HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-01-2015 - 6a ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: September 1, 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:
May 12, 2015 BOCC Work Session
May 14, 2015 BOCC Budget Work Session
May 19, 2015 BOCC Regular Meeting
May 21, 2015 BOCC Budget Public Hearing
May 26, 2015 BOCC QPH
May 28, 2015 Budget Public Hearing
June 2, 2015 BOCC Regular Meeting
June 4, 2015 BOCC Budget Work Session
June 9, 2015 BOCC Budget Work Session
June 11, 2015 BOCC Budget Work Session
June 16, 2015 BOCC Regular 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
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: There is no Orange County Social Justice Goal impact associated
with this item.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as presented
or as amended.
1
I Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 Work Session
6 May 12, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Tuesday, May
10 12, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mark Dorosin,
13 Barry Jacobs, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Commissioners Mia Burroughs and Bernadette
15 Pelissier
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager
18 Cheryl Young and Deputy Clerk to the Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be
19 identified appropriately below)
20
21 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
22 Chair McKee said that Commissioner Burroughs and Commissioner Pelissier would be
23 absent tonight, due to prior commitments.
24 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
25
26 - PowerPoint slides for item 1- Presentation on Orange County Partnership to End
27 Homelessness 2015 Plan to End Homelessness
28 - White Sheet— Orange County Point-in-Time Counts, for Item 1
29 - PowerPoint slides for item 2-Potential Revisions to the Existing Public Hearing Process
30 - PowerPoint slides for item 2-Private Road and Access Standards
31 - White Sheet— Fire Service Features, for item 3
32 - Blue Sheet-Excerpt from the Approved January 30, 2015 Board of County Commissioners'
33 Retreat Minutes
34
35 1. Presentation on Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness 2015 Plan to
36 End Homelessness
37 Jamie Rohe said she spoke to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) a few
38 months ago about the new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the four local
39 governmental jurisdictions and the Partnership to End Homelessness. She said the first part of
40 the MOU was about the new supervisory structure of the Orange County Partnership to End
41 Homelessness (OCPTEH), and the other main part of the MOU related to a significant change
42 in the Partnership and their plan to end homelessness. She said in 2008, a ten year plan to
43 end chronic homelessness was established between the four local governments. She said the
44 MOU changed the ten year plan to end chronic homelessness to a plan to end homelessness.
45 She said the abstract contains the OCPTEH 2015 Plan to End Homelessness, the 2015
46 Calculation of Unmet Need for Housing for People Experiencing Homelessness, the Point in
47 Time Count Data, and a copy of her PowerPoint presentation. Jamie Rohe said she welcomed
48 interruptions and questions throughout the presentation. Jamie Rohe presented the following
49 PowerPoint slides:
50
2
1 Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness
2 2015 Plan to End Homelessness
3
4 Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness
5 • Orange County Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness (2007)
6 • Coalition of housing and service providers, local government and community members
7 working together to end and prevent homelessness in Orange County
8 • Leadership Team and workgroups
9 o Housing
10 o Employment
11 o Services
12
13 Overarching Goals
14 Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness (2010):
15 1. Set a path to ending all types of homelessness;
16 2. Finish the job of ending chronic homelessness by 2017;
17 3. Prevent and end homelessness among veterans by 2015 (2016 in NC);
18 4. Prevent and end homelessness for families, youth and children by 2020.
19
20 Best Practices
21 • 2009 HEARTH Act:
22 Homeless Emergency Assistance & Rapid Transition to Housing
23 • Homelessness System:
24 1. Emergency Shelter
25 2. Rapid Re-Housing (including services)
26 3. Permanent Supportive Housing (for disabled, including services)
27 • Housing First: housing is health care
28 • ENDING vs. MANAGING homelessness: trampoline vs. sticky safety net
29
30 Chair McKee asked if there is an alternative for when residents are unable to comply
31 with facility rules and regulations, or their own treatment plan.
32 Jamie Rohe said people are not required to follow treatment plans, but treatment plans
33 are available to them. She said there may be a disabled person with a mental health diagnosis
34 plus a drug and alcohol addiction. She said previous thinking followed a "carrot and stick"
35 approach; where the carrot was the housing and the stick was the treatment plan. She said it
36 has been found that when people are in permanent housing, and are offered the option to
37 choose or deny services, they are more likely to accept services offered. She said not
38 everyone takes advantage of such treatment; however, the vast majority show improvements,
39 such as drinking less. She added that there are other societal benefits, such as a reduction in
40 trips to the Emergency room, the involvement of Police, the use of emergency shelters, etc.
41 Chair McKee asked if the behavior of a small subset, that does not take advantage of
42 the treatment offered, is being enabling by the removal of a consequence; such as the loss of
43 housing.
44 Jamie Rohe said she is not a Social Worker, and cannot speak with the authority of a
45 front line case worker. She said it is her understanding from those who are experts in the field,
46 that a person who resists treatment would be more likely to continue abuse drugs and alcohol,
47 and not seek mental health treatment, while living on the streets; and therefore at much greater
48 risk of death, than if they were to continue to receive housing.
49
50 Funding and Data
3
1 HUD funding (grants)
2 • Continuum of Care = $550,000/year
3 o Permanent Supportive Housing (Cardinal Innovations & UNC)
4 • Emergency Solutions Grant= $190,000/year
5 o Emergency Shelter (IFC)
6 o Rapid Re-Housing (DSS)
7
8 Homeless Management Information System (HMIS)
9 • All grantees required to enter data in HMIS
10 • 2015 new NC HMIS administrator = reliable data
11
12 Performance Indicators
13 1. Reduce the length of time people are homeless (target < 30 days).
14 2. Reduce returns to homelessness.
15 3. Reduce the overall number of persons who experience homelessness.
16 4. Increase job and income growth for persons who are homeless.
17
18 OCPEH 2015 Plan to End Homelessness
19 HOUSING
20 1. Increase housing opportunities.
21 o Rapid Re-Housing
22 o Permanent Supportive Housing
23 o Affordable rental housing (esp. < 30% AMI)
24 2. Increase number of landlords that will rent to people experiencing/at risk of
25 homelessness.
26 3. Increase Town of Chapel Hill public housing units and Orange County Housing Choice
27 Vouchers available to homeless.
28 4. Implement Coordinated Entry System
29
30 Commissioner Rich asked if she understood correctly that the Housing Choice Voucher
31 Program has been closed for five years, and no one is on the list.
32 Jamie Rohe said it is actually a very full list, but it is a waiting list that is closed. She
33 said the list has about 1,600 people on it, and it takes about ten years to receive a voucher due
34 to very slow turn over.
35 Commissioner Rich asked if the 1,600 people are still in Orange County.
36 Jamie Rohe says the list is purged and updated on a regular basis.
37 Commissioner Rich asked if the list were to be reopened, to whom it would be targeted.
38 Jamie Rohe said neither the County nor the Town of Chapel Hill have been approached
39 about a collaboration. She said there is a lot of guidance from the Department of Housing and
40 Urban Development (HUD) about how local housing authorities and partnerships to end
41 homelessness can work together. She said she has only just begun to look into this potential
42 collaboration and the best practices by which to achieve it. She said one possibility, that caught
43 her attention, was the option of opening an additional waiting list that is targeted at a particular
44 group, such as those experiencing homelessness.
45 Chair McKee said he does not understand how starting a new waiting list offers much
46 help, when there is no housing available for the people on the existing waiting list.
47 Jamie Rohe said this is the very reason there must be a Community dialogue between
48 all stakeholders. She said if a preference were to be given to those experiencing
49 homelessness, it may change their rank on the waiting list.
4
1 Commissioner Dorosin said this conversation highlights a more fundamental issue,
2 which is the need to prioritize more affordable housing units. He said the prospect of getting
3 the private market to be more amenable to renting to those at risk of homelessness is a losing
4 battle. He said it would be ideal to have low income housing integrated into regular market
5 housing, but that goal may have to be sacrificed in order to simply increase the amount of low
6 income housing available.
7 Jamie Rohe said the past Housing Director, Tara Fikes, said if the apartment complexes
8 are no longer taking vouchers, then individual landlords need to be approached. She said she
9 has heard many people say this same message.
10 Jamie Rohe said more affordable rental housing must be built, as the current housing
11 status is in crisis mode. She said the battle has to be fought on several fronts: increasing
12 housing, recruiting more landlords, etc. She said the creation of a Housing Locator Specialist
13 Position would help greatly. She said there is a duplication of efforts across the County to find
14 affordable housing for their clients; and a housing locator position would be able to recruit
15 landlords, and maintain good relationships with them. She said this position would help reduce
16 duplication efforts and would maintain relationships with providers and clients, as they provide
17 housing for the homeless.
18 Commissioner Price asked if Jamie Rohe's role in this plan could be explained.
19 Jamie Rohe said she is not a service provider or a housing provider, but rather she is
20 the Homeless Programs Coordinator. She said she is responsible for applying for the funds,
21 writing the grants, staffing all the work groups, collecting data, and using that data effectively.
22 She said she brings groups together to work collaboratively, and to implement best practices.
23 Commissioner Price asked if homelessness has been reduced.
24 Jamie Rohe said that no, homelessness has not been reduced. She said their data has
25 not been good enough to know how homelessness is changing in the area.
26 Jamie Rohe said the numbers of unsheltered homeless has dropped significantly in the
27 past several years, due to people getting into permanent supportive housing. She said the
28 overall numbers for homelessness have not gone down, and that homelessness is an indicator
29 of extreme poverty.
30 Commissioner Price said the information in the abstract did not mention much about
31 training and employment.
32 Jamie Rohe said the Plan to End Homelessness has three parts to it, and her
33 presentation this evening is only focusing on the housing component. She said she would
34 welcome the opportunity to return and talk about the other parts.
35 Bonnie Hammersley said Jamie Rohe's position is funded by all four government
36 entities. She said there is a lot of overlap between governmental entities, and that is why
37 Jamie's position was moved from the Housing Department to the Manager's office.
38 Bonnie Hammersley said she has some responses to share in the Budget discussion
39 next week.
40 Commissioner Jacobs said there was a presentation from Affordable Housing Advisory
41 Board, about a year ago. He said this Board asked for funding for one of its members to act as
42 a clearinghouse for affordable housing opportunities in Orange County. He asked if there was
43 an update on this topic.
44 Jamie Rohe said the proposal for the Orange County Clearinghouse Network has some
45 good elements to it; however, clearinghouse networks are notoriously hard to maintain. She
46 said this process did not work well at the Federal level. She said it must be considered why
47 these are not working, and what is needed in order to succeed. She said there must be a
48 deliberative process of engaging partners; including relationships with providers, ideally with the
49 clients themselves and also with the landlords.
5
1 Bonnie Hammersley said she would provide additional information to the BOCC on this
2 issue.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said more rental units are being built in Chapel Hill. He asked if
4 there is any strategy for providing more affordable housing rentals, versus affordable units for
5 ownership.
6 Jamie Rohe said there is an inclusionary zoning ordinance for home ownership. She
7 said the Affordable Housing Commission, which is all of the main affordable housing
8 stakeholders in the County, is focusing on how to encourage private developers to give
9 affordable rentals in their developments.
10 Commissioner Rich said the Town of Chapel Hill is working with a developer on Legion
11 Road; but the process has been delayed, due to paperwork not being filed in a timely manner.
12 She said the development is supposed to be largely made up of affordable housing. She said
13 she is unsure if this development will include any priority for those who are homeless, or at risk
14 of being so.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said he was thinking more about the Ephesus Fordham area, and
16 downtown on Rosemary Street.
17 Commissioner Rich said the Exchange was at Ephesus Fordham, and it was put on
18 Legion Road instead.
19 Bonnie Hammersley said she will find out the strategy information from the Towns of
20 Chapel Hill and Hillsborough, and will forward it to the Board.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said he agreed with Commissioner Dorosin about incentivizing
22 the private sector to interface with government, to provide affordable units. He said an
23 incentive per unit may not be a financially viable option with a large apartment complex; but it
24 may be a viable option with an owner of a private home, which is rented out. He said he would
25 not want to give up this option entirely.
26 Commissioner Rich said the density bonus strategy is not working for the Town of
27 Chapel Hill.
28 Commissioner Rich said her concern is, as transitional housing is built with Inter-Faith
29 Council Social Services (IFC), there are still homeless on the street, and there are no
30 emergency shelters available to them. She said the option of building a shelter must be
31 considered, as the transitional housing is a non-emergency shelter. She said there must be a
32 discussion about what to do when IFC moves out of their current shelter.
33 Jamie Rohe continued with the PowerPoint presentation:
34
35 Calculation of Unmet Need for Housing
36 Homeless street outreach workers and shelter/transitional housing staff estimate that Orange
37 County's unmet need for housing to ultimately resolve the homelessness of their clients is
38 (after new Community House opens):
39 • Emergency Shelter:
40 o 18 beds for men
41 o (surplus of 10 for women)
42 • Transitional Housing:
43 o (surplus of 60 beds for men)
44 o (surplus of 8 beds for women & children)
45 • Rapid Re-Housing: 49 beds
46 • Permanent Supportive Housing: 29 beds
47
48 John Dorward, Executive Director of the Community House in Chapel Hill, reviewed the
49 new Community House, saying care will be provided to the same homeless people. He said
50 Community House will not be an emergency shelter, and will only be able to take in 17 extra
6
1 people on white flag nights. He added that there are people who do not want to come into
2 housing.
3 John Dorward said the program will be more of an interim program, as opposed to
4 transitional housing. He said the program believes strongly in rapid re-housing. He said there
5 is not a lot of rapid re-housing, and few people get placed within a year. He said more
6 affordable housing options would lead to greater success rates.
7 John Dorward said there has been a waiting list at both shelters for over a year, even at
8 the men's shelter. He said both shelters have been full for ages. He said the new facility will
9 only have two more beds than the older facility; 52 beds instead of 50.
10 John Dorward said having an emergency shelter would be great; however, there is not
11 one. He said as a result, these homeless people will still come into their program. He said if
12 someone comes into the shelter, there is a chance to get that person into their program and
13 eventually into permanent housing.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if there is any way to pursue an emergency shelter for
15 Orange County.
16 Chair McKee asked John Roberts if he would research any options for affordable rental
17 properties, outside of rental control. He said he understands rent control is illegal in North
18 Carolina.
19 Chair McKee said he is not sure that all of the providers in Orange County have been
20 invited to the table to talk about affordable housing. He said this conversation must take place
21 in conjunction with all four Towns and all the providers, from small to large. He said everyone
22 needs to be in the same room, on the same page; and he has seen a lack of coordination in
23 some of the areas.
24 Bonnie Hammersley said collaboration and cooperation is the direction that this
25 conversation is going; and all updates will be shared with the BOCC, as available. She said the
26 new Housing Director has some ideas on how to expedite this process with some resources.
27 She said she will speak further on this topic during budget discussions.
28 Commissioner Jacobs said if there was a bond for affordable housing, it would be a
29 great incentive for all parties to come together to discuss this issue.
30 Commissioner Rich said that the Partnership to End Homelessness does have a seat at
31 the table for all the partners mentioned. She said it is a well attended group from throughout
32 the County.
33 Jamie Rohe said there is a big overlap between homelessness and housing, and the
34 Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition is the body that is bringing everyone together.
35 She said this coalition has been in existence for about two years, and has about 20
36 stakeholders involved.
37 Chair McKee asked if the Manager would please schedule another update in the fall.
38 Commissioner Price said as development continues in Chapel Hill, more and more
39 wooded areas are being cut down. She said she is aware of many homeless people, who live
40 in the wooded areas, and are now displaced, as the woods are removed. She said this only
41 increases the need for more housing.
42
43 2. Potential Revisions to the Existing Public Hearing Process
44
45 Perdita Holtz, Orange County Planning Department, made the following PowerPoint
46 presentation:
47
48 Potential Revisions to the Existing Public Hearing Process
49 (for Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)/Zoning Matters)
50
7
1 Purpose of Work Session
2 • To discuss whether the existing public hearing process for UDO/Zoning matters should
3 be revised
4 • If so, give staff direction on what the process should be
5 • Any revisions must be brought forward as a UDO text amendment at a quarterly public
6 hearing
7
8 Recent History
9 • Reviewed in last half of 2014 and discussed extensively by Planning Board and BOCC
10 • Original impetus:
11 o Remove the Planning Board as an official board at the public hearing (e.g., do
12 not require a quorum of Planning Board members)
13 o Increase the frequency of public hearings (currently held 4 times per year on
14 dates specifically set aside only for public hearings)
15 Other discussion through process:
16 o Allow the public to make comments at the end of the process, not just at the
17 formal public hearing
18 ➢ Will require a text amendment to the UDO which stipulates only written
19 comments can be made after the formal public hearing
20 ➢ If pursued, should be allowed only for legislative items, not quasi-judicial
21 items (e.g., Special Use Permits)
22
23 Legislative vs. Quasi-Judicial
24 If revisions are made, staff recommends two slightly different processes given the
25 different legal requirements
26 o Legislative decisions can be discussed by decision makers outside of the formal
27 public hearing with anyone who has an opinion
28 o Quasi-judicial decisions are not to be discussed outside of the formal hearing (ex
29 parte communication) and sworn testimony by experts is required
30 ➢ Non-expert opinions are considered hearsay and cannot be the basis of a
31 decision
32
33 Possible Process Flow Charts
34 • Included in agenda materials along with remarks regarding each possible process
35 • Primary differences from existing process:
36
37 Differences from Existing Process
38 Planning Board would make a recommendation prior to the public hearing
39 o Planning Board could request BOCC send item back to the Planning Board after
40 the public hearing
41 o BOCC could choose to send an item back to the Planning Board after the public
42 hearing
43 Public hearing would be closed the night of the hearing
44 o Written comments after the hearing would no longer be required
45 o At conclusion of hearing BOCC could:
46 ➢ Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date (items would no longer be
47 listed on the public hearing portion of the later BOCC agenda and the
48 public could make oral comments)
49 ➢ Refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review
8
1 ➢ Make a decision at the conclusion of the hearing (this would allow the
2 process to move more quickly for items that are not particularly
3 controversial)
4 • Planning Board quorum not required to hold public hearing
5 o Planning Board encouraged to attend public hearings
6 • More opportunities for public comment and earlier in the process
7 o Comment at both Planning Board meeting and formal public hearing
8 o Nearby property owners would receive letter about the Planning Board meeting
9 and signs would be posted on the property
10 o For quasi-judicial matters, Planning Board meeting could be considered a "dry
11 run" for the formal public hearing
12
13 BOCC Discussion
14 • Should existing process be revised?
15 • If so, how?
16 o When Planning Board's recommendation occurs
17 ➢ Before or after public hearing
18 o Require Planning Board quorum in order to hold public hearing?
19 o Number of public hearings per year
20 ➢ Could be different for legislative vs. quasi-judicial
21 o Closure of public hearings so items would no longer appear on the "Public
22 Hearing" portion of BOCC agendas with no additional comment accepted
23 ➢ Removal of requirement for written comments will be necessary OR
24 change heading on BOCC agendas
25
26 Commissioner Price said is the option of keeping or removing the planning board from
27 the process at the sole discretion of the BOCC.
28 John Roberts said the Planning Board can be given any authority that the BOCC sees
29 fit. He said currently the Planning Board is primarily an advisory board. He said the BOCC
30 can delegate more or less responsibilities, as it so chooses. He said the BOCC can remove the
31 Planning Board from the Quarterly Public Hearing process.
32 Chair McKee asked if the requirement of having the Planning Board members to be
33 present in a quorum at Quarterly Public Hearings was made during Commissioner Jacobs'
34 tenure.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said this decision predates his tenure. He said when he was
36 Planning Board Chair, 30 years ago, it was a requirement to have a quorum and to make a
37 recommendation after the Public Hearings.
38 Commissioner Price referred to the slide titled Differences from Existing Process, asking
39 if the public would be able to make only oral comments; or would written comments also be
40 allowed.
41 Perdita Holtz said for legislative items, residents can make oral and written comments.
42 She said for legislative items, the State requires that at least one Public Hearing be held. She
43 said there are no constraints on the public's involvement in such meetings. She said restraints
44 on the public's involvement only exist in quasi-judicial matters. She said the current Public
45 Hearing process in Orange County blended the two processes together leaving only one Public
46 Hearing for both legislative and quasi-judicial matters. She said this blending of matters into
47 one meeting can be difficult, as there are times when people are unable to speak at later
48 meetings.
9
1 Commissioner Price referred to the second bullet point on the same slide that stated:
2 "refer an application back to the Planning Board for further review." She asked if further
3 comment would be allowed by the BOCC.
4 Perdita Holtz said the Public Hearing would be closed at the hearing. She said the three
5 bullet points on this slide are not mutually exclusive, and the Board could choose any of the
6 three options. She said the BOCC would be allowed further comment as a regular agenda item
7 at a BOCC meeting.
8 Commissioner Dorosin asked if it comes back as a regular agenda item on the BOCC's
9 agenda, can anyone speak on it.
10 Perdita Holtz said that is correct.
11 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the only reason it is not currently done this way is
12 because the legislative and quasi-judicial processes are melded together.
13 Perdita Holtz said the language in the UDO does not allow for oral comments at a later
14 stage.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said the current problem is that comments are returned the
16 BOCC, and no one is allowed to comment on them. He said the goal is not to remove the
17 Planning Board from the process, but rather to get the public more involved in a smoother and
18 efficient process.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said the process can remain as it is, but add that additional
20 comment will be welcomed upon the return of the Planning Board's recommendations. He said
21 he likes the idea of what is in the recommendations, to encourage the public to be involved
22 earlier in the process.
23 Commissioner Dorosin said waiving the no comment clause would address a lot of the
24 concerns he has. He said it does not remove the Planning Board from the process; but it allows
25 the public and the Planning Board to be in communication much earlier in the process. He said
26 the process for the legislative items, including the ability for further comment, are a good step
27 forward, and he would endorse it wholeheartedly.
28 Commissioner Rich said a public hearing where people are told they cannot comment is
29 not a public hearing. She said it would be nice to have members from the Planning Board in
30 attendance at the end of the Public Hearing, when public comments are going to be allowed.
31 She said if the Planning Board makes a recommendation and the BOCC discusses it at a
32 meeting, there needs to be a representative from the Planning Board in attendance in order to
33 explain why the Planning Board made the recommendation it did. She asked how comments
34 from the public to the Planning Board will be evened out at that point.
35 Perdita Holtz said one of the duties of the Planning Board Chair/Vice Chair would be to
36 attend the Board of County Commissioners' meeting where these legislative items are on the
37 agenda.
38 Commissioner Jacobs agreed that attendance at the BOCC meeting should be a
39 requirement of the Planning Board Chair/Vice Chair. He said this is a good compromise, and
40 he is willing to change the process but would like to re-visit the process in a year to see how
41 this is working.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said that the Planning Board seems more passive in the last few
43 years. He said this may be due to the thorough work of the planning staff. He said he sees the
44 Planning Board as a fairly inactive group; and there is disconnect between the two Boards.
45 Commissioner Jacobs referred to page 4 of the PowerPoint presentation that states "for
46 quasi-judicial matters, Planning Board meeting could be considered a `dry run' for the formal
47 public hearing." He said it is important that the public know what admissible testimony in a
48 quasi-judicial hearing is.
10
1 John Roberts said there are occasions where the public does not understand what
2 admissible evidence is. He said it may be helpful to send in advance the definition of what a
3 quasi-judicial hearing is.
4 Craig Benedict said a brochure has been created, with the Attorney's office, which
5 explains the differences between legislative and quasi-judicial hearings. He said it also explains
6 the process of a quasi-judicial hearing.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said it would be nice to put an explanation of the difference
8 between the Board of Adjustment and the Planning Board on the website.
9 Chair McKee said a brochure will likely not be enough to educate the public on this issue
10 and process.
11 Commissioner Price said she is reticent to remove the Planning Board as an official
12 Board at the Public Hearings. She said the BOCC and the Planning Board may not always
13 agree, but having both present helps to flush out the issue.
14 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with her, and that is why he would want to re-visit this in a
15 year. He said the fact the Planning Board voted to take themselves out of the process, as part
16 of the Public Hearings, reflects their aforementioned passivity.
17 Perdita Holtz said the Planning Board recommended this option IF the Board of County
18 Commissioners wanted to change the current Public Hearing process.
19 Commissioner Rich said all the more reason to include the recommendation to evaluate
20 the new process after a year. She said it would send the message to the Planning Board that
21 the decision is not irreversible, and their input on the changes would be welcomed.
22 John Roberts said if the BOCC felt that the Planning Board was not engaged, the BOCC
23 could designate more responsibility to the Planning Board, in order to get them more involved.
24 Commissioner Jacobs said to also make it a requirement for the Chair or Vice Chair of
25 the Planning Board to attend the public hearings and the Board of County Commissioners
26 meetings.
27 Perdita Holtz asked if the Planning Board Chair or Vice Chair would be required to
28 attend both the Public Hearing and the BOCC decision meeting.
29 Chair McKee said when he served on the Planning Board it was his understanding that
30 attendance at Public Hearings was mandatory. He said he supports continuing the requirement
31 for the Planning Board attend Public Hearings. He said if there is not a quorum, then
32 appointments should be made. He said the privilege of serving on the Planning Board carries
33 with it responsibilities.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said three of the five BOCC members in attendance tonight want
35 the Planning Board to attend the Public Hearings, as well as the Board of County
36 Commissioners' meetings and to require the Chair/Vice Chair of the Planning Board to attend.
37 He said that sometimes life issues may interfere with attendance but, in general, attendance
38 should be expected.
39 Chair McKee said he understands that life issues come up, but he senses an overall
40 attitude of apathy.
41 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the requirement of a quorum, for a meeting to proceed,
42 would still be in place; or if the process could continue, and necessary follow up could be done
43 with the Planning Board after the fact. He said his main concern is not holding up the process.
44 He said he would not oppose a general attendance requirement but struggles with any
45 requirement that would cause the process to halt; especially when the public has been notified
46 and has shown up.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said perhaps staff could come up with a process of how to hold
48 Planning Board members accountable, while allowing for the issues of life that come up, and
49 keeps the process moving forward.
50 Chair McKee said that sounds like a good compromise.
11
1 Perdita Holtz said there is a difference between saying you have to be there and
2 requiring a quorum to move forward.
3 Chair McKee agreed when the public, Commissioners, and staff are all present and
4 ready to proceed, it is frustrating to cancel a meeting simply due to the lack of a quorum.
5
6 3. Private Road and Access Standards
7
8 Abigaile Pittman, Transportation and Land Use Planner, made the following PowerPoint
9 presentation
10
11 Private Road and Access Standards
12 Purpose: To receive an update and provide guidance on options for addressing various
13 private road access concerns.
14
15 Background
16 Addressing Private Road Access Concerns
17 • Included in 2014 Work Plans
18 o OUTBoard
19 o Planning Board
20 • 05/20/2014 — BOCC authorization to proceed
21 • 12/09/2014 —BOCC Info Item summary of input and received approval to return with
22 possible actions.
23
24 Abstract Includes:
25 • A review of existing private road standards; and
26 • A grouping of possible options or action that could be pursued, grouped as follows:
27 o Possible amendments to the UDO, including some from the Fire Council.
28 o A report/list of items that cannot be addressed through amendments to the UDO;
29 and
30 o Options for addressing emergency access for trail systems, either in or outside
31 the UDO.
32
33 Current UDO Regulations- Road Development
34 1) Class A
35 • Serves 6-12 lots or dwelling units
36 • 50 ft. right-of-way
37 • 18 ft. travel-way
38 • Road maintenance agreement
39 • Property owners responsible
40 Class B
41 • Serves 1-5 lots or dwelling units
42 • 50 ft. right-of-way
43 • No standard travel-way width
44 • Road maintenance agreement
45 • Property owners responsible
46
47 >13 lots or dwelling units
48 • Exempt Subdivisions per NC General Statutes
12
1 • Required to be constructed to NCDOT Standards for Subdivision Roads.
2 • Division of land into parcels > than 10 acres if no street right-of-way dedication.
3 • Combination/recombination of lots if total number not increased.
4 • Public acquisition of land for widening streets.
5 • Lot division < 2 acres and > 3 lots if no right-of-way dedication.
6
7 Primary Concerns
8 • Vehicle access on private roads and driveways for emergency response.
9 • Conversion to public road standards and acceptance into the State-maintained system
10 at some point in future.
11 • Currently no standards for emergency access for trail systems at Orange County parks
12 administered by DEAPR.
13
14 Possible Options/Actions within the UDO
15
16 1. Do away with Class B private roads and allow only Class A private roads, which requires
17 a minimum 18-ft. travel-way.
18 2. Allow subdivisions with < 3 lots or dwelling units to be served by a shared driveway,
19 subject to standards to accommodate emergency services vehicles. (UDO currently
20 allows 2 lots or dwelling units to share a driveway.)
21 3. Develop a requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying road
22 (either private or public).
23 4. Cul-de-sacs: Increase clearing width to accommodate emergency vehicle
24 access/staging. There is currently no minimum width.
25 5. Drainage pipes under driveways: Establish a minimum width for all drain pipes of 16
26 feet, to address concern of trucks being `hung up' when accessing property.
27 6. Gates/Walls: Require minimum travel widths and stacking areas to accommodate
28 access concerns.
29 7. Pull-over Areas: Standards for requiring pull-over areas to allow two trucks to pass on a
30 road.
31 8. Private Bridges: There are currently no existing weight specifications governing the
32 development of a bridge over a stream crossing.
33 9. Tree Clearance on Driveways: A reference to a tree clearing requirement for
34 subdivision projects may be needed to ensure emergency vehicular access, with a
35 reference to such a requirement in recorded road maintenance agreements. However,
36 the UDO may not be the most appropriate location for this County standard.
37
38 Staff Comments
39 All the aforementioned options for amending the UDO are viable except for option no. 3:
40 Develop a requirement that all newly created lots have access to a complying road (either
41 private or public).
42
43 Possible options/actions Outside the UDO
44 1. Locked gates
45 2. Tree clearance on driveways
46 3. Road identification
47 4. District issues with road conditions
48
49 Possible Options/Actions for Addressing Emergency Access for Trail Systems — In or
50 Outside UDO
13
1 • There are currently no standards for emergency access for trail systems in the UDO.
2 • Draft goal and objectives (Attachment 1) could be implemented as a matter of County
3 policy for the planning and development of future parks or for incorporation into the
4 UDO.
5
6 Recommendations
7 The Planning Director recommends the Board:
8 1. Accept the update;
9 2. Discuss any concerns or preferences on options; and
10 3. With feedback, authorize staff to proceed with potential regulatory amendments
11
12 Chair McKee asked if Emergency Services Director Jim Groves could address the
13 concerns of the fire departments, with the existing road standards.
14 Jim Groves said when they met with the Fire Chiefs Council, getting down the private
15 roads in a safe manner was one of the main concerns. He said there has been the same issue
16 with ambulances, if a road has low hanging trees.
17 Jason Shepherd, Orange County Fire Marshal, made reference to Class 10 properties.
18 He said he attended a community meeting with a development, which ended up making a road
19 name change, doing maintenance on the road and surrounding trees, making it easier to
20 ingress and egress. He said it is difficult to meet with all communities and encourage them to
21 make the necessary changes.
22 Chair McKee asked if there is a definition of a driveway. He said homes must be
23 accessible.
24 Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, said the recommendation would involve a
25 driveway standard being adopted; to provide access, a staging area, and to guarantee a turn
26 around. He said to achieve this; a text amendment would have to be done.
27 Michael Harvey said any subdivision project, reviewed by staff, must demonstrate
28 compliance with code. He said all shared driveway agreements are also reviewed.
29 Chair McKee said it would technically be the same as what he dealt with, but with the
30 cul- de-sacs it says there is no current minimum width. He said he believed a 60-foot radius to
31 be required.
32 Michael Harvey said there is currently a minimum width; however, there is not a
33 minimum clearing outside of the travel way, and often vegetation gets in the way of the turn
34 radius. He said twelve feet is not acceptable, and the goal is to come up with a standard that is
35 acceptable.
36 Commissioner Price asked if there is an advantage of three lots as opposed to two lots,
37 and what a shared driveway would be like, since it must be wide enough for vehicles to pass
38 on.
39 Abigaile Pittman said the original purpose of the standard was to call for an affordable
40 option before people spend monies on a Class A Road, and that is how the number of three lots
41 was determined.
42 Commissioner Price asked how the driveway is built and maintained.
43 Chair McKee said in his case he built the road, and when the homeowners bought the
44 lots they took responsibility for the maintenance. He said it was a Class B road.
45 Commissioner Price asked if there is a difference between a really wide driveway and a
46 Class B road.
47 Michael Harvey said a Class B road must have a minimum travel width of twelve feet.
48 Commissioner Price asked if this road would be twelve feet.
49 Michael Harvey said a larger road will likely be recommended, based on the
50 recommendation of First Responders; who say twelve feet is not viable for their needs. He said
14
1 the recommendation will suggest a shared driveway with a larger cul de sac, than is required,
2 so that emergency vehicles will be able to operate properly. He said this would allow smaller
3 properties seeking a three lot subdivision to avoid the need for a Class A road, but allow access
4 for emergency vehicles. He said the recommendation will require larger developers to comply
5 with the Class A road standards.
6 Abigaile Pittman said a Class B road has 15 foot right of way, while a driveway would
7 not.
8 Commissioner Price asked if such a right of way sacrifices clearance area.
9 Abigaile Pittman said not necessarily as there are standards to accommodate
10 Emergency Vehicles.
11 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the intention is to apply the recommendation to roads
12 from this point forward, or if it is to retrofit existing roads. He asked if there was any sense of
13 the scope of the problem.
14 Abigaile Pittman said if there is an amendment to the UDO, it would be only going
15 forward; but if the County adopts other policies, then it could affect whatever the BOCC
16 decided.
17 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are three lots cut out along the road way, must
18 they all connect on one driveway.
19 Michael Harvey said typically joint driveways and shared access roads are required to
20 avoid multiple curb cuts on the roadway; and thereby lesson traffic congestion.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said he understood the sense in two lots sharing a driveway, but
22 he is specifically asking if three lots must always share a driveway. He said it makes no sense
23 to him to cut across three lots, just so there can be a shared driveway.
24 Michael Harvey said no. He said it is incumbent upon the developer to come up with a
25 solution that avoids that scenario.
26 Chair McKee said that current regulations state that one cannot have multiple access
27 points into a minor subdivision. He added that a minor subdivision is considered one to five
28 lots.
29 Commissioner Jacobs asked if anyone has spoken to local realtors or members of the
30 local development community regarding this topic.
31 Michael Harvey said no.
32 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the 16 foot pipe was 16 feet in length or diameter.
33 Abigaile Pittman referred to the drawing graphic that outlined these measurements.
34 Jason Shepherd said there is an apron entrance off of the road, and the length of the
35 pipe would have to be the width of the apron. He said the length would be 16 feet long, lying
36 across the width of the driveway.
37 Commissioner Jacobs asked David Stancil if he could give some background on the
38 rural character study. He said a mixed group of stakeholders came together to discuss ways to
39 preserve rural character.
40 David Stancil said the study was done 22 years ago. He said the study was done prior
41 to the existence of cluster subdivisions and open space developments. He said there was a lot
42 of emphasis, at that time, on the environment, and the ability of constructing narrower lanes.
43 He said there were concerns about fire and safety, which were addressed by the placement of
44 regular pull out areas; allowing drivers room to pull over to let emergency vehicles pass. He
45 said the idea of protecting rural character included making sure that roads were not
46 overdesigned.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said there was a great deal of work done to encourage people to
48 work within the existing landscape, as opposed to changing it. He said he would like the BOCC
49 to consider that there may be other possibilities. He said he understands the issues of safety
15
1 but he would like to pursue the idea of preserving rural character. He said as most of the
2 jurisdiction is rural, those would be exceptions, not the rule.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said the Department of Transportation's standards are not
4 universal, but rather they are North Carolina standards; and he argued that there may be some
5 middle ground in exceptional cases.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said there should be differentiation between natural areas and
7 parks. He said he would like to see some sensitivity to the natural environment; all the while
8 knowing that Emergency Services and Fire Departments know what is in their jurisdictions, and
9 will respond accordingly.
10 Commissioner Rich said she is interested in seeing the old rural character study. She
11 said she is concerned that the burden is being put on the landowner or developer, and it is
12 expensive. She said the great cost of the roads and driveways may be passed to homeowners.
13 Commissioner Dorosin said there is competing interests: cost for home owners or
14 developers, versus the obligation to help constituents during emergencies. He asked if
15 homeowners with unacceptably small driveways or tree limbs, that bar access, could be
16 reported to their insurance carrier; as they have an obligation to make the roads function for
17 public safety.
18 Chair McKee asked John Roberts if County services could refuse to approach an
19 emergency due to inaccessibility.
20 John Roberts said Emergency Services would have to find a way to get down the
21 driveway. He said he does not know a solution to the problem but there is a reasonable
22 expectation among citizens that the fire department, funded by their tax dollars, will reach their
23 house in a time of crisis.
24 Commissioner Rich asked if there is an emergency and the roads are inaccessible how
25 does Emergency Services currently respond.
26 Jason Shepherd said each situation is unique and is addressed one case at a time. He
27 said each response is created in the moment, often sacrificing precious time that would be
28 better used fighting the fire.
29 Commissioner Dorosin asked if property owners and realtors are required to disclose
30 the fact that a fire truck cannot get down the driveway.
31 Jason Shepherd said no, there is no type of disclosure requirement. He said in regards
32 to insurance providers, policy writers should create policies in the field after seeing a property
33 rather than at their desks.
34 Jim Groves said some of the stakeholders are worried about their vehicles, and potential
35 damage they may incur on unsafe or unstable roadways and bridges.
36 Commissioner Dorosin said if people knew of the hazards, like low hanging branches;
37 they may be more receptive to making the safety changes. He said many people may be
38 unaware of their property's inaccessibility, until it is too late.
39 Commissioner Price said firefighters are being put at risk, not just the vehicles. She
40 said it is not fair to come up with policies for nice country roads, and not consider the people
41 doing the work. She said she will side with the recommendations of the Sheriff, Emergency
42 Services and the Fire Departments.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said information, regarding Emergency Services accessibility,
44 could be included with the tax notice, in a similar manner to information about pumping septic
45 tanks.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said for the most part the intentions are all good and make sense
47 to him. He said part of being in the post 911 world is that there are so many sacrifices of
48 personal character, versus the greatest possible safety. He said it is reasonable to educate
49 people and to suggest that they clear their driveways but to make it a County ordinance takes it
50 too far.
16
1 Commissioner Jacobs said there should be some cost benefit analysis. He said his own
2 cost analysis tends to be the natural environment versus standards; but others compare their
3 bottom line to standards. He said the Development Community, as well as the public, should
4 be included in the discussion.
5 Chair McKee said there is a road off of Route 70, called Poplar Ridge, which fits the
6 definition of what is being discussed here tonight. He said driving this road may be helpful in
7 visualizing the types of issues that fire trucks face. He said access is the key; if services cannot
8 get to the fire, houses and people cannot be saved.
9 Commissioner Price said she is not in favor of increasing the cost to the developer but
10 she feels that the safety of the responders must be heavily weighed. She said a price cannot
11 be placed on a person's life.
12 Jason Shepherd said Chapter 5 of the fire code allows him to require fire apparatus
13 access. He said a solution may be as simple as reviewing development plans prior to
14 construction, to see if access is possible. He said there may be many cases where a 12 foot
15 driveway would allow access, and exorbitant changes and cost would not be necessary.
16 Chair McKee said Class B roads could remain available for minor subdivisions.
17 Commissioner Jacobs said when this item comes back to change it from standards to
18 guidelines subject to approval by the Fire Marshal's office.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said he is more in favor of flexibility and would trust the Fire
20 Marshal to give an honest review.
21 Chair McKee said he is not sure the BOCC has given any clear direction with which staff
22 can proceed.
23 Abigaile Pittman said perhaps the Board could authorize staff to outline some
24 amendment options, and return to the Board for their consideration.
25 Chair McKee said this may be the best course of action, as summarizing the evening's
26 conversation may prove difficult.
27 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the idea of some type of public awareness campaign
28 could be pursued.
29 Commissioner Rich asked if the properties that are already known to be difficult to
30 access, have been notified of this information.
31 Jim Groves said the Fire Marshal has done this on one occasion, and that response was
32 favorable, and the problem corrected.
33 Commissioner Rich said arming people with knowledge about their property may be a
34 really good place to start.
35 Chair McKee said fire departments do proactively engage the public with troublesome
36 roads.
37
38 4. Educational Facility Impact Fee Ordinance and Age-Restricted Housing
39 Craig Benedict said there was a request from a developer in Chapel Hill for Orange
40 County to review the County's ordinance and to have an age restrictive housing exception.
41 He said this developer asked for age restrictive housing to be categorized into a multi-family
42 impact fee category. He said the assumption, that the age restrictions for development would
43 be similar to that of multi-family, may be a lot to ask. He said the approved age restrictions for
44 90 percent of the development state that one person within the household must be over the age
45 of 55. He said this age restriction does not exclude people under the age of 55 also living in the
46 properties. He said the remaining 10 percent of the development does not have age
47 restrictions.
48 He said in the abstract is some background information (below) and some possible
49 options for the Board's consideration. He said they looked at some projects throughout the
17
1 United States which gave them enough information to do some research in Orange County and
2 maybe surrounding counties.
3
4 BACKGROUND: Orange County is one of the few counties in North Carolina that can impose
5 school impact fees because the County obtained special local enabling legislation from the
6 State in 1987. In 1993, the County acted upon this authority and, in collaboration with the
7 Towns and School Districts, began the fee assessment. Since then, the County has
8 occasionally (every few years) updated the fees based on school costs, categories of housing,
9 etc. Findings of impact, benefit, and proportionality must be shown to form a good methodology
10 and legal basis.
11
12 The Ordinance requires impact fees be paid for new residential construction in order to assist
13 with educational impact costs associated with new students. A developer has recently
14 approached staff to request that an exception be created for age-restricted housing, i.e.
15 housing that would be limited by deed or covenant restrictions to housing for persons over a
16 minimum age (see attached letter). The developer prefers the exception be created as quickly
17 as possible. If the Board is interested in pursuing an amendment to the Ordinance, Planning
18 staff recommends that the decision be based on relevant data because of the requirements
19 necessary to set impact fee levels. There are two possible methods to achieve data needs:
20 1. Require the developer requesting this exception provide information about other age
21 restricted projects in a specific geographic area (to be determined) and have staff evaluate the
22 data to determine probable impacts.
23 2. Conduct a student generation rate study specifically for age-restricted housing and assess
24 the fee accordingly. Historically, such studies have been completed by a consultant with data
25 supplied by the local governments. (This method is preferable due to the enhanced ability to
26 defend the outcome of the study).
27
28 It should be noted that a new impact fee study (which includes the accompanying student
29 generation rate analysis) has been requested by Planning in the department's FY 2015-16
30 Budget (approximately $70,000) since the last study was completed in 2007. If recommended
31 by the Manager and approved by the Board, the new impact fee study would disaggregate
32 housing types by number of bedrooms (similar to the 2014 study which evaluated only housing
33 that had been constructed in the past 10 years; impact fees must be based on the entire
34 housing stock). It would be possible to include age-restricted housing as a housing type in this
35 new study, but the results of the study would likely not be available until early 2016 and would
36 then have to be adopted. This timeframe may be longer than the developer would prefer. It
37 should be noted that the Educational Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance (EFIFO) is independent
38 from the Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (SAPFO) with only the student
39 generation rates having a common data ingredient. Because the special local enabling
40 legislation for the EFIFO is grounded in land use and zoning authority, any changes to the
41 Ordinance must be advertised in accordance with statute requirements and must be heard at a
42 public hearing. The public hearing can be on a regular BOCC meeting agenda (e.g., it is not
43 restricted to only the quarterly public hearings).
44
45 A student generation rate study specifically for age-restricted housing (Option #2 above) would
46 likely cost approximately $15,000 and would require staff time from all of the local governments
47 within Orange County and the school districts to compile raw data.
48
49 Option #1 would require County staff time to evaluate the information provided by the
50 developer. If the ordinance is amended, there would likely be a reduction in impact fees
18
1 collected (presuming age-restricted housing generates fewer students). The decrease would
2 correspond to the amount of new housing that qualifies as age restricted housing under that
3 amendment. Other housing type categories may increase if this type of housing is removed
4 from the previous aggregated housing totals.
5
6 Craig Benedict said in the upcoming budget, there is a request to review the student
7 generation rates based on the previous study, along with a bit of an expansion of that study.
8 He said an impact fee schedule would be created. He said the school impact fees do not cover
9 100 percent of the cost of putting a student in a seat in a public school. He said the school
10 impact fee was anticipated to cover about sixty percent of the cost. He said he anticipates that
11 these fees could climb again.
12 Craig Benedict said if the Board would like an analysis of age restrictive housing to be
13 done in the short term, and information came out of that analysis, then it could be wrapped into
14 the school impact fee connection that will updated as soon as there is budget approval. He
15 said the developer is present at the meeting this evening and can answer any questions about
16 their proposal. He said approval from Chapel Hill has already been given, and time is of the
17 essence. He said the payment of impact fees is usually done in the Certificate of Occupancy
18 phase in Orange County.
19 Chair McKee said it is not typical policy to allow anyone but staff to speak at a work
20 session, but suggested allowing the developer permission to speak, in order to answer
21 questions.
22 Commissioner Rich asked if only age restrictive housing is being discussed tonight; as
23 she brought up the issue of tiny houses before.
24 Craig Benedict said age restrictive housing is the focus of tonight's discussion, and what
25 is being proposed, with the reanalysis of the school impact fees, would capture one bedroom
26 single family homes, which could include tiny houses. He said in the proposal for next year's
27 reanalysis, the single family will be broken down by bedroom number; and there would likely be
28 a lower fee for smaller houses.
29 Commissioner Price asked if the BOCC is meant to make a decision at the next regular
30 meeting about the proposed project.
31 Craig Benedict said the project is not within Orange County's jurisdiction. He said it was
32 approved by the Town of Chapel Hill in the fall of 2014. He said the product of the impact fee
33 ordinances, throughout the County, are single family dwellings, and the developer would be
34 paying about $11,000 per unit. He said the developer is asking the County to re-categorize age
35 restrictive housing so that a different fee may be assessed.
36 Commissioner Price asked if there is a time line for this to happen.
37 Craig Benedict said the proposal to analyze, that he just reviewed, would not get results
38 until October or November of this year.
39 Commissioner Price asked if the developer's time line would be affected.
40 Steve George, EpCon Communities developer and Attorney, said the plan is to break
41 ground in the next few weeks but they would not have their Certificates of Occupancy (CO) until
42 the first quarter of 2016.
43 Craig Benedict said the Town of Chapel Hill collects at the permit stage, but perhaps the
44 Town may delay to the time of the CO, which would be consistent with the overall County
45 Ordinance.
46 Steve George said if the impact fees could be collected at the CO, then there would be
47 time for the study to be conducted.
48 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that Bonnie Hammersley speak to the Manager of the
49 Town of Chapel Hill or ask Chair McKee to send letter to the Mayor, suggesting the delay of the
19
1 fee collection. He said if the development warrants a different fee, then this study is overdue,
2 as the fee is based on the student generation rates.
3
4 Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification regarding the impact fee, and if it is meant
5 to be tied to actual student generation numbers, or if it is philosophically based in the value
6 placed on education in this County. He said is there an exemption when building a residential
7 nursing facility.
8 John Roberts said there have been several exceptions to the impact fee ordinance and
9 it is entirely appropriate for the Board to consider school generation information for educational
10 impact facility fees.
11 Craig Benedict said there is a proportionality connection to this, and Orange County is
12 one of the few counties in the State that has impact fees. He said staff would suggest having
13 data to back decisions. He said as new housing types come forward, new analysis should be
14 done.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said Orange County is not the only county to have impact fees,
16 and questioned if other counties are further along in this process.
17 Craig Benedict said Orange County is much farther ahead than the other counties, and
18 the leading edge in analyzing to this level.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said the other component to consider, besides legal and
20 philosophical, is political. He said what can be charged versus what is charged can be two
21 different things. He said the full freight of a public school seat is not charged.
22 Chair McKee asked the Developer if he could share the anticipated total cost of the
23 impact fees for all units.
24 The Developer said roughly $700,000.
25 Chair McKee asked the Board if this, or any other, exemption is made, and the pool of
26 money is reduced will the Board in turn increase the fees to cover the loss, putting the burden
27 on those who are not exempt.
28 Chair McKee said if this project receives an exemption due to being age-restrictive
29 housing then why not exempt couples or a single person that have no children and, therefore,
30 do not impact the schools.
31 Craig Benedict said the exception process of alleviating all fees is not being suggested.
32 He said the suggested route is not for this developer's project but for age-restricted housing.
33 He said it cannot be reviewed on a case by case basis, but rather a general category is being
34 considered.
35 Commissioner Rich said if a development project is not generating students it should not
36 be exempt from fees and the fees should be much lower.
37 Commissioner Rich asked if the developers have any affordable housing in the current
38 project.
39 The developer said they chose the payment in lieu option.
40 Commissioner Price asked if the price range for the homes is known, and if there is an
41 effort to make it affordable to seniors.
42 The developer said keeping the housing affordable would be desirable, but it is difficult
43 to achieve in Chapel Hill. He said the goal is to keep costs as low as possible, likely in the
44 $300,OOOs.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said this is age restrictive housing, which will likely not have
46 children, versus a single family home that can be sold to those who may have children. He said
47 that the label of age restriction does not mean that there will not be any children, noting that
48 there is an increasing trend of grandparents raising grandchildren.
20
1 Chair McKee said he is opposed to impact fees, period. He said they adversely affect
2 the affordability of all housing and that with lower-cost housing, the fees can total 10 to 20
3 percent of the cost of the house.
4 Commissioner Rich said it is time to gather data again and see what happens with the
5 non-generation of students.
6
7 Commissioner Jacobs said Orange County's payment in lieu policy for Parks and
8 Recreation needs to be reviewed.
9 The developer said he is confident of what the data will report. He said the only concern
10 for them is the timing. He said he understands from the discussion that Orange County will
11 help them work with Chapel Hill to allow construction to begin and act on the results of the data
12 as they are obtained.
13 Chair McKee said the Board can indicate to staff to start the study.
14 Craig Benedict said the study can be paid for either by the County or the developer.
15 Chair McKee said for Orange County to pay for this study.
16 Commissioner Rich said the study should be broad.
17 Chair McKee said to move forward with the study, to work with Chapel Hill to allow the
18 project to move forward, and to assess fees at the CO stage versus the permit stage.
19
20 5. Follow-up Discussion on Board Rules of Procedures - Petitions Process
21 Chair McKee said that Commissioner Jacobs petitioned the Board to review the petition
22 process. He said at their places is an excerpt from the January 30, 2015 Retreat Minutes.
23 Chair McKee said there have been more petitions in the past 6 to 12 months, and some
24 of these are requests for information and not petitions, and these should be sent to the
25 Manager to distribute to staff for responses. He gave some examples of petitions from Board
26 members from past meetings in order to see the difference between information requests
27 versus policy information/requests.
28 Chair McKee said he does not know if he, as Chair, or the Manager needed to address
29 these information requests more proactively at meetings.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said having a trusted Manager, who will do what the Board asks,
31 should be enough. He suggested Board members still be able to petition for all types of
32 information, but it should be Manager's responsibility to determine what she can simply have
33 staff answer versus what needs to go through the Chair and Vice Chair. He said it takes the
34 burden off the Chair of having to respond to so many requests while also relieving Board
35 members from worrying about the phrasing of their petitions, and allowing each member to
36 know what the others are considering.
37 Commissioner Rich said this process is a good idea but sometimes petitions come to
38 her while she is talking to others and she adds it to her petition list. She said, however, most
39 are not petitions, but rather information requests.
40 Bonnie Hammersley said she liked this idea and it would not be a burden as she keeps
41 notes throughout the meetings of all these requests. She said she often already has staff
42 working on many of the requests prior to the Chair/Vice Chair agenda review. She said there
43 are sometimes items that require the authority of the Board, and she cannot act without further
44 communication with the Board. She said the outcome of all requests, whether true petitions or
45 just request for information, will always be presented with full responses to the Board.
46 Chair McKee said Bonnie Hammersley often takes the lead on petition responses during
47 the agenda review.
48 Bonnie Hammersley said some petitions are complicated and will take more time but
49 she will make every effort to keep the petitioner updated from here forward.
21
1 Commissioner Rich said it is important to know that a petition is not lost, but is being
2 worked on, and for the Board to be updated.
3 Chair McKee said Board members do not have to wait until a meeting to make a petition
4 or information request. He said there is always the option of sending an email to the Manager
5 and copying the Board, but not engaging in conversation with the Board members. He
6 suggested adding John Roberts to the Board's single email address, to ensure that the Board is
7 following the open meetings law at all times.
8 Bonnie Hammersley said she is open to receiving phone calls as well.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said he hoped this tweak will cause less work for the Chair. He
10 said the Manager is knowledgeable and competent enough to navigate what she can handle,
11 and what may need to follow a different route.
12 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a way for the Board to act expeditiously on
13 certain petitions that are time sensitive. He said he is in favor of establishing a process. He
14 said he would support authorizing the Chair to act on the Board's behalf in those types of
15 situations.
16 John Roberts said a sentence could be included on all abstracts/agendas that, though
17 decisions are not usually made at work sessions, a decision (s) may be made in special
18 circumstances.
19 Commissioner Dorosin concurs with John Roberts. He said making decisions at public
20 meetings, that have been properly noticed, should be allowed. He said not doing so
21 unnecessarily hamstrings the Board. He said there are times when special circumstances or
22 emergencies arise. He said the high standards of transparency are not compromised by
23 making decisions at work sessions, as they are not secret meetings.
24 Commissioner Dorosin said he would also like for the Board to be able to act by
25 consensus by email as long as the open meetings law is not violated.
26 Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Dorosin.
27 She said the Board can vote to suspend any existing rules at any time.
28 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board stands too much on ceremony and process. He
29 said he favors action in a timely fashion. He said there may not always be consensus and that
30 is alright.
31 Chair McKee said there is a place for policies and procedures.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
34 adjourn the meeting at 10:56 p.m.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38
39 Earl McKee, Chair
40
41 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
1
I Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 Budget Work Session
6 May 14, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, May
10 14, 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 Barry Jacobs, Renee Price and Penny Rich
14 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Mark Dorosin and Bernadette Pelissier
15 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
16 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Deputy Clerk to the
17 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18
19 Chair McKee called the meeting to order 7:00 p.m.
20 Chair McKee said Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner Dorosin will be absent
21 tonight, due to scheduling conflicts.
22
23 1. To Continue Review and Discussion of the Manager's Recommended FY 2015-20
24 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
25 Paul Laughton, Interim Director-Finance and Administrative Services, reviewed the
26 items discussed at the work session on April 9, 2015. He said this evening the focus will be on
27 County projects not discussed at that meeting, as well as Special Revenue Projects, Proprietary
28 Projects and Year 1 Recommended CIP Projects.
29
30 a.) County Projects
31 HVAC Projects (CIP page 26)
32 Paul Laughton said there are minimal HVAC expenses anticipated in the next five
33 years. He said that the amount that does exist can fall under the replacement or operating
34 budget.
35 Commissioner Rich asked if HVAC maintenance would be under a regular line item
36 going forward.
37 Paul Laughton said as the HVAC needs did not cross the $100,000 threshold, they were
38 not included in the CIP. He said the maintenance and replacement of HVAC will fall under the
39 operating budget. He said this is referenced on page 26 of the CIP.
40 Chair McKee asked the County Manager if the Board could have more financial
41 information regarding the Community Geothermal that was put in the Jail and Courthouse
42 complex, specifically regarding whether the initial cost has been recouped in the energy
43 savings.
44 Bonnie Hammersley said she would gather that information.
45 Commissioner Rich asked if any preliminary work would be needed at the Southern
46 Human Services Center (SHSC), prior to year six, for the geothermal installation.
47 Jeff Thompson, Orange County Asset Management Director, said this is a placeholder,
48 in case the SHSC expansion renovation does not move forward. He added that if the BOCC
49 does move forward with the renovations at the SHSC, the geothermal site would be a part of
50 the design process.
2
1 Commissioner Price asked if the preceding pages of the CIP, prior to page 26, were
2 going to be discussed.
3 Paul Laughton said the previous pages were discussed at the April 9 meeting; however,
4 there would be time to go back to those pages at the end of this evening's meeting. He said
5 this will be one of the last detailed work sessions regarding the CIP, and now is the time for the
6 Board to offer any direction, suggest changes or revisions, and pose questions so staff can get
7 answers.
8 Bonnie Hammersley said the CIP will be part of the process during budget hearings,
9 with goal of keeping the CIP as a part of the conversation about the operating budget.
10
11 Roofing Projects (CIP page 27)
12 Paul Laughton said there are two roofing projects in Year 1, followed by a scattering of
13 projects over the next four years. He said Year 1 includes a project at the Jail and the Old
14 Courthouse. He said Years 6 through 10 include a lot of projects. He said roofing needs
15 consistently change from year to year, and the Roof Asset Management Program (RAMP)
16 continually reviews the conditions of roofs, along with cost estimates.
17 Commissioner Jacobs asked if roof gardens are going to be incorporated.
18 Jeff Thompson said yes. He said there are two considerations: structural and the cost
19 benefits of those technologies. He said the idea was considered at Cedar Grove, where solar is
20 also being considered. He said the Hillsborough Commons Project was also considered.
21 Commissioner Jacobs asked if rooftop gardens will be considered on new construction
22 projects, such as the Jail or Southern Human Services Center expansion.
23 Jeff Thompson said the Jail is a compelling point.
24 Commissioner Rich said the Sheriff did mention wanting a garden, in which the inmates
25 could work and grow food.
26 Commissioner Price said the Skills Development Center and the Visitors Bureau at 501
27 and 503 W. Franklin Street have $51,700 allotted in Year 3 and a $209,800 in Years 6 through
28 10. She asked if the purpose of these monies could be explained.
29 Jeff Thompson said the monies are for the roof on the Visitor's Bureau, which has
30 multiple roofs, and the funding is spread out over time to address the needs.
31 Commissioner Rich asked if the monies and plans would shift if the location of the
32 Visitor's Bureau changed.
33 Jeff Thompson said even if the Visitor's Bureau moves, the new occupant of the 501 W
34 Franklin Street property will still need a new roof. He said if the property is divested, or
35 changes hands, the needs of the roof will be considered in that transaction.
36 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the structural integrity of the old Chapel Hill Town Hall
37 has been investigated.
38 Jeff Thompson said there have been preliminary studies done on both the old Library
39 and the old Town Hall. He said he would share this information with the Board prior to the
40 summer break.
41
42 Information Technology (IT) (CIP page 28)
43 Paul Laughton said there is a total of$500,000 put in for infrastructure, with $50,000 of
44 that total set aside for the Board of County Commissioners' initiatives. He said there is ongoing
45 review of all equipment to assess the need for repair or replacement. He said the final
46 financing of the Central Permit item should be added into the IT capital.
47 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the County plans to continue using desktop computers,
48 or will there be a switch to more laptop computers, as previously predicted.
49 Jim Northup, Orange County Chief Information Officer, said laptops used to be fairly
50 expensive; however, the requirements to be able to use a laptop have lightened in recent years.
3
1 He said departments are now given the option to receive a laptop when replacing a desktop, if
2 they so choose. He said the cost differential is covered by the department receiving the
3 computer, and that about 40% of the current fleet of computers are laptops. He said this
4 percentage is anticipated to remain the same in the future.
5 Commissioner Rich asked if the IT portion of the CIP had any monies budgeted for
6 cyber security.
7 Jim Northup said there have been a few cyber security issues over the years, including
8 two fairly significant virus outbreaks in the past two years. He said the monies for these types
9 of attacks typically come out of contracted services for emergencies at the cost of doing other
10 previously scheduled projects. He said network audits are conducted frequently, along with
11 recommendations from vendors based on their interface with the County's network. He said
12 there is not money specifically dedicated for network security.
13 Commissioner Price said the Library had received funding in the past for software but
14 the CIP shows no future funding. She asked if this could be explained.
15 Jim Northup said the County helped the Library with an ILS system which was budgeted
16 into the County's IT budget. He said there is a small amount of those funds remaining, but he
17 is unsure for what those funds will be used.
18 Commissioner Price asked if the Hillsborough and the Chapel Hill Libraries ever
19 interoperated, would funds come from the IT budget or the Library budget.
20 Bonnie Hammersley said in the coming years support costs will be centralized; for
21 example, all IT costs would be funded from a centralized appropriation.
22
23 Register of Deeds Automation Project (CIP page 29)
24 Paul Laughton said this project is funded with 10% of the fees collected by the Register
25 of Deeds, as mandated by North Carolina Statute. He said this amount will remain at $80,000,
26 as it was last year.
27 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the income gathered by the Register of Deeds had risen
28 as the economy has begun to recover.
29 Paul Laughton said there has been a little bit of a decrease in revenue with the Register
30 of Deeds.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said he understood the housing market across the region to be
32 up, and asked if the decreasing trend in revenue is expected to turn around.
33 Paul Laughton said it is hoped that the market will continue to improve, but budgeting
34 had been done conservatively.
35
36 Government Services Center Annex (CIP page 33)
37 Paul Laughton said this project is scheduled in Year 3 at the cost of$350,000. He said
38 the majority of this cost is to relocate mechanical and electrical equipment out of the basement
39 of the annex of the Government Services building.
40
41 Parking Lot Improvements (CIP page 34)
42 Paul Laughton said there is only one project in the next 5 years, at 501/503 W. Franklin
43 Street, at the cost of$120,000.
44 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a way to prevent cars from driving into the 501/503
45 building.
46 Jeff Thompson said this is a common occurrence in these types of parking lot designs,
47 and that bollards could be put up, which then must be balanced against appearance.
48
49 Court Street Annex (CIP page 36)
4
1 Paul Laughton said there is replacement of electrical circuits scheduled in Years 6
2 through 10 at a cost of$100,000.
3 Jeff Thompson said alternatives are being studied for the existing jail property.
4
5 Generator Projects (CIP page 39)
6 Paul Laughton said this is a new project for this year. He said there are several
7 locations in the next three years that will be looked at regarding generators, or other sources of
8 back up energy. He said grant funded sources are always pursued for these types of needs, as
9 well.
10 Commissioner Rich asked if solar generators and batteries are being considered.
11 Jeff Thompson said the cost benefit analysis will be conducted regarding solar energy.
12 Commissioner Price asked if the generators at these locations will be replacement ones
13 or new. She said the increase in weather related power outages may result in the County's
14 buildings being used as shelters for the Community and having power will be vital.
15 Jeff Thompson said they will mostly be new.
16 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the buildings currently used for emergency shelters
17 could be identified.
18 Jim Groves, Emergency Services Director, said the primary shelters are C. W. Stanford
19 Middle School, on Orange High School Road; and Smith Middle School, on Seawell School
20 Road. He said Smith Middle School has a generator that is always ready for use no matter the
21 reason. He said at Stanford Middle School the generator is pre-staged if a bad weather event
22 is anticipated. He said if more space is needed, the high schools are the next locations to be
23 used in emergencies. He said a new option is to use the buildings belonging to faith based
24 organizations.
25 Commissioner Jacobs said that in previous discussions with Mebane, a request was
26 raised for a shelter in the western part of the County, perhaps at Gravelly Hill Middle School.
27 He asked if this discussion, or a plan to address it, had moved forward.
28 Jim Groves said the Gravelly Hill site had been reviewed, but currently it does not have
29 an emergency generator on site. He said this would have to be addressed prior to Gravelly Hill
30 being used. He added the site is appropriate for such use, per Red Cross standards.
31 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a process of paying a fee to someone in order to
32 have a reservation on a generator. He asked if this option would be more cost effective for
33 somewhere like Gravelly Hill.
34 Jeff Thompson said this pre-staged model can work. He said the strength of this option
35 is the cost effectiveness; but the weakness is insuring a generator is available during an
36 emergency when there will be a high demand for generators. He said this option will be
37 considered in greater detail looking for the right contract to meet the County's needs.
38 Commissioner Jacobs asked if some of the $400,000 could be directed towards some
39 pre-staged generators, which would incur an annual fee. He asked if staff would return to the
40 Board with more information in the future.
41 Jeff Thompson answered yes to both questions.
42 Bonnie Hammersley said a discussion arose today regarding generators and the best
43 approach to take. She said this budget will most likely approve an investment for generators,
44 and the discussion outlined the money does not have to go to just one type of generator or one
45 approach. She said all options would be researched and brought back to the Board.
46 Commissioner Price said Nancy Coston, Director of Department of Social Services
47 (DSS), may have an idea of how many people could be vulnerable in an emergency.
48 Bonnie Hammersley said as these discussions occur, DSS will continue to be included.
49 Chair McKee asked Jim Groves if shelters are part of the County emergency plan.
5
1 Jim Groves said the issue of sheltering is being addressed by the County Emergency
2 Operations Plan. He said sheltering involves a wide variety of factors: the weather, the length
3 of the outage or event, access, etc. He added sometimes sheltering in place may be a better
4 option.
5 Chair McKee asked if the Emergency Services Plan is available electronically to be sent
6 to the Board.
7 Jim Groves said it is an internal document but he will gladly provide it electronically to
8 the Board.
9
10 Orange County Radio/Paging Systems Upgrade (CIP page 40)
11 Paul Laughton said three radio towers will be looked at, over the next three years.
12
13 Communication System Improvements (CIP page 41)
14 Paul Laughton said these are various pieces of equipment and items that have been
15 replaced. He said radios have been replaced this year.
16 Chair McKee asked if the new software in the 911 Dispatch Center is working properly.
17 Jim Groves said the CAD system is working very well, but still not quite 100 percent. He
18 said it is a map based system, and if the Center is provided faulty address information, it may
19 lead to an error. He said response times have been remarkably reduced.
20
21 b.) Special Revenue Projects (Article 46 Sales Tax Projects)
22 The Special Revenue section includes anticipated revenue from the Article 46 (1/4 cent)
23 Sales Tax, with 50% of the proceeds for Economic Development initiatives and 50% for
24 Education (allocated by the ADM count of the two school districts). In FY 2015-16, proceeds
25 are estimated at $2,814,576, with 1.5% growth assumed in subsequent years. A summary is
26 provided within the Special Revenue Projects section of the document listing the recommended
27 uses of these proceeds.
28 Paul Laughton said the Special Revenue Projects starts on page 62 and it breaks down
29 the initiatives for the Economic Development section, which is estimated to receive $1.4 million.
30 He said there are there are seven initiatives for Economic Development, with broken down
31 budgeting, on page 62. He said 60 percent is marked for Debt Service, especially on water and
32 sewer projects.
33 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a line in the CIP for facility improvements at schools,
34 and asked if this could be explained.
35 Paul Laughton said typically the Article 46 monies are used for technology. He said the
36 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) have decided to put about half of their share of the
37 monies towards improvements in older schools.
38 Chair McKee asked Steve Brantley, Orange County Economic Development Director, if
39 it is possible to start accepting applications for the Agriculture and Business Grant Programs.
40 Steve Brantley said both the Business and Agricultural Investment grants are being
41 heavily marketed. He said the response has not met expectations, and the guidelines are being
42 reviewed and presented to the Orange County Economic Development Advisory Board next
43 week. He said the subcommittee for the Agricultural Business Grant Program will also review
44 the guidelines.
45 Steve Brantley said Yvonne Scarlett, Business Retention Manager, has given out almost
46 200 applications; and 13 people have expressed an interest in applying, while only two have
47 actually done so. He said the requirement for applicants to disclose personal financial
48 information has been off putting for some potential applicants.
49 Chair McKee said unfortunately financial disclosure is part of the process to insure that
50 the grants go to the neediest.
6
1 Commissioner Rich asked if the One to One initiative, which Orange County uses with
2 technology for schools, has been expanded to consider getting internet access to students in
3 their homes versus only at school.
4 Jim Northup said the County has spoken with Resource Technology staff at CHCCS to
5 pursue ways to get the internet in places where it is difficult to attain.
6 Commissioner Rich asked if Orange County Schools (OCS) was also being helped by
7 the County.
8 Jim Northrup said Orange County Schools has been approached, but thus far OCS has
9 not desired the County's help. He said the County would like to expand internet awareness and
10 the schools are a good place to do this.
11 Commissioner Price asked if there is a deadline for the Business Grants.
12 Steve Brantley said currently there is not a deadline which is part of the problem.
13
14 p.1 Proprietary Projects (Water& Sewer, Solid Waste, and Sportsplex Projects)
15 Water and Sewer
16 Paul Laughton provided an overview of this category, which can be found on page 65 of
17 the CIP. He said there are also some maps starting on page 76.
18 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there could be some standards for how the monies for
19 the Hillsborough Economic Development District (EDD) are spent. He expressed concern
20 about Hillsborough developing too much residential housing instead of commercial or industrial
21 spaces. He said once the project is annexed, the County will have no control. He suggested
22 prior to allocating funding the Board should have a policy.
23 Bonnie Hammersley said she would look into possible options.
24 Steve Brantley said he wished Waterstone was a large business park. He said it is
25 surrounded by some out parcels; for example, the northwest quadrant of Old Highway 86 and
26 Interstate 40, which is about 50 acres. He said the properties on the southeast quadrant of Old
27 Highway 86 and I-40 are being explored by various real estate companies. He said the
28 southwest quadrant was originally shown to Morinaga, but the lack of existing sewer was an
29 impediment to it moving forward. He added the entire southwest corner is prime real estate for
30 commercial and business ventures.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said even at the southwest quadrant there is a very preliminary
32 discussion to go into the Rural Buffer, and possibly move it, for mixed use development. He
33 said Waterstone is also mixed use, and the percentage of residential versus commercial use
34 keeps tipping in favor of residential. He said if money is being set aside for Economic
35 Development then it should be used for Economic Development.
36 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said there are two agreements with
37 the Cities of Durham and Mebane regarding joint utilities and a similar one needs to be brought
38 to the Board for Hillsborough. He said the utility service agreement will be brought to the Board
39 this fall with language pertaining to agreed upon land uses.
40 Commissioner Rich asked if the monies allocated for Hillsborough EDD in 2015-2016
41 are not available for use until such an agreement is signed.
42 Craig Benedict said that is correct.
43 Commissioner Rich said she felt better knowing that but she sees a lot of the concerns
44 raised by Commissioner Jacobs happening in Chapel Hill, where mixed use developments often
45 have more residential space than initially expected.
46 Craig Benedict said a consultant will be hired to help draft the agreement and then it will
47 be brought before the Board.
48 Bonnie Hammersley said the interlocal agreement will be completed and approved prior
49 to financing being secured.
50 Commissioner Jacobs asked if these agreements specify percentages of land uses.
7
1 Craig Benedict said no, the agreements do not specify percentages; rather they give a
2 general use category. He said that language can be tailored, or specific categories created, to
3 better allay concerns.
4 Commissioner Rich echoed Commissioner Jacobs stating the public voted for money to
5 go towards Economic Development not infrastructure to build new houses.
6 Chair McKee said he sees no mention of Rogers Road in this section of the CIP.
7 Paul Laughton said Rogers Road is in the County's Capital Project plan, on page 37 of
8 the CIP.
9 Bonnie Hammersley said at the May 19th meeting, the agreement to start Phase 2 will
10 be brought to the Board.
11 Paul Laughton reviewed the following portions of the CIP:
12 Water& Sewer Utilities:
13 a.) Buckhorn EDD— Phase 2 Extension (Efland Sewer to Mebane) — includes $240,000 in
14 Year 1 (FY 2015-16) for project management funds related to the construction of the
15 project, which will be completed in FY 2015-16; this continues to fit into the long range
16 strategy to ultimately turn over the operation of the Elfand sewer system to the Town of
17 Mebane.
18 b.) Hillsborough EDD - reflects funds of$1,000,000 in Year 1 (FY 2015-16) for construction
19 of water and sewer infrastructure in this EDD.
20 c.) Eno EDD - includes $1,050,000 in Year 1 (FY 2015-16) to begin the construction work in
21 this EDD, as well as an additional $750,000 in Year 2 (FY 2016-17) due to the planned
22 construction timeline crossing two fiscal years. Note: this project has been moved up 2-3
23 years from the current CIP, because there is a smaller area in the eastern portion of the
24 EDD that could be served by gravity sewer and may offer an opportunity to begin
25 extending infrastructure within the next two years.
26 d.) Buckhorn-Mebane EDD Phases 3 and 4 - includes $2,500,000 in Year 4 (FY 2018-19)
27 for the Buckhorn-Mebane Phases 3 and 4 construction projects. Note: this project has
28 been moved back two years from the current CIP to allow for the operation of Phase 2
29 for a period of time prior to starting Phases 3 and 4.
30 e.) Economic Development Utility Extension Project (s) - provides funds of$250,000 in
31 Year 1 (FY 2015-16) for future economic development projects that are currently being
32 considered, but have not been finalized. If no project develops in the coming year,
33 which requires utility extensions, the funds would be available for future years as
34 needed.
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked Steve Brantley if Duke University could be reengaged as
36 infrastructure is being put in. He said he recalled Duke was looking for park and ride lots and
37 there are great opportunities sitting to the east of the County.
38 Steve Brantley said it would behoove the County to reestablish a connection with Scott
39 Selig, Associate Vice President of Capital Assets and Real Estate at Duke, and that he and his
40 staff would pull that together. He said there are other prospects within Durham too.
41 Commissioner Rich asked if there are plans in the southern part of the County for Article
42 46 monies.
43 Craig Benedict said there is $250,000 available to be allocated as needed.
44 Commissioner Rich said there were discussions with the Town of Chapel Hill regarding
45 the Ephesus Fordham project and asked if that fits into this part of the CIP.
46 Bonnie Hammersley said the Ephesus Fordham project would be an eligible use of
47 Article 46 funds as it is Economic Development. She said the Town of Chapel Hill was
48 requested to show data from the performance evaluation.
49 Commissioner Rich asked if the performance evaluation will be available before the end
50 of the 2015-2016 fiscal year.
8
1 Bonnie Hammersley said no, the evaluation will come after the development is
2 performing.
3 Chair McKee asked if the Carrboro sewer project received Article 46 funds.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said yes for Roberson Street.
5 Commissioner Rich said that was a project in the past and she is thinking about the
6 future.
7 Chair McKee said that is correct and acknowledged funds have been used as needs
8 have arisen.
9 Craig Benedict said certain amounts of money are pay as you go funds which can be
10 used on a case by case basis.
11 Chair McKee asked if the water/sewer infrastructure coming out of Durham is smaller,
12 and if it is only coming down Route 70.
13 Craig Benedict said it would parallel 1-85, in the far northeast quadrant, north of Route
14 70 and up to 1-85. He said a consultant, hired by both Durham and Orange Counties, has
15 shown the overall system is too much for Durham to handle. He said Orange County is seeking
16 to avoid overloading Durham's system with any sewers that are sent there.
17 Craig Benedict said there is a 13 acre proposal adjacent to Durham that will hopefully
18 allow a gravity system into Durham without a lift station.
19 Chair McKee said the properties that front to the southern side of Route 70 are in need
20 of repairs and upgrades. He asked if these properties are outside of the service area for this
21 sewer.
22 Craig Benedict said these properties would most likely be outside this service area. He
23 said a gravity system cannot work on that side of Route 70. He said a mobile home park in the
24 area has an emergency sewer line into Durham.
25 Chair McKee said he is referencing the businesses directly across from the old Skyland
26 Inn. He said there should be effort made to include these businesses even if it is at the
27 County's expense as they are prime properties.
28 Craig Benedict said the process thus far has looked at this quadrant of land. He said
29 problems arose on the Durham City side with the risk of over capacity. He said the original
30 proposal showed the need for a 3-mile forced main costing about $5 million, to go into Durham,
31 bypassing the over capacity gravity lines. He said there is a master plan and it is hoped that
32 Durham will start making improvements near the Orange County border.
33 Chair McKee said if large amounts of money are going to be spent it should be insured
34 that the return is effective.
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the County assesses once the lines are put in.
36 Craig Benedict said the Durham agreement is a bit different than the one with City of
37 Mebane. He said when development comes in there is a frontage charge which goes towards
38 paying down the debt incurred by Orange County for work done in the ground.
39 Commissioner Rich said she wanted to bring the discussion back to how the southern
40 part of the County gets economic development funding. She asked if the process for Towns
41 requesting money could be explained.
42 Bonnie Hammersley said these funds are open to the entire County and as projects
43 come forward, it is the Board's decision where the funding is used.
44 Commissioner Rich said there is a proposal for $2.6 million being spent in the northern
45 part of the County, leaving only $250,000 to be spent in the rest of the County for other needs.
46 She said these numbers seem unbalanced given that most of the sales tax dollars come from
47 the southern half of the County.
48 Bonnie Hammersley said she would agree with Commissioner Rich. She added that the
49 more urgent needs are in the northern part of the County; however, the Manager's Office
50 continues to look at the overall countywide system and all development needs.
9
1 Commissioner Jacobs clarified the water and sewer work being discussed is in the
2 central portion of Orange County.
3 Commissioner Rich said residents in Chapel Hill believe Hillsborough is in the northern
4 part of the County.
5 Paul Laughton said the final portion of this section of the CIP is the Buckhorn-Mebane
6 EDD. He referred to pages 75 and 76. He said this project has been moved back to Year 3 of
7 the CIP and totals about $2.8 million.
8 Craig Benedict said this is the area between I-85, I-40 and the railway area just to the
9 north. He said this area is sometimes shown to developers who have interest in rail, but one
10 difficulty is the need for an access road on Buckhorn Road across from Industrial Drive. He
11 added that all projects are being reviewed and refined in order to make things as marketable as
12 possible.
13
14 Solid Waste
15 Paul Laughton reviewed the following information from the abstract regarding Sanitation:
16 The current FY 2014-15 funds of approximately $3.1 million includes improvements to
17 the Eubanks Road Solid Waste Convenience Center (SWCC), including the relocation of the
18 main landfill entrance and scales from the south side to the north side of Eubanks Road; funds
19 of$296,035 in Year 1 (FY 2015-16) for the replacement of a front end loader; Year 2 (FY 2016-
20 17) includes $519,750 for SWCC improvements at the High Rock Road site; and Year 3 (FY
21 2017-18) includes $393,750 for SWCC improvements at the Ferguson Road site.
22 Commissioner Rich asked if the Eubanks SWCC will be closed while it is being up fitted.
23 Paul Laughton said yes.
24 Commissioner Rich asked where the employees from the Eubanks SWCC will be
25 moved.
26 Gayle Wilson, Solid Waste Management Director, said there will be a temporary site set
27 up with reduced services. He said he plans to have an abstract with more details available for
28 the June 2 BOCC meeting.
29 Commissioner Rich said she was at the Eubanks SWCC this week and it was very busy.
30 She commended the employees and said these upgrades are very important.
31 Gayle Wilson said it is helpful to have employees work consistently at the same location,
32 as they are able to get to know the community members. He said the new site will be able to
33 handle a larger number of customers more efficiently and safely.
34 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the fees charged to the public cover operating expenses
35 or operating and capital expenses.
36 Gayle Wilson said the new fee covers about 35%of the sanitation budget including
37 expenses for contribution to the reserve for equipment replacement.
38 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the debt incurred for these upgrades will be paid off over
39 time.
40 Gayle Wilson said yes.
41 Commissioner Price asked if the statement "modernize the High Rock SWCC" could be
42 clarified.
43 Gayle Wilson said there was a model endorsed by the Board of County Commissioners
44 where there would be a mix of District Centers and Neighborhood Centers. He said that Walnut
45 Grove and Eubanks were proposed as District Centers thus larger, offering a wider array of
46 services, longer hours, etc. He said Neighborhood Centers were proposed to be smaller with
47 more limited services and perhaps more limited hours. He said having the two larger service
48 centers and the smaller neighborhood centers allows for costs to be moderated while still
49 insuring access to services throughout the County.
50 Commissioner Price reiterated her question about the High Rock SWCC.
10
1 Gayle Wilson said it would not be paved but would have compactors that sit on concrete
2 pads.
3 Gayle Wilson said it would reduce the number of containers as the compactor would
4 hold a lot more refuse and therefore need less frequent servicing. He said the updates would
5 phase out the open top garbage containers that are currently open fodder for wildlife, as well as
6 open to the elements. He said when garbage gets wet it weighs more which ends up costing
7 more when it is taken to the scales.
8 Commissioner Jacobs asked if bollards will be put in front of the compactor preventing
9 one from backing up a truck to the bins.
10 Gayle Wilson said the changes have yet to be designed but would likely mirror other
11 updated facilities.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said he will raise his opinion during design discussions.
13 Commissioner Price said exiting the Walnut Grove SWCC is still dicey and she
14 suggested that any future upgrades, or new sites, might benefit from further study of traffic flow.
15 Gayle Wilson said there are only so many ways to exit large trucks and private cars at
16 the same time from a single exit. He said the Eubanks SWCC is designed somewhat similarly,
17 which he will review it in detail at the June 2 meeting. He said he is open to suggestions.
18 Commissioner Price asked if there could be greater protection from the elements for the
19 workers.
20 Gayle Wilson said he would be happy to meet with workers for their suggestions. He
21 said the changes at Walnut Grove have been well received by the employees. He added that
22 people who work outside become accustomed to it in ways that others are not.
23 Commissioner Price asked if there was an enclosed area, apart from the collection
24 space, where employees can take their breaks.
25 Gayle Wilson said there is a building on the right as one enters the gate. He added that
26 this space has both heating and air conditioning.
27 Chair McKee agreed with Commissioner Price about the traffic flow issues and
28 acknowledged that the changes made to the exit at Walnut Grove are a great improvement. He
29 encouraged further study of this issue for the Eubanks SWCC.
30 Chair McKee asked if there was a ballpark figure for the cost of up fitting the Walnut
31 Grove SWCC.
32 Gayle Wilson said $1.3 million.
33 Chair McKee said he supported moving the scales at the Eubanks SWCC across the
34 road as well as the changes to traffic flow; however, he cautioned everyone to not let the cost
35 escalate out of control. He said the total cost seems to keep rising. He acknowledged this
36 SWCC will be greatly used.
37 Chair McKee said he heard Gayle Wilson say that as much as half of the truck traffic will
38 interact with the vehicle traffic. He asked if he had heard this correctly.
39 Gayle Wilson said the trucks that serve the compactors will have to interact with vehicle
40 traffic.
41 Chair McKee said there will be a lot of things to talk about regarding Solid Waste
42 between now and June. He asked if the Eubanks SWCC will take mattresses.
43 Gayle Wilson said mattresses are a special waste product, are very difficult to handle,
44 and none of the Centers are intended to take them. He said when a new mattress is
45 purchased, the public is strongly advised to have the delivery company take their old mattress
46 away when the new one is delivered. He said currently mattresses are only taken at the landfill.
47 Chair McKee said a lot of mattresses end up on the side of the road in a ditch. He said
48 he receives many calls from constituents and a solution has to be found. He said he feels
49 strongly that the two District Centers should be able to receive mattresses.
11
1 Gayle Wilson said a great deal of thought has been put into the problem. He said
2 mattresses can only be stacked by hand and must be stacked by size, resulting in them taking
3 up a lot of labor and space.
4 Chair McKee acknowledged the difficulty but reiterated his commitment to addressing
5 the problem.
6 Commissioner Jacobs suggested a shred-a-thon type event for mattresses, or assigning
7 a day once a month specifically for mattress drop off at the Centers.
8 Bonnie Hammersley said the University of North Carolina (UNC) could be contacted to
9 see how mattresses are handled there.
10 Gayle Wilson said the University switches out hundreds of mattresses at a time in a
11 more scheduled manner, which is easier to deal with.
12 Commissioner Price said when somebody is moving, disposing of a mattress is often
13 time sensitive. She agreed there should be another alternative.
14 Chair McKee acknowledged the hard work of all of the Solid Waste staff but he added
15 that all the citizens of Orange County are owed Convenience Centers that can take as much as
16 possible.
17 Paul Laughton reviewed the following information from the abstract regarding Recycling
18 Operations:
19 The current FY 2014-15 includes the purchase of a replacement roll off truck and a
20 commercial recycling truck, and the purchase of 7,600 rural recycling carts, at a total cost of
21 $880,203. Year 1 (FY 2015-16) provides for the purchase of 1,750 additional rural carts, the
22 purchase of a new rural curbside recycling truck, the replacement of a rural curbside recycling
23 truck, the replacement of a front end loader, and the construction of a recycling roll cart
24 distribution and maintenance building, at a total Year 1 costs of$1,177,884. Years 2-5 includes
25 the replacement of several other trucks and front end loader, as per the Enterprise Fund's
26 vehicle/equipment replacement schedule.
27 Paul Laughton reviewed the following information from the abstract regarding the
28 Construction and Demolition (C & D) Landfill:
29 The C and D Landfill includes $252,994 in Year 2 (FY 2016-17) to rebuild a compactor,
30 and $219,475 in Years 6-10 to rebuild two dozers. Note: the Solid Waste Management
31 Department has instituted a re-build program for its heavy pieces of equipment (not trucks)
32 rather than being replaced. Re-building, or overhauling, is significantly less expensive than
33 replacing with new equipment, thereby extending its life and reducing costs.
34 Chair McKee asked if one of the larger pieces of equipment had just been rebuilt.
35 Gayle Wilson said a good deal of money had been invested into the industrial wood
36 waste grinder.
37
38 Sportsplex
39 Paul Laughton reviewed the following information from the abstract:
40 The current FY 2014-15 includes funding for a Mezzanine addition at the pool area to
41 include dedicated member change areas and lockers, workout rooms, and a senior/adult cardio
42 strength center. Year 1 (FY 2015-16) includes $2,800,000 for a new building addition that would
43 house an indoor turf field for soccer, lacrosse, senior walking, running, Kidsplex functions, and
44 youth/adult flag football leagues, as well as a basketball court, including bleacher seating, for
45 youth and adult basketball leagues, court based fitness programs, volleyball, and Kidsplex
46 activities. Projected revenue from these new projects would generate enough funds to cover the
47 additional annual debt service needed for these projects.
48 Commissioner Rich asked if there has been a marketing campaign to attract UNC
49 employees working at the Waterstone development to join the Sportsplex.
50 John Stock, Sportsplex Manager, said there have been preliminary discussions.
12
1 Commissioner Rich said having incentives may entice people into the facility.
2 John stock said UNC will be holding an Open House at Waterstone in June and the
3 Sportsplex is seeking to participate.
4 Commissioner Rich applauded John Stock for providing more nutritional food and
5 snacks.
6 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the size and scope of the indoor turf fields and
7 basketball court could be explained.
8 John Stock said it is very similar in size to an ice hockey rink which accommodates
9 lacrosse and indoor soccer. He said the court will be a standard sized basketball court. He
10 said both the turf and the court will serve people of all ages.
11 Commissioner Price asked if the parking plan is finalized.
12 Jeff Thompson said yes.
13 John Stock said there is a lot in the back of the facility.
14 Commissioner Price said the facility is so well used and the more parking the better.
15 Chair McKee asked if the two lots purchased by the County will give enough room for
16 parking.
17 Jeff Thompson said yes.
18 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Senior Center were ever to be expanded, would
19 there still be enough room for parking.
20 Jeff Thompson said there is a little bit of a buffer for initial parking; as well as a bit of the
21 pond area that could be moved into, without upsetting the regulations. He said a major
22 expansion of the Senior Center would not be possible without further parking.
23 Chair McKee commended the management and success of the Sportsplex.
24 Paul Laughton said on page 86 to 89 there is a summary of the Sportsplex CIP
25 Investment Opportunities.
26 Commissioner Jacobs asked if any documents about the Sportsplex are ever published
27 for public review.
28 Paul Laughton said all of these documents are public records.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said when projects begin, the information could be put on the
30 Sportsplex newsletter so the public can understand the funding.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said it would also show the success of the Sportsplex.
32
33 Paul Laughton referred to page 133, regarding the County Debt Service and Debt
34 Capacity (General Fund Only). He said the County will remain under the Debt Service
35 Capacity, but it will creep up in the coming years which may result in tax increases around
36 2017-2018.
37 Commissioner Burroughs said the numbers on page 133 and 134 refer to a flat budget,
38 with no increased revenue.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said he and Commissioner Dorosin talked about affordable
40 housing, and the new commercial construction on Martin Luther King Boulevard in Chapel Hill.
41 He said many of the mobile home communities will most likely be displaced going forward. He
42 said Commissioner Rich had talked many times about tiny house developments and the County
43 should consider setting aside money for land banking for future affordable housing needs.
44 Commissioner Burroughs said there are currently mobile homes at the intersection of
45 Martin Luther King Blvd and Weaver Dairy Road.
46
47 d.) Year 1 (FY 2015-16) Recommended CIP Projects
48 Paul Laughton referred to Attachment A in the abstract, which lists Year 1 projects. He
49 said funding decisions will only be for Year 1 with each consecutive year being revisited and
50 adjusted thereafter, based on priorities and available funding. He said there may not be
13
1 funding for Little River Park next year; which may result in the project being moved to 2016-
2 2017.
3 Paul Laughton said the largest project in Year 1 is the Southern Human Services
4 Campus expansion, possibly including a dental clinic. He said this may involve spreading out
5 the allotted $3.6 million over future years. He said the final financing package will show that
6 $400,000 has been removed that was dedicated as planning money.
7 Commissioner Price asked if the $25,000 this year and $35,000 next year, allocated for
8 Life Safety and ADA, will bring all the buildings into compliance or above.
9 Jeff Thompson said this year's funds will bring all buildings into compliance and next
10 year will bring the County above compliance. He said the County strives for an elevated
11 standard and one challenge to this is balancing with Historic structures that require
12 preservation.
13 Commissioner Burroughs asked if this is the time to discuss making a recommendation
14 for splitting the funds for the Southern Orange County campus.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said it would be her preference to split the funding, as it is a more
16 realistic reflection of how the process will work. She said $3.6 million will not be spent in 2015-
17 2016, and should be removed from the list of Year 1 projects allowing the monies to be more
18 accurately spread out over the coming years.
19 Commissioner Rich said she would still like to explore the idea of a Dental Clinic
20 Paul Laughton said the clinic would be covered in the next line item, Southern Human
21 Services Center (Expansion) in Year 2.
22 Commissioner Rich said when the Dental Clinic was removed from the Southern part of
23 the County, that people stopped going to the Dentist. She expressed support for reestablishing
24 a Dental Clinic.
25 Commissioner Jacobs said some of the $3.6 million that will not be used in Year 1 could
26 be carved out for future land banking for affordable housing.
27 Bonnie Hammersley said land acquisition can be included in her recommended budget.
28 Commissioner Rich asked if setting money aside would start an exploration of potential
29 land.
30 Bonnie Hammersley said yes and it would fall into the planning initiative.
31 Chair McKee suggested a million dollars be seeded for this project.
32 Commissioner Jacobs agreed.
33 Commissioner Rich said at the last Durham-Orange Work Group, Durham said it is
34 banking land around the proposed light rail.
35 Chair McKee asked if it was the City of Durham or Durham County who were present at
36 the meeting.
37 Commissioner Rich said both the City of Durham and Durham County are represented
38 in the group. She said she believed the two entities work closely together.
39 Chair McKee suggested the BOCC may want to explore this idea in conjunction with the
40 Town of Chapel Hill.
41 Commissioner Burroughs said the schools have a prime piece of property that could
42 potentially serve for affordable housing and they should be included in the discussion.
43 Commissioner Rich said there is also the possibility of the Green Tract.
44 Paul Laughton asked if there is any other direction from the Board, especially pertaining
45 to the Year 1 projects.
46 Chair McKee asked if Durham is pulling back on their funding for Little River Park.
47 Paul Laughton said uncertainty for funding in 2015-2016 had been mentioned. He said
48 staff would try and get a more complete answer from Durham County.
49 Chair McKee said it was intended both Durham and Orange Counties would put forth
50 $50,000. He said he would not want Orange County to foot the bill for a joint project.
14
1 Commissioner Jacobs said Durham County does not have a Parks Department.
2 Chair McKee said he does not want Orange County to end up being the finance partner
3 in totality.
4 Commissioner Rich asked the Manager if she could clarify item number 3 on the Year 1
5 projects: $472,500 for the Southern Branch Library.
6 Bonnie Hammersley said that is planning money and it is a placeholder.
7 Commissioner Rich asked if the money is not spent if it keeps moving into the following
8 year.
9 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
10 Commissioner Rich asked if the $500,000 for the jail is also planning dollars.
11 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
12 Chair McKee asked if there is a firm deadline on when the construction of the jail must
13 begin.
14 Bonnie Hammersley said it must be completed by 2019 and the process is in very good
15 shape.
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
18 adjourn the meeting at 9:32 p.m.
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22
23 Earl McKee, Chair
24
25
26 David Hunt
27 Deputy Clerk to the Board
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
I Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 May 19, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, May
10 19, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, 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 and Clerk to the Board
17 Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18
19 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
20 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
21 He noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
22
230 - Green sheet— Orange County Service Improvements for Item 4b- Presentation of Manager's
24 Recommended Fiscal Year 2015-16 Annual Operating Budget and FY 2015-20 Capital
25 Investment Plan (CIP)
260 - PowerPoint slides for item 4b- Presentation of Manager's Recommended Fiscal Year 2015-16
27 Annual Operating Budget and FY 2015-20 Capital Investment Plan
280 - Lavender Sheet- additional information for Item 6c - Impact Fee Reimbursement Request from
29 Habitat for Humanity
300 - PowerPoint slides for Item 7b- Land Management Central Permitting System (LMCPS)
31 Software Purchase and Support Agreement
32
33 PUBLIC CHARGE
34 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
35
36 2. Public Comments
37
38 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
39 NONE
40
41 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
42 NONE
43
44 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
45 Commissioner Burroughs had no petitions.
46 Commissioner Price asked if there is a deadline for sign off by the Fire Departments,
47 Sherriff and Emergency Services in regards to the discussion at the last meeting, about
48 Emergency Services access on private roads.
49 Bonnie Hammersley said she would provide this information to the Board.
2
1 Commissioner Jacobs said he had a request for information. He said during the Board's
2 meetings about the bond referendum, it was discussed that there was enough debt capacity
3 and funding for other capital projects such as affordable housing, senior centers, parks and
4 open space, etc. He asked if staff could please provide the Board with the precise debt
5 capacity and exactly how much funding is available.
6 Bonnie Hammersley said she would provide this information to the Board.
7 Commissioner Pelissier had no petitions.
8 Commissioner Dorosin said he was unable to attend the meeting where the Board
9 discussed and voted for intent to move forward regarding the bond referendum. He said he
10 had watched the meeting and would like to share his input on the bond referendum. He
11 petitioned a further discussion to be added to an agenda item before the summer break.
12 Chair McKee said the Board directed the Chair to send a letter to the State, requesting
13 that North Carolina State Parks reconsider the scoring for Segment 11 of the Mountain to Sea
14 Trail and perhaps divide this corridor into sub-segments with differing levels of planning priority,
15 portions of which could be identified as near-term or mid-term. He said the State responded
16 today via email saying the scoring on Segment 11 will be re-considered. He said it was just a
17 brief email and he will follow up by asking staff to get more details and a timeline on this issue.
18 Commissioner Rich expressed thanks to the Chair and staff for writing and sending the
19 letter.
20
21 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
22
23 a. Distinguished Budget Presentation Award
24 The Board recognized the Budget Staff of the Finance and Administrative Services
25 Department for the receipt of the Government Finance Officers Association's (GFOA)
26 Distinguished Budget Award and presented the GFOA plaque to them.
27 Paul Laughton, Interim Finance Director, recognized the budget staff, saying this is the
28 23rs year that Orange County had received this award.
29
30 b. Presentation of Manager's Recommended Fiscal Year 2015-16 Annual Operating
31 Budget and FY 2015-20 Capital Investment Plan
32 The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) received the presentation of the
33 Manager's Recommended FY 2015-16 Annual Operating Budget, and FY 2015-20 Capital
34 Investment Plan.
35 Bonnie Hammersley presented the Power Point and said the theme of this budget is
36 creative ways to improve services. She said in this budget there is slightly more promise for
37 revenue growth but not enough to make major financial commitments. She said departments
38 met and exceeded her expectations for creative budgeting. She said the budget will show a
39 long list of services that have been improved, restored, or maintained through reallocations or
40 efficiency gains. She said all of this was achieved without a property rate increase.
41 Bonnie Hammersley said the County has worked collectively to find creative ways to
42 improve services. Bonnie Hammersley presented the following PowerPoint slides:
43
44 ORANGE COUNTY FY 2015-16 COUNTY MANAGER RECOMMENDED BUDGET
45
46 Presentation Outline
47 • FY2015-16 Budget Goals
48 • County Manager Recommended Budget
49 o Compensation Package
50 o Personnel
3
1 o Schools
2 o Outside Agencies
3 o Budget Initiatives
4 o Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
5 • Conclusion
6
7 FY2015-16 Budget Goals
8 • Structurally Balanced Budget
9 • Implement Team Approach
10 • Enhance Transparency and Communication
11 • Maintain or Improve Service Levels
12■
13 General Fund Expenditures
14 • Budget expenditures — increased by 2.8% from 2015
15
16 General Fund Revenues
17 • Increased about 3%
18
19 GF Appropriated Fund Balance
20 • $9.8 million
21
22 Revenue Assumptions
23 • Property Taxes — 1% increase
24 • Sales Tax— 3% increase
25 • FY2015-16 Tax Rate— No Increase
26
27 Recommended Compensation Package
28 • Wages and Merit
29 o Wages —2% Increase
30 o WPPR — Maintain current funding
31 o Living Wage — Maintain current rate
32 • Benefits
33 o Health Insurance - No Increase
34 o Dental Insurance— 15% Increase
35 o Retirement— No Increase
36
37 Recommended Positions
38 • Reallocation/Revenue — 12.7 FTE (budget neutral funds)
39 o Jail Alternatives — 3.0 FTE
40 o Administrative Assistant— 1.0 FTE
41 o Revenue Technicians —2.0 FTE
42 o Dental Team —2.5 FTE
43 o Management Analyst— 1.0 FTE
44 o OPT Bus Drivers — 3.0 FTE
45 o Social Worker (Chinese Speaking) — 0.20FTE
46
47 • Enterprise Fund —4.75 FTE
48 o Weighmaster — 1.0 FTE
4
1 o Solid Waste Drivers —2.0 FTE
2 o Convenience Center Operators — 1.75 FTE
3
4 • General Fund —6.87 FTE
5 o Administrative Services Supervisor - 0.125 FTE
6 o Community Center Coordinator— 1.0 FTE
7 o Court Liaison — 1.0 FTE
8 o Deputy EMS Manager - 0.50 FTE
9 o Erosion Control Officer — 1.0 FTE
10 o Housing Management Assistant— 1.0 FTE
11 o Human Resources Assistant Director— 1.0 FTE
12 o Parks Conservation Tech I — 0.25 FTE
13 o Register of Deeds Deputy— 1.0 FTE
14
15 Commissioner Price asked if, in the reorganization of the Manager's office, any positions
16 were eliminated.
17 Bonnie Hammersley said she changed the model within the office moving a position to
18 Solid Waste, hiring a Deputy County Manager, and having no assistants within her office.
19 Commissioner Price said she understood there would be an Administrative Assistant.
20 Bonnie Hammersley said the Administrative Assistant is a support position and she
21 reduced her budget in order to fund this position.
22 Commissioner Price said there used to be a live voice on the switchboard, when
23 residents called which was far preferable to the present automated system.
24 Bonnie Hammersley continued with her PowerPoint presentation:
25
26 Recommended School funding
27 • Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS)
28 o Increase cost per student $81 — $448,122
29 o Fund Charter School Students (50) — $182,600
30 o CIP Planning Funds - $750,000
31 • Orange County School (OCS)
32 o Increase cost per student $81 — $6,504
33 o Fund Charter School Students (110) — $401,720
34 o CIP Planning Funds — $478,000
35
36 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is an obligation to fully fund the charter schools.
37 Bonnie Hammersley said yes, but the County is not fully funding the charter schools and
38 have not for a number of years, though the schools use their funding (per pupil amount) to use
39 toward payment to the charter schools. She said now Orange County will account for those
40 charter school students separately, going forward.
41 Bonnie Hammersley said the goal is to recognize these charter students and she is
42 recommending only funding half of the students this year and in two years funding all of them.
43 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the funds currently go to the schools and are
44 passed onto the Charter Schools.
45 Bonnie Hammersley said the funding goes with the student.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said it seems counterintuitive to lay it out this way and asked if
47 the County could not just fund all of these students going forward.
48 Commissioner Price asked if the statement "fund charter school students" means it is an
49 addition to the per pupil amount.
50 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
5
1 Paul Laughton said the County has not changed the cap of how many charter school
2 students have been funded since 2000 or 2001. He said this part of the budget is a way of
3 raising the cap and looking at funding the entire Charter School enrollment, over the next two
4 years.
5 Commissioner Price asked if the State required the County to fund all the students.
6 Paul Laughton said the school systems are required to pay for the operational costs for
7 the charter school students although capital costs do not have to be covered.
8 Commissioner Burroughs said the money follows the students through the per-pupil
9 amounts and the money in question makes whole the fixed costs.
10 Bonnie Hammersley said the recommendation recognizes there is a cap and making the
11 cap reflect the actual number of students over a two year period. She said the projected DPI
12 for 2015-2016 is a reduction and the County funds based on projections.
13 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there was a reason for the existence of the cap given
14 that every student must still be paid for.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said he does not remember the reasoning for the cap.
16 Paul Laughton said he does not remember either.
17 Bonnie Hammersley said her staff would do some research.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said this money supplants what the schools systems would have
19 to pay for these charter school students.
20 Commissioner Rich said she would like to know the history and asked what is the
21 current cap for Orange County Schools (OCS).
22 Paul Laughton said the cap for OCS is 254 students.
23 Commissioner Rich said she finds the cap to be ridiculous and it should be eliminated.
24 Commissioner Pelissier said even when there is not a cap there may still be a shortfall
25 due to not knowing in May how many students there may be in the fall.
26 Commissioner Rich asked if all the students in Orange County are accounted for,
27 whether in public or charter schools.
28 Bonnie Hammersley said the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) does include
29 charter school students.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said this is a boon to both school systems because they are
31 getting money from the County over and beyond the per pupil amount. He said Orange County
32 is being more generous to the school systems to cover these students that would require
33 funding anyway.
34 Commissioner Burroughs said she is looking forward to hearing from the schools on this
35 proposed funding as the process moves forward.
36 Commissioner Dorosin said there was a request made previously by OCS to raise the
37 school board salaries making them comparable to CHCCS. He asked if this request is in the
38 budget.
39 Bonnie Hammersley said no.
40 Commissioner Dorosin said he is going to suggest this request going forward.
41 Chair McKee asked John Roberts if the setting of the school board's salaries is a
42 prerogative of the BOCC.
43 John Roberts said the BOCC can set the salaries of school boards but does not have to.
44 He said if the Board chooses not to, then the schools boards can set the salaries themselves.
45 Commissioner Jacobs suggested getting a salary study of all elected officials across
46 Orange County.
47 Bonnie Hammersley continued with her PowerPoint presentation:
48
49 Recommended School funding
50 • Durham Technical College
6
1 o Current Expense Increase — $53,778
2 o Recurring Capital Decrease— ($25,000)
3 o Debt Service Increase — $0
4
5 Recommended Outside Agency Funding
6 • Maintain FY2014-15 Funding
7 o Community Home Trust (Increase)
8 o Communities in Schools (Decrease by ADM numbers)
9 o Fairview Community Watch (+)
10
11 Recommended Fire District Rates
12 • Maintain FY2014-15 Rates
13 o Damascus & Southern Triangle Fire Districts — +1.5 cents
14 o Orange Rural Fire District— +1.0 cents
15
16 Recommended Budget Initiatives
17 • Maintain the Social Justice Fund
18 • Increase Child Care Funding
19 • Fund the Family Success Alliance
20 • Develop an Affordable Housing Plan
21 • Support the Community Centers
22 • Improve Voting Equipment
23 • Eliminate the 6-month Vacant Position Hiring Delay
24 • Implement Salary Savings Appropriation
25 • Restructure the Employee Classification and Salary Plan
26 • Create a Community Relations Department
27
28 Recommended CIP FUNDING
29 • County Capital Projects
30
31 o Southern Branch Library Planning
32 o Cedar Grove Library Kiosk
33 o Jail —Conceptual Design Phase
34 o Environmental and Agriculture Center— Design Phase
35 o Historic Rogers Road Infrastructure— Design Phase
36 o Upper Eno Nature Preserve — Public Access Area
37 o Soccer Center Phase II
38 o New Hope Preserve/Hollow Rock Public Access
39 o River Park Phase II
40 o Little River Park
41 o 911 Back-up Center
42 Conservation Easements (+$250,000)
43 o Facility Infrastructure Upgrades
44 o Information Technology Upgrades
45 o Register of Deeds Automation
46 Affordable Housing Land Acquisition/Banking and Development Program
47
7
1 Chair McKee asked if the $250,000 for the conservation easements was the County's
2 share.
3 Bonnie Hammersley said previously the total for the County and the State combined
4 was $250,000. She said this is an increase, which when combined with the State matching
5 funds will total $500,000.
6 Chair McKee said he spoke with several of the affordable housing providers. He
7 encouraged the County staff to work with Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, Carrboro and Mebane
8 moving forward in order to create an overarching plan as opposed to working in silence.
9 Bonnie Hammersley said she met with the Housing Director about a strategy and staff
10 will go out to meet with all of the providers and comprise the information going forward. She
11 said a report will be brought back to the Board, likely in September.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said part of the impetus for doing this is to provide a fall back for
13 those who live in mobile homes. He said there is little known about the mobile home
14 developments and their needs.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said doing a survey to gather such information is part of the plan.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said despite all the good work of the affordable housing
17 providers, most do not address mobile homes. He said the County needs to bring up the issue
18 of mobile homes with all groups and providers.
19 Chair McKee said that mobile homes were part of his discussion and there should be
20 some creative, out of the box thinking, in regards to affordable housing.
21 Commissioner Dorosin said to be realistic there will not be any new manufactured
22 housing developed in Chapel Hill or Carrboro.
23 Chair McKee said the concern is for the residents of mobile homes and should the
24 owner of the land be offered a buyout, would this leave the residents without anywhere to go.
25
26 Bonnie Hammersley continued her PowerPoint presentation:
27
28 Recommended CIP FUNDING
29 • Special Revenue Projects
30 o Article 46 Sales Tax
31 ■ Economic Development
32 ■ Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS)
33 ■ Orange County Schools (OCS)
34
35 Recommended CIP FUNDING
36 • Proprietary Capital Projects
37 o Water and Sewer Utilities
38 ■ Efland Sewer flow to Mebane
39 ■ Utility Extension Projects
40 ■ Hillsborough EDD
41 ■ Eno EDD
42
43 o Solid Waste
44
45 Recycling Operation
46
47 o Sportsplex
48 Major Expansion Phase 2&3
49
50 Recommended CIP FUNDING
8
1 • School Capital Projects
2 o Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
3 ■ Pay-As-You-Go Funds - $2,274,765
4 ■ Lottery Proceeds - $835,626
5 ■ Preliminary Planning Funds - $750,000
6
7 o Orange County Schools
8 ■ Pay-As-You-Go Funds - $1,450,084
9 ■ Lottery Proceeds - $520,736
10 ■ Preliminary Planning Funds - $478,000
11
12 Chair McKee asked if there are any surprises with the lottery funds.
13 John Roberts said he does not know of any, as yet.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said it is worth noting that the preliminary planning funds for both
15 School Districts are about $2 million and are new this year.
16 Paul Laughton said the lottery proceeds are based on the State remaining at about $100
17 million for the entire State. He said this budget shows State estimates if the lottery proceeds
18 stay at $1 million.
19 Bonnie Hammersley continued her PowerPoint presentation:
20
21 Public Hearings and Work Sessions
22 • Public Hearings
23 o May 21: Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, 300 W Tryon St., Hillsborough
24 o May 28: Southern Human Services Center (SHSC), Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
25 • Work Sessions
26 o June 4: SHSC, Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
27 o June 9: Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, 300 W Tryon St., Hillsborough
28 • Work Session/Intent to Adopt: June 11, SHSC, Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
29 • Final Adoption: June 16, SHSC, Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
30
31 Document Availability
32 • Clerk to Board of Commissioners
33 • County Finance &Administrative Services Office
34 • Orange County Library
35 • Chapel Hill Public Library
36 • Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library
37 • Orange County Website — http://orangecountVnc.gov/
38
39 Conclusion
40 Orange County exists to provide governmental services requested by our residents or
41 mandated by the State of North Carolina.
42
43 To provide these quality services efficiently, we must;
44 • Serve the Residents of Orange County—Our Residents Come First;
45 • Depend on the energy, skills, and dedication of all our employees and volunteers;
46 • Treat all our Residents and Employees with fairness, respect, and understanding.
47 Orange County Residents Come First
48
9
1 Bonnie Hammersley said there is green sheet at the Commissioners' places which is a
2 listing of service improvements that are in the proposed budget.
3
4 c. Orange County Direct Care Worker Awards
5 The Board recognized the winners of the Orange County Direct Care Worker Awards.
6 Janice Tyler, Department on Aging Director, said they are here to recognize the first
7 Orange County Direct Care Worker Awards Winners.
8 Donna Prather, Advisory Board on Aging member, introduced both the nominees and
9 winners, as the Board recognized the following individuals as winners of the 2015 Orange
10 County Direct Care Worker Awards.
11
12 2015 Direct Care Worker Award Winners
13
14 Client Impact: Frequently recognized or praised for their efforts that make an impact on the
15 quality of their clients' lives.
16 Winners: There was a tie for this award:
17 Anita Aiken — Livewell Assisted Living
18 John Ferris — Charles House Association
19
20 Longevity: Has performed work as a caregiver each year for the last 10 or more years and
21 plans to continue working in the field.
22 Winner: Deborah Farrington — Carol Woods Retirement Community
23
24 Leadership: Serves as a role model and demonstrates teamwork &willingness to help other
25 direct care workers and staff.
26 Winners: There was a tie for this award:
27 Chartie Parrish — Right at Home
28 Natalie Taylor—A Helping Hand
29
30 Going the Extra Mile: Passionate about providing extraordinary care to their clients in ways
31 that exceed expectations.
32 Winner: Walter McMiller—A Helping Hand
33
34 Rising Star: Has been a caregiver for less than two years and demonstrates enormous
35 promise in the profession.
36 Winner: Kathy Bonner—A Helping Hand
37
38 Direct Care Worker of the Year
39 Winner: Cassandra Graham —Acorn Home Care Services
40
41 d. Emergency Medical Services Week Proclamation
42 The Board considered approving and authorizing the Chair to sign the proclamation
43 designating the week of May 17 through 23, 2015, as Emergency Medical Services Week in
44 Orange County.
45 Jim Groves, Director of Emergency Services, asked the medic members in attendance
46 to please stand.
47 Kim Woodard, EMS Supervisor, said they have just been awarded the 2015 American
48 Heart Association Mission Lifeline Silver Status, for strong recognition of cardiac arrest and
49 myocardial infarction.
50 Kim Woodard read the proclamation:
10
1
2 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
3 PROCLAMATION
4 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES WEEK
5 MAY 17-23, 2015
6
7 WHEREAS, the Orange County Emergency Medical Services System is a vital public service;
8 and
9
10 WHEREAS, the members of Orange County Emergency Medical Services team are ready to
11 provide lifesaving care to those in need 24 hours a day, seven days a week; and
12
13 WHEREAS, access to quality pre-hospital emergency care dramatically improves the survival
14 and recovery rate of those who experience sudden illness or injury; and
15
16 WHEREAS, the Orange County Emergency Medical Services system consists of emergency
17 physicians, emergency nurses, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, firefighters,
18 telecommunicators, educators, administrators and others; and
19
20 WHEREAS, the members of Emergency Medical Services teams, whether career or volunteer,
21 engage in thousands of hours of specialized training and continuing education to enhance their
22 lifesaving skills; and
23
24 WHEREAS, it is appropriate to recognize the value and the accomplishments of the Emergency
25 Medical Services providers by designating Emergency Medical Services Week;
26
27 NOW THEREFORE we, the Orange County Board of County Commissioners, in recognition of
28 this event, do hereby proclaim the week of May 17-23, 2015, as EMERGENCY MEDICAL
29 SERVICES WEEK, with the theme of"EMS STRONG", by officially recognizing and
30 appreciating the Emergency Medical Services Providers that serve our community.
31 This, the 19th day of May, 2015.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
34 the Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation designating the week of
35 May 17 through 23, 2015, as Emergency Medical Services Week in Orange County.
36
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 5. Public Hearings
40 NONE
41
42 6. Consent Agenda
43 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
44 Item 6c by Commissioner Jacobs
45 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
48 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
49
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
1
2 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
39 C. Impact Fee Reimbursement Request from Habitat for Humanity
4 The Board considered the reimbursement of impact fees for Habitat for Humanity, in the
5 amount of$97,007 for nine (9) homes recently constructed in the County for low income
6 persons.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said the lavender sheet at their places is information showing the
8 County's General Fund Contributions to affordable housing initiatives. He said there had been
9 some complaints that the Board does not do enough so he asked staff to put the Board's
10 initiatives on paper, as they are sometimes invisible to the public. He said the amount is
11 $811,300. He said these funds may well not be enough but they are a start.
12 Commissioner Rich thanked for Commissioner Jacobs for making this request of staff.
13 Chair McKee thanked the staff for their quick efforts to pull this information together.
14 Commissioner Rich made a request for future meetings asking staff to put handouts on
15 the projector screen for the public to see when watching via streaming video.
16 Commissioner Dorosin suggested doing this with all handouts and to add them to the
17 website as part of the agenda.
18 Chair McKee said during a work session last week there was a proposal from a
19 developer for exemption of the impact fee for high end senior housing. He said he does not
20 mind exempting impact fees for affordable housing but not for high end units. He said the Board
21 should not be picking and choosing properties.
22
23 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
24 approve the reimbursement of impact fees for Habitat for Humanity in the amount of$97,007
25 for nine (9) homes recently constructed in the County for low income persons.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 a. Minutes
30 The Board approved the minutes for the April 7, 2015, BOCC Regular Meeting; and April 9,
31 2015, BOCC Work Session, as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
32 b. Morinaga America Foods Temporary Office Lease Extension — Link Government
33 Services Center, Lower Level
34 The Board approved Lease Amendment#2 providing a two-month lease extension with
35 Morinaga America Foods for temporary office space in the Link Government Services Center at
36 200 West Cameron Street in Hillsborough, and authorized the Chair to sign all necessary
37 documents upon final review of the County Attorney.
38 d. Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance—Approval and Certification of 2015
39 Report
40 The Board approved and certified the 2015 Schools Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance
41 Technical Advisory Committee (SAPFOTAC) Annual Report and certified those aspects of the
42 Report detailed in the summary table.
43 e. Authorization to Declare an Item Surplus
44 The Board declared a Recycling Division Roll-off Truck/Asset Number 1681 as surplus and
45 authorized the AMS Director to affect the sale of the item through GovDeals.
46 f. Bid Award — Front-End Loader Truck for Solid Waste
47 The Board awarded the bid to Carolina Environmental Services for the purchase of a Front End
48 Loader Truck for the Sanitation Division of the Solid Waste Management Department at the
49 delivered cost of$275,850.92.
50 g. Contract Renewal for HDR Engineering, Incorporated of the Carolinas
12
1 The Board approved a contract renewal between the Solid Waste Department and HDR
2 Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas for engineering and consulting services for Solid Waste
3 through June 10, 2017 and authorized the Chair to sign the agreement on behalf of the Board.
4 h. Storage Area Network Upgrade
5 The Board approved the purchase of new equipment to increase the processing capacity and
6 increase the storage capacity of the County's storage area network (SAN) while reducing the
7 annual maintenance costs and authorized the Manager to sign the agreement and any future
8 amendments.
9 i. Interlocal Agreement with OWASA for Design of Wastewater Collection System
10 Improvements in the Historic Rogers Road Neighborhood
11 The Board approved the Interlocal Agreement with Orange Water and Sewer Authority
12 (OWASA) for the design of the wastewater collection system improvements in the Historic
13 Rogers Road Neighborhood and authorized the Chair to sign.
14
15 7. Regular Agenda
16
17 a. Family Success Alliance Request for Social Justice Funding and Approval of
18 Budget Amendment#8-A
19 The Board considered approving Budget Amendment#8-A transferring funds from the
20 Social Justice Fund to the Family Success Alliance to 1) pilot kindergarten readiness and
21 literacy programs for at least one school in each of the pilot Family Success Alliance (FSA)
22 zones; and 2) provide initial funds to a zone partner agency for a Family Success Alliance
23 navigator in each zone.
24 Colleen Bridger, Orange County Health Department Director, said the FSA was
25 established to address a body of research that shows the consequences of children growing up
26 in poverty and that educational success can buffer these results.
27 Colleen Bridger said this Alliance was created to follow the Harlem Children's Zone and
28 related Promises Zones Neighborhoods initiative as evidence-based, successful intervention.
29 She said the FSA was established less than a year ago in Orange County and in this time an
30 advisory council has been created, service zones established, grant applications submitted, two
31 priority interventions of kindergarten readiness and literacy, as well as zone navigators to
32 connect families to the pipeline portals have been determined, and a program coordinator hired.
33 Colleen Bridger said a team just returned from the Harlem Kids Zone last week where
34 three days were spent learning about the programs and services offered there as well as the
35 philosophy that undergirds the Harlem Children's Zone. She said there were two takeaways
36 from the trip to the Harlem Children's Zone: 1.) Building trust with the community which is as
37 important as building the pipeline and will take time. 2.) The philosophy of doing whatever it
38 takes to both build the pipeline as well as working with each child individually, where they are, in
39 order to achieve success.
40 Colleen Bridger said the FSA Advisory Council is requesting to spend the remaining
41 $90,000 in the Social Justice fund on a kindergarten readiness program as well as a Zone
42 Navigator position for each zone. She thanked the Board for their on-going support and
43 commitment to insure that this project is successful.
44 Chair McKee thanked Dr. Bridger for her leadership and commitment to this effort.
45 Commissioner Burroughs said she emailed some questions to Colleen Bridger earlier
46 today and asked Colleen Bridger if she would share the information she gave in her response
47 (email below):
48
49 Question: Kick start with literacy: is there evidence from prior research on that model? If not,
50 will the pilot include a control group? Research that doesn't include a control group will not
13
1 really provide adequate evidence I'd love for the Kick Start program to work but it is a brief
2 intervention that starts long after the children have experienced years of deficits of exposure to
3 spoken words. As such, I think it is really important to look for evidence.
4
5 Colleen Bridger's response:
6 The curriculum we are proposing using is called Second Step, and is a classroom-based
7 social skills program that focuses on teaching young children to identify and understand
8 their own and others' emotions, reduce impulsiveness and choose positive goals, and
9 manage their emotional reactions and decision making process. SAMHSA estimates that
10 approximately 32,000 schools across the US have implemented Second Step since the
11 program started in 1987. Selection of this type of kindergarten readiness intervention vs. an
12 "academic model" is also consistent with emerging research showing that children enrolled
13 in academic-based programs actually fare worse over the long-term than children who focus
14 on social and emotional issues. So, we have research that supports the effectiveness of
15 this specific curriculum and this approach.
16
17 There is nation-wide data to support the concept of intensive kindergarten-readiness as an
18 effective intervention. Similar programs based on the model of a "kick-start" program are
19 being implemented across the US. Locally, the Duke Office of Durham & Regional Affairs
20 has implemented a kindergarten readiness program using the Second Step curriculum
21 since 2008. They currently work with three sites in Durham, including EDCI's target
22 elementary school (Y.E. Smith Elementary).
23
24 Question: Coordinated support: any gold standard (control group) evidence on this piece? If
25 not, will there be control group research on it? How does this intervention compare with the
26 activities of whatever Smart Start/More at Four is now called?
27
28 Colleen Bridger's response:
29 As far as evaluation of the Family Success Alliance's work:
30 o Specific to the Kindergarten readiness, each site will conduct a pre and post
31 kindergarten readiness assessment with children in the intervention. This will allow us to
32 assess immediate changes. In addition, the school systems are implementing a
33 phased-in universal kindergarten readiness assessment starting this fall. So, we will
34 compare kindergarten readiness scores on this assessment tool between our
35 participants and those who did not participate (controlling for things like income and
36 parental education status).
37 o In addition, our control group for the Family Success Alliance pipeline in general will be
38 kids outside the two zones. So, for example after a literacy intervention, we'll be able to
39 compare 3 d grade reading scores of children in the zone against children not in the
40 zone. The challenge will be the fact that we'll be slowing filling the gaps in our pipeline
41 so it will take some time to really see the outcomes most important to us.
42
43 We have asked the United Way to fund a full-time evaluation coordinator and some shared
44 data-base development. Hopefully they will fund this request. If not, we'll figure something
45 else out. We can't do this project if we can't evaluate it. It won't always be the absolute
46 gold standard evaluation that I'd love, but I really think we can do a great job with some
47 elbow grease and ingenuity.
48 Commissioner Burroughs said she hoped the United Way would support this initiative;
49 and if not, she believed Orange County should fund, and support this full-time evaluation
50 coordinator.
14
1 Commissioner Burroughs said some elements of this program sound like Smart Start,
2 and More and Four. She asked if these programs compare to the Family Success Alliance.
3 Colleen Bridger said there are existing programs and services in the community such as
4 the two mentioned above and the role of the FSA pipeline is to bring all of these providers
5 together allowing easier access for families. She said the Zone Navigators will also help in this
6 regard.
7 Commissioner Price asked if there is a timeline regarding the use of these funds since it
8 is the end of both the fiscal and school years.
9 Colleen said the Zone Navigator position would start as soon as approval is given which
10 is about 4 weeks from now. She said the interventions would start over the summer and some
11 of the funds would be able to be carried forward.
12 Commissioner Price asked if there is a reason that existing funds are being requested
13 as opposed to using new funds in next year's budget.
14 Colleen Bridger said partly because next year's budget is not enough to cover the
15 outlined goals and partly because the completion of the necessary analyses this past year took
16 time and caused a bit of delay in the process.
17 Commissioner Price asked if there is a clear purpose for the use of the Social Justice
18 Funds and if there is an emergency between now and June 30th, and this fund is depleted, what
19 would be done.
20 Bonnie Hammersley said the Social Justice Funds in 2014-2015 was $450,000. She
21 said $100,000 was designated towards the FSA and the Board allocated $350,000 to the Social
22 Services Child Care Fund. She said the audited fund balance came forward in January and
23 there were some funds available to replenish the Social Justice Fund, bringing it back to
24 $450,000. She added that this total does not include the $90,000 that was designated for the
25 FSA. She said the 2015 to 2016 includes her recommendation to maintain the Social Justice
26 Fund at $450,000.
27 Commissioner Price asked if there are any criteria for who is able to draw down on this
28 money.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said this fund and its uses are determined by the Board of County
30 Commissioners.
31 Commissioner Price said the BOCC has not designated criteria for the uses of this fund.
32 Chair McKee said the Board did not identify specific uses for the funds other than
33 childcare and the FSA.
34 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board were to approve the monies for the FSA,
35 would there still be $350,000 in the Social Justice Fund.
36 Bonnie Hammersley said no but there is $450,000 in the fund now.
37 Commissioner Dorosin said at the April 7th Board of County Commissioners meeting, he
38 petitioned to use some of these funds to support the Rogers Road Community Center. He also
39 expressed some confusion about the purpose and uses of these funds. Chair McKee said this
40 petition is in process.
41 Bonnie Hammersley said the Social Justice Funding has been used on a case by case
42 basis determined by the Board of County Commissioners. She said staff will bring issues
43 forward and the Board has the authority to determine the approach and funding to address the
44 needs.
45 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that there is $450,000 currently in this fund.
46 Bonnie Hammersley said there is $450,000 right now in this fund and it will be carried
47 over to 2015-2016.
48 Commissioner Dorosin asked if any of the money is spent will it be replenished to keep
49 the total funds available at $450,000.
50 Bonnie Hammersley said that is her recommendation.
15
1 Commissioner Rich said when the Social Justice Fund was created; it was to be at the
2 Board of County Commissioners' discretion as to how these funds were spent. She said there
3 were no criteria; but rather as things came up, the money would be spent.
4 Commissioner Rich said she is glad that there is a line item for the FSA going forward
5 because it shows the County's commitment to this program.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said this fund was created for Commissioner Initiatives within
7 County government. He said the Rogers Road Community Center should be funded by outside
8 agencies and not by this fund as these monies are available for projects that no one else would
9 fund but are important to the welfare of the community.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said he would respectfully disagree and that running a County
11 owned Community Center is a County initiative.
12 Commissioner Price clarified that the Social Justice Fund is an intra-departmental
13 funding mechanism.
14 Chair McKee said yes, without specifying exact categories.
15 Chair McKee said two zones were chosen in the County for the pilot program only in
16 order to get this program established, work out the "bugs", and then be able to spread this
17 project throughout the County.
18 Commissioner Price noted that the FSA hopes to hire staff with deep familiarity in the
19 zones, ideally a community member, and commended the FSA for this effort.
20 Commissioner Pelissier said she attended the FSA trip to visit the Harlem Children's
21 Zone. She said that program started very small and then worked incrementally on the plan to
22 grow. She said hiring a community member is vital which she heard from the Harlem project
23 many times.
24 Commissioner Pelissier said every single program that was attended in Harlem had a
25 data manager, not only for the overall program but to look at each child and their progress, or
26 lack thereof, in order to adjust planning.
27 Commissioner Dorosin said the FSA is an example of how a project can come to fruition
28 in warp speed with focus and insistence on results. He said he hoped the same effort can be
29 put into affordable housing.
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for
32 the Board to approve Budget Amendment#8-A transferring funds from the Social Justice Fund
33 to the Family Success Alliance to 1) pilot kindergarten readiness and literacy programs for at
34 least one school in each of the pilot Family Success Alliance zones; and 2) provide initial
35 funding to a zone partner agency for a Family Success Alliance navigator in each zone.
36
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 b. Land Management Central Permitting System (LMCPS) Software Purchase and
40 Support Agreement
41 The Board considered the purchase of a new Central Permitting software system that
42 replaces a 14-year old software system and authorized the Manager to execute the contract
43 with Tyler Technologies and any amendments thereto for a County-hosted, vendor
44 implemented system subject final review by the County Attorney.
45 Jim Northup, Chief Information Officer for Orange County Information Technologies,
46 presented the following Power Point presentation:
47
48
49
50
16
1 ORANGE COUNTY
2 LAND MANAGEMENT CENTRAL PERMITTING SYSTEM
3
4 WHY A LAND MANAGEMENT CENTRAL PERMITTING SYSTEM?
5 • Long range strategic planning
6 • Replace an aging existing permitting system
7 • Better systems integration
8 o GIS
9 o Land Records
10 o Environmental Health
11 o Planning and Inspections
12 • Service and process improvement
13
14 WHAT'S A LAND MANAGEMENT CENTRAL PERMITTING SYSTEM?
15 The Land Management Central Permitting System (LMCPS) is a system of processes and data
16 to support county services for land management planning projects, permits, inspections, code
17 enforcement and licensing/registrations to be seen by the customer as a one-source solution
18 for direction and status.
19
20 DEPARTMENTS SERVED
21 • Health
22 • Planning and Inspections
23 • Tax Administration
24 • Emergency Services/Fire Marshall
25 • Solid Waste
26
27 WHEN DID WE START?
28 February 2013
29
30 What have we done?
31 • An approved multi-department Support Model for pre- and post-implementation of the
32 system.
33 • An evaluation of the next generation of product offerings by the parent company of the
34 current system (Permits Plus) as well as the implementations of similar systems in other
35 North Carolina counties.
36 • Contracted with an independent vendor for software selection consulting services in June
37 2014.
38 • Meetings with partner jurisdictions regarding our objectives and process to gain feedback
39 and additional insight, i.e., Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough
40 • Project definition and requirements analysis detailed in RFP 5202 released August, 2014.
41
42 What have we done?
43 • Careful evaluation of proposals received in September, 2014, with the outcome of a short-
44 list of two vendors for further evaluation.
45 • Two 2-day vendor demonstrations in December, 2014
46 o attended by over 40 reviewers,
47 o staff from 7 departments (Planning & Inspections, Health, IT, Tax Administration,
48 Finance/Purchasing, Emergency Services, Solid Waste)
17
1 o local home builders
2 o Representatives from the Towns of Hillsborough and Carrboro.
3 o Over 250 evaluation feedback forms were collected from the 12 demo sessions for each
4 vendor.
5
6 What have we done?
7 • Contact with over 30 general and peer references in 13 jurisdictions between December,
8 2014 and April, 2015.
9 • Technical and cost follow-up calls and on-line functionality demos with the vendors for
10 further clarification.
11 • A summary decision matrix quantifying the results of the evaluation.
12
13 Chair McKee asked John Roberts if the Legal Department is involved in any portion of
14 this process.
15 John Roberts said his department has been involved but this project is currently in the
16 preliminary stages and his department will have more involvement once implemented.
17 Commissioner Jacobs said this process was started in 2000 but the costs, and the lack
18 of departments wanting to work together were two hurdles. He said it is long overdue and it is
19 much appreciated.
20 Commissioner Pelissier asked if this system will help speed up the permitting process.
21 Jim Northup said yes because it will hopefully create a seamless work flow and offer
22 transparency to the customers.
23 Commissioner Pelissier noted the estimated maintenance cost of$100,000, annually
24 and asked if Jim Northrup could share the current maintenance cost.
25 Jim Northrup said it is $36,000 to $40,000, annually.
26 Commissioner Rich said this is the right direction in which to go. She said the hours of
27 effort the staff have put in will be worth it.
28 Jim Northrup said all of the departments have been in the same room hashing out this
29 process which at times has been difficult. He said resolutions have been reached which can
30 only insure the ultimate success of the project.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said the ultimate goal is to improve customer service in the
32 permitting process. He said it improves the accessibility of Orange County Government to the
33 public.
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs for the
36 Board of Commissioners to authorize the Manager to execute the contract with Tyler
37 Technologies and any amendments thereto for a County-hosted, vendor implemented system
38 subject to final review by the County Attorney.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 c. Adoption of the Final Financing Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of
43 $15,870,000 in Installment Financing for Various Capital Investment Plan Projects
44 and Equipment, and the Refinancing of Approximately $10,200,000 from Two 2006
45 Installment Financing Issuances
46 The Board considered approving the final financing resolution authorizing the issuance
47 of approximately $15,870,000 in installment financing to finance capital investment projects and
48 equipment for the year, and the refinancing of approximately $10,200,000 from two 2006
49 installment financing issuances.
50 Paul Laughton reviewed the following background.
18
1
2 Background:
3 At its November 6, 2014 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners was given preliminary
4 information of capital projects and equipment financing for the year. At that meeting, the Board
5 made a preliminary determination to finance costs of these projects and equipment by the use
6 of an installment financing, as authorized under Section 160A-20 of the North Carolina General
7 Statutes.
8
9 Also included is the refinancing of approximately $10,200,000 from a 2006 installment financing
10 secured by Carrboro High School, and a 2006 Certificates of Participation installment financing
11 secured by Gravelly Hill Middle School.
12
13 The statutes require that the County conduct a public hearing on the proposed financing and
14 refinancing contracts. The Board conducted a public hearing at its April 7, 2015 meeting, and
15 adopted the resolution supporting the application to the Local Government Commission (LGC)
16 for approval of the financing and refinancing arrangements (Attachment 1). County staff has
17 been in contact with the LGC staff, and staff expects no obstacles to receiving LGC approval. If
18 the Board adopts the final financial resolution (Attachment 2— beginning on page 15 of this
19 package) giving final approval to the financing and refinancing plans at tonight's meeting, staff
20 expects the LGC to approve the financing and refinancing plans at the LGC's meeting on June
21 2, 2015.
22
23 Under the current schedule, staff expects to set the final interest rates and other terms of the
24 financing around June 15, and to close on the financing and refinancing by June 26th, 2015. It
25 should be noted that the installment financing issuance package has been reduced by
26 $400,000 with the removal of planning funds for the Southern Orange Campus project. Due to
27 the timing of this current financing package, these planning funds can be combined with the
28 financing of the Southern Human Services Center expansion project scheduled in FY 2016-17.
29
30 The Board is requested to approve a financing amount not to exceed $28,000,000, and a
31 maximum interest rate of 3.75%. The final financial resolution (Attachment 2) includes as
32 Exhibit B a list of draft documents. These lengthy documents are available to the Board and the
33 public for review upon request from the Orange County Finance and Administrative Services
34 Department.
35
36 There will be a financial impact associated with approval of the financing. At current rates,
37 preliminary estimates of maximum debt service applicable to the capital investment projects
38 and equipment financing would require the highest debt service payment of$1,732,695 falling
39 in FY 2016-17. The tax rate equivalent for the estimated highest debt service payment is
40 approximately 1.06 cents. However, a portion of this debt financing is related to projects where
41 the debt service payments will be paid for from Sportsplex and Solid Waste Enterprise funds,
42 as well as a Water and Sewer project to be paid from the Article 46 quarter-cent Sales Tax
43 proceeds earmarked for economic development. The General Fund portion of this annual debt
44 service is estimated at $1.1 million, or a tax rate equivalent of approximately 0.67 cents. Based
45 on current resources and the retirement of some existing debt, no adjustment to the tax rate
46 associated with this financing is anticipated to occur during the period noted. Regarding the
47 refinancing, it is estimated that the County will realize savings of approximately $451,788 over
48 the life of the refinancing term.
19
1 Commissioner Rich said she would like further discussion about where the Article 46
2 quarter-cent Sales Tax proceeds are going, noting that all of it seems to be going to the water
3 and sewer projects in the County.
4 Paul Laughton said 60 percent ($800,000) is set aside for debt service, leaving 40
5 percent of the Economic Development funds available.
6 Commissioner Rich asked the Chair if the discussion regarding the Article 46 quarter-
7 cent Sales Tax proceeds and how they are used could be furthered at another meeting.
8 Chair McKee said he thought this would be possible during the budget discussions and
9 if not, certainly in the early meetings of September.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said the numbers from November 2014 are different than those
11 in this evening's abstract, specifically regarding the Eubanks SWCC.
12 Paul Laughton said there have been on-going changes, looking at the re-design of the
13 road entry and moving the scale house. He said this has increased the cost of the upfitting of
14 the Eubanks SWCC. He said the current estimate for this project is $3.175 million. He said
15 there was $3 million financed for Convenience Centers a few years ago. He said Walnut Grove
16 SWCC was completed for approximately $1.3 million, leaving $1.7 million for the Eubanks Road
17 SWCC. He said the other main differences in numbers relate to the Southern Human Services
18 Center expansion and to IT and the central permitting project.
19 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board proceeds tonight is there any flexibility in the
20 future. He said the challenge for him is there seemed to be a disconnect between items being
21 discussed in the abstract and the time for their approval. He said there should be opportunities
22 to discuss items again in case changes have occurred in the meantime.
23 Bonnie Hammersley said a vertical look at the CIP would be helpful. She said she will
24 do a better job of informing them of any changes as they occur in between meetings.
25 Bob Jessup, Bond Counsel, said when the financing process is complete, the Board will
26 have a list of projects in estimated amounts. He said the Board cannot use the funding for
27 anything outside of this list. He added that the Board can move the funding between the
28 projects on the list, or reallocate funds to other projects on the list.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said Gayle Wilson sent the Board an email about the Eubanks
30 SWCC. He added that the Solid Waste Advisory Board (SWAB) had also sent an email stating
31 that the construction at the Eubanks SWCC starts in July. He said he wanted to make sure the
32 Board sees the design of the site before going forward.
33 Commissioner Jacobs said another document is the Distribution of Funds document that
34 the Board received after the passing of the '/4 cents sales tax. He said he would like to see this
35 document reintroduced to the Board. He would also like to see a cost analysis of these funds.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said he is not keen on giving money to other governments but he
37 would like to help the Town of Hillsborough with the Colonial Inn. He asked if this may be an
38 investment opportunity for Economic Development funds. He said he would like to hear input
39 from the Local Government Commission (LGC).
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
42 Board to approve the Final Financing Resolution Authorizing the Issuance of$15,870,000 in
43 Installment Financing for Various Capital Investment Plan Projects and Equipment, and the
44 Refinancing of Approximately $10,200,000 from Two 2006 Installment Financing Issuances.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 8. Reports-NONE
49
50 9. County Manager's Report
20
1 NONE
2
3 10. County Attorney's Report
4 John Roberts said the legislature does not have any damaging, or otherwise locally
5 relevant, legislation scheduled this week, thus far. He said the recycling bill was sent to the
6 Rules Committee last week, and he has heard it will not come out intact. He said the County's
7 hope for specific authority to impose mandatory fees for recycling will likely not succeed. He
8 added, however, that this will have no impact on the County for practical purposes.
9
10 11. Appointments
11
12 a. Agricultural Preservation Board —Appointments
13 The Board considered making appointments to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
14 Commissioner Jacobs referred to email he had sent to the Clerk, seeking clarification on
15 the Agricultural Preservation Board and the Voluntary Agricultural District Seats. His email
16 question is below:
17
18 The Ag Preservation Board used to be the Voluntary Ag District Board. While we clearly
19 broadened its scope, what is the underlying premise regarding automatic memberships by
20 VAD? What is guaranteed for VAD adoptees? Are they essentially zoned by area (as High
21 Rock/Efland) in joining this board, or is the definition of that seat simply a function of a previous
22 VAD application? If the latter is the case, why does past VAD interest define an ongoing seat?
23
24 Dave Stancil's response:
25
26 The state's general statutes (NCGS) on Voluntary Ag Districts (VAD) and VAD boards are part
27 of the complicating factor on the Ag Board, but I'll try to provide a short version of the situation.
28
29 State law requires that if a county engages in the Voluntary Agricultural District program, it must
30 have an Agricultural Districts Advisory Board. It also provides that each Voluntary Agricultural
31 District in a County must have a seat on the board. (Many years ago, we expanded our board
32 into an Agricultural Preservation Board that has the charges laid out in the statutes, but also an
33 expanded role to provide advice on agricultural matters to the BOCC, for example.)
34
35 When we first started our VAD program in the early-90's, each farm was its own VAD district.
36 But by the early part of last decade, we began to see that farms enrolling in VAD could get
37 numerous, and if each farm had a seat on the board we could have a board of 40-50 people or
38 more. We saw a few other ordinances that set up a "Voluntary Agricultural District" as a
39 geographic sub-region of the county rather than an individual farm, and we changed our
40 ordinance to that model. Now we have seven geographic area "agricultural districts," within
41 which we have participating farms in the VAD program. Owners of the participating farms are
42 eligible to apply for the VAD seats on the Ag Board. The NCGS "promised" seats on the board
43 in this manner come from one of the farm owners in the larger district. (I can provide a map of
44 the seven VAD geographic "districts" if desired — it was part of what was approved back 10
45 years ago or so).
46
47 Initially, these VAD seats were semi-permanent, as there was no provision in the NCGS
48 regarding terms, but with the advisory board changes a few years ago, these now conform to
49 our two three-year term rules. So there are no automatic or permanent seats any more.
50
21
1 Some of our geographic VAD districts are filled by farm owners who have an enrolled farm in
2 that geographic VAD area, but we still have some of the seven that are not filled, because we
3 have only a few farms participating in the program within that particular VAD boundary, and/or
4 that particular VAD area has members who served on the Ag Board for many years in that
5 capacity and no longer wish to serve (Bob Nutter and Bob Strayhorn would be examples of this)
6 and no other qualifying farm owner has stepped up to apply.
7
8 So the Ag Board now has seven at-large members, and seven more (one slot for each of the
9 seven "Voluntary Agricultural District " geographic regions) to be filled only by owners of
10 participating farms in the VAD program from within that district boundary. When a new VAD
11 farm is approved, we make the owners aware of that possibility (and if the seat for that VAD is
12 vacant) and if they apply, they can be considered for appointment using the standard process
13 (APB recommendation/BOCC approval).
14
15 1 should note that the pending APB appointments requests for this time have an unusual
16 proposal for one of these VAD seats, as Howard McAdams term as an at-large member has
17 expired but with no current qualifying applicant for his VAD district, the Ag Board has asked if
18 he can "roll" into that VAD seat.
19
20 Commissioner Jacobs said he understood Dave Stancil's response, but felt the Board
21 still needed more clarification.
22 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that tonight the Board nominate for recommended
23 positions only, and ask staff to come back with more clarification on this board.
24 Chair McKee also suggested holding open the vacant positions. He asked the Clerk if
25 there were applications specific to Sly/Eno or New Hope/Hillsborough.
26 The Clerk said no.
27 Chair McKee said he is reluctant to fill those positions until they are re-advertised and
28 attempts to recruit are made. He suggested only nominating for the positions 8, 9, and 1.
29 Commissioner Rich asked if this suggestion is only for the Agricultural Board.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said the Ag Board is a different kind of board, with an incentive to
31 having a voluntary Ag District. He said the BOCC redefined the Ag Board to give it a broader
32 purpose and added additional seats. He said it is no longer just Voluntary Ag Districts, as they
33 may not have much parochial interest. He asked if there are only twelve seats and there is an
34 incentive to have a Voluntary Ag District, then how should the Board proceed.
35 Commissioner Rich said there have been long discussions about board appointments
36 and she does not want to start making exceptions; however, she better understands
37 Commissioner Jacobs' point and finds it acceptable.
38
39 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
40 appoint the following to the Agricultural Preservation Board:
41
42 • Mr. Howard McAdams, Jr. (Change in representative (Position #10) "At-Large"
43 representative to (Position #1) "High Rock/Efland Vol. Ag. Dist." With no expiration date.
44 (Mr. McAdams fitted the criteria for the vacant position)
45 • Appointment of Mr. Richal Vanhook to a first full term (Position #8) "At-Large" with a term
46 ending 06/30/2018.
47 • Appointment of Ms. Amanda Scherle to a first full term (Position #9) "At-Large" with at term
48 ending 06/30/2018.
49
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
1
2 b. Orange County Parks and Recreation Council —Appointments
3 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Parks and
4 Recreation Council.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
7 appoint the following to the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council:
8
9 • Appointment of Ms. Betty Khan to a second full term (Position #3) "Cedar Grove Township"
10 representative with an expiration date of 03/31/2018.
11 • Appointment of Mrs. Rachel Massai to a first full term (Position #6) "Cheeks Township"
12 representative with an expiration date of 03/31/2018.
13 • Appointment of Mr. Robert Robinson to a first full term (Position #8) "Little River Township"
14 representative with an expiration date of 03/31/2018.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
17 appoint the following to the Orange County Parks and Recreation Council:
18
19 • Evelyn Daniels to Position #5--- "At-Large" position-----expiring 03/31/2016. (position has
20 been vacant since 03/03/2014)
21 • Daniel Siler to Position #12--- "At-Large" position----- expiring 03/31/2016. (position has
22 been vacant since 12/31/2014)
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 c. Orange Water and Sewer Authority—Appointment
27 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange Water and Sewer
28 Authority (OWASA).
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
31 appoint the following to the Orange Water and Sewer Authority:
32
33 Appointment of Mr. Michael Hughes to a second full term (Position #1) "BOCC
34 Appointment" with an expiration of 06/30/2018.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 12. Board Comments
39 Commissioner Dorosin had no comments.
40 Commissioner Rich had no comments.
41 Commissioner Pelissier had no comments.
42 Commissioner Jacobs congratulated the Orange County Health Department on getting
43 the Komen Grant for Breast Cancer screening.
44 Commissioner Jacobs handed out information from the Metropolitan Planning
45 Organizations (MPO) on Wake County's pursuit of public transit. He said Wake County has
46 shown that bus rapid transit may actually be no cheaper than light rail, in the long run.
47 Commissioner Jacobs handed out more information on Alamance County's Trail
48 System. He said there is no dedicated funding source, but Alamance County is excited about it.
49 He said he spoke with a Department of Transportation representative about the possibility of
50 giving some funds to the project to extend Orange River Road to the railroad station, under the
23
1 railroad track and to Route 70A. He said the representative indicated that she would not give
2 funding to such a project, as Durham and Chapel Hill have more than sufficient resources.
3 Commissioner Price said she attended the teacher recognition banquets at both School
4 Districts. She said both ceremonies were lovely, and she recognized the hard work of all
5 involved in the School systems.
6 Commissioner Burroughs had no comments.
7 Chair McKee said the next time he makes comments on legislative bills he will attempt
8 to give better context. He said he was referring to his comments on Senate Bill 513, which had
9 both good and bad components. He said one of the bad components was the burning of
10 plastic, which would cause him to have a problem with this bill unless it is amended.
11 Chair McKee said he would follow up with Rich Shaw and David Stancil about the
12 Mountains to Sea Trail issue in order to ask them to find a timeline from the State and what the
13 County needs to do going forward with the re-consideration of the scoring of segment 11 of the
14 trail.
15
16 13. Information Items
17
18• May 5, 2015 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
19• BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from May 5, 2015 Regular Meeting
20
21 14. Closed Session
22 NONE
23
24 15. Adjournment
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
27 adjourn the meeting at 9:49 p.m.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31
32 Earl McKee, Chair
33
34 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
35
1
I Attachment 4
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING
6 May 21, 2015
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners held a Budget Public Hearing on Thursday, May
9 21, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
12 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
14 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board
16 Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
17
18 1. Opening Remarks
19 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
20 He noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
21
22 - PowerPoint slides for item 2- Presentation of Manager's Recommended Fiscal Year 2015-16
23 Annual Operating Budget and FY 2015-20 Capital Investment Plan
24 -A report and letter from the Orange County Bias Free Policing Coalition.
25
26 PUBLIC CHARGE
27 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
28
29 2. Presentation of County Manager's Recommended FY 2015-16 Budget/CIP
30 (PowerPoint presentation)
31
32 Bonnie Hammersley presented the following Power Point slides:
33
34 ORANGE COUNTY FY 2015-16 COUNTY MANAGER RECOMMENDED BUDGET
35
36 Presentation Outline
37 • FY2015-16 Budget Goals
38 • County Manager Recommended Budget
39 o Compensation Package
40 o Personnel
41 o Schools
42 o Outside Agencies
43 o Budget Initiatives
44 o Capital Investment Plan(CIP)
45 • Conclusion
46 FY2015-16 Budget Goals
47 • Structurally Balanced Budget
48 • Implement Team Approach
49 • Enhance Transparency and Communication
2
1 • Maintain or Improve Service Levels
2
3 General Fund Expenditures
4 Budget expenditures— increased by 2.8% from 2015
5
6 General Fund Revenues
7 Increased about 3%
8
9 GF Appropriated Fund Balance
10 $9.8 million
11 Revenue Assumptions
12 • Property Taxes — 1% increase
13 • Sales Tax— 3% increase
14 • FY2015-16 Tax Rate — No Increase
15 Recommended Compensation Package
16 • Wages and Merit
17 o Wages —2% Increase
18 o WPPR— Maintain current funding
19 o Living Wage — Maintain current rate
20 • Benefits
21 o Health Insurance - No Increase
22 o Dental Insurance — 15% Increase
23 o Retirement— No Increase
24 Recommended Positions
25 • Reallocation/Revenue— 12.7 FTE (budget neutral funds)
26 o Jail Alternatives — 3.0 FTE
27 o Administrative Assistant— 1.0 FTE
28 o Revenue Technicians —2.0 FTE
29 o Dental Team —2.5 FTE
30 o Management Analyst— 1.0 FTE
31 o OPT Bus Drivers — 3.0 FTE
32 o Social Worker (Chinese Speaking) —0.20FTE
33 Recommended positions
34 Enterprise Fund —4.75 FTE
35 o Weighmaster — 1.0 FTE
36 o Solid Waste Drivers —2.0 FTE
37 o Convenience Center Operators — 1.75 FT
38
39 Recommended positions
40 General Fund —6.87 FTE
41 o Administrative Services Supervisor - 0.125 FTE
42 o Community Center Coordinator— 1.0 FTE
43 o Court Liaison — 1.0 FTE
44 o Deputy EMS Manager - 0.50 FTE
45 o Erosion Control Officer — 1.0 FTE
46 o Housing Management Assistant— 1.0 FTE
47 o Human Resources Assistant Director— 1.0 FTE
3
1 o Parks Conservation Tech I — 0.25 FTE
2 o Register of Deeds Deputy— 1.0 FTE
3 Recommended School funding
4 • Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS)
5 o Increase cost per student $81 — $448,122
6 o Fund Charter School Students (50) — $182,600
7 o CIP Planning Funds - $750,000
8
9 • Orange County School (OCS)
10 o Increase cost per student $81 — $6,504
11 o Fund Charter School Students (110) — $401,720
12 o CIP Planning Funds —$478,000
13 Recommended School funding
14 • Durham Technical College
15 o Current Expense Increase — $53,778
16 o Recurring Capital Decrease — ($25,000)
17 o Debt Service Increase—$0
18 Recommended Outside Agency Funding
19 • Maintain FY2014-15 Funding
20 o Community Home Trust (Increase)
21 o Communities in Schools (Decrease by ADM numbers)
22 o Fairview Community Watch (+)
23
24 Recommended Fire District Rates
25 • Maintain FY2014-15 Rates
26 o Damascus & Southern Triangle Fire Districts— +1.5 cents
27 o Orange Rural Fire District— +1.0 cents
28
29 Recommended Budget Initiatives
30 • Maintain the Social Justice Fund
31 • Increase Child Care Funding
32 • Fund the Family Success Alliance
33 • Develop an Affordable Housing Plan
34 • Support the Community Centers
35 • Improve Voting Equipment
36 • Eliminate the 6-month Vacant Position Hiring Delay
37 • Implement Salary Savings Appropriation
38 • Restructure the Employee Classification and Salary Plan
39 • Create a Community Relations Department
40
41 Recommended CIP FUNDING
42 County Capital Projects
43
44 o Southern Branch Library Planning
45 o Cedar Grove Library Kiosk
46 o Jail —Conceptual Design Phase
47 o Environmental and Agriculture Center— Design Phase
4
1 o Historic Rogers Road Infrastructure — Design Phase
2 o Upper Eno Nature Preserve— Public Access Area
3 o Soccer Center Phase II
4 o New Hope Preserve/Hollow Rock Public Access
5 o River Park Phase II
6 o Little River Park
7 o 911 Back-up Center
8 Conservation Easements (+$250,000)
9 o Facility Infrastructure Upgrades
10 o Information Technology Upgrades
11 o Register of Deeds Automation
12 Affordable Housing Land Acquisition/Banking and Development Program
13 Recommended CIP FUNDING
14 • Special Revenue Projects
15 o Article 46 Sales Tax
16 ■ Economic Development
17 ■ Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS)
18 ■ Orange County Schools (OCS)
19
20 Proprietary Capital Projects
21 o Water and Sewer Utilities
22 ■ Efland Sewer flow to Mebane
23 ■ Utility Extension Projects
24 ■ Hillsborough EDD
25 Eno EDD
26 o Solid Waste
27
28 Recycling Operation
29 o Sportsplex
30 Major Expansion Phase 2&3
31
32 School Capital Projects
33 o Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
34 ■ Pay-As-You-Go Funds - $2,274,765
35 ■ Lottery Proceeds - $835,626
36 Preliminary Planning Funds - $750,000
37 o Orange County Schools
38 Pay-As-You-Go Funds - $1,450,084
39 Lottery Proceeds - $520,736
40 Preliminary Planning Funds - $478,000
41
42 Public Hearings and Work Sessions
43 • Public Hearings
44 ■ May 21: Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, 300 W Tryon St., Hillsborough
45 ■ May 28: Southern Human Services Center (SHSC), Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
46 • Work Sessions
47 o June 4: SHSC, Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
48 o June 9: Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, 300 W Tryon St., Hillsborough
49 • Work Session/Intent to Adopt: June 11, SHSC, Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
50 • Final Adoption: June 16, SHSC, Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
5
1 Document Availability
2 • Clerk to Board of Commissioners
3 • County Finance &Administrative Services Office
4 • Orange County Library
5 • Chapel Hill Public Library
6 • Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library
7 • Orange County Website— http://orangecountync.gov/
8
9 Conclusion
10 Orange County exists to provide governmental services requested by our residents or
11 mandated by the State of North Carolina.
12 To provide these quality services efficiently, we must;
13 • Serve the Residents of Orange County— Our Residents Come First;
14 • Depend on the energy, skills, and dedication of all our employees and volunteers;
15 • Treat all our Residents and Employees with fairness, respect, and understanding.
16 Orange County Residents Come First
17
18 Commissioner Rich said will the budgeting be done based on the prior year if the
19 charters schools are not counted as part of the Department of Public Instruction (DPI).
20 Paul Laughton said the DPI numbers received this year are 322 students less than last
21 year. He added that the numbers from DPI show the seats that are filled in the schools while
22 there is a separate number for the Charter Students. He said the County budgeted according to
23 the March 2015 numbers and then looked at the enrollment numbers for the Charter Schools.
24 He added that the Charter Schools must supply their numbers to the DPI.
25 Paul Laughton referenced page 145 which showed the enrollment projections. He said
26 the chart showed that the total number of projected students for both school districts in 2015-
27 2016 is 19,729. He said the number of students that are out of district, which is 220, is then
28 subtracted, and the number of Charter School students, which is 531, is added in for a grand
29 total of 20,040 students. He said the charter schools must give enrollment numbers to the
30 School Districts on a monthly basis and the current number of charter students enrolled in
31 Orange County Schools (OCS) is 475 and in Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS) is
32 217.
33 Commissioner Rich asked if Paul Laughton is comfortable with the numbers and how
34 they will be achieved. She asked if there is any concern that the student numbers may be
35 incorrect resulting in the Charter Schools receiving too little or too much money.
36 Paul Laughton said he is very comfortable with the numbers as the numbers are given
37 by the Charter Schools to the State as well as reported to both school districts on a monthly
38 basis.
39
40 3. Public Comment
41 Chair McKee briefly reviewed the procedures for Public Comment. He emphasized that
42 typically the Commissioners do not comment at Public Hearings. He said this lack of response
43 does not mean that the Commissioners are not listening but rather it allows the public the
44 maximum opportunity to speak.
45 Commissioner Price asked the public to give a specific explanation of how their
46 requested funds will be used. She further requested that staff keep this information available for
47 future reference in the budget.
6
1 Dorothy Johnson said she is here on behalf of the Fairview Community Watch
2 requesting $4000 to support their summer monitoring program at the Fairview County Park.
3 She said the funds would be used for an adult monitor and a youth assistant to work in the park
4 for 18 hours a week, for 8 weeks from June to August. She said the monitors assist in
5 distribution of games and such to attendees and are a friendly presence to oversee activity and
6 monitor unwanted behavior. She said the program was started in 2012 with a grant from the
7 New Hope Presbyterian Church. She said the program has been a great success, and it is
8 hoped that it will continue to grow from year to year. She added that raising funds has been a
9 struggle and last year the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) saved the program. She
10 said the neighborhood is of low income and would like for the BOCC to consider making this
11 program an annual part of the County's budget. She concluded that Fairview Park is vital to the
12 success and safety of the neighborhood and she commended the BOCC for all that it does for
13 Orange County.
14 Sharon Freeland is the Executive Director for Orange Congregations in Mission (OCIM),
15 and she thanked the Board for partnering with OCIM for almost 35 years. She said there are
16 hunger issues in Orange County. She said she is a native of Orange County and she has seen
17 hunger even with her former classmates. She said over the last three years, the OCIM food
18 pantry has seen an increase of over a thousand individuals each year, adding that last year,
19 8900 individuals were served, of which 4500 were children. She said it is a privilege to OCIM to
20 take the gracious bounty, and to share with OCIM clients. She said notepaper and pencils are
21 kept in the OCIM reception area, in case clients want to leave their thoughts. She read one of
22 those notes to the Board. She explained that the current OCIM policy states that a household
23 may receive a week's worth of groceries six times, in a twelve month period; however, this is
24 often not enough. She said OCIM does as much as possible to meet those extra needs. She is
25 asking for additional funding to allow households two additional opportunities to visit the food
26 pantry. She said OCIM would purchase perishable items and has asked United Way to fund a
27 part time food pantry manager. She thanked the BOCC for their efforts in Orange County.
28 Marci White is the Executive Director of Mental Health America of the Triangle. She said
29 her outside agency request can be found on page 356 of the budget document. She thanked
30 the BOCC for their ongoing support of the Advocacy Network program via County matching
31 funds for State JCPC dollars. She said tonight she is requesting that the BOCC reconsider the
32 staff recommendation to not fund a new and different program called Compeer for Seniors. She
33 said $21,000 is being requested from the County to go towards a part-time position to develop
34 this program. She said this program will target a specific and well documented Orange County
35 need, especially in the outlying areas of the County. Compeer for Seniors will address isolation
36 for seniors at risk of depression and for those in early stage dementia. She said the program
37 will use volunteers to provide long term friendship through which trust and intimacy will occur.
38 She said the Compeer volunteers commit to at least one year. She said the power of friendship
39 is compelling and while the volunteers are not trained medical professionals, they are likely to
40 notice subtle changes in health due to the close friendships established with the seniors. She
41 said her agency works closely with the Orange County Department on Aging and are also a
42 partner agency with the Family Success Alliance, and are the only partner physically located in
43 Zone 6. She said her agency carefully considered the request being made to the County
44 knowing that the County supports many of their other programs. She added that this particular
45 program is necessary as the number of individuals with the aforementioned risk factors is
46 growing. She said her agency is uniquely equipped and situated to deliver a very cost effective
47 and meaningful service to Orange County senior citizens.
48 Elvira Mebane said she is a parent of a child in the OCS, and she supports the budget
49 for OCS. She said she is the President of United Voices of Efland-Cheeks, and is asking for the
50 Board's support of the Efland-Cheeks Community Center. She said United Voices of Efland-
51 Cheeks have been meeting with County staff about upgrades to this Center. She said this
7
1 Community Center was the first community center in Orange County but has not had any
2 improvements in years. She applauded the Board's efforts to support other County Community
3 Centers. She stressed the Center needs to be upgraded and many community groups are
4 meeting at the center monthly to talk about issues like emergency preparedness. She implored
5 the BOCC to not forget about the Efland-Cheeks Community Center.
6 Laura Nicholson said she is here on behalf of the Compass Center for Women and
7 Families. She said this organization provides self-efficiency programs, domestic violence
8 support, court advocacy, a teen pregnancy prevention program, and other services, including
9 educational outreach. She thanked the Board for its continued support. She said the
10 organization will be celebrating its third anniversary on July 1, 2015. She said in the three years
11 since its inception, the organization has seen more integrated, comprehensive and efficient
12 services that meet client needs. She said there has been over a 40% increase in demand for
13 the organization's domestic violence services since 2012. She said the Board's funding is
14 especially important this year as the State is making funding cuts as well as some changes in
15 funding from partners like the United Way.
16 Manju Rajendran said she works for the Marion Cheeks Jackson Center, and is
17 requesting an additional $4000 in order to meet the growing demand for Fusion Youth Radio
18 (FYR). She said FYR features young people making their voices a part of history through
19 creative, youth-produced media. She said FYR is rooted in the idea that all of us deserve
20 opportunities to tell our stories in our own works and FYR believes young people must work
21 together to take on active roles in shaping the future of our communities. She said the name of
22 FYR honors the legacy of the Fusion movement of North Carolina in the 1890s, a multi-racial
23 coalition that gained power across the State before coming to a violent end at the hands of
24 white supremacists in 1898. She said FYR seeks to bring together youth with many
25 backgrounds to create the sort of community that not even the "Fusionists" imagined.
26 She said since FYR was created four years ago, it has developed partnerships with every
27 school in CHCCS, sustained relationships with Beat Making Lab and Sacrificial Poets to
28 exchange critical media, poetry and beatmaking workshops for the youth members of the united
29 organizations. She said FYR has produced 44 radio shows in partnership with WXYC-Chapel
30 Hill, broadcasting youth voices that would otherwise go unheard. She said FYR has co-created
31 the WUNC Summer Youth Radio Institute. She said this summer there will be a FYR Summer
32 Audio Immersion in collaboration with Beat Making Lab and Sacrificial Poets. She said youth
33 from OCS and CHCCS will be going to the Allied Media Conference in Detroit to meet with
34 media makers from across the United States. She said the additional $4000 would allow the
35 high caliber of work to be sustained.
36 Delores Bailey said she is the Executive Director of Empowerment, Inc. She thanked
37 the Board for their continued support and partnership with Empowerment's affordable rental
38 program. She said Empowerment, Inc., owns and/or manages 45 affordable rental units,
39 throughout Orange County. She said in 2015, Empowerment, Inc., added to its rental inventory
40 by one, and renovated three rental units. She said within the 45 units, 70%of the heads of
41 household are Section 8 or housing voucher holders. She said Empowerment has the proud
42 distinction of being the number one landlord in Orange County that accepts housing choice
43 vouchers and may be the only one that does. She said with 2015-2016 home funds
44 Empowerment will be able to purchase a home in the Northside community and will partner with
45 the Hillsborough Home Depot to renovate a home on Terrell Road in Hillsborough, which will be
46 designated for a Veteran and their family. She said, together, Empowerment and Orange
47 County are doing great things for affordable rentals, for which she is grateful.
48
49 4. Adjournment of Public Hearing
50 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to adjourn
51 the meeting at 8:07 p.m.
8
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4
5 Earl McKee, Chair
6
7 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
8
9
10
11
1
I Attachment 5
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 May 26, 2015
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning
10 Board for a Quarterly Public Hearing on May 26, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in
11 Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Mia
14 Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Barry Jacobs
16 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board
18 Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board
20 members Lisa Stuckey, Herman Staats, Paul Guthrie, Tony Blake, Laura Nicholson, and Lydia
21 Wegman, Andrea Rohrbacher, Maxecine Mitchell, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: James Lea and Bryant Warren
23
24 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
25 Chair McKee said that Commissioner Jacobs would be unable to attend the meeting
26 tonight.
27 Chair McKee noted the following items at their places:
28 - White sheets: PowerPoint slides for Items C1-5
29 - Notebook for Item C-3- Request for Special Use Permit - solar array/public utility station
30
31 Chair McKee said staff requested that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)
32 consider moving Item 5 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment—forward to
33 the beginning of the agenda, as it is a short presentation.
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
36 move Item 5 - Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment- forward on the agenda
37 to the beginning of the agenda.
38
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR-Chair McKee and PB Chair Pete Hallenbeck
42
43 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
44 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
45
46 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
47
48 5. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
49 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to incorporate recent changes in State law with
50 respect to the review and permitting of temporary health care structures.
51
2
1 Ashley Moncado, Orange County Planning Inspections, presented the following
2 PowerPoint slides:
3
4 Unified Development Ordinance
5 Text Amendment
6 Temporary Health Care Structures
7 Quarterly Public Hearing
8 May 26, 2015
9 Item C5
10
11 Purpose
12 To hold a public hearing on a Planning Director initiated Unified Development Ordinance (UDO)
13 text amendment regarding proposed standards for temporary health care structures to be added
14 into Sections 5.5 Standards for Residential Uses and 10.1 Definitions of the UDO.
15
16 Background
17 What is a Temporary Health Care Structure (THCS)?
18 • General Definition
19 o A mobile, modular unit, which may include health care amenities, designed to be
20 temporarily placed on a caregiver's property for rehabilitation and extended care
21 of an impaired relative.
22 • Purpose
23 o Provide a temporary, affordable, higher quality, and accessible housing option for
24 those in need, and for families in place of a nursing home facility.
25 • Similar to a state of the art hospital room
26 • Also known as:
27 o MEDCottages
28 o Granny Pods
29
30 Session Law 2014-94
31 • Background
32 o Concerns with existing zoning regulations limiting temporary health care
33 structures
34 o Adopted (August 1, 2014) to accommodate use and limit permitting obstacles
35 statewide
36 o Modeled after 2010 Virginia State Legislation
37 • Purpose
38 o Allow people with mental or physical impairments to live and reside with their
39 families in order to receive the care they need.
40 • Outlined Definition and Regulations
41
42 Proposed Amendments
43 • Proposed Revisions to:
44 o Section 5.5, Standards for Residential Uses
45 o Article 10, Definitions
46 • Packet includes the proposed amendments in "track changes" format
47 • Renumbering and reformatting of identified Sections
48
49 Proposed Amendments
3
1 Definition
2 • A transportable residential structure facilitating a caregiver's provision of care for a
3 mentally or physically impaired person that is primarily assembled offsite, is limited to
4 one occupant, has no more than 300 gross square feet, and complies with applicable
5 standards of the North Carolina State Building Code. Temporary health care structures
6 shall not be installed on a permanent foundation. Temporary health care structures are
7 classified as an accessory use to single family detached dwellings.
8
9 Proposed Amendments
10 Submittal Requirements
11 • Must meet Section 2.4, Zoning Compliance Permits
12 • Documentation identifying the relationship of the occupant of the THCS and
13 occupant of the single family dwelling
14 • Physician's certification
15
16 Proposed Amendments
17 Standards of Evaluation
18 • Existing single family residential dwelling unit must be located on the same
19 parcel as the THCS
20 • No more than one THCS per lot
21 • Must meet setback standards contained in Section 5.5.1, Accessory Structures
22 and Uses
23 • Occupancy shall be limited to one mentally or physically impaired individual
24 • No signage or advertisement promoting the THCS shall be permitted
25 • Shall be required to connect to water, wastewater, and electric utilities serving
26 the principal structure
27 • All applicable state and local approvals and permits shall be acquired
28
29 Proposed Amendments
30 Standards of Evaluation
31 • Approval of the application shall not exceed one year and require annual renewal
32 • Must be removed 60 days after the mentally or physically impaired person is no
33 longer receiving care or is in a need of assistance
34 • Caregiver shall allow inspections of the property by the County
35
36
37 Public Notification
38 • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
39 o Newspaper legal ads for two successive weeks
40
41 Joint Planning Area Partners
42 • Proposed amendments provided on January 14, 2015
43 o No comments have been received
44
45 Recommendation
46 The Planning Director recommends the Board:
47 • Receive the proposed amendments to the UDO as detailed in this abstract and
48 attachments.
4
1 • Conduct the public hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board
2 comment on the proposed amendments.
3 • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
4 returned to the BOCC in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting.
5 • Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and
6 accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written
7 comments.
8
9 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the building of a THCS is permissible, only if the
10 recipient of the care is related to the landowner.
11 Ashley Moncado said that is correct.
12 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the THCS must be removed from the property, once the
13 relative improves or moves on to a different living situation.
14 Ashley Moncado said currently only one company makes this type of THCS, and they
15 are built to be temporary. She said the THCS are built out of Virginia, where there are almost
16 the same state regulations as North Carolina. She said the TCHS cost about $100,000, and
17 there is no restriction on the word "temporary," so it could be on a property long term.
18 Commissioner Rich asked if the TCHS remains on a property for many years, must it
19 always be inhabited by the ailing relative.
20 Ashley Moncado said yes.
21 Commissioner Rich asked if there appears to be a need for the TCHS in Orange County.
22 Ashley Moncado she said no one has gone through the process to be permitted, but
23 there have been inquiries.
24 Commissioner Price asked if a domestic partner would fall under the category of relative,
25 and be able to reside in a TCHS.
26 Ashley said that would apply for the family relationship.
27 Commissioner Price asked for clarification regarding how water and sewer would work.
28 Ashley said the applicant would have to go through Environmental Health to make sure
29 that their present system has the capacity to accommodate this usage.
30 Commissioner Price asked if this would also pertain to the Rural Buffer, and would
31 Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA) be involved.
32 Ashley said yes, but properties in the rural buffer on mostly well and septic systems.
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the
35 Board: To refer the matter to the Planning Board, with a request that a recommendation be
36 returned to the BOCC in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting.
37
38 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin)
39 Motion Passes
40
41 Commissioner Dorosin said he likes the idea of the THCS, but he would like for the
42 Board to consider amending the UDO, making such structures more accessible and the
43 regulations less onerous.
44 Commissioner Pelissier said the BOCC could direct the Planning Board to deliberate on
45 this issue, and to consider other options before returning to the Board of County Commissioners
46 with their recommendation.
47
48 A motion was made by Commissioner Price seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
49 adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning
50 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
5
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 1. Application for a Class A Special Use Permit—To review and receive sworn testimony on
5 a Special Use Permit application seeking approval of a school redevelopment/master plan
6 for Emerson Waldorf School's existing facility located at 6211 New Jericho Road within the
7 Chapel Hill Township.
8
9 THIS ITEM IS VERBATIM.
10
11 Planning Board Chair Pete Hallenbeck opened the public hearing, and introduced this
12 item.
13
14 Pete Hallenbeck: We are going to open up the public hearing for an Application for a Class A
15 Special Use Permit for the Emerson Waldorf School. I'll turn it over to Michael Harvey, and we'll
16 be bringing up the people who will be providing testimony so they can be sworn in.
17
18 Michael Harvey: Yes Sir. Michael Harvey, Orange County Current Planning Division. At this
19 time, I'd like to ask any individual who is going to be offering sworn testimony, or evidence, with
20 respect to the Emerson Waldorf Class A Special Use Permit to please come forward, so they
21 can be sworn in by the Deputy Clerk.
22
23 Those who were planning to speak were sworn in.
24
25 Michael Harvey: Again, Michael Harvey, and I have been sworn. As the Chair has already
26 pointed out we are here to review a Class A Special Use Permit for the Emerson Waldorf
27 School. You will note from your packet of information the School actually is on five separate
28 parcels of property, totaling 54 acres in area. Or 55 acres in area, excuse me. These parcels
29 are all zoned rural buffer, and are located within the rural buffer land use category as
30 designated in the future land use map in the Comprehensive Plan. The property is also located
31 within the rural buffer rural residential area, as defined within the Joint Planning Land Use Plan.
32
33 As the Chair has already alluded to, this is a Class A Special Use Permit and is held in a quasi-
34 judicial format. Meaning those parties for and against the application have to provide sworn
35 testimony, as well as competent material and substantial evidence on the merits of the proposal.
36 The Applicant ultimately, by our Unified Development Ordinance, has the burden of
37 demonstrating this project complies with the provisions of the UDO. Anyone opposing the
38 application is required to demonstrate, also through sworn testimony and competent material
39 and evidence, how it doesn't comply and how the Applicant has failed to meet their burden. As
40 has already been alluded to, hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony
41 and are not admissible. If the applicant proves compliance with the Unified Development
42 Ordinance, and there is no evidence in the record that the project does not, then we have an
43 obligation to issue the permit. So with that brief synopsis, what I would like to do is turn this
44 over to Mr. Patrick Mallet of my staff, and the Applicant, to present the actual components of the
45 application package. Thank you.
46
47 Patrick Mallet: Good Evening Commissioners. I'm Pat Mallet, and I've been duly sworn. I'm
48 going to be fairly brief with my part of the presentation, because my understanding is that
49 Emerson Waldorf has a presentation that they would like to make. So, for the sake of
50 redundancy, I'll go quickly. The School was formed in 1984. That predates our requirements
51 under the section 5.8 of the UDO, to require a Class A Special Use Permit. And basically, the
6
1 way that the UDO is structured is any expansion of the School would treat it as if it was a new
2 Class A Special Use Permit application. So that's why we're here tonight. Reviewing the case
3 and the essence of, basically, the better part of a year's worth of work, has been the School's
4 effort to develop a Master Plan, get all of their envisions — expansions for the next ten, fifteen,
5 twenty years approved in one fell swoop, so they can not have to come back to you each and
6 every time they do a building.
7
8 Patrick Mallet reviewed the following PowerPoint slides:
9
10 MAY 26, 2015
11 AGENDA ITEM: C-1
12 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
13 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
14 DEVELOPMENT/RE-DEVELOPMENT
15 OF THE EMERSON WALDORF SCHOOL
16
17
18
19 PROPERTY INFORMATION
20 • PI N(s): 9871- 64-7391; 9871-64-5632; 9871-65-8140; 9871-74-3098; and 9871-72-
21 1935.
22 • Size: Approximately 55.27 acres total (total).
23 • Zoning : Rural Buffer (RB).
24 • Future Land Use Map Designation: Rural Buffer.
25 • Growth Management System Designation: Rural.
26 • Joint Land Use Plan Designation: Rural Buffer— Rural Residential Area.
27
28 REQUIRED REVIEW
29 Project involves the review of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of
30 Section 2.7 of the UDO.
31 • Held in a quasi-judicial format meaning all parties, for and against the application,
32 provide sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence on the
33 merits of the proposal.
34 • Applicant has burden of demonstrating project complies with the provisions of the UDO.
35
36 REQUIRED REVIEW
37 • Anyone opposing the application is required to demonstrate through sworn testimony as
38 well as competent material and substantial evidence that the project does not comply
39 with the provisions of the Ordinance.
40 • Hearsay or unsubstantiated opinions are not sufficient testimony.
41 • If applicant proves compliance with applicable standards, and there is no evidence in the
42 record the project does not comply, the permit must be issued.
43
44 BACKGROUND
45 • School opened in 1984 prior to establishment of Orange County's school development
46 standards (i.e. Sec 5.8.4 of UDO), and requirement for a Class A SUP for Schools,
47 • Nature of request requires Staff review the request as if it were a new Class A SUP
48 application (Sec 8.6 of UDO).
7
1 — STAFF NOTE: proposal does not alter operational parameters of the school in a
2 manner making it inconsistent with current regulations.
3
4 PROPOSAL
5 • Develop new classroom(s), gymnasium, administrative office building, and performing
6 arts center,
7 • Develop additional recreational fields (i.e. multi-purpose field.) on property south of
8 Millhouse Road,
9 • Additions to existing buildings (i.e. classroom and administrative),
10 • Expansion of parking and drop-off areas,
11 • Modify/update infrastructure (i.e. stormwater, septic, and well water distribution, etc.),
12 • New internal pathways.
13
14 SITE PLAN (PHOTO)
15
16 SITE PLAN (PHOTO)
17
18 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM)
19 • 2 NIMs were held on January 8 and April 10, 2015,
20 • No member of the general public attended January 8, 2015 meeting,
21 • During April 10, 2015 meeting an adjacent property owner expressed concern over
22 athletic field lights. The applicant informed this individual that no such lights were
23 proposed.
24 • No other comments have been received.
25
26 Site Photographs- Existing Facilities
27
28 Site Photographs- Existing Facilities
29
30 Site Photographs- Millhouse RD & New New Jericho RD
31
32 REVIEW PROCESS
33 • Step One: Review of application at a joint Quarterly Public Hearing by BOCC and
34 Planning Board. BOCC adjourns the public hearing to a date/time certain to receive the
35 Planning Board recommendation.
36 • Step Two: Review of application by Planning Board who make a recommendation on
37 the application based on the evidence and testimony offered into evidence during the
38 public hearing.
39 — STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board will begin the review of this item at
40 their July 1, 2015 regular meetings, which convene at 7:00 p.m. in the lower
41 level conference room of the West Campus Office Building at 131 West
42 Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough.
43 • Step Three: BOCC reconvenes public hearing to receive Planning Board
44 recommendation. No additional public comment/testimony is accepted...
45 • BOCC takes action on the proposal.
46
47 STAFF INITIAL REVIEW
48 • Applicant has submitted documentation required for the review of the project.
8
1 • Applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e.
2 required by Section 2.7.3).
3 • There are goals/objectives/policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to
4 the viability of the proposal.
5
6 RECOMMENDATION
7 1. Receive the application,
8 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept sworn testimony and evidence.
9 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
10 returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the October 6, 2015 BOCC
11 regular meeting.
12 4. Adjourn the public hearing until October 6, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
13 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
14
15
16 Patrick Mallet: And with that I have Charlie Viles, who is going to walk through the different
17 elements of the school, and give you an overview.
18
19 Pete Hallenbeck: Do the Commissioners have any questions at this point? Or are we going to
20 wait until we hear from the applicant?
21
22 The Commissioners had no questions or comments.
23
24 Peter Hallenbeck: Alright. Go ahead, Sir.
25
26 Charlie Viles: My name is Charles Viles. I am duly sworn. My connection with the School is—
27 I've been on the School's — Chairman of the School's Camus Planning Committee for the last
28 six years. I was on the School's board from 2007 to 2014 and was Board President for two of
29 those years. I've also been a parent at the School for fifteen years. I want to quickly introduce
30 the other folks that may come up here to speak. Rebecca Rogers who is the School's treasurer,
31 a member of the Board, and also a practicing attorney, if there is a need for cross examination
32 and things like that, then she would serve in that capacity. Chad Abbott is the Consultant that
33 we've hired with Summit Engineering. He's a practicing Engineer and he will — anyway, a little
34 technology issue there —he will address the technical details of the application. And then we
35 also enlisted Vick Knight, who is an appraiser, and if needs to get up and speak about the
36 property value, the maintenance of the property values, or the proposal, then he's ready to do
37 that as well. Although, if that's not required, we won't do that.
38
39 So, my job here is really to provide a bit of a human face. I'm the expert for the School. 1
40 understand what the School is about. And to provide you a picture of what goes on at the
41 School, and so you can better get a feel for what we're trying to accomplish. Waldorf Education
42 is a style of education that has been around for about a hundred years.
43
44 Charlie Viles presented the following PowerPoint slides:
45
46 Application for Class A Special Use Permit
47 Orange County Board of County Commissioners
48 May 26, 2015 Emerson Waldorf School
49
50 Presentation Overview
9
1 Introductions
2 School Overview, History, and Planning
3 — Charles Viles — Emerson Waldorf School
4 Technical Highlights of Application
5 — Chad Abbott— Summit Engineering
6
7 Waldorf Education
8 • Early 1900s in Germany.
9 • 1,000 schools world-wide.
10 • US ~150 schools.
11 • NC — 1 EWS!!
12
13 Facets of Waldorf Education
14 • Arts focused.
15 • Curriculum delivery based on stage of child dev.
16 • Connection to the natural world.
17 • Student-created texts "Main Lesson Book"
18 • Minimal traditional media.
19 • "Grades" teacher
20 • Low testing burden
21 • Multi-sensory education
22
23 Emerson Waldorf School
24 • Founded 1984.
25 • Current site -1987.
26 • 55 acres.
27 • 260 students PK-12.
28 • 80% Orange County residents.
29
30 EWS- Internal Planning Process
31 2020 Strategic Goal — "World Class!"
32 • Attract and retain committed teachers.
33 • Grow enrollment— 300+ students
34 • Conscious growth of physical campus to support curricular goals, improved safety.
35
36 The External Planning Process
37 Campus Master Plan Highlights
38 • Grow 259 --* 350 students.
39 • New buildings to support curriculum.
40 • Re-engineered parking, traffic flow to provide improved safety, accessibility, and
41 coherence.
42 • Develop with environmental ethic- "Walk our Talk"
43
44 Supporting Evidence
45 • Biological Inventory— Catena Group
46 • Tree and Forest Survey— NC Dept of Forestry
47 • Property Value Assessment— Everett V. Knight
10
1 • Traffic Management Plan — NCDOT/Summit
2 • Traffic Impact Analysis — SEPI
3 • Comments — DEAPR, Solid Waste, Stormwater, Fire, NCDOT, Town of CH, Health
4 Dept.
5
6 General Standards - 5.3.2(A)(2)
7
Standard Support
Maintain Public Health. Physical plan, NCDOT recommendations, comments from
Fire, Solid Waste, OC Health.
Maintain Property Value. Market and impact analysis, existing use as school, physical
plan.
Harmony of existing area and Physical plan, Biological Inventory, tree survey, existing use
comprehensive plan. as school, comments from Parks
8
9 Charlie Viles: And, I think I'm going stop there. And, I'll turn it over to Chad.
10
11 Chair McKee: And before you start, I might note for our Board members, that we have extra
12 paper copies of the plats, if you find that this is hard to read.
13
14 Chad Abbot: Good evening. My name is Chad Abbott. I have been duly sworn.
15 Commissioners, I'd like to thank you for your time tonight. And I hope by the end of this you will
16 see that we have done our best to meet the findings of facts and address the items that are
17 required for the Special Use Permit Class A in Orange County. I am a licensed engineer in the
18 State of North Carolina. License number: 036242. I attended NC State, graduated 2005 with a
19 Bachelors of Science in Civil Engineering and Construction Engineering, with management
20 concentration. I'm employed at Summit Design and Engineering, here in Hillsborough. We
21 have been representing the Emerson Waldorf School in this application, to provide planning
22 assistance and help bring their master plan and goal and vision to the County.
23
24 So, we have been working several months now, probably near a year, trying to get this master
25 plan such that it was complete, and could appear before you guys. The biggest challenge was
26 addressing one of the findings of fact, which was the public health safety and welfare, which
27 was on the DOT (NC Department of Transportation) side of things. Addressing the congestion
28 and traffic items and concerns that DOT had, as well as MSTA, when we submitted our master
29 plan submittal. We have satisfied those comments and, per your packets, in the staff reports,
30 and I know that they do a thorough staff report, and I'd like to thank the staff for their work over
31 the past year in helping us meet all these standards of evaluations, and explain those to the
32 details, so we could adequately address those.
33
34 We presented all the environmental findings, the tree inventories. You will see all — and I know
35 that you have a lot on your agenda tonight, so I don't know that I need to go through each one
36 of those in detail. If you do need me to, then I can answer questions later. But, in short, I would
11
1 like to, first and foremost, really just address the findings of fact. They may be listed in your
2 packets on a certain page. I know your packets are pretty full. But on our narrative, they were
3 on the second page of our narrative. In number one, there was the Public Health Safety and
4 Welfare. We are proposing a school, there's nothing dangerous about the use as a school.
5 You know some may say, "well you're going to bring a school into a community." Sometimes if
6 it's a new use, you may worry about crime and children's safety, etc. The fact that the School
7 has been there since '87 1 think speaks to the fact that the use as a school on this property is
8 not a concern, or it's not an adverse impact, so the Public Health Safety and Welfare of the
9 general public surrounding. Like I said, the DOT comments and concerns were the biggest item
10 to address, which we have done. And you should see their approval. I think in the email they
11 have said they are okay with us to proceed on to a more detailed site plan level.
12
13 The next finding of fact was that the "use would maintain, or enhance, the value of contiguous
14 properties." I will let Mr. Vick Knight speak to that effect. I would say our thought all along, as
15 we developed this master plan, was we definitely didn't want to get to this point and say, well
16 somebody say, "it's going to affect my property in an adverse way." But our thinking the whole
17 time, and our justification would be that I'm sure several houses in that area have sold since the
18 use of the property in '87, and there's nothing new. It's just an expansion of an existing use. So
19 it's not a new use on a new site, but an existing use.
20
21 Lastly, "that the location and character of the use if developed as approved, or submitted, would
22 be in harmony with the area in which it's to be located." I would say that and you know, again —
23 the fact that it's an existing school, and it's been used as that since —going on thirty years now
24 —would speak to the fact that it's in harmony with the area. And per Mr. Viles presentation,
25 you'll see that they try to blend in with their existing environment, with the master planning and
26 with the previous development. With the way the School is formatted and just go in and blanket
27 grade the whole site or masquerade the whole site. It's a right steep topography in that area,
28 and they went in and just blended with the environment, just like their surrounding residential
29 homes and subdivisions that are in there. Like I said, we have also spoken to the specific
30 standards of evaluation, and I'd be happy, at the conclusion, to address any questions you may
31 have regarding that. Usually schools are somewhat challenging sometimes, when you go into
32 an area but the fact that this is an existing use helps cover a lot of that ground, in my opinion.
33
34 So, with that said, I did have the map shown and along with several other colored versions
35 along with the traffic plan, since your prints are not in color, and because of the legibility, may be
36 diminished. Should you have questions, I can scroll to those, and I would additionally like for
37 these PDF versions of this to be entered into the record, as well as everything else we've
38 submitted in the staff's packet.
39
40 Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions from the Board members, for the applicant? Yes.
41
42 Commissioner Dorosin: Other than the colors on these, is there anything different than what
43 we've already got?
44
45 Chad Abbott: No, Sir. We thought it best to— and in case some of the public had questions of
46 what's new, what's not. So on —what the screen you have before you, the red buildings are the
47 new buildings. We put a legend on the side of the plans for you guys to see what was
48 proposed. They're labeled P buildings, E is for existing. And this is just a colored version of
49 what you had to help with the Public and anybody else that had any questions.
50
12
1 Commissioner Rich: I don't know if this question is for you or for our staff. How come the
2 septic system is reviewed by the State as opposed to Orange County?
3
4 Chad Abbott: It is because the system at this site —and we designed these as well — I don't
5 know that we designed this system, but the system at this site, there was no conventional septic
6 field big enough for the uses on this site when it was built as a school. So therefore, they took
7 in the State—that is by Orange County deferred to the State, for design and approval by a
8 consultant and the State approves an Alternate Septic System, is what it's called. And it's an
9 alternate septic system. It's not your conventional septic tank with drain lines. It's a spray field.
10
11 Commissioner Rich: Follow up? So as you get more students in here, and you're building
12 more and more, it says that you're going to need to have additional septic field capacity?
13
14 Chad Abbott: Possibly, yes.
15
16 Commissioner Rich: Do you have room to have the additional capacity for the septic fields?
17
18 Chad Abbott: The way that would work would be an additional design. You know, the reason
19 for these alternative systems is that you don't have soil that perks, in the first place. And so
20 there's —you can look at the campus- there is abundant room to design an alternate system,
21 such that it can be—the discharge of those systems, or the spray, or the drip of those systems
22 is, is predicated by the infiltration rate of the soil. So whatever—there is abundant land, in
23 whichever section, if needed to add on to the existing system, you know would just be, the
24 design would be per that section of land. It's not a matter of it could be designed, it can be. It's
25 just whether or not— if it doesn't perk, you know it just requires a little bit more area, which
26 there's abundant area on the site. If one of the buildings shown creates a volume of waste
27 water that can't be treated on site, then obviously they'd just wouldn't be able to build that
28 building.
29
30 Commissioner Rich: And is that also regulated by the State, as you grow? So you would
31 have to get the State to approve that?
32
33 Chad Abbott: I think, I think, yes, I think the building permits with the County somehow through
34 this approval — I'm not going to speak for them —but would be tracked. The occupancy of each
35 building —which then, you know—the waste water flow is based on number of students. So as
36 those students grow, obviously it'll hit a trigger, for which the old septic system is now
37 insufficient, and would require a new design, or upgrade.
38
39 Patrick Mallet: I'll just add to that. So, this is the master planner conceptual part of the
40 process. So we're looking at things in what I would call a cartoon fashion. After that point, they
41 continue to refine, and there's not a necessary sequence in terms of the building, so they can't
42 really define their septic field. But, yes, when they would go and submit for any one of the
43 buildings, they would have to submit site plans for that building or buildings and then part of the
44 check off process would be to insure that there's enough capacity, and if not, they would have to
45 expand the field. The other thing that I would note is that the area that they are currently using
46 is — it's probably not even a third of the area south of Millhouse. They have a large
47 undeveloped, or underdeveloped, portion of property on the south side of Millhouse.
48
49 Commissioner Rich: Thank you. I mean I guess my biggest concern is that the State is
50 approving it, and I just want to make sure that we're also keeping track of it. I'm sure you all
13
1 are. I just want to make sure that Orange County is making sure that it's a clean system as
2 well.
3
4 Chad Abbott: Orange County would, in essence, approve the site plan that allows the building
5 to be built, however, they wouldn't provide that approval until the —we have provided them
6 documentation the State has approved the septic system, which has been my experience in the
7 past.
8
9 Michael Harvey: Michael Harvey again. Let me just say, historically, especially with Carolina
10 Friends School, that went through a similar process several years ago. When we accept site
11 plans for review, they also get submitted to Orange County Health Department, and Orange
12 County Health Department's copied on all correspondence with the State. The State has an
13 obligation to keep Orange County informed of what's essentially going on with that system. We
14 then get copied on those approvals. We don't issue zoning compliance permit to allow
15 construction until we've received in hand the State's approval of any septic expansion.
16
17 Commissioner Rich: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.
18
19 Commissioner Price: With regards to the safety and accessibility, it's hard to see the entire —
20 details of the property on this map. But are there areas along — I guess it's Jericho— New
21 Jericho Road that the School owns, and will there be walkways along there? I know the
22 abstract talks about internal walkways, but I also know, having come through there a couple of
23 times—you know, there are like outdoor classes —and you know, I have to make way for the
24 class coming down the road. So—which is a good thing — but I'm just thinking —you know, with
25 an increase in students it means more cars coming, and the road becoming more popular and
26 does the School own any of the—you know, enough of the frontage on Jericho Road, where
27 they'd be putting in any walkways there?
28
29 Chad Abbott: I mean 1, the School can correct me at any point, and I don't want to speak
30 where I shouldn't, but based my experience with schools, and the design of schools, they would
31 want to keep the walkways away from the road. So their goal is to plan for internal circulation to
32 keep the kids on site, away from the streets. By the DOT Right of Way— if you would look at
33 the screen —the very southern most entrance there. The DOT Right of Way stops just north of
34 there. You can see the dashed lines and the site triangles. And where that site triangle ends, 1
35 can see it being here...
36
37 Commissioner Price: Do you have a pointer?
38
39 Chad Abbott: Let me zoom in for you. So the DOT Right of Way ends about right here. The
40 rest of that is a private easement. It's a private right of way.
41
42 Commissioner Price: Owned by whom?
43
44 Chad Abbott: By which —typically— DOT or the County, in my experience has not required
45 sidewalks in the County either. But you know, unless we were connected to another sidewalk, 1
46 really think that the School probably would be best just to try to keep the walkways onsite, so
47 that they don't bring children down near the right of way, or increase the potential that some
48 children may wander up sidewalks, along the right of way.
49
50 Commissioner Price: Well that's what I was talking about. I think that there — I may be wrong,
51 it may be— have been another group of children. But I was over in the area, and I know that
14
1 there was a group, a chaperoned group of people walking along the road. And I know that the
2 County, we don't do roads. I was just wondering if that property—that you're saying is north of
3 the right of way— is owned by the School, whether they were going, whether they would
4 incorporate that into the master plan to have walkways so that their not on the road when
5 they're out doing field trips.
6
7 Chad Abbott: And like I said, I can speak to the school
8
9 Commissioner Price: I think someone behind you would like to speak.
10
11 Chad Abott: They may want to speak about the details of why that occurred. It may have been
12 something to do with the existing parking situation or congestion, which we've done everything
13 to move that off of the right of way. But I'll let Charlie speak.
14
15 Charlie Viles: Do I need to say I'm still sworn?
16
17 Chair McKee: Please come as close to mic as is comfortable, so it picks up.
18
19 Charlie Viles: So should not be anybody walking in the road there. And if there were— and it
20 were our students - they shouldn't have been there. We don't have any plans to put in
21 sidewalks next to New Jericho, for example.
22
23 Commissioner Price: Okay
24
25 Charlie Viles: There's one kind of spot that we're concerned about, which is where they cross
26 over Millhouse Road to go to the playing fields. And they cross right now at a— and we've
27 actually been out there with the traffic engineer, Chuck Edwards, to talk about that. And he's
28 told us, and we're willing to work with him to figure out how to make that as safe as possible.
29 But currently, the only time that people —the only place that people would be crossing
30 Millhouse, would be to go over to the playing fields, or to the garden at that one crossing point
31 there at the curve — right there where Spence's Farm is.
32
33 Commissioner Price: Okay, I stand corrected. It was on Millhouse Road.
34
35 Charlie Viles: Okay. Yes and they should not—and if they're there then that freaks us out just
36 as much as it does you.
37
38 Commissioner Price: As it does me. Okay, thank you.
39
40 Charlie Viles: Okay.
41
42 Pete Hallenbeck: Any other questions from the Board of Commissioners? Are there any
43 questions from the Planning Board members? We don't show anyone who is signed up to
44 speak on this. Is there anyone of the public that would like to speak on this? Alright, I'll turn it
45 back over to Commissioner McKee.
46
47 Chair McKee: We have the recommendations to receive the application, conduct the public
48 hearing, and then the two actions to refer the matter to the Planning Board, with a request that a
49 recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the October 6,
50 2015 BOCC regular meeting.
51
15
1 Michael Harvey: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt please. I'm sorry. Before there's a motion on
2 sending this forward, I have a house cleaning item I'd like the Board to take care of for me. As
3 this is a quasi-judicial item, it's based on sworn testimony and evidence, and while Mr. Abbott
4 made a request that items be entered into the record, the Board ought to acknowledge what has
5 been entered into the record as part of this application. So if you will indulge me for a moment.
6 What you have is an almost 230 page abstract packet, that includes the Special Use Permit
7 application, a narrative beginning on page 12, a biological inventory beginning on page 20, a
8 tree survey beginning on page 46, a market impact analysis, beginning on page 79, a traffic
9 impact analysis, beginning on page 115, an initial staff review of the project and the Applicants
10 response, beginning on page 131, you also have a very detailed site plan in this application
11 packet. You have a property and vicinity map, prepared by staff, a staff review comments on
12 this particular item, an Orange County Health Department, Fire Marshal's Office, etc., the
13 Neighborhood Information Meeting comments, and letters that have gone out; last but not least,
14 notification materials for the Public Hearing. I ask that there be a vote, or an acknowledgement
15 by the County Commissioners, that this packet, as submitted, is entered into the record.
16
17 Commissioner Price: So moved.
18
19 Chair McKee: We've got a motion.
20
21 Commissioner Rich: Second.
22
23 Chair McKee: And a second. All...
24
25 Commissioner Rich: Question.
26
27 Chair McKee: Yes.
28
29 Commissioner Rich: Is, Mr. Harvey, is this map in the packet as well? Is that considered the
30 same as our large map?
31
32 Michael Harvey: That's what Mr. Abbott actually entered, so it would be both.
33
34 Commissioner Rich: It's both. Okay.
35
36 Michael Harvey: Yes.
37
38 Commissioner Rich: Thank you.
39
40 Commissioner Price: Chair, I have some questions, I'm sorry. Just for clarification — and 1
41 may be misreading this — but on one page you say that this has been operating —the School's
42 been operating as a defacto Class A, and on another page it says Class B Special Use Permit.
43
44 Michael Harvey: Well that's unfortunately a staff error, and I'm sorry for the confusion.
45
46 Commissioner Price: Okay.
47
48 Michael Harvey: This School actually began in 1984 before the County had adopted
49 comprehensive regulations governing development of schools, or the requirement that this be
50 reviewed as a Class A Special Use Permit. Per Article 8.6 of the UDO, it's actually considered
51 to have a defacto Special Use Permit, making it a legal land use. It's not non-conforming. It's
16
1 viewed to be a legal use of property. But as they're modifying the project, they have to go back
2 through this process. So I apologize for the confusion. That's my error.
3
4 Commissioner Price: So it will be— it's been operating as a Class B, but will be a Class A.
5
6 Michael Harvey: No, it's a Class A Special Use Permit. I think the confusion is, there is a
7 daycare facility operating on the property, that is not connected with this application project, that
8 is operating under previously issued Class B Special Use Permit.
9
10 Commissioner Price: Oh, okay. Got it. And one other question —or just a minor
11 housekeeping thing, I guess. On page 4—a staff comment about the roadways says, "it will not
12 be unnecessary to support the project" — right at the very bottom.
13
14 Commissioner Price: Oh, you've got it too. Okay.
15
16 Michael Harvey: Yes, it will not be external roadway improvements required to support the
17 project, ie: New Jericho will not have to be widened, no turn lane will have to be installed, and
18 no work will have to be done to Millhouse Road.
19
20 Michael Harvey: They'll be unnecessary.
21
22 Commissioner Price: Be unnecessary. Okay.
23
24 Chair McKee: We've got a motion, and a second on the floor. Any other questions on that.
25 Got a motion, and second on the floor to accept all relevant, submitted documents as Mr.
26 Harvey outlined. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Passes unanimously.
27
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 Chair McKee: Now we go to the recommendations to refer the matter to the Planning Board
31 with a request that a recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in
32 time for the October 6, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. Do I hear a motion?
33
34 Commissioner Rich: So moved.
35
36 Commissioner Burroughs: Second.
37
38 Chair McKee: It's moved and seconded. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Passes
39 unanimously.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 Chair McKee: And then, I need a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing until October 6, 2015
44 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written
45 comments.
46
47 Commissioner Rich: So moved.
48
49 Commissioner Burroughs: Second.
50
17
1 Chair McKee: Got a motion, and a second. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Motion
2 passes, unanimously. Thank you. Thank you all.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Commissioner Dorosin: You know, there was just an episode of The Simpsons that featured
7 a Waldorf School. Just two weeks ago. Yes, they turned Springfield Elementary into Springfield
8 Waldorf School. So you should watch that— it's hilarious— serendipitous.
9
10
11 2. Zoning Atlas Amendment (Conditional Zoning District) —To review an application
12 requesting the rezoning of 112 acres of property from Rural Residential (R-1), Upper Eno
13 Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District to Master Planned Development
14 Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ), Upper Eno Protected Watershed Protection Overlay District
15 in order to allow for the development of Hart's Mill Village within the Cheeks Township.
16
17 Pete Hallenbeck, introduced Michael Harvey, who presented the following PowerPoint
18 slides:
19
20 MAY 26, 2015
21 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
22 AGENDA ITEM:C-2
23 CONDITIONAL ZONING ATLAS AMENDMENT AND SITE PLAN
24 HART'S MILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
25
26 PROJECT INFORMATION
27 PIN: 9835-74-8573
28 Size : 112 acres
29 Zoning: Rural Residential (R-1), Upper Eno Protected Watershed Overlay, Special Flood
30 Hazard Area (SFHA) Overlay
31 Future Land Use Map Designation: 20 Year Transition
32 Growth Management System Designation: Urban
33
34 CONDITIONAL ZONING PROCESS
35 • Applications are processed in a legislative manner (i.e. does not require sworn testimony
36 or evidence).
37 • are based on determination project is consistent with the purpose/intent of the Decisions
38 Comprehensive Plan.
39 • Mutually agreed upon conditions can be imposed if they address:
40 — The compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding property,
41 — Proposed support facilities (i.e. roadways and access points, parking, screening
42 and buffer areas, etc.) and/or
43 — All other matters the County may find appropriate or the petitioner may propose.
44
45 REQUEST
46 • Rezone 112 acres of the property to:
47 Master Planned Development— Conditional Zoning (MPD-CZ)
48 in support of a proposed new residential development and farm.
49 • Application package includes required site plan.
50 • Narrative contains synopsis of suggested zoning regulations.
18
1
2 PROPOSAL
3 Construction of 34 residences on approximately 22 acres of the 112 acre property,
4 — Walkable design with limited traffic access points. Parking of private vehicles will
5 not be allowed near proposed houses.
6 — Access road around residences designed for emergency vehicle access (i.e. fire,
7 EMS, etc.).
8 Maintaining of existing farm (i.e. crop and animal pasture) operations maintained by
9 community residents,
10 Preservation of existing forest and woodlands along eastern property line.
11 • A common house/shared community facility shall be built,
12 • Applicant proposing a 100 foot residential building setback around perimeter of property
13 as well as a Type A 20 ft. wide land use buffer,
14 • Central septic system proposed to support project (take up approximately 5.5 acres of
15 property),
16 • 6 inch water line shall supply water,
17 — Water line maintained by Orange Alamance Water System via an existing 6 inch
18 line in Frazier Road.
19 — Hydrants are also proposed in an around the residential area of the project.
20
21 Site Plan - Rendering
22
23 SITE PLAN — Residential Area
24
25 SITE PLAN — Septic Area
26
27 SITE PLAN — Housing Types
28
29 STAFF COMMENTS
30 • Proposal is consistent with existing Land Use Category designation and the MPD-CZ
31 zoning district,
32 • Proposed density of 1 dwelling unit for every 3 acres of land exceeds current allowances
33 (i.e. 1 unit for every 40,000 sq. ft.),
34 • Project is consistent with existing development trends in the area,
35 • Staff is encouraged about the total amount of open space/farm area preserved as part of
36 the project.
37 • Additional information is necessary on the proposed water line to verify it will be
38 adequate for development as well as for use during emergencies (i.e. house fire).
39 — Staff has been informed by the Efland Volunteer Fire Department they have
40 equipment to address pressure problems and believe the proposed water line is
41 adequate.
42 • Stormwater and erosion control permits will have to be issued for the project, if approved
43 by BOCC.
44 • Staff has requested additional landscape plans denoting planting of foliage in and
45 around the proposed houses.
46 • Staff has informed the applicant the solar array denoted on the site plan can only be
47 viewed for illustrative purposes. Development of said facility will have to comply with
48 Class B Special Use Permit process detailed within UDO.
49
50 RECOMMENDATION
19
1 1. Receive the application,
2 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board, and BOCC sworn
3 testimony,
4 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
5 returned in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting, and
6 4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive the Planning
7 Board's recommendation, and any submitted written comments.
8
9 Commissioner Pelissier asked if Orange County would approve the alternative to the
10 traditional septic, or would the State need to give approval.
11
12 Michael Harvey said an email written by Alan Clapp, of Orange County Environmental
13 Health, states that it would be reviewed jointly by the State and the County. However,
14 depending on the nature of the system, it may defer to a total State approval. He added that if
15 this were the case, the County would receive notification from the State that the septic system
16 had been approved before any further development would be allowed.
17
18 Commissioner Rich asked if any of the 32 properties will go in to the Community Home
19 Trust for affordable housing.
20
21 Michael Harvey said probably not, but recommended asking the Applicant. He added
22 that he finds the metrics and economics of this project to be different than most, considering it
23 will be based on a condominium ownership model. He said he believes that houses will be
24 more affordable than most housing in the area. He added that it was not required of the
25 Applicant to designate properties to the Trust.
26
27 Commissioner Rich asked if there are conditions when it is required.
28
29 Michael Harvey said in accordance with section 6.1.18 of the UDO, there is a process
30 where a developer can request density bonuses. He reminded the Board that there is language
31 within the regulations that prohibits density bonuses being awarded for affordable housing in
32 watershed protection overlay districts, in which this project is.
33
34 Commissioner Price asked if there would need to be additional screenings between
35 homes as there is only 10 feet in between. She added as this is one big property, perhaps
36 additional screenings may not apply.
37
38 Michael Harvey said Commissioner Price is partially correct. He added that a home
39 occupation would have to be applied for, in accordance with the applicable standards as they
40 are relayed in the UDO. He said if additional screenings are required the owner will have to
41 abide by the UDO. He said this problem is not anticipated.
42
43 Commissioner Price said as this is one big property and has no property lines, there is
44 nowhere from which to measure the 10 feet between the two houses.
45
46 Michael Harvey said although there are no property lines, there will be a defined
47 ownership area. He said this will not meet the technical definition of a property line, per the
48 UDO, but additional landscaping may be required to comply with code.
49
50 Commissioner Price said she liked the project and would not want to see it stumble
51 based on technicalities.
20
1 Michael Harvey said the Applicant has methodically worked through the majority of
2 concerns, as they have arisen.
3
4 Commissioner Rich referred to page 15 where two small group homes, with three to five
5 private suites, are mentioned. She asked if this scenario would fall under the ordinance of
6 unrelated people living together or some other category.
7
8 Michael Harvey said he believed it will fall in a category of a different situation. He
9 added that in the review of this narrative, this arrangement has not been viewed as a potential
10 problem.
11
12 Commissioner Rich asked if it will open a can of worms down the road.
13
14 Michael Harvey said not in his opinion, based on what he knows today. He added that
15 the question can be raised with the Applicant, and answered more fully for the BOCC. He said
16 the BOCC is approving a new zoning district with this project. He said this zoning district can
17 specify individual components as to how the development operation of this project will go in
18 perpetuity.
19
20 Chair McKee said this project is effectively a condominium and asked if approval of this
21 unique project would place it by default in the Orange County UDO.
22
23 Michael Harvey said no. He said the Master Plan Development Conditional Zoning is
24 handled on a case by case basis, where an applicant must submit a proposal to the BOCC. He
25 said this project does not set a precedent unless an applicant wanted to go through the very
26 same process as Hart's Mill. He added that this is a unique opportunity to approve a project
27 that accomplishes a lot of Orange County's goals with respect to the environment and
28 affordable housing. He said this type of project is only possible in the urbanizing areas of the
29 County.
30
31 Chair McKee asked if a developer should come forward with this model, would they have
32 to go through the same process as this one.
33
34 Michael Harvey said that is correct.
35
36 Lydia Wegman asked for an explanation as to why this project would be a Class B
37 Special Use Permit.
38
39 Michael Harvey said it is based on mega-wattage. Anything over 20,000 and fewer than
40 100,000 megawatts is a Class B Special Use permit.
41
42 Paul Guthrie said he ran all the aerial photographs of the property since 1955. He said it
43 is clear that the area surrounding this property has boomed with development since that time.
44 He asked if this new form of organization would be able to make internal changes without
45 having to return to the County every time.
46
47 Michael Harvey said any changes would require a return to the BOCC. He said there is
48 no room to deviate from the mutually agreed upon set of conditions created by the applicant and
49 the BOCC.
50
21
1 Hope Horton and Katy Ansardi of Hart's Mill Village made a PowerPoint presentation.
2 Hope Horton began by thanking the BOCC and reviewing the following slides:
3
4 Hart's Mill Village and Farm
5 Presentation to the Orange County Board of Commissioners
6 May 26, 2015
7
8 Who We Are
9 • Local Triangle residents
10 • Singles, couples and families of all ages
11 • Professionals in education, business, health, technology, farming, city planning, and the
12 arts living independent and modern lives
13 • Our desire is to create an old-fashioned neighborhood where people actually know each
14 other and do things together
15
16 This is Our Future Home
17 • We are creating Hart's Mill for ourselves; we are not commercial developers
18 • Currently we have about 45 members
19 • We have a very personal long-term interest in creating a livable community
20 • We want to be good neighbors
21
22 Our Model
23 Hart's Mill is being designed and organized in a way that is different from a conventional
24 residential development, as distinguished by our:
25 • Guiding principles
26 • Legal structures
27 • Governance method
28 • Site plan design
29 • Guiding Principles
30
31 Social: create a diverse and collaborative community
32 Environmental: restore and protect ecosystems
33 Economic: adopt simpler, less expensive lifestyles and enable income-generating activities
34 Service: become a model for others through example, education, and outreach
35
36 Katy Ansardi continued the PowerPoint presentation:
37 • Legal Structures
38 o Undivided ownership of all land & common facilities
39 o Active management by the community association
40 o At least 80% of homes will be owner occupied
41 o Common ownership of up to 20% of homes for transition housing
42 o Farm/forest operating agreements closely managed by the association
43 o Conservation &/or farm preservation easements
44 o Dynamic Self Governance
45
46 Hope Horton resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
47 • Developed in a business context to promote transparency, equivalence and efficiency
48 • Increasingly being applied in cohousing communities
22
1 • We have invested in community-wide training and ongoing consulting
2 • Has proven to be a very effective method for organizing and achieving our goals
3
4 Katy Ansardi continued the PowerPoint presentation:
5 • Village Plan
6 • Village Site Plan Detail
7 • Village Street
8 • Energy: An Integrated Approach
9
10 Reduce demand
11 • Superinsulated building envelopes
12 • Climate responsive design (solar, wind, humidity)
13 • High efficiency equipment
14 • Operational and lifestyle choices
15
16 Produce energy onsite
17 • Stand-alone and building-integrated photovoltaics
18 • Solar hot water
19 • Water Supply
20
21 Reduce domestic & irrigation demand
22 • Low-flow plumbing fixtures
23 • Rainwater catchment & design for infiltration
24 • Climate-sensitive landscape design
25 • Lifestyle choices
26
27 Provide for fire protection
28 • Distributed small ponds to supplement hydrants
29 • Access to large pond with standpipe
30 • Keep option open for community well, if needed
31 • Farm and Woodland
32
33 Michael Hughes, Civil Engineer for the Hart's Mill project, said he has expertise in water
34 supply engineering, and waste water conveyance and engineering. He said he is willing to
35 answer any questions regarding the water supply, the lot layout or roadway design, or the septic
36 system.
37
38 Chair McKee said it seems there is sufficient access for emergency vehicles to enter but
39 asked for clarification regarding space for emergency vehicles to turn around. He also asked if
40 Michael Hughes could clarify the purpose of the supplemental hydrants.
41
42 Michael Hughes said the Efland Fire Department expressed excitement that the Hart's
43 Mill plan included fire hydrants. He added that the Fire Department said the pond was very
44 important as a means to get water into the pumper trucks in the case of a fire. He said the Fire
45 Department asked for an access road to the pond specifically for their trucks. He said this was
46 accommodated. He said the stand pipe is a pipe that is accessible to the pumper truck to
47 retrieve water from the pond. He said the other hydrant that was requested is one that can be
48 flowed to refill the pond, as necessary during those times.
23
1
2 Katy Ansadi resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
3
4 Purposes
5 • Provide food & fiber for the community
6 • Practice & demonstrate restorative, sustainable approaches to agriculture and
7 silvaculture
8 • Provide employment opportunities on the land
9
10 Characteristics
11 • Small-scale, integrated plant & animal systems
12 • Farmstead structures: barn, workshop, sheds, greenhouse, farmhouses
13 • No onsite retail sales
14
15 Hope Horton completed the PowerPoint presentation:
16
17 Hart's Mill Village & Farm provides many benefits to Orange County:
18 • Open space and farmland preservation
19 • Low-impact development that protects natural resources & reduces demand on
20 infrastructure
21 • Variety of efficient housing choices for all ages
22 • Live/work opportunities
23 • Innovative model for future development
24
25 Commissioner Dorosin asked if he were interested in owning one of these homes what
26 would he actually own.
27
28 Katy Ansadi said he would own his home and he has rights to utilize his "yard". She said
29 the yard is common space but it is limited common space.
30
31 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the home owner would be required to maintain this
32 grassy area.
33
34 Katy Ansadi said that is yet to be determined by the Home Owners Association.
35
36 Commissioner Dorosin asked for explanation of the process of becoming a resident.
37
38 Katy Ansadi said it will be a self-selecting process. She said there is a group that has
39 tiers from exploratory members to those who are fully engaged in the process. She said as the
40 next phase of building and selling begins people who come forward will be seriously interested
41 in the concept and lifestyle.
42
43 Commissioner Dorosin said there are other co-housing developments in Orange County
44 and he asked if these developments have the same condominium type model or something
45 different.
46
47 Katy Ansadi said there are different models in Orange County. She said this project will
48 likely have a modified condominium structure that will act as a housing cooperative as much as
49 possible.
24
1 Commissioner Price said that the properties have yet to be sold and asked if shares will
2 be sold in a certain way. She asked if one wanted to move into the community would one go
3 directly to an owner or would there be a vetting process.
4
5 Katy Ansadi said this process is not yet clearly defined.
6
7 Commissioner Price said there are beavers in the area and asked if the group had any
8 plans regarding the animals.
9
10 Katy Ansadi said it is felt that the beavers are far enough away at this time to leave them
11 alone.
12
13 Commissioner Price said there is bus service near the proposed site. She also asked if
14 there could be clarification regarding the stated desire for no curbside recycling.
15
16 Katy Ansadi said the community is committed to recycling but trucks going through the
17 site are undesirable. She said there will be a common pick up area toward the entrance of the
18 development, as can be seen on page 229.
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT:
21
22 Hope Horton said she had no further comment.
23
24 Daniel Steenwike said he is a property owner, adjacent to the proposed site. He said
25 the community is welcomed to the area, and he is glad that this is a sustainable living
26 community.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for
29 the Board to:
30
31 Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
32 returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September 1, 2015
33 BOCC regular meeting.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to:
38
39 Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive the Planning
40 Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
41
42 Commissioner Dorosin asked if a decision was reached regarding the quarterly public
43 hearing process.
44
45 Chair McKee said it was discussed in a work session but no conclusions were reached.
46
47 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said on June 2nd an amendment
48 outline of guidelines for this process will be brought to the BOCC for discussion. He added that
49 any changes that the BOCC approves will not apply to the amendments in front of them this
50 evening.
51
25
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 3. Application for a Class A Special Use Permit—To review and receive sworn testimony
4 on a Special Use Permit application seeking to develop a solar array/public utility station on
5 a portion of a 35.8 acre parcel of property located at 1612 White Cross Road within the
6 Bingham Township.
7
8 THIS IS VERBATIM.
9
10 Michael Harvey: Good evening.
11
12 Chair McKee: Good evening, again.
13
14 Michael Harvey: At this juncture, I'd like to ask everyone intending to offer testimony on this
15 item, to come up and please be sworn.
16
17 Those who were planning to speak were sworn in.
18
19 Patrick Mallet: Good evening Commissioners. I'm still Pat Mallet with the Planning
20 Department and I've been duly sworn. I'm going to skip through a few of these slides because
21 for the sake of avoiding redundancy and repetition. But the same rules apply, obviously, as
22 we've just discussed. But I did want to call your attention to this slide. This sort of highlights the
23 property in blue. The area and the limits of the Special Use Permit are defined roughly in red on
24 the aerial photo. The site is at the intersection northwest quadrant of White Cross Road and
25 Old Greensboro Road. The area here is the —just to orient you —this is the White Cross
26 Recreational Facility, which has been in existence for quite some time. The zoning is
27 agricultural-residential. It's in the Haw River protected watershed. Future land use calls for
28 agricultural-residential. Gross management system designation is rural.
29
30 Patrick Mallet made the following PowerPoint presentation:
31
32 MAY 26, 2015
33 AGENDA ITEM: C-3
34 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
35 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
36 DEVELOPMENT OF A
37 SOLAR ARRAY - PUBLIC UTILITY
38
39 PROPERTY INFORMATION
40 • PIN(s): 9748-32-0786.
41 • Size: Approximately 35.8 acres.
42 • Zoning : Agricultural Residential (AR) Haw River Protected Watershed Protection
43 Overlay District.
44 • Future Land Use Map Designation: Agricultural Residential.
45 • Growth Management System Designation: Rural.
46
47 REQUIRED REVIEW
48 Project involves the review of a Class A Special Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of
49 Section 2.7 of the UDO.
26
1 • Held in a quasi-judicial format meaning all parties, for and against the application,
2 provide sworn testimony as well as competent material and substantial evidence on the
3 merits of the proposal.
4 • Applicant has burden of demonstrating project complies with the provisions of the UDO.
5 • Anyone opposing the application is required to demonstrate through sworn testimony as
6 well as competent material and substantial evidence that the project does not comply
7 with the provisions of the Ordinance.
8 • Hearsay and/or unsubstantiated opinions are not considered sufficient testimony.
9 • If applicant proves compliance with applicable standards, and there is no evidence in the
10 record the project does not comply, the SUP must be issued.
11
12 REQUEST
13 • Erect individual solar array panels on approximately 20 acres of property.
14 • Typical array is between 7 and 9 feet in height, with approximately 2 to 3 feet of ground.
15 clearance, and approximately 63 feet in length.
16 • Arrays will be screened by an installed 50 ft. wide Type D Land Use Buffer.
17 • An 8 foot high chain link security fence shall surround the perimeter of the 11.5 solar
18 array field, outside of the proposed land use buffer, to prevent access.
19 • Gravel paths/drives will be installed around these arrays in order to permit access by
20 technicians to service the panels. Depending on the soil and topography, areas around
21 the solar panels will be a combination of natural groundcover, grassed, and/or paths.
22 • Vehicular access to the site is restricted by a 24 foot wide drive with gated access via
23 White Cross Road.
24
25 SITE PLAN
26 • Cross Section of Northern Property Line
27
28 SITE PHOTO — NORTHERN PROPERTY
29
30 SITE PHOTO —WHITE CROSS REC PROPERTY
31
32 SITE PHOTO — UTILITY SUBSTATION
33
34 SITE PHOTO — PROPERTY FROM OLD GREENSBORO ROAD
35
36 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
37 • Held on April 9, 2015,
38 • Adjacent property owners expressed concern over impacts on their property values,
39 • The northern property owner expressed concern required land use buffers were
40 insufficient,
41 • Adjacent property owners expressed concerns over traffic and access to the facility,
42 • There were concerns over what was going to happen the rest of the property (i.e. how
43 would it be developed/redeveloped).
44
45 REVIEW PROCESS
46 • Step One: Review of application at a joint Quarterly Public Hearing by BOCC and
47 Planning Board. BOCC adjourns the public hearing to a date/time certain to receive the
48 Planning Board recommendation.
27
1 • Step Two: Review of application by Planning Board who make a recommendation on
2 the application based on the evidence and testimony offered into evidence during the
3 public hearing.
4 — STAFF COMMENT: The Planning Board is currently scheduled to meet and
5 review this item at their July 1, 2015 regular meeting 7:00 p.m. held in the
6 lower level conference room of the West Campus Office Building at 131
7 West Margaret Lane in downtown Hillsborough.
8 • Step Three: BOCC reconvenes public hearing to receive Planning Board
9 recommendation. No additional public comment/testimony is accepted.
10 • BOCC takes action on the proposal.
11
12 STAFF INITIAL REVIEW
13 • Applicant has submitted documentation required for the review of the project
14 • Applicant has submitted required documentation for a Class A Special Use Permit (i.e.
15 required by Section 2.7.3)
16 • There are goals/objectives/policies within the Comprehensive Plan lending credence to
17 the viability of the proposal
18
19 RECOMMENDATION
20 1. Receive the application,
21 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
22 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
23 returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September 1, 2015
24 BOCC regular meeting.
25 4. Adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
26 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
27
28 Patrick Mallet: I am going to note at this point that the Applicants, and I'll let them get into the
29 details, but I believe that they've been into extensive discussions with some of the adjacent
30 property owners. Namely one property owner, in particular, to the North. And have revised the
31 buffer that they would be providing on the northern side, and the chain —the type of fencing, 1
32 believe, is another element to their request. The Applicants' submitted today some revised
33 plans which I believe you have copies of those revised plans. And we'll let them speak to the
34 specifics of those revisions.
35
36 The request includes the treatment around the solar array system. Essentially, they're
37 proposing gravel paths and natural areas. That will vary depending on the type of soil and
38 topography. Vehicular access would be restricted to White Cross Road. As you may have
39 noticed the parcel is 35.88 acres and it does have some access on to Old Greensboro Road.
40 But they're proposing access essentially right next to the White Cross Recreational Facility.
41
42 This is the site plan. The square areas are obviously the solar arrays. This is White Cross
43 Road here. This is the staging area for construction. This red perimeter is the fenced in area.
44 This is the northern property line. As I mentioned that buffer, I believe, has been revised. And
45 the southern portion of the property is being retained by the property owner. This area is
46 approximately 20 acres. This shows the typical cross section of the solar array system and a
47 typical section of the 50 foot wide type B buffer around the perimeter.
48
49 This shows the cross section of the northern property line. As I stated, that buffer has been
50 revised so I'll let the Applicant go into further details regarding the treatment of that buffer. This
28
1 shows a series of photos around the property. This is a view of the house to the north. New
2 construction —there's a pasture that's been cleared in front of the house that goes to the
3 property line. And then the picture in the lower left hand corner shows the existing vegetation
4 on the subject property.
5
6 This is a view of the White Cross Ball Field area, which is facing north in the general direction of
7 the of that home and through the midsection of the property. In the lower right hand corner
8 you've got a picture that shows the topography change from White Cross Road. There is
9 probably a good 15-20 foot change in elevation from the White Cross Facility to the actual road.
10 And in the lower left hand corner around that curve would be the proposed entrance.
11
12 This is a view of the utilities substation that the solar array would connect to theoretically and is
13 adjacent to the property to the north. This is a view of Old Greensboro Road. As I stated, the
14 property technically has frontage roughly where that crossing sign — intersection of 35 mile an
15 hour speed limit sign is. But they are not proposing access and that area would be retained by
16 the owner.
17
18 Neighborhood Information Meeting was held on April 9th. Adjacent property owners expressed
19 a variety of concerns including impact on their property values, the treatment of the buffer, traffic
20 access, and concerns over what was going to happen with the remainder of the property. 1
21 would also note that the applicant did have one additional meeting above and beyond what was
22 required with the neighborhood information meeting at the White Cross Recreational Facility.
23 Much of the same was discussed but there was more attention to the treatment of the buffer to
24 the north. This just goes through the same process that I reiterated at the beginning with the
25 first Special Use Permit—where step one: the public hearing, step two: you would refer the
26 application to the Planning Board and they would make a recommendation on the application,
27 based on the evidence and testimony offered. The Planning Board Meeting would hopefully be
28 set for July the first, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. Step three: the Board of Commissioners reconvenes the
29 Public Hearing to receive the Planning Board recommendation, no additional comment or
30 testimony is accepted. The Board of Commissioners takes action on the proposal.
31
32 Staff initial review: the Applicant has submitted the documentation required for the review of the
33 project. The Applicant has submitted the required documentation for a Class A Special Use
34 Permit as required in the UDO section 2.7.3. And there are goals, objectives and policies which
35 are consistent with the comprehensive plan, leading credence to the viability of the proposal.
36
37 The recommendation is to receive the application, conduct the public hearing, accept the public,
38 the Board of Commissioners and the Planning Board comments. Refer the matter to the
39 Planning Board, with a request that a recommendation be returned to the Board of
40 Commissioners in time for the September 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. Adjourn the Public
41 Hearing until September 1, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
42 recommendation and any submitted written comments.
43
44 And with that, I will turn it over to the Applicant's attorney, Beth Trahos.
45
46 Pete Hallenbeck: Before we turn it to the Applicant, are there any questions so far from the
47 Commissioners?
48
49 Commissioner Dorosin: Just one quick question: it is going to still be one parcel, or was that
50 picture that you showed with the...
51
29
1 Patrick Mallet: I believe the intent is to subdivide the property. Which could be done with an
2 exempt subdivision, both parcels would be greater than 10 acres. This area, roughly in red —
3 roughly depicts the area that would be subdivided.
4
5 Beth Trahos: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, and Chair Person and
6 Planning Board Members. My name is Beth Trahos. I'm an attorney with Smith Moore
7 Leatherwood, and I'm here tonight on behalf of White Cross Solar, with our application to allow
8 a solar farm on White Cross Road. Mr. Chairman, you mentioned that there are a number folks
9 signed up to speak on this and I think I'm responsible for many of them. In our expert group, we
10 have Engineer George Retschle, Appraiser Tom Hester, Appraiser Rich Kirkland, Cypress
11 Creek Renewables Employee Rich Moretz, and Mechanical Engineer Tommy Cleveland. They
12 are all on that list and are all a part of our presentation. And I handed out to you a notebook
13 that you will find at your seat that includes sworn Affidavits, copies of the site plan, and of the
14 prospective that were provided as a part of our submittal packet. And I would ask you to move
15 into the record the staff report and associated documents and that you also include in the record
16 the notebook that we have handed to you.
17
18 We're going to attempt to be efficient with your time and rely largely on those Affidavits. All of
19 those folks are here today and available for cross examination. We'll call a few of them up to
20 talk with you and we'll bring others, as needed, to answer questions that you, or others, may ask
21 of us. We recognize you've been here for a long time, and we'll try to get you out— get our part
22 done as quickly as we can. As staff indicated, we have been working hard with neighbors in the
23 area. We had first the staff sponsored community meeting in April. We had our own meeting in
24 May and we have continued our dialogue with adjacent property owners. And our belief is that
25 our neighbors are comfortable with what it is that we're proposing. Staff indicated the property
26 is zoned AR and a solar farm is permitted as a Special Use in that district. The solar farm site
27 plan meets all of the criteria that are set out in your ordinance for approval of a Special Use
28 Permit. And I'm going to ask folks to come forward and confirm for you that all those
29 requirements have been met.
30
31 I'll start with Mr. Retschle, who is the Project Engineer. I ask him to talk with you briefly. And of
32 course at any time please feel free to ask questions.
33
34 George Retschle: Good evening. My name is George Retschle, I'm the President of
35 Ballentine Associates in Chapel Hill. I have been duly sworn. I do appreciate your time this
36 evening. I am a Licensed Professional Engineer in the State of North Carolina and in Virginia. 1
37 have been involved with a little over hundred solar farms in the past three years. I was
38 responsible for the preparation of the site plan that you have before you tonight. Pat (Mallet) did
39 mention a few modifications that have been made to the site plan since the original submittal.
40 One of those modifications involves a buffer along the northern property line. As a result of
41 some negotiations between our client and the adjacent neighbor, we have widened that buffer
42 from the minimum 50 foot required to a 65 foot buffer. So there's a substantial amount of
43 existing vegetation that's going to remain on that northern property line. And with solar farm we
44 need to be careful of shading on the west, east and south portions of the array, so that we don't
45 have inefficient panels. But along the northern property line, we were able to to provide a much
46 wider buffer than what was required and what we had originally anticipated. That's one of the
47 major changes.
48
49 Another change was that we pulled the southern property line up to reduce the amount of
50 overall property within the property that's going to be subdivided out. I think it went from 23
51 acres down to 19.8, so it's gotten a little bit smaller. The size of the array within the fence is
30
1 somewhere around 10.5 acres. And that final acreage and size will be determined by the final
2 electrical design. What you see on the plan now, is a preliminary layout of the panels, and
3 some of that will gyrate a little bit as the final electrical design is done. That won't happen until
4 after we receive approval from the County Commissioners and just before the permitting
5 process.
6
7 1 know that you've been handed an Affidavit that's got my full testimony on it. But I wanted to
8 just kind of summarize a couple of the major points. In my professional opinion, this project, as
9 it is shown currently on the latest plan that it meets all the applicable portions of the UDO. And I
10 believe, in my professional opinion, that if the project's built as designed it will be harmonious
11 with the area given the buffering that we've provided. And it will not be injurious in any way to
12 the public's health, safety or welfare.
13
14 And I'm here to answer any questions that you have.
15
16 Chair McKee: Seeing none.
17
18 Beth Trahos: Mr. Chairman, just one note. I would be remiss if I didn't tell you that as a part of
19 our discussions with adjacent property owners, we're going to be tweaking the plan and we will
20 be resubmitting a new plan that will require that along the northern property line, thirty feet of the
21 buffer, closest to the property line remain, be undisturbed. Closest to the property line, to the
22 north, remain undisturbed. And that there be a green screen installed on the fence facing the
23 northern property line. And we will add that to our site plan so that it is available to you in the
24 record.
25
26 1 would ask, ah, Mr. Hester to come forward. Mr. Hester is a North Carolina Real Estate
27 Appraiser.
28
29 Tom Hester: Hello. My name is Tom Hester. I'm a State Certified Real Estate Appraiser in
30 North Carolina. I have a North Carolina Broker's License, and I'm a designated member of the
31 Appraisal Institute, which is a National Professional Organization. I have the MAI designation.
32 I've been active in appraising properties in central North Carolina for about 33 years. My
33 assignment in this case was to make a determination of whether this proposed use would have
34 a negative effect on adjacent property values. To make that determination I at first am looking
35 at what types of properties— or what characteristics —would have an effect on adjacent
36 properties. And so I'm considering traffic, noise, lighting, dust, hazardous materials, and visual
37 effect. And for this proposed use —for the Solar Farm-it's a very passive use. So there's really
38 no traffic, there's no noise, there's no lighting, there's no dust. The only effect on adjacent
39 properties is visual: can you see it? And my determination is to look at other existing farms and
40 make a determination. If you can see the solar farm, does it have an effect on values? So to
41 make that determination, I looked just— not just at this property but at about 30 other, existing
42 solar farms. All put into service since 2011. And I used an analysis called paired sale analysis.
43 I'm looking at transactions, sales of real estate, sales of properties —generally residential
44 properties —that are potentially effected by solar farms. I looked at sales of properties that
45 occurred before the solar farm was built. And then similar properties after it was built. And 1
46 also looked at properties that have close proximity to existing solar farms versus transactions of
47 properties that are further away but in the same general vicinity.
48
49 My finding, using that paired sale analysis, before and after— and also inside and outside the
50 ring surrounding the solar farms — is that the existing solar farms that I investigated have had no
51 effect on actual transaction prices. Sales generally the same price—the same price range —
31
1 before and after, and close in versus further out. So my conclusion is that this proposed farm
2 would not have any effect on the adjacent properties or the nearby community. And then,just to
3 continue, this site plan has got a really lower density than most of the existing solar farms that
4 have been built in the last two or three years. That's fewer solar— a smaller array—versus the
5 total land area. It's got significantly more set back and buffer and screening. I think the visibility
6 of this —of the solar panels on this property—will be very limited. I just don't think that you'll be
7 able to see with the natural vegetation that will surround the array.
8
9 My finding says that being adjacent or being able to see those solar arrays doesn't have an
10 effect on the value. In this case, you won't be able to see it or very, very limited visibility. My
11 conclusion is this will have no effect on the values of the adjacent properties.
12
13 Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions from the Commissioners?
14
15 Beth Trahos: Mr. Chairman, I would tell you that with those experts, in combination with the
16 testimony of your staff, we believe meets the prima facia burden of proof under your Ordinance.
17 We would point out to you also that you have previously approved a solar farm just up the road.
18 There is an existing one in operation today, a five megawatt solar farm just up the road, and you
19 made all of the same findings of fact relative to that solar farm that you would be required to
20 make with regard to this solar farm. And so we would say to you that nothing has changed
21 since you made those findings except that you have amended your Ordinance to require
22 additional buffers and screenings. And we are, of course, complying with that. I would tell you
23 that, again, we do have a variety of experts that would be available to come and talk with you.
24 We have a Mechanical Engineer, we have someone very knowledgeable about solar and we
25 have another appraiser. If there are any questions that you have we would be happy to bring
26 those folks forward. We would reserve time for rebuttal and we would thank you very much for
27 your time and ask for your support of this green and renewable energy project. Thank you.
28
29 Pete Hallenbeck: Are there any questions from the Commissioners? Are there any questions
30 from the Planning Board members?
31
32 Lydia Wegman: question...
33
34 Pete Hallenbeck: I'm sorry, go ahead.
35
36 Chair McKee: Could you step to the microphone, please?
37
38 Lydia Wegman: My name is Lydia Wegman. I'm a member of the Planning Board. I haven't
39 had a chance to look yet through this document and the appraisal that was just discussed by
40 Mr. Hester, and I'd like a chance to do that—and we'll have a chance to talk about that, in our
41 next Planning Board meeting. But I do want to get a sense for whether the situation that he
42 examined in his paired analysis are, in fact, comparable to the situation in White Cross, where
43 there's already an existing solar farm. And, I haven't had a chance to look through this yet since
44 1 just received it. So I just wanted to flag a concern, and that I want to better understand the
45 kind of appraisal that he did.
46
47 Chair McKee: I think you may be getting ready to get an answer.
48
49 Lydia Wegman: Okay. Great.
50
32
1 Tom Hester: Tom Hester again and I have two answers, I guess. One is that the communities
2 that I've investigated are very similar to this location. Where you have a of a combination of
3 agricultural uses, wooded land, and residential uses. So, very similar in surrounding counties in
4 central North Carolina. I've also investigated in Catawba County and further west and I went
5 there because I think there's five or six, farms there and a couple of the largest farms in the
6 State. And so I really wanted to look at the communities around where they are more prevalent
7 and more has been developed and where they are larger. And really the same finding's there.
8 Even surrounding the larger farms there is no effect on the sales prices. When the properties
9 sell, when the house sells — and I really try to focus on residential uses rather than large land
10 tracks. I think if the houses aren't affected, I think the bigger tracks of land are not going to be
11 affected. So I was really focusing on the residential uses.
12
13 Pete Hallenbeck: And, of course, your report is entered as evidence. So the Planning Board
14 will be able to review that, correct.
15
16 Tom Hester: Good. Thank you.
17
18 Pete Hallenbeck: And I think we have a question from a Commissioner.
19
20 Commissioner Rich: I have a question. I think this is possibly for Mr. Harvey. Can you just
21 run through the process so we're talking about a portion of this property that's as Commissioner
22 Dorosin asked, is staying one property, it's not being broken down into any or into two parcels.
23 What is the process for development of the other part of the property?
24
25 Chair McKee: We have to follow the procedure. I'm sorry. You'll get a chance to speak.
26
27 Michael Harvey: One of the conditions that'll be associated with the Special Use Permit is,
28 obviously, it'll have to go through a subdivision process. As this will be an exempt subdivision —
29 meaning it'll be larger than 10 acres—will be exempt. And what that translates to is that the
30 County Planning Staff will actually have to verify that the boundaries of the new lot here actually
31 comply with any approved site plan for the Special Use Permit. But it will be reviewed and
32 approved through the exempt process. Meaning, we're not going to do anything else other than
33 verify its compliance with the SUP. As far as development of the southern parcel of the
34 property, it will allowed — be allowed to develop consistent with its current zoning. The issuance
35 of the SUP has no bearing on this potential parcel of property. So, for example, if it was an
36 undeveloped parcel, could they develop a single family residence on it? The answer is yes.
37 They would have to go through the site plan review process or the plot plan review process as
38 spelled out in section 2.4 of the Unified Development Ordinance, consistent with the building
39 permit application.
40
41 Patrick Mallet: I would just like to add to that. The revisions that they submitted today, clarify
42 that there's a line that defines the limits of the Special Use Permit.
43
44 Commissioner Rich: Sorry, I didn't get a chance to read that until it got set down.
45
46 Patrick Mallet: Understood.
47
48 Commissioner Rich: I wasn't in my easy chair, checking it out.
49
50 Patrick Mallet: It defines the future lot line and the limits of the Special Use Permits. So, 1
51 think, in this case, it's very well specified where they intend to locate the solar arrays. And I
33
1 would add —this is a little bit unique, in the sense that you would typically see a lease
2 arrangement. This is a purchase. And as a result the purchase will create a specifically defined
3 property boundary area through the subdivision process.
4
5 Commissioner Rich: Thank you.
6
7 Pete Hallenbeck: Alright. We have a number of people who signed up to speak on this. What
8 I'd like to do at this point is have anyone who wishes to speak on this come up and get sworn in.
9 And then we'll listen to what you have to say. Do we have anyone here who wishes to speak?
10 We have people who signed up. If you signed up and you haven't been sworn in, this is the
11 time to come up and get sworn in so we can hear from you.
12
13 Chair McKee: Call the names.
14
15 Pete Hallenbeck: Okay. So the names —just to make sure we don't miss anyone. Beth Trahos
16 —
17
18 Beth Trahos: Yes sir that was me.
19
20 Pete Hallenbeck: I'm sure I'll be saying some of the people who were on the team. That's ok,
21 we want to make sure we don't miss anyone. Uh, Rich Moretz—
22
23 Rich Moretz: Yes sir.
24
25 Pete Hallenbeck: Okay. Hope Horton —oh, wait a sec, I have item 2 — my mistake. Moving
26 on. Tommy Cleveland? —okay. Carol Rigsbee? Carol Bryant? Steve Haggerty? And to be
27 absolutely sure, is there anyone else here who wishes to speak on this? Alright. In that case,
28 then I will turn this back over to Commissioner McKee.
29
30 Chair McKee: Is anyone— because several of these people are on the team, is there anyone
31 whose name was called that wishes to speak to this assembly? Okay, I just want to make sure.
32 Being that several of these people are on the development team and we know they're not going
33 to speak, or assuming they're not going to speak because the presentation's been made. I want
34 to make sure we don't forget or eliminate anybody from speaking.
35
36 Beth Trahos: No sir. We are assuming that this is a part of the record and so their testimonies
37 (Ms. Trahos held up the notebook with the affidavits) are a part of the record without them
38 taking up any more of your time.
39
40 Chair McKee: I am making the assumption that we have no one in the room that wishes to
41 speak to this item from the public? Then we'll move on.
42
43 Patrick Mallet: I will just add the same formality that Michael added with the first Special use
44 Permit. That we would enter the abstract and all its contents formally into the record. And then
45 the revisions that were handed up, and submitted, today by the Applicant.
46
47 Chair McKee: Prior to making that motion, I do have a couple of questions for our Attorney.
48 We received new material from the Applicant tonight. What—from a technical aspect—does
49 that involve as far as the impact on this application? Does it impact it, in that we need to delay
50 because of new information has not been made to the public, or it has no effect, and we can
51 move forward with it?
34
1
2 James Bryan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's fine to proceed. There was proper notice of this
3 meeting so that's the due process notice that is given to the Public that there may be additional
4 information. As long as the application was complete at its submittal, amendments can be fine.
5 There was, however, a mention of an amended site plan to be presented in the future. And that
6 would cause some concern, if it's not clearly proffered and articulated now what those are. So,
7 if it's included in the binder, that's fine. If it's something else that was demonstrated in some
8 sort of exhibit, that's fine— if it's going to be presented in another format. But anything like that
9 has to be clearly articulated today.
10
11 Chair McKee: Okay that was going to be my second question. There was a new site plan
12 submission for a buffer— moving the buffer from 50 to 65 feet. That, I believe, is part of this
13 abstract so does that therefore generate any concern on your part?
14
15 James Bryan: If we could just get the attorney just to confirm on the record, "yes".
16
17 Beth Trahos: Yes. It is included on the site plan as I am told, that the green screen as well is
18 indicated on the site plan. So those changes are a part of the plan that was submitted today.
19
20 Chair McKee: So, again, to the attorney, you are comfortable that the late submissions, for
21 lack of a better word —or the submissions at the meeting tonight— are acceptable.
22
23 James Bryan: Yes, if I may—just to take just a second longer to describe the process—, so, a
24 Special Use Permit says that you've got a general right to the use of this property—for this
25 intended use, if you meet these conditions. If there is some area where there's a lack of
26 meeting any of this —that's where these conditions get put on. It's very common for these
27 conditions to be changed throughout this Public Hearing process. It's evidence that there's a
28 need —that there was an awareness of this need prior to—and a solution — prior to this meeting.
29 It's just a benefit provided by the Applicant and the neighbors. They did good work beforehand
30 and the staff as well. So everything should be good.
31
32 Chair McKee: Okay. Very good. Then I —then I will assume we will move forward with this...
33
34 James Bryan: Yes
35
36 Beth Trahos: Mr. Chairman, I apologize. Let me just add one more thing as we were talking. 1
37 do want to confirm that a condition also is that 30 feet of the 65 foot buffer along the northern
38 property line will be an undisturbed area. And that is not particularly or specifically laid out on
39 the site plan itself but we would offer that as a condition.
40
41 Chair McKee: And I believe you had mentioned that in your your previous testimony.
42
43 Beth Trahos: Yes sir.
44
45 Chair McKee: Very good. Are there any other questions, specifically on this project from the
46 Board, or for the Planning Board?
47
48 Chair McKee: Seeing none. Yes....?
49
50 Commissioner Dorosin: Just to clarify...it's going to be subdivided into two parcels, or there's
51 just a line that's delineating...
35
1
2 Beth Trahos: The property will be formally subdivided via your exempt subdivision process.
3
4 Commissioner Dorosin: Okay.
5
6 Chair McKee: Any further questions? If not, we'll move forward. And I guess the first thing is a
7 motion to accept all relevant material that has been submitted by the Applicant, as well any
8 other relevant document, as part of the record.
9
10 Commissioner Price: So moved.
11
12 Commissioners Burroughs: Second.
13
14 Chair McKee: It's been moved, and seconded to include all relevant documents as part of the
15 record. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Motion passes unanimously.
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 Chair McKee: And then as before, the only two points that we really need to decide tonight are
20 items 3 and 4. Item 3 being: to Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a
21 recommendation be returned to the County Board of Commissioners in time for the September
22 1, 2015 BOCC regular meeting. Do I hear a motion?
23
24 Commissioner Price: So moved.
25
26 Commissioner Dorosin: Second.
27
28 Chair McKee: Moved, and seconded. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. Motion passes
29 unanimously.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 Chair McKee: And then I need a motion to adjourn the public hearing until September 1, 2015
34 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written
35 comments.
36
37 Commissioner Dorosin: So moved.
38
39 Commissioner Rich: Second.
40
41 Chair McKee: Got the motion, and a second. All in favor say, aye. Opposed, no. That motion
42 also passes unanimously.
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 Chair McKee: Thank you very much. We will see you on a very busy September 1St
47
48 4. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
49 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to clarify existing regulatory requirements
50 regarding the development of stormwater features and incorporate a State recognized
51 process allowing for the installation of additional impervious surface area.
36
1
2 Michael Harvey thanked the BOCC for their patience. He said that this proposed text
3 amendment specifically seeks to amend existing regulations to allow for a third option with
4 respect to the modification of an impervious surface limit. He reviewed the following PowerPoint
5 presentation:
6
7 MAY 26, 2015
8 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
9 AGENDA ITEM:C-4
10 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT
11 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REGULATIONS
12
13 BACKGROUND
14 • Staff and Board members have received numerous inquiries related to increasing
15 allowable impervious surface area.
16 • Staff summarized issues/options in memo presented at the March 3, 2015 regular BOCC
17 meeting.
18 • BOCC authorized amendment process at its March 17, 2015 regular meeting.
19
20 PROPOSAL
21 • Proposed amendment seeks to allow additional impervious surface area through
22 development and incorporation of an infiltration based stormwater feature, consistent
23 with State allowances.
24 • Feature has to be designed/certified by a professional (i.e. engineer)
25 • Ordinance establishes a cap on the total amount of additional impervious surface area
26 that can be placed on a property.
27 • Property owner has to record maintenance agreement outlining perpetual
28 care/maintenance of feature.
29
30 EXAMPLE (Arial graphic)
31
32 PEER REVIEW
33 • Staff presented proposal to the Orange County Commission for the Environment (CFE),
34 Orange Water Sewer Authority (OWASA) board, and submitted proposal to the planning
35 staff of Chapel Hill and Carrboro for review.
36 • In summary, while various entities expressed support for the proposal there was a
37 universal concern the County lacks the staff resources to properly monitor and inspect
38 these stormwater features in perpetuity to ensure their continued viability.
39
40 RECOMMENDATION
41 1. Receive the application,
42 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Planning Board, and BOCC sworn
43 testimony,
44 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
45 returned in time for the June 16, 2015 BOCC regular meeting, and
46 4. Adjourn the public hearing until June 16, 2015 in order to receive the Planning Board's
47 recommendation and any submitted written comments.
48
37
1 Commissioner Burroughs asked if there was a detailed explanation of the process
2 involved in monitoring impervious surfaces.
3
4 Michael Harvey said there is a requirement in the UDO, as well as in State law, that all
5 stormwater features have a recorded operations agreement. He said this agreement will detail
6 the care and maintenance of that facility in perpetuity, including the responsibility of the current,
7 and all future, property owners. He said the property owner would have to submit
8 documentation showing that the system is functioning properly. He said the County is required
9 to inspect biannually. He said some difficulty arises based on the complexity of the various
10 systems. He added that the Applicant's documentation would have to be certified by an
11 Engineer. He said the long term concern is that, over time, the property owners may have to
12 remove and reinstall, or massively up-fit, the system to guarantee its viability as an infiltration
13 based stormwater feature.
14
15 Commissioner Burroughs asked if there is a reason that the surface would fail.
16
17 Michael Harvey said the generic term of infiltration based storm water feature as the
18 State is currently revising its manual. He said the current stormwater feature, which is
19 recognized by the State, is permeable pavement. He said permeable pavement calls for the
20 removal of dirt, planting of rock, sand and other substrata allowing the water to percolate
21 through. He said permeable pavement is still not completely pervious and the allowance is
22 based on the soil content. He said not all soil can take advantage of this program.
23
24 Michael Harvey said permeable pavement is not going to be the only option. He said
25 engineers may come up with other solutions consistent with the State stormwater management
26 manual with respect to the development and installation of what can be classified as an
27 infiltration based stormwater feature. These alternatives will be evaluated by local and State
28 staff.
29
30 Commissioner Burroughs said the budget recommendation includes another soil erosion
31 staff person and asked if that position would conduct the inspections to which Mr. Harvey refers.
32
33 Craig Benedict said yes, the Erosion Patrol Stormwater staff would conduct the
34 inspections. He said they are very aware of best practices. He said vacuuming is a
35 maintenance that can occur on permeable pavement where sediments clog its permeability.
36
37 Commissioner Rich said two or three emails were received about this topic. She asked
38 if these emails should be passed along to the Planning Department.
39
40 Michael Harvey said he has received one email.
41
42 Commissioner Rich said it is important that the Planning Department receive these
43 communications and perhaps determining a way to insure this in the future would be helpful.
44
45 Bonnie Hammersely said she would forward all the emails to the Planning Department.
46
47 Commissioner Rich said one of Orange Water and Sewer Authority's (OWASA)
48 comments stated, "this conclusion is predicated on the assumption that development densities
49 and riparian buffer requirements are not relaxed." She said the General Assembly may change
50 some of these things and asked if such changes would affect OWASA's comment.
38
1 Michael Harvey said the comments from OWASA are valued but the actions of the State
2 are beyond the County's control. He said the County has achieved a reasonable solution to the
3 problem and puts the responsibility on the property owner to come up with a solution. He said
4 there may be exemptions to the State's potential changes as well as studies that the County can
5 complete to show the importance of restrictive stream buffers.
6
7 Michael Harvey said even though the State may modify the Stream Buffer Program it
8 does not invalidate the benefits of this process.
9
10 Michael Harvey said he has heard Commissioner Jacobs express concern that while this
11 may have universal application for protected watersheds there is concern that tinkering with the
12 impervious surface limit in the critical watersheds should be prohibited. He asked for both the
13 BOCC and the Planning Board to consider this comment.
14
15 Chair McKee said he is concerned with the odd shaped lots that have been developed
16 due to the configuration of the land. He said some have very long driveways that eat up the
17 impervious surface. He said he feels this option would allow people to build a larger house,
18 garage, or some other out building on their property which is currently difficult to do.
19
20 Chair McKee said one of the emails received concerned the ownership of a ten acre
21 property with a 1.8 or 2.3 percent impervious surface, which is well under the 6 percent
22 allowance. He said this particular configuration is affected by the way the developer assigned
23 the impervious surface and puts extreme limits on what a person can build on their property.
24
25 Michael Harvey said the Board has asked staff to look into whether the Subdivision
26 Ordinance needs to be amended to include a mandatory minimum percentage of impervious for
27 every lot, thus preventing developers from robbing Peter to pay Paul.
28
29 Chair McKee said the matter must be reviewed thoroughly.
30
31 Michael Harvey said both Planning and Erosion Control staff meet with individuals
32 seeking to develop property to try to identify alternative means to develop driveways. He said
33 one example is geoweb, a hard composite plastic that is buried subterranean and can support
34 the weight of a vehicle. He said it is not counted as impervious and would allow developers to
35 address the specific instance to which Chair McKee referred.
36
37 Commissioner Pelissier asked if staff, with regard to a maintenance agreement, is
38 suggesting that the homeowner pay for the additional inspections. She asked if such funds
39 would cover the additional staff required to conduct the inspections.
40
41 Michael Harvey said the funds could supplement the need for additional staff. He said
42 different options are being considered.
43
44 Commissioner Pelissier said ask the Planning Board or staff to consider giving home
45 owners up front notification about the repairs, their costs and the exact responsibility the home
46 owner incurs.
47
48 Michael Harvey said currently the Erosion Control staff clearly details the operations
49 agreement and does a detailed walk through of all expectations. He said cost is not currently
50 discussed but estimates could be provided.
51
39
1 Planning Board Member Tony Blake said he just went through this process at one of
2 their fire substations. He said a deeded easement would be required if the County needed to
3 come in and make repairs. He said he pays a service to inspect his septic system annually and
4 the company files paperwork with the County. He asked if this same process could occur with
5 the inspection of impervious surfaces.
6
7 Michael Harvey said this option is being considered currently.
8
9 Lisa Stuckey asked if there are consequences when a person builds a shed but then
10 fails to maintain it.
11
12 Michael Harvey said if one installs a BMP, while receiving additional impervious
13 allotment, and fails to maintain the BMP, then one will be in violation of the operations
14 agreement and must demolish the additional impervious surface or bring the BMP into
15 compliance.
16
17 Craig Benedict said Orange County itself is a property owner and maintains their own
18 BMPs. He said there are ways to get compliance.
19
20 PUBLIC COMMENT:
21
22 Janel Sexton said she petitioned the Board in December 2014 and she was warned
23 when purchasing a property in Triple Crown Estates. She said she was completely unaware of
24 how restrictive the impervious rules are. She said every single resident in her development has
25 less than 6 percent of impervious surfaces. She said she has nothing on her property but a
26 house, a short driveway and pervious pavers. She said she would like to install a pool but there
27 is not enough impervious surface to do so. She said somehow the neighborhood got short
28 changed and she should be entitled to put a pool in her yard. She said she is a scientist and
29 has looked at the science behind this issue. She feels that passing this amendment will not
30 adversely affect the water and would allow tax-paying residents to have a bit more freedom to
31 do as they please with their land.
32
33 EMAILS THAT WERE RECEIVED ON THIS ITEM:
34
35 Please approve the amendment to give impervious credit to residents who use approved
36 "best management practices" as a stormwater runoff protection measure. I pay taxes on
37 10 acres of land but can only use less than 2% of my property. I would like to have a
38 parking pad big enough to park three cars and would be willing to use the more
39 expensive pervious pavers.
40
41 Dale Thompson
42 221 Whirlaway Lane
43 Chapel Hill
44
45
46 Dear Orange County Board of Commissioners,
47 My name is Steven Raets. I live in the Triple Crown Estate, Orange County, Chapel Hill.
48 1 am writing you regarding tomorrow's public hearing, agenda item 4: Unified
49 Development Ordinance Text amendment. I might not be able to make it in time for the
50 discussion (as I can only leave at 20:15) and hence I am writing you a mail with my
51 thoughts/comments.
40
1
2 1 have been in regular dialogue with Mr Harvey from planning for the last 4-5 years
3 regarding impervious surface restrictions in our community. I very much welcome that
4 the board is now looking into potentially amending the ordinance to allow for storm water
5 harvesting systems as a way to allow credits on impervious surface. I would like to ask
6 your support and approval for this change, as it would be very helpful allowing us to
7 have a bigger parking lot and additional garage space as our kids grow up and get their
8 own cars. I have a 10 acre property with only 1.8% allowed impervious surface causing
9 us lots of headaches. For instance each time we get a delivery truck to come down with
10 a package, chances are high our landscaped lawn gets ripped up because there is not
11 enough space to turn around.
12
13 When considering these changes in the UDO, please try to find a reasonable way to
14 achieve a balance between the county's need for continued proper functioning of the
15 storm water harvesting systems, and the initial cost and maintenance on the properties
16 owner part. If the burden becomes too high, then no one will implement these systems
17 and storm water run off will continue polluting at its current pace. However with the
18 proper incentives (impervious surface credits), people will install these systems and the
19 runoff will be greatly reduced because most system will collect from the roof of the whole
20 house.
21
22 While you are reviewing these storm water systems, I would like to flag another item that
23 is related to impervious surface restrictions. I am a pretty keen proponent of green/clean
24 energy and hence have installed several energy saving systems in my home. One of
25 them is a roof mounted solar system. Given my roof is fully maxed out with solar panels,
26 1 approached planning department earlier this year to ask if I could extend my system by
27 installing rack mounted solar panels in my yard. Due to impervious restrictions, planning
28 said I would not get permission to install such a system. I would like to ask the
29 commissioners to look into this. How can it be that a solar power system could be denied
30 based on allowed impervious surface? It is not that I want to install a mega system, just
31 to provide for my own use. I currently generate about 25% of my energy usage and duke
32 energy can allow me a system 3 times as big as I have currently.
33
34 1 discussed with planning department the solar and wind access policy of NC state. They
35 looked at it but said that their interpretation of this law remains consistent with the initial
36 verdict that rack mounted solar power panels would count towards my impervious
37 surface usage (even though the solar and wind access policy explicitly states that is
38 supersede any county ordinance prohibiting the installation of solar power), and that
39 given that I am at the maximum allowed, I would not be able to install it.
40 My question would be if you could look into solar power systems and impervious surface
41 restrictions? I believe that some counties adjusted the ordinances to exclude solar power
42 from the impervious surface restrictions.
43
44 Many thanks for considering.
45 Kind regards,
46 Steven Raets
47
48 1 am requesting you approve the amendment to give impervious credit to residents who
49 use approved "best management practices" stormwater runoff protection measure at
50 tomorrow's meeting, just like our surrounding counties do.
51
41
1 Thank you,
2 Eva Labro
3 225 Whirlaway Lane
4 Chapel Hill
5
6 This is with regard to land use for construction and impervious allocation on private
7 property in Orange County. I am a resident at 101 Whirlaway lane, Chapel hill, NC which
8 is in the Triple Crown subdivision. We are currently highly restricted with regard to
9 impervious allocation (presently maxed) even though we have approx 3.5acres of land
10 on this property.
11
12 1 am requesting that the board consider reassessment of the impervious land allocation
13 for properties like ours that sit on large acreage but get limited by what can be built,
14 especially since we need to have handicapped access built for our elderly parent who is
15 a resident of this property.
16 Thanks,
17
18 Harendra Arora
19
20 Chair McKee asked if the subdivisions use part of the impervious surface allotment for
21 the roads structure themselves.
22
23 Michael Harvey said yes.
24
25 Chair McKee said perhaps this is where the excess impervious surface allotment was
26 used up.
27
28 Michael Harvey agreed.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
31 Board to refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
32 returned to the BOCC in time for its June 16, 2015 regular meeting.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adjourn
37 the public hearing until June 16, 2015 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's
38 recommendation and any submitted written comments.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 6. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
43 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to modify sign regulations within certain Activity
44 Nodes.
45
46 Chair McKee said he received word that Commissioner Jacobs has concerns about this
47 item. He said Commissioner Jacobs was unable to attend tonight and asked for the Board to
48 consider waiting until September to discuss this item, when Commissioner Jacobs can attend
49 the meeting.
50
42
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin seconded by Commissioner Rich to delay
2 the discussion of this item until Commissioner Jacobs can be available since he has concerns.
3
4 Commissioner Price asked if the nature of Commissioner Jacobs' concerns is known.
5
6 Chair McKee said he does not know the nature of Commissioner Jacobs' concerns.
7
8 Commissioner Burroughs asked if this item is time sensitive.
9
10 Michael Harvey said no.
11
12 Chair McKee said to defer discussion until the September 1St Quarterly Public Hearing.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 The Clerk to the Board clarified that the date of the next Quarterly Public Hearing is
17 actually September 8, 2015 (not September 1S)
18
19 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
20
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
22 adjourn the meeting at 9:59 p.m.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 Earl McKee, Chair
27
28
29 Donna Baker
30 Clerk to the Board
31
32
1
I Attachment 6
2
3 DRAFT
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING
6 May 28, 2015
7
8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners held a Budget Public Hearing on Thursday, May
9 28, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
10
11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
12 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
14 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT:
15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Clerk to the Board
16 Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
17
18 1. Opening Remarks
19 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
20
21
22 PUBLIC CHARGE
23 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
24
25 2. Presentation of County Manager's Recommended FY 2015-16 Budget/CIP
26 (PowerPoint Presentation)
27
28 Bonnie Hammersley presented the following PowerPoint slides:
29 Presentation Outline
30 • FY2015-16 Budget Goals
31 • County Manager Recommended Budget
32 o Compensation Package
33 o Personnel
34 o Schools
35 o Outside Agencies
36 o Budget Initiatives
37 o Capital Investment Plan(CIP)
38 Conclusion
39 FY2015-16 Budget Goals
40 • Structurally Balanced Budget
41 • Implement Team Approach
42 • Enhance Transparency and Communication
43 • Maintain or Improve Service Levels
44
45 General Fund Expenditures
46 Budget expenditures— increased by 2.8% from 2015
47
48 General Fund Revenues
49 Increased about 3%
2
1
2 GF Appropriated Fund Balance
3 $9.8 million
4 Revenue Assumptions
5 • Property Taxes — 1% increase
6 • Sales Tax— 3% increase
7 • FY2015-16 Tax Rate — No Increase
8 Recommended Compensation Package
9 • Wages and Merit
10 o Wages —2% Increase
11 o WPPR— Maintain current funding
12 o Living Wage — Maintain current rate
13 • Benefits
14 o Health Insurance - No Increase
15 o Dental Insurance— 15% Increase
16 o Retirement— No Increase
17 Recommended Positions
18 • Reallocation/Revenue— 12.7 FTE
19 o Jail Alternatives — 3.0 FTE
20 o Administrative Assistant— 1.0 FTE
21 o Revenue Technicians —2.0 FTE
22 o Dental Team —2.5 FTE
23 o Management Analyst— 1.0 FTE
24 o OPT Bus Drivers — 3.0 FTE
25 o Social Worker (Chinese Speaking) —0.20FTE
26 Recommended positions
27 • Enterprise Fund —4.75 FTE
28 o Weighmaster — 1.0 FTE
29 o Solid Waste Drivers —2.0 FTE
30 o Convenience Center Operators — 1.75 FT
31
32 Recommended positions
33 • General Fund —6.87 FTE
34 o Administrative Services Supervisor - 0.125 FTE
35 o Community Center Coordinator— 1.0 FTE
36 o Court Liaison — 1.0 FTE
37 o Deputy EMS Manager - 0.50 FTE
38 o Erosion Control Officer — 1.0 FTE
39 o Housing Management Assistant— 1.0 FTE
40 o Human Resources Assistant Director— 1.0 FTE
41 o Parks Conservation Tech I — 0.25 FTE
42 o Register of Deeds Deputy— 1.0 FTE
43 Recommended School funding
44 • Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS)
45 o Increase cost per student $81 — $448,122
46 o Fund Charter School Students (50) — $182,600
3
1 o CIP Planning Funds - $750,000
2
3 • Orange County School (OCS)
4 o Increase cost per student $81 — $6,504
5 o Fund Charter School Students (110) — $401,720
6 o CIP Planning Funds —$478,000
7 Recommended School funding
8 • Durham Technical College
9 o Current Expense Increase — $53,778
10 o Recurring Capital Decrease — ($25,000)
11 o Debt Service Increase—$0
12 Recommended Outside Agency Funding
13 • Maintain FY2014-15 Funding
14 o Community Home Trust (Increase)
15 o Communities in Schools (Decrease by ADM numbers)
16 o Fairview Community Watch (+)
17
18 Recommended Fire District Rates
19 • Maintain FY2014-15 Rates
20 o Damascus & Southern Triangle Fire Districts— +1.5 cents
21 o Orange Rural Fire District— +1.0 cents
22
23 Recommended Budget Initiatives
24 • Maintain the Social Justice Fund
25 • Increase Child Care Funding
26 • Fund the Family Success Alliance
27 • Develop an Affordable Housing Plan
28 • Support the Community Centers
29 • Improve Voting Equipment
30 • Eliminate the 6-month Vacant Position Hiring Delay
31 • Implement Salary Savings Appropriation
32 • Restructure the Employee Classification and Salary Plan
33 • Create a Community Relations Department
34
35 Recommended CIP FUNDING
36 • County Capital Projects
37
38 o Southern Branch Library Planning
39 o Cedar Grove Library Kiosk
40 o Jail —Conceptual Design Phase
41 o Environmental and Agriculture Center— Design Phase
42 o Historic Rogers Road Infrastructure — Design Phase
43 o Upper Eno Nature Preserve— Public Access Area
44 o Soccer Center Phase II
45 o New Hope Preserve/Hollow Rock Public Access
46 o River Park Phase II
47 o Little River Park
4
1 o 911 Back-up Center
2 Conservation Easements (+$250,000)
3 o Facility Infrastructure Upgrades
4 o Information Technology Upgrades
5 o Register of Deeds Automation
6 Affordable Housing Land Acquisition/Banking and Development Program
7 Recommended CIP FUNDING
8 • Special Revenue Projects
9 o Article 46 Sales Tax
10 ■ Economic Development
11 ■ Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS)
12 ■ Orange County Schools (OCS)
13
14 • Proprietary Capital Projects
15 o Water and Sewer Utilities
16 ■ Efland Sewer flow to Mebane
17 ■ Utility Extension Projects
18 ■ Hillsborough EDD
19 Eno EDD
20 ■ Solid Waste
21
22 Recycling Operation
23 ■ Sportsplex
24 Major Expansion Phase 2&3
25
26 • School Capital Projects
27 o Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
28 ■ Pay-As-You-Go Funds - $2,274,765
29 ■ Lottery Proceeds - $835,626
30 Preliminary Planning Funds - $750,000
31 o Orange County Schools
32 Pay-As-You-Go Funds - $1,450,084
33 Lottery Proceeds - $520,736
34 Preliminary Planning Funds - $478,000
35
36 Public Hearings and Work Sessions
37 • Public Hearings
38 ■ May 21: Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, 300 W Tryon St., Hillsborough
39 ■ May 28: Southern Human Services Center (SHSC), Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
40 • Work Sessions
41 o June 4: SHSC, Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
42 o June 9: Richard Whitted Meeting Facility, 300 W Tryon St., Hillsborough
43 • Work Session/Intent to Adopt: June 11, SHSC, Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
44 • Final Adoption: June 16, SHSC, Homestead Rd., Chapel Hill
45 Document Availability
46 • Clerk to Board of Commissioners
47 • County Finance &Administrative Services Office
48 • Orange County Library
49 • Chapel Hill Public Library
5
1 • Carrboro/McDougle Branch Library
2 • Orange County Website— http://orangecountVnc.gov/
3
4 Conclusion
5 Orange County exists to provide governmental services requested by our residents or
6 mandated by the State of North Carolina.
7 To provide these quality services efficiently, we must;
8 • Serve the Residents of Orange County— Our Residents Come First;
9 • Depend on the energy, skills, and dedication of all our employees and volunteers;
10 • Treat all our Residents and Employees with fairness, respect, and understanding.
11 Orange County Residents Come First
12
13 3. Public Comment
14 Natasha Adams said she is an Assistant Public Defender in Orange County, as well as a
15 current Board member of Pre-Trial Services, a non-profit since 1994. She said it is her
16 understanding that the pre-trial services will be moved to the Sheriff's office. She said she is
17 asking the Board to consider allocating $45,000, to be able to provide services to existing clients
18 before this program is moved July 1.
19 Jon Wilner is a Senior Board Member with the Communities in Schools (CIS) and he
20 thanked the Board for their consistent support. He said CIS are not going to be in the Orange
21 County Schools (OCS) this year but will remain in the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
22 (CHCCS). He said more children will be served in CHCCS, reducing the waiting list, in an effort
23 to keep them in school. He said CIS will be serving the same number of children this year as in
24 previous years and he requested the Board of County Commissioners to give CIS the same
25 amount received for the past 6 to 8 years.
26 James Stroud said he is the Executive Director for the Center for Home Ownership and
27 Economic Development in Hillsborough. He said he is here regarding the organization's
28 Clearinghouse Network Pilot Program, which was brought to the Board last year. He said the
29 program is not operational at this time as it was not funded. He said his organization is the only
30 resource in the County regarding affordable housing opportunities. He said 180 people have
31 been served so far this year and despite having excellent housing providers in the area, many
32 people are still unsure where to look for housing. He said a centralized hub for affordable
33 housing would be invaluable.
34 Allan Rosen said he presently works at InterFaith Council for Social Services and has
35 been participating with the Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition. He said included in
36 the recommended budget is a program about a land banking program for affordable housing.
37 He applauds this effort and hoped that the Board of County Commissioners would adopt this as
38 part of the Capital Investment Plan (CIP). He said he also supports the proposed position in the
39 Housing Department.
40 Stacey Allred said he is a Counselor with the Exchange Club Family Center of Alamance
41 and Orange Counties. He expressed thanks for the BOCC's ongoing support. He reviewed
42 statistics regarding local child sexual abuse rates and asked if the BOCC would consider
43 funding the agency.
44 Sarah Black said she is the Director of the Exchange Club Family Center and asked the
45 Board to reconsider their application for outside agency funding for more funding. She said her
46 agency provides in home services for neglected children. She emphasized the importance of
47 early intervention for children who are abused and neglected to reach greater success.
48 Art Menins said he is here to ask for $1000 for the public radio station WCOM. He said
49 this is a volunteer run radio station serving as the voice of the community.
6
1 Yasmine White is the CEO of Voices Together, a non-profit which offers a specialized
2 music therapy program in the school districts for autistic children. She thanked the Board for
3 their interest and support. She asked if the Board would help bring the program up to two
4 school rooms.
5 Karen Kincaid Dunn, from Club Nova, thanked the Board for their continued support.
6 She said Club Nova is a clubhouse for seriously mental ill adults. She said some funding has
7 been lost over the past few years. She encouraged the Board to continue their support for Club
8 Nova.
9 Kristin Linton said she is the Executive Director of the Art Therapy Institute for therapy
10 purposes for all ages. She said she is seeking additional funding for the Burma Art Therapy
11 Project in the school systems. She said her program has served about 400 students and adults
12 this past year.
13 John Mitterling said he is on staff with the Big Brothers Big Sisters of the Triangle. He
14 said the program has served over 900 children regionally, with 200 from Orange County. He
15 said the program pairs students with thoroughly vetted mentors. He expressed gratitude for the
16 Board's support and requested $2000 for this year. He said the children served by the program
17 are from single parent or low income homes.
18 Robert Dowling said he is the Executive Director of the Community Home Trust and he
19 thanked the Board for all they do for the residents in Orange County. He said there are
20 currently 235 homes in the Home Trust program and their inclusionary program is a model
21 throughout the State and the Country. He acknowledged the role that all of the elected officials
22 play in Orange County. He supported the proposed position in the Housing Department.
23 Bridget Mora said she is a parent of a first grader at Seawell Elementary School, and
24 she asked the Board to fully fund the CHCCS request of$302 per pupil.
25 Sherri Carmichael said she is speaking on behalf of the Smith Middle School, School
26 Improvement Team, and is also here to ask the Board for full funding for the CHCCS. She
27 reviewed the history of excellence within the CHCCS.
28 Gary Wallach said he is here to speak about fully funding the CHCCS. He thanked the
29 Board for their past and continued support of the schools. He hoped they would fully fund the
30 request, and if not, an amount closer to the full request than $81 per pupil.
31 Jean Bolduc said she is here tonight on behalf of the Housing Authority. She noted that
32 the Board voted in April to restrict the bond referendum proceeds to schools only. She said the
33 Housing Authority Board passed a resolution of support for the Board to re-consider the
34 decision to include affordable housing investments. She said her Board has a deep
35 appreciation for the recommended budget.
36 James Barrett is a CHCCS Board member. He said there are State mandates providing
37 a raise for teachers, retirement matches and health insurance costs. He said the proposed $81
38 raise per pupil will be $70 shy of the amount necessary to allow the Schools to maintain status
39 quo; and does not account for the State mandates. He said meeting those requirements will
40 leave an $800,000 deficit for the schools. He highlighted some other priorities including
41 providing a living wage for all classified staff, funds to allow teachers to fully lesson plan and
42 providing instructional time for middle school students during periods of detention.
43 Matt Kauffman said he is representing the Community Empowerment Fund (CEF), and
44 expressed sincere gratitude for the Board's support of$5000 in the past 2 years. He asked if
45 the Board would consider increasing the funding to $7500 this year. He said the organization
46 has just opened an integrated service center in downtown Chapel Hill. He said this center will
47 co-locate a variety of services with partner organizations. He reviewed a variety of statistics
48 showing gains within the homeless community including financial progress, housing progress
49 and mentoring partnerships.
50 Adam Zanation said he is here to ask for full funding for the CHCCS. He said there are
51 excellent public schools in Chapel Hill. He recently moved into the District, taking his own
7
1 children out of well regarded private schools, and sending them to his local CHCCS. He said he
2 is a tenured faculty member at UNC School of Medicine. He said in the past year five new
3 faculty members have been recruited. He said these new faculty members noted that the
4 primary community driver that brought them here is the quality of the public schools.
5 Michael Lee said millions of dollars have been taken from the public schools in the past
6 7 years by the State. He said the current County budget is stepping up, and he thanked them
7 since no one else will do this. He said, however, that the proposed budget still puts the schools
8 $800,000 behind where they need to be for the upcoming year. He said he is asking the Board
9 to increase the per pupil funding up to $302.
10 Bryan Giemza said he appreciated the Board's efforts to juggle all of the requested
11 needs. He said to make education come first. He said the Board of County Commissioners is
12 the only hope. He said the schools are trying to get back to where they once were prior to the
13 cuts that have occurred in the past years. He said he hoped the Board would consider fully
14 funding the CHCCS.
15 Susan Levy said she is the Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity and the Chair of
16 the Orange County Affordable Housing Coalition. She said she appreciated the recommended
17 inclusion of CIP funding for affordable housing. She thanked the Board for supporting Habitat's
18 impact fee reimbursement last week. She said the funding for affordable housing at the Federal
19 level is not good, and she thanked the Board for filling in the gaps. She also expressed support
20 for the proposed position in Housing Department.
21 Elizabeth Welsby said she has been a resident of Chapel Hill for 28 years and is here to
22 request that the Board fully fund the CHCCS budget request.
23 Rebecca Poellot said she is the speaking on behalf of McDougle Elementary School and
24 is asking the Board to fully fund the CHCCS budget request of$302 per pupil. She felt
25 compelled to come here tonight because of a memo that circulated about the loss of$800,000 if
26 the schools are not fully funded.
27 Julie Siler said she and her husband were recruited by the UNC Health system and the
28 CHCCS were the entire reason that Chapel Hill was their location of choice. She asked the
29 Board to fully fund the CHCCS budget request.
30 Laura Henderson said she wanted to thank the Board for their support and to ask them
31 to fully fund the CHCCS, especially at-risk kids who will struggle with the loss of teacher
32 assistants.
33
34 PUBLIC COMMENT FROM EMAILS:
35
36 Dear Board of Orange County Commissioners:
37
38 I am writing to thank you for your continued support of the schools in our community -
39 and at the same time to ask you to consider meeting the budget request submitted by
40 the CHCCS District Administration and CHCCS Board of Education, which asks for an
41 additional $302 per child.
42
43 I am a parent of an elementary school aged child in the District, and I am a parent
44 member of the School Improvement Team at Glenwood Elementary. I see first hand the
45 dedication of our teachers and administrators in the district. Thanks to your long term
46 support for education in our community, we are fortunate to have excellent schools, and
47 committed teachers - but there is still great need in the District. I hate that we need to
48 ask you each year to provide additional funding to make up a shortfall that is driven by -
49 engineered by - Raleigh, but the reality is that by giving teachers a much-needed raise, it
50 will create a shortfall for other essential needs in the classroom - and our teachers and
51 children will suffer the consequences.
8
1
2 Please help your voters by preserving an educational system in which our children and
3 our teachers can thrive. Please help us by allocating additional funding for the schools.
4
5 Many thanks and warm regards,
6 Katie Jamieson
7
8 Dear Board of Orange County Commissioners,
9
10 Thank you for your continued support of our schools. As the officers of the PTA at
11 Glenwood Elementary School, we have seen first-hand the impact that financial support
12 of our schools has on the day-to-day educational experience of our
13 students. Unfortunately, we believe that the proposed budget falls well below the current
14 needs of our schools and our students.
15
16 The current Chapel Hill/Carrboro City Schools request—an increase of$302 per student
17 —takes into account the many cuts being proposed a the state level and the shortfalls for
18 which we must account. The citizens of Orange County are proud of the educational
19 experiences and outcomes of our students, and sufficient funding is essential to maintain
20 these standards and continue to improve. Extremely concerning to us is the potential
21 loss of 12 teachers or 25 teacher assistants, based on funding cuts. Such a loss could
22 prove crippling for schools already struggling to retain outstanding teachers who are
23 being recruited to other, better-funded areas of the country. The proposed funding also
24 would allow us to continue initiatives already in place to help close the Achievement
25 Gap. The results of these initiatives will not be immediate and the efforts need to carry
26 on for several years in order for us to see the benefits. To cut funding now would be to
27 undo valuable progress already made.
28
29 Additionally, we would like to express our support for the entire 2016 bond going towards
30 the schools. This money is necessary for the revitalization of many old buildings in the
31 district. If this money is diverted to other areas, our schools will continue to exist in a
32 state of disrepair. (Did you know that Glenwood's 62-year-old school building has no
33 ADA accessible restroom facilities, for either children or adults?) Our schools are a
34 sense of local pride and also a very real draw for those considering the area —we
35 recently met with a family relocating from California that chose Orange County over
36 Wake County based on our schools. Please help our schools to remain strong and our
37 area to continue to attract new families by investing in the future with the entire 2016
38 Bond.
39
40 Thank you for your service and your support of education in Orange County.
41
42 Best,
43 Shannon Eubanks, Dana Gelin, Katie Jamieson, Casey Saussy and Susan Swafford
44
45 I am writing to request that the Board of Commissioners fund the FULL budget request
46 of both CHCCS and Orange County Schools. This is important to our schools and our
47 children, and therefore to maintain quality of life in our community.
48
49 Richard Goldberg
50 1075 Brace Lane
51 Chapel Hill NC 27516
9
1
2 Our teachers have been underpaid for too long. Please cover the state-mandated pay
3 raise so that the school district won't have to cut teaching positions yet again.
4
5 The school system has been cut to the bone. We know the problem is coming from the
6 state legislature, so we must also demand they restore the necessary funding, and 1
7 promise to help in that. But in the meantime, we must cover their negligence. The
8 education of our children is the most important role of government. We cannot make our
9 children and their teachers suffer because of the poor support from the state.
10 1 support any necessary tax increase to cover this. We have to do it.
11
12 Thank you,
13 Dan Bernard
14 Kingston Drive
15 Chapel Hill, NC 27514
16
17 Dear Commissioners,
18
19 1 want to thank you for your ongoing support of the CHCCS schools, and I want to share
20 with you a brief glimpse of what our schools do each day that is so much more than
21 academics.
22
23 The other day, my kindergartener, Jacob, and I were reading a book in The Magic Tree
24 House series. For those of you who haven't had the privilege of reading this series
25 aloud to your children, let me enlighten you. Two children, Jack and Annie, travel back in
26 time to various points in history to do magical good deeds. In this particular book they
27 were visiting Charles Dickens. While Jack and Annie--who is disguised as a boy--are
28 working as chimney sweeps, they are unable to catch a ride because of their dirty
29 clothes. My six year old stopped after this event and said very clearly, "Mom, it seems
30 like white skinned boys get everything they want." I was unsure how to continue, so 1
31 said, "What makes you say that?" Jacob proceeded to refer back to several other Magic
32 Tree House books. "Well, when they visited Louis Armstrong in New Orleans, they had
33 to ride on the back of the bus with him because he was dark skinned. And then when
34 they went to Ireland in olden times, Annie wasn't allowed to do things because she was
35 a girl, not a boy. And now even when Annie is dressed like a boy, but she looks poor
36 because of her dirty clothes, no one will give them a ride. They only get what they need
37 when they are clean white skinned boys.
38
39 1 stared for a minute with my mouth opened wide. "What do you think about that?
40 "Well, Miss Barbie at school teaches us about tolerance and how things weren't always
41 fair. And this isn't fair. What about if you had medium skin, or were different in another
42 way? It's not OK that just being a white skinned boy means you get to do things easily
43 and have what you want. You know Mom, it's like that in a lot of books...." And he began
44 to tell me more about books he had read in school where the main characters were only
45 boys. And how there should be more medium and dark skinned kids in books and how
46 there are no dark skinned girls in books and how that's not fair, etc. It went on and on.
47 1 tell you this story, not to brag about my own child, but to share a snapshot of the
48 immeasurable value of what our schools are doing. He did not get this from me. He got
49 this from the brilliant work of guidance counselors, teachers, teaching assistants, and
50 support staff. Sure, they are teaching the standards in science, math, social studies,
51 and reading. This kindergartener used three separate texts to support the issue of white
10
1 privilege, which he came up with on his own. What amazing reading instruction! (Thank
2 you very much Common Core!) But when fully funded, schools are teaching kids how to
3 be people who will lead us one day. They are teaching kindness, compassion, and
4 empathy. They can spend the time to teach kids about getting along with others. They
5 can give the kids vocabulary like tolerance, grit, and diversity, in a way that helps them
6 to understand the world. This is the kind of community that will help to close the
7 achievement gap. This is what a school should look like. This is what can continue
8 when the CHCCS budget is fully funded. Without that funding, the choices are extremely
9 difficult and more than anything, they cost time spent directly with kids. And it might
10 have cost this child an amazing revelation that will hopefully mean one more member of
11 our community will become a tolerant understanding citizen one day, thanks to our
12 public schools
13 Thank you for your continued support and dedication.
14 Jill & Daniel Simon
15 203 Westbury Drive
16
17 My son is a student at Glenwood Elementary School this year, and I am very concerned
18 about the budget cuts that Chapel Hill public schools are facing next year. The schools
19 would likely have to let go of several teachers or assistants next year, which would make
20 class sizes bigger and result in the students receiving even less help--help that is critical
21 in the younger years especially when they are expected to learn so many things and
22 need help adapting to the classroom setting. If our schools continue to decrease in
23 quality it will impact our county and our state for decades. Please consider investing
24 more in our schools so that they can continue to meet the educational needs of our
25 children.
26
27 Sincerely,
28 Marcelaine Tanner
29
30 Dear Orange County Commissioners:
31
32 I am writing to ask you to fully fund the 2015-16 budget requests of the Chapel Hill-
33 Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools. As you know, the budgets from
34 Raleigh have forced our schools to trim away the "fat" from their budgets year after year;
35 there is nothing unessential remaining to be cut away - the proposed budget shortfall for
36 CHCCS will directly impact students in the classroom. This comes at a time when the
37 pressure on public schools to "perform", feed hungry children, welcome first-generation
38 Americans, and fully include students with disabilities (mine included) has never been
39 greater.
40
41 When the BoCC decided to fully fund our schools last year, it affirmed to the residents of
42 Orange County that our local elected officials share our values. I think it is important to
43 remember during difficult budget decisions that high quality public education has always
44 been a core value of Orange County. It is one of the cornerstones of our identity as a
45 community, locally, statewide, and nationally.
46
47 It is no secret that the excellence of our two public school systems is a key factor in
48 drawing and keeping the best and brightest to Orange County. With the fluidity between
49 the different regions of the Triangle, our top quality public schools are often the deciding
50 factor when people decide where to live and set down roots. Many Orange County
51 residents are willing to pay higher housing costs, pay higher taxes, and commute further
11
1 to work because they know that their children are getting the best public education in the
2 Triangle - all of which are absolutely true for my family. If we do not maintain that
3 standard of excellence, there will be little incentive for taxpayers to remain in Orange
4 County when they could live less expensively just over the Durham County line.
5
6 I thank you for your ongoing support of public education in Orange County, and ask you
7 to continue to make full funding of our two public school systems your top budgetary
8 priority once again this year. Thank you.
9
10 Respectfully,
11
12 Bridget Mora
13 Parent of 1 st grade student at Seawell Elementary
14 500 Umstead Drive #F108
15 Chapel Hill, NC 27516
16 919-240-4684
17
18 To whom it may concern,
19 I have a 2nd grader and soon-to-be kindergartner at Ephesus Elementary. I urge you to
20 increase funding for our schools as the teaching positions and teaching assistants are
21 critical to the success of our schools. We moved to Chapel Hill based on the quality of
22 public education. It is important to maintain the current level of excellence and
23 continued budget cuts do not support that. As a taxpayer in Chapel Hill, I am willing to
24 do my part to ensure success of our students. Please do your part as commissioners to
25 support our schools.
26
27 Sincerely,
28 Lisa Huggins
29 800 Churchill Dr
30 Chapel Hill NC 27517
31
32 Dear Board of County Commissioners:
33
34 We are parents of a 3rd grader and a rising Kindergartener at McDougle Elementary.
35 Please do whatever it takes to make full funding happen for CHCCS schools, even if that
36 means tax increases. We depend on the BoCC to fund the full budget request for our
37 schools.
38
39 Education is our top priority and it should be yours too. Thank you for your time and
40 commitment to education in our community.
41
42 Sincerely,
43 Stephanie and Bob Palmer
44 305 Autumn Drive
45 Chapel Hill, NC 27516
46
47 PLEASE FUND THE COMPLETE BUDGET THE BOARD HAS PROPOSED. WE CANT
48 AFFORD TO LOSE ANY TEACHERS OR ANY TEACHERS AIDES.
49 As a grandparent of four children in the Chapel Hill school system, I have witnessed the
50 supreme effort and enthusiasm teachers from two different elementary schools make to
51 complete their academic calendar and evaluations of their students.
12
1
2 How can a BUDGET CUT benefit our children in any way? Parents are providing
3 snacks, many supplies, volunteering, fund raising all to make their children's schools a
4 success and give their hard working dedicated teachers, administrators, staff , and all
5 the cheerful supporting staff that watch, teach and care for our children in this very
6 SPECIAL PART OF NORTH CAROLINA. Carrboro and Chapel Hill can only be
7 considered some kind of wonderful!! Teachers salaries need BOOSTING NOT
8 BURSTING!! Don't drive the teachers elsewhere - elevate and revere them because
9 they are shaping our children's minds and at least for 7 + hours a day their attitudes!!
10 Please support the budget the Board has proposed. Propose more tax dollars for
11 education and teachers salaries - it's needed.
12 Signed One Very Proud and Enthused Grandmother!!!
13
14 Sent from my iPhone
15
16
17 Dear Orange County Commissioners and Ms. Hammersley:
18 As you work on the budget for FY2015-16, could you take another look at the
19 recommended allocation for Communities In Schools of Orange County?
20
21 The 2014-15 allocation of$102K was cut by nearly $40K for FY2015-16. We would like
22 to ask you to reconsider the allocation for CIS Orange and give back the $102K.
23
24 Even with the pulling out of Orange County Schools, we plan to serve roughly the same
25 number of students in Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools.
26
27 This past year we served 310-345 students from both districts and over 50% of the
28 students were on free or reduced lunch. All of the students who are referred to us by
29 their social workers and/or teachers will be given priority enrollment in the CIS
30 afterschool program during the 2015-16 school year.
31 Even though the $22K portion of the $102K was disbursed by us to Orange County
32 Schools for its own afterschool programs, we could use this portion to help even more
33 low-income students in CHCCS, who otherwise will be placed on a waiting list, which in
34 turn means they will not get the services that they need to help them stay in school.
35 With gratitude for your past support, my hands are folded for your continuing support,
36
37 For the kids,
38
39 Sarah Shapard
40
41 Dear Commissioners,
42 My son is a first grade student in Chapel Hill. I am writing to encourage you to find a
43 way to give full funding to the school systems in Orange County and Chapel Hill and
44 Carrboro. Good teachers and teacher's assistants are what make a school a success
45 and give our children the best chance to thrive. Without strong leadership and teaching
46 support in the classrooms our children's opportunity to learn and grow is impacted.
47 Please find a way to fund our schools. I can't think of anything more important than the
48 way we educate our children. I know that you are in a difficult position and I appreciate
49 that. But, I also believe that you are intelligent individuals with a capacity to think outside
50 the box and to work together to find solutions. Good luck with your work in this matter.
51 Please do your best to find a way to fully fund our schools.
13
1
2 Best wishes,
3 Emory Doubman
4
5 Dear Chair McKee, Vice Chair Pelissier and Commissioners,
6
7 1 am unable to attend either of the Public Hearings in May so please consider this email
8 as my "3 minutes" at the podium.
9
10 1 strongly urge you to consider increased funding and continued financial support of the
11 Exchange Club Family Center in Alamance. They are highly successful in the
12 prevention of child abuse in at-risk families. I know, because I am one of their
13 successes.
14
15 In 2009, we had just adopted a baby girl from China when I started having panic attacks,
16 flashbacks to my childhood and was sleep deprived. Due to the presence of several risk
17 factors for child abuse I was almost a statistic and so was my daughter. I was
18 misdiagnosed by a therapist and told to go back to work because I could not"cut it" as a
19 stay at home mom. I was devastated and sick.
20
21 After many calls and searching the internet I found the Exchange Club Family in
22 Alamance via the Orange County Exchange Club website. I called and spoke with
23 Sarah Black, County Director and it was the beginning of a new life for me and my
24 family. I attended the free parenting classes and had a "nanny" make home visits to
25 observe me and my daughter interact and offer support for my newfound parenting
26 skills. I not only learned excellent parenting skills I also gained insight into what was
27 happening to me emotionally and physically. A profound healing had begun.
28
29 Today, my daughter is a happy, healthy 7 year old and I am a happy, healthy wife and
30 mother. I now serve on the advisory board for the Exchange Club Family Center in
31 Alamance because I felt compelled to give back to the organization who had given me
32 my life back and protected my daughter from harm before it happened. I am deeply
33 grateful and indebted to this organization.
34
35 Thank you for your kind consideration. Funding this worthy cause will save lives. 1
36 promise.
37
38 Sincerely,
39 Heidi S. Hackney
40 Orange County Resident. Registered Voter.
41
42
43 Dear Commissioners,
44 Thank you for your continued support of public education. At a time when public
45 education is under attack from the State, your support has been crucial. Please fully
46 fund the Chapel Hill-Carrboro Public Schools for 2015-16.
47
48 Thank you for your consideration.
49
50 Laura Henderson
51 105 Red Sunset Place
14
1 Carrboro, NC 27510
2
3
4
5 4. Adjournment of Public Hearing
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
8 adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12
13 Earl McKee, Chair
14
15 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
16
1
I Attachment 7
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 June 2, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June
10 2, 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 and Clerk to the Board
17 Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18
19 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
20
21 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
22
23 - PowerPoint Slides for item 4b -Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural District Designation:
24 Multiple Farms - Bowers, Bortz, Thompson, Vanhook (2), Summers, and Teer
25 - 7a- Strikethrough Version of Interlocal Agreement for the Hollow Rock Nature Park
26 - 7b- Eubanks Road Solid Waste Convenience Center Construction- site map
27 - Green sheet - for June 4th Budget work session: School Districts' Current Expense Budget
28 Requests since FY 2006-07
29 - Flier announcing opening of Blackwood Farm Park on June 20.
30
31 Chair McKee said that the scheduled closed session had been canceled.
32
33 PUBLIC CHARGE
34
35 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
36
37 2. Public Comments
38
39 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
40
41 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
42 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.)
43
44 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
45 Commissioner Dorosin said he had a request for information. He said he previously
46 petitioned the Board to continue the discussion regarding the bond referendum prior to the
47 summer break. He said the Chair told him that discussion would take place in September and
48 that it would not be too late to have this continued discussion at that time. He said he would
49 like clarification from the Attorney on the timeline. He asked if it would be too late both legally
50 and practically to continue the discussion in September.
2
1 John Roberts said legally it is not too late and practically he does not know.
2
3 Chair McKee said with the 2001 bond referendum, the Board did not move forward until
4 the spring prior to the fall election. He said he feels confident that the discussion can continue
5 in the fall, with plenty of time.
6 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is significance to the vote passed by the Board
7 on April 21St
8 John Roberts said it a vote of intent and is not binding.
9 Commissioner Burroughs said she had no petitions.
10 Commissioner Rich announced that today is National Gun Violence Awareness Day.
11 Commissioner Pelissier said she had no petitions.
12 Commissioner Jacobs congratulated the Carrboro High School Women's soccer team
13 for winning the State championship.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said the abstract mentioned an old farmhouse on the Southern
15 Human Services Center, stating it was demolished. He said Orange County has a Recyclable
16 and Reuse Materials Ordinance and that the farmhouse was not demolished but deconstructed.
17 He petitioned the Board to add short reports into the meeting agenda on different projects that
18 Orange County had done over the years in place of him being the only voice of history for the
19 Board. He reviewed copies of some reports that he brought with him tonight. He said all of
20 these are background to many of the Board's current conversations.
21 Commissioner Price said the National Association of Counties (NACo) has a newer
22 initiative called "Stepping Up," which seeks to reduce the number of people with mental illness
23 in their jail. She said she would like to see Orange County adopt such a resolution and she has
24 a resolution template which she will share with staff.
25 Commissioner Pelissier asked if staff would modify the resolution template as
26 necessary to reflect what the County is currently doing in this area.
27
28 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
29
30 a. Proclamation Supporting the Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities
31 Act (ADA)
32 The Board considered approving a proclamation affirming the County's commitment to
33 the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and authorized the Chair to sign the proclamation.
34 Human Relations Commission (HRC) Vice Chair, Gerald Ponder, introduced some
35 members from the HRC that are here to support his proclamation. He asked others in the
36 audience who were disable to be recognized. He displayed a Visitor's Bureau access guide to
37 those sites in Orange County that are ADA compliant and those which are not.
38 Mr. Ponder read the proclamation:
39
40 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
41 Proclamation Supporting the Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
42
43 WHEREAS, the Orange County Human Relations Commission seeks to prevent and eliminate
44 bias and discrimination, and to promote the equal treatment of all individuals, including persons
45 with physical, mental and developmental disabilities; and
46
47 WHEREAS, for generations, persons with disabilities were wrongfully denied the ability to
48 participate in our society, contribute to our economy, or support their families based on their
49 disability status and therefore were forced to live as second-class citizens being denied those
50 most basic opportunities; and
3
1
2 WHEREAS, persons with disabilities who were not content to accept the world as it was,
3 marched, organized and testified, coupling quiet acts of persistence and perseverance with
4 vocal acts of advocacy, demanded a nation that would declare equality for its citizens with
5 disabilities; and
6
7 WHEREAS, advocates joined in the efforts to remove barriers that were depriving the nation of
8 the full talents, contributions and differing abilities of tens of millions of Americans with
9 disabilities; and
10
11 WHEREAS, on July 26, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed into law the Americans with
12 Disabilities Act (ADA) which includes a clear and comprehensive mandate for the elimination of
13 discrimination against individuals with disabilities and the civil and equal rights of people with
14 disabilities; and
15
16 WHEREAS, the ADA has expanded opportunities for Americans with disabilities by removing
17 and reducing barriers, changing perceptions, and increasing full participation in community life;
18 and
19
20 WHEREAS, on July 26, 2015, this nation will celebrate the 25th anniversary of the signing of
21 the ADA, and we recognize that the full promise of the ADA will be reached only if we remain
22 committed to continue our efforts to fully implement the ADA;
23
24 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, on this the 25th anniversary year of the ADA, that the
25 Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina, celebrates the contributions
26 that Americans with disabilities and those who are differently-abled have made to our Nation
27 and to our County, and commits this County and all Departments therein to reach compliance
28 with the ADA through the adherence to the spirit of the law, by the removal or reduction of
29 physical barriers preventing full participation in community life, and by the empowering of
30 persons with disabilities through the provision of equitable treatment, inclusion and
31 opportunities.
32
33 THIS, THE 2"d DAY OF JUNE, 2015
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
36 approve the proclamation and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 Commissioner Jacobs said Laurie Paolicelli was present tonight and she was
41 responsible for getting the access guide printed.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said Orange County needs to move more quickly in regards to
43 ADA compliance. He said he fully supported using all of the funds budgeted for these needs at
44 one time in order to make the facilities ADA compliant in one year.
45 Mr. Ponder thanked the Board for passing this resolution and said he and his peers
46 would be more than happy to help in improving access in Orange County.
47
48 PUBLIC COMMENT:
49 Pam Dickens said she is here to represent the Disabilities Council. She said she
50 applauds Orange County for this resolution recognizing that the County has done a great deal
4
1 in 25 years, towards ADA compliance. She added that there is much more yet to be done to
2 improve access issues and she and her council are here to assist in any way.
3 Ellen Perry thanked the Board for this resolution and said she helped the Visitor's
4 Bureau in producing the access guide. She said she supports Commissioner Jacobs'
5 suggestion to take care of the access issues in one year. She invited them to a birthday on
6 July 21 st for ADA in Orange County.
7 Commissioner Price said she would like a group of citizens with disabilities to go to all
8 the County buildings to insure that the County is aware of all needs to be addressed regarding
9 ADA.
10
11 b. Voluntary and Enhanced Agricultural District Designation: Multiple Farms -
12 Bowers, Bortz, Thompson, Vanhook (2), Summers, and Teer
13 The Board considered approving applications for seven (7) farm properties totaling 971
14 acres (VAD) and 376 acres (EVAD) (rounded acreage) and designate them as Voluntary or
15 Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District farms within the Cedar Grove, Caldwell, Cane
16 Creek/Buckhorn, and White Cross Voluntary Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands in the
17 Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural
18 District (EVAD) programs. With approval of these additional acres, the Orange County
19 Voluntary Agricultural District Program will have enrolled 60 farms, totaling 7,162 acres in the
20 VAD and 1,329 acres in the EVAD for a total of 8,491 acres (rounded) in the program.
21 Gail Hughes introduced Renee McPherson as the new chair of the Agricultural
22 Preservation Board.
23 Gail Hughes made the following PowerPoint presentation:
24
25 Orange County Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District Program
26 Orange County Board of Commissioners Meeting
27 June 2, 2015
28
29 Orange County VAD/EVAD Program
30 (Orange County Voluntary Farmland Protection Program)
31 Benefits of Agricultural Districts
32
33 • The Voluntary Agricultural Program is a locally led program, with review and oversight
34 from the Agriculture Preservation Board (appointed by the BOCC); endorsed and
35 supported by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
36 • Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) is a 10 year commitment but the landowner can
37 withdraw from the VAD program at any time, for any reason, with a 30 day notification to
38 the Agriculture Preservation Board.
39 • Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) is an irrevocable 10 year commitment,
40 therefore the "enhanced" level qualifies farm for 90% cost share rates -through State
41 programs- and a priority for Farmland Preservation grants funds.
42
43 Benefits include:
44 • Makes public more aware of the local agricultural and its vital role in the economics of
45 the county;
46 • Recorded notice of agricultural district is recorded at County Land Records office;
47 • Land search on all properties within a '/2 mile radius is notified of the agricultural status,
48 therefore, the landowner has increased protection from nuisance lawsuits.
49 • Public hearings for proposed condemnation of VAD land and utility assessments may be
50 suspended or waived on EVAD land if not connected to the utility.
5
1 Farm may receive up to 25% of gross sales from the sale of non-farm products and still
2 maintain its zoning exemption as a bona fide farm. (EVAD only)
3 Map
4
5 Robert & Cheri Bowers
6 Whitted Bowers Farm
7 Cedar Grove Agricultural District
8 Farm includes fruit/vegetables such as strawberries, tomatoes, blueberries, and managed
9 woodland.
10 EVAD = 51.24 acres
11
12 Aerial Map
13
14 Elise Bortz
15 Elysian Fields Farm
16 Cedar Grove Agricultural District
17 Farm includes mixed vegetable production, tomatoes, and managed woodland.
18 EVAD = 43.65 acres
19
20 Aerial Map
21
22 James C. & Betty Thompson
23 Andrew /Susan Thompson
24 Thoms Creek Farm
25 New Hope and Cane Creek/Buckhorn Agricultural District
26 Farm includes beef cattle, pasture and hay crops, and managed woodland.
27 VAD = 592.55 acres
28
29 Aerial Maps
30
31 Willie & Hattie Vanhook
32 Cedar Grove Agriculture District
33 Farm includes beef cattle, pasture, hay crops, and managed woodland.
34 EVAD= 84.01 acres
35
36 Aerial Map
37
38 Richal & Savannah Vanhook
39 Caldwell Agricultural District
40 Farm includes beef cattle, pasture, hay crops and managed woodland.
41 EVAD= 76.32 acres
42
43 Aerial Map
44
45 Lewis & Charlene Summers
46 Goat Hill Farm
47 Cedar Grove Agricultural District
48 Farm includes corn, small grain, hay crops and managed woodland/forestry.
49 EVAD=121 acres
6
1
2 Aerial Map
3
4 Mike Teer, Sarah Teer
5 Thomas & Evelyn Teer
6 Teer Farms
7 Cane Creek/Buckhorn & White Cross Agricultural District
8 Farm includes dairy cattle operation, pasture, corn, soybeans, small grain, hay crops and
9 managed woodland/forestry.
10 VAD= 379.15 acres
11
12 Aerial Maps
13
14 Orange County
15 Voluntary and Enhanced Voluntary
16 Agricultural District Program
17 • All Farms have been reviewed by staff, meets or exceeds the minimum criteria, and
18 have been approved by the Agricultural Preservation Board for enrollment into the VAD
19 program
20 • Requesting final approval from Commissioners to accept seven (7) farms into the
21 Voluntary Agricultural Program. Increase of: (rounded acreage)
22 o 971 acres in the VAD
23 o 376 acres in the EVAD.
24 • If approved, total of acres in both programs:
25 VAD = 7162 acres
26 EVAD = 1329 acres
27 • Total Acres in Orange County Voluntary Agricultural Program = 8491 acres
28
29 Overview Map
30 June 2015
31 • VAD = 7162 acres
32 • EVAD = 1329 acres
33
34 Total Acres = 8491
35
36 ■ Red indicates farm location of new VAD/EVAD applicants
37 * rounded acres
38
39 Commissioner Rich thanked all of these residents and said she is encouraged by the
40 amount of acreage in the program.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said it is always good to see farms participate in this program,
42 maintaining their commitment to agriculture in Orange County.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier seconded by Commissioner Price for the
45 Board to certify the seven (7) farm properties noted above totaling 971 acres (VAD) and 376
46 acres (EVAD) (rounded acreage) as denoted in the attached documentation as qualifying
47 farmland, and designate them as Voluntary or Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District farms
48 within the Cedar Grove, Caldwell, Cane Creek/Buckhorn, and White Cross Voluntary
49 Agricultural Districts; and enroll the lands in the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District
7
1 (VAD) and the Enhanced Voluntary Agricultural District (EVAD) programs. With approval of
2 these additional acres, the Orange County Voluntary Agricultural District Program will have
3 enrolled 60 farms, totaling 7,162 acres in the VAD and 1,329 acres in the EVAD for a total of
4 8,491 acres (rounded) in the program.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 5. Public Hearings - NONE
9
10 6. Consent Agenda
11
12 Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
13 Commissioner Price removed item 6-q, Time Warner Wireless at Select County
14 Facilities
15
16 Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
18 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
19
20 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
21
22 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
23 Item 6-q —Time Warner Wireless at Select County Facilities
24 Commissioner Price asked if, once the antennas are up, the service will be free.
25 Jim Northup, Orange County Chief Information Officer, said under this agreement Time
26 Warner will install Wi-Fi access points in ten buildings and anyone that is in their consortium of
27 cable companies will have free access. He said anyone that is not a member will get an hour of
28 free internet service daily.
29 Commissioner Price asked if Efland Cheeks Community Center would be one of the 10
30 buildings to receive an access point.
31 Jim Northrup said this building already has internet access.
32 Commissioner Rich asked if this is a three year contract with Time Warner.
33 Jim Northup said yes.
34 Commissioner Rich asked if upgrades are available would Time Warner upgrade their
35 services during the three years.
36 Jim Northup said this is the Time Warner model to get Wi-Fi into areas to increase their
37 market and he assumed they would upgrade as needed over the 3 years.
38 John Roberts said that Orange County is authorized by statute to work with Time
39 Warner to expand services, if needed, at the County's expense.
40 Commissioner Rich said she wants to insure the County is not locking itself into
41 something that is substandard in a year.
42 Jim Northup said the current technology that Time Warner is using will not be
43 substandard in the next eighteen months to two years.
44 John Roberts said if Time Warner is not upgrading as they should be then Orange
45 County can terminate the contract.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said Time Warner is going away as an entity and the County may
47 well be dealing with different people going forward.
48 Commissioner Rich said this whole model is going to change sooner rather than later,
49 with fast moving technology.
50
8
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
2 approve expanding wireless Internet services to Orange County residents and visitors with the
3 installation of Time Warner Cable Enterprises (TWC) wireless access points at ten (10) County
4 facilities and authorized the Manager to execute the contract with TWC and any amendments
5 subject final review by the County Attorney.
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 a. Minutes
10 The Board approved the minutes for the April 14, 2015, BOCC Joint Meeting with the Board of
11 Health; the April 14, 2015 BOCC Work Session; and the April 21, 2015, BOCC Regular Meeting
12 as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
13 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
14 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
15 property tax values for eight (8) taxpayers with a total of nine (9) bills that will result in a
16 reduction of revenue in the amount of$2,705.94 to Orange County, the towns, and school and
17 fire districts. Financial impact year to date for FY 2014-2015 is $41,663.01.
18 c. Appointment of Four(4) Deputy Tax Collectors
19 The Board reappointed Valerie Curry, Bernice Gwynn, Linda Jaubert, and Bobbie Underwood
20 as Orange County Deputy Tax Collectors for two-year terms effective July 1, 2015.
21 d. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget Amendment#9
22 The Board approved budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2014-15
23 for Department on Aging; Library Services; County Manager's Office; Health Department;
24 Animal Services Department; and Visitors Bureau Fund.
25 e. Professional Services Agreement -Website Consulting, Content Management
26 Solutions and Customer Relations Management with Simpleview, LLC
27 The Board approved a professional services agreement with Simpleview, a national Visitors
28 Bureau website developer for the development of a new state-of-the-art travel website that will
29 allow the Orange County Visitors Bureau to bundle multiple on-line services being managed by
30 several vendors into a comprehensive website that maximizes spending by visitors, and
31 authorized the Manager to sign the agreement and any future amendments.
32 f. Request for Road Addition to the State Maintained Secondary Road System (Ben
33 Wilson Road Extension — SR 1140), and Secondary Road Abandonment (Ben Wilson
34 Road, SR 1140, Partial)
35 The Board made a recommendation to the North Carolina Department of Transportation
36 (NCDOT) and the North Carolina Board of Transportation (NC BOT) on a petition to add Ben
37 Wilson Road Extension — SR 1140 (partial) and approved a resolution, which is incorporated by
38 reference, requesting the abandonment of Ben Wilson Road — SR 1140 (partial).
39 g. Comprehensive Plan and Unified Development Ordinance Amendment Outline and
40 Schedule— Public Hearing Process Revisions
41 The Board approved process components and schedule for an upcoming government-initiated
42 amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and directed the staff to proceed
43 accordingly.
44 h. County Attorney and Clerk to the Board Employment Agreement Amendments
45 The Board approved the Employment Agreements governing the terms, and conditions of the
46 County Attorney's and Clerk to the Board's employment.
47 i. Resolution to Endorse Orange County's Transportation Project Lists for the
48 Burlington-Graham and Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning
49 Organizations and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization
9
1 The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, endorsing transportation
2 projects within the Burlington-Graham Metropolitan Planning Organization (BGMPO), Durham-
3 Chapel Hill-Carrboro (DCHC) MPO and the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization
4 (TARPO) planning areas for State scoring and ultimate consideration of inclusion in the 2018-
5 2027 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
6 j. Approval to Extend the Central Orange Fire Insurance District Boundary from the Cane
7 Creek Fire Insurance District
8 The Board approved the updated Central Orange Fire Insurance District map which has been
9 expanded to include properties from the Cane Creek Fire District that are not currently in the
10 rated insurance district for insurance purposes only.
11 k. Approval to Extend the Cedar Grove Fire Insurance District Boundary
12 The Board approved the updated Cedar Grove Insurance District map which has been
13 expanded to include properties from the Efland Fire District that are not currently in the rated
14 insurance district for insurance purposes only.
15 I. Approval to Extend the Cane Creek Fire Insurance District Boundary
16 The Board approved the updated Cane Creek Insurance District map which has been expanded
17 to include properties from the Efland Fire District that are not currently in the rated insurance
18 district for insurance purposes only.
19 m. Approval to Extend the Central Orange Fire Insurance District Boundary from the
20 West Orange Fire Insurance District
21 The Board approved the updated Central Orange Insurance District map which has been
22 expanded to include properties from the Efland Fire District that are not currently in the rated
23 insurance district for insurance purposes only.
24 n. Revisions to Orange County Voluntary Farmland Protection Program Ordinance
25 (Code of Ordinances Chapter 48)
26 The Board approved a resolution to make minor technical adjustments to the wording of the
27 Orange County Voluntary Farmland Protection Program Ordinance (Chapter 48, Orange
28 County Code of Ordinances) to eliminate the requirement that a farm must participate in the
29 present-use program to qualify for the County's Voluntary Agricultural District (VAD) Program, a
30 requirement that was removed from the program's enabling legislation by the North Carolina
31 General Assembly in 2011.
32 o. Plat Revision for the Hollow Rock Nature Park
33 The Board authorized the Chair to sign an Amendment to the Declaration of Development
34 Restrictions and for staff to record a revised plat for the planned Hollow Rock Nature Park to
35 construct a small parking area for the proposed park.
36 p. FY 2015-16 Home and Community Care Block Grant for Older Adults Funding Plan
37 The Board approved the recommended Home and Community Care Block Grant (HCCBG) for
38 Older Adults Funding Plan for FY 2015-16 in the amount of$553,104 and authorized the Chair
39 to sign the grant documents.
40
41 7. Regular Agenda
42
43 a. Interlocal Agreement for the Hollow Rock Nature Park
44 The Board considered approving an interlocal agreement for the development and
45 operation of the planned Hollow Rock Nature Park located along New Hope Creek and
46 authorizing the Chair to sign the agreement.
47
48 BACKGROUND:
49 In 1992 Orange County, Chapel Hill, Durham County and the City of Durham adopted
50 the New Hope Creek Corridor Master Plan, which called for preservation of lands along the
10
1 New Hope Creek corridor from central Orange County to Jordan Lake. The master plan
2 envisioned a public trail network with a number of"access areas" at strategic locations,
3 including the "Hollow Rock Access Area" at the intersection of Erwin Road and Pickett Road.
4 The planned Hollow Rock Access Area is a 75-acre site comprised of multiple land parcels
5 owned separately by Orange County, Durham County, and the Town of Chapel Hill. The site
6 straddles the Orange-Durham county line and New Hope Creek forms the western boundary.
7 Portions of the site are protected with conservation easements held by the State of North
8 Carolina. The site was acquired in a series of separate land transactions from 2001-2014.
9 The Triangle Land Conservancy (TLC) purchased the first two acres in 2002, and then
10 advocated for further acquisitions. Orange County purchased four parcels from 2005-07 with
11 the help of state grants. A 43-acre tract was acquired by Durham and Orange counties and the
12 Town of Chapel Hill in 2008 with funding assistance from the City of Durham, the State, and the
13 Erwin Area Neighborhood Group. Orange County acquired the two-acre TLC property in May
14 2014.
15 In 2006 the four local governments signed an interlocal agreement for the acquisition
16 and planning of the planned Hollow Rock Access Area, and also established a Hollow Rock
17 Master Plan Committee, co-chaired by Commissioner Barry Jacobs and including then-
18 Commissioner Alice Gordon. The master plan was adopted by each of the four local
19 government partners in 2009-10. Orange County adopted the plan on April 20, 2010.
20 Construction of the initial public amenities for the Hollow Rock site will occur in the latter
21 half of 2015 with help from a $200,000 NC Recreational Trails Program grant awarded to
22 Durham County in collaboration with Orange County. Orange County's share of this Phase 1 a
23 construction is $50,000 from the adopted 2014-19 Capital Investment Plan (CIP). The CIP
24 identifies an additional $120,500 from Orange County for Phase 1 b construction in 2016-17. A
25 phasing plan for development of the site is provided as Attachment 4.
26 The Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR) worked
27 closely with the Durham County staff to develop a draft interlocal agreement for the
28 development and operation of the Hollow Rock portion of the larger New Hope Preserve. The
29 agreement describes the property ownership, existing encumbrances (conservation
30 easements), and allowed uses consistent with the adopted master plan. The agreement also
31 addresses how the parties would share in the cost of future improvements, the operation and
32 maintenance of the site, and development of a joint management plan.
33 An initial draft agreement was presented to the Board on March 3, and the Board
34 referred the draft agreement to the Durham-Chapel Hill-Orange County Work Group
35 (DCHOWG) for consideration on March 11. Since then DEAPR has worked closely with
36 Durham County staff to incorporate recommended edits from the DCHOWG as well as
37 separate technical edits received from Town of Chapel Hill, Durham County, and the Orange
38 County Attorney.
39 The only non-technical issue of note is that the consensus of the DCHOWG was to
40 change the name of this site from the "Hollow Rock Access Area", a placeholder name from the
41 1992 New Hope Creek Master Plan, to the "Hollow Rock Nature Park". The initial draft
42 agreement that the Board received on March 3 suggested the name change to "Hollow Rock
43 Park and Natural Area," but many reviewers of the document commented that name was too
44 long and cumbersome.
45 The revised interlocal agreement is ready to be reconsidered by the Board. The
46 agreement was approved by the Town of Chapel Hill on May 27 and is scheduled to be
47 considered for approval by Durham County on June 8.
48
49 FINANCIAL IMPACT:
11
1 There is no financial impact associated with consideration of the draft interlocal
2 agreement; however, the agreement does specify options for how the local governments would
3 share in the costs of future improvements to the site, as well as for the operation and
4 maintenance of the site. Decisions for actual costs associated with the construction, operation
5 and maintenance of the Hollow Rock Nature Park will be made in separate actions by the
6 Board.
7 David Stancil made the following Power Point presentation:
8
9 Hollow Rock Nature Park
10 New Hope Preserve
11 June 2, 2015
12
13 Hollow Rock Access Overview (map)
14
15 Hollow Rock Access Area
16 New Hope Preserve
17 • 75 Acres
18 • Erwin & Pickett roads
19 • Orange/Durham Counties
20
21 Hollow Rock Nature Park Ownership (map)
22
23 Hollow Rock Access Area
24 New Hope Preserve
25 • 2006 Interlocal Agreement (4 jurisdictions)
26 • Master Plan Advisory Committee
27 o 12 meetings (2007—2009)
28 o Public Outreach and Input
29 o Findings and Recommendations
30
31 Rich Shaw continued the presentation:
32 Master Plan adopted 2009-10 (4 jurisdictions)
33
34 Proposed Master Plan (map)
35
36 Hollow Rock Access Area
37 New Hope Preserve
38 • NC Recreational Trails Grant = $200,000
39 • Durham + Orange match = $50,000
40 4 Phase la construction (2015)
41 Erwin Rd entrance, parking, trails, bridges, signage
42 4 Phase lb construction (2016-17)
43 4 Restroom, education shelter, ADA trail, picnic tables, ...
44 Interlocal Agreement
45
46 Interlocal Agreement for Development and Operation
47 I. Background
48
49 II. General information
12
1 Site Name
2 ➢ Hollow Rock Access Area (original)
3 ➢ Hollow Rock Park and Natural Area (initial draft)
4 ➢ Hollow Rock Nature Park(proposed)
5 Master Plan
6 Management Plan (within 2 years)
7 Names on Facilities
8 Ownership
9
10 III. Site Management
11 Allowed uses
12 Policies and regulations
13 (OC & DC to develop jointly)
14
15 IV. Site Improvements and Amenities
16 Consistency with master plan
17 Costs of Phase I improvements (50-50 OC/DC)
18 Costs of future improvements (TBD)
19 Grant funds
20
21 V. Site Operations
22 Operations and management (Orange County and Durham County)
23 Operations and maintenance (Pickett Rd split)
24 Insurance
25 Security and public safety
26
27 VI. General Provisions
28 Relationship of the Parties
29 Appointment of Personnel
30 Governing Law
31 Term (3 years; 5-yr extensions)
32 Amendments
33 Entire agreement
34 Headings
35 Communications
36
37 Signatures:
38 Orange County, Durham County, Town of Chapel Hill
39
40 Status:
41 D-CH-O Work Group (March 11)
42 Town of Chapel Hill approval (May 27)
43 Orange County consideration (June 2)
44 Durham County consideration (June 8)
45 Anticipated park opening: Early 2016
46
47 Commissioner Price referred to page 7 in the interlocal agreement regarding fire and
48 emergency services and she asked if these departments should sign off on this agreement.
13
1 David Stancil said fortunately Orange County and Durham County have been through
2 this process before with Little River Park with reciprocal agreements. He said the appropriate
3 parties have been contacted and are a part of the current conversation.
4 Commissioner Price referred to Item III, Site Management, on page 3. She asked if the
5 word "race" could be removed and replaced with "ethnicity and/or national origin."
6 Chair McKee asked if Chapel Hill had already approved the agreement.
7 Rich Shaw said yes but with the provision that if the agreement sustained any
8 substantive edits, it would return to the Town for re-approval.
9 John Roberts said that as Durham County has yet to approve the agreement he
10 suggested Orange add a similar provision as the Town of Chapel Hill.
11 Chair McKee asked if Commissioner Price would be willing to hold her changes until a
12 motion was presented.
13 Commissioner Price agreed.
14 Commissioner Dorosin asked for further clarification regarding the "future site of Hollow
15 Rock Store" which was mentioned in the phasing plan.
16 Rich Shaw said there is a group called the Friends of Hollow Rock Store that has
17 worked with the owner of the past store, which was located elsewhere. He said this group
18 would like to relocate the store to this property as a site amenity and an entrance feature. He
19 said it is unknown whether the building would be open or closed to the public but that it does
20 have historical value. He said the current plan is to clear the footprint for the building should it
21 be located there.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said there are three factors that will not appear in the documents
23 which led to this park happening. He said one is Orange County used to have a strong and
24 active relationship with Duke, and Duke would come to Orange County first when property was
25 available for purchase. He said the second factor is an example of a neighborhood that saw
26 possible development coming in and rallied the local governments to propose an alternative
27 vision for the land that would preserve the properties more naturally. He added, thirdly, that this
28 process went smoothly because the County had been through the same situation with Durham
29 County regarding Little River Regional Park. He said there was a track record of success.
30 Commissioner Price restated her request regarding the word "race," for Item III: Site
31 Management.
32 Commissioner Dorosin said "national origin" is already included in the end of the
33 paragraph. He said he does not support the removal of the word "race." He said adding
34 ethnicity would be acceptable but that race should remain due to the ongoing prevalence of
35 race discrimination.
36 Commissioner Price said to add "ethnicity" and leave in "race".
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the
39 Board to approve the interlocal agreement for the development and operation of the planned
40 Hollow Rock Nature Park, to add the word "ethnicity" to Item III (Site Management), to authorize
41 the Chair to sign the agreement, and to authorize staff to make any non-substantive changes
42 that may be necessary prior to execution.
43
44 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
45
46 b. Eubanks Road Solid Waste Convenience Center Construction
47 The Board considered: 1) Authorizing staff to move forward with bid document
48 preparation and bidding of the Eubanks Road Convenience Center site expansion/improvement
49 project in order that work can be initiated at the earliest possible time during the summer and
50 fall months of 2015; 2) Authorizing the Manager to award the bid and, upon County Attorney
14
1 review, execute the construction contract for the Solid Waste Convenience Center
2 expansion/improvements during the summer break in an amount not to exceed the project
3 budget; and 3) Authorizing the Manager to approve project change orders that do not in total
4 exceed the project budget.
5 Gayle Wilson, Orange County Solid Waste Director, said at a recent Solid Waste
6 Advisory Board (SWAB) meeting a more accurate title was suggested for this project: Eubanks
7 Road Convenience Center, Scale Operations and Landfill Entranceway Improvements.
8 Gayle Wilson said this evening he would: brief the Board on the project; review the
9 planned improvements; review the project evolution; provide an overview of the estimated
10 schedule; explain the proposed temporary center that will function during construction; make
11 comments regarding some perceived duplication of services; answer questions; and hoped to
12 gain authorization from the Board for the Manager to award the construction bid and sign the
13 contract during summer break.
14 Gayle Wilson referred to the site plan and said he would walk the Board through the
15 project. He pointed out that the new location entrance will also serve as the exit. He said there
16 will be 3 Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) compactors along with cardboard and mixed recyclables
17 compactors. He said there will be dual level containers. He said the lower level of the Center
18 will have tire, clean metal, clean wood, yard waste, bulky item, and rigid plastics collection.
19 Gayle Wilson said the site will be much safer including some ADA improvements such
20 as a paved service and lower loading heights. He said this site will operate more efficiently,
21 have reduced odors and be a cleaner site with better working conditions for staff. He said there
22 is a but in front of the central MSW compactor for staff. He said this but is enclosed with
23 heating and air conditioning while the other compactors have canopies over them. He said
24 there is also a bathroom and running water in the scale house which no other center has except
25 Walnut Grove. He said if someone is going to the landfill then one would proceed straight in
26 through the property into the landfill area. He said the new scales and scale house would be
27 located here. He said there is a return road if vehicles need to weigh back out to calculate their
28 fee. He said there is also a sanitation vehicle parking area on the perimeter of the property. He
29 said the newly proposed services are: textiles, plastic film, food waste, cooking oil, an
30 expanded salvage shed and a hazardous waste service.
31 Gayle Wilson said this center was originally planned to mirror the one at Walnut Grove
32 at an anticipated cost of$1.4 million. He said the manager proposed that the project be revised
33 to include the entire Eubanks Waste Facility Entrance Way and Scale Operations, moving to
34 the north of Eubanks road, and to include the incorporation of a hazardous waste facility. He
35 said these changes moved the cost to approximately $2.5 million. He said the reason to make
36 these additional changes was to create a safer environment and to replace the old scales that
37 were at their life end. He said the changes also moved operations further away from the
38 Rogers Road area by a hundred plus feet. He said a few additional recommendations have
39 been made and the current budget is now$3.17 million which is being proposed in the Capital
40 Investment Plan (CIP).
41 Gayle Wilson reviewed the project schedule. He said he would like to go out to bid on
42 June 19, 2015, and open the bids on July 21, 2015. He said he hoped to have a contract
43 executed by August 11, 2015, and proceed a week later. He plans to open a temporary center
44 on August 20, 2015, in conjunction with the mobilization of the Contractor.
45 Gayle Wilson said there will be a temporary convenience center with reduced services
46 established for the duration of the project. He said this temporary location is proposed at the
47 Future Millhouse Road Park property. He said it will include placement of a stone base, a
48 temporary chain link fence and various signage (See Attachment 1).
49 Gayle Wilson said the temporary site planning has been coordinated with the
50 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR). It would include
15
1 waste and bulky item receptacles, yard waste and electronics recycling only. Other services
2 would be temporarily suspended during the period of construction. Recyclables can be
3 delivered to Cedar Falls Park 24-hour drop-off site or any other drop-off or convenience center.
4 Gayle Wilson said there were some questions about duplication of services. He said the
5 curbside recycling program is being expanded and there is some confusion regarding the need
6 for recycling services at the larger Centers. He said the impact of duplicating services was
7 considered. He said the new Eubanks Road Center has two compactors that handle cardboard
8 and mixed recyclables. He said the area dedicated to these materials is quite small and
9 therefore is not a major duplication of the curbside service.
10 Gayle Wilson said since there is a desire to complete the project in a timely manner it is
11 being proposed that the Manager award the bid and sign the contract during the summer
12 months provided it is within the budget.
13 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was a defined role for the project consultant.
14 Gayle Wilson said he did the preliminary layout of the Center and all of the detailed
15 design work.
16 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this was the same consultant used for the transfer
17 station.
18 Gayle Wilson said no but that it was the same consultant used for Walnut Grove. He
19 said the Consultant used to work with the firm that handled the Transfer Station but does no
20 longer.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said the Town of Chapel Hill brought up the question of value
22 received for the money being invested at this site and he said Mayor Kleinschmidt said this site
23 is a consolidation of services without creating new services. He said it will be important to
24 educate the public regarding the variety of services that will be co-housed in this one location.
25 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there will be physical access to the compactors from
26 vehicles. He said if there will not be physical access then there should be a plan to address the
27 need of help for some residents with particularly heavy loads.
28 Bonnie Hammersley said she and Gayle Wilson have not yet had this discussion but will
29 be looking at this going forward. She said it is a customer service issue that must be
30 addressed.
31 Gayle Wilson said one possible option would be to use the bulky items compactor where
32 one can drive up closer to the hopper. He said the lower loading heights will be helpful to both
33 the public and the employees.
34 Commissioner Rich said she and Commissioner Jacobs had discussed the title of the
35 facility and concluded that it is much more than a convenience center and the name should
36 reflect this.
37 Commissioner Rich asked if Gayle Wilson could itemize the services currently available
38 to Cedar Falls.
39 Gayle Wilson said there is cardboard and mixed recyclables.
40 Commissioner Rich asked if the current capacity of bins would be sufficient and simply
41 emptied more often during construction or if additional bins will be necessary.
42 Gayle Wilson said the site has limited space and likely the site will be serviced more
43 often as it will be more heavily used. He said there will be site plans posted at the current
44 Eubanks site to forewarn and educate the public.
45 Commissioner Rich said to also encourage employees to talk to residents and hand out
46 flyers about the upcoming changes/closures/options.
47 Commissioner Price asked if there is anything located to the west of the site.
48 Gayle Wilson said there are yard waste and mulching area, white goods, mattress and
49 cardboard recycling and the C and D landfill.
16
1 Commissioner Price asked if the scales are moved to this site will all activity move away
2 from the old landfill site.
3 Gayle Wilson said it would take all public access away from the old landfill area. He
4 added that a building will remain there, where electronics are collected and dismantled.
5 Commissioner Price asked if there will be an increase in service traffic.
6 Gayle Wilson said he does not anticipate an increase in the service trucks.
7 Commissioner Price said the entrance and exit being combined made her nervous and
8 asked if there is another exit in case of emergency.
9 Gayle Wilson said yes. He said the old entrance along with the old exit are still present.
10 He said in general these exits will remain closed but could be opened relatively quickly. He said
11 there is little reason for fire to break out at this site but there will be a fire hydrant on site.
12 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the operations on the south side of the road are all
13 moving to the north side, where will mattress drop off be located.
14 Gayle Wilson said mattress drop off is currently on the north side and will remain in its
15 exact location.
16 Commissioner Jacobs said the proposed location for the temporary site is close to the
17 Rogers Road community. He asked if there has been any outreach done in that community
18 about the temporary site. He said, if not, that this should be done soon and with clearly
19 identified boundaries.
20 Gayle Wilson said outreach has not yet been done as approval from the Board of
21 County Commissioners for the temporary site has yet to be given. He said a lot of residents
22 from the Rogers Road area use the convenience center and he will make sure signage and
23 information is up soon.
24 Commissioner Jacobs said to make sure this is done soon to avoid community unrest.
25 Gayle Wilson said this would be pursued promptly.
26 Commissioner Dorosin said residents in this area are concerned that this plan is simply
27 the first step towards a transfer station being located at this site. He said if there are long-term
28 plans for this site to be back in consideration for a transfer station, the Board should be talking
29 about this now.
30 Gayle Wilson said he does not make transfer station plans independent of the Board
31 and thus he is not spending any time on a transfer station at this site, or any other site.
32 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the existing scales need to be replaced even if they
33 were not being moved to the north side of the road.
34 Gayle Wilson said yes.
35 Commissioner Dorosin said Commissioner Jacobs made the point that services are
36 being consolidated and not expanded but he is not sure if that is true. He said if there are new
37 services being provided the County must be clear about this up front. He said this project going
38 from $1.5 to $3.2 million sounds "high". He said the plan should be carefully reviewed to see if
39 there is anything that could be scaled back without compromising services.
40 Gayle Wilson said the household waste could remain on the south side road and be re-
41 located at a future time but it will never cost less than it will as a part of a larger project. He
42 said additionally the parking area for the sanitation trucks could be delayed.
43 Commissioner Pelissier asked if improving the Solid Waste Convenience Center
44 improves the flow and increases efficiency as the population grows.
45 Gayle Wilson said this site would have safer access and it could handle more traffic than
46 the existing facility. He said the service trucks will be separated from the public for the most
47 part and that alone will greatly improve flow and safety.
48 Commissioner Pelissier asked if this has been analyzed.
49 Gayle Wilson said traffic flow was a major concern during the design process and he
50 feels it has been addressed adequately.
17
1 Commissioner Jacobs said these centers were envisioned as a regional convenience
2 center and as such, does have more services than a smaller site. He said Jeff Thompson was
3 once hired as a value engineer. He suggested that perhaps a value engineer could look at this
4 site and recommend the best design, etc.
5 Gayle Wilson said lessons learned from the Walnut Grove project are proving very
6 helpful and informative.
7 Chair McKee said he is seeing a bottleneck at the recycling and white paper processing
8 areas. He asked if the turn radius for this area is known.
9 Gayle Wilson said he does not know the exact radius at this time but he said it is
10 important as the trucks have to be able to turn. He said it would be rare for all three
11 compactors to operate at the same time.
12 Eric Schopler, Engineer, said the turning radius has been tested successfully with pick-
13 up trucks and trailers. He said this is the best layout possible related to traffic flow with the
14 smaller area available.
15 Chair McKee asked if the proposed new scales would utilize the current in ground part
16 of the scales, by moving it to the north side of the road.
17 Gayle Wilson said a new in-ground scale is being pursued. He said all the components
18 of the current scales are in need of replacement and would simply be left where it is.
19 Chair McKee asked if above ground scale pads had been priced.
20 Eric Schopler said this scale is typical of solid waste scales used everywhere and that
21 the scales are purchased after a bidding process, to insure the lowest cost.
22 Chair McKee asked if this scale is large enough to accommodate tractor trailers.
23 Eric Schopler said yes.
24 Chair McKee asked if the mattress shed could be located on this part of the property.
25 Gayle Wilson said currently 80-90 percent of mattresses that come into the site are
26 recycled but the mattresses must be dry. He said there is currently a fee charged for
27 mattresses and box springs, paying for them to be recycled or disposed of. He said mattresses
28 could be accepted at the convenience centers but those sites are not equipped to handle
29 money, thus the cost for recycling or disposing of the mattresses would have to be absorbed by
30 the County. He said additional staff would be necessary to handle the mattresses.
31 Chair McKee asked if the temporary site will be restored to its original condition once it
32 is no longer needed.
33 Gayle Wilson said DEAPR staff would like for the stone to remain while the chain link
34 fence is removed.
35 Chair McKee said that would be fine as long as the lot does not have the appearance of
36 being abandoned.
37 Commissioner Jacobs asked the Manager if it would help to do some value engineering
38 and asked if it would fit into the time frame.
39 Bonnie Hammersley said value engineering could be completed within this time frame,
40 and staff would look into it. She said this time can also be used to inform the neighborhood of
41 the upcoming changes.
42 Commissioner Dorosin said there would be no report given to the Board, regarding the
43 value engineering, prior to a vote being taken.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board could direct the Manager to come back in
45 September with the total costs of the project.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said bids would be out prior to September.
47 Bonnie Hammersley said the value engineering would be completed prior to the bidding
48 process. She said if the value engineer returns information that sparks concerns, she would
49 inform the Board.
50 Commissioner Jacobs said he would trust the Manager on this.
18
1 Commissioner Price said she would like to see an itemized list of costs for the big ticket
2 items for this project in order to better understand why the project is so expensive.
3 Commissioner Burroughs said she felt comfortable with this proposed plan, trusting the
4 Manager to stop the process if there is cause for concern.
5 Commissioner Dorosin asked the Manager if she going to do the value engineering in-
6 house.
7 Bonnie Hammersley said she cannot answer that yet but will talk to staff tomorrow to
8 pursue options.
9 Commissioner Dorosin said this type of value engineering would be good to have for this
10 project and other projects going forward. He suggested finding a way to do this with in-house
11 staff.
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
14 Board to:
15
16 1) Authorize staff to move forward with bid document preparation and bidding of the Eubanks
17 Road Convenience Center site expansion/improvement project in order that work can be
18 initiated at the earliest possible time during the summer and fall months of 2015;
19
20 2) Require the manager to initiate a value engineering review of the project prior to bidding this
21 work out, and halt the project and report back to the Board should significant concerns arise as
22 to the cost, design, or other significant aspects of the project;
23
24 3) Authorize the Manager to award the bid and, upon County Attorney review, execute the
25 construction contract for the Solid Waste Convenience Center expansion/improvements during
26 the summer break in an amount not to exceed the project budget; and
27
28 4) Authorize the Manager to approve project change orders that do not in total exceed the
29 project budget.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 8. Reports
34
35 a. Final Consultant Report Regarding Future Development of Southern Orange
36 County Government Services Campus
37 The Board considered receiving and discussing the report recommending development
38 concepts and phasing for future potential facilities on the County's Southern Government
39 Services Campus on Homestead Road in Chapel Hill, pursuant to its governing Special Use
40 Permit that has been approved by the Town of Chapel, recognizing that the Manager and staff
41 plan to use these recommendations in future Capital Investment Plan development.
42 Jeff Thompson, Director Asset Management Services, said Orange County is working
43 with Clarion Associates on this implementation plan.
44 Roger Waldon, Clarion Associates, said he is very excited about the prospects for this
45 site, as it is an enormous opportunity for the County. He presented the following PowerPoint
46 slides:
47 Southern Orange County Government Services Campus:
48 Implementation Report
49 June 2, 2015
50 Board of County Commissioners
19
1
2 Area Map
3
4 Background: Regulatory History of Site
5 • 1992: County Purchased Site
6 o Consolidation of human services in southern Orange County
7 • 1994: Special Use Permit (SUP) Approved by Chapel Hill
8 o Orange County Southern Human Services Center
9 • 1995: SUP Modification Approved by Chapel Hill
10 o Project Homestart facility
11 • 2005: SUP Modification Approved by Chapel Hill
12 o Robert and Pearl Seymour Senior Center
13 • 2007: County Adoption of Concept Plan
14 o For Internal Staff Working Purposes
15 o Several assessments: cultural, archaeological, environmental
16
17 Recent Progress
18 • BOCC Approval of Master Plan
19 • Town of Chapel Hill Approval of SUP
20 • Review of Documents, Meetings
21 • Preliminary Development Concepts
22 • Identifying Options for Sequencing
23 • Tonight: Implementation Report
24
25 The Site Today (map)
26
27 Review of Master Plan (map)
28
29 Key Ideas for Implementation
30 • Options and Flexibility
31 • Draw on Space Needs Study
32 • Co-location opportunities
33 • IT / Emergency Management
34 • Transit Hub
35 • Resource Center
36 • Partnerships
37 • "Health Campus"
38
39 Development Opportunities (graphic)
40 Expansion of Southern Human Services Building
41
42 Development Opportunities (graphic)
43 Expansion of Seymour Center
44
45 Development Opportunities (graphic)
46 Site for Veterans' Memorial
47
48 Approach to Development: 3 Phases (graphic)
49 Phase 1
20
1
2 Mike Hammersley, from Corley Redfoot Architects, reviewed the following information from the
3 Implementation Report, including several graphics:
4 The first phase of implementation should include a 15,000 square foot expansion of the
5 Southern Human Services building. This would be an extension to the rear of the existing
6 building, with 7,500 square feet on the same level as the existing facility, and another 7,500
7 square feet as a lower level.
8 Included in Phase 1, along with the building addition, would be a reconfiguration and
9 addition to the existing parking lot (retaining as many existing parking spaces as possible for
10 reasons of efficiency and cost), construction of the new second access into the site,
11 bicycle/pedestrian improvements along Homestead Road, and reservation of a Veterans
12 Memorial site.
13 Phase 2 would include more extensive work on the site. Phase two would involve (1) An
14 additional expansion of the Southern Human Services Building, with associated additional
15 parking and circulation roads; (2) Expansion of the Seymour Center, with associated additional
16 parking and drop-off areas; (3) Reconfiguration of the existing entrance drive (using the Phase
17 1 newly constructed secondary entrance road for all access while the main entrance is being
18 rebuilt); and (4) Reconstruction of the stormwater management ponds, designed to become an
19 amenity for the site.
20 Phase 3 is the most conceptual, due in part to its being 10-15 years out. All
21 infrastructure improvements and elements required as conditions of the Special Use Permit
22 approval would very likely be completed by the end of Phase 2 of this implementation plan.
23 Phase 3 becomes, in some ways, a placeholder for future needs. Phase 1 would likely add
24 15,000 square feet of floor area (addition to Southern Human Services Center). Phase 2 would
25 likely add approximately 46,500 square feet (16,500 square foot addition to the Seymour
26 Center, and a second addition of 15,000 square feet to the Southern Human Services Center).
27 That leaves approximately 250,000 square feet of additional new building capacity that can be
28 built as needs and circumstances require in the future. The following sketch shows the three
29 locations on the site where additional buildings and parking could be located, as approved in
30 the Master Plan and authorized with the Special Use Permit:
31 Following are initial preliminary cost estimates, in current dollars, with contingencies
32 added, for funding needed to accomplish the first two phases of implementation, as described
33 in this Implementation Report.
34 Phase 1: Two-story building addition to Southern Human Services Building, with related
35 parking and internal road changes, and construction of new, second access into the site (as
36 illustrated on page 11).
37
38 Building Addition to SHS - 15,000 sf
39 With Related Site Work, Parking $6,000,000 to $6,625,000
40
41 Infrastructure Costs, Including New Road $1,800,000 to $1,980,000
42
43 Total Phase 1 $7,800,000 to $8,605,000
44
45 Phase 2: Additional 2-story expansion of the Southern Human Services Building, 2-story
46 expansion of the Seymour Center, reconfiguration of the existing entrance drive, and
47 reconstruction of the stormwater management ponds (as illustrated on page 12).
48
49 2nd Building Addition to SHS - 15,000 sf
50 With Additional Site Work, Parking $6,000,000 to $6,625,000
21
1
2 Building addition to Sr. Center - 16,500 sf
3 With Site work for new parking areas $6,600,000 to $7,425,000
4
5 Infrastructure costs $6,000,000 to $660,000
6
7 Total phase 2 $13,200,000 to $14,710,000
8
9 Chair McKee asked if 48 additional parking spaces are enough.
10 Mike Hammersley said this is a campus and there is more than one area that will
11 accommodate parking. He said there is the ability to build as much parking as is seen fit. He
12 added that the idea of an internal shuttle system has also been considered.
13 Chair McKee said many seniors use this site and ample adjacent parking or a shuttle is
14 important
15 Mike Hammersley said this needs to be a more transit oriented site.
16 Commissioner Price asked if the slope of the new road is known.
17 Mike Hammersley said it is not going to be much steeper than it is now.
18 Roger Waldon said the campus will be ADA compliant.
19
20 Roger Waldon resumed the PowerPoint presentation:
21 Additional Ideas for Consideration
22 • Southern Human Services Building:
23 - Possible use of Lower Floor for Emergency Services
24 • Seymour Center:
25 - Possible building modifications
26 - Increase amount of usable space
27 - Relatively lower costs, awaiting Phase 2
28
29 Roger Waldon reviewed the following information regarding "Ideas for Consideration" found on
30 page 14-16 of the Implementation Report:
31 Regarding the Southern Human Services Building: There is interest and opportunity in
32 considering the lower floor of the proposed Phase 1 building addition for Emergency Services
33 operations. The combination of good access for equipment and loading, a safe and easily
34 secured physical setting (in a setting resembling a lower-level basement), and proximity to
35 Chapel Hill and Carrboro is unique. This building addition is proposed at 15,000 square feet,
36 meaning that 7,500 square feet of lower level space would be available.
37 Regarding the Seymour Center: Study of the site and this facility resulted in a series of
38 suggestions for relatively minor structural changes that would result in an increase in the
39 amount of usable space in the Center. These are not included as part of the Phase 2 building
40 expansion, but rather offered as ideas for smaller projects that could enhance the usability of
41 the existing building, in the interim period before Phase 2 work can be funded and
42 implemented. Part of the scope of this implementation phase was to secure assistance and
43 suggestions from a professional with expertise in emerging trends in senior center focus and
44 design. Assistance was obtained from Rick Eldridge, Executive Director of the Rufty-Holmes
45 Senior Center in Salisbury, NC, and a contributor to regional and national examination of these
46 issues.
47 Following is a list of these suggestions for consideration, suggesting ideas which would
48 enhance capacity of the building, while awaiting the full building addition:
49 1) Remove/re-locate the wall separating the hallway from the large multipurpose room.
50 2) Fill-in the floors/ceilings between levels.
22
1 3) Relocate open lounge space in lobby to new flooring area and construct new offices in lobby.
2 4) Convert areas used for fitness machines to office space (with construction of new fitness
3 wing).
4 5) Reconfigure the Computer Lab to regular classroom space over time by investing in laptops
5 or tablets rather than desktop units, and making sure the building has Wi-Fi throughout.
6
7 Roger Waldon concluded the PowerPoint presentation:
8 Next Steps
9 • Subdivision of Parcel
10 • Detailed Drawings and Plans for Phase 1
11 • Obtain Permits for Phase 1 Construction
12
13 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the plans contained in the packets before the Board
14 include only additions to existing buildings rather than building up higher above the existing
15 Southern Human Services Building.
16 Roger Waldon said yes.
17 Commissioner Dorosin asked if that determination was made based upon an evaluation
18 of the existing building and the conclusion that it would not sustain a higher level.
19 Roger Waldon said the current plan is a very cost effective way to add 15,000 sq ft.
20 Jeff Thompson said the space study concluded that more space is not currently needed
21 and the plan is addressing the dental clinic expansion and other discussed uses. He said he
22 does not believe the facility is currently structured to go up.
23 Commissioner Dorosin asked if once the planned construction is completed, if the
24 Special Use Permit (SUP) allows for housing to be put on the site.
25 Roger Waldon said he believed the SUP is specific to government services but he will
26 check.
27 Commissioner Dorosin asked if a County sponsored apartment building were
28 constructed on the site would it qualify as government services.
29 Roger Waldon said yes.
30 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the Phase one numbers match up with Year 2 in the
31 CIP.
32 Jeff Thompson said the CIP is showing two projects: the $4 million infrastructure project
33 and the Southern Human Services Center expansion. He said the $4 million project is removed
34 and approximately $2 million of those funds are applied to the Southern Human Services
35 Center expansion. He said the balance of the funds would be spread out over Years 6-10 of
36 the CIP.
37 Commissioner Pelissier asked for clarification regarding transit improvements and if they
38 must be approved by the Town Manager.
39 Roger Waldon said improvements would be bus stops for drop off and pick-ups and the
40 Town would want to look at the plans prior to issuing the permits for construction.
41 Roger Waldon referred back to Commissioner Dorosin's question regarding permitted
42 uses for the land. He said the following is permitted: "governmental uses and facilities intended
43 to provide protective, administrative, residential, social, transit and recreational services directly
44 to general public."
45 Commissioner Jacobs said the site had been considered for a homeless shelter but that
46 did not happen. He said there is still need for a general shelter and a shelter for battered
47 women as these needs are not being met.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said he was at the site recently with the Veterans' Memorial
49 Committee and David Swanson, who created the original design for the Veterans' memorial.
50 He asked if the Board should encourage the Committee to go through the outside agency
23
1 process for this proposed memorial. He said the committee currently intends to raise the funds
2 themselves but he suggested the Board should consider if there is a way to be more involved.
3 Commissioner Price asked if there is a timeline for the construction of the dental clinic.
4 Jeff Thompson said 2016-17, in Phase One.
5 Commissioner Rich asked if the Senior Center were to be renovated rather than
6 expanded, during which phase this would occur.
7 Roger Waldon said those renovations could go forward ahead of time and not be a part
8 of the phasing.
9 Commissioner Rich said she would like to see the renovations move forward prior to the
10 addition. She said the Center is wildly popular and there is a deficit of space. She would like to
11 know the costs, timeframe, and inconvenience to the clients, etc. She added that any
12 renovations should take into consideration the potential removal of lighting from the recreational
13 area.
14 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not sure that housing Information Technology here is
15 applicable. He said it is not regularly accessed by the public and it seems a waste to place it
16 here when other services that have heavy public interaction could be here instead.
17 Jeff Thompson said there would be a redundant Information Technology server center
18 that is 400 square feet or less.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said this is very valuable real estate in Chapel Hill and even 400
20 additional square feet being available to human services should be a priority.
21 Commissioner Price said when the space study was reviewed this location was a good
22 fit for this Information Technology center. She said she sees it as more of a strategic
23 placement.
24 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board should think broadly about what services can be
25 dispersed throughout the County.
26
27 9. County Manager's Report
28 NONE
29
30 10. County Attorney's Report
31 NONE
32
33 11. Appointments
34 NONE
35
36 12. Board Comments
37 Commissioner Price had no comments.
38 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Chair and Vice Chair could reinstate the strike
39 through versions of documents and allow for the Board to receive written follow up when there
40 is a meeting with people such as Morinaga.
41 Chair McKee thanked Commissioner Jacobs for bringing this reminder to the Board's
42 attention.
43 Commissioner Pelissier said the Durham-Orange Light Rail project continues to move
44 forward. She said Go Triangle submitted the draft Environmental Impact Study last night and
45 should hear in February whether the project can continue. She said there was a meeting today
46 at the Chapel Hill Library for the public to receive an update and provide input. She said 70
47 people were present for this meeting. She said Wake County is still considering their own light
48 rail system.
24
1 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Go Triangle could send the Board their
2 recommendations. He said he has heard complaints regarding proposals but he does not know
3 the specifics of any of the proposals.
4 Commissioner Pelissier said she just saw it today and asked for a copy to be sent to the
5 Go Triangle Board which could in turn be sent to the BOCC.
6 Bonnie Hammersley said she would get it and send it out.
7 Commissioner Rich had no comments.
8 Commissioner Burroughs expressed her support for value engineering being used more
9 widely.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said the Magistrate Exemption Bill for same-sex marriages, the
11 religious belief exemption bill, passed the House and Senate last week, and the Governor
12 vetoed it. He said the Senate voted to override the veto and now the House takes it up next.
13 Commissioner Rich said it would be interesting to know how many challenges there are
14 to bills and how much tax dollars go in to fighting these lawsuits.
15 Chair McKee said there is a possibility of this override passing in the House but it is
16 slim.
17
18 13. Information Items
19
20 • May 19, 2015 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
21 • Tax Collector's Report - Numerical Analysis
22 • Tax Collector's Report - Measure of Enforced Collections
23 • Tax Assessor's Report - Releases/Refunds under $100
24 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from May 19, 2015 Board Meeting
25
26 14. Closed Session
27 Canceled
28
29 15. Adjournment
30
31 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
32 adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36
37 Earl McKee, Chair
38
39 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
40
1
I Attachment 8
2
3
4 DRAFT MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 Budget Work Session
7 June 4, 2015
8 7:00 p.m.
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, June
11 4, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
12
13 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. He reviewed the following items at their
14 places:
15 - Salmon sheet—Vehicle Replacement— Internal Service Fund
16 - Flier celebrating 30 year of the Orange County Arts Commission, as well as a lapel pin
17
18 1. Schools
19 a.) Durham Technical Community College, Pg. 143 & 147
20 Dr. Ingram, President, thanked the Commissioners for their time, and said the past year
21 was a successful one. He said when the Orange County Campus was opened seven years ago
22 there was a vision of strong partnerships with the local schools and employers. He said this
23 year has exceeded expectations. He said more high school graduates are choosing Durham
24 Tech for their higher education. He said he looks forward to developing further relationships
25 with their new neighbors, UNC Healthcare.
26 He said last week representatives from Morinaga Foods visited the campus, and they
27 are excited about working with their employees in work development courses.
28 He said Durham Tech is requesting funding for two initiatives, which it currently offers in
29 Durham County, via its portion of the Durham County '/4 cent sales tax: 1.) provide for a college
30 liaison working in Orange County Schools and 2.) prepare high school drop-outs to take the
31 GED.
32 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Legislature's decisions have affected Durham Tech.
33 Dr. Ingram said the House version of the budget was supportive of Community
34 Colleges, although the Senate version does not look promising.
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Dr. Ingram could give more detail regarding Durham
36 Tech's relationship with the new UNC Hospital.
37 Dr. Ingram said Durham Tech has been working with the Hospital on identifying some of
38 their training needs. He said it is hoped that the second building at the Orange County Campus
39 of Durham Tech would be a healthcare facility, to provide training for the UNC Hospital staff.
40 Penny Glock, Durham Tech Orange Campus Director, said there have been about 4
41 meetings between the two entities in the recent months. She said the hospital anticipates a
42 need for additional nurse assistants 11, EMS programs, clinical trials and other areas. She said
43 the low lying fruit is being sought at this time, but it is hoped that the partnership will continue to
44 grow in the years to come.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said Dr. Ingram has previously mentioned the possibility of
46 Durham Tech being included to receive funds from the 2016 bond referendum. He asked Dr.
47 Ingram if a master plan is being developed.
48 Dr. Ingram said O'Brian Atkins was engaged in late March to update the campus master
49 plan, and are still in the process of doing so. He said the Orange County campus is being
50 reviewed first, in anticipation of the bond.
2
1 Commissioner Price said Durham County was very proactive in facilitating public
2 transportation for students. She asked if there are plans to do something similar in Orange
3 County, and how the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) can help.
4 Dr. Ingram said any student can purchase a Go Pass, which gives free bus service from
5 any of the Triangle Transit systems. He said it is a five day pass, and will cost the school about
6 $90,000 this year. He said public transit is important in the area and the region, and the school
7 is working with Triangle Transit to expand their services in reference to Durham Tech.
8 Commissioner Rich asked if Dr. Ingram or Penny Glock could elaborate on how the high
9 schools are taking advantage of Durham Tech.
10 Penny Glock said the Orange County Campus has the Career and College Promise
11 Program, which has the College Transfer Pathway. She said this offers students the
12 opportunity to take tuition free classes, while they are in high school, towards an Associates
13 Degree in Art or Science. She said the scheduling is designed to coincide with high school
14 needs, wherever possible. She said the program is growing, and it is hoped that more high
15 school students will participate.
16 Commissioner Rich clarified if the students are on a degree path, then the tuition is free
17 while they are in high school.
18 Penny Glock said yes.
19 Commissioner Rich asked how this cost is offset.
20 Dr. Ingram said the State provides tuition exemption. He said the cost is simply written
21 off by the State.
22 Commissioner Rich said this is a fantastic opportunity for high school students, and
23 hopes many will take advantage of it.
24 Dr. Ingram said that is where the college liaison position would prove most helpful.
25 Commissioner Price asked if$90,000 for the Go Pass comes from a particular funding
26 source.
27 Dr. Ingram said it is paid for by student fees.
28 Commissioner Dorosin referenced page 148, regarding the request for funds to provide
29 a 2% wage increase to staff whose salaries are paid with Orange County funds. He said
30 Orange County has a living wage ordinance. He asked if the employees paid by Orange
31 County funds earn the County's living wage, which is $12.76 per hour.
32 Dr. Ingram said Durham Tech's salary schedules are pegged to exceed the minimum
33 living wage for both Durham County and Orange County.
34
35 b.) Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS), Pg. 143 & 152
36 Superintendant Tom Forcella said the BOCC has most of the District's information but
37 he wanted to take the opportunity to stress the importance of the ability to fund the mandates
38 from the State for salary increases but also the desired changes within the system to benefit
39 students, such as working with Durham Tech. He said there are also funds in the budget for
40 support in Advanced Classes for minority students as well as economically disadvantaged
41 students.
42 Todd LoFriese, Assistant Superintendant, said the highlights of the Legislature's
43 proposed budget are salary increases for teachers and all school employees. He said to make
44 the local match is about $1.2 million. He said this budget also establishes medical and State
45 retirement matches. He said the proposed County budget will leave an $800,000 deficit. He
46 said there has been a steady reduction in positions in the past several years, including gifted
47 specialists and custodians. He said there was $1.5 million in reductions last year. He said the
48 next positions to be reduced would be Media Assistants who would be very unfortunate to lose.
49 Commissioner Burroughs said 31 one positions were cut last year. She asked for the
50 consequence to the students, if the per pupil amount stays at $81.
3
1 Tom Forcella said the largest areas where $81 per pupil would be felt would be available
2 programs, and potentially class size. He said if the State mandates salary increases the District
3 must comply.
4 Commissioner Dorosin asked what would happen if the $800,000 deficit left by the
5 current budget were to be funded.
6 Tom Forcella said that would just take care of the very top mandates required by the
7 State.
8 Todd LoFriese said one example is the school resources officers and this is part of the
9 District's continuation budget. He said this is one area where additional assistance would be
10 needed.
11 Commissioner Dorosin clarified if the extra $800,000 was provided it would still be
12 necessary to eliminate teachers.
13 Todd LoFriese said yes.
14 Commissioner Dorosin asked for clarification regarding the potential State mandated
15 increases.
16 Todd LoFriese said it is a 6% increase for new teachers and 2% for tenured teachers.
17 Commissioner Dorosin asked if it was relevant that teachers in CHCCS already made
18 more money than teachers in other counties.
19 Todd LoFriese said this does not matter. It is an increase across the State regardless of
20 current salary.
21
22 c.) Orange County Schools (OCS), Pg. 143 & 225
23 Pam Jones, Acting Interim Superintendant, said the last time OCS met with the BOCC,
24 Dr. Del Burns requested that the BOCC set the OCS Board of Education compensation. She
25 said this still needs to be done as the Board of Education cannot set the rates themselves.
26 Pam Jones said in the budget message, previously presented, Dr. Del Burns indicated
27 that with the $81 increase, it would still be necessary to reduce their expenditures in order to
28 meet the proposed funding of$81. She said OCS has also reduced their workforce since 2008
29 which affects programming. She said OCS are also looking to implement the strategic planning
30 outcomes and that is not part of their proposed budget.
31 Chair Halkiotis thanked Pam Jones for filling in for the month of June and he thanked
32 the Board of Commissioners for the opportunity to be there tonight. He presented a handout
33 that paints a picture of OCS. He said the District has been slowing bleeding positions since
34 2007. He said the positions total over $1 million. He acknowledged the financial generosity of
35 the BOCC and added that the State Legislature has not been so kind.
36 Chair Halkiotis said the budget presented a month ago did not include projected
37 increases once the legislature adopts their budget. He said OCS are not awash with money.
38 He said over the last couple of years they have cut down to the "bare bones." He said many
39 positions need to be added back in.
40 Chair Halkiotis said OCS cannot afford to keep losing students to charter schools. He
41 said there are 478 charter school students that have left the OCS. He said there must be an
42 assessment of why students are leaving and a redesign of the system to address the reasons.
43 Chair Halkiotis said the OCS Board Members have asked if the Board of County
44 Commissioners would increase the salaries of Board Members to be commensurate with those
45 of the CHCCS.
46 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the new Superintendent had a start date.
47 Chair Halkiotis said July 1.
48 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Dr. Halkiotis for acknowledging the support of the Board
49 of County Commissioners. He asked if the Manager would look at the salaries of the OCS
50 Board of Education.
4
1 Commissioner Jacobs said the BOCC continues to fully fund a portion of Communities
2 in Schools (CIS) for CHCCS. He said OCS took the services provided by Communities in
3 Schools in house, and wonders why OCS did not ask for the same continued funding from the
4 BOCC.
5 Pam Jones said the programs were reviewed and OCS found it was doing much of the
6 programming already. She said the services were taken in house in order to maintain the
7 integrity of the programming and to move the programs in a different direction.
8 Chair Halkiotis said it was a recommendation brought to the OCS Board by Del Burns.
9 He said an audit of CIS was conducted, at the expense of OCS, and the results were found be
10 unacceptable. He said it was concluded that CIS was not in the best interest of the students.
11 He said OCS will be providing the program and will probably provide it better.
12 Commissioner Jacobs asked if OCS had remained with CIS how much funding would
13 have been received.
14 Chair Halkiotis said he did not know but the Board concluded this was the best decision
15 in the interest of the OCS students.
16 Pam Jones said it was around $125,000 from the County and now OCS is putting in that
17 $125,000.
18 Commissioner Jacobs asked if both school systems had been funded equally for CIS.
19 Bonnie Hammersley said the request from CIS for the 2015-16 budget was $102,000,
20 and the County reduced it per ADM (Average Daily Membership) due to OCS no longer
21 participating, by $35,200. Commissioner Price said she understood that when CIS received
22 their funding last year, that $20,000 went to OCS. She said she received this information from
23 CIS board members.
24 Commissioner Burroughs said she is the liaison to CIS. She said in the CIS budget
25 $22,000 went straight to OCS. She said the remaining amount of funding from the BOCC was
26 for running the program in both districts. She said there was never a definitive split between the
27 OCS and CHCCS.
28 Commissioner Jacobs asked if$35,000 goes to the Executive Director's position.
29 Paul Laughton said yes. He said part of the $102,000 given this year went towards the
30 Executive Director's salary. He said this year the total funding is reduced by $35,200.
31 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the number of actual students last year was lower than
32 the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) projections.
33 Pam Jones said yes. There were 176 fewer students than projected.
34 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the reduced number of students affects the OCS budget.
35 He asked if OCS still receives funding for the 176 students that did not enroll.
36 Pam Jones said no, the funding is not received if the students do not enroll.
37 Commissioner Jacobs asked if funding was still received from the BOCC.
38 Pam Jones said yes, funding is still received from the County.
39 Chair Halkiotis said it is reflected in the loss of 7 teaching positions.
40 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the County had not given funding for the 176 students
41 that never enrolled would the cuts have been greater, and if there is a way to budget for this.
42 Pam Jones said it affects the allocation of teaching staff, but does not reduce the fixed
43 costs. She said the loss of students is not from one school but rather spread across the
44 District.
45 Chair Halkiotis said this can ultimately lead to the increase in class size.
46 Chair Kelly (CHCCS) said enrollment this year was 150 students lower than the
47 projected amount. He noted that some years the prediction is too high while other years it is
48 too low leading to a wash from decade to decade.
5
1 Commissioner Dorosin said the Public Schools Forum of North Carolina ranks both
2 Orange County School Systems as the best in the State. He asked the Chair if there would be
3 any discussion regarding the Schools this evening.
4 Chair McKee said it is normal procedure to hear from all the departments and have a
5 general discussion on the entire budget at a later meeting.
6 Commissioner Dorosin suggested it may be beneficial to amend this process in the
7 future. He said he sees benefits to having some discussion while members of the school
8 districts are present to answer questions.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said until the other half of the budget is heard it is difficult to
10 make commitments.
11
12 2. Sportsplex, Pg. 418
13 John Stock said the 10th anniversary of the Sportsplex is approaching in December. He
14 said in that time the Sportsplex has moved from being a financial drain on the County, to
15 sustaining a $550,000 operating surplus last year. He said this year was challenging as needs
16 were uncovered during lobby renovations. He said the building was analyzed as a whole and it
17 was discovered that the entire sprinkler system needed upgrading. He said the biggest issue
18 discovered was the sub floor heating under the ice rink was in need of repair. He said, as a
19 result, what was expected to be a big surplus year was not. He added that since renovations
20 and repairs were completed there has been a rush back to normalcy and growth.
21 John Stock said the Sportsplex budget is fairly conservative but expects that revenues
22 will increase.
23 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are groups which receive discounts to the
24 Sportsplex.
25 John Stock said Orange County employees, seniors, all State government employees,
26 Town of Hillsborough, structured corporate discounts, Veterans, and subsidized discounts for
27 Department of Social Services (DSS) clients.
28 Chair McKee noted the Sportsplex parking lot is often full, an indication of its popularity.
29 John Stockton expressed his thanks to the BOCC for their ongoing support.
30
31 3. County Departments
32
33 Sheriff, Pg. 388
34 Paul Laughton reviewed the highlights of this department and said these are reallocated
35 funds.
36 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes three (3) new Jail Alternatives
37 program positions, consisting of a Jail Alternatives Manager (1.0 FTE), a Pre-Trial Services
38 Coordinator (1.0 FTE), and a Drug Treatment Coordinator (1.0 FTE). This program has been
39 funded in previous years through contracts within the Department of Social Services, so there
40 are no additional County costs associated with the creation of these positions. The FY 2015-16
41 Budget also includes the addition of a 1.0 FTE Court Liaison position (salary and benefits of
42 $71,614) to enhance coordination between all criminal justice stakeholders.
43 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an increase of$22,329 in Non-
44 Permanent personnel for additional court coverage.
45 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an increase in Contract Services to
46 cover the costs of outfitting a projected fifteen (15) new vehicles, as part of the proposed
47 Vehicle Replacement Schedule for FY15-16, as well as an increase in the medical inmate
48 contract.
49 ■ The Capital Outlay of$85,715 in FY15-16 includes the purchase of a firearms training
50 simulator to train officers in various scenario situations.
6
1 The office will continue to provide Reserve Deputies in the elementary schools within
2 Orange County Schools (OCS) system in FY15-16; this cost of approximately $184,000 is paid
3 by Orange County Schools.
4
5 Sheriff Blackwood thanked the staff and Board of Commissioners for helping him with
6 this budget process. He said the firearms training simulator is an important tool for their
7 officers.
8 Commissioner Rich said Orange County does not currently have a Safe House for
9 domestic violence victims and said she understood the Sheriff may be supportive of
10 establishing one in the future.
11 Sheriff Blackwood said if corporate partners can be engaged and volunteers recruited, a
12 facility should be able to be established. He said the problem being faced is not the securing of
13 a physical structure but rather the long term programs that occur in such a Safe House. He
14 said many victims have nowhere else to go. He said having the safe place to go is a first step
15 but there must be long term resources to empower victims to long term safety.
16 Commissioner Rich said she believes this to be a very important issue and real need
17 within Orange County. She said she would like to see numbers and know what corporate
18 partners say about helping.
19 Sheriff Blackwood said the next steps would be to look at a facility that is working
20 elsewhere and then try to move forward with best practices.
21 Commissioner Rich asked if there was a way to move this process forward. She said
22 she anticipates this being a project that will need funding and so brought it up during budget
23 conversations.
24 Sheriff Blackwood said he would be willing to move forward starting tomorrow.
25 Chair McKee said this topic could be added to the Board's next work session. He
26 expressed doubt that a petition would be necessary to move this forward.
27 Commissioner Pelissier said the additional position for the Court Liaison was one of the
28 recommendations from the Jail Alternatives Work Group. She asked if the Jail Alternatives
29 Manager position fell under Social Services.
30 Sheriff Blackwood said no.
31 Sheriff Blackwood said the Jail Alternatives Manager/Director would serve directly under
32 the Captain of the Jail Detention Center. He said this person would have a law degree, the
33 ability to search out and author grants, and extreme management capabilities. He said the
34 Court Liaison position is being funneled in from a person within the agency already. He said
35 the Orange County Jail has done a horrible job equipping its inmates for future success and
36 reduced recidivism. He said the Jail Alternatives Program seeks to address this failure.
37 Commissioner Pelissier said the average number of inmates per month is projected to
38 decrease and asked if there is are specific reasons for this.
39 Sheriff Blackwood said there is intention to create programs for re-entry. He said the
40 processes by which people enter the system are being adjusted with different intake questions
41 being asked. He said UNC Mental Health is helping to determine best practices. He said that it
42 is a priority for those with mental health diagnoses to be known and given proper and
43 appropriate treatment.
44 Commissioner Pelissier commended the Sheriff and his department. She said she
45 heard a panel of Judges speak regarding the lack of alternative services available for people
46 within the criminal justice system. She asked if the Sheriff would please keep the BOCC
47 alerted to road blocks encountered so that the Board can assist in creating resources.
48 Sheriff Blackwood said the Judges, attorneys and jail personnel work well together and
49 he said the philosophy in Orange County is committed to treating mental health needs properly.
7
1 Commissioner Price reinforced what Commissioner Rich said about a Safe House in
2 Orange County. She said the need for a domestic violence shelter is paramount and she is
3 supportive of this idea.
4 Commissioner Dorosin said a member of the public came to speak on the issue of pre-
5 trial services, and asked if there are plans for the transition process. He also asked if any
6 current employees who are performing well would be asked to remain.
7 Sheriff Blackwood said there will not be any lack of services during this transition period.
8 He said there are no County employees currently in these positions as they are filled by
9 contracted employees.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said the Sheriff projects a 50% decrease in break-ins. He asked
11 if this prediction is based on anything in particular.
12 Sheriff Blackwood said he is fairly certain that numbers given regarding break-ins during
13 the prior year were not accurate. He said the numbers he is presenting are based on the
14 Uniform Crime Report from SCI and the numbers that he has developed since taking office on
15 December 1.
16 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the new positions being re-allocated regarding the Jail
17 Alternatives Program, pre-trial services, drug treatment and Court liaison have been run by the
18 legal community.
19 Sheriff Blackwood said he started this conversation over a year ago with members of
20 the Public Defender's Office, other attorneys, Judges, and the District Attorney's office. He said
21 all were not only supportive but excited about the overall concept.
22 Bonnie Hammersley said she has had conversations with the District Attorney and there
23 was support but some concern about the transition process.
24 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was an update regarding electronic monitoring.
25 Sheriff Blackwood said a training program was just completed today. He said it covered
26 a great deal of information that should better equip officers in issues of domestic violence. He
27 said he would like to see electronic monitoring reduced if not eradicated altogether.
28 Commissioner Jacobs mentioned the possibility of a Safe House being incorporated into
29 the future expansion of the Southern Human Services Center.
30 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was an update for the jail regarding the local 10%
31 food campaign.
32 Sheriff Blackwood said food services at the jail are overseen by Captain Sellew. Sheriff
33 Blackwood said he would like to embrace this concept and possibly start a garden at the future
34 jail to serve not only the jail but others in need outside the jail, if possible.
35 Chair McKee asked if Sheriff Blackwood would expand on training and the new body
36 armor.
37 Sheriff Blackwood said since he assumed office on December 1, there has been 3,821
38 hours of training accumulated, approximately 27 hours per officer. He said body armor,
39 upgraded weaponry, radios, and uniforms in cars were goals that he brought with him into
40 office. He said all of these goals, except radios, have been met without any additional funds.
41 He said these achievements lead to a safer department, as well as the public.
42
43 Solid Waste Department, Pg. 408 (Including fee schedule change requests, Pg.
44 497 and Non-Departmental Items, Pg.328)
45
46 Darrell Butts, Budget Management Analyst, reviewed the following information:
47 Budget Highlights
48 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an additional $10,092 in the
49 Training account. This increase will allow for the mechanics within the department to receive
8
1 additional specialized training, which will reduce the need to send vehicles off-site for
2 maintenance.
3 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes no revenues from Tower Lease
4 Fees. There has been a delay in the tower agreement and no revenues are expected in FY15-
5 16.
6 ■ The 1.0 FTE Research & Data Manager in this division's budget was reclassified and
7 transferred from the County Manager's office during FY14-15.
8 ■ Continue to fund the planning, education and preparation for ongoing improvements at
9 remaining convenience centers, long-term maintenance and monitoring and other
10 programmatic changes per BOCC.
11 ■ Continue to conduct enforcement of littering, illegal dumping, licensing and other county
12 solid waste ordinance.
13 ■ Prepare for implementation of new convenience center and recycling program funding
14 mechanism to be levied in summer 2015.
15
16 Division: Landfill
17 Budget Highlights
18 ■ The FY 15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes $129,557 in Contributions from
19 Solid Waste Reserves for landfill post closure care.
20 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes the addition of a 1.0 FTE
21 Weighmaster. The addition of this position will convert a long-term temporary employment
22 position into a fulltime permanent position. The total County cost for this position is $45,622,
23 including $1,780 in operating expenses and one-time start-up costs. The position will function
24 as the second Weighmaster and provide coverage when the current Weighmaster is out of the
25 office. This position will also be responsible for litter collection along Eubanks Road and a
26 portion of Rogers Road.
27
28 Division: Recycling
29 Budget Highlights
30 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes the addition of 2.0 FTE Solid Waste
31 Collector Driver positions. One of these positions is recommended to start on July 1, 2015 with
32 the other recommended to start on January 1, 2016. The position recommended to start on July
33 1 st will be a backup driver (to provide coverage in the event that a driver is out of work or due to
34 a vacancy) and will also be responsible for maintenance and delivery of roll carts. The position
35 recommended to start on January 1 st will serve as an additional driver for the rural recycling
36 program, which is necessary due to the phase-in approach of rural recycling. These positions
37 have a combined total County cost of$19,943, including $1,200 in operating and one time
38 startup expenses. The costs for these positions is offset by a decrease in the Temporary
39 Personnel account.
40
41 Division: Sanitation
42 Budget Highlights
43 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes the addition of two (2) 0.750 FTE
44 Solid Waste Convenience Center Operator positions and increases two (2) current 0.625 FTE
45 Solid Waste Convenience Center Operator positions to 0.750 FTE. All of these position
46 changes are recommended to become effective on February 1, 2016. These positions are
47 necessary to staff the Eubanks Road Convenience Center (scheduled to open in Spring 2016).
48 Due to the additional recycling and re-use programs, additional staff hours are needed to
49 ensure proper staffing levels.
9
1 o The increase in hours for the current positions has a total County cost of$2,896, which
2 is entirely personnel services.
3 o The 2 new 0.75 FTE positions have a total County cost of$26,574, including $2,110
4 in operating expenses and one-time start-up costs.
5 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes a decrease of$41,083 in the
6 Vehicle Supplies account. This decrease is due to the reduced cost of fuel and the replacement
7 of older vehicles with new vehicles that get better miles-per-gallon.
8 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes a decrease of$28,114 in the
9 Landfill Fees account. This decrease is due to an increase in the proper separation of materials
10 and due to the fact that there have been no inclement weather events with significant vegetative
11 waste.
12 ■ Continuation of the SWCC Improvements Project by completing Phase II of the Solid Waste
13 Convenience Center Improvements at the Eubanks Road Center.
14 ■ The General Fund contribution to Sanitation in the FY15-16 Manager Recommended
15 Budget is $1,718,018; this is a decrease of$138,525 from FY14-15.
16
17 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a status update regarding the landfill gas
18 harvesting.
19 Gayle Wilson said revenue is received from the University of North Carolina, and for
20 next year about $60,000 is anticipated. He said these funds stay in the solid waste budget.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said he has always been concerned about paying someone from
22 Goldston to pick up food waste in order to compost it. He asked if it would be possible to
23 collect and compost food in house in Orange County.
24 Gayle Wilson said in order to compost, the food must be mixed with mulch. He said
25 mulch is a great source of revenue for the County and diverting some of it towards composting
26 would be an economic loss. He said there would also need to be a location available to do the
27 composting. He said that composting appears to be a fairly high priority with the Solid Waste
28 Advisory Group (SWAG) and when directed he will move forward on this issue. He said food
29 waste is being collected from a variety of commercial establishments. He says residential food
30 waste is expensive to collect as it must be done twice a week. He said there are a lot of public
31 health issues related with it. He said it can be done, but is expensive. He said a first step may
32 be to increase the number of commercial entities that participate in the collection process
33 before moving onto residential collection.
34 Commissioner Rich said if food waste is being collected from restaurants where is it
35 going.
36 Gayle Wilson said it is collected and composted by Brooks Contracting in Chatham
37 County and is then bought back by Orange County at a discounted rate and sold at the
38 Eubanks Road facility.
39 Commissioner Rich said the Commission for the Environment was very interested in this
40 concept and she would like to see this initiative move forward.
41 Commissioner Pelissier echoed interest in this concept. She asked if there are
42 opportunities to recycle plastic used by farmers.
43 Gayle Wilson said he does not know much about this topic but can research it.
44 Chair McKee said he believed a House bill just passed that allowed open burning of this
45 plastic.
46 Gayle Wilson said when the newly renovated Eubanks Solid Waste Convenience Center
47 (SWCC) opens it will be easier to gauge the possibility of collecting food waste.
48 Commissioner Price asked if the new collection fee was $103 or $107.
49 Gayle Wilson said the fee fluctuated up from $103 to $107, as the 2015-2016 budget
50 took shape. He said the fee of$103 was based on the 2014-2015 budget.
10
1 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like to be more aggressive with the food waste
2 issue and asked if the manager could work with staff to look at options sooner than 15 months.
3 He said that UNC may be a good partner.
4 Commissioner Rich asked if Muriel Williman from Solid Waste could come to a meeting
5 to talk to the Board about this issue.
6
7 Library Services, Pg. 321 (Including fee schedule change requests, Pg. 471)
8
9 Christal Sandifer, Budget Management Analyst, reviewed the following information:
10 Budget Highlights
11 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
12 ■ Personnel Increase: ($19,895) for temporary personnel, to comply with approved Living
13 Wage and additional 300 hours for research related to addressing families in poverty through
14 literacy and outreach strategies
15 ■ Operations Increase: ($37,024) across multiple areas, in support of strategic plan, including:
16 materials for Cedar Grove Kiosk, advertising projects, Literacy Corner for Youth Services, and
17 e-audio.
18 Christal Sandifer also referenced page 471 and a fee reduction on fines for overdue
19 DVDs, from $1 per day to $.50 per day. She said additionally the sale of flash drives is being
20 proposed at $3 per drive.
21 Commissioner Rich asked if there was an update regarding the creation of a new
22 interlocal agreement that is being created by the Elected Official Work Group.
23 Chair McKee said discussions are still in process with Chapel Hill and thus the County
24 did not add or reduce funding until resolutions are reached.
25 Bonnie Hammersley said the work group directed both Managers to work on a
26 resolution, and this is being done currently in order to bring it back to the work group.
27 Commissioner Rich asked if an increase is anticipated in the future.
28 Bonnie Hammersley said she anticipated that this may happen.
29 Chair McKee said a budget amendment can be made after an agreement is reached.
30 Commissioner Rich said the Commissioners that are not part of the work group are not
31 well kept in the loop about the discussions.
32 Chair McKee said the Board should have been notified that the issue had been turned
33 over to the two Managers.
34 Commissioner Jacobs said said one of the reasons the issue was sent to the Managers
35 was the lack of forward vision and the lack of agreement on terms in the interlocal agreement.
36 Commissioner Jacobs commented that the Board has lost the practice of reporting back
37 to the whole Board on issues and meetings where one or more Board members or the Manager
38 attends.
39 Commissioner Pelissier reminded the Board that the interlocal agreement that was
40 executed a few years ago expires on June 30, 2015 and the Board has made a commitment to
41 work on this agreement.
42 Bonnie Hammersley said the other reason that the two Managers are meeting is
43 because there are a number of agreements that the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County
44 have, and a way to bring these agreements into both budget discussions is being pursued.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said Cheryl Young found the study that was done in the 1980s in
46 reference to how much people in the corporate and unincorporated areas received, in contrast
47 to every tax dollar paid. He said this study has been discussed at Library Services and at the
48 SWAG. He said it has been agreed upon to conduct an updated version of this study.
49 Commissioner Rich said the study from the 1980s should be shared with Chapel Hill
50 (pages 22-23).
11
1 Commissioner Pelissier thanked the Manager for looking at the holistic picture.
2 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the Library Services' budget adequately reflects the
3 Library Services' adopted strategic plan.
4 Lucinda Munger said the 4 priorities were considered, and in some areas items have
5 already been completed. She said the focus is on collection replacements, technology and
6 community relations.
7 Commissioner Burroughs asked if a-books have any limits in their usage.
8 Lucinda Munger said a-books do not wear out physically, but the vendor contracts call
9 for them to expire after a certain number of uses. She said this typically happens after 26 uses.
10 Commissioner Price asked if a-books are typically for adults or children.
11 Lucinda Munger said most are for adults. She said the collection for children is growing
12 slowly.
13 Commissioner Price asked if there has been an increase in adult usage of the library.
14 Lucinda Munger said yes, and it is increasing every year.
15 Commissioner Jacobs said when there is a Southern Branch Library it will be a
16 consolidation of two existing services and asked if there are available staff, resources,
17 computers etc, that could move to a new facility.
18 Lucinda Munger said this has been considered. She said if a Southern Branch opened
19 tomorrow, 1.75 staff members, 3000 adult materials, and 9 computers would go to the new
20 facility. She said no furniture would go.
21
22 Animal Services, Pg. 57 (including fee schedule change requests, Pg. 485)
23
24 Darrell Butts reviewed the following information:
25 Animal Services: Administration and Programs
26 Budget Highlights
27 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget significantly offsets departmental operating
28 costs with revenues from shelter services, animal control contracts, pet licensing and other
29 streams budgeted in the amount of$661,418.
30 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget completes the process of achieving full cost
31 recovery for animal control services from the Towns of Hillsborough, Chapel Hill and Carrboro
32 that Animal Services provides under agreement with budgeted revenues totaling $218,218.
33 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget decreases the operating budget for the
34 Community Spay Neuter Program from $66,350 to $64,150 given a reduction in
35 reimbursements received from the NC Spay/Neuter Reimbursement Program; using $5,500 in
36 donations from the Orange County Community Fund to support this program.
37
38 Animal Services: Animal Shelter Division
39 Budget Highlights
40 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget uses donated funds for medical care from
41 the Orange County Community Giving Fund to support additional veterinary services and to
42 treat one or more specific health conditions previously limiting the adoptability of cats and dogs.
43 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes a more flexible and discretionary
44 fee schedule for adoptable animals in order to remain highly competitive in the regional
45 marketplace and place as many adoptable animals as possible in a revenue neutral manner.
46
47 Animal Services: Animal Control & Protection Division
48 Budget Highlights
12
1 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget increases the annual cost for animal control
2 services for Carrboro from $67,768 to $79,305 in the final year of a three year phase-in of total
3 costs (including the annualized cost of vehicle replacement).
4 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget increases the annual cost for animal control
5 services for Hillsborough from $45,473 to $49,775, as a result of an increase in their share of
6 "county service" from 12 percent to 13 percent.
7 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget increases the annual cost for animal control
8 services to Chapel Hill from $86,752 to $88,638 primarily as a result of cost of living
9 adjustments in compensation.
10
11 Asset Management Services, Pg. 68 (including Internal Service Fund— Vehicle
12 Replacements, handout provided at the meeting)
13
14 Darrell Butts reviewed the following information:
15 Asset Management Services: Administrative Division
16 Budget Highlights
17 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes $48,613 in the Facilities
18 Maintenance division's Contract Services account. These funds are for OE Enterprises to
19 perform custodial services at additional County facilities (Cedar Grove Community Center,
20 Whitted Meeting Facility) and intensely used areas that require additional care (Senior Centers,
21 Adult Day Health Program). These funds are budgeted in lieu of 2.0 FTE Facilities Maintenance
22 Technician I's that the department requested. The expectation of this contract is to provide the
23 same quality of service through OE Enterprises as would have been provided by County staff.
24 The quality of service provision will be closely monitored and evaluated.
25 ■ Mandated energy costs —Asset Management Services has again budgeted for a 10% rate
26 increase for electricity and a 15% rate increase for natural gas for FY 14-15, based on available
27 data. Despite these rate increases, the overall utility budget request includes an increase of
28 less than 1% in utilities due to the divestiture of, and lowering of utility intensity within, certain
29 buildings as well as continued implementation of efficiency measures.
30 ■ Vehicle replacement funds are being accumulated through the Internal Service Fund ("ISF")
31 established in FY12 (with an effective date of July 1, 2013). An additional $.10 per mile driven
32 will inure to this fund. An estimated 3 million miles will be driven County-wide during FY15-16,
33 equating to an estimated $300,000 in budgeted contribution to the ISF.
34 ■ For FY15-16, the Fleet Services division includes a net cost of Personnel and Operations of
35 $1,379,541 less the chargebacks to departments of$1,327,170 for a net cost of$60,371.
36 ■ For FY15-16, the Fleet Services division projects a decrease in unit costs for gasoline and
37 diesel. The Solid Waste Department will continue to acquire diesel fuel from the County's fuel
38 station located at the Asset Management North campus, and will continue to be charged back
39 for diesel fuel acquired at this facility.
40 Jeff Thompson, Director for Asset Management Services, reviewed the vehicle
41 replacement fund.
42
43 Board of Elections (BOE), Pg. 83
44
45 Darrell Butts reviewed the following highlights:
46 Budget Highlights
47 • The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes revenues of$54,495 (an increase
48 of$54,395) due to Municipal Elections scheduled in 2015 and filing fees for Primary Elections.
13
1 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an Increase in Personnel, Printing,
2 Advertising, Departmental Supplies, Computer Supplies, and Equipment due to budgeting for 4
3 elections in FY15-16 and an increase in the number of one-stop voting sites.
4
5 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the table on page 84 and asked if the number of
6 eligible voters could be ascertained.
7 Tracy Reams, Board of Elections Director, said she could check the most recent
8 census.
9 Commissioner Dorosin agreed that voter education and outreach should be expanded.
10 He said two specific areas of need are offenders, who have satisfied the requirements of their
11 sentence, who need to re-register and students approaching age 18. He suggested the BOE
12 work with the schools to send out "birthday registration" cards as students approach age 18.
13 Tracy Reams said voter education is already done at schools but she is not sure if the
14 schools would release names and birthdates.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said there may be some creative options.
16 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a specific location where residents register for
17 the draft.
18 Tracy Reams said the post office.
19 Commissioner Jacobs asked if outreach could be done there.
20 Tracy Reams said she would research the idea.
21 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the new voter machine still takes paper ballots.
22 Tracy Reams said the new voter machine still takes paper ballots and it is just a new
23 machine.
24 Tracy Reams said a meeting was held for the public to view the new machine. She said
25 she has been asked to make available a time for the Board of County Commissioners to review
26 the new machines as well and is working on scheduling this soon.
27 Commissioner Rich asked if there are procedures in place to handle the new rules of
28 having identification in order to vote, and who will provide enforcement.
29 Tracy Reams said her office would handle these issues, as is done currently, by filing a
30 challenge against such voters. She said there will be some training regarding how to determine
31 what a reasonable resemblance on identification is. She said the precinct official will make this
32 call and will air on the side of the voter. She said if a resemblance is not considered reasonable
33 the official will go to the Chief Judge where a decision will be made. She said if the voter is
34 deemed not to resemble their identification they would cast a provisional ballot and the BOE
35 makes the final determination.
36 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there will be a separate primary for the State vs. the
37 President.
38 Tracy Reams said yes. She said the provisional date for the Presidential Preference
39 Primary is March 8, 2016. She said the rest of the primaries will be in May.
40 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the expense to the counties to add the Presidential
41 Primary is known.
42 Tracy Reams said in Orange County the estimate is between $107,000 and $117,000.
43 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the cost for the State primaries is known.
44 Tracy Reams said it is in the millions, and she would get the exact figure to the Board.
45
46 Child Support Enforcement, Pg. 98
47
48 Christal Sandifer reviewed the following information:
49 Budget Highlights
50 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
14
1 Economic recovery has not reached most of the families we serve and therefore affect
2 collection rates. Our collections ($5,255,000) provide acutely needed income to Orange County
3 families
4 Revenue Increases: Federal Support Enforcement ($45,000); IV-D Refunds ($3,075)
5
6 Community Relations & Tourism, Pg. 101
7
8 Christal Sandifer reviewed the following information:
9 Budget Highlights
10 • The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
11 e Occupancy Tax Rates and Revenue: Occupancy Tax revenues continue to increase due to
12 strong travel economy. In FY14-15, Orange County's 3% Occupancy Tax collections have
13 increased an average of 14% each month; year-end revenues are expected to exceed the
14 original budget by 10% ($107,940).
15 e Fund Balance Appropriation: Available fund balance totals $354,000. In FY15-16, the
16 Visitors Bureau will appropriate $90,000 from fund balance, a decrease of$102,000 from the
17 current year. Next year's appropriation will fund several additional marketing and community
18 engagement initiatives, including: food focus on area's pasture to plate scene; LGBT weddings;
19 and kiosk for UNC Hospital in Hillsborough. These proposed initiatives have received support
20 from the Visitors Bureau Advisory Board.
21 • Town Contributions: The Town of Chapel Hill's contribution will remain the same at
22 $200,000
23 ■ Position Reclassification: Increase $11,096, reclassification of Visitors Bureau Director
24 position (1.0) FTE, to Community Relations Director position (1.0) FTE. The position is
25 responsible for direct oversight of the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau and the
26 Orange County Public Affairs division. This position is housed in Chapel Hill, at the Visitors
27 Center and supervised the Hillsborough-based Public Affairs Director, as well as the five
28 member Visitor Bureau staff.
29 e Position Reclassification: Decrease $2,476, reclassification of Sales Manager position (1.0)
30 FTE, to Social Media/Database Administrator (1.0) FTE. The position will develop proactive
31 alignment of all social media and database content. Sales leads will be coordinated through a
32 vendor.
33 Laurie Paolicelli, Director of the Visitors Bureau, said the past two years have been
34 record breaking for occupancy revenues and guest to Orange County. She said revenues were
35 up 17 percent which boosted the fund balance substantially. She said her Board requested to
36 use these funds for two major initiatives: marriage equality campaign and promoting local farm-
37 to-fork tourism draws. She said due to these two initiatives the fund balance looks low.
38 Carla Banks said the past year was very productive in the Public Affairs Office.
39 Commissioner Jacobs asked Laurie Paolicelli if the fund balance is back in her purview.
40 Laurie Paolicelli said yes.
41 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Carolina Inn is ever approached to pay sales tax.
42 Laurie Paolicelli said the Carolina Inn is part of the North Carolina Revenue and
43 Taxation code. She said it is deemed a "necessary instrumentality" for the State to do its
44 business. She said about one third of major donors are tax exempt. She said the topic of
45 approaching the Chancellor and the Board of Governors about changing this has arisen on
46 occasion and she would be supportive of such a conversation.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said he would encourage her and the Visitors Bureau Board to
48 pursue this making the Inn equal to its competitors.
49 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the new UNC Arts facility has long term impact on the
50 Carrboro Arts Centers.
15
1 Laurie Paolicelli said this Arts facility came as a surprise since this extension was part of
2 the Arts Center planning. She said the newly proposed space will serve Orange County well
3 and she is not sure that it will cancel out the Carrboro Arts Center. She said feels there is room
4 for both.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said he brought this issue up because if the County partners with
6 the Carrboro Arts Center going forward, the impact of the UNC facility would have to be
7 considered.
8 Commissioner Rich said the Visitors Bureau is still paying the County for some services
9 that other departments are not, such as rent.
10 Commissioner Rich said any taxes from visitor spending goes into the Visitors Bureau
11 Budget, and Chapel Hill contributes but Carrboro and Hillsborough do not. She said it would be
12 nice to have Carrboro and Hillsborough give some of their tax dollars back to Orange County as
13 they have voting seats on the Board of the Visitors Bureau.
14
15 The Board decided to adjourn the meeting at 10:30pm and, with the exception of Cooperative
16 Extension and Emergency Services, defer the rest of the departments until June 9, 2015.
17
18 Cooperative Extension, Pg. 107
19
20 Darrell Butts reviewed the following information:
21 Budget Highlights
22 • The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an increase of$11,791 in
23 Personnel Services due to staff reductions by NC State University. Orange County will pay a
24 greater share of salaries for 3 employees.
25 e All employees within the Cooperative Extension Service are State employees and are
26 budgeted as contract personnel, as per the Memorandum of Agreement with the State.
27 e The $20,000 in revenue includes class fee revenue at the W. C. Breeze Family Farm; the
28 County continues to contribute $10,000 for the programs at the Breeze Farm and is included
29 within the department's Operating budget.
30 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an update on the Memorandum of Agreement
31 regarding increased County control at the W. C. Breeze Family Farm.
32 Carl Matyac, County Extension Director, said he has had conversations with all stake
33 holders, and all seem in favor of such a memorandum. He said a draft has been created for a
34 long term plan for the farm.
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Board will see the memorandum before it is signed.
36 Bonnie Hammersley said absolutely.
37 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an update regarding Carl Matyac's department's
38 funding sources.
39 Carl Matyac said the department is funded about 60/40 (State/County).
40 Commissioner Jacobs said of the remaining State funded positions how much is the
41 State actually contributing.
42 Carl Matyac said he does not have those total amounts but he will get the figures to the
43 Board.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said it appears that if the County does not pick up funding the
45 positions will go away. He said if this is the case the County should have a projection and a
46 plan.
47 Carl Matyac agreed.
48 Commissioner Pelissier noted the expected increase in local farmers selling to local
49 markets. She asked if there are specific reasons for this increase.
16
1 Carl Matyac said these numbers are from Agricultural Census Data generated by the
2 United States Department of Agriculture a few years ago.
3 Commissioner Pelissier asked if it this information is specific to Orange County.
4 Carl Matyac said yes.
5
6 Emergency Services, Pg. 271
7
8 Darrell Butts reviewed the following information:
9 Administrative Division (including Emergency Management)
10 Budget Highlights
11 ■ Staff leadership training continues to be a priority in forging a culture change within the
12 organization. A significant portion of the training/development budget is to support this
13 critical initiative.
14 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an increase of$12,000 in the Motor
15 Pool account in this division for the motor vehicle surcharge from $.08/mile to $.10/mile.
16 Emergency Services budgets all motor pool costs through the Administration division.
17
18 Fire Marshal Division
19 Budget Highlights
20 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an increase of$20,972, for a total
21 of$46,775 in the Rescue Services account. This increase will provide water rescue equipment
22 to the 4 fire departments that did not receive equipment in the FY14-15 Commissioner
23 Approved Budget and will also allow for the purchase of other specialized rescue equipment.
24
25 Communications Division
26 Budget Highlights
27 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes the movement of a 1.0 FTE ES
28 Systems Technician position from the Administration division into the Communications division.
29 The total FTE count is not affected by this transfer; however the budgets associated with each
30 division are affected.
31 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes a $10,000 increase in the
32 Certifications & Licenses account due to an increase in initial certifications for new hires and a
33 necessary update to Emergency Police Dispatch (EPD) and Emergency Fire Dispatch (EFD)
34 certifications.
35 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an increase in the Telephone
36 account of the Emergency Telephone Fund of$103,272; this increase is to support NextGen
37 911 capabilities (for text to 911).
38
39 EMS Division
40 Budget Highlights
41 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes a reclassification of the 0.5 FTE
42 Public Health Preparedness Coordinator to a 1.0 FTE Deputy EMS Operations Manager. This
43 position is recommended to start on January 1, 2016 in order to help offset some of the
44 increased costs. The total County cost for this position is $27,758, including $4,952 in operating
45 expenditures and one-time start-up costs. This reclassification is actually a net savings to the
46 County in total cost for this fiscal year, as the 1.0 FTE Deputy EMS Operations Manager will
47 only have a half-year of costs in this fiscal year.
48 ■ The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes $50,864 in Capital Outlay. These
49 items include replacement of ambulance equipment, an interactive smart board for training and
50 meetings, and furniture for EMS co-location sites.
17
1 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an increase of$250,000 in EMS
2 Charges. This increase is due to an increase in current year actuals that is expected to continue
3 in the future.
4 Jim Groves, Director of Emergency Services, said his department has been trying to
5 improve the services that are provided to Orange County and its visitors. He said this involves
6 a variety of technical advancements which will allow faster, safer and more complete service.
7 Commissioner Rich asked if Jim Groves had input regarding the potential 911 center at
8 the Southern Human Services Center (SHSC).
9 Jim Groves said it would be ideal to have a 911 back-up center at the SHSC. He said
10 the current plan does not provide a redundant 911 call center. He said moving to the SHSC
11 insures that there is a Emergency Services presence in multiple areas of the County and allows
12 for the system to be on two different providers in the event that one line gets cut.
13 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Emergency Services will be able to enforce illegal
14 burning with the new House bill allowing farmers' to burn plastic.
15 Jim Groves said he just learned about the bill this evening and it will need to be
16 researched further.
17
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
19 adjourn the meeting at 10:38 p.m.
20
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23
24 Earl McKee, Chair
25
26 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
1
I Attachment 9
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 Budget Work Session
6 June 9, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, June 9,
10 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building in Hillsborough, N.C.
11
12 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. He noted the following items at
13 the Commissioners' places:
14 - North Carolina Forest Service 2014 Summary of Accomplishments in Orange County
15 - White sheet— County Debt Service and Debt Capacity (General Fund only) Revised FY2015-
16 20
17 - PowerPoint slides for item 4— Pay and Benefits for Employees and Retirees
18 Commissioner Jacobs suggested a moment of silence for the former Mayor of Chapel
19 Hill Jonathan Howes, who recently passed away.
20
21 1. FY2015-16 Fire District Tax Rates, Pg. 286
22 Paul Laughton, Orange County Finance Administrative Services, said each year during
23 the budget process fire districts that have a requested tax increase are brought to this meeting.
24 He said the Fire Districts requesting tax rate increases in FY 2015-16 are as follows:
25 Damascus Fire District and Southern Triangle Fire Service District (Pages 287 and
26 290)
27 Increase of 1.50 cents, going from 8.80 cents to 10.30 cents per $100 assessed
28 valuation. The North Chatham Fire Department will continue to contract with Orange County to
29 provide fire services to the residents in both the Damascus Fire Protection District and the
30 Southern Triangle Fire Service District within Orange County. The increase will be used to
31 help cover increased personnel and operating costs associated with the opening of 2 new
32 stations in FY 2014-15, replacement of self-contained breathing apparatus, and to help cover
33 costs associated with fire engine replacements.
34 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a specific process for notifying residents when Fire
35 Departments raise taxes.
36 Paul Laughton said residents are notified as part of the County tax bill.
37 Commissioner Rich said this practice informs residents after the change has been made
38 and said she is concerned about the lack of communication.
39 Commissioner Jacobs said this issue has come up before without any resolution.
40 Commissioner Dorosin suggested when there are requests for increases in particular
41 fire districts perhaps the Manager could include them as a part of her recommended budget
42 message.
43 Bonnie Hammersley said she would follow up.
44
45 Orange Rural Fire District (Page 290)
46 Increase of 1.00 cents, going from 7.36 cents to 8.36 cents per $100 assessed
47 valuation. The increase is to cover the replacement of air packs that no longer meet the current
48 NFPA standards, to help cover funding to equip a replacement engine, and due to a decline in
49 volunteers; the department has added three new positions and is planning to add three
50 additional positions in the coming year.
2
1
2
3
4 2. Outside Agencies: Recommended Allocations FY2015-16, Pg. 354
5 Allison Chambers, Budget and Management Coordinator, reviewed the following
6 information:
7 In January 2015, the County received 57 applications with requests totaling $1,591,515,
8 an increase of$488,915 above the current year's appropriation.
9 Finance and Administrative Services Staff distributed applications to staff and advisory
10 board groups for review (Attachment A). County Department Directors and their advisory
11 boards received applications related to their functional areas. Representatives from Cardinal
12 Innovations Healthcare Solutions-OPC reviewed mental health agencies; the Employee
13 Committee evaluated community-based service agencies that did not align with a particular
14 County department (e.g. Communities in Schools). Recommendations made by the advisory
15 groups were for consultative purposes only. The County Manager reviewed agency applications
16 and advisory board feedback, then consulted with County Management Staff and proposed
17 appropriations. All parties used the Board of County Commissioner's (BOCC) guiding
18 principles, adopted in December 2010, to evaluate programs and propose funding
19 recommendations (Attachment B).
20 For FY 2015-16, the County Manager recommended funding for 43 agencies totaling
21 $1,054,400, a net decrease of$48,200 above the current year's appropriation. The FY 2015-16
22 Manager's Recommended Operating Budget contains a complete list of funding requests,
23 recommendations and agency narratives within the Outside Agency section (page 354).
24
25 Recommendations:
26 1) One (1) agency has been recommended for FY 2015-16 funding increase, totaling $82,000:
27 Community Home Trust is requesting an increase in operating funding to enable the
28 organization to successfully manage 230 permanently affordable homes in their inventory.
29 Increase amount calculated using formula adopted as part of an interlocal agreement with the
30 municipalities approved April 21, 2015.
31
32 2) One (1) new agency received funding recommendations, totaling $2,000 for FY 2015-16:
33 Fairview Community Watch will use funds to hire monitors that would support park activities for
34 the Fairview Community Park during the period from June— September 2015.
35
36 3) One (1) agency is recommended for a $35,200 funding reduction for FY2015-16:
37 Communities in Schools will receive this reduction funds to reflect the 122 Orange County
38 Schools afterschool students that this agency will not be serving in FY2015-16.
39
40 In addition, the Boys and Girls Club of Eastern Piedmont did not submit a FY 2015-16
41 funding request. The agency received a $2,000 appropriation in the current fiscal year. The
42 award received by Pretrial Services in FY 2014-15 was reallocated to the Sheriff Department
43 Budget for FY 2015-16.
44 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there was a particular impetus for the reduction in the
45 overall outside agency funding.
46 Bonnie Hammersley said yes and it was in order to maintain the funding the same as it
47 was in 2014-15.
48 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the details regarding applications came to the Board on
49 CD.
3
1 Allison Chambers said no, the information was received via a link on the website, as
2 opposed to CDs that the Commissioners' received in the past.
3
4
5
6 3. Discussion of County Department's FY2015-16 Budget Requests
7 Commissioner Dorosin said it seemed like many of the questions asked are not related
8 to the budget. He said he thinks these questions are valuable but not suited to the time
9 constraints within the budget process. He said the departmental budgets are rarely tweaked.
10 He said there should be opportunity to have more in-depth discussions in the fall or winter with
11 department heads.
12 Chair McKee agreed with Commissioner Dorosin and looked forward to addressing this
13 next year.
14 Bonnie Hammersley said in the fall she will bring forth a process for department heads
15 and the Board of Commissioners to be able to work together on the budget process and other
16 issues in advance.
17 Commissioner Rich said she agreed with Commissioner Dorosin's suggestion. She said
18 it is not just the need to discuss budget issues in depth but rather to hear general updates
19 about all departments, their goals, their needs, etc.
20 Commissioner Pelissier said she would also like to be able to have in depth discussions
21 about performance indicators and perhaps even changing these indicators in some
22 departments.
23 Commissioner Dorosin suggested having a department a week come and speak to the
24 Board.
25
26 Register of Deeds, Pg. 384
27 Darrell Butts, Budget Management Analyst, reviewed the following information:
28
29 Budget Highlights
30 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes funding for an additional 1.0
31 FTE Deputy Register of Deeds II; the total County cost of this position is $47,024. This
32 position is needed to main the current work rate within the office. Additionally, due to the
33 high volume of e-recordings, staff that could previously rotate duties in order to assist
34 customers are unable to continue doing so.
35 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes a significant decrease in the
36 Daily Recordings account. This is due to the Register of Deeds office transitioning to an
37 e-recording system. They will discontinue printing and storing new recordings of
38 permanent Land related record books.
39 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes a decrease in revenues for the
40 Register of Deeds fees account; this decrease is due to a decrease in the number of
41 recordings during the current year.
42
43 Mark Chilton, Register of Deeds, said the department is proposing the cessation of
44 printing paper deed books and going entirely to electronic recording.
45 Commissioner Rich asked if security can be ensured with more records being put on
46 electronic filing.
47 Jim Northup, Orange County Chief Information Officer, said currently the Register of
48 Deeds' records are accessed through an outside vendor who is relied on for security.
49 Mark Chilton said the backup system would only allow one week's worth of recording to
50 ever be lost at one time.
4
1 Commissioner Rich asked if any additional funding is being spent on security.
2 Mark Chilton said no.
3 Commissioner Price asked if there is a back-up with the State server.
4 Mark Chilton said copies of their records are provided to the State but there is a much
5 longer lag time.
6 Jim Northup said there is a multi-layer approach to securing all the electronic
7 documents.
8
9 County Attorney, Pg. 112
10 Christal Sandifer, Budget Management Analyst, reviewed the following information:
11 Budget Highlights
12 • The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
13 • Estimated County-wide savings of$35,000 annually, due to the implementation of the
14 electronic signature and routing program for county contracts.
15 • Operations Decrease: ($11,003) across several accounts to better reflect expected need
16
17 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is work still to be done on the living wage issue.
18 John Roberts, County Attorney, said it was given to the former Assistant County
19 Manager Cheryl Young for some further research and he believed it should be ready early in
20 the fall.
21
22 Tax Administration, Pg. 420
23 Darrell Butts reviewed the following information:
24 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes 2.0 FTE (1.0 FTE Revenue
25 Technician I and 1.0 FTE Revenue Technician 11) in the Collector/Revenue division. The
26 total cost for these positions is $68,185, including $14,006 in operating expenses and
27 onetime start-up costs. These positions will be responsible for handling all EMS billing,
28 as the Tax Administration department is bringing that function back "in-house" (the
29 service is currently performed by an outside contractor). The positions are
30 recommended to start on December 1, 2015; this date will give the Tax Administration
31 office some time to train the new employees before taking over EMS billing (which will
32 begin on January 1, 2016).
33 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an increase in the Collection
34 Charges and Collections Fees revenue accounts. These revenue accounts were greatly
35 affected by the changes in RMV billing due to HB1779 during the FY14-15 budget cycle,
36 but it appears that the decrease in revenues was not as drastic as originally thought.
37
38 Dwane Brinson, Tax Administrator, said under the Personnel line item he had requested
39 one extra position that was not funded. He said this proposed position would have handled the
40 tax assistance programs.
41 Bonnie Hammersley said there was no funding source for this position and that it was a
42 communications position not operational.
43 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a total number of tax assistant programs.
44 Dwane Brinson said there are close to 90 different ways that a tax bill can be reduced.
45 He said these programs are located in the State statutes.
46 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are pros and cons to bringing the EMS billing
47 back in house.
48 Dwane Brinson said about 5 years ago the Board of County Commissioners wanted to
49 outsource this for about a year but it has gone on a long time. He said the main issue is
50 customer service with the outside vendors. He said he felt a better job could be done in house.
5
1 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board approved new employees in the tax
2 department.
3 Dwane Brinson said those were not new employees but rather deputy tax collectors who
4 are re-appointed every two years.
5
6 Economic Development and the Orange County Arts Commission, Pg. 137
7 (including Non-Departmental Items, Pg. 333)
8 Christal Sandifer reviewed the following information:
9 She said there are no significant budget changes in FY15-16.
10
11 Article 46 proceeds, page 66
12 The Article 46 One-Quarter Cent (1/4 cent) County Sales and Use Tax was approved by
13 Orange County voters in the November 2011 election, and became effective April 1,
14 2012. A Special Revenue Fund has been established to receive and account for the
15 One-Quarter Cent (1/4 cent) Sales and Use Tax proceeds. The sales and use tax
16 proceeds are divided 50% to the County's two school systems and 50% to Economic
17 Development initiatives. The funds will remain separate from the County's General Fund
18 to allow for more isolated and accurate tracking of revenues and expenditures. The
19 Board of County Commissioners approved a ten-year commitment to allocate the
20 proceeds as follows:
21 50% of the funding will be allocated in an equitable manner between the County's two
22 school systems, based on the Average Daily Membership (ADM) of each school system,
23 for the dedicated purpose of funding capital projects, including but not limited to, facility
24 improvements at older schools and the procurement of technology.
25 50% of the funding will be allocated to Economic Development initiatives.
26
27 The tables below reflect proposed uses of the anticipated proceeds of$2,814,576 by the
28 two school systems and Economic Development in FY15-16:
29
30 School Systems Proposed Use for FY 2015-16
31 Technology—Student Access Computing Devices
32 (Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools) $ 432,740
33 Facility Improvements at Older Schools (Chapel Hill-
34 Carrboro City Schools) $ 432,740
35 Technology— 1:1 Laptops Initiative and Upgrades
36 (District-Wide —Orange County Schools) $ 541,808
37 TOTAL $1,407,288
38
39 Economic Development Proposed Use for FY2015-16
40 Debt Service on Infrastructure $ 857,288
41 Utility Service Agreement with Mebane $ 50,000
42 Collaborative Outreach $ 20,000
43 Small Business Loan Pool $ 200,000
44 Collateral Materials $ 20,000
45 Innovation Center $ 100,000
46 Agricultural Economic Development $ 60,000
47 Business Investment Grants $ 100,000
48 TOTAL $1,407,288
49
6
1 The FY 2015-20 Capital Investment Plan lays out more specifically the projects and
2 initiatives that are planned with the proceeds over the next five (5) years.
3
4 Planning and Inspections, OPT and Efland Sewer, Pg. 366 (including Fee
5 Schedule change requests, Pg. 484 and Non-Departmental Items, Pg. 333)
6
7 Darrell Butts reviewed the following information:
8 Budget Highlights
9 • The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes an additional $24,024 in
10 revenues for Transportation Charges. These funds are for staff support to the DCHC
11 MPO.
12 • Staffing shortages have been addressed but training of new personnel is on-going and
13 will impact service provision.
14 • Imposition of additional State regulations, most notably stormwater, will continue to
15 complicate the permit review and action process.
16 • There are several major regulatory updates that will have to be accomplished during the
17 2015-16 budget year requiring additional staff time/commitment beyond daily
18 operational needs.
19
20 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a way to maintain water quality and stream
21 integrity in the buffers.
22 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said there is a planned procedure to
23 present to the State asking for standards in excess of the State's minimum requirements.
24 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are specific goals for this fiscal year regarding the
25 Alamance County Line issue.
26 Craig Benedict said there is still discussion that needs to take place as residents in a
27 couple of areas feel that this issue has not reached a resolution.
28 Chair McKee said when he met with Alamance officials a few months ago there seemed
29 to be support for ongoing discussion but nothing has materialized since.
30 Commissioner Jacobs requested an update from the Manager.
31 Commissioner Price asked if there is a plan for bus stops and bus shelters for new
32 routes.
33 Craig Benedict said these services will be phased in this coming year as well as a plan
34 to advertise Orange Public Transportation's (OPT) new role in regional and local transit.
35 Commissioner Price asked if all stops will be ADA approved.
36 Craig Benedict said yes.
37 Chair McKee asked if the expenses were accounted for in 2014-15.
38 Craig Benedict said the expenses have been accommodated, primarily with procedural
39 matters. He said any outstanding issues are being addressed.
40
41 Aging, Pg. 46
42 Christal Sandifer reviewed the following information:
43 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
44 0 Implementation of new initiatives throughout Department budget made possible by the
45 continued financial support of the Master Aging Plan by Carol Woods Retirement
46 Community ($175,000)
47 • Operations Increase: ($25,568) increase offsets an expenditure realignment in FY14-15
48 in the
49 • Aging Transitions Division, for the Caregiver Peer Support Grant
50
7
1 Social Services, Pg. 392 (including Non-Departmental items, Pg. 348)
2 Christal Sandifer reviewed the following information:
3 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
4 • Personnel: Several permanent staff have been realigned from other department
5 divisions. There is no overall increase in cost associated with the realignment.
6 • Contract Services: Increase to improve current document management system, State
7 required reporting software, and to upgrade the LexisNexis contract ($38,530).
8 • Building Rent and Utilities: Operations increase for Hillsborough Commons expansion
9 ($186,203).
10 • Contracts for Drug Treatment Court and Pretrial Services are no longer included in this
11 section ($182,000). These services are now coordinated through the Sherriff's Office.
12 • Revenue Decrease: $31,133 decrease in funding from Miles Second Family Foundation
13 which aligns with a decrease in temporary staff supported by the Miles Second Family
14 Foundation.
15 •
16 Commissioner Burroughs said the Board received an email about some outside
17 agencies that had been subjected to funding cuts by the United Way.
18 Nancy Coston, Director, Department of Social Services (DSS), said the requests were
19 reviewed by the DSS Board and the Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC) Board but at the
20 time the agencies were reviewed, it was not known that the United Way funding had been cut.
21 Commissioner Dorosin asked if revised budgets are reviewed.
22 Paul Laughton said it is wise to compare original budget to original budget as it gives a
23 clearer picture of more certain funding.
24 Commissioner Dorosin said budgets are normally made based on a revised budget not
25 the original budget. He said the reasons for budgets fluctuating during a year are relevant and
26 should be reviewed and considered when creating the next year's budget.
27 Paul Laughton said the revised budget is from April and there have been two
28 amendments since then with others to still come. He said he understands Commissioner
29 Dorosin's point.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said perhaps using the DSS budget may not be the best
31 example.
32 Commissioner Jacobs asked if other entities were affected by the United Way cuts and
33 if so, could the Manager provide a list.
34 Commissioner Pelissier asked if it would be possible to also find out what the actually
35 funding is for United Way.
36
37 Health Department, Pg. 293 (including fee schedule change requests, Pg. 486 and
38 Non-Departmental Items, Pg.337)
39 Darrell Butts said there are two groups of funds within the Health Department. He said
40 the first is the General Fund, which has a total County increase of approximately $350,000. He
41 said the second group is the Grant Fund, which encompasses single year annual grants as well
42 as multi-year grants. He said this group has an increase of$63,000 which has 100 percent
43 matched by revenue. He said the single largest driver for this budget is the creation of the
44 Family Success Alliance (FSA) line item, at $250,000 budgeted within the Department. He said
45 there is a $30,000 increase in Contract Services due to a match for alcohol prevention. He said
46 there are additional funds of about $40,000 for Ebola preparedness. He said there is also a
47 $23,000 increase in pharmacy supplies due to current year use as well as expected future use.
48 Colleen Bridger, Health Department Director, said the requested information regarding
49 United Way funding may not be available by Thursday. She said the United Way allocated a
50 total amount of funding to two collaboratives in Orange County. She said the amount was less
8
1 than was requested and the two collaboratives are to spend the next two months determining
2 how to allocate the funds to agencies within the collaborative.
3 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are any septic systems within the Septic System
4 Inspection Program, which is receiving 100% ratings.
5 Colleen Bridger said the Orange County Board of Health (BOH) has separate rules from
6 the State. She said additional inspections are conducted by the County. She said in the past 3
7 years, any septic system that is covered by the BOH rule has been at 100%. She said a court
8 case trimmed about 100 systems from the list of those inspected by the BOH.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said when he first joined the BOCC, instigating a system of
10 inspection of all septic systems was a goal. He said this goal was considered too intrusive and
11 it was amended to inspections being done in water quality critical areas. He said at the current
12 time, such priorities seem to have disappeared.
13 Colleen Bridger said to the extent that the law allows it to be a priority, Orange County
14 considers it so. She said Orange County has some of the most comprehensive regulations for
15 septic systems on private properties in the State. She said the court case prohibits the County
16 from inspecting septic systems that the State permits.
17 Commissioner Jacobs asked if single family systems are permitted by the County.
18 Colleen Bridger said yes. She said that regular septic systems are not inspected
19 regularly rather only those systems that are unique.
20 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Orange County is doing anything special with prostate
21 cancer.
22 Colleen Bridger said no. She said more and more research is showing that the PSA test
23 is less predictive than first thought. She said, as a result, knowing the best way to invest in
24 screening for prostate cancer has been difficult.
25 Commissioner Price asked if there are still no health services for males over 18 years of
26 age.
27 Colleen said pediatric primary services are provided up to age 18 and after that the
28 department tests for sexually transmitted and communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis.
29 Commissioner Price asked what services are available if a person does have
30 tuberculosis (TB).
31 Colleen Bridger said anyone with TB, or any other communicable disease, would
32 automatically become a patient of the health department regardless of his primary caregiver
33 because it is a communicable disease.
34 Bonnie Hammersley said she funded the dental care positions due to the presence of
35 funding sources.
36 Commissioner Price asked if dental care can be funded then why not primary care for
37 men over the age of 18.
38 Bonnie Hammersley said her priorities were based on the presence of funding sources.
39 She said the dental clinic had an 85% funding source.
40
41 Housing, Human Rights and Community Development, Pg. 305 (including Non-
42 Departmental items, Pg. 337)
43 Christal Sandifer reviewed the following information:
44 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
45 • Revenue Increase: Federal funding is budgeted for a 6.5% increase ($283,315). This
46 remains below levels of funding before Federal sequestration.
47 • New Position Recommended: Management Assistant position (1.0) FTE, effective July
48 1, 2015 ($72,906). The new position will assist with development of an affordable
49 housing plan and collaborate with the Towns to address affordable housing needs.
50 Additionally, the position will provide assistance in meeting federal compliance and
9
1 reporting requirements for annual funding, for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher
2 program and the HOME program.
3
4 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are specific duties for the newly proposed position.
5 Audrey Spencer-Horsley, Housing, Human Rights and Community Development
6 Director, said the position will initially split time reviewing existing programs' policies and
7 procedures as well as considering creative and exhaustive ideas for future programs to address
8 affordable housing in Orange County.
9
10 Information Technologies, Pg. 317
11 Darrell Butts reviewed the following information:
12 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes increases in software licensing
13 and maintenance fees due to ongoing software improvements and purchases. The
14 increased number of supported devices and various hardware upgrades have impacted
15 this line item.
16 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes funds within the contract
17 services account for Rural Broadband planning. Additionally, funds are included for
18 expansion of network services at 3 new locations:
19 o Cedar Grove Community Center (county network expansion and wireless
20 1 nternet)
21 o Fairview Park (wireless Internet)
22 o Rogers Road Community Center (wireless Internet).
23 Commissioner Rich asked if the Board will discuss rural broadband in a future work
24 session.
25 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
26 Commissioner Rich asked if there is someone specific conducting the study on rural
27 broadband.
28 Jim Northup, Orange County Chief Information Officer, said his department is working
29 with residents and the State to see where the internet is needed.
30 Chair McKee asked if there is a known range of the wireless internet at the County
31 facilities.
32 Jim Northup said in a County building the range would typically go to the parking lot,
33 about a 250 foot radius around the building. He said this range can be increased in the future.
34
35 DEAPR— Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation, Pg. 122
36 (including Fee Schedule change requests, Pg. 470 and Non-Departmental items,
37 Pg. 333)
38 Christal Sandifer reviewed the following information:
39 Recreation Division:
40 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
41 New Position Recommended: Community Centers Coordinator (1.0) FTE, effective
42 October 1, 2015 ($42,514). The new position will support the additional programming at
43 the Efland-Cheeks Community Center and the opening of the new Cedar Grove
44 community center. The position will ensure accessibility and availability of community
45 centers and programming. Additionally, the position will enable an equitable level of
46 service at the two community centers and allow for interaction and sharing of resources.
47 Personnel Increase: Seasonal Staff ($42,654) reflects an increase to comply with
48 approved Living Wage and an increase in hours to support increasing demand for
49 recreational activities, concessions, and facility rentals as well as the opening of the
50 Cedar Grove Community Center
10
1 • Operations Increase: ($21,147) for additional supplies and services to support
2 increasing demand for recreational activities and concessions as well as the opening of
3 the Cedar Grove Community Center
4 • Revenue Increase: ($53,086) anticipated additional fee revenue associated with:
5 athletics, recreation programs, facility rentals, and athletic rentals
6
7 Parks Division:
8 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
9 The Parks Division has been able to address the opening of new parks and managed
10 lands, and new landscape and grounds needs, in recent years with minimal staff
11 resource additions. For FY15-16 additional staff resources have been recommended to
12 address increased responsibilities, increases in facility usage and rentals, and the need
13 for a full-time staff person at Blackwood Farm Park (which has resulted in a net loss of
14 0.25 FTE for other parks staffing). DEAPR is asking to take the current 30 hours per
15 week position (originally approved for Blackwood Farm Park, now within the Parks
16 "Mobile Crew") to 40 hours, and for increased seasonal staff funding. These additional
17 resources will be needed to maintain the current and expected level of service to the
18 public and park patrons.
19 • FY15-16 will see the first full year of operation for Blackwood Farm Park, and may see
20 portions of the Hollow Rock Park and Natural Area opened. There are also plans to
21 make improvements to River Park and repairs and renovations to select other facilities
22 as needed and prioritized.
23 • Position Extension Recommended: Parks Conservation Tech I position is currently a
24 0.75 FTE, recommending to extend the position to 1.0 FTE ($10,680) to support
25 Blackwood Farm Park opening
26 • Personnel Increase: ($11,307) to comply with approved Living Wage for seasonal staff
27 • Operations Increase: ($40,647) for additional supplies and services to support
28 increasing demand for activities and opening of the Blackwood Farm Park
29 • Revenue Increase: ($11,000) The annual Trail Head Run resulted in a donation in FY14-
30 15. A donation in FY15-16 is anticipated.
31
32 Soil and Water Conservation Division:
33 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes personnel increase, as four
34 positions were reclassified in FY14-15
35
36 Historic Preservation Commission's (HPC) Historic Resources Inventory (Multi-Year
37 Project):
38 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
39 • The three-year project will cost $97,500. The County will contribute a total of$40,000;
40 CLG will contribute $27,500; and private grants, sponsorships and manuscript
41 purchases will fund the remainder ($30,000).
42 • The FY15-16 budget totals $20,000; the County will contribute $15,000 and the CLG will
43 contribute $5,000. The FY14-15 budget totaled $25,000; the County contributed
44 $10,000 and the CLG grant contributed $15,000. The County's contribution is budgeted
45 in the Transfers to Other Funds section, of the Recommended Budget.
46
47 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are property owners wanting to sell conservation
48 easements to Orange County.
49 David Stancil, DEAPR Director, said there are 44 property owners on the "interest" list
50 and 12 who want to actively pursue an easement in the near future.
11
1 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is any update regarding Orange Well Net.
2 David Stancil said Well Net is the County's well observation program and he said the
3 County is monitoring about 12 wells. He said information is typically presented to the Board in
4 October. He said it may be 15 years before the data received from this program is of use. He
5 said updates can be provided to the Board more frequently.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said why does the County have this position if the data cannot be
7 applied for years to come.
8 Commissioner Price expressed concern regarding the increase in usage fees for
9 Community Centers. She said many residents tell her that the current fees are prohibitive for
10 their budgets so higher fees would be even more unattainable.
11 David Stancil said this fee change is a change in language only and the rates were
12 already in place. He said internal analysis has been done with other governmental entities and
13 Orange County costs are right in line. He said the facilities can be greatly used without being
14 reserved. He said when one wants exclusive rights to use a facility then the applicable fee
15 would apply.
16 Commissioner Dorosin suggested that the Board have further discussion regarding the
17 Community Center Coordinator proposed position. He said the Rogers Road Community
18 Center (RRCC) is staffing their own center and running programs successfully. He said the
19 RRCC is providing services that Orange County would otherwise provide.
20 Commissioner Jacobs said that the RRCC is an anomalous situation and is an
21 asymmetrical comparison to the other community centers. He said the Rogers Road residents
22 wanted to run the Center and agreed to pay for it. He said if Orange County was going to pay
23 for it then Orange County would run it as it does their other centers. He is not sure how both
24 can be done simultaneously.
25 Commissioner Dorosin said the current model needs to be tweaked.
26 Commissioner Rich said an update review was not built into the interlocal agreement
27 with the Rogers Road Community Center but a discussion is needed to gather feedback on how
28 the Center is doing.
29 Bonnie Hammersley added that the recommended budget does include the Community
30 Center Coordinator, who will be a liaison between all the Community Centers and the Board,
31 providing updates and being a point of contact.
32
33 • Human Resources, Pg. 312 (including Non-Departmental Items, Pg. 328)
34
35 Christal Sandifer reviewed the following information:
36 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
37 • New Position Recommended: Assistant Human Resources Director (1.0) FTE, effective
38 July 1, 2015 ($84,832). The new position will develop a compensation system beginning
39 in FY15-16 that is sustainable, affordable and equitable and focuses on identified and
40 prioritized needs.
41 • Operations Increase: ($25,000) recommended for analytic tools for the appropriate
42 modeling of compensation review associated with the recommended position above.
43 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are specific people who must submit to drug
44 screens.
45 Christal Sandifer said only those in safety sensitive positions complete screenings.
46
47 Board of County Commissioners, Pg. 78
48
49 Darrell Butts reviewed the following information:
50 The FY15-16 Manager Recommended Budget includes
12
1 • An increase of$2,000 in Temporary Personnel. This increase will allow the department
2 to maintain the same number of hours previously budgeted while accounting for the
3 increase in the living wage that occurred in FY14- 15.
4 • Includes funds for the expansion of the Granicus Boards and Commissions database.
5 These funds are not budgeted within the Board of County Commissioner's budget, but
6 are included in IT's budget.
7
8 • Finance &Administrative Services, Pg. 281
9 Christal Sandifer reviewed the following information:
10 No significant budget changes in FY15-16 except under Risk Management,
11 Operations Increase: $58,000 for Liability Broker fee. In FY14-15, Willis Group Holdings
12 PLC, was selected to assist the County in conducting an in depth review of our risk
13 transfer, loss mitigation and loss prevention strategies. Their services include assessing
14 the adequacy of insurance coverage currently in place, representing the County in the
15 insurance marketplace, assisting with evaluation of loss retention structures, claim
16 management as well as development and implementation of loss prevention goals and
17 strategies.
18
19 • County Manager's Office, Pg. 115 (Including Non-Department Item, Pg. 328)
20
21 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the following information:
22 The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes:
23 • New Position Recommended: Administrative Assistant position (1.0) FTE, effective July
24 1, 2015 ($48,443). The new position will provide clerical support to the office as well as
25 receive calls from residents, to redirect calls as needed
26 • Created a Community Relations Department to include the Visitor's Bureau and the
27 Public Affairs Officer to implement the Strategic Communications Plan to improve
28 internal and external communications with community partners and Orange County
29 residents.
30
31 • County Manager's Office: Orange County Partnership to End Homelessness
32 Program
33
34 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the following information:
35 • Increase Expenditure: The FY15-16 Manager's Recommended Budget includes an
36 expenditure increase ($10,000) for Community Empowerment Fund to assist with
37 building rental in Chapel Hill.
38
39 Commissioner Rich asked if the living wage is remaining at $12.76.
40 Bonnie Hammersley said her recommended budget maintained this wage.
41
42 4. Employee Pay & Benefits, Pg. 428
43 Brenda Bartholomew, Human Resources Director, reviewed the following PowerPoint
44 presentation:
45
46 Pay and Benefits for Employees and Retirees
47 Work Session Purpose
48 Review of County Manager's Recommendations related to pay and benefits for
49 employees and retirees for FY 2015-16
50
13
1 Past Actions: FY 2014-15 Pay and Benefits Plan
2 ■ Wage increase of 1.5% for permanent employees effective July 1, 2014 for employee
3 hired on or before June 30, 2013, applied wage increase to the 2013/14 Salary Plan
4 ■ Maintained the Employee Performance Award of$500 or $1,000
5 ■ Funded for a health insurance increase of 14.35% (County did not pass the increase to
6 employees)
7 ■ Increased the living wage from $10.97 per hour to $12.76 per hour, effective July 1,
8 2014
9 ■ Continued the six-month hiring delay and the voluntary furlough program
10 ■ Increased the 401(k) County matching contribution to $63.00 per pay period (previously
11 $50.00), for a maximum annual County contribution of$1,512 (previously $1,200
12 annually) for all non-sworn law enforcement employees and continue the $27.50
13 contribution
14 ■ Continued the mandated Law Enforcement Officer 401(k) contribution of 5% of salary
15
16 Key Pay and Benefits Plan —
17 Manager Recommendations
18 ■ A wage increase of 2 percent for all permanent employees hired on or before June 30,
19 2015, effective July 1, 2015.
20 ■ No wage increase to the 2014 Salary Schedule.
21 ■ Continue the Employee Performance Award in the amount of$500 (proficient
22 performance) or $1,000 (exceptional performance), effective with WPPR review dates
23 from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016.
24 ■ Continue funding the Traditional and High Deductible Health Plans for employees and
25 pre-65 retirees at the FY2014/15 appropriation and fund an additional $100,000 to
26 mitigate the cost of deductibles
27 ■ Continue funding the Dental Program with an increase of$40,000 over FY2014-15
28 appropriations.
29 ■ Funding an increase of$221,000 for retiree healthcare benefits.
30 ■ Continue the $27.50 per pay period County contribution to non-law enforcement
31 employees' supplemental retirement accounts and the County matching employees'
32 contributions up to $63.00 semi-monthly (for a maximum annual County contribution of
33 $1,512) for all general (non-sworn law enforcement officer) employees.
34 ■ Continue the mandated Law Enforcement Officer contribution of 5 percent of salary; and
35 continue the County's contribution to the Local Governmental Employees' Retirement
36 System (LGERS) for all permanent employees.
37 ■ Eliminate the six-month hiring delay
38 ■ Salary Savings Appropriation- $750,000
39 ■ Continue the voluntary furlough program (anticipated savings of$18,000 for FY2015-16)
40 ■ Continue the living wage rate at $12.76 per hour.
41 o 2015 Federal Poverty Guideline - $11.66 per hour for a family of four
42 o Currently 9.43% above the 2015 Federal Poverty Guideline
43 o Recommend BOCC adopting a standard of annually adjusting the living wage by
44 a defined percentage above the Federal Guideline for a family of four
45 • Other jurisdictions apply 7.5% above Federal Guideline
46 • $12.53 in 2015
47 • City of Durham, Durham County, Town of Chapel Hill, Town of Carrboro
48
49 Position Classification Recommendation Manager's Initiative
14
1 Add capacity to develop and implement a sustainable classification and compensation plan and
2 workforce development plan.
3 ■ Full Time Assistant HR Director
4 ■ $25,000 for analytic tools
5 ■ The goal for FY2015-16
6 o to evaluate compensation policies/programs including pay structures,
7 performance based pay, internal and external equity and benefit programs
8 o to develop a compensation system that is sustainable, affordable and equitable
9 and focuses on identified and prioritized needs for review and adoption for
10 implementation in FY2016-17
11 o to develop, implement and evaluate recruitment, hiring, orientation, succession
12 planning, retention and organizational exit programs necessary to ensure a
13 workforce's ability to achieve Orange County's organizational goals and
14 objectives.
15
16 Manager recommendation
17 Reduction in Force
18 ■ The Manager recommends that a reduction in force is necessary resulting in the
19 deletion of a position and recommends the Board grant the Manager the authority to
20 develop a reduction plan as per Section 28-91 of the Code of County Ordinances.
21 o The County Manager has reorganized the manager's office to include the
22 deletion of Assistant County Manager (ACM) positions and/or functions.
23
24 Bonnie Hammersley said the current work plan performance review system will be
25 evaluated and amended as necessary to make it more of a merit based system.
26 Commissioner Rich said she is not as comfortable with merit based increases as
27 opposed to a simple wage increase. She said one can build on top of wage increases but not
28 merit increases. She said she looks forward to discussing this further at a later date.
29 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the position within the Manager's office that has been
30 removed is vacant or if the employee was laid off.
31 Bonnie Hammersley said the ACM position will become vacant on June 30, and the
32 employee will be moved to another position July 1. She said she has assigned this position to
33 the Solid Waste department and the goal is not to have an interruption in employment.
34
35 5. Capital Investment Plan (CIP), Pg. 87
36 Paul Laughton said there were several revisions to the abstract package and all
37 changes are highlighted in yellow.
38 Paul Laughton said there is also a revision to the Debt Capacity and Debt Service
39 schedule, provided at the Commissioners' places. He said he would review the materials and
40 reminded the Board that at the next meeting on June 11, the Board would be asked to approve
41 the CIP and its Year 1 projects for 2015-16.
42 Paul Laughton reviewed the changes in the CIP:
43
44 County Projects
45 • Southern Orange Campus— Future Planning (CIP page 21) - reflects the removal of
46 $400,000 from FY 2014-15 funding, and provides $200,000 in Year 2 (FY 2016-17) for design
47 work associated with the planned Year 2 Southern Human Services Center expansion project.
48 Also removes $3,600,000 in Year 1 (FY 2015-16), and provides $1,800,000 in Year 2 (FY 2016-
49 17) for infrastructure work associated with the planned Year 2 Southern Human Services
15
1 Center expansion project. It further provides $200,000 in Years 6-10 for future design work, as
2 well as $1,800,000 in Years 6-10 for future infrastructure work.
3 • Affordable Housing Land Banking (New Project-39a) —this project provides $1,000,000
4 in Year 1 (FY 2015-16) for a land banking program. The purpose of the program is to acquire
5 aggregate parcels and/or improve existing county-owned properties for future residential
6 development to address displaced manufactured homes, as well as affordable housing
7 alternatives.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said the County needs to be aggressive with surveying the
9 manufactured homes in the area. He said this community needs to be included in any forward
10 discussions.
11 Chair McKee said if the funds are not spent will they revert back to the general fund.
12 Paul Laughton said no, the funds would stay with the project throughout its lifetime.
13 Commissioner Dorosin asked if land became available in September would the funds be
14 available to use.
15 Paul Laughton said yes, the funds would be available July 1.
16 Commissioner Dorosin said guidelines will be needed quickly to move this project
17 forward.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said it is important to aggressively survey the current
19 manufactured housing community within Orange County, especially in the urban areas. He
20 said he anticipates a lot of involvement from the manufactured housing community. He said it
21 will be important to involve them every step of the way.
22 Commissioner Price asked if the debt service on the $1 million would ever be recouped
23 by the County perhaps through the sale of the land purchased for the land bank.
24 Paul Laughton said the direction of the Board will determine how this project will take
25 shape.
26 Chair McKee said all the details will need to be ironed out.
27 Commissioner Burroughs expressed enthusiasm for the project, and supported it taking
28 shape quickly. She added that all plans should be tied closely to those of the Housing Director
29 and her department.
30 Bonnie Hammersley said, in collaboration with the Housing Director, the goal was to
31 make the language for this project as flexible as possible. She said the Housing Director is
32 working on draft criteria for this topic.
33 Commissioner Rich said this is a land banking conversation, not just simply $1 million
34 going into affordable housing. She said it is important to make this distinction clear with
35 affordable housing advocates. She said she understands the goal of this program is to provide
36 a safety net to those in the manufactured home community.
37 Commissioner Jacobs confirmed that this was his intention when he proposed the land
38 banking idea.
39
40 Information Technology(CIP page 28) — includes $800,000 in FY 2014-15 for the
41 Central Permitting System approved by the Board of Commissioners as part of the current 2015
42 Financing package (scheduled to close on June 25, 2015). Also, includes funds of$378,100 in
43 Year 1 (FY 2015-16) for three IT Governance Council initiatives.
44 • Sheriff Equipment (New Project-39b) — includes $517,798 in FY 2014-15 for
45 replacement of In-Car cameras approved by the Board of Commissioners as part of the current
46 2015 Financing package (scheduled to close on June 25, 2015).
47 • Board of Elections Equipment (New Project-39c) — includes $679,870 in FY 2014-15 for
48 the replacement of voting machines and the purchase of electronic poll books approved by the
49 Board of Commissioners as part of the current 2015 Financing package (scheduled to close on
16
1 June 25, 2015). Also, includes funds of$169,575 in Year 1 (FY 2015-16) for the replacement of
2 outdated ADA voting equipment, as part of an IT Governance Council initiative.
3 • Life Safety—ADA (CIP page 35) — includes moving $60,000 from Year 2 to Year 1 (FY
4 2015-16) for elevator improvements at the Historic Courthouse.
5 • Conservation Easements (CIP page 48) — includes additional County funds of$125,000
6 and matching State/Federal grant funds and landowner donations of$125,000 beginning in
7 Year 1 (FY 2015-16) and continuing each year throughout the CIP. Due to the County's
8 increase in funds, staff recommends debt financing instead of Pay-As-You-Go funding.
9 • CIP Plan Summary(CIP pages 6-7), County Capital Projects Summary(CIP pages 16-
10 17), and County Capital Operating Impact Summary (CIP pages 18-19) —to reflect the revised
11 County Capital Projects listed above.
12 Note: A revised County Debt Service and Debt Capacity— General Fund Only (CIP pages 133-
13 134) affected by these revised projects was provided at the June 9 work session, along with
14 information related to Debt Capacity and Debt Affordability.
15
16 Proprietary Project
17 • Solid Waste - Sanitation (CIP page 81) — removes $296,035 from Year 1 (FY 2015-16)
18 for the replacement of a front end loader. Solid Waste Department was able to purchase this in
19 the current fiscal year with unanticipated funds within the department's budget.
20 • Solid Waste Capital Projects Summary(CIP page 79) —to reflect the revised Sanitation
21 Capital Project listed above.
22 Paul Laughton said at the Commissioners' places are the revised County Debt Service
23 and Debt Capacity, with changes highlighted in yellow. He said on the second page of the
24 handout, in bold print, it is shown that the County does stay under the 15% Debt Service policy.
25 Paul Laughton said on the second page of his hand out, one can see a bump in 2017-18
26 and 2018-19. He said those are the years that revenue sources must be closely reviewed. He
27 said the County would still need to look at additional revenue sources and tax revenue
28 implications to pay for this additional debt. He said the County may have to look at raising
29 taxes to cover the debt in these latter years. He said though the capacity looks okay now the
30 projected debt service payments going forward need to be studied closely.
31 Commissioner Dorosin asked if these numbers include a potential bond.
32 Paul Laughton said no.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said as a bond could change the debt service picture in a
34 negative way, he would like to see this information.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said as the Board pursues the discussion of the bond package, it
36 would be good to have a clear picture of the debt capacity so the Board can make informed
37 decisions.
38 Chair McKee asked for clarification regarding the projected annual debt. He asked if
39 this pertained to affordability, and not capacity.
40 Paul Laughton said yes.
41 Chair McKee asked if the bond goes on the ballot and passes in 2016 when would the
42 debt payments begin.
43 Paul Laughton said the payments would begin one year after the first debt is issued.
44
45 Adjournment
46 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
47 adjourn the meeting at 10:12 p.m.
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
17
1
2 Earl McKee, Chair
3
4 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
5
1
I Attachment 10
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 Budget Work Session
6 June 11, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday, June
10 11, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
11
12 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. He noted the following items at
13 the Commissioners' places:
14 - White pages, paper clipped together: Orange County Capital Investment Plan (CIP) summary
15 pages
16 - blue sheet—Orange County CIP Year 1 (FY 2015-16) Recommended Projects, revised
17 - gold sheet— North Carolina Board of Education Compensation Comparisons, Orange County
18 Regional Comparisons for discussion purposes
19 - green sheet— North Carolina Elected Official Compensation Comparisons, Orange County
20 Regional Comparisons for discussion purposes
21
22 1. FY2015-20 Capital Investment Plan
23 Accept the Five Year Capital Investment Plan and Approve the Intent to Adopt
24 Capital Funding for FY2015-16
25 Paul Laughton, Orange County Finance Administrative Services, reviewed the revisions
26 to the CIP. He said on page 6 two projects have been changed from pay-as-you-go (PAYG) to
27 debt financing: Cedar Grove Kiosk and the generator project for Hillsborough Commons. He
28 said this caused a revision to the debt service pages on 133 and 134.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said Fairview Park is not in the CIP.
30 Paul Laughton said Fairview Park is not a CIP Project. He said the parks project for
31 repairs and renovations for Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation
32 (DEAPR) has $300,000 for next year and some of that funding will go to the Fairview Park and
33 to paving the parking area.
34 David Stancil, DEAPR Director, said this is correct and the project is to pave the
35 Fairview Police sub-station parking lot in order to gain parking spots for Fairview Park. He said
36 the County will split the costs evenly with the Town of Hillsborough. He said the second
37 alternative is to have parking on Rainey Avenue which is adjacent to the Park. He said in the
38 long term there may be need for the larger parking lot that is in the master plan at a cost of
39 $400,000 to $500,000. He said this would be off of the public works drive. He said the road
40 extension and the parking lot are the only items remaining in the existing Master Plan. He said
41 that is a future phase.
42 Commissioner Jacobs clarified that there is $300,000 for improvements for all of the
43 parks for FY 2015-16 and to build this parking lot out would cost $500,000.
44 David Stancil said that is correct. He said an interim solution is being sought and that
45 will create 40 to 50 parking spaces. He said paving a gravel parking lot typically provides 10
46 percent more spots than were present on the gravel lot.
47 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is a way to track the funds for the Fairview Park
48 project.
49 David Stancil said going forward items in a particular group, in a particular CIP year,
50 could be sub-listed.
2
1 Commissioner Price said when she petitioned the Board about this parking request
2 earlier in the year and the request came from the residents. She said the residents are not
3 looking for parking on Rainey Avenue.
4 David Stancil said he could re-distribute a memo that reflects the conversations. He
5 said he would also be happy to attend the next Community Watch meeting to provide an
6 update.
7 Commissioner Price said the residents' hope was to dedicate a parking area in honor of
8 an influential community member in the neighborhood and also to get the vehicles off the roads.
9 David Stancil said Terrain Street is in front of the Park entrance, and suffers the largest
10 overflow parking issues. He said Rainey Avenue is on the side of the Park and the right hand
11 side of the street is vacant thus not disrupting residences. He said he hopes paving the police
12 substation would serve as an intermediate solution.
13 Paul Laughton referred to the blue sheet: Orange County CIP Recommended Projects-
14 Revised Fiscal Year 2015-16. He noted the two changes on the back of the sheet. He said
15 staff is seeking the Board's acceptance of the five year CIP but also to approve the intent to
16 adopt the one year funding for the CIP for 2015-16 as listed on the blue handout.
17 Commissioner Dorosin asked if everything on the Rogers Road Sewer Project is funded
18 from the general fund.
19 Paul Laughton said yes and the other funding would come in Year 2.
20 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the funding for the Eubanks Solid Waste Convenience
21 Center should appear in the blue handout.
22 Paul Laughton said that is part of the 2014-15 financing package that will be closed on
23 at the end of this month.
24 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the parking lot improvements. He said there is one
25 item in this category and suggested putting money in there for Fairview Park parking lot
26 improvement.
27 Bonnie Hammersley said this information is on page 34 in the CIP book.
28 Commissioner Jacobs said there is $120,000 for one project and suggested putting
29 some of the $280,000 PAYG funds, that were moved to financing, into this category and
30 designate it for Fairview Park parking renovations.
31 Commissioner Rich asked if there is an estimate of the costs.
32 David Stancil said $30,000 is budgeted for paving of the police substation parking lot.
33 Commissioner Jacobs said the total cost of the next phase would be $500,000. He said
34 this would allow an access road into the park off of new 86, instead of all traffic going through
35 the neighborhood. He said it would also move the park to being more of a County park instead
36 of just a neighborhood park. He said there is not $500,000 available but it would be nice to get
37 started on the next part of the Master Plan.
38 David Stancil said other options that may cost less than $500,000 have been reviewed.
39 Commissioner Rich asked Commissioner Jacobs if he could clarify his request. She
40 asked if he is requesting funding from other areas thus leaving David Stancil's budget as is.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said yes since Fairview Park is not in the CIP and there is not
42 funding to do the whole project.
43 David Stancil said the parking lot is designed but there is no funding.
44 Commissioner Rich said this has been a project that has needed renovations for some
45 time, thus she is in agreement with Commissioner Jacobs.
46 Chair McKee asked if there is a specific dollar amount being considered.
47 David Stancil said if the Board tells staff there is a set amount to work with then staff can
48 make it work.
49 Chair McKee said there is limited extra funding tonight. He said there is the $280,000
50 just discussed, $400,000 from the fund balance and about $65,000 from PAYG funds that were
3
1 not expended. He said if the Board chooses to expend money on this project there will be
2 fewer funds available for other projects.
3 Commissioner Burroughs said she would not want to make a decision regarding
4 Fairview Park until other big picture funding decisions are made tonight.
5 Commissioner Price suggested more funding than the $30,000 and to move forward
6 with this parking lot plan rather than piece meal the project together.
7 Commissioner Jacobs asked if it was known when the master plan for Fairview Park
8 was finished.
9 David Stancil said around 2008 or 2009 and construction was done in 2010-2011. He
10 said it was funded out of the 2001 bond, and payment in lieu funds.
11 Commissioner Jacobs suggested $100,000 for this project. He said it will not cover the
12 entire project but will serve as an incentive to get the project moving more quickly.
13 Commissioner Dorosin said DEAPR has $30,000 in their budget which is not being
14 moved and any other funding would be on top of that $30,000. He said he too has his "pet"
15 projects to discuss tonight but agreed with Commissioner Burroughs point to not make any
16 decisions until later in the evening.
17 David Stancil clarified that the $30,000 was in the CIP under Parks and Recreation
18 repairs and renovations and was not specifically earmarked for Fairview Park.
19 Commissioner Pelissier said she is uncomfortable adding something to the CIP during
20 this CIP discussion without knowing the estimated costs for a project. She said doing so is not
21 a typical practice and she feels it would be like shooting in the dark.
22 Commissioner Price said this Park's needs have been discussed on several occasions
23 for years and feels that David Stancil gave a rough estimate of cost.
24 Commissioner Pelissier clarified that the Fairview Park had not been brought up during
25 this season of CIP discussions.
26 Commissioner Jacobs said such oversight falls on the shoulders of both the Board and
27 the staff. He added that this park is not an insignificant project. He said the Board has
28 developed the park and should now address the shortcomings of the project. He said it should
29 have been somewhere in the CIP as a project.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said the oversight seems to be more of a policy question. He
31 asked if the Board should have a process of tracking projects similar to this that do not meet
32 the criteria of being included in the CIP.
33 Chair McKee clarified if the parking lot in question would cost $500,000.
34 David Stancil said the road construction to access the parking lot and parking lot itself
35 would total $500,000.
36 Chair McKee said $30,000 will not offer significant change, and asked if $100,000 would
37 allow much more to be done. He asked if the cost for planning and design was known. He said
38 he is not comfortable allocating $100,000 but is not sure what number would be more
39 comfortable.
40 David Stancil said if the County allocated $30,000, the Town of Hillsborough would
41 match it with an additional $30,000. He said these funds would allow the paving of the police
42 substation lot, gaining about 5-10 spaces, on top of the existing 25. He said if there were
43 $100,000 it would be necessary to look at a design putting the lot where the Town had planned
44 to place a public works lot. He said this potential lot is close to the park and would not require a
45 1/3 of a mile driveway. He said with increased funds there are several options that could be
46 considered.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said paving the substation lot is still not at the Park. He said he
48 is just trying to give this project some momentum and asked if staff could come back on June
49 16th with a plan and a cost. He said if the plan is not applicable then the Board could reallocate
50 the proposed funding.
4
1 Commissioner Rich asked if there has there been any discussions with the Town for a
2 larger amount of money.
3 David Stancil said not at this time.
4 Commissioner Rich said it may be worth having this conversation with the Town once
5 they know what the County is considering.
6 David Stancil said he believes that Hillsborough sees the park as a County project.
7 Commissioner Burroughs said she is not opposed to Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion,
8 but noted that all Board members have ideas tonight regarding fund allocation. She asked the
9 Board to keep the many needs and expenses in mind when the topic of revenue sources is
10 raised later.
11 Bonnie Hammersley said staff has been meeting with the Town in regards to this Park,
12 and there were alternative plans discussed; but the County should have been more responsive
13 to this project. She said the staff will bring something back on June 16tH
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to set
16 aside $100,000 in the CIP pending a report back from by staff on Tuesday, June 16th, regarding
17 a plan to finish the remainder of the master plan for Fairview Park.
18
19 Chair McKee said the Board would be unable to follow up with a motion of intent on the
20 CIP because this item would be unresolved until Tuesday.
21 Commissioner Burroughs said she will be voting against this motion due to the process
22 and her desire to see how much revenue the Board chooses to raise.
23 Commissioner Rich asked if was necessary to delay the entire vote on the CIP.
24 Chair McKee said the action the Board was expecting to take would approve intent to
25 adopt the 2015-2020 CIP. He said Commissioner Jacob's motion would require the Board to
26 delay the intent motion until June 16th
27 Commissioner Dorosin said if Commissioner Jacob's motion delays the rest of the CIP,
28 then he would like to delay the motion.
29 Chair McKee said passing Commissioner Jacob's motion would take $100,000 off of the
30 table for tonight's other discussions.
31 Commissioner Jacobs said there could be a discussion on the rest of the CIP and the
32 Board can clarify his motion on 6/16.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said he was in favor of this motion but may not be in favor of
34 $100,000 at this moment. He suggested holding the motion until the rest of the CIP can be
35 discussed.
36 Commissioner Pelissier said she felt uncomfortable reserving $100,000 prior to
37 discussing all other items.
38 Commissioner Rich said if there is a pot of money available to be moved around, why is
39 a motion necessary right now.
40 Chair McKee said a motion is not required but it has been standard process to go
41 through each section and vote as each step is reviewed.
42 Bonnie Hammersley said the motion of intent to adopt is connected because of the pay-
43 as-you-go funding. She said the Board does not have to vote on an intent to adopt the CIP at
44 the end of this CIP discussion. She said, rather, the vote could wait until the end of the
45 meeting, or until the meeting on June 16th.
46 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the $280,000 can be spent on anything.
47 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
48 Commissioner Dorosin suggested removing the $280,000 out of the CIP, approving the
49 CIP and returning the money to the CIP on Tuesday, if it is not used in any other way.
5
1 Bonnie Hammersley said it was the understanding of staff that this is exactly what would
2 happen. She said even if an intent to adopt is passed the Board may make additional changes
3 prior to the final adoption of the budget.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said he is not suggesting that a decision be made tonight about
5 $100,000 but rather that the amount be set aside until Tuesday night.
6 Commissioner Price said the CIP can still be approved since it is intent only.
7 Chair McKee said he will not vote for this.
8 Commissioner Rich asked if the Board is in agreement that Fairview Park needs to be a
9 line item in the CIP. She said the park was overlooked and it needs to be put in the CIP.
10 Bonnie Hammersley said she is not sure a motion is needed to allow for Commissioner
11 Rich's suggestion as staff will insure that Fairview Park does become a line item. She said the
12 CIP and the budget will be presented differently in the future.
13
14 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Price, Commissioner Rich and
15 Commissioner Dorosin); Nays, 3 (Chair McKee, Commissioners Pelissier, and Commissioner
16 Burroughs)
17
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to accept
19 the Five Year Capital Investment Plan and Approve the Intent to Adopt Capital Funding for
20 FY2015-16, with caveat that the Board will discuss the Fairview Park project on Tuesday.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 Chair McKee noted the remaining funds available for allocation are $645,000.
25
26 2. FY2015-16 Annual Operating Budget Decision Items
27 • Mark Up/Mark Down Items for the County's Annual Operating Budget and Outside
28 Agencies
29
30 • County Departments
31 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the $645,000 is the remaining funds available for
32 allocation, without raising taxes. He also asked if this includes reserve funds.
33 Bonnie Hammersley said no. She said the County's projected reserves meets Orange
34 County's financial policy of 17 percent. She said the State's financial policy is 8%.
35 Commissioner Dorosin asked what would happen if a majority voted to go below the
36 County policy.
37 Paul Laughton said it is a policy that rating agencies will review. He said these agencies
38 see this policy as a strong fiscal control that the County has in place and it helps the County
39 achieve and maintain the Triple AAA bond rating so crucial when seeking financing.
40 Commissioner Dorosin asked if it is a conservative policy.
41 Paul Laughton said it was chosen by looking at peer counties, and 17% is a benchmark.
42 He said staying within that policy helps the County with the rating agencies.
43 Bonnie Hammersley agreed with Paul Laughton, and said it is just one of the measures
44 that rating agencies look at. She said Orange County does have strong fiscal policies;
45 however, it is a board policy, and, as such, can be changed.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said he believed that this policy is something the Board could
47 discuss in the fall as it is a very conservative policy.
48 Bonnie Hammersley said there was discussion on Tuesday night regarding the United
49 Way funding and she asked staff for an inventory list of what the United Way is funding. She
50 said it has been reported to her that the funding changes would not take effect until September.
6
1 She said staff can work on it during the summer and can bring something back to the first
2 Board of County Commissioners meeting in September, if necessary.
3 Chair McKee asked if needs could be addressed with budget amendments in the fall.
4 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
5 Commissioner Rich said if budget amendments were necessary, from where would the
6 Board pull the funds.
7 Bonnie Hammersley said the needs would be evaluated going forward and there are
8 pockets of funding available.
9 Commissioner Rich said to inform the outside agencies that requested additional
10 funding, due to United Way cuts, that there may be amendments in the fall.
11 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Rich.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said many years the County ends up with a 20-22 percent fund
13 balance after budgets are approved. He asked if it is a known certainty that the County is at 17
14 percent this year.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said currently there is some uncertainty as to what the projections
16 will be, since the County has used significant amounts of the fund balances in the past. She
17 said this will be monitored closely going forward.
18 Commissioner Burroughs said she supports a plan that allows the Board to address
19 these cuts in September. She said the three agencies facing cuts are part of the Family
20 Success Alliance (FSA) Consortium.
21 Bonnie Hammersley said she would respond back to the affected outside agencies that
22 have reached out to the County.
23 Bonnie Hammersley referred to the gold paper at the Commissioners' places. She
24 reminded the Board of a request by the Interim Superintendent of the Orange County Schools
25 (OCS), asking that their Board of Education (BOE) have the same compensation as the BOE
26 for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). She said the front side of the gold sheet
27 shows comparable counties within the State, and the reverse side shows the recommended
28 budget ordinance language to fix the OCS compensation as the same for CHCCS.
29 Commissioner Burroughs said CHCCS is paid twice a year.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said he heartily supported this proposed change.
31 Chair McKee said this compensation is paid out of OCS's monies.
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
34 for the Board of Board of County Commissioners to fix the compensation for members of the
35 OCS Board of Education such as that it is the same for the members of the CHCCS Board of
36 Education; resulting increase to be paid from the approved County appropriation for Orange
37 County Schools.
38
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 Bonnie Hammersley referred to the green sheet that shows County Commissioner
42 compensation and peer comparisons in the same counties as used for BOE comparisons. She
43 said the towns and cities in Orange County are also included. She said options for
44 consideration are located at the bottom of the page, should the Board choose to look at
45 changes to the current compensation.
46 Chair McKee said he and the Manager have discussed this topic at length. He said the
47 Board of County Commissioners has only had increases with general cost of living allowances
48 and the topic of increases has not been discussed for at least 20 or 30 years. He said it is time
49 to have a discussion, and noted the options provided by the Manager. He said this topic should
50 be reviewed on an annual basis by the Board. He said option 2 suggests a per diem rate for
7
1 meetings. He said within this option there are sub options: the first considers 33 meetings,
2 which includes regular meetings and regular work sessions; the second considers 51 meetings,
3 which includes all meetings.
4 Commissioner Price asked if the per diem would be in addition to the flat salary.
5 Chair McKee said yes.
6 Commissioner Price asked if the salary would stay the same.
7 Chair McKee said everything is open for discussion.
8 Bonnie Hammersley said option 1 addressed increasing the salary by a percentage or a
9 flat rate. She said option 2 is a meeting per diem, meaning there would be a cost per meeting
10 with the two tier options as just referenced by Chair McKee. She said option 3 is a less
11 administrative option. She said the Board would receive an allowance with the same two tiers
12 available as in option 2.
13 Commissioner Price asked if option 2 was contingent upon Commissioners attending
14 meetings.
15 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
16 Commissioner Rich asked if it is known how many meetings the Board has in
17 comparison to other governmental entities.
18 Bonnie Hammersley said she gathered the information on the green sheet from the
19 North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC), and it did not include anything
20 regarding quantity of meetings.
21 Commissioner Dorosin said right now the Board has salary and travel allowance and he
22 would be interested to know how much of the travel allowance is used. He said he has never
23 used his travel allowance and suggested rolling it into the salary when it goes unused.
24 Chair McKee said this is already the case. He said it will show up once monthly on the
25 pay stub as "travel allowance".
26 Commissioner Pelissier said that when the County was conducting a manager search
27 she heard that many applicants chose not to apply due to Orange County's reputation for
28 having a large number of meetings.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board should compare itself to its immediate neighbors.
30 Chair McKee agreed. He suggested keeping any decisions simple and straightforward.
31 Commissioner Burroughs echoed Chair McKee and added it is important to maintain
32 transparency. She said she supports option one.
33 Chair McKee said this is a difficult conversation to have as there will be some amount of
34 pushback. He added this conversation has not been had in so many years and knows the
35 number of hours the Board spends attending meetings, reviewing materials, etc. He said he
36 has no predetermined conclusions but feels the Board must have the conversation.
37 Bonnie Hammersley said this will be an addition to the budget and reviewed the total
38 costs for each option. She said the first tier in option 2 would be $23,100; the second tier in
39 option 2 would be $35,700; the first tier in option 3 would be $21,000; and the second tier in
40 option 3 would be $ 33,000. She said these are cumulative totals and would be an addition to
41 the recommended budget.
42 Commissioner Jacobs asked Commissioner Burroughs if she desired only one category
43 or if she would be comfortable with specified separate categories.
44 Commissioner Burroughs said the Board should have one or two numbers at most. She
45 said the Board should pick a number that rings true, and move forward.
46
47 Commissioner Jacobs said he now understands her position, while he may not agree
48 with it. He said another way to address option 2 or 3 would be to phase it in over four years,
49 allowing for each Commissioner to have to run for re-election, after raising their salary. He said
50 it would give the citizens the opportunity to weigh in.
8
1 Chair McKee asked if Commissioner Jacobs meant that none of this would go into effect
2 until 2016.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said no. He said his suggestion is to phase in the pay raise over
4 four years.
5 Commissioner Dorosin said it is a hard conversation to have and he sees two policy
6 points: the first is that artificially low salaries for public service narrows the pool of candidates
7 that can participate; the second is that if the pay rate has not been raised in 20 years, then it is
8 perfectly acceptable to do so. He agreed with Commissioner Burroughs that there should be
9 one flat number.
10 Commissioner Dorosin suggested raising the salary to $20,000, costing the County an
11 additional $17,500.
12 Commissioner Price suggested leaving travel separately, as other counties do adding it
13 may be preferable in regards to filing taxes. She said the salary should be one number not a
14 per diem rate for meetings.
15 Commissioner Rich agreed with Commissioner Dorosin.
16 Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Rich.
17 Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Dorosin regarding who is able to run
18 for office. She said the problem is that adding a few thousand dollars is not going to change
19 who can run but it is a start. She said the Board members are all on numerous boards outside
20 the Board of County Commissioners and thus attending even more meetings.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said he does think that improving the salaries will attract
22 candidates and diversity. He suggested looking at their neighbors and striving to be in the
23 same ballpark.
24 Chair McKee said the retribution of the voters is always a reality.
25 Commissioner Dorosin agreed with Commissioner Pelissier that raising the salary is
26 only a start towards attracting more diverse candidates to run for elected office. He said the
27 other side of the coin is to discuss the number of meetings the Board has.
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
30 approve a total compensation package of$21,000 (including travel and salary).
31
32 Chair McKee said there is an incremental tier for the Chair and Vice Chair and asked if
33 there should be the same incremental step up for these roles.
34 Commissioner Rich made a friendly amendment to keep Chair and Vice Chair with
35 same percentage tier.
36 Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Pelissier accepted this.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 Bonnie Hammersley said there will be a compensation discussion on every budget
41 going forward.
42 Paul Laughton referred to the revised County Fee Schedule hand out at the
43 Commissioners' places. He said it is part of the Board's appendix A. He said there are a few
44 wording changes and the County Fee Schedule will be before the Board at the next meeting for
45 approval.
46 Paul Laughton said a mark up/mark down sheet has been done for several years,
47 allowing the Board to walk through changes in expenses and revenues. He reviewed the
48 following numbers:
49 Manager's Recommended Budget $205,976.110
50 $65,000 reduction in PAYG $65,000
9
1 $180,000 change two CIP Projects $180,000
2 Board of County Commissioners Compensation $ 24,500
3
4 Commissioner Dorosin referred to an email he sent earlier in the day regarding pre-trial
5 programs and their potential move to the Sheriff' Office. He said his email voiced concerns
6 passed on to him from various stakeholders regarding this change. He said further discussion
7 by the Board seems warranted. He said the Manager has proposed continuing the contracts
8 and moving the administrative components to the County Manager's office. He said he would
9 endorse this proposal. He asked if the topic could continue to be discussed over the next six
10 months. He said concerns arise as the judicial process is an adversarial one and the Sheriff's
11 Office is affiliated with one side of said process. He said having services moved from a neutral
12 non-profit to the Sheriff's Office requires careful planning and forethought.
13 Commissioner Pelissier said there was a recommendation that the Drug Court and pre-
14 trial services be brought in house, per the jail alternatives work group. She said this raises two
15 questions: bringing it in house to begin with and where to place it in house. She said the
16 Manager recommended that these both go to Sheriff's Office and be reviewed on an annual
17 basis. She said she is unsure whether contracts are needed or if having a position is
18 preferable.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said the Manager recommended these services to come under
20 the Sheriff, since there was difficulty coordinating with outside agencies. He said he feels it is
21 generous of the Sheriff to be willing to take these services on, but understands the potential
22 issues given the adversarial nature of the judicial system. He agreed that the Board should
23 have a further discussion, and as an interim measure to put it under the auspices of the
24 Manager.
25 Bonnie Hammersley said the Recommended Budget did include the recommendation of
26 moving Pretrial Services and the Drug Court to the Sheriff's Office. She said this
27 recommendation came from concerns raised by various departments and members of the Jail
28 Alternatives Workgroup. She said there could be a conflict of interest with the entity that
29 oversees these services. She said it is not uncommon for these programs to be in a jail. She
30 said in order to protect the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), she is recommending to
31 review this annually as a part of the budget ordinance, and for BOCC to choose an entity to
32 oversee these programs. She said she has also heard from some concerned members of the
33 legal community.
34 Bonnie Hammersley said her email today which stated: "In response to the concerns
35 that have been raised by some of the stakeholders of the Pre-trial Services change in the
36 budget, I would offer an option of continuing the contracts but transferring administration of the
37 contracts to the County Manager's office to allow the opportunity for input from
38 stakeholders. This option could also apply to the Drug Court contract that was included in the
39 budget initiative to transfer to the Sheriff office," was an interim solution in her office for
40 oversight and evaluation these programs and then to report back to the Board of
41 Commissioners.
42 Commissioner Dorosin said the Manager's proposed compromise would address all of
43 the concerns.
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich that
46 Pretrial Services and Drug Court continue as contracts, but transferring administration of those
47 contracts to the County Manager's office, to allow for input from stakeholders and also for
48 continued evaluation of where the program should ultimately end up.
49
10
1 Commissioner Pelissier said she can accept this motion but said she does not want to
2 see a discussion of contracts occur. She proposed a friendly amendment that, in 6 months, the
3 positions will be in house somewhere. She said this is clearly in line with the recommendation
4 of the consultant that was hired to review the current system.
5 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not in favor of the pre-set review process and would
6 rather stay with the Manager's language and respectfully decline friendly amendment.
7 Commissioner Rich said sometimes she does not feel in the loop on this and other
8 issues; however, she is supportive of Commissioner Dorosin's motion.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said he is confident what Commissioner Pelissier suggested will
10 happen.
11 Chair McKee said problems with the non-profit currently overseeing Pretrial Services
12 and the Drug Court has been ongoing. He has heard of issues for four years and the problems
13 seem to persist regardless of what approach is made to address them. He said it is time to
14 make a change. He said he believes the Sheriff to be highly motivated to keep numbers down
15 at the jail. He said these numbers are constantly monitored. He said he wholeheartedly
16 supports the Manager's original proposal to transfer these services to the Sheriff's Office. He
17 said he recognizes this is a dramatic change and will be traumatic for the non-profit, but he
18 finds the persistent problems to be too great an issue. He said most of the push back seems to
19 have arisen in recent days and not since the budget document has been available. He said this
20 large push back in the past 24 hours may be the result of a coordinated and manipulative
21 attempt to influence the Board.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said he disagreed with Chair McKee's interpretation of the
23 increased push back.
24 Commissioner Price said she agreed with Chair McKee and Commissioner Pelissier.
25 Commissioner Jacobs said someone can make a substitute motion.
26 Commissioner Pelissier said the only policy change in the original recommendation was
27 changing the location to the Sheriff's Office. She said bringing the services in house is not a
28 policy change.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich that
31 the Board adopt what Manager recommended in her email of continuing the contracts but
32 transferring administration of the contracts to the County Manager's office to allow the
33 opportunity for input from stakeholders. This option could also apply to the Drug Court contract
34 that was included in the budget initiative to transfer to the Sheriff Office.
35
36 A substitute motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner
37 Price to continue the contracts for three months; bring the positions under the supervision of the
38 Manager's office within 3 months; and study where to place the services in the long run after
39 that, whether they remain in the Manager's Office or go to the Sheriff, and under what
40 conditions they would go to the Sheriff.
41 Commissioner Pelissier said there is already a Jail Alternatives Coordinator in the
42 Sheriff's Office. She said wherever Pretrial Services is placed it will need to coordinate with the
43 Jail Alternatives Coordinator.
44 Bonnie Hammersley clarified that the contracted amount that was going to be
45 transferred to the Sheriff's Office was going to fund the creation of a Jail Alternatives position.
46 She said without that transfer of funds, there will not be a Jail Alternatives Coordinator.
47 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Commissioner Dorosin's motion better addresses that
48 point, or does neither motion offer much help.
49 Bonnie Hammersley said the long term solution is the Jail Alternatives Coordinator. She
50 said the proposal was for a full time Jail Alternatives Coordinator, a '/2 time position to oversee
11
1 Pre-trial Services, and a FTE Drug Court Coordinator. She said these positions would be
2 funded by the contract monies. She said if the contracts remain, then the current staffing
3 remains as it is. She said giving three months to talk with stakeholders and come back with
4 recommendations to Board of County Commissioners is a reasonable timeframe.
5 Bonnie Hammersley said this decision does not affect the mark up or mark down
6 budget, as it is a budget neutral initiative.
7 Bonnie Hammersley said she will act upon the will of the Board of County
8 Commissioners. She said in either case, she will evaluate with the stakeholders and share her
9 findings with the Board.
10
11 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Price, and
12 Commissioner Burroughs); Nayes, 3 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Jacobs, and
13 Commissioner Rich)
14 Motion Passes
15
16 Outside Agencies
17 Board members made the following suggestions for increased funding for outside
18 agencies:
19 Commissioner Rich Marion Cheeks Jackson Comm. Ctr. $2000
20 Commissioner Price OCIM Meals on Wheels Program $1830
21 Commissioner Dorosin Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Assoc. $20,000
22 Commissioner Jacobs Orange County Schools $35,200
23
24 Commissioner Pelissier InterFaith Council $4500
25 Community Empowerment Fund $2500
26
27 Commissioner Dorosin said InterFaith Council (IFC) is already receiving $41,000. He
28 said he does not support any more funds going to this agency.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to give
31 $3000 to I FC.
32 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Price, Commissioner
33 Rich, Commissioner Burroughs); Nayes, 2 (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner Pelissier)
34 Motion Passes
35
36 Commissioner Dorosin Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Assoc. $20,000
37
38 Commissioner Rich asked if it would be prudent to re-negotiate the existing agreement
39 with the Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA).
40 Commissioner Dorosin agreed that it should be re-negotiated but that the RENA is in
41 need of money now.
42 Commissioner Rich said it has been a year, and the agreement does not seem to be
43 working.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said it is a bigger question than just RENA. He said two other
45 community centers are coming on line and having conversations is prudent. He said the
46 funding of RENA now is not mutually exclusive to renegotiating the County's agreement with
47 them.
48 Commissioner Dorosin said he brought up helping RENA through the Social Justice
49 Funds several months ago and was assured the needs would be addressed via Outside
50 Agencies funding.
12
1 Commissioner Rich said at that same time she reread the agreement between the
2 County and RENA and was struck that there are some changes needed in the agreement.
3 Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Rich. She said a non-profit should
4 be funded from the community, and not primarily from the government. She said she would be
5 comfortable giving the money to RENA, if there was a contract with them.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said the Board agreed that it would not be the funders of this
7 organization. He said it looks as if the Board is moving to a different model that decentralizes
8 government oversight and supports community operation in upcoming Community Centers. He
9 said he would like to re-visit Rogers Road in this new light and re-negotiate the contract.
10 Commissioner Dorosin is not sure that RENA's fund request is for operations.
11 Bonnie Hammersley said it was not for operations. She said the request is for RENA's
12 back program, a community garden and a summer camp.
13
14 A motion was made Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
15 provide $15,000 funding to the RENA.
16 Commissioner Rich said she feels strongly that these funds are a band-aid, and that the
17 agreement with RENA must be reviewed.
18
19 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
20 Bonnie Hammersley said going forward the County will look at this Center as part of all
21 of the community centers and will review the current agreement. She said the County is taking
22 care of facility maintenance.
23
24 Commissioner Jacobs Orange County Schools $35,200
25 Commissioner Burroughs asked if Commissioner Jacobs means to give funds to
26 Orange County Schools (OCS) as though they are an outside agency running the programs
27 previously run by Communities in Schools (CIS).
28 Commissioner Jacobs said yes.
29 Commissioner Jacobs said this is a cut for OCS because they are taking on an outside
30 program.
31 Chair McKee said it was the decision of OCS to cut CIS. He said giving funds back to
32 OCS brings up the issue of Fair Funding. He said he understands CIS will serve as many
33 students in Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS).
34 Commissioner Jacobs said OCS lost confidence in CIS and OCS has taken on the work
35 of CIS. He asked if it was fair to punish OCS financially for making a decision based on
36 maintaining their integrity.
37 Commissioner Price asked if it was permissible to give outside agency funds to a school
38 system.
39 Paul Laughton said the funds do not have to be in the outside agency process but could
40 be a non-departmental budget item as is done with school nurses.
41 Commissioner Burroughs said providing funding outside of the per pupil allowance will
42 only create further division between the school districts. She urged the Board not to support
43 this.
44 Commissioner Jacobs said, in the big picture, this is a small amount of money, and
45 giving it to OCS would have direct impact on students' education.
46 Chair McKee agreed with Commissioner Burroughs, and also implored the Board not to
47 support giving OCS these funds.
48 Commissioner Dorosin said he would support taking the proposed funds for CIS and
49 OCS out of the outside agency process, and providing the funds as a non-departmental.
13
1 Commissioner Burroughs said Paul Laughton's suggestion is how the Board handles
2 other fair funding items.
3 Commissioner Burroughs said to take both CIS's funding out and put it in non-
4 departmentals.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to take
7 the $35, 200 and put it into Orange County non-departmental for OCS.
8
9 Commissioner Rich said the name of fair funding should be changed.
10 Commissioner Burroughs said the Board has carefully not had a fair funding
11 conversation. She said there are lawyers in the school world that think fair funding is not fair,
12 and County lawyers that think it is fair.
13
14 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Price, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Dorosin and
15 Commissioner Rich); Nayes, 3 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner
16 Burroughs)
17 Motion passed
18
19 Commissioner Jacobs Fairview Community Watch $2000
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
21 approve $2000.
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 Commissioner Jacobs Piedmont Wildlife Center $2000
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
26 approve $2000 for this Center.
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29 Commissioner Price Center for Home Ownership $22,000
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
31 not fund this item here but rather to have a contractual relation with them.
32 Bonnie Hammersley said the Housing Director has weighed in on this issue and does
33 support funding this organization and recommends working closely with them.
34 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this funding can be done as a contract rather than as
35 outside agency funding.
36 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
37
38 An amended motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner
39 Burroughs to take the money off of outside agency funding and enter into a contract with the
40 Center for Home Ownership for $10,000.
41
42 VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Burroughs, and Commissioner Rich);
43 Nays, 4 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Price, Chair McKee, and Commissioner
44 Pelissier)
45 Motion fails
46
47 Commissioner Price said the Center for Home Ownership asked for $45,000 and she
48 suggested $22,000.
49
14
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
2 enter into a contract with the Center for Home Ownership for $22,000.
3
4 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Price, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner
5 Pelissier, Commissioner Jacobs); Nayes, 2 (Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Dorosin)
6
7 Commissioner Price/Chair McKee Voices Together $3000
8 Commissioner Price OCIM Samaritan Relief $7585
9 Commissioner Burroughs Communities in Schools (CIS) $12,000
10 Commissioner Rich Art Therapy Institute $1000
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
13 extend capacity to serve .5 FTE, in the amount of$39,575, for a practitioner for the Health
14 Department to address men 18 and over, beyond the issue of communicable diseases.
15 Commissioner Burroughs said this is a conversation that the Board of Health should
16 have first.
17 Bonnie Hammersley said there was a request from the Board of Health to add a position
18 and a half, and the need was for the entire request, not just the half time position.
19 Commissioner Pelissier said the Board really does need to understand the implication of
20 this issue. She said there needs to be a conversation about people just coming into the health
21 department for physicals before she is willing to support the motion.
22 Chair McKee said he would have been more comfortable if this conversation had taken
23 place with the Director of the Health Department, Dr. Colleen Bridger.
24
25 VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Price); Nayes, 4
26 (Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Pelissier, Chair McKee, and Commissioner Rich)
27 Motion failed.
28
29 Funding for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County Schools
30 Commissioner Burroughs said she was not just elected to support the schools or just
31 one school system but rather she is focused on the children the schools serve. She said that
32 one district states a need of$800,000, in order to not cut positions. She said the other district
33 may need to cut positions due to State mandates regarding salary and benefits. She said if the
34 Board is unable to provide the schools the necessary $1.4 million, students will be impacted.
35 She said there have been cuts over the past 6 years that total $10 million.
36 Commissioner Burroughs said the schools in Orange County are working very hard to
37 support their students and there is still great need. She said concerns have been raised that
38 the schools are receiving close to 50 percent of the County's budget. She said 50 percent is a
39 round number but it is arbitrary and does not address need which should be the focus. She
40 thinks that meeting the needs is important and takes money and she would support a tax
41 increase. She said she is fully confident that the funds would be used wisely and that the Board
42 should trust the school districts.
43 Commissioner Dorosin clarified Commissioner Burroughs proposal, asking if she seeks
44 an additional $1.3 million, with 800,000 for CHCCS and 500,000 to OCS.
45 Commissioner Burroughs said she is asking for an additional $65 per pupil on top of the
46 already proposed $81 per pupil by the Manager.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said Commissioner Burroughs' comments are consistent with
48 what the Board of County Commissioners has always done. He said the Board trusts the
49 school systems and seeks the best for the students in Orange County.
15
1 Commissioner Jacobs proposed giving the remaining $511,385 to the school districts
2 and not increasing taxes. He said Orange County cannot make up for the faults of the
3 legislature. He said the Board has always been supportive of Public Education and has done
4 its best this year.
5 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated Commissioner Burroughs' speech and her
6 proffer to raise the general tax rather than the district tax. He said he would like to reach the
7 $1.3 million that is needed, but suggested dipping into the fund balance in the amount of
8 $800,000 rather than a tax increase.
9 Commissioner Dorosin said Orange County does have the best funded school districts
10 in the State.
11 Commissioner Pelissier agreed with Commissioner Dorosin and does not want a tax
12 increase.
13 Commissioner Rich said she too is not in favor of a tax increase. She asked if the
14 current fund balance is known and what impact a reduction would have.
15 Paul Laughton said there is $400,000 available for use and would keep the fund balance
16 right at 17 percent. He said if more than $400,000 is used, the fund balance would fall under
17 the 17 percent. He noted that the County's fiscal year is not closed out yet and staff felt
18 comfortable just offering up $400,000. He said withdrawing $800,000 would take the fund
19 balance under 17 percent but not as low as 16 percent.
20 Commissioner Rich said she is not comfortable using the fund balance.
21 Bonnie Hammersley said she would caution the Board moving forward and with taking
22 these funds out of the reserves. She said to put the money into operating costs there must be
23 ongoing revenue to support it the next year. She said there is some uncertainty here. She said
24 there is currently no Chief Financial Officer to look at funding and talk about reserves.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price that
27 the Board appropriate $511,385 to fund the two school systems.
28 Commissioner Jacobs said there needs to be balance between what is given to the
29 schools, and the County's other needs and priorities.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said if the Board dips into the fund balance this year that he
31 would not support doing that next year. He said the fund balance is like a savings account and
32 sometimes savings must be dipped into.
33 Commissioner Price said she is against raising taxes and does not view the fund
34 balance as a savings account. She said if there is going to be a bond next year, the County's
35 financial ratings will be especially important.
36 Commissioner Burroughs said she is appreciative of Commissioner Dorosin's
37 suggestion to use the fund balance, and she also agrees with Commissioner Price's comments
38 about the County's financial ratings. She said given this motion she will vote against it with
39 gratitude because in times of crisis you need to try and get extra monies.
40 Commissioner Pelissier said she will vote for the motion and then make another motion
41 to take some from fund balance.
42 Bonnie Hammersley clarified that the fund balance is what is left over from the budget at
43 the end of the year and the monies in question here are the reserves.
44 Chair McKee asked if this motion passes and there is an additional motion for more
45 funding, that those funds would come from the reserves.
46 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
47 Bonnie Hammersley said salary savings are part of the fund balance.
48 Chair McKee said he supported this motion, but would have concern using the reserves.
49
50 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
1
2 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin to move $800,000 from the Orange
3 County Reserve Fund for additional school financing. He received no second.
4 Motion failed.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin
7 to use $400,000 from the Orange County Reserve Funds for schools.
8
9 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Dorosin,
10 Commissioner Pelissier); Nayes, 3 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, and
11 Commissioner Price)
12
13 Tax Rate Decisions
14 i. Ad Valorem Tax—would remain the same at 87.8 cents
15 ii. Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools Special District Tax- no change
16 iii. Fire District Tax Rates
17
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
19 approve the increases in the fire district tax rates for Damascus, Southern Triangle Fire Service
20 District, and Orange Rural.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 3. Break (to allow Finance and Administrative Services to formulate Draft Resolution
25 of Intent to Adopt FY 2015-16 Budget)
26
27 The Board broke at 11:18pm, and resumed at 11:55pm.
28
29 4. Resolution of Intent to Adopt FY 2015-16 Annual Operating Budget
30 Paul Laughton reviewed the following information:
31
32 Resolution of Intent to Adopt the 2015-16
33 Orange County Budget
34
35 The items outlined below summarize decisions that the Board acted upon June 11, 2015 in
36 approving the FY2015-16 Orange County Annual Operating Budget.
37
38 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has considered the Orange County
39 2015-16 Manager's Recommended Budget; and
40
41 WHEREAS, the Commissioners have agreed on certain modifications to the Manager's
42 Recommended Budget as presented in the 2015-16 County Manager's Recommended Budget
43 on May 19, 2015;
44
45 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
46 expresses its intent to adopt the 2015-16 Orange County Budget Ordinance on Tuesday, June
47 16, 2015, based on the following stipulations:
48
49 1) Property Tax Rates
50
17
1 a) The ad valorem property tax rate shall be set at 87.8 cents per $100 of assessed
2 valuation.
3
4 b) The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District Tax shall be set at 20.84 cents per
5 $100 of assessed valuation.
6
7 c) The Fire District and Fire Service District tax rates shall be set at the following rates
8 (all rates are based on cents per $100 of assessed valuation):
9
10
• Cedar Grove 7.36
• Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District 15.00
• Damascus 10.30
• Efland 7.00
• Eno 7.99
• Little River 4.06
• New Hope 9.95
• Orange Grove 6.00
• Orange Rural 8.36
• South Orange Fire Service District 10.00
• Southern Triangle Fire Service District 10.30
• White Cross 11.00
11
12
13 2) County Employee Pay and Benefits Plan
14
15 Provide a County employee pay and benefits plan that includes:
16
17 a. A wage increase of 2.0% for all permanent employees hired on or before June 30, 2015,
18 effective July 1, 2015.
19 b. No wage increase to the 2014 Salary Schedule.
20 c. An Employee Performance Award in the amount of$500 (proficient performance) or
21 $1,000 (exceptional performance), effective with WPPR review dates from July 1, 2015
22 to June 30, 2016.
23 d. Continue the $27.50 per pay period County contribution to non-law enforcement
24 employees' supplemental retirement accounts and the County matching employees'
25 contributions up to $63.00 semi-monthly (for a maximum annual County contribution of
26 $1,512) for all general (non-sworn law enforcement officer) employees, and continue the
27 mandated Law Enforcement Officer contribution of 5.0% of salary; and continue the
28 County's required contribution to the Local Governmental Employees' Retirement
29 System (LGERS) for all permanent employees.
30 e. Continue funding the Traditional and High Deductible Health Plans for employees and
31 pre-65 retirees at the FY2014-15 appropriation and fund an additional $100,000 to
32 mitigate the cost of deductibles paid by employees in the Traditional Plan due to the
33 change in the plan year from calendar to fiscal in FY2014-15.
18
1 f. Continue funding the Dental Program with an increase of$40,000 over FY2014-15
2 appropriations.
3 g. Continue the living wage rate at $12.76 per hour.
4 h. Eliminate the six-month hiring delay and replace it with a Request to Fill process
5 allowing Department Directors to fill vacancies within approved FY2015-16
6 appropriations.
7 i. Continue the voluntary furlough program.
8
9
10 3) Modifications to County Manager's FY 2015-16 Recommended Annual Operating
11 Budget
12
13 The following modifications to the County Manager's Recommended Budget are made:
14
Adjustments to the Manager's Recommended FY2015-16 Budget
On June 11, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners approved the following changes to the Manager's
Recommended annual operating budget for the 2015-16 fiscal year. The information below summarizes
changes made by the Board.
Revenues Increase Decrease
Manager's Recommended Revenue Budget $206,976,110
Allocation from Reserve Fund for Schools $400,000
Appropriated Fund Balance $400,000
Total Revenue Changes $800,000 $0
Revised Revenue Budget 206,776,110
Expenditures Increase Decrease
Manager's Recommended Expenditure Budget $206,976,110
Reduction in Transfer to County Capital PAYG (`$'(`35,000)
Change 2 Capital Projects from PAYG to Debt Financing 80,000)
BOCC: Compensation Adjustment $24,500
Outside Agency: Marian Cheek Jackson $2,000
Outside Agency: OCIM Meals on Wheels $1,830
Outside Agency: Interfaith Council $3,000
Outside Agency: Communit Empowerment Fund $2,500
Outside Agency: Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association $15,000
Non-Deptartmental: Orange County Schools (Communities in $35,200
Outside Agency: Fairview Community Watch $2,000
Outside Agency: Piedmont Wildlife Center $2,000
Non-Departmental Human Svcs (Contract): Center for $22,000
Outside Agency: Voices Together $3,000
Outside Agency: OCIM Samaritan Relief $7,585
Outside Agency: Communities in Schools $12,000
Outside Agency: Art Therapy Institute $1,000
Additional School Funding $511,385
Movement from Reserve Fund, allocation to Schools $400,000
Total Expenditure Changes $1,046,000 ($246,1)Ix))
15 Revised Expenditure Budget $206,776,110
16
17
19
1 4) Changes in Funding to Improve Service Delivery (Increase in FTE Approved)
2
Summary of Manager Recommended New Positions for FY 2015-16
General Fund
Off-setting
revenue or
Operating Reallocation
Annual Total Salary and Start-up of Existing Total County
Department Position Effective Date FTE Salary and Benefits Costs Funds Cost
County Manager Administrative Asst I July 1,2015 1.000 31,230 45,568 2,875 0 48,443
County Manager Jail Alternatives Manager October 1,2015 1.000 39,448 52,582 420 (53,002) 0
County Manager Drug Treatment Coordinator October 1,2015 1.000 39,448 52,553 420 (52,973) 0
County Manager Pre-Trial Release Coordinator October 1,2015 1.000 39,448 52,553 420 (52,973) 0
Emergency Services Deputy EMS Operations Manager January 1,2016 1.000 24,355 32,806 4,952 (10,000) 27,758
Health Office Assistant I July 1,2015 0.500 15,500 17,775 2,570 20,345
Health Dentist July 1,2015 1.000 110,000 135,733 5,479 (141,212) (0)
Health Dental Assistant July 1,2015 1.000 35,500 50,465 525 (44,063) 6,927
OPT Public Transportation Driver July 1,2015 1.000 31,230 45,568 720 (46,288) (0)
OPT Public Transportation Driver July 1,2015 1.000 31,230 45,568 720 1 (46,288) (0)
OPT Public Transportation Driver July 1,2015 1.000 31,230 45,568 720 (46,288) (0)
Planning Erosion Control Officer 11 January 1,2016 1.000 22,063 30,179 1,228 0 31,407
Register of Deeds Deputy Registerof Deeds 11 July 1,2015 1.000 32,500 47,024 0 47,024
Sheriff Court Liaison July 1,2015 1.000 53,764 71,614 420 0 72,034
Tax Revenue Tech I December 1,2015 1.000 18,218 26,561 7,328 (33,889) (0)
Tax Revenue Tech II December 1,2015 1.000 19,140 27,618 6,678 (34,296) (0)
Human Resources Assistant HR Director July 1,2015 1.000 65,506 84,832 28,972 0 113,804
Library Administrative Services Supervisor July 1,2015 0.125 5,789 6,639 0 0 6,639
DEAPR Parks Conservation Tech I July 1,2015 0.250 9,336 10,075 0 0 10,075
DEAPR Community Centers Coordinator October 1,2015 1.000 27,164 38,467 4,047 0 42,514
Housing Management Assistant July 1,2015 1.000 51,175 68,437 4,469 0 72,906
DSS Management Analyst July 1,2015 1.000 42,002 57,742 5,950 (31,935) 31,757
Aging Social Worker(Chinese speaking) July 1,2015 0.2001 8,120 9,311 0 (2,694) 6,617
TOTALS 20.075 783,394 1,055,239 78,913 (595,901) 538,250
Summary of Manager Recommended New Positions for FY 2015-16
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Off-setting
revenue or
Operating Reallocation
Annual Total Salary and Start-up of Existing Total County
Department Position Effective Date FTE Salary and Benefits Costs Funds Cost
Solid Waste Weighmaster July 1,2015 1.000 29,725 43,842 1,780 45,622
Solid Waste Solid Waste Collector Driver July 1,2015 1.000 31,230 r 45,568 600 (19,651) 26,517
Solid Waste Solid Waste Collector Driver January 1,2016 1.000 15,615 22,785 600 (29,959) (6,574)
Solid Waste Convenience Center Operator July 1,2015 0.125 1,263 r 1,448 0 1,448
Solid Waste Convenience Center Operator July 1,2015 0.125 1,263 1,448 0 1,448
Solid Waste Convenience Center Operator February 1,2016 0.750 7,832 12,232 0 12,232
Solid Waste Convenience Center Operator February 1,2016 0.750 7,832 12,232 2,110 14,342
Solid Waste Research&Data Manager July 1,2015 1.000 76,500 97,409 0 0 1 97,409
3 TOTALS 5.750 171,260 236,966 5,090 (49,610) 192,446
4
5
6 ' The County Manager will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the Jail Alternatives
7 Programs for review by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) during the budget
8 process. The BOCC will delegate oversight authority of the Jail Alternatives Programs to an
9 entity of its choosing on an annual basis.
10
11 Reduction In Force -There was a need to reorganize an organizational unit resulting in the
12 loss of one (1) or more permanent positions. The Manager recommends that the Orange
13 County Board of Commissioners declare that a reduction in force is necessary that will result in
14 the deletion of one position.
15
16 5) General Fund Appropriations for Local School Districts
20
1 The following FY 2015-16 General Fund Appropriations for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
2 Schools and Orange County Schools are approved:
3
4 a) Current Expense appropriation for local school districts totals $74,097,901 and
5 equates to a per pupil allocation of$3,697.50.
6
7 1) The Current Expense appropriation to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
8 is $45,253,703.
9
10 2) The Current Expense appropriation to the Orange County Schools is
11 $28,844,198.
12
13 b) Recurring Capital appropriation for local school districts totals $3,000,000
14
15 1) The Recurring Capital appropriation to the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
16 totals $1,832,100.
17
18 2) The Recurring Capital appropriation to the Orange County Schools totals
19 $1,167,900.
20
21 c) Long Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation for local school districts totals
22 $3,724,849.
23
24 1) The Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation to the Chapel Hill
25 Carrboro City Schools totals $2,274,765.
26
27 2) The Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation to the Orange County
28 Schools totals $1,450,084.
29
30 d) School Related Debt Service for local school districts totals $15,646,916.
31
32 e) Fair Funding appropriation for local school districts totals $988,000. This
33 appropriation is to be split 50/50 between Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and
34 Orange County Schools.
35
36 f) Additional net County funding for local school districts totals $1,031,239.
37
38 (1) School Health Nurses —Total appropriation of$705,000 with $465,300
39 allocated for Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and $239,700 allocated for
40 Orange County Schools.
41
42 (2) School Resource Officers —Total net appropriation of$291,039 allocated in
43 the Sheriff's Department to provide School Resource Officers to Orange
44 County Schools.
45
46 (3) Orange County Schools —Total appropriation of$35,200 for Middle School
47 Afterschool Program.
48
49 6) County Fee Schedule
21
1 To adopt the County Fee Schedule to include changes included in the FY 2015-16
2 Manager's Recommended Annual Operating Budget.
3
4 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
5 approve the Resolution of Intent to Adopt FY 2015-16 Annual Operating Budget at the Board of
6 County Commissioners' Regular Meeting on June 16, 2015.
7
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs seconded by Commissioner Rich to
11 adjourn the meeting at 12:08 a.m.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15
16 Earl McKee, Chair
17
18 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
19
20
1
I Attachment 11
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 June 16, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, June
10 16, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, 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 and Clerk to the Board
17 Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
18
19
20 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
21 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
23 approve moving Item 7b before Item 7a.
24
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
28 - PowerPoint slides for item 5-a — Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment
29 Impervious Surface Regulations
30 - pink sheet— memorandum for item 5-a
31 - white sheets—Year to Date Budget Summary - revised information for item 6-c
32 - PowerPoint slides for item 8a— Sustainability and Environmental Responsibility in Orange
33 County
34 - blue sheet— printed email and attached map for item 11-b
35 - aerial view map - Information Item - Potential Southern Branch Library
36
37 PUBLIC CHARGE
38 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
39
40 2. Public Comments
41
42 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
43 Lydia Wegman, Deputy Chair of the Commission for the Environment (CFE) of Orange
44 County, read the following memorandum sent from the CFE to the Board of County
45 Commissioners:
46 "The CFE is concerned about the preliminary decision by the Board of County
47 Commissioners (BOCC) to restrict the planned 2016 bond referendum to funding for school
48 improvements and expansion. In particular, the CFE believes the BOCC should have
49 proceeded with the process discussed at the November 19, 2014 Assembly of Governments
50 meeting, which would have provided an opportunity for the BOCC to hear from the public,
2
1 relevant County-appointed citizen advisory boards, including the CFE, and representatives of
2 key County departments, such as the Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and
3 Recreation, on their areas of expertise and/or concern.
4 The CFE is of the opinion that the BOCC's decision-making process would benefit
5 greatly by hearing comments from County residents, advisory boards, and departments on the
6 funding needs facing programs and activities that are essential to the quality of life in the
7 County. No doubt education is important, but equally important are parks and recreation,
8 affordable housing for low-income residents, and services for the county's growing population
9 of seniors, among other needs. For example, if the County could provide $5 to $10 million for
10 park development, it would be possible to develop and open the long-planned Blackwood Farm
11 Park as well as additional recreational facilities in the northern part of the county. By developing
12 Twin Creeks Park located next to Morris Grove Elementary School, the County would provide
13 recreational opportunities for both school children and adults, helping to improve the quality of
14 life for all residents as well as making the county a more attractive area for new businesses that
15 seek well-rounded communities in which to locate their operations. Funding for parks and open
16 space could help preserve additional farmland and natural areas with permanent conservation
17 easements.
18 The CFE urges the Board of County Commissioners to reopen the bond
19 referendum process and provide a full opportunity for public and county staff comment.
20 The CFE would very much appreciate an opportunity to present its views on funding
21 priorities related to parks and open space land conservation to the BOCC."
22
23 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
24 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
25 below.)
26
27 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
28 Commissioner Dorosin said he had no petitions.
29 Commissioner Rich said she had no petitions.
30 Commissioner Pelissier said she had no petitions.
31 Commissioner Price said she had no petitions.
32 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned for the Manager to consult Brenda Bartholomew,
33 Director of Human Resources, and consider returning the name of that department to the
34 Personnel Department.
35 Commissioner Burroughs said she had no petitions.
36 Chair McKee said he had no petitions.
37
38 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
39
40 a. Proclamation Recognizing Carrboro High School Women's Soccer Team Winning
41 the 2015 State Championship
42 The Board considered approving a proclamation recognizing the Carrboro High School
43 Women's Soccer Team for winning the 2015 State Championship, and authorizing the Chair to
44 sign the proclamation.
45 Commissioner Rich read the proclamation:
46
47 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
48
49 PROCLAMATION OF RECOGNITION ON
50 CARRBORO HIGH SCHOOL WOMEN'S SOCCER TEAM
3
1 WINNING THE 2015 STATE CHAMPIONSHIP
2
3
4 WHEREAS, on May 30, 2015, the Carrboro High School Women's Soccer Team captured the
5 North Carolina High School Athletic Association's (NCHSAA) 2A State
6 Women's Soccer Championship; and,
7
8 WHEREAS, under the guidance of Coach Jared Drexler, the Carrboro High School Women's
9 Soccer Team earned its second NCHSAA State title, also winning the State
10 title in 2012; and,
11
12 WHEREAS, the Lady Jaguars completed the season with a 21-0-1 record, giving up only two
13 goals the entire season, earning an NCHSAA record for the fewest goals
14 allowed in a season; and,
15
16 WHEREAS, through hard work, dedication, teamwork, and commitment, the Lady Jaguars
17 brought honor upon themselves, Carrboro High School, the Chapel Hill /
18 Carrboro City Schools District and Orange County;
19
20 NOW, THEREFORE, be it proclaimed that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
21 expresses its sincere appreciation and respect for the Carrboro High School
22 Women's Soccer Team and Coach Drexler for the Jaguars' outstanding
23 achievement, and their inspiration to youth across North Carolina through their
24 dedication, teamwork, and athletic prowess.
25
26 This, the 16th day of June, 2015
27
28 Coach Drexler introduced his team.
29
30 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for
31 the Board to approve the proclamation recognizing the Carrboro High School Women's Soccer
32 Team for winning the 2015 State Championship and authorize the Chair to sign the
33 proclamation on behalf of the Board.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 5. Public Hearings
38
39 a. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment — Impervious Surface
40 Regulations (No Additional Public Comments Accepted)
41 The Board considered: 1. Receiving the Planning Board's recommendation; 2. Closing
42 the public hearing; 3. Deliberating as necessary on the proposed amendments; and 4. Deciding
43 accordingly and/or adopting the Statement of Consistency and the Ordinance amending the
44 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding the impervious surface regulations, as
45 recommended by the Planning Board and staff.
46 Michael Harvey, Current Planning Supervisor, presented the following PowerPoint:
47
48 JUNE 16, 2015
49 BOCC REGULAR MEETING
50 AGENDA ITEM: 5-a
4
1 UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE (UDO) TEXT AMENDMENT
2 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REGULATIONS
3
4 BACKGROUND
5 • Staff and Board members have received numerous inquiries related to increasing
6 allowable impervious surface area.
7 • Staff summarized issues/options in memo presented at the March 3, 2015 regular
8 BOCC meeting.
9 • BOCC authorized amendment process at its March 17, 2015 regular meeting.
10 • Staff presented amendment(s) to:
11 o OWASA (April 23, 2015)
12 o Commission for the Environment (April 13, 2015)
13 o Solicited Comments from Town(s) of Chapel Hill and Carrboro
14 • Item presented at May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing.
15 • Planning Board reviewed at its June 3, 2015 regular meeting.
16
17 WHAT HAS CHANGED
18 • Additional language added to Section 4.2.5 to ensure parcels created via cluster
19 subdivision process, in compliance with established density limits, qualify for
20 modification.
21 o Change noted in Bold Green Underlined Text
22 • Planning Board recommending adding requirement to Section 4.2.8 requiring anyone
23 going through process to post a performance bond.
24 o Change noted in Bold Blue Underlined Text
25
26 BACKGROUND
27 • Staff and Board members have received numerous inquiries related to increasing
28 allowable impervious surface area.
29 • Staff summarized issues/options in memo presented at the March 3, 2015 regular
30 BOCC meeting.
31 • BOCC authorized amendment process at its March 17, 2015 regular meeting.
32 • Item presented at May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing
33
34 RECOMMENDATION
35 The Manager recommends the Board:
36 1. Receive the Planning Board's recommendation.
37 2. Close the public hearing.
38 3. Deliberate as necessary on the proposed amendments.
39 4. Decide accordingly and/or adopt the Statement of Consistency, contained within
40 Attachment 2, and the Ordinance amending the UDO contained within Attachment 3, as
41 recommended by the Planning Board and staff.
42
43 Commissioner Dorosin asked if Michael Harvey could review the example scenario
44 included as part of the hand out.
45 Michael Harvey said the scenario shows a 3 acre parcel of property with an allotted
46 7000 square feet of impervious surface that is at its maximum. He said this proposal would
47 allow this property owner to remove existing driveway and install an infiltration based
48 stormwater system. He said this specific example, of permeable concrete, only counts as 50
49 percent of total impervious surface area, thereby allowing for an approximately 1500 square
5
1 feet of additional impervious surface area to be moved on the lot. He said the applicant then
2 chose to install patio around a proposed pool. He said there is no technical net increase in
3 impervious surface since the infiltration stormwater system heats the hydrologic model,
4 consistent with the allowable impervious surface for the lot.
5 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the proposed amendment would require the applicant to
6 post a bond, and if so, who would determine the amount of the bond.
7 Michael Harvey said yes, as recommended by the Planning Board and staff. He said
8 the engineer for the property owner would set the bond amount.
9 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there are other fixed costs for the property owner,
10 beyond the actual construction and the bond.
11 Michael Harvey said the property owner would hire an engineer to develop and install
12 the system, and pay annual maintenance costs.
13 Michael Harvey referred to the example scenario and said if an engineer reports a cost
14 of$25,000 to remove the impervious surface then the bond would also be $25,000.
15 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the example scenario really includes a "system".
16 Michael Harvey said the system in the example is the permeable concrete and it does
17 require maintenance.
18 Commissioner Price asked if this will affect cluster developments.
19 Michael Harvey said it does not affect cluster developments.
20 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there will be a regular inspection by County planning.
21 Michael Harvey said yes, since this is part of the County's stormwater program.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said this issue is a good example of why the Board needs to re-
23 visit the public hearing process. He said there have been substantive changes, such as the
24 requirement of a bond, that the public has not had a chance to comment on.
25 Commissioner Dorosin asked John Roberts if another public hearing is necessary when
26 such substantive changes have been made.
27 John Roberts said if there is a major substantive change, the original public hearing can
28 be voided. He said he is not sure if example rises to that level. He said, he too, shares
29 Commissioner Dorosin's concerns about the County's public hearing process.
30 Chair McKee asked if a $25,000 bond would actually cost $25,000 to the property
31 owner.
32 Michael Harvey said no, the cost of the bond is 110% of the cost of the system.
33
34 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
35 close the public hearing.
36
37 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner
38 Burroughs, and Commissioner Price); Nayes, 2 (Commissioner Dorosin and Commissioner
39 Rich)
40 Motion Passed
41
42 Commissioner Rich said she felt that the Board has let the public down when they are
43 not allowed to come back and comment on changes.
44 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with these concerns and said the Board is not giving the
45 public a chance to comment on this and other issues.
46
47 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Price to
48 adopt the Statement of Consistency, contained within Attachment 2, and the Ordinance
49 amending the UDO contained within Attachment 3, as recommended by the Planning Board
50 and staff.
6
1
2 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board is allowed to hold this item open for additional
3 public comments.
4 John Roberts said if the board had not closed the public hearing it could have been
5 continued to a date and time certain. He said as the Board did close the public hearing, he
6 would advise not to try and re-open this hearing now.
7 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning and Inspections Director, said amendments
8 will be brought back to the Board and staff will be trying a new process going forward. He said
9 this may be one of the last amendments made under the old process.
10 Commissioner Price asked if the applicant has been informed of the addition of the bond
11 language.
12 Michael Harvey said there is no applicant, but staff was directed by the Board to bring
13 back this amendment. He said there were interested property owners.
14 Commissioner Price asked if those interested property owners were at the Planning
15 Board meetings.
16 Michael Harvey said no.
17 Commissioner Price said she agreed with Commissioner Dorosin and his comments but
18 does not want to hold this issue up again.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said he has reluctance about this item because he sees this as
20 an incremental step forward and he wondered if this is enough of a change to make any
21 difference.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said he finds the bond issue to be substantive enough of a
23 change that the public should have been given a chance to respond. He said he would like to
24 review the amendment in 6 months to see if it is working and if anyone is using it.
25 Commissioner Burroughs agreed to re-visit this process and said she will be supporting
26 this motion because in their public hearings that these systems can be a net gain.
27 Chair McKee agreed that the Board should review this change in 6 to 12 months.
28
29 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner
30 Price, and Commissioner Burroughs); Nayes, 2 (Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner
31 Rich)
32 Motion Passes
33
34
35 6. Consent Agenda
36
37 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
38 NONE
39
40 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
43 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
48
49 a. Minutes
7
1 The Board approved the minutes for April 23, 2015 BOCC Joint Meeting with Town of
2 Hillsborough; April 28, 2015 BOCC Joint Meeting with the Schools; and May 5, 2015 BOCC
3 Regular Meeting, as submitted by the Clerk to the Board.
4 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
5 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
6 property tax values for nine (9) taxpayers with a total of ten (10) bills that will result in a
7 reduction of revenue.
8 c. Fiscal Year 2014-15 Budget Amendment#10
9 The Board approved budget and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2014-
10 15 for Information Technology; Board of Elections; Sheriff's Office; Miscellaneous; Department
11 of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation; Emergency Services; Department of Social
12 Services; Department on Aging; and Non-Departmental.
13 d. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro
14 City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment #10-A Related to
15 CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
16 The Board approved the application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds and
17 authorized the Chair to sign the application; and approved Budget Amendment #10-A receiving
18 the Lottery Proceeds and the amended CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances contingent on
19 NCDPI's approval of the application.
20 e. Orange County ABC Board Travel Policy
21 The Board approved the Orange County Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board's adoption
22 and continued use of the County's travel policy.
23 f. JCPC Certification FY 2015-2016
24 The Board approved the Orange County Juvenile Crime Prevention Council (JCPC)
25 Certification for FY 2015-2016 and authorized the Chair to sign the associated documents.
26 g. Dedication of Right of Way and Permanent Drainage Easements Servicing the
27 Churton Street Access and Public Transportation Improvements
28 The Board approved a dedication of Right of Way and Permanent Drainage Easements to
29 service the Churton Street access and public transportation improvements as presented, upon
30 final review of the County Attorney, and authorized the Chair to sign.
31 h. Resolution on Rescinding Preemption of Local Tobacco Control
32 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, which is similar to an
33 Orange County Board of Health resolution that calls on the North Carolina General Assembly to
34 restore local control over tobacco policies by rescinding preemption and authorized the Chair to
35 sign the resolution.
36 i. Authorization for County Manager to Award County Detention Facility Professional
37 Services Agreement
38 The Board delegated authority to the County Manager to execute a Professional Services
39 Agreement with the selected designer for the County Detention Facility, upon final review of the
40 County Attorney, during the summer break.
41 j. Eno-Haw Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan
42 The Board approved a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, adopting the Eno-Haw
43 Regional Hazard Mitigation Plan as approved by the North Carolina Division of Emergency
44 Management and authorized the Chair to sign.
45 k. Propane Vehicle Conversion and Refueling Grant Acceptance and Approval of Budget
46 Amendment #10-113
47 The Board: 1) approved a NC Clean Energy and Technology Center grant and authorized the
48 Manager to sign the contract, 2) approved Budget Amendment#10-B, to convert 19 vehicles to
49 run on propane and install the necessary propane fueling infrastructure, and 3) instructed staff
50 to proceed with this project.
8
1 I. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Report
2 The Board received the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard) Draft Bicycle and
3 Pedestrian Safety Report and directed staff to: 1. Review the list of recommended actions in
4 Charge 5 of the Report with regard to financial costs, staffing capabilities, and required
5 coordination with other agencies/entities; and 2. Return to the Board of Commissioners in fall
6 2015 with information relevant to implementing the lists of actions suggested in Charge 5 of the
7 Report.
8 m. Authorization for County Manager to Award Buckhorn Mebane Sewer Phase 2
9 Extension Construction Contract and Professional Services Agreement
10 The Board authorized the Manager to: 1) Award the bid and, upon County Attorney review,
11 execute the construction contract for the Buckhorn Mebane Sewer Phase 2 Extension project
12 during the summer break in an amount not to exceed the project budget; 2) Execute, upon
13 County Attorney review, a professional services contract with an engineering firm over the
14 summer break for construction contract administration and engineering inspections within the
15 project budget; and 3) Approve project change orders that do not in total exceed the project
16 budget.
17
18 7. Regular Agenda
19
20 b. Approval of the Five-Year Capital Investment Plan and Adoption of the Orange
21 County CIP Projects of$22,793,345 for FY2015-16
22 The Board considered accepting and approving the FY2015-20 Orange County Five-
23 Year Capital Investment Plan, and adopting the Orange County CIP Projects of$22,793,345 for
24 FY 2015-16.
25 Paul Laughton, Orange County Finance Administrative Services, said Attachment 1
26 showed revisions from the June 11, 2015 meeting, with changes highlighted in yellow. He said
27 there is also included a new project for 2015-16 in the amount of$100,000 for Fairview Park for
28 access and parking improvements.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said the Board brought up Fairview Park for discussion at the June
30 11 meeting. She said the Master Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners
31 (BOCC) in 2006 and a revised plan was approved in 2010. She said Phase one of the plan was
32 completed in 2011 and Phase two of the master plan was not included in the CIP. She said
33 Commissioner Price brought up the issue of insufficient parking earlier this year and she, staff
34 and the Town of Hillsborough have been meeting since that time regarding the issue.
35 Bonnie Hammersley said Commissioner Jacobs asked for Fairview Park to be included
36 in the 2015-16 CIP in the amount of$100,000.
37 Bonnie Hammersley said staff met about this issue and determined that over the
38 summer staff would begin the schematic design phase of the project. She said a schematic
39 design is a requirement whenever substantial paving or construction is planned. She said it is
40 hoped that by early fall staff can present options to the Board of County Commissioners about
41 parking improvements and also request more funding to complete the park project. She said
42 staff would work with the community this summer to find some temporary parking for the park.
43 She said it is her recommendation to have the $100,000 stay in the CIP as a placeholder for the
44 project, and to come back in the fall to ask for a more definite amount.
45 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the project will be held to no more than $100,000.
46 Bonnie Hammersley said no, rather there is $100,000 set aside for the project currently
47 with the expectation of more money being requested in the fall.
48 Commissioner Rich asked if these conversations will include the Town of Hillsborough.
49 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
50 Commissioner Price asked if the final costs are known.
9
1 David Stancil, Director, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation
2 (DEAPR), said there is a range of different options but to do what is in the master plan would be
3 $350,000 and beyond. He said any of the options would require a Conditional Use Permit
4 (CUP) modification from the Town of Hillsborough, which will take a few months.
5 Commissioner Price asked if the parking would be paved or gravel.
6 Bonnie Hammersley said paved.
7 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the users of the park will be informed that the Board and
8 staff are working on an expansion of the parking.
9 Bonnie Hammersley said yes.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said it would be ideal to have a five minute report on the history
11 of this park at the Board's next meeting.
12 Chair McKee asked if current users can be surveyed to find out what the parking
13 situation is now.
14 Bonnie Hammersley said yes. She said pictures can also be taken.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the
17 Board to accept and approve the FY2015-20 Orange County Five-Year Capital Investment
18 Plan, and approve funding for FY2015-16, as stated in Attachment 2, Year 1 (FY 2015-16) in
19 the Capital Investment Plan; and adopt the FY2015-16 County Capital projects as stated in
20 Attachment 3 and FY 2015-16 School Capital projects as stated in Attachment 4.
21
22 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
23
24 Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Price thanked the Board for turning this item
25 around so quickly.
26
27 a. Approval of Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget Ordinance, County Grant Projects, and
28 County Fee Schedule
29 The Board considered approving and adopting the FY2015-16 Budget Ordinance, the
30 FY2015-16 County Grant Projects, and the FY2015-16 County Fee Schedule, consistent with
31 the parameters outlined in the Board's "Resolution of Intent to Adopt the FY2015-16 Orange
32 County Budget".
33 Paul Laughton reviewed each item and noted the changes.
34
35 Resolution of Intent to Adopt the 2015-16
36 Orange County Budget
37
38 The items outlined below summarize decisions that the Board acted upon June 11, 2015 in
39 approving the FY2015-16 Orange County Annual Operating Budget.
40
41 WHEREAS, the Orange County Board of Commissioners has considered the Orange County
42 2015-16 Manager's Recommended Budget; and
43
44 WHEREAS, the Commissioners have agreed on certain modifications to the Manager's
45 Recommended Budget as presented in the 2015-16 County Manager's Recommended Budget
46 on May 19, 2015;
47
48 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orange County Board of Commissioners
49 expresses its intent to adopt the 2015-16 Orange County Budget Ordinance on Tuesday, June
50 16, 2015, based on the following stipulations:
10
1
2 1) Property Tax Rates
3
4 a) The ad valorem property tax rate shall be set at 87.8 cents per $100 of assessed
5 valuation.
6 b) The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools District Tax shall be set at 20.84 cents per
7 $100 of assessed valuation.
8 c) The Fire District and Fire Service District tax rates shall be set at the following rates
9 (all rates are based on cents per $100 of assessed valuation):
10
11
• Cedar Grove 7.36
• Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District 15.00
• Damascus 10.30
• Efland 7.00
• Eno 7.99
• Little River 4.06
• New Hope 9.95
• Orange Grove 6.00
• Orange Rural 8.36
• South Orange Fire Service District 10.00
• Southern Triangle Fire Service District 10.30
• White Cross 11.00
12
13
14 2) County Employee Pay and Benefits Plan
15
16 Provide a County employee pay and benefits plan that includes:
17
18 a. A wage increase of 2.0% for all permanent employees hired on or before June 30, 2015,
19 effective July 1, 2015.
20 b. No wage increase to the 2014 Salary Schedule.
21 c. An Employee Performance Award in the amount of $500 (proficient performance) or
22 $1,000 (exceptional performance), effective with WPPR review dates from July 1, 2015
23 to June 30, 2016.
24 d. Continue the $27.50 per pay period County contribution to non-law enforcement
25 employees' supplemental retirement accounts and the County matching employees'
26 contributions up to $63.00 semi-monthly (for a maximum annual County contribution of
27 $1,512) for all general (non-sworn law enforcement officer) employees, and continue the
28 mandated Law Enforcement Officer contribution of 5.0% of salary; and continue the
29 County's required contribution to the Local Governmental Employees' Retirement
30 System (LGERS) for all permanent employees.
11
1 e. Continue funding the Traditional and High Deductible Health Plans for employees and
2 pre-65 retirees at the FY2014-15 appropriation and fund an additional $100,000 to
3 mitigate the cost of deductibles paid by employees in the Traditional Plan due to the
4 change in the plan year from calendar to fiscal in FY2014-15.
5 f. Continue funding the Dental Program with an increase of $40,000 over FY2014-15
6 appropriations.
7 g. Continue the living wage rate at $12.76 per hour.
8 h. Eliminate the six-month hiring delay and replace it with a Request to Fill process
9 allowing Department Directors to fill vacancies within approved FY2015-16
10 appropriations.
11 i. Continue the voluntary furlough program.
12
13 3) Modifications to County Manager's FY 2015-16 Recommended Annual Operating
14 Budget
15
16 The following modifications to the County Manager's Recommended Budget are
17 made:
12
Adjustments to the Manager's Recommended FY2015-16 Budget
On June 11, 2015, the Board of County Commissioners approved the following changes to the Manager's
Recommended annual operating budget for the 2015-16 fiscal year. The information below summarizes
changes made by the Board.
Revenues Increase Decrease
Manager's Recommended Revenue Budget $205,976,110
Allocation from Reserve Fund for Schools $400,000
Appropriated Fund Balance $400,000
Total Revenue Changes $800,000 $0
Revised Revenue Budget 206,776,110
Expenditures Increase Decrease
Manager's Recommended Expenditure Budget $205,976,110
Reduction in Transfer to County Capital PAYG (`"!)'(`35,000)
Change 2 Capital Projects from PAYG to Debt Financing 80,000)
BOCC: Compensation Adjustment $24,500
Outside Agency: Marian Cheek Jackson $2,000
Outside Agency: OCIM Meals on Wheels $1,830
Outside Agency: Interfaith Council $3,000
Outside Agency: Communit Empowerment Fund $2,500
Outside Agency: Rogers-Eubanks Neighborhood Association $15,000
Non-Departmental: Orange County Schools (Communities in Schools) $35,200
Outside Agency: Fairview Community Watch $2,000
Outside Agency: Piedmont Wildlife Center $2,000
Non-Departmental Human Svcs (Contract): Center for $22,000
Outside Agency: Voices Together $3,000
Outside Agency: OCIM Samaritan Relief $7,585
Outside Agency: Communities in Schools $12,000
Outside Agency: Art Therapy Institute $1,000
Additional School Funding $511,385
Movement from Reserve Fund, allocation to Schools $400,000
Total Expenditure Changes $1,045,000 ($246,I)IN))
1 Revised Expenditure Budget $206,776,110
2
3
13
1 4) Changes in Funding to Improve Service Delivery (Increase in FTE Approved)
2
Summary of Manager Recommended New Positions for FY 2015-16
General Fund
Off-setting
revenue or
Operating Reallocation
Annual Total Salary and Start-up of Existing Total County
Department Position Effective Date FTE Salary and Benefits Costs Funds Cost
County Manager Administrative Asst I July 1,2015 1.000 31,230 45,568 2,875 0 48,443
County Manager Jail Alternatives Manager October 1,2015 1.000 39,448 52,582 420 (53,002) 0
County Manager Drug Treatment Coordinator October 1,2015 1.000 31,502 43,441 420 (43,861) (0)
County Manager Pre-Trial Release Coordinator October 1,2015 1.000 31,502 43,441 420 (43,861) (0)
Emergency Services Deputy EMS Operations Manager January 1,2016 1.000 24,355 32,806 4,952 (10,000) 27,758
Health Office Assistant I July 1,2015 0.500 15,500 17,775 2,570 20,345
Health Dentist July 1,2015 1.000 110,000 135,733 5,479 (141,212) (0)
Health Dental Assistant July 1,2015 1.000 35,500 50,465 525 (44,063) 6,927
OPT Public Transportation Driver July 1,2015 1.000 31,230 45,568 720 (46,288) (0)
OPT Public Transportation Driver July 1,2015 1.000 31,230 45,568 720 1 (46,288) (0)
OPT Public Transportation Driver July 1,2015 1.000 31,230 45,568 720 (46,288) (0)
Planning Erosion Control Officer 11 January 1,2016 1.000 22,063 30,179 1,228 0 31,407
Register of Deeds Deputy Registerof Deeds 11 July 1,2015 1.000 32,500 47,024 0 47,024
Sheriff Court Liaison July 1,2015 1.000 53,764 71,614 420 0 72,034
Tax Revenue Tech I December 1,2015 1.000 18,218 26,561 7,328 (33,889) (0)
Tax Revenue Tech II December 1,2015 1.000 19,140 27,618 6,678 (34,296) (0)
Human Resources Assistant HR Director July 1,2015 1.000 65,506 84,832 28,972 0 113,804
Library Administrative Services Supervisor July 1,2015 0.125 5,789 6,639 0 0 6,639
DEAPR Parks Conservation Tech I July 1,2015 0.250 9,336 10,075 0 0 10,075
DEAPR Community Centers Coordinator October 1,2015 1.000 27,164 38,467 4,047 0 42,514
Housing Management Assistant July 1,2015 1.000 51,175 68,437 4,469 0 72,906
DSS Management Analyst July 1,2015 1.000 42,002 57,742 5,950 (31,935) 31,757
Aging Social Worker(Chinese speaking) July 1,2015 0.2001 8,120 9,311 0 (2,694) 6,617
TOTALS 20.075 767,502 1,037,014 78,913 (577,677) 538,249
Summary of Manager Recommended New Positions for FY 2015-16
Solid Waste Enterprise Fund
Off-setting
revenue or
Operating Reallocation
Annual Total Salary and Start-up of Existing Total County
Department Position Effective Date FTE Salary and Benefits Costs Funds Cost
Solid Waste Weighmaster July 1,2015 1.000 29,725 43,842 1,780 45,622
Solid Waste Solid Waste Collector Driver July 1,2015 1.000 31,230 r 45,568 600 (19,651) 26,517
Solid Waste Solid Waste Collector Driver January 1,2016 1.000 15,615 22,785 600 (29,959) (6,574)
Solid Waste Convenience Center Operator July 1,2015 0.125 1,263 r 1,448 0 1,448
Solid Waste Convenience Center Operator July 1,2015 0.125 1,263 1,448 0 1,448
Solid Waste Convenience Center Operator February 1,2016 0.750 7,832 12,232 0 12,232
Solid Waste Convenience Center Operator February 1,2016 0.750 7,832 12,232 2,110 14,342
Solid Waste Research&Data Manager July 1,2015 1.000 76,500 97,409 0 0 1 97,409
3 TOTALS 5.750 171,260 236,966 5,090 (49,610) 192,446
4
5
6 The County Manager will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the Jail Alternatives Programs for
7 review by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) during the budget process. The BOCC will
8 delegate oversight authority of the Jail Alternatives Programs to an entity of its choosing on an annual
9 basis.
10
11 Reduction In Force - There was a need to reorganize an organizational unit resulting in the
12 loss of one (1) or more permanent positions. The Manager recommends that the Orange
13 County Board of Commissioners declare that a reduction in force is necessary that will result in
14 the deletion of one position.
15
16 5) General Fund Appropriations for Local School Districts
14
1
2 The following FY 2015-16 General Fund Appropriations for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
3 Schools and Orange County Schools are approved:
4
5 a) Current Expense appropriation for local school districts totals $74,097,901 and
6 equates to a per pupil allocation of$3,697.50.
7
8 1) The Current Expense appropriation to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
9 is $45,253,703.
10 2) The Current Expense appropriation to the Orange County Schools is
11 $28,844,198.
12
13 b) Recurring Capital appropriation for local school districts totals $3,000,000
14
15 1) The Recurring Capital appropriation to the Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools
16 totals $1,832,100.
17 2) The Recurring Capital appropriation to the Orange County Schools totals
18 $1,167,900.
19
20 c) Long Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation for local school districts totals
21 $3,724,849.
22
23 1) The Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation to the Chapel Hill
24 Carrboro City Schools totals $2,274,765.
25 2) The Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation to the Orange County
26 Schools totals $1,450,084.
27
28 d) School Related Debt Service for local school districts totals $15,646,916.
29
30 e) Fair Funding appropriation for local school districts totals $988,000. This
31 appropriation is to be split 50/50 between Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and
32 Orange County Schools.
33
34 f) Additional net County funding for local school districts totals $1,031,239.
35
36 (1) School Health Nurses —Total appropriation of$705,000 with $465,300
37 allocated for Chapel Hill Carrboro City Schools and $239,700 allocated for
38 Orange County Schools.
39
40 (2) School Resource Officers —Total net appropriation of$291,039 allocated in
41 the Sheriff's Department to provide School Resource Officers to Orange
42 County Schools.
43
44 (3) Orange County Schools —Total appropriation of$35,200 for Middle School
45 Afterschool Program.
46
47 6) County Fee Schedule
48 To adopt the County Fee Schedule to include changes included in the FY 2015-16
49 Manager's Recommended Annual Operating Budget.
50
15
1
2
3 Fiscal Year 2015-16
4 Budget Ordinance
5 Orange County, North Carolina
6
7 Be it ordained by the Board of Commissioners of Orange County
8
9 Section I. Budget Adoption
10
11 There is hereby adopted the following operating budget for Orange County for this fiscal year
12 beginning July 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016, the same being adopted by fund and activity,
13 within each fund, according to the following summary:
14
Current Interfund Fund Total
Fund Balance
Revenue Transfer Appropriated Appropriation
General Fund $195,072,740 $1,052,600 $10,650,770 $206,776,110
Emergency Tele hone Fund $562,338 $0 $362,761 $925,099
Fire Districts Fund $5,143,993 $0 $0 $5,143,993
Section 8 (Housing) Fund $4,659,912 $247,786 $0 $4,907,698
Community Development
Fund $450,618 $258,228 $0 $708,846
Efland Sewer Operating Fund $215,400 $116,530 $0 $331,930
Visitors Bureau Fund $1,364,848 $0 $76,492 $1,441,340
School Construction Impact
Fees Fund $1,040,000 $0 $0 $1,040,000
Solid Waste/Landfill
Operations Enterprise Fund $9,998,957 $0 $1,362,061 $11,361,018
Sportsplex Enterprise Fund $3,170,000 $0 $106,278 $3,276,278
Community Spay/Neuter Fund $53,000 $0 $11,150 $64,150
Article 46 Sales Tax Fund $2,814,576 $0 $0 $2,814,576
15
16 Section II. Appropriations
17 That for said fiscal year, there is hereby appropriated out the following:
18
Function Appropriation
General Fund
Governin and Mana ement $17,114,396
General Services $10,114,272
Communit and Environment $8,339,213
Human Services $34,132,636
Public Safet $23,316,875
Culture and Recreation $2,866,171
Education $78,837,340
Debt Service $26,913,694
Transfers to Other Funds $5,141,513
Total General Fund $206,776,110
16
Eme lenii c I Telephone System Fund
Public Safety $925,099
Total Emergency Telephone System Fund $925,099
Fire Districts
Cedar Grove $211,310
Greater Ch a el Hill Fire Service District $276,473
Damascus $104,148
Efland $486,470
Eno $589,746
Little River $177,365
New Ho e $581,176
Oran e Grove $465,042
Oran a Rural $1,087,113
South Oran e Fire Service District $527,741
Southern Triangle Fire Service District $220,680
White Cross $416,729
Total Fire Districts Fund $5,143,993
Section 8 Housin Fund
Human Services $4,907,698
Total Section 8 Fund $4,907,698
Communi Develo ment Fund Ur lent Re air Pro ram
Human Services $146,809
Total Communit Develo ment Fund Ur ent Re air Pro ram $146,809
Communi Develo ment Fund HOME Pro ram
Human Services $444,916
Total Community Develo ment Fund HOME Pro ram $444,916
Communi Develo ment Fund Homelessness Partnershi Pro ram
Human Services $117,121
Total Community Develo ment Fund Homelessness Pro ram $117,121
Total Community Develo ment Fund Pro rams $708,846
Efland Sewer Operating Fund
Communit and Environment $331,930
Total Efland Sewer O era tin Fund $331,930
Visitors Bureau Fund
Communit and Environment $1,441,340
Total Visitors Bureau Fund $1,441,340
School Construction Impact Fees
Transfers to Other Funds $1,040,000
Total School Construction Im act Fees Fund $1,040,000
Solid Waste/Landfill Operations
Solid Waste/Landfill Operations $11,361,018
Total Solid Waste/Landfill Operations $11,361,018
SportsPlex Enterprise Fund
Culture and Recreation $3,276,278
Total S orts lex Enterprise Fund $3,276,278
Community Spay/Neuter Fund
Governing and Management $64,150
Total Community S a /Neuter Fund $64,150
Article 46 Sales Tax Fund
Governing and Management $2,814,576
Total Article 46 Sales Tax Fund $2,814,576
1
17
1 Section III. Revenues
2 The following fund revenues are estimated to be available during the fiscal year beginning July
3 1, 2015 and ending June 30, 2016, to meet the foregoing a ro riations:
Function A ro riation
General Fund
Pro ert Tax $147,551,332
Sales Tax $20,652,132
Licenses&Permits $313,000
Inter overnmental $15,000,278
Char es for Services $10,766,030
Investment Earnings $52,500
Miscellaneous $737,468
Transfers from Other Funds $1,052,600
A ro riated Fund Balance $10,650,770
Total General Fund $206,776,110
Emer enc Tele hone S tem Fund
Char es for Services $562,338
A ro riated Fund Balance $362,761
Total Emerclen"CIV Tele hone S stem Fund $925,099
Fire Districts
Pro ert Tax $5,143,339
Investment Earnin s $654
A ro riated Fund Balance $0
Total Fire Districts Fund $5,143,993
Section 8 Housin Fund
Inter overnmental $4,659,912
From General Fund $247,786
Total Section 8 Fund $4,907,698
Communi Develo ment Fund Ur ent Re air Pro ram
From General Fund $146,809
Total Community Develo ment Fund turgent Re air Program) $146,809
Communi Develo ment Fund HOME Pro ram
Intergovernmental $385,274
From General Fund $59,642
Total Community Develo ment Fund HOME Pro ram $444,916
Communit Develo ment Fund Homelessness Partnershi Pro ram
Inter overnmental $65,344
From General Fund $51,777
Total Communit Develo ment Fund Homelessness Partnershi Pro ram $117,121
Total Community Development Fund Programs $708,846
Efland Sewer Operating Fund
Char es for Services $215,400
From General Fund $116,530
Total Efland Sewer Operating Fund $331,930
18
1
Visitors Bureau Fund
Occu anc Tax $1,133,370
Sales&Fees $500
Inter overnmental $230,878
Investment Earnings $100
A ro riated Fund Balance $76,492
Total Visitors Bureau Fund $1,441,340
School Construction Im act Fees Fund
Im act Fees $1,040,000
Total School Construction Im act Fees Fund $1,040,000
Solid Waste/Landfill Operations
Sales&Fees $7,805,439
Inter overnmental $243,000
Miscellaneous $107,500
Licenses&Permits $110,000
Interest on Investments $15,000
General Fund Contribution for Sanitation Operations $1,718,018
A ro riated Reserves $1,362,061
Total Solid Waste/Landfill Operations $11,361,018
Sportsplex Enterprise Fund
Charges for Services $3,170,000
From General Fund $0
Appropriated Fund Balance $106,278
Total S orts lex Enterprise Fund $3,276,278
Community S a /Neuter Fund
Animal Tax $31,000
Intergovernmental $12,000
Miscellaneous $10,000
Appropriated Fund Balance $11,150
Total Community S a /Neuter Fund $64,150
Article 46 Sales Tax Fund
Sales Tax Proceeds $2,814,576
2 Total Article 46 Sales Tax Fund $2,814,576
3 Section IV. Tax Rate Levy
4 There is hereby levied for the fiscal year 2015-16 a general county-wide tax rate of 87.8 cents
5 per $100 of assessed valuation. This rate shall be levied in the General Fund. Special district
6 tax rates are levied as follows:
Cedar Grove 7.36
Greater Chapel Hill Fire Service District 15.00
Damascus 10.30
Efland 7.00
Eno 7.99
Little River 4.06
New Hope 9.95
Orange Grove 6.00
Orange Rural 8.36
South Orange Fire Service District 10.00
19
Southern Triangle Fire Service District 10.30
White Cross 11.00
Chapel Hill-Carrboro School District 20.84
1
2 Section V. General Fund Appropriations for Local School Districts
3 The following FY 2015-16 General Fund Appropriations for Chapel Hill-Carrboro
4 City Schools and Orange County Schools are approved:
5
6 a) Current Expense appropriation for local school districts totals $74,097,466, and equates
7 to a per pupil allocation of$3,697.50.
8 1) The Current Expense appropriation to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools is
9 $45,253,437.
10 2) The Current Expense appropriation to the Orange County Schools is
11 $28,844,029.
12 b) Recurring Capital appropriation for local school districts totals $3,000,000
13 1) The Recurring Capital appropriation to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
14 totals $1,832,100.
15 2) The Recurring Capital appropriation to the Orange County Schools totals
16 $1,167,900.
17 c) Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation for local school districts totals
18 $3,724,849
19 1) The Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation to the Chapel Hill-
20 Carrboro City Schools totals $2,274,765.
21 2) The Long-Range (Pay-As-You-Go) Capital appropriation to the Orange County
22 Schools totals $1,450,084.
23 d) School Related Debt Service for local school districts totals $15,646,916.
24 e) Fair Funding appropriation for local school districts totals $988,000. This appropriation is
25 to be split 50/50 between Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and Orange County
26 Schools.
27 f) Additional County funding for local school districts totals $1,031,239
28
29 1) School Health Nurses - Total appropriation of $705,000 with $465,300 allocated
30 for Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools and $239,700 allocated for Orange County
31 Schools
32 2) School Resource Officers - Total net appropriation of$291,039 allocated in the
33 Sheriff's Department to provide School Resource Officers to Orange County
34 Schools
35 3) Orange County Schools —Total appropriation of$35,200 for Middle School
36 Afterschool Program.
37
38
39 Section VI. Schedule B License
40
20
1 In accordance with Schedule B of the Revenue Act, Article 2, Chapter 105 of the North Carolina
2 State Statutes, and any other section of the General Statutes so permitting, there are hereby
3 levied privilege license taxes in the maximum amount permitted on businesses, trades,
4 occupations or professions which the County is entitled to tax.
5
6 Section VII. Animal Licenses
7
8 A license costing $10 for sterilized dogs and sterilized cats is hereby levied. A license for un-
9 sterilized dogs and a license for un-sterilized cats is $30 per animal.
10
11 Section VIII. Board of Commissioners' Compensation
12
13 The Board of County Commissioners authorizes that:
14 • Salaries of County Commissioners will be adjusted by any wage increase and/or any
15 other general increase granted to permanent County employees. For fiscal year 2015-
16 16, the approved budget includes a 2% wage increase, effective July 1, 2015.
17 • Annual compensation for County Commissioners will include the County contribution for
18 health insurance, dental insurance and life insurance that is provided for permanent
19 County employees, provided the Commissioners are eligible for this coverage under the
20 insurance contracts and other contracts affecting these benefits.
21 • County Commissioners' compensation includes eligibility to continue to participate in the
22 County health insurance at term end as provided below:
23
24 o If the County Commissioner has served less than two full terms in office (less
25 than eight years), the Commissioner may participate by paying the full cost of
26 such coverage. (If the Commissioner is age 65 or older, Medicare becomes the
27 primary insurer and group health insurance ends.)
28
29 o If the County Commissioner has served two or more full terms in office (eight
30 years or more), the County makes the same contribution for health insurance
31 coverage that it makes for an employee who retires from Orange County after 20
32 years of consecutive County service as a permanent employee. If the
33 Commissioner is age 65 or older, Medicare becomes the primary insurer and
34 group health insurance ends. The County makes the same contribution for
35 Medicare Supplement coverage that it makes for a retired County employee with
36 20 years of service.
37
38 o Annual compensation for Commissioners will include a County contribution for
39 each Commissioner to the Deferred Compensation (457) Supplemental
40 Retirement Plan that is the same as the County contribution for non-law
41 enforcement County employees in the State 401 (k) plan. For fiscal year 2015-
42 16, the approved budget continues the County contribution of $27.50 per pay
43 period and implements a County contribution match of up to $63.00 semi-
44 monthly.
45
46 Section IX. Budget Control
47
48 General Statutes of the State of North Carolina provide for budgetary control measures
49 to exist between a county and public school system. The statute provides:
21
1
2 Per General Statute 115C-429:
3 (c) The Board of County Commissioners shall have full authority to call for, and the Board of
4 Education shall have the duty to make available to the Board of County Commissioners, upon
5 request, all books, records, audit reports, and other information bearing on the financial
6 operation of the local school administrative unit.
7
8 The Board of Commissioners hereby directs the following measures for budget administration
9 and review:
10 That upon adoption, each Board of Education will supply to the Board of County
11 Commissioners a detailed report of the budget showing all appropriations by function and
12 purpose, specifically to include funding increases and new program funding. The Board of
13 Education will provide to the Board of County Commissioners a copy of the annual audit,
14 monthly financial reports, copies of all budget amendments showing disbursements and use of
15 local moneys granted to the Board of Education by the Board of Commissioners.
16
17 The Board of Commissioners will fix the compensation for the members of the Orange County
18 Board of Education such that it is the same as that for the members of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro
19 City Board of Education. The resulting increase would be paid from the approved county
20 appropriation for Orange County Schools.
21
22 § 115C-38. Compensation of board members.
23 The tax-levying authority for a local school administrative unit may, under the procedures of
24 G.S. 153A-92, fix the compensation and expense allowances paid members of the board of
25 education of that local school administrative unit.
26 Funds for the per diem, subsistence, and mileage for all meetings of county and city boards of
27 education shall be provided from the current expense fund budget of the particular county or
28 city.
29 The compensation and expense allowances of members of boards of education shall continue
30 at the same levels as paid on July 1, 1975, until changed by or pursuant to local act or pursuant
31 to this section. (1955, c. 1372, art. 5, s. 12; 1975, c. 569, ss. 1-3; 1977, c. 802, s. 39.5; 1981, c.
32 423, s. 1.)
33
34 The Board of Commissioners hereby directs the following measures for budget administration
35 and review for County Services:
36 The County Manager will provide a comprehensive evaluation of the Jail Alternatives Programs
37 for review by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) during the budget process. The
38 BOCC will delegate oversight authority of the Jail Alternatives Programs to an entity of its
39 choosing on an annual basis.
40
41 Reduction in Force —There was a need to reorganize an organizational unit resulting in the
42 loss of one (1) or more permanent positions. The Orange County Board of Commissioners
43 declares that a reduction in force is necessary that will result in the deletion of one position.
44
45 Section X. Internal Service Fund - Dental and Health Insurance Fund
46
22
1 The Dental Insurance Fund accounts for the receipt of premium payments from the County for
2 its employees and from the employees for their dependents, and the payment of employee
3 claims and administration expenses. Projected receipts from the County and employees for
4 fiscal year 2015-16 are $581,122 and projected expense for claims and administration for fiscal
5 year 2015-16 is $581,122.
6
7 The Health Insurance Fund accounts for the receipt of premium payments from the County for
8 its employees and from the employees for their dependents, and the payment of employee
9 claims and administration expenses. Projected receipts from the County and employees for
10 fiscal year 2015-16 is $9,096,153 and projected expense for claims and administration for fiscal
11 year 2015-16 is $9,096,153.
12
13 Section XI. Internal Service Fund -Vehicle Replacement Fund
14 The Vehicle Replacement Fund will centralize and account for the purchase and replacement of
15 County vehicles purchased with revenues and funding provided by the Governmental Funds of
16 Orange County (General Fund, Special Revenue and Grants Funds). Projected sources of
17 revenues and funds for fiscal year 2015-16 will be $793,209 of short-term installment financing
18 and internal reserves, and the projected expenses for the purchase of vehicles for fiscal year
19 2015-16 will be $793,209.
20
21 Section XII. Agency Funds
22
23 These funds account for assets held by the County as an agent for other government units, and
24 by State Statutes, these funds are not subject to appropriation by the Board of County
25 Commissioners, and not included in this ordinance.
26
27 Section XIII. Encumbrances
28
29 Operating funds encumbered by the County as of June 30, 2015 are hereby re-appropriated to
30 this budget.
31
32 Section XIV. Capital Projects & Grants Fund
33
34 The County Capital Improvements Fund, Schools Capital Improvements Fund, Community
35 Development Fund and the Grant Projects Fund are hereby authorized. Appropriations made
36 for the specific projects or grants in these funds are hereby appropriated until the project or
37 grant is complete.
38
39 The County Capital Projects Fund FY 2015-16 budget, with anticipated fund revenues of
40 $6,751,674 and project expenditures of $6,751,674 is hereby adopted in accordance with G.S.
41 159 by Orange County for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015, and ending June 30, 2016,
42 and the same is adopted by project.
43
44 The School Capital Projects Fund FY 2015-16 budget, with anticipated fund revenues of
45 $4,952,849, and project expenditures of$4,952,849, is hereby adopted in accordance with G.S.
46 159 by Orange County for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015, and ending June 30, 2016,
47 and the same is adopted by project.
48
23
1 The County Grant Projects Fund FY 2015-16 budget, with anticipated fund revenues of
2 $780,281, and project expenditures of $780,281, is hereby adopted in accordance with G.S.
3 159 by Orange County for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2015, and ending June 30, 2016,
4 and the same is adopted by project.
5
6 Any capital project or grant budget previously adopted, the balance of any anticipated, but not
7 yet received, revenues and any unexpended appropriations remaining on June 30, 2015, shall
8 be reauthorized in the 2015-16 budget.
9
10 Section XV. Contractual Obligations
11
12 The County Manager is hereby authorized to execute contractual documents under the
13 following conditions:
14
15 1. The Manager may execute contracts for construction or repair projects that do not
16 require formal competitive bid procedures, and which are within budgeted departmental
17 appropriations, for which the amount to be expended does not exceed $250,000.
18 2. The Manager may execute contracts for general and/or professional services which are
19 within budgeted departmental appropriations, for purchases of apparatus supplies and
20 materials or equipment which are within the budgeted departmental appropriations, and
21 for leases of personal property for a duration of one year or less and within budgeted
22 departmental appropriations for which the amount to be expended does not exceed
23 $89,999.
24
25 3. Contracts executed by the Manager shall be pre-audited by the Financial Services
26 Director and reviewed by the County Attorney to ensure compliance in form and
27 sufficiency with North Carolina law.
28
29 4. The Manager may sign intergovernmental service agreements in amounts under
30 $90,000.
31
32 5. The Manager may sign intergovernmental grant agreements regardless of amount as
33 long as no expenditure of County matching funds, not previously budgeted and
34 approved by the Board, is required. Subsequent budget amendments will be brought to
35 the Board of County Commissioners for revenue generating grant agreements not
36 requiring County matching funds as required for reporting and auditing purposes.
37
38 6. The Manager and Attorney will provide a quarterly report to the County Commissioners
39 showing the type and amount of each intergovernmental agreement signed by the
40 Manager.
41
42 This budget being adopted this 16th day of June 2015.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
45 adopt— attachment 2 - the FY2015-16 Budget Ordinance Orange County, North Carolina.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
50 adopt Attachment 3 for $780,281 for the County Approved Grant projects FY 2015-16.
24
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 Commissioner Jacobs suggested in the future making a summary sheet of the newly
4 proposed changes in fees, listed by department.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
7 adopt Attachment 4, the FY 2015-16 County Fee Schedule.
8 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
9
10 Chair McKee thanked the staff for their exhaustive efforts and asked for any comments
11 on this budget process.
12 Commissioner Burroughs thanked everyone for supporting the additional funds for the
13 school districts, especially the planning funds in the CIP.
14 Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Manager and staff and the Board for representing
15 the public and said support for public education has been shown. He said this has been a
16 progressive budget and this Board and staff are trying to stand by the values of what Orange
17 County stands for.
18 Commissioner Price thanked the Manager, staff and the public who have voiced their
19 opinions.
20 Commissioner Pelissier agreed with her colleagues and thanked staff, the Manager, and
21 the public. She said this year not only did funding go to the schools but other issues such as
22 additional staff, commitment to affordable housing, etc.
23 Commissioner Rich said she agreed with all comments and she too thanked the
24 Manager, saying this is the smoothest budget process in her three years on the BOCC. She
25 proposed thinking about school funding differently. She said perhaps it is possible for the topic
26 of schools to be discussed throughout the year so as to be less stressful at the end of the
27 budget process.
28 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated what Commissioner Rich said about school
29 funding. He said although the meeting on June 11th was long and voluble, it was the best
30 meeting of the year. He appreciated the discussions. He said the Board needed to have these
31 discussions all year long as well as to how to fund issues. He thanked the Manager and the
32 staff for their dedication.
33 Chair McKee said Orange County is blessed. He said because of increasing revenues
34 and an improving economy, this is the fourth year out of five without an ad valorem tax
35 increase. He said the Orange County Board of County Commissioners always has, and always
36 will, support education to the extent that it can.
37
38 8. Reports
39
40 a. Orange County Sustainability and Environmental Responsibility Update
41 The Board considered receiving information and progress reports on current initiatives
42 from several County Departments related to sustainability, including the Environmental
43 Responsibility in County Government (ERG) goal and the Energy Scorecard, and provide
44 feedback to staff for consideration.
45
46 Brennan Bouma, Orange County Sustainability Coordinator, presented the following
47 PowerPoint slides:
48
49 Sustainability & Environmental Responsibility in Orange County
50 June 16, 2015
25
1
2 Purpose and Background
3 To receive updates from multiple County departments on sustainability initiatives,
4 including:
5 o Environmental Responsibility in County Government (ERG) goal
6 o FY 14 Utility and Fuel Scorecard
7
8 Sustainability Activities Across the County
9 • Dept. of the Environment, Ag., Parks & Recreation
10 — David Stancil
11 • Information Technologies
12 — Jim Northrup
13 • Planning, Inspections, Orange Public Transit
14 — Craig Benedict
15 • Solid Waste
16 — Blair Pollock
17 • Asset Management Services
18 — Brennan Bouma
19
20 David Stancil presented this portion of the PowerPoint:
21
22 Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks & Recreation (DEAPR)
23 Conserving and managing the natural and cultural resources of Orange County
24
25 State of Environment Report 2014
26 • State of the Environment (SOE) Reports prepared every 4-5 years
27 • Uses trends, indicators and benchmarks to assess 23 environmental indicators
28 • Indicators assessed status and trend
29 • 14 of 19 indicators show good or fair status
30 • Critical and emerging issues addressed
31
32 Orange County Environmental Summit
33 • Held October 2014 - Maple View Education Center
34 • Presentation of SOE 2014 Report
35 • Guest Speakers on
36 — Invasive Species (Johnny Randall)
37 — Future of Jordan Lake (Don Francisco), and
38 — "Lessons from the Land"
39 (Dr. Norm Christenson, keynote)
40
41 Environment and Nature Education
42 • Continue to offer series of environmental education and nature programs
43 • High interest expressed in P&R Master Plan
44 • Programs include:
45 — Little River Nature Programs
46 — Farm to Table Event
47 — "Earth Evening"
48 — Arbor Day Celebrations and
26
1 Earthwalk (with OC Schools)
2 — Booths at "Last Fridays"
3 — Others
4
5 Existing ER Goal Objectives -Actions
6 • Replaced damaged orchard trees - Blackwood Farm Park (No Net Loss of Woodlands
7 policy)
8 • Completed two xeriscaping projects on County grounds
9 • Continue Groundwater Guardian Status and Recognition ("Green Sites")
10 • Forest Management Planning (with NCFS)
11 • Sustainable energy component, more-efficient park lighting
12
13 New and Emerging Activity Areas
14 • Commission for Environment and OWASA on energy conservation
15 • Implementation of Sustainable Landscaping Plan
16 • 10% Campaign
17 • Sustainability Coordinator/ CFE Energy Committee
18
19 Jim Northup, Orange County Chief Information Officer, presented this portion of the
20 PowerPoint:
21 Information Technologies
22 Reliable, cost-effective and efficient business solutions for Orange County
23
24 Ongoing Initiatives
25 • Energy efficient computer fleet
26 • Mobile workforce
27 • Virtualization
28 • Storage Consolidation
29 • Remote support
30
31 Future Initiatives
32 CHCCS Computer Reuse and Training Program
33 — Not just a-waste recycling
34 — Public— Private
35 — Tech Career Training Program
36 — Expandable
37
38 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning and Inspections Director, presented this
39 portion of the PowerPoint:
40 Planning, Inspections, Engineering/Erosion Control, & Orange Public Transportation
41 (OPT)
42 Promoting stable and quality development while protecting the environment
43
44 Green Building Standards
45 Ongoing:
46 • Representation on Durham-Orange-Chatham Home Builders Association Board of
47 Directors and NC Building Inspectors Association Board of Directors
48 • Volunteer incorporation of practices
27
1 Planned/Proposed Initiatives:
2 Representation on NC Building Code Council
3 Waste Water Technologies That Lessen Environmental Impacts
4 Current Year Initiatives:
5 • Research with Environmental Health on siting and alternatives to on-site septic systems
6 Planned/Proposed Initiatives:
7 BOCC consideration of siting/zoning alternatives and innovations to on-site septic
8 systems.
9
10 Local and Regional Air Quality:
11 Ongoing:
12 Seated staff on Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO)
13 Technical Committee
14 Current Year Initiatives:
15 • Collection of data for 2045 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) and Air Quality
16 Analysis Report
17 • Draft Mobility Report Card for MPO
18 Planned/Proposed Initiatives:
19 • Propane conversion for OPT's new buses
20 • 2045 MTP and Air Quality Analysis Report
21 • Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funding for OPT
22
23 Promote Public Transportation/Decrease Dependence on Personal Vehicles
24 Ongoing:
25 • OPT -- Outreach and education
26 • Comprehensive Transportation Plans (CTPs)
27 • Southern Human Services Center Special Use Permit compliance and Travel Demand
28 Management
29 Current Year Initiatives:
30 • Design of OPT's expanded bus services
31 • Pursuing funding opportunities for bus capital and operations
32 • Efland-Hillsborough Commuter Loop tour and Earth Evening
33 Planned/Proposed Initiatives:
34 • Expanded OPT services
35 • Rebranding of OPT
36
37 Increase Connectivity
38 Ongoing:
39 • Subdivision administration
40 • Access Management Plan implementation
41 Current Year Initiatives:
42 • Adopted Efland zoning overlay districts including connectivity standards
43 • Consultant environmental analysis in Buckhorn area for access management planning
44 Planned/Proposed Initiatives:
45 Efland/Buckhorn/Mebane Access Management Plan amendment promotes funding and
46 economic activity
47
48 Protecting Groundwater
49 (Also Surface Water)
28
1 Ongoing:
2 • Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) -- Watershed regulations
3 • Erosion Control and Stormwater Ordinances
4 • Surface Water Identification (SWID)
5 Current Year Initiatives:
6 Agricultural Support Enterprises included standards that in some cases will require
7 groundwater studies
8 Planned/Proposed Initiatives:
9 0 UDO amendment to provide incentive for implementing infiltration type Best
10 Management Practices (BMPs)
11 0 Additional public education and outreach promoting infiltration type BMPs , Low Impact
12 Development, and buffer preservation/environmental stewardship
13 0 State changes (unfunded mandates) to Falls and Jordan Lake nutrient management
14 programs are pending
15 0 Maintain appropriate staffing levels for meeting the BOCC Environmental Responsibility
16 Goal
17
18 Directing Development to Appropriate Areas
19 Ongoing:
20 • 2030 Comprehensive Plan and UDO/zoning
21 • Protection of open space within subdivisions
22 • Water and Sewer Management Planning and Boundary Agreement
23 Current Year Initiatives:
24 Adopted Efland zoning overlay districts seek to direct development to an identified
25 growth area served or to be served by public water/sewer systems
26 Planned/Proposed Initiatives:
27 Clustering of residential lots to preserve additional open space and protect significant
28 environmental site attributes
29
30 Blair Pollock, Solid Waste Planner, presented this section of the PowerPoint:
31
32 Solid Waste Department
33
34 Solid Waste Goal and Results for FY 13-14
35 Reduction Goal State of NC: 40% Orange County: 61%
36 Reduction Achieved State of NC: 13% Orange County: 64%
37 Pounds Landfilled State of NC: 1,860 Orange County: 980
38 (per person)
39
40 Rural & Urban Curbside Recycling Performance:
41 Tonnage Comparison 2014 vs. 2015
42 (chart)
43
44 Solid Waste Current Initiatives
45 Cart- based recycling instituted for:
46 - - 100% of 18,300 urban residential customers by July 2014
47 and
48 7,800 of 14,500 eligible rural residential customers by April 2015 (300 more
49 ordered to meet additional demand)
29
1 • Complete Interlocal Agreement for Solid Waste Management with Towns, UNC and
2 UNC Healthcare -- December 2015
3 • Eubanks Road Solid Waste Convenience Center design completed; construction
4 anticipated beginning --August 2015
5 • Municipal solid waste to Durham Transfer Station continues for 2015-16
6 • Single, County-wide Solid Waste Programs Fee adopted for FY 2015-16 (no more 3-
7 R Fees or convenience center fees)
8
9 Solid Waste Future Initiatives
10 • Three year phase-in of roadside recycling to remaining unserved 7,000 rural single
11 family households, in bins or carts as desired
12 0 Beginning FY 2015-16. Completion projected Spring 2018
13 • Continue modernization of Solid Waste Convenience Centers
14 — High Rock site renovation projected per FY 16-17 C.I.P.
15 • Continue considering alternatives to Durham City Transfer Station
16 • Evaluate commercial recycling improvement options
17 • Examine program consolidation and cooperation opportunities with UNC and UNC
18 Health Care
19 • Continue to explore long-term regional solid waste collaborative opportunities outside of
20 Orange County
21
22 Orange County Leads the Way in Special Event Recycling
23 Hillsborough Hog Day
24 • Most environmentally improved
25 • From 0% to 85% waste reduction in 10 years
26 Farm-to-Fork and Terra Vita
27 • 99% waste diversion
28 Carrboro Music Festival
29 • Recycles a ton of bar glass. Literally.
30 Over 300 volunteer hours
31
32 Many Benefits
33 GREAT education opportunities
34 — Local government collaboration
35 — Community outreach
36 — Food service industry involvement
37 — Student volunteers
38 • Sponsor status for OC
39 • Saves money on disposal
40 • Reduces waste
41 • Models "Going Green"
42
43 Orange County Provides Waste Reduction Assistance to Public and Private Events
44 • Technical Assistance for recycling, food waste diversion, and source reduction for
45 vendors and organizers
46 • Containers, collections, equipment, and staffing for large events where we also host an
47 information booth
48 • Loan, delivery and pick-up of recycling and/or food waste containers for events where
49 organizers agree to collect, manage and separate materials
30
1 Information booth and outreach at public events
2 New This Sprin_g!
3 "Fork It Over"
4 • 200 stainless steel utensil sets from PTA Thrift Store and other donors.
5 • Loan, wash, return!
6
7 Now in development:
8 The Orange County Green Events Guide
9 0 Conduct focus groups to identify strengths, barriers and solutions:
10 — Invite representatives from each department
11 — Schedule several groups over the summer
12 • Tools to help Orange County Government entities reduce waste at events where food is
13 served.
14 — Waste reduction checklist
15 — Purchasing guide for recyclable and compostable serving ware
16 — Collections protocol
17
18 Brennan Bouma presented this section of the PowerPoint:
19
20 Asset Management Services
21 Providing and maintaining facilities and vehicles that are safe, reliable, sustainable,
22 clean and comfortable
23
24 FY 14 Utility and Fuel Scorecard
25 Reduction Goals
26 (Baseline = FY10)
27 ❑ Energy
28 ❑ FY15 20%
29 ❑ FY17 30%
30 ❑ Water
31 ❑ FY17 5%
32 ❑ Fuel
33 ❑ FY1510%
34 ❑ FY17 15%
35 • Parameters held constant
36 — AMS facilities and vehicles only
37 • Have not included:
38 — SportsPlex
39 — Animal Services
40 — Solid Waste facilities or vehicles
41 — Eno River Parking Deck
42 — Outdoor lighting
43 Future reports to include all buildings and vehicles
44
45 Energy Scorecard (chart and graph)
46
47 Water Scorecard (chart and graph)
48
49 Fuel Scorecard (chart and graph)
50
31
1 Miles Per Gallon (graph)
2 Fuel Scorecard Comments
3 • Increased fuel use attributed to:
4 Increased emergency response vehicle miles
5 Driver behavior including idling, hard acceleration, hard braking, speeding
6 • Solution:
7 Ambulance idle reduction pilot
8 Propane fire inspection vehicles
9 Active vehicle replacement program;
10 Higher fuel efficiency standards;
11 Driver behavior training and education
12
13 Current year initiatives
14 Geothermal Project (graph)
15
16 Investments and Priorities
17 • Current
18 — Energy Bank
19 • Future
20 — Energy Bank project contest
21 — Studying decentralizing utility payments
22 — Underserved community target area analysis
23
24 Other Initiatives
25 Current
26 — Space study
27 — Sustainable commute survey
28 — Green and reflective roofing
29 — Solar power pilot project
30 — EV charging stations
31 — Ambulance idle reduction
32 Future
33 — HVAC controls optimization
34 — Telework policy
35 — Energy storage assessment
36 — Event waste reduction guide
37 — Computer reuse partnership
38 — GPS vehicle efficiency monitoring
39 — Propane vehicle conversions
40 — Vehicle pooling
41
42 Other Initiatives
43 Current
44 — Space study
45 — Sustainable commute survey
46 — Green and reflective roofing
47 — Solar power pilot project
48 — EV charging stations
49 — Ambulance idle reduction
50 Future
32
1 — HVAC controls optimization
2 — Telework policy
3 — Energy storage assessment
4 — Event waste reduction guide
5 — Computer reuse partnership
6 — GPS vehicle efficiency monitoring
7 — Propane vehicle conversions
8 — Vehicle pooling
9
10 Commissioner Rich asked Jim Northup if there is a numeric goal for the amount of
11 reduction in paper use.
12 Jim Northup said one way to know that paper has been reduced is when floor space can
13 be reclaimed in departments.
14 Commissioner Rich said she is glad that Orange County is gathering food waste and
15 encouraged the further investigation into offering residential composting.
16 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are any policies regarding the use of pesticides in
17 the County's cleaning supplies.
18 Brennan Bouma said he is working with colleagues and contractors to determine all the
19 active ingredients currently used and will report back to the Board of County Commissioners.
20 Commissioner Price asked if it is possible to determine how much of the collected
21 recycling is actually recyclable.
22 Blair Pollock said historically the MRF (Materials Recovery Facility) reports residue rates
23 of about 5 percent but with single stream recycling the residue amount has gone up to 10
24 percent.
25 Commissioner Jacobs said one of the reasons he brought up the pesticides issue a
26 couple of weeks ago is in relation to the declining numbers of monarch butterflies and bees. He
27 asked staff to look at planting flowers instead of hay in some of the newer parks in order to
28 bring back the bees. He also suggested putting grazing animals on these sites instead of
29 diesel tractors.
30 David Stancil said these ideas are currently being worked on at Blackwood Park and
31 Northeast Park Site.
32 Commissioner Rich referred to the Space Study Work Group and its research into
33 telecommuting. She asked if there is a specific purpose to this research.
34 Brennan Bouma said telework is popular, especially in the private sector, as there is less
35 space needed leading to more flexibility in work spaces. He said it is being researched as a
36 possible option within Orange County.
37
38 9. County Manager's Report
39 Bonnie Hammersley thanked the Board of County Commissioners for all of the work it
40 did on the budget and its dedication and commitment to Orange County, the residents,
41 employees and schools. She said it was a pleasure to work with the Board. She said services
42 in Orange County were improved during this budget process through cooperation and creativity.
43
44 10. County Attorney's Report
45 NONE
46
47 11. Appointments
48 a. Advisory Board on Aging —Appointments
49 The Board considered making appointments to the Advisory Board of Aging.
50
33
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
2 appoint the following the Advisory Board on Aging:
3
4 Appointment of Ms. Teri Driscoll to a first full term (Position #2) At-Large with a term ending
5 06/30/2017.
6 • Appointment of Dr. Richard White to a second full term (Position #4) At-Large with a term
7 ending 06/30/2018.
8 • Appointment of Mr. Winston Liao to a first full term (Position #8) At-Large with a term ending
9 06/30/2018.
10 • Appointment Mr. Lorenzo Mejia to a second full term (Position #9) At-Large with a term
11 ending 06/30/2018.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 b. Agricultural Preservation Board —Appointments
16 The Board considered making appointments to the Agricultural Preservation Board.
17
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
19 appoint the following to the Agricultural Preservation Board:
20
21 Appointment of Ms. Renee McPherson to a second full term (Position #6) "Cain
22 Creek/Buckhorn Vol. Ag. Dist." with a term expiring 06/30/2018.
23 • Appointment of Ms. Kathy Shambley to a first full term (Position #11) "At-Large" with a term
24 expiring 06/30/2018.
25 • Appointment Ms. Ashley Parker to a second full term (Position #14) "At-Large" with a term
26 expiring 06/30/2018.
27 • Appointment of Sheila Thomas-Abat to a first full term (Position # 10) At Large with a term
28 expiring 6/30/2018.
29
30 David Stancil said the Ag Preservation Board also voted to recommend Renee Parker
31 for one of the at large seats (10 or 12), but were unable to get the recommendation in on time
32 for the abstract.
33 Chair McKee said Ken Dawson had not filed an application yet but is interested in being
34 on the board.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 Chair McKee said there a few farmers in the Voluntary Ag District program that are over
39 the age of 70 and feel they may no longer be able to commit to the program. He said there is
40 one person interested in the New Hope-Hillsborough position but has yet to apply. He said New
41 Hope-Hillsborough and Sly-Eno districts have fewer farms from which to choose.
42 David Stancil said leads are being pursued, and sometimes it is just difficult to get the
43 actual application completed.
44
45 c. Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board —Appointments
46 The Board considered making appointments to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board,
47 and appointment of the board chair.
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
50 appoint the following to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board:
34
1
2 Appointment of Mr. Gregg Jarvis to a second full term (Position #1) "At-Large"
3 representative with a term expiring 06/30/2018.
4 • Appointment of Ms. Jane Cousins a first full term (Position #2) "At-Large" representative
5 with a term expiring 06/30/2018 (replacing the expiring term of Ms. Rosa Tilley).
6
7 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
10 appoint Lisa Stuckey as Chair of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board until June 30, 2016.
11
12 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
13
14 d. Arts Commission —Appointment
15 The Board considered making an appointment to the Arts Commission.
16
17 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
18 appoint the following to the Arts Commission:
19
20 Appointment of Mr. Tony Kane to a partial term (position #10) At-Large with a term expiring
21 03/31/2017.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25 e. Board of Health —Appointments
26 The Board considered making appointments to the Board of Health.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
29 appoint the following the Board of Health:
30
31 Appointment of Ms. Jessica Frega to a first full term (position #3) "At-Large
32 Citizen/Commissioner Appointed" position with a term expiring 06/30/2017.
33 • Appointment of Mr. Nick Galvez to a first full term (position #8) "At-Large
34 Citizen/Commissioner Appointed" with a term expiring 06/30/2018.
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
37 appoint Rena Mehta to position #5—At-Large —Citizen-Commissioner with a term ending
38 6/30/18.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 f. Chapel Hill Planning Commission —Appointment
43 The Board considered making an appointment to the Chapel Hill Planning Commission.
44
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
46 appoint the following to the Chapel Hill Planning Commission:
47
48 Appointment of Deborah Harris to a first full term (Position #1) "Chapel Hill ETY
49 representative with a term expiring 06/30/2018.
50
35
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 g. Durham Technical College Board of Directors —Appointment
4 The Board considered making an appointment to the Durham Technical Community
5 College Board of Directors.
6 Commissioner Rich said there has been some talk about the position currently held by
7 Aaron Nelson, whose term has expired.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
10 defer this appointment until September allowing Durham Technical College time to provide
11 input regarding this position.
12
13 Commissioner Price said the Durham Tech Board of Trustees allows the counties to fill
14 their own positions. She said she believed that Mr. Nelson was unaware that his term had
15 expired. She said she is willing to defer this appointment but it is not up to Durham Tech to
16 decide but rather the Board of County Commissioners should to determine what it seeks from
17 the Durham Tech Board of Trustees.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said he finds it acceptable if the Board is deferring this
19 appointment until September for clarity and to advertise but also stated that it is up to the Board
20 of County Commissioners to make the decision, not the Durham Tech Board of Trustees.
21 Commissioner Dorosin wanted to know if the current list of applicants would still be able
22 to be considered. He also asked if there are any reservations regarding the people who have
23 already applied.
24 The Clerk said yes, the people on the list are still able to be considered.
25 Commissioner Rich said her conversation with Aaron Nelson stressed the need to
26 nominate a person who is a strong advocate for Orange County's economic development.
27 Commissioner Pelissier said the Board should have some idea of who it wants to see on
28 this board and what kind of interests it wants to pursue before making this appointment.
29 Commissioner Price said if this appointment is delayed she wanted to be a part of the
30 discussion going forward since she is the BOCC representative on the Durham Tech Board.
31 She said Durham Tech has been working on a strategic plan and several of these applicants fill
32 the requirements of an appointment. She said Mr. Nelson was an asset during these sessions
33 but the BOCC should look at these applicants and how they may move Durham Tech forward.
34 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an executive summary of the Durham Tech
35 strategic plan that the Board can review before appointing. He said he would second
36 Commissioner Dorosin's suggestion of selecting an applicant tonight.
37 Commissioner Dorosin asked Commissioner Rich if the appointment was delayed,
38 would she want to not consider the existing list of applicants.
39 Commissioner Rich said she would certainly consider those applicants. She said she
40 made a motion for the delay as she feels uninformed regarding the current status and needs of
41 Durham Tech and would like to be better informed before making an appointment to their Board
42 of Trustees.
43 Commissioner Dorosin said he does not like the idea of advertising for a position,
44 getting a list of names and then being critical of the process when it comes time to make the
45 actual appointment. He said this is problematic and not transparent.
46 Commissioner Rich said certain boards need to be treated differently and sometimes
47 more information is needed.
48
36
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
2 appoint Gerald Ponder to this position since Durham Tech is trying to erase the stigma of two
3 year colleges and Mr. Ponder is an educator at a four year university.
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin to appoint Susanne Haff to this position.
6
7 Chair McKee asked John Roberts for procedural guidance.
8 John Roberts said the rules of procedure do not discuss substitute motions but rather
9 amendments to a motion when it is completely replacing the original motion. He said there can
10 be two amendments.
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin to appoint Susanne Haff to this position.
13 Motion failed due to lack of second.
14
15 Commissioner Jacobs said since the motion on the floor has to do with deferring
16 nominations then he will withdraw his second so Commissioner Price can open the floor to
17 nominations.
18
19 Commissioner Price withdrew her previous motion and made a motion to open the floor
20 to nominations.
21 Commissioner Jacobs seconded.
22
23 VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Price, and Commissioner Dorosin);
24 Nayes, 4 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Burroughs and Commissioner
25 Rich)
26 Motion Failed
27
28 The Board returned to Commissioner Rich's original motion to delay this appointment to
29 the second regular meeting in September.
30 Chair McKee asked for a friendly amendment to have the Durham Tech Strategic Plan
31 provided to the Commissioners during the summer break, for Commissioner Price and
32 Commissioner Jacobs to pursue applicants and any additional relevant information over the
33 summer, and to bring back a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners in
34 September.
35 Commissioner Rich and Commissioner Pelissier agreed to the friendly amendment.
36 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nayes, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin)
37
38 h. Human Relations Commission —Appointments
39 The Board considered making appointments to the Human Relations Commission.
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
42 appoint the following the Human Relations Commission:
43
44 Appointment of Dr. Christine Kelly-Kleese to a second full term (Position #1) "At-Large"
45 representative with a term expiring 06/30/2018.
46 • Appointment of Rv. Rollin Russell to a second full term (Position #11) "Town of
47 Hillsborough" with a term expiring 6/30/2018.
48 • Appointment of Rev. Susie Enoch to a partial term to position # 9 (Chapel Hill- At-Large
49 Position) with a term ending September 30, 2016.
50
37
1 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
2
3 i. Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointment
4 The Board considered making an appointment to the Nursing Home Community
5 Advisory Committee.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
8 appoint the following to the Nursing Home Community Advisory Committee:
9
10 Appointment of Ms. Molly Stein to a one year training term (Position #2) At-Large Nursing
11 Home Administration with a term ending 06/16/2016.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Board could encourage the vetting of the other
15 applicants for these positions, in order to get them filled.
16 Chair McKee asked the Clerk to write a letter to the Nursing Home Community
17 Advisory Committee instructing them move post haste with the vetting process.
18
19 12. Board Comments
20 Commissioner Burroughs had no comments.
21 Commissioner Jacobs said when the public passed the '/2 cent sales tax for
22 transportation, the Board projected that there would be a train station in Hillsborough in 2015.
23 He said due the railroad doing a comprehensive study of all the tracks and the State completing
24 an environmental assessment, this project is now delayed until 2023.
25 Commissioner Jacobs said there are two openings on June 20th: the Blackwood Farm
26 dedication at 10 a.m. and the UNC Hillsborough Hospital public grand opening from 2:00-4:00
27 p.m.
28 Commissioner Jacobs asked Bonnie Hammersley if the Eubanks Solid Waste
29 Convenience Center site is going to close in July.
30 Bonnie Hammersley said that has not been decided and the value engineering study is
31 being completed now.
32 Commissioner Jacobs asked her to come back with a new name for this site.
33 Commissioner Price said there will be a Juneteenth celebration on June 19th, from 5:00-
34 7:00 p.m. at the Farmer's Market Pavilion. She wished everyone a great summer.
35 Commissioner Pelissier said last week at the North Carolina Association of County
36 Commissioners (NCACC) Environmental Steering Committee, there was a presentation on wind
37 farms and solar energy. She said North Carolina has the highest percentage of shallow waters
38 off shore and is a prime site for wind farms. She said next year will be the centennial
39 celebration of the North Carolina State Parks. She said North Carolina is 43 d in the nation in
40 the amount of funding that is spent on parks. She wished everyone a great summer.
41 Commissioner Rich had no comments.
42 Commissioner Dorosin had no comments.
43 Chair McKee said about a year ago he mentioned an information sign being added to
44 the Hillsborough Farmer's Market and said this will occur in the next month or so. He
45 expressed thanks to his fellow Commissioners for their support of his attempts at leadership
46 this year.
47
48 13. Information Items
49
50 June 2, 2015 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
38
1 • Tax Collector's Report - Numerical Analysis
2 • Tax Collector's Report - Measure of Enforced Collections
3 • Tax Assessor's Report - Releases/Refunds under $100
4 • Memorandum Regarding the Operation of Mobile Food Vending Units within Orange County
5 • Blackwood Farm Park Opening Ceremony Flyer
6 • Memorandum Regarding Physical Assessment, Former Chapel Hill Town Hall, 100 West
7 Rosemary Street
8 • Memorandum Regarding Sit to Stand Work Environment
9 • Memorandum Regarding Southern Branch Library Siting Update; Carrboro Arts &
10 Innovation Center Working Group Update
11 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from June 2, 2015 Regular Board Meeting
12 • Regional Partnership Workforce Development Board 2013-2014 Annual Report
13
14 14. Closed Session
15 NONE
16
17 15. Adjournment
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
19 adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
20
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23
24 Earl McKee, Chair
25
26 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
27
28