HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-21-2016 - 6-a - Minutes ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 21, 2016
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:
November 23, 2015 BOCC Quarterly Public Hearing
December 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
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1
1 Attachment 1
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 QUARTERLY PUBLIC HEARING
6 November 23, 2015
7 7:00 P.M.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met with the Orange County Planning Board for a
10 Quarterly Public Hearing on November 23, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Whitted Building, in
11 Hillsborough, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Earl McKee and Commissioners Barry Jacobs,
14 Mia Burroughs, Mark Dorosin, Bernadette Pelissier and Penny Rich
15 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Renee Price
16 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts and James Bryan (Staff Attorney)
17 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley and Deputy Clerk to the
18 Board David Hunt (All other staff members will be identified appropriately below)
19 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Lydia Wegman and Planning Board
20 members, Herman Staats, Paul Guthrie, Laura Nicholson, Andrea Rohrbacher and H.T. "Buddy"
21 Hartley
22 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ABSENT: Tony Blake, James Lea, Maxecine Mitchell, Patricia
23 Roberts and Lisa Stuckey
24
25 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
26
27 A. OPENING REMARKS FROM THE CHAIR
28 Chair McKee welcomed everyone to the meeting. He noted that there were two items
29 for the public hearing, to be followed by one work session item. He noted the following items at
30 the Commissioners' places:
31 - PowerPoint for item C-1: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment Sexually
32 Oriented Businesses
33 - PowerPoint for item C-2: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment
34 Display of Vehicles at Motor Vehicle Sales/rental Land Uses
35
36 B. PUBLIC CHARGE
37 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the public charge.
38
39 C. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
40
41 1. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
42 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding sexually oriented businesses.
43
44 BACKGROUND:
45 As defined within NCGS 14-202.10 a sexually oriented business means, "Any
46 businesses, or enterprises that have as one of their principal business purposes, or as a
47 significant portion of their business, an emphasis on matter and conduct depicting, describing,
48 or related to anatomical areas and sexual activities."
49 The County cannot prohibit sexually oriented businesses outright but is afforded the
50 opportunity to regulate their location and certain operational characteristics in an effort to ensure
51 identified secondary impacts are mitigated.
2
1 Staff is proposing to amend the UDO to establish locational criteria for such businesses
2 including mandatory setbacks from identified sensitive uses (i.e. church, school, single-family
3 residence, etc.)while allowing for their development consistent with applicable State and
4 Federal requirements and prohibiting the consumption and/or sale of alcohol. In support of
5 recommended land use regulations, staff offers the following information with respect to
6 addressing identified secondary impacts.
7 Staff's review of these studies caused a conclusion that the secondary effects of
8 sexually oriented businesses have negative impacts on the surrounding area, in the form of
9 crime and property devaluation, which will be addressed by the proposed regulations.
10 Planning staff is recommending sexually oriented businesses observe a 1,000 ft.
11 setback from each other as well as identified sensitive uses (i.e. church, residence, playground,
12 etc.). Staff is recommending the setback for several reasons, including:
13 a. Referenced studies have found the clustering of such land uses in a given area could
14 attract an undesirable quantity and quality of transients adversely impacting property values,
15 creating blight for adjacent properties, cause an increase in crime and encourages residents
16 and businesses to move elsewhere.
17 b. Courts have consistently found local communities have the legal ability and interest in
18 promoting stable neighborhoods through requiring a setback. This was viewed as being a
19 substantial government interest and the incidental impact of an ordinance regulating such
20 businesses on protected speech. (United States versus O'Brien — US Supreme Court
21 (1976); Young versus American Movie Theaters Inc. — US Supreme Court (1979) ; City of
22 Renton versus Playtime Theaters — US Supreme Court (1986)).
23 The proposed setback does not restrict the activity that can occur within the business.
24 Planning staff is recommending sexually oriented businesses not be located within a
25 structure or on property where alcohol is allowed to be sold or consumed. Staff is
26 recommending the standard for several reasons including:
27 a. Referenced studies have found such land uses could attract an undesirable quantity and
28 quality of transients adversely impacting property values, creating blight for adjacent
29 properties, and causes an increase in crime (most notably prostitution).
30 In some of these studies alcohol is identified as contributing factor.
31 b. Courts have found local communities have the legal ability to restrict or prohibit the
32 consumption/sale of alcohol (Fay versus State Board of Alcoholic Control — NC Court of
33 Appeals (1976).
34 c. State law allows governing bodies to restrict alcohol sales/consumption at sexually
35 oriented businesses. Please refer to Attachment 2.
36 The prohibition on alcohol sales/consumption does not restrict the activity that can occur
37 within the business.
38
39 Michael Harvey, Orange County Planning, made the following PowerPoint presentation:
40
41 November 23, 2015
42 Agenda Item: C-1
43 Public Hearing-Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment
44 Sexually Oriented Businesses
45 Orange County Planning Department
46
47 Background:
48 • Local governments cannot prohibit sexually oriented businesses outright.
49
50 • Courts and State law allow local governments to regulate their location and certain
51 operational characteristics to ensure identified secondary impacts are mitigated.
3
1
2
3 Proposal:
4 • Amend the UDO to allow such businesses within light and medium intensity industrial
5 districts (I-1 and 1-2),
6 — Staff is recommending these districts as there are typically less identified
7 sensitive uses in proximity to industrial developments.
8 • Require mandatory setbacks from identified sensitive uses (i.e. church, school, single-
9 family residence, etc.), and
10 • Prohibit the consumption and/or sale of alcohol.
11
12 Where Allowed (map)
13
14 Staff Findinqs:
15 • Studies have found sexually oriented businesses can have negative secondary impacts
16 on the surrounding area.
17 • Secondary impacts from such businesses can include increased levels of crime, sexual
18 deviance, prostitution, and negative economic impacts.
19 — STAFF COMMENT: These impacts can be addressed by the proposed
20 regulations.
21 • Studies have found consumption of alcohol at sexually oriented businesses contributes
22 to identified secondary impacts including crime, most notably prostitution, and increased
23 blight.
24 — STAFF COMMENT: This impact can be addressed by the proposed regulations.
25 • Proposed regulations are content neutral and do not restrict anyone's rights with respect
26 to engaging in a sexually oriented business activity.
27
28 Recommendation:
29 Recommendation(s): The Planning Director recommends that the Board:
30 1. Receive the request.
31 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board comments.
32 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
33 returned to the BOCC in time for its February 2, 2016 regular meeting.
34 4. Adjourn the public hearing until February 2, 2016 in order to receive and accept the
35 Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
36
37 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the Planning Board had done any analysis, within the I-1
38 and 1-2 zones, to determine how many parcels of land would meet the requirements of the
39 mandatory setbacks. He asked if there are any locations where these businesses could operate
40 given the restrictions.
41 Michael Harvey said there are currently two properties within Orange County that will
42 allow for the development of sexually oriented businesses.
43 Commissioner Dorosin asked the County Attorney if having only two parcels of available
44 land would survive a legal challenge.
45 James Bryan said it is a risk and the more sites available the less risk there is. He said
46 there is no magic number. He said another variable to consider is the size of the property and
47 whether it could hold only one business, or be subdivided.
48 Michael Harvey said there are currently two properties but that does not prevent more
49 properties from being zoned for the use of sexually oriented businesses. He said existing
50 sexually oriented businesses would still be allowed to operate legally even if future construction
51 were to cause them to fall out of compliance with the required setbacks.
4
1 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the two currently identified sites could hold more than
2 one business.
3 Michael Harvey said the parcels could be subdivided with two or three businesses.
4 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the risk of alcohol consumption at sexually oriented
5 businesses and asked if there are provisions in place to insure that alcohol is not being
6 consumed in other businesses next door.
7 Michael Harvey said the industrial districts do not allow restaurants or bars as permitted
8 uses of property.
9 Commissioner Rich asked if the wording in the amendment could be changed to "place
10 of worship" rather than "church and/or place of worship".
11 Michael Harvey said yes.
12 Commissioner Rich referred to page 21 and asked for the source of the definition of the
13 "state of nudity".
14 Michael Harvey said from State law and example ordinances throughout the State.
15 Commissioner Rich said the wording of this definition was strange and discriminatory to
16 the female body by identifying the bare female chest as obscene but not the bare male chest as
17 such.
18 Michael Harvey said this stems from the obscenity statute.
19 Commissioner Rich asked if the language must follow the statute. She said the
20 woman's body is constantly being put down and this reinforces that a woman's breasts should
21 not be seen.
22 James Bryan said he could review the issue.
23 Commissioner Rich asked if there could be clarity regarding the definition of male
24 genitalia.
25 Michael Harvey said he is unsure of her question.
26 Commissioner Rich said she does not understand why male genitalia is listed as
27 obscene, and that her teenage sons were naked in their home.
28 Michael Harvey said these definitions are referring to sexually oriented businesses and
29 an effort to keep these businesses operating appropriately.
30 Commissioner Dorosin said the ordinance is designed to keep actual live sex shows
31 from taking place.
32 Commissioner Rich said is struggling with the definition and she would like it to be more
33 general.
34 Michael Harvey said the specificity insures that some of the concerns expressed by
35 Commissioner Rich do not fall into an over ambiguous category, where unnecessary regulation
36 occurs; while allowing for the regulation of activities that have been deemed to be classified as
37 sexually oriented businesses.
38 Commissioner Dorosin said nude dancing cannot be regulated as it is protected by the
39 first amendment; but actual live sex shows can be regulated.
40 Commissioner Rich said the language requires that a woman, who is dancing nude,
41 must cover her breasts.
42 Michael Harvey said the language says that a woman wearing pasties is not considered
43 to be nude, or in a state of nudity.
44 Commissioner Rich said she would like to see the language include both male and
45 female.
46 Commissioner Jacobs asked if alcohol could be sold if the business is a private club.
47 Michael Harvey said he would refer to the attorney, but added that a private club could
48 serve alcohol but a private club could not be a sexually oriented business as alcohol is being
49 sold and consumed.
5
1 Commissioner Jacobs gave the example of a country club that served alcohol. He
2 asked if a man swimming topless at the country club pool would be in violation of the ordinance,
3 as alcohol is being served and he is shirtless.
4 Michael Harvey said the man would not be at a sexually oriented business or engaging
5 in a sexual activity.
6 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the country club would be a sexually oriented business if
7 the wait staff were to be topless.
8 Michael Harvey said yes. He said if one is engaging in a business practice or activity
9 where one is enjoying a meal while also ogling naked members of the opposite sex then the
10 nature of the business meets the standard of a sexually oriented business. He said getting out
11 of the pool without a shirt has nothing to do with offering a service for compensation or for any
12 form of pay.
13 Commissioner Jacobs asked what would happen if the wait staff were dressed in bathing
14 suits.
15 Michael Harvey said the line gets crossed when a business model starts providing
16 specific activities that meet the definition of a sexually oriented business. He gave the example
17 that the restaurant Hooters does not meet the definition of a sexually oriented business.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said we get closer and closer to a preposterous line.
19 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are any qualifying properties in the speedway
20 economic development area.
21 Michael Harvey said this property is not zoned industrial.
22 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this area could be rezoned.
23 Michael Harvey said no, not in his opinion.
24 Commissioner Rich asked if there are currently any sexually oriented businesses in
25 Orange County.
26 Michael Harvey said none of which he is aware.
27 Commissioner Rich asked if there are any businesses that would like to apply to come to
28 Orange County.
29 He said there have been several inquiries during his tenure but no one has followed
30 through. He said these businesses cannot be banned but they can be regulated.
31 Commissioner Dorosin referenced an all-girl staff establishment near 1-85.
32 Michael Harvey said this business closed down, and that property is zoned economic
33 development Hillsborough, medium intensity and would not be allowed to reopen as a sexually
34 oriented business.
35 Commissioner Dorosin asked how the business opened in the first place.
36 Michael Harvey said it probably pre-dated zoning.
37 Commissioner Dorosin said there are a lot of negatives about these businesses,
38 especially how women are exploited, and he is glad that the County is regulating them. He
39 added that he does not support the banning of alcohol in these businesses.
40 Chair McKee said a reason for banning alcohol would be to add one more step in the
41 process of establishing a sexually oriented business, thus making it harder to do so. He said he
42 is in favor of banning the sale of alcohol at sexually oriented businesses.
43
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Pelissier, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
45 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
46 BOCC in time for its February 2, 2016 regular meeting and to adjourn the public hearing until
47 February 2, 2016 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
48 submitted written comments.
49
50 VOTE: Ayes, 5; Nayes, 1 (Commissioner Dorosin)
51 MOTION PASSES
6
1
2 Chair McKee noted that Commissioner Price was unable to attend the meeting this
3 evening.
4
5 2. Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment -To review government-
6 initiated amendments to the text of the UDO regarding car sales and rental operations.
7 Michael Harvey reminded the Board that this is the last item that will be heard under the
8 joint public hearing process. He said the UDO was amended, beginning January 1, 2016, and
9 items will begin in Planning Board Meeting. He said this is the last meeting where an item will
10 be referred to the Planning Board.
11 Michael Harvey noted that page 27 of the abstract provides a background; pages 32
12 through the 37 show some examples of existing automotive businesses; and page 38 shows the
13 proposed text amendment.
14
15 BACKGROUND:
16 Staff has seen an increase in the number of automotive sale/rental business operating
17 within the County and has begun receiving complaints related to the storage and display of
18 vehicles (i.e. too many cars being displayed, parking over septic fields, parking in required
19 buffer areas, parking in public road rights-of-way, etc.). Currently, the County limits only the total
20 number of cars that can be parked and/or displayed for an automotive sales business located
21 within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2) general use zoning district.
22 Staff is proposing to develop comprehensive regulations designed to limit the
23 overcrowding of automotive sales operations within all general use zoning districts where such
24 land uses are permitted. Staff has also provided pictures of existing motor vehicles sales/rental
25 businesses in Attachment 2 to assist in illustrating the concern(s).
26
27 Michael Harvey made the following PowerPoint presentation:
28
29 November 23, 2015
30 Agenda Item: C-2
31 Public Hearing-Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Text Amendment
32 Display of Vehicles at Motor Vehicle Sales/rental Land Uses
33 Orange County Planning Department
34
35 Background
36 • 2012 text amendment petition by local property owner limited display of cars to 12 within
37 Neighborhood Commercial (NC-2) district,
38 • Staff has seen an increase in number of vehicles stored on sites throughout County,
39 • Believe there is room to increase number of allowable cars and require property
40 owner/applicant to definitively delineate car display areas on a site plan to avoid
41 confusion.
42
43 Proposal:
44 • Amend the UDO to base number of vehicles stored on property on acreage.
45 — Staff is recommending a limit of 25 cars per acre for property zoned Nc-2, EC-5,
46 E-I to address exiting issues.
47 — Staff is recommending a limit of 45 cars per acre for property in urbanizing areas.
48 • Require mandatory designation of vehicle display area, and
49 • Allow for incidental storage of additional vehicles so long as they are screened from
50 view.
51
7
1 Example (aerial photo)
2
3 Staff Findings:
4 • Proposed amendments will create a distinction between vehicles displayed for sale and
5 stored for other purposes,
6 • Will help to address existing congestion at automotive sales operations,
7 • The proposal will create a necessary distinction between automotive sales/rental
8 businesses within urban and non-urban areas of the County, and
9 • Firms up language requiring display/storage areas to be properly delineated and
10 screened.
11
12 Recommendation:
13 Recommendation(s): The Planning Director recommends that the Board:
14 1. Receive the request,
15 2. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public, BOCC, and Planning Board
16 comments.
17 3. Refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be
18 returned to the BOCC in time for its February 2, 2016 regular meeting.
19 4. Adjourn the public hearing until February 2, 2016 in order to receive and accept
20 the Planning Board's recommendation and any submitted written comments.
21
22 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the aerial photo and asked if Michael Harvey could
23 please explain the difference between the shaded areas, the not shaded areas, and the red
24 area.
25 Michael Harvey said the aerial photo is of an existing site which attempts to show what
26 would be allowable. He said the shaded area would allow for the display of cars, the un-shaded
27 area would be for parking, and the red area would be where cars could be stored.
28 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the road could be pointed out in the photo.
29 Michael Harvey did so.
30 Michael Harvey said this photo is just a snap shot in time and there may be several
31 options that could meet the requirements. He said the black line on the photo does not indicate
32 a set back.
33 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the cars in the red area would count towards the 25-car
34 limit.
35 Michael Harvey said no.
36 Commissioner Rich said the image on page 32 looks like a lot more than 25 cars.
37 Michael Harvey said yes that is significantly more than 25 cars, which would not be
38 allowed under the proposed text amendment.
39 Michael Harvey said the only zoning district that has a limit on the number of cars that
40 can be displayed is the neighborhood commercial district. He said the example on page 32 is
41 currently acceptable and the proposed amendment would seek to avoid such examples.
42 Commissioner Rich asked if the proprietor of the site shown on page 32 knows about the
43 proposed amendment.
44 Michael Harvey said yes.
45 Chair McKee asked if there is a reason that the limit of land covered by vehicles is set at
46 20 percent. He said it would make more sense to him to have five car lots with 30 or 40 percent
47 coverage, rather than 15 car lots with 20 percent coverage. He said if there is a demand for a
48 certain number of cars, the need could be met by increasing the number of lots or increasing the
49 density on a smaller number of lots.
50 Michael Harvey said there must be a distinction between zoning designations in the
51 predominantly rural areas of the County versus the predominantly urban areas. He noted that
8
1 45 cars per acre are permitted in the economic development districts in the general commercial
2 district. He said the proposed amendment is a compromise.
3 Chair McKee said there should be equity between the lots. He referred to the two
4 examples in the packet and said it would seem more reasonable to allow a bit more density in
5 the number of vehicles rather than forcing the owner to go through what he would assume is a
6 Class A special use permit process to change a business to a commercial zone.
7 Michael Harvey said a number limit had to be chosen and if the Board would like to see
8 a higher number, it should direct staff and the Planning Board accordingly.
9 Chair McKee asked if there is an existing commercial property designation.
10 Michael Harvey said yes and would require going through the rezoning process.
11 Chair McKee said this is to what he was referring.
12 Michael Harvey said this would require a property owner to petition for a legislative
13 hearing asking the Board to rezone their property as general commercial.
14 Commissioner Burroughs asked if there are challenges that exist with the lots having
15 excess cars, such as emergency vehicle access or parking cars over septic tanks.
16 Michael Harvey said concerns include access, use of required parking spaces for the
17 display of vehicles, adequate buffering and open space, quantity of impervious surfaces, etc.
18 He said it is a balancing act between allowing a business to flourish and insuring that there is
19 adequate area to support the business.
20 Commissioner Burroughs said the question is to find the right number of vehicles.
21 Michael Harvey said it is more about finding the right percentage of land usage for cars
22 that can allow for the business to safely operate.
23 Chair McKee referred to one of the properties in the PowerPoint presentation and asked
24 if the storage area would be screened.
25 Michael Harvey said yes. He said the cars in the screened area would be those that are
26 not yet ready for sale and would allow them to be screened from view.
27 Chair McKee said he accepted the rationale for the screening but does not necessarily
28 agree with it.
29 Michael Harvey said the goal of the screened area is to provide a space for vehicles that
30 are not counted in the number of allowable allotment of vehicles displayed for sale per site.
31 Commissioner Rich asked if the building on page 36 is a person's home.
32 Michael Harvey said no, it is a commercial business with a residential property next
33 door.
34 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the idea behind this text amendment is that it is currently
35 too difficult to enforce the existing rules to keep people from parking in the right of way or
36 encroaching on neighboring properties.
37 Michael Harvey said no, the problem is two-fold: the first issue is that there is a feeling
38 that the 12-vehicle limit is too arduous; the second issue is to determine what number of
39 vehicles is acceptable. He said staff picked a number that it deemed reasonable which could be
40 more or less. He said a middle ground is being sought. He said it is also important to insure
41 some level of equity across zoning districts.
42 Commissioner Dorosin asked if a complaint came in regarding the number of cars in an
43 area, where is there is currently no regulation on the number of cars, is there an enforcement
44 mechanism by which the County can go out and address the concern.
45 Michael Harvey said yes.
46 Commissioner Dorosin asked if this is being done.
47 Michael Harvey said yes.
48 Commissioner Dorosin asked if it would be easier to have no vehicle limits across the
49 board and simply respond to concerns as they arise.
50 Michael Harvey said easy is a loaded word. He said this idea would help address the
51 equity issue and would be viewed as more reasonable. He said allowing a storage area for
9
1 vehicles, not included in the permitted amount of vehicles, would also help. He said he feels the
2 Board suggesting that the limit of 25 vehicles may not be viable.
3 Commissioner Dorosin said he is not so interested in the right number but rather
4 understanding the connection between the harms that are seeking to be addressed and this
5 means of addressing them.
6 Commissioner Dorosin asked if these regulations would only apply to commercial
7 businesses. He asked if he were to fix cars at his home, as a side business, would he be
8 subject to these regulations.
9 Michael Harvey said no he would not be subject to these regulations, with one caveat:
10 he said the goal is not to prevent people from selling a car, but there are prohibitions in the UDO
11 that prohibit one from engaging in an automotive repair business from one's property. Thus
12 working on one's own car is not an issue and selling a car on one's property is not an issue but
13 having 30 or 40 cars puts you into a questionably commercial establishment.
14 Commissioner Rich asked if there is currently a limit to the number of vehicles that may
15 be at one household.
16 Michael Harvey said no and the only prohibition is that junked vehicles cannot be stored
17 on one's property.
18 Commissioner Rich asked if one could have 10 cars parked in one's front yard.
19 Michael Harvey said yes, and he said that would not be a land issue, but rather a
20 general ordinance issue should the Board choose to address it.
21 Paul Guthrie asked if there is any distinction in existing zoning regulations between cars
22 for sale on site, cars stored on site for future sale and cars that are stored at another location,
23 but of the same ownership, waiting to be delivered to the original site or shipped out of state.
24 Michael Harvey said the only current regulation regarding display of vehicles is on NC
25 zoned 2 property, and that limit is 12 vehicles. He said if one is selling vehicles, one must be
26 appropriately zoned and display those vehicles consistent with an approved site plan. He said
27 this proposed ordinance memo will establish limits and allowances across the board in every
28 district where car sales are allowed. He said if one is storing vehicles off site, that property must
29 have been recognized and approved through section 2.5, the site plan review process, to
30 establish a recognized legal land use per the Orange County UDO.
31 Michael Harvey asked if the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) has a specific
32 number of permissible vehicles in mind.
33 Chair McKee said he would like to ask the Planning Board to consider a higher number.
34 He suggested 45 vehicles across the board.
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
37 refer the matter to the Planning Board with a request that a recommendation be returned to the
38 BOCC in time for its February 2, 2016 regular meeting and to adjourn the public hearing until
39 February 2, 2016 in order to receive and accept the Planning Board's recommendation and any
40 submitted written comments.
41
42 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
43
44 D. ADJOURNMENT OF PUBLIC HEARING
45 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
46 adjourn the public hearing at 8:11 p.m.
47
48 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
49
50 Chair McKee called the BOCC Work Session to order at 8:22 p.m.
51 NOTE:John Roberts replaced James Bryan as County Attorney.
10
1
2 E. BOCC WORK SESSION
3 1. Impact of 2015 Legislative Updates on Orange County's Erosion
4 Control/Stormwater Programs and Riparian Buffer Regulations —To review how
5 legislative changes made in 2015 have or will impact the County's Erosion
6 Control/Stormwater programs and riparian buffer regulations.
7
8 Craig Benedict, Orange County Planning Director, said this item was a product of work
9 amongst planning staff and the County Attorney's office. He said there have been meetings
10 over the past month regarding legislative changes that have been passed. He said some of
11 these changes would be reviewed this evening, as well as some short-term actions that will help
12 the County adapt to these new regulations.
13
14 BACKGROUND:
15 • Session Law (SL) 2015-149 (H634) - An act to clarify the definition of built-upon area
16 (BUA)for purposes of stormwater programs.
17 The basic change per this SL is, for the purposes of implementing stormwater programs,
18 "built-upon area" does not include...a surface of number 57 stone, as designated by the
19 American Society for Testing and Materials, laid at least four inches thick over a geotextile
20 fabric; or a trail as defined in G.S. 113A-85 that is either unpaved or paved as long as the
21 pavement is porous with a hydraulic conductivity greater than 0.001 centimeters per second
22 (1.41 inches per hour)."Please refer to Attachment 4 for a copy of the legislation. This only (at
23 this time in our planning opinion) affects the stormwater calculations for runoff retention which
24 would require less storage. This BUA will likely not be widely used.
25
26 • Session Law 2015-246 (H44) - An act to reform various provisions of the law related to local
27 government including modifications to riparian buffer standards and changes to the enforcement
28 of voluntary State regulations (i.e. stormwater).
29 A copy of the legislation is contained in Attachment 5. An analysis on the legislations impact on
30 the County's stormwater program in contained
31 in Attachment 1 and Attachment 3 contains our assessment of its impacts on our riparian buffer
32 program.
33 This will greatly affect the existing stormwater program in the Jordan Lake watershed where we
34 implemented rules in advance of pending state regulations (which have been delayed).
35 A primary consideration relates to what regulations should be implemented if current ordinances
36 are determined to be non-enforceable?
37
38 • Session Law 2015-286 (H765) -An act to provide further regulatory relief to the citizens of
39 North Carolina by providing for various administrative reforms, by eliminating certain
40 unnecessary or outdated statutes and regulations and modernizing or simplifying cumbersome
41 or outdated regulations, and by making various other statutory changes.
42 A copy of the legislation is contained in Attachment 6. An analysis on the legislations impact on
43 the County's stormwater program in contained in Attachment 2.
44
45 Craig Benedict made the following Power Point presentation:
46 November 23, 2015
47 Work Session Item E-1
48 Synopsis of Impact(s) of 2015 State Legislation on Orange County's Erosion
49 Control/Stormwater Program and Land Use Program
50 Orange County Planning Department
51
11
1 Nutrient Rules
2 Nutrient Rules Stream Buffer
3 Neuse River Basis
4 - Falls Lake New Dev. Implemented
5 No Issue
6 Under OC Study
7 Existing Dev. Under (UNRBA)
8 Study
9
10
11 Cape Fear Basin
12 - Jordan Lake Questionable
13 - Haw River SL (2015-246) (H44) Under OC Study
14
15 Existing Orange County New Dev. Reg's Implemented Under Study
16 Rules June 1, 2012
17
18 Decision Under Review case-by-case January 2017 deadline
19 w/ prior EMC Submittal
20
21 Orange County Watersheds (map)
22
23 Area of County Impacted (map)
24
25 Session Laws:
26 • Session Law (SL) 2015-149 (H634) — Clarifies built-upon area (BUA) RE: Stormwater
27 Permitting. (i.e. 1" Affects design calcs.)
28 — Number 57 ASTM stone with at least four inches over a geotextile fabric is not
29 considered BUA.
30 — Certain trails can also be exempt
31 NOTE:
32 Orange County zoning (Current Planning enforced), still recognizes all gravel/stone as
33 an `IMPERVIOUS SURFACE'area.
34
35 • Session Law 2015-246 (H44) — Reforms laws related to enforcement of voluntary State
36 regulations (i.e. stormwater nutrient rules) and riparian buffer standards
37
38 STORMWATER IMPACTS:
39 — North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Energy
40 Mineral and Land Resources (DEMLR) comprehensive re-review and of
41 stormwater regulations.
42 — County stormwater management program enforces 2012 state suggested Jordan
43 Lake nutrient load thresholds.
44 — However, due to state implementation delays our `Advanced UDO' rules may be
45 subject to review and amendment.
46
47 Land Disturbance Thresholds (chart)
48
49 • Session Law 2015-286 (H765) —Omnibus legislation; most impactive language is in
50 paragraph (d) of NCGS 143-214.7, Stormwater Runoff Rules and Programs, is the
51 striking of two words "or exceed".
12
1
2 (d) The Commission shall review each stormwater management program submitted by a State
3 agency or unit of local government and shall notify the State agency or unit or local government
4 that submitted the program that the program has been approved, approved with modifications,
5 or disapproved. The Commission shall approve a program only if it finds that the standards of
6 the program equal omod-those of the model program adopted by the Commission pursuant
7 to this section.
8
9 • Section 4.20.(c) No later than March 1, 2016, a State agency or local government that
10 implements a stormwater program approved pursuant to subsection (d) of G.S. 143-
11 214.7 shall its current stormwater management program or a revised stormwater
12 management program to the Environmental Management Commission. No later than
13 December 1, 2016, the Environmental Management Commission shall review and act on
14 each of the submitted stormwater management programs with subsection (d) of G.S.
15 143-214.7, as amended by this section.
16
17 Streams (map)
18
19 Michael Harvey continued the PowerPoint presentation:
20 Session Laws
21 • Session Law 2015-246 (H44) RIPARIAN BUFFER IMPACTS:
22 — Local governments are prohibited from adopting, implementing, and enforcing
23 riparian buffer (i.e. stream buffer) regulations that exceed State requirements.
24 Unless...
25 — If a local government wants to be more restrictive, then:
26 • Represents a condition of a permit, certificate, or other approval issued by
27 a Federal or State agency
28 - STAFF COMMENT: Does not apply.
29 • Was enacted prior to August 1, 1997 and meets specific criteria
30 - STAFF COMMENT: Our regulations were not adopted using
31 that criteria.
32 However....
33 "Submission of a scientific study providing documentation on the need for increased/more
34 restrictive standards based on local physical and environmental conditions."
35 STAFF IS WORKING ON FINALIZING A PROPOSAL ON THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY. STAFF
36 IS ALSO REVIEWING OTHER OPTIONS WITH STATE OFFICIALS TO DEMONSTRATE
37 OUR ORDINANCE IS ALREADY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAW
38 UDO amendments may be inevitable to ensure compliance with new State Law.
39
40 Recommendation:
41 The Manager recommends that the Board receive the information and provide comments:
42 • Stormwater Rules: Collaborate with the Attorney's Office and seek guidance from NC
43 DEMLR and DEQ as to what "rules Orange County should default to, if we need to
44 amend present UDO Jordan Lake nutrient regulations
45 • Riparian Buffers: Proceed with study to justify present standards.
46
47 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there were some typical uses for the number 57 ASTM
48 stone.
49 Craig Benedict said it could be used for a temporary parking area, with very intermittent
50 driving. He said this type of gravel is so loose that it would fall out of location if driven upon. He
51 said it is sometimes used where someone may want to have a reservoir underneath sub-grade.
13
1 Chair McKee added that some agricultural operations, for feeding cattle, use this type of
2 stone to prevent erosion and mud build up and run off.
3 Chair McKee asked if there are regulations that the County may need to adjust.
4 Craig Benedict said amendments or defense of existing practices might be needed. He
5 said stream buffers are one example where this may occur. He said there are some unknowns
6 at this time.
7 Craig Benedict said the cities and counties must explain their stormwater program to the
8 State no later than March 1, 2016. He said the County has asked for guidance from the State
9 regarding this matter.
10 Michael Harvey spoke regarding the riparian buffers, saying the State currently
11 recognizes a 50-foot buffer. He said Orange County enforces a 50-foot buffer with an additional
12 15 to 30 being added depending on the slope of a property.
13 Michael Harvey said staff is investigating several options of how to proceed next. He
14 said the two options are a scientific study, which will require a budget amendment to complete
15 or proof that the current UDO is in compliance with the State's regulations. He said there has
16 been a comingling of regulations over the last 10 years and resolving these issues will not be
17 straightforward. He said it is the hope that the majority of the County's current buffer program
18 can be maintained as a watershed protection standard.
19 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the two options are to have a scientific study that
20 vindicates everything or shows proof that these are not riparian buffers, but rather are part of a
21 watershed management program. He asked if the latter option were possible, would only a
22 portion of the current stream buffers be protected.
23 Michael Harvey said yes, it would only protect portions of streams located in a protected
24 or critical watershed boundary. He said the State law allows for certain encroachments and
25 certain clearing of the mandated 50-foot buffer. He said the County's stream buffer regulations
26 allow for certain types of development in a stream buffer, but there is not the overall reaching list
27 that the State currently recognizes.
28 Commissioner Rich asked if any other counties are involved in this process.
29 Michael Harvey said Orange County would probably be the first. He said Orange
30 County is unique in the methodic nature that it took in the 1980s and 1990s to link a lot of
31 protections to the watershed program.
32 Commissioner Rich asked if the cost of the study is known.
33 Michael Harvey said it would cost between $40,000 to $75,000, due to the scientific
34 specificity of the study. He said his reading of the statute shows the requirement of scientific
35 evidence.
36 Commissioner Pelissier asked if much of the justification for the buffers being related to
37 watershed management is due to Orange County being a headwaters county.
38 Michael Harvey said yes.
39 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there are other headwaters counties in the State, and, if
40 so, what is their status. She said perhaps such counties could team up and present a united
41 front to the State.
42 Michael Harvey said there are other counties, but he is unsure which ones they are. He
43 said the Upper Neuse River Basin Association (UNRBA)would be consulted for assistance, as
44 it is coordinating with all of its member counties. He said many other agencies will be partnered
45 with as well, and the hope is that Orange County will not even need to conduct a study.
46 Commissioner Jacobs asked if staff had a chance to get copies of the University Lake
47 Watershed study or the Cane Creek Watershed study.
48 Michael Harvey said these have not been fully read.
49 Commissioner Jacobs suggested that these studies might have some useful information.
50 Chair McKee asked if County Attorney or Manager had any comments.
14
1 John Roberts said there are appeal procedures in place, and if there is concern that
2 Orange County is exceeding its authority, there is an avenue of appeal. He said the issue is still
3 being studied for full clarity and to insure the County is in full compliance.
4 Chair McKee clarified that the two options he sees are to form a reasonable defense of
5 the County's regulations or to assume the State's standards. He asked if there is a third option.
6 John Roberts said where the state law is not clear, there will be a reasonable defense
7 made to any challenges. He said staff is working on being as prepared as possible. He said
8 the UDO could be amended if necessary.
9 Bonnie Hammersley said staff would continue to rely on the County Attorney's office as
10 the legislation is reviewed and recommendations made. She said budget amendments would
11 be considered if, and when, they are deemed necessary.
12 Chair McKee said the will of the Board seems to be for creating a reasonable defense of
13 the County's current position and regulations.
14
15 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs
16 to adjourn the meeting at 8:53 p.m.
17
18 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
19
20 Earl McKee, Chair
21
22
23 David Hunt, Deputy Clerk to the Board
24
25
1
1 Attachment 2
2
3 DRAFT MINUTES
4 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
5 REGULAR MEETING
6 December 15, 2015
7 7:00 p.m.
8
9 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 15,
10 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 Manager Travis
17 Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
18 appropriately below)
19
20 Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
21
22 1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
23
24 - White sheet for item 5-a: Final revised ordinance for Joint Public Hearing with the Historic
25 Preservation Commission (HPC)
26 - PowerPoint for item 7-a: Unified Animal Control Ordinance
27 - White handout for item 8-a: Jail Population Profile and Projections for Future Growth
28 - White handout for item 8-a: Comparable County Jail Statistics
29 - PowerPoint for item 8-b: Facilities accessibility self-assessment
30
31 Appointments:
32 - Green-membership roster for item 11-b (in old format with position #s)
33 - Yellow-membership roster for item 11-c (in old format with position #s)
34 - Peach-membership roster for item 11-d (in old format with position #s)
35 - Blue-membership roster for item 11-e (in old format with position #s)
36
37 PUBLIC CHARGE
38 Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
39
40 2. Public Comments
41
42 a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
43 Barbara Driscoll, President of the Eno River Association, said the group is celebrating its
44 50th anniversary. She said there will be 50 hikes on the Eno River this year, and she hoped the
45 Commissioners would join them on some of these hikes.
46 Robin Jacobs, Executive Director of the Eno River Association, thanked the Board of
47 County Commissioners' (BOCC) commitment and support throughout the years. She said there
48 will be a celebration of the 50th Anniversary on February 20, 2016. She distributed the
49 Association's yearly calendar to all of the Commissioners.
50 Chair McKee acknowledged the long-term commitment of the Eno River Association and
51 thanked them for their work.
2
1
2
3 b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
4 (These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
5 below.)
6
7 3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
8 Commissioner Pelissier petitioned the Board to add an additional member-at-large
9 position to the Board.
10 Commissioner Jacobs had no petitions.
11 Commissioner Rich said the Orange Durham Chapel Hill Work Group met last week and
12 heard a presentation from the Durham Planning Board regarding the preservation of 15% of
13 affordable housing around the light rail stations. She asked if the manager could get this
14 information to share with the Board and suggested the Board should start talking with their
15 partners about implementing this plan in Orange County.
16 Commissioner Rich said, at the same meeting, there was discussion about preserving
17 the old general store at Hollow Rock. She said there is an effort to raise $25,000 to move the
18 general store across the street, in order to turn it into a museum about the area. She asked if
19 this information could be obtained, and put on the website
20 Commissioner Rich said she and Commissioner Pelissier talked about Air BnBs and
21 reported that Orange County should be getting their first taxes from these establishments soon.
22 Commissioner Dorosin said he is the Board representative to the Small Loan Program,
23 which has been a very successful program, and very aggressive in making more loans. He said
24 he previously raised the idea about creating a sticker that commercial businesses can put in
25 their windows acknowledging that they are a recipient of a loan. He said this would be a visible
26 way to highlight the resource. He said the Committee seemed to embrace this idea.
27 Commissioner Price said yesterday the Town of Hillsborough approved Indigenous
28 Peoples Day, and as such, all three municipalities have adopted it. She petitioned the Board to
29 also recognize the second day in October as Indigenous Peoples Day. She requested that this
30 petition be approved at the Board meeting in Hillsborough in January, with Tribal Chiefs, and
31 other stakeholders, being invited to attend.
32 Chair McKee said this is the second resolution the Board has received on this, and he
33 will refer it to the agenda review team requesting a timely turn around.
34 Commissioner Burroughs had no petitions.
35 Chair McKee said he received an email today from the Humans Relations Commission
36 (HRC) about the possibility of bringing a resolution forward regarding Syrian refugees. He said
37 this will be discussed as quickly as possible.
38
39 4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
40
41 a. Presentation of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FYE 6/30/2015
42 The Board received the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR)for the fiscal
43 year ended June 30, 2015.
44 Gary Donaldson, Orange County Chief Financial Officer, acknowledged the Finance
45 team that worked on the CAFR report and noted that they were awarded the Certificate of
46 Achievement for Excellence Financial Reporting.
47 Gary Donaldson reviewed the following background information:
48
49 BACKGROUND: The CAFR reports on all financial activity of the County for the fiscal year July
3
1 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. Martin Starnes and Associates, a firm of Certified Public
2 Accountants, audited the financial statements. The financial statements and audit are required
3 by Chapter 159-34 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The County prepares a
4 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) that meets the standards set by the
5 Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The CAFR is submitted to the GFOA in
6 order to be awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting.
7 Orange County has received this award for thirty consecutive fiscal years. The financial report
8 for the Orange County SportsPlex, as required under the management contract, is included in
9 the County's CAFR.
10 The audit results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 indicates a strong financial
11 position for Orange County. The County received an unqualified (clean) audit opinion on the
12 financial statements received from the audit. The Chief Financial Officer and representatives of
13 Martin Starnes and Associates will cover highlights of the report and answer any questions.
14
15 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial report indicates a strong financial position for Orange
16 County. The County Board policy is to maintain the unassigned fund balance at 17% of General
17 Fund expenditures. At the end of FY2014-15 the unassigned fund balance was 18.5% of
18 General Fund expenditures, or $2.8 million in excess of the Board policy. The unassigned fund
19 balance policy and target levels enable the County to prevail through uncertain economic and
20 financial periods.
21 Marcie Spivey, Audit Partner with Starnes and Associates, made the following
22 PowerPoint presentation, regarding the results of the 2015 Audited Financial Statements. Many
23 of the slides are incorporated by reference and this presentation is a part of the permanent
24 agenda file in the Clerk's office.
25
26 Orange County 2015 Audited Financial Statements
27
28 Audit Highlights
29 • Unmodified opinion
30 • Implementation of GASB68
31
32 Budget vs. Actual- General Fund
33
34 Budget Actual Variance
35
36 Revenues $ 196,316,799 $ 201,390,558 $ 5,073,759
37
38 Expenditures 200,705,722 192,078,545 8,627,177
39 Other Financing Sources (Uses)
40
41 Bond Refunding - 605,000 605,000
42 Transfers In 1,057,160 1,057,160
43
44 Transfer Out (8,080,699) (8,080,699)
45 Appropriated Fund Balance 11,412,462 - (11,412,462)
46
47 Net Change in Fund Balance $ - $ 2,893,474 $ 2,893,474
48
49
50 Transfers out Summary
51 Transfers from the General Fund
4
1 School Capital Improvements Fund $4,727,236
2 County Capital Improvements Fund 460,240
3 Nonmajor government funds 516,480
4 Enterprise Funds:
5 Major Solid Waste Landfill 1,856,543
6 Major SportsPlex 376,450
7 Nonmajor Enterprise Fund 143,750
8
9 Total transfers out $8,080,699
10
11 Transfers in Summary
12 Transfers to the General Fund
13
14 Nonmajor governmental funds $1,052,600
15 County Capital Improvement Fund 4,560
16
17 Total Transfers In $1,057,160
18
19 Tax Collection Percentages (graph)
20
21 Fund Balance Position-General Fund
22 2015 2014
23 Total Fund Balance $ 65,019,581 $ 62,114,947
24 Non spendable (20,306) (29,242)
25 Stabilization by State Statute (11,255,821) (12,102,492)
26 Available Fund Balance 53,743,454 49,983,213
27 Committed (7,543,841) (6,001,641)
28 Assigned (10,650,770) (10,068,343)
29 Unassigned $ 35,548,843 $ 33,913,229
30
31 Unassigned Fund Balance as a Percent of Expenditures—General Fund (graph)
32
33 Major Enterprise Funds
34 SportsPlex Solid Waste
35 Fund Fund
36 Total Operating Revenues $ 3,134,557 $ 5,173,915
37 Total Operating Expenses (3,112,253) (10,857,943)
38 Non-operating (103,112) 1,155,000
39 Other Financing Sources 376,450 1,856,543
40 Beginning Net Position 3,275,136 6,686,741
41 Ending Net Position $ 3,570,778 $ 4,014,256
42
43 Orange County
44
45 Gary Donaldson said Orange County is in a strong fiscal position. He said the Board
46 policy for the fund balance is 17%, and there is currently 18.5%. He said he would return to the
47 Board seeking direction for this excess fund balance.
48 He referred to the Report to Residents at their places and reviewed some of the 2014-
49 2015 metrics in the report.
50 Commissioner Burroughs asked if last year's additional fund balance amount was
51 known.
5
1 Gary Donaldson said it was about $2.5 million.
2 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the Report to the Residents is a new initiative.
3 Gary Donaldson said it is new, but will be recurring with updated information going
4 forward.
5 Commissioner Burroughs referred to the management letter and asked if there could be
6 further clarification regarding the Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) underfunding.
7 Gary Donaldson said underfunding is a misleading statement. He said the County has
8 not taken formal action to have an irrevocable trust. He said the County is on target with its
9 contributions to the OPEB funding.
10 Commissioner Rich referred to the economic metrics and asked if the numbers for Blue
11 Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) refer to their presence in Chapel Hill.
12 Gary Donaldson said at the time of the production of the report, the numbers were
13 accurate. He said since the report was produced, some BCBS employees have been relocated
14 to Durham.
15 Commissioner Rich said the East 54 are principal taxpayers and noted that it is one of
16 the County's largest, despite public criticism of the development.
17 Commissioner Rich referred to the Schedule of Findings and Costs and asked if there
18 were reasons that the housing voucher cluster deadline of March 31 was missed.
19 Gary Donaldson said there are a number of reports the finance department has to
20 produce, and he is looking to have a desk procedure manual with due dates which has not
21 existed before. He said the deadline was simply missed. He said the letter cited the housing
22 and urban development department, but it is a function of the finance department.
23 Commissioner Price asked if there is any leeway regarding the spending of the
24 unassigned fund balance.
25 Gary Donaldson said this is a rainy day fund for unexpected or catastrophic events.
26 Commissioner Price asked if the Board should plan on spending this extra fund balance
27 between now and the end of the fiscal year.
28 Bonnie Hammersley said staff would bring back a recommendation for the spending of
29 the $2.8 million of unassigned fund balance, as is done every year. She said the Board will be
30 asked to approve, amend or change the staff's recommendation.
31 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the excess funding is definitely going to be spent this
32 year, rather than folding it into the budget for next year.
33 Bonnie Hammersley said staff has yet to have any discussions regarding a
34 recommendation. She said that could be one of the recommendations, and the Board of County
35 Commissioners has the final decision. She said last year the funds were split between OPEB
36 and the social justice fund. She clarified that OPEB funds are for the health insurance benefits
37 of retirees.
38 Commissioner Dorosin said the report to the residents is a great thing, but noted it is
39 heavy on the finances. He suggested that going forward to report on other activity within the
40 County, like new businesses. He noted that almost all of the top employers are public
41 employers, and suggested adding a listing of the top private employers.
42 Commissioner Price said this is a great report. She asked when staff comes back with a
43 recommendation for the excess funds, if staff would also bring an overview of what was done
44 last year regarding the OPEB.
45 Commissioner Dorosin said the excess money is from last year, which was technically
46 part of FY 2014-2015. He suggested reviewing programming or items that were cut during that
47 fiscal year, which may be worth revisiting and possibly refunding.
48 Commissioner Rich said it is important to replenish the social justice fund.
49 Commissioner Jacobs said there has always been money in the social justice fund. He
50 suggested not spending money just because it is available, but rather putting excess funding
51 toward the next budget in order to assist the residents by lower taxes.
6
1 Commissioner Jacobs asked if investments that give a return due to higher interests
2 rates are being considered.
3 Gary Donaldson said yes these investments are being considered and there have been
4 meetings with financial entities and a review of statutory requirements and how investment
5 income can be optimized. He said staff will be following up on how this can improve down the
6 road and will return to the Board with an investment report.
7 Commissioner Pelissier noted that the staff report in January will be given just prior to
8 the Board's retreat. She said the Board may want to put the funds towards their identified
9 priorities, as determined at the retreat.
10 Chair McKee asked if the report is available on line.
11 Gary Donaldson said yes.
12 Chair McKee said he would like the Board to discuss moving the OPEB needs into the
13 budget. He thanked the finance department for their excellent work.
14
15 5. Public Hearings
16
17 a. Joint Public Hearing with the Historic Preservation Commission Regarding the
18 Proposed Designation of the Nicholas Corbett Hester House as an Orange County
19 Local Historic Landmark
20 The Board considered conducting a joint public hearing with the Historic Preservation
21 Commission (HPC) to receive public comment on the application and proposed ordinance to
22 designate the Nicholas Corbett Hester House as an Orange County Local Historic Landmark,
23 and then adopt the ordinance and authorize the Chair to sign.
24 Peter Sandbeck, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation's
25 (DEAPR) Cultural Resources Coordinator, reviewed the background information:
26
27 BACKGROUND: In 1991, Orange County adopted the "Ordinance Creating the Historic
28 Preservation Commission (HPC) of Orange County", also referred to as the "Historic
29 Preservation Ordinance". In 1997, the County adopted the Local Landmark Program, a
30 voluntary program allowing the HPC to designate properties of local historic and/or architectural
31 significance, as authorized by NC General Statute 160A-400.1-400.14. One of the HPC's duties
32 is to recommend properties to the BOCC for local landmark designation. Properties must meet
33 a high standard of historic and/or architectural significance to be designated as an individual
34 landmark. The higher standard is appropriate since landmark property owners are eligible for a
35 50 percent property tax deferral as provided by state law, as long as the property is preserved
36 and retains its historic character.
37 The historic landmark designation process, outlined in Article 3 of the County's Historic
38 Preservation Ordinance, involves several steps culminating with the adoption of an ordinance by
39 the BOCC for each individual landmark. At its October 28, 2015 meeting the HPC accepted a
40 Part 2 application (Attachments 1 and 2)from owner Ms. Mimi Logothetis to consider her
41 property, the Nicholas Corbett Hester House, for designation as an Orange County Local
42 Historic Landmark. The HPC approved a motion stating that the Hester House possesses
43 special significance and is worthy of consideration for local landmark designation. The
44 application materials were then submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)for
45 review and comment as required by state law. The SHPO provided the letter at Attachment 5.
46 The HPC also voted to request a joint public hearing with the BOCC, as required by Section 3.7
47 of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
48 This is a routine joint public hearing required by state enabling legislation and the
49 County's Historic Preservation Ordinance. Following this joint public hearing, the BOCC and
50 the HPC will take into consideration public comments, if any. No comments that would cause a
51 delay or note opposition to the designation are expected, so the HPC has already taken action
7
1 to refer the ordinance directly to the BOCC for consideration and adoption following the close of
2 the joint public hearing.
3 If the Board should adopt the proposed ordinance designating the Hester House as a
4 Local Landmark, the owner of the property would be eligible for a 50-percent property tax
5 deferral. A preliminary calculation by DEAPR staff shows that the property tax would be
6 reduced from the present amount of$2,241 to approximately $1,350. Tax Administration staff
7 will determine a final calculation. (The current assessed value for the home and land - 18.17
8 acres total - equals $235,500. The estimated assessed value after Landmark designation
9 equals $140,000 based on the house plus approximately 7 acres being included in the final
10 designation.)
11 Peter Sandbeck made a PowerPoint presentation containing photographs of the site,
12 and recognized the HPC members in attendance tonight. He also recognized the owners of the
13 property in question this evening.
14 Peter Sandbeck said the public hearing will be held, and then the Board of County
15 Commissioners will be asked to adopt the proposed revised ordinance.
16 Commissioner Price asked if Peter Sandbeck or the property owners were going to go
17 for National Historic Designation.
18 The owner said the previous owner had tried, but it was found that the property did not
19 have enough significance. She said the property is sitting on the study list for the National
20 Register.
21
22 PUBLIC COMMENT:
23 NONE
24 Commissioner Price commended the property owners. She said she served on the HPC
25 and wondered how this couple would accomplish this feat, but noted they have done a
26 phenomenal job.
27
28 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for
29 the Board to close the public hearing.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
34 Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the designation ordinance.
35
36 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
37
38 b. Oranqe County Consolidated Plan -Annual Action Plan Needs Hearinq
39 The Board considered receiving comments from the public regarding the housing and
40 non-housing needs to be included in the Annual Action Plan Update of the 2016-2017
41 Consolidated Housing Plan for Housing and Community Development Programs in Orange
42 County.
43 Audrey Spencer-Horsley, Director of the Housing, Human Rights and Community
44 Development, reviewed the following information:
45 In May 2015 a Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
46 Programs in Orange County was developed and approved by the U.S. Department of Housing
47 and Urban Development (HUD). This document details the housing needs of very low income,
48 low income and moderate-income families and special population groups in addition to outlining
49 the strategies and plans for addressing those needs.
50 Each year, local communities are required to reassess the needs of the community. This
51 public hearing provides an opportunity for the public, public agencies and other interested
8
1 parties to provide input into the Annual Action Plan Update. In addition, the public may comment
2 on proposed uses of an estimated $311,832 in 2016-2017 funds. Information regarding the
3 actual Congressional allocation is not available at this time. Eligible HOME Program activities
4 include: acquisition; new construction; housing rehabilitation; and rental assistance.
5 The Orange County Board of Commissioners, as a member of the Orange County
6 HOME Consortium, approved $450,317 in HOME Program funds for FY 2014 — 2015. All
7 program funds have been allocated to projects and 51% has been expended to-date. The Board
8 of Commissioners approved $412,638 in HOME Program Funds for FY 2015 - 2016. This year's
9 allocation of HOME funds is pending environmental assessments/reviews and subsequent
10 contractual agreements. The HOME compliance deadlines are a two (2) year commitment
11 reservation of funds and a five (5) year expenditure requirement.
12 An application form has been designed for agencies interested in accessing HOME
13 funds for local housing projects. HOME funding will be awarded through a joint application
14 process. The deadline for completing the application form is January 25, 2016. The Home
15 Program Review Committee will then review the applications received and make
16 recommendations regarding funding for consideration by the local elected officials in April 2016.
17 The 2016 Annual Action Plan will be submitted to HUD on or before May 13, 2016.
18 In order to inform the general public of this opportunity and encourage participation,
19 notices have been placed in The Chapel Hill News, News of Orange, and The Herald-Sun, and
20 also sent to local non-profit agencies and placed on local websites.
21
22 FINANCIAL IMPACT:
23 The Orange County HOME Consortium expects to receive an allocation of $311,832 in
24 HOME Program funds for 2016-2017; the same level as last fiscal year.
25
26 Chair McKee opened the public hearing.
27 Commissioner Rich asked if the members of the Home Program Review Committee
28 could be identified.
29 Audrey Spencer Horsley said Commissioner Dorosin is one member, and the remainder
30 of the Committee is made up of other officials from the municipalities, plus support staff.
31 Commissioner Rich asked if this is an on-going committee.
32 Audrey Spencer Horsley said the Committee meets as needed to decide on funding.
33 Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 3 of the consolidated plan summary and asked if
34 the highest identified needs are low wealth elderly residents, rental housing for low income, and
35 housing for low-income residents with disabilities.
36 Audrey Spencer Horsley said that is correct.
37 Commissioner Dorosin asked if those priorities would be driving the consideration of how
38 funds are distributed.
39 Audrey Spencer Horsley said it is the intent of the consolidated plan for the community
40 to talk about the needs in the community, and how HOME funding should be used.
41 Commissioner Dorosin said there are more requests than there are funds available, and
42 the purpose of having this consolidated plan is to determine the priorities on which to focus.
43 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this is this going to be folded into Audrey Spencer
44 Horsley's presentation regarding the bond package after the New Year.
45 Audrey Spencer Horsley said yes.
46 Commissioner Pelissier referred to the statements made about the need for greater code
47 enforcement in lower income, rural areas. She asked if there are plans to address these needs.
48 Audrey Spencer Horsley said the County would address portions of the plan, while other
49 portions will be given to the private sector to address.
50 Commissioner Jacobs said he has raised this issue before, and that he was told for
51 many years that there are residents in northern Orange County that do not have running water.
9
1 He said staff response has been that people do not want the County to look at these issues
2 because their land may not perk. He said he finds this response inadequate, and he asked Ms.
3 Spencer Horsley if this need is being reviewed and if there are any policies that may be written
4 moving forward.
5 Commissioner Jacobs said this may no longer be an issue, but he would like to know.
6 He suggested doing some outreach in these areas to assess the current status.
7 Audrey Spencer Horsley noted his comments.
8
9 PUBLIC COMMENT:
10 Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Community Home Trust, said he was reviewing
11 older information, as they are currently moving their offices, and he reviewed many of the
12 accomplishments of the Community Housing Trust. He said many mistakes have been made
13 over the years. He noted four main themes: how much need there continues to be for
14 affordable housing, how much money is needed, how difficult it is to resolve issues and how
15 easy it is to spend money inefficiently. He said we are in a vexing business and as they move
16 forward with their strategic planning, there are better and worse uses of HOME funding. He
17 asked the Board to try to focus its efforts on what is feasible to get done with limited resources.
18 He said there are other assets in the County, and he encouraged the Board to make use of all
19 of them: non-profits, for profits, school governments, etc.
20 Eviva Scully, School Social Worker, asked if the criteria to identify someone as
21 extremely low wealth could be clarified.
22 Audrey Spencer Horsley said the national standard of affordable housing is HUD's
23 definition: 30% of one's income is considered as affordable. She said extreme low income is
24 based on the county's median income, and 80% would be considered moderate income, 50%
25 would be considered low income, and 30% of the county's median income would be considered
26 extremely low income. She said the poverty line is also another benchmark.
27 Mark Marcoplos said there are a lot of unknowns regarding poverty conditions in Orange
28 County, and information is needed. He said since there is not a large amount of HOME funding,
29 perhaps it may be valuable to fund a position to go around and look at and investigate these
30 issues.
31 Susan Levy's via email:
32 Dear Orange County Commissioners,
33
34 I regret that I am unable to attend tonight's public hearing due to a prior commitment, but
35 would like to offer the following comments on the use of HOME 2016-17 HOME funds, and ask
36 that they be entered into the record.
37
38 HOME funding continues to be a critical factor in Habitat's home and community building efforts
39 throughout Orange County. To date, Habitat has provided affordable homeownership for 270
40 families in Orange County, and used HOME funds to leverage millions of dollars in private
41 funding for the majority of those 270 homes.
42 Today, in part because of HOME funding,
43 • 50 families call Phoenix Place home. We completed this subdivision of green certified
44 home in the Rogers Road community in 2014.
45 • The Fairview community has seen a rise in its homeownership rate and a reduction in its
46 crime rate with the addition of 50 Habitat homes,
47 • 9 homes have been completed in Tinnin Woods, our subdivision in Efland-Cheeks
48 Township, and another 10 are under construction.
49
50 This year, we are requesting approximately $285,000 in HOME funding for two projects.
10
1 1. $165,000 in second mortgages for the final 11 homes in Tinnin Woods. The
2 funds will be used as second mortgages for Habitat homebuyers, and will have a
3 long-term positive impact on the lives of the eleven families. Owning a home has
4 been shown in recent studies to be a predictor of future success, especially for
5 children. Children who live in homes like those that Habitat offers will have a
6 greater chance of graduating from high school, and acquiring post-secondary
7 education. Their early adult earnings will be higher, and they are more likely to
8 own their own home in 10 years. Those who apply to build and purchase a home
9 through Habitat live in overcrowded apartments, pay considerably more than
10 30% of their income for rent, and/or deal with high utility costs and lack of
11 repairs. This in spite of the fact that they are hardworking members of our
12 community, often working more than one full time job trying to make ends
13 meet. For those homeowners fortunate enough to purchase a home through
14 Habitat, they usually find themselves paying less for their mortgage than they did
15 for their rent, and are able to save considerable money on utilities as well,
16 leaving them more money to spend on other basic necessities and on education
17 for themselves and their children._
18
19 2. We will also be requesting approximately $120,000 in HOME funds for
20 engineering, design, and some of the infrastructure costs for a new project in
21 the Waterstone community in Hillsborough. We are in the process of planning
22 for 18 new attached homes for seniors on land originally deeded to the
23 Community Home Trust by the developer of Waterstone. The Home Trust will
24 transfer the property to Habitat in the next few weeks. Affordable senior housing
25 has been identified in the Consolidated Plan as one of the priority needs for the
26 county, with an estimated 450 units of affordable senior housing needed. Habitat
27 is excited to help address this need. We will be working with the Orange County
28 Department on Aging and other senior housing experts to design the
29 project. Infrastructure construction will begin in 2017 and the homes will be
30 constructed in 2018.
31
32 Thank you for your consideration of our request, and for your support for affordable housing in
33 Orange County.
34
35 In partnership,
36
37 Susan Levy
38 Executive Director
39 Habitat for Humanity, Orange County, NC
40 88 Vilcom Center Dr., #L110
41 Chapel Hill, NC 27514
42 919-932-7077x211; 919-697-1905 (mobile)
43
44 Commissioner Dorosin said the area median income according to 2015 HUD guidelines
45 for Orange County is $67,400. He said a family of four would be at 80% median incoming
46 earning $53,900; 50% median income earning $33,700; and 30% median income earning
47 $20,200.
48
49 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
50 close the Public Hearing.
11
1
2 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
3
4 6. Consent Agenda
5
6 • Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
7 NONE
8
9 • Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
10
11 A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
12 approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
13
14 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
15
16 • Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
17
18 a. Minutes
19 The Board approved the minutes from November 17, 2015 as submitted by the Clerk to the
20 Board.
21 b. Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget Amendment#4
22 The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year
23 2015-16 for Animal Services; Department of Social Services; Economic Development-Orange
24 County Arts Commission; Department on Aging; Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks
25 and Recreation; Visitors Bureau; Health Department; School Capital Projects; and the Sheriff's
26 Department.
27 c. Authorization for County Manager to Execute Leases of County Property
28 The Board delegated authority to the County Manager to execute leases of County property up
29 to $90,000 in total initial lease term revenue according to the Manager's Third Party Tenancy
30 and Outleasing Policy.
31 d. Public Records Retention and Disposition Schedules
32 The Board approved the records retention and disposition schedules involving County
33 Management, Public Libraries, Tax Administration, Public Transportation Systems and
34 Authorities, and Veterans Services and authorized the Chair to sign pending review by the
35 County Attorney.
36 e. Computer Surplus Declaration and Donation to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
37 The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, declaring, as surplus, items
38 listed in the abstract and authorizing the donation of those items to the Board of the Chapel Hill-
39 Carrboro City Schools; and authorized the Chair to sign the Resolution on behalf of the Board
40 upon County Attorney review.
41
42 7. Regular Agenda
43
44 a. Unified Animal Control Ordinance
45 The Board considered approving the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance
46 ("UAO") and adoption of the Resolution of Amendment "A Resolution Amending Chapter 4 of
47 the Orange County Code of Ordinances".
48 Bob Marotto, Orange County Animal Services Director, introduced members from the
49 Animal Services Advisory Board.
50 Bob Marotto and Staff Attorney Annette Moore made the following PowerPoint
51 presentation:
12
1
2 Unified Animal Ordinance
3 BOCC Meeting Presentation
4 December 15, 2015
5 Agenda Item 7-a
6
7 What it does
8 • Takes away some of the inconsistency of having 3 separate (and varying)ordinances
9 • Adds clarity and consistency where needed based upon the experience of officers,
10 Animal Services staff, and legal proceedings over the years
11 • Where interpretations in readings differed, the unified version uses the most accurate,
12 legal, and clear interpretation and/or language
13
14 What it doesn't do
15 • It does not ignore that there still remains a need to have some differences in different
16 areas (i.e.: livestock, tethering, township-specific laws)
17 • With only one exception, it does not add new law, but rather fills in gaps and provides
18 better clarity in the existing ordinances
19 • The exception is the different recovery fees for reproductive and sterilized dogs and cats
20 (including a sterilization deposit for animals recovered 3 or more times)
21
22 History
23 • When the ordinance came before the BOCC last (April, 2014), four issues were
24 discussed with commissioners
25 • Our attorneys have resolved these and revisions have been guided by BOCC feedback
26 • In its final form, the ordinance has been adopted by Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and it has
27 the full support of Hillsborough
28
29 Issues from 2014
30 • Trespass
31 • Watchdog
32 • Livestock and Public Nuisance
33 • Administrative Appeal
34
35 Annette Moore continued the presentation:
36
37 Trespass
38 • Section 4-42 Control of Vicious Animal: Security Dog
39 • Issue: needed to be better defined
40 • Solution: moved into the exceptions portion of the ordinance, where exceptions include a
41 dog on a property that is posted with warning and/or no trespass signage; as well as a
42 dog that is on property and bites someone committing a `willful trespass'
43 o Willful trespass "which shall be determined by looking at the totality of
44 circumstances."
45
46 Watchdog
47 • Section 4-37 Definitions: Security Dog
48 • Issue: needed to be better defined
13
1 • Solution: watchdog found to be an unnecessary term and moot based on the definition of
2 a vicious dog and how a dog would have to behave in order to be declared as one
3
4 Livestock and Public Nuisance
5 • Section 4-45 Public Nuisance
6 • Issue: Does a special provision for livestock need to exist under nuisance ordinance
7 • Solution: All off-property large animals are considered a nuisance.
8 o An exception exists for off-property domesticated livestock (see definition): these
9 may be deemed a nuisance by the discretion of the Animal Services Director or
10 his/her designee.
11 o These livestock may be deemed a nuisance when they:
12 Present a danger to the public
13 Destroy or damage property or violate property rights
14 Have been habitually at large
15
16 Administrative Appeal
17 • Section 4-54 Appeals
18 • Issue: needed clarification and better formatting
19 • Background: Presently, there is no appeal available for significant portions of the
20 county's ordinance
21 • Solution: Any appeal of the chapter will be overseen by 2 members of the Animal
22 Services Advisory Board, and 1 member of either the township where the dog resides or
23 a public citizen appointed by the BOCC.
24 o Testimony will be sworn by the officiating board
25 o Cross-examination is allowed
26 o Neither a party nor Animal Services shall be represented by an attorney
27 o Timelines:
28 Appeals must be made within 5 days of the final action appealed
29 A hearing must be scheduled within 10 days of receipt of a notice of
30 appeal
31 A decision must be made and forwarded within 7 days of the hearing
32
33 Conclusion
34 • The Unified Animal Ordinance is an important step in making Orange County's animal
35 laws complete, easy to access, easy to understand, and relevant to the modern
36 landscape
37 • In general, it aims to protect pets and people, give them due process to appeal citations
38 and orders, and communicate clearly the responsibilities and obligations that exist in
39 Orange County for those owning or coming into contact with pets
40
41 Bob Marotto said this is a valuable step forward in making Orange County's animals
42 laws. He said it is not perfect, and can be re-visited at anytime.
43
44 PUBLIC COMMENT:
45 Dr. Susan Elmore, Member of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB), said the
46 UAO first came to their board in 2013 as a draft, and she recognized the hard work of the
47 attorney's office. She said the ASAB provided input and also received input from stakeholders,
48 the University of North Carolina (UNC), and the Board of County Commissioners. She said it
49 has been a process, and everyone involved has done due diligence. She said it is not a perfect
14
1 document, but can be amended as needed going forward, and is a great improvement of the
2 process currently in place.
3 Michelle Walker said she had served as either Chair or Vice Chair of the ASAB through
4 this process and appreciated the hard work of all the staff involved in reviewing the information
5 to create the current proposed UAO. She said the ASAB made efforts to get input from their
6 public partners.
7 Commissioner Pelissier said she appreciated all of their efforts. She referred to page
8 149 in the electronic copy, which discusses the appeals process. She asked if it would be
9 practically possible for the Board of County Commissioners to appoint someone to this panel.
10 Annette Moore suggested that the Board would designate someone ahead of time. She
11 said if the issue is in the county, then that person would be from the County, while the third
12 person would be from the area in question.
13 Commissioner Pelissier asked if the Board would follow the same boards and
14 commissions' applicant process.
15 Annette Moore said yes and suggested adding an alternate as well.
16 Commissioner Price said she had several concerns. She said she is concerned with
17 giving sole discretion to one person.
18 Annette Moore said the sections that include discretion also have appeal processes
19 attached to them.
20 Commissioner Price said she understood that an example of sole discretion could be
21 destroying an animal prior the appeals process.
22 Annette Moore said destroying an animal is always a last resort.
23 Commissioner Price referred to page 26 of the hard copy where Section h-2 and 3 say
24 an animal can be destroyed.
25 Bob Marotto said there is not any intention to give the Animal Services Director
26 unmeasured power. He said discretion is subject to judicial review as well as the appeal
27 process. He said the administering of this code will be done most judiciously to insure public
28 safety but not by destroying an animal prior to a judicial process.
29 Commissioner Price asked if there is a specific purpose for the microchip and if the
30 public can decline it.
31 Bob Marotto said there was one complaint circulated in an email and there was a
32 sustained response to that concern that noted the absence of medical complications of a
33 microchip.
34 Bob Marotto said the only exception would be a medical opinion that implanting the chip
35 would be detrimental to an animal. He said the chip is for identification for both the owners and
36 Animal Services.
37 Commissioner Price referred to Section 4.33 and asked if there could be clarification of
38 the statement, "only Orange County employees shall be designated as an animal cruelty
39 investigator."
40 Annette Moore said the statute allows for the designation of non-employees to be animal
41 cruelty investigators and she said the County will only allow employees to fill this role.
42 Commissioner Price asked if one must first be an employee or could one be hired to fill
43 this role.
44 Bob Marotto said one could be hired as a County employee to fill the position. He said
45 cruelty investigator is a designation in the North Carolina General Statute.
46 Commissioner Rich said she has concerns about the appeals process, noting two ASAB
47 members sit on the panel. She asked if it would be possible to separate what the Board
48 members do on the ASAB from their role on the appeals panel. She asked if there is a conflict
49 of interest.
50 John Roberts said individuals serving on the ASAB are favorable for serving on the
51 appeals panel since they are familiar with the ordinance, instead of a random person.
15
1 Commissioner Rich said she is still uncomfortable with this make up of the appeals
2 board.
3 Annette Moore said she did some research about what other entities are doing and John
4 Roberts is correct that ASAB members have specialized knowledge, such as being a
5 veterinarian. She said these individuals can also get the training to have technical knowledge of
6 the UAO. She said the third person on the appeals panel would have the same training but is
7 not a member of the ASAB.
8 Commissioner Rich said she is not comfortable with the fairness of this yet.
9 Annette Moore said this due process offers a notice and an opportunity to be heard.
10 She added that the people on the appeals board should be able to identify what is a violation,
11 and what is not. She said having board members with specialized knowledge has added value.
12 Bob Marotto said an appeals board with expertise is needed. He said it is a combination
13 of members of the ASAB as well as independent appointees. He said having a process by
14 which executive authority can be appealed is necessary. He said it may not be perfect at this
15 time but some codified due process must be put in place, as none exists currently. He said it
16 can be reviewed and amended as needed. He said Carrboro elected not to use this appeal
17 board for actions that arise within Carrboro but rather will maintain its own animal control board.
18 He said Carrboro will review this decision in a year.
19 Bob Marotto reiterated that there are several actions routinely taken by Animal Services
20 that currently have no appeals process. He said this is not acceptable.
21 Commissioner Burroughs referred to the administrative appeals process and said she
22 has had experience when she was on the school board of a dual role. She said with her
23 experiences an attorney was always present and asked if there is a reason why an attorney will
24 not be present.
25 Annette Moore said it is an administrative procedure and therefore is acceptable not to
26 have an attorney. She said the ASAB will have an attorney present, but there procedure is not
27 under the rules of evidence. She said allowing attorneys usually increases the stakes and
28 makes things unnecessarily formal.
29 Commissioner Burroughs clarified that the ASAB would have an attorney to make sure
30 the processes are followed correctly and asked if the other party would not be encouraged to
31 have an attorney.
32 Annette Moore said an attorney can be present and confer with their client, but the
33 clients are encouraged to speak for themselves.
34 Commissioner Burroughs said this sounds similar to the school board process and
35 having been a part of that system for seven years, she believes it can work.
36 Commissioner Jacobs said he too appreciated all of this work and noted that people
37 have strong feelings about their animals. He said he too feels concern about the attorney issue.
38 He said if an animal's life is at stake, the owner is likely to want any and all help they can
39 muster. He said it seems inappropriate for the County to limit what an owner can bring to bear
40 to protect the animal's life. He suggested that different language in the ordinance may offer
41 clarification on the process.
42 Annette Moore asked if Commissioner Jacobs is suggesting similar language to that in
43 the personnel ordinance, which states that a third party can be present, such as an attorney,
44 and confer with the client, but not speak for them. She said anyone could come to the
45 proceeding and confer but cannot participate in the process.
46 Commissioner Jacobs said that seems more reasonable to him rather than a blanket
47 prohibition.
48 Annette Moore said if changing the language is the Board's pleasure, it could be done.
49 Commissioner Dorosin asked if these proceedings are quasi-judicial hearings.
16
1 John Roberts said no, it is an administrative hearing, but some of the formal rules of
2 judicial process may apply. He said once the appeals process is done, anyone would have
3 access to a court process if need be.
4 Commissioner Dorosin asked if moving on to the court system would be in the form of an
5 appeal of the administrative process.
6 John Roberts said it is does not specifically say that, and it could be in the form of an
7 injunction to get the County to stop the outcome of the administrative process.
8 Commissioner Dorosin summarized his understanding of process as being proposed.
9 He asked if the third member of the appeals panel would receive training in order to be informed
10 and equipped.
11 Bob Marotto said yes. He added that the Towns would appoint people to serve on the
12 appeals panel, when the owner of the animal is a resident of said town.
13 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the panel would be made up of three people: two
14 from the ASAB, and one outside citizen. He said someone from Animal Services would present
15 the case. He said it seemed reasonable to think that the owner in question may feel at a bit of a
16 disadvantage. He said due process should include a meaningful opportunity to be heard by an
17 impartial decision maker.
18 Commissioner Dorosin suggested the possibility of appointing two people from the
19 community, allowing the appeals panel to be made up of one ASAB person and two non-ASAB
20 persons. He said a group of people could be appointed and could rotate. He asked if this
21 would work.
22 Annette Moore said it is more important to establish the appeals process, rather than
23 who serves on this panel. She said she is speaking for the Attorney's Office and it is the
24 pleasure of the Board as to who serves on this appeals panel.
25 Bob Marotto said it is absolutely the Board of County Commissioners' decision. He said
26 in the past five years, about 65 potentially dangerous dog hearings have been heard. He added
27 that, to the best of his knowledge, no one has ever voiced an appeal about how those hearings
28 were conducted or their outcome. He said it is difficult now to convene an appeal board due to
29 the level of commitment that is required.
30 John Roberts said this is not a perfect document and it could be adopted tonight giving
31 authorization to staff to make non-substantive changes. He said the appeals process may not
32 be perfect but he does not see it to be lacking in fairness or equity. He said the Board could
33 adopt the ordinance and give it a trial run in its current form. He said it could be amended on
34 very short notice.
35 Commissioner Dorosin thanked the staff for their input. He noted it is important as they
36 are the experts.
37 Commissioner Dorosin asked if the dangerous dog-hearing appeals are currently heard
38 by a particular group of people.
39 Bob Marotto said three members of the ASAB, including a veterinarian, an at large non-
40 municipal member, and any other member of the ASAB. He said this group has consistently
41 heard these appeals. He said over time the sophistication of the ASAB members has grown
42 immensely.
43 Commissioner Dorosin asked if Carrboro's process is different.
44 Bob Marotto said Carrboro has an appointed animal control appeals board which has
45 no other function. He said this board is made up of one alderman and two residents at this time.
46 Commissioner Dorosin said if the BOCC is interested in changing the make-up of the
47 appeals board, there could be a pool of potential hearing officers that are required to get training
48 in the ordinance and have categorical expertise as well.
49 Annette Moore read the language in the personnel ordinance: "neither the employee
50 nor the County shall be represented by counsel at the hearing; however, the employee may be
17
1 accompanied by an individual of the employee's choosing to witness the proceeding. The
2 accompanying individual may not participate in the hearing."
3 Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is clear that the accompanying person can advise, but
4 not speak.
5 Annette Moore said yes. She said she has been a part of such hearings and that is how
6 they occur.
7 Commissioner Jacobs asked if this ordinance could be worded as plainly.
8 Annette Moore said yes.
9 Commissioner Jacobs said this would have been a lot easier for the Board if the
10 PowerPoint had been put in the agenda packet ahead of time.
11 Commissioner Jacobs referred to the top of page 71, which discussed the issue of
12 odor. He said determining what is a noxious odor is very subjective, and questions how to
13 define the "odor" of a dog or cat Sec. 4-44- (b) (2).
14 Bob Marotto said the answer is not simple, but that a pattern of corroborative evidence
15 would be needed. He said the odor would need to interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of
16 the neighboring property. He said these assessments would never be made in a cavalier
17 manner.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said he would like a definition of odor, as it is too subjective the
19 way it is written now. He suggested including public areas.
20 Commissioner Jacobs said it appears that if one has a security dog, the owner must
21 post it on their property; otherwise they will be unable to defend themselves if their dog bites
22 someone.
23 Bob Marotto said the proposed ordinance offers two subdivisions of security dogs: a
24 sentry dog and a patrol dog. He said both of these dogs have specific requirements of
25 established records of training and being registered with the County.
26 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Bob Marotto could walk him through the exceptions in
27 Section 4.42. The discussion ensued about vicious dog versus guard dog.
28 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are reasons why one would post a no trespassing
29 sign.
30 Bob Marotto said if one posts a no trespassing sign and you choose to walk on the
31 property and are bitten by a dog, said dog will not be considered vicious.
32 Commissioner Jacobs said he still finds it unclear. He said posting a sign seems to
33 afford owners extra protection should something happen.
34 Annette Moore said a sign does afford extra protection if something were to happen.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said it is confusing, as this information is listed under exceptions
36 to vicious dogs.
37 Commissioner Rich said this is a live document and asked if any changes have to go
38 back to the Towns.
39 Annette Moore said the Towns were told that if there were significant changes she
40 would notify them.
41 John Roberts said both Chapel Hill and Carrboro adopted the UAO in whatever form
42 the BOCC adopts. He said if there are major changes then the Towns will be made aware.
43 Commissioner Rich asked if this ordinance would help someone who lives next door to
44 an excessively barking dog.
45 Annette Moore said this ordinance did not seek to make new laws but rather tried to
46 merge the three ordinances and there is a process in place already for this issue.
47 Bob Marotto reiterated some instances on how Animal Services handles issues like
48 this.
49 Commissioner Pelissier said this item has been before the Board twice and suggested
50 to bring it to some type of closure. She said she is fine with the proposed appeals process and
51 supports Commissioner Jacobs' proposal about the wording of the attorney issue.
18
1 Commissioner Jacobs suggested adding a paragraph at the top of the UAO about their
2 intention, as Bob Marotto eloquently said earlier.
3 Chair McKee said there were several changes made but the conversation got into the
4 weeds some tonight. He said he intended to vote against the UAO, based on the appeals panel
5 having two members from the ASAB; however, Commissioner Dorosin's proposed suggestion is
6 a good accommodation. Chair McKee said he did have a concern about the lack of an attorney
7 being present but he would be satisfied if it can be resolved with the proposed language from
8 the personnel ordinance.
9 Chair McKee said this document is very thin compared to the UDO. He said he would
10 like to see two citizens and one ASAB member on this appeal panel.
11 Commissioner Jacobs said if the composition of the appeals board is changed he
12 would like the ASAB member to be the Chair of the appeals board.
13 Chair McKee and Commissioner Dorosin agreed.
14 Commissioner Rich said she is fine with this compromise.
15
16 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs for
17 the Board to send the document back to include these additional changes (below) and to bring
18 back at their January 21, 2016 meeting.
19
20 • The question about the attorneys
21 • Language about odor
22 • Barking
23 • Composition of the hearing panel: two non- board members, and one ASAB member
24 that would serve as Chair
25 • Add a purpose to the ordinance
26
27 Annette Moore said there needs to be a pool of panel members from which to choose,
28 if the appeal board's composition is to be two to one.
29 Commissioner Rich asked if Animal Services would help the Board draft a "job
30 description"for potential non-ASAB members of the appeals board.
31 Annette Moore said yes.
32 Annette Moore said they will review the meeting and will ask for clarification if need be
33 copying the entire Board.
34
35 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
36
37 8. Reports
38
39 a. Jail Population Profile and Projections for Future Growth
40 The Board received a presentation providing a profile of the Orange County jail
41 population and projections for growth to inform the Board of Commissioners' discussion about
42 construction of a detention facility.
43 Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation:
44
45 ORANGE COUNTY
46 Profile of the Orange County Jail Population and Projections for Future Growth
47 Presentation to the Board of Orange County Commissioners
48
49 Jail Population Profile and Projections
50 • Arrest and Jail Admission History and Trends
19
1 • Jail Population
2 o Average Daily Population
3 o Average Length of Stay
4 • Jail Population Profile
5 o Custody Status
6 o Security Classification
7 o Demographic Characteristics
8 • Cost of Confinement
9 • Population Projections
10
11 County Jail Admissions — Local Arrests (chart)
12
13 • Jail admissions have declined more slowly than arrests since 2006, averaging 1.6%
14 annually
15 • The difference between arrests and admissions has increased since 2011
16
17 Arrests by Agency (chart)
18 • Chapel Hill had the highest number of arrests in the County in 2014, consistent with the
19 proportion of the population
20 • Orange County Sheriff contributed 28% of total arrests in the County in 2014
21
22 County and Federal Jail Admissions (chart)
23 • County admissions have declined by an average of 1.6% annually
24 • Federal admissions have declined by an average of 4.5% annually
25 • Combined admissions have decreased by an average of 2.3% annually
26
27 County and Federal Average Daily Population (chart)
28
29 Average Length of Stay(chart)
30
31 • Federal inmates have comprised an average of 43% of the jail population since 2012
32 • County inmates have stayed an average of 10 days
33 • Federal inmates stay longer, an average of 37 days
34
35 Inmate Profile 2014— Custody Status (chart)
36
37 Inmate Profile 2014—Gender (chart)
38
39 Inmate Profile 2014— Race (chart)
40
41
42 Cost of Confinement
43
Jail Expense Summary
Personnel Costs $ 3,415,749
Operating Costs $ 948,839
Recurring Capital $ 10,374
20
Facility Costs $ 192,145
Risk Mgmt. (including WC) $ 238,031
Indirect Cost Allocation $ 61,191
TOTAL Expenses $ 4,866,329
Jail Revenue Summary
Outside Revenue (ABC Grant; Fac. Fees) $ 279,407
Inmate Charges (Phone; Commissary) $ 170,795
Federal Inmate Reimbursement $ 1,540,821
TOTAL Revenue $ 1,991,023
Net Cost of Jail Operations $ 2,875,305
1
Orange County Cost Metrics
Annual Cost per Inmate
131 ADP $ 37,147.55
Cost per Inmate per Day $ 101.77
Federal Reimbursement
Rate $ 66.00
2
3 i Compared to State Prison Costs as a Benchmark
Cost of State Prison Incarceration
for fiscal year ending June 30, 2014
Daily cost Yearly cost
Minimum $70.18 $25,616
Custody
Medium $82.14 $29,981
Custody
Close $95.78 $34,960
Custody
21
Average $79.89 $29,160
Source: www.ncdps.gov— Cost of
Corrections
1
2 Misdemeanor Sentencing
3 • Changes to sentencing of misdemeanants started in 2011 through the Justice Reinvestment
4 Act
5 o Moved some misdemeanants from prison to local confinement facilities (County Jails)
6 through the Misdemeanant Confinement Program
7 o Did not apply to sentences over 180 days or to sentences for impaired driving
8 o Participation in the program as a receiving County is voluntary
9 o Orange County has not volunteered as a receiving County; no impact on jail population
10 to date
11 • Beginning January 1, 2015
12 o Applies to all misdemeanor sentences, including impaired driving of any length
13 o Misdemeanant Confinement Program capacity currently sufficient
14 o Future changes are unclear if bed demand exceeds supply
15
16 Population Projections (chart)
17 • Inmate population projections are for County inmates only
18 • Inmate population projections are driven by projected population growth and current
19 confinement rates
20 • Confinement rates have decreased in recent years resulting in lower projections using a five
21 year history compared to a ten year history
22 • Impact of misdemeanor sentencing changes not included. Future changes could add
23 between 10 and 24 ADP if Misdemeanant Confinement Program is not available
24 • Jail Bed Projection assumes a jail management factor of approximately 17% to account for
25 peak populations and inmate separation
26 • County inmate jail bed needs should be satisfied through 2035 with a 144 bed facility
27 • Federal inmates will be crowded out over time as the County inmate population grows
28
29 Commissioner Price asked why the Latino population is not represented in the race
30 demographics.
31 Sheriff Blackwood said on their federal and state reporting there is not a check box for
32 Latinos, unless a person identifies himself or herself as Latino, in which case it is recorded as
33 such.
34 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an update on the review of the payments for
35 federal inmates.
36 Sheriff Blackwood said this is ongoing, and data is being gathered. He said the federal
37 program instructed them not to present this information until the jail has been built. He said this
38 information will be submitted both now and at that future time.
39 Bonnie Hammersley said the County has received a contract from a consultant who has
40 worked with a number of jails across the State. She said this consultant will go to the U.S.
41 Marshal's office for the County. She said the contract is yet to be executed, but doing so is
42 within her authority, and there is money in her appropriation.
43 Bonnie Hammersley said the last contract with the U.S. Marshal's office was executed in
44 2008. She said prior to 2007, contracts were done on an annual basis but are now done every
45 three years.
22
1 Commissioner Burroughs asked if the contract will potentially change the price the
2 County is paid for federal inmates.
3 Bonnie Hammersley said this will be negotiated. She said the federal government used
4 to pay the exact costs annually, along with an audit; however, now that contracts are done every
5 three years, the process is more of a negotiation.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said another consultant working for the jail alternatives, noted that
7 the County was only reporting income for housing federal inmates, but failed to note the
8 expenses.
9 Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is access to information on the ages of the
10 inmates.
11 Sheriff Blackwood said it is available, and he can get it to the Board.
12 Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a process for identifying comparable counties.
13 Bonnie Hammersley said population is the main factor, but noted that many counties do
14 not have data readily available.
15 Sheriff Blackwood said Orange County is socially, educationally, philosophically, and
16 geographically unique, and this drives how law enforcement works.
17
18 b. Orange County Facilities Accessibility Self-Assessment Update
19 The Board received an update and provided feedback to staff on the County's ongoing
20 comprehensive Facility Accessibility Self-Assessment.
21 Brennan Bouma, Orange County Sustainability Coordinator, reviewed the following
22 information, and PowerPoint presentation:
23
24 BACKGROUND: On June 2, 2015 the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
25 "Proclamation Supporting the Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)", and
26 expressed an interest in engaging the disabled community to help County staff identify any
27 facilities access issues. Asset Management Services (AMS) and the Department of Housing,
28 Human Rights and Community Development (HHRCD) came together to organize this
29 subcommittee of the Space Study Work Group to conduct a self-assessment of the physical
30 accessibility of all County facilities.
31 This advisory subcommittee includes representatives from the Orange County Human
32 Relations Commission (HRC), the North Carolina Council on Developmental Disabilities
33 (NCCDD) and the Disability Awareness Council (DAC) along with County staff and the County
34 building inspectors. Some of the members of the committee are disabled, and have brought
35 essential first-hand experience to guide the accessibility assessments.
36 County building inspectors conducted the most recent comprehensive accessibility
37 assessment in 2007, and other focused accessibility assessments have been conducted more
38 recently for some County facilities. Now is an appropriate time to integrate these focused
39 assessments and update our comprehensive assessment of County facilities.
40 Progress:
41 To date, assessments have been conducted for the Southern Human Services Center,
42 the Richard L. Whitted Human Services Center and the Robert & Pearl Seymour Center, with
43 the Library just having been done yesterday. Self-assessment teams include a disabled person
44 or disabilities advocate, a County building inspector, and a County staff person familiar with the
45 facility being assessed.
46 The accessibility obstacles identified in these assessments will be prioritized by the
47 members of the subcommittee to inform final recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.
48 Initial progress in conducting these assessments has been deliberate, as Staff has
49 thoughtfully developed the knowledge, tools, and collaborative process to conduct these
50 assessments in an accurate and standardized manner. During the initial assessments,
51 improvements to the procedures and tools were identified, which will help to improve and
23
1 streamline future assessments. The committee plans to further accelerate the remaining
2 assessments by engaging the Safety Committees from each facility in conducting initial
3 assessments so that the accessibility assessment teams will only need to verify the results.
4 Initial Findings:
5 These initial assessments have identified several areas for improvement in County
6 facilities. Some of these will require only minor adjustments (Low-level) to improve accessibility
7 and others will require a greater investment.
8
9 Example Findings from Initial Assessments:
10 Low-level (repairs ongoing)
11 • Reducing door-opening pressures
12 • Marking walking surface to highlight transitions
13 • Landscape management for facility visibility and accessibility (tree pruning, hedge
14 maintenance, etc.)
15 • Patching damaged sidewalks
16 • Replacing faded parking signage and striping
17 Mid-level
18 • Repairing minor trip hazards
19 • Adding wayfinding signage
20 • Adjusting heights of restroom accessories and features
21 High-level
22 • Addressing slope issues along accessible routes
23 • Installing additional railings
24
25 The low-level and mid-level items are those that require only minor adjustments or
26 repairs. These are continuously addressed within AMS Corrective Maintenance repair
27 processes, the grounds maintenance provided by the Department of Environment, Agriculture,
28 Parks and Recreation, and AMS Building Improvement projects. The high-level items would
29 likely be best addressed within the Capital Investment Plan (CIP). As discussed in the Space
30 Study Update to the Board during the November 10, 2015 work session, staff is preparing these
31 results to inform the CIP discussion in March 2016.
32 As assessments are completed, the results will be summarized and prioritized within a
33 framework modeled on the ADA Transition Plan. The Transition Plan lists physical obstacles
34 that limit the accessibility of public programs or activities to individuals with disabilities, and then
35 describes the methods that will be used to remove these obstacles, and specifies when each
36 step will be taken and by whom. As noted in the ADA statute, all facilities do not have to meet
37 each accessibility component, but rather all persons with disabilities must be able to participate
38 in and benefit from the services, programs, and activities provided by Orange County.
39 Therefore, as a plan is created for the removal of obstacles, actions that improve accessibility to
40 County programs will be prioritized over other types of facilities improvements.
41
42 • Organizations represented
43 o Orange County Human Relations Commission (HRC)
44 o North Carolina Council on Developmental Disabilities (NCCDD)
45 o Disability Awareness Council (DAC)
46 o County Building Inspectors
47 o 12 County Departments plus NC Courts
48 • Follow accessible route from parking lot into all areas
49 o Identify, Verify, Record
50
51 Timeline and Next Steps
24
1 Prepare
2 • Engage County departments and disabled community,
3 • Prepare standard checklist, Conduct pilot assessments.
4 Timeline August—October 2015
5
6 Identify & Prioritize
7 • Evaluate all County facilities.
8 • Prioritize buildings that have programs serve the most disabled residents.
9 • Inventory and prioritize all accessibility issues at these facilities using established ADA
10 standards.
11 Timeline October 2015—February 2016
12
13 Plan
14 • Propose solutions for accessibility issues.
15 • Estimate costs for planning and budgeting purposes.
16 Timeline: December 2015— February 2016
17
18 Propose Implementation Plan
19 • Present a proposal to the Board of Commissioners to review as part of the Manager's
20 Recommended CIP.
21 Timeline: March -June 2016
22
23 Chair McKee asked if a low, moderate, or high number of overall issues have been
24 found thus far.
25 Brennan Bouma said the team has been very thorough and conscientious. He said
26 there have been a high number of low-level issues found.
27 Chair McKee asked if people with disabilities are continuing to be engaged in the
28 process.
29 Brennan Bouma said yes, which has been tremendously helpful.
30
31 9. County Manager's Report
32 NONE
33
34 10. County Attorney's Report
35 NONE
36
37 11. Appointments
38
39 a. Upper Neuse River Basin Association —Appointment(s)
40 The Board considered making an appointment(s)to the Upper Neuse River Basin
41 Association (UNRBA).
42
43 Voting Director:
44 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
45 leave Pam Hemminger, who is currently on UNRBA, in place for a term not to exceed one year.
46
47 VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Rich)
48
49 MOTION PASSES
50
25
1 First Alternate Director:
2
3 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
4 nominate Chair McKee to serve as First Alternate Director.
5
6 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
7
8 Second Alternate Director:
9
10 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
11 nominate Commissioner Jacobs to serve a three-year term as Second Alternate Director.
12
13 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
14
15 b. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee—Appointments
16 The Board considered making appointments to the Adult Care Home Community
17 Advisory Committee.
18
19 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
20 appoint the following to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee:
21
22 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #6)At-Large for Suzanne Haff expiring
23 10/31/2017.
24 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #7) At-Large for A. Yvonne Medenhall expiring
25 10/31/2017.
26 • Appointment of Stephen Bank to a one year training term (Position #1) expiring
27 12/15/2016.
28 • Appointment of Gloria Brown to a one year training term (Position # 8) expiring
29 12/15/2016.
30
31 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
32
33 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
34 appoint William Lang to a one-year training term (Position #9) expiring 12/15/2016.
35
36 VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Price); Nays, 5 (Chair McKee,
37 Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Pelissier)
38
39 MOTION FAILS
40
41 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin seconded Commissioner Pelissier to
42 appoint Danielle Mosely to a one year training term (Position #9) expiring 12/15/16.
43
44 VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner
45 Dorosin, Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Price)
46
47 MOTION PASSES
48
49 c. Affordable Housinq Advisory Board —Appointments
50 The Board considered making appointments to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
51
26
1 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
2 appoint the following to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
3
4 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #6)At-Large representative for Tammy Jacobs
5 expiring 06/30/2018.
6 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #12)At-Large representative for Daniel Bullock
7 expiring 06/30/2018.
8 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #15)At-Large representative for Jason O'Quinn
9 expiring 09/30/2018.
10
11 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
12
13 A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
14 appoint Brika Eklund to first full term (Position # 3)At-Large expiring 6/30/2018.
15
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
19 appoint Kolby Herndon to a first full term (Position # 9) At-Large expiring 6/30/2018.
20
21 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
22
23 d. Chapel Hill /Orange County Visitors Bureau —Appointments
24 The Board considered making appointments to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors
25 Bureau.
26
27 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
28 appoint the following to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau:
29
30 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #4)At-Large UNC Chapel Hill representative
31 for Dr. Aaron Bachenheimer expiring 12/31/2018.
32 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #11)At-Large 0/C Lodging Assoc.
33 representative for Nitin Khana expiring 12/31/2018.
34 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #17)At-Large representative for Lee Pavao
35 expiring 12/31/2018.
36
37 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
38
39 e. Commission for the Environment—Appointments
40 The Board considered making appointments to the Commission for the Environment.
41
42 A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint
43 the following to the Commission for the Environment:
44
45 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #5)Water Resources representative for William
46 Kaiser expiring 12/31/2018.
47 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #13)At-Large representative for Caroline Cook
48 expiring 12/31/2018.
49 • Appointment to a first full term (Position #14)At-Large representative for Lynne
50 Gronback expiring 12/31/2018.
27
1 • Appointment to a second full term (Position #15)At-Large representative for Rebecca
2 Ray expiring 12/31/2018.
3
4 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
5
6 Commissioner Dorosin noted that many boards are lacking in diversity. He encouraged
7 a concerted effort to address this. He also encouraged reaching out to students, via the Daily
8 Tar Heel newspaper.
9
10 12. Board Comments
11 Commissioner Burroughs had no comments.
12 Commissioner Price said the Chapel Hill Chamber recognized some of the EMS, Sheriff
13 and Fire Department personnel. She offered her congratulations.
14 Commissioner Dorosin had no comments.
15 Commissioner Rich had no comments.
16 Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff and advisory board members for the work they have
17 put in this year.
18 Commissioner Jacobs said he has not received the agricultural summit draft agenda.
19 Bonnie Hammersley said she would resend it, although other Commissioners noted they
20 had received it already.
21 Commissioner Pelissier had no comments.
22 Chair McKee had no comments.
23
24 13. Information Items
25
26 • December 7, 2015 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
27 • Memo Regarding Rural Recycling Service Area Expansion Details
28 • Memo Regarding Dr. Pauli Murray Human Rights Award Winner Display Area
29
30
31 14. Closed Session
32 NONE
33
34 15. Adjournment
35
36 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
37 adjourn the meeting at 11:01 p.m.
38
39 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
40
41 Earl McKee, Chair
42
43
44 Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board
45
46