Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20080603 APPROVED 9/16/2008 MINUTES ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING June 3, 2008 7:30 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 3, 2008 at 7:30 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom in Hillsborough, North Carolina. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Mike Nelson COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Laura Blackmon, Assistant County Managers Willie Best and Gwen Harvey, and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda Chair Jacobs pointed out an addition to the agenda, Item 4-dd, which is related to signing on to some legislation. There were a number of items at the County Commissioners' places: Triangle Transit Annual Report (formerly Triangle Transit Authority), Water Supply Reservoir Water Levels Report, a letter related to item 4-d (goldenrod), memo related to 5-b (light blue), a brochure about tethering dogs, and material for the work session on June 10th related to the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Jacobs summarized the public charge. PUBLIC CHARGE The Board of Commissioners pledges to the citizens of Orange County its respect. The Board asks its citizens to conduct themselves in a respectful, courteous manner, both with the Board and with fellow citizens. At any time should any member of the Board or any citizen fail to observe this public charge, the Chair will ask the offending person to leave the meeting until that individual regains personal control. Should decorum fail to be restored, the Chair will recess the meeting until such time that a genuine commitment to this public charge is observed. All electronic devices such as cell phones, pagers, and computers should please be turned off or set to silent/vibrate. Laura Blackmon asked Gwen Snowden, Mike Tapp, and Jeanette Jones to come forward. She said that when she first came to work for Orange County in 2006, the County did not have a Director of Emergency Management. Gwen Snowden and Mike Tapp agreed to serve as Interim Director, and then Jeanette Jones volunteered to assist as Interim Deputy Director of Emergency Medical Services. She wanted to bring them forward to recognize them for keeping the department moving forward. She presented certificates of appreciation and said that their dedication was superb. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Jim Dooley said that June 20-21 is the 26th annual Hog Day. He gave gifts of appreciation for the County Commissioners. Hog Day will be going "zero waste" this year. Chair Jacobs said that the County Commissioners appreciate all that he does for the Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Kevin Foy read a prepared statement: Chairman Jacobs and members of the Board of Commissioners; Madam Manager; Mr. Attorney. I appreciate your giving me an opportunity to speak before you this evening. I am here on behalf of the Chapel Hill Town Council. Like you, we are in the midst of our budget considerations; and like you, we find ourselves confronted with difficult choices in a year of increasing health care costs, increasing energy costs, and other pressures. But I want to speak with you tonight only tangentially about the budget. My real focus this evening is on growth —the cost of growth as it relates to one part of our community. And in that regard, I want to speak with you about providing library services in Orange County. As you know, the Chapel Hill library, whose operations have long been funded in part by a contribution from the Board of Commissioners, is growing. You know that the demand for libraries throughout Orange County is growing — in fact Orange County is building a new library in Hillsborough and considering building a new library in the southern part of the county. The continuing growth in demand at the Chapel Hill library has prompted the Town Council to begin construction this year on a $16 million expansion, which will significantly increase the physical size of the library and its ability to serve Orange County citizens. The Chapel Hill library is one of the most heavily used in the state, and it consistently gets high marks for quality of service. But one thing I draw to your attention is this fact: the Chapel Hill library currently serves a significant number of patrons who live in Orange County but not in Chapel Hill. In fact, our data indicates that almost 40% of the library's patrons are Orange County residents who live outside Chapel Hill. These patrons borrowed almost 350,000 items last year. The reason that I bring this up is because the county's contribution to library operations (which is the contribution on behalf of these patrons) is approximately 11%; this discrepancy between patron usage at 40% and patron funding at 11% is not sustainable for the town. That's why we are seeking an increase in county support. I think this funding discrepancy is an anomaly, because 20 years ago, the county's share of funding for the library was 20% of operating costs. That is why I am requesting that the county restore its contribution this year to a level of 20% of the operating budget. This would still leave a gap of almost 20% in the difference between patron service and patron funding; but I believe that the county and the town can come to some kind of equitable arrangement over the next year or so that would address our long-term relationship regarding library funding. Funding library operations will be a key issue for the town, particularly as the library's operating costs and predicted usage increase after the expansion is complete, and there are some options available. For example, the approximately 5% of patrons who are neither residents of Chapel Hill nor of Orange County currently pay an annual fee for a library card that entitles them to full usage. If that fee were sufficient to offset the cost of service, its cost would increase significantly. However, if that high fee were applied to all residents outside of Chapel Hill, including those in Orange County, we believe it could be a disservice to the broader community that might in particular adversely affect school children and their families. But those are the kinds of matters that the county and the town could discuss over the next year. I realize you have many matters to consider; and you need to get on with your meeting. But again, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to speak. I am confident that we can work together for the benefit of all Orange County citizens, and I hope you will seriously consider my request to restore the funding level for the library to 20% for this fiscal year, an amount of $462,000. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda below.) 3. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Receipt of Sustainability Award from Glass Packaging Institute The Board considered recognizing the Solid Waste Department, and specifically Recycling Programs Manager Robert S. Taylor, for receipt of the national Glass Packaging Institute's Annual Sustainable Practices Award for the County's commercial recycling program. Solid Waste Director Gayle Wilson introduced Rob Taylor. He said that this award is for all of the staff— drivers, processors, etc. He introduced Blair Pollock, who is instrumental in operation and planning for programs. He said that the citizens of the County make the program a success. He said that he is proud that Orange County is a leader in recycling in the nation. Chair Jacobs thanked Gayle Wilson and the staff. b. Sanford Holshouser Economic Impact Analysis of the Buckhorn Village Project The Board received the report as comment and evidence regarding Buckhorn Village Planned Development and Special Use Permit. Willie Best introduced Crystal Morphis, Managing Partner in the Sanford Holshouser Business Development Group, which is the economic development consulting arm related to Sanford Holshouser law firm, which has been working with the County. She made a PowerPoint presentation as shown below: Economic Impact of the Buckhorn Village Project on Orange County, NC Crystal Morphis, CEcD, Managing Partner Overview • Engaged to examine the economic impact of the proposed Buckhorn Village project. • Information sources: o Public data o Previous studies o Economic Impact of Buckhorn Village, Orange County, NC o Orange County Tax Value Analysis o The Cost of Community Services in Orange County o County staff Buckhorn Village Project Overview • 130 acres @I-85/1-40, Buckhorn Road • Mixed-uses: anchor retail, lodging, restaurants, other retail, 200 multi-family units • 1,133 projected employed • $143 million estimated investment • To be located in a designated economic development zone Tax Revenue • $1.35 million in annual new property tax revenue upon build out • $6 million in new annual retail sales tax revenue, about half of which will be realized by the County (half being distributed to municipalities) • $92,000 in new lodging tax revenue • In addition to ongoing revenue, the construction phase is estimated to generate $875,000 in retail sales tax revenue and create 932 construction jobs Orange County Retail Market • Retail market is underserved and leaking dollars • Fewer retail establishments • Lower per capita retail sales • Lower median household disposable income to retail sales ratio (4th in MHHDI, 6th in MHHDI to retail sales ratio) • Smaller percentage of workforce employed in retail and accommodation and food service sectors • Comparable Counties: Chatham, Durham, Alamance, Wake, Johnston, and Cabarrus Project Costs • Public services (safety and infrastructure) limited as Mebane will annex within one year of construction initiation or at Certificate of Occupancy • Wages unlikely to encourage people employed at the development to relocate, limiting impact on schools • New 200 multi-family units will have some impact on schools • No environmental permits, other than standard construction permits, are required Additional Benefits • Infrastructure extensions will open an economic development zone for future growth • Spin-off development for small businesses offering services to Buckhorn Village Sustainability • Retail leakage indicates residents are driving to neighboring retail markets — creating shopping and entertainment centers locally encourages people to remain in county • Anchors spur small business development • Creating local jobs will combat out-commuting (population growth almost double labor force growth) • Residential development is subsidized by industrial and commercial development @ $4.21 to $0.76 • Retail, food service jobs important to an economy • Infrastructure extensions will not open residential areas Summary • Consistent with land use plan • Opens an economic development zone for future employment centers • Will provide significant new tax revenues • Minimal, short-term cost to public services until annexation • Keeps more citizens working and shopping locally Commissioner Gordon made reference to the analysis of sales tax revenue and asked how this number was determined. Crystal Morphis said that in North Carolina retail sales tax is shared within the County and the municipalities on a per capita population basis or an ad valorem tax base. In Orange County, it is population base. She said that she gathered from staff, that in general, about half of the property tax that comes to the County is shared with the municipalities based on that per capita population base formula. Commissioner Gordon asked about the confidence of the estimates of the sales tax. Crystal Morphis said that she is very confident of the property tax and the retail sales tax, but all of the calculations are based on assumptions and until a store is open, an exact number cannot be pinpointed. Commissioner Gordon pointed out that people from this immediate area could come and shop, but people from farther out might not come as gas prices rise. She asked how this would affect the analysis. Crystal Morphis said that she thinks rising gas prices would be of benefit to this project because the people that are leaving the community now to go to other counties and shop would be coming here because it would be closer. Commissioner Nelson made reference to retail leakage and said that the population center is Chapel Hill and Carrboro and people in that area would not drive 30 miles round trip to shop here versus 15 miles to shop at Southpoint. Commissioner Nelson made reference to environmental costs and asked if it was standard operating procedure for an economic cost benefit analysis to only look at permit costs for environmental issues. He understood that there were often other environmental costs. Crystal Morphis said that if a company applied for a particular environmental permit that would lead to further examination of air quality, water quality, etc., that is an indicator of environmental impact because of having to apply for a permit. The analysis did not go beyond this. Commissioner Nelson said that some issues raised by the public have revolved around this shopping center being further away from the population center. Crystal Morphis said that if there are shopping entertainment centers closer to populations, then they will travel less. She said that, in examining Orange County, there are a lot of people in neighboring counties that drive through Orange County to get to shopping centers, and they would probably stop and spend their dollars in Orange County. Commissioner Nelson said that at the last public hearing, some people supported the project, and others did not want low-income jobs. He said that there is a cost related to subsidizing services for the individuals with these low-income jobs. This was not analyzed and he had specifically asked that this be analyzed. He said that the Board of County Commissioners and the Economic Development Commission need to have a discussion about what kind of product they want as a community. 4. Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below: a. Minutes The Board approved the minutes from March 6, 11 and 12, 2008 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board. b. Appointments — None c. Amendment to Current Year Contract with Northen Blue, L.L.P. to Provide DSS Legal Services for the Remainder of FY2007-08 The Board approved the amendment for DSS legal services for the remainder of FY 2007-08 with Northen Blue, L.L.P. and authorized the Chair to sign. d. Renewal of Contracts with In-Home Aide Providers to Provide In-Home Aide Services to Eligible Adults The Board approved contract renewals with In-Home Aide Providers to Provide In-Home Aide Services to Eligible Adults using a joint contract between the Department of Social Services and the Department on Aging and the Arcadia Health Services, Inc., Personalized Patient Home Assistance, Inc., Southern Home Care Services, Inc., Touched by Angels Home Healthcare II, In., Triangle Home Health Care, In., and Homewatch Caregivers of the Triangle, Inc. and authorized the Chair to sign the contract renewals contingent upon attorney review and approval of the Orange County Budget. e. Hyconeechee Regional Library Contract Agreement Renewal The Board approved renewing the contract agreement between the Hyconeechee Regional Library System and the counties of Caswell, Orange, and Person and authorized the Chair to sign. f. Contract Renewal with Town of Chapel Hill for County Provision of Animal Control and Emergency Animal Rescue Services (EARS) and for Pet License Fee Collection The Board approved a contract renewal and authorized the Chair to sign the contract with the Town of Chapel Hill for Animal Control Services and Emergency Animal Rescue Services in the amount of $75,000 and the collection of license fees, subject to final review by the Staff and County Attorney. Contract Renewal with Town of Carrboro for County Provision of Emergency Animal Rescue Services (EARS) and for Pet License Fee Collection The Board approved the contract renewal and authorized the Chair to sign the contract with the Town of Carrboro for Emergency Animal Rescue Services in the amount of $6,000 and for the collection of license fees, subject to final review by Staff and the County Attorney. h. Contract Renewal with Town of Hillsborough for Animal Control and Emergency Animal After Hours Call Services The Board approved a contract renewal to provide the Town of Hillsborough with Animal Control and emergency animal after hour call services for FY 2008-2009 for a set fee of $19,421 and authorized the Chair to sign, subject to final review and approval by the County Attorney. i. Contract Renewal with Dr. James Miller, DVM, DBA North Churton Street Animal Hospital, for Spay/Neuter Services with the Animal Shelter Division of the Animal Services Department The Board approved a contract renewal with Dr. James Miller, DVM, to provide spay/neuter surgery services for Orange County's Animal Shelter at the unit price of $63 per animal during FY 2008-2009 and authorized the Chair to sign, pending final review by the County Attorney and pending budgetary approval. L Contract Renewal with Dr. Marat Dubrovsky, DVM, DBA Nicks Road Veterinary Clinic, for Spay/Neuter Surgery Services with the Animal Shelter Division of the Animal Services Department The Board approved a contract renewal with Dr. Marat Dubrovsky, DVM, to provide spay/neuter surgery services for Orange County's Animal Shelter at the unit price of $63 per surgery during FY 2008-2009 and authorized the Chair to sign, pending final review by the County Attorney and pending budgetary approval. k. Robert and Pearl Seymour Center Custodial Contract Extension The Board approved continuing a contract with OE Enterprises for custodial services at the Robert and Pearl Seymour Center from July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009, and authorized the County Manager to sign. I. Property Information Management System Discovery Phase Contract The Board approved a contract with Patriot Properties of Lynn, Massachusetts to engage in initial planning for implementing a new land records and property taxation system and authorized staff to execute the necessary paperwork. m. Agreement for Seymour Center Public Art Project The Board authorized the County Manager to sign the Seymour Center Public Art agreement with artist Wayne Trapp contingent upon final review by staff and the County Attorney. n. Impact Fee Reimbursement— Habitat for Humanity The Board approved the impact fee reimbursement request from Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, NC, Inc. for$18,000 for six new homes. o. Orange County HOME Consortium Agreement The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, authorizing the execution of a HOME Consortium Agreement for the period July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2011 upon approval by the County Attorney. Grant Opportunity— Expansion of Aging and Disability Resource Connections (ADRC) The Board approved the County Department on Aging to proceed with a Chatham County partnership towards submittal of a formal grant application to the NCDHHS-OLTSS for creating or improving local management information infrastructure for expansion of Aging and Disability Resource Connections (ADRC). Bid Award for the Herbert Blackwood House (future New Hope Park at Blackwood Farm) The Board awarded a bid and approved a contract with Mulberry Restorations, Inn. In an amount not to exceed $40,345 for structural repairs to the Herbert Blackwood House (future New Hope Park at Blackwood Farm); and authorized the Chair to sign. r. Purchase of Aerator for Parks and Recreation The Board authorized the Purchasing Director to execute the necessary paperwork to purchase a Toro Procore 1298 Aerator from the Federal GSA contract from Smith Turf and Irrigation of Charlotte, NC at a total cost of $26,366.55. s. Contract Award, Construction Manager at Risk Services, Animal Services Facility Phase II — Building The Board approved an amendment to the Contract with Clancy & Theys as Orange County's Construction Manager at Risk for the construction of the Phase II-Building package for the Orange County Animal Services Facility at a total Guaranteed Maximum Price of $7,354,500, subject to final review and approval of the County Attorney; and authorized the Chair to sign. t. Lease Approval: Hillsborough Commons This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. u. Lease Renewal —Walnut Grove Solid Waste Convenience Center The Board approved renewal of the lease for the Solid Waste Convenience Center located on Walnut Grove Church Road at a cost of $350 per month for the period of July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2013 and authorized the Chair to sign. v. Recycling Processing and Collection Program Expansion Details and Implementation Plan This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. w. Interim Solid Waste Management Plan Adoption The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, adopting the Interim Solid Waste Management Plan three-year update for submittal to the State of North Carolina. x. Approval of Proposed Land Exchange for Orange County Public Works Land with the Town of Hillsborough Land Related to the Agreement Between the Town and the County This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. Scheduling of Public Comments During the June 24, 2008 Regular Meeting on a Potential One-Quarter Cent Sales Tax Increase Referendum This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. z. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Planned Development Review and Approval Procedures This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. aa.Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Telecommunication Wireless Facility This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. bb.Request to Schedule a Public Hearing for June 24, 2008 on SUP-A-2-08 Farm Montessori School Application This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. cc. Change in Orange County Farmers' Market Vendor Fee and Approval of a Mid-Week Market Day This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate consideration. dd.Resolution Expressing Orange County's Position on One Legislative Item Regarding Local Government Authority to Provide Development Incentives In Exchange for Reductions In Energy Consumption The Board will consider approving a resolution expressing Orange County's position on one legislative item regarding local government authority to provide development incentives in exchange for reductions in energy consumption. VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS ITEMS TO BE REMOVED FROM CONSENT AGENDA: t. Lease Approval: Hillsborough Commons The Board considered approving a lease for 56,328 square feet of space at Hillsborough Commons Shopping Center for use by the Department of Social Services (DSS) and directing the County Attorney to collaborate with staff and the owner to prepare the lease; and authorizing the Chair to sign. Chair Jacobs said that the Chair was going to send a letter to the operators at Hillsborough Commons, and this has not been done. He assured the owner that a letter from the Board of County Commissioners is forthcoming and nothing will change. A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to collaborate with staff and the owner to prepare a lease for approximately 56,328 square feet of space at the Hillsborough Commons Shopping Center that incorporates the material terms cited above; and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board. Commissioner Gordon asked for a copy of the lease agreement and Pam Jones said that as soon as the County Attorney's office is finished with it, she would get a copy to the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS v. Recycling Processing and Collection Program Expansion Details and Implementation Plan The Board considered a request to endorse the components of the FY 2008-09 Solid Waste Management budget relevant to implementing the transition to commingled bottle and can collection, program expansion and the proposed timeline for implementation, pending approval of the FY 2008-09 Solid Waste Enterprise Fund budget. Chair Jacobs said that he wanted to tell people what the County was expanding — curbside cardboard collection and the collection of hard plastic containers at the collection centers. A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to endorse, pending adoption of the FY 2008-09 budget, the service improvement approach for: - the transition from the current source-separated program to commingled collection, shipment, and marketing of recyclables; - adding corrugated cardboard to curbside recycling; - adding new, source-separated plastics at drop-off sites; - adding more commercial recycling stops; - adding a ban on Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) at the landfill; and - implementing public education and outreach for all these changes. VOTE: UNANIMOUS x. Approval of Proposed Land Exchange for Orange County Public Works Land with the Town of Hillsborough Land Related to the Agreement Between the Town and the County The Board considered approving the proposed land exchange for Orange County Public Works with the Town of Hillsborough related to the agreement between the Town and the County, thereby helping to finalize the Fairview Public Campus Master Plan approval process; and authorizing the Chair and Clerk to sign. Chair Jacobs said that he noticed that there were some people in attendance from Fairview. He said that the County is continuing to work with the Town of Hillsborough to make it possible for Hillsborough to expand its Public Works operation without delaying proceeding with the park at Fairview. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve the land exchange as identified in the survey and authorize the Chair and Clerk to sign the transfer documents. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Scheduling of Public Comments During the June 24, 2008 Regular Meeting on a Potential One-Quarter Cent Sales Tax Increase Referendum The Board considered scheduling an opportunity for the Board to receive public comments at the June 24, 2008 Regular Board Meeting on a potential referendum on a one- quarter cent additional sales tax in Orange County. Commissioner Gordon said that she is concerned about having enough time to have a public hearing for this at the June 24th meeting, because it will be a heavily-scheduled meeting. She also asked what will happen and how public comment would affect the decision that the Board makes. Chair Jacobs said that the idea was that if the Board wanted to consider putting something on the ballot in November, then it must be decided by August. Even if it passes, the County Commissioners can decide not to enact it. Commissioner Gordon said that it takes a long time to educate the public in a neutral way. Commissioner Nelson said that he is also concerned. He said that he would support a sales tax referendum, but he wonders if this is the right time to take it to the public. He does not feel comfortable with this, given the timing and the recession. Commissioner Foushee said that she shared Commissioner Nelson's concerns and she is not comfortable with having a public hearing and making a decision the same night. She is also not comfortable with entertaining this notion, prior to knowing the budget implications and the fact that there is a slow economy right now. Commissioner Carey said that the meeting on August 19th will be loaded as well, and the Board would have to discuss it at a subsequent meeting, which would push the timing out even further. Chair Jacobs said that the deadline for getting this on the November ballot is August 291h The next meeting after August 19th is in September. He suggested putting this on the agenda for June 24th for discussion. z. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Planned Development Review and Approval Procedures The Board considered accepting additional evidence, if any; accepting the Planning Board recommendation; closing the public hearing; and adopting the proposed amendments to several provisions contained within "Article Seven (7) Planned Development" of the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Gordon said that she removed this item because it does not really lend itself to being on the consent agenda. Geof Gledhill said that the public hearing is closed on these two text amendments and the Planning Board's recommendation is included. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to approve administration's recommendation to accept the Planning Board recommendation and adopt the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to Planned Development review and approval procedures. VOTE: UNANIMOUS aa. Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: Telecommunication Wireless Facility The Board considered accepting additional evidence, if any; accepting the Planning Board recommendation; to closing the public hearing; and adopting the proposed amendments to four sections/articles of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance concerning the review, approval, and development of telecommunication wireless facilities. Commissioner Gordon noted that the legislature made changes. She asked if this was all that was changed and if anything had changed in scope and Craig Benedict said no. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to accept additional evidence, if any; accept the Planning Board recommendation; to close the public hearing; and to adopt the proposed amendments to four sections/articles of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance concerning the review, approval, and development of telecommunication wireless facilities. VOTE: UNANIMOUS bb. Request to Schedule a Public Hearing for June 24, 2008 on SUP-A-2-08 Farm Montessori School Application The Board considered scheduling a public hearing for the June 24, 2008 regular meeting to review the SUP-A-2-08 Farm Montessori School application. Commissioner Gordon said that the notice was defective last month, and she understands the urgency of getting this back on, but asked if there would be time to consider it, since the June 24th meeting will have a full agenda.. Chair Jacobs said that the Board would deal with this that night and try to keep comments to a minimum. He said that it would be a shame to penalize the applicant since a mistake was made. A motion was made by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Carey to schedule a public hearing for the June 24, 2008 regular meeting to review the SUP-A-2-08 Farm Montessori School application. VOTE: UNANIMOUS cc. Change in Orange County Farmers' Market Vendor Fee and Approval of a Mid-Week Market Day The Board considered approving a reduction of the daily vendor fee at the Orange County Farmers' Market to $5 and to approving a mid-week market day. Commissioner Nelson asked what kind of financial impact this would have on the County. Laura Blackmon said that there has not been a financial analysis, but the governing board is asking for the reduction to increase the number of vendors. Commissioner Nelson asked about standard vendor fees at other markets and Laura Blackmon said that it is $14 for Carrboro and the Hillsborough Farmers' Market has a set fee for members for the year. Commissioner Nelson said that he opposes this proposal. Chair Jacobs suggested doing a financial analysis at this point and see how it works out this season, and then examine it again in the fall. Commissioner Nelson agreed. Commissioner Carey said that he thought that after a year, there would be an analysis to see what has occurred and then the County would spin it off. Laura Blackmon said that the farmers' market governing board will be sunset in February 2009. Commissioner Carey said that he thought this would be done whether it would be profitable or not. Chair Jacobs said that nobody anticipated that there would be three markets out of two groups rather than one market out of two groups. A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to approve the daily vendor fee reduction to $5.00 and approve a mid-week market day, with the understanding that there would be a financial analysis presented in the fall after the season ended. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Public Hearings a. Annual Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan — Section 8 Housing Program The Board conducted a public hearing and considered approving submission of the Annual Public Housing Agency Plan for the Orange County Housing Authority and authorizing the Chair to sign. Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes said that the U. S. Department of HUD requires that all agencies that operate the Section 8 existing Housing Assistance Program prepare an annual plan. Orange County Housing and Community Development operates this program for Orange County, and it serves approximately 615 families. Most of these units are located in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area or in the southern end of the County. About 54% of the families are elderly or disabled, with the other 46% being working families. The annual budget for this program is a little over$4 million. The public comment period for this plan began on April 18th, concludes today, and was advertised in the Chapel Hill Herald. There are no substantive changes proposed in this annual plan since the five-year plan was approved in 2005. There was no public comment. A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey to close the public hearing and approve submission of the Annual Public Housing Agency (PHA) Plan for the Orange County Housing Authority and authorize the Chair to sign the Certification of Compliance/Board Resolution on behalf of the Board. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Buckhorn Road Associates LLC Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit Application(s) The Board considered action on Planned Development Rezoning and Class A Special Use Permit application proposing the development of a Planned Development on property located within the I-85/Buckhorn Road Economic Development District. Craig Benedict said that this is a continuation of a public hearing that was adjourned from February 25th to April 1st, and at that time it was referred to the Planning Board for a recommendation back to the Board of County Commissioners tonight. He made reference to the large notebook, along with the smaller document that has to do with the attachments for the agenda. This includes staff analysis of Article 20, Rezoning Criteria; Article 7, Planned Development Criteria; Planning Board recommendation, Draft PD SUP Conditions of Approval; Class A SUP Findings of Fact; and an outline of the evidence. The black notebook has public comments, testimony, and the legislative decision. The notebook is organized chronologically. Also, tonight there are certified copies of the zoning code and economic development code, and land use element. It is not Administration's recommendation at this point for the Board to come to a decision tonight. The Planning Board has reviewed this document and developed a schedule to meet on May 7th, May 14th, and May 21St. Each of these meetings was 3-4 hours, and the recommendations are part of Attachment 2 of the smaller booklet. The Planning Board reviewed all of the articles. The Planning Board still needs to look at the Findings of Fact. He read the concluding statement of the Planning Board, which is within the resolution: "The Planning Board recommends that the Board of Commissioners postpone action on the application until revised plans and additional information is submitted by the applicant in accordance with these recommendations, and further recommends that the Planning staff and Planning Board be given adequate time and opportunity to complete necessary analysis and develop additional recommendations." Craig Benedict then read the Administration Recommendation, as stated on page 4 of the agenda abstract: Administration recommends that the Board: 1. Receive into evidence all written materials presented to the Planning Board; 2. Receive Planning Board recommendations (Attachments Two and Three (b)) and staff analysis (Attachments One (a) and (b) and Three (a)) regarding: a. Article 20 Zoning Amendments; b. Article 7 Planned Developments (PD); c. BVPD-ED design solutions, items 1-14 except#11. 3. Direct the Planning Board to complete its work and provide its recommendations by June 12th: a. To continue and complete work on additional conditions of approval not noted within Attachments Three (a) and (b); b. Complete their recommendations on Article 8 Special Use Permits and Findings of Fact (Staff findings are in Attachments Three (a) and Four). 4. Adjourn public hearing to June 24th, 2008 at the Southern Human Services Center at 7:30 p.m. Chair Jacobs asked about the meeting schedule of the Planning Board and Craig Benedict said that there is a meeting tomorrow, and then there could be a meeting on June 111h, depending on what decisions are made tonight. Commissioner Gordon asked what would happen after the meeting on June 24th. Craig Benedict said that June 24th would be the time to take action with fuller recommendations from the Planning Board. Commissioner Nelson asked Jay Bryan if this was enough time for the Planning Board. Jay Bryan said that this would be a difficult timetable for the Planning Board to meet. Secondly, he made reference to the resolution in the white notebook, and said that most of the Planning Board needed a fair amount of additional information. Chair Jacobs said that he has spoken to Jay Bryan about this, and the Planning Board has been working diligently on two major items simultaneously, and they discussed bringing this back on August 19th to give the Planning Board more time to discuss this. Commissioner Foushee asked if there were members of the current Planning Board that would be rotating off at the end of June and Jay Bryan said that there are some members scheduled to rotate off even before the end of June, but have not rotated off yet because they have not been replaced. Commissioner Foushee said that she has some fears about new members coming onto the Planning Board and the education factor of this process, which is so involved. Jay Bryan said that the Planning Board is engaged and involved in this, and he would hope that the members would stay on for this additional period of time. Larry Wright, Planning Board member, said that up until May 21St, the Planning Board sessions were staff-driven. He said that, on that date, the Planning Board members voted to have the Planning Board member-driven. He said that Planning Board members were buried under piles of documents, much of it redundant; lacking attribution, identity, or date. He said that this consumed valuable time. Planning Board members found elements to be incomplete, non-conforming, conflicting, erroneous, or amiss. Requests were made in writing for documents and maps and they were never delivered. He said that the Planning Board has spent many hours on this issue, and the last session was five hours. The Planning Board outlines and details information it deems necessary to conduct a pragmatic, fair, and neutral assessment of the proposal relative to existing land use and zoning. He would like to hear some justifications for the extreme urgency to push this process through. He noted that the Planning Board members are volunteers and their occupations and personal business take priority over their volunteer activities. Commissioner Carey said that it is important to give the Planning Board a reasonable amount of time to review the materials and to have the needed discussions. He suggested shooting for the August meeting for this item to give the Planning Board time to discuss this issue. PUBLIC COMMENT: Judith Wegner, Planning Board member, said that the fiscal analysis was not neutral. She said that there is great talent on the Planning Board, but they are getting information from staff that is not responsive to the Planning Board's concerns. She said that one of the major concerns of the Planning Board was the traffic study. She said that no one is looking critically at this material. She said that the volume of paper is too much for the Planning Board, and she thinks that she might write to Sanford Holshouser and tell them her opinion of the presentation tonight. She said that there should be a date certain that things should stop changing, because the Planning Board still has some critical questions. Michelle Kempinski, Planning Board member, asked if the Board of County Commissioners received the two copies of the Holshouser report. She said that there are differences in the two analyses. The second version contains an extra page, which is the methodology section. Laura Blackmon said that the first copy was a draft that was given to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board asked for additional information. Chair Jacobs suggested moving forward and having the Planning Board take its economic development recommendations to the EDC and having the Planning Board work on Planning items —traffic analysis, issues about water and sewer, conditions, etc. The Economic Development Commission meets this month and in July, and there can be a recommendation back to the Board of County Commissioners from the EDC also. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Nelson to accept the Planning Board's recommendation and schedule the Planning Board to come back with a report on September 2nd Commissioner Nelson thanked the members of the Planning Board for their candor. He said that this economic analysis was not a good product. Chair Jacobs asked what to communicate to the consultant and Commissioner Nelson said that he does not want the consultant to do another report. Geof Gledhill clarified that the motion was to condense the Administration recommendation to direct the Planning Board to complete its work and provide its recommendation by the last meeting before September, which is August 61h. The County Commissioners would have to adjourn the public hearing to September 2nd at a specified time and place. The Board does not have to receive into evidence information or the recommendations of the Planning Board at this time. The recommendations could be folded into one recommendation for the next time this is considered. He suggested that the Planning Board recommendation be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners no later than September 2nd and that the public hearing be adjourned until September 2nd Chair Jacobs asked Geof Gledhill to clarify what he is suggesting. Geof Gledhill said that if the Planning Board does not complete its work by August 61h then that means that, in order for it to provide a recommendation back to the Board before September 2nd, it has to have a special meeting. He suggested that the recommendation be brought back to the Board of County Commissioners no later than September 2nd and that the public hearing be adjourned to September 2nd Commissioner Gordon agreed to amend her motion to reflect Geof Gledhill's comments above, to adjourn the public hearing until September 2nd and have the recommendations come back from the Planning Board at this time. Commissioner Nelson accepted this. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Regular Agenda a. Proposed Animal Ordinance Amendment on the Tethering of Dogs The Board considered adopting a proposed ordinance amendment to the Orange County Animal Ordinance restricting the tethering of dogs. Animal Services Director Bob Marotto introduced Chair of the Animal Services Advisory Board, Dr. Ross Oglesby. He said that the proposal before the Board is the result of a tremendous amount of work by the Tethering Committee and the ASAB over a very long period of time. The committee and the ASAB had discussions with experts from other jurisdictions in North Carolina. Public input sessions also played a role in the recommendations. He said that there was a concerted effort to reach a balance between some opposing views in the community. He said that the original review and discussion referenced exceptions for escape artist dogs and for hunting dogs. The draft includes exceptions for these animals, but ultimately, the Tethering Committee and the ASAB opted to not include those exceptions for three reasons: 1) concerns about the legal issues that might arise by creating exceptions; 2) impact that exceptions might have on the ease of enforcement; and 3) the issue of fairness. Dr. Ross Oglesbee read her prepared statement: As human beings we have free will, self-determination, and the power to control our environment and the environment of all things on this planet. Along with the privilege of being the dominant species, comes a responsibility to respect, not only each other, but all other living things that are on this planet with us and to use our domination responsibly and compassionately. Perhaps we should treat other species of animals as we would wish them to treat us, were they in our dominant position. Dogs are conscious beings. They feel cold, heat, pain, fear, pleasure, and affection. The overwhelming information about this issue is that the quality of life for dogs, and their well-meaning humans, would be improved if tethering was limited or eliminated entirely. You have heard and read a lot about this issue. The Tethering Task Force, which is composed of diverse and knowledgeable individuals from this county, at your behest, have already spent a lot of time, effort, and research into this issue. The Task Force and Animal Services Advisory Board have provided you with their consensus on this matter; they have imparted their knowledge about this issue to you. Knowledge is power. You now have the knowledge to do the right thing with respect to this issue. You know what the right thing is and you have the power to do the right thing. Gandhi said: The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. I will paraphrase that to say that the greatness of this county and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. Hippocrates said: I expect to pass through this world but once; any good thing therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow creature, let me do it now; let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again. The soul is in all living creatures, although the body of each is different. And finally, from George Bernard Shaw: The worst sin towards our fellow creatures is not to hate them, but to be indifferent to them, that is the essence of inhumanity. Please don't be indifferent to the quality of a dog's life; don't be indifferent to the information you have received; act on the knowledge you have. The Tethering Committee did what it was charged to do and drafted a sound, reasonable, and fair proposal. Now, with the power you have, do the right thing; vote tonight to approve the tethering amendment. Thank you. Commissioner Carey commended the ASAB and the Tethering Committee on their hard work on this emotional issue. He said that the Board of County Commissioners has not had a chance to discuss this item as a Board yet. He said that the public all wants the same thing — humane treatment of animals. He does have concerns about the size of the pen that is proposed in this ordinance and he wants to discuss this. He said that the Board needs to talk about a three-hour limit of tethering and he is not ready to make a decision on this item tonight. Commissioner Nelson said that the last public comment session was about an hour long and there are 60 + signed up to speak tonight. He said that when this is brought back, it will be for Board of County Commissioners' discussion only. The Board needs to be able to discuss this. Commissioner Carey said that the Board may ask staff to bring back further information and it may want to refer this back to the Tethering Committee or ASAB for consideration, if need be. Commissioner Foushee said that there are questions that the Board of County Commissioners needs an opportunity to raise, but she does not want to bring this up until the public has had their say. She has questions about enforcement. Chair Jacobs made a few suggestions. He said that it is not a competition to see who gets the most speakers or who has the loudest applause. He said that he sees a number of people signed up to speak who spoke last time, and he asked that they not speak again, in courtesy to others who have not spoken yet. He said that the Board does listen, and the same things do not need to be said again. There was a citizen in opposition to what Chair Jacobs said. Chair Jacobs also asked that anyone that comes to speak please remove their hats. PUBLIC COMMENT: Dennis Carden is from Caldwell in Orange County and is a charter member of the Quail Farm Beagle Club. This club has 50 kennels built to USDA standards, and they oppose this tethering ordinance and the pen laws that are included in it. He said that he is an AKC licensed judge and he travels all over judging beagles. He feels that this ordinance invades their rights as hunters and dog owners. He said that these dog owners have had a lifetime commitment and he feels like they are not even being considered. He thinks that it is all about what the Tethering Committee thinks. He said that USDA already has a standard size pen. He asked what is big enough. He said that he takes very good care of his dogs and keeps his pens and feeding bowls clean. He said that he was proud to be an Orange County citizen until recently. Charles Best is a lifetime resident of Orange County. He owns 300 acres of land and said that he works hard to keep it. His father taught him how to hunt as a child, to respect a gun, and how to treat a dog. He said that in the 30's, it was good to have rabbit or squirrel on the table. He said that he feels like he was losing his right to teach his children about having dogs. He has small dogs now. He does not see how smaller dogs need the same size pen as larger dogs. He does not think that more laws are needed, because there are laws now for people that mistreat dogs. He challenged the Board to come out to NC 54 and the Quail Farm Beagle Club. He said that revenues come in to the County through the field trials that the beagle club coordinates. He said that he has had dogs all of his life and he loves his dogs. He thinks that he is being penalized. David Aman said that he is speaking in favor of the tethering ordinance amendment. He said that passage of this amendment would give the Animal Protection officials an additional tool with which to come to the aid of a distressed and neglected dog that has been chained for an inordinately long period of time. He said that this ordinance amendment is based on a genuine expressed interest driven by citizens who live within the boundaries of this County. To his knowledge, there is no ordinance amendment supporter who receives money from anyone within or outside of the County to professionally organize or lobby for the passage of this type of local issue. He said that this process has been going on for one year, and this is the fourth public hearing. Robin Harrison said that she has been a resident for 20 years. She said that her dog is tethered now, and she would be breaking this ordinance by just attending this meeting. She said that if she left her dogs loose, they would dig under, climb over, or high jump her fence. She said that this amendment does not make sense and she is opposed to it. Elaine Modlin read a prepared letter to the County Commissioners. She is an Animal Control Officer from Laurinburg, NC. "Dear Commissioners: The City of Laurinburg passed its first tethering ordinance in November, 1997 with an effective date of December 1998. The first ordinance allowed dog owners to tether their dogs for up to 8 hours within a 24-hour period. This proved to be too time-consuming to enforce, so in 2000 we amended the ordinance to one hour within a 24-hour period. We passed our tethering ordinance for two main reasons (1) the safety of our citizens and (2) for the humane treatment of animals. On the issue of safety, our records indicated that fifty-one percent of our dog bites were from dogs that were confined on chains or had been chained and had broken loose. This is compared to only 19 percent of bites from dogs that were confined in a fence. On the issue of inhumane treatment of animals, we were constantly receiving calls in reference to chained dogs. They were usually tangled up and unable to get to shelter or water. Many of these cases had been like this for long periods of time. Attempts to correct or eliminate these situations were futile and time-consuming. Passing this ordinance has definitely improved our records for protecting our citizens from dangerous dogs. It has helped eliminate residences with multiple dogs chained out, reducing such complaints as nuisance barking and odor. Our cruelty cases are significantly reduced as well as our dog bites from chained or loose dogs and complaints about dogs running loose. We have also seen a dramatic reduction in litters of puppies, partly because of the tethering ordinance, but also because of the state spay/neuter law. Although enforcing this ordinance had brought on extra work and time in the beginning, after almost 10 years our impoundments have been reduced by half. And most of these are strays, not owned by our citizens. It has been very rewarding seeing the addition of fenced in backyards and the dogs happily running around. Owners have commented to me that their dogs seem happier and easier to take care of. I hope that Orange County decides to pass a tethering ordinance, you will be making the lives of your residents safer and improving on the lives of many deserving dogs." Pat Sanford spoke at the last meeting and said that she is a member of the ASAB and she supports this amendment. All of the members of the ASAB are from Orange County. Sandi Coy is the Chairperson of Responsible Dog Owners of the Eastern States. She is also the new CEO of the United Responsible Dog Owners International. She is from Kentucky and was asked by residents of Orange County to come and speak. She said that she came tonight to try and set a few myths to bed. She said that laws of this sort are very difficult to enforce and they tend to give another law on the books that people are not going to follow. It is almost impossible to enforce, especially if there is a short limit for tethering. She said that a lot of the groups that try and start the anti-tethering movement have usually quoted a study done by the CDC, which was done in 1994 and is called, "Which Dogs Bites, a Case- Controlled Study of Risk Factors." This study was done on dogs that were taken in by Denver Metro Animal Services in 1991, so the study is already 17 years old. She said that the information is probably not still pertinent. Also, there were lots of exclusions in the study. The study started out with 991 dogs, and by the time the exclusions were done, the number was down to 357 dogs. She said that there are many flaws in this study. After this study was done, with all of the flaws, and the authors even said that the study was flawed, the Animal Rights Movement still uses it. She quoted something from the study: "One hundred and sixteen were aggressive when they were approached in their fence. Only 64 of the tethered dogs were aggressive. Our results, however, showed no significant difference in the behavior of dogs chained and those not chained, suggesting that chaining was not likely to have been the result of aggressive behavior." Deanna Rowan is a resident of Orange County. She supports this ordinance amendment. She said that this is not an animal rights agenda issue; it is a humane treatment of dogs' issues. She said that no one wants to take away anyone's right to have dogs and to hunt. The concern is how the dogs are being kept. She said that the first part of her life was spent in Georgia and Alabama where hunting is a way of life, and she had a lot of close friends that had hunting dogs, and none of them were chained or tethered. She said that this is not about the hunters, but about the hundreds of dogs in Orange County that are chained 24/7, exposed to elements, rarely contacted by their owners, and are subjected to abuse and neglect. Kitty Lynn said that she has rescued hundreds of dogs. She said that chained dogs often become aggressive and territorial for a lack of love and nutrition. They will attack children who enter their territory. She read the names of some children that have been killed or injured by dogs all over the United States. She said that more and more communities are passing laws that regulate the practice of tethering animals, and Orange County will not be the first. She read the names of some cities that have done this. She spoke in favor of the ordinance amendment. Phillip Pennell said that his feelings run deep on this issue. He said that, from the list of children read by Ms. Lynn, there were only a few that were killed by tethered dogs. He said that Person County has a dangerous breed law that Orange County needs to have to contain these types of dogs. He said that he has searched and not once has a hound ever inflicted wounds, but they were mostly from dangerous breeds. He brought out a chain to show the County Commissioners what the Orange County law is with a ten-foot chain. He said that a ten-foot chain would allow 400 square feet of movement, versus 100 square feet with a ten- foot pen. He read from the summary from the Tethering Committee: "Of particular concern are dogs that spend their lives tethered as they are naturally active and social, being that required exercise and frequent interaction with humans and other animals." He said that a ten- foot cage is restricting the dog from exercise. He said that when you take the sociality out of a dog, it makes them mean. He said that he has owned hundreds of dogs, and he has always taken very good care of them. He does not appreciate people coming in and trying to say that chains make bad dogs. Tommy Frazier said that he has dogs and they are better off on a chain than in a pen. He said that it is cleaner to have a chain than a pen. He said that the citizens pay taxes on dogs and there should not be a law. George Painter said that he is opposed to this becoming a law and if the ones on the book now were enforced, there would not be a problem. He said that Ms. Modlin was trying to do a good thing in Scotland County, but he pointed out that she said that those that do not agree with the law are those whose dogs are not well taken care of. He said that when the committee was formed, the Board of County Commissioners asked that there be members on both sides of the argument. The one person that was against it was not allowed to be on the committee. He said that he attended the first open meeting for comment, and two people from his group volunteered to fill the vacant position of someone that was in favor of tethering. This was denied. He said that the whole study was done by those who wanted this amendment passed. He said that the Board of County Commissioners needs to restudy this and put some people on the committee that are on the other side of the issue so that it is fair. Mark Soloman said that he supports this ordinance for several reasons. The first is public safety. Chaining dogs contributes to aggression and constitutes a public safety threat. He said that it has been shown that dogs that are chained are more likely to bite than unchained dogs. The second is the humane issue. Prolonged chaining is harmful to dogs and deprives them of necessary exercise and socialization; it subjects them to dangers of becoming entangled, preventing them from reaching food, shelter, or water and causing injuries such as strangulation, trachea damage from pulling, and the embedding of collars; it makes dogs vulnerable to attack from free-roaming dogs and wildlife. Numerous Orange County veterinarians have endorsed this tethering restriction. The next reason is over- population. Chained dogs contribute to the community's pet over-population problem. Dogs that are continuously tethered are frequently unsterilized and there is no barrier protecting chained female dogs from unwanted breeders. In fact, every chained female dog that the Coalition to Unchain Dogs has helped locally has had at least one and often multiple litters of puppies. The puppies end up in local shelters and cost taxpayers' money. Finally, this is an important tool for animal control. Seven North Carolina jurisdictions, including the counties of New Hanover and Scotland, report positive results from anti-tethering ordinances, including a decrease in the number of animal cruelty complaints and dog bite incidences. Nancy Garson- Anger read a letter on behalf of Jean McNeill, Animal Control Services Manager of New Hanover County. She said that the anti-tethering ordinance is too important an issue to be silenced in an atmosphere of intimidation. She encouraged the County Commissioners to move forward thoughtfully, compassionately, and not fearfully. "Dear County Commissioners, I am writing this letter in support of your county passing an anti-tethering ordinance for the protection of your community's companion animals. New Hanover County has had the privilege of such a law for many years, and our residents enjoy the safety it affords our pets. Animal cruelty is a serious matter, and we must do all we know to do to keep it from happening in whatever manner we are able. Many would argue that you should merely enforce the laws that you already have; however, in our experience, you cannot enforce what you do not have. The majority of offenders will not comply with suggestions, so adequate enforceable laws are necessary to cause compliance. Anti-tethering is a step in the right direction to enhance responsible pet ownership. Having a pet entails great responsibility, so we must be proactive in educating owners about the best care they can provide. We passed the ordinance many years ago, but did not write actual citations until quite some time after the law became effective. We issued warning notices, which gave the dog owner time to make corrections. This is not nearly as effective as simply writing the citation. In our experience, an owner will comply more rapidly, if there are consequences for failure to do so. We have the administrative ability to void a citation, if they correct the problem in a timely manner. Again, this would not be possible if no law was on the books to enforce. Our residents have responded favorably to having a means of preventing animal cruelty in at least one form. Prior to passing the ordinance, we saw many cases of dogs being left on short leads or ropes for many hours — or permanently— at the household. Many individuals lost their pets due to strangulation, heat stroke, and in some severe cases —the owner's intentional animal abuse of starvation. We had no means of preventing this abuse until the law was enforceable. The ordinance was challenged in April 2007. We had a group of Pit Bull owners, who desired to tether their dogs with heavy chains connected to tire axles. Fortunately, our advisory committee, board of health, and County Commissioners saw through these individuals and upheld the law. We are grateful. We are also in high hopes that you will also act as responsibly for your community pets as we have in New Hanover County. The majority of your residents are counting on you to do the right thing, despite the very vocal minority that opposes the law. Please feel free to contact me about this important issue. I look forward to hearing back from you with a good report. I can be reached at 910-798-7505 or jmcneil©nhcgov.com. Sincerely, Jean P. McNeil New Hanover County Animal Control Services Manager" Amanda Stipe is a Chapel Hill native, a former Animal Control Officer within the area, and a dog trainer. She believes that enforcement is an option. She said that a one size fits all approach will not work to confine animals, protect them, and protect the public. She said that governments and organizations should continue to work together to educate the public to the responsibilities of dog ownership. She said that the proposal for anti-tethering is too restrictive and each dog must be considered individually. She read an excerpt from the book, "The Love of a Dog," by Patricia McConnell, where a visiting young friend did not survive a dog attack. "The two girls were alone in the house, except for a total of six large dogs. An adult male, an adult female, and four adolescents. None of the dogs had been spayed or neutered. All were underweight and in poor condition. None of the dogs had received any training, nor had they been outside the house beyond being tied up to a chain in the yard. Neighbors reported several incidents in which the dogs had been screamed at, struck, and kicked. Social services reported that most of the surfaces in the home, including the beds, were covered with the dogs' urine and feces." She said that this shows the people problem that we have. She said that a tethering law would not have helped in this circumstance and might have been the reason the dogs were confined indoors with unsupervised juveniles. Training people on animal behavior is key to responsible dog welfare and ownership. Educating people on the benefits of spaying and neutering is also important. She said that regulations or laws should not be so restrictive that they hinder options to dog owners who are willing to do the right thing for themselves, the public, and their pets. Animal Control may have a more difficult time in locating animal abusers as they move indoors, no longer under plain sight. She asked the County Commissioners to consider not enacting this proposal in its current state, but to provide Animal Control and law enforcement additional monies to enforce current laws. Lamar Chapman said that he spoke at the last meeting, but he said that he was here to speak on behalf of some people that could not attend. He said that at the last meeting people were saying that dogs had feelings and were emotional, etc. He said that all dogs may not like chains, just like some people like coffee or tea. He said that some dogs will run off if left out, but his dog will run around and then come home. He said that this is not mistreatment. He read from something: "We are our own town; we don't care how other counties are run. If they said, `jump in front of a bus,' would you do it? Everything they have presented us with is from another county. It is not from Orange County. We are our own county." He said that the committee should have talked to the people in the community and not people from other counties. He said that most of the people that are for the anti-tethering ordinance were not even raised in Orange County. He said that if this ordinance is passed, his dogs will go to another residence in another county. Eliana Beattie does not live in Orange County, but she works at the animal shelter. She read a letter signed by nine local veterinarians: "To the Board of County Commissioners: We, the undersigned veterinarians who practice in and around Orange County urge the Board of County Commissioners to vote in favor of the Animal Control Ordinance amendment to restrict the practice of tethering dogs and establish minimum kennel sizes for dogs. We agree with the Tethering Committee's findings that: - Prolonged tethering deprives dogs of necessary exercise and socialization; - Tethered dogs can and do contribute to various community nuisance issues such as barking and pet overpopulation; - Tethered dogs can and do pose a risk to public safety and health because they may become aggressive and they are not confined behind a barrier. In addition, as veterinarians, we believe that chained dogs are subjected to a variety of dangers, including trachea damage from pulling on the chain; embedded collars; and injuries sustained in attacks from free-roaming dogs. There are many alternatives to chaining available, including adequately-sized pens, fences, and simply keeping dogs inside and walking them several times a day. By voting in favor of this amendment, the BOCC will be taking a positive step toward protecting the public and improving the treatment of dogs in our community. We urge you to do so without delay. Sincerely, Soren Windram, DVM, New Hope Animal Hospital Kay Bishop, DVM, New Hope Animal Hospital Ken Redmond, Vine Veterinary Hospital Kathy Crabtree, DVM, Carver Street Veterinary Hospital Pat Pagel, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital Michelle Droke, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital Deborah Stein, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital Megan Harris, DVM, Cole Park Veterinary Hospital Marjorie Lindeke, DVM, St. Francis Veterinary Hospital" Timmy Frazier said that he has tried to make all of these meetings and has tried to talk to people in the community, especially those in the northern part of the County. He said that he is a responsible dog owner, and he believes that tethering is okay if the owner takes care of his/her dogs and tethers in a humane way. He thinks that the problem in Orange County is the dog breed. He said that when the County Commissioners force something like this amendment down their throats, it makes the citizens mad. Susan Kelly is against the tethering amendment. She agreed with Commissioner Carey and they all want to do the right thing for the animals. For some, she thinks that it could be tethering. Stillman Wright was born and raised in Chapel Hill. He said that he has tethered champion dogs and his dogs are not mistreated. He showed pictures of his dogs. His dogs are kept on ten-foot chains, which give them 365 square feet. He said that he is a responsible dog owner. He also showed a picture of an American Pit Bull Terrier that got out of a fence. Josh Chapman was born and raised in Orange County. He read from an article from the News and Observer. "Barbara Sherman, a Clinical Associate Professor at N. C. State University College of Veterinary Medicine, said `method of animal confinement should not be blamed for neglect. You can abuse those same dogs by putting them in tiny pens. We really need to examine the welfare of each dog.- He asked those that live in Orange County and that have dogs that live on chains to raise their hands. He said that most people who raised their hands are from Orange County. He said that most of the people that are pushing this are from Chapel Hill and are not going to be affected by this. He said that he has dogs on chains at his house, and they will not stay in pens. Frank Tilley is opposed to the tethering ordinance. He said that there are surveys that say that dogs on chains become aggressive. He has seen plenty of aggressive dogs in pens. He has trained dogs for 12 years and you can make any dog aggressive and it is not just because it is on a chain. A dog can be happy on a chain just as much as he is in a pen. Suzanne Roy was a member of the Tethering Committee and the ASAB. She would like to answer any of their questions rather than referring it back to the Tethering Committee. She said that neglected dogs can be anywhere, but there are special circumstances that make tethering an issue that should be a policy decision — lack of a barrier, protecting the people from the dog, etc. She said that it is a situation similar to having an uncovered or unfenced pool. It is both a lure and a danger to children. She said that 175 children in the last four years have been killed or injured by chained dogs. She made reference to the people that would have to make changes if this ordinance is passed, and she said that these were people that the Tethering Committee had in mind when it recommended the 18-month phasing period. Regarding the hunting committee, there are very strongly held beliefs against government regulation related to animal welfare. She respects those beliefs, but she does not agree with them. She said that they believe that animals are property and they each should have a right to do what they want with their animals. She said that animals are not property, and there is a public interest in protecting them. She said that some other opponents here are out-of-county paid lobbyists and Pit Bull breeders. She said that Sandi Coy, who spoke earlier, is a Pit Bull breeder and has animal cruelty charges pending against her in Kentucky. Another person is Andrea Press, who is also a Pit Bull breeder, who sells dogs with known dog fighting blood lines. Ms. Press led the unsuccessful effort to overturn the New Hanover County law, and she moved from that county after she was cited for illegally tethering dogs. She said that animal cruelty is a serious issue, and as a community, they should take a stand against it. Orange County needs this law, and she hopes that the County Commissioners will pass it. Arielle Schechter has been in Orange County since the early 1960's and she fully supports the anti-tethering ordinance. She said that it is overdue. Kris Bergstrand spoke on behalf of Jean Alston, who is a member of the Tethering Committee and is in support of the ordinance amendment. Elise Roosevelt lives in Hillsborough. She has been in Orange County for eight years and she is a lifelong animal owner of dogs and cats. She strongly supports the anti-tethering ordinance because what she has personally seen and what she has read. She said that it is important to remember that this is about both public safety and humane treatment of animals. She referred to the USDA ruling prohibiting tethering as a method of primary enclosure. She said that this is about 24/7 enclosure and not 2-3 hours. She said that cruelty comes in many forms, and this is only one tool. She said that this is about the welfare of animals and the safety of the community and not about people's professions and financial welfare. Lori Hensley is opposed to chaining dogs. Robert Hensley said that he is a volunteer with the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. In the past year, they have built 50 fences in Orange, Durham, and Wake Counties and have removed approximately 85 dogs from chains. He showed some pictures. He said that one thing that disturbs him is that Ms. Coy was charged with cruelty to animals. He read something from his PDA, including that one dead dog still on a chain was found on her property. He also acknowledged that Andrea Press was involved in breeding dog fighters, as mentioned above. Sitting next to Ms. Press is another paid lobbyist, Mr. McClees, from the North Carolina Sporting Dogs Association. He spoke in support of the anti-tethering ordinance. Mickey Oliver has lived in Orange County for over 46 years. He said that this is a touchy situation here and the Board of County Commissioners appreciates the work of the Tethering Committee, and he asked that the Board please appreciate his commitment to his dogs for over 50 years. He said that a law is out there now—the leash law—that is not being enforced now. Brian F. Fee read a prepared handout: "Dear Sirs: My name is Brian Fee and I live in Chapel Hill with my wife and three children. After many years of renting homes and apartments, we bought a home in Chapel Hill — one with a big yard for plants and animals. Last summer we were told about three puppies that were dropped off and abandoned at a minister's house. We adopted the puppy, which is part Labrador, part German Shepard.....but mostly mutt. Her name is Lily and the kids painted rainbows and lilies on her doghouse that I built. The agreement with my wife was that the dog would remain outside during the day on a line (a cable-trolley system) but remain inside in the evening and in a crate at night. Everything was working out fine....even as she has grown to 60 lbs...until I saw Dave Hart's editorial in the Chapel Hill News that brought up the tethering issue again. I was astonished that the issue of tethering was still being debated. Mr. Hart wrote that basically there were two distinct camps of thought—the anti- tethering group that says that tethering can cause physical or psychological damage to a dog, and a pro-tethering group, composed mainly of hunters and dog breeders who say that tethering is humane and that neglect by people is the real problem. It seemed like one major group — I would think they can be best called the silent majority— are families who have one or two dogs that are humanely tethered and are played with in their backyards. I was concerned enough that this group was not being represented that I stand here tonight. I read about how restrictions on tethering in other jurisdictions decreased dog bites, reduced unwanted litters, and reduced cruelty due to improper tethering. Well, our dog lives in our backyard, so even if she did have a mind to bit someone, which she hasn't had a mind to yet, the person would have to be in our backyard. She has been spayed, so puppies are not an issue. With regards to cruelty, Lily is a member of our family. Her tether has been installed properly and she always has food, water, shade, and room to run and dig. On this note, let's do some math. She is on a trolley line 60 feet long and she can go 19 feet each way from the center of the line. How many square feet can Lily play? The answer is 2280 square feet. Our house is only around 1500 square feet! This seems more humane than 100-200 square feet in a kennel or a 10-square foot crate. Attached to my talk is a picture of Lily's domain, where she can run, dig, and play— either with us or by herself— sleep....whatever she wants to do. By the way, we certainly interact with her much more on a line than we would with her stuck in a kennel. I believe the main issue is not how a dog is confined, but how well a pet owner takes care and interacts with an animal. Key words — pet owner responsibility. I'm all for it. I once found a dog....in a side yard....on a chain....with a collar that had grown into the dog's neck. I knocked on the owner's door, and they said that there wasn't a problem and that they were applying some sort of lotion to the neck....and then to get lost....or something like that. I called animal control ASAP and the dog was removed. The chain was not the problem — neglect was. I strongly support the laws against animal cruelty. This whole issue reminds me of gun control — some are adamantly against all guns and others start quoting the 2nd Amendment to have as many guns as they want. Neither side promotes gun-owner responsibility to solve the problem. Bottom line — our dog Lily is one of the vast majorities of dogs that are humanely tethered and cared for. I resent the fact that this proposed bill assumes that we are not taking care of our dog. I take responsibility for her care and safety. If any of you Commissioners wish to come over and visit Lily, just let me know." S. Henri McClees said that she is the proud lobbyist of the North Carolina Sporting Dog Association. She said that her clients are great guys and they love their dogs. She said that the issue is really will the County Commissioners forbid her clients to own their dogs and to care for them as they see fit. Based on this issue, she asked the County Commissioners to reject this ordinance. She said that this proposal demands that all dog owners comply with the demands of the small majority. This would pit the citizens against each other in a needless battle that sets the stage for constant conflict. She said that this is about the rights of the people. She said that the citizens have the right to be protected from any tyranny that would be imposed upon them by a small majority. She said that "the few" want to order all citizens to comply essentially with their philosophy and they do not distinguish between animals that are abused or not abused. She said that the abuse does not come from the type of confinement, but comes from the person. Allan Green represents a group that does not own pet dogs or hunting dogs, but own working dogs. He is a small farmer that lives in the Orange Grove community. He has a number of Border Collies. He does not have a problem with the intent of having humane treatment of dogs and he would prefer not to have to tether a dog. He said that there are times when he has to tether a dog on a 30-foot chain, particularly when a female dog comes along and his dog can get out of his pen. He said that this is an instance where the tethering law does not deal with realities of life. He asked why the exceptions were not allowed. He said that it seems that the committee was loaded with members who think tethering is bad. He is opposed to the anti-tethering law. Brian Lane is from Chapel Hill and he is not a dog owner. He said that he has come here out of civic duty and what he sees as an encroachment on individual freedom in Orange County. He said that he believes in the citizens of Orange County, and the Board of County Commissioners does not need to rule them with an iron fist. He is proud of these hunters and how they treat their dogs. He thinks that a pressing case would need to be made that is extensive proof of abuse before this ordinance is amended. He thinks that this is not happening here. He said that if this ordinance is passed on such weak evidence, he would like to know where the Board will stop. Walt Von Shernz is a resident of Durham County and he has lived in Orange County before. He grew up in another state where there were a lot of hunters that chained their dogs all the time. He said that from his own experience, he has seen what chaining of dogs can do. He firmly believes that keeping dogs on a chain will increase the propensity for the dog to develop anti-social behavior. He does not think that feeding and watering a dog fulfills all of the needs of a dog. A dog needs to be unencumbered. Andrea Press said that she was at the last meeting, and she would like to bring both sides together. She said that the simple solution, instead of turning one half of the room into criminals, would be to put the two groups together. She said that people can be educated on proper ownership, continue building fences, if dogs are bad off on chains. It is all about education. She said that education is not regulation. She said that these people are here because they love their animals and they do not want to get rid of them. She asked if the County Commissioners were prepared to take on the liability for what happens when the dogs that are put in pens escape the pens. She said that the bottom line is that the most dangerous dog is a dog at-large. On a personal level, she said that she does raise American Pit Bull Terriers. The reason that she is not a paid lobbyist is because New Hanover County ruined her existence with an anti-tether law. She had dogs behind her fence tied up while she was at home and she received written citations. She had four weeks to find a place to move and her daughter lost her spot in private school. Frances Jones is a lifetime citizen of Orange County. She said that she has never seen the Chair disrespect citizens as he has tonight. She applauded the hunters for standing up for their rights. The hunters have a right to do what they are doing. She said that dogs in Chapel Hill are treated better than Fairview Community citizens because they have parks with trails. Fairview has been begging for a park for the last 30 years. She said that they are going to do what they have to do to get that park. She said that most of the money in the County goes to Chapel Hill. This is why people feel divided. The Fairview citizens feel that the County thinks more of the dogs in Chapel Hill than it does the citizens. She said that the County Commissioners need to do what they were voted in to do. Bobby Kirk said that he has several good ideas, and the big one is education. He said that there are only six ordinances nationwide that dictate kennel size. He said that he trains over 60 dogs a year, and he travels the nation in field trials. He has a dog coming in tomorrow that is 75 pounds and is a biter. The first thing he will do with this dog is put him on a tether. He said that his dogs are happy on tethers. He agrees that everything has to be done right. He said that every dog is different and tethering is a great thing for a dog. He urged the County Commissioners to vote against this. He said that it would solve no problems and there is no way that it could be enforced. Loren Hart said that he is in support of the dog ordinance. He said that dogs and other animals are individual beings, can feel pleasure, pain, fear, and loneliness. For these reasons, he believes that tethering dogs for prolonged periods is a form of abuse that should be stopped. It is a different kind of abuse than kicking a dog, but it is a form of neglect. He thinks that the current ordinance should be amended to mandate a higher level of care owed to the dogs by their human guardians. He said that he is a resident of Orange County and he works at UNC. He made reference to his uncle who died recently, and said that, in addition to being a veteran of the U. S. Navy, he was also an avid duck hunter, a charter member of the Migratory Waterfowl Hunters and Ducks Unlimited. He remembers fondly fishing with his uncle, but he never hunted with him. He said that he used to eat fish, deer, and other animals, but he does not anymore because he thinks that it is wrong to do so. He still respects his uncle and everyone in this room, but he disagrees with animal exploitation. For the past five years he has chosen a vegetarian diet because of the interests of animals. He thinks that this mindset would be helpful in looking at this ordinance. He made reference to the comments about tyranny and said that we all have rights and we all want to be free, but there is not unlimited freedom. The freedom ends somewhere. He said that animals have interests and it is not just about humans. Kevin Young is a dog owner and breeder and he asked the Board of County Commissioners to use common sense. He asked the County Commissioners to look at the safety issue. He asked where the supervision was of the children who were killed by dogs. He made reference to the breeding that happens and said that the leash laws need to be enforced. Regarding cleanliness, when it rains with a dog in a pen, it causes a multitude of problems. He said that this is not seen with a dog on a tether. He suggested using a body harness to tether a dog so that there would not be embedding of collars. If the dogs were taken care of, then there would not be a problem of embedded collars. He said that education is very important. Diane Genteel said that she spoke before. She said that the issues of aggression, socialization, pet overpopulation, etc. will not be remedied by this law and it is a question of education. Tethering is not the culprit; it's the inappropriate use of tethering. She said that a dog on a ten-foot chain has more liberty than it would have in a ten-foot pen. Michael Kirk made reference to one of the committee members who is the North Carolina Director of In Defense of Animals, and said that he is afraid of what will be next with the tethering campaign. He is worried that if this gets passed, what will be next— mandatory spay/neuter all dogs, taxes going through the roof, etc. He thinks that this is a slippery slope. Fred Stipe was born and raised in Orange County and he is the owner of the number one ranked male American Fox Hound in the nation. His dog competes in AKC and USDA- sanctioned agility trials. He is also the owner of one of the greatest obedience trained beagles in the state. He said that this proposed amendment is not the panacea that everyone would like to see. He believes that the County would be far better served by increasing the resources available for Animal Control to more vigorously enforce the existing abuse and neglect statutes. He said that passage of this amendment would not solve the problem of abuse and neglect, but would create new problems that would further complicate the job of Animal Control. Ellen Whitaker is a volunteer with the Coalition to Unchain Dogs. She made reference to the comments about this amendment being an infringement on rights and said that it seems like a lot of times in the society, when we move towards justice, always the people that are oppressors feel that their rights are being trampled. This does not mean that it is not right to pass the laws. Beth Oliver is opposed to the tethering ordinance. She said that she has animals that are tethered during the day, and she lets them run free when she gets home. She said that she tethers the dogs for their protection. She said that she loves and protects her animals. Chair Jacobs said that the Board of County Commissioners does take this issue seriously and this item will be brought back in September. He said that all will be notified of the next meeting. b. Housing Bond Program The Board was to consider awarding housing bond funds in the amount of $1,000,000 to the TBLF Eno Haven LLC to assist in the construction of Eno Haven, a 76-unit multi-family rental complex in Hillsborough and authorize the Manager in consultation with the County Attorney to enter into a Development agreement detailing the conditions of the award. DEFERRED c. BOCC Goals and Initiatives The Board was to consider reviewing and approving the Goals and Initiatives of the Board as initially expressed by the Board, in conjunction with staff, at the February 8, 2008 BOCC Retreat. DEFERRED 7. Reports-NONE 8. Board Comments (Three Minute Limit Per Commissioner) 9. County Manager's Report 10. Appointments a. Joint Orange Chatham Community Action (JOCCA) — New Appointment The Board was to consider making one appointment to Joint Orange Chatham Community Action (JOCCA). DEFERRED 11. Information Items-NONE 12. Closed Session-NONE 13. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to adjourn the meeting at 11:42 pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board