HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-20-2015 - 6a - Minutes 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 20, 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 8, 2015 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing
September 10, 2015 BOCC Work Session
September 15, 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 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 September 8, 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 September 8, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building,
11 in Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs,
14 Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy County Manager
18 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
19 appropriately below)
20 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Pete Hallenbeck and Planning Board
21 members Lisa Stuckey, Herman Staats, Paul Guthrie, Laura Nicholson, Andrea Rohrbacher,
22 Maxecine Mitchell, H.T. "Buddy" Hartley, James Lea, Tony Blake
23 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Lydia Wegman
24
25 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
26
27 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIRS
28 None
29
30 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
31 Chair Hallenbeck dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
32
33 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
34
35 1. Zoning Atlas Amendment—To review an application requesting the rezoning of an
36 approximately nine acre parcel of property located at 4915 Hillsborough Road within the
37 Eno Township from Economic Development Eno Lower Intensity (EDE-1), Economic
38 Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2), Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection
39 Overlay District, and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District to Economic
40 Development Eno Higher Intensity (EDE-2), Lower Eno Protected Watershed Protection
41 Overlay District, and Major Transportation Corridor (MTC) Overlay District.
42
43 Patrick Mallet, Current Planning, presented the following PowerPoint slides:
44
45 BACKGROUND
46 PIN: 0803-30-5174
47 Size of Parcel: 9.87 (7.7 acres rezoned)
2
1 Future Land Use Element Map: Economic Development—Transition; Resource
2 Protection
3 Growth Management System Designation: Urban
4 Existing Conditions: The property is partially developed as the Jacobs Glass
5 Company.
6 Access: The property has direct access US70E/Hillsborough Rd.
7
8 REQUEST:
9 Property is split zoned EDE-1/EDE-2.
10 7.7 acre EDE-1 portion was originally part of Duke Forest, which was sold to applicant
11 as surplus property.
12 Applicant is seeking to EDE-2 zoning on the entire tract to allow for an expansion of its
13 glass assembly business.
14
15 FUTURE LAND USE MAP:
16
17 STAFF ASSESSMENT:
18 The application is complete.
19 The property is of sufficient size.
20 Rezoning consistent with the Orange County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, Growth
21 Management System Map, and Eno Small Area Plan.
22 Eliminates split zoning on property.
23
24 RECOMMENDATION:
25 1. Receive the proposal to amend the Zoning Atlas.
26 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, Board of County Commissioners
27 (BOCC), and Planning Board comment on the proposed amendment.
28 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
29 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2015
30 BOCC regular meeting.
31 4. Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
32 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
33
34 Maxecine Mitchell arrived at 7.10 p.m.
35
36 Chad Abbot, Summit Design and Engineering, said he is here representing Mr. Jacobs,
37 who has operated a glass company on the property since 1986. He said Mr. Jacobs has
38 needed to expand his business for about 10 to 15 years. He said Mr. Jacobs is willing to
39 contribute to the Economic Development District. He added that Mr. Jacobs does need to
40 expand his business and will need to move if he cannot expand on the current property. He
41 said Mr. Jacobs would like to remain on the current property.
3
1 Chad Abbott said as the land was originally part of Duke Forest, it is understandable that
2 it was designated as a Resource Protection Area. He added that Duke Forest has seen fit to
3 sell the land as it is separated from the rest of the forest by railroad tracks.
4 He said the application and all required materials have been submitted and the staff has
5 found them in compliance with the Future Land Use Map.
6 Commissioner Price asked if the zoning is granted will the property borders protect the
7 neighbors to the east as well as residential areas to the south of the railroad.
8 Patrick Mallet said the Railroad Right of Way (ROW) is 250 feet and a good portion of
9 this property is part of the Duke Forest property. He said there is a 100-foot buffer along the
10 County lines.
11 Chad Abbott said the buffer is not associated with the resource protection area. He said
12 that the whole Economic Development District is required to have a 100-foot buffer around it.
13 Commissioner Rich asked if it is common to have an EDD-1 and EDD-2 within the same
14 property and if there is any precedent
15 Michael Harvey said it is not uncommon and there other areas of split zoning in the
16 County.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if property owners are encouraged not to split the zoning.
18 Michael Harvey said the County works with property owners to try and find solutions.
19 Commissioner Rich asked if the Planning Board had any comments. She said she
20 would rather not be reactionary.
21 Michael Harvey said the County has been working for almost a year to reach out to
22 owners of split-zoned properties to work out the best solutions. He said a joint amendment to
23 the Zoning Atlas Map is moving forward. He said there are also properties that are split zoned
24 commercial and residential.
25
26 Public Comment:
27 NONE
28
29 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
30 approve:
31
32 1. Referring the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
33 to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2015 BOCC regular
34 meeting; and
35 2. Adjourning the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
36 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
41 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO to revise the existing public hearing process
42 for Comprehensive Plan-, UDO-, and Zoning Atlas-related items/amendments.
43
44 Perdita Holtz presented the following background and PowerPoint slides:
45 The purpose of this text amendment is to consider revisions to the current public hearing
46 process for Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas
47 amendments. County staff and elected officials received comments during development of the
4
1 Comprehensive Plan (2008) and Unified Development Ordinance (2011) about the perceived
2 need to streamline and speed up decisions on applications.
3 This topic was discussed extensively in 2014 after being heard at the September 2014
4 quarterly public hearing. The public hearing for the amendments, as proposed in 2014, was
5 closed in November 2014 when it became apparent that the proposal would change significantly
6 enough to require another public hearing. The topic was recently discussed at the May 12,
7 2015 BOCC work session.
8 The Ordinance Review Committee (ORC), a function of the Planning Board, reviewed draft
9 language in July and August 2015. At the time, internal staff/attorney review was ongoing and
10 the materials to be presented at public hearing have been modified from the versions the ORC
11 reviewed.
12 The following revisions are being proposed:
13 • Planning Board review/recommendation would occur prior to the public hearing for both
14 legislative and quasi-judicial (Class A Special Use Permit) items. (The existing process
15 is for Planning Board review/recommendation to occur after the public hearing).
16
17 • Notification of the Planning Board meeting would be mailed/posted for items requiring
18 such notice (e.g., map amendments or development projects) and the public would be
19 able to address the Planning Board at its meeting. The proposed process would allow
20 for public notification and involvement earlier than the existing process.
21
22 No longer require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a quarterly
23 public hearing. Planning Board members would still be expected to attend the hearing
24 but a quorum of members would not be necessary in order for the hearing to be held.
25 This revision would mean that the quarterly public hearings would no longer be
26 considered joint BOCC/Planning Board hearings since, without a quorum requirement,
27 the Planning Board could not be considered an official board in attendance.
28
29 Revise the Planning Board Policies and Procedures to require that the Planning Board
30 Chair, or Vice-Chair in the Chair's absence, attend the quarterly public hearings and also
31 the BOCC meetings at which a decision is scheduled for items on which the Planning
32 Board has made a recommendation.
33
34 Allow Comprehensive Plan amendments to be heard at any quarterly public hearing
35 (QPH). Existing language that states "principal" Comprehensive Plan amendments are
36 "generally" considered only once per year at the quarterly public hearing in February is
37 proposed for deletion (Section 2.3.7). Additionally, language that classifies
38 Comprehensive Plan amendments into "principal" and "secondary" amendments
39 (Section 2.3.4) is proposed for deletion because it is relevant only in conjunction with
40 Section 2.3.7.
41
42 Legal advertisement of quasi-judicial hearing items: the Attorney's office has suggested
43 that Special Use Permit applications (both Class A and Class B) no longer be included in
44 legal advertisements since the general public does not have standing to participate in
45 quasi-judicial hearings. Language modifications in Sections 2.7.6 and 2.12.6 reflect this
46 suggestion.
47
5
1 Closure of public hearings: Modifications in Section 2.3.11, 2.7.9, and 2.8.9 would mean
2 that the BOCC would close the public hearing the night of the hearing. At that time, the
3 BOCC could defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date; make a decision; or, as a
4 procedural right not included in the text of the UDO, send an application back to the
5 Planning Board for further review. If the BOCC chooses to defer a decision to a later
6 meeting date, legislative items could be listed on the future BOCC agenda as "Regular
7 Agenda" items and additional public comment could be accepted. The existing
8 requirement for only written comments after the quarterly public hearing is proposed for
9 deletion.
10
11 In order to meet legal sufficiency text of the UDO, send an application back to the
12 Planning Board for further review. If the BOCC chooses to defer a decision to a later
13 meeting date, legislative items could be listed on the future BOCC agenda as "Regular
14 Agenda" items and additional public comment could be accepted. The existing
15 requirement for only written comments after the quarterly public hearing, is proposed for
16 deletion.
17
18 The BOCC may wish to consider adding an additional heading to its agendas: Quasi-
19 Judicial Hearings, along with a note explaining that only persons with legal standing can
20 participate in quasi-judicial hearings. Quasi-judicial items deferred for decision to a later
21 meeting date or for which the hearing was continued in order to receive additional
22 evidence would be listed on the BOCC agenda under this new heading.
23
24 As has been discussed in the past, the bases for some of the proposed revisions are as
25 follows:
26 1. Allow the public to make comments at the end of the process.
27 2. Do not require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a public hearing.
28 3. Streamline and speed up the review/decision process when possible.
29
30 The proposed revisions are expected to achieve these objectives. When the BOCC
31 discussed this topic at its May 12, 2015 work session members indicated that if the process
32 were revised it should be evaluated after one year to ensure it was working as intended and
33 satisfactorily. If the proposed revisions are adopted, an evaluation can be scheduled for a year
34 later. Any future revisions to the UDO would need to be brought forward to a future public
35 hearing.
36
37 Public Hearing Process
38 Quarterly Public Hearing
39 September 8, 2015
40 Item C.2
41
42 Purpose of Amendment
43 • To revise the current public hearing process for Comprehensive Plan, Unified
44 Development Ordinance, and Zoning Atlas Amendments
45 • Most recently discussed by BOCC at May 12, 2015 work session.
46 -Allow the public to make comments at the end of the legislative process.
47 -No longer require only written comments after the public hearing.
6
1 -Do not require a quorum of Planning Board members in order to hold a
2 quarterly public hearing.
3 -Streamline and speed up the review/decision process when possible.
4 -Have option to make a decision the night of the hearing on items with little
5 controversy.
6
7 If process is revised, evaluate after one year.
8 Proposal
9
10 Planning Board Review/Recommendation before the public hearing.
11 -Allows public participation earlier in the process.
12 -Would allow for decision on low controversy items the night of the hearing.
13 -Attorney's office has advised that having the Planning Board review/recommendation
14 prior to the public hearing provides for a greater level of legal sufficiency on quasi-
15 judicial items.
16
17 • No longer require a Planning Board quorum in order to hold a quarterly public hearing.
18 -Planning Board Chair (or Vice-Chair) would be required to attend QPHs and BOCC
19 meetings at which a decision is scheduled.
20
21 • Allow Comprehensive Plan amendments to be heard at any QPH.
22 • No longer include Special Use Permit applications in published legal advertisements
23 since the general public does not have standing to participate.
24 -Sign posting and mailed notices to adjacent property owners would still occur.
25
26 • Closure of public hearings (legislative items):
27 -BOCC would close the hearing the night of the hearing and do one of the following:
28 o Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date.
29 o Make a decision.
30 o Send an application back to the Planning Board (procedural right not
31 included in text of UDO)
32 -If deferred to later date or sent back to Planning Board, when item comes back to
33 BOCC, can be listed as a "Regular Agenda" item and additional public comment could
34 be accepted.
35
36 Closure of public hearings (quasi-judicial items):
37 -BOCC would close the hearing the night of the hearing and do one of the following:
38 o Defer a decision to a later BOCC meeting date.
39 o Make a decision.
40 -If additional evidence is requested by the BOCC the night of the hearing, the hearing
41 would be continued to a date/time certain so the additional evidence can be presented in
42 a quasi-judicial hearing.
43
44 Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee
45 • Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC) reviewed topic in July and August.
7
1 Staff Coordination
2 Extensive coordination between Planning and Attorney staff, particularly for the quasi-
3 judicial process, to ensure legal sufficiency.
4 Public Notification & JPA Review
5 • Completed in accordance with Section 2.8.7 of the UDO
6 -Newspaper legal ads for 2 successive weeks.
7 • Amendment package sent to JPA partners on August 7, 2015 since public hearing
8 process would apply to any requests related to the Rural Buffer.
9 -To date, no comments have been received.
10
11 Recommendation
12 • Receive the proposal to amend the Unified Development Ordinance and Planning Board
13 Policies and Procedures.
14 • Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comment on
15 the proposed amendments.
16 • Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
17 returned to the Board of County Commissioners in time for the November 5, 2015
18 BOCC regular meeting.
19 • Adjourn the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
20 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
21
22 Effective Date
23 If amending Ordinance is adopted, the effective date should be a specific date so
24 submittal deadline schedules can be published
25 -Staff recommends starting with the 2016 meeting calendar, so January 1, 2016 effective
26 date.
27
28 Commissioner Pelissier said she understood the requirement of only the Planning Board
29 Chair and Vice Chair to attend the QPH but she asked if the other Planning Board members find
30 these QPHs helpful to attend.
31 Peter Hallenbeck said for some board members it is helpful to attend. He said there is
32 some relief of attendance not being required as it has had impact in the past of the meeting
33 being able to occur when there has not been a quorum.
34 Commissioner Price said, as of now, that she disagreed with the Planning Board being
35 exempt from QPH. She said public comments made at the QPH could affect decisions moving
36 forward. She said, as a result, the Planning Board might be making uninformed decisions.
37 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Planning Board discussed this item and if there were
38 minutes from said discussion.
39 Perdita Holtz said the minutes were included as a link in the analysis section of the form
40 and that they are meeting notes from the Ordinance Review Committee.
41 Commissioner Jacobs said he recalled staff informing the BOCC that the County's
42 approval process was in line with other jurisdictions.
43 Perdita Holtz said yes.
44 Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Price.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said he is uncomfortable with the Planning Board not hearing
46 public comment and then making recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. He
8
1 said he understands the desire to make the process go more smoothly but the BOCC received
2 a letter today from the public that found these new amendments confusing.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said the notion that there would be no public notice for a quasi-
4 judicial hearing goes against the Board's social justice goals. He said people need to be
5 engaged or at least notified, and it is inconsistent with the values of Orange County.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said he trusts the County Manager but finds that one-year
7 reviews get lost in the shuffle over the years; they simply never happen.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said there are ways to deal with those wanting to come to a public
9 hearing and change the nomenclature of how hearings are noticed and what comments are
10 allowed.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said the public wants elected officials to know what they are
12 thinking. He said the County should be careful before adopting this amendment. He said
13 expedition is good but not at the expense of information gathering.
14 Commissioner Jacobs said he is still uncomfortable with some of these changes.
15 Commissioner Dorosin said he agreed and disagreed with Commissioner Price and
16 Commissioner Jacobs.
17 Commissioner Dorosin said if these amendments were in place tonight, the Board of
18 County Commissioners could approve these items. He said he finds this flexibility to be a good
19 thing.
20 Commissioner Dorosin said notification is important and the public should be able to
21 attend and listen, even if speaking is not permitted.
22 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that his initial concern was that currently the residents do
23 not have the last word. He said after the public speaks the item goes back to the Planning
24 Board. He said the desire is to engage residents earlier in the process, hopefully encouraging
25 more to go to the Planning Board meetings. He said then the public can come to the QPH and
26 will get to address the boards a second time. He said it would be ideal if the decision could then
27 be made.
28 Commissioner Dorosin said the BOCC can still retain the option to send it back to the
29 Planning Board, if need be, for legislative items.
30 Perdita Holtz agreed.
31 Commissioner Dorosin said he does not agree that the Planning Board is being cut out
32 of the process but that the public is being more engaged.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said the distinction between the legislative and quasi-judicial
34 proceedings is what is most confusing to the public. He said the staff should take the time to
35 explain this to the public through pamphlets, the Internet, or on the abstracts. He said staff
36 should build this into the process to make things more clear to the public.
37 Commissioner Dorosin said he would support the change in the structure. He said even
38 though it seems the process is being streamlined really the public is being engaged earlier in
39 the process.
40 Commissioner Rich agreed that after the public speak there is no a chance to dispute
41 what the Planning Board is recommending to the Board of County Commissioners. She said it
42 is important to engage the public throughout the process.
43 Commissioner Rich referred to page 3 and the closure of public hearings. She asked if
44 there is new evidence, should it not be referred back to Planning Board.
45 Perdita Holtz said that is for legislative items only, not quasi-judicial items.
46 Commissioner Rich said she just wanted to make sure that the BOCC, the Planning
47 Board, and the public all have the same information.
9
1 Perdita Holtz said this goal is achievable with legislative items but more difficult for
2 quasi-judicial items, since that process is more difficult. She said there is a different process for
3 these items. She said an applicant could not be required to divulge all of their evidence at the
4 Planning Board meeting.
5 Commissioner Rich asked if the applicant does not want to show all their cards to the
6 Planning Board, but only to the Board of County Commissioners, then could the item be referred
7 back to the Planning Board, or must the hearing be closed.
8 Perdita Holtz said according to the Attorney's Office she said the item should not be
9 referred back to the Planning Board. She said there is better legal sufficiency if the BOCC
10 handles the item after the quasi-judicial hearing.
11 Commissioner Rich asked if the Board of County Commissioners got new information
12 the Planning Board might not have the opportunity to discuss it.
13 Perdita Holtz said yes, that is possible with quasi-judicial items.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if there was someone responsible for the evening's agenda.
15 Perdita Holtz said she and other staff compiled it.
16 Commissioner Rich complimented the way the agenda was created and would love for
17 them to be created similarly going forward.
18 Commissioner Price asked if would be possible to expand the notification area in rural
19 areas to 1000 feet as opposed to 500 feet.
20 James Bryan said it is better to have one standard applicable to everyone.
21 Commissioner Price said in rural areas there would not be many people within 500 feet.
22 She asked if this could be reviewed to reach an alternate solution.
23 Perdita Holtz said the County has a growth management system map which designates
24 urban and rural areas of the County. She said it is possible that the map could be used as a
25 guideline for notification especially with legislative items.
26 Commissioner Price said she is speaking of legislative items only.
27 Commissioner Price said she would like the process streamlined. She asked if the
28 Planning Board was at the QPH and there was more public comment, but the item was still
29 ready to proceed, could the Board of County Commissioners as well as Planning Board vote
30 right then for legislative items.
31 Perdita Holtz said yes for legislative items.
32 James Bryan said for legislative items the Board of County Commissioners could decide
33 the night of the QPH or refer back to Planning Board.
34 Commissioner Price said if it was an easy item could the Board of County
35 Commissioners refer it to the Planning Board in the room, and have the Planning Board decide
36 right then rather than wait two months for them to come back with an answer.
37 James Bryan said this was a novel idea. He said it could be procedurally awkward. He
38 said the Board of County Commissioners could recess and then poll the Planning Board.
39 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Planning Board members could speak as a part of
40 the QPH.
41 James Bryan said there could be a straw poll which is not binding.
42 Commissioner Price said this change could be a way to move the process along, while
43 still giving all involved the chance to hear all information before making a decision.
44 Commissioner Pelissier stressed the need to distinguish between which process is being
45 discussed: legislative versus quasi-judicial. She said she could only see Commissioner Price's
46 suggestion working with a non-controversial item.
47 Commissioner Pelissier said her concern now is deciding whether to have just the
48 Planning Board Chair and Vice Chair present or to require a full quorum since it has been such
10
1 a problem over the years. She said there is not a problem with Planning Board members
2 having access to information since these meetings are web streamed and she would assume
3 that Board members would take their positions seriously and review the meeting if they did not
4 attend. She said a quorum should not be required.
5 Commissioner Pelissier said some of the comments that were written today in a letter to
6 the Board of County Commissioners (see below) were confusing. She said there should be a
7 flow chart to separate the two processes: quasi-judicial versus legislative. She said it should be
8 reiterated that public comment is not being eliminated in the quasi-judicial items, as public
9 comment was never allowed in these items.
10
11 September 8, 2015
12
13 To the Orange County Commissioners:
14
15 1 am writing to urge you not to approve the UDO text amendments proposed in agenda item #2
16 at tonight's Quarterly Meeting.
17
18 For the Orange County Citizens, opportunities to receive notice and raise questions
19 about Special Use Permit applications are limited. Please do not narrow these limited
20 opportunities further by amending the current SUP language, timelines and flow chart in the
21 UDO. The existing UDO requires advertising of SUP hearings in newspapers, a predictable
22 schedule of hearings at quarterly meetings, and a timeline to allow County residents to gather
23 resources and information, hire legal representation, and prepare for SUP hearings.
24
25 Tonight's proposal to revise the UDO in order to "streamline and speed up the
26 review/decision process" is hard to follow, and it is unclear how citizens may participate
27 at all in the SUP process. The faster, streamlined steps proposed tonight would significantly
28 reduce public participation of surrounding communities, and would benefit applicants at the
29 expense of surrounding property owners.
30
31 The proposed changes would further curtail public participation in multiple ways:
32 • Shortening written notice to adjacent property owners from 15 to 10 days
33 • Eliminating advertising and public notice (see footnote 22 below)
34 • Eliminating joint BOCC and Planning Board quarterly public hearing for Class A SUP
35 applications, a forum which currently allows public comments and requires a quorum of
36 Planning Board members
37 • Eliminating the option for interested parties to comment on SUP applications (see
38 footnote 21 below)
39 • Requiring the Planning Board to make a recommendation without first receiving
40 comments from the public.
41
42 The County's Special Use Permitting process benefits SUP applicants who have already
43 gathered the financial means to pursue a project, while presenting obstacles for County
44 residents without financial resources to hire an attorney in order to protect surrounding
45 properties.
46
11
1 In addition to financial obstacles, rural communities in particular are hindered by
2 notification limits in time to make a difference in outcomes affecting their communities and
3 property.
4
5 Challenges limiting citizens' ability to oppose SUP project applications:
6 • Cost of representation —The cost of hiring a lawyer precludes many citizens from raising
7 valid concerns at a public hearing. At quasi-judicial hearings in which County lawyers
8 represent boards, County staff, and applicants with financial interest, this is a great
9 disadvantage for citizens.
10 • Notification limit—The 500-foot County notification limit does not accurately reflect the
11 wider scope of affected properties in rural zones with expanses of farms, woodlands,
12 and waterways. Whether the project is an airport, kennel, shooting range or special
13 event center, its impact of safety, light, noise, traffic and property values extend well
14 beyond a tenth of a mile.
15 500 feet does not allow neighbors who would experience impacts to be notifies or have
16 standing to speak at a hearing. Neighbors more than 500 feet from an SUP applicant
17 are currently not notified or given standing to speak at public hearings about SUP
18 proposals affecting their properties.
19
20 Please do not approve the proposed revisions of the UDO. Instead, I urge you to clarify and
21 expand the ways in which county residents may share concerns with County boards making
22 critical decisions about our communities.
23
24 Thank you,
25
26 Laura Streitfeld
27
28
29 Proposed text amendments in agenda item #2:
30 (B) The Planning Director shall give Pnotice of the date, time and place of the
31 public hearing to be held to receive ^^ ts, evidence in the form of 21 testimony and exhibits
32 pertaining to the application for a Special Use.
33
34 (C) S-Hinh Petino shall be p blic•hed- 0A a Pow6papeF Of general nirn'"-;;tm"r, in (lraRge
35
36 ,
37 22
38
39 21 The Staff Attorney has suggested this language modification since SUP applications are
40 quasi-judicial in nature and require testimony rather than comments.
41
42 22 The Staff Attorney has suggested that published newspaper advertisements for quarterly
43 public hearings not include SUP applications since the general public does not have standing in
44 such matters and cannot participate. (State Statutes require mailed and posted notice but do not
45 require legal ads for SUP applications). As shown in the remainder of this section, a notice
46 would be posted on the affected parcel and adjoining property owners would receive mailed
47 notification of the hearing date (in addition to mailed and posted notice of the Neighborhood
48 Information Meeting and Planning Board meeting).
12
1
2 Commissioner Jacobs said he has often asked for a primer to be placed on the planning
3 website explaining this confusing process, and it has not been done. He asked if the other
4 Commissioners agreed with him, and the majority of the Board did so.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said he tried to read the Ordinance Review Committee minutes
6 but the link is broken.
7 Commissioner Jacobs said the new process makes it meaningless to have a Planning
8 Board caucus, for non-controversial items. He said the flip side is that if one or two
9 Commissioners have reservations about an issue, it can be referred back to the Planning Board.
10 Commissioner Jacobs said the question of distances in rural area has come up before in
11 the past. He said rural area impacts are different than urban and suburban impact.
12 Commissioner Jacobs asked if other commissioners agreed with him that staff should
13 look at different distances for rural and urban notifications, as long as it is legal.
14 Commissioner Burroughs said people expect to see a process run through the mill, and
15 the County's process is counterintuitive. She said this process extends the amount of notice for
16 neighborhood information meetings, allows the public to speak at Planning Board and Board of
17 County Commissioners' meetings. She asked if new information is brought forth at a quasi-
18 judicial hearing, could the public send in written comments afterwards.
19 Perdita Holtz said no written comments would be permitted.
20 James Bryan said that is a statutory requirement.
21 Commissioner Burroughs said she supports these new amendments and she also said
22 notice could be put in the paper for the public to attend to the meeting even though they cannot
23 speak. She said if notice needs to be further for rural areas, and it can be legally done, she
24 would be supportive.
25 Commissioner Rich said she does not want the Planning Board to feel unheard and she
26 does not want the Planning Board to be cut out at any point. She said if there is new
27 information the item should go back for the Planning Board's review and opinion.
28 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not comfortable with the "non-controversial and
29 controversial" labels. He is not sure these definitions could be agreed upon.
30 Peter Hallenbeck reviewed notes from the Planning Board:
31 • Attendance at QPH - Planning Board members should be expected to attend the QPH.
32 The Board of Commissioners should be aware of the attendance of the Planning Board
33 members at the QPH, and if several are missed the BOCC should be able to excuse the
34 person from the Planning Board.
35 • The public does not like to show up to Planning Board meetings as much as Board of
36 County Commissioners meetings and he said it is assumed that this is because the
37 Planning Board does not make decisions. It is hoped that the public can be educated
38 that the minutes of the Planning Board meetings are given to the BOCC, and public input
39 is valuable.
40 • Neighborhood information meetings — it is new and it is evolving and the Planning Board
41 feels that the information the public gets should be about the process.
42 • Put QR codes on signs in the neighborhoods.
43 • 1000 feet notification in the rural areas can be worked with staff and an agreement can
44 be reached. There will be different rules for the two processes.
45 • Put time ranges between the blocks on the flow charts that lay out the processes. The
46 flow makes sense but time will be very informative.
47
13
1 Paul Guthrie said if disingenuous information is received in a quasi-judicial process, how
2 does one refute this information without re-examination.
3 He suggested that attendance at QPH, and other meetings, be studied. He said the only
4 thing the members can be excused from a meeting for is death, sickness, or some other similar
5 reason. He said Planning Board members are citizen volunteers with their own lives, who are
6 trying to be helpful. He said if too many restrictions are placed on the members volunteers may
7 be lost and new volunteers may not be as good.
8 Tony Blake said the 500 feet limit is not reasonable for rural areas, and encouraged the
9 BOCC to review this limit. He said he had to question the quasi-judicial process, and ex parte
10 communication. He said Statute 168-388 mentions ex parte communication once, saying that
11 "undisclosed ex parte communication" cannot be received. He asked if disclosed ex parte
12 communication is allowed, and asked if there is a point at which ex parte communication begins.
13 He asked if it begins when the application is made, or if it is after the QPH. He said it is
14 imperative for them to be able to talk to people in their community.
15 Tony Blake said the genesis about attendance of Planning Board members is that it was
16 never reiterated to them, as new volunteers, that attendance was expected. He said if this was
17 clearly explained, he expects attendance would not be a problem.
18 Tony Blake said the word "quasi" means the administrative agencies are not held to the
19 same rules as courts, unless it is spelled out in the statute. He said he does not see this spelled
20 out in the statute, and thus feels there is a lot of room for interpretation.
21 Andrea Rohrbacher said the attendance at the QPH is eroding is part due to some of the
22 late night meetings. She said she does not want the attendance requirements to be so
23 restrictive that turnover becomes a problem on the Planning Board. She said there is a large
24 learning curve on this board, and turnover would increase burdens on the staff that orient
25 Planning Board members.
26 Laura Nicholson said she believed that if the need for a quorum were clearly explained
27 in the beginning, this would help greatly with attendance. She said she supports the increased
28 notification in rural areas.
29 Maxecine Mitchell said the processes are confusing. She said she does not mind
30 coming to the QPH, but she does not want to be the one who holds up a meeting.
31 Pete Hallenbeck said the Planning Board members are encouraged to go to
32 neighborhood meetings. He said clear guidelines are needed regarding ex parte
33 communication, as it pertains to the quasi-judicial process.
34 Commissioner Dorosin said he appreciated all of the comments. He said ex parte
35 communication could be shared. He said that what matters is that the decision is made on
36 evidence heard in the hearing. He said guidelines would be a good idea.
37 Commissioner Rich thanked the Planning Board for their comments. She asked if there
38 are set rules for quasi-judicial processes, or do they change.
39 James Bryan said every Special Use Permit (SUP) will be quasi-judicial, and he said
40 there are pre-set standards. He said the Board is taking standards and applying facts to those
41 standards. He said within quasi-judicial there is more that is known than unknown.
42 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a definition of an expert witness.
43 James Bryan said generally it is some specialized knowledge in a particular field. He
44 said the statute spells out that for land values there must be an appraiser. He said the
45 applicant is represented by an attorney who might say, "this is an incompetent witness". He
46 said if there was a case in criminal court, an expert would be greatly vetted, but in quasi-judicial
47 hearings an expert is not so greatly investigated.
14
1 Commissioner Jacobs said that the quorum of the Planning Board is only required for a
2 meeting to start.
3 James Bryan disagreed and said a quorum is required for the duration of the meeting.
4 Commissioner Jacobs said he has never heard this information before. He said there
5 should be clarification given to all. He added that if Planning Board attendance is going to be
6 required at the QPH, this should be clearly stated in the Planning Board application, and added
7 to their orientation.
8 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Commissioner Dorosin could clarify his concerns
9 regarding the proposed procedural changes.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said he is in favor of the BOCC voting at the QPH when there is
11 consensus from the Planning Board, and even when there is not consensus.
12 Commissioner Jacobs said he thought Commissioner Dorosin was arguing against that.
13 Commissioner Dorosin said he is trying to avoid the back door option of sending it back
14 to the Planning Board. He said if four Commissioners want to pass it at the QPH, the Board
15 should vote then whether the item is controversial or non-controversial.
16 Commissioner Price said she would like to see a forward moving process and if all are in
17 the same room let the vote move the process onward.
18 Planning Board Member Lisa Stuckey said if an item gets to the QPH, that it should not
19 be kicked back to the Planning Board unless it was a major and unexpected exception.
20 Chair McKee said he can support removing the requirement that the Planning Board
21 members attend the joint meetings, but highly encouraged the Planning Board to attend.
22 Chair McKee said the BOCC has never removed anyone from the Planning Board
23 because of unexcused absences.
24 Chair McKee said these text amendments do not need to make these processes any
25 more confusing than they already are.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
28 approve:
29
30 1. Referring the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
31 returned to the BOCC in time for the November 5, 2015 BOCC regular meeting.
32 Increase noticing of distance, and reinstating paper notification and language to be clear and
33 who is able to testify, and quorum recommendations.
34
35 2. Adjourning the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
36 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
37
38 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
39
40
41 3. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
42 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding recreational land uses, including
43 shooting ranges.
44
45 Michael Harvey, Planner III, reviewed the following Planning Board Ordinance
46 Committee Notes:
47
48 July 1, 2015— Planning Board Ordinance Review Committee (ORC)
15
1 STAFF COMMENT. the ORC reviewed this item at its July 1, 2015 meeting where the
2 following comments/questions were made:
3 Could a resident, on his own property, sponsor a club in his name and finance
4 play on the field under this proposal?
5 STAFF COMMENT. As the Ordinance is currently written the property owner would
6 have to get a special use permit. The reason being the field is intended to serve the
7 needs of the general public, even if they are members of a club or other similar
8 organization, with respect to providing the use of a recreational facility.
9 • So I can't develop a putting green on my property?
10 STAFF COMMENT. You can have a recreational facility on your property and use it for
11 recreational purposes. This would include a putting green. From my standpoint the
12 problem occurs when you open the recreational amenity up for public use/access.
13 When this occurs you change the nature of the use of property and, I believe, it becomes
14 more than a simple accessory use to your residence. It becomes a recreational facility
15 used to satisfy the needs of the general public.
16 Could a farmer donate land to a non-profit organization to allow for the
17 development of a recreational facility?
18 STAFF COMMENT. Yes but they would have to obtain a Class B Special Use Permit for
19 the use. This is the current requirement and we are not recommending a change to the
20 existing process.
21 Is the intent with this regulation to control the development of gun ranges
22 specifically?
23 STAFF COMMENT. We are adopting regulations and development standards
24 associated with them but the proposed amendment seeks to do more than just establish
25 regulations on public or private gun ranges.
26 Could a local homeowners association develop a recreational land use on HOA
27 owned property for local residents to take advantage of?
28 STAFF COMMENT. Yes. This text amendment will not preclude that. The
29 homeowners association would, however, have to amend the previously approved
30 subdivision final plat to incorporate the new recreation amenity in accordance with the
31 UDO.
32 • Will this proposed amendment impact County parks?
33 STAFF COMMENT. No.
34 Staff and the County Attorney's office have determined existing definitions and
35 classification methodology for recreation land uses (i.e. relying on the profit/non-profit status of
36 said operation) is inappropriate and inconsistent with acceptable legal practice. The current
37 methodology has concerned staff for some time and has even complicated recent enforcement
16
1 efforts relating to the discharge of firearms on private property and addressing the purported
2 establishment of an outdoor recreational field off of Old Greensboro Highway. Staff is proposing
3 to overhaul our current regulations by:
4
5 a. Establishing a new definition for a recreational land use with no reference to its tax status;
6 b. Reviewing the types of recreational land uses permitted in each zoning district and
7 suggesting revisions to ensure consistency;
8 c. Developing new standards governing the development of recreational land uses for both
9 private and commercial purposes; and
10 d. Developing standards governing the discharge of firearms from both a business and personal
11 enjoyment standpoint.
12
13 Michael Harvey said with that frame of reference, staff began re-tooling the ordinance to
14 draw distinction between personal and commercial recreational activities on one's property. He
15 said staff has been locked in an enforcement effort over the purported operation of a
16 commercial cricket field. He said it is hoped that this proposal will address mounting concerns.
17 Michael Harvey said part of the reason for this proposal is to address two long-standing
18 enforcement issues:
19 1. Discharge of firearms, from a land use standpoint.
20 2. A longstanding issue of concerns and complaints, regarding the operation of what could best
21 be construed as motor cross facilities.
22 Michael Harvey said a new definition of recreational facilities is being proposed. He
23 referred to page 91. He said distinguishing between personal and commercial uses is the
24 purpose of the amendment.
25 Michael Harvey referred to page 80-81 and said linguistic changes will refer to facilities
26 simply as recreation facilities. He said the words non-profit and profit are being removed.
27 Michael Harvey said it is still being recommended that these facilities be processed in
28 the residential areas through a Class B Special Use Permit (SUP) process, being reviewed and
29 acted upon by the Board of Adjustment. He said it is also recommended that there still be
30 permitted uses in several commercial districts, where they are currently listed. Michael Harvey
31 said in Economic Development Districts, it is recommended that recreational facilities be
32 considered permitted uses in the high intensity districts. He said the rational for this is that
33 recreational amenities are already allowed in many of these districts, and it is not believed that
34 further specification is needed.
35 Michael Harvey referred to page 85 and said language is being added to formalize a
36 County Planning Department interpretation that has existed since before his tenure. He said
37 this states that recreational land uses developed on residentially zoned property (i.e. pool, pool
38 deck, tennis court, basketball court, etc.) are accessory uses, thus needing to meet all the
39 applicable set back standards. He said the typical residential set back is a 40-foot front, 20-foot
40 side, and 20-foot rear. He said language is being added here to formalize this interpretation.
41 Michael Harvey referred to page 86 that established standards for recreational uses as
42 accessory uses.
43
44 Recreational Uses as Accessory Uses5
45 (A) General Standards
46 (1) Accessory recreational uses shall not be open to the public or be designed to
47 serve as a recreation amenity for other lots.6
48 (2) Amenities, equipment, and/or facilities intended for spectators such as bleachers
17
1 or public address systems shall not be permitted.'
2 (3) Outdoor sports field lighting, as detailed within Section 6.11, shall be prohibited.
3
4 5There have been issues in the past with property owners allowing for the use of recreation
5 amenities on their property to serve others. To address this issue staff is recommending the
6 imposition of various standards to ensure this use does not become some form of commercial
7 operation.
8 6 Staff is not trying to say a property owner cannot have friends over who use a pool or
9 basketball court. What we are attempting to avoid is the de-facto expansion of an accessory use
10 on a parcel property to serve other lots recreational needs. Please note this will not prohibit
11 subdivision developers from establishing a recreational amenity for their projects. That is
12 addressed in Section 7.11 of the UDO.
13 ' Staff has received concerns from various property owners over the years with respect to a
14 private landowner's ability to erect amenities, primary athletic field lights, to expand the use of
15 their accessory recreation use. Staff is recommending language that would prohibit the
16 installation/use of equipment allowing for the expanded use of a recreation amenity beyond
17 what is considered customary for a residential setting.
18 8 This would prohibit the erection of sports field lights for accessory recreational land uses.
19
20 Commissioner Price asked if this applied to Home Owner's Associations.
21 Michael Harvey said no, it does not.
22 Commissioner Price asked if there was an example where this would apply.
23 Michael Harvey said if someone wanted to put a pool or basketball court on their
24 property, they would be able to do so, but could not put outside lighting in a residential area.
25 Michael Harvey said the next issue pertains to the discharge of firearms on private
26 property. He said the following standards have been established:
27
28 B. Specific Standards
29 (1) Shooting activities
30 (a) All shooting or targeting activities shall be designed or oriented to keep projectiles on the
31 property.
32 (b) A projectile-proof backstop consisting of concrete, steel, earth or any combination thereof, a
33 minimum 15 feet in height and 30 feet in depth shall be required behind all target and/or
34 shooting areas. All shooting activities shall be directed into this protective backstop.
35 (c) Shooting activities and required backstop shall be located a minimum of 300 feet from all
36 property lines, rights-of-way, or access easements and 1,000 feet from occupied dwelling units
37 external to the property.
38 (d) Warning signs indicating shooting activities are occurring on the property shall be posted at
39 one hundred-foot intervals along the perimeter of the property.
40 (e) A Type B land use buffer, as detailed within Section 6.8, shall be required around the
41 perimeter of the portion of property where shooting activities occurs.
42 (f) The use of exploding shells, targets, or other similar materials shall be prohibited. This will
43 preclude hunting activities.
44 (g) Nothing within Section 5.7.1 shall be construed as limiting or otherwise
45 restricting hunting activities or the use of fireworks.
46
47 9 There have been issued associated with the discharge of firearms on private property,
48 focusing on noise and public safety issues. Staff is attempting to establish reasonable land use
18
1 regulations to address safety concerns by requiring discharged items remain on the subject
2 parcel and for those areas where a gun is discharged to be set distances from a property line
3 and occupied dwelling units.
4 10 This will require either the erection of a land use buffer, or preservation of existing vegetation,
5 around the area of the property where shooting activities are occurring.
6 Chair McKee referred to the section regarding shooting ranges versus shooting
7 activities, and he noted differences in the backstop heights and set backs from adjacent
8 properties.
9 Michael Harvey said the reason for the distinction is that shooting activities are meant to
10 be in a residential setting. He said if the public is going to be present, then the nature of the use
11 becomes commercial, and the setback requirements et al will change.
12 Chair McKee said emails about this issue do not distinguish between a commercial
13 range, and a residential back yard target. He said the concern is about the safety, and he is not
14 so sure that there should be the same requirements for this issue.
15 Michael Harvey said the intent is to distinguish back yard recreational enjoyment versus
16 a paid, commercial, open-to-the-public range.
17 Chair McKee said he would question how it would be justified to have two people over to
18 target shoot on large open property with no neighbors, and not allow that same right to
19 someone that lives on two acres in another township.
20 Michael Harvey said there would be properties that will be unable to conform to
21 whatever standard is imposed. He said this is regrettable. He said in more densely populated
22 areas with smaller lots, there would need to be acceptable limitations.
23 Chair McKee said the acceptable limitations should be the higher.
24 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the requirement that public shooting ranges can only
25 operate between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. She asked if there could be a similar limit placed on
26 private landowners. She said the noise of a group of friends target shooting on the weekend is
27 the same as that of a commercial range.
28 Michael Harvey said firearms are exempt within the Orange County Noise Ordinance.
29 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Michael Harvey for trying to revise this ordinance. He
30 suggested inviting the many residents who have complained repeatedly about the shooting
31 ranges to a Planning Board meeting.
32 Commissioner Jacobs noted the standards for commercial shooting ranges of 600 feet
33 from any property line, and asked if there is a similar standard for a personal shooting target.
34 Michael Harvey said 300 feet.
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is then a minimal lot size that would be required in
36 order to accommodate this standard.
37 Michael Harvey said he did not know, but would find this out.
38 Commissioner Jacobs said it might also be useful including slope on these ranges.
39 Michael Harvey said when trying to create uniform standards, it is difficult to allow
40 flexibility regarding slope of property as there could end up being many more problems. He said
41 on-site land differences cannot be taken into account, as it results in people being treated
42 differently.
43 Paul Guthrie said in his neighborhood there are both kinds of ranges, and the Sheriff's
44 office does come out to make sure that weapons are being discharged safely. He also said
45 other states allow the shooting of explosive targets.
46 Michael Harvey said this text amendment prohibits exploding targets, and does not
47 preempt the Sheriff's office from their duty of insuring safety.
19
1 Commissioner Jacobs said the way the Sheriff's measure decibels has never stopped
2 anyone from shooting, as the noise is measured from the property line and typically dissipates
3 enough by that point. He said he does agree with the possibility of reasonable hours being
4 enforced.
5 Commissioner Price asked if the warning signs will have a uniform look, and if the
6 Planning Board deems placing them at 100-foot intervals sufficient.
7 Michael Harvey said he did not recall the distance being a concern, and that the signs
8 are simply to serve as a warning of shooting activity.
9 Commissioner Price said she is concerned as to whether the time of day, or the decibels
10 of the noise, is a more effective enforcement. She said the lay of land would have an impact on
11 this.
12 Michael Harvey said if the Planning Board and the BOCC would like to see a reasonable
13 time limit he could pursue it, but he would prefer the issue of decibel levels be discussed directly
14 with the Sheriff.
15 Lisa Stuckey asked if it required that the backstops be maintained, in order to avoid
16 degrading.
17 Michael Harvey said the ordinance does not specify this, but if a permit is issued
18 indicating that the backstop will be maintained, it must be complied with.
19 Chair McKee asked what would happen if a member of the public purchased a new rifle
20 and went on his 10 acres of land to practice shooting, without a backstop or any type of buffer.
21 Michael Harvey said if someone complains to him, he would meet with the landowner
22 where the shooting occurred, and try to enforce this issue. He said it is a valid concern, and this
23 is an opportunity to educate the public on what the ordinance requires. He said ordinances are
24 living and breathing documents that can be changed.
25 Chair McKee said he appreciated this effort on the shooting issue. He said he hears
26 about repetitive shooting in the same areas over and over again.
27 Maxecine Mitchell asked questions and clarifications on issues surrounding residential
28 versus commercial recreational areas and Michael Harvey responded.
29 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a limit on the number of people that may shoot at a
30 residential property at the same time.
31 Michael Harvey said there is no limit built into this ordinance to say how many people
32 can be at a place and discharging a firearm.
33 Michael Harvey said a distinction has been established between the recreational
34 accessory uses versus a non-residential land use activity. He said the Planning Board had a lot
35 of concerns at the ORC regarding his draft definition of a recreational facility. He said he met
36 with the Attorney's Office, and a workable definition, that can be enforced, was created.
37 Commissioner Price referred to the top of page 90, and said she had concerns about the
38 required frontage. She said there are properties in the County that are accessed by an
39 easement.
40 Michael Harvey said the goal of this provision is to stipulate that if one is going to have a
41 heightened level of traffic to access, what amounts to a commercial facility, then it ought to be
42 done through a public road rather than a private road of a subdivision. He said if there is an
43 easement, access across it should be properly negotiated.
44 Commissioner Jacobs suggested amending the list of general standards for evaluation
45 for recreational facilities from listing a variety of courts to using a global statement that covers
46 multiple courts.
47 Commissioner Price suggested further explanation be given to "turkey shoots, and other
48 similar activities".
20
1 Michael Harvey referred to page 89 where it says there is "nothing in this section shall
2 be construed as prohibiting the holding of turkey shoots or other similar activities as a fundraiser
3 or community event." He said the idea is a shooting event or fundraiser that can be held no
4 more than twice a year on a given parcel of property.
5 Commissioner Price asked if there are specifics that are seeking to be regulated.
6 Michael Harvey said fund raising activities are not being regulated.
7
8 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
9 approve:
10
11 1. Referring the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned
12 to the BOCC in time for its November 5, 2015 regular meeting.
13 2. Adjourning the public hearing until November 5, 2015 in order to receive and accept the
14 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
19
20 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
21 adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m.
22
23 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
24
25
26 Earl McKee, Chair
27
28 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
29
30
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 WORK SESSION
7 September 10, 2015
8 7:00 p.m.
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a work session on Thursday,
11 September 10, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center in Chapel Hill, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
14 Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
16 COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Assistant County Manager
18 Travis Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
19 appropriately below)
20
21 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m.
22 Chair McKee asked for a moment of silence in remembrance of 9/11.
23
24 1. Additional Discussion Regarding a November 2016 Bond Referendum
25 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
26 - White pages for Item 1-A: Revised dates on attached proposed bond schedule memorandum,
27 Attachment A
28 - White pages for Item 1-B: Discussion materials from Davenport and Company
29 Chair McKee said the first time the Board discussed a bond was in 2013. He said this
30 would be a continuing discussion tonight.
31 Bonnie Hammersley said staff invited Davenport and Company, the County's financial
32 advisors, to review the debt capacity, as it related to the bond.
33 Paul Laughton, Orange County Finance Administrative Services, referred to Item 1-
34 Attachment A in their packet, which is the schedule for a 2016 bond. He noted the corrected
35 dates, highlighted in yellow on page 4.
36 Paul Laughton said Bob Jessup, Bond Counsel, is also here tonight. The memo bond
37 detail has been updated to reflect the November 2016 bond.
38
39 To: Orange County Officials
40
41 Date: September 2, 2015
42
43 Regarding Required Procedures and Possible Schedule for
44 General Obligation Bond Referendum
45
46 From: Sanford Holshouser LLP
47 -- Robert M. Jessup Jr.
48
49 This memorandum describes the steps required for Orange County to conduct a general
2
1 obligation bond referendum on November 8, 2016, and sets out a proposed schedule. Here are
2 the required steps and suggested dates for action:
3
4 1. Determine tentative plan for bond purposes and amounts. Although Step 5
5 provides for the first formal Board action to determine what will be presented to the voters, the
6 bond program needs to be substantially worked out before we begin the formal process. In
7 addition, the plan for what projects are to be included in the bond package is something that
8 LGC representatives will want to discuss in detail with County representatives as part of the
9 meeting described in the next step.
10
11 Each separate general purpose for bonds has to be the subject of a separate ballot
12 question. The statutes assume that each question put to voters will propose a dollar amount for
13 a separate generic purpose, such as paying "capital costs of school facilities."Although the
14 statutes allow the purpose to be stated with more specificity, it is highly recommended that the
15 purpose in the ballot question be left as general as possible. The more specific plans underlying
16 the planning for the bond issue do not legally bind the County to a particular future plan of action
17 in the issuance of the bonds or construction of specified facilities.
18
19 2. Meet with LGC staff.The County should arrange a meeting with LGC staff about
20 the proposed referendum as soon as convenient after the Board has settled informally on a
21 referendum plan.
22
23 3. Give informal notice to the County Board of Elections. Because the Board of
24 Elections will need to coordinate its own procedures for the bond referendum, it would help the
25 Board of Elections to receive a phone call to inform the Board of the County's plans, even if the
26 plans are still subject to change. We want to be sure that our schedule works with the Board's
27 schedule -- not only in terms of legal requirements but also in terms of practical matters such as
28 ballot printing deadlines, especially now that absentee balloting begins in September.
29
30 4. Obtain School Board Resolutions. If any of the bonds will be proposed for
31 school purposes, the statutes contemplate that the affected school boards should provide a
32 formal referendum request to the Commissioners. This request usually proposes a maximum
33 amount of bonds to be considered at the referendum. This schedule assumes that each school
34 board could adopt an appropriate resolution by the end of March.
35
36 5. Adopt "Findings" Resolution. As part of the application process, the LGC
37 wants to see a statement describing why the proposed projects and bonds are necessary and
38 desirable. This resolution will also state an estimated tax rate impact of the borrowing. This
39 resolution could be adopted at a County Board meeting in April. This resolution will also
40 authorize the publication of the "Notice of Intent" described in Step 6.
41
42 6. Publish Notice of Intent To File Application. The County must publish a
43 notice of its intent to file an application for the LGC's approval of the proposed bonds. The
44 notice must be published at least 10 days before filing the application. The notice needs to be
45 published as soon as possible after the Board adopts the findings resolution described in Step
46 5.
47 The own words resolution and the Notice of Intent establish the maximum amount of
48 bonds that can be proposed at the referendum for each of the specified purposes. From this
49 point, we can decrease the amount of bonds or eliminate purposes, but we can increase an
50 amount or add a purpose only by re-starting the authorization process.
51
3
1 7. Make Legislative Committee 45-day filing. If the bond program will include
2 purposes beyond schools, the law requires that the County file a notice of the proposed
3 borrowing with a legislative committee at least 45 days before the LGC considers your
4 application. We can make this filing promptly after the action in Step 5. There's no requirement
5 for this Committee to approve anything or take any other action; there's simply a requirement to
6 file a notice.
7
8 8. Prepare statement of debt and statement of estimated interest. The debt
9 statement sets out details of the County's outstanding debt. This document will be similar, not
10 quite identical, to a debt statement that appears in the LGC application. The statement of
11 estimated interest states the County's good-faith, non-binding calculation of the total amount of
12 interest to be paid on the bonds, if issued, over the term of the bonds. These statements will be
13 prepared as we are preparing the LGC application and the Bond Order documents. Information
14 from these statements will be included in some of the public notices related to the bond
15 referendum.
16
17 9. File LGC Application. As stated above, this cannot happen until at least 10
18 days have elapsed since the publication of the notice of intent. The application needs to be filed
19 and formally accepted by the LGC before we have the County Board take its next steps as
20 described in Step 10.
21
22 Although we have to submit the LGC application as part of the referendum process, it is
23 not necessary to receive LGC approval until we are ready to proceed with the actual sale of
24 bonds, which of course will be after the referendum. The LGC may or may not act on the
25 application prior to the referendum, although the current LGC practice is in fact to consider
26 applications as they are received(instead of waiting for the time of a bond issuance).
27
28 10. Introduce Bond Orders; Set public hearing. After the County files its
29 application, the Board needs to introduce the "Bond Orders" and set a date for the required
30 public hearing. We can take these actions at any time after the LGC accepts the application
31 (even the same day). Our schedule shows these steps occurring at a Board meeting in May.
32
33 The "Bond Order"is the basic authorization for bonds approved by the County Board.
34 The statutes provide for the format and most of the text of a bond order, the bond order is a
35 short, general statement of the Board's determination to proceed. Each of the separate generic
36 purposes for which bonds are to be proposed will be the subject of a separate bond order. The
37 details of an actual bond issue are further approved by the Board at the time of a bond issue.
38
39 11. Publish Notice of Public Hearing. We need to publish notice of the required
40 public hearing at least six days prior to the hearing.
41
42 12. Hold Public Hearing; Adopt Bond Order; Set Ballot Question and
43 Referendum Date. After holding a public hearing, the Board needs to adopt the Bond Orders
44 and adopt a resolution that formally sets the ballot questions and the date for the referendum.
45 Our schedule shows these steps occurring at a County Board meeting in June (or across
46 multiple June meetings, if the Board wanted to separate the public hearings from final Board
47 action across more than one meeting). The Board Clerk must then send a copy of the resolution
48 setting the date and the ballot question to the County Board of Elections within three days after
49 the Board meeting.
50
51 The adoption of the bond orders establishes the final amount of bonds that will go before
4
1 the voters for each of the stated purposes.
2
3 13. Publish Bond Order as Adopted. This should be done as soon as possible
4 after the Bond Order is adopted. There is no particular deadline for publishing this notice, but
5 the notice starts a 30-day period for court challenges to the authorization process that must
6 lapse before any bonds can be issued.
7
8 14. Publish Notice of Bond Referendum. This notice must be published twice,
9 once not less than 14 days and once not less than 7 days before the close of voter registration.
10 State law permits registration until the 25th day prior to the election date. That puts the date
11 registration closes at October 14 for a referendum on November 8. The first publication, then,
12 needs to be at least 14 days earlier, or on or before September 30, and the second publication
13 no more than one week later (by October 7). 1 would certainly encourage you, however, to plan
14 to publish at least a week before the final legal date, in order to leave time to re-publish in case
15 of any problems with publication.
16
17
18 1 have attached a schedule in table form for a referendum in November 2016. This table
19 summarizes the steps that have been described in more detail above.
20
21 Issuing bonds after the referendum. Once the voters have approved the bonds, you
22 have a minimum of 90 to 120 days to get through the process to actually issue bonds. The
23 County Board must adopt a resolution to formally approve the election results, and the County
24 must publish a notice of the results that triggers a 30-day period during which people can bring
25 legal challenges to the bond referendum process. Then, to approve the issuance of bonds takes
26 only one more County Board resolution, with no other required public hearings or published
27 notices.
28
29 The real timing issue in proceeding with a bond issue centers around the progress of the
30 projects that are going to be financed. In general, the LGC wants to see that you are close to
31 construction with well-developed estimates and at least some bids in hand before closing on a
32 bond issue —the LGC wants to be sure you don't borrow too much money, or too little money, or
33 borrow it earlier than you need it. We can coordinate the construction and the bond processes
34 so as not to delay the County's projects.
35
36 The County has seven years from a successful referendum date to issue voter-approved
37 bonds. The LGC can extend this period to ten years, and over the last several years the LGC
38 has routinely granted extensions. There is never any obligation for the County in fact to issue
39 any or all of the bonds approved at a referendum.
40
41
42 Related purposes and ballot questions. Each separate general purpose for bonds has
43 to be the subject of its own Bond Order and its own separate ballot question. Purposes for
44 which bonds are to be issued have to be related to be included in a single question, and
45 unrelated purposes cannot be combined. For example, a bond purpose of"public safety" could
46 cover improvements to police and fire facilities. On the other hand, "fire facilities" and "park
47 improvements" could not be combined on a single ballot question.
48
49 Determining which purposes will be put before the voters, and how much in bonds will
50 be proposed for each purpose, is the essential nature of developing the bond plan as described
51 in Step 1. We would recommend that the questions put to voters propose a dollar amount of
5
1 bonds for broad categories, as appropriate—for example, a dollar amount for "streets and
2 sidewalk improvements" or for "public safety improvements." Although the statutes allow the
3 purposes to be stated with more specificity, it is highly recommended that the purposes be left in
4 more generalized categories so that the County Board retains flexibility within the categories
5 that voters approve to meet conditions that may change over time.
6
7 Please let me know if you have any questions about this information, or if I can be of any
8 other assistance.
9 -- RMJ
10 Orange County -- Proposed Timetable for November'16 Bond Referendum
11
12
Event Date
1. Determine referendum plan —tentative As soon as possible
amounts and purposes, and target election
date
2. Give informal notice to County Board of As soon as possible after informal decision to
Elections proceed with a November referendum
3. Meet with LGC staff As soon as convenient after informal decision on
referendum plan— prior to Event 5
4. Obtain school board resolutions Prior to Event 5— school boards to act by end of
March 2016
5. Board adopts preliminary resolution BOCC meeting in April
explaining purpose for referendum, stating
purposes and maximum amounts of bonds
to be considered, and authorizing
publication of notice of intent to file LGC
application
6. Publish notice of intent to file application As soon as possible after Event 5
7. Make legislative committee 45-day filing As soon as possible after Event 5
8. Prepare statement of debt and statement of In connection with preparing LGC application
estimated interest
9. File LGC application Must be at least 10 days after Event 6 and prior
to Event 9
10. Board introduces bond orders and BOCC meeting in May
schedules public hearing
11. Publish notice of public hearing After Event 10 and at least six days prior to
Event 12
12. Hold public hearing; adopt bond orders; BOCC meeting in June (or could separate public
formally set ballot questions and hearings and final action between two different
referendum date June meetings)
13. Publish bond order as adopted As soon as possible after Event 12
14. Absentee ballots to be available By September 19
15. Publish notice of referendum (twice) By 9/23; then by 9/30
16. Referendum occurs 11/8/2016
13
14 Commissioner Rich asked if the dates in item #14 on page 4 all refer to 2016.
15 Paul Laughton said yes.
16 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the memo at their places and in their agenda, and
17 asked if the bond process is still at step one.
6
1 Paul Laughton said yes.
2 Commissioner Burroughs referred to item number 7 in the memorandum that instructs
3 the County to "Make Legislative Committee 45-day filing". She asked if the specific legislative
4 body could be identified.
5 Bob Jessup said a few years ago legislation was put in place that required local
6 governments, which sought to borrow more than $1 million for anything other than schools or
7 courthouses, to make a filing with the joint legislative committee on local government. He said
8 this is just a notice filing, and nothing substantive.
9 Commissioner Pelissier referred to item number 5 on page 2, which states "Adopt
10 Findings Resolution". She asked if there are any guidelines for demonstrating "why the
11 proposed projects are necessary and desirable".
12 Bob Jessup said the Local Government Commission (LGC) wants to hear the County's
13 specifics, and what the local governing board has already approved. He said it is not the intent
14 of the LGC to question the reasoning.
15 Chair McKee referred to page 6 and the resolution mentioned in point number 5. He
16 asked if this is the resolution that sets the bond in hard concrete, and if the listed April 2016 date
17 is a hard date, or a projected one.
18 Bob Jessup said the school board can make requests at any level, but nothing is in
19 concrete until the Board of County Commissioners has acted. He said he has the meeting in
20 April 2016, in order to have time to file and print. He said April is a tentative date, but May 2016
21 is not.
22 Commissioner Pelissier referred to page 7, where it says, "there is never any obligation
23 for the County to issue any or all of the bonds approved in the referendum". She asked if the
24 schools could take any action, if the Board does not assign all of the funding from a bond to
25 them.
26 Bob Jessup said the schools could say that all their capital needs are not being met, but
27 it is the Board's bond, not the schools.
28
29 Attachment B-
30 Paul Laughton said Ted Cole would be the presenting Attachment 1-B for Davenport.
31 He referred to page 2 of the abstract, which shows the areas that will be covered in the
32 presentation:
33 • Peer comparatives and Key Debt Ratios
34 • Review of the County's existing Debt Profile
35 • Evaluate the impact of the County's current FY 2015-20 Capital Investment Plan (CIP)
36 debt issuances
37 • Evaluate the impact of a $125 million General Obligation Bond Referendum, as well as
38 the impact of$130 million and $135 million case scenarios
39 Ted Cole reviewed the Discussion Materials found in Attachment 1-B
40 • Review the County's existing Debt Profile.
41 • Evaluate the impact of the County's proposed CIP Debt Issuances and potential General
42 Obligation Bond Referendum:
43 —Analyze a series of Key Financial Ratios to evaluate the County's Debt Capacity.
44 —Measure the Debt Affordability of the proposed projects.
45
46 Paul Laughton said the Board has the annually reviewed CIP, and tonight they will
47 consider the addition of three potential bond amounts: $125 million, $130 million and $135
48 million. He said the two main concepts that will be considered are: 1.) debt capacity and 2.)
49 debt affordability.
7
1 Ted Cole referred to page 3, which reviewed the Peer Comparatives and the County's
2 bond rating. He said Orange County has the highest rating possible from all three rating
3 agencies, which is AAA across the board. He said Davenport subscribes to data that is
4 compiled and tracked by Moody's Investors Service.
5
6 Peer Comparative Introduction-
7 - The County is currently rated AAA by Moody's Investors Service (May 2015), AAA by
8 Standard and Poor's (June 2015), and AAA by Fitch (June 2015).
9 - The following pages contain peer comparatives based on the Moody's AAA peer
10 counties listed below.
11 - National AAA Counties - 80 Credits
12 - North Carolina AAA Counties - 7 Credits
13 —Durham
14 —Forsyth
15 —Guilford
16 —Mecklenburg
17 —New Hanover
18 —Orange
19 —Wake
20
21 Ted Cole referred to page 5, and the County's Existing Tax Supported Debt, which is
22 incorporated here by reference. He said debt attributed to Sportsplex, Solid Waste, and Water
23 and Sewer has been excluded. He said there is $184 million principle outstanding:
24
25 Par Outstanding — Estimated as of 6/30/2015
Type Par Amount
General Obligation $68,355,000
Bonds
IPCs /COPs/ LOBs $115,606,204
Total $183,961,204
26
27 He said all debt is fixed rate, and will be paid off by 2033.
28 Chair McKee asked if these numbers assume any new debt.
29 Ted Cole said no, this is existing debt only.
30 Ted Cole referred to page 6, which outlines Key Debt Ratios. He said these ratios will
31 be reviewed by the LGC and the rating agencies, and they are important.
32
33 10 year Payout Ratio
34 • Orange County (MFRA): 84.8%
35 • Orange County (2016): 88.4%
36 • North Carolina AAA Counties:
37 — Minimum 73.6%
38 — Median 84.8%
39 — Maximum 93.6%
40 • National AAA Counties:
41 — Minimum 23.8%
42 — Median 74.3%
43 — Maximum 100%
44
45 Debt to Assessed Value
8
1 • Orange County (MFRA): 1.2%
2 • Orange County (2016): 1.1%
3 • North Carolina AAA Counties:
4 — Minimum 1.2%
5 — Median 1.5%
6 — Maximum 1.6%
7 • National AAA Counties:
8 — Minimum 0.0%
9 — Median 0.6%
10 — Maximum 3.5%
11
12 Debt Service to Expenditures
13 • Orange County (MFRA): 13.6%
14 • Orange County (2016)1: 12.7%
15 • North Carolina AAA Counties:
16 — Minimum 13.6%
17 — Median 16.8%
18 — Maximum 23.8%
19 • National AAA Counties:
20 — Minimum 0.0%
21 — Median 8.8%
22 — Maximum 23.8%
23
24 Ted Cole said the County does have a maximum Debt Service to General Fund
25 Revenue policy of debt policy of 15 percent.
26 Ted Cole said the County has been managed well, as related to debt, and there is some
27 room to take on some additional debt. He said the County has debt capacity.
28 Ted Cole referred to page 7 which reviewed the Decline in Tax Supported Debt Service.
29 He said this relates to affordability. He reviewed two tables which are incorporated here by
30 reference. He said the County is retiring its debt rapidly.
31 Ted Cole said the decline in the annual debt service should be captured in order to
32 finance new debt.
33 Ted Cole referred to pages 9 and 10 which give a Case Overview of the Capital
34 Improvement Plan:
35
36 • As part of the annual CIP process, the County identifies Capital Projects for potential
37 debt funding. In addition to the potential debt issuances in the CIP the County is
38 considering voting a General Obligation Bond Referendum in November 2016.
39
40 • Future debt is assumed to be funded under the following assumptions:
41 —Issuance Date: As indicated
42 —First Interest: Fiscal Year Following Issuance
43 —First Principal: Fiscal Year Following Issuance
44 —Interest Rate: 3.75% - 4.50%
45 —Term: 20 Years
46 —Non-GO Amortization: Level Principal
47 —GO Amortization: Level Principal
48
49 Key Debt Ratio Growth Assumptions:
50 —Assessed Value - Natural Growth: 2017: 1.50%, 2018 & Beyond: 2.00%
9
1 —General Fund Revenues - Natural Growth: 2017: 1.50%, 2018 & Beyond: 2.00% plus
2 revenue derived from projected tax
3 increases associated with capital
4
5 Ted Cole said all of the debt being modeled is 20 years and level principle. He said
6 some growth in some of these key ratios is being assumed.
7 Ted Cole said referred to the bottom of page 9 where four cases have been analyzed:
8
9 Cases Analyzed:
10 —Existing Debt Only
11 —Case 1: Existing Debt and $103 million of CIP Debt (FY 2016-2021) (Total:
12 $103,845,296)
13 —Case 2: Existing Debt, $103 million of CIP Debt (FY 2016-2021), and $125 Million GO
14 Referendum (Total: $228,845,296)
15 —Case 3: Existing Debt, $103 million of CIP Debt (FY 2016-2021), and $130 Million GO
16 Referendum (Total: $233,845,296)
17 —Case 4: Existing Debt, $103 million of CIP Debt (FY 2016-2021), and $135 Million GO
18 Referendum (Total: $238,845,296)
19
20 Ted Cole referred to page 10, which is incorporated here by reference, that reviews the
21 timing and case summary. He said case one looks at the CIP. He said this is debt-only projects
22 (not pay as you go projects) and shows how much debt is expected. He said the General Fund
23 and School Projects in the CIP total $103,845,296.
24 Ted Cole said case two looks at the CIP as well as an additional $125 million bond
25 referendum. He said case three looks at the CIP as well as an additional $130 million bond
26 referendum. He said case four looks at the CIP as well as additional $135 million bond
27 referendum.
28 Ted Cole said with a successful referendum the County has seven years to issue bonds.
29 Ted Cole referred to page eleven, which is incorporated here by reference, that gives a
30 summary of the results for existing debt only, as well as the four case studies previously
31 mentioned.
32 Ted Cole said the bottom of page eleven identifies how many equivalent pennies on the
33 tax rate would be necessary to dedicate towards debt service beyond what is already in the
34 budget. He said it shows these amounts if done in increments, as well as if the increases were
35 done all at one time. He said a penny generates about $1.6 million.
36 Ted Cole said many assumptions have been made in modeling up this debt. He said the
37 debt policy is good but if the budget goes above the 15 percent policy for a couple of years this
38 is still a doable plan.
39 Chair McKee asked if exceeding the debt briefly affects the County's bond rating.
40 Ted Cole said going over the 15 percent is part of an overall plan is understood by the
41 rating agencies, and gives them some level of comfort.
42 Chair McKee asked if these numbers assume that revenues remain constant.
43 Ted Cole said in these projections revenues are being grown up by a small percentage
44 and it has been identified that the County will need to come up with new revenue to pay new
45 debt. He said that is figured in the analysis.
46 Commissioner Price referred to page 7, lines 33-34, and asked if taxes would need to be
47 raised.
48 Ted Cole said yes. He said as the County brings on new debt it must be determined
49 how much more revenue must be brought on to pay for this debt. He said there are other
50 options besides a tax increase such as securing other revenue sources or cutting expenditures.
51 He said case one refers to the current debt, not including a potential referendum.
10
1 Chair McKee referred to line 38 on page 11, and asked if this is a tax increase required
2 solely by the debt and does not include any tax increases that may be incurred by increases in
3 operations.
4 Ted Cole said yes.
5 Paul Laughton said it had been a pleasure to work with the Bond Counsel and
6 Davenport throughout the process.
7 Chair McKee said the Board would be talking with the schools on September 29th. He
8 said at the September 15th meeting there would be time for public comment on this issue. He
9 recommended hearing all public comments, even if it exceeds the standard one-hour time
10 allotment.
11 Commissioner Rich asked if the October 6th meeting would only include further
12 discussion.
13 Chair McKee said that meeting is planned to be the final discussion and possibly a vote.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if the specific purpose of that vote could be identified.
15 Chair McKee said vote would determine the date, the items, and the amount of the
16 potential bond.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if the vote must occur on October 6th
18 Chair McKee said that would be up to the Board of County Commissioners but reminded
19 the Board that it did vote intent on April 21, 2015.
20 Commissioner Rich said she had concerns about not allowing more public comment on
21 this issue, and she is unsure if October 6th would give people enough time.
22 Commissioner Dorosin asked, with the November 2016 referendum date in mind, if there
23 is a drop dead date that step one on the memorandum must be completed.
24 Bob Jessup said only if the Board is shooting for a meeting date in April 2016.
25 Commissioner Dorosin asked if Bond Counsel needs a certain amount of lead-time.
26 Bob Jessup said three weeks before the agenda deadline, which is in March.
27 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not sure the Board wants to wait that long. He said he
28 would like to take some time to talk about whether the funding is just for schools, or are there
29 other issues to be considered.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said it is critical that the comment period be extended past
31 October 6th to give others an opportunity to engage in the process.
32 Commissioner Dorosin said the bond should have more than just the schools on it. He
33 said he would like to see affordable housing on the bond. He said if the Board decides not to
34 include affordable housing on the bond, it gives the impression that the Board likes to talk about
35 affordable housing but does not want to take any action on the issue.
36 Commissioner Dorosin said this target would need innovative solutions and readily
37 available funding that a bond would provide. He said he has heard that affordable housing
38 should not be on the bond, because the County does not have an affordable housing plan. He
39 said other entities do have plans, and if the Board wants a good plan it can incentivize the kind
40 of plan that is desired.
41 Commissioner Dorosin said if the Board is going to limit what can be done for affordable
42 housing out of just the budget then the issue will continue to be addressed in a piece meal
43 fashion. He said he believes the public would strongly support a bond in favor of affordable
44 housing.
45 Commissioner Dorosin said he knows the school needs exceed $125 million but there is
46 enough to go around for all. He said education is a primary value to this County, but poverty
47 impacts students. He said every effort the Board puts into schools has to contend with the
48 experiences these children encounter outside of the classroom.
49 Commissioner Dorosin implored the Board to put some of the money from the bond into
50 affordable housing.
11
1 Chair McKee said he realized this issue demanded more attention than just a brief
2 discussion. He said he hoped the Board is able to get enough dialogue to make an informed
3 decision.
4 Commissioner Burroughs said she agreed with Commissioner Dorosin that affordable
5 housing needs to be addressed. She said teachers know about these kids. She said the bond
6 is a way to demonstrate how the Board feels about affordable housing, but it is not how she
7 would propose to address the need. She said there are other options for funding outside the
8 bond to address affordable housing, and she is willing to look at the CIP more closely, shifting
9 priorities to release some more funding. She said she believes the Board of County
10 Commissioners can make the CIP changes to address affordable housing.
11 Commissioner Burroughs said sometimes bonds fail, but she believes a bond dedicated
12 to the schools would be certain to pass. She said she is willing to review the CIP process, and
13 shift their priorities.
14 Commissioner Burroughs said the Housing Director is supposed to be bringing back a
15 plan.
16 Bonnie Hammersley said specific areas are being reviewed before there is an actual
17 affordable housing plan.
18 Commissioner Burroughs said she does support affordable housing, but that the
19 schools' needs are so much greater.
20 Commissioner Price agreed with Commissioner Burroughs and said refraining from
21 putting affordable housing on a bond does not reflect the support the she and the Board has for
22 this issue. She said maybe there are other ways to fund affordable housing besides a bond.
23 She said there are ways to decrease costs for homeowners for lower income housing.
24 Commissioner Rich said a group of stakeholders has not been gathered to find out what
25 people in the community really want in a bond, and she has concerns about this whole process.
26 She said the message is out there that all of the funds were intended for the schools. She said
27 a bond may pass in the towns, but people in the County may not feel the same.
28 Commissioner Rich said she attended a recent Triangle J Council of Governments
29 (TJCOG) meeting, where they brainstormed about issues that were pertinent to their areas.
30 She said seniors were the unanimous issue.
31 Commissioner Rich said the County and the schools should take responsibility for the
32 neglected schools. She said the schools are really in need of$300 million. She said lessons
33 must be learned from the past. She said if seniors, housing and parks are ignored, or if monies
34 are eliminated from current CIP Projects, then another hole is being dug. She said no one
35 seems able to figure out how money would be found in the CIP. She said shifting money does
36 not solve the problem.
37 Commissioner Pelissier said she agreed with a lot of what Commissioner Burroughs
38 said. She said this bond discussion started with the discussion of aging schools over the years.
39 She said $125 million has been discussed. She said she feels the reason to do a bond is
40 because the schools capital needs are a big-ticket item. She said there is not $125 million
41 anywhere in the CIP. She said the conversation has shifted, and now everyone thinks that no
42 one will get anything unless it is on a bond. She said that is just not true. She said the bond is
43 not just a matter of asking the public what they want; rather it is the Board saying to the public
44 we need a particular thing. She said the budget process should not just focus on operational
45 needs, but should also include the CIP, as it did this year.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said his recollection is different. He said the schools had needs,
47 and one way to address them was with the bond. He said he never thought the bond was only
48 going to the schools until the BOCC meeting in April.
49 Commissioner Dorosin said there is consensus to do a $125 million bond, and the tax
50 burden will be the same regardless of where the money goes. He said not putting housing on
51 the bond does not reflect that the Board does not support affordable housing, but he does feel it
12
1 shows it to not be a priority. He said he does not believe the fear of failing should keep
2 affordable housing off a bond. He acknowledged the great needs of the schools, but added that
3 the community has a lot of needs. He said it is inaccurate to think of housing and school needs
4 as disconnected.
5 Commissioner Dorosin said having money in a bond for housing is an acknowledgment
6 of the need.
7 Chair McKee said he is concerned with the idea that without a bond the Board can do
8 nothing. He said money can be borrowed, etc. He said his understanding is that the schools
9 were primary in this bond discussion from the start. He said he has not seen indication of this
10 Board opposing housing, parks, etc. He said he disagrees with the notion that if an item is not
11 on a bond then nothing will happen to address the item.
12 Chair McKee said, with Commissioner Jacobs' suggestion, the Board created a $100
13 million land-banking project in the CIP in one night. He said he started evolving towards a one-
14 issue bond for the schools in the spring of 2015, especially in reference to safety.
15 Chair McKee said there is still the possibility that the legislature could throw a wrench
16 into all of this.
17 Chair McKee said he supports affordable housing, seniors, parks, etc. He said, as of
18 now, he is supportive of bond funding going exclusively for the schools.
19 Commissioner Jacobs said he was the first one to suggest a bond because of the 2013
20 school shootings in Connecticut. He said at times the Board had to choose operational needs
21 over structural needs for the schools years ago. He said he had every expectation that the
22 bond process would be transparent, with early engagement in the process by the public, etc.
23 He said the Board has not had that type of conversation yet, but only assumptions. He said this
24 is a flawed process and a disservice to the community. He said actions speak louder than
25 words and that the message being sent is that other issues are not as important as schools. He
26 said a big deal has been made about a bond and trying to educate the public. He said the
27 Board is saying that schools are the only one issue that is important.
28 Commissioner Jacobs said he felt disappointed in this Board up to this point about this
29 process, and he hoped there would never be a bond discussion/process like this again. He said
30 everyone is in a reactive mode now, and this issue was decided back in April.
31
32 2. Implementation of the Strategic Communications Plan
33 Laurie Paolicelli, Community Relations Director, said this Board decided a year ago that
34 a strategic communications plan was needed for Orange County in order to stay relevant.
35 Laurie Paolicelli said Chapel Hill finished their website for $150,000, and now Wake County has
36 set a goal of 10,000 Facebook followers in order to communicate more effectively with
37 residents.
38 Laurie Paolicelli said some of the surrounding towns are using survey monkey to engage
39 residents about bonds and initiatives.
40 Laurie Paolicelli said the Strategic Communications Work Group laid down the
41 groundwork for her plan, and represented a diverse group of employees and what was needed
42 to move forward in this area.
43 Laurie Paolicelli presented the following PowerPoint slides:
44
45 Orange County, North Carolina, government
46 2015-2016 Communications
47 Implementation Plan
48
49 Community Engagement
13
1 Orange County, North Carolina's mission is to provide excellent services that support healthy,
2 safe and sustainable communities; preserve Orange County's unique environmental heritage;
3 and encourage meaningful participation in the governance of the County by its residents.
4 Communicating with our various audiences and being assured we are reaching more of them is
5 crucial to our mission.
6
7 BOCC Overriding principles
8 • Obtaining the highest quality standards in Orange County Schools
9 • Upholding a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity
10 • Committing to economic development so that business growth and job opportunities result
11 • Preserving the best of Orange County's unique historical significance and heritage in North
12 Carolina while positioning the County to be in the forefront of progressive enterprise
13 • Strengthening Orange County's commitment to the environment
14 • Streamlining Orange County government to reduce waste, increase efficiency, and promote a
15 positive climate for all
16 • Adopting fiscal responsibility as a core principle
17
18 Communications Objectives
19 • Support Orange County Commissioners' vision and strategic goals by reporting on activities
20 and programs that are advancing the Commissioners' objectives.
21 • Facilitate two-way dialogue between Orange County government and County residents so they
22 have the opportunity to be actively engaged in decision-making and are aware of County
23 services and activities.
24 • Enhance communications at and among all levels of County government.
25 • Help internal County communicators/marketing staff produce communications/ marketing
26 materials that have some consistency in design and content, thereby presenting a professional
27 image of Orange County.
28
29 Assumptions
30 Orange County's Community Relations Plan was created with these assumptions:
31 • Proactive vs. Reactive
32 The intent of this communications plan is to stay in front of community issues by taking a
33 proactive rather than a reactive approach.
34
35 • Strongly Themed vs. Scattered Messages
36 Communication should reinforce and reflect the vision established by the Orange County Board
37 of Commissioners (BOCC), underscoring the idea of a government with a common purpose in
38 concert with its residents.
39
40 • Two-way vs. One-way
41 It's a bloggers world in 2015 and journalism is evolving from a lecture to a conversation. These
42 changes have created new issues for the news industry. It is recommended that we address the
43 accuracy of information retrieved through blogs and social platforms, with a dedicated page on
44 www.orangecountync.gov that addresses rumors with factual accuracies.
45
46 Orange County, NC, Population
47 July 1, 2013
48 Population Estimate:
49 139,694
50 *2013 estimate calculated by North Carolina's Office of State Budget & Management.
51 Southern communities
14
1 94,498 or 70.6% or 7 out 10 residents live in southern Orange County
2 Northern communities
3 39,304 or 29.4% or 3 out of 10 residents
4
5 Reaching our Residents
6 60 and older: 17%
7 30-60 years old: 38%
8 30 and under: 45%
9 • Population
10 Communications plan must address how we will reach a growing senior population while staying
11 in touch with the latest tools that our young population uses.
12 • Commuting
13 42% of our residents work in another county
14 Communications plan must address how we will reach the Triangle media.
15 • Employment
16 There are more Government employees (32,478) than Private Industry employees (31,340)
17
18 Reaching our Residents
19
20 Housing
21 40% is renter occupied housing
22 We must address all citizens, owners and renters, through targeted media.
23 • Local Businesses
24 Out of a total of 3,759
25 Private Industry establishments, 86 are involved in manufacturing, employing 1,459 workers.
26 This represents 2.2% of our workforce.
27 Hillsborough Chapel Hill
28 • Population Change, 2000-2010
29 The highest rate of growth is the east west corridor of 1-40/85, which includes:
30 Cheeks Twp (32%), Hillsborough Twp (19%), and Eno Township (23%)
31 Communication to all county townships, rural residents is critical
32
33 Goals for Community Engagement
34 • Begin an "Orange County This Month" advertising program in two local newspapers, News of
35 Orange and Chapel Hill News, to communicate meetings, public hearings and local events
36 • Create a communications toolbox, including video, photos, talking points, facts sheets
37 • Send monthly consolidated news updates through Public Affairs Office
38 • Explore options of simplifying links to specific agenda items for public use and social media
39 • Augment Facebook news with short updates on local residents who are making a difference
40 • Consider transit wraps on buses
41 • Produce new Orange County videos for use in public buildings and to open community
42 meetings
43
44 Goals for Community Engagement
45 • Continue to develop new communications tools to reach Orange County citizens
46 • Implement Orange County telephone number that is serviced by a staff member
47 • Build social media plan to reach larger majority of Orange County citizens
48 • Continue to build content and navigability of website
49
50 Carla Banks presented this portion of the presentation:
15
1
2 Media Focus
3 Media: Chapel Hill News
4 Circulation: 40,000 Sundays
5 Description: Orange County This Month Advertisement one day per month
6
7 Media: The Herald Sun, Durham
8 Circulation: approx 21,367 daily
9 Description: Column, once a month, Orange County Chair
10
11 Media: News of Orange
12 Circulation: 3,800, published Thursday
13 Description: Orange County This Month Advertisement one day per month
14
15 Media: Chapelboro.com and WCHL
16 Circulation: 150,000 per month and 60,000 per month
17 Description: Media packages include on air interviews and web banners purchased through
18 Public Affairs
19
20 Subtotal 275,167
21
22 Media: OrangeCountyNC
23 Circulation: website 146,000 Monthly users
24 Description: Most important in reaching citizens with government news and community
25 programming.
26
27 Media: Municipality websites
28 - townofchapelhill.org
29 - ci.carrboro.nc.us
30 - ci.hillsborough.nc.us
31 Description: Potential forums in which to broadcast important county messaging and also
32 provide a link to the county website, giving more residents and visitors access to important
33 information.
34
35 Media: The Daily Tar Heel
36 Circulation: 1x column per week; 152,000/ month readership
37 Description: Student newspaper and vehicle in which to reach student body through columns
38 and news features.
39
40 Media: WHUP Radio Hillsborough
41 Circulation: On air in August 2015, the Community Relations
42 Department has secured on-going radio spots to communicate important messaging about
43 Orange County.
44
45 Laurie Paolicelli presented this portion of the presentation:
46
47 New Media
48 There is growing demand for prompt, coordinated and accurate communications, delivered
49 through more contemporary channels, following advances in technology. The County currently
50 uses a variety of methods to communicate to the media and directly to the public. Electronic
51 methods have expanded with increased use of email, website and social media, yet there is
16
1 still a diversity of preferences on how people prefer to receive information.
2 The following mediums will be used for Orange County engagement:
3 • Facebook
4 • Twitter
5 • Instagram
6
7 Online tax bill dashboard
8 Consider using property tax bills to communicate services provided to residents. In addition, this
9 communications can be placed on-line, as a dashboard for residents who want more information
10 on county services provided.
11
12 Supporting Communicators in Orange County
13 • Recommended Bi-Monthly Meetings (September, November, January, March,
14 May, July) with County Communicators
15 • Goal is to share ideas and maximize resources
16 • Learn from each other's strengths, i.e., use of social media, presentations, writing for digital
17 media
18 • Host guest speakers who are subject matter experts
19 • Share information on communications best practices that can help Orange County
20
21 Budget
22 Media Description Annual Budget
23 News of Orange 3 column by 10, 1 ad per month $3,000.00
24 Chapel Hill News 3 column by 10, 1 ad per month $4,800.00
25 New logo package Business cards/letterhead package $5,000.00
26 Graphics support over 12 as needed $10,000.00
27 months
28 Opportunities as needed $15,000.00
29 Social Media boosts as needed $5,000.00
30 Printing as needed $7,000.00
31 Total $49,800.00
32
33 Commissioner Rich thanked Laurie Paolicelli and Bonnie Hammersley for their input.
34 Commissioner Rich said Laurie Paolicelli reconvened the Communication Work Group a
35 couple of weeks ago. She said the group thought they had provided enough guidelines to
36 Laurie Paolicelli for her to move forward with implementation of this plan.
37 Commissioner Rich said the County was falling behind on technology, and feels this is a
38 great next step. She supported using the logo, as opposed to the seal.
39 Commissioner Rich said she would like to see an updated business card in person.
40 Laurie Paolicelli gave her some samples.
41 Commissioner Rich referred to the budget, and asked if$50,000 will be taken from the
42 CHOCVB for marketing the County.
43 Laurie Paolicelli said Orange County has always funded the CHOCVB through their a-
44 tax. She said Chapel Hill keeps a great portion of their a-tax for promotions, and Carrboro and
45 Hillsborough keeps all of theirs. She said it is very fair to use these funds, and they are already
46 set-aside in the current budget.
47 Commissioner Rich said the website does need to be addressed as it is not where it
48 needs to be.
49 Laurie Paolicelli said there is a terrific web team, which is discussing how to improve the
50 web either incrementally, or all at one time at a cost of about $20,000. She said this needs to
51 be a priority.
17
1 Commissioner Price said it is worthwhile to update the website.
2 Commissioner Price said she has received compliments regarding the work that both
3 Carla Banks and Laurie Paolicelli have done.
4 Commissioner Jacobs asked if new Orange County videos that are being produced are
5 streamed around their meetings.
6 Laurie Paolicelli said videos are not yet being used in the buildings, but the idea can be
7 looked into.
8 Commissioner Jacobs said informational inserts could be put in tax bills.
9 Laurie Paolicelli said more of a dashboard or newsletters are being considered
10 surrounding the tax bills.
11 Commissioner Jacobs thanked Laurie Paolicelli for including Mebane on the draft
12 business cards.
13 Commissioner Jacobs said he has heard complaints about using outside vendors for
14 things like business cards.
15 Laurie Paolicelli said it is the intention to shop Orange County when possible.
16 Commissioner Pelissier said she liked the direction the County is taking and suggested
17 using social media for comments about the website. She said having a place for citizen
18 comments or complaints would also be useful. She asked if this idea is being pursued.
19 Laurie Paolicelli said she was unsure about this, but would follow up.
20 Commissioner Jacobs thanked them all for their dedication and said their work is a great
21 improvement.
22 Laurie Paolicelli credited the Strategic Communications Work Group for their efforts.
23
24 3. Goal Setting Presentation
25 Bonnie Hammersley reviewed a process that she would like to implement in the next
26 couple of months.
27 Bonnie Hammersley presented the following PowerPoint slides:
28
29 Goal-Setting Process: A Roadmap for Achieving Goals
30 Board of Orange County Commissioners
31 Work Session
32 September 10, 2015
33
34 Purpose of goal setting
35 ➢ Clearly define issues and strategies
36 ➢ Reach consensus or agreement on the major goals — BOCC and Department Directors
37 ➢ Integrate the goal setting into the budget process to ensure resources are available to
38 attain them
39 ➢ Regularly review and report on progress toward goal attainment
40
41 Definitions
42 Issue—challenge or problem that needs to be addressed over the span of one or more fiscal
43 years
44 Goal— end result or outcome that is desired with a given strategy
45 Strategy— method or approach employed to address an issue
46
47 Example
48 COUNTY-WIDE
49 Issue— Information is not provided consistently to Orange County residents on significant
50 county issues
18
1 Goal—Transparent county government that is open and residents are engaged
2 Strategy—Create an internal Communications Committee to develop a plan with input from
3 internal and external resources to keep residents informed
4
5 Example
6 Board Specific
7 Issue— Improve information provided on the abstracts related to the social justice impact
8 Goal—Adopt Social Justice Impact Goals for inclusion in the decision-making process
9 Strategy—Create a sub-committee of the BOCC to identify and recommend social justice
10 impact goals
11
12 Roles and responsibilities
13 Goal Setting
14 ➢ Functional leadership teams
15 • Identify and prioritize issues
16 • Recommend goals and strategies
17 • Develop work plans and identify needed resources
18 • Measure progress and report
19 ➢ Board of County Commissioners
20 • Identify and prioritize issues
21 • Review strategies and adopt goals
22 • Adopt budget
23 • Review results
24
25 Goal Setting Cycle (graphic)
26
27 Functional Leadership Teams
28 ➢ Community Services
29 • Animal services
30 • Cooperative extension
31 • Community relations and tourism
32 • DEAPR
33 • Economic development
34 • Library
35 • Planning
36 • Solid Waste
37
38 ➢ Human Services and Education
39 • Aging
40 • Child support
41 • Housing
42 • Library
43 • Public Health
44 • Social Services
45 • Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
46 • Orange County Schools
47 • Durham Technical College
48
49 ➢ General Government
19
1 • Board of Elections
2 • Clerk to the Board
3 • County Attorney
4 • County Manager
5 • Register of Deeds
6 • Tax Administration
7
8 ➢ Public Safety
9 • Sheriff
10 • Animal Services
11 • Clerk of Courts
12 • Emergency Services
13 • District Attorney
14 • Public Defender
15 • Public Health
16
17 ➢ Support Services
18 • Asset Management Services
19 • Community Relations
20 • County Manager
21 • Finance Department
22 • Human Resources
23 • Information Technology
24
25 Goal setting week
26 ➢ COMMUNITY SERVICES —October 20, 1:OOPM — 5:OOPM
27 ➢ GENERAL GOVERNMENT —October 19, 1:OOPM — 5:OOPM
28 ➢ HUMAN SERVICES & EDUCATION — October 22, 8:OOAM — 12:OOPM
29 ➢ PUBLIC SAFETY—October 22, 1:OOPM —5:OOPM
30 ➢ SUPPORT SERVICES —October 19, 8:OOAM — 12:OOPM
31 ➢ BOCC —October 23, 8:OOAM — 12:OOPM
32 ➢ BOCC & LEADERSHIP TEAMS — October 23, 1:OOPM — 5:OOPM
33
34 Proposed steps and timeline
35 ➢ 1. Hold individual goal setting sessions with leadership teams and BOCC followed by a
36 combined session to identify issues and develop or refine strategies and goals. The
37 sessions will include a process of identifying issues team specific as well as countywide.
38 (October 19-23)
39 ➢ 2. Leadership Teams and staff develop objectives and budget proposals for the
40 following fiscal year. (November and December)
41 ➢ 3. Report to Board on strategies and budget proposals in advance of budget preparation
42 and make modifications as necessary. (BOCC Retreat)
43 ➢ 4. Manager, in consultation with leadership teams, decides on goals and strategies that
44 will be included in the following proposed budget. (February and March)
45 ➢ 5. As part of the regular budget process, the Board reviews budget proposals related to
46 goals and strategies and makes final decisions in conjunction with budget adoption as
47 well as reviewing progress on goals from prior years. (May and June)
48 ➢ 6. Results from the preceding year(s), including most recently available performance
49 data, are compiled for next year's goal setting work sessions with directors and Board.
50 (July and August)
20
1
2 Questions and suggestions?
3 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the process of the goal setting in these teams, and
4 asked if there are specific things upon which the goals are being based. He asked if there are
5 internal goals. He said it looks to him as if these groups are working independently, as opposed
6 to the Board of County Commissioners setting goals for these departments.
7 Bonnie Hammersley said most of Orange County has the same goals. She said the
8 teams would discuss what countywide goals are, followed by team-specific ones. She said
9 when everyone comes together countywide goals will be discussed.
10 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board of County Commissioners already has the 2009
11 goals and asked if the Manager is talking about more specific goals.
12 Bonnie Hammersley said the larger goals have many issues and strategies to address
13 the goals, but one or two specific goals will be identified to address in the coming year.
14 Chair McKee asked if the group meetings would be open to the Commissioners
15 attending, or would it be better for Commissioners to remain apart.
16 Bonnie Hammersley said she would never exclude a Commissioner from a meeting.
17
18 4. Board of Commissioners DRAFT Meeting Calendar for Year 2016
19
20 Chair McKee said this item seeks to gather input from the Board of County
21 Commissioners on the draft 2016 Board of County Commissioners calendar.
22 Commissioner Jacobs suggested moving the Manager's evaluation from June 28th to
23 another date and mentioned that March 15th could possibly be a Presidential primary date so it
24 may be necessary to move that meeting.
25 Commissioner Dorosin said the Board has too many meetings and he would like to avoid
26 having two meetings per week. He suggested the idea of dropping or shifting meetings. He
27 suggested adding more items to the consent agenda on the regular meeting agenda.
28 Commissioner Dorosin suggested trying to combine specialized meetings together in
29 some way.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said it seemed like the Board was more interested in talking
31 about goals and priorities during those budget meetings and asked if there is value in that. He
32 said he believes that those discussions are more effective if they are question driven.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said these multitudes of meetings are also a burden on the staff.
34 Chair McKee said more items have been shifted to the consent agenda in the past few
35 months.
36 Chair McKee said the fire departments' meeting could occur in the first half of a meeting
37 and add a work session in the second half of the same meeting.
38 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the bond discussion tonight and said an hour was
39 spent on the presentation. He said that is the kind of item could be done in a regular meeting,
40 with work sessions serving as a time for the Board to talk together.
41 Commissioner Burroughs said one of the things that surprised her when she came on
42 the Board last year was how much time is given at the beginning of the regular meetings with
43 special presentations, etc., as well as the petition and comment sections of the meetings are
44 time consuming.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said past Commissioner Nelson fought against having any special
46 presentations, and wanted them on the consent agenda.
47 Commissioner Jacobs said one of the things that can create change is if the Manager is
48 trusted, then one will be more comfortable putting items on the consent agenda.
49 Commissioner Jacobs said a monthly work session has been added during his tenure.
50 Commissioner Jacobs said he looked forward to having weeks with no meetings.
21
1 Commissioner Jacobs said concentrating on making meetings more efficient should be
2 an on-going process. He suggested adding this discussion to the retreat.
3 Commissioner Rich asked if it is easier to keep meetings on the schedule and eliminate
4 as necessary or if it is easier to add meetings in when needed.
5 The Clerk said it is easier to have the meetings scheduled and eliminate them if
6 necessary. She said staff could look at the calendar and play with it; however, staff does not
7 feel comfortable changing meetings without Board approval.
8 Commissioner Rich said she believed more people pay attention to the petitions and
9 comments than one might think. She said the Board might need to be more thoughtful about
10 making petitions. She said she does enjoy having open discussion between Board members
11 and she would like to see work sessions move in that direction.
12 Commissioner Pelissier said she too looked forward to weeks without meetings as it
13 allows the opportunity for travel and flexibility. She said the meetings with the Fire Chiefs and
14 the City of Mebane could be added to the second half of a work session.
15 Chair McKee said the City of Mebane had very few items for discussion.
16 Commissioner Pelissier said the complicating factor in meetings is that one cannot often
17 predict how long a given item may take in a meeting. She said sometimes items get put on
18 work sessions, but the items are more important to some Commissioners than others.
19 Commissioner Dorosin said he felt the work sessions are not that much different than
20 regular meetings. He said he sees little free flowing dialogue. He said having open dialogue in
21 regular meetings is just as important. He said 53 meetings is a limiting factor to who is able to
22 run to be a Commissioner. He recognized that the Board likes conversation but hoped the
23 Board can be more disciplined.
24 Commissioner Jacobs suggested trying a meeting without the Chair presiding over it.
25 He said it could be an open discussion with interruptions and talking over each other. He said it
26 would allow for normal conversation.
27 Chair McKee said he is willing to try this but is unsure if it will be more productive.
28 Commissioner Price said regular meetings should be on the calendar but she does not
29 see how they can be shortened as the Board never knows what items may arise. She said if
30 staff sees that a meeting can be shortened, cancelled or combined, they could suggest doing
31 so. She said it is important to understand the difference between regular meetings and work
32 sessions, and the goals of each.
33 Commissioner Dorosin said he recalled the discussion to remove the four Quarterly
34 Public Hearings (QPH).
35 John Roberts said that item will not be coming back, and that issue was removed from
36 consideration.
37 Commissioner Jacobs said there was an item that arose at a QPH that had two hours of
38 public comment. He said the Board felt if that item had been part of a regular hearing, it would
39 have overrun the meeting, allowing nothing else to be accomplished. He said if a Public
40 Hearings is expected to have minimal public discussion, it could be moved to a Regular
41 Meetings.
42 Chair McKee said some items could be moved to a regular meeting.
43 Commissioner Rich said meetings should to be shorter.
44 Commissioner Dorosin said some meetings should be removed.
45 Commissioner Pelissier said sometimes there are items on a regular agenda that get
46 moved to a work session, as a way to defer a vote.
47 Discussion ensued.
48 Commissioner Jacobs said this calendar is a vestige of the personalities from past
49 boards, and Orange County became known years ago as a county that kept asking for more
50 information. He said there no longer seems to be as many issues of control, and he feels with
51 greater trust in the Manager some of the scheduling issues will work themselves out.
22
1 The Clerk said peer counties average about 30-35 meetings a year, and the BOCC has
2 15 joint meetings that other counties do not have.
3 The following meetings were suggested to either remove/move from/on the draft
4 calendar:
5 • January 26th —work session
6 • March 3 d dinner meeting (5:30 p.m.) and work session (7:00 p.m.)
7 • April 12th —dinner meeting with advisory Board (5:30 p.m.)
8 . Move Manager's evaluation to Monday- June 20th
9 • Sept 8th work session (or combine with another meeting)
10 • October 12th work session combine with the Oct. 6th joint meeting with fire departments
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
13 adjourn the meeting at 10:32 p.m.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17
18 Earl McKee, Chair
19
20 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
21
1
I Attachment 3
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 September 15, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday,
10 September 15, 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, 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 meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
21
22 Compliance with the "Americans with Disabilities Act" - Interpreter services and/or special
23 sound equipment are available on request. Call the County Clerk's Office at (919) 245-2130. If
24 you are disabled and need assistance with reasonable accommodations, contact the ADA
25 Coordinator in the County Manager's Office at (919) 245-2300 or TDD# 644-3045.
26
27 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
28 Chair McKee said this evening was an opportunity for the public to speak on Matters Not
29 on the Printed Agenda, in reference to the Bond. He said this is not a public hearing.
30 Chair McKee noted the following items at the Commissioners' places:
31 - Purple sheet - Revised Proclamation for item 4-b: Constitution and Citizenship Day and
32 Constitution Week 2015
33 - Yellow sheet - Additional Volunteer application to the Orange Water And Sewer Association
34 (OWASA) Board for Item 11-e
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
37 change the order of items, and move Item 4 to before Item 2 due, to the amount of public
38 comment expected tonight.
39
40 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
43 suspend the one-hour time limit on public comment for "matters not on the printed agenda."
44
45 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
46
47 PUBLIC CHARGE
48
49 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
50
2
1 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
2
3 a. Orange County Arts Grant Recipients
4 The Board considered acknowledging the local artists and arts organizations, receiving the
5 Spring 2015 Orange County Arts Grants awards, with the presentation of checks by the Board
6 Vice-Chair.
7 Martha Shannon said the Orange County Arts Commission awards grants for art programs
8 to local artists, schools and nonprofit organizations from funds received from the State and
9 Orange County government for this purpose. She said these funds are distributed for arts
10 projects in all arts disciplines. She said each grant recipient must match the granted amount at
11 least dollar for dollar in order to receive funding. She said the $30,878 in State Grassroots
12 Program funds awarded to the Arts Commission in FY2015-16, for Arts Commission purposes,
13 and for granting to outside nonprofit agencies sponsoring arts projects, represents a pass
14 through of State funds. She said as always, grants to individual artists are paid from County
15 funds allocated by the BOCC for local arts grants during FY2015-16. She said in this cycle,
16 $300 in County funds was awarded to an individual artist. She said any additional State
17 Grassroots Program funds awarded to the Arts Commission in FY2015-16 will be used to help
18 support local arts programming and Arts Commission programs.
19 Commissioner Jacobs asked if any of the recipients were first time recipients.
20 Martha Shannon said there were three first time recipients in the spring recipient cycle.
21 Chair McKee called the recipients, and Commissioner Pelissier distributed the checks:
22
23 Spring, 2015 Arts Grant Recipients: Attendees:
24
25 ArtsCenter - Julie Tomkovick
26 Carrboro Elementary School - NOT PRESENT
27 Chapel Hill-Carrboro Public School Foundation - Lynn Lehmann
28 Chapel Hill Philharmonica - John Konanc
29 Communities in Schools of Orange County - Max Puhala
30 Deep Dish Theater Company - Howard Aldrich
31 Estes Hills Elementary School - Meredith Lassiter
32 Expedition School - Tim Wells
33 Franklin Street Arts Collective (dba FRANK Gallery) - Barbara Tyroler
34 Grady A. Brown Elementary School PTA- Lauren Hamm
35 Hillsborough Arts Council - Gail Cooley
36 Hillsborough Presbyterian Church - Lisa Flinn
37 McDougle Elementary School PTA - Siobhan Colgan
38 Music Maker Relief Foundation - Corinne Everett Belch
39 North Carolina Arts in Action - Marlon Torres
40 One Song Productions - Jax Preyer, Julia Stamey
41 Max Puhala - Max Puhala
42 Rogers Eubanks Neighborhood Association (RENA) - David Caldwell, Robert
43 Campbell, Rosie Caldwell
44 SECU Family House at UNC Hospitals - Kirsten Beattie
45
46 Commissioner Rich arrived at 7.1Op.m.
47
48 b. Proclamation —Constitution and Citizenship Day and Constitution Week
3
1 The Board considered approving the proclamation for the Constitution and Citizenship
2 Day and Constitution Week in Orange County and authorizing the Chair to sign the
3 proclamation.
4 Chair McKee said Commissioner Price had proposed a substitute resolution.
5
6 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price to
7 substitute the proposed proclamation (on purple sheet) with suggested changes.
8
9 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
10
11 Commissioner Price read the revised proclamation with suggested changes:
12
13 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
14 PROCLAMATION
15
16 CONSTITUTION AND CITIZENSHIP DAY AND CONSTITUTION WEEK 2015
17
18 WHEREAS, on September 17, 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention signed the
19 Constitution of the United States in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with the intent of forming a
20 more perfect Union with a foundation in liberty, justice, equality, dignity, and fairness; and
21 WHEREAS, the Hillsborough, North Carolina Convention in 1788 delayed ratification by North
22 Carolina, pending the addition of the Constitution's Bill of Rights; and
23 WHEREAS, the Later Amendments to the Constitution provide protections and liberties for
24 women, formerly enslaved persons, people of color and those historically disenfranchised; and
25 WHEREAS, the rights guaranteed in the Later Amendments have been demanded through the
26 Constitutional right to protest and contest those policies that inhibited the equitable treatment of
27 all persons; and
28 WHEREAS, the success of the United States of America, the State of North Carolina and
29 Orange County is attributable to a diverse heritage and the contributions made by all its
30 citizens, naturalized and native-born; and
31 WHEREAS, the United States Congress has designated the 17th day of September of each
32 year as "Constitution Day" and "Citizenship Day" in commemoration of the formation and
33 signing on September 17, 1787 of the Constitution of the United States and in recognition of all
34 who, by coming of age or by naturalization, have attained the full status of citizenship; and
35 WHEREAS, by joint resolution of August 2, 1956, Congress requested the that President of the
36 United States proclaim the week beginning September 17 of each year as "Constitution Week";
37 and
38 WHEREAS, every citizen of the United States, whether native-born or foreign-born, should
39 observe Constitution and Citizenship Day and Constitution Week each year by giving special
40 thought and consideration to his and her rights and responsibilities under our Constitution;
41 NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Orange County, North Carolina,
42 does hereby proclaim September 17, 2015 as Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, and
43 September 17 through September 23, 2015 as Constitution Week in Orange County, and
44 encourages all residents and citizens to participate in the joint quest to form a more perfect
45 union.
46 This the 15th day of September 2015.
47
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs for the
50 Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the proclamation.
4
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 c. Proclamation of September 2015 as National Preparedness Month
5 The Board considered approving the proclamation declaring September 2015 as
6 National Preparedness Month and authorizing the Chair to sign the proclamation.
7 Kirby Saunders, Emergency Management Services Director, asked them to consider the
8 proclamation below, read by Commissioner Pelissier:
9
10 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
11 NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS MONTH
12 2015
13 PROCLAMATION
14
15 WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has designated September as
16 National Preparedness Month across America; and
17 WHEREAS, National Preparedness Month is an opportunity to raise awareness on the
18 importance of emergency preparedness and to encourage all people to better prepare their
19 homes and communities for all hazards; and
20 WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Ready Campaign, Citizen Corps,
21 and other federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, private, and volunteer agencies are working to
22 increase public activities in preparing for emergencies and to educate individuals on how to
23 take action; and
24 WHEREAS, emergency preparedness is the responsibility of every person in Orange County,
25 and all people are urged to make preparedness a priority and work together, as a team, to
26 ensure that individuals, families, and communities are prepared for disasters and emergencies
27 of any type; and
28 WHEREAS, all people in Orange County are encouraged to participate in citizen preparedness
29 activities and asked to visit the websites of the Ready campaign at Ready.gov or Listo.gov (in
30 Spanish) and become more prepared for emergencies and disasters;
31 NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, do hereby proclaim
32 September 2015 as National Preparedness Month, and encourage all people and businesses in
33 Orange County to develop their own emergency preparedness plan, and work together toward
34 creating a more prepared community.
35
36 This, the 15th Day of September, 2015.
37
38 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
39 Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the attached proclamation declaring
40 September 2015 as National Preparedness Month.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 d. Recognizing Orange County as a "Storm Ready" Community
45 The Board considered accepting the StormReady community designation from the
46 National Weather Service.
47 Nicholas Petro, National Weather Service (NWS), gave an overview of the StormReady
48 program, and said to be recognized as StormReady, communities must meet guidelines
49 established by the NWS in partnership with federal, state, and local emergency management
50 professionals. More specifically, to be recognized as StormReady, communities must:
5
1 • Incorporate severe weather threats into their hazard mitigation and emergency response
2 plans.
3 • Establish a 24-hour Warning Point and Emergency Operations Center.
4 • Establish multiple ways to receive severe weather warnings and forecasts and to alert the
5 public.
6 • Create a system that monitors weather conditions locally.
7 • Promote the importance of public readiness through community seminars, severe weather
8 spotter training and by conducting emergency exercises.
9
10 He said the NWS has designated Orange County as a Storm Ready County, and this is
11 a result of their dedication in Orange County. He said this would help prepare the Orange
12 County Community.
13 Commissioner Rich thanked Josh Hollingsworth and Kirby Saunders for their hard work,
14 and for using Social Media to promote and educate.
15
16 e. Orange County Resolution of Support for Small Solar
17 The Board considered approving the resolution of support for small-scale residential
18 solar installations in Orange County, and authorizing the Chair to sign the resolution.
19 Chair McKee said past Commissioner John Hartwell brought this proclamation forth.
20 John Hartwell said this is a rare and needed opportunity to better the community.
21 He said when he went to get his permit for Orange County for this solar array; he was
22 not very well received. He said this is not how it should be.
23 He said with the adoption of this resolution, Orange County residents will be
24 empowered, and the staff will be receptive to other residents wanting permits.
25 John Hartwell read the resolution:
26
27 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
28 Resolution of Support for Small Solar
29
30 WHEREAS, the widespread adoption of solar technology would reduce the necessity to build
31 additional nuclear or fossil-fuel generating plants with their attendant problems; and
32 WHEREAS, the County has endorsed the development of a pilot solar photovoltaic system
33 within its own County facilities; and
34 WHEREAS, the County's 2030 Comprehensive Plan establishes several goals and objectives
35 encouraging the development of alternative energy sources in accordance with applicable land
36 use regulations; and
37 WHEREAS, the price of small residential solar voltaic arrays has recently fallen and kits
38 containing all of the necessary electrical components have become readily available, and
39 WHEREAS, recent local efforts to promote the development of small residential solar have
40 been successful, including the Solarize Orange project which has resulted in new solar
41 installations on over 150 homes and small businesses across Orange County in 2014 and
42 2015; and
43 WHEREAS, the average residential solar array installed in Orange County over the past 2
44 years is approximately 5 kilowatts, and solar installations up to 20 kilowatts are allowed as an
45 accessory use for a residential property; and
46 WHEREAS, Orange County has previously adopted comprehensive land use regulations in
47 order to distinguish the permit submittal and review process for small residential solar projects
48 and large, commercial, solar utility operations in an effort to further promote the development of
49 small residential solar facilities; and
6
1 WHEREAS, the County wishes to empower the residents of Orange County to take advantage
2 of these recent advances in this promising renewable energy technology;
3 NOW, THEREFORE, we, the Orange County Board of Commissioners, declare our support for
4 this technology and direct the County Manager and staff to encourage and facilitate its adoption
5 by individual residents.
6
7 This 15th day of September, 2015.
8
9 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Price for the
10 Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the attached resolution of support for small
11 solar installations in Orange County.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 Chair McKee said he forgot to invite Matt Hughes to speak when item 4-b was being
16 discussed. He asked if Matt Hughes would like to speak.
17 Matt Hughes, Human Relations Commission Board Member, thanked the Board for
18 adopting this resolution.
19
20 2. Public Comments
21
22 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
23 Robert Seymour said he is pleased to give comments regarding some of the needs in
24 Orange County, in hopes that money may be available. He said he is representing seniors in
25 Orange County. He praised the County for the two existing senior centers, but said they are
26 now full, and the seniors are still coming into Orange County. He added that seniors are living
27 longer. He said the Seymour Center needs more parking, which is a good thing. He said the
28 more ethnic groups are being reached than ever before. He said seniors today represent a
29 different kind of group. He said he hoped the Board would not see seniors as a liability, but as
30 a resource in Orange County. He asked the Board to fund the senior needs through the bond.
31 Mary Kraft read the following:
32 We urge you to reconsider how the bond referendum is earmarked. The
33 message we have for you today is that the demands of the senior population are
34 clearly growing faster than that of the schools, and if we ignore this emerging
35 reality, and fail to make the capital investments now, we will be placing everyone
36 in the County at risk.
37 A relatively short time ago you caused to be established something called
38 Project EngAGE, to anticipate and prepare for the gray tsunami: the accelerating growth
39 in the number of people above the age of 60, which already exceeds the number of
40 children in our county schools, and by some accounts is anticipated to explode by more
41 than 80% in the next ten years. So you engaged a volunteer corps of senior advocates
42 identifying and quantifying what this means for the county and the services the county
43 provides.
44 Over the last year, a group of 28, some of whom are behind me, have gained first hand
45 knowledge and direct experience with the special difficulties and opportunities this
46 demographic presents:
47 30% of people over 65 fall every year.
48 25% of this population lives in poverty
49 As we age our metabolism slows; our taste buds dull; and we lose interest in
50 shopping for groceries, cooking and even eating; our stamina, balance and strength
7
1 diminish; our vision and hearing lose the acuity we once had. The reality is that we no
2 longer experience large numbers of accidental deaths, we are outliving disease; to be
3 replaced by a very gradual decline in function; during which time we will see an ever
4 increasing demand in public services.
5 EMS will become a major provider of in home support. Public transit will become
6 an on demand, customized, through the door service. Senior Centers will need to be
7 reconfigured to accommodate increasing numbers of participants and satellite locations
8 are already needed for the north-east, north-west, and south-west portions of the
9 County. The stress this increase places on an already challenged system from DSS to
10 the Department on Aging, the Sheriff's Office & EMS is already felt and will require novel
11 solutions.
12 Again, the message we have for you today is that the demands of the senior
13 population are clearly growing faster than that of the schools, and if we ignore this
14 emerging reality and fail to make the capital investments now, we will be placing
15 everyone in the county at risk.
16 We urge you to reconsider how the bond referendum is earmarked.
17 Beverly Blythe provided a hand out, incorporated here by reference.
18 Ree Ree Wei, high school student, said she supported adding affordable housing
19 on the bond referendum. She said she has personally benefitted from affordable
20 housing. She said if it had not been available, her family would not have a home that
21 affords her a safe place to live, and a quiet place to study. She said good schools must
22 be combined with good housing for children to achieve success.
23 Brian Curran, former Chapel Hill Police Chief, asked the Board to include an
24 affordable housing component in the bond referendum. He said the lion's share should
25 go to the schools, but to consider a portion for affordable housing. He said safe housing
26 and a good education go hand in hand. He said bond funds have been used for
27 affordable housing in the past, building close to 100 homes. He said federal funding for
28 affordable housing is shrinking rapidly. He thanked the Board for their ongoing
29 commitment to affordable housing.
30 Alex Castro, Advisory Board on Aging, said school needs are clear, but the
31 County has other needs as well. He asked for support for seniors, affordable housing,
32 and parks in the bond referendum.
33 Katherine Leith said she is here in support for seniors, and affordable housing in
34 the proposed bond referendum.
35 Jen Ferris said she is President of the Board of Directors for the Community
36 Home Trust, and she also lives in affordable housing. She is here to ask the Board to
37 support affordable housing in the bond, specifically $10 million.
38 Kelli Thomas said she is a member of the Board of Directors of Habitat for
39 Humanity, and she asked for the Board's support for affordable housing in the bond. She
40 is a former teacher and fully supports funds going to the public schools, but added that
41 good schools cannot be effective if the students do not have safe, clean and affordable
42 housing.
43 Mary Jean Seyda said she is part of the Orange County Affordable Housing
44 Coalition and is here to ask the Board of County Commissioners to support affordable
45 housing in the proposed bond. She asked Orange County to join Carrboro and Chapel
46 Hill in their efforts to dedicate funding to affordable housing. She said funding would
47 allow agencies to plan and move forward with housing, as well as take advantage of real
48 estate opportunities as they arise.
49 Tish Galu said she is here to support affordable housing in the proposed bond
50 referendum for the health and well being of Orange County residents. She said it is
8
1 estimated that $10 million will be needed to implement a plan for affordable housing in
2 Orange County. She asked the Board to delay making a decision about the bond and
3 use those few months to work out a real plan for affordable housing.
4 Daniel Bullock provided written comments, incorporated here by reference.
5 Gary Bird said he is a member of several school improvement teams in the
6 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools (CHCCS). He said his concern is the older
7 infrastructure in many of the schools, and he encouraged the Board to use the bond
8 funding for renovations of these older schools to insure the safety of the students and
9 teachers.
10 Barbara Redmond said she is a homeowner at Phoenix Place (affordable
11 housing), and these homes would never have been built without bond money from the
12 2001 bond. She asked them to support affordable housing in the 2016 bond.
13 Mark Marcoplos said he is on the Housing Authority Board. He said it should first
14 be acknowledged that the process for this bond should include transparency, but it has
15 not. He said many members of the public here tonight did not get a chance to hear the
16 Board's April discussion about the bond. He asked the Board to reconsider and add
17 affordable housing as part of the bond. He asked the Board to walk the talk with real
18 funding and a real plan. He urged the Board to make this social investment.
19 Margaret Samuels, a social worker, said she has worked with families in the
20 community in many areas, with one of them being education and early education. She
21 thanked the Board for its ongoing commitment to education. She said the Board is the
22 last line of defense for the school systems. She asked the Board to support the schools
23 with the bond referendum.
24 Dan Levine said he is a lifelong Orange County resident, and he urged the Board
25 to add affordable housing to the bond referendum.
26 Rani Dasi said she is asking the Board to expand the bond offer to cover school
27 capital needs, as well as affordable housing needs.
28 Ellie Kinnaird said she is a member of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board and
29 is here to ask them to support affordable housing in the bond referendum. She said
30 Orange County is not exempt from poverty, and children that live in poverty do not do well
31 in schools. She asked the Board to allocate $10 million in the bond for affordable
32 housing.
33 Jonzella Bailey Pridham asked the Board to fund safe, affordable housing in the
34 bond. She said the community is full of people with great potential, and willingness to
35 work but lack somewhere safe to live.
36 Sharon Barrett said she is the Vice President for Advocacy for the CHCCS Parent
37 Teacher Association, and she hoped that the Board would expand the bond to include
38 other issues. She said CHCCS parents are tired of organizing to petition the Board
39 annually for more school funding. She asked the Board to do the right thing and fund the
40 schools.
41 Andrew Davidson said he is the Vice Chair of the CHCCS School Board, and this
42 bond debate has caused an impression of adversarial relationships between the schools
43 and other entities. He said the schools need at least $125 million for capital
44 improvements. He said this massive funding need cannot be accomplished any way
45 other than a bond.
46 Art Sprinczeles said he is Assistant Chair for the Orange County Affordable
47 Housing Advisory Board and asked the Board to support affordable housing in the 2016
48 bond.
9
1 Catherine Cummer thanked the Board for its ongoing support of local schools,
2 and said she is here to ask for the Board's support for the schools' capital needs. She
3 said schools do not have to be state of the art, but they must be safe.
4 Jen Bishop said she is here on behalf of the Frank Porter Graham Bilingue School
5 Improvement Team, and she supported the school capital needs funding in the bond.
6 Nikki Santos said she moved to Chapel Hill due to a domestic violence situation.
7 She said she lived at Homestart Women's Shelter for years, and finding affordable
8 housing in Chapel Hill has been very difficult. She said housing and schools and even
9 seniors make a community, and all items need to be funded.
10 Michael Reinke said he is the new Director for InterFaith Council for Social
11 Service, and he wholeheartedly supported the inclusion of affordable housing in the bond
12 referendum. He stressed the interrelatedness between safe and consistent housing, and
13 school success.
14 Delores Bailey is the Executive Director of Empowerment, Inc in Chapel Hill and
15 part of the affordable housing coalition. She said schools cannot be pit against
16 affordable housing, as the two go hand in hand. She said Empowerment is constantly
17 turning away people who are in need of affordable housing, because there are not
18 enough homes in the inventory. She said Orange County does have homeless people,
19 both adults and children. She said she has seen the disparity of those who cannot afford
20 to live in Orange County. She asked the Board to consider adding more money to the
21 bond for the extra needs of affordable housing and seniors.
22
23 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
24 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda below.)
25
26 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
27 Commissioner Price said she would like to follow up with staff on her petition about
28 naming a room at the Central Orange Senior Center (COSC) for Jerry Passmore.
29 Bonnie Hammersley said she would be attending the meeting at the COSC on this
30 issue, and would provide a follow up.
31 Commissioner Dorosin had no petitions.
32 Commissioner Pelissier had no petitions.
33 Commissioner Jacobs said this has been an inadequate and disappointing process for
34 the bond and asked staff to come back to the Board this fall with an affordable housing plan.
35 He said this plan should cover all elements and resources of the issue, involve all stakeholders,
36 and provide short and long term visions for a strategy to address affordable housing. He said if
37 the majority of the Board is amenable to changing their vote, there is time to amend the funding
38 goals of the bond.
39 Commissioner Jacobs petitioned staff to work with Durham Tech to look at the program
40 just adopted by Richmond and Scotland counties, which pays the tuition for high school
41 students with a 3.0 grade point average. He said there are monies in the '/4 cents sales tax,
42 and he said the option would give an opportunity for students to get an education that may
43 otherwise not be available.
44 Commissioner Burroughs had no petitions.
45 Commissioner Rich petitioned staff if a process could be outline to switch the bond to
46 fund $10 million for affordable housing and $5 million seniors; and to give the schools $110
47 million, making up the rest to the schools in the Capital Investment Plan (CIP) up to $125
48 million. She said if affordable housing is put on a bond, it is dedicated money. She said she
49 would like information on how this would take place, and the costs to the taxpayers in real
50 numbers.
10
1
2 5. Public Hearings
3 NONE
4
5 6. Consent Agenda
6
7 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
8 Item e by Commissioner Jacobs.
9
10 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
11
12 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs for
13 the Board to approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
18
19 e. Resolution to Endorse the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization Project List
20 Developed for Consideration in NCDOT Prioritization 4.0
21 The Board considered adopting the resolution endorsing transportation projects within
22 the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) planning area to submit for State
23 scoring and consideration of inclusion in the 2018-2027 Statewide Transportation Improvement
24 Program (STIP).
25 Commissioner Jacobs said he told staff he would pull this item. He said he,
26 Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner Price met with Metropolitan Planning Organization
27 (MPO) staff and Carrboro elected officials to talk about proposed changes on N.C. 54 west of
28 Carrboro. He said it is not clear what is at issue and what the Board will be voting on. He
29 asked if Bret Martin, Orange County Transportation Planner, would brief the Board of the
30 specifics.
31 Bret Martin said the actions before the Board are new projects from TARPO and does
32 not affect the N.C. 54 project. He said the action tonight is for new projects, and there are only
33 three in Orange County. He said the submission of the carry over projects would be scored by
34 the State and for possible inclusion with the State.
35 Commissioner Jacobs sent the following email:
36
37 Greg,
38
39 Three questions about the TARPO item:
40 1. What's the "Western Connector" referred to so vaguely at the top of the list of new
41 highway projects on p.5?
42 2. There's a meeting on Tuesday morning to discuss the widening of NC54 west of
43 Carrboro, as mentioned via asterisk under Carry-Over Projects on p. 7. This item may
44 need to be pulled to reflect the results of that meeting, as Carrboro is strongly opposed
45 to the staff and TARPO recommendation.
46 3. Please define a "modernization project," as for new highway projects 6-8 in Orange
47 County or 8-10 in the list of combined projects.
48 Thanks.
49
50 Please see below follow-up information from Bret Martin:
11
1
2 1) The Western Connector is a proposed project in Moore County in or near Pinehurst. All
3 projects involving Orange County on the list are underlined and italicized to distinguish
4 them from projects in other jurisdictions within the TARPO planning area.
5
6 2) If pulled from the consent agenda, staff will be prepared to address any questions or
7 facilitate any discussion for the item that may need to occur as a follow-up to the
8 meeting scheduled earlier in the day. The Town of Carrboro is only opposed to the
9 project being submitted as a widening but is in favor of the project being submitted for
10 consideration of operational improvements and intersection improvements. The TARPO
11 Prioritization Subcommittee recommendation is to submit all of these variations to
12 NCDOT for scoring. While the original list of TARPO projects that the BOCC endorsed
13 contained only alternative operational improvements for the corridor rather than
14 widening, within the TARPO Prioritization Subcommittee, NCDOT Division 7
15 recommended that the widening project stay as a carry-over project to be scored
16 independently of the other project variations. In the event that NCDOT Division 7 and
17 any local jurisdiction do not agree on how and if projects within the existing SPOT
18 database are submitted, it is NCDOT's policy that the project will remain in the database
19 "as is" and be carried forward for scoring and consideration of inclusion in the Statewide
20 Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). However, because the project crosses
21 into the DCHC MPO planning area and the project is not currently in the financially
22 constrained DCHC MPO Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP), it cannot be included
23 in the STIP even if it scores well enough to be included unless the MPO Board takes an
24 action to include it. Accordingly, there are further potential barriers in place for the Town
25 of Carrboro to take an action of opposition to the widening of the facility.
26
27 It is Orange County transportation planning staff's recommendation to keep the idea of
28 widening the facility as a long-term vision or alternative because current and projected
29 data tell us that it will be needed. However, these data will need to be updated and
30 revisited over time to research the potential effects that other transportation actions may
31 have on traffic volumes for this facility and to determine if a $57 million widening project
32 can still be justified. Transportation planning staff agrees that a less impactful short-term
33 solution involving operational improvements would address much of the existing
34 deficiencies along the corridor that could function, as an appropriate interim step toward
35 potential widening if data continue to support that adding travel lane capacity should
36 occur.
37
38 3) Modernization projects are those intended to bring sections of roadway up to modern
39 safety and operational standards or to increase the design speed of a facility. The Old
40 Greensboro Road and Orange Grove Road/Buckhorn Road projects simply just involve
41 the addition of four-foot paved shoulders. The Efland-Cedar Grove Road project would
42 involve improving the facility from a 20-foot cross section (currently accommodating
43 narrow 10-foot travel lanes) to a 24-foot cross section to accommodate 12-foot travel
44 lanes. The project would also involve geometric alignment improvements to straighten
45 the roadway where needed, the addition of turn lanes, and the incorporation of bicycle
46 facilities.
47
48 Chair McKee said Commissioner Price is the Board's TARPO representative and asked
49 if she had any additional comment.
12
1 Commissioner Price said Bret is correct, and nothing the Board votes on tonight will
2 affect the N.C. 54 project.
3 Commissioner Jacobs said the discussion today involved more scoping of the project, in
4 light of more up to date information. He said this is just the first phase of looking at what may
5 happen.
6 Commissioner Pelissier said there might be another meeting to further discuss the 54
7 corridor.
8 Chair McKee asked Commissioner Price and staff to keep the Board up to speed on the
9 N.C. 54 project.
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
12 approve adopting the resolution, which is incorporated by reference, endorsing transportation
13 projects within the Triangle Area Rural Planning Organization (TARPO) planning area to submit
14 for State scoring and consideration of inclusion in the 2018-2027 Statewide Transportation
15 Improvement Program (STIP).
16
17 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
18
19 a. Minutes— NONE
20 b. Health Department Fee Schedule Changes
21 The Board approved the multiple revised Personal Health and Environmental Health fees
22 approved by the Board of Health at its August 26, 2015 meeting.
23 c. Rural Recycling Trucks Procurement
24 The Board approved a Sole Source exemption purchase from Southern Truck Service, Inc. of
25 Charlotte, North Carolina to procure two (2) rural curbside recycling trucks at the cost of
26 $299,183 each ($598,366) and authorized the Finance Director to proceed with debt financing
27 for one of the new trucks in the amount of$299,183.
28 d. Approval of Budget Amendment #1-B for the Purchase of Fifteen (15) Mobile Field
29 Computing Units
30 The Board approved Budget Amendment#1-B for the purchase of fifteen (15) Mobile Field
31 Computing Units for the Sheriff's Department.
32 f. North Buckhorn Sewer— Transfer of Ownership to City of Mebane
33 The Board: 1. Authorized the Manager to sign the Successor in Interest agreement on behalf of
34 the County; 2. Approved the transfer of ownership of the utility infrastructure and easements to
35 the City of Mebane and authorized the Chair to sign the Dedication Form; and 3. Authorized
36 staff to pursue any further action necessary to complete the transfer of ownership to the City of
37 Mebane, per the 2012 Mebane-Orange County Utility Service Agreement.
38 g. Lease Modification — Department of Social Services Expansion into Former Dollar
39 Tree Space within Hillsborough Commons
40 The Board modified the Hillsborough Commons Lease servicing the Orange County
41 Department of Social Services to: 1) extend the terms of the initial Lease Agreement to the
42 expanded 10,116 square feet (the former Dollar Tree space); 2) re-instate the Option to
43 Purchase all or a portion of the entire Hillsborough Commons Shopping Center property; and 3)
44 authorized the Chair to sign the appropriate documents upon final review of the County
45 Attorney.
46
47 7. Regular Agenda
48
49 a. Adoption of Criteria Governing the Design-Build Method of Construction Project
50 Delivery for County Projects
13
1 The Board considered adopting the criteria for selecting the design-build method of
2 construction project delivery according to NCGS 143-128.1.A and approving the resolution
3 upon the review of the County Attorney.
4 Jeff Thompson, Orange County Asset Management Services Director, presented the
5 following PowerPoint slides:
6
7 Orange County Design Build Construction Delivery Method
8
9 Summary
10 • Board approval for Design-Build method
11 • Design Build: Contract with one firm (Architect & Contractor)
12 • Recently delegated to local governments in May, 2013
13 • Employed by established criteria, elected on a project by project basis
14 • Requested for Sportsplex Field House project
15
16 Criteria Summary
17 • The project is well defined...
18 • The project timeline is an important factor...
19 • The County has experienced staff and adequate resources to assure that a high
20 quality project ...
21 • There a maximum budget that must be adhered to...
22 • It will be necessary to have partial occupancy...
23 • The project requires good-faith efforts to comply with HUB requirements
24 • More desirable for facility goals and type of facility desired...
25
26 Business Case for Sportsplex
27 • Ideal delivery method for large, pre-engineered metal structures such as the field house
28 (cost savings)
29 • Proximity to ongoing operations at Sportsplex
30 o Speed of delivery
31 o Fewer costly disruptions to existing operations
32 • Allows mezzanine space and locker room elements to be contemplated in Field House
33 more efficiently and potentially less costly.
34
35 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the "Construction Manager at Risk" option was no longer
36 being considered.
37 Jeff Thompson said that is still an option, which may be used at the jail, but with this
38 proposal that both firms are under one contract.
39 Commissioner Price asked if this goes through, would staff will be able to conduct this
40 process to smaller businesses in the community.
41 Jeff Thompson said yes.
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier for
44 the Board to adopt the criteria for selecting the design-build method of construction project
45 delivery according to NCGS 143-128.1.A and approve the resolution upon the review of the
46 County Attorney.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
14
1
2 8. Reports
3
4 a. Southern Branch Library Siting Criteria, Process Update
5 The Board considered allowing the Manager to initiate discussions with the Carrboro
6 Town Manager on property acquisition options for the 203 S. Greensboro Street property.
7 Bonnie Hammersley said due to complications with the Butler property in early 2015,
8 staff reevaluated the list of possible sites. She said all sites have been reviewed and one site
9 does meet all the criteria. She said staff is recommending that this property be considered and
10 allow the County Manager to negotiate discussions with the Town Manager since it is a
11 Carrboro owned town property. She said she has been meeting in parallel discussions with the
12 Carrboro Arts and Innovation Center (CAIC).
13 Jeff Thompson gave an illustration of the properties.
14 Commissioner Rich said the 203 Greensboro Street property and the parking lot are well
15 utilized and asked if Carrboro is willing to give that site up.
16 Jeff Thompson said yes.
17 Commissioner Rich asked if the plan is to build a freestanding building.
18 Jeff Thompson said yes.
19 Commissioner Rich asked if there is a plan to keep people from parking in the new
20 library parking lot.
21 Jeff Thompson said that could be addressed in discussions.
22 Commissioner Rich said she would like to have this information early on.
23 Bonnie Hammersley said she has had discussions with the Town Manager, and she said
24 there is a belief that the Town and County can partner together to increase the parking for both
25 the library and the community.
26 Commissioner Rich said she wanted to be cautious moving forward regarding the
27 parking issue.
28 Commissioner Dorosin said after the Board meeting in June, there were other sites
29 mentioned, much to the dismay of Carrboro. He asked if there was an update from the
30 Manager as to how the situation was resolved.
31 Bonnie Hammersley said in June that there was concern from Carrboro that the
32 County's priorities were leaning toward the CAIC. She said since then there were
33 conversations among staff and elected leaders to make amends, and she said the County is
34 keeping Carrboro as informed as possible. She said it was first thought that two sites would be
35 proposed, but after great review it was determined that only one site was a viable option. She
36 said the Town was informed about this process as it went along.
37 Chair McKee said some of the concern stemmed from the addition of sites that the
38 Town was not expecting, and once this was clarified to the Town, these concerns were
39 alleviated. He said the Town would be clearly communicated with moving forward.
40 Commissioner Price clarified that the Town put forth this site as a possible option and
41 said she liked this property.
42 Commissioner Jacobs asked Bonnie Hammersley if the property would be given free of
43 charge.
44 Bonnie Hammersley responded that those discussions would be taking place with the
45 Town Manager.
46 Commissioner Rich asked if the plan is to build a freestanding library, or if there is a
47 possibility for a multi-story, multi-purpose building. She said the property is a prime location
48 and using it to its fullest extent seems wise.
15
1 Commissioner Pelissier said she has had conversations with some elected officials from
2 the Town who seem pleased with this new process. She said the Town is willing to allow a 5-
3 deck height for 50 percent of the building, which is a great option.
4 Commissioner Burroughs clarified that moving forward would allow for a freestanding
5 library and a possible collaboration with other entities.
6 Bonnie Hammersley said this site is set up for this type of flexibility, but the Board would
7 ultimately need to decide this issue.
8 Chair McKee said he met with all the Mayors this past week, and he has asked to meet
9 with Mayor Lavelle about upcoming items for their joint meeting in October. He said this might
10 be a good topic for discussion.
11
12 9. County Manager's Report
13 NONE
14
15 10. County Attorney's Report
16 John Roberts said the State has reached agreement on the State budget, and he will try
17 and get a summary of the document to the Board.
18
19 11. Appointments
20
21 a. Animal Services Advisory Board —Appointments
22 The Board considered making appointments to the Animal Services Advisory Board.
23
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
25 appoint the following to the Animal Services Advisory Board:
26
27 • Appointment to a second full term (position #3) for Michelle Walker as the "Town of
28 Carrboro" representative, expiring 06/30/2018.
29 • Appointment to a second full term (position #4) for Aviva Scully as the "Town of Chapel
30 Hill" representative, expiring 06/30/2018.
31 • Appointment to a first full term (position #5) for Arthur Sprinczeles as the "Town of
32 Hillsborough" representative, expiring 06/30/2018.
33 • Appointment to a second full term (position #6) for Warren Porter as the "Non-
34 Municipality" representative, expiring 06/30/2018.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 b. Board of Health —Appointments
39 The Board considered making appointments to the Board of Health.
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
42 appoint the following to the Board of Health:
43
44 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #6) for Barbara Chavious as the "At-Large
45 Citizen" representative, expiring 06/30/2018.
46 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #7) for Timothy Smith as the "At-Large
47 Professional Engineer" representative, expiring 06/30/2018.
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
16
1 c. Human Relations Commission (HRC)—Appointments
2 The Board considered making appointments to the Human Relations Commission
3 (HRC).
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
6 appoint the following to the HRC:
7
8 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #2) "At-Large" representative Andy Cagle
9 expiring 09/30/2018.
10 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #3) "At-Large" representative Vanessa Soleil
11 expiring 09/30/2018.
12 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #14) "At-Large" representative Scott Goldsmith
13 expiring 09/30/2018.
14
15 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
16
17 Commissioner Rich asked about the vacant position #16 that HRC staff is trying to fill
18 with a representative from the Hispanic Community, to round out the diversity on this board.
19 She said the position has been vacant for a while, and if a representative cannot be found, she
20 would like the Board to proceed with filling this position at a later date.
21
22 d. Orange County Board of Adjustment—Appointments
23 The Board considered making appointments to the Orange County Board of
24 Adjustment.
25
26 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
27 appoint the following to the Orange County Board of Adjustment:
28
29 • Appointment of Susan Halkiotis to a first full term (Position #1) "At-Large" representative
30 expiring 06/30/2018.
31 • Appointment of Barry Katz to a first full term (Position #2) "At-Large" representative
32 expiring 06/30/2017.
33 • Appointment of Samantha Cabe, who was an alternate, and the Board has moved her to
34 a permanent position to a partial term (Position #3) "At-Large" representative expiring
35 06/30/2016.
36 • Appointment of Brendan Madigan to a first full term (Position #4) "At-Large Alternate"
37 representative expiring 06/30/2016.
38 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #6) "Alternate" position for Matt Hughes,
39 expiring 06/30/2018.
40
41 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
42
43 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
44 appoint:
45
46 Appointment to a second full term (Position #5) "At-Large" position for Karen Barrows
47 expiring 06/30/2018.
48
49 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
50
17
1 e. Orange Water& Sewer Authority Board —Appointment
2 The Board considered making an appointment to the Orange Water & Sewer Authority
3 Board.
4
5 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
6 appoint Ray Dubois to the OWASA Board.
7
8 VOTE: Ayes, 3 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, and Commissioner Rich);
9 Nayes, 4 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Price, Commissioner Dorosin, and Commissioner
10 Burroughs)
11
12 MOTION FAILED
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
15 appoint the following to the OWASA Board:
16
17 Appointment of Barbara Middleton Foushee to a first full term (Position #1) BOCC
18 Appointed representative expiring 06/30/2018.
19
20 VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Price, Commissioner, Dorosin, Commissioner
21 Burroughs); Nayes, 3 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Pelissier, Commissioner Rich)
22
23 MOTION PASSES
24
25 12. Board Comments
26 Commissioner Rich said she had no comments.
27 Commissioner Burroughs said she asked the Health Department Director about the cost
28 of contraceptives. She said in Colorado all contraceptives are free. She said she asked if
29 something like this would be possible in Orange County, and the idea is being researched.
30 Commissioner Jacobs said he had no comments.
31 Commissioner Pelissier reminded residents that there is a public hearing on the
32 proposed light rail on Tuesday, September 29 at the Friday Center at 4:00 p.m.
33 Commissioner Pelissier said there is a potential funding issue from the State, but a
34 conclusion has not yet been reached. She said Go Triangle received a $1.7 million grant from
35 the Federal Transit Administration to do planning around light rail. She said it is the second
36 highest grant amount ever awarded. She said this shows Federal support for the Light Rail
37 project.
38 Commissioner Dorosin said he had no comments.
39 Commissioner Price said she attended the Neighborhood Night Out at the Hargraves
40 Community Center as well as the Virtual Enterprises. She said both were great community
41 events.
42 Commissioner Jacobs said he attended the Business Expo at the Friday Center. He
43 said it was a joint venture of both chambers and Orange County Economic Development. He
44 said it was very well received.
45 Commissioner Jacobs said the legislature commanded a certain number of layoffs in the
46 Department of Transportation, most of whom were women.
47 Chair McKee said a news outlet has requested comments from the Board regarding the
48 potential State funding issues with the light rail. He forwarded the request to the County
49 Manager.
18
1 Commissioner Rich suggested having a coordinated statement on the issue of light rail
2 from Orange County, Chapel Hill and Durham.
3 Bonnie Hammersley said the response that she gave to the news outlet was that the
4 County was working with its partners and was not ready for comment at this time. She said she
5 is reaching out to stakeholders.
6 Commissioner Pelissier said this is in direct violation of the State Transportation
7 Improvement law that was passed by the General Assembly. She said the project is not dead
8 in the water, even if the State is not involved as expected. She said the plan does not call for
9 State funds in the immediate future.
10 Chair McKee said three Board member volunteers are needed to serve on the retreat
11 planning committee.
12 Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Pelissier and Commissioner Burroughs volunteered.
13
14 13. Information Items
15
16 • September 1, 2015 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
17 • Memo Regarding Rural Recycling Service Area Expansion
18 • BOCC Chair Letter Regarding Petitions from September 1, 2015 Board Meeting
19
20 14. Closed Session
21 NONE
22
23 15. Adjournment
24 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs to
25 adjourn the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
26
27 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
28
29
30 Earl McKee, Chair
31
32 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
33