Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10-01-2013 APROVED 12/10/2013 MINUTES BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS REGULAR MEETING October 1, 2013 7:00 p.m. The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, October 1, 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, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Interim County Manager Michael Talbert, Assistant County Managers Clarence Grier, Cheryl Young 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 Chair Jacobs noted that Commissioner Pelissier would be arriving late. Chair Jacobs reviewed the following items at the Commissioner's places: • Two hand outs from individuals speaking on Veterans' affairs • White-PowerPoint for item 7a, Unified Animal Control Ordinance PUBLIC CHARGE The Chair dispensed with the reading of the public charge. 2. Public Comments a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda Jesse Torres is an Orange County resident and a member of the military order of the Purple Heart, Chapter 637. He reviewed the history of the Purple Heart. He indicated the hand out at the Commissioner's places, which is a proposed proclamation to have Orange County designated as a Purple Heart county. He noted that the back side of the sheet lists all the counties that have already gone through this process. Marshall Morris is here on behalf of Jesse Torres. He noted the handout at the Commissioner's places from the Veteran's Administration, indicating that there are 7000 veterans in Orange County who receive compensation. He said this equals $26 million per year in compensation and pensions given to wounded veterans. He said this information is to support Jesse Torres' request. Don O'Leary said he agreed with most of the Board's decisions, with the exception of the topic of ICLEI. He said the government has shut down the wrong departments, and all three branches of the government should have been shut down. 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 NONE 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations a. Resolution Recognizing Senator Ellie Kinnaird for Service to Orange County The Board considered a resolution recognizing Ellie Kinnaird for her years of service to the people of Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign. Chair Jacobs read the following proclamation ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING NORTH CAROLINA SENATOR ELLIE KINNAIRD WHEREAS, Eleanor "Ellie" Kinnaird was elected to the North Carolina State Senate by the voters of the 23 d District, which includes Orange County, for nine (9) terms from 1997 to 2013; and, WHEREAS, Ellie Kinnaird was elected as the mayor for the Town of Carrboro from 1987 to 1996; and, WHEREAS, her time in office represents 26 years as an elected public servant; and, WHEREAS, Ellie Kinnaird has demonstrated commitment to protecting and strengthening the institution of state government through her perseverance and statesmanship; and, WHEREAS, Ellie Kinnaird has been a persistent advocate for the rights of the underprivileged, a dedicated protector of the environment, a champion of social justice, a resolute opponent of the death penalty, and a supporter of fulfilling employment and quality public education; and, WHEREAS, Ellie Kinnaird has gone about her public duties with an unflagging spirit, a willingness to attend diverse community events that reflect and support the values of Orange County, and a devotion to principle regardless of obstacles or opposition; and, WHEREAS, during her years in the Senate, Ellie Kinnaird served as Chair of the Appropriations Committee on Justice and Public Safety, as Chair of the Mental Health and Youth Services Committee, as Vice-Chair of the Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee, and also served on the Senate committees for Finance, State and Local Government, and Health Care; and, WHEREAS, during her years of service, she has been recognized by a multitude of organizations including the North Carolina National Association for the Mentally III, the National Coalition Against the Death Penalty, the North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers, the Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention Coalition of North Carolina and the North Carolina Central University School of Law; NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby recognize Senator Ellie Kinnaird for her progressive leadership and commitment to the sanctity of the political process in the North Carolina Senate while representing residents of Orange County. This, the first day of October 2013. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Price to adopt the resolution recognizing Ellie Kinnaird for her years of service to the people of Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Ellie Kinnaird said she never expected to work in government. She said Orange County is unique, and its values are such a part of the leadership of our state. She appreciated being able to serve the residents of Orange County. b. Arts & Humanities Month —2013 Piedmont Laureate John Claude Bemis The Board was introduced to and heard a brief selection from Hillsborough resident and children's book author, educator and presenter John Claude Bemis, the 2013 Piedmont Laureate. Martha Shannon introduced John Claude Bemis. She noted that this is the 5th year of this program, co-sponsored by the Orange County Arts Commission, the City of Raleigh Arts Commission, the Durham Arts Council, the United Arts Council of Raleigh and Wake County, and the Alamance Arts Council. She said throughout this year Mr. Bemis has brought together people to celebrate the art of writing. John Claude Bemis said he has lived in Orange County for over 20 years, but he grew up in eastern N.C., in Dawson's Creek. He read a brief selection of some of his writing. C. Orange County Disability Employment Awareness Month Proclamation The Board considered a proclamation declaring October 2013 as Disability Employment Awareness Month in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign. Deana Jones represents North Carolina Vocation and Rehabilitation. She thanked the Board for this proclamation. Commissioner Gordon read the proclamation: ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ORANGE COUNTY DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT AWARENESS MONTH PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, October is National Disability Employment Awareness Month; and, WHEREAS, persons with disabilities have skills, talents, and dreams, and with respect and acceptance, individuals with disabilities — mental or physical — can participate in society and the work force to their fullest capacity; and, WHEREAS, workplaces welcoming of the talents of all people, including people with disabilities, are a critical part of Orange County efforts to build an inclusive community and strong economy; and, WHEREAS, through the use of assistive technology, people with disabilities can gain equal access to employment; and, WHEREAS, Orange County recognizes that persons with disabilities are a resource we cannot afford to overlook or not use to their highest potential; NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Orange County Board of Commissioners does hereby recognize the month of October 2013 as DISABILITY EMPLOYMENT AWARENESS MONTH in Orange County and calls upon employers, schools and other community organizations to become more aware of the needs, capabilities and hopes of people with disabilities. This, the 1St day of October 2013. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve a proclamation declaring October 2013 as Disability Employment Awareness Month in Orange County and authorize the Chair to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 5. Consent Agenda • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda -NONE • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the items on the consent agenda. 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 thirty-three (33) taxpayers with a total of thirty-seven (37) 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 ten (10) taxpayers with a total of twenty-six (26) bills that will result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381. d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion The Board approved ten (10) untimely applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for thirteen (13) bills for the 2013 tax year. e. Approval of a New Public Health Preparedness Coordinator Position The Board approved a new Public Health Preparedness Coordinator position (1.0 FTE) in Orange County as a shared position between Emergency Services (.50 FTE) and the Health Department (.50 FTE). f. Memorandum of Agreement with the Town of Hillsborough for the Hillsborough Circulator Transit Service The Board approved an amended Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Town of Hillsborough and Orange County for the Hillsborough Circulator bus service and authorized the Interim County Manager to sign. g. Request for Road Addition to the State Maintained Secondary Road System The Board approved making a recommendation to the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) concerning a petition to add a subdivision road in Mallory Place Subdivision (Casey Lane) to the State Maintained Secondary Road System. h. Appointment of Review Committee for the County Logo The Board approved the appointment of a Review Committee for the County logo. 6. Public Hearings a. North Carolina Department of Transportation, Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP) Grant Application for FY 2013/2014 The Board conducted a public hearing for the NCDOT Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP) grant and considered approving the annual FY 2013/2014 ROAP grant application and certified statement and authorizing the Chair and Interim County Manager to sign. Craig Benedict spoke on behalf of Al Terry, who was out on sick leave. He said this application was estimated at $200,000 during the budget process, and it involves three separate funds, as outlined in the abstract. He reviewed the background section of the abstract, including the following FY 2013-2014 ROAP Individual program totals: Elderly/Disabled Transportation Assistance Program $80,561 Employment Program $34,980 Rural General Public Program $92,624 TOTAL $208,165 Craig Benedict said the purpose of the public hearing is to solicit comments from the general public regarding the program or the need for services. Commissioner Gordon said she did ask clarifying questions about this via email, and she requested that her email to be entered into the record as follows: From: Alice Gordon [mailto:gordon.alice(a-)-gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 30, 2013 10:24 AM To: Barry Jacobs; Bernadette Pelissier; Earl McKee; gordon.alice(a-)-gmail.com; Alice Gordon; Mark Dorosin; Penny Rich; Renee Price; Donna Baker; Frank Clifton; Greg Wilder; Michael Talbert; Cheryl Young Subject: Questions/ comments on Oct. 1, 2013 agenda Questions/ comments on Oct. 1, 2013 agenda 6a - ROAP grant application My understanding from the abstract is that the $92,624 in RGP funds will be used for the Hillsborough-Chapel Hill route and for the Hillsborough circulator route. How much will be allocated to each of these routes? Are there any other general public routes that will receive these funds? The abstract refers to the "development of the Hillsborough to Chapel Hill public route, no longer funded through Triangle Transit....." Please clarify what this means. My understanding was that Triangle Transit did fund the morning and evening service on this route, but that OPT funded the mid-day service. How are these services funded now? Staff Response: Although not clearly stated in the abstract, to clarify, Triangle Transit still funds the morning and evening service for the Hillsborough to Chapel Hill route; however, the RGP funds the County receives are partially used to support the midday service for that route. RGP funds are not used at all for the Hillsborough Circulator bus service. The Hillsborough Circulator route is financially supported exclusively through a Federal CMAQ grant and the Town of Hillsborough's matching contribution. Other uses of RGP funds by OPT in the county include: 1) Rural general public demand response trips; 2) Demand response medical trips for the disabled who do not qualify for the Elderly/Disabled Transportation Assistance Program (EDTAP); and 3) Two fixed routes designed to transport persons with disabilities for employment trips that are also open to the general public on a seat-available basis. Commissioner Dorosin asked if this is a competitive grant and if there is an expected amount to be received. Craig Benedict said the County can reasonably expect over $200,000. He said this is not too competitive, since OPT is the only rural entity providing transportation in this area. He said there is legislation out there that may make this more competitive in the future. Commissioner Price asked about the $3.00 per trip co-pay, and questioned whether Craig Benedict is aware of the percentage of residents that are unable to pay that amount. Craig said he does not know a percentage. He said that OPT allows free companion trips for residents taking a trip for medical reasons. He said over 116,000 one way passenger trips are served per year. He said this isn't a source of revenue for the program; it simply covers the segment of the population that is not elderly or being covered by Medicare costs. He said this cost is being analyzed to see if there are any other support mechanisms to reduce the amount. Commissioner Price noted that the cost is $3 for one way, and she asked if many people use the service only for one way. Craig Benedict said it varies, and it is not 100 percent two way trips. Chair Jacobs said maybe this can be analyzed when there is more staff support available, to see if Orange County can help out more financially. PUBLIC COMMENT: Marshall Morris said, being a disabled veteran, he was unaware of this mode of transportation. He asked if there is a schedule posted for this transportation entity so he can share it with other veterans, especially amputees. He asked if the transportation is handicap and wheelchair accessible. Craig Benedict said there is information available. He said he would provide phone numbers for door to door service with handicap accessibility. He said there is a circulator route and a 420 bus to take people down to UNC Hospitals. He said information is available on the website, through the Planning and Inspections Department and Orange Public Transportation. A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner McKee to close the public hearing. VOTE: UNANIMOUS A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner McKee to approve the annual FY 2013/2014 ROAP grant application and certified statement and authorize the Chair and Interim County Manager to sign. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 7. Regular Agenda a. Unified Animal Control Ordinance The Board considered approving revisions to the current Orange County Animal Control Ordinance to make it a Unified Animal Control Ordinance. Chair Jacobs said he has asked staff to track some of the language changes that are made as this goes along. He said if a good stopping point cannot be reached tonight, this will be moved to the next meeting. He noted that there are some grammatical and typographical mistakes to be corrected. Commissioner Pelissier arrived at 7:44 pm. Bob Marotto reviewed the following PowerPoint slides: Unified Animal Control Ordinance October 1, 2013 presentation Background • Orange County's Animal Control ordinance has not been updated since it was created in 1987 • Orange County Animal Services (OCAS) was created as a department in 2004/2005 — part of the BOCC timeline included updating the ordinance — ordinance has yet to be updated to reflect the changes involved in the county integrating sheltering and animal control operations Municipalities • Historically, Animal Control provided service to the unincorporated parts of the County — Hillsborough has received service from the county since the 1987 ordinance's adoption — Chapel Hill contracted with Animal Protection Society prior to OCAS creation (2004) — Carrboro had separate Animal Control officer until 2013 (on-call provided previously by OCAS) — Mebane continues to provide its own Animal Control services (despite overtures from OCAS) Reasons to Unify • To create a coherent and integrated ordinance for Orange County as a whole — The municipalities that receive animal control services each have different ordinances — Ordinances are confusing to public, staff and judiciary process • To provide necessary & overdue updates — Reflect consolidation of sheltering and animal control operations in OCAS • To fill critical gaps — Years of judicial process have identified important gaps within each of the ordinances — Hampers department's ability to protect the public and animals of the county Staff Attorney Annette Moore, presented the following slides: Summary of Recommendations • Updating ordinance to reflect OCAS department creation • Keeping & displaying of wild animals • Creating an appeal process for administrative orders and civil citations • Designating only animal control staff as cruelty investigators • Creating authority for assuring humane treatment of animals and humane euthanasia • Adding differentiation of public nuisances created by cats • Establishing authority sufficient to effectively regulate potentially dangerous dogs Summary of Public Concerns • Livestock as nuisance animals — § 4-45. (b) (6) added: "at large off the premises of the owner or Keeper, exce t in the case of domestic livestock the Animal Services Director shall have the discretion to determine a violation" [pg 23, strikethrough version of recommended ordinance • Dangerous vs. Vicious — Existing county ordinance includes vicious animals — Any added language comes from Chapel Hill and Carrboro ordinances • No appeal process for vicious dog declaration — Existing ordinance has no appeal process, but proposed unified ordinance does contain an appeal process for vicious dog declarations, as well as other administrative orders • Dual declaration appeals — Existing ordinance has no appeal process for vicious dog declarations. Proposed ordinance allows the appeal of both declarations to be considered in a single appeal hearing. • That proposed ordinance makes it responsibility of owner to prove intruder came onto property with criminal intent — § 4-42. (e) (4) deleted: "Committing a willful trespass or other tort as provided in N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 14, Article 226" [pg. 18 in strikethrough version of recommended ordinance] — Language now similar to that found in state statute and Carrboro ordinance — Summary of Public Concerns cont. • Watchdog definition — Existing language in current ordinance: § 4-37. "A dog that barks and threatens to bite any intruder that has not been specially trained or conditioned for that purpose." [pg 8 in strikethrough version of recommended ordinance] — Barking and threatening to bite on owner's property does not qualify the dog as potentially dangerous or vicious- hence the definition is meaningless. Once a dog bites, it no longer meets requirements of watchdog — This language was removed from proposed ordinance • The distinction between rural and urban has been removed — Where significant differences occur between the municipal and county ordinances, they will be retained in the municipal code of ordinances • Examples: tethering, crowing roosters, livestock, chicken coops • none of these examples are included in the unified ordinance Chair Jacobs acknowledged Susan Elmore's work on the ASAB and with this process. Susan Elmore, ASAB Chair, DVM presented the following slides: Summary of Public Concerns cont. • No School of Government involvement and no public input — Susan Elmore, ASAB Chair, DVM ASAB and Public Process • ASAB Chair spoke with Associate Professor Aimee Wall, UNC School of Government • ASAB & Agricultural Preservation Board officers, along with senior staff of Animal Services and DEAPR, met to discuss livestock concerns with ordinance • ASAB Chair also spoke with a local farmer on matters related to at-large livestock and other issues that might affect county farmers • ASAB considered the ordinance 3 times prior to June 4th BOCC meeting — ASAB is comprised of Orange County residents who have been appointed by the BOCC to review such issues — One meeting dedicated to vicious/dangerous dog declarations and residents were invited to speak and their concerns were heard • Since June 4th BOCC meeting, ASAB met again to discuss ordinance and they unanimously recommended BOCC adoption • The ASAB 2014 work plan will include a review of targeted items on the unified ordinance Bob Marotto reviewed the following slide: What the Unified Ordinance Is • A unification of the existing ordinances that — fills gaps — makes it possible to efficiently protect the public and carry out services — avoids existing confusion within department, public and court system • A fluid document that still allows for differences between municipalities and county where needed Annette Moore said there needs to be a due process for administrative orders and civil citations. She said the designation of cruelty investigators will be helpful in instances of large scale seizures. She said there needs to be a balance of sheltering and keeping these animals as well. Chair Jacobs said the Board has requested attachment 3, pages 20-21 at agenda review, and it was useful information. She said additional language has been added with regard to dangerous and vicious dogs, and this language was taken from Chapel Hill and Carrboro's ordinances. She said language has also been added to designate repeat offenders, which expands the authority to restrict this dog to the property. She said there is also a new requirement to micro-chip repeat offenders, in order to prove their identity. Annette Moore reviewed the slides regarding public concerns. She reviewed background regarding livestock as nuisance and said the new language captures the concern over whether the Animal Services Director has discretion in these situations. She reviewed the background and reasons for further definition of the term "trespasser." She said the new language clarifies willful trespass. Susan Elmore said Amy Wall agreed that it was a good idea to unify first with minimal but critical changes. She said discussions about the livestock concerns were productive. She said no one wants a farmer to be cited for livestock that is off their property for reasons beyond their control. She said the hope is that this new language will suffice. She said the Agricultural Preservation Board will meet later this month to discuss this further. Bob Marotto said he feels that a framework has been created that will allow for some differences within the unincorporated areas of the county and the towns. Commissioner McKee asked about the appeals process, as listed on page 49 of the packet, section 4. He asked if this is assumed to be after the Animal Services Director has had a chance to review. Bob Marotto said yes. Chair Jacobs asked if this designates 5 business days or 5 calendar days. Annette Moore said it is 5 calendar days. Commissioner Price asked about the appeals process and who would be involved in this process. She feels this would be more of a quasi-judicial action, similar to the Board of Adjustment. She said the people on these boards are specifically chosen. She asked if the people doing appeals would need to have certain qualifications. She said this seems to tread into legal matters. Annette Moore said the ASAB does currently provide a quasi-judicial function, and all members have received annual training. She said she and Bob Marotto provide the training regarding the law and the consideration of dangerous dog appeals. John Roberts said it is not unusual for an advisory board to also serve as a quasi- judicial body, or for a legislative board to also serve as quasi-judicial body. He said there is not usually extra training, but there is legal counsel available. Bob Marotto said his experience with the ASAB in other locales is that these boards hear dangerous dog appeals and are obligated to act within the law with the provision of evidence. Commissioner Price asked if there is a rigid schedule of issues in making decisions. Annette Moore said this is done now. Susan Elmore said she has served on the appeals board for many years, and the law is followed very rigidly. She said statements are heard from both parties, and all documents are read. She said this is taken very seriously and it has been 100% fair in her experience. Bob Marotto said the board does have findings of fact that are the basis for a final determination. He said, in the case of a hearing, the elements are conducted and a document is completed, signed by the board and given to both parties. He said these are quasi-judicial hearings that are mandated by state law. He said the Board of County Commissioners has given this authority to the ASAB. He said there is an option to appeal to the Superior Court as a second step in the appeal process. Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 445, regarding the at-large language. He said one issue with the language is the broad discretion it offers. He noted that Susan Elmore used more specific language — "domestic livestock at large, through no fault of the owner." He said this specificity is needed to make things more clear. Commissioner Pelissier said some of the concerns of the public relate to the watchdog issue. She asked if cases have occurred where the owner ends up with a dog labeled vicious when the owner did not know that the dog would bite, because this not a normal behavior for the animal. Bob Marotto said there may be a known propensity of the owner that the dog will bite or it may be a trait that has not been seen yet. He said there may be a trigger that sets off the behavior, such as chasing a bike. He said the number of bites is large and the reasons are varied. Commissioner Pelissier asked for clarification on the legal definitions for what would be considered provocation. Annette Moore said a definition for provocation is included on page 29 of the packet, and this is a new definition that did not exist before. Bob Marotto gave an example of a child who was bitten after going into a house with a dog who had not previously bitten. Commissioner Gordon asked if people who testify are sworn in when the ASAB hears appeals. She asked if all cases can be appealed to the Superior Court. Bob Marotto said that the NC general statue provides the right to an appeal process with the local government, and there is an opportunity for a second step appeal within ten days of that first decision Commissioner Gordon asked if this applies to all cases. Bob Marotto said yes. John Roberts said this would be the final administrative piece of the process, and for any final decision, there is the option to go to the courts after that. Commissioner Gordon asked if all testimony is sworn. Annette Moore said this is not currently in place, but it can be. Commissioner Gordon asked why this is not in place. John Roberts said it goes to the courts in the form of a de novo appeal; which means everything is repeated again, so there is no need for this first appeal to have sworn testimony. He said if the Board of County Commissioners wanted sworn testimony then that could be provided. Commissioner Rich asked why the watch dog definition is being taken out. She also asked for the definition of"specially trained and conditioned" and clarification on who is responsible for this training and conditioning. She said she is referring to the strikethrough on page 30, item c. Bob Marotto said this is a point of contrast with the preceding two types of security dogs, which are professionally trained attack dogs. He said this can be done in private training or police training for security or police dogs. He said this would be the kind of training for those first two other types, and not to the watch dog. He said, in addition to the training that would be professionally done to certify a dog as a sentry or patrol dog, there would be required registration for these types of dogs. He said the watch dog is neither conditioned, trained or registered in contrast to these two types. Commissioner Rich asked if a watchdog is considered to be a dog that bites, versus just a dog who barks. Annette Moore said this can include any dog that barks to keep an intruder out, which includes any dog. She said this makes the definition is meaningless. Commissioner Rich asked about a case where someone tries to enter her house and her dog bites the person in response. Annette Moore said once the dog bites it is not a watch dog, according to the definition. Commissioner Rich said she disagrees with this. Commissioner McKee said if the term watch dog is generic and meaningless, then why not leave it in. He disagreed with taking it out. Annette Moore said this term makes the reader think that there are greater or fewer rights given. She said that any dog that barks or threatens to bite an intruder on personal property is a watchdog. She said there is nothing wrong with a dog that barks or threatens to bite on your property; there is no legal issue with that. Commissioner Price said her fear is that if someone has a watch dog that is barking, and a person comes onto the property, and the dog bites this person, then the County can say this is a dangerous dog. Annette Moore said the board is looking at the terms in isolation. She said if an intruder comes on to property and the dog bites, under the ordinance this is not a vicious dog - it is a trespass. She said if an intruder innocently trespasses, and the watch dog barks or threatens them, that has no legal meaning. Commissioner Price asked if micro-chipped animals need to have rabies tags. Bob Marotto said this differs for dogs and cats. He said state law does not require cats to wear a rabies tag. He said the County does not require it as long as proof of vaccination can be provided. He said the statute does not allow this for dogs. He said the microchip only provides identification if a scanner is available. Commissioner Rich asked about input from municipalities, since there are no animal control officers in those towns. She asked who was contacted for input. Bob Marotto said the board spoke with the members of the Carrboro police department. He said the board spoke with Chapel Hill Police Chief Blue, as well as staff and the town attorney. He said it has been a holistic approach with the municipalities from the beginning. Commissioner Rich asked if the municipalities have seen this draft ordinance. Bob Marotto said the municipalities have seen it and are fully on board. He noted that it will still have to go back to the elected bodies for a vote. He said there has been an enormous amount of work from all of these entities. Commissioner Price said dog fighting is illegal in Orange County. She asked why the ordinance lists precautions rather than a statement that it is illegal. Bob Marotto said there was a case a few months ago, where the County had to ride with police on a drug warrant. He said there was information that there were 15 dogs involved with illegal dogfighting. He said there was no direct testimony available, but paraphernalia was found, and it was used to build a case. This is the reasoning for the precautions. Commissioner Price asked where the ordinance against dog fighting is located. Bob Marotto said the County resorts to state statutes for that. Chair Jacobs asked if there are fire standards for kennels. Bob Marotto said, for most kennels, there is a planning and zoning process. He said Animal Services has been responsible for the animal welfare and less for the building structure. PUBLIC COMMENT: Kris Bergstrand has been a Veterinarian for 33 years. She said she has experience in small animal practice, academia, pharmaceutical research and toxicology. She said she has been on the ASAB in the past, and during that period of time she heard many dangerous dog appeals. She said there was always a veterinarian on board, with ordinance in hand during the process. She said she was here to show support for this unified ordinance. She said there has been a tremendous amount of work and cooperation between the County and the towns. She found during the tethering ordinance-process, that residents on both sides criticized the board, and made wrongful assumptions. She gave the Commissioners a hand out regarding statistics about dog bites in rural versus urban areas. Ed Johnson said he is submitting public comment on behalf of Bob Epting, who was unable to attend. He submitted the following written statement from Bob Epting: FROM BOB EPTING: I have just received the materials you are being provided for your agenda item pertaining to revision of the animal control ordinances into a Unified Ordinance. While the original idea of consolidating the several Town and County ordinances into a Unified Ordinance was a good one, the revised drafts go far beyond the simple consolidation the Board envisioned and directed. We appeared and complained about this gross enlargement of authority, resulting in the elimination of citizens' rights under the existing laws,at your meeting before the summer break. Sadly,the draft "Unified"ordinance retains the features we complained about, and still exceeds your charge of simplification and consolidation. In particular, I note that the provision in the existing law permitting a person to keep a watchdog, and protecting the animal and its owner from vicious animal designation and legal liability, (if the animal bites a trespasser on the owner's property), has been deleted. Thus, the intruder is to be protected, while the owner is directed to lock up his dog for the rest of its life, all for doing what the owner expected to protect his family and property. Those who propose the "Unified"ordinance say they have retained the "sentry dog" designation, which requires the animal to be trained or conditioned (no definition, discretion of the AS Director, I suppose), and the property to be marked "No Trespassing." They argue this will make it easier to enforce the law. I have seen the way these squishy provisions, leaving discretion in the hands of AS Officers and the AS Director,are simply avenues for uneven treatment of citizens from one case to the next. In a case I was in last summer; defending a property owner whose dogs were declared vicious animals" because one of the two had bitten a trespasser who had crept up from the distant rural road through adjacent woods to the very steps of my client's home, we found that the AS Officer was not even aware of the watchdog provision in the existing ordinance, had no idea how his being an intruder affected the case, and had no interest in his having been arrested several times in Alamance County for criminal trespass, or how that affected the matter. WE DO NOT NEED MORE DISCRETION IN THE AS OFFICERS OR THEIR DIRECTOR. What we need is to have you act to preserve the citizen's right to keep a watchdog, especially in rural Orange County, a natural human right that has existed since before there were laws, and ought to continue to be recognized and defended by our elected officials. Please do not vote to remove the present watchdog category, as the "Unified" ordinance proposes to do. Secondly, please be sure that the appeals Board,to which a citizen may appeal arbitrary, baseless, or otherwise patently incorrect decisions that affect their animals, their homes and their purses, is an independent appeals Board. The "Unified" ordinance requires that appeals be heard by the Animal Services Board. In my opinion, the appeal ought to go to a judicial authority, and I believe the "Unified" ordinance is unconstitutional because the right to appeal agency decisions to judicial review is fundamental to the principle of due process. But at least make the appeal's first step to a body consisting of a majority of citizens not directly associated with the AS Board. Finally,there are many places in the proposed "Unified" ordinance where sentences are incomplete or nonsense words or phrases remain, even after our pointing them out previously. Couldn't we at least expect that their product would have been edited so as to be in a form you might adopt, rather than still needing the assistance of outside editors? Bob Epting Ed Johnson read his own statement, as follows: I am glad that Animal Control has listened to both the Board and to us citizens who have made complaints and offered suggestions. My appearance last time was prompted by my dog's being declared "vicious" for biting someone. After I pointed out that my dog was acting as a watchdog and had bitten a trespasser, the declaration was rescinded. In the June draft of the unified ordinance, Animal Control deleted the category of watchdog and watered down the idea of a trespass. Under the new ordinance, my dog would be nailed as "vicious." You told Animal Control to come back with a new draft that makes no new laws. Animal Control has now presented you with a new draft that presumably makes no substantive changes from what already exists. Presumably, substantive changes will be added later. On page 2 of the Agenda Abstract, Animal Control says that rather than presenting the ordinance for an up or down vote, the Board is given a "menu of choices" where they can say yea or nay on each of seven issues. This is a quote: For example, it is possible to adopt the ordinance while preserving watchdogs as a category of security dog." The "menu" is on page 14. It does not contain the promised watchdog issue. People in the country have dogs for two reasons: As pets and as guardians. I rely on my dog's bark to alert me that someone is approaching. This is part of her job. So I would like to see the category of watchdog retained. I'd even be willing to have her officially registered with Animal Control as a watchdog. In the new ordinance, my dog would be off the hook for biting a trespasser if my property had placards "noting the presence of such animal." What does this mean? What should the sign say? And in regards to placards, I'd like to say two things: 1. Do we really want to clutter the countryside with the thousands of signs necessary to protect dog owners from having their dog called vicious. And, 2, any competent lawyer will tell you that by posting a "beware of dog" sign, you are admitting that you regard your dog as dangerous and opening yourself up to legal liability. I could say a lot more with extra time but I want to close with an amazing example of why the draft ordinance needs more work. Take at look at the definition section on pages 69 and 70. Imagine you are bitten by a dog. Would you rather have an "injury" or a "severe injury?" In the definition section a severe injury entails broken bones and lacerations. But an iniury requires "immediate medical attention to prevent death." OTHER POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE 1. Why does Animal Control want to retain both categories, "vicious animal" and "dangerous dog??" The County's designation "vicious animal" is only slightly different from the State's designation of "dangerous dog. The double designation leads to cases such as I cited at the June BOCC meeting where a single event led to an animal's being called both "vicious" and "dangerous." This caused the dog's owner a lot of unnecessary grief and caused Animal Control to have to spend a whole lot of additional time on the case. 2. The proposed ordinance is filled with dozens of instances where the public is at the mercy of the judgment or discretion of an Animal Control officer or of the Animal Services Director. In my own case from last winter, my wife and I fell victim to this discretion issue when we opted to keep our dog at home for the required 10-day quarantine after she bit a trespasser. I had no argument with the quarantine. But I did have to leave the county for a short trip and asked if Animal Control could keep the dog overnight and then return her to my custody.They said yes but when I went to pick her up, they said no. After a heated discussion,they said yes again.Then they said no once more and finally after a face-to-face meeting said yes again.Five changes of mind is four too many. Certainly there must be some provision for experts to exercise professional judgment. But it would help the ordinance if some of these discretionary points were fleshed out so as to let the public know what to expect. 3. The designation of a dog as"vicious" is really serious. In essence it terminates any freedom the dog previously enjoyed. He must be kept inside the owner's house. When kept outside, it must be in a specially constructed pen built to Animal Control's specifications and inspected annually for which the owner must pay an inspection fee. When off the owner's property, the dog has to be on leash and wear a muzzle. When outside on its owner's property, it must be on a leash. It is crucial that the owner be provided an opportunity to appeal the designation to a quasi-judicial body that is independent of Animal Control. The current Advisory Board certainly has the expertise to serve as an appeal board but it is so intimately concerned with the inner workings of Animal Control and its Director (and other personnel) that it simply cannot qualify as an independent judicial body. END. Bonnie Hauser said it is hard to have an ordinance that satisfies both rural and urban areas. She said direction is needed to get this on sound footing. She said this is not the time to introduce changes or to increase the authority of Animal Services. She said this ordinance does not accurately reflect the public's concerns. She discussed several examples of this. She asked for a unified ordinance without changes and with assurance to the public that there would be a transparent public process to change any ordinance. She said an independent appeal process needs to be a priority. She said once an appeal process is in place, then the other issues can be discussed. Michelle Walker is the Vice Chair of the ASAB and is an attorney. She wanted to address the appeals' process. She said this is a critical due process need that is supported by state statutes for dangerous dogs. She said it is good to have the ASAB as the appeals' board, because it is made up of Orange County residents from different backgrounds. She said the board does not issue citations, so the people reviewing the decisions are not the same people who made the original charge. She said there is an established process that it is working. She said changes are sometimes necessary for operations and due process purposes. She said the background behind the watchdog and trespass involved consideration of a lot of scenarios. She said another way of describing this watchdog issue is to say that it creates an exception that swallows the rule, as it means any dog that bites anyone on its property could be considered a watchdog. She said the goal is to identify dogs that have bitten people without provocation. Don O'Leary said dogs have different personalities. He said micro-chipping of dogs has statistically been shown to cause cancer, and he encouraged people to try to avoid chipping of animals. Chair Jacobs said Don O'Leary brought this up last time and he asked him to send his citations to the county. Kris Bergstrand noted that the health services director oversees quarantine of animals, and not animal services. Chair Jacobs referred to page 3 and noted that unless all of the Board approves this ordinance, it will come back at the next meeting. He said it is not necessary to resolve all of the issues tonight. Commissioner Dorosin asked John Roberts for clarification on the approval process for this ordinance John Roberts said any ordinance that does not require a public hearing, is required to have a unanimous vote to pass on the first meeting. Otherwise, it must come back to the Board. Commissioner Dorosin asked if the ordinance could pass without unanimous vote at a subsequent meeting. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner McKee asked for clarification on Michelle Walker's comment regarding lack of a due process for appeals. Annette Moore said the state statute requires an appeal process for dangerous dogs; she said the current ordinance does not have an appeal process. Commissioner Price asked for clarification regarding the terminology of owner versus keeper. She asked why it is required that someone over 18 be the person responsible for caring for the animal. Bob Marotto said experience shows that there will be some people who are keepers, rather than designated owners. He said the keeper notion has some applications that can be helpful, such as in transfers of ownership. Annette Moore supported Bob Marotto's statement with past examples. John Roberts referred back to Commissioner Dorosin's earlier question. He said if the board votes on this tonight and it does not pass, it is defeated. However, if the Board votes tonight and it passes without a unanimous vote, then it will need to come back for a second reading, where it will only need a majority vote to pass. He said if this is sent back with further changes and no vote, the vote at the next meeting will still have to be unanimous. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the watch dog issue. He noted that under current ordinance, there is a blanket lack of liability for an owner if someone comes onto their land. He said the concern of dog owners is that this will be turned 180 degrees to imply a strict liability if the dog bites anyone. He said these are two extreme positions. He said the case of a break-in is clear, but the case of a neighbor's child is not so clear. He said he does not think the goal is to give land owners blanket liability, but to give language that allows for a case by case analysis. He is not in favor of this "blanket immunity." He said the purpose of the appeals process is to make case by case determinations. Commissioner Dorosin said if the appeals process is honed, it is reasonable that it be done with the ASAB. He said members of the public serve on this board and advice is available from legal counsel. He said if this quasi-judicial process is implemented, this is the place to do it. Chair Jacobs noted that time is limited and it seems that Commissioner Dorosin has brought up the issues that most Board members are concerned with -watch dog/trespassing and the appeals process with the ASAB. He asked if these items could be discussed in order. Commissioner Rich said she likes this idea. She agrees with Commissioner Dorosin on the watch dog issue. She would like an expanded definition of a watch dog. She said she is in the middle of the two extremes. She would like to find out what happens to that person in the middle- the owner with the dog that doesn't normally bite and then does bite. She said she would like to keep the ASAB as the appeals board. Commissioner Pelissier said she agrees with the other Commissioners' comments. She said taking out the watch dog definition will take out one of the extremes, as people will not be able to excuse any aggression because their dog is a "watchdog." She said people are upset that their dog may be deemed dangerous, when the only requirement is that residents put up signs or fence the dog. She said the ASAB will assess each case individually and will look at the whole situation. She asked that the board look at how many cases have come under the new ordinance and then assess how it is working with balancing people's right to have dogs. Commissioner McKee said the wording will be hard to define. He said security dogs are trained to attack. He said there are hundreds or thousands of dogs in the County that are kept for the purpose of increasing a feeling of security; however, only a small percentage of those dogs bite. He said the problem with taking out the definition of watch dog is that it only leaves the option for people to spend thousands of dollars and increase their liability by having a trained attack dog on their property. He said no dogs are allowed to run free, and these dogs will have to be contained. He said he agrees that a middle ground needs to be found, but he wants to keep the watch dog definition in there, with a way to define it. Commissioner McKee said Durham County has a different solution for appeals. He said their appeals board resides in the sheriff's office and is made up of three members of county staff and two members of the general public. He is in favor of an independent appeals board. He does not question any motives of the ASAB, but he feels that residents will be more comfortable if these two boards are separate. Commissioner Price echoed Commissioner McKee's comments. She said she would like to keep the watch dog definition and come up with better definition of trespassing. She said her concern about the appeals board is that the members should be vetted if their responsibilities are to be expanded. Commissioner Gordon said good points have been made regarding the two extremes related to the watch dog definition. She thinks this issue should be addressed. She feels the appeals process needs to be worked on, and there should be sworn testimony. She has not made up her mind yet about who should be the appeals board, but she does feel there should be work done on the definition of trespassing; Chair Jacobs said he originally thought there should be another step between ASAB and the courts, and he still thinks this is a possibility. He is comfortable with the ASAB hearing appeals at the current time. He said he is also amenable to another step. He said he is very uncomfortable with the issue of trespassing. He said there are very few innocent trespassing incidents in the rural areas. He said, in the case of a trespassing child, a parent should be in a position of supervision. He said there is a middle ground that needs to be found. He said there may not need to be a definition of a watchdog, but there needs to be definition of an animal that is on its property minding its own business when a human comes on to the property and is not minding their own business. He said things do not have to reach a point of going so quickly from a benign situation to a quasi-judicial situation. Commissioner Dorosin said the problem with the current definition of watch dog is that it encompasses every single dog that exists. He does not see a way to make a separate category. He thinks that the idea of some intermediate step before the vicious dog determination is a good one. He said all of the facts need to be looked at per case. He said there is an implicit invitation to be solicited unless there is a sign that says otherwise; and this is one reason why the appeals process is so important for providing a case by case analysis. Commissioner Pelissier said she feels the watch dog definition is useless. She asked the attorney if there could be a different definition of trespassing. John Roberts said the trespassing definition can be modified. He said the best idea is to modify it to refer to the criminal trespass statutes, as provided in NC General Statute 14, article 22b. He said there are two different trespass statutes provided in that article; one would cover someone who climbs over your fence, and the other would cover someone who comes onto or stays on your property after being told to leave. Commissioner Pelissier gave the example of someone being bitten by a dog when it was not a case of trespass. She asked if this dog is automatically declared vicious if it is not normally aggressive. She said this needs to be clearer. Bob Marotto said there is a review process, and all circumstances are reviewed to see if there is provocation. He said there are routine instances of this, and these are evaluated individually. Bob Marotto said the language regarding dangerous dogs is permissive and allows for decisions by qualified staff, based on the facts of evidence. Commissioner McKee said the general public identifies with the term watch dog. He noted that dogs are not supposed to run free in Orange County. He said this ordinance shifts responsibilities to the owner rather than to the person trespassing. Commissioner Gordon thanked all the individuals who drafted the ordinance and she recognized that it is a difficult task. She said there are certain basic aspects of the ordinance that need to be addressed before the Board can effectively consider it. She said some of these issues have already been discussed, and noted two specific issues, as follows: • Use of the word "injury" on page 28 and page 30 —The definitions of"injury" (page 28) and "severe injury" (page 30) need to be revised. • Lack of clarity in wording on page 42, section 4-43, regarding Impoundment. The paragraph beginning "Any animal found at large..." needs to be revised. Commissioner Gordon recommended that the Board ask ASAB and staff to look at the substantive issues. She said there are fundamental issues that need to be addressed, along with consideration of written comments from the Board of County Commissioners and the public. She suggested there should be no vote tonight, and that staff should bring the ordinance back for first reading, with the proposed revisions. Commissioner Gordon said she has one other issue. She questioned why there is a difference between dogs and other animals, and she referred to pages 45 and 47. Commissioner Gordon said staff needs to go through and deal with the internal inconsistencies in the ordinance, and then deal with the substantive issues. She said she has read through all of this, and she realizes that it is very difficult to merge three different ordinances. Chair Jacobs referred to page 49 and said the section on the appeals process should say "5 working days" rather than "five days." He referred to the language on page 42 regarding animals put to death. He said there should be language noting that the owner be notified to be made aware of what has happened. Chair Jacobs said he would rather not assume that the planning department has approved the fire standards of kennels and facilities. He would rather the Animal Services go back and find this information and bring it back to the Board. Chair Jacobs reviewed the following list: Main issues: • General comfort level of ASAB being part of appeals process — Is there need for an intermediate step? • Watch dog issue- Is it too extreme? Can the term be related to trespassing? • Term of trespassing —This needs to be addressed and clarified. • Dog bites — How are these regarded? Is there another mechanism of punishment to be considered for the owner, if not the animal? • Notes and suggestions — Board members and staff are directed to give hand written notes and suggestions to the board. Chair Jacobs suggested staff address the main sticking points, and bring this back in two weeks or however long it takes to satisfy the majority of the Board. Annette Moore referred to Commissioner Gordon's question about the definition section. She said a lot of these definitions come directly from state statutes, and efforts were being made to conform to these. She asked if this was a request to change that language. Chair Jacobs said if the statutes seem contradictory then that should be indicated, and there should be some clarifying language to bridge what makes sense and what the statutes say. Commissioner Gordon said some of the definitions used in the ordinance do not conform to established factors. She said some of these things are common sense issues, such as the idea that "injury" should be less severe than "severe injury." She said a key provision to the whole ordinance is the issue of injury, and this definition must be addressed. Commissioner Price said the definition of wild animals needs to be clarified. She said there also needs to be a limit for cold weather as it relates to animal cruelty. Commissioner Pelissier said she is concerned that the Board is not giving clear direction for the watch dog issue. Chair Jacobs said the Board is not clear on that point, and that is why there is a request for more clarity from the experts. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner McKee to table this item for staff/ASAB to have time to review proposed suggestions from the Board and provide responses to Board concerns. Commissioner Gordon asked John Roberts if this motion is acceptable. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner McKee suggested that Professor Wall from the School of Government might be made available to provide more direction. Commissioner Gordon asked how the Commissioners can provide additional written comments. Michael Talbert said any written comments should be sent to the Manager's office. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Orange County Volunteer Application-Proposed Revisions The Board considered proposed revisions to the Orange County Volunteer Application for boards and commissions. A committee including Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Pelissier and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker had been charged by the Board to bring back recommendations for Board consideration. Commissioner Pelissier said she petitioned the Board in the spring to bring this forth to add additional questions for particular boards. She said, for each of these five boards there were some suggested additions. She talked with some board members and Donna Baker did a survey of other boards and commissions. She noted that there was an additional question suggested, outside of the charge. She said this is included in the packet. Commissioner Gordon said Donna Baker provided examples from other governmental entities in the region and out of state. She said the main discussion should be regarding the additional questions for the selected boards. Commissioner Price had concerns about the questions. She asked for an explanation of the goal or purpose of these additional questions. She liked the four basic questions, but she said she does not understand the need for some of the others. She said the question regarding gender and ethnicity should be optional. She said the term "domicile" is a bit ambiguous. She asked if someone would be disqualified over the question of tax issues. Donna Baker noted that these were questions that were suggested by a past Board of County Commissioners. Chair Jacobs said the Board should try to keep the discussion limited to pages 2, 3, and 4. Commissioner Dorosin said he thinks the general question, regarding reasons for serving on the board, is a good one. He is not in favor of making it more difficult for people to get on these boards, and he feels that what the County currently uses is legitimate. He said he is not in favor of any additional questions. Commissioner McKee said he wants to see what people hope to accomplish on a board and what their view is of Orange County's direction. He said this discussion is not about all boards, but is only about the statutory and quasi-judicial boards. He wants to know something about the people appointed to these boards. Commissioner Rich said she likes some of the additional questions, such as the one for OWASA, since she is more familiar with this board. She said she wants to know that an applicant actually knows what OWASA does. She wants people appointed to the board to be people that really want to know about the board and the issues. She feels that more information is better. Chair Jacobs said the conflict of interest question should be on every board. He said this also gives another way of seeing if people understand the function of a board. Chair Jacobs suggested asking applicants to list their preferences for serving on boards. in order of priority Chair Jacobs said he does not want these questions to be too onerous. He suggested that comments be limited to 100 words or something brief, in order to encourage simplicity Commissioner Price said some of these questions are too involved. She was on the Board of Adjustment (BOA). She said it wasn't possible to get into the goals and priorities of the Board of County Commissioners. She would rather know someone's expertise. Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Price about the BOA. She said some of the questions are geared toward making sure the applicants know what kind of board they are getting on. Commissioner Dorosin said the conflict of interest question is too broad and has a legal connotation. He said it may not be productive or useful. He said the only criteria should be that applicants are residents who want to be involved and want to serve. Commissioner Rich asked if there is other wording that could be used for the conflict of interest question. Commissioner Dorosin said he does not think so. He said most people will gravitate to boards that are related to their expertise and interest. Donna Baker said the Code of Ethics includes a conflict of interest clause, and this may be duplication. Chair Jacobs asked if this can be simplified. The committee will consider the comments made by the Board, and recommend appropriate changes and then this item will come back for action at a future Board meeting. 8. Reports None 9. County Manager's Report Michael Talbert said the County is moving forward with Hi Chew and Morinaga of America. He said there will be two public hearings at the next meeting and the groundbreaking is planned for March or April of 2014. 10. County Attorney's Report None 11. Appointments a. Appointments to the Assessment of Jail Alternatives Work Group The Board considered making/confirming appointments to the Assessment of Jail Alternatives Work Group. Commissioner Gordon asked about the two Judge nominees for position number 1. Donna Baker said these applicants would work together and alternate in the position, as court schedules allow. Commissioner Rich asked if the appointee for position number 10 was the only person to fill this position. She noted the issues with Cardinal Healthcare. Commissioner Dorosin said he would like to see someone else in that position, but he would defer to the Department of Health. Commissioner Pelissier noted that Debra Farrington was on staff with OPC when she was on the board. She said she feels comfortable with Debra Farrington in this position. Commissioner Price asked if any of the appointees are connected with the Latino Community. Donna Baker said many of these appointees were suggested by other entities. Commissioner Price said she is just looking for more diversity. Chair Jacobs said the answer may be no and this is beyond the Board's control. A motion was made by Commissioner McKee, seconded by Commissioner Rich to confirm the appointments to the Assessment of Jail Alternatives Work Group. VOTE: UNANIMOUS b. Chapel Hill Library Board of Trustees The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill Library Board of Trustees. Chair Jacobs said the Library Board recommended a person who has already served the limit of two full terms. He suggested that this spot be advertised. Donna Baker said this has been advertised throughout the summer. A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to appoint James Stroud to the Orange County position on the Chapel Hill Library Board of Trustees. Commissioner McKee said he feels it would be a good idea to have a County Commissioner appointed to this board, given the amount of money contributed to the Chapel Hill Library. He said he would be interested in serving on this board. Chair Jacobs said he does not want to appoint someone who does not know the history of library relations between the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County. He said he does not know James Stround, and this is a very important position. Commissioner Gordon suggested that the position be re-advertised. Commissioner Dorosin said he would like for James Stround to be considered, because he is a member of the Rogers Road community and would bring diversity to board. He noted that James Stroud has lived in Orange County since 1955 and has knowledge of the County's history. He suggested the appointment be made, followed by the briefing requested by Chair Jacobs. Commissioner Rich said it really is important to understand the issues and conflicts, but she would like to talk with the nominee before appointing him. Commissioner Price said this is an advisory board, and it is good to have someone with experience, but it is also good to have someone with interest. She said she does not see the major concern. Commissioner Pelissier suggested that possibly she and Chair Jacobs could meet with James Stroud and the library director. She said it would also be good for him to have a conversation with Orange County library staff if he is appointed. Commissioner Price asked why the Board is doing this with this applicant and not with other applicants. Commissioner Pelissier said this would be like an orientation and would occur after the appointment, not before. Chair Jacobs said that the same person had represented that board for 8 years, and the relationships and stakes have changed considerably in that time. He said Orange County has specific interests with this Board. Commissioner McKee's said his suggestion does not need to rest on just himself. He said it could be any commissioner. He said his suggestion was based on the fact that the County contributes heavily to the library and there has been some dissention over issues. He feels it would be advantageous to have a direct link. VOTE: 5-2 (Ayes, 5; Nays, 2 - Commissioner McKee and Commissioner Gordon) c. Orange County Housing Authority The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Housing Authority. A motion was made by, Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint Tammy Jacobs and Britney Walden to the Orange County Housing Authority. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 12. Board Comments Commissioner Rich — none Commissioner Dorosin — none Commissioner Price — none Commissioner Gordon — none Commissioner McKee — none Commissioner Pelissier said that Triangle Transit is getting monthly updates on the light rail project, and all of the agency comments that were made in the draft environmental impact statement are being addressed. Commissioner Pelissier said earlier this spring she made a petition regarding Agricultural Support Enterprises to also include arts and culture. She said, at the last QPH, she noted that there was nothing related to arts and culture. She referred back to the minutes from the May 14 meeting and realized that the minutes are not very clear about the Board's intention and direction for staff regarding arts and culture. She has talked to several Board members and their understanding was that it was requested that arts and culture should be included. She wants to make sure staff has clear direction. Chair Jacobs said it would be helpful to have a verbatim transcript of these minutes. Donna Baker said she could provide the verbatim minutes of this section of the discussion from the May 14th BOCC work session for clarification to Board members and staff. Chair Jacobs asked Commissioner Pelissier to update the public on Project Connect, which will be happening on October 10th Commissioner Pelissier said she would encourage people to volunteer for Project Connect. She said this is a great opportunity to get a first hand understanding of what is happening in the community with the people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. She said donations are also welcomed, as Project Connect does not use County money and is funded through donations and run by volunteers. 13. Information Items • September 17, 2013 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from September 17, 2013 Regular Meeting 14. Closed Session NONE 15. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to adjourn the meeting at 10:34pm. VOTE: UNANIMOUS Barry Jacobs, Chair Donna Baker Clerk to the Board