73  AL  lownolllolden Beach AGINDA IOPIC COVER: SIILET  TO:Holden Beach BOC  MEETING DATE:05/21/2024 DATE SUBMITTED05092024  FROM: Tom Myers. Rick Paarfus  ISSL E/ACTION REQU ESTED: Direct Town Staff to develop an RFP to accomplish tasks 1 and 2 of the recently adopted Pier Property Development plan. The RFP should also accomplish task 4 as it applies to the pier only. Once developed, it should be presented to the Board for BACKGROLND/PLRPOSE, OF REQU CEST: The RFP should provide preliminary design information and budgetary (class 3) cost estimates for the 4 phases to repair the pier and the 2 phases to replace the pier as outlined in the plan. Life cycle Operating and Maintenance costs  approval prior to issuance.  for both pier repair and pier replacement are to be developed as well.  FISCALIMPACT (circle one)  BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: YES/NO CAPITAL PROJECT ORDINANCE REQUIRED: YES/NO PRE-AUDIT CERTIFICATION REQUIRED: YES/NO REVIEWED BY FINANCE DIRECTOR: YESNO CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS: (circle One) REVIEWEDBYTOWNAITORNEY:(YESNO) ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION: TOWN MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:    74  FINANCE RECOMMENDATION:  ATTACHMENT: Çlass 3 estimate details, Pier Property Development w/o attachments    75  A Class 3 estimate is developed from a preliminary or basic engineering design (BED). The engineering phase of the project is 10% to 40% completed.. An overview of the project scope is available along with the expected timeline. Class 3cost estimate accuracy range: -20% to +30%. Preliminary references are also established for bidding. Examples of these  include: a plot plans 8 general assembly drawings piping and instrument diagrams (P&ID) utility diagrams equipment lists general standards specifications  Detailed equipment specifications for critical equipment are included as well. Usually, these have the most significant impact on the total project cost. Given the level of detail of Class 3 estimates, its accuracy ranges from -10to-20%  on the low side and +10 to 30% on the high side.    PIER PROPERTYDEVELOPMENT  INTRODUCTION  The purpose of this document is to initiate discussion concerning development of the pier property by providing a baseline approach to that development. Itis also intended to ensure that critical elements such as project cost estimates, life cycle costs, and a clearly defined project approach are addressed in the process. Iti is not intended to be the final project plan, but to serve as a starting point and tol lay out the process for proceeding. Information presented below is partially based on discussions held with Bowman Murray Hemingway Architects (BMH), Andrew Consulting Engineers, and Mid. Atlantic Development of the pier property should ençompass the entire property, notj just the pier and pier building. Development can however be separated into two separate components, namely the pier structure and the land parcels. Separation of the components (and components into phases) is necessary as funding is limited. Given that the pier is the primary feature of the property and considering its deteriorated condition, it is récommended that it be given first priority for funding. Development of the land parcel should not be constrained by al requirement to retain the current pier building, but should be based on a "clean sheet" approach to broaden the potential uses for the property. Renovation of al building in such poor condition that is several feet below the flood plain in an ocean front location is not advisable. A constraint that will have to be considered however are the requirements of the PARTF grant agreement that was entered into in 2022 which restricts the use of the For each of these components, some form of financialbusiness: case analysis should be performed to determine the development, operational and maintenance costs of any proposed options, as well as the potential revenue that can offset the above costs. Initial development costs will be produced in the preliminary design process and refined in the detailed design process. This information will assist decision makers in determining how/if the town can move forward as well as provide a foundation for seeking outside funding sources and partnerships. This is likely to be more complicated for parcel development in that several possible uses may have to bei iteratively analyzed. Further, consideration must be given as to whether the town should enter into commercial real estate development that could compete with local businesses on the island (and off). Lessees would have to cover 100 percent of the debt service, maintenance. and operations cost, insurance, etc. Otherwise they would be essentially subsidized by the tax payers which would not be fair to tax paying businesses on the island. Given today's delivery oriented society, dedicated space for deliveries from local businesses may be a viable  Engineering Partners. See attachments A and B for discussion summaries.  property to recreational purposes indefinitely.  option. PIER  The pier component of the project needs to be addressed from two perspectives, namely repair and replacement. Preliminary design work, project cost estimates and life cycle costs (30 years) need to be developed by the technical agent for each perspective to support decision making. With regard to repairing the pier, the initial RFP issued by the town came in with al low bid that was 100% over the budgeted amount. This RFP was considered the minimum amount of work tol be done to reopen the pier as efficiently as possible. In order to more closely match the budget, it was suggested that the scope be reduced and thej project rebid. At that time, the primary cost reduction tool was to water jet the new pilings in versus driving them in. Subsequent discussions with BMH, Andrew  PIER REPAIR    Consulting Engineers and Mid-Atlantic Engineering Partners determined that the piles must be driven in. Driving piles provides a determinatonerification of the pile capacity (bearing load and uplift resistance) and greater resistance to lateral loading which cannot be obtained by jetting alone. However, cost savings could be achieved by doing the piling installation from the pier deck to minimize the use of floating plant (a significant cost driver). To accomplish repairs from the deck, the pier would have to bei repaired from the shore out (replacing fasteners, bracing, etc) and possibly strengthened (additional stringers) to support equipment and materials for replacing piles and other structure. The added benefit of this approach is that future pile replacement, maintenance and storm damage repairs could likely be done from the deck avoiding considerable cost and accomplished in a more timely fashion. Astructural analysis and design will be required to support this approach. The existing pier building would have to be razed to provide access for equipment and materials onto the pier. Its should be noted that all present at the BMH meeting agreed that the building is a tear down. Since the building is in such poor condition that is several feet below the flood plain in an ocean front The pier repairs will likely need to be accomplished inj phases to fit within the available funding and notj jeopardize higher priority projects. Preliminary design work, and project cost estimates for each phase must be developed for proper decision making. Suggested phases would be as follows: 1. Structural Stabilization of the existing pier - This will include replacement of all 16 major/ severely damaged piles, replacement of all fasteners, and a significant portion of the bracing, if not all, depending on analysis results. Analysis may call for additional bracing as well. 2. Safety repairs - This phase would complete repairs to make the pier safe for the public, to include 3. Complete remaining repairs - These repairs include plumbing, electrical and decking replacement. 4. Extend the pier to 250 feet - This final phase would restore the pier to its original 1000 feet and reach significantly deeper fishing waters than that available at the current 750 ft (4-8ft). These phases could be combined into combinations of base bids with options based on funding  location, razing it should not be an issue.  handrails, ADA access, etc.  availability. PIER MAINTENANCE  Given the age of the pier components, (anywhere from 25 to 65 years), maintenance costs must be planned for. Contrary to what was originally reported in the pier inspection reports, the pier pilings are not greenheart hardwood (Greenheart wood is naturally decay and marine organism resistant, has a service life of 50 years, and is significantly stronger than treated pine or fir), but are pressure treated green wood of an unknown species (see final Mid. Atlantic Report). Unfortunately, there are no maintenance or repair records available for the pier, so the exact age of the piles is not known. The current assumption is the last pile installation was possibly in 1999. Based on discussions with industry professionals, pressure treated pilings have an expected service life of 25 years. Fortunately, piling inspection results that included pic penetration and hammer testing found most, if not all the piles to be sound, except those with cracks or fissures. It should be noted that several of the damaged piles had damage at the pile cap where the dowel pin connection was made, which is likely to be an ongoing problem in the future. Consequently, a condition based maintenance program should be implemented with periodic and post storm inspections of the pier to allow for planned maintenance and repair. In addition to planned maintenance, repairs from storm damage need tol be considered as well.  2    Given this consideration and the maintenance challenges cited above, a capital reserve fund for  supporting the pier may be advisable.  PIER REPLACEMENT  The initial assumption here is that a new wood pier will be constructed as opposed to a concrete pier primarily due to cost. Although a concrete pier is preferred, it may not be financially supportable for a small tax base like Holden Beach. While the upfront cost to replace the pier will be higher than repairing the pier, the life cycle costs will likely be less. A better design with more robust components (larger/concrete piles, better bracing, known pile embedment, greater height above the surf) will provide a more storm resistant structure and new materials will greatly reduce maintenance costs for many years after construction. It may also be possible tol leverage off the Oak Island pier replacement project to reduce engineering and cost estimating costs as well (Andrew Consulting was the design agent). It should be noted that the Oak Island pier was replaced for approximately 2.6M in the 2017- Funding a pier replacement will likely require financing the project with some sort of loan or bond. Any option to finance a pier replacement should be approved by the property owners/voters in a referendum or by some other reliable method. Iti is also possible to phase this project too by replacing the current 750 feet initially and constructing the last 250 feet at a different time to for funding Again, a condition based maintenance program should bei implemented with periodic and post storm inspections of the pier to allow for planned maintenance. In addition to planned maintenance, repairs from storm damage need tol be considered as well. Given this consideration and the maintenance challenges cited above, a capital reserve fund for supporting the pier may be advisable.  2019 time frame.  flexibility.  SITE DEVELOPMENT  Public (primarily the tax payers) input and the aforementioned financial analysis will drive the features to be developed on the site. In addition, site development will have to comply with the requirements of the PARTF grant contract. Ifaconflict arises, a contract modification could be possibly negotiated. For the features that are chosen, an annual cost for maintenance, repair and operation (life cycle cost) must be developed. This along with any debt service payments will be needed for decision making and budgeting purposes. In the event that some sort of building(s) are considered, the design should not impede access to the pier for maintenance and repair purposes. All features must be ADA compliant of  course.  GOING FORWARD  Itisr recommended that the following tasks be initiated as soon as financially possible to provide decision making information for the BOC to determine how and when to proceed with the project. Specific Statements of Work should be devéloped for the technical agent to ensure the desired outcomes are obtained. In addition, a competent project manager needs to be identified to oversee this  work.  3    Task 1-1 Initiate preliminary design work for repair of the current pier from the deck(in phases similar to that outlined above), toi include cost estimates for each phase and a draft Maintenance Task 2-1 Initiate preliminary design and cost estimates for a new wooden pier (in phases as outlined above), to include cost estimates fore each phase and a draft Maintenance and Repair Task 3 - Initiate preliminary land site wide conceptual design(s) that comply with PARTF requirements to include initial cost estimates for construction, operation and maintenance. Task 4- Conduct a financial/business: case analysis should be performed to determine potential revenue that can offset the development costs. This should include some type of market analysis of any potential commercia/retail facilities that may be on the site.  and Repair Plan with yearly cost estimates.  Plan with yearly cost estimates.  FINANCING  Unexpended funds from the pier repair account should be available this year to fund the above preliminary design and financial work. For constructing the project, see attachment C, Town of Holden Beach Debt Service. It can be seen that in FY25-26, debt service will be reduced by approximately 484K. Inl FY26-27, another 702K debt is eliminated providing a running total of 1.186M that could be available to fund pier construction. It should be noted that in FY: 27-28 the Central Reach Beach Renourishment debt will be paid off, but that the available funds may be applied to the Beach and Inlet Iti is imperative that it be understood that the pier is an amenity and willl have to compete against critical infrastructure and other non critical projects for funding. Examples of critical infrastructure projects include water system capacity increases, stormwater projects, fire station replacement (for 24/7 manning), road paving, beach and inlet maintenance, etc. If the project cannot be funded within the existing budget, alternative financing such as a loan, bond, or grants, or some other method may be an option. In order to pursue these options, the above tasks must be complete sO prospective financiers can adequately evaluate the request. Its should also be noted, that from a state and county perspective, there are four other ocean fishing piers within an hour's drive from the Holden Beach causeway. This fact could adversely affect the attractiveness of state and county assistance. This is further exacerbated by the beach, canal and several fishing locations already in Last, and perhaps most important, any financing arrangement must be approved by the voters/property owners given the magnitude of the costs involved. While aj public hearing may be all that is legally required, they typically result in very poor âttendance in part due to the fact that around 70% of the property owners do not live here and the hearings are not extensively advertised. Areferendum during ane election year (2025) may be more appropriate or some other iron clad way of assessing the property  reserve fund.  existence at Holden Beach.  owners' position. NOTIONAL TIMELINE  The following time linei is an educated guess based on experience and will necessarily have to be refined based on more detailed discussion. Itis also based on using the current technical agents (BMH,  4    Andrew Consulting) tol leverage offt the already completed work and. Andrew Consulingsexperience  with designing the Oak Island Pier Task 1-3mm-7A0410IAMA Task 2- 3ma-CIAAOVNA Task 3- 6months-020120025-0701/2025  Task 4- Pier anon-71202-1012A Site Portion - TBD depends on task 3 results Actual construction times for pier repairs and land parcel development will depend on available funding and selected site features. Replacement of the pier is estimated to take 3 years based on  construction of the Oak Island pier. OTHER OPTIONS  Suggestions have been made to pursue al Public Private Partnership (PPP) in an effort to reduce the financial and operational burden on the Town. While a PPP is a viable option, attachments D, Ea and F clearly demonstrate that a lot of work must be completed before aj partnership can be considered. The primary stakeholders for this project are the Holden Beach property owners as they have the financial responsibility for all costs associated with the pier, whether they use it or not. Businesses on the island are secondary stakeholders in chat financial support for the pier could affect their overhead and for those businesses near the pier, their foot traffic volume. Day visitors are secondary stakeholders in that they are not financlallyresponsible for the pier given that using the pier is optional for them. Renters/vacationers and are not considered stakeholders as they are customers of the rental property owners. Consequently, their interests are presumably represented by the rental property  STAKEHOLDERS  owners. SUMMARY  The purpose of this document is to initiate discussion concerning development of the pier property by providing al baseline approach to that development. It is not intended to be the final project plan, but to serve as a starting point. Development of the pier property should encompass the entire property, not just the pier and pier building, with priority given to addressing the pier. Phases have been suggested to make the development financially manageable. An notional timeline for preliminary work has been outlined with possible funding scenarios to accomplish it. Last information concerning public private  partnerships is provided along with stakeholder information.  6    3-14-2024 Meeting Summary  The following is a summary of the meeting discussions held on Thursday, March 14, at 10:30 between Rick Paarfus, Chip Hemingway of Bowman Murray Hemingway. Archetects (BMH), Neal Andrew and At the onset of the meeting, Mr. Paarfus, who is a sitting commissioner for the Town of Holden Beach, stated that he was not there representing the Town of Holden Beach, had no authority to direct or authorize any participants to take action on behalf of the Town or encumber the town in any manner. He further stated that he was there seeking information concerning the Holden Beach pier on his own accord as a private individual and was solely responsible for all costs incurred for the meeting. Mr. Paarfus inquired if the structural repairs were based only on the documentation provided by the Town or if they had performed their own inspections and incorporated their findings into the repair design. Mr. Andrew stated that they had done their own inspections as well as reviewed the provided Mr. Paarfus inquired about formal project cost estimates that were developed by the firms for the Town and was informed that they were not requested and consequently not provided. Mr. Hemingway was pressed by the Town Manager for a number for budgetary purposes and he provided a guestimate verbally of 2.1M. It was noted by Mr. Paarfus that without a proper cost estimate it limits the owner's ability to negotiate with a contractor and that iti is not good practice to go to bid without a formal cost estimate on aj project of this value. Itwas agreed that formal project cost estimates should be  Zachery Norris of Andrew Consulting Engineers (structural engineering).  documentation to develop the repair designs.  developed prior to any future bidding.  Pile installation methods were discussed next. After consulting with their geotechnical engineer, it was determined that the piles must be installed in the same manner as originally called for in the pier repair bid documents, i.e. driving. It was noted that some jetting may be necessary to penetrate hard pan beneath the mud line, but the final portion of the installation has to be done by driving. Driving not only provides a determination oft the pile capacity (bearing load and uplift resistance), but also provides greater resistance to lateral loading of the pile which cannot be obtained with jetting alone. Mr. Paarfus inquired if jetting piles in could have contributed to the pile cap failures (breakage) and loss of load bearing contact in the inspection reports. Mr.. Andrew did not attribute those issues to jetting, but did note that the dowel pins used to attach the horizontal members to the pile caps can corrode and expand sufficiently that when combined with lateral loading can break the pile cap. His preferred method to connect the structure would be through bolting VS. doweling. The possibility of repairing pile caps VS. replacing piles was briefly discussed and it was determined that this is not recommended unless it is the only repair that the town could afford. Reduction of the scope was then discussed. The approach to reduce the scope would be to minimize the need for floating plant to make repairs and accomplish the work from the pier deck. To accomplish this, the pier structure would have to be repaired from the shore out (replace all fasteners, bracing, etc.) and possibly strengthened (additional stringers) to be able to support equipment and materials to do the work. Mr. Paarfus noted that the inspection reports indicated that the stringers were held in place with nails, brackets, or no visable form of attachment to the horizontal structural members. As structural  analysis will be required to support this approach.  ArTACHMENT A  A-1    In order to accomplish repairs from the pier deck, the center of the pier house will have to be removed to allow equipment to access the pier. Importantly, it should be noted that all in attendance consider the pier house a tear down. It was agreed by all present that it did not make sense to renovate al building in such poor condition that was several feet below the flood plain in an ocean front location. In fact, BMH nearly turned down the job because of the previous BOC's insistence that the pier house be The discussion turned to how the pier repairs might be phased in order to accommodate a limited budget. Structural stabilization of the pier is the first step tol be considered. The second phase would be to complete repairs to make the pier safe for the public ( handrails, other safety issues). The third phase would be to complete ADA requireménts, electrical and plumbing repairs. Formal cost estimates for each of these phases will have to be prepared to seei if the current budget can support them. Maintenance and repair of the pier was also briefly discussed. Mr. Paarfus noted that the existing piles are not green heart wood as stated in the original inspection reports, but that the species is not known (see final Mid-Atlantic Engineering report). In addition, pressure treated piles are thought tol havea service life of roughly 25 years in the marine environment. He: stated that he understands that remaining service life is difficult to assess, but some sort of starting point is necessary for maintenance planning. Plans can be adjusted based on inspections over time. Mr. Andrew also noted that planning Future tasking relative to the pier project was discussed. It was agreed that a clear scope of work/task  renovated.  for the inevitable storm damage repairs must also be considered.  statement should be developed for the whole property. The plan should include  Repair of the current pier inj phases, with cost estimates  Preliminary design and cost estimates for a new wooden pier ( possibly leverage off of Oak Is. Design) Preliminary site wide design and cost estimâtes for entire property with cost estimates Preliminary Draft Maintenance & Repair plan with yearly cost estimates  All of the above should be divided into phases to support multi year funding due to limited resources. Mr. Paarfus addressed the fact that the property's use is currently constrained by a Parks and Recreation Trust Fund grant that will have to be considered inj planning for the property. He also said that pier project funding has to compete against other higher priority critical infrastructure projects for resources. However, ift the above project information was available, the BOC would be in a much stronger position to develop a funding stratègy and to pursue other funding sources. Last, Mr. Paarfus inquired about the evolution oft the project with regard to direction from the previous BOC. Based on the dates on the pier house drawings and the pier repair drawings, it appears that the BOC focus had initially been on the pier house for the first year, until around the May 2023 timeframe and then the direction shifted to the pier repairs to get it open. BMH confirmed that this is correct. Mr. Paarfus stated that he felt the pier project was handled in a way others do not agree with which was also the general consensus of those in attendance. It was noted that the intent was to get the pier reopened  as cost efficiently as possible but the cost still proved to be over budget.  The meeting adjourned at roughly 11:34a.m.  Prepared by Rick Paarfus  A-2    Discussion with Stuart Lewis, P.E., MidAtlantic Engineering Partners 2-27-2409:45a.m. Subject: Project GES-2201, Holden Beach Pier Due Diligence Inspection  Stuart and I discussed the findings of the subject report 002.517.0E5.201Letefepor.z., potential issues with the pier, and areas for consideration before proceeding with repairs. The inspection and following report were generated as part of a due diligence inspection of the pier in 2022 before Holden Beach's acquisition. The MidAtlantic Engineering Partners was contracted under Geosyntec toi inspect the pier elements underwater. This discussion included the following items:  1. Inspection 2. Piles 3. Overall Pier Structure 4. Pre-Construction 5. Cost Benefit Analysis 6. Construction Approach  Inspection:  We performed the Due Diligence Inspection following ASCE Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 130 - "Waterfront Facilities Inspection and Assessment" standards.. A Due Diligence inspection aims to form an engineering opinion oft the general condition ofa a structure and estimate the order-ot-magnitude replacement costs and repair costs. All timber piles were inspected visually and tactilely during the inspection, from the caps down Tactile inspection included hammer and pic penetration on the piles. The tactile inspection aims tod determine the physical condition oft the elements compared with the original as-built We found most, if not all, of the piles to be sound, except for those with cracks or fissures, as The timber piles (except where noted) were in minor condition, i.e., looked good from the mud  to the mudline. condition. noted in the report.  line up to the bracing, with no significant damage or deterioration noted.  Piles:  Typically, 1-2 ft. below the mudline, timber piles are usually in good shape due to a lack of The timber piles' point of fixity results in piles either breaking at the mudline or at other points Most piles from the current shoreline to the offshore end are pressure-treated green piles but unknown timber species or pressure-treated material. Based on Mr. Lewis's experience, these piles have a service life of2 25 years. The pressure treatment does not penetrate the pile fully and can wash out on the exterior. EPAI rules/regulations no longer permit creosote timber piles in Mr. Lewis recommends replacing piles with pre-cast concrete piles for longevity. He also noted that composite piles are around 1.75 times as expensive as pre-cast concrete piles. You can install pre-cast concrete piles without causing damage. Mr. Lewis has used composite piles int the New York City harbor; they have superior abrasion  oxygen, no marine bores, rot, or deterioration.  of fixity (near bracing).  the marine environment.  resistance compared to concrete and timber.  ArTAChMENT B  B-)    Mr. Lewis does not recommend jetting piles in for public access structures like a fishing pier. Resistance to uplift forces is a big concern (surface friction), and the pile capacity (end bearing Overall, Mr. Lewis thought the structure needed a more robust design for the environmental  and surface friction) cannot be determined/evaluated as with pile driving.  Pier Structure:  forces from the Atlantic Ocean. Current bracing could be more adequate. likely was designed to be 100 Ibs/SF.  Pier deck height requirements can vary based on local requirements.  We did not perform al load rating analysis as part of MidAtlantic's scope. However, the pier  Pre-Construction:  As per the ASCE. Manual, a design-level inspection and additional engineering activities should Pile bracing needs to be redesigned, as they appeared to be undersized based on the level of Should a re-build of the pier be considered, using pre-cast concrete piles for replacements. However, due to the geographic location and possible hurricanes, even concrete piles can fail To open the pier before repairs, the çity should develop Pier closure criteria to include the number of people allowed on the pier, certain load limits around specific areas where known failed piles and caps exist, weather conditions that dictate temporary closure, etc. Given the geographic location of the pier and the unpredictability of the Atlantic and Amore robust pier will be more expensive. The alternative could involve installing al lower- quality pier that we can replace. Certain criteria for use would be implemented, i.e. weather Perform annual inspections of the pier before peak-season tourism to minimize downtime of the pier. (perform inspection between Feb-March to allow for repairs tol be completed in April)  be performed before construction.  braces broken. with specific loads.  Cost-BenefitAnalysis  Hurricanes, even the most robust pier can fail to mother nature.  restrictive use.  New Pier Construction  Build out from shore, remove the need for floating construction.  We should evaluate pier loading to determine what equipment loads are acceptable, if any. Wilmington, NC, and Charleston have reputable marine contractors for this work. Create a nationwide solicitation for qualified contractors for the new pier construction.  B-2    Town of Holden Beach, NC  Debt Service By! Issuef for All Types from 07/01/2022 to 07/01/2038  AIT Types Schedule Profile as or Frequency FirsiF Period End End Date  Maturity Dates 07/01/2022 Annual 07/01/2023 07/01/2038 Interestra rate 3.180% 2.420% 2.100% 2.205% 2.205% 2.180% 3.810% 2.347% 1.920% 2,290% 3.180%  FY23  FY24  FY25  FV26  FY27  BLOCKQ2 2022 Promissory' Note Eoc: 2015 Note RealEstate VAC TRUCK2 2021 Capitallease 2005 Sanitary Sewer Revolvingloan 2004 Sanitary Sewer Revolving Loan CENTRALE REACH2 2016 Note- Flood andE Erosion Control TOWN HALLZ 2008 Note- Real Estate 20198 TaxableE Enterprises Systems Revenue Refunding Bonds ISREIMBURSEMENT; 2021 Note Sanitary Sewer LSR REIMBURSEMENT: 2021A Note PIERZ 20221 Instaliment Financing Contract Annual Debt Payment  365,133.33 354,533.33 343,933.33 93,334.83 93,334.83 93,334.83 64,770.39 64,770.39 64,770.39 64,770.40 181,366.67 177,691.67 174,016.67 170,341.67 415,821.87 415,821.87 415,821.65 415,82166 1,317,720.00 1,291,560.00 1,265,400.00 1,239,240.00 1,213,080.00 237,793.45 230,173.45 222,553.45 214,933.45 199,267.48 518,174.85 518,964.01 519,407.29 519,176.31 519,505.64 152,443.06 150,153.55 147,884.05 145,574.54 143,285.03 69,312.07 68,120.40 66,928.91 65,737.33 64,545.75 277,959.90 279.175.12 273,099.04 267,022.95 260,946.88 3,603,830.22 3,6/4,298.51 3,587,129.61 3,102,618.31 2,400,630.76  ATTACHMENT C  C-1    FY28  FY29  FY30  FY31  FY32  FY33  FV34  FY35  FY36  FY37  FV38  520,152.04 517,583.78  140,995.53 138,706.02 136,416.51 134,127.00 131,837.49 129,547.99 127,258.48 124,968.97 122,679.46 120,389.95 63,354.16 62,162.58 60,971.00 59,779.41 58,587.82 57,396.24 56,204.66 55,013.08 53,821.50 52,629.92 254,870.78 248,794.69 242,718.60 236,642.52 230,566.44 224,490.35 218,414.26 212,338.18 206.282.09 200,188.00 194,109.84 979,372.51 967,247.07 440,106.11 430,545.93 420,991.75 411,434.58 401,877.40 392,320.23 382,763.05 373,205.67 104,109.84  c-2,    - &  o,  -  C-3    Firefox  pslcamomseguneadu,adOcNcNnauydcine)-mxtas.  hitps lcanonss sog.unce eu/2014/03new- construction delivery- methods- public-private- partnerships p3l  SCHOOLOF GOVERNMENT  MUNC  Coates' Canons NCLocal Government Law  New Construction Delivery Methods - Public-Private Partnerships (P3)  Published: 03/05/14  Author Name: Norma Houston  In my last two posts, I described the new design-build and design-build bridging construction delivery methods authorized by the General Assembly during the 2013 legislative session. This post completes our discussion of the new delivery methods by outlining the third method authorized in S.L.  2013-401/H857 - public-private partnerships(P3). What is a Public-Private Partnership?  The basic concept ofthe P3 legislation is to, provide flexible contracting authority under which units of government can partner with a private developer for the construction, operation, and financing ofa capital project. Prior to the legislation' 's enactment, local governments had to seek authorization from the General Assembly through local acts to enter into public private partnerships. The new legislation makes this development and finançing option available statewide to all public entities. Public-private partnerships are not new in North Carolina. This type of contracting method has been authorized from time to time by the General Assembly, such as for the Department of Revenue's Tax Information Management System in 2009 (S.L. 2009-451, Sec. 6.20), the Town of Matthews in 2010 (S.L. 2010-52), Onslow County in 2013 (S.L. 2013-37), and certain Department ofTransportation projects (G.S. 136-28.1) and toll roads (S.L.2 2012-184). Similar public-private financing authorization has been available for well over a decade for NCSU's Centennial Campus, UNC-CH's Horace Williams Campus, and the Millennial Campuses of other UNC constituent institutions (Article 21B of Chapter 116). Public schools have had public-private partnership authorization since 2006 for built- to-suit capital leases (G.S. 115C-532: this statute expires July 1,2015). Public-private partnerships were the subject ofa 2009 legislative study commission and a study by NCSU's Institute for  fopyright $ 200910 Presents sctloffiovemmenta att theu University ofs North Carolina  ATTACHMENT D  D-1 4/162024.4:23PM  1of4    Firefox  https:licanons: sogunc-cdu2014.03delvey-metnots.  htps:!/canonss sgwpedwnuows construction- delivery methods-public- private- -partnerships P3, obtain specific legislative authorization through a local act.  Emerging Issues. What is new 1S the statutory framework for entering into a P3 contract and the availability of this contracting and financing method for any unit of local government without having to A public private project is defined under the new G.S. 143-128.1C as a' "capital improvement project undertaken for the benefit ofa governmental entity and private developer pursuant to a development contract that includes construction ofa aj public facility or other improvements, including paving, grading, utilities, infrastructure, reconstruction, or repair, and may include both public and private facilities." Under the P3 construction delivery method, the unit of government is authorized to acquire, construct, own, lease (as lessor or lessee), and operate aj public-private project or facilities within aj public-private project, and may make loans or grants for these purposes. Importantly, the private developer must provide at least 50% of the financing for the total cost of the project." BI The Local Government Commission must approve the contract ifiti involves a capital or operating lease. BI To enter into a P3 contract, units of government must comply with the statutory requirements set out in G.S. 143-128.1C. The procedures are similar to those required for design-build and design-build bridging contracts only in that they are based on the Mini-Brooks Act. Otherwise, the P3 procurement Adopt Written Findings: To begin the P3 contracting process, the unit of government must make written findings that it has a critical need for the project. While the statute does not specifically require governing board approval, entities that are a public body under the Open Meetings Act (Article 33Cof Chapter 143) must adopt these findings at an open meeting oft the body, which for local governments means the governing board must approve the findings. Unlike the design-build and design-build bridging statutes, there are no specific criteria that must be adopted by the governing board other than a Determine Programming Needs: After approving the use oft the P3 method, the unit must determine its programming requirements for the facilities to be constructed under the P3 contract and the form in which private developers submit their qualifications. This information forms the basis of the RFQ the Publish Notice ofRFO: Next, the unit must advertise notice for interested private developers to submit their qualifications. The advertisement must be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the county in which the unit is located. The statute does not specify a minimum timeframe for the publication period, but units should choose a time sufficient for interested parties to develop a proposal taking into consideration the complexity ofa P3 project. While the unit is not required to  P3C Contracting Process  requirements are substantially different.  finding that there is a critical need for the project.  unit advertises.  Coyyright 2009 toPresents Schoolo ofGovernment: atthe UniversityofN Northcirolina.  D-2 4/162024,4:23PM  2of4    Firefox  tips./canons.sog.un.du2014.0)mew-consinuction-dein-delivery-melnods.  hupsllcanonss publish the sogunce programming edu/2014/03/new: construction requirements delivery- methods in Kpagr-wayy". the advertisement itself, it must make these requirements available to potential respondents in whatever form the unit deems appropriate. Receive Responses: Units may choose to receive responses to its RFQ in any form it deems appropriate; seaied proposals and aj public opening are not required. Private developers must submit 1) Evidence of financial stability (the statute specifies that information that constitutes a "trade  the following information as part oftheir response to the RFQ: secret" under G.S. 66-152(3) remains confidential). 2) Experience with similar projects.  3) An explanation of project team selection by either listing licensed contractors, liçensed subcontractors, and licensed design professionals whom the private developer proposes to use for the project's design and construction, or a statement outlining a strategy for open contractor and 4) As statement oft the developer'savalability to undertake the public-private project and projected  subcontractor selection based competitive bidding procedures.  time line for project completion.  5) Any other information required by the unit.  Evaluate Responses and. Select Developer: The unit may award the development contract to the private developer it determines to be best qualified, which is the standard ofa award under the Mini- Brooks Act (G.S.143-64.31). However, unlike a traditional Mini-Brooks Act selection process, the unit may negotiate with one or more of the respondents during the evaluation process. The statute is silent on the criteria the unit must use in evaluating the qualifications oft the respondents, sO the unit is free to develop their own criteria based on its programming needs, project scope, and any other factors Award Development Contract: The unit's governing board must award the development contract at an open meeting after aj public hearing and at least 30 days' published: notice oft the terms oft the contract. The advertisement oft the terms of the contract and the public hearing must be in a newspaper of general circulation within the county in which the unit is located. The unit must also make availablea summary of the contract terms and conditions, and indicate how to obtain a copy of the complete Development Contract Terms and Conditions: The development contract between the unit and the private developer specifies the parties' interests, roles, and responsibilities for the project. Ata I) The property interests oft the unit and the private developer (this could include ownership, lease  related to the project it deems appropriate.  contract.  minimum, the contract must address: arrangements, or both).  Copyrightez 20091 TOF Presents ScholofCovemments arthet University of North Carolina.  p-3 4/162024,4:23PM  3of4    Firefox  ps/eanomsogun-dNnctionaelvep-mehads.  htrps: icanons.s sogyperdupouoymew. construction- delivery: methods. publie. private partnerships- ps/ construction and on-going operation and maintenance activities).  2) The development responsibilities ofthe unit and the private developer (this çould include both 3) The financing responsibilities of the unit and the private developer (remember that the private developer must provide at least 50% oft the financing for the total cost oft the project). 4) The parties' good faith efforts to comply with HUB participation requirements and to recruit and select small business entities (the term' "small business entities" is not defined in the statute). The development contract also may require the developer to be responsible for some or all of the construction, purchase of materials and equipment, compliance with HUB participation requirements, and to use the same contractor(s) as the unit. It also may require the developer to purchase materials for the project at a reasonable price. Ifthe project utilizes the design-build construction delivery method, the procurement requirements of the new design-build statute (G.S. 143-128.1A) apply. Performance and payment bond requirements also apply, and the statute sets out specific procedures The private developer with whom the unit contracts cannot perform any design or construction work on the project unless a contractor defaults, a qualified replaçement cannot be obtained in a timely manner, Finally, the private developer and its contractors must comply with state HUB participation requirements, which include bidders' good faith efforts to solicit historically underutilized businesses on building construction projects costing $300,000 or more (G.S.143-128.2).  for claims under aj payment bond made against the private developer." U  and the unit approves.  [G.S. 143-128.1C(a)08). [2] G.S. 143-128.1C(b).  [3JG.S. 143-128.1CG). A capital or operating lease involving a public school cannot contain  provisions relating to student assignment (G.S. 143-128.1C(D).  [4] G.S. 143-128.1C(g).  All rightsr reserved. This! blog posti isp published and posted online byt the School of Government toa addressi issues ofi interest to government offiçials. This! blogposti isf fore educational: andi informational use and mayb be used for those purposes without permission byp providinga acknowledgment ofi its source. Usec oft this bloge post for commercial purposes is prohibited. Tob browsea acompletecatalog of School of Government publications, please visit the School'sy website at www.sog.u unc. educ or contact thel Bookstore, Schoolof Government, CB# 3330 Knapp- Sanders Building, UNCChapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC27599-330,e-mal: sales@soguncedu,t telephone  919.966.4119;0rf fax 919.962.2707.  Copyright 2 2009t toPresent SchoalofGovemment: atthel LniversicyofN North Carolina.  D-4 4/162024,4:23PM  4of4    Public-Private Partnership  A new law became effective on October 10, 2023, and applies to any covered public enterprise Part IVofs S.L. 2023-138 (See attachment F) compels LGC approval of any agreement in which al local govemment concedes or transfers control ofa public enterprise that the local government owns or The requirements for these arrangements include holding aj public hearing describing the terms oft the agreement. After the public hearing, the local unit's governing board may proceed only after adoptinga resolution declaring that the proposed arrangement isi in the public interest. In making this determination,  agreements executed on or after that date. operates to a nongovernmental entity.  thel board must consider ALL the following:  1. The physical condition of the public enterprise;  2. The capital replacements, additions, expansions, and repairs needed for the public enterprise to provide reliable service and meet all applicable federal standards; 3. The availability of federal and State grants and loans for system upgrades and repairs of 4. The willingness and the ability oft the nongovernmenta. entity to make system upgrades 5. The reasonableness of the amount to be paid to the unit of local government to enter the The reasonableness of any amounts to be paid by the unit of local government to exit the 7. The service quality guarantees provided by the arrangement and the consequences of any 8. The most recent income and expense statement and asset and liabilities balance sheet of the nongovernmental. entityand any consolidated nongovernmenta. entity; 9. The projected rates to customers of the public enterprise during the term of the arrangement and the affordability of the services of the public enterprise resulting from 10. The experience of the nongovemmenta. entity (and, if applicable, its affiliates within the consolidated nongovernmeptal entity) in the operation of utility systems similar to the 11. The alternatives to entering the arrangement and the potential impact on utility customers  the publice enterprise;  and repairs and provide high-quality and cost-etfective service;  arrangement; arrangement;  failure to satisfy the guarantees;  such projected rates;  public enterprise that is the subject oft the arrangement; and  ifthe arrangement is not entered.  Local units should record the governing board's findings addressing all these considerations as part of the Once the governing board adopts its resolution, the LGC may consider the proposed arrangement for approval. Like al bond issuance, the local government will apply to the LGC for approval and work with Department of State Treasurer staff to prepare the appropriate documentation and address any concerns.  written resolution or supporting documentation.  ATT ACHMENT E  E-1    Public-Private Partnership  The LGC may only approve thej proposed arrangement ifi it finds and determines that the customers of the public enterprise will enjoy reasonable and material short-term and long-term savings and other net benefits from the arrangement during the term oft the arrangement without the imposition of any material The LGC may consider any of the following in making its determination (this is a non-exclusive list):  cost or charge upon termination oft the arrangement.  1. The projected financial feasibility oft the proposed arrangement in the short-term and long-term, its effect on rates to be charged to the customers of the public enterprise under the arrangements being proposed, andi its effect on the quality of services to be provided 2. The projected rates to customers of the public enterprise during the term of the arrangement, the basis for the establishment ofs such rates and the reasonableness oft the basis, and the affordability df the services of the public enterprise resulting from such 3. Ifthe unit of local government will receive an initial payment for participating in the arrangement, a summary of the unit of local government's proposed plans for the use of 4. Iftl there is any indebtedness of the unit of local government associated with the public enterprise, the plans for the retirement or defeasance of suchi indebtedness. 5. The financial condition of the nongovernmenta. entity andi its affiliates within the consolidated nongovernmental. entity and its ability to carry out the undertakings required 6. The experience of the nongovernmenta. entity andi its affiliates within the consolidated non-governmental. entity in the operation of utility systems similar to the public 7. The nongovernmental entity's plans to finance its initial participation in the arrangement and futurei improvements to the public enterprise and the expected participation of the 8. The obligations of the nongovernmenta. entity set forth in the agreement for the maintenance of the public enterprise and the installation of improvements to the public enterprise during the term of the arrangement and the requirements of the agreement that adequate reserves be maintained during the term of the arrangement for such maintenance 9. The plans set forth in the agreements for the arrangement for maintaining the quality of the components of the public enterprise to be returned to the control oft the unit of local 10. Any ongoing financial and other commitments of the unit of local government under the 11. Any financial payments the unit of local government is expected to be required to pay to the nongovernmental. entity or any other person or entity at the end of the arrangement.  by the public enterprise under the arrangement.  projected rates.  the initial payment.  of the nongovernmental entity in the arrangement. enterprise that is the subject of the arrangement. unit of local government in any financing.  andi improvements.  govemment at the end of the term of the agreement.  arrangement during its term.  E-Z    Public-Private Partnership  12. The effect, if any, oft the arrangement on the tax status ofi interest on debt obligations issued by the unit ofl local government, or any other units ofl local government on account of contractual arrangements the other unit of local government may have with the unit of  local government proposing the agreement being considered.  As with other contracts requiring LGC approval, any agreement subject to this new law that is executed without LGC approval is void.. And thel law makes it unlawful for any officer, employee, or agent ofa  local unit to take any actions pursuant to the agreement.  E-3    SL. 2023-138( (SB 678)  htpsywww.neieggow EnactedL.egislation SesnLayHTML2032-  alteration. or removal. the cost shall () include all labor and materials costs associated with the project for the applicable dam and (i_not include the costs associated with acquisition of land or right-of-way, design, quality control, electrical generating. machinery, or constructing a Immediately upon completion of construction, repair, alteration, or removal ofa dam, the owner shall file a certification with the Director, on aform prescribed by the Department, and accompanying. documentation, which shows actual cost incurred by the owner for construction, repair, The owner's certification and accompanying. documentation shall be filed with the as-built plans and the engineer's certification. Ift the Director finds that the owner's certification and accompanying. documentation contain inaccurate cost information, the Director shall either withhold final impoundment approval, if applicable, orrevoke final impoundment approval, ifapplicable, until the owner provides accurate documentation and that documentation has been verified by the Department. Final approval to impound shall not be granted until the owner's certification and the accompanying, documentation are filed in accordance with subdivision (3)_of this subsection and the remainder of the application processing and compliance fee has been paid as provided by Payment of the application processing. and compliance fee shall be by check or money order made payable to the Department and reference the The Dam Safety Account is established as a nonreverting account within the  roadwayacross the dam.  (3)  alteration, or removal of the applicable dam.  a. b.  (4)  this subsection. applicable dam.  (5)  (b)  Department. Fees collected under this section shall be credited to the Account and shall be PART IV. REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS TO CEDE OR TRANSFER CONTROL OVER A PUBLIC ENTERPRISE TO A NONGOVERNMENTAL ENTITY; PROHIBIT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS FROM ENTERING NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENTS IN ORDER TO RESTRICT ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS SUBJECT TO DISCLOSURE UNDER THE  applied to the costs ofadministering this Part."  PUBLIC RECORDS ACT rewritten:  SECTION 5.(a) Article 8 of Chapter 159 of the General Statutes reads as  "Article 8.  "Financing Agreements and Other Financing ArmengsemesArangenens.Atmnsemens  for Nongovernmental Control of Public Enterprises.  "$_159-154. songovernmental. control of public enterprises. (a) For purposes of this section. the following. definitions apply:  (1) Adjusted revenues. Gross revenue ofa public enterprise minus the cost ofcommodinypurchases and wholesale clectriciypurchases for the public Consolidated nongovernmental entity. - Collectively, all affiliated nongovernmental entities. which includes cach cntity's parents,  enterprise.  (2).  ATACHMENT F  F-1 4162024,431PM  Ilof18    SL 2023-138 (SB6 678)  attps/www.ncleg.goEnactedlegsattionsesionlaws/HTML2023-2.  subsidiaries, and each other entity that owns, directly or indirectly, at least ten perçent (10%)of the capital or voting rights of the entity, and each other entity in which the entity owns, directly or indirectly, at least ten Control. - Any one or more of the following, except that a contractual arrangement by a unit of local government with a nongovemmental entity top provide specified maintenance services for a fixed fee or fee per service basis alone does not create control of the public enterprise for purposes of The authority to expend or otherwise manage during any fiscal year more than fiftypercent (50%)ofa public enterprise'sa adjusted Responsibility for provision to the public of the services previously provided by the public enterprise. Responsibility for operation and maintenance ofa material portion ofthe assets and facilities oft the public enterprise. The authority to manage a material portion of the staff responsible for operation and maintenance of the assets and facilities of the Nongovernmental entity. = Any_person or entity other than (i) the State, (ii)a unit of local government, or (iii) a public body created pursuant to Public enterprise. - All or a material portion of one or more of the systems set forth in G.S. 160A-311,G.S. 153A-274, and Chapter 162Aof Unit of local government. - A "unit of local government" as defined in G.S.159-7 and a "publica authority" as defined in G.S.159-7. No unit of local government may concede or transfer control of any public  percent (10%) ofithe capital or voting rights.  (3)  this section: a. b. Ç. d.  revenues.  public enterprise.  (4) (5) (6) (b)  Chapter 159Bofthe General Statutes.  the General Statutes.  enterprise that the unit of local government owns or operates to any.nongovemmental entity. or consolidated nongovernmental entity or enter into an agreement to do so unless the concession or transfer of control and the agreement thereunder have been approved by the Commission pursuant to this section as evidençed by the secretary's certificate thereon. Any agreement subject to Commission approval under this section that does not bear the secretary's certificate thereon shall be void, and it shall bc unlawful for any officer, employee, or agento ofa unit oflocal government to take any actions thereunder. (C) Before executing. an agreement subject to this section, the governing board ofthe unit ofl local government shall file an application for Commission. approval of the agreement with the secretary of the Commission. The application shall state such facts and have attached to it such documents concerning the proposed agreement and the arrangements proposed to be carried out thereunder as the secretary may require. The Commission may prescribe the form of the application. Before the secretary accepts the application, the secretary may require the governing board or its representatives to attend a preliminary conference at which time the secretary and deputies may informally discuss the proposed (d) Prior to the Commission's consideration of whether to approve an agreement subject to this section and the arrangements thereunder, the governing body of the unit of local government shall conduct a public hearing on whether the proposed arrangement is in the public interest and following the public hearing the governing. body shall adopt a resolution or take a similar action stating. that it determines that the proposed arrangement is in the public interest. The public hearing. shall be held by the governing body of the unit of  agreement and arrangements proposed to be çarried out thereunder.  F-2 4/162024,4:31PM  12of18    SL: 2023-138 (SB6 678)  tps/www.ncleggovEnactedlegsattonsessonlaws/HTML2023-2.  local government proposing. the arrangement lowing.pubications of notice of the public hearing at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The notice of public hearing shal! describe the proposed arrangement in general terms. In determining that the arrangement is in the public interest, the governingb body of the unit oflocal government shall consider,ata  minimum, all ofthe following:  (I) The physical condition of the public enterprise.  (2)  The capital replacements. additions. expansions. and repairs needed for the public enterprise to provide reliable service and meet all applicable (3) The availability of federal and State grants and loans for system upgrades  federal standards.  and repairs oft the public enterprise.  (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)  The willingness and the ability of the nongovermental entity to make system upgrades and repairs and provide high-quality and cost-effective The reasonableness of the amount to be paid to the unit of local The reasonableness of any amounts to be_paid by the unit of local The service quality guarantees provided by the arrangement and the The most recent income and expense statement and asset and liabilities balance sheet of the nongovernmental entity and any consolidated (9) Thep projected rates to customers of the public enterprise during the term of the arrangement and the affordability of the services of the publiç (10) The experience of the nongovernmental entity and its affiliates within the consolidated nongovernmental entity in the operation of utility systems similar to the public enterprise that is the subject oft the arrangement. (11) The alternatives to entering. into the arrangement and the potential impact on utility customers ift the arrangement is not entered. (e) The Commission may approve an agreement for a unit of local government to çonçede or transfer control ofa public enterprise and the arrangement to do sO ifit finds and determines that the customers of the public enterprise will enjoy reasonable and material short-term and long-term savings and other net benefits from the arrangement during the term of the arrangement without thè imposition of any material cost or charge on the unit of local government or its customers upon termination of the arrangement. In determining whether a proposed agreement and the arrangements thereunder shall be approved. the Commission shall have authority to inquire into and to give consideration to such matters that it may believe to have bearing on whether the proposed agreement and the arrangement thereunder should be approved. Such matters mayi include any oft the following:  service.  government to enter into the arrangement. government to exit the arrangement.  consequences ofany failure to satisfy the guarantees.  nongovermental. entity.  enterprise resulting. from such projected rates.  (1)  The projected financial feasibility of the proposed arrangement in the short-term and long-term, its effect on rates to be charged to the customers of the public enterprise under the arrangements being.proposed. and its effect on the quality of services to be provided by the public enterprise (2) The projected rates to customers of the public enterprise during. the term of the arrangement, the basis for the establishment of such rates and the reasonableness of the basis, and the affordability of the services of the  under the arrangement.  public enterprise resulting. from such projected rates.  F-3 4/16/2024, 4:31PM  13of18    SL 2023-138 (SB6 678)  ttps:/www.ncleg-gov/EnactcdLegisiation/sessionLaws/HTML/2023-2.  (3) (4) (5)  Ifthe unit of local government will receive an initial payment for participating. in the arrangement, a summary of the unit of local govemmentsproposed plans for the use oft the initial payment. Ifthere is any indebtedness of the unit of local government associated with the public enterprise, the plans for the retirement or defeasance of The financial condition of the nongovernmental entity and its affiliates within the consolidated nongovernmental entity and its ability to carryout the undertakings required of the nongovernmental entity in the (6) The experience oft the nongovernmental entityand its affiliates within the consolidated non-governmental entity in the operation of utility systems similar tot thepublic enterprise that is the subject of the arrangement. The nongovernthental entity's plans to finance its initialparticipation in the arrangement and future improvements to the public enterprise and the expected participation ofthe unitoflocal government in any financing. (8) The obligations of the nongovernmental entity set forth in the agreement for the maintenânce of the public enterprise and the installation of improvements to the public enterprise during. the term oft the arrangement and the requirements of the agreement that adequate reserves be maintained during the term of the arrangement for such maintenance and (9) The plans set forth in the agreements for the arrangement for maintaining thec quality of the components oft the public enterprise to be returned to the control of the unit of local government at the end of the term of the Any ongoing. financial and other commitments of the unit of local (II) Any financial payments the unit of local.govemment is expected to be required to pay to the nongovernmental entity or any other person or (12) The effect, ifany, of the arrangement on the tax status ofi interest on debt obligations issued by the unit of local government. or any other units of local government on account of contractual arrangements the other unit of local government may have with the unit of local government proposing  such indebtedness.  arrangement.  (7)  improvements.  agreement.  (10)  government under the arrangement during its term. entity at the end of the arrangement.  the agreement being considered.  (f) The Commission may require that any.projection or other analysis provided to the Commission in connection with its consideration of the arrangement be prepared by a (g) Ifthe Commission tentatively decides to deny the application because it cannot be supported from the information presented to it, it shall so notify the unit of local government filing, the appliçation. Iftl the Commission approves or denies the application, the Commission shall enter its order setting forth such approval or denial of the application. If the Commission enters an order denying. the application, the proceedings under this section shall be concluded. An order approying. an application shall not be construed as an approval provided in this section and thereafter the parties determine to terminate the agreement voluntarily_prior to the expiration of its stated term, the unit of local govemment shall not enter into any such termination arrangement unless the termination is approved by the  qualified independent expert approved by the Commission.  oft the legality oft the agreement in any respect.  (h)  Ifthe Commission approves an agreement and the arrangements thereunder as  F-4 4/16/2024,4 4:31PM  14of18    SL: 2023-138 (SB678)  Atps.wwwncleg.goEmaciedLegsationesionLawS/HTML2023-2.  Commission following a procedure similar to the procedure for initial approval of the agreement and arrangement required by this section. This section shall not prohibit the termination of an agreement in the exercise of legal remedies following a breach of the provided in this section and thereafter the parties determine to amend the agreement ina material respect, the unit ofl local government shall not enter into any such amendment unless the amendment is approved by the Commission following a procedure similar to the  agreement in accordance with its terms.  (i)  Ifthe Commission approves an agreement and the arrangements thereunder as  procedure for initial approvai ofthe agreement.  G)  Nothing_ in this section shall be construed to apply to the sale of a public SECTION 5.(b) G.S. 132-1 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "(c) Nopolitical subdivision ofthisState may enter into ar nondisclosure agreement in order to restrict access to public records subject to disclosure under this Chapter. The çontract by which a political subdivision of this State agrees not to disclose information deemed confidential under State law shall be a publicrecord. unless the existence of the çontract is also deemed confidential under State law. Ifa nondisclosure agreement is associated with one or more closed session meetings under Article 33C ofChapter 143 ofthe General Statutes, the nondisclosure agreement shall be included in the minutes of each 2023, and applies to any nondisclosure agreement entered into on or after that date. The PART V. EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION AND COMPENSATION EXEMPTIONS  enterprise to a utility regulated by the North Carolina Utilities Commission." .  closed session meeting."  SECTION 5.(€) Subsection (b) of this section becomes effective November 1,  remainder of this section is effective when it becomes law. FOR UTILITIES COMMISSION: AND PUBLIC STAFF "$62-14. Commission staff; structure and function.  SECTION 6.(a) G.S. 62-14 reads as rewritten:  (a)  The Commission is authorized and empowered to employ hearing examiners;  court reporters; a chief clerk and deputy clerk; a commission attorney and assistant commission attorney; transportation and pipeline safety inspectors; and such other professional, administrative, technical, and clerical personnel as the Commission may determine to be necessary in the proper discharge of the Commission's duty and responsibility as provided by law. The chairman shall organize and direct the work of the (b) The salaries and compensation of all such personnel shall be fixed in the manner provided by law for fixing and regulating salaries and compensation by other State egeneies-agencies. except that the Commission and its employees are exempt from the classification and compensation rules established by the State Human Resources Commission pursuant to G.S. 126-40Dthrough (4):G.S. 126-4(5)only as it applies to hours and days ofwork, vacation, and sick leave: G.S. 126-4(6)only: as itapplies to promotion and transfer; G.S. 126-4(10)only: as itapplies to the prohibition of the establishment ofi incentive pay programs; and Article 2 ofChapter 126 oft the General Statutes, except for G.S. 126-7.1. authorize and approve travel, subsistence and related expenses of such personnel, incurred "S62-15. Office of executive director; Public Staff, structure and function.  Commission staff.  (c)  The chairman, within allowed budgetary limits and as allowed by law, shall  while traveling on official business."  SECTION 6.(b) G.S. 62-15 reads as rewritten:  (a)  There is established in the Commission the office of executive director, whose  salary and longevity pay shall be the same as that fixed for members of the Commission.  F-5 4/162024,4:31PM  15of18