HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 03-13-2012 - 5a 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: March 13, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
Draft Minutes
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
January 24, 2012 BOCC Regular Meeting
January 31, 2012 BOCC Work Session
February 10, 2012 BOCC Retreat
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1 -
1 DRAFT
2
3 MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 January 24, 2012
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
10 January 24, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS Offices, Hillsborough Commons, Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
13 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
14 Yuhasz
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers
18 Gwen Harvey, and Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff
19 members will be identified appropriately below)
20
21 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT
22 AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE.
23
24
25 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
26 The Chair went over the items at the County Commissioners' places:
27
28 - Yellow sheet - a petition from the public
29 - Blue sheet—staff response to Commissioner Gordon's questions for items on the
30 consent agenda
31 - White sheet—additional information for item 8-c, Next Steps: Northern Human
32 Services Center
33 - Pink sheet—revised listing of the Emergency Services Work Group, item 12-b
34
35
36 PUBLIC CHARGE
37
38 The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
39
40 2. Public Comments
41 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
42 Petitions/Resolutions/Proclamations and other similar requests submitted by the
43 public will not be acted upon by the Board of Commissioners at the time presented. All
44 such requests will be referred for Chair/vice Chair/Manager review and for
45 recommendations to the full Board at a later date regarding a) consideration of the
46 request at a future regular Board meeting; or b) receipt of the request as information
47 only. Submittal of information to the Board or receipt of information by the Board does
48 not constitute approval, endorsement, or consent.
49
2
1 Neil Alderman was with Pay W Commercial in Chapel Hill and he is working with
2 solar companies that are looking to put solar equipment on buildings and farms. There
3 are no zoning regulations in the County on this issue. He wants to petition the Board of
4 County Commissioners to consider this and to help them in the process. There are
5 several sites that he is working on now.
6 Steven Petersen spoke on a petition to form a resolution supporting amending the
7 U. S. Constitution. He has lived in Chapel Hill for 16 years and he runs a business. He
8 said that it is sad to see so many people's financial situation going downhill. It is
9 outraging to him to see how special interests drive the politics at all levels of government
10 with little thought as to what is best for everyday people. He said that the decision
11 Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court held that money was the essentially the
12 same as free speech and that corporations have the same constitutional rights as people.
13 This decision paved the way for large corporations and wealthy individuals to buy
14 influence through outspending the opposition. He said that the people with the most
15 money should not drive the elections. Since this decision, the only way for the
16 democracy to affect the will of its citizens is through a Constitutional amendment. There
17 are versions of the amendment floating from both houses of congress. Many local
18 governments have supported this amendment. He asked that Orange County add its
19 voice.
20 Pete Brown has been a resident of Orange County for nearly 30 years. He also
21 supports this petition and reiterated some of the same ideas as Steven Petersen. He
22 said that the hope is that the resolution will be adopted.
23 Carol Hay read a prepared statement. She said that she has lived in Orange
24 County since 1991 and she has been a part of two family businesses that closed as a
25 result of the increase in power of corporations to eliminate the competition, including her
26 grandfather's gasoline shop in South Carolina and The Intimate Bookshop in Chapel Hill.
27
28 "Corporations Are Not People
29
30 The word corporation does not appear in the Constitution of the United States. Since
31 1886, when personhood under the 14th Amendment was granted to corporations by the
32 Supreme Court, this "right" has been extended to include (and this list is not exhaustive):
33
34 1St Amendment protection of free speech
35 - Which was extended to supersede workers' rights to freedom of association
36 - Then to include advertising
37 - Then to include political contributions when money was declared
38 equivalent to speech
39
40 4th Amendment search and seizure protection
41
42 5th Amendment protections
43 - Of due process
44 - Against taking private property for public use
45 - Against double jeopardy
46
47 7th Amendment right to jury trial in a civil case
48
49 In contracts, since September 11, 2001, the rights of actual people have been reduced,
50 restricted, annulled, and ignored:
3
1
2 The President can:
3
4 - Order the killing of any citizen suspected of terrorism or of supporting
5 terrorists, in violation of the 4th'5 th 6 t and 8th Amendments
6 - Order the indefinite detention of any citizen accused of terrorism, in violation
7 of the 6th Amendment
8 - Decide whether a citizen will be tried in federal court or military tribunal, in
9 violation of the 5th Amendment
10 - Order surveillance of citizens without probable cause, in violation of the 4th
11 Amendment
12
13 The federal government "can claim secret legal arguments to support secret [court]
14 proceedings using secret evidence," *in violation of the 4th 5 t and 6th Amendments.
15
16 The federal government and its CIA employees can torture suspected terrorists, in
17 violation of treaties to which the U. S. is a party, and of the Nuremburg Principles of war
18 crimes and human rights.
19
20 The federal government can transfer anyone, even U. S. citizens, to other countries for
21 purposes of torture.
22
23 All of these abuses can be applied to innocent people, even people in this very room.
24 None of us has any legal protection against them.
25
26 In light of the fact that corporations have exponentially increasing influence in the
27 outcomes of our elections, and therefore in the control of our government, and in light of
28 the bailout of Wall Street at the expense of Main Street, I ask you to begin to help
29 redress this gross subversion of human rights and democratic government by supporting
30 a Constitutional amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not
31 speech."
32
33 Chair Pelissier said that this matter will be referred to the agenda review process.
34
35 Peggy Misch read a prepared statement.
36
37 "Re: Property Tax Bill Wording 2010 'Past Due after' vs. 2011 'Past Due Date'
38
39 1 come before you today to remind you that I would like further consideration from
40 you from what I think is an error on the county's part that could be addressed in an
41 equitable fashion. If you recall, I read my 2011 Property Tax Bill as the last day the
42 payment could be paid without penalty was January 6, 2012.
43 Because of the rewording on the revised 2011 billing with the 'Past Due Date
44 1/06/2012' instead of the 2010 billing of 'Past Due After January 5, 2011', I used January
45 6 as the final day of payment without penalty. Thus, on January 6, 2012, when I paid the
46 full amount of tax billed me; I received a charge of interest due of$85.45.
47 1 note that January 5 has not always been the cut-off date; the 2007 Property Tax bill
48 was worded `Past Due After January 7, 2008', the year I paid my bill in full on January 4,
49 2008.
4
1 Jenkins Crayton kindly responded to my email after taking time to explain matters to
2 me over the telephone on January 6, 2012. It is interesting to note that Mr. Crayton
3 stated, "while we don't survey taxpayers for the reasons they pay their taxes on January
4 6th, we know that in 2011, 173 tax bills were paid on January 6th compared to 67 in 2010.'
5 Could it be that at least some of those additional `late' payers were misled by the wording
6 on the tax bill, just as the surprised taxpayer in line after me this year?
7 Mr. Crayton indicated to me he was interested in hearing about any suggestions for
8 improving the tax bill for 2012. 1 had suggested DELINQUENT 1/06/2012. However, 1
9 believe if there is room, a better wording might be Current Charges Past Due After
10 January 5, 2012, similar to that of Duke Energy.
11
12 My appeal to you is twofold:
13 1. Clarify the wording for the 2012 Property Tax Bill (and the Vehicle Tax Notice)
14 2. Forgive the interest charged on January 6, 2012, when the full Property Tax Bill
15 payment was made.
16
17 Thank you for your consideration."
18
19 Chris Weaver said that he wanted to speak on the scheduling of the tax referendum.
20 He has only been in Orange County for a year and he is amazed about this process. He
21 said that the '/-cent sales tax did not pass when there was a record turnout last year, but
22 then it was rescheduled for an off year. He sees this as being a forced handling of the
23 people of the County, and especially his district. He is worried because there is another
24 attempt to get a Chapel Hill Transit tax put on soon. He hopes that this is put on the
25 November election when everyone is there rather than the May primary when not as
26 many people will be there.
27
28 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
29 (These matters were considered when the Board addressed that item on the agenda
30 below.)
31
32 3. Petitions by Board Members
33 NONE
34
35 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/Special Presentations
36 r
37 a. OWASA Annual Update Presentation
38 The Board received a presentation and information from the Orange Water and Sewer
39 Authority on the recent activities.
40 OWASA Board Chair Gordon Merklein introduced OWASA Executive Director Ed
41 Kerwin and Orange County appointee to the OWASA Board, Terri Buckner. He reviewed the
42 information on their abstract. The three initiatives are the Water and Sewer Management,
43 Planning and Boundary Agreement; Rogers Road Community; and Forestry Management.
44
45 Water and Sewer Management, Planning and Boundary Agreement
46 On December 9, 2010, the OWASA Board adopted a resolution to clarify certain
47 language in the 2001 WSMPBA so that the Agreement cannot be interpreted as a constraint on
48 access to OWASA's Jordan Lake water supply storage allocation. Hillsborough and Orange
49 County adopted resolutions on March 14, 2011 and March 15, 2011, respectively, that would
50 apply OWASA's requested text change for those jurisdictions as well. The Chapel Hill Town
5
1 Council had originally approved OWASA's request on February 28, 2011, but on April 25, 2011
2 reconsidered its previous action and rejected the text change. On June 9, 2011, the OWASA
3 Board resolved to adopt and maintain a policy to purchase water from other communities or
4 obtain water from its Jordan Lake storage allocation only after first declaring a Stage 1 Water
5 Supply Shortage—provided that Carrboro and Chapel Hill approve the previously requested
6 WSMPBA clarification.
7 At the October 20, 2011 meeting, the OWASA Board discussed its June 9, 2011 policy
8 resolution regarding water purchases during drought and the importance of securing permanent
9 access to our Jordan Lake water supply allocation without the constraints of language presently
10 contained in the WSMPBA. The Board was in agreement to modify its June 9th position and
11 adopted a resolution stating that:
12
13 "OWASA shall only purchase water from other communities or obtain water from its
14 Jordan Lake storage allocation during periods of increased drought risk after it has declared a
15 Stage 9 Water Supply Shortage per OWASA's State-approved Water Shortage Response Plan
16 and OWASA's Water Conservation Standards as incorporated therein."
17
18 At the January 12, 2012 meeting, the OWASA Board will discuss a Proposed Drought
19 Response Operating Protocol (DROP) which describes the procedures (including water
20 purchases) and criteria that OWASA will use for making water supply and demand decisions
21 during an extended drought. At the meeting, the Board will also discuss the timing of when
22 OWASA should initiate a request to the North Carolina Environmental Management
23 commission to convert our Jordan Lake water supply Level II allocation (future) to Level 1
24 (active). The agenda materials for the January 12, 2012 meeting can be found at:
25 http://www.owasa.org/about/board-meetings.aspx.
26
27 Rowers Road Communitv
28 OWASA continues to work closely with the County staff (and other local governments)
29 to provide information regarding the provision of water and sewer services to the Historic
30 Rogers Road area. We have developed technical information and cost estimates for various
31 conceptual layouts and have provided lists and maps of properties and existing water and
32 sewer infrastructure in the vicinity.
33 Since the October 4, 2011 meeting where the Orange County Board of County
34 Commissioners approved funding for providing water service to certain properties within the
35 Historic Rogers Road area, OWASA staff have worked closely with Orange County staff to
36 establish streamlined procedures so that eligible property owners can request and receive the
37 intended benefit. Working within the parameters of the State Statutes and our policies and
38 founding agreements, we will continue to support this important initiative.
39
40 Forestry Management
41 Pursuant to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission's (WRC) forestry
42 management plan for OWASA's 490-acre Cane Creek Wildlife Mitigation Tract, 25 acres of
43 declining quality Virginia pine were clear-cut, and 25 acres of hardwood forest were thinned
44 during the fall of 2010. The 25-acre clear-cut was replanted with loblolly pines in January 2011,
45 as prescribed by the WRC plan. All operations were conducted according to forestry
46 management best practices; however, our plan protects substantially larger buffer areas than
47 required by existing regulations. We will complete the phased implementation of additional
48 forest management measures on this property in the coming years in compliance with
49 conditions of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit that allowed construction of the
50 Cane Creek Reservoir.
6
1 Upon the recommendation and guidance of the WRC and North Carolina Forest
2 Service, OWASA also commissioned development of a draft plan for sustainable management
3 of our remaining forest lands. We hosted a community meeting in November 2010 to present
4 and receive comments on the draft plan prepared by our consulting forester; and we received
5 extensive comments from citizens, local elected boards, several State agencies, and others.
6 We will make presentations and receive comments from the local elected boards before the
7 OWASA Board considers formal action on a management plan for our remaining forest lands.
8
9 Commissioner Jacobs asked if he was misinformed that OWASA was going to withdraw
10 from the WSMPBA.
11 Gordon Merklein said that this is an option that the board does not consider until it is a
12 last ditch effort. The focus is working with the towns to get the agreement in place and not to
13 try to predict what may happen there.
14 Commissioner Jacobs asked for a heads up before this discussion. Gordon Merklein
15 said that it would be a very public process.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said that when they originally signed this agreement, they had
17 wanted to recruit Mebane and Durham to participate.
18 Commissioner Gordon said that she hopes that the agreement is kept. Chair Pelissier
19 agreed.
20
21 b. ABC Board Update Presentation
22 The Board received a brief presentation from Orange County Alcoholic Beverage
23 Control Board representatives on recent ABC Board activities and operations.
24 Tony Dubois, General Manager of the ABC Board, said that he and Ron McCoy, the
25 Finance Director were here tonight and their Chair Keith Cook is under the weather tonight. He
26 said that there is a really good working relationship between the County and the ABC Board.
27 He said that the mission of the board is to serve the County responsibly. He said that all of the
28 board members, including him and the Finance Director, have gone through the Ethics and
29 Responsibility training for the State. There is currently a partnership with the Durham Technical
30 Community College Orange County Campus and CAI (HR firm in Greensboro) to give
31 management and customer service training to all employees. There is also a partnership with
32 the Town of Hillsborough Police Department. There is now ABC law enforcement in the
33 community for the first time. He said that there are negotiations with the Town of Hillsborough
34 to purchase the property on Valley Forge Road for administrative offices and a warehouse.
35 Ron McCoy, Finance Officer, said that he has been at this position since March. He
36 made reference to the annual report on pages 24-25. He said that the sales have increased
37 and the profitability has increased. Orange County consistently runs in the top 10 of all the
38 agency boards in the State. The sales in 2011 increased 3.62% over the previous year and
39 continue to grow. The increase in sales has outpaced the rest of the State by about 1%.
40 Regarding challenges, there are some expenses such as a proposed office and
41 warehouse relocation. The board has planned for these expenses and everything should go
42 well. There has also been a great increase in taxes. There has also been a substantial
43 increase in the costs of healthcare provided for retirees. He said that this board far exceeds the
44 State requirements and they intend to continue this.
45 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the report and asked about the mixed
46 beverage only location. Ron McCoy said that this is attached to the Carrboro location and they
47 just sell to the restaurants.
48
49
50
7
1 c. Affordable Housing Performance Report
2 The Board received the Annual Affordable Housing Performance Report from the
3 Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
4 Housing, Human Rights, and Community Development Director Tara Fikes presented
-5 the 8th Annual Calendar and Annual Performance Report. This calendar contains a report of
6 the local affordable housing accomplishment as well as the Human Relations activities during
7 the 2010-2011 fiscal year. During that fiscal year, a little over$1,000,000 in federal, state, and
8 local funds were spent to assist in the construction of 68 new units, including 58 rental units at
9 The Landings at Winmore in Carrboro. These funds were also used to assist in the repair and
10 acquisition of 39 existing dwelling units.
11
12 d. Proclamation: "Human Relations Month"
13 The Board considered officially proclaiming the month of February as "Human Relations
14 Month" in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign.
15 Tara Fikes introduced the HRC Chair Barbara Marotto who presented this item.
16
17 HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH
18
19 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission believes that in order to
20 achieve justice and equal opportunity for all Orange County residents, we must all strive to
21 create an atmosphere where people are valued and accepted rather than merely tolerated, and
22 therefore continue to promote the ideal of social justice for all; and
23
24 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission has diligently served
25 Orange County since 1995 and remains committed to promoting equal treatment, opportunity
26 and understanding throughout the community; and
27
28 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission enforces the County's
29 Civil Rights Ordinance which specifically prohibits discrimination based on an individual's race,
30 color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, veteran status and familial status; and
31
32 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission encourages Orange
33 County residents, as individuals, to take a stand against social injustice and continue to work
34 together to make freedom, justice, and equal opportunity available for all; and
35
36 WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to preserving the progress made thus far
37 towards equality and leading the challenge for equal opportunity using all the means at our
38 disposal;
39
40 NOW, THEREFORE, We, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim
41 February 2012 as "HUMAN RELATIONS MONTH" in Orange County and challenge residents
42 to promote the ideology of social justice for all by celebrating and encouraging multiculturalism
43 in the County and encouraging all residents to embrace diversity in Orange County.
44
45 This the 24th day of January, 2012.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
48 approve the month of February as "Human Relations Month" in Orange County and authorize
49 the Chair to sign.
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
1
2 e. Resolution Regarding Proposed Amendment to the NC Constitution That
3 Defines Marriage
4 The Board considered adopting a resolution voicing opposition to the proposed
5 amendment to the NC Constitution that defines marriage and thereby promotes discrimination
6 and authorize the Chair to sign.
7 HRC Chair Barbara Marotto said that the HRC was given the task in part to make
8 recommendations concerning problems in the field of human relationships and ways to promote
9 goodwill among groups in the County irrespective of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry and
10 national origin, sex, affectional preference, disability, age, marital status, or status with regard
11 to public assistance. She said that the HRC looked at the upcoming Amendment 1 that will be
12 on the State ballot in May. After much thoughtful discussion, the HRC recommends that the
13 Board take a position against this amendment. She said that the amendment writes
14 discrimination into the State constitution. She said that this is not the gay marriage
15 amendment, it is the amendment that has marriage, civil unions, and domestic partnerships.
16 She said that this amendment would take away rights and privileges for people who are in civil
17 unions and domestic partnerships. Among other things, this amendment would deny people
18 the opportunity to make decisions in emergency life or death situations.
19
20 A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT#1 THAT WILL APPEAR ON THE MAY
21 8, 2012 NORTH CAROLINA STATE PRIMARY BALLOT
22
23
24 WHEREAS, Amendment #1 will appear on the May 8, 2012 primary ballot asking voters to
25 decide for or against a North Carolina constitutional amendment that provides that "marriage
26 between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or
27 recognized in this Staten; and
28
29 WHEREAS, Orange County adopted social justice goals of which one goal is to foster a
30 community culture that rejects oppression and inequity, thus the fair treatment and meaningful
31 involvement of all people regardless of race or color, religion or philosophical beliefs; sex,
32 gender or sexual orientation; national origin or ethnic background; age, military services;
33 disability; and familial, residential, or economic status; and
34
35 WHEREAS, Orange County along with its local municipalities has adopted the Orange County
36 Civil Rights Ordinance with the purpose and policy to promote the equal treatment of all
37 individuals; prohibits discrimination in Orange County based on race, color, religion, sex, national
38 origin, age, disability, familial status, and veteran status; to protect residents' lawful interests and
39 their personal dignity so as to make available to the County their full productive and creative
40 capacities, and to prevent public and domestic strife, crime, and unrest within Orange County; and
41
42 WHEREAS, Amendment#1, if approved by the voters, would prohibit marriage between people
43 of the same gender, and further prohibit the recognition of any other form of domestic legal
44 union; and
45
46 WHEREAS, Amendment #1, if approved by the voters, would be inconsistent with Orange
47 County's commitment to equal rights and opportunities for its residents and employees and
48 would impact the County's and its local municipalities' domestic partner registry and benefits;
49
9
1 NOW, THEREFORE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
2 re-affirms its commitment to social justice, equal rights and equal opportunity for all residents of
3 Orange County.
4
5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Orange County Board of County Commissioners
6 opposes the proposed Amendment #1 that will appear on the May 8, 2012 North Carolina
7 primary ballot.
8
9 This the 24h day of January, 2012.
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Hemminger
12 adopting a resolution voicing opposition to the proposed amendment to the NC Constitution that
13 defines marriage and thereby promotes discrimination and authorize the Chair to sign.
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 Commissioner Jacobs said that in the abstract it says on October 13th that the HRC
17 approved this resolution for adoption by the Board of County Commissioners. At least a month
18 later, he recommended that the Board consider doing this same thing. He said that surely
19 someone on the staff knew that the HRC had adopted it and sent it forward for the Board's
20 adoption. He was asked to survey other governments and find out what language they had
21 used in their resolutions. He asked to send this resolution to media outlets in Orange County.
22
23 5. Consent Agenda
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner McKee
25 to approve those items on the consent agenda as stated below:
26
27 a. Minutes
28 The Board approved the minutes from November 15, 17, 21 and December 13, 2011 as
29 submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
30 b. Appointments— None
31
32 c. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Release/Refunds
33 The Board adopted a release/refund resolution, which is incorporated by reference, related
34 to 83 requests for motor vehicle property tax releases or refunds.
35 d. Property Tax Releases and/or Refunds
36 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property
37 values related to seventy-six (76) requests for property tax release and/or refunds in
38 accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
39 e. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
40 The Board approved nine (9) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem
41 taxation for the 2011 tax year.
42 f. Extension of Tax Listing Period for 2012
43 The Board approved extending the period for which property is listed for taxes to February
44 29, 2012.
45 g_ Professional Services Agreement—Tourism Advertising by Clean Design
46 The Board approved the proposed professional services agreement for tourism marketing
47 and advertising with Clean Design; authorized the Chair to sign the agreement; and
48 approved the funds to be encumbered out of 2011-2012 Visitors Bureau budget as originally
49 approved.
50 h. Citizen Participation Plan for Housing/Community Development Programs
10
1 The Board approved the Citizen Participation Plan for use in the implementation of federal
2 and state housing programs.
3 i. Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan
4 The Board adopted a Residential Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan for
5 Orange County.
6 L Adoption of a Reimbursement Resolution for Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
7 Elementary#11
8 The Board adopted a reimbursement resolution, which is incorporated by reference,
9 authorizing the County to reimburse itself and Chapel Hill —Carrboro City Schools for non-
10 general obligation bond project expenditures incurred for the construction of Elementary
11 #11, and to schedule a public hearing for February 7, 2012.
12 k. Approval of a Lease Agreement between Chapel Hill—Carrboro City Schools and PTA
13 Thrift Shop Managers, LLC
14 The Board approved a lease agreement between Chapel Hill—Carrboro City Schools and
15 PTA Thrift Shop Managers, LLC for the lease of office space.
16 I. Lease/License Renewal Agreement—Alternate Daily Landfill Cover
17 — The Board approved the renewal of the lease/license agreement for alternative daily cover
18 materials with LSC Environmental Products, LLC and authorized the Chair to sign the
19 agreement renewal.
20 m. Expiration of Option to Purchase Hillsborough Commons
21 The Board officially declined to exercise the Option to Purchase the Hillsborough Commons
22 Shopping Center on Mayo Street, Hillsborough as presented in the 2008 lease.
23 n. Agreement for County Co-Holding of Conservation Easements with the Eno River
24 Association
25 The Board approved the agreement regarding the co-holding of conservation easements
26 with the Eno River Association, subject to final review by the County Attorney, and
.27 authorized the signing of said agreement by the Chair and Clerk.
28 o. Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outline and Schedule for Upcoming
29 Item
30 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
31 consideration.
32 P. Request for Road Addition to the State Maintained Secondary Road System
33 The Board forwarded the Petition for Addition to the State Maintained System to the North
34 Carolina Department of Transportation for the subdivision road in Piney Mountain Phase II
35 subdivision; and recommended the Department of Transportation accept the road for
36 maintenance as a State Secondary Road.
37 gL Roadway Status of Woodkirk Lane and Petition for Addition to State Maintained
38 System
39 The Board made an affirmative finding that the redevelopment of Woodkirk Lane into a
40 public road is consistent with the provisions of Section 7.8.1 and 7.8.2 of the UDO as
41 recommended by staff; and recommended sending the application to NCDOT for addition to
42 the State Maintained Secondary Road System.
43 r. Correction to Ordinance 2011-036—Class II Kennels/Ridina Stables
44 This item was removed and placed at the end of the consent agenda for separate
45 consideration.
46 s. Intergovernmental Agreements
47 The Board authorized the County Manager to sign the listed agreement and any
48 amendments or renewals of those Agreements.
49
50 VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA: UNANIMOUS
11
1
2 6. Items Removed From Consent Agenda
3 o. Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outline and Schedule for
4 Upcoming Item
5 The Board considered process components and the schedule for a Planning Director
6 initiated item for the February 27, 2012 Quarterly Public Hearing.
7 Commissioner Gordon made reference to her comments and staff responses, as
8 shown below. She said that the scope of this amendment started out as being narrow. She is
9 concerned about the wide range in the scope of this amendment.
10
11 LIDO Amendment
12 Could you explain how Objective LU-1.1 is related to the proposed LIDO amendment?
13 This objective refers to coordinating the location of higher intensity/high density residential and
14 non-residential development with, among other things, adequate supporting infrastructure, while
15 avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural resources.
16
17 This objective refers to coordinating the location of higher intensity/high density
18 residential and non-residential development with, among other things, adequate
19 supporting infrastructure, while avoiding areas with protected natural and cultural
20 resources.
21
22 Michael Harvey said that the original rationale for choosing this particular item was for
23 the provision of services. He said that the Board could add in the form that the proposed
24 amendment, which was suggested at the November 21St dinner meeting of the Board of County
25 Commissioners and the Planning Board, is supported by the Services and Community Facilities
26 Goal of the Comprehensive Plan as well as objective PSP-7 through PS-9, all dealing with the
27 management and deliberation of local emergency services, economic development and
28 communication efforts.
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Yuhasz, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
30 approve the Amendment Outline and direct staff to proceed accordingly.
31 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
32
33 r. Correction to Ordinance 2011-036—Class II Kennels/Riding Stables
34 The Board considered adopting a revised Ordinance amending the UDO to correct a
35 staff error.
36 Commissioner Gordon said that this has been presented by staff as a correction. She
37 pulled it to vote against it because she does not agree with the ordinance the way it is worded.
38 Following are her comments and staff responses:
39
40 Class II Kennels
41 Please clarify the meaning of the text shown in red. It appears to mean that all of this
42 text in red is to be changed, in addition to what was changed on October 18, 2011.
43 Also, please provide a copy of the following attachment for the October 18 meeting,
44 along with any other material needed to show what the BOCC approved on October 18.
45 Attachment 5— LIDO Ordinance Amendment—Item 7-c on the October 18, 2011 BOCC
46 Agenda.
47
48 With respect to kennels, staff is asking the BOCC to readopt a corrected
49 ordinance amendment, which is why all changed text is denoted in RED.
12
1 The only change from October 18t`' document, as denoted in the January 24th
2 abstract, is to Section 3 of the Adopted Ordinance, specifically the method of denoting
3 the various general use zoning districts where Class I kennels are allowed.
4 Staff had erroneously used the letter `B' to denote the various general use zoning
5 districts where this type of use was allowed. The result of the error was that it had
6 changed the permitting process for Class I kennels from permitted by right(i.e. an
7 asterisk "*') to a Class B Special Use Permit(i.e. `B').
8 Attached is a copy of what was acted upon by the BOCC on October 18, 2011 for
9 reference purposes as requested.
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
12 adopt the corrected Ordinance amending the UDO as detailed by staff.
13 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
14
15 7. Public Hearings
16
17 a. Orange Co. CDBG Program —FY 2010 Scattered Site Housing Rehabilitation
18 Program Amendment
19 The Board received public comments regarding a proposed amendment to the County's
20 FY 2010 Housing Rehabilitation Community Development Block Grant for the Scattered Site
21 Housing Rehabilitation Program and considered approving a resolution authorizing submission
22 of the formal contract and authorizing the Chair to sign subject to final approval by the County
23 Attorney.
24 Tara Fikes said that this public hearing is for the proposed amendment to the County's
25 2010 Housing Rehabilitation Community Development Block Grant for Scattered Site Housing
26 Rehabilitation. In October 2011 the County was invited to participate in Phase 2 of the State's
27 Community Capacity Building Program as a lead county in its efforts to expand this program
28 statewide. The State created this program to provide small towns and counties the resources
29 and tools they need to access community development resources. Four counties were
30 identified to participate in this program — Buncombe, Edgecombe, Orange, and Yadkin. The
31 State will provide an additional $600,000 in CDBG funding that will be used to further the
32 capacity of the County in the areas of education, technology, and services. The State would
33 like the County to do this in partnership with the North Carolina Sustainability Center.
34
35 NO PUBLIC COMMENT
36
37 Commissioner McKee expressed appreciation for the work that this department does for
38 people in need.
39
40 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
41 approve the resolution authorizing submission of the formal amendment document and
42 authorize the Chair to sign the amendment documents on behalf of the Board and approve the
43 execution of a legally binding commitment with the NC Sustainability Center by the Chair of the
44 Board upon the approval of the County Attorney's office.
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 b. North Carolina Community Transportation Program (CTP) Administrative
48 Grant Application for FY 2012/2013
49 The Board conducted an annual public hearing on the North Carolina community
50 Transportation Program grant application by Orange County Public Transportation for FY
13
1 2012/2013, considered approving the grant application, adopting a resolution, and authorizing
2 the County Attorney to complete the necessary certifications and assurances.
3 Transportation Administrator Al Terry said that he is here to present the annual CTP
4 grant application for the administrative portions to operate the Orange Public Transportation.
5 This is for the 2012-2013 fiscal year and is in the amount of$185,897. This is $300 more than
6 what was received this year. The State has asked that transportation keep a flat budget.
7
8 NO PUBLIC COMMENT
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
11 to close the public hearing.
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
15 to approve the Community Transportation Program Grant application for FY 2012/2013 in the
16 total amount of$185,897 with local match of$27,885; approve and authorize the Chair to sign
17 the Community Transportation Program Resolution and annual certified statements of
18 participation; authorize the County Attorney to complete the necessary certification and
19 assurances; and accept and budget the receipt of the CTP grant, once awarded.
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 8. Regular Agenda
23 a. Resolution of Approval —Conservation Easement for the Brooks Farm; and
24 Approval of Budget Amendment#5-C
25 The Board considered a resolution to approve the purchase of and acceptance by
26 Orange county of an agricultural watershed protection conservation easement for the Brooks
27 farm, and authorize the Chair and Clerk to sign subject to final approval by the County Attorney;
28 and approve Budget Amendment#5-C.
29 Land Conservation Manager Rich Shaw made a presentation and introduced Gail
30 Hughes from the Orange Soil and Water Conservation District and Curt Schleming, who directs
31 land conservation for the Eno River Association. He also introduced Dennis and Linda Brooks.
32 Rich Shaw said that the farm is approximately 119 acres divided into two parcels—one
33 along Ben Johnson Road and one along Dimmocks Mill Road. He showed some pictures of the
34 farm.
35 The cost for this project would be about$655,000, with the County's share being
36 $325,000.
37
38
39 Conservation Easement
40
41 Brooks Farm
42
43 Orange County Lands Legacy Program
44 Eno River Association
45
46 Conservation Easement
47 Brooks Farm
48 Ben Johnston Rd
49 Rocking "B" Saddle Shop
14
1 • Beef cattle
2 • Pasture
3 • Streams
4
5 Conservation Easement:
6 ➢ Perpetual easement
7 ➢ Rights of privacy
8 ➢ Right to farm
9 ➢ Agricultural buildings/structures
10 ➢ 2 future home sites
11 ➢ 1 future subdivision
12
13 Funding partners:
14 ➢ Orange County
15 ➢ Eno River Association (Healthy Forest Grant)
16 ➢ Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative
17 ➢ State of NC (CREP)
18 ➢ Town of Hillsborough
19 ➢ Landowner donation
20 • CREP Project
21 • Fencing (8,000 ft.)
22 • Buffer restoration
23 • New water sources
24 • Riparian buffer easement (State)
25 Brooks Farm
26 Conservation partnership:
27
28 Dennis and Linda Brooks
29 Orange County
30 Eno River Association
31 Orange Soil &Water Conservation
32 Healthy Forests Initiative
33 Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative (Raleigh)
34 Town of Hillsborough
35 NC Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
36 USDA Farm Services Agency
37
38
39 Commissioner Jacobs said that this is this first time Hillsborough has partnered
40 financially with Orange County on a conservation easement.
41 Commissioner Gordon thanked the Brooks family for their generous donation and also
42 thanked staff who had been working on this project.
43 Commissioner Gordon pointed out her comments and questions on the blue sheet,
44 shown below:
45
46
15
1 8-a Conservation Easement
2 Questions about the Warranty Deed
3
4 Page 7 of the agenda materials (page 1 of the deed)—First paragraph Reference is
5 made to the easement which is granted by Dennis and Linda Brooks....and Orange
6 County....should that be....TO Orange County....?
7
8 Staff and the County Attorney agree that this is an improvement. We will change
9 the "and Orange County" to "to Orange County".
10
11 Page 7—last paragraph, line 4
12 This line says:......surveyed for Orange County D.E.A.P.R......
13 That should be......Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, parks and
14 Recreation (DEAPR)....
15
16 This language references the title of the plat. The plat identifies Orange County
17 D.E.A.P.R., so no change recommended.
18
19 Page 7—last paragraph, line 5
20 The plat book and page numbers are blank. Should these numbers have already been
21 filled in?
22
23 The referenced plat will be recorded along with the deed of conservation
24 easement. Those blanks will be filled in by the closing attorney prior to recording the
25 easement. No change recommended.
26
27 Page 11 — third paragraph (right after"1. Grant of Conservation Easement....'). The
28 second sentence says: Grantors promise that he will not perform.....should that be revised?
29
30 Staff and the County Attorney agree that this is an improvement. Staff will clarify
31 by changing this to "Grantors promise that they will not perform...."
32
33 (Note: it seems odd that the deed refers to the two individuals as the "Grantors,"but
34 refers to Orange County and the Eno River Association as the "Grantee.')
35
36 "Grantee" is defined on first page as meaning both Orange County and the Eno
37 River Association. No change recommended.
38
39 There are notes in bold concerning changes. Should these changes have already been
40 made?
41
42 The bolded language serves as reminders to staff and County Attorney to make
43 final technical edits once more information is available. The Manager's
44 Recommendation to the BOCC allows for these final technical edits to be made following
45 BOCC approval. No change recommended at this time.
46
47 Page 16—last paragraph
48 Why does the deed allow any kind of road to be constructed without written permission?
49
16
1 This language allows unimproved farm roads (i.e., unpaved, no gravel) to be
2 constructed without permission of Grantee. This is a standard allowance for agricultural
3 conservation easements. The County has no interest in approving the locations of farm
4 roads. No change.recommended.
5
6 Page 20 (second paragraph) and page 21 (second paragraph)
7 There are blank spaces in these paragraphs. Should these spaces have already been
8 filled in?
9
10 These blanks will be filled prior to recording the easement document, once we are
11 sure of the exact percentage of funds contributed by each of the parties.
12
13 Page 21 —second paragraph—bottom of the page (address of the Grantee)
14 The first grantee is Orange County DEAPR.
15 That should be Orange County Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
16 Recreation.
17
18 This is just a mailing address, so using the abbreviated name of the department
19 should suffice here. The full name of the department is used elsewhere in the easement
20 document. No change recommended.
21
22 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 20 where there were blank spaces in
23 the agreement. In the middle, it references Orange County and the Eno River Association
24 being entitled to 55% of the net sale proceeds. She asked if the 55%was being divided
25 between the two grantees. It seems that it would be clearer if it specified the percentages for
26 each entity.
27 Rich Shaw said that there are other partners as well. This would have to be sorted out if
28 there was a termination of the conservation easement. The math has not been done yet.
29 Commissioner Gordon asked that the Attorney work this out and suggest something.
30 John Roberts said that it would be addressed.
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
33 adopt the resolution approving the acceptance by Orange County of the conservation easement
34 and authorize the Chair and the Clerk to sign the resolution and conservation easement
35 agreement, subject to final review by staff and County Attorney, with a closing and recordation
36 of the document expected to occur on or about February 28, 2012, and approve Budget
37 Amendment#5-C; with the two changes that staff has agreed to and that the staff will clarify the
38 language on page 20, and on page 21, the first Grantee will be re-specified as Orange County
39 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation.
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 Chair Pelissier thanked the family and suggested that the Board of County
43 Commissioners send a thank you letter to all of their partners in this conservation easement,
44 including the Town of Hillsborough.
45 Rich Shaw said that this project would be the last of the $3 million that the Board of
46 County Commissioners set aside for these easements.
47
48 b. Charge of the Emergency Services Workaroup
49 The Board considered a recommendation for the Charge for the Emergency Services
50 Workgroup.
17
1 Assistant County Manager Michael Talbert said that this is for the Board of County
2 Commissioners to approve the charge for the Emergency Services Work Group. This was
3 discussed at the County Commissioners' December 13th meeting. Later this evening, the Board
4 will appoint the at-large citizens to this group. He summarized the information as shown below.
5
6 PURPOSE: To provide to the Board a recommendation for the Charge for the Emergency
7 Services Workgroup.
8
9 BACKGROUND: On November 17, 2011 the Board of Orange County Commissioners met to
10 discuss with staff several issues and recommendations to enhance the delivery of emergency
11 services. Staff presented: 1) Review of the VIPER Original Design and Implementation and
12 Strategies to Improve Coverage and Capacity; 2) E911 Center Improvement Plan; 3)
13 Discussion with the Board of County Commissioners Regarding Plans to Improve the
14 Emergency Medical Services Delivery System; 4) Review of Fire Department Issues Relating to
15 Fire Protection Districts, Fire Insurance Districts and Fire Tax Districts as Related to Property
16 Insurance Ratings; and 5) Summary of Financial Implications to Provide Emergency Services
17 Coverage, Capacity and System Improvements.
18
19 On December 13, 2011 the Board directed staff to bring a plan back for consideration that
20 established a workgroup to provide recommendations for Board action to improve overall public
21 safety service levels and improved fire insurance coverage for County homeowners.
22
23 The workgroup, as directed by the Board, will consist of members from the volunteer and
24 municipal fire and rescue group, two municipal law enforcement senior officers, a
25 representative from the Sheriff's Office, the Emergency Services Director, Medical Director, two
26 County Commissioners, and two citizen volunteers. The citizen appointments for the
27 Emergency Services Workgroup will be addressed in Agenda Item 12-b of this meeting.
28
29 The Charge for the Emergency Services Workgroup will be to provide recommendations to the
30 Board on how to best improve Public Safety and the Emergency Services delivery system in
31 Orange County. The recommendations will include a review of available alternatives, the
32 financial impact to the County, and an implementation timeline for the following divisions that
33 are an integral part of the Orange County Emergency Services delivery system:
34
35 1. VIPER system improvements.
36
37 2. Solutions relating to Fire Protection Districts, Fire Insurance Districts and Fire Tax
38 Districts.
39
40 3. System improvements for EMS Ambulance response times including but not limited to
41 equipment, staffing, facilities and/or a strategic plan to define data elements for
42 meaningful analytical data as related to ambulance response time and to discuss and
43 review that data.
44
45 4. Improvements for the E911 Communications Center including but not limited to
46 technology, equipment, staffing, training and/or a strategic plan.
47
48 5. Compare Orange County Emergency Services to similar sized counties in North
49 Carolina, including but not limited to staffing, equipment, technology, infrastructure,
50 performance and costs.
i
18
1
2 6. The Fire Departments' Strategic Plan.
3
4 The Board of County Commissioners requested a timeline for the Emergency Services
5 Workgroup. There are many unknowns regarding the direction of the Workgroup, but the
6 charge and the timeline will be the first items discussed by the Emergency Services Workgroup
7 and will report back to the Board on February 7, 2012.
8
9 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The approval of the Charge for this Workgroup will have no financial
10 impact on the County.
11
12 RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board approve the proposed
13 Charge for the Emergency Services Workgroup, and give direction to staff as to changes in the
14 Charge.
15
16
17 Commissioner Jacobs said that it is important to note that one of the things that the
18 County is looking at for dealing with system improvements for EMS ambulance response times
19 is meaningful and analytical data. He suggested adding this to item #3.
20 Chair Pelissier suggested making this a separate item —the data elements.
21 Commissioner Foushee said that she does not disagree with Chair Pelissier but the
22 point that Commissioner Jacobs made makes it easier for the group to consider that data within
23 the scope of the charge. She would not want to see it separated. She would like to see#3
24 reworded such that it includes discussion and review of analytical data as it relates to response
25 times.
26 Chair Pelissier agreed.
27 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
28 approve the proposed Charge for the Emergency Services Workgroup, and give direction to
29 staff as to changes in the Charge; with the inclusion of listing Michael Talbert as facilitator of the
30 work group and adding the recommendation for meaningful data to be included in item#3.
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 c. Next Steps: Northern Human Services Center
34 The Board considered information about community efforts regarding the disposition of
35 the Northern Human Services Center; and to provide direction to staff on next steps.
36 Asset Management Director Pam Jones and Department of Environment, Agriculture,
37 Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) Director David Stancil made a PowerPoint presentation.
38
39 Northern Human Services Center Next Steps
40
41 Tonight's Purpose:
42 - Review status of project discussions
43 - Review ideas from informal small group
44 - Consider two concepts or"options" as basis for future input
45 - Review and approve public input process, including community meetings
46
47 Background:
48 - Existing Building constructed 1950, 1957 (addition)
49 - Building costs over$100,000/year to maintain, limited usage
50 - CIP includes funds in FY 2012/13 to remove structure
19
1
2 Options Considered
3 - Option 1: remove classroom wings, leaving only gymnasium and cafeteria
4 - Option 2: remove entire structure and replace with approximately 10,000 s.f.
5 recreation facility
6
7 Option 1 Considerations
8 - Expensive maintenance will be needed:
9 o Roof replacement
10 o HVAC replacement
11 o Plumbing improvements—infrastructure and development of new restroom
12 facilities
13 o Window replacement for energy efficiency in both gym and cafeteria
14 - Missed opportunity to orient structure for optimal daylighting and solar energy
15 - Retains portion of old school building
16
17 Option 2 Considerations
18 - Built for intended purpose
19 - Greater energy efficiency opportunities:
20 o Orientation of building takes advantage of solar and daylighting opportunities;
21 o Materials used and systems would conform to the County's energy goals
22 ■ Opportunity for geo-thermal HVAC system
23 - Greater flexibility in site design/parking, etc.
24 - Flexibility in types of building uses
25
26 Establishing a Project Framework
27 - Estimated 10,000 s.f. facility
28 - Multipurpose areas for activities such as:
29 o Basketball or similar activities
30 o Community meetings or similar activities
31 ■ Could also include a separate small meeting room
32 o Family reunions
33 - Amenities:
34 o Warming kitchen facilities
35 o Restrooms
36 o Staff office
37 o Stage for speakers/performers
38
39 NHSC Informal Discussion
40 - Informal "check-in" with small group of area residents held to discuss:
41 o Process of citizen engagement
42 o Conceptual ideas of future activity types
43 o Community needs
44
45 Discussion— Possible Key Areas
46 - Offer County services in some manner
47 - Meeting room/community center
48 - Potential Emergency Services station
49 - Limitations of property use
50
20
1 Proposed Timeline and Public Input
2
3 January 24, 2011 — Report to BOCC on Proposed Public Outreach Plan (including draft survey)
4 and recommended options to BOCC
5
6 February, 2012—staff refines the two options for project, creates conceptual (bubble) drawings,
7 and implements public outreach
8
9 Early March 2012— Public Open House held to review site overview(limitations) and brief
10 history, proposed options, receive feedback, and distribute survey
11
12 March-April—further distribute survey to those not present; collect survey results
13
14 April 2012 —staff uses open house public input, analysis and survey results to further develop
15 plans for the options
16
17 May 15, 2012—project option plans and draft recommended option presented to BOCC for
18 initial review prior to Public Input Session
19
20 June 2012 — Public Input Session held to review recommended plan, as modified by BOCC,
21 receive community feedback (CIP confirmation of whether initial deconstruction/demolition is a
22 project for FY 12-13).
23
24 August 21, 2012— BOCC decision on recommended project
25
26 September-November—preliminary planning and design work associated with project
27
28 November 2012—permits acquired for deconstruction/demolition as per project decision and
29 funding
30
31 December 2012—deconstruction/demolition as per project decisions and funding, informal
32 information session held for public prior to activity
33
34 December 2012-?—final grading, seeding, and site stabilization accomplished, to awit next
35 steps of project
36
37
38 Commissioner McKee said that he was glad to see preliminary public comments and he
39 would not want the County Commissioners to deconstruct this building until they have a
40 concrete plan of action for this site.
41 Commissioner Foushee agreed. She said that it would be hard for her to move forward
42 on the proposed options until she has heard from the public in that area.
43 Commissioner Hemminger said that she agreed that they do need a plan and to spend
44 $100,000/year for upkeep now is not sustainable. She would like to deconstruct this entire
45 building at some point and build a new facility that is energy efficient, but she still wants to have
46 a plan in place before making any decisions. She said that the current building is not a user-
47 friendly place. She would rather see a new structure that can last for a very long time and is
48 more efficient.
21
1 Commissioner Jacobs said that this seems like an open process. He said that he
2 understands that the County Commissioners do not think about this as an energy efficient
3 building, but there might be other public entities that may be interested, like a charter school.
4 Commissioner Yuhasz agreed with Commissioner Foushee and Commissioner McKee
5 but he does not think that it is wise to leave this facility empty and maintain it without any use.
6 He would like to have a plan to have it deconstructed no later than 2013 when all activities
7 cease out there. He wants to make a commitment to its replacement as soon as possible.
8 Commissioner Gordon said that when the County Commissioners think about their CIP,
9 they need more input from the community. There are a number of unfunded projects already in
10 the CIP and there is no plan to raise taxes. There needs to be a plan that fits into the overall
11 CIP.
12 Frank Clifton said that the County is spending more than $100,000/year in heating and
13 cooling. He said that one of the limiting factors of this facility is the septic system. The sizing of
14 the facility is the limit, unless the County is willing to spend $800,000 additionally to build a
15 septic field. He said that with the large amount of money being spent there to heat this building,
16 the price range to build a new building is about $2.6 million. He said that now is a good time to
17 finance a project like this.
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner
19 Foushee to have staff begin the public process, move forward with a plan to make a decision,
20 come back with more information, and keep on the timeline that would allow operations to
21 cease there at the end of the calendar year.
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 d. Resolution Requesting Representation on the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan
25 Planning Organization Transportation Advisory Committee
26 The Board considered approving a resolution to request County representation on the
27 Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization.
28 Planning Board Director Craig Benedict said that this is a resolution requesting
29 representation on the Burlington-Graham MPO. He said that the MPO did put forth an invitation
30 in the 90's but the Board of County Commissioners was not interested at that time, so they
31 have invited Orange County again. He said that staff has been meeting with the MPO over the
32 past few months and this item would be to agree that Orange County should have
33 representation on this board. The County should send this resolution back to the MPO and
34 then Orange County would be added to the member list.
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
36 approve a resolution to request County representation on the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan
37 Planning Organization.
38
39 A RESOLUTION REQUESTING REPRESENTATION ON THE BURLINGTON-GRAHAM
40 METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
41 COMMITTEE AND TECHNICAL COORDINATING COMMITTEE
42 WHEREAS, ongoing cooperation has fostered continued dialogue regarding many aspects of
43 planning in the area of western Orange County near the City of Mebane; and
44
45 WHEREAS, the City of Mebane is in part located in Orange County and its extraterritorial
46 planning jurisdiction is also in part located in Orange County; and
47
48 WHEREAS, the City of Mebane is a member of the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning
49 Organization; and
50
22
1 WHEREAS, the boundaries of the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization
2 extend into Orange County; and
3
4 WHEREAS, cooperation and communication amongst neighboring jurisdictions, governments
5 and planning organizations are important facets of effective government; and
6
7 WHEREAS, on August 12, 2011 the chair of the Burlington-Graham MPO Technical
8 Coordinating Committee extended an offer to Board of County Commissioners' Chair
9 Bernadette Pelissier to facilitate Orange County formally joining the Burlington-Graham MPO;
10 and
11
12 WHEREAS, the Burlington-Graham MPO, the City of Mebane, the Durham-Chapel Hill-
13 Carrboro MPO and Orange County will soon be conducting a discussion regarding Metropolitan
14 Area Boundaries; and
15
16 WHEREAS, such representation is in the best interests of the residents of Orange County;
17
18 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
19 Orange County requests representation on the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning
20 Organization Transportation Advisory Committee.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 e. Update on Triangle Regional Transit Program —Alternatives Analysis and the
25 Locally Preferred Alternative
26 The Board received additional information on the Triangle Regional Transit Program —
27 Alternatives Analysis (AA) and the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and identified any
28 remaining information that may be required for the Board.
29 Craig Benedict said that he was just going to give an overview of this item. He said that
30 the Triangle region has an overall regional transit plan and some of the facets include the
31 potential for a '/2-cent tax for a fixed route system and additional bus enhancements. Orange
32 County's part of the program is very closely connected to Durham County.
33 He gave an overview of the types of questions regarding the Orange County Transit
34 Plan Alternatives Analysis and Locally Preferred Alternative:
35
36 • Ridership
37 • Commuter patterns/corridors
38 • Corridor Study
39 • BRT/LRT Decisions
40 • Economic Development/Financial
41 • Better land use patterns
42
43 Craig Benedict said that the MPO will be voting on the alternatives analysis and the
44 locally preferred alternative, and he hopes to give guidance from the Board on what would be
45 the answer to those two purposes.
46
47 PUBLIC COMMENT:
48 Glenn Wilson said that he is from northern Chapel Hill and he has some questions. He
49 said that Triangle Transit holds the issues that need to be evaluated such as how much it will
50 cost, who will be the riders, etc. He said that the C-1 through Meadowmont has a greater cost
23
1 than C-2. He said that there is no potential for economic development in Meadowmont
2 because it is already fully developed.
3
4 Chair Pelissier said that, from the December 8th work session, there was a timetable
5 proposed. She suggested making a decision about whether to put the Y2-cent sales tax on the
6 ballot in November. She made reference to the list of questions and asked the County
7 Commissioners how they wanted to proceed. She suggested asking Triangle Transit staff to
8 make comments on the alignment (C-1 vs. C-2), discuss the technology, and economic
9 development potential.
10 Wib Gulley, Triangle Transit Attorney said that the staff has not had time to analyze the
11 questions from the Board of County Commissioners that were sent to them late Friday.
12 Patrick McDonough said that they put out the alternatives analysis last summer and
13 have received numerous comments from citizens and public entities. There is a preference for
14 C1. He gave background on the transit demand.
15 Frank Clifton said that he and the Chapel Hill Town Manager have had many
16 discussions about these routes. He said that the greatest potential benefit for Orange County
17 in economic development is along 15-501 and not on a short section of NC 54 that is in Orange
18 County.
19 Chair Pelissier asked the Triangle Transit staff if 15-501 could be considered and how
20 that would affect the County's application.
21 Wib Gulley said that they take the Manager's recommendation seriously and the 15-501
22 corridor has come up for years. Every time it comes up, there is a technical analysis about
23 transportation demand. He suggested that the County Manager invite the Chapel Hill Town
24 Manager to discuss this further.
25 Commissioner Yuhasz said that, if this happened, this is an investment that all of
26 Orange County will be making in transportation. He sees the NC 54 corridor being the most
27 beneficial from a strictly transportation standpoint to those people who are traveling in that
28 corridor. He is not sure that this particular corridor would provide the greatest benefit to all of
29 Orange County. He said that the County Commissioners need to look at this as a
30 transportation project that is going to be funded by all of Orange County and not just a certain
31 portion of it in that part of the County.
32 Commissioner McKee said that he is content to wait for replies to these written
33 questions in the abstract because staff has not had sufficient time to answer. One of his
34 concerns has been that the County seems to be facing an artificially imposed time frame. He
35 said that this is one of the major decisions that this Board will make in the next decade and that
36 the citizens will be funding for years to come. He said that some of the cost estimates he has
37 seen are higher in Orange County than in other areas. He does not believe that a '/-cent sales
38 tax will pay for the County's portion going forward. He said that it seems that they are trying to
39 meet a deadline instead of looking at the intricate parts of the project in detail.
40 Wib Gulley said that Triangle Transit is about three years along in this process and a
41 decision point. He said that it is not accurate to say that they are strung up by a timeline. He
42 said that they have tried to make it as clear a process as they could.
43 Commissioner McKee said that he did not mean to imply that it had not been a public
44 process and a long process, but that they have to think about the citizens of Orange County
45 and the funding burden that will fall on them until there are more definitive answers.
46 Wib Gulley said that in Durham County they approved the referendum in 2011 and they
47 asked Triangle Transit to hold off until the Orange County agreements are in place.
48 Commissioner Hemminger said that she agreed with many of the comments of
49 Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Yuhasz. She said that she has to look out for how
50 the citizens in Orange County get to the major points and how they would use this system. She
24
1 wants to know why 15-501 was taken off and why BRT was put as a footnote instead of a
2 bigger issue. She said that if she had to pick between C-1 and C-2, then she would want to
3 know where people would park to get on this transit, etc.
4 Commissioner Gordon asked how long it would take Triangle Transit staff to provide
5 written responses back to the County Commissioners.
6 Wib Gulley said that some questions answered will certainly raise other questions and
7 February 7th is the meeting to do that.
8 Chair Pelissier said that February 7th is the only meeting where they would be able to
9 receive this and the County Commissioners need to give direction to Commissioner Gordon on
10 how to vote. It would be useful to have some information available in the agenda packets.
11 It was agreed that the information could be sent electronically by February 2"a
12 Chair Pelissier made reference to the balancing of the regional versus the local transit
13 needs. She said that they have to remember that this really is a regional transit plan. She said
14 that much of the costs will be borne by the federal and state governments. She would like
15 Triangle Transit to address this.
16 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the creation of Triangle Transit was to have a regional
17 entity to look at regional transit, but the problem is that there is no plan for regional cost
18 sharing.
19 Commissioner Gordon said that it would be helpful if the plan was refined to include a
20 different cost sharing proposal and suggested that value capture be considered. She asked if
21 the cost-sharing was the biggest hurdle, and if so, then they need to talk about that and solve it.
22 Patrick McDonough asked if cost-sharing with UNC has been considered and it was
23 answered no.
24 Commissioner McKee said that they should consider cost sharing with all the entities.
25
26 f. Update Report on Reformulated Economic Development Advisory Board
27 The Board received a report on proposed actions for the creation of a new advisory
28 board to support Orange County's Economic Development activities, and provided direction as
29 needed.
30 Economic Development Director Steve Brantley presented this item. He showed the
31 new Economic Development website on the screen.
32 He summarized the report:
33
34 Proposed Purpose, Composition and Function of Orange County's Reformulated
35 Economic Development Advisory Board
36
37
38 Purpose of Reformulated Economic Development Advisory Board
39
40 The purpose of the Orange County Economic Development Advisory Board (Board) will be to
41 work cohesively with the County's Economic Development staff and their economic
42 development partners to position Orange County as a competitive location for business
43 opportunities.
44
45 Process for Creation of New Economic Development Advisory Council
46
47 A selection process will be developed in conjunction with the new advisory board guidelines
48 recently discussed by the Orange County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) to ensure the
49 selection of candidates that will be actively engaged in furthering the County's economic
50 development program. Orange County Economic Development staff will work with their
25
1 Economic Development partners (Chamber of Commerce, other area Economic Development
2 practitioners, and local business leaders) to identify potential Advisory Board members.
3
4 It is anticipated that the selected members will serve no more than two 3 year terms. Specific,
5 time-limited task forces may be created, either from Board members or from informed County
6 citizens, to study specific issues. It is anticipated that the formation of the Board will coincide
7 with the initiation of the Quarter cent sales tax proceeds, which are expected to start accruing
8 mid-2012. Appointments to the Board could start as early as Spring 2012, with initial
9 membership limited to 5 to 9 individuals. Meetings would be held at least quarterly.
10
11 Composition of New Economic Development Advisory Council
12
13 Advisory board member would ideally have a direct or indirect background in economic
14 development, and be actively involved in promoting business. Candidates should either live in
15 Orange County, have invested in Orange County, or have a direct economic development
16 interest in Orange County.
17
18 Representatives from the following sectors would be targeted for inclusion into the initial Board
19 composition:
20
21 - Members of the County's core business community, including banking,
22 construction, manufacturing, architecture, real estate, legal, development, utility
23 management, etc.
24 - The advisory board should ideally include one person who represents agriculture;
25 - An individual actively involved in entrepreneur activities;
26 - An individual representing the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
27 preferably involved in the development activities, such as planning for Carolina
28 North, or on the foundation side of business development;
29 - The tourism sector represented by an individual involved in retail and/or hospitality
30 - At some point in the future, someone representing Duke University land assets in
31 Orange County could be included
32
33 Potential Functions of the New Economic Development Advisory Council
34
35 Although the activities of the Board will be dependent on specific project and department needs,
36 several activities anticipated to be performed by the Board include;
37
38 - Meet with prospective clients, and be involved with select economic development
39 endeavors;
40 - Participate and advise in discussions, evaluations, and decisions on appropriate
41 economic development uses of the proceeds from the quarter cent sales tax;
42 - Craft, analyze and promote economic development initiatives;
43 - Identify and review potential new markets;
44 - Assist in planning economic development policy;
45 - Actively engage in stimulating community discussions on economic development
46 issues;
47 - Assist with the small business loan program;
48 - Set priorities on the location and type of infrastructure (water, sewer, fiber) for the
49 County's Economic Development Districts;
26
1 - Help determine how Orange County might partner with the towns on economic
2 development initiatives; and
3 - Assist and advise on the recommended areas suitable for economic development
4 and commercial nodes.
5
6
7 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the first paragraph and asked if there would
8 be a formal acknowledgement of the role that the Chambers of Commerce should play in
9 developing the Economic Development Advisory Board.
10 Commissioner Foushee added her support for Commissioner Yuhasz's comment. She
11 said that the chambers should have some official recognition.
12 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with trying to be more specific to include the chambers
13 and to also include agriculture. He said that if they do include groups like the chambers, part of
14 the charge is that they are there to represent the entire County and not a specific chamber. He
15 said that it is important to articulate that they stipulate that they operate within their parameters
16 of the Orange County Land Use Plan.
17 Commissioner Hemminger is supportive of the chambers' involvement through
18 connectivity.
19 Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to make sure that this is integrated with
20 the land use plan and grounded in Orange County. She said that maybe not every member
21 should be a resident of Orange County but that most should, rather than just have an economic
22 development interest. She preferred to have staff refine the proposed process and to come
23 back to the BOCC for approval.
24 John Roberts said that the EDC will be governed by the boards and commissions
25 policies and his staff will be working with boards and commissions to develop specific board
26 policies.
27 Frank Clifton made reference to the Chambers and said that there are some issues with
28 a lot of the businesses not being in Orange County. He has discussed with the Chapel Hill
29 Chamber of Commerce the idea of creating a Business Council that is countywide.
30 Commissioner Foushee said that her comments as related to the relationship between
31 the Board and the chambers was not to have the directors on this board but to move forward
32 with an established relationship with both chambers. She said that to move forward without any
33 significant recognition of the partnership sends a message to the chambers that she does not
34 want to send.
35 Commissioner Yuhasz and Chair Pelissier agreed. Commissioner Yuhasz said to also
36 reach out to the Alamance County Chamber members that have an interest in Orange County.
37 Chair Pelissier said that she liked the potential functions and she suggested that she
38 would like to see the membership at about 8-9 members.
39 Commissioner Gordon said to direct staff to work with John Roberts's office.
40
41 9. Reports
42 a. Update on Buckhorn-Mebane Phase 2 Water and Sewer Utility Design
43 The Board received an update on the progress of the Buckhorn-Mebane Phase 2 utility
44 design for economic development.
45 Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the County is four to five months away from
46 having the sewer system that will service the Buckhorn EDD.
47
48 10. County Manager's Report
49 Frank Clifton said that the last couple of years the system in place for filling positions
50 has generated about$2 million a year in employee payroll savings. He said that from 2005-
27
1 2009 the workman's compensation claims averaged over$1 million a year. For the last two and
2 a half years, the average was$300,000 a year. He commended the staff for this.
3
4 11. County Attorney's Report
5 John Roberts said that in 2009 the General Assembly granted counties statewide the
6 authority to appoint the chair of the local ABC Board. No one has mentioned doing this, but this
7 became effective this past October. This authority now rests with the County Commissioners.
8 The current ABC Board Chair's term will expire sometime in the spring.
9
10 12. Appointments
11 a. Orange County Arts Commission —Appointment
12 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Arts Commission.
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded Commissioner Jacobs to
14 appoint Ms. Andrea Riley to an At-Large Position on the Arts Commission with a term ending
15 March 31, 2014.
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 b. Orange County Emergency Services Work-group—Appointments
19 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Emergency Services
20 Work Group.
21 A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
22 appoint Ms. Mary Parrish to the Emergency Services Work Group.
23 VOTE: Ayes, 6; No, 1 (Commissioner Gordon)
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner McKee to
26 appoint Ms. Jane Cousins to the Emergency Services Work Group.
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
30 appoint Commissioner McKee as the Chair of the Emergency Services Work Group.
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 C. Human Relations Commission —Appointment
34 The Board considered making an appointment to the Human Relations Commission
35 (HRC).
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
37 to appoint Ms. Ashley Tittemore to an At-Large Position on the HRC with a term ending in
38 September 30, 2014.
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 d. Orange County Nursing Home Communitv Advisory Committee—
42 Appointment
43 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange County Nursing Home
44 Community Advisory Committee.
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Gordon
46 to appoint Dr. Mary Ann Peter to an At- Large Position on the Orange County Nursing Home
47 Community Advisory Committee with a term ending June 30, 2013.
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50
28
1 13. Board Comments
2 Commissioner Jacobs said that he attended a joint meeting of the Environment and
3 Agriculture Steering Committees of the NCACC today and they discussed fracking. People are
4 being taken advantage of tremendously. He will be bringing this up as a Board member petition
5 soon.
6 Commissioner Jacobs reminded people of the parking deck code for the Orange County
7 free parking spaces— 1201#. This is good until the end of the month.
8 Commissioner Yuhasz said that meetings are being set up to discuss OPC changes.
9 This should happen sometime in February. He said thank you to all staff for saving Orange
10 County taxpayer's money.
11 Commissioner Gordon said that she attended the NCACC Environment Steering
12 Committee meeting by conference call today and they received a lot of good information on
13 water resources. The information on fracking indicated that there are many potential problems.
14 Commissioner Hemminger said that she attended the Work Force Development
15 meeting and there was a presentation on a new product for job seeking. Fourteen states have
16 signed onto the product.
17 Commissioner Foushee—no comments
18 Commissioner McKee said that he took part in the tour of the justice facility yesterday
19 and he noted that the front doors need attention.
20 Chair Pelissier made reference to fracking and said that in December she was
21 contacted by the North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club asking about endorsing some sort
22 of resolution expressing concerns about fracking. She has not heard back about a resolution.
23 She would like to express some concern.
24
25 14. Information Items
26
27 • December 13, 2011 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
28
29 15. Closed Session
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
31 to go into closed session at 10:55 p.m. for the purposes of:
32
33 "To consult with an attorney employed or retained by the public body in order to preserve the
34 attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the public body, which privilege is hereby
35 acknowledged. General policy matters may not be discussed in a closed session and nothing
36 herein shall be construed to permit a public body to close a meeting that otherwise would be
37 open merely because an attorney employed or retained by the public body is a participant."
38 NCGS § 143-318.11(a) (3).
39
40 To approve and open closed session minutes.
41
42 "To discuss matters related to the location or expansion of industries or other businesses in the
43 area served by the public body, including agreement on a tentative list of economic
44 development incentives that may be offered by the public body in negotiations," NCGS § 143-
45 318.11(a)(4).
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION
29
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
2 reconvene into regular session at 11:55 p.m.
3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4
5 16. Adiournment
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Yuhasz to
7 adjourn the meeting at 11:55 p. m.
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
11
12 Donna S. Baker, CMC
13 Clerk to the Board
1
1
2 DRAFT
3
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 WORK SESSION
7 January 31, 2012
8 7:OOpm
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners for a Work Session on Tuesday, January 31,
11 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
14 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
15 Yuhasz
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Interim Assistant County Manager
19 Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker(All other staff members will be
20 identified appropriately below)
21
22 1. County Commissioners: Boards and Commissions Assignments
23 Chair Pelissier called the meeting to order. She went through the process of board
24 appointments. She asked each County Commissioner which board they wanted to keep.
25
BOARD NAME SELECTION- 2012
Alcohol Beverage Commissioner McKee
Control ABC Board
Board of Health Commissioner Yuhasz
Board of Social Services Commissioner Foushee
Burlington-Graham Commissioner Jacobs-
MPO Transportation Member
Advisory Committee Commissioner Foushee -
Alternate
Communities in Schools Commissioner Yuhasz
CIS
Community Home Trust Commissioner
Board of Directors Hemminger
Durham-Chapel Hill- Commissioner Gordon -
Carrboro-Metropolitan Member
Planning Organization- Chair Pelissier-
Transportation Advisory Alternate
Committee
Durham/Chapel Commissioner
Hill/Orange Work Group Hemminger
2 Commissioner Gordon
Durham Tech Board of Commissioner Foushee
2
Trustees
Economic Development In the process of being
Commission re-structured
Efland Mebane Small Commissioner Jacobs
Area Plan
Implementation Focus
Group
Emergency Services Commissioner McKee-
Work Group ( 2) Member
Commissioner Foushee -
Alternate
Fire Chief's Council Commissioner McKee
Intergovernmental Parks Commissioner Gordon
Work Group
Healthy Carolinians Commissioner McKee
HOME Program Review Commissioner Foushee
Committee/ Housing
Bond Program Project
Review and Selection
Committee
Hollow Rock Park Commissioner Gordon
Planning Committee
Joint Orange Chatham Commissioner Foushee
Community Action
JOCCA
Legislative Issues Work Commissioner Jacobs
Group 2 Commissioner McKee
Library Services Task Commissioner Jacobs
Force
NACo/NCACC Voting Commissioner Foushee
Delegate M
Orange County Chair Pelissier
Partnership for Young
Children
Orange-Person-Chatham Commissioner Yuhasz
OPC Area Programs
Piedmont Agricultural Commissioner Jacobs -
Processing Center— Chair
Steering Committee
Research Triangle Commissioner Yuhasz
Regional Partnership
RTRP
Solid Waste Elected Commissioner Yuhasz
Officials Work Group
Solid Waste Chair Pelissier
Management Work
Group
Ten Year Plan to End Commissioner Pelissier-
Homelessness Executive Chair
3
Team
Triangle J Council of Commissioner Jacobs -
Governments (TJCOG) Member
Commissioner
Hemmin er—Alternate
Triangle Area RPO- Commissioner McKee—
Transportation Advisory Member
Committee Commissioner Gordon -
Alternate
Triangle Transit Board of Chair Pelissier
Trustees
Upper Neuse River Basin Commissioner
Association Hemmin er- Chair
Visitor's Bureau Commissioner Foushee
Workforce Development Commissioner
Board — Regional Hemminger
Partnership
2
3
EX-OFFICIO
Community Leadership Council M Chair Serves
Elected Transit Leaders Meeting Chair Serves
Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce (L)-does not Chair May Serve
require a Commissioners
NC DOT Quarterly Meetings ChairNice Chair
School Collaboration Meetings ChairNice Chair
4
5
6 2. Discussion on Intergovernmental Agreements Approval and Recognitions at
7 Board Meetings
8 John Roberts said that staff wants to give signature authority to the Manager on certain
9 interlocal agreements. All of the interlocal agreements have been coming to the Board and the
10 Manager has signed amendments. The recommendation is $90,000 and below to come to the
11 Manager and anything above that would go to the Board of County Commissioners.
12 Commissioner Foushee agreed.
13 Commissioner Yuhasz said that it would probably be okay to set the limit at $90,000 but
14 whatever limit they impose only relates to monies that they spend and not what comes in. He
15 said that the Board would not need to see renewals, but if there is a self-perpetuating clause,
16 then the Board would need to see it, regardless of the amount.
17 John Roberts said that a lot of these agreements have a match.
18 Commissioner Gordon said that her understanding is that these are things that are
19 already in their budget, and asked if that was correct. It was answered yes. She said that the
20 matches can be important. She would like to see the Manager give the Commissioners a
21 monthly report on what has been approved by him.
22 Commissioner Foushee reiterated that in the cases where the match has a budget
23 implication that has not been approved by the Board then they need to see it.
4
1 Frank Clifton said that anything that requires a budget amendment comes to the Board.
2 The big issue is the timing of the meetings and the fact that some things need to be moved
3 forward more quickly.
4 Commissioner Hemminger made reference to recognitions and pointed out that the
5 County needs to remember to separate church and state.
6 Commissioner McKee said that, in looking over the list, it looks like the process in place
7 at this time is working.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said that, in the past, individuals usually are retirees of some
9 governmental entities, etc. He said that it seems that the County stopped recognizing
10 businesses. He suggested asking the reconstituted EDC to bring forth quarterly proposed
11 businesses for recognition.
12 Chair Pelissier said that she agreed she did not want set criteria. Regarding
13 businesses, she separates businesses that do community-minded things versus winning
14 awards. She does not want it to seem as if the Board is endorsing certain businesses.
15 Frank Clifton said that he has seen it done elsewhere in local governments that when
16 long-term employees retire, they do something special such as a small recognition party.
17 Commissioner Jacobs said that there is an employee appreciation lunch each year and
18 retirees are invited. He liked this event and employees seemed to enjoy it too.
19 Frank Clifton said that in other areas, long-term retirees were recognized at a televised
20 meeting along with their family and this was a more formal recognition.
21 Chair Pelissier liked that idea.
22 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he had suggested at an earlier meeting that they have
23 criteria for recognition, but when he looked at the lengthy list and the way they are currently
24 doing it now, it seems to work. He said that it would be helpful if the Board had more time to
25 look at a proposed recognition resolution. He said that when he was Vice-Chair, he was not
26 always comfortable trying to decide if a proposed resolution was worthy of adoption.
27 Chair Pelissier asked about recognizing retirees and all agreed.
28 Commissioner Foushee cautioned that not all retirees be recognized, but only those that
29 are long-term, such as 25 years or more, so that it is very special.
30 Commissioner Hemminger suggested making a list— no religious groups, recognize
31 retirees of 25 years or more, and look at potential businesses.
32 Commissioner Foushee said that there are some people that come to a meeting
33 expecting to hear a certain agenda item. She wants to be mindful of the timing of these
34 recognitions so that all items that are scheduled are heard.
35 Commissioner Gordon suggested that the people that are being recognized do not
36 necessarily have to have the chance to speak.
37 Commissioner Foushee said that she has full confidence that the agenda review team
38 can handle this.
39
40 3. Boards and Commissions- Review Annual Work Plans
41 Chair Pelissier said that the goal in doing this is to communicate back to the boards and
42 commissions the Boards' feedback. She said that she and the Clerk spent much time trying to
43 make these letters individual. She would like to highlight something in each letter to make them
44 more individual.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said that he was surprised that there were no advisory board
46 chairs here. He said that he saw this item as a good opportunity to have an exchange not
47 filtered by staff with members of the public who serve the County. He said that this is not good
48 enough for him and he hopes that it can be done differently in the future.
49 Chair Pelissier said that the advisory board chairs were not invited and there was no
50 discussion among the Board to have this be a meeting with interchange.
i
5
1 Commissioner Hemminger said that she would support Commissioner Jacobs' idea.
2 Commissioner Foushee said that, given the number of boards they have, she does not
3 see this being done all in one meeting. She is not against it, but it would probably have to be
4 done in two meetings.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said that he thinks it could be done in one night, if the structure is
6 refined.
7 Discussion ensued about the possibility of meeting with all boards.
8 Commissioner McKee agreed with Commissioner Foushee that it would take at least
9 two meetings to meet with all boards.
10 Frank Clifton suggested scheduling each group to come one at a time to regular
11 meetings for a five-minute O&A.
12 Chair Pelissier liked the suggestion from Frank Clifton.
13 Commissioner Gordon said that her concern is that, if the boards do not present their
14 reports early enough in the budget cycle, then their information cannot be used for budget
15 planning.
16 Commissioner Yuhasz agreed with Commissioner Gordon. He said that it would be
17 difficult to have a conversation in a regular meeting and work sessions are much more
18 conducive to discussion. He would prefer to have a work session with half of the boards here
19 each time in January. The groups could be arranged so that there is a common interest.
20 Chair Pelissier asked for the Board's preference on meeting with half of the boards one
21 year and then the other half the next year, and all agreed. All of the work plans will still be sent
22 in January, excluding the statutory boards and those that the County Commissioners meet with
23 regularly.
24 Discussion ensued about the timing for these work sessions.
25 Chair Pelissier suggested picking the boards with the highest priority first.
26 Clerk to the Board Donna Baker said that she could send out a suggested list of boards
27 with higher priority.
28 Commissioner Gordon suggested picking the boards on the basis of things that the
29 Board is working on instead of saying "higher priority boards."
30
31 1. ABC Board
32
33 Chair Pelissier said that the Board just heard their report on 1/24. She asked what kind
34 of support was needed for a warehouse construction.
35 Frank Clifton said that they are looking at Valley Forge. This is within Hillsborough's
36 Planning jurisdiction.
37 Chair Pelissier asked for any specific comments for the letter and Commissioner
38 Hemminger said to thank them for the work plan and that the County Commissioners are
39 excited about the move.
40 Commissioner McKee asked about the chair and if the County Commissioners have the
41 authority to appoint the chair.
42 John Roberts said that previously the Orange County ABC Board was governed by a
43 local act, but the state repealed all local acts that were in conflict with these terms. This is new.
44 The term of the current chair expires in March.
45 The Board agreed to add to the letter a statement about the chair's appointment to the
46 ABC Board by the Board of County Commissioners as well as having the board make
47 recommendations for the Chair.
48 Chair Pelissier suggested that the form that is filled out by boards about
49 accomplishments be specific to the last year only.
50
6
1
2 2. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee
3 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the top of page 7 and the issue of mixing
4 chronically mentally ill with older and frail populations came up in a federal complaint about
5 North Carolina's mental health system. He does not recall that there was any resolution. He
6 would like to get some examples and a response from this advisory board. He would like to put
7 this on the legislative agenda.
8 Chair Pelissier agreed.
9
10 3. Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB)
11 Commissioner Hemminger asked about the format of the reports. She suggested that
12 next year that the board/commission name be at the top as well as the year.
13 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the bottom of page 10, #2 - Review Mobile
14 Home Park Standards. He asked what this meant.
15 Commissioner Foushee said that Orange County mobile home park standards are very
16 old and not enforceable. She said that this board was receiving complaints from residents
17 because these standards do not allow the Board of County Commissioners to enforce or
18 change these issues.
19 John Roberts said that Orange County does have a minimum housing code but with
20 mobile homes, you can not restrict them and if you only enforce some standards it may
21 interfere with Orange County's affordable housing standards.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to know what the AHAB perceives as the
23 issues.
24 Commissioner Yuhasz suggested that any review involve mobile home park owners.
25 Chair Pelissier reiterated that the Board wants to ask the AHAB to identify the issues
26 related to the Mobile Home Park Standards and what they would like to explore, and that the
27 County Commissioners would like to review this before the AHAB proceeds.
28 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 10 and an on-ground Affordable Housing Bus
29 Tour for the board members. She would like to ask that the County Commissioners also be
30 invited to these kinds of tours that are informative.
31
32 4. Agricultural Preservation Board
33 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 13 and the mention of the accomplishments.
34 She would like to know what these are. Also, regarding the Emerging Issues, she thinks that
35 these should be added to the work plan.
36 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 16 and Legislation Pertaining to
37 Agriculture. He asked that this be more specific. He said that this should be brought to the
38 Board of County Commissioners and not the County Attorney.
39 The Board agreed that this board should bring more details about this legislation before
40 proceeding.
41
42 5. Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB)
43 Commissioner Jacobs said that he got a phone call Saturday night from a citizen who
44 was concerned because she had a squirrel in her house. He asked about the procedure for
45 helping people with wild animals. He also would like to know if handicapped people were
46 treated any differently in these situations.
47 Chair Pelissier said that the issue here was cost and the citizen was upset because of
48 the cost.
49 Frank Clifton said that the County does not respond to wildlife calls. Pest control
50 handles these types of situations.
7
1 Commissioner McKee said that he is reluctant to get into the animal removal business.
2 Commissioner Foushee said that this should be brought up in a regular meeting
3 regarding the services of the ASAB.
4 Chair Pelissier said that she would like to recognize boards that are collaborative with
5 other boards or agencies. There are two areas where this is mentioned by the ASAB, and she
6 wants to recognize this.
7 Commissioner Foushee said that the communications in the ASAB is a high priority,
8 especially regarding the deer hunting with dogs issue. This board is very informative.
9
10 6. Arts Commission
11 Commissioner Foushee made reference to page 22 at the bottom and said that people
12 have made comments about how helpful the Arts Commission and Visitor's Bureau have been.
13 She suggested highlighting this.
14
15 7. Board of Adjustment (BOA)
16 Chair Pelissier said that the BOA members say that they want to review fees and the
17 permitted use table, but they do not say why or what. She is not sure that this is their role.
18 John Roberts said that this is not their role because the Board of Adjustment is not an
19 advisory board.
20 Chair Pelissier suggested deleting this board from this process.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to know what the issues are regarding the
22 permitted use table.
23
24 8. Board of Health
25 Donna Baker said that the County Commissioners will be meeting with the Board of
26 Health in April.
27 Chair Pelissier suggested putting in the letter that they look forward to discussion in
28 April.
29
30 9. Social Services Board
31 The same thing is true of this board. The County Commissioners will be meeting with
32 them in April and the letter will state such.
33
34 10. Visitor's Bureau
35 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to agri-tourism on page 37.
36 Chair Pelissier said that she would like to encourage the Visitor's Bureau to promote
37 economic development and be more progressive.
38 Commissioner Jacobs wants them to be more progressive regarding food trucks in
39 Hillsborough and Chapel Hill.
40 Frank Clifton said that there are issues with this group and both of the towns, who are
41 establishing their own tourism board. There are some structure issues with the bureau.
42 Chair Pelissier suggested putting this on a future agenda, considering the potential
43 changing role in light of the new Visitors Bureaus with the Towns.
44 Commissioner Foushee said to be careful because Carrboro has not indicated the
45 desire to create its own board. The language should not assume that this will be done.
46 Chair Pelissier suggested that the letter say that the County Commissioners would like
47 to have discussions with them sometime in the near future about the implications of the
48 legislation so that it does not imply any expectation.
49 Commissioner Yuhasz suggested that the emphasis be on the Visitor's Bureau
50 investigating what should be done in response to the legislation.
8
I Frank Clifton said that the towns have to have a tourism board in order to levy a tourism
2 tax.
3
4 11. Commission for the Environment(CfE)
5 Chair Pelissier said that she would like to compliment them for wanting to collaborate
6 with the Planning Board (page 42). Also, she would like to compliment them for establishing an
7 Energy Resources Committee.
8 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 42 and the request for the County
9 Commissioners to impose a moratorium on DOT and spraying herbicides. He suggested
10 getting some clarity from the Attorney.
11 John Roberts said that the General Assembly addressed that in the billboard legislation
12 that was passed last year. It does allow for some herbicide use and it is unlikely that Orange
13 County could regulate this. He will get more information on this and provide it in writing to the
14 Board.
15 Chair Pelissier made reference to the memos included and if these were voted on as a
16 board. She said that in order to respond to the Commission for the Environment, there would
17 have to be a concrete proposal to the County Commissioners.
18 Commissioner Foushee said that this needs to be discussed at a regular meeting to see
19 if the County Commissioners can refer it to the Planning Board.
20 Chair Pelissier said that in principle it is a good idea, but the Planning Board has a full
21 agenda now.
22 Commissioner Hemminger suggested having the Manager have a conversation with the
23 staff first before responding to see what is going on.
24 The Board agreed.
25 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 42 and fully implementing the Water Resources
26 Initiative. She wants to know the implications to the Board of County Commissioners of
27 implementing this.
28 Commissioner Gordon suggested asking the Commission for the Environment about the
29 next steps.
30 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the Sustainability of Long-Term Solid Waste
31 Disposal options and said that the CfE should investigate further the environmental implications
32 of long-term solid waste disposal options.
33 Commissioner Gordon said that she does not want the CfE to get in too deep with the
34 same issues as the Solid Waste Advisory Board. She said that the two boards should
35 collaborate.
36 Chair Pelissier said that some of the members of the CfE might have some expertise
37 that the members of the SWAB may not have (i.e., air quality, etc.). She would love to have
38 this expertise weigh in.
39 Commissioner Gordon made reference to reducing Orange County's footprint and said
40 that she would encourage this.
41
42 12. Cooperative Extension
43 Commissioner Jacobs said that it does not seem that Cooperative Extension should be
44 on this list.
45 The Board agreed to take them off the list.
46 Commissioner Hemminger asked that these minutes come only electronically and not
47 hardcopy.
48 Commissioner Gordon suggested having more of a relationship with Cooperative
49 Extension.
50
9
1 13. Advisory Board on Aging
2 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page 51 and said that it is a generic statement
3 about the concerns and emerging issues. He said that he would like to see more specificity on
4 emerging issues.
5 Chair Pelissier said that she would like to commend them for their coordination with
6 DSS.
7 Commissioner Yuhasz said that there were some additional information on the "no
8 wrong door initiative" that the Advisory Board on Aging was working on.
9
10 14. Historic Preservation Commission
11 Commissioner Jacobs asked if all of the Rogers Road community in the ETJ. It was
12 answered yes.
13 John Roberts said that this was a discussion recently. He said that technically, the only
14 thing that really applies in the ETJ is zoning. There is consensus that police powers from the
15 towns do not function or operate within the ETJ. The counties also do not tend to impose their
16 ordinances in the ETJ.
17 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Orange County local landmark program could apply
18 in the ETJs.
19 John Roberts said that it could, but if this is enforced in the ETJ, then all of the
20 ordinances could be enforced in the ETJ.
21 Commissioner Foushee cautioned that there could be an expectation of a positive
22 outcome. This is too sensitive right now.
23 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 55 and if the emerging issues were for staff.
24 She wants to know if the outreach program will require additional staff resources.
25 Commissioner Yuhasz suggested that all advisory boards be mindful of the additional
26 staff resources that may be required with some of these requests.
27 The Board agreed to put this statement in all of the letters.
28
29 15. Human Relations Commission
30 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to express appreciation for holding this
31 annual event. He also appreciates the resumption of the Pauli Murray awards.
32
33 16. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee
34 John Roberts said that he would research whether or not there is an annual report
35 required.
36
37 17. Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)
38 Chair Pelissier made reference to page 66, items 2 and 3, and seeking authorization
39 from the Board of County Commissioners. She asked that the Board respond to this. It is
40 pretty vague.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to know more about the direction the
42 OUTBoard is going.
43 Chair Pelissier verified that the Board will ask for the general gist of what the OUTBoard
44 wants reviewed and why and also encourage the OUTBoard to create recommendations to the
45 Planning Board.
46 Chair Pelissier made reference to pages 66-67 and "better integration of transportation
47 planning." She is not sure what this means.
48 Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to know more about the coordination to
49 try and get the rural and metropolitan areas together. She wants to endorse the concept,
10
1 because integration is needed, but she is curious if there is anything more than a general
2 statement.
3
4 18. Planning Board
5 Chair Pelissier said that the Board has met recently with the Planning Board and this
6 information reflects what they discussed and the County Commissioners appreciate their work.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said that there is nothing in here about continued joint planning
8 efforts with Hillsborough or Mebane. He wants to know the status of these joint planning
9 efforts.
10 Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to know more about updating the UDO.
11 Commissioner Yuhasz said that the County Commissioners are aware these are on-
12 going issues and they need to be addressed and the updates to the UDO for economic
13 development are the priorities. He said that joint planning efforts are important, but the priority
14 for the Planning Board is economic development. He does not want to give a mixed message.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like to at least know the plan for these issues
16 and keep them on the radar.
17 Commissioner McKee said that he wants to send a clear message that economic
18 development is the priority.
19 Frank Clifton said that there are discussions with Mebane at the staff level about the
20 utility agreement that includes the issue of land use discussions, etc.
21 Commissioner Gordon said that the Planning Board should be able to focus on things
22 that are timely.
23
24 19. Parks and Recreation Commission
25 Commissioner Hemminger asked when the Board was going to see the master plan.
26 This was discussed over a year ago.
27 Commissioner Gordon said that when they talk about their emerging issues, she would
28 like for them to identify 2-3 top priorities.
29
30 20. Solid Waste Advisory Board
31 Commissioner Yuhasz said that at the meeting recently they talked about
32 emerging/alternative technology for handling solid waste. He thinks that the SWAB should
33 investigate this more. Also, he asked if the Board wants the SWAB to spend time investigating
34 on Mayor Chilton's suggestion for a transfer station site.
35 Chair Pelissier said that the Board needs to discuss this first.
36 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to the last sentence on the last page where it
37 says that there are two Board of County Commissioner appointee empty slots. He asked about
38 this.
39 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he had a discussion with the SWAB Chair and this
40 board would be more effective if there were elected officials appointed to it.
41 Chair Pelissier suggested putting this in a category for discussion at a regular meeting.
42 She suggested putting this in the letter, along with a thank-you for the revised interlocal
43 agreement.
44
45 4. Orange County Boards and Commissions: Discussion of Applications
46 Chair Pelissier said that no one is really happy with the application for the advisory
47 boards. The goal is to come up with a generic application for advisory boards. There could be
48 more specific applications for OWASA, ABC, Board of Adjustment, and Planning Board. She
49 pointed out the attachments, which were examples of applications used by other municipalities.
11
I Commissioner Gordon said that the main thing that is missing is why the applicant wants
2 to be on a particular board or commission and their experience.
3 All agreed by consensus to include this question on the application.
4 Chair Pelissier suggested using the following language: "Explain how your background,
5 education, and and/or work experience is relevant to the advisory board."
6 Commissioner Jacobs suggested including volunteer experience to the work experience.
7 Also, he would suggest including most recent work experience as opposed to all work
8 experience. He also suggested taking off the education component.
9 Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to keep the education component.
10 Commissioner Foushee said that this question could discriminate because it appears to
11 be a criterion.
12 Commissioner Yuhasz suggested having IT pre-populate areas that have the
13 name/address, but he would like to see a separate application for each board with a separate
14 statement of qualifications for each board.
15 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there really needed to be a 3-hour orientation for the
16 boards/commissions. Donna Baker said that each board is different.
17 Commissioner Jacobs suggested saying "an orientation" instead of listing a time. He
18 also suggested adding a listing of the boards and commissions to the hardcopy version of the
19 application so that applicants can see the full list.
20 Commissioner Gordon asked why education would be eliminated from the application.
21 Chair Pelissier said that there are different opinions about having education on the
22 application.
23 Frank Clifton said that he did not think that date of birth was appropriate to have on the
24 application.
25 John Roberts said that he would look at this and what is required to be disclosed for
26 certain boards and commissions.
27 John Roberts said that there was a discussion about including whether or not applicants
28 were registered to vote and the consensus was to use "domicile" instead of"registered to vote."
29 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to page 21 and the specific categories for the
30 Board of Equalization and Review. He said that there is not a formal requirement for Orange
31 County and he would like to add this. This can be discussed later.
32 Commissioner Hemminger made reference to education and said that she has had two
33 citizens tell her that they did not apply to a board or commission because they did not have a
34 college education. The citizens thought that because it was on the application that it was a
35 requirement.
36 Chair Pelissier said that it is also important to know what other community organizations
37 or boards the citizens are involved in. The Board agreed.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Hemminger, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs
40 to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 p.m.
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
44
45 Donna S. Baker, CIVIC
46 Clerk to the Board
47
1
DRAFT MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING RETREAT
SOUTHERN HUMAN SERVICES CENTER
February 10, 2012
9:00 a.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Board retreat on Friday, February 10, 2012 at
9:00 a.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners Valerie Foushee,
Alice Gordon, Pam Hemminger, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, and Steve Yuhasz
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker
SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT FACILITATORS: Kelly O'Brien and Shannon Tufts
Purpose: To agree on Orange County's priority investments in Communications and Information
Technology.
Chair Pelissier welcomed everyone and Introductions were made.
1. PURPOSE OF THE RETREAT
• To agree on Orange County's priority investments in communications and
information technology
2. REPORT FROM STAFF: FISCAL HEALTH OF THE COUNTY
Clarence Grier, Financial Services Director, reviewed anticipated revenues and
expenditures for the upcoming FY 2012-2013 budget.
The Commissioners asked County staff about the decrease in state funding for
childcare; County staff responded that this decrease was due to program
administration transferring from the County to the state. County staff also stated
that personal property tax revenues (from sources such as vehicles) are expected
to grow the tax base. Manager Frank Clifton reported that expenditure growth in
retiree benefits has nearly doubled in the past few years, so rising post-
employment costs will require attention in the future.
3. COMMISSIONER EXPECTATIONS FOR THE RETREAT
The Commissioners were asked to share what they wanted to get out of the
retreat, as well as one item or aspect they would bring to the discussion. These
included:
What do you expect to get from the retreat?
• An idea of how to use communications to better inform the public
(improve messaging to citizens)
• Development of a strategic communications plan
• An understanding of the tools, strategies, and attitudes used internally
and externally for communications and information technology
2
• Identification of priorities that lead to concrete steps that can be taken
(e.g. funding, new technologies, process, etc.) and items that can be
implemented in the coming year(i.e. not just a plan)
• Discussion of new ways to make Commissioner meetings accessible to
public (i.e. through Hillsborough meeting room, telecasts, etc.)
• Clarification about the County's role in delivering information technology
access to rural parts of the County
• Definition of the role of information technology in communications plan
(exploration of that internally and externally)
• An aspiration that Orange County move toward using cutting edge
technologies (including helping the public sector, incorporating
technologies into County business, and educating staff and elected
officials on what those new technologies are)
What do you(Commissioners) have to give at this retreat?
• A willingness to understand technology (2)
• Continued interest and passion to strategic communications planning
• First-hand experience (i.e. interaction with the public) about County's
communications and public's inability to access information
• Professional writing/communications skills
• Belief and commitment that information technology solutions can help the
Board better communicate with the public
• An open mind and listening ears
4. COMMUNICATIONS PLANNING
BOCC thoughts on the 1999 Strategic Communications Plan
• The Commissioners agreed that objectives listed in the 1999 Strategic
Communications Plan were still applicable and valid. While some of the tools
mentioned in the 1999 Plan (i.e. press releases, telephone access, website,
intranet, etc.) may have evolved, the Board agreed that the strategic
objectives still hold.
• The Commissioners discussed the difference between public relations and
communications, emphasizing that the February 10 planning retreat would
focus on communications strategies and tools and that the public relations
element (i.e. the desired branding, marketing, and messaging) would be
discussed at a later date. The Board recognized that communications
strategies and tools need to be planned, agreed upon, and in place before the
County spends time crafting messages about what the public gets for their tax
dollars and the value of County government.
• The Commissioners discussed another tool in the 1999 plan --the creation of
a countywide style guide—specifically, whether such a guide currently exists.
Commissioners shared that, in 1999, County departments' external
communications varied widely (including different letterheads, for instance).
Now, with the emergence of communications tools like social media, the
Commissioners reiterated a concern for message uniformity. County staff
clarified that a countywide style guide currently does not exist.
3
5. 2009-10 GOALS AND PRIORITIES
The Commissioners reviewed the Board's 2009-2010 Goals and Priorities and
identified goals and priorities related to communications tools and strategies:
• Goal 2 (promote an interactive and transparent system of governance that
reflects community values), Priorities 6 (develop plan and tools to improve
how County and citizens communicate with each other; foster two-way
exchange) and 26 (clarify and communicate to public how and why County
funding is allocated the way it is).
• Goal 3, Priority 19 (be actively involved and informed about UNC-CH
decisions and intentions) was expanded to include communicating well with all
County partners.
• Goal 4, Priority 11 (invest in technology to increase work efficiencies) was
seen as a goal to have technology improve communication. Finally, the Board
saw Goal 6 (ensure a high quality of life and lifelong learning) as a possible fit
with ensuring citizens have Internet access or cellular coverage.
6. GROUP BRAINSTORM
The Commissioners then listed the tools and resources Orange County currently
has in place to help residents understand what the County does and how to
access County resources. Commissioners listed the following tools and
resources (in alphabetical order):
• Billboards (have used in the past but not recently)
• CODE RED and reverse 9-1-1
• Departmental flyers, booklets, and brochures
• E-services through website
• Email distribution lists (includes media outlets and sunshine lists)
• Formal speaking engagements (Board and senior staff) with local clubs
and groups
• Individual Commissioners' calling or outreach to citizens (Board and staff
are 'ambassadors')
• Intranet
• Meetings (one Commissioner noted any event the Board or County hosts
is a communications tool)
• News stories (and other traditional media),
• Online Board materials (budgets, agendas, minutes, etc.)
• Online calendars of events (available at departmental level)
• Online repository of records
• Online video streaming of Board meetings (two regular Commissioner
meetings per month)
• Orange Slices internal human resources newsletter
• Press/news releases and public service announcements
• Purchased print advertisements in newspapers
• Radio and TV spots for some projects (as needed)
• Some departments' printed annual reports
• Some departments' social media presence (includes Facebook, Twitter,
Flickr, and YouTube)
• Some web links (on website) to municipalities and other partners (and
vice versa)
• Some web links to and from third-party entities and vendors
• Tape-delayed digital coverage of Board meetings
4
• Time Warner Cable Channel 180
• Website
• Yard signs (for some projects)
The Board then brainstormed the new or enhanced tools and resources they
would like for Orange County to have in place to help residents understand what
the County does and how to access County resources. The Commissioners'
brainstormed list was as follows (in alphabetical order):
• Better publicity for advisory board meetings and agendas (online email
distribution list sign-ups)
• Better publicity for live, online Board meeting streaming
• Better use of multiple newspapers covering Orange County
• Board agenda structure (items in categories, items that will take longer
earlier in the meeting, or perhaps more creatively grouping items?)
• Meeting summary released by the following morning
• Creation of a public information officer (PIO) position and office to create
staff capacity to do these things
• Dispensing with delayed Board tape recordings on Channel 180 (since
people can't get involved after meetings have happened),
o (Meetings at the Southern Human Services Center are live-
streamed, meetings in Hillsborough require more staff to tape and
are delayed.)
• Facebook postings about what is planned for Board meetings (careful
attention to how messages here are phrased)
• Improved engagement at Board meetings (perhaps audio or visually?)
• Improved search function for website
• Incentive for attending Board meetings (rocking chair privilege),
• More self-apparent website design (including communicating priority
messages and services on home page)
• Other proactive measures (staff getting word out quickly about successes
or controversial matters)
• Posting items of interest on a bulletin board outside meeting room
• Pre-Board meeting release of agenda and highlights (not just links to
agenda but short statements about the most important things and links to
where to go to learn more)
• (This idea includes factual [not advocacy] statements about what
controversial issues might be discussed at a meeting, when
Commissioners deem appropriate.)
• (This is similar to how the Town of Chapel Hill and Chapel Hill-
Carrboro School Board share agenda items, not just links.)
• Printing of agendas in newspapers (but is more expensive and wouldn't
be able to change agenda after publishing) or information about where
residents without Internet access can go to learn about County issues
• Simplicity and ease of navigation for website (including linking Visitors'
Bureau/economic development sites prominently)
o (Could this idea perhaps warrant a policy for linking to non-County
sites?)
While on break, the facilitators combined and re-organized the brainstormed list
above into the following priority ideas(in alphabetical order):
5
• Create a policy on linking to non-County websites
• Create Board meeting summaries for public consumption by the following
morning
• Decide.whether to use social media tools; if yes, develop a policy
• Determine if there is value in tape-delayed meetings
• Develop incentives for the public to attend meetings
• Educate public about how to access County information in public access
locations
• Educate residents about County successes
• Examine tools for use in reaching out to citizens in rural areas
• Give the public information on issues prior to Board meetings and on
County processes and services, generally
• Increase capacity by hiring a PIO
• Keep internal and external audience clear on action items during Board
meetings by using technology
• Publicize advisory board meetings broadly
• Publicize Board meeting items of current interest outside meeting room
(possibly on a bulletin board)
• Push out agenda and meeting highlights (not just agenda link) before
Board meetings
• Revise structure and order of meeting agendas
7. COMMUNICATIONS PRIORITIZATION-FIRST ROUND PRIORITIES
Using the 1999 Strategic Communications Plan and the 2009-2010 Goals and
Priorities as a framework, Commissioners reviewed the list of the County's
current activities and new ideas. Each Commissioner then selected their top
seven communications priorities using the "dot voting" method. The Board's
collective votes on the 19 existing priorities are summarized below (with the
number of votes on each priority in parentheses). The Board's top nine
priorities (there are nine priorities because three items received three votes) are
noted in bold.
1. Hire a PIO (5),
2. Use technology to be clear on meeting action items (4),
3. Push out Board agenda and highlights before and after meetings (4),
4. Examine tools to reach rural citizens (4),
5. Live-stream Board meetings (4),
6. Expand/continue to support available e-services (3),
7. Push out Board meeting summaries by the following morning (3),
8. Educate residents about how to access County resources (3),
9. Decide whether or not to use social media tools (3),
10. Publicize advisory board meetings (2),
11. Educate residents about County services (2),
12. Continue to produce press releases (2),
13. Continue to offer Board minutes on website (1),
14. Maintain/improve website (1),
15. Reconsider agenda structure (1),
16. Educate residents about County successes (1),
17. Consider the value of tape-delayed meetings (1),
18. Develop incentives for attending Board meetings (1), and
6
19. Place Board meeting items outside meeting room (1)
TOP THREE PRIORITIES:
The Board then discussed and further clarified the top nine priorities, deciding to
combine items 3 and 7 above into one item. Board members were also given the
opportunity to advocate for one or more of the priorities on the now "top eight"
list. Each Commissioner was then provided with three sticker dots to vote on their
top three priorities. The Board's collective vote on the eight priorities is
summarized below. The Orange County Board of Commissioners' top three
priorities for communications are noted in bold.
1. Hire a PIO (6 votes)
2. Expand live-streaming video of Board meetings (including possibly
creating a permanent Commission meeting room in Hillsborough with full
technology capabilities) (6 votes)
3. Push agenda and highlights out before and after meetings (by the
following morning) (not just links to the agenda but summaries and links
to more information) (4 votes)
4. Decide whether or not to use social media tools (2 votes)
5. Educate the public about how to access County information and live-
streaming videos (2 votes)
6. Examine tools to reach rural citizens (2 votes)
7. Expand e-service offerings (0 votes)
8. Use technology to be clear about meeting action items (e.g. motions on
screen) (0 votes)
After the top three communications priorities were identified, the Board
expressed an interest in seeing a breakdown on what the County and its
departments currently spend on all communications. Also, when the
Commissioners discussed a possible PIO implementing these priorities, such as
social media, they were concerned about how some rural residents, for example,
would or would not access the tools.
County Manager Frank Clifton informed the Board that, should it wish, staff could
begin gathering information needed to start the hiring process for a PIO. There
was consensus among the Board that staff could begin this process now.
8. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PLANNING
• Review of Current IT Expenditures (Capital and Operating)
Strategic IT Planning Consultant Shannon Tufts reviewed current information
technology (IT) expenditures and noted a severe lack of staff capacity to execute
projects. Orange County's IT department has approximately half of the staff and
budget levels of similarly sized counties across North Carolina. The
Commissioners agreed to the premise that any new technology efforts/project
would require more funding for staff and technology. Ms. Tufts reminded the
Board, though, that technology is just a tool where underlying business
processes need to be strong before applying IT. The business processes should
be subject to change so that they align with and support technologically driven
changes.
7
• Information Technology Priorities
Shannon Tufts reviewed the Commissioners' IT project requests, followed by a
quick overview of key departmental requests.
The Commissioners assigned priority rankings to the list of all Commissioner IT
project requests. The following priorities, in order of votes, were discussed as
noted.
1. Improved Internet access (including Broadband) and cellular
coverage (6 first-place votes)
The Commissioners emphasized lack of coverage in rural areas of
Orange County. Shannon Tufts and County staff discussed current laws
that prevent County money paying for infrastructure; it was noted that
Time Warner Cable would likely sue the County if it violated the law.
Other strategies for encouraging private sector build-out were discussed
and will be included in the Orange County Strategic IT Plan.
As a corollary related to the need for expanded cellular coverage, the
Board and Shannon Tufts discussed issues with the VIPER system. The
County is exploring the possibility of locating towers across the county to
expand VIPER coverage and capacity. Shannon Tufts noted that the
issues related to the VIPER system are threefold: capacity (with the
number of channels), coverage, and penetration. Building towers and
upgrading the VIPER equipment will improve capacity and coverage, but
will not address penetration. One way to deal with the in-building
penetration issue is to pass an ordinance requiring buildings of specific
construction or size to install repeaters or amplifiers in order to ensure
internal cellular and radio coverage.
2. Strategy for staff communication with Commissioners in
emergencies (4 first-place votes)
The Commissioners expressed a need to have a fail-safe method in place
for staff to communicate with the Board Chair and Vice Chair during
emergencies. Staff noted that these procedures were included in the
County's emergency operations plan, but it is currently being updated.
They thought issues such as contacting Commissioners through cell
phones, land lines, and Sheriff's deputies were already in place through
the CODE RED system but may not have been adequately
communicated to the Commissioners. Statutorily, the Board Chair must
be notified in emergencies.
Shannon Tufts noted that this underlying discussion, however, was
outside the scope of the strategic IT plan since it dealt with internal
business processes currently being updated.
3. One Stop Planning/Inspections/Permitting & Integrated Planning
Software (3 first-place votes)
Shannon Tufts noted the current system is not sustainable; funding is
needed to procure a new, integrated system due to the single point of
8
failure in the current system with a single planning staff member who had
produced custom software code to tie disparate systems together
(recognizing that no system will meet all of the County's needs and
business processes, so these processes should be streamlined prior to
procuring a system).
4. Inventory and Coordination of Systems between Fire Departments
and EMS, etc. (3 first-place votes)
The Board noted the need for an inventory and coordination between the
fire departments and EMS. This process was noted as being underway
and there was consensus that any system integration will require
additional funding and staff.
5. Handheld Devices in Field for Employees (3 first-place votes)
The Board expressed interest in seeing more field-based applications
deployed across the County. The technology is available for some
County applications currently but the limited availability of cellular and
broadband coverage fundamentally neutralizes the deployment of such
technologies.
6. Public comment and feedback through technology (3 first-place
votes)
The Board is interested using additional mechanisms to engage the
public. Much of the conversation undertaken in the Strategic
Communications section focused on this area so the discussion was
limited and referred to the previous work.
There was significant debate about having all Commissioners use County
email addresses for public business to avoid legal and logistical troubles
in the future.
7. IT governance (3 first-place votes)
Shannon Tufts led a discussion emphasizing the importance of
department heads understand the competing needs of IT in the
organization and noted that IT Governance is a recommended strategy.
The strategy will be detailed in the forthcoming Strategic IT Plan.
8. Website improvements (2 first-place votes)
The Board and many department heads noted a desire for improved
County website. The common themes noted by the Board included more
interactivity, greater usability, more current design and feel, and less
cumbersome navigation. Shannon Tufts noted that the County has
among the highest number of online services of any county in the state.
9. Paperless agendas (2 first-place votes)
The Commissioners discussed the advantages and learning curve in
moving to a fully paperless agenda system.
9
10. Single, unified database for County information (2 first-place votes)
Tufts acknowledged the concept of a single, unified database sounds
appealing but informed the Commissioners that such a database was not
possible to design due to the multitude of systems used in the County and
required by the State and Federal government.
Following a brief review of key departmental requests, staff noted that, even
though the Board did not have a chance to consider departmental IT requests
today, the Commissioners' requests, priorities, and staff requests would be laid
out in the forthcoming UNC Center for Public Technology strategic IT plan for
Orange County.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:45pm.
Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
Donna S. Baker
Clerk to the Board