Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
22 <br /> 1 Commissioner Jacobs encouraged the CHCCS School Board to contact the Chapel Hill <br /> 2 Chamber of Commerce to reiterate the importance of impact fees. He said the only alternative <br /> 3 is to raise property taxes. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Price for <br /> 6 the Board to approve the amendments to the FY 2016-17 Capital Investment Plan and the <br /> 7 attached list of projects including the acquisition of the Orange Charter School Facility. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan in place if the project costs change. <br /> 10 Bonnie Hammersley said if there is a change in allocation of funds, the districts need to <br /> 11 come back before the BOCC; if the districts do not spend as much on one project, and want to <br /> 12 move funds to another project, the districts are required to come back to the BOCC. <br /> 13 Commissioner Rich clarified that if there are any changes to the project cost sheet, the <br /> 14 districts must come back to the BOCC. <br /> 15 Bonnie Hammersley said yes. <br /> 16 Commissioner Marcoplos asked if in a year the bid on Chapel Hill High goes up to $55 <br /> 17 million, but CHCCS adjusts its plans to only spend the approved $47 million, would CHCCS <br /> 18 need to come back to the BOCC. <br /> 19 Bonnie Hammersley said CHCCS only needs to come back to the BOCC is there is a <br /> 20 change in the amount of funds that is needed. <br /> 21 <br /> 22 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Jacobs) <br /> 23 <br /> 24 Commissioner Jacobs said he is not opposed to any of the projects, but he is opposed <br /> 25 to how some of them have been advanced. <br /> 26 <br /> 27 c. Extension of Development of Affordable Housing in Orange County Utilizing <br /> 28 County Owned Property (RFP #5229) Deadline for Submission of Proposals <br /> 29 The Board considered a 60-day extension of the deadline to submit proposals for the <br /> 30 Development of Affordable Housing in Orange County Utilizing County Owned Property <br /> 31 Request for Proposal ("RFP")# 5229 and adopt the revised timeline at Attachment 2. <br /> 32 Travis Myren said when the original timeline was approved in February 2017, staff <br /> 33 envisioned issuing two RFPs: one for the bond funds, and one for a list of 10 County owned <br /> 34 properties that would be available for affordable housing development. He said staff anticipated <br /> 35 these proceeding along the same time line until a couple of weeks ago, when staff received a <br /> 36 request from the Affordable Housing Coalition to extend the RFP deadline for the County <br /> 37 owned properties, while maintaining the RFP deadline for the bond funds. <br /> 38 Travis Myren said the County owned land requires a bit more due diligence than was <br /> 39 originally anticipated. He said the 60-day delay would make these RFPs due at the end of May, <br /> 40 and they would return for the Board's recommended approval at the first meeting in September. <br /> 41 He said the only wrinkle is that there may be projects using County owned land that also seek <br /> 42 bond funds to subsidize the development. He said in this case the Board may wish to hold <br /> 43 back some amount of money at the June approvals. He said alternative-funding sources could <br /> 44 also be pursued. <br /> 45 <br /> 46 PUBLIC COMMENT: <br /> 47 Dan Levine said he works with Self Help and is here to speak on behalf of the <br /> 48 Affordable Housing Coalition. He said the extension was requested because the County owned <br /> 49 parcels of land are new to the housing development partner providers, and he said there is a <br />