HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12-15-2015 APPROVED 1/21/2016
MINUTES
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
REGULAR MEETING
December 15, 2015
7:00 p.m.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, December 15,
2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair McKee and Commissioners Mia Burroughs,
Mark Dorosin, Barry Jacobs, Bernadette Pelissier, Renee Price and Penny Rich
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
COUNTY ATTORNEYS PRESENT: John Roberts
COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Bonnie Hammersley, Deputy Manager Travis
Myren and Clerk to the Board Donna Baker (All other staff members will be identified
appropriately below)
Chair McKee called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1. Additions or Changes to the Agenda
-White sheet for item 5-a: Final revised ordinance for Joint Public Hearing with the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC)
- PowerPoint for item 7-a: Unified Animal Control Ordinance
-White handout for item 8-a: Jail Population Profile and Projections for Future Growth
-White handout for item 8-a: Comparable County Jail Statistics
- PowerPoint for item 8-b: Facilities accessibility self-assessment
Appointments:
- Green-membership roster for item 11-b (in old format with position #s)
-Yellow-membership roster for item 11-c (in old format with position #s)
- Peach-membership roster for item 11-d (in old format with position #s)
- Blue-membership roster for item 11-e (in old format with position #s)
PUBLIC CHARGE
Chair McKee dispensed with the reading of the Public Charge.
2. Public Comments
a. Matters not on the Printed Agenda
Barbara Driscoll, President of the Eno River Association, said the group is celebrating its
50th anniversary. She said there will be 50 hikes on the Eno River this year, and she hoped the
Commissioners would join them on some of these hikes.
Robin Jacobs, Executive Director of the Eno River Association, thanked the Board of
County Commissioners' (BOCC) commitment and support throughout the years. She said there
will be a celebration of the 50th Anniversary on February 20, 2016. She distributed the
Association's yearly calendar to all of the Commissioners.
Chair McKee acknowledged the long-term commitment of the Eno River Association and
thanked them for their work.
b. Matters on the Printed Agenda
(These matters will be considered when the Board addresses that item on the agenda
below.)
3. Announcements and Petitions by Board Members
Commissioner Pelissier petitioned the Board to add an additional member-at-large
position to the OUTBoard.
Commissioner Jacobs had no petitions.
Commissioner Rich said the Orange Durham Chapel Hill Work Group met last week and
heard a presentation from the Durham Planning Board regarding the preservation of 15% of
affordable housing around the light rail stations. She asked if the manager could get this
information to share with the Board and suggested the Board should start talking with their
partners about implementing this plan in Orange County.
Commissioner Rich said, at the same meeting, there was discussion about preserving
the old general store at Hollow Rock. She said there is an effort to raise $25,000 to move the
general store across the street, in order to turn it into a museum about the area. She asked if
this information could be obtained, and put on the website
Commissioner Rich said she and Commissioner Pelissier talked about Air BnBs and
reported that Orange County should be getting their first taxes from these establishments soon.
Commissioner Dorosin said he is the Board representative to the Small Loan Program,
which has been a very successful program, and very aggressive in making more loans. He said
he previously raised the idea about creating a sticker that commercial businesses can put in
their windows acknowledging that they are a recipient of a loan. He said this would be a visible
way to highlight the resource. He said the Committee seemed to embrace this idea.
Commissioner Price said yesterday the Town of Hillsborough approved Indigenous
Peoples Day, and as such, all three municipalities have adopted it. She petitioned the Board to
also recognize the second day in October as Indigenous Peoples Day. She requested that this
petition be approved at the Board meeting in Hillsborough in January, with Tribal Chiefs, and
other stakeholders, being invited to attend.
Chair McKee said this is the second resolution the Board has received on this, and he
will refer it to the agenda review team requesting a timely turn around.
Commissioner Burroughs had no petitions.
Chair McKee said he received an email today from the Humans Relations Commission
(HRC) about the possibility of bringing a resolution forward regarding Syrian refugees. He said
this will be discussed as quickly as possible.
4. Proclamations/ Resolutions/ Special Presentations
a. Presentation of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for FYE 6/30/2015
The Board received the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2015.
Gary Donaldson, Orange County Chief Financial Officer, acknowledged the Finance
team that worked on the CAFR report and noted that they were awarded the Certificate of
Achievement for Excellence Financial Reporting.
Gary Donaldson reviewed the following background information:
BACKGROUND: The CAFR reports on all financial activity of the County for the fiscal year July
1, 2014 through June 30, 2015. Martin Starnes and Associates, a firm of Certified Public
Accountants, audited the financial statements. The financial statements and audit are required
by Chapter 159-34 of the North Carolina General Statutes. The County prepares a
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) that meets the standards set by the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The CAFR is submitted to the GFOA in
order to be awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting.
Orange County has received this award for thirty consecutive fiscal years. The financial report
for the Orange County SportsPlex, as required under the management contract, is included in
the County's CAFR.
The audit results for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 indicates a strong financial
position for Orange County. The County received an unqualified (clean) audit opinion on the
financial statements received from the audit. The Chief Financial Officer and representatives of
Martin Starnes and Associates will cover highlights of the report and answer any questions.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial report indicates a strong financial position for Orange
County. The County Board policy is to maintain the unassigned fund balance at 17% of General
Fund expenditures. At the end of FY2014-15 the unassigned fund balance was 18.5% of
General Fund expenditures, or $2.8 million in excess of the Board policy. The unassigned fund
balance policy and target levels enable the County to prevail through uncertain economic and
financial periods.
Marcie Spivey, Audit Partner with Starnes and Associates, made the following
PowerPoint presentation, regarding the results of the 2015 Audited Financial Statements. Many
of the slides are incorporated by reference and this presentation is a part of the permanent
agenda file in the Clerk's office.
Orange County 2015 Audited Financial Statements
Audit Highlights
• Unmodified opinion
• Implementation of GASB68
Budget vs. Actual- General Fund
Budget Actual Variance
Revenues $ 196,316,799 $ 201,390,558 $ 5,073,759
Expenditures 200,705,722 192,078,545 8,627,177
Other Financing Sources (Uses)
Bond Refunding - 605,000 605,000
Transfers In 1,057,160 1,057,160 -
Transfer Out (8,080,699) (8,080,699) -
Appropriated Fund Balance 11,412,462 - (11,412,462)
Net Change in Fund Balance $ - $ 2,893,474 $ 2,893,474
Transfers out Summary
Transfers from the General Fund
School Capital Improvements Fund $4,727,236
County Capital Improvements Fund 460,240
Nonmajor government funds 516,480
Enterprise Funds:
Major Solid Waste Landfill 1,856,543
Major SportsPlex 376,450
Nonmajor Enterprise Fund 143,750
Total transfers out $8,080,699
Transfers in Summary
Transfers to the General Fund
Nonmajor governmental funds $1,052,600
County Capital Improvement Fund 4,560
Total Transfers In $1,057,160
Tax Collection Percentages (graph)
Fund Balance Position-General Fund
2015 2014
Total Fund Balance $ 65,019,581 $ 62,114,947
Non spendable (20,306) (29,242)
Stabilization by State Statute (11,255,821) (12,102,492)
Available Fund Balance 53,743,454 49,983,213
Committed (7,543,841) (6,001,641)
Assigned (10,650,770) (10,068,343)
Unassigned $ 35,548,843 $ 33,913,229
Unassigned Fund Balance as a Percent of Expenditures—General Fund (graph)
Major Enterprise Funds
SportsPlex Solid Waste
Fund Fund
Total Operating Revenues $ 3,134,557 $ 5,173,915
Total Operating Expenses (3,112,253) (10,857,943)
Non-operating (103,112) 1,155,000
Other Financing Sources 376,450 1,856,543
Beginning Net Position 3,275,136 6,686,741
Ending Net Position $ 3,570,778 $ 4,014,256
Orange County
Gary Donaldson said Orange County is in a strong fiscal position. He said the Board
policy for the fund balance is 17%, and there is currently 18.5%. He said he would return to the
Board seeking direction for this excess fund balance.
He referred to the Report to Residents at their places and reviewed some of the 2014-
2015 metrics in the report.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if last year's additional fund balance amount was
known.
Gary Donaldson said it was about$2.5 million.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if the Report to the Residents is a new initiative.
Gary Donaldson said it is new, but will be recurring with updated information going
forward.
Commissioner Burroughs referred to the management letter and asked if there could be
further clarification regarding the Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) underfunding.
Gary Donaldson said underfunding is a misleading statement. He said the County has
not taken formal action to have an irrevocable trust. He said the County is on target with its
contributions to the OPEB funding.
Commissioner Rich referred to the economic metrics and asked if the numbers for Blue
Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) refer to their presence in Chapel Hill.
Gary Donaldson said at the time of the production of the report, the numbers were
accurate. He said since the report was produced, some BCBS employees have been relocated
to Durham.
Commissioner Rich said the East 54 are principal taxpayers and noted that it is one of
the County's largest, despite public criticism of the development.
Commissioner Rich referred to the Schedule of Findings and Costs and asked if there
were reasons that the housing voucher cluster deadline of March 31 was missed.
Gary Donaldson said there are a number of reports the finance department has to
produce, and he is looking to have a desk procedure manual with due dates which has not
existed before. He said the deadline was simply missed. He said the letter cited the housing
and urban development department, but it is a function of the finance department.
Commissioner Price asked if there is any leeway regarding the spending of the
unassigned fund balance.
Gary Donaldson said this is a rainy day fund for unexpected or catastrophic events.
Commissioner Price asked if the Board should plan on spending this extra fund balance
between now and the end of the fiscal year.
Bonnie Hammersley said staff would bring back a recommendation for the spending of
the $2.8 million of unassigned fund balance, as is done every year. She said the Board will be
asked to approve, amend or change the staff's recommendation.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the excess funding is definitely going to be spent this
year, rather than folding it into the budget for next year.
Bonnie Hammersley said staff has yet to have any discussions regarding a
recommendation. She said that could be one of the recommendations, and the Board of County
Commissioners has the final decision. She said last year the funds were split between OPEB
and the social justice fund. She clarified that OPEB funds are for the health insurance benefits
of retirees.
Commissioner Dorosin said the report to the residents is a great thing, but noted it is
heavy on the finances. He suggested that going forward to report on other activity within the
County, like new businesses. He noted that almost all of the top employers are public
employers, and suggested adding a listing of the top private employers.
Commissioner Price said this is a great report. She asked when staff comes back with a
recommendation for the excess funds, if staff would also bring an overview of what was done
last year regarding the OPEB.
Commissioner Dorosin said the excess money is from last year, which was technically
part of FY 2014-2015. He suggested reviewing programming or items that were cut during that
fiscal year, which may be worth revisiting and possibly refunding.
Commissioner Rich said it is important to replenish the social justice fund.
Commissioner Jacobs said there has always been money in the social justice fund. He
suggested not spending money just because it is available, but rather putting excess funding
toward the next budget in order to assist the residents by lower taxes.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if investments that give a return due to higher interests
rates are being considered.
Gary Donaldson said yes these investments are being considered and there have been
meetings with financial entities and a review of statutory requirements and how investment
income can be optimized. He said staff will be following up on how this can improve down the
road and will return to the Board with an investment report.
Commissioner Pelissier noted that the staff report in January will be given just prior to
the Board's retreat. She said the Board may want to put the funds towards their identified
priorities, as determined at the retreat.
Chair McKee asked if the report is available on line.
Gary Donaldson said yes.
Chair McKee said he would like the Board to discuss moving the OPEB needs into the
budget. He thanked the finance department for their excellent work.
5. Public Hearings
a. Joint Public Hearing with the Historic Preservation Commission Regarding the
Proposed Designation of the Nicholas Corbett Hester House as an Orange County
Local Historic Landmark
The Board considered conducting a joint public hearing with the Historic Preservation
Commission (HPC) to receive public comment on the application and proposed ordinance to
designate the Nicholas Corbett Hester House as an Orange County Local Historic Landmark,
and then adopt the ordinance and authorize the Chair to sign.
Peter Sandbeck, Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks and Recreation's
(DEAPR) Cultural Resources Coordinator, reviewed the background information:
BACKGROUND: In 1991, Orange County adopted the "Ordinance Creating the Historic
Preservation Commission (HPC) of Orange County", also referred to as the "Historic
Preservation Ordinance". In 1997, the County adopted the Local Landmark Program, a
voluntary program allowing the HPC to designate properties of local historic and/or architectural
significance, as authorized by NC General Statute 160A-400.1-400.14. One of the HPC's duties
is to recommend properties to the BOCC for local landmark designation. Properties must meet
a high standard of historic and/or architectural significance to be designated as an individual
landmark. The higher standard is appropriate since landmark property owners are eligible for a
50 percent property tax deferral as provided by state law, as long as the property is preserved
and retains its historic character.
The historic landmark designation process, outlined in Article 3 of the County's Historic
Preservation Ordinance, involves several steps culminating with the adoption of an ordinance by
the BOCC for each individual landmark. At its October 28, 2015 meeting the HPC accepted a
Part 2 application (Attachments 1 and 2) from owner Ms. Mimi Logothetis to consider her
property, the Nicholas Corbett Hester House, for designation as an Orange County Local
Historic Landmark. The HPC approved a motion stating that the Hester House possesses
special significance and is worthy of consideration for local landmark designation. The
application materials were then submitted to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for
review and comment as required by state law. The SHPO provided the letter at Attachment 5.
The HPC also voted to request a joint public hearing with the BOCC, as required by Section 3.7
of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
This is a routine joint public hearing required by state enabling legislation and the
County's Historic Preservation Ordinance. Following this joint public hearing, the BOCC and
the HPC will take into consideration public comments, if any. No comments that would cause a
delay or note opposition to the designation are expected, so the HPC has already taken action
to refer the ordinance directly to the BOCC for consideration and adoption following the close of
the joint public hearing.
If the Board should adopt the proposed ordinance designating the Hester House as a
Local Landmark, the owner of the property would be eligible for a 50-percent property tax
deferral. A preliminary calculation by DEAPR staff shows that the property tax would be
reduced from the present amount of$2,241 to approximately $1,350. Tax Administration staff
will determine a final calculation. (The current assessed value for the home and land - 18.17
acres total - equals $235,500. The estimated assessed value after Landmark designation
equals $140,000 based on the house plus approximately 7 acres being included in the final
designation.)
Peter Sandbeck made a PowerPoint presentation containing photographs of the site,
and recognized the HPC members in attendance tonight. He also recognized the owners of the
property in question this evening.
Peter Sandbeck said the public hearing will be held, and then the Board of County
Commissioners will be asked to adopt the proposed revised ordinance.
Commissioner Price asked if Peter Sandbeck or the property owners were going to go
for National Historic Designation.
The owner said the previous owner had tried, but it was found that the property did not
have enough significance. She said the property is sitting on the study list for the National
Register.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
NONE
Commissioner Price commended the property owners. She said she served on the HPC
and wondered how this couple would accomplish this feat, but noted they have done a
phenomenal job.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Burroughs for
the Board to close the public hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Rich for the
Board to approve and authorize the Chair to sign the designation ordinance.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Orange County Consolidated Plan -Annual Action Plan Needs Hearing
The Board considered receiving comments from the public regarding the housing and
non-housing needs to be included in the Annual Action Plan Update of the 2016-2017
Consolidated Housing Plan for Housing and Community Development Programs in Orange
County.
Audrey Spencer-Horsley, Director of the Housing, Human Rights and Community
Development, reviewed the following information:
In May 2015 a Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development
Programs in Orange County was developed and approved by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD). This document details the housing needs of very low income,
low income and moderate-income families and special population groups in addition to outlining
the strategies and plans for addressing those needs.
Each year, local communities are required to reassess the needs of the community. This
public hearing provides an opportunity for the public, public agencies and other interested
parties to provide input into the Annual Action Plan Update. In addition, the public may comment
on proposed uses of an estimated $311,832 in 2016-2017 funds. Information regarding the
actual Congressional allocation is not available at this time. Eligible HOME Program activities
include: acquisition; new construction; housing rehabilitation; and rental assistance.
The Orange County Board of Commissioners, as a member of the Orange County
HOME Consortium, approved $450,317 in HOME Program funds for FY 2014—2015. All
program funds have been allocated to projects and 51% has been expended to-date. The Board
of Commissioners approved $412,638 in HOME Program Funds for FY 2015 - 2016. This year's
allocation of HOME funds is pending environmental assessments/reviews and subsequent
contractual agreements. The HOME compliance deadlines are a two (2) year commitment
reservation of funds and a five (5) year expenditure requirement.
An application form has been designed for agencies interested in accessing HOME
funds for local housing projects. HOME funding will be awarded through a joint application
process. The deadline for completing the application form is January 25, 2016. The Home
Program Review Committee will then review the applications received and make
recommendations regarding funding for consideration by the local elected officials in April 2016.
The 2016 Annual Action Plan will be submitted to HUD on or before May 13, 2016.
In order to inform the general public of this opportunity and encourage participation,
notices have been placed in The Chapel Hill News, News of Orange, and The Herald-Sun, and
also sent to local non-profit agencies and placed on local websites.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Orange County HOME Consortium expects to receive an allocation of$311,832 in
HOME Program funds for 2016-2017; the same level as last fiscal year.
Chair McKee opened the public hearing.
Commissioner Rich asked if the members of the Home Program Review Committee
could be identified.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said Commissioner Dorosin is one member, and the remainder
of the Committee is made up of other officials from the municipalities, plus support staff.
Commissioner Rich asked if this is an on-going committee.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said the Committee meets as needed to decide on funding.
Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 3 of the consolidated plan summary and asked if
the highest identified needs are low wealth elderly residents, rental housing for low income, and
housing for low-income residents with disabilities.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said that is correct.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if those priorities would be driving the consideration of how
funds are distributed.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said it is the intent of the consolidated plan for the community
to talk about the needs in the community, and how HOME funding should be used.
Commissioner Dorosin said there are more requests than there are funds available, and
the purpose of having this consolidated plan is to determine the priorities on which to focus.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if this is this going to be folded into Audrey Spencer
Horsley's presentation regarding the bond package after the New Year.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said yes.
Commissioner Pelissier referred to the statements made about the need for greater code
enforcement in lower income, rural areas. She asked if there are plans to address these needs.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said the County would address portions of the plan, while other
portions will be given to the private sector to address.
Commissioner Jacobs said he has raised this issue before, and that he was told for
many years that there are residents in northern Orange County that do not have running water.
He said staff response has been that people do not want the County to look at these issues
because their land may not perk. He said he finds this response inadequate, and he asked Ms.
Spencer Horsley if this need is being reviewed and if there are any policies that may be written
moving forward.
Commissioner Jacobs said this may no longer be an issue, but he would like to know.
He suggested doing some outreach in these areas to assess the current status.
Audrey Spencer Horsley noted his comments.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Robert Dowling, Executive Director of Community Home Trust, said he was reviewing
older information, as they are currently moving their offices, and he reviewed many of the
accomplishments of the Community Housing Trust. He said many mistakes have been made
over the years. He noted four main themes: how much need there continues to be for
affordable housing, how much money is needed, how difficult it is to resolve issues and how
easy it is to spend money inefficiently. He said we are in a vexing business and as they move
forward with their strategic planning, there are better and worse uses of HOME funding. He
asked the Board to try to focus its efforts on what is feasible to get done with limited resources.
He said there are other assets in the County, and he encouraged the Board to make use of all
of them: non-profits, for profits, school governments, etc.
Eviva Scully, School Social Worker, asked if the criteria to identify someone as
extremely low wealth could be clarified.
Audrey Spencer Horsley said the national standard of affordable housing is HUD's
definition: 30% of one's income is considered as affordable. She said extreme low income is
based on the county's median income, and 80% would be considered moderate income, 50%
would be considered low income, and 30% of the county's median income would be considered
extremely low income. She said the poverty line is also another benchmark.
Mark Marcoplos said there are a lot of unknowns regarding poverty conditions in Orange
County, and information is needed. He said since there is not a large amount of HOME funding,
perhaps it may be valuable to fund a position to go around and look at and investigate these
issues.
Susan Levy's via email:
Dear Orange County Commissioners,
I regret that I am unable to attend tonight's public hearing due to a prior commitment, but I
would like to offer the following comments on the use of HOME 2016-17 HOME funds, and ask
that they be entered into the record.
HOME funding continues to be a critical factor in Habitat's home and community building efforts
throughout Orange County. To date, Habitat has provided affordable homeownership for 270
families in Orange County, and used HOME funds to leverage millions of dollars in private
funding for the majority of those 270 homes.
Today, in part because of HOME funding,
• 50 families call Phoenix Place home. We completed this subdivision of green certified
home in the Rogers Road community in 2014.
• The Fairview community has seen a rise in its homeownership rate and a reduction in its
crime rate with the addition of 50 Habitat homes,
• 9 homes have been completed in Tinnin Woods, our subdivision in Efland-Cheeks
Township, and another 10 are under construction.
This year, we are requesting approximately $285,000 in HOME funding for two projects.
1. $165,000 in second mortgages for the final 11 homes in Tinnin Woods. The
funds will be used as second mortgages for Habitat homebuyers, and will have a
long-term positive impact on the lives of the eleven families. Owning a home has
been shown in recent studies to be a predictor of future success, especially for
children. Children who live in homes like those that Habitat offers will have a
greater chance of graduating from high school, and acquiring post-secondary
education. Their early adult earnings will be higher, and they are more likely to
own their own home in 10 years. Those who apply to build and purchase a home
through Habitat live in overcrowded apartments, pay considerably more than
30% of their income for rent, and/or deal with high utility costs and lack of
repairs. This in spite of the fact that they are hardworking members of our
community, often working more than one full time job trying to make ends
meet. For those homeowners fortunate enough to purchase a home through
Habitat, they usually find themselves paying less for their mortgage than they did
for their rent, and are able to save considerable money on utilities as well,
leaving them more money to spend on other basic necessities and on education
for themselves and their children.
2. We will also be requesting approximately $120,000 in HOME funds for
engineering, design, and some of the infrastructure costs for a new project in the
Waterstone community in Hillsborough. We are in the process of planning for 18
new attached homes for seniors on land originally deeded to the Community
Home Trust by the developer of Waterstone. The Home Trust will transfer the
property to Habitat in the next few weeks. Affordable senior housing has been
identified in the Consolidated Plan as one of the priority needs for the county,
with an estimated 450 units of affordable senior housing needed. Habitat is
excited to help address this need. We will be working with the Orange County
Department on Aging and other senior housing experts to design the
project. Infrastructure construction will begin in 2017 and the homes will be
constructed in 2018.
Thank you for your consideration of our request, and for your support for affordable housing in
Orange County.
In partnership,
Susan Levy
Executive Director
Habitat for Humanity, Orange County, NC
88 Vilcom Center Dr., #L110
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
919-932-7077x211; 919-697-1905 (mobile)
Commissioner Dorosin said the area median income according to 2015 HUD guidelines
for Orange County is $67,400. He said a family of four would be at 80% median incoming
earning $53,900; 50% median income earning $33,700; and 30% median income earning
$20,200.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
close the Public Hearing.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
6. Consent Agenda
• Removal of Any Items from Consent Agenda
NONE
• Approval of Remaining Consent Agenda
A motion was made by Commissioner Burroughs, seconded by Commissioner Rich to
approve the remaining items on the Consent Agenda.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
• Discussion and Approval of the Items Removed from the Consent Agenda
a. Minutes
The Board approved the minutes from November 17, 2015 as submitted by the Clerk to the
Board.
b. Fiscal Year 2015-16 Budget Amendment#4
The Board approved budget, grant, and capital project ordinance amendments for fiscal year
2015-16 for Animal Services; Department of Social Services; Economic Development-Orange
County Arts Commission; Department on Aging; Department of Environment, Agriculture, Parks
and Recreation; Visitors Bureau; Health Department; School Capital Projects; and the Sheriff's
Department.
c. Authorization for County Manager to Execute Leases of County Property
The Board delegated authority to the County Manager to execute leases of County property up
to $90,000 in total initial lease term revenue according to the Manager's Third Party Tenancy
and Outleasing Policy.
d. Public Records Retention and Disposition Schedules
The Board approved the records retention and disposition schedules involving County
Management, Public Libraries, Tax Administration, Public Transportation Systems and
Authorities, and Veterans Services and authorized the Chair to sign pending review by the
County Attorney.
e. Computer Surplus Declaration and Donation to the Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools
The Board adopted a resolution, which is incorporated by reference, declaring, as surplus, items
listed in the abstract and authorizing the donation of those items to the Board of the Chapel Hill-
Carrboro City Schools; and authorized the Chair to sign the Resolution on behalf of the Board
upon County Attorney review.
7. Regular Agenda
a. Unified Animal Control Ordinance
The Board considered approving the proposed Unified Animal Control Ordinance
("UAO") and adoption of the Resolution of Amendment "A Resolution Amending Chapter 4 of
the Orange County Code of Ordinances".
Bob Marotto, Orange County Animal Services Director, introduced members from the
Animal Services Advisory Board.
Bob Marotto and Staff Attorney Annette Moore made the following PowerPoint
presentation:
Unified Animal Ordinance
BOCC Meeting Presentation
December 15, 2015
Agenda Item 7-a
What it does
• Takes away some of the inconsistency of having 3 separate (and varying) ordinances
• Adds clarity and consistency where needed based upon the experience of officers,
Animal Services staff, and legal proceedings over the years
• Where interpretations in readings differed, the unified version uses the most accurate,
legal, and clear interpretation and/or language
What it doesn't do
• It does not ignore that there still remains a need to have some differences in different
areas (i.e.: livestock, tethering, township-specific laws)
• With only one exception, it does not add new law, but rather fills in gaps and provides
better clarity in the existing ordinances
• The exception is the different recovery fees for reproductive and sterilized dogs and cats
(including a sterilization deposit for animals recovered 3 or more times)
History
• When the ordinance came before the BOCC last (April, 2014), four issues were
discussed with commissioners
• Our attorneys have resolved these and revisions have been guided by BOCC feedback
• In its final form, the ordinance has been adopted by Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and it has
the full support of Hillsborough
Issues from 2014
• Trespass
• Watchdog
• Livestock and Public Nuisance
• Administrative Appeal
Annette Moore continued the presentation:
Trespass
• Section 4-42 Control of Vicious Animal: Security Dog
• Issue: needed to be better defined
• Solution: moved into the exceptions portion of the ordinance, where exceptions include a
dog on a property that is posted with warning and/or no trespass signage; as well as a
dog that is on property and bites someone committing a `willful trespass'
o Willful trespass "which shall be determined by looking at the totality of
circumstances."
Watchdog
• Section 4-37 Definitions: Security Dog
• Issue: needed to be better defined
• Solution: watchdog found to be an unnecessary term and moot based on the definition of
a vicious dog and how a dog would have to behave in order to be declared as one
Livestock and Public Nuisance
• Section 4-45 Public Nuisance
• Issue: Does a special provision for livestock need to exist under nuisance ordinance
• Solution: All off-property large animals are considered a nuisance.
o An exception exists for off-property domesticated livestock (see definition): these
may be deemed a nuisance by the discretion of the Animal Services Director or
his/her designee.
o These livestock may be deemed a nuisance when they:
• Present a danger to the public
• Destroy or damage property or violate property rights
• Have been habitually at large
Administrative Appeal
• Section 4-54 Appeals
• Issue: needed clarification and better formatting
• Background: Presently, there is no appeal available for significant portions of the
county's ordinance
• Solution: Any appeal of the chapter will be overseen by 2 members of the Animal
Services Advisory Board, and 1 member of either the township where the dog resides or
a public citizen appointed by the BOCC.
o Testimony will be sworn by the officiating board
o Cross-examination is allowed
o Neither a party nor Animal Services shall be represented by an attorney
o Timelines:
• Appeals must be made within 5 days of the final action appealed
• A hearing must be scheduled within 10 days of receipt of a notice of
appeal
• A decision must be made and forwarded within 7 days of the hearing
Conclusion
• The Unified Animal Ordinance is an important step in making Orange County's animal
laws complete, easy to access, easy to understand, and relevant to the modern
landscape
• In general, it aims to protect pets and people, give them due process to appeal citations
and orders, and communicate clearly the responsibilities and obligations that exist in
Orange County for those owning or coming into contact with pets
Bob Marotto said this is a valuable step forward in making Orange County's animals
laws. He said it is not perfect, and can be re-visited at anytime.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Dr. Susan Elmore, Member of the Animal Services Advisory Board (ASAB), said the
UAO first came to their board in 2013 as a draft, and she recognized the hard work of the
attorney's office. She said the ASAB provided input and also received input from stakeholders,
the University of North Carolina (UNC), and the Board of County Commissioners. She said it
has been a process, and everyone involved has done due diligence. She said it is not a perfect
document, but can be amended as needed going forward, and is a great improvement of the
process currently in place.
Michelle Walker said she had served as either Chair or Vice Chair of the ASAB through
this process and appreciated the hard work of all the staff involved in reviewing the information
to create the current proposed UAO. She said the ASAB made efforts to get input from their
public partners.
Commissioner Pelissier said she appreciated all of their efforts. She referred to page
149 in the electronic copy, which discusses the appeals process. She asked if it would be
practically possible for the Board of County Commissioners to appoint someone to this panel.
Annette Moore suggested that the Board would designate someone ahead of time. She
said if the issue is in the county, then that person would be from the County, while the third
person would be from the area in question.
Commissioner Pelissier asked if the Board would follow the same boards and
commissions' applicant process.
Annette Moore said yes and suggested adding an alternate as well.
Commissioner Price said she had several concerns. She said she is concerned with
giving sole discretion to one person.
Annette Moore said the sections that include discretion also have appeal processes
attached to them.
Commissioner Price said she understood that an example of sole discretion could be
destroying an animal prior the appeals process.
Annette Moore said destroying an animal is always a last resort.
Commissioner Price referred to page 26 of the hard copy where Section h-2 and 3 say
an animal can be destroyed.
Bob Marotto said there is not any intention to give the Animal Services Director
unmeasured power. He said discretion is subject to judicial review as well as the appeal
process. He said the administering of this code will be done most judiciously to insure public
safety but not by destroying an animal prior to a judicial process.
Commissioner Price asked if there is a specific purpose for the microchip and if the
public can decline it.
Bob Marotto said there was one complaint circulated in an email and there was a
sustained response to that concern that noted the absence of medical complications of a
microchip.
Bob Marotto said the only exception would be a medical opinion that implanting the chip
would be detrimental to an animal. He said the chip is for identification for both the owners and
Animal Services.
Commissioner Price referred to Section 4.33 and asked if there could be clarification of
the statement, "only Orange County employees shall be designated as an animal cruelty
investigator."
Annette Moore said the statute allows for the designation of non-employees to be animal
cruelty investigators and she said the County will only allow employees to fill this role.
Commissioner Price asked if one must first be an employee or could one be hired to fill
this role.
Bob Marotto said one could be hired as a County employee to fill the position. He said
cruelty investigator is a designation in the North Carolina General Statute.
Commissioner Rich said she has concerns about the appeals process, noting two ASAB
members sit on the panel. She asked if it would be possible to separate what the Board
members do on the ASAB from their role on the appeals panel. She asked if there is a conflict
of interest.
John Roberts said individuals serving on the ASAB are favorable for serving on the
appeals panel since they are familiar with the ordinance, instead of a random person.
Commissioner Rich said she is still uncomfortable with this make up of the appeals
board.
Annette Moore said she did some research about what other entities are doing and John
Roberts is correct that ASAB members have specialized knowledge, such as being a
veterinarian. She said these individuals can also get the training to have technical knowledge of
the UAO. She said the third person on the appeals panel would have the same training but is
not a member of the ASAB.
Commissioner Rich said she is not comfortable with the fairness of this yet.
Annette Moore said this due process offers a notice and an opportunity to be heard.
She added that the people on the appeals board should be able to identify what is a violation,
and what is not. She said having board members with specialized knowledge has added value.
Bob Marotto said an appeals board with expertise is needed. He said it is a combination
of members of the ASAB as well as independent appointees. He said having a process by
which executive authority can be appealed is necessary. He said it may not be perfect at this
time but some codified due process must be put in place, as none exists currently. He said it
can be reviewed and amended as needed. He said Carrboro elected not to use this appeal
board for actions that arise within Carrboro but rather will maintain its own animal control board.
He said Carrboro will review this decision in a year.
Bob Marotto reiterated that there are several actions routinely taken by Animal Services
that currently have no appeals process. He said this is not acceptable.
Commissioner Burroughs referred to the administrative appeals process and said she
has had experience when she was on the school board of a dual role. She said with her
experiences an attorney was always present and asked if there is a reason why an attorney will
not be present.
Annette Moore said it is an administrative procedure and therefore is acceptable not to
have an attorney. She said the ASAB will have an attorney present, but there procedure is not
under the rules of evidence. She said allowing attorneys usually increases the stakes and
makes things unnecessarily formal.
Commissioner Burroughs clarified that the ASAB would have an attorney to make sure
the processes are followed correctly and asked if the other party would not be encouraged to
have an attorney.
Annette Moore said an attorney can be present and confer with their client, but the
clients are encouraged to speak for themselves.
Commissioner Burroughs said this sounds similar to the school board process and
having been a part of that system for seven years, she believes it can work.
Commissioner Jacobs said he too appreciated all of this work and noted that people
have strong feelings about their animals. He said he too feels concern about the attorney issue.
He said if an animal's life is at stake, the owner is likely to want any and all help they can
muster. He said it seems inappropriate for the County to limit what an owner can bring to bear
to protect the animal's life. He suggested that different language in the ordinance may offer
clarification on the process.
Annette Moore asked if Commissioner Jacobs is suggesting similar language to that in
the personnel ordinance, which states that a third party can be present, such as an attorney,
and confer with the client, but not speak for them. She said anyone could come to the
proceeding and confer but cannot participate in the process.
Commissioner Jacobs said that seems more reasonable to him rather than a blanket
prohibition.
Annette Moore said if changing the language is the Board's pleasure, it could be done.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if these proceedings are quasi-judicial hearings.
John Roberts said no, it is an administrative hearing, but some of the formal rules of
judicial process may apply. He said once the appeals process is done, anyone would have
access to a court process if need be.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if moving on to the court system would be in the form of an
appeal of the administrative process.
John Roberts said it is does not specifically say that, and it could be in the form of an
injunction to get the County to stop the outcome of the administrative process.
Commissioner Dorosin summarized his understanding of process as being proposed.
He asked if the third member of the appeals panel would receive training in order to be informed
and equipped.
Bob Marotto said yes. He added that the Towns would appoint people to serve on the
appeals panel, when the owner of the animal is a resident of said town.
Commissioner Dorosin clarified that the panel would be made up of three people: two
from the ASAB, and one outside citizen. He said someone from Animal Services would present
the case. He said it seemed reasonable to think that the owner in question may feel at a bit of a
disadvantage. He said due process should include a meaningful opportunity to be heard by an
impartial decision maker.
Commissioner Dorosin suggested the possibility of appointing two people from the
community, allowing the appeals panel to be made up of one ASAB person and two non-ASAB
persons. He said a group of people could be appointed and could rotate. He asked if this
would work.
Annette Moore said it is more important to establish the appeals process, rather than
who serves on this panel. She said she is speaking for the Attorney's Office and it is the
pleasure of the Board as to who serves on this appeals panel.
Bob Marotto said it is absolutely the Board of County Commissioners' decision. He said
in the past five years, about 65 potentially dangerous dog hearings have been heard. He added
that, to the best of his knowledge, no one has ever voiced an appeal about how those hearings
were conducted or their outcome. He said it is difficult now to convene an appeal board due to
the level of commitment that is required.
John Roberts said this is not a perfect document and it could be adopted tonight giving
authorization to staff to make non-substantive changes. He said the appeals process may not
be perfect but he does not see it to be lacking in fairness or equity. He said the Board could
adopt the ordinance and give it a trial run in its current form. He said it could be amended on
very short notice.
Commissioner Dorosin thanked the staff for their input. He noted it is important as they
are the experts.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if the dangerous dog-hearing appeals are currently heard
by a particular group of people.
Bob Marotto said three members of the ASAB, including a veterinarian, an at large non-
municipal member, and any other member of the ASAB. He said this group has consistently
heard these appeals. He said over time the sophistication of the ASAB members has grown
immensely.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if Carrboro's process is different.
Bob Marotto said Carrboro has an appointed animal control appeals board which has
no other function. He said this board is made up of one alderman and two residents at this time.
Commissioner Dorosin said if the BOCC is interested in changing the make-up of the
appeals board, there could be a pool of potential hearing officers that are required to get training
in the ordinance and have categorical expertise as well.
Annette Moore read the language in the personnel ordinance: "neither the employee
nor the County shall be represented by counsel at the hearing; however, the employee may be
accompanied by an individual of the employee's choosing to witness the proceeding. The
accompanying individual may not participate in the hearing."
Commissioner Jacobs asked if it is clear that the accompanying person can advise, but
not speak.
Annette Moore said yes. She said she has been a part of such hearings and that is how
they occur.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if this ordinance could be worded as plainly.
Annette Moore said yes.
Commissioner Jacobs said this would have been a lot easier for the Board if the
PowerPoint had been put in the agenda packet ahead of time.
Commissioner Jacobs referred to the top of page 71, which discussed the issue of
odor. He said determining what is a noxious odor is very subjective, and questions how to
define the "odor" of a dog or cat Sec. 4-44- (b) (2).
Bob Marotto said the answer is not simple, but that a pattern of corroborative evidence
would be needed. He said the odor would need to interfere with the reasonable enjoyment of
the neighboring property. He said these assessments would never be made in a cavalier
manner.
Commissioner Jacobs said he would like a definition of odor, as it is too subjective the
way it is written now. He suggested including public areas.
Commissioner Jacobs said it appears that if one has a security dog, the owner must
post it on their property; otherwise they will be unable to defend themselves if their dog bites
someone.
Bob Marotto said the proposed ordinance offers two subdivisions of security dogs: a
sentry dog and a patrol dog. He said both of these dogs have specific requirements of
established records of training and being registered with the County.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if Bob Marotto could walk him through the exceptions in
Section 4.42. The discussion ensued about vicious dog versus guard dog.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if there are reasons why one would post a no trespassing
sign.
Bob Marotto said if one posts a no trespassing sign and you choose to walk on the
property and are bitten by a dog, said dog will not be considered vicious.
Commissioner Jacobs said he still finds it unclear. He said posting a sign seems to
afford owners extra protection should something happen.
Annette Moore said a sign does afford extra protection if something were to happen.
Commissioner Jacobs said it is confusing, as this information is listed under exceptions
to vicious dogs.
Commissioner Rich said this is a live document and asked if any changes have to go
back to the Towns.
Annette Moore said the Towns were told that if there were significant changes she
would notify them.
John Roberts said both Chapel Hill and Carrboro adopted the UAO in whatever form
the BOCC adopts. He said if there are major changes then the Towns will be made aware.
Commissioner Rich asked if this ordinance would help someone who lives next door to
an excessively barking dog.
Annette Moore said this ordinance did not seek to make new laws but rather tried to
merge the three ordinances and there is a process in place already for this issue.
Bob Marotto reiterated some instances on how Animal Services handles issues like
this.
Commissioner Pelissier said this item has been before the Board twice and suggested
to bring it to some type of closure. She said she is fine with the proposed appeals process and
supports Commissioner Jacobs' proposal about the wording of the attorney issue.
Commissioner Jacobs suggested adding a paragraph at the top of the UAO about their
intention, as Bob Marotto eloquently said earlier.
Chair McKee said there were several changes made but the conversation got into the
weeds some tonight. He said he intended to vote against the UAO, based on the appeals panel
having two members from the ASAB; however, Commissioner Dorosin's proposed suggestion is
a good accommodation. Chair McKee said he did have a concern about the lack of an attorney
being present but he would be satisfied if it can be resolved with the proposed language from
the personnel ordinance.
Chair McKee said this document is very thin compared to the UDO. He said he would
like to see two citizens and one ASAB member on this appeal panel.
Commissioner Jacobs said if the composition of the appeals board is changed he
would like the ASAB member to be the Chair of the appeals board.
Chair McKee and Commissioner Dorosin agreed.
Commissioner Rich said she is fine with this compromise.
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs for
the Board to send the document back to include these additional changes (below) and to bring
back at their January 21, 2016 meeting.
• The question about the attorneys
• Language about odor
• Barking
• Composition of the hearing panel: two non- board members, and one ASAB member
that would serve as Chair
• Add a purpose to the ordinance
Annette Moore said there needs to be a pool of panel members from which to choose,
if the appeal board's composition is to be two to one.
Commissioner Rich asked if Animal Services would help the Board draft a "job
description" for potential non-ASAB members of the appeals board.
Annette Moore said yes.
Annette Moore said they will review the meeting and will ask for clarification if need be
copying the entire Board.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
8. Reports
a. Jail Population Profile and Projections for Future Growth
The Board received a presentation providing a profile of the Orange County jail
population and projections for growth to inform the Board of Commissioners' discussion about
construction of a detention facility.
Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation:
ORANGE COUNTY
Profile of the Orange County Jail Population and Projections for Future Growth
Presentation to the Board of Orange County Commissioners
Jail Population Profile and Projections
• Arrest and Jail Admission History and Trends
• Jail Population
o Average Daily Population
o Average Length of Stay
• Jail Population Profile
o Custody Status
o Security Classification
o Demographic Characteristics
• Cost of Confinement
• Population Projections
County Jail Admissions — Local Arrests (chart)
• Jail admissions have declined more slowly than arrests since 2006, averaging 1.6%
annually
• The difference between arrests and admissions has increased since 2011
Arrests by Agency (chart)
• Chapel Hill had the highest number of arrests in the County in 2014, consistent with the
proportion of the population
• Orange County Sheriff contributed 28% of total arrests in the County in 2014
County and Federal Jail Admissions (chart)
• County admissions have declined by an average of 1.6% annually
• Federal admissions have declined by an average of 4.5% annually
• Combined admissions have decreased by an average of 2.3% annually
County and Federal Average Daily Population (chart)
Average Length of Stay (chart)
• Federal inmates have comprised an average of 43% of the jail population since 2012
• County inmates have stayed an average of 10 days
• Federal inmates stay longer, an average of 37 days
Inmate Profile 2014— Custody Status (chart)
Inmate Profile 2014—Gender(chart)
Inmate Profile 2014— Race (chart)
Cost of Confinement
Jail Expense Summary
Personnel Costs $ 3,415,749
Operating Costs $ 948,839
Recurring Capital $ 10,374
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
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
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
Average $79.89 $29,160
Source: www.ncdps.gov— Cost of
Corrections
Misdemeanor Sentencing
• Changes to sentencing of misdemeanants started in 2011 through the Justice Reinvestment
Act
o Moved some misdemeanants from prison to local confinement facilities (County Jails)
through the Misdemeanant Confinement Program
o Did not apply to sentences over 180 days or to sentences for impaired driving
o Participation in the program as a receiving County is voluntary
o Orange County has not volunteered as a receiving County; no impact on jail population
to date
• Beginning January 1, 2015
o Applies to all misdemeanor sentences, including impaired driving of any length
o Misdemeanant Confinement Program capacity currently sufficient
o Future changes are unclear if bed demand exceeds supply
Population Projections (chart)
• Inmate population projections are for County inmates only
• Inmate population projections are driven by projected population growth and current
confinement rates
• Confinement rates have decreased in recent years resulting in lower projections using a five
year history compared to a ten year history
• Impact of misdemeanor sentencing changes not included. Future changes could add
between 10 and 24 ADP if Misdemeanant Confinement Program is not available
• Jail Bed Projection assumes a jail management factor of approximately 17% to account for
peak populations and inmate separation
• County inmate jail bed needs should be satisfied through 2035 with a 144 bed facility
• Federal inmates will be crowded out over time as the County inmate population grows
Commissioner Price asked why the Latino population is not represented in the race
demographics.
Sheriff Blackwood said on their federal and state reporting there is not a check box for
Latinos, unless a person identifies himself or herself as Latino, in which case it is recorded as
such.
Commissioner Jacobs asked if there is an update on the review of the payments for
federal inmates.
Sheriff Blackwood said this is ongoing, and data is being gathered. He said the federal
program instructed them not to present this information until the jail has been built. He said this
information will be submitted both now and at that future time.
Bonnie Hammersley said the County has received a contract from a consultant who has
worked with a number of jails across the State. She said this consultant will go to the U.S.
Marshal's office for the County. She said the contract is yet to be executed, but doing so is
within her authority, and there is money in her appropriation.
Bonnie Hammersley said the last contract with the U.S. Marshal's office was executed in
2008. She said prior to 2007, contracts were done on an annual basis but are now done every
three years.
Commissioner Burroughs asked if the contract will potentially change the price the
County is paid for federal inmates.
Bonnie Hammersley said this will be negotiated. She said the federal government used
to pay the exact costs annually, along with an audit; however, now that contracts are done every
three years, the process is more of a negotiation.
Commissioner Jacobs said another consultant working for the jail alternatives, noted that
the County was only reporting income for housing federal inmates, but failed to note the
expenses.
Commissioner Pelissier asked if there is access to information on the ages of the
inmates.
Sheriff Blackwood said it is available, and he can get it to the Board.
Commissioner Dorosin asked if there is a process for identifying comparable counties.
Bonnie Hammersley said population is the main factor, but noted that many counties do
not have data readily available.
Sheriff Blackwood said Orange County is socially, educationally, philosophically, and
geographically unique, and this drives how law enforcement works.
b. Orange County Facilities Accessibility Self-Assessment Update
The Board received an update and provided feedback to staff on the County's ongoing
comprehensive Facility Accessibility Self-Assessment.
Brennan Bouma, Orange County Sustainability Coordinator, reviewed the following
information, and PowerPoint presentation:
BACKGROUND: On June 2, 2015 the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
"Proclamation Supporting the Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)", and
expressed an interest in engaging the disabled community to help County staff identify any
facilities access issues. Asset Management Services (AMS) and the Department of Housing,
Human Rights and Community Development (HHRCD) came together to organize this
subcommittee of the Space Study Work Group to conduct a self-assessment of the physical
accessibility of all County facilities.
This advisory subcommittee includes representatives from the Orange County Human
Relations Commission (HRC), the North Carolina Council on Developmental Disabilities
(NCCDD) and the Disability Awareness Council (DAC) along with County staff and the County
building inspectors. Some of the members of the committee are disabled, and have brought
essential first-hand experience to guide the accessibility assessments.
County building inspectors conducted the most recent comprehensive accessibility
assessment in 2007, and other focused accessibility assessments have been conducted more
recently for some County facilities. Now is an appropriate time to integrate these focused
assessments and update our comprehensive assessment of County facilities.
Progress:
To date, assessments have been conducted for the Southern Human Services Center,
the Richard L. Whitted Human Services Center and the Robert& Pearl Seymour Center, with
the Library just having been done yesterday. Self-assessment teams include a disabled person
or disabilities advocate, a County building inspector, and a County staff person familiar with the
facility being assessed.
The accessibility obstacles identified in these assessments will be prioritized by the
members of the subcommittee to inform final recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.
Initial progress in conducting these assessments has been deliberate, as Staff has
thoughtfully developed the knowledge, tools, and collaborative process to conduct these
assessments in an accurate and standardized manner. During the initial assessments,
improvements to the procedures and tools were identified, which will help to improve and
streamline future assessments. The committee plans to further accelerate the remaining
assessments by engaging the Safety Committees from each facility in conducting initial
assessments so that the accessibility assessment teams will only need to verify the results.
Initial Findings:
These initial assessments have identified several areas for improvement in County
facilities. Some of these will require only minor adjustments (Low-level) to improve accessibility
and others will require a greater investment.
Example Findings from Initial Assessments:
Low-level (repairs ongoing)
• Reducing door-opening pressures
• Marking walking surface to highlight transitions
• Landscape management for facility visibility and accessibility (tree pruning, hedge
maintenance, etc.)
• Patching damaged sidewalks
• Replacing faded parking signage and striping
Mid-level
• Repairing minor trip hazards
• Adding wayfinding signage
• Adjusting heights of restroom accessories and features
High-level
• Addressing slope issues along accessible routes
• Installing additional railings
The low-level and mid-level items are those that require only minor adjustments or
repairs. These are continuously addressed within AMS Corrective Maintenance repair
processes, the grounds maintenance provided by the Department of Environment, Agriculture,
Parks and Recreation, and AMS Building Improvement projects. The high-level items would
likely be best addressed within the Capital Investment Plan (CIP). As discussed in the Space
Study Update to the Board during the November 10, 2015 work session, staff is preparing these
results to inform the CIP discussion in March 2016.
As assessments are completed, the results will be summarized and prioritized within a
framework modeled on the ADA Transition Plan. The Transition Plan lists physical obstacles
that limit the accessibility of public programs or activities to individuals with disabilities, and then
describes the methods that will be used to remove these obstacles, and specifies when each
step will be taken and by whom. As noted in the ADA statute, all facilities do not have to meet
each accessibility component, but rather all persons with disabilities must be able to participate
in and benefit from the services, programs, and activities provided by Orange County.
Therefore, as a plan is created for the removal of obstacles, actions that improve accessibility to
County programs will be prioritized over other types of facilities improvements.
• Organizations represented
o Orange County Human Relations Commission (HRC)
o North Carolina Council on Developmental Disabilities (NCCDD)
o Disability Awareness Council (DAC)
o County Building Inspectors
o 12 County Departments plus NC Courts
• Follow accessible route from parking lot into all areas
o Identify, Verify, Record
Timeline and Next Steps
Prepare
• Engage County departments and disabled community,
• Prepare standard checklist, Conduct pilot assessments.
Timeline August—October 2015
Identify & Prioritize
• Evaluate all County facilities.
• Prioritize buildings that have programs serve the most disabled residents.
• Inventory and prioritize all accessibility issues at these facilities using established ADA
standards.
Timeline October 2015—February 2016
Plan
• Propose solutions for accessibility issues.
• Estimate costs for planning and budgeting purposes.
Timeline: December 2015— February 2016
Propose Implementation Plan
• Present a proposal to the Board of Commissioners to review as part of the Manager's
Recommended CIP.
Timeline: March -June 2016
Chair McKee asked if a low, moderate, or high number of overall issues have been
found thus far.
Brennan Bouma said the team has been very thorough and conscientious. He said
there have been a high number of low-level issues found.
Chair McKee asked if people with disabilities are continuing to be engaged in the
process.
Brennan Bouma said yes, which has been tremendously helpful.
9. County Manager's Report
NONE
10. County Attorney's Report
NONE
11. Appointments
a. Upper Neuse River Basin Association —Appointment(s)
The Board considered making an appointment(s) to the Upper Neuse River Basin
Association (UNRBA).
Voting Director:
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
leave Pam Hemminger, who is currently on UNRBA, in place for a term not to exceed one year.
VOTE: Ayes, 6; Nays, 1 (Commissioner Rich)
MOTION PASSES
First Alternate Director:
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
nominate Chair McKee to serve as First Alternate Director.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Second Alternate Director:
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to
nominate Commissioner Jacobs to serve a three-year term as Second Alternate Director.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
b. Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee —Appointments
The Board considered making appointments to the Adult Care Home Community
Advisory Committee.
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
appoint the following to the Adult Care Home Community Advisory Committee:
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #6) At-Large for Suzanne Haff expiring
10/31/2017.
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #7) At-Large for A. Yvonne Medenhall expiring
10/31/2017.
• Appointment of Stephen Bank to a one year training term (Position #1) expiring
12/15/2016.
• Appointment of Gloria Brown to a one year training term (Position # 8) expiring
12/15/2016.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
appoint William Lang to a one-year training term (Position #9) expiring 12/15/2016.
VOTE: Ayes, 2 (Commissioner Jacobs and Commissioner Price); Nays, 5 (Chair McKee,
Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner Dorosin, Commissioner Pelissier)
MOTION FAILS
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin seconded Commissioner Pelissier to
appoint Danielle Mosely to a one year training term (Position #9) expiring 12/15/16.
VOTE: Ayes, 5 (Chair McKee, Commissioner Rich, Commissioner Burroughs, Commissioner
Dorosin, Commissioner Pelissier); Nays, 2 (Commissioner Jacobs, Commissioner Price)
MOTION PASSES
c. Affordable Housing Advisory Board —Appointments
The Board considered making appointments to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
appoint the following to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board.
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #6) At-Large representative for Tammy Jacobs
expiring 06/30/2018.
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #12)At-Large representative for Daniel Bullock
expiring 06/30/2018.
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #15)At-Large representative for Jason O'Quinn
expiring 09/30/2018.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Price, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
appoint Brika Eklund to first full term (Position # 3)At-Large expiring 6/30/2018.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
A motion was made by Commissioner Dorosin, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to
appoint Kolby Herndon to a first full term (Position # 9)At-Large expiring 6/30/2018.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
d. Chapel Hill / Orange County Visitors Bureau —Appointments
The Board considered making appointments to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors
Bureau.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Pelissier to
appoint the following to the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Bureau:
• Appointment to a second full term (Position #4) At-Large UNC Chapel Hill representative
for Dr. Aaron Bachenheimer expiring 12/31/2018.
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #11)At-Large 0/C Lodging Assoc.
representative for Nitin Khana expiring 12/31/2018.
• Appointment to a second full term (Position #17)At-Large representative for Lee Pavao
expiring 12/31/2018.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
e. Commission for the Environment—Appointments
The Board considered making appointments to the Commission for the Environment.
A motion was made by Commissioner Rich, seconded by Commissioner Price to appoint
the following to the Commission for the Environment:
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #5) Water Resources representative for William
Kaiser expiring 12/31/2018.
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #13)At-Large representative for Caroline Cook
expiring 12/31/2018.
• Appointment to a first full term (Position #14)At-Large representative for Lynne
Gronback expiring 12/31/2018.
• Appointment to a second full term (Position #15)At-Large representative for Rebecca
Ray expiring 12/31/2018.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Commissioner Dorosin noted that many boards are lacking in diversity. He encouraged
a concerted effort to address this. He also encouraged reaching out to students, via the Daily
Tar Heel newspaper.
12. Board Comments
Commissioner Burroughs had no comments.
Commissioner Price said the Chapel Hill Chamber recognized some of the EMS, Sheriff
and Fire Department personnel. She offered her congratulations.
Commissioner Dorosin had no comments.
Commissioner Rich had no comments.
Commissioner Jacobs thanked staff and advisory board members for the work they have
put in this year.
Commissioner Jacobs said he has not received the agricultural summit draft agenda.
Bonnie Hammersley said she would resend it, although other Commissioners noted they
had received it already.
Commissioner Pelissier had no comments.
Chair McKee had no comments.
13. Information Items
• December 7, 2015 BOCC Meeting Follow-up Actions List
• Memo Regarding Rural Recycling Service Area Expansion Details
• Memo Regarding Dr. Pauli Murray Human Rights Award Winner Display Area
14. Closed Session
NONE
15. Adjournment
A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Dorosin to
adjourn the meeting at 11:01 p.m.
VOTE: UNANIMOUS
Earl McKee, Chair
Donna Baker, Clerk to the Board