Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01-29-2013 APPROVED 3/19/2013 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION January 29, 2013 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in a work session on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, NC. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair and Commissioners Mark Dorosin, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Managers Michael Talbert, Clarence Grier 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 PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. Blue sheet is a revised attachment b — Item 3 (County Commissioners: Boards and Commissions Assignments) 1. County Commissioners: Boards and Commissions —Annual Work Plans/Reports Chair Jacobs stated that five boards would present at this meeting and other boards and commissions will present later in the year. Clarification of time frames was given; five minutes allotted for each speaker and a question and answer session at the end. In response to questions from Commissioner Rich, Chair Jacobs clarified that this format of presentation is new. Commissioner Rich said that as a new member, the information in their agenda packets was very informative, almost a mini-orientation, to read the annual summaries of each advisory board. She encouraged the Board to consider doing this each time new members are seated on the Board of Commissioners. Animal Services Advisory Board — Dr. Kristine Bergstrand, DVM Dr. Bergstrand said that she is the outgoing chair after a recent transition. The new Chair could not attend. Vice Chair, Michelle Walker was also in attendance, as well as Animal Services Director Bob Marotto. Dr. Bergstrand noted that the Animal Services of Orange County meets the needs of citizens by providing shelter and animal control. It works very closely with the Health Department to protect both animal and human health. It also works to control pet overpopulation. Dr. Bergstrand stated that front and center in their goals is the community spay and neuter program, including outreach through social services regarding the low cost programs for folks that ordinarily would not spay and neuter. Without these procedures, there are high numbers of unwanted pets that end up in the shelter and require tax dollars to care for. Dr. Bergstrand shared several items coming on the Board's radar this year. One is an ordinance concerning recovery of owned pets from the shelter. There will also be an ordinance review of kennel permitting requirements, as well the definition of dangerous dogs in the county. There will be a resolution related to proposed legislation about commercial dog breeding and the Animal Services Advisory board is in support of this bill. This has been referred to as "puppy mill" legislation to prevent cruel and inhumane practices. She said that mid-year, the Animal Services Advisory Board will start the discussion regarding free roaming cats in Orange County. This is a public health issue, as well as a cat humane issue. Bob Marotto— Director of Orange County Animal Services (ASAB) At the request of Chair Jacobs, Mr. Marotto gave a description of the history and role of Animal Services. He said Animal Services was created by the Board of County Commissioners in 2005. This occurred one year after the county assumed operational responsibility of the old animal shelter on Animal Shelter Drive in Chapel Hill. He said that with the creation of Animal Services, the animal shelter and staff were combined with animal control and their staff, which had previously been a section of environmental health. In 2009, the new Animal Services Center was opened on Eubanks Rd and combined everyone under one roof. Chair Jacobs thanked Dr. Bergstrand for her long service to the ASAB and welcomed Michelle Walker. He then opened the floor for questions. Commissioner Dorosin asked how many current vacancies exist in the ASAB. Bob Marotto said they have one current vacancy, defined for the board as an at large non-municipal vacancy. There are currently nine applicants who fit the board criteria. Half of these candidates were invited to the January meeting of the advisory board and the other half will be invited to the February meeting. This is so that the board can converse with the people about what they do and what kind of commitment is required, and also to form a recommendation for the commissioners. Commissioner Price asked if they had enough ability/time to address the dangerous dog issue. Bob Marotto said there are ways in which their tool kit can be improved. Three major gaps include the fact that currently there is no requirement for identification or microchip requirements for animals that are deemed dangerous. There are no specific or suitable confinement requirements in Orange County. The statutory confinement requirements are loose. There is no express authority to seize an animal in violation of the current requirements. In addition, there is the issue of whether the county should have authority, in the event of serious incidents, to destroy an animal subject to due process provisions. This exists in other jurisdictions. These issues will be brought forward to the commissioners in the future. Chair Jacobs said they have a legislative agenda coming forth on February 19th. He noted that this would be the best time to bring forward the puppy mill information. Chair Jacobs said he appreciated that they were working with Triangle Wildlife Rehabilitation. Chair Jacobs asked for an update for the board about the Mobile Emergency Animal Unit for Pet Location. Bob Marotto said that extraordinary progress had been made with Triangle Wildlife Rehabilitation in coming up with a performance agreement and folding money into the Animal Services budget as they fill this gap with wildlife. He noted that Triangle Wildlife is closing and this hole will need to be filled some other way. Mr. Marotto said the Mobile Emergency Animal Unit for pet location emerged post- Katrina. The purpose is to have companion animals sheltered in the same building as their owners after a disaster, not in the same room, but in the same facility. The reasons for this include effective emergency management and response, since many people don't want to leave their animals. He said that North Carolina has been a pioneer in developing companion animal mobile equipment trailers, which serve to carry resources required to outfit a section of a school or other building for pet co-location with their owners. Animal and emergency services have worked closely together, including a large scale co-location exercise at a local school in 2012. This was a successful event. Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitor's Bureau-Dave Gephart, Chair and Laurie Paolicelli, Executive Director Dave Gephart introduced himself. He said that the Bureau has thirteen board members from across the county and is part of the economic development section of Orange County Government. Two years ago the Visitor's Bureau also acquired the Arts Commission. He noted that with the work, advertising and effort of the Visitor's Bureau, there are about 1,700 jobs in Orange County that bring in and generate tax dollars. That is 157 million dollars spent annually in Orange County, 3 million in taxes, half a million dollars in state tax revenue, and over a million in occupancy tax. With that money, the Bureau strives to increase the tourism and travel and generate more dollars for the county. This year there is a change in direction and advertising agencies. There is a focus on small groups, events and mid-week business travelers as well as the local college basketball and football season crowds. Efforts are to increase occupancy and revenue dollars. Laurie Paolicelli, Director of the Visitor's Bureau, said she has been the director for eight years and that the Visitor's Bureau is an added boost to Orange County from a clean infrastructure standpoint. It attracts people who make money elsewhere, come here to visit, and leave their money before going home. She said tourism has grown over the last twenty years and the Bureau has changed its model over the years — some positive some negative. When started, the Visitor's Bureau was for Orange County and the branding was for an Orange County sell. The Bureau was put in Chapel Hill because it is the largest point of entry by tourists. She noted that the early architects and former commissioners of the project realized the name Orange County in tourism was not polling as strongly. There are sixteen Orange Counties across the nation and this caused confusion and wasted time and money. When the occupancy rate increased to 2%, Chapel Hill was added to the name. The name became Chapel Hill Orange County in the late 90's and a walk-in visitor's center was acquired on Franklin Street. She said that the Bureau was then spending two thirds of its time working to bring in visitors and one third servicing visitors here. Several years later, a research study was done to determine travel destination perceptions. This revealed that Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Carrboro, in that order, were strongly identified as great places to visit. The logo was then changed to Chapel Hill Orange County Visitor's Bureau with Carrboro and Hillsborough. There were some people not happy with the Chapel Hill large print. Leaders have looked at this and handled it strategically. The Chapel Hill name is put out in major publications such as New Yorker, Golf Digest, Wire and others. However, $60,000 is spent to promote events in Hillsborough and Carrboro. This is a balancing act. Last year it was noted that the agricultural community was attracting tourism. This year there will be a grander emphasis on agri-tourism. County Manager Frank Clifton noted, for benefit of the new board members, that Chapel Hill and Orange County have similar ordinances for levying the occupying tax. He said they require a certain amount of money raised be dedicated toward promotion of tourism. He said Chapel Hill has historically has been putting in funding of about 15% and Orange County has dedicated the most part of the funding. The other two communities, Hillsborough, and Carrboro, have recently gotten legislation to authorize them to have occupancy tax. Once the Carrboro Hotel is completed, they will have hotel rooms and start paying the tax. He said that over the next year or so there will be discussion as to what those dollars are used for. The money is not now pledged to tourism efforts but it will be discussed in future. Frank Clifton said the county created this county-wide advisory board and Chapel Hill does not have an advisory board for this part of the general fund and relies on a contract basis with the county operation. Under the new legislation, an independent board must be established with specific membership criteria. He said that Hillsborough and Carrboro are currently pursuing those boards. Dave Gephart said Hillsborough PDA has just been appointed. Estimated annual taxes they should receive will be around $55,000.00. Carrboro is in the process of appointing their people and will be in that same ballpark. He said there will be coordination to make sure all of the boards work well together. Commissioner McKee noted that there is a small urban area of the county in Mebane and asked if they are being reached out to. Dave Gephart said a Mebane board member had attended their meetings in the past and reminded them each time that the group was not familiar with Mebane. Dave Gephart said their meetings are at a different location each month, to give their members an opportunity to see the different areas of the county. Laurie Paolicelli said they do not promote Mebane as much as they could. She noted that there are several staff members that live in Mebane and those members make sure the B&B's, restaurants, and parks are listed in maps and materials. Commissioner McKee said he just wanted to make sure they were aware of Mebane is fast growing and is expanding into Orange County, so it will become more of a factor. Commissioner Price said Hillsborough does have a Tourism Board. Dave Gephart said they get funding from the 1% food tax and this board gives grants with 60% of the funding and the other 40% to run the Visitor's Center and Alliance for Historic Hillsborough. Laurie Paolicelli said that Hillsborough has an Alliance for Historic Hillsborough that grants tourism funds, but they now have an occupancy tax that will generate approximately $70,000 annually. She noted that one of the issues the board is struggling with is that as Hillsborough asks the Orange County/Chapel Hill VB for more funding, they are now getting occupancy tax and that could be a dilemma. Commissioner Rich asked, looking toward 2013, a 170 million dollar impact and 1900 jobs that may come this way, does that include jobs that people are currently in or is it a whole of 1900 jobs. Laurie Paolicelli said this number is a whole of 1900 and is growing from where we are now. She said they are seeing growth in the right direction and she said there are a lot of development properties that want to include a hotel and they are getting financing. That indicates that banks are seeing a success story in Orange County in tourism. Most tourism jobs cannot be outsourced. Commissioner Rich asked if the findings indicate that the economy is turning around and there is more growth and tourism. Laurie Paolicelli said yes. Dave Gephart mentioned the train station, the need for a hotel there and the new hotel in Carrboro. Chair Jacobs noted that there will be a session on Agri-Tourism presented by Laurie Paolicelli at the Ag Summit. He also mentioned that in his meeting with local Mayors, he brought up the issue and all Mayors were receptive to discussion of sharing the new funding. Frank Clifton praised Ms. Paolicelli and her staff for their accommodation of new economic development clients. Commission for the Environment— David Neal , Chair— and Dave Stancil, Staff David Neal noted that Dave Stancil was handing out a proposal for a renewable energy work group, which was a direct response to a request from the County Commissioners from last summer. David Neal said the commission will continue to perform traditional functions and conservation related environmental work, reviewing proposals to the county as they might affect water quality, air quality and biological projects. That work will be ongoing. He said that this memo outlines an opportunity to increase the work around clean and renewable energy and look for ways to build it, in cooperation with various planning departments. The goal is to find ways to promote deployment and use of newer technologies for efficiency and renewable energy. This request came to them last year from NCWarn, through the County Commissioners, for a task force around clean energy. He said this task force is excited to help find different way to change county policy to incorporate this technology and to share best practices. Commissioner Pelissier questioned if this is something that would be a separate group for staff to meet with every month, or if it is a subcommittee of the Commission for the Environment. David Neal said the commission has an energy committee that would serve as host for this task force. Invitations would be sent out for different meetings on different topics. For example a task force meeting might be called on reducing energy in existing buildings or new construction. The purpose of these meetings would be to bring people together to share best practices and new ideas. Any new proposals that came out of this would go to the Commission for the Environment to be vetted before presentation to the County Commissioners. Commissioner Pelissier asked if the Greenhouse Gas Emission Studies were on hold. Dave Stancil said they completed, in conjunction with Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough, a multi-year effort to inventory greenhouse gas emissions and develop a forecast for the future. Shortly after completion of this study, economic downturn occurred and priorities were shifted and there has been little follow up. The next step would be to find measures to begin to develop targets for reduction. The other piece would be community outreach via community meetings to ask the public for input on measures that make sense to address this issue. Chapel Hill and Carrboro have taken some action toward that end. Commissioner Gordon said the Commission for the Environment has committees and usually these committees don't have sub-committees. However at the time of the greenhouse gas studies, there was a committee working with the commissioners and had representatives from each jurisdiction. Commissioner Gordon asked if this current organization is a sub- committee of the Air and Energy Committee. David Neal said it is not going to be a sub-committee. It is being called a work group and would not have constant membership. Depending on topics covered, different people would be brought to the table by applicable expertise and what information needed to be shared. This would all be done publicly. For example, they brought forth two proposals last year, one to create a rebate program for energy efficient construction, and the other was a solar set-aside program for developers to set aside land for future solar development. David Neal said that he and a colleague both met with the planning board regarding these initiatives, but they have been unable to follow up since there are other boards and staff that have to be worked with. The idea of this work group is that it would be a way to bring people together more regularly to craft policies or drafts of policies for consideration by the Commissioners. Commissioner McKee said he did not see in the report any developing strategies to avoid increasing housing cost with its impact on the lower middle income. He noted the mention of setting aside housing developments for solar energy, which would mean overall increase in cost per lot, thus cost for house. He said he is concerned that while these are admirable goals, the unintended consequences of newer technology, is an increased housing cost that some citizens have a very hard time bearing. David Neal said thought has been given to this. He said one issue is how to line it up better. It costs more up front, but it saves money over time on power bills. The builder does not have the incentive that the future occupant of the house does. The rebates mentioned earlier were to make it more affordable and find ways to ensure that lower and middle income people could take advantage of those opportunities. Commissioner Dorosin said he was encouraged to see that the Commission for the Environment advocated for the half cent sales tax referendum. He noted the conservation focus and asked if the board talked about environmental justice and the impacts for low wealth and communities of color. He mentioned the issues of solid waste and access to services. He questioned whether this was out of the scope of the Commission for the Environment. David Neal said those issues are not beyond their scope. The Commission for the Environment currently has three vacancies and a priority is to get more diversity and better representation of minorities in Orange County on the board. Chair Jacobs said that, given the ten minute time frame to present the entire work plan for the year, this memo would have been better presented in a different forum. David Neal noted that the topic in the memo is a high priority issue. Historic Preservation Commission ( HPC) — Todd Dickinson, Chair, and Peter Sandbeck, Cultural Resources Specialist Todd Dickinson introduced himself and Peter Sandbeck. Reference was made to the 2013 goals- -Action Agenda 1 page 25 - The HPC expects to continue working with the Hillsborough Historic District Commission and the County Attorney on an approach for handling the further protection of historic sites in the Town's extra-territorial jurisdiction - The HPC will remain active in advising the County in the care and repair of its historic buildings and offer suggestion on potential new used for buildings that outlived their original purpose - The HPC will monitor the findings of an archaeological survey (Phase 11) of the County's Hollow Rock/New Hope Creek Preserve property and advise the County on how it might use this information to interpret the history of land use at this location. There is a move to get their files on the web. There is also a concern with helping the historic homes in the areas and specific green historic preservation homes. He noted that there is nothing greener than slightly modifying historic structures to make them more energy efficient. This is much more efficient than tearing them down and starting fresh. Peter Sandbeck said as a certified local government they get to apply for federal grant funds. A $15,000 grant was given to them to do conduct an archaeological study at Hollow Rock. This follows up on a productive study done in 2008 where some important Indian sites were identified on that property, as well as some historic period sites. Since there is a low impact trail and parking area being developed, it is important to make sure they are being good custodians of the property. Excavation and exploration has been done and good evidence of Native American occupation of the site has been found. Mr. Sandbeck said this is an important historic site for the area and for the state and there is a good opportunity for further excavation and education there. Chair Jacobs asked, with regard to green building in relation to existing historic structures, has there been cooperation with Durham Tech. He noted that they have a sustainability program and building classes. They have little connection to the historic preservation community but he believes they are open to it. Chair Jacobs noted they have two or three items in their report that reference Hillsborough and that the Board of County Commissioners is meeting with the Town of Hillsborough in February. He suggested that they bring forward anything about the archeological digs, etc prior to that meeting. He said there is already time on the agenda for development of joint policy for dealing with archaeological, cultural and historic sites within the jurisdiction. OUTBoard (Orange County Unified Transportation Board) Paul Guthrie, Chair—Jeff Charles, Vice Chair Paul Guthrie thanked the Board of County Commissioners for appointing new members recently. The board is moving ahead getting organized. There are still two vacancies, one relative to Economic Development and one relative to Environment. Paul Guthrie said their report covers the subjects asked for. He pointed out that on the first page of assigned charges is their guiding principle. He noted that this is very vague and broad, therefore what they do or don't do depends on the direction of the Board on a yearly basis. He noted that with the number of new members, on issues of certain topics, it might be wise to have briefings or one on ones. He referenced a recent sensitive and critical topic that came up about the issue of the interaction of the planning and management functions for transportation in the county and among the municipalities in the triangle and triad. This area keeps coming up. How can the most interaction be gained from these multi-jurisdictional transportation boards without overburdening each of the individuals appointed to represent those bodies? He said their board has two central functions —to advise Board of County Commissioners on things going on or that may come before them, but also it owes them foresight on what will be coming on the horizon. He said they just initiated a list of 39 organizations that have issues of transportation. Effort will be made to have the members volunteer to be monitors of these entities to give the Board of County Commissioners a more comprehensive view of what is going in transportation. He noted that it is hard to staff this. He said they have a list of activities for the future and at their next meeting they will be reviewing the Comprehensive Transportation Plan. He said that they have been deeply involved in that plan. Craig Benedict said this board is a county wide board that has been around about eight years and looks at all issues related to transportation. The board's role in the coming year would be to focus on part of the Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan and how to continue to have that representation county wide to facilitate movement of people to jobs and services in the county. He said the board is enjoying the diversification of the new membership. There has been a lot of action around CTP and safe routes to schools. . Mr. Benedict noted the contributions of Tom Altieri and Abigail Pittman. Commissioner Rich asked how many people are on the board. Craig Benedict responded, about 13. Commissioner Rich asked if younger people are being attracted onto the boards and Jeff Walker said that he sees young students getting involved and learning about the existence of the OUTBoard and he believes there will be more young applicants. Commissioner McKee said that he realizes there are many layers involved in transportation and he expressed his appreciation for the OUTBoard and their input. He noted that he had found surrounding rural counties to be very amenable to including the needs of Orange County on equal basis. He attributed this to the active subgroup of people that are involved and giving input. He said that the new construction for Hwy 86 North will be carrying a four foot shoulder, which is a considerable improvement from a safety standpoint. Jeff Charles said Orange County is a bicycling mecca due to its rural roads and attracts this segment of tourism. He noted that Bikefest in Hillsborough in August attracts about 850 people, which has an economic impact. He said there is a need to start thinking about connectivity, not only for commuting, but for cyclists, and recreational cycling. He said there are more slow-moving 35 mph top end scooters in Orange County. He noted the benefit of sharing that four foot side shoulder with cyclists, and slow moving individual powered vehicles. Commissioner McKee said he had found the surrounding counties to be amenable to accommodating Orange County on an equal basis and several projects were able to be moved forward, particularly in the Chapel Hill area and Orange Grove area for paved shoulders to accommodate safe bike travel. Chair Jacobs said one of the advantages of Orange County staying in a rural entity like TARPO is that we are a big fish in a smaller pond as opposed to being a little fish in a much bigger pond. Paul Guthrie said rural areas of Orange County and other counties are very critical to the long term future of building a satisfactory transportation system. He said that Orange County is just at the cusp of beginning to put together a comprehensive transportation system. He said that we can, in our rural areas, begin to build a base for the more sophisticated systems as population increases. He noted that Chapel Hill is planning to put in bus routes that will build a generation of people using routes that will establish a ready customer base for future higher forms of transportation. Building public awareness of systems is key. This is where TARPO comes in, as well as relationship with metropolitan areas. Chair Jacobs apologized for the lack of time, and asked David Neal to answer Commissioner Gordon's question. Commissioner Gordon asked about the first item on page 19- emerging issues. She wanted to know what they plan to do with the Water Resources Initiative. Dave Stancil said they built a stable base with their ground observation well network, but they have several hydro geologic unit areas that are not covered yet. He said they would like to build a database where all the different underlying geological areas in the county are covered with wells in the network. There is also the idea of creating a water budget, but this is a huge undertaking. Commissioner Gordon asked about their department's resources and Dave Stancil said they may have to re-task and re-prioritize Commissioner Gordon said that this Water Resources Initiative has been around for a long time. She noted that Orange County has a limited quantity of water and that everyone deserves to have clean water. Dave Gephart made one final point about the Visitor's Bureau. He said that an upcoming issue they will be looking at is relocating the Visitor's Bureau to an area with more parking. 2. Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan — Update and Next Steps Craig Benedict introduced himself and said this item is an update. He said some of the history pre-dates the slides. He said that in 2001 Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Halkiotis and the Town of Hillsborough Board members met concerning the Waterstone Development. There was concern that this growth was not in Hillsborough, but in Orange County's economic development zone and how could there be coordination of what occurs in that area. He said that, following two to three years of fighting, the 2005 Hillsborough Urban Transition Task Force was formed. This set constraints on what happens in the Hillsborough area, set size guidelines and was meant to protect both rural and urban areas. He then introduced the Powerpoint slides, included below. Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Central Orange Coordinated Area Land Use Plan — Update and Next Steps (Slide 1) January 29, 2013 BOCC Work Session • Purpose: To provide a review of joint planning efforts and next steps- Primer for Feb. 21St Joint Meeting with Hillsborough Hillsborough-Orange Joint Planning Background: (Slide 2) • Hillsborough-Orange Urban Transition Area Task Force (2005) • Hillsborough-Orange Strategic Growth Plan • Phase I, Report (2006) • Phase II, Agreement (2009) Tom Altieri did the section below: Hillsborough-Orange Interlocal Land Management Agreement Central Orange Coordinated Area (COCA) (Slide 3) • Differentiates Urbanizing Areas from rural areas • Designates area for coordination — COCA • Outlines actions to be taken towards adoption of a Joint Land Use Plan • Defines eight (8) key zone categories depicted on Map (Attachment C) and administrative responsibilities • Identifies areas for adjustments to Hillsborough's ETJ • Interlocal Land Management Agreement (Cont. (Slide 4) • Eight (8) key zone categories: • Incorporated Town • Existing ETJ • Proposed ETJ Areas to be Added • Proposed ETJ Areas to be Deleted • Proposed Hillsborough Urbanizing Areas (Not ETJ but under Town Zoning) • Proposed Orange County Urbanizing Areas (Coordinated control but OC Zoning) ➢ With exception of Item 4, all previous categories within primary Urban Services Area (USA) • Existing Water Service Area ("exceptions") Outside USA • COCA Boundary under OC Zoning Town of Hillsborough/Orange County Strategic Growth Plan Phase II Central Orange Coordinated Area (Slide 5-Map) Steps Towards Joint COCA Land Use Plan: (Slide 6) 1. Draft Future Land Use Plan for entire Urban Services Area (USA) adopted by the Town of Hillsborough (OC providing comments) 2. Hillsborough submits ETJ adjustments to Orange County 3. BOCC considers endorsement of land use designations adopted by Hillsborough, adding designations for areas outside of USA 4. Both parties adopt the composite Plan if acceptable OR arrange for negotiation and agreement on changes followed by joint approval 5. Hillsborough adopts Zoning and Subdivision regulations for new ETJ areas and provides recommendations to Orange County for Urbanizing Areas 6. Orange County adopts Zoning and Subdivision regulations for rescinded ETJ areas, Urbanizing Areas, and balance of the COCA th Summary of Town of Hillsborough Next Steps Following January 17 Public Hearing: (Slide 7) • Planning Board Recommendation — February 20th • Town Board Consideration — March 11 to Orange County Comments to Town Board: (Slide 8) • October 2, 2012 BOCC Letter (Attachment A, pp. 3-5) • Town Planning Board response reflected in its recommendations (Attachment B, pp. 6- 8) • Specifically, item number 8, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 pertain to comments provided by Orange County • Handout provided tonight to help summarize County comments and if/how addressed by Town PB Recommendation • The Manager Recommends the Board: (Slide 9) 1. Receive the update; and St 2. Provide any input the Board may have as staff prepares for the Feb. 21 Joint Meeting with the Town of Hillsborough. Craig Benedict began by referring to the map of the Town of Hillsborough Coordinated Planning Area on Slide 5. He said that in the early 2000's this was the area, larger in size than Chapel Hill and Carrboro together, that Hillsborough thought it could grow into. This was a 50 year sewer service area. Hillsborough realized that the existing water resources would not service the entire area, so planning began for an urban service line, shown on the map as a magenta line. He noted the color designations: Dark Grey are the incorporated sections of Hillsborough and light grey is Extra-territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) of Hillsborough. Some ETJs are in the Eno critical watershed area, which could not be developed because of watershed constraints. For this reason, this ETJ will be abandoned and a new ETJ closer to the core of Hillsborough will be drawn. Blue and Orange areas are very similar to the transition areas of Chapel Hill/Carrboro in the joint planning agreement. These areas will have urban style growth and urban services. The last area is the white boundary, which is the coordinated planning area. He said that if Hillsborough plans to be a city of five to seven thousand people one day, the rural area around it must be controlled to avoid a sprawl zone. An urban service ring around Hillsborough is being proposed, similar to Chapel Hill. The perimeter area would be controlled by Orange County Land Usage Zone. He said it is now time to start assigning land use. Tom Altieri referred to the Land Management Agreement (slides 3-4) and reviewed the steps necessary to work toward a joint land use plan. He noted there would be ETJ adjustment, re-zonings, subdivision ordinance amendments, as well as the larger Central Orange coordinated area. Moving to slide 5, he noted that the town is at step one of this process. This is to prepare and adopt a future land use plan for the entire urban services area, to include town city limits, ETJ and the orange and blue areas on the map. He said the county has submitted comments to the town on its initial draft, and the town has had two public hearings. The recommendations from that meeting were provided in a packet. Moving to slide 7, he noted the Planning Board recommendation date of February 7 and the Town Board consideration of adopting the map on March 11. Tom Altieri referenced the handout for Agenda Item 2: Summary of Comments Provided to Hillsborough and Guide to Remaining Issues He noted that this sheet is a summary of comments submitted last October. Each county comment or concern is followed by a Planning Board recommendation that addresses the issue. He referenced the first example, on the first page. The county has commented on the issue of Urban Service area boundaries with no land use recommendations. County staff worked together to fill it in. However there is a remaining concern that some areas in the urban services boundaries, which are envisioned to have water and sewer someday, have been classified as rural living, or working farm. This leaves the question of whether this is the type of intensity necessary in those areas. Tom Altieri then referenced item number 7 on the handout, which refers to concern about high density residential uses north of town. This concern has not yet been addressed. Craig Benedict said that during their discussion over the years, putting residential north of Hillsborough will cause people to want to drive through Hillsborough to access 85/40. This will exacerbate the problem of limited roadway. He noted that land use categories being put together now are for future land use and may not reflect what is happening currently. The future land use category is for cases where a developer comes forward and is in a designated public water, sewer area. The area being discussed is the southwest quadrant of 1-40 and the South Churton, Old 86 area. He said that developers are very interested in this area around the hospital and Durham Tech and the land use category should be compatible with this. Tom Altieri said there is joint meeting of the Town of Hillsborough and Board of County Commissioners on Feb. 21 stand they wanted to bring this forward to the Board tonight, prior to that meeting, to receive questions and get input before the land uses are formally adopted. Chair Jacobs, with reference to the colored map, said that Orange County had a vision to withdraw urban development in the Upper Eno watershed. He pointed out that it is not a coincidence that there is a rural buffer connecting with an existing rural buffer with Chapel Hill/Carrboro. He noted that this creates a separation with Durham to the east and protects Eno River State Park, and then surrounds Hillsborough and goes through the Upper Eno watershed, which is identified as one of the highest level priority protection areas in the Lands Legacy Program. He said that Hillsborough is very amenable to having the same vision for land use, long term, that Chapel Hill and Carrboro embraced 25 years ago. Commissioner Rich asked who would have held the public hearing for citizens input. Craig Benedict said the Town of Hillsborough would have public hearings for everything in that urban service boundary. Commissioner Rich asked if there has been any push back from citizens regarding the map being presented. Craig Benedict said there has been dialogue and discussion around the need to focus development in the urban areas, yet to maintain the historic charm. He said that it is understood that if medium densities were allowed outside of the urban service area, that could create big populations too. Commissioner Dorosin said, looking at this map, is the idea that eventually everything inside the urban service boundary is going to be annexed and Craig Benedict answered, yes. Commissioner Dorosin said can they clarify the difference for ETJ and blue and orange and why they are treated differently. Craig Benedict said ETJs are identified in courts and state law and can impose zoning and regulations in that area. He said that, instead of turning blue and orange areas into an ETJ, that they can have joint planning ownership in these areas. This is the same thing that has been done with the joint planning area in Chapel Hill, Carrboro. In those areas, they will agree upon the land use and the zoning regulations, that if annexed by Hillsborough, they will be able to use the regulations agreed to, while still remaining Orange County planning jurisdiction while ceding authority to Hillsborough. Commissioner Dorosin asked why these areas and why not all areas be subject to agreement and/or ETJ. Commissioner Price said some of the blue and orange areas already have Hillsborough water but no sewer and is developed and ripe for annexation. She said an ETJ has no water infrastructure, it is just land in close proximity to Hillsborough but without that connection. Craig Benedict clarified, if it's an ETJ, there is no divestiture, and with orange and blue areas, there is some joint planning. Commissioner Dorosin asked, if that is important in the orange and blue areas, why is it not important in the areas proposed to become ETJ that are not ETJ now. Craig Benedict said that they had actually annexed outside their ETJ in some areas and so there was non-ETJs that was surrounded by corporate limits. In some areas it was very compact and it was decided to trade ETJs and put it into those areas instead of having blue and orange areas. Commissioner Price answered Commissioner Rich's question about pushback and said there is some pushback. She referenced a development pending on 70 where there was opposition because of the possibility of five to six story buildings behind ETJ area. She noted that she happens to live in one of these areas and some of her neighbors are concerned about being annexed by Hillsborough. It is preferable not to be in the city. Frank Clifton said a lot of these processes were in place before the annexation legislation and he said that any decision made on ETJs is fairly significant because annexation is so limited. When you cede ETJ, direct controlling interest is lost, but not the blame is still there. He noted that people in an ETJ don't get to vote, but they are told what their zoning issues and rules are. The second issue relates to the consequences of intensified residential development. He referenced the role of schools and school demands. Craig Benedict said about ten years ago they had the discussion on land- banking and both Orange County and Hillsborough have provisions in their zoning code that designate general areas where there is need for a school. However, this was never activated and there is not a map on their land use plan. He expressed his belief that this needs to be addressed in the land use plan, to put some generalized circles to indicate potential areas of need for schools. Commissioner Dorosin noted that there are areas on map that have water but are outside the boundary. He asked why the boundary would not be adjusted based on this. Craig Benedict said they have exception areas that have water, but are too difficult to service with sewer. Chair Jacobs noted that Hillsborough had its own agenda with a bigger area designated for urban growth than Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He said that when it became obvious that this was unrealistic, the town came to the table to discuss joint planning. He said that this is a matter of what Hillsborough is willing to and unwilling to give up and what compromises are able to be made. The Board had pushed as far as it could push and that is why things look the way they do. Frank Clifton noted that the county installed sewer lines in the Efland community and that sewer flow comes back to Hillsborough. The county has continued to service this and there have been efforts, over the years, to get Hillsborough to accept those utilities and they declined. This is the reason for the agreement that where the line interconnects with Mebane, they will serve the Efland area and the county will be out of the sewer business. 3. County Commissioners: Boards and Commissions Assignments Chair Jacobs reviewed the policy of the selection process as outlined on page 2 of attachment A. There was discussion and clarification of order of choosing. It was stated that Board members serving as officers would retain those positions unless they choose otherwise. There was discussion regarding boards that are currently not meeting. The Board chose the boards and commissions on which they wish to serve, as shown below: BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER BOCC SELECTION (1/29) STATUTORY ABC Board Monthly, Third Commissioner Not Commissioner Tues 8:30 AM Required (non-voting McKee member) Board of Health Monthly, Fourth 1 Commissioner Commissioner Wed Required Pelissier - Member 7:00 PM Board of Social Monthly, Third 2 appointees Commissioner Services Mon 4:00 PM Commissioner not Dorosin — Member required but usually a Commissioner serves Citizen-Already appointed Orange-Person- 1 Commissioner or Commissioner Chatham (OPC) designee Dorosin Community Operations 1 Consumer/Family Center Advisory Board member 1 Citizen/ Stakeholder INTERGOVERNMENT AL and OTHER GROUPS WITH BOCC MEMBERS Burlington/Graham Requires Chair Jacobs- MPO Transportation 1 Commissioner Member Advisory Committee member 1 Alternate Commissioner Commissioner McKee -Alternate Communities in Monthly, Fourth 1 Commissioner Commissioner Schools Wed 3:00-5:00 Required Price - Member PM Community Home Monthly 1 Commissioner Commissioner Trust BOD Required Dorosin - Member Durham-Chapel Hill- Monthly- second Requires Commissioner Carrboro-Metropolitan Wed. 1 Commissioner Gordon -Member Planning Organization Member Commissioner (MPO)- Transportation Pelissier -Alternate Advisory Committee 1 Alternate Commissioner BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER CURRENTLY SERVING Durham/Chapel Quarterly-rotates 2 Elected Commissioner Hill/Orange Work between Representatives Gordon-Member Group entities- noon required (from 4 meeting jurisdictions) Chair Jacobs- Member Durham Tech Board of Quarterly 2 Appointees— one Commissioner Trustees can be a Price — Member Commissioner but doesn't have to be Citizen already appointed Efland Mebane Small Not meeting at 1 Commissioner Commissioner Area Plan this time. Has Dorosin Implementation Focus not been Group disbanded Emergency Services Meets as 1 Commissioner SUNSETED Work Group needed Member 1 Alternate Commissioner Fire Chief's Bi-monthly—first Commissioner not Commissioner Association of Orange Weds.-7pm required as member— McKee County but can attend as guest(s) Healthy Carolinians Meets quarterly Commissioner not Commissioner (3 d Thursdays at required —often same McKee 8:30am) BOCC Member as on the Board of Health BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER CURRENTLY SERVING HOME Program Quarterly 1 Commissioner Commissioner Review Committee Required McKee -Member Housing Bond 1 Commissioner Commissioner Program-Project Required Pelissier- Member Review & Selection Committee Hollow Rock Park Not meeting at 2 Commissioners Commissioner Planning Committee this time Gordon and Chair Jacobs Intergovernmental Quarterly- meets 1 Commissioner Commissioner Parks Work Group at 5:30pm Member Gordon —Member 1 Alternate Commissioner Commissioner Rich -Alternate JOCCA Meets Quarterly 1 Commissioner Commissioner in Pittsboro at Or Citizen Required Dorosin 5:30pm - but not serving at this time 2 Commissioners Commissioner Legislative Issues As needed Dorosin and Work Group Commissioner McKee Library Services Task Not meeting at 2 Commissioners Chair Jacobs - Force this time Member Has not been disbanded Commissioner Price - Member_ Orange County Bi-Monthly-last 1 Commissioner - Commissioner Partnership for Young Wed of month- Board of Directors Dorosin -Member Children at 8:30am Research Triangle Meets as 1 Commissioner Commissioner Regional Partnership needed Price -Member (RTRP) Solid Waste Meets as 1 Commissioner Suspended Until Management Plan needed further direction Work Group BOARD NAME MEETING DATE BOCC MEMBER CURRENTLY SERVING Solid Waste Interlocal To be re- Agreement— Elected constituted at a Leaders Work Group later date Ten Year Plan to End Monthly -1St 1 Commissioner Commissioner Homelessness Wed. at 5:30pm member Pelissier Executive Team Triangle J Council of Monthly—4 th 1 Commissioner Chair Jacobs- Governments Wed — 6:OOpm Member Member 1 Alternate Commissioner Commissioner Rich- Alternate Triangle Area Rural Bi-monthly 1 Commissioner Commissioner Planning Organization Member Price —Member (TARPO) 1 Alternate Transportation Commissioner Commissioner Advisory Committee Pelissier -Alternate Triangle Transit Board Monthly—4t May appoint a Commissioner of Trustees Wednesday Commissioner or Pelissier - 1:30pm-5:30pm Commissioner- Treasurer appointed citizen Upper Neuse River Monthly— By-Laws state that Pam Hemminger— Basin Association Different "The number of appointed as a Counties Host Directors constituting citizen in the Board of Directors November 2012 shall be one (1) per full voting entity, with Alternate- Staff one (1) alternate per member Tom Davis full voting entity in case of the Director's absence. Workforce Meets monthly in Does not require a Nancy Coston — Development Board — Asheboro Commissioner-usually DSS Director Regional Partnership (staff has been 1 Non- recommends to Voting hold due to Liaison pending reorganization) Visitor's Bureau Monthly—Third 1 Commissioner Commissioner Rich Wed Required - Member 8:00 AM BOARDS TO WHICH BOCC HAS ALREADY MADE APPOINTMENTS NACo Voting I Commissioner Commissioner Delegate Required Price NCACC Voting 1 Commissioner Commissioner Delegate Required Price Triangle Transit As Needed 2 Commissioners Commissioner Special Tax Board Required Gordon and Commissioner Pelissier SHORT TERM TASK FORCE Historic Rogers Road Meets as 2 Commissioners Commissioner Task Force needed Price - Member Commissioner Rich - Member EX-OFFICIO Community Leadership Council (according to Chamber they are Chair Serves reviewing the status of this group at this) Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce- does not Chair Serves require a Commissioner NC DOT Quarterly Meetings Chair/Vice Chair School Collaboration Meetings Chair/Vice Chair OFFICERS Triangle Transit Board of Trustees Commissioner Pelissier - Treasurer Chair Jacobs opened discussion of assignments to the Historic Rogers Road Task Force. Commissioner Price said she is interested because she has been interested in that community for many years and she has attended some of the meetings and knows people in the neighborhood. Commissioner Dorosin said he is interested on the task force and has worked with the Rogers Road community for several years. He said he is knowledgeable about needs and priorities of the community and the issues they are facing. It was the focus of his campaign and he believes it contributed to his election. He said he has good relationships with residents and this would be invaluable to both the Board of County Commissioners and the task force. Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Pelissier all said they are not interested in serving on the task force. Commissioner Rich would like to continue on the task force and noted that she has been on it for six months. She said she has been involved since they first started pricing water and sewer out there. She thinks they need continuity and she has read all of the reports since 1997. She said that at the end of every meeting, there are no conclusions, just reports. She believes they need to move forward and it is time not to go backwards and to engage the managers to move forward as meetings take place. She said her goal would be to represent Orange County now and not Chapel Hill. A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier to nominate past commissioner, Pam Hemminger, to continue on this task force as an Orange County representative. She stated that Mrs. Hemminger kept people on task and had garnished a lot of respect. She knows the Orange County budget process and the county perspective. She noted that the task force makes recommendations only and does not vote as elected officials. Commissioner McKee seconded that motion. VOTE: Yeas - 3 (Chair Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner McKee) Nays 4- (Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Price, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Gordon) MOTION FAILED A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to nominate Commissioner Price. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Chair Jacobs to nominate Commissioner Rich. VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Price) A motion was made by Commissioner Rich seconded by Commissioner Gordon to nominate Commissioner Dorosin. Discussion ensued as stated below. (No vote was taken because two members — Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Price — had already been nominated and approved). Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Dorosin's opinion regarding his legal representation of RENA and asked if he has any issue with balancing that out. Commissioner Dorosin said he has no problem. He stated that the conflict of interest guidelines clearly relate to financial interests and he has none, as he does not get paid by RENA. He believes that he will act, at all times, in the best interest of the county. Commissioner Dorosin said that he feels he was at a disadvantage by being the last nominee. He said they should have asked people to pick two nominees. He said the process was not clear. Commissioner McKee said they are too far down the road to reverse. Commissioner Jacobs noted that he has asked for approval of the process before beginning. He noted that anyone could have nominated anyone in any order. Commissioner Dorosin said that he still did not feel the process was clear. Commissioner Jacobs asked if the majority of the board was willing to do things otherwise or if they were content. He acknowledged Commissioner Dorosin's point. The majority of the board was content. Chair Jacobs said Commissioner Price and Commissioner Rich will represent Orange County on the Historic Rogers Road Task Force. 4. Discussion of Some Board of Commissioners and Advisory Board Protocols Chair Jacobs referenced the yellow sheet (copy of 2008 Advisory Board Chairs Meeting) and the need to orient the advisory board chairs. He said this came up, in part, when Commissioner Dorosin brought up the process of how they appoint to advisory boards. He said some of the advisory boards develop the expectation that if they nominate people, it is a breach of faith if the Board does not accept the nominations. He noted an email conversation clarifying that this is not how it works. The County Commissioners are the only body that can appoint to boards. These things need to be gone over with the advisory boards and he noted the need to provide guidance to these boards on several issues, i.e. closed session meetings, and to give them an opportunity to ask questions. He is talking about meeting with advisory board chairs. Chair Jacobs said work sessions were one issue that needed clarification. He noted that at work sessions, the public cannot speak, and there is no voting, no approvals or rejections. Items may be referred to a regular meeting and that items are not added to the agenda. There is a petitioning of the board at the beginning of Board meetings. In order to put items on the agenda, they must be reviewed at agenda review and will then put on a suitable agenda or clear reason will be given if they are not added. He said that an item not added is not considered "dead" and can be brought back at a later date. This system was developed to give order to the way in which matters are put on the agenda and to prevent items from appearing on the agenda without proper vetting about what is involved. He said this process has been used a little, but not much since the new members were seated. He referenced one petition by Commissioner Pelissier to have the Chair write a letter to all the advisory board members who have finished terms. Chair Jacobs said they currently receive a letter from the clerk and it will now have the Chair's signature on it. That is an example of a petition that will be answered. Commissioner Rich asked about time frames for responding to petitions and Chair Jacobs said there are two answers; one is ASAP and the other is the staff has to respond, which may take awhile for staff to get things together sufficiently to bring it back to the agenda. In either case, an answer will be given promptly. This response will tell you that if it is going to be on an agenda or not, and if not on the agenda at the next meeting, a time frame will be given. Frank Clifton said that if a petition requires research or legal research, there will be a listing of what staff members are pursuing it or have been assigned. A sheet will be given that give a status update and where the issue is projected to be on the agenda. This is especially true when several advisory boards are involved. Some type of response about action taken is usually given within a week of the petition. Chair Jacobs addressed the question of, do we care if our advisory boards make presentations to other elected boards and John Roberts asked for a moment to look into this. Chair Jacobs addressed the question of how letters are written. He said, if you use personal stationary, you may do what you want. If county stationary is used, make it clear that it is from you and not the board, unless you are the Chair speaking on behalf of the board. John Roberts, addressing the prior question, said the general advisory board policy section 11, page 14, subsection C3 states: — Advisory Boards and any members thereof shall not (and shall not have the express or implied authority to): 1. Take positions, in their capacity as an advisory board member, on any political issue or support or oppose any candidate for public office Chair Jacobs noted that this should be part of new member orientation. Commissioner Dorosin said that it should be made clear during orientation that they are not trying to constrain free speech. He said it should be clear that there is an absolute right to speak and identify yourself and your community activities and board memberships, but there should be a disclaimer that you are not speaking on behalf of a particular advisory board. Frank Clifton said for the newer board members that there are a couple of statutory boards that this does not apply to, i.e. Board of Health, Social Services, who have official capacity versus advisory capacity. Commissioner Rich said that often people will tell where they are from but will then designate they are speaking for themselves. She said that it is key that people be allowed to express their opinion as a citizen, not an advisory board member. Commissioner Dorosin specified that the citizen should be allowed to disclose their involvements, as it may reveal why they are knowledgeable about the issue. Commissioner McKee said the issue is not that they don't speak, but that it be specified they speak as an individual. He said he has no problem with anyone saying anything to any advisory board, provided it is not disparaging an individual or board, as long as they are speaking for themselves. He noted that to mention a planning board membership as a background statement is different than claiming to speak as a planning board member. Chair Jacobs noted that the statement on page 14 specifies "take positions within their capacity as an advisory board member." To that point, a speaker should be present not in that official position, but as an American with a right to free speech. Commissioner Price said, with regard to using stationary, members should be careful with using title of Commissioner. Commissioner Rich said that this goes back to Commissioner Dorosin's point of how someone would know about an issue if they weren't at a Commissioners' meeting. There may be an event at a Commissioner's meeting that you would not otherwise know about and the representation of yourself as a Commissioner would be relevant. Commissioner Price said that to say you are a Commissioner is different than to sign as a Commissioner. Commissioner McKee said any elected office is different than serving on an advisory board. He said the Commissioner title was earned because an election was won. The title is attached to a name, thus he is not concerned about simply signing it. He said it only identifies who you are. He said that elected officials have earned the right to use that title. Commissioner Price said that in the case of forming an opinion or judgment on an issue, they should remain neutral unless supported by full board. Chair Jacobs acknowledged that there are different views and the issue does not need to be resolved today. Commissioner Dorosin referred back to the topic of the appointment process. He noted that currently boards bring forth recommendations and they as Board of County Commissioners have freedom to accept those or choose differently. He said that his issue is, if there is a recommended candidate, does it make sense to let the board chair know that this is someone they support or have recruited. He said that the negative side of this is the idea that it is exerting undue influence. He said he is not sure this concern is legitimate, because ultimately the choice is up to the Board. He said is a heads up to the advisory boards more fair to them than for them to submit a name and the Board to put its own people on and blindside them. He said from a good government standpoint, there is a triangle of Boards, Advisory Boards, and residents that are being reached out to. He noted the interest in gender, age, race, socio-economic diversity. He said it is easier for the Board of County Commissioners to help reach the diversity goal and he would be in favor of working more closely with the advisory board chairs and having better communication. He said the other issue and concern of his is the high number of vacancies on some of these boards. He noted that there was only one recommendation for boards that had two or more vacancies. He said that he thinks the Advisory Board Chairs should be instructed to fill those vacancies as quickly as possible. He referenced his experience of waiting a year to be placed on the Carrboro Economic Development Commission while knowing there were four vacancies. He said it wasn't a priority for the board and it turns citizens off who are interested. He said that it leads to boards that are more insular and clubby. He said he would like to encourage boards to bring forward as many applicants as possible. Chair Jacobs said he believed that if there are vacancies and there are applicants, they should be filled. He said that the better way to do it is to put boards on notice that if positions are not filled, an explanation should be given and, if needed, the Board of County Commissioners will fill them. He said this also gives the Clerk a chance to make sure applicants still reside in the county. Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker said that many times applicants apply and then some boards take time to go through the due diligence process to make sure the person can attend the meetings and has the necessary availability. She said that many persons apply for a vacancy and then sit out there for a year. Once they are approached, they may not have availability. Often when contacted, people have an obstacle preventing them from filling the position. She said there is an effort to contact applicants on a regular basis to update their status. Chair Jacobs said that it should be communicated to the board chairs, that it is important to move these candidates forward and fill vacancies. If there is a process involved, it should be communicated. If a candidate is not moved forward and a reason can't be given, the Board will step in. He said there should be parameters set, such as operating in a timely manner. He said that he knows there is not time to change policy tonight, but he wanted the issues to be raised, such as how to know candidates better. He referenced his experience in applying to serve with OWASA, when he was interviewed by then Commissioners, Moses Carey and Verla Insko. Commissioner Gordon said issues that need to be addressed should be flagged. She raised the question about elected officials serving on other boards. She quoted a stipulation from the old policies that stated "Elected officials from other jurisdictions shall not be appointed to county boards and commissions, unless specifically representing their boards in an elected capacity." She said that if it was desired that someone be on a board, a position could be created. She said that there are boards and commissions they don't take recommendations from. She said that historically the reason recommendations are taken from boards and commissions is because there was a problem of not knowing enough about the applicants on the long list of boards and commissions. The thought was to have the boards vet and recommend their own people, but those recommendations don't have to be accepted. She said the decision is, do they or do they not want recommendations from advisory boards. Her preference is to take recommendations. Commissioner McKee said that it is important that citizens are engaged and encouraged to apply to boards, even solicited to apply if it is believed that they would be good on a board. He said that what they need to be careful of, individually or collectively, is appointing people to boards to align ideology of a board or a member of a board. Commissioner Pelissier said that she believes advisory boards should be encouraged to vet people, because the Board of County Commissioners does not have the time. She said there are so many boards and that the advisory boards do a good job overall. She does not want to ask boards to say that they do not like applicants, as this will come in a letter and would be public record. Commissioner Rich asked how OWASA members were chosen. Commissioner Pelissier said that some people interview on their own. Bit that nothing stops them from calling applicants on the list. She said that calls have been made to boards, prospective members and people who might know the applicant. Commissioner Rich asked if Commissioner Pelissier had been interviewed and Commissioner Pelissier said no. She said she received a questionnaire. Commissioner Gordon said the decision had been made to go to an extensive questionnaire. She said there was a history to this, but it was too late to go over it at this time. 5. Closed Session A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Gordon to go into closed session at 10:06pm for the purpose to discuss: "Pursuant to G.S. § 143-318.11(a)(3) "to consult with an attorney retained by the Board in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege between the attorney and the Board." VOTE: UNANIMOUS RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION A motion was made by Commissioner Price seconded by Commissioner McKee to reconvene into regular session at 11:30pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner McKee seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn the meeting at 11:30pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board