HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-07-2015 - 6a 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 7, 2015
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
Draft Minutes
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
February 11, 2014 BOCC Work Session
March 3, 2015 BOCC Regular Meeting
March 23, 2015 Legislative Breakfast Meeting
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
I Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONEERS
5 WORK SESSION
6 February 11, 2014
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Budget Work Session on
10 Tuesday, February 11, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel
11 Hill, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Jacobs and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
14 Alice M. Gordon, Earl McKee, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich.
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: Assistant County Manager Clarence Grier and Clerk to the
18 Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19
20 NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THESE MINUTES ARE ON FILE IN THE
21 PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK TO THE BOARD'S OFFICE.
22
23 Chair Jacobs called the meeting to order.
24 Chair Jacobs stated that there was one addition to the agenda, which is the Interim
25 County Manager's recommendation that the work session on Thursday be postponed due to
26 potentially inclement weather. This will be discussed later.
27
28 1. Potential Bond Issuance Schedule and Timeline for a November 2014 or
29 November 2015 Bond Referendum
30 Clarence Grier stated that during the retreat the issue regarding a bond referendum for
31 November 2014 or November 2015 was discussed. He introduced Bob Jessup, bond council,
32 who provided two schedules for consideration —one for November 2014 and one for November
33 2015.
34 Bob Jessup reviewed the schedules, going through the required steps of the procedure.
35 He said essentially there are three formal actions and a public hearing, and the process must be
36 wrapped up in time for the Board of Elections to do their work to get ready for a referendum.
37 He said the formal process can be accomplished in 60 or 75 days, but it is the part that
38 will be put into the bond package that often takes the longest time. He said the provided
39 schedule works on the formal process and it shows that the Board will need to take some of the
40 formal actions before the summer break. He said Clarence Grier has discussed the timeline
41 with the Board of Elections, and they will need the final information on the bond question by the
42 middle of August to make their timeline for preparing the ballots. He said this means getting all
43 the way through the public hearing before the summer break and then coming back with a mid-
44 August meeting (which is not currently scheduled) to take any final action if the Board wants to
45 proceed this November. This is essentially the same issue the Board will face both in
46 November 2015.
47 Clarence Grier said the ballot will need to be approved by August 18 and will have to go
48 out by September 5, 2014 in order to be in compliance with the Federal regulations and meet
49 the deadline for inclusion on the November ballot.
50 Chair Jacobs reminded everyone that the Board does not meet between June 17 and
cn
51 September 4
2
1
2 Commissioner Rich asked about the absentee ballots.
3
4 Bob Jessup replied that there is a state law standard for absentee ballots, and the Board
5 of Elections needs to have the ballots out by September 5 th
6 Clarence Grier said that with the budget and the capital needs work force not yet being
7 assigned, they do not have the components to make up the bond referendum. He said, weather
8 permitting, there is a meeting scheduled with both school boards tomorrow to look at their
9 capital needs assessment. He said the components of the bond have not really been
10 discussed, and there will hopefully be a new manager soon. This manager will need to deal
11 with a bond referendum within four months of being hired and this will require his/her full
12 attention.
13 James Barrett, CHCCS Board Member, said he thought a spring meeting would be the
14 best time to bring the approved version of their capital needs plan back to the Commissioners.
15 Commissioner Dorosin raised the question of how much specificity the Board needs
16 from the schools for a bond referendum.
17 Clarence Grier said the Local Government Commission (LGC) requires specification of
18 what the bonds will be issued for. He said completion of the application will include details,
19 including what projects the County plans to spend the money on.
20 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the specificity would be more than "we plan to renovate
21 dilapidated schools."
22 Bob Jessup said the LGC wants to see that the County has a plan that uses up all the
23 money. He said, if it was for renovation projects and the plan was to issue $1 million dollars in
24 bonds for school renovations, then the plan would need to indicate that there is $10 million
25 dollars in need.
26 Commissioner Pelissier asked how they decide how much money would go on a bond.
27 Clarence Grier said about $100 million would go on the bond, and that is the upper limit
28 of what the County can do. He said there is over $125 million in the CIP over the next 5 years.
29 He said it would be hard to go beyond $100 million with the LGC.
30 Commissioner Pelissier said this would be determined by what the County could afford
31 versus the needs.
32 Clarence Grier said the needs amount would probably exceed the amount the County
33 could issue debt for. He said it would exceed the operating budget on an annual basis, and that
34 is a concern. He said $100 million dollars is easily affordable within the current debt policy and
35 capital plan. He said if it goes beyond that, there would be some concerns from the LGC.
36 Commissioner McKee said his concern is not whether we need to do a bond, but the
37 timeframe in which to do it. He said with a $100 million dollar limit (and the school needs are
38 more than that), the County needs, and the current search for a manager, he is concerned that
39 things would not be done right if done for 2014.
40 Bob Jessup said that once you start the formal process, one of the first things that is
41 done is to publish a notice that you are intending to apply to the LGC for approval. He said this
42 is where you are setting maximum amounts, and you can refine those amounts down, but you
43 have to set those parameters.
44 Commissioner Price asked what this would mean for taxes.
45 Clarence Grier said if the County had to increase taxes, it would be 3.78 cents in FY
46 2024, and the budget would have to grow to almost $224 million dollars in order to stay within
47 the debt policy limit of 15%.
48 Commissioner Dorosin said he had raised this idea at the retreat of trying to do this in
49 2014 instead of 2015 because of the huge difference in voter turnout. He questioned if 2014 is
50 too soon, what the significance would be of waiting until May 2016. He said if one of the goals
51 is to try to maximize participation, then what are the ramifications of going back six months.
3
1
2 Bob Jessup said there are no ramifications from his perspective. He said they can
3 choose the dates that suit the Board. He said there is a law now that a random referendum
4 date can no longer be chosen. He said this now has to be done on an otherwise scheduled
5 date.
6 Clarence Grier said that the only fiscal impact he can see is what the interest rate
7 climate is at that time. He said if you go out six months you have the potential interest rate
8 going up six months later on. He said, outside of that, you are just pushing back the debt
9 service and pushing the receipts of the proceeds back six months.
10 Commissioner McKee asked, if this is pushed back to the primary of 2016 and a need
11 arises, whether some CIP money could be moved forward or backward.
12 Clarence Grier said this could be done. He said the Board could address this need by
13 issuing installment financing, like what was done for Elementary#12. He said there are
14 different options available. He suggested that the Board would want to get voter approval for
15 these major projects.
16 Commissioner McKee said he agrees regarding the need for voter approval. He said in
17 his perspective, 2014 is a bit rushed, and 2015 has a problem of what else may be on the ballot
18 in District 2 in the rural part of the county. He said 2015 only has municipal elections; and the
19 May 2016 time frame is the time frame he would be most favorable to go with in order to have
20 the most participation.
21 Commissioner Gordon said she thought they were talking about is 2014 versus 2015.
22 She thought the Board was going to try to get on the ballot as soon as they could come up with
23 a reasonable plan. She said she would not want to delay it past November 2015, since some of
24 these needs are important, such as schools, and affordable housing.
25 Chair Jacobs suggested that since they are not deciding on anything tonight and since
26 there is not a great sentiment to do it in November 2014, a task force could be convened with a
27 plan to move forward as if it this might be on a ballot in November 2015.
28 He suggested having this group meet and formulate recommendations, and then the
29 Board can decide whether they want to have it on the ballot on November 2015 or 2016. He
30 said this does not have to be decided right now. He said part of being transparent is letting that
31 group discuss it to decide how pressing needs are. He said the school systems, the affordable
32 housing community, and others can make their case to that group, and then the Board will make
33 a determination as to what is the highest priority.
34 Commissioner Price asked how soon a referendum could be put back on the ballot if it
35 failed in 2015.
36 Bob Jessup said there is not a strict rule outside of having a discussion with the LGC for
37 the Board to explain why they want to put it back on the ballot so quickly. He said if the Board
38 had a compelling reason, then it might be able to be put back in May 2015 or 2016. He said this
39 may involve doing some scaling back and revising the project.
40 Commissioner Price said she is skeptical about the November 2015 date because the
41 turnout is abysmal, but May 2016 sounds good to her.
42 Commissioner Gordon suggested that they appoint a Capital Needs Advisory Task
43 Force to get started with trying to craft the bond referendum. She said she would like to see
44 them agree to appoint a Capital Needs Advisory Task Force and then decide another meeting
45 time in which to discuss this further.
46 Clarence Grier said if the Board is not going with the November 2014 date, the meeting
47 can be at any of the upcoming future BOCC meetings; but if they are going for November 2014,
48 the meeting would have to be take place around the first part of April.
49 Commissioner Gordon suggested that the Board tentatively agree to appoint a Capital
50 Needs Task Force and that they bring this question about the bond referendum and how to
51 proceed to a meeting in April so that they can make some forward progress on this.
4
1
2 Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Gordon.
3 Commissioner McKee said the April time frame is fine with him if they are looking for
4 consensus.
5 Commissioner Rich said she thought Commissioner Gordon and Commissioner Pelissier
6 were trying to get to the next step. She said that is something they discussed at the retreat -
7 always leave a work session with the next step set.
8 Chair Jacobs suggested that this item come back one of their regular agendas. He said
9 the first step will be to agree on the bond amount. He said the Board needs to get some
10 information from staff on how the bond task forces worked in the past.
11 He summarized the following 5 issues in reference to a possible bond referendum:
12 1) amount, 2) topic areas, 3) time frames, 4) information on how it worked before, and 5) what
13 groups are interested. He said it would also be good to get input from staff on other issues they
14 find important.
15 Commissioner Gordon asked that it be worded "any other parameters that staff deems
16 important," and that it include information about forming a Capital Needs Advisory Task Force.
17 Chair Jacobs added those two additional items to his listing, as well as a request to staff
18 from the following information on the past task force: who was on it, how it worked, how long it
19 took, and how often it met.
20
21
22 2. Orange County Parks and Recreation Draft Master Plan 2030
23 Clarence Grier said that David Stancil, Director of the Department of Environment,
24 Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) would present this item. He said the last
25 Parks/Recreation Master Plan was in 1998, and several of the parks that they have now were
26 purchased with the 1997—2001 bond referendum.
27 David Stancil said tonight would be a sneak preview of the work that has been
28 happening for the last 18 months. He said a number of different groups had been involved —
29 two different sets of staff, the Parks and Recreation council and 832 citizens who responded to
30 their different surveys.
31 Dave Stancil presented the following PowerPoint:
32
33 Why a New Master Plan?
34 Existing Plan Has Served Well, But Dates to 1988
35 50% Increase in Population Since 1988
36 Changes in Community Needs and Interests
37 Changed Conditions, New Parks, Enhanced Plans
38 Funding (grant) Agencies Require Newer Plan
39 Still a Draft Plan
40 Updating of Maps
41 Renumbering pages, clean up links
42 Executive Summary
43 Appendices
44 To be Done by PH
45 Layout of the Draft Master Plan
46 Review of existing and past plans
47 Inventory/assessment of facilities (existing/future)
48 Overview of recreation programs
49 Driving factors — Demographics, Other
50 Community Needs Assessment (surveys) — 832
51 Relationship and ties to 2030 Comprehensive Plan
5
1 Economic, health, environmental impacts
2 Standards, Classifications and Service Areas
3 20 "Findings"
4 Goals, Objectives and Recommendations
5
6 Summary of Survey Results
7 832 surveys received
8 Multiple methods
9 Random-sample scientific survey
10 Online survey
11 Supplemental Targeted
12 Who Was Surveyed?
13 31% unincorporated OC
14 29% Hillsborough
15 27% Chapel Hill
16 7% - Carrboro
17 6% - Mebane
18
19 Summary of Survey Results
20 Most Used Facilities?
21 Sportsplex—46%
22 Central Rec Center—28%
23 Little River Park— 19%
24 Eurosport Soccer Center - 19%
25 P&R Opportunities, Status
26 94% said quality opportunities provided
27 Facilities are safe —94%
28 Well-maintained and operated— 90%
29 Easy to Get to—86%
30 Helpful/professional staff- 94%
31 P&R— Benefits to Community
32 Parks and Rec programs enhancee'll, oll„ig«„Io„p,iI,ig'I health — 93%
33 Parks and Rec programs enhance physical and mental „0,,II, IN"1, i1,u°„g— 96%
Parks and Rec programs help — 81%
35
36 Future Needs
37 Expand Outdoor Active Recreation —82%
38 Expand Outdoor Low-Impact Recreation — 79%
39 Provide Indoor Athletic Complex— 64%
40 Expand Trail System — 89%
41
42 Most Popular Programs
43 Youth Soccer
44 Youth Basketball
45 Open Gym
46 Little River Trail Run
47 Volleyball
48 Egg Hunt
49 Halloween Event
50 Fishing Rodeo
51 Most-Desired Future Programs
6
1 Hiking
2 Swimming
3 Walking
4 Yoga
5 Biking
6 Summer Camps
7 Gardening
8 Tennis
9 Dog Obedience Classes
10 Afterschool
11 Desired Future Facilities
12 Walking/Hiking Trails
13 Nature Trails
14 Swimming Pool
15 Greenways
16 Water Parks
17 Amphitheatre
18 Indoor Athletic Center
19 Nature Center
20 Playgrounds
21 Tennis Courts
22
23 Methods of Financing
24
25 Private/Corporate Donations — 95%
26 State and Federal Grants — 94%
27 Existing Local Taxes (non-property) —73%
28 Voter-Approved Bonds —70%
29 Existing Local Property Tax—70%
30 User fees —68%
31 Increasing Local Taxes (non-property) —34%
32
33 Focus Groups
34
35 Discuss in More Detail Specific Topics with Stakeholders
36 Held February— July 2013
37 Facilitated Discussion of Key Issues, Interests
38 Soccer Facilities
39 Trails and Connectivity
40 Public Health and P&R
41 Park Facility Needs
42 Recreation Programs
43 Nature & Environmental Programs
44 County/Town Coordination
45 Sportsplex
46 The Standards Dilemma
47 Use of National Standards Waning
48 Focus Now on "Community Based Standards"
49 However, Population Standards Still Good "Benchmark"
50 Types of Park Needs in Counties is Different
7
1 Surveys and Other Documents Provide Basis for Standards — But Use
2 Population-Based for Double-Check
3
4 Summary of Findings
5 Drawn from
6 Survey Responses and Interests
7 Focus Groups
8 Actions of the Last 15 Years
9 Goals and Objectives
10
11 Draft RECOMMENDATIONS
12
13 In Keeping with the Adopted 2030 Goals and Objectives
14
15 1 Protect/Enhance Investment in Current Parks
16 s. Build Planned Future Parks
17 3 Complete Nature Preserves /Trails
18 4. Structure for Multi-Partner Facility Investments
19 5 Create Plan for MST & Work Toward Completion
20 6 Build More Trails, Connect Open Spaces
21 Improve Park Access, Healthy Lifestyles Design
22 8 Address Programs in Areas of Identified Need, Look for Partnerships
23 9 Examine the Role of Community Centers
24
25 Issues for Further Study
26
27 Desired Level of Service?
28 Payment-in-Lieu System
29 Sportsplex and County Programs
30 Need for Public Pool?
31 Role of Community Centers
32 5-Year/ 10-Year Updates
33 Artificial Turf Playing Fields
34
35 Planned Next Steps
36
37 Receive Board Feedback and Comment
38 Hold Final Open House for Public Q&A
39 Public Hearing
40 Advisory Board Review (additional surveys?)
41 P&R Council Recommendation
42 BOCC Consideration
43
44
45 David Stancil said staff is interested in the Board's thoughts regarding the study. He
46 said they would like to get that information back as soon as possible; revise the plan; hold an
47 open house; and invite the people who participated to come in and engage with staff about the
48 master plan. He said the process would then be to hold a public hearing, take it out to the
49 advisory boards for additional review and comments, possibly get some additional surveys
50 completed, receive their Parks and Recreation Council recommendations and then bring it back
51 to the Board.
8
1 Commissioner Price asked about socio-economic data on programs.
2 David Stancil said that information is available, but he does not have it with him tonight.
3 He said they do provide a lot of subsidies in their programs.
4 Commissioner Pelissier asked what the next steps would be. She said that on the one
5 hand, the Sportsplex and the Central Recreation Center are highly used, and then there is the
6 whole thread of people wanting hiking and nature trails. She said she is not sure what the
7 public really wants. She questioned whether the public is looking to the County for these
8 provisions because there are other trails like Duke Forest, Eno River, and Occoneechee, in
9 addition to county and town parks. She said it is hard to interpret some of the results.
10 David Stancil said there are a number of survey results that raise more questions than
11 answers. He said he does not see the county proposing to ad hoc build something that is
12 proposed in this. He said all of this information will need more analysis. He said as they finalize
13 some of the nature preserves, there may be opportunities to build a couple of miles of trails.
14 Commissioner Price asked about the information regarding the percentage of population
15 that makes up to the towns.
16 David Stancil said his recollection is that it is more than 39%, and the number listed is a
17 clerical error that will be fixed.
18 Commissioner Dorosin said he is skeptical of the high numbers of support for passive
19 recreation. He said he thought the survey generally skews towards adults. He wanted to know if
20 there had been any contact with the school systems and the programs that they offer. He asked
21 if staff has looked at the County's own recreational programs, with regard to the number of
22 people that are turned away or over capacity. He said he felt like that inconsistency is a real
23 one, and he thought that part of it is built into who takes part in these surveys.
24 Chair Jacobs said he has a different take on that issue, and he would not call it passive
25 recreation but low impact. He said one thing that is missing is how to determine the priorities.
26 Commissioner Rich said she wanted to add something to Commissioner Dorosin's
27 comment. She said they have an Intergovernmental Parks Work Group with elected officials
28 from the schools, towns, and members from OWASA. She said they often talk about different
29 programs, specifically sharing of facilities. She said she is not sure if some of the outreach is
30 coming from that committee as well.
31 David Stancil said that staff did make a presentation at one of the I work group
32 meetings.
33 Commissioner Rich said she appreciated the report, but that there is a lot of information
34 to digest, and she would like more time to review it.
35
36 Commissioner Gordon agreed it is a great report, and she would like more time to review
37 it as well. She would like to have a time frame to comment and submit changes.
38 Commissioner Gordon said she did like the way the report was presented. She does not
39 think it is inconsistent for the public to like the Sportsplex, the Central Recreation Center and
40 also to say that they like hiking trails. She said she does not know how that translates into
41 priorities, but it seems to her that both are valid.
42 Commissioner Rich said she would like the proposed parks tour to be re-scheduled.
43 David Stancil said that they would do this.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said he missed the executive summary. He said one of the things
45 that Dave Stancil said was that some things are ready to move forward, but there are no plans.
46 He said there are plans for the Northeast Park and the Blackwood Park, but there is no direction
47 right now.
48 Chair Jacobs said he thought staff should hire the payment in lieu consultants as quickly
49 as possible. He said the whole issue is that this was mostly put into abeyance until the County
50 had an adopted park plan. He said this has been in abeyance almost as long as he has been a
51 Commissioner, so the direction he is proposing is to move forward with the Bingham Township
9
1 Park, which was a campaign promise of then-Commissioner Foushee when she ran for office in
2 2004.
3 He said the County owns a portion of the Greene Tract that was set aside as a natural
4 area, and he never saw it mentioned in any of their plans. He thought this should fit into their
5 plans somewhere.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said the issue of schools is also a complicated issue, partially
7 because of issues regarding sharing facilities. He said this is a debate that has been on-going
8 since he has been a Commissioner. He said the person making the decision is usually the
9 Athletic Director at the school. He said a better mechanism is needed to make facilities more
10 accessible, even if this means the County puts in extra money to help administer the use. He
11 said it is also important to be sensitive to the needs of the schools.
12 Commissioner Dorosin said he thought they needed to coordinate with the schools in
13 trying to provide for recreation. He said he thinks it is great to get input from the school systems
14 to incorporate in the plan.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said he thought the priorities should be developing the parks the
16 County already has, rather than acquiring new ones. He said the priority should be in turning
17 gifts (public resources which belong to the people) into something the public can access and
18 utilize. He said the first priority should be updating the plans that are in place for these parks, or
19 finalizing them and then implementing them.
20 David Stancil said that in a way there is a default priority system, and that is the timing
21 and sequencing in the CIP. He said these are projects in the CIP, and they are scheduled and
22 staggered in different ways.
23 Commissioner Gordon said that she is not sure that this report meshes with the CIP and
24 she questioned whether the Board should be looking at their CIP regarding phasing in the
25 existing land that the County owns. She said it is important to reassess based on some of the
26 feedback.
27 David Stancil said the report does mesh and should mesh with the adopted CIP pretty
28 well. He said there is not a sequence in the plan, although there is a sequence to the way it is
29 laid out in the CIP. He said one of staff's expectations is that this document will give the Board
30 a framework as they look at the CIP later this spring to make some of those decisions.
31
32 Chair Jacobs said what he has heard that the Commissioners need more information on
33 the following:
34 • Socio-economic data on usage
35 • subsidies
36 • Deadline for comments about priorities
37 • Coordinating and soliciting comments from the school system as to what they
38 regard as priorities
39 • information about how the plan meshes with the CIP
40 • payment in lieu of consultant.
41
42 He suggested that staff let the Board review a draft of at least the executive summary
43 and the responses to the Commissioners' concerns, even if it is an informational item, before it
44 goes to public hearing so that they have a sense of what direction they are going.
45 David Stancil suggested submitting Board comments back to him no later than March
46 3,d.
47
48 3. Tower Study
49 Clarence Grier said there have been coverage issues in the past. He noted that there is
50 $2.5 million in the CIP through 2019 for these towers.
10
1 Jim Groves said the tower study incorporated the VIPER radio system coverage, as well
2 as the County volunteer fire department VHF paging system. He gave a briefing on study and
3 reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
4
5 Radio Communication tower and system infrastructure upgrade
6 February 11, 2014
7 Please refer to the maps in your packets for better location and coverage detail
8
9 Background
10 -Project kicked off January, 2013
11 -Development Steps:
12 Needs assessment with stakeholders
13 Research
14 Infrastructure upgrade recommendations
15 Maps and graphics
16 Draft report
17 Final report
18 -Project completed September, 2013
19
20 What is VIPER?
21 -Voice Interoperability Plan for Emergency Responders (VIPER)
22 -Trunked 800 MHz Radio System
23 -State owned and operated
24 Originally developed for the Highway Patrol
25 Centerline of road
26 Building penetration not really considered
27
28 What is VIPER? (cont.)
29 -Orange County system is an unbalanced system
30 5 channel (frequency pair) on some towers
31 8 channel (frequency pair) on others
32 -This can create busy "bonks" where users cannot communicate
33 - VIPER towers located at:
34 Eno Mountain — Hillsborough
35 Water tower - UNC Chapel Hill
36 Laws — Northern border of Orange/Caswell
37 Chatham Mountain — Southern border of Orange
38 Mebane (new) — City of Mebane
39
40 Map Legend
41 I" ,h = GOOD
42 = FAIR
43 III: II::'. = MARGINAL
44 GRAY = NO COVERAGE
45 The maps presented in the report are software models that are representative of actual real
46 world coverage
47
48 Current viper "talk-in" MAP
49
50 Proposed New Tower Sites
51 -Five (5) additional sites were selected to improve VIPER coverage within Orange County
11
1 -Three (3) sites are existing, two (2) would require new construction
2 -Number of towers was based on less than <200 ft. tower height
3 Increasing tower height would require less tower sites
4
5 Proposed New Tower Sites (cont.)
6 -Existing Towers
7 -Northeast— Caldwell —existing guyed tower
8 7444 Bill Poole Road —AT&T Wireless
9 -South-central — Chapel Hill — existing monopole
10 1403 New Hope Trace —GTE Wireless
11 Southwest— Chapel Hill — existing monopole
12 4900 NC 54 West—SBA
13
14 Proposed New Tower Sites (cont.)
15 -New Construction
16 -Central — Hillsborough — New
17 Walnut Grove Church Rd. —ATC site
18 -Southeast—Chapel Hill — New
19 Near University Mall
20 Potential to move existing site from Cole Mill Rd. in Durham
21
22 New "talk-in" — Portable Radio map
23
24 Tower Site Considerations
25 -Orange County Planning & Inspections advises that four (4) cell providers have made
26 application to build towers...these new sites must also be considered before a decision is
27 made
28 -Modifications to the Chatham Mountain site may also help
29 Reduce antenna from 962 ft. down to 600 ft.
30 Less signal loss, may be able to turn up power
31
32 VHF
33 -Very High Frequency (VHF) is used to alert Fire Department and EMS pagers
34 800MHz technology does not support pagers without incurring significant costs
35 -VHF and Ultra High Frequency (UHF) are used as radio back-up if VIPER fails
36 We used these back up frequencies for a real world event several weeks ago
37
38 Existing VHF Tower Sites
39 Utilize the same towers as VIPER
40 Eno Mountain
41 Chatham Mountain
42
43 Proposed VHF paging sites
44 -Two (2) additional VHF paging sites were selected to improve coverage within the County
45 Northern — Cedar Grove Fire Station
46 720 Hawkins Road — Existing Tower
47 Southwest—Orange Grove Fire Station
48 6800 Orange Grove Road — Requires new tower
49
50 Proposed VHF Sites MAP
51 Proposed VHF Sites MAP
12
1
2 Recap
3 Five (5) tower sites recommended for VIPER coverage
4 4 existing towers
5 1 new tower
6 Two (2) tower sites recommended for VHF paging coverage
7 One (1) new tower site
8 One (1) existing tower site
9
10 Cost Example
11 Co-location cost example (GTE Wireless)
12 $1,000 credit application fee
13 $2,000 structural analysis
14 $2,000 inspection fee (if construction installation fee is waived)
15 $1,500 Closeout documentation fee
16 Total set up - $6,500 one time cost
17 $2,500 rental fee, per month with 5 year term
18 Four (4) automatic renewal 5 year terms at 3% escalation
19 Total rent $30,000 /yr. per tower site
20 Orange County should negotiate these costs
21
22 Outcome
23 - BOCC comments /feedback
24 - Tower funding in March, 2014 CIP
25 - Radio Tower/Infrastructure Report approval by BOCC
26
27 Jim Groves reviewed the maps and said a lot of the issues with coverage are due to
28 terrain and the original design of the system. He referred to the map titled New "talk-in"-
29 Portable Radio, and he noted the concentric circles, which mark the site of the Chatham tower
30 site. He said this indicates a shadow effect, and it indicates bad coverage. He said there is
31 discussion and study regarding moving the tower antennae down to a lower height to fix this
32 issue.
33 Chair Jacobs asked if there is a number assigned to the percentage of expected
34 improvement in coverage associated with the recommended changes.
35 Jim Groves said he does not have that information.
36 Chair Jacobs asked that this be provided to Board of County Commissioners if it
37 becomes available in the future.
38 Commissioner McKee asked for clarification about the tower height for the VHF sites.
39 Jim Groves said if you raise the tower height here the coverage will improve.
40 Commissioner McKee asked if the Cedar Grove and Orange Grove towers would be
41 appropriate for increasing height.
42 Jim Groves said these two sites were set up at less than 200 feet.
43 Chair Jacobs said, at the time that tower height regulations were set, there was concern
44 about bird kills with taller towers.
45 Commissioner Rich asked about the decreased antennae height referenced earlier.
46 Jim Groves said the Chatham Mountain antenna is almost at 1,000 feet, and it will be
47 moved down to about 600 feet. He said these two towers are 200 feet or less.
48 Commissioner Rich asked if this height is sufficient.
49 Jim Groves said it can work. He said if there could be a 400 foot tower site, it might
50 bring the need down to 2 or 3 towers instead of 5.
13
1 Commissioner McKee said there had also been discussion about co-locating for better
2 internet connectivity.
3 Jim Groves said it may not be worth the money to add the towers.
4 Jim Groves reviewed the costs for renting a tower, and he said another option would be
5 for the County to build a tower and rent it.
6 Commissioner Rich asked how much it costs to build a tower.
7 Jim Groves said it depends on the type of tower, but the amount would be between
8 $350,000 and $750,000. He said the VIPER equipment would put it close to $1 million.
9 Commissioner McKee there had been a mention of looking into the 700 mhz service.
10 Jim Groves said there have been some good conversations with Durham and other
11 partners about this, and the concern was to make sure there would be good interoperability. He
12 said there has been agreement to allow this. He said the FCC has to provide frequencies for
13 these tower sites. He said there are about 40 different frequencies, and it would be possible to
14 build a simulcast system. He said this means that all of the towers could transmit at the same
15 time, which would help improve coverage. He said only 20 of the 40 frequencies would be
16 needed to make this work, which would mean 15 frequencies could potentially be dedicated to
17 emergency services. He said 5 could be designated for non-public safety uses, such as
18 schools and public transit, and these could be borrowed by emergency services if a need arises.
19 He said, in theory, it seems like this would be a good system, and the County has a decision to
20 make about what direction to go. He said this system could be built for about one-third of the
21 cost.
22 Chair Jacobs asked if staff will come back with a recommended proposal.
23 Jim Groves said he will be happy to put this together.
24 Chair Jacobs said it sounds like that the 700 mhz system would be preferred by most of
25 the people working in emergency services. He said it would be nice to know what this would
26 cost and to see it flushed out for further consideration.
27 Jim Groves said this current study is just to show how coverage can be improved, but it
28 has nothing to do with building a County system or a simulcast system. He said the point is that
29 there is an existing coverage problem, and this plan will need to be implemented in some shape
30 or form to improve that.
31 Commissioner Price asked about the timeline.
32 Chair Jacobs said this was supposed to come back in March for the 800 mhz. He said it
33 would be up to staff to determine the timing.
34 Jim Groves said it would take a couple of months for him to put a decent proposal
35 together.
36 Commissioner Pelissier referred to a previous discussion of the First Net system. She
37 asked how this will fit in.
38 Jim Groves said N.C. probably will not see this until 2016-17, and he said First Net is
39 just a public safety broadband that is built in partnership with private communities. He said this
40 is a little more of a robust system, but there will be a subscriber fee to use it. He said it will give
41 private companies incentive to build a tower. He said the VIPER system is a good play on
42 getting ahead of this curve by helping provide more control of the system.
43 Commissioner Gordon asked for an explanation of what will come back in March.
44 Jim Groves said the current CIP has staggered amounts of half a million dollars each.
45 He said any changes, such as building our own towers, would require modification.
46 Commissioner Gordon asked if the future proposal that will be flushed out will mean
47 additions to the Cl P.
48 Jim Groves said yes.
49 Commissioner Gordon asked if this is the only item that will be brought back.
50 Jim Groves said the proposal will provide two different options, along with the associated
51 costs and timing, and it will be the Board's decision.
14
1 Commissioner Gordon said it would be great to have the pros and cons of each
2 proposal.
3 Chair Jacobs said the Board will see the 800 mhz option in their CIP discussion in
4 March, and then there will be a presentation in two months regarding the various permutations
5 and the possibility of the 700mhz systems.
6 Jim Groves said this is correct.
7 Chair Jacobs asked if there is any possibility of using the phone fee for the 700 mhz or
8 to have the municipalities attributed to the system.
9 Jim Groves said Chapel Hill and Carrboro are interested in partnerships.
10 Chair Jacobs asked if this information regarding partnerships could be included in the
11 future discussions.
12
13 4. Draft Emergency Services Strategic Plan
14 Clarence Grier said this is more of an operational strategic plan than a capital strategic
15 plan.
16 Jim Groves said this plan was developed to provide some stability in the organization
17 and to set a professional path for where things need to be.
18 Jim Groves said this was developed with leadership, employees, and subject matter
19 experts from other organizations, the university, and state emergency management.
20 He said two of the big issues that were identified were: lack of communication between
21 and among divisions, and poor work/life balance (too much overtime).
22 Jim Groves said a big focus was to concentrate on the goals included in the Board of
23 County Commissioners' plan and to lend good customer support and community support to
24 Orange County.
25 He said the vision statement is "A Prepared, Coordinated, and Integrated Emergency
26 Services System." He said each division developed a mission statement in support of that
27 vision. He noted that the graphics on page 7 include the words heard in the study, and the big
28 words are the big concerns.
29 He said, within the plan there are strategic goals and objectives, as well as the
30 approach. He said this has also been taken down the task level, although that has not been
31 included in the plan.
32 Jim Groves said there is a lot of community support included, as well as employee
33 support and stability to make the organization more resilient.
34 He said within the organization, there are a lot of single points of failure, and those
35 points can be technology, or people who have no backup. He said there is a goal of building
36 institutional knowledge within the organization, so that if someone leaves, things can continue to
37 move forward.
38 Jim Groves said the last part the plan is the ETHOS, which is what drives the strategic
39 plan and the organization. He said this shows the core values and principles. He said the new
40 culture is to build, coach, and mentor employees.
41 Jim Groves said the implementation will be tracked with charts that show milestones and
42 timelines. He said this will allow progress to be clearly seen. He said this will be reviewed
43 annually and modified every 5 years to keep it from being stagnant. He said if the Board of
44 County Commissioners has any feedback on this draft plan, he is happy to incorporate it.
45 Chair Jacobs expressed appreciation for the work that was put into the creation of this
46 plan.
47 Commissioner Price said she was really impressed with this plan.
48 Commissioner McKee said this is the mission critical component of Orange County
49 government. He appreciates the work has been done, and the feedback he has heard has been
50 very positive.
15
1 Commissioner Dorosin said some of these critical issues highlighted on page 4 are likely
2 challenges for emergency organizations everywhere, and maybe there are models out there
3 that can be used as best practice examples. He said it would be good to know practices that
4 are already in place.
5 Commissioner Dorosin said there are 5 divisions in the organization, and it seems that
6 the issues identified may be different in some divisions than in others. He said it would be
7 interesting to hear where the priorities lie.
8 Commissioner Dorosin said this is an incredible effort, but this is very much an internally
9 focused document. He said he is curious to know how challenges, like staffing, impact the
10 ability to provide external services or how those services are received.
11 Commissioner Pelissier said she liked the section on the ETHOS, and she feels this
12 should pertain to all County employees. She said it is great to see that the plan is being
13 developed by all staff members and not just the leadership team.
14 Commissioner Pelissier said there is a tendency to complain about communication in
15 most bureaucracies, and she wonders if the communication issues have actually been clearly
16 identified.
17 Jim Groves said mid line supervision and operations managers sometimes do not have
18 clear direction. He said policies are sometimes implemented 4 different ways. He said the goal
19 now is to provide more direction on intent and procedure.
20 Jim Groves said there are two different floors in their facility and there is a perception of
21 the top floor as a "palace." He said one step being taken to address this is to have a Monday
22 morning meeting to discuss what is happening in all of the divisions.
23 Chair Jacobs referred to Commissioner Dorosin's question and said there is a
24 comprehensive assessment of the EMS and 911 recommendations.
25 Commissioner McKee said the same "palace" perception was present with the fire
26 department, and he encouraged staff to discuss how this was addressed.
27 Commissioner Gordon asked about page 16 and the issue of hazardous materials
28 traveling though the County. She asked about the use of the term "commodities."
29 Jim Groves said the Department of Transportation (DOT) marks trucks with one of nine
30 different hazardous material classes. He said the flow study is critical in helping the County
31 prepare for a potential response.
32 Commissioner Gordon asked if these trucks travel only on interstates or also on
33 highways.
34 Jim Groves said these vehicles travel mostly on the interstate. He said most are caught
35 when they are coming or going. He said gathering this information is helpful.
36 Commissioner Gordon referred to the Fire Marshal division goals and objectives. She
37 asked what is being done toward the goal of sustaining strong partnerships.
38 Jim Groves said the fire marshal's staff is up to three people now. He said these staff
39 members are out at the fires working with the fire marshals, and this allows them to know the
40 origins of the fires. He said staff will also meet with community groups and schools. He said
41 schools are given safety inspections before they open for the year.
42 He said there are also community emergency response teams who are being taught and
43 trained to help within their communities until first responders arrive.
44 Commissioner Gordon asked how staff interfaces with the big fire agencies in North
45 Chatham County.
46 Jim Groves said the best way to interface is by phone or occasional face to face visits.
47 Commissioner Gordon asked if the fire consultations and reviews mentioned earlier are
48 done with North Chatham too.
49 Jim Groves said North Chatham has their own fire marshal to handle fires in Chatham
50 County.
16
1 Commissioner McKee referred to the comments regarding commodities going through
2 Orange County. He noted that all the fire departments are trained in hazardous materials
3 response.
4 Commissioner Rich asked if nuclear materials go through Orange County.
5 Jim Groves said he does not know, but he would not be surprised if it did.
6 Commissioner Rich said this is an internal plan. She asked how many employees are
7 under Jim Groves' purview.
8 Jim Groves said there are about 120 employees.
9 Commissioner Rich asked how often the work plan template is done with this many
10 employees.
11 Jim Groves said with this plan, some employees do not want to be engaged in the plan,
12 and that is fine. He said the goal is to find people who are not actively training or on call and
13 can be engaged to help implement this. He said operations manager will be tasked with
14 gathering updates on the goals and objectives. He said monthly updates will be given to see
15 how this is working.
16 Chair Jacobs said he is surprised that the weigh station does not keep track of the
17 hazardous material.
18 Jim Groves said the weigh stations are more concerned with enforcement of safety
19 issues such as tires, breaks, and drivers' schedules. He said consultants and staff could work
20 on this, and the weigh station is a great place to do it.
21 Chair Jacobs referred to page 14, regarding the training for external customers. He
22 asked if there is a better way to say this, and he asked if these are the other partner entities.
23 Jim Groves said this includes the volunteer and town fire departments. He said one of
24 the goals is to partner with stakeholders to have a County training calendar that incorporates all
25 of the towns.
26 Chair Jacobs suggested using the term stakeholder instead of external customer.
27 Chair Jacobs noted that Commissioner Dorosin has requested more information on the
28 following three items: 1) work/life balance and how other organizations are having success
29 addressing this issue; 2) where the priorities lie in the document; and 3) how internal challenges
30 are reflected in service delivery.
31 He also noted that the Board would like more information on the issue of hazardous
32 materials.
33
34 5. County Commissioners — Boards and Commissions Assignments
35 The following charts reflect the final selections for 2014 for boards and commissions:
36
BOARD NAME BOCC
SELECTION
STATUTORY
ABC Board Commissioner
Dorosin
Board of Health Commissioner
Pelissier - Member
Board of Social Commissioner
Services McKee— Member
Citizen-Already
appointed
17
Community Oversight Commissioner
Board (part of OPC McKee
Community Operations
Center)
INTERGOVERNMENT-
AL and OTHER
GROUPS WITH BOCC
MEMBERS
Burlington/Graham Chair Jacobs-
MPO Transportation Member
Advisory Committee
Commissioner
McKee -Alternate
Communities in Schools Commissioner
Dorosin
Community Home Trust Penny Rich-
BOD Member
Durham-Chapel Hill- Commissioner
Carrboro-Metropolitan Gordon -Member
Planning Organization
(MPO)- Transportation Commissioner
Advisory Committee Pelissier -Alternate
Durham/Chapel Commissioner
Hill/Orange Work Group Rich
Commissioner
Gordon
Durham Tech Board of Commissioner
Trustees Price — Member
Citizen already
appointed
Fire Chief's Association Commissioner
of Orange County McKee
Healthy Carolinians Commissioner
Dorosin
HOME Program Review Commissioner
Committee Price
Intergovernmental Commissioner
Parks Work Group Gordon-member
Chair Jacobs -
alternate
Commissioner
Legislative Issues Work Price and
18
Group Commissioner
McKee (2014)
Orange County Commissioner
Partnership for Young Dorosin - Member
Children
Research Triangle Commissioner
Regional Partnership Price - Member
(RTRP)
Ten Year Plan to End Commissioner
Homelessness Pelissier
Executive Team
Triangle J Council of Chair Jacobs-
Governments Member
Commissioner
Rich- Alternate
Triangle Area Rural Commissioner
Planning Organization Price —Member
(TARPO) Transportation (Vice Chair)
Advisory Committee Commissioner
Pelissier -Alternate
Triangle Transit Board Commissioner
of Trustees Pelissier -
Treasurer
Triangle Transit Special Commissioner
Tax Board Gordon —
Treasurer and
Commissioner
Pelissier- Chair
Workforce Development Nancy Coston —
Board — Regional DSS Director
Partnership
Visitor's Bureau Commissioner
Rich — Member-
Finance Officer
BOARDS TO WHICH
BOCC HAS ALREADY
MADE
APPOINTMENTS
NACo Voting Delegate Commissioner
Rich
NCACC Voting Commissioner
Delegate Pelissier
19
1
2
3 SHORT TERM TASK FORCES/WORKGROUPS
Alternatives to Jail 2 Commissioners Chair Jacobs and
Assessment Work Group Commissioner
Pelissier
Cedar Grove Advisory Meets as needed 2 Commissioners Chair Jacobs and
Board Meeting Commissioner Price
EX-OFFICIO
Hillsborough/Orange County Chamber of Commerce- does not Chair Serves
require a Commissioner
NC DOT Quarterly Meetings Chair/Vice Chair
School Collaboration Meetings Chair/Vice Chair
4
OFFICERS
NCACC Board of Directors Commissioner Price
Triangle Transit Special Tax Board Commissioner Pelissier Chair and Commissioner
Gordon —Treasurer
Triangle Transit Board of Trustees Commissioner Pelissier—Treasurer
Visitor's Bureau Commissioner Rich — Finance Officer
5
6
7 Boards to be decided on/chosen at future work session
JOCCA- need to decide Meets Quarterly in 1 Commissioner Commissioner Price
whether to continue Pittsboro at 5:30pm - Or
participation Citizen
Small Business Loan Meets as needed 1 Commissioner Commissioner McKee
Program when a thoroughly (appointed 2/2013)
vetted application
has been received.
JCPC (Orange County 1 Commissioner Commissioner Pelissier
Juvenile Crime Prevention (appointed June 2013)
Council)
UNRBA(Upper Neuse River By-Laws state that"The Pam Hemminger—Chair
Basin Association) number of Directors was appointed as a
constituting the Board of citizen in November
Directors shall be one (1) 2012
per full voting entity, with
one (1) alternate per full Alternate- Staff member
voting entity in case of the Tom Davis
Director's absence
8
9
10
11 Boards — Not Meeting at this time
12
20
Efland Mebane Small Not meeting at 1 Commissioner
Area Plan this time. Has
Implementation Focus not been
Group disbanded
Historic Rogers Road INACTIVE AT 2 Commissioners
Task Force THIS TIME
Hollow Rock Park Not meeting at 2 Commissioners Commissioner
Planning Committee this time- Gordon (2/11/14)
Per
conversation
with Dave
Stancil on
2/12—He said
waiting on
Pickett Road
resolution but no
idea when that
will come. But
grant received
so activity will
pick up in late
2014. That might
trigger
reconvening
group - not sure.
If we pull our
reps, not sure
what Durham
would do. Maybe
answer will be in
new inter local to
be developed
later this spring.
I'd suggest
leaving on listing
until then.
Housing Bond Status: this is
Program-Project now defunct
Review& Selection and can be
Committee removed per
Tara Fikes
Library Services Task Not meeting at 2 Commissioners Chair Jacobs –
Force this time Member (2/11/14)
Has not been
disbanded Commissioner Rich
– Member 2/11/14
Solid Waste Meets as 1 Commissioner Suspended Until
Management Plan needed further direction
Work Group
21
Solid Waste Interlocal To be re-
Agreement— Elected constituted at a
Leaders Work Group later date
1
2
3 Future selection policy issues to be decided:
4
5 1. Do officer positions get pre-empted from being part of annual selection process for
6 boards and commissions?
7 2. Are member positions/terms, set by other intergovernmental boards/commissions, pre-
8 empted from our selection process?
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
11 adjourn the meeting at 10:11 pm.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 Barry Jacobs, Chair
16
17
18 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
19
1
I Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 March 3, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, March
10 3, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
13 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager
17 Cheryl Young and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
21 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. He reviewed the following list of
22 items at the Commissioners' places:
23 - White PowerPoint Sheet for item 4a— Orange County School Community's Vision for Public
24 Education Presentation
25 - Yellow memo from Orange County Schools regarding item 5d - Orange County's Proposed
26 2015 Legislative Agenda
27 - White sheet for item 5d - Orange County's Proposed 2015 Legislative Agenda
28 - Monthly packet from the Planning Department
29
30 PUBLIC CHARGE
31 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
32
33 2. Public Comments
34 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
35 Christopher Vaughn read from the following printed comments:
36 Good evening. I am Christopher Vaughn and I live in the Orange County section of Mill Creek
37 within the City of Mebane. I came here as a response to the letter sent by the Mebane City
38 Council regarding the annexation of Mill Creek into Alamance County. The stated reason for
39 the proposed annexation centers on fire protection and emergency service. This leaves me
40 somewhat confused, in that as City of Mebane tax payers we receive all city services: public
41 works, police, and fire protection, regardless of our county. This leaves only the issue of
42 emergency services, which are currently provided by Orange County.
43
44 The Mill Creek section of Orange County has been in existence for over 15 years. It is my
45 understanding that the 911 system is computerized, and that the 911 dispatch centers have a
46 cooperative agreement and the ability to intercommunicate. This issue was brought up and
47 settled during the last county line negotiation.
48
49 It is commendable that Mebane wants to resolve this issue, but I would think the first step would
50 be to resolve the EMS protocols before going to the extreme step of challenging the county line
2
1 and the disruption that such a change would bring to the lives of its residents. This issue
2 should be of concern for all Orange County residents.
3
4 During the last county line negotiation, Session Law 2010-61, the law that opened the review of
5 the county line between Alamance and Orange counties, the stated reason for opening the
6 county line for discussion was to define the line and settle disputes over the location of the line.
7 Later, Session laws 2011-88 and 2012-108 settled the 91% and 9% of the line, respectively. In
8 all these cases, the idea was to find the true line as it was defined in the original 1849 law and
9 allow residents to move to the county that they believed they lived in prior to the USGS line
10 definition. This was a good faith effort to keep people in their existing communities and their
11 county.
12
13 The proposal to move the county line solely around Mill Creek doesn't fit with the earlier charter
14 to find the line and solve disputes. In this case, there is no dispute as to the actual location of
15 the land; it's all within Orange County. Hunter's Run, Collington Farms, and Ashbury
16 neighborhoods all lie in the City of Mebane and in Orange County. However, they are not
17 included in this proposal.
18
19 My question becomes one of two choices. Is this someone's pet project, or is this a test case?
20 If it is a pet project, it is my opinion that we should not be changing the county line based on the
21 desire of a few well connected individuals. Alternately, if it is a test case, all of the parts of the
22 City of Mebane that lie within Orange County could be up for grabs if this goes through. In
23 either case, I would ask the Board of Orange County Commissioners to deny any further
24 changes to the county line, seeing as how it is now settled law that has passed the legislature
25 and stood for several years.
26
27 Thank you for your time.
28
29 Carter Vaughn read from the following printed comments:
30 Good evening. I am Carter Vaughn. I am a sophomore at Orange High, and I'm here to talk
31 about Mebane's wanting to change the Orange/Alamance County line by moving my
32 neighborhood from Orange to Alamance County.
33
34 I took civics class this year. In that class, we learned how a government functions and how
35 laws are made. The primary purpose of laws is to promote the common good and protect the
36 rights of minority groups and individuals within the community. A couple of years ago, the
37 county line was up for debate, but the legislature worked out this dispute by passing a law
38 solidifying the location of the county line.
39
40 This is the third time someone has tried to move the county line around us and put us in
41 Alamance County, even though the USGS survey proved we were in Orange County. We are
42 now and always have been in Orange County. I should be considered as much a part of
43 Orange County as my classmates that come from Efland, Hillsborough or Rougemont. If there
44 are emergency service problems, please work them out. This is not a reason to allow the state
45 law to be changed.
46
47 I like my county and my school and all the things I get to do here that are not available in
48 Alamance County. Please do not let Mebane take our county from us or me from my school.
49
50
3
1 Commissioner Rich said that these residents had received letters from the City of
2 Mebane about this issue, and the Board of County Commissioners was referenced. She noted
3 that the Board of County Commissioners was never contacted about this issue, and she would
4 like for this to be addressed in the next meeting with Mebane. She said this is not the way to
5 open up conversations with your neighboring County.
6 Larry Newsom said he is also a neighbor in the Mill Creek neighborhood. He said his
7 concern with the change in counties is the school system change. He has a son at Orange
8 County High School, and his son has gone through the Orange County school system his entire
9 life. He said it is important that if this change in counties does happen, each family should be
10 given a choice as to which school system they wish to attend. He said no one should be forced
11 to change schools.
12
13 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
14 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
15 below.)
16
17 3. Petitions by Board Members
18 Commissioner Pelissier asked the County Manager if there was a telecommuting policy
19 for the County, and if not, she asked that they consider developing such a policy.
20 Commissioner Jacobs said the Pauli Murray Awards were presented on Sunday for the
21 25th year. He said it would be nice to have a plaque placed in this room or in this building to list
22 the 25 years of winners and to commemorate this event.
23 Commissioner Jacobs asked Bonnie Hammersley to find out the policy for the water and
24 sewer providers in Orange County, regarding what happens when a system fails and overflows
25 and damages residents' properties. He asked if these providers consider themselves exempt,
26 or if there is compensation given to the affected parties.
27
28 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
29 a. Orange County Schools Community's Vision for Public Education Presentation
30 The Board received a presentation on the Community's Vision for Public Education in
31 Orange County Schools, and provided feedback or questions.
32 Orange County Schools (OCS) Superintendent Del Burns said this community vision
33 process is unique because neither the Board of Education nor the staff participated in the
34 development of this vision. He said this vision was developed by Community stakeholders, and
35 has been adopted by the Board of Education.
36 Del Burns introduced Scottie Seawell and Pam Jones, Interim Deputy Superintendent.
37 Scottie Seawell reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
38
39 The Community's Vision for Public Education
40 We envision a public school system that prepares all students to be creative,
41 constructive thinkers who become healthy, productive and responsible members of our
42 community and the world.
43
44 The Stakeholders
45 Identified by the Board of Education
46 Recruited and Guided by a Steering Committee
47 Goal of"Broadly Representative"
48 ➢ Walks of Life
49 ➢ Geography
50 ➢ Age and Stage
4
1
2 The Process
3 Starting with Questions
4 Building Community
5 Building Support and Understanding
6 Soliciting Input— More Questions
7 Analyzing Input
8 Crafting the Vision Statement and Document
9 Reaching Consensus
10 "Ever-green" 4 Sustainability
11
12 Public Values
13 Common Framework and Language
14 Core Public Values of:
15 Liberty = Value of the "I"
16 Equality = Value of"Groups"
17 Community = Value of the "We"
18 Prosperity = Value of the "Market"
19 A Matter of Balance
20
21 The Community's Vision for Public Education
22 We envision a public school system that prepares all students to be creative, constructive
23 thinkers who become healthy, productive and responsible members of our community and the
24 world.
25
26 Uniquely Orange County Schools...
27 We believe...
28 We expect...
29 Learning from our History
30 Building on our Heritage and Traditions
31 Always becoming more representative and inclusive
32
33 Going Forward
34 Aligning the Community's Vision with the OCS Strategic Plan —Work to date...
35 Embracing the Vision
36 Ever-Green Quality
37 Implications of the Vision for the BOCC
38 ✓ Working together democratically
39 ✓ Using the vision to develop policies
40 ✓ High expectations for all students
41
42 Scottie Seawell referred to the Calls for Action on page 5 of the vision statement. She
43 read the following paragraph:
44
45 We expect the Board of Education and the Board of County Commissioners, our elected
46 representative, to use this vision to develop policies that create healthy, safe and nurturing
47 environments; support all students in reaching their full potential; and result in the development
48 of productive and responsible citizens as well as lifelong learners with critical thinking and
49 problem solving skills who will lead us in the future.
50
5
1 Scottie Seawell said there is also recognition from the community of all of the work that
2 has already been done to support public education.
3 Commissioner Jacobs referred to appendix B, regarding choices in addition to college
4 and the need for more people to work with their hands. He recently talked to an appliance
5 repairman who said it is difficult to find young people interested in apprenticeship programs in
6 the field of appliance repair and related areas. He asked if there are any active apprenticeship
7 programs or a contact person for that.
8 Scottie said the idea of apprenticeships and alternatives was a broadly agreed upon
9 issue with the stakeholders. She referenced the woodworking program at Cedar Ridge and the
10 amazing work that is being done there. She referred the question about apprenticeship
11 programs to Del Burns.
12 Del Burns said there are limited opportunities for apprenticeships through the career and
13 technical education programs at this time. He said the hands-on work ethic is a tradition in
14 Orange County, and there was a discussion of the need for alternatives for students. He said
15 the schools are not taking full advantage of apprenticeships, and this is on the radar.
16
17 b. Resolution Acknowledging February 24, 2015 as Spay Neuter Day in Orange
18 County, North Carolina
19 The Board considered adopting the proposed resolution acknowledging February 24,
20 2015 as Spay Neuter Day in Orange County, North Carolina and authorizing the Chair to sign
21 the resolution.
22 Bob Marotto expressed appreciation to the Board for putting this item on the agenda
23 retroactively, due to inclement weather. He said spay/neutering is a community issue, and he
24 thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their support over their years. The
25 Commissioners were presented with spay/neuter support t-shirts.
26 He noted some of Animal Service's 2014 accomplishments. He said the program
27 sterilized 433 cats and dogs that belong to low income residents, and 289 of these animals
28 belonged to clients of the Department of Social Services (DSS.) He said the outcomes of this
29 effort are measured in the decline of admissions to their facility and the fact that the number of
30 animals being euthanized is at a historically low level.
31
32 Michelle Walker read the following resolution:
33
34 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
35 SPAY NEUTER DAY RESOLUTION
36
37 WHEREAS, cats and dogs provide companionship to and share the homes of thousands of
38 individuals in Orange County; and
39
40 WHEREAS, the problem of pet overpopulation costs the taxpayers of Orange County hundreds
41 of thousands of dollars annually through animal control and sheltering programs aimed at
42 coping with unwanted and homeless cats and dogs; and
43
44 WHEREAS, humane societies and shelters throughout the country have to euthanize
45 approximately four million cats and dogs each year, although many of them are healthy and
46 adoptable, due to the lack of critical resources such as money, space, and good adoptive
47 homes; and
48
49 WHEREAS, the Animal Services Advisory Board and the Animal Services Department have
50 made correcting pet overpopulation a priority, and prepared Managing Pet Overpopulation: A
6
1 Strategic Plan for Orange County and Managing Free-Roaming Cats in Orange County,
2 North Carolina; and
3
4 WHEREAS, spaying and neutering cats and dogs, among other animal companions, has been
5 shown to drastically reduce overpopulation; and
6
7 WHEREAS, Animal Services has partnered with AnimalKind and the Department of Social
8 Services to offer "low cost" and "no cost" spay and neuter to households who are economically
9 disadvantaged or who receive public assistance; and
10
11 WHEREAS, veterinarians, animal care and control organizations, national and local animal
12 welfare organizations, and private citizens have joined together again this year to advocate and
13 support the spaying and neutering of companion animals on "Spay Day USA 2015";
14
15 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Orange County Board of Commissioners that
16 February 24, 2015 is declared "Spay Neuter Day" and the Board calls upon the people of the
17 County to observe the day by having their own cats or dogs spayed or neutered or by
18 sponsoring the spaying or neutering of another person's cat or dog.
19
20 THIS, THE 3rd DAY OF MARCH, 2015.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
23 adopt a resolution recognizing February 24, 2015 as "Spay Neuter Day" in Orange County and
24 authorize the Chair to sign.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 Commissioner Jacobs congratulated the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB) and
29 staff, and he said it is good to see that they are making a difference in Orange County.
30
31 5. Public Hearings
32
33 a. Joint Public Hearing with the Historic Preservation Commission Regarding the
34 Proposed Designation of the White Cross School as an Orange County Local
35 Historic Landmark
36 The Board considered 1) conducting a joint public hearing with the Historic Preservation
37 Commission to receive public comment on the draft designation ordinance for the White Cross
38 School, 2) closing the public hearing; and 3) referring the draft designation ordinance back to
39 the Historic Preservation Commission for its final review and recommendation.
40
41 The following Historic Preservation Members were in attendance:
42 Todd Dickinson, Chair
43 Bob Ireland, Vice Chair
44 Susan Ballard
45 Rob Golan
46 Jaime Grant
47 Grace White
48
49 Peter Sandbeck discussed PowerPoint photos of the White Cross building, and the
50 landmark process. He said this hearing is a routine step in the landmark process, as required
7
1 by the County ordinance for historic preservation and by state law. He said it is important to
2 note that the landmark designation program is voluntary in Orange County. He said neighbors
3 are notified when a landmark is being proposed, and these nearby residents are generally very
4 supportive. He reviewed the background of the creation of the program in the 1970's. He said
5 the goal was to encourage and promote the preservation and maintenance of historic properties
6 for public benefit. He said properties must possess special historical, archeological,
7 architectural or cultural significance for Orange County. He said this determination is then
8 reviewed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Office, and landmark status can only
9 be conferred through an ordinance passed by elected officials of a local government entity. He
10 said landmark owners are entitled to receive a 50 percent deferral on their property, but these
11 residents must maintain the historic character of the property.
12 He reviewed the following background information from the abstract:
13
14 Background: One of the HPC's duties is to recommend properties to the BOCC for local
15 landmark designation. Properties must meet a high standard of historic and/or architectural
16 significance to be designated as an individual landmark. The higher standard is appropriate
17 since landmark property owners are eligible for a 50 percent property tax deferral as provided
18 by state law, as long as the property is preserved and retains its historic character. The historic
19 landmark designation process, outlined in Article 3 of the County's Historic Preservation
20 Ordinance, involves several steps culminating with the adoption of an ordinance by the BOCC
21 for each individual landmark. At its October 22, 2014 meeting, the HPC accepted a Part 2
22 application from Ms. Danielle Sunde to consider her property, the White Cross School, for
23 designation as an Orange County Local Historic Landmark, thus initiating the application
24 process. Ms. Sunde's application materials were submitted to the State Historic Preservation
25 Office (SHPO) for review and comment as required by state law. The HPC received a favorable
26 response from the SHPO staff. The HPC concurred with the SHPO's evaluation that the White
27 Cross School was worthy of consideration for local landmark designation. The HPC voted
28 unanimously to request a joint public hearing with the BOCC, as required by Section 3.7 of the
29 Historic Preservation Ordinance. Built in 1933, the White Cross School is one of only three brick
30 consolidated schools to survive in rural Orange County. The property consists of the 1933 brick
31 school, built in the Colonial Revival style, along with the cafeteria wing added in 1948. Both
32 portions retain a high degree of architectural integrity, with most of its original historic exterior
33 and interior features still preserved. The White Cross School played a pivotal role in the social
34 and cultural life of lower Bingham Township until it closed in 1961. It now serves as the home
35 for a privately-operated preschool.
36
37 This is a routine joint public hearing required by state enabling legislation and the county's
38 Historic Preservation Ordinance. Following this joint public hearing, the BOCC and the HPC will
39 take into consideration any public comments in preparing the final ordinance. The HPC will then
40 return the final version of the proposed ordinance back to the BOCC for the Board's
41 consideration and adoption this spring.
42
43 PUBLIC COMMENT:
44 Stan Lewis said he has lived in this area since 1993, and he knew people that actually
45 went to this school. He said he expressed a few concerns at a previous meeting. He said he
46 does not want to hold this process up, and he is in favor of the landmark. However, he said Mr.
47 Sunde needed water for his business, and so he (Stan Lewis) agreed to have a well installed
48 for this purpose. He said there were some issues related to this that were supposed to be
49 addressed by Mr. Sunde; however, it has been two years, and these issues have not been
50 addressed. He said there is a lease agreement for this, and Mr. Sunde is two months behind
8
1 on these payments. He said the well issues need to be addressed by the steward of the
2 property.
3 Commissioner Price asked for clarification on the well.
4 Stan Lewis said the well that was built on his property is a separate line that services
5 only the schoolhouse. He said this is on his property. He said the older well services all of the
6 other units, including his house.
7 Commissioner Price asked John Roberts if this has any bearing on the landmark
8 designation.
9 John Roberts said he does not know if it has any bearing on the actual designation of
10 the landmark. He said this is just public comment for the Board to consider, and this will come
11 back for further consideration.
12 Chair Jacobs said he can personally testify to the rigorous review of properties by the
13 Historic Preservation Commission.
14 Discussion ensued between Commissioner Burroughs and Peter Sandbeck regarding
15 the history of White Cross and Carrboro Schools.
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to:
18 1) open a joint public hearing with the Historic Preservation Commission to receive public
19 comment on the draft designation ordinance for the White Cross School;
20 2) close the public hearing; and
21 3) refer the draft designation ordinance back to the Historic Preservation Commission for its
22 final review and recommendation.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 b. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendments for
27 Agricultural Support Enterprises Within the Rural Buffer Land Use Classification —
28 Defer Public Hearing Process to May 5, 2015 (No Additional Oral Comments
29 Accepted)
30 The Board considered deferring the public hearing process on the Comprehensive Plan
31 and Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) zoning text amendments pertaining to Agricultural
32 Support Enterprises within the Rural Buffer land use classification to May 5, 2015 in order to
33 allow time for the necessary Joint Planning Amendment (JPA) land use amendments to be
34 further considered and adopted.
35 Perdita Holtz said the JPAs are still in the review process. She said Carrboro has
36 adopted a revised resolution without the sunset clause, and Chapel Hill is scheduled to address
37 the JPA amendments next week. She said the JPA materials will need to come back to the
38 Board of County Commissioners for re-adoption, and staff plans to bring this to the Board of
39 County Commissioners on April 7th. She said the UDO amendments will be taken back to the
40 County planning board on April 1 st.
41 Commissioner Rich asked what will happen if there are two very different resolutions
42 from Carrboro and Chapel Hill.
43 Perdita Holtz said staff is not expecting differing resolutions, but if there are differences,
44 the local governments will need to come together to address this.
45
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to:
47 1. Open the public hearing, and
48 2. Defer the hearing by adjourning it to May 5, 2015 in order to allow time for the necessary
49 JPA land use amendments to be further considered and adopted.
50
9
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 c. 2015 - 2019 Consolidated Plan/HOME Program
4 The Board considered opening the public hearing to receive comments from the public
5 regarding the housing and non-housing needs to be included in the 2015-2019 Consolidated
6 Plan for Housing and Community Development Programs in Orange County and proposed uses
7 of the 2015-2016 HOME funds, and closing the public hearing.
8 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said the purpose tonight is to receive public comments, which
9 initiates a community input process for the five year consolidated plan that is required by the
10 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for funds received by the Orange
11 County Consortium and Chapel Hill CDBG funds. She said the plan covers housing and non-
12 housing needs to be included in the 2015-2019 Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community
13 Development Programs in Orange County and proposed uses of the 2015-2016 HOME funds.
14 She said there will be other opportunities for community input, and prior to submission of the
15 plan to HUD, there will be on-line surveys and stakeholder meetings.
16 She said staff has received a final number for the amount of funding that will be
17 received this year. She said this amount is $311,832, which is $40,000 less than 2014. She
18 said applications for funding were due by February 20th, and these applications have been
19 forwarded to the consortium for review.
20 Commissioner Dorosin asked why the public hearing is being held now when the
21 application deadline has already passed. He said the purpose is to find out how the community
22 feels the home program money should be spent, but the applications have already been
23 submitted to receive the money. He does not understand the timeline.
24 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said the timeline is not ideal. She said the goal would usually
25 be to complete this process prior to receiving applications. She said these HOME funds will
26 represent the annual action plan, which is required for each of the five years. She said this is
27 the first year in the five year process, and there are four more years of opportunity. She said
28 the consolidated plan also looks for other funding resources for addressing affordable housing.
29 Commissioner Dorosin said if the deadline for applications is set outside of our control
30 then next year, he would suggest that the public hearing be held two months prior.
31 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said this should be possible next year. She said this year's
32 process will give them a guide for next year.
33 Commissioner Price questioned whether this timeline is due to the Board of County
34 Commissioners schedule or HUD.
35 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said next year's schedule will be more in alignment with the
36 Board's expectations, and it will allow more time to get ahead of the curve.
37 Chair McKee asked if a reason was given for the $40,000 reduction of funds.
38 Audrey Spencer-Horsley said the funding was reduced at the federal level, and the
39 County's cut was proportional to this.
40
41 PUBLIC COMMENT
42 Brian Curran is the secretary of the board of directors for Habitat for Humanity of
43 Orange County. He said HOME funding continues to be a critical factor in Habitat's building
44 efforts. He said these funds have been used to leverage millions of dollars in private funding
45 for the majority of the 250 homes that Habitat has built in Orange County. He said HOME
46 funding is part of the reason that 50 people now call Phoenix Place home. He said the addition
47 of Habitat homes has resulted in crime rate reductions and a rise in the rates of home
48 ownership. He said Habitat is requesting $270,000 in funding for 11 new homes for
49 homebuyers who earn between 30 and 65 percent of area median income. He said these
50 funds will be used as second mortgages for Habitat home buyers and will have long term
10
1 positive impact for residents. He said Habitat also assists residents with revitalization and repair
2 of older homes through its Brush with Kindness program. He thanked the Board for
3 consideration of this request, and he provided a copy of Habitat for Humanity's annual report.
4
5 Angel Davalos lives in a Habitat home located in the Fairview community in
6 Hillsborough. He said, by providing these funds to Habitat, the Board is keeping the
7 organization functional so that wonderful things can happen. He said, for families purchasing
8 homes, this program makes the single family home dream a reality. He said he had previously
9 lived in public housing, and his wife grew up in one bedroom trailer with her family of five. He
10 said he and his wife feel incredibly blessed to provide a better home for their children. He said
11 the Board is also giving the gift of giving to all of the volunteers involved in this program, and is
12 fostering partnerships between Habitat and organizations within the Community. He highlighted
13 the Hands for Habitat partnership between Habitat and Orange County schools, with a focus on
14 educating students on the issue of affordable housing. He said this program has been in
15 existence for 7 years, and 12 schools and 68 classrooms have participated. He said his home
16 was built by Orange High students, while students in younger grades participated in fund raising
17 activities. He said this program is having an incredible impact on students. He thanked the
18 Board for their support and asked for their continued help.
19
20 Michael Kelly works for Housing for New Hope. He said he has nothing bad to say
21 about Habitat, but you do have to make a certain amount of money to qualify for a Habitat
22 home. He said Housing for New Hope's homeless outreach and support program targets
23 homeless residents and those who make less than 30 percent of area median income. He said
24 these are people who would probably not qualify for a Habitat home, and some form of
25 assistance is needed for them. He said these currently homeless residents are provided with
26 temporary assistance to obtain and retain affordable rental housing. He said HOME funds are
27 requested to support this direct assistance. He said the team searches the streets of Orange
28 County, Chapel Hill, and Carrboro, and works in cooperation with other organizations in the
29 area. He said funds are used to help provide these homeless residents with rental and utility
30 deposits, first month's rent, and sometimes with monthly rental assistance. He said the
31 program is considered a success when an individual or family becomes securely housed. He
32 said the goal is to assist with the provision of decent, safe, affordable housing, and to assist
33 participants with obtaining income to live as independently as possible.
34
35 Jamie Rohe is the Homeless Programs Coordinator for Orange County. She hears over
36 and over again from the homeless service providers that there is no affordable rental housing in
37 Orange County. She said Housing for New Hope is an essential program that fills a great need
38 in this area for residents who earn little and are chronically homeless. She said there are very
39 few landlords who will rent to residents with criminal histories or poor credit. She said the
40 Department of Social Services (DSS) and Inter-faith Council (IFC) staff cannot find affordable
41 rental units in Orange County for their clients. She said to bridge these two topics, Orange
42 County and Chapel Hill are required to create a consolidated plan, and this plan is a tool to
43 identify unmet needs and best strategies for filling that need for affordable housing. She
44 encouraged the Board to use this tool to inform funding and policy decisions.
45
46 Maggie West affirmed the previous comments. She requested that the plan include
47 efforts to address the severe lack of properties accepting Section 8 federal vouchers. She said
48 the community is in a crisis of finding landlords who are willing to accept these vouchers and
49 house the families receiving subsidies. She said she is working for two women who are
50 wheelchair bound and have no poor credit or criminal history, but they are having trouble only
11
1 because of the vouchers. She said efforts need to be made to recruit and maintain
2 relationships with landlords who are willing to accept these vouchers. She said, the GFC issue
3 affected one fifth of the voucher holders in Orange County, and the relocation of these families
4 caused problems for other voucher holders who were looking for homes.
5
6 Chiraayu Gosrani is a student at UNC, and he works with the Community Empowerment
7 Fund. He said the consolidated plan needs to involve stakeholders and people who are actually
8 facing homelessness and extreme poverty. He said a concerted effort needs to be made to
9 reach out to those communities to understand their needs and whether they are being met. He
10 said communication with landlords is also very important. He said there is a lack of information
11 with the landlords regarding what housing vouchers entail. He said many of the voucher
12 holders are turned down because of a criminal record or lack of ability to meet other
13 specifications. He said another issue is access to affordable housing. He said there is no
14 central location to find information about options for affordable housing. He suggested the
15 creation of a database to make this information accessible to caseworkers and organizations
16 working to place members into housing.
17
18 Allan Rosen read from the following written comments:
19 Hello, I am Allan Rosen, project manager at the Inter-Faith Council for Social Service (IFC). I'm
20 here tonight for the housing and community development public hearing. I'd like to share some
21 information about IFC's work that we believe will be helpful in preparing Orange County's
22 Consolidated Plan.
23
24 As most of you likely know, IFC is one of the principal agencies that address homelessness and
25 hunger in Orange County. Throughout our history, IFC has relied on partnerships with
26 community volunteers, congregations, businesses, civic associations, and peer social service
27 agencies. For housing and community development issues, we actively participate in the
28 Partnership to End Homelessness, the Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition, and the
29 Family Success Alliance.
30
31 For the past thirty years IFC has focused its effort on basic safety-net programs including
32 emergency shelter and transitional housing, free medical and mental health care for the
33 residents of our housing programs, a community kitchen, food pantry and crisis intervention
34 services for vulnerable individuals and families who are at-risk of becoming homeless.
35 IFC has 20 full-time and 8 part-time employees. Our annual cash budget is $1.75 million, which
36 is surpassed by $2.5 million in donated goods and services (including more than 40,000
37 volunteer hours).
38
39 I FC is very appreciative of the support it receives each and every year from Orange County and
40 the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill. This support is critical to keeping our programs
41 operating.
42
43 In the interest of time, I'll submit detailed service deliver totals from the most recent fiscal year
44 in writing. However, with respect to our housing programs, in the last fiscal year:
45 • Community House provided 17,200 nights of safe shelter for 370 men
46 • HomeStart provided 13,400 nights of safe shelter to 200 women and 80 children
47 • Our Robert Nixon Free Clinic
48 ■ Provided free health care to 350 residents
49 ■ Provided free mental health care to 160 residents
50 ■ Dispensed 500 prescriptions
12
1
2 IFC has been operating the Community House and HomeStart at this scale since 1998 when
3 our HomeStart facility opened on land generously made available by the Commissioners.
4 Currently nearly 57%, or $994,000, of our $1.75 million cash budget, supports Community
5 House, HomeStart and the free clinic. Included in this funding is approximately $40,000 in local
6 government dollars and $59,000 from the federal Emergency Solutions Grant.
7
8 From our vantage point, we believe the FY 2015-20 Consolidated Plan should consider
9 the following factors:
10
11 1. The new Inter-Faith Council @SECU Community House is scheduled to open in September
12 2015 and will provide 52 beds for a men's transitional housing program. At HomeStart, IFC
13 also has ten bedrooms available for women—and women with children—enrolled in a
14 transitional housing program. Last fiscal year 87 men, women, and children successfully found
15 permanent housing after completing the program at IFC. This year the numbers are down
16 because of a noticeable reduction in affordable housing opportunities.
17
18 Those who successfully complete their transitional housing program typically seek permanent
19 affordable housing in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro community to be near their place of employment
20 and their support networks. Often those who are ready to leave IFC's housing programs delay
21 their departure until suitable affordable housing can be found.
22
23 It is our experience that without more affordable rental housing, IFC program residents will
24 either stay enrolled longer than necessary, move further away from their place of employment
25 and support networks for the sake of affordable housing, or move into substandard housing in
26 closer proximity to employment and support.
27
28 Hence, we believe all agencies in Orange County that offer transitional housing programs (IFC,
29 Horizons, etc.) would be more successful if the supply of affordable housing in our community
30 increases by at least twenty-five net units each year available for transitional housing program
31 graduates for the duration of the Consolidated Plan's planning horizon.
32
33 2. With respect to Emergency Shelter, currently neither Community House nor HomeStart have
34 limits on how many persons can be accommodated on bad weather nights. At HomeStart we
35 rarely have more emergency shelter guests than emergency shelter beds, which are sixteen.
36
37 However, at the IFC @SECU Community House, IFC will be limited to seventeen (17)
38 emergency shelter beds for homeless men. This year, beginning in November, on most bad
39 weather nights, we've had at least 20 men staying overnight on a weather-emergency basis.
40 The maximum-to-date has been 29 men. Hence, we believe the community will need an
41 additional 12-15 emergency shelter beds in southern Orange County on cold weather nights for
42 homeless men in addition to those that will be available at the new Community House.
43
44 Hudson Vaughn works with the Jackson Center, and he supports the previous
45 comments. He feels it is important that the consolidated plan supports critical home repairs for
46 long term elderly residents in Orange County. He gave examples of homes he has seen that
47 have significant repair needs. He said these critical repairs need a quick response, and efforts
48 have been made to connect these residents with agencies such as Habitat for Humanity and
49 the IFC to address their needs in a multifaceted way. He said Orange County's Housing
13
1 Department has programs to address some of these, but the process is often too slow to
2 accommodate the needs. He gave examples of situations to support the existence of this issue.
3
4 Robert Reda is the President of Habitat for Humanity of Orange County. He said the
5 demand for Habitat homes will continue to rise, and one way Habitat is preparing to meet those
6 needs is by acquiring land. He noted the future agenda item regarding a lot donation from the
7 County. He hopes the County will be open to future donations of other properties that are
8 suitable for affordable housing. He said Habitat for Humanity's site committee has identified a
9 number of possible building lots, and Habitat will continue to raise funds for purchase of these
10 lots, but local government funding will also be needed. He said Habitat is a member of the
11 Affordable Housing Coalition, which is chaired by Habitat's Executive Director, Susan Levy. He
12 said the coalition has successfully advocated for the Town of Chapel Hill to have an ongoing
13 source of local funding for affordable housing. He said the County will also be asked to develop
14 a sustainable source for funding. He said Habitat also has an exterior repair program, which is
15 supported by the County through its outside agency grant. He said there is still a significant
16 unmet need among low income residents, especially the elderly, and he hopes the consolidated
17 plan will address this. He thanked the Board for their support.
18
19 The following written statement was submitted via email:
20 FROM: Mary Jean Seyda, COO of CASA,
21 Chair of the Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness
22 DATE: February 20, 2015
23 RE: Public Comment on the FY 2015-2019 Orange County Consolidated Housing
24 Plan & 2015-2016 HOME Investment Partnership funds
25
26 Research shows that Extremely Low Income Households (ELI) have the greatest need for
27 rental housing. These are individuals and families whose income is at or below 30% of the
28 median. In Orange County these community members have incomes that range from $0-
29 $13,800 for a single individual, $19,700 for a family of 4. Federal housing assistance including
30 Public Housing Authority units and Housing Choice Vouchers, is aimed at this group. "But
31 unlike most other safety net programs, federal low income housing assistance is not an
32 entitlement. Everyone who is eligible for it does not receive it. These programs only reach
33 about 23% of income eligible households, because they are not funded at a high enough level
34 to serve all eligible households." (National Low Income Housing Coalition, The Alignment
35 Project, http://niihc.org/library/research/alignment, 2014)
36
37 According to the Urban Institute (http://urban.org/housingaffordabilityl in Orange County
38 • For every 100 ELI renter households, there are only 25 affordable and available rental
39 units.
40 • There are 6,270 ELI renter households
41 • There are 1,564 affordable and available rental units
42 • We need 4,706 affordable units to close this gap.
43 We advocate that funding be prioritized for community members who are ELI, may be
44 homeless, and/or have a disability. These are not three disparate groups; these three
45 characteristics are intrinsically linked. According to the Technical Assistance Collaborative
46 Priced Out 2012, persons with disabilities remain the poorest households in our communities:
47 "The average annual income of a single individual receiving SSI payments was $8,714— equal
48 to only 19.2% of the national median income for a one-person household and almost 22%
49 below the 2012 federal poverty level." According to Orange County's 2014 Point-in-Time Count,
50 nearly half of the persons who are homeless in our county reported having a disability. As we
14
1 have seen in the Come Learn with Us sessions at the Town of Chapel Hill, an average of 75%
2 of persons of low wealth, persons with a disability and single parent families spend more than
3 30% of their income on housing costs. They disproportionately carry a high housing cost
4 burden.
5
6 By prioritizing funding for ELI households, therefore, we are preventing or ending the cycle of
7 homelessness for the most vulnerable members of our community.
8
9 CASA's second priority is for households earning less than 60% of the median. This group of
10 renters is not served by the market. Not only is this group cost-burdened themselves, but
11 because this group is competing for the limited number of available and affordable units, they
12 are further constricting the availability of units for ELI households at the very bottom.
13
14 Priority 1 Affordable Rental: New Construction and Acquisition and Rehab
15 • Extremely Low Income Households 0-30% of Area Median Income
16 • Persons who are homeless
17 • Persons with a disability
18 Priority 2 Affordable Rental: New Construction and Acquisition and Rehab
19 • 30-60% AMI
20 • Persons who are homeless
21 • Persons with a disability
22 Priority 3 Rental Subsidies
23 As part of the development negotiations request that all new multi-family developments
24 accept rental subsidies (Housing Choice Vouchers, VASH Vouchers, Shelter Plus Care
25 Rental Subsidies) in a percentage of their units. Given that insufficient federal supports
26 such as vouchers are available, the least our community can do is not reject those
27 supports that do exist.
28
29 Commissioner Price said that the Community Home Trust Executive Director Robert
30 Dowling was unable to attend this evening, but he has sent a request by email for $12,000 from
31 the HOME program funds.
32 Commissioner Dorosin said he has heard a lot of good things are happening, but he has
33 also heard that there are a lot of challenges still out there. He said there is a need to think
34 more creatively with this plan. He said new and creative solutions need to be added to address
35 these continuing problems. He said a lot of the model has a heavy dependence on the private
36 sector, but this community may have reached the ceiling with the private market. He
37 questioned whether the County should look at owning their own properties that will accept the
38 section 8 vouchers. He said this can be done in partnership with non-profits. He said he has
39 talked with people having issues with manufactured housing too. He suggested the idea of
40 cooperatively owned parks or publicly owned facilities to serve the people with the most need.
41 He hopes the Board can work with everyone present tonight to begin innovating with new and
42 creative strategies to address the gaps.
43 Commissioner Rich said it is important to work with their local government partners too.
44 She would like to know more about the previously mentioned long wait times for urgent repair
45 issues. She agreed with Commissioner Dorosin that it is time to begin thinking outside of the
46 box, especially in the face of reduced federal funding. She said it may be time to look at some
47 best practices from other states.
48 Commissioner Pelissier echoed Commissioner Rich's comments about working with
49 their government partners. She said she has asked at past joint meetings about the 80 acres
50 of the green tract, which is jointly owned by Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County. She is
15
1 interested in looking at ways to do something different with at least some portions of that land.
2 Commissioner Jacobs said he agrees with most of what has been said. He particularly
3 supports Commissioner Dorosin's thoughts regarding manufactured housing. He said the
4 Board has talked about land banking for awhile, to create community opportunities and
5 alternative options for people at the mercy of mobile home park operators.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said the plan also talks about continued dialogue with the
7 university regarding issues that affect affordable rental opportunities in the area. He suggests
8 taking this a step further, and he would like an update from the manager at a future meeting
9 regarding this partnership.
10 Chair McKee said manufactured housing, and particularly modular homes, do provide
11 opportunities for affordable housing, especially if you own the land.
12 Chair McKee asked Hudson Vaughn to contact the manager's office with the name of
13 the person he mentioned in his earlier comments.
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
16 close the public hearing.
17
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 d. Orange County's Proposed 2015 Legislative Agenda
21 The Board considered 1) conducting a public hearing on Orange County's potential
22 legislative items for the 2015 North Carolina General Assembly Session; 2) closing the public
23 hearing and reviewing and discussing the Legislative Issues Work Group's (LIWG) proposed
24 2015 legislative package and any other potential items for inclusion in Orange County's
25 legislative agenda package for the 2015 North Carolina General Assembly Session; 3)
26 approving the proposed legislative matters resolution on Statewide Issues; and 4) identifying
27 three to five specific items from the entire package to highlight for priority discussion at the
28 March 23, 2015 meeting with Orange County's legislative delegation.
29 Greg Wilder gave some background information. He noted that Commissioner Rich and
30 Commissioner Pelissier were the two Commissioners who served on the Legislative Issues
31 Work Group. He said the proposals from the work group are listed on attachment 2 of the
32 abstract.
33 Commissioner Pelissier highlighted Items 18 and 19 on page 11 of attachment 2, which
34 were added after suggestions and petitions from Board members and the public. These items
35 read as follows:
36
37 18) Sales Tax Distribution Formula —Support legislation directing that all sales tax be
38 distributed on a per capita basis; and
39 19) Classification of Flavored Alcoholic Beverages (Alcopops) —Support legislation to
40 properly classify flavored alcoholic beverages (Alcopops) as distilled spirits rather than malt
41 beverages.
42
43 PUBLIC COMMENT:
44 Terry Snow resides in Hillsborough and is a registered engineer. He said a safe and
45 efficient transportation system is vital to a vibrant economy in N.C. He said Orange County has
46 taken a proactive position to change general statute 153A-331, which will allow the flexibility to
47 transfer funds to NCDOT and the municipalities for transportation projects. He said this
48 flexibility will aid in timely planning, design, and construction of roadways. He said this change
49 is good for Orange County and N.C.
50 Del Burns referred to a letter the Board received from Orange County School Board
16
1 Chair Stephen Halkiotis. He said this memo was regarding three issues, including: calendar
2 flexibility; full funding for state allotments, including ADM growth; and full funding for driver
3 education. He said two of these are financial in nature and could have impacts on both
4 districts. He referred to the second item regarding full funding for state allotments, and he said
5 this addresses changes in the last session of the general assembly, whereby growth in school
6 districts has moved from continuation budgets to expansion budgets. He said this means that
7 growth competes with every other item when the general assembly puts together a budget. He
8 said this means absorbing growth, especially rapid growth, may be a challenge. He said this
9 may result in requests for additional county funding to make up that difference.
10 Del Burns said there has been a declining amount of support for driver education as
11 well, and school systems will now be required to provide driver education while having no
12 guarantee of funding to do so.
13 He said the calendar flexibility issue has been brought forth in the face of the recent
14 inclement weather. He said there are August and June cutoff dates that must be adhered to,
15 and the makeup of the lost time ranges from options that are inconvenient, educationally
16 difficult, or negatively impact worship. He said the Orange County Schools would like to offer
17 options that would be family friendly and educationally sound. He said the calendar legislation
18 limits these options.
19 Del Burns said the Board of Education asks for the Board's consideration of these three
20 issues.
21
22 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the following: item #17 *Participation in Solid
23 Waste Programs for Recycling—Authorize counties to require county residents to impose a
24 fee for the solid waste collection services in a manner similar to the authority granted to
25 municipalities. The fee may not exceed the costs of collection. He asked John Roberts how this
26 is different from his interpretation of how the law was changed last August.
27 John Roberts said #17 simply asks that the counties be granted the same authority as
28 the towns.
29 Commissioner Rich asked about Item #3, which is related to broadband service. She
30 asked how the new FCC ruling would affect the wording of this item.
31 John Roberts said he does not know that it would change anything. He said the FCC
32 ruling is tentative, and he expects some legal challenges ahead. He said this item is asking for
33 extra authority, as the County's current authority is limited to providing grants to public internet
34 providers. He said counties, unlike cities, do not have legislative authority to operation
35 communications facilities, so the FCC guidelines are directed toward cities.
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
38 close the public hearing and review and discuss the Legislative Issues Work Group's (LIWG)
39 proposed 2015 legislative package and any other potential items for inclusion in Orange
40 County's legislative agenda package for the 2015 North Carolina General Assembly Session.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 Additional item:
45 Commissioner Jacobs said the state legislature is considering a constitutional
46 amendment regarding eminent domain, and one of the drafts was very vague about extending
47 eminent domain to those who provide telecommunication. He suggested the following
48 additional wording: "Oppose adding language to a constitutional amendment on eminent
49 domain that extends any further preemption of county authority to regulate the placement of
50 telecommunication towers."
17
1
2 Commissioner Dorosin said he had the following suggestions to add:
3 • Add an item requesting a raise in the age for juvenile jurisdiction from 16 to 18 years of
4 age.
5 • Add an item requesting a raise in the state minimum wage to 10 dollars an hour.
6 • Request restoration of the state earned income tax credit.
7 • Request state expansion of the Medicaid program.
8 • Add a goal to restore same day voter registration, early voting periods, Sunday voting,
9 and pre-registration of 16 and 17 year olds.
10 • Add a goal that the state should abolish the death penalty.
11 • Support Orange County Schools' request for the addition of three items.
12 • Add the planning request regarding transportation funds.
13
14 Commissioner Dorosin said these legislative goals are a statement of the County's
15 values, and it is important to add these things.
16 Chair McKee requested that a separate vote be taken for item #1 so that he can vote
17 against this. He noted that a transfer tax was defeated in Orange County, and it has been
18 passed in several other counties. He would like the option to vote against this one item.
19 There was clarifying discussion noting that the total number of items is now 27, with the
20 three recommendations by OCS being counted as one item.
21
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
23 approve Item #1 Revenue Options for Local Government.
24
25 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nay, 1 (Chair McKee)
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
28 approve the proposed legislative matters resolution on Statewide Issues and additional items.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 The Board considered identifying three to five (or more) specific items from the entire
33 package to highlight for priority discussion at the March 23, 2015 meeting with Orange County's
34 legislative delegation.
35
36 Chair McKee reviewed the items added by Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner
37 Dorosin.
38 Commissioner Pelissier suggested prioritization of item #4 regarding Smart Start and
39 NC Pre-K should be one of the priority items.
40 Commissioner Price suggested prioritization of item #3 regarding Broadband, and said
41 this is important for this community.
42 Commissioner Dorosin suggested prioritization of item #21 to raise the age of juvenile
43 jurisdiction.
44 Commissioner Burroughs suggested prioritization of item #27, which includes the three
45 issues identified by OCS items. She also suggested prioritization of item #10 regarding
46 childcare.
47 Commissioner Rich suggested prioritization of item # 24 regarding the expansion of
48 Medicaid. She said this does not have to be a long discussion, but it is worth mentioning.
49 Commissioner Jacobs supports the prioritization of item #11 regarding land, water and
50 agricultural preservation funding.
18
1 Commissioner Price suggested prioritization of item #8, regarding E-911 funds and #9
2 regarding Mental Health.
3 Chair McKee noted that nine items have been suggested.
4 Commissioner Dorosin suggested, if nine priorities are going to be kept, it would be
5 good to group them into categories or themes.
6 Discussion ensued regarding this proposal, and it was suggested that Greg Wilder could
7 help with grouping these items.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
10 highlight these items for priority discussion at the March 23, 2015 meeting with Orange
11 County's legislative delegation.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 6. Consent Agenda
16
17 Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
18 Chair McKee noted that a speaker was present for item 6n - Draft Interlocal Agreement
19 for the Hollow Rock Park and Natural Area— and he asked that this item be pulled.
20 Commissioner Price pulled item 6i for discussion.
21
22 Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
24 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
25
26 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
27
28 a. Minutes
29 The Board approved the minutes as presented or as amended for May 29, 2014; June 5, 2014;
30 June 12, 2014; January 22, 2015; January 27, 2015; and January 30, 2015 as submitted by the
31 Clerk to the Board.
32 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
33 The Board accepted the report reflecting the motor vehicle property tax releases/refunds
34 requested in accordance with the NCGS for fourteen (14) taxpayers with a total of sixteen (16)
35 bills that will result in a reduction of revenue, and approving the attached release/refund
36 resolution.
37 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
38 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
39 values for eight (8) taxpayers with a total of (11) eleven bills that will result in a reduction of
40 revenue in accordance with North Carolina General Statute 105-381.
41 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
42 The Board approved the attached resolution for two (2) untimely applications for
43 exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for two (2) bills for the 2014 tax year.
44 e. Contract Renewal — Removal of Scrap Tires
45 The Board approved a contract renewal with Central Carolina Holdings, LLC of Cameron, North
46 Carolina for the removal of scrap tires and authorized the Chair to sign the agreement.
47 f. Approval to Extend the Cane Creek Fire Insurance District Boundary
48 The Board approved the Cane Creek Fire Insurance District Boundary map which has been
49 expanded to include properties from the White Cross Fire District that are not currently in the
50 rated insurance district for insurance purposes only.
19
1 g. Approval of Expanded East Alamance Fire Insurance District Boundary
2 The Board approved the East Alamance Fire Insurance District Map which has been expanded
3 to include properties within six road miles of Mebane Fire Department Station 3 located at 1469
4 Mebane Oaks Road in Alamance County for insurance purposes only.
5 h. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget Amendment#6
6 The Board approved the budget ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2014-15 for Cooperative
7 Extension; Animal Services/Spay and Neuter Fund; Department on Aging; Library Services;
8 New Hope Volunteer Fire Department; White Cross Fire Department; Sheriff's Department;
9 Department of Social Services; Human Services Non-Departmental; and Other Post
10 Employment Benefits (OPEB) Trust Fund.
11 j. Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) Policies and Procedures
12 The Board approved a resolution amending OUTBoard Policies and Procedures to include
13 Public Health as an additional area of expertise or interest for representation within its
14 membership composition and authorized the Chair to sign.
15 k. An Amendment to the Orange County Board of Commissioners Advisory Board Policy
16 The Board amended the membership requirements of the Orange County Board of
17 Commissioners Advisory Board Policy to set aside board-specific policy requirements dealing
18 with town nominees or geographic requirements if the vacancies affected by those
19 requirements remain unfilled for six (6) consecutive months.
20 I. BOCC Rules of Procedure Revisions
21 The Board approved the changes to the "Rules of Procedure for the Board of Commissioners"
22 regarding Announcements and Petitions by Board Members and the Spokesperson for the
23 Board and update the Rules of Procedure booklet.
24 m. Reimbursement Resolution for FY 2014-15 Capital Projects and Equipment
25 The Board approved a resolution providing for reimbursement of FY-2014-15 Capital Project
26 costs.
27
28
29 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
30 i. Revised Applications, Guidelines & Scoring Sheets for Orange County's Business
31 Investment Grant &Agriculture Economic Development Grant
32 The Board considered approving revised draft Applications, Guidelines & Scoring Sheets for
33 each of two grant programs — Business Investment Grant & Agriculture Economic Development
34 Grant—which are funded by Article 46 one quarter cent sales tax proceeds to support
35 economic development.
36 Commissioner Price asked if the applications will specify that the amount has to be
37 rounded to whole numbers.
38 Steve Brantley said the wording states that the smaller grant is up to $1,000 for
39 agriculture and up to $1,500 for businesses.
40 Commissioner Price said the small grants are listed as up to $1,000, and large grants as
41 between $1,001 and $10,000. She said people could use the 99 cents gap to work around the
42 system.
43 Steve Brantley said their advisory board can be more specific in order to address this.
44 He said he will bring this to their attention.
45 Chair McKee suggested the wording of"small grants of amounts below$1,000, and
46 large grants from $1,000 to $10,000."
47 Commissioner Price referred to item #9 and the request for grant recipients to provide
48 an accounting of how all funds are used within 180 days of receipt. She asked if this is saying
49 that the recipient must have spent all of the money in that time frame, or if this just means an
50 accounting needs to be provided for what has been used up to that point.
20
1 Steve Brantley said the language could be changed to say, "how the funds were, or will
2 be, used."
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to approve the
5 revised draft Applications, Guidelines & Scoring Sheets for each of two grant programs —
6 Business Investment Grant & Agriculture Economic Development Grant—which are funded by
7 Article 46 one quarter cent sales tax proceeds to support economic development.
8 with the two proposed changes: 1) to designate small grants as amounts below$1,000 and
9 large grants as amounts from $1,000 to $10,000; and 2) item #9 language will be changed to
10 say "how the funds were, or will be, used."
11
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 Steve Brantley gave an update of the website improvements and the digitization of the
15 application. He said the grants and the small business loan programs will be incorporated into
16 the business retention program.
17
18
19 n. Draft Interlocal Agreement for the Hollow Rock Park and Natural Area
20 The Board considered receiving a draft interlocal agreement for the construction and
21 operation of the planned Hollow Rock Park and Natural Area— a planned multi-jurisdictional
22 public park located along New Hope Creek and referring the draft interlocal agreement to the
23 Durham-Chapel Hill-Orange County Work Group for consideration at its March 11 meeting
24 before the agreement comes back to the Board at a future meeting for further discussion and
25 action.
26
27 PUBLIC COMMENT:
28 Bill Hall said is a resident of Durham County and he lives in an area very close to this
29 park. He said approximately 200 homes rely on Randolph Road for access. He said there is
30 opposition to closing Pickett Road, since this will shift significant traffic to Randolph Road. He
31 said a light is warranted at the intersection at Randolph and Erwin Road, but there are limited
32 options for improving the intersection at Randolph and Pickett Road. He said keeping Pickett
33 Road open and developing a safe park environment is not an either or proposition. He said it is
34 possible to design a safe environment for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. He said the
35 residents first heard about this from the Orange County Board of Commissioners, and he
36 appreciates their consideration. He asked the Board to remember that many residents do not
37 want to close Pickett Road, and he asked that plans be made to keep the road open.
38
39 Debra Barnes said she is also here to represent the residents of Randolph and the
40 adjoining roads who do not want to close Pickett Road. She said calling the Hollow Rock area
41 a park and making improvements to it does not change the fact that closing a portion of Pickett
42 Road will divert traffic into a residential neighborhood, decrease roadway connectivity, and
43 negatively impact the safety of residents of Randolph and adjoining roads because of increased
44 traffic. She noted the history of this proposal, which included a petition signed by 61 residents
45 in 2011. She said there have been several suggestions that the road closure is not necessary.
46 She noted the increases in traffic on Randolph Road since the 2010 traffic study, and she said
47 a stoplight at Randolph Road and Erwin Road will not be enough to alleviate the increased
48 traffic issues. She discussed a recent accident to illustrate this assertion, and she asked that
49 the idea of closing part of Pickett Road be dropped from the planning process for the Hollow
21
1 Rock portion of the New Hope Preserve. She said this closure is not necessary, and it will
2 negatively impact the residents of Randolph Road.
3
4 Commissioner Jacobs asked David Stancil to explain the status of this proposal.
5 David Stancil said this issue has been around since the master plan was created. He
6 said the item before the Board tonight is just an interlocal agreement, and it is actually just a
7 pass through. He said the staff has been discussing what to do next in terms of activities and
8 trails for the park, and it was suggested that the Durham Chapel Hill Orange Work group might
9 be the group to work on this. He said this was placed on the agenda for the sole purpose of
10 referring it to the work group, after which it will come back to the Board. He said the master
11 plan does not take a position on the closure of Pickett Road, and in fact it shows both options.
12 He said tonight's action has no bearing on this, but the Board could possibly take action on this
13 when it comes back from the work group.
14 Commissioner Burroughs said when this comes back to the Board she would like to see
15 updated traffic study information.
16 Commissioner Pelissier said she hopes the work group would do this quickly, as it has
17 been around for a long time, and she would like to have it resolved for the sake of the residents.
18 Commissioner Rich asked when this will be referred to the work group.
19 David Stancil said the group meets next week.
20 Commissioner Price said she would like to ask Durham and Orange County Fire chiefs
21 and Emergency Services directors to review this issue and weigh in with their thoughts.
22 Chair McKee said he does not see anything incompatible with a road and a park. He
23 would like to see these comments passed on to the work group for consideration.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
26 receive the draft interlocal agreement for the construction and operation of the planned Hollow
27 Rock Park and Natural Area— a planned multi-jurisdictional public park located along New
28 Hope Creek and referring the draft interlocal agreement to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Orange
29 County Work Group for consideration at its March 11 meeting before the agreement comes
30 back to the Board at a future meeting for further discussion and action.
31
32 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
34
35 7. Regular Agenda
36
37 a. Approval of Broker of Record for Employee Benefits
38 The Board considered approving the recommendation of Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. as
39 the County's Broker of Record for Employee Benefit programs, and authorizing the Manager,
40 pending final review by the Human Resources Director and the County Attorney, to sign the
41 contract with Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. and to further authorize the Manager to sign any
42 amendments or renewals thereto.
43
44 Brenda Bartholomew read the following background information:
45
46 BACKGROUND: Orange County issued a Request for Proposals to obtain the services of a
47 Broker of Record to consult with the County in the management of its employee benefit
48 programs. The purpose of the Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit offers from qualified
49 brokers to assist the County with strategically planning, designing and negotiating the best
50 coverage and cost for selective employee benefit programs, which may include but are not
22
1 necessarily limited to health, dental, vision, and other voluntary programs for employees and
2 retirees.
3
4 Under the direction of County Purchasing Agent David Cannell, Employee Benefits Broker RFP
5 5208 was issued on November 12, 2014. Responses were due by prospective vendors by
6 December 9, 2014 and were extended one week thereafter.
7
8 Four vendors responded with written proposals to the RFP, as follows:
9 Mark III Employee Benefits (the County's current Broker of Record)
10 Willis Group
11 Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
12 SennDunn Insurance/ Marsh & McLennan
13
14 The four written proposals were initially reviewed on January 9, 2015 by the County's internal
15 Health Advisory Committee, a six-member employee Committee appointed by the Manager.
16 Following this initial review, David Cannell further facilitated Committee interviews with all four
17 vendors on January 29, 2015. Following reviews of the written proposals and the vendor
18 interviews, the Committee recommended to County Manager Bonnie Hammersley that Arthur J.
19 Gallagher & Co. be selected as the Broker of Record for Orange County.
20
21 Human Resources Director Brenda Bartholomew and the Manager have conducted follow-up
22 discussions and made contact with other governmental units who are current Arthur J.
23 Gallagher & Co. clients. Based on these discussions and reference checks, the Manager
24 concurs with the Health Advisory Committee's recommendation.
25
26 Wesley Grigston from Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. said he works out of the Charlotte office
27 of Gallagher Benefit Services, and his team will be assigned to Orange County. He said this
28 includes two benefit consultants, an underwriting consultant, a health management consultant,
29 a compliance director, and an account manager. He invited questions from the Board.
30 Commissioner Price asked if the broker is alternated as a means of establishing a
31 system of checks and balances.
32 Bonnie Hammersley said this is the first RFP the County has done for a Broker of
33 Record.
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs for the
36 Board to approve the recommendation of Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. as the County's Broker of
37 Record for Employee Benefit programs, and authorize the Manager, pending final review by the
38 Human Resources Director and the County Attorney, to sign the contract with Arthur J.
39 Gallagher & Co. and to further authorize the Manager to sign any amendments or renewals
40 thereto.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 b. Family Success Alliance Request for Social Justice Funding and Approval of
45 Budget Amendment#6-A
46 The Board considered approving Budget Amendment#6-A transferring $10,000 from
47 the Social Justice fund to the Health Department for the Family Success Alliance (FSA) in order
48 for 12 members to attend the Harlem Children's Zone Practitioner's Institute.
49 Colleen Bridger said she was here to represent the Family Success Alliance. She said
50 the Alliance's first request is for the allocation of$10,000 from the social justice fund to cover
23
1 half of the cost for 12 members to attend the Harlem Children's Zone Practitioner's Institute.
2 She said participants will spend three days observing this program in order to help implement it
3 in Orange County.
4 Commissioner Rich asked if the Board will see a full budget for the Family Success
5 Alliance to show what will be spent for the 2015-16 calendar.
6 Colleen Bridger said the alliance is in the middle of a gap analysis. She said once these
7 gaps are known, there will be a process to work with the two zones to prioritize how best to
8 address them. She said this plan will then come to the Board, along with a definition of the
9 budget.
10 Commissioner Rich asked if this will become a line item in the regular budget, or if it will
11 always be a request from the social justice fund.
12 Bonnie Hammersley said this has not been decided yet. She said this may have been
13 addressed already in a budget amendment. She said this has already been allocated, so staff
14 will look at how to address it moving forward.
15 Commissioner Rich said a certain amount will be put into the Social Justice fund, but it
16 might be a good idea to move this funding to be a regular line item.
17 Commissioner Burroughs said she was pleased to see that there is a workshop on the
18 evaluation. She thinks it is good to have an evaluation tool in place from the beginning.
19 Commissioner Pelissier said there has been some discussion of possible opportunities
20 for additional funds from United Way. She said this might provide additional money for the
21 implementation of services and programs.
22 Colleen Bridger said that process is under way.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
25 the Board to approve Budget Amendment#6-A transferring $10,000 from the Social Justice
26 Fund to the Health Department to pay for Family Success Alliance attendance at the Harlem
27 Children's Zone Practitioners Institute.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 c. Land "Swap" Transaction —416 Faucette Mill Road, Hillsborough
32 The Board considered: 1) approving a land recombination ("land swap") transaction with
33 AlterVue, LLC involving adjacent parcels to mutually benefit the County and AlterVue, LLC with
34 regard to the integrity of a single family residential property located at 416 Faucette Mill Road
35 and adjacent County owned property that may be used for future affordable housing
36 development; 2) donating the resulting County parcel to Habitat for Humanity of Orange County
37 for the purpose of developing an affordable single family housing unit; 3) authorizing the Chair
38 to sign the necessary paperwork upon final review of the County Attorney; and 4) supporting
39 the Manager's efforts in pursuing similar efforts to analyze under-utilized or vacant parcels
40 owned by the County that may be suitable for future affordable housing development.
41
42 Jeff Thompson introduced Nick Nickerson, an Orange County resident and the owner of
43 this property.
44 Jeff Thompson referred to a map and said Nick Nickerson has purchased the property
45 on Faucette Mill Road as an investment, with plans to put it back on the market as a residential
46 unit. He referred to another map showing that the property line straddles a County property
47 that was acquired in a tax foreclosure. He said staff has been able to work out a land swap of
48 the Alterview property plus non-monetary compensation in exchange for County property. He
49 said the non-monetary compensation is the engineering work and due diligence and survey
50 work to generate the swap. He said this allows the AlterVue/Nickerson property to be
24
1 conforming to the UDO, and it also allows a County property, that has not been worthy of
2 anything prior to today, to potentially be used as a single family home lot for affordable housing.
3 He said the donation of this lot has been accepted by Habitat for Humanity, pending final
4 attorney review of this transaction. He said staff will continue supporting the Manager's efforts
5 to analyze vacant County properties for possible generation of lots for affordable housing.
6 Commissioner Price asked how the County decided to give the lot to Habitat for
7 Humanity versus other affordable housing entities.
8 Jeff Thompson said this was a result of the County's relationship with Habitat and their
9 acceptance of that lot as part of the due diligence.
10 Commissioner Price asked if there is an agreement with only Habitat to take these kinds
11 of County properties.
12 Jeff Thompson said no. He said this could be available to other organizations as well.
13 Commissioner Price asked what her answer would be if someone asked why Habitat got
14 this.
15 John Roberts said this is just a proposal to dispose of a residential property that the
16 County can only use to build affordable housing. He said the prior relationship with Habitat led
17 staff to suggest this to the Board. He said if the Board decides to do something else, that is
18 their choice.
19 Commissioner Price said there are several affordable housing organizations in the
20 County, and she wonders how one is chosen over another.
21 Chair McKee said he would suggest taking the first and second recommendations as
22 separate motions.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
25 approve a land recombination ("land swap") transaction with AlterVue, LLC involving adjacent
26 parcels to mutually benefit the County and AlterVue, LLC with regard to the integrity of a single
27 family residential property located at 416 Faucette Mill Road.
28
29 Commissioner Dorosin said he echoes Commissioner Price's comments regarding the
30 selection of the organizations they work with moving forward. He praises this effort, and he
31 thinks it is a good way to maximize resources. He said he wishes that two homes could be built
32 on the lot. He said this is the kind of opportunity where the County could approach Hillsborough
33 to ask for flexibility in these efforts to work on affordable housing.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 Chair McKee opened the floor for a discussion on the issue of donating to the various
38 affordable housing entities. He asked if anyone else is following Habitat's scattered site model.
39 Jeff Thompson said not directly. He said Habitat was approached by AlterVue as part of
40 the due diligence process to see if this lot was attractive to them. He said other organizations
41 can certainly be approached.
42 Nick Nickerson said it was his initiative to contact Habitat, and it was not a conscious
43 decision to not go with someone else.
44 Commissioner Rich questioned whether this is a lot where only one home can be built.
45 Jeff Thompson said, per the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for Hillsborough, it
46 is available for only for one home. He said it is possible to go back and ask for a special
47 exception, but as it stands now, it is an administrative adjustment to the UDO.
48 Bonnie Hammersley said this can be done in a way that will allow proposals from other
49 organizations. This can be for this one parcel or for other properties going forward. She said
25
1 the County could give specifications to the affordable housing entities requesting that they
2 provide proposals.
3 Commissioner Rich said it is also important to get the towns involved.
4 Bonnie Hammersley agreed and said it is important to maximize the potential and work
5 with the partners as much as possible.
6 Commissioner Pelissier said if the County is going to talk to different organizations,
7 there needs to be some sort of criteria in place to determine which is chosen.
8 Bonnie Hammersley said this would be determined at a staff level.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said that the point about working with different organizations is a
10 good one. He said Nick Nickerson partially got excited about this transaction because Habitat
11 worked so well with him. He said he would not want to pull the rug out from Habitat on this
12 particular transaction, but he thinks it is a good idea not to default to one organization moving
13 forward.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said he feels that the acreage on this should be enough for more
15 than one unit, so he thinks staff should have some discussion with both Hillsborough and
16 Habitat about the possibility of a duplex.
17 Commissioner Dorosin said he agrees that the rug should not be pulled out from
18 Habitat, but it would not be unreasonable to see if this can become a duplex to maximize the
19 space.
20 Chair McKee said he agrees with not taking this from Habitat, but he would like to revisit
21 Hillsborough regarding the idea of two units on the lot.
22 Commissioner Dorosin questioned the best order of events in light of the need for a
23 discussion with Hillsborough.
24 Bonnie Hammersley said staff will talk to Hillsborough first and then bring it back to the
25 Board before the donation. She said this can be done quickly.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
28 to table items 3 through 5 until the Board hears back from staff on the questions that have been
29 raised.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
34 authorize the Chair to sign the necessary paperwork upon final review of the County Attorney
35 for the land swap on Faucette Mill Road.
36
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39
40 d. Potential Notice of Board's Intent to Schedule a November 2016 Bond
41 Referendum and Discussion on Proposed Creation of a Capital Needs Advisory
42 Task Force
43 The Board considered: 1) Formally expressing its intent to schedule a November 2016
44 Bond Referendum to address County and School capital needs; 2) Discussing the proposed
45 creation of, structure, and charge for a proposed Capital Needs Advisory Task Force that would
46 provide recommendations to the Board regarding the elements to be included in the
47 referendum and consider approval; and 3) Directing the County Manager to arrange for the
48 services of a qualified facilitator for the Task Force.
49 Bonnie Hammersley referenced the proposal before the Commissioners. She said this
50 abstract was composed to mirror the 2001 bond referendum abstract. She said the
26
1 attachments provide information from the previous bond referendum, and this item is for the
2 Board's discussion.
3 Commissioner McKee said this is starting much earlier than the timeframe allowed for
4 the 2001 referendum. He said this allows time to get this right.
5 Commissioner Price said if a facilitator is hired, it would be good to get someone with
6 experience in dealing with government, and perhaps some familiarity in dealing with bonds.
7 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the last item on page 4, and she asked if the
8 language regarding the Capital Investment Plan implied that anything and everything is on the
9 table for a bond referendum. She said there needs to be a specific focus. She questioned
10 whether there would be a need to look at the entire CIP if only certain things were wanted on
11 the bond referendum.
12 Bonnie Hammersley said if the Board identifies a certain need, in affordable housing for
13 example, and that information is in the CIP, then it will be pretty succinct as to the issue. She
14 said this is how she reads that, and it mirrors the last bond referendum.
15 Commissioner Dorosin questioned why a facilitator is needed. He asked if this could be
16 handled by someone on staff who is familiar with the Board's goals and needs.
17 Bonnie Hammersley said the facilitation of types of projects is always a very important
18 part of the project, and internal facilitation can sometimes be less effective because they know
19 too much about the issue. She said some of the best facilitators do not know the issue well.
20 She said it is a good idea to hire someone who has experience in bond referendums, but not
21 necessarily Orange County bond referendums. She said an objective view is good. She will
22 take the Commissioners comments into consideration moving forward.
23 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the proposed composition of the task force. He said
24 if the school boards appoint members of the school board to sit on the task force, then it will not
25 necessarily just be a group of citizens, as there will be elected people as well. He would
26 suggest that the appointed people should not be elected officials. He thinks that there will be
27 some critique of this process, and the more organic it can be the better.
28 Commissioner Rich asked about the schedule. She questioned when the information
29 will be requested from the schools. She said this is necessary before any discussion can start.
30 Bonnie Hammersley said the information gathering is happening now, and the CIP will
31 include all of this. She said staff has received lists from both school districts. She said these
32 lists are not comparing apples to apples. She said Chapel Hill Carrboro Schools (CHCCS) has
33 included the needs of all schools built prior to 1990, and the list from Orange County Schools
34 (OCS) lists all schools' needs. She said CHCCS has prioritized their list, and OCS is working on
35 this now. She said this information will be in the appendices to the CIP.
36 Commissioner Rich asked where information regarding affordable housing will come
37 from. She asked if this will just include Orange County's information or if it will include the
38 needs of their partners as well. She is just wondering about the information flow.
39 Bonnie Hammersley said the entities were invited to speak at the Capital Needs Task
40 Force for the referendum in 2001, and that is how the information came forward then.
41 Chair McKee said the schedule is just conceptual at this point, and nothing is set in
42 stone.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said in 2001 there were co-chairs who facilitated. He said people
44 with leadership skills can be appointed, or there may just be advisory board members appointed
45 who are noted for facilitating conversations. He said it is more organic to have the group settle
46 out into who is going to facilitate, and then the Board can intervene if there is a problem.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said it is a mistake to take the towns out of the composition. He
48 said it is important to have either an elected official or an appointed person from the towns. He
49 said this will help the process and it will create buy-in.
27
1 Commissioner Jacobs said if there are going to be any elected officials there should be
2 Commissioners on this task force. He said he has no problem with having elected officials from
3 the schools. He feels it would be a mistake to have a group of citizens with other elected
4 officials and no representation from the Board of Commissioners.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said if it is a genuine process then the Board does not tell the
6 task force what the Commissioners hope the outcome will be. He said this is an opportunity for
7 the task force to talk about what is of interest and they can look at the CIP for guidance. He
8 said it is better to let them work it out and bring it forth to be voted up or down. He said if there
9 are Commissioners present, they would not be there to drive things in any direction.
10 Bonnie Hammersley noted that there is a reference on page 2 stating that there is an
11 appointment for each town.
12 Commissioner Burroughs said she understands the value of buy-in and the desire for an
13 organic process; however, she said there are already such clearly illustrated needs, including
14 school needs, and affordable housing needs, and there is a limited pot of money. She said the
15 sooner that the broader topics have been settled, the better the work of the committee will be,
16 because there will be a focus. She said she comes from a background of thinking it is better to
17 be more directed, at least on the two issues that are already clearly identified.
18 Commissioner Price said she had the same question about the need for a facilitator.
19 She said if there are clear reasons to hire a facilitator, it will be necessary to thoroughly vet the
20 person.
21 Commissioner Pelissier feels the Board does need to narrow down what they want in
22 the bond referendum. She said public buy-in is important, but her concern is that the proposed
23 task force composition may be setting up false expectations. She said the schools already
24 want a level of money that is nowhere near what will be put on a bond referendum, but it is
25 clear that the schools will be part of this.
26 Commissioner Pelissier said she had a discussion with a Chapel Hill town council
27 member about affordable housing, and it may be a good idea to see what Chapel Hill puts on
28 their bond as relates to affordable housing. She suggested that staff be asked to work behind
29 the scenes with Chapel Hill to work this out.
30 Commissioner Rich said Chapel Hill voted last night on the topics that would be moved
31 forward in the bond discussion. She said this has narrowed the list down.
32 Commissioner Rich said the purpose of a bond is to involve citizens. She said citizens
33 are voting on a tax for themselves, and it does not seem organic to set limits. She questioned
34 why you would not want to get opinions from residents.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said it is important to set some limits. He said as soon as the
36 school needs came up, he suggested a bond issue discussion. He said it is reasonable to tell
37 the group that a preponderance of the funding will go to the schools, and the group will need to
38 hash this out. He said 68 percent went to the schools last time. He said he does not want to
39 say up front that seniors are to be discounted or that the parks system should not be
40 developed. He said it is not fair to go in and say that the bond will only support two things, as it
41 is a disservice to people who care about the other things and would like to make their case. He
42 said it is good to set parameters, money, and preponderance, and then allow people to work
43 the rest of it out.
44 Commissioner Burroughs said there is always the opportunity for the residents to make
45 their concerns known through the regular budget process and the CIP discussion. She said
46 she does not see it as cutting people out, but there are well known needs that are a priority.
47 She said ultimately the Board is elected to think about these issues and make decisions. She
48 said her representation side is weighing more heavily after years of hearing about these two
49 particular issues. She said that tone can be set without discounting what others have
50 advocated for.
28
1 Chair McKee said the County has built schools and purchased land without going
2 through a bond process. He is not sure that everything that everyone wants should be financed
3 by a bond. He said parks could be done with regular financing, if all of the borrowing power is
4 not used up. He said there is also a jail that needs to be built. He wants to hold back on some
5 amount of borrowing ability to take care of the needs between 2017 and 2020.
6 Chair McKee said he is uncomfortable with the fact that there is no clear identification of
7 school priorities. He said if these needs are so great, then the bond may need to be only for
8 the schools. He has a very unclear idea of what the school needs will be before 2020. He said
9 if a bond is passed in November of 2016, the funds will probably be accessed in mid 2017, and
10 even if plans are in place, it will be 2019 until a school is built. He would like a clear picture of
11 the school needs prior to 2019, so that this money can be taken out of a bond and be put in the
12 CIP under regular funding to address those projects.
13 Chair McKee said it is disingenuous to ask a task force to expect other project funding
14 when there are really one or two priorities that the Board of County Commissioners may be
15 interested in. He said it is important to be very honest with this task force. He sees his position
16 as an elected official to be responsible to make that decision regardless of the comfort level or
17 the re-election potential. He feels the concentration should be on the schools, and he thinks a
18 decision on whether to place this on the 2016 ballot should wait until they get information from
19 the schools.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said the schools will take as much as they can get. He agrees
21 that if there are 4 votes to create a bond only for schools then that vote should be taken and the
22 committee should be told. He said if the will of this Board is to only do a bond for schools and
23 affordable housing then there is no need for a task force.
24 Commissioner Dorosin said even with a citizens' committee the Board will not
25 necessarily hear from the whole County. He said it is an insider's game, and the task force will
26 be made up of people who are interested. He said the point of a bond is to get the public to
27 make decisions as to what they want the Board of County Commissioners to support. He said
28 some general categories can be set, and then the Board can see what other ideas bloom. He
29 said this is a good way to take the temperature of the community.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said his comments were along similar lines. He said if people
31 have already made up their minds, then there is no point to impanel a group of citizens. He
32 thinks the Board should listen to the community. He said the Board can certainly tell the public
33 upfront what percentage of the money will go to schools, but he wants to hear what the
34 community thinks. He suggested an invitation for public comment on the bond topics.
35 Commissioner Burroughs said the schools will take as much money as they are given,
36 because the needs are so great. She said the schools know how to stretch a dime to make the
37 buildings better for the children and the staff.
38 Commissioner Burroughs said she has expressed a real interest in affordable housing,
39 and she is interested in a task force to determine the optimal way to spend this money. She
40 said you can think about a task force as a way of defining goals within a specific subject area.
41 Commissioner Rich said a task force has more than one job. She said part of this is to
42 help identify what goes on the bond, and the other part is helping educate the public about the
43 bond. She said if the bond is only going to be for schools then that vote should be taken now.
44 Commissioner Pelissier said she does not agree that if you limit the topics there is no
45 need for a task force. She said even if it were just schools, there are still decisions about
46 priorities and the allocation of the resources. She said affordable housing encompasses a lot of
47 different needs, and there are a lot of things here that could be discussed and prioritized.
48 Chair McKee said with this bond issuance, he is supportive of schools and affordable
49 housing. He said that does not mean that other items cannot be funded through regular
50 financing. He noted that this is what Chapel Hill is proposing. He said there is no need to limit
29
1 items just because they are not on a bond. He said just because a bond is passed, it does not
2 mean that the public is supportive of the item. He is not expecting full buy-in, and he is
3 prepared for this.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said he would be perfectly comfortable doing what Chapel Hill did
5 with the use of bond and private financing. He said a statement can be made to reflect these
6 intentions, and the public can still be asked to speak into it. He would like to see all of these
7 options on the table at the same time. He said the schools could probably tell you how that
8 money could be spent, but for some of the other issues, people could provide discussion. He
9 said the suggestion based on Chapel Hill's approach may be the best approach.
10 Chair McKee said the absolute priorities can be determined and included in the bond,
11 and then the other priorities can be done in staged intervals.
12 Commissioner Pelissier said when she said she would like to limit the topics for the bond
13 referendum, she also presumed all along that the Board has their CIP and would fund topics
14 accordingly. She said this discussion points to the need to find a different way to engage the
15 public in the CIP. She said the Board does not start out informing the public of the debt
16 capacity before taxes would need to be raised.
17 Commissioner Dorosin said it may be good at some point to vote on the bond priorities,
18 and then he would like some more information on the other idea of funding. He does not like
19 the idea of just saying that items will go on the CIP, and he would like to see items spelled out
20 in an independent resolution. He is interested in a different type of strategic funding, but it
21 needs to be clear. He suggested that this be put on the agenda for a vote and information be
22 provided on the Chapel Hill funding model. He said, following this, there could be a public
23 hearing to gather the desired input.
24 Commissioner Burroughs said if they pursue this concept, she is interested in hearing
25 from Bonnie Hammersley regarding the strategic thinking about the CIP.
26 Bonnie Hammersley said she has some school information and the recommended CIP,
27 which includes items that would not be considered part of the referendum. She said staff could
28 take a look at this more closely as to how items fit into the CIP. She said the renovations being
29 done by Carrboro are creating more seats and putting off building a school. She said this
30 creates some more room. She said it is possible to look at different options to determine the
31 maximum ability on the CIP and the bond referendum or a hybrid model.
32 Chair McKee said he would like to get the priorities from OCS as quickly as possible so
33 that the finance department can compare these numbers with the total borrowing capacity. He
34 said this could help with an informal discussion at a work session.
35
36 Public Comment:
37 Submitted by Bonnie Hauser via email
38 Dear Commissioners:
39
40 As you know, many of us will be in Efland or Carrboro tonight discussing affordability and
41 cannot appear at the county commissioner meeting to offer our view on the possible bond
42 referendum. Please accept this as public comment and enter it into the public record. There is
43 growing sentiment throughout the community that it is too premature to county to ask its
44 citizens to approve a bond for schools or other initiatives.
45
46 Affordability is a major issue in Orange County, and a 5% tax increase will make things worse.
47 We'd prefer to see the county pursue better planning and priority setting. Based on your
48 budgets, it appears that county plans to continue to spend lavishly on parks, offices and waste
49 facilities while schools sit in embarrassing disrepair waiting for voters to approve a bond and a
30
1 tax increase. The bond followed by a property tax revaluation could have disastrous effects on
2 already struggling real estate markets and economic development initiatives.
3
4 You have already heard our concerns about the county's outdated park plans - yet these parks
5 continue to show in the county's capital plan. Plus, there's nearly $20 million planned for
6 expanded offices on Revere Road, Southern Human Services, and at the new Blackwood Farm
7 Park. While none of these projects are bad in themselves, given the needs at many of our
8 aging schools, the timing couldn't be worse.
9
10 We also remain concerned that the county and school boards have not fully vetted the school
11 capital requests or attempted to place them on a timeline. For example, OCS doesn't need
12 $30 million for HVAC systems this year. Over time, these expenses will be quite manageable.
13 Similarly, spending millions on new offices for both school districts shouldn't be a priority -
14 especially given the surplus of lower priced office space throughout the county. Reliable
15 heating, roofs and mold-free schools are a priority and should be funded now.
16
17 There's growing concern about CHCCS new plan for a centralized pre-K. Many believe it will
18 exacerbate challenges that low income families already face with transportation and getting
19 their kids to school. We believe that a plan to increase pre-K at every elementary school would
20 be better aligned to the community's priorities for poverty and the achievement gap. That will
21 require more planning.
22
23 Of course this is in addition to the uncertainty around the impact of development, aging and
24 lack of affordable housing on school enrollment growth. As you know, enrollment at both
25 school districts is relatively flat. If this continues, it will slow the need to expand schools.
26
27 The county's conservative revenue accounting is also creating problems. County revenue
28 projections do not factor in expected revenue increases from growth - even though town
29 leaders are rapidly approving new commercial and residential projects. That, plus the county's
30 repeated surpluses ($7.5 million just last year), could fund essential school maintenance.
31
32 Reshuffling of county and school projects - and assuring high priority projects are funded first,
33 would go a long way to free up funds for essential repairs and maintenance. There are other
34 options to contain or defer spending on non-essentials. If better planning is not enough,
35 commissioners always have the option to increase debt and raise taxes without voter approval.
36
37
38 Please vote against pursuing a ballot referendum at this time, and instead commit to work with
39 schools and county staff to develop better plans and funding polices that assure all county
40 assets, including our schools, are kept in good repair.
41
42 Thank you for considering this view.
43
44 Bonnie Hauser
45 919 732-9316
46 919 619-4354 (cell)
47
48 8. Reports - NONE
49
50 9. County Manager's Report
31
1 Bonnie Hammersley noted two future work sessions and the following discussion items:
2 Projected March 5, 2015 Regular Work Session Items
3 Updates and Recommendations for Employee Benefits Effective July 1, 2015
4 Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan Annual Report
5 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Presentation
6
7 10. County Attorney's Report
8 John Roberts said last week the FCC preempted state regulation of municipal
9 broadband services. He said he cannot comment on how far this decision goes. He said if this
10 only applies to municipalities that operate broadband and the FCC decision holds up, then the
11 County could look at getting into the broadband service at some point in the future. He said he
12 will keep the Board updated on this.
13
14 11. Appointments
15
16 a. Animal Services Advisory Board
17 The Board considered making an appointment to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
20 appoint:
21 Appointment to a first full term (Position #11) Animal Welfare/Animal Advocacy for Ms.
22 Molly Mullin ending 06/30/2017.
23
POSITION NAME SPECIAL EXPIRATION
NO. REPRESENTATIVE DATE
11 Ms. Molly Mullin Animal Welfare/Animal 06/30/2017
Advocacy
24
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 b. Board of Health —Appointment
28 The Board considered making an appointment to the Board of Health.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint:
31 Appointment to a partial term (position #2) At-Large Pharmacist for Mr. Dan Dewitya
32 expiring 06/30/2016.
33
POSITION NAME SPECIAL EXPIRATION
NO. REPRESENTATIVE DATE
2 Mr. Dan Dewit a At-Large Pharmacist 06/30/2016
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 c. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointments
38 The Board considered making appointments to the Nursing Home Community Advisory
39 Committee.
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
42 appoint the following:
32
1 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #5) At-Large Nursing Home Administration for
2 Ms. Sandra Nash ending 06/30/17.
3 • Appointment to a one year training term (Position #7) At-Large Nursing Home
4 Administration for Mr. Bill Crittenden ending 02/03/2016.
5 • Appointment to a one year training term (Position #11) At-Large Nursing Home
6 Administration for Ms. Maria Hardin ending 02/03/2016.
7
POSITION NAME SPECIAL EXPIRATION
NO. REPRESENTATIVE DATE
5 Ms. Sandra Nash At-Large Nursing Home 06/30/2017
Administration
7 Mr. Bill Crittenden At-Large one year training 02/03/2016
term
11 Ms. Maria Hardin At-Large one year training 02/03/2016
term
8
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
13 appoint Nick Galvez to position #1 "At-Large".
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17
18 d. Orange County Housing Authority—Appointments
19 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Housing Authority.
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
22 appoint the following:
23 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #3) At-Large for Ms. Tammy Jacobs expiring
24 06/30/2019.
25 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #5) At-Large for Mr. Daniel Bullock expiring
26 06/30/2017.
27
POSITION NAME SPECIAL EXPIRATION
NO. REPRESENTATIVE DATE
3 Ms. Tammy Jacobs At-Large 06/30/2019
5 Mr. Daniel Bullock At-Large 06/30/2017
28
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
33 appoint Mark Marcoplos to position #6 — "At Large" position with an expiration date of June 30,
34 2019.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
33
1
2 12. Board Comments
3 Commissioner Jacobs handed out information from the Durham Chapel Hill Metropolitan
4 Planning Organization regarding the economic impact of the pedestrian bridge that goes over
5 Interstate 40.
6 Commissioner Price said she attended NACo legislative conference, and she did her
7 best to represent Orange County. She thanked Steve Brantley for his help with the PowerPoint
8 presentation.
9 Commissioner Rich said the Chapel Hill fencing team won the state championship
10 again.
11 Commissioner Rich said she could not attend the Pauli Murray Awards because it was
12 on the same day as the Dean Smith memorial. She discussed this with a Hillsborough
13 commissioner who did not know about this information. She suggested that all elected officials
14 should receive an invite to these events. She said it is important to pull these people in.
15 Commissioner Pelissier said all elected officials need to receive a special invite to
16 events. She said that she did a tour of the Durham Orange Light Rail, and it was great. She
17 highly recommends doing this. She noted that there will be a presentation of the results of the
18 light rail environmental study on March 18th from 4 to 7 p.m. at the Friday Center.
19 Commissioner Burroughs said she toured the Animal Shelter today, and what struck her
20 the most was the stark contrast to their jail, particularly as it relates to working conditions.
21 Chair McKee said he attended the Justice United Assembly on Sunday with several
22 other Commissioners. He said the assembly is very concerned with the issue of affordable
23 housing and homelessness. He said more will be heard from them as the bond discussion
24 proceeds.
25 Chair McKee said Commissioner Jacobs had spoken at the Pauli Murray awards, and
26 he did a great job.
27 Chair McKee said the Commissioners should all have received a lunch invitation from
28 Congressman Mark Walker. He said regardless of whether you agree with his politics, it would
29 be good to go in order to make sure he understands the needs of Orange County.
30 Clerk Donna Baker noted that she sent an invitation on January 30th to all of the clerks
31 to forward to their elected officials regarding the Pauli Murray awards.
32 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that future invitations should be sent directly to each
33 elected official.
34 Donna Baker said this can be done from here forward.
35
36 13. Information Items
37
38 e Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
39 e Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
40 e Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100
41 e Memo Regarding Staff Response to Petition Impervious Surface Issues
42 e Memo Regarding "The Edge" Proposed Development Project in the Town of Chapel
43 Hill's Planning Jurisdiction
44
45 14. Closed Session - NONE
46
47 15. Adjournment
48 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
49 adjourn the meeting at 11:26 p.m.
34
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 Earl McKee, Chair
5
6
7 Donna S. Baker
8 Clerk to the Board
9
1
I Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 Legislative Breakfast
6 March 23, 2015
7 8:30am
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a breakfast meeting with the Orange County
10 Legislative Delegation on Monday, March 23, 2015 at 8:30am at the Solid Waste Administrative Offices in
11 Chapel Hill, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin,
14 Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, and Renee Price
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Penny Rich
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager Cheryl
18 Young, Clerk to the Board Donna Baker, Interim Finance Director Paul Laughton, Assistant to Manager for
19 Legislative Affairs Greg Wilder (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
20 LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION PRESENT: Senator Valerie Foushee, Representative Verla Insko,
21 Representative Graig Meyer
22
23 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 8:50 a.m. and said that Commissioner Rich would be unable to
24 attend due to illness.
25
26 Chair McKee distributed a draft resolution that Commissioner Dorosin brought forth at the Board of
27 Commissioners' meeting on March 17th meeting, and which the Board adopted, stating that the Orange
28 County Board of Commissioners is opposed to, and urges the General Assembly to reject any legislation,
29 that seeks to exempt any government employee or agent from fulfilling their constitutional duties, including
30 but not limited to guaranteeing the right to marry for same-sex residents of North Carolina; and that if this
31 discriminatory legislation should pass, the Orange County Board of Commissioners directs the County
32 Manager and County Attorney to collaborate with other governmental entities and community partners to
33 directly participate in any litigation seeking to challenge such legislation.
34
35 Senator Foushee said that the Clerk to the Board had forwarded this resolution to the Legislative
36 Delegation.
37
38 Chair McKee asked on behalf of the Board for the Delegation to support this resolution going forward.
39
40 Commissioner Dorosin said he thought it was important that the Board get out in front of this issue since
41 the Senate had already approved it; and if it comes to litigation then Orange County would support
42 litigation.
43
44 Chair McKee said the Board had prioritized their legislative items and referred to their agenda package with
45 their priorities listed and discussion ensued on the various issues.
46
47
48 PRIORITY DISCUSSION TOPICS
49
50 EDUCATION
51 Smart Start and NC Pre-K
52
2
1 Representative Insko suggested that staff look at best practices and evidence based programs. She said if
2 they put more money in smart start then they would need to take money out of other programs and that all
3 of these types of funding are in danger of being cut. It is currently underfunded now
4
5 Chair McKee said Orange County continues to increase funding for this program and they are concerned
6 about keeping child care available in Orange County; same concerns for Medicaid expansion and health
7 care issues.
8
9 Commissioner Dorosin said is there any chance of progressive legislation being passed.
10
11 Representative Insko said "zero".
12
13 Representative Insko said 95% of the bills they pass — pass unanimously. She said but in order to undo the
14 damage that has been done in the past they have to have more revenue.
15
16 Chair McKee said that the League of Municipalities and NCACC are both against the sales re-distribution
17 bill.
18
19 HUMAN SERVICES-
20
21 • Child Care- discussed above
22
23 • Expansion of Medicaid Program
24 Commissioner Price said NCACC is going to be lobbying the legislature but rather than say expansion they
25 are using the word "reform" to make it more accessible to all. The concept is the same though.
26
27
28 Mental Health
29 Representative Insko said there is a bill to turn the money from the alcohol and drug treatment centers to
30 the MCOs (Managed Care Associations) to help fund those in the community who need help. But that they
31 need a year of planning at least.
32
33 Representative Insko said if they are going to move more toward evidenced based practices, then counties
34 need to show the legislators that these evidenced based programs save lives and money and use that to
35 challenge the legislators.
36
37 Senator Foushee said their talking points during the legislative session are that they need to show how to
38 pay for programs without raising taxes. If they are going to implement programs then they have to be paid
39 for somehow since the revenues are not coming in as they once did.
40
41 Commissioner Burroughs said she read that the state's job data is poor related to other states.
42
43 Representative Insko said another issue is that they will need to find ways to fund road improvements.
44 Commissioner Jacobs North Carolina is one of the few states where the counties don't have to pay for
45 secondary roads. He suggested that state study be done on DOT standards. An example is that they are
46 not requiring much from developers such as for traffic lights.
47
48 Senator Foushee asked for Commissioner Jacobs to send information about this issue to them by email.
49
50 Representative Insko said our roads are one of our best economic development tools.
51
52 Commissioner Jacobs asked about the issue of making people pay a rate per mile; many Orange County
53 employees would have to pay more because they cannot afford to live in Orange County
54
3
1 Representative Insko said that could be fixed that with a tax credit.
2
3 Representative Meyer said it would probably be a flat fee.
4
5
6 OTHER PRIORITIES
7
8 Broadband
9 Chair McKee said he and Representative Meyer had spoken about this prior at the community broadband
10 meeting on March 6 and that this was an issue statewide.
11
12 Chair McKee said other than grants, is there anything else the state can do related to the broad band issue
13 to help expand coverage in Orange County.
14
15 Representative Meyer said in the legislative branch - he has heard little or nothing about broad band for
16 rural areas. There seems to be a lack of willingness to give municipalities the authority to oversee
17 broadband. He said is not sure if they will see much of a legislative solution.
18
19 Representative Meyer said this is where you need the governor for his leadership since he represents
20 everyone.
21
22 Representative Insko said it should be an issue for the Department on Public Instruction since it is also
23 about education since children cannot get a signal at their homes in order to do their homework online or
24 access resources on line.
25
26 Representative Insko said what the Commissioners hear about the broadband issue from their NCACC
27 meetings.
28
29 Commissioner Price (NCACC representative) said they hear about the broad band issue all the time and
30 NACo is also attentive and supportive of broad band for rural areas.
31
32 Representative Insko said then they as Board and NCACC as a state organization should put pressure on
33 at the state level.
34
35 Representative Meyer said he has talked with representatives from AT&T and Time Warner to join them at
36 the table for this discussion and they said they would. He said he had heard of a wireless provider in
37 Chatham County that is interested in providing broad band in the southern part of the county as well as
38 Piedmont Electric who is interested in becoming a player at the table. He is coordinating this issue with
39 Bonnie Hammersley and IT Director Jim Northup.
40
41 Representative Meyer said it is important to know that if the Board wants to solve this issue for Orange
42 County that Orange County is going to have to come up with funding solutions and manpower.
43
44
45 E-911 Funds
46
47 Land, Water and Agricultural Preservation Funding
48
49 Chair McKee asked the Delegation was there support for funding for agricultural preservation activities.
50
51 Representative Insko said not that she has heard but they will not know until the Governor's budget comes
52 out.
53
54 Commissioner Jacobs said he has heard that the Governor is proposing more budget cuts for parks.
4
1
2 Commissioner Burroughs asked when the Legislature anticipates seeing the Governor's budget.
3
4 Representative Insko said the Governor's office usually waits until tax returns to see what revenues they
5 will have before finalizing any budget decisions. She said last year they were below projected revenues.
6
7
8 Chair McKee said that the Board of Commissioners' added some additional issues to their standard
9 Statewide Issues Resolution and a few are below:
10
11 Raise Age for Juvenile Jurisdiction in Criminal Court
12 Senator Foushee said this issue would probably pass the Senate.
13 Representative Meyer said this bill has a good chance to be passed for misdemeanors.
14
15 Commissioner Burroughs said what can they as a Board of Commissioners do to support their Legislative
16 Delegation.
17
18 Senator Foushee said Orange County needs to continue to lobby at the state level and to move out of their
19 "comfort zones".
20
21 Senator Foushee said they don't need to just send emails but to actually come out and talk to legislators —
22 both their own and others. And if you are not in someone's district, then they are unlikely to read your
23 emails.
24
25 Senator Foushee said referencing them as their Orange County Legislators when talking to outside district
26 legislators is appropriate.
27
28 Representative Insko said they need to build coalitions within the legislature and to take the advocacy
29 approach.
30
31 Senator Foushee said there is a going to be established a County Commissioner Caucus.
32
33 Commissioner Price said NCACC has talked about coalitions coming together across the state for shared
34 interests.
35 Chair McKee asked the Delegation to please let the Commissioners know if there is anything that would
36 adversely affect Orange County.
37
38 Senator Foushee said currently there is a bill in the Senate about raising the living wage but she said she
39 doubted it would pass
40
41 Representative Insko said the suggested school calendar flexibility issue is getting a lot of attention.
42
43 Chair McKee said another issue is eminent domain.
44
45 Commissioner Jacobs said he was concerned and was opposed to adding language to a constitutional
46 amendment on eminent domain that extends any further preemption of county authority to regulate the
47 placement of telecommunication towers.
48
49 Classification of Flavored Alcoholic Beverages (Alcopops)
50 Chair McKee said this states their support of legislation to properly classify flavored alcoholic beverages
51 (alcopops) as distilled spirits rather than malt beverages
52
5
1 Representative Meyer said this is an issue of marketing to minors. He said that they have not seen much
2 progress to limit the ability to market by private companies.
3
4
5 Commissioner Pelissier said it is a classification issue.
6
7 Commissioner Pelissier said the brands start as a distilled spirit and they add the word Malt so that it
8 doesn't get classified correctly.
9
10 Chair McKee reviewed other items that the Board would like legislative support:
11 0 Abolish State Death Penalty
12 Representative Meyer said he has talked to republicans but don't know if they are going to co-sponsor
13 anything.
14 Priority School Issues — Support legislation to address the following three issues related to
15 schools:
16 a) * Provide local school systems with calendar flexibility;
17 b) * Provide full funding for State allotments including Average Daily Membership (ADM)
18 growth;
19 c) Provide full funding for Driver Education.
20
21 Representative Meyer said there has been some public discussion about cyclists and safety in Orange
22 County and there is a bill in the house about cycling safety that may be of interest to Orange County.
23
24 Chair McKee asked if the Manager had any comments.
25
26 County Manager Bonnie Hammersley said the broad band issue is one issue that staff is working on and
27 she has been talking with surrounding counties; childcare subsidy issues; temporary staff issues for
28 NCFAST —that temporary staff should become permanent staff.
29
30
31 The meeting adjourned at 10:05 a.m.
32
33
34 Earl McKee, Chair
35
36
37 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
38
39