HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 20060828APPROVED 10/3/2006
MINUTES
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
WORK SESSION
August 28, 2006
7:30 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Monday,
August 28, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. at the Government Services Center in Hillsborough, North
Carolina.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Barry Jacobs and Commissioners
Moses Carey, Jr., Valerie P. Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, and Stephen H. Halkiotis
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: Geof Gledhill
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. Link, Jr., Assistant County
Manager Rod Visser and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker {All other staff members will
be identified appropriately below)
NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE
Chair Jacobs walked through items at the County Commissioners' places.
1. Appointments
a) NC Highway 57 Speedway Area Small Area Plan Task Force Appointments
Commissioner Gordon suggested moving Mr. Chandler from the Area Property
Owners section to the Person County Representative since he lives in Person County.
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis to approve this proposed change and to approve all of the applicants in their
designated areas as stated below:
Area Property Owners Jonathan Huppert
Debra Logner
Mac Miller
Bruce Peters
James Walker
Citizens At Lar a Karen Barrows
Area Business Owners Kevin Delmas Peters
Representative from Economic Development Anita Badrock
Commission
Representative from Durham County Currentl No A licants
Representative from Person County Darrell Chandler
BOCC Representative Moses Carey
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
The Board agreed by acclamation to appoint Commissioner Carey as the BOCC
representative to this task force.
b} Orange County Board of Adjustment -New Appointments
Commissioner Gordon nominated Tony Whitaker, Dawn Brezina, and Richard Hicks.
Chair Jacobs nominated Steve Medlin and Peggy Abrams.
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
appoint those as stated below:
Position Number Re resentation Term Endin Date
1-Tony Whitaker At-Large 6/30/2009
2-Peggy Abrams Alternate 6/30/2007
3-Steve Medlin At-Lar e 6130/2008
5-Dawn Brezina At-Large 6130/2009
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
c) Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee -New Appointments
Commissioner Foushee nominated Nancy Graves.
Commissioner Gordon nominated Tammy Thacker and Teresa Gill.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Position Special Representation Expiration Date
3-None Graves At-Lar e 6/30/2007
4-Tammy Thacker At-Large 6/30/2007
5-Teresa Gill At-Large 6/30/2007
d} Animal Services Advisory Board -New Appointments
A motion was made by Commissioner Carey, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis to appoint Caroline Green to the Town of Chapel Hill position on the Animal
Services Advisory Board to a first full term ending June 30, 2009.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e} Ecanamic Development Commission -New Appointments
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
make the appointments as stated below:
Position Number S ecial Re resentation Ex iration Date
4-Lilyn Hester At-Large 6/30/2009
10-Chris Hogan At-Large 6/30/2009
13-Tan McKni ht At-Lar e 6/30/2008
14-Jim Evans At-Large 6/3012009
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
f) Efland-Mebane SAP Implementation Task Force -Appointments
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to make
the appointments as stated below:
Representation of the Focus Group
Planning Board - 1 or 2 Members Brian Dobyns
Efland-Mebane Small Area Plan Task Tom Allison
Force - 2 or 3 Members Howard Cecil
Noah Ranells
Economic Development Commission - 1 Keith Cook
Member
Commission far the Environment-1 Michelle Kempinski
member
General Appointees - 2 or 3 Members Monica Evans
Margaret McAdoo
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
gj Commission for the Environment-New Appointments
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Carey to
appoint Floyd Bridgewater and Tom O'Dwyer and refer position #1 to the Commission
for the Environment for a recommendation.
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
appoint Kirk Ross for position #1.
Commissioner Carey withdrew his second for referring back position #1.
Commissioner Gordon said that there are nine men and five women on the
Commission for the Environment and she would like to give a chance for another
woman.
Position Special Representation Expiration Date
1 Kirk Ross At-Large 12/31/2007
13-Flo d Brid ewater At-Lar e 12/31/2006
15-Tom O" Dwyer At-Large 12/31/2006
VOTE: UNANIMOUS (Bridgewater and O'Dwyer)
VOTE: UNANIMOUS (Ross}
h) Human Relations Commission -New Appointments
Chair Jacobs pointed out that Grace Witsil was also nominated for the Commission
for Women and Courtney Enloe had her first choice being this commission, and they are
bath students. He nominated Courtney Enloe for the Town of Chapel Hill position.
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to
appoint Barbara Marotta, Vivette Jeffries-Logan, and Tany McKnight for the At-Large
positions and Courtney Enloe for the Town of Chapel Hill position.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Faushee to
appoint Albert Peloquin for position #22, At-Large position.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Position Special Representation Expiration Date
3-Barbara Maratto At-Lar e 9/30/2009 full term
4-Courtney Enloe Town of Chapel Hill 6/30/2008 (full term}
7-Vivette Jeffries-Logan At-Large 6/30/2007
9-Tan McKni ht At-Lar e 6130/2008 full term
22-Albert Peloquin At-Large 6!30!2009 (full term}
i) Rural Transportation Advisory Board- BOC
There were no BOCC volunteers for the alternate
j) Sportsplex Community Advisory Committee -Initial Appointments
The Board agreed to have eight members on the Community Members list instead of
six.
The Board appointed the following members (there was no motion or second):
Advisory Board on Aging- 1 member Jerry Kruter
Recreation and Parks Advisory Committee- 1 Chuck Hobgood
Member
Cooperative Extension Advisory Board- 1 Alice Petit
Member
Orange County Employee Consortium- 1 Katherine Cathey
Member
Orange County Schools (Student Currently no applicants
Health/Athletics)- 1 Member
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (Student Currently no applicants
Health/Athletics - 1 Member
Community Members- 6 Members Leo Allison
Carole Andrews
Will Atherton
Beverly Blythe
Marshall Morris
Regina Nobblitt
Lori Taft
Peter Wehr
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
k) Commission for Women -New Appointments
A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to make
the following appointments as stated below:
Position Special Representation Expiration Date
5-Veronica Non-Chapel HiIIIHillsborough Township 6/30!2007
Wright
10-Patty Non- Chapel Hill/Hillsborough Township 6/30/2009
Thom son
11-Grace Chapel Hill Township 6!30/2008
Witsel
12-Meghan At-Large 6/30/2007
Morris
15-Amelie Non- Chapel Hill/Hillsborough Township 6!30/2009
Bonin
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2. Comprehensive Plan Update Process
Comprehensive Planning Supervisor Tom Altieri and Planning Board Chair Jay
Bryan gave the PowerPoint presentation.
Orange County Draft Comprehensive Plan Update Process
Background:
- March 21, 2006 - BOCC requests Planning Board devise process for updating
Comprehensive Plan
- April 5 -Planning Board forms subgroup responsible for creating Draft Process:
o Jay Bryan {Chair}
o Brian Dobyns
o Craufurd Goodwin
o Michelle Kempinski
o Renee Price-Saunders
o Judith Wegner
- Subgroup met four times between April 19t" and June 29t"
- At two meetings, subgroup edited text in real time to create draft
- July 12 -subgroup presents Draft Process to Planning Board and Board unanimously
approves it for distribution to BOCC and advisory boards
- July 14 -Draft Process forwarded to the following advisory boards:
o Affordable Housing
oAgricultural Preservation
o Commission for the Environment
o Economic Development
o Board of Health
o Historic Preservation
o Orange Unified Transportation
General Process Framework:
Phase I: Stage set for writing the Plan
Review previous plans and studies
Develop table of contents
Identify responsible departments and advisory boards
Define outreach methods and public participation structure
Develop process/guidelines far implementation of action strategies
Determine relationships between Comprehensive Plan and other county
initiativeslprojects {i.e., small area plans, Comprehensive Housing Strategy, Economic
Development Commission Strategic Plan, etc.)
Interpret data and draft County Profile Element
Joint advisory board meeting{s) {meeting facilitator?)
Draft Goals and Objectives
Hold 1St Public Hearing - BOCC adopts County Profile Element, Evaluation of 1981
Land Use Element/Plan, and Goals and Objectives
Phase II: Individual Elements take shape, completed
Advisory boards may review various staff and advisory board reports and other
pertinent documents
Advisory boards draft Elements, working independently but with Liaisons and Joint
Meetings
Advisory boards determine and provide for appropriate public access and awareness
Planning Board review of draft Elements
Hold public information meeting(s)
Hold 2"d Public Hearing - BOCC adopts Plan
After Plan Text is Completed and Adopted....
- Implementation will occur consistent with guidelines developed during Phase
- Action strategies for each Element may be developed annually by respective
departments/advisory boards
Process Provides for:
- Opportunities for citizen knowledge and participation
- Process for checking in with BOCC
- Advisory boards working independently, but with open exchange of info among boards
- Joint advisory board meetings
- Anew element, the County Profile Element
- Public Hearings and Public Information Meetings
- Identification and completion of action strategies following adoption of Comprehensive
Plan
Draft Process Has Not Addressed:
- Timetable and Project Management (who will have role/responsibility of moving project
at reasonable pace?)
- Adequacy of resources to complete all Elements simultaneously (staff and advisory
boards)
Synthesis of Advisory Board Comments
I n general, comments were favorable and reflect support for the Process. However,
there were several requests for clarification. Following are the more common questions:
- What is the schedule/timetable?
- Adequate public input opportunities?
- Who conducts outreach meetings?
- Role of advisory boards after 2"d Public Hearing - who makes revisions that may be
required?
- Address advisory board roles now?
- Staff and advisory board resources adequate to complete all Elements at once?
- If necessary, who reconciles inconsistencies between and/or among Elements?
- How will Goals and Objectives be developed?
County Commissioner Input and Next Steps
1. Canvey any proposed modifications to process
2. Provide any ideas for timetable and Project Management role
3. Convey when BOCC would like to consider adopting Process, including Project
Management role
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the principles adopted by the County
Commissioners and the memo from Craig Benedict, attachment C. Her understanding
was that the group should start with these documents and that the group was given the
principles that were approved by the County Commissioners. The group was also given
an outline of which departments and which Boards and Commissions should work an
each element.
Commissioner Gordon commended the Planning Board for the progress. She
thinks that there are some good elements. She suggested that the Planning Board
inform the Board of County Commissioners more fully before the first public hearing so
that the County Commissioners are updated on the latest information. She said that she
was very impressed with what the Planning Board came up with, as she was on the
Planning Board for six years and also served as chair before she was on the Board of
County Commissioners.
Commissioner Carey said that the Planning Board plays a central role in this and
he commended the Planning Board on this process. He said that the Planning Board
should reconcile the inconsistencies before anything comes to the Board of County
Commissioners.
Chair Jacobs said that they still want to solicit comments from advisory boards
and there are still unresolved issues to deal with. He said that tonight they are here to
discuss and to come back later with the comments.
Commissioner Foushee commended the Planning Board on its work and agreed
with Commissioner Carey on reconciling the inconsistencies and that the Planning Board
should do that. She made reference to page 4, number 3, and asked if it was the
thinking that the meeting would be best held with a facilitator. Jay Bryan said that the
smaller group left it as subject to what the Board of County Commissioners thought and
resources, but they do think that it would be helpful.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked the Planning Board to be very careful that they do
not get so far down the road that the Board of County Commissioners get left behind and
do not know what is going on.
Commissioner Carey asked for clarification about the County profile elements
and Tom Altieri said that it would be factual data -primarily demographic and
socioeconomic data. They hope that it could be a consolidated effort within various
departments. They see this as an element that could be easily updated.
Commissioner Carey asked if they envisioned that each element would be
revised annually. Tom Altieri said that this is referring to the action strategies developed
by the advisory boards and departments.
Craufurd Goodwin said that the purpose of the new element is to have various
boards start at the same point with the data.
Chair Jacobs said that he would like to think about what the other advisory
boards have said. One thing that troubled him in reading materials is that, in phase 1, it
would appear that each advisory board would be asked to review the 1981 plan. He
read item `g' on page 3, "Planning Boardlstaff develop guidelines for each pertinent
advisory board to review the `1981 Land Use Element/Comprehensive Plan."' He said
that he does not think that it is necessary far the boards to do this and that the Planning
Board could do this and develop guidelines. He said that they could cut out a year from
the process by not having all boards to go back and review the 1981 plan. He said that
the Health Director also pointed this out.
Jay Bryan said that they wanted to make it the most comprehensive process that
they could.
Commissioner Carey made reference to the County profile element and said that
it would be what exists now. He asked if the profile would select the projections.
Tom Altieri said that he thinks that the profile element does need to include some
projections, and one of the ways to address this is that they could have a low, medium,
and high range of projections to be incorporated.
Jay Bryan said that the Planning Board did discuss this issue but did not resolve
the issue and he said that they will check in with the Board of County Commissioners at
different phases. He sees it as a natural result of a profile. He said that if the Board
does not want them to do this with the projections, then they can hold back.
Chair Jacobs suggested that if they da projections, that they review some of the
other projections upon which they base planning and see haw accurate they were and
see haw they track with what actually happened.
Chair Jacobs said that it is appropriate for the Planning Board to point out
inconsistencies from the advisory boards and to present the guidelines to the County
Commissioners. Regarding the timetable, he suggested someone from the Manager's
Office to attend the next meeting.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to the inconsistencies and said that the
Planning Board should highlight and synthesize them and make a recommendation to
the County Commissioners.
Commissioner Gordon said that she likes the County profile. Regarding haw to
get the boards and commissions to work together, the Planning Board should provide
the framework and a copy of the comprehensive plan. She suggested having a liaison
go to the advisory board meetings only as needed, thereby cutting the task down to a
manageable form.
Chair Jacobs said that they will try and schedule this far the Board of County
Commissioners' September 19th meeting.
3. Churton Street Corridor Strategic Plan
Transportation Planner Karen Lincoln said that she and Hillsborough Planning
Director Margaret Hauth have worked on this plan. She said that there was a lot of
public support for this.
Margaret Hauth said that the Board received an executive summary and the
strategic plan in the packet, and this is a project of the Hillsborough's Tourism Board,
which consists of citizens appointed by the Town to spend the 1 °!o extra meal tax in
Hillsborough. This first started with the Downtown Improvement Plan and after that, the
corridor was expanded to run the whole 4.5 miles from I-40 to NC 57186. They have
been working for about 18 months. The citizens group was comprised of volunteers
from the Town advisory boards, Town and County staff, and property owners. There
were survey questionnaires filled out by citizens on the Last Fridays events and there
was great participation. The plan focused an three areas -transportation, signage, and
corridor revitalization.
The transportation aspect received the most input with some recommendations
of some roundabouts, access management, bike and pedestrian improvements, and
some of the widening projects that are already coming through the CIP.
Regarding signage, there was same interest in the need for some way-finding
signage so that people coming from the north would know that there is a lot more to see
in Hillsborough. Also, the Tourism Board, with the help of the Visitor's Center, is doing a
community branding and looking at how they brand and market Hillsborough.
The revitalization group is moving toward more mixed-use purposes sa that
people do not have to drive all the way across town.
Some of the new ideas that have came out since this document was written are
recommendations that all of the intersections be studied by a traffic engineer to make
sure that they are safe. She said that the Tawn is very encouraged with the interest that
American Asset Corporation has expressed in the corridor.
Chair Jacobs recognized Hillsborough Town Commissioner Mike Gering.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked about where discussions stand with possible
relocation of power lines throughout Churton Street. Margaret Hauth said that their new
ordinance requires that new development bury lines, but they are still working an this
because it is such a massive project. She will provide the cost estimate for this.
Commissioner Carey asked about the funds from the meals tax and if they would
be available to implement this plan and Margaret Hauth said that they can use 40°~ of
these funds for improvements.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked what the meals tax brought in and Commissioner
Gering said that it brought in $72,000 last year.
Craig Benedict made reference to the rewriting of the signage ordinance sooner
than later and he said that the Planning staff has been waiting for land use plan issues
before they begin to rewrite sections of their code. He said that he would like to tie in
with Hillsborough about the County's signage code. He likes what they have proposed
in the revisions of the Town's ordinance.
Margaret Hauth said that there have been two restaurants to make major
revisions on South Churton Street and some of the signs might not be in compliance
with the new code.
Chair Jacobs asked if any of the intersections coming out of Waterstone were
being proposed for a roundabout and Margaret Hauth said no because these sections
are much more likely to be four lanes.
Chair Jacobs asked about the strategic plan and Margaret Hauth said that they
expect to have a report to the Board of County Commissioners at the joint meeting with
the Town in the winter.
Planning Board member Sam Lasris said that there are consequences for those
that live in northern Orange County, particularly at the intersection of NC 86157 and US
70. The 2006-2012 TIP has NC 57 being rerouted. He is also concerned about the
roundabouts and fire and safety because there is a fire department and rescue squad
there. There are also some semi-trucks that have to make deliveries. He said that there
should be public comment on this.
Chair Jacobs said that when the County did the Orange Grove Road Access
Management Plan, it was identified that the 86/57/70 interchange was a place where a
study is needed.
4. Water and Sewer Issues
Rod Visser said that there are two items related to the utility enhancements in the
Buckhorn/Efland area - a possible water and sewer assessment policy and the staff
recommendation for changes in rate structures.
a) Water and Sewer Assessment Policy
County Engineer Paul Thames said that the County Commissioners have the
authority to finance water and sewer utility extension projects through an assessment
project. There is a statute for a timeline for public hearings, etc., which means that from
the moment it is decided to do an assessment financing, it will take three and a half
months to go through the public hearing processes. Almost all of the costs of utility
extensions can be financed through the assessment project. There are certain types of
properties that are exempt from the assessment project to a degree. The properties that
are assessed have to be able to access whatever utility is being assessed. Regarding
the Gravelly Hill/Buckhorn EDD project, all of the properties to the south of West Ten
Road, while physically accessible to the water line by bordering an it, are prohibited from
receiving utility service by the zoning ordinances in the County's land use plan.
Commissioner Carey asked about the assessment project and recapturing money
they have already spent and money that will be spent in the future. Paul Thames said
that to the extent that you capture funds that have already been spent and expend those
funds on some future funds, then funds could be captured for future projects. The
assessment project captures money that you are in the process of spending or that you
have spent. Regarding financing, the County would have to set up the same financing
for everyone in the project. The same assessment basis would have to be used for
every property owner, and the financing has to be available to everybody.
Commissioner Carey said that he is concerned about the deferral for people on
limited incomes and if they could not sell their properly within ten years.
Commissioner Gordon made reference to page 5, the next to the last paragraph, and
the March 1, 2004 Utility Service Agreement between Orange County and The City of
Mebane. She read the quote, "Connected properties may be charged normal hookup or
tapping fees, and connection or impact fees but will not be charged any assessment or
fees in lieu of assessment designed or intended to recoup construction
costs.....Clarification on this point should be a part of any decision the Board makes."
She said that she would like this clarification.
Geof Gledhill said that clarification referred to in this paragraph refers to the County
and Mebane and the context speaks only to Mebane. There needs to be clarification
before an assessment is done.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the scenario where the County could recover 50-
70% of the cost. Paul Thames said that the cast of the project breaks down into three
major parts -water line, pump station and force main, and the gravity sewer system
along Buckharn Road. Regarding cost, $1.5 million is the total cost - $700,000 of that is
in the water line, $700,000 is in the pump station and force main, and $100,000 is in the
gravity sewer line. He said that an entity could recover 100°~ of the cost for the water
line because everybody that fronts on it can be paid for in an assessment. The County
can essentially recover 100% of the gravity sewer line because everybody that fronts an
it can get sewer from it. This is approximately $800,000 of the $1.5 million cost, which is
roughly 50°,6. If the Board makes a decision to go forward with this project and acquire
easements internally through the Economic Development District, then all of these
properties would benefit and a portion of these costs could be recovered also.
Commissioner Gordon asked how many people there would be that could not pay
and Paul Thames said that he would guess that there are about 10 property owners out
of 30 that would fall into this category. Most of these tracts would be one acre and
under. There are very large tracts of land involved.
Chair Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Gordon about Mebane and to pursue this
issue so that it is consistent with our agreement with Mebane, and to have clarification
for all parties involved. He said to keep in mind that this is an economic development
district. He said that they just appointed the new Efland-Mebane Small Area task force
and the group identified that they need to look at the people living along Buckhorn Road,
the People for Progress, who do not want to be zoned EDD, and work on a category that
would be flexible so that they do not have to be included as part of an EDD.
Chair Jacobs asked if the County could determine when people pay these
assessments and Paul Thames said that once an assessment project is set up, there is
ten years to recoup the monies, then the Board has the authority to say when the clock
starts.
Chair Jacobs said that he called Ed Kerwin of OWASA today to see if they would
help Orange County with this. He said that, if it is okay with staff and the Board,
OWASA will provide what the County may need and help craft an assessment policy.
OWASA could also help with the Efland Sewer Rate Structure. He urged the Board and
staff to use OWASA as a resource.
Commissioner Gordon said that she would like to have more information to address
the concerns before committing to this policy. She needs clarification about the Mebane
agreement and the situation about the homeowners and how much it will cost, how
much the County will recoup, etc.
Rad Visser said that they could provide some scenarios to the Board.
John Link spoke in support of using OWASA or some other third party that is an
expert in the assessment process.
b) Efland Sewer Rate Structure
Rod Visser said that they would like to move on this quickly and, given the rather
small size, this should not be hugely expensive and they will bring back to the Board
answers this fall. He agreed that they should take advantage of OWASA's offer far
assistance.
The Board directed staff to came back with information and far them to ask
OWASA to give a ballpark figure to bring back to the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Carey suggested that if the amount is not over $10,000 then they
should go ahead and get it done. The Board agreed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Foushee, seconded by Commissioner Carey
to direct staff to retain the services of a qualified consultant to provide technical
assistance in the conduct of an Efland Sewer System rate study, authorize the
Purchasing Director to carry out all actions and execute paperwork associated with
soliciting and retaining the services of a qualified consultant; and direct staff to bring
back recommendations in Fall 2006 for the Board's consideration regarding a revised
Efland Sewer System rate structure and an assistance program to help Efland Sewer
System customers of limited financial means. This is contingent upon the cost being
under $10,000. If it is over $10,000, then the action items will come back to the Board.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5. Economic Development Commission Strategic Plan Update
Economic Development Director Dianne Reid said that they are bringing one
year out from the start of the strategic plan. The overall goal of the strategic plan is to
create 5,000 new private sector jobs by 2010 and to ensure the development of $125
million in new commercial development. Ta achieve this goal, there are four areas that
work groups are pursuing:
- Improving Business Climate
- Infrastructure
- Workforce development
-Quality of Place
She said that the work groups have been meeting regularly aver the course of
the year. The highlights were in the abstract. She reminded the Board that private
sector employment has been slipping from 2002-05 and they do not expect a huge
turnaround in 2006. A positive thing is that last year the approved commercial
development totaled $45 million.
Commissioner Halkiotis asked how the EDC interfaced with Durham Tech
currently and the new interface with the new campus in Orange County. He said that
there should be same strong relationships there so that some of the findings can be
dealt with. Dianne Reid said that the work force group includes four Durham Tech
officials. Durham Tech employees facilitated bath the employer surveys and the
employee focus groups.
Commissioner Foushee said that the business climate far the smaller businesses
in Orange County is important and not to be overlooked. She asked what type of
business facilitation could be provided to those types of businesses and if there is a plan
to provide the same types of education to sustain the small businesses. She also askec
about the status of the small business loan program.
Dianne Reid said that in Orange County there are about 12,000 businesses, and
9,500 have no employees; they are sole proprietors. Of the remaining 2,500
businesses, 59°~ have 1-4 employees; and another 19°lo have 5-9 employees. This is
75°1° of the businesses that have ten or fewer employees. Orange County is definitely a
very small business community. She said that they are more interested in retention
rather than expansion. The real focus is making sure that existing businesses can stay
here and expand. She said that facilitation needs to be a focus for small businesses.
Regarding the loan program, they will be bringing a proposal to revise this program to
the Board of County Commissioners in October. It will be a smaller fund and the funds
will be targeted to the very small enterprises.
Commissioner Foushee said that there is a perception that there is not any
assistance for small businesses and it might help to know which businesses are not
sustained annually. She said that she is hearing that Orange County is not small
business friendly and that some of the smaller businesses are not able to sustain
themselves.
Dianne Reid said that the key to making this plan work is partnerships and she
feels that helping someone see that their business idea might not work and not losing
their money is a positive thing.
Commissioner Halkiotis said that they need to continue working an looking at
issues facing small start-up businesses. He has had calls from people that have been
frustrated with the process of starting up a new business.
Commissioner Gordon asked about the $45 million in commercial development
and Dianne Reid said that it was everything that was commercial -new buildings at
Meadowmont, new buildings at Southern Village, two hotels, and additions and
renovations.
6. Changes in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule
A motion was made by Commissioner Halkiotis, seconded by Commissioner
Gordon to approve the following changes in the BOCC Meeting Schedule:
Ta add three meetings to consider the qualifications of candidates far the County
Manager position. These meetings are likely to be closed session- only meetings:
^ Wednesday, September 20, 2006 at 10:OOam at the Southern Human Services
Center, Room D, in Chapel Hill, N.C.; and
^ Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 10:OOam at the Southern Human Services
Center, Room D, in Chapel Hill, N.C.; and
^ Friday, September 22, 2006 at 8:30 am at the Government Services Center, in
Hillsborough, N.C.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner
Halkiotis to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Barry Jacobs, Chair
Donna S. Baker
Clerk to the Board