The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 06-04-2013 APPROVED 9/5/2013 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING June 4, 2013 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the DSS offices, in Hillsborough, N.C. COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs 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. 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda The Chair went through the items at the County Commissioners' places: - Pink sheet — for Item 7c, additional information for Refund Requests for Inaccurate Square Footage Calculation - White sheet- PowerPoint — for Item 4-b, Potential Orange County Fair — Preliminary Background Report - White sheet- for item 7b, Unified Animal Control Ordinance - White sheet - for Item 6a, Executive Summary - CDBG Program — North Carolina Tomorrow Grant A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to add a closed session to the agenda for the purpose of: "To consider the qualifications, competence, performance, character, fitness, conditions of appointment, or conditions of initial employment of an individual public officer or employee or prospective public officer or employee" NCGS § 143-318.11(a) (6). VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Price, Commissioner Gordon and Chair Jacobs); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner McKee) Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Dorosin had not yet arrived. PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. Commissioner Dorosin arrived at 7:04pm. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Bill Holmberg read the following prepared letter: Hello Commissioners and thank you for hearing me. In regard to the proposed site of the White Cross fire station on Neville Rd., I simply want to state the following. There has been no attempt to contact homeowners directly in the immediate area about this matter. That, in itself, demands this procedure be slowed down so all area residents can be notified and heard. The exact location on Neville Road is on a bend in the road, creating blind spots for traffic coming from either direction. This curve has had several accidents a year, even without having a truck pulling out just around another curve. All of the homes in the area are on well water. As all fire stations need to wash vehicles, hoses and equipment regularly and the additional drain would lower well water levels. The tank trucks also need to fill up with well water, as there are no hydrants or draw ponds in the neighborhood. There needs to be a water table data study and review made public about the potential draw from a shared well water source. The waste and run-off water from that usage would run downhill about 500 feet into Phil's Creek feeding into the University Lake Watershed reservoir. Additionally a bridge crossing this creek is failing and is overdue for replacement. It has been in the process of getting band aid repairs for its decaying wood pilings—which have already been weakened by the additional load of the county trucks that single out Neville Road to access the Ferguson Road dump station. That same small bridge is currently too narrow to let 2 pickup trucks pass in opposite directions at the same time; so what will happen with larger fire trucks? There are plenty of spots along Hwy 54 close to Neville Road with large lots big enough for a fire station and room for trucks to turn around in. Hwy 54 is a full size road zoned for multiple uses. We would have none of the following that would be welcome to them: • No public water supply • No public sewer supply • No Time Warner Cable • No fiber-optic high speed data • No public natural gas • Plus they have had their access to their trash disposal cut in half So why is the county putting a fire station, literally in our back yard, that would frequently be disruptive to our lives, without ever giving them any modern utilities for decades? Put this on Hwy 54, just up the block! Finally, as most of the area homeowners have been and still are predominantly African-American; this abuse of power, stealth and ability seems all too familiar to the Rogers Road water situation in Orange County. Thank you for your time. Please give us ours. Bill Holmberg - 1000 Sabre Court, Chapel Hill 27516 - 919-418-0140. Dave Laudicina read the following statement: My name is Dave Laudicina, and I am speaking for both my wife Becky and myself tonight. I am speaking tonight to urge you to adhere to the manager's budget recommendation and not raise the Orange County property tax rate. There are many reasons both internal to Orange county and external to justify not putting on any more tax burden on Orange County residents From an internal view we have been living with unfair and inequitable property values since 2009. Recently, you all voted to postpone the next revaluation till 2017. This was rushed through without giving Orange County citizens adequate opportunity to detail their specific concerns in a public hearing environment, even though in 2009 thousands of residents turned out in various protests to tell you the 2009 valuations were wrong. We can see the proof of this in valuations data. Two comparable properties in our area recently sold for 15% lower than the 2009 valuation. A property in our neighborhood sold for 15% lower than the 2009 valuation in 2011, and a property directly behind our property sold for 19% lower than the 2009 valuation in 2012. Until the property valuations are balanced to fair and equitable valuations, we believe it is prudent to not put anymore unfair property tax burden on Orange County residents. From an external viewpoint, NC residents, especially in our demographic (seniors on a fixed income), are under a statewide assault from all aspects in terms of taxes. Proposals to change the tax calculations in NC put a huge new burden on low and middle income earners residing in NC. The proposals place social security income in the classes of income that the NC income tax will apply. Even though the proposals reduce the income tax rate, the proposals increase the number of items taxed and add many services that the sales tax applies to. This means many NC residents will be double taxed (sales and income) on most income they earn and the money we spend on most of the goods and services we purchase to live. The implementation of these proposals maps to a huge potential increase in total individual state taxes paid and consequently an increase in the cost of living to our demographic (seniors on a fixed income), as well as other demographics. You have done a marvelous job in holding the line on property tax increase in the last few cycles; but we all still have to tighten our belts in this down economy. I believe it is prudent for Orange County to tighten its belt and not increase property tax rates. Thanks for listening. Dave and Becky Laudicina Bingham Township Orange County, NC Don O'Leary referenced a secret meeting in England regarding how to crash the dollar and hand the new world order over to China. He referenced CFR and said most Congressmen and Senators are members. He said the job of the Commissioners is to uphold the constitution of the United States. He said he would like ICLEI out of Orange County for good. V. Lynette Tempest noted that fire departments are exempt from community notification on siting. She said the curve on which the station is planned has been implicated in two accidents. She said near her home is a narrow bridge sign indicating a bridge over a creek that is part of the University Lake watershed. She said it does not make sense to build a station here and increase road hazards. She noted that this is sloped and un-cleared land. She feels further investigation would reveal that there is someone who will benefit from the sale of this land. She feels this plan must be thoroughly analyzed and re-considered. Thomas Stone is a resident where the proposed station is to be built. He said there are 16 homes in a very congested area. He said this station would affect his well, and it would likely be necessary to drill many wells to get the water needed for a fire station. He said there is property on Ferguson Road that would be more appropriate. He noted the dangers of large trucks using the narrow roads in this area. He feels the plan needs further investigation. Chris Russell said he objected to the process of siting the fire station on Neville Road, and he is formally petitioning the Board of County Commissioners to place this on the next agenda and to suspend all site meetings until this meeting takes place. He said that meaningful public input is needed. He said that the broad powers of exemption for ordinances are being misused and are not in keeping with the intention of being used as a last resort option to facilitate public safety needs. He said that there are other sites that will improve response times without adverse effects to residential areas. He asked the commission to slow this process down. Sam Gharbo asked the board to petition to state to inform them that the citizens of Orange County disagree with the funding policy for K-3 teacher assistants. He said there have been hundreds of people who have pleaded for funding for these assistants. He said that it is unnecessary to tax people more, because the county already has the funding for the schools. He said that if the money is allocated and projects prioritized correctly, this money could be used to work on the people who live in this county- kids and teachers. He said that the backbone of the community is education. Frank Donald said he is here to file a complaint about mismanagement of a grant from the health department through the Fairview Garden. He said he was hired as a carpenter for the garden, and he did the work requested. He said someone came after him and charged the same price for the work that he had done. He said he was told the timesheets were confidential. He would like his case to be handled openly by the Board of County Commissioners. He said he will give a detailed email to the clerk on this matter and an audit may be addressed for those three months specifically. Chair Jacobs said they would refer all petitions to the agenda review committee. Andy Burwell asked if the Board of County Commissioners would like a fire station next to their house. Valken Mitleandorf said his wife administered the funding for the grant and Frank Donald is discrediting her. He said this man has escalated this argument and has turned into a he said/she said situation. He requested that the Board put a stop to this. b. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.) 3. Petitions by Board Members Commissioner Price said she attended an awards program at Orange County Schools this past weekend. She asked the Board to present a resolution to the Northern Orange Education Task Force and Superintendent Patrick Rhodes for their achievements in bridging the minority achievement gap. She said she will gather more information and work on this to present it for processing. Commissioner Dorosin noted that, a few weeks ago, he had asked a question about a review of the employment practice about ban the box. He asked about the status. Frank Clifton said this will be put as an informational item on the next meeting agenda. 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. a. Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural District Designation — Multiple Farms —Walker, Kirk, D. Pope, J. Pope, Hill, Ranells/Bergmann, Green The Board considered applications from multiple landowners/farms to certify qualifying farmland within the Cedar Grove, Cane Creek/Buckhorn, High Rock/Efland, and Caldwell Voluntary Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) programs. Commissioner Rich arrived at 7:39. Gail Hughes said the request is for approval to accept six farms into the program and to revise acres for one farm. She said, if approved, this would equal an increase of 1052 acres for a total of 5838 acres. The Voluntary Agriculture District (VAD) has 5347 acres and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District has 491 acres. She said the farms being presented are mostly family farms that have been in the families for 75-100 years. She reviewed the designations of VAD versus EVAD. She presented slides with the following information on the farms being considered: C. Norman Walker - Caldwell District - Raises livestock, grass/hay crop, and managed woodland/forestry - VAD = 244.11 acres Kirk Farms Kenneth, Ronald, Donald, and Aaron Kirk - Cane Creek/Buckhorn District - Raises beef cattle, corn, soybeans, grains, hay/ pasture crops, and managed forestry/woodland - VAD= 278.65 acres Donald and Faye Pope - Cedar Grove District - Raises beef cattle, organic tobacco, grains, hay and pasture crops, and managed forestry - VAD = 268.63 acres John Pope Farms, LLC John H. and Kimberly Pope - Cedar Grove District - Raises poultry , corn, grains, hay crops, and managed forestry/woodland VAD = 75.27 acres (addition to existing 65 acres in VAD) Betty Walters Hill - High Rock/Efland District - Farm raises beef cattle, pasture, and forestry/woodland - VAD = 34.83 acres Fickle Creek Farm Noah Ranells and Ben Bergmann - Raises livestock, produce/vegetable crops, for farmers markets, restaurants, and farm market sales - EVAD = 131.78; VAD = 17.73 (Revision and additional acres) Woodcrest Farm Christine &Allan Green - Cane Creek/Buckhorn District - Raises livestock and produce/vegetable crops for sell at home store and local farmers' markets - Requested revision from VAD program to EVAD = 12.28 acres Total VAD= 5347 acres; Total EVAD= 491 Total Acres= 5838 Chair Jacobs commended the farms for their participation and their commitment to working with the county in maintaining a viable core of agriculture. Commissioner McKee said these farms are part of the backbone of Orange County's agriculture sector. He said these are home farms, but they also rent and tend other properties. He said this plays into the appearance and image of the County. He praised their efforts. Commissioner Gordon said she wanted to add her commendations to all of these farmers. She said this is program is an asset to Orange County. Commissioner Pelissier said many of these farms teach farming to young farmers. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Gordon that the Board certify the seven (7) farm properties noted above totaling 924.16 acres (VAD) and 144.06 acres (EVAD) as denoted in the attached documentation as qualifying farmland, and designate the farms as Voluntary or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District farms within the Caldwell, Cane Creek-Buckhorn, Cedar Grove, and High Rock/Efland Agricultural Districts. With approval of these additional acres, the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District Program will have 5,347 acres in the VAD and 491 acres in the EVAD for a total of 5,838 acres (rounded) to close fiscal year 2012-13. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. b. Potential Orange County Fair— Preliminary Background Report The Board received a report providing background information about county fairs in North Carolina, and information related to existing events, infrastructure and managing structures for a potential Orange County Fair. Frank Clifton said a staff task force was created after the Board of County Commissioners retreat on this item. Dave Stancil said that the goal tonight is to provide a discussion starter. He presented the preliminary findings in the following PowerPoint presentation: Potential Orange County Fair Preliminary Report 2013 North Carolina Fairs • North Carolina has been home to many fairs over the past 150+ years. • The first North Carolina State Fair operated in 1853. • Fairs have changed markedly since 1940's. • A wide variety of fairs exist in NC. NC AGRICULTURAL FAIRS http://www.ncagfairs.org/shows.php (map) RESOURCES North Carolina Association of Agricultural Fairs • NCAOAF — organization of county, regional, state fairs across NC. • Mission - Promote interest in agricultural fairs in North Carolina. http://www.ncagfairs.org/ NC Department of Agriculture • NCDA - The N.C. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services provides consultation and input on local fairs. • NCDA has responsibilities covering agronomy, agricultural marketing and promotion • Operates N.C. State Fair and N.C. Mountain State Fair, five state farmers markets; performs agricultural economic analysis. Organizational Structures Many Types of Organizations Operate County Fairs: • Civic/Service Clubs (Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, etc) • American Legion Posts • Community Non-profit Associations • Counties or County-sponsored Non-profits EXISTING COUNTY FAIRS County Fair - Case Study Briefs • Over 40 county and community fairs • Four Brief Case Studies • Cabarrus County • Chatham County • Cleveland County • Common Ground Fair (Maine) - The Cabarrus County Fair takes place each September, 60 years in current form. - Current fair features midway, rides and variety of foods as well as agriculture. - Fair history tied to county's agricultural roots, dates back to the 1890's. - County-run. - New arena, facility. - The Chatham County Agricultural Fair grew out of tradition of annual "Achievement Day" by 4-H Clubs, and African-American community fair. - Event offers a chance for display of talent at household arts and receive prizes for their work. - Smaller, more local fair. - Since 1924, the Cleveland County Fair (Shelby) has featured North Carolina's largest county agricultural fair, and is a highlight of traditional activities held annually in Cleveland County. - Over 165,000 patrons visited the 2012 Cleveland County Fair. - While known primarily for this event, fairground also hosts a variety of other events throughout the year. Common Ground Country Fair - Celebration of rural living - promotes organically-grown Maine produce, alternative lifestyles, - Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association is sponsor and nation's oldest/largest state organic organization. Existing Orange county festivals (photos) Farm to Fork • Each June, the Farm to Fork Picnic at the Breeze Farm benefits new farmer training program. • Hundreds of regional residents attend the event which highlights locally grown farm products, music, and sustainable practices. Central Piedmont Jr. Livestock Show • The Central Piedmont Junior Livestock Show is held every April at the Central Carolina Holstein Barn on Orange Grove Road. • The event is focused on livestock competition and draws regional residents of all ages from 10 counties. • Show is in its 68th year. Hogg Day • Hogg Day attracts thousands of residents/visitors over two days for N.C. barbecue, arts/crafts and vendors, food midway (no rides) and learn about local services. • Most recently, added historic name "tweak" to commemorate James Hogg. • Held in County's River Park in downtown Hillsborough on the 3rd Saturday in May. Festivities begin the Friday evening before. • Admission is free to the public. Efland Ruritan Rodeo • A Ruritan Club family-oriented event in Efland, now in its 20th year. • Professional cowboys/cowgirls show off skills in bull riding, breakaway roping, bareback and saddle bronc riding, steer wrestling, the famous rodeo clowns, and more. • Visitors can try their luck on the mechanical bull. Special entertainment, vendors, food offered. • The 2013 Rodeo takes place in October. Carrboro Music Fest • Coordinated effort by Carrboro Recreation and Parks Department and Carrboro Music Festival Planning Committee. The 2013 Carrboro Music Festival is Sunday, September 29, 2013. • Daylong, free festival features 150 performing acts at 25 indoor and outdoor venues throughout downtown Carrboro. • Varied musical acts, Triangle-based performers. Festival food and craft vendors and kid's activities. • In 2012 `Music on the Streets,' held the week prior to Music Festival. A week of free outdoor concerts in various locations throughout town. • FESTIFALL ARTS FESTIVAL Chapel Hill's annual celebration of the arts (now in its 41 st year), boasts over 100 artists. • Includes live entertainment for all ages, hands-on activities, and local food organized by Chapel Hill Parks and Recreation. • Takes place in downtown Chapel Hill (West Franklin Street). • Chapel Hill residents and people from neighboring communities (around 15,000) attend this community event held each October. KEY QUESTIONS, FINANCIAL AND LOGISTICS KEY QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION • What Type of Fair? - Desired Vision/Outcome? • How to Create a County Fair Structure? - Process? • Management Entity for a Fair? - Degree of County Involvement? Financial and Other Considerations • Examine Costs/Revenues of County Fairs • How Have Other Fairs Managed? Risks? • Pricing Structure (Gate admission? Events?) • Facilities? Operations, Maintenance, etc. • Marketing - 12-18 month promotional plan; ticket-printing, maps • Staff? Paid and volunteer? FINANCIAL AND LOGISTICAL ISSUES • Impact of Weather on Revenues • Transportation / Parking Needs • Public Safety/ Permits FINANCIAL AND LOGISTICAL ISSUES • Impacts on Neighbors and Area - (lights, sound, odors) • Protocols and Procedures for Vendors, Competitions • Livestock Security • Health and Safety Possible Course of Action? • Feedback - Discuss the type of fair desired —theme, vision. • The Process of Planning for a Fair - How to develop a plan? Who should be involved? • Examininq Existinq Events and Partnerships - Consider how to coordinate or involve existing events? • Determining Management Structure Initial guidance on managing entity? • Financial and Operational Considerations Further financial analysis and infrastructure assessment needed • Other Info Needed by the Board? Final Thoughts — One approach • Use Report as Discussion Starter - Identify additional info needed • Visit Existing Fairs for Firsthand Experience - Schedule visits to selected county fairs this fall • Partnership Conversations - Develop process, begin conversations with possible partners. • Next Step - Work session this fall — after site visits, additional information gathered. When referring to the map on slide 3, Dave Stancil noted that there are clusters of activity in the far western and eastern portions of the state but not in this area. He noted that this was created by early transportation challenges with people in the far sides of the state being unable to transport livestock to the centrally located state fair. He said these events have now become an important part of these areas. He said this fair would likely be a 2015-16 project. Commissioner Price questioned who the target audience for this county fair would be. She noted that all of the other county events seem to have a specific target group. Commissioner McKee said it would be helpful to have a calendar to indicate not only the existing events, but also ball games and other events that might conflict. Dave Stancil said there is a listing on page 29, but it is not in a calendar format. Frank Clifton said the difficulty is that the calendar changes every year; so it was easier to put this information in a list format. Commissioner McKee said he sees that there is no noted financial impact at this point, but he will need figures before any in depth discussion. He said that, along with financial information, there needs to be a clear idea of what other county projects and programs may be affected by spending on this type of fair. Commissioner Dorosin said this item is near to his heart and he would be happy to visit other fairs to do research. He said everyone he has talked to is excited about a county fair. He said that there may always be a conflict with another event, and everyone can't be accommodated. He feels that the target audience is everyone in Orange County. He would like to see something more like the Chatham County fair-with local agriculture, local artisans, local music, 4-h, baking contests among other things. He said this could initially be just 1-2 days and could potentially be held at the Blackwood Farm. He said this would offer a showcase of Orange County's agricultural past and general history given through oral history. He said the theme would be all about Orange County and would provide a celebration and a chance to show off the County. Commissioner Dorosin said he would like for the Board to move forward with this and he feels it can be done in a way that is manageable and financially feasible. Commissioner Rich asked what approach would be used to figure out the financial aspects, such as best practices from other fairs. Dave Stancil said the committee did not presume too much at this point. He said it would be good to get financial and operating budget information from some of the other events already being done. Commissioner Pelissier said the Board needs to think about whether this will be a break-even event or whether Orange County will help foot the bill. She said another issue is scale. She said the people she has spoken with want a local emphasis with a focus on agriculture and food. She said there are some of these events out there now but they are pricey. She said there needs to be research done regarding the scale, to decide what can be done. Commissioner Gordon referenced the third item on the Manager's recommendation. She asked if Laurie Paolicielli could weigh in on how some of the other festivals are set up and what is involved in fundraising and sponsorship. Laurie Paolicielli said there is not a one size fits all model. She said there are about 30 events in Orange County each year that range in scale and funding. She said her estimation was about $250,000 for a county fair as described. She said the Board would need to look at all of the festivals and see what is most important. Commissioner Gordon asked her about sponsorships Laurie Paolicielli said sponsorships help and that can range from state to national sponsorships. She said there is county funding, Visitor Bureau funding, corporate funding. She said this is a skeletal plan at this point, but it appears this event is more local and more county focused versus corporate. Commissioner Gordon said the manager should discuss the potential for coordinating with other events. She said it is a good idea to schedule visits to other fairs. She said it would be good to follow up on what would be involved; which departments would be responsible; whether more staff would be needed; how this would fit into the departmental structure; and what the infrastructure and operating cost would look like. She feels that this fair should differ from the state fair and be uniquely local and focused on Orange County. Chair Jacobs asked about the specific time frame. Frank Clifton said some of the existing events may not want to share their venue or time. He said there would need to be hundreds of volunteers and an organizational structure. He suggested that there be thought over the summer about who these volunteers would be. He suggested the organization of an initial group to work on the volunteers. He said that the other fairs are typically paid for by admission charges and ride fees. He said that having livestock also changes things. He said all of these elements have to be decided. He said the extension service is a great partner and is involved in all the fairs. He said this is paid staff, but there is also a huge volunteer pool that makes the events happen. Chair Jacobs summarized that the common desires he hears from everyone relate to an economically feasible, agricultural, unifying event, coordinated with other events. Chair Jacobs suggested having Commissioner Dorosin and another commissioner volunteer to work with staff between now and June 18th to brainstorm about representatives and groups that can be partnered with over the summer to start fleshing out some of these ideas. He said this can then be brought back to a work session for further discussion. Commissioner Price expressed a desire to bring diversity to the fair and to bring in a diverse group with representatives from all over the county. Commissioner Gordon suggested including all of#2 and #3 from the manager's recommendation. Chair Jacobs said it is premature for doing much more than figuring out the direction. He said his suggestion is in line with #3. Commissioner Gordon said she was hopeful that all of the Commissioner's input be considered. Chair Jacob said the minutes could be used for this purpose. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price that he and another Commissioner will meet with county staff that put together this report and to bring back on June 18, 2013, a recommended process for continued exploration on the scope, feasibility, costs, local focus and a suggested list of collaborators to participate in the county fair research to start over the summer break. A full report is to be presented to the Board in the early fall. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to nominate Commissioner Price to this County Fair Working Group. VOTE: UNANIMOUS C. c. Energy, Water and Fuel Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2012 The Board received a report regarding reductions in use of energy, water and fuel in fiscal year 2011-12. Wayne Fenton said that this annual report is an excerpt from information presented last fall. This presentation on energy, water and fuel use was requested again as part of the budget process. He said that a baseline year was established at fiscal year 2009-10' and future years were measured against that. He focused on FY12. He reviewed charts and information from the PowerPoint slides listed below: Energy, Water and Fuel Conservation in Orange County Government Board of County Commissioners Asset Management Services Energy Scorecard (chart) Energy reduction goal: 20% cumulative through FY15; additional 10% cumulative thought FY17 Water Scorecard (chart) Water reduction goal: 5% cumulative through FY17 Fuel Scorecard (chart) • Increased fuel use: attributed to increased law enforcement miles • Slightly less efficient MPG: Aging fleet • Solution: Active vehicle replacement program; higher fuel efficiency standards - Fuel reduction goal: 10% cumulative through FY15; additional 5% cumulative through FY17 Reporting Initiatives • AMS will report on utility, fuel ("Scorecard") and other operating cost information related to facilities and vehicles as practicable after the end of each fiscal year, to be ready by late August/early September each year • These data will also be reported as part of the annual budget development process For More Information: Orange County Utility and Fuel Use and Conservation Initiatives —Annual Report located at: http://orangecountync.gov/AssetMgmt/documents/AttachmentA-Conservation Report-final.pdf Wayne Fenton reviewed the numbers for fiscal year 2012. He noted a 13% reduction in energy use in government buildings and a 4.5% reduction in water use. He said there were two parts for fuel use — county vehicles fuel use, and county vehicles fuel efficiency. He noted an increase in fuel consumption and a decrease in fuel efficiency. He reviewed the reasons listed on the scorecard slide and said efforts are in place to replace vehicles with smaller, more fuel efficient models. He said data is being gathered for this next fiscal year. He reviewed new initiatives, including solar film installation at the senior center, replacement of high wattage lights with LEDs, and geothermal system contract work. He said the water cost increases will continue to occur, but there are different flush features and more efficient hand washing stations being considered for installation. Commissioner Pelissier asked what extent of the energy use reduction is a result of the geothermal and whether new projections account for the addition of the planned new systems. Wayne Fenton said the overall geothermal impact is not known, but within the building where it is located there is a minimum 30-35% energy reduction. He noted that there are systems in place in the Justice Complex and at the Link Center. He said the next phase is for the District Attorney Building, the jail and the Historic Courthouse. Commissioner Rich asked how fuel is purchased for county cars. Wayne Fenton said in the past there was a fueling facility in the northern part of the county, but now fuel cards are distributed, allowing drivers to fuel up in other places. He said the fuel is bid out each time it is needed, from four different potential suppliers; and the purchase is made from the lowest bidder. Chair Jacobs referred to page 3 of the abstract and asked if there are plans to track county use of resources, such as recyclables, and sustainable practices. Wayne Fenton said the department is trying to take incremental step toward improving sustainable practices. He said there are efforts to purchase and use more environmentally friendly building products. He said that larger purchases for other departments are not under the jurisdiction of Asset Management Services. Chair Jacobs said he feels there should be a benchmark to start from, as well as a unified policy and a universal protocol for the county on how resources are used. Wayne Fenton said work could be done on a scorecard to track progress from year to year. He said his department is happy to work with other departments on this. Chair Jacobs asked if the Board agreed with this idea, and the answer was yes. d. Resolution Recognizing Jan Sassaman for Service on the Solid Waste Advisory Board The Board considered a resolution recognizing Jan Sassaman for his volunteer service on the Solid Waste Advisory Board and authorizing the Chair to sign. Chair Jacobs read the resolution — ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING JAN SASSAMAN FOR COMMUNITY SERVICE ON THE SOLID WASTE ADVISORY BOARD WHEREAS, Jan Sassaman will be concluding his service on the Solid Waste Advisory Board when the Board dissolves at the closing of the Orange County Landfill at the end of June 2013; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Sassaman has served as a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Board since its creation thirteen years ago, including serving in a leadership role as Chair; and, WHEREAS, in addition to Mr. Sassaman's commitment to activities of the Solid Waste Advisory Board, over the years he has served as a consultant in the solid and hazardous waste field internationally working on evaluation of incineration technologies, hazardous waste site mitigation, risk assessment and a broad array of other related topics; and, WHEREAS, Mr. Sassaman has provided a persistent and impassioned voice for protection of the environment of Orange County; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners hereby recognizes Jan Sassaman for his outstanding service to the staff of the Solid Waste Management Department, the Orange County Board of Commissioners and the people of Orange County during his exemplary volunteer service on the Solid Waste Advisory Board. This the 4th day of June 2013. Jan Sassaman said it had been a pleasure working with the Board of County Commissioners, the county manager and staff, and he has learned a lot about solid waste and recycling, as well as county government and politics. He said the most important thing for him has been the opportunity to work with county and town staff. He said the government employees that work in Orange County are by far the best group of government servants that he has ever worked for. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to approve a resolution recognizing Jan Sassaman for his volunteer service on the Solid Waste Advisory Board and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Consent Agenda Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda Commissioner Price asked to remove Item 4-d. Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda Item 4-d- Revisions to Orange County Voluntary Farmland Protection Program Ordinance (Code of Ordinances Chapter 48) The Board considered approving minor changes to the wording of the Orange County Voluntary Farmland Protection Program Ordinance (Chapter 48, Orange County Code of Ordinances) to help prospective farm owners better understand the renewal process for farms enrolled in the County's Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Program. Commissioner Price referenced page 11 of the abstract and said she was concerned with the language about contract termination. Pete Sandbeck said the language was adjusted to make it consistent with the state language regarding the EVAD. He said that the process is further clarified elsewhere in the agreement. He said termination can be done by submitting a letter. Commissioner Gordon said she feels this is a very good way to present an amendment or a change to an ordinance. She noted that there is a detailed explanation as well as a clear definition of what the change is. She wanted to acknowledge the clarity and the writing out of the department names. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to approve the minor changes to the wording of the Orange County Voluntary Farmland Protection Program Ordinance (Chapter 48, Orange County Code of Ordinances) to help prospective farm owners better understand the renewal process for farms enrolled in the County's Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Program. VOTE: UNANIMOUS a. Minutes — None b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle property tax values for twenty-five (25) taxpayers with a total of twenty-five (25) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue. C. Property Tax Releases/Refunds The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax values for two (2) taxpayers with a total of eight (8) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue. e. Community Home Trust Request— Housing Bond Program The Board approved a request from the Community Home Trust to utilize $75,000 of bond funds allocated to the Community Home Trust for second mortgage assistance for repairs to the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems at the Greenbridge Condominiums. f. Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan The Board approved a four year updated Locally Coordinated Human Service Transportation Plan for Orange County which will allow the County to apply for additional North Carolina Department of Transportation, Public Transportation Division Grants. g. Change in BOCC Regular Meeting Schedule for 2013 The Board approved one change in the County Commissioners' regular meeting calendar for 2013 as follows: - Add a BOCC work session on Thursday, September 12, 2013. This meeting will be held at the Southern Human Services Center, 2501 Homestead Road, Chapel Hill. 6. Public Hearings a. CDBG Program — North Carolina Tomorrow Grant The Board considered conducting a public hearing to receive public comments prior to official close-out of the County's FY 2011 Community Development (CDBG) NC Tomorrow Program and authorize execution of the Certificate of Completion by the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners. Tara Fikes said the County was awarded $50,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds by the North Carolina Department of Commerce to help develop and deliver economic development strategies. She said the County has partnered with the Triangle J Council of Government (TJCOG) to develop this strategy. TJCOG Executive Director Kirby Bowers congratulated the Commissioners and staff for being recipients of this grant. He said the plan is complete, and the executive summary is included in the packet materials. He said this plan is part of 16 other TJOCGS plans for regional economic development strategies. He said the purpose is to help with economic development strategies at a state level. He said that all 16 plans are now complete, and work is being done to produce a statewide document to be presented to the Secretary of Commerce in a couple of weeks. Mr. Bowers said the plan includes suggested actions that the region can take to sustain and enhance economic development and job growth. He said it builds on current plans. He outlined the participants on the advisory committee and said there was also extensive outreach to multiple counties. Mr. Bowers said the plan is complete; but this is a living document, and the work is not complete. He said there would be another advisory committee meeting after the statewide plan is released to talk about next steps in moving forward. NO PUBLIC COMMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner McKee to conduct a public hearing to receive public comments prior to official close-out of the County's FY 2011 Community Development (CDBG) NC Tomorrow Program, close the public hearing and authorize execution of the Certificate of Completion by the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Regular Agenda a. Contract Award for Professional Design Services for the Northern Human Services Center Community Center Project The Board considered: 1) awarding a contract for professional services to MBAJ Architects, Inc. from Raleigh, NC, for the not-to-exceed amount of$167,500 for the architectural and engineering design work associated with the Northern Human Services Center Community Center project; OR 2) awarding a contract for professional services to MBAJ Architects, Inc. from Raleigh, NC, for the not-to- exceed amount of$208,300 for the architectural and engineering design work associated with the Northern Human Services Center Community Center project, including the programming and schematic design of potential alternates that would preserve the classroom wings for either deferred use ("mothball"), open air "pavilion" use, or full use; and 3) authorizing the Manager to sign the chosen contract on behalf of the Board. Jeff Thompson gave background in the interview and selection process. He said eleven firms responded, five were interviewed, and MBAJ was chosen. He said the schedule is to move forward to have a residential advisory board begin working on design of the facility with a goal of construction beginning next summer. PUBLIC COMMENT: Sheila Van Hook McDonald said she speaks on behalf of descendants of Mary Benson, land owner and originator of Cedar Grove Elementary School. She said their concerns center around the lack of outreach to the community regarding the demolition and renovation of this property. She said that the text of the mailing says that a citizen group will be involved in the planning process, but she questions whether this group will involve members of the community who are passionately connected to the cause. She would like this matter to be tabled until there has been communication with the community. She understands that there is design indicating a reduction of the property from 37,000 square feet to 10,000 square feet. She said the community is concerned. Hattie Van Hook lives within walking distance to the Northern Human Services Center. She questions whether it is more cost effective to renovate and remodel rather than to demolish. Camille White asked what work the Board of County Commissioners or designers will start on June 17th Jacqueline McConnell lives in Cedar Grove and she loved the Cedar Grove Library when it was there. She said she is pleased that there is discussion of creating something else. She asked what will be different now from the staffing, cost, and safety reasons that closed the library. She asked if these issues have been addressed in the process of planning the new facility. She asked how the community service center would differ from a library, and how it would be used. She said she is hopeful that the advisory committee will work with the Commissioners to find a use for the facility, but it feels like a lot of money to throw at something without a real plan. She asked what the design group is planning and what the vision is for the facility's purpose. Bonnie Hauser said she strongly supports another community center in Cedar Grove; however there are fundamental questions that still need to be answered. She respectfully requests the Board put the design on hold until there is a plan. She said there should be defined services before there is a design for the building. She said there is nothing included in the plan regarding basic library, internet service, social services or senior services that many residents expect to see. She said that it is unclear that this will be a service at all. She said this building is triple the cost of the Rogers Road Community Center and the library in Cedar Grove was just shut down due to lack of funding. She is especially concerned about the lack of publicity for a project that is so large and important to the community. She said important stakeholders are not involved. She asked that the design contract be put on hold and take the time to clarify a plan for a true service center for this rural community. She said the Efland community should also be involved, as their center has been de-funded and is underutilized. She asked for a clear picture of the hours of operation, staffing and maintenance cost for the facility. She asked that the budget be limited to 2 million dollars. Jeff Thompson said the work that starts on June 18, will be the design programming phase. He said there was vision planning with the community in the spring and fall of 2012' and this brought the Board to the decision point in November to work on the 10,000 square foot design. He said the programming during those sessions included most of the services that have been discussed tonight- library, internet, community meeting space, recreation space and kitchen space. He said the first phase of the design is to take this information and meet with the resident advisory group, which includes members of the community meetings. He said these programming meetings will be open to the public, frequent, and held in the evenings. He said that all of that programming information happening over the summer months will then be applied to the schematic designs presented in the fall. Chair Jacobs said there has been discussion about the advisory group and the consensus was that anyone who comes to the meetings can participate in the discussion. This is why there is no recommended number; the current list contains the names of people who have already volunteered. Commissioner McKee said some of the people that signed up to be on the informal design group are here tonight. He said this group is also open to others who are interested. He confirmed with Jeff Thompson that this resident design committee will be involved from the beginning of the process. Commissioner Price said she had concerns about attachment 3 and the different options. She feels this could short change the design group. She said that if the design group decides that an open air pavilions is not necessary, then it should not be included in the contract. She said it seems the contract should not be figured before the group has met for discussion. Jeff Thompson said that the design fee is simply for MBAJ to evaluate the cost of the three options. Commissioner Price said that she sees the value of the mothballing option, but the community never suggested the open air pavilion; so she questions why money should be spent looking at this. Jeff Thompson said this was discussed at a public meeting in September as an option. Commissioner Price asked if there could be a meeting with the residents to gauge interest before money is invested in studying designs. Jeff Thompson said this was done in the spring and fall of 2012. Dave Stancil said this process started with placement of flyers within stores, churches and public buildings in the community, as well as mailings to citizens who lived within miles of the property. He said there is a mailing list of 60 people in the community. He said the initial plan had a program to demolish the facility and start with something new, and this evolved into saving a portion of the building. This has now evolved into additional conversations about other options. He said there have been discussions with the community about needs, and these discussions were used to come up with options. Commissioner Dorosin said it would be good to see notes from these past committee meetings. He questioned whether the process can be started without knowing the end uses of the facility. Jeff Thompson said there is information spelled out in the notes from the prior meetings, and all the uses spelled out by the public have been digested and will be brought to the table when the design process starts. He said the original premise was to deconstruct the wings and concentrate on the 10,000 square foot space and there were several reasons for this, including demand of infrastructure and serious sewer and plumbing constraints. He said the current system will support the 10,000 square foot option. He said that option 3 would require an $800,000 investment to expand the septic system to accommodate use. He said that the April 16th meeting brought up the option of not bringing down everything, but having alternative uses for the other two wings. He said this started a conversation of an additional study to bring back the base design and add to it some of the other options. Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the RFQ that went out is a generic design that could potentially accommodate everything raised in the community meetings. Jeff Thompson said it will address community spaces, recreational spaces, internet connectivity spaces, and a kitchen. Commissioner Pelissier said this was originally on the CIP plan as a commitment to the community to renovate and not deconstruct this facility. She recalled community discussion around family reunions and other events and now this is evolving into county services. She feels there needs to be a discussion regarding service models. She does not want to go back on the promise to have something done, but she thinks that maybe it should be slowed down. She said there needs to be a serious discussion of the service model and what can be afforded. She said the library was used but not by a lot of people, and it required two staff members for safety. She said there are complications with the current service model. Commissioner Gordon said the Board needs step back and re-think what is being done. She said one way to do this is to have a formal group created and to give them a formal charge and a deadline for a report. She said a clear budget needs to be defined. She feels that a formal structure on how to proceed is currently lacking. She suggested setting up a work group with a charge of defining the scope of service and a budget, to be brought back on June 18th. Jeff Thompson said this item and all background information can be brought back on 18th for new Board members and others to review. He said much of what Commissioner Gordon has mentioned has already been done and the budget of$2m was established in the CIP. Commissioner Price said this facility is being saved because of its cultural and historical significance. She noted that there has been discussion of having some sort of library or Cybrary in this facility, which would give students a place to use laptops and complete homework, as well as provide a computer space for those looking for work. She said the community also needs a gathering/meeting space. She said that the wings of the building have memories' and because of this the community would like to see if it is financially feasible to save the wings for future uses. She agreed that there should be a defined group who can be given a charge. She said that this will not prevent others from giving feedback into the group discussion. Commissioner McKee said the moment the sign-up sheet for input was laid out, a formal group was established. He said it is worrisome to see the proposed expansion costs. His main concern is that a very expensive structure will be built that won't provide any services, which is not the point. He said the services that will be available are important, as is the historical significance of the facility. He said one way to kill a project is to make it too expensive Commissioner Rich said it would be nice to see budget figures on some proposed services such as a library, Cybrary and others. Jeff Thompson said as part of the preliminary plan process, this can be vetted out and brought back in the fall. Chair Jacobs said this is a circular argument. He said that investigating more possibilities creates more expenditure. He said the cost of looking at the three proposed alternative uses is $40,000' versus the $168,000 for the other consulting. He feels this is a comparatively small additional cost. Chair Jacobs said the community simply wanted a library/Cybrary, and a community resource; and it was someone else who brought up all these other services. He said this is not about duplicating other service models. He said the main reason, other than safety issues, that staff recommended closing the old library was because it cost $125,000 to heat/cool that one room. He said the people criticizing the board for spending money should know that the library was closed to save money. He summarized that the Board wants a formal structure, scope of services, charge, time, and specific membership, with background information presented at the next meeting. Commissioner Gordon said there should be a formal group established and nothing should be done between now and 18th. Commissioner Dorosin asked what is going to come back on the 18th if there are no meetings between now and then. Commissioner Gordon said the formal charge, timeline, structure and the membership list will be established. She said none of this exists now, so this information should come back on June 18th Commissioner Price asked when the community will have input. Commissioner Dorosin said there have already been community meetings. Commissioner Price said more are needed and this needs to move forward with community input. Chair Jacobs said there is still an issue with understanding what the community said and staff will bring back these notes on June 18th Frank Clifton said there were several community meetings with Commissioners participating in them. He said a variety of issues were discussed, including services. He mentioned the overriding issue of the septic system and reviewed engineering issues that limit expansion. He said many of the decisions are not staff driven and these issues and the discussion points can be presented at the next meeting. Chair Jacobs said the Board wants background information, including a review of past public comments; formal structure; timeline; cost; membership; and scope of services within the current septic limitations. This was agreed to by Board Consensus. Chair Jacobs said the discussion group is open to general public and interested parties should sign up. b. Unified Animal Control Ordinance The Board considered amending the Orange County Animal Control Ordinance to make it a Unified Animal Control Ordinance. Bob Marotto introduced himself and Annette Moore, staff attorney. He said this is an amendment to set the basis for a more unified animal control ordinance' and the backbone is the existing county ordinance. He said this effort has involved staff from Carrboro and Chapel Hill Animal Control, as well as the town manager, the police chief of Hillsborough and the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB). He said staff met with the ASAB three times this year in developing the ordinance being presented tonight. Annette Moore said the court system was confused about which ordinances would apply to a case. The issue was confusing for Animal Services itself, since there are three ordinances in effect in Orange County. She said the advisory board used Orange County's ordinance as a base and merged the three ordinances into one; but there were still missing pieces. She referenced examples, such as no set appeal process and no humane euthanasia plan for suffering animals. She reviewed information from the ordinance and the abstract below: Background: Beginning July 1, 2013, Orange County Animal Services will be providing Animal Control Services to all parts Orange County except for the portion of Orange County within Mebane. Despite the increasing integration of animal services through Orange County Animal Services, there are three different animal ordinances in force (all available onIinhttp://orangecountync.gov/AnimalServices/info.asp). Orange County, Chapel Hill and Carrboro all have their own ordinances, while Hillsborough has adopted the County's ordinance. The differences in the local Ordinances have proven to be complicated and confusing, not only for staff charged with responsibility for regulatory functions and the Court system, but perhaps most importantly for the residents of Orange County. Because animal services within the County have become more unified and integrated than they have been in the past, for the past year County staff has been working on a proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance with the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. In this context, County staff initiated the effort to create a unified animal ordinance by convening a work group of staff from the involved jurisdictions. Staff from Chapel Hill and Carrboro have been integral to the process responsible for the proposed ordinance, and upon County adoption of the ordinance, the towns' staffs will present the ordinance for consideration by their respective governing boards. More specifically, the work group has consisted of the staff attorney for the Chapel Hill Police Department with animal control responsibilities, the Carrboro Police Chief and a Carrboro Police Captain, the staff attorney for County Animal Services, and the County's Animal Services Director and Animal Control Manager. Hillsborough staff elected not to participate in the work group but are fully aware of this project. Most recently, the Town Manager and Police Chief received a copy of the draft unified ordinance and an invitation to offer comment. The objectives of the work group were to: 1. Create a unified ordinance. The group's work practice has essentially been to compare the same or similar sections of the three existing ordinances and decide which made the most sense in light of experience providing effective animal services in the different jurisdictions. The County's current Animal Control Ordinance remains the backbone for the proposed unified ordinance. In addition, the comparative methodology assured a finished product that was complete, strong and worthy of designation as a unified ordinance for the County. 2. Fill in necessary "gaps" in the Ordinance to create the needed authority to assure the public health and safety and welfare of animals within Orange County. One illustration of such authority would be to have an animal euthanized for humane reasons in exigent circumstances. Another illustration would be the authority to hold a vicious animal that has repeatedly bitten or attacked members of the public. While there may well be a need for new laws under the animal control ordinance, staff did not make any effort to create new laws but deferred such efforts until it could occur under a unified ordinance. Throughout the process requests to create new law were resisted to ensure there was no "scope creep". Staff attempted to propose changes to the existing Ordinances that would not be controversial, refined existing services being provided, and assured the public health and the safety of animals. During the initial process, the existence of"gaps" in the existing ordinances become apparent in trying to address and resolve the concerns of residents in different parts of Orange County. Staff has tried to work around the gaps in the Ordinance in close collaboration with staff attorneys from the County and municipalities to respond to animal control issues and to protect public safety and the welfare of the animals. In addition to Staff review of the Ordinance changes, the Animal Services Advisory Board ("ASAB") also reviewed and suggested changes to the draft Unified Ordinance. The ASAB discussed the proposed changes to the Ordinance on three occasions: • At the initial meeting (February 20, 2013), the Animal Services staff attorney discussed the effort to create a unified ordinance, its rationale and its scope. • In a subsequent meeting (March 20 2013), the Animal Services Director and staff attorney went through a draft version of the proposed ordinance distributed in advance of the meeting for review by board members. This was a page-by-page review in which feedback was provided for additional consideration. • At the May 15, 2013 ASAB meeting, the focus was on the status of vicious animals in the proposed unified ordinance. The Animal Services Director presented a summary to identify the "gaps" that were being in-filled by the proposed ordinance as well as the logic of state and local laws and their articulation and limitations. At the meeting the ASAB made some suggestions for further consideration (which staff has incorporated) and unanimously recommended that staff bring its effort to create the unified ordinance to as soon as possible. This detailed examination of the Vicious Animal section of the Ordinance was done to assure that issues voiced by concerned residents about the laws surrounding vicious animals at the March 20, 2013 meeting were fully discussed. It also had the added benefit of completely clarifying how the unified ordinance would strengthen the County ordinance given that the BOCC Chair and Vice-Chair had previously requested such consideration from staff and the ASAB in response to resident concerns about the death of a dog as a result of an attack by a declared dangerous dog in the resident's neighborhood. The only area in which amendments that would be considered a change are being proposed is in the area of animal recovery. These changes are being proposed on the basis of the recommendations made by the ASAB and Animal Services staff to the BOCC at the Board's February 12, 2013 Work Session. The changes are part and parcel of the County's five year plan for managing pet overpopulation in order to both reduce the euthanasia of potentially adoptable animals and to contain and control the medium and long-terms costs of providing animal services. There are three specific changes that are incorporated into the unified ordinance on the basis of this effort. These changes are to create: 1. A requirement for micro chipping stray cats and dogs upon their first recovery; 2. A tiered and differential fee schedule for the recovery of cats and dogs depending upon the number of times they have been recovered and whether they are reproductive or sterilized; 3. A refundable spay/neuter deposit for cats and dogs recovered three or more times. Bob Marotto said subsequent to County adoption of the ordinance, as previously indicated, staff from the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro will present the unified ordinance for consideration by their respective governing boards. There has already been legal review of the Ordinance in each jurisdiction and there is ongoing consideration of the best way for the towns to enact the Unified Ordinance. Significantly, the towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill are expected to retain some portion of their ordinances that have been designed to address unique circumstances specific to that jurisdiction or where there is no corresponding component in the Unified Ordinance in the other jurisdictions: (i.e. tethering, permitting chicken, and keeping livestock). Where a Municipality may have a more restrictive Ordinance in an urban area than the County does for rural areas, the Ordinance provides for the greater restriction in the municipalities than in the County. Communication from the Hillsborough Town Manager indicates that Hillsborough will essentially adopt the County's new unified ordinance. The Town has done and will continue to do so on the basis of the action of the Town Board of Commissioners, as it is codified in the Town's own animal ordinance, which allows it to depart from the County's code where they wish to do so. Presently, the Town of Hillsborough does so only through the prohibition of roosters and permitting requirements for farm animals within city limits. The North Carolina General Statute §153A-45 provides that in order for an ordinance to be adopted on its first reading it "must receive the approval of all the members of the Board of Commissioners. If the ordinance is approved by a majority of those voting but not by all the members of the board... it shall be considered at the next regular meeting of the board." The Board then has 100 days after introduction of the ordinance to adopt the change to the Ordinance. Staff Attorney Annette Moore said that if this is approved, the advisory board would like to take this to Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and the small portion of Durham in Orange County. Bob Marotto said the board has resisted the scope creep of creating new laws. He said there was one exception to this, where a recommendation was made for an amendment on animal recovery. This amendment requires a micro-chip fee for dogs and cats recovered for the first time; a refundable sterilization deposit for people whose pets have been impounded and recovered two times; and a differential recovery fee structure for the recovery of animals sterilized, versus those that are reproductive- with higher rates for non-sterilized animals. He said this was done to address the pet overpopulation in the county and reduce reliance on euthanasia. PUBLIC COMMENT: Allan Green is an Orange County farmer. He addressed several handouts at the Commissioner's places and read from the following statement: I want to thank the commissioners for this opportunity to speak. I am Allan Green, an Orange County farmer, and member of the Agriculture Preservation Board (APB), although I am not here tonight representing the Board. I will be addressing two related issues described in the background material I provided to you. The first originated over 4 years ago, on March 3 d 2009 when an ice storm shorted out our electric fence. One of our small Dexter cows went through the fence, and was grazing outside my fences next to Orange Grove road on property I partially own. A helpful passer-by called Animal Control, and even though the cow was quickly confined, I was cited and subsequently fined because my cow as at-large, and by definition, a public nuisance. Because the animal represented no real nuisance or public danger, I appealed to both the manager and director of Animal Services; but they refused to void the citation, citing the language of our ordinance: an animal at-large is a public nuisance, period. As a farmer, this narrow definition seemed inconsistent with my experience and common sense, and worth investigating. I began by researching similar provisions of the animal control ordinances of surrounding counties. Attachment 2 summarizes the results: including our 10 neighboring counties, only Orange County categorically defines at at-large animals as a nuisance, at least in unincorporated jurisdictions. While ordinances vary, our neighboring counties reserve violations for actual nuisance behavior while an animal is at-large. I then brought the issue to the APB, and in March 2010, our chairperson met with the ASAB and requested a meeting to discuss our position. Which brings be to my second issue. Attachment 1 is Director Marotto's response to that request. He describes the issue as a waste of staff resources and unnecessary because animal control officers have the discretion we are recommending. But, that is not what our ordinance says, and no discretion was exercised in my case in 2009. Keeping and ordinance on the books so that it can be selectively enforced is simply wrong. I am therefore asking the Commissioners to direct Animal Services staff and the Animal Services Advisory Board to work cooperatively with the Agriculture Preservation Board to make our Animal Control Ordinance more consistent with the realities of rural life. Thank you. Ed Johnson lives on 60 acres of land in the Orange Grove community. He said this proposed ordinance is not ready yet and needs more work. He said last year, two of his dogs were declared vicious animals, when an intruder came into his yard and one of his dogs bit the intruder during a confrontation. The intruder ran away, and later, without revealing a past criminal record for trespassing, the intruder filed a complaint against Ed Johnson. He said that state law allows an animal to be declared dangerous and has a built in appeal process, while the county ordinance has a provision for vicious animals and has no appeal process. He said it is unclear to him how animal control can make the decision between calling an animal dangerous or vicious. He wrote to animal control pointing out that the county ordinance does not allow an animal to be declared vicious if a trespasser is declared dangerous and if the animal is acting as a watchdog. He said the latest version of the ordinance has no category for watchdog and the category of trespass now puts the burden on the land owner to prove the trespasser had criminal intent. He feels these changes are significant and require more public debate and input. He feels that most rural residents regard their dogs as watchdogs and this provision should be saved. He said the ordinance should allow for differences between town and country' and the question should be asked regarding why there are categories for both dangerous and vicious dogs. Bonnie Hauser is speaking for Orange County Voice. She has dogs, and has come to know many of the people on the ASAB. She said her dealings with animal control have been positive and professional. She said she was very surprised and uncomfortable watching the county attorney lead a discussion of the new unified ordinance without any legal framing of the issues or their implications. She said the attorney did her job well but did not explain that her role is to represent the County's interests, and this may not be the same as the citizens' rights or interests. She said that the Animal Services Advisory Board is a group of committed and impassioned animal services professionals who need more than a one sided briefing on these issues. She said the workgroup had no citizen representation. She said that she met with a professor who specializes in animal control law at the UNC School of Government. The professor expressed concern with overlapping and contradictory language, lack of due process and missed opportunities to distinguish urban and rural issues. The professor offered to advise the ASAB, but this offer was rejected. She said the draft ordinance takes away important protections and property rights from citizens. She urged the Board not to endorse the ordinance, but to thank the ASAB and Annette Moore for their work, while acknowledging there is more input and more protection for citizens needed. Ann Meade said she reviewed the ordinance. She said that it contains numerous internal inconsistencies; is poorly worded; has ambiguous statements and severe organizational problems. She gave several examples of this, including the use of the definitions of vicious animals and its placement in the ordinance. She also noted section 4, page 16 regarding dangerous animals and the appeal process that allows an animal to remain classed as vicious while no longer being classed as dangerous. Bob Epting is an Orange County resident and has two dogs. He read from the following statement: My name is Bob Epting, and I am an Orange County resident. I keep two wonderful Labrador retrievers as company. They are a very real part of my family. They protect me, my home, and my property from intruders. I am here to urge to you protect them, and the watchful animals of others in Orange County, from being arbitrarily designated as vicious animals. When I am staying in town, I expect visitors to come and go across my front porch. The way my house is located along the street, with a sidewalk leading up to my front porch, invites guests, postmen, and neighbors, even unknown ghost and goblins at Halloween to visit. They may expect not to be bitten by my dogs. On the other hand, persons roaming around inside my fenced-in back yard, without invitation, especially at night, are trespassers and should expect to be chased, barked at, and even bitten if they do not flee. When I am out in the country, I expect my dogs to know the boundaries of my 40 acres, and to bark to alert me of persons who come there unexpectedly. Here is nothing about that rural tract that invites any passerby to come onto my land, and they should do so at their own risk. My dogs know to protect me and my home in the country and are given free run of the farm to do so. At either place, they are watchdogs and their attention, barking, and physical threats protect me, my family and friends, not to mention my property. Trespassers who enter my property without civil intent should expect to be barked at, even bitten, to prevent harm to me or my property. And they should not be protected, as this draft ordinance would do, unless I am able to prove they were there to commit a specific crime. I mention watchdogs and trespassers, because this draft ordinance turns these expectations on their head, and instead gives Animal Services officers the power to declare my dogs vicious animals if they bite a trespasser, even once, unless I can prove the intruder's intent was to commit a crime. Understand, it is clear as a bell, that the existing ordinance recognizes that the Animal Services officers may not declare watchdogs that bite in protection of their property to be vicious dogs. It is also clear in the existing ordinance that dogs who bite trespassers may not be declare vicious animals. The "Unified Ordinance" does away with both of these provisions, though the narrative accompanying this agenda item fails to mention to you either of these very major changes. He urged the County not to adopt this Ordinance tonight but to allow the opportunity for citizens to give public comment and suggestions for changes to make it better. Time expired. More written comments are included in the statement attached to this abstract item. Don O'Leary said he also lives in a rural area and he has a large black lab who is friendly, but a good watchdog. He said that if his dog were to bite someone, it would be in defense. He referenced a Dr. Albright, and the RFID chipping practice. He said this chip causes cancer and he would like the Board to do research on this issue before moving forward. Susan Elmore, Chair of ASAB, said the board did meet on occasion and did review this potential ordinance very carefully before giving input. She said the board did consider inviting Professor Wall, but did not, because it did not seem necessary. She said the board does have an attorney who facilitated a discussion and review of the ordinance and the vicious dog issue among others. The board gave feedback to staff and unanimously approved the ordinance. She said the board did consider potential exemption for livestock that were loose, but the board felt that these animals are a potential human health hazard, especially near the road where there may be contact with a car. She said that the ASAB understood that if it is the case of an act of God, it would be up to the discretion of the Animal Control Officer whether to issue a citation. Patrick Mulkay is a resident of Bingham Township. He referenced the definition of a trespasser and said that in the rural part of the county you can take lethal action against a trespasser if you are in fear of your life. He said that this is not so in the towns, where the trespasser has to be in your house. He wonders how this affects the lay enforcement community. He said he has two watchdogs that help protect his family. He said that he hears people talking about farm animals and he remembers helping his family gather cows when they escaped the fence. He said this is discussion of city folks making a determination of what farm animals are thinking. He feels the Board needs to put this ordinance off and seek more input in to this ordinance. Michelle Walker is the vice chair of the ASAB. She said the board did hold a specific meeting that deals with vicious and dangerous dogs' and there was ample opportunity for public participation. She said that there was no clear definition or standard for what is a watchdog, and the proposed ordinance does maintain an exemption for sentry dogs that have been trained and registered with the county. She said that she is also a licensed attorney in North Carolina and she knows that the word trespass is fraught with legal issues. She said that there are concerns with the kind of civil litigation that the County could be involved in, and the new ordinance seeks to address that. She said that the designation between dangerous and vicious dogs is done to give the Animal Control more ability to impound certain animals in the county than the state allows. Commissioner McKee said it was his understanding that it was a compilation of ordinances only and not an expansion, but he sees an expansion of the scope. He referenced the changes made, against the objections of many citizens, to county tethering laws in the past and asked if tethering still applies to Chapel Hill and Carrboro. He asked how a unified document could not be unified across the County. Annette Moore said there are certain parts of the ordinance that could be controversial in certain jurisdictions, and thus those areas were exempted out of this process. She said the same is true of issues like chicken coops in Carrboro. Bob Marotto said Chapel Hill and Carrboro both have a tethering ordinance that is more prohibitive than Orange County's ordinance. He said there are some significant gaps in the ordinance and these gaps can be filled in by Animal Control with consultation from the advisory board and colleagues. He said there are efforts being made to identify those gaps. Commissioner McKee said that rather than fight a difficult fight on tethering again, it seems that this unified document has picked soft targets like the vicious dog issue. He said he has a real problem with making regulatory changes while creating a unified document. He said he is seeing many things that have been taken out and others that have been added in. He is concerned with the decision not to take advice from the School of Government. He said that he realizes that the farm animals can be destructive, but they are not the only animals that can damage a car on the road. Bob Marotto said that the farm animals issue was brought to the ASAB several years ago, and it was carefully studied. This was followed by the development of a set of recommendations for the Board of County Commissioners that preceded this one. He said he realizes that there are several large animals that can cause harm, but this issue involved litigation and assessment of a policy issue. He said this history is an important part of the process that needs to be recognized. Annette Moore said that the board thought about not filling the gaps, such as the appeal process. However, it was felt that this was one of several glaring missing pieces. She said the same is true of the issue of trespass, and that is why these gaps were filled. Commissioner McKee said he knows there will be gaps; however it should have been consolidated and then each individual gap addressed after the consolidation, not before. This would have made it clear to the public. He said the fact that this wasn't done makes it impossible for him to support this. This would mean supporting not just the consolidation document, but also new recommendations and regulations. Commissioner Price referenced the section regarding penalties and spay/neutering for animals picked up by animal services. She said she understands the overpopulation issue, but she does not understand the correlation between an animal that strays and the practice of spaying/neutering without owner consent. Bob Marotto said that the correlation is that reproduction can occur in the case of unattended animals. He said it is not a requirement of the proposal that the animal be spayed or neutered, but it is a requirement that the owner put down a deposit that is refundable if the procedure is done within a 60 day period. He said this also allows for education to the owner regarding the available services and the benefits. Commissioner Rich asked about the criteria for classification of vicious and dangerous dogs. Bob Marotto said the decision is made in accordance with the criteria set in law and the totality of the circumstances and facts of the case. He said there is a review conducted when a report is made and an investigation is done in accordance with a set of standards. Commissioner Rich asked about the appeal process. Bob Marotto said the NC General statute gives a general appeal to the owner of a dog declared "potentially dangerous", but there is no appeal for a dog declared "dangerous." He said that the proposal this evening is the first appeal process in an ordinance. This has been created in this ordinance out of concern for the necessity of due process and checks and balances. Commissioner Pelissier said she appreciates the work that has been done. She said the point made about definitions being deleted is valid and definitions need to be made up front. She said she does have a concern about the farm animals, as she does not want to send the wrong message to farmers in rural Orange County. She said that escaped cows are not an uncommon occurrence and this is not something farmers want. She is concerned and would like to see this issue reexamined. Chair Jacobs said the he has decided to defer the closed session to the June 11th work session. He also deferred the Work Group and Charge for an Assessment of Jail Alternative Programs to the June 18th BOCC Meeting. Chair Jacobs suggested staff should highlight the gaps and to come back to the Board, addressing the points the public made and why the board agrees or disagrees with these points. He said there were valid arguments made, and he could not decide on a direction at this point. He said this should come back on the 18th and he said the official schedule will be decided at agenda review. He said that this will not get the go ahead until September. Bob Marotto said the recommended amendment changes for animal recovery are part of the Animal Services recommended budget and he asked if these can be considered separately. Frank Clifton said there is a proposal in the budget where Carrboro has asked the County to absorb its animal control operations. He said some of these changes may be a result of that and the town of Carrboro will have to be dealt with in this process. Bob Marotto said that services can begin to be delivered in Carrboro on July 1 without the changes, but this will be done under 2 or 3 different ordinances until the single ordinance is established throughout the County. Commissioner Rich expressed concern about the number of items being deferred until the 18tH She asked if the financial parts will be separated out or if it can be done as one item. Frank Clifton said the financial aspects won't impact budget. Commissioner Gordon suggested this be deferred until fall. Chair Jacobs summarized the plan. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to defer consideration of this item until fall, when staff is asked to come back with a digested form highlighting changes to the ordinance, addressing points made by the public and why the work group agrees or disagrees with these points. Commissioner Dorosin asked if this motion includes bringing back the recovery fees issue before the fall. Commissioner Gordon clarified that she would prefer to bring it all back in the fall, since the June 18th meeting may be too full. She said she would defer the decision about the animal recovery issue/fees to the agenda review team. VOTE: UNANIMOUS c. Refund Requests for Inaccurate Square Footage Calculation The Board was to consider five taxpayers' refund requests for the years 2008 through 2012. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to defer this item to the June 18th BOCC meeting. VOTE: UNANIMOUS d. Work Group and Charge for an Assessment of Jail Alternative Programs The Board was to consider the creation of a Work Group and Charge for the Assessment of Jail Alternative Programs. DEFERRED 8. Reports NONE 9. County Manager's Report Chair Jacobs had asked Frank Clifton to reaffirm with towns on a solid waste inter-local agreement. Frank Clifton said right now the towns are waiting for an analysis of their current services studies. He said that both are taking waste to a private transfer station in Durham County. He said the Town of Chapel Hill is still analyzing pursuit of its own transfer station and the possible inclusion of Carrboro in this. He said Hillsborough is still just as close to Durham. He said the towns are still interested in a construction and debris landfill, and there is continued discussion of Chapel Hill having its own recycling program. He said that all of this means there is no ongoing effort for a solid waste agreement until the towns have sorted through these considerations. Commissioner Rich asked if this means the County is not considering an inter-local agreement. Frank Clifton said there have been some preliminary staff discussions. He said the primary issue is what an agreement would entail and recycling is the main topic. He said much of this depends on what direction the County decides to take. Commissioner Rich encouraged everyone to keep those conversations going and keep a positive tone to encourage a partnership. Frank Clifton said one thing that has been discussed is the legal authority to operate within the Chapel Hill section of Durham County. He said this requires Chapel Hill to include a provision in its budget ordinance to allow the County to levy a fee and collect for the services within the town's authority. He noted that while the County can come up with a comprehensive countywide cost, each individual town has a different cost to consider. 10. County Attorney's Report John Roberts said he has suggested to town attorneys that support of a resolution would remedy the situation in the Durham County portion and the Orange County portions. He said this would remedy the need for a solid waste service district in the town areas. He said the legislative committees continue to pump out bills, and it does not appear that things will be finished two weeks from now. He said that his legislative update will likely come to the Board during summer break. Commissioner Dorosin asked if there was any feedback from the towns on the proposal about solid waste. John Roberts said he made the proposal months ago. He said the towns felt there was no authority and it is still being considered. Commissioner Dorosin noted that the court of appeals overruled the Chapel Hill cell phone case. He said there is some interesting language on local government authority and he would love a summary of this. John Roberts said it seems to be limited to police power and the Court of Appeals didn't address the cell phone ordinance. He said the court essentially said that the plaintiff was not in any imminent jeopardy of being penalized under the cell phone rule, thus it was overturned. The court did say that Chapel Hill did have the power to enforce towing regulations. Commissioner Rich questioned if this might be a victory in many ways. John Roberts said that general consensus on the attorney list serve was that this towing ordinance was a bad decision, but there was no discussion of the cell phone issue. 11. Appointments a. Orange County Board of Adjustment— New Appointments The Board considered making new appointments to the Orange County Board of Adjustment. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to appoint Karen Barrows to the #5, At-Large position on the Orange County Board of Adjustment, with a term expiration of 6/30/2015. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner McKee to appoint Samantha Cabe to the # 6 position (Alternate) with a term expiration of 6/30/2015. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint Jeff Schmidt to # 3, At-Large Position, with a term expiration of 6/30/2016. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Dorosin) b. Orange County Planning Board —Appointments The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Planning Board. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin to nominate Brendan Madigan to the #8 At-Large position on Orange County Planning Board, with a term expiration date of 3/31/2016. No second. Motion fails. A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to nominate Randy Marshall to the #8 At- Large position on Orange County Planning Board, with a term expiration date of 3/31/2016. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to nominate Paul Guthrie to the #8 At- Large position on Orange County Planning Board, with a term expiration date of 3/31/2016. A vote was taken on appointing Paul Guthrie to position #8. VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Price, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Chair Jacobs and Commissioner Dorosin) A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint James Lea to the Cedar Grove Position (#1) on the Orange County Planning Board with a term expiration date of 3/31/2016. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to appoint Stephanie O'Rourke to the Eno Township Position (#6) on the Orange County Planning Board with an expiration date of 3/31/2016. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to appoint Dr. Herman Staats to a first full term to Position #10 ( At-Large) with a term expiration date of 3/31/2016. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Commissioner Rich said she had a good experience at the legislative building on Monday. Commissioner Pelissier echoed Commissioner Rich's comments. Commissioner McKee — none Commissioner Dorosin said he was at the Animal Services Open House on Saturday and it was a great event with lots of community and a record number of adoptions. Commissioner Price echoed Commissioner Rich's comments. She said on Saturday she went to the Northern Orange Education Task Force/Sankofa Awards banquet and encouraged them to continue their studies. She also went to the Durham Tech graduation, which was a moving experience. Commissioner Gordon reminded everyone about the Farm to Fork Picnic, happening on June 9th from 4-7pm in Hurdle Mills. Chair Jacobs said a number of Board of County Commissioners attended the Employee Appreciation/Wellness event for employees, which was very nice and well attended. He reported that he spoke to a legislator who said that the State House is not inclined to close the Orange Correctional Center. 13. Information Items • May 21, 2013 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • UNC/Orange County Landfill Gas Project Summary • BOCC Chair Letter Responding to Petitions during May 7, 2013 Regular Meeting 14. Closed Session DEFERRED 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin seconded by Commissioner McKee to adjourn the meeting at 11:19. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna S. Baker, CMC Clerk to the Board