HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-06-2015 - 6a 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 6, 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:
September 1, 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 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 September 1, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
10 September 1, 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, Deputy County Manager
17 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23
24 Chair McKee said the discussion of a potential bond referendum will take place at the
25 Board's work session on September 10th, and with the school boards on September 29tH
26 returning as a decision item on October 6th
27 He noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
28 - Blue sheet—Copy of the Board of County Commissioners' (BOCC) Adopted Social Justice
29 Goals from 2010
30 - Green — Revised Script for Item 5-b —Class A Special Use Permit (SUP) — Solar Array off
31 White Cross Road. John Roberts noted a linguistic change on page 63 of the abstract where
32 there are 4 instances when a Board Member can make a "motion to affirm or reject". He said
33 when the meeting reaches this point, the Board should use the word adopt rather than affirm.
34 - PowerPoint slides for item 7a-Jail Alternatives Work Group Report
35 - Monthly Planning Department Report
36
37 PUBLIC CHARGE
38
39 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge
40
41 2. Public Comments
42
43 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
44 None
45
46 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
47 None
48
49 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
2
1 Commissioner Rich asked if there is an update regarding her repeated petition to make
2 the Board's emails available to the public.
3 Bonnie Hammersley said staff had not been directed to make this change, but can make
4 it happen.
5 Chair McKee asked Commissioner Rich if it is her request to provide emails in a similar
6 way to Chapel Hill.
7 Commissioner Rich said yes, as well as other counties across the country. She said it
8 would apply to the "All Board of County Commissioners, Manager Clerk, and Attorney" email
9 address as OCBOCC.
10 Chair McKee asked the staff to proceed with making emails available.
11 Commissioner Rich said retired Commissioner Gordon had requested several times to
12 break down the links on the agenda, and she is also petitioning to move forward on this,
13 especially since this is a part of the County's communications.
14 Commissioner Rich said the Board was invited to the Orange County Schools' (OCS)
15 opening, and introduction to the new superintendent. She reported that it was a great event,
16 full of enthusiasm. She referenced a handout about OCS's outlook through 2020, which she
17 provided to the Clerk.
18 Commissioner Rich said Commissioner Jacobs had asked about the status of the
19 mobile home park inventory, and how many mobile homes are in parks vs scattered around the
20 County. She said she would also like to know the status of this.
21 Bonnie Hammersley said there is an internal committee working on this inventory and a
22 response to the Board, and she expected it within the next few weeks.
23 Commissioner Rich said when her son got his non-restricted license at the Department
24 of Motor Vehicles (DMV), he was told that he could register to vote at the same time; but then
25 he received a letter from the Board of Elections (BOE) saying that this was not valid and he had
26 to come to the BOE to get registered. She said the process could be confusing for many teens.
27 She said the County needs to be more progressive to enable more teens to register to vote.
28 Commissioner Burroughs said she had no petitions.
29 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the bond discussions will include any opportunity for
30 Public comment.
31 Chair McKee said Public comment would be permitted at the October 6th meeting.
32 Commissioner Dorosin said he has received requests from the public to give comment
33 on this issue, and asked if the only opportunity to do so would be at the September 15th regular
34 meeting during the time allotted to "matters not on the agenda".
35 Chair McKee said yes.
36 Commissioner Dorosin referred to Senate Bill 491, an Anti Consumer Protection Bill,
37 which is designed to negate the current bill affecting manufactured housing. He said he would
38 like the Board to voice their opposition to this legislation, and he would be willing to draft a
39 resolution to this affect.
40 Commissioner Pelissier said the Durham-Orange Light Rail Project (DLRP) has a 45-
41 day comment period required by the federal Department of Transportation, and if the public
42 wanted to make comments they need to make them directly to Go Triangle by mail, email and
43 two public information sessions, or two public hearings. She said the information sessions will
44 be held on Tuesday, September 15, from 4:00-7:00 p.m. at the Friday Center, and on Saturday,
45 September 19, from 2:00-5:00 p.m. at the Durham Station. She said the two public hearings
46 will be held on Tuesday, September 29, from 4:00-7:00 p.m. at the Friday Center, and
47 Thursday, October 1, from 4:00-7:00 p.m. at the Durham County Commission Chamber.
48 Commissioner Jacobs thanked the Manager and Assistant Manager Travis Myren, for
49 incorporating social justice goals in the Board's agendas.
3
1 Commissioner Jacobs supported Commissioner Dorosin's concern about public
2 comment for the bond. He asked that the public be clearly informed about their opportunities to
3 give comment at the meetings on September 15th and October 6th
4 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned that he would like the Board to revisit their naming
5 policy for facilities. He said he would support Commissioner Price's petition to be able to name
6 rooms at facilities, and also to name a facility after someone who raises or contributes the
7 money to construct a building, including living persons.
8 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned about protocol regarding developments in the
9 municipalities that affect Orange County, such as Obey Creek, and a development in
10 Hillsborough on the Collins Ridge property. Commissioner Jacobs said there are many impacts
11 on County services with these developments, and the Board needs to express their concerns.
12 Chair McKee asked if Commissioner Jacobs' petition seeks to develop a protocol.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said yes.
14 Commissioner Price said the Community Home Trust is having their annual fundraiser
15 on Friday, September 25th at the Carolina Inn.
16 Commissioner Price said she attended the National Association of Counties (NACo)
17 conference, and Orange County was in the spotlight at one of their workshops on workforce
18 development and economic development.
19 Commissioner Price said at the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners
20 (NCACC) there was a 4-H student representing the Orange County 4-H. She said the NCACC
21 distributed a 2015 County Snapshot, which she would share with the Board.
22 Commissioner Price petitioned to have the Fairview ballpark dedicated to and named for
23 James "Junebug" Stewart, a person responsible for getting young people in that area involved
24 in sports.
25 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned in support of Commissioner Price's petition for Mr.
26 Stewart.
27 Chair McKee said he has been approached by a former Commissioner to adopt a
28 resolution in support of small solar arrays, and he would bring this to Chair/Vice Chair.
29
30 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
31
32 a. Orange County Long Term Care Quality Service Awards
33 The Board considered recognizing the winners of the 2015 Orange County Long Term
34 Care Quality Service Awards.
35 Janice Tyler, Department on Aging Director, introduced Alex Castro as their newly
36 elected Advisory Board on Aging Board Chair.
37 Dr. Donna Prather, Advisory Board on Aging member, gave the following background on
38 the award, as well as some information on each award winner:
39 As part of the Orange County 2012-17 Master Aging Plan, the Department on Aging
40 was asked to develop a mechanism to help increase the quality of care provided in Orange
41 County's long-term care facilities and home care organizations. In 2013, the Advisory Board on
42 Aging created the Orange County Long Term Care (LTC) Learning Collaborative to bring
43 administrators and direct-care staff together to learn about and share successful approaches to
44 quality care. This is the second year that the Orange County Advisory Board on Aging and the
45 Long Term Care Learning Collaborative have offered to long term care organizations the
46 opportunity to apply for a Long Term Care Quality Service Award.
47 Each year the Advisory Board selects an evidence-based or promising quality program
48 for long term care providers to learn about and implement within the year. This past year the
49 focus was on implementation of the Music and Memory program which helps persons with
50 dementia regain touch with music that they love, provide avenues for memory recall, and
4
1 reduce some of the more negative behaviors associated with Alzheimer's disease and other
2 dementias.
3 Winners of the 2015 Long Term Care Quality Service Awards were able to successfully
4 implement Music in My Mind/Orange County program by working with families and volunteers to
5 create a personalized list of songs for their residents and clients with dementia. The six winning
6 organizations are committed to continuing and expanding these programs so that many more
7 individuals with dementia living in Orange County will continue to experience the joy of music
8 that reminds them of their past and to share that joy with others.
9
10 Commissioner Burroughs handed out the awards:
11 Winners of the 2015 Long Term Care Quality Service Award are:
12 - A Helping Hand Companion Agency
13 - Brookshire Senior Living
14 - Livewell Assisted Living
15 - Right At Home
16 - Florence G. Soltys Adult Day Health Program
17 - Carol Woods Retirement Community
18
19 Chair McKee said this item coincides with the BOCC Social Justice goal of"create a
20 safe community."
21 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
22 congratulate and commend the winners.
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26
27 b. "The Nature of Orange" Photography Contest
28 The Board considered congratulating the "The Nature of Orange" 2015 Photography
29 Contest winners and thanking the judges and all those who participated in this community
30 event.
31 Lynne Hecht, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR),
32 reviewed the following background:
33
34 BACKGROUND:
35 The Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
36 completed its annual "The Nature of Orange" Photography Contest in May 2015. The goal of
37 the contest is to inspire exploration, celebration and appreciation of Orange County's diverse
38 landscapes and outdoor experiences. Photographers help document the beauty and diversity of
39 our natural resources, and our people connecting to their environment.
40 A total of 116 photographs were submitted in May 2015. A panel of judges selected first,
41 second and third place winners from the Youth and Adult divisions. In addition, judges identified
42 two additional Honorable Mention awards per age group since there were so many high-quality
43 submissions. This year's judges were photographers Laura Branan, Chris Graebner and David
44 Schaub.
45 Winners received a congratulatory letter, certificate, and a small monetary award.
46 During the month of August, the photographs were displayed at the Orange County Visitors
47 Center in Hillsborough, the Orange County Public Library, and the Chapel Hill/Orange County
48 Visitors Center. In addition, winning photographs are displayed on the Orange County DEAPR
49 website under the "breaking news" section http://www.orangecountync.gov/deapr/, on the
50 department's Facebook Page, and will be "streaming" around the county on the visual monitors.
5
1
2 "THE NATURE OF ORANGE"
3 Photography Contest 2015
4 4th annual photography contest
5 Photographers help document the beauty and diversity of our natural resources or show
6 residents enjoying our parks and environment. All photos taken in Orange County.
7 116 entries (50 Youth and 66 Adult)
8 Volunteer judges evaluated photos based on:
9 — relevancy
10 — composition/arrangement
11 — focus/sharpness
12 — lighting and creativity
13
14 The 2015 contest winners are as follows, and Commissioner Jacobs distributed the
15 certificates:
16
17 Adult: 1st Place— Richie Sheppard; 2nd Place — Barbara Driscoll; 3rd Place — Pat
18 French; Honorable Mentions: Jason Pulley and Barbara Driscoll.
19
20 Youth: 1st Place —Joseph Mohler; 2nd Place — Kirby Lau; 3rd Place —Cailin Lucero;
21 Honorable Mentions: Kees Keiper and Cailin Lucero.
22
23 Judges: Laura Branan, Chris Graebner, and David Schaub
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
26 congratulate the winners and thank the Judges.
27
28 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
29
30 c. Resolution Supporting Stepping Up Initiative to Reduce the Number of People with
31 Mental Illnesses in Jails
32 The Board considered approving the resolution expressing support for the Stepping Up
33 Initiative sponsored by the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC), the
34 National Association of Counties (NACo) and other organizations to help advance counties'
35 efforts to reduce the number of adults with mental and co-occurring substance use disorders in
36 jails, and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution.
37
38 Commissioner Pelissier read the resolution:
39
40 RES-2015-038
41
42 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
43 Resolution Supporting "Stepping Up Initiative to Reduce the Number of People with
44 Mental Illnesses in Jails"
45
46 WHEREAS, counties routinely provide treatment services to the estimated 2 million people with
47 serious mental illnesses booked into jails each year; and
48
49 WHEREAS, prevalence rates of serious mental illnesses in confinement facilities are three to
50 six times higher than for the general population, with statistics showing that almost 13% of
6
1 North Carolina's prison population requires some type of intervention due to mental health
2 issues; and
3
4 WHEREAS, almost three-quarters of adults with serious mental illnesses in jails have co-
5 occurring substance use disorders; and
6
7 WHEREAS, adults with mental illnesses tend to stay longer in jail and upon release are at a
8 higher risk of recidivism than people without these disorders; and
9
10 WHEREAS, county jails spend two to three times more on adults with mental illnesses that
11 require interventions compared to those without these treatment needs; and
12
13 WHEREAS, without the appropriate treatment and services, people with mental illnesses can
14 continue to cycle through the criminal justice system, often resulting in tragic outcomes for
15 these individuals, their families, and their communities; and
16
17 WHEREAS, county jails are generally an unsafe environment for those with mental health
18 treatment needs; and
19
20 WHEREAS, the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners has undertaken a serious
21 effort to address the local service needs of those with mental illnesses through the appointment
22 of a special Task Force; and
23
24 WHEREAS, Orange County, like all counties, takes pride in our responsibility to protect and
25 enhance the health, welfare and safety of our residents in efficient, safe, and socially just ways;
26 and
27
28 WHEREAS, through the Stepping Up Initiative, the National Association of Counties, the
29 Council of State Governments Justice Center and the American Psychiatric Foundation are
30 encouraging counties to reduce the number of people with mental illnesses in county jails;
31
32 NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Orange County Board of Commissioners:
33 1. That the Board of Commissioners does hereby sign on to the Call to Action to reduce the
34 number of people with mental illnesses in our county jail, and commits to sharing lessons
35 learned with other counties in North Carolina and across the country to support the Stepping
36 Up Initiative; and
37 2. That the Board of Commissioners will utilize resources available through the Stepping Up
38 Initiative and other resources provided by the Council of State Governments Justice Center to
39 convene a diverse team of leaders and decision makers from multiple agencies who are
40 committed to safely reducing the number of people with mental illnesses in jails, and
41 3. That this team will utilize the comprehensive resources available through the Stepping Up
42 Initiative to develop a plan to reduce the number of people with mental illness in the county jail
43 for 2016-2020, consistent with the Council of State Governments Justice Center report and
44 recommendations, to be presented to the Board of Commissioners at its first meeting in
45 December 2015.
46
47 This, the 1st day of September 2015.
48
7
1 Commissioner Pelissier said this resolution was shared with the jail alternatives work
2 group last week, and it was decided that the third item about the formulation of a team would be
3 discussed at a future meeting.
4 Commissioner Rich said Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) should be
5 included in this discussion, and said this issue was part of their priority listing. She asked if
6 Commissioner Pelissier would share this resolution with them.
7 Commissioner Price said she brought this resolution template back from a NCACC
8 Board of Directors' meeting, and TJCOG Executive Director was part of this meeting and task
9 force.
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich, for the
12 Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the attached resolution.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 d. Resolution in Opposition To Offshore Exploration, Drilling Activities and Seismic
17 Blast Activities Off the Coast of North Carolina
18 The Board considered approving the Resolution in Opposition To Offshore Exploration,
19 Drilling Activities and Seismic Blast Activities Off the Coast of North Carolina, and authorizing
20 the Chair to sign the resolution.
21
22 Commissioner Dorosin read the resolution:
23 RES-2015-044
24 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
25 RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO OFFSHORE EXPLORATION, DRILLING
26 ACTIVITIES AND SEISMIC BLAST ACTIVITIES OFF THE COAST OF
27 NORTH CAROLINA
28
29 WHEREAS, Orange County is committed to being a sound steward of the environment; and
30
31 WHEREAS, Orange County stands with coastal municipalities in their pursuit of prudent
32 shoreline protection and preservation; and
33
34 WHEREAS, seismic air guns firing intense blasts of compressed air are among the loudest
35 human-made sounds in the ocean; and
36
37 WHEREAS, these seismic blasts can occur as frequently as every ten seconds, for days to
38 weeks at a time and are loud enough to harm marine and aquatic life; and
39
40 WHEREAS, the full impacts of seismic blasting and offshore drilling in the Atlantic are not yet
41 fully understood by scientists, the oil and gas industry, the Bureau of Ocean Energy
42 Management, or the Federal Government; and
43
44 WHEREAS, exploratory and commercial drilling, extraction, and the transportation of offshore
45 oil and gas resources poses significant economic and environmental risks; and
46
47 WHEREAS, offshore drilling activities pose specific threats for the offshore marine ecosystems
48 and coastal and river wetlands which are of intrinsic ecological value for numerous migratory
49 bird species, serve as essential nursery habitats for our recreational and commercially
50 important fisheries, and act as natural buffers from storm surge and hurricanes; and
8
1
2 WHEREAS, commercial and recreational fishing are critical economic and quality of life drivers;
3 and
4
5 WHEREAS, tourism is the economic backbone of the North Carolina coast; and
6
7 WHEREAS, one oil spill could devastate the economy, environment and social fabric, as
8 demonstrated by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010;
9
10 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Board of Orange County Commissioners is
11 opposed to offshore oil and gas exploration, offshore drilling activities and seismic blast
12 activities on the continental shelf or elsewhere off the coast of North Carolina;
13
14 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Board of Orange County Commissioners stands in solidarity
15 with North Carolina coastal communities which may be affected by the onshore infrastructure
16 supporting offshore exploration and drilling and may suffer adverse long-term social, economic
17 and environmental impacts from offshore exploration and production of petroleum resources on
18 the continental shelf off the coast of North Carolina;
19
20 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Board of Orange County Commissioners calls upon all North
21 Carolina municipal and county governing bodies to pass similar resolutions to this one and
22 urges the Triangle J Council of Governments, the NC Association of County Commissioners
23 and the NC League of Municipalities to join in this effort;
24
25 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the Board of Orange County Commissioners urges Governor Pat
26 McCrory and the entire North Carolina General Assembly to oppose offshore petroleum
27 production policies that risk the health, safety and sound environmental stewardship of North
28 Carolina's coastline, whose natural beauty attracts a proven tourism-driven economy.
29
30 ADOPTED, this the 1st day of September, 2015.
31
32 Chair McKee said Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Rich, and Commissioner
33 Dorosin worked collaboratively on this resolution.
34
35 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs for the
36 Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the resolution.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 5. Public Hearings
41
42 a. Unified Development Ordinance Text Amendment Related to Temporary Health
43 Care Structures — Public Hearing Closure and Action (No Additional Comments
44 Accepted)
45 The Board considered receiving the Planning Board recommendation, closing the public
46 hearing, and deciding accordingly and/or adopting the Statement of Consistency and the
47 Ordinance amending the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) regarding temporary health
48 care structures as recommended by the Planning Board and staff.
49 Ashley Moncado, Orange County Planning and Inspections, said this item was
50 presented at the May Quarterly Public Hearing (QPH). She said no modifications were made
9
1 after the QPH. She said the amendment was presented at the June Planning Board Meeting,
2 and the Planning Board voted 10-2 to recommend approval of the Statement of Consistency;
3 and 9-3 to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. She said all comments from the
4 Planning Board meeting can be found on page 8 within attachment 2.
5 Commissioner Price asked if there had been any collaboration with the municipalities.
6 Ashley Moncado said the Town of Hillsborough is pursuing an amendment to implement
7 the session law, and there have been no comments from the other jurisdictions despite
8 notification of the proposed amendment being sent to them.
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
11 close the public hearing.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 Commissioner Dorosin said he will vote against it. He said he knows it is a directive
16 from the State, but he finds it a poor way to do policy.
17 Commissioner Dorosin said at the last BOCC meeting, the Commissioners had
18 discussed about developing something specific to Orange County with broader parameters, and
19 he encouraged the Board to pursue this.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board needs to re-visit the policy that no more than 3
21 unrelated persons can live together as this could be a violation of civil rights, and asked if staff
22 could revise this.
23 Ashley Moncado said staff is interested in pursuing these changes as well, but needed
24 to get this text amendment done first and then review changes to it.
25 Commissioner Dorosin asked what would happen if the Board rejected this law.
26 Ashley Moncado said the State law would trump County law. She said she spoke with
27 the County Attorney's office regarding modifying the language, and changes will be pursued.
28 Commissioner Dorosin said it does not matter if the Board passes this amendment.
29 Ashley Moncado said that is correct. She said the State law would trump the County's
30 refusal to pass it, but potential future changes could make the amendment more flexible and
31 accommodating.
32 Commissioner Price said she has concerns with the residency requirement. She asked
33 if there is a definition of, or process, to determine who is a resident.
34 Ashley Moncado said this was a concern with the planning board members as well, and
35 staff knows that this needs to be explored more thoroughly.
36 John Roberts said this has been the law for more than a year now, and he has to
37 recommend that the County adopt it, as it is a State law.
38 Commissioner Rich said she too is not supportive of this, and feels it is not well thought
39 out by State. She said if Orange County can make this better, it should do so.
40 Commissioner Jacobs asked if since many of the Board members do not feel that this
41 amendment is adequate, would it be possible to table the amendment and refer back to staff
42 with some suggested changes the Board would like to see, so that it is more tailored to what
43 the Board believes to be appropriate.
44 John Roberts said this is new ground for him. He said the public hearing would need to
45 be re-opened and the item referred back to the Planning Board.
46 Chair McKee asked if the Board could open the same public hearing that was just
47 closed.
48 John Roberts said he thinks so, but would research this now.
49 Commissioner Burroughs asked how long the process would take, if the Board passes
50 this amendment now and re-visits it through the UDO.
10
1 Ashley Moncado said probably the February QPH would be the earliest timeframe.
2 Commissioner Pelissier said the other reason that she would vote for it is because it
3 would make the rules more transparent to the public. She asked if someone wanted to create a
4 temporary health care structure, and the County does not have it in their UDO, can a person
5 still proceed through State law.
6 Commissioner Pelissier said she does not like what the State is doing.
7 Ashley Moncado said this amendment is not in Orange County's UDO, and that is the
8 main concern of the planning staff.
9 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the Board could approve the amendment, with the
10 contingency that it would come back in February 2016.
11 John Roberts said a motion to approve contingent on other things for an ordinance, is
12 not an approval.
13 John Roberts said section 2.8 of the UDO does say that the Board can reopen the
14 public hearing, as the Board is still present, and refer it back to staff and the Planning Board
15 with any direction the Board deems appropriate.
16 Commissioner Price said the Board has expressed their concerns of wanting something
17 less restrictive. She asked if Orange County created a less restrictive policy, would the State
18 policy trump that of the County.
19 John Roberts said there is nothing in the state's language that implies it would preempt
20 the county's wish. He said the State is setting a standard and he believes the County can tailor
21 it to local needs.
22 Chair McKee asked if anyone has applied to make a temporary health care structure.
23 Ashley Moncado said no, but there have been inquires.
24 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a process to determine if three people living in one
25 structure are unrelated.
26 Ashley Moncado said most of the County's code enforcement is complaint driven.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
29 reopen the public hearing.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
34 Board to refer this item back to the Planning Board and staff and solicit comments from Board
35 of County Commissioners and to come back at the February 2016 QPH and to post the current
36 law on the planning website.
37 Commissioner Rich made a friendly amendment to solicit remarks from Carrboro and
38 Chapel Hill.
39 Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Price accepted.
40 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that this motion reflects the concerns that were
41 mentioned tonight: how many unrelated people can live in a structure, relationships, residency
42 requirement, and to look at past comments from previous meetings.
43 Commissioner Jacobs said he meant it to include all comments including those from the
44 May 2015 QPH.
45
46 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
47
48 b. Class A Special Use Permit— Solar Array off White Cross Road in Bingham
49 Township (Receipt of Planning Board Recommendation — No Additional Public
50 Comment or Testimony Allowed)
11
1 The Board considered receiving the Planning Board recommendation, closing the public
2 hearing, and making a decision on a Class A Special Use Permit (hereafter `SUP') application
3 submitted by White Cross Solar LLC and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. William and Carol
4 Byron, proposing the development of a solar array in accordance with Section 2.7 Special Use
5 Permits and Section 5.9.6 (C) Solar Array-Public Utility of the Orange County Unified
6 Development Ordinance (UDO), approve the recommended Findings of Fact as detailed within
7 Attachment 5, and make a motion approving the SUP.
8
9 Pat Mallet, Orange County Current Planning, reviewed this item and all the materials in
10 the abstract. He said page 49, Attachment 5, shows all the findings of fact, and conditions of
11 approval. He said page 50 reviews all the application components and shows that all the
12 requirements set forth in the UDO were certified as met. He said page 51 shows that all
13 notification requirements were met. He said pages 52-57 show requirements for special use
14 permits and solar arrays, noting all findings were in the affirmative. He said page 58 shows the
15 recommendation of the Planning Board, which is consistent with staff's recommendation, noting
16 that all findings of fact have been met.
17 Pat reminded the Board that the applicant has had extensive conversations with the
18 neighboring properties, and at the time of the May Quarterly Public Hearing there were still two
19 neighbors with concerns about the buffer. He said Item 1 (Attachment 6) speaks to the buffer
20 treatment, which is above and beyond what the code requires.
21 Chair McKee said this is a SUP, and no additional comment or testimony would be
22 allowed.
23
24 ITEM: 5-b-Attachment 7
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
27 enter Attachments 1-6, and revised Attachment 7 into the minutes.
28
29 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
30
31 Michael Harvey presented this portion:
32
33 SCRIPT FOR ACTING ON WHITE CROSS SOLAR LLC FOR SOLAR FACILITY OF WHITE
34 CROSS ROAD
35 CLASS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION:
36 September 1, 2015 BOCC meeting
37
38 1. Chair will explain the purpose of the item is to receive the Planning Board
39 recommendation.
40 For the project, the purpose of the meeting is as follows:
41 To receive the Planning Board recommendation, close the public hearing, and make a
42 decision on a Class A Special Use Permit(hereafter`SUP) application submitted by White
43 Cross Solar LLC and the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. William and Carol Byron, proposing
44 the development of a solar array off of White Cross Road in accordance with Section 2.7
45 Special Use Permits and Section 5.9.6(C) Solar Array-Public Utility of the Orange County
46 Unified Development Ordinance (UDO).
47
48 2. Chair will declare the public hearing re-convened for the purpose of receiving the
49 Planning Board recommendation and ask staff to make their presentation.
12
1 NOTE—The re-convening of a hearing is solely for the purpose of receiving the
2 Planning Board recommendation and allowing any new information, previously
3 submitted in writing, to be entered into the record. The hearing is not intended to solicit
4 additional input from the public or the applicant.
5
6 While the BOCC may ask staff questions related to the review of a given item,
7 comments from the public or the applicant shall not be solicited. The accepting
8 additional public comments at this stage of the review (i.e. the reconvened hearing)
9 would constitute a violation of the UDO.
10
11 3. Staff will review the abstract and ask it be entered into the record. Staff will review the
12 Findings of Fact (Attachment 5) for the Special Use component of the project.
13
14 4. Questions will be asked of staff.
15 Commissioner Jacobs: Could you please just refresh my memory, since I wasn't at
16 that Public Hearing. The response that's been incorporated to the North Carolina
17 Wildlife Resources Commission. Concerns that are expressed in the letter that's
18 included in our packet. Page 13.
19
20 Michael Harvey: Thank you.
21
22 Commissioner Jacbos: Including saying "the project may impact the species and
23 consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service may be required."
24
25 Michael Harvey: The Fish and Wildlife Commission's letter, as part of the State
26 Clearing House review, obviously identified potential concerns. If you go to page 14,
27 there are following gentle recommendations, and I will stipulate number 1, Orange
28 County is a leader in Environmental Protections; so most of the recommended stream
29 buffer standards, or buffer standards we exceed by leaps and bounds. In our review,
30 and that is specifically the local DEAPR office and the Planning Department in reviewing
31 other County documents as well, there are no endangered species, or any other
32 sensitive species on this property that would be impacted. In consultation with the
33 Department of Wildlife as well as North Carolina Department of Environment Natural
34 Resources, there was no identified — specific, excuse me— identified species that would
35 be impacted. And while we take into consideration the recommendation since the buffer
36 standards that we are going to impose, are greater than what they recommended, we
37 believe we are exceeding their suggested mandate with respect to how this project
38 should be developed.
39
40 Commissioner Jacobs: May I ask our Attorney a question?
41
42 Chair McKee: Yes.
43
44 Commissioner Jacobs: When, and if, the legislature reduces buffer standards, having
45 already adopted these that can't be changed by the legislature. It would be an ex-post
46 facto, would it not?
47
48 John Roberts: That would not apply to this, this Special Use Permit, no.
49 Commissioner Jacobs: Thank you.
50
13
1 Michael Harvey: Can I clarify? I'm sorry. The Attorney's correct, unless the Applicant
2 chose to go back through this same process to amend the Special Use Permit.
3
4 Chair McKee: Are there other....yes.
5
6 Commissioner Jacobs: In which case, we could have a different vote.
7
8 John Roberts: That is a correct statement.
9
10 Michael Harvey: Without further ado, what I would just like to do very quickly— on
11 page 63— as you begin your deliberation, the first motion you're going to be making, or
12 and I understood from the Attorney at the beginning of the hearing he'd rather you
13 approve or deny the Planning Board recommendation, where we have affirm or reject.
14 But you're going to be either approving or denying the Planning Board's
15 recommendation that this particular project complies with the provisions of sections 2.2
16 and 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance. This deals with the
17 application's complete listed submittal, required submittal requirements, and advertising.
18 Next someone will make a motion to determine whether or not the project
19 complied with section 2.7.5 of the Unified Development Ordinance, that is typically
20 staff's notification of adjacent property owners, and the holding of the Public Hearing.
21 Next will be a motion to approve or deny the recommendation of the Planning Board as
22 it relates to section 5.3.2 (B) of the Unified Development Ordinance; can the project be
23 served by Emergency Services, Sheriff's Department, Environmental Health, Solid
24 Waste, etc. Recommendations have been made that— obviously, there's evidence in
25 the record proving that this site can be supported, as required by section 5.3.2.
26 Next the specific requirements for the development of a Solar Facility— and I'm
27 on page 63, subsection D. It's a motion to approve or deny the recommendation of the
28 Planning Board that the Applicant complies with the provisions of 5.9.6 (c). Those are
29 the specific development requirements for Solar Facility. And again, I want to
30 emphasize, when you go back to attachment 5, the evidence in the record that the
31 Planning Board, and ultimately—originally, the staff relied on to make an affirmative
32 recommendation — is listed for you. As you can see the rationale, both staff and the
33 Planning Board. Then finally it's voting on whether or not the Applicant complies with
34 the provisions of 5.3.2. And again, there are three individual areas you're going to be
35 making a recommendation on: First, that the use will promote the public health, safety
36 and general welfare. We have provided you in this script the language, or the findings,
37 of the Planning Board. And again, without repeating myself, but to reiterate, one of
38 those findings was that there was a lack of competent or material evidence entered into
39 the record indicating the Applicant had not met there burden.
40 Next 5.3.2 (A) 2 (b). is that the use will maintain or enhance the value of
41 contiguous property. I'll remind you, at the Quarterly Public Hearing, we had testimony
42 from the Applicant's appraiser, and there were questions posed not only by this Board,
43 by the Planning Board, as to the contents of those documents that were submitted into
44 the record at the Public Hearing.
45 Finally, 5.3.2 (A) 2 (c): that the use is in harmony with the area, and consistent
46 with the physical development of the County, as embodied in the comprehensive plan.
47 If there are affirmative findings on those three items, we will ultimately need you then to
48 make a motion to approve the Special Use Permit, and impose the conditions as we
49 have detailed in article 5. 1 know that's a lot to digest, but part of the reason we have to
50 go through this with you is that Special Use Permits, as you know, require a heightened
14
1 level of action in order to insure consistency, not only with our ordinance, but with State
2 law. Pat and I are here to answer any questions you have. Thank you.
3
4 Chair McKee: Are there any questions either on the amendment— not the amendment
5 —the abstract, and the attachments; or in the instructions that Mr. Harvey just gave us?
6
7 Commissioner Dorosin: So all these motions need to be made individually, we can't
8 lump any of them together, in the interest of expediting this process?
9
10 Michael Harvey: I am going to say that this Board can certainly make a motion to
11 approve the Planning Board recommendation as it relates to, section 2.2, etc. That can
12 be one motion. And I will also suggest sir, that you should defer to the County Attorney,
13 but I would strongly urge you to make independent motions of findings on section 5.3.2
14 (a) which is consistency with a con plan, promoting or— excuse me — insuring property
15 value and what not. I think those needn't to be separately.
16
17 Commissioner Dorosin: Consigliore, do you concur?
18
19 John Roberts: I do. Recent case law— or within the last several years — has leaned
20 towards more specificity from Boards making these types of quasi-judicial decisions. So
21 1 do recommend each one. It's true, there's been no opposition voiced for this, and so
22 an appeal is unlikely. But I believe the Applicant would be more comfortable if the Board
23 did go through each motion individually to establish a record.
24
25 Chair McKee: And, as Chair, I would ask that we do take each — I realize it will take
26 longer— but I would ask that we would take each one of them individually as we go
27 through. It'd be less chance of either missing one, or misstating one.
28
29 Commissioner Dorosin: That's fine.
30
31 Chair McKee: Other questions? Seeing no other questions, I would again reiterate
32 that once—that I will, in a moment, ask for a motion to close the Public Hearing; and
33 once that happens, there cannot be any other questions.
34
35 5. A motion will need to be made to close the public hearing.
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by
37 Commissioner Burroughs to close the public hearing.
38
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40 NOTE—once this is done, Planning Staff cannot answer questions or provide
41 additional detail.
42
43 6. The BOCC will first need to take action on the Special Use Permit findings of fact. The
44 findings of fact have been organized per relevant UDO section to aid in making motions
45 to approve or deny. The cadence on taking action should be as follows
46
47 a. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner
48 Burroughs to approve and adopt the recommendation of the Planning Board
49 concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section(s) 2.2 and
15
1 2.7.3 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
2 Attachment 5 of the abstract package.
3
4 Vote: UNANIMOUS
5
6
7 b. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner
8 Burroughs to approve and adopt the recommendation of the Planning Board
9 concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 2.7.5 of
10 the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
11 Attachment 5 of the abstract package.
12
13 Vote: UNANIMOUS
14
15 c. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner
16 Burroughs to approve and adopt the recommendation of the Planning Board
17 concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of Section 5.3.2 (B)
18 of the Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within
19 Attachment 5 of the abstract package.
20
21 Vote: UNANIMOUS
22
23 d. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner
24 Burroughs to approve and adopt the recommendation of the Planning Board
25 concerning the application's compliance with the provisions of 5.9.6 (c) of the
26 Orange County Unified Development Ordinance as detailed within Attachment 5
27 of the abstract package.
28
29 Vote: UNANIMOUS
30
31
32 e. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner
33 Burroughs that said there is sufficient seconded by will need to be made
34 regarding compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) of the Ordinance as follows:
35
36 (NOTE—Whomever makes the motion will have to cite the `evidence' in the
37 record utilized justifying the motion to approve or deny. Attachment 5 contains
38 the recommendations of the Planning Board including the evidence utilized to
39 reach the conclusion. This `evidence' must be spelled out explicitly by the
40 Commissioner making the motion.
41
42 i. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
43 to approve finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with
44 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a) of the UDO in that the use will maintain and promote the public
45 health, safety and general welfare, if located where proposed and developed and
46 operated according to the plan as submitted.
47
48 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of
49 these proceedings, including:
16
1 NOTE—the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is
2 to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2
3 (A) (2) (a) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record.
4 0 Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan,
5 presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing.
6 0 Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of
7 the UDO.
8 0 Applicant sworn testimony from Mrs. Beth Trahos, Mr. George Retschle, Mr.
9 Thomas Hester, Mr. Richard Kirkland, Mr. Richard Moretz, and Mr. Thomas
10 Cleveland, on how the project complied with the UDO.
11 0 Copies of affidavits and a real estate report, completed by Mr. Hester,
12 entered into the record providing additional information on the project's compliance
13 with applicable standards.
14 Comments from the BOCC, Planning Board, and the general public.
15 And
16 A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the
17 record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
18 If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is
19 in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a), the Commissioner making the motion will
20 have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in the
21 record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with Section
22 5.3.2 (A) (2) (a).
23
24 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
25
26 ii. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
27 finding there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section
28 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b) of the UDO in that the use will maintain the value of contiguous
29 property.
30
31 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into the record of
32 these proceedings, including:
33 NOTE—the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If the motion is
34 to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with Section 5.3.2
35 (A) (2) (b) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record.
36 Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and site plan,
37 presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing.
38 Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various provisions of
39 the UDO.
40 Applicant testimony from Mr. Thomas Hester, a licensed real estate
41 appraiser, and Mr. Richard Kirkland, a licensed real estate appraiser, on how the
42 project complied with the UDO. This included a real estate evaluation indicating the
43 project would not have an impact on adjacent property value.
44 And
45 A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into the
46 record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
47 If the motion is to find there is insufficient evidence in the record to find the project is
48 in compliance with Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b), the Commissioner making the motion
49 will have to specifically denote what is absent and explain what, if any, evidence is in
17
1 the record disputing the claims of the applicant that they are in compliance with
2 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (b).
3 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
4
5 iii. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
6 to find there is sufficient evidence in the record the project complies with Section
7 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) of the UDO in that the use is in harmony with the area in which it is
8 to be located and the use is in compliance with the plan for the physical development
9 of the County as embodied in these regulations and in the Comprehensive Plan.
10
11 This motion is based on competent material and evidence entered into
12 the record of these proceedings, including:
13 NOTE—the following represents the findings of the Planning Board. If
14 the motion is to find there is sufficient evidence in the record to find compliance with
15 Section 5.3.2 (A) (2) (c) this list must be read verbatim so it is in the record.
16 0 Staff abstract and attachments, including the SUP application and
17 site plan, presented at the May 26, 2015 Quarterly Public Hearing.
18 0 Staff testimony on the project and its compliance with various
19 provisions of the UDO.
20 0 Applicant Testimony, specifically:
21 o Mr. George Retschle a licensed professional engineer,
22 o Mr. Thomas Hester a licensed real estate appraiser,
23 o Mr. Richard Kirkland a licensed real estate appraiser,
24 o Mr. Richard Moretz a site developer with Cypress Creek Renewables
25 LLC and its subsidiary White Cross Solar LLC, and
26 o Mr. Thomas Cleveland a licensed professional engineer,
27 on how the project complied with the UDO as well as the submitted site
28 plan
29 And
30 0 A lack of competent material and substantial evidence entered into
31 the record demonstrating the project's lack of compliance with established standards.
32
33 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
34
35 7. A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Price to
36 approve the Special Use Permit subject to the conditions and applications agreed to by
37 the Applicant, and that are part of the package.
38 If the motion is to approve the Special Use Permit, this motion would also need to
39 include language indicating the BOCC imposes the recommended conditions as detailed
40 within Attachment 5 of the abstract package.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 c. Zoning Atlas Amendment—Conditional Zoning — Master Plan Development
45 Conditional Zoning District (MPD-CZ) Hart's Mill — Extension of Public Hearing
46 The Board considered opening the public hearing on a request to rezone a 112 acre
47 parcel of property within the Cheeks Township to Master Plan Development—Conditional
48 Zoning (MPD-CZ) district in accordance with the provisions of Section 2.9.2 of the Unified
49 Development Ordinance (hereafter `UDO'), and defer the hearing by adjourning it to November
50 5, 2015.
18
1 Michael Harvey said the Planning Board is reviewing more information about this, and in
2 order to obtain this information therefore they need to review the item until tomorrow evening.
3 He said as a result, the Board should reopen the Public Hearing, in order to adjourn until
4 November 5, 2015. He said this will allow the Planning Board to finalize its recommendations
5 and bring them back to the BOCC for a final decision.
6
7 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for the
8 Board to open the public hearing.
9
10 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
13 defer the hearing by adjourning it to November 5, 2015.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 6. Consent Agenda
18 . Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
19 Item n by Commissioner Price
20
21 . Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
22 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
23 approve the remaining items on the consent agenda.
24
25 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
26
27 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
28
29 n. Orange Public Transportation Proposed Fixed-Route Fare Structure
30 The Board considered adopting the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)-
31 recommended Orange Public Transportation (OPT) fixed-route fare structure.
32 Commissioner Price said she is concerned about the fare of$4 one way that must be
33 paid to get around town. She said many have limited incomes, and she asked if staff had
34 considered half price for the return trip.
35 Bret Martin, Orange County Transportation Planner, said the purpose for the higher fare
36 is to incentivize the use of the fixed stops location. He said if the use of deviation is not
37 incentivized then the route will completely turn into deviation, and it will no longer be a fixed
38 route. He said there is not incentive to use the fixed stop locations if the fare is the same for a
39 deviation. He said it costs more to provide deviation service than it does to provide fixed stop
40 service.
41 Commissioner Price said she was concerned about those who are unable to get to the
42 fixed stops, and would therefore have to pay $8 round trip. She asked again if a half price
43 return trip could be offered.
44 Bret Martin said it would not be a huge issue but it would be a deviation, and the
45 projections for the use of the deviated fixed routes is about half the boardings per venue hour
46 as would be expected for the regular fixed routes. He said there is some fear that if fixed stops
47 are not somehow incentivized then only the deviation service will be used, thus driving up costs.
48 Commissioner Price said she is trying to make this service as user friendly as possible.
19
1 Peter Murphy said it is $2 for people with disabilities, passengers over the age of 60, or
2 with Medicaid or Medicare cards. He said hopefully, this would cover some of the people about
3 whom Commissioner Price is concerned.
4 Commissioner Price said she had seen this information, but was more thinking of the 40
5 year old person who unemployed or underemployed.
6 Commissioner Dorosin asked if other County agencies, like Department of Social
7 Services (DSS) or the Social Justice Fund, could provide vouchers in order to keep the route as
8 is.
9 Commissioner Price said that would work.
10 Chair McKee asked if DSS has this type of program.
11 Bret Martin said the State gives about $35,000 annually for those in the Work First
12 Program. He said vouchers were considered, and he said this is doable as mentioned in the
13 abstract. He said bus passes could be given to DSS, who could distribute as appropriate.
14 Bonnie Hammersley said staff could work with DSS on this issue.
15 Commissioner Rich said how far off the route is the deviation.
16 Bret Martin said anywhere within the three zones. He said the County is divided into 3
17 zones: northeast, northwest and south. He said the fixed routes hit most populated areas the
18 County within 2 miles. He said it would deviate anywhere.
19 Commissioner Rich said there are many times she has had to walk up to '/2 mile to a
20 bus stop. She understands there are exceptions, but in general, she would like to encourage
21 people to ride a regular bus route.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said in considering the land banking for affordable housing, the
23 fixed transportation routes should be carefully considered.
24
25 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Rich to adopt
26 the Orange Unified Transportation Board (OUTBoard)-recommended Orange Public
27 Transportation (OPT) fixed-route fare structure and to incorporate the use of bus
28 passes/vouchers with a program coordinated with DSS and to report back to the Board with the
29 results.
30 Commissioner Rich asked if the $4 rate will remain while this additional information is
31 being researched.
32 Staff answered yes.
33
34 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
35
36 a. Minutes
37 The Board approved the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board for the following
38 meetings: May 12, 2015 BOCC Work Session; May 14, 2015 BOCC Budget Work Session;
39 May 19, 2015 BOCC Regular Meeting; May 21, 2015 BOCC Budget Public Hearing; May 26,
40 2015 BOCC QPH; May 28, 2015 Budget Public Hearing; June 2, 2015 BOCC Regular Meeting;
41 June 4, 2015 BOCC Budget Work Session; June 9, 2015 BOCC Budget Work Session; June
42 11, 2015 BOCC Budget Work Session; and June 16, 2015 BOCC Regular Meeting.
43 b. Motor Vehicle Property Tax Releases/Refunds
44 The Board adopted the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release motor vehicle
45 property tax values for twenty-five (25) taxpayers with a total of thirty-two (32) bills that will
46 result in a reduction of revenue in accordance with the NCGS. Financial impact year to date for
47 FY 2015-2016 is $9,455.77.
48 c. Property Tax Releases/Refunds
49 The Board adopted the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, to release property tax
50 values for nine (9) taxpayers with a total of nine (9) bills in accordance with NCGS 105-381.
20
1 Approval of this change will result in a net reduction in revenue of$53,731.93 to the County,
2 municipalities, and special districts. The Tax Assessor recognized that refunds could impact the
3 budget and accounted for these in the annual budget projections.
4 d. Applications for Property Tax Exemption/Exclusion
5 The Board approved the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, for eleven (11) untimely
6 applications for exemption/exclusion from ad valorem taxation for the 2015 tax year. The
7 reduction in the County's tax base associated with approval of the exemption application will
8 result in a reduction of FY 2015/2016 taxes due to the County, municipalities, and special
9 districts in the amount of$9,323.90.
10 e. Tax Collector's Annual Settlement for Fiscal Year 2014-15
11 The Board received the Tax Collector's annual settlement on current and delinquent taxes;
12 authorized the Chair to sign the resolution accepting it as reported for entry into the minutes;
13 and upon acceptance of the reports, approved and authorized the Chair to sign and issued the
14 Order to Collect to the Tax Collector for Fiscal Year 2015-2016.
15 f. Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget Amendment#1
16 The Board approved the budget and grant project ordinance amendments for fiscal year 2015-
17 16.
18 g. Application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds for Chapel Hill — Carrboro
19 City Schools (CHCCS) and Contingent Approval of Budget Amendment #1-A Related to
20 CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances
21 The Board approved the application for North Carolina Education Lottery Proceeds, authorized
22 the Chair to sign the application; and approved Budget Amendment#1-A receiving the Lottery
23 Proceeds and the amended CHCCS Capital Project Ordinances, contingent on NCDPI's
24 approval of the application.
25 h. Performance Agreement Between the Town of Chapel Hill and Visitors Bureau
26 The Board approved the performance agreement between the Town of Chapel Hill and the
27 Visitors Bureau, and authorized the Manager to sign the agreement on behalf of the County.
28 i. Marketing Communications Management Agreement Renewal with Clean Design
29 The Board approved a professional services agreement for tourism marketing and advertising
30 with Clean Design, and authorized the Chair to sign the proposed renewal agreement with
31 funding to be encumbered out of the 2015-2016 Visitors Bureau budget.
32 j. Bid Award —Cedar Grove Community Center Library Kiosk
33 The Board awarded a bid to MK Solutions in the amount of$179,540 for the purchase and
34 installation of the "LibDispenser" library services kiosk to be located at the Cedar Grove
35 Community Center.
36 k. Dedication of Right-of-Way and Permanent Water and Sewage Easement for Eubanks
37 Road Solid Waste Center Project
38 The Board approved a dedication of Right-of-Way and permanent utility easement for water to
39 service the expanded Eubanks Road Convenience Center and landfill improvements project as
40 previously presented, and authorize the Chair to sign on behalf of the Board following final
41 review of the County Attorney.
42 I. Bid Award — Front-End Loader Truck for Solid Waste
43 The Board awarded a bid to Carolina Environmental Systems, Inc. (CES) for the purchase of a
44 Front End Loader Truck for the Recycling Division of the Solid Waste Management Department
45 at a delivered cost of$275,850.92, declare Truck# 1585 as surplus after receipt of the new
46 truck, and authorize the Asset Management Services Director to affect the sale of this item
47 through GovDeals.
48 m. Approval of Revised Resolutions for the Orange County FY 2014-2015 HOME
49 Program Design and Orange County FY 2015-2016 HOME Program Design for Habitat for
50 Humanity Homeownership Assisted Projects
21
1 The Board: 1) approved a revision authorizing Habitat for Humanity to provide deferred
2 payment, zero interest second mortgages for nine (9) homes instead of ten (10) throughout
3 Orange County as requested in Habitat's application for HOME funding for the FY 2014-2015
4 HOME Program Design; 2) approved, for both the FY 2014-2015 HOME Program Design and
5 the FY 2015-2016 HOME Program Design, revisions for the use of HOME funds for the
6 purchase of Habitat for Humanity homes by households with incomes that initially meet the 65%
7 of Area Median Income (AMI) eligibility requirement, and subsequently have an increase in
8 income during the construction period and prior to closing as long as the increase in income of
9 the households do not exceed 80% of AMI as allowable under the HOME program. The
10 maximum income amount allowable by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
11 Development for HOME funded projects is 80% of AMI; 3) approved the attached markup
12 versions of the two September 2015 revised resolutions and authorized the Chair to sign clean
13 versions of the revised resolutions for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 HOME Program Designs.
14
15 7. Regular Agenda
16
17 a. Jail Alternatives Work Group Report
18 The Board considered receiving a Memorandum Regarding Organizational Placement of
19 Jail Alternative Programs, which was developed to analyze and recommend an organizational
20 structure for jail alternative programs operated by Orange County and authorize staff to
21 implement the recommendations.
22 Bonnie Hammersley said this was a budget change from the Manager's recommended
23 budget, and there was a request by the Board to work with stake holders and pursue options for
24 where these positions would be placed.
25 Travis Myren, Deputy County Manager, presented the following background,
26 PowerPoint slides, and information gleaned from discussions with stakeholders:
27
28 BACKGROUND: The FY 2015-16 Budget authorizes the County to hire three (3) County staff
29 to administer jail alternative programs. The recommended budget contemplated that the jail
30 alternative positions would be part of the Sheriff's Office. However, that recommendation
31 received scrutiny during budget deliberations, and the Board of Orange County Commissioners
32 asked for further consultation with stakeholders prior to making a final determination on
33 organizational placement.
34
35 Orange County
36 Organizational Placement of Jail Alternative Programs
37
38 Report Overview
39 • Program Descriptions
40 o Pretrial Services
41 o Drug Court
42 • Perspectives of Stakeholders
43 o Internalization
44 o Organizational Placement
45 • National Standards and Best Practices
46 • Recommendations
47
48 Recommendation #1
49 Internalize the Pretrial Services and Drug Court Programs under the direction of the
50 County Manager.
22
1 o Positions are authorized in the FY 15-16 Budget
2 o Review organizational placement decision over time as required by the Budget
3 Ordinance
4
5 Recommendation #2
6 Recruit and hire a Criminal Justice Resource Manager to lead the new division and to
7 hire authorized staff.
8 o Interdisciplinary team of stakeholders: judiciary, law enforcement, prosecution,
9 defense
10 o Criminal Justice Resource Manager will coordinate recruitment of the Coordinator
11 positions with input from stakeholders
12
13 Recommendation #3
14 Begin the procurement of appropriate technology resources for case management.
15 o Use County payroll and financial systems
16 o Document business processes and begin procurement process
17
18 Recommendation #4
19 Remodel County office space in the Courthouse for staff offices and client services.
20 o Proposed space includes a restroom, so cost is minimal.
21
22 Recommendation #5
23 Create an interdisciplinary advisory board to provide policy guidance, set priorities, and
24 establish performance goals.
25 o Jail Alternatives Work Group to review potential scope, composition, and structures
26
27 Recommendation #6
28 Develop performance measures to promote accountability and monitor performance.
29 o Survey will be designed to identify stakeholder goals and desired program outcomes
30 o Measures may be both quantitative and qualitative
31
32 Recommendation #7
33 Plan space in the new jail facility to allow for risk assessment, screening, and
34 intervention planning.
35 o Space should be secure but offer a sense of privacy
36
37 Next Steps
38 • Action by Board of Orange County Commissioners
39 o Formally receive the report
40 o Authorize staff to implement the recommendations
41 • Convene interview team for Criminal Justice Resource Manager
42 o Stakeholder Representatives
43 o Week of September 14
44 • Jail Alternatives Work Group
45 o Discuss scope and composition of an advisory board
46
47 The Memorandum Regarding Organizational Placement of Jail Alternative Programs is the
48 culmination of additional stakeholder outreach, consideration, and research.
49 The Memorandum contains the following key findings:
23
1 • The Pretrial Services and Drug Court Programs are currently contracted out to two different
2 vendors.
3 • The Programs represent a significant investment by the County in alternatives to
4 incarceration and are viewed as important tools to help reduce population pressure in the jail,
5 failures to appear in court, and recidivism.
6 • Supporters of the current Pretrial Services model endorse the independence of the program,
7 adherence to best practices, efficiency, and long standing relationships with treatment providers
8 and program participants.
9 • Stakeholders generally agree, however, that the programs would benefit from internalization.
10 An internalized model could improve stability and a sense of permanency, increase
11 accountability by focusing on day to day service delivery, foster greater collaboration with other
12 County services like mental health and employment, provide access to needed information
13 technology resources, and improve the functionality of office space.
14 • Stakeholders who have the responsibility of defending the accused generally oppose
15 organizationally aligning the Pretrial program with the Sheriff's Office. These stakeholders note
16 concerns about the perceived independence of the program and the treatment of information by
17 employees of the Sheriff's Office. These concerns may limit referrals and participation in the
18 program.
19 • Stakeholders expressed less concern about the organizational placement of the Drug
20 Court Program but recognize the need for collaboration.
21 • National standards and best practices for pretrial services do not preclude organizational
22 alignment with the Sheriff's Office, but they do stress the need for the Pretrial program to be
23 perceived as independent from the other actors in the criminal justice system. These standards
24 also note the importance of information technology in successful operations and encourage
25 oversight by an interdisciplinary advisory board.
26 • A comparative analysis of pretrial programs in North Carolina reveals that the most common
27 organizational structure is an internalized program reporting to the County Manager. This model
28 is more common among counties with a population of 100,000 or more.
29 • Best practices for drug court emphasize a non-adversarial approach to providing the service
30 and close collaboration among the decision makers and advocates working in the system.
31 Based on stakeholder input, consideration, and additional research, the Memorandum
32 recommends the following next steps:
33 • Internalize the Pretrial Services and Drug Court Programs under the direction of the County
34 Manager.
35 • Recruit and hire a Criminal Justice Resource Manager to lead the new division and hire
36 authorized staff.
37 • Begin procurement of appropriate information technology resources for case management.
38 • Remodel County office space in the courthouse for staff offices and client services.
39 • Create an interdisciplinary advisory board to provide policy guidance, set priorities, and
40 establish performance goals.
41 • Develop performance measures to promote accountability and monitor performance.
42 • Plan space in the new jail facility to allow for risk assessment, screening, and intervention
43 planning.
44 Chair McKee acknowledged the work done on this matter by Commissioners Pelissier
45 and Jacobs. He also thanked the Sheriff and his department for his cooperation.
46 Sheriff Blackwood praised Travis Myren for his prompt and thorough work on this
47 issue. He expressed full cooperation with all involved stakeholders.
48 Commissioner Pelissier said the Jail Alternatives Work Group also expressed thanks
49 for the process of this discussion, and looks forward to moving forward. She said the Jail
24
1 Alternatives group is equally committed to supporting people as they leave jail and reenter the
2 community.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said the group was very devoted and interested, and to him it
4 was gratifying to see a cross section of interests coming together to help develop a unique
5 vision. He said the group discussed its variation as it moves forward. He expressed thanks to
6 the Sheriff, his gracious flexibility, and willingness to focus on what is best for Orange County.
7 Chair McKee said he was glad that Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner Jacobs
8 mentioned the many stakeholders that were involved in this process.
9 Commissioner Rich asked if there are best practices elsewhere regarding the makeup
10 and charge of an advisory group.
11 Travis Myren said the Jail Alternatives Work Group asked for staff to come back with
12 this information.
13 Commissioner Burroughs said she liked the synthesis of the report, and commended
14 Travis Myren.
15 Commissioner Price asked for clarification if a new Criminal Justice Resource Manager
16 is being created, or if there is a similar position already in existence.
17 Travis Myren said the person who is currently contracted to operate the drug court is
18 Courtney Kennedy, but there has not been an overseeing manager but would now bring this
19 one and Pre-Trial Services under the County Manager's purview.
20 Commissioner Pelissier said Commissioner Jacobs, herself, Bonnie Hammersley and
21 Travis Myren will be visiting the Durham Criminal Justice Resource Center this month.
22 Commissioner Jacobs said in discussing this issue, it was found that there is another
23 group, working through the judiciary, which was meeting to discuss mental health issue that
24 could be represented in the advisory group.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Price seconded, by Commissioner Rich to accept
27 the recommendations contained in the Memorandum Regarding Organizational Placement of
28 Jail Alternative Programs and authorize staff to implement the recommendations.
29
30 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
31
32 8. Reports
33
34 a. Fairview Park— Parking Lot Project
35 The Board considered receiving the report and considered the planned parking lot
36 solution for Fairview Park. If desired, the Board may authorize staff to prepare plans, permit and
37 construction documents for the purpose of constructing this parking lot in the summer of 2016.
38 Accordingly, the Manager and staff will include needed additional funds for this project in the FY
39 2017-22 CIP and the FY 2016-17 County capital budget.
40 David Stancil, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation (DEAPR)
41 Director, reviewed the following background information:
42
43 BACKGROUND:
44 The County's Fairview Park opened in 2011, funded by a combination of 2001 voter-approved
45 bonds, a grant from the NC Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF), and payment-in-lieu
46 funds. Because of site limitations (the northern portion of the site is the former Town of
47 Hillsborough landfill, predating current-day landfill regulations), the park design and ultimate
48 construction was focused on the southern portion of the property. Park facilities include a
49 baseball/softball field, tennis courts, playground, picnic shelter with restrooms, basketball
25
1 courts, walking track, volleyball courts and trail connecting to the Town Police substation on
2 Rainey Avenue, and a parking lot.
3
4 The current parking lot was constructed as approved through the Town's Conditional Use
5 Permit approval process. The existing parking lot, which is located off Torain Street and adjoins
6 the picnic shelter, contains 44 spaces. Over the past four years of park operations, occasional
7 events at the shelter or ballfield have taxed this existing parking lot, with vehicles occasionally
8 parking along the street and in front of residents' homes. Phase II of the park was the
9 construction of a second, 68-space parking lot, which was not part of the Phase I construction.
10 This planned additional lot utilizes a new second entrance into the park from the east along
11 Orange County Public Works Drive. The existing drive would be extended through the Public
12 Works site, and wind its way up through a hilly wooded area to a site adjoining the existing
13 tennis courts.
14
15 During budget deliberations, the Board asked the Manager and staff about additional parking
16 needs at Fairview, and instructed that a recommended solution for additional parking be
17 brought back to the Board for review and direction after the summer break. A placeholder
18 amount of$100,000 was appropriated in the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) for the current fiscal
19 year, pending a more-complete recommendation.
20
21 Over the last three months, staff has looked at several potential parking options, including the
22 original master plan, variations on new parking areas, and short-term solutions previously
23 identified using the existing Town police substation parking lot and roadsides. This includes
24 sketches and designs with pricing prepared by the engineer who prepared the construction
25 drawings for Fairview Park, and the County's Landscape Architect. Several different possibilities
26 were examined, and discussed in meetings with Town and County staff and the Sheriff.
27
28 After considerable review and discussion, the Manager and staff recommend that the County
29 proceed with the original master plan parking lot option, extending Public Works Drive into the
30 park and building a lot adjacent to the tennis courts. While this option is more expensive than
31 other options, it has the substantial benefit of being located within the park adjoining existing
32 facilities, and minimizing some of the safety issues that other more-remote parking options
33 might create. It also brings the additional traffic coming from outside the community to the park
34 without increasing traffic on streets in the Fairview neighborhood. In talking with local groups
35 and the Town police, the predominant need for additional parking is for park patrons coming
36 from outside of the community.
37
38 If the Board agrees with this parking solution, the Manager and staff will incorporate the needed
39 funding for this parking lot in the upcoming CIP for FY 2016-17. Implementation of this (or any
40 of the) parking options will require additional survey work before construction drawings can be
41 prepared and submitted to the Town of Hillsborough for a Conditional Use Permit modification.
42 This permit and the work associated with the permit or construction will take several months,
43 which coincides with timing of additional funds that would be needed for the new fiscal year in
44 July 2016. Proceeding with this plan would enable the construction of the parking lot to be in
45 position to move straight to construction in the summer of 2016. Between now and July, the
46 Town also plans to pave the police substation parking lot, creating new parking spaces. Parking
47 along the east side of Rainey Avenue adjoining the park may also be used as overflow parking
48 until the new lot is built.
49
26
1 FINANCIAL IMPACT: As part of the FY 2015-16 budget approval, the Board appropriated
2 $100,000 for this project, pending a plan for the parking solution that is presented herein. If this
3 parking lot solution is desired, an additional $250,000 would be requested in the upcoming FY
4 2017-22 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) and FY 2016-17 budget to complete the project, with all
5 needed work and permits to be pursued and completed prior to July 1 to enable a quick move
6 to construction once funds are available.
7
8 Commissioner Rich asked if there are any concerns anticipated from Hillsborough.
9 David Stancil said there has been a meeting with the Town Planning Director, and he
10 does not anticipate any concerns.
11 Bonnie Hammersley said as this project is approved in the CIP up to $100,000 for this
12 year, staff will proceed, and this evening was just a report.
13
14 9. County Manager's Report
15 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed the work session below:
16
17 Projected September 10, 2015 Regular Work Session Items
18 • Additional Discussion Regarding November 2016 Bond Referendum
19 • Strategic Communications Plan Implementation
20 • Goal Setting
21 • Draft 2016 BOCC Meeting Calendar
22
23 Chair McKee said he has asked the Manager to invite the Bond Counsel to be in
24 attendance at this meeting.
25 Chair McKee asked if the Board would please review the draft calendar as well.
26
27 10. County Attorney's Report
28 John Roberts said there are a couple of reasons that the SUP hearings must proceed as
29 they do. He said recently court cases are requiring more specificity from decision-makers, and
30 also Orange County has one of the most complicated UDOs in the State. He commended
31 Michael Harvey for the work he does interpreting the UDO for the Board.
32
33 11. Appointments
34
35 a. Durham Technical Community College Board of Trustees
36 The Board considered making an appointment to the Durham Technical Community
37 College Board of Trustees. After a thorough review of applications submitted for the Orange
38 County seat on the Durham Technical Community College Board of Trustees, Commissioners
39 Jacobs and Price are recommending the appointment of Gerald Ponder.
40 Commissioner Price said applications were reviewed, and it was decided to nominate
41 Mr. Ponder.
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
44 appoint Gerald Ponder to a first full 4 year term (Position #2) as the BOCC appointed
45 representative with a term expiration as of 06/30/2019.
46
47 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
48 Commissioner Rich said she met with Commissioner Pelissier over the summer and
49 discussed the boards that are required to answer additional questions and the possibility of
50 adding Durham Tech to this listing.
27
1 Chair McKee said this had already been done.
2 Commissioner Pelissier said she did not realize that the additional questions were
3 already in place when she and Commissioner Rich spoke.
4
5 12. Board Comments
6 Commissioner Price said when the Board gets agreements and contracts from other
7 jurisdictions, she asked if the words ethnicity and color could be added in the section that
8 relates to the protective classes in these agreements.
9 Commissioner Jacobs thanked the staff for the report on the usage of pesticides on
10 County grounds and buildings. He said he would like to see this report referred to the
11 Commission for the Environment. He said some of the listed pesticides are suspected in the
12 decline of Monarch Butterflies and the honeybee, and he would like to see a bit more dialogue
13 on the matter
14 Commissioner Jacobs read a letter from the Orange County Parks and Recreation
15 Council (PARC) that was sent to Board, per the potential bond referendum:
16
17 Orange County Parks and Recreation Council
18
19 July 8, 2015
20 Earl McKee, Chair
21 Board of County Commissioners
22 PO Box 8181
23 Hillsborough, NC 27278
24
25 Dear Chair McKee:
26
27 The Orange County Parks and Recreation Council (PRC) unanimously recommends that any
28 bond referendum planned for 2016 include provisions for funding projects for multiple areas of
29 county services, and specifically Parks and Recreation. Our recommendation is based on the
30 following:
31 1. The recently adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan is largely meaningless without
32 funding, which in the past Orange County voters have been willing to approve through
33 bonds;
34 2. While funding for schools may be our primary current focus, the quality of life in Orange
35 County depends on a balanced portfolio of county services, which all need to be
36 considered in funding strategies.
37 3. We believe that a multi-target bond would have broader appeal, and therefore more
38 chance of voter approval, than a bond limited to a single issue. Orange County has a
39 significant retiree population who benefit from senior services; home-schoolers or
40 childless households who use parks and recreation facilities; and environmental needs
41 that concern all of us.
42 Please consider these factors in developing and approving a bond proposal.
43 Thank you,
44
45 Neal Bench, Chair
46
47 Cc: PRC; David Stancil, DEAPR Director
48 Commissioner Pelissier said she wanted to give the Board an update on transit in
49 Wake County. She said Wake County has been revising their transit plan, and expect to have
28
1 a final plan in December with a vote targeted for spring 2016. She said it is possible that Wake
2 County could add a half cent sales tax referendum on the 2016 ballot in their county.
3 Commissioner Pelissier said the draft environmental impact statement can be a
4 misleading term. She said this statement is not just about the environment, it is also about
5 people, cost, ridership, etc. She said it is an extremely larger report.
6 Commissioner Price said the Orange County Health Department received an award at
7 the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners (NCACC) conference. She asked if
8 there could be a public recognition of this award.
9 Staff said yes.
10 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a plan in place for the affordable housing land
11 banking program.
12 Bonnie Hammersley said she, staff and various departments are working on this issue
13 and strategies to address it, and will bring it to the Board soon.
14 Commissioner Burroughs said she had no comments.
15 Commissioner Rich said she was able to help resolve an incident, assisting someone
16 with a bill for ambulance usage. She called the Tax Office, where Felicia Williams helped her.
17 She said she wants the public to know that Orange County does have an assistance service to
18 help residents with ambulance bills through the tax office.
19 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a status update regarding an emergency shelter in
20 Orange County.
21 Chair McKee said a few weeks ago there were multiple rallies in Orange County,
22 especially in Hillsborough; and he commended the many agencies that monitored these
23 peaceful events for the safety of all. He said he wrote a letter to the editor commending the
24 agencies and the public for expressing their constitutional rights in a peaceful manner.
25 Chair McKee said there will be a Constitution Day event in September, and he has
26 asked Commissioner Price to speak at this event.
27 Commissioner Burroughs asked if there was an update about the United Way
28 reductions.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said this report would be given at the September 15th meeting.
30 Commissioner Burroughs said she had heard that there was once a 2% target of
31 County budget for non-profits, and she hoped that the County would move back towards that.
32 Commissioner Jacobs said it was 1%, and it was a standard.
33 Commissioner Jacobs said there is a memo from the Planning Department about rail
34 crossings, and the Department of Transportation (DOT) ignored many of the staff's concerns.
35 He requested Chair McKee to write a letter to Mike Mills, the DOT Board representative, and
36 Chuck Edwards asking them to take the County's concerns under consideration.
37 Chair McKee said he would work on this, and aim to get a letter out in the next few
38 days.
39 Commissioner Price said she met with the Housing Director, and would like for the
40 Board to look at the County's emergency repair program.
41
42 13. Information Items
43 • June 16, 2015 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
44 • Tax Collector's Report— Numerical Analysis
45 • Tax Collector's Report— Measure of Enforced Collections
46 • Tax Assessor's Report— Releases/Refunds under $100
47 • Pesticide Use on County Grounds and Buildings
48 • BOCC Follow Up List Item Regarding Internal Pedestrian Systems
49 • Orange County Staff Comments on the North Carolina Department of Transportation
50 Environmental Assessment (EA) for Proposed Private Crossing Closures
29
1
2 14. Closed Session
3 NONE
4
5 15. Adjournment
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin
7 to adjourn the meeting at 10:03 p.m.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11
12 Earl McKee, Chair
13
14 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
15