Agenda - 06-16-20; 8-a - Minutes

Browse Search

14 Commissioner Dorosin said this goes back to a bigger debate of how to get the most 1 housing and community based services with limited funds. He said Commissioner Greene’s 2 suggestion is fine and the very next criteria that is listed gives points to housing that is in an 3 area that is typically underserved, which would address the issue rural needs. He said water 4 and sewer is a similar issue, and it is more expensive to build without water and sewer. He said 5 the costs for housing are not just limited to the house itself. 6 Commissioner Greene said many options that have been suggested are provided 7 publicly. She said she most strongly objects to the “by the developer” wording as it could be 8 anything, and not really true transportation service, and it may be difficult to enforce. She said 9 she would prefer it to read, “Public transportation to include a bus route, or publically provided 10 on demand service, or equivalent public transportation is accessible.” She agreed with 11 Commissioner Marcoplos’ point about the other advantages to rural living, and the bond funds 12 being voted on by the whole county. 13 Commissioner Dorosin seconded Commissioner Greene’s motion 14 15 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Greene, Chair Rich, Commissioner Bedford, 16 Commissioner Dorosin); Nays, 3 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Marcoplos, 17 Commissioner Price) 18 19 Commissioner Bedford agreed with Commissioner Dorosin to amend this to include 20 acquisition and rehab to the application, as eligible uses of funds. She said there is no value in 21 cutting off potential projects at this point. She asked Emila Sutton if the process is integrated 22 with the town of Chapel Hill’s process, in order to avoid working in silos. 23 Emila Sutton said she has spoke with the Town, and Chapel Hill has released their 24 funds first in advance of the County, so that applicants would know if they were receiving 25 Chapel Hill funds in advance of applying to the County. 26 Commissioner Bedford said knowing how much an applicant may have received from 27 Chapel Hill is important. 28 Commissioner Bedford said she would like conversation, since the advisory boards are 29 not meeting virtually now. She asked if a full list of the projects would be provided to the 30 BOCC. 31 Emila Sutton nodded yes. 32 Commissioner Bedford said when she read about the 20% limit for those with 33 disabilities, she understood where the language was coming from, due the Olmstead act; but 34 she appreciated Emila Sutton adding extra clarification. She said she is excited about this 35 process moving forward. 36 Chair Rich asked if the BOCC were to include acquisition and rehab into the process, 37 where would it be included in the scoring criteria. She said she thought half of the bond money 38 was going to older construction, and half was going to new, shovel ready projects. 39 Emila Sutton said she is unfamiliar with the prior conversations, and her department 40 would need to look at this to see if any of the scoring would impact these types of uses. She 41 said, if not, they could just be added as eligible projects. 42 Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 37, and said the language could be changed to 43 include this uses as eligible projects. He said to take out “ new construction”, or possibly add 44 language there. He said he thinks the scoring construct would remain the same. 45 Commissioner Price said adding acquisition or rehab would not change anything, but 46 perhaps new language would be needed under project detail activity on page 42, as it has new 47 construction verbiage in there. 48 Commissioner Greene suggested passing this tonight to add acquisition and rehab, and 49 Emila Sutton could look at the criteria and bring back on the BOCC consent agenda. 50