Jones Grove Baptist Church, Efland Cheeks Community Center, and El Centro. Commissioner Richards asked for clarification on the number surveys that were completed. Emily Gvino said that 420 surveys were completed in total, with 305 completed online, and the rest completed in person. Cy Stober, Planning Director, said the paper surveys were entered by staff. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if most of the online surveys were completed in November or earlier on. She said that she heard a resident say the timeline should be extended. Emily Gvino said the majority were around October 23-28th but she can provide more detailed data. She said that it is most active when surveys first launch. Cy Stober said online participation only spikes in participation after engagement events in October, and there is another big spike when the County Manager sent the survey to employees to complete. He said there was also a spike when county staff entered paper surveys. Slide #16 AF =`s 'Y 9 Leigh Anne King continued the presentation: Slide #17 Refresher on - • uestion • TestedThrough W Which aspects of the Protect Critical Watershed A real and Open Spaces and Preserve land use alternatives AgNculture3 Lands best achieve the balance of sustainable cu development in Orange DEUVSETLAGP ENT County? Support Climate Clevelopmemil and Upward Mobilily Svstern5 Slide #18 Refresher on « Use Alternatives Baseline Alternative with Policy Updates Enhance Agricultural Low-Impact Rural Mixed-Use Centers Conservation R and Environmental and New Employment Protections Neighborhoods and New in Strategic Locations Employment in Strategic Continue Current Policies Locations 10 Slide #19 Slide #20 EngagementCommunity . . Outcomes • Participants were provided two ways to provide feedback both online or in person: • Short Survey(7 questions) • Long Survey(12 questions about the land use alternatives and 4 questions about the draft Vision Themes and Goals) • The same questions were posed to participants for both online engagement and in person meetings. m Slide #21 EngagementCommunity . . • Total of 420 surveys received • Approximately 115 surveys were received at in-person meetings and 305 were completed online • Approximately 286 short surveys and 134 long surveys were completed In Pemn Online Tatj Gravelly Hill --60 American Legion -55 surveys cis 305 411 EI Centro 15 a Ef—d Cheeks 16 Evil Questionnaire 106 199 30' Jones Grove 19 Total 165 11 Slide #22 Community Engagement - Summary of Survey Responses:Vision Themes &Goals Short Survev: Strong support for Long survey: Strong support for all Vision Themes most Goals • Highest Support: Highest Support: Protect Critical Watershed Areas and Open Environment,Parks,and Recreation(91%) Spaces and Preserve Agricultural Lands(85%) Working Lands and Open Space(94%) • Lowest Support: Lowest Support: • Cultivate Sustainable Development(69%) Regional and Local Growth(46%) Advance Equitable Housing(67%) Economy and Employment(62%) Slide #23 EngagementCommunity . « Outcomes Overall Takeaways • Strong support for changing Orange County's current approach to managing land use to both protect natural lands and support development of needed housing • Strong support for protecting priority agricultural, environmental, and rural lands • Desire to see more housing choices 12 Slide#24 Community Engagement • • Outcomes: Vision Sample of engagement findings below. Full report will be available online. Do the Vision Themes address Orange County's needs over the next 25 years? 80 70% 70% 60% 4 50% 44% 4% 48% 40% 301/ 25% 22% 18% 20% 15% 15% 11,E 15% 11% 13% 1� 8- 3% 3% 9� Cultivate Sustainable Protect Critical Watershed Advance Equitable Housing Implement Sustainahle Development Areas and Open Spaces and Transportation Systems and Preserve Agricultural Lands Economic Development Initiatives •263 out of 420 respondents answered this question. ■1=Not very supportive ■2 3 4 ■5=Very Supportive Slide #25 WindowCommunity Engagement Outcomes Overall Takeaways • Mixed support for higher-density residential mixed-use development and providing more employment opportunities • Split support for Rural Conservation Neighborhoods • Split support for expanding Economic Development Area near Mebane/1-85 • Support for Goals and Vision Themes, with some adjustments • Not as supportive of extension of public water and sewer,or development of private water and wastewater systems 13 Slide#26 Community Engagement Window #2 Outcomes Summary of Lone Survey Responses: Land Use Alternatives Land Use 58% are satisfied with current approach to land use Alternative#1 pp •nd Use L Majority of respondents support a focus on a Alternative#Z protection of environmental, agricultural, watershed, and rural lands Slide#27 EngagementCommunity . « Outcomes Summary of Long Survey Responses: Land Use Alternatives • Majority (52%) support encouraging new Rural Conservation Neighborhoods Land Use • Support is more evenly divided between: Alternative#3 Those who support(44%)and do not support(39%)allowing the development of private water and wastewater systems to support Rural Conservation Neighborhoods • Those who support(49%)and do not support(35%)including a new Economic Development Area south of West Ten Road • Those who support(41%)and do not support(46%)allowing two Land Use types of higher intensity mixed use developments Alternative#4 Those who support(48%)and do not support(41%)the extension of public water and sewer to support higher intensity mixed use developments Commissioner McKee said it seems like there is split support rather than no support for extending water and sewer but on the previous slides for overall takeaways, it highlights that there is not support for extending water and sewer. He said it is contradictory. Leigh Anne King said she understands his point and can adjust that in the final report. She said that the private wastewater was close, but the water was not as close. She said the point is there is not strong support for either when compared to strongly supporting or not supporting. Commissioner McKee said he wants the document to be as clear as possible because it will be a major impact. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if there are other factors to be considered like age and income level for those who are being surveyed. She said the participation from the Asian community is low and asked what the plan is to engage them. 14 Leigh Anne King said they do not have a plan specifically to engage that community but are working on an approach. Cy Stober said they learned helpful lessons from the Greene Tract community sessions, and they will be building on relationships that they have developed in this process to reach further to the community. He said that in terms of reaching out to younger people, they will work on that. Commissioner Hamilton echoed Commissioner Portie-Ascott's concern about making sure the survey results include other demographics other than diversity of race and ethnicity. She said that economic lines and age would be important. She said that she is missing the "why" in the summary. She said when there are numbers that are almost even support and not support, she would like to get further into that. She said that she will need more information on what those people are thinking. Chair Bedford asked if the disaggregated data can be provided. Emily Gvino said statistically valid information can be provided by demographic groups, but they are not able to do that with this information because it was from a voluntary exit survey. Commissioner Richards asked if people favor rural conservation neighborhoods, does that depend on private water and sewer? She said this is an example but are any of the options impossible to do without dependency on another item. She asked about how to make the comments as connections in the plan. Leigh Anne King said rural conservation neighborhoods could be supported by private water and sewer or public if that was the choice. She said that mixed use would likely require public infrastructure. She said it is her understanding that a cluster subdivision is allowed in the county, with private water and wastewater systems being allowed and this would not be a huge policy change. Commissioner Richards asked if those connections will be made when the recommendations are brought forward to the Board. Leigh Anne King said yes. Commissioner McKee asked if there is a way to tease out how rural residents answered vs. how urban residents answered the survey. Leigh Anne King said no, the exit surveys are separate from the land use survey. Chair Bedford said it seems like everyone taking the survey seems to want everything, so it is not really helping her. Leigh Anne King said it seems they are asking the right questions, and most people want to get to the sweet spot but their ideas of how to get there may be different. Commissioner Hamilton said the geographic issues are important because it may be separated by location. She said that Commissioner McKee mentioned it and it is important because it gives context for maybe why people want different things which can inform the Board as they try to balance that. Cy Stober said when demographic information is asked it can depress survey results. He said in the next engagement window, they can ask a question about Township or something similar that would not be too identifying. Commissioner Fowler said if they sent out surveys to people who live around Gravelly Hill, this seems like a very specific area. She said that it might explain the mix in survey results. She asked if it is legal to do these surveys at the polls. Leigh Anne King said Clarion has never done that. She said if they were to do that, they would have had to use the short survey. Chair Bedford said she attended the Voluntary Ag breakfast this morning and they are close to presenting a document for preserving farmland. She said that her overall concern is how Mebane annexations need to be factored into this update. Leigh Anne King said they are staying plugged into the Mebane CLUP as a starting point. She said that will be folded into their thinking with this plan. 15 Chair Bedford said they have increased their water capacity drastically and that will have a big impact. Leigh Anne King said this is an area that may require some joint planning because the county and City of Mebane. Chair Bedford asked if there is a way to see the data summarized based on the engagement activities. Leigh Anne King said the data is cumulative, and they do not have it broken out by individual meeting. Cy Stober said they will make that effort during the next engagement window. He said that generally, the Orange Grove Baptist Church were concerned about lack of resources and how far they had to drive. He said that is north of Hillsborough. He said that the Efland Cheeks Center also had similar concerns. He said the larger community events were across the board. He said that the event at El Centro was mostly Carrboro residents, and they wanted more joint planning between the county and towns, and they also expressed concern about the flight of people leaving for more affordable housing. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if residents were concerned that Mebane was growing too fast. Cy Stober said they were focused on industrial growth and if they would have access to restaurants and lack of awareness of future changes. Slide #28 Next Steps 7T • During the winter of 2024 and spring of 2025, the Project Team will be developing the plan.This includes: • Draft Plan Framework,Vision, and Goals • Growth and Conservation Framework • Policies and Actions • Community Engagement Window#3: Unveiling the Plan is tentatively scheduled for May and June 2025. 16 Slide #29 Guidance Given this feedback, does the BOCC support development of the following policies in the plan? • New approaches to encourage conservation subdivisions in the unincorporated portions of the County that protect high priority agricultural and environmental lands? • Policies to express support for more dense housing options within the municipalities? • Expansion of economic development opportunities near 1-85/Mebane? • Other? Commissioner Fowler said she supports all 3. She said people do not want their taxes to rise, so there is a need for corporate taxes to offset that. She said that expansion of economic development in this area makes sense. She said that she thinks that some areas could have been oversampled. Vice-Chair Greene said she also supports all 3. She said they should support policies for towns to build more dense housing. She said that affordable housing is better all-around if it is in municipalities and close to schools and other amenities. She said she agrees with Commissioner Fowler about corporate taxes to offset residential taxes. Commissioner McKee said he agrees with Commissioner Fowler and Vice-Chair Greene. He said that he is more acceptable to various types of subdivisions because he did a greenways project five years ago and he almost does not recognize the area it has developed so much. He said they have to be open to housing options for folks who don't want to live in town. He said that corporate development will need to expand because without that, it will continue to impose higher costs on homeowners. He said that he is constantly hearing about people being pushed out because of unaffordability. Commissioner Portie-Ascott said she agrees with the other comments. She asked if there needs to be a more in-depth discussion about water and sewer for conservation subdivisions. She said that she agrees that economic development will have to expand beyond 40/85 corridor. Chair Bedford asked what people thought of Land Use Alternative #3. Leigh Anne King said 49% support and 35% do not support at south of West Ten Rd. Chair Bedford asked if people were surveyed about the other nodes. Leigh Anne King said those were included and in essence, they were asked in the first alternative if they supported this as a way to manage development in the county. She said they included the rural activity nodes in all four alternatives. Commissioner Portie-Ascott said it would have been helpful to add schools to the maps to help orient. Leigh Anne King said they are thinking about that. Commissioner Hamilton said she generally supports these policies but would feel more comfortable with more information. She said she heard a lot from people who are already concerned with the density of housing in Chapel Hill and Carrboro and support alternatives for people who do not want to be in urban areas. She said that she would like to see economic estimates of what could go in economic development areas. 17 Leigh Anne King said they could make estimates of general square footage outputs could be, and more specifics would have to come later in this process. Commissioner Hamilton said she wants to make sure that they are actually getting the benefit of expanding economic development. Commissioner Fowler said they contracted the economic development zone because of lack of water and another issue. She asked if they would be back in talks with Durham and if there are any updates on that location. Cy Stober said he does not have an update on this, but they can resume conversations with Durham. He said the challenge is on the wastewater side and environmental challenges due to rock. He said it could be a policy recommendation in the plan, but more conversations would have to happen with Durham. Commissioner McKee said his two takeaways from tonight are any option other than staying with what they are doing is going to be a difficult situation. He said that he sees no way to do some of these things without putting pipe in the ground. He said even economic development along 85 will require water and sewer. He said the second is that the percentages are not heavily weighted for or against. Commissioner Richards said she supports these three ideas. Chair Bedford said she supports the first and will leave the second up to the towns. She said she supports the expansion of economic development in the different nodes. Vice-Chair Greene said all three towns are on track to increase housing density and she sees the county plan as complementary to those plans. She said that rural conservation subdivisions would involve individual communal septic systems because she does not see the Board opening itself up to having to run water and sewer. Commissioner McKee said if the Board supports economic development in the rural nodes, it will require them to lay pipe. He said if they are going to talk about expanding, they need to think about the pipe requirements because that will be what addresses the concerns and gives a return on investment. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if they can make these decisions without hearing from the for-profit and non-profit developers because a developer might have additional insight. Cy Stober said no targeted outreach has been done to constituent groups. He said that they have presented to the affordable housing coalition but otherwise, no other interest groups to have a deeper dive. He said that he will be bringing an information item to address the rural conservation subdivisions in the future. 2. Discussion on Affordable Housing Bond/Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Scoring Matrix The Board reviewed and discussed the incorporation of stakeholder feedback from the 2023 Requests for Proposals (RFP) process into the Affordable Housing Bond/Capital Investment Plan (CIP)Scoring Matrix to create a more transparent, equitable, relevant, and effective process going forward. BACKGROUND: The Orange County Housing Department received feedback both during and after the 2023 Affordable Housing Bond/CIP RFP process from applicants, residents on the Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB), and elected officials. The feedback was varied but several themes emerged across groups: • The scorecard was confusing and subjective, with poor definitions at times. • The scorecard unfairly penalizes repair and rehabilitation projects. • The scorecard does not sufficiently account for past performance of applicants. • The scorecard does not sufficiently reward housing for 60% AMI (area median income) and below. 18 • The scorecard does not sufficiently target residents with disabilities. • The scorecard does not correctly value leveraging and repayment to County. • The scorecard does not sufficiently reward Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH). To that end, Housing staff drafted proposed changes to the scoring process as outlined below. Changes are broken down by categories on the current 2023 scorecard: • General Changes o Include Affordable Housing Advisory Board in an advisory and support role. Shift scorecard responsibilities to an interdepartmental work group. Staff scores will be presented to AHAB for comment before presenting to BOCC. o Add 10% CIP carve-out for Repair and Rehabilitation, advancing stated Master Aging strategic priorities and better supporting the existing affordable housing stock(NOAH) on a per-dollar basis. A new scoring matrix will be created for repair and rehabilitation proposals to be reviewed by the Board at a later date. • Threshold Requirements: require documentation of alignment with specific Strategic Goals/Priorities (addition to current requirements is underlined) o The application is complete with all required attachments and was submitted by the established deadline. o The project aligns with local affordable housing goals, strategies, and/or adopted policies (if yes, specify the goal from the Strategic Plan or Master Aging Plan). o Funding is for an eligible activity. • Income Targeting and Special Needs: give greater priority to projects serving 60% AMI and below, which will indirectly support Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH); and add an explanation for how the project serves special needs populations. o What income range(s) and population(s) will the proposed project serve? Income Level Current Score Proposed Score 61%-80% AM I 10 10 31%-60% AM I 15 25 30% AM or below 25 35 o Does the project target people with special housing needs? If so, how? Response Current Score Proposed Score Yes 20 20 No 0 0 The US Department of Housing and Urban Development defines people with special housing needs as disabled, elderly, veterans, experiencing homelessness, experiencing interpersonal violence, and holders of Section 8 or other vouchers. Staff determined it was not advisable to separate the population of people with disabilities for special consideration, as it could potentially violate Fair Housing 19 standards, where people with disabilities are categorized alongside both elderly populations and families for legal protection. • Residency: delete due to difficulty screening and monitoring. Response Current Score Proposed Score Yes 5 0 • Leveraging: Prioritize projects than can repay bond funding, and reduce the number of leveraging tiers from 6 to 4. Tiers Current Score New Tiers Proposed Score 81%-100% 0 75%-100% 0 60%-80% 3 50%-75% 5 40%-59% 6 25%-50% 10 20%-39% 9 25% or less 20 10%-19% 15 Less than 10% 20 o Project repays bond funding (Principal-Only): Increase from 3 to 10 points. Response Current Score I Proposed Score Yes 13 110 o Project repays bond funding (Principal + Interest): Increase from 10 to 20 points. Response I Current Score Proposed Score Yes 110 20 In total, the leveraging category increases from 33 to 50 points. • Building and Site Design: Reduce points for accessibility, which is required for all new construction and rehabilitation. Response I Current Score Proposed Score Yes 120 15 • Community Design: Better define terms, make points either/or to remove subjectivity. Definitions Current Score Proposed Score Contributes to a mix of housing within Up to 3 3 existing neighborhood (no change to definition Eliminate bonus points for aesthetic Up to 3 0 appearance. Define accessibility to needed goods and Up to 4 4 services as one 1 mile 20 Define access to public transportation as Up to 5 5 '/z mile Define traditionally underserved as Up to 3 3 unincorporated Orange Count In total, the community design category decreases from 18 to 15 points. • Community Support/Sponsorship: Simplify to remove subjectivity Definitions Current Score Proposed Score Coordination with other organizations Up to 6 6 Intended beneficiaries involved in Up to 6 6 planning with inclusive marketing Involved in the County's Consolidated Up to 4 0 Plan process Links to other community services Up to 4 4 In total, the Community Support category decreases from 20 to 16 points. • Developer Experience: Require additional documentation o Require documentation to establish past regulatory compliance. o Require documentation to establish past ability to meet budgets and timelines. For transparency and accountability, scorer must list the documentation provided. Score value remains unchanged (40 points) Blake Rosser, Housing Director, introduced the item and made the following presentation: Slide #1 n ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING DEPARTMENT Affordable Housing Bond/CIP Scoring Matrix Recommendations November 12, 2024 21 Slide#2 Stakeholder Concerns • Process and Scorecard confusing and subjective • Leveraging and repayment to county needs to be reevaluated • The following criteria and/or projects need more prioritization: • Repair/rehabilitation projects • Applicant past performance/accountability • Housing for 60%AMI and below • Residents with disabilities • Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) nORANGE COUNTY 0 HOUSING DEPARTMENT Slide #3 General changes to process •Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) will not score projects • AHAB scored projects for first time in 2023 • Scoring shifts back to staff interdepartmental work group • Staff will present scores to AHAB for comment before BOCC •Add 10% CIP carve-out for Repair/Rehabilitation • New scoring matrix will be created for repair/rehabilitation proposals,to be reviewed by the Board at a later date. •Simplify scorecard, prioritize 60%AMI or below projects, assess applicants' past performance, and streamline monitoring/evaluation nORANGE COUNTY 0 HOUSING DEPARTMENT Commissioner Fowler asked if this precludes them from applying to the other part. Blake Rosser said it would not, but it might make it difficult to complete. He said that they can discuss how to weigh that scorecard. He said that having a separate pool might take care of that issue. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked the annual income equivalent to 60% AMI. Aaron Cohen said for a family of 4 it is roughly $82,000, but it depends on family size. Blake Rosser said the last two items they feel will address the concerns about naturally affordable housing. 22 Slide#4 Scorecard changes Old Points New Points Threshold Requirements Require documentation of alignment with specific Strategic NIA Plan GoalslPriorities Income Targeting and Special Add greater weight to 60%AMI and below 80%AMI: 10 10 Needs Require explanation for how project serves special needs 60%AMI: 15 25 populations. 30%AM1:25 35 • Considered specifically targeting people with disabilities, but Fair Housing concerns raised Residency Delete due to difficulty screening and monitoring 5 0 Leveraging Prioritize projects that can repay bond funding 33 50 • Increased points from 3 to 10 and 10 to 20 for projects that can repay Principal ,or Principal +Interest, respectively • Simplify number of tiers from 6 to 4 • New Tiers for percent of project County-funded: 75-100%:0 pts 50-75%:5 pts 25-50%:10 pts 0-25%:20 pts Building/Site Design Remove points for accessibility (modern requirement) 20 15 Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked if they were using the HUD definition for disability. Blake Rosser said yes. Commissioner Fowler said she appreciates this change. Blake Rosser said some questions are either or rather than a range in an effort to remove the subjectivity. Vice-Chair Greene said that not all projects are designed to be able to repay the bond funding. She said that some applicants might feel that it is not fair. She asked if they had a conversation with affordable housing providers about this and if there is a plan to talk with them. Blake Rosser said this is the first draft, so they are here to get feedback and will seek other feedback. Chair Bedford asked what accessibility means. Blake Rosser said it makes the property ADA compliant with ramps, number of accessible units, etc. Aaron Cohen said universal designs are still captured in the scorecard and this just removes redundancy around legal ADA requirement. 23 Slide#5 Scorecard changes Old Points New Points Community Design Better define terms: 18 15 "Accessibility to needed Goods and Services"=Min 1 rni "Access to Public Transportation" =Min'/z mi "Traditionally underserved" part of the county= unincorporated Orange County • Change point awards from"up to"to either/or in order to increase objectivity • Eliminate bonus points for aesthetic appearance Community Change point awards from"up to"to eitherlor in order to 20 16 SupportlSponsorship increase objectivity • delete criterion of participation in Consolidated Plan Developer Experience Require additional documentation, and that documentation 40 44 be listed by scorer ORANGE COUNTY HOUSING DEPARTMENT Commissioner Fowler asked where the information regarding the proximity to public transportation was gathered. Commissioner Greene said that planners talk about '/z mile but that needs to be nuanced because people do not want to walk more than '/4 mile for certain modes but % mile for faster transit options. Commissioner Fowler asked what language the public transportation plan used for the mileage. Commissioner Greene said that she would then propose that the transportation plan language also be changed from % to '/4 mile. She said that this is a scoring matrix and that they should challenge applicants to meet the % mile. She said that way either everyone will get it, or no one will. Chair Bedford said that those are two good comments, and they will be given to the manager to work on. Commissioner Portie-Ascott asked how traditionally underserved areas of the county will overlap with the access to transportation. Vice-Chair Greene said there are some traditionally underserved areas in the towns and not just unincorporated areas. She said that she wanted it to be possible to increase the number and frequency of bus trips to neighborhoods like northside. Blake Rosser said they will take that into account and the underserved areas in the towns are harder to identify. Aaron Cohen said community development is studying hotspots for housing displacement in the towns and those findings could be incorporated. 24 Commissioner Hamilton asked how they determined the 10% carve out for rehabilitation. Blake Rosser said they are looking at it in conjunction with the way federal funds are distributed through HOME funds. He said they analyzed that using a smaller pot of funds for repair and rehab makes the most sense so larger pots of money can be used for projects with more impact. Aaron Cohen said most of their funding comes from the state and these figures of $500,000 over a five-year period represent a 1:1 match. Commissioner Hamilton said she asked that because as she canvassed, she saw there are a lot of homes that need repair. Blake Rosser said they are aware of a high community need for this as well. Aaron Cohen said the UNC lab has a 200-resident waiting list. Chair Bedford said that Justice United says it is near$2 million. She asked for clarification on the federal dollars. Blake Rosser said the HOME program is dedicated to either development, acquisition, rehab, tenant-based assistance, and that is decided based on the consolidated plan. He said they have been thinking strategically about how to get the most bang for the buck and repair and rehab along with tenant assistance seems to the be two. Chair Bedford asked what coordination with other organizations would look like (from the scorecard). Blake Rosser said that would be if there are multiple partners or an MOU between multiple partners applying. Chair Bedford asked what "links to other community services" means on the scorecard. Aaron Cohen said that was pulled from the previous scorecard and from what he can tell is that it was used to show links to other ongoing community services whether those are inside or outside of Orange County. Chair Beford said that she thinks the inclusive language regarding marketing on the scorecard needs work. Aaron Cohen said that they can find a broader meaning or reflective language that is clearer. Vice-Chair Greene said she supports rewarding those including folks with lived experience. Unsure about the word marketing. Chair Bedford said she agrees. She asked about developer experience. Blake Rosser said that they are looking for additional documents rather than just a rubberstamp. Chair Bedford said that this is very similar to the outside agency funding and unfair to newcomers. She said that she does not think it is relevant. She said there might be other groups. Commissioner Fowler said she thought the developer score was about experience with a developer and not with the Board. Chair Bedford said as worded, it would still eliminate new recipients. Commissioner Greene said that when she was on the Chapel Hill Town Council, she experienced a church applying for housing development funds and it had to be considered in a way that had never been done because they were partnering with builders. Commissioner Hamilton said they need to have the services and cannot afford not to. Commissioner McKee said repair/rehab has no visibility/impact from a publicity standpoint. He said that he would rather eliminate a person with good intentions rather than approve and have a crash and burn of their funding. He said that without dedicating a portion to rehab, affordable housing projects will dominate conversation and repair/rehab will get lost in the conversation. He said at that point, the houses will then be beyond repair. Commissioner Richards said that leverage is important but challenged them to think about ways to exercise the leverage other than ability to repay. 25 Chair Bedford said that the history is that Habitat scored higher, but they provided the award to Empowerment because of the impact on the need. Commissioner Fowler said that she thought that leveraging was based on leveraging of the county's funds. Blake Rosser said it is not gone, and he will take the discussion and come back with options. Commissioner Hamilton said that she agrees that the ability to repay should not be the only way that leverage is used. Commissioner Richards said that she agrees. Chair Bedford said that if you are discussing impact, leveraging is important to consider and that she thinks the points are just too much for that category. Commissioner Hamilton said they have to think about long term and what's sustainable vs. individual past examples. She said they also have to think of the impact of the differences and that they could score projects using new and old score cards. Vice-Chair Greene said the intangible impact is going to be hard to measure. She said some projects structurally do not have the ability to pay money back and she does not want to hold that against them. She said that she is comfortable with the score being based on capacity to bring in additional money for the project. Chair Bedford said that she was reading it thinking about tax-credits and investors because she cannot envision that they can pay the funds back. Blake Rosser said that the homebuyer assistance programs, such as no or low interest loans, could be paid back. He said that he wonders if prioritizing the money to attract other money unintentionally favors existing organizations. Chair Bedford said that it unintentionally favors Habitat. Commissioner Fowler said that it is useful because leveraging can be beneficial. Chair Bedford asked about the 10% carve out. She said they should be looking into what type of housing they want. She said if they have funds to spend,where should they focus spending to accomplish it. She said the rubric should be written to fit that need and priority should be placed on naturally occurring affordable housing. She said that she is not sure if borrowed money could be used for those projects. She said that she likes the idea of having a different rubric and she does not think they should be deciding a percentage or amount at this point. Commissioner McKee asked if Chair Bedford was suggesting eliminating the carve-out. Chair Bedford said that she is saying they should be flexible and not identify a percentage or number yet. She said that the CIP shows them funds available. She said they can have retraining at the retreat on housing. Commissioner McKee said that his worry is that the repair/rehab has no visibility. He said that if they do not set a dedicated amount to these projects, they will basically be lost in the conversation and end up with much less funding. Commissioner Fowler said that 10% is a reasonable place to start and maybe it is changed next year. Commissioner Greene agreed with 10% to start for repair/rehab. Chair Bedford said that this is out for 2-3 years. Commissioner Greene said she is in favor. Travis Myren said that they have asked the bond council to see if they can use borrowed money for rehab and repair. Commissioner McKee said that even if they cannot it could free up funds. Travis Myren said it is in operating so it cannot supplant funds. Chair Bedford said that she thinks that the scoring of units needs to be weighted based on the number supplied. Commissioner Fowler said it was changed last year but the standard for disabled is no more than 20% and that is why she like the way the question was changed. 26 Chair Bedford said that if they say yes then they get all the points and that needs to be changed. Commissioner Fowler said the question could be amended to ask if they have a minimum of 10%. Chair Bedford agreed. Slide #6 Please contact County Manager or Housing Director with questions •Blake Rosser •brosser@orangecountync.gov •919-245-2492 n ORANGECOUNTY 0 HOUSING DEPARTMENT 3. Additional Discussion on School Capital Funding Policy The Board reviewed and provided feedback on a revised draft School Capital Funding Policy prepared by staff, as well as an additional Major Project Planning Addendum. BACKGROUND: At its October 8, 2024 work session, the Board of Commissioners received a draft of the School Capital Funding Policy, which sets new definitions and guidelines for school capital funding, uses, and allocation methods. The Board made a series of clarifications and corrections to the draft policy. Attachment A provides the new School Capital Funding Draft, with Attachment B showing any redline changes from the prior draft for easy comparison. In addition, the Board requested that staff review the 2008 Policy on Funding and Planning School Construction and incorporate elements from that document into a new planning addendum policy. County staff have drafted this document in Attachment C. This includes both elements that were present in the original text, as well as concerns that have been raised during the last two years, either in Board meetings or in the School Capital Needs Workgroup discussions. Staff requests the Board review both drafts to ensure that staff correctly present the Board's and the County's priorities during this upcoming period of major school construction. The Board can provide feedback and staff will incorporate that information into finalized policies. The finalized policies will be presented again to the Board before the presentation of the Manager's Recommended Capital Investment Plan in April 2025. 27 Kirk Vaughn, Budget Director, introduced the item and made the following presentation: Slide #1 ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Additional School Capital Funding Policy November 12,2024 SOCC Worksession Kirk Vaughn noted that the bond on the November 5th ballot passed. He said it was the largest bond to pass in North Carolina. Slide #2 UPDATE TO SCHOOL CAPITAL FUNDING POLICY • Two new sections — Defining that sales tax and property tax are the underlying source for school capital funding — Providing additional language on amending Major Project budgets • Language changes throughout, providing additional flexibility to future boards ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Chair Bedford asked questions based on attachment B in the agenda packet. She asked for a refresher on what "pay-go" is. Kirk Vaughn said pay-go is cash. Chair Bedford said deleting the word "or" from the parentheses, so it reads (cash) makes it clearer that pay-go is cash. She said her next question is about the "Oversight and Amendments" section of attachment B. She asked what the timing will be like for budget amendment requests from the school districts. Kirk Vaughn said school districts are asked to submit the budget amendment request before the end of the fiscal year and give county staff enough time to make the change so there are no surprises at year end. Chair Bedford said suggested adding the phrase "and high priority needs" after "...for all Major Projects..." in the second paragraph in the "Oversight and Amendments" section of attachment B. She said this would allow the working group to stay better informed. Chair Bedford suggested being specific about at which type of board meeting funds will be reallocated in the last sentence of the "Emergencies" section. She also indicated that the "Recission" section should read "This policy supersedes any school capital funding policy in place prior to this date." 28 Slide #3 MAJOR PROJECT PLANNING ADDENDUM • On October 81", Board asked to see incorporation of ideas from the 2008 Policy on Planning and Funding School Capital projects into a policy. • This incorporates those as well as concepts that have been promoted in Board meetings and School Capital Needs Workgroup. • Goal of this document is to communicate expectations and priorities of BoCC to School Districts and residents. • Can be used while larger decisions around Construction Standards and Joint Project Management are still in deliberation. ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROUNA Chair Bedford said she appreciates this slide. Commissioner Richards asked if the point of this policy is to be a guide while other standards and policies are being figured out. Travis Myren said this would be a long-term planning guideline with themes from the Woolpert Report and will stand beside more detailed school construction standards. Commissioner Richards said community usage of school space is an important payback for the community for the investment they are making in the schools, and the school districts have had the ability to say no. She said this needs to be thought about because communities invest in schools and schools can be a resource to the community to utilize. Chair Bedford said a different discussion could happen outside of project planning about facility usage. Commissioner Richards said making schools more of a resource to community members is important, especially considering this was the largest bond in NC to pass. Chair Bedford asked about the timing. Kirk Vaughn said this would apply before the school starts being built. Commissioner Hamilton said she agrees with Commissioner Richards to a point but wants to make sure decisions are made that will not undermine the minimal dollars available to meet the needs of students. To a separate point, Commissioner Hamilton said in the first paragraph of the addendum (attachment C), "replace the oldest facilities" should be changed to "replace and renovate older facilities" to describe the Board's intent more accurately. Chair Bedford asked to add "etc." to the end of the paragraph under "Equitably between School Districts" to add flexibility. She asked what is meant by"Capacity" as one of the County's priorities. Kirk Vaughn said it attempts to get at the idea of "newer and fewer" from the Woolpert Study. He said under the current policy, any increase in school capacity would not be allowed, but the idea here is that if there are newer and fewer schools, a 400-student capacity school could be taken offline and replaced with a school that has the capacity for 600 students. He said he can clarify the wording in this section. Chair Bedford said she thinks there need to be staff procedures with timelines so there is control over the money and the projects. Kirk said some of that is in the policy and there will also be a staff working group to work through the process at each step. 29 Slide #4 MAJOR PROJECT PLANNING ADDENDUM • Review Policy from big picture to in depth. • Does this policy address the concerns of the Board in planning Major Projects? • Does the Board agree with the list of major priorities, are there any significant omissions that should be explicitly stated? • Does the policy language accurately describe the Board's intent? ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Slide #5 MAJOR PROJECT PLANNING ADDENDUM Priorities for Design and Planning • Educationally Adequate • Flexibly designed for Future Standards • Equitability between School Districts • Sustainability&Life Cycle Costing • Safety • Community Usage • Capacity ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA Slide #6 MAJOR PROJECT PLANNING ADDENDUM Priorities for Site Selection • Acreage Standards • Environmental Factors • Availability of Utilities • Total Project Costing • Potential for Joint Park Sites • Safe Routes to Schools ORANGE COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA 30 Slide #7 QUESTIONS? Additional Questions on either policy document? ORANGE COUNTY -H CAR-INA 4. Advisory Board on Aging —Appointment Discussion The Board discussed an appointment 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 individual is recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Dr. Joanne At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2027 Wilson 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. Animal Services Hearing Panel Pool —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed 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 North Carolina 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. 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. 31 The following positions are presented for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM BOCC Town of Carrboro First Full Term 03/31/2027 Appointee BOCC At-Large Partial Term 03/31/2026 Appointee Unincorporated If the positions listed above are filled, the following vacancies remain: POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION DESIGNATION DATE Town of Carrboro 03/31/2026 Vacant since 03/31/2023 Town of Chapel 03/31/2026 Vacant since 03/31/2023 Hill Town of 03/31/2025 Vacant since 03/31/2022 Hillsborough 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 Benjamin King and Michael Dempsey to the identified positions. 6. Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau Advisory Board —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments to the Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau Advisory Board. BACKGROUND: The Chapel Hill Orange County Visitors Bureau Advisory Board is charged with developing and coordinating visitor services in Orange County. It also implements marketing programs that will enhance economic activity and quality of life in the community. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all seventeen (17) members, with representation from specific entities and fields. The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Craig Lloyd Orange First Full Term 12/31/2026 County/Hillsborough Chamber of Commerce Allison Reid UNC Chapel Hill First Full Term 12/31/2027 If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancies remain: 32 POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION DESIGNATION DATE Economic 12/31/2026 Vacant since 06/30/2024 Development Advisory Board Orange County 12/31/2027 Vacant since 10/24/2024 Lodging Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint Craig Lloyd to the Chamber of Commerce position and Allison Reid as the UNC Chapel Hill representative. 7. Commission for the Environment —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments to the Commission for the Environment. BACKGROUND: The Commission for the Environment advises the Board of Commissioners on matters affecting the environment with particular emphasis on protection. It educates the public and local officials on environmental issues and performs special studies and projects. It also recommends environmental initiatives and study changes in environmental science and local and federal regulations. The Board of County Commissioners appoints all fifteen (15) At-Large members. The following individuals are recommended for Board consideration: NAME POSITION TYPE OF EXPIRATION DESCRIPTION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Regina Baratta At-Large Second Full Term 12/31/2027 Patrick At-Large First Full Term 12/31/2027 Fn'Pierre (reappointment) Aimee At-Large First Full Term 12/31/2027 Vandemark (reappointment) Jane Harris At-Large First Full Term 12/31/2027 (reappointment) If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancy remains: POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION DESIGNATION DATE At-Large 12/31/2024 Vacant since 09/09/2024 Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus on the recommended reappointments. 33 8. Human Relations Commission —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments to the Human Relations Commission. BACKGROUND: The Human Relations Commission advises the Board of County Commissioners on solutions to problems in the field of human relationships. It also makes recommendations designed to promote goodwill and harmony among groups in the County irrespective of their race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, or status with regard to public assistance. 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 Alexander At-Large First Full Term 06/30/2027 Fowler Cory Ho ans At-Large First Full Term 09/30/2027 Shane Lukas At-Large Partial Term 09/30/2025 If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancies remain: POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION DESIGNATION DATE At-Large 09/30/2027 Vacant since 09/30/2024 Town of Chapel 06/30/2025 Vacant since 09/23/2024 Hill Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus on the recommended applicants. 9. Orange County Parks and Recreation Council —Appointments Discussion The Board discussed appointments 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 individuals are recommended for Board consideration: 34 NAME POSITION DESCRIPTION TYPE OF EXPIRATION APPOINTMENT DATE TERM Shahnaz Eno Township First Full Term 12/31/2027 "GiGi" Rashdi Ben'amin King Carrboro City Limits First Full Term 03/31/2027 If the individuals listed above are appointed, the following vacancies remain: POSITION EXPIRATION VACANCY INFORMATION DESIGNATION DATE Hillsborough 03/31/2025 Vacant since 05/03/2024 Township Little River 03/31/2026 Vacant since 08/18/2023 Township Hillsborough Town 09/30/2025 Vacant since 09/17/2024 Limits Youth Member 12/31/2025 Vacant since 06/20/2024 Youth Member 03/31/2026 Vacant since 03/06/2024 Tara May introduced the item. The Board agreed by consensus to appoint the recommended applicants. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Fowler, seconded by Commissioner Hamilton, to adjourn the meeting at 9:52 p.m. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Jamezetta Bedford, Chair Recorded by Tara May, Deputy Clerk to the Board Submitted for approval by Laura Jensen, Clerk to the Board.