Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05-14-2013 APPROVED 9/17/2013 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS BUDGET WORK SESSION May 14, 2013 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Work Session on Thursday, May 14, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, 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: 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) 1. Review of Draft Orange County Public Library Strategic Plan 2013-2016 Lucinda Munger said the purpose tonight is for the Board to receive a presentation on the Library's strategic plan by Dr. Anthony Chow, who is with UNC-Greensboro and is also the state library consultant. She said that, following the presentation, the Board's suggestions will be incorporated into the plan that is due to the State Library. Executive Summary Funded by the North Carolina State Library, Dr. Anthony Chow, a state library consultant, helped conduct a community needs analysis (CNA) for the Orange County Public Library (OCPL) over a three month period from September to November 2012. This was followed up by a comprehensive four month strategic planning process that took place from January to April 2013. Approximately 500 community members participated in the initial community needs analysis (involving interviews of community leaders (n=11), community forums (n=4), two staff focus groups, and online and hard copy survey responses (gathered both inside the library and outside in the community). Another 300 members participated in nine community focus groups, and hard copy and online surveys focused on community input into the strategic plan. A video presentation was shown. Dr. Anthony Chow said Phase I was the Community Needs Assessment. He said the group took samplings, both random and community-wide. He said the methods included: interviews, focus groups, hard copies of survey and on-line surveys. Presentation- questions asked: • How do you use the library? • What is a 21St Century library? • Why are libraries important? Dr. Anthony Chow said Phase II began after the first of the year, and this phase responded to needs that were identified, and worked on aligning community goals with organizational goals. The process included: internal organizational workgroups, community interviews, focus groups and surveys. The sampling size was about 800 (500 for the community assessment and 300 for the strategic plan). Community Needs: • Books and other printed and non-print materials • Children's programming • Information Technology access • A place to meet and to be • Education and self-enlightenment Strategic goals: • Organizational excellence • Technology literacy and access • Resources and Programming • Seamless Library Services • Building Community Connections Data Analytics: • Goals • Performance Metrics • Continuous Improvements • Orange County Public Library Dashboard The library's primary strengths are its staff and existing high quality resources and services, as well as strong county and community support. Its main opportunities for improvement involve: continuing to work towards seamless library services with municipalities such as Chapel Hill, increasing outreach and partnership activities with fellow city and county agencies and other community organizations; continuing to offer relevant programming and services; and seeking to reach out to underserved populations. Based on the results of this study, the following six priority areas were recommended for consideration as strategic goals and objectives for the Orange County Library system: 1) Develop a countywide seamless library services integration plan. 2) Identify a list of prioritized and aligned library and information services by library demographic profile. 3) Develop a technology integration plan. 4) Develop a comprehensive marketing and outreach plan, emphasizing partnerships and community collaboration. 5) Prioritize funding to strengthen its core suite of services. 6) Prioritize high quality organizational communication, training and culture. Dr. Anthony Chow said the last part of the process will be data analytics. This will be a metric to measure success. He said that this involves identifying goals and performance measures. He said that this will allow an establishment of the current situation and will allow for continuous improvement. He showed an example of the Orange County Public Library dashboard. He noted that the eight libraries involved in this pilot study have dashboards created for them. Lucinda Munger said more work will be done this summer to develop more tactics to support this plan. Chair Jacobs noted that tonight's meeting site was switched in order for Carrboro Aldermen to attend, but the Aldermen have their own meeting tonight. Lucinda Munger said she did send the plan to the Board of Alderman, as well as the Hillsborough Town Council, and she asked for comments from both. Commissioner Price referred to page 30 regarding the community needs assessment. She questioned how Orange County is described, and she said that there are African and Native American residents in the county. She would like to see this diversity reflected in the plan. She referred to the demographics regarding location and access and said she did not notice anything about family income being taken into consideration. Dr. Anthony Chow said there is a family income demographic sort further on in the report, but this was not collected regionally during the process. Commissioner McKee asked if any of the information gathered in the focus groups was surprising or unique to Orange County. Dr. Anthony Chow answered no. He said that the five broad categories listed came up repeatedly, especially the request for books. He said the rural community always has issues with access across the state. Commissioner McKee said he still likes books, and he is glad to hear others feel that way too. He said that access is a key for everyone, whether urban or rural. Dr. Anthony Chow said there is a lot of feedback on internet access and transportation. Commissioner Rich said, with two different library systems in the county (municipal and county), she thought that there was supposed to be some sort of inter-local agreement in place by 2016. Lucinda Munger said the interoperability agreement is moving forward in small steps. She said this is part of the 21St century library concept. Commissioner Rich asked Dr. Anthony Chow if he had dealt with this before. Dr. Anthony Chow said the state is more interested in the county-wide perspective. He said he thinks that libraries are a source of community pride and county and municipal conflict is common across communities. He said that he feels that integration is the way of the future. Commissioner Gordon asked what will be included in the final report. Dr. Anthony Chow said it will be a more thorough version of what was presented tonight in the draft plan. He said that the community needs analysis was very comprehensive and will be the appendix of the final report. He said that there needs to be a deeper analysis of the trends in the focus groups, as well as an overall summary of the project and a final chapter on data analytics. Commissioner Gordon asked why he didn't know what the metrics would be by now. Dr. Anthony Chow said 2/3 of the metrics were identified already by the state, and the last 1/3 was left to develop as part of the process. He said the community needs assessment is going to help with this last part. Once the goals were identified, then the metrics could be developed to measure the progress toward those goals. Commissioner Gordon asked if the grant was for the community needs assessment. Dr. Anthony Chow said the grant is for the strategic plan. Commissioner Gordon said, speaking from a research perspective, this is not what she expected. Commissioner Dorosin asked when there will be specific action items to implement these objectives, rather than just a "zoomed out" view of information. Lucinda Munger said staff is working on this, and the goal was to get the Board of County Commissioners feedback tonight. She said that the next step will be to refine the actions and procedures to support the goals. She said the staff will be working with the Manager's office, HR, IT and finance to define in concrete terms what can be done. She said this will be part of the final plan that will be brought back in the fall. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the plan is for the Board of County Commissioners to sign off on this draft, and then in 6-8 months staff will come back with the final plan. Luncinda Munger answered yes. Commissioner Pelissier asked if this had been reviewed by the Town of Chapel Hill. Lucinda Munger said no. She said that there is no Orange County library location in Chapel Hill. She said that Chapel Hill is a separate municipal library. She said that Chapel Hill may have interest in this, but it is not for them to approve or comment on at this time. She said that Carrboro and Hillsborough did get a copy, because there are County libraries in these towns. Commissioner Pelissier questioned why this is the choice if the County wants to build toward collaboration and seamless service. She said it is not so much about approval, but it is a responsibility to plan for all libraries in the county. She asked if this should not at least be shared with Chapel Hill. Dr. Anthony Chow said he agreed, and he said it would be a wise thing to do. Commissioner Pelissier if there are resources to help in gaining information on best practices so that the County does not have to re-invent the wheel. Lucinda Munger said yes, this has been looked at with other libraries in other counties. She said these can findings can and must be tailored to meet the needs of Orange County. Dr. Anthony Chow said there are now companies that are creating demographics information that can allow a macro perspective. Commissioner Price said she uses the library a lot. She asked if children in the interviews felt that the library was an extension of school, or if the children are just coming for fun. Lucinda Munger said both are true. She said the library is an extension of school and a place to do homework. However, she said it is also a place for Lego club and other fun activities. Commissioner Price and Chair Jacobs asked about the letter from Carrboro regarding additional library sites. Lucinda Munger said the last time staff met with the Board of Aldermen, the board mentioned that they would like to submit more library sites for consideration by Orange County. The letter mentioned a preference for a particular site. She said staff will review this over the summer and do analysis on these 4 additional sites. She said these results will be brought back next fall and the decision will be transmitted back to Carrboro. Chair Jacobs said he was not clear in listening to responses to the Commissioners' questions as to what the timeframe is for the final report. He said this is a foundation, but the Board has to make decisions during the budget process for the following fiscal year. He asked when the staff will need further direction. Lucinda Munger said the hope is for this to be brought back in late September or early October 2013 to begin the implementation. Chair Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Pelissier about sharing this draft with the Town of Chapel Hill. He said that Chapel Hill residents do fund the Orange County Libraries and therefore have a stake in this. He said the Board will be meeting with Chapel Hill in November. He said that it would be ideal for the town to be able to see and digest this report, as library services will be part of that discussion. Chair Jacobs asked what happened to the library services task force and if the Board should strike this from the books if there is no place for it in the planning process. Lucinda Munger said the members of the 2007 task force were part of the leadership survey on the plan through individual conversations. She said that, because the plan is due in this form to the state library by June 28th, 2013, feedback is needed from the Board of County Commissioners tonight. She said staff will continue to reach out to the community, though it may not be a formal work group. She said that this plan needs to be reviewed annually in order to be viable. She said she hopes to involve citizens on a broader scale, while seeking out some of the leaders of that task force. Chair Jacobs asked that this information be included when the final recommendation is brought back. Commissioner McKee said that when this comes back in the fall, staff needs to address the parking issue, including the availability of free parking. Lucinda Munger said this was brought up at a prior work session, and the Board of Alderman is aware that this is an issue for the library and downtown in general. She said that there is a town owned property that may be converted into a parking area. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to see a more formal detailed statement of how the needs assessment relates to the goals and objectives, as well as the metrics. Dr. Anthony Chow described what a 21 st century library will look like. He said that core services that have been identified show little change, but the means by which these are met are changing. He said there is more choice, and technology is value-added, but not a replacement. He noted that patrons still express a desire for both books and e-books. He said the trend shows that urban libraries are becoming a mixed use space and a social place. He said there is more versatility and diversity of services. 2. Assessment of Jail Alternative Programs Michael Talbert reviewed the following background information from the abstract: In October 2012, the NC Council of State authorized issuance of a 50 year land lease to Orange County for approximately 6.8 acres for construction of a Jail facility. The proposed new Jail is included in the County's FY 2013-18 CIP, with an estimated total project cost of $30,250,000. A consultant has been retained to evaluate the site and determine the best configuration of the potential site, along with any constraints (environmental/regulatory for example) that might impact the development. Site related planning costs have been included in the CIP at $250,000 for FY 2013-14. Construction cost estimates from firms in the business of building detention facilities range from $80,000 to $120,000 per bed. The new jail is intended to house a minimum of 250 prisoners and provide support spaces needed for such a facility. Site design costs are planned for FY 2015-16, and Architectural/Engineering costs are included in FY 2016-17, with construction costs in FY 2017-18. The proposed new Jail project involves the review of jail alternative programs, individual program effectiveness and impact on the inmate population of the Orange County Jail. At the Board's August 30, 2012 work session, District Court Judge Joseph M. Buckner presented an overview of Court Programs to the Board. Attachment A is the PowerPoint presented by Judge Buckner that outlines Court Programs. The County requested and has received a proposal from Solutions for Local Government, Inc., to assess Jail Alternative Programs in Orange County. Before planning for a new jail begins, a comprehensive assessment of jail alternative programs needs to be completed. Solutions for Local Government, Inc. has experience evaluating alternatives to incarceration related programs and assessing the impact on jail population. Attachment B outlines a proposed scope of services to evaluate current alternatives to incarceration programs. Michael Talbert said that Steve Allan, consultant from Solutions for Local Government, intends to track and retrieve data and program information for three years. He will interview key players, including district court judges, senior superior court judges, district attorneys, public defenders and others. Michael Talbert hopes the end result will be a comprehensive report that outlines the services provided, as well as the impact in the community and in the jail population. Michael Talbert said that the purpose for tonight is discussion and feedback. He said that if the Board chooses to proceed in this direction, Steve Allan can begin during the summer and will have results back by October. Frank Clifton said this is an important step in maximizing alternatives to jail space, and to begin the process of jail planning and design. He said Steve Allan has been involved in jail planning and other studies of this nature; so his input will be valuable in adjusting plans prior to bringing on an architectural design team. Commissioner Pelissier asked if there will be any consideration of other programs that currently do not exist but are allowable under current legislation. Steve Allan said this will typically come up as he goes through the process. He said that different terminology is used by different areas. He gave examples, such as house arrest and anklet use, as well as work release. He said this will be looked at, and he offered to add a bullet of additional programs to be suggested. He feels that the current programs are likely sufficient for the current jail population. . Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are places, such as School of Government, that might have ideas for program enhancement. She would like to fully explore all possibilities to reduce incarceration. Steve Allan said the jail population will dictate what can be done in any given place. He said there is a point where only a certain number of people can be released. He said he will include a section in his report to identify any new ideas that might be given. Commissioner Dorosin said he is looking at the scope of services and he questions the need for an outside consultant. He believes the assessment phase would be collecting data that is routinely collected now by staff. He asked why this data cannot be used and said this is a concern for him. He said another concern is how this report is going to affect the County building a new jail. He said these program alternatives are good, but he does not see the connection. Frank Clifton said the issues are that many people involved in this proposal are state elected employees with individual perspectives on how things should be done; however in almost every case the county has to assume responsibility for the expense. He said that when you tie that with the County's responsibility of providing jail space, and the consideration of a changing environment, it is problematic. He said there are elements of information from the court staff that are not in agreement with the County staff perspective, and there is need for an outside opinion. He said that there are 100 counties in the state and many different approaches. Frank Clifton said the numbers for the jail are based on a general total population estimate that allows for growth. He said one element could be a phase development for the jail that involves the addition of pods over time to increase size as needed. He said that there must be some space, other than the pods, incorporated in the initial phase for programming and activities. Frank Clifton said there are a large number of different elements, and the County staff members are not experts on the criminal justice system. He said it is best to have a broader view and to have someone like Steve Allan with experience in this area. Commissioner Dorosin said that part of this description will have Steve Allan talking to the same people Frank Clifton refers to as not being experts. Commissioner Dorosin said he does not want another study like the library study plan that was just seen. He wants to see some direct correlation in the results of the report and how the jail will be designed. He said if this is the case he would like this to be laid out more clearly in the prospectus. Frank Clifton said the issue is that jails aren't built that often and $30m is a substantial investment. He said that he can't tell the Board that the study will save them a dollar in the future; but he can say that this report will give a basis for the design of the jail to incorporate savings over the life of the facility. Michael Talbert said a lot of court information is kept, but this does not tell how effectively the programs are working. He said that this is part of what the consultant will look at. He said that this is a starting point; and moving forward the plan will be refined, and numbers may change. He said the reality is that there is overcrowding on a daily basis in the current jail and this cannot continue. He said that expanding or making renovations to the existing jail is not an option. He said this is a good site and a good starting point. Chair Jacobs said when this topic first came up, he suggested a group modeled after the Emergency Services work group. He said this group had both stakeholders and County Commissioners involved. He feels that the explicit purpose should be to address whether the County needs the proposed jail capacity. He said the sheriff takes as many federal prisoners as possible to help defray the cost of his budget. He said that if there are not as many federal prisoners being taken, or if the federal policies change and fewer prisoners come, then the facility will have been vastly overbuilt. Chair Jacobs would like a more interactive discussion among professionals, rather than one consultant talking to everyone, similar to the Emergency Services work group. Chair Jacobs discussed a meeting that included a speaker who was a sheriff from Colorado. The speaker reduced his jail population using alternative sentencing and diversion programs with community support. Steve Allan said that the interactive work group is listed as item 6 on the scope of services. Chair Jacobs said this does not specify who will be the participating stakeholders; this only lists who will be interviewed. Michael Talbert said if the Board would like to follow the model of Emergency Services then a work group will need to be appointed now. Then the process will begin now, and the consultant will be used only after the group decides what should be looked at. He said this is strictly a Commissioner call. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to reinforce what Commissioner Dorosin said. She said that the specific deliverables don't seem to match up with the overall purpose of the study. She said that the overall purpose of the study is to look at how this will affect the new jail discussion. She reviewed the deliverables and said that what is missing are the performance measures. She said that there should be a specific assessment or measure of the models and how they relate. She said there needs to be a re-working of the prospectus to show how it meets the questions set out, and it needs to show the performance measures. Commissioner Pelissier said the primary goal is to look at how each programs can minimize the number of jail beds. She said this is the primary outcome measure. Commissioner Pelissier said she attended a conference in Buncombe County, where the jail has in-house drug case management. She said this saves money by preventing future arrests. She said this proves it is not just about jail diversion programs but also what can be done during incarceration to prevent future arrests. She said that mental health services are also key in keeping inmates from multiple incarcerations. She said that she realizes the state is the primary party responsible for funding of mental health services, and there have been several cutbacks. She questioned if there are other things that can be done to address this. Steve Allan said this is now an added to-do list. He said of the three major jail systems, federal has the lowest population with mental illness, followed by state. Local county jails have the highest population of mental illness. He said that there are many dictates from the federal level, yet the local level is dealing with the results of the state mental health cutbacks. Steve Allen said that the professionals working in these programs know what works and what doesn't. He said that he is happy to partner with a work group and facilitate the discussion of what works, what doesn't, and why. He said there is a difference in what sounds good and what works, and you don't know until you dig in and find out the facts. He said there are a lot of pre-release mental health programs and the results do tend to be better. Steve Allen said this is a comprehensive process and there will be a lot of discussion. He said he will be happy to discuss with staff where bullet points are to be added. He said the Board of County Commissioners has brought up more than what he had discussed with staff, but he is happy to help. Chair Jacobs said this is a Board of County Commissioners decision on the shape of the study. Commissioner McKee said that with the stakeholders and staff upholding and defending their perceptions of the County needs as part of the Emergency Services work group, it would have been a circular discussion without the direction of Steve Allan. He said that the discussion would not have progressed to the point that it did. He feels this issue will have positions that people hold strongly due to individual viewpoints and perceptions based on differing jobs in the justice system. He said the Emergency Services work group was a board driven decision. He said that as the scope of services expands, the cost will also expand. Commissioner Rich said she is interested in how the Board of County Commissioners views this work group and who is involved. She is unclear on who is involved and who the stakeholders would be. Commissioner Price asked, if the Board decides to proceed with more alternative programs, how will these will be funded. Chair Jacobs said you need to look at what the alternatives are and then you look at the costs, both socially and financially. Commissioner Price said she feels that the measurement of the social cost, and what is done for society, is very important. Frank Clifton said his thoughts would be that a couple of Board of County Commissioners would be involved in these proposed meetings as part of the process. He said that the included list only has the outsiders who will be involved. He said within their resources available to fund these programs, the County needs to look at which programs will get the most impact or "bang for their buck". Chair Jacobs said there are three things to add: 1. Clarity on what the deliverables are; 2. Clearer articulation on how to minimize the number of jail beds; and 3. Clear articulation regarding who the stakeholders are. He suggested this be brought back to the board for final approval; then the stakeholders can assess whether the scope is sufficient or if there is need to analyze more programs. He said stakeholders can then check in with the Board before doing the work group process with Steve Allan. He said the group could also propose, along with Steve Allan, a clear timeframe, and a clear set of goals to present to the public. He suggested a clear timeline should be established so this process does not go on too long. He noted that providing clarity in the process will help with buy-in from the community. Commissioner Gordon said she would like to see a revised proposal that makes the scope clear. Frank Clifton suggested that the Board may want to think about which Commissioners would like to be a part of the work group. 3. Agricultural Support Enterprises Perdita Holtz presented the following PowerPoint slides: Agricultural Support Enterprises (ASE) BOCC work session May 14, 2013 History • A work-in-progress since 2001 • On several BOCC agendas through the years • Two Components: — New conditional zoning district — ASE Manual • Changes in State Statutes in 2011 — Further defined a "bona fide farm" — Some enterprises that may have formerly required zoning permits may now be exempt from zoning regulations Bona Fide Farms — Regulations Other than Zoning May Still Apply • Environmental Health — Well permits and septic permits — Food service permits • Building Permits — Buildings open to the general public ■ Equine exemption • Some provisions of UDO that are not adopted as "zoning" — Stormwater and erosion control — Impervious surface limits Agriculture Defined • § 106-581.1 1. The cultivation of soil for production and harvesting of crops, including but not limited to fruits, vegetables, sod, flowers and ornamental plants. 2. The planting and production of trees and timber. 3. Dairying and the raising, management, care, and training of livestock, including horses, bees, poultry, and other animals for individual and public use, consumption, and marketing. 4. Aquaculture as defined in G.S. 106-758. 5. The operation, management, conservation, improvement, and maintenance of a farm and the structures and buildings on the farm, including building and structure repair, replacement, expansion, and construction incident to the farming operation. 6. When performed on the farm, "agriculture", "agricultural", and "farming" also include the marketing and selling of agricultural products, agri-tourism, the storage and use of materials for agricultural purposes, packing, treating, processing, sorting, storage, and other activities performed to add value to crops, livestock, and agricultural items produced on the farm, and similar activities incident to the operation of a farm. Previous ASE Effort • Previous ASE effort had 3 tiers of use intensity • Due to changes in statutes most of the "Tier 1" and some of the "Tier 2" uses are now considered exempt from zoning regulations (if being done on a bona fide farm) • Conditional zoning districts were necessary in order to implement the proposed program — `New' UDO has conditional zoning districts and more can be added • Previous effort proposed to change the County's normal public hearing process for re- zonings to the new conditional zoning district — Public hearing could be held on any BOCC regular agenda, not just at the quarterly public hearings — Recommendation from APB (Agricultural Preservation Board) and EDC (now Economic Development Advisory Board) in addition to Planning Board recommendation. • Unclear on how a public hearing would function since current process is a joint BOCC/Planning Board hearing • Rural Buffer was removed from consideration until joint planning partners could be more involved — Memo sent in 2007 by former County Manager Zoning Methods • Existing AS District (general use district) — 36.57 acres in 8 distinct areas containing approximately 20 parcels. • Existing Conditional Use method • New Conditional Zoning District • New Overlay District BOCC Direction/Input 1. Verification the BOCC wants staff to work on a comprehensive ASE project — Some of the previous work is still valid but will need to be re-worked into the new UDO — Draft ASE Manual will also need to be largely rewritten 2. Should staff pursue coordinating with joint planning partners to potentially have ASE program apply in the Rural Buffer? 3. Any Land Use categories where ASE uses should not be encouraged? 4. Direction on zoning method(s) to be brought forward. Also, should the normal rezoning process be changed for ASE projects? 5. Direction on whether staff should begin working on revising home occupation regulations or methods to reinvigorate rural activity nodes. 6. Other issues BOCC may wish to address as part of ASE Commissioner Rich asked for clarification on the General Use Districts. Perdita Holtz said that there is a list of uses in the permitted use table, allowed in each zoning use district and if a property is zoned to a General Use Districts, any of those uses can occur. There is no limit on the number. Commissioner Rich asked how one changes to a General Use District. Perdita Holtz said this is done through a re-zoning application. Perdita Holtz reviewed the re-zoning process of the new conditional zoning district and the new overlay district. She said ASE hopes to have this manual at the February 2014 Quarterly Public Hearing. Chair Jacobs said this process has been going on since 2001, and the Board would like to finally move forward; however it is alot for the new Commissioners to take in. He said the Board members should not feel compelled to give direction on all items tonight, and perhaps some items will need to be re-visited if further discussion is needed. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification regarding the existing conditional use method. Perdita Holtz said that "conditional use" and "conditional zoning" districts are distinct from each other. Commissioner Gordon asked about the previous wording of"existing" and "new" conditional use districts. Perdita Holtz said it would be a new conditional use district to address agricultural support enterprises. She said that none of the existing conditional zoning districts relate to agriculture. Commissioner Gordon pointed out some slight differences on the "BOCC Direction and Input" in the packet and the PowerPoint. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on a list in the material from the agricultural board in their packet. She asked if the agricultural board wanted clarification on these items or if these were simply focus points. Perdita Holtz said she was not clear about the purpose of the list, other than a desire for input from staff. She said the matrix was put together to show that many of the concerns are not from a zoning standpoint, but that permits are still needed from environmental health or other county departments. Commissioner Gordon noted that it sounds as if this was just a request for clarification on these specific items. Craig Benedict said he attended the Agricultural Preservation Board meeting. He thinks this list is for clarification and differentiation between economic development issues, environmental health issues, building issues, and trade issues. He said this wasn't a complete list, but it was a list of unknowns. Commissioner Gordon said this is complex, and the Board should not assume there is surety about all of the directions and issues. She noted that the proposed uses go from lower to higher impact. She said there are uses that can go on large farms or lots such as Maple View Farms. She said the controversy comes in when these more commercial uses are placed near residential areas. She feels this has not been captured in the past. She said that in those places that are suburban, like the rural buffer, the best idea is to start small, as these areas can be fairly residential. Commissioner Price said the intent of this was to help the farmers and respect the rural heritage. She said few farmers can make a living solely through farming. She said the purpose was to make it easier for farmers to sell their products and to create co-ops. She said she has concerns about the 180 day limit; restroom requirements for road side stands; and trying to limit activities in a rural areas. She said there is a need to differentiate on some of the terms, and some of these things need to be allowed without going through conditional and special use processes. Chair Jacobs said her concerns are more about the onerous nature of the ways in which the proposals are being outlined. He asked which of the six questions in the PowerPoint does this fit into. Commissioner Dorosin referred to Commissioner Gordon's point regarding restriction of uses based on size and asked if these aren't already decided by statutes that exempt a bona fide farm from zoning. Perdita Holtz said Commissioner Gordon was referring to previous concerns, like a meat packing facility. She said these could serve a wide community and would not be a bona fide farm, as it is not just one farm using animals it has raised. She said it is under the purview of zoning to say that there are minimum acreage requirements or standards for a use like that. She said that, in the case of a conditional zoning district, the BOCC can always deny an application based on incompatibility with the area. Commissioner Dorosin asked for a clear explanation of how a conditional zoning district works. Perdita Holtz said ASE would have to set up the permitted uses in a table in the new conditional zoning district. This would be adopted in a text amendment and standards could also be adopted if needed for certain uses. Commissioner Dorosin discussed an example situation regarding district x with permitted and conditional uses. Perdita Holtz said this would be called a conditional zoning district, with a re-zoning application to the conditional zoning district- specifying the specific desired uses. If approved, only those uses would be permitted. Commissioner Dorosin said to assume he has set up the district and it has 10 uses. He asked what now has to be done if he wants to do enact of those uses. Perdita Holtz said he has to re-zone his property as the conditional zoning district is set up in the UDO as a potential district that can be asked for. She said property cannot be re- zoned unilaterally in a conditional zoning or use district. Commissioner Dorosin asked why this is better than a zoning plan where the same use is a conditional use. Perdita Holtz said she assumes he is talking about Chapel Hill or Carrboro's conditional use process, which requires a special use permit. She said that the County has that process as well; it is called a conditional use process, but there are also conditional zoning districts that do not require a special use permit. These just have a re-zoning that the County, with agreement from the applicant, can attach conditions to. She said this means there is not an extra permit involved. Commissioner Dorosin said is there a re-zoning involved. Craig Benedict said the conditional use has a quasi-judicial, SUP process, which is a more extended process. He said you can have all the same conditions; however with conditional use method, you will go through 15 pages of material. He said with conditional zoning the end is the same but without the quasi judicial process. Craig Benedict said staff is looking for some direction tonight, and then an amendment outline text will be brought back. He said no decisions are to be made tonight Commissioner Dorosin said he feels there are three interested parties — landowners, surrounding landowners, and the county. He is not sure how that the pros and cons are the same for these three parties. He said he would like a better sense of the staff opinions on the pros and cons for each of these parties. Chair Jacobs suggested that, before the Board of County Commissioners is asked to make a choice, a presentation could be given regarding the SAP for the Orange County Speedway. Commissioner McKee said the whole purpose for the ASE is to increase the bottom line for farms. He is not impressed by the complexity of this proposal, and he is not supportive of this because of the complexity. He said the intent is to get the farmer closer to his customer. He said that by taking the rural buffer out, a huge section of Orange County has been eliminated. He said that the term "appropriate areas" is a code word for "not in my backyard." He said a lot of these facilities can be designed not to be obtrusive to the neighbors. Commissioner Pelissier said the Board cannot give direction tonight on the zoning methods. She would like to take the special use permit off the table. She said this should not be made so expensive if the goal is to support agricultural enterprise. She clarified that the zoning will only apply for enterprises that are not on a bona fide farm. She said the goal is to assist farmers with their land but also to promote small businesses that support these farmers. She would like comments to come back to the Board on what can be done to address some of the issues on the grid. Commissioner Pelissier referred to the questions about revising home occupations. She said there also needs to be a discussion about the arts and culture communities. She said she has heard from a number of people regarding the restrictions, and many counties are less restrictive in their zoning regulations. She said there should be a focus on promoting appropriate scalable businesses in the entire rural area. Commissioner Rich said it would be helpful to see an example of a zoning project. It is more complicated than confusing. She is not convinced that the County needs to have certain businesses in the rural buffer. She would like to know what their partners think about the rural buffer, since there has been no conversation since the 2007 discussion. Commissioner Rich said she agrees with Commissioner Pelissier that there needs to be some consideration of the arts and cultural communities. Commissioner Gordon said she is not talking about bona fide farms. She said it would make sense that if farmers are given a chance to do things that people generally have a consensus about, things will probably move further. She feels that trying for more intensive uses will only make things more complicated. She said she would start with lower impact uses; and if there is a desire to do something in the rural buffer then it is important to talk with their partners. She feels that the conversation should stick with Agricultural Support Enterprises only, rather than opening up everything related to the rural buffer. Commissioner Price said she feels strongly about#1, to ask staff to work on a comprehensive project and get it done. She said the focus should be to make things as easy as possible for people trying to farm. She said there needs to be some conversation with partners on the rural buffer. She said that thresholds, scales and intensities should be looked at. She said she remembers that there was a desire not to have meat slaughtering plants. She said the zoning method choices are too overwhelming. Commissioner Price said this discussion should stick with just farming for now, rather than enlarge the issue to include arts. She said that that issue won't sit within the ASE. Chair Jacobs said he agreed that more work should be done on #1 to make it more of an enabling process. He said it would be best to take out the most intensive uses. He said that the origin of this conversation was Maple View Farms, which technically was not allowed to be where it was built. He gave the history of the store and the process of building and permits in that case. He said it was a struggle to get it off the ground, and now it is a landmark operation. Chair Jacobs said that, for#2, he feels there should be a look at rural buffer; but a conversation should be had with the partners at AOG before moving forward. Chair Jacobs said he is not ready to address #4 until more information is gained. Chair Jacobs said, regarding which categories should not be encouraged, his only thought is the water quality critical areas. He said he has no problem with including the arts. He said, regarding other issues, there have been discussions about differentiating impacts in and to rural areas and urban areas. He gave the example of a proposed Montessori school. Chair Jacobs said it would be a good idea to find a place to engage the Agricultural Preservation Board in this discussion. Commissioner Price said her only concern is that the home occupation is under a different category and she said she doesn't want it to go away. Commissioner Gordon said it is important to let their partners know that that the rural buffer is being worked on. Chair Jacobs suggested a letter be sent to each mayor to let them know this is an effort the Board is attempting to bring to fruition. The idea would be to try and bring it to the AOG meeting to get their responses. Chair Jacobs said it is a good idea to engage the Agricultural preservation board and to run by them the matrix of the most intensive uses Commissioner Prices suggested another look at the tiers. Chair Jacobs suggested staff work on this and then send notification to Hillsborough. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on the tiers. Perdita Holtz said this is embedded in the matrix and tier 3 is the most intensive. Chair Jacobs said the Board will get back the ASE draft manual in the longer term, and in the shorter term will define the proposals for the rural buffer to be presented to AOG. Chair Jacobs said this could come back in September. He asked for a more detailed explanation of the conditional zoning, including examples. Commissioner McKee said that the Board needs to think about the fact that any of these enterprises that are successful will be fairly intrusive and expansive, by nature. He said he does not disagree but he feels that the Board needs to be prepared for how to deal with opposition to this. 4. Follow Up Discussion from January 29, 2013 Work Session on Board Protocols/Advisory Board Procedures Decision Points for BOCC: 1. Follow up to Petition by BOCC Member: Review and consider a request that the Board moves forward with establishing a new and thorough application/process for prospective appointees for boards with fiduciary or specific statutory responsibilities (OWASA, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, E&R Board, ABC Board). Background: The response to this petition from the Chair/Vice Chair at agenda review was: Response: A) The Board will move forward with establishing a new, specific, and thorough application process for prospective appointees to four boards: OWASA, Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, E&R Board. Chair Jacobs suggested including ABC Board, as we had previously discussed vetting applicants for boards with fiduciary responsibilities. Consult County Attorney on proposed verbiage for applications for the aforementioned advisory boards; B) Consider whether to return to matter of interviewing, reviewing, and promoting specific board applicants at a future work session, to be scheduled. The Attorney had asked for feedback from Board members as to questions and concerns they would like addressed in a revised application but as of yet, he has not received any feedback. Discussion: Donna Baker said the Attorney did not get feedback on what the Board would want to see in a revised application. Chair Jacobs said that if anyone would like to volunteer to help with the process and the form, to please step forward. Commissioner McKee and Donna Baker noted that the Board of Adjustments has been deferred, and the Planning Board also has openings. He suggested that these appointments be made with the idea that changes are to be made to the application process. Commissioner Rich asked if the idea was to change the form or to include an interview of the candidates. Donna Baker said the form was revised in the past couple of years. She said, for these five boards, the suggestion was to have a separate application or add a section to the existing application. Commissioner Rich said that an interview process would allow for specific questions that could change as years go on, to address current issues. She said she is not as interested in changing the application as she is in getting Board members involved in an interview process. Commissioner Pelissier said she had made the petition. She does not have an idea of specific questions, but she is happy to work with the clerk on this. She feels that the current applications don't give enough information to make a decision for these particular boards. Commissioner Gordon said that the basic application could be kept and a supplemental section could be added that is tailored to each specific board. She is also willing to work to get this going. She feels this could be a quick process and could potentially be worked into the appointment process for the Planning Board. She feels the Board should not adjourn and leave those boards hanging over the break. Commissioner Price asked if these positions are currently interviewed for, and Chair Jacobs said no. Commissioner Dorosin said he feels that the Board should re-visit the purpose of this item. He is hesitant to do anything to make it harder to get on these boards. He does not feel that residents should have to have experience. He feels that if the process is made more complicated, people will be turned off, and there will be a more homogeneous group of volunteers. He said there are already applications that have been waiting for a year; and if there are vacancies, and there are applicants, then the spots should be filled. He clarified with Donna Baker that the only current requirements are that applicants live in the County and pay taxes. Commissioner Dorosin reviewed the current appointment process and said he feels there is some tension with the boards as to how this works. He said there should be a spreadsheet of information on all the applicants along with the number of vacancies that need to be filled. Commissioner Pelissier said it sounds like Commissioner Dorosin is talking about advisory boards in-general, and she is talking about a few very specific boards. Each of these boards has a level of responsibility that advisory boards do not have. She said the vetting process is to ensure that the people can carry forth the responsibility. Commissioner Dorosin said he is talking about all of the boards. He asked what kind of additional information is needed, and what makes a candidate qualified to be on the OWASA Board. Commissioner Pelissier said there have been people who, according to other OWASA Board members, have not been able to carry out their duties, and this has been a problem. Commissioner Price asked for clarification on the responsibilities of the OWASA Board. Commissioner Pelissier said that OWASA sets policies and budgets and has a lot of the same responsibilities as the BOCC but only as it regards water and sewer. Commissioner McKee said he thinks there should be more information on the application, though he is not sure he supports an interview process. He thinks that it is important that applicants and appointees not be picked to align with a certain ideology. Commissioner Rich said that both Carrboro and Chapel Hill interview candidates for OWASA. She does not know why Orange County would not do the same. Commissioner McKee said he is not opposed to an interview process as long as personal ideology is not involved in the decision making process. Commissioner Price said she can see a slightly different process for these particular boards. She said that perhaps this can simply be an extra set of specific questions, along with a commitment that applicants will attend the meetings. She questioned whether the BOCC should be the only one to interview and bring forward the candidates. Chair Jacobs said that there has been discussion on broadening the memberships of the advisory boards. He said there are not enough young people or students. He said he feels that the idea of lowering barriers is an important one. He said there are cases, such as the Nursing Home Advisory Board, where there is specific expertise required to do a focused job. He said that for some of these boards, vetting is important. He said he has always been of the opinion that if there are openings and there are applicants, the position should be filled; however this has backfired on several occasions. Donna Baker said that if the process is lengthy, it will often happen that the candidate is no longer interested or available by the time the Board gets back to them. She said that efforts are made to contact the candidates prior to a decision to check availability. She said that all of the information on the forms comes straight from a database. Chair Jacobs gave an example of a conflict of interest case with an advisory board candidate. He said he sees the value in bringing in candidates to interview. He said that his only concern with vetting is that personal agendas will be pushed. He said that if all of the questions can be agreed on, then he is ok with it. Chair Jacobs does think the issue of cliques is a problem, but his is unsure how to address them. Commissioner Price said she agreed with Commissioner Dorosin. She feels that if a candidate is willing to serve and is willing to attend the meetings there should not be an interview process requirement. Commissioner Dorosin re-iterated his opposition to interviews. Commissioner Pelissier said she is not sold on having to do interviews. Commissioner Price suggested a phone interview. Commissioner Gordon recommended a specific supplemental set of questions for each board. Commissioner Rich said she feels it is important for some of these boards to get to know the candidates better. Commissioner Dorosin said he is opposed to the idea of phone calls, unless phone calls are made to every single person with the same set of questions. Decision Point: • Does the Board want to move forward with a revised application for these particular boards mentioned above, and if so, can the board provide feedback/questions to the County Attorney in order to move the process forward? Does the Board want to stay with the current process? After discussion, the Board proposed adding supplemental questions to the existing volunteer application, for these 5 Boards:ABC Board, OWASA, E&R Board, Planning and Board of Adjustment. The Clerk will work with Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner Gordon over the summer break to compile this supplemental information and to distribute to all BOCC members for review. The Board gave direction to the Clerk to put up relevant board appointments for any of these 5 boards that were being held in abeyance until this meeting. 2. Process for Commissioners to "vet" Board Appointments-for certain boards with fiduciary or statutory responsibilities, such as the ABC Board, OWASA, E&R Board, Planning and Board of Adjustment. Decision Point: • Does the Board want to develop a process for Commissioners to vet board appointments to these particular boards (and others as applicable)? • Are there criteria to be applied or a process for vetting appointments (such as interviews, questions on a revised application, committee review, etc.)? Or will the application process suggested in Item #1 cover this item? The Board decided that Item #1 was sufficient (no vetting necessary) 3. How should Commissioners participate, if at all, in the nominating and selection process of prospective applicants to their advisory boards? Background: Currently, most boards with the exception of the Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, OWASA, E&R Board and ABC Board usually make recommendations for new members since many boards go through a process of engaging prospective members before making recommendations: inviting applicants to meetings, sessions to let individuals ask questions, and letting staff orient potential new members to time commitments of a particular board, by-laws, goals, etc. Decision Point: • Does the Board want to proceed with a process for allowing Commissioners to participate in the nominating process and selection process of prospective applicants to its advisory boards? • If so, what criteria are to be applied? • Does the board want to retain its current process for appointing members to its advisory boards? Tabled 4. Does the Board want to establish a procedure whereby Orange County appointees/representatives to outside boards (such as the Chapel Hill Planning Board, etc.) communicate back to the Board on a regular basis? Background: Currently there is not a process in place for Orange County representatives to such bodies as town advisory boards to report back to the Board. Decision Points: • Does the Board want to formalize a process for this type of communication to occur? • Are there any criteria to be applied? (Report in writing annually, attend BOCC retreat to report verbally, etc.) Tabled 5. Letters from the Chair of the BOCC representing the position of the entire board. Decision Points: • The Board agreed that, unless extraordinary circumstances arise, any letter from the Board Chair representing the position of the entire board will be circulated a day prior to transmittal to allow for comment from interested Commissioners, within a timeframe. Concerns and comments may be shared with the Chair for possible incorporation into the letter. The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 pm. Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board